June 30th, Public Utilities Commission Agenda meeting to order, and we will do a roll call. Please. Bayless here. J. Here. Warsaw. Here. Anglin here. Let's all stand for the Pledge
of Allegiance, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
All right. We'll move on to the approval of the agenda. Is there a motion? So moved. Second. Okay. Motion. And a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say aye. Aye, aye. Those opposed? Same sign. Motion
carries. We will move on to consent calendar. So 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 of the Commission. Votes
on the motion to be adopted by roll call, and we are looking for a motion to approve approval of bills, approval of minutes, and recommend surplus items for auction. Vote to approve second. Motion and a second. Any
further discussion? Hearing none. Roll call please. Bayless. Yes. Jay. Yes. Wausau. Yes. England. Yes. Motion carries. All right. We'll move on to the 2025 audit presentation.
All right. Good morning everyone. Good morning. Good morning. All right. So my name is Eric. I'm with Clifton Larson Allen the financial statement auditors I'm here to present the results of your 2025 audit. So the
first thing we'll cover is just the agenda on the next slide. So we'll go over our required communications. We'll go over the results of the audit the financial results and then cover key issues. In summary, just put the year into final bullet points. So on the next slide is our required
communications. So under the generally accepted auditing standards primary responsibility is to provide an opinion on the fairness of the presentation of the financials. We do look at your internal controls around accounting functions. We take a risk based audit approach. And then based on the results of our internal
control testing, we determine scopes and then look at a specific number of transactions based on those thresholds. So we can't really look at everything, but we give reasonable assurance that things are running smoothly. We communicated our plan to scope and timing of the audit in our statement. Work. Your financial
policies are outlined in note one, and we didn't have any unusual or new accounting standards to take account for in 2025, so it was generally easier, which is nice for us. Next we did look at our the management's accounting
estimates and judgments on the next slide. Uh, there were no unusual or unsupported estimates. There were no material corrected or uncorrected adjustments that we had. Our disclosures were adequate and clear, and then there were no disagreements
with management. And then lastly, on the next slide. So we didn't know of any consultations with other accountants. There were no major issues discussed prior to the audit. And then we did not have any difficulties with management. Everything was readily available when we asked for it, and management was
cooperative. So very easy. Audit. Next we'll look at the audit results. So overall we did have a clean unmodified opinion which is the highest level of opinion we can give. We didn't have any findings to report for internal control testing. So very good and legal
compliance. We have a kind of a seven area that we look at. It's 25 page list of questions dealing with claims and disbursements, debt, the bid processes. We only had one thing to report which was you did have a couple late payments throughout the year. So you have a 35 day window from receipt of getting an invoice.
Uh, a couple of those did go over the 35 days, but you did pay interest as required by state statute. Next we'll look at financial results. So this is the overall utility as a whole. So all departments combined you can see that revenues that top line have
increased as well as expenses over the last five years. But overall you do have a positive change in that position for each of the last five years. On the next slide is looking at the buckets by department for revenues. So electric, water and wastewater. You can see
that they're consistent between the two years. Uh so no major changes. The next one is looking at expenses for the utilities. Again very consistent between the two years. So no nothing really crazy happening this year.
Ask a question. Yeah. Mister chair. Yeah. Go ahead. Sorry. Um, you talk about invoices, some being late and interest was paid on those. Um, why do we have late invoices or why are we paying invoices late? And what is it cost by from for
being late on accumulative on all of those. You know. Well I think it's 0.125 or 1.25%. Mr. president. Yes. Go ahead. So if there's a 1.5% charge on any late invoice by day, up to
a minimum, depending on the transaction, it's a $10 maximum charge on interest and 1.5% for anything that's over 35 days late. The couple instances where we were 35 days late, they were just on, uh, in transition for directors. They
were just on someone's desk. Didn't get to the right, uh, process in the timely manner. Um, as required by statute, we did make the payment and the interest payment as required by state statute. Uh, we have had this happen now for the last two years. That is why we moved
forward with the AP. Module, the AP automation module. That was what we brought to commission a couple of months ago, that in our hopes that these don't proceed. Um, do you have a total dollar amount affected then by those late? I do not, but.
I do, I do not. Off the top of my head, Jeff. But I can look it up. That's okay. Um, so we should be able to clean it up with the software we got? Yes. Okay. Typically when we do the late payment to the vendor, the vendor goes, oh, we're not given, we're not taking it. And then they credit it back to us anyway. So so there's just interest.
There's no penalty. Correct. It's just interest. Yep. All right. Thank you. Sorry about the interruption. No worries. Any other. Questions? Okay. On the next slide we are going to start looking at departments individually versus the electric department. Uh you can
see increased revenues and expenses over the last five years. You did have positive change in net position for each year. You did have an increase in December of 24. And then, I'm sorry, September 24th for electric. And then in June of 25 driving those revenues. Uh,
and then there was an increase to the charge for your purchase power adjustment. So that's what was the main driver of that increase in expenses, looking at on the next slide, the cost and revenue per kilowatt hour sold. Uh, you can see that you did have an increase from last year because
of those rate increases. The cost per kilowatt hour sold out also increased because of that purchase power. But overall positive and generally consistent with the last year. So no concerns from the audit standpoint. Next is looking at the water operations. Uh, you
did have a 20% increase in December of 24. So we did see a big increase in revenues from that. There were no rate increases in 25. And even though you did have a lower quantity of gallons sold, you did, which caused the expenses to go down. Because of that rate increase, you did have an
increased revenues. And over the last few years you had had have had a positive change in that position, which is what we like to see. Next slide is looking at the margin for the water department. So because of that rate increase, we did see the revenues go up. But overall expenses did stay pretty much
the same because there were no changes. So increase the margins is always a good thing to see. Next is looking at the wastewater again. You had a couple of rate increases one in December of 24, one in June, first of 25, leading to those revenues going up did have a
higher quantity of gallons process. So that's why expenses did go up to. But overall for the last three years you have had a positive change in that position. And then now looking at the margin for the wastewater department, cost and revenue per thousand gallons
process because of those rate increases, the revenues did go up. Expenses did go down because you get increased efficiency, because you've had improvements to your operating infrastructure. So did have an increase in your margin over last year, which is really good.
On the next one, we're looking at your total net position. So essentially at the end of the year. What is the equity retained earnings in your utilities. That top line that's your investment in capital assets. So that's your infrastructure driving your operations. So you can see it's increased over the last few
years as you continue to invest. Bottom two lines are restricted and unrestricted. Generally these are kind of the remaining amounts of what you can use for your general operations in the coming year. Overall, you have had an increase in each of the last five years. And, uh, so nothing
too concerning from the audit standpoint. Next slide is looking at your total cash and investments. So you can see you've had a decrease over the last five years. But that's because in 21 you had about a $5 million bond issuance. 23 you issued a couple more bonds.
And in 24 and 25, you did have bond issuance as well to help finance the projects that are ongoing. But they weren't as substantial as those last 1 in 21 and 23. So no concerns. But you have had a about a $1.2 million increase compared to
last year for overall cash. Next slide. Do apologize. We we missed some headers. So going from left to right it's electric water department wastewater then general admin and construction progress. You can see this is the total uh balances of capital assets for
each of the departments. You can see over the last five years you've increased each of the most of the utility departments from infrastructure distribution system, your lift stations, your pump sub pump repairs. So overall that going
back a couple of slides that your net investment as it continues to increase. You can see that here as well. And then the last couple slides. So just general financial highlights electronic or electric revenues increased due to an increase in
usage for residential and commercial. And you had those rate increases. But just because of the purchase power going up as well, you did have about a $17,000 less operating income than last year. Water revenues increased. And so you had an overall operating gain
of about $330,000. Wastewater revenues increased about 70,000, but expenses increased to of 370,000. So overall, you had an operating loss of $430,000. But after your non operating revenues and expenses like sales tax, interest
revenue and expense, you did have a positive $1.5 million change in that position. So you're kind of supplementing those with those non operating revenues. On the next slide from high level go forward a
couple of slides. One more. So overall you had an increase in cash from operating activity for about 6.9 million this year compared to 5.3 million positive last year as additions were about $5.5 million this year, compared to 6.6 last
year. But that kind of just changes based on the projects you have ongoing each year, and overall, you did have a positive cash, uh, cash flow. You had about $1.7 million of bond issuances this year and overall that I mentioned earlier, you had an increase in cash of about $1.2 million. And
on the last slide, just high level electric had a positive change, but it was lower than last year, but still positive. So no concerns. Water had a change increase of about 500,000 or this year, compared to 70,000 last year. And
wastewater had a higher change of one of about 1.7 million, compared to 1.65 last year. So in general, we always advise to monitor your margins. As we talked about in the last few slides, you're either increasing or consistent with last year. So overall very
positive from our standpoint. But as always continue to monitor your rates for each department. That was all I had. Any questions for anybody. Ma'am Mr. chairman. Yeah. Go ahead Jeff. Um, I'm not sure if, um, you can help me with this. And I know I've had a
little feedback from Danny regarding our, um. I don't even know what the terminology is called. Where we are now charging people when they use a credit card or a debit card. And, um, I believe that was set up, if I'm not mistaken, in
2024, we looked at potentially having over half $1 million in revenue, and we didn't get anything. And then, of course, for 25, we estimated for this year to have, I think, 600,000. And I don't even know if that's gotten implemented. But where does that show up in your audit
to show that we did not collect the revenue as anticipated from what we were going to collect on the credit card fees, is that is that someone coming to play with your audit? It does not really just because, I mean, we talk with management. Danny, when did
that I know you had troubles setting it up, but when did it actually go into effect. So it went into effect. So we started collecting in 26. So commission made the announcement in 2024. We went back and forth with um our credit card processor that came
to 2025, and we selected the credit card processor. And then they weren't able to implement until 26. But that is all in the operating expenses. So that would show up in the operating margin of the revenues and expenses. So by the end of this year, we should have the
revenues from the credit card. Transaction fees will just offset the expenses that we have. So we so when we allow people to use our credit card, we are charged. Correct. And then in turn, we're charging them.
Hopefully we're going to capture more than what we're being charged. Is that correct? No. Our goal is to just capture what we're being charged. Yes. Just to make it a wash. Yep. Um, but when did that actually get initiated? This year. That that we started collecting revenue from people using their. Current March of 26.
Okay. All right. I didn't know if that was something you looked at or not. That's why I asked. It would be part of our redevelopment expectations. And just because it didn't happen in 25, we don't add it to our expectations. So what count for it next year? Okay. Any other appreciated Danny. Thank you.
