Here is the transcribed townhall meeting with speaker names added based on the context provided. [31:54] **Unknown Speaker:** You need to look at the [42:31] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** 6:45. I'd like to call the meeting to order. Um, Mr. Eisele isn't here this evening. He had a previous commitment. Um, first on our agenda is to approve the agenda. [42:53] **Kathy Weier:** Um, I'd like to move the order of city business action items. Um, let's see. Number five is discussion of operations and maintenance agreement for Prey Lake. I'd like to move that to number one, please. [43:12] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Anything else? [43:21] **Kathy Weier:** Number one under action items. [43:23] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Yes. [43:24] **Kathy Weier:** Okay. [43:25] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Just moving it up so our guests can go. [43:27] **Kathy Weier:** Okay. [43:28] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** But behind all the presentations and reports. Um, well, that's what I was asking you about, Alan. We can move up the action items into presentations. [43:48] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** So, after Mr. Schmidt does his, we can do that. [43:51] **Alan Kantrud (City Attorney):** Yeah. [43:52] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay, let's do that. It's just out of order, but it's obviously respectful for a lot of the folks that want to be here for that piece, I think. All right, then. Let's move number five under action items to number two or 1A I guess under presentations and reports. [44:12] **Alan Kantrud (City Attorney):** And I'll just let the uh the minutes reflect the fact that that piece of city business will be handled at that part of the— [44:19] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. Thank you. Anything else? And I also see our um in the consent agenda was an approval for Shelley Dopkin as our new Washington or White Bear Lake Conservation District rep. And I see her here. So could I also amend the— [44:37] **Kathy Weier:** Why don't you just pull it out at consent agenda time? [44:42] **Bridget Sperl:** Because I don't want her to have to wait. [44:45] **Kathy Weier:** Well then, okay, then put it up front. [44:47] **Bridget Sperl:** I mean, if we approve the consent agenda, that's fine. I would just like you to meet Shelley. [44:52] **Kathy Weier:** Why don't you just add her as a presentation? [44:55] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** So that's right. Number one. 1.5. [44:58] **Bridget Sperl:** I'd like to put her first so she can leave. [45:00] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. So 0.5 Shelley. [45:04] **Kathy Weier:** Five. [45:05] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. Yeah. I just saw Shelley back there. So let's do her actually one. We'll do Tom, two. [45:11] **Bridget Sperl:** Let's say we give her 0.9. [Laughter] [45:13] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. Did you get that Alan? So number one will be um introduction of Shelley. Number two is Tom Schmidt. Um number 2A would be our Rice Creek discussion. Anything else people? [45:29] **Kathy Weier:** I'll move with those amendments. [45:31] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Thank you Kathy. One second. [45:35] **Bridget Sperl:** Thank you Bridget. Um all in favor I opposed. [45:39] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Hearing none motion passes. Um we're going to start with the open public forum. Is there anybody here that would like to speak? Okay, Barton. [45:48] **Barton Winter:** There's no microphone here. Okay, so Barton Winter, 5 Lane, and uh I've been working on the hockey rink this summer and installing perimeter posts. Now I'm going to put some board replacement and uh so it's all been quite a big job, but I am very interested in the rink and one of the things that's come to my attention is uh we're putting up netting at the west end or the end closest to the warming house and uh I don't know whether uh this was actually uh some issue that was approved by council or just the parks committee. I'm not sure. I know parks committee mentioned it briefly the last parks meeting in September and it seemed like it was uh taken with a a real lack of seriousness about who was going to be doing this work and Jim and Ron, city maintenance employees, have been doing the work. So, there's a few questions uh that I have about the posts that are being installed and whether they're uh sufficiently supported to, you know, undergo the stress that they're going to be subjected to. So, we're putting something up that's higher than twice as high as what we've had in the past and what has been supported in the past. So, uh my concerns are primarily the the heavy posts that are in uh two order positions near the gate entrance to the the end of the ring. Uh that these are being attached to the existing posts that support the chain fence and that the uh they're being bolted together. Uh and I just wanted to point out that you know the bolting process maybe this is good enough but nonetheless it focuses the stress on a small area and if you look at chainlink fence mostly you don't see bolt holes and bolts holding chainlink fence there is members of chainlink fence so uh I'm concerned that there you know we're going to have stresses that could degrade our existing fence structure and could degrade the wooden posts and what I'm asking is that uh we try and put banding and so we um broaden the uh the area that the stress is going to be under which is what you see on regular chainlink fence. [48:43] **Barton Winter:** And uh you see bands and things like that, but you don't see bolt holes and bolts holding it together because it's under stress. and uh we're increasing the stress and my concern is that this is being done as cheaply as possible. [49:02] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. [49:03] **Barton Winter:** And uh thank you and I'm hoping that we that you'll listen. I did speak with Marcus and I wanted to you know I commented to him and I'm hoping that— [49:15] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** We'll have Marcus address it. [49:18] **Barton Winter:** —can speak on this issue because we don't want to ruin what we have right now because somebody else said we need a fence down there. We haven't had a fence there for since its inception. Okay. Thank you. [49:28] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Thank you, Barton. Thank you for all your work on the rink. We really appreciate it. Is there anybody else that would like to speak during public forum? Yes. Thank you. [49:43] **Unknown Resident:** We're doing the the Prey Lake stuff during the public forum? The comments? [49:46] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Oh, that's okay. Go ahead. Just state name and address, please. [49:52] **Ruth Johnson:** Ruth Johnson, [address muffled]. I'm here with my husband. It's about Prey Lake which people are fairly familiar with the history of it but I am uh really disturbed by the proposed agreement and the fact is that Rice Creek District never got the required easements to send water into Halls Marsh. We went to Washington County, looked at the records, there are no easements against that and I just think Birchwood should first of all compel Rice Creek to get the easements which are specified in their own rules. And along with the legal easements would be maintenance and there's there are a lot of false statements and disadvantageous terms in the proposed agreement and before we sign off on Halls Marsh, we really think we're trying to get advice from some more sources like environmental rights advocacy groups and an attorney with special expertise in state and local law. Thank you. [51:44] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Thank you, Ruth. Is there anybody else who would like to speak? [51:54] **Justin McCarthy:** Justin McCarthy, 515 Lake. Um, so first I just want to say that I want to thank Bud and Ruth. So, you know, back when I was on the council, one of the things they pointed out to me was that, you know, Prey Lake was a problem, right? The outlet was a problem. It's causing problems for the marsh. Um, and while I agree with some of the sentiment that they express, I think that, you know, the deal as has been presented with the amendments, I think is a good is a good deal. Um, I think that could we get more? Maybe. But, you know, at what cost, right? I mean, I think we probably have to file a lawsuit. Now, do we have grounds? Yes. Do we have a good case? Maybe. Um, I think there's some facts that weigh against us, right? Because in the 70s, we were the ones to propose this project to Rice Creek. Um, so that that certainly weighs against us. Do they have easements? No, not that I'm aware of. Should they have easements? Yes, they should. Um, you know, the the issue though is filing a lawsuit's not it's risky. It's very risky. It's very resource intensive. I think, you know, getting the deal as is with some of the the amendments that Mr. Hankins has proposed, I think is a good deal. [53:28] **Justin McCarthy:** The two amendments I think are fair. Number one, the idea of making sure the marsh—the outlet of the lake outfall project flows from the pipe where it dumps it into Halls Marsh to the lake. Um we can talk all day about local maximums, local minimums that that might impede that flow. According to Rice Creek, there's no possibility that the marsh wouldn't marsh. That's what they've told me when I talked to them about this. Um because you know back in the day it was me and Kathy working together. So that's what they told us. So for them, I think it's a no-brainer, right? Because if the marsh can't possibly not marsh, then it's no skin off their back, right? Because there's nothing they have to do. They just have to verify that to us. I'm not convinced because I see the water ponding right now and it and in the 10 years or so I've been in that house, that's a new phenomenon. Maybe I just don't understand the hydraulics of the area. That's fine. But I think making sure that that is effective at doing what it's supposed to do is important. [54:43] **Justin McCarthy:** Um number two, the other thing I would say is um and and initially in all fairness to to all those involved, this is kind of a new position of mine, which is you know, we had talked about sort of this um idea of cleaning up the vegetation in the marsh. I think Rice Creek ought to help us with that. And the reason for that and the reason for my thinking about it—they are the ones that have caused some of the excess vegetation. When I say them, I mean Rice Creek, White Bear, those that are dumping the stuff into the marsh. Because, you know, 40 years of excess nutrients doesn't, you know, isn't isn't free, right? That that increases the nutrient load and so it increases the vegetation. So, I really think those are very fair uh terms. And I think that um while I I agree with Bud and Ruth in spirit, I think that practically speaking, you know, I think we get what we can from this particular process and then try and pursue grants for some of the other things that we want to do. So I encourage you to ratify the the agreement as you know as amended by Mr. Hankins. Excellent proposal. So thank you. [55:58] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Thank you. Anybody else like to speak during open forum? [56:31] **Bud Johnson:** Bud Johnson, [address muffled]. I think the point is that they've never sought any easement but usually when a company wants to enter another person's property primarily for a business reason to get rid of storm water, they seek permission to do that and to me that's telling of an attitude. They don't ask, they just do. And the other thing is that the water that comes into into the marsh is often described by Rice Creek as being treated and they they describe it as such because the road runoff goes into it. But they never to my knowledge tested the water for quality in the marsh and the City of Birchwood did that several years ago and found that there were problems with it. In the 20 or 30 years this has been in existence, I think it's time that the City of Birchwood, who owns the marsh or most of it—and they own it by a deed that was conveyed to them with the stipulation that they take good care of it and protect it as a natural habitat in perpetuity. As long as they don't pollute it as a condition of the transfer. Okay. And we think that putting storm