the city of Minatrista for April 6th, 2026. Uh, present here this evening are Paula Bowman, our city um assistant administrator, Gary Peters, our uh public works director, a council president, our Brian Govern, Kathleen Refkin, myself, Lisa Whan, um, and then we have um, Jasper Krugal, administrator, Brian Grim, finance director, and David Ael, who is our community development director. And then Aaron, what's your last name? Aaron with A2S is here as well. Um we are expecting um our another council member, Claudia Lacy. She did notify us that she would be late, so that's fine. She'll join us when she gets here. And then we also have um a couple of the developers going to be joining us for our second item. I'm going to switch the two items around. So, we're going to talk with Laughler first regarding cyber security and then when we're done with that, hopefully by that time the others will have joined us and then we'll be talking about um future water infrastructure. So, I'm going to hand it over to you first. Excuse me. >> Yes. U Madame Mayor, members of city council. Uh this is stemming from our strategic planning session that we had in in March or in February. um just to kind of talk about cyber security, what we do at at the city and and Jeff will talk about some things that we could maybe consider um adding to our arsenal to kind of protect ourselves from from um threats um and looking if if we do want to do anything, I'd recommend we do it and budget for it in 2027. So Jeff, I'll hand it off to you uh and you can kind of go through there and I'd say feel free to ask questions as as we're doing as we're moving along. >> Yes. Well, thanks Jasper. Um, by all means, uh, please feel free to ask questions as I go, but I thought I would give you the the current state of our security controls at the city. >> Okay. >> Uh, can everybody see my screen? >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> All right. >> And Paul, just so you know, we switched the um agenda items knowing that some people were were coming late. So, yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> All right. >> All right. >> So, um it's a little bit of an eye chart, uh but I'll uh I'll explain each item. So, first of all, uh there are two internet connections uh at at the city. Uh one for the city hall, uh and the PD and one for the LTG. both fire both connections are protected by firewalls and those firewalls all have what's called active gateway security services. Um so that just simply means that all traffic going in and out of the firewall are being scanned for malware for viruses and other intrusions that don't have signatures. Uh we're also doing content filtering to eliminate the access to unwanted or dangerous sites on all of your endpoints. We have a package called called Sentinel One. Sentinel one is an EDR which is which is called endpoint detection and response. This is a very fast acting AI powered protection device that is geared towards eliminating ransomware. Uh and not really eliminating but preventing it. Um that uh is that's a very that's a very important uh piece to the uh cyber security landscape. Before that before that type of technology the the ransomware attacks were a lot higher. So this is definitely a big move in the protection against that. You also have a system called MDR which is powered by Arctic Wolf Networks. MDR the the big difference between EDR and MDR is MDR has a security operations center behind it mostly being monitored not only by AI but also humans. And this is also looking for uh malicious traffic that is moving uh north and south out of firewalls or across your network. It's also monitoring the endpoints just like the EDR system. Any questions on those three controls? >> No. No. >> Okay. All right. We're also doing monthly enduser awareness training. Um we are now using a system. We've always been doing it. It used to be quarterly but now we're doing it monthly. Uh and that also includes fishing simulations. So we're also doing testing uh to see if there are any clickers and who they are. We are also doing external vulnerability scanning on both firewalls. What this means is that we are scanning your firewalls the exact same way that a hacker or a cyber criminal would be scanning them. We're looking for vulnerabilities, but instead of exploiting them, we are triaging and fixing them if they do occur. >> We're also we're also doing quarterly firewall inspections. We are going manually into both firewalls every three months to make sure that there have been no unauthorized changes and to make sure that all the security services that we want running are running and that all of the code and all of the firmware everything's up todate and running smoothly. We're also doing active dark web monitoring. So, if a user a user's credentials of an employee at the city, if they're being used outside of the city for uh you know, a private website like signing up for a Best Buy account and they're using their city address and for some reason the the Best Buy account gets compromised and those credentials get put on the dark web. uh Laughler is monitoring that 24 hours a day and if we see a compromise we immediately reach out to the individual and we change passwords. The last couple things we're doing is we do uh email threat scanning. This is a scan that is happening on all emails coming into the city. And we're scanning and eliminating spam, but we're also eliminating emails with malicious attachments and malicious links before they before they get to the users. It doesn't stop everything, which is why we have the end user awareness training. And if that uh and if they still get tricked, we have the MDR and we have the EDR. all of all in place to again to do everything we can to stop a cyber attack. We also review all of these services uh on a quarterly basis. We have two uh a meeting once a quarter. Uh the customer success manager which is a role that I play with the with the city and we also have a virtual chief information security officer now joining those meetings to give an update and reporting on the AW the Arctic Wolf Networks service. So those that's a lot. Uh we've built this out we've built out that that uh that security uh posture over the last several years. Um and it's been evolving actually for the last six years. So we feel very confident, but there's there's always more work to do. We looked at some of the things um and this is in no particular order um but uh these are some things that I think we could we could budget for in the years to come. Uh doing a annual penetration test. uh we would hire out a third-party firm to actually do a test against our defenses to see if they can see or get into any systems at the city. Um we recommend that on an annual basis. We