Yeah. Thanks, Jeff. Any other questions? Comments by commissioners. I just have a couple of quick questions. Um, I like when you said it was an easy audit because that means that it's not as expensive and that Danny is doing a great job. That's great. Less gray hairs for all of us.
Okay. Um, no, that's good news. Um, my question I had, and I'm glad Nick just came back in because I was just curious where we left the impact for future monies that we transfer over to the city. Um, because we talked about a percentage. Instead, on the electric side.
Um, and right now we're you're accounting for, I think it was 700,000 or something like that for the year. How are we where did we leave that with the when the charter we looked at the charter. Mr. President. Yeah, absolutely. Um great question. Sorry, I
just had to step out for a moment. You're referring to the pilot, I'm guessing pay for the payment in lieu of taxes. Yes. I think the last agreement that I'm aware of is three, four and 5% over the next three years, of gross receipts, I believe, um, does that answer your question? Is that what you're asking?
Yes, because I think that's going to have an impact when we budget this upcoming year, because it's obviously going to be a greater dollar amount. Yeah. And as far as the audit, it usually shows up in that restricted cash because it's restricted for. That purpose. And then uh, the other question, oh, just a
comment. Um, just I think it was 2004, we increased the rate of our water. Um, was that correct. In December? Yep, yep. So I just and just just for history, I guess I just wanted to say that that
was we saw that in our water operations where we weren't the margins, we weren't losing any money. So I'm really glad that we took that. Um, um, made that move. I know that probably ratepayers aren't glad, but, um, it obviously is paying for the services and the, the
assets that we have. So, um, just wanted to make a comment on that for those that weren't here in 2024 and looking at 2025, how important it is to look at our rates on an annual basis, and I think our electric automatically goes, uh, what is the percentage in July? It goes
up automatically. It's average 3%. Okay. Thank you very much. It was great. Great report. Any other questions? Any other questions from staff comments, commissioners Kelly I had the same observation with water. Having looked at these
for a while. So um, okay. Well, thank you very much. Yeah. Thank you everybody. It was another great. Appreciate it. Thanks, Eric. Okay. We will now move along to public forum. So this is time allocated for citizens to bring matters not on the agenda to
the attention of the Commission. Time limits may be imposed. Is there anybody here for public forum that would like to stand up and address the Commission or anybody online? Oh, okay. All right. With that we'll close public
forum. We'll move on to unfinished business. Uh, unfinished business. So we'll see the attached separate memo regarding updates on unfinished business to the commission. Have any comments? Ali, looks like you got your fingers up in
the air. So. Um, and it's kind of a I have it for Trent later on, but I can just ask the question here. The development of a plan to be carbon free by 2040. Do we actually have a plan in place? Nothing undocumented. We're just making those steps as opportunities approach.
Okay. So because Danny and I had a brief and it was just an estimate, um, I'm looking to see if we can. You do such a great job in your report about, um, you know, how much the hydro is producing, how much the solar's what is it costing
us per kilowatt? Um, at the airport. What does it cost at the wastewater plant? What does it cost for hydro? I'd just like to start looking at. Because although the hydro looks like it's producing a lot of electricity, it's also one of the most costly ones for us
to to generate that revenue. So I'm just curious if we can when we look at this, can we start looking at this, a plan, maybe getting something in place? What are our costs? What should we be looking at for generation as far as, uh, a plan or a
program? Um, just so we can start the conversation, um, moving forward. That's that's my only input. That's great. Thank you. Oh, and then the EV charging policy, do we actually have one? Because we're we're. Not we do not. Know okay. So we it says
completed in 2026. So we probably should remove that. I think it was the discussion was completed in 26. We never there was a lack of appetite at that time to develop anything. So staff is ready to evolve something. Anytime Commission gives that direction. Okay. Thank you. That's all I
have. Thank you. I think that's a good question Dolly. And is there a I mean just with the the local customer that came in to address, uh, his situation? I think it makes sense to proceed with, uh, you know, if there's other, uh, utility providers
maybe that have have a policy we could take a look at or whatever you would recommend that we start that process. Take that as an action item. Rates up and back for you think that would be great. Yep. Yeah. Thank you. Any other comments from commission members Jeff. Yeah. On the item Dolly brought
up regarding the hydro, um, I can't remember if it was Paul or Danny. Um, I believe we either had email communication or discussion about the, um, cost benefit analysis. Perhaps
you might want to call it. And what what is it costing us? What are we generating for revenue there? And, um, when you look at the expenses, as Ali mentioned, about the hydro, um, what are we gaining? And that, I think goes back to, um, I don't know if you were
specifically asking to see a report on the actual expenses. Valley. I heard you mention those, but, um, is that something that, um, I have to go back and look, and maybe Paul or Danny, I forget which of you, um, communicated with
me on that, but you look at the price of those generators. Now, what you had in the report, it's it's. How do we ever get out from under those kind of cost with the generation of electric and what we're selling out of there, that's that's where I'm at. Um, is it worth
having it even? It's great to have the carbon neutral, but are we actually generating revenue after all of our expenses? So I don't know. Mr. president, yeah. Great question, both of you. I really appreciate it. So one of the
challenges you run into is the mechanism of how we compare these rates to. Would you like to compare them to our current PPAs that we have on different assets? Would you like us to compare it to the wholesale power market? These are some of the challenges we run into to, you know, we can slice and dice the numbers in multiple different ways, but to get a good true number, typically
what we do is make a blended rate. And we compare that to the blended rate. Now that doesn't always give a fair shake to the renewables. I will not set up for a sit up here and tell you that the renewable energy going forward will be cheaper than what we're buying today off the coal. That is not the case and will not be the case for us to be carbon free by 2040 will cost us more than
we're paying today. So as we look at these projects, staff is definitely interested in hearing more from the commission on how you'd like us to, you know, do analysis on these numbers, because the different size projects are different scales of economy, different price points. So between all of the two solar's we have right now, we have different PPAs on them. And
that's due strictly to the size of those PPA. So there's challenges for us to be able to give you a good hard number on a spreadsheet. But if you could give us some guidance on how you'd like us to prepare that, we'd be happy to do that. Um, but there's lots of different numbers floating around in that barrel. And to grab which one we need. Um, it's right now, unfortunately, it's more
expensive one, because we just can't buy the energy off the market. Um, going forward into 2040, unless legislation is changing. Um, that's where we're at. As of right now. We have had no indications of that changing. But those are great questions. I would love to hear. Like us to to analyze that.
And Danny, Danny, go ahead. Uh, additionally, we are waiting for bonding information to come back. So having lost the opportunity for funding this year with the state legislator, we are waiting for results from the Bond Council to determine what the cost would be if we went and bonded
for the project ourselves, so we should have more information. I'm supposed to have that by the end of this week or early next week, to present at the next commission meeting. Thank you. And we'll have some of those numbers, those cost benefit numbers for you, Jeff. Okay. And then on those electric turbines that the commission has been kicking around, of course, I understand
the delays, but um. When we look at investing in one of those and whether bonding pays for it or not, um, I mean, if bonding paid for everything, it it still. okay if you get if we got all the money from the state to pay for these and yet
we're still looking at, um, when do we ever recover? If we were to if we were to pay for this ourselves. And I guess my question specifically, are we going to be replacing, uh, turbines that work or generating or those that aren't
generating? Are there any there that we have right now that just are sitting there idle, that don't generate any power? Currently, all of the generators are functioning when when they, the river flow allows. So we do have all the generator operational staff's proposal on the current
generator replacement would be to replace one generator in pit six that is ready to have a generator put in place where there is not a current generator. The new technology and the generators would allow us to also produce more energy. When the river flows are lower. So that's the goal. Um, and
we're looking I mean, I mean, my positive outlook on it would be if we could get a 25 year rate of return on that generator investment. We've had the current generators for operational for over 100 years. So that would be the the goal would be if we could have
something that looks to or appears to give us a return of about 20, 25 years, that would be a decision factor for probably a go factor. If it's beyond that, then we'd have to have some harder conversations. Thank you very much. That helps. It's good. Kind of a
refresher there for me I appreciate it. Yeah. Dolly. Um, and by no means am I asking, um, for you to do extra work. I, I'm just looking and guesstimate a rough estimate, blended rate versus current market. Just in preparation of
establishing a plan to be proactive with the argument of 2040. That's all. That's all I was looking for. Okay, okay. Thank you. Yeah. The 2040 deadline too. It's interesting because nobody can tell me what the consequences are if we don't meet that, which it's an
unfunded mandate. And, uh, if we don't do it, what happens? Nobody knows the answer. It's like we have a law that if it's violated, uh, nothing happens. So. So if we thumb our nose at the legislature or governor and
what what's going to happen anyway? Yes, Danny. For for information for the commission. So right now, the state of Minnesota did have currently in this their, uh, request for proposals to determine how the state was going to get to their 2040
mandate. So we're staff's anxiously awaiting what that report will say so that we can use that for information and decision making. What does that mean, that the state how are they going to reach. How to implement their. So the state is hiring engineers to determine how they
can meet the 2040 mandate that they've imposed on themselves. And that was in an RFP earlier this year. Sorry. You have to you have to dumb it down a little bit for me. How are they meeting? What does that mean? I mean, like they they are a customer of of power, but they're not a
utility. What does that even mean? So they're hiring engineers to determine can the state actually make the 2040 mandate with everybody? All of us. Got it. Trying to provide that. Sorry, I thought you meant them themselves. So not a lot of it makes sense, but okay. Yeah,
okay. Well and yeah, I mean I think to Dolly's point, it's just more projections about where we would anticipate where wholesale power is going. And the other thing is the life expectancy of the renewables we actually have. So what's the remaining life of solar that we've already have in our
portfolio? So yeah, when you really think about it, it's kind of overwhelming. But yeah, thank you for putting that together. If a commission member would be interested in sitting down with staff and maybe outlining, uh, what that looks like, maybe just reach
out to, uh, Danny, Paul, whoever. So. Okay. All right. Any other comments regarding old business? Okay. Great discussion. Thank you. We'll move on to item B. Change order number one 2026 galvanized
water Service line replacement project number two Paul. Thank you, Mister chair at the May 26th commission meeting. Um, the commission, uh, authorized staff to negotiate a change order with de Chantal Excavating to expand the scope of project number two, which is
our project up in northeast Brainerd to add in approximate 19 additional service line locations for replacement. This was based on our current budget status, um, as seen in the agenda request. Uh, the cumulative, um, expense or
estimated expenses for all three of our lead or galvanized service line projects is right around that $2.3 million amount, which leaves approximately $400,000 in funding available to use on additional replacements. Um, we sat down with staff and
identified, um, an additional two blocks of service line replacements on Second Avenue Northeast, and we also identified a handful of active service lines, uh, or active leaking service lines, um, that we felt would be justified to
add, um, as a part of this 19 additional, uh, replacements. Um, with the negotiated change order, um, that you can see attached, uh, with de Chantal, that total dollar amount, um, based on bid unit costs, is
coming in right at 190, uh, $1,403.25. Um, that gives us, you know, about, uh, 190,000 or $200,000 remaining in our budget that we would like to kind of hold until we get through, you know, maybe
halfway through the project. And if we see, uh, things coming in, well, um, moving through this project, um, we may come back with another request to add on some more, uh, depending on just how things are going, how, uh, any unknown, uh, things that we may
run into during construction, um, with these types of projects, there are a lot of things that do come up during construction. We do have a contingency line item or a, um, an allowance, uh, item that every contractor was able to keep in their bids, uh, to
cover a lot of those unknowns. But at this time, um, staff would like to at least authorize, um, these service line replacements for, um, 17 additional galvanized service line replacements for project number two. Um, at the total
change order cost for $190,403.25. Thank you. Paul. Any questions? Comments by commission. Is there a motion to approve? I think I might have asked this
before. Sorry. If I may. Um, why is there another. Mobilization fee? Wouldn't there have been a mobilization fee on the original? Yeah, this was a topic of discussion we had with De Chantal during that change order negotiation. Brian is here, um, to maybe talk a little bit about that the way,
um, Aldi, Chantal, uh, did his original bid, his mobilization cost was basically, um, a baked in, I would call it, um, expense to bring his equipment to each additional site. Uh, from what I understood from that conversation. And maybe
Brian can expand on that a little bit. Um, based on the conversation you had with De Chantal during that time? Uh, yeah. I guess being a local contractor and this isn't, I guess, your typical, um, I guess, street utility where you haul in a lot of large
equipment and it's at the site for a long period of time. So I guess he, you know, he has some coordination, there's some bonding costs and some incidentals that maybe isn't just hauling equipment. And so that's what was our discussion with him is that he's kind of
got maybe some administrative cost per property, along with, you know, getting to each. But he wanted to kind of treat each property as a separate, um, I'll say small project that adds up to a larger project.
