--------- Okay. >> Okay. This is a public utilities commission meeting June 3rd, 2026 at 3:13. Call the meeting to order of the roll call, Charles Hathway, Scott Warner,
Craig Schulty, Mike Roth, Kim Dunmore, I'm sorry. back >> and back. >> Okay. Um, let's see. You take a chance to look at the agenda? >> Yes. >> Have a motion to approve the agenda.
>> Motion. Uh, I move to approve the agenda. >> Approve the agenda. Yeah. You make the motion. I'll second it. Agenda passes. Uh, do you have any questions on the minutes of May? >> I looked in. They look fine. Okay.
>> Yeah. We approve some uh issues. Yeah. Some repair work and all that kind of stuff. Okay. All right. So, the uh I have a motion to approve the main minutes. I'll make a motion.
Second. >> Second. Okay. Minutes have been approved. Okay. Okay, the first item on the agenda is sanitary sewer cleaning and televising and I'm thinking Scott can bring us up the specs on that.
>> Yes. Uh this year sewer they they will receive the bid to do that sewer lining on uh 4th Avenue between fourth and fifth streets. uh picked up the bid last month when we had the meeting and in the process of talking with them uh they
said hey since we're going to be up there anyway we'll give you we'll cut you a deal on uh jetting and televising and so as you can see by the prices that I've received it's a significant uh discount shall we say uh compared to the
other two outfits uh because they're already up here and so that's that's the real reason the mobilizations is is expensive to get people up here. And so that's that's the real difference why uh the difference in pricing. And so
because they're already up here to do a project for us, >> they're doing the lining work, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. They're going to do the lining work on Fourth Avenue West between Fifth and Fourth and Fifth Streets. And so uh uh they're a good outfit. Uh,
I that's why I recommend the price vision price for the price he gave us. 18,750. >> Well, okay. Can't imagine any good reason to put the other guys. >> No, no, I cannot. >> And then if they got to do any removal
of obstructions or stuff like that, they'll we'll get a different uh a code. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, if they find heavy road intrusion, that's they've got the equipment to be able to to do that. It's just going to be more on top of what uh the prices they're going to give us for
>> the regular cleaning and televising. >> Who usually does this work for us? >> We've we've used Great Lakes Pipe Service Pipe Service in the past. >> Yeah. >> And I in the past it was never really put out for bid. They were really brought in on emergency basis.
>> Emergency basis. But it looks here like it's a standard thing yearly. >> Um that's why I'm getting it too. We had them we had Great Lakes here last year. >> Yeah. >> And that was the company we had used in the past. Well, this year I pulled it off for bits. >> And so because you know we had that
lighting project, vision sewer gave us the deal. So >> it's an annual we used vision sewer before too. >> Yeah. >> But it's an annual maintenance kind of. >> Yeah. That's that's annual maintenance. We should be televising somewhere between a third and a quarter of our town every year
>> just just to stay on top of maintenance needs and because we have a lot of clay pipes still in town that you know we want to try to catch them before having a clay pile clay pipe collapse on us is a bad thing. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Any more discussion? I need a motion to approve. >> I move to approve. >> Okay, I'll second that. To approve uh your sewer proposal 18750
for wet jet and televising approximately 10,000 ft of sewer effect. Um all in favor I motion passes. Okay, on to Stop the gray water. Wait.
Let talk first. >> Yeah, that's fine. We can go to >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Thanks for giving me the time to speak. I'm Pete Crusher with G&G Septic. Um, I'm a little old. I lost a day this
week. I didn't have as much time to prepare. But I have some points that I'd like to bring to your attention. And if you have any questions, this is all not all, but a lot of it's from AI. So, I've got screenshots for these figures. Now, I don't know if AI is is accurate, but
it's the best I got. Anyway, 95% of the mercury problem in this country comes from the atmosphere. So, it's pretty hard to control. And it's that big of a thing and it we can't control that. Rainwater is 5 to 35 parts per trillion.
The reason I'm bringing this attention is because I want to show you that the pond average for 5 years is 2.4 parts per trillion which is half the strength of rainwater. And the pond has also been shut down for 25 years. I found out today it was 30
years. Nothing's been added or disturbed. The pond has been monitored monthly by an air environmental company, NTS. And I gave you a chart for the what they the mercury testing that they've done over the last four years.
One thing that's was kind of interesting to me is streams on the Northshore during the spring runoff is estimated to have two to 15 parts per trillion of mercury depending on if they're coming from a swamp or where they're picking up the water.
So I took Devil's Track River alone is estimated to have 64 323 million gallons per day. So I took the 64 million gallons a day. That would be take 13 years for that
pond to produce what that river does in one day. So when you're looking at the big picture, it's it's a small small percentage. And when I talked to Scott, I asked him that question. I said, "Scott, if ours is 20,
10 to 20, 30 parts per trillion coming in and we dump at two or 2 and 1/2 parts per trillion, wouldn't it dilute it, making it easier to treat?" And he said, "Yes, mathematically, it would be easier to treat." So, you can, you know, talk
to him about that. The other thing I'd like to bring up is that I think it's important is econom last year the PUC made $56,000 taking this lie water and we can ask God how much work is involved. I mean they
want to do some testing which I provided they've already done the testing for that pond so it shouldn't have to. And after seeing what we're hauling it to Duth now and seeing what the prices are. We used to be higher than Duth. We haven't been We should have been raising
a little bit every year. So now we're a little less in Duth. My recommendation would to raise it to 2 cents a gallon and it would still be way cheaper than hauling it to Duth. That would be a little over $100,000 a
year for the PUC, which is a pretty sizable st to, you know, for upgrades and just to keep the rates down. Right now, we're hauling the leech to WSD in Duth. We're burning 60% more fuel and
getting it treated and putting in the same lake. To me, that just doesn't make any sense. And and I don't know why anybody would promote that going on when we have the ability to treat it here.
And it was coming in the other day by the new uh apartment complex up there and there's a big sign thanking the RB for funding this project. So I started thinking that seems kind of hypocritical that we're taking money from them from
them and now we're making it a hardship and not treating their reate anymore which we've done for the last 20 years. Um, so I I Googled it and it looks like in the last 3 years $5 million has been spent in Cook County for different
projects and helping out and uh seems that we could at least treat their league if it's not environmentally offensive. The other part is personally my concern
is this is 30% of my business which is one full-time position. I buy all my gas my mechanic work is all done locally and you know it's a spend on f economically it will hurt a little bit. So the other
thing is we got wrapped up or I got wrapped up in a political decision that made this moratorum on stopping taking the leech. I personally feel that city government should be more concerned with operation with inside the city and and
not be politically correct or worried about taking sides cuz there's there's two sides of it the story to everybody that lives here also. So, and then I want to put on there I showed Craig. Craig was I talked to Craig a little bit in the past and he
was really concerned about more testing. He wanted to make sure that we were doing it the right way. And so I got this uh history of the testing that's been done. So hopefully that can clear up and show that the strength of that
pond over the last five years. Is there any questions? So let's see looking at this data this is report value of micro per liter 029.
>> I called them and that that's where I went to parts per trillion cuz that's what we're dealing with and she told me that's how you you converted that. So she added up all those things and she gave me parts per trillion. That's the average for those I think it's 12 numbers there.
But if it goes like 0031, that's 3.1 parts per trillion. >> If it's >> 00259, it's 2.59 parts per trillion. That's what that >> and and we think that our discharge from plant is >> what we think
>> our discharge our mercury concration discharging from the plant is what >> we range from when our flows are the lowest like in February we can we can go about one part per trillion just shy of one part per trillion um in May when our
flows were up over a million gallons a day we were at about five parts per trillion Is that after we started using that different chemical? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> And that has brought it down compared to other tests.
>> It has it it brings it down in the lower flow situations. Um part of it is physics where the material can't settle fast enough. >> Right. >> And some of the the ultra fine stuff is carried out. >> Right. And I'd like to add, Scott is very good about if the flows are too
high, he calls us and we don't haul during the high flow times. >> Don't hold off until it till the flow >> manageable. So treating it actually is beneficial at you know an altitude and time that that
you need. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. He's good to work with. I'm just curious how how often how often do you have to go pump out those ponds and >> well they they monitor at a certain level. They want it at a certain level and they'll call me and say, "Can you
haul out a little more?" So then I'll I'll go a little heavier. But the reason it's so great for me is if we're busy pumping, I don't have to go there. But if the pumping slows down, then I can go and get so scheduling. It's a great It's been a great deal for our company to to
be able to, you know, pretty much go there when we we can't haul or when we have slow times. And if they it gets too high, then we then we go. >> You have to go. >> Um, we don't have to go. If if it gets to a certain level, then they would have to go there every 2 weeks to monitor it.
If the level gets a certain height in the pond, then they have to go every two weeks instead of once a month. >> I see. So, it's convenient for them, but it's not like it's going to >> Yeah. Yeah. If if I can't haul if if we had, you know, something here that we couldn't take it for 3 weeks and it got
a little bit high, we that's not an issue for us. It's >> But then, how many how many trips did we make in a month or a year? >> Well, we make we hauled 500 um 5 million gallons last year at $7,000
a load. So 5 million gallons and and then how how frequent is that? Like how many how often would you be bringing water? >> Well, usually that's what happened. We when we haul the city sludge down, we
come back, we pick up water to come back. And I was giving the city credit for that 25% of the load all these years. And now without that, it's, you know, it's only $400 a load more. if I don't have the water coming back. So,
that's another add-on cost that'll be occurred. >> I see. >> And we haul I think Scott's really gotten it down a lot lower. I don't know if we even haul 600,000 last year or 7 maybe like 100 100 trips for the city. I
think what's used to I can answer that question >> would seem like >> 100 trips. So, a couple times a week. Yeah. On average. Yeah. And sometimes we don't haul. Scott will say, "I don't need you to haul for two or 3 weeks because he's trying to get it thicker."
You know, he's doing whatever he's doing. Then he'll call me and he'll say, "Hey, I need some loads out of here." And then we I don't want to brag, but we we're always drop whatever we're doing when he needs us to haul. Yeah, that's a pushy.
>> And then in the spring they we we I mean in the fall we he wants to get them as low as possible to carry through the winter >> cuz it's it's not very practical to try to haul it in the winter. We have under emergencies but it's not easy.
>> I've got numbers. I'm just going to make it simple numbers. Uh so in 2023, Cliffs gave us 2.9 million, MPL gave us 1.3 million.
In 24, Cliffs gave us uh 3.9 million, MPL gave us half a million. In 25, Cliffs gave us 3.3 and MPL gave us uh 7 well 700,000.
and then nothing in 26. >> Um, the reason that was higher before is because MPNL had a coal they had a pond down by the lake that has since been taken out. That's why that was higher that year because it was run off from the cold ditch or I don't know. So,
that's been eliminated. >> You don't take any from the lower area anymore. >> No. Yeah. And that water they used to discharge into the lake with that. But if they had to have it in there so many days, so if they got too high and they didn't meet
the days, then we would pump. Then we would pump there. >> Mhm. Now this the testing here that you have it says uh facility cliffs you're talking hard. >> Is this both ponds?
