All right, it is 7 o'clock. I will call this meeting to order. Please join me for the >> pledgece to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right, Vicki put something at the top of our agenda so that I remember to remind you guys uh to ensure clear audio recordings during meetings. Council members should keep their microphones on at all times and lean in and speak directly into their microphone. I might just paraphrase that next time. Turn on your microphones and lean in. Um, okay. Let's see. Uh, can I get a motion to approve the agenda, please? >> I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. >> Motion by council member Persian. I'll second. Second by council member Mack. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Oppose. Same sign. >> Motion passes. All right. It does not look like we have anyone here for the community comment this evening. So, let's move on to the presentations and reports. We have Commissioner Fehee. Good evening. How are you doing? >> I'm doing great. >> Good to see you. Thanks for coming. Thanks for having me. I had given everyone just a copy of the cover county updates for July. A lot of discussion about highway 212. Really excited about that project. The new bridge at Bungards. We hope that that bridge will be open for traffic by November and that will just uh continue to make that a safer intersection. And my friendly advice to everyone is just please slow down in that construction zone from Norwood Young America all the way to Cologne. Just a lot of construction happening and just please slow down. Next big project for the county is going to be highway five, making that a four lane from Highway 41 to Victoria with some pedestrian and bicycle safety upgrades. We're going through the final decide design stage currently and we're going to start construction this fall and all the way through 2027. We continue to have open houses and surveys being conducted. So if you want to provide your public engagement, please reach out through the county website. Highway 40. Uh this was um an area a high crashed area with sharp curves and narrow shoulders. If you've been that way traveling towards Bell Plane, that four mile stretch between Highway 25 and then also Highway 52. We've been improving. The bulk of that work is complete. Uh we hope to finalize the paving this month and then get that highway 40 open. On the back part of the handout is the Carver Link highspeed internet access. 360 plus miles of fiber have been installed. We're about 90% complete of the rural construction for that whole project. That's been a huge success. When I started as a commissioner five years ago, it was just surprising to me that individuals in Hancock Township and Dowrren Township didn't have reliable internet. And so we're taking care of all that and satisfying that need. And then the next couple bullets is just some county health and well-being update about the quality of life uh within Carver County. 95% of our high school students successfully graduate and the state average is 84%. The national average is about 87%. 69% of our residents drive alone to and from work. Um the Carver County residents have an average life expectancy of 82.3 years which is higher than the state average and also higher than the national average. 25% of the residents in Carver County are 18 years old or younger. So that I found that kind of interesting. And then Carver County has a homeownership rate of 82%. Uh there's some additional library highlights about the 1.5 million checkouts of books in 2024. Uh the libraries continue to expand, excuse me, their services, etc. And then on the the bottom, I just gave some updates about the regional rail. Uh how many car loads are actually going east and west or north and south in Carver County. That's all I have. If anyone has any additional questions, >> questions for Commissioner Fe. >> I just have one question about Highway 5. People still ask even though that we don't we don't actually connect to Highway 5, >> but they still ask me. Um, you know, it gets really tight in there by the arboritum with the marsh um that comes up to the road. How is that going to get configured to be four lanes? >> Um, the latest video that I had seen last week is they'll build up that entire area with four lanes. And originally they were going to put a pillar type of bridge across that whole stretch. And now it's going to be more of a causeway type of bridge. And for me in layman terms it's just going to be like a big bulk box culvert >> and then they're going to use the existing roaded and just expand it. >> Okay. Will highway 5 go into full closures then during that time? >> It will. >> Okay. >> And then the arboretum is moving. Their new entrance will be at the Mininoash Delights. >> Okay. >> West of their current entrance. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Questions on here? >> I do have a question and I want to call out too. Um and thanks for bringing up the Highway 5 because there are a lot of questions. It's just hard to visualize, but maybe to point people to the video. Um I like the idea that there was the um community focus. There seems like there's a specifically arburidum area transportation plan. I'd like to know what's going to be done with Coney Road 10 and like will it be similar to having a long-term plan? Will there be public engagement? It's been coming up about a new um we need more electrical capacity um at Lake Town Road and County Road 10, but where do they put those power lines? What is the county or can would you be able to in a future meeting give us an update? >> I would, Lori. Yep. Uh, I had seen that I had read an email about that new line coming through Dogrin Township and then ultimately connecting with the city of Carver and as that expands and then as Highway 10, I haven't seen any future plans that I recall of what the expansion will be for Highway 10. >> And I haven't either. It seems just very conceptual, but I would think it >> we will look to the county for to see what the what the concept is. >> Yeah. And I can come back, Lori, if you'd want me to and I can maybe bring like Lyndon Robg Jent from public works who would have more knowledge, but I'll definitely look into that for you. >> Thank you. The backstory on that commissioner is that's caused a fair amount of heartburn if not like flatout anger from everybody who works or attends this works in or attends these meetings for the most part. Um the great river >> energy >> energy I was going to say electric um decided to reroute they're working through the whatever the commission is the I want to say securities exchange commission that is not it um but they're kind of working their way through the process to get approval to reroute um and to start a new line which is going to be going through Delgrren Township which is their preferred route. um they met with the city of Victoria, and this is the part that makes all of our blood boil. Um and in their filing said, well, it was going to cause too much of an issue for the city of Victoria because it's in their future development area. So instead, they moved it down about a half a mile into our future development area. So we didn't have a seat at the table. We weren't made aware of this until years after the planning had started. Um and one of the alternate routes that we favor um would be something that's more along County Road 10 or where those existing power lines are just north of County Road 10. So that's kind of the background on that's the longer story. >> Just a little clarification for Commissioner Fehee. So Dave Hemsy and Lynon are aware of this. So >> essentially it's just uh there's not an alignment for the future County Road 10. And so until that occurs, there's really not an action item for the county. Just I think what I we're hearing is that council's interested in seeing what that alignment is when it's ready. >> Okay. >> Is that fair to say? >> Yes. >> No questions for me. >> Okay. Um did I you didn't have any questions? Okay. Um just a couple for me. Um compost has been a hot button issue. We had a I think it tells you we had a Eastern Carver County Mayor's meeting and we were talking about compost in our communities. Is there that ever something that the county would take on again? >> Currently, no. >> Uh the environmental center, we stopped taking yard waste back in 2019. >> Okay. >> And we just don't have the capacity at that site to take that additional waste. And now with the new Dakota Prairie site opening up, that's an opportunity for Chaza and Carver residents to go to that Dakota Prairie. I um about a month ago went on their tour and that is a pretty impressive facility. So, if you get an opportunity, >> I'm trying to get one >> uh to go check it out because that you can bring I pulled out their flyer the the wood waste, brush, log, stump, and then yard waste. >> Sounds fascinating. >> And that even saw and dirt you can bring and even food waste to that facility. >> Okay. >> So, it gives people some options. >> All right. Thank you. Um two more questions. So, um, at our work session tonight, we had folks from the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Transit Service because we're talking about sunsetting some of our, um, transit services. They started talking about Smart Link and they talked about how Scott County supplements the budget so that there can be weekend um, smart link service in their communities. Is that something that Carver County has ever considered or