uh replacement there with the hydrogeneration. We have the powerhouse roof replacement that's been on the budget off and on. We have increased that from previous years to 350,000. The general generator pit 6 replacement
uh has been pushed out a little bit, but that's still the two-year project and at 4.85 million in 28 and 2029. That is uh one of the projects we have gone down and requested bonding for and we have
today um representative Heman and Senator Heinesman are coming to uh tour the project. Uh in addition, we have a system impact assessment scheduled for 2030 of 350,000. So when we look at the electric capital projects, they strengthen the
system reliability. They're modernizing the distribution network and then extend the useful life of our renewable hydro generation asset. Any questions on the electric or would you like me just to keep going? >> Don't stop. >> Don't stop. Okay. On the water capital
projects. So when we look at the water department's capital plan remains the most ambitious in this 5-year window. We have a central component is our reclamation and backwash construction project that's budgeted at the 2.825 million in 26 and 27. This is the one that we have secured the $5 million in
state funding for and we are uh in the process of working on that semar. Um we have some annual wealth rehabil rehabilitation and wellhouse improvements scheduled as normal. We have budgeted in 2027 a $5 million well
number nine construction project and that's to support the redundancy and future supply needs. And then we have the new water treatment plant planning as we reflect uh and the staging of costs we started in 2028 that's going through the state bonding requests and
the PPL. Uh that's a $58 million project. We have in addition to all of those we have the lead service line replacements. So our galvanized service lines that we require replace, those are funded between two and a half and roughly $3 million annually. We're expecting $2.5
million each year through 2033. So that will be continued on the budget, but that has been included. We in addition then have our street city street reconstruction coordination projects. That's the highway 210, southeast Brainard, Northeast Brainard, and Oak Street. Um the significant change when
we look at 210 and how these projects have changed from last year's budget is the 210 project is requiring the full down payment of the entire amount in 26 instead of being split over two years. So it's a significant change from what
you have seen previously and that has been budgeted for. Uh we continue to have our ongoing SCADAM booster station pump house and the metering system improvements that are always there. Um, so those are the capital projects we see in the water on the >> Can I ask about the down payment? Can
you be more how does that work? What what's the who who who pays the down payment and to whom? And um >> Paul, I'll let Paul answer. >> Thank you, Mr. Chzach. Um, so Mindot being that this is a Mindot project, MDOT is making progress payments to the
contractor and that is typically a requirement that MDOT requires the down payment on the front end. So they have the funds available. Mandot cannot expend uh trunk highway dollars on local system improvements. And so from a
financing standpoint, Mandot will be paying the contractor. And therefore, because they cannot expend trunk highway funds on local system improvements, they need that money upfront to be able to pay the contractor as they go. >> And we're giving that to them. >> Yes, that's usually a requirement.
They'll send an invoice as soon as the agreement is executed between the city and mindot. They'll uh create an invoice that basically invoices for the asbid construction amount for the project. >> Thank you. >> As we move from water to wastewater, the
wastewater program includes one of the single largest projects across our 5-year plan with the plan expansion upgrades. That's the bioolids project that we've been working on with the joint water wastewater management board. And um that has the 12 million in 26 and 27. We have a main lift station
replacement uh in 26. We budgeted about 500,000 for that and then 7 million in 2027. Uh that's really the backbone of the collection system and that has been included in the project priority list as well as the plant upgrades
that I spoke about previously. We continue investments in our V VFDs, pumps, and the SCADA improvements just across all of the lift stations as normal. We did move and reschedule the Vactron truck replacement has been on the budget and been coming up. We did
for cash flow management. We pushed it out to 2728. Um, and then we have several carry forward projects from the current year. So those are the items that are highlighted in green. Those were items that did not get
completed in 25 are carried forward in 26 and that's some of the fencing door replacements, some of the HVAC controls and then screen and grit work. Can I ask to give all the for the um 26
uh and 27 the grand total of all utilities for capital improvements that are scheduled? >> Do you have that on the spreadsheet? >> I don't have it in total for all. Can you just give me the each segment then? >> Yep. So electric Jeff we have a total of
2.9 million >> for six 26 >> for 26 2.6 million for 27. >> Okay. >> For water we have 11.6 million in 26 8.7 million in 27.
And then wastewater 14.8 million in 26 and 21 million in 27. Thank you. Um would there be any way of identifying of those totals what's uh what we are anticipating or have already received in
uh grant money? It won't be coming from rateayers. >> In grant money, we've received um 5 million for the reclamation tank and then 2.6 six million for the lead service lines and we're expecting another 2.5 million for lead service
lines in 27. >> So everything else is going to be on rateayers. Correct. >> Correct. >> Or and I will be bonding for most of that. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And then requesting we'll go through the project priority list and intended use plan for the low interest bonds and additional funding from the state. Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Any additional questions on capital or I'll move into operating. Hearing none, I'm moving on. The 26 operating budget reflects our continued stable operation performance with a heightened emphasis on the staffing and regulatory
compliance. And then we have some inflationary cost pressures when we look at like our purchase power. Total revenue across all divisions is budgeted at 40.3 million. We have total expenses are 40.08 million. Um biggest driver in our expenses is the purchase power at
about 20 million. And we have wages, benefits, ON&M and inflationary costs and then the consulting tied to the engineering and regulatory studies that we discussed at the last meeting. Our overall change in net position remains positive at 243,000.
Um that is down slightly from last month just due to some of the increase in staffing. Uh as we look at staffing some important highlighted items to as we look at changes or vacancies. So the 26 budget
incorporates those vacancies. We have a technical services lead included which is included in the organizational chart from 2023. We have a maintenance lead included. Same was in the organizational chart in 23. We have um two utility laborers.
These are new positions but supporting the system maintenance and providing flexible assistance across the department. So, as some of the technology evolves and some of our needs, we um built that into the budget for uh a safety net. We have the
business office support specialist, which hasn't been filled, is in the process, but that has been included in our 26 budget. with uh Jeff's retirement, we have included a position for Jeff's replacement and then in also included one additional position that
has not been included um previously. And then with at the wastewater plant, we have one wastewater operator backfilling a current vacant position. Those positions have been included in the budget um
and just bring us to our full operational capacity. When we look specifically at the funds, so the electric fund is remaining pretty stable. It has we've seen some significant increases as we kind of talked about at last meeting, but those are stabilizing. So we have a stable
revenue. We have stable expenses as we look into that um 20 million roughly in our purchase power. That's our number one cost. We do have included then the wage and benefit increases corresponding to those filling the vacancies and implementing the organizational chart adjustments.
The consulting and technical services needs are included as we have pl discussed and then the net position remains positive. It's slightly reduced from the draft budget due to that added staffing as I indicated. When we look at the water, the water fund is showing a
positive net position for the first time in many number of years. So that's a big turnaround with our rate increases from last December and then we'll continue with the rate increases that we have scheduled for this next year. Bigger d biggest drivers in some of those costs
for the water fund are those chemicals, the utilities and then the maintenance costs just continue to increase with the system age and those regulatory testing requirements that Charlie has always in his report. Um the local option sales tax remains a meaningful revenue source as we continue and then we're starting
to see for the first time the fund is contributing to its own reserves. As we look at wastewater, wastewater is pretty stable. Um we are seeing rising costs again in the chemicals and then just some of the equipment repair as the
facility is aging. And then the fund maintains that positive net position as we've been seeing as we look forward to the 26 and 27 capital programs. And with that, I am open to answer any questions. >> In your electrical, is there any crypto
sales in 2026? >> There are crypto sales in 26. They're not increasing as they have been in the future years. So the last three years, we've seen significant increases. We have stabilized those to the 24 and 25 numbers.