>> No just the lower pond. >> Okay. Which is owned by cliffs, >> right? And the upper pond is owned by Minnesota Power. >> Okay. >> And they had a higher rating. Do you remember what it was last year? It was high because we we had it down low and
they took it from the mercury selling. They took it low and it was an elevated number. I don't know. I think he used to >> I remember one number that was uh like 2.2 parts per billion
on one of the lab sheets in one of the spots. Mike had caught it um on one of the lab results. I'd have to do some ding, >> but they tested it now and it was like 2.3 or something parts per trillion. >> Yeah, this the one that the number that
we did find was was a parts per billion number. Significantly higher, >> right? >> 200 parts per trillion. >> Something you along those lines. It it was a big number relatively speaking. >> So
what what what would you like from us? What can we what can we do? Well, I don't know how long it's going to take for a a decision to be made, but for now, if there's any way they could open up. It's getting to the point where I'm going to lose this business because I
cannot haul it to Duth. I cannot be cuz I got to drive 35 miles one way and 35 miles back empty. >> So, I can't I can't compete. They're good enough and they're loyal enough over the last 25 years. are giving me
some grace period to haul this to Duth, but that's just not going to work for us. It it's uh and it wouldn't work for them either. I can't I can't be competitive with someone that would come from Duth >> and the the one pond is getting to be
well it's it's under control so that's not an emergency but the other pond they want to do testing at Minnesota Power and before they start hauling tubes. We haven't held any out of there this year at all. And they're concerned and they want to know if we're going to be able to or if we're not going to take it.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And at this point, the sort of moratorum on us accepting that water is
self-imposed. Yep. So, we could turn around and say, "You know what? We take a look at everything and decide we are going to accept that water. Start accepting that water again. True. Could I mean that'd be possible.
>> I forgot to I forgot that part of you know the MPCA is they're comfortable in with our treatment plan and they think that this is where it should go. >> They haven't said that to us. >> They haven't taken a position at all on
it with us. Well, I talked to a to Jeremy Logul in there and that was his that's what I got from one of the people at the MPCA. You got to be careful on how they word there. >> They're not saying they're not
they're not the one making the decision to tell us not to take it. Right. Okay. Um, so given this information,
it's good to have this information, I think, for if you're talking numbers and what we do with our water and what how we're trying to meet and lower the mercury um what we
discharge. Um, it's good that it's good to know this. Um, it's also um I haven't um we haven't got to that part of the meeting yet. >> Let's do it right now.
>> But Scott may have some ideas um under VJ testing concept. >> I think that might be a good time to talk about that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. You're pulling. Are you opening up your list of test?
>> Yeah, I'm opening up my list. He's got moving fast. >> He's just getting it open up. Sorry. Sorry. >> While you're looking for it, I'll >> The this concept came from a meeting that we held in Grant Portage. Craig was there, the mayor was there, Scott was there, members of the MPCA were there as
well to talk about this issue. And one of the concepts that we came up with is what if we established a more rigorous testing regimen that included things whatever things of concern there might be. So it didn't seem like mercury was
the only issue in that conversation and proposed that to everyone in the room. let's get together and come up with a test that might meet people's needs in understanding whether
this is a safe and okay option for us to continue or not. So we got a list from what was suggested at the meeting of the EPA priority pollutant list. We got a list from uh Grant Portage's own
environmental staff. We got a list from somebody that Jeremy who works from the MPCA of things we might want to look for. And we also got a list from the contract between Shero and City of Becker for Lee from the Shero coal plant
that simpler. So >> take it away Scott. So just just be just for clarification then. So you >> uh this list of items that we might want to test for would that be we might want
to test for these items in the water that Pete would be hauling or we want to test for those items in our effluent. >> Yes and both. >> So maybe talk about what the schedule might look like for that.
>> Sure. So the potential would be we would do a couple of groundwater samples for mercury just so we had some background information for local areas. Um as the tribe had mentioned Grant
Borders had mentioned to us that uh uh they've they don't see mercury in their groundwater which I find surprising but ground is ground and it can show up as it wants to. But I think we should do we're going to try to do a couple of
mercury samples um yet in June. Uh we do the wastewater plants. We do the wastewater plant effluent uh once or twice depending on what made sense and then we would have both leg
companies test for the same parameters um in June. And then once we decided that uh we would do a temporary accepting of uh their uh the
leech uh we try to go for like 3 to 4 weeks and then we take a couple more samples just to see what the leech was doing to to the wastewater affluent. And that will help us really evaluate if if it's
a problem uh based off of, you know, the the regimen that we decide to go with. Um if it is a problem, then we stop. If it's not a problem, then we try to figure out um or if it's getting close, I'm trying to
figure out what we need to do. And >> can I ask a question? >> Yeah. >> Is it okay if I ask a question? >> Go ahead. My question is then so when you're taking in what if there's been a rain event and you're getting more runoff like in the spring that would raise it. How do you know that the pond is
affecting it or is it outside sources that's affecting that test? >> We also do uh like for instance a mercury we do influence mercury and so we >> Right. That's what I'm that's what I'm talking about. The influent that's coming in you told me is between 20 and
30 parts and this is 2.4 parts. So if you're testing to see what how it does it coming in, what if it's a rain event and now you're taking a higher number 30 parts per trillion and that isn't affecting it. It's outside sources that
are affecting. So that seems to me that water needs to be tested where it's at before it comes here. >> Yes, that was that was part of we would have the leech come leech. But when it mixes with your inflow, if yours is higher than normal, you can't tell if
that is adding to the problem or if the problem is an outside source of groundwater. >> Valid point. We we can't we got to do a lot of sampling in order to figure out. >> And were were you correct when you told
me that if that stuff is 2.4 and it dilutes ours, it should make it easier mathematically to treat? >> That's a true statement. That's a true statement. So that that's why I was confused why we're going to do a test after we haul for a while because
>> that that can be screwed by other sources. >> Part of part of this is that it's it's beyond simply mercury. There's a list of probably 15 to 20 heavy metals. Uh
some people have suggested that we do dioxins and furans which are real nasty compounds. Um PAS compounds the former chemicals and then there's uh a number of other uh
things that are on the EPA's uh priority pollutant list. There'sund 100 and some chemicals that the EPA is monitoring for that they don't want to see anything in those of those chemicals. >> So would that be that be their
responsibility to do the tests that you require? Are you going to also do those tests to your inflow or is it just this pond that we're worried about? I believe we had talked about doing it to uh to do our effluent just to make
sure that what we were receiving all around was is not putting us over the edge for any of those heavy metals or all those compounds that we were looking at. >> I'm confused, Pete, what point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting we shouldn't be doing more testing?
>> No, I'm saying that problem. No, the No, I'm saying the pond should be tested for all the information you want to have. It shouldn't be tested as it mixes in with your inflow. You should test your incoming water separately than the pond.
And so you have the figures. This is what the pond is adding. This is what we have coming in. >> Yeah. Like to do all that >> because you can't haul for a couple weeks and then take a test to see how it affects it because that's inaccurate. You don't know if yours has changed. the
pond is is pretty consistent. That's not going to change. >> There's there's no activity going there. >> I mean, we don't know that. That's why we would do testing. So, >> that's why we do we got to do testing to establish a baseline. But the testing has to be >> over there plus.
>> Yeah. Coordinated in a lot of different >> But I would think separately, not mixed together. >> Both separately and mixed. >> You could do both. We could do separately and then once it gets put in >> Okay. But when you mix it together, are you taking the incoming water might be
might have changed. >> I see >> the pond isn't going to change, but the incoming water might be there might have been a rain event and all of a sudden it jumped to 32 parts per trillion and you put that water in. Oh, it went up. Well, it it wasn't the 2.4 parts per trillion that went up. >> It's the other source that you're
getting that could go up. >> Be careful to realize and recognize when you do those tests. You obviously don't want to go over there and do a test after we get 3 in of rain. >> Well, maybe you didn't explain what you were suggesting in a way that everybody understood. So, just walk through again
one more time the timing and location of the test that you recommend. >> So, it this would all be done in a coordinated basis. So we would take we would do the we would have the results from the leech eight producers
uh just their own leech eight and then we would have the uh so we would know what they were doing and then on days that we would so we we were receiving the the uh leate for a couple of weeks. So we would take what's
going in uh comparing that with the leeate another leeate sample and what's going out of the wastewater plant and seeing if any of the constituents any of those analytes that we were testing for looked bad. Like for instance boron um
that's a very high number. That's uh that's like 20 or 30 parts per million. And the state does have a limit on boron um a statutory limit that uh it's not in our permit but
um that's the rule that you know say for instance we decided that we had to test uh and boron is on a lot of people's list of things to look at and so if we tested boron and the city's water was actually dilut sorry city water was
actually diluting it but if we're over the the stage threshold, we can't take the uh the boron and so that way we couldn't take the leate. That's just one example of of what uh we're diluting.
The city is diluting the boron, but they may be something else that uh the lie is diluting for us. We we got to prove all of that in a coordinated effort to uh to know. Let's just walk back to what that
coordinated effort might look like. We'll ask the companies to do a test based on a list that we're going to provide them at their ponds before we accept the leech. We will do a test of our influence as it's going into the
plant. So, we'll have those two numbers separately. And then after we've been accepting the leech, we'll also be testing our F1 to see if there are any effects that it has on it. So, we have all those data points. >> Is this your decision or is this a PUC's
decision that you've got all these plans? >> Our proposed, >> we're talking about it right now. >> Well, you sound like you already had it all planned out. >> We do. That's how it works. Scott has planned it out. No, this I'm just listening. I'm just hearing this right now. >> Yeah, that's what I thought.
>> Yeah, that's why we're here. That's why it's on the agenda. >> Um the le his leech testing concept. But I do understand what he's saying is if you get a big rain event or something, it could skew our testing.
>> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> Especially if you just dump 7,000 gallons in and then it rains the next night or whatever. >> Sure. >> Then maybe that's a time where we don't want to test. >> Correct. we might want to wait for that rain event to be over so we get a
baseline of what is actually happening with that product mixing with our normal flow of product that's going on right now today. So, back up back up in the meeting when we talked about when flows are higher, >> right? >> Scott calls Pete and says, "Don't haul." >> Right?
>> So, we're not going to be accepting leech during that event anyway. >> And now, put this in the context of we're currently under a variance for mercury. >> Okay. And we've got a five-year plan that includes conducting investigations
as part of it to figure out if we have sources of mercury that we can control. >> So just better for us to >> one way to have documentation, right? >> Yeah. So even if there's a more uh mysteries that we don't get solved from
this, that's a distinct possibility and but more data is going to help with that in any case. So, how many compliments is on this? How many analytes? There's uh let's see here. It's somewhere 50 to 60.
>> What's your question? >> What are all the tests? >> How many items would we be testing for? >> Oh, yeah. 50 to 60 to uh groups and in some of those groups I know like the PAS there's
30 some of them that are uh on that list. So we do that particular method there's 30 of them that we get tested for get results for. Um, I know that the uh there's a couple of EPA
priority pollutants categories. There are like 30 or 40. >> So, we're well over 100. >> Well over 100. We'd be probably 200. >> Um, seems like it will be very expensive.
>> Around $5,000 if we do everything. >> How many? >> 5,000. >> 5,000 >> per what? >> Per event. So if we sample our influent that's 5,000. If we sample the our effluent that's 5,000 adnauseium.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. If we sample our groundwater 5,000 >> for groundwater we probably limit that to mercury. >> Mercury because it's it's pretty well we we could stretch it to heavy metals because there are metals in the rock
that will come out of solution will come out of the rock into solution. Excuse me. And that might make a difference. >> Yeah. Um Okay. So, so something like
200 separate analytes and about $5,000. >> Yes. >> Per sample delivered to the testing. That's that's the shall I say the worst case is the wrong idea, but that's the that's the most thorough case that we
have come up with at this point. >> Maybe 3 to 5,000's the better estimate to use, but it's not cheap. >> No, not cheap at all. >> And so that leads to the next issue, which is how would we pay for that? >> Well, just even before we get to that,
what what would be the sampling frequency? We would do we could probably have somewhere between 10 and 15 groups taken times the total cost.
>> 10 and 15 10 to 15 sampling events per year. >> I It's too soon to tell. Yes. >> But okay. So, but but you're not you're not going to just collect one sample from the influent and the affluent and you would collect one sample and then
come back what next month and do the same thing or what what would you imagine? >> Well, at a minimum we'd be talking about one sample from each pond, >> one sample from our other influence and three samples of our effluent over time.
