We'll call over the work session for uh the 18th. >> Thank you, Mayor Council. Um we have Jason Quisber here to give some information on the South Dayton water system. We're going to try to keep our conversation related to the South D water system only. Um this is a time for us to have conversations and questions. There is no set timeline for when we're done with this meeting. I assume there'll be more questions than answers out of this meeting to be honest with you. And so this will be the first meeting of likely more than one. I'm I don't know how many that will take, but um our ultimate goal from city staff's perspective is to give an answer or information back to Maple Grove by the end of next year. So it's not a super huge rush. However, the sooner we can get the information back to Maple Grove, the easier it is for us to have a further conversation with Maple Grove of what that looks like. So, um, take it away, Jason, and hopefully answer any questions that you may have. So, thank you very much. >> Okay. Um, just a couple things. I do want to warn everybody. There is a lot of information in here, so please ask questions and stop me if you're not tracking or want more more uh info or background on any of it. We just finalized this PowerPoint today at like 2:30, 3:00, something like that. And so, that's why you guys didn't got it early because we just finalized it today. Otherwise, I would have sent it out before. I was feeling guilty because I've been behind and I was like >> we will send this out following the cult meeting. So if you have any more questions you can >> grab it. >> And then the other thing I'll mention as Zach mentioned this is to focus on the south system. I do have some information in here specific to the north but that's just to kind of round out the system and and to have a complete picture. But again the the decisions to be made aren't related to the north necessarily. Just wanted to give it as some context for for part of it. Um, so just to start Well, we're done. THAT'S A >> NO, but to start, we we thought it'd be good if there is any like upfront questions or anything that anybody's looking forward to get out of this or expectations or concerns or anything that we can try to address with it or um you know, hopefully touch on on the related spots within here um just to get some ideas or >> So, you've been working with their Oh, his name Chris who's >> Chris Leon. Yep. >> Because it sounds like they're making big decisions here. >> End of next year. >> End of next year as far as distribution and then after that the softening system. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, the big the big ones are treatment and then softening. The treatment will I'll say with relative certainty the treatment will happen. Um I don't know if they're clear about the softening to be honest. They're they're definitely considering it. Um but I don't know the likelihood. But both monstrous price takes. So >> are you going to or could you um maybe for Sarah and Stephanie to talk a little bit about our current agreement with >> Yeah, I do have some information on that and um and can certainly expand on it, but I have some information specific to that that that plays a pretty important piece of the decision. So, um, and even more so the the termination of that agreement or the expiration. So, >> what are the questions you have? Sometimes it's nice just to get those questions out right away so you're not thinking about them. >> We may address them, but I just want to make sure they're out of your head so we got them done on paper first. So, that way you got space to be able to grab information as we go along here. So, >> and certainly you can stop me at any point. Um, I actually have some slides that look just like this just for opportunities to think and and see if there's anything more. But, >> um, I guess I just something just to me. Uh, whether we stick with their system or our system in either case, are we going to need a tower out there? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Yeah. There's the the storage is one that and to be honest, we're actually making assumptions. Um, but there's very little change in the storage. You know, we might build a little bit less if we're on their system because we can probably utilize some of theirs, but they're also not planning on supplying all of our storage by any means. And to be honest, I don't know if they're planning on any of it for long term. So, that's that's another item that hasn't um and I do have a spot in there where I'll point out where that adjustment or where that that uh will come into play if that's the case. So, All right. Um, yeah, again, stop me at any time, even if it's something with five slides back or haven't been discussed yet. If it comes to mind, um, certainly feel free to interrupt. U, so just an outline of what I'm hoping to go through here is just give some background on the system. you know, the existing system, how it how it is today, the planned ultimate system, what the city will need upon full buildout. Uh the cost associated with that, which there's big numbers in there, and then kind of the meat of it is how the south system is supplied, if that's to be supplied by Maple Grove, um for the short term, for the long term, partial um what that might look like. And then just some other considerations on what a continued agreement with Maple Grove may or may not um cause as far as risks or concerns. Um and then just like the status of our account and other things. So just other things to consider in the overall decision. Um and then the discussion again to just uh see if it's clear what direction we should be moving in or if nothing else um what more information we need to be able to make an informed decision. So the in introduction again just to kind of go through the background of what we have out there. I think council's probably at least somewhat familiar with what's out there, but just to go through it, the water supply here in North Dayton, which is two systems, but Northeast as well as the historic village area in the northwest, uh 100% Dayton wells, Dayton supply, Dayton storage, um whatever treatment we do provide um is all Dayton. So, um there are interconnects with other cities at certain points, but those are all closed and utilized for emergency situations only. So, um, I guess that being said, there's Well, that's not the north. >> Some of the some of the west edge though is Rogers. >> Yeah, that's what I was just thinking of. That's Rogers. That's actually part of the south system. >> And to be honest, long term, we expect that to go with whatever else goes. So, there will probably be a change through there. That's that's exactly what I was going to point out, though. But um and then again for South Dayton again separate from that part of Graco that is serviced by Rogers. That's all by Maple Grove. So they we're utilizing their storage and their towers. Uh all of the water comes from their wells. Um and they do through put the water through a treatment prior to distribution uh to our users. So, the existing contract in place, uh, it was in 2006, it was entered, a 30-year agreement. It's to supply up to 5 million gallons per day. That is a peak demand. And I just point that out that 5 million gallons a day um is the most that we can use. And what that equates to generally um is about 2.8 million gallons of average daily use. So, um, and just to kind of clarify, when I'm speaking tonight, I'm going to nearly always refer to the peak demand just because it's easier and it's consistent and that's what we have to design to anyway. So, we always have to be prepared for the worst case. So, um, there is one instance where I'm going to refer back to an average day, but I'll point that out. So, generally speaking, it's the peak demand and the contract is for 5 million gallons a day. And just for reference, today we're drawing again the to make it confusing, the average is about 0.5 or 6 million gallons a day. So translates to a peak demand of about 1 million gallons. So we're at about 20% of the allowed capacity coming from Maple Grove today. Ultimate needs we expect to be between 10 and 12. It'll depend on how the city builds out and to be honest who the users are, especially in the non-residential areas because they can fluctuate greatly. There's no reference to the storage and this kind of alludes to the question the mayor asked. Uh there's no reference to it in the agreement. So nowhere does it say, at least not that I've identified, that Maple Grove will supply adequate storage to a certain amount. So to be honest, we don't really know um how much we can rely on. For the purposes of this study and what we've been looking at for costs, we're assuming that 1 million gallons worth of storage will be available from them. And that's mainly because that's what we're using today and we just figure that they'll at least supply that in the future. I I don't know beyond that. I wish I had better information, but um it's a pretty conservative estimate, I hope. Um, worst case is we build 1 million gallons of extra storage as we build out. And again, I'll point out where that becomes a potential in the in the cost of things. Uh the payment terms, I think we're aware of this as well as Maple Grove builds the infrastructure necessary to supply water to the city of Dayton as a I'll say a reimbursement or a Dayton participation each time a connection is made to the city system that is supplied with Maple Grove. Maple Grove whack charges are paid by the applicant to the city of Maple Grove. It comes through Dayton, but it's it's essentially just getting passed on to it. So that's the mechanism from which Dayton is responsible to fund that infrastructure. And then the water itself when that's delivered to the users that is just a charged at their rate same rate that residents pay in Maple Grove is my understanding is is charged to our residents. >> Do do residents also pay Dayton Whack charges or is it just the one? >> They pay both. They pay both. >> They they do. Um, yeah, there's kind of some back story there. There used to be some adjustments to but but to be honest, we weren't we still have to build our own system, so we have to collect money, too. So, it's it's just part of it. Um, and the reason we do it this way to be honest is just the transparency. Um, the other because we get questioned a lot, if I'm paying one, why the other? And my answer is always because that's the amount we need to support our needs for our system. So whether that's a Maple Grove whack plus a Dayton whack or we just inflate ours to cover both, it's going to be the same dollar amount. So um hopefully that makes sense to people. They still don't like the idea of paying two of them, but it's either pay two or pay one bigger one, I guess. So um yeah, and then just to point out again that it's a 30-year agreement, expires 2036. um we did utilize this data as kind of our uh in our analysis to target you know what's the implications prior to that that also aligns with our 10ear CIP plan which works out nicely so um that will come back in future slides here as well and then just to note that currently and this I think is good news I find it good news is we have no debt obligation to Maple Grove in other words we have paid in full for all of the infrastructure improvements that have been necessary to supply water up to, as is my understanding, the 5 million gallons per day. Again, aside from the storage, so the towers being separate. Um, I I should I should backtrack a little bit on that. There there's that's for supplying the water, but there may actually be additional charges for wells if Maple Grove finds it necessary that the wells are built for Dayton. So, I miss I misspoke there. I apologize. Um, >> we don't currently owe them money. >> We don't owe them money. So, we are debtree as of now. We may have more charges coming. We will have charges coming, but as of today, um, yes, we are in the black. So, >> have they at all indicated if they would be willing to extend >> the agreement? They they they haven't said directly and they haven't >> I haven't under I haven't heard a clear preference to be honest but they I I would say absolutely willing in fact we did talk to them and this this will come forward >> um about even some new scenarios of altering how much water they supply and that that'll become evident. So um they have seemed very open to the idea of extending. Um my guess is the the terms very well could be different. Um sure >> because of the costs and the 30 years have elapsed probably some staff and council changes as well where they might want to >> reddraft the agreement. >> Got to believe that you know if they're looking at the numbers more volume is >> Yeah. >> Oh yeah. If you have the system I mean the economy is scale it's just the additional revenue for them. So, >> and they have the physical space which was that's an important piece because we talked to them about it and they actually have excess physical land available to make other decisions. I mean, if we decide somehow to extend that, they may decide, you know, to put a 1 million gallon tank on the on board or something those lines. >> Yep. Yep. >> Yeah. So, that's that's exactly why we want to have this conversation now so you guys have time to give that so that by the end of 26 they can make an educated decision on their end and our end. So both communities are making educated decisions whether that's extending it, not extending it, whatever because they need to know well in advance as well to plan for it. So great questions. Um and then I just included this just to have some general um sometimes I kind of gloss over and I speed through these things. So I just want to make sure that there's an understanding that for one all all costs that we estimated in here are in 2025. We did not try to inflate for future years because it's always a guess when things will be needed. Um, having everything in in current dollars just makes it a lot easier to compare. So, just wanted to point that out that we nothing is adjusted for inflation in here. So, we're looking at numbers as if everything gets built overnight. So, um, and then just want to point out we used I'll say very round numbers. So they're they're highle estimates and we did roundoff numbers um just to make the math easier and we we may have adjusted some things slightly just to make the proportions a little bit easier to to follow. Um but I want to point out that they're they're still representative. It's not like we're grossly underestimating or overestimating anything to to just make the numbers look pretty. Um pretty is a terrible word because it's not going to look pretty. Um but they're they're high but they're rep or high level but they're representative. Um and then as I mentioned the contract expires in 2036 and you'll see when we did the cost breakdowns we kind of used that as the separation point just to get a better idea of again what would the city be committing to if the direction is chosen at this time. what would they be committing to prior to 2036 because that would kind of be the deadline for a system to be implemented with that decision. So that'll that'll be more evident on future slides. Um and then just very quickly a couple acronyms if you see them on the screen. KGA L is kilogans. That's 1,00 gallons. That's it. It's that simple. Um just that we use that in a lot of rates. And then the MGA L just millions of gallons just to shorten the number. Um and then MGD is a very common one on uh treatment especially that's just million gallons per day. So it's just an abbreviation. So just um if you forget, stop me and ask me what it means, but I use that a lot and I often just kind of gloss over what the meaning behind it is. Um same with the terms. Just wanted to point out and I try not to, but I often use these kind of interchangeably. They're they kind of allude to the same thing. They're slightly different measures, but anytime we're talking about supply, that means the wells draws the water out of the ground and puts it in the system. So the supply is a volume, but for purposes of this study, we use it a per each of well. So really the only difference is we just assume we're going to get pretty good wells because we have consistently got pretty good wells. So we're just going to assume they're moderate capacity. So we're just going to talk number of wells instead of the millions of gallons they can produce just to simplify it. Um storage kind of the same thing. They can come in all different sizes. So the storage needs is in the number of gallons we need to hold but the number of towers can vary. So you know four million gallons could be two towers could be four smaller towers could be varying sizes of towers but both measuring the same thing. Um one is just in volumes one is per each. And then when we refer to treatment, this one should be straightforward, but we're using two different treatment methods for the north and south cell systems. So a treatment means a treatment plant. And we have two types. So the in the north we're building satellites, which those are small individual plants that get built every other well or in the south we're planning to have a centralized one, which is one large facility where all of the wells pump to it and then the water goes through and goes out. So the satellite ones we're measuring per each and the centralized we're measuring in million gallons per day. So per size. And the reason for that is because it's not all built at once. It's too expensive. So we build part of it and then we keep expanding. So hopefully these make sense as I go through them. >> And they accomplish the same thing. >> They do. Yeah. I mean at the end of the day they're removing the same things. They use different mechanisms. are centralized will be a different basis but it they're all to accomplish the same goals >> and softening would be a whole another piece. >> Yes. And softing is quite expensive. Yeah. Um >> can I ask why the south is going to be centralized and the north is satellite? >> Sure. Um centralized is generally I'll just say cheaper lifespan or life cycle cost is is much less. It's simpler. Um, I'll say it's maybe a little more reliable. Um, in the north, uh, we don't have a lot of wells. We don't didn't when this was initiated have a lot of demand. Uh, we needed fast results because of the feedback we were getting. Um, so we had to implement or we it was chosen to implement treatment as fast as possible. And it was a whole lot quicker to get a small chunk of land next to one of the wells than it was to find large acreage that would have been centralized and then get all of our wells there. So it was more so an