would consider? Good question. And I'm on that board. I'm the commissioner representative to Smart Link. >> Okay. >> And we have a meeting on August 4th. >> Whoa. Yay. I mean, >> if you want to send me an email with those questions or concerns, Courtney, then we could talk about it then. >> Okay. And I don't um if I've learned one thing in this role is to only speak on my behalf, but I think that there's a receptive audience. So, I would be very much in favor of expanding those hours. It sounds like they do it just so that they can have a weekend service so that there's smart link service seven days a week. But if anyone feels differently and doesn't want to see that, >> I think that's logical. >> It's like we're all in favor of county. >> Yes. So, please send me an email and then I'll >> bring that forward. >> Okay. Oh, look at that. >> Fantastic. Yes. >> Um, you might have an email yet tonight. Um, >> after ice cream. >> After ice cream. >> Um, let's see. And then last question. Uh, County Road 11 and Pioneer Trail. When is that roundabout opening up? >> Well, the plan is to have it open by August 1st. >> Okay. >> But now with the additional rain that we're having, my guess is it's going to get pushed out. Okay. >> A week. Uh the concrete work was supposed to be done this week and then the pavement uh they have two lifts to put on and they hope to have that done by next week. And then they'll be uh Minnesota Valley Electric. They're installing the lighting and they're going to start working on that next week. And so as they roll into the end of July, August 1, >> it's supposed to rain all week this week. >> Right. But realistically, I think it it probably should be open by the 15th of August. >> Okay. >> How about speaking of roundabouts? How about on the way to Victoria? >> That's Oh, I thought you said >> No, counter 11. >> I thought you said 41. And >> I know what you want. I think you >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Any other questions? >> Nope. >> Okay. Thank you for your time. I promise you we get you out of here in time for you to enjoy an ice cream. >> Awesome. Thank you. Have fun. Um, okay. Uh, let's see here. Up next, I don't believe that we have any public hearings. Can I get a motion to approve the consent agenda, please? >> I'd make a motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Motion by council member Pasco. >> I'll second. >> Second by council member Pchman. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. Same sign. Motion passes. All right. Um, no business items this evening. And uh oh yes, Mr. >> Mayor and Council uh if you agree might be a good opportunity to just wrap up the work session items before going into close session. >> I am fine with that. So um just for the tens and tens of folks who are watching at home this evening, um we had a very robust agenda for our work session and we've got a few items that we need to get over or need to complete um at this point in the meeting. So, we're going to kind of switch back into work session mode, which I kind of always uh describe as kitchen table conversations. These aren't things that we're making discussions on. These are just kind of early preliminary discussions um where we kind of bat around ideas or get information. Um so, that's what we're going to jump into. So, um first is we had just gone through the draft 10-year staffing plan update. And again, if you want to see that entire, um presentation, you can watch tonight's work session. But I think we're at the part where we wanted to provide feedback. So with that, what have we council? >> Well, I know we left the work session. You said you had a few things. Do you want to wait or did you want to go? >> I was going to let you guys go first. >> I have one more just a comment. Um on this table when the position position for me, it would be helpful. I would just need a reminder for like for a public services mechanic that it's our first hire or you know then when it's the technician that same year it's maybe that would be our ninth technician. That these aren't all new positions. There's sometimes just areas that we've had need. >> Uh >> I'm not sure I'm following. >> So like a one of one. >> Yes. Like a building inspector. One of 20 33 would be >> okay. Yeah, I can do that. >> I think you answered my question on the work session. >> I say I like this. I like the how this has been set up. Um I think it's very clear. I not that the other way wasn't, but you know, always freshening things up is is nice. So I like, you know, talking about the critical review transitions looking forward. Um, again, setting up a 10-year plan was is reaching real far out there, but I like the fact that we have switched to that model. Uh, the changes that you had uh proposed in here, flipping down here. So, where it says current plan and then plan update, I am good with all of the updates that you made to this. So, I don't have any comments or changes that I'd like to see. So, thank you. anything from >> Yeah, I want to second Christiey's comment about putting the planning cycle in there. That's very helpful. You know, there's no need to argue nitpick titles of things that are in the conceptual phase, and that's very helpful for me to see where those transitions are and where we are in that decision-making process. Um, I think that this looks good. I'll be interested to see as we get closer to hiring the f full-time fire chief what those conversations start to look like as we flesh out that plan. Um knowing that we've got like Christie said in work session big growth in a short period of time coming up soon after that. So thank you. Um I was just going to say I like the format. I like the the memo format. Um and I like the plan. I've got to admit that when I was scrolling through this over the weekend and I saw that the communicator had been pushed back to 2034, at first glance got a little hot. Um, but I think he did a really good job of explaining how that function will be kind of woven into some other roles um that are coming before that. And I know that I referred to you as our chief communications officer. I knew Brenda does a really great job. So, um, I am fine with that at the end of the day. Um, and realize kind of to Kayla's point of it's way too early to start worrying about that. Um, whoever is sitting in these seats at that point in 2031 can do that. Uh, or 203, what was it? 2034. Um, but yeah, I like it. All right. Good chat. Um, up next, uh, the 2026 employee pay scale. >> Yeah, thank you, mayor and council. So, again, this is kind of a a newer topic for the council, the council's always kind of annually or always updated the uh employee pay scale. And although the council adopted it by uh the collective bargaining agreement that we have with ASME, it was limited to one variable uh which was the Minneapolis Federal Reserves uh consumer price index calculator. And so uh with the advent of the milestone program, one of the things that we negotiated was the city council's exclusive right to set uh what's called COLA or the cost of living adjustment to that employee pay scale. on the um what's an important factor in that is if and the council has because the council has adjusted that pay scale uh on an annual basis when we did our last uh employee or salary or compensation study. Uh you might have noticed that we we weren't far behind or we did have an adjustment because we had people stuck at the bottom of the scale but from a market standpoint we were where we needed to be. And so there there is some I would say um some pressure to make sure pressure is probably an editorial comment on making sure that that scale stays consistent uh so that we don't get behind. But again that's a policy decision of the council. Um so some specifics here. Uh so for employees that reach their have reached their top pay there's a I think three or four folks what the pay scale adjustment to at whatever percentage you make that will be their max um pay increase for 2026. All other employees are eligible for an additional 2.7% 2.75% pay increase uh should they meet the standards that were identified in the milestone program. So that's related to years of service, uh, training requirements, and then performance standards that are identified in the plan. Uh, any changes that you make to this scale would be incorporated into draft versions of the 2026 budget and become effective uh, January 1 of 2026. Uh, so because we have some different variables, we explored some different options. Again, you're able to adjust these or add different indicators. Uh but we continue to use the Minneapolis Federal Reserve CPI. Uh the Bureau of Labor Statistics also has a inflationary factor that's dedicated to the Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Bloomington area. So that was at 2.4. Uh we show an indicator of uh housing value or market value increase from the Carver Countyy's assessor's office. uh also got uh information rel from Carver County related to their anticipated uh cola adjustment. And then uh through some sharing from our friends at the city of Chanhassen got a whole uh range of of average city um employee uh cola adjustments. And as you can imagine, there are uh still plenty of cities out there that still haven't kind of narrowed in on that as including ourselves as we narrowed in on that. Uh Lynn has provided some scenarios. So uh based on the indicators that we used here, we rounded out an average at 3.5% across the across the board. So for an all funds budget impact in 2026 of 77,000. You can see a a break that would be prrated based on general fund and enterprise funds. Uh but also did a collection of other impacts at 3.25% 25% at 72,000 and 3% at 66,000. Uh Mayor Johnson did ask for a 4% uh look and so I responded or Lynn got that back to me and then I sent that out to the council. These are our our rounded numbers. >> What did you send that late in the day today? >> Yes. >> Okay. What was that? >> Uh let me look it up here. >> 4:21 p.m. Here's Can you see that? Oh, I found it here. Okay. But I'm >> Where am I looking for the >> Okay. >> 85. >> Okay. >> Correct. 