water into it is not treated. The most recent test is that it's polluted and so we want a better deal than what we have now which is basically you get the water, it comes with it without any responsibility. [59:19] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I appreciate all your work on this. Thank you. Anybody else for the public forum? Okay, seeing none, um public forum is closed. Um Shelley, you want to come up to the well where the mic's supposed to be? Come up to the podium. Folks, I've been told this is being filmed remotely. Whether that's true or not, I do not know, but this is what I've been told. Um, council, this is Shelley Dopkin. Um, she has applied or requested to be, um, on the board of the White Bear Lake Conservation District in order to represent Birchwood. And Shelley, um, could you tell them a little bit about, um, your work in Maine? [1:00:16] **Shelley Dopkin:** Sure. Thank you. Shelley Dopkin for [address muffled]. Um I recently moved here about a year and a half ago from Massachusetts. Um our kids are here in Minnesota and we needed to be here. Um we have had a home in Maine for over 20 years. Um along the Great Pond in the Great Lakes region and we had a an issue with phosphorus because the lake runoff impacted the quality of the water. And so about five years ago, I entered into a commitment to our board at the condo association to go through what's called the "Lake Smart" process. And what that did was to help educate all of our homeowners around what the practices need to be to ensure that we were mitigating phosphorus building up in the water around our lake and I'm really happy to report that for our association, we were the first association to get the Smart approval and I'm pretty excited about it. So when I heard that the city was looking at the conservation committee, it's very much in my interest of how we maintain the quality of the water and having so much experience. [1:01:56] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Thank you, Shelley. We appreciate you coming forward to take on this responsibility. And thank you for coming tonight. So they can put a name to your face. [1:02:11] **Bridget Sperl:** I have a question. Sure. Um I do the newsletter for the city and we generally put out information regarding um potential ways to keep the lake clean via homeowner property. Can you please send me information that we could potentially include in the newsletter? [1:02:22] **Shelley Dopkin:** Thank you. [1:02:24] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Thank you again. [1:02:30] **Bridget Sperl:** I suppose we should move to approve her. [1:02:32] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** We can or we can do it in the consent agenda. Um or we can just— [1:02:37] **Kathy Weier:** Oh, we just want to do it. I move. [1:02:39] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Why don't you make the motion, Kathy? [1:02:41] **Kathy Weier:** I move that we approve Shelley Dopkin for representing the City of Birchwood for the White Bear Lakes Conservation District. [1:02:49] **Bridget Sperl:** Second. [1:02:50] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** All in favor? I. Opposed? Hearing none. Motion passes. [1:03:00] **Kathy Weier:** Get her indoctrinated. [1:03:02] **Alan Kantrud (City Attorney):** Allan, it is interesting that the organization that she's talking about is an organization that was recently discovered by the district. So, we're very interested in that. Excellent. [1:03:08] **Shelley Dopkin:** I could not hear what you said. [1:03:10] **Alan Kantrud (City Attorney):** The organization that you were speaking about out on the East Coast—the Conservation District, just so you're aware, I'm the attorney for the lake itself for the Conservation District. And so, we've been in discussion about how to pull some of what they're doing into our group. [1:03:26] **Shelley Dopkin:** Oh, that's wonderful. And I have Lake Smart Connections. [1:03:29] **Alan Kantrud (City Attorney):** You're just going to have to work on your accent, though. It's not very— [Laughter] [1:03:35] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Thanks again, Shelley. [1:03:37] **Alan Kantrud (City Attorney):** And that meeting, by the way, is next Tuesday. So, your first meeting is that— [1:03:42] **Shelley Dopkin:** It's on my agenda. [1:03:44] **Alan Kantrud (City Attorney):** Very good. [1:03:45] **Shelley Dopkin:** With hopes that I can get approved. [1:03:47] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. Thank you again. Um Mr. Schmidt, thank you for coming this evening. [1:03:52] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** Thank you, Madam Mayor. Not to screw up your agenda timeline. We don't have a presentation per se; we are making ourselves available to answer questions. [1:04:08] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. Thank you so much. Um okay. Um I think Ryan, you had some questions. Um you can stay there or you can sit. Since there's no microphone, I don't think it really matters. Um, we had a work session in which we um discussed the agreement that was sent over and I think Ryan just had a couple questions about it. [1:04:41] **Ryan Hankins:** Might be more than a couple, but um I'd like to just go through the agreement. Um, and you know, first of all, thank you for coming in. Uh, thank you for putting this together. Um, can I get up? Sure. You know, I know this has been kind of a long process. [1:05:09] **Ryan Hankins:** Um, okay. Sorry. Um, so let me just start with the with the grants as kind of a general picture is could you just describe kind of in broad terms what grants Rice Creek Watershed makes available and for what purposes? [1:05:29] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** Yeah, that's— [1:05:32] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** Uh, the district has three programs uh kind of from the bottom up in regards to the amount of awards that are available. Mini-grants tend to be uh vegetative establishment grants typically native plantings, this kind of stuff to improve the herbaceous layer. From there we have water quality grants. That's the improvement of water quality; these tend to be rain gardens most often. Tighe Schmidt Park is receiving $10,000 for that. Then we have storm water management grants. Those tend to be capital improvement projects. Typically we see cities asking for larger projects. I'll just say all of these things run through a storm water management grant process through engineering, citizen advisory committee, that kind of thing. [1:06:40] **Ryan Hankins:** Okay and that's great thank you. And so these—the grants, the storm water management grants—those are is the maximum amount of one of those grants $100,000? Is that correct? [1:07:01] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** That's correct. [1:07:02] **Ryan Hankins:** Okay. And so I had seen articles about a couple of um pollutant reduction programs in lakes and White Bear Lake. And those pollutant reduction programs tended to be $4 to $500,000 to clean up storm water management ponds. Is that a rough estimate of how much such a cleanup would cost? [1:07:28] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** I could not confirm that. I have no doubt that they're relatively expensive. It's all going to depend on the specifics. [1:07:44] **Ryan Hankins:** And how—like in White Bear Lake where lakes were cleaned up. Were those cleaned up through Rice Creek or were they cleaned up through White Bear Lake? There was Vanni Lake was cleaned up. [1:07:55] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** Um this is rather complex and I'll I'll try and make it as brief as possible. So uh lakes, not wetlands, but lakes have water quality standards that the state has set. We monitor those lakes, determine their alignment, where they fall on the spectrum, if you will, and then we look at measures to assess where that is coming from and how to address it. And those projects would be contributing to that. [1:08:44] **Ryan Hankins:** Okay. And so is it reasonable to say that the Prey Lake Halls Marsh cleanup would be above what would be normally provided under grant funds from Rice Creek? [1:08:55] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** Yes. The expense of that. [1:09:05] **Ryan Hankins:** Yeah. Okay. Go ahead. [1:09:15] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** Uh for a point of clarity and maybe uh additional information. So Prey Lake um has storm sewers that enter into it. When the road reconstruction occurred up there, we looked at placement of rain gardens because it would help treat the water before discharge to the lake, improving the lakes's water quality. My point being is that there may be multiple avenues or approaches that are necessary because we couldn't put in rain gardens there because of the type of soil that was kind of heavy non-infiltrating soil. So that's where the drawdown and the consolidation from the bottom of the lake project comes in, but that's a whole another issue beyond the agreement document. [1:10:20] **Ryan Hankins:** Okay and so going kind of circling back I mean I guess I think that discussing the grants—because the, you know, I know one of the things we've heard and one of the things that the grant agreement here makes clear is that um part of the solution here going forward is through grants. Um, you know, there's a number of kind of call outs in the agreement that Rice Creek will consider Birchwood and Halls Marsh for cleanup grants, and I just want to understand what the parameters of those are going forward. [1:10:49] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** Sure. Again, being brief and probably not capturing all the detail. Um so the contributing watershed to Halls Marsh, and equally important White Bear Lake, is where you would look to treat it. So it could be vegetation improvement on yards adjacent to it by those landowners or the park. Uh it could be the other inlets into this extensive pipe from White Bear Lake in those areas just to make sure all that water coming in is treated or improved from its current condition. [1:11:35] **Ryan Hankins:** Okay. The—and so to address explicitly the water coming down the—the PLOP (Prey Lake Outlet Project)—it's a very enjoyable name to say. Um what when you talk about the water quality and the water conditions, if the water is specifically coming down to Halls Marsh from Prey Lake, how do you evaluate the water quality? [1:12:09] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** Through the monitoring that is completed in-lake. We have a lake and stream specialist who would do sampling in the lake's conditionality of the water and from there we can look at measures to improve the betterment of that water and so the rain gardens was one attempt at that. [1:12:37] **Ryan Hankins:** Okay. And I guess what I'm asking about is when you're evaluating the water conditions, what you're asking, you know, as you know, Birchwood has an objection in place to the DNR to allowing water to flow from Prey Lake to Halls Marsh because of the concern that that's not in the public interest. Um, and I guess one of the questions I had when I saw this is I was looking around for some of the water quality analysis from Halls or from Prey Lake because that makes sense what you say here. I couldn't find any water quality analysis um since 2013. How do you plan to um calculate water quality and evaluate whether that should flow into Halls Marsh going forward? [1:13:30] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** Well, specifically to the monitoring, I would have to engage our staff on the frequency and the records that he has monitoring Prey Lake and the quality of the water. [1:14:02] **Ryan Hankins:** Okay, I guess my question is there's been no water testing that I could find records of in the past 12 years. And obviously in order to acknowledge that Birchwood should—that this is in the public interest that water drain through the PLOP, one of the things that it seems like would be worth evaluating is just, you know, a water test to make sure that Prey Lake isn't somehow, you know, full of something, you know, harmful. Is water testing expensive or is there some reason why why that information isn't available? [1:14:45] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** It's a bit of a loaded question. Um, sorry, my intent by saying a loaded question was to mean that it's complicated. It depends on what you're testing for, just as if you were to test your blood. What specific