also would like to review or implement an incident response plan particularly as it pertains to cyber security to a cyber security incident. and we'd like to do a annual tabletop exercise with all of those involved in the plan. We like to do this annually as well. Um it's it's kind of like a pick your own adventure. We won't do the same type of of security incident each year. It'll get more and more uh creative, but also very relevant to what we're seeing in the industry. Doing continuous internal vulnerability scanning is a lot of work. It produces a lot of remediation potentially, but we believe that internal vulnerability scanning is a control that should be considered. Uh again, we're looking for outofdate systems and we're not just looking for computer systems. We're looking for anything attached to the network these days. That could be a refrigerator. It could be um any type of of of device that is connecting to the internet for any type of communication. Those will show up on you know HVAC sometimes is uh uh is on the network. Um we're looking at all controls to see if there are vulnerabilities exposed. Doing an annual security assessment. Part of the Arctic Wolf offering is a light assessment that we will work through on an annual basis, but it the key word there is light. It's a very light assessment. Um, doing a more thorough phys uh a more thorough assessment is something to consider. Uh, again, that would be looking at controls in both internal and external technology controls. That's the vulnerability scanning. physical controls which would be uh access control, video surveillance, uh intrusion prevention type systems, access to the server room and also administrative controls. This kind of dovetales into policy management. A lot of uh a lot of companies, a lot of cities do not have managed policies uh for things like uh acceptable use policies for internet access, um incident response policies, uh clean desk policies. So there's just a lot of policies that that uh surround uh cyber security controls and a lot of people don't have them and they don't manage them. um a security assessment would expose that uh and let you know what you have and don't have and what we need to work on backup recovery and testing. So in the event we have a situation where we have to rely on our disaster recovery uh controls, we need to test those and we should test those on an annual basis. And the last thing I want to touch on um is something a a little new to the industry um but it's getting a lot of a lot of press lately and it's called risky login. So we have and I I I didn't cover this I should have. Um the city also has multifactor authentication with conditional access. So everybody these days is doing some type of multiffactor authentication in their life. uh whether that's logging on to your online banking account or your credit card accounts. A lot of times you're issued a one-time password. Um we use the Microsoft authenticator program to do our uh authentication. Part of that is is it includes a policy called geoencing. Geo fencing means that if you're in a country that is not allowed inside the policy, you can't access the tenant at all because people are trying to hack your tenant all the time. Um, and one of the ways to get it to to prevent a lot of exposure is to eliminate the the countries that have access. So, we normally limit that to the United States. Well, now hackers have gotten very smart and they're starting to attack from within the United States. So, geo fencing becomes less effective. Very effective still for the majority of the hacks, but a lot of hackers are starting to now populate inside US-based data centers. So now what that what that's saying is if Jasper logs in in the in in the city of Minatrista uh at 8 a.m. on on Monday morning and we get another attempt for Jasper trying to log in from New Mexico at at uh at 8:45. We're realizing that that's not possible, right? Um and these these hackers will launch into the attacks from all over the United States, right? um and that is considered a risky login and it will actually create actions to shut down Jasper's account. So there's there's technologies like that on the horizon that um we'll also want to watch and uh it's that's a service delivered by Microsoft again. So Microsoft is definitely uh keeping the security controls in their in their services very up to date. So, we're happy about that. So, that's that's everything that you have and that's kind of a little bit of a road map of of what we should look at. Um, any questions that I can answer? I I did have a question about um I know one of the issues that we've seen here in the city and uh from media reports it's been fairly widespread around Minnesota is uh spoofed emails coming appearing to come from um municipalities trying to essentially scam people. Do you guys offer any ability to um stop website scraping or to have like a honeypot to monitor for that kind of activity? There are some some technical controls inside of uh the exchange online um that we that we have in place to help prevent uh spoofing. Um, also the uh the email filtering system that we use um is is is there to help control some of that as well. Beyond that, uh it gets a little bit beyond my uh knowledge to really dive into that. Um but no, we don't have anything like that in place like a honeypot. >> Um if if I may, I'll add a couple things because Brian and I have had some offline conversations about this. We have looked into doing like a recapture if you're familiar with that um process on our website when you download like an agenda packet because I think that's what's happening is people are pulling our information off our website looking at like a um land use application pulling out pertinent information sending them an invoice and then trying to get So that's happened a few times here in miniaturrist. It happened it's h it's happening everywhere. Um, Civic Plus, Paula looked into this and we've been working with Civic Plus does not have that feature, but we've requested it. Um, so we're we're working on that if there's a way to do it. It would become more cumbersome to download for, you know, a normal user, but um, I think that's fine because it would hopefully avoid um, some of the confusion that we've had uh, from some of our residents. So, we've been working on that. We we also you may have seen it in claims. We've also purchased some similar domains and added that to our domain pile um as of recently too. So somebody couldn't get like city of miniaturista I don't know biz or something like that and then it looks like it's coming from us. And so we've we've we've captured those and um we're trying to do almost everything we can to to avoid some of these things, but sometimes it's they're the