Uh January 27th, 2026, public utilities commission meeting to order. Roll call, please. >> Higgins, >> here. >> Was >> here. >> England, >> here. >> Bacon is not here. All right. Stand for the pledge, 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. Okay, we'll move on to the approval of the agenda.
>> Make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Okay, motion in a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. We will move on to the consent calendar. Notice to public. All matters listed are considered routine by the
commission and will all be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to be adopted by roll call. We'll have the approval of bills, approval of minutes, approval of state
out ofstate travel, excuse me. Uh Tyler connect conference approval out of state travel for uh backyard lineman. >> Move to approve the consent calendar. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion in a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All let's see. Roll call.
Excuse me. Higgins, >> yes. >> Wasau, >> yes. >> Penglin, >> yes. >> Okay, motion carries. We will move on to election of president and vice president. >> I would make a motion. Well, actually like to propose a nomination of Mike
England as U. President for 2026. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion in a second. >> Accept the nomination. >> I do accept. Yeah. Sorry. Motion is Yeah, I do uh accept. Thank you. I would I would love to uh continue in this position. So, thank you. >> Awesome.
>> Uh those in all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. >> Okay. How about vice president? >> I make a motion that Dolly's the vice president. >> Okay. Motion. I'll second that. Uh we
have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Do you accept? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. All right. Thanks everybody. Okay, we'll move on to public forum. So,
time allocated for citizens to bring matters not on the agenda to the attention of the commission. Time limits may be imposed. Is there anybody here for public forum? Okay. Anybody online? All right. Okay. We will then move on to commission
committee reports. We'll kick it off. Yes, sir. President, would you like to >> change any appointments to the committees? >> I should have added that to the election line. >> Yeah, good point. I feel as though I feel really comfortable with who we have
on the committees currently, but I would certainly be open to suggestions or any comments by anybody. my position >> and I do too but at this point time until we have um two more people fill those vacancies I would suggest maybe no committees meet until such time because
otherwise we have a committee of one which doesn't make much sense. So, if we hold on that uh with with the physicians um until that those vacancies are filled, I guess we just have to do committee business at the commission meetings.
>> Can me and you meet for both of them? >> Unless it's published. It's it would be considered a quorum >> as Yeah. As individual. Yeah. Correct. If you if you met me, you'd have a quorum. I do have to ask though just with the uh I guess decisions and
conversations that need to be made on certain topics. Does that seem feasible to wait another month or do we feel like it's uh >> I hear what you're saying? I do. I think there's some financial stuff that I I I'm not sure I want to I I'd like to
have a couple meetings actually, but I don't want to break any rules or >> upset the apple cart either. I know staff there's some things we've been talking about that need to continue talking about >> if I may Mr. Yeah. Um there is a
potential for a couple of um applications coming in for vacant seats and so if we can wait until maybe the February meeting and if there's some adjustments and if they get appointed at the council meetings in February, it might be a good opportunity to take another look at it. But maybe we hold
for a month and >> that's whatever. Um >> well and if there is a delay, if I may, if there is a delay, then I would think that we would just have to call for a special meeting. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Good discussion. uh we'll proceed that way but we'll just play by ear I guess
and proceed accordingly. Okay. Thank you Danny for for bringing that up. Okay. So with commission committee reports is there anything to comment on or to speak to though just for the for discussion
today? >> No sir. >> From a personnel committee? No. Finance? No. Okay. All right. I do have to say in 2025 though looking back I I feel like the committees did a fantastic job. I know everybody really put a lot of effort
into that and so between staff and our committees thank you very much for your efforts there. Um I think a lot of gained a lot of ground. I think communication was amazing and so thanks everybody did a great job. Okay we'll move on to unfinished business then. Uh
there is the separate memo that we all have uh access to. So, thank you again for putting that together and nice to see what we've accomplished and uh also good to see what's still on that list. But um so we'll move on to uh item A, unfinished business memorandum
discussion item. >> There is nothing further from staff as it relates to the unfinished business memorandum unless the commission has questions. >> Okay, commission members, do you have any questions? un unless you want to provide just a
quick update on the lead service lines um and moving forward. I mean what and maybe it's too early to to bring that up. I don't know. >> Yeah, I can kind of provide a brief update. So we um at the MESRB conference, we were approached by um uh
some of the u um lobbyists uh Flarein Hood. Um, and we do have a meeting set up today with Senator and Representative Heinsman at the uh, service center to talk over um, a potential funding package for lead service lines during
this legislative session. Um, we have some data put together. Um, the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities has put together um a group of folks that have um really uh put forth good funding packages um and a kind of a
joint effort between the IOE 49ers union um I forget the other gentleman uh that was in the call yesterday, Danny, who did he represent? >> It was Luna um part of the 49ers. >> Conservation Minnesota, I think was the other one. So, Conservation Minnesota,
the 49ers, and the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities have more or less a coalition that's really pushing for additional funding bills for lead service line replacements uh during this session. Um that funding package that was approved in 2023
um that is anticipated to run out here this year. And so, um we're talking with the Heinesman's about um a new funding package that the coalition will be bringing forward uh this legislative session. Um I think their ass is going to be 240 or 250 million. Um which was
similar to the 2023 package. So um you know the the uh BPU was committed $2.6 million this year for our lead service line replacement program. We're on the project priority list for the foreseeable future at that same amount. Um but uh given the uh funding
constraint uh constraints in that program um it's unknown at this time whether we'll have future allocations unless uh there's a package that's uh pushed through at the state level. >> Yes. >> And thank you for that. It's just something we want to put on the radar because if we if there are is no more
funding, it is something that we'll have to take into consideration and it's not a cheap date. Um it's >> it'll be millions. Yeah. So, it's just something to keep on our radar and I appreciate you keeping it on the list. But yeah, definitely keep us updated on your meeting after your meeting today.
Hopefully some good things come from it. Thanks. >> Yeah, thank you Dolly and thank you to the Heightsman for making time and and meeting with Brainer Public Utilities. That's much appreciated. Okay, any other questions or comments with uh the memorandum here?
If not, we'll move on to approved climate vision radar lease and temporary construction license. >> I'm going to pass this on to finance manager lock. >> All right, Danny, take it away. >> Thank you, Mr. President. The next item for your consideration is approval of
the lease agreement and the temporary construction license related to the climate vision radar project. So, this has been on our docket for some time. It started in June of 2024. The project has been under review. The proposed lease and construction license have made it through all legal city attorney review
as well as climate vision's legal team. There is one outstanding question related to tenant and subtenant relationships which was just originated in the climate vision template lease document. Um they're actively addressing
that item. We've had staff discussions with the state of Minnesota have been real positive. All parties have expressed the support of the project. Both the state and climate vision need these approvals before they can move forward through their review process. So
that is what staff is asking and recommending for approval to allow the project to proceed with authorization for director Sandy in coordination with the city attorney to finalize language related to the tenant subtenant relationship as well as the construction
dates and timeline. And with that, we'll answer any additional questions. >> I make a motion to authorize utility director Paul Sandy to exeute the agreements as >> second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any
further discussion? >> I'm just thankful it went through the review process to the attorneys. I know it took a lot of work and I appreciate it. >> I appreciate all the hard work from staff. This is something we need. >> Yeah, I agree. Uh yeah, and it's been a
little little while in the making, but I think everybody has done a great job and certainly the due diligence has taken place. So, all right. Uh all those in favor say I. >> I. >> All those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Okay, we'll move on to new business and
we'll begin with approved professional services proposal with Bolton Mink for new water treatment plant and well number nine citing preliminary engineering report and investigations. That's That's a mouthful, but I got through it. Okay. All right. Who wants to take this?
