This transcript appears to be from a **Bayport City Council** meeting. Based on the roll call at [8:02] and the context of the dialogue, there are some discrepancies between your provided list and the officials present in this specific recording (e.g., the Mayor is addressed as St. Ours, and Michele Hanson is a Councilmember). I have used the names as they were identified during the roll call and throughout the discussion. *** [0:01] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [0:36] [Music] [Music] [1:35] [Music] [1:46] [Music] [2:35] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [3:21] [Music] [4:19] [Music] [4:31] [Music] [5:21] [Music] so [Music] [Applause] [Music] [6:06] [Music] [Music] [7:00] [Music] [7:16] **Mayor St. Ours**: Are we ready to roll? All right. So I'd like to call to order the April 5th, 2021 Bayport City Council meeting. Um, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Adam, will you please call the roll? [8:02] **Adam (City Staff)**: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Mayor St. Ours? **Mayor St. Ours**: Here. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Carlson? **Councilmember Connie Carlson**: Here. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Hanson? **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: Here. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Dahl? **Councilmember John Dahl**: Here. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Gilmore? **Councilmember Ethan Gilmore**: Here. **Adam (City Staff)**: All present. [8:15] **Mayor St. Ours**: Excellent. That takes us to the approval of tonight's agenda. Does anyone have any questions or changes? If not, would someone like to make a motion to approve? [8:30] **Councilmember Connie Carlson**: I'll make a motion approving tonight's agenda. [8:35] **Mayor St. Ours**: Thank you, Connie. Is there a second? [8:40] **Councilmember Ethan Gilmore**: I’ll second. [8:49] **Mayor St. Ours**: Thank you, Ethan. Adam, roll call. [8:55] **Adam (City Staff)**: Mayor, Councilmember Carlson? **Councilmember Connie Carlson**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Gilmore? **Councilmember Ethan Gilmore**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Hanson? **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Dahl? **Councilmember John Dahl**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Mayor St. Ours? **Mayor St. Ours**: Aye. [9:10] **Mayor St. Ours**: That takes us to our proclamations, accommodations, petitions, and announcements. Our March recycling award recipient is Jason Obler at 1137 Pioneer Trail, who will be awarded for his recycling efforts with funding made possible with a grant from Washington County. So thank you very much, Jason, for your recycling efforts. That is the only item on that portion of our meeting. So that takes us to our open forum where we set aside 15 minutes to discuss topics that are not on tonight's agenda. Um, Adam, I don't see anyone in our viewing. Do we have anybody online? [9:45] **Adam (City Staff)**: I believe the two other individuals we have are here for an agenda item. I don't see anybody else at this time. [9:55] **Mayor St. Ours**: All right. Well, if someone does pop in, just let us know. But otherwise, we'll move forward with our consent agenda, which will consider a resolution adopting items one through ten: the March 1st, 2021 City Council workshop minutes; the March 1st, 2021 City Council regular meeting minutes; the March payables and receipts; the building mechanical and zoning permits report; a joint powers agreement with Washington County Sheriff's Office Records Management System; the purchase and installation of a new generator for the airstripper water treatment facility; purchase of solar-powered radar speed sign; a park donation of fifty dollars from the Saint Croix Valley Athletic Association; joint powers agreement with Washington County for a mobile field force unit; conservation easement with Minnesota Land Trust for city-owned outlets within the plat of Inspiration 3rd edition to be preserved as protected properties in accordance with the planned unit development stage plan. Any questions, comments, or corrections to the consent agenda? [11:09] **Mayor St. Ours**: If not, would someone like to make a motion to approve? [11:15] **Councilmember John Dahl**: I'll move to adopt a resolution of the April 5th, 2021 consent agenda as presented. [11:20] **Mayor St. Ours**: Thank you, John. Is there a second? [11:25] **Councilmember Connie Carlson**: I'll second it. [11:30] **Mayor St. Ours**: Thank you, Connie. And Adam? [11:35] **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Dahl? **Councilmember John Dahl**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Carlson? **Councilmember Connie Carlson**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Hanson? **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Gilmore? **Councilmember Ethan Gilmore**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Mayor St. Ours? **Mayor St. Ours**: Aye. [11:50] **Mayor St. Ours**: Motion passes. We do not have a public hearing this evening, so that takes us to our first item of unfinished business, which is to consider a resolution accepting a bid for proposed 2021 city infrastructure improvements. And so, uh, John Perotti and Adam, will you please take the floor? [11:55] **Adam (City Staff)**: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Give me one moment to pull up that part of the agenda. [12:09] **Mayor St. Ours**: It's always helpful if you guys can direct us to what page in our packet. [12:15] **Adam (City Staff)**: I think it's page 84 of the electronic packet, um, actually 85 of the council packet potentially. I appreciate that. Thank you. So let me go ahead and... okay. Uh, this item is accepting the bid and declaring the cost to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the