or not. >> Okay, we are unmuted and ready to go when you guys are. >> Okay, good evening. I'd like to call the public works committee meeting scheduled for Wednesday, September 24th, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. to order. Uh we'll start with
the first item on the agenda which is presentation by Mr. David Wkelman regarding the solar grant grant project presentation. Mr. David, you like to come to either one of the two podiums and turn on your mic.
testing test. >> Um, well, I put a slide up on here about the grant from the Department of Commerce. Minnesota Department of Commerce has put together a lucrative grant for local government. It includes
towns and counties and cities and any uh tribal nations, any element of government. And it's 70% of a project that is 40 kilowatts. 40 kilowatts is enough to power about
four homes. And so that typically costs about 150 to 180,000 for a 40 kilowatt system on the ground. And so Minnesota Power, I believe you're
Minnesota Power at at the substation. you know, Minnesota Power I will defer to them for the interconnection. So, I'm going to hand out some things
here. First of all, this is how much electric kilowatt system can produce. This is very important from government calculator. Jesse probably familiar with PV watts. you have.
So PB watts calculator figures out that there's an average of about 4 the red number in the middle about 49
hours of sun per day on the average. And they use the last 30 years of weather uh from weather stations to figure out how much cloud and how much sun we have. And it also has to do of course with the
time of the year. So if you look at January through December there in in the fall and winter, we call that the trough. That's when the production is real low. And the summer is real high. It's when you rack up credits during the
peak. So solar goes like a big wave throughout the year. So we uh 71,000 kilowatt hours per year up in the upper
right hand corner. That's the range. I I actually shave that off a little bit for the financial thing because solar panels do slowly degrade about a half a percent per year. So that after 20 years
uh you're you're down 10%. So you still have 90% after 20 years. After 30 years, you know, you're down to 85%. So solar panels are guaranteed to produce for at least 30 years. Most of
the reputable brands now have not only the 30-year warranty, but they have an insurance company to back them up in case they go bankrupt, the insurance company will stand behind the panels. So, it's a pretty sure investment and that's why solar is booming across the
country and around the world because the the product is really awesome. So, the key to it is having the right angle to the sun. And here we're looking at, if you scroll down to the bottom of it,
um, we've got the panel at 180 degrees and we got the inverter efficiency at 96%. But we have some system losses. We're figured snow is going to be on the system part of the year during the
trough. So, we have some system losses here. So this is a pretty good calculation on how much electricity you'll get. Now you're paying about 7 cents a kilowatt hour now. So 70,000 here is about $500 a month is
what this will save you. So it's not a big whoop, but that's still $6,000 a year. And the solar is free. You got 70% paid for by the big grant and then 30% paid for by the federal government in
what they call the elective pay or direct pay. And I've factored that into a spreadsheet here. Show you how the cash flows. And I say three um I should say almost three because you
might have to use your capital during the period of time when the project finished until the grant pays you. It's going to be anywhere 30 to 90 days after we finish project that you get paid from the
government. So you might have to use some of your own money in the meantime. I put in six months worth of capital cost at 7,000 bucks. That's probably high, but I'd rather be on the conservative side.
So question for you Dave. Does that include So when you say it pays for all the costs, is that any modifications of the buildings or anything like that that has to happen? Any panels or anything inside the building? >> That includes all the hookup. Uh we have to make sure the transformer is big
enough that typically your transformers out there are going to be big enough. >> Um that does include everything. >> Okay. >> So it includes you know the racking, your the monitoring system. You'll be able to
monitor the system from your phone or on your computer, be able to tell at any time at the gate what it's producing through the software that comes with it. That's included as well. >> Is are these tied into the grid then or what?
>> Yeah, they're tied into your local meter. >> Okay. So then you have to have whatever it takes to do that. Right. >> Right. That's that's not very difficult. Okay. >> Actually, there's two lugs on the bottom of the beater that we'll probably look into.
>> And that's all. >> That's all. >> Oh, really? >> So, if you could pull up one. Let's see. Now, this is a site I just did for East G Lake. I'll just show you um what we do as part of our job. And
then that's included. My cost is included in that as well. So you can see up at the top where it's about 200 feet long by about 15 feet wide. And that's that's the whole thing. So it's facing
nice and south. There's no trees blocking it. We actually get some bounce off the water which is good some reflection off water. So you'll get a real high production there. And so they have a little building here
where IC meter is and that's where the system would be hooked up. So we have solar you'll have two meters when you have their own meter for the solar and then we'll have the utility meter as well. So they back each other up
and it disconnects there and the service panels that we hook into. So wherever you know you having built the other site plan I did the
this is yours I'm guessing you've got electricity in these buildings here. >> Mhm. >> And probably what are these buildings here? maintenance garages. >> I was thinking, you know, up here
be a good possible spot for it. Doesn't seem like there's much traffic up there. Um I don't know, Tom would know, but you need to drive trucks around there. >> We do go all the way around, so it would have I wouldn't want anything on a dyke
of a of the sewer ponds. We'd like a 20 foot driveway for you. How does that sound? >> Sure. >> So, we'll give you 20 ft from the edge of the lagoon. >> Now, on the north side of that pond in the when you do get off the dyke, it's
wet in there a lot of the a lot of the year. >> You say it's wet. >> Mhm. >> Is that off the lagoon? >> Yeah. So when you come down off and you're at the bottom of the dyke of the pond, it's it's often wet.
>> So we only 15 ft wide on the top of the bank. >> Okay, >> that's all we need. 15 ft wide about 200. I I didn't I didn't go out and inspect. I'm going to if you're interested in
doing this. >> Mhm. So this cash flow model basically shows it's paid for in year number one and then on the the right hand side that's how much savings you get from it. That
goes all the way down to $225,000 of savings that you'll get from the system. And I've got expenses for this have an electrician check it every year.
Um, we're probably going to use micro inverters, so that will be good for production. They don't require hardly any work. If we use a standard string inverter, it it we might have to replace the inverters
at 15 or 20 years, and that would be maybe $5,000. But that's about the only possible expense that you could have that's not covered by this. And of course, the savings will pay for that. So you get $160,000
worth of solar equipment and project for nothing. And then you get another $225,000 from the production that the solar does. So that's the financial basis for it. And that's why this is getting so
popular. We're working right now at the city of St. Cloud. We've done like 10 projects for the city of St. Cloud. Uh we're working with 50 Lakes. If you want to check up, we just got the grant approved two days ago with the city of 50 Lakes
are the same size 40 kilowatt system. We're working with East G Lake and a couple others. So, um I haven't looked at the clock. I will turn it over now for questions. >> I have one.
You need to be able to have direction on this before what date? >> Yeah, that's the catch here is we J at 7th of no of October. >> Why the 7th of October? >> That's when there's a grant that pays
for your grant writing and they review it once a month. If we don't get it done by the 7th of October, it'll be the 7th of November and that's too late. The the final date on this is November 14th.
So the catch here is that they released this in August. They haven't given us much time to sell it. And so now they want, you know, that deadline of November 7th for the grant writings. But
Dave, with the federal ITC uh change that has come through Trump's big beautiful bill in our industry, our developers that we work with on utility scale solar projects. >> Yeah. >> These systems have it. It's discretionary based through the US
Department of Treasury, >> right, >> as to what percentage of the project being complete will allow that project to qualify >> for that credit. 5% is typical for safe harbor. >> Do you have any clarity if the federal
ITC portion of this the remaining 30% is in jeopardy if we don't have the system online? >> Well, this is commercial. It's not residential. So, the commercial is available through 2026. But if we want to capture the tax, you
know, you want to get the payment earlier, uh, then we need to get it need to get a safe harbor done by the end of the year. >> Safe har safe harbor on the Jeno modules and the inverter. >> Yeah.