chemical testing laboratory are you using to assess it for? And again, I'm sorry I'm not trying to deflect your inquiry. It's important. I think our specialist would be able to answer that better. But typically we test water for oxygen content and its nutrients—phosphorus, nitrogen. [1:15:35] **Ryan Hankins:** Okay. And what criteria do you use would you use to determine whether draining those things down through into Halls Marsh meets the criteria to be in the public interest? [1:15:52] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** The establishment of the Prey Lake Outlet Project is a flood management project which is distinctly different from the water quality. That's not to diminish Birchwood's concerns about the quality of the water coming down but flooding is more of volume. The testing of Prey Lake water would be for what's called a "shallow lake" less than 20 ft deep and those standards are set by the state. [1:16:24] **Ryan Hankins:** Okay. So when I read under the recital it says the PLOP was established and is maintained as a lake outlet flood damage retention project and not a storm water project. And then I come down here and um somewhere in here it says that it's not intended—here it is: the use of terms such as storm sewer in this agreement are for ease of understanding and not to assign status to the project as a storm water project or to make it subject to municipal separate storm water system regulation. What is the meaning of those things? [1:17:08] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** Council, that's anchoring the project under its initial intent and what it was petitioned to the district to do which was to relieve the flooding. Storm sewers—the pipes under streets and such—are under permitting at the state level. That's called MS4. And so all those entities—the cities that have this infrastructure, which Rice Creek does not. We do not have an MS4 permit. Uh but we do do similar things—education to the public on how to improve the water entry systems that they do maintain to not diminish quality of water downstream. [1:17:58] **Ryan Hankins:** Okay. And how do we—and I think what this comes down to is—how do we in Birchwood understand that the water coming down from Prey Lake does not diminish the water and soil quality in Halls Marsh? [1:18:29] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** By recognizing the district's mission of Rice Creek as water quality and flood control. So the actions that the district takes are to improve water quality in lakes and other lakes throughout the district and to prevent flooding throughout the district as well. and our programs and our rules and all that are to the success of those goals. [1:18:51] **Ryan Hankins:** And could you just give me a summary of what the rules are that ensure that the water quality is not diminished? [1:19:02] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** Sure. The rules don't ensure the water quality isn't diminished, but they mitigate as property is developed on the landscape. So if you go from an egg field to for example, a Home Depot, that water that leaves the property has been treated to a certain level and its rate of discharge from the property remains consistent with what it was before. [1:19:34] **Ryan Hankins:** And so when you're saying treated to a certain level, could you talk about what that certain level would be for the water that's entering into Halls Marsh? [1:19:46] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** Sure. Uh typically it's retention for a sufficient amount of time for sediment to drop out of the water column of the storm water. [1:19:59] **Ryan Hankins:** I guess what I'm asking is you're saying typically—is there any standard you would use explicit to Halls Marsh? [1:20:07] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** Halls Marsh is not the regulated item; it is receiving water. So development land use changes adjacent to it that would trigger our rules would be the things regulated. There is a specific uh criteria in the rule and I'm using generalized terms because I can't speak definitively to what that engineering amount is. [1:20:30] **Ryan Hankins:** And specifically for the flow through Halls through the pipe, what would be the criteria you would use to determine whether that was uh detrimental to Halls Marsh? [1:20:46] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** The water quality in Prey Lake has a shallow body of water standard. [1:21:01] **Ryan Hankins:** And what is the state standard? [1:21:05] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** I couldn't say off-hand. There is a standard you may have heard of—the state gives us a nutrient loaded amount within the water which they find to be acceptable. And I'll make note that this is specific to the the previous items I noted of uh oxygen content, phosphorus, and nitrogen in the water where other things like mercury is atmospheric. [1:21:48] **Ryan Hankins:** And so under this agreement, would there be any limitation on with respect to those state standards and the water quality in Prey Lake? Um, well, let me finish my question. Would there be any um standard with respect to the water quality standards in Prey Lake with respect to whether or not Rice Creek would accept it being drained into Halls Marsh through the PLOP? [1:22:31] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** No. [1:22:34] **Ryan Hankins:** Okay. [1:22:35] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** I want to make sure I'm hearing your question correct. [1:22:37] **Ryan Hankins:** My question is, is this an open-ended license for Rice Creek to drain Prey Lake into Halls Marsh under any conditions? [1:22:49] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** The outlet is legally established and would remain to drain to Marsh. The quality of water in Prey Lake is subject to the district's mission and goal and so we would continue to work to improve the water. [1:23:10] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** I think you're referring to a potential drawdown. Because under normal circumstances like flood conditions, the lake bounces up and it goes over the stop logs and comes downstream regardless, right? We don't remove stop logs unless—and only once—if we get a permit from the DNR. [1:23:44] **Ryan Hankins:** But that's what this agreement is asking for—Birchwood to remove its objection and allow Rice Creek to open and remove the stop logs and drain water from Prey Lake into Halls Marsh. That's explicitly what this agreement and what the consideration that Birchwood is providing under this agreement. [1:23:59] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** I think the standards that Nick was referring to are set by state control agencies. [1:24:08] **Ryan Hankins:** Okay. But what I understood was that no matter what the standards are, that Rice Creek upon entering into this agreement with Birchwood would be allowed to drain Prey Lake into Halls Marsh regardless of any water conditions in Prey Lake. Is that correct? That's what I heard you say. [1:24:30] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** Subject to the DNR's permit. [1:24:38] **Ryan Hankins:** Yes, we would have to—subject to the DNR's permit. And I suppose it could potentially be true that Birchwood could eliminate its objection and the DNR could still not grant the permit. [1:24:50] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** Also includes the permit for quality treatment. We don't have a permit for that. [1:25:06] **Ryan Hankins:** Okay. Um so now under this agreement um it has a number of provisions here. um help me understand a little bit when when I look at the at the Halls Marsh aspect of this and I asked you a number of questions about water quality in Prey Lake. Um what would the conditions be? What should Birchwood expect the water quality and soil quality conditions to be in Halls Marsh upon adoption of this agreement? [1:25:52] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** You mean the current condition? [1:25:54] **Ryan Hankins:** Um I want to understand what—so if you look at the agreement it basically says there's a bunch of cleanup stuff that goes on within two years of the adoption of the agreement um including sediment removal from um Halls Marsh. [1:26:14] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** And Prey Lake. [1:26:24] **Ryan Hankins:** And Prey Lake. What should um Birchwood expect the water conditions and soil conditions in Halls Marsh to be um after the adoption of this agreement? [1:26:39] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** After it's cleaned? The intention is to remove any accumulated sediment that's deposited out. The testing that we were proposing is related to our disposition of that removed sediment. We can't just dump it if it's contaminated with VOCs or heavy metals or anything. We're going to test it. Before we can dispose of it, we have to test it. [1:27:35] **Bridget Sperl:** This somewhat makes us a dumping ground and I know you're aware of that. Um, so as far as the the deposits of the outflow into Halls Marsh, it seems that you are no longer considering the marsh itself as part of your project. You essentially are suggesting that there is some magical pipe that's getting it from one end to the other that does not affect the rest of the water or quality of the soil in this marsh at all. So you have looked at just the portion that is being deposited from sediment. So are you going to be cleaning up sediment and testing throughout the entire marsh? Because fluid dynamics would imply that water is going to mix. We have 47 years worth of water mixing. So, are you cleaning up the whole marsh or are you cleaning up your "surprise pipeline" that is somehow getting through this marsh? [1:28:38] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** The intent of the sediment removal is the delta that's formed from the outfall. [1:28:44] **Bridget Sperl:** So only the area that you think has been affected by your your current process, not the entire marsh. [1:28:50] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** The fines—the fine sediment that may have been deposited—is unlikely to have dropped out near the end of the pipe. [1:29:06] **Bridget Sperl:** Well, if if you've been down there when the water is low, which is only occasionally now, there is very much a divot at that spot and then the water has to get up over that, which means that water is being pushed or all that sediment is being pushed throughout the marsh. If you're implying that the marsh is going to actually flow from one side to the other, it is moving throughout the entire thing. And the marsh—I live on the marsh. I'm their neighbor. And Justin over there, who is one of the other city council members, is on the other side. We see the marsh daily. So, the amount of water that is in that marsh fluctuates, but there is always water. And then in the winter when it drains down there is channels that you can see. So that water is moving through there. So you would need to clean up more than just the five feet that is in front of that pipe. It has gone for 47 years through the entire marsh without being cleaned up. [1:29:57] **Bridget Sperl:** So, one of the issues that I personally have with this is the cover letter you sent for our meeting on the 30th where you referred to the fact that the marsh was not included in your PLOP agreement and it was rather upsetting to us because to get you to honor your agreement in the 1970s is the only reason we're looking at this. There is no reason for us as a natural habitat to allow polluted water into our marsh. There's also no reason for us to assume that you have to go through our marsh because apparently in the 1970s it was suggested that you guys just take a different turn and go directly into the lake. But they wanted to go directly through the marsh. And it's because you wanted it to "marsh" and remove those sediments and the pollution before it gets into our drinking water. And it makes sense to do that, but we also don't want to be a dumping ground. So, Prey Lake is your priority. We don't want to be the second like the ugly stepchild here. So, that's my thoughts on this at this point. [1:31:26] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** The main source of water for that marsh is storm sewers. So whatever you do—water enters from many points. [1:31:51] **Ryan Hankins:** Okay, I have some more questions. Go ahead, Ryan. Okay. Um, let me let me pivot a second. Um, thank you guys for coming