the uh Lake Elmo City Council workshop for July 8th to order. The first item of discussion is CIP discussion. I think that's uh director Handler will be going through that with us. >> I sure will. Um so this is just a um sort of preliminary discussion of the CIP. We don't adopt this until uh the final version until December. Um so uh we're going to do sort of a high level um sort of what is a CIP just for anybody who's a little newer to this. Um and then go into some high level numbers and such and then we have some sort of we're looking for sort of general um council direction as far as things that we want changed um prior to final adoption. So what is a CIP? CIP is a multi Oh, why is that not projecting? How do I switch to the There you go. Um, so a CIP is a multi-year capital expenditure plan uh for the city's infrastructure uh vehicles, equipment, and public buildings. Um, we used to have a a five-year CIP. we moved to a 10-year CIP in 2024, so just a year ago. Um, so we're really getting um a much better idea big picture of our long-term expenditure needs. The Minnesota Land Planning Act requires implementation plan portion of the comprehensive plan including the CIP for major infrastructure needs for at least a 5-year period. Um, our CIP includes capital projects that cost at least $25,000 and has a a useful life of at least five years. We added a slide um regarding um some of the the uh the mission and then the strategic plan um core strategies that were adopted this spring. So, we're talking about how the CIP adds to those strategies, including um being a vibrant community, responsive, transparent, and adaptive governance, managed growth, uh efficient, reliable, innovative services, balanced financers, and resilient infrastructure. Um I'm a big fan of the balanced finances part of that. Um but also just long-term um financial planning and um resiliency in general um is really really important. Um some of the topics or or the uh um tools that we use um when developing the CIP include our funding sources and our priorities. So any of these projects are funded by one or more of the funding sources listed and then each project is ranked um based on priority um one through five. Okay. So grand total right now our 25 uh sorry 2026 through 2035 CIP includes 145 projects totaling almost $133 million have categorized as percentages and colorcoded in our fabulous graph here. Um I'm just going to move to this graph. This is the total um showing how many uh or what percentage of our pie is public works. So public works includes streets, parks, water, sewer, and storm. So you'll see that the vast majority of our infrastructure or our capital needs comes from our uh streets and infrastructure. the sorry this slide is thrown off just a little bit because we have this $50 million water treatment plant. So I did add a slide to show what happens when we take that $50 million project away from infrastructure and it's very very little. So still giant portion of our financial needs for um financial capital needs come from public works. So just breaking it down a little bit further this is the public works projects by subtype. So, we break them out in the CIP um by vehicles and equipment, uh buildings, parks, and then infrastructure. And then I broke it down further. So, all of the blue again on this slide is infrastructure. I broke it down further. The blue still is infrastructure, but it shows streets, sewer, and storm. Okay. So, um, we're just going to kind of run through all of the departments. Um, we categorized things, um, similar to to the ways you saw them earlier and then I'll do kind of the high level stuff and then we're kind of going to toss it over to the department heads to give a little bit more detail as needed. So, admin of finance just has one project still on the plan. Um, this is the second portion of our software implementation. Council approved this this spring. We're very excited about it. Thank you again. Um our go live is set for January 2026 and we're still estimating um roughly half $100,000 as the second half of that. Um and then I did plan for a distribution between the general fund, water and sewer. Um the building department has um a total of four vehicles in the plan um totaling $175,000 and they have one vehicle replacement plan for 2027. Those vehicles are on a seven-year replacement plan, but we they will be assessed sort of on an annual basis to determine if they need to be replaced. Um city halls, we set up um the city center building committee this year. um or late last year. So, we've uh created this uh department within the CIP to plan for long-term replacements at our new city center and as well as what needs to happen with the old city hall. We are funding this through a new city hall levy that we started this year. There are no immediate needs, but I did want to just mention that it's in there. Um and so we're just starting to to plan for that. Um fire department generally it's vehicles and equipment. um generally funded through the vehicle replacement fund, a little bit through the general fund, and then we have the new fire equipment projects funds. >> Um we also get some tradeins and sales of equipment. So 10 projects totaling roughly $4.5 million, and I'm going to toss it over to Dustin for more information. So, with um what we've got coming up for 2026 is um the Tender 2 replacement, which we actually I presented to you and council um last fall. That was the the earlier truck purchase to get us in line and take advantage of some better pricing by uh having approvals for that purchase earlier. So, um in 2026, we'll see the chassis payment um when the chassis arrives at the at the plant. And then when we take final delivery, which is either at the end of 26 or early 27, we'd make the final payment for that truck. Um, in 26, we're also proposing on replacement of our utility vehicle, our utility one. That's our ATV. It's currently a 2009 6x6 uh Ranger, and we're looking at replacing that with a more um capable um fire and trail capability um vehicle. Um that's uh our purchase for 26. The other thing with the CIP plan um that I want to bring up and and offer for discussion from council is our ladder truck. And this is obviously a significant purchase. Um it's, you know, well over half of our um project total. This this one apparatus. Um, currently the timeline is on on most of our large apparatus a 20-year life of that truck. Um, what I'm proposing this year is to move that purchase up five years um for and and anticipate delivery in 2029. Um, right now our current ladder truck is 78 ft long. It was speced and built in 2012, 2013. We took delivery in 2014. And um frankly the viewpoints of city development at that point were quite a bit different than what we're looking at now. So operationally um we're kind of already behind the eightball um with the not having a a 100 plus foot um ladder apparatus in our in our fleet and our capabilities. Um, so with the this year's CIP plan, I'm I'm asking for a an earlier purchase. Uh, move that truck up five years and uh for approval and and work on a similar timeline what we did with the last truck. Um, it's going to take us nearly a year to build the specification of this apparatus to get it dialed in and figure out exactly what's going to fit our needs. Frankly, with the ladder truck, there's a ton of different options. single axle, tandem axle, um mid mount, rear mount, straight stick, a ladder with a bucket on it. There's a lot of different options and we want to make sure we spend the right amount of time to to figure out exactly what our our needs are for that truck. Um so just the specification process in itself is is longer than than normal. Um but planning ahead for a um you know another 20 plus year apparatus in the fleet. Um, the other thing that happens is if if we do move this truck forward uh 5 years is with the current truck market, I do believe that our current ladder truck um sits at a pretty good price point in the um in the aftermarket. It's a desirable color. It's it's a length that other communities might find better suited for them. And just frankly, with two-year build times, um longer construction processes, and increased price, I think we'd be able to do a pretty good job. um on this truck in the aftermarket as well. That should help with the uh the overall project costs. Um so I wanted to put that out there for discussion because um you know moving a purchase like this up five years um you know isn't uh we don't take it lightly and and we want to have the the solid discussion on that. Um but frankly as as staff if this is something that um we're able to take on and move up um it helps me with staff planning for the next couple years on on what this build process entails for us. Um and again just operationally um you know we're we're seeing taller buildings. We're seeing um other developments come our way that we're we're kind of incapable of handling right now with our current ladder truck. Um we'll >> talk through that a little bit more. So there are some buildings that we currently have or that are going to be built with some of the new development that we've approved or >> Yeah. So I mean there you go to any you know we don't build thousand foot ladder trucks. there isn't a ladder truck that can get to the top of any building in every city. That's not our our desire or our plan. Um, but we're really kind of operationally kind of out of the behind the eight-ball here with a a 30 foot shorter truck than what we would have or what um we would like to have in our fleet. The other thing that we encounter too is you never put a ladder truck right up next to a building. As we look talk setbacks and spacing and drive lanes, we lose a lot of the reach just by the placement of the truck, safe and proper placement away from the building. Um what we're seeing with with taller buildings, you know, um Amir is going to, you know, already kind of exceeds what we can do with a even a 100 foot ladder truck. Okay. But um a 100 foot truck improves our distance. We we see right now with uh just our residential setbacks on homes, some of our typical setbacks when we go to operate our ladder truck, we're even we're unable to even reach the top the peak of the some of the homes just with a what we would consider in Lake Elmo a normal setback because we lose on a 60 foot setback so much length of that truck just to even try to get to the top of the peak for firefighting operations. So, operationally, it would be a a massive game changer for us to have something of the 100 to 110 foot mark. And that all depends on the the actual style of the truck we end up looking at. But, um, that's kind of where we're at now. We we would never build the truck that, you know, gets to the roof of of every single building, and that's not the intent. Um, but we want to maximize our capabilities and with future growth in the city, what we're seeing and with the number of apartment buildings coming our way and taller buildings, we definitely would like to have something in our fleet that can benefit that a little more. >> How does this um how does this impact the vehicle replacement fund for the whole city, not just the fire department? >> Um, we >> because you moved it up five years from 2034 to 2029. Is that what you're saying? >> Correct. So, it would uh the the vehicle replacement fund was already looking like it would be underfunded. So, I'd planned an interfund loan um I believe in 2027. I don't have it right in front of me. Um that would be repaid over five years. I then when uh Dustin requested this to move up, I planned for a second interface fund that would be paid over 10 years. So there is some sort of mapping that needs to happen to make that work. >> Okay. And are what year dollars are is everybody using on this? I see 35,000 for vehicle replacement. Obviously, >> 2034 that's going to be not $35,000, right? That's >> correct. So we try and make we do these estimates in today's dollars obviously and we're estimating. Nothing's perfect. Um, so when we move this forward next year, everybody's going to take a look at their items, decide what has already happened with inflation, and adjust those prices accordingly. We'll do the same thing with the levy. So, we're going to raise our costs. At the same time, we're going to say, what does that look like from an actual like today's dollars from a levy standpoint? So you're essentially what you're looking at right now is today's dollars with the assumption that when we actually do this in 5 or 10 years or whatever it is that we're looking at. Um when that portion is implemented it will have been adjusted for inflation. So, if I say that we're going to have a $500,000 levy for something in 2040, it means today's dollars is $500,000 2040 it's going to be$500,000 plus whatever inflation has happened since then up until then. Okay, sticking with this just for a second too. So just thinking it from like the safety perspective and and most of the buildings that this would probably have to be used on would be more in the southern portion of the city. I'm I'm thinking >> there's there's a couple different uses for this truck. It obviously it has the aerial device on it for long reach >> high high elevations. We we put the ladder up and we can do various things. We can do rescue on it. We can do firefighting capabilities. It's no different than the ladder truck we have now. It also is our second do truck. So when our engine goes out, this is the second truck to leave the station for it just fills in line with our firefighting capabilities in our operations. This truck would also have water, also have a pump. We have to have a certain um pump capacity within our fleet, certain water capacity within our fleet that we have to meet and maintain. That more falls in line with our ISO rating and and things of that nature. Um, so it the truck itself whether the the the length just falls in with our department operations. The extended reach gives us much better capabilities um for the majority of our firefighting efforts. I said uh we have a a single family home structure fire. Our current truck and really has a difficult time getting to the peak of the home. And when we want to use that truck and need to get that ladder up, we really want to get above the peak of the house. So we can get that that big stream down and and do our fighting firefighting efforts there. >> So we're not just talking the the threestory apartment buildings. This would be helpful for the a home fire. >> It helps us on every fire. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Council member, >> what are the sources of the inter fund loans? >> I had not determined that just yet. Um I think we we would kind of reassess when we do our long-term strategic plan and see what's the most healthy. general fund is very healthy right now. Um we will also I mean in theory um the sewer fund was also very healthy but so I it has not been determined yet. >> And I guess along that line I just I'd prefer not to have to do as many of the um the inner loan or the inner sorry what was it the >> inter fun loans >> inter fund loans. I think this might be where we have to prioritize certain vehicle that need to be replaced over the next five years as we look through these. You know I like you mentioned it's you know the replacement plan it sounds like every seven years for a lot a lot of the vehicles depending upon you know how many mileage. That is one thing as I was just looking through this that I think would be helpful to have too is and I wasn't here I guess when we came up with the vehicle replacement plan. Um but having an idea of how many miles are on these vehicles or you know possibly for some of the public works vehicles how many hours were on them for some of the ones where maybe hours on is more telling than mileage. Um I I I just think if we prior if we have to prioritize this something else has to be less priority and has to get moved back. That that's kind of where I would sit more as we're having this discussion. I think then it's like okay well as staff goes back and has to look through this. I think they have to work together to that my perspective of figure out a way to not have to take as much of the inner loan funds or inner fund loans. The other choice of course we have a $5 million interfund loan for fund 410 is it the street fund that's shown in the CIP. There's a $5 million interfund loan or transfer or whatever from the general fund in this case. >> You're talking about my funding sort strategy. >> Yeah. There's a $5 million coming out of the general fund to go to infrastructure. >> Sure. >> And so the general fund is about 12 million that will cut that down to seven million. So I think um you know we may if we decide to go through it we may look we will should look at like a lease purchase look at what those interest costs would be because we have the loss interest in our investments from our fund balance and if that offset's not significant it might be you know more prudent to keep our cash and go with a lease purchase finance something along that line. Council member Holtz, >> I guess I would I I agree with Council Member Hearn in that yes, if this were to happen, then there's going to need to be some shifts and other items, but we I know full well we have, you know, the car policy for replacement and it's it predates our time and obviously it's been a best practice and I I can't say off the top of my head what it is. That's your guys' area. But I would hesitate to then say we're going to go against that. But is is worth having that conversation. I also would be curious because this is going to be 2029. What can we do in terms of talking to our external partners at the legislative level or the congressional level to say what and it is it varies by year but are there certain grants? or there might not be anything, right? There might be nothing for the next four years, but you know, make sure we're doing our due diligence to say there's this random fund that's out there or literally we're going to Seabburger and to others and begging to say this is because we are of