>> Uh, I'll take this one, Mr. Chair. Thank you. >> Um to initiate planning for um a new water treatment facility and a future uh well, uh we've budgeted in the 2026 budget. Um 175,000 in professional services for a water treatment plant
sighting study along with an additional 60,000 for a new well sighting study. Um, we've attached Bolton and Mink's proposed scope of services. We've been in discussions with Morgan Salo who is in the audience today. Um, if there are any specific questions related to the
scope of work uh that is presented in front of the commission today. Um this project we we want to start the process of um more or less preliminary engineering um on a new water treatment facility along with looking at alternatives for citing uh new well
infrastructure to help kind of drive our um wellhead protection area further to the south in the city uh limits of Brainard. Um we currently operate the current water treatment plant um uh down uh near the Jenny Street site um with
six wells that are uh basically right right adjacent to the water treatment plant. Um the existing plant uh dates back um some of the original dates are 1918. Um there's some major expansion projects that happened in 1964. um 2021 routine department of health
monitoring identified co copper concentrations exceeding EPA action levels at multiple sampling locations. And so there have been a lot of improvements that we've made to the existing water treatment plant um that uh over time based on different um
levels of of uh copper corrosion we've implemented orthophosphate corrosion control back in 2024. Um, but given the age and condition of our water treatment plant, we need to start investigating options for a new facility. We're having troubles finding
filter media um, for our current existing facility. It's becoming more and more difficult to find our filter media when our beds need rehabilitations. We're having issues with our under drain systems. Um, a lot of times in our water treatment plant um, with a current
ongoing project uh, rehabilitating one of those under drain systems. So the age of our facility is um becoming um a nuisance and um it'll continue into the future um if we don't start looking at options for upgrading our water
treatment facility. Um the study will inform um funding strategies. It'll look at treatment technologies. Um, and it'll look at where we want to place this new infrastructure. Um, with in mind that we want to keep the new plant in the same
general location as the existing to take advantage of the newer infrastructure we've built at the water treatment facility, including the the clear wells and then the uh the reclaimed tank that'll be constructed this summer. So, um, that's the kind of the first part of
of this uh proposal. So there's there's two proposals in your packet. The second one is related to uh well number nine and um uh those six municipal wells that are all located near the existing water treatment plant. Um we've been working
with the Minnesota Department of Health and they've recommended that the city try to diversify its water supply by developing additional wells outside of the DWISMA to improve uh resiliency and sustainability of our drinking water system. Um, we've asked Bolton and Mink
to provide a proposal to evaluate potential locations of new municipal wells. Um, and that does include uh potential test drilling and water quality analysis. Um, so there is a uh not only a proposal from Bol Bolton and
Mink in your packet, but there's also a a high level quote from Trout to come in and drill a new 6-in um test well that we can um do some water quality analysis and test pumping from during um this study phase. Um so the two attached
letter proposals outline the scope um and fees from Bolton and Mink to do both the water treatment plant sighting study and the well sighting study. Uh Bolton and Mink's uh fee not to exceed for the water treatment plant study uh is
159,600. So about 15,000 under our budgeted amount. Um the uh well sighting study is coming in at a Bolton and mink fee of about $51,880. So that is under our budgeted amount.
What puts us over that budgeted amount is the test well um from uh trout that um is coming in right around that $54,000 mark. So we're using like that 60,000 as an estimated cost. We would bring a finalized quote together once we
kind of finalize the scope of work with trout. uh we would bring that back for commission consideration. Um what staff is uh requesting approval of today are the two proposals from Bolton and Mink to perform both of these studies concurrently together. Um and
then allow time for staff to refine the scope of work with trout for the the test wells for the well sighting study and bring that back to commission at a future date. And I am available to answer questions and certainly Morgan is here too to answer any questions that the commission
has. Okay. Thanks, Paul. Any questions from commissioners? >> I'd make a motion to approve the both these items with some discussion. >> A second for discussion. >> Okay, we have a motion in a second for discussion. Who'd like to go first?
>> I'll go first, Morgan. >> Yes. >> What is this kind of standard operating procedure uh to drill a four or 6 in test? I I think I saw there's a 4 inch and a 6 in proposal in this. Did I read that right? >> Yeah. So, there's when we look at test
well um procedures, there's kind of two options that in in the engineering world are are recommended. One is the 4-in well. And what that is is you're basically drilling a monitoring well. It's going to tell you formation of what the geology looks like and it's going to tell you where the water is at. When we
look at drilling a 6-in test well, that allows us to set the utility and city up for future test pumping because you can't feasibly test pump out of a 4-in well and determine aquafer capacity. So, going to the 6-in well sets you up to test that aquifer capacity, develop what
specific capacities are out of the well, and determine how big of a well is is realistic to put in for the future. What is a normal well size for like the actual well that we would drill >> for a future municipal well? Um it varies depending on the on the uh the
capacity of the the well. That's why test drilling is typically recommended first. Um so we can understand what the capacity of the aquifer is. U most of your municipal wells that you're going to see in this type of formation are going to be anywhere from that 12 in to possibly 18inch case wells.
>> Okay. How deep are how deep are the aquifers around here normally? >> That's a tough question to answer because there's around this area of the state there's a lot of um what's called quattinary buried aquifers which is basically water bearing sands um as you get into different parts of the state.
Those aquafer levels tend to uh change in depth for example in the metro the Jordan aquifer which is one of the biggest aquifers in the state that is down in that 300 to 400t range. Below that is the um tunnel city Wanowok and below that is the Mount Simon aquifer um
down to 700 to 900 ft deep. Um in this area we typically want to find water bearing sands that have a good um structure to allow the water to flow to a well. And that's when the well driller drills these wells. Um specifically with these four and 6in wells, they get that
formation material out of the their well and they're able to tell us recommended depths based on how far they're drilling down. So there's really no set depth until we start to look at what the other wells look like, where the water bearing sands are, and what the formation ultimately looks like.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Um, hold on. >> Sorry. >> That's all right. >> Nice try. >> Yeah. No, but in that also in this deal was the was and maybe this is separate was the estimate to drill the well as well. Correct. Is that is that
>> that would come back at a future date? It's it's kind of a just a budgetary item right now that >> budgeting purposes cuz we plan on bringing on LRE water which with their specialized hydro geologists to assist in developing some of the final scope. Um it's estimated right now about 200t
of depth uh for a test well but that's based on review of the current wells in the area and well 8 which would be in a similar formation. Um, but again, until we start doing a test boring to see where things are at, it's it's we're we're making some assumptions based on
data we currently have. >> And you think the 6-in wells about 50 grand? Is that >> based on the quote that we received from Trout for a mud rotary drilling method? >> Okay. >> And then the last question I had was, so this uh the study would be for a brand new facility, but didn't we just do one
for upgrading our existing facility? And so are we just going to do a cost analysis versus a new or am I misunderstanding what was done with Bolton Mink the last time we did this? >> So there's been several studies done. One was a condition assessment or an
asset evaluation study that kind of looked at a big picture of the water plant and and gave the vision of what useful life is left in the facility and recommendations moving forward. the utility can plan for capital expenditures on either rehab of the facility or ultimately looking at a new
facility in the future. And so that kind of broke out the recommendations of here's rough roughly what it would take to rehab with kind of not necessarily putting a dollar to it um at the time, but also based on the age of the facility, we should start considering looking at a new facility with
recommendations for here's some different treatment alternatives. This study is taking the next step towards that and getting to preliminary engineering and ultimately figuring out what's the best technology. What's the most cost-effective approach that are going to meet the goals and the vision for the future for the city?
>> Okay. Thank you, Morgan. Appreciate it. >> Thanks. >> Anything else? >> I'll wait for you to sit down before I ask my question. >> I have no further questions. Uh >> I I like the idea of drilling a six-inch well and letting it flow and seeing
where we're at. I think if if it was mine, that's what I would do. So, I'm I'm in favor of this >> call. >> Um, with that 6-in well, there also is an opportunity that that well doesn't have to go away in the future. You know, being it's so close to Buffalo Hills Park, there might be an opportunity to
um utilize that for irrigation purposes or whatever's needed on the on the public work side for utilizing that 6-in infrastructure in the future. So, it's not money that we're just throwing away by drilling a 6-in well that can be used for other purposes. Could that be used for like selling I know we sell a lot of
horizontal drillers water and stuff like that. Could a well like that be used >> potentially >> for that? >> Yep. If there's good access to it and things I would say. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> And I guess the question is if it's not a usable well, if we find out that it's
not a good well, would we be responsible for sealing and capping it? I know it's just going to be capped, but Okay. All right. Thanks. Okay, any further questions, comments? All right, we had a motion in a second. All those in favor say I. I. >> I.
>> Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. All right, we'll move on to item B. Approve the oversizing and extension of water main infrastructure and the oversizing of the sanitary sewer lift and force main for the Voyager Heights Apartments of Brainard project.