So, we just order some of the equipment for the end of the year. We'd like to order like 10% so we make sure our butt is covered for the accounting. We want to run it through your CPA and accountant because it's kind of a tricky
scenario as you know. >> It's very tricky. It's actually uncharted right now. >> Um but the Jenko modules I believe that they're manufactured here in the United States now >> if I'm not mistaken. >> And is Jenko is Jenko the sole module
that you would like to that you would propose to be utilized or is there any other domestic manufacturers? We have some installers that have them in their warehouse. >> Okay. >> Now, so um that's a key thing. >> Well, we luckily have 52 gawatts of
domestic manufacturing now here in the United States >> in the last three years. It was at 5 gawatts three years ago. >> Yeah, this is you know a tiny system compared to that >> it is. >> But the same rules apply
and that's a good question. But you don't So you don't have any concerns in regards to that that federal ITC piece being uh at jeopardy if this wasn't >> well if we don't get the project started before the end of the year we won't be
able to claim safe harbor. >> So by getting the project started is that we have to order some equipment. So, in theory, if this if this committee made a decision to move forward with it,
it would be brought to the council. >> Here's the problem on this thing. So, like if this was a $200,000 construction project, we have to go out for bid, >> meaning you got to give other companies an opportunity. There's one other company that's approached us about this
grant opportunity. So, I don't know what what the rules are concerning that this way. Um >> our job is to get multiple bids for it >> and we have a stable of 15 installers in
some top state. >> Yeah. I it's it's not the installer, it's the whole thing. So you would be one entity that's doing this and there's one other entity that's contacted us about this too. And so they haven't had their
chance to do what you're doing tonight. Okay. So, but what what's my concern is that we have this short window like you've said and for us to have the public hearings to do this.
I don't know how we get this rolling that fast. That makes sense. >> If if that other installer would like to work with us within our framework as a developer, we can include them in the bid. >> Yeah. I don't know. I
>> would it be okay to ask who they are? >> Um, yeah. Let me find out. Bear with me a second. I forget their name. >> All Energy Solar. >> Uh, I don't think that's it. >> If that's it, then we would work with
them already. So, they're part of our team. >> Mr. Mr. Chair, is this has this uh issue come to the city council already at one time? Okay. Because this is the first I've heard of it. >> Is this is this for for energy for the
wastewater treatment plant operation? >> Energy for the city in general. It's it so >> it'll hook into the wastewater treatment plant reduce that bill. >> Okay. So for clarity >> also be a building like this for instance. Would you have those up around here somewhere? >> I'm sorry.
>> A building I'm sorry. A building like this, would it be solar powered also? >> Well, uh, you'd have to put solar on the roof. >> Yeah. >> Get a south facing roof, >> right? >> Um, yeah, they do allow multiple projects.
>> So, you're basically talking about the treatment plant. >> Yeah. Because I think that would be your best place to put one facility. >> Okay. >> If you have two meters there, then it would be, you know, you could do two facilities there. >> Oh. They don't limit the number of 40
kilowatt units. So we can put them on, you know, buildings, too. >> Yeah. >> And one of the things that I I needed to maybe come to get me a copy of the electric bill or >> Maggie, I need to look at the electric
bills in order to know how many meters you have and where where they are and what they're how much you're paying on. If I get that then I can do the rest of my design work. I just took an estimate and I assumptive all the assumptions are
on the left hand side there. I assume seven cents a kilowatt hour because that's what all the rest of the cities around here have. Does anybody know what your bank know? >> I don't. I would have to look that up.
>> Uh so the other company is Cedar Creek Energy. >> Yeah, they're one of our big sellers. Alex G, Rob Applehoff was president. >> Yeah, I don't I'm not familiar with them or even you for
>> is the Gordian process dollar threshold $200,000. >> What's that? >> Is the Gordian process dollar threshold at 200,000 or more? >> I don't know about Gordian, but if say it was just a road project. >> Yep. You know, anytime you get over
$50,000, you have to have two bids and I can't remember what the limit is. Then it h then huh >> 125 >> 175,000 >> then we have then it has to be open for competitive bidding.
>> You have to have Yeah. You have to advertise for bids. I mean there's a process you have to follow, right? >> I state also requires two bids. >> Yeah. >> And that's that's what we do. developers is we go out and about 50 installers and get bids
as one of our companies, >> right? But even you are would be subject to this bidding. I believe if that makes >> as a consolidator of all these different services that come together to present this
>> we're a general fun. >> Okay. So I think what Tom's saying is that it's got to be opened up to other general contractors. >> That's what I'm trying to say. >> Yeah. And it very well may end up I it very well end up may being that it very well may end up being that you would be
the only contractor submitting a proposal for it perhaps but it's just the governmental process that >> that we are entitled excuse me entitled >> that's where it comes in confusing because this is coming from the state who sets our bidding rules
>> and they didn't give us enough of a window to even >> work through this process three months I mean we would have had to have known about it ahead of time to have a chance. >> Tough spot. I know the city the department of commerce is having some
>> or is this is this like u like the state program where you can buy heavy equipment etc through their process. >> They go through the whole >> advertising for bids and all that and then you can just plug in and use those. >> No.
>> No. the well I don't the Gordian process they they through source well >> they they kind of they sort of circumvent the system of advertising and stuff like that but there's a you know like when we when they did this >> Mhm.
>> they got they have people that are already on the list and then you kind of go through that bidding process through them. >> I I don't know how that would affect this. So >> yeah, the question would be if this is part you know if that follows that same
process I guess right >> it sounds like this below your threshold because this is only60,000 >> maybe too. >> So the total >> then then you're you can do what you want. I think 160,000
>> 106 I thought 120 is what >> the 160 on the spreadsheet is what the total amount is >> right but I think the limit for we would have to go out for the competitive bidding is lower than that >> oh I thought you said 200 no
>> I thought it was 175 >> you may >> it might be >> there's different thresholds other companies to get bits, >> right? But but if they wanted to do the whole project from start to finish, >> we'll give them a chance to bid with us.
>> So in short, David's the developer. I'm not sure what happened. Sorry guys. >> In short, David's a developer. Cedar Creek is the general contractor EPC. That's what I am. I get hired. My company, Conduct Power, gets hired by
the developers. But to Tom's point though, Dave, it doesn't matter who is what or wears what hat. It's an open bidding process that that we have to understand. If if we are within that dollar threshold where it doesn't have to happen perhaps
but a second company has already come to the table to Tom's point you understand. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> Need to understand a little bit more about it as well. I mean when the first company contact me about this they did talk about all like the fireh hall this
building and some others. So um you know I you know where is the advantage? I you know I'm trying you know if we're going to do it in one why not do it at all do all of it or you know if it doesn't pay back or if there's costs like say to put it on the roof and this is kind of what
I was alluding to a little earlier. Um do you as part of this provide any reinforcement say that would need to be done on a roof for a building like this? >> Well we certainly have an engineer go through the structural loading capabilities.
>> Yeah. >> And make sure the roof can hold it. We like them on the ground because on the ground you can aim it directly at the sun. When you put it on the roof, you're subject to whatever that 80s. >> Yeah. What are you talking about
weightwise then? On like say on a roof. On a roof, what are you talking about weightwise for one of these units? Weight? How heavy? >> Oh, they're about 4 and a2 pounds per square foot. >> Oh, so they aren't very heavy.
>> No, it's aluminum frames and glass. It's about 5 pounds square foot. >> There's a wind load. >> Seems that you're putting a sail of essentially on the roof. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And you know, we have a spec of 120 mph wind. We have to be
>> Yeah. >> 120 mph wind spec. >> Seems to me that this would be ideal for either lift stations or the treatment plant because that's where you're using all the power. But of course, lift stations, where do you put them? you know, there are there are no places really,
>> but the treatment plant has some pumps >> and, you know, Yeah, they could, >> right? >> They could eat into that, >> right? No, I I just It's a shame that we weren't given more time to work so we could think it through a little bit, you know, because more than just the people in this room would probably want to have
a comment on it. >> Yeah. I I contacted Jesse right after I found out about it, told him the opportunity, and then he I didn't know that he was on building what do you call this building the works committee too. So
>> um that's all the time we have >> and I I can't help that. I can't do anything about it. >> I know that I >> we find some way to work around it. There's a work around then you can still get this free money otherwise you won't be able to get it because >> this $14 million that they're giving
away is leftover money from the renewable development fund. Yeah, Tom, I I think the thing to do would be to to somehow get in touch with somebody up in St. Paul and find out do is this, you know, do we have to follow the the, you
know, the the legal bidding requirements for this or has that already been taken care of through this grant process that that we're going through here? >> Yeah, the grant process has a whole lot of rules and Katie Perry is the director of it and I can get you her cell phone
number. Well, I wonder can we run this through the city attorney? Can can they do that service for us? >> Maybe. I I I think so. Like state bid, let's say if we were buying a tractor, all the companies that are eligible to >> they do the work for you. >> They're on there. >> Yep.
>> I don't know if this is on the state. >> Exactly. That's what I'm saying. You know, is there some way to find that out? And you know, if if you know, if the city council's interested in taking advantage of this, which I don't know why they wouldn't be, but you got to be legal about it, too, or else you're
going to get in trouble. >> You know, if if say tonight we said, "Yep, Dave's >> the guy we want to go with." And then these guys were thinking of going out on their own, then they come, whoa, wait a minute, we >> you just get in trouble, >> right? >> Right. You don't want that.