Like that's kind of a minimum. >> That's a minimum. Yeah. >> So, there's six >> per year. >> I think this is a a pilot honestly. >> So, we do
>> more than a we know this is a good idea, we should do this forever. >> So, we run it one time, see what we see kind of. Um so maybe so maybe six we would not be responsible for paying or would we for
the testing on the beach. >> I would think everything's negotiable at that point. I mean it doesn't make sense to do this at all if we're not accepting the leech aid. >> The the list of what we would test for is a lot smaller. And if we are
accepting the lie, I think we would ask the companies to fund their own tests from their ponds, which they do now. We don't do that right now. >> That this would just be a more thorough list maybe than some of them have done in the past. And then we'd probably ask them also to contribute a portion of the
testing costs we've got, whether that be through a payment upfront or through increased fees on their per gallon like Pete's suggesting or some other way. >> Yeah. Because and why would they be inclined to put the bill because it's to their
advantage for >> maybe they are I don't know if they I mean if they want to work with us >> and they do they've made that very clear they do. So >> and I it seems to me it would be either in raising rates and to ask them to pay for testing that we need done at our
plant. I mean, if they pay for their testing and we raise the rates enough to cover what we feel comfortable, but doesn't seem a little odd to say we want you to pay for our testing that we're testing our own stuff. that is something that is done citywide
or statewide. Uh communities that have significant industrial user agreements, we can we can require um said company to help contribute. For instance, uh I know a community in southern Minnesota that
had a crearyy and in that town and that crearyy was half of the uh half of the loading on the wastewater plant for solids for for BOD for phosphorus etc. And so the crearyy ended up paying half
of the wastewater plant upgrade that they had at that time. And so that is that's an option that exists >> and I can understand that. But these two sites are they're they're closed. They're not active sites. There's no
more being produced at these sites. >> Yeah, I think that's a misunderstanding. >> Huh. >> They're not putting more ash in the pile, but it's a pile of ash still. It's the same characteristics it was 5 years ago, 10 years ago. >> Yeah, but it's been it's been there for 30 years. So, what would cause a drastic
change? would have to be a some big event that you but under normal circumstances I don't see how it could be drastic change. I mean I might be wrong but it doesn't appear to me rain it's been raining there for 30 years and going in the same
places and all of a sudden what would change? >> I'm not sure. Yeah. And the testing would suggest that things are relatively stable around the two to three parts per trillion.
>> It probably actually goes up if they test after after it rains cuz rainwater can be as high as 20 parts per trillion in this area. As low as five, but that's the low end. So yeah. And and so again, what's
to establish this testing? It sounds like kind of the idea is like a pilot program kind of. We're going to we're going to do this and just get a sense of what's going on. It's not like we're committing to a longterm testing regimen that's going to be conducted monthly or
five times yearly, whatever. What what is it that we think we're going to uh gain from doing all this testing? What what how is this going to help us? >> The theory is to know that we're
we're not polluting the lake because we're we're not polluting the lake ignorantly. uh meaning that uh we don't know something's there and we don't know that was something that we should be treating for or trying to figure out how to
treat. >> Yeah. >> And so there's like I say there's a lot of things that we don't test for that uh you know this list has got a lot of things that we don't test for because we're not required to test for them in our permit. >> Right. Yeah. And so so we test for all
these things. I mean, we're in such situations every other low waist treatment plant around very regularly. So, I mean, it just seems a little it doesn't seem like it's
going to be especially productive or helpful to test for things that we we aren't even required to monitor as as an effluent, right? I mean, >> there's there's a a a good side and a
bad side to all the extra testing regardless of what we test. Um, I'll pick on boron for instance because that's an easy one to pick on. Say for instance that we we know that one of the the leaps is
high in boron. And so if we >> do we know wait >> we we have we have laboratory data that says it is high in boron. one of the leeches. Leech it from one of the ponds. >> Yes. Lee it from one of the ponds is high in boron. >> Okay. >> And so if we if we take that leech and
we run it through our plant and then we sample our effluent, doesn't matter how or when it just we end up sampling the effluent with that boron in it. And if we're over the state's statutory limit, the state can say, "All right, if you
keep taking that leshake, you will be required to do X treatment at at and you'll have to talk to the engineers and modify the plant, however, which could mean construction." >> Mhm. >> Um to uh continue taking that leech.
>> So why aren't we testing for boron right now? >> We are required to. >> And neither is any of the other plants around the period. Correct. >> The only reason we'd be testing for it is because we know that this lie happens to be high in boron.
>> And that's how we're different than the other plants around Lake Superior. >> So apart from this matter of our accepting lie, we're just like all those other plants around. I mean plus or minus. they have
their own industrial >> whatever dischargers and and contributors to their wastewater. So, okay. So why wouldn't we then just focus on what we think might be of
concern with respect to this leech instead of going with 200 analytes? I mean if we know that there are certain things in that leape that are of concern that we maybe should be monitoring and make sure we're not discharging, why
wouldn't we just find that list? I don't know what how many list how long that list would be. I think that's actually what we're trying to do. And so that list was developed by talking to the folks at
Grand Portage who brought this up as a concern in the first place by looking at the testing that's done in other cities that accept lead and by talking to the NPCA about what they would recommend as well. That is kind of what we were aiming for is well what might be the
things of concern in here. And that's where I say again, this is more like a pilot. We wouldn't necessarily have to sustain that level of testing if we learned right away that most of that stuff's not an issue. >> And and
we're doing this, we wouldn't be doing this at all had not this issue come up that there's concern from our neighbors, right? >> I think so. Yeah, I think so. we would not be >> I don't think we would.
>> So we are doing this largely as a I don't know consiliatory gesture sort of and that's fine. Um I am I am concerned that like this is this is this is we're in a
difficult situation and so is Pete. I mean, this is kind of this a it's a tough deal both for the city and for Pete and his business and and uh it seems like yes, we need to uh I mean
it's a good thing to try to accommodate the concerns and address them of of our our neighbors, but at the same time, we also have a duty to ourselves and Pete and to to the community here. I'm I
guess what I'm getting at is could we just say look we've heard you. We are we're quite willing to look into this and make sure that we're not doing anything that's harmful. Um or at least we are going to
minimize the harm as much as possible and to the same degree that other communities do. And um but meanwhile um we are going to to to
we're going to we're going to resume operations as normal. However, we are going to um start we're going to do this program to make sure that what's what we are doing we believe that what we're doing is perfectly good and
fine and we are being responsible citizens of the Great Lakes community. But we're going to initiate this program as a check and um
in the meantime we're going to resume operations as normal. I don't know. I'm just trying to think of a way that we could I don't get the train back on track and also address the
concerns. I don't know. I've not been involved in these discussions, so I don't know if that would apply. >> No, I see what you're saying. I mean, we're demonstrating our concern given the concern that others have
demonstrated to us. So, what do we do? We're kind of got in the middle of this sort of thing between what was going on with the MPCA and the testing and these numbers. Um so this doing this would beneficial to
us to know what what >> what what our numbers are >> I think any >> and we're also showing beneficial yeah >> and we're also showing a responsibility
to those who are concerned who our neighbors who are office is obviously concerned about all of this. Um, and so we're trying to develop a plan or
a strategy that we can implement that will demonstrate some numbers that we can get from this to see how we can proceed. And if this is a temporary thing that we start we start doing and
we and we then we look at the numbers to whether we're going to continue or not continue. I mean, I think at this point, for me anyway, to just shut this whole
thing down without knowing really, you know, what is happening and how this affects us or how it affects your operation or our numbers or how we have to maintain under our
permit. Um I don't know why we would just go ahead and do that without knowing really what how it is affecting us you know cuz we never really you know >> I mean when people start hauling it and
we start taking it I mean who is testing anything other than we do have these numbers and we do have numbers that we do right but working the whole test together in uh program that
you've looked at I think is uh a proper way to start something on a trial basis. I don't know I don't want to say trial basis but you know what I'm saying. >> It's a it's a pilot study. >> It's a pilot study. We can we can kick
things back into gear, resume business as normal, but we're implementing these things and we want to see results of these things. I mean, >> well, the way I'd recommend you do that is that we have significant industrial
user agreement with each of the companies that are responsible for the ponds rather than the way we've been doing it, which is just have Pete's agreement with us be the intermediary.
And that way we can get firm on what the terms are about what the testing requirements, who's going to pay for it, what the rates that we're going to charge are, when we can say yes and no, all of it. Right now, we don't have an agreement with the companies. We have an agreement with you.
>> Well, who pays us? Who's paying this half a cent, 1 cent, two cent? >> We invoice the companies. >> Huh? >> We invoice the companies. >> We invoice them. >> Yeah. And we don't have any type of agreement with them. >> No. >> Okay.
>> So, if you want to raise your rates or whatever you want to do, what do you do? Just notify them. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And then, you know, they don't have an obligation to bring us anything. So, that's why there's no agreement. If they don't like the rates, they don't have to bring it here. >> Okay.
>> But it seems like it's time for us to have an agreement with them. there's enough of this complicated conversation going around that if we want to keep doing this. >> Yeah, I know. Sorry, I'm just taking >> whatever agreement we need. It doesn't I mean
>> um >> I think the other thing I'd say about it is uh we've just sent this idea out to the folks that have been involved in this conversation. Sure, >> there's a meeting scheduled next week again for those folks to talk about the whole issue, but hopefully that'll be a
part of it. And I don't know whether there will be a clear yes or no that comes out of that from other folks. Maybe it's not fair to expect that, but it might be worth giving it another couple weeks just to let that play out.
Then we could use that time to develop the draft agreements. Yeah, we're under no we're under no statutory or regulatory obligation to
continue with the mortorium. Correct. >> Right. >> Yeah. It's entirely your choice. >> It's voluntary in our part. Yep. And the other thing that occurs to me is like well um if we were to resume it
well um like superior is no worse off than it would have been uh had we not establish mortorium in the first place. In other words, we're not suddenly being something that's extraordinary and um I
don't know, capriccious and potentially destructive. We're just resuming business as usual, which to everything we had understood was perfectly okay.
I don't know. It doesn't seem that doesn't seem outrageous to me that that we could just say no, we're gonna we're going to start doing this again. However, we're going to look at um look more closely at the leaf and make sure
we're not >> Yeah, I don't know. I wouldn't say outrageous, but keep in mind that we thought that the leechet was a good thing for us to do more studies on as a part of our own mercury minimization plan. Seemed like kind of an obvious
spot to look, not because we knew it was a problem, but just because >> might be and it's kind of one of the only might be that we have. Um, even if we've seen good numbers from it, it's still kind of one of the only might be that we have. Also keep in mind that our
neighbors disagree with the way that you characterized it and they do think it's a massive problem that we have been doing it. It's been a massive problem and it's going to continue to be one. So I don't know whether I'm not trying to make their case for them, right? But just know that not everyone agrees with
that. >> Yeah. But we have no >> data to suggest that they're correct and neither do they. At least that's what I'm saying. >> I'm sure that uh they'd be happy to come and provide you with some data if you
wanted them to. >> Well, I mean, if there's a problem, we'd like to know about it. >> Yeah. And I think it's going to be really hard. You You guys already recognize that, right? That this is a difficult decision. It's hard to sort through that stuff. There's no clear
>> no smoking guns here yet. Maybe there is one when we do this testing. Well, >> but chances are, you know, we've been doing this for 20 years, so I don't know. But the reason this was brought up in the first place had everything to do
with mercury and nothing to do with boron or pfas or anything else. Craig, >> mercury was what was brought up in their official communication with us. Uh but when we were in the conversation with them, Craig, they talked about all kinds of stuff,
issues of concern with the fact that this is industrial in character that contains a lot of things you wouldn't have in typical residential waste water and things that we ought to be concerned about. >> And that's not the way we had thought
about it before then. There probably is data somewhere on typical leeshaped pollutants from ash piles. And I guess the ash
varies a little bit from place to place. >> A lot of it varies from where the place where it was the coal was mined. >> Yeah. >> Some areas are high in one chemical one one heavy metal. Other areas are high in another. I think it's going to be pretty hard to
find useful Google search data on that because it's a pretty charged issue and you've got a lot of folks on both sides of that question with a vested interest in the data being one way or the other.