85,000 at 4%. >> So, uh in your packet, so you'll see the first uh scale is the 2025 and then uh the second scale shows a three and a half% uh increase from 2025. Again, you could use any variety of percentages. So, we're not looking for the council to take uh action on this tonight. Uh we'd bring this to uh a future regular meeting for action, but we we're looking for some guidance uh from the council on a percentage that you feel is appropriate. >> I can start on this one. The reason why I asked for four is because that's what I would like to see. I think um we have historically lost staff to neighboring communities that are larger and can pay more. I know that we can go toe-to-toe on culture here in the city of Carver versus any of our neighboring communities and be a really great place to work, but that can only get you so far. Um, so I would love to see us go a 4% increase in the the pay scale. >> I have a question. Um, so when I'm looking here though, we have like the average of 3.34 and you can look at, you know, the bureau um says 2.40. Is there a reason do we always just go on the quarter percentage for to make it easier or is there a reason that we like if we have an average we don't do 3.34? This is the this is the first time we've built a program like this. So, >> okay, >> um >> it was just my inclination at the time to try to keep it in simple percentages, but >> okay, >> as a hybrid, you could say no, let's do that average at 3.34 be because this is kind of the first time we've experimented with different inputs. Um >> okay, >> we kind of there isn't like a standard I guess at this point. I would just say because I don't remember us in the past doing kind of I guess odd numbers. It was always kind of on the quarter. So that feels more natural than right.34, >> right? >> Um I'm certainly happy with the 35. I'm I'm not sure if I'm on board yet with the four. I think I to hear a little more. >> What's next? >> That'll be me. So I would also support 4%. I think perception of our personnel is uh we need to project that we that we do care that we do invest and that we're a little above average uh including in pay. I think losing one person uh because there's a a sentiment that well gosh those guys just gave us what they could versus uh that little push over uh resonates and uh the cost of losing one person I think is far in excess of the difference of the few thousand dollar between average a little uh and above average and uh just pushing that uh uh Carver is a great place to be and we show that in what we pay you. So I would support 4%. >> I still need some time to think about it because I'm appreciate uh Mr. Pchman's perspective, but I'm I'm really just thinking how I'm going to respond when somebody's says, you know, they didn't get a raise at their job. Um, and they're getting, you know, so many. Do >> you want help with that? >> Yes. >> Answer to you should work for the city. >> Work for the city. Yeah. Um, just knowing that that increase gets that money comes from the residents. So, I have to and it helps now seeing some of these numbers and as we get more into the budget process. Um, okay. But the ask tonight is for us to kind of come up with a number two and a half to 3%. Thank you, Kayla. >> Uh, I am deeply uncomfortable with 4%. Um, for many of the reasons that council member Ser just said, um, we're looking at, yes, a 3% 3 and a half 4% increase for our top earners, but you have to include the increases for milestones. We're looking at closer to 7%. for most of our employees. While we do need to remain competitive, um we also have big expenditures coming and every dollar that we can save here or there helps our residents overall. And um the number I'm I'm looking at I'm along the lines of council member say are two and a half 3% is what I'm looking at. So I Kayla I I agree with some of that when we have talking we're talking milestones and um and the the dollar amounts and the and the money because I I yes agree in being as responsible as we can. I when I look at the numbers that have been put up here I don't see well we have the bureau one that's at 2.4 but the rest are hovering in that three to four range. Um so for me below below three doesn't feel good enough um% uh the four feels it's pushing a little bit for me especially when we look at some of the other things um that factor in the end of this three and a half I'm fully on board with anything below three I I'm not I think that's too low um or might be a little bit too high >> in the spirit of negotiation would you go 3.75 I'm not really thinking. >> Yeah. Um, >> yeah. Sorry. >> Just one point of clarification. So, uh, we wouldn't take this to council to be adopted until like your last meeting. So, we would use this figure to inform the budget documents. So, uh, if you whatever number you chose, whether it's 2 and 1/2 or three or three and a half or whatever that number is, that's the number that Lynn would use to compile that if for whatever reason you wanted to go lower or higher through the context of the entire budget because we don't want to put you in the position of like picking this one thing and then locking you in. um where you so um you're traditionally because we only had one input and because we were contractually obligated we did it at the next meeting because we have the flexibility we're going to take this information and inform the budget but you're not going to adopt it until the budget's adopted and then following that then you'd adopt the employee pay scale. So, if that provides any um sense of relief that you're not locking yourself in today when you haven't seen even the first draft of the budget, maybe that's helpful to you in the conversation. >> Yeah, that is helpful and that makes me want to push harder for four realizing that we can dial it back at a later point. Kayla, I think you're familiar with our annual process, but we set our preliminary levy in September and that is the not to exceed amount. And we always kind of talk about it as like we comfortable with it. No, not quite yet. But we can still do some horse trading and figure it out. That's how through a lens that I'm looking at this through is if we put it at 4% now, can we dial it back at a later date? Yep. Absolutely. Um but I would like to have that number in the prelim preliminary budget that we see. >> I'm going to I'm going to counter that. I think that I don't Brent. Okay. Make sure I heard you correctly. So I mean we're going to work through this many times seeing what these numbers come out as before we set the preliminary le preliminary levy setting time. Right. >> So correct the I mean it'll be up to you on how like deep of a dive you'll do on like this specific but when you see that first budget we'll say the employee salaries are based on these indicators. So mile, you know, employees eligible for milestone and uh adjustment and whatever that percentage is. And then based on the context of the entire budget, uh let's say you're looking to uh decrease the levy by another $10,000. If it's at 1 percentage, you might say, "Well, I know we have this at x%, but I want another 10,000 shaved off the shaved off the levy." So, I think we need to go from four to three or 3 to two or whatever that is. You'll have the freedom to do that. We're just because there are some variables in the numbers, we're looking to kind of get a an inkle on where you want to see that so that we can give you a better draft budget. >> And for me, once you put four in there, I just I I think all of a sudden it just becomes four, right? rather because we're going to be looking at other things and I would prefer to see three and a half in there and as we work through it if we feel like the budget's coming in great and we've got a little bit you know that we we're comfortable doing a little bit extra I just I think once that four gets in there is printed I think it's not coming out and I don't it makes me kind of uncomfortable that's how it's getting put into the budget cycle because I think on the flip side coming back and being like, "Nope, we're taking that out." I think that's worse than adding it. I just think it the optics of that are, "Oh, we've got it in there. Anybody who reads it now, we've decided to bring it back down to whatever the number might be." Looks like now we're slashing stuff. So, I think there are some optics that we have to think about if we put 4% in here and then change it and bring it back down. >> It become once it becomes printed, it becomes an expectation rather than a conversation. And that doesn't mean it couldn't, like I said, if if our budget's coming in well, that we couldn't put it up before we certify the preliminary levy, but I think it becomes the written word and the written I don't want to say law. It becomes the written expectation once four goes in there. >> Yeah. I'm going to push back on that