So 26 >> correct it. It remains the same. It's an average of 24 and 25's numbers. >> You have that handy >> the total >> for a year,000. >> Um we have on the budget we have 8.4
million for the year. 24 24 was 7.7 million. And then projected for 25 is 8.4 million. So it's budgeted for 8.4 million next year >> for budgeted for the income.
>> Correct. Revenue side. Yep. >> That's scary. >> So but we just use the profit from that in in your budgetary like that goes down. Say crypto stop tomorrow.
>> Yep. >> We're not out $8 million income. We're out. >> Correct. >> Yep. So, the associated expense for the purchase power is included in the purchase power number. Yep. >> Good. Any other questions for Danny?
>> Nice job. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, you're looking for a motion for approve. Somebody troubles. >> Okay. Motion to second. Any further discussion? >> Hearing none. >> Is that just approving the um Well, that's both the capital and
>> capital operations budget. >> Thank you. >> And recommending to council this budget. >> Yeah. As a general note, we'll be in front of council uh the first meeting in December to present the uh operations and capital budgets for 2026. >> Okay.
Those in favor say I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. All right. Now, we'll move on to unfinished business. And uh we do have a memo that has a nice running list of everything that we have on the plate and also things that we've
accomplished. So, uh looking looks like we are going to approve updated language for the city contribution policy 2003-00001. Anybody want to speak to that? I can. So included from the discussions we've had over the last few meetings and
included in the packet is a redline version of the contribution policy. The contribution policy changes from the mill rate where we're contributing to the city based on a kilowatt hour sale but to a percentage of revenue. This was
uh requested for us to look at from city council. They had requested us to look at a 3% for 26, 4% for 27 and 5% for 28. At the last um meeting commission had determined that they would like to move
to the revenue route at 3%. That is what is presented and then hold off for future adjustments until we have a rate study. So this reflects a change in that contribution policy adjusting for the 3% of revenues. >> Okay. Looking for a motion to approve
the amended policy. Any comments or a motion, questions? >> Make a motion to approve it. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion to second. Any further discussion? >> Hearing none. Those in favor say I. >> I.
>> Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Okay. Approve revised solar development agreement related to solar array installation on the Rotary Riverside Park pavilion. Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so the solar agreement uh between the city of
Brainard and the Rotary Club was previously approved by three boards. The BPU commission, the park board, and the city council. Uh, when that agreement uh got fully executed um by the respective parties, we uh presented that to the Rotary Club and there was some concerns
raised regarding the provisions of article 11 in that document. Um, article 11, um, specifically 11.2 and 11.3 state that after the warranty period ends, the Rotary Club of Brainard would be responsible for replacing any damaged or
inoperative solar panels and lighting as well as the full decommissioning of the solar panels and lighting once they are found to be um, needing decommissioning. And then 11.3 states that this article would survive the termination of the agreement.
Um, so upon receiving that notice that they weren't in agreement with that language, we had some discussion internally between myself, uh, public works director Habor, um, operations manager Hawinson and the city administrator and the city attorney. We
did prepare a draft redline version of the agreement. Um, and these revisions would need to go through all three bodies again um, for review and approval. Um, our rationale is kind of stated in the alternative options and
effects. Uh, being that BPU is the sole financial contributor to this project outside of a onetime $10,000 upfront payment, um, we're really the sole capital expense that is going into this array.
And so uh BPU is really the only ent entity providing that significant capital funding and will be the sole recipient of the tax incentives that come with it. Um we understood that BPU is basically the owner of the asset
because of that. Um so the revised solar agreement basically strikes out 11.2 and 11.3 um along with making some adjustments to uh project completion date. Um there there are two things that we need to do
to make sure that we can take advantage of the uh tax credits associated with this project. Um we need to provide a down payment on the project prior to December 31st, 2025. Um article 10.1 in the agreement um
states that BPU will make a payment upfront. Um and we would um if approved by commission and all the other boards here, we would make that payment prior to that date. Um, and in order for us to apply and receive the other tax credits, the project completion date would need
to be done by June 30th of 2026. Um, so those changes have been made um in the redline document to reflect those changes and dates. Um, the other small change to the agreement was to ensure the current chair of the Rotary Board, Michelle
Francis, is listed as the signatory for the Rotary Club. Um just a general note. So the original intent of this project was to obviously provide electrical service to the pavilion at Rotary Park. BPU has already invested uh time and
capital and extending the interconnect infrastructure uh for the future solar array to the site to support the solar array purpose. Should the commission decide not to accept the revised terms of the agreement, um we feel that the underlying intent of
the project still remains feasible where we could extend power to that structure um at minimal expense. Um the electrical extension that we've already completed is sufficient to serve the pavilion without the installation with or without the installation of the
solar array. So, um I'm open to answer any questions or Trent um can certainly chime in on the project, too. Um but staff is recommending approval of the redlined agreement um with the understanding that BPU would be the owner maintainer of the asset long term
um given the uh financial investment and having the expertise in house to maintain it properly long term. And I'll answer any questions. Thank you, Paul. Any questions for Paul? >> I had a move to approve the red line
version of the agreement. I second it. >> Okay. Motion is second. Any further discussion? >> Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. All right, we'll move on to
approve draft leaking water service line policy. >> I think Trent and I can kind of tag team this one. We've been um shifting this policy back and forth between ourselves here, but um currently um based on previous board action, we um have discussed needing a policy relating to
kind of standardized practices and policy that clearly outlines a full set of procedures from a staff standpoint of um finding leaks on private water service lines. um and uh consolidate the guidance describing how the leaks are identified,
the appropriate methods and timelines for providing notification to property owners, the specific steps that customers must take to develop repair plans or the required timelines for completing those repairs. Uh staff um do not have this written direction in
policies. So, it's been kind of all over the board on how we implement repairs to private water service lines. Um the absence of that unified policy has resulted in inconsistencies in communication expectations and enforcement um and just highlighted the need for a
more standardized process. The draft policy in the packet um is intended to address those gaps um to establish a clear written framework for these uh components. Um it provides detailed procedures for leak identification, customer notifications, planning and
repair timelines, uh reprieve during winter conditions, and uh other financing and assess assessment options if property owners are not able to foot the bill up front. Um we're looking for commission feedback and review of the policy
um so that we ensure that the policy aligns with our goals and we can um implement it from a staff perspective. Uh should be noted um that we have identified a broader organizational need to update, standardize and formalize all of our BPU policies that are um all over
the board right now. Um Danny and I have spoken about um a 2026 work plan and we tend to kind of conduct a comprehensive review of all of our policies, get them into both existing uh and in draft format, evaluating their clarity and
consistency. um making sure that uh the policies are rewritten in a standardized format. Um section headings, logos, terminology, definitions, and procedural guidance. Um and these will be coming to you throughout 2026 um in a standardized
format. Um that'll help uh staff make sure we have all of the policies addressed that are either currently in place or in draft format uh sitting in different drives across the organization. So, um you'll be seeing these come more and more as we get
through this process. Um our first step in this is going to be creating a template document that we can go off of that has four or five standardized um policy guidance statements um on the specific policy and then from there we'll start creating a list of all the
policies that need to go through this process and be addressed in groups um with the commission as we move forward. But uh at this point, staff recommends approval of the draft leaking water service line policy as presented. Just a
note that this only pertains to residential services. So I'll take any questions or Trent uh can chime in at any point. Great. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Paul or Trent?
