Tuesday, September 30th, 9 a.m. Higgins here. Matt here. Odate here. England. I pledge algiance 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. Before we move on to item number four, um can we add the resolution uh requesting the issuance and sale of by the city of Brainard of general obligation bonds
payable from net revenues to the city's utilities under item under new business item E. Okay. And then I would make a motion to approve the agenda.
All in favor signify by saying I motion carries. Turn your microphones on, please. Can you hear me now? There you go. Thank you. Okay. Uh, next is a consent calendar. This is notice to the public. All matters listed are considered routine by
the commission and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown prior to the time commission votes on the motion to be adopted by roll call. Approval of the minutes, approval of bills, approve
surplus items for auction and D is approve final pay application Minger construction for River Crossing force main the final $15,000. I make a motion to approve. Second. Roll call.
Higgins. Yes. Mattton. Yes. OD. Yes. Next up is public forum. Time allocated for citizens to bring matters not on the agenda to the attention of the commission. Time limits may be imposed. Anyone here for public forum?
No. Okay. We'll move on to uh commission committee reports. Personnel committee. Uh the we met by phone, but so we'll cover most of this in today's agenda. So, okay. Uh, finance operations committee.
We met one time. We talked about the request for um the pilot to be changed and a few other things, but I think the rest of it will be addressed in the agenda. Okay. Thank you. Unfinished business.
Um, you have a list there. Is there any um updates that we need to talk about or questions? I'll give a couple to the commission. We uh we have the block metrics request that's in the commission packet that we'll discuss. Climate vision. We're
working with Langle on updating that uh language for getting that on the tower. And then uh I guess one of the biggest updates for the from the hydrogeneration um bar will have something for us next month. There is some technologies that they found that are promising.
Okay. Thank you, Danny. And then uh next then is to the discussion of the block matrix contract. You want to start us out, Danny? I can start. So blockmetrics reached out. We've uh played phone tag a little
bit. Had a couple meetings um that were cancelled, rescheduled, a bunch of back and forth there. I was able to speak with them last Monday where we got on the phone and they have proposed the attached agreement for comm
commission's consideration. I have provided in the agenda request kind of the timeline of events that led us to where we are today starting back of April of last year and then moving up to today for your consideration. Um,
I guess what the staff would be looking for is a direction on how we want to move forward with the agreement and any questions or comments the commission has that we could bring back to them or how you would like to proceed. Some of the
main points that um have been highlighted in the agenda request was uh a proposal of the agreements extension of the term. The extended agreement that we had discussed started this month and
then with that sixmonth extension occurring in March or that's that time for the the liquidating damages clause. They've proposed the agreement start here in October and goes for two years with automatic renewal terms. They've
proposed an extension of startup time from September of 25 this month to October of next year 2026. They have proposed reimbursement of all costs incurred by block metrics for services to the site if the agreement
agreement terminates within the next 10 years. They have proposed the removal of section 5.11 which would disallow generation construction and purchase outside of the BPU service territory. Um, they have proposed adjusting the liquidating damages clause from March 30
of 2026 to April of 20 or excuse me, from March 30 of 26 to September of 2026 that matches the extended startup time and then proposed removal of costs for
the Minnesota Renewable Energy Standard state requirements. for the highlighted items that were proposed as I read through the agreement and staff would be looking for any direction from commission. You want to go first?
Well, I just I I had I spent a quite a while on this. I had a thousand and one questions I feel like but my questions that I have at the when they propose these changes who besides staff and now our eyeballs are looking at this their
changes. Um, Kayla Brennan, the Spencer Fain attorney who helped draft the agreement originally, has also looked at it. All right. So, because I I still am struggling with an extension of an agreement we never even had with them. So, and I do realize that under 161, this entire agreement really just constitutes a brand new agreement. So,
why are we looking at an extension? First and foremost, be my question. Um, but I have questions such as Minnesota Power. Are there any issues um ongoing issues with transmission? I mean, I know at one point and and maybe I can just throw out a bunch. I I don't have I
mean, you don't have to answer each and every one. Um only because there there are so many questions that I would still have that I feel like we should be able to get to ask. Um did you say Kayla? Um some of those questions. Um but the
other uh the other piece of it is uh why wouldn't they just accept what we've given them? I mean, the ball is in their court. They've given it back to us. I don't know that we are responding other than if I ask the questions now. I feel like they accept it or they don't accept
what we are proposing. I think we've we've kicked this around long enough. I'm not really sure if that it warrants another response from us. This was what we were willing to agree to with this original agreement and we waited over a year to get a response back for them or
almost a year. That's all I really have to say unless you want me to go through each and every one of my questions. Well, I'll just see what I guess I have to say. I All of these six items that they're asking for changes, I'm against totally. I'm I will not accept any of
those changes. We're already um have the same contract with just for crypto. I'm not willing to start changing um and have the expectations that, you know, we're going to go back and start changing their contract. We've already
set the precedent with them. um our attorney said that that contract was fine. I'm sure that there's others out there who would be willing to um go with the contract that we've proposed. So, I mean, I would just like to see tell them
that no, we're not accepting your redline version and that uh if you're willing to accept the contract that we've proposed, you have until 5 days prior to our next meeting. That's what I would like to see done.