various factors and at least we're doing our our due diligence. I I guess that would be our my take some somewhat of blend of what Matt was talking about and then that um it has if it has to be it has to be if our fire chief is saying this is what our staff need to ensure public safety for now and in the future then that's to me what needs to happen. Um, I guess one question I would have when that process does start to occur, would you want to be starting to project not just for what's here and what's on the horizon, but is council in the year 240 going to be considering even taller buildings? >> Honestly, there's there really isn't anything >> that exceeds what we would look at next. >> The the max distance and length on a truck you would get in today's is between 100 and 110 ft. Right. >> So that's a moot point then. >> Yeah. The the future doesn't the >> US firefighting doesn't have vehicles that are are longer than that um or have a reach that exceeds that. So >> and I would wager this is probably Still Water probably has 100 or 110. >> We we're and that's kind of where in our process we need to figure out what fits best for our community. Right now, we're the only department around here that has a what we call a straight stick. The a ladder end without a bucket on it. Everyone else has a bucket of different lengths. Um ours is a straight stick. So, it it fits a different kind of need and use. Um but the our biggest thing is is extending that reach. Now, what becomes the end of that ladder? if it's a bucket for rescue capabilities or putting firefighting and it gives us some different options. That's kind of part of the spec process and figuring out where we where we go. Obviously, price, you know, has a has a swing in there as well. Um, you could go anywhere between, you know, 1.9 and almost 2.3 million depending on kind of the the ultimate makeup of that truck. >> Gotcha. And I I should say I because it might come up during future items. I think that the piece of talking to our external stakeholders applies for pretty much any large purchase that's that's on here. Whether we're talking about the sports complex, whether we're talking about the ladder truck, I think in the past there's been a hesitation to by previous councils to proactively go out and push. Whereas I have no issue if we say look we need to proactively it worked. We money for Lake Elmo A for the project. It worked. Um, but I I think that's something that should be the case for every single one of these and it may result in nothing. But I think this public safety is a pretty good one to be pushing on. >> I think part of the vehicle replacement policies driven by what fleet managers use is kind of a typical timeline on where and when you're going to get the best best resale for your value for your vehicle. And I do agree that maybe looking at leases for some of the fleet vehicles should be explored. Um, for example, years ago at MIDOT, they used to get all the orange vehicles, roll down windows, AM radios. Well, then it became more expensive to order that because it was specialty and regular vehicles came that way. So now with Minnesota Fleet, they they lease their vehicles on a three-year, 36,000 mile lease, and they'll rotate vehicles between higher mileage and less mileage vehicles to to to get that out. So, there are some opportunities for us, I think, to look at vehicle replacement, not the ladder truck, but some of the other vehicles specifically as far as when is the best time for putting it in auction and the condition of the vehicle and that sort of thing. So, um but I do agree it's very large expenditure. Um, I'm not one to compromise safety, but some other things might need a compromise then. So, I think um Dustin's main goal tonight is really so we need to essentially know um if for the final adoption of this CIP in December, you would like that purchase to remain in the proposed 2029. Also, that's just going to help him plan for those that spec process. Um, the final approval comes much later down the road. So, this is really just what do we want in that that December plan and and is it worth him for him to spend that time? So, when you're talking interdep department loan, um, inter fund loan, is that shown up in here anywhere or did I miss that? I must have missed that. >> It is. It's in the It's shown in the the vehicle replacement fund funding sources and uses >> page 172, mayor. A 172. >> Thank you. So it just shows it coming in. Again, it hasn't been determined where the best place to take that from um is. So it just shows um that report shows the money coming in one year and then getting paid back out for 10 years. >> Repayment is without interest, correct? >> For easy math. Yeah, >> I I thought that easy. I uh I have my list of things I send to the software company to make my life easier. So that happens in 2030. So be doing fun. Well, I guess I would look at staff to try and be creative with given that large expenditure, take a look at the other vehicles and see what we can do to minimize the inter fund loans uh and and stay within our our uh balances that we I'm on the same page with that. >> Okay. Um I'm going to move on and we will dive into public works. So again, public works includes um streets and then just sort of general public works outside stuff. Um parks, water, sewer, and storm water. And for our CIP, we break that down to vehicles and equipment, which includes vehicles and equipment in all of the subd departments. We have public building uh public works buildings and then sort of associated stuff uh with those buildings, parks, and then infrastructure, which includes streets, water, sewer, and storm water. Um you will recall last week we started in on some of that infrastructure discussion with the pavement management plan. So, here's those highle totals. Again, um I didn't put the total total on here. 27ish million grand total. We're going to go with that. Um okay. Okay. So, vehicles and equipment includes um anything from a dump truck or what are those big loader things called down to the little uh utility vehicles. Um from 2026 to 2035, we have 30 projects totaling 4 million and some change. And I will pass it to Marty to discuss the major expenditures for the next couple years and answer any questions. >> Sure. Mayor and console. Um, you know, we we try to follow the best we can the vehicle replacement policy. You know, dump trucks 12 years. Um, we do have several pieces of equipment that we've kept longer, including some dump trucks. We've got a 1999 loader, which um should follow a 15-year replacement. We're pushing that 25 26 years just based off kind of how we use that. Uh we did keep this one as a spare backup unit and we end up using it almost as much as some of the other equipment. So that's definitely ready to be replaced um in 27. Um we have some 20-y old radios. U we're having more and more issues with those being updated. Uh we have a new utility vehicle. Um, one of the requests you'll likely see here in the near future will be um, we budgeted for two new hires and um, in order to maneuver those people around the city. We're, you know, going to request a utility vehicle, one utility vehicle for that one of those um, new hires. We have a number of playgrounds being replaced. Um the >> I have a parked slide. Marty, >> we're on the wrong slide. All right. Sorry. >> Do we have any questions on vehicles and equipment? >> Anything? >> I just had one thing that just kind of came to mind about with the the radios. And again, this is me saying this just uh trying to look if there's maybe potential options. If technology has changed over those 20 years, if there's different options for this, obviously has to be effective and work well and reliable. I get that. I just if there is other technology that may be cheaper nowadays that could fill a similar role. And again, I don't know what that is. I would push to talk over cellular. I I saw a couple different options. might be something worth >> investigating and just seeing. I But again, that's me saying that, but I has to work, has to be effective and reliable. I get that. So, if those are not options for it, but >> I can kind of chime in on the radios. The radios are the 800 megahertz public safety band radios that we use in the fire department. We communicate. Um, they're on the the state public safety band in operation. So, okay. It's it's a pretty specific radio to gain access to that. Okay. >> Um and again big picture wise it helps definitely helps inner department, inner city, inner county, interstate operability between that uh um between those radios. >> Perfect. That's helpful. Thank you. >> Two different radio systems though. Public department, fire department. No, >> they all they both operate on the same 800 800 MHz bands. We have our own. We have our channels. They have their own channels. >> For instance, at the parade, we operate on Lake Almo Common channel, which is a channel we can share. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And so, Marty, the public works department radios are currently 20 years old. >> Uh, yeah, the majority of them are. Yes. Yep. >> Uh, we do have newer newer radios. Those won't be replaced. >> Yeah. Is this another situation as well with the utility vehicles where with the lease option, Nick, that you were talking about might be worth looking at? >> Yeah, I I just I think that might be worth exploring if that's a way to help with some of the priorities of okay if like >> well be able to put out a fire >> with the lease option. This lease purchase option, it doesn't save you any money. just spreads the cost overre instead of one >> or seven years instead of one or redo >> y >> which would help us with not having to take the inter fund loan >> would reduce it you know eliminate or reduce it >> I don't think it's going to get rid of it but >> would reduce it >> I just want to clarify um that we understand that the inner fund loan there's no cost to us for an in fund loan there is. >> And so the purpose of doing the inter fund loan is so that we don't pay interest to an outside party. So I just want to make sure we're understanding that concept. >> Well, there is a cost. There's loss opportunity cost because I assume we invest those funds and get some interest on them. >> Correct. >> And so if we make a loan for a million dollars and we pay it back with no interest, we lose the interest. So there is a cost. We call it lost opportunity cost, >> right? It's not visible on the ledger sheet. All right. >> Okay. No more questions on vehicles. We'll move on to public works buildings. Um from uh for the next 10 years, we have 10 projects totaling a million a little over a million dollars. Um and this is one of the sections that we're really just starting to build out this year. Um so Marty, do you want to discuss your projects? >> Yes, mayor and council. um a couple of the the newer things that we have added or included in the budget. Um yet this summer you will see a request come through on the public works uh shop floors. The corrosion from the road salt uh that we use in there is has really deteriorated the floors to the point where you know we had to do some patching like some deep patching. Um, I've budgeted already for half the floor this year. You'll see that request come through probably in the next month. Um, we'll do that back half. That's the bad area. And then we'll do the the second half, which is the front, um, likely next year. And that'll not only seal it, but it'll level it and allow us to be able to clean it a lot more efficiently. Um the Jamaica building, driveway and parking lot um goes down to the old fireh hall. Um both the parking lot and driveway are deteriorated to the point where they're kind of falling apart, right? Um we did some test holes and this this year and determined that the base and subbase are in pretty good shape. So we'll be able to do a full likely a full depth reclamation on that. Um the amount of water that goes down in between um kind of heading over towards the dog park is uh is quite substantial. So we've we believe that paving that area should help um transfer that water a little better um especially in the spring when there's melt and freeze thaw. Um, and then we'll extend a little bit of a trail going back through the uh unleashing area. Um, sorry, I moved on to the parks again, but >> eager to get there. >> That's round two. Uh, security fence and the gate at public works building. So, the 4 acres that sits on the north side of of our property, um we are utilizing that already. Um we're staging material there. That's where we moved our gravel pile. Um we're staging our our tree uh logs and branches and stuff that we're cutting and and you know, we're going to try try maybe burning that this winter. Otherwise, the costs, you know, would have to be incurred for um hiring a grinder to come in and tub grind that material. So, we're using the 4 acres. Um and as we add assets into that area, um I also wanted to make sure that gets secure. Right now, we just have a cable there. We've had a couple people already remove the cable and I think they're picking rocks and such. So, I don't think there's a big hazard, but um I did add that in and I think we're out a few years on it, but I want to make sure that we prepare to secure that area for for our assets questions. I assume that's normal with the interior of public works building with the materials that are in there for the floors to give way. Like that's just within industry what happens. >> Yep. Yep. I don't you know I I I'm going to guess that they probably haven't been sealed since they were poured. I don't see any evidence of that. Um so yes, I mean I've been working with Woodbury who just um put an epoxy down and they had test plots and such. So, I've got some really good information and I'm just waiting for just a little more. They're going to send me kind of like their quotes per square foot and stuff and um so once I have that, I think it'll be you very useful. So, I'm hoping to have that maybe even yet later this week and then we'll get some proposals together. >> All right. Thank you, >> Miss Marty. What is a a Jamaka building? >> Uh that's fireh hall 2, the old fireh hall station right next to the dog park. So it's a combination. We call it the Jamica public works building. Uh it's the brick building. Um we public works has had the pole shed next to it. I believe they built it themselves back in the day as we understood some of that, but somebody else maybe would know better. But um so we have the pole shed and the brick building. Um the brick building is well both both places are where we like to kind of move seasonal equipment around. Um we're to the point now where we're using it for even staging. Like our jeter truck sits down there and a lot of our park equipment that we do use daily. That was our intentions to have our intentions were to have that as a seasonal swap out area, but we're we've grown enough now where we just use it. So, >> the reason I ask I didn't see any contribution from the enterprise funds for that building. >> Yeah. Um, so it's mostly parks and our like our uh we have plow four plow trucks down in there. >> Okay. I mean, we definitely could if uh >> but I thought you said you had the sewer vector and some other >> the jeter truck is about it. >> Have the excavator in there. So, we could split some of that if there's a benefit. >> Just a just a thought. >> Yeah. >> All right. Move on to parks. Now you can talk about parks, Marty. Just high level. Uh for the next 10 years, we have 31 projects totaling 5.4ish fourish million. Um I will mention so the parks commission reviews and recommends um these projects. Um there's a variety of projects and then um final purchasing decisions are made by the city council. So Marty, >> sure. So um yes, up until the last couple of years, I would say the last what three or four years, we hadn't in Lake Elmo replaced um the playgrounds. So playgrounds have between a 20 and 30 year lifespan. We put placeholders out there at year 25 and then move them forward and backwards based off of inspections and if they're failing and etc. So we do have three more coming up I believe in the near future. Um, Lions, Ridge, and Reed have all been identified and are exceeding that 25 year mark. Um, they I believe are all in next year. Um, trail maintenance, we try to seal coat or uh do a sealer. Um, in a couple years ago, was it 2022, I believe, I did a fog seal on our existing trails. So, that's come due now next year where we'd like to seal those and additionally some new trails. So, we'll go through the city and fog seal. Fog seal seems to be a fairly economical solution. uh we can cover a lot of area for the for the dollar amount. So if we if we do that routinely, I think we'll we'll add some pretty good benefit to the life uh court resurfacing. So we have three basketball courts that really haven't had any attention maybe since they were built. So we've got that set out there for next year. um including the Lions pickle ball court which um didn't have as much life as we were kind of hoping. Um some of the struggles with with that I think have a lot to do with the ice rink on top of that court. Um it it really takes a beating as a freeze thaws. You know, moisture gets underneath there and really beat it up. Matter of fact, we we closed one of the the courts as early as last year and didn't reopen one of them this year. So, it's definitely time to be replaced. Um, our intentions are to plug that drain. Right now, the court drains to the center and we have a a storm pipe that leaves that area. Warm air comes up that thing all winter long and thaws our ice. So, we are going to try something different. We're going to remove that drain. Um, put a slight crown on the the surface when we pave it so any water that does melt in the spring can exit to the outside instead of having that warm air come up through the middle. Um and then yeah, I think I mentioned the playgrounds Lion's um Reed and Tablin. Uh Ridge is also in there. I can verify exactly how Adam's got those listed. The pavilions are in there. Um the