uh showing that presentation here for you. So, as we work on that, I'll just mention that um High Point Crossing is a development that should be familiar to you because the city council approved uh the project through a preliminary plat uh in September of 2024. So, uh, as an overview for you, the development, you'll recall, was just under 80 acres as approved. Uh, now we've got that stuff up on the screen. Thank you. Uh, we've got six wetlands on the site, one existing homestead, and as approved, the project has, uh, 65 residential units. Uh the infrastructure here would be uh city water with a community septic system as approved and a connection to existing roadways. Here's the project and we'll come back to this image. So I'll I'll skip past it and kind of get to the important parts. I'm going to try and be pretty brief this evening to give you and the u developer the most time to you know discuss some some of the questions you might have. So, um, after the approval in September of 24, the developer went into, um, a little bit more of a review phase for their project to do additional, uh, testing on the site. They wanted to understand is that community septic system going to work. Uh, what they found through testing on site, the soils, is that the community septic system unfortunately is not viable. It will not meet uh, applicable MPCA requirements. And so uh that kind of brought the the developer back to the uh drawing board and we the developer in coordination with staff we've identified you know effectively two different alternative paths uh for a project to move forward on this site. The first alternative is to consider extending the city's Musa boundary to sewer the High Point crossing development to provide public sewer where we had the community septic system previously. So the big uh the big thing with that is obviously that we will have to amend the comprehensive plan if that alternative is to be considered and to move forward. Uh we would also as staff uh be recommending with that alternative the creation of a new future land use category. I would go into that here on another slide. Uh and then with those changes though, we would effectively be able to get a very similar development to what the city approved in September of 24. Alternative two uh is effectively what I would consider to be more of like a large lot development where the developer would be looking at having individual septic systems as opposed to a community septic system. um that would necessitate revision to reduce the number of lots, make the lots larger and in in in order to accommodate those primary and secondary drain fields for their septic systems. So, uh at the end of the day, that would likely mean that we would have significant revisions to the approved PL plan that was approved in September and it would be a significant departure from the existing OP PUB standards where we've got buffers and open space requirements. So to dive into alternative one a little further, um again the the primary change here would be to the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. We would be looking at creating a new future land use category that we're currently calling the OP LDR, which is the open space low density residential district. This is something that we've discussed um as staff. We've actually coordinated with the Met Council to understand if this is something that would work. And at this point, we've vetted it enough to think that it could be workable as we've presented it to them. And this is a district that in theory would not be just for this property, but it could be utilized by the city for other developments in the community. Um, and there will be a a conversation later this summer about potential um like things starting to think ahead on the 2050 comp plan and consider areas where uh the city may want to re-evaluate the muse of boundary. Getting back to this development though, we'd be looking at a new district. Uh staff are proposing that if we were to do that, we would be looking at a density range of between two to three units per acre to try and minimize the impacts on the overall density in the community. We'll be looking at requirements for a minimum lot area and width that you see on the screen, just under 10,000 square feet with 80 feet wide lots and importantly requiring 50% open space for a project. Um, as I mentioned, we could consider the use of this district outside of this project so that we're not creating a whole new category just for one development and really thinking through um how this could be used in other areas. Uh some thoughts for you just preliminarily are maybe considering some of the undeveloped parts of the community south of Stillwater Boulevard and potentially in the area specifically of Inwood Avenue and 10th Street. Uh the sewer connection just to uh address that point. The how do we get sewer to this property? It would come from the current uh location on Inwood and 10th. So here's the development that again that the city approved in se September of last year. This is generally speaking what would come forward were we to move forward with this alternative one. As I mentioned we talked to the mech council to try and understand if this can work from a density standpoint and what would the impacts be if we did this on the city uh city's density. The top chart here is is an evaluation of if we did this project now in a in the city's current LDR district. the way that we interpret density and the way that the rules are written, we would have about 086 units per acre, which would be well below what's allowed. If we create a new category that allows us to net out the open space that would be dedicated, uh we would be looking at a much higher density of 1.86 units per acre, which is way closer to the floor of two units per acre that staff is recommending. the the chart on the s on this bottom part of the slide is a little harder to read, but we did an evaluation of what would the citywide density be from the Met Council's perspective if we did alternative one, and it went down from 3.15, which was in the density log currently, to 3.11. So, you're still above three units per acre across the city's Musa area. But, as you know, that requirement is going to increase in the 2050 planning process. All right, option two. This is those larger lots. Uh we'd be going from 65 to 30 units. And I'll show you a concept on the next slide. Um this would still uh there's a couple ways to do this. If if the city were to choose this path, we could consider this as an OPUD or some other, you know, form of zoning modification. Um we this would be as I mentioned be a significant departure from the OPUD standards which are 50% open space and buffers. There's additional flexibility the developer is looking to request if they go this route. Those things are on the screen. Uh looking at uh requesting a rural versus an urban road section. looking at requesting uh that wetlands and storm water ponds be allowed to be on private lots given the area requirements and the use of PVC or plastic versus ductal water man uh as a standard. And so those are things that you know we've talked to the city engineering department about if the city were to move this direction and consider that flexibility the engineering department would need time to effectively evaluate and create new standards for these things that are being requested. So here's the concept plan that uh would be revised, you know, after more work is done on the site if we were to move uh the path of alternative to. So that's the high level uh that you get from me on this one. We're looking at really needing from you some feedback on which direction to move. After we get that general direction, we would have likely more more work to do to refine um some of the the things that we would recommend this to come forward as. So, u I'm happy to take questions. The developer, Rachel Development, has a presentation for you as well about how they got here and kind of some of the things that they're reviewing. So, I'll pause Holtz. >> So, there's a lot of info there. Um, I'll just start with a straightforward one. We've I recall discussions for years about having to bring sewer elsewhere long distances. One of the ones was with 180 whether we brought it up from Inwood. In this case, what would that even look like in terms of cost time frame? Would a developer be paying for that or is that coming from the utility fund? >> Great question. So, the question is about, you know, the alignment of sewer if it were to come to this site. U there's currently a pro sewer project that's planned in the area of the southern sewer area of this part of the city. I don't know all of the details about that. I just know that it impacts the timeline. Uh to the question about um who who pays for it, that would be a private development cost to bring sewer to a a developing site. >> And I assume I will not presume when it would be brought in that hypothetical of alternative one along Inwood, we would want to make sure it's upsized appropriately in cases going elsewhere down the road. >> Yeah, sure. And so to that point, if oversizing is done, then that could be a conversation about, you know, who bears that cost. >> Gotcha. >> Many other questions, but I'll wait. >> Keep them rolling. >> I'm