[4:47] in order. Everyone, please stand and
[4:49] recite the pledge of
[4:49] >> allegiance
[4:52] to the flag of the United States of
[4:55] America and to the republic for which it
[4:58] stands, one nation under God,
[5:01] indivisible, with liberty and justice
[5:04] for all.
[5:07] Hey Ashley, can I have a roll call,
[5:09] please?
[5:09] >> Briggs.
[5:12] >> Cavalier
[5:12] >> here.
[5:13] >> Breen last
[5:17] >> here.
[5:18] >> Alt.
[5:20] >> BMA
[5:21] >> here.
[5:22] >> Chastel
[5:23] >> here.
[5:24] >> Fisher
[5:25] >> here.
[5:26] >> I don't think Clayton said here.
[5:29] >> Huh?
[5:29] >> Clayton not here. Clayton did say it
[5:33] here. I was I didn't I put you as absent
[5:36] because you didn't say here. Yes. So you
[5:38] are here.
[5:39] >> You are here.
[5:39] >> I was just surprised because I was uh
[5:41] looking at I was first
[5:44] called. I'm here.
[5:45] >> Fisher was last week. So
[5:48] >> here comes another. [laughter]
[5:51] And then um council member Al just
[5:54] walked in as well too as well. So I will
[5:56] mark her here and Briggs here.
[6:03] Just missing is council member Breen.
[6:06] So,
[6:06] >> okay. [clears throat]
[6:08] All right. It's time for the open form.
[6:10] If anyone would like to address council
[6:12] any issue not already on tonight's
[6:13] agenda may come to the podium. State
[6:15] your first last name and address,
[6:17] please.
[6:20] Okay. Hearing none from council
[6:23] chambers, we'll move on. This brings us
[6:26] to the agenda. Does anyone wish to add
[6:28] or remove anything from tonight's
[6:30] agenda? [clears throat]
[6:32] Can I have a motion to approve tonight's
[6:34] agenda?
[6:35] >> I'll make that motion, your honor.
[6:36] >> Second.
[6:37] >> Leon and Henry. Thank you. Discussion
[6:41] hearing none. Roll call, please.
[6:43] >> Briggs.
[6:43] >> Hi.
[6:44] >> Cavalier.
[6:45] >> Hi.
[6:46] >> Plot.
[6:46] >> Hi,
[6:47] >> Alt.
[6:48] >> Hi.
[6:49] >> Hmma.
[6:50] >> Hi.
[6:50] >> Shastelle.
[6:51] >> Hi.
[6:52] >> Fisher.
[6:52] >> I.
[6:54] >> Okay. Motion carries. This brings us to
[6:56] the consent agenda. Does anyone wish to
[6:58] remove anything from the consent agenda?
[7:02] >> [snorts]
[7:03] >> And I have a motion to approve the
[7:05] consent agenda. Motion by Don. Thank
[7:07] you. Is there a second?
[7:09] >> I'll second.
[7:10] >> Thank you, Henry. [clears throat]
[7:12] Roll call, please.
[7:13] >> Wait, there's supposed to be discussion
[7:15] after anything, right?
[7:17] >> So, with consent, you you Well, that's
[7:19] when you pull it. If you have a
[7:20] discussionary item on there, if you want
[7:22] to, you still can't discuss anything as
[7:25] a whole. You can't
[7:26] >> unless you pull it.
[7:27] Yeah.
[7:28] >> And then it goes to a regular agenda.
[7:30] >> Yeah. So if you have a question about
[7:31] it, you could have either emailed us or
[7:34] called us today or um then you can bring
[7:36] it up and pull it and have a discussion
[7:38] on it.
[7:38] >> It was just a clarification of something
[7:40] that that we already talked about.
[7:42] >> Okay. Um I guess
[7:44] >> well our procedures are so every every
[7:47] time we go for before we say the eyes
[7:49] and the naz there's there's not always a small moment in there for us to
[7:56] discuss.
[7:57] >> Correct. Well, on the consent agenda
[7:59] items,
[8:00] >> consent agenda items, you pull if you
[8:02] have further questions
[8:04] >> individual or as open.
[8:05] >> So, yes. So, on the regular agenda
[8:08] items, you have discussion.
[8:11] >> Okay. Uh, that is first and second.
[8:14] >> Yes.
[8:16] >> Roll call, please.
[8:17] >> Briggs.
[8:18] >> I.
[8:18] >> Cavalier.
[8:19] >> Hi.
[8:20] >> Flat.
[8:20] >> Hi.
[8:21] >> Alt.
[8:21] >> Hi.
[8:22] >> Hmma.
[8:23] >> Hi.
[8:23] >> Shastell.
[8:24] >> Hi.
[8:24] >> Fisher.
[8:25] >> I.
[8:26] >> Okay. Okay, motion carries. Uh, we have
[8:28] a public hearing tonight,
[8:30] >> your honor. [clears throat] Item 7.01 is
[8:32] a public hearing to consider the request
[8:34] related to the Minnesota Investment Fund
[8:36] myth assistant program u to Northstar
[8:39] Lime LLC provided to Northstar LLC.
[8:44] >> Okay. Uh to ensure everyone has fair
[8:47] opportunity to speak, each person will
[8:49] have the opportunity for up to three
[8:51] minutes to provide comment. you come
[8:55] forward. Please state your first, last
[8:56] name, and address for the record. All
[8:59] remarks should be directed to the
[9:00] council and must be related to the
[9:02] subject of this hearing.
[9:05] Please be respectful of others. No
[9:07] interruptions or personal attacks will
[9:09] be permitted. When your time is up,
[9:11] Ashley, our city clerk, kindly ask you
[9:14] to finish your sentence so we can move
[9:16] on to the next speaker.
[9:19] So, I'll open this public hearing. Does
[9:21] anyone wish to address the council? So,
[9:24] please come to the podium. State your
[9:25] first last name and address, please.
[9:33] My name is Phil ShraMM. I live here in
[9:36] Krookton, Minnesota. I am also employed
[9:39] by Northstar Line. Uh I [snorts] serve
[9:42] as their CFO with their company. And um
[9:46] I would just like to just give a little
[9:48] bit more background. Also, if there were
[9:50] any questions in regards to um the
[9:54] request here for an extension
[9:56] um on uh on the compliance uh for the
[10:01] grant as far as hiring the number of
[10:04] employees. Uh currently on hand we have
[10:07] 17 people employed. Um two years ago
[10:10] there were one. So uh uh we have made
[10:14] strides in that. When we uh two years
[10:17] ago when we applied for the loan and
[10:19] submitted in and put a business plan in
[10:22] um our plan was to be up to 21 people.
[10:25] Uh it was a $15 million project and as
[10:28] you know um those kind of sizes
[10:31] everything goes according to plan all
[10:32] the time. But in this case it didn't
[10:34] quite do that. Um so uh uh we ran into
[10:38] some issues particularly on one
[10:40] enterprise in our company which depends
[10:43] largely on a piece of equipment uh that
[10:45] we purchased uh that produces biochar.
[10:49] Uh we've run into a lot of uh challenges
[10:53] with the operational part of that and uh
[10:56] that has slowed our progress in being
[10:58] able to get to where we want to be and
[11:00] employ the people necessary to operate
[11:02] it. So, [snorts] that's uh mainly why
[11:05] we're at and why we're requesting an
[11:06] extension to to hopefully uh continue to
[11:10] build uh our company and add employees.
[11:14] So, you you did get another new piece of
[11:16] equipment, right?
[11:19] Uh this uh um
[11:23] uh we we did not purchase a new piece of
[11:25] equipment. We're currently working with
[11:27] the one that we have. Um the part of our
[11:31] problem is the manufacturer went
[11:33] bankrupt and is no more was bought out
[11:35] by another company and we're trying to
[11:37] work with them to uh uh
[11:41] to to fix some of the the issues that
[11:43] are at hand. But we're we're working on
[11:46] doing most of that in-house. uh and um
[11:50] currently
[11:51] the uh the biochar industry I go in and talk
[11:58] a lot more about it but uh essentially
[12:00] we're looking at a different piece of
[12:02] equipment that we may uh decide would be
[12:06] the uh better route to go but we'll have
[12:10] over the next few months to try to make
[12:11] a decision on on how we want to do that
[12:14] and and approach the issue. So we've
[12:16] kind of just had to hold back additional
[12:19] hiring and so forth until we kind of
[12:22] resolve through that issue. So thank
[12:24] you.
[12:24] >> You had a question.
[12:25] >> Yeah, Phil, thanks for good to see you.
[12:27] Uh can you define biochar?
[12:30] >> Biochar is essentially a product which
[12:33] you sequester carbon and uh what it is it's it's a process. It's basically
[12:38] like a big furnace that burns without
[12:40] oxygen. You take um what they call
[12:43] biomass. In in our case, we've been
[12:46] using oat halls, sunflower halls. Um you
[12:49] can also uh use wood. There's all kinds
[12:52] of different but you burn it basically
[12:54] at a high temperature without oxy oxygen
[12:57] and in that chemical reaction it uh
[13:01] basically sequesters the carbon into ash
[13:04] and then that that ash has value. And uh
[13:08] there are right now it's a relatively
[13:10] new market uh with biochar and uh
[13:14] there's people that are interested in
[13:16] it. Um it's it's good for soil
[13:19] amendments. It's good for filtration. It
[13:21] has lots of uh has a a strong absorbent
[13:25] feature that they're looking at helping
[13:26] to absorb pollutants and waste and stuff
[13:29] like that. So,
[13:30] >> so, so if if the city gets funded on the
[13:33] DNR grants to fell 100 plus ash trees,
[13:37] are you able to use that waste product,
[13:39] so to speak?
[13:40] >> Yeah, I've already been talking some
[13:42] with those that have been on the ground
[13:44] floor trying to do grants and so forth
[13:46] to get that up and we've been in uh
[13:49] discussions about uh how we can be of
[13:52] assistance in utilizing that wood waste.
[13:55] Uh we've also talked with the forestry
[13:58] council uh for the state of Minnesota um
[14:01] and uh they they're just a big large
[14:04] issue [clears throat] of trying to
[14:05] address wood waste and stuff and so
[14:08] that's part of another scale plan that
[14:11] we're looking at. So [snorts]
[14:12] >> thank you.
[14:16] >> Any further questions?
[14:19] Thank you Phil.
[14:20] >> Okay.
[14:23] Anyone else from the chambers?
[14:30] » May I add just to share a quick thing
[14:31] just for clarification. We did on the
[14:33] myth loan, it was about a $430,000 myth
[14:37] loan. And uh part of that was a $100,000
[14:41] grant if we reach that uh employment
[14:44] level of 21 people. And that's the part
[14:47] that we're asking extension on is that
[14:50] $100,000 forgivable portion of the line.