parks master plan, the parks commission has recommended I believe four over the next four years. Um the one they'll be looking at next year as we redo the Lions playground and the Lions pickle ball court. I my recommendation uh I think Adam agrees that maybe that would be the time as we had that area disturbed to maybe consider a a pavilion down in that area. Um if park commission and council agrees that might be a good option. Otherwise, uh Tablin and Reed are probably our second choices. Um potentially Ridge. So, there's four four locations for pavilions that have been identified, and I'll leave that up to Adam, the commission, and you guys to decide which one we want to do first. >> Um, question on the concession building 2027. What's all included with that? I I think there needs to be something done there. I think it's in not that great a shape. It's not very inviting. Yeah. So, Adam and I um had a contractor, a couple contractors out and we looked at it last fall to see if we could cor make corrections and get it ADA compliant >> and the price was extremely high um just to get the wider door. Everything's block walls. Um, so all the walls pretty much have, not all the walls, but a majority of the walls have to be opened up and um, bigger man doors. Um, you know, we would recommend that the bathrooms being accessed from the outside. That way, you know, it's a little more user friendly instead of people going inside. Um, we haven't used that area for a warming house for three, four years. We've had zero requests for it. We had a really hard time staffing it um with seasonals. So, we that hasn't been anything anybody's even asked for and to be honest, we don't miss that part of it. So, I think making it an improved concession stand would be better. I need a new roof. Um so, yeah, I think I think we're gonna you're going to see probably two options. one would be a a complete um demo and then start over and build what we need. And maybe that would be the time to have a slight storage area on the side of it. So the, you know, we can have our ball lime and some tools and um some drags, stuff like that. Or for about the same money, you're you're going to have it, you know, reconstructed so it's ADA compliant. >> Yeah. All right, council member Holtz >> question. So Greenway at least scheduled potentially in 2028 for about 520k where obviously that's still you know two and a half to three years out. What do we know about it at this time? >> I probably don't know as much as maybe Adam does. Adam's in communication yearly with them. Um, I haven't had an update on the schedule myself. So, um, it's been set at 500,000 for a number of years. So, could it be more potentially? It's a cost share, right? >> And that's driven by the county, right? >> Correct. Yeah. So, >> because this is pretty much entirely county 19 and county 14, correct? >> Right. Yep. Um, yeah, it's kind of a it's a placeholder. >> So, we're at the will of the county when they decide to move forward with that at some point. Is 500,000 going to be enough? I'm going to guess it might not be, but um, we did probably three, four years ago, we set 500,000 as a high placeholder, but I don't know if it's >> that was three, four years ago. So, I really don't know where it's going to be. It's a cost share. >> Gotcha. Question then, because Parks Fund is 404. I don't see in the revenues any of the franchise fees in the 40. I only see the 250 a year in the 409. >> Oh, >> I was just going to ask that same question. >> I probably missed that. Thank you, >> Nina. Will you remind me? Mhm. >> I didn't know if we had another park fund that that money was going into, but my memory was park dedication, but >> Oh, you know what? Clarification. You are correct. Um, so the two So the park dedication we want to leave as developer funds because those have specific rules. So the franchise fees we're going to go into the other park reserve, >> which really has no funding plans at this point. Um, it was really like a sort of a recognition that at some point development is going to end. We have lots of plans for parks. We weren't sure how what things were going to look like in the long term. >> You just need to show that fund in here. >> Nope, I do not have that one listed. Doesn't really have any activity from the CIP just yet. >> Yep. Perfect. >> That makes me feel a little better than with the parks items that we do have. >> Yeah. Uh maybe a larger level question then because I I see you know 300 set aside for a a central play complex at some point and we've had this conversation now for several years with the goal of potentially you know trying to concentrate a a larger site in the central area that potentially then could help to decrease our cost everywhere else or at least to centralize it and just have something that's offers more than you can have at satellite locations. I'm just wondering because I we're still continuing replacements as is needed for safety purposes on the 20 20 to 25 cycle 20 years >> 25 is what we place it at. Would we have a thought that you know if and when as this the site does grow and there is some type of a central complex there would we start to consider that as future playgrounds come up out for their timing of replacement that maybe they wouldn't be as substantial that maybe they would be downsized or fewer assets in each of those satellite locations because the goal of expending 300,000 at a single location is to have more of a central more boisterous is not the right word but more asset driven a a bigger and better place for where people would go. Would we consider that because it obviously I mean I get why as an example station 250 because that's a very large playground and that is before the potential central one. So that's before but down the road then for Tana for Reed for a hidden null would we have would we consider that possibility or is that >> to downsides >> and I and I don't want to use the downsides per se but just changing the assets of each playground because again there's >> so um we I agree a you know to the point that even a CLC we replace that playground this year staff staff's recommendation was to spend a little less. Um, commission definitely wanted it bigger and I believe in in our recommendation to council. We kind of I I have to reread it, but I I believe we shared our staff recommendation and the the commission recommendation. Um, and we did go with a substantially decent size playground. Um, but yes, we can always downsize. Um, the parks master plan kind of guides us a little bit too on the amenities that they recommend in certain parks, neighborhood, communities. So, >> this to me is it's also is density and demand driven, right? it. I don't want there to be a location where there isn't a playground with well, and this is in the parks master plan, like you have certain hotspots and heat zones, but the entire intention of that central area is that instead of potentially going for your neighborhood park on, you know, Saturday afternoon, you're going to the one in the middle of the city because that is has assets that far exceed the one in your neighborhood. You'll still go to your neighborhood maybe a little bit less, but you're going to that central one that has far greater amenities. At least that's what I mean that states back to Katrina and Dale time. But that was kind of my thought on it. >> I I'm really in favor of that. I just think we should focus more on quality over quantity with these and and maybe not evening. I think it could even be repurposing, right? I mean, we have like the outdoor fitness equipment and the the skate park. like perhaps instead of doing those separate when a playground comes up for being um redone, instead of redoing that, maybe that's what we put in there in place of it instead. Um I I just I I think I think maybe we're fighting reality a little bit. You know, I drive by parks and I I never see anyone playing on them. Um I know that's you know, growing up what we did a lot. I just I think nowadays it's more organized sports, organized events. Um team thing or like where it's a group of people. Pickle ball. Um the sand volleyball court I see get used all the time. Um the sand sand volleyball gets used. Um to be quite honest, I haven't seen the basketball courts. You probably drive by them a little bit more at carriage station. Maybe those get used. But >> they do. It seems like it's more of the where it's a a group of people in an organized fashion versus playground is more just kind of like what I'd call like random play where we'd go bike to it and use it and it's just not being done anymore. I I think the central park would make way more sense. Like what Jeff was saying is if a family's going to go to the park for the day now pretty much nowadays like they're driving there. um you know whether that be hopefully that's not because of um a lack of ability to bike there but I think it's just the reality of it. I get scared biking on the road now. I mean everybody's distracted. It is hard you know regardless of how many sidewalks you have and crosswalks. So, I just I'm more in favor of trying to reduce the quantity of parks and focus more on quality or bring in some of these other items like the the fitness workout park and the the the skate park potentially disc golf repurposing them maybe in those those fashions. Um >> because I mean that's a it's you know it's good probably $200,000 on average a year that we're spending on >> on replacing these. >> Yeah. Like I mentioned a lot of our parks have just gotten to that 20 to 30 year, you know. So it's and now it's going to be a little more regular. My recommendation maybe is uh when we have a joint uh meeting with the parks commission to share that you know in January. we >> you know it's it's um I'm sorry council member uh just go ahead mayor >> um >> you know I think it gets to the point of council member Holtz's with the hot spots there are some communities where the developments are a little tighter um we get some gentrification in our community like you wouldn't want to put a park uh north of 20th off of uh in that neighborhood there just because it's older they're not really using that. But at Carriage Station, I've even seen turnover where I live where the kids were of a certain age. Now my kids are 20, right? But there are some newer families moving in. But so, so it's a little denser population. I would assume that's similar going to be in some of the Musa areas, Eastn Village, things like that. So those areas where it makes sense maybe a little less sense where Cle park is a little more you know uh the lot sizes are much larger less um density there for for kids to be around. Not that we should exclude them because not like when maybe some of us are growing up and you could ride your bike across town. kids don't really parents aren't encouraging their kids to ride their bike across town anymore and our town happens to be 24 square miles so it could be a long bike ride right so um so so I think it's it is a balancing act that we've got to figure out uh some of the right proportions of that um but I I I like that we're paying attention to things that are important to the community members and kids that need that outside experience instead of just being stuck in in their backyard or whatever. Council member, >> two things. First, I agree with your comment. You know, looking at, you know, the parks that we have and the population they're serving, are do we have the right equipment? Do we and maybe we need to change it based on changing ages and demographics, too. The other question is a million dollar for the multisport complex is that for the land we purchased at our estimate? as it looks like it's to build out build. That's only gonna that's only that that that's going to be shy >> placeholder. We we've got to do some placeholder >> figuring out and looking at >> like council member Holtz indicated earlier looking at uh different funding sources for that >> because that's not in the CIP. >> I don't see it. >> Okay. >> Not in any significant form. We've really just put it in there as a as a placeholder for >> we don't know what what the cost is yet anyway. >> We don't we don't know what anybody wants. I think there's the, you know, I've gotten a lot approached by a lot of people that are like, "When's it going to happen?" And I say, "Well, put on your brakes because we want to get the community involved and get some input and, you know, plan it out, right?" Because it's, you know, you get a shot at it. So, let's make it right. And I think then when when that happens, we'll we'll get down to the nitty-gritty on what what the real dollar is. >> Thank you. I just was I wasn't sure. So, I didn't read every line in the in the CIP. Unfortunately, it's confession time, you know. >> So, I guess just going off of that, too, then, you know, that was one of and one of my thoughts was that was a priority that we set for the next two years. Um, and I know a lot of that focus for the next two years was a priority was the putting in the leg work. So, I I understand that. Um, I'm wondering too then if when you say it was kind of a a little bit more of a placeholder, Does that mean we could potentially move that up or was there some very strategic reason why it was put 2029? >> Uh, nope. It was more of a recognition that it's not happening in the past couple years and it's going to move around no matter what happens. So, there's not much strategy at all. >> So, so when I look at this um multiports complex amenities, what is the location of that? I'm trying to put in my mind. >> That is the the land that was purchased. Purchased, >> correct? Y. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. By Sunfish Lake Park there. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And I think it easily because we we don't know and obviously staff is having conversations with various groups to start that aspect, but I could easily see it at a minimum being in 2028. It's not being 2026. We know that's not happening. Hypothetically, there could be dirt moving in 2027. But in terms of amenities, I could easily see at least as a placeholder 2028. If it's not, it's not. But I would like to be optimistic to think there could start to be some purchases of contracts for this build, for this amenity, for moving dirt in this way. But again, as you said, it's a placeholder, but I could I would like to at least think 2028. Well, we can certainly move that to 2028 if that makes you feel better. I may maybe a way I'd put it too is I think I'd rather prioritize that type of work over replacing playgrounds >> and I I think moving it up would be >> well that's maybe a discussion like we have in January with >> with the plan with the parks commission right we >> right >> they they do serve as volunteers and they do have some input so it would be good to have discussion with them on that or we could have discussion Nothing keeps us from going to a planning uh parks commission meeting, >> right? And and with that, just know that um the planning of improving Ridge Park is going to be started here fairly soon with Bolton M. Um and what Ridge Park is going to look like. It's a community park, not a neighborhood park. So there's a potential of, you know, improving the ball field or making it in soccer and the pavilion. So that is actually going to start very soon. The survey will likely go out here in the next um three to four weeks. So >> yeah, because hypothetically that could be the pavilion for 2026. >> It could. Yes, absolutely. And and taking that aside, I I appreciate with the pavilion aspect, you know, on an annual basis, like we're spitting one out one a year and it'll be as as needed basis. I I'd be curious when that time comes, >> what type of data points do you think would be the the ones you're going to use to determine like what's the the need and demand, who's next in line? Yeah. So, >> obviously space is one thing. there's gonna be some type of demand metric, but are there other things that you think would be a part of it? >> Um, I don't want to speak out of turn. I think Adam and the and Bolton Mink when they're doing their parks master plan talked a lot about that, like which amenities, um, the number of amenities, access to the pavilion, you know, can they park there and have it? They looked into a lot of that, but I'll be honest, I don't have those exact details. Right. >> I guess the great unknown is the greenway. Like that that's that's a substantial chunk of change that might not even be enough and it might not be that year. It might be another four years after, right? I I guess it seems like would it be important for us to have a workshop and figure this out then with the parks commission because otherwise we're allocating a lot of dollars on the CIP here if we're going to make if we decide to go quality over quantity with the playgrounds. Well, I guess Jason, where are we at in terms of the work you're doing now? Because you're you're talking about the various sports groups and you provide a timeline a couple weeks ago, but where do you see this fitting in then with our conversation with the parks committee because and how this like is it still kind of aligning with your timeline? >> It is. I think the joint workshop is in September. I believe >> we do we have a joint workshop with the parks commission to discuss um the parks master plan recommendation of that parks director kind of like what the parks commission is hoping to achieve with that or or missing um stuff that as well as um Jason bringing back the ball fields discussion. Okay, >> one perfect. All right. >> Okay. If we're ready, I'm going to move on to streets. So, Jack, you're gonna you're you can just come stand up here and take some punches with me maybe about this infrastructure. Um, okay. So, streets, uh, we started this discussion last week with a, um, pavement management plan. We have three types of street projects. So, the local residential street collector streets and MSA improvements and then county projects that they um make us uh contribute to. Jack gives me his pretty color-coded uh spreadsheet each year and we