Call to order the Public Utilities Commission meeting for Tuesday, February 24, 2026. Roll call, please. >> Higgins >> here. >> England >> here. >> Jay
>> here. >> Okay. Can we all stand for the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty, justice
for all. >> Okay, we'll move on to the approval of the agenda, Mr. Mr. Sandy. >> Thank you, Mr. President. So, we do have a couple of amendments to the agenda um if the commission is willing to entertain those. One is administering
the oath of office to Mr. Corey J. Uh we're hoping to do that right after the approval of the agenda. We'd like to move what is currently 9 D up to right after public forum if we could do that.
And then one item added to the consent calendar. Um Trent went through and uh got uh pricing for directional drilling services for 20 26. Um it's an hourly uh
type contract uh so that when we have directional drilling projects that need to be completed during um the construction season, we have that uh pricing uh solidified through the commission that you guys all have an attachment there um in front of you for
that. Okay, thank you. Any questions from commission members on the modification to the agenda? >> Move to approve. >> Okay, there's a motion. Is there a second? >> Second.
>> All right, motion and second. Any further discussion? If not, uh, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. We will now move on to the oath of office. So Corey, if I could have you
stand up please and raise your right hand and repeat after me. I, Corey J. >> I, Corey J, >> do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States >> do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States >> the Constitution of the State of Minnesota
>> the Constitution of the State of Minnesota >> and that that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the Office of Public Utilities Commission. that I will faith faithfully >> discharge that I'll faithfully discharge
>> I will faithfully discharge the duties of the >> office of >> public utilities commission >> of the city of Brainard Minnesota >> of the city of Brainard Minnesota >> to the best of my judgment and ability so help me God >> to the best of my judgment and ability
so help me God >> to remember the hardest part of being a commissioner right now. >> All right. Thank you, Paul, and thank you, Corey, for being on the commission. Really excited to have you on board. Um, worked with you in the in the community.
You're a great community member, and uh really look forward to your contributions. So, welcome. >> Thank you. >> Okay, we'll move on to the consent calendar. Notice to public. All matters listed are considered routine by the commission and will all be enacted by
one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to be adopted by roll call. Is there a motion? >> Uh motion to approve the consent agenda.
>> Okay, there's a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Roll call, please. >> Waso, >> yes. >> Jay, >> yes. >> Angland, >> yes.
Okay, motion passes. All right, we will now move on to we're going to move uh new business item 9D, introduction of Eden. >> Do public forum first. >> Oh, public forum. I'm sorry. >> Okay, we'll move on to public forum. So,
time allocated for citizens to bring matters not on the agenda to the attention of the commission. Time limits may be imposed. Anybody here for public forum? Anyone online that would like to speak?
Okay. Hearing none, we will now move on to uh new business 9D, introduction of Eden Renewables LLC for potential solar project and interconnection to Brainer Public Utilities. With that, uh please
take it away, Tom. >> Good morning, everyone. Um commissioners, it's great to meet you. Um BPU staff, it's great to great to see you guys all again. Um thank you for for inviting me along to to speak to you. Uh I have a quick set of slides. I won't uh kind of won't kill you guys with
powerpoints, but just a bit of a uh a bit of an idea about who Eden Renewables are um and what we're looking to propose to Brainard and Brainard Public Utilities. And my role with Eden is I'm a development manager uh and I'm leading up the the project here that we're proposing to Brainard. Um so Eden
Renewables, we're a global developer. Um we operate in the UK uh across Africa and uh in the US where we're primarily based out of upstate New York. Um but in the last two three years we've been working across Minnesota. Um we've taken
on board local consultants uh helping us build relationships um find local partners we want to work with and help kind of develop our sites in a way that benefits local communities. Um across Minnesota uh we are working on
50 plus megawatts of of projects uh including a few there I've listed with St. county um with the city of Duth and with Hibbing Public Utilities. Um all uh pretty pretty standard ground mount solar projects um where we hope to blend
our kind of international expertise with local partnerships and local um local businesses. We're proposing to to Brainer Public Utilities a 10 megawatt AC 15 megawatt DC solar project which would provide
about 2,000 homes worth of power. Um delivering power directly to the uh the BPU local distribution network um helping BPU reach its um kind of Minnesota mandated clean energy standard
uh objectives with power directly on their local network. um giving control uh to to brain and public utilities. We develop solar farms um that are beneficial to the environment that have
a keen focus on local community benefits. Um we kind of emphasize biodiversity as one of our major uh major kind of focuses on the development of a site. We um we work with local um
local kind of pollinator groups um planting pollinator friendly vegetation and kind of employing any tactics that that we think can provide uh great benefit to local ecosystems. As well as that we like to uh provide
educational opportunities around our sites. Our focus is on uh local school groups kind of building on on workshops, site visits. Um we run a scholarship program. Uh it's the exact sort of stuff we're we're looking to to bring to Brainard. We think it it really makes a
difference to local communities. They can understand what it is a solar farm does, how it contributes uh to a better local environment. Um and we can help spread that education um off the back of our local sites. We're proposing a site just located
southeast of of Brainard. I realize you can't really see it too much. There's a little red outline um just on the just on the screen there. Um it's a it's a piece of land with the TC family who are who are in the crowd with me here. Um we're we're working uh with with the TC
family to contract a a lease for the site. Uh it's a piece of land that BPU know quite well. um it's directly uh opposite one of their uh one of your guys' um distribution lines um right next to one of your substations. So it
really makes the best sense for for the site. And we propose a site that would look something like this. This is an indictive site plan using um single access tracker uh solar arrays. Um and there would be there'd be 15 megawatts
located something like that uh on on the site there. Um, so really the the key benefits that that we'd be bringing um is control over over your state mandate through long-term
reliable, affordable, and price stable energy. So, it's it's energy that you'll you'll know how it will inflate or be stationary for for 35 years. Um, you won't be subject to to market fluctuations and uh spiking gas prices.
Um it's directly supporting your your clean energy standard mandated by the state. Um providing local economic opportunity through uh local construction jobs, ongoing operations management as well as surveying and engineering and like I mentioned before
with a keen focus on local community benefit through biodiversity education as well as bringing um the Minnesota solar production tax to both the city of Brainard and Crowing County. Please uh I'll hand over to you guys if
you have any any questions. Um I I hope that was that was helpful for you all. >> Yeah, thank you very much. Appreciate that. Uh any commissioners have any questions? >> I just have a couple. >> Yes, >> well it's more for staff. I mean so you're proposing this I presume who's
you're who's funding you're funding this? >> So we we act as the developer uh and then we take it to market and find the the best financing for for the project. Uh and then a partner will come in for the construction financing um to to take the project through to completion. >> Okay. And then one other question is how
does this impact um our contracts with a >> great question. We'll have to make amendments to our contract, but um it's all doable at this point. We can there u have the appetite to look at some things or some other things we make amendments on too. So it's a good time for us to open it up if we choose to do so.
>> Awesome. Thank you. Yeah. So, similar to uh what we've done in the past, so the finance team has typically worked with staff and uh reviewed their proposals and and um had those discussions outside of a commission meeting. So, we've we've done the same for this process and I
guess just to maybe provide some some background for for Corey and then the rest of us as well. So, those meetings have occurred. you you've worked with Tom and his group and then um maybe just speak to the advantage of this property. You know, as we've discussed as a commission for a lot of years, how are
we going to accomplish this this goal of meeting the state mandate? So, there's not a lot of available property, especially relative to being um located adjacent to our existing infrastructure. So, maybe just to shed some light on that, I think might be of benefit to the group. AB:
>> Absolutely. I think everything you just stated is correct. This site is ideal for a development of a solar project. It's flat. It is close to our interconnections. I think Thomas did a great job explaining that. So, it is an ideal ideal location for us. We will be able to interconnect into our distribution system easily. Um, some of
the other projects we have vetted in the past wouldn't have interconnected this easily. So, as far as an operational standpoint, this project fits our envelope well where we need to be and it is checking a big box towards our mandate for our carbon-f free renewable stuff. So, um, I this team so far has
been great to work with. The family's been great to work with. I think collectively it's been a good project as we move through it. So, I think, um, you know, really at this point, it's a price point for the commission to consider. Uh, it's a long-term contract similar to what we do with A. This one's a little bit longer out. Um, to Thomas's point,
it gives us stabilization in our rates moving forward, and there's a couple different things we can look at. There's a few little pieces, nuances to work through yet, some of the inter interconnection costs, but other than that, we're we're prime and ready to go for this project operationally speaking.
>> So, the next steps. Yes. >> Oh, I'm sorry, Jeeoff. I didn't see your hand up. Go ahead, Jeff. >> Um, two questions. Uh, what's the, uh, approximate number of acres you're looking at for the solar array? >> Uh, approximately 60 60 acres. >> 60. >> Y. And then there was a discussion here
not too long ago at the county board. They're looking at potentially uh I don't know, I think you probably know more about that, Chair England. >> Um can you weigh in on that at all and see what's going on there with the county board? >> Yeah, there there was uh they made
mention of a potential moratorum, I believe, but I don't believe any action has taken place at the county level. Maybe you can speak more to it. >> Yeah, I've spoken with the county staff. Um there was conversation of a moratorum. Um I'll I'll let them speak more to to their plans, but it's my
understanding that they aren't looking to impose a moratorum. Um and they're looking for an ordinance that will govern the site and govern the development um as opposed to placing a a moratorium on on development. >> So it's potentially a similar situation
to our development in Baxter where the city of Baxter didn't have an ordinance in place. So then they utilize that as an opportunity to formally put forth some standards and expectations for a solar development. >> Yeah. And we're we're working closely with with the uh the county as well.
We're trying to kind of understand I mean our our experience we've we've developed I think probably about 15 to 15 to 20 solar ordinances with towns across New York State. Um we just like being a point of contact uh when when a county is going through forming an
ordinance if they have any questions. um if they want to understand if some of their provisions are too restrictive or uh or potentially kind of uh prohibitive of of solar, we we try and show our face and uh and kind of work with them to
help form an ordinance that works both for them uh gives them the control over over development but also uh is workable for us. >> Okay. the uh the the site that proposed is that in city limits or is it in an
annex area or is it county or >> it's uh outside of city limits? It's right on on the boundary. Um but it's outside of city limits. Um spoken with Trent about uh interconnection and uh we feel there's there's no issue connecting in within city limits, a project that
sits outside of city limits. Um and there shouldn't be any uh any issues with uh with with how it is sat outside. >> Okay. It's a good question and it's also an interesting position we're in where we don't exactly have 60 acres sitting around in South City limits of Brainard.