>> All right. So, I'm going to uh Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to try to walk the commission through this. So, um, we've been working collaboratively with James Cranvic and Jesse Dean um um on the Voyager Heights Apartments project. And this project is located down um
south of Woodland Hills Lane and to the west of Greenwood Street in South Brainard um near Woodland Hills, Good Samaritan. Um so during that collabor uh collaborative approach uh we've been working with the engineer for keepers construction who is the developer for
the proposed project on extension of utilities and street infrastructure uh for their proposed multi-building apartment complex. Um this project has been in front of the planning commission and city council quite a few times to date. Um and it it's advanced through
the city's development review process with the potential approvals by the city council um at their February 2nd meeting. Um the planning commission on January 21st uh uh considered action uh
on keeper final construction plat and uh final planned unit development. Um I think the commission's uh recommendation will be forward to the city council at their February 2nd meeting for action on those two items. uh the city council re re or previously
approved their environmental assessment worksheet at their December 15, 2025 meeting. So, as part of the utility construction, um we've been working with their uh engineer Westwood professional services um on the application of the
city's design standards to service their multi-unit apartment complex. Projects like this also provide an opportunity for staff to look at the other areas outside of this development to ensure that the city-owned infrastructure that's being installed is properly sized
um to accommodate any future potential development that happens in this area. through those discussions. Um, and just at a high level, so this project requires an extension of the water mane um, which currently terminates at the intersection of Greenwood Street in
Woodland Hills Lane. And it also requires the extension of Gravity uh, sanitary sewer and um, the placement of a city-owned lift station on Keeper's site. Um there is potential development
opportunity to the south uh west and east of this site. And so staff has worked with Westwood um to look at these development areas along with working with um and our water model to look at
how we could set ourselves up to serve these areas in the future with oversized water main and sanitary sewer infrastructure. What we came down to was um Keepers and Westwood, they need a 10-in water man
running down Greenwood Street um to the intersection of what would be the new Voyager Drive, which would be west of Greenwood Street and uh enters their facility that will be a city-owned street and it will currently dead end um
about 1,000 ft to the west. Um, what we're asking for and what we've ran our water models on is to basically not only upsize the 10-in water man that's needed to serve only their site, but also to
upsize that to a 12-in water man uh both down Greenwood Street and through their site um to provide uh potential service for future developments to the west. Um we've also uh asked keepers to include a
stub um at the intersection of Voyager Drive and Greenwood Street to the east to provide service to that parcel that is south of Teen Challenge. And we've also asked them to provide a stub um to the west on Woodland Hills Lane so that
a future capital improvement project we could loop in what would be Ridge Drive South and Crest View Lane where we have a couple of deadend lines at this time. Another request that we've asked um we've asked SE to run the water model and there's some snips from the water
model in your packet today is we've long known that we've needed to loop uh the Greenwood Street water main line in with um what is south of Trunk Highway 371B um down to the Andrew Street area which
is another deadend line. And you can see some of um these water modeling um exercises that we've done. And so we've asked keepers um um and to kind of look at what it would be to extend that water man from its current terminus point at
Voyager Drive and bring that down for us to basically the intersection of 371B and Greenwood Street so that at some point in the future we can push the water main across the highway and get it connected into the Andrew Street area. Um you can see um this this diagram
right here. This is the existing conditions. So you can see our pressures um in the Andrew Street area, which is the blue line in the bottom uh right hand corner of the first picture here. We're at 839 gallons per minute, 968 with a 10-in water man, which is the
green line on the next photo. Um you can see those pressures jumping substantially and providing redundancy to our system. and then further down um with the proposed 12-inch line, that is what our pressures are at. And this also
includes the looping of Ridge Drive and Crest View Lane um through this area. And so we've done quite a bit of water modeling and analysis to show that there's a benefit to the city that to upsizing these water manes um and setting us ourselves up for a future
project. Concurrently with that, um we're talking a little bit about sanitary sewer and um given the separation of duties right now between the city council and the public utilities commission as it relates to sewer, our purview right now is really
only the lift station and the force main infrastructure that is basically on the north end of their site. um uh given the operational needs from a lift station perspective. So um right
now the developer is only proposing what is called an uh it's a one lift structure. It's produced by Old Castle and it's an RC509 structure which is a 5 foot by 9 ft wet well um structure. And given this
potential for future development, we have um requested that the commission at least review the upsizing to the RC 611 structure um along with upsizing their proposed force man from 4 in to 6 in to accommodate future development in this
area. Um, city staff will be bringing a recommendation to the city council to also upsize the gravity sanitary sewer through the site to accommodate future development um both east, west, and south of the keeper development.
the estimated cost for these um I'll kind of touch first on um the the estimated sack and whack that'll be um uh collected with this project is currently I think 159600
for the whack uh fund and I believe it's a little over 200 200,000 for the sack fund and so we're requesting that with those fees that we collect from keepers for this development project that we turn around and use those for the
oversizing of the water man um which is a commission decision and then we asked the city council to utilize a portion of those funds for the sanitary sewer lift station and force main oversizing. Our current estimates are approximately 150,000 for the water main oversizing
and extension further down Greenwood Street and about 115,000 for the sanitary sewer oversizing in this area. So that request for sanitary sewer sack funds would go to the city council if the commission uh forwards that
recommendation on um the request to use the wack funds um would be a final decision by the commission here today. So that's a high level overview. I know that was a lot of talking by me and I'm certainly open uh to answering any questions. Um we just really feel that this is a beneficial project not only to
us but to keepers um providing some more economy of scale for them and um making sure all of our needs are met. >> Thanks Paul. Well, if it makes you feel better, I followed you. >> Okay. Well, that's good. >> No, I thought you did a great job. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve
this with discussion >> and I'd second for discussion. >> Okay. Motion in a second. Let's hear it. Um Paul, I just want to commend you on on how you presented this. Um it it's very uh easy to follow and I understand
understood it perfectly um when you were talking and when I was reading it last night. And I will always, you know, we need more housing in this community and if there's a big housing development going there and we can upsize this stuff a little bit and help help other developers come in around it as it's
developed, I think it's a very positive thing for the city of Brainard. So, I'm fully in support of of doing this and I love that we can pay for it with sack and whack. That's to my understanding what it's really supposed to be for. >> So, using it quickly and and and
hopefully being able to advertise that with our EDA um means a lot. So, good job. >> Maybe James or Jesse, if you have any other comments to make also related to that presentation. I don't know if there's anything you wanted to fill any
gaps in on. I think Paul covered it uh pretty clearly. Um the numbers that he gave for sack and whack is just kind of for the first phase. So there is going to be additional sack and whack collected um on phase two which is a 62 unit building. So just wanted to clarify that as well.
>> Yeah, thanks for all your efforts to make the project happen too. >> Yes, Jesse. So just to expound on what Paul mentioned, uh we've been doing the same kind of effort with our sanitary model and getting that up and running for not only this area, but that was the thought process behind building this up
for the region is not only for their phase 2 potential to the west, the area behind Teen Challenge, the area south of the highway. So we're looking at it from a not only for this project, but from a whole regional area. So we're not going to be restricted from future
development. >> Excellent. Thank you, Dolly. >> Just a couple questions. So, the second whack is just paying would be paying for the difference in the upsizing just for clarification. Correct? Yep. >> Okay. And so, um my only qu my my compliments is that you're thinking for
future growth as where I think when country manner was, uh established, we found that if we would have only planned way back a long time ago for future growth, we wouldn't be looking at issues that we had u with country manner. So, I appreciate this uh question. Andrew Street. Is that within the city limits
of Brainer? It is within the city limits. So, and all of those right now are on city street water or Okay. All right. I just was for clarification. Thank you very much. No, that was a great presentation. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I agree and I echo Mike's comments. It's nice to see this
discussion and it is uh being appropriately um you know placed and used. Yeah. So, this is great. I think we're coming a long ways as a overall organization. So all right. Uh so all those in favor say I. >> I. >> I.
>> Those opposed same sign. Motion carries. Thank you very much. >> All right. We'll move on to approve pool engineering and architectural service. This says letters of interest LOI and statement of qualifications. SOQ. >> Thank you uh Mr. Chair. So, uh, at the
last city council meeting, um, city staff proposed, uh, going out, uh, for solicitation for an LOI and, uh, statements of qualifications to engineering and architectural firms for setting up an on call roster pool for,
um, the original proposal was to go out for a 5-year term, so for 2027 to 2031. Um, the reason staff is kind of doing this is we not only want to kind of expand our reach as far as our consultant pool is concerned, but we also want to be more in the driver's
seat as far as process is concerned and trying to find efficiencies and streamlining our solicitation process throughout the organization. Whether that's um for street projects, for park projects, for um public utility projects. Um, we're looking ways to
streamline our contracting process through the RFPs and professional services agreements and um, getting to a point where we have a a pool set up where we have these categories throughout the pool that consultants
submit their qualifications on and we're getting all of the qualifications uh, side of reviewing proposals out of the way very early on. Once a consultant is within our pool and it's approved by all three bodies, those contracts or
task orders would go in front um of look either all the consultants within that pool category or we would work with them as a direct select basis. Um the benefits to this are you know currently how our current process works on larger infrastructure projects is we'll get an
RFP we'll solicit that to multiple firms or we'll leave it as an open solicitation and then consultants have to prepare um a detailed proposal for services based on the RFP language. How this would streamline this is many times
during a scoring process um you have qualifications, staff, previous experience, all this stuff that is a score on consultant proposals. That's getting this out of the way um on the front end and we're setting up our pool in a way that um we know who the
consultants are within each pool category. We know their qualifications. We know who their staff are. We're really just down to what is the scope of work, what is the schedule, and what is the price. Um, we see it as a benefit and streamlining on how we um contract
with our consultants and our um for any type of public works function. Um we would set up a standard master services agreement that once the pool is is um solidified consultants would enter into a cityissued master services agreement
and then these task orders when a project comes up would be driven by staff and it would be either on a direct negotiation basis or like a mini RFP basis. Um city council did review this at their last council meeting. They provided two comments. One is we had
originally um set up the uh the scope of work for a five-year pool term. The city council wanted to limit that to like a two-year pool with the understanding that if consultants want to get into the pool, they don't have to wait a full five years to potentially get into the
pool. Um and then the other thing that the council wanted to kind of put a cap on the contract limit with consultant services um up to about a $500,000 threshold. So, anything that would exceed that, we would go out to a full-blown RFP, but anything under that,
um, we had some discussion about, you know, Jesse's standard street uh, projects and what we see for engineering proposals. It the last one was in that 430,000 range, and we want to try to capture as many of those standard projects as possible. Um, and so that
uh, we the council wanted to put a cap on that contract amount for the pool services. So in the packet is the draft engineering consultant pool RFP um that if approved by the commission today the park board later on today bring that
back to the city council for final review and approval with um recommendations from the commission and park board that they would like to move forward with this process. So, I'm available to answer any questions um related to this, but um staff feels that this is a way that we can really
streamline our our contracting process with our professional services moving forward across the whole organization. >> Okay. Thanks, Paul. Commissioners, have any questions or I hear a motion? >> I'm going to make the motion to approve. Staff recommend recommends the approval
of uh make the motion to approve the attached solicitation of letters of interest and the statement of qualifications. Second. Oh, sorry. A little premature. >> Nope. That's right. I'm I'm good because we're going to discuss now. >> Okay. There's a motion in a second. Is there any discussion?