in. Um, I know we're grilling you a little bit, but um, you know, we're trying to kind of kind of work through this, so thank you for coming in. Um when when we look at—I want to ask about the general provisions clause. Section N. [1:32:48] **Ryan Hankins:** It says "this agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties." It's if you go up to three, Birchwood Village agrees to and count up like three or four letters. Top of the fifth page. Yeah. "This agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties." Allan, does that exclude things like the memo, agreements, pieces of information outside of this? Because that's what this appears to me to say. Is the intention of that that this is the totality of the agreement and that the memo is just a separate thing that somebody wrote? We're not being—in other words, are we being asked to agree to the memo? [1:33:45] **Alan Kantrud (City Attorney):** No. The four corners of this document. [1:33:55] **Ryan Hankins:** Okay. So, I don't know if it would like—would you like them to resend the memo or something or— [1:34:04] **Bridget Sperl:** No, I'm more so the intent of the memo is where I think that the problem is because I've been working with you for two and a half years on this. Um, so as far as having read that after going through all the work of our intent has always been cleaning up the marsh and making sure that it was not going to be a dumping ground and was going to be taken care of and be a natural habitat for future generations and be in better shape than it is today. And definitely better shape than it was in the last 10 years and ideally back to the shape it was 46 years ago when it was deeded to our city as a natural habitat. [1:34:52] **Bridget Sperl:** So the intent was always from the city that we were hoping to clean up the marsh. There were several—we were also told that this is our final draft of this agreement and that we had to talk about this one which is why we had to bring it in front of our council to actually talk about it. So um that is why it is here. The issues that I have had with it and um Allan and Marcus have been working with me for the last ten months now on this. Um, your memo really drew into light that you only care about the outfall and the outlet into the lake but nothing in between that somehow that magically is a jumping point that you skip over—which then I don't believe it's an agreement that's in our best interest due to the lack of it—it's back to our "handshake" that we had 46 years ago. So that is why I'm even though we've—I I like quite a few of your amendments, but I also feel that the intent of it is not there to protect our property and our natural habitat and what Birchwood will be subjected to. And then whatever water quality will get through the marsh. If it's not marshing correctly and that water actually ends up in White Bear Lake, we've ruined our water that we drink, our recreation that is our main source of income because we only have property tax in our city. If we ruin White Bear Lake and if we ruin Halls Marsh in the effort to do that, we don't benefit. There's nothing we can do about it. So that that is my main contention with this agreement. [1:37:02] **Kathy Weier:** And Kathy, you've been at this far longer than I have, but as I listen to this conversation and as I've read through and and gotten feedback from residents, it does seem that we can't depend on the quality of water that's coming into Halls Marsh. And then we're being asked to accept responsibility for a lot of costs to measure the quality of the water. I don't know what it costs to do an annual report on the ecological health of a marsh. I don't see that that's happening at the Prey Lake end. So it does seem disjointed and not right. Will there be if we were to accept this agreement? What's the cost to Birchwood? [1:38:15] **Bridget Sperl:** It would be fairly extensive because if the water is going into the the marsh and after they've cleaned it up, everything else as far as vegetative and everything else that we need to get done, we have to get grants and such, which means we will have a portion that we have to cover as well. Um the marsh should never have gotten to the point it is now. It was 46 years of being neglected. So, the reason we considered this is there is a potential to get grants and to help build up that and there's several grants available for marshes where if you have educational aspects and things like that. We've always wanted to put a boardwalk through. There's been grandiose plans for what could happen with our marsh to actually make it a place that would be valuable and enhance the community. [1:39:10] **Bridget Sperl:** Having an impaired lake, which Prey Lake is listed as an impaired lake, drain into it and draw down everything that is settled right now in Prey Lake—I know it's a slow process as you mentioned, but fluid dynamics kick up all sorts of things. So, that water is not going to be clean. It's going to end up in Halls Marsh. It is my backyard. So, I'm also concerned about smell and everything else because Prey is not exactly a pleasant place to walk around if you've walked around it. Um, so there is a long-term time frame for how long it will actually take to clean up. And then since the marsh isn't considered part of this agreement is the part that I'm very concerned about. So from my perspective, I'd rather say no and start over even if it will take another two years of going through this to try and get something that actually is going to benefit the marsh water quality and the general details of making sure that our natural habitat that we were deeded can finally become what it should have been. [1:40:20] **Kathy Weier:** But what's the plan? I mean, so we say no. Then what's the plan? We still have bad water that's coming down from Prey Lake. Whether you like it or not, it's still coming down. I don't—I mean, are we going to sue them or are we going to— [1:40:28] **Bridget Sperl:** No, I I'm of the opinion that we seek out grants and actually clean up the marsh as it should be. [1:40:31] **Kathy Weier:** Still our responsibility. [1:40:33] **Bridget Sperl:** We have to get grants for it and we have to do all the work versus they're going to do some of the work. We can get grants for the rest. [1:40:42] **Kathy Weier:** But the agreement allows them to continue draining forever, which they'll always do. Nothing none of your solutions have have suggested that they won't be able to drain unless you sue them. [1:40:53] **Ryan Hankins:** I think there's a lot of good in this agreement. I personally am not willing just to throw it out. Um, that's all right. I have a bunch more questions I'd like to go through. [1:41:07] **Kathy Weier:** Really, Ryan? [1:41:09] **Ryan Hankins:** Um, the way I'm thinking about it is once Prey gets cleaned up, yes, it's going to require draining into Halls Marsh. The water quality after that coming down from it is going to be good because the water standards are so much higher than they were—definitely than it was 46 years ago. So it's just that period of drawdown that the water should maybe be monitored. The concern I have is the lack of responsibility for what they've actually done to the marsh and the cleaning up of said marsh. It is the only card we have. Um, I understand that. So, yeah, that is where I am. [1:42:12] **Ryan Hankins:** Why don't we—I mean, can I make a suggestion? I'm going to be pretty insistent that I get to ask all my questions here, but I guess I would just like to hear from Kathy and Bridget what they'd like to see in the agreement that's not in there right now. [1:42:25] **Bridget Sperl:** Yeah. Um, I'm more than willing to say what I would like. In the last two and a half years I have proposed multiple times that Rice Creek be responsible for cleaning up the marsh, not just the flow portion. So that vegetation that is currently invasive, that is vegetation that is most likely affected by the high amounts of phosphorus. It would be wonderful to get that cleaned up in addition to the water testing and soil testing throughout the marsh to make sure we don't have areas that are high in levels of things that shouldn't be around people. Um, so mostly I want what should have been taken care of over the last 46 years actually agreed to and done. In which case then I am totally fine drawing down Prey Lake to allow that to be cleaned, to allow that storm water as a runoff as opposed to a "we're getting all the garbage, you're cleaning only the outfall and this very small spigot going into White Bear" and actually making sure that the marsh is restored to a healthy level so it can "marsh"—so it's getting all of those pollutants and everything out of that water and doing what a marsh should so that that water is flowing out the end and our drinking water isn't affected. So that is my concern is the 200 ft of space that they're ignoring. [1:44:06] **Ryan Hankins:** That shouldn't be removed. I guess that's what I added. I thought— [1:44:11] **Bridget Sperl:** Well it was in our portion but it was only somewhat addressed in the addition that you made. And I loved your additions. They're great. But as far as the like—I liked the removing vegetation removal cost through grants. I need that for the entire marsh, not just the outlet and the outlet into White Bear. It should be looking at the entire marsh and cleaning up that entire thing. It's too big of a project for us to do on our own. There are grants available for us to do some of it, but I'm not willing to sign it at the current level that it's at. And also, um, your amendments are lovely, but that's not the version that they brought before us. So, that's the one that we were asked to vote on. [1:44:58] **Ryan Hankins:** Well, they don't have any authority to compel us to vote on anything. [1:45:15] **Bridget Sperl:** So, Ryan, I can answer the question that you—what would make me more comfortable? One, knowing that there are measurements and discipline that the water that is coming into the marsh is clean. I'm still confused about that what we're measuring, etc. Seems like the onus is more on Birchwood to report back what the water is doing as opposed to us saying, "okay the water's clean, yeah let it go." So that would be one of the things that I would want. Secondly, given given the Birchwood budget and how tight things are, I have no idea what the expense might be to Birchwood and I think there's got to be some kind of estimate. So, those are my two things. [1:46:17] **Ryan Hankins:** Okay. I I'd like to go through some more questions with you guys if we can here if you don't mind. Okay. All right. So, under—it's just below. I asked about section N a couple minutes ago. I want to ask about section P. Um it says "disputes under this agreement shall be resolved pursuant to Minnesota statute section 103D 539." And it says "by submitting the dispute to the dispute resolution committee of the board of water and soil resources any decision of the dispute resolution committee shall be binding on the parties." Is the intention of this section that the arbitration is binding? Because when I go look at 103D539 it basically says it describes an informal dispute process you can appeal and then regardless of the results or you can arbitrate through the board of water and soil resources and then you can appeal to the district court or file in district court if you disagree with that decision. Um, this kind of contradicts that. I was just wondering what the intention of that paragraph is. Is it binding or is it not binding on Birchwood? [1:47:50] **Alan Kantrud (City Attorney):** Okay. [1:48:00] **Ryan Hankins:** See that to me this clause is I think that would really need to be changed. Um, and I had just kind of shortened it up here. I I think it's really nice to have an arbitration process in case there's a disagreement here and have somebody come in and kind of look that over, but it's unclear to me whether this would be binding or not binding. So, um, you know, that's a clause that I think is an issue. Um so but I I want to get back to where I kind of was here before. [1:48:28] **Ryan Hankins:** The only place polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are mentioned is in this—oh I do want to ask one more question here under 3 and B. Bridget asked about this and I think it's a great question. Um, Birchwood is being asked to prepare and make available to the public an annual report on the ecological health of Halls Marsh. Could you—I'm sorry, it's section F. Could you discuss what the parameters are of that report