>> Hey, may I ask a question? >> Yeah. Um, when I read through the agenda request, um, maybe I'm mistaken, but it seems like you'd be working on this throughout the year. So, if it's approved right now, is it just an
approval to move forward with continue working on it? Is that is that what we're looking for? >> This is kind of the first policy that we've taken the initiative on um, and starting to set out this procedural guidance. And this one just came up, I think, at previous commission meetings as a as a priority. We have yet to so I
mean we're looking for approval of the language the format of how the policy looks might change but the substantive or the actual content within the policy and that's what we're looking for approval today and then as we work through a standard template and things the formatting might change a little bit
in the policy but the policy itself will remain intact if that makes sense Mr. So, if it's approved, the staff will be able to implement the policy as it's written. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve this with some discussion.
>> Okay. We have a motion. >> Second. >> There's a second. All right. Time for discussion, Mike. >> Um, excuse me. Um, I appreciate the work you guys put into this and how it reads. Um, and I and I hadn't heard that we were
going to start doing this with all of our policies, but I really like that. Um, strategic narrative comes to mind. Um, you guys have heard me say that before. Um, and and brand guidelines would be the other thing that that comes to my mind. Um, I I think that our
policies should all be fairly aligned. we should be able to, you know, write a policy and then plug and play whether it's water, sewer, you know, whatever whatever it is. Um, I don't like the word enforcement as a as a a rate uh payer and and
somebody that uses our utilities in this community. Um, there's just something about the word enforcement or or government or city workers coming and and with their chest pumped up. You know, Trent I mean you have developed a
a wonderful relationship and that that hasn't happened but I have heard um stories and issues with other people where where there is some contentiousness just because of the way the policies are written and the way people that don't work in the utilities
industry every day take them. So, um, I just would, you know, make it nice somehow. You know, I know you I know you have a tough job and it's tough to do that because you you do have to enforce these policies and these these rules,
but if we can just figure out a way to make that a little softer for our community, I I would appreciate that. But I think this is a great policy. Um, after discussing and asking some questions in some of our subcommittee meetings about what our water loss is in
this town, you know, that's just money going down the drain and I think it needs to be addressed. So, good job and that's all I got. Thanks. >> Thanks, Mike. That's a good point. >> Okay, Mark. Discussion. Okay. All right.
All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. >> Thanks everybody. I like the direction we're going. So, thanks for that >> description as well. I look forward to that. Yes, D. >> Point of clarification. Are we amending
the motion? Are we accepting this or are we making an adjustment from what Mr. Higgins was just noting? >> No, I it's I just No, it it's >> okay. >> It's fine the way it is.
>> Okay, we'll move on to new business. A approved statement of work and audit services with Clif Clifton Larson Allen LLP. >> It's that time of year again. The audit is right around the corner. As part of the audit process, we have to approve a statement of work. Um Clifton Larson
Allen has been our auditor for many years. The attached statement of work uh for $30,750 is a 4% increase over the previous year. That's common for the industry. I'm seeing that with other communities that I reach out to. Um,
as a note, city council has discussed about going out and looking for an RFP related to audit services. So, that is a potential in 2026. Just to make you aware of that. Right now, we have the same auditor as the city as a whole.
And with that, staff recommend approving the attached statement of work with the 4% increase in fee. >> Move to approve. >> Second. >> Motion in a second. Any discussion hearing? None. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, same sign. Motion
carries. Moving on to B. Approve Bolton Mink's proposal for CM design and construction services related to the water backwash and reclaim facility improvements. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so attached in your packet today, um, is a
proposal from Bolton Bank. Um, and I I will recognize that Morgan Salo is in the crowd here today if we have uh questions uh um related to this, but um there's also a memorandum that was prepared by Morgan that outlines um some of the changes um that we'll be going
through if this uh proposal is approved today um in the original design um of the reclaim backwash tank. Uh so we've been coordinating closely with Bolton the mink regarding the scope of services for this project. Um in 2024 um the BPU
commission entered into an agreement with Bolton Mink to provide design and bidding phase services for the project. Um, subsequently we received a direct legislative appropriation in which Danny um referenced in this budget presentation um of $5 million to support
the uh project design and construction uh throughout 2024. BPU staff um worked with Bolton the main and advanced the project through design development including the preparation of plans and specs. On November 21st 2024 BPU
received bids for the project. Um, however, all the bids came in significantly higher than the available budget with Rice Lake Construction Group submitting the lowest bid at 10,336,450. The BP uh commission reviewed those bids
and elected to reject all the bids and transition the project to a construction manager at risk delivery method. Uh the Seamar delivery method is a method where a construction manager is hired early in the design process
um to provide uh preconstruction services such as cost estimating, constructibility reviews, schedule input and value engineering and then serves as the general contractor during construction. Um, under that model, the construction
manager commits to a guaranteed maximum price and they assume the financial risk for cost overruns beyond that amount unless the owner has directed changes to the project during construction. Um the approach is similar to a design
build where it it uh fosters collaboration between the owner, designer and the construction manager. Improves cost estimates um and helps to identify potential construction is issues before they impact the project.
Um so back in July 2025, Bolton Mink issued a request for proposals for Semar services to qualified construction firms. We received three proposals at that time from Rice Lake Construction, Magny Construction, and Journey
Construction. Following the uh evaluation process and scoring, the BP Commission selected Rice Lake Construction Group to serve as the Seymar on the project. Uh what's in front of you today is um the other portion of this process the
Seymar process is to engage a professional consulting firm to work collaboratively cor collaboratively with the SEAR uh in evaluating the design uh performing value engineering refining the scope and helping the project align to our available budget for the project.
Um we asked this proposal of Bolton and Mink given their extensive familiar familiarity with the project having served as the design engineer through the original design phase. Um and uh after we received that proposal we had some more discussion with Bolton the
Mink and that's where this memorandum in your packet came from. Um, it outlines the detailed scope and how the work and anticipated design modifications associated with transitioning the project from a traditional delivery method to a SEMAR project. How it's
going to impact the plans, how many plan sheets are they going to be, uh, modifying through this process, uh, reddrafting a substantial portion of those, um, and incorporating all the design adjustments that take place through the Seymour process. Um the
project costs are broken down in the agenda request along um within Morgan's uh uh me memorandum. Uh the estimated cost for just the coordination with the Seamar Rice Lake construction is 27,400.
the design services including the plan revisions, reddrafting, uh structural redesign that is estimated at 159,900 and the construction administration services within the proposal are an estimated amount of 263,400
uh for a total Bolton and Mink proposed fee of 450,700 to get us all the way through construction um with the development or potential development of a new water treatment plant in the coming years. Um, this design approach for the project is
focused on implementing only what is necessary to improve and maintain efficient, reliable operations at the existing facility. Um, our intent along with Bolton and Mink is to ensure that the new backwash and reclaim infrastructure constructed under this
project can be seamlessly incorporated into a new water treatment facility. Um and that is just going to protect our long-term investment into this system. Um throughout this process, uh BPU staff, both the mink and the CMR will
work collaborative collaboratively to perform value engineering, refine the design and make sure that we meet the budget um of the project to stay within the funding constraints of that grant we received from the state of Minnesota.
Uh, with that I'm going to um open it up and uh if you will allow Mr. Chair to have Morgan um provide any further and if there's other questions we can certainly answer those collectively as a team. But uh we are recommending that we approve this uh construct or the Seymar
Design and Construction Services proposal for the backwash and reclaim facility improvements in the amount of $450,700. >> Okay. Thank you, Paul. Any questions? Yes. >> Ask Mr. Sandy a couple of questions based on what he just >> Sure.