So, uh I credit to everybody's staff and and working with land owners and and with Tom's team. It's trying to just think outside the box a bit so that we can you know beat this mandate. Yes, Jeff. >> Um just is there any um cost the utility
will take on moving forward with this development at all? any costs >> through the development phase? Um, no no cost to to Eden. Um, once the project's operational, um, we propose a structure
where the utility would buy power from us. Um, so there'd be a a cost for for the purchase of that power, but we're we're not charging anything for for our development work. That's entirely on on us. >> No capital costs then of any kind of
infrastructure, anything on the utilities? was probably a question for for for Trent and we'll we'll work it out as we go go down the line. The interconnection cost is usually one borne by the developer. Um we usually re refund all works associated with
connecting our projects to our uh to our develop to our uh point of interconnection. Um, but in the case where that cost would would then be a project cost that Brainard would be paying back through power down the line,
there might be a chance to uh to work together to to find a more cost-ffective solution. >> If I may. >> Yes. >> Um, so the land you'll be using, is that just like leased then from the owner? Is it is it still their land or >> correct? Yep. Leased for for 35 years.
Um, and we we have a a decommissioning bond in place so that when the project ends, if for whatever reason it's not repowered or or kept alive, um, as the the project company, we have to remove all improvements we make, uh, take
everything off the site and it's returned back to a to a green field. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, Trent. Yes, please. Yeah, I would just add that being able to I think one way easy way to think about this is we have PPA agreements with A right now
with American Electric Power that power that transaction goes to Ohio transactionally but the power is still coming out of Grand Rapids, Minnesota um is where that power is coming from. This is no different. The the nice part about this project is the solar field be located geographically to us falls into
our portfol portfolio well when we having hot days. So when it's really hot in Briner, that solar is going to be producing the best. Where if we were buying a PPA of somewhere in, let's say, Kansas and it was cloudy that day, we're not going to necessarily see that same benefit of our local resources being close. So when it's hot and bright, that
solar is going to really be helping us, I think, is an easy way to look at that. That's helpful. >> To quote Todd Wickland, I mean, this is behind the meter power generation, just similar to the airport. >> Correct. And and these BPAs too, what we avoid by going behind the meter is our ancillary charges, too. So we're not
paying into the transmission line. We're not paying into the other costs. So when we look at this rate structure, there's a lot of things to consider in that that we pay through our other PPAs while we go through the transmission line. This would be behind the meter and those costs would not be realized by Brandon Public Utilities. >> Dolly,
>> just one last question. Um so since this is next to uh you know where they would connect into, is uh Minnesota Power an issue and is this a proposal that's being brought to them as well? So will that interfere with
negotiations? I mean I just I don't want to get excited about something that all of a sudden we're fighting oursel against. >> So we have vetted that through. So from our perspective right now and we've had Thomas has provided some legal opinions from his team on this also. It doesn't matter to Brainer Public Utilities where that power is sourced from. It's a
benefit to us that it's sourced close to us locally um because of the solar project, but we could be buying a PPA from Arizona, no different. So that's the purview we're looking at and we've vetted that through so far and I haven't seen any red flags to to lead us a different direction yet. >> It's a good question, Dolly and
certainly one that was raised I think immediately. Good question. >> Okay. Any other questions from commissioners or staff? Any other comments? >> You have a potential timeline? >> Uh yes, we do. Um it escapes me from
from the top of my head. We can we can certainly provide um the the staff and the commission a more firm timeline. Um but we'd be looking at uh construction in 202728. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes, Paul. >> I just want to echo kind of what's been
said here. You know, Tom and his team and the thesis they've this project, you know, since its inception through the confidentiality agreement phase and things has been just so smooth. The the coordination and the communication has been great. Um and I think you know as we move to kind of a negotiation phase
with the finance uh committee um you know I I have no uh qualms about how this process will go through that through that phase. So just want to echo whatever uh what everyone else has set up here. Tom, it's been great working with you guys thus far and
we look forward to hopefully seeing this project come to fruition. >> Brilliant. Thank you. And I'd echo that right back to you guys. It's been great to be able to just pick up the phone and and speak with you guys directly. Um, very excited about where this project can go. >> Thank you for being here in person, too. >> Yeah. >> Could I ask one more question?
>> Yeah. >> Um, for the construction of it, would it would it be outofstate contractors coming in or is it all local? >> It'll be local local contractors. Um, we're some of our projects we use um local union labor. Uh, it depends a bit
on on on the situation we have at hand. Um but it will be instate contractors um with a yeah an instate EPC who who will manage the the construction. >> Okay. Thanks. >> All right. >> And then so next steps we're not taking
action today. We're this is an update and then the finance committee will meet with staff and with Eden Renewables just to work out the details. So, we're looking at next commission meeting or next couple or what what are we thinking here from a commission's expectation here? >> Depending on the availability of finance
committee, I don't see why we could not have a decision or something to put on the table by next commission meeting. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you very much again for being here as well. >> Thanks for the invitation to come speak with you guys. I appreciate it. >> You bet. Thanks, Tom.
>> Okay. We'll move on to commission committee reports. personnel committee. >> Nothing to report since we haven't actually met. There's >> that makes the report pretty short, doesn't it? >> Correct. >> Okay. Do we anticipate uh this month you >> I would hope so. If we can get
assignments of committees then if that's what we're going to do. >> I think we should. Yes. Um with Corey being appointed it be you can appoint the committees at this meeting if you would like. >> Perfect. Let's do that. So, um, for the personnel committee, I would like to
have, uh, Commissioner Dolly, please, to be on the personnel committee. And then I was on that committee last year, so I think I would like to continue to be part of that as well. And with the finance and operations committee uh, to
have Commissioner Jay as well as Commissioner Higgins. >> I don't know. Mike really hates finances. Yeah, I know. He'll come kicking and screaming. I know. Uh, so with with Commissioner Higgins not here then, does anybody want to speak to the
finance in operations committee? Was there a meeting or we can certainly wait until next month to talk about it? >> Okay. So, we'll wait till next month. Okay. Any questions there? Any comments? >> All right. Unfinished business.
Unfinished business memorandum. I don't think there's uh anything further in the report, Mr. President, uh from what's presented uh to you guys, unless there's any questions. >> Okay. Do any commissioners have any questions? >> Um just clarification on C, the rewrite of Brainer City Code 705. From your
report, it looks like it's in its current final stages. So, we should be able to get this off the unfinished business pretty soon. All >> right. >> Awesome. And then can you just explain a little further um the UN where was it? It's under E the lead service line. Sorry to keep coming back to this, but
um down at the very last paragraph, the the plan, if approved by commission at the meeting, will follow MDH no plan submittal guidance. What is that? >> So, there is an item on the agenda today for uh the potential of the commission approving a third lead service line contract for this coming summer um in
the Ronald Joseph Alley area that the city will be reconstructing. Department of Health has a submitt uh document. If um these if a project needs to be fasttracked, they allow a process
in which basically we have our consultant to if approved would be bolt in the mink. They basically create a quote package for contractors with all of the requirements of the lead service line funding. And then we select a contractor that would provide quotes on
a on a homebyome basis. um for some of these smaller projects like the 13 service lines on the Ronald Joseph Alley and kind of the fasttrack nature that we would need to commit to this project. Um we we thought as staff and we talked with Bolton the mink that this would be
the best way to approach um outside of a a standard design bid build process. MDH allows this no plan submitt where you're basically just creating a quote package. you're getting a contractor on board and a lot of the onus is put on them to get
inside the homes and create a quote that is reviewed by the engineering team, approved, the work gets done and then it's reimbursed through the program. >> Okay. >> So, it's just it's a fasttrack method of getting items in front of Department of Health by March 31st. >> That was perfect. And then the last
thing, the EV charging policy that's on our unfinished, is this still a priority to us? I'll let probably Trent and Danny speak to that. That was kind of before my time to >> I would say it's up to the commission if we want that to be a priority. If we
want it removed, we can remove it. If if we want us to still work on it, we're more than happy to. >> It could be great. I believe the gentleman was here last meeting in the crowd. So, be nice to follow up if possible. >> Yeah, I think uh Commissioner Higgins was going to take an action item on that
and have some conversations. So, really where we're at there is try to think outside the box. It doesn't fall into a rate schedule. that's typical for a utility to have. Um, most of these private ones, especially at car dealerships, are the bar the burden of the baron is on them for their electric
rates. So, but this is an opportunity. We do not have one in our service territory right now, a public charging station. So, I think there's opportunity for something to potentially mature out of this, but uh Mr. Higgins was going to take a lead on that. So, just out of curiosity, if the city did have a a
charging station, I think the car dealership gentleman was here uh had indicated that he was mandated to have them because he had to uh he had to charge the cars uh when they came in for service, right? um you know, is that a mandate from from their dealership, what
have you, or is it could they if we owned one, could they be using ours and getting rid of theirs to offset their on demand side of things? >> Great question. To my understanding, how it works out is as a certified um electric vehicle repair shop, they must
have a charger. So, that was part of the requirements. That's the way I understand why they installed it. Um, and they went a little farther and said, you know, if we're going to sell electric cars, we should charge electric cars. And I think their project just kind of grew outside of their scope. And unfortunately, the reality of it is they did not check in with us for rate impact before. And when they turned that on,
they definitely understood the rate impact of having that operating. >> Most communities that do have them, it's a challenge to get price points to get people to actually use them. So, communities um south of us, a lot of the public charging stations are free um just for the fact that it's promoting
the electric vehicle initiative. But um it it's a hard price point to get people to pull up to the pump also. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, thank you Dolly for bringing that up because there is another entity in town I know that has plans to put two of these in. So be nice to stay ahead of
it. I know it's a tough task but uh do you think that'd be maybe something discussed at the finance and operations committee with with Mike? >> Absolutely. It seems appropriate. >> Okay. All right. Awesome. Thank you. >> Yes, Danny. You'll see as part of the packet the new acronyms >> I saw that
>> sheet that came from a recommendation from that MMUA governance and action conference. So we'll just start adding acronyms. >> I want you to know that I've started to add to the list already based on >> Thank you for that. >> I have it off to the side and I'm trying not to make it obvious that I'm looking at it.