Long and short of that is whether a bid comes in 10,000 more or less than another one, it doesn't matter to you in the financial picture because 160,000 is all that you can get from grants and that's just about the right amount of dollars for a 40 kilowatt system on the
ground. >> Right. >> So they they've got this thought through. They just didn't give us enough time. Can I ask um how how do you get paid if it if everything is free? Where do you make your money? >> We get paid from the installers that are in our circle.
>> Oh, >> so at the end of the project, we get paid. So, we're handling most of the risk and most of the upfront costs. We're doing all of that feasibility study, site planning, engineering management.
So that would be what somebody else would bid in order to bid apples to apples to compare to you would be all that stuff. That's the uh >> Yeah. So they they have a developer either they develop themselves or they hire us to develop and Cedar Creek has
hired us to develop numerous projects for the ready. So Cedar Creek is on our list and they're happy to work with us. So you have to find out what your threshold is to see if you need multiple bids in a certain manner.
>> Mhm. >> If you don't, then we can take care of it for you. Uh the key is right now, can we get uh something signed uh for the grant writers so we can get the grant writing application in by the
7th of of October. What's the value of the grant writing? >> What's the cost for the grant writing? >> About $4,800. >> And they do that from October through November. That's >> Yes, they'd be doing it starting as soon
as we get a signed agreement. So, I think just the mayor and the clerk need to sign, but I don't know what your process is. That's what we did in East G. Yeah. What's what's different about this too is normally we're the ones seeking a service. In this case, the service is
seeking us. So, it's kind of backwards. And >> yeah, I can see that this is just an opportunity that came up because they had money left over from the renewable development fund. So, they thought they'd put it in the cities and towns
>> and I don't think they thought the timeline very well. >> So, it's a matter of, you know, do you want to put somebody on this to work with me, either a city attorney or clerk or somebody, >> and try to get something put together
before the seven. >> Yeah. You've got about what, two weeks? >> Two weeks. >> What do you think, boss? I >> well the grant writing at $4,800 um
the city administrator can authorize that if the group direct you know were to suggest that and the council were to approve that idea. >> Yeah. But you actual project now that's a different story. >> Yeah. You don't want to be chasing a
grant that that you know for no reason. I mean, you have to find out, you know, what the background of this thing is first. You know, are you are you legal to do it this way? In other words, if you're not, then it doesn't sound like you have enough time to go through that.
>> Well, we director about the same issue. Yeah. >> Katie Perry about East Lake and 50 lakes and she said it was fine for us to operate in this manner and they approved it. We readied up the grant two days ago. How long did it take for the grant
approval? >> It took about one week after we got got it in place. >> I mean, I hate to be one of those. >> Yeah, I hate to be one of those people that says uh ask for forgiveness before permission, but I mean, what is the
consequence? >> Lawsuit >> from who? >> The competing company. >> I forgot to wear my hearing aids. I'm sorry. I can't hear very well. >> Yeah. So, what I'm saying is um he asked
what the consequence was. Well, it there isn't one unless there's a competing company out there that comes out of the woodwork the day after we sign with you and they decide to sue us. >> Why? How would they sue? >> For not following bidding procedure.
>> Oh, well, we are following the bidding procedure. We've been approved by the state and I think I want to get the city attorney's opinion on that. >> That'd be a good idea. >> I think but I'm just not familiar enough with what you're doing to say yeah
that's a that's okay. >> Um I >> I like what you're proposing. I do if we had six months to work through this I would none of this would worry me but I'm being cornered. Statute 471.345
Uniform Municipal Contracting Law per the Revisor's Office states that if the amount of the contract is estimated to exceed $175,000, sealed bids shall be solicited by public notice in the manner of and subject uh
to their requirements. and and anything over I believe it's $50,000 we need two competitive quotes >> I think you could solve this pretty quickly by having a conversation with your city attorney >> by talking with him about a different
issue >> y >> on tomorrow >> tomorrow afternoon >> and just lay it out and and let him do the the legal background ground work. >> I'd be available by phone tomorrow afternoon if you need me to participate.
I can send in some documents. I think what I'll do is I'll give them your contact information. I'll lay out what what this committee has talked about and if it something that we can pursue further, he will likely contact you
or he'll instruct me to contact you. One of the two things would likely happen. >> Okay. >> All right. I can let you know what he what his opinion is. I guess >> contracts exceeding $25,000 but not $175,000. Contract may be made either upon seal
bids or by direct negotiation by obtaining two or more quotations for the purchase or sale when possible and without advertising for bids. >> That's what we do. We did direct negotiations. So, our way around that is is normally we advertise for a period of time for
that and if no one else offers a a bid or a quote, then we're we can we know we know that and that's our cover. >> Right. >> In this case, you can I think you can just literally you don't
even need to advertise. You can just go to two or three different people and get a quote. >> Yeah. I have other than these two companies I don't never >> you know and and it may be for the for this particular grant that that's been waved you know >> could be I don't know
>> we have a Maggie we have a meeting next week a city council meeting next week a continuation we could add if if Tom's given a proverbial green light could we add this
to the agenda What's at it? >> I would need to know today because for a special meeting, it requires a 3-day posting notice and this would be something outside of what we've continued that meeting for.
>> Yep. I would I would >> you can you can do that and then you can pull it if you have to. Right. >> Correct. >> Just post it in >> just post it anyway. >> Yeah. >> Sorry, Maggie. another meeting. >> It's just not another meeting, but I'm
after this meeting, I'm flying out of town, so this is my dilemma for tonight. >> Is Kiki able to do anything anymore? >> No. >> Okay. >> Okay. Well, let's get the show rolling. Um, we have marching orders.
Does any boats have any other questions? Sounds good. I know. >> I I think it it's just a matter of doing the due diligence on this. So, I appreciate I mean, this is a great opportunity. >> All right. >> Yeah. And it might be a week from now.
It's all good >> and we're just can't >> I don't have enough information to say. >> Dave, we're going to cover our bases and we'll get back in touch. >> You might have, but if you got another one, I'll take it. So, David, our meeting is scheduled for
Tuesday, September 30th at 8 >> in the morning or is it 8:30? >> 8:30. Cuz I said 8:30. So, you guys can make coffee at 8. >> So, to kind of help Maggie a little bit, Jesse, >> we have that other meeting a week later.
Would that be too late? >> On the 7th. That's the deadline. >> That's the deadline. Never mind. Yeah. So, it'll be on Tuesday the third again. >> I'm just double checking my calendar because I just sent out an invite. I
just don't have it on my phone. Here we go. >> Okay. So, I have the continuation which I can make a special meeting at 8:00 a.m. on the 30th of September. Yep. >> Yep.
>> Okay. >> And in the meantime, you can give the attorney my contact info. >> I'll send him a bunch of rules and details. >> Sure. >> I've got letters from the previous jobs we've done to the show. >> Okay.
>> Thank you for your time. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Thanks, Dave. >> Okay. With that, we'll go to the second item, 2026 road bond updates. Mr. Blomer. >> All right. I think mostly what I'm looking for is um some updated timeline
this. So, I don't know, Bill, if you're able to jump in on this. What I'm looking at on that is trying to figure out, okay, we've turned in right away to Tom Pearson. Um,
and so we're waiting for the assessments for that right of way. Uh, I believe we're getting that. Is it Tuesday's meeting or the 7th? >> Tuesday is the appraisals. >> Tuesday. >> Tuesday.
>> So, we'll have that. Um, other things to be aware of with that one, we have moved Upper Roy off the 26 lawn and moved it to 27. Um,
apologize here. So, where are we sitting? So, our next thing that we're going to be looking at probably with this group would be a 90% plan review in November. >> Are we on? >> Yes,
>> we're good to go for that. >> We're working towards that. I think I'm really confident that we'll be have some 90% plans for that. >> Okay. And see if there's anything else with this bond that I need to make you aware
of. Um cost estimate. Do you have an updated cost estimate for this bill? >> Yeah. Well, that packet that I gave you, that's the one that I've been using for recently >> for 2026. This is micro
>> 4,217,000. Yeah. 4,217,55983. That's the estimated total project cost without the um easement acquisition. So long as you add that on there, >> then we're up to
$4,459,59358. >> And that's without Upper Roy. >> Yes. diseasement acquisition. We added 225,000 onto there. The other thing to be aware of with that, I've sent um some questions off to
PFM, our financial advisor, um asking if you know with the estimate you've provided them, is that the information that they need to give us uh an estimate for bond payments.