>> Yeah. But I mean I'm just saying people have been collecting leeshaped samples from ash pond uh from ash ponds for decades right and so there probably is data out there like well it's typical
what can we see what might you be concerned about as you say I'm sure there's variation but I don't know if >> we might be able to develop a range >> yeah or so why but >> like do you see PFAS in these or do you
see uh I don't know aluminum is that typical or is that or can we can we guess that some of these are are don't even belong there we see nitrates you know or we see um
I don't know you know what I mean to go back to that list though the way it was developed was 80% came from either another city's testing that they're doing on coal bash reach it or things the NPCA suggested or
things the EPA suggested. >> So probably >> so I mean we're talking about pretty much what you described I think is already what we're going to narrow it down now is look at the numbers. Well, anyway, I don't know exactly this
was going to be a presentation on the leech testing concept, right? So, yeah. So, and it was and thank you um and also thanks Pete to for your contributions here. I think it's really helpful to gather your perspective and to
understand what your concerns are and I hope you can see that we're also very concerned about this and try to figure out an answer. So um what what are you imagining the next steps or what can you what would you
like what what direction are you looking for from the PUC or what um >> guess the direction that I would ask for is that in the ideal situation we would be able ble to
collect the d the initial data before we started receiving the lee. So you know well we have we have to decide what data we're going to collect. Then we start collecting that data and then we receive start receiving the leap
and then after 3 weeks or so plus or minus we would we would start collecting other data that would be we would know what's coming in and then what's going out and
figure out if if at that point there was a a And that's going to take a number of scamping events because we we would do our influence, we would do our effluent and
then uh potentially uh combining that with with lee numbers and seeing uh if if all of a sudden metal X is a problem one month and not enough or not two
weeks later uh but we don't see on the city side, we see it on one of the leate sides, then you know that's going to help us or we can say go back to that legate producer and say, "All right, you guys have to pre-treat for
that particular metal or whatever." And that would help us, you know, if they got if they knocked that metal down or that item down then and that made every all the rest of the members fall in line. Mhm. >> Um, that'd be a win-win >> for everybody.
>> Well, and you're you're hearing we don't know exactly how this is going to play out. >> And I don't think we're ready to ask you for a specific decision today. So, if you have one you want to make, you you can certainly do that, >> but what I would propose is let's let us
talk to these partners some more about this testing plan. >> Yeah. >> There's something about it you want to modify right now. >> Yeah. Let's let us develop draft significant industrial user agreements for the companies. >> Then we'll bring that to a next meeting with an idea of something for you to
take a motion on. >> When's uh next meeting? >> Next week. >> No, >> you got Zoom meeting or something. >> It's Oh, the Yes, that's next week. >> Okay. >> With the NBCA and with Grand Portage. >> Okay.
>> Is that a closed meeting also? The public's not invited. >> That being said, I I bit my tongue here. I can't even tell you that I'm going to bring this up, but I'm going to bring it up so everybody knows. The Grand Portage
pond system up there does not treat for mercury to begin with. Furthermore, when they discharge into the bay, the bay turns brown. They get many, many complaints and they put up no swimming signs because of the ecoli. There's
people drinking water out of that lake along the shore because the minerals are so bad. They're taking intake for their water comes out of Lake Superior. So, I think this better go both ways. They have a problem that's bigger than ours. And I think when you negotiate with
them, that should be a concern. And that's a fact. >> Yeah. that what happens when they dump those ponds and those ponds were supposed to be pumped years ago because the solids are built up way too much. They don't have the volume for settling and it was
extremely amount of money. They contacted me to try to do it to do the hauling. So, they've got their own issues and then to point fingers at us when we're meeting what we're supposed to meet is not right. >> Yeah. And when you say they're our
partners, what do they contribute to us? They're not a partner to the city of Grand Marray. And the city should not be taking political views, anti-mining, anti- this. They should be looking at the facts and the economic impact of
running this facility. It shouldn't be concerned if they don't want the mining companies to take their water here. That is not part of the concern of the city of Grand Marray in my opinion. >> Yeah. And I think the phrase was actually neighbors rather than partners,
but I get what you're saying. >> I thought you said partners. There >> would be partners. >> Well, partners in what then? >> But I would treat him that way in any case. And I don't know anything about what Pete's saying. I certainly wouldn't make any public. >> You don't know anything about it. I told
you about it before. So you do know something about it. >> I know what you've said about it. >> Well, and I can I'll stand by it. I can prove it. It's a fact. >> Yeah. And I think that's of really no use to bring that up. >> That's no use to bring up that they're putting eoli in the bay and people are
taking that water for drinking. They put up signs no swimming and there the people that live there are complaining about the brown water and the toilet paper floating around in the bay. That's of no concern to us. I >> mean, I've definitely heard that kind of talk about our facility that's not true
as well. So, I don't know whether it's true or not. I don't see that conversation here. >> I think for my my view on all of this is
I want to show to even the people living right who you we where's our water coming from exactly right. So this testing concept you have I would
like to see that move ahead. I don't know if we need to vote on that or anything. You want to have the meeting first and let educate everybody about this. That's great. But I think that I think it's important for us
to understand what are we really doing and of course the conversation was always over mercury. We can now it's changing to 200 different chemicals, but um the main conversation was about
mercury and our permit that we operate under and bringing our mercury down and not adding anything to it that keeps it up or keeps it level higher than it should be or whatever. And I don't want to put stuff through our treatment facility
that increases mercury. And I don't think you do either. Pete doesn't. You don't. I don't. But we need to establish a method that is testing and is we're
getting information from and you know we need to get the proper information and I think if that information is acceptable to the MPCA or to us as we operate our facility then I think that's
important to know what that information Yes. I mean, it's easy to say, "No, we don't want to take it." Well, there's a lot of reasons by doing that. There's a lot of things that happened from that. We got a guy in business. We have income. We have a new facility. We got a upgrade. We're trying to get funding for
that. We got some funding for it. It's a big project. It's 8 to10 million project or maybe more by the time we get at it. >> And we want it to be done right. We kind of want all hands on deck when we're doing that. So, we don't want to
do things that are wrong, but I think this leshade testing concept is something that we can move ahead with that at least is putting checks and balances in what we're doing, you know, and we How
long have we been taking this anyway? I mean, 20 years. >> 20 years. >> Yeah. You've been hauling it for 20 years. So this at least gets the information out there. We collect information. We collect data.
And I think that's important to do at this point, you know. Y >> and what happens when we do rebuild and fix that and it's up and running and there's still two ponds sitting out
there that are full of water cuz no one ever did anything to it. Now do we have a facility that can take it without all these questions or you know I mean what are we what are we accomplishing by putting 10 million into our facility if
it's you know That's that's one of my points is that >> you know if they come out with a 200 I mean they can add to that list anytime they want >> or on or you know >> Yeah. >> We we have to
>> I mean we we're putting that list together, right? >> So we're part of a and we do add things to that list from time to time around here. So I would expect that to happen in the future. >> Well, we want to keep the lake clean. That's
>> you know that's >> that's survival right >> so um can >> I ask Scott a question why would the state not require boron why do they not
control that from the information that they have seen that uh they don't feel it's an issue but because they haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't or is an issue. So, it's that's just something that they don't
think is a is relevant at this moment in time. But Jeremy told me that that can change very quickly just by a few data points and that is that is a a precautionary thing that we do all the testing and we find out that say for instance there's
something coming from the city of Grandmar proper that we never knew existed that could be throwing us over the edge in something. >> Yeah. And in that way, we're no different than the other communities. >> Another another uh thing like the city
of Elely, this is decades old information, but they had uh uh they were failing this whole effluent toxicity test, which is one of the tests that we could run as part of that $5,000 number. And it turned out that it was
beat. So people would go out in the woods, they'd come back to their hotel rooms, they would shower, they wash off that de and that was upsetting the least wastewater plant. And so we might find a similar type case here that
again we might not >> again it would have nothing to do with the legit. >> It would have nothing to do with legit. Correct. Um, so when I I feel like we should seem like there's some urgency to this, right? To
get this figured out and get a testing program in place or not. >> Well, the company's certainly are acting with some urgency. I think Pete's clearly communicating some urgency. >> Yeah. Um, so
what's on the schedule is another meeting with PCA and that's happening a week from now, you said? >> Yeah, actually next week. >> Okay. Your next meeting is July 1st and I think that's enough time for us to get feedback on the testing plans from other
folks to develop some significant industrial user agreements to have communications with the company about what the plan might look like and to come back here with a here's a recommendation. >> Yeah. Can we get uh sort of an we have
an interim meeting to discuss how I like it. >> Yeah, sure. >> Something between now and a month from now. >> Would you like a couple weeks from now? >> 17th. >> I don't know. It seems like it would be nice to
just keep on top a little more and make sure that or I don't make sure that but it's more like keep prized to what's happening and yeah what the progress is. >> What do you think? Great. Yeah, that's you have to post. How much warning do
you need? >> Three days. >> Three days. >> Huh? >> Morning. >> Yeah. No, warn everybody either. >> No, you have to have three days. But so whenever you think you guys whatever the meeting's going to
>> Yeah, >> we'll we'll do that the >> then I give you time to contact the industrial user or the MP now and clicks and um
give them information on how we plan on testing doing this. and uh like like pizza. I don't know how you want to do that billing wise or whatever, but
we can talk about that. But uh yeah, yeah, we know what we know what we're going to have to spend to do the testing that we have to do over there. So we'll lay that out some numbers for that
meeting. Okay. >> So there is one more item on >> Yep. There is more one more item on the agenda which is the septage uh rates. >> Oh yeah, we skipped that.
>> Oh yeah, >> we started it. We started then got the second yeah logical flow to talk about that first. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So this is uh the septtogen septic gray water rate
that deep hauls >> right >> from our plant to Duth >> to our plant. This is >> Oh, >> for us accepting from Pete. >> Oh, okay. But what about the sludge going? That's different. >> Yeah. Well, that's in Scott's memo.
>> Okay. >> Maybe we'll just turn it over to Scott. >> Yeah. So, as we've already talked about, G&G house seepage from the residents and businesses in Cook County to the Gramar wastewater plant um or excuse me,
Gramaray and then they screen it and release it to the Gramar sanitary sewer. Uh G&G also hauls our bioolids to Duth. Uh on the return trip, G&G previously hauled Lee 8 uh a bank hauled it and
then they gave us a nice credit for uh on the charges they would they would normally charge if they had to do it where they just went empty all the way back. And so because we've temporarily suspended the leech receiving and they don't have any other back hall
opportunities, uh Pete, correct me if I'm wrong, but >> it was 10 cents a gallon. Now I think you said it was going to look 18 >> 17 >> 17. Okay. Well, my apologies on the 18 mistake. Um another trucking outfit has
told G&G that they would subcontract for 23 cents per per gallon. And then there's a out of Pete's control there's a fuel sir charge when diesel is over $3 a gallon. >> We pay that. >> And then we we pay that. Yes.