[14:53] Correct.
[14:53] >> Okay. Thank you.
[14:55] >> How long would the extension be before
[14:57] >> one year?
[15:01] » Anyone is else wish to address council
[15:06] » hearing? None. I'll close this public
[15:08] hearing.
[15:11] Okay.
[15:14] Uh no regular agenda items tonight.
[15:19] Uh we'll go to council reports. Darren,
[15:22] please.
[15:23] >> You I did attach my report, but I'd also
[15:25] just want to again thank Taylor and
[15:28] Kenan for all the hard work that went
[15:29] into organizing, advertising, and
[15:31] setting up the Krookton Connected event.
[15:34] Uh I think the event was a huge success.
[15:37] Very happy with the number of people
[15:38] that attended. So again, thank you for
[15:40] all the hard work that you put into
[15:41] that.
[15:43] >> That's all, your honor.
[15:44] >> Thank you.
[15:47] >> Uh Wendy, anything?
[15:49] >> Um the same thing. It was a great event.
[15:51] Good job to Keenan and Taylor for
[15:54] putting that together. Awesome. Fun to
[15:56] get out and and mingle with their
[15:58] community members.
[16:00] That is it for me for now.
[16:02] >> Thank you, Delane.
[16:03] >> Yeah, same thing. Great event. I think
[16:05] it's something we can continue to build
[16:06] on in the future. So, just glad to be
[16:10] there.
[16:11] >> Thank you, Don.
[16:14] >> You like I'd like to thank uh Kenan for
[16:17] the job you did. We had a lot of people
[16:19] there and that we don't see very often.
[16:23] Good conversations and uh about the
[16:26] council and also the city. Thank you
[16:29] very much. Appreciate it.
[16:32] >> Thank you, Don Clayton.
[16:35] >> Same as the others. Otherwise, I don't
[16:38] have anything else.
[16:39] >> Thank you, Henry.
[16:40] >> Yeah, good job. Kenan and Taylor and
[16:43] Michelle and Chris were also there and
[16:46] did a really good job with their stuff
[16:47] as well. Just that's all I got.
[16:50] >> Thank you, Joseph.
[16:52] >> Yeah, it's a it's a ditto. I I'm glad
[16:54] you mentioned Michelle. She was an
[16:56] important part of that as well. Um it's interesting. It's not just having
[17:01] the small conversations, but having
[17:02] something really impactful coming out of
[17:04] that. Um, and I and I think I had a
[17:07] number of different
[17:09] small discussions with people and I
[17:11] think there's going to be some positive
[17:12] light coming out of that. Also wanted to
[17:14] say uh kudos to the people who are
[17:15] moving snow. Uh, it's been really
[17:17] important lately. um uh they're so good
[17:20] at it [laughter] and um but I'm also
[17:23] getting calls uh that that that they're
[17:25] so good at it sometimes they're
[17:27] injecting snow
[17:29] above and on people's um vehicles and uh
[17:34] places where they've already cleared the
[17:35] sidewalk. So um so it's it's like great
[17:39] job but it's hard to please everyone I
[17:42] would say. Um and then my other
[17:45] announcement would be question earlier.
[17:47] I thought we had already discussed and
[17:49] voted on um the people on the boards and
[17:53] the excuse me on the committees and so
[17:55] on. Um so I was surprised that we saw it
[17:57] again. Maybe we had just discussed it
[17:59] but we didn't actually vote on it.
[18:01] >> There was just one additional person.
[18:03] >> Yeah, that was at the ways and means for
[18:06] June Dinarki that is going on our IRP.
[18:13] So,
[18:13] >> so we formalize it again,
[18:15] >> right?
[18:16] >> Okay. Thank you.
[18:17] >> Starts at ways and means and then it has
[18:19] to be formalized at the council meeting.
[18:22] >> Thank you for that.
[18:24] >> That's it for me.
[18:25] >> Thank you,
[18:26] >> Morgan.
[18:28] >> Uh, nothing different than everyone else
[18:30] has said. Just thank you for everyone
[18:31] that was involved in the event. It went
[18:34] really good. I had a great time.
[18:36] Hopefully, we can do it again.
[18:38] >> Thank you, Morgan. Yeah, kudos to what
[18:40] everyone said and also uh probably
[18:43] missed some people, but with Phil there
[18:45] and Shannon and the displays and the
[18:49] knowledge that everybody had.
[18:52] Um same with Teresa from our housing and
[18:57] uh Tiana. So, it was a great event. It
[19:00] was a nice turnout for
[19:04] as cold as it was. So, I think we can
[19:07] build from it. Kian, thank you. Tan
[19:09] Taylor, she's not here, but thank you.
[19:13] Uh, that is all I have. So, uh, just a
[19:16] reminder, we do have a ways and means
[19:18] meeting tonight. So, nothing else come
[19:20] before council. We are adjourned. Thank
[19:22] you everybody.
[25:50] committee meeting to order for Monday,
[25:52] February 2nd, 2026.
[25:54] Uh we've got three items on the agenda.
[25:59] We start with the West Central Regional
[26:01] Water District presentation. This would
[26:05] be Lucas
[26:13] and Stephen from AE2s.
[26:16] >> Yeah. No, good evening everyone. Uh just
[26:19] wanted to um introduce Lucas Spaith with
[26:22] West Central Regional Water District. Uh
[26:25] I happen to be the engineer for both the
[26:27] city of Krookton and West Central. Um so
[26:32] I've been meaning to get the two groups
[26:34] together for a long time. I think
[26:36] there's some kind of good things coming
[26:38] um and it could be a good complimentary
[26:40] relationship in the future. So um as
[26:43] discussion happens and uh Lucas goes
[26:46] through the presentation um I'm here to
[26:49] add color commentary basically if
[26:51] questions arise from both sides. So with
[26:54] that I'll turn it over to Lucas.
[26:56] >> All right. Thank you for being here.
[26:59] >> No, if you want to just say next slide.
[27:01] Okay.
[27:02] >> Well good evening. Uh appreciate your
[27:04] time this evening. Again, my name is
[27:05] Lucas Faith. [clears throat] I am the
[27:08] superintendent of utilities for the city
[27:09] of Hollstead. Small community
[27:12] [clears throat]
[27:12] to the south here about 30 miles. Um I
[27:16] do appreciate your time, council and
[27:18] mayor. Um what we're doing, um so I'm
[27:22] the superintendent there, but I'm also
[27:23] appointed as a board a board of board
[27:26] director for the West Central Regional
[27:28] Water District. It is a threecount
[27:31] board set up to to deliver um and um
[27:35] purchase and deliver rural water um to
[27:38] small communities, large communities um
[27:41] and rural residents.
[27:43] [clears throat]
[27:44] Um so what it is if you I think you guys
[27:47] maybe received these beforehand um but
[27:49] the it's it's a true regional approach.
[27:52] the three counties, you know, including
[27:54] Pulk, Norman, and uh Klay County, um
[27:58] decided after, you know, some time of of
[28:00] going through this that this this looked
[28:02] like a a real good way to serve rural
[28:05] customers, but also the the communities
[28:07] that are involved with it uh um with
[28:09] different different sorts of needs that
[28:11] I'll I'll kind of touch base on um in as I go along here. But as you can see
[28:16] just kind of the the color comment of
[28:19] the of the picture here you know it's showing you know egg egg farmland
[28:23] um small cities large cities um
[28:26] definitely less infrastructure uh
[28:28] according to like you know water
[28:30] treatment what you know what wells maybe
[28:33] are are needed um the ability to find
[28:36] wells um those sorts of things. So, so
[28:38] the regional approach uh really
[28:40] resonated with the county boards. Um
[28:42] after quite a few meetings with them, we
[28:44] had we had some conversations with um I
[28:47] think we at least had at least three
[28:48] meetings with each county board and in
[28:51] the [clears throat] in the process of
[28:52] kind of developing this.
[28:55] Um [clears throat]
[28:57] so, as you can see in your packet, um
[29:01] there's a lot of reasons for for for
[29:03] this to to work out well. these small
[29:06] communities um have have issues finding
[29:10] operators. They have issues, you know,
[29:12] putting reinvestment into into their
[29:14] existing infrastructure uh where maybe
[29:16] their rates aren't aren't properly
[29:18] aligned with, you know, what they need
[29:19] for the future or even in the past. Um
[29:23] it allows for um you know, this allows
[29:26] to kind of work with with a bigger
[29:29] group. that, you know, the counties are appoint they appoint the the board
[29:33] of directors, but they also um Yes, sir.
[29:37] >> I'm getting lost a little bit. Can you
[29:38] describe exactly what what what it is
[29:41] that you're representing here? This is a
[29:42] regional approach to water. What what
[29:44] exactly do you mean by this?
[29:46] >> Uh it's a platable water system. So once
[29:48] we're actually going through a state
[29:50] statute to be established as a water
[29:51] district, and it'll be very similar to municipal or city water, but it'll be
[29:56] distributed through three counties.
[30:00] So by vehicle, not by pipes.
[30:02] >> This will be all be by pipes.
[30:03] >> By pipes. Yes.
[30:05] >> Y mean these great distances. Okay.
[30:08] >> Yep. So in consideration um North Dakota
[30:11] actually has about 90% of their the
[30:13] state is covered by rural water and so
[30:16] and it's all pipeline. So they've installed enough water line to
[30:21] serve rural and then other communities.
[30:24] Willist would be a good example of how
[30:25] it really expanded really quickly and they had to put a big larger
[30:29] investment into it. You know, North
[30:31] Dakota actually, you know, they've got a
[30:33] little bit they've got what they call
[30:35] legacy funds. So, they have some money
[30:37] that the the state continues to put in
[30:39] to their infrastructure and it is um
[30:42] water is included in in that
[30:44] infrastructure that that that they can
[30:46] continue to do. a small town like Park
[30:48] River, you know, they actually, you
[30:49] know, have their treatment plant and
[30:51] they supply some out into the into the
[30:53] rural and then there's other other areas
[30:56] where um small communities are they you
[30:58] don't see a water tower in our town
[31:00] because they're served by rural water um
[31:03] directly. So
[31:04] >> the source in North Dakota is the
[31:05] Missouri River, right?
[31:09] >> Well, it varies. Uh there are surface
[31:13] water plants throughout scattered
[31:14] throughout North Dakota. some of the
[31:15] Missouri River. Um, cities like Grand
[31:18] Forks, Fargo get their water out of the
[31:20] Red Lip River, Red Lake River. Uh, a lot
[31:22] of the water districts actually get
[31:24] their water from, uh, aquafers and
[31:27] groundwater. So, uh, Williston's is that
[31:30] Lucas mentioned, um, that comes from a
[31:33] surface water. So, it it kind of depends
[31:36] where you're at.