And if they don't accept or don't respond, we're done. Mr. Chair, can I ask a point of order? Um, uh, the two of you essentially have to decide this. Um, uh, I'm sorry, uh, Mr.
I didn't believe. Yeah, I'm sorry. Um, so I believe Mr. Higgins is abstaining and uh, so it's up to the two. I just want to make sure we recognize that. You're right. Yep. I should have mentioned that. Thanks, Jeeoff. No problem.
So, is that what I'm hearing you say at this point? We're just going to give it back to them at this with our original with our original agreement with an accept or not accept and let us know five days prior to by whatever that date is. I don't know what our next meeting date is.
I actually don't have that. Last Tuesday of October, 28th or 9th? 28th. 28th of October. So, we'd be So, by the 20 22nd. Yeah. So, I guess if that was kind of the
route we're going, then I would make that motion and I would second it. So, I guess we'll have roll call on this. The one the one thing I'm wondering with Mark running the do we have is Mark able to second?
Do I need to take the gavl? It [Laughter] There we go. That'll work. So roll call. So the motion was Dolly, seconded by Mark, and the motion is to
not accept the redline version of the contract, resubmit our original contract, and they have until 5 days before the next meeting, which is October 22nd, to accept. Yes. Okay. And roll call would be
Dolly. Yes. Mark, yes. Higgins, abstain. Nice job. Thanks. Thank you everyone. Okay, we'll move on to new business. Approve award CM AR contract Race Lake
Construction. I can take that one too. Yep. So, we had advertised for the construction management at risk contract for the reclamation tank at the water treatment facility. We had advertised
through September 4th, 2025 at 4 p.m. We received three um submissions by that deadline. We interviewed all three of those contractors for that deadline. There was a committee that interviewed
was myself, Trent, Charlie, Mike England, Nick Broyals, and then Bolton Mack and Morg Mack Grman and Morgan Salo were on that committee to guide that discussion. Coming out of committee,
the recommendation is to award uh the Seymar to Rice Lake Construction Group and the scores and everything with the fees are on the next page summarized by Bowling Mink.
Anybody have any comments? I may make a motion to accept. Second. Motion second. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Motion carries.
Next item is direction requested on donation of paint of main lift buildings. So we received from a Rotarian a request to donate paint to paint the main lift
structures down by Rotary Park. The donation was for um materials only. So, we're requesting uh what commission would like to do as far as accepting or recommending accepting that donation to
council. The couple of the items we'd like to point out is the main lift is on the um project priority list for being rebuilt and revamped. We do not know the results of that. We're expecting the results of that PPL list here in
December. I'm looking at Charlie. Yeah, we are uh continuing forward with MPCA and the and the process to uh rebuild that station. So, um but it can be taken up to three years um if we even
got fully funded. So, that's where we are at. So, are they they're asking for the paint and they're going to paint it? They will provide the paint for us to paint. We'd have to hire someone to do the painting is my understanding. So that would be the request from
commission is do we want to accept the donation of the paint and then go out for a quote? Would we like to have staff go get a quote, figure out what painting would be before we accept a donation? Well, the other thought is, is it worth it if we're going to be redoing it?
But we don't know that yet. We don't know if it's going to be funded. So looking for Yeah. And you gave us four options. May I? Yeah. Okay. You gave us four options and I appreciate that. I think it's just our financial responsibility to at least pursue a quote for painting. So I I
think my personal preference I would defer the I would defer the um the donation. I'm very thankful for the Wow, that was a very kind gesture. Um, but we should know what it's going to cost us to be able to paint it because if it does have to, you know, if it isn't
anything that we're going to do until three, four years down the road, I I can understand why they would want um to to beautify the the building a little bit. So, very very much appreciated, but I do think we should probably defer until we know how much the painting it will cost.