>> Yeah. So that's describing what we pay Pete to haul sludge to duth except the 23 cents a gallon is sort of >> that's speculative. >> Well, I was just trying to get some help to see it because it's hard to do it
without the back haul. >> So I was going to see what they could do it. And then uh steepage accounts for roughly half of the total volume of the bioolids hauled. That's a rough number. Um and we don't receive any septage from
any other contractor that I know of. And uh currently we charge G&G 6 cents a gallon for septage and 3 cents a gallon for graywater. uh after we compared all the pricing
that went up uh and the the quantity of extra sludge that uh you know just based off of last year's numbers uh because we ended up having more sledge haul than we anticipated. Um it looks like we're going to need to raise the rates to
about 10 cents a gallon for septage and 6 cents a gallon for gray water. I've got a spreadsheet that we put together that details everything if you want to see the nuts and bolts of everything. Um, okay. So, I'm sorry I get a little
confused here. We have bioolids, septage and gray water. >> So, septage and gray water come into the plant. We process it. Except it is only comes in because it's being hauled in by
>> heater. Okay. >> And then the bioolids is what we are we end up with. >> We send up >> we send to duth >> to duth. Yes. Uh the gray water >> the gray water is pumped just like
septage is >> hauled in by Pete. >> Yeah. Hold in by Pete >> separately. That's two things. They're two different things. Yes. Gray water is uh like if somebody has a holding tank on their property, you know, thousand gallon holding tank where they fill it up, they call Pete to haul it away. But
if somebody has a septic system, uh they use it for 2 or 3 years or depending on how many how hard it's used. It's pumped every two or three years. They pull the sludge out, the thick stuff. Yeah. >> And we get that as septage. Yeah.
Um yeah, and I presume there's been discussions with Pete about uh whether these charges are uh going to allow him to continue business, for example.
>> At this point in time, we have not had that discussion. >> It seems like that would be >> there wasn't much discussion about his price increase to us. >> Yeah. either, >> right? I mean, it's a matter, right? >> It's a matter of discussion.
>> I mean, it's fair. Nothing wrong with it because his costs go up because of the decision we made. >> He's passing it on to us. >> Sure. >> We have to pass it on to the folks that create the costs to us, which in this case is Pete's customers. And how he
wants to handle that is up to him. >> Yeah. That increase is a lot more than my increase which I mean I'm not arguing it. We always try to be a little bit in line with how duth would be that you know percentage. We're always more than
duth but the gray water to me seems awfully high. the sludge I can I can understand that but the gray water at 6 cents a gallon I don't know what it be like your normal stuff coming in to the plant and I don't know if you're
at that kind of a rate for the people >> I don't remember off the top of my head what the grade water >> and you know and and you I'm not going to argue whatever you do because I just pass it on to the people in the county so it's not you know I'm not I it just seemed that seemed a little higher
percentage than >> what I had been used to for that product. But you know, and Silver Bay is taking some now. So I don't have to take it all here. If I pump in the West End, I've been taking some to Silver Bay. If I pump up at like
Wolfridge and I take those, that's up to Silver Bay. So which is you don't care anyway. So Do >> you know how you came up with that 3 cent gallon raise on the gray water? >> I've got got I mean
>> that was doubled. I've got an elaborate spreadsheet that I set up that uh takes into account all the factors in our budget for uh and then I I based off of last year's sampling um I was able to
figure out that uh the septage in gray water contributes it's about 43% of our of our total solids. So roughly half you know, >> and so I use that 43% times a whole
bunch of portions of our budget that uh the the TSS portion of our budget and the the total phosphorus portion of our budget and the the uh total carbonatious biochemical oxygen demand portion of our
budget. And because we get build from WLSSD that from that that those for for those constituents and because the septage in graywater is a portion of it that's how I calculated the uh
that those increases that'll be effective this month. >> That's if they approve it. Well, how how does this with this increase of 10 to 17 of the gallon on
Pete's side? How does this how does it uh how do we sit into that? I mean, with our increase frequently sort of compensating some way for Pete's increase, um, yeah, some, but not all of
it, I think, is what I would say. >> We're recovering some, but not all of that. >> Yeah. Our our goal is to essentially break even. >> Sure. >> We're not trying to rake the the rural people, of which I'm one of them, um, over the coals just because we want more
money. >> Yeah. Right. And presumably Pete's increase is uh allowing him at least to keep keeping business at least >> Mhm.
>> under under >> It makes sense why Pete's numbers went up. It does. >> Yeah. Well, I was I would get I was getting 6 cents a gallon hauling the water back. So that I was giving the city that 6 cents a gallon because I was on the back hole. Now when that's gone in the f and weight everything's gone
up. So that's why it went to seven cents a gallon increase instead of six. >> Yeah. >> It's time to make sense. >> Yeah. Well, I mean it to me it seems rational and supportable
and um I mean I I have sympathy for Pete's predicament because he's kind of caught in the middle of a Well, my predicament is I don't know how much longer I can hold on trying to haul it to the Luth.
It's it's um it's a tough scheduling thing and it's a it's a long day to try to make two trips to make it feasible because if you go down there one trip to you just can't make it. You got to go down there make two trips and come back and it's I mean
then that's my problem but I don't know how long they're going to say we're going to stay with you because it's an elevated rate that I'm giving them versus what they could >> Yeah. >> maybe get from a another hauler. So yeah, >> hopefully with the conversation today
and a possible timeline for how this is going to go. >> Yeah, >> that'll help. >> Yeah, >> I know the lower pond is in control. The upper one, they're they haven't hauled any yet and they're getting close to needing some hauled and I guess if it's
if they have to go to loop of that, that's what they'll have to do. But urgent, the sooner the better. And actually the sooner or better is yes, we're going to do it or no, we're not >> is is kind of the being in limbo is
>> seriously I'm not losing much sleep over trying to make a decision and I think with your plan I think that's a step forward if we can convey that to others you know I think that's what I want to try to
move ahead with that and if it doesn't work out it doesn't work out. But we need to at least demonstrate or our ability to monitor and test and
get results that we need, you know. So, >> well, it seems I've moved to um prove the increases. Approve the increases. Uh
taking a gray water. >> May I add a a point? >> Is this our annual? Is this for one year or what is this or how do you do this? just while it's happening. I think >> okay, >> we looked at the rates annually and we don't always adjust them. Although our contract currently says
>> we would adjust his rates annually based on our own rate changes. But obviously this is more about >> a one time increase that we're experiencing. And if that changes maybe we go back and look at this again, too. >> But it's presumably these would get
readjusted if if uh we go back to practice. >> I think we'd use the same analysis and if our costs go down, we can go down with our rates on this pet. >> Did you have something that Mike just
>> Okay, excuse me. >> So, um, do we have a motion to approve these increases? Charles makes I'll second the motion. All in favor? >> I
Okay. Um, >> that's all we got today, guys. >> That's it. >> Other items? I don't have any other items right now other than let's move ahead with our meeting. Let's stay in
tune to what's going on there and perhaps we'll have a meeting prior to July 1st. Hopefully. >> Yeah, we'll just look at that 15th. >> Okay. >> Yeah, in that area just
so whatever whatever you need >> when we'll schedule something. I'm sure there'll be something worth updating on. >> Okay. Okay. Thanks. >> One other item that's not anything to do with this.
We have a brown out issue on the hill with some electrical stuff going on. >> I'm not aware of that. >> Does it affect the city or does it just affect out yonder? Is there I was up there last night and
they're they're missing a phase of power last night. Their cooler was off. Half first heard of it. Half the lights were off last night, guys. >> Oh, okay. Well, somebody from the city was up there yesterday afternoon like at 4 3:30 4:00. doing some testing. So, I don't know if
you're aware of that. >> No. >> Okay. I don't know if I got fixed or not. I was just they said something about the apartment buildings causing it or something. I don't know what's going on, >> but we should probably look into it and see if it's just a building problem that they're experiencing or if it's
something on our >> system >> on our circuit. Check into it. >> Okay. Well, it's probably fixed now anyway, so I don't know. So I mean they probably would have called us today if they could. >> Well, I would think so. Somebody know somebody >> somebody else is up there. Tom Nelson
was up there and said he got a hold of the city. So maybe he called Matt or I don't know. Okay. I was just concerned about that electrical issue. >> All right. All right. That's all.
Thanks, guys. Thanks for coming and presenting. Part: 2
Well, Darcy's big cat. just finished >> and they're eight months old. There we go. >> That is a big >> opportunity. The time is 6:32. >> With us, myself,
attorney. >> And with that, we're ready to roll. >> Next up, open forum. Is anyone here this evening for open forum? I think I know the answer to this, but I'm going to say no.
We'll move on from that to the consent agenda. Does everyone have a chance to take a look at that? Anyone want to make any changes or >> um all in favor of the consent agenda? Hi
>> Jingle. >> My bad. Okay. So, on to new business with that. And I did not write. So, oops. I can see it. There it is. >> Page 18.
silver. I tried to use my left hand. >> Okay. You just said 18, right? >> All right. So, page 18, resolution 20263, Hamilton habitat variance.
>> Yeah. So, um over the agenda clear 7 and 12 ft change from the 25 step back. the back there. Um, the one thing that I think is
a kind of aesthetic point here is that if you look at the positioning of the proposed building and the one that's there on the north side of the property, they'll actually be in in similar alignment to the reard setback that um
is kind of about where they are. So, that's just one thing I thought that was good. So the back of that house >> they'll be about parallel >> with each other the rear. >> Oh okay.
>> Yeah. So >> good to know. I mean it's seven and a half ft. you know, it's the end of the world, especially with, you know, with the church being fully aware of like what's going on here and we've sold you this property and we have
want you to build here. Um, and and you know, being a church, it's not just a neighbor, it's church. So, it seems like, okay, I can see through that that change. Um the one
thing also was um that the the lay of the land there that it's mentioned in the packet but just to pull it out there that you know it kind of drops off and there's kind of a drainage on the right hand side
>> a lot flies. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So you know what I'm saying? >> Yeah. So that makes sense as to why the building Makes sense. >> Okay.
Does anyone have any questions, comments? Michael or Hamilton questions? I don't. >> Okay. I would make a motion to approve resolution 26-03.
>> Is there a second for that? >> All right. Very good. Any questions? Conversation is light. All right. All in favor of resolution 2026-03
Hamilton 28 is >> I know >> Hamilton habitat setback variance >> all right with that >> thank you >> there you go thank you
>> everybody I'm really hungry >> thank you >> I think so All right. Um, next up is animal arrowhead arrowhead animal rescue. Now
we have two a going. >> Um, building completion budget. Um, would you like to >> Oh, it's been a long >> I have an update to add before you jump in.
>> This is pretty fresh that we have this cost estimate at all. But we received another quote today for work that was a little bit less. >> So I just want to make sure everybody's aware of that as well. >> But that's not
>> it's not in the packet. >> Okay. >> Do we need to see that before? Do we need to pause? >> We do not. >> We don't have to pause it. I mean, I think that the what is the quote it was
um for $77,000 and it was from Burgland >> Excavating to do a similar work. So, what both scopes would be is to remove the trailers from the pad that they're on right now. Clean
the pad up. Put a slab on top of the concrete slab. Bring the trailers back. Level them. Place them on foundation. Probably would connect them together. Fix the roof uh where it comes together.
And now we have a building that Arrowhead Animal Rescue can move into and begin to turn the inside into the animal pond. >> Okay. So it's everything on the list which right now is
14 $100,044 down to >> 77. >> And what is the difference if any between the two? >> I think that as far as >> it's really hard to say there's a difference in the final product. I think
they end up in the same place. wise, timewise. >> Well, I think the 100,000 would happen faster. And so that's from Crawford Excavating and they've said that they can come in and do the project. The quicker we could give them the go ahead
the better because otherwise their window might close. Uh from Burgland, their concrete contractor said it might be later in the summer when they need to do the slab. So it might be a couple months wait. So, I think that's probably the most important distinction between the two.
>> And Crawford did a lot of the initial work, right? >> He did all the site work and moved the trailers. So, I think he's done everything thus far on site. >> Does that familiarity make a difference? I think there's some risk associated
with someone moving on the site that doesn't know what he's done, which is probably why we've had a harder time getting folks interested in talking about the work. >> But I don't believe that either company
would have any difficulty doing the job. So Berlin knows what they're getting into and had some concerns about the site that they intend to address as a part of their quotes. I think there's no reason we wouldn't unless we want this work
done now. No reason we wouldn't take the savings. Well, whose real decision is that? Is that really sick with animal? Is that the AA? >> That's a good transition to why is this
on your agenda at all? >> Yeah. >> Because 100,000 or 77,000 is more than they currently have to complete the work and continue to do the rest of the project. So, they're here with a request for financial assistance.