assessments and then setting the assessment hearing. This is the 2021 infrastructure project. A couple of things I just want to point out: the cost actually came in lower than what our estimate was, which was great news both for the city as well as the residents and those who will be receiving the assessments. The next public hearing is going to be for may 3rd, the next council meeting. That's the one where we'll actually discuss the resolutions; there'll be a public hearing for those impacted to come and make a statement. There'll be more information on the assessments themselves at the next meeting. One of the things that I wanted to mention: the lowered cost... we got it so recent to the packet going out that we were not able to update all the individual assessments. So at the next meeting, the amended lower cost and assessments will be sent out. John and I are available for any questions. Otherwise, it's really straightforward. There's three motions for this. [14:27] **Mayor St. Ours**: Very good. Thank you, Adam. Any questions from the council? I'll just do a round robin. Connie? **Councilmember Connie Carlson**: No questions. **Mayor St. Ours**: Michele? **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: No questions. **Mayor St. Ours**: No questions for me either. Okay, Ethan? [14:45] **Councilmember Ethan Gilmore**: When you say assessments, what... do we have the number of when the residents are affected and what that's going to cost each resident? Is that further down? [15:13] **Adam (City Staff)**: I don't recall if the assessment role was included in tonight's packet. The previous packet had the preliminary assessment role, which included our original estimate, which if you recall was about... [inaudible] when the actual bid came in it was the $434,000. So it's quite a substantial savings. That doesn't include the engineering costs, which is later in the agenda. We'll have that available this week to send out, but it will be lower for everybody. [16:15] **Councilmember Ethan Gilmore**: Sounds good. That's all I had. Thank you. [16:20] **Mayor St. Ours**: Ethan and John Dahl? [16:25] **Councilmember John Dahl**: No, I'm... I think I'm okay. Do we need to include that bid amount in our motion? The motion that we have looks like it is included as the first motion at the bottom of the memo: a resolution accepting the bid of 434,933.33. [17:00] **Adam (City Staff)**: If you go to page 103, that's the first resolution which I think has all the information Councilmember Dahl is asking for. [17:15] **Councilmember John Dahl**: I'm going to just do it the simple way then. I'm going to move to adopt a resolution accepting a bid for proposed 2021 city infrastructure improvements as presented. [17:30] **Mayor St. Ours**: Thank you, John. Is there a second? [17:35] **Councilmember Ethan Gilmore**: I’ll second. [17:40] **Mayor St. Ours**: Adam? [17:45] **Adam (City Staff)**: Madam Mayor. Councilmember Dahl? **Councilmember John Dahl**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Gilmore? **Councilmember Ethan Gilmore**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Hanson? **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Carlson? **Councilmember Connie Carlson**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Mayor St. Ours? **Mayor St. Ours**: Aye. [18:00] **Mayor St. Ours**: Great. That takes us to the second item under that topic, which is a consideration of a resolution declaring the cost to be assessed and ordering the preparation of assessments for proposal of the 2021 city infrastructure improvements. So back to you, Adam and John. [18:18] **Adam (City Staff)**: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh, this one again just splits that $434,000 amount into the $270,495 which is the city's portion, and then the amount that will be assessed is $120,783. Again, that doesn't include engineering costs. [19:04] **Mayor St. Ours**: Very good. Any questions or comments for Adam and John on this item? Okay, if not, would someone like to make a motion? [19:15] **Councilmember Connie Carlson**: I'll move to adopt the resolution declaring the cost to be assessed and ordering the preparations for the assessments for the proposed 2021 city infrastructure improvements as presented. [19:30] **Mayor St. Ours**: Thank you, Connie. Is there a second? [19:35] **Councilmember John Dahl**: I'll second it. [19:40] **Mayor St. Ours**: Adam, please. [19:45] **Adam (City Staff)**: Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember Carlson? **Councilmember Connie Carlson**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Dahl? **Councilmember John Dahl**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Hanson? **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Gilmore? **Councilmember Ethan Gilmore**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Mayor St. Ours? **Mayor St. Ours**: Aye. [20:00] **Mayor St. Ours**: All right. The last item, item number three under unfinished business, is to consider a resolution setting a public assessment hearing for the proposed 2021 infrastructure improvements. Back to you, Adam. [20:15] **Adam (City Staff)**: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh, this item is just passing the resolution to call for the public hearing and schedule that. There really is no other information. [20:30] **Mayor St. Ours**: All right. So with that, I'll just pause if there are any questions. And if not, is someone willing to make a motion? [20:45] **Councilmember John Dahl**: I'll move to adopt a resolution setting a public assessment hearing for May 3rd, 2021 for the 2021 city infrastructure improvements as presented. [20:55] **Mayor St. Ours**: Thank you, John. And a second? [21:00] **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: I’ll second. [21:05] **Mayor St. Ours**: Thank you, Michele. Back to