>> Mr. Chair, >> yes. Where do we find that list he mentioned? I don't recall seeing that in here. >> Page 20. It's It's on It's as part of the uh old business memo. >> Unfinished business. >> Yeah, it's part of the unfinished memory. >> I see that. I'll look for it.
>> Yep. >> Thank you. >> You bet. >> Can always use more of those, right? >> Yeah, absolutely. Let's throw some code stuff in there, too. You could help with that. All right. Okay. So, we'll move on to approve uh item B. Approve BPU policy.
BPU P 202401 frozen water service lines. >> Mr. Sandy. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, as part of our 2026 comprehensive policy review, um staff took the initiative to review policy 2024-01 frozen water service
lines. Uh this policy was first adopted in 2024 and there were no changes to the recommended policy statement. Uh the policy presented in your packet is just um um within the template format that was previously reviewed by the commission and we are just looking for
formal approval today of this uh this policy as it was previously adopted. >> All right. Is there a motion? >> I would make the motion to adopt the amended 20241 frozen water service line policy as presented. >> Okay. Is there a second?
>> Second. All right. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Move on to item C. Approve BPU policy. BP
20003-04 unauthorized use of utility meters. >> I think I'm going to pass this one over to Mr. Lock. Uh, >> okay. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh as part of the comprehensive review, we've selected the the policy for the unauthorized use
of water utility meters. The only change we have or recommend for the policy statement is to add tampering fee to the policy statement. The tampering fee is already included in our fee schedule every year. So by adding that language,
we're capturing that additional fee. Uh and that is the suggestion we recommend as staff. And uh as previously as part of the comprehensive review, it has been updated for the other template language and we're looking for formal adoption of the amended policy.
>> Okay, >> Mr. Chair, I'd make that motion to approve the amended 20 2304 unauthorized use of utility meter policy. >> Okay, there is a motion. Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Okay, motion and second. Any further discussion, Jeff? Um, I understand tampering. When you say unauthorized use, is that essentially the same thing? Because it seems to I'll just leave my question stand there.
>> Essentially, yes. >> Okay. So, I mean, it's not like somebody hooks up a meter to be charged and are unauthorized to use it. Is that a possibility? I mean, the way the way that term is used, uh, >> I'll turn it over to Trent. >> Yeah, it's a great question, Jeff. Um, all of our meters are assigned to an
account. So when they come into a put an application in for a meter, um it'll get assigned to account. So that's the only spot where that meter should ever live is in that account. Um I don't I can't think of anything in the past where we've had a situation like that. Um but it's definitely something that could happen, but as of right now, they are
assigned to a specific location. So if somebody moved that and put it somewhere else, and that would be what we'd be considering. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> You bet. Thank you. Okay. We have a motion to second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I.
>> All those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Item E, approve the second amendment to large industrial power agreement between Brander Public Utilities Commission and just rec. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, we missed the >> Oh, D. I'm sorry. Yeah. D approve
BPU policy uh BPU P 20003-05 fees for water meters. >> Mr. chair. So, um similarly with the other two, uh with the 2026 comprehensive policy review, we reviewed
policy 2003-05 fees for water meters. Uh this policy was first adopted in 2003 and no changes are recommended. Um we put it into the standard format and that is what is in front of the commission today for uh final approval. >> Okay. Thank you, Paul. Is there a
motion? >> Mr. Here, I would recommend adopting the amended policy for the 2003 5Ds for water meter um for water meters as presented. >> Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second? Second. >> Okay, motion and a second. Any further
discussion? >> Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Okay. Now we'll move on to item E. uh approve the second amendment to large industrial power agreement between Brainer Public Utilities Commission and
just for crypto. Uh this would be is it Paul? Is it >> Mr. Lock? >> Take Danny, take it away. >> Thank you, Mr. President. As part of our ongoing review and discussions with legal counsel and as we've been reviewing our large power agreements and
our a contracts, they recommended that we formalize an extended term with just for crypto uh and amend that contract so that it wasn't um just a automatic two-year extension, but we formalized the two-year extension just to avoid any
confusion. and that is what has been presented for commission's consideration. Um, since receiving this and putting in this packet, we have received the signed amendment from JFK. >> Okay. Thank you, Danny. Any questions
from the commission or is there a motion to approve? >> Well, so you formalize the amendment so and and adjustments if I recall can be made throughout the year, right? As Okay. But it um formalizing the amendment and renewing it, two different
things, right? I mean, they were not we come to conclusion at the end of that amended two years and we come back to the table and and decide whether or not we're going to amend for another extension, right? I mean, is there a a true deadline in the extension? >> So, we are there is not a true deadline
in the extension. So, we are supplying them power. We're required to supply them power as long as they remain in good standing. They've been in good standing. This was just a recommendation from legal counsel to formalize the extension which we had not done previously. >> I guess I'm just a a little uh confused
with contractual language with automatically renewing somebody's contract without having an complete term of a deadline or an ending time frame. So maybe you can >> So this does add a deadline. >> So this would
>> each time. So this is formalizing a deadline, but as they stay in good standing, we just have to continue to renew. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Deadline being the term of agreement. >> Yes. We're identifying that. Okay. >> Good question, Deli. Question. >> Um,
>> you always have good contract questions. >> But but I do have but I would like to make the motion to uh motion to recommend the motion to approve the amendment to the large power agreement. Do you want me to read it all? >> I think I know what you're getting.
>> All right. Thank you. >> All right. We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? >> Okay. Hearing none. Those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. >> Motion carries.
>> All right. Moving on to new business. approved professional services proposal with Bolton Bank for risk and resiliency assessments at the water treatment plant and wastewater treatment facility. >> Mr. Sandy, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so America's
Water Infrastructure Act or AWA, we'll add that to the uh the definition list. >> Thank you. >> Um, >> I knew you'd be good for another one. >> You got you got us covered. >> Yeah. requires that uh community water systems uh serving more than 3,300 people certify a risk and resiliency
assessment or an RRA um uh to the US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA um by June 30th, 2026. Uh subsequently after that submitt, we'll be required to submit an emergency response plan um for certification to
the EPA. Uh that requirement just ensures that public water systems are evaluating risks um to our our infrastructure um and uh service continuity and operational reliability. Um and that
that first res uh risk and resiliency assessment will help set the the the standard for our emergency response plan. So this uh these RAS look at multiple different types of risks like cyber security, like physical uh um
risks like tornadoes or um things that could happen to our water treatment plant or our distribution system that would affect the service we provide to the community. Um the nationally recognized benchmark for conducting these assessments is AW awa J100 and
it's a standard developed by the American Waterworks Association. Um it applies methodology on evaluating risk and functions of threat, vulnerability and consequences. Um the approach assesses both international threats and natural hazards as I was uh referring to
be before and defines them in terms of their overall risk to Brainer public utilities. um to complete the federally required assess assessment. Staff reached out to both Bolton and Mink and Samitech to create a scope of work to perform the RRA for the water treatment
plant because that is the only um facility that is required to have this RRA at this time and that needs to be certified by June 30th of this year. Um upon some further discussion at a staff level between myself and Charlie um we
see um on the horizon that this same RA is going to be required for our wastewater treatment facility. While it's not right now, um it certainly will likely be in the near future. Um there's some efficiencies we can gain here by doing both of these at once in the same
document. Um, we just had a meeting yesterday about starting to as staff talk about emergency preparedness and emergency response plans. And with our two major facilities at the water treatment plant and wastewater plant, these RAS and ERPs will be the first
step that we utilize to start sending up our internal emergency response plans. looking at the risks that are out there, what the priority of these risks are through these through this RRA process and then going through how we would respond as staff and as a community to
those risks. And so, um, as we kind of fold this all together, you know, we received the proposal from Samitech just for the water treatment plant. We reached that they do not do that service for wastewater treatment facilities. Um, so Bolton and Mink has submitted the proposal to complete both of the
assessments. Um however it is in the commission's um decision- makingaking authority to you know go a different route only do the one that's required right now um and take a step back on the wastewater treatment facility. Um you know uh Bolton and Mink's cost is a
little bit higher than what Samitech had in their risk and resiliency assessment. we see as the value that Bolton and Mink has brought our utility over the last five years as them having more of an understanding of how our operations currently exist. Samitech hasn't really
done any work for us. Um we've seen an example of Samitech's um uh something they provided for another community related to this RA and it it it meets the federal requirements. However, from a staff level, we don't feel it's indepth enough to get us what we need to
start thinking about emergency preparedness. And having someone that has been um through these facilities, have done asset inventories, knows our security systems, knows where our risks are in these facilities, I think sets us up well. So right now staff's
recommendation is to contract with Bolton and Mink to do both facilities, but certainly it's in the commission's um purview to um make a recommendation otherwise you know um if if the commission feels like we just want to meet the federally required mandate or
um if we take staff's recommendation um and doing both of these at the same time to set set ourselves up to start um really uh thinking about emergency preparedness with these two facilities. Thank you, Paul. Commissioners, any questions,
comments? What was the price difference in the two proposals? >> Um, so I think Samex was right around $17,000 for just the water treatment plant portion of the project. Um, Bolton and
Mink had their total $48,000 cost split evenly between the two facilities. Um, we did talk to Morgan about that. We we feel like if we do both of these at once, we're going to be a lot more efficient than what they have proposed here. Um so I I would say if we did one
of these with Bolton and Mink, they would probably at that $24,000 level. If we did both, we feel like we're going to be probably under that $40,000 mark. And so um you know, looking at these uh separately, you know, Bolt Limit would certainly probably be in that 24,000
range. Samitech's in that 17,000. But if we did them both collectively, both make would probably be under that $40,000 mark total. >> You believe that or you know that >> Morgan is here and he he could probably
speak to that a little more clarity, but >> speak. >> Yeah, sure. Yes, please. >> Yeah. So with risk and so Morgan Sale project manager Bolton mink um with risk and resiliency assessments and emergency response plans we've done several uh many of these for these medium-sized communities and um again water is the
one that's required by EPA. uh wastewater is not required but strongly recommended and and when we go through and do both we can gain some efficiencies in that process because you have a lot of the same combined information and doing the same there's a special tool that we use that we can
gain some efficiencies on as well when we look at the risk and res resiliency assessment uh portion and so instead of having to do that twice a separate times we can do that one time and and be a little bit more efficient with that process
versus separating these two and then doing them at separate times, separate reports, we can combine them into one living document that the utility can be can utilize. Um, and these are beneficial too if you ever get audited by the EPA. I've been involved in a couple of those and they do go through
this in in great detail. Um, and so having a more detailed, better laidout plan is going to be beneficial to the utility. >> I think to your question, um, it's also I see hourly not to exceed. So, I mean, you're offering us the the potential for
some savings, and to Paul's point, it's the efficiency of doing both. Yes, Jeff. >> Um, so when you go through and do this assessment and will you be looking at personnel requirements as far as like certifications or licensings and that
type of thing? And >> yes, that is that is evaluated as well. >> Okay. So, >> and looking into the future of what's going to be required with future improvements. So if we're um um lacking in an area, you can then let us know if >> Yes. Okay. >> Yep. There's a process that we go
through, evaluate, and with my experience going through with EPA, now I have a better understanding of the questions that EPA would ask and what EPA wants to see, and so we can have a thoughtful discussion and meaningful discussion with staff. >> Thank you.
