meeting to order for Tuesday, May 26, 2026. Uh, roll call, please. >> Bailis, >> here. >> Jay, >> here. Was >> here. >> Angland >> here. That's all. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty, justice for all. Okay, we'll move on to approval of agenda. Is there a motion? >> So move.
>> Second. >> Second. >> Okay, there's a motion in a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All those opposed, same sign. Motion passes. We'll move on to consent calendar. This notice to public. All
matters listed are considered routine by the commission and will all be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to be adopted by roll call. Is there a motion?
>> So moved. Second. >> Okay. Motion and a second. Is there any further discussion hearing? None. Roll call, please. Bailis, >> yes. >> Jay, >> yes. Wasau, >> yes. >> Angler, >> yes. Motion passes. We will move on to
public forum. Time is 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? Guess I'm not. No, nobody online. Okay.
Okay. We will move on to commission committee reports. First off is the personnel committee. >> Nothing to report. Okay. Nothing to report. Uh last time we talked about we were going to potentially schedule one. I
don't recall what that was or do you recall if we were going to >> If I may, Mr. President. Um we talked to staff this morning. Um the request at the last meeting was maybe we set up standing uh committee meetings. um possibly the week before the packet
week. And what we had kind of came up with this morning was potentially the Thursday uh before what we would consider our packet week, which is the week before the the packet or the meeting. Um and so that it'd be a little different every month, but um we would
uh pose that out there to say uh if the commission would be willing to put up standing meetings on that Thursday. The other option could be the Monday of packet week where we put all the items together just to give us enough time if there are changes based on committee discussions um give us enough time to
get those changes made. But uh we would propose either the Thursday before packet week or the Monday of packet week for both standing committee meetings. We would also um like personnel committee to go first. There's probably going to be, I would say, probably less discussion um at the personnel committee
meeting and um we give ourselves a half an hour and then a half an hour break in case it goes along and then have the operations finance committee meeting right after that. Um so yeah, we're open to what the commission uh wants to set those dates and times at um moving forward.
>> Yes, Dolly. My only question or concern is can we just get a clear definition of what our our responsibilities are during these committee meetings because I think we've lost the definition over time. The operations committee for instance was
was merely meant to uh vet some of the um ideas or challenges prior you know so that it was it was so that we didn't waste the time at a board meeting or at a commission meeting. So, um, but then we kind of at some point it blended into
finance somehow. Um, and then personnel, I'm really not sure what the purpose of is what we'd be meeting for anyway. Things have changed drastically since the personnel committee was originally um, organized. So, you know, I guess maybe before we agree to do standing
committees, you know, maybe it's better to understand what the roles are of the committees before we do this. Otherwise, I s would say I would just suggest bringing it back to the putting whatever these issues are at a at a commission meeting. That's just my two cents.
>> I think it's a great question. What what is staff what's your thoughts on committees? What would be most beneficial to keep things moving forward? I mean, that that's the reason why we had them, but you're right, Deli, that that's things have kind of evolved a little bit. So, yes, Mr. Chzad.
>> Um, I'm not going to speak for Nick. Um but I don't know why we'd have a personnel committee. I think uh that's kind of been established that personnel is under the uh purview of our say administrator and HR. Would that be a fair statement? And uh and in that case
I think at any time if there are concerns I don't know why you need to meet as a personnel committee I think an email or something to say uh can you guys look this over if there's some issue of we need a certain employee a new job description and it Nick would
you agree that that's probably not a necessary committee for this uh utility commission to have >> Mr. Chair may I you bet I I think that's a good comment Councilman Chzach. U we've talked about this at length over the last couple of years and I think it's just important to say one more time
if if I may that the public utilities commission does not have any employees per se. They have infrastructure that you guys need to manage and make good decisions to manage existing infrastructure plan for future infrastructure set rates appropriately
etc. That said staff will always be here to answer questions if you guys have questions. We're here to serve the the commission and the council. So if you guys have personnel questions, we will address them. And if you want to have meetings, um we will certainly meet. Um
but it's it's entirely up to you. But I would recommend that um maybe the personnel committee and its current whatever it is is maybe unnecessary. We will we're here to serve the the commission. So whatever you guys want, we'll do.
>> Thank you, Nick. Yeah. and we've certainly had meetings at times when we felt it was beneficial to meet with with you and and with staff. So, what is what is your thoughts on finance operations? I mean, as far as committees go, what would be most beneficial moving forward?
So from like my perspective as we make decisions on so as we talked today on like the generation assets it's having conversations of reaffirming is this the direction commission wants to go having some thoughts ahead of time so we can prepare research for bringing to the
full commission. Um that's we'll get into that when we talk what we did talked about with finance and operations this last week when we met with Mr. J. But that's how I look at it is it just helps us put together a packet Okay. Yes. Paul,
>> is it maybe a suggestion maybe it's more of like a work session approach where we, you know, to get some of these, you know, like the hydrogeneration discussion that staff had with um commission member Jay at the time. Um rather than, you know, having standing committees of only one person, maybe
it's a work session type setting. um I don't know if it's every month, maybe it's every couple of months, maybe it's every quarter, just to realign commission vision, that kind of thing. Um and get direction from commission if that doesn't happen at regular meetings.
I mean, that's just a suggestion. Um just something I came up with, but >> yeah. >> Go ahead, Dolly. My only other the again when we talked about operations committee that was formulated what I think six seven years ago when we started working on like the water policy
and the shut off policies and we were spending a lot of time at commission you know breadlining ands and ors and buts uh and it made sense to have that you know in a outside of a session such as a workg group. Um and I I guess I I'm I'm
on board with what Paul's saying. I think sometimes just having um you know a little bit more thorough discussion as a commission as a whole it would be a little bit better to be able to provide staff some direction um and to be able to do some research but I just I don't I
don't I just don't see the need for um one or two specific people, you know, and then just getting the highlight reel um at a at a meeting. Um, I just don't feel like it's I'm very prepared to make decisions and at that level.
>> I like the idea, Paul, and I think the frequency of them is just as a result of whatever we have going on. But so >> I think we can maybe set them or propose quarterly right now, uh, Mr. President, but then after that, you know, if if workload becomes heavier or lighter, we can certainly push those forward or move
them back. I mean, maybe as needs arise, um, moving forward, but that would be Maybe a good a good suggestion at least moving forward. >> What do you think, Commissioner J? >> I'm always in favor of getting rid of
extra meetings. So >> Okay. Any other comments? Any thoughts? Should we >> Yeah, Mr. Chz proposal is to do a workshop type of as needed. >> Yes. Okay. >> Quarterly is what is what we're anticipating. Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I think it's a good idea. Would that be
for both or just the personnel? >> It'd be for >> the at large commission. I think >> it'd be for uh finance and operation basically whatever we need to talk about. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> Well, the workshop would be for the entire comm. >> That's correct. Yeah. Okay. >> It'd be for all the commissioners.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. >> More of a work session, not necessarily this agenda, but just speaking about whatever items staff feels is >> first those would have to be public then. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. We'd have to advertise that. Okay. I I think it leans into a strategic plan
too for us too. So, I mean, at some point, we have to have conversations and I think staff's intent with this request right now is just to make sure that we're getting good feedback from the commission and we're we're taking marching orders as you guys uh see them. So, want to make sure that conduit's open all the time. >> Yeah, absolutely.