you, Adam. [21:10] **Adam (City Staff)**: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Councilmember Dahl? **Councilmember John Dahl**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Hanson? **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Carlson? **Councilmember Connie Carlson**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Gilmore? **Councilmember Ethan Gilmore**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Mayor St. Ours? **Mayor St. Ours**: Aye. [21:18] **Mayor St. Ours**: This leads to our fourth item under unfinished business, which is to consider a proposal from SEH for construction engineering services for the proposed 2021 city infrastructure improvements. So over to John and Adam. [21:24] **Adam (City Staff)**: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm going to hand this over to John Perotti to present this item. [21:35] **John Perotti (SEH Engineer)**: Thank you, Adam, and thank you, Mayor, members of the council. Uh, you'll see a cover memo from Matt Kline dated March 24th, which is a high-level summary basically of the proposal for construction services in the amount of $48,650. And that covers the type of construction engineering services that is typical for a City of Bayport project. It includes construction surveying; it includes an inspector on site to serve as liaison to the contractor and city staff. That person also has liaison to residents or other people affected by the project, for instance, people normally using that route to get to the prison. Our inspector or resident project representative would serve as liaison to those folks. He also serves as an extension of the design staff making adjustments in the field as conditions warrant. So again, the amount is $48,650. You'll see on Matt's memo there, he totals the previously approved amount of $44,100 along with the proposed amount before you today for a total of $92,750. He also correctly points out that these costs are in fact at the low end of the range for a project like this. So Matt recommends approval of this proposal. We'll be happy to stand for any questions. [23:55] **Mayor St. Ours**: Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Go ahead, Adam. [24:05] **Adam (City Staff)**: Adam here. Sorry about that, Madam Mayor. I just wanted to reiterate and make sure everybody's clear that for the construction engineering services, it's just that $48,650 that's being asked tonight. The previous dollars were already incurred to this point. [24:37] **Mayor St. Ours**: Okay. So we're looking to approve $48,650. Correct? Does anyone from the council have any questions? No? Okay. Would someone like to make a motion? [24:55] **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: I’ll move we authorize SEH to perform construction engineering services for the proposed 2021 city infrastructure improvements as presented. [25:05] **Mayor St. Ours**: Thank you very much, Michele. Is there a second? [25:10] **Councilmember Connie Carlson**: I'll second it. [25:15] **Mayor St. Ours**: Thank you, Connie. Adam, please call the roll. [25:20] **Adam (City Staff)**: Mayor, Councilmember Hanson? **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Carlson? **Councilmember Connie Carlson**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Gilmore? [Silence] Oh, he's muted. **Councilmember Ethan Gilmore**: I’m sorry about that. Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Dahl? He's muted too. **Councilmember John Dahl**: Aye. That was weird. I just unmuted. **Adam (City Staff)**: Mayor St. Ours? **Mayor St. Ours**: Aye. [25:45] **Mayor St. Ours**: Excellent. Thank you all. That takes us to our fifth item under unfinished business, which is to consider a resolution for the extension of the municipal water infrastructure to the proposed Hills of Spring Creek residential development in Baytown Township. Back to you, Adam. [26:09] **Adam (City Staff)**: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, this item was discussed at the last council meeting regarding the extension under the current JPA with the township. The city has still not heard back as far as the developers' applications for high-capacity wells for their irrigation, but based on the water modeling that staff has done with the help of SEH, staff's opinion is that there is currently capacity of the Bayport water system to provide non-irrigation potable-only water to this proposed development. We have been fielding some questions from Bayport residents, Baytown residents, as well as some of the Baytown Town Board members. Some of the questions they've had were, you know, what impact this will have on future development of existing property that was included in the original JPA. With the water modeling, staff is confident that this will not have any negative impact on providing water to any of the current customers or proposed future development. One of the caveats: the biggest demand is the summer irrigation of the upper water zone, and that is where the City of Bayport is at capacity for our current water usage. We've discussed upgrading the physical pumps from the ones we have now to larger capacity pumps; that will easily handle that as well as continuing the future sustainability for the water system. This is probably likely to happen at some point in the next couple years. The amount of potable water that this proposed development will be using is rather negligible on the overall water demand. Attorney Lunan did a nice job of summarizing our requirements as far as providing water under the JPA. The main question is whether or not there's capacity. I'm happy to stand for questions. Attorney Lunan and Mr. Perotti are available as well. We did have two parties that had attended the meeting: the developer's engineer and a resident from Baytown. [29:55] **Mayor St. Ours**: Adam, is your recommendation that the council discuss this