All right. Um, welcome all. Going to call the city council meeting for the city of Lake Elmo, Tuesday, October 21st. Order. If you'll please stand with me for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Uh first order of business is approval of the agenda as it's uh before you. I'll entertain a motion for approval of set agenda unless you have something to add or move. >> Move to approve the agenda. >> Second. Have a motion in a second to approve the agenda. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. Agenda is approved. Do we have anybody with public comments or inquiries tonight? Julie agenda. >> Not till the agenda item. Okay, perfect. So, we have the minutes from 92 of 25 in the uh packet. I'll entertain a motion unless there's some issues with the agenda or the meeting minutes from 92 of 25. >> Motion to approve the minutes as written. >> Second. >> Have a motion and second to approve the minutes from 92 of 25. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. Minutes are hereby approved. Consent agenda items are approve payments and dispersements, approve 2026 LMCIT statutory tort limits, approve inwood town homes first edit edition development agreement, approve Savona fourth edition security release. Approve pay request number four for the 2025 street utility be project. Approve pay request number one for the I94 lift station and force main improvements. Approve pay request number one for the Reed Parking lot improvements. Approve pay request number two for the Stillwater School District utility improvements. Approve pay request number four. Final one for well number two PAS removal equipment. Approve pay request number two for the Village Parkway UP Railroad crossing improvements. Approve the 2026 benefit renewal. Approve implementation plan for Minnesota paid leave. And that's what we've got. Uh if I can get a motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Motion to approve consent agenda. >> Second. We have a motion and second to approve the consent agenda. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Consent agenda is approved. Moving into our regular agenda, we have the 2026 street and utility public improvement hearing. Uh, good evening, mayor and council. Um so tonight I have before you uh an item to order the improvement for the 2026 street and utility improvements. So um you you've seen this before um a lot of this information, but I'm going to kind of recap the findings of the feasibility report and the recommendations moving forward. Um so uh we'll we'll go over a handful of items tonight. So, the 2026 street improvement project is proposed for the Lake Elmo Heights neighborhood with uh getting into the Eagle Creek Point Estates neighborhood as well. This is we'll just say this area is adjacent to that segment of Inwood Avenue that was just rehabilitated by uh Washington County this year. Um so last month uh council accepted the feasibility report and ordered the public improvement hearing tonight. Um pending results of the hearing uh we'll we'll move into or pending results of council action we'll move into um final design of the project. So to recap findings of the feasibility study, um the geotech report indicates that area roadways can be uh improved with reclamation. Uh this strategy has been used quite a bit in Lake Elmo. Um and the reconstruction of the streets in the neighbor in these neighborhoods will match the existing street widths generally uh profile and geometrics. Um and the streets should also be reconstructed with concrete curb and gutter specifically uh B418 style curb and gutter uh to maximize the life cycle of the streets. Uh per public works policy uh no parking restrictions will be proposed around culde-sac ends. We're not proposing any other um no parking restrictions as all the streets have adequate width. Um we'll be looking into the drainage systems in the area and recommending replacements of storm sewer structures or other drainage systems is necessary. Uh the the neighborhoods are already uh served by existing public water main. Uh that water man was put in approximately 20 years ago. No improvements are um recommended to the system at this time. We will work with public works to do a thorough inspection of valves, hydrants, things like that in case um we do need to make kind of a one-off um uh repair. Um and the streets uh this this this these this area is outside of the mun the Musa boundary and uh we're not proposing to extend any sort of sanitary sewer into the area at this time. So again, this is a graphic showing the improvement areas. You've got Lake Emerald Heights is bounded by Stillwater Boulevard and Inwood Avenue there. Uh one culde-sac off of Still Water up on the north end. And then uh Eagle Creek Point Estates neighborhood is actually the the Culdeac is Inwood Avenue. Again, to touch on those parking restrictions I mentioned, we're just proposing those around Culdeac Ends. Um the preliminary the the feasibility report did do a calculation of preliminary project estimate here. Um per city policy 30% of the project costs are eligible for assessment. Uh those costs have been tabulated uh in you know as shown on the slide here. Um, so you know, the for for Lake Emo Heights generally you've got about a $15,000 assessment for for per per lots. Uh, the Lake Emo Heights Culdeac, it actually has a number of smaller lots on on the street. Um, so their assessments will lower at $6,800. And then E Creek Point Estates, again, sort of like the Lake Heights neighborhood is larger lots and their assessment is proposed at just 16,000 at the moment. These are the properties proposed to be assessed as part of that project cost. And so tonight, uh we'll be holding a public hearing per the state statute 429 process. Um, following that hearing, I'm seeking council action to approve a resolution ordering the improvement for the 2026 student utility uh improvements, the preparation of final plans and specifications uh per feasibility report and also authorizing the city administrator to enter into a contract with Bulman for final design and bidding phase services not to exceed $138,600. With that, there are any questions? I'll stand for those now. Otherwise, I'll stand aside for the public hearing. >> Any questions? First of the engineer. >> Um, just one real quick. So, just looking at the last part, the 138,000. I'm just trying to compare that to last year's um amount and I think last year might have been a little bit different how it was segmented up and maybe into a few different parts. >> Is >> so Yep. Go ahead. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. I'm just, you know, looking at it, it looks like it was closer to about a just under $100,000 that we were looking at for that contract. Is there additional work? Is that just the increase in in prices or is there additional factors different than what it was last year with maybe the kind different contract? >> Yep. So, we we have a comparable project. Obviously, pricing does go up yeartoear. Um, this I just want to stress that this is a not to exceed. >> Sure. And this does include both staff time and you know and and the project's team time. So last year those two numbers were separated if you may recall. >> Yep. >> Um so this is a combination of those numbers. Um I worked for Mink as a consultant to the city and uh this is a not to exceed based on uh an estimated um soft cost in the feasibility report. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Yeah. Anything else? If not, I'll entertain a motion to open the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor of opening the public hearing for uh improvements for the 2026 street utility improvements. Please signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Open hearing is now at 710. If anybody would like to speak on the public hearing, you can do so now. All right. I'll entertain. Oh, got one. All right. >> Please state your name and uh address for the record, please, sir. >> Yeah. My name is Jim Greenguard. I live at 2677 Imperial Avenue. And I guess one question I have or concern is when do we plan on what's a long range plan for sewer development in that proposed area because if you're going to put in a new street and two years later you're going to put in the sewer, there isn't much sense to do it. >> At this time we have no plans of uh putting sewer in that area. It's not within the metropolitan utility service area. So it's still maintained through your current septic systems. Another question I have is what is the costbenefit analysis of concrete curb versus asphalt? >> Well, as a standard, we use concrete curb because we have used batuminous curb in the past and it doesn't last very long. It doesn't as well as concrete curb and gutter and that the snow plows tend to chew up the batuminous curb and gutter. >> So, it will last over and above what asphalt curve was. So that we did a costbenefit analysis. >> Absolutely. We did not do a costbenefit analysis. No, >> we did not perform a costbenefit analysis. >> We don't need to. >> No, it's the standard to put in the concrete curb and gutter. >> Oh, is there is that a law? >> It's in it's in our standard plates for the engineering for city of Lake Elmo. >> Okay. >> It's not law. Thank you. >> Good evening, council. Uh Steve Meyer, 8301 27th Street North. U question for engineer Mr. Stanley. Um in terms of the complete removal versus a mill and overlay, um do you have any comments about choosing one versus the other? there would assume that the mill and overlay much much more economical than a a full replacement. >> Um I'll I'll I'll answer that right now if council's okay, >> please. >> Yep. So um what I didn't get into in our presentation tonight was some of the things that have been shared at at you know some of the open houses and things like that. These streets are actually not eligible for a mill. They're not good candidates for a millin overlay treatment. Um the deterioration of the asphalt is such that any sort of mill and overlay will just throw the totally tear the streets apart. Um once they've kind of cracked full depth like they have full depth asphalt failure the they have to be either reclaimed or torn out and completely reconstructed. And so the reclamation approach what we do is we grind the existing asphalt and mix it with the underlying existing aggregate base and reuse that as the aggregate base. But these streets are too far gone to be milled and overlaid. >> Thank you. >> Mhm. >> Undertain a motion to close the public hearing. Motion to close public hearing. Second board. >> We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Public hearing is closed. Entertain a uh motion uh for discussion. Motion to approve resolution number 2025-070 ordering the improvements for the 2026 street and utility improvements in preparation of plans and specifications for the recommended improvements outlined the feasibility report dated September 9th 2025. >> Second. We have a motion and a second discussion. I >> Yeah. >> Oh yeah. >> Council member Holtz. I was going to say thank you to Jim and Steve for coming to the hearing first and asking your questions. I I hope the concerns were addressed, but thank you for coming and doing that. We with public hearing at this stage, usually we we don't often, so thank you for coming and doing that. Um I don't have any specific concerns. I thank you Nate for the report and uh and know in those streets that I think this is a very reasonable use of expenditures. >> I'll I'll just add that again. Yeah. these roads obviously they need it. Um and I think it was a great question with the the concrete curb. I think this kind of comes up in the the next agenda item here as well. Um potentially with where maybe we've seen some of those issues. Um >> I know it's been kind of been brought up at every single time we we go through this process and um that's definitely been something that we've looked at and really have you know done the research on. Yeah. Yeah. I don't think the cost analysis was cost benefit was done on this one, but I think that has been done previously to make that policy decision is kind of why that's in our policy for our pavement management plan. So, um yeah, any other discussion? Hearing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor of resolution 2026-070, please signify by saying I. I >> resolution passes. Undertain a motion on the u authorizing city administrator. >> Motion to authorize the city administrator to enter into a contract with Bolton Mink, Inc. for the final design bidding phase services in the not to exceed amount of $138,600 for the 2026 street and utility improvements. >> Second. We have a motion in a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, I'll call the question. And all those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Uh, authorization passes. Okay. Item number two. I guess you get to stay up there, Mr. Stanley. Public hearing. Adopt final assessment role for the 2025 street utility improvements. >> Sorry, I need a little technical assistance here. I'm not that kind of engineer, you know. There you go. >> All righty. Sorry for the brief interruption. Mayor and Council, um before you is an item to adopt the final assessment role for the 2025 street utility improvements. Um so I'm going to recap kind of a uh summary of the improvements, go over the locations again, and then talk about the final assessments which actually uh went down for folks here. So the 2025 project uh was spread across a handful of neighborhoods in the northwest part of town. Um there's Irish Court, Teal Pass Estates, Lake Demo Vista, Prairie Hamlet, Rolling Hills Estates, and Jewith Mary Manor. Um this uh generally um a lot of these uh streets were um you know subdivisions that had no maintenance until except for maybe some light duty surface treatments like uh you know chip seals and just patching. So full depth reclamation of the streets was completed uh along with installation of new concrete curb and gutter the B418 style that we've seen a lot of success with. Storm to repairs including the installation of drain tile and trans improvements were completed and there was no extension of new public water or sanitary sewage lines with this project. If you if council recalls it was considered as there were some neighborhoods that were eligible but the assessments were simply um too high for folks. So looking at the final assessment tabulation um Irish court um initially was estimated at $10,700 for those folks uh on on that culde-sac. Um their final assessment is $8,300. Uh Teal Pass Estates um a bit higher 17,500. Their assessments down to 13,500. Um this would be the 55th 57th Julip Ways that um Rolling Hills Estates Lake EML Vista Mary Judith Manor neighborhood uh their initial preliminary assessments were estimated $14,200 and uh they're down to 11,000. One correction uh to this neighborhood before I continue. I I just want to make council aware. There was a property that was identified in the preliminary assessment role that had no work done in front of their property. Uh it was there was some confusion between uh an old project and the current feasibility report when it was being developed that it was listed as a um property that was going to benefit from the project. the it's it was a flag lot with just a little bit of frontage uh at the intersection of 57th and 55th Streets in North um and that intersection was not included in the scope of improvements in this um in this project. So that that property has been removed from the assessment role. That said, we did we did not choose to recalculate any of the final assessments. So those will remain at 11,000 for the remaining 15 properties. and I'll I'll be happy to entertain any questions on that matter um here too. Um so moving on in the Lake Elmo Vista neighborhood uh the assessments are are down from 22 a little over 22,000 to over 17. Uh there is a half half unit