and what Birchwood would be expected to provide? [1:49:12] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** I think the report would reflect the goals that the city would have for that action. [1:49:28] **Ryan Hankins:** Um would it be fair to ask Rice Creek or White Bear Lake to prepare a similar report on the condition of Prey Lake? I don't think that's unreasonable. [1:49:44] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** Typically the district has that monitoring data to demonstrate the trends. [1:50:05] **Ryan Hankins:** Okay. What—what would we expect upon adoption of this agreement? What should our metrics be? [1:50:28] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** I think uh what you would see is the actions of the district would be the analysis of that basin. I couldn't tell you how that might materialize in the vegetation or otherwise. Same goes for monitoring if it were down. If the city were to remove the sedimentation and it falls into that lake and the lake bottom consolidated and the nutrient load—I think what you're getting is what's it going to look like when the dredging is completed? [1:51:30] **Bridget Sperl:** The vision of an open water type? It's probably not. No, it currently has like a floating island going on. Like it's a pretty cool marsh. Um, we had Washington County—they have a marsh specialist apparently who came out and she was very excited about the marsh and the way that she's like, "Oh, this could be so amazing." Which "could be" is the the operative word in that. No, there is a floating island basically that has a variety of trees and things like that. There is a wide variety of animals that habitat there. Um, so I would not anticipate that it would be a lake by any means. [1:52:12] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** Yeah. No, it it should be marsh. [1:52:29] **Bridget Sperl:** It should have natural plants. It should have vegetative aspects that are—I think it's very heavily purple loosestrife right now is in there all over. There's quite a few other invasive species that have spread into that. Um I know we have yellow iris in there which though beautiful doesn't belong. So there's there's quite a few invasive species that have taken over portions of that um that have thrived in the high phosphorus levels that are now in that marsh that wouldn't have otherwise been able to do so. So maybe Prey Lake being much cleaner should help that. But, um, I would anticipate removing all of the invasive species and getting that back to where the native plants can actually survive and thrive, which would be what would be covered by any grant that we could potentially get to restore a natural wetland or marsh. [1:53:30] **Ryan Hankins:** And I guess what I was was wondering about is, you know, there's this footnote here. It reads in part, "Testing shall include testing for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) along with other pollutants required by the MPCA." Birchwood did testing, you may be aware, on Halls Marsh and found higher concentrations of PAH derived compounds near to the PLOP outlet and further away from the PLOP outlet, lower concentrations. And our engineering firm determined that it was likely the result of inflow from Prey Lake and those contaminants coming in. Should we expect that after the cleanup of the marsh and on an ongoing basis thereafter that we see those PAH compounds at lower levels than the maximums put out by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency? [1:54:44] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** That would be our belief. We would identify for disposal of the testing that you had previously. [1:55:00] **Ryan Hankins:** Okay. Um, so and and so then would you—if you found levels higher than that that were attributable to runoff from Prey Lake, would you expect to remove additional soil? Is it kind of like additional sediment until those levels were reduced below the Minnesota State Pollution Control Agency levels? Is that kind of how you would anticipate that to work? [1:55:39] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** I would anticipate our work to be consistent with the sediment deposition being removed. [1:55:57] **Ryan Hankins:** Okay. And so, um, and how does how do you determine um how far the sediment delta goes and how far what was deposited into Halls Marsh by the outfall extends into Halls Marsh? [1:56:20] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** That would either be a random or gridded survey, I would imagine. Some topographic survey of some sort to identify whether it was definitively from the outfall. [1:57:15] **Ryan Hankins:** Okay. And then I'm sorry, were you going to say something? [1:57:36] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** There's obviously other inputs because it's a marsh. [1:57:40] **Ryan Hankins:** Yeah. [1:57:42] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** The only grant you just received—the majority of the water is— [1:57:55] **Ryan Hankins:** Yeah. So, and and I mean I just added a couple things in here that I thought would kind of be— [1:58:02] **Bridget Sperl:** There were only three things I think that you put. Copy. So, if you could tell. [1:58:20] **Ryan Hankins:** I mean, yeah. So, so okay. So, I think you suffered through most of my questions. Um, I'll probably come up with more, but there are a couple things. Um, I added a stipulation that we acknowledge that Prey Lake has been determined to be hypereutrophic by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, which is just an empirical fact. Um, I added a under "Birchwood Village agrees to"—um I meant to add it under E, but I added it under F—accept responsibility for vegetative and/or habitat management activities. And then I said because hypereutrophic conditions increase vegetation growth, RCWD shall equally share cost of removal of vegetation if the most recent testing of Prey Lake shows hypereutrophic conditions. Such conditions shall be evaluated with respect to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency or similar standards. [1:59:22] **Ryan Hankins:** And then what else did I add here? Um "testing results for sediment after sediment removal shall meet or exceed all applicable standards." This is under C, section VI. Testing results after sediment removal shall meet or exceed all applicable residential government standards for contamination and pollution. Um and then after F I added G: within two years following the effective date of this agreement conduct a bathymetric survey of Halls Marsh for the purpose of assessing its hydraulic conveyance and drainage characteristics. The findings of the survey shall be distributed to all parties. RCWD shall subsequently undertake the removal of any sediment accumulations identified as an impediment to flow in order to restore and maintain proper conveyance through the marsh. Following this initial sediment removal, the resulting conditions shall be documented to establish a new baseline for the marsh. RCWD shall conduct future surveys every 10 years to identify and remove sediment as needed to ensure the marsh is maintained at this baseline condition and continues to function properly. [2:00:57] **Bridget Sperl:** That was my favorite one. [2:01:00] **Ryan Hankins:** That's that's quite the mouthful. And then at the end here, I just said pursuant to basically Birchwood's commitment to removing vegetation that RCWD would fund vegetation removal costs through grants. [2:01:17] **Bridget Sperl:** Change that from "may" to "will." [2:01:19] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** Pre-approve grants? [2:01:21] **Ryan Hankins:** Well, I think they can. They will share the costs. They may share the costs through grants. That's the way I intended that. Um, you guys, um, I guess I I thought Kathy and Bridget made some good points too about putting some additional things in here. Um, I think, you know, I know there's a lot of contention around this. I wonder if you might give us a couple weeks to kind of—if that would be okay—to kind of incorporate a couple of the comments we got tonight. Do you think what do you think, Jennifer? You're the Mayor. [2:02:16] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Decide. So, you know— [2:02:21] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** Obviously we've been working on this MOA for some time. It was written uh with the best of intents uh from the district crafted by our team—legal, engineering and staff—consistent with the initial establishment of the project and then circulated. You know we have two other parties—municipalities—as well for consideration. So, we certainly believed that at a staff and consultant level that we had gotten to a sweet spot that things were aligning. Our manager had shared some concerns from when this came up at your workshop and I certainly appreciate all that you're sharing and that we're perhaps not there uh yet. [2:03:27] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** The district under its facilities management program does have an obligation to continue with those and that was part of that memo that we have asked our engineer to give us a task: what does it cost to go and what is the sediment project look like so that the board can start to consider. I appreciate the thoroughness of the comments and your objectives for the marsh. The grant programs that the district has are obviously written and approved by the board for release to the public. So as staff we have to follow that framework of the board. Uh anything you share will certainly bring back and it is on for our November workshop to review concerns that were raised and there was a little bit of discussion amongst our board. So specific to the question of a couple of weeks or what have you, that's fine by me and I think certainly understandable and something we can look at. [2:04:47] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** November 6th? [2:05:04] **Kathy Weier:** That's not confusing at all. The Monday before the second Wednesday. [2:05:09] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** I mean, no. I mean, I think there's some valid concerns. I guess I'm a little closer I think on this than than maybe you are Kathy, but um— [2:05:26] **Kathy Weier:** Well if if we are able to propose like looking at the agreement that Ryan has added things to, I think that's closer. But as far as the um the last agreement that we had received, we were told that that was the last opportunity we'd have to make edits. So that's why we brought it before our council to look at it at that point. [2:05:54] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** To it being the final and that your action—certainly if you're ready to take action—the intent of it being final is that we have uh crafted it as you received it and it went to the other cities and they were in alignment. Staff and consultants were in alignment. Now let's hear from the council. Moving it forward. [2:06:29] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Good. I think we all want to move it forward. [2:06:40] **Kathy Weier:** I always mentioned to you this agreement has not been before managers yet. [2:06:46] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** As Tom says, it's not— [2:06:52] **Bridget Sperl:** Thank you. Would it be possible for you guys to write down your thoughts? And we can get it to them. It's I think it's November 10th. If it's the sixth— [2:07:05] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** First Monday. It's the Monday before the second Wednesday. It's November 10th. [2:07:10] **Kathy Weier:** Yeah. So, if we could run off of this that Mr. Hankins has um added some things to and add your— [2:07:23] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** Get it to us by the 10th. Would that be sufficient for your workshop or prior to the 10th? [2:07:27] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** In fact, I'll you know what? I'll just have Allan send it out and— [2:07:34] **Alan Kantrud (City Attorney):** Yeah. When does your packet go out? Can you send out the Word document of a Thursday before the first Monday? [2:07:44] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** I'll send it to Allan. But yeah, if you could provide us with your draft. [2:07:47] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** Yes. Ideally, November 4th. [2:07:49] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay, you got it. [2:07:50] **Bridget Sperl:** And our meeting would be on November— [2:08:07] **Kathy