though because I you've been through as many budget cycles as I have been and you know the horse trading and the slashing and the pencil sharpening and whatever your favorite phrase is for that that happens when we kind of take a look at things. So, never have I ever had a say, well, we should give the employees a little bit more after the budget comes in for the first draft like that. That's not realistic. That won't happen. >> I'm going to add another comment really the same as what I said before. I think the most expensive mistake we can make as a city is to lose people to a neighboring community because they feel like uh the city isn't paying them their worth. We're talking about an $8,000 difference between three and a half and 4%. Um, I want to send a message that the city values those people staying with the city. All we have to lose is one person. And the cost of acquiring and training and having somebody get up to speed is going to far exceed $8,000 that we might spend to show that uh we're paying above our uh a little bit above what the cost of living increase will be. We all look at that. We all look at what our companies give us, our employers give us. necessarily giving us enough to even make up the difference or a little less or a little more. Boy, when we get a little more in our in our jobs in the commercial workplace, we recognize that. I really think we need to consider that for our employees. And again, it's an $8,000 difference. It may end up being less than that. We may go back and forth or have another need that takes it down. But, uh, I think we need to start at that number. Do we have an idea of because in in the writing here we're talk about um if you want to go to the overview part Brent so everyone just see what I'm talking about. So we're looking at this uh all other employees are eligible for an additional 2.75%. I mean so technically some employees could be getting 6.75% but we did that as a mile. We did that as an incentive. That's fine. That's a big number. But how many people do we think are hitting that this year? Are there any that are going to be getting that milestone in >> the button? Uh so the budget will will plan uh the most expensive um scenario that all employees hit their milestone. So I I don't want to speculate on because it's a ends up being kind of a personnel issue related to whether or not they're people are going to hit it. I would say from like a uh number-wise, I think we have uh we have four out of our I just had the number up. We have four uh members of the team that are at top pay for their pay grade. So four out of what are we at 19 or 20? Uh so 16 of our full-time folks would be eligible for uh the 2.75 in addition to whatever the scale adjustment would be. Does that answer your question? >> Um could we when will we see a number of what that would look like? Let's say that all of them all of the staff had the 2.75 >> that that's the number in the oh like the overall >> that'll be in the uh your budget presentation materials in uh second meeting in August that's the 18th I believe of August do I hear 3.75 for planning purposes to put in the draft budget I will do 3.75 for planning purposes in the budget. >> I appreciate you're willing to negotiate. Can you go 375? >> Yes, I can. >> Anybody else want to jump on the 375 bandwagon? >> No, thank you. >> No thanks, but I respect that the majority is for it. Thank you. All right. Do you have the direction you need? >> All right. Up next, city manager report. Again, just a reminder, we're still going over some items from our work session. >> Uh, thank you, Mary Council. So, uh, the county, uh, shared out some information on social media related to the steel coat project on Saturday. So, I just wanted to to highlight uh, their um, posting and uh, make sure expectations were clear or if there's any special requests that the council had uh, related to the project. I literally so I always kind of make a list for brand we connect on Mondays when there's a council and I had on my list last night um signs for along Jonathan Carver Parkway and then we were on a bike ride last night and there they are and they appeared over the weekend. So well done for anticipating and making that happen. >> It's like I had nothing to do with this talking about. >> No, there are the flashing signs that say the road will be closed. Any other comments? >> No other comments. >> And then uh private well ordinance. Something I wanted to kind of get a uh the city has current language that restricts uh residents from constructing their own private wells. And I'm gonna kind of throw it over to Andrew to to kind of get into the detail, but there is a there is quite a bit of adverse impact to the city's overall water system and we want to take an opportunity to clean up some of that language so there's no ambiguity in it. But I'm going to throw it over to or ask Andrew to come up and kind of talk about the need. So, I believe right now, and Dave can correct me if I'm wrong, that um there there's language, current language in the ordinance that states that if you're outside of the Disma, which is the drinking water protection source area, you are allowed to drill a well for irrigation purposes, not for um consumption, but just irrigation. So that kind of leads us to the point of there could be 2500 private wells around town which it would probably be a negative impact to the aquafer that we all drink out of. So um city has a wellhead protection plan and that's kind of stating we're trying to protect our groundwater because that's the only water we have available to us. Um, so if that got polluted, we would be in dire straits um because we can't take from the river. Um, so cleaning up this ordinance would be if you are in town with water and sewer available, you cannot drill a well for any purposes. >> I have a couple questions. Someone who has a well in my yard. Yeah. >> Um, >> so the city drills its own wells though for our parks, right? We're still doing that for our irrigation. So, we we'll allow ourselves to for Okay. Um >> the likely I'm wondering if >> I understand wanting to protect you know the aquifers that you know people are tapping into and how things are going. The likelihood of someone drilling their own home well at this point I mean the cost of that is large >> very large. So I don't know that the ROI for most homeowners is going to matter that much. I don't think we're going to have 25 homes that are suddenly going to go dig a well in there or have a well installed in their yard or you're asking to regulate something that isn't really a big enough deal to regulate. I mean, if our well went out and we had to like dig a new well, we are not going to do it, right? Like, we are not going to put in a 30,000 or $40,000 well. And I may be a little off in prices. Someone can go ahead and tell me if I'm wrong on that, but I know it's not free. Right. Do you know how much it cost to dig a well? >> I don't. >> It's not cheap. But >> I worry that if we don't put this in place, it just takes one person and one bad actor, one accident, you name it. >> So, you have to groundwater source. And there are communities throughout the Twin Cities that are dealing with the PAS. And what a disaster that is. This is not an apples to apples comparison, but I just I don't think that that would be the case. And we have had a history of coming up with ordinances and regulations for something that hasn't been a realistic scenario in the past. >> Well, >> what's the permitting process for a private well? >> So, we don't permit wells. The DNR does. So when the city of Carver digs a new well for either irrigation purposes or for municipal drinking water, there's a lengthy process of the DNR making sure that that well is not going to interfere with other people's wells. So, in the case of well six, which we just got permitted this year and it was drilled, I think over a year ago, um there was several indicators that it had a possibility to interfere with private wells. Um a few in Chaza, the township. So, we had have to have agreements with those land owners that say, "If our well makes your well go dry, we would fix it for you or we would hook you up to city utilities." >> It's actually worse than that. It says, "If your well has any problems, city, you have to pay to get it inspected. We have to send an inspector out there within 24 hours." Um, and it almost um defaults that it's the these wells fault that their private domestic wells are being interfered with and running into issues. Now, if they inspect it and it turns out that it's, you know, malfunctioning for some reason, technical reason, that's different. But, um, if they're just having water issues and water supply issues with their domestic well, it's going to be the city's responsibility not only to inspect it, but also to pay for u either digging their well deeper or ing them up to municipal water or doing something that gives them a reliable water source. So, it's it's kind of a you're groundwater permit city and you want to turn on your new wells, um you have to play by our rules. So, >> but the inverse doesn't happen for a private wall. >> Uh no, not typically. I mean, this was mainly because of just the proximity of these wells to where our well was. Um but the concern >> for the water tower What's that? >> Well, the well is for the water. >> True. >> Right. This is not for sprinkling your backyard. This is >> No, that's true. And and this didn't just like this wasn't >> Well, is