>> Um, so >> uh I got to get my thoughts clear here. Um, you want to make this seamless with the wastewater treatment. I understand that. That was the initial goal from the first go around, right? That that has not changed. Would that be a fair
statement? >> I don't believe so. No, >> it hasn't changed. And then you had one other thing included in there. I can't recall exactly what you said, but so what what I'm trying to understand here is the way I read through this um uh and it might be better that Morgan answer
this, but is the we're trying to get this work contract, uh down to our um money that we have available, which is $5 million. Is that correct? >> Yep. Correct. >> Okay. So initially what was our budget
when we agreed to send out for bids? The estimate was between 7.5 million and 9.5 million. >> Yes, that is correct. >> Okay. What what what's where's the where was the budget then? Do you know does anybody know >> six >> six >> six or six and a half million I think is
what we recall. >> Okay. So based on this semar construction management at risk, is this lowering the facility build? Is it is it
making is it giving us the performance, the uh the um structure, everything involved? Are we getting We're not going to get the same thing based on the Seymar
um process as we are initially with the other U bids that came in over $10 million. >> Yeah, I would say generally that's correct and I can have Morgan kind of explain some of the changes that we've been strategizing with that and it it all relates to this potential new water
treatment plant in the future. So I'll let Morgan speak to that. >> Okay. Uh thank you, Mr. President, commission staff. Um, yeah. So, very good question. Um, and I'm going to try to do my best to to stay concise with a lot of this. And so, as we look at the Seamar process, it's not taking what was
originally designed and having a contractor price that up. We're looking at value engineering and modification to these existing processes, the structures, the electrical components, the architecture of it all. Um, and and a big lift in this one is the process
design. as we shift and change things around that changes the hydraulics um which the site has some limiting hydraulic factors when it comes to how do we get water to flow from point A to point B uh and we want to also uh incorporate this so that in a future water plant design or build um we're not
we're we're taking the money and investing it in the future as well towards that project um and that this infrastructure that we're building today because concrete's use for life is over 75 years we want to be able to utilize that in the future moving forward forward with new infrastructure. Um, and
so that's the goal of this is as we work with the contractor and and as Paul did a very good job explaining with the guaranteed maximum price that's once we agree to a GMP and commission and council authorize and accept that GMP unless there's an owner directed change
that is the maximum price. Um, and so that's where we're working through the budgeting phase of this now, developing with the Rice Lake, the Seymar, the GMP. And so that's where we have the leeway right now and the transparency of if we'd make this change, what does that
cost? If we do this, what does that cost? And then we kind of work through that model in a couple different ways and a and a couple different meetings to develop this overall budget. Um, and one of the benefits of the $5 million SPAP grant, the special appropriations grant that the utility received, uh, is that
engineering is covered, uh, as part of that. Design and engineering and construction services are part of that grant. And so to be cognizant of budgets, we are looking at how can we value engineer this to meet budget goals and requirements um, and still m get a project out of it
that can be used not just for today, 20, 30, 40, 50, 75 years down the road. If that answers your questions, Mr. Chzach, >> can you outline some of the um discussions we've been having about the backwash process and how that is going to likely change with a new water
treatment plant? >> Yes. So, in the original um and feel free to stop me if you have any questions. In the original design for the project, we included one of the main focuses was reclamation. Currently, the water that is backwashed, used for backwashing the facility to clean the filters, goes out into a large uh
seepage basin, which is the wetland next to the river by the water plant. Um it on average it's about 41 to 45 million gallons a year that is effectively wasted to there. We are able to to design this project to take that water, settle the solids out, reclaim that back
so that we can then retreat that water, send it out to distribution. So we're minimizing the amount of waste um waste water generated from the facility. Um and that was the primary goal. Secondary goal for this was b the way the facility is currently backwashed is with raw
water which is pretty unconventional in modern water treatment facilities. Um and so they pump water into a large 75 85,000galon tank at the top of the hill. We fill that up and we use a combination of that which is raw water and the wells to backwash the the filters. It it
works. Um there are a lot of inefficiencies with that design. So uh to capitalize on using uh clean treated water that is is considered finished water which is your best and most optimum way to backwash filters. Um we
looked at incorporating a backwash system into this with large pumps, piping infrastructure um and and backup power generation for that. uh that adds a significant level of effort when it comes to hydraulically designing just with the layout of the facility and the
hill and how it sits. If we look at value engineering and modifications to the current project and thinking big picture of a new water plant in the future, there are ways that we can design a new water plant with its own
backwashing system at that facility so we don't have to pump it very far. And we're using clean, fresh, treated water uh for backwashing. And this tank can be utilized for reclaim purposes uh primarily and not be tying into the existing clear wells that are that are
currently there that have a very long useful life. And there's there's value left in that investment with a new water plant. um transitioning to a new water plant is going to be a little bit uh stronger of an investment I think with removing the backwash system from the
reclamation. Does that answer your question, Paul? >> That's where a lot of the cost savings that we foresee coming from, Jeff, is by the removal of that backwash component given that that backwash component would really only be to serve the existing facility. And so by effectively removing
that from the project and making some minor updates to that process as it currently sits, that's where we're going to see see a majority of the cost savings on the project. >> And and it also allows us to reduce the amount of piping, site work, utility work, um, and pump and electrical cost
because the pumps that were originally designed to meet backashing requirements for today's facility were 125 to 150 horsepower pumps and there were three of them. um 12,000 gallons a minute pump per pump. That that's a significant flow uh when it comes to water treatment and
backwashing and and that just is a factor of the current facility and just the overall what to to meet backashing requirements today in this facility. Modern facilities don't have that uh level of backwashing requirement. Um they're designed a little more
efficiently. >> So I'm just going to say this um and and I I'm following pretty good what you're saying. It sounds good. Um but when I think of the project that was originally plans and specs were put out they come back over engineers estimate by anywhere
from 50 to 10 or 12% perhaps depending on roughly and um if you start at 7 million5 or go to 9 million five there by that calculation. Anyway, um so there was a design put out bid on comes back
at over 10 million and um across the board with three or four different contractors. Now we're looking at a process that's different and and we're hoping to stay within a budget of $5 million less than the original budget.
Is that correct? >> It's $5 million. The total the total budget we have right now in 20 26 and 27 equates to 5.6 million. So there is 600,000 in investment from the utility funds outside of the 5 million that
we're receiving from the state of Minnesota. >> Okay. So I guess to to what I'm getting at though is the estimate you put out was 7 12 to 9.5 million. That was the project scope initially.
>> Correct. based on on previous pricing, >> right? So, it's just hard to it's hard to understand in my shoes how you come back with a different plans and specifications and you're working with a contractor. That whole process, it it's just it's it's
hard to grasp how you can still provide the same service in this facility at a significantly lower price. >> Is that you? >> Very very valid question. And the Seymar process is a, as I've explained before, it's a newer process that was approved,
I believe, in 2023 at the state legislature for uh use for water and wastewater infrastructure construction. Um, and and uh as we work through these projects as consultants um and as as technical people, we put together our best cost estimate based on what we see
in the industry happening. A lot of our stuff is based on what we see from previous bids. Okay? We have a big spreadsheet. We track a lot of this stuff. By working with the Semar, you are able to get that inside view of what does the pricing look like as they're putting their number together.