put that into plan it and figure out funding and such for that. Um again, guided by the pavement management plan. Our funding sources are bonding, so debt issuance, our infrastructure fund, which we've just started to try to grow, special assessments, Minnesota state aid, and then I am planning for at least one transfer from the general fund. I'm hoping we have lots of development, and we'll be able to do that again um a few years down the road. Um high level, for the next 10 years, we have 35 projects totaling approximately $50 million. Um Jack, did you want to kind of mention or discuss those briefly? >> Yeah, I um as we as we try to talk about these in categories, um you have your local street program, which is your existing neighborhoods and maintaining those pavements. Um you you are looking at about 26 million. So about a little over half of the 50 million is in that program. And we went through this with the payment management. We have the CIP plan up there. And as you can see, it's addressing your your failed streets, the the really old age streets, and a lot of them with the batuminous curb and gutter. Um what I would say when we changed from a five to a 10-year lookout um it get becomes more speculative when you get beyond the five years and in particular here if we get um we went to the 10-year but now we've been addressing so many of those older streets that in the next five to six years we're going to address almost the the remaining ones of those. So we'll if we get through year six here and then the back four they're much more speculative just on age of pavement and you can see Deantraville Highlands area which was redone once already now has concrete curbon gutter. Those improvements are going to stop start dropping in cost. You're you you stop getting the restoration. You leave the curbon gutter in place. the reclaims on those streets are a lot cheaper than the ones originally when you're going in and putting the new curb and gutter in and having to um restore the boulevards behind that. Um so the footprint of the projects a lot less. So um the next five years are going to be again critical and kind of finishing up these programs and then um it might be that we can start to defer a little bit more u move projects around a little bit more when we get to that back end of the tenure. I I'll go on to the next category if if you don't have any questions on that. The collector um MSA projects fall into a couple categories. You have your existing payments that we're doing the same thing and we're um you have Hudson Boulevard. It's a it's a road you took back from the uh from Mindot. It's an existing road. So falls under those same categories. We're trying to improve it across the corridor, urbanizing the north half of the trail. We're getting a lot of that done through development as well. So these projects are in your CIP. We have about 3 million remaining in Hudson Boulevard um in the next 10 years. It's possible those are done by developers. So the cost could be anything from zero to the full 3 million depending on if development comes in or doesn't come in. Um >> just a question Jack when we took that as a turn back back from the state did they give us any money for repairing that roadway or did they just give it to us locktock? >> I I wasn't here when that happened. It was in like 98 to 2000. So I I don't know. Um I was here I know when it was originally given back to us it was given back half to Woodbury, half to us. So I was here in ' 06 and we did a juris jurisdictional transfer of shifting the the center line so that Lake Elma owned the full road. >> Okay. >> But I'm not aware of any funds. I was here when we took the Montreal back from the county and we and rather than funds, we got them to rebuild it. >> Right. It's usually one or the other, right? I'll take it but make it new before I take it. Yeah, >> got it. >> So, the MSA collector roads come out to about 13 million over the next 10 years. And again, um and then the county cost share projects come into about 10 million. So, again, those are speculative a lot like the greenway corridor whether they're coming forward. You got 5 million coming at the trunk highway 36 interchange that's right before us right now. That also is um that started out at 5 million as just the interchange. We're still looking at five million with the grants that have been coming in, but now we're getting the south frontage road for that, too. So, that's kind of a a win for the city for the same sticker. The sticker price hasn't come down, but it but you've gotten a lot more improvement out of that. Um, so it's that kind of project. Um, we have another 4.6 million in there for Fifth Street. So far to date, all of segments of Fifth Street have been developer paid. There's one segment that I'm not convinced will get developer paid. We'll see. It's the It's running north of the forest subdivision and it's meandering through some wetlands. It doesn't provide a lot of benefit to developers. So, we're having developers come look at that. We're telling them you got to build this to get going under development and they're they've been all walking so far. So, we get around to 2030 2031. That still hasn't happened. The city may have to take that that cost on. So we have it in there um as a as a placeholder. >> Would we consider the same thing with Village Parkway to extend to County 14? >> Yep. I don't So Village Parkway is not in the CIP. You'll you'll notice there are no segments. We The only piece we were responsible for through the agreements with the developers is the crossing that we're taking on right now. >> Would we consider doing the same thing as >> it all new? Yeah. So there's again there's two kinds of roads like Hudson Boulevard's a new a used road that you have to improve. Um and then the other ones that are in here are speculative and they're they're all based on supporting growth and development and they can happen multiple ways. You can you can do those improvements and like you can do village parkway and assess all the land and you can assess it whatever you want to assess it and collect assessment revenue. You could build it to to promote growth in development that's not happening or you can leave it there and let the developers build it for you >> which has been our strategy so far today. >> Has there historically been a conversation about because and I I understand with history it makes sense right that that's a given that land and the swampy area. I get it. Has there been a conversation about if hypothetically the city took the onus and did Village Parkway did the assessment process what that could look like or >> the only conversation I'm aware of is between Jason and I and and maybe taking that on just because you it gives the city more control over the alignment over where you put that road. Um it it needs to be more commercial oriented and tying into your downtown. So it might be better when when you kind of leave it to the developer, they start to take it where it fits their development better and then you're kind of left with what you get. And so yeah, we've had that conversation a couple of times, but right now it's not in your CIP or being promoted. >> And I don't want to get on a tangent, so and it quick, but I could see that entire thing being an overlay and that the road extension being one part of it and just doing everything all the way to the ball fields. And so those localized projects, the 26 million, you you you basically assess 30%. So you will, you know, there's 30% revenue coming back on those at about $8 million as a funding source. And for the other two categories, you have MSA funds you can apply and we're projecting revenues over the next 10 year of about 910 million that you'd have available toward those projects. So it's not doesn't pay for it all, but it's it's it's one of the sources you have in addition to potential assessments. >> Are MSA funds guaranteed? Like is there a risk with >> constitution? Minnesota state constitution. >> Well, in terms of the rate, the amount that we get, >> it's done by a need study. It's based on your lane mileage uh that's within the MSA system. It's typically pretty static. um unless we added something or took something away, that number roughly stays about the same with relationship to any uh inflationary values. So >> there's a comp there's a complicated formula for the needs where we're we do certification of mileage and we do a needs input into a system every year which half 50% of your allocation is based on your needs relative to other cities. The other 50% is based on your population >> and then but the starter pool is based on the gas tax and so that number can fluctuate based on the legislature. >> Okay. Thank you. Well, the constitution says of the of the gasoline tax, 62% goes to the trunk highway fund, 29% goes to county state aid, and 9% goes to municipal state aid. And that's in the constitution. >> Money will exist and it will occur, but it could fluctuate with fluctuate with gas tax. Yeah. >> All right. >> A 62299 formula. I thought everybody knew that. >> At least one person in this room does. I think maybe three do >> maybe four. >> Any other questions direction regarding streets? So sort of on a tangent to streets. We have street lights which is kind of one of the um sort of a high level question that we have for council tonight. Um, so we have this sort of impending issue um that needs a long-term plan. Um, Excel uh will no longer be servicing the lighting systems that have been installed by developers after the 25 years. We have roughly $3 million worth of assets. Um, if we put them across the same 25 year lifespan, that'd be roughly $125,000 per year. Um, we have some future replacements. Sorry, we have a some possible replacements within the next three or four years. More replacements will take place um starting 2038. So our question sort of again very high level, there's a bunch of other decisions that need to be made regarding this was really like as I'm starting to think about funding for this, do we have any interest in implementing a street light utility fund? So in addition to the water, sewer and storm water, we would have this other feebased system that would be based on likely some sort of attempt at equity across the city wherein there would be um uh collector road fe sorry who owns the street lights on collector roads is that the county >> is us. So there could be potentially um some that are you know a small fee for across the city or we could um do it based on neighborhoods. So it would be sort of this like in-depth assessment as far as who pays what for that. The other option is to do just a your basic um levy, you know, sort of general payment across the the entire city like we do for anything else. So, it'd likely just be an additional um an addition to the infrastructure fund. >> Do we know if the other municipalities that's similar to us or in our area uh lease these light poles from Excel Energy or do they own them and manage them themselves? Do >> you want to speak? >> Both both models exist depending on which cities you go to. So, um, you pay per pole per month. Um, and it's a much much lower fee if you own the poles and it's a much higher monthly fee if you >> if you just let them own and replace them, >> right? >> Um, because we have the opportunity because we're growing, we're the the developers are paying for that first round. So, they're buying them on behalf of the city, turning them over the city, so we're paying the lower rate. >> Um, it's probably more economical to replace them the next time around. um and keep continuing the the lower rate. But that would be one >> option is just to turn them back to XL and let XL replace them and then you pay for it over time. >> So have we done any sort of kind of So this is another issue when you're putting more on public works with lighting if Excel's been doing it. I know this one over here off 39th got hit like three or four different times because it was too close to the corner, but um and they came out and moved it. Right. But has there been any have we looked at what kind of that cost difference is for the city owning versus leasing? Is that something we can do? Is that too ownorous? I I think it would make sense to kind of know that that delta versus just saying, "Hey, let's go this way." You know, make a decision based on some data points. >> We haven't um done that analysis yet. This is just the beginning stages of the conversation. >> Um but we could do that and bring it back for further discussion. And that's when I was referring to there's a whole bunch of other discussion that needs to happen. That was kind of where we were at. So again, we've got a couple years to sort of figure this out. Sure. >> But from a longer term as I'm trying to set up the CIP and sort of plan for these things that I know are coming, >> it was more of a curiosity like are we interested in doing this? Should we take a look at it? But it is >> if we're going to do the street light utility that even looking at it is a very long uh intensive process. >> So when I read the the item, the first question came to me like, you know, certain areas have more lights than others and certainly we keep the dark in the rural areas and things like that. And it seems like it wouldn't be necessarily air quotes fair to the people that live in a rural area to pay for lights that aren't in their area even though they may drive on the road. You there's all kinds of arguments around that, right? I did share with uh administrator Miller that when in my my first home I lived in New Brighton and there was a $10 this is back like 2000 to 2005 can't remember it was a quarter was a $10 light fee that I paid you know and at the time I was I got to figure out how to pay for that so that makes sense at least it's I know that that fee just kind of like the storm water fee I know what that fee is going towards, right? But how do we would figure out to make it equitable for those that may not have the benefit of a light or they don't, you know, they prefer to live in an area that doesn't have the light, if that makes any sense. >> You may not believe several street light utilities. >> I don't believe it. So, I mean I I I think that's appropriate, you know, if but then it needs to unlike what our water fund was doing and what we found out is that we were running at a deficit. We need to figure out how to adjust that price so that it's it's not at a deficit and being carried by something else. And then we need to see if that makes sense for or if we uh you know maybe we add something from the general fund so it's not a complete burden on on the residents right I mean they do pay taxes and some of that is for that but what is what is what is the right mixture I guess >> I think you're right we present what is the cost under the option we'd have own or lease or whatever yeah >> you have to come up with a cost and then determining mechanical system to pay for it is, you know, it's it's a lot of monkey around. Generally, it's the amount of light that you have in each area of the city. >> So, it's not a one-sizefits-all where you're downtown, you have more street lights. They pay a higher utility rate, street light utility than a residential, where you have one on every corner, and it it's a lot of monkeying around to make it equitable, but it's not impossible. >> I guess I'm personally not against a light fee. I mean, I've paid it before. It's one way to know what you're paying for, I guess. But that's just me. I mean, it's really it's two pieces. Which one's the better option, lease or own? And I I don't disagree whether it's a levy item. I don't want the tax bill to literally have like nine different levy types >> like that. We're But there's there's some point like how many is the right mixture? What I think a fee perfectly fine. It to me it's no different than your storm water fee. I would be curious how tedious it would be if you had Nick do all that work to figure out because it is true. I mean there we have residents where they intentionally have an area and told their council members for decades that there shall be no lights and that's what they want. So I I fully get it. like it I don't think it'd be equitable to have it be a a levy for all. Uh but there might be some middle place in there, but it's probably a pain to figure it out. >> Is this something where they all have to be replaced >> at some point? >> At some point. Yeah. >> Like is it going to be $3 million that we're going to have or is this going to be spread out that million over >> four to five years type? Okay. >> It's from now until 2044 or something spread out. You mentioned if we do some um is there a way that it could be done similar to how we do the roads where there's a um the hot you you pay more if the road is if you're living on that road and then the city picks up the assessment and then the city pays the rest of it the levy. Is that I guess similar you know the lights on the street that you live on you're assessed a portion of it and then the levy covers the rest. >> Yeah it' be similar to a fee quarterly or yearly fee for street light utility. >> So maybe this is going more down the conversation of the fairness of going about it. >> Right. Um, >> I mean, not trying to make it too complicated. I always like to keep things simple, but I guess it would be nice to know kind of the different options, make your life more complicated. >> Absolutely. In the middle of a software implementation, that's >> less mine. Mine less complicated. How's that sound? >> No. Um, so if council is generally uh potentially agreeable to the concept of a street light utility, we will do more of the leg work. Um, hopefully we get a volunteer to throw us some some information. Um, and uh, and we'll bring this back for further discussion then um, in the future. Like I said, we've got we've got some time here. Well, and honestly, luckily with with the vast majority being 20, 38 and after, that also allows us time to communicate this to residents because up until a week ago, >> I I knew nothing about street lights in terms of they go there's a warranty for 25 years and after that they might go bad. I I just knew you replace the light bulbs. So, honestly, like that this can be a very good conversation to have with residents because I I guarantee you this is not something that's commonly No one. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, okay. So, then moving on, let's talk about >> back up to the streets >> for just one second because in looking at our plan, just point out that, you know, our levy for streets between debt service, our debt service levy in 25 was 3.2 million. We're projecting that will rise to 4.2 million in 2035. But we also have our infrastructure levy for streets. And so combined, we're going to go from 3.3 million to six million that we're going to levy in taxes for street improvements. >> Right. >> And um I think we need to take a look at 50 million $5 million a year is a big big number. And taking our levy from three our total levy from 3.3 million to six million is going to cause a significant burden on our taxes. There's a benefit of reducing debt service. So there's this kind of tradeoff, but I think we need to take a look and say, is this, you know, is this going to be something we can sustain with our citizens and not get lynched and tred and feathered >> and we can't solve that tonight. I just bring up what the numbers are and for everyone to think a little bit about that because I know that >> we've a lot of information thrown at us tonight, but being the nerd that I am, I took a look at all that and said it's a lot of money that we're going to be levying for for taxes to cover the debt service and the infrastructure. And the infrastructure levy benefits us because we don't we reduce our borrowing and don't pay the interest costs, but we're still going from three million to six million over 10 years. And I don't know how much and we had a nice analysis of potential growth and how that would impact and what the tax rates would be and all that, but you that's a good guess. >> Absolutely. Um I will add um so I didn't know some of this information about MSA. I was more conservative than Jack was on the MSA stuff. So we'll be um see a little bit more relief there um if that is as consistent long term. Um, I would also add that I I was pretty conservative with the growth estimates. So, the tax rate >> Yep. >> potentially won't be quite aggressively as as aggressively higher as what I'm projecting. So, there's a lot of like there's a lot of unknowns, right? Absolutely. >> You did your best guess, which is all we can ask, >> right? And and it's going to change tomorrow. So um so but but absolutely um I think what from staff's perspective then is that if those are the goals that we're trying to achieve, how is it that we do that? And so if 95% of our capital needs are for infrastructure and uh roughly maybe 40% of that is streets, which is the main um uh driver of the the debt service and infrastructure levies. you know, how do we change that pavement management plan, the reconstruction implementation, um, in order to decrease those tax burdens. >> This also includes a $5 million transfer from the general fund. >> Correct. >> So, we're moving 5 million from the general fund into here and we're still going to increase our levy to $6 million, you know, in 2035. So, >> was that primarily because of 36 and like come when you say 5 million? Is that what triggered it? >> Well, I mean, I was looking at numbers as a whole. So, I'm looking I'm trying to cash flow the infrastructure fund and in order to do that, we had a we have a very healthy fund balance at the moment >> that we will eventually get along around to that long-term strategic plan. We can bring that down. Um, and so it was just a a trying to to get that infrastructure fund to kind of cash flow for the next few years >> and to reduce our outstanding debt as we've t been talking. This does accomplish that. >> Yep. Part of the long-term the strategic um, you know, plan that we've been talking about is to decrease our our debt. And so when we had talked you know last year about this, my sort of strategy was to do it you know over a 10-year period. So I I use sort of round numbers year-toear. So I've got my funding strategy for local roads is a 10-year implementation, 30% assessments, etc., etc. I use 30% cash for all of the local improvements and 100% cash for most of the utility um improvements other than one. So, >> so I'm just gonna say this, a little bit of what Jack indicated was that after we tackle some of these roads, our our system's going to be in fairly good shape in 10 years and then we'll be looking at a lesser degree of or a less expensive route to maintain our roadway system, right? >> And we're looking at uh not new or reconstruct, we're looking at, you know, lesser degrees of construction activity. So, but I see the tax rate on infrastructure levy going up instead of coming back down. >> Well, we still have um mean you have the I didn't bring my cheat sheet that you gave me roughly how many million dollars of streets total >> in our fixed assets. >> We've had I don't mean to throw >> we've we have streets that we have been depreciating for years and we have $93,000 in our infrastructure fund. So, so while it may become cheaper to fix them, we are still way behind on saving for those okay >> for those plans. And so, I'm concerned, you know, that the next 10 years might might look tough, but if we don't do some fairly aggressive planning right now, 50 years from now, people are going to be cursing my name. They're going to be cursing your name. So we we just want to make sure that that we're >> I'm looking I'm looking very long term here. >> Well, and to your question, >> I don't want that to happen >> between Lake Elmo AB and South Frontage Road. I mean, we have allocated 6 million in CIP and 5 million for transfer. So that 5 million even though there's 20 different projects, but 5 million almost covers that one-time project. And I would remind you that we're still growing quickly. So while we're while we're planning for what we currently have, every single year we're adding >> new stuff. Stuff that we just fixed is going to need >> right >> redoing. So we're always going to be chasing this. >> Okay. >> Um Okay. So going to go back to water. Um so I'm going to kind of skim through this because we're going kind of long. We've got 22 projects totaling $61 million. Well, part of that, a large majority of that is getting funded by MPCA. Jack, you can go into more detail here. >> Yep. Uh, so yeah, 50 million is projected for the the water treatment plant, which is paid by grants. So that's um and they and they pay a month after the bills are paid. So that's sort of cash flowed out. So that brings you down to the 11 12 million um in the next 10 years. um where we have to pay for the wells. We're looking at well six, well seven in that time frame. Um and then continuing with trunk water mane extensions to support growth. There's a still a couple of critical water main loops that will need to get put in as the areas develop. Um again, these are in there as placeholders. There'll come a time when we need to do them or portions of them oursel. There's also the possibility that these are paid by development and we're just paying an oversized cost for the larger for the larger mains which then become much more cost effective for for for the city. So, the only ones we really have in there are the placeholders for some of those critical mains that we know eventually we're going to have to put in to keep the pressure distributions um up there to to support the the water system as needed. Um the one project that's not in here um again would be grant funded is is the Northwater treatment plant if we end up having to put a a treatment plant on wells four and five. So we'll be applying for a grant to do that preliminary study. Um but we we don't know yet that we're that we'll be doing that. >> Okay. >> Questions on water. >> All right. I'm move forward to sewer. You can just keep going. Um so the sewer projects u there's eight projects totaling u just 4.2 million um over the next 10 years. Um again there's um the I94 lift station upgrades are have been forwarded into this year. So they're no longer in the 2026 to 2027. Um we purchasing the pumps this year. The sanitary sewer oversizing for section 16. again, um, a lot of it's oversizing costs, um, as the developers put projects in and that that we'll be putting in there. We also have, um, as part of our street programs, there's a couple of areas where we're anticipating that we'll be putting sewer in. So, I think there's, um, about three three.1 million, I think. So, putting sewer in 50th Street Hill Trail, the peninsula out on Deanchville, Olsson Lake. Um, I have I have uh money in there for that. That would be 100% assessed. Um, so it's money out, money in over time, but they're paying it over time, so it has to be financed. Um, the other one is, um, Sunfish Ponds. Um, when that street comes due, we h anticipate having to run sewer on those areas. We already have sewer stubbed to the development through Legacy. And then the third one is when we do tapestry. Um, we've already they're already on municipal sewer through the lift station, but they still own the collection system. We anticipate when we do those roads, much like Hamlin on Sunfish Lake, we'll inspect those systems and and go to take that on. And we anticipate we might have to do some improvements that would then again be assessed to that development 100% um but financed over time. And I think we have a placeholder of 1 million in that which is hopefully very very high. Um but it was 800,000 in Hamlet. So it um was a poorly constructed system >> question. Storm water. >> Yep. Storm water. Um we have in there um still phase two and phase three from our downtown regional storm water management plan. So phase one was the infiltration basin here when we redid all the downtown area. Um phase two is um in progress right now. We are going to be uh we have a development agreement in place with um Northstar Development to pay them 285,000. They're oversizing those ponds um as part of that development. That was part of the phase two of our capturing the water before it gets to the downtown. And then phase three is on the downside just to the east of the VFW park. Um when that land develops, we will need to do the same thing and have that developer oversize those ponds. So we're expecting oversized payment of um that we've estimated about 500,000 for that. Um, aside from that, we have in there some placeholders for storm water reuse systems. We've had our eyes on um eventually maybe putting the VFW um ball fields on on storm water reuse. We need a we need a water source. So, when we do that phase three pond, we might have a pond source to then bring that back and do storm water reuse into those downtown ball fields. when we knew the do the new ball fields, we'll have to look at how that's developed and see if there's wet ponds constructed as part of that. And if there are, we could possibly do storm water reuse there. So, you see these scattered little projects of storm water reuse is we'll start to look for opportunities to implement some of that. Um the the intent with any of and all of those projects, those are usually somewhat grant eligible participation type projects with Valley Branch and other sources. So, as any of those projects come forward, we'll also um pursue grant opportunities on those. >> Say that was going to be my question. Did does Met Council anticipate opening up some grants for that concept as well? >> Yeah. And most of those grants um that I've seen are, you know, they're they're not more than 50% of the total project cost. So, there's still going to be some skin in the game from the the city as we do those. >> You mentioned sewer to Sunfish Ponds. That struck me as a memory. Are they asking for sewer to get connected up there? >> They they did a few years ago. >> Yeah. >> And then they backed away. >> Four, five years ago, backed away. >> Yeah. So, it may or may not happen. We know they were having problems. So, that's why have it in there. >> They're having to put mound systems in their >> yards and stuff like that. So, okay. All right. >> Yeah. We don't know if we'll see. >> Sorry to jump back. It just tripped a trigger on my head. Okay. >> Yeah. And then um we'll we do really need to do um a more concerted effort of building the stormwater CIP. You see a lot of $50,000 a year replacements like we're replacing a culvert we found when the mirror was doing that. That was a $400,000 expenditure. Um, so we really do need to get out and do inspections of our existing storm water system and identify and start building that program um on the storm water system and then that will give us a better idea of what our needs are so we can um perfect or or improve the uh storm water utility um revenue side of that too. >> Okay. So if there aren't any questions on that um my next few slides we're talking about the funding and the debt um we touched on that um a bit earlier. So just as a reminder the funding sources are um bonding uh which is debt or infrastructure levy which we just started in 2025. I have some pretty aggressive increases planned for that in order to make that infrastructure levy um cash flow or infrastructure fund cash flow over time. Um, we have our utility fees which pay for the utility uh infrastructure improvements. We have Minnesota state aid. Um, and then we have the franchise fees. So, currently our franchise fees are contributed to the infrastructure 50% to the infrastructure fund, 50% to that new um, park reserve. Um, this slide goes over the projections of new and existing debt through 2043. Again, these aren't today's dollars, so you won't see these exact numbers. our debt plus infrastructure levies would increase dramatically. The only thing I would add that we haven't really talked about is you you'll start you start to see that going down after 2041. I believe that will continue. We're kind of in this in this spot here for the next 15 years where we're trying to build the infrastructure levy and paying for existing debt service. So, we're trying to plan for the future while also being impacted by past decisions and that will eventually get better over time hopefully. And finally, that like I talked about, this slide is showing um what what is essentially sort of our quote unquote tax rate for that debt service and infrastructure levies and then the total um so our our rate is determined by how much tax capacity we have. So um you know if we are able to develop that 180 acres or we get a big apartment building you know these these rates will change uh dramatically um depending on what happens with development um if we're making some decisions uh you know our goals I guess um for debt if we're trying to decrease debt over time we're trying to increase the infrastructure levy so that we can plan for the future um as I mentioned my current assumption was conserv conservative. So I can definitely remodel that with um different data and then franchise fees. We can keep our existing um decision or we can always change that at any point in the future. That was done by resolution so it can be revised and open to any questions or feedback changes that we need to make for the future other than what we've talked about already. Excuse me, >> Council Member Jerry. >> So, we're looking at um the source of like we had like $12 million coming from the water fund and the CIP. >> Um do we know that we're going to have 12 million in cash in the water fund or we're just hoping? >> That is what we had modeled in the utility study. So, we did the utility study and we have planned for aggressive increases to the water rates over time. >> And so, currently the modeling works. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Um, >> thank you. >> And can always Yeah. So, we will we'll be re we're sort of we have all these sort of tools that are dispirit but connected and so we're trying to update one while we are updating another and that gets a little tricky. >> Yep. I just want to thank you for all the time that staff put into this with the detail. is very appreciative and I don't know who in their right mind made this agenda and thought we were going to get it done in an hour. >> We we first had a half an hour but >> no I'm just I'm just joking. It was good discussion. Thank you for your answers and being patient with us. Very very much appreciate it. >> Absolutely. Thank you. >> So we can move to future MUSA expansion discussion. All right. Good evening, everyone. Promised to get everyone out by midnight. Jason's going to hold out. So, >> yes, >> you know, it's my wife's 50th birthday today. And >> why didn't she come? >> So, so you know, expediency is of the utmost importance here. >> Uh, heard mayor. All right. Sharing the screen here. So we don't have to like the previous discussion, we don't have to solve all of these questions in one evening. So that's good news for getting out of here. U but we as staff uh do feel like some feedback uh would be very helpful as we begin to prepare already for imagine 2050. Wow. Uh were all or some of you in the involved in the last comprehensive plan update? >> Very little. >> Okay. Just that's good to know as we move forward. Um, so yeah, as I said, the imagine 2050 process is uh quickly arriving. Uh, the timeline is just summarized for you on the screen here. So, beginning in September of this year, system statements will be released by the Met Council or so they say. Sometimes it takes longer, but the Met Council will be sending out those statements to the city in early fall um in 2026 through 27. That's when really the kind of the heart of this work will happen. in June of 2028. That is when the city needs to have a draft plan done by. You need it done in June of 28 because there is going to be basically a six-month period where you send it to your adjacent jurisdictions and they provide comments to you and in turn you review theirs and provide comments to them. So, at the end of the day, the final draft is due in December of 2028. So, that's what the timeline looks like. As mentioned, we kind of get that that kickoff this year. And this discussion, probably the first of of of more um is really intended to just talk about a couple of things that will help staff to begin to think about the effort that's in front of us. So, the discussion topics, we're proposing three this evening. Um maybe the most important one, the Musa boundary and the future of that in the community. Number two, level of community engagement. And number three, any other special areas of concern you want staff to begin to think about as we move forward. U so the first discussion I've broken it broken it down into three parts. U I first want to show you though a couple of resources that we have for you as just an aid for this as we move through these different prompts. So the first map is the city's uh Musa growth and phasing plan. You'll remember this. Um this basically creates it shows you the Musa boundary within the community and that boundary is actually broken up by development decade. So for the 2040 comprehensive plan the city has development decades uh between uh 2020 and 2030, 2030 and 2040 and then 2040 and beyond. A project that occurs in a development decade that's in the future like beyond right now for example beyond 2030 is actually not considered by the Met Council to be in the Musa. So that was a weird thing that we encountered with Northstar. We ended up correcting that issue. So just one one consideration. Uh this map in front in front of you on the screen is the existing and future sanitary sewer system. So, this kind of mirrors the Musa boundary, uh, but it describes your system in more detail and kind of where some of those flows end up. And the following is really specific to the Tri Lakes area and the northwest corner of the community. And we'll talk about this in more detail in that third prompt. So, um, back to the slide with the questions. This summarizes the questions initially that we have for you. Um, so there's been a lot of discussion, I think, with recent projects about the Musa boundary and maybe what to do on a kind of case byase basis, but we're looking to have a more um broad discussion about this this the Musa area. Uh, the first question that I have for you is should areas south of Still Water Boulevard, we've been seeing a lot of development activity in that area. uh we I think we'll expect to continue to see development pressure particularly in the properties that are larger south of Stillwater. So this first question is should those areas south of Stillwater Boulevard and obviously outside of the reserve the park reserve be included within the city's muse of boundary. So that's the question that we're kind of looking for that high level feedback on. I'm sure you may have questions. We're happy to answer those or just kind of listen to the discussion. So, I'll park it there and see if you have any thoughts. >> So, you're talking south of Stillwater Boulevard, not >> Yeah. >> as it's also 14 >> by the roundabout at Jamaka. >> All right. So, the cursor is on the screen. Still Water Boulevard is roughly cuts the community in half. So, um I'm talking about the areas south of Stillwater Boulevard that are not in the Musa. Uh should the community consider or should staff um plan for guidance that would just to say those large undeveloped lands? Well, we just we we said, you know, that high point, right? Maybe that's going to happen. But, you know, I we just redid roadways in Whistling Valley and Stonegate, Tory Pines, and Ridgeway. I my personal opinions, no. I mean, I haven't heard any issues in other areas. Maybe uh isolated, but I haven't heard overall. >> Maybe I can refine my my question, and that's um you know, we obviously have existing platted development south of Still Water Boulevard. Um, I don't know that I've heard about any requests to have those included in the MUSA for sewer, but I'm talking specifically about those parcels that uh may be developed in the future, >> new new development >> because I I think again like we're seeing, you know, this we're seeing development pressure in this area. Um, and I think these larger parcels tend to be some of those that we as staff get the question um about potentially having sewer service. So, council member Holtz. >> So, before I answer clarifying question then because in our previous 20 240 plan our zoning had to have the potential to accommodate there's roughly 20,000 people and our updated number for 2050 we have to have future zoning that could potentially accommodate 18,900. So, it is a decrease. Would we be getting any pressure from the Met Council to expand the Musea? >> No. In in fact, um the Met Council has in its land use policy plan that it adopted earlier this year basically uh created some new criteria for review of Musa expansions. Basically, the Met Council feels that there is enough land across the urban the the Twin Cities metro area within the Musa to accommodate future development. as you just said, population is expected to decrease. Now, I don't know if that's totally accurate, but um in any case, um I I do expect that Musa expansions could become harder on a case- by case basis. So, I think if there is potentially some future interest in considering MUSA expansions, it it feels wise to do that as part of the 2050 planning process when you've got um other review happening simultaneously like sewer system analysis and things like that. >> Gotcha. I I guess I don't disagree with the mayor in that regard. My only asterisk would be if it was specifically for business development along 10th Street on the north side or if the conversation was about any business development along 36. But I that's not your question. So I I don't feel a need to expand it just simply south of 14. I I'm in favor. I agree with that as well. I think that's a good point too that you brought up about the Thanks for I missed that with the population decrease actually expectations. >> It helps alleviate some pressure. >> Yeah. >> Um >> um I just want to make some space for I know that Jack was involved with the prior comprehensive plan amendment. I don't know if there's anything to add on the sewer or the Musa boundary question. >> Well, yeah. just add that, you know, we we did the 2040 comp plan and I think within months of coming out of that adoption of that comp plan, we had a comp plan amendment and started amending it and I think we've had nine amendments. And so I guess from my standpoint, the question is we're developing our sewer system very inefficiently. Um, I'll just use this as one example, not that I'm highlighting this area, but you know, if we're going to put a lift station and run force main down um to the inwood development for High Point Crossing and then later come back and do the piece up to 15th Street with with sanitary sewer, you're not you're building an extremely inefficient and higher cost uh sanitary sewer system. Um, if you were considering that piece between 10th and 15th Street, for instance, along Inwood, you'd like to continue running Gravity all the way up to 15th Street and phase that before High Point crossing and then have High Point Crossing dump its list station at that point as as one example. So, um, the comp plan is the opportunity to look seriously at your Musa boundary so that the infrastructure can be planned efficiently to support that. So, um, the planners will work with the community and with the council to create a land use and density map. And then that gets handed over to engineering and engineering has to make the water system, the sewer system and the street network work for that for that density in those areas. Um, and so we just want to have a heads up when we're heading into this what areas we need to be thinking about planning and planning for uh as part of that scope. So that's partly the reason for the question. So >> one of one of the questions I have doesn't relate to Stillwater Boulevard, but when Wildflower was put in, you wanted a a main to go towards the fields. >> Yes. because of the community septics much like Tapestry and I know we have the Fields, Tanner Ridge, Carriage Station, Tamarack and Sanctuary. >> Yes. >> Would that be something we would want to think about? >> Um yes. Um so we do have um I call that sort of rescue capacity. So it's not >> it so that capacity wasn't intended for new sewer development. >> You would have obviously like Ham Hamlet on and Sunfish and Tapestry you'd have to bring them into the MUSA, >> right? >> And that might create some density issues with the Met Council. >> Yeah. >> As you do that, but um from an engineering standpoint, we need to be mindful of having some rescue capacity in our system as well. >> All right. Um but in particular if suddenly uh there was a desire to expand 120 acres up there also you know that would that would take away from that capacity if we're not planning planning for it. >> All right. In that case, I guess you could look at the area below 15th where the water treatment plant's going to be um between 10th and 15th as a potential area add if I see anything. That's that's the only area that really jumps to mind. 15 15th was the asterisk I could have seen as well because then also the stuff north of 10th next to the school >> potentially could be in the Musa as well. Um, >> oh, to the by yeah to the west of the school >> because obviously yes that's the gun range but it could be in the Musa if they chose to but that would be the only asterisk I could see since it's already along 10th especially given Jack's feedback about efficiency but no I don't have well and honestly say if it's at 15th the other spots that would be left out are the parcel along 20th by Royal And then the parcel south of Heritage, right? Right. Yeah. So those would be the other potential. There's a 20 acre parcel directly north of the Royal that has similar. We got to figure out some different uh zoning for that than I think somebody just threw their hands up in the air quite honestly on that and said we don't know what to do. We should figure that out. Yeah. Where that where that highlighter is right now. Um >> 57 acres. >> Is it 57? >> Yeah. So I could see that being included as well. In the background of this question is of course the some of the conversations we've had about this idea of OPLDDR the potentially seward open space development district where you've got sort of a combination of open space development u which typically has the community septic and lowdensity residential you know having that type of development with sewer um >> I think the juxiposition on right that ying and yang is the density question for the M council. Correct. >> Yes. Yes. >> So >> when you when you talk about the parcel between 10th and 15th and Inwood, are you talking about just east of Inwood or is it potentially west if that were to come out of Egg Preserve at some point? >> Yeah, I mean you could if it ever comes out of Egg Preserve. I guess nobody knows what'll hold in the next >> right >> 20 or 30 years with this cover 25 years. So everything's well really and if you go on the east west side of Inwood up to Tory Pines, you really could if you wanted if we're putting a sewer line that goes up to High Point. If there's something you do and you want to make an efficient sewer system, you could go north of 15th, >> right? For that that's an act preserve. I mean, you could ask a question or we could we could talk about that. I mean, I want to hear other council members takes on that, too. But it just seems you have density in Oakdale. You've got some pretty aggressive build out there. It's not likely a business setting corridor, right? It probably lends itself I'm not a planner, don't pretend to be. Um, lends itself more to a development type uh structure. Same with that 57 acres on the north side of 20th. Oh, with the exception of the the intersection >> right here. You're talking Oh, no. >> This piece. >> Yeah. Yeah. With the a preserve. So, were you saying can we >> It would never nothing would ever >> zone that. Well, >> get it to be part of the Musa. >> You can have it in the Musa. You just don't don't change the zoning, right? >> Yeah. I guess my initial thought would be I think you can have it in the Musa. It would stay the same guidance. Yeah. >> Um, as far as the land you use, it' be egg preserve because it's under an egg preserve agreement. Uh, and you potentially in your phasing plan >> just acknowledging the fact that it's egg preserve. You could put it like post 2050. >> But wouldn't that impact our density then pretty drastically? No, because if you development when you could oh I yeah I guess I don't know the answer to that but I think you could say well it's not impacting the muse of density at this point because it's egg preserve >> but it doesn't count towards the density calculation. >> So the density review that we do for this upcoming um comp plan will be up basically up to 2050. So whatever is in the Musa as of 2050 we have to look at each decade. So, we'll be looking at 2030 to uh 2040 and then 2040 to 2050. My thought is on this egg preserve. Um it's possible if it like makes sense longterm to have it in the Musa to include it in the boundary, but potentially to I think this is workable potentially to put it in a post 2050 time period. So, >> a boundary around it like that says a development beyond 2050 or something. >> Right. So the the phasing map that the city has uh anything in there's a basically um you can have things post you know post planning cycle like we acknowledge this is will be in the Musa >> maybe not for a few decades. >> Okay. >> So I think that could be an answer >> uh and then it wouldn't to your point kind of drag down the density based on its designation. I think it's worth asking the question >> and it honestly would potentially change my feedback because the reason why I said nothing south of 14 I'm fine with that is the sentiment of the public is to slow down change to have green open space but the OP LDR that concept is very similar to the fields it's similar to tapestry it's similar to developments that our community appreciates so if that was a part of the Musa I would have No issue with that whatsoever. And a those parcels which are all south of 14 and north of 10th. So that that would >> but again I guess the same thing. Would that would it work with the density if we did OPU? >> Well, that's some math you got to do. >> Uh a problem for people five 10 years from now. But I would have no problem laying it out there as a possibility. And if a developer can't figure it out, they can't figure it out, right? And if planning staff say this isn't going to work, it's not going to work. But we could still say it's in the mus. But I would only be fine with it for some of those parcels with that OP LDR type concept. Not for not for quarter acre houses, not for condos and town homes. Obviously, >> how long do the a reserves that uh how long is that eight years that they can be in that category? Is it >> longer than it's indefinite as long as the person owns it? I think >> they don't have to renew that. There was something if I thought when we had that conversation >> I thought it was indefinite. >> Yeah, I think it's indefinite. There's an agreement with the property owner. The last one that came out was the uh Bir and Haven idea. That property came out as a result of the death of the property owner. >> Yeah. If if they sell it or they they pass, >> they the new owner doesn't renew it, >> right? >> Yep. >> Okay. Yeah, >> I do appreciate that that topic though because we should be prepared in a hypothetical that's no longer an egg preserve. It can it might happen. It might not happen. It might stay that but we at least should have an answer to be prepared for what that would look like. So part of this question is yeah exactly to that point um you know we foresee if High Point crossing can make it to the finish line. Um there could be other similar requests in front of you particularly along the Inwood corridor as an example if you know there is a sewer available. >> I'm a little unclear on this one. I I I still do feel that I'd prefer not to >> but to Jack's comment about the inefficiency like I want to be mindful of that. Um, so I guess right now I don't really have a I don't feel comfortable saying that we should expand the Musa um to the areas south of Still Water even if we u made it south of 15 even. >> Okay. >> I don't know if I feel comfortable yet with that. >> All right. I can maybe keep this moving and we can always revisit those if you want to provide comments. Can I say something real quick though? This is more about scoping for the comp plan and just studying it. So, if we come back and it's studying and the numbers don't work, it's more of like trying to figure that out. We have other neighborhoods that have talked about um being added to the music because of rescuing their septic. So, we've told them we would look at it during the comp plan. So, we just want to make sure that is this something we want to at least put in the scope to look at. >> Right. I I think we should look at it. I don't think you'd close the door on something just not even inquire about it. I think looking at and trying to determine you know when we project our population and housing needs do we have enough Musa area to accommodate them over the period of you know till 2050 and if we do that's one thing but if we don't then where's the most logical place to expand the MU to accommodate projected growth and some of the areas you talked about you know seem reasonable but I'm I'm kind of open there may be other areas that would make sense, too. Um, you know, where the developers are coming in and asking questions about potential development. We pick an area somewhere and nobody's ever thought about building there. Um, probably isn't such a good choice. And Jack's point too about what do we have available in the area and what are we planning to do that could accommodate more, you know, sewer and water to to accept the MUA. So, I think it's kind of a marriage of all of those things. Where's our infrastructure? Where