>> Okay. I think that's a great idea. So, we will talk about finance and operations though because you guys did meet. So, who wants to give an update on that? >> Danny. Yeah. Okay. >> Mhm.
>> So, we Oh, excuse me. Sorry. My computer is asking me to restart. Um, we met last week with Commissioner J. Trent and I we had a couple items to discuss. We had a generation update and then a capacity discussion as the committee. the generation update. I sent out an email
from Marty Seaffort to all of you uh that we did not receive any of our funding requests from the state as it related to the generation plant. So, we had asked, just as a reminder, we had asked for $7.5 million in state funding for the hydrogeneration asset and
putting in a generator at the facility. Uh we received no funding. We did not get on the Senate hearing. So, we have had a House hearing. We have not had a Senate hearing. You need to have a Senate hearing at the state level in order to have any funding go forward. We
do have or have already paid for lobbying expenses for one additional year. So, another legislative session with Marty. Um, so following discussion with the finance committee when when we sat down is we kind of reaffirmed that
right now our goal is to monitor kind of several potential options that we have. we could continue on the funding route with the state uh with the way the legislature has been over the last two years. Staff's not anticipating any funding coming out of that discussion.
Um I'd like to set up a meeting with Marty and have a conversation with him regarding that. Uh we could self-fund a project. So we could look at trying to bond $7.5 million over 20 30 years uh using electric revenue bonds.
Um and then the other option or or third option is we could look at getting a peak shaving plant. So those are the options we kind of discussed at the committee level. That is what our understanding the commission has is move forward with procuring a generator
asset. So looking at all of these options and then coming back with commission with an update once we have all that information. So that's the route we're taking. uh staff's request at this time would be as if if any of those priorities change or you want us to make any changes, we would be open to
that and having that discussion. >> Thank you, Danny. Anything else to add? >> No, I don't think so. >> Okay. >> So, nothing at this point for us to take action on. Just >> correct. Just an update. >> Mr. President, what was that what was
that plant you had mentioned at the end there? a peak shaving plant. So, we could put in like a natural gas, a diesel generator um and produce power from that generator. That would be an option that we would have as well. There are other municipals are starting to put
them in as we have capacity constraints coming. Could you spell the word? Is it peak? Peak P A K. >> Okay. Peak shaving. So, >> Yep. >> And it's a plant. It's a facility. >> Think think of it a generator. Yeah. So it' be like a generator building.
>> Oh, so but like >> I wasn't sure what that was. >> Okay. Anything else from the >> That's the update on the generation. So that's the route staff are taking and we're still doing a bunch of research, but we've reached out to Marty and reached out to bond council on what that
might look like just so we have information for commission. >> Okay. So finance and operations, that's the extent of the update. That's the generation update. We have a capacity discussion as well. If you want me to move into, I can move into right now. >> Sure. >> So, um, Vince from a reached out to us
and discussed an opportunity to purchase additional capacity. So, right now we have a capacity agreement and this is as we look at the requirements for purchasing energy. You have capacity and you actually have the energy and transmission charges. So the capacity is
so if we have 50 megawatts in the town we need to purchase 50 megawatts of capacity to be able to pro provide that at the time that it's demanded. We have purchase capacity through 2030. Once we hit 2030 we have a capacity
deficit of about 30 megawatts. So Vince from a h is aware of that has been looking for that. There is an auction item right now that is 30 megawws that is available from 2030 to 2040. So could extend our capacity
agreement from 2030 another 10 years through 2040. The cost that he is proposing in looking at that is $7.50 a kilowatt month. Right now we are paying roughly 3.83 to $4 a
kilowatt month. So we're almost doubling our cost for capacity as we look at the markets and as Vince presented the different markets that we're seeing like PJM. So MYSO is our regional provider of energy. PJM is a
regional provider for the East Coast. They're seeing like $9.83 a kilowatt month. So we're seeing these increased prices. Um, and as we look forward, then the question becomes, do we want to try to
negotiate this capacity cost? Staff have looked at it. A has done a really good job of helping us hedge these capacity constraints as we move forward, as we move from MP to A. Um,
when we look at the peak shaving plant that we were talking about with the generation assets, they're about $12 a kilowatt month. So, even building our own generation is more expensive. Um, we've seen that with the solar, we've seen that with the hydro, we're seeing that with this peak shaving
plant. Um, when we look at cost per customer, it's $4.75 per month for just residential customers, $1967 per month for commercial customers on average, and then $53 for other medium
large service customers. That's what we're estimating the average cost to be if we were to implement this all at one time. with the electric cost of service study and the rate design happening right now. If we tried to lock this in, we could
build those rate increases over time so it's not all happening at one time. Um, but that's the opportunity that Vince has provided us and wanted commission to discuss and see. Uh, at this point, staff's recommendation with where we're seeing the auctions would be to move
forward in in having Director Hawinson negotiate some of that with A and see what we can get at no more than the dollar $7.50 per kilowatt month. Um, the other caveat to this is someone else could
outbid us on this capacity. So, we don't know if $7.50 a kilowatt month is going to be high enough. We don't we don't know at this point, but that is where we're at. In 2030, we have a deficit of 30 megawatts. We do need to buy capacity or build capacity before 2030 happens,
and this is an opportunity for us to do that. >> Thank you, Danny. Questions for Danny? >> Yes. >> So, like how often does this does stuff like this come up for auction? So
there's an auction every year for capacity. So when something like this comes available, this is the first time in my three years that I've seen something like this, we do get opportunities, but not for 30 megawws. We do often see them for a five or 10
megawatt chunk, not for the 30 megawws. >> Okay. My only question is are I just can't help but uh feel like some of this is because we need it because of a data data center and and I know that
we can turn that off if if and when the you know the residents need it, the commercial needs it, whatever. But is this the driving force for for this amount of capacity? I guess I was I guess my thought is is Brainard has been
sought out because of its capacity and here we are now looking because we have a deficit. Help me understand that if you would in layman's terms >> so we have base load that requires the capacity. This would be replacing that base load. So the other option would be
is we could reduce the amount of load capacity that we want. That would be a question of commission as well. So that would be an option but then we would not have that capacity. So this is just maintaining our current capacity, not increasing capacity >> from a just a so we as commissioners can
hear we're talking base load and so just for the benefit of all of us, can you just quantify what that base load is and how much capacity we have and to Dolly's point where we have maybe some large users, could you just kind of go through those
numbers? You could. >> Yes, thank you. So when we talk about our base load, that's going to be the native load of Brainard. So that's going to be our commercial accounts, our residential accounts, all the people that have been historically buying from Brainard. So when we look out into these, we're basically hedging our costs
out into the future with this capacity. And this is our base load capacity. This would be what our residents, our commercial customers are using annually right now. It is an estimate on our part. We don't know if, you know, if a new widget factory comes in and we have new loads coming on the commercial side, that could drive us to have to buy more capacity in 2030 because a new project
comes online. the other projects that are online right now with the crypto and stuff like that. They're separately negotiated contracts where that capacity is coming in from their contract, not necessarily our base load contract. So there's kind of two pieces that are happening here. It's our native load and that's what the commission has sought