[31:42] » Good questions. Um, we can go on to the
[31:45] next slide.
[31:48] Um, like I mentioned, there's three it's three counties that appointed the
[31:51] boards. It was based on population. So,
[31:53] Kurtson was actually put into um their
[31:56] population was put into it with PK
[31:58] County um at least um as as we sit right
[32:02] now eventually. You know, that could change one way or the other.
[32:06] Um but PK County has four
[32:07] representatives on the West Central
[32:09] board um including two county
[32:12] commissioners. And then Norman County
[32:14] has two um directors on the on the
[32:16] board, one one county commissioner and
[32:18] myself. And then Klay County has three
[32:21] um directors on the board, including two
[32:24] county commissioners. So they have they
[32:26] the county commission has got some
[32:27] oversight on, you know, how they want
[32:28] this established, you know, what the
[32:30] process is involved with the policy
[32:33] making um as as we continue to go
[32:37] forward. Um we are the first water
[32:39] district that will be formed since the
[32:41] mid80s. Uh so engineering and legal fees
[32:46] have u been strenuous uh at least. Uh
[32:50] we've we've kind of had to rewrite
[32:53] [clears throat] a a law that was written
[32:55] in the late '7s. U not really rewrite
[32:58] reread it and and uh and u figure out
[33:02] what it means. Anyway, so um we are in
[33:05] the process of that. In uh April 17th,
[33:08] we will be um having um our final
[33:11] [clears throat] court hearing which I'll
[33:13] touch on a little bit here a little bit.
[33:15] Evolution of the of the boundaries. So
[33:17] the city of Climax actually served by
[33:18] Royal Water right now. It's served by
[33:20] East Central Regional Water District,
[33:22] which is on the North Dakota side of of
[33:25] the Red River val or the Red River. And
[33:27] they um they've been getting served I
[33:30] think it's about 3 years now. Um, and so
[33:32] they'll be taking their water tower
[33:34] down, which I' I've heard that they'll I
[33:36] don't have my director from there, but
[33:38] he's got the old Krooksson water tower
[33:40] that stands in climax if you guys didn't
[33:42] know that. So, he's [clears throat]
[33:43] willing to give give it back. [laughter]
[33:48] Um, so I just yeah, just kind of some
[33:50] commentary there. Um so Climax has
[33:53] served um right now the engineers have
[33:55] recognized a uh a pipeline project
[33:58] number one phase one we're calling it.
[34:00] Um it's a highway 75 corridor. It is
[34:03] climax. So it goes from PK county all
[34:05] the way through Norman County into Klay
[34:07] County. It serves I think eight
[34:09] different communities in project one and
[34:12] uh we are in the process of uh you know
[34:15] looking for state funding and I'll touch
[34:17] on that on the next slide here.
[34:26] So, right now, um, we've expended about
[34:30] $3.2 million in development and design
[34:35] and getting through this court process
[34:37] to become a water district. Uh, we've
[34:40] had many meetings with different city
[34:42] councils, um, small, large. Um, I've
[34:45] been to East Grand Forks and u we've met
[34:48] with uh um many of them. Okay, that's
[34:51] the slide I was looking for.
[34:55] [clears throat]
[34:56] >> Sorry, my slides are jumping around.
[34:59] >> You want to go up to that colored one?
[35:01] >> Y, please.
[35:03] [snorts]
[35:04] >> Thank you.
[35:06] Um,
[35:08] so as you can see the different colors
[35:10] there. engineering um which you you guys
[35:12] know Stephen um they've recognized um
[35:15] close to 16 different kind of buildouts
[35:18] that we would perceive this uh going
[35:21] with um as you can see Krookxton is kind
[35:23] of on the edge of of two different ones
[35:26] um where the real rural consumers would
[35:30] benefit from um you know connections
[35:34] into existing water systems um we've met
[35:37] with um East Grand Forks Grand Forks,
[35:41] East Central Rural Water, Cask Row
[35:43] Water, City of Fargo, City of Morehead,
[35:46] um City of Barnesville,
[35:48] City of Holly, City of Fost,
[35:51] um
[35:53] Southeast Water Users District, which is
[35:55] the is the the uh south um west
[36:00] southeast corner of North Dakota. Um but
[36:03] we've recognized them as as potential um
[36:06] suppliers of water and Ken would be one
[36:09] of those potential suppliers of water
[36:11] based on um your capacity to um supply
[36:15] water from Aquafer your capacity to u to
[36:20] run it through your existing plant. This
[36:23] water district does not um intend to to
[36:27] build a water plant at this point. Uh it
[36:30] makes it more economical for us to we
[36:33] think it'll be more economical to
[36:35] purchase water from existing facilities.
[36:37] It it improves our economics. It
[36:40] improves um you know the the economics
[36:43] for each larger water system. If you can
[36:46] supply water up to uh 25 million gallons
[36:49] a year or or maybe it's 100 million
[36:51] gallons a year uh that are purchased
[36:54] back from an existing water plant and
[36:56] then we can build build pipeline um as things grow and as you can see
[37:02] there's you know if there's 16 different
[37:03] phases we have many many years of
[37:07] growing.
[37:08] So, so what's the difference between
[37:10] what which what you're proposing and
[37:12] this a Marshall Pulk rough water is that
[37:15] would that is that similar?
[37:17] >> Yeah, it's very similar. Yep. Marshall
[37:19] Pulk um serves Marshall and Pulk
[37:22] counties. Um we've approached them for
[37:25] water supply as well in into our our
[37:29] existing.
[37:30] >> Um they don't have a lot of water. We I
[37:33] guess um when our counties formed it,
[37:36] Marshall Pulk wasn't necessarily
[37:39] interested in in expanding into Norman
[37:42] and and Clay counties.
[37:44] >> Okay.
[37:46] >> So, but but yes, exactly the same. I
[37:48] think there's only f there's there's
[37:50] five existing water districts in in
[37:53] Minnesota. Um and and they're in the
[37:56] north northwest and the southwest
[37:59] including you know like parts of them
[38:01] are even purchasers of the Louiswis and
[38:03] Clark um water system which is
[38:07] 13 13 states
[38:10] >> uh like 13 cities
[38:11] >> 13 cities.
[38:14] >> I got a quick question. Let's say
[38:15] Krookxen is a whole supply and water,
[38:20] rural water. Um
[38:23] does that put a strain on our water
[38:25] plant where we have to
[38:27] >> you're so the one of the reasons why
[38:30] Krookton was evaluated
[38:32] uh for a long-term water supplier is we
[38:36] had looked at you know who has that
[38:38] large infrastructure in place with
[38:40] likely excess capacity as kind of our
[38:43] first goaround. Um, and Krookton's plant
[38:47] actually is only running at about a
[38:49] quarter of its capacity currently. Uh,
[38:52] so your water plant actually has
[38:53] sufficient capacity um to build out um
[38:57] and add more without adding a whole lot
[38:59] of infrastructure needs. Um, the
[39:02] long-term question with the city of
[39:03] Krookton though is, you know, the
[39:05] strength of your well fields and water
[39:07] supply. um which is why the city's
[39:10] undergoing another study right now
[39:12] that's going to help kind of inform some
[39:14] of these next steps and long-term
[39:18] um decision- making for the city. So
[39:22] >> So go ahead. Sorry.
[39:24] >> So they the DNR who or engineers whoever
[39:28] would be looking at our wells.
[39:32] >> Yep. depending on how much they would
[39:33] look at how much extra, say if this
[39:36] district was looking to um buy from the
[39:39] city of Krookton, you know, the DNR
[39:41] would want to know how much, you know,
[39:43] what's it going to look like? Um and
[39:45] then alternatively, if for some reason
[39:48] an industry came in and the city of
[39:50] Krooksen wanted to buy for some reason,
[39:52] there's the potential for that as well.
[39:54] So
[39:56] >> the users are we talking primarily about
[39:59] agricultural areas or are we talking
[40:01] about other cities outside? How do you
[40:03] how are you defining rural users of the
[40:06] water that exits here?
[40:08] >> Who's mainly going to be using that
[40:09] water?
[40:12] >> Uh so it it would be both. It it would
[40:16] be both. Um like city of Climax right
[40:18] now is purchasing water from a rural
[40:20] water district. Um, City of Hollstead
[40:22] where I am at, we're in the process of
[40:23] financing um kind of a water access
[40:26] charge to buy in access into the into
[40:28] the North Dakota facilities so that we
[40:31] can have water supply. Um, so each
[40:34] community it it really helps with like
[40:37] kind of getting the communities
[40:38] involved. Well, you know what I'm
[40:39] getting at though. I'm talking about So,
[40:40] you have agricultural areas which use a
[40:43] whole lot more water than than than we
[40:46] are an agricultural area than than a a
[40:50] Would you be asking like livestock
[40:51] [clears throat] and like um irrigation
[40:54] pivots? Is that kind of what you're
[40:55] asking?
[40:56] >> Yeah. Well, well, it could be um
[41:00] we all eat, we depend on farms. I don't
[41:02] I'm just trying to get a sense of you
[41:03] have a farm area, real area that will
[41:06] either have animals or just growing
[41:09] crops and both use a lot of water.
[41:11] >> And would they would they be able to use
[41:13] for water?
[41:14] >> Um I I think we would develop it for for
[41:18] the the livestock, but not definitely we
[41:21] could we couldn't build it big enough
[41:23] for for for you know watering watering
[41:26] fields. So then I was I was I was
[41:28] thinking along those lines and then have
[41:29] you done an assessment then of how much
[41:31] water that takes?
[41:31] >> You know they'd all want at the same
[41:33] time
[41:33] >> versus I mean I mean you look at the
[41:35] Aala aquifer, right? And that's too many
[41:37] straws going to the same and the water
[41:39] levels are going down, right? And so now
[41:41] they're have to change their farming
[41:43] methods because of that.
[41:44] >> Yeah.
[41:44] >> I'm not saying this is going to do that.
[41:46] I'm just wondering if you're doing the
[41:47] calculations to figure out what the need
[41:49] is because it's really about two things
[41:51] for water, right? It's it's quality and
[41:53] quantity. you have the right quality and
[41:55] you have enough water,
[41:56] >> right?
[41:57] >> Clearly you have enough water because
[41:58] you're giving a nice presentation saying
[42:00] that we have water to go elsewhere,
[42:02] >> which is great. Um, so anyway, have you
[42:04] done the calculation to see how much
[42:07] what what the potential users are going
[42:09] to need versus what we have? You said
[42:10] that we're at 25% capacity right now.
[42:14] >> So, what would this what would this
[42:15] bring us up to then?