there. Uh that is a a property that just had their their primary access is off of um a different roadway, but they chose to maintain a driveway off of a secondary driveway off of um 55th Street North. And in Prairie Hamlet, those are down from 7750 to $6,000. Overall, the assessments were reduced by a little over 22,000 or 22% for everybody. And that uh was um applied equally across the board from neighborhoods as there were no significant change orders or or big changes in any of the the areas. So again just to recap this was Irish Court. This is a little tighter view of our areas. This was Teal Pass Estates. Um so the property that was ex this is the um 55th 57th Julip area. That property that was excluded that was originally included was that lot on the far west end of the neighborhood 9696 55th Street North. You can see that's a a relatively large flag lot. Um that intersection was improved at a different time and the improvements actually did not extend pardon me into the intersection with this project. So that was a that was an error. Uh this is 55th Street North Lake Vista. Again, the blue property or the the bluish color, that's the one with the um secondary access. That's seeing a 50% assessment. And then this is the Prairie Hamlet neighborhood. So again, um, council will be, uh, opening for a public hearing. Uh, after that hearing, I, um, I'm asking council, I'm slightly modifying my requested action. I'll be asking council to approve, uh, the resolution adopting the final assessment role as modified, removing 969655th Street North from the role. >> With that question, >> could you go back to that 9696 parcel? I'm trying to understand. So, it doesn't front on any street. So, would it ever be assessed? >> It should have been. So, uh, excellent question, Council Member Dragitch. It actually it comes out right in the intersection like it's another leg of it is where the driveway comes out. Um, in the 2017 street utility improvements, 55th Street North was included and those improvements extended through the intersection um, just to the end of Radius on 55th Street and 57th Street. >> That property should have been included with those improvements to be assessed and they were not. >> Um, looking at uh, I I spoke with the property owner uh, today. um and also with uh other engineering staff and the city attorney. And it was our opinion that we there's not a way to retroactively assess for that project. >> And so that's that's an error on on focus from, you know, 2017's, you know, project. So, >> thank you. >> Yeah. >> Any other questions for city engineer? Not hearing any. I'll entertain a motion to open the public hearing. >> So moved. Support. >> All right. All those in favor of opening the public hearing for resolution of the 2025 street utility project. Please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Open hearing for the project. So we have somebody that would like to speak. Um, when you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record. I have uh Katherine Todd. >> Good evening. I'm Katherine Todd. I live at 99615th Street North. And I want to thank you for allowing me to speak this evening. Mayor Kaden had members of the city council, city staff, and my fellow residents. I'm here to talk about this $17,200 assessment plus 5 and a half% interest over 15 years for street utility improvements that will not only severely financially burden me, but also are fundamentally unjust, I believe, given what I've already contributed to Lake Elmo. When I purchased my property in 2019 for $435,000, I believed I was investing in a fair, thriving community. Since then, I've paid roughly $35,000 in city related costs, the taxes and fees, and prior assessments with minimal return or infrastructure. In less than six years, the city has doubled my taxable value of my home without my making appreciable meaningful improvements to my property. The city has appropriated roughly 25% of my land as watershed that I still pay taxes on and I still purchased. installing a new drainage that empties lawn and pesticide runoff downhill from all of my neighbors and street oils and contaminants directly onto my property adjacent to my well. This increases both maintenance demands and chemical exposure risk to myself and my family. In 2019, ironically, the city required me to relocate my entire septic field at a personal cost of over $30,000 right after I moved in, claiming that it was less than a foot. I think it was six inches to be exact, too close to that very watershed. Ironically, this new street project increased the water runoff into that same area, the very land that I was told I needed to protect. During construction of the new street this summer, four of my mature trees were cut down for convenience to the contractors. My ingground sprinkler system was pulled up, as was my electronic dog fence along my entire property line. Repairs for improving those as soon as the project's finished is estimated by those contractors at over $3,600. Despite my paying $800 for an official survey before this project began to define my legal easement rights, the city denies all liability for these damages. Altogether, I've spent over $72,000 towards city related requirements and impacts before the $17,200 assessment is even added to the total. Unlike most property owners paying similar taxes, I receive no city water, no utilities, no sewer services. I rely on my own private well, my own purification system, my own septic system that I maintain entirely at my own expense. Meanwhile, the groundwater serving my well lies within the 3M chemical contamination zone, something the city has known about and receive settlement funds to address. Yet, no mitigation or support has been provided to protect my water. So, I must ask, why am I being taxed and assessed as though I receive full municipal services when I do not? Across the Twin Cities, residents who pay comparable property taxes to mine typically enjoy city water, city sewer, managed storm systems, street lighting, regular maintenance, and stable public utility infrastructure. In contrast, my property in Lake Elmo receives none of these core services. Yet, I'm being charged a high personal tax burden on increasing value of my home that I cannot control and thousands more for street projects that reduce my usable land, increased runoff to my property, and damaged my property, respectively. The imbalances between what I pay and what I receive is significant and indefensible under the fair assessment standard. In my opinion, city assessments are meant, as you know better than anyone, to reflect the benefit received by property owners. In my case, the benefit is negligible and the harm is measurable. The city drainage project directly pollutes runoff onto my land. This improvement decreases my property's environmental safety and I'm being asked to finance it through an interestbearing assessment over the next 15 years. six years ago when the city forced me to pay $30,000 to protect the water quality that today the city is now undermining with this project and expecting me to pay again is not equity. It feels like exploitation. As someone who works for a cancer nonprofit and a widow who lost her husband just after she moved to Lake Elmo, the idea that my own well could now further be compromised by this project feels deeply distressing and to be forced to pay for that risk with interest alone feels profoundly unjust. I ask the council to respectively consider abating or reducing my 17,200 assessment or eliminating the interest in in the understanding that my property is the entire neighborhood's wershed. Offset damages perhaps to the trees, the sprinklers, the fencing, and lost land that I still pay taxes on. reduce my property taxes by the 25% that is now functional watershed. Provide an attemption exemption or a partial waiver. Delay any collection or commit to environmental testing and remediation to ensure that my well is not now at increased west risk. Additionally, I propose that a forensic accounting assessment by a third party be considered to determine where settlement money and tax monies are being used in equity and ethical usage for all residents of Lake Elmo. In closing, I ask the council to see me not as a revenue, but as a resident, a resident who believes in this community and who has paid more than her fair share. I am not asking for special treatment or an avoidance of civic responsibility. only that my contributions be met with fairness, proportionality, and respect for the principle that assessment should benefit reflect actual benefit, not a blanket policy. Please consider this assessment carefully. It has profound impact on me. Choose to uphold the trust and the fairness and the integrity that make Lake Elmo the kind of community that we all want to live in. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you, Miss Dodd. You >> we did receive uh an email from a Mr. So, John Bourbon requesting something uh reducing their assessment hearing due to being assessed for some work that was done back in was that 2017, 2011 I want to say based on roadway design. Um and I believe all the um city council members have received that. Yeah. As it was approved in 2010 street improvement plan. It's a lengthy letter and I don't plan on reading it in front of everybody at this point in time unless somebody requests me to. With that, I'll entertain a motion to close a public hearing. >> So moved. Support. >> We have a motion and second to close the public hearing at this time. Uh all those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. I. Public hearing is closed at 7:35. Question for Mr. Stanley. Are you aware of said trees that needed to be removed? Were those in the public right away at Miss Todd's residence? Were they with within the boulevard? >> Mr. Mayor, yeah, I'm not aware of the specific tree she speaks of, but they would have either had to have been in the um right ofway or some sort of utility easement. >> Would have been the same for I don't know how to handle that one. Um, if you can show Mr. Stanley on a map. >> The trees. You can see my property is 9961. >> You see the trees that are right there on my property. They were within the easement. What I was told was the contractor wants to be able to use his um backhoe or loader easily in that area and it would be inconvenient. One of the people who maintains that area um and did our clean out last year of that drainage um said that they didn't believe that it was going to be in the way and they believe the trees could stay. this. I asked the supervisor to come on property, asked them to do whatever they could to help me save the trees that were clearly within my property line, and he said, "No, take the trees down. It's inconvenient if the contractors spend more time trying to maneuver around that tree. They're the cluster of trees." Um, it could cost the city more money for them to have to take the time to do that. So, they took the trees down. trees are valuable between $1,000 and $10,000 for mature trees and I believed it was worth consideration and I did my best to try to campaign for that. They were not in the roadway or on the easement in any way, shape or form. >> The dog fence goes along the entire property line and that entire thing has to be taken out. Same with the underground sprinkler system, >> right? The dock fence was within my use. >> Those are in the right away then. >> Yeah. Okay. >> The dock wasn't >> wasn't >> it was the doc the doc fence wasn't for convenience for the curb. They took out twice as much area as they needed to. They said it was just way faster and way easier to do that. I said if you do that you're going to end up costing me a lot of money because I put it outside of the easement. they um took out all the land on the actual past the actual easement and I do I did take photos if along the process of the way. >> So, um to respond to the mayor's question, I I'm this is not an issue I'm specifically familiar with. I apologize for any inconvenience obviously and we certainly um as as a team we we aim to try to avoid any sort of tree impacts knowing that you know um it's not just the value it's the fact that a mature tree doesn't it takes a long time to come along you know so we we do what we can to work around those so I'm sorry I'm sorry to hear I I certainly um I can follow up on this and see if there's um any other explanation I can >> Yes please do. >> Yeah. >> And I guess like yeah, what would be the normal course of action if if they do have to dig up an irrigation system where they do have to dig up an invisible fence or, you know, go into the property. What is typically how is that handled then as a result that obviously it's different if it's in the rightway or an easement. >> Y so the contractor is not we don't allow the contract to go beyond the right of way. So I I don't know if there's some misunderstanding, but um and and a lot of folks have said items in the right of way. So we we we send out general letters, notices about these items, talk about them at public meetings, and we we encourage folks to work with, you know, some some folks have a contractor, an irrigation contractor that they use all the time or or contact one to um you know, remove those those pieces that are going to be in the danger zone. Might not be the entire right of way, but just where we know, you know, we can say confidently, we think we're gonna the contractor is going to be here. Let's add like four or five feet to that as a factor of safety because in some spots the right of ways wider than the boulevard, you know what I mean? You've got Yeah. >> maybe maybe a couple dozen feet of boulevard. you know, this street doesn't look like that's the case, but um we work with folks on that and to try and try and avoid those issues and then as well as reinstallation of those those items to try and we encourage folks to wait and we we work as closely as we can. Um although um there are some situations where the contractor, you know, that's when we sign the contract with them, it's it's up to their means and methods and where, you know, subject to their schedule and that does change on occasion. So, um, you know, we just do our best to to minimize the headaches for folks all the way around the horn. >> And so, if they do have to go into their property outside of that easement, I mean, is that usually covered by the contractor or that's just something that the property owner has to >> end up. So, if a contractor gets into the private if a contractor gets over a line, they become liable. So, so >> ma'am, we're we typically don't open for discussion. So, what I'll say now is that we'll have the city engineer and the inspectors were out there come take a look at it and make sure that things are done and taken care of appropriately. Thank you. >> Yeah, mayor. I would like to add on to that that we should determine if the work occurred within the public right of way or not. >> For sure. >> If it's in the public right of way, then the trees were removed. They were city trees. They had to come out. if um you know there's private property in the rightway, it's unfortunate, >> but it's in the right of way and typically you know that >> owners are supposed to move their their stuff out of the rightway. But to me the key question is was it in the rightway or not? >> Yeah. >> And if it was in the rightway then it's unfortunate but it was within the construction limits. If it was it you know outside the right we damage it. We need to pay for it. >> Right. Okay. Thank you. contractor. >> Your contract? Yeah. Are we should force a contractor to pay it? >> Is that something that obviously can be looked into? Because I I I want to know as well. Um I entirely understand this is more of a I'll make a question. Is that something that we can look into and get the feedback on so both Miss Todd and the council are informed? >> Yeah, absolutely. Uh mayor and council will