So I suppose if you're interested in providing financial assistance then it's a joint decision on who to go with. >> And I'm sorry we're having a hard time hearing. So if you just ask me to say something I couldn't. It's very hard to
hear. >> Why don't you two come on up? >> Okay. >> Said 77. >> 7. Yeah, it's >> I think it was 765 >> 765 >> here. >> Thanks. Take this one.
>> Thank you. >> Did you see Do you What are your thoughts on this? >> Well, I don't think that either one of them would have a tough time having success. I mean, the one that we
just got from it's a little later in the summer. Eric said what? By by late summer. >> Yeah. And I mean that's not a date, right? >> No, it's not a date. >> Yeah. I don't know. What do you guys
feel? Because I on my side have we've been doing this a long time. I got it. >> We've been waiting for a long time, but it is Monday. And as we talked to Mike, we've already The reason I handed this out is because you'll see on the second page, the first page is dated because when we originally asked when I
originally put this together, it was because we were thinking of the cross crop. But the second page, you'll see the dollars that have already gone into this project, both our dollars and your dollars and the county dollars. So, there's been a lot of money expended
already. If we can save money and we can feel that this money the pro the end project is going to be good and we can move in and it's going to be a couple of months. It makes sense to save some money because we have spent a lot
already and we have donor money ready for us to use. We'll have to raise some more to do the inside of the um house. So if we can save some money we it sounds like a good deal. and um they have visited the site, right?
They've looked at the trailers. They understand what they're doing. They are local people who have been around a long time. >> Yeah. >> So, I I'm not a contractor, but I can say that, you know, $25,000 is a lot of money.
>> I see page So, if you could split it with us, it would be great. >> Is it in there? You seen it? >> The to see that. >> No. >> Oh, I thought we saw something. >> I'm sorry.
>> Oh, that's >> Oh, it's over there. Your copies there. Yeah. >> Oh, sorry. We've already seen this one outside of you passing this up, but never mind. I'm good.
Okay. So then the discussion returns back. Okay. So a wants to go with the lower quote. Sounds like that's >> Yeah. I mean, if that's >> works for us or
>> So then we want to reook potentially at the funding amounts. That's a like you said almost $24,000 savings. >> Yep. 775 from one quote and $1,044 from another.
I'm doing my right now. >> Thank you. >> Do do you have other things you want to say though? >> Well, I think I think they're showing a willingness to partner on this and save some money and even though it's been a
really long to just extend that a bit more to do the best they can for all involved parties. It has been a very long time. This project would still be well well less than one of your earlier quotes for a
new building for sure. some of the earlier numbers that we looked at. >> Um we're certainly not we want this done >> and uh the county did contribute just to
help play ball on this >> 25 years ago. >> Yeah. And then the property. >> So are those dollars are those the dollars that we're using now or those dollars?
>> Those are gone. >> Yeah. >> Those are the dollars. Is there any sense that the county would be interested in helping anymore? >> No, I can't. >> I hate to negotiate against ourselves,
right? You can always ask, >> right? I just I haven't talked to them. >> Yeah, that's >> the county. >> Oh, and the dollars. And do we have dollars already set aside for this? >> No,
>> you don't have them set aside, but do you have dollars is the question I would ask? >> Well, our dollars are the question of what you if this is a priority and needs to get done. So the ask is to split that 775 or throw
another 50,000. >> That's what I'm doing is taking >> the lower bit and splitting it in half. >> Yes. >> Which is roughly 38 to 28.
completely wrong, but >> Bill 38 >> 38 and 250 >> 250 came up a little bit. All right. Would anyone like to make a motion for
that funding amount? I would make a motion to 30 >> 250 >> 38 250 >> Yeah, she said >> I would second that. I think it's time.
>> All right, >> this completes or this panels everything that needs to be done. I mean, I'm reading this. That's a slab and moving buildings and >> we feel comfortable that it should take
care of the issue. Right, Mike? >> What it gets us is the trailers are sitting on their wheels right now >> separate from each other and when this is done they'll be on a foundation on a slab connected together in one building again.
>> Okay. So there's still a lot of work to do after that before it's usable, but it's a building and we can give it to a for their use and they can go inside and start making preparations to bring animals in there. So it'll bring us to that point where the city's active role
in it starts to back off and we can just hand it over and it's actually useful for the the volunteer group and get in there and start getting it ready. So at this point that am I right to say that at that point then the city's
investment is 63250 and just taking the 254 or am I missing some? >> That sounds right cashwise. Yeah. >> All right. So, at this point, I think that's a very good investment or something that's been on the agenda
since I started here. >> We talked about putting it up and having it put together. It's been a conversation. So, I think at that point this is a good deal.
All right. All in favor of dollars to finish the physical piece of this property and get it in place and hooked together on the foundation
in the amount of 38,250. You have a little bit of our math is off. Um, all in favor, >> thank you very much. >> And thanks for your work. >> I'll be in touch.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next up, um, Boulevard Highway 61. This is a conversation we've been for a while as well. So, Mike and I have been talking about it this spring a
bit and asked him to check with SS labor or quote because that's what we talked about as one of the potential options um as opposed to inhouse work.
And then the thought also came that you know how far up do we want this to extend >> right >> so I got so he had shown the two options you're looking at
now so I got back in my car and I went back up to the top of the hill and I started with the forest service and worked my way down and checked with the different owners and what I quickly realized is up in that space
Most of those people have significant grounds unlike downtown business owners. So the forest service said we don't have the money to contract that out and they have grass all over back there. So they said we just do it as we can up there
and we do the boulevard. It's just what we do. And then of course we had city property. There were a couple stretches in between there where there's some little boulevard grass, but they are sitting in front of driveways for which the property owner is for the most part
way down. It's like a road down to Lake Houses, but I don't think any ding on them about that. Um, I stopped. Let's see. Some of it looked like it was okay. didn't go by
um Scruffy Dog >> um and they weren't open, but the radio takes care of it. They also have significant grass. They used to share with Northern Wilds, but they they
split, so they do their own, but once again, they have additional grass. Northern Wilds contracts with SS Labor, and they also have huge amounts of grass. besides that little bit. There really isn't anything at the lumber yard. They said they just have a small patch in the driveway and they're fine
with it. And then the next owner, um, Gina Nelson, does have significant grass as wpping on property up along with their boulevard. Then there's a long stretch for which there's nothing. It's just cement. and then um a small patch
and um then you're you buted up to the park before you hit B. So I thought that felt different than being downtown with business owners who for the most part do not have anything
other than a little boulevard. They're not going to keep a lawn mower down there. They're not, you know, >> and SS Labor already has quite a few contracts along strip if we're interested in going this direction. I mean, they already do Johnson's Foods.
They already do the Dairy Queen, Elizabeth County, and Box all together. I don't think they have others. Um, and then part of the issue of course, which is spelled out in this was the fact that even if you are going this
main strip, which has more visibility, I think is really the town piece. If you if you don't do it at the same time, it looks like it's not really getting done. No, I know we already talked about all
those pieces before, but it's going to go through and that the only new part was talking to land owners in the top of the hill. So, are we interested in going this direction? You'll notice Dave's piece that he doesn't have capacity
right now to do it if we want to do it in house or contract out. Oh, the other thing about that bid is there isn't a base. So, they only are getting paid when they actually do that. So, if it rains all the time, they get a
lot more mowing. If it doesn't rain, there isn't much ming cost. Um and then the second piece is currently that is the property owner's responsibility. We want to set this up
and then build them. Do we know who does the dentistry contract? So that's my background on this. The considerations are sitting on page 34. So these are 58 sections.
that all I mean >> Oh, >> some some businesses are doing it themselves already. >> Yes. >> So, if you're going to go ahead and hire somebody to do all of downtown, they're not going to have to do that
anymore then. I'm assuming they're going to get their section cut, too. >> I think that's the idea. We just run through and do it all at one time. >> So, 58 sections is from where? Eth >> 8th Avenue to the Gunp Trail. Okay. Both sides of the highway. >> Yep. >> Okay.
>> Now, would we still have the park do their section up above though? >> No. Oh, from ETH. Never mind. >> Yeah, they do. They do from ETH west. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Well, just pieces of it. Mostly not.
>> Just on the park part. >> Right. Right. >> Yeah. Right. And this is actually 8 East. >> Y that's the 15th. So >> okay. >> Yeah. So on the maps that they've included, the orange highlight is the
area that our staff currently mows and would continue to potentially that >> library. >> Yeah, the library triangle. The triangles that are not adjacent to the properties. Um,
but you can see that the pink highlighted section is just everything everything that's along the boulevard 61. >> So, I didn't count the sections, but Saffron did.
>> All right. >> Um, >> so the idea would be or one idea would be that You just have them do it all and then we assess the various properties
>> and some of them already are even using them currently. >> So they're already used to paying >> for them. >> Yeah, they're paying that amount already. >> How how do you do that then when you
have this? Do you just add it to like a current bailing? Well, you can't. That's a PC. >> We We can assess the cost of this to property owners. I'd say um we haven't had that conversation with any of them yet. So, >> right. I just wondered if we did, what
would be the mechanics? Is that another issue that makes it or we don't know the mechanics of that? >> We haven't we haven't done that yet here. So, I'm only aware of the authority that we have in our code. >> Yeah. >> And it's talking about it as a special
assessment. So, that means a charge that's attached to someone's property tax bill. And I don't know if there's other ways to simplify that, but we haven't explored that yet. >> Yeah. You want to make this. >> Yeah.
>> And I certainly wouldn't want to all of a sudden make that at the end of the year. That's how special assessments kind of work right now is we do them one time a year in September and they get added to a bill. >> Yeah. >> Um
>> yeah, I don't know if that would be the best mechanics for doing this, but that's where the authority lies right now >> to do weed control, mowing, things like that. >> But again, we haven't had that conversation with any of these property owners yet,
>> right? That's the whole point of this is just to see where we're at and start that piece of it. >> And maybe we don't want to whatever. But now we have real numbers to make decisions with before we talked
any cost ideas. >> And certainly for those property owners that are currently paying for this, this is more efficient to do it all at once. And so their costs are going to go down. Any thoughts
or questions? >> So, the next step would be to I guess chat with the property owners. what we're thinking about doing. We have a >> I first we have to decide if we want to
do, you know, we want to pursue this and if we want it to be just the downtown or if we want it all the way up and first we have to have our operation. >> Yeah. >> So, I would I think doing the downtown session makes sense
to me. That's an area that we would want to have that done in. >> Well, I can tell you that I used to mow my highway projects until midnot made it much more difficult to do so by making it rockier, steeper, and with more
woody, tough looking plants in there. And then subsequently, I voted and I l the only one that was mowing it. So, I kind of backed off because it was one had a crew
cut and the other one was growing wild. So, >> that's the problem with a lot of it right now. A lot of it's just weeds. It is grass. I don't know if they planted. >> Oh, they did >> combat only Mullins. And a few times
>> in these sections where there's sidewalk or trail, they saw it. >> It's just a lot of it didn't survive. >> That was a bad year. They just on the trees. It was just terrible. And then they had water trucks come up. They >> Yeah, >> it was a mess.