[42:18] >> Yeah, I I'll
[42:20] touch on that quick. So the uh the
[42:23] entire region, the 3count region, 30
[42:26] cities, all the rural residents,
[42:28] um looking at a projected use of about
[42:32] 1.6 billion gallons long-term. That's
[42:35] just what all that's what the current
[42:37] use is
[42:38] times 25 years uh or not times 25 years,
[42:42] in 25 years using uh population trends
[42:46] and growth. what we had kind of planned
[42:49] for in our initial uh master plan and
[42:52] rural hookups and municipal hookups
[42:54] looking for an annual water use of about
[42:57] 8 to 900 million gallons is kind of what
[42:59] we're uh basing our current models on uh
[43:03] based on the S or the interest we've
[43:05] seen to date
[43:07] >> gallons what's the unit time
[43:09] >> million gallons per year
[43:10] >> per year.
[43:10] >> Yep. So, uh, to put that in perspective,
[43:13] the city of Krookton, uh, uses on
[43:16] average from 310 to 350 million gallons
[43:19] per year. Um, so, uh, just a couple
[43:22] times time or couple times the size of
[43:26] the city of Krookton. Um, and the
[43:29] thought would be that there'll be likely
[43:31] be multiple water sources uh throughout
[43:34] this district. So, um, as far as demands
[43:37] solicited from the city itself, that
[43:40] would be kind of ongoing future
[43:42] discussions, I would say, of, uh, what
[43:44] could possibly come from here versus
[43:47] North Dakota versus
[43:50] Morehead, East Grand Forks, wherever. So
[43:54] >> yeah, we've we've recognized kind of our
[43:56] initial buildout being with East
[43:59] [clears throat] Central Rural Water for the first phase and of course that's
[44:03] that Highway 75 corridor um south south
[44:06] of Krookton um where um it would make
[44:10] sense for us to either you know pipe
[44:12] those together eventually and if if
[44:15] Krookson was you know a supplier or East
[44:17] Grand Forks was a supplier that we would
[44:19] have multiple supplies for redundancy,
[44:22] but also, you know, looping similar to
[44:24] what a city does have that we have the
[44:26] ability to move water. I mean, it's been
[44:28] a big lift for A2S to try to develop
[44:32] kind of a master plan that might take 20
[44:35] years to build out. Obviously, we know
[44:36] when the master plan comes out, it's a
[44:38] little bit different within minutes or
[44:41] hours.
[44:42] >> Can you go back to Delane's question too
[44:44] about the source of water here? Can you
[44:45] explain a little bit more about our
[44:47] source water here that we got into
[44:50] >> yours? Well, I can tell you what I know
[44:52] about your source water, but that's the
[44:53] DNR is a little bit concerned concerned
[44:56] to us with us approaching you guys
[44:58] because of your aquifer. so that having
[45:00] your wellfield uh study done um makes
[45:04] sense that you would need to know that
[45:06] before you could ever ever think about
[45:09] selling water to a to another entity,
[45:12] especially that one that was going to
[45:13] use, you know,
[45:15] >> recently had a large business
[45:17] [clears throat] that was
[45:19] possibly coming into our community and
[45:21] there was some concerns at that time
[45:24] >> just to just uh just to have enough
[45:27] water just for that one business. let
[45:29] alone a tri-state area. So that the
[45:32] amount of water coming out of our
[45:34] aquifer kind of concerns me a little
[45:36] bit.
[45:36] >> Wasn't that like a quarter million
[45:38] gallons a year for that one business
[45:40] alone?
[45:41] >> I think wasn't it something like that?
[45:42] >> I think so. Something like that.
[45:43] >> Okay.
[45:45] >> And that was a concern at the time
[45:47] >> to supply that in addition, you know,
[45:49] that was one year.
[45:50] >> Yeah.
[45:50] >> In addition to
[45:52] >> But I think to studies will show
[45:54] >> right before that even came a reality
[45:57] too. I know the DNR and the watershed
[45:59] were going to do studies to see if the
[46:01] capacity
[46:02] >> did we had some studies done though, did
[46:04] we? I mean,
[46:05] >> I don't think it was really in depth yet
[46:07] cuz we
[46:08] >> Brandon had some studies done maybe. I I thought
[46:13] before Brandon left there was some
[46:15] studies that were done. I thought we
[46:17] paid for a study.
[46:19] >> You uh the city still has a phase two
[46:21] study ongoing with bar engineering. Um,
[46:25] so you should see actually a draft of
[46:27] that in the next couple months, I think
[46:28] was their last report. So, um, that'll
[46:32] help influence a lot of city kind of
[46:34] decision making and next steps on
[46:36] anything in the future, whether it be a
[46:39] district like this or industry coming in
[46:41] or so,
[46:42] >> um, you name it. A question I have, and
[46:44] I apologize if you're going to get to it
[46:46] later, if we if we do get into a
[46:48] contract, are we are we tied into that
[46:51] contract if um for gallons of water per
[46:53] year?
[46:55] I mean, is there is there any um so like
[46:58] say we get a dry year and our our our
[47:00] aquifers, our our wells are running low,
[47:03] but we have to commit to you guys x
[47:06] amount of gallons of water
[47:08] per year. Are we tied to that then? I
[47:11] mean somewhat, but that would be, you
[47:14] know, a drought situation where um, you
[47:17] know, I would assume Krookton and West
[47:20] Central all would be doing, you know,
[47:22] their drought prepare or, you know,
[47:24] going through the drought preparedness
[47:26] um where, you know, you would shut off
[47:28] industry. We would shut off any kind of
[47:30] industry. We had those sorts of things,
[47:32] you know, kind of a step stepping stone
[47:34] down. That's how that's how most you
[47:36] know drought preparedness plans are are
[47:39] right now is that you would shut down
[47:42] you know your your you know your your
[47:44] first tier would get shut down then your
[47:45] second tier and then your third tier
[47:47] where and then you know it
[47:49] >> sure mean it's a regional drought that
[47:52] could be just a drought um that covers
[47:55] just our aquifers and our wells. I mean,
[47:58] we've had issues where we've got
[48:00] involved in other communities and just
[48:02] seem to have any issues. So, in that
[48:05] situation, what would happen?
[48:08] Well, that is that's that's concerning
[48:10] that that that if that is possible. I
[48:13] think the well field, you know, your
[48:16] wellfield um study, your your step two
[48:19] of that um should be able to alleviate
[48:23] some of those concerns that the DNR
[48:24] might have um or or else or else
[48:28] strengthen their concerns uh about your
[48:31] ability to serve more than what you you
[48:34] currently have. So I mean it that's
[48:38] pretty important to us that you guys
[48:39] know what you can supply so that there
[48:42] wouldn't be this hey we we we're not
[48:45] sure it's dry you know you know what the
[48:50] farmers took all the water out of the
[48:51] aquifer and now we don't have the water
[48:53] we can to serve you know the actual
[48:55] people that need it for the drinking
[48:57] water.
[48:59] >> Okay.
[49:01] You didn't talk much about the arsenic
[49:03] contamination in private wells, but you
[49:06] said 43% in your presentation. 43%
[49:09] Norman County, which is that%
[49:12] [clears throat]
[49:12] 43% Norman County has that problem or
[49:15] that's some data that engineering pulled
[49:17] off of the MDH website. [snorts]
[49:21] Um, and and so it would be a
[49:22] representative sample, not that every
[49:24] not that 100% of the wells have been
[49:26] sampled, but the of the ones that were
[49:28] sampled, it was the 43%. So of of the
[49:32] samples that they had, no matter what
[49:33] number it was, 43% of those you had 40
[49:36] if you had 100 wells, you're saying 43
[49:39] of those wells in Norman County that
[49:41] were tested have a high arsenic level.
[49:44] Yeah. Right.
[49:45] >> Above the above the state minimum.
[49:49] >> Thank you.
[49:53] Well, I'll
[49:53] >> I'll try to be brief on the rest of this
[49:55] here. [clears throat] Go to [snorts] the
[49:58] next slide.
[50:00] Um okay. So today um the West Central
[50:04] District um is formed by resolution.
[50:07] We're a legal entity. We're not a public
[50:10] water system. Um we have a petition with
[50:13] the district court which is also is in
[50:15] Klay County District Court. Um that was
[50:18] kind of worked out between the um county
[50:21] administrators and the county um the
[50:24] county board members that are on our
[50:25] board to do it through Klay County. So
[50:28] on April 17th, we will be having our
[50:30] final hearing. That final hearing
[50:33] [clears throat] allows the West Central
[50:35] Water District to become become a water
[50:37] district and to um be um eligible for
[50:42] state funding to be eligible for, you
[50:45] know, similar similar funds that city or county would get through um tax
[50:50] dollars um through the state. And then
[50:54] um
[50:57] well with that I better I need to touch
[50:59] on this. We have 19,500 mailers going
[51:02] out and your city residents will be part
[51:05] of that as part of the statute. Um it's
[51:08] mandatory that we send those out. Um so
[51:10] we have met with Mr. Getsman about this
[51:14] uh kind of made him aware of it. Uh we think that they'll become lots of
[51:19] questions and it'll probably come to the
[51:21] locals and then probably go well above
[51:24] us and go into the Minnesota Department
[51:26] of Health. Um so we're trying to be
[51:28] upfront um getting this information out.
[51:31] I I think Mr. Gatman just told me that
[51:33] he received the letter from us um today.
[51:36] So I'm sure you'll see a copy of that in
[51:39] um shortly, right? Yeah.
[51:43] Um, but so you'll you'll receive a
[51:45] letter from West Central Regional Water
[51:47] District stating, you know, our our
[51:49] [snorts] intentions, which is what I'm
[51:51] here to try to explain as well. And then
[51:54] we will uh your residents will also be
[51:56] receiving that or or your land any land
[51:59] owner in Krookton. I believe that that
[52:02] could be somewhat helpful maybe for the
[52:04] city of Krookton. We're we're willing to
[52:06] share information. So with that, if
[52:08] there's surveys that come back, they're
[52:09] inside the city limits. you might get,
[52:12] you know, a free survey out of uh out
[52:14] [clears throat] of our out of our our
[52:18] mandatory court court filings. So, in
[52:22] your packet also, there's um
[52:26] next slide here.