>> Okay. >> So, I have not heard back from them yet. They weren't willing to give me that number for the meeting that we just had a week ago, >> right? >> They really want the the bids in order to create that number
>> and the appraisals, but they didn't think it was a they didn't think it was a problem to wait follow the schedule that we have. >> Okay. I think we're >> that you guys won't know anything until then. >> You're right. You know, we kind of want to be able to know, do we need to make
some modifications to this project if we can't afford the bonds? >> Well, I don't >> Yes. But I think, you know, like the 2026 streets, I think the number is a lot more accurate than the 2027
because the 2026 is actually using real um >> quotes, >> not real quotes necessarily, but real real dimensions of where curbon gutter is and infrastructure that we're putting in and grading and and the limits and all that kind of stuff, ditch grading,
that's kind of been accounted for in here. Um whereas in the 2027 we had to make assumptions based on Tom and Joe's um basically drive through the project and we've just updated the unit price
costs and the total cost to reflect the um going from 20 whatever the date was when they started to 2027. >> Okay. >> And then we did change some of the calculations for some of the quantities in here too. But >> so as it stands right now the next thing
so we would have by November 13th you have on your timeline that we would have the 90% plan for review. Um and it talks about so November 13th must be the uh city council meeting for
that month I'm guessing. Um no >> no I think that was just to get it to you. >> Okay. because >> Okay. All right. So, you're just meeting with staff then. Okay. And then you're going to update
that by November 26th and that must be just before this meeting in November. And then the idea is to have a public information meeting at that November 26th meeting. >> Correct. the la the public works committee meeting in the last one in
November. >> Okay. >> Basically right before Thanksgiving again. >> Yeah. So we'll we'll need to get notices out for that soon and so people can comment on what what we get or what what's being done. >> I mean
the last time we did it kind of laid it out on tables and stuff. >> We can put it up on the walls too. >> Yeah. Either way, I took down the 371 map today. >> Yeah. >> Why? Because it's not funded anymore.
>> Yes. >> Wasn't it you? Or somebody asked me to take it down. >> That was me. >> Was it you? Yeah. >> Yeah. I don't like looking at pipe dreams. >> The state of Minnesota. >> Um. >> Okay. >> So, anyway, so I think that's really for
this group. That's probably the the next big thing that we have to do with the 26 bond is the the public information meeting. We'll need to it'd be nice to have these 90% plans. I wish we could get them a little earlier
so we could share them with the committee a little bit ahead of time. >> Bill will get them done earlier for us, won't you, Bill? >> Sure. Try. I mean, we can give you what we have. It won't be it may not be 90% but we can sure give you something in
October public works >> unless you're planning to introduce this to this group as well as the public on the 26th >> of November. >> Yeah, >> correct. Well, that was the idea. That's what we did before we introduced it to >> because you won't be able to get
probably any kind of recommendation from this group. Well, you you could >> I think last time what we did was we explained the project to them to the committee >> and then um we
I think you guys talked for a little bit and then we opened it up to the public to um kind of walk around and talk about it. >> I don't know about the rest of you, but I would like at least a week to look through the details of this before I give any kind of recommendation. We were going to try and do that on the
what I say 13th something like that. >> Yeah. >> So Tom is all this going to be constructed now on in 27 is that the idea everything? >> So the bond that we're talking about June or thereabouts in 2026 is when I
would like to be doing construction >> in 26 also >> the whole the whole works. Well, just the 26. >> Just the 26 bond project. So, there's a 27 bond as well. >> Okay.
>> This would be um see trying to think of what I think there's a list of roads that are included in this. Bear with me a second so I don't miss somebody. So, Edna Lake Road, Roy Lane, [Music] >> Sumac,
>> that's 27 Sumac, Lendy, >> Poland Day Drive, and Old Government Trail >> are included in the 26 project. >> So, what is this $4,459,000 figure for? What is that? So, it's
paving it. It's uh curb and gutter in spots. Um >> just I mean just for which project or the entire I'm getting confused here. Are we talking about both of these big bonding projects or just the
>> just the one and 26 is 4. >> Okay. And that's that's 4,459,000. >> Okay. >> That's the total project cost. >> Yeah. >> Everything. Yes. >> Uh at the last meeting, we also heard
you mention uh instead of doing all these individual uh descriptions of project where you're easing getting all the easements. >> Yeah. >> Uh doing it another way uh one great big description.
>> Oh, right. From the other direction. >> There's more than one way to do the easements. >> Have you looked into that any further? >> Um we've had discussions with the city attorney. Um, as of right now, uh, he wants to proceed with with the way we've been doing it,
which is doing descriptions for all the different parcels that we want to acquire, um, permanent or temporary easements for um, like I said, we've had discussions with the city attorney and with our surveyor about um, different options to do that. Um, basically like a
rightaway plat for the entire roadway. Um, >> that seems to me like a simpler way to do it. So this 40ome thousand you have in this one proposal here, that's to do it to to
make the descriptions and so on and >> Oh, you're talking about the survey proposal. >> Yeah, that what that's for >> still >> that that that would be for the 27 bond. >> That's 27. >> Yep. So we're coming up on that. We're we're this is mostly just going to was
supposed to be an update. I'm not asking you to take any action on this first one. >> Okay. >> I just wanted to let you know where we were. The the attorneys working on getting the right of way that we had the public information meeting coming up. I
I'm a little bit concerned about going through this project um on the 26th without you guys getting to see it too or first. Um >> well, we can we can show them things in
the end of October, too. I mean, I even have I mean, I have plans that are that are going to basically describe what we're what the scope of work is. Um, it's not going to have like notes on there for, you know, removed driveway or something like that, but at least it
explains the scope of work. >> Clarity for 2026 road bond. You're talking Sumac, Lendy, the three hole in the days. You have you have two north and a south. >> Old Government Trail.
>> Mhm. >> Edna Lake Road. >> Mhm. >> Edna Lane. >> Yeah. So there's Edna Lane, Roy Lane. I might And I might be missing one. >> So So in short, it's it's actually everything on this sheet. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Oh, okay. All right. >> If we're going to be commencing construction next year, where's where's the cash funds going to be coming from in order to kickstart that? >> So the city will bond for the project, >> right? >> That will happen. and
>> but we will be bonding for it in 2026, >> right? So the first payment has to come from the road reserve. >> Okay? >> Then once we hit 27, then then your levy will cover the bond payment,
>> right? I'm just talking timeline wise. You kick these projects off June, right? Let's just say June. Mhm. >> You will have a payment due >> basically every month. >> We have to cash flow that. >> You're comfortable cash flow through the
end. >> Get the estimates from PFM so I know what that is. >> Okay. So that that's why we got to be careful with the one the money that's in that fund not to cut it or spend it on
>> I know I got it in a separate bucket on my sheet. >> I I was feeling the pressure there last >> we got we got enough cash in the spirits in the general fund for other fun and games. Um, all right. I just want to be completely considerate of that. >> The other thing too, one thing that I
don't know about that, but I believe it it it's the case once once you're bonded, you can recover some of that, I think. >> Yes. Yeah. PFM gave me a lot of comfort in that concept.
>> Will they reimburse us the interest that we would have made on the money market for the time frame, too? >> I'll shoot for it. See if we can Okay. >> So, one of the reasons we had to go that way is we didn't have the five-year road
reconstruction plan done on time to apply for the bonding earlier. >> Yeah. So you two are aware um obviously that will mean now that the 26 road bond project and the 27 road bond project will all be bonded at the same time next
year which will be 10 11 12 million in total. >> Hopefully a lower number but >> yeah was right. Um >> just because >> we're going to have to get
>> correct. >> We do have one bond coming off in 26. We'll make our final payment in 26 >> and and that total amount um I don't have it anymore. >> 60 don't >> I thought it was lower than that. It might be 250 230 with
>> we the city can can start to sell as we're council is intending to try to do sell some of the highway frontage lots on the property we acquired last December get that $2.1 million bond eliminated that frees up an additional
317,000 in annualized debt service. So that'll help a blow. Try to keep it equal so it's not a ridiculously high double digit levy increase. And the other option is to
amateurize it over a longer time frame versus a 7 to 10 year that the city has typically done. If these roads can last for 30 years, there's no reason why we should not consider a 15 or a 20 year term loan.