I'll follow up on this matter uh first thing tomorrow. I'll uh have a conversation with construction staff and um we'll we'll uh we'll get to the bottom of it. >> Thank you. Great. Thank you. >> Just a question with the 57th Street portion of it. Um and it was in it was in his email about the batuminous was chosen by the residents back in 2010. I know this was kind of a question that was asked in the the 2025, excuse me, the 2026 assessments as well. Um, and again, I know we've talked about this a lot, but maybe could you speak to that again as far as like how that impacts the lifespan of this? Yes. You know, there's the 25 year lifespan that was was put on this, but that is I'm assuming probably with the concrete curb versus a batuminous. If you could just speak to that a little bit as far as how that changes the life expectancy. >> Yep. Thank you very much. Uh so concrete curb and gutter um is a strategy in in you know local neighborhood streets especially um when you're using buminous that it does a few things. It it confines the batuminous. All right. Batuminous asphalt is flexible. Okay. A lot of times, especially in areas where you don't see concrete, you'll see a um where you can tell where the school bus or where the where the the garbage truck goes, you see that deterioration start to develop almost like a tire track kind of on the edge of the road. And that's because when um we go through our our thaw cycle, you know, and there's any sort of heavy loading on a vehicle that's not restricted like a garbage truck or a school bus, it starts to flex. But tumis uh when it's confined by concrete, it can't expand and crack as well as it can if it's unconfined. So that's that's really one one, you know, one reason why it's a great partner for bumless streets like this. Another is that the number one enemy of, you know, any street is water getting into this upgrade. Um having a a concrete curve, which is a rigid And um it's a rigid material that can be built to a a tighter grade than any sort of pavement ensures better course of drainage for the street itself. All right. And we and and now when we do our projects we can seal that that gap where the interface is between the concrete and buminous so that water doesn't kind of get into that space. So um really the concrete curbing you know it it's really it maxim it there's there's several other things you know maintenance related too um you know snow plows getting you know into people's lawns you know nobody likes that just general traffic control people not paying attention looking at their phone or something veer off and and run in someone's boulevard you know um concrete curbing provides that barrier not just physical but also visual to, you know, keep cars on the street. So, um, but but what I will hearken back to is that it's it absolutely is, you know, it it maximizes the life cycle and protects the investment that we're making in the street in a pumminous roadway. Um, it seals it up, it confines it. Um, there was a question about mill and overlay earlier. Um, it gives us that that edge to mill against and and confines that pavement when it goes down again. um if we were reclaiming a street that had concrete curb and gutter on it, it can remain in place and it's it's a cost that that spans generations of asphalt. So, it's it's just really, you know, from top to bottom the best, you know, edge treatment in my professional opinion for a local by two road. And >> and do you think I mean, is it is it possible for you to say or is there too many variables? Is it possible to say that you feel pretty confident this road would have lasted longer if concrete curb had been put in in in 2010? >> I feel confident that at least if if the if the asphalt went to heck, we wouldn't be paying for curb and gutter in that section now and we could potentially even maybe do a mill and overlay, you know, which would have been a lot cheaper and and residents aren't assessed for in Lake Elmo. >> Okay, member Holtz. And I know we have been presented with this previously, but as we have many members in the audience and people watching for transparency, once this level of work happens, how is that time frame now work for how the city's guidelines work for the next steps, the 10year, 20-year window between uh the future mill and overlay when that is when we're doing the crack seal? >> Yep. Absolutely. Thank you. Excellent question. So we we have a pavement management program that governs these maintenance actions. So when we rebuild the roadway, it's kind of a fresh start. It resets our curve at the top of, you know, deterioration way down here. Now we're we're back up here. Um, we wait for a frost cycle or two for any sort of incidental cracking to develop in pavements and we will seal the cracks on those streets and then we will follow that with a chip seal typically within you know a 3 to 5 year span of that pavement being reconstructed. Um what that chip seal does is it it seals the top of the pavement, prevents, you know, any sort of uh water penetration through those cracks that we've sealed. And it's it's a very very it's it's not much money. It's very cost-effective way to to buy some more time before a greater improvement such as a millon overlay. Now looking down the road 15 to 20 years, we're looking at that mill and overlay option for these streets that have been reconstructed with concrete curb and gutter. The milling overlay um you know we grind off the top inch and a half or two inches. Um again the curve resets it. It provides you know structural benefit for the roadway, not just a new smooth surface. And we'll go through that cycle again of crack seal seal coat. And so now we're looking at at a road that's that's been in place now for for potentially, you know, 35 40 years before, you know, it gets to a point again where we need to potentially reclaim it or reconstruct it or, you know, and if we're lucky, we can maybe get another millon overlay out of it. When we rebuild streets now, we're looking to rebuild for that 50-year life cycle, you know, not that, you know, um, 20 25 year like we talked about. >> Thank you. Council member Jagasich. Yeah. >> You know, we've talked about this 57th Street and we've had big thing at the public >> question. >> Well, I'm going to get there. >> Okay. And my question is is is it is anyone share some sympathy for those folks who pay an assessment in 2010 and 15 years later they're going to be asked to pay a full assessment again. I'll have some discussion about that when we get to the discussion part. Fair enough. Yeah, I was curious about the reduction of 22% from the preliminary estimate. What was the reason behind that? >> Um, thank you. Great question again, uh, Council Member Craigness. That is primarily because we got such good bids. So, we're estimating um, you know, these preliminary numbers based on kind of historical cost estimates and we like to actually be kind of on the higher end. you know, we don't want to be the low bidder. >> Yeah. >> You know, so um you know, that it prepares folks. Um but we also want to be realistic. We don't want to be so high that we're scaring anybody, including um the good members of the council here is to well, we can't afford that, you know. So, it's a balancing act. We're doing our best to to put in a a conservative number that's also realistic. Um, we did, you know, uh, this this year, I'll tell you, across the board, uh, the bidding environment was pretty aggressive by by contractors that do this kind of work. Um, for spring all the way through kind of like almost late summer. So, those costs did go down pretty much because we got good bids that were 25ish% below what our estimate was. >> Got it. Thank you. Mhm. >> All right. I'll entertain a motion for discussion. Motion to approve resolution number 2025-071 adopting the final assessment role for the 2025 street utility project. It's >> the amended one, right? >> The revised This one >> as amended. >> Oh, because of the as amended. >> Second. >> That's because of the 96. 96. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> All right. So, we have a motion and a second. Discussion. >> Council member Dragstitch. >> I think that, you know, the point made by the residents on 57th Street about the was built in 2010. Now, we're 15 years later. I know we perhaps wasn't built to the right standards or whatever. I would contend, you know, the city had the ability to build it to the right standards. None of us were here then. Um, but it wasn't. But are we penalizing them because we made a bad decision and I think some reduction would be appropriate for that. However, that being said, I think the curb and gutter should be assessed at the same percentage, but that the other portions of the project should be some reduction to reflect the fact it was only 15 years old. I guess I I would argue the other side, council member Dragoich, that um there was an option to put concrete curb and gutter there at the time the roadway if it was in fact um you know I I've seen back when townships and things in this more rural area was being developed that roadway probably didn't have the appropriate hit subgrade um might have had some gravel on it. I don't believe that the specifications were at the match uh to what they could have been or should have been. Um, I think that the following 2010, um, fix that was there was probably less than what was appropriate for the time and that the roadway served its purpose with um, whatever maintenance that was was tabbled on there. Um, I guess I'm of this of the mindset that the city could have paid the full 70% of the cost for the better fix at that point in time. Um, and it would have lasted longer and I >> who control for for me it's uh I guess I'm not of the same mindset, >> but who controlled those fixes? The city was in the driver's seat for those. It was a city street built to a lesser standard. >> There were residents involved that requested that no curb and gutter be put in at that location. Correct. >> Yeah. I mean, I say the curb and gut should be assessed as under a current policy. >> The curb and gutter should be but the street itself. It's a city seat. The city did the improvement. It it had the ability to do it right or to do it less than right. Council member Holtz >> related but not related because the question did come up so I do want to address it. So, Miss Todd, you had asked about some of the 3M stuff since it otherwise if had not been asked, this is not related. But in terms of expenditures, the 3M settlement group per statute has to send a report into the legislature and that is an annual report that describes line by line all the projects, not just for Lake Elmo, but every uh entity and municipality that receives funds. So, that is part of an annual report. If you want to, I can provide the link for you afterwards or actually be easier to just email me and I can provide that. That is the one thing the legislature does have control over. They don't have control over the fund, but they did pass a law saying at least have that kind of level of transparency in terms of uh the well for any user who has a private well. I know many of you in the room have private wells. The city does not have receive funding for your wells. You don't pay taxes to the city for your wells. We receive utility funds for people who are on city water. With that said, the settlement if and this is another place where I can post it as well as city can. We have it on the city's web page under the water area. Settlement dollars exist for testing for a well that may be contaminated. Uh there's a the the line has gotten smaller luckily, but there's still a line and I haven't heard lately how long that line is. It's in the 3 to six month range last I was told. Uh but that goes through the settlement process with MPCA. Any well that is contaminated above the health index levels is then eligible for a remedy using those settlement dollars while they still are out there. uh the city does not have a role in that when it's a private well. So I just want to make make that clear, but absolutely you need the information. You obviously have concerns about it as you as I would if I lived in that spot too. So the process exists and many people in this room can help to provide that information, but it's not necessarily a a city role. Um outside of water topic, um I I lean in the 70% side with the mayor, 30% with you. Um my my thing would be there was a lower cost at the time because of it not having curb. It never should have been stated or understood that that would be a 25-y year expectancy when the industry knows when you put even at that time in 2010 the industry knows when you put the tuminous gutter it's not a as good of a product and it will not last as long. So there there was a lower cost to begin with. I I don't feel that this is would be an approp would be appropriate to change it for that purpose. on on my end I think is I'll I'll leave it at that for now. But the other item I was going to say is we we get questions from time to pretty much over half these projects in terms of assessment roles for exceptions for a couple similar reasons that that come in. One thing that we have to keep in mind on our end is the assessment has to be uniform. We can't prrate it based upon when a person moved in. We can't prrate it based upon uh one street versus the other in terms of what happened in 2010 versus what didn't. It has to be uniform and it has to be consistent. And I I don't feel that we haven't provided any provided a situation where there would be a reason that is justifiable under the statute to change it would be my position at this time. Council >> member Jich has to be uniform and consistent but from area to area. You you can't say it's un consistent across the entire city. We have five or six areas where we did streets and in that in one particular area has to be consistent. You can't single out individual properties. But 50 33rd Street doesn't have to be the same as 57th Street. >> Agreed. >> Agreed. The other thing I I want to back up to some points you made um the president who spoke to us talked about sewer and water and storm water. I want to point out for the public that there are no property tax dollars that support those utilities. those utilities are supported by the user fees paid by people who are connected to those utilities um or or have those utilities in their area. So um you know the they're not tied to the assessment piece at all except they said if we improve we assess for the improvement but there are no tax dollars supporting public utilities in the city of Lake Elmo. Um and I just want everyone to realize that because I think there's a misconception that that in fact is the case. you know the users pay them pay them through a fee. >> Any other discussion? How was that? You know, I I the the frustrations for sure I get, you know, with the 57th Street. I I guess I am having a hard time because I don't know how to I don't know how to calculate the number, you know, I know he came up with a calculation of how to get there, I think, but they don't factor in the fact that the bat batuminous was chosen by the residents. So then, you know, like you mentioned, you know, maybe the city should have been a little more firm and said, "No, this is our standard and that's what we're going to do." and you know that's what we're doing now for this reason. So how do you you know how do you change the the calculation based off of that? I just I don't know how we'd come to a number. I think it would potentially set uh maybe not the best precedent for it. Um so I'm struggling a little bit to to see how we'd go with a reduction um based off of the situation. >> I want to know the residents picked the batuminous. This is something a public record that we >> It's in his email. Yeah, in his email. >> Well, the project offered either concrete or batuminous curb and gutter. Batuminous was chosen by the residents. >> Batumis curbon gutter. Correct. >> Not with the street itself. From my perspective, the concrete curb and gutter should be assessed based on our policy. 