after for us to protect through all of these things. So when we talk about extra capacity, our equipment has the availability to serve more energy. Um but that's not necessarily doesn't mean that the capacity is there on the equipment. It still has to be generated and pushed through our equipment to be able to serve that load. Um, so we've
done a good job over the last 25 years of forecasting and looking out in front of where we think these loads will be. When we move into a we got even sharper at that. So it's really an estimate for us to be where we think we're going to be in 2030. So it might be that we have too much capacity in 2030 and we might be selling 5 megawatts in 2030. We might
come to 2030 and be like, oo, yep, we bought that extra 20 or 30 back in 2026, but we need to buy another 10 more because load growth has just happened naturally through the next handful of years. And our and our base load is currently so it's moving around all the time with
our renewables on right now. Our base load's going to be landing on average around that 25 megawatts. But you know like yesterday is a prime example with being a holiday. A lot of your commercial buildings aren't up and fully occupied. So we had a really good day. We had good solar production, but our loads didn't climb what they typically would. Where today you can tell it's
cool in this building. These buildings have been set unoccupied for four or five days. All of a sudden, every commercial building is trying to get it cooled back down to 70° when it got to go a little warmer when nobody was in the building. So, our loads today will be, you know, 15 20% higher than they were yesterday. Nothing changed with the weather pattern. So, it's definitely
something that moves up and down. It's really every time somebody flips on a light switch or shuts one off, that's that load that that substation's balancing out all the time. >> Thank you, Trent. So by pursuing this additional 30
megawws at no more than hopefully $7.50 when you when you say we could slowly gradually um you know adjust the cost so it's not you know all of a sudden it's not $8 a month you know in in one felt
swoop but is that kind of what we're looking at? So everything literally would double >> essentially that is >> right now >> and that is what we're seeing in the market cost too right now. So what the what the clearing prices are in the market is about double what we've historically seen. So unfortunately it's a sign of the new times to get away from
that market volatility. That's when we talk about building a peak shaving plant or building our own generation behind the meter. Estimated costs are coming in at $12 a mega month right now. We haven't really had direction from the commission to really pursue that. Um that's kind of where we're talking today. I would love to dive into this a little more and see if we can get that
number down a little more. What can we self-produced? We don't currently right now have uh land purchased or anything like that. that there's lots of ordinances stuff that we'd have to go through depending on where this project may land. But um we would like to maybe start pursuing some of that looking at that and seeing if we can get that if that is it actually $12 a kilowatt month
or is it 15 or can we get it done at 8 and I think that's kind of looking right now we're looking to 2030 that's only four years away it's going to be here pretty quick for us and so maybe the peak shaving plant is looking past 2030 we get this contract solidified now so we're covered to 2030 gives us a little more time to look into the future and
brings back some more stuff for you guys to uh consume and and make some decisions on. I think it'd be great. Yeah, let's look into it. How does this impact our uh the mandate state mandate for
>> Yeah. So free. I mean, how does that factor in? >> Yeah. So, basically our bait of our our native base load has to be procured from a renewable source by 2040. So, we're ticking up that way right now. Um it looks like we're making good project or good progress on the other solar project
coming online. That's going to put us really close to meeting our mandate for all of our residential customers at that point. So, as the loads fluctuate each day and the sun produces more from one day to the next, we think we're in a really good spot right now to really look into the future and make some really intelligent decisions because we have a lot of that data in front of us
so we can say here's the hard facts, here's where we're at, here's where we're going to. So, it's not a philosophical what if. We can put some hard numbers to paper so you guys can make some decisions on that. >> Okay. >> Yes, Mr. Chz.
>> Thank you. with this um purchase if it were to happen and we look at the cost at over seven bucks. Um what when you talk about an increase and sort of sta stage it so it isn't all
at once. Is that um something you do over the next four years because this won't really the price won't really take effect until 2030. Is that how that works? >> That is accurate. Yes. So it'll go into Danny's cost of service study that he's doing right now and we have these known costs coming up in 2030. We can start
applying them to our bills now to lessen that burden. So to your point, it isn't a double in rates overnight from one month to the next. So um go ahead. >> Just a little bit at a time over the next four years to kind of get us there so it's not a big hit. >> Correct. And then we can actually at
that point too speculate to years beyond also. So by then if we have generation or say we come up with a peak shaving plant numbers we can start fulfilling those numbers previous to that project so we can have some capital we move into that project. >> Thank you. >> It's Jeff. It's very similar how we're doing our energy costs right now where
we just negotiated the energy purchase price with a where we had uh a 4% increase in our energy cost this last well just this next month actually it'll be 4% versus having a 17% occurring 5
years from now and just so we're clear difference between capacity and energy I know that can be a little bit confusing capacity be like right now we need 30 megawatts right this second energy is how much we're consuming consuming in that time. So, I would say it's like having your car idling. As your car is sitting in your driveway idling right now, you're burning up energy. You're
burning up that fuel energy. That's what we're using. But when you get on the highway and you got to go 70 mph and you stomp the gas pedal to the floor, that's our capacity charge getting to 70 mph. We need to be able to supply that energy instantaneously to get to that highway speed, if that makes sense. >> It does now. Thank you for that visual.
>> You just drew me a picture and that's what I needed. I I think that's good though for us to hear these things, you know, for us as a commission just to fully understand. So, I mean, it's it's obviously a big number and the big decision, but uh >> it's very possible that something could change in the markets between now and
then. It's unlikely, but it's possible that maybe we sell this energy at a profit at, you know, if we can find cheaper energy through this, if we walk through these next couple of years and also we get another 30 megawatts and it comes online for $5, we could potentially look at selling where our excess would be too typically like we
have in the past now. So we're estimating what we think we're going to be at. We could be five megawatts long. We could be five megawatts short. And we kind of do a true up on that once we get actually use that energy. >> Mr. President, >> yes. >> What's the time frame you're looking at of having to make a decision on this?
>> Unfortunately, we have about a week. >> I mean, you would need >> We need a decision authorization today in order to take advantage of this opportunity. >> So essentially, if you give us a cap of that 750, we'll negotiate up to that 750. hopefully come in less than that, but we wouldn't exceed that. And it
might be that this capacity um isn't achievable for us at this time. The other thing that this is doing for us now is just bringing you guys a breast to what we're seeing in the markets and where these costs are going. And you know that building a plant inside, you know, our own city limits, there's a lot of value to that too, but it might be a cost point that you're not uh you know,
willing to swallow, too. So, we'd love to mature some more of these numbers for you for more uh consideration in the future. Well, this is certainly something that we've been talking about and anticipating and it's it's here, right? I mean, it's uh so I appreciate
looking ahead like this and then again, it's the advantage of what the move we made working with AP. So, I mean, this is nice. We have that partner, too. So, okay. So, we're looking for a motion to do we need a motion? Is that what we're thinking? Okay. Is there a motion to
>> a motion to approve to negotiate the extended capacity agreement? >> Second. >> Okay. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? >> Okay. Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I.
>> Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we'll move on to unfinished business. Uh, item A, unfinished business, see attached separate memo regarding updates
on unfinished business. Any questions or comments from commission or staff? >> Just the question on uh where are we at with the climate vision construction? Has the is it even begun? >> It has not begun. We're still awaiting uh they were waiting some fun. They had
some funding issues on the legis federal legislation side. They're awaiting those. Um all all items are in place for once they get funding their construction will begin. >> Is there a time frame from start to finish that they anticipate? >> We extended through 27 at some point.
That was their goal is to be finished by 27. >> Okay. All right. That's all I had. >> Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions, comments? Okay. Hearing none, we'll move on to a
word contract for 2026 galvanized service line replacement project number one. Paul, >> thank you, Mr. President, members of the commission. So, we uh solicited bids for the 2026 galvanized water service line replacement project number one, which is our uh service line replacement project.
Um that is in coordination with the city's 2026 street reconstruction and resurfacing program. We did receive three bids uh in accordance with the contract documents and those three bids were from Dshantel Excavating uh Lebanon
Underground and Urban Companies and the totals are seen there in the packet. Uh the apparent low bidder was submitted by Dshantel Excavating in the amount of $646,4125. That's about 6.2% under engineers estimate or about 42 $43,000 under
engineers estimate. Uh with that bid um being favorable, staff is recommending that we award that project to Dshantel Excavating in the amount of $646,4125 um and then allow staff to uh get the signatures on the contract documents to
move that project forward. >> Okay. Thank you, Paul. Any questions, comments from commission? >> Mr. Mr. Chair, I just make a motion to approve the uh the award to Dshantel Excavating in the amount of $646,412 or $4125.
>> Okay, >> we have a motion in a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Move on to award contract for 2026 galvanized service line replacement project number two.
>> Thank you, Mr. President, members of the commission. So, similar to the last item, um we solicited bids for project number two, which is replacing uh water service lines um in Northeast Briner on Gillis Avenue, 1st Avenue Northeast, and Second Avenue Northeast. Um the bids were opened on Tuesday, May 12th, and
the uh project received three bids, Dantel Excavating, Treer Excavating, and Urban Companies. uh in the totals listed in that item. Uh the apparent low bid was from Dantel Excavating the amount of $1,98,27.15 and that comes in right around 31,000
under engineers estimate or about 2.7% over under engineers estimate. Similarly to the last item, staff recommending that we award that service line project to Dantel Excavating in that contract amount and authorize the appropriate signatures on the agreement.
Thank you, Paul. Any comments, questions from commission? >> Yeah, >> I have a question. Um, so this project number two is the northeast, correct? Does this does this
bid include them additional 19 lines? >> It does not. And so, um, we were using the Appreciate the question. So, how we kind of looked at this is there's an agenda item coming up next that is for an additional uh engineering services
for um what we feel we can fit into the funding we have from the PFA. We uh took an average uh per service line amount based on these contract numbers. Um and then calculated what a change order cost would be uh from Dshantel if we were to
use the bid amounts that he submitted. Um, and then we uh took into account how many um what the uh appropriate amount would be for um a contract fee amendment from Bolton and Mink to make sure we can get as close to that dollar amount as we can. So this 1 million is just for the
base bid plans. I would anticipate that we have a negotiated change order that would come forward. If commission moves forward with Bolton and Minkx fee amendment, they would start working with D. Chantel on submitting a change order for those 19 additional services, identifying the addresses, getting
agreements put into place, and then we would bring that change order to the commission for final approval, and that's when the contractor would be authorized to move forward with those 19 additional services. >> Thank you. >> Good question.
>> Okay. Yes, Mr. Chz. I just want to um recognize that these two engineers estimates are less than double digit um uh well they're singledigit percent increases under or percentage estimate
under the engineer's estimate. So I think that's pretty good for the engineering uh to come in that close. >> Yeah, agreed. >> Okay. Is there a motion to approve? Motion to approve the contract.
>> Okay, there's a motion in a second. Any further discussion? >> My before we uh vote on it, my only question on the and I was going to wait till the the third um the third contract amendment was it's interesting to me
that local the mobilization would be as high as it is as far as the unit goes. So when we before we get to the next one, are these the same numbers that we'll be using to the engineer to be using to gauge how much those additional service line those that aren't in these
projects. Is this what we'll be using? Is there unit line items? I mean, so the reason I'm asking is you've got what 19 more on Second Avenue, Second Avenue Northeast, and a few others. Are the are we going to go back to their bid units
and say mobilization is 50 thou 110,000 to move it per you know what do you see where I'm going with this? >> Yeah I mean I that those are all negotiated during that time but you know as we look at from a staff perspective um the contractor's already mobilized and so mobilization wouldn't be an item
on a change order because they already have the equipment and people here. So the this next item that we'll be looking at these will be part of this uh contract number two this >> yeah the 19 correct that's what we're proposing. >> All right. Thank you. That then yes that'll answer that question moving
forward. >> Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion hearing? None. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Those opposed same sign. Motion carries. >> Mr. President. >> Yes. Point of clarification was Jay the second.
Yes. Okay. Yep. >> Okay. We'll move on to item D. Approve contract amendment for professional services with Bolton and Mink for design. Right of entry permits construction phase services for additional galvanized water service line replacements related to the 2026
galvanized water service line replacement program. >> Thank you, Mr. President, members of the commission. Um you can see in a letter proposal that is attached this request. We had Bolton Link kind of do a summary of where we're at on all three of these contracts. And this is the data that we
were utilizing to figure out an estimate of how many more service lines we could replace during the 2026 replacement program. So you can see project number one uh we're at a total uh contract cost of $799,325 and that's for construction and
engineering costs. Uh project number two um right around 1.29 29 million uh for construction and engineering. And then project number three, which is the Ronald Joseph Alley, that's right around 194,000. Uh so with the total funding allocation that we've received from PFA
of uh 2.675 675 million. And based on the average cost to replace a service line, including engineering and uh con the bid amounts, um we're estimating that we can replace another 19 galvanized water service lines um under
this uh sum of money that we have. Uh we have been in contact with the department of health to inquire about um how we can add these to our program. Um we submit these projects to MDH for certification. they have all the addresses tied to
these projects. And so that process should be pretty easy and just re uh submitting these 19 additional addresses that we want to take care of. Um and you can see the addresses that are down below. We do have six uh service lines that are currently identified as leaking
that we would also like to take care of. They're galvanized water service lines that we have uh known reported leaks in our system that we would like to replace with this project and take care of those for those homeowners. uh while that funding is available. Um but with that
um you know with the additional scope of work um the extra time that will be necessary to get these projects underway um we asked Bolton the mink to provide a fee amendment to add on these additional 19 services. They have done so. Um and that total fee amendment amount is
$43,880. That's for getting right of entry permits. That's uh for additional time in construction administration and additional coordination for project certification with the MDH. So what staff is recommending is that we uh move forward with Bolton the mink with this
contract amendment to add those additional 19 services on and then allow us to uh start negotiating a change order with Dantel excavating for those 19 additional services. Um and I'll answer any questions that the commission has. >> Thank you Paul.
>> Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the scope and fee amendment with Bolton and Mink. >> Okay, there's a motion in a second. Any further discussion? Mr. Chzac, >> I was hoping for questions first, but that's okay. So, um I think one of the
concerns was uh are we going to get all essentially we want to use the money we got available. So, this is what we're doing here, right? And um uh we didn't use we didn't find these 19 lines. we didn't utilize that. I think the
question is what happens to that remainder of the 2.675 million and that's a question then. >> Thank you Mr. Chzach. So this money I believe is good through midyear 2027. So if we cannot get for example if we can't
get a hold of some of these folks and get agreements signed with them we would continue looking for um you know we have plenty of service lines to go after and so we would continue down the path. We still don't have all the agreements even signed for the original projects. And so there it's going to be a constant
evolving um tracking down which service line do we go after next if we can't get a hold of and get agreements signed for this property owner, right? And so it'll constantly kind of be evolving. I think what we should really look for is, you know, allowing staff to provide to get the most amount of service lines done
under that $2.675 675 million cap and just allow us to work with property owners as we get through next this year and early next summer um to basically get right up to that funding amount that we have allocated to us. And it'll be a constant discussion with Department of
Health. We weren't able to do this one. We can't get a hold of them. We can't get an agreement signed. We would like to do this address or you know whatever that might take moving forward. But it's kind of an a constant evolution I would call it. And then with the um I think
it's Second Avenue is what I these are mostly primarily on Second Avenue. The 19 >> correct? Yeah, I think it's two additional blocks of Second Avenue. >> So that's where the mobilization cost should not be impacting the cost here. >> Yeah, I would not expect an additional mobilization cost in a change order. Um
I wouldn't expect that the contractor would even ask for that because their mobilization's already been paid under the original contract. And then if it does go into next year though, I mean, will that see a change? >> That would maybe factor into it. Um, certainly. Um, we'll have to kind of
play it by ear and see how far they can get this year. That was already a question I think that at D Chantel had is completion dates come fast, right? And we have this completion date for the end of this year. If we add 19 services on, they may need to mobilize next summer again. And so that's a discussion
we'll have. That's something that you'll see if a when a change order does come back to you. Um you'll be able to evaluate that and and see if it's reasonable. >> And then on the leaky uh leaking water service lines, um if we weren't doing this project, what
what does I think this was addressed in our 705 uh water ordinance. Uh what what So that's not going through the meter, but we know it's leaking. Correct. >> Yeah, that Thank you, Mr. Chzock. That's
coming through our annual uh leak testing. We uh do do an annual um contract with a provider to do leak testing or leak um identification. Um they can kind of pinpoint where these are leaking. Um and it's also from just, you know, um residents, you know,
knowing that they have a leaking residential line. So if there is a leaking residential line, what what's the policy on that regarding do we stop the water until they fix it or >> it it's a lot. So we do have a policy related to this and it's it's based on
not only the time of year but the severity of the leak, right? Um you know typically a residential property owner would be responsible for repairing their service line. Now, with these known projects, especially if they were to land in one of these project areas, we have been working with residents um this
last winter to say, "Hey, if you can get by for 3 to four months, we're going to be in there replacing your service line at no cost to you." So, we've been working with them, uh connecting them in with a a res a neighbor's house to make sure they have water, if it's severe enough, to make sure they have water
over the winter months and then um planning for their replacement with the project. And so we have been working with residents, you know, that we have known galvanized service line so that because the question always comes, you know, hey, I heard you have these service line projects. Can I get mine
replaced next year? Well, sometimes they don't fall in that project area. So, they have to go in and replace it um without the funding available to them. Um, but you know, we have been trying to work with them as much as possible to say if you can get by for three or four months, we'll come by and replace your
service line at no cost because you're in this project area. And then I don't know if this is necessarily related to this uh agenda item, but I did see that funding for this was approved at a significant lower amount than previously at the state. Do you It was only in the
hundreds of th amounts compared to what there was. I mean does do we know is that aware are you guys aware of that? >> Yeah. So um it is in my report that um with the bonding bill uh there was only 15 million allocated for galv or lead
service line replacements um during this uh bonding bianium and now there may be another bonding bill next year. Who knows how that all lands, but um the hope was to get at least, you know, uh MDH and PFA enough money to make it
through 2027 construction. Um now we have submitted our um intended use plan request for next year's funding um at basically the same amount um and we're hoping to get the full $2.6 million. Again, um I don't think anyone has
really calculated how that's all going to shake out or what money is going to be available from PFA at this point. And that'll probably be released when the intended use plan is released sometime in November, December on how much money is actually allocated to Brainer for this program.
>> Thank you very much. >> Just one more. Yeah, Dolly. >> Um, just a a big compliment to staff because I've um in in the discussion about this particular u issue with a galvanized pipes. There's a lot of cities and um municipalities that had
did not even apply for the granting and are left uh flipping the bill for all of the residents who have been identified with galvanized pipes um with service lines. So, um, my I guess what words to the wise, um, if you're a property owner
that has these identified service lines and you don't repair them, you are not alleviated from the responsibility of replacing them. So, it is a mandate to have them replaced. So, the fact that Brainer did get some money-, which is great, and you're doing your due
diligence and trying to find the others and identify, I just really I can't get the word out. uh more to the property owners that know about these service lines to get them replaced, especially when funding is available. Otherwise, you will flip the cost. My biggest
concern in some of these cities is as a resident, if if I'm not impacted, my rates are going to go up because it's obviously going to be an expense to the utility across the board. So, um thank you for, you know, securing $2.6 million. Um hopefully it will go a long
way and hopefully the you won't have any issues with property owners saying yes please please re please replace them and and you're not you know begging borrowing and pleading to get the attention from the property owners. I do wonder of the 19 or of the number that
we are going to replace are a good part of them property owners or are they renters are we getting good I mean you don't in in overall response is a good >> I think the the bigger issues have been our are our rental um houses where you're maybe talking with the tenant and
you're trying to get a hold of the property owner and the property owner isn't seeing the um that this money is available and that they should take advantage of this and the property owner I So I think a lot of it does have to do with that property owner tenant relationship. Okay. >> Um that's going on. Um you know we do
have a very high rental population which is makes this kind of process difficult to get the signatures correct. >> My only thought estimate would be to send an estimate of what the cost would be to replace them when you're not getting the response is if it's a $24,000 obligation to the property owner. When
they see that facing them and they know that this could potentially be paid for with this grant money. I I I have a feeling somebody's gonna pick up the phone and call you. >> Yeah. >> So, all right. Thank you. That's >> good suggestion. Thank you. >> All right. Good discussion. I believe there's a motion in a second on the
floor. Any further discussion? >> Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. >> All right. Move on to number nine, new business. Item A, approve Tyler Encode accounts payable software upgrade.