So that's the GMP process. We're able to look at, okay, if we do, for example, the rock face finish on the tank. What does that add for cost? They're going to get us an accurate cost estimate. What if we take that out? How much value do we save? are is there alternative
methods to the construction that maybe we don't know or understand in the construction industry? They're able to help us develop that with the timeline because timeline is also a critical factor because they may say, well, we want to instead of doing winter work where you have to heat the concrete, provide all these temporary controls
that could save you $600,000, you know, over the course of the project. Um, so that you kind of get that inside look in developing that GMP and you see the cost model breakdown. We'll be having future meetings coming up with the utility to see all these line items, big spreadsheets of
utilities are going to cost this piping is this and that's all direct to like as of a few weeks ago pricing when they get that from manufacturers from suppliers and what the contractor thinks the level of effort is going to put into it. So when they develop that GMP, we can say,
"Hey, this is still exceeding our budget. we want to look at how we can reduce the cost of this component. And then they can go back, get a revised cost model, and we go look at that and say, okay, our tank, we went from a volume of 400,000 gallons to 325,000
gallons, and we saved $200,000 by doing so. Um, and so that's the level of detail. It it's pretty granular when you really break it down, uh, to understand where you're getting that value from. >> Yes. So, am I understanding this correctly
with Jeff's questions? We got a bid for 11 millionish. We rejected it and now we're back to the table saying we can do the same exact scope of work for $5.6 million. >> Not the same scope of work. >> You took some stuff out.
>> There will be a value engineering process that is going to reduce the overall scope um from the original. >> We're not doing the same amount of work for $5.6 6 million as you is that was what you were asking Jeff what I was ask yeah that's that's what I I only asked
that question to because I think Jeff was a little confused I understood it as as we don't we only have 5.6 million we got to build $5.6 6 million worth of stuff. We're going to get >> that's the scope of work with the CMR process as you're going to get is is what that GMP is.
>> That's I wanted to verify >> my my hindsight is 2020 regardless of what I see through my eyes. I um if we've been better off just starting this from the beginning, would we not? >> Yeah. And and I've had the opportunity to be in meetings with uh Morgan, his
team, as well as with Rice Lake, and there was already a spreadsheet generated that's quantifying uh cost savings from a valley engineering standpoint. it's it's coming about it and thinking uh outside the box and so I've witnessed that it's it's I have confidence in the process and and the
people that are at the table along with our staff. I mean I I feel very good about this and and yes it's it's a dramatic decrease in terms of the overall cost but it's how do we design the system and make it work within the money that we have available to us. >> Yeah. And that's one of the values of
the Seymar process. And and before we we look through the Seymar process, we did have extensive discussions with contractors and Rice Lake too to see is is there value in going Seymar versus just you redesign the project and you just take plan sheets out and just cut what you have um and just X plan sheets
out and rebidding it. Rice Lake was very confident that there was more value in going the Seymar process uh to give them a little more transparency and and having a little um they're the construction manager at risk. So they are the at risk port uh party in in this agreement. Um and so it is there is
incentive for them to have a very solid and strong GMP to meet for the scope that that to get the project done and meet the intent of the project >> and that's um maximum. What's the >> guaranteed maximum price? >> I like that. Guaranteed.
>> Yep. That is an official legal term in the contracting. So, we are we are approaching this project. As Morgan stated kind of at the beginning, reclaim has always been our number one priority because of the amount of waste water we have going out into that seepage basin. Number two is
backwash, right? And so, if we can find some efficiencies in the backwash and incorporate them into the project and stay under that amount, then I think we're we're golden. But the main focus of this is reclaim because we know that that could likely be used at a new water
treatment facility in the future. >> Yes. >> Likely can be or is going to be >> more than likely will be. Um the the intent is to design this so that it's utilized with a future uh treatment facility um in in the general
vicinity. It's obviously very hard if you buy land across a city to and build a new water plant and change your wellfield to utilize this infrastructure. Uh but there is useful life that will be incorporated into a future uh water plant design. That is at least my vision, Bolming's vision, and we've we've shared that vision with
staff um as we work and progress this project forward. We want all this to transition. Same thing with the 2 million gallon reservoirs that are currently there. We want those that investment to be utilized with a new facility um and not have to spend capital expenditure on the same thing
you already have. That's good. >> You dodged my question, but I'll accept it. >> Yes. The answer is yes. >> At least he did it to your face. >> Yeah. I appreciate that. Yeah. >> No, that's good. All right. Any other questions, comments?
All good questions. Thank you. >> All right, we're looking for uh approval. A motion to move forward. >> So move. >> Second. >> Okay, motion is second. Uh any other discussion? Hearing none. Those in favor say I. >> I.
>> Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Thank you. >> All right. Don't go too far. will approve Bolton and Mink's proposal for design construction engineering services related to lead service line replacements in coordination with the city of Brainard's 2026 reconstruction
and resurfacing projects. That's a lot of words in that sentence. Descriptive >> I made it. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um so attached in your agenda today is a proposal for professional design and construction engineering services from
Bolton Bank for our 2026 uh lead service line replacement project uh solely related to the city's 2026 uh infrastructure project. So, uh, the city is planning on, um, a resurfacing
project currently under contract with WSB along with a 2026 reconstruction project in Southeast Brainard, uh, Southeast 19th, Southeast 18th. Um, just kind of a block of streets down there that the city has um, gotten through
survey and some design development on for that project. Uh we've been coordinating with city staff um and Bolton and Mink regarding um the need to align our projects between our lead service line replacements and the city's
uh street and utility projects. Um as part of that coordination, um we talked over uh Mr. Dean, Jesse Dean's plan to um what services he is currently um looking to keep in house for 2026 and
which projects he would anticipate going out for professional services from consulting firms. Um during those discussions, we um had further um correspondence with Jesse about his 2026 plan. And before these
discussions, his plan was to basically keep in house the city's 2026 reconstruction project in Southeast Brainard. Um the resurfacing project was already under contract with WSB. And then the um the o uh the projects that
are held over till next year. um related to the Wright Street and South 10th Street project. He was looking at potentially letting out an RFP for construction services um to get those projects over the finish line in 2026.