But I suspect it's going to be something it's it'll be a no-brainer when when we get the labor cost back. But I I think we need to be responsible and at least get an idea of an estimate. Mr. Chair, Jeff, um
seeing as how you don't know if it's going to be replaced. Um perhaps staff could go back and say, "Well, let's wait and see what happens." And um when we if the commission does move
forward with the replacing and it still needs paint, maybe see if they'd be willing to participate in that cost. You're going to have to have some unless it doesn't need painting. I'm not sure how that works. Just an idea I had. Uh, of
course, my concern was if they're going to provide the paint, if you were to move forward with that and then have labor costs, uh, which Dolly's referencing, um, are they are they then going to determine what type and color of paint? Do we have a say in that? I was just going to mention that in case
that's an issue. And of course, there's Mayor Bedau. He was painting the uh, fence there at College Drive. Maybe he'd be willing to do the labor. So just a thought. If I may, I will definitely approach him.
Is there a motion then? I would make the motion because well I I would only make the assumption I don't ever want to assume that um if the donation is for the paint, it would be for the proper paint that we would require or request for the for the deferring the decision until we get an
estimate for labor. So the motion is to table till next month. My motion would be to pursue an estimate for labor and then defer the decision till next month once we do get the the estimate back. Okay. Is there a second? Second.
Motion a second. Any further discussion? I would just say that I you know getting paint donated any of the projects I've done on old building the paint's the cheapest part. the labor and what's underneath of it and prep, environmental
issues, everything else is the most expensive part. So, I think some due diligence on staff's part are important. Yeah. Thank you, Mike. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. I. Motion carries.
Um, let me move on to direction on pilot contribution to the city. Danny, yes. So you want to start and then I can start or Nick can jump in at any time too, but city council has requested um that commission consider changing the
pilot payment. So right now the pilot payment is the contribution that we make to the city. The contribution is based on our kilowatt hour sales. So there's a rate of 045 cents per kilowatt hour on all sales but the industrial load. Industrial loads at
0.0025. 0025 the all again all based on kilowatt hour sales. The request from council was to adjust that contribution from a kilowatt hour basis to percent of revenue basis
with that percent of revenue being 3% in 26 4% in 27 and 5% in 28. the I guess basis for that is some of the AAA literature that was out there. Um and
then the challenges with the kilowatt hour sales are decreasing annually but revenues are going up. But that was the request from council. Included in the packet is the information that has been supplied to council when they first
asked and over the last couple meetings. This has been to the PNF committee and full council in for discussion. The numbers associated with that we had
a pilot payment of about 750,000 estimated through the end of this year. Last year we had 768,245. um a 3% on revenue basis would be an increase of about 53,000 but um the four and 5% in 2728 would be
an increase over that increase even. So we'd be looking at 310 to 350,000 additional in contribution going to council and I'm available for any questions or
if Nick if there's anything to add additionally. I know in the packet there was some Nick had reached out to other administrators on the League of Minnesota cities, so some of their information is all there for your consideration as well. Dolly's looking at me, so I'll I'll say
a few words. Um, so yeah, there's lots of things in the packet. I'm sure you've had a chance to review it. Just the brief history, I think Danny summed it up very well. Council asked staff to um explore pilot contributions. So, I went on I have a platform that I can reach
out to all the other city administrators that are part of League of Minnesota cities. I got maybe 15 or 16 responses. All those responses are in the packet. Um they they kind of run the spectrum of the different responses. Um it's interesting. A lot of other
communities are having similar conversations right now. So, this is clearly of interest to a lot of other communities. Um so, I I'll be happy to answer any questions. All my responses are in there. All of my responses, I think, to Danny and we've exchanged some emails are in there. Um, I've sent out a
couple emails to our attorney, Joe Langel, asking where the authority resides for pilot and his responses. Was that in the packet, Danny? I I did not have that in the packet. Did I have that? Well, here I'll just I'm I'm going to I'm going to just read very briefly
because I want this is your guys's time, not mine. So, I sent Joe, our attorney, two questions. Um I said who maintains the authority to set the pilot from the utility to the general fund? His response was the charter provides that the payment as per a BPU commission policy
uh amended and approved by the city council. His interpretation of that is to mean that the commission has input into the policy but ultimately the final decision is the council's. And the second question was not really related to this. Um but Danny can maybe speak to this too. Um some questions were asked
in other states. There have been some lawsuits from UFS going after municipalities that are overaggressive in their pilot, you know, um, requests, demands, however you want to phrase it. So, um, I'll I'll try to answer any questions you have, but I think all the
information that I have is in the packet. Thank you, Nick. Uh, Jeff, you're also mentioned as a presenter here. Do you have anything further to add? Um, I got questions. Um maybe maybe Nick
would be willing if if the U policy is cited in the charter that specific be public utility commission policy and I think uh Danny provided minutes from 2022 it said the
council is asking the public utilities commission to amend the policy. If they're asking, why is it then the final authority on them on the city council to make the decision? Jeff, that's really a legal question. I
can't comment on that. There could be lots of reasons to do that. It could be a tactic. It could be courtesy. It could be politeness. It could be that that's the law. I just I wouldn't feel comfortable answering that. That's more of a legal question in my opinion.