Okay. Is that what you're seeing with other communities that you work in with this type of project? Is it? Yeah. It's um, I mean, there's some overarching, you know, bond and some other costs that usually goes into mobilization. But, um, I mean, he's local and
he's going to be going with, like a mini excavator or a drilling rig to each, each spot. So I think it's, it's a, um, legit, um, argument. Okay. Good question. Corey King, any other comments?
Questions? Mr. Chair? Yes. May I I'd like to make a motion to approve change order number one. And the amount of 190,403 $0.25. Okay. There's a motion. Is there a second second motion and a second. Any further
discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say aye. Aye aye. Those opposed same sign. Motion carries. So soft spoken. Okay. We'll move on to item C 2026. Backwash reclaim tank construction manager at risk.
Construction manager at risk. Project pre-qualification and bidding phases and construction authorization. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So at the April 28th Utility Commission meeting, uh, the commission established the guaranteed maximum price GMP, uh, for our
Reclaim Backwash tank project at $5.3 million. Um, that is the maximum price that, uh, the utility would pay for the construction of that reclaim and backwash tank. Um, when the commission established that GMP,
that figure again represented the maximum cost. Uh, after that time, um, the construction manager at risk, who is Rice Lake construction goes out and pre-qualified bidders um, through a pre-qualification process. Those are forms that are submitted to the CMR and
the owner, um, and we pre-qualify those contractors based on previous experiences, uh, work history, um, and any other maybe issues that they've had on previous projects. Once those contractors are pre-qualified, they go into the competitive bidding phase, and that is what has been
completed. And what we're sharing with you today. Um, the total bids, um, that so originally, you know, we have this, uh, contractor contingency in that 5.3 million that was set at 225,000. That number continues to carry
forward so that 225,000 is a contingency that's already, uh, baked into the project after competitive bids were opened and we went through a process of reconciling those bids. Um, the project came in very favorably, and we were able to
generate an additional $196,640 and owner generated contingency. Um, that means, um, you know, the the bid packages came in in such a way that they were under the GMP, um, that $196,640, um, which
means that that owner generated contingency is stuff that we can utilize if we choose, during the project for owner directed changes, if we do not use any of that owner directed contingent or owner generated contingency during the project, that would get returned to the
utility and we would not have that construction cost. Uh, so the um, the total contingency amount as the contract is today is, uh, $421,640. Um, and so if none of that is used during the
project, that would, um, that would not be paid to the contractor and we would have, um, a reclaimed tank that gets, uh, built for much less than the, uh, GMP that was set at 5.3 million. Um, this is really informational. Only at this
time, because the commission set that GMP, um, we've opened bids and we've seen the results of those bids. Um, we have authorized Rice Lake to move into the construction phase for the project. That GMP remains
unchanged. Any, um, uh, owner directed changes would be brought to the commission or any unknown changes that that 225,000 contingency, um, would get used for would get brought through a formal change order process to the commission at future meetings. And so the
project is moving forward as planned. Um, and the bid results were very favorable. And, um, Morgan's here to answer questions. I'm here to answer questions about the the process. Um, so certainly we're willing to answer those at this time. It looks like Danny has. Something. Just as a reminder,
we have $5 million coming from the state for this reclaimed project. So if we don't use any of the contingency, we'll have the reclaim tank under the $5 million. Great. Thanks, Danny. Thanks, Paul. Comments. Questions? Dolly. I can't play poker. Apparently,
I have this. She knows my cues. Um, no, actually, I'm really excited. Is this our absolute first project that we're using? That this is. It'll be interesting to see this thing through. I love that you can pick out the specialties of different contractors and get a bid price for that, rather than
one contractor, and then having to sub it out and, you know, having that overhead. So this will be interesting to watch. And I'm really excited for it. So that's all I was gonna say. Jeff. If, um, there was a reason we needed to use the entire contingency dollar both on the
owner and the contractor side, uh, would we still call it a guaranteed maximum price? The guaranteed maximum price is set at 5.3. That is the maximum price that we will pay for this project. And so even if we burn through all the contingency and
the contractor has additional expenses on top of that, that is the unless there is owner directed changes that would go over and above that 5.3 million. Okay. So if we had a change order and exceed it or change orders and exceeded the
contingency dollar amount, correct. Okay. We still could go over that if we agreed. To, if their owner directed. If we direct. Yeah. So for example, one one
thought process is like hey, the contractor is here. We want to do this $1,000 change. That's an owner generated
change. We could utilize the owner generated contingency for that or issue a change order for the project to increase the contract amount by that dollar, by that cost. Um, this is where
the at risk portion for C is kind of the the money that they built for their risk as part of that. That's why we work with them to set a GMP. And once that GMP is set, you know, they're they're locked in at
that price. Right. Unless changes. And so that's where that at risk portion comes into play is if they find that, hey, they miss something in the bid, they're the at risk. Does that answer your question, Jeff? What if our design miss something? If the design missed that and
we figure out what to do, okay, that'd be something for us to sort out. Yes. All right. Just one. Okay. Why you even talk about it though, right? It's not an
issue right now. So let. Me build a nervous tension. Do you want me to cut Jeff off? Because I can. I'm willing to answer any questions the commission might have. Um, yeah, I do have to say echo dollies. I mean, this is
exciting. Thinking back to the interviews and just our expectation for the process, it's great to see where we're at today. So thanks to you and staff, I know and Rice Lake. So great job everybody. I thank the team for the contractors is really solid one. We've worked with a lot of
them before on various projects. Um, a lot of them are local contractors as well. So there's, uh, for them to do well in the project and we'll have staff on site monitoring, construction, doing critical point inspections and making sure we manage everything effectively out in the field to
ensure that this gets built, um, correctly for one, and also that it meets timelines. Awesome. Thank you, thank you. Appreciate it. Any other questions or comments? High fives all around. All right. We'll move on to item D approve
amended BPU policy 200307 tenant landlord responsibility for vacated rentals. And we will have Danny take this one. Thank you, Mr. President. So as part of this month's agenda, we have three policies for commissions review. The first policy is the 2000 and 307
tenant landlord responsibility for vacated rentals. The primarily change to the policy was just updating it to the new template that was approved. The one question that staff may have that we'd like to bring up to commission is in the policy, some grammatical changes. You
know his hers to their. But BPU will notify the owner of the vacated property after the tenant's final billing is complete. Staff had a lot of internal discussion related. This sentinel utility practice
for utilities to send this notice to our landlords. Uh, one unique thing being our municipal utility, we have more rentals than we do landowners. We have like 54% rentals in the
city of Brainerd. Um, staff decided to leave it in so that the policy didn't change as significantly, but wanted to bring that to Commission's attention. If you wanted to do change that sentence stopped. That was the item we wanted to
bring to your attention. At this point. Staff just elected to leave it in. We have about 30 to 45 of these letters. We're sending monthly. So, Danny, if you could quantify the amount of time above and beyond, maybe other
than a typical utility, what would you say were, you know, how much time and stuff do you think that takes up? You got the letters and the mailing of the letters. You're probably at an hour a month. So it's not. Good. Any other questions?
Comments from the commission. Other than staff is staff would prefer to leave it in is what I'm hearing just as a checks and balances. Staff was split, we left it in so that the policy didn't change significantly. But I
think depending on members of staff who you asked, it would be a 5050. We could pull it out, we could leave it in. It was completely up to commission. Uh, I elected to leave it in that the policy didn't change as significantly.