>> Yes. My question you you speak my language when you talk about processes and efficiencies. I love it. Love it. Um but my question is uh there was only a three-month deadline uh for this to be um for people to submit their to submit
these proposals. Is that too short of a window? And you also talked about a potential of open solicitation. Is that a potential? I mean, if this is a first time goaround of doing something like this, I mean, are we going to have a minimum a minimum number of uh um
proposals in our pool before we can say that this is actually going to be working? I mean, what if one only one only one or only two people companies? >> Yeah, I I don't foresee that happening. Um many consultants are used to this type of structure. Um, I've come from
the consultant world and um, a lot of consultants prefer this type of structure because once they're in that pool category, they know that they're going to be notified if there's a project that's coming up that they're in that category for. And so, it behooves all the consultants, even, you know,
outside of the Brainard area to put their name in the hat for this pool because once you're in, then you're kind of you're not guaranteed work, but you're at least considered for work moving forward. And so um you know typical solicitations like for Jesse's
RFPs processes are you know 3 to four weeks and we feel that this is it's only a 20page proposal and so that there is enough time for consultants to work to put this together. Um I know Mike coming from the consultant world that's usually kind of the timeline that you see. >> Yep. >> Um and so I think there's um I think the
timeline's good enough. Um and we would go through the same kind of approval process. This would come before the commission with a recommendation from staff to the park board and then finally to the city council. >> So moving from our recommendation to city council, right, then city council would adopt it and but so March 4th
would be the deadline for all proposals to be in that you okay. I'm I'm comfortable if you're comfortable. I just my concern is if it we just didn't get many, you know. >> Yeah. And that might we might adjust it a little bit depending, you know, if if that date might not be >> we have to wait for a master services
agreement from the the attorney too. And so there might be a little bit of lag time. It might be the second meeting in March where the council is looking at this, but >> Okay. Yeah. >> The $500,000 limit, is that just for the engineering or is that for the engineering and the project as well?
>> Just the engineering. >> Okay. That's all I got. >> Okay. I would agree. I feel like it's an appropriate amount of time and um certainly something we do see in the consultant world. So I think it's nice good process to streamline it. Okay. Uh
any further discussion? All right. All those in favor say I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. >> Approve. We'll move on. Item D. Approve SC trunk highway 210 construction observation and administration proposal for professional services.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so Jesse Dean released an RFP for um, construction observation and administration services for our upcoming Highway 210 reconstruction project. Um, the solicitation uh, we received two
proposals, one from WSB and one from SC. Um staff went through the scoring criteria and the review of both proposals um and uh recommended to the city council at their last meeting to approve SE and entering into an agreement with SE for these services. Um this is coming
before the commission as um a large portion of these professional services are related to the water main replacement uh project. Um and so uh there's a breakdown in the costs that we anticipate right now. um bids have not been received yet and that reallocation.
We won't know that until the bids come back. But uh we are we did recommend to the city council that we u u move forward with for these services. The city council did approve that. It's in front of the commission today um to review this and uh provide any feedback for staff.
>> Okay. Thanks, Paul. Do I hear a motion? >> Yep. I'll I'll move to approve staff's staff's recommendation for the construction observation contract uh for 210 Washington not to exceed with 4 uh and then not to exceed the amount of $268,000.
>> Second. Okay. Motion and second. Any further discussion? >> Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I. >> Those opposed, same sign. >> M item. Yeah. >> Um just there's a meeting today on 210. Is is that correct? Is it the 2:10? Was
it this morning at 9:00? >> There was a There was one session this morning at the chamber at 9:00. There's another session, I believe, tomorrow afternoon. It's either like 2:30 or 3. I don't know the exact time, but Okay. Yes, there was one >> for just cuz I do plan on going to the one tomorrow. So, there is I just want
to make sure no other commissioner is going tomorrow >> to the leting >> to the to the >> No, it's a mitigation plan for businesses on the 210 corridor that the chamber is putting on. I'll be out of town. So, you're safe with me. >> Am I safe or no? >> If I want to go, do we just make a
motion that I I think >> you have to adjurnn to it. >> Okay. >> Adjourn to it. Yep. >> If we adjourn to it, do we also have to uh note it? >> Mhm. >> You don't Okay. I just want to make sure. Perfect. So, >> I'll not go up. It's a pain, but I would >> No, no. I just I just want to make sure we're not going to get ourselves in
trouble. >> Yep. Me, too. Okay. Can you give me the details of that again? When is it? >> I don't know what the time is. Tomorrow. 5:30. I don't have it in front of me, but I can >> pull it up here real quick. >> Okay. >> I do not have it on my calendar. Jesse or James, do you guys
>> 3:00 at the chamber building? >> Okay. >> Thank you for bringing that up and for going. All right, we'll move on to item E. Approve Water continuous rate management
software proposal. I'm going to pass this over to Danny Lock for discussion. >> Okay, Danny, you're up. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Commissioners, the item for your consideration is a proposal for a one-year software subscription to support uh our ability to do in-house rate analysis and some
continuous rate management. Staff have been working with Waterworth, kind of seeing their proposals since the middle of 2025 here. So, both Paul and I sat through a demonstration, I sat through a demonstration uh a while ago. Um where we envision and see this being a benefit
is during the not eliminating our current rate um cost of service studies and things but to supplement that during that process. So, as we see these budget changes, as we see those items or or costs change when
we have projects, this will enable us to do that kind of on the fly and provide more timely feedback on our rates. Um, Waterworth is a very utility focused uh
program. They were a rate consultant went from the rate consultant side to creating this software. So they have experience in those rate models. Um we think we could use this software then
to evaluate those models on a timely basis as we look and as we move forward. So Max will go to the long range model and we can see a demonstration uh as it was included in your packet. The staff's recommendation is to do a low we're
going to deem a lowrisk approach by doing this in phases. So they have a ability to do water, wastewater, and electric >> and storm water >> and storm water. Staff's recommendation right now is to do a one-year subscription for water and wastewater.
That cost of that one-year subscription is 10,500. It' be split 6,000 to water and then 4,500 to wastewater. Um, that's what staff's requesting at this time. As we look at the long-term financial model that's on the screen
where the advantage of this is, this is actually some of our data that they had and used in our capital planning to put this together. So, this is not our audited numbers, but these are some of the numbers that we gave Waterworth to put this presentation together for us and to do the demonstration. So, as we
look in 2025 there, um the solid black line going across the middle of the screen is our cash balance as we sit presently. The very dark um top triangle that goes up there in the graph
would be if as we added the water and wastewater costs and then after 25 we see just the sharp decline in cash balances. So, because of our taking the scenario, taking our rates and saying, "Hey, our
water plant or the uh lead service lines is going to be $3 million a year, we start adding those costs in here, and that's showing what it's doing to our cash balance. So as we look and evaluate those changes as the lead service lines things come up as prices change for the
water wastewater or any city construction projects we can immediately evaluate what does that do to cash with the current rate structure. That's the benefit staff are seeing and that's why we're asking for a one-year trial subscription for the software at that
10,500. We would be taking that either out of contingency funds or some of the training budget. Our recommendation would be out of the capital asset contingency as this will be more of a capital asset planning tool. And with that, I'm here to answer any questions.