So, one thing I think we can do and I would need to be they would need to get advice from PFM on this. Like when they built this building, they had a bond on it and they actually refinanced it like five years into it, I think. I don't
know if this is something we could do there, too. So, let's say you have good luck with the property on 371 and there's better terms if on a shorter bond. Once you have that, maybe you could go there. I don't know if you want to.
>> We got 3.1% on the 2024A bond, which was for the land acquisition. If we can get lower than 3.1%. Yeah, sure. That's pretty low. >> It's complicated. I I understand that. I'm
It's It's frustrating. So, I'm I'm trying to get the details put together for this. I hope to have more information soon. Uh hopefully by the October meeting we can talk about this again and I'll have a little better information for you. >> Bill, we'd really like to get this ahead of time before the 26th public hearing.
>> We're having a meeting tomorrow to talk about staff stuff. So that will be number one on the list. >> Appreciate it. Anything else on the 26 road bond? >> Thank for now though. >> Okay. From the committee Tom Dill. No. Um because we have a a
very large audience tonight, I'm going to move up item number four, the 27 road bond or excuse me, the uh 27 road bond update and survey proposal uh regarding Grand View Roads and scope discussion and then we can go back to number three.
>> Yeah. So really what I wanted to do here and I and I apologize to to you two. Um, I really was just hoping to get a little uh to define the scope for bill a little better of what we're going to do in
there. If if you remember, we've gone through the roads in Grand View and we've recently done a a thin overlay, milling overlay now on East and West Lynon Boulevards that are part of the 27
road bond outside of the resort area. That's all the pavement that was there before. And the folks there have been very clear that that's all they want. They don't want us to touch it again. And I'm, you know, as long as it doesn't fall apart, >> great. >> I'm fine with that.
>> When I mean, could we not consider a rustic road designation for some of these tighter areas like East West London? So, it is the same prescriptive service time after time.
>> That's what I'm working on. Um the hard part on that is going to be being fair with the rest of the community. >> How so? >> Um because you're not you're asking them to not that they you're allowing certain areas to not follow the the rest of the
road standard, >> right? But that we're not assessing. >> No, we're not. We're not. But everybody thinks that their road is the same. And so if you designate some as rustic, you you you may have everyone in here
thinking the road is rustic. >> Maybe this would be a good opportunity to explore assessments because if they want special treatment, perhaps they'll consider special considerations for how we go about that. >> Yeah, >> I encourage everybody to go look at how the city of Cross Lake is budgeting for
their 2.2 or 3 million worth of road projects that they have coming up. They're assessing 75% of it. The balance is going on the levy. Their preliminary levy figure was at 3 or 3.4%.
>> That assessment is amateurized over years. >> We're one of the few who don't assess. >> I know it's people hear that word and they think of they have the same gut feeling as uh people have when they hear the word nuclear like it's it's awful.
Uh it's not. Nuclear power plant is clean. It's efficient. assessments don't have to be perceived as that as either. >> I mean, I I I get the sentiment. I and I'm not trying to belittle that at all. Um,
but we're we're taking a tool out of the toolbox by not at least considering it. You know where I stand. >> Um, >> this has been an issue on on city councils in the past forever, right? Investments. >> Yep. I brought it up at a council
meeting a couple of months ago and >> interesting. It's a policy decision. >> I just I just healed from it. >> Okay. Well, >> regardless of how it's being paid for, if we have two different road standards,
we have to be very clear on when each is applied. And so I need time to be clear and careful with my recommendation to this body for you to consider. Is it even possible? I think it is. I mean obviously the state
has such a designation. Um you know I think I've told this group and a few others that you know we would look at say the roads through Grand View Camp uh Mission Road. There might be one or two others that I'm not thinking of
right now that we would apply this designation to. Um, but overall, if we where we don't have to apply that designation, I think we'd be better off. I think we'd get longer pavement life because we would
look at the drainage in the proper way. We would have a width that works better for most everyday traffic. Um, you know, I don't know what other limitations we'd want to place on it, but there was a reason we came up with
the standard that we did to begin with. And so I I do want to be thoughtful when we suggest a rustic road standard. I don't want to put it out there without vetting it a little bit first. So,
like >> are you thinking like criteria that would define what a rustic road is and then >> um figuring out a way to >> apply it consistently? >> Yeah, exactly. >> That's that's the key to the whole thing, >> right?
>> It's got to be applied consistently. >> Yeah. >> Otherwise, you're going to get in trouble. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> It's the same as with the solar thing, you know. We got to there's got to be clear logic of why we're doing that >> and and um you know is there a hardship to not
follow the original road standard? you know, in the in the end, uh, Jesse, it's a, you know, a city council policy decision, but I'd be hardressed to recommend a decision that, you know, on
a on a from this committee that that you couldn't apply consistently. >> I'm in complete agreement. I guess the way I was hoping to be do that is when we introduce our rustic road standard that maybe the council designates
all the streets in the city at that time whether they're on or off that list. >> Mhm. >> And and then they can be petitioned by anybody else who wants to be on that list, but you've made a decision and all of our planning from engineering to public works would be to follow that
list. >> Right. based on criteria that you establish in in your policy. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Makes sense. >> So anyway, um I don't know if that rustic road standard is something that we need to apply here. I think there's
certain elements that we would need to because u as Lonnie could attest to, some of the roads through there are narrower than our standard would call for. That's one one thing. Um we haven't had the discussion yet. Um, I was hoping to have that more one-on-one with them,
but I mean, they're here. We can certainly talk about a little bit. Um, road drainage, you know, how how are we going to approach that? Um, I've already had folks call me concerned about using curb and gutter for that. Um, I've tried
to give them the pros and cons of it either way. Uh, I I think for most it's an aesthetic that they're not interested in. Um, however, the alternative if you're going to is
ditching normally. Um, there's not really room for ditching because of all the large trees that are through there. So, um, what what I've suggested could be done is, uh, with the curb and gutter is
instead of the standard curb like you have out front of the building here where you got a 6-in rise, um, you'd have more of what they call a surmountable curb where it's kind of flatter that we would use that style through where we need it. I'm not sure that we would need it, you know, the
entire length of the road coming in and all the way down. That's something I would need to hear from the engineer. Where is it needed? And then where do we take the water once we've collected it? That's the other concern I've been hearing about. Where are the storm water ponds going to be?
And I don't have a good answer for that yet. I I don't >> Yeah, we haven't really delved into that too far. So, what I'm g kind of driving towards is um so right now there's an inch and a half of new pavement through the resort
and it'll be good for a year or two, but I don't think it will last much longer than that given the weights of the vehicles. And then there's also a desire to be able to handle the heavier trucks, too. So, I think at a minimum, we've got to look at, okay, how do we get at least
a solid base and that three inches of asphalt through there that we would normally have and then then we would work backwards with with the drainage. How do we do it? >> Sure.
There's less than two inches of asphalt. When they took an inch and a half up, two inches up, they were down in the road. >> Yes. >> It was never put in
the whole truck. >> Vespas that that's about what it's built for is Vespas. So, I want to make it so it lasts longer. That that's that's would be a a goal I'm trying to seek. Uh, you know,
we may not get the perfect, but I'm looking for something that's acceptable to the resort and something that is responsible to our taxpayers paying paying that bill. Now, they're a taxpayer, too. So, you know, I want to
be as fair as we can, but give it some length, get some time out of it, make it so it's safe, uh, and lasts longer, right? >> It should be a generational thing. It shouldn't be something we're coming back and doing every decade. Um,
>> okay. >> So, that's one thing is, uh, we'll need to pursue the the drainage, I guess. Lonnie, can you get can you give us your perspective on what you would like to see for curb and gutter or not
curb and gutter or how you would mean or if you want time to think about that or I mean I don't mean to put you on the spot but a little bit So there hasn't been any. So there's some rain gardens that you guys have
installed. That That's the extent of the drainage there largely. Otherwise, it just runs into the lake. >> Yeah. I I don't know that we're against putting curb gutter in there and getting the drainage going in the right direction. Uh part of it down Woodward has curb already.
>> Um I I think the biggest thing is where's that water going to go >> and that's an issue already. there isn't any there's no holding ponds and I don't know that there's any place to put them down there. Um so where's the water going to go on how we're going to do it?