or turn the mics over to the participants for comments and then open discussion? [30:05] **Adam (City Staff)**: Madam Mayor, I think it might be most... well, it's obviously your prerogative as the chair, but I think if the council were to potentially ask any questions of staff that still remain, that might answer some of the other questions and then have the public input if you so desire. [30:30] **Mayor St. Ours**: Okay, great. So questions from the council. We'll start that and I am going to go round-robin just to make sure that we definitely have everyone represented. Connie, do you have any questions at this time? [30:45] **Councilmember Connie Carlson**: No. My concern was just that with the irrigation, that it would cover... that they couldn't just do it after the fact after we if we were to go through with this. I understand what I'm asking. [30:55] **Adam (City Staff)**: Uh, Councilmember, the resolution that staff came up with with the help of the attorney is restrictive. It limits that there cannot be any residential and irrigation cross-connection. So they can't connect their irrigation system to the city water. There isn't really a way without getting into design standards of the development—which we have no desire to get that detailed—to design how their actual residential plumbing goes. But they would have to have it from their spigot. They could put a sprinkler out on their outside spigot to try to water their lawn. Based on all the information available, it's almost impossible to use a lot of water without having that running multiple sprinklers 24/7. It just it's nowhere near the amount of water that an irrigation system utilizes. So there isn't a concern with that. [33:15] **Councilmember Connie Carlson**: Okay. Capacity. Okay. Yeah, thank you. That was my only concern. I just didn't want to see a strain on our system if something they were to go forward without us being aware of it. [33:45] **Adam (City Staff)**: And members of council, just so I'm not causing too much confusion with leaving the door open to backup irrigation... as we sit today, the city does not have the capacity to provide any irrigation. So that would have to be a whole separate conversation. Staff believes that the upgrades would have to happen prior to that. [34:35] **Mayor St. Ours**: Okay. Thank you, Adam. Michele, do you have questions? [34:45] **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: I do. I just need some clarification on the "Figure 1" chart with the orange and blue bars. The maximum day demand of 39,700 gallons per hour was established from historical billing data. Does that account for the new development? I guess I'm not clear on what the numbers mean. [35:45] **Adam (City Staff)**: The purpose of that is that it has no impact on the capacity, which is the question before the council. [35:56] **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: Well, I know. During high demand, we already have a hard time even meeting our own demands. So saying that well, it's not that big of a deal... we already had an issue. Do you understand what I'm saying? I just want to make sure that this is not going to be a burden because we already have a burden. Is this a clear enough picture to say yes, we do meet that capacity, or could someone come back and say well you barely do? I don't want to get in trouble for approving it because we're at our maximum already. [36:59] **John Perotti (SEH Engineer)**: Mayor, members of the council. So the solid green line represents what the demand is in the last couple of years without these houses. So what this graph is telling us is that on certain days, we are already required to run three pumps to keep up with the demand without the addition of the proposed 102 homes. And then if we add the 102 homes for domestic service only, it goes up to the dashed line, which you can hardly tell on that graph that they're different. That's where Adam was getting at; that the increment there is so small it's really almost negligible. But to answer an earlier question: we're already in a condition where we're having to run three pumps during the high demand periods to meet irrigation demand up in that upper zone. And no, that's not ideal. The ideal situation would be to meet that demand with two pumps running so that in the event a pump would fail, you could meet the demand with the other two pumps running. So this project doesn't change the fact that the booster station is in need of upgrades. It's already in need of upgrades. [39:15] **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: Yeah, that makes sense. Um, do we also have to take into account any other new homes in Inspiration? Are we all maxed out there? [40:01] **John Perotti (SEH Engineer)**: Those are included in the model. [40:05] **Adam (City Staff)**: Yes, John. I believe earlier today staff actually said they just did the last certificate of occupancy for the M&I homes. There's only a handful left of those that still are going to be built. And then there's the Landucci project, the Villas. It's dwindling down. That is factored into these calculations. [40:47] **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: Okay. So just two final clarifications I'd like to make. The first one is as a city, we need to upgrade the pumps anyway. We would have planned to do that based on the conversation we've already had and this is not going to affect that. So we can't tell them they have to help us pay for the upgrades or anything, right? And then the second thing: just to clarify that what is in our control... if we have capacity, we have to approve the connection for them. Is that a true statement? [42:21] **Tom Lunan (City Attorney)**: According to the Joint Powers Agreement that you guys have entered into with Baytown, you can only deny the hookup if the city has determined upon a reasonable opinion that