>> Yeah. And some of the other benefit that we see to this is really our current rate studies are are a snapshot in time, right? We have UFS pull a bunch of data. We give them our capital improvement plan and as soon as one thing changes, you might as well take that rate study
and throw it out the window because things are changing as funding comes in. We we know more like lead service lines is a perfect example of that. With a continuous rate management software, we can move our capital improvement plan around and see how it affects our rates. We can adjust the rates real time. We
can add inflation factors. we can do things here that we're not able to do in a snapshot in time rate study. And so that's where we see the benefit. Um, you know, if this is something that Danny and I try out and we really like, I could see this being an organizationwide
tool where we might get away from um doing uh consultant rate studies. Maybe we still do the cost of service studies every 5 years or so to kind of back check what we're seeing in our rate models. But this will allow us the opportunity as as things change
yeartoyear, we're able to move around that capital improvement plan or our operational funds and see how that's impacting our rate structure, especially with large projects on the horizon that um we're not going to know funding decisions um until a couple years uh in
advance of a project. >> Commissioners, I make a motion to approve with discussion. >> A second. Okay, we have a motion in discussion. Motion and a second. Mike, >> what like what what do you foresee this cost if this goes? I love the way you're
doing this. Pulse test it. It's what I call it. Try it for a year. Um, spend minimal money, see how you like it, see how it works, take it for a test drive. If you add everything into it after the year, what it's a ballpark cost on the software per year
>> be an additional like 13,000 9,000 for electric, another 4,000 for >> So 25,000 a year is what this would cost us. What do we spend a year on consultants trying to figure this out? So on the city side, I think uh the city
has a couple of proposals with UFS that they're working through right now that are in exance of about 10,000, but these are happening every, you know, 3 to four years, and so it's not like a annual thing. And so this will be more expensive. Don't get me wrong. Um the
other thing that we looked at was they just initiated their electric module and so I think there's probably some bugs and things that they'll need to work out. That's why we're proposing only the water and wastewater side. So is this you put our data in here weekly or monthly or how how often are you
inputting our data to keep this that I mean that black line is discerning. I know it's just a test model but how often are you updating this with our data? >> We can update it live. So typically what we do they what they they recommend is just doing it during budget time. You
update it to meet your budget. as your numbers change, you can input those and it's it's an Excelbased software, so it's really easy for us to change assumptions and change things. >> So, we can really look out two, three, five years at a time with everything we got upcoming. I think this is an outstanding tool.
>> Yeah, >> I couldn't agree more. I mean, the finance committee gets together, I mean, I'd be pulling that thing up and >> yeah, what a great way to communicate the need and >> it's a great visual tool from what we saw in our presentations from Waterworth. Um, you know, we have our rate consultants come and give a
presentation to the council or the commission and it's dry material, right? And it's hard to follow the process that they go through internally to get to a proposed rate structure. This is very visual. You can turn on layers in that graph. You can walk you all through the
process and how a rate is set and what we what we look at as far as capital expenses, cash flow, setting our cash flow kind of guard rails and things. And so um and just you know so Commissioner Higgins is aware that black line I think was without any proposed rate increases.
>> Correct. >> So that black line you saw. So you can say if you say 0% for the next five years here's what happens to our cash. Right? If we do a proposed rate structure of X, here's how you see that black line start moving again into a positive direction. in in a in a finance
meeting, we could play with that. >> Mhm. >> And and and in in real time and then get the line keep the line in a in a certain parameter. >> Yep. >> Yeah. It >> No, I like I love it. It's great. >> I actually like to see the demonstration once it does get up and running. It just moves forward. But um you know, and I
think we learned our lesson. Um it was always it was after the fact that we weren't charging enough for water. So, you know, to be able to stay ahead of the game and and see and project out uh where my reassurance and feeling good about it is that St. Paul uses it and St. Cloud uses it. So, you have some
local companies that already use it and you know, I I think that makes me feel better that it's not just out of touch. And then the learning curve, it sounded like there was unlimited training, a lot of one-on-one. Yeah, we're very confident in, you know, at least who we've been speaking with,
that they provide real-time services on call whenever we need them, more or less. So, >> awesome. >> Good stuff. It's fun to look at, too. >> Yeah. >> It's a good picture. >> Well, maybe maybe if the black line starts going up, then we can reduce
rates. >> Dolly, >> awesome. Thank you for providing all that information. All right, we have a motion in a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries.
Item F under one one hour. We got to go quick here. So, uh, approve amended Brainer public utilities policy BPU policy 200050-7 in active accounts. This would be Danny.
>> Yes. Thank you, Mr. President, commissioners. The next item is the inactive account policy. So, as part of our 2026 comprehensive policy review, we just se staff just selected this one for evaluation and update. The attached red line of the policy statement is our
current what our current policy says. That shows the red lines to what was added to the policy statement section of the proposed policy. The primary updates clarify kind of the treatment of some vacant accounts and then removed outdated references to prepaid and fixed
charges that are delayed in our billing process. So with the incode billing system, we're no longer allowed to suspend or make inactive accounts and then still have those charges accumulate. Uh what a customer could do is they could prepay on their account. So if they knew they were going to go
away for a couple months, they could prepay on their account. then the billings could be applied from that prepayment. But um as we look at operational efficiencies and different things, we're having to do manual adjustments right
now because of this policy. This is what the policy updates for in our operational. It also has some additional references to avoiding monthly charges were that we removed to align with our current AMI metering practices, which as we know if the meter is out there,
you're still incurring those costs to keep the meter running. Um, and I know our line guys would really appreciate it if they're aware of an outage that they can fix. The policy also clarifies that accounts inactive for 12 consecutive months or
longer may uh must reapply or may reapply for service under the current requirements and then confirms our authority to remove that equipment if it's not being built or not being utilized in that 12 consecutive months. Uh staff are recommending approval of
the updated policy as presented which incorporates the revisions that I discussed and those that you can see and then adds additional sections to align with the broader comprehensive policy review. >> Thank you Danny. Do I hear a motion?
>> I'll make a motion to approve with discussion. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion to second. Let's have some discussion. like define um so I don't know how to ask this question. So I've got five or six meters
that are on buildings that are we're not using but I pay the meter charge every month. Am I is that what you're discussing here? >> Correct. So it' be having those charges. You're paying the meter so you're following the policy. >> Okay. What what's not following the
policy? So, if someone had a meter and then were not paying, we need to go back and audit some of our accounts. We're finding some as we're auditing accounts, we're finding some that are not being charged presently. This is reaffirming that policy and then allowing us to move forward with
>> removal of equipment. >> Removal of equipment or assessing those charges. >> So, is does this happen like in a tenant landlord situation where a tenant moves out and then we miss it? Like there's been instances. Yes.
>> Okay. So, what I'm doing is following the policy. It's somebody that had left a meter in and stopped paying the bill like whoever left. Okay. That's all I got. >> Deli.
>> I don't have anything. >> I don't either. Okay. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Okay. Okay, we'll move on to approving amended Brainer public utilities policy BPU
P25-10 disconnection of service policy. >> Annie, you want to take this one? >> You can take that one as well. >> So, the the next policy that we included in our comprehensive review is this the disconnection of service policy. Commission saw this policy in 20 uh
2024. The only adjustment we made to the policy statement on there, instead of a bulleted list, we now have a numbered list. So that red line was included in your packet. The additional changes to the policy, we're just recommending the comprehensive review and adding those
additional sections for clarification. That is what we're recommending. So we're recommending approval. >> Second. Okay. Motion to second. Any further discussion? >> How often are we doing a disconnect? >> Weekly.
really no further questions. >> So you you're framing this within a comprehensive policy review. Can you just remind everybody what you guys are in the process of doing? What what the initiative is basically? So, our goal is to bring all of the policies that we
currently have written and those in any in draft form in front of commission in 2026 to make sure that we have the policy um reaffirmed by commission and ensuring that we have the accurate policies that you want to see us enforcing for customers >> and staff has clarity regarding what to
do with policy. Right. >> Okay. I just like hearing how on top of it everybody is with BPUs. So, nice. Great job. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, now we're going to move on to approve uh dying to film quote. >> Oh, we got a vote.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I was too busy bragging about you guys. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> All right. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Okay. Just seeing if you guys are paying attention. And you are. >> We'll move on to approve dying to film quote water plant tour video. There's a
lot of items here, so you got to cut me some slack. All right, Danny, you're up. >> It's going well, Mr. President. The next item for consideration is a videography videography services quote. So, similar to how we did the hydro tour video in
the budgeting of the 2026, we discussed having um our other facilities create videos and tour for those processes. So, water, wastewater, uh and some of the distribution side for the electric. The
discussion we had as a finance committee was a $7,500 budget to um continue these quotes. Um Mr. uh Nelson came and reviewed the water plant. So our recommendation would be to move forward
with a water plant tour to help with funding as it relates to a new water treatment plant and getting the information out there. He presented two options in his quote. One option was for that tour video and then six of those shorts. And then a second option was for
the tour video with 12 uh shorts if we wanted to have a more um regular update with videos going out on like social media or being uploaded to the website. staff's recommendation looking at the what the budget constraints were and um
some of the topics that we had just brainstormed as he was here was to do option one for the tour video of the water plant and then six shorts. That is what we're presenting for your consideration. >> Thanks Danny. Is there a motion?