But that was never asked of Joel Langel. If you want me to ask Joe Langle a question, I'll ask him any question you'd like. So, he never got asked that question. I I read I I read you the two questions I specifically asked him. Okay. Um, and then maybe Nick, you'd be
willing to um, if if the rate goes up or revenue is increased, however it's done, that's uh, revenue that the the utility commission is not going to receive based
on the rate increase going to the city. And with the projects that the utility has forthcoming, does it not imply with a larger amount of revenue from that pilot going to the
city? That just automatically implies that the rates for the public are going to have to be increased by the utility commission in order to offset the revenue that the commission isn't receiving. I think that I agree dollars are finite.
I think we're uh we're we're we're conflating two issues in my mind. There's operational issues which are certainly real issues and there's policy issues. I'm not in a position to set policy. I'm not going to set policy, but I will implement the direction from the
city council um with vigor and earnestness. So, I I don't want to make operational comment comments. Um my job is to execute policy from the council. So again, I I'm just I guess I don't see a a gray area here, Nick. I I I'm asking
in your opinion. If the commission is getting less revenue because of the request of the city council to increase the pilot for electrical, doesn't that imply that the rates are going to have to be increased to the customers to offset that revenue loss to
the city on the pilot? I think that's a much more complicated question than just a black or white. It's not a binary decision. And I also can I speak? Well, please let him finish. No, I think that there are there there are tons of ways to save money in an
organization. Um it's not just a binary decision, but yes, dollars are finite. So if you put a dollar towards apples, you have a less one less dollar to spend on oranges. I understand that. Well, it seems to me if you if I could
if if the commission is giving more money to the city through the pilot and the commission is using those funds already for projects and other things that the revenue generated by electric is used for. It
only to me directly applies to rate increases for the customers in order to offset that. And then in turn um it seems like now everything rates increase. They also increase for everybody including city use and utility
use and water treatment facility use and water uh water service use all that stuff. And it's like it seems like the snake eating its tail if we just keep increasing rates to give more pilot to the city to offset a levy property tax
levy if that's what it's obviously being used for based on discussion last night. That's that's what I have to say. Chairman OD. Okay. Go ahead. Um I've got a lot of thoughts on this. Um, we just talked about it and it was brought to my attention a week ago, so I
haven't had time to completely dig into it. But the first my first thought process and question I have for city council and the lawyer is do we does it matter what we say? If we if we sit up here and we vote and we say no, we're not doing it. Can the
city council just override it and do what they want anyway? I'd like that direct question answered by the city attorney in a simple way because because if if that's the case, I'm just wasting my time sitting up here and going to these meetings and doing everything I'm
doing. So, I would have the same question if I was in your seat. I would have exactly the same question. So, I would like that I would like I would like that answered by city council staff and the lawyer to to know what exact what the definition in the charter says cuz cuz I mean
basically twice now I've sat up here and since I've been on the commission and did my homework and spent time making decisions and and digging into to issues to to to find out that the charter says
the city can read it any way they and as long as they have a 4 to3 vote, they can override anything we do. So that's that was my first thought and I I asked that question in our in our finance meeting and I I'm you know I I haven't read Joel
Angel's response but I'd like to see that in in the packet and in writing too. Um, and then the second thing I would like before I have any, if I have any say in this, um, if it matters what my vote is or what my opinion is, if
I would like to see the the finance um, the financial outlook of if you and I'm just going to go how my mind works. I'll go down the rabbit hole and Jeff started to talk about this. If we increase the pilot to 5%.
And we increase our rates to offset that. Who's the third who's the third largest power user in the city? Staff Danny Charlotte's wastewater plant. So the city's basically the third
largest power user. Correct. In the city. And and the waste treatment plant has to pay us for the power they use. Yes. So, if we raise the pilot by 5%. And we increase our utility rates,
we're just we're just swapping money. The the actual profit from the pilot is not going to change. And I don't know if anybody at the city level has thought the whole process through. And I'd like to see somebody give me the
show me the math, show me the data on all the way through thinking about what the ramifications are of us increasing our rates to the city, what that's going to do. So those are the two things that I would like to see. I don't I can't
make a motion on this. I can't really until those two questions are answered. I don't know is that there's a lot more data or or things that I could talk about with this situation. I it kind of blindsided me, but um you know, the city seems to get to
interpret the charter and and as long as they got a 4 to3 vote, they can manipulate it. So, I guess I just need to know if if it even matters what I say. It's all I got. Nick, can you maybe can answer the additional pilot that you're asking for
the increase of what is it 53,000 for next year? Is that already in your levy projection? So, we we set the preliminary levy last night and there was several options put before city council. There are still two
significant outliers with our with when they set the preliminary levy, the pilot contribution and who we go with with for our health insurance. We did go up for RF bid for our health or excuse me, RFP for health insurance this year. We got those bids back. Council has yet to determine who they're going to go with.