the actors are generally a step ahead of everybody else um that's trying to trying to alleviate these things. But um we're going to continue to work on it and and hopefully hopefully that recapture or there's some other sort sort of um solution to downloading things from our website that adds a little check and balance. >> Right. So what has happened then if people get these bogus invoices? Have they paid them? >> No. Thankfully they've reached out to us. >> Okay. >> Confirmed whether we had sent it or not and we quickly we forwarded on to our public safety department and told them no it's not from us. >> So when somebody applies for a permit has any kind of dealings It's re it just recently happened. Okay. Um so but yeah, we certainly can be more >> upfront with them about that. Yes. >> And they have investigated these and they've all come from overseas. So they kind of end at that because we're not going to go that far in the investigation. >> Right. >> Hey Claudia, it's okay. And Highland was also closed. >> Yeah, I know. I know. Turn into all right. It's a Yeah. >> Yeah. I I can report no injuries. >> Oh, thank God. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. We'll talk about that later. Um All right. Any other questions regarding um for Jeff? Otherwise, I think what we should probably do then, thank you, Jeff, for all this information. It's for me it's a lot. Um I think what we'll do is if you can at some point maybe later on this year provide our staff or maybe before we start talking budgets provide our staff with some numbers for the various things and then um also maybe talk with them and make some recommendations as to what we need. I don't know if we need everything but um what would be the top two or three things that we should add if anything. Uh maybe we're okay with what we already have. I don't know. Um so and then they can come back and we can then discuss that and and add it to our budget for 27. >> I can do that. >> All right. All right. >> Yeah. Thanks for your time. >> Thank Thank you. >> You kind of scary actually. Yes. >> That's for a living. >> Yeah. All right. Um, so now we're going to do um our the second thing that's on our agenda is the future water main extension discussion. So I'm going to ask Aaron, do you want to start that or >> Yeah, definitely. Um, we can kind of Yeah, if Aaron wants to to present a little bit here. I'm going to pull up the PowerPoint um he has provided us. But really what this is talking about, I'll give you a little backs back history on this. Um we've been obviously talking to u the developers regarding the Accate property and um that's kind of where this stemmed from. We've talked about the the extension and and the redundant water line that we've needed from our future water treatment plant which they just broke ground on recently. Um and then with that we I asked the question to A2S. I said, "Well, are there other areas in town we should be thinking about as far as, you know, having the the best system for looping and and things like that, redundant water sources?" So, there were some other um you'll see there's basically four different areas here that they're going to look at. One of them is pretty much needed. Um the other one, um I have them kind of in order as far as the maps go. You know, what we priority levels. Um the next one is just a little connection over here on on 110. um that would provide a lot of support for the Hallstead area. And then the other two are kind of like, well, these would be good um but maybe not necessarily required right now, but it's good to have in front of everybody. So, I don't know if that's a good summary from how we got here. Um but I will leave it to to Aaron and I can give you give you this if that works for you. Thank you. >> So, can I just ask a question before Aaron starts? So, on here we listed the four main properties. So, does the bowl property not need looping or any water mane or anything out there because there wasn't anything for that in the packet? >> Yeah. So, the the bowl property, as you know, the water towers right there. Eventually, if that area kind of as a whole kind of develops, then there likely is required to have some additional water sources and that would be that 110 line coming from Holstead over to to basically have it going to Highland, but extending that to 92 and then into that area. So, All right. Well, thanks, Madame Mayor, members of council. Uh, I'm here to give, I guess, a brief update on the water plant and then we'll get into pipeline improvements as, uh, Casper mentioned. So, um, I guess just a brief update on water plant construction. We've started, >> we were we also have did do a um, we were going to do a shovel thing. You know, we >> will. Yeah. The date, but >> it's we're going to shoot for um the work session on June 1st. That seems like >> there'll be a lot of progress there by then. >> It'll we'll have something to look at in the background, but um >> that's that's what we've looked at. >> Okay. Why June 1st? Why not May? I I'm just asking. >> Well, so there's a timing piece. We'd like to wait until the legislative session ends, which is May 19th. Okay. >> So, to get it to work with that, >> we can we can do whatever you guys want, though. If you want to move it up, we sure can. So, so we're delaying it in case they give us bonding. So, some of them can be in the photo cuz that that's that's okay. >> Absolutely. >> We could do it in May 20th. >> Groundbreaking whenever we want. Uh it's not uncommon to do groundbreaking when we've already started. Uh just the way things typically work. But >> I just don't want to lose sight of it because we've been working on this for a gazillion years. and uh and uh you know we've we should take pride in in what we're doing here. So um maybe we do it May 20th. I don't know. I'm just saying. >> Well, and I will forewarn you. It will seem like things are going very slow for the first six months cuz they have to move a lot of dirt. They have to pour a lot of concrete. There will be a ginormous hole there for >> basically all summer. So it won't change much or won't look like >> that's going to be fenced off really well for all of the kids in our neighborhood. Correct. Yeah, >> a gazillion and ginormous. >> Some of them have been known to go into the homes that are being built. So, >> not mine. >> All right. >> Couple pictures. Um the contractor started a couple weeks ago excavating. I believe uh the they hope to be done excavating actually this week. Um but with all of the rain we've received recently, it slowed them a little bit. So, um there's I guess one picture. Uh you can see another picture on the right as they continue to kind of get deeper there. Uh they did deliver a crane last week. So they used the