The other question I think that we would have is is you know sidewalks we have sidewalks that one run right along Woodward Avenue there. You know how how is all that going to be incorporated into that? U because they basically run right into
the road. Oops. >> It's part of the road right now on some of those. So, you know, incorporating all that stuff into that with curb and gutter and, you know, the sidewalk would have to be brought up and um, you know, I I think we're pretty open to to, you
know, doing this together with the city and coming up with a really good plan, having the drainage, right? You know, right now it's a waterfall down that road, you know, running right down to the lake. Um, so I think what I would like to do, um,
is set up a meeting with this with myself, the engineer, maybe, uh, Jesse or somebody from the council, and and you guys, and talk through some of these things so we know what you want and so we can have Bill incorporate before we're paying him to engineer something
that maybe we don't even want. >> Sure. >> That that's my biggest fears. You know, say for instance, if we weren't talking about um storm water ponds, no sense having them spend a week find trying to find some place to put it. >> Yeah, I just don't think there's any
place to put them. So, >> yeah, you probably would know more about that than I do. >> We could drain it into your lift station. >> No. Okay. >> Um when's a good time to talk about that? Would you Novemberish?
Okay. >> Okay. So, two other things that I would want to talk about as far as scope there. Um, Lonnie and I have talked about this a little bit. Um, city water. Now, I know
we're we're just way on the fringe of talking about that. Do we put the lines for the water even if the water's not available into the street or do we just forgo it for now and come back later? Maybe it can put be put alongside the street when it's
available. What do you all feel makes sense? I mean, originally when we were starting to look at this, it seemed like city water was right on the cusp, but now I'm not so sure anymore. >> What kind of rightway do you have down there? >> We do not have a full 66 feet. Uh I want
to say it's like 50 on the probably without checking >> on up above there. Yeah. Yeah, that's kind of what I figured. >> And what what worries me about coming in alongside the street with water is all the trees. >> Yeah.
>> So, I think there's going to be pressure to tear up the pavement again to put the water lines in if let's say we decide to put city water in 10 years from now. So, I guess we're we're kind of making a
judgment call of is this something we just pass on this time and maybe it comes back up with the next cycle on the road bond which could put it out 30 years. And so, I don't know how important that
is for any plans you may have. And so if you have a you don't have to give that to me today, but if you could maybe mull that over and at that if we meet in November, I'd like to get your input on that. >> I'll be retired. It won't matter.
>> Serious. >> In November. >> We definitely need to have it doesn't make any sense to tear up, you know, if we don't have um I don't know. I'm not
I think it's part of the discussion. >> Um, you know, be it'd be nice to know what cost it is per linear foot to install abandon in place temporarily cap on both
ends. And um again like assessments and like nuclear city water is also got this stigma as if it ever comes to any city in America you are going to be forced to hook up to it.
That is not the case. It is a strategically deployed tool to improve the water conditions, the aquifers. there's high traffic use in a in a high density in a in a low impact area. And
if we have a reason to put it in and a valuable partner to be able to help or partners to be able to help get ourselves positioned for some proper funding from the state, from the Fed and private businesses alike, then it
makes sense and it can start in a certain direction and at least you have you have we have the land now. have the highest point in the city of Niswah. >> This whole thing is an opportunity. So >> that is exactly right. >> And I I hope it doesn't pass without us
at least making the best decision we can with it. So if if we have to dig up the streets there for storm sewer, for instance, it would be great to be able to put the water in at the same time because inconvenience. >> Actually, Tom, you wouldn't have to run the water mans down the street.
>> Okay? You know, you could run it on easement in between halfway. You know, you could do it other ways, especially down there. Um, you I can see putting water manes other places than than along the street, but you'd have to
get an easement from Gran View, >> right? How big are those water manes typically, would you say, D? >> Either four or six inch. >> Okay. >> The hardest part is the excavation. You can't directionally bore a water mane, can you? Yeah. >> Really? It's you still have to you're
still going to have to dig holes >> services, >> you know, for services and um it can't you can't make a 90° turn. So, you'd end up having to dig a hole like if you're going to get to an intersection. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. They pulled that uh the sewer that runs through London
that >> that's right. I mean, the nice thing about water man, you just need to get it to the proper depth. It doesn't have to be like a grade or anything. So, >> that didn't freeze. >> Well, I think with that, I think we'll
leave it in the scope for now and we'll explore a little further and we'll have uh private meetings with you to try to figure out how this makes sense for us. I think the time will come at some point too we can start to explore state and federal grants in regards to getting the
initial infrastructure scoped budgeted and a proposal for a grant submitted. There's no better time than now to try and help with the prospective development of
that land after what we discussed at the strategic planning session last Thursday. If some of these prospective developments were to come in, there would be along with existing
businesses that would warrant use. It it makes a really good case story to be able to get millions of dollars of of funds. Those grants are out there on the state side. Those grants are absolutely out there on the
federal side for initial systems, tower, and treatment. Excuse me. 10 plus million dollars is a part the dollar figure part of some conversations that that I've had. Um
yeah, I agree with you. Um so I'll leave that in the scope for the time being. So I think what the next thing sewer-wise, so coming off of our lift station three, we've talked about this before, Bill, and I just want to make sure that it's
clear if we should be upsizing the forest man on the com. And so I think as part of at least the 30% project that we're we have you working on, it'd be nice if we could get an indication from you of whether it
it's okay the way it is or whether it needs to be upgraded or whether it should be upgraded or it' be nice to be upgraded. >> Okay. I believe we've >> I think you've done >> I think we've already gotten work for this. I just don't remember what the >> I don't either
>> inclusion was >> but I wanted I wanted I wanted to be a part of the the paperwork with the bond so that we know that we addressed it >> for the 2027. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> Anything else on this one? >> Um one last thing and this is probably for Grand View. um working out a transportation plan through there while the project is going on. You know, how would we move through
>> traffic staging? Yeah. >> Control. >> So, I think in November when we meet, I would like if you've got some ideas on that, I'd like to explore that with you and so that you have something to base your planning on.
>> Yeah. I mean, the more constraints we put on the contractor for staging and stuff like that, the more costly it becomes. So, >> Mhm. >> I mean, I know we're going to have to do it. It's just >> Yeah,
>> just becomes more costly. I think that's it for the scoping. So, as far as I know, we've covered the sewer and we covered the water and those were the big ones because I, you know, if the sentiment was a different way and we weren't going to be bothered with it, it's a simpler, cheaper project.
Bottom line, but I think this is an opportunity to and if we're building the road, right, this is a at at the most it's every 20 years and and I'm hoping this is a 30-year fix. >> Okay, that's it for me. Any questions or
any thoughts before we move on? >> I don't have any more, gentlemen. >> No, I'm >> You're free to leave. >> Thanks, Don and Lonnie. >> Thank you for coming. Have a good night. Uh we'll go back then to item number three, lift station number one, rebuild.
>> Yeah. So, there's a proposal in your packet from Woodstop, >> which was really hard to read. What's that? >> Which is really hard to read. I apologize for that. I when I printed it, it's
>> landscape landscape next or something. We can use >> magnifying glass. >> I I can tell you this, uh, D, the total is 582,886. Barely. Bear with me a sec while I dig up that.
Wait, >> I'll take that back. >> So, just we're talking about lift station one. >> Yeah. Yes. >> Um, it's very similar to the one that we submitted before. We talked about adding we did the first one, then we talked about adding a little bit of feasibility
type stuff, some preliminary analysis. So that's still in here of the thing of the uh um lift station one. >> Can you talk into that a little bit? >> Sorry. Um so we were going to this proposal is very similar to the one that we had
before. Um so initially we had a proposal that didn't include some preliminary feasibility type stuff. This one um did or does. Um so what we did was we just modified it. There's been some things
that we've done um out there already as far as like uh easement acquisition and uh comparing and surveying the site. So, we've already done that. We've already given the lot description or the um partial partial acquisition to the
attorney. So, we've kind of determined the area there that we're going to acquire property for. Um so, that's not that I took that out of the proposal. Um, so really this is just analyzing the um
the preliminary stuff, you know, like making sure that the station one um is sized properly to account for the stuff coming from um as much as we can take from the area to the lift station 12 and
the other areas to the um basically around the property or around lift station one. And then yeah, so we so we're going to design it, create the um construction documents. Um we're
going to work with the city to get uh boring at the location of the list station or borings. Um our design services for the um the list station and all the equipment and everything else and do the public bidding.
Um this doesn't really in this doesn't include like the construction administration staking observation and material testing. We'll give you some after we know who the um contractor is for the project. So what did you uh what did you base these figures on like um
for for a certain portion here or your total for that matter? What did you use as a basis to come up with that? In other words, when I look at this figure, I don't know. It leaves me cold.
I don't know have any idea. It's about it's let's see it's not quite it's about 8% I guess of the lift station cost of what 7800,000. So 20% for this what you're talking eight
>> 8%. >> Oh 8%. Okay. So then uh um Yeah, because I think we estimated a lift station costed about 7 or 800,000. >> Yes. >> And our total here is 48.