[52:29] Here's the public notice. Um it has
[52:33] what we're doing. Um your residents do
[52:36] not need to show up for the court
[52:38] hearing. It is strictly a hearing. the
[52:40] judge will not make a ruling that day,
[52:42] but if there is, you know, people
[52:45] proponents for it or people against the
[52:47] water district, um, they are welcome to
[52:50] come and make comment. I believe
[52:52] there'll also be a Zoom option. So, if
[52:55] you're interested and you're sitting at
[52:57] your desk and you want to watch on the
[52:59] 17th, uh, Mr. Slick will actually be
[53:02] presenting
[53:04] the good portion of that of that
[53:06] presentation to the judge. Um in our
[53:10] packet, you'll also have the frequ
[53:11] frequently asked questions. So we've um
[53:14] we've been at this for a couple of years
[53:16] now. We uh definitely have um a few, you
[53:20] know, pre pre-baked answers to some of
[53:22] these questions. Um but the roundabout
[53:26] way of it is, you know, it is it's
[53:28] pipeline. We're bringing potable water
[53:30] to some of those wells that don't, you
[53:32] know, have arsenic issues. There is
[53:34] there's people in in in rural areas that
[53:36] haul water still at this point in time
[53:39] because they can't find viable water. I
[53:41] mean, even flowing water uh in some
[53:44] cases. [snorts]
[53:45] So, um it's been recognized that this is
[53:48] a good project. We've had really good
[53:49] success. We've met with you know about
[53:51] 12 different cities that have signed
[53:53] what we call memorandum of inclusions
[53:56] but it's a memorandum of understanding
[53:58] saying that we we we want to be planned
[54:01] for. So that's how this has expanded um
[54:04] you know down up and down Highway 9 up
[54:06] and down Highway 75 and we've just kind
[54:08] of started from the North Dakota border
[54:11] and uh been working our way out. So,
[54:13] we're trying we've we've mailed out to
[54:15] all the city councils in the in the
[54:18] three county area and um all of the land
[54:22] owners in the area will soon receive
[54:24] something from Klay County District
[54:26] Court asking or or telling them about
[54:28] the hearing.
[54:30] So,
[54:32] your frequently asked questions are in
[54:34] your packet as well. Do you guys have
[54:40] anything more? Mr.
[54:42] What's it what's in person's benefit to
[54:45] do this?
[54:47] Um well so if you were to use your
[54:50] existing infrastructure and this is what
[54:52] I've told some of the other um larger
[54:54] public water systems like if you can use
[54:57] that to its most economic benefit you
[54:59] know like the life of the you have the
[55:01] life of your plant and you put that
[55:02] investment in but if you can really
[55:04] optimize what you're what you're
[55:06] producing out of it and then make you
[55:08] know a little bit extra on it you like
[55:10] so you have a margin on what you at
[55:13] least I assume you would have a margin
[55:14] on the water that you sell to your
[55:16] existing
[55:18] constituents in in your community. Um
[55:20] but you would have an an additional
[55:22] margin on top of that that now you can
[55:25] you know put put away for the next plant
[55:27] or put away for different
[55:29] infrastructure.
[55:30] >> Sell the water to you.
[55:32] >> Yes.
[55:33] >> Who who dictates how much we can sell
[55:34] the water to you or
[55:36] >> we get to negotiate. [clears throat]
[55:38] [laughter]
[55:40] >> So it's not a set price that we have to
[55:42] abide by,
[55:43] >> right? We'll be looking for the most
[55:44] economical way to serve our our
[55:46] consumers as well. So, I mean it'll be,
[55:49] you know, a way that, you know, try to
[55:51] optimize, you know, existing
[55:53] infrastructure, but also finding the
[55:55] best deal and we want quality water. I
[55:57] mean,
[55:58] >> so can you give me an example of a
[56:00] community that's already doing this and
[56:02] how much that um how much they're
[56:05] bringing in a year roughly? I mean, is
[56:07] it um
[56:09] is it is it a million? Is it 500,000? Is
[56:12] it?
[56:13] >> Oh, you'd have a
[56:16] Oh, I don't have I don't I don't we
[56:19] don't have any communities that are
[56:21] actually selling to us right now. And we don't we don't we we don't have a
[56:24] purchase agreement with anyone or or a
[56:26] water access charge. Um but I I would
[56:29] say it's somewhere around that, you
[56:31] know, $2 per thousand maybe that they're
[56:34] bringing in. But, you know, that's
[56:37] there's a a margin error there, too. So,
[56:39] you're probably in the 3 to 5% margin.
[56:41] So, if your operations, if your all-in
[56:44] operations and maintenance, you know, is
[56:46] $5 per thousand and you're selling it at
[56:48] $6 per thousand, that's in in in in the
[56:51] utility world, that's a decent margin,
[56:53] right? So, maybe it's only if you're
[56:55] producing it at five and you have maybe
[56:58] existing or future capital investment in
[57:00] that. You might be able to sell it for
[57:02] $5.50 50 cents and that 50 cents is your
[57:04] margin where you're it's a 10% margin on
[57:07] top of you know what you're existing or
[57:10] you're doing it right now just
[57:13] generically.
[57:16] So, so in that negotiation, that
[57:18] contract, um, then I would I would I
[57:21] would think you you you would also say
[57:23] if we did have a difficult year, that
[57:26] something in there would be written to
[57:27] say city of Krookton still gets their
[57:30] water, right, to to do all the things
[57:32] that they need to do if that's agreed
[57:35] upon ahead of time such that everyone
[57:37] who comes to the table understands that.
[57:39] Um,
[57:40] >> yeah,
[57:42] >> right. Because they go sour pretty
[57:43] quickly. I um a couple other questions.
[57:46] Where is um Warren Standle? Because he's
[57:49] Poke County representative, right?
[57:50] >> Yes.
[57:52] >> That's not you.
[57:54] >> You're Lucas. Right.
[57:55] >> Right. So, I'm asking where is Warren,
[57:58] >> Mr. Strandel. Um I don't remember what
[58:00] he had going on. Um
[58:04] >> Okay. [snorts] Just just because
[58:06] >> where we are, right?
[58:08] >> Right. Great. Nice that he'd be here.
[58:11] It's his neck of the woods. Now, can you
[58:13] tell us a little bit more about your
[58:14] funding, the backers? [snorts]
[58:15] So, it's $3.2
[58:17] three and a quarter million dollars
[58:19] local project funding. Who
[58:21] >> who's backing this again? Where's the
[58:22] money coming from? So, the three
[58:24] counties, um, they put the original
[58:26] budget up of $500,000,
[58:29] um, to go through the formation process,
[58:31] do the the preliminary design, and then,
[58:35] um, along the way, I'm not exactly sure,
[58:40] >> along the way, um, the pole cwell, the
[58:43] city of Climax decided to hook up to
[58:45] regional water to kind of start this
[58:47] process.
[58:49] um about a $2.1 million from off the top
[58:52] of my head uh grant loan funding package
[58:55] was secured through the USDA. Um and
[58:57] then in the time while that pipeline was
[59:00] [snorts] being built uh designed and
[59:03] then the inception of this district kind
[59:04] of concurrently happened uh PK County
[59:07] contributed another um just shy of
[59:10] $600,000 in ARPA funds as well to upsize
[59:13] the physical infrastructure uh in order
[59:16] to serve a broader area within Pulk
[59:19] Norman and Klay County.
[59:20] >> So I'm hearing grants and counties
[59:22] cities but no corporations. No, no. It's
[59:26] all state, federal, local seeking.
[59:31] >> Thank you. Now clarify.
[59:32] >> There is a different operation that's
[59:34] going in North Dakota that may help with
[59:37] a connection
[59:38] our direction
[59:40] um Riverview Dairy if you're familiar.
[59:43] Um they're out of Morris, Minnesota, but
[59:45] they build large 25,000 cows [snorts]
[59:50] operation.
[59:52] um and and they need water, but that is
[59:54] on the North Dakota side. Um there's two of them going in on the
[59:58] North Dakota side. Um also, we've
[1:00:00] secured um through Senator Clolobashar
[1:00:03] um she secured 1.75 million for the for
[1:00:06] Norman County and then also 1.75 million
[1:00:09] for Felton um that we are currently in
[1:00:12] the process of working through with EPA
[1:00:14] on our on our budget. Um but those those
[1:00:17] funds should be released um hopefully in
[1:00:19] the next 40 45 days or so that we can
[1:00:22] start expending some of those dollars
[1:00:24] for the final design and then
[1:00:27] infrastructure.
[1:00:29] One other so like as like like some
[1:00:32] small cities as they finance things
[1:00:34] through like USDA or um um you know
[1:00:38] through PPL the PPL list that uh like
[1:00:43] city of Hallid is a good example and I I live this every day but um so
[1:00:48] we're trying to secure $3.2 million and
[1:00:50] most of it's for water access charge so
[1:00:53] that the North Dakota side of things can
[1:00:55] get built out. It'll be owned by the
[1:00:56] North Dakota side of things and then
[1:00:58] West Central will actually take over on
[1:01:01] the Minnesota side to serve the city of
[1:01:03] Hallstead, but it will be a H Hallstead
[1:01:05] kind of funded um project, but in that same in the opposite of what we
[1:01:11] could do is that we could build a new
[1:01:13] plant for about $3.5 million and then we
[1:01:16] have, you know, the same same aquifer,
[1:01:19] same well, same everything and then but
[1:01:22] we have a new plant. And um as far as my
[1:01:25] council is concerned, they'd rather have
[1:01:26] better quality water and and kind of go
[1:01:29] with the pipeline project.
[1:01:32] >> Thank you for indulging us.
[1:01:34] >> You're you're very welcome. Anytime.
[1:01:36] [laughter]
[1:01:37] [snorts]
[1:01:39] >> Any other questions for Lucas?
[1:01:43] » Thank you for your Thank you for your
[1:01:45] time, Stephen. Thank you.
[1:01:46] >> Yeah, thank you.
[1:01:49] >> If you have any questions, you know to
[1:01:50] file me.
[1:01:54] Okay, moving on. Uh, discussion
[1:01:56] regarding the Tri Valley Grant.
[1:02:00] Yes, sir. I'll keep I'll try to keep
[1:02:02] these short, get this out of here in a
[1:02:05] relatively short period. Um, so, uh, in
[1:02:07] the original deed redevelopment grant
[1:02:09] request, uh, that was proposed to
[1:02:10] council on January 20th, original grant
[1:02:13] amount was for $650,000.
[1:02:16] Uh, that deed redevelopment grant is a
[1:02:18] 50% match. So meaning at that time the
[1:02:21] city would have been responsible for
[1:02:22] $325,000
[1:02:24] if awarded that grant. Um the original
[1:02:28] grant request of $650,000 was
[1:02:30] anticipating the approximate cost to
[1:02:32] demo and redevelop that property. Um
[1:02:35] that number um to my knowledge was
[1:02:37] estimated from speaking with contractors
[1:02:40] um back in like 2024.