>> I make a motion to approve option one. >> I'll second for discussion. >> Okay. Motion a second. Dolly discussion. I'm actually going to vote no on this just at this time. I think that if we're looking at doing a a a study on a new water facility, I feel like this money
could be spent um later. Uh or unless it's going to help us with bonding or funding for a new water facility, I just I don't I just don't feel like this one is as important. I would I would look at the wastewater treatment plant before I would look at the water facility. That's
just my opinion. >> Okay. Thank you, Mike. Um, I don't like spending money on this stuff either, but I after talking to uh some state reps. Um, I think they it really helped the damn tour we did, it really helped. You
know, people are visual and they like to see interaction. You know, we could have probably found somebody better than Trent to to be doing the dialogue. But other than that, I I believe that I would support this um at at the minimal
cost just because I think the amount of stuff that we have coming up. Um it's it's just good to have media. People like visual stuff. They like videos. These drone flythroughs are amazing. And and I think it probably does I I would
imagine that some of these videos are going to actually show the age and some of the issues. you know, we're going to use it to to play the poor me card a little bit. So, I I support it, but I do understand Dolly's side of it as well.
I support it for similar reasons because I think education is is key and for our legislators and even our uh customers just to know the the state and in which our facilities are at and what we're trying to do to to upgrade everything. So, I I do support this. I think it's a
great way to communicate, very effective. >> Any further discussion? >> I only want to reiterate that Bolton Mink did an asset assessment of the water facility and that's why I'm going to keep coming back to it. So that's it. >> All right. All those in favor say I.
>> I. I. >> Those opposed, same sign. >> I. >> Motion carries. All right. Item I, consider customer request to remove charges. Danny. >> Danny. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Mr. President.
>> Yep. >> The next item on the agenda is a customer request to remove charges on their account. We have um been reviewing some of the accounts with the transition to the new billing um specialist as well
as some of the previous movement to the new incode process. What we are finding is through that transition and through our upgrade to ERP Pro 10, we did not have the applicable services being charged on
several accounts. One of the accounts in question has asked us to wave all of the charges that were passed due related to water and wastewater. um
the service charge as well as the con the the consumption staff's position was to approach and wave the monthly service fee but still charge for consumption. That is what the customers received on their latest bill. This customer has
requested that we wave all those charges and forgive all those prior to the discovery of the clerical air. Uh for clarification to commission, there is a period of 6 years that we can go back for electric charges
that are in a rears if it's a billing air. For water and wastewater charges, there's a three-year. We did confirm that with the city attorney. Um so that is one item we are asking for clarification on from the commission.
The second item or topics to discuss is how commission would like us to treat these items in the future as we fear there's going to be more that we're finding as we go through an audit. So as we've seen we've had at least three customers now four customers that I'm
aware of in the last week. So staff have used that to will spearhead a complete audit of all accounts in 26 to ensure everything's corrected going forward. >> Okay. Thank you, Danny.
>> Yeah, I I think so. I think this this certainly re uh warrants some some additional questions here. >> Mr. Chair, so how how would the customer have known there was a clerical error? just I mean would they have known >> this customer in particular they have
automatic payment billing if they don't look at their they did not look at their bill they said well we trusted you guys to put it in forward it was definitely a clerical error on our end it was 100% something an oversight uh at staff level um if they're paying their bill monthly
and they're on automatic payment no they I mean I look at it on my own billing I haven't looked at my power bill ever So, um, I can understand how it transpired. Trent,
is this what happened to my electric bill a couple years ago? >> Um, refresh my memory. I'm sorry. Well, you guys didn't you didn't I can't remember if you
didn't bill me or you just didn't it just everything went into limbo, but I think it got to about 3 months and I opened up a bill one day because I don't look at him every month and I owed you like 75 grand. >> I'd have to go back and review. I do not remember. >> I think I I'm pretty sure this this
happened to me at Bick. And once I realized it, I called Trent and I'm like, "Hey, something's going on here." I don't you normally you would have been hounding me. You're going to shut my meter off and then I'd have paid the bill. But nothing happened for 3 months. And when that happened, I'm pretty sure you, if I remember correctly, that you
waved, you know, you gave me a little leeway. I I think I took we just paid double the water the electric bill for 3 months and you waved the charges and we got it caught up, but I brought it to your attention. I think it's pretty much the same thing. So, I I mean, people
need to pay attention. I I'm totally in favor of waving the any anything and I'm totally in favor of giving them, you know, a few months to to get it caught up, but I I mean, they used it. They got to pay for it in my opinion.
>> Yes, Paul. >> I think that was staff's kind of view on this is, you know, our monthly service charge is for the administration time. It's for sending our crews out to remove meters. It's it's for that type of stuff. But we still had to treat the water. they consumed. We still have to
treat it at the wastewater plant. So there there's there's costs there that whether or not it was a clerical air. We're meeting in the middle and saying that from the clerical side, we're we're waving this, but on the consumption side, we still had an operational expense that um we incurred during that
time. >> And Mr. chair. Um I know when we get on occasion we'll get customer u request for you know to to wave some of the fees but it usually is wastewater you know and and we do still have to treat the water. So I am in favor of it was a
product that was provided. Um whether they didn't catch the clerical air and whether we're just now catching it um out of fairness I think we have to stay consistent with our our other policies of when those exceptions do come to the commission. >> Yes. standing.
>> However, the commission decides we will work at a payment arrangement that works for the customer. So, >> okay. >> I would make a motion that as discussed that we we would charge the customer for what he used, wave any extra fees, and
give him some sort of a timeline to get it caught up. >> Okay, there's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? >> Okay, all those in favor say I. I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. >> Move on to item.
>> Yes. >> Is that how the commission would like us to handle all of these going forward? Do you want them each coming to you individually? That' be the second part of the question is how would you like staff to handle >> these moving forward? Do we
>> So I would if I mean if I would like to see the magnitude of it. So if they could come in individually unless it's under maybe if you would agree do it under staff report. >> Yeah, that would be great. Perfect. Okay, good clarification, Danny. Thank you. All right. Discuss a
updates and approve sale of excess capacity. >> I think Danny is going to take this one. >> So, each year we have a meeting with About this time of the year. Uh Vince from A comes in and gives us a presentation on kind of the market, how it's doing, the volatility, some of the
changes that we're seeing. uh looks at our usages over the last year and then compares that to what capacity we have purchased. So similar in past years we did a review of our accounts. We do have some capacity in some of those months.
Um so a is recommending that we look at selling some of that capacity. We have options to sell that capacity before the auction and get a semi-g guaranteed price. A does have customers that are short, so there's
some trading that kind of happens in a's markets. That is how the commission has treated this in the past. With that trading, we'd see in excess of approximately 149,000 in revenue for 26
through 2027. uh in May to of 25 to May of 26 our previous sale where we had excess capacity about 162,000 um that's kind of up to how the commission wants to go what we're seeing
in the markets is some significant volatility they have been selling previously I think some of the auction rates were at like $82 a megawatt day some of the markets are closing significantly higher $493 a
megawatt day. So there are potential that if we went to auction, we could see more, but it's an auction we could see less. That would be completely up to the commission. Staff's recommendation as we look at this is to be sell that excess capacity prior to
reaching the open market and coordinating with a to do that. It gives us a benefit. if there's ever a time where we're short, they're negotiating with those customers to give us that opportunity as well. So, we see kind of it being >> a two-way street, >> a two-way street. And be good to your
neighbors so they're good to you later. That's how staff's looking at it. So, that would be staff's recommendation would be selling this excess capacity prior to the auction. And with that, um, open for discussion. >> Hey, thanks Danny. Mike, that's a big
discrepancy. 82 bucks to 493. >> Have we ever done it any other way? >> I don't remember that we have. >> Not that I'm aware of. >> Okay. I was just curious like >> most generally that excess capacity stays inside of a footprint and what they use it as the other municipal. So
they serve municipals in Minnesota and Wisconsin. So we typically keep that capacity within the municipals which is beneficial for public power and as we align towards that >> that's guaranteed that stays in the municipal power generator. >> It's not all guaranteed. That's their
first look. That's where they'll start and there is a few customers that are short that are landing in the municipal um portfolio here. So my assumption would be that's where it would end up. >> So we're it's kind of like playing the stock market, right? So, we're we're betting on that it could generate
150,000. Could we put a number on it to kind of I mean, could we at this point say we'll sell it, but this is what we want out of it if they're going to pre-sell it before the auction. >> So, that's what's presented here. The 149,000 is what
>> want more to pay for a a a die film project that just got >> There you go. I love it. >> Just saying. >> How's it going, Nolly? Is it I mean, could we request I mean, if we're in negotiations at this point,
could could we request or suggest? >> We could suggest it. >> Well, that's what I would suggest. 155,000 to sell it pre before auction. That would be I guess where I'd be going with it. I mean, I we're taking a risk.