I I personally like the idea of us being proactive on the proactive side of things and um just not reacting to what we have to do. So from my perspective, I think it makes a lot of sense to do both at the same time and I agree with the deliverables. We know what we can expect
with uh Bolton and make on this. So that's my that's my thought. >> I only have one question. Is this a new requirement? No, I I I think it's been around since 2018, Charlie. Correct me if I'm wrong on that, but I'm pretty sure it's been around for a while.
>> Uh since 2021, >> they they shot across and we've been working on it and uh we do have quite a bit of information. Uh again, I don't feel it's uh up to par and I don't I don't think we'll make it without uh having a consultation andor teamwork uh
on this. It's hard to make the time in the schedule. Um, and I think this will give us a better framework to uh get it done and completed and have a good solid base going forward and to work on. So the tabletop exercises we do them quite
often um it it it is it's not written it's not written. So when we look at the going forward and what we look at all these different acts whether it be cyber security mel mele anyways mll
>> put that on the put that on that sheet too >> yes please make any acronym >> so when we look at sabotage let's just use that one >> you know and we look at natural disasters floods and everything there it it gets way uh convoluted for for for us
to try to do it in-house without engaging Minwarn and and all of these uh other organizations to come and help. >> And I appreciate the work that staff probably has put a lot of time and effort into to to doing this already, which I think might already help Bolton
Mink in in conducting their um their assessment as well. Um but I'm on I'm on board with you as well. I think being it's better to be proactive, especially on the wastewater treatment plant as we look to um assess the needs of the wastewater treatment plant. it just seems to make the most sense um you know
when we're looking at being at capacity in some areas of of even that plant. Um what would what would we do in the event of I I appreciate that and I I I would lean towards I would lean towards doing both um doing both assessments at this time not to exceed $40,000.
>> Is there a motion? >> Yeah, >> that's not part of my motion. >> Oh, I'm sorry, Jeff. Yes. What's the um how how frequent are the assessments are how are they required to be done? How many? >> They're every five years, Jeff. So, we'll have to redo these and um update
our assessment based on improvements that we've done at both facilities to update our RA. This will create a nice template foundation for when we need to update it though, which will be the benefit of Charlie, to your point, having a
consultant help us get this thing set up and do a thorough analysis of it. So, I'm going to throw a acronym out there. So, SOP, so this is also helping us out with that, right? I mean, ultimately, it's a part of that and it's helping us formulate that. So, all right, one for Mike. I got one in there.
>> Okay. Is there a motion to approve? >> So moved. Okay, there's a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right, motion is second. Any further discussion? Okay, hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. Motion
carries. Item B, approved professional services agreement with Bolton Mink for professional engineering and construction administration services for the 2026 lead service line replacements project in conjunction with the city of Brainard's planned reconstruction of the
alleyway between South Sixth Street and South Seventh Street from Paul Street to Joseph Street. I had to take three breaths. >> Yeah, sorry about the length of that one. Just kidding. All right, Paul. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um so uh council leaison Chzach um received an inquiry
from a resident. Um this item has been through the city council as more of an update item and that the commission would be reviewing a proposal for services um for this lead service line replacement project. Um, so a little bit of a history, maybe more for Corey's
benefit is, um, the utility has, uh, completed a city-wide inventory of our, uh, galvanized, uh, or all of our service lines in the city to identify, um, locations of galvanized water service lines throughout the community. Um this is um kind of following an EPA
mandate to identify lead and galvanized water services in our communities and remove those lead and galvanized water services by 2033. So following the completion of that inventory um there was funding available through the Minnesota Department of
Health um and administered through the public facilities authority, the PFA for uh communityled service line replacement projects. Um the commission has already seen two of these contracts come forward. Um and we've broken most of
these these annual projects down into two separate projects. One is to replace the service lines that are in conjunction with city projects like city reconstruction and resurfacing projects. And the second contract um is ones that
you know uh based on our funding amount that we've received from the department of health which is around 2.6 6 million. We want to get as close as we can with replacements on an annual basis to get up to that threshold of $2.6 million. So
we have um this coming summer there are two projects in which we currently have under contract with Bolton Mink. One is for um the replacements of lead service lines in um for the city's reconstruction resurfacing projects in southeast Brainard and South Briner. And
then the other one is an area of northeast Brainer that has a very high density of lead service lines that we can um take advantage of economies of scale to take out as many of these as possible and still remain under that $2.6 million threshold. So, this project
came up um upon an inquiry from council leaison Chzach um about um replacing the 13 known galvanized water service lines along with a project that the city started last year. Um and that is in the Ronald and Joseph alley. That project
got pushed back a year from 25 to 26 because Joseph Street was being utilized as a detour route for the roundabout project that happened on Sixth Street and Willow Street. And so this project got pushed back and at the time that the
contract was entered into with more engineering to do the engineering services for the alley project, we had not had funding at that time to replace lead service lines. And so that went through a little bit of a process back and forth with the city council. At the
end of the day, Moore Engineering's contract did not have the scope of work to do the lead service line replacements at the same time they were reconstructing the alley. So as we look forward based on Councilman Chzach's inquiry, we talked with Bolton and Mink. We're we're kind
of running into a shorter timeline now. Um, the Department of Health requires that plans and specs get submitted to them by March 31st for certification before we go out for bids for any of our lead service line projects. Um, and
based on the inquiry, we had some internal debate as at a staff level to figure out if now was the right time to take on these 13 services with the Alley project or if we should hold off and wait for um another project upcoming. In our discussions with Bolton and Mink, we
do feel like there is room in our budget um of 2.6 million to do this project and get it completed while the construction is taking place in the alley. Um and the timeline is such that would suggest that
we would go to a different plan submitt requirement. And I think Dolly brought this up earlier about um going through the no plan submitt guidance and having um us selecting a contractor through a quoting process and then having the
contractor submit quotes for each individual home replacement on a case-byase basis as the contractor that's currently under contract to um reconstruct the alley is working on replacing the water man. So, these two projects would be going on in
conjunction with each other. We did reach out to the contractor. It's J&J Excavating that um is doing the water main project um in the alley. Um there seemed to maybe be some interest there. Um, you know, they have a couple of other big projects I think they're
working on in the area where they might not be as interested, but Bolton Mink did have some other contacts that they reached out to um that they did some projects up in Crosby utilizing this same process last summer um through the
no plan submitt um and at at this at this point in time, we feel like if if we're going to commit to doing these lead service lines with um the alley project that now would be the time to um to get them completed with the
construction of the alley. And at this time, we request that the commission approve Bolton Mink to um get the no plan submitt um over to PFA by uh the March 31st deadline. Um we as staff have
taken the coordination on with property owners. So um the property owners that were already in our two other contracts have received packets. They've started to sign agreements to get on private property and replace service lines. We as staff would take that internally on
for those 13 for this project just to keep the process moving. Consultants can get dragged down in that process trying to coordinate with individual residents and um and then they're just focused solely on getting the contract documents prepared and doing the construction
administration. we as staff would just take on getting the agreement signed to enter private property and get the project moving. Uh at last time we heard from J&J Excavating they want to start like as soon as they can. So I'm thinking like a May 1 start date. And so
I think if we want to commit to this project and get both the reconstruction of the alley done and the water service lines done at the same time, we would have to act on this today. Otherwise, it would have to wait until a future project. So that's kind of where we're at today. We are recommending that we
enter into this agreement with Bolton and Mink for um I believe it was right around $36,000 for the design, the contract packet and the construction administration for this project with staff taking on the coordination aspect of this work um to
get these service lines replaced with the construction project so we're not in there multiple times. >> I'll answer any questions from the commission. >> Thank you, Paul. Any questions from the commissioners? >> I just have a couple. Um, so it's just
the 13th. There's none in there that in this project that are unknown, correct? Or that haven't responded. So, we got it covered. It is 13. Yeah. Okay. And then, uh, what happens if they choose not to do it? And not just for this project, but for anybody if they've been identified, that the funding is there.
If they say, you know what, I just don't I don't want to deal with construction at this point. What What What's the process? Are we recording this or what? What? Tell me. Walk me through. >> We've done our due diligence at that point. And so if they've been presented the materials, you know, it's going to be no cost to them. Um we have the
funding right now. That funding is not guaranteed in the future. So if you change your mind um in the future, you denied it the first time, that funding might not be available the second time. From an MDH standpoint, we've met our obligation as a utility to tell you that you have a leader galvanized water
service line and we've given you the opportunity to fund the project at no cost to you and no cost to us as a utility. Um at that point, you know, we have the signed documentation that says that they do not want to participate in this project and that goes into our files and um we update with our mapping
um on our inventory that they did not want to participate and that cost will be on them in the future to replace that service line. >> That information um is on the statewide mapping, right? Correct. Does that information stay with that property? I don't think I've seen it where people
have denied um the project on the mapping system. So, I think that's more of an internal um maybe Charlie, you have different information, but I haven't seen that under that would still remain as non-compliant. And so until
that mapping goes away or until this is completed, it would still show up on that map if they chose not to do it uh as non-compliant or needing a replacement. >> So I just want to be clear in the communication with the property owner,
it is expressed to them that there is currently funding, but that we are not technically responsible for that moving forward. Um just so two years from now when people want to replace it and maybe there is no funding they can't come back and say but you did his my neighbor's
house right um and you guys paid for it. I just want to make sure we're taking our risk off of ourselves and that it comes back to Jeff's uh comment early on on this. When does this become a property disclosure statement for the property as they continue to move? You
know, if they want to sell it five years down the road, 10 years down the road, somewhere along the line, somebody's going to need to have a track record of where this data is kept. And I just want to know if that's what we're doing or if it stays with the state on that map. You know, it just continues to stay
non-compliant. >> I what I've been told in the meetings I've sat through is MDH is responsible for all of the reporting. So, we're the administrator of the project through MDH, but all the funding is coming through federal funds and going that we're just administering the project
from that because we're the public water supply, but all of the responsibility for reporting and everything will stay with MDH. We will still have that information in our logs as well, but the official documentation would be through MDH. >> Thank you. That's all I had. Appreciate
it. So, if I could um so the I think probably answers some of yours too, Dolly, but the this will be full replacement from our supply all the way to their house, not like just to the curb stop, right? >> Correct. >> So then in the future, if there was ever
an issue, anything from the curb stop to the house is always their responsibility anyway. >> Correct. >> So there would be no issue for future. Um and then timing wise, does it add weeks to the project, months to the project? what's what are we thinking it adds to the project right now?