the water design capacity cannot serve the new development. It's the only grounds under the contract by which you can deny. Therefore, if there is the capacity there, um, you don't have grounds to deny it. If the city were to make a finding that we don't have the capacity, then the city can deny under the JPA. [43:07] **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: But this document that we are looking at says we do have the capacity. So we really don't have much of a choice. [43:15] **Adam (City Staff)**: Staff's opinion is that based on the water modeling, the city does have capacity. As with all items, the council has the ultimate decision on whether or not to accept staff's recommendation. [44:20] **Tom Lunan (City Attorney)**: Understanding that if there's a denial, potentially the developer or Baytown Township may challenge that denial for violating the JPA. [44:39] **Councilmember John Dahl**: Can I jump in here? Because my questions have to do with part of this. So we're right on the feather's edge with our three existing pumps. You could extrapolate it out and say yeah, we have the capacity if we upgrade things. We don't *currently* have that capacity. Is that correct? We're right on the feather's edge. [45:25] **Adam (City Staff)**: Just to respond to your question: yes, in theory we have unlimited capacity somewhat to however much infrastructure that we implement. Public Works Director Matt Kline had mentioned that there are other properties along Osgood that if they were to request development, there would be additional infrastructure that the city would have to implement. At that time, we would be asking the developer to pay for that. As of right now, the staff's opinion is that we have capacity. We are not in an ideal situation regardless of the development. [47:44] **Councilmember John Dahl**: May I continue with questions? Michele, I didn't mean to jump in over yours. **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: I’m good. [47:55] **Councilmember John Dahl**: So back to our maximum day demand line. And I understand and I guess I trust the numbers. Adam, do you have an approximate number of how many housing units or water users there are in our city? [48:15] **Adam (City Staff)**: Yeah, it's right about 1,100 water accounts that we have. That includes the township, the city, and commercial. [48:25] **Councilmember John Dahl**: Adding an additional 100 onto a thousand... it just doesn't make sense from a common-sense standpoint that it's not going to affect things. To me, the math doesn't work. [48:32] **Adam (City Staff)**: It's because the irrigation is... adding these 100 obviously brings it up to 1,200, but it's the upper zone irrigation that creates all the demand. Up in Inspiration, there's only a few hundred houses, but they're way over half of the use. That's why if this developer was requesting for irrigation, that would be a completely different discussion. Because we do *not* have the capacity to provide irrigation to another 102 large-lot homes. [49:19] **Councilmember John Dahl**: That brings me to another question that was brought up earlier about a hose bib or a spigot on these houses. Am I correct in saying that a house built at the project could have a hose bib or spigot outside connected to city water? [49:50] **Adam (City Staff)**: In theory, yes. The city doesn't regulate the design standards for the actual project. [50:15] **Councilmember John Dahl**: Right. Well, this is all hypothetical though, right? Upgraded pumps is hypothetical. I'm with Michele; we don't have our house in order. To me, that's like saying I'm in financial trouble but I'm going to go buy a new car. We don't have our house in order from a water usage standpoint and I'm not very comfortable moving forward with this. My fears with this have not been relieved. So I'm not in support of this. [51:15] **Adam (City Staff)**: I completely agree, but I don't know that Bayport has the jurisdiction to get into the design standards for a project in another jurisdiction. [51:37] **Councilmember John Dahl**: Right, no, I completely agree. But then you can't stick your nose in there if you can't follow through and make sure that how it impacts the city doesn't come back to bite you. It's about an hour-long process for somebody to throw a hose bib on the exterior of their house and be using potable water to water their brand new sod in a new development. I'm just saying my fears of ways to work around this situation have not been answered. [52:24] **Adam (City Staff)**: Just one other item. The booster pumps have been on the CIP for a couple years now. We're starting to realize the demand in the upper zone for the irrigation. So this wasn't out of the blue. I want to make sure that we're not attributing the request for the pumps to just this development. [53:10] **Councilmember John Dahl**: I understand that. Yeah. I just think it's bad policy. What do we gain in this Joint Powers Agreement other than having our hands tied? I really feel like our hands are tied in this situation and that displeases me. [53:56] **Tom Lunan (City Attorney)**: And Councilmember Dahl, that opinion is warranted. Obviously, this isn't our opportunity to renegotiate that agreement; that's where we're at. I will note that the resolution does require that the Bayport City Engineer is reviewing the design and specifications for the stormwater reuse system to ensure there's not city water going towards irrigation. If there's going to be a denial of the connection, there needs to be a finding that we do not have the capacity to make the connection at this time. Otherwise, we're going to be in violation of that agreement. [55:04] **Councilmember Connie Carlson**: I guess I feel like we have to trust our city engineer and our legal counsel and our city administrator. They've shown that right now at this point in time, we