not a water. >> The ordinance itself wasn't um just we nobody looked at our ordinance and said, "Oh, we should change this." Someone came in and said, "I want to put an irrigation well in my um in my yard." And that's what caused Andrew, I think, and his team to look at the the ordinance. And that's what caused this. I mean, people are interested. Maybe not a lot of people to your point, council member Mach, but I mean this individual asked if she could drill a private well. And to um to staff's point, I mean, I think there's a policy rationale for not allowing them. If you're in the city's municipal water service area and you want water, um we'd prefer that you use that water to irrigate and not drill new wells. Now, there are existing wells and we're not going to there's no reason to disrupt the ability for people to use those. But, um, that's that's the policy rational. And >> I think for me, one one person applying out of all of this or questioning it is it's like a a very small percentage, right, of of people in town who would be looking to put a well in. Um, and I'm sure that the well drillers have to be certified some way. Again, they have to be permitted with the DNR to get it in. the likelihood of more than a handful of people I think is unlikely. And then when we had the streets redone up on Midtown, um most of the people there had who were on the well system still did not even keep it for their watering. Most of them had want to look at it. City water is treated water, right? So certainly um there's a point that of course the city says well we're going to make some money off this get to irrigating but also for the health of of the environment um untreated water is actually better for plants and flora and fauna in the environment. So >> so I agree that you know the cost of putting in a well is cost prohibitive to water your lawn. No one would do that. But I'm actually surprised that we wouldn't know if somebody were to put in a well in their backyard. I don't think it's going to happen that often. Does not a permit. I mean, I don't think it has to be even cost prohibitive. It just gives us a mechanism to know that it's happening and have some some assurance that it wouldn't damage the aquifer. Does it make sense to at least do >> I think a permit sounds just fine that the city knows what's happening and if they get the reports back, you know, they have to supply whatever report has to come from DNR or whatever governing body at the time. >> Would this ordinance apply to commercial as well as residential properties? The the type of ordinance that we're proposing? >> Yeah, it's my opinion. and I made the call on the initial request that our current ordinance prohibits it residential and commercial. >> Okay. >> The intent here is that I believe there's some ambiguity where if someone wanted to be a contrarian, they could argue against it. And so it was my position that I asked Andrew and D and Dave to clean it up. But if the council wanted to allow it, it'd be my opinion that you'd have to change the ordinance. But my interpretation of the language today is that it's prohibited unless it's in ultimately based on my review of the ordinance, it was my opinion that the current language prohibits digging of new wells. Now, if the council wants to change it or disagrees, there's an opportunity to do that. But if someone comes in tomorrow and asks to dig a well and you know ultimately it's the city manager's call to to interpret the ordinance, it's my interpretation that it's prohibited. If the council wants to change it, you're you're the policy makers of the community. So you can do that, but as it stands now, they can't until the council directs otherwise through >> or they'd have to petition council. They'd have to come before >> they'd have to have the ordinance changed. No, >> I'm saying if you >> That's not No, I think we had a lot of back and forth. Brent, you're probably mixing up some discussion, but um the ordinance today says irrigation wells may be drilled after securing a permit from the city. >> Um and the only place they can't be drilled is if it's in that that water supply area, the protected water supply area. So, as so this came up and someone said, "Hey, can I drill an irrigation well on my property?" Um what's the process for getting this permit? because there's a provision of code that says and then staff said, "Well, we didn't really realize people could do that. That doesn't seem like a great idea for the reasons that your public works team um have outlined tonight." And so the ask was, "Well, can we clean this language up so that that we can't do this?" And and we'll bring it to the council for discussion. And if they want to adopt it, great. If you want to leave your language as is, that's fine, too. It's it really is a policy call. U but the the code language today does allow for it if they get a city permit. I don't think there's a a process necessarily or playbook that staff has for this permitting process, but I could be wrong about that. Maybe there's some history of this being done at some thanks for clearing that up. >> That's what it says. So, the reason why I ask about residential versus commercial is one of the problems we're dealing with in the county right now when it comes to groundwater um is that there are many cities in the area that restrict wells for residential but don't restrict them for commercial and data centers are coming in and they are bypassing the city and getting well permits from the DNR and um that's causing some friction between cities and data centers that are coming into some of these communities. Um, and there is some obviously the DNR monitors aquifers, groundwater, all of that sort of stuff. And so the idea is that the data centers will not be able to pull so much water that it causes drinking water problems in the cities, but there is deep resident concern about that in these communities that are having these data centers come in. And I'm thinking about not right now, but Great River Energy, one of their big top because they love being next to these high energy lines. So if we have it, if we don't have it written in such a way that we prohibit that within our city boundaries, Great Red River Energy does what they want to do, we have a data center that wants to come in, they want to drill their own well, suddenly we're in a really tough spot. Um, so and I know again going back to Great River Energy, if you ask them, they will tell you that there's alternate cooling technologies and blah blah blah blah blah. Um, my research into this because as part of water management organization for the county, we talk about this a lot. The research is that yes, there's new cooling technologies out there, but they are not economically viable and won't be for at least a decade. So, um, we're still looking at well water as the primary source of cooling for these these data centers. So, that's just my concern about residential versus commercial and well permitting through with that information in mind. So, just keep that in mind as we talk about this. And to be clear on that, um, if you're in if your property is located somewhere that has access to municipal water, you won't get a building permit unless it's conditioned on you connecting your your facility to um to city water. So, I mean that's common in urban cities that have um you know access to treated water and sewer, but that coincidence. >> Is that if if we were to have a data center come in, if they hooked up their offices to municipal water, would that get them through? >> You don't think so? I don't because that's what they're issue that I'd have to look at. But I mean >> that's what's happening in these other communities is they're hooking up to municipal water for offices bathrooms portable water and then drilling their own wells specifically for the cooling operations >> could be. And I don't know the answer to that question. Although I do know that the limited well ability in Carver I think is irrigation wells. That's not an irrigation well. What you're talking about is that >> that's what I was wondering. Thank you. >> Cooling. I think what we could do is kind of pivot and before we bring you a draft, we could just bring you what we have. And sounds like there's some interest in the topic. Uh I was just giving you a heads up. There's plenty of content here. So, let's >> got all kinds of passion. >> Let's let's before we get to like the fix, let's get to what's there and have the council weigh in and provide us with some direction. And I don't want to spend time, Andrew and Dave's time putting something together, but maybe it's not consistent with where you want the community to be on this topic. Is that fair? I'm just so I was I'm wondering if there is another community that has a permitting process for that because it says right now I mean probably back in the day there was a permit that has been 30 years in some drawer. But um can we see if there's other another community that has a like what their permit might look like if they have it? I think in our case it would be simply paperwork with staff to confirm that they're not in the water supply has to abide by DNR requirements and they have to get a permit through the state. I mean the heavy lift is through the state. I think I think our permit is a a check for us to be able to say, "Oh, you're putting it in a location that isn't a problem from our groundwater management standpoint." So that if somebody puts something in and we