going to tee it up for Paul if there's no further questions for me. >> Okay. >> You have more questions? >> Oh, yeah. >> So, in alternative too, say with storm water being on private lots. >> Yep. would in that hypothetical would be treated similar to a easement. >> Correct. Exactly. So if we had a storm water pond on a private lot or even a wetland on a private lot, we'd be requiring easements in order to ensure that, you know, the city has the the rights to to that area. In the case of a storm water pond, we also need to make sure that there's access should the city ever have to go back there and do maintenance. Generally speaking, I prefer to to recommend outlots for storm water ponds just because it makes I think everyone's life easier when it comes to maintenance. >> Because I'm trying to think of instances and all of our recent ones, it is out lots. Are there ones historically like from the 90s or previously where we have storm water on lots and there's >> there's older developments. I don't know of any off the top of my head in Lake Elmo. Um, I do know that in other communities they will do that. They will allow for easements over storm water ponds as opposed to separate outlots, but I think it tends to be a little cleaner later those private outlots. >> Thank you. So, in alternative two, we're seeing lots in the neighborhood of 1 and a half acres to 2.7 acres roughly. Now, I could uh be misinformed or not have a the right memory. Uh but when the Met Council indicated some of their structure, uh we're not supposed to do any development with say 2 and a half acre lots uh going forward. Was you mentioned that alternative one, we talked with the Met Council, they felt like that was something. Was this alternative also discussed with Met Council and how was that perceived? >> So that's a great question. We haven't brought this alternative to the Met Council at this stage for for a question about whether that would work. Um I don't off the top see any major issues right now um with doing this if it were to be through an OPUD. But we would have to to your point ask the question before we were to move forward. >> So then you know we saw some uh density levels. Correct. It was based on alternative one going from 3511 to 3.1. That was alternative one. Correct. >> Did we have a similar number if we go from that to alternative two? And what would that number be? Um, so we're looking at a pretty low density. I think this is going to be even like around Do you know the point4? So we're at 0 point4 uh with this and we didn't do the evaluation of city of like citywide density impacts because it's not sewer in this scenario. >> Okay. But is isn't our isn't our uh maybe I thought our overall density was for the whole city, not just the just the sewer area. Okay. Thank you. Yep. >> Anybody else? Otherwise, we can wait until after >> hear from Mr. Robinson. >> Thanks, Nathan. >> Yep. >> Paul Robinson, racial development. Um, I practiced this a couple times and I said I'm happy to be back, but I think maybe we're not happy to be back. I mean, I think that for both of us, we spent some time and we put together what we thought was a pretty great plan and to h to be here tonight to have to keep trying to figure out a way to develop that site is kind of disappointing, you know, for for us and I I imagine maybe for you because I think we had kind of a cool uh neighborhood that we were looking forward to implement. So, I was just going to go through my brief history, very similar to what Nathan had just talked about and then and outline the two options as we see it a little bit and then um take any questions you have. So, let's see. All right. So, again, we're year and a half ago, we, you know, brought the sketch plan to you, which led us to then take it take um that plan to the neighborhood. We eventually went to the, you know, had a public hearing at the planning commission and then uh brought it back here almost a year ago for the city council to approve it in September. And so we thought we were sitting pretty good because we had pretty much all winter to put together the the se the septic plans and to put together final plans and to be in the ground, you know, this year right now. And uh so we worked on that septic design. We have it we actually fully designed it. So we have a 40 50page document. It was a package plant. It's like it was like creating a municipal wastewater treatment plant. And um and of course you know hired consultants that had done a number of these all throughout the Twin Cities. And so um it's disappointing to me to my consultants mainly more to me that we're in this situation. But we met they met with the state I'm going to say three or four times along the way. And it it became clear as we get were getting closer to the end of that design that they kept asking for more information. They're like, "Well, make sure you have this test and you know, make sure you do this." And so we were, you know, it's not required, but you might want to do this. And at the end of the day, we realized that they were going through a process of figuring out how to re-evaluate these septic systems, and they were going to require additional testing. So, we went out, we did additional soil testing. We ended up doing a mounding uh study which is the real critical study and the first one came back with kind of mixed results. We we wanted to get a second opinion about that. So we took it to Brun Intertech. Bronn did um asked that we do some more um testing called hydraulic hydraulic connectivity testing. That took a month and a half where you go out and take core samples and you let water drain through it to figure out exactly how fast the water goes through it. Different than infiltration. It measures it in I think two directions. I'm not an expert on that. Um, but at the end of the day, after that hydraulic connectivity testing was done, we had one of the Braraw experts put it through the mounding report and the mounding study and then really determined that within a short period of time, the the community septic system wouldn't be able to handle the water is just the amount of water flow from the neighborhood. And and so then after putting all that work into it in sometime in January, we were we figured out we had we didn't have a system. Um, and so I think we spent a month in shock, a little bit angry, going through all the emotions you would. And then we spent a couple months figuring out what are some of the possibilities. Uh what could we do? Talking to the lands land owners. Uh and then we worked up a couple options, met with staff, um and got to a point where we could be here tonight and just outline a couple options for you to consider. And so the first option, I'm just going to talk about it really simply, right? It's the prelim preliminary plat with sanitary city sanitary sewer. So that's option one. And the second option is just a rural development with individual septic, you know, treatment systems. So that's basically what we're we're asking you to consider, one or the other. The when you look at the first option, you'd have to create a new land use as Nathan mentioned. They're calling it OPLDDR. Um I didn't know of this. I they they showed me the specifics previously. I didn't see it in the staff report, but the idea that the of 80 foot lots and some of the specifics I think we're going to still need to talk about because this has 70 foot lots and I'm barely making I'm at 1.86 units per acre. So, if you go to 80 foot lots, you're not going to get to the two units per acre that they're saying the minimum guiding should be at. So, I mean, there's a little bit of math that we can work out in there, but there we'll have but there's I feel like with an OPUD when you take 50% of the site and put it into open space, it may not be a problem. I mean it may not be something you need to regulate what the lot size is because it's going to be determined by the density but um so anyway so the this new land that was ad living sorry the this new land use um would be uh basically for you know to allow sanitary sewer and ops um it would be basic the same plan as the opud how would sewer get to it so here's our site on Inwood um we'd have to do a lift station we just built this one last summer in God as the example. Uh there'd be a force main to have place in in in the city. I talked to Jack at one point. He thought there was enough capacity at Highway 10 and Island Drive once the Met Council lift station is completed later this year. And so or it might be into next year, but there's a Met Council lift station being constructed to increase the capacity in this area. And so that's how it would get served. Um there was that question about kind of what density. We were suggesting one and a half to two two and a half units per acre to give a little bit more flexibility in the density. Um, if you just did it for this particular piece of property, this is the table right out of the comp plan, you could add, you know, you could add the line in there, put the put the the facts, and you still wouldn't tip over the the overall density to over to under three units per acre today in the city. Um, the current density again, as we're showing it, is 1.86 units. If we if we needed to get to smaller, we could try to if we needed to get to two