do have that capacity. I personally don't feel like our city staff would put us in a situation that would leave us in a predicament with our water. I don't want to feel like we're going against an agreement that was made in good faith which we're trying to backtrack because we don't agree with it. [56:37] **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: I agree with you, John. It's making me a little nervous, but I also see legally I don't think we have an option other than to approve it even if it makes me uncomfortable. Is there something more we can do to discourage use of the potable water for irrigation? Like can we charge them more if they use more water? I mean something more to make sure that they're not thinking that's a good idea to hook their hose up outside and water their lawn. [57:23] **Mayor St. Ours**: I agree with you, Michele, that was my concern. We do have an item that we need to address as a council and that's our own use within the Inspiration development that is too high. If a person is overusing, what's the penalty? I don't want to put added burden to Bayport to monitor people's behaviors. Tom, can you address that? [59:41] **Tom Lunan (City Attorney)**: The agreement requires that any property in Baytown Township that's hooked up to the city's water system is subject to city ordinance relating to the rules and regulations regarding the water system. [1:00:15] **Mayor St. Ours**: I'm asking what's the penalty? Because we don't have the staff to run around and check people's sprinklers. I don't want to incur legal costs to address an individual who's overusing. Where is the language that says they incur all legal fees to address the issue? [1:00:26] **Adam (City Staff)**: Thank you, Madam Mayor. To this point, staff did discuss this. The JPA itself has provisions that the Town of Baytown needs to adopt any water ordinances that the City of Bayport adopts. If we have water restrictions on, the City of Bayport would start by addressing those regulations. As far as policing it, that is difficult. But we are able to see it in the usage. We can track how many gallons are used. At the end of the day, the city would have the ability to turn off the water. That was the whole original intent of this JPA. [1:04:18] **Mayor St. Ours**: But turning off someone's water is a big long legal process. Is this language tight enough to keep people from abusing and not putting a burden on our city staff? [1:05:04] **Adam (City Staff)**: The answer is we'd have to make additional thresholds. We've talked about adding a potential higher tier for payments for x number of gallons. [1:05:30] **Mayor St. Ours**: I get that, Adam, but people seem to be very willing to pay more to have these very green lawns. That has not been a deterrent. Is there language that says if we adopt different tiers, this property would be subject? Or is that automatic? [1:06:15] **Tom Lunan (City Attorney)**: That’s automatic under the JPA, Madam Mayor. [1:06:36] **Councilmember Ethan Gilmore**: I agree with John on being right at the edge with the current system. My proposal would be to ask the developer for a portion of the upgrades on the pumps. I don't think that would be out of line. If the pump upgrade is $200,000 and you divide that among 1,200 houses, ask the developer for that portion. They can pass it on to the people they sell the houses to. [1:08:53] **Adam (City Staff)**: Madam Mayor, the developer is required to pay for all the infrastructure connecting it, as well as pay trunk fees. That's a surcharge under city ordinance. Anybody who connects to the city system is required to pay a trunk charge. Some of that is anticipated to pay for the system overall. Also, Mr. Matt, the engineer from the developer, did raise his hand. [1:10:25] **Adam (City Staff)**: Mr. Klein just got off an airplane and he called in. Matt, can you hear me? [1:11:14] **Matt Kline (Public Works Director)**: I’m here. [1:11:14] **Adam (City Staff)**: The looping connection... currently we have water going up 5th Ave to the fire station and it terminates there. There's a gap between the fire station and Inspiration. This proposal will pay for a portion toward that fire station. So if the city does want to add additional redundancy, portions of it are already covered, which is a benefit to the city's water system. [1:12:01] **John Perotti (SEH Engineer)**: And to add to that: thinking off into the future, eventually there could be a need for a connection to go further south on Osgood. This constructs a significant portion of that loop. [1:12:47] **Councilmember John Dahl**: Is the floor open right now? I just wanted to circle back a little bit. Connie, I value all of our experts' opinions, but our job is absolutely to second-guess them and hold their feet to the fire. I'm pretty adamant about that. The other thing that would make me lots more comfortable is if this stormwater reservoir situation was clear and laid out. It's just some nebulous pie-in-the-sky idea. [1:14:21] **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: It does say they have to have a separate stormwater system as part of the resolution. [1:14:21] **Matt Kline (Public Works Director)**: Councilmember Dahl, they have not provided a set of plans yet, but they have the two ponds set up and they have been talking to engineers who have been working in Hugo and Woodbury. They're doing their research on what they need to provide. We're only providing potable water. In the resolution, none of that irrigation stuff is supposed to be connected inside the house. If they're going to connect a hose and sprinkle their lawn, there's not much we can do, but it's likely not occurring at the same time our peak hour demands are in the morning. [1:17:26] **Councilmember John Dahl**: Thank you for that. One more question, Matt. They are not going to use Bayport's water to pre-fill