Um when we discussed with Jesse um the plan um we have our grant uh from uh the PFA for lead service line replacements of $2.6 $6 million. Um, and they were broken out into a couple of different
projects. One was to address the galvanized service lines directly related to city infrastructure projects and the other was whatever other lead service lines we can get to in a phase one replacement program up in northeast
Brainard. Um we're we're trying to align and find the best way to administer construction contracts without having a lot of fingers in the pot, per se. Um and so our um outcome of our discussions with Jesse was we should pivot slightly
in how Jesse was going to implement his um 2026 reconstruction and resurfacing schedule and have city staff um finish off the projects um from 2025 that were held over into 2026
and then ask Bolton and Mink for a proposal for professional services to take on the 2026 6 reconstruction project along with a separate proposal through BPU for the lead service line portion. Um we see a lot of value in um
having one construction manager on site um for the reconstruction project and the lead service lines. There's a lot of coordination that happens with private residents um for lead service line replacements and having one consistent
um project team involved in both the reconstruction portion and the lead service line to us made a lot of sense. And so in front of you today, we've asked Bolton and Ming to provide a proposal uh for the lead service lines
that are just related to the city's 2026 street program. And then at the next commission meeting, we'll be seeing another proposal for that phase one of lead service line replacements in Northeast Brainer to get us up to our
total grant amount of 2.625 million. Uh the city council um Jesse requested a proposal from Bolton and Mink that the city council will be reviewing at their meeting in December for the 2026 street reconstruction project to ensure
we're aligned across BPU and the city um with this with this plan moving forward. Um Brian Drown is here in the crowd um to um answer other questions otherwise I can certainly um answer those too. um Bolton Bank's total proposal amount
for the uh design and construction or I think it it was design and construction correct um is the not to exceed amount of $152,620 um as part of the program through PFA engineering and um construction
construction professional services fees are all reimburseable through the program through the lead service line replacement program. Um, and so we are not um, uh, forecasting any impact to the utility or rateayers as it comes to
lead service line replacements. And I'll take any questions, >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes, Jeff. >> Um, does the funding, the 2.6 million, I think you said, is that expire at a certain date? >> The funding is currently in the intended
use plan. And so the intended use plan is the PFA's mechanism to uh get the funding out the door. So we'll go through a application process with the public facilities authority for use of those funds in 2026. So they they need to be expended. Um I don't know what the
exact cutoff date is. Brian, maybe you know that uh for use of 2026 funds, but we're going to continue seeing this revolving 2.5 2.6 million every year. So, it behooves us to spend the money the year that we get it. And that's why
we're going to get as many lead services that we can get done for construction and the engineering amount. So, we want to utilize that full 2.6 million and get as many done as we can. >> So, well, we're you're telling I mean, you're looking at engineering streets to um our projects are going to focus on
streets that have these more um a higher percentage of these lead service lines to take care of at the same time. Is that a fair way? Not not necessarily. So Jesse's street program is obviously driven on, you know, the streets and the underlying sewer and water main um on
each project. We are trying to address these with separate uh contracts with consultants to address the service line so we don't end up paving a street and then having to come back two years later to cut a hole in the street to replace the service line. So, we want to work
collaboratively with Jesse and Mike over at the city to ensure that as soon as they know if they're going to be uh doing a street reconstruction project, we need to get in there with our consultants and hit the lead service lines. And nine times out of 10, it's
going to make much more sense if the city consults out their services, we consult out ours. And it's the same consultant because of coordination, efficiency, plan sets, ensuring that the contract documents mesh well together because we're going to have two
different contractors working. >> The projects we do for streets, whether it's well any other other than just mill and overlay, we're going to be looking it won't be driven by this lead service line replacement.
>> To some degree they are, Jeff. Um, you know, that's we're continually prioritizing that 5-year capital plan >> to ensure we're addressing the most we can with the dollars we have allocated. >> Mr. Jones, >> thank you. Uh, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I guess just some background is so the last two
years um we've worked with your staff to do the inventory and so it identified like a,046 galvanized services throughout the city. And what PFA is um they don't have an infinite amount of of of dollars to what they've they've
attached a value or an estimated value of $25,000 per uh service. And so you take your,046 times $25,000 each is $26 million. They've said we don't have that amount money to hit it
right now. So for Brainer, we're going to give hopefully if the funding is there, $2.6 million over a 10-year period so that you're trying to um replace about a hundred services a year.
um we want to tie this to the reconstruction projects so we know um like Paul was saying is that when that's happening we we take care of those and then like like you saying in a month um there's identified about 240
um galvanized services up in that northeast area. knock off um you know about 60 of those and then just keep working through that neighborhood if there's not a a planned so take care of all your galvanized services in planned
reconstruction areas and then um working outside the rightway to just use all the money. Um, it'd be, you know, great if if it comes in under 25,000, then I think we can be flexible enough to just keep trying to find homeowners that will
be willing to to work within to use that funding. So, every year, >> do you see a is there a percentage or a likelihood of just doing the service line replacement without having a street project going on? I mean, is that >> It would depend on the magnitude of
your, you know, some blocks have one. >> Okay. some like in your resurfacing there's um uh you know a small >> I think like 12 or 11 or 12 on the whole project >> and so u I I think you would want to you want to use up your funding to address
all your reconstruction project first and then if there's leftover leftover then you go attack a neighborhood um that you know and just try to use it that way and the other thing we looked at was um because this
is through PF FA, there's buy America, build America, uh material um provisions, wage rates, and and such. And so we want to separate that. >> We want to separate the contract >> from the city projects so that you're not federalizing just a neighborhood
street reconstruction that could um you know, increase the costs on hydrants and steel and wage rates and and all that. >> See, administrator Broles. No, I think I just wanted to just note I think it's worth mentioning. I think this is a
great example of uh collaboration and alignment between the public works department and the public utilities department and I it's very refreshing and I'm just I'm very pleased the way this is going. I think that you know I think there's going to be times where the street projects might drive the
service line projects or vice versa. But I think anytime that we can overlay a street project, it makes sense. Let's talk about what service lines need to be replaced in that same area and let's combine those projects. And then we moved some things around this year because we wanted the same consultant on
both the the surface work and the service line work. So I think that was another great move from the staff. So I just appreciate the collaboration and the alignment between the public works public utilities and I think the the primary beneficiary is going to be the public. I think we're just going to get
put out a better product and uh it's exciting. So thank you for the staff for working hard on this. Thank you. I got a question. >> Yes, sir. Um Paul, you you mentioned WSB. What do they what So, basically, when
you were talking, I heard I heard you, you know, say three different engineers are working on this. >> Is that still the case or are we getting rid of one of them? >> WSB is working on the city's 2026 resurfacing project. It's going to be a little bit clunky because we'll have,
you know, uh Bolt and Mink doing lead service line work. So there'll be some crosscoordination there that has to happen because we have, like I said, I think 11 to 12 service lines. Most of them are are outside of the curb. I think we might have maybe one or two that are in the street that we're going
to have to cut a hole, get it replaced before they come through and resurface the street. Um, so WSB is already under contract working on design of the city's 2026 resurfacing. That happened, I know, a couple months ago where they awarded that contract. And so we're bringing in
Bolton the mink now and they'll have to kind of collaborate and make sure that the schedule allows time for the city's or BPU's contractor to come in, cut a hole in the street, replace a service line, they come through and finish the resurfacing and be done. >> Is there any way we can get one more?
Like is can WSN get in here and do something? >> We we might as well at this point. >> I got three. Is there any way we can get four? >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes, Jeff. >> I just want to say I appreciate Paul Sandy using the word clunky.
>> Noted. All right. It's >> very technical term, Jeff. >> Speaking my language, Paul. Thank you. All right. Any other comments? Thank you for addressing that. >> Don't hear that too often. >> Looking for a looking for a motion.
>> I make a motion to approve this. >> Second. >> Okay. Okay. Motion to second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Thank you. It was a good description.
So, thank you for that. All right. Item D, approve Woodstep proposal for design and bidding professional services related to the main lift station reconstruction project. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so attached in your packet, you'll find a proposal from Widsth uh for professional
services for the main lift station reconstruction project. Um, we're currently on the project priority, the 2026 um project priority list with a total score of 44 points, which puts us in a fundable range uh for this project.
So, um, MPCA reviews applications, puts applications on the PPL, scores them, and there's like a certain cut off point from a from a number of points perspective to get you into a fundable range. Once they know what that fundable uh range is, they pass it on to uh the
PFA to get the intended use plan published. It's another application that we have to go through to get on the intended use plan. Um currently, um that placement on the IUP qualifies, uh BPU for lowinterest financing through the PFA for this project, um with loan
rates, uh uh typically several percentage points below what the city would obtain uh through uh market-based debt issuance um which uh in turn results in some pretty significant long-term cost savings. So to remain on
schedule for this intended use plan placement um we're looking to proceed into design development um and including the preparation of plans and specifications so that we can submit those to the MPCA
um by June 2026. Uh this timeline would allow um for certification um and placement on the IUP for 2027. So, the hope is that we're all in place here through this process to get construction started in 2027 to
reconstruct the main lift station. Um, this is a budgeted project currently for 2027, I believe, in the 2027 and 28, I believe, or 26 26 >> 26 and 27. So, the 500,000 is included in the 26 budget.