units per acre. Um that is something we could talk about. We would have to reduce the backyards. So right now the backyards are probably 40 or 50 feet in a lot of cases. Um 30 is probably from here to the wall. You know, we're trying to get enough reasonable amount of backyard to have. Um and so we didn't want to reduce it too small. Um, and if but if we do reduce the lots, you know, we had when we brought the small lots in previously, we had to do the hard cover at 50%. So that could tip the hard cover on a few of the lots to a little bit higher. I think these are devil in the details we can work out. I feel like tonight we're really just trying to see which direction you're thinking about if we would like either of the two. Um, but those are some of the things that would be pro things to discuss. If I think about some of the benefits of this plan, it's I think it's easy because it's the same as our approved plan. It still saves 60% open space. It's a unique way to allow density while also protecting open space. And there's no worries about future septic failures, individual or community. And so I know there was a lot of concerns along the north about the septic system. Those would all I mean those might go away because now we can plant some trees up there, have a little bit of buffer in an area where we had to have a septic system previously. The second option I was calling rural single family and and and I I we'll talk about the comp plan here in a second. Um because in the comprehensive plan, this property we're talking about tonight is guided rural single family. And in the and in your comp plan, the rural single family merged residential estate and rural single family. And if you look at residential estate, that was that.3 units per acre if you max out the the best you can. If you look at rural single family and you did it as dense as you could, you'd be at about 66 units per acre. And the guiding for this property, RSF allows for up to two units per acre. So, I didn't know uh mayor when you mentioned that there's a limit to like the size of the lots because I didn't see that anywhere and I wasn't sure that was the case in the rural areas. I feel like your comprehensive plan said, "Hey, we might do this and here it is." And it could have been through an op, but it didn't mean it couldn't be through another code. And so that's why we picked RS because it was existing and it sort of was a good guide for how development could occur. And so this basically doesn't max out the density with with RS, but basically follows the principles of it. So we have 30 lots, one and a half acres. Guess you know the density is at point4 units per acre, two and a half acres per unit. It uses individual septic systems. So we'd need 10,000 square feet on each lot for a primary and an alternate. That's five each. And I did walk out there with us with a uh the gentleman who installed the septic systems in Tory Pines and some of the systems to the north. And we felt from our walk and doing about 20 30 test holes that there's ample area through the to find on each lot. So long as you have enough flexibility to move around. That's why the larger lots um we we applied the RS standards. I'm not going to go through all those, but it's 125 foot wide minimum. These are all larger than that. And those are some of the other minimums, but they they provide a lot more flexibility than for example rural or residential estate which has like a 100 foot front setback, 50 foot side setback, which in the end really limit where you can put the house and limit where the septic systems can go. So some additional considerations to make to for us to pull this off. We'd like to be able to do a rural road section. So just a typical rural road, 28 foot wide. Uh we'd like to do 4ft gravel shoulders instead of the concrete curb. I know you're concerned about the the maintenance of those, but we've found that these kinds of roads last all over the Twin Cities, but uh if not, it would look more like uh Whistling Valley, I think. Um and then convey the storm water along the roadside instead of in storm sewer. The ponds, again, we talked about that as far as the ponds could be in drainage and utility easements versus outlots. That's more an issue of the lot size, right? So, if we went we could do 1.2 two acre lot or a oneacre lot, maybe we could put the the pond into an outlet if that's preferred. The when when you're asking for examples, both the development to the north and the south have ponds within lots uh in in the DNU on each side of us. So that's how it was done previously, especially in rural areas where you have a little less flexibility than when you have urban development. And then uh we would need to pull this off. We would need wetlands and wetland buffers to also be allowed in the lots, which is also the case for both the properties for um Lake Elmo Heights to the north and Tory Pines to the south. And then we asked this question. We know this might be the most volatile question, but as far as going with PVC versus ductal iron, um because it does save some additional funds, the property to the north has HDPE pipe. Basically, there's plastic pipe to the north. We're connecting to a plastic pipe in Inwood. It would seem like we could put plastic pipe through the development and I mean I would say 40 to 50% of the cities in the Twin Cities do that and it's just probably like I said in my memo you know 10 20% cheaper. Um some of the benefits of this plan I believe there's no comprehensive plan needed. Um you could use an existing uh district. I think there would need to be a council action to sort of resurrect the RS district because you did kind of put it to bed, but it still exists in your code. Um, that's at least what I think could happen. Uh, it's very similar to the adjacent uses, right? It's, you know, more rural typical rule feel. Uh, there would be limited exceptions if we just use the RS standard. So, that's kind of the the overall on that. And then, um, my final thoughts on this uh, and I am ending so this is good. is just with option one, you know, there's a Met Council approval element. So that's something that we none of us control. We'll have to, you know, the Met Council will have to look at this and and approve it or not. And um but with the option one, I would say that for us and for all all of us here, there's a little bit more certainty because we have actually fully designed it, right? It's a fully designed pre-plat storm water management plan. All of that has already been done. So there's I think there's just very much more certainty for that. Option two, there's a little bit of risk because it's not fully designed. I did have our engineer lay out the lots with a grading plan and look at the grading, but we didn't do a fully designed storm water system and we still need more soil work to identify the septic systems on each lot. I I optimistic that we can make that work. Um, but it would need a little bit more massaging. So, with that, I think I'll leave I think I'll leave that and just hear the two options and open for any questions. Um, I know it's a lot to handle. I mean, it's a lot to get your arms around, but >> questions. Council member Holtz. >> So, early on, you described the testing that was occurring that state was asking for additional feedback and the conclusion that you were led to believe from your specialist was the issue of too much water. Is that water from rooftops and impervious surface? >> No. No. From the the affluent from the >> from the process itself. Yep. And we didn't apply for the license because the mounding study failed. And so we and and the state said they would ask us for a mounding study that and so we had two we had two people do two different mounding studies. We talked to two doctors on this one and both failed. >> So what are the variables that could impact the amount of water one way or the other? Is there anything that's controllable in that situation? >> It's it's the characteristic of the soil. It's just it's just a it's just a science of the soil. >> So it's >> there's nothing like even if we spread this system out to be twice as wide, we couldn't have made it work, >> right? So it it is unique to this site. So in that h in that hypothetical, this could functionally work on a different site depending upon the soils. So it is a function of the site. >> Yeah. Be we would be putting there'd be machinery on the site. >> Thank you. Well member Jerry, >> so you haven't confirmed that the individual septic systems will work yet? >> I mean, I took an expert out there and walked the lots, but you know, I had experts on this on the other one, too. So, I totally 100% get this. I I understand the irony of it, but I I haven't and I, you know, because you have to do 20 or 30 per lot and so to do and it's, you know, a $15,000 exercise. if if it's something that you're leaning towards tonight, what that would be the first thing I would do to make sure that it would work. And and that's why I feel like it's a work session. So, I'm kind of wanting a little dialogue back and forth because I'm not coming to you saying I absolutely want this or that. I'm just saying, boy, I'm looking I'm trying hardest I can to find something that'll work. What direction are you, you know, what direction do you think I