>> Thank you for your question. Um it's really dependent on who gets the contract. So if J&J um is sincerely interested in this and they provide um quotes for these properties, um it might add a few weeks onto their project. We
think, you know, generally speaking, I've been through one of these before in the city of Princeton and they were getting at most two service lines a day. So you take that 13, you could say maybe a week. This is a more complex project because there's a lot of hard, it's a
fine corridor. There's not a lot of room to work. We have service lines that are under garages that need to get put into a different location and then and kind of run through the property in a different way. >> And so um it's dependent number one on who gets the work. If it's a separate
contractor, it might be a little more interesting from a coordination standpoint because you're going to have a water mane contractor bringing the water man through and then this separate contractor will be tying onto the curb stop they just put in and bringing a new service line in the house and a very tight constrained corridor. So, you
know, I think it would probably if it was a separate contractor doing both projects, maybe three weeks, you know, between them doing the service lines. If it was like J&J doing both, you know, it might be a week and a half or two weeks, you know. >> Okay.
>> Additional work. Will there be anything pertaining to timing in the contract whenever like not to exceed a certain amount or is it just >> We're going to have to be very detailed and if this goes through today we'll work with through that with Bolton the mink on you know contractor coordination
with the water main project that whoever gets the contract for the lead or the galvanized service lines is going to have to coordinate effectively with the water main contractor to as they have the hole opened up for the water service that they're working on. You have to be there that day, tie onto it, and bring
it into the house to make sure that we're taking advantage of the water man project with the galvanized service lines. Because if we have to go in there and dig up the water man, replace it, bury the water man, and then come back two weeks later to dig another hole at that same location, that's not going to
look very good for the city. So the contract specifications will certainly address that from a coordination standpoint and making sure that whoever gets the contract for the galvanized service lines knows that there's going to be a contractor in there replacing the water man at the same time.
>> Okay. And then last question. Sorry. Yeah. Too many today probably, but um just curious if the contract will state the condition the properties will be left in. I know it's been brought before the council several times about wrecking people's lawns. So is it is there
stipulation in there that says we'll bring it to exact or is it just rough finish or what's the contract state? >> So exteriorwide it's basically what was existing interior um the agreements that we send to these property owners that we're getting signed before we uh get
into the home. There's usually an interior inspection done by staff um to get existing conditions, but we're not replacing like woodwork, finished work, like um if it's like a finished basement, we're not going to return it to the same finishes as what was
existing. We'll patch holes in the floor. We'll do the necessary stuff to make sure that the water line is protected. We're not going to do specialty finishes in the basement to uh return that. Exterior wise, if you have a concrete step that we have to tear out, we're going to replace a concrete step. If it's grass, we're going to
replace it with grass and ensure we get the 70% growth back before we close the contract. So, exterior and interior are treated a little differently because it's so variable on the interior of homes of what you're going to run into. >> Okay. And that is in the con the agreement with
>> is in the agreement. Correct. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Mr. Chair, I would make a motion to Oops. I'm sorry, >> Jeff. Yeah. Go ahead, Jeff. >> Um, so I understand there's a $25,000 cap for each individual property. Is that correct? >> That is correct. And what what if
there's something that exceeds that? Is it on the property owner? >> I've never run into that situation. Um, council leazison, I most of these like the ones that I've run into in other cities have been between that 12 and
$15,000 mark. I think it's going to be a very extraordinary circumstance where we're in exance of that 25,000. And so we'll address that when the time comes. I I just don't feel like it's going to be a problem. >> And then one other question if I could. The um the question was raised is if
this service line project isn't completed this year when they redo the water line water main and the alley resurface. Um there was a fear of well once that alley is established and these service lines haven't been uh updated
it's going to eat into the alley to go back in for the property owner to replace their water service line. my I I not knowing um the the facts, I assume that the service line would not infringe on the new alley surface based
on where the curb stop would be typically on the easement still but not in the alleys. Does anybody know the answer to that? If there would be in certain circumstances the alley being disturbed once it's been installed or renewed and then the service lines
weren't done this year. Do you want to speak to those the trend because you were in the design process for the alley a little more? >> Great question, Jeeoff. I think that there's a few of those existing curb stops that are right on the edge of the bit. So, there is going to be some challenges there. And Mr. Sandy indicated earlier. There's a few of these that are underneath buildings um
and the really tight locations that it's going to be a challenge even to dig along them with the structures that are next to them. We're proposing to relocate those service stamp pipes and we'll put them farther into the rightway, but there is not a lot of easement there between that alley and those backyards. So, it's just one of those plots in the city where there's
just not a lot of room for us to play. So, we're going to be on the edge of the bit, but we're going to relocate those as best we can to not impact any surfaces as long as if we don't get this project done this time around. But, they're they're going to be we're going to be on the edge of it. I'll be honest. >> It would behoove us though to do it at the same time.
>> Absolutely. Um, and then I don't know if you know, but the EPA, the Trump administration agreed on January 20 or February 20th to extend this for 10 years, the water service line replacement, the small towns. I was just reading this here in the Epic News or
Epic Times. So, that's good news. I don't know if you guys knew that or not. >> I did not know that. I'll send this link to you guys later. But that's all I got. >> Thank you. Okay. Is there a motion to approve the professional services agreement? >> So moved.
>> Second. Motion a second. Further discussion? >> Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed same. >> Motion carries. All right. Now we're going to move on to holding a public hearing and adopt
resolution to approve and submit facility plan Brainard wastewater treatment facility. And Paul, do you want to get us kicked off here? >> Yeah, I'll kick this off here and kind of run through the history. So, we have been working with Bolton Mink over the last what, two years, Morgan, it's
probably been um to um look at our wastewater treatment facility and some of the uh deficiencies or shortcomings we have at that facility. And the first kind of portion of being eligible for um funding or lowinterest loans through the
Clean Water Revolving Fund or uh for uh grants administered through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is to complete a facility plan. Um this facility plan, we've been working with Morgan uh for a while on it now. Um we've been in front of the Joint
Wastewater Management Board um on multiple occasions presenting information to them. Um and more recently we were in front of both the Brainer City Council and Baxter City Council presenting this same presentation that you'll be seeing today. Um so uh at the joint wastewater
management board meeting on February 12th um they did um make a motion to basically move this forward to the city councils for a presentation and also the utility commission to hold what is required um for a public hearing and
this resolution which basically finalizes the facility plan and authorizes the submission to the MPCA for certification. So, um, both city councils were able to review this information. At the same time, we also got, um, consensus and
motions moving forward to, um, apply for Congressman Stabber's community funding projects. Uh, we re recently received an email from representatives of Congressman Stabber um, for community funding applications. Both city councils
agreed that a joint application for both communities would be a great idea as a priority for this uh funding cycle. Um the agreement was to apply for a $10 million um community funding grant through Congressman Stubbers's office.
Um so today we do have Morgan here. He is going to run through the presentation um that has been presented to the wastewater management board and both city councils. And then at that point, I think um if if it's okay with you, Mr. Chair, we would open it up to commissioner questions. We would open up
that public hearing and then uh finally, if there's any uh comments or questions after the public hearing, we get to the resolution after that. >> Okay, sounds good. Take it away. >> All right. Uh again, Morgan Sal, project manager, Bolton Bank. Uh some of you have heard this a few times, some some
people three times, I believe. Um we're going to talk through the facility plan for the wastewater treatment improvements today. Uh we're going to go through a little bit of summary. Um the purpose of this is for the public hearing uh requirement uh for the PCA to approve the facility plan uh by state
statute. We're going to talk through design flows and loadings. Current treat current treatment process what we looked at for liquid stream alternatives and bioolids alternatives and then the recommendations and cost opinions. facility was originally constructed 1982 was a class A facility, the highest
classification that wastewater facilities can can uh receive. Major improvements were completed in 2009 to add sequencing batch reactors and pre-treatment and other equipment improvements. Back in 2024 and 2025, we conducted an asset inventory of the facility uh that
identified bioolids are a high priority project due to the limited storage capacity and processing capacity at the facility. In addition to the bioolids, we also identified that when new limits are imposed in the facility, we need significant treatment changes on the
liquid stream. So again, addressing bioolid storage capacity and processing and then improving the liquids processing for future nutrient removal are two of the high priority items that were identified because we want to continue to support the community growth for the next 25 years.
uh the flows and loadings what we do for identifying flows and loadings and look is look at the historical uh data that we have for the facility and then we use design criteria to project that and growth demands to project that forward for flows and the organic and solids
loading portion of the facility. On the right hand side is our proposed 2050 design criteria for the wastewater treatment facility. Um showing modest increases in flow and loadings to the treatment facility. Currently wastewater comes in from both Brainard and Baxter
via lift station. The water that comes in is sent through a fine screen to remove large debris, followed by a grit removal process to remove the the heavier grit, sand, and particles from the waste water before being sent to the sequencing batch reactors or SBS. Um
that's the organic uh liquid treatment process at the facility. From the SPRs, the liquid is sent to you ultraviolet disinfection before being discharged to the Mississippi River. Solids are generated anytime we treat waste water. So the solids that are
generated in the biological process in the SBRS are collected and stored to WA or waste activated sludge holding tanks. From there the the solids are thickened. We're getting a thicker concentration before being stored and then sent
through digestion. Digestion is a process where the bugs continue to break down the uh the waste in a very specific environment. In this process, we are also converting uh we're creating methane gas that is flared off from digestion. Once the solids have been
broken down, we store those solids and then uh seven or eight months out of the year, we land apply those solids to agricultural and farm fields. Again, this is kind of highlighting from the facility needs that we identified during the condition assessment for the
facility plan and the asset inventory. Uh bioolids are a primary need. bile solids improvements. Um the MPCA requires 180 days of bioolid storage um when you're holding those bioolids once they've been digested. Currently, BPU
has less than 180 days. We're kind of tiptoeing the line. Historically, uh from 2014 to 2019 and again in 22, we did not have 180 days of available storage. So, we did not meet MPCA requirements. Disposal of the solids are done via land
application. So, we collect them in a truck. Charlie's team will go out and dispose of them on the fields. Um the current production rates that we're seeing, the storage volume, that makes land application challenging and difficult, especially if the weather uh
is adverse. We cannot apply to fields when they're frozen. We cannot apply to fields when it's too wet. Um land owners can pull their fields out of the program at any time. Um and so that limits our ability to be flexible with with the uh bile salts processing.