33% or 30 whatever the number I forget is. There should be no reduction in the curb and gutter assessment. Um because that's clearly a benefit that they didn't have before that they're getting now. But the batuminous roadway deteriorated quicker as a result of not having the concrete curb. So, how do we calculate that? >> The the the thing that I like is that um you know, we have we have a standard that's going in now. Again, it'd be nice to be a Monday morning quarterback and go be it back and be able to to change things. And I'm really happy that the bid environment brought in um very good bids based on oil prices and things of that nature for the batumis that was used on this project and you know decreasing the overall assessment per unit for that roadway by $3,200. Right. So, um there is a discount there in that that it wasn't didn't hit the engineers estimate. It came down. It is what it is. Um who's to say that, you know, two years ago that when they did mine that the estimates were high with batuminous asphalt? I mean, do we base it off the engineers's estimate? Do we base it off of the actual bid prices? There's all kinds of variables you could throw into this. And I guess I'm just I'm going to stay with where we're at. I would I my viewpoint is to stay where we're at now with what we've given been given and what we delivered. I agree with that. I think keeping it more of a uniform price or cost across the board is the way to go. that I'll call the question. All those in favor of approving resolution adopting the final assessment the revised amended final assessment role for the 2025 street utility project, please signify by saying I >> I >> I. All those opposed say same sign. >> I All right. Let it know that it's passed 41. You're just going to stay up there, aren't you? >> Public hearing adopt final assessment role for Stillwater Area School District Utility Improvements. >> Did you watch her do it the last time so you can >> do it for this one? >> Hold on. >> She's testing your your learning ability here, Nate. >> And you have an audience watching, so no pressure. It's on this screen. >> Pressure was on. >> I know. >> It was just in the was behind the one. >> There you go. >> Close. Second place is the first loser though, right? Um mayor and council before you is another um item to uh adopt final assessment role for the store areas for district utility improvements. Uh and we'll go over um set improvements um and then we'll talk about the assessments for this. So, this uh to recap, this project was to install some um you know, primarily uh sewage improvements uh for the new Lake M elementary school at 10 and Lake EML Avenue and then also to provide um sanitary sewer and water service for Oakland Middle School. Um, so to achieve this, we ran new gravity line, a new a new Sanier sewer gravity line into an existing lift station, um, at the the Royal Golf development into Oakland Junior High, um, as well as a water line. Then, uh, we upsized the existing force that ran from the Royal Golf lift station, um, down to, um, previously connected to an existing 16inch force main line um that ran out of the old village area down Lake Mo Avenue. Um that line then ran down Lake Emo Avenue and discharges at Fifth Street into um the gravity system. So um so what do we do? Well, we had to upsize the line to accommodate um the sewage from Oakland and then we had to upsize the line to accommodate the sewage from uh the school. And so we disconnected those we disconnected the line from the existing 16-in force main line. If you're if you're not following me, you know, let me know. And we've built a new force man that runs parallel with the existing 16th down to Fifth Street and discharges. Okay. So, this allows for a private lift station at the new elementary school to discharge to direct um 10-in force main as well as it picks up the um existing sewage flows from the Royal Golf area but also from Oakland Middle School. lot there. Hey, look at that. I just talked through without even looking at the slide. So again, um this project was um was uh coordinated with the school district and the school district actually um submitted a waiver of assessments uh prior to this work being undertaken. So they cannot contest their assessments. Uh we have communicated that their assessment did come in quite a bit lower than uh the estimate. So, um the preliminary sewer assessment for the elementary school uh was almost $800,000. Um it came in at just over $650,000 for the cost. Um the middle school um it was the sanitary sewer assessment again was $784,000. Um that ended up coming in at $644,000. Uh no water main assessment for the elementary school. Um but for Oakland which needed a new water mane extended um the estimate was $168,000 and that is actually that came in at $154,000. There was one residential property along 10th Street on the south side kind of tucked in between the road and Oakland that um did receive service from this project too that is being assessed. Um and so you can see their assessment is um pretty pretty modest for uh getting sewer and water service. With that uh I council holds a public hearing. I ask you to approve the following uh resolution. Approval resolution adopting the final assessment role for the Stonewater area school district utility improvements project. >> Are there any questions for the city engineer before we go to a public hearing? >> Okay, I'll entertain a motion for a public hearing. So moved. >> Second. All right, we have a motion to go into public hearing for resolution of adopting the final assessment rule for the Stillwater Area School District utility improvements. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Public hearing is open. I don't see anybody from the school district here. So, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing uh for the uh resolution adopting final assessment role for Stillwater Area School District 2 utility improvements project. >> Motion to close public hearing. >> Support. >> We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Public hearing closed. >> Entertain a motion. Approve a resolution adopting the final assessment role for the Stillwater Area School District utility improvements project. >> Support. >> We have a motion. >> Motion to approve. Sorry. >> All right. So, discussion. Any discussion? Council member Holtz. I just think staff at both the district and the city need kudos on this because the this project was an extremely fast-tracked project and the amount of work that was required to get utilities there and the originality and figure out solutions was pretty high. But there are 2,000 students between those two buildings. A lot of staff and a lot of families who are directly benefiting from that work that had to be done on a very fasttrack nature. So, good job. >> I can't claim any credit here, but I would certainly pass it along. Thank you very much. >> All right. Any other discussion? Right. I'll call the question. All those in favor of approving the resolution adopting the final assessment rule for the Stillwater Area School District Utility Improvement Project, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Motion passes. We have a landfill solar farm who's presenting this director stoppa with uh Mr. Manzer. It's gonna take a second. I don't think so. So, Commissioner Menzer is here today to talk about the uh next steps for the solar landfill project. Uh, this came up at the EDA meeting and there was a specific request um for the council to look um into this issue. So the issue before the council is the EDA made a motion to ask the city council they want staff and the city attorney to research restrictions and possible solutions for developing a solar farm on the old landfill site. So that's the overarching question and then Tony I think you can give the backgrounds. >> Thank you very much. Go. >> Good evening. I'm Tony Manzura. Uh thank you mayor and council for considering this. Uh, as you may know, uh, I've been on the EDA since 2022, and one of the, uh, items that I've been trying to get at least some forward motion is to use the landfill for something rather than just, uh, you know, growing grass on it. And so, uh, one possibility and is included in the zoning for that that area is to build a solar power system that would benefit the city. So, the uh the topology of the landfill, the way it was was finally finished up is they they formed a mound rather than a flat surface. So So that makes it somewhat difficult to build anything there. Uh just let's go back back to 1969 when they started dumping stuff there. The counties decided with in their great wisdom that they take an old uh basically a gravel pit which had not been lined, still had water in it and start dumping anybody's garbage in there. So the counties, Ramsey County and Washington County collected roughly, let's say $2 million worth of tipping fees over a period of roughly five years to put in whatever they whatever people wanted to dump there. Uh then it was closed because it was filled up in 1975. And then the the bad stuff started to happen. Uh gas came out, stuff leaked. Uh they decided that they had to because of the um water pressure that was building up there, they'd have to pump out some water. So they sprayed the water up up into the air and with the idea of destroying the volatile organic compounds, which works, but they didn't count on on the PFAS that were in there. Those were spread out over the countryside. There was a methane explosion. Finally, it was taken off the super fund list and left the way the way it is. Uh then we had to spend money to go ahead and dig it all up and put it all back in. So, Lake Emma has really suffered from this mess that's been created and I think we should be able to get something out of it. Uh, the issue is that there's it's unclear if you I've talked to a dozen people about what could be done and the issue becomes whether the general obligation bonds have to be paid off before you can do anything beneficial there. I've been told that. I've been told that the uh if it's for public benefit, you do not do not need to pay off the general obligation bonds. And what I'm asking for basically, this is what how we zoned. What I'm asking for is u whatever time it would require from the city attorney's office to look into this and explain to us what is actually the requirement. if if we could uh lease out the land for solar power and get the money back from the from the value of the of the solar power without paying off the bonds, which appears to be one option, then I think we should do it. If we have to pay off the bonds, then the the money has to come from someplace. And I've been told that nothing's going to go through the legislature in the next couple years uh because of the political situation. So maybe nothing would happen, but at least if we know that nothing would happen, then we could stop working on it. But right now, the idea would be to at least get an answer if we don't have to pay off the bonds, which I've been told by by one one uh company who is into the solar power system. If we don't have to pay off the bonds, if it's going to be used for public benefit, then I think we should proceed. So basically we're just asking and these are all people I've I've contacted and talked to about different things. I believe it's technically feasible to build something there based on discussion with people who actually build land landfill specific solar power stations that you don't have to put any post in to the ground. So, we're bas basically want to find out what the law actually says and how it applies to this situation. So, we're basically asking for a few thousand dollars to pay the city attorney to look into this. >> Thank you very much for your consideration. >> So, have we asked for an estimate of cost of time from council to look into this? Have they given an estimate of time and cost >> community? >> We haven't we haven't we don't have an estimate at this point um for how long this would take. What we've looked at recently is that what Mr. Man is talking about is a power purchase agreement public benefit. You may not be required to pay off the bonds. So I reached out to Michael Wilhy at Excel to see if he has experience with this. So the next steps would be to continue to talk to industry experts and then if we can't figure it out if that's the approach the council wants to take then look to legal to see if there's clarification that we would um need from that that point. But we don't have an estimate at this point to see how long that would take once holds. >> So the city owns it. Does it is there still any legal responsibility by MPCA with their oversight? I know it's not in the super fund anymore, but it's still in the Minnesota landfill program. >> Tony can probably say what the program was, but have you talked with Kirk or others as to what their their ongoing responsibility is for that site? I I talked to Hans Nev who is the uh the supervisor of the closed landfill project and he he basically said that we have to get this resolved and he would be the person who would decide if the design that we propose would be acceptable to put there but but the whole legal thing I contacted Jennifer Hmer's office to find out what the actual bond requirement is and they basically told me that well we're we're busy now but we'll look into it and uh I've spoke spoke with three or four solar power developers including uh Evan Carlson, Bob Olsen, u Mary Kill over at uh Cooper Cooperative Energy Futures and I get different answers from different people and so u it would be really nice to know if it's worth working on this or not. I think that if if we did not have to pay off the bonds, there's a clear way to make some money on this. If we did, we have to step back and see what what's it how to go about that. >> Thank you, Counc. >> How are the bonds paid off now? What's the source of revenue? >> General obligation bonds are are paid off at the rate of uh 140th per year. >> What's the source of the revenue to pay off? I >> think it's the state of Minnesota that, you know, we paid four $4.23 two3 million dollars to cover the landfill as a general obligation bond in 2014. So roughly threequarters of that money still left to be paid off >> paid off by the state. Thank you. >> Yeah, council member J. >> One thought I would have is if they're 40-year bonds, they probably don't have a call date till maybe 20 years out. if you had to pay them off, there'd be no way to to do that earlier than the call date. Um, you could escrow an amount that would be sufficient to pay them off at the call date, but they'd be outstanding until the call date. So, I think the question now is to see if there's a way to do move forward without having to go through general paying off the GO. Right? So then the question is what is the cost expectation that we would absorb in trying to figure out that answer if I'm not mistaken. >> Yes. I'm asking >> and we don't we don't know that right now. >> No, I'm I'm asking if the city would look in look into the legal situation and read the law carefully and and explain to us what what we have to do. All right. It's almost feels more like a workshop discussion item as we don't have any motions or anything at this time. But um I I I think I'm okay asking the rest of the council if they're cool with uh community director Stoa to inquire about an estimate of what this might cost the city to get into and see if there's a way without the GO. I mean, I don't think we can make any decisions without some more information, right? So, I mean, >> yeah. >> Would you like to bring it to a workshop sometime early next year? >> Yeah. Yeah. I think it's just, you know, maybe understanding what we