urgency matter I would say. So um but planning out in front of it in the south and to be honest the location of this where it would be centralized the wellfield is right along 117th right where we are anyway. So, um, it works out a lot more convenient to plan ahead and be able to coordinate the larger facility. If there's any more on that, um, I'll move into the background just showing what the existing system. And again, here's where I just included the north just so we have a complete picture of what exists in the city today. U, I won't spend much time on this. You can see the pipes. The only reason the pipes are different color, that's just size. Um, red is not bad. I'm I think that needs to be edited. These are draft form from your new updated report here. So there's not a problem with those. They're just smaller diameters all um so the Northwest currently has two wells. Again, the the thousandgalon storage tank with the pressure and there's no treatment at this time. Um trying to get state bonding money for treatment right now as well as a tower um for additional storage, but that's what services it today. And then the northeast has um will soon have three wells. It has the half million gallon tank and then it will have one satellite plant. Um the third well and the satellite plant are expected to be on I think early next year. I want to say February maybe. >> January, February. >> Okay. So early next year those should be up and running. And then just to note these currently these systems are a little over two miles apart but they will as development continues those will converge and connect at some point. So it'll become a system single system. I guess on that note north and south will be connected ultimately but they're at different pressure zones. So they they interact a little different. So we kind of treat them as two different systems despite there being physical connections. But u we won't dwell on that. concentrate on the south today. So, and then existing on the south um as stated it's everything is supplied by Maple Grove at this point. So, no wells, no storage, no treatment. Um all provided by Maple Grove currently. So, the plant ultimate system and this is this is based on the new study. In fact, these again these figures I'm using are in our draft um for this study that that should be finalized very soon here. So, um, looking at your current comp plan and and land use plan, um, and then a lot of the the data that we've seen so far as development builds out, it looks like we're we're looking very similar north and south actually. Um, pretty evenly split in in needs. So, 9 to 10 wells in each of them. three million gallons of storage in the north, which we believe just because of the timing and locations, how it's building, that'll end up being four towers. And then five sidel treatment plants in the north. Again, one for every two wells that is built are built. Um, and then the south, same number of wells, 4 million gallons of storage, but most likely can be accomplished in two towers. And then a 12 million gallon centralized treatment plant. And that that could end up being smaller, bigger, I suppose, too. Um, again, that's partially built and then expanded over time. Um, if it's trending towards less use, you just do less expansions, but we're we're planning on about 12 million gallons to be hopefully conservative. And then the cost and not just steal the uh Rick Shmer line, but if you have any glycerin, now would be the time um before you see all these zeros. So, uh, just doing the ultimate build out on these. Um, again, the north, you know, we have some some system out there, but we would still need to add five wells, um, some storage, um, and then four treatment plants as well. So, uh, the cost for all of that, again, if it were built now or overnight, is estimated to be, uh, $60 million. So, we did split this just again so we kind of know the obligation of what we'd be looking at on this CIP and during the time span of our current agreement with Maple Grove, it'd be about 28 million now. And post agreement or or beyond that would be about 31 32 million. And then if if there's interest, I just added the number of wells or towers or the amount of the plants to that would be on those times just to see where those numbers are kind of based on. But again, the south is >> looks like most of the escalation is in the in the wells. >> Um 8 million. >> We used $2 million per well. >> So there's a number next to the the giant number. There's a small number next to it. So the $8 million number means there's four wells, one at 2 million bucks each and then times by four is 8 million. Um storage would be two towers before 2036 for 12.4 million and then one more tower after 2036 for 10.3 million. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So this is maybe I'm not quite tracking on this. So it's >> 28 million before 30 2036 and and >> and 31. Yes. >> 8 after. So >> that's where you're getting your six total. >> Yes. The pre and post it's literally just split at 2036 or some close very close time frame. >> What's the point of the 2036? >> Um again it just it aligns with the current Maple Grove contract. >> So So that's that's when if that's extended, we'd have further obligations. >> Yep. And then it also aligns with our CIP numbers working this with as well. >> And this is kind of coincidental, but we have a 10-year CIP. So it also aligns with that. So, this was done to demonstrate that the anticipated cost on the CIP will probably be somewhere in the area of $28 million for water >> for the north side >> for the north side. >> And then the rest of the the cost would come some point after that 10-year period. you'll see why why we kept it that way because you'll see it in the south and we try to keep it consistent so that we're showing different numbers on the north side because we know we need to do the north no matter what >> but just try to keep it perspective wise that you're going to need to do the north no matter what because that's 100% dating. >> We also are going to have to figure out what we don't want to do with the south and just keep it consistent. We wanted to keep the same what do you want to call it table for both of them. >> Isn't most of that land stage 2040 or 2050 >> I'm so confused. So, yeah. So, one additional well in the north. >> Yeah. >> Um and most of that's because you we've we've been >> um I'll say a little less conservative maybe to to have we always want at least one well, our highest capacity well to be able to be turned off at any time. >> Y >> um or that volume at least um throughout and and we've been running pretty lean on wells because we haven't wanted to spend money. So, um we've kind of been building them as needed and we don't have a tremendous amount of redundancy. So um we do think and and that's the expectation is a lot of this doesn't get built out for some length of time. >> So that's why we have one well 2036 and the other four are coming after. >> Yes. >> I thought the will five was that redundancy. >> Um it it needs some but we need we need we need it online. So in other words, if we get to 2027 and well four or five goes down, >> well two is going to be struggling because it's a lower capacity and it draws a lot of sand. So it it just it makes a riskier situation. I mean, we basically want to always be prepared to have our best well >> go offline. >> We assumed as well we follow the same comp plan we have currently, which means there's still more 2020 land available. There's still 2030 land available. We used our current comp plan. Despite the direction that I've heard from this council, we have don't have another comp plan to utilize to say this is what we're doing. So, we utilize the current comp plan to say here's when things are going to be built out. >> If we build out what's in the comp plan, >> you got it. Exactly. So, we utilize what's in the comp plan today to figure that out. That's how we utilize to get this number. Now, that changes with the next comp plan. Well, >> these numbers might change. >> We just need to keep in mind if we don't change it, this is what we're going to get. >> Yep. Yep. And that's why I said that's why we did it is because council's aware of what we have to do. >> On that note, we are always adjusting and we and that's why our that's why we don't try to inflate costs or anything on timeline because we're going to be wrong. I mean, if we think we need it in six years, it's probably going to be four or eight or something different because it's always on a demand basis. So, >> for a lot of it. So, yeah, as Zach mentioned, I mean, as the comp plan changes or the actual growth changes for that matter, more importantly, that will adjust and some of that from the 2036 might slide to the post. So, >> and this is a silly question, but you're doing two treatment plans pre and post, but it's cheaper post. >> Oh, that' be probably how many gallons are treating. Okay. >> A day. >> Okay. >> So, I'm assuming that's a smaller plant is my guess on post 2036. >> What was that? One of them. Well, that should actually been in the other column. One of them was cheaper, the one for the village, but that should have been pre those numbers probably should have been. >> Maybe those flip-flopped. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Again, these are all in 2025, whether they're post 2036 or or today, they're still >> This is why I was like, how did >> it seems a little odd when I get them? >> But that would make sense if if we need a smaller one and then just got >> Yes. And then the towers are confusing because they're all different sizes. >> Recession and some deflation. I mean hopefully like >> can we plan that? >> You know something we don't. >> Yeah. Um so then in the south >> um have nothing today. So it's all 10 wells. >> Um and then the storage and there's benefit um because it's more storage but less towers and less money. Um so we're anticipating we can do it in two. So, one in the Wicked Industrial Park and then one's one just hopefully north and west of Dubet Lake because it's the highest area. So, accomplish it in two 2 million gallon tanks. Um, and then the treatment again would be a um centralized with the, you know, potentially the first phase would be the first first four million gallons um capacity and then it would be added as needed to go to eight and then ultimately 12. could be in three projects, could it be in two? Um those could be adjusted, but that that might be a realistic path forward, I guess, as far as the size of it. So, um yeah, huge numbers. And this is we haven't considered Maple Grove yet. So, >> um that adds to these >> um depending on which method we we move forward with. So, >> so is this this is all new capacity would be all new wells down there, right? Cuz we don't we don't own anything today. >> We don't Is this the 100% Dayton? >> This is um if there was no water down there today, this was would be what it costs. The 100% Dayton option is actually slightly more because we and next slides we'll show this. Um, so this is if we were to just build everything today and ignore Maple Grove essentially. Does that make sense? Go now. We'll see how Maple Grove influences this the Okay. Um, so how this supplies so we have an agreement with them. They have built infrastructure. They probably will build more infrastructure. uh but depending on what path forward determines how much they will build and how much we will pay. So the four scenarios we looked at or have considered for this at least is you know the 100%. In other words, if we make a commitment to say we're going to supply our own water system and essentially close the bells to Maple Grove by 2036. So before that contract expires and we don't have to renegotiate a new contract. we don't have to open up other additional obligations. Um that would be one scenario. So we have our own system. The other uh number two that's essentially what the previous agreement and plan was based on. Maple Grove will supply up to 5 MGD of water. We'll need about 10. So we'll build the other half. So it's about a 50/50 split for that. And that would be in perpetuity. Uh, another option we considered, and we actually brought this up to Maple Grove. This hasn't been discussed at any length, but we actually asked them, you know, what if we don't want to build our own system? Would you be able to expand even further and supply 100% of the Dayton water? Um, not an absolute confirmation, but there seemed to be reasonable confidence that it could be accomplished, I'll say. Um, in other words, they have the physical space to build it. it would just it just comes with a big price tag as all but um that that could be an option. And then number four, um I added this to show a I'll call it a potential consequence. um if we're unsure or if we decide to go with number two um for example or you know don't want to spend the money so we don't start building the system and we have to renegotiate a contract with Maple Grove and we have we get you know obligated to pay for the expansion costs and u the other debt that comes with that but then later decide after all those obligations are placed now we want to build our own system so now we're paying them to upsize theirs to accommodate us and we're building our full system. So it's it's just basically shown of what could happen, you know, if we delay a decision or if we if we go that path. So I don't expect that would purposely be selected, but there is there is a potential of it. And um you'll see in the summary slides how that impacts things. So again, scenario one is Dayton committing to its own system by 2036. So, basically, Maple Grove before our contract expires, we're going to close the valve. We don't need to negotiate an expansion. Um, we did include, and this is where I misspoke on the first slide. I apologize. Um, we did include costs for two more additional wells from Maple Grove. That's in case our demand grows high enough before 2036 that they have to provide more wells before we can use our own wells. I don't know if it would be likely. It's probably doubtful it'd be two. would probably more likely be one if any. Um, but we did that just to show that that could be a real cost in there that would go to Maple Grove. So again, if we were not extending the contract, no cost post 2036 to Maple Grove. And then again, the treatment, we would hope we would not be obligated to that, but we would be building out our entire system. So again that this matches this matches the previous that's a lot of slides back that it matches this plus the 4 million to maple is the only difference >> I thought the $4,000 number >> 4 million sorry >> just three zeros zeros don't mean anything right >> it's a rounding error I told you we round um so scenario two again this is Maple Grove supplies up to the five million gallons and then Dayton supplies the remaining of that estimated to probably 5 to seven million gallons additional. Um again, this is what triggers the estimate from Maple Grove for the treatment and the wells. So estimated that there would be four wells necessary. They have a little bit bigger, they have better well capacity than us. Um so they could supply more water and fewer wells. So we're estimating 9 to 10 for us probably be more like seven or eight of theirs. So either way, we used eight, so we said four um of those. And then the treatment, their preliminary estimate to us for our portion of the treatment facility expansion would be $50 million. So that's what we would be likely committed to if we were to extend the contract with them is the $50 million. So here's a and I have it bolded below, but I'll just go right to it. Here is one. this line for the treatment the split between the pre and post the 10 million and the 40 million we're not we don't have a lot of confidence or we don't really know the timeline from which that will be that obligation will be in expected right now we're paying Maple Grove through connection fees or it's just worked out to be I'm I'm kind of jumping around here this is on a later slide but $570,000 I think >> um that's what we paid them last year, something like that. Um, we're just saying, you know, probably it's a million. We're just guessing higher. So, we're saying, well, we'll keep paying them about a million dollars a year, you know, until our debt is satisfied. I don't know if Maple Grove's okay with that. That would mean that they're financing the project and they're just letting us repay them, you know, as the money comes. So, that's the $10 million. What I'm getting at is if they have a $50 million project, they may want more than a million dollars a year from us to pay that. So there might be other obligations separate from the contract that we're obligated to. Short story is it wouldn't surprise me much and I I I can't say with any certainty, but it seems plausible that Maple Grove could say you got to slide some of that 40 million into the pre 2036 column because you need to repay us faster. So just something to keep in mind. So it looks like we have a whole whole lot less cost in 2036 and maybe it works out this way. We don't know. Um, but that's just something to keep in mind that that that might be something that's out there if we have to renegotiate a extended contract. Um, and then the last three lines, I mean, these are again to essentially build out half our system. So are are compared to the 100%. So those are just cut in half. Um, and then one other and I'll just I put some assumptions at the bottom. Some of these are pretty minor. I've already touched on one of them. the or a couple of them the the 50/50 supply their water is very different than ours especially if they soften it'll be even more different but they're d different aquifer different different chemistry than ours so the the product's different they're both fine they're both safe but they're going to be different so to manage that we'd have to do one of two things we'd either have to figure out how to treat the water so close it's indistinguishable between residents which very hard to do and risky or we'd probably have to figure out how to have water districts or in other words we're going to feed this area with Maple Grove in this area with Dayton. That comes with a lot of challenges both with pressure and supply systems and just volumes. Um we probably end up building more capacity because we have to manage two separate systems instead of one combined. Does that make sense? Just I just want to point out that there's other challenges that come with this. You're talking about if we >> essentially start building our own system, but it's it's it's mixed with theirs. >> Well, I I think what we'd have to do I mean, we could do one of two