>> Yeah. >> I'm doing the calculations in my head, so sorry. Um yeah. Do you ever uh do anything like this on a percentage basis on the percent of the
bid price, low bid? >> Oh, just say we're going to do it like for 7% of the uh your fee would be say whatever percent of the low bid price after after it's bid. That's how you determine.
>> No, we have not. >> You have not. Okay. >> I think there I've I've heard of I think that would be difficult. I think you could do that if you're doing like a design build type concept. So then you would understand the you could work to
to adjust the scope to match what the um funding that you're going to get. But in a situation like this, I don't know. >> It's it's a fair fairly common thing to do both with architects and engineers to do that. >> Yeah. that that way you can kind of negotiate on the
>> but it's more of a in my I think it's more of a design build type concept where you're picking the the contractor and designing at the same time >> so you're working together to come up with the plan >> well the problem I have with this is
that it's kind of it's like a cost plus I mean it can be you can put that figure high enough so there's no way you're going to lose And that's why I ask you what you're basing that on. And maybe there should be something in your contract that says
what you're basing on. And then when the thing is actually bid and you know what the low bid is, that usually is a pretty good indication of what actually the project's worth. You know, percentages are used have been
used for years, >> right? I mean, and you kind of use So, I estimate the construction cost and what I've been what I normally do is I go through and I assign tasks to what we're going to do from beginning to end. >> I put hours to those tasks and just put
it out to the different people that are going to work on it based on their hourly rate. And I come down and I get to the end. And then after I get to the end, I compare that to what the percentage is typically for a project like this. And if I'm close or if I'm
right in the ballpark, then I'm good. So that's kind of that's like a check, I guess. >> Mhm. >> So in a way, I'm kind of doing what you're saying. I'm just not doing it. Um, >> so instead of that, you could say you do it for 8% of the low bid price, couldn't you? >> But what if the low bid price comes in
that lower than what we show, but we based our fee on um 8% of whatever $7,000. That's that's a risk you take and that's risk that you have in in any business really. I mean
you're guaranteeing yourself really cost plus on all your contracts. You're that's really what you're doing and you can see what happens uh with some of the government contracts u in the space industry and in the war
industry. You know there these cost plus contracts they have I mean they're ridiculous. Well, I can tell you we're not doing >> and they're, you know, gradually finding out that they should be doing something else. So, I just um that's why I asked if you've ever done it on percentage
basis. >> Not not the way that you're talking about. No. >> What if the city uh said we want contract based on percentage? Would you be interested then?
Um, I just think it would be hard to I guess that would be something we'd have to negotiate with the city then if that's what they wanted to do. >> Okay. No, that's fair answer.
That's all I have. Um, one thing I I don't see in here, Bill, that or couple things that I'm I'm interested in. um talking with our sewer operator a little bit. A lot of projects that have been
done we haven't gotten as built for. Um are those provided in here? No, because we're not doing the construction um this we c we for sure
can um we're not doing the construction services as part of this proposal. >> Okay. So that would be a separate one coming later. >> Okay. >> And then we can state right in there that we are going to provide you as builts within so much time after the uh final completion date.
>> You don't have asbuilts for what completed projects? I'm sorry. >> There's several projects that we don't have. For instance, the last sewer project, we don't have them. >> That's important. Yeah, that's important. >> I don't think we've gotten um all the
final documents that I'm aware of. Well, I can check. I mean, we have Tell me which one the project is and I can sure I can find >> it would been in the sewer expansion for the PL treatment plant. >> Why don't we do an audit? >> What's that? >> Why don't we do an audit?
>> Sure. >> Last three or five years, >> right? >> Figure out what we have or don't have compared to what they have completed or don't have completed and then try to figure out a path forward. >> Okay. Um, the other thing I would be looking for, and this may be in that
construction services agreement too, Bill, but tell me where you would place that. Um, whatever is changed as part of this build is installed then into our GIS, updated the GIS that we've
>> Oh, right. All right. Um I guess on this um if you want to make a recommendation tonight, we can or we can give this a month for thought. If there's anything else you'd like to see before we approve or make a recommendation, we could come back in October and do that. How would
you like to proceed? Well, >> as chair, I'm a non- voting member. Correct. >> Um I Yeah, I think because we have a quorum. Oh, >> you would be the tiebreaker if there's a
tie. Anyway, well, it would be up to >> either of you two have a recommendation. >> Well, th this process we're we're considering right now, this would just be the way we've done it in the past, right?
>> Okay. So, the way I I mean that this um proposal is this 8% that would be about a $600,000 project. 48,000, right? >> Yeah, I think it's more than that. So, it's our
>> Well, percentage is probably less than that then. >> Well, 48,000 is about 8% of 600,000. Yeah, but I think the cost of the of the lift station is more than 600,000. >> Okay. >> So, that means our percentage is actually
>> the percentage is actually lower. Okay. I just heard 8%. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Shouldn't try to do math in my head. I'd like to um spend little little time. Do we have a month? It's not urgent, is it? >> No, I think we have some time. So,
currently we don't even have property to put this on. So, >> where where we're at with the project today is Widsth has laid out what's needed for property for this and we've given we've tasked the city attorney with
getting hold of the property owners to purchase that. >> Well, I appreciate uh you know they're they're doing this and that's fine, but I I think we ought to I don't think there's any big rush. We ought to think about it a little. >> Okay. >> It's my opinion. I'll put it on the
agenda for next month. >> What What would you be talking about on the agenda? Just the way you approach these projects. And >> I think >> if you if you base the the the fee for the engineer on the low bid or on an estimate,
>> we might be talking about other things too. There might be others interested in that project. >> Okay. Yeah. That you know. So, so it isn't just a matter of doing it the way we've always done it.
>> Okay. >> I think it's just an opportunity that if anything comes up, you you get you're aware that we want to do this was anything we couldn't think of in the moment here. Um it'd be nice to take that opportunity to ask some questions
before we move to recommendation. Well, I move we do that then. >> Very good. I'll put it on the agenda for October. >> Okay. Last item we have tonight is uh number five, chapter 28,
distance to connection to sewer review and recommendation. Uh I can provide some context on this one. We're going through quite a bit of ordinances, >> viewing them. I'm sorry, Jesse, to interrupt you, but before we do that,
backing up to the 27 road bond, there was also a survey proposal in there that we should talk about from Woodsoft. You have that? >> What is that for? >> Prop survey proposal work. >> Oh, see, I didn't see it.
It should have been toward the front of your packet. There's like a map. There's a map in there. >> And then it should be a written proposal behind that from from Bill. >> Um, how how urgent is this one to be
done as well? >> I'd say it's a little more urgent. Um, Bill could speak to this. I think what they were hoping to do is be able to do some of the survey work prior to freeze up. Oh, >> you have >> you have that. >> Here's mine. >> It's not an emergency or anything like
that. >> We table. >> Well, mine's a whole other order. >> So is mine. >> Could we push that one until >> Yeah, it's in next month. >> If you like mixed up with something else,
that's what you want. Wait, I'm not the right one. >> Do what? Is it another one of those with the fine prints? >> Yes. >> The the issue with the the sooner we can get started on the 2027,
the sooner we can um basically get the plans specs done for the bonding period prior to what June or July or August.
And the big thing is we don't want to if we wait till October for the public works commission then the council won't approve it till November and there could be snow on the ground and then our
chances of surveying and providing a good topo survey are a lot higher. >> Yeah, that's true. Okay. >> So, Bill, one question I had on this, I I see it now. >> A lot of this uh that you're doing could
also be used in your plans and specs, right? >> Exactly. That's the reason. Yep. >> Okay. Yep. >> So, you wouldn't we wouldn't be paying for that twice. You would use all >> this. Normally, we wouldn't separate it out like this. >> Yeah. >> But we wanted to get started now before um the snow came in.
>> I see. to start the survey. Normally, this would be part of the entire um design fee, I guess you'd say. >> Okay. So, is this all the survey work that you're going to need to do, Bill, on this? This what what's included?
>> Uh yeah. Um the only So, it include the survey um or all those streets listed up there. And we'd even do, you know, they probably ended up doing work on upper Roy Lake Road, but that's going to be part of I mean, that's all extra work
doing those easements anyway, but it kind of got moved into this packet. Same with City Hall Street and Church Street, but those have already been surveyed, so there's really nothing new to add to them. We don't need to do anything there, but we're still going to
work upper Roy Lake Road as far as the easements go, >> right? And that was paid for out of the 26. >> Well, for the survey, yes, >> but the easement acquisition, all those sketch and descriptions is all extra
work. >> So that's why I asked about doing it another way. Excuse me. If it's done a different way, then that'll kind of change everything here, won't it? As far as surveying goes.