Weier:** With the exception of the one point that Ryan brought up to ask about water quality for White Bear Lake, I think everything else applies just to Rice Creek and Birchwood Village. [2:08:15] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** From my understanding today, grants available from our own— [2:08:26] **Bridget Sperl:** Oh yes, there's there's lots of grants available from other partners and we have many cities many times develop grants for clean water for example. [2:08:31] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** We have an excellent staff out there. [2:08:53] **Bridget Sperl:** Yeah. We had—I had talked to Gail Cedarberg from the Met Council. So, I'd spoken to her regarding some of the grants and then I spoke to Washington County Conservation District. They have grants available. There's also ones through the DNR directly for marsh habitat education. There's lots of options. I don't want to spend grant money on restoring something that we're then dumping into. So, I'd really like this to be taken care of first because it doesn't make sense to do it in the other order. So, um, that would be the order of operations and I don't want to apply for a grant and then not use the funds within the time frame. That's a waste of our time and and theirs as well. [2:09:42] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** Like to echo that point. The portion of the memo talks about these other inlets and pipes that come into the system of water. And so we do not want to go and dredge the lake only to have an upstream contributor go and clean their pond or send something down that undermines the good work that was completed. So very important and so this tried to lay out between all contributing entities what they're responsible for and what should happen when. It is a district facility we're obligated to maintain that. [2:10:45] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** This is not intended to be a cover. Simply trying to be a condensed history of the so any omission or inclusion was not intentional. [2:10:55] **Ryan Hankins:** Okay. [2:10:56] **Nick (RCWD Staff):** I add one last thing—extensive experience here managing wetlands. We have as a district a large wetland bank. But once we get it cleaned up, we'll be tapping that source of knowledge as well. [2:11:43] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Any other questions? We're all set. Thank you so much. We really appreciate your time. [2:11:51] **Tom Schmidt (RCWD):** Thank you very much. [2:11:52] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Thank you. It was very helpful. So, we do have a little bit of time. So, as you guys send comments and whatnot, we'll put a cover letter together with those things and make sure that they get those. [2:12:08] **Kathy Weier:** Write your own memo. [2:12:10] **Ryan Hankins:** Ryan, do we want it all in one document? Yeah. You know, what I would— [2:12:18] **Kathy Weier:** I think we've got a couple options. Do people want to have a—do we want to have Allan collect it and collate it? [2:12:24] **Alan Kantrud (City Attorney):** That's what I just offered to do. [2:12:26] **Kathy Weier:** I wasn't listening. I'm sorry. All of those comments in one document. [2:12:30] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Yeah. Why don't you just—I'll—that would probably be great. Why don't we just get all the comments collected? I mean, we can do it in a workshop, too, because I think everybody had a handful of things. I'm happy to do whatever. [2:12:43] **Kathy Weier:** Well, I was thinking that if Ryan has additional comments, I can we can send out the Word doc. You can add your stuff. You can add your stuff. [2:12:46] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** That's what I'm thinking. You can ship it to Allan and he can put the paragraphs in the right order in the right place. It'll probably take you 10 minutes and then we'll move on and then review and hopefully we'll have something that we all like. [2:13:05] **Bridget Sperl:** This is really good. I agree. How we address my concern about what—what are the ongoing costs that we're going to take on. Um, so that may not be a part of this agreement, but I think we'd better understand it. [2:13:22] **Kathy Weier:** Yeah. Well, I mean, um, did they get stuck? No. I have a suggestion, too. Um, so if didn't exist in general, we'd still be in charge of the habitat and everything for the deed of that of the marsh. So, um, what the agreement would cover would be the ongoing maintenance of their portion of it, but I do want them to address the long neglect and correct that. So, we're starting at ground zero of what it would have what it in theory would have been. Sorry, I have no ability to talk anymore. Um, 46 years ago— [2:14:15] **Bridget Sperl:** Are we spending any money on it now? [2:14:17] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Not yet. No. So, it would be—and we will be spending money on it. We will have to do some maintenance. [2:14:19] **Bridget Sperl:** But we need to know how much money and I know that there are grants and everything else, but worst case scenario, we need to know what we're signing up for. That's just good fiscal responsibility. [2:14:22] **Ryan Hankins:** And I was going to make a suggestion to you that we request to drop the frequency of the annual report to like every three years or every five years or something. An annual report seems pretty frequent. [2:14:43] **Bridget Sperl:** I agree that the rest of the the area should be doing the same thing. I agree. The Prey Lake end should for sure be applying that as well. Um I believe we had requested that there be an annual report from Rice Creek, but they said that they wouldn't do it, so they put it under us. So that is where that came from. [2:14:55] **Kathy Weier:** So somebody ought to do it. Okay, it's you. [2:14:59] **Ryan Hankins:** Yep. So that is how that—was something that we had requested back when Justin was working on it. [2:15:08] **Bridget Sperl:** Yep. So it was something that they didn't put in for a long time and then we kept on badgering and then they put it under us and we're like well it's in but— [2:15:13] **Kathy Weier:** We just didn't want to let it go basically. [2:15:15] **Bridget Sperl:** And to address your fiscal worries, you know, no money has been spent in 46 years on the marsh. So, you know, even if I can't imagine that it would be a huge hit to any budget, just to maintain once it's clean, once we have that baseline and we've cleaned it all out, have the vegetation come out and all that. That's really maintenance. [2:15:42] **Kathy Weier:** That's half our cost though. [2:15:45] **Bridget Sperl:** Well, if they are in charge of cleaning up the mess they made, that should be on them. In which case then our portion would be uh having volunteers go through and remove like weeding of sorts to try and get that to stay at a level where it's healthy because a marsh should be its own little ecosystem. We shouldn't have to intervene often. So that is the intent of a marsh as far as like as a natural habitat. We shouldn't be altering a natural habitat much. So, we we will have to do something to clean it up now because it is—I don't want to say so far gone because it's it's still a lovely spot, but it is in need of some some TLC for sure. [2:16:30] **Kathy Weier:** Well, they're going—the dredging project will take care of the bulk of that. Because it's just been a sediment problem and no one's been paying attention to it. [2:16:40] **Bridget Sperl:** As long as they're not just doing the outlet. [2:16:45] **Kathy Weier:** Bay is full of sediment because no one's touched that in, you know. [2:16:45] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** We still have a a lot to get through here. Um, I think for your work, it would be helpful to take a vote on the current agreement—the current version of this—so that we can send it to them saying this is what's been blessed by Birchwood. So then it doesn't come back. [2:17:15] **Bridget Sperl:** These are negotiation points because we've added to what they've said is essentially their final deal. You're saying on my amendments to it, but I mean I think that— [2:17:21] **Kathy Weier:** Can we do a motion that we don't approve the current version they have but would like to make amendments and then bring it up forward for a separate group? [2:17:26] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Well, we're certainly not going to be approving what they offered. That seems pretty clear. So we can just make a motion to not approve their current version. Well, we can take no action on it as far as I'm concerned. They know what we're submitting, then we can push it back to them with the amendments that you've made, Ryan, and say, "What do you think about this?" And if they say yes, all I'm saying is at some point there's going to have to be a vote. [2:17:54] **Kathy Weier:** Okay. I'm good with no action until we get everybody's. [2:17:59] **Bridget Sperl:** I'd like to word smith, but I'd like to—my other deals that I've sent them several times. I'd like to pull. [2:18:06] **Alan Kantrud (City Attorney):** It'd be appropriate to take a motion to table then. [2:18:10] **Kathy Weier:** Oh, bring it back. Well, then I motion to table on it. [2:18:13] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. Can I get a second? [2:18:15] **Ryan Hankins:** I'll second. [2:18:17] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Ryan, all in favor of motioning motion tabling. All in favor? [2:18:22] **All Councilmembers:** Aye. [2:18:24] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Before we get too far down, I had to wake up my computer. So, I need to record who said first and second. Hang on. [2:18:30] **Kathy Weier:** I was first. [2:18:31] **Ryan Hankins:** I was second. [2:18:32] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** We had all in favor. Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion passes. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Alan. And if you guys can get that somewhere around Halloween, that'd be helpful just so I can put it together as a cover and get it to them. Um, after we all assemble our portions like Power Rangers, can you send it back to us so that we can all confirm that? [2:18:57] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** I wouldn't send anything out until you guys see what would be going out. And then if we do need to convene to explain, we can figure that out quick. Okay. Okay, Marcus. [2:19:16] **Marcus Johnson (City Engineer):** Yeah. [2:19:17] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Thank you for your patience, Marcus. [2:19:21] **Marcus Johnson (City Engineer):** First thing on my agenda is attachment storm water project. We have one bid back. It came slightly under what Lorie was. Is it abnormal to only get one when you send out 12? Um, I would say it's not normal. It really depends on who has time and I know it's pretty small compared to a lot of what these people are doing. Very tedious like planting stuff like that. And these guys—they're not normally a general—which is new to them. A lot of plant restoration people or just restoration generals, they figure out. [2:20:27] **Bridget Sperl:** But this is one of the contractors that she had recommended. [2:20:30] **Marcus Johnson (City Engineer):** Yeah. She's worked with them quite a few times. So, we both reviewed it. [2:20:55] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Does anybody have questions for Marcus on this quote? [2:21:08] **Ryan Hankins:** I mean, I guess I just—when do we expect work to start? It probably says in there, but— [2:21:13] **Marcus Johnson (City Engineer):** Spring most likely. Obviously the spring option to start this fall, but we need construction and to do that pre-structure. This year contract says exactly a year from tomorrow. [2:21:43] **Bridget Sperl:** Yeah. Okay. And then um I'm fairly confident we discussed this already, but just so that we have it if assuming we are recording, I'm hoping we are—that the portion that is currently the soccer field that we have the agreement with would not be affected. So it should be the outer rims of that. So if we wanted to continue to allow the soccer teams to use the fields— [2:22:20] **Marcus Johnson (City Engineer):** If you could get those dates though so we can make them aware and just make sure— [2:22:25] **Bridget Sperl:** —so that we don't have any open pits or anything. Yeah, that'd be good. Assuming that they still want to continue renting. I'm