things. Um, and this this this there's a lot more challenge than I'm probably leading on here, but we could basically grow using Maple Grove water >> and then when we get close to that 5 million gallons, everything new has to be fed from Dayton. That's not as easy to do as I just explained because it's not like there's a super clean line and there's growth all over and other infill. Um, so that's one option. Another would be is to distinguish that line now which is probably the route we'd go. We'd probably pick a boundary what makes sense to feed from them and one from us and then we would start building our system before the capacity is reached on theirs even if that's where the expansion wants to go in the development >> where we've developed you think that could be delineated easy enough >> it almost seems like we'd have almost like a puzzle work of >> it absolutely would um I think I think one and I I don't know if this is the right spot But one way to look at it and this is kind of based on you know what's there today what their product is Maple Grove and then where the high areas are where our towers probably go you know everything up to and it's going to have to be bigger than this just because of how it lays out but like wick industrial whole southwest whatever is on date or rod sorry whatever is on Maple Grove today stays Maple Grove and whatever expands up to maybe it's 117th and that's partly because that's where our wellfield is so we want to start our system there. Um, but I don't know if that's going to demand 5 million gallons. It might only be three. So, we might have to look for other areas we can feed without intermingling the the the systems. And I don't want to get too hung up on that scenario. I just I I did want to point that out that there's there's challenges with having two different supplies in the same interacting system. So, >> it's a concern. >> Yeah. And this is the rate that we're going today. That's what our contract says is they they will provide five million gallons a day. >> We are anticipating we'll need 10 million gallons a day in this area. So that's what our current contract is stating is a 50/50 split. They would provide half of it. We would provide the other half. So that's this is where we're going today. >> If we were to continue on the contract just to make sure everyone's clear of where we're at. >> Can you flip back one slide for just a second? >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Do you have a question on it? >> No. No. Okay. just trying to like refresh. There's a lot of I do have a summary at the end. It's not very as detailed, but maybe maybe that'll help too. >> So, we're talking um that split. So, everything that's on uh Maple Grove now is south of 117th essentially. >> Mhm. >> Right. And so, we would call that the line. And then the growth north of there as those areas become developable then that's where this new system would grow. >> That would be the date and supplied that that >> and on your other slide is that you had most of the wells north of 117th. Is that right? >> Um actually the the two sites we've retained with the Braburn Trails development are on the south but they're they're right on 117th which is close enough. >> Where was that test? >> Same same. So I either I don't know if there's a >> there was one if you >> I'm going to have to go way back. >> Yeah, there you go. You can kind of see it. >> Get off the microphone here, but there's actually one here and one here. These were retained with Brave Trail. So those two sites are secure. >> Um there's test wells drilled at both. I don't remember if we >> we actually pumped both or if it was just one, but >> I think you pump. So that once again for people who are watching it or whatever are the far right one on the bottom and then the middle one at the bottom not the one on the bottom and the left. Yeah. So that one here >> are the ones we already have testable sites. We've tested the water there. We've had the well there. That's we have the sites already set. >> The other and the well the well field maybe doesn't have to look exactly like this because it's it's going to take available land and coordination. Um the other tough part is again I don't know I we probably don't have to dwell on the specifics of this. We I just again I just wanted to point out there's there would be challenges with trying to split it somewhere. It's a lot easier if we just keep it all intermingling as a single system. So >> do do we have enough capacity house housing below 117 to to fill the five? >> No, that's what I was >> Oh. >> Okay. I'm going to throw it just because I'm curious. I didn't think so. >> No. So that that >> Yeah, I don't have a microphone, but that's all right. But that's a little bit of the challenge. I mean, exactly what you're saying. If we say this is Maple Grove, >> you know, that might only be 3 MGD, but not so then we'd have to build our system even more. So I think what we'd want to look at is is there any other areas we could pick up reasonably and keep the system separate, >> keep it attached. >> Um, part of the hard part is where the comp plan seems to be wanting to go is kind of a commercial area in here. those are your bigger water users. So, I mean, and maybe that's maybe we somehow delineate this >> um you know, to pull that back in. I mean, we we figure something out to balance it. Um it just would be kind of a shame to have it right in our well field and have to pump all our water out of the area to pump all their water back in. But, um I mean, we could work it out. It it just might be a little challenging. >> In the area on the west, that's um Rogers. >> Yes. >> Water is mostly industrial. Yes. >> Sites. >> It's only Rogers. It's >> only only one sorry only one Graco building is on Rogers Water. That is the first manufacturer in the north side. That one's on Rogers Water. That is the only one that's on Rogers Water. The other ones are on Maple Grove. >> Cubes are on Maple Grove. >> Okay. >> Cubes are on Maple Grove. >> Okay. >> Yep. Cubes and vent. The second or the south distribution facility from Greek is all in Maple Grove. >> The future headquarters GCO headquarters is to be on Maple Grove. the future building between the two that they presented on the concept plan that's to be Maple Grove. So the only one that's Rogers is only reason that's water is from Rogers is that one is also fed from Rogers sewer as well. So that's that's why it's simpler is because the other ones are all filled for our from our sewer. So it makes it simpler to go. >> So there's not a lot of demand to gain back there by pulling Rogers into the >> No, I mean it is their manufacturing but I don't think they're a real high water user. >> Not that I'm aware of. I mean they water the car. >> We could look at switching them back. irrigation. >> Green green grass. >> Oh, that's a good point. >> It is green green. Yeah. >> Yeah, it's green. Pretty cool green, >> you know. Yeah, I know. We We I still maintain we should look at that. The world has to fix that. >> Yeah. >> So dumb. >> Especially once you start softening water, you're going to put that on your grass. >> Well, that's the right. That's the killer right there is >> why >> grass like >> so the scenario three and again this is the the I'll say more recently introduced um as Dayton doesn't build the system aside from towers again we still need the storage u but Maple Grove supplies 100% of the water presumably in perpetuity um so that would just be a full buildout of their system um so just for estimating purposes we don't have a better number. We just doubled their plant size. So 50 million to 100. And then we did we just used the same ratio or percentage, but we we just estimated the payments again the pre2036 and post 2036. I don't know if those numbers would hold. Um I would question if Maple Grove would finance $50 million for us. I would further question if they would do 100. So I expect they'd probably want faster repayment. So, I think those numbers would probably adjust some, but >> from yeah, from Maple Grow's perspective, they gave us information that they currently have a 28 million gallon per day plant that could be expanded up to 50 million if needed. And so, that's where we're getting the 10 million gallons per day. Um, we could add 10 to that. So, then we'd be at 38 and then they would add another 12. So, they we would cover 50% of the cost. Rough cost of that is $200 million for the total buildout. So, half of that would be us. That's where we're getting the 10 MGD at hund00 million is $200 million build out of their water treatment plant over time. They're not expecting that to be the onetime build out, but they'll have to do it in in sections and in phases. And their current phase, their next phase is planned to be $110 million. And that's to go from 28 to 40 is $110 million for them. And so we would cover if right now we're at 5 MGD, we'd have to cover half of that. That's where we're getting about the $50 million number. Can you go back to scenario one? >> Yep. >> Okay. What am I missing here? There's no way we're producing water cheaper than them. >> We're not soft. We're not treating it. >> The because of the treatment cost, the treatment facility cost. >> I'm just saying the total total cost. >> There's no way we're producing water cheaper than Maple Grove. So what what's >> um the production the operation their operation costs are less their infrastructure costs are comparable >> right >> there they do have I will say they have a higher estimated estimate on their treatment facility costs than we believe we could build for. I think they use pressure filters. So I think they use a different method instead of gravity feed with with just media. So basically we're building cheap plants. They're they're more reliable and they're cheaper, but they're a bigger footprint. So that's why part of it they have to go in big increments because they have these big expensive filters that have to be swapped out. So and not not to dwell on it, but we there is a difference. I mean >> so their treatment is more expensive than our treatment. >> Their their infrastructure for the treatment facility is higher than ours. So if you just took that out and said ours is 55.5 million, theirs is a hundred million. >> That's the difference. >> That's the difference between the cost. So roughly, >> yeah, they're telling us it's 50 million. I think ours was at I mean to that same level was more like 35. >> That was 50 million for the first one. It would be another 50 million for >> if they went 100% 100% grow. >> Well, right. So yeah, we're >> Oh, >> so it boils down to >> we would pay 55 >> to treat it >> for our treatment. But if we paid for what they're going to treat our water for, we would pay 100 >> at 100%. Yeah. Yeah, cuz the total build out of their plant is $200 million. >> And then we probably save a well or two. >> Yep. >> Cuz they can probably produce Oh, they can >> probably can shallower, easier wells, but >> Well, okay. >> I think the biggest thing for us, at least from staff's perspective, was the cost for the treatment. >> Yeah. >> That's allocated to the city of Dayton. Whether we stay at 50/50 or 100% is just such a large number that that's what they're allocating. Like they're saying, "Okay, we need a 12 million gallon per day expansion in order to suffice you guys for your 5 million gallons per day that you guys are requesting." You're in charge of 512ths of the cost. And if the if the full 12th is $110 million, we're 512ths of that. We just round it to 50 million because it'll be 50 million. And I just used roughly half. Half is 55. I'm guessing we're somewhere between 47 and a half and $50 million. But that's the large amount of dollars that we're talking about here. And that's what made us so keen and making sure we're giving the information to council because that's a big number >> to say that's only a 50/50, not at 100 for 10 million gallons a day. >> And does this these numbers have you got the lime softening included in these or is the lime softening for me? Okay. >> 40 million $40 million. Yeah. Yeah. Um well that's cheap compared to what they're what they would hit. >> That's our portion or that's the total. >> Well we let full I think cuz from what I understood it's 40 million bucks. >> It'll be in the slides. >> Show me here still. >> Um I don't understand. I don't think it's >> our treatment is cheaper than theirs. >> I don't have the $50 million. >> I have the impact. makes no logical sense because if they see that we're about to walk away from 100 million of their cost >> Mhm. >> pretty sure they'd look at it and say, "Whoops." >> Well, different types. >> Well, they also wouldn't need that. >> They're bringing in liability, too, though. So, they might be looking at this different. I >> I don't know, but they >> they're probably more indifferent than we think. >> Yeah, >> that's my guess. >> I mean, they have their own money tree. They don't really give a about us. >> Being a being a public water supplier does bring on >> some liability. >> Oh yeah. >> So, um especially when you have other >> I mean what capacity are we adding to their is it are we 30% of what their system's going to be on that side? >> No. >> Um no we're not even close right now. They're producing >> Did you say they're at 26? >> So they're at their highest peak right now is 27 million gallons a day. >> Averaging 20 million gallons a day. >> 20 million >> 20 million gallons a day is our average. And we are at about what two >> but that area >> probably about one point something. >> How much build out do they have in that area? I would think >> this is they have I think they have one centralized treatment plant that I'm aware of. >> I think it's for the whole city. >> I think it's for the whole city. They have one treatment plant for the whole city. >> So they they're not they don't have that that that system. >> Yeah. They have the footprint available to do a 50 million gallon per day water treatment plant. One centralized system. That's what their total capacity on that >> footprint is for their building. But every time they do it, they have to switch out the entire filter and put a new filter in. And if you remember what the cost is of our filters, I think we're 2.7 million on our small satellite treatment plant if you're talking. And that only does how many million gallons a day? Do you know? >> Uh, no. I don't I don't either. But I mean that >> not 50 million. >> It's not 50 million gallons. So if you think about the size of those and the cost of those, it's insane. I would guess you're probably three or less. >> Yeah, >> I don't know. But yeah, it's cutting me down this >> I think it's a million gallons a day per million dollars is my >> or pretty dang close. So >> yeah, >> just for the filters alone is crazy. But >> but we're only 5 to 10% of their >> current production. >> Yep. So right now they're producing 20 million gallons a day on average they said and we're using about one and a half >> um peak. Yeah, I think our average >> 27 they had back in 200 >> I was thinking our average was only like 700,000 a day over the year. >> So that includes winter months. >> That was 2021 they said >> basically 5%. >> Yeah. >> And we might go up to >> 5% of their current capacity, but they're going to charge us for almost 50% of their expansion. >> Yeah. because they need to build in right now they so this is part of the conversation I had with them is how does that work when we're only 5% but they want to charge us 50% for the rest of the expansion is because they said we're you guys are just using our excess we didn't build the plant for you guys if we do we would then build the plant to make sure you guys have for sure your 5 million gallons a day right now they don't they just say we're taking their excess >> they did not like the idea of us reimbursing for the already built cheap stuff >> yep I tried Yeah, I guess. >> Is that right? >> I did. Didn't go over well. >> Did not. >> I get it. I just >> Well, it just seems like our share ought to be around 10%. >> Yeah, it does. >> I asked the same question and I got >> It should be proportional to the whole thing. >> We will for sure give you 5 million gallons a day. So, you are for sure in the next 12 million gallons per day expansion, which means you will pay 512. >> Well, I'm meeting with two of them now. So I'll uh >> so that's another that that's why the 50 million gallon that's why the $50 million is there. >> Yeah, >> cuz that's what I've gotten for information. >> And the reason that I just have a hell of a time with this is because again Maple Grove there's no way we produce water cheaper than them and so something has to be inflating that and it sounds like the >> producing is an operation cost and I would I would guess they are significantly lower in operation cost than us >> because they have shallow wells. I'm sure their electricity draw is probably a tenth of >> Well, I just know that they charge their residents one and a half per thousand and we hit ours with three and a half. >> So I then they charge us with two and a half. >> Mhm. >> I think we pay the same as our >> Yeah, we paid the I thought we paid. >> Yeah. So we paid 250. 