Um staff has recommendations. So, they had a spectrum last night. I mean, they can do whatever they want, but we give them numbers between 8% increase and 11.01% increase. And the council voted last night to set the preliminary limit 8 point excuse me an 8% increase. So
that was um if we looked at a pilot of 3% which would have been $85,000 and if we went with staying with the better health collector for our health insurance um our levy the way we calculated it last night was about 10.46%
and the city council set it at 8%. So, we have significant cuts in the order of $200,000 plus that we need to come up with before we set the final levy. So, there's not a direct correlation between the preliminary levy and pilot because there
was we're already $200,000 uh that we need to cut based on last night's prelim preliminary le. Thank you, Mr. Ode. Yes, Nick. I heard Gabe Johnson specifically say um pilot was included
in revenue to as part of that levy. So maybe I misunderstood what he said, but that was my question. How do we how do we include a pilot when we don't know if the utility commission is going to approve it? And that was a specific uh
uh conversation. I mean, I could pull up the meeting right now and we could listen to it if there's any question. If you recall from that spreadsheet last night, Jeff, there was several several rows going from 8% to 11.01%. And in the notes of some of those rows,
some some of those percentage increases included a pilot of $85,000, which would be 3%. Some of them included holding the pilot steady at the current mill rate. Okay. So, there were several options within that spreadsheet. Some included
holding the pilot steady at the current mill rate that we do and some included setting that at 3%. Okay. I think to your point then is he said, "Well, if the commission were to approve it, we could use that then that that's maybe how I heard that in there in our going going down from the 10
point whatever percentary down to the 8%." So, I I would agree to what you said there. So, you need to adopt your final in November. December into six. December. Okay. December 8th is when we're going to set the final levy.
Okay. Well, from what uh Commissioner Higgins said and what I've heard, it looks like we need to um table this until our next meeting to get a couple more answers and a little better understanding. Is that what I'm hearing?
Is there a motion to that effect? I'll make a motion to table this till some questions are answered and there's some more conversations we can have as a finance committee. Second. You got to have a date I want to table it to. We have a motion and a second. Any
further discussion? Yeah. What's the date you're table next meeting? Okay. Okay. With no further discussion, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Motion carries.
Move on to new business. E, the resolution that Kelly talked about and some bonding. D first. D D. Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. D. Yeah. Review recommend approval of revised
billing representative job description. Sorry about that. Sorry. So, billing representative Kelly Dean retired effective August 29th. After reviewing and considering our organizational structure and needs, staff recommends to backfill that position with a few
changes to that job description. Attached to the um packet is the job description is recommended. We did have a redline version as well that depicting those changes. So, at this point, staff is recommending that the commission recommend approval of the revised job
description to the city council and that an internal only process be utilized for this job posting. I'd make the motion to approve the recommend recommended changes to the job description. Second.
Any further discussion? Um, who's the direct supervisor for this person? be Jana Pernal of the business office supervisor for BPU or for the city? Both. Both. Okay.
Anything further? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Motion carries. Now we can move on to E. The resolution on bonding. You want Danny? Take it, Danny. So I I did not have this in the time for
the packet. I apologize. That was an oversight on my part. This is a resolution for the debt issuance for the water construction projects that are ongoing for this year. The um bond council has asked that commission accept
the resolution and put it forth. City council has already approved the resolution and gone forward. This is again for the water construction projects as we have done in past years. We did have this year one of our debt
rolled off. This would be coming back on. So it did not require an immediate rate increase to issue debt. So that was one of the highlights. Um we talked briefly at the finance committee meeting about using some of the investments to
spend down and keep our bonding more stable with next year with the 210 project primarily. That's going to be a big bonding year for us. So instead of using that spend down this year, the I guess the request for commission was to use that spend down um next year during
that time and then uh looking for approval of this resolution to move forward with bonding for this year. Do you know Danny what the rate was, the interest rate on bond that's falling off versus what we're kind of looking at
now? I don't recall off the top of my head. It was within a quarter of a percent. That's close. Yeah. Okay. Any other discussion? Is there a motion to for approval?