We also identified that current liquids processed the SBRS are not sufficient and set up for treating future uh nutrient limits such as total nitrogen of 10 milligrams per liter and a total phosphorus of 1 milligram per liter at the facility. And we also need to
perform system improvements um to maintain facility operation. that is electrical improvements to replace obsolete computer gear. Uh equipment improvements for equipment that is uh and process equipment that is exceeded its useful life of that 15 to 20 year range. And so those are the three
primary objectives of the facility plan. When we look at liquid treat treatment analysis, we want again have the goals of nutrient removal and we want to generate solids to get the solids out of the process so we don't have issues with our our violating our effluent permit limits.
We evaluated five treatment alternatives. Sequencing batch reactors, SBRs, which is the existing technology, activated sludge, biological nutrient removal, integrated fixed film, activated sledge, IFAS, membrane bioreactors, MBRs, and biologically
arrated filters, BAF units. Out of these uh alternatives, we whittleled these down to evaluating the two primary ones that would be um beneficial for BP to evaluate for long-term improvement needs. And that was SPRS and activated
sludge. A little bit about SBS. They treat waste water in batches. You have a tank. It there's a fill cycle, there's a react cycle, a settle, a decant or a draw cycle, and then an idle stage. We wait for the next batch to start. Um it's
used to uh perform biological removal and solids removal in a single process. Currently it does meet NPDS permit limits. Um however these SBS are not suited for large variations of flow or significant changes in loading. So if
you have a a load coming in that is uh variable from day to day or even hour to hour that can impact treatment due to the biology that's in these tanks and how you have to cycle them. It's inefficient for nitrification and phosphorus removal. Nitrification is one of the key elements um for removing
ammonia from the waist stream. We cannot discharge ammonia into raw waters that is toxic to aquatic life. And there's uh inefficiencies in the current process for that. Same thing for phosphorus removal. The the current process is inefficient at phosphorus removal. They require a large energy demand um because
you're changing this the condition and the the reactor so frequently with the different batches and there's limited operational flexibility and control with this because the technology and the equipment is proprietary and limited to what that manufacturer can give you uh
control of over the process. Activated sledge biological nutrient air removal is the most common process used in wastewater treatment. It is the process of treating waste in a series of tanks. So not a single tank. We have multiple trains of tanks that treats
waste water in a series. We add clarifiers at the end of this and to separate the liquids and the solids. And after the clarifiers, we often add filtration which allows for a tertiary treatment and additional removal of nutrients and solids to to polish the effluent even more. This again this is
the most uh common process. It's operationally um familiar to operators and staff and it's flexible. You can modify the biology. You can control the biology and it allows you to have flexibility over the treatment process. It's designed to meet uh future and
current uh limits for nitrogen, phosphorus, ammonia, and set be set up for other future possible nutrient limits that are enacted in the permit. And one of the advantages of of activated sludge systems um is that they can be retrofit into a lot of addition a
lot of tankage that you already have. Concrete useful life is 75 plus years uh typically and so we can utilize tankage that's already in place to convert to the activated sledge process. You're not limited to proprietary equipment as well. This is all vendor stuff that you
can get from multiple vendors. Controls are typically um with who the current systems integrator is is programming at the facility. So you have some flexibility and control over the operation. So in summary, SBRs require significant improvements to meet TN and total
phosphorus limits and there's no guarantee that they actually would meet those in the future uh due to the nature of how SBRs are actually uh uh treat the waste. Um you have restraints with the proprietary equipment and again limited flexibility. So our recommendation would
be when there's a driving limit, you would convert to that activated sledge biological nutrient removal process. Utilize uh the same tankage uh because there's enough volume there, but you would convert the process and have different series of tanks and and treat
the waste as it continuously flows in and out of the plant. This would be limit driven. So we're not saying you have to convert today. So when there's limits that would drive this, then you would convert to that process. It'd be optimized to meet your future limit needs. Operator friendly and it's known technology and you're not limited to
proprietary equipment. Mentioned earlier bioolids we generate solids anytime we treat waste. Currently again we digest land store land apply. So we looked at two primary alternatives for bioolids. One would be to keep the existing
process and adding additional storage since that was a main driver. The second one is conversion to a dewatering facility. We added future phases into the work because these would be future phases that would be driven by specific needs, but they all follow the bioolids
process from dewatering anyway. Heat drying and thermal destruction, um, thermal oxidation of the bioolids. Currently, BPU hauls solids out. They have about a thousand truck trips a year on average. Um, sites are about 10 to 15 miles away. It's over 24,000 miles a
year uh that they're hauling solids. So again, you have to take into account maintenance costs, diesel fuel, um you know, equipment replacement, stuff like that. And that's for the current sites. There's 1300 approved acres that BPU has with MPCA. Historically, they've applied to 3 to
400 acres. However, the last couple of years with the introduction of PAS monitoring in bioalt, MPCA has released guidance on land application rates for PAS. And so BPU um is in tier 2
practicing tier three application rates. So we're spreading the same amount of bios or more bios on on more acres. We're we're we're not condensing it to fewer acres. So we're utilizing about 50% of the available acres. Currently takes about three staff over 7 to 8
months to dispose of the solids. Again, if it's wet, if it's frozen, we can't apply the solids. It builds up in the tank and we have nowhere to store it. So alternative one looks at additional sled storage. We would keep all the processes we currently have now and add additional equipment to increase the
processing capacity when there's drivers to do so. So you'd add additional thickening equipment, additional storage, um, and you'd have to rehab all of the digesttor equipment and the gas flare equipment. That is very expensive from a capital cost. We'll see in a moment. We would also build almost 2
million gallon storage tank to hold the bioolids once they've been digested. and we'd have to add additional staff to the roster to make sure that we can process all these and get these solids out of the tank onto the land. Um you'd have additional equipment, truck lo uh load
out equipment, tractors for application of it. Um and again rehabbing those digesttors gets very very expensive because they're a very difficult piece of equipment to to rehabilitate. the impacts of digestion and land application. We look at what our future
solage production is um based on our our design criteria. We're estimating about 1,300 trips uh per year over 33,000 miles to dispose of solids once they've been digested if we go with alternative one. This is kind of our baseline as we
move forward and look at how does it compare to dewatering. When we look at dewatering, we would decommission the thickening building, the digesttors and all that equipment, and we would build a brand new building for dewatering equipment. That would be
something like a screw press or a centurfuge or two of the common uh uses to squeeze the extra water out of the solids. And we want to get it to that 20% which is to consistency of toothpaste. we would be able to utilize those other
tankage uh areas on the facility for for something else additional storage additional treatment um stuff like that. This provides a flexible option for BPU to move into the future to provide a sustainable solution for bioolids and and be set up to handle the loading of
bioolids that are expected. And again, alternative one, we can only land apply because of the nature of the solids and how they've been broken down and the consistency of them. Going to dewatering getting to 20% allows us the opportunity to be flexible and land apply, but in an emergency, you can also
be permitted to go to a landfill. So, you have some backup options for for disposal. On the left hand side is the 33,000 mi annually thous trips. On the right hand side of the screen is the implications of going to that 20% cake product. We cut our trips down to 150
trips or about 3,700 miles for land disposal, assuming we have the same sites and assuming they're at the same distance away. Future processes following dewatering would be heat drying. Heat drying creates a class A product. A class A product just means that the solids have
been broken down even more and there's been the addition of heat to dry it out even more. we can get to about a 90 90 to 95% dry product with heat drying that meets the classification of class A for MPCA.