are developers looking at building? Do we have enough, you know, vacant land within the muse to accommodate our projected growth? All crazy stuff. But I spent weeks thinking about it. >> Good. >> Yeah. And so, you know, just to give you another idea of the perspective that's going on is when we prepare these comp plans and adopt them and report them to Met Council, Met Council builds for that capacity to receive that. So we have two connection points to Met Council and one connection point has on the west side is very constricted because they haven't built it out based on Oakdale and us and other cities contributing there. So you know if you don't plan for it and it's not in there and then a property comes out and you want to expand it you you may not have the capacity without going back to Met Council and waiting you know a decade for them to upgrade their system. So, it's partly a communication tool as well as to what your plans are. >> Triil Lakes, that's >> there is mud. >> So, yeah. Um, these are really important considerations. That's why we're here. So, the Tri Lakes area is another is the second question. Um I I know we've we've heard from the public works team and and the engineering team that a number of residents in that area have uh failed septic systems. These are individual lots with individual septic systems. The lots were platted you know largely in the 1960s which means they're less than an acre a lot of times. So, uh, the question here is, you know, as part of this review of the comprehensive plan, um, is there an openness to considering expansion of the Musa strategically, of course, but into that Tri Lakes area to potentially coincide with bringing public sewer there. Um, the benefits obviously are to those residents that have those failed systems to connect to a city public utility. And in addition to that, you know, just the lakes as a natural resource, you have failing septic systems, it's obviously also a natural resource problem. So, um I you know, on the funding side, you know, that's obviously very much an engineering question. Um but on the planning side, of course, we we do want to just open that discussion uh with you this evening. And if there's an openness to looking at it, we'll consider, you know, um what impact does this have on the city density, you know, and that kind of stuff. So, >> do you have a rough estimate as to how many potential parcels this would involve? >> We did this. Yeah. Here, here's the map. >> Does that it has it on there if you can read it on the left hand side. So, this was a map I put together like three years ago after we received a petition from a handful of residents around Jane Road. Um, we didn't respond to that petition because it wasn't really a concerted centralized area where you could say this is the area that you would serve. It was a scattering of homes around the lake ran random. Um, but it got us thinking that, you know, there is a um first I'll start around Osen Lake. If you look at the green color on the left hand side that that uh there's 13 homes on the west shore that already go to Oakdale that's already in the Musa. And then what we're looking at is that peninsula. We know that the city has uh four remote 2011 systems that need to get replaced and are failing. Um, and I'm and we know of a couple we get reports with those small lots that people are calling and trying to even put septic systems in our rightway because they don't have land to put replacement systems and things like that. So, it's just such a high density area on the lake shore. We anticipate possibly putting a low pressure sewer system in there and bringing that to the Oakdale connection as well. Um, so that's one area that we anticipate with a road project of at least looking into it as part of that feasibility study when we do the road improvement. Then you go back to that light blue on the northshore of Lake Jane and that's the area where we had a request from residents and they call periodically and ask about about what that would be. And so that system would go down to that point on Lake Jane Road and then we would head it east and tie it into the Tapestry. We we sent that lift station to Tapestry. So we'd be doing another lift station at this location and pump it to the Tapestry lift station. So then the question becomes if you're going to do that that light blue area and you're going to design a lift station and force man and stuff, should you be expanding that study? So then you get the different color areas where we're kind of looking where would you expand it and how far? And the farther away you get from the lake, like if you go to the north of of that light blue area, it's kind of gray where you see the 17 homes, 25 homes. Those lots are starting to get pretty big and it's probably less likely that we need to venture into that area, but we don't know. We don't know anything about the septic systems there. We don't know um we haven't done any investigation. So, I would say those are on the low probability of need, but when you're closer to the lake and you see the smaller lots, then it's probably more likely that we'll need to rescue them someday. >> Can we zoom out again on the map? Maybe this helps. So the ones in green on the west side of Olsen, those are the ones that RA are going. >> When when is that potential road update? >> Uh probably in the CIP. >> It's in our CIP in 2029 or 2030. >> So >> So we have a couple years to figure this out, but yeah, >> but it's coming up. >> Yeah. Are there any larger lots there that developers would want to >> on that peninsula? >> Um, no. >> Where we're talking about it. So, when we're when you're talking about the expansion of the Musa here, it'd be specifically where those colors are. >> Yeah. And each color is a another iteration of yes or no, if that makes sense. >> But kind of like that was >> it's kind of like you're starting to get farther and farther out and and it maybe gets less likely But >> is this a similar situation where if you're going to do one, it would be from an engineering standpoint, it just be more efficient to bring all of them in. >> Yeah. >> To the Musa. >> Yeah. If you're going to do if you're going to respond to the petition on Lake Jane that's been in front of us for a few years on that north shore of Lake Jane, you don't want to put any infrastructure in the ground yet until you've kind of got a more concerted idea of where you're going to go. >> Pretty significant cost to those homeowners, right? Yeah, it it's these won't be cheap projects at all. They they will be expensive. So they'll you'll always obviously you'll have resistance from any homeowner that's got a working system and you'll have support from homeowners that need it um because they don't have um the other thing we've learned from the Met Council at least a couple years ago back when this first came up is um they want to see if we're rescuing systems they want to see in uh investigations on the existing systems. They want to see s sort of a survey of how many failing systems there are and we don't have that data. So that's another study in itself for each of these areas of going out and >> the county keep that data. >> They they are the managers of that system but they're not going and inspecting every system. They'll they know which ones have failed or whatever or they're not collectively doing that at one time. So there might be something where we need to partner with them to have a better understanding of which areas are problematic. >> Could we at least like extrapolate based because they have to get inspected when there's a sale and they're going to know yes or no if it failed or passed. Could we then extrapolate to say of the 200 homes that are for sale in last 10 years, 57 were failed. Therefore, you know, one in four chance. Would wouldn't that council appreciate that or do they want every >> So if you wanted to sewer the light blue area, they want and they want all of those inspected and they want to know, you know, 25 of 60 of them are failing and the other the other ones aren't. >> At least that's what they communicated to us a couple years back. And we have five 533 extra wrecks from Tapestry available. This it's because I remember when we did that like it's available but do we have >> be changing out the pumps and doing some upgrades to to do that? >> But the pipes themselves can handle it going eastward. And then um >> how would this affect Well, it wouldn't affect anywhere else because there's nowhere else there that's in the Musa. There's no down downstream there's no downstream impact anywhere else that we'd have to take into account >> there there very well could be. So I mean that is going so that's the other reason we're before you today because when we go to embark on your comp plan amendment we need to relook at the whole you know densities will be changing land uses may be changing things like that we have to hit the three and a half now instead of three units per acre average. So, we do have to look at the whole system and find out where the bottlenecks are um and what changes might be needed as that that will be all part of what we're doing in this next round. So, that's why we're one of the things we want the council thinking about and want some guidance from the council as we enter into this process over the next couple years is what what's on the table and what's not. Yeah, if I can add to that, it's an opportunity to be proactive and the community has had to be very reactive in the last decade with some of the failures and this is really an a a this planning process can serve as an opportunity to be very proactive in in trying to avoid some of the future issues. >> I mean, I'll be honest, I have not had one resident bring it up to me in my five and a half years and then planning commission as well, but obviously they've brought up with staff the north side of Jane. >> Yeah, they have. Well, good. I'm glad I sent them to you. Um, I I fully support in the 200year picture there being sewer there. I I think at some point it will happen. It's a matter of when. And to me, the more important question is is the ability to handle the finances of it for our cost share because it this is unlike anything the city would have would ever undertake. This is a whole other story. This is not bailing out tapestry. This is a whole other story. It'd be one thing if we knew that there's access to federal funds for uh bailing out of homes that are along shores because we care about protecting our waters. I I don't know if this is something the city can take on given at least I have not been given the impression that this is a red flag warning situation, but maybe you've heard different feedback. But again, just, you know, a couple people. It's not a cons. It's those people that have systems that aren't doing that well, >> right? >> I I guess for me, it's still kind of the same of I guess if we can meet the density requirements with what we currently have uh in the MUSA. I don't see a a need to. I I actually am a little bit more open to this one along with another one of the questions about the uh community engagement. I feel pretty confident that if this was brought up that there would be a lot of community engagement. Um and so I think like from that standpoint if if um if this is really something that these residents want and it's brought up to them, you know, I think it's a different story. They fully understand the cost. So, um, like you said, there's going to be obviously the ones with the failing septics are going to be for it and those that have the working are going to be against it. Um, so maybe I guess from my perspective is if as you're going about this process and the with the current Musa area, the density numbers are working. I'd prefer not to expand. And if it can meet with the new population expectations of that 18,000. >> I think that's low. >> That's low. >> I think so. >> We'll know for sure though. I don't know if we will. >> Or is it's all speculative, right? >> Well, I mean that council has a population projection. That's one I use because you're the agency you're dealing with. >> Yeah. >> You want to do something different, then you say, well, they they predict we're going to have 18,000 people. We say we think you're wrong. have 22. You know, how do you >> Well, did and I hear the term >> you just use it. >> But how you were saying it, it's not that we have to have that population. It's that we have the capacity >> the capacity to be there. >> The zoning allows for it. >> That's where I just feel like if we have the capacity to get to that number with the current MUSA, I don't think there's >> need to expand. >> Need to expand outside of like I do want to be mindful of inefficiencies from the engineering standpoint. I mean, in that hypothetical, if it went westward from Tapestry, just continue south and get it to the 180. Like, that's the hard part for me. It's already right there and get rid of the entire agreement with Oakdale. But that's a much larger conversation. Are do we know of examples of something of this scale in nearby communities where they've been taken on 500 plus bailouts in which we're not talking easy to access places. These are heavily wooded, hilly, tight parcels. I mean, is this reasonably feasible in in a >> I don't know of a growing metro community that's in this boat. There are certainly, you know, we are the land of 10,000 lakes and there are certainly um lake land all over the place that have bailed out, you know, done sewer systems around the lake and pumped it to a nearby town or something for their wastewater treatment system or built a wastewater treatment system if they were of large enough scale. Um, so it's that's happened around lake areas in particular. >> The Minnetonka area stands out to me. You know, all of those properties I think have access to sewer. So, and a lot of them may have existed before the sewer came. So, >> and they're difficult projects because you have the small tight lots right on the lake side and right on the and then you're putting the sewer on the road and the back side is a big big lot and they don't want it. You know, then or >> do you recall the house that came before planning and planning commission when we were on it and it was like a it was a substandard lot and the only way they could do it was with a mound system >> because of the there was like one place it could fit. I think there there's a lot of lots in here. Like they don't have a mound system. the only way they're going to make it is a mountain system, which I don't have a problem with a mountain system. Some people say they're unsightly. Well, that's what you've got. That's where you're at. That's what you got to do. Um, but I I I think we should look at it and see if it makes sense. Is there any other areas where they're all septic and they're 20 years old or something and they're close by, you know, that we should consider as well? I was kind of looking, you know, in that area. >> Well, but even if you look north of there, those lots are larger. You have different area. They're at least two and a half acre lots up there on >> Yeah. >> to the north of that, right? >> Yeah. >> So, >> I was looking at that that land immedately west of the Royal. I think they're all on septic. I don't know how old that neighborhood is. >> Um along on >> along Lake Elmo Avenue. >> Yep. >> The east side of Lake Elmo Avenue and west of Royal. >> I think those are all set. But I don't know how old they are. My only thought was again, if we have some neighborhoods that are 20 years old and they're all septic and they're adjacent to the Musa, it may be we're going to have a failed septic system bailout. Anyway, >> Homestead and >> Yeah, Homestead. Yeah. So, Homestead has reached out to us about studying their area. >> And so, that's kind of some of the others you might want to look at. Say, if we're going to play with this music game, maybe we should address those issues. >> Is Homestead on community or is that each individual? >> An individual. >> Each individual. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And they were the neighborhood that was supposed to get streets from the water >> that we were looking at to get streets. Yep. >> And then that stopped. >> Anyway, there another thought I had is there are some adjacent areas like that may make some sense. >> It's it's another one where the there's very few lots for that length of road. So, it's it would be a very very expensive >> expensive >> sewer project. Whereas >> there is the reality of that for a lot of your areas that are existing like like Tory Pines and and Whistling Valley. I don't know that you'd ever go in there with sewer because there's just too the lots are just way too large. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And if we look at them and we say it doesn't make sense that their plots are big enough they can have a se a new area for another septic or whatever, then we can set it aside and say we looked at that. >> Yeah. >> Just I'd hate to ignore it and then come back and say, "Well, why didn't we think of that? I mean, I have no issue obviously with doing some level of due diligence on this. I think to Matt's point on this, again, I'd be curious then, say it gets to a certain point in the analysis where you're starting to look at the density numbers. Yes, a lot of these parcels are not two acres, but a lot of them are acre. A lot of them are 08 to 0.9. We're not talking quarter acre ones that are the traditional in the Musa. So, I'd be curious if you took 500 of those, >> does that mean we're >> in our 2050 upsizing some of our certain future other places in the Musa or at least increasing the density to make sure the capacity exists for 18,000? But never mind. That makes no sense. >> It's too diff. >> Well, >> it did because you're using bigger lot sizes to get that 3 point whatever per acre >> for the acre. Yeah. Yeah. Because it Yeah. So saving, you know, to that point, saving some of these parcels that are smaller that are around the lakes may have not a very not very an outsized effect on meeting the 3.5 across the community. >> Oh, yeah. 1.6, 2.2, 3.3. There there are some there are some very large plots on the lakes and there are others that are half acre, but there aren't any that are, you know, eighth of an acre or fifth of an acre. >> Yeah. you see a lot of point8s 6 maybe at the smallest end you know so pretty >> in the Musa you know be a larger property but you know with septic systems they're quite small >> yeah I mean I I have I agree with others I it's worth studying to me the far larger concern is the the cost and the ability for the city to take on that type of project I would absolutely want there to be a grant that we take years to find from an external source to make sure we could handle that. >> I think we've gotten some good feedback on that. So, thank you. And, you know, if you think about things, obviously welcome to reach out to staff. The last question in the Musa discussion we have for you is just kind of to that point about uh the balance uh that we have to maintain. So to compensate for increasing the area of the Musa or potentially adding areas at lower densities, we do have to make up for that by increasing density somewhere somehow in the community. There's a couple of ways to do that. Generally, it's either to um you know reguide new areas at higher densities um that are like more focused areas at higher densities, new future land use categories, things like that. or generally speaking kind of raise the the minimums across the board. Um or some combination of the two strategies. So just some initial thoughts, you know, don't need to dive into super great detail. This is, as I think someone said, kind of a numbers game that we play as we get into the comp plan. So just some general ideas about where and at what levels of density you would want to see. Of course, staff would be not looking to increase it, you know, beyond what what has to what has to be present in the community. That's feedback we've already heard. So, just some just curious about your initial thoughts. >> Is the 3.5 units per acre citywide is that based on units that have been developed or that could be developing lands? So, only land to be developed. So um we're looking at the 3.5 um basically that the city has to average within the Musa 3 and a half. Um and then we're also required by the Met Council to look at uh development by decade to ensure in this upcoming cycle that each decade will be hitting that three and a half. I guess my gut would be the rad areas on the north side of 10th all the way from Inwood all the way to the school would be one place since we already have sewer access. It's keeping it south. I I I think residents do understand that every 10th give or take all the way at 94 is an area of of development. it is an area of commerce and that our areas north and closer to 36 are the areas that we want to be preserving. So I I think that would be the first place would be the north side of 10th >> and make it transitioning from commercial to residential higher density makes a nice transition. >> Yeah. So, so to kind of dive further into this, um, we could also, you know, as part of this review, there's a fair amount of land that's in the, you know, south growth area just north of 94 that's already within the MUSA. One opportunity or option that the city has is to actually increase the density in those lands that are already within the Musa. So, just want to put put that out as an option. Yes, >> I was going to mention that as well because we've had issues with that with a parcel just east of Keats in terms of it's got the mixed use of business and residential Kramer Lake. That'd be an example. >> So, just west of Lake Elmo. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> I don't know that it's it doesn't seem like commercial makes sense there to me. Makes sense more over on Heats and Manning, but >> Yep. Y >> um I mean you could you could put the density in there. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> If there's an opportunity to do the jigsaw puzzle and because we obviously have a goal we want to widen the tax base with business but obviously it's not working there. If there's an opportunity to if you need density I would say that's a spot as well. >> We had that one presentation some time ago on that land on the west side of Manning right near 10th was like about 750 housing units. remember >> it's a Limmerch village. >> Yeah. And they had the a number of apartments and town homes and one of the points they made was where they're putting the apartment buildings was Manning and adjacent to the commercial and then transition to town home and then single family and that made a lot of sense from a planning purpose and also would help us get our density. >> Understood. So we'll we'll we'll consider strategies like that that you've kind of already provided as feedback. So, >> just to clarify, is this because what are we at currently for our density? >> Uh, the city is above three units per acre citywide. I think you're at somewhere around 3.2 3.15 318 or something like that. >> So, the question is really is how are we getting from 3.18 to 3.5 or is this is this saying if we you know to your questions one and two from today if we expand the MUSA area how are we going to compensate for that or >> it's it's both. It's both. So we need to as the city get above three and a half units per acre. So we're looking at what we have already. In addition to that, if we add new areas, we have to take that into account as well. >> So if if we to your questions one and two from today, if we do expand the Musea area, we're going to have to do even more drastic increases of density. >> Yep. That that that is true. Like you will have to compensate for it. It makes the potential bailout of the fields and a couple of places to the northeast then that you do that then we're increasing it elsewhere. >> I think some of them >> well unless we take the areas where you expand them use and make them high density. >> Well, no for bailing out like if you bail out acre and a half lots >> some of those would be close. Yeah, >> one one wrinkle to the bailing out thing. Um, if the city has a certification that the system has failed, which probably is not a a majority of the properties that you would be saving or bailing out, um, those don't count against net density. So, there is some amount of credit that the city would get from bailing people out, but you know, the likelihood that, >> you know, a large percent is is failing is probably >> which helps with community septics if it's failing because then it's just >> the whole thing. >> All of them. Yep. >> Yeah. >> But it matters from a capacity perspective to Jack's point. So just because it doesn't hurt us from a 3.5 perspective, >> the Met Council still has to be able to take the wastewater at this hard. >> Okay. Um, have we had enough fun with sewer? >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Hopefully an easier question for you. So, in reviewing the existing comp plan, just taking a look at the level of community engagement provided, um it seems like the the last round was a little bit more of a light touch. There was definitely still engagement that was done. There was a task force that was put together. Um the it appears that the staff attended certain um community events. It wasn't clear that anything like open houses were provided or some other more uh maybe direct opportunities for residents to engage. So really the basic question to the city council is um what types of engagement would you imagine is is important in the next cycle >> and something like this is a 20 year document all of the above in my opinion. >> Yeah. I I did get some feedback that the last round was light touch and um I'd rather go in the opposite direction so nobody can claim that they didn't have a voice. So >> I think one thing we have now you know with our newsletter and the focus that ability to reach more people and tell them you know where these events will be. >> Yeah. >> Because it's always you know the difficult thing people say I don't know I don't know. So I think an effort to put it in front of their face and give them the opportunity to choose to participate or not. >> I don't personally I don't think you can ask too many questions. >> There's never enough community engagement. I mean that's the real answer. But it it is it is expensive. So it's it's about balance. >> That's true. Well, >> I mean as to it what what make I guess you know as to what makes sense. I think you need to do some of those things. Have a have a advisory commission to that. I think you do need to have some open houses. Um, present, you know, have a board at National Night Out or things of that nature and use social media to get information out. So, >> I mean, does it need to be weekly? No. Does it can it be just one time? No. So find the happy spot >> maybe for six months would work real well >> well and it needs to be also intentional is not the right word but it needs to be integrated. The surveys are serving this purpose. The community events are serving this purpose. So they each have their own purpose but they all align to certain goals. You can do surveys all you want but >> how is it interwoven with your community event involvement? How is it interwoven with your task force? because you don't want things to be duplicative either. So that that to me is probably the more important question is how are they integrated and connected to that higher purpose. Is it because we want them to answer a specific question? Is it because we want them just to be an open book? Is it because we have certain plans in front of them and boards for them to provide open feedback? Like there's 20 different ways to do it. So I >> I mean I need to be a goal leaf. I would like, you know, if I'm looking at I'm looking at better better than what was done last time, not uh, you know, yellow yellow brick road >> once the process really gets going. How long is it? >> Is it a two-year process, one year process? >> Year to two years? >> It depends. Yeah, it can depend on the the level of um complexity and the things that you look at, but two years isn't out of the ordinary. And I remember going to the open houses for the 2040 >> open houses like there were multiple. >> I think there was at least two that I went to and I thought that at the time they were well attended but the community was also going through a lot of conversations at the time. >> So there's a reason why I they felt like they were well attended. >> Um I'm I'm hearing a lot lot of good feedback. So I I think that's really helpful. If there's more comments again you're welcome to to share them. In the interest of keeping us moving, just want to touch on the last discussion point. Um, you know, special areas of concern. Are there things that, you know, we haven't talked about tonight or um that aren't necessarily minimum requirements of the comprehensive plan, but that you think are important enough to the community to to merit consideration. Um, you know, things like that could include some of the water quality or quantity situ uh conversations the community has had relative to POS appropriations or urban development pressures in the metro area, things like that. Um, on the side of this, just want to mention that there are parts of this comprehensive plan update that will be more um, comprehensive than the last time around. Um, or at least there are updates that are necessary to the transportation and trail plans, the drinking water supply plan, and the sanitary sewer or water resources planning. So, um those are just some of the areas that will have pretty significant focus. But, uh in addition to those, what other special areas of concern might there be? >> And this can be open-ended and it doesn't have to be answered tonight. >> I mean, I think the water quality quantity, I'd hate to not focus on that. Obviously, it's been a big it's kind of become a key thing that we focused on for the last several years. Anyways, um I mean obviously hopefully a lot changes between now and 2030. Um I think it'd be smart to plan to be more comprehensive on those topics as we planning out for the next decade. >> Wouldn't that part of the drinking water plan though? Really? >> Yeah. there you know these topics the water quality and quantity would obviously be mentioned as part of the plan um just try to identify yeah >> yeah if I can um add a little bit here so traditionally um when you come out once you've once you really settle on your land use and density and things like that you have to look at your infrastructure systems and typically you have published comprehensive sewer water and transportation plans as as those documents and the summaries are in the comp plan so if you look at your 2040 comp plan. Those are really summary documents. The last go you had that in 2030. In 2040, um the direction from the city was a minimalist plan. So, um the comp plan met council has basically their requirements and the and what was done was to meet their requirements. The drinking water plan is a water supply plan that meets DNR requirements. So you follow their template, their format, and it has good information in there or whatever, but they're not they're not the plans that say, well, how are you going to distribute the water? How are you going to build your sanitary sewer system? So those are the added points that really need to be done because your your infrastructure plans are outdated. We now have just stacks of individual technical memorandums as we study this area and this area and then we come and we present those. you don't have a comprehensive plan on on those infrastructure systems and those really need to be refreshed and updated and those technical memorandums all rolled into one document once you have your land use set for what you're planning to do through 2050. To that point, I think water should be as comprehensive as possible in it in terms of how do we get there in terms of communicating to the public. Here's in fact a actual plan that that helps for context because I guess I didn't realize that there's other supplemental pieces that are not in the comp plan that >> Yeah. you haven't published a a new comp plan, water plan since 2020 or 20 something like that. So >> because it we pull up the comp plan, I mean somewhat weekly depend upon how things are going. I guess I always thought that that was everything. Um but yeah, I don't think you can on the topic of water ever be short on how much we put in there and how comprehensive it is because well I don't even need to explain why but it is both the quality and the quantity piece. I don't know if the urban development pressures as an example is something that would rise to that level. Something that I think needs to be very intentional, but it's not at a special extreme, is making sure that all three of our school districts are aware of our process and that they actually participate and attend and so they are aware of what's going on population here. I have full confidence that our that as a example 834 will make sure they're here, but our school districts, all of them need to be aware of all of their communities and what's happening so that they can prepare and plan properly because that did not happen last time around. They didn't participate one bit. Is there any logic in talking about changing demographics in the community and how that will affect the services people will need, want, demand? >> There will be a demographic section for sure in the comp plan. So that would be there as a minimum requirement. um Alexa if if the population is going the median age is going to go from 32 to 39 over the period or something how would that change the expectation recreation um those type of things. >> So having you know uh having the plan informed by the demographics in the community any changes that might be happening. >> Yeah. >> Some of you guys will age a lot by the time 2050 comes right turn right. how I'm going to get my wheelchair down the road. >> See, that could be included. >> Well, I just meant people have different expectations over that planning period as they and maybe the age isn't going to change and but it would would kind of tend to determine, you know, what does your community look like 20 years from now if your average median age goes from 30 to 40. >> What I'm hearing is having some analysis on the front end about how the community may be changing before the land use, as an example, is baked. gonna need to get a new magic eightball. >> Those still exist. >> Yeah, dude. >> This has been helpful. I don't know if there's more feedback. It's welcome if there is. >> Well, it's hard because every one of those chapters matters, right? Every topic matters, but I think water probably clear in a way is the one that our residents probably want to know the most about. And I think it's just been we always get the feedback of you haven't done enough about it with the water. It's like well I think a lot has happened obviously but just to to make it really clear that it is something we're trying to be strategic about and and be proactive as much as we can even with changing expectations as we're going year to year. >> True. >> Jack, is there anything that we didn't talk about that we should? Y all good. All right. Wow. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So exciting stuff. Have put my glasses away. Shame on me. Um, at the next meeting, we do have a planning commission interview uh special meeting beforehand. Uh, we'll have a presentation from the Youth Service Bureau. On the regular agenda, we'll get an update on the quarterly goals. Look at the bids on the 90 94 lift station force main improvements and the second quarter dashboard. So that quarterly goals update and second quarter dashboard similar those be combined >> kind of similar but different. The quarterly goals is directly reporting on the goals from the strategic planning and the quarterly dashboards are the metrics that um maybe previous council or yourselves agreed to have staff tracking certain metrics that they report on. >> All right, with that I'm going to journ this evening's meeting at 9:17.