Yes. Correct. I mean, I would think that it leaves less chance of us getting stuck with bills or spending time on collections. So I, I think it's really since we're 54% rentals, but that's I think it's okay for us to be better than other
municipalities in that sense. But we did add in the policy language that we will not be held accountable if that letter does not get sent to the landlords, but policy, it is that the the landlord automatically takes the account
over if the tenant decides to vacate the property. And that's all the letter is saying, is that this tenant vacated the property. You're now responsible. They would. But if we did change the policy and took that out and put the
onus completely on the the property owner, uh, how long do you think that would take to implement? So we would send out a notice and I mean, would there be a two month timeframe just to say, just, you know, our policy is changing. So and a couple of months just so that there fully aware or what do
you think. It's it's not a change in it's not a change in statute or a change in policy. It's just whether they receive a letter before finding out on their bill. So the bill automatically transfers, um, so they'd find out. When they get the bill. That's basically how they'd be
notified. There might be a two week lag, so they might get a letter. And then two weeks later they're getting the bill. But the bill has already been transferred into their name at that time. So my only question on this one is the responsibility. If I was
a property owner, you didn't notify me, right? It goes back to here. You said you were going to notify me. So my question is, is if if we did want to leave it in there, would we just simply say Brainerd Public Utilities will mail the owner of the vacant knowing that we're going to
mail it if it doesn't reach it, we mailed it. I mean, do you see what I'm saying? Because I feel like how it's written right now, the onus is on us that we will notify them, period. And if we don't, I mean, it's something that we do
as a as an additional service, but I don't want it to fall back on us is where I'm kind of going with it. I think we're covered under state statute. So it automatically there's tenant landlord rules that it falls back on the landlord. So there's no issue. And then in
procedure number eight we have failure of the property owner received notice from BPU which will not relieve the property owner responsibility for the utility charges incurred. So that's where I'm covering us on that side. And I would become if staff feels comfortable leaving it
in, if it if it helps us in the long run. Yeah. Is it a proactive measure that saves time down the road. So and I don't know, is it something that we continue to increase and maybe it becomes a
burden. Staff recommendation we do approve as presented. And we can then monitor it. Okay. Any other questions comments. Looking for a motion.
Is there a motion. I'd make the motion to approve the amended BPU policy. 2307 second. Okay motion. And a second further discussion. Hearing none. All those in favor say aye. Aye aye. Those opposed same sign. Motion carries. We
will move on to approve amended Brainerd BPU policy. 200509 customer deposits. Danny. Thank you, Mr. President. So this is the second policy we have for you today. The customer deposit deposits policy. This policy, uh,
updated to the current template, probably has the most significant changes in verbiage when we look at the policy statement. Now, the reason for that is when we staff looked at the policy statement, the previous policy statement had a bunch of procedural items in the policy statement. So the
overall policy has not changed. Its verbiage has changed. The policy statement, uh, reflects a shorter policy statement. However, everything that was in there was captured in the procedures. So that's really the only change to the policy. Instead of it being in the policy statement, it's in the procedural pieces staff went
through. We checked, we made sure that we've had all of those items captured. Um, in essence, there was no change to the customer deposit policy, just in the template changes. Okay. Thank you. Danny. Questions? Comments.
The only question I have is, uh, Mr. Chair, if that's okay. Um, is the deposit. If I was reading this, the deposit is returned after 12 months of on time payments with interest. Okay, um, that's all. I just wanted clarification on it. Thank you. That interest rate is also set
by state statute. Thank you. Okay. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second motion. And a second. Any further discussion. Hearing none. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed same
sign. Motion carries. Okay. Approve. Amended BPU policy 200506. Metering of multi-unit dwellings for rentals. Danny. Thank you, Mr. President. Third policy for you today is 2005
006. The policy statement relatively stayed unchanged. What we did remove is some of the statute language from the um, direct policy statement. Put it in the template section under the compliance. And then we added and or plumber in the third paragraph. Those were the
only changes to the policy statement. The rest was just a template update. No other significant changes in the policy. Danny any questions comments? I have one question on item number four, the policy
statement. The last sentence in the the property will also have to be inspected by BPU personnel before the account will be put in a tenant's name. Do we actually send somebody out to the property and is there a fee for service to do that? We do send people out to the
property, and I believe there is a service charge. I don't know, in this situation. Do we? I'll look at you. and then I'll look into it. Where are the reports filed when we do this? Is this kept? Do we keep these on file at BPU or is this with city? The city with the rental piece of it or
where is this? We keep them. We keep a lot of our items are kept in the mapping system so that we can track that. And then it transfers over to billing. Billing. Okay. And then city the rental department can see that as well. Right. The building, whoever does the
rental inspections can they that mean you guys have done such a great job working with that other department here at City Hall, with the permitting for rentals? I'm just wondering if some of this stuff is. They do not have. They do not have direct access to the system, but we have permitting emails and different
things going back and forth regularly, but they do not have access to the system presently. No. Okay. Thank you. You bet. Thank you. All right. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. Okay. Motion. And a second. Any
further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say aye. Aye, aye. Those opposed? Same sign. Motion carries. We will move on to new business, starting with legal services with Flaherty and Hood. For cursory review of sewer use
capacity. Agreement between City of Brainerd and City. Baxter. Paul. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, back on May 1st, uh, city staff, um, met with representatives from the city of Baxter to discuss the sewer use and capacity agreement between the two
communities for the wastewater treatment facility. Um, that original agreement was signed back in 2007, and that was initiated for the original expansion to the wastewater treatment plant. Uh, defined capacity. Um agreements and
strength, uh, charges that we collect from the city of Baxter. All of that is outlined in that 60 page document. Um, with our ongoing work with Bolton and Mink for the wastewater treatment facility plan, which you all saw. Presentation quite a few months
ago on, um, the next phase of this, uh, project and the next kind of scope of work that we've identified as needing to be reviewed not only by the Commission, but the Joint Wastewater Management Board would be to dive into our, uh, sewer use capacity agreement with the city of Baxter and
identify changes or amendments or rewrites of this document that need to be made, um, moving forward, as we look at implementation of the phase one biosolids improvements and, that limit driven phase two, uh, for the liquid stream, uh,
improvements after that meeting with Baxter staff, um, we met internally with, um, um, our staff, uh, just on the city side. Um, and then we subsequently met with Daniel Marks from Flaherty and Hood. He was, um, an integral part of
what we did back a couple of years ago with our delegation, um, agreements and things that happened with the MPCa at that time. Um, Daniel is a, an environmental attorney with Flaherty and Hood that provides services, um, specifically to
kind of an arm of the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities. Measure. Um, Charlie and I were just at the conference here a few weeks ago. Uh, Daniel is kind of the lead for the Messer, um, group. Uh, that represents our state communities, um, with the MPCa
and, um, wastewater, anything wastewater related? Uh, we did meet with Daniel. Um, talk this over with him. He's very familiar with our agreement between the two communities, along with being familiar with the delegation process that we went through. Um, we talked to him a little bit about how he
would see this process moving forward. He's done these, um, quite a few times for other communities that have these types of sewer use agreements. Um, his suggestion and actually, what came out of the meeting with Baxter was to have each of our attorneys review the documents in entirety and
suggest recommended changes. And since that time, um, meeting with Daniel, um, we felt it prudent. And we've sent a communication to Baxter that will take the lead on the first review, because it is our facility. It is our wastewater treatment plant. We would work
with Daniel Marks, um, to review the agreement, provide, um, an outline of recommended changes. You know, either that law changes more on the technical side, um, we would work with Bolton and make on a memo that we would send over to the city Baxter with kind of that roadmap outlined for their
attorney to review at that time. Once we've all had a chance to kind of calibrate, we would call a joint wastewater management Board meeting and kind of lay out that process and schedule moving forward on what what needs to change, what are the timelines associated with updating the agreement,
how many joint Wastewater Management Board meetings do we need to call to kind of negotiate our way through the agreement? Um, to finally come to a final document that would be presented to both the commission and I'm assuming the Baxter City Council at that time. Um, Daniel provided us
his fee schedule. Um, since we are a part of, um, we get a discounted rate on his services at $285 an hour. Daniel indicated that he thinks he needs about ten hours to do this review and provide a memorandum for staff to review. Uh, staff is requesting that
the commission today approve that expense. Um, at the estimated cost of $2,850, to kind of get this process rolling, at which time we would get that memo, uh, review it from staff level and then send it to the city of Baxter, um, for their, uh, their first
review of what we send them. Uh, that's what I have at this time. If there's any questions, I can certainly answer those at this time. Thank you. Paul, any questions for Paul? Comments?
Yes. Um, you know, I, I know that the that, um, group has met on several occasions, so we're not taking anybody by surprise with the findings as of right now. I mean, we have discussed this over and over and over again. It's just some of our needs. I just what I and
I appreciate a third party doing this first to get, you know, uh, the ball rolling. What I don't want to do is, uh, take somebody by surprise, and then we're in a disagreement. Arguing match between attorneys. So we're going in
there. I mean, I'm trusting that the outcome from this group, these these group sessions, that nothing is really going to be too much taken by surprise. Right? We've been communicative with the city of Baxter. Um, Nick and I did send an email over to
Brad Chappell's with our plan and our intent to bring this to the commission today. Um, to hire Daniel Marx, um, to do this work for us. And what the expectation would be for them to receive something from us, for their attorney to review. And that's where we left. That original meeting was each side
needs to have their respective legal councils review that agreement in its entirety and provide feedback on changes that are necessary. I just appreciate you leaving the communication open between the two cities. It's a big project and so it's pretty important to do that. Thank you
very much. Yeah, I agree daily and it's nice to see the proactive measures you've taken and sitting in the and being part of the joint wastewater uh, Management Board meetings. It's been great communication between both communities and really good representation too.
So, um, yeah, I really look forward to the findings here. And I think it's great to reach out to somebody to try to quantify what the projected use is for both communities. Uh, just as a general note, Mister Chair, if I may, um, Bolton, the current contract for wastewater, uh, facility
planning. We had that scoped in for a technical advisor. So Bolton and Minc will be our technical advisor. A lot of times, these agreements, they end up with the engineer or the technical advisor doing a lot of the redrafting work and providing that work to, um,
legal counsel to review. Um, and so we see kind of Bolton and Minc taking the lead on a lot of the rewrite of the document based on the technical information provided in the facility plan, and then that information would be distributed, um, to legal, uh, representatives from both cities and further to the Joint
Wastewater Management Board as we move through that process. Yeah. Great. Thanks for clarification. Yes, yeah. Hopefully. So are we in the future? Could there be more attorney costs if
Baxter does not agree with what we come up with? Yeah. So there is going to be more attorneys costs that result from this. I'm assuming in our 2027 budget, we will set so with Bolton and Minks, um, original budget for the
facility plan already approved. That budget's already been set aside. Um, in 2026. Um, we do expect, you know, during the rewrite process, this is kind of the kickoff to the rewrite process. There will be additional attorney's fees on both sides. Um, that, um, you
know, at the council or, uh, council liaison asked this question in an email yesterday to me, is how, um, will this go through our split allocation with Baxter at the one third, two thirds for these legal services? It's staff's opinion that, um, our legal
representation on both communities should cover the cost, um, of these services, um, uh, entirely with each community that's being provided the services rather than the one third and two thirds split, because we each have our own legal counsel that, um, we're
actually rewriting the agreement that that one third, two third split came from. And so there will be additional costs. Our plan is to budget for those in 27. We think that this process up will take us probably up through the end of the year to get in front of the Joint Wastewater Management Board and lay out that roadmap.