existing drive on Highway 7 to deliver that. Uh they were very appreciative of the police department that uh helped with some warning signs and blocked off parts of Highway 7. Make sure that make sure that delivery behind was safe. So >> you couldn't get by. >> So that and then they're also uh constructing Mount Minatrista. >> Mount Matrista. Yeah. >> of the water plant. So, uh and for all intents and purposes, that pile of dirt will stay there, right? >> Uh and and help >> and actually kind of block the view for Yes. Right. >> I mean, it won't look like that. >> No, there'll be terrace and landscaped and things, but for now, it's a nice place to store dirt. >> Yeah. >> So, >> there's a lot of those in that neighborhood. It's fine. >> I lost. >> Let me advance. There you go. Um, in addition to I guess the construction that's happening, I I think you all are aware that there is a project website. So, as things progress, we will put pictures and updates on the website just so the community can stay engaged on the progress. There's really not a lot on there yet, but our team will continually monitor that and and work with city staff to update. >> And so, here's here's my comment on the website. I think it it I haven't I think we need to have it on our website. >> It is. Okay. And so I also asked staff to put either a link or something on the front page so it's very easy to find because I wasn't able to find it. >> So I I went there today. >> Okay. >> And on the the main web page there's a picture and a link to the water plant website. >> So you off site to kind of the the web map. >> Okay. >> Um so it's very uh accessible. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Um so we're providing updates on the website. Uh we've met with the contractor throughout the winter about monthly. They really weren't obviously doing anything on site, but just to get paperwork and and submitts reviewed. Uh so they're in the process of uh doing that submitt review, ordering the equipment and things that they need. We've got we've completed about 101 submitts, which essentially is purchasing different equipment that's going to go in the water plant. We review it, make sure it's correct, it meets all the specification requirements, and then once it's approved, they proceed with purchasing it. There's also been some RFIs just as they have questions about the project and details. So, we've processed those. Um, our on-site team is starting to be on site more regularly now that they're on site uh moving dirt. So, they they're planning to be there two to three days a week just observing construction and and providing coordination as needed. So, and we plan to meet with the contractor every other week just as a as a kind of a standing progress meeting uh to keep up to speed with activities. So, that's kind of it for the water plant construction. Not a lot, but exciting that they're uh starting. >> Okay. >> It's on my end. Sorry about that. >> Um, pipeline improvements. So, uh, as, uh, Jasper mentioned, as we've been talking, kind of moving on from the water plant, uh, coordination and getting into more distribution system improvements. We met with, uh, M&I Homes to talk about the Akarati property recently, and that kind of spurred a discussion about other water main uh, improvements. Um, so you can see here an image just to the west of uh, the water plant south of Highway 7. There's a development that's looking to move forward. So, there's discussions about what type of water mane we may need within that development and the the size that we would likely request as part of overall distribution system um sizing. Um so, as you can see here, there's about 7,000 ft of of pipeline within that development. Uh we're recommending a 12-in line just to help with transmission from east to west through your community. Um typical city uh processes anything larger than 8 in would be uh paid for by the city because of the upgrade requirement. 8 in is required. >> You're so but you're talking 8 in within the development. >> Yes, within the development that typically it's requirement that the developer would pay for the 8 in and then anything above that that the city requires would be city funded. Uh >> we would just pay the upcharge. >> Yes. >> Just the upcharge. >> Yeah. >> Why? So because they only require 8 in >> the the for this development for instance >> who's they the state the like who requires >> the city I guess is my understanding is that's kind of a city policy is 8 in standard >> we want 12 in why does our policy have eight >> so so >> that's a good question >> it is a good question so the 8 in is is the size needed to serve the community if there's like a trunk line or whatever we want to call these that come through there that's a different thing and not all developments will need it. And there's certain areas like in Woodland Cove that need 12 in versus 8 in. Um so the city standard is 8 in. That's why um we could move it up to 12 um just be I don't know for most of for most of the areas and Eric can correct me if I'm wrong, but for most of these areas 8 in will serve this just fine. The 12in upgrade though is for future looping and and more water towards the west and the as new as more developments come online. But 8 in will serve, you know, most areas just fine. >> I don't have a full system map as part of this presentation, but uh Highway 7 is a bit of a bottleneck for the community is it's a there's a single 12 in that runs down Highway 7. And because of the location of this development, as Gary mentioned, it helps increasing to 12 in helps with that transmission from east to west. But in most neighborhoods, they wouldn't be near a main transmission corridor like this. So, we wouldn't require 12 in. So, that's I guess kind of to Jasper's point, it's this is really considered more of a trunk system improvement, not uh a standard development. >> And I think I don't know there's there are issues with having too big of water mans too. If they don't use enough water, that water sits in that pipe longer than what we'd like. So, it's kind of a balance of that. So, so our team has looked at kind of the proposed piping at this point and that upsizing charge based on, you know, what connections we might need and some of the negotiations that we might uh go through with the developer, the city will contribute probably somewhere between $300 $600,000 to do that upgrade uh in transmission. So, >> remind me again within the we'll call it the Accate development within there, they only need 8 in, >> right? >> Okay. So, and we we're not upgrading to 12-in within that development. >> No, no. So, um we are upgrading within the development to 12 in. They only need 8 in to serve those homes. The 12 in is of benefit to the community to help with transmission of water from the water plant to the west. >> Okay. Then, and then Okay. So then, however, you're also saying on this page that we need this whole trunk line. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, we need to talk about this. >> We're jumping around. Why isn't it the same size line? Like, why do we have yellow and then blue and then red? What? Like, >> I cannot explain. >> Yeah. And just just a point of clarity, not all the lines in that development will be 12 in. It'll just be certain areas that we determine that need to have higher. >> And this is very early. Uh we're just estimating right now. We're trying to get a handle on costs of where we think we might be for costs, but the design is still evolving. So, okay, the map I showed is very early. >> Um so, this is the south pipeline improvements that we're recommending and and this was part of the kind of the master planning effort and we've kind of known about these upsizing requirements. Uh but I guess to your question, there's the yellow line which is the 20-in coming from the water plant, crosses Highway 7, and then runs on the south side. uh and then it decreases to a 16 inch which is the blue that decreases because you can see that little uh leg there that connects to the north. So we're we're sending some water uh that direction. So we don't need the full 20 in all the way because we're uh removing some of the water from that that over overall capacity to the north. >> But we're going to need more west when the next development comes in. >> Yes. But be but but that's because if you look on the very far left of the map where it connects to that red piece, if we don't increase it, you or if you if you would um only put an 8 in through that community, you'd essentially be funneled through that 12 in on Highway 7. So you get >> wondering why it's not yellow the whole way. >> Yeah, that's that's >> She wants to put 20 inch in the whole way. Be >> be again because >> don't want to I want to know why. It really has to do with velocities. When when our when our modeling team runs the model, they look at the velocity of of water moving through the pipe and they try to keep velocity within a certain range. >> Um so because we're we're sending water some of the water through kind of the the um >> to the north >> to the north >> that's decreasing the velocity which allows us to reduce the size of that pipe and and reduce it down to the the 16 inch or the blue size. So uh again we're trying to be efficient with sizing. This is the benefit of having a detailed model is rather than running 20 inch the whole way. We can say we're within a velocity that it's it's not as beneficial. >> But as we add more properties, won't we need the velocity, you know, 2 miles down the road more? >> I guess that's >> you will, but but you're you're um you're connecting into that the Acrai development. >> So, um the additional piping there helps with with that transmission. you're there would be no benefit to continue that 20 in. >> Even if even if let's just say every property along Highway 7 on the northern part were to develop. You're saying we still wouldn't need a 20-in pipe. >> I was asking. >> Yeah. No, that's my question, too. Like >> from our modeling team, they don't see the need. >> Okay. Because um here's how I see it. I mean, this is just I I'm not an engineer, so I'm not trying to engineer this for you, but um when when this 12-in pipe was put in all the way down to um Hunress Crest, it was put in there because Hunress Crest was being developed. St. Bonnie didn't want to sell us their water, so we had to bring water to them. And it was designed 12 in. We said, "Okay, that's going to be enough for who knows how long." Had we put in a 20-in at that point or maybe a 16in, we'd be okay today. So what I'm asking is if we look at future let's say long-term 30 40 years or 30 years from now okay we look at long-term um development is that 16-in blue line going to be sufficient enough or would it be cost would it be better to add a little bit more now so that we're not redoing it in 20 years >> we can definitely look at that I I I don't have an answer right now based on the master planning effort that we did when we looked at the proposed development, you know, into the future. >> It seemed that this would be acceptable. But I think that's why we're coming to you today cuz we're we're proposing that we start looking and designing these pieces because especially this component we know we will need >> to start providing water to the west. So I think it it's it's it's worth kind of revisiting that blue line to see 20 in and what is the cost? >> Pricing really isn't that much more according to this. It's like 20 like put the bigger pipe in and save a lot of money. >> Again, sometimes we overengineer things and try to pick at pennies to save a few dollars, but overall I may be beneficial just to put a 20 in. But um we can definitely put that on the list of things to look at. >> I think we should. >> And Aaron, correct me if I'm wrong, on the north side, we never consider we considered some development there, but not everything. No, it >> if you're thinking that you're looking at a possibility of all of that being developed, yeah, then we should probably revisit this to look at that. But right now, we were only looking at a smaller area of that being developed, not everything. So, everybody selling, you know, basically from Oak, you know, from Oak Road all or basically from the roundabout on the north side. We were not planning on everybody selling off and developing. So, >> and I plan to come back on the 20th. >> Okay. Okay, I can pro provide a little bit more information on the assumptions that we've kind of used in sizing these be helpful to you to make sure >> and we can look at the properties that would be potentially that might develop within the next 20 years. Maybe the equestrian development isn't going to, you know, but there's other properties that might and on the south too, >> right? >> So, um, okay. Now, I have I think we we're going to go back to this map because I think that's why Paul Robinson and and your um >> Emily are here. So, and I was talking to staff about this earlier. So, in the past, every time we have a development come in, they want to develop, we said, great, that's fine, but you need to bring water to your development. So, this to me is a little bit of a difference from what we've been doing. So, and I use the example when I talked to staff today and you can jump in, David. When when um Red Oak was developed, uh they had to bring the water line from 150 uh down 151 from 110 over to 19 up to their development. So, a question, and Paul isn't going to like this question, but the question is, why wouldn't we