Danny. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Commissioners, before you is a proposal of 4,725 additional cost annually for the Tyler Inc. software that we use. This software
proposal is to automate some of our data entry as it relates to accounts payable but then um put in electronic format for tracking internal control purposes the approval process from the department heads for invoices. So right now we are
pretty antiquated. We are still doing it all pen and paper initiing paper and passing it through the offices. As we now have uh multiple department heads, we're finding that timelines and getting that process approvals through all of
the offices is taking more time. Uh staff's recommending moving forward with this AP automation and capture process to alleviate some of that and then get it all electronic and documented and we can answer any questions. But
that's our proposal. >> Okay. Thank you, Danny. All right. Questions or comments from the commission? >> When we uh when we're looking at integration with it, what does city hall use for billing? What what program
>> they use? BSNA. >> Okay. So by and I appreciate I love streamlining. I love efficiencies. I love all of that. But I do have questions about you know the the annual maintenance fees, the user monthly fees. All I mean it's one thing to purchase
it. it could be an exuberant dollar amount to maintain it and and move forward. So, you just want to weigh out the cost, the pros versus, you know, the cons. But my question on the IT part of it is, will this hinder uh integration
in the very near future by us continuing to use Tyler? >> At at this point, we have two implemented softwares that are really new. The city implemented their software in 2021 and we were 2022. So we have a lot of costs already sunk into both
systems. I can't speak from an integration how that would affect it, but at this time there has not been a discussion on integrating both softwares. >> So the 47 is just the initial um the the initial cost to implement it, right?
>> That would that would be the added annual cost. So it's the total cost to implement for this year as well as the that'll be the continued maintenance cost as well going forward. You know how I feel about Tyler costing us money hand over fist. I almost feel
like they should throw this in as a you know we're sorry we could continue on. You could use it for six months. That's how I feel. >> I did relate to them that that would be your comment. >> He might comment. You know it >> and I can for surely ask them.
Is this a um ongoing contract or what's the expiration on this? >> Yes, it would be an annual contract. So, it' be an additional 4,725 annually. It's an annual maintenance. It just gets added right to we have the capability already built in the software. They just got to flip the
switch on the back end to do that. It's this cost annually. It does the the capture process would put all of the um photos or scan documents of the invoices. Right now, we keep all of those in Laser Fish for all of our checks. This would put it all in the
same system. So, we're using one system to look up all of our invoices, see all of the items and supporting documents when we have our checks. >> This This sounds like something AI could do for us. But, >> do we know what their time and material
costs are? >> I'm sorry. >> Do we know what their time and material do we know what that cost is right now? I mean, we're looking at approving a contract and some of the stuff is based off time and material >> for Tyler's. They're they're saying >> fixed fee conversions are invoiced at
50% upon an initial delivery. Uh blah blah blah blah blah. Um where conversions are quoted as estimate, Tyler will invoice client as actual expenses delivered on a time and material basis. Do we know what that cost on time and material is? I I I just don't want to be surprised.
>> I'm pretty sure they were throwing that in with all of the challenges that have happened. They have our our sales rep, Ethan, has told me it's 4,725 and it'll they'll be here in 6 weeks to make sure it all goes smoothly. >> Okay. Is there a motion to approve? >> So moved.
>> Second. >> Motion a second. Any further discussion? >> Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. All right, we'll move on to staff reports. Council leaison report. Mr.
Chessa, >> Mr. Administrators first there. >> What's that? >> He administrators before me pecking order. >> Yes, our our report is wrong. >> It does say liaison.
>> Mr. >> You know, Mr. President, I would have never noticed that. So, no offense taken. Not at all. Um, my written report is attached. Uh, I just came off a week of vacation, so I'm kind of getting back in the groove a little bit. Going through some grandson
withdrawals, so bear with me. Um, no, first I want I want to recognize uh Trent. Congratulations on the promotion, the new position. Very welld deserved uh to the commission. I would say that you have two directors in Paul and Trent now that are directly supporting the
commission, very talented individuals. So, we're very fortunate to have both of them in place and at the director level. So, and it always makes my job easier. anybody that's been in a leadership position, if you surround yourself with really smart people, that's a good thing. So, I'm very thankful for both of them. And and then, of course, the
entire support staff behind them, we're here to serve the commission. So, if any of you have any questions about my comments earlier, I'd be happy to discuss them. Now, if you want to meet one-on-one, I'd be happy to have those conversations with you and talk to you about my my vision, my expectations, and again, I just serve at the pleasure of
the council. So, my my my opinions reflect the the opinions of the council. Um, so other than that, my written report is attached. I'm happy to answer any questions if you have them. And that's all I have. >> Thank you. Any questions for the city administrator?
>> I only have one comment. Um, under technology, I just want to make the kudos. Uh, happened to go under the bridge and saw that I don't know if the parks department paints under the bridge where the kids love to do their graffiti, but you did see the uh,
permanent uh, cameras there. So really happy to hear that or see that we actually have something in place that the city doesn't have to continue uh paying to have, you know, uh um graffiti painted over or trees slashed down. I mean, I don't know where some of the
other cameras are, but that was really nice to see that we actually invested some money into that. So, thanks for including that in your report. >> Okay, any other questions, comments? Okay, thanks, Nick. All right, we'll move on to Mr. Chz.
>> Yeah, thank you. I was wrong. I I read that incorrectly. >> That's okay. >> I was used to the old style and Danny Danny took liberties with that and I I see he's at the end. >> He's keeping us on our toes. >> He's batten final. Um anyway, I I I just want
to uh let the uh commission know that we did at the council approve uh ordinance 705. So, we do have a official water ordinance, I believe that's called. And uh it was really exciting. Anyway, took forever, but we got it done. And uh and other than that, I just
uh thanks everybody for all your work. That's all I got. >> Thanks, Jeeoff. Any questions for the >> Yeah. Any questions for me? Go ahead. >> All right. Hearing none. Uh we'll move on to HR director report.
>> Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. My report is attached. I have nothing further to add, but I'm here if you have any questions. >> Okay, thank you. Any questions for Britney? >> No questions other than I love the look of the new report. It's easy to read. I like the breakup of it. And uh just
don't forget that June is June for the wellness committee is bringing donuts. I know it's the wellness committee. >> It's donut day. Love that. >> Mental wellness. >> Mental wellness. There you go. >> Okay. Thank you, Britney. We'll move on
to public works director report. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh just a couple of uh highlights from my uh written report that's included in your packet. Um construction season is in full swing. Um as you've seen on 210, um RL Larson has begun what they call phase
one of uh that improvement project. Um, as it relates to the commission, there's a couple of uh water main and uh utility crossings that cross 210 at uh 8th Avenue Northeast and 10th Avenue Northeast. They began the dewatering process last week uh to get the water
tables drawn down to be able to replace both sewer and water in that area. uh that phase one is um expected to construct both the roundabouts on the east end of of Brainard and uh do all the utility work that's necessary to get that back open until they move to the next phase which will kind of take place
between Gillis Avenue and Fifth Avenue Northeast. Um so that project is ongoing. Um we uh we've also kicked off the Beach Street and Oakidge Road project and the Wright and Den Street project that was held off uh held over
from last year. Um they are paving the final lift on uh Beach and Oakidge Road today. As you recall the as it relates to the commission that was a full water man replacement project to replace the water man um and looped the water man down Oakidge Road to 28th Street. Uh as
far as uh right and 10th street is concerned, uh right street just remains with the first lift of pavement on it from last year. They did start on the water main replacement today on 10th street. Um and so that project is progressing. Uh they're expecting a beginning of August completion date uh
for uh both of those projects. Um Ronald and Joseph Alley, they are uh continuing to basically uh all the water man's been put in on that project. We're tying up some loose ends with the galvanized water service line replacements that are supposed to finish up this week and then
they'll start putting that alley back together. Um lead service line replacement projects. You've seen both of those. Um both of our uh resurfacing and reconstruction projects uh for this summer were uh bids were received for those and the council approved the
contracts for those at the Alaska City Council meeting. So, we'll start seeing some action in Southeast Brainard and in South Brainard on Pine Street and South 11th and a couple of other locations in South Brainard. Um, our backwash and reclaim uh tank project continues to
move forward. We've uh moved through the pre-qualification process and the bid packages uh that go out to our trade partners um are out, I believe, right now um on uh to get bids back for that project. Um, again, the commission set
that uh guaranteed maximum price at the last meeting of 5.3 million. And that's kind of where the risk comes in for the contractor is if the bids come back and they're over that 5.3 million. Um, that is the maximum amount we pay um on that project unless there's owner directed
changes. If it comes in below that, that just increases our contingency amount uh with the project. Um, you'll see that the Keepers development down in South Brainard is uh really moving along quickly. Um that is an exciting project. There's a couple of other things that
are finishing up from last year like Country Manor. Um they're continuing to build their buildings up on Riverside Drive. Um but otherwise, you know, uh it is in full swing. Um we did have interviews for city engineer, deputy public works director uh here last week.
Um and an offer um I think will be on the council agenda for review at our next city council meeting. So that is exciting from our department standpoint. It's a huge need right now as we're in construction and it's very very busy time of year. So, um I apologize if I'm
a little bit delayed in responding because my days become very hectic very quickly in the mornings. Um but otherwise, yeah, any other questions my written report? Um certainly I will field those right now. >> Thanks, Paul. Any comments or questions
for Paul? I only had one question and maybe it's because I've got to watch it, but like the um Beach and Wright Street project. So, so does that the delay affect their ability to bid on work for us again? Cuz I mean technically they're so like 10th Street would be 4 months
behind schedule then, right? Cuz it was supposed to be finished by last October and now it's going to take till August to finish the project. So, do we accept bids from them in the future? What's the I mean, >> that's a great question, Mr. J. Um, so
we um those discussions are yet to be had. So, how we started off this year based on the discussions we had with landware last year, the city council um had some meetings with them last year um when Jesse Dean was still around. Um how
we've laid this year out was um we weren't going to talk about liquidated damages. Um right now um there's obviously contractual provisions and the completion date has not been extended on the project. So liquidated damages are still um fair or in play uh for the
delayed in the project. There are contractual provisions um that can be addressed. Um there are other things that we would need to work with our city attorney on as far as um if the city council wants to um not accept uh bids
or contracts from land. and we're in the future. That's a process we would have to work through. Um we are in a competitive bidding environment and we're we're um state statute prevails in that regard, but there are ways um for disqualifying contractors from future
contracts. But that is certainly a process that I would need to work through with city council and the city attorney um if we look to do that in the future. But as far as the contracts currently as they stand today, the contract completion dates have not been extended via change order at any point
in time. Um the contract provisions are that they were supposed to be done in October, I believe. And so um those liquidated damages and things are still in play. Um and that's kind of where we we stand today is I wanted to get them finished and out of there as quick as
possible. And I don't think we'd been able to do that if we had those discussions about LDS at the beginning of this project. I think we need to focus on getting the projects done, the work completed, and these discussions about contracts and completion dates and
all of that can come when the projects are actually back open to traffic so we quit disrupting our businesses in the industrial park. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Okay. Any other questions, comments for Paul? All right. Thank you. Move on to
electric director's report. Mr. Hawinson. >> Thank you, Mr. President. I just have one addition to my written report. Um I attended virtually the Crowing County Planning Board meeting uh last week. Um as the county is working through their solar ordinances. Previous ordinances
they had um were really based around residential ordinances, not a lot of commercial stuff. So um they're working through that. Our applicant was there. um the land owner was there um for that proposed solar project that we're um looking at right now seems to make good traction. They had a a handful of
conditions that were met um and were palatable by both parties. So there wasn't uh it was very good communication, very good conversation. So that will hit June 16th to the full county board meeting and looking for what uh directions to get out of that meeting. We're following it closely. Other than that, I have no other things
other than my written report. I'm here for questions. Thanks Trent. Any questions, comments for Trent? >> Uh, no. only my question on I had a just to include maps u on impacted customers when you are talking about the exchange
of service territory and customers in that can you when you when you are presenting to us can you identify our maps and what we're looking at exchanging and then um I know you'll go through that with probably with the help of Danny as well but you know the cost impacted for them the customers that we
would have and what that looks like when we start horse trading >> absolutely Okay, thank you. >> All right, anything else for Trent? All right, we'll move on to water wastewater manager report. >> Charlie,
>> thank you, Mr. President. Uh, I don't have really anything else to comment. Uh, any questions I can feel any questions or comments you may have from the report. >> Okay, Mr. Chz. >> Um, thank you. Um, I just had one item
here. if you could. Um, it has to do with the u system integrators and um and I'm wondering um this this is a an organiza or a a
company right that comes in this system integrators are somebody we hired. >> May I present? >> Yeah. >> Yeah, absolutely. Jeeoff th this is a what we call system integrators. We have a couple um that we work with. Um this one in particular works primarily for
the water side of things. So when we when we look at a system integrator um more more or less for our SCADA system or our advisory data acquisition system that we have um to bring that in with
with this project and all of that had happened this last week. um with the fiber installation with all of our projects that are kind of coming to a head and and getting finalized. Uh Riverside Booster was one of them. Uh Lumpark was one of them and then the
well uh automation for the water treating plant and that bases back this project in scope was created in two 20 late 23 kind of bidded out in 24 and approved in April of 25.