[1:02:43] So, in an attempt to obtain an updated
[1:02:45] demo cost as required by this uh deed
[1:02:48] grant, uh the city asked AE2s to provide
[1:02:51] an estimate just to uh try to get us
[1:02:53] closer on what that cost may u be. And
[1:02:57] according to AE2S, the demo costs were
[1:02:59] estimated at approximately, and these
[1:03:00] are all approximate. So, uh don't hold
[1:03:02] this for anything more than what it is,
[1:03:04] but just over $1.3 million. Um, and this
[1:03:07] estimate does not include uh any
[1:03:10] infrastructure anticipated to be
[1:03:11] incorporated with the highway 2 uh
[1:03:13] reconstruct project. Uh, doesn't include
[1:03:16] any tipping fees or disposal fees and
[1:03:19] does not include any uh temporary
[1:03:21] shoring related to any basement or
[1:03:23] foundation removal uh if needed. So, it
[1:03:26] it's it's not likely. It's it's a known
[1:03:28] that the demo costs are going to likely
[1:03:30] exceed that $1.3 million.
[1:03:34] So after receiving this update
[1:03:36] information, uh Taylor and I had further
[1:03:38] discussion and she informed me that uh
[1:03:40] in relation to this project uh that that
[1:03:44] we could increase that grant amount uh
[1:03:46] to the for this project up to $984,000.
[1:03:51] Again, based on on the engineering uh
[1:03:54] demo cost that we received. And again,
[1:03:57] uh the numbers, uh for this grant, they
[1:04:00] wouldn't include engineering, any
[1:04:01] contingencies, permitting, um and and a
[1:04:04] few other things. Um so, if we were
[1:04:07] awarded uh this grant for $984,000,
[1:04:11] again, it would be a 50% match. The city
[1:04:14] would be responsible for uh just over
[1:04:16] $492,000.
[1:04:18] Um so given that the grant application
[1:04:20] was February 1st um prior to any council
[1:04:23] meetings u I did authorize Taylor to
[1:04:25] increase that amount from 650,000 to
[1:04:28] 984.
[1:04:30] Um, so again, if the project costs are
[1:04:33] similar to AE2S's
[1:04:36] estimates, uh, we awarded this grant
[1:04:39] from deed increasing that amount to
[1:04:40] 984,000.
[1:04:42] The city would be responsible for about
[1:04:45] $866,000.
[1:04:48] Uh, notification if we do receive the
[1:04:50] grant would be approximately 6 to8
[1:04:51] weeks. So, we'd hope to hopefully to
[1:04:54] hear something in April. Uh however,
[1:04:56] just given the timeline and everything,
[1:04:58] I'm not sure how competitive we will be
[1:04:59] on this grant given some of the
[1:05:01] requirements. Um so if we don't receive
[1:05:04] the grant, um
[1:05:07] the next opportunity to apply for this
[1:05:09] grant would be August 1st, which would
[1:05:12] be too late to have the building
[1:05:13] demolished in 2026 or before any of the
[1:05:17] uh 2027 DOT Highway 2 reconstruct
[1:05:21] projects. So, um, again, we've had some
[1:05:24] meetings with A2S. We're currently
[1:05:26] working with them to draft and we will
[1:05:27] be publishing an RFP for the demo
[1:05:29] project. Uh, but regardless if we
[1:05:32] receive the grant or not, uh, we are
[1:05:34] going to have to demo that building in
[1:05:36] 2026.
[1:05:38] Um, so that means that, uh, we would
[1:05:41] likely have to include the demo cost of
[1:05:43] Tri Valley into a bond. Um we're
[1:05:47] actually meeting a few of us are meeting
[1:05:49] with Ellers on Monday the 9th to discuss
[1:05:52] bonding for the industrial park. We'll
[1:05:54] also be discussing or I'll bring up you
[1:05:56] know options or or ideas for bonding for
[1:05:58] the Tri Valley project. So again, this
[1:06:01] is uh just more discussion uh
[1:06:04] informative to just let council know
[1:06:07] that we did increase the grant amount
[1:06:09] and that um unless there's other
[1:06:12] directions, we are likely going to have
[1:06:13] to demo that project or that building. I can tell you um A2S, myself, Mr.
[1:06:19] Gatsman and uh Matt Upgrren from
[1:06:22] Minnesota DOT who is leading that
[1:06:24] Highway 2 reconstruct project. [snorts]
[1:06:27] We did meet last week and uh we
[1:06:29] discussed the the options of what if we
[1:06:32] didn't uh tear down Tri Valley and what
[1:06:34] if we did and you know uh Mindot is
[1:06:38] confident in their design that if the
[1:06:39] building was there um that semi- traffic
[1:06:43] and and vehicle traffic would be able to
[1:06:45] make that turn on that intersection.
[1:06:47] However, if the building was removed,
[1:06:50] they would look at likely uh purchasing
[1:06:53] some of that property and recessing that
[1:06:55] intersection and and making more room
[1:06:57] for pedestrians. As we know, it's with
[1:06:59] that building there, it's a very tight
[1:07:01] intersection for pedestrians to stand on
[1:07:03] that corner and wait and monitor for
[1:07:05] traffic. So, um you know, that
[1:07:08] discussion went on as as we do have time
[1:07:11] even though the plans now I think we're
[1:07:12] coming up to 60% on that highway to
[1:07:14] reconstruct. Uh however, talking to Matt
[1:07:17] and A2S, I mean um you know, if it was
[1:07:20] decided to take this building down in
[1:07:22] 2026, which we're fairly confident we
[1:07:24] can do, um you know, they would redesign
[1:07:26] that intersection to accommodate for
[1:07:29] that. Uh again, maybe recess it back,
[1:07:32] have some more room for pedestrians to
[1:07:34] stand there while they're waiting for uh
[1:07:36] traffic. So, um,
[1:07:40] again, just wanted to inform council
[1:07:41] that the numbers are obviously more than
[1:07:44] double what we maybe originally
[1:07:45] anticipated and kind of what again,
[1:07:48] unless there's any other direction on
[1:07:49] that building, what what we would like
[1:07:50] to move forward with uh as a city and
[1:07:53] how that looks and of course there'll be
[1:07:55] much more discussion to come in front of
[1:07:56] council with bonding and other amounts
[1:07:58] like that.
[1:07:59] >> More the more we delay it, then it gets
[1:08:01] more expensive each time we start the
[1:08:03] process again. Right.
[1:08:04] >> It does. And if we don't get this grant,
[1:08:06] like I said, the next opportunity we
[1:08:08] would have to apply for it is in August.
[1:08:09] And um you know, that would just we
[1:08:11] wouldn't have any summer left to to take
[1:08:13] this building down.
[1:08:14] >> Um you know, and the whole idea or plan
[1:08:16] would be to remove that building this
[1:08:19] summer so that it's you know, obviously
[1:08:21] gone and ready for next year, 2027, when
[1:08:25] we uh start that Highway 2 reconstruct
[1:08:27] project. So
[1:08:28] >> how how will we sew off in that
[1:08:30] estimate?
[1:08:32] You know, those are just the numbers
[1:08:33] that I received from u prior staff.
[1:08:36] [snorts]
[1:08:36] I'm not uh um talking or getting some
[1:08:40] numbers from other contractors, but
[1:08:41] again, those numbers were old. Um AE2s,
[1:08:44] uh they're a great firm to work with. Um
[1:08:46] they included, you know, all the
[1:08:48] necessary things that were maybe
[1:08:49] overlooked. They've compared it to
[1:08:51] several buildings in our region or area
[1:08:52] that have been torn down about similar
[1:08:54] size. Uh, you know, there's some other
[1:08:56] factors that were maybe overlooked as
[1:08:57] far as possible historical value of that
[1:09:00] building and what we'd have to do to
[1:09:01] accomplish that to tear it down. Um,
[1:09:05] just a much more detailed likely um,
[1:09:08] realistic bid that we would be looking
[1:09:10] at.
[1:09:10] >> The person that was gathering that bid
[1:09:12] did not use
[1:09:13] >> excuse me,
[1:09:14] >> the person that had gathered that bid
[1:09:15] for us before did not use
[1:09:17] [clears throat]
[1:09:18] to get that information. It's It's
[1:09:19] likely things were overlooked
[1:09:21] >> and and I don't think uh they included
[1:09:24] [clears throat] they were just looking
[1:09:25] at demo of the building that not
[1:09:27] including the tipping fees.
[1:09:30] >> Well, this this is not including tipping
[1:09:32] fees either.
[1:09:33] >> So, that 1.3 estimate is not including
[1:09:37] tipping fees.
[1:09:40] >> Any idea how much tipping fees are,
[1:09:42] Stephen?
[1:09:43] >> I mean, Walmart [clears throat]
[1:09:45] it could go as high as 100 grand
[1:09:47] possibly. Um some of the next steps that
[1:09:52] uh we had kind of thought and discussing
[1:09:54] with Darren and um last week is uh I
[1:09:59] think it would be kind of at this point
[1:10:01] it would make a lot of sense to do um a
[1:10:04] little bit more thorough cost estimate
[1:10:05] now that we have a little bit of time um
[1:10:08] walk through the building. We got the
[1:10:10] architectural plans today, see how much
[1:10:11] mass is there. Um, and just do a little
[1:10:14] bit more factf finding to kind of help
[1:10:16] shore up that cost a little bit, too.
[1:10:19] >> So, you recommend we should have done
[1:10:20] that before and come to you guys with a
[1:10:22] lot more time for you to do that?
[1:10:24] >> It it would have been helpful, but um
[1:10:26] yeah, that that just wasn't time audit.
[1:10:28] That's kind of some numbers we had
[1:10:30] pulled off of some uh historical
[1:10:33] tearowns in the Red River Valley that we
[1:10:35] had just um been a part of. So,
[1:10:37] >> are there any materials in the building
[1:10:39] that could be sold such as copper or
[1:10:42] >> I don't know,
[1:10:43] >> you know, sometimes uh and Stephen can
[1:10:45] lightly, but sometimes depending on the
[1:10:48] contract they would hire to demo that
[1:10:50] that's taken into account and sometimes
[1:10:52] is, you know, reduced from the amount of
[1:10:54] demo as they would get that, you know,
[1:10:56] as far as they could recycle or use that
[1:10:58] for some other purposes.
[1:11:01] >> Is that listed under historic?
[1:11:03] >> I believe it is.
[1:11:06] We're checking into that. But again, we were talking about this last week. I
[1:11:10] think
[1:11:11] >> again, don't quote us on the years, but
[1:11:12] it isn't anything prior to 1960ish.
[1:11:15] >> It uh I did a find that out Friday. So,
[1:11:19] um if it's over 50 years old, that's
[1:11:20] considered historic.
[1:11:22] >> Uh so, I actually have meeting lined up
[1:11:25] with a couple architectural historians
[1:11:28] to kind of figure out what those steps
[1:11:30] look like. Um, sometimes what you'll
[1:11:34] have to do is [clears throat] maybe put
[1:11:35] together a video of the building or a
[1:11:38] plaque there or something. Uh, there'll
[1:11:41] just be a little bit of factf fighting
[1:11:42] that we have to do with them as well.