or keep those ponds at some level? [1:18:12] **Matt Kline (Public Works Director)**: Correct. They are in the process of proposing high-capacity wells. The hydrologist from the DNR has talked to me. Their preference would be that they hook up city water due to contamination concerns, but for now, they are going through the special permit process for high-capacity wells. With this resolution, it's only for drinking water. No irrigation water will be hooked up. [1:19:55] **Councilmember John Dahl**: Thank you. Matt, thanks for jumping in on this. If for some reason we weren't going to upgrade our pumps, would you be comfortable moving forward with this for the potable water portion? [1:20:29] **Matt Kline (Public Works Director)**: Absolutely. The demand during peak hours that the development would be putting in is just minimal. We're only talking a fraction of what we're currently using. As far as the irrigation portion, there's no way we could even provide that. [1:22:54] **Adam (City Staff)**: Mr. Hebes? [1:23:10] **Matt Hebes (Auth Consulting)**: Thank you, Mayor and Councilmembers. My name is Matt Hebes, I'm with Auth Consulting in Hudson. I'm a civil engineer. We have been working on conservation measures that will be implemented. We fully understand that you're not approving the subdivision for the irrigation portion and only potable water. We've been working with the Watershed District to have these ponds permitted as water-reuse ponds. [1:24:37] **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: I think that legally we're obliged based on the information we've been provided to make a motion to for the extension of municipal water infrastructure to the proposed Hills of Spring Creek residential development in Baytown Township for potable water only with all those stipulations provided in the resolution. [1:25:22] **Mayor St. Ours**: Thank you, Michele. Would someone like to second that motion? [1:25:25] **Councilmember Connie Carlson**: I’ll second Michele's motion. [1:25:22] **Adam (City Staff)**: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Councilmember Hanson? **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Carlson? **Councilmember Connie Carlson**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Gilmore? **Councilmember Ethan Gilmore**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Dahl? **Councilmember John Dahl**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Mayor St. Ours? **Mayor St. Ours**: Aye. [1:26:09] **Mayor St. Ours**: Okay. Well, very healthy discussion. I think we uncovered a lot of topics that we need to address that have to do with our overall water usage. That takes us to our item of new business, which is to consider a special event application from the Bayport American Legion for the Memorial Day parade on May 31st, 2021. Adam, if you'll address that topic. [1:27:42] **Adam (City Staff)**: Thank you, Madam Mayor. The Memorial Day parade organizers have submitted an application. Last year the parade was canceled. Under the current state guidance, the parade would not be allowed to happen based on the application parameters. It's currently limited to approximately 250 people. The challenge is that city staff, mainly the police department and its reserve contingent, conduct a lot of the parade. I've received comments from some of the council wondering what other alternatives could be done. I reached out to the parade organizer and I have not heard back. Staff's recommendation is to either deny the application at this time because it currently cannot be done under the current restrictions, or statically approve it with the expectation that almost all of the current regulations need to be removed. It would be really challenging to regulate social distancing for this type of event. Most cities are in the same boat we are. Unfortunately, because this is in May and we're not out of the woods yet, staff's recommendation is that this event should not happen. [1:33:04] **Councilmember John Dahl**: There isn't a bigger fan of the Memorial Day parade in Bayport than I am. It's pretty clear-cut what decision we need to make and that's to deny this. If something changed between now and then, I would do whatever I needed to do to have a special meeting to approve it, but as it stands now, I don't think we can move forward. [1:34:39] **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: I agree with John. It's a great event but I don't think we can approve it. I'm a little disappointed because I suggested alternative ways to do the parade, like having people drive through while the parade is stationary. I'm wondering if just the ceremony part could happen and be televised on Valley Access. And as the secretary of the Bayport Community Action League, I would welcome them to have a parade during Derby Days in September if they want to. [1:35:24] **Councilmember Connie Carlson**: I echo John and Michele's feelings. I just don't feel like in good conscience we could go ahead with it at this point. [1:36:12] **Councilmember Ethan Gilmore**: I understand where you guys are coming from, but with all the vaccinations... everyone over 16 is available to get it now. To me, it seems like we're at the light at the end of the tunnel. I'd hate to cancel something if in two months things relax. I wouldn't mind approving it with the caveat that it only goes if the restrictions are taken off at the executive level. [1:38:29] **Tom Lunan (City Attorney)**: From a legal standpoint, even if it were to be approved, they would still be subject to all the guidelines currently in place. There's nothing we can do to tell them they don't have to comply. [1:41:16] **Adam (City Staff)**: Chief Eastman's hand is raised. [1:42:03] **Police Chief Jay Jackson (Eastman)**: In my nearly 17 years, I too have enjoyed the parade. The problem for our staffing is we have everybody on