assuming they do, but I'm not going to jump for that. [2:22:38] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. Any other questions for Marcus on that? Do you need a motion for us to approve? Okay. Would someone like to make a motion? [2:22:53] **Ryan Hankins:** I move that we approve this. [2:22:55] **Bridget Sperl:** Second. [2:22:56] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** All in favor? Aye. Hearing none. Motion passes. [2:23:02] **Marcus Johnson (City Engineer):** Second thing is the street maintenance project. Uh, so 12,000 roughly is what—wait, I was looking at the lift station one. I'm sorry. Uh, so 527 is what was pulled out. The final bill is $89,71.50. Oh, that's pretty significant. It's like a sale. [2:25:03] **Marcus Johnson (City Engineer):** Summary of what we saved on is we built up the road. There's pretty good structure in the road still. So we save a lot of money and instead of just doing spotless curb replacement we save money by just Milan overlay. [2:25:39] **Bridget Sperl:** Was the water main break that happened in either of the new roads that we just did? [2:25:44] **Marcus Johnson (City Engineer):** It wasn't a water main break. It was a lead service. It was on someone's property. Yeah. Like a lead line. Water line service line broke. It wasn't our main. [2:26:08] **Bridget Sperl:** Oh, okay. Never mind. [2:26:15] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Any questions for Marcus on the street project? Okay. Want to go on to the lift station? [2:26:31] **Marcus Johnson (City Engineer):** Yeah. So lift station, didn't send me their signed copy until Monday. Uh, so this would be 100% paid except for we're holding 5% retainage because we still have items. Um, so I expect—I mean I know they're working on it. They worked on followers yesterday. So there's—I mean it looks pretty much done. [2:27:02] **Bridget Sperl:** Pretty much as far as you guys can see it's pretty much— [2:27:05] **Marcus Johnson (City Engineer):** It's pretty minor stuff. So that's why we're holding 5% now. Once we get all that done, we walk through them. Expect next month we'll see that 5% retainage. [2:27:18] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Very nice job managing that. [2:27:23] **Marcus Johnson (City Engineer):** With this one, we saved. So with that final number $500,000, we saved 11,000. Um, we had a construction contingency and they didn't use all that. [2:27:42] **Bridget Sperl:** Have we started getting any uh refund portion back from the EPA on the reimbursement? [2:27:52] **Marcus Johnson (City Engineer):** Yep. It's all set every month. Okay. So tomorrow with approval tonight we'll go for another reimbursement from the beginning and then next month when we approve the release of retainage that'll be our final. And then we've gotten half of the check from Creek District for that $100 this week. [2:28:20] **Bridget Sperl:** Yesterday. [2:28:22] **Marcus Johnson (City Engineer):** Yesterday. And then upon the final—or next month we'll get the rest. Oh my gosh. Such a long time. [2:28:43] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** So, you need us to probably make a motion to uh uh pay that. Um, let's see. Help me on which lines we're talking about here. [2:29:10] **Alan Kantrud (City Attorney):** These aren't just approved in the claims list in the city's claims list? Because it's in there. [2:29:17] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Is it? Then we're done. Then we've already approved everything. Okay. I mean, I'm happy to do it again so I don't have to show up again, but— [2:29:21] **Marcus Johnson (City Engineer):** Rice Creek District, we did get that $10,000. So, I think that's in the— [2:30:10] **Bridget Sperl:** Could you address the netting at Tighe Schmidt since you looked at it from this evening? [2:30:13] **Marcus Johnson (City Engineer):** Um, I looked at it and as far as the fence itself, I think it's a whole concern of you don't usually see holes drilled into pipe. I mean the netting itself it's going to be for park—hopefully not people. So um the fencing itself I think is maybe seen better days. So as you know we watch to make sure you know we don't need to do— [2:30:45] **Bridget Sperl:** Okay. So the netting is not up yet. So, if you saw the the the wire up there, um I believe that the netting is intended to go all the way to the ground. You remember? [2:31:04] **Marcus Johnson (City Engineer):** I know it's from last year that we had talked about it. I don't think it is just— [2:31:20] **Bridget Sperl:** Supposed to be like high? Oh, okay. So, it's just that portion. [2:31:30] **Marcus Johnson (City Engineer):** So, it won't be as heavy as it could be if it were going all the way to the ground obviously because of that, but concern about being so far. And I guess my initial impression is test it out right away because we installed other projects to go higher. So higher at least right behind—you have the ability to move it up but if it's not needed down it's just— [2:32:00] **Bridget Sperl:** Okay so it should be all right as far as structurally. [2:32:05] **Barton Winter:** I just want to say a couple things. The netting is you know I think it's less—North Oaks has it—and I just want to say but we're not talking about cutting. What I'm interested in is we have extra post height on these heavy posts there. There's two different things that project up. One is the heavy post that came from the back stop that goes well above the net line right now. What's going to be the extra four feet of nylon netting I guess. And so I don't—to cut down the excess above the netting line so we don't have things like above the existing. [2:32:55] **Marcus Johnson (City Engineer):** So I think that's what I was just saying—that the goal would be extended to where the height is sufficient. As long as it's sufficient right we don't need it but if we do need to raise it like the most recent park I did— [2:33:15] **Bridget Sperl:** I was going to say the majority of the ones I've seen at Roseville—that's 20t high there so I wasn't sure if it was high enough. [2:33:30] **Barton Winter:** I guess he's got a wire now that goes along the perimeter around the rink, right? And that's a certain level. [2:33:45] **Bridget Sperl:** Height of the—So that's why I think we're going to test it. [2:33:48] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** We'll throw some pucks at it. [2:33:50] **Barton Winter:** But that's okay. I I asked them, we don't want any more leverage because what we're doing, you know, I would prefer to have these heavy posts dug into the ground. So, we're not levering on the existing post system that we have. That's what I would like, right? I mean, even though he's bolted and it's rigid, I just want to say that, you know, to have a small hole holding all this force—even inside the beam itself, even the post, because what we're hanging on them in the rink is not nearly the force that's going to be generated, you know, that we're pulling on the beam or the post with these bolts, right? So, I mean, it's going to be fine, but I think we we should ban—put extra bands around as much as we can to support the post against the pole so we're not just pulling on these small stressed areas. And I just want to say we do have some ruptured supports. They're not the heavy duty ones, but on the other end where I was working, you know, there's at least three consecutive ones that have burst, right? And that could be because the wooden supports were decayed, you know, and maybe there was more stress on them than there should have been. [2:35:11] **Barton Winter:** But nonetheless, it can happen, right? You could have—and that's why I'm trying to make sure that—and having washers, let's say, you know, not—we want to distribute the stress as much as possible, right? [2:35:27] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Marcus, um, what do you think about putting bands around the posts? [2:35:34] **Marcus Johnson (City Engineer):** It's just extra support. Is it needed? I don't know. I mean, I don't know how much is going to get used at this point. So, as time progresses, we'll just monitor it. [2:35:54] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay, let's just go with that. If you think it's fine as is, we're going to monitor it to make sure there's no degradation. And if there is, we'll have them do extra work to to shore it up. [2:36:04] **Marcus Johnson (City Engineer):** You asked about the size of the nets and they're 4 feet. Um they're all 4 feet by—attaches to the fence that's up there and then up to the right, I believe. And there's three that are ordered. A 24 foot one, 32, and a 12. [2:36:30] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Excellent. Um, so thank you for checking that out. Thank you for your concern and bringing these issues to us. [2:36:40] **Bridget Sperl:** Their plan was—well, it's been over a year—but they had offered to pay for the whole thing, which I don't believe we had agreed to, but at least half they had wanted to pay. [2:36:58] **Barton Winter:** So we shouldn't be concerned about a little extra work on this issue? [2:37:05] **Marcus Johnson (City Engineer):** Marcus had mentioned that a lot of them are put in higher so if we need to move that net up due to something, we don't want to cut it off prematurely. [2:37:17] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Let's just see how it goes this year. And if we need to adjust, we will. I don't think we're going to hit the the garage, which was the reason for it in the first place. Okay, I know what goes. I see that a lot. And mostly what goes into the street is deflected, right? It doesn't like go on a straight arc. That's a very—somebody purposefully trying to do that. All right. Thank you. Okay, Barton. Thanks. We appreciate your love of the rink. Is there anything else you need to let us know about, Marcus? [2:38:03] **Marcus Johnson (City Engineer):** I think that's it. [2:38:05] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Anybody else have questions for Marcus? All right. Thank you so much for your work. Lift station looks really nice. They wouldn't let me drive the excavator. [2:38:37] **Marcus Johnson (City Engineer):** [Laughs] [2:38:55] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Everyone at home, we're moving on to city business. Um, discussion of Mayor Melvin Carter's email regarding protecting citizens from gun violence. [2:39:14] **Kathy Weier:** Yes. Um, I can summarize it if you want. It's on pages 17 and 18. [2:40:02] **Kathy Weier:** So, we had gotten a um email from the Mayor of St. Paul, Melvin Carter, asking municipalities to discuss and stand with the St. Paul um City Council in proposing ordinances. As we speak, St. Paul should be discussing these four various firearm preemptive laws and discussing gun safety in general. Um the four that they are looking at for St. Paul were: banning the public possession of assault weapons; ban binary triggers and high-capacity magazines; ban guns in sensitive city-owned places such as libraries, indoor and outdoor parks, recreation spaces, zoos, museums, beaches; and require every firearm to have a serial number. So that was what was being brought before the St. Paul City Council. And in the email to municipalities, they were asking that other cities discuss standing with them. So that is why it is here. [2:41:16] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** It's pretty much it's just for um our information. The way I understand it, when I looked into it a little bit, Minnesota already has a law, a statute regarding firearms. And so, this their ordinance couldn't even go into effect until that's rescinded. [2:41:39] **Kathy Weier:** Pretty performative. [2:41:40] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Yeah, that's what I would say. It doesn't sound like the Governor is going to call a special session to deal with it. However, it's just good information in case we ever feel like we need to revisit that. Um, next up is update of the Tighe Schmidt water quality project. It would be on either page 19 or 20. Pretty much that's just our contract. You'll see that $65,000. Um, that's their portion that they're holding for us to do the project the way I understand it. [2:42:35] **Kathy Weier:** Correct. [2:42:37] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** And the estimate we got came just below the two grant totals, right? So we should be in in good shape overall for doing our portion and then um when we had initially discussed this the city can use