would be in for and whether that's a risk the council would would want to move forward with. >> And I mean, we could move forward with number one and that could be a free well, not a free answer. It's his time still taking. >> Well, I think the question's already been asked from our local representative for Excel, right? >> So, that's that's already happening. Okay. So, then the next question would be what what exposure would we have as a city costwise related to uh the legal review? >> Yeah. >> There. And that's probably more of a if we get some more information and council could provide some background or an estimate of that exposure and cost then then then we can discuss that in a workshop I think. >> Yeah. >> And I don't recall offhand because entities differ but I mean staff incurs legal costs on ongoing basis without requiring city council approval. I don't recall if we have an amount in place to say if it's more than this amount it requires council approval but that those costs incur from time to time. Do you recall either of you if we have a threshold where we've said council I know we have other thresholds for other things and but I don't think there was one for this. >> No, not that I'm aware of. Um, we wanted to make sure that the council um would approve staff spending the time continuing to investigate this as well as if we need to use our city attorney for expert um advice that you would um be okay with incurring those costs, yes or no. So, that's why we wanted to bring it to you. it's not um on our current goals. So that's why we're unsure kind of your direction on the priority of this, right? >> So that's why we want to talk about it. >> Yeah, I think that's that's something we should discuss in a workshop once we find out. I mean, we'll get something from Excel and then we can move on to that next step and talk about it >> like give enough. So then I mean like I guess what I'm hearing is don't spend a lot of time on it until we have a workshop. >> I think so. >> I I I mean that's I'm in favor of that. >> Yeah. >> I I I think this has to be something that in that workshop that we're discussing obviously just beyond what does it look like costwise uh to figure this out if you know from the GOB standpoint is this something we want to do? Is it how we want to use the land? And I think maybe it's worthwhile maybe having that full discussion before we >> start. And Tony, I mean, thank you for doing this. This is I mean this is really a great idea and you know I appreciate all the work that's been done. I just think that the workshop would make a lot of sense really before to get people's opinion on that. Uh we're hoping to put this into the EDA work plan for the coming year. If it turns out that it that council doesn't doesn't want to go forward with this, then we won't uh won't bother with it. But, uh, you know, after after this is decided, it'll go one way or the other. Then we have to talk about, you know, what kind of business plan would you actually use to put a solar power system in, but if you can't do it, well, then you just can't do it, right? >> That's the end of the story. Okay. >> So, thank you very much. >> All right. Thank you. Next item is uh High Point Crossing Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Uh Mr. First. All right. Good evening, mayor, members of the council. Going to pull the presentation up here. Give me a moment. Okay. So, uh you'll remember this project from uh around this time last year. Uh as a refresher for everyone on the High Point crossing project, the city did approve a preliminary plat and open space planned unit development in September of 2024. Um the uh High Point Crossing project is on a property that's just over 78 acres. There are six wetlands on the site. There's an existing homestead. Uh 65 residential units were approved through that preliminary plat would be served by city water with a community septic system. Um this is just off of or there would be a connection um from Inwood to Imperial Avenue north on the north side of this project. So, um, from the time since that preliminary plat approval and open space plan unit development approval, um, the developer identified issues with the community septic system that would serve the 65 homes as part of that development. Uh, the issue was only found after additional due diligence was performed by the developer and the developer is here and can speak to some of that due diligence um that they did. Essentially, the community septic system was ruled out as an option for sewer. So that caused the developer to uh look at alternatives to provide wastewater treatment on this property. Um the options were presented to the city council and the uh step that was identified uh was to move forward with a comprehensive plan to bring this property into the Musa. Um, I do want to show you here is the site plan that was initially approved through the preliminary plan with open space planned unit development. I do want to note one typo on my report. At that time, the planning commission did recommend a denial. The city council did approve the open space planned unit development. Um, so what was proposed through the comprehensive plan amendment? This was um there's a number of different things that were proposed as part of this. Number one was to bring the property within within the Musa, but then there was part of this proposal was to create a new future land use category that allowed for an open space development in the same vein as what's allowed for in the city's OPUD standards. So, this is something that we've looked at. Other communities have adopted similar future land use categories, and so this was an option uh that the developer decided to pursue. So that new OPLDDR district we were calling it would have a density range of between two to three units per acre and necessitate open space preservation of at least 50% of that development into perpetuity and you know be held by the city. Uh there was that Musa amendment that would provide this property to be located within the metropolitan uh urban service area. The sewer connection would be made south from this development uh through a force man along in wood. Um this new future land use category wouldn't be limited to this particular property. There are other properties within the city where this could be appropriate, but that uh those properties had not yet been identified um as to exactly where this could potentially be used in the future. Uh this idea was pretty thoroughly vetted with the Met Council staff to make sure that we had a very clear understanding of uh how this would work from a density standpoint, any ramifications that it might have for the city on a regional policy conformance basis. Um and so that that all went into the review. Um this item I'll I'll just kind of pause and say is mostly just an update for you tonight. This is advisory. Um we'll talk about some of um some of the some of that here on the slide. So the planning commission uh held a public hearing in July. Um there were some comments uh from the public that were opposed to the the amendments that are I just talked about. The planning commission also did ultimately recommend a denial. Um, however, we we said to the planning commission that we wouldn't bring this project in front of the city council until we had the benefit of a sewer capacity analysis. So, uh, as we have to do when a property is proposed to be added to the Musa, the city has to conduct a pretty thorough review of its sewer system to understand is there capacity for this this new development. um that sewer study is still not done in large part because of coordination that's still ongoing with the Met Council. So u for that reason the developer did request an extension of 90 days for this decision. So um our new deadline for a determination on the application is January 23rd of 2026. next year. Um the staff can't really provide any clear answers on sewer capacity relative to this request for this property to be added at this time again because we have to really understand uh I think more wholly holistically uh what the capacity is based on coordination with the metropolitan council. So they accept the wastewater that comes from city. So that's generally just an update for you on the status of this. Again, no decisions asked for this evening. However, the developer did provide a couple of different alternatives that they are considering um should the should the sewer issue be a problem and cause this um comprehensive plan amendment not to be approved. So, I'm going to quickly show those two different alternatives that the developer is is considering. >> Just a question. >> Yep. Um so the mech council's aware of the bottleneck and have they given us a time frame in which their modeling can be done to figure out if they plan on addressing it when and if they do when they would plan on addressing it because we know these things take some investment and time to right >> to figure out. Yeah, absolutely. So, that would be part of the part of that ongoing coordination is getting a timeline from the council for >> So, we don't have one. >> We don't have that right now as far as I'm aware, but I'll I'll look to Nate if there's any update on city engineer. >> No. Uh Nathan's right. Uh there's just been loose discussion. There's no firm timetable for any sort of improvement to like you say clear up a bottleneck in the system. >> I will say staff understand that is a important question. So it's not lost on staff that this is a really consequential piece of information to get >> because then it get affects more than just this. Correct. >> Yep. Absolutely. So that's definitely on on our minds as we work with the Met Council and try to get that information. >> Okay. Um so I'm going to move into if there's no other questions just overview of these alternatives. And again these alternatives would be for rural development that's not served by public sewer. So the first concept is probably familiar to the council as this was discussed before the comp plan amendment came before you the city. So this has approximately 30 units. It provides a street connection from Inwood to Imperial that you've seen before and a culde-sac. Properties are generally one and a half plus acres in size. Uh the concept on the screen now has 11 units on two different culde-sacs. So no uh street connection here. These are proposed to have private drives serving uh from the public roads along Imperial or Inwood to the home sites. So these are very I could call them very rural lots. The smallest lot area would be just over or under six acres. So again, 11 lots there. So very high level review in the report. Um there was really not any vetting on these alternatives at this time just because it's extremely preliminary and um there there is an assessment though here on the screen and that was in the report on what some of these what these two concepts would mean. So, if the city approved a 30 lot rural development like you saw on the screen, um it's possible that there's requests for wetlands and ponding to be allowed on certain lots. That's not a city standard. Uh the use of PVC versus ductal iron for water mane through the project was something discussed previously. having a minimum lot size of one and a half acres for those lots. And there has also been conversations about um having some different rural road section applied to the the street connecting Inwood and Imperial. And again, I know that the council's had some um some discussions on road sections. So the 11 lot rural development concept would mean again that there's likely wetlands and ponding allowed within the lots. Uh you'd have two private drives coming from the public road that serve five and six home sites respectively. Uh no public road connection would be made from Imperial to Inwood. And notably um part of that 11 lot rural development concept included no public water main connection. So those would have to be then served by private wells. Um and as we've discussed previously, the city has a long-standing development policy for requiring public water for new development. So, couple of other notes for you um on these alternatives. Um there are design exceptions that are noted that would come along with these different alternatives. So, um, they would they have not been and would need to be thoroughly vetted by staff as to like what's the nature of the pros and cons of accepting these types of exceptions. If the council is open to either of these concepts, um staff should be guided to prepare indepth review of the exceptions that would be needed uh and then provide additional information to council on um what they might mean in the form of a presentation and report. Um, if the council were to theoretically move forward with one of these alternatives, uh, before accepting a subdivision application, um, staff feel that it would be most appropriate to actually come up with specific design standards before an application is accepted instead of kind of creating new standards on the fly. So, for example, PVC versus ductal iron, that's a kind of a citywide standard question. So those are just a few thoughts for you as you um think about these two alternatives and what it might mean to improve them. So uh just just a reminder that this is an update for you and it's an advisory item. Um any feedback that you do provide um to the developer on concept plans is non-binding and I just caution you, you know, before you get too deep into the weeds on any on anything. So that's what I have prepared for you. uh the developer is here and has a a presentation that they've prepared um providing some information from from their perspective. So I'll go ahead and pull that up. If there's any questions for him for me, I'm happy to take them at this time. >> Any questions for Mr. First? Council member Holtz >> as this is very high level preliminary with hypothetical number two where there's private wells. Um, I guess I would ask to make sure it's staff verifies distance from White Bear Lake. I'm getting on the GIS 5.01 miles to the northwest corner of the parcel. It's not exact, but just to make sure that's something that is looked into just make sure that no hypothetical well is within the five miles. >> Thanks. >> Because that's not allowed. >> Appreciate that. No, I appreciate the comment and I I I think that that would be part of that, you know, if the city's going to accept be open to ex exceptions, that's one of those things that absolutely needs the the additional review. So, that's a really good that's a really good point. >> What is the particular re and we can get this with a presentation. Are you aware of particular reason why the roads don't connect in proposal 2? >> I'll let the developer speak to that design consideration. Um, it might be related to cost, but I'm not entirely sure. >> Thanks. >> So, I'm going to try and get that presentation pulled up. It might take me a moment. All right, here we go. Good evening, mayor, council members. Um, I'm back. Yes. And, uh, I would say, you know, I think the elephant in the room is the sewer capacity issue. I think that when I started this back in June when we were talking um I thought it was really an issue of just connection like what where we were going to connect and there was going to be a study about the connection point. I think the idea that there wasn't capacity might have altered how we even gotten start you know how how we started down this path. So that was I bet you know I'd say if there was a disagreement it was just about whether or not there was capacity. I thought there was capacity. I understand that now we're finding out that there isn't and I think in In large part that might be because the Met Council has a constraint downstream that they didn't really make the city that aware of, I think. And so I think that's part of the story. But um I was just going to quick I I some of what I have is duplicative, but I was just going to um go through the history a little bit um and talk about the comp plan amendment. This is not that long. It's fairly short. um talk about the choices as I see it and then just present a couple those two rule options and maybe explain a little bit about what we're looking at. So again, just like Na uh Nathan has talked about, we we started we actually put this property under contract in August of 2023. So it's been a really, you know, and we we started with an op, which was something that nobody had done for almost 18 years in the city. So, it took a while to kind of get everybody figured, you know, to figure that different that type of development out. Um, and then of course we brought that to the council in December. Eventually, uh, that made it through the process and it was approved by the city council by you all, um, a year ago as Nathan mentioned. Then, uh, we started working on our final plans. The the community septic system was a huge part of that. And if we have I kind of went through that in June so I'm not going to go through all the detail but again we we did a whole bunch of additional testing um which eventually we had these things called hydraulic connectivity tests which led into a mounding study um and those were things that were at that time now being required by the state when you're doing a community septic system. Long and the short of it was that the soils on the site were determined not to be suitable for a community septic system. And so, you know, here we spent a year and a half on a project, getting to the what we thought was the finish line and find out we didn't have a project. And so, um, we spent a few months trying to figure out with staff and others, you know, what we what we could do. That's when we came back to you in June and said, "Hey, we have a couple options. We could try to get sanitary sewer if you're open to it to the same project you approved, or we provided you with a rural option." Um, and and that we are willing to do. And at that point, the direction from the council was that you preferred the the sanitary sewer option, which led into the comprehensive plan amendment that we have tonight. Um the plan on the screen is the what Nathan showed you as well. Um that's the the plan that you approved last September. 