should go? Yeah, my concerns the amount of water going into the soil is the same just maybe over a bigger area when you have the individual septic systems, but maybe not. I, you know, I didn't know how big your drain field was coming out of the plant. And you know, if I added up all the drain fields for the individual septics, would I have the same area or bigger area? We don't know that yet. >> No. And I and I debated bringing experts tonight to to really like explain this, but we have a half hour. So, I was like that could have taken the entire half hour. I t the the individual treatment systems just have a much lower standard and threshold and the there's they capture a lot more of the water in that 10,000 square feet within the first foot and so there's a it's just a different dynamic. It's just than when you concentrate it all into one area. Um and so that's my understanding. I do know that a lot of sites in in Lake Elmo due to the the heavy clays silty uh once their primary runs out at whatever time the county design because it's a county permitted septic uh they have to revert to a mound system. So, >> right, >> which is the other way you could build up soil on top. Yeah. Y >> and Right. >> Oh, go ahead. finish. >> Do you mind going back to the slide uh where you where you were talking about the wetlands, please? >> And maybe we could just have a little conversation around that. I think in your slide um it was >> about it was towards the end >> towards the end. >> Um >> I'm not sure where >> and maybe we don't need it, but just to have a conversation around that. >> Okay. I know Nathan had brought up some concerns um with that specifically. So maybe I I guess if you could just kind of share from the development standpoint why we're looking to do that. Maybe more specifically as well for the storm water ponds. And maybe I just missed it. I just didn't see that in the >> I can explain. I mean I'll just say that it's kind of like ductal iron in BBC. Every city has a different way of thinking about this. Many many cities do drainage utility easements over ponds wherever they may be and are perfectly happy with that because it gives them all the same rights to access and maintain uh the ponds. It's just that having an outlot is just a little cleaner delineation. You don't have to worry about a resident accidentally putting something in, you know, into the pond or into there's a clear like bifurcation and if you go in to maintain them, people don't think you're maintaining their yards. So I I I get why cities want to do it. It does and when you can do it I you know it's probably cleaner for a city and I hate to say that but I mean that's you know but that's true. Um but in so in this instance um you can see like here we have the ponds out in open spaces but because of the characteristic of the property on the rule plan you know we have that it gets steep. There's a kind of a kind of a break in the property and there's a slope that comes down. We're trying to bring that road up to the north side of that not right along the ridge line. And so when we do that, the the lots to the north, you know, we can only make them an acre and a half, you can see, to fit into that that threshold. If I um so I can't really move the road. And if you want ponds and then you want outlots, well then I got to cut down, you know, from the north. I'm just not going to have the space to get that size lot in there. So that's the issue. I I be if it's really like a boy, we really want out lots no matter what and we're willing to look at some oneacre lots. Well, then we maybe could do it. I think with oneacre lots, I probably could make it work. Um, with the wetlands, I mean, here you can see a wetland in the picture. You can't really see it through my my area, but it's just because the size of the lots gets so big, right? So, when you're at an acre and a half size, it gets a lot harder to avoid completely all the wetlands on a site and get an acre and a half on all the lots. So that's >> Yeah. >> And and it if you look around town to the older rural developments, you'll see that's not uncommon. >> Yeah. And gosh, yeah. Tough situation here. And I guess maybe just to help guide to for, you know, helping make a decision, like those three requirements that you ask for at the end. I mean, I I guess I do see those being potentially concerns. And if the the >> wetlands, storm water ponds being within the PVC versus ductile. >> Okay. um >> what I need is exceptions kind of >> the curb and gutter and I guess like if if if you aren't able to get those exceptions and then that that would make option two, you know, not feasible for for you guys financially. I guess that that my thought is I think there's probably going to be some concerns when we actually have to vote on it. If those three things are being asked of it and if those are requirements for you to make it a successful project, I guess I would have concerns about telling you to, hey, to even go down that avenue of, you know, keep planning for option two if if we're going to say no to all three of those um requests. >> Um that's fine. That's fair. I mean, that's why I'm here. Um but I I would say the PVC ductal iron one is kind of that I' I've seen that one get into like like the sensitive category when it comes to public works because it's such a personal choice thing. But but the outlots, you know, outsots for for the ponds, I think honestly, I think that's there's some good rationale, you know, that you could allow it. I mean, so and then as far as not not having a city, you know, road standard in this development because what that does is it brings in not just the cost of the curb, but the cost of the catch basins and the storm sewer. You you start to add the cost of an urban development to a rural development, and there's just not enough lots to spread the cost. And so again, if that's something you guys are like, absolutely, we're never going to budge on that. That that I will have to factor that in. >> Yeah. You you mentioned Whistling Valley, but I think uh in the last road redo, that's that's all curb and gutter. Now, if I >> But not the ribbon curve. >> Excuse me. >> It has It doesn't have that twoft ribbon curve. I thought it did. >> It It might have some ribbon curve in places, but it does have some surmountable curve in some of the curd. And I mean that that would probably be ductal versus plastic PVC. I'm not that hung up about um maybe just because I don't know the intricacies of the two. But the uh the standard that we're trying to do throughout the city, that that would be a hangup for me on the on the urban versus rural and gravel shoulder because I know there's some other people that have asked that and that would probably be uh of the mindset that curb gutter would be needed. >> What about the uh storm water wetlands area? >> Yeah, that'd be something we'd have to discuss. I guess I I don't have a a strong yes or no. I guess that's all I'm trying to just provide some guidance as far as, you know, certainty for them as they're trying to figure out to go. >> Yeah. The only one I could really say for >> definitely at least for me is is I I wouldn't want to put a road in there. It's got 4 foot gravel shoulders. >> And I think the other conversation is, you know, Jeff had kind of brought up about >> bringing sewer to this neighborhood. You know, would require comprehensive plan amendment that the plan is coming up here soon where we're going to be going over that. Obviously 180 acres to the north. I mean there's a lot to consider there. So I mean I think that's a probably an important piece to discuss for >> Yeah. >> Have you had many rural developments? Like I haven't like recently. >> Excuse me. >> Have you had many rural developments recently like two and a half or >> I'm just I I've tried I mean I've tried to make the math work with all of your requirements and I just don't know how somebody pulls it off especially in the school district we're in. you know, because then you're leaning more to a family buyer. >> Well, and early on, I mean, I think part of the demographic you were looking at probably wasn't that, >> right, >> that school family, if I remember correctly. >> Yep. >> I mean, I will say with the MUSA, my gut is I would rather have that conversation as part of the 2050. I made that clear when we were talking about the site toward the south of this for the the plant. Um especially given that this is surrounded by 2 and a half acre lot neighborhood to the south and three to five acre neighborhood to the north. Um we we already had a very good quality conversation about updating the OPUD. Um so I I don't know if this is even a good spot for the Musa. Anyways, there's absolutely a benefit to having sewer on Inwood to potentially get to uh neighborhoods on the east side as you get closer to Stillwater Boulevard where those lots are smaller, but I don't know if this is I I don't want to say, hey, let's allow it here so then we can have an added benefit elsewhere. I I want to focus mainly on this site. I I don't I don't have an issue with the storm water, right, >> and doing easements on site because that does exist in Tory Pines. It does exist uh in Lake Elmo Heights as well. But obviously though that at the time that was something that was permissible. I mean