don't find out about it, we later say, "Well, you were supposed to come get a permit. You get permission from us." I mean, >> yeah. and you didn't do that. So, you have to fix that at this point. So, my guess is I don't think there's any real magic or >> special process that needs to happen with that other than staff needs to look at their parcel and make sure that they're in not a protected area. Does that make sense? >> Yep. Yep. That totally makes sense. Okay. >> So, >> would we be able to write an agreement like what we had to write with the DNR with our well number six as far as you dig a well, something our aquifer, which is not our aquifer, the aquifer that we use, then you owe us whatever it takes to fix the problem. >> I don't I don't know if that's practical. Um I mean, I think Andrew can probably speak to it more and maybe it's a conversation for another another meeting, but um it what it sounds like is the council's curious about what what's the risk here if we allow this because we currently allow it, you have to get a permit. Um, what's the concern from staff's perspective about this? And if one person did it or if a hundred people did it, is the concern different? Um, again, I don't know how long we've had since someone came in and asked for an irrigation. Well, but >> yeah, I can like this is the maybe the second time in 15 years that I'm aware of. I would say um we can kind of go through that. I would say like, you know, the last time I I had heard about like an ir like a well digging price, it was in that 15 to $20,000 range where the city's wells are like in the million to million and a half range. So, there's probably not a way for a private resident to like take on costs if they inadvertently connect it. I also think there we can kind of flush this out, no pun intended, you did that. I really didn't intend that, but it came together nicely. But um although we don't want uh like if we're putting treated water on lawns, there is an element frankly within like the cost structure of your rate system where if people can financially like uh make it work to dig a private well because they're a big irrigator. um you're going to we're going to be in a position where we inadvertently might have to change our rates to make the lower tiers higher because we're missing out on those big rate payers. Someone who might be paying, you know, 600 700 bucks a month because they really water their lawn. Uh whether it's residential, commercial, ball, we still need x amount to fund the system. So then the rates >> I'm so not worried about that. the number of people who would actually do this I think would be so >> yeah I'm just >> and I and I know that it factors into that but then to say well you need to support our system by irrigating make sure you irrigate up to $700 isn't you know what I mean that's >> that wasn't my intention but I understand your point >> yeah I just I think >> one says it's not I think there's more than just the physical the physicalness of digging the well that uh if it becomes a trend And and I'm not you forget about that that example of just that one person, but if it becomes a trend, there's probably a whole kind of basket full of unintended consequences related to uh the impact of our wells, the financial structure, um so on and so forth. So we can like vet that all out and the council can determine whether or not those are concerns for you. Um, my point is it's it's more than just the digging of the actual well that there are probably some things that I'm not thinking about that we're collectively not thinking about that I'd want to make sure that we have a a clear view because it it'd be my um thought that if it's permitted and it becomes kind of a thing, it could replicate or duplicate and kind of once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it might be hard to say, "Okay, this isn't work for us. We got to stop it." Um, so I just want to make sure that you have a clear view. I'm not trying to get you to one position or the other. I just want to make sure that we take some time now to like digest these comments and then think about, you know, talk to our entire team about, you know, what could happen as a result. And hopefully that answer becomes self-evident to you and you can make a decision based on that feedback. >> I'm just kind of where my head is at. I think um you know as we're pushing these developers to come in and to build more larger executive lots, I think we're going to see folks who have deeper pocketbooks and this might become more of a reality with those kinds of homes. Um and the expectations that come along with those. I also think back it wasn't It wasn't two years ago yet where we had some discoloration issues with our water system that concerned a number of people and that was probably two three dozen members of our community that I think we all maybe with the exception of you Kayla but probably tangentally um we all heard about it. >> I heard about it from my neighbors when I was council. >> So so where I'm going with is that was two to three dozen residents. Imagine if something happens to our water system and it is 7,000 residents like that. This scares the hell out of me thinking about the potential for it to go south. Um, will it happen with one? Well, maybe not. But I'm not a gambler. I think I've said that before in front of this group. I'm not going to shake the dice on that. >> Yeah. for the as someone who has it though, but I don't you know the small number and I I get where you're seeing some of these bigger lots might be coming in and they can maybe with deeper pockets can afford it. Again, that's a handful. That's a handful. The water is coming out of the ground either way, right? It's coming out of the ground. Uh a home well I I will I will bet my house on it is not going to screw up the entire water system in the city of Carver and the brown water that we had. But your house wouldn't pay for those repairs. Like you're going to bet it's not going to. So there's nothing to pay for script that system if it goes far too large. >> When it goes south and our one source of water, >> it won't net worth in that home will not pay for what it's going to cost because but there won't be a reason to because it will never get to that. There's no home well that is going to literally shut down the entire city of Carver system. It's not going to happen. Um, but from and if it does come that people have, you know, maybe have again a little bit deeper pockets, that's going to be a handful. Most people are not going to make a 20 to $30,000 investment to dig a well in their yard. I think it's so far and few between. I think we're regulating something that isn't even a thing, right? I mean, we we allow wells now. So now we're going to regulate and say, well, they can have them, but you can't have them. But again, if we didn't have one now, I'm just is my personal I'm not going to throw in a $30,000 well if it didn't come with the property that I bought. Um I just I think if it's permitted heavily through the DNR, there are waterways management, there are water management people. Um the city can have a permit and people whoever wants to take on something that grand in their yard and pay that kind of money for it to use it four months out of three months out of the year, have at it. I I just I think it's overregulating for something that's not a problem. >> Anybody else want to pine? >> I'm not going to ask if you have what you want what you need from us because I know you don't. But >> no, we do like this is like like we talked about before like the this is what this is part of. >> Yeah, we're in work. >> This is good government. like uh this helps us rather than like if we wouldn't have gotten this feedback, we would have taken you like a pretty basic uh code update and then this would have happened maybe later. So like this is working how it should. We give you a preview during this part of the work session. You give us some feedback and now we can prep prepare a better product for you. So we can look at you know what other cities do. we can kind of maybe do a deeper dive into uh the pros and cons uh if any of like private wells on a municipal system. uh we can look at cost structure um you know those are the major themes that I'm picking up on um and provide you with a more and overview of our ordinance existing and provide you with a more comprehensive um analysis and then we'll take direction from there. So um we landed where we should have. All right. You got one couple more things. >> Yeah. Um, so if you remember, we were initially talking about uh actually at this meeting doing uh review of 20 year or not 20 years, excuse me, design buildout years and review of architectural services. Well, maybe fortuitously the uh Ortell wasn't uh ready to prepare or get us a proposal in time to get it on the agenda. We actually ended up getting it this morning. But in talking to Andrew and Lynn, uh we we think that there is possibly a better way to kind of take this project and kind of build or chunk it into different steps. And so, uh, as you know, tonight, uh, we're reviewing potential site locations, uh, for a future facility, uh, kind of with the understanding that we really can't really do a deep dive into facility planning if we don't know the location. And then there's some market pressure for land and rising land costs. Um, so if we're able to, uh, if the council is able and willing, uh, we'd like to be in a position to consider entering