Um, from there we would engage with flirting Hood to once they know what the what the what the scope of the project is, what the schedule is, they'll be able to better define what their costs are going to be moving forward. Okay, that was my next question.
Mister Chairman. Yes. Jeff, there's always legal costs. I mean, the city had to take on a special rider with the League of Minnesota Cities when I got elected, just for liability issues. So. Sure. Just kidding. Corey, you had a comment? Uh.
Just to make sure. So this is, uh, is this more of a retainer or is this a set dollar amount or is it not to exceed or. It's an estimated dollar amount. He he estimated ten hours. Um, we're asking commission to give us a little bit of flexibility on that. You know, obviously if we're up at
20 hours, we would probably bring this back. But, um, he estimated right now, just based on his previous familiarity with the agreement that it would take him ten hours. So right now, it's estimated hourly. Um, and they would, um, if they, if they start approaching that 28, $50
amount, it's something we can bring back to the commission. But, um, until they get into it and really start diving into it, um, it's hard for them to put a fee not to exceed on it because it's, um, it's such a large document. There's a lot of data to go through. There's
a lot of research and laws that need to be looked at. I, I would prefer that the commission not set a fee not to exceed. Give us a little bit of flexibility to move around a little bit, but that's that estimated hourly cost at 2850. Should there be a different
rate that's set as a not to exceed before it has to come back to commission, then. We can certainly do that. I mean, if you set that at 3000 bucks in that way, if we are approaching that number and, um, it's taking them longer than what they anticipated, we can set that up at that $3,000
amount. But that's certainly in the. Maybe you already stated this, but is there an anticipated timeframe? Um, we want to kind of move on this as quickly as possible. So Daniel kind of stated that he would be able, once he gets approval, to probably get this pushed out in a couple of
weeks. But the phase one, two, three oh is so it ten hours is within a time frame, which. Yep. Is that pretty open ended to. I would say ten hours within the next two weeks. You know, he's gonna have it. He's gonna have that turned around pretty quickly for us to review.
Got it. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. I mean, phase one biosolids. We talked very preliminarily about working through some preliminary design next year. Potential construction and late 28, you know, call it something like that. Um, and so, you know, there's quite a process
here to work through before we get to that point. But with the amount of communication between the two communities, I, I feel as though it'll be a smooth process from that side of things. But it's a good question. I mean, what can we not to exceed or not? But and
if it's a two week timeframe that helps to it's not over like a 3 to 4 month timeframe or something like that. And is it, um, is it something that like time is of the essence, like if you had to get more money, would it be an issue with the fact that we're
it's a two week timeframe? Like, not that I'm advocating spending more money, but I'd be more likely to say, like, let's set a not to exceed a 4000. Instead of saying, oh, we got to call a special meeting to get a little more money here. I mean, I I'll say I'll trust
Daniel's judgment in his estimate. I mean, usually they're a little bit conservative on that. And so, you know, I think you'd if you wanted to set a fee not to exceed, I would put it at 3500. That gives them a few additional hours. Um, if he does run into snags or things that he needs to do some deep
research on, um, but I'm pretty comfortable with Daniel's recommendation and what he had stated that day when we met with them. Um, he seems to have done this quite often for other communities, and so I think he's got a pretty good handle on that. And it's Familiarity with our
community as well. Yeah okay. All good questions. Any other questions or is there a motion? Yeah. I'll make a motion to approve the, um, engaging in legal
services with Flaherty and Hood. Of not to exceed $3,500. Um, yeah. Okay. Second. There's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say aye. Aye, aye.
Those opposed? Same sign. Motion carries. All right. Move on to item B, discuss crowing power infrastructure. Service. Terry. Boundaries. I bet you this is Trent. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I'll try to get too long winded
on this topic, but essentially the the summary of issues that we have of before us here is the the impacts of the business or, excuse me, the 371 project that we're going to see in the next couple of years over in Baxter. Um, we've got to see some of the preliminary drawings there at about 30% plan set right now. We've
identified significant impacts into our current electrical infrastructure serving that portion of our service territory. That particular area is unique into the spot where it's right in the very corner of our service territory. So we don't really have much more room to grow. The overall impact of this project is going to eat up some of the commercial lots that are
currently vacant right now. That would have potentially been loaded for us to serve in the future. And with the roundabout coming in that those are not going to be available anymore, and there's actually a couple of buildings too, that we haven't been serving inside of our service territory that growing power has. And what that's called is service by exception. It's not unheard of
when utilities have borders that abut each other. Sometimes it's closer for the neighboring utility to serve that customer, and they're allowed to do that until that, um, incumbent utilities infrastructure gets out to that spot, then you start to serve that customer. Um, so as we started looking at this project, it gave us a
broader understanding of what the impacts would be there. And we wanted to have a meeting with Growing Power, and we did that. So we met with the folks out there. And during that discussion, it came up to say, hey, we have a few other spots in our service territory that we're also where we're serving customers that are growing powers and where they're serving some of ours and other spots. The goal then was to
take a holistic approach on all of our service territory and look to try to bring everybody in that we can. What would the cost be to pick up the customers that they're serving or that we're serving? Um, and just have a real collective conversation in that. Um, and through those conversations, we've done some numbers on what the parcel will be or the, the
service extension will be with the impacts to the 371 project. Um, and we're coming up to about $268,000 of estimated project relocations for that. There's not going to be many meters for us to serve over there when it's all said and done. So, um, through our
conversations, we talked about condensing or relooking at the service territory boundaries. And I think that that's really what our, um, ask is today for the commission to continue to give us the opportunity to negotiate with growing power, clean up some of these service
territories. Um, this is a negotiation. So I'm being very thousand foot view on some of this because this is a negotiation with growing power. As we sit down at the table with them. Um, there is some things that we can talk about and not talk about as far as confidentiality for customer stuff in a public meeting like this. So, um, I'll kick it to
Danny two to throw in his $0.02 on it, but we're open for questions. But some of them might be vague at this point. Unfortunately. Okay. Thanks, Trent. Danny. So excuse me. As we look at it, I mean, staff's recommendation
is to go forward with negotiating, giving up some service territory and giving up some customers. That's our kind of feel at this point. And having that 371 boundary be the demarcation point. Um, it it's just a clean cut for the relocations. When we look at
the relocations where when we have roughly a percent, a percent, half of a margin that we're running with in the electric department at $268,000 on every $100,000 we're making. We're, you know, we're getting 1000 to $1500 back. So by the
time we paid off $268,000, we're looking at 260 years. So the load we would gain and the revenues we'd be giving up. From a financial perspective, it looks better to,
unfortunately give up customers, which is weird for us to say, being a utility that wants to sell electric. But, um, that's what staff's kind of opinion is looking at it. And then we're gaining some of those other customers right now and cleaning up all those service territory boundaries, which is the advantage.
To Danny's point. If you look at the screen, right. And all the stuff you see in the hashed black part, those are growing power customers that we're currently serving up on Riverside Drive. Um, you can see the red line that runs through the boundary. That is our service territory. The green color is BPU service territory, and the pink and magenta is carrying power. So
as you can tell, our service territory lines are but a really strange places sometimes right through the middle of a lot. And at that time it's a conversation between us and crowing power how we want to serve those lots. This would be a spot here where we would go and bring our public utilities. We would adjust our service territory line to encompass these customers. They would do
the same over there by the 371 project to encompass that service territory. And there's one other spot on highway 25 currently, which is just one residential customer. But that's kind of the tit for tat as we look into this, um, staff's appetite would be to negotiate with current power to have them do the legwork on the
service boundary. Um, changes with the state of Minnesota PUC to get that all done, to have the onus on them there for that work. But once again, that is negotiation with them. Great. Thank you. Yes, Jeff. Okay. Um, so the horse trading
that goes on here, you're not, um, suggesting that any customers and maybe I missed it. So if we give up customers, we could possibly then gain. But that's not part of the equation, right? It would be. Yeah, that'd be the holistic
approach we'd like to take at this, to clean up all service story boundaries in this conversation with them. During this negotiation. So the spots that we're currently serving, we would retain them and keep them in our service territory. Growing power them would adjust their service territory line to show them being in Brainerd public utilities. We would do
the same on that 371 project on the other side. So there would be essentially a trade off, correct? Okay. And then, um, you kind of indicated some administrative costs. They might you may negotiate that they take on with the. That is correct. Yep. All right. Um, uh, I like the numbers you
put out there to show the return on that cost is pretty, pretty low or nonexistent for the most part. So, um, anyway, I appreciate the info. And, um, look forward to seeing what decision is made. Yeah. Just to just for
commission's, uh, narrative. You know, our underground facilities typically last about 60 years in the ground. So when we put that 200 year mark on replacement costs, we would never actually be able to pay for this cable. Um, in a service lifetime.
Great. Thanks, Danny. Commissioners. Any questions? Comments? Yes. I understand. The highway 371 I'm having a little bit of trouble with the state Highway 25. Is that one that we would be giving up to crowing power currently?
Right now, growing power is serving that customer and that is inside of our service territory. So that'd be another net one for us. Okay. I appreciate the again proactive approach. And uh,
also the numbers I echo Jeff's comments. It's just nice to know you know, the numbers of it as well. When we look at these projects, you know, with being inside a confined of a service territory and we get island like we are in this situation, it is hard for me to have these words in my mouth that we think that giving up service territory is a good idea, but it just
doesn't pencil financially for us in this situation. No, if it was anywhere else in our service territory, we had room to grow. Or if we weren't losing those, um, vacant lots that we were hoping to get revenue on in the future, that really kind of ties our hands together. There's where we're at. That's a great opportunity with the project to capitalize on
the timing of it. It does give us a nice clear boundary into Baxter two. So then our service territory line would be business. I keep saying business. 371 excuse me, 371 instead of having us trickle over to the west of 371, similar to like what you see up here, we have the same type of situation going over there where this one we serve,
they serve. So it would clean up that boundary. Um, that will help us with outage restorations both for us and them. It'll help from emergency responses to get the right utility company going to accidents or things that happen that way. So there's a there's a lot of benefits to it, but it is very hard for me to say, as
your electric director. Are you looking for a motion or just is this for general discussion? You are looking for a motion to just proceed as presented. The motion would be to allow staff to continue to negotiate and execute this um service territory adjustment. With the confines that we addressed
today. If we had anything outside of that, we would definitely bring it back to the Commission for further consideration. But, um, essentially what we would do now is trade out these spots with, of course, negotiation with growing power, but just kind of clean all those lines up. They had the appetite for it in the meeting. I think this is a very easy conversation, and I think it's a win all the
way around for both utilities. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other questions or discussion. Yes. Jeff. What kind of legal fees would you look at having to do this? It's a great question. Um, hopefully zero from BPU perspective, that would be what we were negotiating.