[1:11:44] So, um, we'll have more details in the
[1:11:47] coming week on that.
[1:11:48] >> I like what you said because you said 50
[1:11:50] and since I'm over 50, I'm historic.
[1:11:53] [laughter]
[1:11:55] » You get a plaque.
[1:11:57] Um, so, so I, you know, I came into this
[1:12:00] late, obviously everyone else here has
[1:12:02] been, uh, discussing this for some time.
[1:12:05] I I I assume that that although I'm
[1:12:08] never supposed to assume, but I'm going
[1:12:10] to assume that that this is really about
[1:12:14] safety
[1:12:15] and that and and that [clears throat]
[1:12:18] the other side of not tearing it down,
[1:12:20] it was looked into to see was there a
[1:12:22] way to keep that building and still make
[1:12:24] it safe place when people exit or
[1:12:27] walking down that sidewalk. That was
[1:12:28] looked into. Right. Were there any other
[1:12:31] possibilities of not tearing the
[1:12:32] building down? We have had a few
[1:12:35] >> p that way for people walking in that
[1:12:37] area.
[1:12:37] >> We have had some people approach us and
[1:12:40] some interest in possibly purchasing
[1:12:41] that building and redeveloping it into
[1:12:43] housing or something else. Um but you
[1:12:46] know given the the the studies that you
[1:12:48] know Minnesota DOT has done and deemed
[1:12:50] that intersection critical and given the
[1:12:52] space I think it would be in our best
[1:12:54] interest to remove that building to gain
[1:12:57] that access for pedestrians and and for
[1:12:59] the intersection for turning of semis.
[1:13:01] Um, I mean they're they're confident in
[1:13:03] their designs that they could move
[1:13:04] forward as is with that building there.
[1:13:07] Again, it just restricts that
[1:13:08] intersection to about six or eight feet
[1:13:11] for pedestrians to stand there.
[1:13:13] >> So, I don't know if I answered your
[1:13:14] question, but
[1:13:17] >> just
[1:13:17] >> exactly [clears throat]
[1:13:19] I'm sorry. So, go ahead.
[1:13:21] >> I mean, they they did do that build out
[1:13:22] there and they've done things to like
[1:13:25] try to make it safer and I mean, and it
[1:13:28] didn't work.
[1:13:29] >> Yeah. And so I guess when when it's that
[1:13:31] expensive then you're forced to relook
[1:13:33] at okay do I but if it's a safety is
[1:13:36] it's sort of this okay
[1:13:37] >> that is that it would be that's the
[1:13:39] primary reason or I guess the primary
[1:13:41] purpose of tearing that building down
[1:13:43] would be for safety for pedestrians and you know for motorists to be able to
[1:13:48] safely turn at that intersection
[1:13:50] specifically semis because remember the
[1:13:52] highway 2 reconstruct project they are
[1:13:54] you know reducing to two lanes and
[1:13:55] expanding the sidewalks and a bike lane
[1:13:58] which will narrow that intersection for
[1:14:00] turning for larger vehicles like semis.
[1:14:04] >> So, what's it look like for
[1:14:07] bonding for that for our yearly um
[1:14:12] I mean I know you got some other stuff
[1:14:13] you want to bond for, but I mean
[1:14:16] >> we're going to try to get the big
[1:14:17] picture as far as bonding at least for
[1:14:19] this year. You know, we have the
[1:14:20] industrial park, we'd have Tri Valley to
[1:14:22] worry about that would be likely 2026
[1:14:25] bonding. There's been talk about doing,
[1:14:27] you know, temporary bonds until we're done with the Highway 2
[1:14:30] reconstruct project uh and then rolling
[1:14:32] them into a general obligation bond. Uh
[1:14:35] I don't know all the answers for that.
[1:14:36] Like I said, we're meeting on Monday to
[1:14:37] discuss that further. Um you know,
[1:14:39] however, if we uh you know, temporary
[1:14:41] bond you make only interest payments on.
[1:14:43] Uh temporary bond is typically up to
[1:14:45] three years, which can be extended for
[1:14:46] another three years if needed. Um, if we
[1:14:49] just elected to go right into a general
[1:14:50] obligation bond, year one of 2027 would
[1:14:54] be an interest payment and then moving
[1:14:56] forward would be the actual payments
[1:14:58] roughly easy math to get ballpark on the
[1:15:00] payment amount which again know that
[1:15:02] dollar amount is about 8% of that's
[1:15:04] going to be your annual payment for
[1:15:05] that.
[1:15:07] you know, is that something we can
[1:15:08] swing, do you think, as as a city, with
[1:15:10] all of our other challenges that we
[1:15:12] have? And,
[1:15:13] >> you know, like [snorts] like we've
[1:15:14] discussed earlier in budget season and
[1:15:15] that with these projects coming forward,
[1:15:17] there's going to have to be some serious
[1:15:18] discussions in 2027, moving forward on
[1:15:21] operational costs and and services we
[1:15:24] provide to make sure we can accommodate
[1:15:25] all that. We could likely be looking for
[1:15:28] um you know, 27 and beyond uh bond
[1:15:30] projects of you know, 250 plus thousand
[1:15:33] a year in bond payments if not. I mean,
[1:15:34] is it and I know some of this is hard,
[1:15:36] but is it possible once we decide to go
[1:15:41] if we go forward with this, we get a a
[1:15:44] kind of a firm number on how much our
[1:15:46] how much we'll be bonding and how much
[1:15:48] of that's we're going to have to pay
[1:15:50] yearly? I mean, can is that something
[1:15:52] that can happen when we decide this?
[1:15:54] >> Yeah, absolutely. We would have a
[1:15:55] structure that would be provided on
[1:15:57] exactly what that would look like
[1:15:58] >> and then what you know and after getting
[1:16:00] that then we as a group can decide you
[1:16:02] know what what does that look like for
[1:16:03] our
[1:16:04] >> absolutely
[1:16:05] >> they would have an they would have a
[1:16:06] percentage amorization schedule
[1:16:08] everything they're showing council
[1:16:09] before they move forward. Absolutely.
[1:16:16] my my concern about selling uh you know
[1:16:20] if there was a someone interested in
[1:16:21] buying a Tri Valley building and they
[1:16:24] purchase it, how long are they going to
[1:16:26] sit on it to repurpose it? I mean, we've
[1:16:29] got a few of those buildings in Krookson
[1:16:32] already that
[1:16:34] >> Well, like like you said, if somebody
[1:16:36] buys it for housing now, we probably got
[1:16:39] a bunch more people down there in a
[1:16:40] dangerous intersection going in and out
[1:16:43] of there. That's probably not helping
[1:16:44] the situation as far as safety.
[1:16:47] >> True. So I I I just I just look at the
[1:16:50] history of our some of our older
[1:16:52] buildings in Krookton that are purchased
[1:16:55] by individuals and they got grand ideas
[1:16:57] and they never come to fruition. So
[1:17:01] that's my issue that that was part of
[1:17:03] the reason u prior to the prior
[1:17:06] community development director leaving
[1:17:07] on trying to do a downtown tiff district
[1:17:10] for the downtown Krookton and add it up
[1:17:12] through Tri Valley. Obviously,
[1:17:13] incentives for current business owners
[1:17:15] or ones that are looking to establish
[1:17:17] business in Krookton and also for that
[1:17:19] property um if someone part of the grant
[1:17:22] requirements would be that someone if we
[1:17:25] get a grant for Tri Valley that a
[1:17:26] developer would have to come in there
[1:17:27] and develop that property or build
[1:17:29] something on there. Um you know, a tiff
[1:17:32] district would help with that. However,
[1:17:34] if they didn't within 5 years, this is
[1:17:36] other reasons why this grant is maybe
[1:17:38] not a good fit for us. We're not sure
[1:17:39] yet. if if someone didn't build or
[1:17:42] develop that property within 5 years,
[1:17:43] we'd owe the full amount of the grant
[1:17:45] back also. So, not saying it wouldn't
[1:17:48] happen, but there are like anything,
[1:17:49] there's contingencies or risks with
[1:17:51] anything we do.
[1:17:56] » A lot to absorb. Anything else on this
[1:17:59] discussion?
[1:18:01] >> Just like I said, I'll keep you informed
[1:18:03] as we go forward. I just want to be as
[1:18:04] upfront with you, council, and
[1:18:06] everything that we're doing as we move
[1:18:07] forward. So, thank you.
[1:18:08] >> Thank you. Thank you. [clears throat]
[1:18:12] >> All right, one more uh cheetah
[1:18:13] discussion.
[1:18:15] >> Okay, again, thank you, your honor. Um,
[1:18:17] so yeah, I just want to discuss with
[1:18:18] council what I'm proposing
[1:18:20] reorganization of the housing and
[1:18:22] crooken community development positions.
[1:18:25] Um, I presented this plan to the cheetah
[1:18:27] board on January 7 or 27th at their last
[1:18:31] board meeting and it was very
[1:18:32] wellreceived.
[1:18:34] Um again just a little history uh with
[1:18:37] some of the problems that have occurred
[1:18:39] um in the past under the current
[1:18:41] organizational structure. Um you know
[1:18:44] prior to um Carrie being hired as
[1:18:47] community development director uh if
[1:18:49] council remembers maybe some Robert
[1:18:51] Barnes served as a community development
[1:18:53] director and executive director of
[1:18:56] Cheetah. Um again Robert did have
[1:18:59] extensive experience in community
[1:19:01] development. However, um learning or as
[1:19:03] time went on, uh that he had to also
[1:19:06] serve as the executive director
[1:19:07] overseeing housing. Uh he ultimately
[1:19:10] elected to resign his position. Uh in
[1:19:13] the absence of a community development
[1:19:15] director, uh city administrator Corpy
[1:19:17] Reynolds served as the executive
[1:19:19] director for eight months uh prior to
[1:19:22] Carrie being hired. Um when Carrie was
[1:19:25] hired by the city as community
[1:19:27] development director, she also served as
[1:19:29] the executive director of Cheetah and
[1:19:31] appointed Terresa Taran um as the
[1:19:34] Krookton housing director shortly after
[1:19:37] um she was hired by the city of
[1:19:38] Krookton. As time went on, u there
[1:19:41] became several concern uh concerning
[1:19:43] staffing issues between housing and the
[1:19:45] executive director which created
[1:19:47] difficult working environment
[1:19:49] [clears throat]
[1:19:49] >> and lack of communication between staff.