require this development to do the same? I I don't I'm not as familiar with the the past precedent. So, okay. I guess based on my understanding of of this transmission and and kind of what we're showing here is this is really treated more as uh trunk infrastructure to help develop the entire western portion of of the city uh as development continues, you know, west. Okay. So, we would need this to help all of that development to uh to say that the karate property should pay for this entire chunk um in in its entirety. Uh basically anyone else that would develop down the road that would benefit from this would be getting this infrastructure for free. So, so we we we typically treat the city charges trunk infrastructure fees to pay for things like this that help more than just a single developer. They help transmit water across the community. Uh so it falls into a little bit different bucket than individual supply to just a single development. >> The only Yeah. And >> but if you I mean you look at the piping, it's just for this property. I mean the this line's already there. The highway 7 line is already there, >> right? And they can hook into that. >> Yeah. >> So they don't need this pipe, >> right? >> Right. Well, no, they need pipes though. So like again, back to >> need this one. >> They don't they don't need the yellow blue one. >> Well, no, that one I know that one that one's ours. I get that. >> So if you think about um think about a water balloon and if we if we want to uh if we squeeze on a water balloon in one direction to push, you know, to expand it one direction, you have to put more pressure on one side. In order for us to move water from the east side of the community to the west, if we don't put this pipeline in, you'll see likely 20 psi pressure increases for the the homes around the water plant. Uh which is probably more than what we would want. So, um by putting this in, it helps decrease that pressure increase and basically helps with transmission of water from the east side of the community to the west. It's not necessarily intended just for the karate property. It really helps everyone to the west of this uh infrastructure. >> Is there any benefit to years ago? I know there was a big thing about maybe I'm not thinking right. Putting pressure reducers on certain areas or homes around certain areas. Would that be cheaper than putting it? I don't I'm just trying to conceptualize a little bit is if you're saying one of the main reasons is there's going to be pressure around the plant. Well, know we used to talk about pressure reducers. I know it's >> Well, I think we also have a pressure issue for some of the um areas in Woodland Cove. >> Yeah. Uh >> I mean, they don't have enough pressure, >> especially to the east of the water plant. There's some low areas that have quite high pressure. So, we want to minimize additional increases. They they will likely see some increase, and we could look at select PRVs, but it's not something we want to treat as maybe a u a main alternative. I think it's a it's a secondary alternative in areas where we just can't uh manage. >> You would open yourself up with some liability too if you start increasing pressures beyond that. You know, say 70 is what normal if you're pushing 8090 and you're putting PRVS in houses as we have now. You will I would think you'd probably open yourself up to a little bit of liability. You know, knowing that that you're doing that. I mean, we you try to avoid, you know, that high pressure zone as much as possible. lower areas that are being served, you know, are going to be susceptible to it, but you don't really want to increase areas that you wouldn't normally have to. And we do have that in, you know, this North Saunders because of the topographical lay of the land as compared to what their elevation is compared to what it is. That's why Saunders, North Saunders end up having to have the pressure, you know, reducers in there. Same with Turtle. Some of that area has that, too. But you don't you want to try to eliminate that as much as possible. You want to keep a steady pressure. >> And there are homes east of the water plant that are over 100 or would be over 100 PSI if we don't uh install this infrastructure. >> Okay. So with the you're talking about the yellow blue line if you don't install that. Um okay. Could you All right. Um so then the next question is Paul. When do you how would this um tie into their development and do they need that that line for their development? >> Um they they do not need this line to access water. Um >> and what would happen to the pressure either pro or con >> if we don't put this >> I'm I'm saying well I'm trying to figure out timing. >> Sure. you know because if and then do the if they don't need this line can we put this in um I'm trying to think of funding so two so I'm thinking funding and timing and all of this together how can that work >> so on the fifth bullet down so if we don't do this um we so currently the plant is designed to treat 2,100 gallons per minute and we have the pumping capacity of 2,800 gallons a to allow us to use that clear well as a little bit of a buffer. >> If we don't put this these lines in and we want to maintain the pressures that we currently have, >> we're limited in pumping capacity at the water plant to 1,500 gallons a minute. So, we we will just we will reduce how much water we can push out. >> Again, it's the water balloon factors. We just can't push as hard. If the harder we push, the more pressure increase we will feel. So, if we don't put these lines in, we will be limited to an additional 1500 gallons per minute of water that we can push out of that water plant. Um, which is still quite a bit of additional capacity. >> I was just going to say that's more um capacity than we currently have. Plus, it would probably take us further down the road. In other words, >> so um uh so we need to we need to absolutely balance that of the criticality of we do think this is a a necessary long-term improvement that a city should invest in for transmission and efficiency, >> but we still will get about 1500 gallons a minute according to the model. Uh that will uh with minimal pressure increase. Um if you start going above that, you'll start to see significant pressure increases. So then again timing wise for the karate property then >> you do not need this to serve the property. >> And then we just pump 1500 gallons a minute. Okay. At what point at are the 1500 gallons not going to be sufficient? >> That all depends on long-term demand. So I I don't know an exact date. I'd have to go back and look at our projections. Um but I can definitely come back with that uh for next visit. And the reason I'm asking is because obviously with these um developments they're