The advantages of that is simplifies disposal. We can be more flexible on where we can apply, when we can apply and where it can go uh in terms of disposal between the land and and landfills. Um these processes typically
follow a dewatering. have to follow dewatering to get it to a certain percent uh dewatered and then go into drying and then you can dry the solids. This process would set you up for future thermal destruction um which I'll talk about in a minute. So if we look at the
impacts of land application when we dry the solids again left hand side 1300 trips 33,000 mi annually right hand side we dewater at 20% we go into a drier we get to 95% we're down to about 30 trips or 100 or 800 miles annually of annually
of transport costs and that's somewhat flexible based on how big of a storage you have um and how many solids are actually being produced now versus in the future. These again are all based off of 25-year projections. So when we look at all of these things
pulled together, recommendations, we recommend a phased approach to the facility improvements. Phase one would be to construct a new dewatering bioolids treatment process. So alternative to the bioolids and complete facility and system maintenance that would look like pre-treatment equipment
replacement because that's at the end of its useful life and other ancillary components at the facility for building roof replacement, electrical improvements and HVAC improvements within the facility. The second phase is limit driven. That limit driven process would be for future uh phosphorus
nitrogen limits. We would recommend conversion to the activated sludge biological nutrient removal process. um flexible, expandable, it's one of your best opportunities for getting grant dollars for the treatment change uh because you're having limits uh imposed and driving the changes. And then the third phase would be adding
heat drying to the bioolids process. Again, driven um by the the the reduction of available land or the need to reduce the amount of solids transported out of the facility. Cost opinions on on these, we have SPR and activated sludge. Total project
capital costs are you know for SB 58 to 70 million activated sledge in that 70 to 85 88 million um on& and M costs are important tools to look at when we evaluate treatment technologies when we look at the current um O andM for BPU
based on the historical data it's about $5.2 $2 million per year. When we look at both of these technologies in the future, moving and looking at what it's going to take to actually operate these, both of them actually have similar O andM costs um on an annualized basis uh
dollars per year. A lot of that cost um what we're seeing increase is due to chemical uh requirements for a lot of phosphorus removal and other polishing chemicals that we would want to add to the facility. um maintenance, staffing and then additional utilities to run the
equipment. For bioolids, we can see we have again four um alternatives up there. Expand existing dewatering. We're a one and two. Heat drying thermal would be the future phases. We can see the total project cost for expanding the existing
and rehabing the digesttors is significantly more expensive than conversion to a dewatering facility. Again, that's due to the nature of these digesttor the equipment that goes into it. There's a lot um dewatering costs would be in the 25 to $32 million range um for a budget capital or total project
cost. Current O and M again is 5.2 million. That's water or that's that's liquids and solids treatment, right? So those are combined. When we look at additional O&M, when we look at the expanding the existing, we're projecting over $600,000 in additional O andM that would have to go into that process each
year. When we go to dewatering, we're expecting a a significantly smaller increase in additional onm because you're trading some utility costs for some staffing costs um and other utilities and and energy costs with that and you're decreasing and simplifying the process. So still an increase in
on&m however not near as significant. um these increase again staffing, maintenance, utilities. I want to be clear, the drying and thermal destruction costs, um those additional costs are estimated to be added on to
that dewatering cost because they're new processes. They're not something that's replacing something else right now. It's an additional process that would be additional O andM in in the facility. So when we look at O andM we we have $100,000 for alternative to uh $500,000
give or take for the the activated sludge um BNR process. So total for estimated additional ONM is about $600,000 per year. We broke this down into the phased improvement um estimated cost range. So we have again phase one is pre-treat
bioolid and ancillary facility improvements. That phase one cost is about 41 to $42 million um total project cost. Phase two improvements are in that $76 million range. When we look at rate impacts for wastewater treatment facility um
improvements, again this this is treatment components only. There's a lot of other stuff that goes into the billings for um both Brainard and Baxter. This is for the treatment portion only on the bill. uh we look at the phase one improvements and we add in the current O andM existing debt service
annualized cost for the improvements we can expect that the average user uh would have a a cost on their bill of $5345 for the wastewater treatment and then with phase 2 improvements the the
average user would have a cost of $80.85 on their bill. Um, this is projecting things out assuming there's debt from phase one still in phase 2. Um, so again, these are budgetary numbers utilized to help utilities set and cities set the rate structure for the
improvements. Funding sources, they're important way to fund a lot of these projects. Clean water revolving fund. I mean, we're going after all these funding sources and the first step is this facility plan. It's a low interest loan, 20 to 30year term, typically in that 1 to 2%
range. Um, PAG grants are a grant 80% of the eligible project components up to $12 million. PAG are driven by limit. So when you get a limit, you can go after PIG grants. WIFF funding is affordability based. So if your rates have to be increased above a certain
criteria uh that triggers WIFF grants so that it's not a hardship for residents, that is a cap of $9 million. There's sitting at city bonding, capital state bonding requests through the MMB portal assessments and congressional spending dollars which we are working with uh
Congre uh Congressman Stabber on his application. So today we have the public hearing. You guys will hold the public hearing and then after the public hearing, we'll close that and adopt the resolution to formally uh adopt the facility plan and submit to PE uh Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. That
will include the project priority list application. And then we will follow that up with the intended use plan application when that application opens in May uh of this year is what we're being told. From that we would get the preliminary uh facility plan approval from MPCA and
then we would recommend diving into a design preliminary engineering and design for a phase one project uh this summer. You could work through that this summer. Um there are options to go Seamart to kind of build that project together with the contractor. And then final design would be 2027 bid and start
construction late 27 early 28 which fits in in line with the the capital improvements plan for bios improvements for BPU. In that time we would want to continue to manage and evaluate the limits to develop that matrix for when does it make sense to convert to activated
sledge. And with that I will take any questions. >> Thank you Morgan. >> Yes. Just uh quick question or clarification and a lot of the questions that arose during the joint wastewater management board and the city council
meetings were related to the timing of phase 2 improvements. Morgan. >> Yes. >> And how that process works from a PCA standpoint and what that kind of runway looks like for >> Yeah. So being limit driven um your permit for the wastewater plant and
Charlie you can correct me if I'm wrong here. It's it's renewed every 5 years. And BPU's current permit is is slated for it's got to be renewed by February of 27, I believe, and you have to start that process 6 months before that. So, sometime fall of 26, we start the
process to renew the permit. When that permit is open, MPCA can add limits to that permit. Um, they've released a nitrogen guidance plan or nitrogen action plan in the state of Minnesota to reduce nitrogen in receiving streams from point sources. There's a pause on
that right now, but it's still in the works. They're still developing that process and how they're going to implement the uh total nitrogen limits within the states. Um and so with the permit process, we would anticipate um in talking with staff and and Baxter
Brainard and and MPCA, we would anticipate that the first permit cycle, you might get some compliance or you might get some language in the permit to say you got to start looking into nitrogen. that next permit cycle we could possibly be getting a you're on the monitor only and then that or you
could get a compliance schedule for meeting a nitrogen limit. So we're anticipating in that 10 to 15 year window roughly before phase 2 would need to be uh met or completed actually um before you have a nitrogen limit that you actually have to meet. And so when
we look at that actually meeting it that doesn't mean you have 15 years before you have the plan ready. That means you're meeting it in 15 years. So then you have to back that out of three years of construction, a year or more of design possibly, and then a few years of of funding support um to meet that
timeline. >> And then one other question and clarification, if you could go back to the rate slide. Um so I just want to be clear to at least commissioners. I think um the council members I think were clear on this after they left the council meeting, but that
existing budget. So right now an average user and I think we have some standard criteria like um I don't remember what we use for per month usage >> it was like 3,000 or 3500 gallons a month. >> So your average residential user right or right now would have a bill of around
$36 a month >> for the treatment only. >> For the treatment only. Correct. And so we would foresee that bill going up to about $54 a month but that is also um a portion of Brainard and Baxter's cost too. Correct. Yeah, because that's the average user. Yeah.
>> That generates waste water to the the system. >> And another clarification during our joint meeting was that this was without any >> no grand dollars. >> Nothing. >> Yep. This would be if if uh the utility funded this through cash reserves,
bonding and rateayer um expenses. that I mean just in that difference there the 35 to 53 does that qualify for that whiff or whatever that the 9 million it was the percentage difference if it it increase so much >> there's a strong chance that it would we
have to go through and do the actual calculation with PFA um and you're not guaranteed the whiff dollars until you bid a project because they take that asbid uh cost into account um and then it we have to look at what the uh median household income is and what the current
rate payers are paying um for that. There's a strong chance that there's some affordability grant would kick in. >> Don't rely on it, but there's a strong chance. Okay. >> Yeah. >> And so this is what ultimately this as we the plan is really what both the city
of Brainer and Baxter with the joint meeting have kind of determined would be the best route moving forward. >> Correct. That is correct. >> I know you guys met a lot and went over this and I don't know how many times you made this presentation but number four. >> You know it. You know it up. >> Sounds like you have a crown. You do >> love to throw out something to just catch you.
>> I tried to do as many acronyms as I could, but >> So, just out of curiosity though, and you you probably would be the best person to answer that is did the did was there a lean toward um this particular program because it could be retrofitted. And I think what I recall from sitting
in some of those meetings was that those other three options, there was a lot of equipment that just once it reached its useful life, there was no replacing it. I mean it and it was quite expensive. Yes. Like >> right around 100. >> You're talking the liquid stream alternatives. Yeah. So I I if um the
integrated fix film activated sludge, you're adding a plastic media to to the waste water. It's the same activated sludge process as alternative 2. It's the exact same biology. We're just manipulating it in a way that it can grow a little bit faster. Um but again, that's additional equipment. And when
you have to replace those plastic media, it's got to go to a landfill somewhere and then you have to buy all brand new media. There's no there's no cleaning it. There's there's not fixing that, right? So, there's just no cost with that. The MBRS are membrane reactors, so they can work great. They work great when they work, but when they don't,
it's it's they don't work. Um, and their equipment is a very expensive and the O andM is significantly more. And then the BAF units, uh, it they use like the styne, I call them dip and dots. They look like dip and dot beads in there. It's an upflow reactor. Um, and uh,
those have a high energy cost, but you also have to add primary clarifiers and and treatment before the bath units, which is significant expenditures. >> I'll never eat dip and dots again. >> You're welcome. >> I thought my toothpaste comment. >> That was a good one.
>> Um, Mr. Chair. >> Yes, Jeff. >> Uh, so if we go to phase two, do we get rid of the bugs? >> Are the bugs eliminated with phase two? You're talking the in the treatment process? >> Nope. It's the same. It's biology is the biology. >> Okay.
>> Yep. Because the activated sludge in and of itself is the biology. >> Okay. It's just the environment in which the bugs are contained. It's >> different. Correct. >> We look at it from a lot of different lenses. And there's a lot of bugs we care about and some we don't want to have. >> How many bugs do we got? How many
different type? >> A lot. >> There's there's specific groups of of bacteria that we want to see. Um, and there are specific ones that we don't want to see that indicates an upset in the system. Um, or there's uh uh somebody dumped something in the sewer
that took out all the good bugs. >> Dip and dots. >> Dip and dots. >> Yeah. And do we have any other uh questions, comments from commission? Okay. So, now we will open the public hearing. Correct, Paul? Okay. All right.
