This transcript features **Jeff Holtz** (Council Member) serving as the **Acting Mayor** in the absence of Mayor Charles Cadenhead. Based on the dialogue, the speakers are identified as follows: [00:00] **Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** I've prepared a a pretty brief presentation uh on this just providing an overview of the concept plan that's in front of the city and then um trying to dive in a little bit further into the areas where where staff need uh feedback from the council and uh before uh moving forward that guidance would be very helpful to not staff, but also the developer. So, we're looking at a concept plan just north of Clear Lake. As an overview, uh this would be an open space planned unit development. So, we're looking at 22 units at approximately 45 units per acre. the developer in this case, Twin Cities Land Development... [Summary of technical plan] ...We're really just looking at this advisory feedback to to really dive into water service and um questions also about storm water reuse. Okay. So, a land use analysis... [Details on zoning and shoreland overlay] ...It looks like relatively straightforward project and that it can meet the city's requirements shoreland overlay... [Nate concludes the presentation]. [00:00] **Jeff Holtz (Acting Mayor):** Thank you Nathan. Any questions for—Go ahead. [00:00] **Nick Dragisich (Council Member):** In the memo, you talked about the projects within the Shorland Overlay district and that the minimum lot size would be 80,000 square feet. So, but they're proposing something less than that. [00:00] **Nate Stanley:** Yep. That's a good question... [Explains shoreland PUD flexibility and tiering analysis] ...even got the DNR to agree that we did it right um that it would meet. So, okay, thank you. [00:00] **Jeff Holtz:** I'm glad you did it right. I was happy to hear that as well. Nate, correct me. Well, inform me. We I remember the similar the shoreland density levels on the project that was proposed near 94 on that lake. What was that project called? [00:00] **Nate Stanley:** That would have been the Kramer Lake, I believe. [00:00] **Jeff Holtz:** Kramer Lake. Thank you. Other questions for Mr. Stanley? [00:00] **Nick Kragness (Council Member):** Uh, yeah. What would the uh impact on the lot to the north be if the um extension of the water main had to be run through that lot going to the neighbor to the north? What would that look like? [00:00] **Nate Stanley:** Yeah. So, um that would be that would have to be a private discussion, I would think, between the this developer and and that property owner... [00:00] **Jeff Holtz:** One more question. Go ahead, Nick. [00:00] **Nick Dragisich:** Thank you. So, when you're if you—The other option was running the water main to 50th and Lake Elmo—was that correct?... [Asks about property easements and costs]. [00:00] **Nate Stanley:** ...the developer would be covering the cost of that water main extension, correct? That'd be their responsibility. [00:00] **Jeff Holtz:** I didn't see any mention of this, so I presume my search was decently correct, but there wasn't any mention of trails or green trails along the shore of the lake. [00:00] **Nate Stanley:** Correct. Yeah, that's something that I think we would want to take a harder look at if this gets to the kind of next level... [00:00] **Jeff Holtz:** And then Marty, your memory is probably better than mine. I know we've had well I've had discussions at least internally in my brain, but what have we talked about with Keats in terms of ever the idea of a trail along Keats? Obviously, this will be one property for one section, but do we have that in the CIP as even a hypothetical? [00:00] **Pete "Marty" Tholen (Public Works Director):** Uh, there's been some discussion definitely about getting people down to 47th and then in the future 47th would likely have a trail along it heading east and west... It would definitely benefit by grabbing a lot of those neighborhoods and then getting them into town. So it is a desired location for trail. Thank you. [00:00] **Matt Hirn (Council Member):** So, just in trying to understand the options here a little bit better with the wells, you mentioned that the concern there is it's a little bit of a it's a reversal of the policy that's been taken. Can you maybe just give a little more insight on that? I mean, is that like a legal issue? Is that um if if we reverse that, I guess. Yeah. If you just talk a little bit more to the concern of making that switch. [00:00] **Nate Stanley:** Absolutely. So, I'll just kind of reiterate that... [Nate asks Jack Griffin to assist with history]. [00:00] **Jack Griffin (Consulting City Engineer):** Thank you, council. Um, kind of take you back a little ways to probably get you up to speed