I would mo move to approve the resolution. Second. Motion a second. Any further discussion? Dolly, have you I haven't had any experience in this. Have you you okay with this? Yes. Okay. If Dolly's okay with it, I'm okay with
it. It's a resolution, so it does require a roll call. Roll call. Higgins? Yes. Matten? Yes. Oate? Yes. Move on to staff reports. City administrator report. Guys, you get to
hear a lot from me today. Um, my written report is attached. The only thing I wanted to mention was this Thursday, day after tomorrow at from 11:30 to 1:30 is the our annual employee appreciation event. That's going to be at the public works facility. Um, you are all invited. If anybody's plan on attending, please
just let us know. Um, but uh we're excited for that. Uh, again, this Thursday from 11:30 to 1:30. That's all I have. And where is that at? I'm sorry. That's at the public works facility. Okay. um city council leaison report. Yeah, I look forward to seeing you all
there on Thursday and uh rest of the staff. I I uh I think this is a something that we should make time for. Um the council did approve inviting all uh respective uh
commission uh committee and uh uh planning and zoning charter commission, transit committee, all of the volunteer members. It's always been utility commission and and council members plus uh staff at both the public utility and
city which I like to think of it as we've talked about numerous times as one one group of people as city employees. So um I'm looking forward to it and I hope the other people on the different uh commissions and committees uh take advantage of it. It's it's a fun time.
So that's all I got. Thank you Jeeoff. HR director report. My written report is in your packet if you have any questions. Otherwise, that's all I have. Any questions for Chris? No.
I got a question. Go for it. The um employee exit interview that I got, is that public? No. So only people that request it can see it? Uh no. It's the same as a performance
evaluation that is considered private information. It is not something that is shared with the public or anyone else. What about commissioners at this point? No. Okay. It is not. Thank you. Danny finance manager report.
Nothing in addition to my report. Okay. Um busy been very busy. Financials. We're working through them. We did have as we had talked with uh a couple months ago there was it felt like an error in
the financial statements. We made some progress on that even this morning. Um but we will have reports next month for sure. Okay. Thank you. Um operations manager report. Uh just one thing uh looking for some
guidance. Uh we have completed the project at country manor for the water main and sewer extension between the city and um well the city has made those connections. So we had some conversations early on the council tabled it to let the project get finished and mature what that would look
like. U Mr. Havagorus has put together a few different options for that. We didn't have have time to get them in the packet. Um but looking for direction or guidance on how the commission would like us to uh allocate those costs to that project. if you have any methodology or uh and Mike can speak to
this also I think but u methodology or thought process on that for us. Mike, yes, the project is complete. It came under budget, which was huge. And because there was we didn't need those valves as Trent was indicating, there
was the dollar amount could be shifted a little bit in the council packet. We have multiple options for people to consider for the council and just how are we going to pay that 50/50 split, you know, based on the depth of the sewer versus the water. We have like
three or four different options in there uh for the for you and for the council to review. It was like $44,000 total. Uh Country Manor, which is really good. They are going to be taking the profit. Uh there's always a variable in there.
There's like a $2,000 amount in there that they can charge on top of this. They are absorbing that just in good faith. And uh so it come brings it down to like $42,000 and some change. What are you asking us?
Just direction for methodology. Um we can bring something back. I know that they wanted to get this on the council packet and agenda for the next meeting. So I wanted to get it at least the verbiage or the conversation in front of you. We can bring this back around to the finance committee if that's something that we want to pull a quick meeting together after we've had a
chance. Uh Danny, myself, and Mike are going to meet after this meeting to discuss it some more. We just wanted to know before we started those discussions if you guys had a a path or a procedure you'd like us to follow. Just to get up to speed. Sorry, Jeff. It was 42 grand.
Correct. And it's because the sewer and water wasn't where it was supposed to be. Correct. And they had to So we have to cover the cost of getting it to where it was supposed to be. Yes. And
sanitary sewer is actually something that the city controls. Correct. And the water is something we control. Correct. Do they have that broke out what the water versus the sewer cost? No, not specifically. We just indicated
Jesse put down some like a formula indicating because the depth is a little bit different. So, the percentages shifted a little bit and um I can send that to what what are the ballpark percentages right here. One second.