into a purchase agreement. But again, this is based on a number of factors. Primarily, uh, if you want to make that investment and do you feel like there's a a land that's appropriate. U, but also August 4th, uh, providing that direction to staff on planned buildout year. And so within the context of the plan the space study you saw 20 30 and 50 year but we also wanted to create a space um if there was something in between whether that's 25 years or 35 or 15 or 10 that uh even though they have those specific sizes you know we've talked about as a staff and I think as council that there is a opportunity to take that feedback that you got from the community uh what you got from staff and your own personal observations and view of the city and maybe there's a kind of a different thing that you want to plan for and so uh we don't want to be so cavalier to think that those are the only three options that you have to choose from. So just wanted to highlight that but the reason that we think that is important uh and why we we're going to separate that from architectural services is based on the size that you choose uh there's going to be a direct cost impact. There's a difference in architectural services and construction management services between a 20-y year and 50-year buildout, right? The building's bigger, there's more site disturbances, etc. So, we feel like we could get you a better proposal on architectural services if we can narrow in on that scope. And uh you don't have to look very far to see like like the need for architectural services and developing plans is is a really a critical step not only in kind of the internal plan development but as far as a community engagement tool. You know you can do a Google search about finding how many cities or state or counties are in a position where they planned a budget number and then it came back and it's like oh it's 20,000 over budget. we may have to cut this that or the other thing and frankly we were in that position with city hall where you know we you know didn't have a great set of numbers and so I would like one of the things like well how can we learn from you know other people's pain including our own is you know I think I would advocate and again this is an editorial so you know this is the council's kind of collective decision but the more work that we can do on the head end to understand what the project is and what it would cost the better off that we're going to be as far as like maintaining a trusting um and reliable relationship with residents on what is being proposed at the end of the day. And so there there's that's going to come at a cost. And so Lynn and I along with Andrew are working on uh a strategy because what we'd like to be able to do is uh pay for those costs in cash as much as possible so that you're not uh linked to borrowing for some of those planning fees because that then kind of in my opinion puts on some pressure like well we have you know $1 million worth of design fees. We better do that project because we have to pay that back and do a bond. all if you pay for those fees upfront, I think it gives you some flexibility and freedom to make some choices. And so, um, all that said, we want once we have that number, we'd like to give you kind of a a better line of sight to what architectural services are and introduce the concept of construction management services. So that's kind of a building owner's representative um which uh they assist in the process of plan development and at the end of the day that position should really pay for itself. So instead of uh bidding the project as one under a general contractor a project is split up into scopes of work. So there's a plumbing scope, there's an electrical scope, concrete, uh blacktop etc. to name it all, you know, uh, mill work, uh, etc. And rather than paying that general contractor's markup, uh, you'll be paying kind of that kind of direct buyer, direct consumer price. So at the end of the day that construction management service as well as providing uh insight into the building and maybe more efficient or affordable ways to construct the building rather than uh solely relying on the architect's vision. So we want to kind of provide that whole story and narrative uh to you uh at a September work session and then at the following meeting have you consider approval of those services in whatever form you feel comfortable and if that needs to extend or whatever. But we I wanted to kind of get this in front of you and get some reaction if if you feel comfortable with this as if this is too fast or too slow. Um, but just in our experience in kind of building facilities of this size, like these are I would argue the most critical steps. These are like the building blocks to the information that's going to be shared. And so I I want to be kind of tedious and meticulous in the conversation and the planning um so that you're getting what you need on I would offer a generational public investment in facilities. So, I'm going to pause there and look for feedback or just general discussion from the council. >> I can go first. Um, I'm okay with this timeline. I feel like we had the listening session at our June meeting for me, but like every other week cycle is like, let's let's go. Let's start making some decisions on this. So, I'm okay with this. >> I think it looks fine. Same. Well, that was easy. >> Is there ask questions? We got an easy one. Brent, >> not to belabor this, but like is there in is there anything like in like as we prepare for that August 4th meeting where we talk about like building scopes? Um, is there anything that you think that you might need other than just like the basics on like where we've been and how we got here? Um, >> see, look what you started. So, the 50 one is that when we're looking at just the is that square footage right there. So, that's just the building or that's the entire like property area we're looking at. >> That's it's the building. So, it storage and >> Okay. But the plan is to that we want to over buy on land so that we can add on if we want to. So do we need to go I mean do we need to go the 50-year route? I think that's shooting pretty far into the stars. >> Well, that's like that's the conversation that the council will have on the fourth. I'm just asking do you need information that would support whatever position you want? >> I say do we even need to come back with the 50-year one? I mean, do we want that information that's so far out and that's >> So, what we're doing on the fourth is we're picking ABC D or >> right, but if we think C is so high in the sky right now bothering with >> I think just thinking out loud, I think we owe it to residents to keep it on there because we've always said 20, 30, and 50 years everything that we put in the in the newsletters, everything that you've communicated online has laid out those three options. I think if it went missing, it would be a little bit like where did that go? >> So, it might not be on your realm of possibilities, but maybe it is on somebody else's. Um, and I just I don't want it to like fall off in a work session that was tucked into a fair. Yeah, we're in a work session right now. I So, no, that's fine. I just again you my writing there is on the wall. The 50 seems a little too far, but again, if we have But we have we have put out you're correct. We have put out in all of our correspondents and all of our things the 20 30 50. So if we want to keep it in there for comparison that's fine. The one thing and I know this might be awkward but I think it's an important point is how much like I've connected with Andrew on this earlier today but you know I think there's a space that if you wanted Andrew's perspective from public services like what he sees like you know we have this space study information in one bucket but then there's kind like a a practical like boots on the ground kind you want to keep this isolated to what's in the space study. The space study is you know built on you know that data and what they saw. You're going to get editorial and he it hasn't been developed. We just had the conversation. I also don't want to inadvertently put Andrew in a position where he might be in conflict with like the council, but I don't know if that's a value ad for you or not. So, >> I I don't want to see you in the hot seat, but I would love your perspective. What we're looking at right now is a space study that was done by folks who have a really good reputation or really know what they're talking about, but may not have ever worked in public services a day in their life. So, it would be insightful for me to hear from you. I don't know. >> I think anything that helps us make a better decision. Why would we not want to hear that? >> I agree. >> Yeah, I'm fine with what >> better choose the right one. >> It's going to have a well, but >> that's too soon. But the I mean that's the part that we were talking not the well part but the >> is like creating a context for Andrew to like explain that like you can share what you see but then like what goes into that. So it's helpful to know that that's of interest and it's just one more piece that you can consider. It doesn't mean uh you'd be going against staff's recommendation or anything. It's just one more piece of information you can consider in doing that. >> Well, and even like we were talking about the mechanic position earlier. I think Andrew, it was you who kind of told us it like opened my eyes to when you have one