Okay. Thank you. Okay. Is there a motion to approve? I make the motion to approve the, uh, the continued negotiations with scoring power for the service territory. Uh, reconfiguration, I guess. Second.
Okay, motion and a second. Any further discussion? Can I make an amendment to the motion? The amendment would be to not exceed the territory's proposed. Oh. Yeah, I would, yeah. Just I don't want it to get.
Lost in. Yep. I agree. I agree. Okay. Do we want to vote on the amendment or do I just can we just adjust the motion I guess the that's the question. If both motion is agreeable, Mr. chair. I agree friendly. I want. A friendly amendment.
Friendly amendment. Okay, okay. Thank you very much for your consideration. Yeah. You bet. Thank you. Trent. All right. All those in favor say aye. Aye aye. Those opposed same sign. Okay. It's got a lot of guts down there.
All right. Thank you. That was, uh. Yeah. Thank you for all the helpful information there. All right. Item C, discuss Northland Arboretum billing related to BPU policy. 200507 Trenton. All right. Thanks for. Having me. Commission. Go ahead. My name is Trevor
Plumley. I'm the executive director of the Northland Arboretum. I'm also representing, uh, Sir Thomas service to mankind today. By proxy, I suppose. Um, I think the discussion today is in January. Sir Thomas received a
notice 2000 and 507, uh, in active meter policy. Um, and you guys have a way harder jobs than I thought before I got here. So now I'm feeling a little inadequate, but, um, essentially, what's happening is we have 16 metered accounts
at the North and Arboretum. I wasn't here when the handshakes were done to make all this. However, this worked out. There was some ski team stuff and Sir Thomas stuff. I don't fully understand it, but Sir Thomas came to my office and handed me BPU bill and I was like, okay, well those are those are your
metered, um, areas. And they're like, well, we only use them for a month. Those are your metered areas. And I was like, I didn't know we had 16 metered areas. And so I'm just now learning about how all of this works. Um, when I ran the quick napkin math, we were looking at like 16m at 30 bucks. And at
first it was like, oh, whatever. It's like, we have 500 bucks, like 500 bucks times 12 months. We're like five, $6,000 potentially. Thanks for Trenton, Danny, for sitting me down and explaining exactly what the intent of this was. I didn't understand the intent of it. And now I understand that
you have to maintain these when people aren't using them. There's a ton of maintenance that goes into these things, and there's miles and miles of this stuff laying around. So I totally understand now. Um, they explained it to me like I was a five year old, which I greatly appreciate. Um, what
I'm asking for today is either some sort of amendment to the policy or, um, I know that you probably don't want to do a variance or a major change in policy. I understand that that would be a ridiculous ask, but if there's some way we could do like a trade agreement or a
sponsorship or some way to offset the cost, because Sir Thomas is essentially going to withdraw and I don't mind being in the news, but that's not why I want to be in the news. I just is not going to be fun for me. It's not going to be fun for anyone. It's not going to be fun on Facebook. So, um, if
there's any way we could reconsider how this agreement is created or if there's a way to do, like a sponsor, a monster to offset costs, and then you get, you know, 3 million social media views or something. I'm open to anything except canceling Winter Wonderland. So, um, our haunted
trail also relies heavily on these meters. And so we do use them for December, and we do use them in October. But outside of that, they sit largely unused as we implement forest ice skating trails through the woods. We have 5000 people come to town and we
have, you know, 30 or 40 different, um, states who are serving and, and several counties we want to expand more service, uh, gyms electric and Jesse Grant came out and they're like, oh yeah, we can do this for $55,000. We'll just add in a bunch of more boxes and a bunch more meters. And
now my board is super freaked out. So, um, we're just like more, more meters. Isn't feeling like a good thing right now. Um, particularly if this is the the way forward. But if we can work something out, then I think my board of directors would feel a lot more comfortable. And hopefully we
can work out a new agreement with Sir Thomas that's not written by a typewriter from 20 years ago. So anyway, those are the things I pick up on a daily basis. Um, yeah. Okay. Well thank you. Yeah,
very much for being here in person. And, um, I feel like a five year old, too, when Trent talks to me. So he, he educates me every month. So you're not alone. Perfect. Uh, yeah. Appreciate the opportunity to listen to, uh, I guess your your perception of everything. And I guess what you've been
learning about and the the history behind it. Yeah. The current situation. So, Trent, you would you like to just provide a little bit of context for the commission and those listening, how did we get here or maybe where we're at, I guess. And just for me, the
infrastructure side of things, that's just simply out there and. Yeah, and how that serves as property. It's a great question. So, you know, historically how we got to where we are today, to your point, there's not a lot of good documentation. And so this goes on for years and years and years. As you guys know, the arboretum was the garbage dump at one time. So we've had
fingerprints and pieces of that out there since the dawn of time. Um, as the services relate to the Arboretum general function, their main building and all of that is served underneath the meter they use every single day. But to his point, many of the stuff is spread out across 40 acres out there. And so to get those
electrical needs, each one of those spots BPU has, you know, invested in the infrastructure to get those basically the outlets to work out in those areas. Over the time, it was probably a spot where we were probably falling short on our revenues is how we were operating it. And this is why the commission brought this policy forward. We brought this
policy to the commission to make sure that the wire we're putting in the ground is getting paid for inside of it's life expectancy. Um, if we don't do this, we run into troubles, um, down the road and not being able to fund projects. Um, so I think it's really depending on the commission and which way they
would like to go for this. I mean, operationally, as it comes to dollars and cents, this is a policy that was made to make sure that we can replace our equipment going forward. This is definitely a unique situation where these assets aren't getting used on a 12 month basis. This is probably one of the only spots that we have in our system that fall within this unique
situation. Pretty much everything else is on, or it's somebody that is what we call a snowbird, where they're leaving, um, get out of here for the winter and come back. Otherwise, this is probably the only unique situation that we have that applies to that. I'm not sure if I'm capturing a question, but that's kind of how we get to where we're at
today. Uh, just to yeah. It does. Thank you. And then it's just a question, but the amount of meters out there, is there a way where an investment could be made to reduce the amount of meters? And, I mean, is there a
way that just as a landowner, um, you could rework the infrastructure, maybe reduce the amount of meters in one, that would be an investment, but then in the long term, would it cost save money? It's a great question. So one thing that comes to mind is looking at primary metering on the site. Um, we have other
sites that are primary metered. Similarly the high school is the primary meter account for us where we step that voltage down, we have a primary meter. And then after that metering, all of that infrastructure inside the high school lot proper is their own equipment, their own to do maintenance on
their to to operate and own. What typically happens then is there's not a lot of high voltage contractors around. They just type materials back to us to go in and work on something. So if a transformer would fill out the high school, they would call and say, hey, do you have a transformer? How much does it cost? When can you get it to us? And that's how we would go through that. It'd be a time material basis. This potentially could be an
opportunity to do something like that. Typically when we use primary metering, there very large revenue, um, accounts, there's a pretty big load when we go to primary metering. Another one would be the Burlington Railroad Shops that is primary metered also. So we serve the power to them. We metered it. And then after that it's their responsibility to take care of it from there.
That'd be one opportunity. We could definitely put some numbers on a piece of paper and see where that pencil is out. Uh, the one unique situation also is we have two feeds coming into the arboretum, so we have two different spots. We have to look at metering or move some infrastructure over, um, consolidating meters might be an opportunity on your side
where you guys could take some more of that secondary wire and tie it together and remove our meters so you'd have longer runs of secondary that just comes on your end. It's more maintenance and, you know, stuff along on your lines. You'd be bearing the cost of that on. But I think there is opportunities to, uh, to be
able to get through some of that after we do a phone training. But, I mean, those are things that we could look at. I think today the question we really has is, does the Commission have appetite to amend or change this policy, and if so, what would that look like? If not, the Commission certainly could direct staff
back into work at this and have us put some more numbers together and maybe do some more brainstorming on what that may look like. I don't know exactly what their needs are other than a couple times a year, so we could dive into a little more and probably flesh it out and get a better outcome for you here. But there's a lot of pieces that would have to be
turned over to to investigate. It. Has Jim's Electric provided any kind of creative, uh, thoughts of similar to what we're saying? I mean, maybe to clean it up or reduce the number of meters by any chance? No. Nope. I know that they they serve the the serotonin. I
mean, they do all the maintenance. They do everything in kind. So anything that's on a certain specific, um, meter, they do all of the work leading up to Winter Wonderland. That's not the case for Haunted Trail. We have. We contract it with, um, Jesse usually, or Jim's
Electric. Um, so it is kind of an unusual thing where we really are just a facility rental for Sir Thomas. They rent the facility. They do make a donation at the end of the year, but. But generally speaking, it would be like if anybody came out to rent the
arboretum. Uh, it would be a similar agreement. The difference here is that sir Tom assumes the the power load whenever they're utilizing it. Since it's a full month rental. Um, I think that's where this got really confusing is, um, they received the billing for
that period, but it was always zero the rest of the year until this the policy was enacted. And then they started getting the bill every month. And their treasurer reached out to me and they're like, what is this? I was like, I have no idea. I've never seen this before. So it doesn't actually come across my desk. So that's how we caught
it was, um, they reached out to me and they said, here you go, buddy. Your bill. So is who's on the bill? Who's who. Is Sir Thomas? Sir Thomas is the. Mister chairman. A lot of moving parts. Yeah. Choosing one. Yeah. Jeff. Um, could somebody just give me
the number? What is, um. There's a monthly fee of $30 for the meter, right? Correct. 30 ish. In their meter? Yeah, they're paying that every month, but they only use it once or twice a year. Yeah. So they're paying the load for the
months they're using it. But the question is, are we going to waive the every month fee. Is that what the question on the table is. That's correct. For the meters. Yep. For the meter. For nine meters. Yeah. Okay. And our policy says if you whether you use it or not you're paying for the meter. Correct. Okay. Yeah. All right.
Thank you. And that policy change was enacted earlier this year 2026. Yep January 26th. Yeah. What was the dollar amount again that this is annually for them. So annually you're at $30 a
meter. So so if we want to take out like the ten months. So at the total meter of 17m you get like 48 to $5000 a year. Yeah. That'd be at ten months of the inactivity. When you look at Haunted Trail and Sir Thomas. Right. Yeah.