So, the city covers, sorry, I'm just going to read it here. City covers 100% of the $42,311. Split the cost 50/50 be 21,000 each. split the cost 5050 with BPU providing allowance for a salvage gate valve which
even though this dollar amount um that item was changed they still contributed to the project so whatever BPU did contribute it would be adjusted so therefore it'd be city would be paying about 26,000 BPU would be paying about 16,000 split the cost with consideration
of depth to the to the actual utility roughly 20 ft for the sewer line 9 foot for the water lane uh water man and that split would therefore be 28,000 to the city 14 to BPU and then there's a 2/3
you know looking at it the city would take on 2/3 public works would take on 2/3 BPU would take on 1/3 that those numbers are 33,000 for public works and 9,000 for BPU can we make a motion and just get this
done Now, Mr. Chair, oh, sorry. Could I ask a question? Yeah, go ahead. Um, when we look at the sewer line and the water line, are they um um vertically aligned? Is the water line on
top of where the sanitary sewer line is? Are they separated by how many feet? Um like how many if if they're not are the lines like here the top your surface is here and water's here and the sewers down here are they spread apart or are
they like water and then I can't speak to that but Trent were you out there they're rel I was not on this project but from mapping it they're relatively stacked within a few feet of each other with the sanitary being the deepest at about 25 to 30 feet depending on where you're digging where I'm going with that if you're
going to dig down to the sanitary you would have had to dig down to the water. So, the the I don't know if you're paying for the actual digging, if you're paying for the actual pipe. That's something I haven't heard yet. Um that's why this came up at council if you remember. Um and and I
my my thought was suppose you got two lines. You got to go down 25 ft to the sanitary and you got to dig to where that water line's going to go. Well, what's the difference in cost of digging for the water? You'd have to go down that far anyway. you got a water line, the pipe costs so much.
The for the water, the pipe costs so much for your sanitary line. Um why why then if this if the city provided these numbers and they weren't correct. Um I can see we're doing essentially in my opinion doing them a favor. They hadn't started digging yet. So this is all
found out before any excavation ever occurred. I understand according to our engineer that the surface the restoration of the street was a big cost. So, and then again, that goes back to your contractor digging through having to repair that. Um, is that going
to be also included in utility costs. So, we're always arguing about money, who pays what, where should it be applied equally. Um, I I haven't seen that yet. It's not in our packet. Um, you know, will it be there for uh
Monday? I hope so. So, these are the questions I have. And again, um, my whole idea was to spit it split it fairly between what the commission is responsible for and what the city street what the sanitary sewer. This kind of goes back to the idea of getting
everything under one roof. Um, if it's done correctly. So, that's all I have. Mr. OD, thank you. Mike. Uh, I'd like to make a motion and then have a little discussion, but I would make a motion that that we split this
5050 with the city. I'll I'll second for discussion. Thank you. Um Oh, do I got to wait for you to say that we can discuss or No, go ahead. Okay. Um, my thought is we're it's a minimal amount of money. I've
been an esavating contractor my entire career. This crap happens. We've already spent enough time talking about it. We've already spent enough time trying to figure out the best path math, blah blah blah blah blah. At the end of the day, let's get the damn water hooked up and start. We have capacity. We need to
sell more water. We our our water sales and our sewer sales and electric sales have been stagnant or going backwards for a long time. Let's let's sell the water. Let's let's put this to bed and stop wasting staff's time beating trying
to beat each other up over nine grand. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. My only concern or question is is that we do have a gate valve that was don not donated but a part of this that was paid for. So there is expense that we've already paid. Your second option um
seems to be the most um fair considering there is money's already out. Um I can't imagine they're stacked. Uh you've got shoring, you've got for for both sewer and water, but it must be offset slightly just by a few feet
just by because I mean if you have a serious sewer line issue that you're not you're going to be that's why I didn't wouldn't understand why they would be stacked. We deal with it every day. We deal with it every day. But anyway, with that being said, I we have expenses already incurred. So I I
think your second option if if you want to reread the second option seems to be the most fair. So essentially what I think it was the third one. It is the it's really the third bullet. Uh Danny I just texted it to you. Um it's split 50/50 with consideration to
BPU's contribution to the project. Such as the old example was the gate valve. That's not the case but they did contribute. We would find out that dollar amount take it off the 5050 and that would be the new dollar amount. It would be roughly 26,000 for public
works, 16,000 for BPU. Is there a motion to go with that one? That would be I would amend my motion to go with that what Mike just described. Okay, we have an amended motion and I second to that amendment. Is
there any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Motion carries. I will add staff appreciates that insight. Thank you. End of my report. Okay. Thank you, Trent. Waste water
wastewater manager report. Uh it everything's contained in the report. If there's any questions or clarity, I can answer any questions at this time. I just want Go ahead.
Okay. Uh I just want the filtration plant. I I just want to note um it was a wow factor. May I just read it or you can I am just impressed with the amount of iron removal as well as the uh
manganesees. It it's truly amazing what you guys are doing down there and I I I I it's impressive. So I just wanted to point that out as well as your um the the call out on the electrical. I didn't mention that. So, I appreciate the the grids that you're doing on the
electrical side of it. Current staff uh know the ins and outs of them that plan. Sure. Like the back of their hands. Incredible. So, how are we doing on our land application? That was a big sigh.