I see one in tapestry a couple in tapestry but obviously it's not something in Easton or in Painton recently. I I would agree in terms of curbing gutter that that's our modern stat that is our standard for purposes many purposes for sustainability for the environment for m maintenance. So I I would agree in that regard. PVC I can't make an informed I'm an educator. I have no view on >> you know this this site like the one other site that's in the comp plan that has the same designation. Right. >> I meant to bring that point up. I forgot. >> It really creates some really um difficult situations for for for the uh for the land owner because it wasn't really spelled out in the comp plan >> what it should be. So then it it it lays on us this you know man it would have been really nice to have that package plant work right >> 100%. So then then we jump to to uh B and C here and it creates some some questions of well you know you create a island muse and we've had to bail out one one uh development due to their septic failing and who knows if that'll happen again right and and um it's kind of a sensitive topic for the council and so part of me is like and I wonder they touch that Musa question. But the other hand, um it would be nice to see something that could work and you've worked your tail off in in trying to create options here and some have some internal conflict uh with both, right? And and I wish there was an easy button, but I'm not seeing it >> right. I mean, this feels like maybe we need to go to a bar with some beers and talk a little harder on this because I think >> Council Member Draguch, >> you know, my preference I I know the MU adjustments are a lot of mucking around, but you know how many times and I in my life I can tell you sitting in front of city councils where they had area that septic systems were put in and down the road you got a situation where some have just replaced theirs, some are failing and the rest are kind somewhere in the middle and they're in this quandry about how do we put the sewer in and get it paid for because the people who put the new septics don't want to pay an assessment. I just put a new septic in for 30,000 last year. You got five at the end of the road that are failing, you know, and they got to do something and rather than a septic rather just spend the money connect up the city. And so to me, when we go along with the septics on these, we set up a future issue for the city and trying to deal with those failures. it. We're talking one at our last meeting. And so I'm kind of I'm kind of inclined in the go to the fall. Let's get the sewer and be done with it for the then we're done for the future. >> If if somebody was saying you have to go one way or the other. Um I guess I would go uh option one from the standpoint that this the sanitary goes in. It's a force man that goes down to a location where the Met Council can accept it. That staff has already discussed that option um of the two um for a couple of reasons. I I guess I would I would lean towards option one. Just option two quite honestly Paul for me you have a hard time hitting like a rural road in there at least. I mean, I might get outvoted four to one, but I would be the one. >> Okay, >> just to let you know, >> I see the sword. >> Yeah, >> you are the one maybe. >> I I would be the one. >> Yeah, that's >> and that and I'm okay with that. Um but as far as or as far as you know um with all you know all consideration to the property owner I want to treat them as a partner in this and see something work for them. Um, if I had to lean, you know, and certainly, uh, what, you know, there's some obvious signs that staff has done some work on this and and looked into it and talked with the Met Council, that that's probably where I would be the most comfortable. The one thing I did skip over in my presentation, and I think you touched on it though, is that this is one of the two properties guided for RSF that are 20 acres and and and the land seller told me when I first bought the property or was under contract and when that they met with the city several times and that, you know, yeah, you could do an OPUD, but there's but but they just said, bring a developer forward because they were going to create a new ordinance for this particular land use because it sits by itself, right? I mean, it's 0.1 units to two units per acre. So, you don't there's really no zoning. I just showed it. There's no zoning that that even comes close. You're about 30% there. And so, I I thought the I that's and so I I guess that's what we've been trying to do, right? We've been trying and and we we did accomplish it together. Like, so it isn't that you've said no because you did say yes. It's just that unfortunately the the the soils failed us. So just so I'm understanding I mean the main because again with the option one that is what we've approved the main difference is now because it has sewer it would have to be part of the MUSA so it's going to impact the numbers and so we have to create a new zoning as a result of it which opens up kind of potential for other lots to be able to go this route. Well, >> is the main concern >> with option one the fact that we'd have to bring the sewer out? That seems to be the main concern. >> Yeah, it would be kind of an island of the Musa, right? You t typically you but for uh what was what's the development up here that we added then I know the other one? >> Tapestry. >> Tapestry. Yeah. So that's I mean that's kind of >> the concern the island is. >> Yeah. Right. So, what what is it other than a than a feeling, right? Um >> and and maybe I mean I I don't want to say that as in like uh sarcastically either. I mean maybe there is a concern with you know does it look like it's not planned versus >> I'll just be completely honest. Some of it's just optics, right? >> Yeah. >> And maybe I just need to forget about that and just say what what what makes sense. >> I mean do we expect sewer to want to move north with that development? I I guess you know sewer from a city's perspective is all what Met Council can take, right? Or what they what they plan on taking because we don't we don't we don't own that planning tool. They they take what they can, right? So does does this limit us someplace later? Um does the other however many acres that are off 20 street come in? And but I I I think also that that the developer Paul is, you know, I want to give him some credit here. He he started off with something that tried to fit in the land. He didn't jump right to no >> I want to bring sewer in. Right. So this is exhaust. This is what I would call a good example of partnership between the city and the developer trying to make something work >> that that that can work for the city and the developer can can deal with. So I want something >> maybe something to just think about is I think there's potential that there could be um Musa area added to the east of this as well. >> No, >> that's that's part of >> that's county >> county park >> north and east. So northeast the >> where we're talking about the water treatment plant >> south. Yeah. Right. >> Um so near like closer, >> right? >> Because I think that was the idea. I know nothing's approved there obviously, but >> the conversation I mean would that >> change the math on it at all? >> Dude, >> as far as approximate >> Nathan saying yes. >> Yeah. So just to jump in on that one. So, if um the council were to move forward with option one, we'd be looking at creating a district that could be used in other contexts, including the some of the parcels you've recently discussed, which would be the ones around that water site. So, um this is something that could be reused. Then, I would just reiterate that we're also planning to have uh another meeting at some point this summer to have that more broad conversation about the Musa. So, uh you can have that opportunity to really discuss where and um when you know expansion may be appropriate. >> And I and I should clarify it's not that I'm we already approved option one in terms of density, >> right? >> That and I continue to think that is a great plan because it has 60% open space. It aligns with a much larger value of the community than any other shared value open space. Um, so in that regard, it is a plan we already approved of. And maybe you're right, mayor. Maybe it is it maybe it's not an a sub substantive policy issue to have an island. I fully support the peninsula of Amusa at the school. >> Yeah, >> it's a beautiful peninsula. It serves a public good. I will vote for that 10 times out of 10. So in that regard, maybe you you are right for once. >> You know, part part of it is Paul, we get beat up quite a bit for um not exactly following the comp plan at times and and the and the school is a prime example of that, right? And and for there at least for for my matter, that was that was for the public good in something like this. Um, right. It's not the public good, but for lack of an option to do something that that that fits the uh the site and and works for the city. Um, I I'm struggling with coming up. I feel like whether it has been done or not, I feel like the options have been thoroughly vetted and reviewed and and like council member Draich said, u I live in a in a community that has a community septic and