So for the for the haunted trail and the ski, the skate trail and future programming, let's just say you using the existing property there. How many meters would you say are used for that? Like for
arboretum specific programming. And when I'm trying to get a feeling for is, um, what will you need now moving forward for just electrical infrastructure that supports your current and future programming? And also, uh, just because I don't
understand or I'm not really sure, but do you charge admission to utilize the skating trail? And so there is some revenue that's being generated by these activities out there. Yep. So currently we don't have lighted ice skating trails okay. That that was um, kind of
a sticking point with, with our residents because, uh, right as everyone gets off work, we have to close. So, um, so everyone gets to enjoy this. If you're from out of town and you're from the cities you come in, it's great. I get to go forest ice skating. It's awesome. Um, but residents weren't able to
use it, so we started crowdsourcing some funds to come up with the 55,000. That would add new meters. Um, so currently what we're looking at is we have, if I counted correctly, there were 16 line items on on the initial one we looked at. I think Jesse had us
adding 5 to 7 more meters. Uh, that would also expand our operations, uh, from inactivity of ten months. It would probably reduce inactivity to eight months. So when we look at when can we make ice? We can start making ice in November.
But it's got to be like a foot thick, so we probably won't ever realistically open before December. Um, and that's right. When Sir Thomas starts their light display. So Thanksgiving is when they actually start it. But, um, so Thanksgiving through, uh, I think it goes
through New Year's Eve. So that would be those two months. But we're gonna we would like to in the next two years, three years, extend our operating hours into January, February likely not March. It's just not very feasible to maintain ice at that time. Um, but yeah, we
would be looking at then having that three month operating in the winter and then the haunted trail. Yeah. The reason I'm asking is just to try to get an understanding, I guess, of just your, your current, uh, programming, maybe your long term vision, uh, because that
way, I think we might know the, the, maybe the entire picture in terms of how to better serve electricity and power and also maybe the infrastructure just needs to be done in a certain way that could be more economical and just maybe serve the property better. I don't know if that's my thought. I
don't know if staff or other commission members have thoughts. This Mister Chairman. Yeah, I'm still I. I just want to nail this down. Sarah Toma is the one asking to be relieved of the monthly charge when they're not using it. Is that correct?
And that's. Correct, yes. One meter. 9999. Nine meters, 30 bucks a month. Times nine months or ten months. 2500 bucks. How much is. It total? 2500. That's the total for the year.
Yeah, at nine months. What you just said. Yep. Or ten months. Yep. Okay, so they they're the winter wonderland and the, um, Halloween. Uh, they. Just do winter wonderland. That's great. Toma is only winter wonderland. One month out of the year. Yeah, maybe into the second month. Yeah, yeah.
So we're looking at night. Okay? And we need nine meters. That's the question that we've been kind of going over here. Do we want to somehow, uh, better, um, calibrate or get a better system? Is that one of the
things Trent was referring to? I just asked the question just for my just to be educated basically about what's out there and what would make the most sense to be out there. And maybe that could help address this issue long term. Of course, if we were to do anything to make that more efficient, that's going to be dollars that we're spending to
do that. Correct. If we were to somehow correct. Okay. We have no idea what that would entail. No. I mean, if we could get together and have maybe a long range plan of where it would be and relook at. So you know what? Okay, some of this infrastructure is getting close to cable expectancy. We want to
relay this out. How can we lay it out more future proof than what it currently was? Um, from my purview, what I consider what it seems like happened there, it was just good ideas kept happening. They kept adding on, we want to do this over here, and we want to put a garden over here. And so these are great ideas for the community. And they just kept getting it out into it. There
wasn't a lot of foresight at the time of, hey, where are we going to be in 25 years? It was, where are we going to be in 25 minutes? So it may be a holistic approach to relook at the entire property, potentially, of what the future might bring. And we could present some different ideas. And I can take a look at some cable ages in there and stuff to where, if we're looking at
cable replacements in spots, let's make sure it's in the right spot. And, um, for going forward, it's changed a lot over the years. I mean, my 18 years of being at the utility, I can tell you it's changed significantly in that time frame. And it was it's been a good project. But the other thing we're hearing from Mister Pumila is
that if this is not relieved, uh, Saratoga is going to say no more winter wonderland. Is that what I heard you say? That's correct. And it's for $2,500. Yeah, it's a service club. Um, everybody. All service clubs in the state of Minnesota are struggling to find volunteers,
find help, and, um, their revenues from Sir Thomas Winter Wonderland have remained relatively flat while expenses continue to rise. And they're just not certain that, uh, you know, it's not worth the squeeze at this point. In a lot of ways, they have other fundraising mechanisms that
require a lot less staffing time. And, um, yeah, we have, uh, we've renewed a one year agreement with Sir Thomas Winter Wonderland. Um, as they try and figure out as a board of directors, what they want to do moving forward. It's just a nice community asset, and I, I
wouldn't like to be on the, uh, on the on the stand if it disappears, you know? Dolly. Um, well. I think it's. We have too much to explore to make an exception to our policy. I'm not when it's not fair for all meaning
all ratepayers. Um, I struggle making an exception, when really it could be a sponsorship. As we talked, as you had mentioned earlier. Um, and, and I just feel that over the 25, $2,700, um, there's, there's too many unanswered
questions of what possibly could be done out there. So at this time, I would actually not make I would just suggest that we not amend or make an exception at this time, and that we work with staff to explore some other options out there. Um, I just, you know, I
look at what the city does, give it to Arboretum, and I do look at what Baxter gives to the arboretum. And I know this is the arboretum. I'm not certain I get that. Um, but but, you know, at some point, the arboretum is able to use some of those meters also. So
hopefully you are quite the visionary. You have what you have done out there is beyond amazing. Um, I would not take anything from you on that one, but in this case, I feel like we'd be opening up, uh, some issues with other companies and
other businesses if we started making exceptions to our policy. I agree. So that's where I'm at with it at this time. I agree. I think it would also be interesting. I mean, what Sir
Thelma and maybe Jim's Electric would have to say just as far as their ideas, if if they don't have any, then okay. But I mean, if they if they have something to offer in terms of an idea or again, just as part as we take a look at the current situation and look forward, uh, just to hear from
them, I think just some productive solutions would be a good part of the conversation. So I agree, speaking on behalf of BPU here, I think we're all ears in terms of just thinking about how can we better serve this property and how we can collectively move forward. I agree with you, Dolly, though I
think that's a good position for today. Anyway, great. Well, thanks for having me. I greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks for being here. Yeah. Thanks, chair. Anything else fires action on
that? No. Okay. All right. With that, we'll move on to staff report, starting with City administrator report. Nick. Thank you, Mister chair. Um, I've written reports attached. Um, just as an aside, we have two senior positions that we're hoping to have filled in July.
I think one is virtually a done deal. Just waiting for a start date. And the other were awfully close. So we're looking to get those filled by the end of July. So. But lots going on. We're out, uh, cleaning up some debris this morning based on the last 24 hours. I know the street guys in the park guys?
Well, the street guys were getting started getting calls around midnight, so. But, um, it's a busy time of year. Uh, as the report reflects, there's a lot going on in all the departments, but I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have any. Thank you. Nick. Any questions
for Nick? Okay. Awesome. Thank you. All right. With that, we'll move on to HR director report. Brittany. Yeah. Thank you. Um, my report is attached and I have nothing further to add, but I can answer any questions you may have. Okay. Any questions? Comments?
My only question can you when you under the new hires promotion for city, HR and airport, can you identify um the whether they're a new hire from I mean can. you you know because I know all of the wastewater those were all promos, promotions. But, you
know, then I looked down at Lee Anderson. I'm not really sure it's because it's 713. So, I mean, can you just identify, um, when you I don't know if it's a different font or just a note behind it. Yeah. I can split them out moving forward with that. Awesome. Thank you. That's what you'd like. Yep.
I've thought the same way. Just a note that it's a new hire. Yep. Appreciate the report though okay. Any other questions? Comments. All right. Thanks, Brittany. Public works director report. Thank you, Mr. President. My
written report is in the packet. Um, went into a lot of detail on current, uh, construction progress. Um, pursuant to the city council's request, I also added in some sections, um, regarding, uh, just pending, um, potential change orders on projects that
are kind of out there right now, whether we're in the negotiation process with the contractor, whether it's a known ad item that we haven't gotten to the negotiation process yet, but that's something that the council requested that, um, we started putting into my or I started putting it in my report so that
everyone is aware of some of the things that are happening in our projects. But, um, besides what's in my written report? Um, if there's any questions, I can certainly answer those. Now. Thank you. Paul. Any questions? Just one under the, uh, major capital construction projects, the, uh, the lining of the, I
think, was the lining. Um. We've got some contaminated soils. Can you tell me. So is that an expense on BPU? Because there's contaminated soils that we're dealing with? Or is that the 210 project? Yeah. No. Yes. With the water main. Yeah. So,
um, we have to switch water. Main materials. Um, due to the contaminated soils in those areas. Um, so yes, that would um, that's an upcoming change order that, um, we're working with Rlr. And right now on processing. Do we. I guess the reason the question I'm asking, maybe trying to get
to is the contaminated soils. Do we know the source of the contamination? There's railroad. Is it the state highway? I mean, I'm just looking for like when you sell a gas station, if the tanks were contaminated, you're responsible for the cleanup. So if there's an additional expense. I'm just wondering if
we know the source of contamination. I will say there's probably a hundred sources of contamination on the 210 corridor. Um, and that, you know, some of those date back to the early 1900s. Right? Um, dry cleaners, gas stations. It's these sources that we're
dealing with right now are strictly the the diesel organics, the gas range organics, the volatile, um, that have issues with PVC water main. And so, um, they're they're very few and far between. So, um, one of them we identified as that Eighth
Avenue Northeast, we've already made that switch. Um, that was kind of a time sensitive one we're working through right now with SRF to identify the other areas in future phases of work and what the quantity of materials will need to switch. Um, we think it's only about 2
or 3 areas right now. Um, um, so we'll be working through that with SRF and then finally with Rlr Sen to come up with a change order price. But some of that work has already been done. Thank you. Thanks for the. Clarification. Okay. Any other questions?
Comments from Paul. Um, I just have a comment. I didn't expect to have to read a report that took me that long to. Read. There's a lot of details. The city council asked him to add a lot more to it from overheard. So that's a pack that was like,
what, nine pages? There is? Yeah, a lot of stuff. There's a lot happening. I'll put it that way. Jeff, I would agree. Thank you very much. I actually I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I do have one more question. Um. So under item seven, is it
seven? Yeah. Gosh, I think it's on page 101 70. Yep. Uh. I'm wondering because it can we request or make a request or can we talk about making a request back to City council?