So, this is long overdue. Um, but we get it finalized um just in time for Country Manor for the Riverside booster. Um, it kind of goes in depth with a lot of different moving parts on the integrator coming in. Um, and picture them like a
programmer for our systems. uh these industrial computers, we call them PLC's in each of our uh satellites, whether it be lift stations, booster stations, wellhouses, um that we have a centralized control system. So, uh it
was a very big undertaking. It took approximately 3 to 4 days. Their estimate was a couple days. Um, again, everything worked out really fantastic and we got we got uh what what I consider eyes on uh which is huge for
Riverside booster extension. Um that we can actually drill down and and get our set points correct, our volumes correct um so it's pretty exciting in my world. >> Do you um remember what that charge was?
They charged us for their service approx. the original PO um was 120,000 >> okay >> back in 24 April 24 um and that was agreement to kind of go through any
anytime we buy anything whether it be hardware to be installed um there's a percentage we have to pay upfront so throughout the budgeting and CIP uh since 24 and 25 and now 26 um that's how that all kind of goes down
the pipe, but I believe it was 130,000. I'd have to look at specifics. >> And then how often do you think this type of uh type of service is needed? Would you guess? >> Right now, what we're seeing with the age of PLC's and the the industrial
computers that we're using, um you're seeing a change out if you get five to eight years out of them before they're um no longer being supported, they call it, >> okay, >> for replacement. But typically they'll last longer. So we try to try to shoot them out, you know, that 10 to 15 year
mark to get every piece of of life out of them and even up to 20 if we can. >> Okay. Um and it says here staff installed a new fluoride supply pump. Um another unfunded mandate
but that's something that uh periodic breakdown got to replace it I assume. >> Yeah. a lot of moving parts in this equipment that we we operate 24/7. Um when we look at say north uh if you look at the graphs and you see the north zone
or north side um from the water treatment facility side of things, you're going to see a lot more production coming out in runtime where the south is a little bit less. Um so you'll see a little bit more wear and tear in the equipment that services the north versus the south. Okay.
>> Um and that age of equipment by recommendation the sanitary sewer uh sanitary sewer the the sanitary uh inspection uh from the water Minnesota Department of Health. They tell us that we have a 10-year life cycle on our tanks. Um threeyear on our lines and
pumps. We just we have to keep them running. So okay, that's where we're at with that. >> Thank you very much. I appreciate it. >> Yeah, absolutely. Any other questions? Thanks, Charlie. >> Perfect. >> Well, I used to say save the best for
last for Charlie, I guess. >> It's you now. >> So, thank you, Mr. President. Um, in addition to my report, we have received the audit results and the audit report. So, I expect the audit report presentation to happen at the next month's meeting. Uh, I can forward that
on to you if you want to see it ahead of time. The additional item to my report is uh to Commissioner Wusso's point, uh Tyler Payments. Tyler Payments has got back to me. They have
informed us that yes, we do get charged whether it's a debit card or credit card transaction. We are getting charged per swipe, no matter which the customer uses. We've had a lot of customers pretty upset uh about implementing the fees. Um, we did pause the fees as we
were working through and working through legal. Uh, we did talk to city attorney Langel and he has affirmed and provided guidance that all of debit cards and credit cards we can charge a fee legally. It's not illegal to do that and
we have that information we can provide to customers uh that he provided me late on Friday. So, we will be returning to and turning all of the fees back on as commission has requested and I can take any questions. >> Yep. No, that answered my question on
timeline. So, you you've you've done that. So, Friday was he gave you that. Um, so my thought on the option to customers who are using a debit card. So, they do have an option, right? I mean, you're going to get charged a fee because we can't tell the difference between a debit or a credit card. It
isn't illegal for Minnesota to be able to to do that convenience fee, but to give them an option if they would prefer to do it a there would be no fee. Correct. So, I mean, maybe we provide that option um in lie of just saying, "Hey, you continue doing what you're
doing. We're going to charge you a fee." You know, I would be it would I would be much happier to know that I have an option to not incur that fee if I don't want to. It's coming out of the same account. It's either a or it's a debit card, but you're going to get a fee. >> We have we put together verbiage. the
girls all take care of that very eloquently and they know all that and handle it >> because the other option and I just would like to say this for every the other option is just simply to increase rates to cover the cost of you know I mean that's the other option and I don't
necessarily know as a rateayer that I would want my rate to increase because some I don't use credit card I go a so you know there is that the trade-off I mean what are our options and what what do text, right? Peers need to know. So, thank you. Thanks for checking into
that, >> Mr. President. >> Yeah, >> people listen to Dolly. She knows what she's talking about. She It's common sense, right? I mean, that's what you're saying. I I if I could have used my credit card, I I I mean, I could have, but I decided to go direct, you know,
out of my bank account. Don't don't even know what's happening. Don't have any interest, yada yada. So, um if you're worried about paying a fee, just have a direct withdrawal. And uh um it's the same thing as a debit. I'm not I'm not
sure why this is so difficult for people. Um I'd like to get a couple percentage back by using my credit card. And I thought if we hadn't passed this, I would have gone to my credit card. So that's why if people want to complain, there's other options. So anyway, thank you, Dolly.
>> You're welcome. >> And the only other question I have is on the uh budget report. are did we just uh the revenue seems like we didn't budget so help >> so the my computer restarted on me I apologize so on the budget are you
looking at electric revenue and expenses so when we look at the year-to- date budget that's just taking our annual budget divided it by 12 our typical revenue doesn't increase until we kick into the hotter months and we have AC our also our industrial load is a lot
lower than anticipated so that's why both revenue and expenses are down we're not paying for the purchase power and we don't have the revenue coming in either. >> Thank you for that explanation. >> Thank you for asking that question because I was thinking the same thing.
>> Okay. Any other questions for finance manager? >> Keep mixing up the uh staff reports. I like that. >> Yeah, it's fun. >> Every meeting going first. We could just say whoever talks first
and just don't even have a list. >> There you go. >> Rotating schedule. >> All right, we'll move on to commission member reports. We'll start down on the end there. >> I really have nothing further to add. I just hope that everybody had a nice
weekend and I'd like to thank the the families and the service members that have given their all. Um, otherwise that's it. >> Great. Thank you, Dolly. >> Well said. He's not here, but uh just
wanted to give kudos to James. He um he did a a short report for us at our Rotary Club meeting on on the data centers. And uh very accurate. And you know what? Quite frankly, he did it in layman's terms. I really appreciate it. Um but to find out he did that a couple
of months ago uh in front of 200 plus people with other utilities and with it's it's a hot topic and I appreciate um I appreciate the the staff guidance with James as well uh to be able to produce such a um a great report. It was a it was enlightening to listen to. So
if you ever get a chance to listen to him uh put that on again uh I highly recommend it. >> James Cranvic you're speaking. Okay. >> He's a rock star. He is >> okay. Thank you, Dolly. How about you?
>> Well, nothing to report. Just thanks everybody for all their work on uh all the topics today. >> Great. Yeah. The only thing I have uh I guess going along the same lines. City Briner did a fantastic job uh hosting and the the Memorial Day service is just
quite something to experience. So, if you've never experienced that, I highly recommend that. But yeah, thank you for everybody who has served and and uh given us our freedom. So with that, is there a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Second.
>> Motion to second. Further discussion? Probably not. All those in favor say I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Thank you everybody.