So yeah, thank you very much, Morgan. So at uh 10:38, we will hold a public hearing um for anyone in the public that would like to ask any questions of this topic. So
is there anybody here that'd like to make any comments, ask any questions? >> Aren't they lined up outside the corner of the city hall? The dip and dust thing has to get people asking questions. >> Maybe I'll entertain you for >> sure. Yeah, thank you. Please come
forward. Yeah. >> Uh, good morning. Uh, Reed TC. I'm a Brainer and Crowing County resident. Uh, just happened to be here for previous uh, subjects, but just wanted to ask a question. How much methane is generated in the in the process? >> You mentioned methane and a methane
flare >> currently. Is it significant amounts of methane or or insignificant in nature? >> So, was it 3 years ago we went in with uh region five um to look at that uh methane production and it wasn't enough
to generate any electricity or anything like that. So, we did our due diligence >> getting to this point >> was going to be my follow-up question. Did you ever explore methane generation and and taking advantage of uh carbon tax credits at all? And I didn't know what kind of amounts. Obviously, it has to be significant. My time at Crowing
County, the landfill has methane generation um on site out there and it just kind of sparked a little bit of a a history from uh back in my day. So, wanted to ask it. >> Yep. >> Absolutely. Thank you. >> Thank you, Reed. >> Okay. Are there anyone else anyone else
here with any comments? >> Okay. There is. >> There's no one. >> There's no one online. Okay. All right. With that, we will close the public hearing at 10:40. And is there a motion to approve? >> So moved.
>> Okay. There's a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. Motion to second. Is there any further discussion? Okay. Is this roll call or roll call? Okay. Uh all right. Roll call, please. >> Was >> yes. >> Jay, >> yes.
>> Angler, >> yes. Okay. Motion carries. So, we will now move on to staff reports. City administrative report. Mr. Broyals. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, just want to make one comment to Morgan. I've seen
this presentation a few times. And I got to thinking if I was blonde, considerably younger, much smarter, and full of energy, I think I could stand in for you and give this presentation. So, but but we do we have very talented staff. We have very talented
consultants. So, thank you for presenting. Um, I >> think you could fool me with everything there. Just get up and try it. >> I But the one thing I'm missing is I did not sleep at a holiday in last night. So, I can't do it. I can't do it. No, they do a great job. Um, the only thing
I want to call out, my written update is attached. The only thing I wanted to call out was just some activities coming out of the charter commission. Um, I think most are aware, but the charter commission did vote unanimously to advance a proposed charter to the city council. That will be presented
presented as too strong of a word. That's going to be in the packet for Monday for city council to formally get their eyes on it. And I'm going to be asking city council to direct staff to perhaps set up a special meeting with the city council and the charter commission to discuss that. and that will give the city council plenty of
time to review that and formulate uh formulate questions and comments etc. That's the only thing I wanted to specifically call out but I'm happy to answer any questions you have Mr. Chair. >> All right, thank you very much. Anybody have any questions for the city administrator? Okay, thank you very much. Move on to
the council leaison report. Mr. Chzog, >> thank you Mr. Chair. I um I did ask a question here. I don't know, it must be a couple weeks ago now about the uh the what do we call it the solar project down at Rotary Park. And um I
don't know if you all remember what happened there. This U commission did approve that last agreement which gave the maintenance and repairs and uh decommissioning of those solar panels to the utilities. And uh the city council
did vote that down, but the Rotarians have moved forward with the original agreement that included their cost would be uh the maintenance and the repairs and the decommissioning I think is the right term. So that that is underway if
uh the rest of you don't know that. So, uh, I found that to be, uh, encouraging that they're willing to move forward with that, uh, the the burden being on them for the future maintenance and any costs associated with it. So, that's all I have though other than that. So,
>> great. Thank you for that update. >> Questions, I'm willing to answer those, too. >> Okay. Any questions for Jeff? All right. Thank you, Jeff. We'll uh with that, move on to HR report. Britney, >> thank you. Um, my report is attached and
I have nothing for further to report on. >> Any acronyms you want to throw out there? >> No. >> I got a question. >> Yeah. >> I I don't know. Um, you'd mentioned the uh the drinking content water. I better clarify water.
Did you put that in your report? Is that where >> the rethink your drink challenge that we are? Yes, it is in the report. >> So, maybe you can answer this. I hope I'm not putting you on the spot, but last year I was invited to participate. This year I wasn't. I want to know why. >> Oh. Um, well, they do not have that
answer for you. I'm assuming that the city council wasn't in the email that was sent out and I apologize for that. We could have used your your water drinking numbers for sure. >> I I I think I knocked it out of the park last year. I was kind of disappointed,
but >> oh well. Well, next year, Jeff, I apologize for that. >> Yes. >> All right. Any other questions? >> Okay. Thank you. Public Utilities director report. Paul. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have nothing
additional from what's in my written report this or this morning. This afternoon. >> Yeah, this morning. Still got a little bit. Okay. Any questions for for Paul? Very thorough reports. That's
awesome. A lot lot going on, that's for sure. Okay, thanks Paul. Uh, finance manager report. Danny, >> thank you, Mr. President. I do have a couple items to add from my report. Um, first, I need to give an apology to Commissioner Higgins. I did not notice
the meeting correctly, so he was planning on attending via the interactive technology and we were not able to make that happen. Um, second, for the payment processing credit card transaction fees, we in my report we stated that we didn't know the shipment or delivery date of our credit card
processing machines. They have arrived finally. So, we are working and moving forward with that. We are having some challenges getting um Tyler staff to set up a meeting for our implementation, but we are told that
that is the top of their priority and we expect to hear something back this week. Uh it's been an ongoing process. Um we are moving forward on getting some quotes for an electric cost of service study and we expect to have something for commission to consider uh either
March or April's meeting. The audit is underway. The auditors will be here next week. Um so they may reach out to you for an interview. Uh Commissioner Jay, welcome. I don't expect them to reach out to you in the first week you're
here, but um Commissioner Wusso or Commissioner England, I expect them to reach out to you and I will help coordinate any meeting times you need. I know they're scheduled to be on site Tuesday. That is when they're looking for your time.
>> Next Tuesday. >> Next Tuesday. Yes. >> Could there be a uh email maybe that goes out about anticipated time frames of when that could take place? Yes, they'll they'll email you asking for availability. It's usually a 20-minute interview. Perfect.
>> Um with some questions. >> Great. >> The unodudited financial statements are included in the packet. We'll have audited numbers as soon as the audit is completed. And with that, I will answer any questions. >> Okay. Thanks, Danny. Any questions
>> other than my angry writing of I would expect some sort of type of credit or compensation for the delay d if I to just keep reading. I appreciate that you have discussed that already. So, yeah. No, I I do get frustrated. I feel like that was just a flatout lie. Um, and I I
just I struggle working with somebody that won't be truthful and honest with you. So, appreciate that. >> They definitely feel the pressure. >> Glad you put the hammer down. >> Okay. Any other questions for Danny?
All right. Thank you. Operations Manager report. Uh, one quick addition to my written report. I just wanted to notify uh, Commissioner Wau that we will be attending March 6 to the career exploration day. >> Yes. 1,200 kids come through that school.
>> Staff is excited to be there and uh, we're looking forward to it. >> Awesome. Glad glad we're going to be a part of it. Thank you. >> That's it. Unless there's any questions. >> Um, are yes. Are all the gener besides bay three are are we functioning full capacity? Are we down otherwise just or
just working on three? >> Great question. We're down on generator 3 right now for maintenance. Um we are unable to run the other units right now due to water conditions. So we have one and two running. Um we're hoping for some snow to melt to get those other ones operating and that's where generator 3 will really shine for us when we get that high water. We're
hoping to have that repaired mid-March here. >> Thank you. >> Okay, any other questions for Trent? Anybody from out east calling for some help or >> not yet. I was surprised. I thought we would get people reach out, but not yet,
>> but we're willing and ready if if the call comes. >> Okay. All right. Water wastewater manager report. Charlie, >> thank you, uh, President Commission England. Um, I don't have anything more to add. Um, we are in the middle of
rebuilding, uh, SB4. Um, if anybody wants to go and see how that is handled, by all means, contact me and we'll you'll see parts. >> How long does that take? >> I'm hoping we we will at least get it up
and operational within two weeks from tomorrow. >> Okay. Well, thanks for extending the invitation. That would be interesting to see. >> Yeah, absolutely. Okay. >> The tanks will be open, the pumps will be tore apart, and you get to >> kind of see what goes into that.
>> So, speaking of that, uh, with our our new commissioner, is there a Okay, you're going to speak to that. Okay. >> Yeah, I was actually. >> Okay. >> So, we recently, uh, Britney and the new HR assistant, Ashley, stopped over last week and um, I did give them a tour of the wastewater treatment facility.
>> I've gotten some interest from other department heads that have not been through that tour. Uh, Connie has not been through that tour, which is surprising given her tenure here. Um, and so I I'm going to try to set up a tour of basically all three facilities and I'll be extending that invite. Um,
if we have a lot of interest, we'll have to think about noticing and things, but um, you know, try to get, you know, staff that are interested in looking at these facilities along with commission members and council members at that time. So, um, it's generated interest. you know, our dam uh tour that's on the
website has certainly generated interest, but um you know, I think you know, those types of tours even, you know, I think Britney could probably speak to it. Um you don't understand what goes on in those facilities until you see the size and scale of of the equipment and things that are uh
treating our wastewater and our water in our community. So, um, that's something I'll be working on here in the next few weeks and trying to, um, send out a feeler to see how many people would be interested in that. >> And then setting up a a day where or maybe a multiple days where we could, um, um, congregate commission, staff,
and council to um, tour these three facilities. >> It's a great idea. Thanks for willing to take the time to do that, too. >> Yeah, that's awesome. >> Was it eye opening, Britney? >> Yes, very much so. And I would definitely attend again.
All right. Any questions for Charlie? >> Okay. Hearing none. All right. Commissioner member reports. >> I have none. >> Thank you. >> Start with Corey. What do you think? >> Great first meeting. No report. >> Well, thank you. No, I'm really excited to have you on board. So, thank you for
being here. Dolly, nothing. Is that what you said? >> I have nothing. I was I I meant to attend uh the meeting at CLC last night. Um uh but I totally spaced it off. It was uh trying to remember the gentleman's name. It had uh now I have to look at my phone. Anyway, had
something to do with uh power regener power at uh what level? It doesn't matter, but I missed it. I don't know if you guys knew about it. Anyway, I'm sure it was a good presentation, but I just missed it. So, apologize. But I want to also extend a great big thank you to
staff and to the charter commission for knocking out knocking out the work in the charter. That was that was a lot of work for them. So appreciate that. >> You bet. All right. I don't have anything. So is there a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Okay. Second. >> Second.
>> All right. Motion to second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. Those oppos same sign. >> Meetings adjourned. Thank you everybody.