coming in, we're going to get trunk fees and a connection fees and so on. So I'm just wondering if we can hold off a year or two or you know how how many years. I don't want to push it too far off, but in the meantime, we can be collecting these fees and then once we have maybe not enough, but more than what we currently have. Currently we have zero dollars for this. So, um, then we could be collecting those trunk fees and those connection fees and then at some point using that fund to do this project. >> Yep. I I understand that the timing consideration. Um, I don't have a date now. I can definitely come back with some additional thoughts. Um, the market is good right now for underground construction. >> Okay. >> Um, >> you know, oil prices having gone up doesn't help, but >> right, >> contractors are still very hungry and bidding projects well. So, we want to take some of that into consideration that, you know, capitalizing on a on a good environment crap, but it's still going to be an expensive project either way. So, um, but I can definitely talk to our team and try to nail down a little bit better time frame. Um, you know, the one thing that the one of the reasons we did invest in the larger clear well and pumping was to try to delay that additional storage, right? >> So, and I believe that had we not done that, we would have wanted to invest in that additional storage in around 2030. So, um >> I think that's where we're going to start to run into conflicts where we can't push out the water that we need to accomplish the storage equivalency um by 2030. Um okay. >> And it takes you know a year to not year but some time to design some time to construct. So uh I do have a timeline at the end of this so we can kind of put that into perspective of the time it may take to uh to execute. >> Right. And so the timing might be an issue, might be the question, because then maybe we need to talk with the developer to see if they're interested in working out some kind of a special deal. Um, no, seriously, because I know you're Paul, you're thinking about doing what, five or six phases? How many phases? >> We're still working that out. I mean, I think part of this is just that's why we're in work session, but here the pieces. I think we're we're going to work with you to try to figure out what works best for both of us. Okay. >> I do see that the watering the way that they're showing it really it's a win-win for the city. This is pretty common or typically across the twin cities when it goes from EA to 12 cuz most neighborhoods don't need that. You know, it's like putting Highway 7 through a neighborhood and then expecting the neighborhood to pay for Highway 7. They don't do that. But so it just kind of depends. I think Aaron, you're going to figure out when the timing is cuz you're you're going to the benefit to you is you're going to want us to put that 12 in in because it's a benefit for you because >> and that I'm not questioning. Yeah. >> Yeah. That I think. >> Yeah. >> But I'm I'm wondering in terms of trunk fees if there is something we can if there's some mutual benefit for both of us. Maybe you prepay your trunk fees or whatever rather than paying them in phases. I'm just throwing it out as an idea. I think when we figure out some of the totality of what needs to happen, we can start to put numbers to it and see what works. I mean, because we were expecting to get water and not pay more than what we were planning. So, this would throw our perform off quite a bit if we had all of a large trunk line because we knew there was water. That was part of our initial figuring this thing out. wires. We were basically closed and we knew we were going to have to extend the lift station to get to >> and our modeling team has looked at the EAW for the development and there wasn't any major concerns as far as >> um >> I think one of the questions that was asked is how much water can we take in the next year or two years and you know what's theable amount and our modeling team didn't have any major concerns with like speed of water and when they would need it o other than just overall capacity But there's there's there's capacity on the 12 in to serve them. It's just the transmission of it kind of across the community is bigger issue. >> So again, Paul just >> um so just when will you know how many phases and do you have when will you have some kind of timeline? Do you have any idea? I mean, we're just getting through the EAW process. We're going to be starting to put a concept plan together. Um, and so I I would say just knowing how big this is and where we're headed, I would say it's probably three or four phases or two or three phases, >> you know? And we're really just kind of debating what makes sense, right? What's the first phase? Are we going to bring in all the products in the first phase or not? And and again, kind of it sort of there's a little chicken and egg here with well, is the water going to be there? You know, the water going to be here? Are we jacking across the highway or you know are we putting in a roundabout and then we bringing the water across when the roundabout goes in you know so there's a lot of moving parts that we're all trying all together trying to figure out >> right okay I just I just want to make >> isn't to leave the city hanging at any point >> no I'm not and I know that I'm not saying that I'm just trying to figure out what's mutually beneficial and and that's I think the key here how can we and when do we need to do this this yellow blue line. Um that that's I think the biggest the up upcharge or the upgrading or upsizing of the um ones in the development. I think that's that's not the biggest issue. That's you know what is it a couple hundred,000 I mean >> to 600,000 negotiated you know connection >> and we'll negotiate that. No. Anyhow, so but the bigger issue is that two plus million dollar um trunk line. So okay >> um and I I guess one other thing you know just we are trying to look at all these pipelines kind of holistically that uh you know they're unit price projects. The more you do there's some economy. So we we wanted to lay it all out say these are the main ones we're recommending. timing of it is is is uh obviously up to the city, but there's benefit sometimes of of bidding larger projects uh when you know you need to execute this amount of work just to get the economy of scale. So, I just wanted to make that note. Um on the north side, um we all have also recommended a uh a 16inch line down Highway 110. Um so that again was in the master plan originally that we we knew we would want this. to provide some additional looping in the community and water supply to to um to kind that area. Um so as in addition to the the 16inch down 110, we uh we would extend