I know if we did go to auction that we wouldn't even get that. I mean, that it would be for a lot less and we wouldn't uh we wouldn't be getting that. And I know we're not using it. We we've got the excess, right? And there's no in there's no in way that we're going to be using it this summer. I mean, it's going
to be there regardless. So, I would obviously I'm moving towards we need to sell it, but it's that risk factor. I'm more on the guarantee of I'd rather have a guarantee than running the risk. >> I'm I'd roll the dice if it was my money
in a heartbeat. I wouldn't even hesitate. But I will go along with staff recommendations on this. I think you guys are in this game a lot more than I am. And this I guess it also popped a lot of ideas into my head after the MMUA
meeting that I went to. So I'm I'm okay. I mean, if we asked them for what dollar? I mean, could we ask them? >> We could ask. >> I mean, tell them we're trying to do some things. Can we get an extra 10 grand or something?
I can ask that >> and then if they're not able to find a c the question would be is if they're not able to find a customer do we want to lock in at I think they have a customer at this that's why they're showing that if they can't lock in a customer before auction
>> when is the auction >> March >> so can we readress this at the next meeting or is that too late >> we should be able to there's potential that the current customer they have finds other capacity between here and there and then this would not be on the table at that point. But I think this is
a conservative approach what we've consistently done over the years with this. Um comfortable with where those numbers are coming in at. But yes, it's like very much golly like you mentioned. It's like following the stock market and we've seen this cold weather come through and gas prices shot up. Electricity went crazy the last couple days. Yep.
>> So I mean and that's very volatile and that's storms uh weather impact all of this. And if you watch natural gas, we pretty much trend out the electric side right on its tail no matter up or down. So, it's a foggy crystal ball. >> Well, I'm going to make the motion to
accept staff's recommendation, but I would like to come back with them uh with an offer 155. If if we could do that, that'd be great. >> I'd second that. Okay. Motion in a second. Any further discussion? Okay. Hearing none. Those in favor say
I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. >> Motion carries. All right. Authorize staff to negotiate updated AE contract amendment. Denny. Thank you, Mr. President. So, as part of
the conversation that we have with A every year, they come and present um their packet of information that has been included in your packets. the as we look at commission's request to extend our purchase power purchase power
agreements out for the 10 years time the a comes and they present where they have a dollar amount. So if we were to stay with our current contract and not amend the current contract but get out there 10 years we'd see a increase of about
23% in year 10. They have always then submitted and shown us a amended agreement where if we amend the agreement starting in May June of this year that price that they're
recommending is in the presentation it's $5160. Last year's amendment was at $49.35. So what that does is makes our purchase power instead of we had anticipated a 2% increase per year, we're seeing a 4%
increase in this year and then a two to 4% the remaining years of the contract instead of seeing that significant jump of 23% in that 10th year. >> So they're basically blending in that 10th year's rate into our overall hedge
over the next 10 years. >> Yes. Our initial presentation was at that $51.60 to what um Trent was alluding to. Over the last week here,
our temperatures have dropped significantly across the country. Natural gas prices are going up significantly. The latest price that they could get as of this morning was $51.90. So, we're seeing a significant increase there. What this is leading to
realistically in a dollar amount is about $287,000 more in purchase power costs for 26 and then the subsequent years comparatively if we use the same exact energy we're using today. Um that leads to that additional 4% this
year versus our anticipated 2% but then levels that out to Paul's point throughout that 10-year period. So, we're basically hedging oursel out in the 10-year look ahead and reducing our risk factor to the volatility of the
market because there's some utilities that have not done this that are at the mercy of the market and they're up at that $49500. They're going to the auction having to purchase power at a much steeper rate.
And Commissioner President, if I may, I'll just throw another tip of information out here. Since if we take a snapshot in time back in 2016 when we moved to A and we locked those numbers in that we were currently paying with the previous power provider, we're still cheaper today than we were 10 years ago. So to say what a good partnership we've
had with AP through this and the good decisions I feel the board has made um we're we're sitting very good for the next 10 years and we makes it uh very palatable for the finance team to be able to set rates and see what rates need to be and helps us align projects with we know where we're going to be
with our money. So without taking this approach to director Sandy's point we are really volatile in that market and we could see some huge rate changes um just because of weather. Can you just refresh my memory? We talk
about rate increases and we had set those up to be increased in July. Automatic increase in July and that's accounting for the difference year 2 whatever you right I mean we're making sure that our difference is is at least matching if not getting uh a little
higher than what their our differences with our rate payers. >> Correct. And and do we have that is that was that our policy that we did it every July that there was an automatic rate adjustment? >> We did a rate adjustment for two years. So that was what commission has approved so far.
>> And is that now done? Do we have to look at the future? I mean are we looking at the next two years or are we are we still into that two-year process? I don't know. >> So when Director Evans was here, we went and did a five-year rate study review. Commission approved that two years of that rate. Okay. And so that has been
adjusted and reflected for the um amendment last year. That has not been amended for this year's amendment. >> All right. >> We have typically we do we have always taken the amended price with a
now because prices have always been increasing. But sta staff's recommendation would be to authorize um Director Sandy to negotiate with A for a price not exceeding 5250 and that gives us to that approximately
$287,000 more. That gives us even a little more leeway so that we're covering any market volatility between now and the time we can sign an agreement. I'd move to approve that motion. >> I second. >> Okay. Motion in a second. Further discussion.
>> Paul, if you come back at 5249, I'm going to be disappointed. >> I'm a tough cookie. >> Try to save us 10 grand, will you? >> Okay, we need to vote. I won't forget. Okay, all those in favor say I.
>> I. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. >> Thank you. you and I think Trent, nice to make mention of the history of this and and um just what collectively we've been able to accomplish there for our customers. So, it's nice to see that in action. So, okay. So, now we're moving
on to staff reports. City administrator, Mr. Broyals. >> Thank you, Mr. President. I will be brief. Uh city council has approved and directed staff to reach out to American Legal Publishing for cottification services. ALP is kind of the gold
standard in codification. They have in excess of 300 municipal clients just in Minnesota and they're also nationwide. I have some experience with ALP and previous jobs. So, we are going to be reaching out. We're working out some of the finer details of an agreement right now. The initial effort for the
cotification will be about a year and then it'll just be maintenance after that. But, this will digitize our code. It will make it searchable. They will update our code. They'll keep it current. They'll format it properly. we can submit new ordinances when they pass and it'll integrate those. So, I think
this is going to be a huge leap forward for the city. So, we're excited about this. So, again, we're just working out the finer details of that initial agreement. The first effort will be about a year for them to get to codify the code and then it's just maintenance after that. So, that's one item. The second item I wanted to bring up was,
you know, monthly, you guys are probably all well aware, I do a radio show called Community Focus on WJJY and I often ask one of the directors or or or a member of staff to join me if there's something that's relevant or gerine to the conversation. Uh this past month or earlier this month rather in January, I
asked Paul to join me and he talked about lead service lines. That was very informative. So I appreciate that. Wanted to recognize Paul. Good job. Uh third thing, uh probably don't need to mention too much about this since all the commissioners were there. Charter commission, the last charter commission meeting was on the 21st of January. I
thought it was productive. Staff has a good direction going forward. I think we're getting closer to a solution to get this out of the charter committee. Just a reminder that the initial the initial uh comments are due by close of business this Thursday. Uh if you have any questions, please ask. And then
lastly, I just want to recognize uh an outgoing and an incoming. Uh on Friday, our previous HR director, Chris Schubert, retired on Friday. Um Britney Comet is the new HR director. She's not new to the organization, but she's new to her position. She's got some big
shoes to fill, but I know she's up to the task. So, just want to welcome Britney and uh and bid uh say my thanks to Chris Schubert. She retired Friday. So, uh we're turning the page, a new chapter in the city of Brainard. very excited. Um, with that, I'll just take any questions if you have them. That's
all I have. >> Thanks, Mr. Broyals. Anybody have any questions, comments? >> Yeah, the only question I would and it's not directed at you, but I I love the community focus at you guys that the city does. Are those can those be added to the city's the links to the city's
web page because sometimes I just forget it when the radio's on. I'm busy. I can't I can't always hear it. So, how how does a person go back and relisten to those? Not being an IT expert, it seems like it's in 2026. It seems feasible, but let me look into it. Paul, did you want to say?
>> Commissioner Matt, we did add that segment uh to the BPU website with our most recent update for lead service lines. >> So, it can be done. >> You guys, that's awesome. Thanks. >> You have your DJ voice going. >> I don't like listening to my stuff, but I was told that I have a voice for
radio. >> Hey, you got a face for radio. Bad team. >> I had to say it. I couldn't. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. >> All right, Paul. Sorry I opened that up. Uh, okay. No, I agree, Mr. Buzz. The
charter commission meeting was great and I thank staff and, uh, in particular, Mike and Dolly, you guys had great comments. So, okay. Council leazison report. That'll be pretty short today, won't it? >> Okay. Okay. HR director report. What do
you think? >> Yes. Thank you. Um, the report is attached. I do have one additional update. So, the business office support specialist um we had offered it to Amanda Schneider. All of her pre-employment testing is complete and
we have narrowed down a start date for Monday, February 2nd. Um that will go in front of council at the February 2nd meeting for final approval. And that is all I have. >> Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. Any questions, comments from the team?