on this one. Thank you... [Explains the history of Lake Elmo's MUSA and PFAS discovery in 2004] ...once you now as a city, once you're committed to growing a city utility, you need to grow it efficiently on the best interest of the entire community... but right now we are in this mode when we you know we have this policy of new developments you connect to city water. [00:00] **Jeff Holtz:** Okay. That was a very good history. Thank you. Question on if if we go with a dead-end water main which you know we know is not recommended necessarily. Is the cost of flushing it and maintaining that dead end a cost that's paid for by the utility as a whole or is that paid by the development every time it's done? [00:00] **Jack Griffin:** Uh, currently there's not a policy for that. So, it's flushed at our expense by public works. [00:00] **Nick Dragisich:** In the um in one of the extensions of the water main, the one on the lower part of the map where it goes over to Jess's hideway, then goes across to near well number four. Are those properties along there developed or the undeveloped? Do we know? [00:00] **Nate Stanley:** The properties... is currently used for agriculture... it is possible that property could develop as an OPUD under the current land use rules. [00:00] **Jeff Holtz:** More questions. Are we in the feedback stage? Maybe it'd be nice to hear from the developer on I mean there's a few options there on kind of their preferences and their thoughts on it and um yeah maybe just talk about the development a little more. Come on up. [00:00] **Ben Schmidt (Twin Cities Land Development):** Council, Ben Schmidt, Twin Cities Land Development. Um, yeah, happy to answer any questions. I think relative to water supply um we certainly understand some of the challenges... it doesn't make sense to have private wells I think it should be on a city water then the question just becomes the feasibility of looping it... The bigger concern is just the ability to get it done... it's hard to be the first guy. It just is. [00:00] **Jeff Holtz:** Any questions? Thank you. All right. Appreciate it. Thanks. So, I believe there were two main points staff was looking for feedback on. One was the water line. Second was water reuse. Sounds right. I can start it off as well... I am pretty firm on my end in terms of you can't have a dead-end water line... I would agree that private wells are not a solution... I am a teacher. I don't do math. [00:00] **Matt Hirn:** Well, I'll just I'll touch on the two points for uh the water and the um the storm water uh reuse... I personally I'm I'm actually okay with with the thought of wells. Unless I'm missing something there... I guess my only concern is if we would go down that path... it might be premature then until we have the comp plan. [00:00] **Jeff Holtz:** Nick or Nick Sandwich. [00:00] **Nick Dragisich:** No more questions for me. I would concur with the other city council members that I think we have to loop the water main. Um, um I leave it up to the engineers and the developer determine what's the best way to do that... I think the storm water reuse for irrigation is also a requirement. [00:00] **Nate Stanley:** Just really quick, council members... [Mentions parks commission trail credit]. [00:00] **Jeff Holtz:** Do you have enough feedback for staff purposes? [00:00] **Nate Stanley:** I think we do. [00:00] **Jeff Holtz:** All right. No other comments. Okay. Thank you. Three. Speaking of PFAS water treatment plant proposal 10th and Inwood, Mr. Griffin. [00:00] **Jack Griffin:** Thank you, council. Um, wanted to, uh, present to you sort of our preliminary site layout for the South Water Treatment Plant... [Presents technical site plan, watershed divides, and access roads]. [00:00] **Jeff Holtz:** For soil testing and some of that analysis, I mean, is there a chance that there's karst here? [00:00] **Jack Griffin:** We we don't believe there is, but I—solid. [00:00] **Jason Ziemer (Planning/Staff):** So, the issue before the council is the uh property owner requested that you consider expanding the MUSA to a portion of their property... [Explains density implications and Met Council requirements]. [00:00] **Nick Dragisich:** And then could you go to the next slide or yeah this one I'm sorry could you go through this again... we need to stay above 3.5. [00:00] **Jason Ziemer:** ...That's correct. I think I think that would be correct. You you basically regardless are going to have to probably increase high-density residential... [00:00] **Jeff Holtz:** If you want to ask questions to the property owner, you can ask questions to the property owner. [00:00] **Matt Hirn:** Question for the develop—or for the um the the owner—with the OPUD as an option. Is that something that's considered by the the property