>> So, we do have the uh professional services in the budget for 2026. Um, Widsth has teamed with HR Green on the project um to provide these services to uh BPU. um pursuant to the facility plan um that's currently under review by the
MPCA uh alternative three of the facility plan is what um we have scoped out um for W with Seth and HR Green uh which involves the demolition of the existing cold storage garage, construction of a new main lift station building, installation of submersible
pumps and dual wet wells and associated piping and equipment, new gravity sewer and force main connections and installation of an emergency generator and order control system. Um, Witth has proposed a not to exceed fee of 494,000 for the design and
bidding phase services. Um, uh, the current estimated project cost listed on the project priority list is $7 million. Um, all of these numbers are in line with what was proposed in the facility in the facility plan that's
currently under review. Um, and this expense is budgeted for in the 2026 budget. So, staff is recommending that we approve the proposal for design and bidding services for the main lift station reconstruction project and the fee not to exceed 494,000.
I see Bill is in the crowd today. So, once again, if we have uh specific questions related to the scope of work, uh the project itself, um we can certainly answer those collectively as a team. >> Thank you, Paul. Any questions
for Bill or staff? >> Need a motion. >> Need a motion. Yep. >> So move. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion to second. Any discussion? I'll be abstaining from the vote. Okay. All those in favor say I.
>> I. >> Those opposed? Same sign. Motion carries. All right. Staff reports. City administrator Broyals. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh my written report is attached. Um first, I just want to welcome Paul Sandy. Uh welcome
to back to the city. We're happy to have you. You're a great addition to the team. So, I'm just looking forward to a fantastic relationship and I think you're going to uh be a tremendous asset to the city. So, thanks for joining us. It's a pleasure to have you. The only thing I want to maybe call out from my
report um that we are as a group of staff uh the senior leaders on staff to include Paul Trent, Danny and Charlie. We have been um talking about potential charter revisions. Those conversations are ongoing. Uh we are anticipating that
the ne the charter commission has tasked staff to come back with a draft before the end of the year. We're anticipating having that at the dece on December 17th. has not yet been scheduled. Um, but we that's where we're anticipating we'll meet and I fully expect that we'll meet that goal. But we've had some very
good robust conversations among staff and I think we're making some good progress. So, more to follow on that, but um your as the BPU commission, your leadership team have been instrumental and very valuable in those conversations. So, uh thanks to your staff for participating. So, uh other
than that, I'll be happy to answer any questions if you have any. >> Yeah. Thank you. Any questions for city administrator? Okay. Thank you. Council Lasison report Councilman Ches. >> Thank you. Um I just I just want to wish
everybody a very happy Thanksgiving and I hope everybody is uh has uh friendly relations with their family and friends and um appreciate every everybody's involvement in the work you do, staff and commission members alike. So that's all I have.
>> Thank you. Same goes for you. Thank you. >> If you want to cut down on Christmas presents you have to buy, just bring up politics. >> End with religion. >> Huh? >> Start with politics. End with religion. >> Combination. >> Well, no Christmas present for you. For
me, >> all right. Public Utilities director report. >> Uh, HR >> HR director report. Sorry. No worries. >> Sorry about that. Chris, >> I have provided my written report. If there's no questions, just happy Thanksgiving to everyone.
>> Any questions for Chris? >> Okay. Same go same goes for you, too. >> Okay. Public Utilities Director report. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll just highlight a couple of things. Um, obviously, I've been uh in this position now getting close to a month. This is my fourth week. Uh, it's been pretty
fast-paced, highly productive. had a lot of meetings with uh these three Yahoos down here on the end. Um been great. They've gotten me um as much information that I can absorb in a short amount of time. So, I've really appreciated their their engagement with me um attending
managers meetings on every Wednesday and um those interactions have just provided me a good understanding of current operations and how we continue to kind of look forward into the future with some pretty large capital investments coming down the pipe. Uh Danny and I attended uh the Minnesota Rural Water uh
financing your community projects training. Um a lot of this stuff was, you know, kind of a refresher for me, but it's I think it's always good. Um we had representatives from the MPCA, the Department of Health, the lead service line program, the PFA. Uh there was just a lot of good information on how we can
put together competitive funding packages to help us push forward in implementation of our uh large capital improvements we have coming uh in future years. Uh some of the I have some of the priorities that I've identified here in my first few weeks and um I guess I can
answer any questions about those. Um but it really is stemming towards uh continued um discussions and um you know ensuring that uh the city's capital improvement plan and what we have going on from a lead service line perspective are well aligned. Um investigating the
potential for pool engineering services um with the city. Um developing a standard set of city standard details and specifications. uh working towards a more integrated platform for plan reviews, development project reviews as they come through the
city and get passed on to us and kind of digging into a little bit with um our GIS staff both at the utility and at the city and how we can help uh kind of bring those together into one platform so we have consistent and reliable data
across both organizations. Um, and some other just general topics. Um, had some discussion about uh fats, oils, and grease program. You know, being at the city in the past, I've seen that it's a it's a tough nut to crack. I think there's some things that we can do both
on the city side and utility side to help get that program kind of in line with some uh more communications to our uh food service establishments and working collectively as a team to kind of implement a new program to help us
get control over that uh the fog issue that we've long had. Uh those are just some general highlights. Uh answer any questions about my report uh that's in the packet. >> Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. >> Um just um I don't believe I've ever
seen the acronym FOG fats, oils, and grease. I appreciate you bringing that up. Um because it's been a Mike probably all of us probably talks about that more than anyone and he's absolutely correct. But the other item you had in there was
that um software. It's called blue blue what's it called? Blue something. >> Blue beam. Yep. >> Blue beam. Yeah. >> Um is there a price to that software? We don't. Do you have any idea? >> It's like $300 a year per user. >> Okay. >> So, it's a pretty minimal expense. >> It's a great software.
>> It's a really great and all the consultants use it. It allows for creation of what's called a session where you can put plan submitts uh specifications and everyone can redline and you know comment on the same
document. So whether that's a consultant, BPU staff, city staff, it just really is a file management system that everyone has access to that can go in and redline plans from developers, from city staff when they have reconstruction projects and just allows
all the documents to live in one spot instead of redlining a document, sending it back over email, then maybe the red lines don't get addressed on the next draft because someone forgot to forward it. So >> do do you see this as a procurement then for uh what council public utility
shared expense then and shared across the >> Yeah. So there are going to be potential city users that are involved in that and I think that would maybe Nick you had your hand raised. >> Yeah. I think you know when when Paul I first got an email a couple weeks back and he mentioned Blue Beam and uh it
warmed my heart because we used Blue Beam in a previous job. It's a fantastic tool. So yes, Mr. Chazak, I fully anticipate having conversations with Paul and I think this would be a great asset for the city as a whole for all the for especially engineering, public works, public utilities. I think it's a
great tool. So, I think we'll try to come up with a a strategy to get this on board and we'll figure out some type of a share or whatever that looks like. But I think it's uh worthwhile. >> Like blue bra Bluetooth. There's so many blues. >> Clunky chunky. He's speaking my
language. Jeff, I will I haven't researched Blue whatever it is, >> Blue Beam. >> Blue Beam, but we use a very similar software in our wedding industry and what you will enjoy about it is the transparency that it brings because anybody can look at it any time. We have
in the wedding business realized that sometimes a bride or a bride's mom or the groom's or the groom's mom all say different things. With our software, it tracks everything. So if there's ever an issue later on, you go back to that
document. I'm assuming this is the same thing, Mike. It everything is just tracked and it's always there. So I I think that's a great idea. >> You know, by describing >> call blue hair >> by describing all of the moms and brides and that you just described this
commission >> and all and all the engineers and the staff and >> Yeah, exactly. Well, anything else to add, Paul? >> Thank you, Paul, very much. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I echo that. Thanks for this report. It's awesome. I um I was feeling
good about myself because I had one goal for 26. You have six. So, no, >> the list keeps getting longer. >> I think it's I commend you. I think it's a great list and certainly things we need to tackle. So, that's that's great. All right, Danny, finance manager report.
Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, in in addition to my report, some good news for the electric utility, the electric side. So, we did have a bonding call um subsequent to the report and we have received an increase in our bonding rating for the electric revenue bonds
which uh that's uh as finance that's always good news. So, that went really well. I need to thank Connie and our um bonding crew for helping get that done. >> A2. The city itself is at A1. We are at A2.
There are some things that we'll be looking at in our policies to help us get to an A1 rating as well as the city. But um want to thank everybody for their help and assistance in getting us there. Uh, additionally, uh, to highlight in our in my report, there's a discussion
on the transitioning from physical door hangers for the cold weather rule to an electronic version that has been in process with Tyler and industry standard is going that way. So, we're looking at implementing that and increasing our cost savings uh, for those notices.
That's just going to anybody then receiving a delinquent notice is also getting noticed that their final notice will come in this electronic format uh as part of the process. So just so you're aware of that.
>> Can I ask a question about that? Yes. If people are not um connected with the public utilities through that electronic system that we're using, would they get the actual door hanger then? >> They would. It does require that everybody get information to us for an electronic meeting.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Um, additionally, I'll just uh another item that not on my report and Trent can help me with this one. Uh as we look to our renewable energy requirements, there has we have been approached for
potential um solar developments and people are looking for uh some confidentiality agreement signatures for that as that was highlighted in our unfinished business, but staff is moving forward um in looking at what would be required for our renewable energy
standard for 2040. End of my report. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Okay, thank you, Danny. Any questions for Danny, great job. Thank you. All right, Trent, you're up. Thank you.
Uh, I just want to echo the sentiment of Jeff Inennis's retirement and how uh being able to hold on to staff for 30 years is just a something really proud of as this board should be a proud of that we were able to uh retain such a caliber employee for 30 years and we have many more that are coming down the
pike to also be employed with us for 30 years. So, that's very encouraging for us um as we look at to manage staff going forward. Um I'd also like to echo happy Thanksgiving to everybody in this room and and to welcome Paul Sandy. He's been a breath of fresh air to this team here at the at the bench today to help
us get moving forward some of these projects that we've been uh modeling our way through. Other than that, if there's no questions, that'll be end of my written report. Thanks, Trent. Any questions for Trent? Trent, the renewable comparison, the sheet that you provide, is the rotary
going to be uh part of that or I mean is that >> certainly add it, but it's not going to wiggle the gauge. >> Yeah, >> but we can add it. I mean, we could look at we can add it to it, but it will not be a significant impact to that at all. >> But it is on paper at least part of our renewable initiative, right? And our
efforts. >> Correct. As long as the load at the pavilion does not exceed the capacity. Quit plugging in your cell phones. >> Hey, I'm just trying to I'm trying to get >> squeeze as much out of this this as I can.
>> It doesn't get us up to that 100% that we need to be by 2040. >> No, it's good though. No, it's great to see that. So, okay. All right. Well, save the best for last. Charlie, would you agree with that? >> Yes, I would. >> Okay. Well, then it's your turn.
>> So, I I my report is in there. Um, I want to appreciate and thank um the addition of Paul Sandy to the utility. Um, uh, just with his presence, I feel we were we're more of a solid team looking at all different factions and
all of our job requirements. And also, I want to wish everyone a wonderful Thanksgiving. Um, drive and travel safely. Um, those who can have them. Um but our staff um at BPU and throughout the city um I just I just want to say
thank you. Um I watch it every day. I try to um do it more efficient ways and uh with the current staff and the knowledge that they have and bring um is fantastic. Just want to say thank you.
>> I got a quick question if I could. >> Yeah, you bet. >> You replaced a lot of pumps, Charlie. I can't remember exactly where and what they're called and all that, but you said you keeping the old ones as backups and that sounds good to me, but were there backups before we now have these
backups? >> No, there were not. They were they were a one and done. Um trying to engineer or replace like for like whether it be a electric um VFD let's say that drives these pumps or same model pumps to then
try to have maybe one instead of four different models on hand um to have be ready to go in in case of emergency. So a lot of pump replacements um things are getting older. they they run 24. Um so
yes um but we keep the best of the worst on hand >> until we can get replacements. >> Well, again I want to thank you for your report. It's uh much easier understood now the additions and things that you've
included. I appreciate that. >> Anything else, Charlie? >> Any questions for Charlie? How are we on uh hauling all of our stuff? >> We wrapped it up. Um we did finish out uh in November here. Um so we we uh
cleaned up the trucks and put them in storage and cleaned up the tractor and converting it over to a snow blower now. So uh we're into that phase. So we're we're down. We're as as far down as we can get and fingers are crossed for
early spring or a nice spring and get back out and do it again. I know how stressful that is and I appreciate all the time and heart you put into that process. I've been there and done that. Most people don't realize with the MPCA breathing down your neck what that can be like. So I just the
reason I ask is good job. Thank you. We appreciate it. >> Okay. Thanks, Charlie. All right. Commission member reports. Mike, we'll start with you. >> Happy Thanksgiving. That's all I got. >> Okay, Mark. >> I'm good. Unplug my
>> arc is good. All right, I'll go next. Uh, yes, Danny. >> Before you adjourn, you might want to consider adjourning to a meeting 1 pm today. Senator and Representative Heintman are coming to the hydro facility. Got it. >> And then there was discussion for the joint water waste joint wastewater
management board meeting is December 11th at 5:30 >> already. >> That's with back. >> Mhm. >> I want to be there. Where is that at? >> That's at the BPU.
>> December 11th, 5:30. Okay, great. Thank you. All right. Well, I'll go. So, my report um I had the pleasure of participating in the uh career technical education steering committee at at the Brainard High School. And uh our staff
have have done a phenomenal job volunteering their time and presenting to environmental studies classes. So Trent and Charlie, you've been there to do that. Uh city administrator Broles, I believe you were there uh as well. So I would just I don't want to ever volunteer people without asking. So here
I am asking, right? Um if you could create more free time, which you don't have, I would like to propose that. So I'm officially asking at a public meeting. Uh what do you think about that? Are you good with participating, getting in front of some students and just making them aware of career
opportunities? >> Absolutely. Happy to do so. >> Okay. Awesome. So, I'll uh loop you guys in on that and and um we'll try to make that happen here this this spring. So, and uh also I think uh I'll just echo what everybody's saying, I guess, is as
Paul, it's great to have you and um mostly been sitting next to you at city council meetings in the crowd. So, it's great to be sitting next to you up here, but I'm I'm really excited about that and so thanks. >> Y thank you. >> You bet. All right. So we will uh
adjourn to meeting today uh at 100 p.m. at the hydro facility if people are coming and then also December 11th at 5:30 at BPU for the joint wastewater management board. So do
we have a motion to adjurnn? >> Okay second. >> Second. Any discussion? Nope. All those in favor say I. I. >> Those opposed same sign. Motion passes. Thanks everybody. Happy Thanksgiving.