Um, to reconsider removing the contingency on the Robert's property? Uh, for development? Um, you know, because this is in our this is in our, well, protection area, and I think it was after the fact that this contingency was put on after we
after it was purchased. And and so we couldn't pursue grant funds because it potentially could have been developed. Is it too late, um, to pursue grant funds and or. I guess my question is, is again, we
purchase it to for our wellhead protection area. And then we look at future development. It doesn't seem to make any sense. So it is too late to pursue grant funds. So that was when we had the request for the purchase that we were not able to pursue grant funds. Um, if
there was any development that would have to happen. We can't just transfer the property because it was purchased for wellhead protection. So we can't just transfer the property from an accounting standpoint. Legally, I think we could. But from an accounting standpoint, the property would have to be purchased before any development were to happen. So
those funds would have to come from another city department. Okay. If that makes sense. It does. I mean, so what you're saying is, in the event that development were to ever happen, you know, then there
would be a payment there. But again, it doesn't make any sense to develop property when when we're looking at trying to preserve with what what's there currently. So I mean, maybe it's a moot subject, I don't know, but it just it always kind of just got rubbed me a little, a little bit different.
I guess. I'm, I'm not aware of any development planned coming on when we talk to community development director Gramlich, he was kind of under the same impression that it's not developable. All right. Thank you.
All right. Thank you. Paul, move on to Trent electric director report. Thank you. I'll just add to Nick's earlier comments. It's been a long day. Long night. We had significant storm come through the Brainerd Lakes area last night, which I know you're all aware of. Uh, very proud of
our system. Very proud of what our commissions allowed us to do and to keep the lights on. So you may even notice some blinking lights. We only had about 22 sustained outages through that event. We had lots of operating, a lot of equipment doing things, lots of alarms coming in. But, um, that's all what that's supposed to do. So when you see your
lights blinked once, twice, that's good. It does. A third time they're going to go out and they're gonna stay out till we get there to fix it. So when you see some of that stuff happening, know and be proud that that's your equipment you invested in doing what it's supposed to be doing. So we got four guys on sleep time today. I appreciate their efforts through the night. Last night they worked through the night all night. Um, and it's pretty
not great conditions. So we've been through this before, and we've we'll have worse to come. But I just wanted to mention that, uh, proud of to be a part of it. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Trent, extend our thanks to those folks as well. Any questions for Trent? Comments I have one under the
large load development. I think there's enough time. There's enough information out there in our data centers. Um, I think we can we ask to maybe look and reevaluate, um, our cost, our charges on these large load.
Can we I mean, I know we're going to be coming up to July when we do this, but I think there's probably enough information out there nationwide to be able to see whether or not we're in line with our charges. Can we can we look at doing that? Absolutely. Okay. Thank you.
Great question Dolly. I think that's a great thing to be prepared. Thanks for the pictures and graphs, Trent. That helps. Welcome you to Charlie. All right. Anything else for Trent? Okay. Thank
you. Trent. Charlie. Water wastewater. Yeah. Um, report has submitted. And I can take any questions. A few things. Um, one. Um, we fought hard and interviewed very well. And I like to introduce you to Caitlin
Peterson. She's our, uh, environmental engineer senior going to be at Sdsu. Okay. Sorry. Wait a minute. What's the clarification? Ends. You know. Yeah. That's a. That's a bad Charlie. That's bad. That's better.
I'm waiting. I'm waiting. Charlie. So Ndsu, she's an environmental engineer. Uh, she's going to be a senior this year. So I'd like to introduce you. She is, uh, been working with the water and wastewater operators, um, along with operations. So I'd like to
introduce you and, uh, any questions for her? I would be subject to ask them and make her do some public speaking. So did you say CSU or CSU? Sdsu? Sorry. What? Your your faux pas
was. You said ss. So I'm sorry. He's a. So that's a. Yeah. Yeah. So there's a rivalry there. So that's why there's a chair in between them. It was just don't make me throw up. Yeah. Or Charlie.
So there's Caitlin for you or Caitlin for you. Um, another thing to note. Um, we did receive a, um, drought warning here on Thursday. Late Thursday, uh, we'll be initiating our DNR, uh, supply plan. Um, the goal on this one
right now on the upper Mississippi headwaters, is to do the 50% over January's production. And currently we are at that after flushing. Um, um, so we'll start to walk down that path as, as it progresses
for the drought, um, that we're seeing in the upper Mississippi headwaters. Charlie, I'm glad you brought that up. Uh, I did receive, uh, a question from a customer regarding is there going to be, uh, a ban or just discouraging,
uh, irrigating lawns and, you know, so when does that happen? Um, what can we can anticipate as a BP customer? Yes. What the management plan, uh, management meeting tomorrow will kind of discuss it when when we engage our plan. Right now, we're at the active goal for the, uh, the warning stage.
But we'll start to open that up and work towards the notifications and, and, uh, you know, flyers to go out and let everybody know. But we'll start engaging that tomorrow. I'd imagine that our management meeting. How did those notifications go out to BPU customers again?
Uh, through the mailings. through websites, uh, through media paper, and potentially okay, we'll kind of set that path. Right now. We're kind of just walking down it and, uh, looking at our plan. Uh, another note is they're only good for ten years. Um, this
one, the water supply plan, um, was developed in 17. So we're we're on in that corner. We have to update our water use supply plan for the public water supply. So, um, we'll start that to. Okay. Thank you. Any questions
for any questions? Comments for Charlie. Anything else that you had? No. Sorry for the inconvenience. On Sue. I was just looking at at Morgan, which is a big thing for him. We listened to what you mean, not what you say, Charlie. Don't worry about it. Right. Sorry, Caitlin.
Sorry we got you covered. He's. She's fantastic person. A pleasure to be with. Yeah. Thanks for being on board. Nice to meet you. All right. Finance manager report. Thank you, Mr. President. Got a couple more items than what's in my report. One, I want to welcome Heidi Guernsey for the
business office supervisor role she started last week. Came back for a second week. So we're really excited to have her. Uh, I want to say thank you to all the staff for being welcoming and assisting her as she gets on boarded here before Jana's retirement. Um, second
thing, as you look through the budgeted information, in the financial data, in the financial statements, we are working on getting 26 caught up to date. We've kind of put that on pause, getting the cost of service studies out the door. And with the audit, um, as you look at the budget to actual
that was included in your packet, the $4 million surplus is misleading because we typically show a surplus this time of year. And then as construction season goes down at drastically decreases. So don't think we have $4 million in cash sitting there. We do not. I can assure you. Um, and
we're working through that. And with that, that is the information I have additional to the packet. But I'll answer any questions. Well, thank you for your ending. On that note. Last. Any questions for Danny?
Comments. Great job with the audit and with your team. So thank you. I will pass that along. Yeah okay. Thank you very much. Commission member Council liaison reports. Jeff, we'll start with you. Thank you. Um, happy semi Cisco
Cisco.. Being day coming up, somebody says when contract with. You know what I mean? Anyway, um thank you everybody. I hope you have a great fourth Independence Day. And, um, that's all I got. Okay. Likewise. Geoff. You two
all right. You're next. Likewise. I just. Want to I hope everybody has a great weekend and just kind of remember why we celebrate the fourth and our independence. And I thank everybody that has fought and continues to fight
for our freedoms. Thank you. We'll put Dolly. Um, yes. I'll make it quick. I know Corey just looked over that. Oh, nope, nope. See, I got too much. But I do want to ask. Um. I had the honor of
presenting to the National Association of Realtors committee regarding the growth in housing in Brainerd. Um, and, you know, sometimes we're in you're in the thick of it on a day to day. And I'm looking at staff. You guys are doing it on a day to day. You don't really see it until you look
back five years. Um, and it started with the housing study. Um, and it brought together, the, um, it brought together city and county administrators and commissioners, as well as the housing authority. Uh, BPU. It brought together so many different people. Um, but when
I was able to present, we talked about the growth in Brainerd, Brainerd Oaks. We talked about serene pines. Um, the other one. Um. North Town, uh, we talked about county, uh, country manor, and we talked about even trailhead,
uh, the, the, um, kind of the design plan for that. Um, and we talked about the need for infrastructure out to some of these places before they could even grow. Um, so it was awesome. And I got really excited about what Brainerd had been doing over the last five years. But when you're in the thick of it and you're just
doing it day to day, you don't really recognize your accomplishments. So kudos. But with that being said, I also got the opportunity to meet with Amy Klobuchar on a one on one. Um, and it was interesting. We talked about the state, the state hospital property, and she definitely
she's like, I know your mayor, the guy who always wears shorts. Like exactly him. So anyway, I thought that was. Great. Uh, so that was a great discussion. It was a highlight. Uh, we got to meet Tina Smith also. Um, so there was a lot of discussion around data centers
and the ordinances around that, and that's why I made that request. Um, and then the last thing I wanted to mention is that, uh, Paul, your videos are fantastic. Your updates are wonderful. Keep it up. I think that's it's been great. So thank you for that. Lot going.
On. And happy 4th of July. I won't attempt it. Thank you. Dolly. That was awesome. Great. I don't have as much as Dolly. So, uh, just reminder, when you're out there with all the aces cranking this weekend, the BPU has to fix it on the fourth and something happens.
So. Put her down just a little bit. Yeah. Open your windows maybe. Right. Exactly. Yeah. Well thank you. Yeah. The only thing I have I guess is just again compliment uh, the efforts and being very proactive on all things. So
thank you to BPU staff on just looking ahead and trying to position ourselves for success. That's what you've always done. And thank you for continuing to do that. All right. That's all I have. Motion to adjourn. Yes. Yeah. One item before you all adjourn. They're interacting on the issues from MUA. That is
typically an in-person session. They had to cancel the one in Grand Rapids. Uh, in in in a makeup day, July 15th, from 3 to 5 p.m.. They're doing a zoom call if we want. If more than two of you want to be there, we have to have a special meeting. So if you're interested, you
could adjourn to that meeting and we could host a zoom call at BPU if we want. Or you could do it individually, but up to you, we can get you all registered. If you would like. Well, maybe we should just do that just in case. And then we
can all reach out to you independently if we want to attend. Okay. That works. That sounds good. So we will adjourn to a motion. Is there a motion to adjourn to the July 15th? So moved MUA session. Okay. Motion. Is there a second motion and a second? All those
in favor say aye. Aye, aye. Those opposed? Same sign. Motion adjourned. Jeff's almost
out the door. We're done.