>> They got dry and died that long week. >> All right. So >> I take kind of view over as opposed to um >> I mean I understand when I look when you
see these long sections say from sister's place all the way down to the stop light last summer looked really tough and then somebody got after it looked a little better
through downtown. I don't know that I found it too terrible looking. I mean parking lot mostly gravel >> but they they are contracted >> yard looks good most of the time. Well, the city does that, but but they're
contracted across the street, so they are having it done as opposed to people who aren't, >> which makes the difference, you notice. >> Yeah. And then up the hill, going up the hill towards the Luth, you know, it's deer fencing, the bike trail, the rock
formations and stuff, and then lumber yard and yada yada for service. I noticed at the top of the hill, um, a lot of that grass on the inside of the
boulevard is gone. It's just dirt. There's nothing none of it weeds coming out when you get up at the top of the hill. >> I don't know. Bikes go, you know, they pass each other and wear it down. I don't know. But there's not much left
>> except >> Oh, putting the stuff on it. just running a machine over it. >> Well, this is way over closer to the trail side, not the road side. >> Yeah, but we're pl >> Oh, yeah. They're skinning off the edge
of the sidewalk, you know, anything that was growing. That's why I say it's it's tough for me to care much about it because it's just dirt clouds and and metal sticks that pop up and rocks and stuff. I mean, it's
It's not as nice as it was before they did the work. >> Um, I would agree. It looks like a mess. And I wish we didn't have all that grass, which isn't really grass anymore, but we do. And we got to figure out something. But would So, do you see a
difference between the downtown and the upper area? Is that what you're trying to say or not? >> I guess I see I see the downtown area the business are being distinctly different than having east or west on
the town. >> So focus more on the downtown if anything. Well, it's the all mine on both the lots I have. I didn't expect the city to do it. I mean, you
know, but anyway, I just know like and some people do, a lot of people, a lot of to do their own thing and some decide not to. So, it would go this route where we're just going to pay somebody to do all of it
or I don't know. I'm just thinking what tools you have in the box to say, "Hey, we want our boulevard's looking nice. We spent I don't know 20 $30 million on this highway project.
It's nice to make it look nice. And the reason we have the boulevards and new planted trees and those things is we don't want that all to weed over, you know, obviously. So,
you think it would help to maybe promote a little help on the side of it as a land owner to mo, you know, to mow this um
piece of land that they own that happens to be a grass new grass area and if they decide they don't want to then we mow it and build them for what we do.
I don't know. I mean there's there's things like that for cities that don't get sidewalks. They expect land owners to shovel their sidewalks and if they don't the city do it but then they get built for it. >> Yeah. >> And I'm not trying to make this like
mean or anything but I'm just saying you know a lot of people are already mowing it and a lot of people are already paying other people to mow it whether they do it themselves or hire somebody >> but not everybody but it's not that many that aren't.
So, you know, I'm thinking I'm just thinking maybe a little communication to say, "Hey, we would like this to look nice. Do you have a way to do this or get this done?" Maybe they don't. I don't know. But if they do, maybe they'll do it. We just haven't made the ask. I guess
>> I think we have um actually made the ask. I think we've done that that try to do that work of encourage. And I think that it's one of those examples of you can see people's opinion real clearly by what the boulevard looks
like as to where they're at on it. Um, we could certainly try again and I think we have some partners that might be willing to help with that conversation. You know, that's more of a business community type issue sometimes to talk about beautifification and there might
be a group that can help with that. But in the end, the encouragement gets to the if you don't do it, we'll do it and send you a bill. That's I mean that even you described that process that's kind of what you have to be ready to do. Uh
expect the folks that are not mowing now most of them probably aren't going to mow. >> I I think like the an like I feel somewhere in between on this that we could put this offer forward because part of it is you can know on
Monday, you can know 10 days later and you end up with sort of that same impact. Unless you kind of go through and you're on the same schedule, it doesn't necessarily look good. But it wouldn't hurt to go back and say,
"Can you deal with this?" And then here we can help you because we can, you know, get this rate and make sure it's done. if that's part of the issue, whatever. We could offer that up as part of the solution
in a positive way and see because as we all know and like Craig was saying, there's plenty of people who are already contracting to get this done. So, they'd be in that on this anyways.
And I agree. Downtown to me feels like the main focus of this. You know, like you said, we planted trees. We've put places for people to sit. We're in theory supposed to have some art being installed along there at some times. I
don't know. >> There's art already there. >> Well, there are some, but they're not all the way. You know, maybe there's other places up and down that whole quarter that might appreciate some. I don't know. but was supposed to have a focal point to it like kind of said and
so I think it does feel different. Um and maybe that's the in between is saying no we can offer this part to make it easier for you to take care of that if that's a problem. I mean I know not everybody
keeps a lawn mower handy nor do they always have the staff to run out and do that in your busiest time of year. Does that sound like what you're saying?
>> I was just figuring out 60 per >> It's 20 bucks a section. >> 58 sections. >> 20 bucks a session. A section. I don't know what a section means. And so >> that's what I'm saying. How many feet does it >> be hard to say for sure that that's 20
bucks per property owner >> because I don't know how many properties are more proper than others. But >> yeah, some of them there's nothing to most, some are not, but it's a simple just back of the napkin. This is to offer something like this that we're making people. We could put that communication together
and say we've asked for this price. It would cost this. We'd estimate this many times in the summer. Could will coordinate everything and send you a bill one time. >> See who's in and who's not. >> Yeah.
Once a week. So yeah, June, July, August, it kind of slows down and rain. >> So aid. So for a couple hundred dollar per >> per season >> section you get all your grass m on the boulevard.
>> You know what I'm saying? >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> Some people are going to say no to that. But >> yeah, >> a lot of people are going to think that's a >> lot of people are going to go, "Hey, that's a heck of a deal. Come on in." >> Or or you thought maybe this was cheaper than
the individuals for already. Well, I don't you you had an idea of what visit Cook County was paying for those two sections >> and I thought it was more than >> 40 bucks. >> Well, I think we would need to get that
detail so people could have an estimate, you know, like I have this much and you have that much and you know kind of narrow that in for them a little bit more. >> Yeah. >> To do that so they could actually know. But I think the key to this is you
aren't paying a base cost regardless, right? It is like you pay this either way. You like a farmer and if it rains a lot, if it doesn't rain a lot, you know, that makes a difference. >> Does that sound like an okay first step
to Yeah, but where did this even come from? We haven't had any kind of preliminary discussion about >> something like that. >> Sorry, you missed. We have >> that might have been before you joined us. >> This has been on the radar for a little while.
>> Was that two years ago when you were first >> I'm sure it was right after Highway 61 was >> right after we started talking about it. >> So, I'd say 2022 for sure. >> Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, we heard it loud and clear cuz people were disappointed about
the grass going. They were certainly worried about all the trees that weren't >> Well, people worrying about a dime. Now we're worried about getting it cut. So, it's like >> making progress. >> Yeah, we're making progress. >> And what was it? Two years it was under warranty.
>> Yeah. >> How long was that >> that we couldn't touch it? It was up to >> the trees more than the grass. But yeah. >> Okay. So for a while we we watched it but we couldn't >> and we watched those watering trucks
come to the dumbest times and >> it was not pretty. >> All right. Uh so can we make a motion to finetuning the dollar amounts and then
making a positive plate contact and offer to the businesses involved in the downtown section for this? >> Yeah. >> You like make a motion on that? >> I would support what you said.
>> A second on that. second that I was just thinking. >> Oh, no, it's fine. >> Okay. >> Um, I mean, for me personally, it's like it's your land. Take care of it.
Cut it. It's your town. It's your city. We need to if everybody thought that way we wouldn't be talking about this >> or we cut it, we do it. Saffron, whoever bid this, obviously
she's looking at 58 section, she knows how many feet of cutting she's got to do. So that's how she calculated her prices. And if you're going to do it that way, I mean, we can relay that information to people that don't want to do it and we'll do it for you. This is
how it's going to get done, I guess. I don't know. >> But we we prefer, but we're going to go the first positive approach first. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> No, I agree with you, Craig. It's like shoveling, mowing those boulevards. That's been the deal.
>> But I think Other valuable to this is the fact that like you said we did all this work on Highway 61 and we wanted to >> and I would love to just say Dave take over this get this done we'll do it the same day every week but you know what he
doesn't have the manpower >> and the city doesn't have the manpower and they're short on help already in in that department. So, you know, to take a whole day basically to probably do all of that, not counting the weed whacking
and the other stuff that goes with it. >> Yeah. I think he estimated um >> 12 hours, >> 12 labor hours to do this >> for all of it. >> For all of it. >> Yeah. So, one long day with one employee.
>> That's probably two employees, one full day, right? >> Yeah. That's another really good point. I'm glad you brought that up because yeah, it's just more than they really need to be taking on right now. And that business is super efficient. They've got
all the tools right now. They unload their truck in and out. They do a very good job of that >> to get it all done at one time. It's definitely more efficient to hire a crew. our staff. Even if we had enough staff
to do this, their main responsibilities are in the campground and they can't really take a day off of that and go do other things. And so it's we could do it. We could certainly figure out how to do it if you wanted us to, but it's not
quite as efficient for us. >> Well, I I really don't think that is the park's responsibility to do >> Well, no, I'm not saying it is, but most people >> No, I know you're not. >> Most people that drive into a town and beautiful planners and beautiful those landscape boulevards and stuff like that. They're assuming the city's doing
all that work, right? You know, I mean, not always the case, >> right? >> Or the garden club or somebody's doing a lot of this work through volunteers or whatever it might be. But I agree with most people in here. Like right now I
look at a big orange cone sitting next to a PO box drop off thing with the corner of the old post office. The old post office. >> Mhm. >> I don't know why that orange cone was there. Is there a street brightness or something? There sure is. >> Okay. So it's covering up that base. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> But the dandelions are like that. I mean >> that's just one thing I see. That's like part of >> Well, another thing I see when I drive through town is a permanent parking lot along Highway 61 with about two dozen cars and that doesn't look real hot either.
>> No, it's accumulating again a little bit. >> Oh, distraction. Yeah, our winter action worked our summer if only affects. >> We can control that though if we want.
Make those rules. And we have had comments from the other business owners who aren't very happy with it. >> You put that back. >> So So what are the bounds of what you're pitching here? Is it just the business
district now from where to where? >> Yeah, let's get that real specific. >> 8th Avenue to >> that was the original concept. Did you want to modify that? >> Well, the wreck park, they're already
mowing west up to what point? >> We have a map in here that'll show you the stuff that we're mowing. So, the on the west edge >> orange >> on the way up the hill that's along the city owned property and then we mow in front of the city's public garage.
>> Okay. >> And that's all that we do. >> And when you're saying gun, you mean the new gun? >> Yes. >> Yeah. 25 years old. >> We already do the old that's called the library parking lot.
>> All right. So, >> yeah, that seems that >> one thought might be that some of that section on the way out to the gunfoot looks a lot more like the top of the hill than the downtown because there's yards and space and people
>> in our side there's no real yard um southside potentially. >> Yeah. We're also looking at a government too. >> Well, why don't you we'll we'll include that whole section. Gunpoint Trail to 8th Avenue West
>> and we're asking for feedback. >> Yeah. >> Get it. We can reconvene on this conversation. >> And we need them to be clear about our priorities, which is, you know, like Craig said, the downtown area. We feel a
special importance to trying to to keep that looking nice and um also having it all done at one time for the look part of it and also for efficiencies. It's just more efficient to come through there and
have it done by group. >> All right. Thank you all very much. >> Hey, you uh you had a mot on that. >> Oh, so all in favor of the plan as described with communication to our business
owners for services between 8th Avenue West and the new quote unquote trail. All right. >> This is to look into what
>> communicate to them that this is what we >> well to get feedback from businesses and just see hey if everybody chips in this whole thing is done and it looks nice. I mean, you own the lands, right? >> Right. >> I mean,
except technically you state right away some of it, but still >> I don't. >> Yeah. >> Well, I mean, we're not we're not going forward with hiring and starting this
next week. >> Yeah. starting a conversation, >> right? >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Um, that is new business.
Reports. Administrative report. Not included in your consent agenda this week, but would have been added if I got just a quick a little bit earlier is new part-time employees hiring at the Gunfund Hill Golf Course, which we're
super excited about. So, please hire. Lisa Furlong is a part-time clubhouse attendant. Brian Sari is a part-time clubhouse attendant, and Jack Dragwick is a part-time golf course laborer. We need a motion.