volunteer hours or Marcus' time etc. could be part of our match portion. So there is a potential that this will not cost us additional, which would be great. Um and our community generally, much like this last weekend when we had our cleanup day, shows up to help. So anticipate we should be in good shape. Okay. Thank you. Moving on, you'll find in your packet the report from the Birchwood Water Main Task Force. They really did a great job in going through all the information that they were provided. They had good questions for the engineer and considerations I thought were very well thought out. A lot of them we had already discussed. So um we should definitely take their recommendations. Do their recommendations jive with our—I mean our preliminary budget? [2:44:03] **Kathy Weier:** Yes. Well, if you like um their first recommendation here was to continue the current level of operations and maintenance budget for 2026 um to sustain the water services. So basically it was saying don't—they would recommend not working on the water main which I think we've explained multiple times that we're not going to do until we get a grant. Since we did not get a grant of course that is off the table. So, um number two though, they asked to consider the street segments that were designated to reclaim reshape to be looked at to just do Milan overlay. And I actually had a meeting with Marcus this afternoon. And the majority of the roads project was Milan overlay. There was only two roads slated for reclaim and reshape total from here out. Um consider increasing the annual budget for the street rehabilitation, which we did in our budget. Um I'm thrilled to see that they thought that that was a good idea because I was concerned it would be a— [2:45:34] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** We don't want to budget for it but fix it anyway. [2:45:37] **Kathy Weier:** I have I have actually spoken with so many residents in the last couple weeks about um whether they're all right with tax increases to pay for doing the roads. I haven't had one person yet say no. [2:45:51] **Bridget Sperl:** I would hope that people know who I know just for the fun of it. [2:45:55] **Kathy Weier:** I'm just saying that I think overall even though we're hesitant about asking for money to do that, that's what people want. [2:46:05] **Bridget Sperl:** Well, I think so, you know, I'll give Marcus some credit and I think you've gone further yet in terms of making the city getting the city to the point where it's a little more professionally run. So, to where we have plans and you know, the seat of our pants isn't the thing we're flying by all the time. So, I think I would say, you know, I think the the committee did that and I think you've done a good job on that. [2:46:23] **Kathy Weier:** Thank you for that. But I think this entire council likes to plan for the future. You know, I that's in all of our workshops. All of us are more invested in what what's the city going to look like in 10 years. [2:46:40] **Ryan Hankins:** I'm just saving for a four-wheel drive. [2:46:45] **Kathy Weier:** I know we did talk about that. Um so and then oh number four was consider improving recordkeeping on utility assets including summary of any future water main breaks and other service. Yeah that's a great idea. Um in my meeting with Marcus today as well. Uh back in June, July, we talked about that. The um the grant from the Minnesota Department of Health to look at the service lines. Okay, so that work was done and Marcus showed me—remember, he was going to update the GIS. It's so awesome already. Like the information in there, he has documents that have been scanned in from 1965. [2:47:50] **Bridget Sperl:** Oh, wow. I know. [2:47:52] **Kathy Weier:** Like I was so excited. It's such a geeky thing to say, but when he showed me all the information in one place. So, if you had any questions about your house—congratulations, you're number one in the city. [2:48:02] **Ryan Hankins:** Wow. [2:48:03] **Kathy Weier:** I know. But anyway, you could click on any address and it would tell you what their service line is made of. Um, like if you had just any work done in front of your house. It's just so cool. [2:48:15] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** How do we let residents know about that? [2:48:18] **Kathy Weier:** We could send it out. There's just a link to it, right? [2:48:22] **Bridget Sperl:** Anybody can access it? [2:48:24] **Kathy Weier:** I don't know if they can get into it. [2:48:27] **Bridget Sperl:** I've looked at it before. [2:48:28] **Kathy Weier:** So have I, but I don't remember if— [2:48:30] **Bridget Sperl:** We should find out because like the county has it all available. [2:48:33] **Kathy Weier:** Yes, the county does. If I remember, there was like a password that was emailed out. [2:48:38] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Which seems like we should let people have read-only access to everything. [2:48:43] **Kathy Weier:** Um, they're still in process. They're still uploading all the information from this past summer. So, maybe when that's done, we can have the "big reveal." [2:48:54] **Bridget Sperl:** Right. That would be nice for residents. [2:48:56] **Kathy Weier:** Sure. And so it's going to be something we can update starting this winter with the water main breaks where they are and we'll have a good idea if there's any pattern or whatever. [2:49:05] **Ryan Hankins:** Find out if your neighbors' pipes freeze. [2:49:10] **Kathy Weier:** Why do you do this to me, Ryan? Anyway, I really appreciate their work. They did a great job. And as we move forward, you know, we should use them again. [2:49:28] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** It was a good group. Um I was not able to read the copy of the current road plan. I assume that's just our one that we already had, right? [2:49:59] **Kathy Weier:** Yes. I asked to meet with Marcus this afternoon to discuss the 2026 road plan. Because we have money from the levy going in directly into road improvement and because there were budget underruns on both major projects, this road project and the lift station, we do have extra money. Um we can still set aside a good portion for the capital improvement fund but still use a chunk of that unused money from previous projects and throw it into 2026 a little bit more. [2:50:52] **Bridget Sperl:** Yes. [2:50:54] **Kathy Weier:** And so the plan—tentative plan we came up with—I think a lot of residents will be excited about. It's going to cover a lot of the city. Um but we we're going to just kind of hold off until January. Save it. It'll be fun. Well, because Marcus wants to do again another just an open house so people can come in and see the plan. [2:51:11] **Bridget Sperl:** Oh, that was really that was really good when we did that. [2:51:15] **Kathy Weier:** Anyway, so that's coming. I was really excited about that as well today. Um, he's doing a great job by the way. [2:51:19] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Ryan, discussion of ordinance to amend the fee schedule. [2:51:24] **Bridget Sperl:** Just—oh I'm sorry. Um, do we need to get finally get back to this group and respond to what they have laid out? To the water task force? [2:51:38] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Are they disbanded now that they've put in their report? [2:51:41] **Kathy Weier:** They don't have any meetings. They completed their task. [2:51:50] **Bridget Sperl:** We should just put a "thank you" for them in the newsletter. [2:51:53] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Absolutely. [2:51:54] **Bridget Sperl:** Yeah. Well, I mean, so they say "consider developing a strategy to build capital reserve." We should tell them we've done that. It's in the budget. We should say exactly what we're doing with each of their points. [2:52:09] **Kathy Weier:** I think that's a good idea. Yeah. [2:52:13] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Do you want me to put together a report back to them? [2:52:15] **Bridget Sperl:** Yeah, I think that would be good. [2:52:16] **Ryan Hankins:** The point that that you made about there only being two roads that are— [2:52:30] **Kathy Weier:** Yeah. Just so let's get the facts out there. [2:52:34] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Yeah, that would be great. Um, did you want to talk about the fee schedule? [2:52:40] **Ryan Hankins:** You know, I can say a couple things. I know you mentioned to me that maybe we were losing money on Village Hall rentals and I think there's a handful of things in the fee schedule that could probably be revised. But maybe what would be best would be for you and I, if you have an interest, to just sit down and we'll print out a copy of the fee schedule and mark it up a little bit and then I can take responsibility to turn it into an ordinance. And and—but if anybody else has comments that this fee seems too high, this fee seems too low, you know, let us know. I know Bridget said it was way out of date. So, let's get some of that fixed. I don't need to talk about it beyond that. [2:53:33] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. I did print out a copy today. How about I scan it in and email it to all of you and you can put your comments on it and then um send it back to Therese and she can compile our comments and you and I can work on it from that. [2:53:52] **Alan Kantrud (City Attorney):** Why not? Independently and send it to her to aggregate the material, I think. [2:54:05] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay, then let's do that. And I don't know if anybody else has any comments. You can always tweak it in a meeting too if we have— decisions during the meeting but— [2:54:19] **Kathy Weier:** Our next newsletter, looks like our end of November is going to be our next newsletter already. I just was making sure it wasn't this month. [2:54:40] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** All right. Um, that's the end of city business. Um, did we approve the consent agenda yet or no? [2:54:50] **Bridget Sperl:** No. Is there two tiny comments very fast? On the consent agenda. Um, so the deer hunt is this Thursday and Friday. I would just say next year let's not have it on MEA week. Got a lot of kids at home. And the balance sheet—I was just surprised we don't have any money that we've spent on trees. It's like zero. But we've been doing trees. [2:55:34] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** That's because mostly Ron and Jim have been doing it. So, we haven't had Steve Dean doing any of it, which I think is what we had budgeted for was external tree service. [2:55:50] **Bridget Sperl:** He's done a couple things. I don't know if he's billed the city though. Probably ought to find another tree service. [2:55:57] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Yes. Well, we've talked about that. I have I have one quote that came back and it was um for Polly's Park and it was 30,000 to take out big trees and replace at this point. Couldn't we take our money this year and our money next year and just do that? [2:56:06] **Bridget Sperl:** We could. That doesn't seem like the worst thing. I mean, maybe we prioritize a little differently, but just as throwing out an option. Can we make sure we stump grind because there's no way new trees will be able to be planted amongst all those stumps? [2:56:18] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Um, that was the part that they didn't include that was in our previous quote, which is why the cost difference was significant. Probably a longer conversation, but you know, let's figure out what we want to do with trees. October 16th and 17th is the deer hunt. We should—people should know that that is happening at that time frame. [2:56:56] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Anything else we need to discuss? Okay. From that, we should approve the consent agenda, though. So, I I will move that we approve the things on the consent agenda. Um, we didn't pull anything out, did we? [2:57:07] **Bridget Sperl:** I'll second. [2:57:13] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Hearing none. Motion passes. Um, can I get a motion to adjourn? [2:57:25] **Bridget Sperl:** Bridget second. [2:57:28] **Kathy Weier:** I'll second. [2:57:29] **Mayor Jennifer Arsenault:** Kathy, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Hearing none. Motion passes and we are adjourned. Thank you everybody. [2:57:45] **Bridget Sperl:** I'm going to vote against adjourning sometime. You're going to fill a—