mechanic, you don't necessarily just need one bay. Sometimes something will be all torn apart and you'll need a part. And so you might need three bays for one mechanic so that you can keep working on stuff in different phases. So like that kind of color commentary would be helpful. Okay, that's what I got. Oh, sorry, one more thing. Um, I made a note. Uh, so the city sent out those easement letters that we had talked about from the um certified levy project. Uh, little bit of a a mishap, but we've corrected it. They So, that was noted. Uh, new letters were sent out this afternoon. So, if you get any feedback from folks that just got the letter, but they're like, "Well, where's the easement?" We're aware of it. It's been corrected. Um, unfortunate, but, uh, we've got it corrected. >> Did we catch that or did a resident? >> Uh, I know I got feedback from a resident. I connected with Todd Hubmer. I don't know. It's probably a combination of probably both, but I don't know exactly uh how that occurred. >> Yeah, that's a little unfortunate. So, And so when will they receive the the actual information or have they received it in the mail yet? >> They received the first letter I think probably over the weekend sometime. The second letter went out today so they probably get it by tomorrow. >> Okay. >> Um that has the same letter but it has the the uh followup figure drawing. So it happens. So >> all right. Um okay. Up next, um, we are going to morph back into our regular meeting agenda. We are on item number nine, the closed session. Um, so I need a motion. >> I can do that. Great. >> I make a motion to go into closed session pursuant to Minnesota statute 13D05, subdivision 3C, to discuss, develop, and consider potential offers to purchase various land connected with the future public services facility over portions of Carver County. P IDs 040260300 0 and 04129 0. Got a motion by council member Sarah. >> I'll take an easy second on that and a second by council member M. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes. All right. again. Knock on wood. >> When is that done >> by Eden Prairie? Do we know? Is it? >> What are they even? >> Okay, we are back. Um, let's see. So, we're back. There's nothing that I have to say now that we're back. >> No, >> I'll I'll make a motion to go back to the open session. >> No, no, we already we're back. >> Oh, we're already back. >> Okay, I'm back. >> So, we're up to communication. >> We're up to communications and we are slap happy because it is 9:22. All right. Uh, we heard from Brent already. Eric, >> I have nothing. >> Lori, no. just that I'm back. Uh I'll do that one. Christie, >> nothing. >> Kayla, I uh so this past weekend had a really great opportunity to meet with my local local constituents. Um, we had our annual block party and had some really great conversations with our neighbors about what's everything that's going on in the city and some of that came up in work session, but it was just a really good opportunity to talk to people and see what they're actually thinking about and I'd like to point out to the communications team that every single person I talked to mentioned reading the newsletter and the water bill. So, it is the utility bill newsletter is definitely being read. So, awesome. All right. Um, a few updates from me. On July 8th, they did project life cycle at the farmers market, which is you can take your bike in and they will give it a tuneup and fix some minor repairs. Um, it was really busy and it was cool to see them so busy. They also were selling some bikes, too. So, some folks were, especially kids and adults, were walking away really, really excited. some brand new bikes. July 9th, we had a a mayors of Eastern Carver County meeting um that I alluded to a little bit. Um it was interesting. So, it was Harvard Chaza Victoria and um Chanhassen for the 4th of July. And kind of one of the takeaways that both of maybe a little bit more for a disaster response plan, but people um were like, "Yeah, when are you going to come and take away our trees?" And it was a really tough conversation of like that's private property. The city doesn't go into private property. >> In one community, the neighbors got together and rented a wood chipper. They're like, "We've got 40 feet of wood chips in the street. When are you guys going to come and pick them up?" And so, um, just I don't know how we communicate that proactively with folks other than being like, "Where's a tree? We're not going to come and get it for you." But just kind of a heads up. And I thought that that was kind of insightful. Um, and then that was kind of the precipitous for the conversation that I had or the question that I asked uh the commissioner about compost. The communities that do have compost in their communities um are really struggling with it because they are getting contractors who are coming in. They are getting people coming in after hours. There's Mayor Victoria says you always see like on the Chaza community pages on Facebook like, "Oh, I've got a tree I want to take in. I'll take it to Victoria. anybody can go there. So, um it has been a struggle for them. So, um let's see. Uh July 14th was the regional council of mayors meeting. Um it's their annual meeting with superintendent. So, uh Mayor Hubard from Chaza and I brought Dr. Ratkkey from district 112. Um and we learned uh the speakers were a representative from CAST, which is the Citizens Against Sex Trafficking. um the XQ Institute that was talking about rethinking high school. Um and then we just had a really robust conversation about um public safety and best practices and school district um intersection there. Um let's see. Last week on July 15th, I shot a promotional video again with all of those the four mayors of Eastern Carver County at um Bountiful Basket. It we posted it on Facebook today, so take a look at it. But what I'm not I'm not here to tell you that we did a video. Um, as you guys know, we talked about that for our night toite parties, we are going to encourage folks to be bringing, you know, along with their salads and their baked goods and their cookies to bring a non-p perishable food item that the fire department is going to pick up and that we are going to donate to Bountiful Basket. When we were there, I was there last Wednesday. I think we met there at about 2:45 and Bountiful Basket was packed. like the need in our community was really impactful to me. >> That donation, do they still need like hygiene products? >> Yeah, I think so. >> I mean, they would take that kind of stuff, too. >> So, when we were kind of Vicki and I were kind of working on this and it was um they always have a list of kind of most needed items on their website. Okay. >> I think that that's always something that they need. And then like dog and cat food too is also kind of, you know, in that hunger space, if you will, but also like hygiene products. But yeah. >> Okay. >> Um and then let's see. >> Excuse me, Meritt. It is. >> Yeah. >> Sorry to interrupt, but um Andrew and I were just talking. I think one of the things that since we'd like to win as well for this bountiful basket, I think what we'll >> we're going to organize and do a collection spot here at city hall so that >> if people have like don't go to a block party or whatever, we can people can we'll advertise people can bring stuff to city hall then we'll get it to bonafo basket. So, Not cheating in the game, is it? >> I love that. >> It's not a rule, so I wouldn't call it cheating. We're just taking a >> Are we just collect on night? >> No, we like we'll get a as soon as we get like a collection system, we'll we'll collect all the way through the uh unite to unite. So if someone comes in next week with, you know, a bunch of food, we can take it and then donate it at the end. >> I love it. And like heads up, council members, we do have a council meeting that Monday night before night to unite. So bring in all your non-p perishable food items. I love that. Thank you. Um and then um let's see. Today I don't know if you guys heard, but there was a bear sighting in the city of harbor. >> Oh, cool. >> Did you guys hear the DNR so it doesn't get shot? >> It was TC Bear. >> TC Bear was here. Um, Great River Greening has a partnership with the Twins and they were shooting a promotional video that I think might be part of their game next Wednesday night. So, he was cute. They wanted him like really close to Spring Creek and he like kept getting closer and closer and Spring Creek is flooded and very swollen. I was like, he's a little topheavy um with his head. Um, so it was just really cute and I can't wait to see how it turns out. >> We all got bear hugs. >> We all got bear hugs. We all got bear hugs, every last one of us. Um, let's see. And then, um, last but not least, I think you guys probably all saw the email, but we got a email from Luke Sandlin, who is staff from Representative Emmer's office, letting us know that the transportation appropriation legislation um, funding tables were released and we are on it for our levy project. So, um, we're still in it for $4 million. Um, Emmer had his monthly call last week and I asked kind of as far as the next steps and there are still a few hurdles that this has to pass, but apparently um the drop dead deadline is September 30th. So, more to come. Keep your fingers crossed and hopefully by council member Mock. >> A second. >> Second by council member Pchman. All those in favor say I. I >> I oppose same side. Motion passes.