[1:19:52] uh these staffing issues continued for
[1:19:54] an extended period of time and were not
[1:19:57] uh resolved during the prior community
[1:19:59] development director's tenure. Um I did
[1:20:02] introduce this plan to the prior
[1:20:03] community development director. Uh but
[1:20:05] then again after learning of uh they
[1:20:08] would be resigning their position, I
[1:20:10] decided to wait before moving forward
[1:20:11] with this plan. Um so like I said as I
[1:20:15] stated there's been a strain
[1:20:16] relationship in housing and the
[1:20:18] community and prior community of
[1:20:19] development directors uh and the strain
[1:20:22] relation relationship between prior
[1:20:25] community development directors and past
[1:20:26] city administrators. So uh I I think
[1:20:29] past has shown that the current
[1:20:30] structure between housing and community
[1:20:31] development hasn't been working and that
[1:20:34] something needs to be changed moving
[1:20:35] forward. So what I'm proposing is to
[1:20:37] revise the job descriptions of the
[1:20:39] community development director and the
[1:20:41] housing director. So the community
[1:20:43] development director job description
[1:20:44] would stay very similar uh to what it is
[1:20:47] except uh the executive director title
[1:20:49] of cheetah would be removed from that
[1:20:52] job description. Uh the community
[1:20:54] development director would still oversee
[1:20:55] the community development city budget
[1:20:58] and they would oversee the EDA or
[1:21:00] cheetah budget. uh community development
[1:21:02] director would uh be a direct report to
[1:21:04] the city administrator as they always
[1:21:06] have been and they would continue to
[1:21:08] work with the cheetah board on current
[1:21:10] and future community and economic
[1:21:12] development projects. Uh the housing
[1:21:14] director's job description would also
[1:21:16] have some minor revisions and moving
[1:21:18] forward uh they would also be a direct
[1:21:22] report to the city administrator not the
[1:21:24] community development director. However,
[1:21:27] to do this, um, the Cheetah bylaws would
[1:21:30] need to be revised to state that the
[1:21:32] executive director of Cheetah would be
[1:21:34] the city administrator. Um, the housing
[1:21:38] director again would continue to be
[1:21:40] responsible for the housing budget and
[1:21:42] they would report to the Cheetah board
[1:21:44] as they currently do. Um
[1:21:47] the city administrator as the executive
[1:21:49] director Cheetah would sign off on or
[1:21:51] approve any housing relating systems and
[1:21:54] transfer of any funds. Um and that would
[1:21:58] apply basically to housing or HUD. You
[1:22:00] know, originally when I was going
[1:22:02] through this and trying to create this
[1:22:03] plan, I wanted to eliminate the
[1:22:05] executive uh director title completely.
[1:22:08] However, the executive director title
[1:22:10] needs to remain in place for housing or
[1:22:13] HUD requirements, not EDA requirements.
[1:22:16] Um, so in summary, uh, I guess the
[1:22:18] change that I'm looking for again is
[1:22:20] that the community development director
[1:22:21] and housing director would report to the
[1:22:23] city administrator and they would each
[1:22:25] be in charge of their respective budgets
[1:22:27] and staff. The city administrator would
[1:22:29] serve as the executive director of
[1:22:31] Cheetah. U, I've spoken with Teresa and
[1:22:34] Taylor about this extensively. They both
[1:22:37] agree with the changes. Um, I've also
[1:22:39] spoke with Tanner, our city attorney,
[1:22:41] who has also consulted with Steven
[1:22:43] Larson, um, and the League of Minnesota
[1:22:45] Cities. There's nothing preventing us to
[1:22:48] make this change. Um, and like I said
[1:22:51] previously, uh,
[1:22:54] you know, the reorganization, housing,
[1:22:56] and community development director
[1:22:57] positions were wellreceived by the
[1:22:59] Cheetah board. Uh, they actually made
[1:23:01] two motions that day. One motion to
[1:23:03] approve the reorganization.
[1:23:05] uh motions they made and they were both
[1:23:06] accepted and second to appoint the city
[1:23:09] administrator as interimm executive
[1:23:11] director of cheetah and that's basically
[1:23:14] to kind of keep moving forward with the
[1:23:16] HUD requirement so we don't slow
[1:23:18] anything down or any processes there um
[1:23:20] so moving forward I'd be looking to
[1:23:23] revise those job descriptions revise the
[1:23:25] cheetah bylaws uh again to state that
[1:23:28] the city administrator would be the
[1:23:29] executive director of cheetah and would
[1:23:32] present the updated bylaws uh at any
[1:23:35] future meetings at the cheetah board and
[1:23:36] the city council for approval. Um, and
[1:23:39] again, I just continue to work with
[1:23:41] Taylor and Teresa on the daily workflow
[1:23:43] of of each of their respective
[1:23:45] organizations and organizing that as we
[1:23:47] move forward. So, I guess in closing,
[1:23:49] I'm just, you know, looking for
[1:23:50] discussion from council and again a
[1:23:52] count consensus to hopefully support the
[1:23:55] reorganization of these job descriptions
[1:23:57] in cheetah.
[1:23:58] >> So, I think I think this is a good move.
[1:24:01] Um,
[1:24:02] >> as many of you know, back when I first
[1:24:04] got on the council, it was we made we
[1:24:06] made some changes with the cheetah and
[1:24:08] we got the the director to answer to the
[1:24:11] city administrator. Therefore, in a
[1:24:14] roundabout way answer to the city
[1:24:17] residents of Krookton through us us
[1:24:20] council members. So, I think I think
[1:24:22] that's a good move. The thing that we
[1:24:23] didn't we didn't finish the job. I
[1:24:27] think we like with what Darren is
[1:24:28] presenting here is um you know making
[1:24:31] the the housing director report directly
[1:24:33] to the administrator as well as the is
[1:24:36] the um cheetah director and I think it
[1:24:38] just it makes it everything clean at
[1:24:41] that point.
[1:24:43] So, as somebody on the cheetah board, um
[1:24:46] there [snorts] has I don't know how much
[1:24:48] everyone's been aware, but there has
[1:24:49] been some very much confusion and
[1:24:51] contention of who reports to who, where,
[1:24:55] who goes to who for what, who can
[1:24:59] oversee what. And I mean, there hasn't
[1:25:02] been clear answers. Um there has been a
[1:25:04] lot of back and forth over the last year
[1:25:06] between legal, between HR, and all of
[1:25:08] that. And there has not been a clear
[1:25:10] answer that we can see through. this
[1:25:12] would be a clear clean answer. It would
[1:25:15] give a lot of clarity to everyone over
[1:25:18] within those departments um for every
[1:25:21] position within that department. Um we
[1:25:23] discussed it at the last cheetah board.
[1:25:25] Um it seemed to be a consensus there
[1:25:28] that everyone agreed that this would be
[1:25:29] a great move. So from that standpoint,
[1:25:32] the cheetah board from our you know at
[1:25:35] that time at our last meeting supported
[1:25:37] this move also. And I think that speak
[1:25:41] when people know who is who to speak
[1:25:44] with and al also
[1:25:47] cooperate with is very important. I
[1:25:50] think this is a good plan. you know, and
[1:25:53] I've spoken in detail with Theres also
[1:25:55] because I didn't want to burden the city
[1:25:57] administrator position uh with, you
[1:25:59] know, is there an excess amount of work
[1:26:01] that comes with this helping with
[1:26:02] housing and uh you know, she's detailed
[1:26:05] that list and and I've spoken in detail
[1:26:07] and it's it's at uh you know, quarterly
[1:26:12] uh reporting uh approving uh transfer of
[1:26:14] funds uh maybe monthly but usually you
[1:26:16] know quarterly um it would be part of an
[1:26:19] email chain uh through HUD. I would
[1:26:21] create an email account that myself,
[1:26:24] Teresa, and Tanya could could read or
[1:26:27] see for that communication. So, it's not overwhelming. I did speak with
[1:26:30] Corki who did that position for about 8
[1:26:32] months. And and again, really how it
[1:26:35] boils down to is it's not any different
[1:26:37] than any other department in the city of
[1:26:39] Krookton reporting to the city
[1:26:40] administrator. Each department head or
[1:26:42] director is responsible for about 98% of
[1:26:44] their budget current or or um
[1:26:47] organization currently. their
[1:26:49] department. You know, like anything,
[1:26:50] there are things that city administrator
[1:26:52] needs to sign off or and approve and and
[1:26:54] this just really wouldn't be anything
[1:26:56] different. You know, in speaking with uh
[1:26:58] you know, the Josh Mack, the the
[1:27:01] president also tried to come up with
[1:27:03] other ideas. It's it's just impossible
[1:27:04] for the board president or a board
[1:27:06] member to oversee daily operations,
[1:27:08] day-to-day operations of of housing. I
[1:27:11] think this just provides a solution to
[1:27:13] have a person that there's every day to
[1:27:15] help with that and move forward. So, um,
[1:27:18] like I said, Taylor and Teresa have been
[1:27:19] very receptive of this. Have been
[1:27:21] working closely with Teresa moving
[1:27:22] forward on on getting accounts changed,
[1:27:24] people's names on accounts and what that
[1:27:26] looks like. So, um,
[1:27:29] sounds [cough and clears throat] good.
[1:27:31] Um, yeah, I think I think it's put a lot
[1:27:33] of work into it, Darren. Um, I think
[1:27:35] it's a good move, too. Um, separation of
[1:27:38] duties each are in their own lane
[1:27:41] basically and moving forward. So any
[1:27:45] other discussion on this
[1:27:47] >> other than I really appreciate
[1:27:49] >> No, like I said, I appreciate that. I
[1:27:51] will um
[1:27:52] >> Does this need uh
[1:27:53] >> Yeah, you I'll let you finish up if
[1:27:55] whatever. Yep. [clears throat]
[1:27:56] >> We need a consensus on this to and it
[1:27:58] has to go to council for
[1:28:00] >> Yeah, that would be if if we get
[1:28:01] consensus on this, I will present uh it
[1:28:03] likely won't be at the next council
[1:28:04] meeting just because of the cheetah
[1:28:06] bylaws. They need a 14-day notice before
[1:28:08] any bylaws can be changed. So, it would
[1:28:10] likely be about a month out before I'd
[1:28:12] bring anything back. What that would
[1:28:14] look like if there is a consensus is I
[1:28:15] would bring back uh the amended or
[1:28:18] revised bylaws for approval through
[1:28:20] council and then appointing city
[1:28:22] administrator executive director at that
[1:28:24] time officially.
[1:28:25] >> Okay, Mr. PL.
[1:28:26] >> So, I am in favor.
[1:28:28] >> Anybody in favor of this?
[1:28:30] >> Yes.
[1:28:32] >> Consensus is there.
[1:28:33] >> Thank you. I'll move forward with that.
[1:28:34] Thank you.
[1:28:35] >> Thank you, Darren.
[1:28:38] >> [clears throat]
[1:28:38] >> Okay, that kind of wraps it up. If
[1:28:40] nothing else, we are adjourned. Thank
[1:28:42] you everybody.
[1:28:43] >> Thank you.