>> What do you mean? Like what other way? >> Well, um I don't know exactly what you were talking about on that m on that one single opposite of what you're talking about here as far as descriptions of the easements. >> All right. >> One big easement.
>> So if you did that, do you still need all of this? >> Yes. >> Okay, you do. Yep. And then there's things that are in here that were So, we are going to create a a property base for these roadways that are listed up here. Um it's a little bit easier to do
than on um the 2026 streets. The just the rightway on the 2026 streets was like all over the place. >> So then this is for the assessments. >> No, >> but Well, there's no assessments.
>> Yeah. But you'd still be able to use a lot of this information then for your plan inspections. Right. >> Right. Right. Right. That's >> Yep. Okay. >> Exactly. >> What What are you saying, Dyl if if assessments were to be made a part of this project,
>> that information would go? >> That's They're doing the surveying for that, aren't they? I understand. >> That's Well, no assessments. No, we're not doing it for assessments. possibly doing it for easy if we need them. >> Yeah, that's what I mean. Okay, so I'm
sorry. I meant I'm So >> yeah, then >> do we have a recommendation to >> one quick question? Um, Bill, is there a delivery date on this?
>> Um, no. But I mean, we need to I mean, we need to get out there and get it done before it snows. So, soon as we can get out there, >> can we add a delivery date? >> We sure can.
>> I like November 30th >> because this isn't I mean, this like I said, this isn't the >> whatever you guys talk about, I can update this one and make it part of the council packet. >> Okay. >> For November 30th. Good. Do we have a
recommendation for what? Oh, for that the total >> that would be done yet this fall. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Honored before November 30th. >> Okay. Yeah, I'll make that recommendation. >> I'll second.
>> Accepted. All those in f all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed carries. >> All right. >> Last item we have on the agenda tonight is the chapter 28 distance to connect to
sewer review and recommendation. Uh this is one of a plethora of ordinances that we are looking at as a council working with Steve Timlin working with Tom Uh I asked Tom actually why this even came
to be, how it came to be. Looks like it was years past more of a reactionary measure due to a specific project that took place in in the uh city of Nisah. So, um, mandating that a commercial property
within 1,000 ft of the city sewer, uh, regardless of what the cost is, um, is that fair? Is that reasonable? Um, then 500 ft for residential. Uh we understand that there can be
variances that can be requested. If the variance is denied by the planning and zoning commission, that appeal can be made and that appeal will then go to the council. The council can vote on it. But I ask this body if there's any
feedback that you gentlemen have in regards to those distances and if there's any consideration for modification. Would it be correct to say that this is becoming more of a standard in communities this mandatory
connection? Tom, are you aware? Where did this wording come from? The >> I would have to go back to look, but usually we >> from the League of Cities, >> other cities ordinances on this. >> Yes. Um the distances
may vary from community to community, but there's something similar to this. Probably most communities or >> So when you when you put the thousand and the 500, is that was that just kind of grabbed out of the air or was there based on something? >> Um actually the previous city
administrator set the distance. Um we had talked about that. Uh, I think prior to the language you see here, it used to be I thought 500 ft for everything. >> Okay. Could that be tied in then with uh
the maps that you show you what areas are served by sewer? >> Yeah. So, one idea I kicked around and I brought this map in so that we could use it as an example. Um, if you look at the map just over that little table there, that shows an outline in yellow of where
what would be the service area for lift station 12. What I'm offering as maybe an alternative to this language is that it would reference a map of mandatory connection. So, if you're inside of the
shaded areas on the map and not this particular map, but one that we would create, if you're inside of a shaded area that the, you know, of a map the council adopts, then that's where you'd be asked to connect. I think that makes
sense. And then that way >> somebody owned a thousand acre property if it existed in this wall per se and the sewer is on the northwest corner of the property and they have desires to build a home or
structure on the southeast corner. This this indicates that they have to connect from the northwest corner to the southeast corner. >> That's all >> in theory. And I know those whatifs, you guys love hearing those whatifs all the
time, but nothing in our ordinances should be a whatif or discretion. It should just be black and white. So this is again one of a handful that we have looked at trying to revise and
I like that idea. I haven't heard that idea yet. So, where this came from for me a little bit is just looking at that map, it it occurred to me. And then the other thing I was thinking with it is I've had discussions with Jenny Max, our previous city administrator. I've talked to I may
have talked to you. I probably talked to a couple other council members about, you know, we have four quadrants around the intersection of 371 and 13. And I think we we've we've talked about this in terms of okay, what can we afford to
put infrastructure in if the city had to put it in? Um we probably can't do all four quadrants at the same time. Like if we were to put in sewer main, you could almost um you could prioritize pro uh areas of the city for expansion
of the city sewer much the same way. So a map like this would probably start with where the sewer lines exist today and then you could look at that and say okay we think um most of the commercial growth or most of the dense growth is going to happen
in this area. If you're inside that area you will be required to connect. >> This is what they do in the cities. You know basically the sewer determines where the growth is availability. >> So >> they do that all the time. I didn't know that, but I like that. Makes more sense.
>> The community I'm familiar with uh done something kind of like this would be Hutchinson. So most cities outside of the lakes area, you know, they they form like layers of an onion. >> So as you move out distance from,
you know, those are the next layers where they provoke they'll they'll pull a trunk sewer out where then the connections happen. And if you're inside that next layer of the onion, you would be required to connect. And so then they also know that the layer beyond that after say 10 or 20 years, if you're in
that layer, you're going to be required to connect there. And so there's a there's like a warning there or a a notice that you're in an area where it's coming. In this, it's kind of harder to say that because we work around the
lake. There's no really nice parcel that we could say that's where we're hardening for the sewer. That there's no logical area where the city's really growing fast. Probably the closest thing we have is the area where
the city just brought its property. It's the largest undeveloped area. We know there's there's some a lot of interest in expanding there, you know. We could look at all the different areas, but
I would say that that's probably what you want to do is pick areas that you would want the city to go into or maybe just simpler is to just uh either confirm these distances that are in the ordinance already or make them smaller
if you like or larger, leave them as they are. I don't >> Yeah, I think those arbitrary distances are troublesome. I I I agree. If I could make any suggestion to this committee is to keep it at 500 flat for both commercial and residential
and give that recommendation to the council. >> Be done with it 500. >> I mean the the distance that they're talking about it depends on the head that you're pumping. I mean there's factors that are involved in determining that 500 ft. I mean, if you're going
uphill, 500 ft might be as fur far as you ever want to go. I mean, if you're trying to go, if the thing said 1,000, you you could do it, but it's going to cost you an awful lot, and a 2-in pipe may not get you all the way to the where you're trying to get to. >> No, exactly. I think one of the things
we were trying to consider when we with the ordinance the way it was was trying to prevent somebody from coming in with a development and creating an island of onsite inside the central sewer system, >> right? >> Because what that does is it lowers the density and increases the cost for the
people who do need it to be connected. >> Uh this is just an example. So, I used to live in Brooklyn Park when I was a kid and they they had a road 85th Avenue was designed to set as like um there was
no development that occur could occur north of 85th >> for until they got the proper development and the stuff to the south of it. You know, basically closer to 100% development down there. And then they opened up portions of 85th to develop and then they extended the sewer
out there so then they could control it. and then 610 came in and then everything just went crazy. >> So, I guess uh if the committee has a recommendation, if you'd like to just go with the 500, then that would I think has to be a public hearing at a council
meeting for the change to take effect. >> I I would move that um that you proceed with this and and keep the uh distances the same, the 500 for both residential and commercial. what what what we're saying here I mean
since the current policy on the city council you don't do any assessments for this you know if you were to run sewer by a property that's within 500 ft of it it's a you know it's a free connection right you're just you're just part of
the system going forward makes sense to me >> yeah I'll second that Uh we have a motion, we have a second. Any further discussion? No. Uh all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I.
>> Opposed. Motion carries. >> Okay. It'll be on the agenda for the council meeting in October. >> Yep. Okay. With that, the next regularly scheduled meeting is October 29th,
2025 at 5:00 PM. If you guys have any other agenda items for the following month, please reach out to Tom. But otherwise, I'll take a motion for adjournment. >> So moved. >> All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Carried. Meeting is
adjourned.