deck. If you choose to do what Councilmember Gilmore was talking about, we need to know sooner than later because we have to get staffing ready. And talking about enforcement: the governor's orders are the governor's orders and we are expected to uphold them. That's going to be a problem when we're all busy directing traffic. [1:43:58] **Councilmember John Dahl**: I'll make a motion that we deny the application for the American Legion's Memorial Day parade on May 31st, 2021. [1:44:44] **Councilmember Ethan Gilmore**: Can we amend it to say that we would have a special meeting if they came up with a plan that did comply with the governor's orders? [1:44:44] **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: I’ll second. [1:44:55] **Adam (City Staff)**: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Councilmember Dahl? **Councilmember John Dahl**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Hanson? **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Gilmore? **Councilmember Ethan Gilmore**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Carlson? **Councilmember Connie Carlson**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Mayor St. Ours? **Mayor St. Ours**: Aye. [1:45:33] **Mayor St. Ours**: I will notify the applicant. That takes us to our city council liaison reports. I'm going to start with Ethan. [1:45:45] **Councilmember Ethan Gilmore**: Nothing new to report. We didn't meet this month. [1:46:19] **Councilmember Connie Carlson**: The library is looking to upgrade and do some remodel. They came forward with these plans. They've received grants to go forward with this project and hope to start this year depending on the financial part. [1:47:06] **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: I have nothing to report. [1:47:15] **Councilmember John Dahl**: I don't have anything from Middle Saint Croix Watershed to report. There's no meeting this month either. [1:47:52] **Fire Chief Gabe Kinney (Eisinger)**: March call volume was 62. Year-to-date calls were 175. I’d like to thank Adam for getting the budget numbers to the townships because they do their budget cycles in their March meeting. Safety reminders: recreational fires are allowed, but you can't burn yard waste. We are under a burn ban right now. It is so dry out there. [1:49:54] **Police Chief Jay Jackson (Eastman)**: We're in the middle of the part-time peace officer process. Total incident calls to date are 1,558. I’ll stand for questions. [1:51:39] **Matt Kline (Public Works Director)**: The public works department has been working on hydrant flushing. Also doing street sweeping and prepping equipment. We had a main break tonight so we’ll be fixing that tomorrow morning. A group of girl scouts is going to be doing some stenciling of the local storm drains. We also have a couple Eagle Scouts who will be doing porta-potty enclosures at the parks. [1:54:42] **Assistant City Administrator Sara Taylor**: We received 12 complete applications for the office support specialist job. Six individuals have been selected for interviews. The new city website application forms have been updated. Staff has also been working with Anderson Corporation to develop a design for the permanent access location at the clean water land and legacy property. [1:57:00] **Adam (City Staff)**: The new website is live at the beginning of the month. We strongly encourage all residents to visit and sign up for an account. The 2020 audit is almost complete. Regarding the American Rescue Plan of 2021: Bayport’s estimation is $430,000. It has to be spent by December 31st, 2024. We are waiting for the US Treasury to issue guidance on what's eligible for expenditure. Also, on the speed limit survey, we’ve received about 315 responses so far. We will have all that data available for the May 3rd meeting. [2:01:54] **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: Should we be revisiting the Economic Development Authority (EDA)? We ran into a problem last time where we couldn't give away the money because we don't have one. [2:03:25] **Adam (City Staff)**: That was one of the questions I posed to the attorney's office. We need to come up with a good plan, and if that includes the city creating an EDA, that's a discussion that needs to happen. [2:04:11] **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: We also need to do a priority meeting to talk about what the council wants to get done. [2:05:42] **Adam (City Staff)**: Definitely. Staff can present an overview on an EDA. We have a Greystone discussion rescheduled to May 3rd. [2:06:28] **Councilmember John Dahl**: I wouldn't mind doing some of those workshops not prior to a meeting so we don't have such a long slog. Maybe doing one in the middle of the month. [2:08:00] **Mayor St. Ours**: Any other questions, comments? [2:08:46] **Adam (City Staff)**: I had one other item. I had a phone call regarding the fire contract. This year we have the seven-year review of the fire service agreement as well as the conflict between Oak Park Heights and Bayport on disagreeing on some of the payments. [2:09:32] **Mayor St. Ours**: All right. Shall we have a motion to adjourn? [2:09:40] **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: I’ll move we adjourn. [2:09:45] **Councilmember John Dahl**: I’ll second. [2:09:50] **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Hanson? **Councilmember Michele Hanson**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Dahl? **Councilmember John Dahl**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Carlson? **Councilmember Connie Carlson**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Councilmember Gilmore? **Councilmember Ethan Gilmore**: Aye. **Adam (City Staff)**: Mayor St. Ours? **Mayor St. Ours**: Aye. [2:10:00] **Mayor St. Ours**: All right. Thanks, everyone. Stay safe. [2:10:30] [Music] [2:11:19] [Music] [2:11:40] [Music]