65 lots, you know, 70 foot wide lots. 50% of that area was open space. There was that 200 foot buffer around the site and it was at and that density was at 1.8 units per acre. Then uh we we applied for a comprehensive plan amendment for this new guide, new land use called OPLDDR. Um that would just basically end up being as a part of your comp plan. Same similar principles to the OPUD but with city sewer as uh Nathan mentioned. And then kind of first and foremost say up the density requirement. This is part of the Met Council's kind of chatter a little bit is to move that into the two to three units per acre range. And so, um, when we came back with the comp plan, we're really planning to not make dramatic changes to the plat. It would still be 65 watts, but what we did do is take 20, 30 feet off the rear of all of the lots to reduce the size of the lot so that that we could increase the density. But when we reduced all the lots, we needed to increase the impervious by 5%. Same amount of impervious as the previous plan, but just shrunk the lots. So, the number went up. And so again, it's 65 units. They're still 70 foot wide. Um the same setbacks, but now the density is two units per acre. And because we shrunk the lots, now the open space is almost 60% or over 60% open space. So that like was what I was hoping to present tonight with, you know, great applause and you know, you know, cheers and we get moving and we're ready to roll. Uh but um unfortunately there was that sewer capacity issue which I'm getting to. So, the benefits of this plan, um, it was the same as you approved that it eliminated this concern about the failure of the septic system and some of the neighbors didn't like it near their properties. So, that kind of went away, saved 60% of the open space, provided a public trail and open, you know, open space and trail system and kind of had the best of both worlds. It allowed for some development, but also protected significant areas of open space. So, that was the plan. I should have said then the cheering. Um but we we get to the point where now um again where I thought we were providing you know a lift station. Uh there was going to be a force main going down Inwood. There was a couple connection points that I had talked to the city about that would be worthwhile. And honestly I thought that the study that was happening was figuring out where to connect. Um, it was kind of news to me a month ago when we talked to staff to when there was an issue about whether or not there's enough capacity to even support the the this because if you think about 65 units in the scope of a metropolitan, you know, the municipal urban way system, it's kind of a rounding error. It's not a lot of units in this in the scope of units when you're talking about connection points generally. So the the possible next steps that I see I mean one is the I what current staff recommendation you know they're ask they're saying no action today this isformational um you know wait and see how this plays out we'll work with the mech council we'll have our engineering staff come up and see what kind of capacity we have um and I get that but then I feel like there's really no urgency for the mech council to make a decision um and you know here I I'm into my third year with a purchase agreement. Uh Al's Eberhart's here tonight. I've been, you know, they've been the family. They've been very nice giving me time to try to get this figured out. Um but I'm kind of running out of time. And I know that's it isn't that you guys haven't worked hard. I mean, you approved a platform for me. We've tried to figure this out, but we're kind of in round three now of trying to to figure this out. Um I I was to me it seemed like you could approve the my second option here. I think you could approve the comp plan amendment and send it to the M council and let them tell us if there's capacity or not. Now if there's a restriction within the city that that would be then maybe that's different like if the city engineer said no we don't have the capacity within the city to even get it to the M council system. I understand that. But if it's really what we're waiting for is an answer from the Met Council, I think the council could approve the MC plan amendment, send it to the Met Council, then they have 60 days to respond or they could extend it to 120 days. But then we'd know in four months what we could do. And where we are now, I'm already four months into a comp plan and here I am on anformational session and I don't even know if I have sewer or not. Um, and so I it pretty soon I'm going to lose another construction season. So, I'll be out of the third construction season on this project. And so, I'm just trying to figure out a way that we can keep it going that I'm not trying to be too aggressive. I'm just but I'm trying to see if there's a way to get a get something before the Met Council so we can find out about the capacity. Lastly, if we just think it's just too much work for the complaint amendment, that's one way. or if we were waiting willing to wait for the comp plan amendment and find out there isn't capacity. I'd like to just try to get some general direction on is there a rural plan that we can move forward with? And I know I'm trying to like put a lot into the bucket here tonight. I get it, but I was just going to touch on those two plans. Um, and again, they're concepts just like staff has embedded it. We haven't done a full engineering on it. Um, I think they're use they're worthwhile plans. I think they both could work, but we haven't fully engineered engineered them. The one that we prefer at this point is the 11 lot rural plan just because of its simplicity. Um it's 5 acre lots minimum. The overall gross density is 7 acres per lot. So it's 0.14 units per acre. So it meets the current RSF code which is 0.1, you know, goes from 0.1 units all the way to two units per acre. There's no public infrastructure. So, we were talking about private wells using Gak treatment systems just like the same treatment system that you use in your wells, private septic systems, uh 20 foot private driveways. And the reason we weren't connecting it is we're just trying to make this really informal and simple and and not um and and at a cost that we can develop it and still sell it and and make the lots work. Um, I did have a call with the Department of Health yesterday and I and there is a Lake Elmo Oakdale special well boring construction area agreement and it's probably something like what Mr. Holtz was talking about as far as uh the it look it appears that even if we wanted to do private wells there's a good chance that we couldn't. And so, you know, I guess we would have to come up with a way on this plan to see if we could afford to put city water in. And then I think we would open that discussion about PVC versus ductal iron. Um, and I know there's policies and how that you create, you know, different types of systems in the city, but the the neighborhood to the north and the neighborhood to the south both have plastic pipes in them. The mainline PLA pipe coming up inwood is a plastic pipe. So adding ductal iron into this hole in the donut here is actually putting in a different type of pipe even though that's what the standard is and that's what other neighborhoods have across the across the area. But when you directionally drill pipe into a neighborhood after the fact, it's often plastic. The 30 lot plan is the same plan I showed you back in June. Minimum lot size acre and a half. That overall gross density though is 2 and a half acres per unit. Again, it meets the comp plan uh for the for the RSF. And there's only, if you recall way back, there's only two properties that are guided RSF that are, you know, 20 acres or greater or even 10 acres or greater. So these are just there's really just two properties that are kind of in this unique situation. Um, that got us started with this and and so the flex this would be public water and a public road. Um, too bad you had the whole road discussion tonight cuz we prefer rural, but I understand that that there's been issues with rural roads over the time in these neighborhoods. And so I do think we could just like Nathan mentioned in his staff report, you know, do the the concrete ribbon curbs in, you know, still a rural road but with a concrete ribbon curb. Um, we would want some wetlands and ponding in lots to get this to work. That's really not any different than Tory Pines or Lake Elmo Heights to the north. Um again, PVC versus ductal iron just to help take off some of that cost. There is some risk in this for us. I mean, as far as um again, we need to locate and test for the individual septic systems. I walked the site with the and did a bunch of tests all across with a person who installed quite a bit of quite a few systems in Tory Pines and a few in Lake Emmo Heights and they believe that there's adequate space to be able to accommodate these. Uh but again, we have to locate them specifically and and and even just the whole problem we've been having along the way here is that when we put all of these urban amenities and costs into a rural project, it just gets there's not as much room to spread the costs. A lot of, you know, a lot of the times when you have a water and sewer project with city roads, you have three to four units per acre that you're actually able to spread the cost across. So that's the end of my presentation. So I hope I didn't put you to sleep. I'm just But uh uh again the kind of the options here is you know one you know you could go staff recommendation wait and approve the comp plan amendment later. I would prefer that you think about per approving the comp plan amendment now to get the mech council to provide us feedback specifically on the on the capacity and then if you just don't like it maybe we proceed with the rule plan now or in the near future and I wouldn't mind some guidance on which of those plans that you prefer. Thank you. >> Can staff speak to this capacity issue that's being >> Yeah. So there's so that goes back to the sewer capacity analysis that I talked about. um when we you know receive a request for someone to bring a property or project into the Musa, we have to evaluate is there capacity within the city's system, but also um what's the capacity look like downstream where the Met Council accepts the the wastewater flows. So in this case, there's a specific area in the south uh west corner of the city where there is a connection to the Met Council system. uh the engineering team is working diligently to try to figure out uh what the capacity of that area is. There was an improvement project that the Met Council had scheduled and I believe is completing this year. Um but with that being said, uh the engineering team still has to understand where does that project put us with respect to capacity in this area of the city where um certain projects and and parts of the southwest corner of the city flow from a wastewater standpoint. So, um, the engineering team, you know, has heard some I I'll just call it like concerns about capacity, uh, with the flows, but I don't think that it's fair to say, uh, there's no capacity or we can pro we we just can't provide a definitive statement on capacity right now. Um certainly it's concerning that >> um we're not able to provide a a a definitive answer on capacity, but that's just where we're at at this point in time. And I think what you know I think that's the reason that staff are saying you know at a minimum no action tonight until we have a bit more information. Um you we were prepared to have to recommend denial just frankly given the uncertainty but uh I think it's appropriate to wait for for more information. >> How many connections do we have to the Met Council's infrastructure? We have one obviously there's one over by Best Buy and Red Lobster. Red Lobster that's the one I pick. Guitar Center all that. Like I I assume that's the location of one of them where the is it called interceptor or whatever. >> Do we have other ones then along we have three? >> I think there's three. >> I believe there's three. I'm I'm not exactly positive but >> so there's they're all they're the they're at the southern they're on the southern border of the of the city. There's I think three different interceptor locations, but >> like Lake Elmo and then probably one down part by the bus terminal. I I think >> yeah, they're like almost equidistant as far as I know. Um but it like so the topography of that area of the community most sewer is obviously gravity right so um the flows are going to come be dependent on where the projects are located. >> Do we have the same non-nowledge for those other two sites as well in terms of not our capacity for the lines going through but necessarily at the interceptor location. Do we also lack that information as well for those two locations? I think there's better information on on those um at this time. Um that's all being, you know, considered as part of the sewer review that's going on right now. So, all three of those locations are being reviewed for, you know, where they're at with the capacity. And I I recall this conversation couple couple months ago, but has the primary concern with when there's wetlands on a property, has the primary issue been that it requires an easement in case it's like an intentional storm water location? >> Oh, shifting gears to to wetlands. So, yes. Yes. So, shifting gears. >> Um I can answer that one. So typically um in in most development we don't want to have wetlands located within the boundaries of a lot um primarily because they will come