owner developer or they set on going with the uh the low density residential? [00:00] **Paul Shrier (Landowner Representative):** My name is Paul Shrier... represent the owners of these properties. Um yeah, we did lay out a a lower density um septic lots etc. Pretty disappointed in our soil tests for making some of it work... we're certainly looking for, you know, to cooperate... but frankly, I guess I want to hear if council just completely hates the idea before we spend more money tweaking it. [00:00] **Jeff Holtz:** Thank you. Thank you. [00:00] **Matt Hirn:** I'll start with I'm I'm in I'm very open to this... I think this could be a win-win. [00:00] **Nick Dragisich:** I would just echo the same thoughts that I'm definitely open to this... I agree. I'm open to further discussion. [00:00] **Jeff Holtz:** We need the land. We need the land... I'm just surprised that we're having a conversation to change our comp plan to protect people's health... But, as the three of you have correctly indicated, we need the land. [00:00] **Jeff Holtz:** I think you have a majority present who are in favor of moving the conversation forward. [00:00] **Nicole Miller (City Administrator):** I'll just say, acting mayor and council, that staff has been working with Raftelis since January on this operational assessment... [00:00] **Scott Parker (Raftelis Vice President):** Councilman, thank you so much... [Introduces the operational assessment and project goals]. [00:00] **Brian Kersh (Raftelis Project Manager):** Thank you Scott and thank you everyone for having us here today... [Details findings: workload growth, staffing needs, and PTO strain]. [00:00] **Jeff Holtz:** The amount of FTE in 2019 was 131 accounts per FTE and then we added another operator. How many accounts per FTE would you recommend? [00:00] **Brian Kersh:** That's a good question and that is also a trick question... we never recommend the number of FTEs based on an artificial metric... what is more important is asking what are service level targets and are we able to meet them with our current staffing. [00:00] **Nick Dragisich:** And another question about the 4-day work week. What would be your recommendation for choosing who gets the Monday through Thursday and who gets the Tuesday through Friday or would there be some type of rotation? [00:00] **Brian Kersh:** You know, I thought about this. I don't know... I think that's going to have to be settling down with staff. [00:00] **Jeff Holtz:** In your proposal in task three, you specifically said you're going to benchmark Lake Elmo against pure communities and national benchmarks. There's not a benchmark in the study anywhere to be found... How do you have confidence in a report that recommends hiring people that has no basis for the hiring other than "we think you should"? [00:00] **Scott Parker:** ...The recommendation still is is that you would be too uh you would be understaffed relative to the level of service you keep trying to provide... [Scott and Brian defend their qualitative approach vs quantitative benchmarks]. [00:00] **Pete "Marty" Tholen:** ...We've already taken and we've moved fairly fast with some of the recommendations they've been giving. Beehive—Adam and I have already implemented our task work order system through that... [00:00] **Jeff Holtz:** 4 by 10s, we all we all know a 10-hour workday, you're gonna get more done... I think we need to have that discussion especially once the mayor is back... Thank you for coming in Lake Elmo. [00:00] **Nicole Miller:** Thank you. Good evening. Uh council, Gary Deers is with the U of M and is interested in proposing a research test plot for low input grass seed... [00:00] **Gary Deers (U of M Researcher):** Hey, thanks. Thanks for having me... [Presents the plan for low-input drought-tolerant grass seed research at the water tower site]. [00:00] **Nick Dragisich:** Can you explain more about how homeowners will be more easily able to access the better turf? [00:00] **Gary Deers:** ...The city can say these are the mixtures um and you can go find them here. You can advertise where to buy these mixtures because they're going to be state approved. [00:00] **Matt Hirn:** I'm all for this. I think for a couple reasons... it just really clearly shows that we're doing everything we can to move in the right direction. [00:00] **Jeff Holtz:** I think it appears the answer is yes and thank you for the opportunity. [00:00] **Nicole Miller:** Future agenda items... Does anyone have any questions? [00:00] **Nick Dragisich:** One thing future agenda items—one thing I think we should talk about um and I talked a little bit about it is the storm water utility... Clarissa and I talked about that... [Suggests a budget study for 2026]. [00:00] **Jeff Holtz:** Meeting adjourned.