>> Make a motion to the slave candidates or >> second. >> All right. Discussion, questions? No. All in favor of the slate of candidates for the golf course.
>> I I >> Thank you very much. >> And I'll just pass the baton right there. >> Really? I think there's lots of other things that other folks are going to talk about and I won't have to. >> Where'd you go? >> Wow. >> Yeah, >> I have mine.
>> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. >> I think we have good news on the concerns of the >> Don't want to share it. >> Okay. Yeah, I have bunch of um
I'm trying to find my uh board meeting on Tuesday. Um, golf report league starting this week. There's a Northshore Federal Credit Union tournament also.
>> I can't remember. Did we get the new golf carts or aren't they here yet? >> I'm not sure if they're here yet. >> Yeah, I don't think they're here yet, but we we have some new golf carts coming, >> which will be nice. Um, North Point has been bringing up younger
kids every Monday to golf and he's seeing some repeat business from the youth, which is kind of nice. Um, let's see. May was down a little bit because of the weather obviously, but not down as much
as I thought it was going to be. Only 4%, which is nice. So considering that we're hoping we can make up around June, June, July, and August to get back up to projected levels of occupancy. Um,
the picnic pavilion had power at it, but now we found out there's a electrical line under the road that we just paved that's broken. So, we're going to put off fixing that until at a later time. We may have to cut
across that new pavement and pull a new line through there. Um, it's just basically a probably a 12 two with ground type anm wire that runs. It's not a conduit or anything. It just runs to the pavilion. But we haven't had anybody ask for electricity at the pavilion.
Most people bring a drill or they use the the crates that we have down there anyway. So, um, we have a vacant seat on the park board. Matthew Brown
resigned. He moved out of the city, right? So, he's not on the park board now. So, we do have one open seat for the park board if anybody wants to get involved. We have a pride celebration in Harbor
Park Saturday the 13th and the wooden boat show at the marina on Saturday the 20th. And then Luda 99er is Saturday the 27th um of June. All of those are June dates.
Um let's see. We did also talk about oh securing this is something we have to do in order to proceed with securing our greater Minnesota regional parks and trails commission legacy grant. We need to complete state historic preservation
um review. It's part of the requirement to fulfill this uh legacy grant. And what that means is um we have to hire somebody
um that can look at the areas that we're going to dis disturb the soil where the uh sign location is going to be. And what's
the other spot? Oh, where the bath house is going to be built. >> Yeah. >> So we have a duth archaeology center that's going to do that work. We had two bids. They were considerably less half
the price. So, we went with them to get that work done. >> 20 grand. >> Yeah. We went from two bids 166 and another one 8,900. So, this one will cost 8,900. >> 8900's nice to do that.
Um, what else are we talking about? >> Are fixed that got bent in in that ice storm we had? >> Oh, yeah. Were they able to like bend them back? >> Yeah, we had some of the metal work fixed by a local gentleman. And then we
got new a few new floats that had to go in underneath. I don't think we had to buy any new sections. >> I don't think so either. We also didn't have to bring a big crane down there. >> Yeah, we didn't need a big crane either. Saved quite a bit of money there. So, >> it would have been cool. >> There was a crane in town we could have
used that. I saw that go through town and I saw it go the other way. I thought, "Oh, we could have borrowed that thing for, you know, paid for it and got it." But, okay. The other um meeting we had, we just had a uh PC meeting just prior to this meeting
today. Um items on the agenda were the sanitary sewer cleaning and televising. We're going to get uh 10,000 ft of that done for our uh
finding that. >> Oh, is that when you bring the cameras in? >> When you bring the cameras in. >> Yeah, >> mostly the cleaning that we want done, but also the televising so we know if there's any >> maintenance clay tiles and any
uh roots growing and things that are disturbing. We can figure those things out and and get those things fixed if we need we we need but that we had three bids for that and fortunately enough we ended up getting somebody who's already
going to be up doing something. >> We hired them to do a project lining the sewer line on 4th Avenue street, >> right? >> They also do this and so it's >> they'll do this saving us $1,000
and with that bid will be 18,700 bucks uh in conjunction with the lining project that they're doing. So that would be kind of good to get that stuff done. Then we had a discussion about um
septic and gray water rate um that G&G charges us. >> Oh, is that what >> that we char that we charge them for dumping in our plant? And then there's
some things have changed here a little bit because um currently we're not accepting the industrial water from the ponds from MPNL and um >> Cleveland cliffs there's two ponds they
belong to two separate entities out in Bar Harbor Septic has been hauling that water in and then they haul our bar our stuff that we need to get hauled to Duth out. So now there's not a
back haul for him. So he's rejusted some of his rates that he's charging us. Therefore, we're readjusting some rates that we have to adjust for him to make up the difference. So it's just
um passing on rates. You got to pass on some rate increases to his customers, so on and so forth. Anyway, the other thing we talked about was leech testing concept that uh
um we're putting together to see if we can uh put a plan in motion to test for basically
the uh parts per million of um >> we have about 50 or 60 different tests. >> Yeah, there's there's different the main item though is the mercury, but there's other items that we could that we're
probably going to test for on this. So, we want to put that plan into motion and notify the people involved. with another meeting next week with MPCA and Grant Poridge and ourselves um to talk about that concept of testing
that we can do at our facility um and then look at um how that's going to move forward in the future. I mean, that's all we can do with that right at this point. We can't
make a decision yet. But I'm confident that we can at least put together a program where we're doing the testing, we're doing it right, and what numbers we get will dictate, you know, the future of
what we've been doing or, you know, not doing anymore. I don't know. I mean, it's kind of like right now. But we'll put a plan together. We're working on that. >> Well, it's nice to get that additional
set of requirements just for contrast. Was that SHO? Yeah, the city of Becker accepts leechet at their wastewater facility from Shero coal plant which SA is a part owner of
>> and so we got to look at that contract and see well what are the requirements what are they testing for >> what are they testing for >> because it's got to be somewhat similar >> material >> well it's hard to say
>> I don't know we're testing we shade out of ponds that have Well, we've been changing it for 20 years. So, I'm just saying >> they've been inactive for quite a while, >> but the same materials in them. >> They just don't
ash from burning coal from doing it. Is that those ponds active? They keep dumping. I don't know. >> Yeah. and and there could be lots of other things included from that site too because it is an active site. We don't >> it's not our site but I mean it's it's a
comparison. >> Yeah. >> Just helpful. >> Well, we did get did get did um at least you know we did get testing or DMG septic provided us with testing from cliffs.
Uh is this from both ponds or just from the cliff? >> This is just from the cliff pond. This is testing that they've done 21 22 23 24 25 and 26 um three times a year
and what the results were parts per trillion. So we have those numbers and we can we're going to ask for more numbers and we're going to provide numbers to ourselves on what we're doing
at our plant and then moving forward um how does that affect us these numbers you know and we can I don't I don't want to say a trial run but we could
feasibly, you know, take the product again, but at least know where our numbers are going and going out. So, we're comfortable
with that or not comfortable with that. We have to abide by a permit that we have and uh you also think ahead in the future of what we have to do to that plant. repairs
like that. So, >> well, we >> It's a long subject. It was a long meeting, but we talked about it and it's a good thing that we we all talked about it. So, >> yeah, it's a lot of details >> and all of that. Um,
are there different testing schedules between Minnesota Power Cleveland? Yeah, they're two completely. They do things completely. Okay. >> Yeah. I don't know. I don't know if the other facility
>> this is Cliff's. >> Yeah. So anyway, that was our meeting. Um >> I think that was everything, wasn't it? Yeah. They might. We're We're looking at scheduling another PC meeting midmon
this month to just stay on top of that conversation. >> Okay, >> I'm still waiting until waiting into July. So, >> that's all I got. >> Thank you.
Um, I went to, so did Mike went to the groundbreaking for the work at the Cook County schools. So I spoke at that for the groundbreaking and threw a gold
shovel with dirt, load of dirt in the ground, wear a fun hat. Amanda said she did great such awesome >> about all of her friends and what they're up to now in a way that Yeah,
it's wonderful. >> Kind of interesting. Someone said, "How did you have time to research that?" And honestly, I didn't. It was just people we know and it didn't, you know, was just like, "No, that's just a little mini sampling of the cool and different things people have done from here."
Sure. you got classmates, you go, "Wow, look what they did." And yeah, it's kind of fun. Um, then this morning we had our meeting with Stantech for Boulder Park project
um in the St. Lawrence Great Lakes City Initiative group. So, that project is now concluded. They they are going to make just a couple little minor tweaks to the final plans they have for us and so we
can put that maybe on the agenda for next week. >> Y we'll have a report we can send around and look at together. >> Yeah, look at that. So that was nice and they are well aware that we have our bigger project coming up with the Coast Guard and the rest of that space and
they'd love to help and be part of that. So that's you know a lot of the reason we did this but we learned some they did a lot of they pulled existing data from wave action and lighter depths and
well oh wind storm storm things >> they just yeah they did a lot of great science about lake levels and waves depending upon the wind speed and direction and they've got a lot of data about what you should expect in five or
10 or 25 year storms and what the lake level high and low has been and what that then translates into wave over topping of whatever we build inside the harbor >> and and recognizing the comments like
you've made but also so water about spawning areas there and you putting that into consideration with their plan too. So we have something to just add as we make that larger project. So that was
nice. Um this coming Monday to I don't know if we passed this up. It was in the e newsletter town hall from 4 to 7. >> Um everyone's welcome. people from the advisory committee will be doing the
presenting a lot of it and you can go to the EDA's website they have a section just for the technical project everything is there if you don't want to drive you short but you're curious um the HR
semi committee group we had another interview for the manager assistant >> and then we have a second coming on Friday unfortunately have to miss but yes it's very good
um I had a well Mike had a meeting with H and EDA and county around the potential housing project at top of the hill in front of the wastewater which we talked about briefly last meeting but I
got a real current update from Jeff Brand the communication has sent out and now they are in process of looking for a different developer for that. Staying focused on the fact that this grant the state really wants us not to lose and
take advantage of in a timely manner and we want that too. So we're moving ahead with that or they are this project will really I mean obviously the city has you know it's far property and it's sitting in city limits but the action and the
movement and getting this happening is really that responsibility of HA. So >> yeah, >> they will be moving forward on that. The EA just holds the grant. Um and then it's my current understanding that the
project is still in a semi pause mode in case anyone's wondering or asking. Well, the June 1st start date um >> that was two days ago >> was two days ago and I know they're working really hard on getting started
and hopefully we'll be successful in the near future. But one of the things that they told us was they'll give us a 30-day notice before construction's going to start so that we have time to finish the conversations we've been having with some of the neighbors about
the impacts that they should expect on their property. So before that happens, they're going to need to provide you with a site plan that shows where things are going to be and a schedule that talks about when certain activities are going to occur. So, you're going to get
a crack at this because they need your permission to use some of the public spaces around the building. We haven't finished that conversation yet. So, you'll know more when it is available to know. >> Great. >> And of course, beyond business owners,
there are various summer event groups have also, you know, they're trying to plan to know too. So, >> yeah. So, our colony is probably going to relocate to the west. They're They've been on the block in front of Senol and
the block in front of on the other side of Broadway and now they're going to do the two blocks west of first instead. So they made that decision in the last week and because mostly because of uh the
construction potential for disruption with construction activity but also for other reasons they thought they wanted to do that. So now they have to pivot and So, expect to see that on your agenda next meeting as well because they're going to want us to look at
closing a portion of the dead end second west to keep folks out of that area. Yeah. But when we have a map and a schedule, which wasn't going to happen today, then you'll get it on your
agenda. >> Yeah. I mean that's going to >> Yeah. So the fish pick I think um I mean Pete actually has started to ask those questions about what's going to
happen here and we we really need to be able to talk to folks about that but it's not ready yet. >> Okay. >> That's it. Yes. Thank you very much. >> Thanks everybody. >> Appreciate it.