we've got our own issues with that and I'm not, you know, we we run into people that have septic systems and then they have to go to plan B and it's a mound system, right? And That's also a a cost to the the the residential person, the taxpayer there. That that sometimes feels like a lot, right? When you I don't know, is it 20 25,000 to convert into a mound system? I think something. >> Yeah. It's it's it's not it's not a cheap endeavor, right? So, um, but I I know right now there there would be there will be emails of like, "Oh, there you go again." Uh, not not following the comp plan. Uh, just, you know, throwing water over the wall. >> You know, I understand the comp plan, but we didn't, the city didn't etch it in stone and and hand it down from heaven. It's a guide. It's a guide. It's a guide. and you make you make adjustments to it based on you know we did a plan 20 years ago and you make those adjustments. The other thing I think maybe we need to reframe this whole sewer question and say if we look at this sewer extension because his soils will not allow him to put enough treatment plant there. Are there other other areas that could benefit from this 30 years like to the south where the lots are all on? >> I I I think it would be shortsighted to say no. >> Right. But we took a long-term view of working with our engineer and and planning and say if we went along with this, is there any other um consideration that would make this a a good choice? Might not be in a they might not be in a musale, but again, a septic systems failed and you got the super main out there. Maybe they say we'll put a lift station in and pump into that force main because that's a better alternative for us than trying to spend $40,000 each on a mountain system. And so I'm saying let's maybe expand our view a little bit and say if we went this route, what would be the long-term potential benefits of it, you know, if it's if it's 20 years from now because we expect that system would be in there for 40 or 50 years at least. >> Well, and that was honestly why I asked Nathan the question like would we want to be upsized in that hypothetical? >> Yep. Exactly. We would because we are asked every other year the last 10 years to be able to neighbor >> that that could be engineered to um >> I wanted to just clarify that I I mean in our perform we are planning on paying for the lift stationation in the force main I mean so that is so we're planning on paying for it now just like Nathan said if we upsized it or you wouldn't necessarily have to be upsized you know necessarily for it to handle adult you know all these additional places I mean more more than likely they'd be pressurized systems so they wouldn't need to flow into it. They would be pressurized to it. >> Well, it's so we we've spent like uh I'm sorry 40 minutes almost an hour on this. So I I think we've had really good discussion and I appreciate you bringing it forward. I appreciate the time staff has done. >> Um do I do I hear >> option one? I'm >> option one. >> I'm in favor of I think it's >> kind of forwardession. Well, I think we could move forward with a comp plan amendment without going full boore and that kind of lets us play it out, right? >> You got enough to go on there. >> This has been really helpful. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. I know. I I took advantage of the time. I appreciate it. >> It's it's very important and um you know there it's you know there's two spaces in our comp plan that address and I I always looked at those and go man they kind of just threw it up there and let let somebody else figure it out and and here we are trying to figure it out. So, but I I do appreciate all the time that you've done >> and effort that you put towards it. So, thank you. >> Thanks. >> Appreciate it. >> Thanks everybody for the thoughtful discussion on that. I appreciate it. It is it is an important thing and and there are long-term thoughts that come with that. So, item number three is our tree fund. >> Yep. Next item is the tree fund and the potential boulevard tree program that we are looking into. Um just the background, the city received a $50,000 payment from the school system as part of their tree mitigation uh when the elementary school was approved. The current code allows for a fee in L, but it doesn't specify how the fund should be spent. Uh using the funds to replace trees was discussed during the approval process. Uh the city does not have a tree fund separate from park dedication funds. So you'll see trees replaced in parks through the park dedication fund. Uh also the city does not have a rightaway or boulevard tree replacement program. So if trees die, they're out of their warranty period in a neighborhood. Sometimes they get cut down by public works. There isn't a fund or a way for the city to replace them except for going through the HOA. So the issue before the council is uh should the council consider creating a tree fund and a boulevard tree program. So the options we're looking at really basic high level or create a fund and a tree program create the fund without the boulevard tree program and I'll go into some details about the tree program and then not do not create the tree fund and specify how the 50,000 should be spent. So the tree fund details is pretty basic. Would be just to add section G to the tree preservation um section the code and it would allow the city to receive donations too directly for tree preservation and replacement. Um the 50,000 would also be placed there. Um, and currently the way it's structured, it was in the packet is it would fund a Boulevard tree program or we could even use it on larger trees for the tree giveaway because right now the tree giveaways are sapling. So there's options for this. The way it's written into is the council could basically approve a tree program. So if there's something that you come up with that you want to um spend the money on, it would just go through an approval process the way the ordinance was drafted. So, we've been working with HKGI, our landscape architect, and basically talking to them, looking at a model based in Oakdale and Columbia Heights Adopted Tree Program. What we've seen with this is the basics are that the resident would receive a boulevard tree planted by a nursery or contractor, a watering bag, and a mulch ring. This is pretty typical. You basically want to at some point leave it to the homeowner to to adopt it. adding watering after or trying to buy warranties on trees is very expensive. So at some point we would want the resident to be responsible um for the upkeep of the tree. So the process basically looks like this is that the trees would have to be in the a rightway in an established neighborhood. It wouldn't be for any trees that are in uh neighborhoods under a warranty period. But the resident would complete an online form. Uh there would be a list of trees to select from. and they would give basic information like their name, address, phone number, email, and they would agree to water the tree and there would be instructions on how to maintain the tree. HKGI would um so I what would happen is we would get a list of people that would want to adopt the tree outside of their house. We'd have to go through that list and then HKGI would work with public works to ensure that there are no site utility complex. I think what you'll end up seeing are trees that were there that died and have been removed. So, it's more of just kind of going through that process, making sure it's a eligible site. We don't want to add if there's two trees really close, we don't want to just add another tree, right? So, there are going to be some criteria that, you know, Oakdale and um uses uh trees. We were looking at a once a year planning. This keeps the cost down from administrative side. So, the idea is if you wanted to move and do this, it would probably be in May of next year. But the idea is we would get the trees uh the people figured out like who was getting the trees budgeted >> and then the trees would be planted in May basically. So that would be that would make it easier. It wouldn't be this ongoing. If you aren't selected, we could move you to a wait list. Um so that's kind of the thought there. We want to make sure it's planted by a nursery landscape company and HKGI would monitor. Um, like I said, they would come with a watering bag and each KGI would just inspect just to make sure they're um installed correctly. So, the fiscal impact, the cost would be offset by the 50,000 payment and future donations. The program delivery costs, this is basically everything but the trees and the material we think would cost anywhere 5 to10,000 per year. And then it could just be a a pilot program if since we have the funds now for $50,000. It could be let's see if this works. Let's see how much it costs really. Uh if it's beneficial and if it is something that's beneficial, the council could provide funds to it for next year's budget. And like I said, typically you would try to uh receive donations from corporations and then also look at as like a pay it forward type program. It's pretty common with these kind of tree nonprofits where they say, "You received a tree worth this much money. Please consider making a donation so someone else can have a tree in the future." So, we would like to see that kind of implemented too. So, really just input on what do you think about both the tree fund and the Boulevard tree program and open for questions. Council member Jagusich, >> I think having a tree fund with Boulevard tree program is a really great idea. You know, we we're a tree city. We require all these trees be planted with developments and that, but a boulevard of our trees get something happens, we don't replace them. And there's kind of a disconnect in in my mind and what is our value and and so I think having a boulevard tree program tree program for our parks you know makes a lot of sense and I would fully support it as an ongoing program not just we put the 50,000 in and when it's gone oh well we did our part. >> Okay. So question um you guys probably I know you were around when the royal made gave some money in lie of trees but that didn't necessarily go into a tree program because you know sometimes in the development it's like a ridiculous seems like a ridiculous number if they take away so many trees they got to replace so many trees kind of kind of like the school right >> where we said all right well in lie of placing the trees we took a a dollar amount, but I think that dollar amount went into the general fund >> pars fund. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, um I I would be in favor of that. And um you know when if if somebody takes down a heavily wooded area, they're supposed to put so many trees in their development, but you can't can only put so many trees in >> in a boulevard or in people's yards or whatever that that that the money could be placed into this tree fund for people to replace boulevard trees along the streets and take care of them. I I think that's a fabulous idea. Council member Holtz >> with the the agreement for them to water the tree. Can there also be language in there? And they acknowledge there is no warranty period. >> Yes. >> And I I would agree with both of these. I want it to be an ongoing fund, not a one-time thing. I agree with the aspect of Boulevard. Um I would anticipate there's probably be higher demand than what either the fund initially can handle or what logistically can be done. So I'm wondering would there is the initial instinct to be priority based upon first come first serve or would we okay >> yeah first come first serve and then we go through the list and then make sure that they're eligible like we talked about with tree spacing and that sort of >> utilities I say would there be any other criteria for reasons of no besides utilities >> not that I can think of like we talked about the spacing and the utilities >> site distance things of that nature Sure. Typical safety issues. >> What about like a mount? I mean, we're talking you can This is one tree or what if you wanted 75 trees for your property? >> Well, it would have to go through the landscape company for it to make sense related to lands, dare I say, landscaping protocol, right? I mean, >> so typically the spacing is 50 feet and it's in that section between the sidewalk and the curb. I guess maybe I'm just saying more like would there be a limit where we're saying you know somebody could adopt when there >> I'll step back. I'm in favor of this. I think go for it. I think the details details >> and like I think you know just maybe for some direction for like when it's brought back. I think there's some things there that I'd like to mention now. But >> what what about parts of the city that have boulevard but there's no sidewalk >> that would be eligible if it's right away. >> Yeah. Yeah. Because every street has, you know, people say, "Well, I mow it." But it's >> it's Boulevard, right? >> Put them in the same location from the street. >> Yeah. >> Like if you had a corner lot, maybe you could get two trees. Right. Right. So, >> Right. >> Okay. >> And I guess I'm just thinking like maybe some of the bigger lots, right? If somebody somebody that's owned agricultural and has 40 acres. >> Yep. >> And they could get >> Well, I think >> there could be a lot of trees that could go there. I'm just saying like do we need >> but there's some sounds like there's some details to work on >> and I think maybe I guess one thing that kind of comes to my mind right too and I don't know if this would take it out of the boulevard tree program is obviously there's been a lot of trees lost um ash trees lost I mean is this something where maybe it would be better used for hey if somebody has had to cut down their asht tree that fund this could be to fund putting in a new tree there. You think you have some statutory issues of spending public money on private property. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I think you want to keep it in the boulevard areas, but but as we would say, I mean, we all know that what is it? The damn cottonwoods that it's like snowing out there. That that be like a a tree that wouldn't be on the list, right? >> Basswoods would not be on the list. >> You can see you got all that fuzz stuck in his beard. >> Yeah, I know. I know. That's not age. >> That's not age. It's cottonwood. It's cottonwoods. >> Well, and and along those lines, can a HOA apply for it if they have a rightway along a city road? >> That's something we would have to consider. I mean, but then they would have >> Yeah. Who's going to who's then going to be responsible for >> Yeah. as they I think you need to have a person not a general entity you know to say you know even though it's an HOA it's I Jeff Holtz am going to be watering this and making sure that I care for it and love it and hug it and squeeze it >> because the tree is going in the in the public right of ways >> well I guess the reason yes is because now we're talking about property types you can have a residential home that's not owned by a person it's owned by a trust Well, >> or or it's actually owned by a business. You have businesses where the business owner is there every day. They're a person. They don't live there and they are fully capable of signing it as well. So, >> I guess bottom line though, you have Boulevard tree. >> Yes. I mean, it's pretty clear what a boulevard is. >> I My last thing, I just thought it was a really good point about the the pay it forward. I I actually think and in the idea of trying to make this a little bit more of a a fund that's going to continue to sustain itself. I mean, I don't know if there's maybe a conversation or not. This might be crazy, but like, do we actually charge some fee for the trees, so at least we're replenishing the fund somewhat? And then with the ask for, you know, the full price of this is $500 and, you know, you're getting a deal for 200, but if you want to pay it forward, I'm just trying to think of, you know, I thought that was a really good point. I didn't even think of it, but as a way to make it more sustainable outside of just hoping that businesses will, you know, >> or um as a legacy that people pass on monies to this funds and >> what if they can buy a two-year warranty for $200. >> Actually, no, honestly, >> I'm not even kidding. That's how insurance works. >> Yeah, >> Charles just gave me the look. But >> no, I >> I guess I just honestly >> again I I I do I'd love to keep it simple. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Get it? >> So, it's easy to use. I'd love to make it personally, voluntary for people because there might be somebody that just had something. Maybe they they lost a tree due to some construction. They're dealing with assessments and whatever. They'd like that tree replaced. Yeah. >> Maybe they're not in a position to put two 400. But, but there are plenty of people say, "Shit, 200 bucks. You put a tree in. It's subsidized." Whatever. I'm going to take care of it. It's front of my yard. It's going to look great. >> It's not going to put out dusty white stuff. >> Yeah, let's do it. So, >> could have the donations be an optional donation. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> All right. So, just keep it optional donation. >> I I think so. >> I think that's I think that's a good point. Keep it simple. >> I don't want to make it own for somebody. >> Yeah, that's a good point. >> I I like that idea, though. I think that is definitely something to push for with it. I think in general eight out of 10 people are like, you know, they're I'd like to think that the greater good's pretty >> you can donate whatever you want. >> Yeah. >> Doesn't have these tree programs are fairly common around other cities, so we're not taking in inventing something new. They've been around in other cities for a while and they've been successful. >> Yeah. >> You know, >> well, we are in our arbor >> uh city. So, >> yeah. >> Do you have enough? >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. I always think I uh we just got to figure out a way to uh Well, never mind. I'll >> keep it going. Yeah. >> I I was at a golf outing and there was if you hit it on the green, it was for a church outing. If you hit on the green, >> you know, you bet money and they'll pay you 10 bucks and then so I hit it on the green and I got my 10 bucks and then the priest comes up to me and says, "Well, I can give you this or you could donate it." >> Yeah. Oh my god. Really? >> I've been at those scholarship fundraisers like and you won $100 or you can just give it to the scholarship. >> The other thing is if you have the fund there may be charities that would donate to it, right? >> We have charitable gambling. We give $1,000 to the city for the truth fund >> because it saves the environment. >> You told the priest carbon. >> No. So I gave him 20 bucks. I think I think I gave him double. >> You lost. >> All right. >> Is that enough for you? >> That is enough. Just to clarify, we will come back with a program that will be approved by the council. So like the details will get worked out and you'll see everything. >> Perfect. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> So GFOA certificate of achievement. >> I did not do a presentation. I'm going to make this quick right here. Um I just wanted some quick feedback from council. We have spent a lot of time doing audit um preparation and uh for the last six months and um part of that is to sort of go through these processes for this certificate of achievement through the national GFOA. Um and every time I had to touch this thing, I wondered what do we get from this? Um and so I spoke with Tammy Mal, our municipal adviser. It does not affect our bond rating at all. I spoke with our auditors. There are some extra steps. it does not affect any type of um other than adding to that process, it really doesn't affect that audit or how it's viewed by whoever. Um and so before I stop doing this, we wanted to see if that would be okay with you. I did bring along our existing plaque. It's nice and heavy, but this for 10 years cost us probably over $50,000. So that's my question. Do we want another little dot? >> I would. >> Yes, I would say it's, you know, it's like putting ice cream on top of the frosting on top of the honey. Um, the audit doesn't change. You know, it's the same audit, same opinion, it's valued the same. It's kind of it's kind of a nice thing to have in some ways, but I would bet if if you ask a 100 city councilors in the immediate area, how many look at that audit? Does does it have a certificate? most not be able to tell because people ignore it. They look at the audit. I just don't see it adds anything but cost to what we're doing. >> I fully concur. >> I'll just ask one question. I mean, they brought it up where they talk about the goal of this is to go beyond just generally acceptable and to increase the transparency. How does this increase the transparency, I guess, would be my my one question. I I don't know that I would be able to explain that the concepts that they are covered um >> in the general audit does, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And that's where I'm I'm going with the concept beyond my comprehension. Um >> it sounds like we're paying for some letters to be added to it to make it look more official, >> right? >> That aren't actually changing any of the financials, right? >> And it's not making it less >> We pay our auditors to review our financials and present that information to you. Now, we've been paying extra money to pay essentially my peers and some other auditors to review that audit >> subject to the GFOA certificate of authentication. A >> can we just have our regular auditors give us a nice plaque? >> How about we give the auditor >> make one? How about if we just make our own plaque for 50,000? >> We can make it a nice lightweight print on the printer. >> All right. We pass thanks for the question >> to the youngest member of the city council >> and and and thank you for for saving the city some some dollars there. >> Uh we do have a request to change garbage collection start time. Look at that. We're right back on schedule the agenda folks. >> Perfect >> work. So, I have attached the letter that we received from the owners of tennis um asking us to consider changing our garbage hauling to start at 6 a.m. instead of 7 a.m. And before I had staff do any work on this, I wanted to generally get a feel um for the council perhaps come up in the past and there was discussion or should we look into it or hard no? Just kind of want to get a feel to see what your thoughts are. I swear I had the trash service come when I was uh in Legacy. I swear they came at like 5:00 a.m. in the morning. >> It would not surprise me if the other companies come and get the trash at various times. >> Been there like 6:30 in the morning. >> I know in their letter they mentioned Still Water. I did check with the city of Stillwater. I was told that it was 7 o'clock. I checked with Woodbury at 6 o'clock, Maplewood 6:00. I wasn't able to get a response back from North St. Paul. Um you >> It is seven. >> It's seven. >> Um you know, interestingly enough, uh for me, they hit a little little trigger in there that it it's probably a little bit safer for the drivers if they get in there before uh 7:00, not have to go around some construction equipment that may be starting at 7 o'clock and things of that nature. And to be real honest, I don't pay attention to when those guys come. Um, is there a little truck noise? Does it maybe affect it in the summer a little bit if the windows open, but it's one day a week? I I don't really have a lot of consternation over a six versus seven. >> It's not something that's been brought up before. >> It's not It's not a con, not that I'm aware of. >> Yeah, it's not something that you guys had previously come up kind of, >> you know, and it's it's they're in and then they're out. It's not a con. It's not like a backup alarm on a back hole or an excavator that's going to go beep beep beep beep for a construction site that we want to start at seven. I guess that would be the differentiator. I would I would think about >> maybe one thing we could do, mayor, would be have staff just find out, you know, take a cities immediately adjacent to us and what is what is their what is their policy? >> Yeah. I mean it would wouldn't take much to pause as a city administrator or public work kept Marty call the public works guys and say what time are do you allow your garbage haulers to start at least we'd have a reference point when it came up and say well most of our neighbors allow it at 6 and you know um not that that would make our final decision >> they made they made a point we are a growing community we're getting more residents in there there is more trash to be picked up it takes time >> um >> well technically Construction workers can bring their equipment and be driving on the streets at 6:00 a.m. as well. They just can't start work, >> right? >> And their equipment can be just as loud as a garbage truck. So, >> that truck should not start before 7. >> The work >> the diesel truck excavator should not be cranked >> on site before. But if they're bringing the dump truck, if they're bringing the loader, >> bringing the the concrete forms. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Bring them in, set them up. as long as they're not doing jackhammering and things of those natur that nature. >> And we could also see if the cities that do 6 a.m. have any um complaints from their citizens at all too. But I don't see a problem with 6 a.m. I've never either. I never hear them to be honest. >> So, >> can we uh can this be something that maybe gets put on the Facebook is a I mean because tonight we're just saying hey like yeah bring this to council to vote on or would it just be give it the go-ahad? Oh, I was just looking to see if you wanted us to do some research to bring it back for you to make a decision. >> Would we have to vote on a decision? >> Yeah. >> And I guess where I'm going with this is like this does I would care less. Like it's not going to impact me, but if there's a bunch of residents that don't love this like >> great, but nobody really comes to the meetings. >> The only ones you're going to hear from are the ones that are against it. The people that are okay with it aren't going to say anything. >> Yeah. It's no wor snow plow go by your house at 4 in the morning. >> Yeah. >> I'm just saying I I I'm okay with this. If we want more transparency, >> let's let's check with surrounding cities and >> let's see if they get a lot of complaints. >> Sure. Okay. >> Yeah. I don't think it's out of consideration. >> We'll bring it back. >> And if it can, you know, if they got to do that and help keep costs down again, it it it could, you know, if they got to put more trucks out to get to more residents, it it costs them. So >> there's that avenue. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Really? >> All right. >> I don't know. Can What? What do we have on the next? It says future agenda items, but I don't have anything in my packet to look at. Do you want to do you know what's on our next uh workshop next month? I can pull that up for you right now. >> Appreciate it. >> I do. >> Didn't ask you. >> Our next workshop in July is our CIP discussion. That's why Clarissa knows. And also um Marty bumped the sidewalk and trail the snow removal. Okay. Um till later. So >> Okay. >> What What about the storm water utility? We are meeting internally as staff this Friday to discuss it more. So, >> okay, >> it's coming. >> That's a probably a longer discussion. >> Yeah. All right. Uh given that look at that 12 minutes before the agenda says and I'd like to journ tonight's evening. Thank Thank you for everybody's participation.