with special protections that are needed including wetland buffers from a code enforcement standpoint long term that becomes a real challenge to prevent people from doing stuff in the wetlands and the buffers that are supposed to protect them. And in this hypothetical where that was mentioned, are these natural wetlands or are these storm water ponds that are necessary for impervious? >> So there's six wetlands on the property. Um you can kind of see them a little bit on the screen here in the hatched areas. Some of them are larger than others. Um, and so if I can scroll back a little bit, you can see the wetlands a little bit better on on this image, but um, typically we don't want to see uh wetlands near particularly near the the home. Some folks like in other in other communities I've seen developments that were approved where you had a walk out basement that you had, you know, 10 feet to a buffer from the rear rear of the home and that becomes a real challenge because people really start to want to mow that area. So it can be a real challenge in some cases. >> So these are storm water. >> Oh, what you're seeing in blue on the screen now would be storm water ponding. Okay. >> Yep. And I just to talk about that. Um, so we've talked about wetlands on on lots. Storm water ponds in a similar way um require city access to be maintained long term in some cases. And so when you have storm water ponds located on private property, even though there's an easement, a platted easement that gives the city the ability to access, that understanding is not always shared by property owners. And so when it does come time for the city to access the ponds, that can be a real challenge just that we try to avoid through um having ponds platted within outlots. >> Thank you. >> Really? You don't have any questions? Um, so as I understand it, it's not a city capacity issue. It's downline from wherever this zone would be in the sewer area. And my understanding is the MAC council hasn't done the the U modeling to see how much they can take given the choke point that they've discovered in their system that receives Lake Elmo sanitary. And when they do find it, they have they got to do some modeling to figure out uh how large to enlarge in that choke point area. And when they do that, they would still have to create a project. I'm thinking that's going to be into 26. And a project's not going to be until 27 at the earliest, I would imagine. So increased sewer capacity is likely not to happen before 27 probably moving in. You know, I mean, that's everything goes well. Would that be a fair assessment? >> I'd say that's an extremely aggressive schedule. >> Right. Right. If if everything fell in right. So I mean really you're looking at 28 29 to be >> somewhat conservative. >> So first of all again city engineering staff have to confirm that that this that's exactly the situation. You know where exactly is the capacity at? And if a project is needed, the timeline for said project would have to be figured out. >> So those are the two big pieces of information that I know engineering is is working on >> and does approving a comp plan amendment now does that speed that process up? Does that put pressure on that council? Not saying that that's the right thing to do because again obviously then if it goes the opposite way then we have to undo it. Yeah, I think if you're looking at it from staff's perspective, it would it would add an element that's over complicating the situation um as opposed to waiting until we figure out where we're at. >> So, I don't I don't think it would be helpful. I would not advise you. In fact, yeah, with uncertainty in mind, um staff were prepared to recommend denial of the of the compound amendment simply because we we just didn't know where where things sat with the sewer capacity issue. >> Okay. >> And now you want feedback for the other concepts >> if the council is inclined to provide feedback. It's not It's not obligated to um and again this is advisory. >> I I'll say something on it. >> Go for it. >> So just as far as like for options one and two there I that's frustrating and yeah you know approving the comp plan would speed it up. I'd understand that you know how that seems like that could make sense. I think obviously there's downsides to that. So I I do lean towards waiting. However, I also think a lot of you've brought everything. We've been working on you've been working on this for years. You've brought you've tried to make it work however you could and you've tried to with the land owner to to make this something that could fit in Lake Elmo and I know you guys have done a lot of iterations of this. Um, and obviously it has to work financially, but it also has to, you know, be within within the standards. And so, I know that that process has been done. So, as far as for these other two options, I just I do feel very open to to looking at those. Again, I I think a lot obviously has to be looked at and there's probably certain portions of that. You know, for example, the the curb on the roads, like maybe that's a non-negotiable, but I do think that I personally would be open to um looking at those exceptions. And again, I know we want to be careful of we have our our city standards, but in this situation, it's like, well, we've tried to meet the city standards and it's not working for development on this site. So, you know, that's where we maybe do need to make an exception. We didn't go right to that step where we were looking for the exceptions right from step one. You exhausted all of those and now we're in this spot. And that's where I I'm open to looking at these exceptions and seeing how we can make that work. Again, not saying that without that information, understanding the PVC versus the um the other the PVC piping versus the iron piping, you know, I I don't know how >> I don't know the details of that and obviously I'd want to understand that better, but I personally >> this the 11 unit I know the I I'm pretty confident that the neighboring um residents I think they would would like this as Well, um just from the feedback that we've gotten from the others. So, I think there'd be um a lot of uh happy neighbors uh just in regards to that. Um that's my feeling. I just I think I'd be open to looking at exceptions. Um not from the perspective of obviously changing our city standards, but just that we have tried to meet the city standards here and it's not working. And so trying to make it work for the developer and the the land owner. >> Council member Holtz, >> I'm intrigued with the 11 parcel one for a couple reasons. One, that is a opportunity is not the right word, but that is a a a type of scenario that Lake Elmo has not created lately. like we have many fantastic 5 to 10 acre lots, but I can't recall a time in in recent decades where there's been an opportunity for additional people to come in and enjoy that type of property. Uh when they do sell, when they're up for sale in Lake Elmo, they go quickly because those are very um highly wanted parcels. And so in that regard, I we had the same discussion with the the new type of zoning we created that that was creating a a type of opportunity that hasn't existed before. 50% open space, a bit more dense, but you know, trying to figure out ways to meet that demand from and to align with Lake Elmo's expectations of preserving green space. I mean, I think there's a very strong discussion that when you're talking about 11 parcels over that amount of area, that that aligns with what we are consistently told by residents that we value our green space. Um, I mean, if they're private roads, they're they're not city roads. So, whether they are well, in that scenario, in this hypothetical, is it HOA roads? is I because if there if they ain't city roads >> there'd be private there'd be a private driveway basically and they would there'd be a shared there'd be an easement shared easement that every person would have along that stretch. So they would, you know, come up with a way to maintain it. It wouldn't necessarily have to be an HOA. It would just be neighbors sharing a driveway and there'd be an easement over the driveway and there'd be we've done these many times and they're lengthy documents. That does be my next question. >> I mean there's there's a lot of examples of where these haven't gone well. I'll just tell you. I mean because the documents aren't done well, but you have to do a very explicit easement that describes how they're going to be maintained and and how that's going to how the decisions are made about it. And that's what we do. Um but that's the idea. That that was my next question was in terms of doing this previously. We we have instances in Lake Elmo of private roads over behind Wildflower on the insides. Some of those roads are are private, but they have an HOA and it's clearly defined as to how that works, the responsibility. Um so that that would be a point I definitely would want to >> be doing some due diligence on. Um, >> we could put it in a small outlot and have it be in an HOA shared and either way we could probably make that work. >> And I in my previous comment about the five miles. So that's not regarding PAS. That's regarding White Bear Lake. Uh, to my knowledge the rules, no new wells can be drilled within five miles thanks to Judge Marin. But my high level estimate on a GIS, I don't think any spot on this parcel is like 5.01. But obviously that needs to be verified. >> I mean, if we could do private wells that'd be great. Um, but I think there's also this Lake Elmo Oakdale agreement. >> It's uh essentially yes, there's a process. It's what caused a previous development 20 years ago to have to dig extremely deep wells. Uh there it's a well advisory location. So yeah, there's due diligence that has to occur with that as well. Yeah, I don't I don't think the previous ones with sewer are probably going to happen, but I'd be willing to entertain, you know, another stab at it. I know you've been going at it a while and I I feel for you guys, but uh I mean there's there's a couple points. Like if if capacity were truly had been this a big issue right off the g getgo, it seems like it would have shown up in the staff reports all along, not just now. Um I get that. You know, h stuff happens. We don't always know. We don't always have all the clear information. I get that. Um and so but in order I to keep moving I'm fine I I'd withdraw the compound amendment if I knew that I had some t you know some legitimate support for the 11 lot plan and then I would just move forward with that because I mean there's only you know I don't know how many more times I I'm just really nervous about the idea of waiting for another study to somehow happen and come up with a capacity uh for this area And I'm I guess nervous that it's probably it's going to take a while and I'm not sure what the outcome will be. >> Yeah. I don't I like my previous assessment. I don't think um waiting for the modeling and finding that and fixing that is within your timeline >> if if there's a capacity issue. Yes. >> Yes. You know, I I go back to when we I think with this this started when we were looking at the OPUD, it kind of brought up the discussion of we had to I think it was this one where we said we have to relook at how we created the OPUD. It was, you know, created 18 years ago and it just it wasn't structured in a way that was feasible for for anybody to even use it anymore. And this is a development that, you know, residents of Lake Elma would want and and have asked for and maybe it's the same situation, right? He kind of mentioned it where it's like it's it's really difficult to build rural units when we have so much urban um tape that goes along with it. It is it's difficult to make it work. And maybe that is something we have to reconsider of, you know, just like we did for the OPUD in this situation. I I just again, I guess I want to be careful of what I say, but like I just I think I'd really love to see this work. Um, and I think looking at what flexibility is needed to make it work is very reasonable. >> Yeah. I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I really agree. I think this is really unique opportunity for the city to stand out with 11 lots like this. I think it's a really, really cool. I had one question about, and this is a very minor detail. I just honestly curious, but lot 11. It looks like there's two driveways and five buildings. >> So, that's the existing homesite. >> Oh, got it. Okay. >> We were going to just preserve the existing homesite in Barn, you know, that in some of those facilities. And so it's just I don't think we're going to get us an access directly onto Inwood. That would we haven't worked that out with the county yet. Yeah. >> And so that's why there's that other driveway showing. >> Got it. Okay. Thank you. >> That it. So before you fall too far in love with any concept, I'm just here to remind you we have homework to do. So yes, staff are happy to do that homework if council I was going to say I sense unanimous approval. I don't know what you're going to say. >> We're not making any decisions here. >> So just the direction for me just going forward. So you right now as it sits, we're waiting for the for the capacity to still play out. Meanwhile, I guess I'm gonna start working on an 11 lot plan to see if I can pull something together or do you think it's just time for me to fish, you know, cut bait, pull the comp plan amendment and come forward with a role plan? >> And I know I know this is hard. I know we're kind of like in a work session sort of environment here, but trying to save us a little both time maybe. how you going to phrase it? >> Well, I mean, I've heard from a couple people. I mean, like I said, I I would I would uh I would look at the alternatives that you've presented here. The 11 lot would be interesting if you could make it work. But, um Okay. I I feel like if you I know you haven't really said much, so I'm kind of curious if like where you might stand on this. Well, I think there should be a thousand lots and increase the density. >> No, I I would support the 11 lot alternative as well. I I think you know they've pretty much said what I would have said. So, okay. >> In the interest not repeating and beating a dead horse, >> I I would support the 11 lot alternative. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you very much. Really appreciate it. >> Thank you. Item number six, uh, Limmerch Village, EAW. All right. So, um, you'll remember this development as well. All right. So, we have, uh, two items related to this this Limick Village EAW that I'm hoping to discuss and get some action on tonight. Uh the first is a resolution uh regarding the declaration on the EAW document and the need for an EIS. The second is a findings of fact and conclusions and record of decisions document. So we'll talk about what that all means and of course this is related to the Limmerch village environmental assessment worksheet or EAW that was performed for that uh development. So, Limrich Village, you'll recall uh through a number of different concept plan reviews. Um here's the site plan that the developers landed on through all the feedback that they had received from council and staff. Uh this is a development that has a mix of different residential um uses that would be proposed anywhere from single family to attached town homes and then apartment and senior senior housing. So runs the gamut with a public park and open area in the center where a storm water pond would be located. So that's just a little bit about that development. Uh given the number of units, a mandatory environmental assessment worksheet was required and uh subsequently submitted. So what is environmental review? Just at a very high level. Um this is required through state state law, the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act. Uh this is anformational document that allows for public review and comment before um any approvals are permits are issued for a project. So there's three different levels. An EAW is the uh I'll call it simplest level of review followed by an EIS which is a even more um sophisticated document the environmental impact statement and then AURS are a little bit more regional in nature in terms of the review. Uh there are thresholds for mandatory EAWS. This the threshold in this situation with the residential use is uh 250 unattached units or 375. This development exceeds both of those numbers but is below the threshold for a mandatory EIS or environmental impact statement. So u the the flowchart on the right is not meant to be read by you. It's just that we have gone through a a process that is required by state law for EAWS. The timeline for that process started in May uh of 2025 this year and concluded with a sub EAW submitt uh from the developer that was determined complete in August of 2025 this year. So, uh, since August 26th when the EAW was published in the EQB monitor, um, the there was a 30-day comment period that ended on September 26th and then, uh, here we are tonight making a decision on the need for EAS. I'll remind you that, um, during the public comment period, there was a notice of availability for the EAW sent to 17 reviewing agencies. The city published five consecutive uh times in the city newspaper providing public notice in addition to having information on its website about the AW and access to it. So in total we received three comments. I'll talk about those. Um I have a list on the on the page here. The agencies that received the the notice for review were primarily um state level or regional agencies. So, uh, what did we get back in terms of comments from all of those, um, 17 agencies? We only received two letters from two different agencies, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Metropolitan Council. We also did get a public comment from just a general member of the public. That's also that comment is included in the findings of fact and record of decision document that's in front of the council. So, the comments from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency were um pretty uh simple or streamlined or straightforward I could say. Um one was on noise. Another was on making sure that we had information, accurate information on wastewater. Um and then the metropolitan council determined the EAW to be sufficient from a regional standpoint and provided some advisory comments. So, uh what are the city's options here with this EAW? Uh it's got two options. The there is a negative declaration. Um the negative declaration would be that the city finds the Limmerch Village EAW to be sufficient in the information that it provides. uh and would not require any additional information from the developer before they apply for their next step. Positive declaration would mean that uh the city finds there is a need for more information and articulates that um that would be required uh that additional information would be required in the form of an EIS. Um based on where we're at, uh the information that was provided, uh the EAW document is is a pretty long document. I'm not sure if any of you have had the pleasure to look through that, but there's a lot of different um sections that provide good information on the project. So, given that, given the fact that we um feel like all of the different comments have been addressed through the findings of fact document, staff are very comfortable uh recommending the a negative declaration or determination on the need for an EIS. So, that would be the resolution. Uh and then that resolution is supported by the findings of fact document that staff compiled. So with all of that said, I'm happy to stand for questions. The developer is here if you have any questions for him. So the um the two responses from the agencies just looking to make sure I gathered the overall sense of those were items that they would bring into question or things to think about for almost any development that was going in. That's the feeling I got from that. Is that >> I would that sound right? I would share I would kind of share that sentiment reviewing the letters in particular. So the the Met Council's letter had a statement that said you know this document is complete from a regional standpoint. So they you know communicated to me that they felt satisfied with the level of information and then there were just advisory comments from all of their different reviewers right >> like we're accustomed to seeing with comp plan amendments as well. Um, and so those individual advisory comments were addressed directly with either comment noted or if it felt like it could use a little bit more specificity, you know, that was responded to within the findings of fact document. And then um the um MPCA's letter had some I what felt like to me a little bit like canned language on noise. We get that language often from um county review memos as well. all pretty similar language. Um, not to say that we should dismiss it by any means. So, we did really take a look at that and felt like we got additional information from the developers consultant that felt sufficient in addition to what staff uh looked at with with that letter. So, that's why we feel comfortable with >> Council Member Holtz. >> In the comments from Met Council, I was reading through those and they discussed various things. transportation infrastructure alignment with 2040. They do not discuss any concern about sewer capacity. So I will presume that means that interceptor they don't have concerns over >> that interceptor is captured at Lake Elmo Avenue. >> So this property is located within it's already located in the Musa. It's in the current development phase. So presumably this development is anticipated. >> All right. because of the fact that it is in the 2040, they presumably should be good to go and ready to accept anything that happens inside the 2040 future zones. >> Hopefully, >> I'm going to say he speaks for the Met Council. So, >> do not speak for the Met Council. >> No, that would that would not be >> Well, that's Well, that's been that's to hearken back to the capacity issue. That's part of the problem, too. you have these properties that are already within the Musa that have been accounted for and then you you know and by the way this this bottleneck that um we've been talking about we don't know where that is exactly we just know it's somewhere it's not necessarily along Lake Elmo frontage of the interceptor you know what I mean so >> could be Oakdale could be Woodbury could be >> St. Paul. >> You want to make a bet on where it's at? That's a question. >> All right, we can talk about it later. >> They muted you. >> They muted you evidently. >> Enough, Jeff. >> Somebody shut off. >> There we go. He knew it was now. It's working. >> I got nothing else. Anybody else? >> No. >> Questions? All right. I'll entertain a motion. >> What's the correct number? >> Yeah. Move to adopt resolution 2025-073 approving a negative declaration on the need for an environmental impact statement for the Limmerch Village Development Project. >> Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Discussion. I don't know that uh you know I've I've read through these previously on projects didn't really find anything that was surprising or that would fall out of favor with relation to the project and and so I don't I don't really see a reason to have a um positive declaration. So I'm I'll be planning on voting for the negative declaration. >> Agreed. All right. So, I'll call the question everybody. All those in favor of adopting resolution 2025- what was the right >> I know you just moved >> 073 >> 073 please signify by saying I I >> I >> uh resolutions approved. Then we need a uh move to approve the findings of fact and conclusions document in support of a negative declaration for an EIS for Limmerch village development project as prepared by staff. >> Support. >> We have a motion in a second. Um don't feel this needs discussion. I'll call the question. All those in favor please signify by saying I. I >> approved. Thank you Mr. First. Thank you, Marty. Mario, sorry. Thank you. Um, next we have quarterly goals update. Administrator Miller. >> Thank you. It's always my pleasure to provide a quarterly update on where our staff are at with um you know, moving along with the city council's goals that were included in the strategic plan that was adopted in January. So, we'll go through them pretty quickly, but um for um figuring out um what to do next with the 77 acres, we did have that joint workshop with the planning commission and city council where um community development director Jason Stoppa was able to provide um a timeline and then um next steps. So, the planning will begin in the beginning of next year in 2026. Um while not identified as a specific short-term goal, um it did align with our strategic goal of um building the vibrant, inclusive, and connected community through celebration. We were able to pull off the city-led 100th anniversary celebration in September. Um tomorrow we'll begin our urban land institute technical assistance panel to work on the 180 acres. Um and then we will be able to um the final presentation will come back to council on the second meeting of November and we will also um be able to share that with the community as well. And then um for our fire station, our old fire station, we have the phase one of the EAW completed and then phase two has started and should be wrapping up soon. And then um we also had the RFP committee that was able to score nine submissions for um the what would what will be in the old fire station and the old parks building. And so um the city council accepted the committee's recommendation um to proceed with um negotiations with tap and ladder and machete for our old um city hall. We just recently last week had a workshop to discuss kind of the conditions um staff's uh parking concerns and then kind of just explore options and pros and cons. So that will continue to have conversations about in the future uh for our comprehensive financial strategy. um probably over a month ago now, our finance director was able to put together a timeline um kind of for this the discussions and I included that in a Friday Friday update to the council. So, we'll we'll continue along with that. Um, we did discuss our storm water fees last month and the direction that we received and that we're working on is reviewing the existing credits to see if they're still valid. And then um I will be bringing back um soon kind uh a quote from engineering to continue to look at the land use types and the fees. So that will be coming soon just to get the um okay from you all to move forward with that. And then also staff has started discussing um just our our current city water and sewer connection fees and exploring where we go from here with that. We had u the launch of our internal employee newsletter and um city staff was able to submit ideas for the name and it's it's called the loop which was submitted by a firefighter. So, we've been having that monthly and it's full of lots of great information. Last month, we did have our public works um operational assessment come come forward with to the city council for acceptance and uh public works management is working on next steps for staffing. Um and recently you all were able to see um the GIS mapping that we we have that went live through Bolton and Mink. And so um just again it's it's pretty cool to check it out. We have um multiple different layers including the parks and trails and water and sewer mains um current and future zoning as well. Um and then staff is working on um GPSing different um infrastructure to include in uh additional layers for internal use. So recently public works staff was able to um map the existing uh irrigation system as well as new curb stops that have been installed in the last 12 months. And then finally for the water treatment plant, um there has been that right of entry agreement signed last month and that there is more uh work that will be done on the site once the growing season is finished which I assume is >> harvest. >> Yes. So that is that um >> question um on the some of those new web applications. Is there a way to kind of measure if those get used? Do we count clicks or anything like that? Just curious. I'm not saying that we should. Just >> um we can look at analytics. >> Yeah, analytics. >> I would say we haven't um really dove into that yet, but we have um that accessible. >> Okay. >> Just curious. >> Yeah, we can we'll look into it and see. >> Yeah. >> Council member Jerry Sitch >> on the on the utility of storm water fees and the connection fees. I mean, I thought we're going to develop a scope of services and define what we've wanted to be done with those um and get proposals uh or something as this right now. I don't know what we're going to look at, how we're going to evaluate it, what's the process we're going to use for connection fees, we're going to use for storm water fees. I mean, it's just okay. We're going to have Bolton the Mig do it. So, what's the scope? >> Oh, no, no, sorry. I should have been more clear. just internally staff have been meeting with engineering to kind of talk about what our next step should be. And so we um just trying to internally have more conversations about what those fees are used for and how um we might compare to other cities and um how development plays into it. And so we've just started having internal discussions >> that would all be part of a of a utility rate study. Well, then we can so once we have that information collated, then we can determine what what we want to go beyond that, right? And then you could do a proposal to say this is what we're looking for. >> What I want to avoid is that we're spending money to do something that would be included in the proposal. >> Oh, I don't think that's what she's talking about, but I could be wrong. >> No. Um, also this ties into um just our future um strategic planning for finances. So just having our our finance director kind of see how that plays in. So these are just internal discussions. We we haven't gotten very far with that. >> That all you got? >> Yep, that's it. All right, we move into council reports. Council member Jisich, >> no report. >> Council member Holtz, >> nothing >> really. Wow. >> I'm not going to talk about my golf. >> So So uh well, a couple things. So today I got to experience the um there was a a chocolate cookie uh chocolate chip cookie challenge here at city hall staff had. So, you know, I I made it a very important trip down here to make sure that I could uh help with the judging. And so, my lunch consisted of some chocolate chip cookies. But when I came to do that, there was a box here um that was addressed to me, even though it's it's really for the city. It's uh um the honorable Betty McCullum uh in the Minnesota U in the House of Representatives representing our district, Minnesota. uh made a declaration for celebrating the 100th anniversary of Lake Elmo and she gave us an nice plaque. So, we'll give that to uh the city administrator and put it wherever it's appropriate to put it, I guess. But that was kind of cool that um that she she took the time to do that and send us a little little copy of that for the city. So, um, looking forward to the Urban Land Institute stuff over the next couple days. I think you mentioned that in a couple different times. So, and, uh, moving forward on that 180 acres on the west side of town. So, Council Member Hearn, >> no report. >> No report. >> All right. Staff reports. Anything else, Administrator Miller? Um just if you've noticed that we're having our um vertical pieces of wood that we've had refinished. So it's looking pretty nice on the city center. And then I will be attending ICMA um Saturday through Wednesday. >> All right.