>> Yeah, you bet. Okay. public utilities director's report. >> I have nothing further than what's in my written report unless there's questions from the commission. >> That's a great report. Thank you. >> I do want to make a comment uh with the
work that and the cooperation between what you all are doing uh with trying to create some ordinance not ordinances but uh um like the fog testing th those policies. I I appreciate you working with Baxter. you know, why reinvent the wheel? Um, it shows a great partnership
and it's very much appreciated. So, I wanted to make sure that you you knew that we are very appreciative of that. >> Thank you, Dolly. >> Thank you. >> Okay, Mr. Lock, Danny Lock, finance manager report.
>> Thank you, Mr. President. I have uh one thing to add to my report. We had a great event at the MMUA governance and training conference last Friday. I won't say any more than that so I can allow Mr. Higgins to have his uh time, but I wanted to also welcome Britney and say
thank you to Chris as well. The end of my report. Thank you, Danny. Any questions? >> Okay, any questions for Danny? >> Okay, operations manager report. I'll be real brief and I plan on bringing some of this back to the next commission
meeting, but two top sub top subjects I want to touch on that were not in my report. Um, we were called for a mutual aid event. Uh, winter storm Fern was bearing down on kind of the southeast port of the country and they did reach out for mutual aid quests. We did dispatch crews last Saturday. We sent
one bucket truck and two linemen to assist in that effort. We were headed towards High Point, North Carolina. We didn't make it there yesterday. Um, as the storm blew across the country, the temperatures came colder than they thought they were going to. So, they ended up seeing more snow than they saw ice in that particular region. So, our crews have been released and they are
returning back home now. So we hope for a safe travel. Um just being a part of that we left 40 line workers from Minnesota, two mechanics and two safety professionals from MUA were all together in that um deployment down there. So >> they convoyed together. It's quite a process. It came together in less than
24 hours. Those crews were dispatched. So it's pretty amazing to be a part of that and knowing that that is a uh opportunity for whenever we need assistance that we definitely know people are going to be coming and helping. So proud of staff of that to be in that engagement. And then another thing is we're going platinum. Our RP3
numbers came back for the year. Um, we've moved up our designation from a gold standard to the platinum standard. And to be absolutely honest, we missed the diamond status by about five points. So, we're going to bear down on that and we are going to get us to diamond here. And I'll bring some more of that to our next commission meeting. I'll put in my report so you guys can review it some
more. And other than that, if there's no more questions, I will yield to Charlie. >> Any questions for Trent? >> I you sent me that email on that award. I think that's awesome. And I think that the way that you and your team strive to
be the best is amazing. Appreciate that. >> I just have one question. You and I not liking for an answer. Um do we have an idea what the wastewater treatment plant draws for for electricity every month? I mean I mean we obviously know. So and I
love these these summaries. So um 45.5 megawatts approximately 1%. you know, the the outage or the output from the solar, is that enough to support the wastewater treatment plant for a month at a time? >> It's very close. So, that project was sized originally to be a little bigger,
but we ran into some constraints with our CUP um to be able to make it bigger, but it's really close. And so, operational needs will change as Charlie's processes go, but he's right around a megawatt to a megawatt and a half consistent load all the time. And um he's done a lot of efficiencies to get that number. We got it about as low as we can possibly get it and still
treat. So, >> that's great. it makes sense why there'd be a project uh you know so anyway I just wanted to know >> great question thank you >> now people can say they've gone platinum >> we've gone platinum well congrats to the team okay Charlie it's all yours
>> yeah thank you I don't have anything more to uh offer to the report other than uh currently we're working on and everybody has uh submitted their reviews so we're we're working through that and I should be wrapping wrapping that up in
within a couple weeks and uh I have yet mine to do. So, but they go first and then let's but but if you have any questions um again bios we're producing at every moment and uh I get a little bit nervous
around this time hoping for April real quick. So, any other questions? Let me know. >> That answer my question. You So, you start land applying in April. Well, it's mother nature, right? So, and when the
farmers are ready. Absolutely. Okay. And so, it's a big it's a big thing, right? Um >> in scheduling and planning and and with all the agency's uh needs. So, it's it's very >> very cumbersome when I start to just like this cold weather when it comes to
water towers and and trends. Um I start to not sleep very well. Um, and then when spring comes for the frost going down as another consideration. So, um, yeah, a little bit nervous, but we'll make it.
You just got to lay off the coffee. >> It's like saying don't breathe, right? >> Okay. Commission member reports. Mike, start with you. >> Oh, yeah. I had a got to go down to the MMUA um governance and action a view from a commission's chair um day meeting
last week and it was awesome. Um I got a book here if somebody if you guys want to take it and read it and I made some notes on some things. Um, I guess the biggest um thing I got out of it was they they talked a lot about um small
municipal electric companies like we owned selling to a bigger guy and then they walked that process through what happens after that. And it's there's nothing positive that happens when a big company comes in and buys a little
company like we have. Um they they talk about outages going longer. They talk about they don't care. Um there was concern, you know, they don't take care of poles, they don't take care of transformers, they don't take care of infrastructure. They're just raking our money in. So I and I've often thought
I'll be honest that I didn't understand why why a small town like Brainer would have its own electric division, but after 8 hours sitting there listening to the horror stories about what happens to small communities, I am I would fight to
the death to keep our electric co-op. Now that's the biggest thing I got out of that day. And I don't that was probably more like I spent more time in that meeting than I did any single day in school my entire life. But it was it was just really informative. They had great speakers and and just to talk to
some other commissioners and some other utility directors. Um I I just I just felt more part of and and and more of a you know, I guess I learned a lot about being a commissioner and what it means to sit up here and and make decisions
and give my opinions and I just I look forward to some more of that stuff, too. So, um, other than that, I'm really happy with the the way the charter meeting went. Um, I thought that was one of the best conversation meetings that we've
had and I'm just really hoping that we can get that wrapped up and and get a 7 to0 vote and get, you know, we it came up today in this gravity issue where we're trying to make decisions and on a new development and it's it's cumbersome. It's it's you know, we look
to big developers, we look weird because we we're it's we can't all we can't just sit up here and make a decision. It's it's splits. And I just I just think I've always thought that was odd. So, I'm I'm looking forward to getting that fixed, however it goes. And and um I
appreciate all the work the staff and Nick has done on that. It it really meant a lot to me. So, thanks. >> Thanks, Mike. >> Dolly. Um, I'm gonna echo a lot of what Mike was just saying. I I have gone to the MMUA conferences in the past and and
that's exactly what I've gotten out of it. And I think we can learn by other people. Um, and I think we had uh one small utility in Minnesota in the last year or two that sold off their electric and the ink wasn't dry and they regretted every minute of it. So, it's a
good learning experience to be aware of what's happening in surrounding communities and what what can come of that. Um I only want to ask the question as we move forward. Um I know we had a really brief discussion uh at the beginning of the meeting regarding the
um our banking and I would ask is it possible if we in the future look at uh a new bank for BPU? Um if we could look at the operating account uh to request any new bank to have it be interest
bearing. Um, you know, that was just something that we had asked some of our local banks and that was the benefit of using a local bank and it just to have that passive income uh was pretty it's pretty substantial. It allows us to do smaller projects that we wouldn't have normally been able to fund otherwise.
So, I would like to see if we could do that. But, um, and I will again, like I said, echo what Mike had mentioned. Um, I know the charter commission had worked really hard, staff, all of you had worked really hard on drafting new language that clearly was very outdated.
So, um, just I really am I am I'm really positive for 2026 that we're finally on a really good track and I just hope that we can stay on that track. It's it's been great and it's been great to watch. So, that's all I have.
>> Well put. Thank you. Yeah, I I will just I guess summarize things here. From my perspective sitting here uh listening, it's I'm hearing things like forward thinking, strategic planning, excellence, mutual aid, selflessness, uh helping others, streamlining, p I mean
it's just I think 26 is off to a heck of a great start and it's all credit to staff and uh really looking forward to a great year. So, thank you for the opportunity to be part of this uh to serve on this on this commission. It certainly is my pleasure and uh yeah
humbled by that when I hear things about like like we heard today. So thanks a lot everybody. And uh with that do I hear a motion to adjourn to the highway 210 meeting Wednesday January 28 3 p.m. at the chamber.
>> So move second. >> Okay. Motion to second. Further discussion hearing none. All those in favor say I. I. I. Those post same sign. Motion carries. Thanks everybody.