We are with all of the strategies and new implementation and all the requirements that came down. Um we are hopefully starting today. Um and you'll see the trucks uh going. Um with that being said, I'm very appreciative of the
appreciation uh this Thursday that everybody is putting in. Um we are making uh exceptions to you might see some semiis at the garage or parking might be sparse, but um the they are going to be stopping in as they're
working. So, we will make the best of it. Okay. Any questions for Charlie? I just want to thank Charlie for uh including some more details to make it a little bit more uh relatable in your report. Appreciate that.
Thanks for dumbing it down for us is what he's saying. I didn't say that, Charlie. Just question is back are we no longer selling to Backure then? water. Uh this last uh August, there was
nothing uh to to build. Okay. So, they didn't need the interconnect. All right. In October, I want to say it's 8th. They're going to be doing some work. So, we'll be going they'll be going on full Okay. Uh here coming up this next month. All right. Thank you.
Is there anything else? Nick's got something. Nick, if you'll indulge me and just give me a quick second. I should have mentioned this earlier, but I think it's important. At last night's city council meeting, city council did identify the work group that's going to convene to go through the hiring process for the
public utilities director. That'll be from the commissioners, it'll be Commissioner Angland, Commissioner Mattton. From the council, it'll be Councilman Johnson and Councilman Chzach. And then from staff, it'll be Chris and I. And uh as of now, I think we've received four applicants. So,
we'll be reaching out to that group to uh set up some interviews shortly. Thanks for that information. When does the application process close or is that done? Now, we crafted it with GMP this time to have it be like a rolling application. So, we
can if we find candidates that come across our desk that are qualified, we can act on that immediately. So, there's no time deadline to apply. There's I think on the website it says the first look I think is October 15th, but as we get applicants, we can
interview kind of as we go if we find good applicants. Okay. Thank you. Is there a motion to adjurnn? Oh, I got some Oh, I'm sorry. Commission member discussion. Go for it.
Thank you. Um I guess I would like to just uh talk about three things. Um the first one is we've had some meetings and we've talked about our charter and all the issues
that we are running into that operationally um cash flows um expenses that are double dipping. And I know this has all been talked about long before I got here, but since I've
been here and since I've been looking at it and studying it, we've got some some big issues with the way these revenues and expenses are split. And I sure hope that the city council and and staff, Nick, I know you you've talked about this and you're working on it, but I I I
we need a charter change. This is this charter is antiquated. The way that we all run um and the way we operate and the decision- making processes are messed up. We're wasting a lot of time. We're we're we're spending time as BPU commissioners on stuff that we really
don't have any say in, you know, just and if we don't have any say, just tell us what to do or eliminate eliminate us um or or or whatever. And I have lots of ideas on how to minimalize it and make it simpler and make it better to
increase revenues and and and create capac fill in capacity voids. But I just want everybody to know that I I I can't stop thinking about it. Um and then my other two things are kind of together. We have capacity. You know, when we
start talking about what's going on with this sewer and water issue, we have a lot of capacity. We can sell a lot more water. We can take a lot more sewer on. We can sell more power. Um, and these are all revenue streams that already
kind of our costs are already kind of fixed. I I deal with the same thing in my businesses all the time. We sell 50 weddings a year at Northern Pacific Center, but we could have 70, you know, and and what that extra 20 sales does to to us and our revenue creates
opportunity for us to invest to build more to to be proactive with our infrastructure on that site versus reactive to when things are when things are breaking. And I see a big pattern of that with the city, you know, and I'm
okay with taking care of Baxter, but one example is the water. I had made a suggestion that we put a minimum usage on the water that they're going to use. We had a you know, and we didn't we didn't make any money. We could have sold them a whole bunch of water. They
didn't care. They agreed to it. They would have signed it with a minimum, but we're Minnesota nice. And I'm I want to be more Minnesota nice. I'm not I don't understand. I want I want to be proactive in how I run businesses and how the city that I've invested into
runs. Um and I just want to throw this out there for capacity. This crypto money is real money. It's a bigger number than any than I or this whole city is used to dealing with. And there's a big opportunity,
huge opportunity, bigger than anybody understands in this room. You want to talk about a pilot, just put the pilot on crypto. Get raise the rates a little bit or put put some kind of a pilot program or some kind of a a fee on the crypto people.
Make them pay for it. Make them pay the pilot. That way we as a a commission can can be proactive with our infrastructure needs instead of just fixing crap and putting bubble gum and duct tape on everything right before it breaks. So I
just I can't help but think that way. I'm a capitalist. I'm an entrepreneur. I've I've started with nothing and I've had to build everything that I've built to this day. And I sure would like I I know it can't a city can't run exactly the way I do, but I sure would like to
see us start thinking about how can we create more revenue streams. How can we fill capacity in with our utilities to in increase revenues so that we can be proactive versus reactive to everything.
So thanks for the time. Anything? No sir. Motion to adjurnn. Second. Done. Thanks, Mike. Thank you.