243 is last. >> Oh, then it's gone up. >> From >> 243 is what we is what we get charged. >> Okay. >> Per thous. >> I do have information. The tilt really comes from what proportion of their expansion they're expecting us to be in for. >> You got it. And right now they're at almost 50%. So, >> and really that's up to them because it's their system that we're using so they can say whatever they want, right? >> But it it doesn't doesn't serve that purpose to to reduce volume. >> I I don't >> No, but it doesn't have to pencil, right? Like if you have the if you hold the cards to say we're going to expand this and we think you should pay X amount at some point like you're either got your hands tied behind your back because you can't just shut off the valve, right? And so like that makes sense to me that they would say no like this is how we see it and they have no obligation to negotiate that with us. >> It would be wonderful. >> Actually they do. They do because if we say no, we're done. We're going with our system. We just cost them. >> I don't know if we cost them though. >> They would treat it as a public. Anytime you expand, volume helps you cheapen the overall cost. >> They would most likely do this in in uh addition in in phases, I I expect. And they have to go in certain increments. I mean, I I I would anticipate they're probably going to treat it as like the book for test, >> right? >> We're not going to do this expansion, but for you needing it. You know, you've been riding our >> excess capacity. >> Yeah. And again, we're ultimately five at most 10%. Like maybe someday 10%. I doubt it, but like we're just such a small I don't think we're going to hit their volume that hard that it's going to make a difference. >> No, but they go I'm just telling you I think mayor you're saying I mean economy of scale, right? You can build a bigger plant a whole lot more efficient and and that's definitely true. But the part is they have the increments with the filter sizes. So I think it might be >> So you think we're causing them to step over a a boundary that >> Yes. >> is going to be >> I think it I think it very much could be that. Um and again because it's done in phases anyway to control it. I mean they're not going to go and build the full 10 million for us at once. I wouldn't expect. >> Wow. >> They might do >> they might do five now and five in 20 years or something anyway. Um >> we do have a little bit more time too and a little more room because Corkran is partially off of their system as well. So that does >> northeast off now. >> Yeah, they pulled the north. Is it the north side of it? South side. There's >> northeast they pulled off the south is still on. >> So the Corkran did give us a little more I'm going to call it a little more time before that treatment plant expansion is needed for >> they have more excess again. >> They have more access. Correct. >> Yeah. They sent this out and I think the rest of it they're going to >> they're planning on from WH from Cork and there sounds like they're moving forward with doing that as well which is another million gallons a day that they >> Yeah. They're already putting proposals together for y >> we made it to scenario three. We're doing good. >> So we got I think we got through this right? >> Yeah, we had this one. Yeah. Um, and then this one, again, I would not expect this would be a likely scenario, especially when you look at the cost, but again, this would be the one if we said, "Okay, Maple Grove, we're not going to be able to be on our own by 2036, so we have to negotiate an extension on the contract. We may be obligated to that, you know, 50 million dollars for the treatment or whatever that ends up being, but then we decide, I guess we do want our own system and we're going to build it all out anyway." So now you're basically doing kind of both scenarios. So >> um again, >> which would be dumb. >> Not because this would be considered, but just could be a potential consequence of a lack of a decision maybe. >> So if we don't if we don't make a decision, we could wind up here unintentionally. >> It it could be. >> No one would decide this cuz that would be dumb. But you could accidentally wind up here. >> Yeah. You wouldn't I hope you don't preside this one in advance. This is the route we want. >> Possible choice. So, um but just wanted to put it in there for comparison. Um and then here's just with just the totals um just to help the four um with each other just to to kind of see the increase of going to each different scenario. Um, and then just just to reiterate um the note on there, I mean the intent of that is basically if Maple Grove goes out and spends a ton of money, they may want a contractual agreement that we repay them faster. In other words, we can do that column. You know, some of some of the post 2036 money could slide over into the pre2036. Well, yeah. >> I'm guessing we would separately bond that and just give them a long time. >> We would we would have to. >> Yeah. >> There's no other choice we would have. We would have to bond for it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And that would make sense. >> Um, do you want to spend any time on this? Otherwise, I I do have other considerations, other info we could go through. We can always come back to >> um, so just other thoughts I wanted to put out there. Just other things that might be useful in considering. And so I'll just kind of walk through the next few slides are kind of some um maybe somewhat random but just things to consider. So right now um I think we were just under this. I think we're at like 247 >> 243 is the last that I saw you. >> Um again I'm just using round numbers for this. So it's on a tiered system but we're expect we pay roughly on average 2.5 2 and a half dollars per thousand gallons. um discussions with Maple Grove recently, they did say, you know, they they are seeing that they need a rate adjustment um correction. So, they are anticipating they said 2026 will likely be the 5% which is pretty routine or pretty regular standard, but they're seeing bigger ones. They said 8 to 10% the following year and then it could increase beyond that. So, just to point out that it could be up, you know, closer to $3 um within 2 to 3 years. And then just to note, this is speculation on my part, but I expect with a big expenditure like a treatment facility, they're going to be looking for revenue for it. They have less development fees coming in, probably going to make up for that in rates. So, I would expect when they have that big expenditure, that's probably going to drive bigger increases or at least consideration for it. I don't know that to be true, but I just suspect it could. And for rough timing um what they shared is um 2030 consideration for the expansion um could be done sounded optimistic to them. They thought more likely it would be at least a year or two later. Could be later than that yet. Don't know. Um and then again the softening and this is the kind of scary part at least in my mind and my understanding is they would consider this with this next expansion. I don't know if that's is that what I understood as well. Yes, I I understood it, but it wasn't my notes weren't clear. So, um at least one of them. Um >> check your other notebook. >> That's why if I said one of them, I probably wrote it down somewhere else clear. Um so, if they did that, I mean, and this has gone back all the way to Ken Ashefield has been saying this for years. If they were to add the softening, it could be as much as a four-fold in user rates. So, four times the current rate. So, even at today's rates, that pushes it to $10. If you're talking these larger increases over the upcoming years, I mean, you could be looking at $12 per thousand. And then just for reference, our current rate to Dayton residents is $4. So that's what about it's on a tiered system of that. >> So >> are there are there communities that are doing softening? >> Yes. >> Um >> there are a number of them that are in within the Minneapolis circle, I would say. I think it's like that are either supplied by Minneapolis or something like Robbinsdale, >> New Hope, Golden Valley. I mean, they have >> those all have softened water as it comes out of the plant. >> Minneapolis Minneapolis plant. >> So drying just on that drawing from the river requires it. Yeah, >> you you have to soften. That's what they do. So yeah, if it if it is a river supplied area, they would >> So then St. Paul as well. >> Yes, probably. >> Parts of St. Paul. Yeah, I don't think all of it is. So they do treat the water, then they also soften the water as well. And like I said, I think that goes like as far out as New Hope and Crystal and Robbinsdale. >> Yeah, those three are Yeah, >> I think for sure, but I don't know. >> Robinsdale, New Hope, and Golden Valley are all on a joint system. So they all open between >> I don't know if it's still true, but Bloomington used to get their water from Minneapolis. >> Oh, did they? >> I don't know if they ever disconnected or not. >> Okay. I don't know on that either, but >> I don't know that. I don't I I should know more of this. I I I don't think it's that common for groundwater um to soften. >> Why do you have to soften river water? >> Um I don't know. >> I I should but when we were looking at this with Met Council and I was meeting with Ramsey and we were looking at the joint project on it. Um it just came out working with the Department of Health that it was a necessary component. To be honest, I didn't I didn't dig in as much as I should have. No. And I thought it was more of an ecological thing because they couldn't get the salts out of the the softeners. So they would want a lime softening or >> a different type of softening. So they don't have to deal with that because they can't take it out when they process the waste water. So it's a >> Okay. >> environmental thing. >> And that's what Maple Grove is looking at doing is a lime softening, not a salt softening. >> Yeah. Which is a great thing for other reasons. My council will love it. They should subsidize it because there's plant there's trouble with plants that they they pull all these salts out from the softeners and it it causes real issues down the stream. But Rogers fought with it. That's why they were so happy to get rid of their plant is because they were having chloride issues with it. So my council took it over and their headache went away. So that was good. But >> I have a question. >> Yep. So currently we're charging the same rate, right, to people that are on Maple Grove Water and Dayton Water. And my understanding is is that difference is what that six partly what that money we're paying. >> Nope. So we don't >> So can you >> Oh, the 576 >> we were paying to pay off our debt. So that will be you want >> I think there'll be more info on another slide on that. I got your question. So I will address your question in a second. >> I think we'll have more information directly related to that. >> Do you is it on the next slide? >> It might be. >> No, that's >> it's on the one after this. >> Okay. So go back to the previous slide. I'll I'll answer your question first. >> Or do you want to do >> Yeah, there we go. Right there. So right now currently we pay me the 576 comes from new connection fees. So right now what your first question was is okay we we get charged $ 250 round numbers. We charge $4. What happens to that $150? We keep that. So we use that towards operations of our department. We use that towards operations, towards revenue, towards depreciation, towards whatever you may have it. And then we just end up taking the um normally we produce water at about a buck 25. That's on the previous slide. >> Previous slide. >> Yep. We produce water for about a buck 25. And the difference is taken into depreciation and assets and um new items and whatever and took into our I'm going to call it profit even though it's technically not going into anyone's pocket. It does go into the general the overall fund balance. Um, right now we are currently paying Maple Grove any of those new connection fees towards that debt in quotes. Um, I was just looking up on my phone, so I was looking up earlier to figure out how much debt we've paid off. So, originally, um, when we got on Maple Grove System, they didn't tell us a number of how much it would cost us. They just said, "Yep, we'll do it for you and keep >> um, just keep paying." And so, Jason and I have worked over the past three years or four years to get a number from April of what that actual cost was for April to have it. But we understood what our debt was that we had and had still had an obligation for. It took them three plus years to get it to us finally and they said the number was $4 million. I think I've shared this with the council before in a weekly update. >> We've paid that off. Um and I think we've paid them just over $5 million. So technically we've prepaid about a millionish. >> And so um we have stopped paying Maple Grove those new connection fees until we have a reason to do so >> because there's no point in prepaying a debt that we don't know exists. Um although if somebody wants to prepay me for a loan in the future that wants to do that, I'm happy to take on that thing if anybody's watching. But um that's what we felt is responsible for the city is not pay off able to go early for something that we don't even know is going to happen, right? >> Although we're not not collecting the money. It's still coming in and we're just holding on to it. >> So that if and when that debt or use a well comes online, we're able to basically give them one larger lump sum and say, "Oh, you want $2 million? Here's $1.5 million worth of >> and we'll pay the rest in whatever >> and we'll pay you the rest over the next >> So we only owed them $4 million and we paid them5 million. >> Yep. >> Do we have that banked for us or is that >> with Maple Grove? >> So like are they if we say never mind we're doing our own water. Do we get that back? >> No. Okay. >> No. That's why I stopped paying um for that fees is because I don't want to say if we stop and don't go on their system. I don't believe they'll cut us a fat check back. Here's your money back. Thanks for collecting for us. I would presume they wouldn't. Maybe they will. I don't know. But I shouldn't speak for them. >> What people were thinking when they were okay with that in the first place. >> Yeah. There was no, if you read that entire agreement, there is no number ever agreed to in that 2016 list of improvements even >> or list of anything. Just says we'll do whatever you need. >> That's what it said. >> And we'll give you >> we'll give you all the fees that are collected from now until forever. >> Yeah. >> Um until like I said, Jason and I have worked hard to get a number. >> It actually started before Zach worked here, I So that's how long we've been working on it. I mean took >> enough >> between emails and meetings with them to get it even defined what did you have to do to service us and how much did it cost but but we got there now. So let's do it. >> So now we have a number >> we have some >> So I have a another question just cuz I'm trying to like wrap my head around everything that you just said. Um >> so that roughly 600,000 other like payments a year we've been making all came from new connection fees. >> Yes, that is correct. So in our scenarios that we're looking at, we don't really give a definite like timeline, right? It's just like the post 2036. So I guess like in my head I have to like go through all the scenarios and like the worst case scenario would be that we would be built out but we would still owe them that money, right? Or we'd still be paying on a bond that we had. >> Yes. >> Then where does that money come from? like how if that happened where would >> there would have to be user feesirect transferred over to user rates. >> So if and when that situation were to come up where we're fully built out and yet we still have a debt to pay off andor we have an obligation to pay to Maple Grove or whoever it would be >> it would have to be switched over from a fee that we normally would have to for new people in the system which is a connection fee um referred to as whack a water access charge or a trunk fee. it would have to be switched over to user rates and user rates could go up significantly. >> It' be very much like a built out city. So I mean for replacement >> so I mean you don't have new people coming in your city's built out and worn out for that matter and you have to replace things that all has to come from the user fees. So it starts transition >> built out in that area that would mean we banked >> a lot of those connection fees right because those connection fees are based on number of houses cost. >> That's correct. So, >> but that's why we charge a little bit extra to put that aside. Correct. For these things. That's why because we >> the $150 doesn't just go away. It just stays. >> Yeah. It's it's in this fund and it doesn't go into the general city's budget. It's saying specifically for water to pay for water things, >> right? But when we had looked at the numbers before you and I, Zach, >> we had like the anticipation is that that payment would be larger than >> Yeah. >> what we're paying now. We would assume that it would be a couple larger than the $600,000, right? Even if we had a bond for it, it would be more than >> one more slide. Maybe >> maybe one more slide. >> Do a scenario. >> Yeah, one more slide back. So the current There we go.50. So basically the 50/50 what we're planning on going down now is we're planning on saying payments to Maple Grove is going to be about a million dollars a year. That's where the $10 million comes pre. >> So just to note that's the actually 571 probably. >> Yeah. I mean, that's what we're paying. That's kind of what this is based on right now. We're sending them fees. It's about 570 a year. We just >> It's about 600 big round, but that >> we'd have to figure out how to make that difference. And that would come from >> an increase >> an increase to everyone's water. >> That's correct. >> Yeah. >> When does that 2006 bond get paid off? >> We uh it was not a bond. So it was just a agreement that said, "Hey, we'll pay you user connection fees until kingdom come." >> The big one. Oh, the the big one. >> Um, so that's the one where the first 75 homes of the storm water, the water, and the sewer fees go towards >> in lie of taxes. So if the taxes were to be the case, it would be like a 1.4 to $ 1.5 million hit on the tax. >> I'm just wondering where that that obligation ends. >> It ends in 20 to where this one would pick up. 28. >> 29 I believe is the last year. I think 30 is technically the last I can't >> I can't remember if it's 29 is the last year and then we're going to stop in 28 and I think I mentioned at the last council meeting above the quart of the report we have one assessment that was paid on one property that we're utilizing to hold on for the last payment so we don't have to do that the final year. >> Can't remember if that's 29 or 30 is the last year but it's one of those two years that one >> um right now we pay what about $1.4ish fourish million dollars a year >> theoretically if that would well know because we're going to have to build out more up there too. So >> yeah, I mean it's well that's the other part of the system that talked about earlier, the north part of the system. >> But that obligation with sunset >> prior to some of the major pieces of this coming in >> that is the that is the objective. Yes. >> Okay. So, >> well, we would probably bank it, I'm guessing. I would assume so. Yeah. I mean, I would assume water towards water. Yeah. I just I guess in my mind this a halfbaked thought and I'm kind of just talking it out loud, but I'm just more I guess concerned or like my question is centered around us not all of a sudden having a huge spike in utility bills where it's like oh you know we've gotten away with, you know, these new construction fees paying Maple Grove and then all of a sudden it's like okay now everybody's bill is going to skyrocket and if Maple Grove is increasing their rates And everybody's rates, we keep them the same. If we skyrocket, >> but we're not gonna be built out to 2050. >> No, I know. I I understand that. I'm just like >> I think I think I understand your concern is that you don't want to have a giant spike in user rates because we >> did all use option four and said we were going to do something XYZ and then all of a sudden change the change the item at the end. Is that kind of what your >> I guess I'm just making sure that the money that you know essentially like that we're paying them right now >> the difference in what we will need to make a payment of that's what I'm looking at and who pays that >> how is it spread across and what does it do to the average user that's what I that's what I'm thinking about >> because that ultimately like that's what it all goes back to right like what is your what what is the average citizen going to pay and what is that in you like what does that increase look like because >> like ultimately that's who's paying any plan we choose that's who's paying for the plan. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It's well it's us and like >> I will do my best to make sure I get any grants like I've done before. But I mean >> yes that's correct. >> No I >> I mean it could be a combination. I mean you look the water fund >> handles all of this. So the water fund you have input and output. So you have your expenditures which are set cost essentially and then you have your revenues. So user fees are one of those revenues. So that's a source. So you increase revenue fees to to do that. Development fees. Both area charges and connection fees are more to builders. But those are associated with development. You can bump those. Now we've all heard how much criticism we get for how high those are, but that's the reason they're high is because we need to build all of this stuff. And we don't want to put it on the backs of existing taxpayers. We want to put it on the backs of the developers that are putting the pressure on us that's requiring us to build this. So that's why the high fees, but that's really the revenue sources. So that's I mean you can do a direct levy, too. I don't think anybody wants to do that. >> Yeah, it's really difficult to get a direct levy. It just doesn't seem >> Yeah. I for >> I don't want to be at that meeting if you >> No, I guess I'm speaking on behalf of all the people on Wells. >> Yes. >> Right. Um, you know, >> not my problem. >> The well and user fees are one thing, but when it comes to the the general levy, then that's everybody and a lot of people don't benefit from it at all. >> I don't get a single anything from this. >> No, I wasn't suggesting that was a good avenue. I'm just the the potential. >> I think one of the things we looked at doing is on the next slide here that Jason to address some of your comments or questions. >> Yeah, maybe I'm just ahead of >> No, this this is >> Yeah, actually the the two things are right here. And there's a lot of numbers on this next slide, but I'll just kind of walk through it. So hopefully this makes sense. Um, so it's it's exactly that. It's how we could capture some of that money, but more so than just increasing rates, this looks more at producing our own water and being able to do so cheaper than buying it. So right now, Dayton sells its water, as mentioned, for $4 per thousand gallons. We buy it from Maple Grove at about 250. So we make a buck 50 make if you will to use towards our system buildout maintenance whatever um is needed. So for an example in this year using estimated numbers for the remaining months we're going to buy about 140 million gallons of water from Maple Grove at the 250 or sorry selling at $4 minus the 250 cost. It's about $200,000 revenue to the account that we have, you know, net from the cost of the water. Marty and I have gone through some costs, just electricity, chemicals. Um, I think we have some personnel costs in there probably. It's very realistic um that we can produce water at least with the setup we have now, which is different than a full plant, but $1.25 25 per thousand >> and that includes capital cost >> because no that would be the production. So >> not just operational. >> Yeah. So that doesn't have building or or um >> significantly higher for say because we went through the same exercise. You probably remember this about when we were looking at the power in the south earlier and it was we could >> we could produce it for a buck and a half I think back then. We figured >> about a buck I think we're at. >> But you had this expensive >> apple. It is. Yeah. And and the intent of this is to show that it we would get an extra $1.25 to use towards the building and those other expenditures. So it's not like we'd be profiting another dollar and a quarter because we'd certainly have expenses for it, >> but it could offset it. So yeah, >> you know, for the 2025 example, that 140 million gallons at the lower production cost, you know, that increases revenue by about 175,000. But then if you scale that, you know, to the whole system. So say we go the 50/50 route, for example, and Maple Grove is supplying uh the five MGD, the million gallons. And I I said I deviated from the peak at one point. This is it because a 5 million gallon peak is probably about 2.8 average day. So realistically, we would be buying or making 2.8 million gallons a day, not five. So I didn't want to have an inflated number in here. So the 2.8 8 million gallons per day. That equates to about a billion gallons a year. So this just over a billion gallons. Again, if we were buying from Maple Grove, our revenue would be on just that portion would be about 1.5 million. But if we were producing the water for half of that price, we bring in an extra $1.3 million. So that could be a cost that could put towards the building or other >> other expenses with it. So just wanted to demonstrate. I mean there there's there's advantage to making your own water generally speaking. Now we are lucky in the s we get water cheap from Maple Grove. They they have cheap water. If you look at the price of water I learned what was it St. Bonafisha or not um Minatrista they're $11. I just learned that last night. So I mean there's communities much higher than us. Um, so the fact we can get it from 250 is great, but we also know that that's probably increasing, especially if softening's coming. But another potential revenue source that I want to point out um, similarly, you know, to what was discussed on the fees. So just to set this and this um there just a potential and I I don't know what the right scenario would be but you know as has been mentioned we pay Maple Grove or actually developers pay Maple Grove whack charges as they make these connections. That's how the uh the revenue to Maple Grove for the infrastructure is handled. Um those are the current rates on the screen. That's just what each of them pay for non-residential and residential connections. If Dayton were to commit to 100% Dayton supply, that means we can stop paying them like we have now. So those fees will no longer have to be paid to Maple Grove. So the developers don't have to pay those fees. If chosen, we could increase our fees because it could be theoretically at least tolerated. Their overall expense or perform drops on their fees. You know, we could notch it back up. We could I'm just going to make it up and say we could charge half of that back on our fees. They're still paying less. We're benefiting more and we're offsetting that. So in 2024 alone that would have been an extra quarter million dollars had we redirected on that. >> Easy to justify if you again our capital is going to go way up and that goes into the whack. So wouldn't that be justified? >> It all it all goes into the same fund. So whether it comes from the whack, our calculations on the whack or or that. Yes. Um and um >> and we're only calculating a portion of that was dollars in capital cost because we're assuming able to go put some of the capital costs on for so and probably most of council hasn't been through this and it was a while back but we we revamped how we did our whack calculation and I'll try to >> be brief on this but instead of >> basing all of our other charges are based on our entire system cost divided by our developable acres. So that's literally how we do the math for it. So we have a big cost like those summary tables here big cost and we have call it 400 acres to be developed. We just simply do the division and that gives us our rates for water. We weren't collecting money fast enough because we have to build all this big expensive stuff first. We have to put in big wells, big towers, big treatment and they all come early. We can't build it as we go. We have to build them up front. So to accelerate, if you will, the revenue for this fund, we changed it and we instead took our 10-year outlook. So what we're going to spend over the next 10 years, and instead of using the entire city for the buildout area or to be developed, we looked at the next 10 years of staging. So smaller numerator, but not much smaller because it's all the big expensive stuff and a much smaller denominator. So that gave us a higher rate for whack. And to be honest, it jumped significantly. So we spaced those increases out over about a three to four year period to try to ease into it with developers. And then on top of it, kind of back to the question of can we justify it. the way we calculated the treatment because it's such an astronomical number, we actually only included a percentage of it and then we just said for the purposes of the discussion, we're going to figure out the rest of that funding somewhere else, probably through user fees just because we can't I don't think we'd be able to say our whack just went sevenfold because we have to pay for treatment. But with things like this, we can start accumulating that more. So instead of considering 20% of the treatment, maybe we can consider 40% and at least justify bringing in additional revenue that's tolerated by the developers. So >> all of that and I can walk you through this at another time if you're awake. >> Sevenfolded is an exaggeration, but just an example of >> it wasn't too far off. >> It was huge. >> No, it was honestly I mean it it was it was very significant. It was and and we although at that time I'm not sure what slowed it down. Maybe not. I've had a lot of people yelling at me over it. But >> yeah. >> Um anyway, the the the point being is that this might be another again just another revenue source um to help offset some of those costs. There hasn't been a detailed analysis, but just wanted to make aware that there there is some of those potentials there. Um so just another consideration just to give a snapshot of the fund balance just so we're aware of it. current balance is about $10.5 million as it sits today. Um and then the question was raised about what's the targeted minimum balance in that account. So what's determined as what's the least amount we wanted there at any given time? It's to have 100% of the debt debt obligations for the year, the expected expenditures and then the calculated depreciation. So, um I'm I'm sure this fluctuates some year to year, but it's about $3.5 million for that. So, um how I read that and Zach can correct me, but that's that would say we have about $7 million available for projects at this time. >> Water specific projects. This is water only. Water only. Yes. >> So, whether that's a water tower or a treatment or a well. >> That's correct. >> Yep. And of course that balance is always changing with development as it comes and with fees connections as they're made and user fees that are added to it. They all go into the same same fund >> and then also offset with decreases with projects that we have going on. We still have the well treatment plant that we're trying to finish up dollars that are need to come in from that from the federal grant that we weren't able to get with the federal shutdown. So we're waiting on those dollars but you know so it fluctuates a little bit but that's a rough number. um almost done here. And then a few other rough ones in here. Um again, just just to kind of keep in mind, so if it's Maple Grove supplying the water, um just to to know that Dayton will have a lot less say in things on on the system. Um likely we'll have limited if any control on rates, for example. If they're, you know, if they're skyrocketing and we don't know why, we might not have a whole lot of say on controlling that. we can get explanation. >> So um >> what happened? So Corkran also had built into their contract a limit on the increases and we didn't right. >> We did not. No. >> So we would I would assume we would do something like that with they had >> we certainly could >> some sort of a 5% limit. >> If we were to renegotiate the contract, I would want to make sure we have something in there that says that we would only have so much limit per year that we'd want to have. We do not have that current language in there now. Corkran did. >> We do not. >> I have another question. Um, if Maple Grove increases their rates, let's just say like that five% rate. Was that what it was? >> Yep. >> And I'm just going to ask it and we'll sort it out. The those that are not on Maple Grove water would be paying substantially less. Does that mean that we equal them we equal them out? >> We do today. >> That's a great question. >> Everybody. That would be a council decision of what you guys would like to do >> because you should pay the same >> Well, no. I've never Yeah. >> See, I've never liked that. >> That's a great question. >> That's that's I think that's the thing is like if we keep like right now we pay everybody pays the exact same amount no matter where you are in Dayton. If Maple Grove decides to let's just say jack their rates up to $12 or whatever and ours are down here at four. >> Yep. Yep. And the reason >> because everyone raised to four or 12. >> The the difference though was the water quality. >> So Maple Grove had treated water. >> Dayton does not. >> They will, but at some point Maple Grove may have softened water and >> they should pay more. >> Yeah. I mean, if you have if your water quality is improved, I I don't like the fact that we have >> different rates because >> I don't like the fact that we have different water quality. >> Well, I mean, there's that softening is another kind of question there. >> Well, and the treatment was not cheap. We couldn't do it up until recently. Um, but now everybody in the north system had to get a commerce system. They had to get a a water treatment facility in their house. A Grove residents didn't. So there was an extra cost to the north to the people on Dayton Water. >> Okay. But my question to you is and I'm not a water condo. So sorry, but and I don't mean this to be disrespectful so please don't take it that way. But as of right now, person over here turns their water on, water comes out. Maple Grove water sounds great. Person over here on Dayton Water turns their water on, it's not a hydrant flushing week or and water is fine. I in my house go, "My water is the same as your water. Why am I paying $12 for my water you're paying four?" You know what I mean? If it's not softened, that soften is a whole another thing. But like, >> but so is treated. Treat is healed, >> right? >> Yeah. But if if our water Okay, we will. We have treatment. >> We will. >> That's what I'm saying is at that point they're >> at that point they're equal. >> Yeah. >> At that point, they're they're not >> historically they haven't been >> correct. But when they are and let's say Maple Grove says because they're going they're talking about increases anyway and I don't know that we're talking about that right now. Right. >> Well, we uh we did present a 4% increase of the water rates that will not offset the 5% increase that Maple Grove is talking about. So technically we'll lose 1% on the rates in Maple Grove, >> right? But are we going to bring then Dayton up to meet Maple Grove or are we leaving Dayton Water where it is? >> Um if we have a 4% increase, we're still going to be well below. >> We're still going to be above cuz we're going to be Yeah, >> we're going to be 4% systemwide. >> This is 5% increase over here. This subset. >> That's correct. >> So, >> but but they but on their bill, they're not going to notice a difference, right? We're not Well, everyone will, but everyone's going to have a 4% increase. >> Everyone on the system will have a 4% >> increase paid to make or buy water changes. >> Yeah. Our revenue >> our revenue changes, but not our residents. lose revenue of 1% for the people in Maple Grove because if they raise their rates 5% and I'm only proposing to raise our rates 4% and the city council have to approve that then we have lost lost again I use the word lost because we didn't lose it but we are not making it a 1% difference on the Maple Grove water >> like we were on everyone else. >> So then how does that affect what the balance moving forward is in our water fund? Because if we're not putting as much in >> this much >> is that is that minimal? I don't know. I I will >> we will still so B in our rates is the depreciation which is a number that we don't ever give out as a check that's just to replace assets as they go along. That's water manes if they break that's um wells that's whatever else. So our balance should still increase it just we won't you know in quotes bank as much money than we would normally on a Maple Grove water because the difference is slightly less. So we won't bank as much from Maple Grove users as we would this year. Yeah. >> So, we won't be making the 150 currently that we are making 140 or >> 140 or 143 or something. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> You you could I mean, you could approach it anyway. I mean, really, you have different margins depending on what you because we're selling for the same. So, depending on buying or producing, we have different margins. We could look at it systemwide and just do a balanced margin that works, you know, the the the weighted and and bring the revenue in your net revenue. Or you could look at, which adds complex, actually one of my bullets on here. Um, >> not impossible, but you could have different rates for different areas. And in my opinion, you could justify it based on the type of water they're getting. Um, I I could be wrong. I think Rogers might even have different rates just because they have different pressure zones and they they I I don't know that. Maybe it's just the developer fees, so I don't know. I know their developer fees vary, but I could be wrong on the rates, but I think I think it's pretty easy to justify multiple rates. >> It's just not always easy to convince that it's >> implementation of that is difficult. So, I think what your point is is if they go to water softening, all of a sudden, Maple Grove is charging 12 bucks per thousand gallons. >> We're only still charging four. >> So, how are we making up that money? Cuz you can't be making four and selling it for 12. That's a horrible business model. >> Yeah. >> Subsidizing they're subsidizing from everybody. Everyone goes up. Let's just say eight. >> So then everyone pays $8 per thousand gallon. So we're losing over here. We're gaining over here. >> But some people are getting saffron water. Other people are not. >> Maybe that's where my >> or you charge different rates and say, "Okay, you're making now it's $12 per thousand gallons. Now we got to charge 14 over here and you're only paying cheaper just to do our own water. Why aren't we just breaking up with Maple Grove and moving on from this?" >> Cuz I don't think it's that simple. I don't believe that. It is a It is a difficult conversation, which is why this >> I'm I'm with you. I I don't like the idea of putting my fate in anyone else's hands. Does that make sense? Like, and if you can change your their rates at any time, >> you That's why you have these JBAs. That's why you have co-ops. You if everybody goes on their own, everybody's going to sink money like crazy into >> Yeah. But the co-op equally benefits >> from what they equally put in. We're not equally benefiting from taking what 5% of their total amount and paying 50% of their upgrades. Like that doesn't pencil for me. I'm sorry. >> Absolutely. >> So, what I'm saying is if but they can tell us you're paying for half of it because that's what it costs. >> And if they are, then we're stuck. >> Well, that's what I'm saying is >> we go away. >> Then we go away. But you don't have a >> I feel like I'm yelling. I apologize. Um, >> in my mind, >> I'm willing to bet next year that won't be at the same number. >> Oh, it'll definitely be higher. >> What? >> That stuff is it's all increasing. >> No, no, no, no. I'm talking about that they want us to kick in 100 million. >> Oh, they've even said there's an ultra high level. They said it could come in at 40. So, there you go. >> Okay. So, that would be a very different conversation than what we're having right now. Yes, it would be >> because they're saying 50% of the cost to upgrade fall on us when we only have that small sliver that's actually us. That's I think where my issue comes in. It's >> there's there is for your question, your comment. There's no way they're only going to charge us 5% of an upgrade the 12 million. >> Agreed. There's no way because they're incremental increases. It's like yeah, you might be this little sliver, but you may be this point. >> Even if they're 20%, that's still a lot less than what I'm seeing, >> I guess. It's up to them. >> I have I have two big things >> and I don't know how we >> we have to pay the smaller number like this. >> Oh yeah, >> that's that's how it is. Two. >> Yep. >> Regardless if it's smaller or not co-op or not. I think part of the whole co-op thing is usually they work best when you have people of equal like when everyone in the co-op is invested to the same amount because then it's more fairly split. One of our difficulties is we are not anywhere close to Maple Grove. No matter what happens, they're here. We're here. Y we're like if we co-opted with like Corkran, we'd be more on the same page, right? Like that's the problem. So like I'm all for all for co-ops and cooperating, but it only works well when you are of equal when the when the people cooperating are on some level equal. And we're just not equal to Maple Grove and we never will be >> or you have an equal say, right? It's different. It's like they proportional. >> Yeah, >> correct to your sons. >> The bigger thing is we are never going to be able to do the like softened water like that's just that's a non-starter for me if they go there and >> probably >> you don't have a choice if you're on Maple Grove. >> Well, that's just it. And so that's why I'm like if they're even having this conversation and we don't get to say yes or no to then then then the answer is no and we have to move away like if so that's for me it's cheaper. we don't get a proportionate say. Um, and they're genuinely having this conversation about softened water. Well, then those are three checks. Like check check, I'm out. Like three strikes and you're out for me. So that's where I'm at. If there was a a partner more in like AIO wants to partner with us, like someone who is more our size and >> AIO is on Maple Grove. >> Okay. So >> they are Yeah, I believe. >> Yeah. But like if someone our size wanted to cooperate, that would be a different story in my mind. >> I don't think AIO will ever get off Maple Grove because way too small to build in fact. Yeah, they're stuck. >> They're water charged for sale. By the way, >> but I don't want to get in that boat where we're stuck and then Grove gets to say, "Hey, your water is increasing." >> Even the cheapest price, have you penc pencil it out >> and see what it's going to hit us? >> Well, yeah. How did you know? >> We just saw these slides tonight. >> But you But you know about what it's going to be. >> Yeah, >> that's a But we're in trouble no matter what. But I guess I trouble no matter what option we go, >> right? No matter what we do, we're in a pickle. Like >> this is why we know it's going to take more than one meeting. So make sure it's not going to hammer out tonight. We know that. Um you know, also we're happy staff staff, myself, Jason, we're happy to get information for you guys to provide, you know, different scenarios. This is a big number. This is big for anybody. I mean, this is just these are as steel comes from Henderson's comment. This is monopoly money we're working with here because it is >> it's a big number either way. Whether you stay in Maple Grove or not, it's not free. No. >> And whether you go with our system, it's not free. >> So, we have to know and get information and staff's willing to help you and give you any information you're looking for to make an educated decision because the last thing we want to do is say, "Oh, you should go this way." And then that's not the right way to go >> and then we wind up in scenario four >> and we would rather not have scenario four because it's going to cost everybody twice as much. >> I have another just um maybe lack of knowledge question. I'm sorry. >> Um, >> wait. >> Sorry I dropped your phone. >> You did and I didn't grab it. Hang on. >> Okay. Because this is my again my first go around and I'm not a bond expert. We would bond for like large chunks, right? like it would be that before 2036 amount like something were in there where we would do a very very large amount of money if you're going to bond for it. Correct. >> Yeah. Typically the breakdowns is 1 510 255. That's where you get I'm going to call it breaks in the interest rate. >> Is that a year or >> no? Um dollar you get a dollar amount of a million dollars. That's a break in the interest rate. If anything less than that you get I'm going to call it the highest interest rate. You get a break at a million. You get a break at 5 million. you get a break at 10 million and you get a break at 25 million. That's kind of the and not saying those are the magic numbers, right? Like you could still go for 24 million if you needed to, but right 25 million is kind of the next I'm going to call it ballpark number and sure they might be a little bit but you get a break at 25 million 10 million or whatever. >> So I know that again this is like very general and we don't know the interest rate. We don't know all that but what is a bond payment roughly? What would it because I mean we talked about this again. I'm trying to go back to what what would a payment like that look like if we if we bonded for let's say I don't know what do we need before 2020 36. >> Uh it's showing at like 47 but probably you know the bond might be more like a 25 would be my guess. >> So if we did that what is the payment on a bond like that? I didn't have to tell me tonight look like and then as far as like the fees, the charges, the things that the revenue that we have coming in, could we make that payment or what's the difference in that? Because really again the difference in that is what we're going to be asking residents, right, to pay for we're going to have to collect it somewhere. And so I guess I'm wondering like what is the gap there? Mhm. >> I think I did a quick scenario for I think each of you just to try to run a I think it was a very very high level number of like hey this is what it cost and this is the number and I just ran a quick payment schedule. It's probably not even I mean again it's going to be fluctuated just like your mortgage is so you pay more when not going to be flat level but >> no but I I'm just wondering like are we even close like is that gap huge or are we close? That's what's missing for me is you know >> I don't know those numbers >> you know I mean the bond number just make one up but >> lay it alongside that payment alongside what our revenue sources are what we would no longer be paying Maple Grove and so sort of captured money already >> and you know the other sources of revenue that we've got coming in how do those line up and then for me also the one that's dropping off in 29 or 30 >> just just so everybody knows the one that was dropping off I I think we'd already figured out how to spend. >> You guys have spent every nickel we have. >> Well, it wasn't us. >> Well, I don't know. >> It was It was a combination of the fire station, a new city hall, and couple other fiddly bits. And that was about >> Sure. We We've got all that staring at us, but it's not going to come out of the water fund. >> No, but it was going to be that payment. That's where the bulk of it was coming from. >> I don't necessarily know if it was coming from the open. I mean, >> that was just the expectation. You know, you can >> you can make the >> dollars work forever cuz if you don't want to have a Yeah. If you don't want to have a levy for it, you can make those funds just like right now. Currently, there's supposed to be a levy for that bond payment that we utilize. And right now, we use the first 75 homes cuz we have development to pay for it. Instead of putting it on the backs of our taxpayers, we put them on the backs of our developers to pay for a bond that we did in 2006 and 7 that said that, you know, we build that they will come and it never happened. So, that's where we that's how we got here. Um, >> and that was supposed to be in levy, which is like $1.4 million a year. And I don't think anybody in this city wants to see a $1.4 million increase in the levy for our bond payment that we've had for the last 17 years. >> But I had another thought. >> So that's anyway, that's >> that's I think going forward it'd be nice bonds, right? >> Well, I would say I think most of them are 25 year bonds. Okay. >> Um, typically it's again it's probably 10 years is most time. The most common ones are tens and 20s, although they've been more common to be 25s recently because of the amount of dollars that they've been for bonding. At least we might what I've heard from Ellers is that a lot of them because the dollar amounts are getting so high that it's hard to even pencil out a 10 or a 20-year bond because it's such a giant number. >> But I mean 25 years is going to be roughly 1.2 >> 1.3 >> 1.3ish million a year. >> Yep. >> I have one more question. And I don't know interest rates right now. I do not know. >> This is just a it's a silly question. Yes, there are silly questions. It is possible by the end of our contract with Maple Grove that we could supply our own water >> like >> Yeah, it is. But that that's a good point. Um just to note, so the longest time frame on this is your treatment. >> Okay. So that's probably uh realistically you want to all lot at least three years to get that thing designed and built and online. Four would be better. So if you want to and say to be safe we want it operational 2035. I mean that's >> it's I mean it's >> I would a bit but it's coming quick so >> year for the historical society or whoever that was to sit on it for no reason. >> Yeah. So, I wouldn't project that we'd want to start this process around 2029, 2030. I know those those years get posted out a lot, but if you guys are seriously looking towards this route, we'd probably look at those years as be the starting years cuz guaranteed there'll be some sort of six-month delay from somebody we didn't know about that needs to review something. And then now we're talking and I'd rather have it up and running a year or two beforehand because as you all know that you're >> once you're on time, you're late because then we're scrambling to get it done. Can you also maybe put together while we're going down this whole like um financial kind of piece here what we would barring nothing knock on some wood crazy happens what the balance in that uh water fund would be because we're not paying Maple Grove right like what would be in a in 2029 or when we would go to do this cuz I would assume that if we had some money banked in there cuz we got like what 10 million right now >> right now we have 10.6 million >> that we may use some of that or decide to do some of that to purchase some of these things. So to know what the fund what we anticipate the balance in the fund being at that point >> about 11 or 12 I mean it based on >> depends on how much it depends how depends on okay right now you have 10.6 Six. What are you planning on doing between now and 2029 for projects? If I utilize the long-term plan for those projects, I'm going to say those come out of that fund balance. >> Um, my goal again is to try to get as much grant money as I can. I mean, we've gotten almost $7 million for the grant line the last three years. So, I mean, our goal is to get as much grant money as possible. It's helped drastically because we have so many needs. But if I just said, okay, that minus this dollars, here's where the balance is at just based on 200 homes a year, which is what we're utilizing as an estimate. This year, we've seen less. We're about 122, I think, is the number for this year. >> Yeah, this year's light for the 200, but we've had years that have been 51, >> 510 or something like that. That was a few years ago. So, again, we use the 200 average. And then I'm utilizing some rough estimates for increases in rates, trying to keep those at a realistic number under 5% each year just to keep pace with changes of, you know, what does it cost for operations and electricity and, you know, utility rates and whatever I may have you. Um, trying to keep a general number. Now, we try to do my I do my best and I try to make sure the council understands that we I try to limit the total increase for the user rates to 5% for both water and sewer. >> And so, typically, they switch between the two. So one year I think sewer in the last couple years did a 0% increase one year and 5% went to water because again trying to understand that if you increase both of them by 5% now you've increased 10% for the users and that hurts on both ends of things right >> and so being cognizant of our residents being cognizant the user rates are there trying to balance those out as best as possible we've heavily focused on water only because we have the most need for that but I'm happy to do some sort of balance analysis we do that already in a backdoor sheet I think I've sent it to previous council before. And I say previous only because I think it was last year I sent it off. So, I'm happy to send it off to you guys and you can play with it. It's a giant spreadsheet that I put together of like projected revenues and projected expenditures based on current usages and how many more homes are going to be next year and what the rates increase are going to be and the development fees increases. And again, there are a lot of assumptions in that spreadsheet. So, >> sort of playing with one assumption, it could >> triple in in one quick year. That's where I get the percentage of the the minimum balance that we have. >> Yeah. I think I was just more trying to capture like what else do we anticipate being paid out of that fund. >> Um you know just we have a realistic idea of >> um what the balance might be when we would go to start. I do have that like I said we do a utility rate study kind of just internally every year to figure out what that is and that's with myself and Dina the accountant and we just go through that and update based on usage and then how many new homes and how what they're going to use. Now it doesn't take into consideration anything to do with weather. So if there's a dry year we're going to use a heck of a lot more water than we will if it's a wet year and we won't use that much. So that does play a factor in there and that has happened the last couple of years >> and anything we do with the north side. So if we suddenly start building homes in the north side, we >> that infrastructure has to come out of the same dollar amount. >> You only have one fund for all the all of the systems. And that's what makes it even more difficult is that if we're growing from three sides, which is what we've historically done in this city, it makes it three times as difficult >> to try to do it because you have to no different than what Jason mentioned earlier is you have to put the big stuff in first. >> You can't put and say, "Oh yeah, we'll build your park later on." It doesn't work with water. You got to have water first. So you got to have a well in. You got to have water towers. And >> pretty soon we have >> up and running before >> pretty soon we have a thousand gallon tank that's serving 200 homes that we didn't plan on that was put in in 2000. And we're still using it temporary >> because we didn't have the money to be able to put the water tower in because we just said, "Oh, let's put the system in and call it a day." And then we're still sitting with the same remote. Um, and we're going to get money for that, too, and stuff like that. But it's it's a lot. It's that's that's why this number is so big. This is why it's not just staff saying, "Oh, we should do this." cuz that's not >> that tower by the way was built into the early water rates or the water but I don't think it was right because as soon as it happened I'm sure it got reallocated right over to this side over here and that's where you have the nice water tower that was put up in 08 07 that doesn't fit a bigger tank that they were told >> yeah that was a different >> other comment >> well it doesn't matter sorry I was on my own train of thought but like it doesn't matter which scenario we choose we're going to have to bond no matter what very unless the only one that I could think of that we wouldn't is if Maple Grove said >> we'll float you >> which is possible they floated us for the four million so >> yeah they they could if they could easily add a percent to it every bond they get >> and so they did it before with an undisclosed amount and an undisclosed term with undisclosed time >> that was the dumbness there >> very kind of them and still very unkind to I don't know but >> I mean >> that would be the only way we wouldn't have to bond for it is if Maple Grove said yeah but either We either contract our payment out or bond our payment out, but either way, we're going to have a payment. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, I think I've come to that conclusion that we're going to >> There's no way around that. >> We're going to owe somebody somewhere, whether it's Maple Grove or our own, no matter what, we're going to owe money. I guess my again my biggest thing is um how how much that payment is again like the scenarios will be different like the amount that we have to pay for a bond of our own or what Maple Grove wants or whatever like I'm just looking at what does that increase the residents bill because again that's whose backs this whole thing will be on or the levy comes out to which is why I want to go with the cheapest option. >> Correct. >> Figure out how to make that happen. >> And I hear you. But I also and to your point too, yes, the cheapest option, but also >> I still don't love the idea of someone else deciding your fate. I don't love the idea of this is the rate increase and you're just going to >> this is what it is. You know what I mean? And what are you going to do? Not not use. You know what I mean? Like you're not not going to >> Well, that's why you have a contract. this tax. >> Yeah, but if they're but if they're already anticipating that five and 10 plus% increase which they said those correct that came from them >> um talking about sorry >> grow rates exc that was last week we talked to them >> was it last week already or was it two weeks ago >> or maybe it was >> Friday whatever that Friday was and I wanted to make sure we had all the information for you guys so you had they are planning a 5% increase 26 >> currently we have no say in that amount >> you have zero. >> We say we want five, we want 15 >> and we say okay because we have no other option on on that. >> Well, and other contracts you would write I mean you would write that in no more than this. >> Be interesting to see one through George or whoever did the contract review on that. But >> I have no idea. >> Not only that, but >> was it reviewed? >> Well, that's a great question. No idea. >> Whatever. >> We don't have any information on that. That's what we have today. I can hand you what you got today and that's what I got for you. >> We wouldn't enter into a contract in the future that didn't have some sort of provision in there. >> That would be correct. >> But if >> however, Maple Grove has no reason to do anything with their contract until 2036 to your point, >> right? And at that point, unless they want to keep us on this contract, then they'd say, "Okay, we'll negot renegotiate the contract." But I don't know if they want or not. >> I mean, I get what you're saying about economies of scale. I just don't think we're a big enough percentage of their volume that it's that they're going to care then we have no weight to throw around. >> Yeah. I No, I don't I don't I don't disagree with you, but there's also no reason for them to whack us is my point. >> They have There's no upside to them whacking us. >> None. So, I I just have a hard time with that. >> What's the downside? >> Huh? they lose our whatever our 5% or 3% or whatever it is. >> But it's so it's I don't I feel like it's like pennies in the bucket, right? >> Or am I missing >> three out of 100 pennies? Yeah. >> Yeah. >> But I'm just think it's it's pennies in the bucket for them. And I don't think that they don't want us to stay with them, but I don't know that it matters enough to them to renegotiate. >> Didn't work hard to keep Corkran. >> I was just going to say that. How much of a fuss did they put up for that? >> There used to be left. Yeah. Did they care at all? >> They But Bambro wanted to get out of that. My understanding was they they wanted to get out of that contract because of that 5% limit. >> Possible. >> So that's why they're not going but we don't have that. >> But I guess me too. >> Well, okay then. I'm just telling you if we can't find a way to make that 100k lower 100 meg lower, we're in deep doo. >> I think we're in deep doo no matter what. I'm just going to put it out there on the table. I think that there's not this is the lesser of the evils. I feel like no, the options are amazing. None of them are like, "Yeah, that's the one." I think it's >> If those are the options we ended up with, we're stuck with 100. >> Yeah, we're stuck. >> Well, I guess I'm >> But I just don't think we should fall over ourselves. >> So then, sorry, I'm just looking at my notes here, though. We'd have to add to the Maple Grove system. If we were, we'd have to have some portion of their water softening they would charge us. I would guarantee it. So, their current water softening is $60 million is the last estimate for water softening. and they would charge us some sort of percentage whether that's five or >> 50 whatever the number I don't know what the number is going to be but >> and I don't know what the residents would say if and at that point I think we should split we would split the fees and and you know it really depends on >> probably a lot of factors I mean those softeners aren't aren't cheap systems but they last a long time >> and all those houses down there probably already have softeners but I so I don't know probably depends on a lot >> yeah I just want to make sure that everyone has all the what I got for notes and stuff. And um I do have one note on here that said that Corkran still uses about one and a half million gallons a day. Their plan is to be off their system by 2030 for their south side. At least that's the direction that Maple Grove had for us. So that would add more capacity to their treatment plant which would then hopefully get by us a little more time. Our goal is to hopefully have a good decision made by 206 or so, end of the year, so we can give them some better ideas for planning so that we can plan on whatever that needs to be for on our side and their side so that >> everyone moves forward. >> Everyone moves forward and is happy and then we aren't building stuff we don't need or we do need depending on what that is. >> Yeah. So if we make a decision in 26 by the end of 26. >> Yep. No matter. Well, >> and I know it's a it seems like a tight timeline, right? But the problem is Maple Grove needs time to plan their system out. So, if they don't have an answer from us by 2026, they're planning on us staying, which means they're going to spend time getting everything ready to go, which means I don't know how much that factors into their build, but they might build a treatment plant sooner than what they think they need. And then we go, "Oh, wait, no, just kidding. We're off their system. >> Are they still going to charge us that number?" I don't know. That assumes if if we're only three or 5% of their thing, they aren't gonna alter the timeline. >> Well, they have to build for the peak. And right now, their peak demand, so right now their their plant makes 28 million gallons a day and their peak was 27 million in 2020. >> I'm just saying we we can't have it both ways. We we can't say that, you know, that we have no impact and turn around and say, "Well, we have a big impact." I don't Yeah, I don't disagree, but we have to take into their impact of, okay, if we're using their excess and they don't have any excess left, they might say, "Hey, we need the treatment plant anyway." So, >> you're on board. We We got you down for 5 million. Thanks so much. >> Is there a way we can leave the contract early or we just not going to be ready early even if we wanted to? >> I mean, I think you're the only thing you're obligated to the contract right now is the payment of connection fees. I mean, I would assume if >> it's agreed that you're no longer sending those because you don't have any more debt obligation. I mean, >> beyond that, it's just the sale of our water and if we're not using it, we're not buying it. So, >> okay. >> I I I short answer, I would expect we certainly could. Okay. I mean, >> this clearly not very well-written contract. >> Very loose. >> Doesn't for everybody. >> I can send it out to you and take a good read through it. I think it's about three pages long, maybe four. It's not very long. So, >> four pages and the numbers are very outdated. >> There you go. Yeah. >> It's not very long for a giant JPA contract. >> And that was 2005. >> 2006. >> October 3rd. It was signed by Dayton. >> I don't know who was in office. I have no idea. >> Well, I know Doug. >> Yeah, it was Doug. >> Do we have any more questions? I know no more decisions. That's okay. Um, it's 7 o'clock and we're about I figured about 7 7:30 is my assumption. >> Hold on. We have still about 72 slides to go here. And >> I sure hope this is it. One more. Look at that. We're right at the end. You made it. >> So those are rough numbers. Again, that's high level estimates. We could be off too. We're not saying the numbers we gave you are perfect because they're not. We don't know. >> You know, I told Maple Grove that 50% of their implant improvement is ridiculous. And they just I don't even know if he laughed. I think he just kind of moved on. I don't >> I think that's why he was quick to tell us that this is super high level. It could be lower maybe >> as much as 40. >> So, >> and they've been great to work with. So, I want to make sure that's Chris has been fantastic to work with and given us more information over the past year than we've gotten for >> I was going to say their previous guy was >> Yeah. >> Oh, I mean Tina and I went and met with them multiple times like we'll get right on it another 18 months. >> Chris has been fantastic to work with. with Maple Grove has been fantastic and we appreciate them. It's just we need to make decisions and they're looking for us to make decisions for them to make decisions. So, it's kind of >> a ying and yang thing here. >> Well, I'd be interested to see how like are they really going to go down the softened water path or are their res like do their residents know what that increase is going to be and are they saying you know what never mind I don't want it. >> They are when was presenting it? Was it February? >> It's it's soon. They were presenting that information in February of next year and their goal was to have a decision by the end of the year. >> Okay. if they're going towards softening or not. And that's kind of where I'm trying to align our decision with their >> so cuz part of me goes to that cuz if they soften then I think we don't have a choice. We're done in my mind if they go to the softened water cuz the price it we're not we would have two different like it just gets too complicated in my mind and it's not worth it. If they don't soften though then I do think I'd be like then I think it's more of a conversation in my I mean if that if that 100 million comes down to say 80 next year you said the soper their plant is 40 million or our cost >> um the cost of the total plan is $60 million I don't know what portion they did not tell us >> again if we're >> what portion of the 60% I don't >> but again I don't know if the charge is 5% or hey now the downgrade is now that's what you guys are >> and it may be that our res% >> or something >> say no I don't want to pay the extra for soften water and I >> I I don't doubt that they would. >> I I don't know. I just know that the number one thing that they got on their So they do a resident survey just like we did. Their number one complaint in their resident survey was we have hard water. We don't want it. That was Maple Grove's number one number one comment was that's the comment. >> And that's over a number of years they've had. >> So that's why they're looking at soft water. >> Yeah. >> We get qu we get comments like our water's brown. Why does it smell like rotten eggs? Things like that. And we're fixing that. So >> we will fix that. And then the next question will be >> when do we soften water? because I can't imagine I can't believe how many residents I run into, especially River Hills, don't have water softeners. I'm like, you're going to be replacing appliances here in about 5 years if you don't. Um, just because >> that the amount of mineral buildup is amazing from our water. It's >> currently for sure. I would say I don't know. >> I mean, even my wellwater I I got >> I got the kitchen faucets hard water. the rest of the houses and it's amazing how much mineral buildup just from, you know, water usage there. >> Yeah. >> A question. I know you said Maple Grove's aquifier is different than ours, but if we build in the south, we're still in a different aquifier. >> Yeah, we don't have access to the one they have, unfortunately. Yeah. >> Where's theirs at? >> Uh I don't know the physical boundaries to be honest, but it's what aer It's a glacier drift, so it's very porous. So they have very high capacities. They can draw the water. The recharge is super fast. And they're shallow. So you need small planks. So you have less electricity. >> Shallower in that. I think I think it's like 80 or something. >> Would our aquifer in the south be different than our aquifer in the north or >> very? It's the same aquifer. And actually even similar depths. I I'm trying to think if we went down >> where we went >> between 400 and 600 up here. They vary down there. I >> You drill too far. >> That's too far. about 7 ft too far on one of them. I remember that was no good. >> Yeah, that's not hasht. >> But yes, >> if we went all to our own water, we'd actually have water parody across the city cuz right now we don't. >> At least at least similar. They can be some variation, but yeah, it'd be very similar >> because they'd be coming from the same aquifier and so they would be a little bit >> generally the chemistry is really consistent between it. So they're they're similar. I >> I guarantee residents would be able to tell the difference. Yeah. If it's treated, it makes it much different. Yeah. So, if you're >> You can certainly tell from non-treated to treated. >> Oh, yeah. I mean, our our treatment now is very minimal. >> Okay. >> Um very minimal. So, >> yeah, once we once we send it through a treatment facility, it'll equalize by a lot. So, >> okay. And just to get way out on the fringe here, there's no activity or traction or anything. I know at one time there was some discussion about a regional water supply off of the surface water and >> buddying up with a bunch of communities and it didn't seem like that was going anywhere. But I just want to ask the question again. >> Yeah. Um it still could at least theor theoretically. So just some background. I don't know if everybody would be aware of it. Um I I was talk I'll I'll just tell the whole story because it's kind of interesting. I think I I was talking to one of our geologists in the Rocky Mountains and I was asking him to look at some boring logs for me. Um and he said, "Isn't that a river looking at aerials? Isn't that a river right to the north?" I said, "Yeah." And he said, "Why are you having me look at soil at borings?" He couldn't believe because they have to drill like eight miles deep to get water out there and then they have to pipe it 30 miles to get it to a reservoir. So he's like there's a river there. So basically you're an idiot is what he was saying. I'm like yeah I know it's a river. It's not that easy here though. So um anyway that got me thinking. So I started investigating and found out that Ramsay had investigated drying from the river and they did a pilot project that was even funded through the Met Council. So I went and I talked to Bruce, their their engineer, and we sat down. He said, "I would love to get this going, but Met Council isn't interested in spending a bunch of money if it's one community, but if you can get others involved, and it's regional benefit, then they'll start sending money your way." So him and I met with Rogers, John Ciphford at the time to discuss, hey, can we get three communities in this at least? And we did. and the Met Council funded I don't remember the dollar amounts like $50,000 or $55,000 to do a study and a high level feasibility about the three communities and then even included an option to reach all the way down to Corkran. Um, so the the report was completed, presented. We brought the Department of Health in and all the engineering geeks sat around and discussed it and said, "This is a great project. Now we need a cheerleader, somebody that can talk to the public to go take this somewhere so we can get money for it." Um, we couldn't find anybody to step up. We we looked John was the only one that had interest and that was about the time he retired. Um, so we really needed like administration and elected officials to just to to jump all in and and start a committee and and with the the rahrrah for the the funding and nobody wanted to do it for many of the communities. So it just it just sat and and died. Now we just have the report. It was a monster project though. It t you think these numbers are big. It's a Yeah, I think the phase one was I don't even remember and this is now what eight six >> something like 125. >> It was like $150 million or something to get >> to to get kind of the minimum done with the river crossings and the and you have to do the >> split up amongst the communities. It wasn't any cheaper than >> it ended up being a lot more comparable. It was just that huge upfront cost >> and then getting the communities to agree >> on it too. So it came with challenges but I I still think it would be a great solution. I mean at this point now we've started developing. I mean at at that time we had like one or two wells which you would want at least a few backup wells. So it would have been no lost money had we implemented the system but now we have five wells and >> we're too far down our own path. >> Well it I mean it might be that five wells is still appropriate but we're getting there. And then I mean Rogers and Ramsey. Ramsay's actually doing their own treatment now because of the the manganesees levels. So they're probably not as excited about it too. So that was part of their reason for dropping the PMP poms early, if you will, is because they were kind of forced into going that route anyway. So >> well, and to your earlier comment that maybe you have to soften water if you're using river water, it >> you do, and that's part of why the the cost was so high. >> So that gets us back to the we're out part of it anyway. I think I mean unless somebody really makes a case for, you know, why the grass is growing better with softened water than >> bit of lime >> hard water. >> That's what make your grass grow really good. >> Right. Well, yeah, we're putting all those good minerals down on there now. So, >> Yep. >> I will say as someone who's in Golden Valley drinking river water, there were times it was incredibly fishy and it was disgusting. So, >> really? >> Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. I drank the same water growing up. I loved it. I knew it was acquired on and I was like, why does my house smell like fish? Like this is not >> Well, see then you could speak to it. You had you had the you had the water. >> I was I wasn't >> Well, I only brought it up cuz I didn't think it was it had any traction and something >> Yeah, it it's very idle. I haven't heard anything from neighboring communities. So, it's it probably could be revitalized, but I don't it'd be a lot of effort. >> It would have had a better chance before communities did all this. >> I I think so. I don't I mean I don't know how the system has changed in Rogers, but I know and I I I shouldn't say I know, but I suspect that Ramsey is >> I thought Ramsey was al kind of in mid. >> Don't they have five facilities now? Treatment facilities. >> Yeah, they just put up a giant water. >> They did the the big Yeah, >> cuz they were in mid Yeah, I think they were down that road. But >> yeah, ironically, this the the land they're building their facility on, that's what was preserved for the treatment for the river. Yeah, >> they had preserved the I want to say it was like 8 acres or something. I don't remember. But but yeah, they were they were going in that direction. They just couldn't afford it. >> We got a few things to follow up on. I got a couple things to follow up on. I'm aware of any final questions from the council, make sure we're addressing everything and then I don't know if we'd like I'd like to maybe schedule a meeting that you guys want to follow us up on. I mean, I don't know when that is. I don't know. >> I mean, I kind of want to wait if if Maple Grove is going to make their decision about or whatever about the soften water in February. It seems like let's >> let them make that dis like >> Yeah. I don't know if they'll make the decision. They might get the information. >> I don't know. >> And I don't know if I heard directly, but I my guess is their decision would be to explore it. >> I I because I'm I'm expecting the study. I don't know if that's accurate or not. I'm just kind of guessing. >> But it's probably the decision. Do we want to invest money in investigating the potential? >> I think it's just a study at this point that they did to even see if it's even feasible and what that looks like. So, >> okay. >> I mean, if the city comes back and says the it's not feasible period, >> is that do we like if that's what >> Well, I guess my point is let's see what happens in that meeting in February for them and that would probably give us some information. I don't see why we would necessarily talk before then. Well, like all it's going to do is say go ahead with the study. >> Okay. >> But I what I'm hearing is is that there's not a lot of I think this I got the impression this might even be a staff driven thing in the council's >> I don't know. We'll see. Sure. >> Um >> that's what I'm saying. Like if if the council gets up there and they're like, "No, we're not doing this. Stop." Well, even with the rest of their infrastructure, whatever else they're going to build out, I mean, we won't know that either till they figure that out at towards the end of 26. I think >> that's >> But would it help them if we are like, "Look, if you're going soft and we're out, period." >> Well, either way, >> even if they're not going soft, if >> we might be out >> if we say if you're going to hit us with $100,000 or $100 million fee, we're out. >> I mean, clearly we're out. >> Yeah. >> Right. I think it's, >> you know, if if they're softening it, it seems like we are mostly >> together on we don't like that idea and so then we've got a couple of these options left if they're not softening with then it's still these same four options or some version of them >> some version yeah >> then I'm still we're out but if we can say look can we talk more about this 50/50 split on your expansion >> I'm thinking like sometime maybe in April that seem like a good time to come back and have an update discuss if we have one if we have any information does that seem like a reasonable time frame >> if we more information. I would say just if we get >> if we get more information from >> Yeah. Yeah. If you get more information, >> no matter what, I mean, even if today if we said it's number one, we still aren't doing anything for a couple years, right? >> Oh, yeah. Whatever decision you make and the reason why we're bringing this to you guys so early is so that we have time to plan. I mean, if you guys are saying, "Hey, we're moving forward with number one, >> there's no way we can afford it next year." I mean, that ain't happening. So, I get we got to have >> We can't afford any of these plans next year. >> Zero of them. I mean, so I want to make sure that we have time to give >> the council information so you know what >> also so that you can look for grants and look for and question about if we get on the bonding bill, >> how does that >> and this is where I feel like a stupid question. Um, not that you ask stupid questions, but you always you always are afraid that you're asking stupid questions. >> I'M NOT AFRAID. I JUST want to say it out loud. If we get on the bonding bill that what is I guess what is our obligation if we get on the bonding bill? Are we still? So, this is why I feel so dumb and I hate this. Whatever. >> This It's the state's bonding bill, right? So, the state's paying for it, not us. That's the goal. But like >> that amount. >> Yes. Okay. Okay. But then we're usually they don't usually fund 100%. No. No. >> Okay. So, that's where like I don't >> and then we would have to decide do we want to spend the rest of it. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. That Okay. Those are my question. >> Typically the the state likes 50/50 splits. >> Okay. >> Um doesn't matter where you get the other 50% from. So, I'll use an example of our will treatment plant that we have currently. They didn't give us a 50/50 split, but they gave us >> 25%, I think, >> cuz we got $4 million from the federal government. Okay? >> And the federal government doesn't care what's 50/50 split. They'll they'll fund the whole project >> flat out. Here you go. Here's the money. If they like the project, they'll fund the whole thing. >> Okay. >> Um, so we got 4 million from the feds, 1.75 million from the state, and then we covered the rest. Roughly was 7.5 million. So if you do the rough math, we ended up with >> $2.75 million into the whole project for the Willlet treatment plant of a $7.5 million project. I thought that's that's pretty good numbers in my head. Yeah. >> Um so I'd love to see another 50/50 split with the other things. So we've looked at So right now right now for pl we have the water tower >> which we have um requested >> gosh dang two is it 25 >> 25 >> did you request five? >> Was it 25? So we asked for 2.5 million total cost was $4 million in total. So we asked for a little more than 50/50 split assumption assumption that okay if we asked for 2.5 and we get >> two or 1.5 we got something better than nothing. Um it's again some of it is better than nothing. And then we have the will at true plant. Same kind of thing. I think we asked for $4 million there. Total cost is like six. Okay. >> So again ask for more than the percentage. If we get less than that, fantastic. But again, that's up to the council to decide, okay, we got this money. Does it have to be sent next year? No. Typically, there's a window. >> Okay, >> you have, you know, three or four years to spend it after they allocate the dollars for you. If they don't allocate, if you don't take the money, then they just put it back into their >> into their pot and either pay back the bond that they do. I don't know how the state works, okay? >> Or they reallocate the money on the issue. But >> now, when you talk about grants versus is is that your money from the feds or is that two are those separate things? grants and federal funding. >> Federal funding and grants are two different things. When I say when I say grants, it means total. It could be federal funding or state funding. >> Okay, that's what you mean by grants. >> Or anyone else? We've National Park Service has done some money. We could look at >> um I know that sometimes there's other dollars related to >> uh well PFA indeed does some stuff. We won't qualify for either one of those because our income's too high in this community. >> Okay. >> Um >> so so but when you're talking grants, you're talking about state and >> state and federal. That's typically the two that we go after that are most often and we've been awarded the most and had the most success with. >> Okay. Okay. >> And those are just because they're And then we asked for roadways and two because those are we asked for bipartisan issues so that we are we we able to go across both lines like water and roadways. >> Who doesn't like both of those? >> Exactly. So like that that 103 million dollar. >> Yes. Um there's a chance we could get historically like it's possible we could get half of that funded or is that >> I don't think it would I don't think we'd get half of it funded but >> if you could say we got a quarter of it funded I think that's a >> reasonable number again that's it's a lot of work on staff on 75 million >> but again that's over next however many years after 2036 who knows >> that's true that's true it's not this is not in the next 5 years this is >> this is not in the next 5 years. This is totally the It says by 2036 that means that we're on our own system. By 2036 that mean we're spending >> $103.5 million by >> So maybe it's like 20 or 30 years. What was that? Can you go back? >> It's 49 and a half >> and as we build out the system we can go for more funding as we do the different phases. >> Yeah. So 49 and a half was the first and that only reason is because it's up front. we have to put more dollars up front and then longer term is where it doesn't cost us >> as much compared to the other systems at least from what we see now. That doesn't mean that you know Maple Grove doesn't say hey we want all their money up front and that would put everything pre2036 and that makes it look >> yeah on the other I mean this it might be three wells not four it might be one or none from Maple Grove you know we could look at treatment doing three MGDs at initial build and shave costs I mean these >> um >> but we have to draw a line somewhere for comparisons >> yeah I just think it's because I you know I see the 100 million think that's never going to happen right but if you're like well it's over 20 years, which is not like but even if it's over 20 years, it's 5 million a year, which is still high, but like I can wrap my head around 5 million. I can't wrap my head around 100 million. >> I think this this would probably be 40 to 50 years probably build. I think the last number we had is like 20 55 or something. >> Yeah, one of them even went out into the like 60 or 65. >> Like I said, this is long long term. We're talking. >> So then if we're talking, >> there would be a series of bonds issued. It's not one big >> the treatment facility would be I'd say no less than three projects. >> Yeah, maybe >> it's the pre that would that >> anything for pre2036 likely we'd have to bond for those things. Not we wouldn't all we have we could pay some cash depending on what the balance is in the fund and what we do on the north side, right? If we don't do anything else on the north side now and now now we're >> excuse me now we're at least you know only funding the south side versus if we do both that's why those numbers were show >> it help split that cost too >> yes that's correct >> no more building >> so what helps split building on the north side >> oh >> oh stop splitting yeah don't don't go anymore on the north side >> y >> and it's going to kill the road >> outside I didn't >> I didn't approve you weren't it didn't do anything around this will never ever ever happen but >> nothing has to be either me but >> because so basically it's 15 million in the next 10 years >> which is 5 million a year >> I mean not really I know but like >> 1.5 million >> the pre2036 is about $50 million right >> yes that's a Yep I >> roughly and that's about 10 years right and so like I know it doesn't work this but like to me then it's like oh so that's 5 million a That's still not We're not sitting on that. But from a bonding like I feel like that's something that we could like >> million year. >> Yeah. She just did $50 million6 divided by five. >> Yeah. I mean >> or divided by 10, sorry, for the next 10 years and that's $5 million a year. >> Yeah. >> For $50 million for a pre 2036. >> Simple math. >> Just Yeah. I mean I >> That's the wrong math. >> 50 million divided by 10. >> You're not going to do it in 10 year. Why would you do Why would you're going to bond that when you need it, as you need it. And it's not going to be a 10-year park. >> No. $5 million spend per year if we had to >> we need to build over the next 10 years. >> Yeah. >> My thought of like when I see $100 million even when you're talking bonds I'm like that's the expenditures will be >> like that's just never going to happen. But when I start to break it into smaller increments I'm like okay no that I can see. I can wrap my head around that. I can wrap my head around getting >> We would never do a 10-year bond though to your point mayors. We would never do a 10 bond because we would never afford it. for an example. I mean to get started you need two L's because you have to uh a tower and your first stage of the treatment. >> So that would be your initial bond. So it will be a bigger one up front. But yes, average over the 10 years it' probably be something around. >> But then obviously we would not bond for 10 years. We would bond for 25 years like that. >> So it's so it's even less >> if you did 25 year bond at $50 million $2 million a year. You're going to pay for it past 2036 but we're going to build it before 2036 and then just pay it off after that. >> Yeah. and we've had and like that seems more like I can wrap my head around that. I'm still not happy with it, but like it >> I don't think anybody's excited. I don't think anybody's jumping up and down to spend this amount of money. >> No. >> And again, this is, you know, there's other expenditures in the 2030 time frame. >> Yeah. Oh, >> I mean, we still have the north, which is not nothing. >> So, yeah, there's other big numbers for sure. >> I mean, even Oops. >> North needs to >> Yeah. So, it's another 28 right there. So it's yeah it is a lot and there's other projects in the CIP. This is just supply storage. >> That's not me. >> I'm bringing it down. >> Such a rosy picture for that Jason. >> So if we officially had comments tonight really helped everyone >> cheer up tonight. That's fantastic. >> Um >> um what do we think our chances are on the bonding bill? >> Pretty good. At least for the water tower. So we've gotten the water tower for the bonding bill. We've gotten the water tower the past two years. >> Okay. Historically, bonding bills are always on, and I get this wrong, I think it's on even years. We get they typically do bonding bills, although the last two bonding bills that they've passed have been on odd years, >> nevertheless, >> because they were a year late, >> possibly, >> but so 24 and 25, we were on both bonding bills at the last minute. Both bills never passed. >> Okay. >> Um, we had a million the first year and we had 1.2 and some change in last year's bill. And last year's bill got signed 30 seconds too late. So didn't make it. And the year before that they agreed on a term 30 minutes too late. So we've been on both bills for the water tower specific to the northeast system or the historic village area. We've been on a water tower for both times for just over a million dollars. Um and so our hope is that we're at least on there for a water tower because that helps significantly with that cost. So >> maybe one of them at least one or more of me growross um storageages underground. Uh is that just a dumb way to go? >> Not necessarily. Um if you don't have high enough elevation in the area where you need it. I mean that's the way to go. It's cheaper to build. It's more expensive to maintain operate >> because of the pressure. You got to >> pumps. >> You need pumps. So you need electricity too. So you need generators. You need all those other things with it. But then your pump replacements and and whatnot. It's redundant pumps. >> Gravity is consistent and cheap. So that's >> gravity is consistent. >> It has never fail nothing else. It never goes out. >> It does never fail. >> There there are situations where it does make sense though economically. But I mean if your ground is 30t lower, your available ground is 30t lower than it needs to be or >> right >> 50 ft. You can't have a 300T tower. I suppose you could. It cost you a fortune. Um, but yeah, >> our goal is to get bonding dollars. I think we got a pretty good shot of the water tower to be honest with the council. I don't know how we'll do with the wall treatment plant. That's kind of our option number two. And we also provided dollars related to both roadway intersections which is Pine View and County Road 12 or David Road right over here. And also for Rush Creek Parkway and um 121 or Fbrook. So we asked for four requests. I'm hoping we get all four, but >> yeah, >> based on the last few years, we're lucky to get one. >> Somebody else is going to get an activity center and we're gonna get screwed. >> Thank goodness. I hope for that. >> At least we have realistic requests. I mean, I feel like that's worth something. That was >> Yeah. >> Okay, we got this information. We'll follow up and then if we get any more information from a girl, we will have another work session. >> Yeah. It's just there's no point if we don't have more information. That's kind of kind of where I'm at. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Like I said, I will send out this this PowerPoint following the meeting. So, >> all right, we're >> Thank you.