[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.

City of Crookston City Council | Ways & Means Committee Meeting, February 2nd, 2026

Transcript