the 12 in uh just to the west there uh on 110 as well, west of um Holstead. Um and then and then south on I can get the numbers. Sorry, Highland. Uh so a 12 inch south on Highland as well. Um so the benefits of of this northern pipeline improvements project it supports that future tower. >> Go back to the um >> the map that's different than this. >> Looks like zoomed out a bit I think. >> So yeah the one in your sorry the one in the packet um doesn't have the uh 8 inch extension. Looks like that was omitted from there. Um, from Highland 292. Come again. >> Oh, here. There. Okay. All right. And these are all in the future. I mean, obviously, we can't do all of this now. And and the here's here's the thing we have to be careful of, okay? Because um what happened years ago is the city had to run sewer. This, you know, way back when, even before I was here, which is a long, long time ago. Anyhow, um way back when they had to put sewer in. And so they put sewer in and then some areas that didn't get sewer, they said, "Well, the sewer lines are here and you can eventually hook up, so we're going to assess you." Well, guess what? 30 years later, 40 more than 40 years later, those areas still can't hook up to that sewer when they're not in the areas aren't being developed. So, I want to be very very careful about extending all these water lines in hopes that in the future the these areas are going to develop because we're going to be spending a lot of money now and 40, 50 years from now, we're going to have to spend more money to redo them, you know. So, I we need to be careful and I understand about the looping issues, but there's only so much we can do right now. >> One thing to one thing to look at too is not doing this right away, but at least have it on the books so that when developers are looking at these properties that, you know, they can we can say, "Yes, look, we do have a plan in place. This is what we're looking at, you know, and you know, not so much getting it done right now, but at least have the plan in place to have it that we're ready to go." So that say the the property up here sign property goals two years from now we can say look we have this plan in place this is what we're looking at you know and it's there. So I mean it's it's not like an immediate need but we should have you know something ready to go formulated for a plan in place for all this stuff. So not just some maps you know lines on a map but actually do it and have a plan in place to say this is what this is going to be. This is where we're going to go with it. have some plans, you know, rough plans drawn up, but it's ready to go. >> Yeah, there's definitely a balancing act of you um if you don't have accessible water in these areas and they do decide to develop, you may miss the opportunity to connect those homes as well. So, and and we want to connect homes to the water system to help pay for the water system that we've uh invested in. So I think there's a balancing act of I agree we don't want to put pipeline there too early and then it sits for 25 years and we end up having to replace it before we even use it. Um but if we don't have it there it makes it harder for anyone to actually connect to it. So uh and I and to my earlier point as well um there is some benefit of economy of scale and if we're going to invest in some pipeline work in the south is there a benefit of bidding this portion with it as a bid alternate just to see what the cost is and we can always not award it or at least have a better understanding of that cost uh for future investment or if it is if it does come in reasonable we bid it. Uh but that's really a city decision uh to decide you know how urgent you think uh water supply in that area uh would be. Um again benefits of that northern portion. It does uh support that future tower site to the north um up by I think it was Lake Sullivan. Um it supports uh kind of looping to minimize single point of failure. So, you do have a single 12-in line that runs to the north kind of along the lakes there that if that would fail, it would cut off quite a bit uh portion of uh users. Uh it provides city water to city hall. I know we don't have city water in this location. Um and it again provides uh water to potential developments to the north and west of St. Bonafacious. Um again, the number is quite large, but I'm just putting that out there. That's our early estimates based on what we could uh quickly um pull together. and some minor um kind of portions kind of connected to that northern pipeline segment. Uh there's a Hallside pipeline improvements that would go just to the east that really just helps with some of the looping in in that corner to minimize the risk uh to the uh the homes to the north that there's a single pipe that kind of runs up that road that if that does fail, we do lose quite a few homes. Uh and and I will fight for this one. This one is a must because we ended up with a curb stop failure in um Pinnacle Way. And the only way to fix it is to shut the water off the Pinnacle Way, which shuts everything off to North Saunders. And we do not want to open the interconnects up with Mount again because that was nothing but a mess. Oh, I will push for this one that this is a must in the near future to get this done because I mean it's not a blot. It's not everybody but it is very beneficial for homeowners in the in North and South Saunders if something was to go wrong in the in the other development that they can continue to have water. >> Again, here's kind of our our rough estimate uh just looking at it at this point. >> 311 for that that >> but it's it's not in the millions like the other ones. So, this one's a little bit easier to swallow, but um that's our initial estimate. >> Why is that different than the 187? >> Yeah, I was I was just going to look at that. I goes, "Wait, that that number isn't what we had in our packet." We had 187 in our packet. >> I don't know. >> Yeah. Was it 187? >> It was It is 187 in the packet. So, >> so I'm sorry. You're going to have to build it for 187. >> Well, correct me if I'm wrong here. What they're see what they're seeing here was this not developed by Jake last year. >> They may have that may have been old cost >> and I was wondering why some of the 12 in is $100 and some of the 12 in is $175. >> That may have been old information as we again go back into this review >> of current bid estimates. This is now >> okay. Well, we just >> not better but >> yeah. Wait, are the 2.7 and the 3 point is that going to go up by 1.75% or >> it depends on what the >> No, cuz like >> I have in my PowerPoint are the current >> current. Okay. >> So, I guess to that point >> some of the 12 in didn't get updated. That's why it's wrong. It's 100 instead of 175. >> Okay. >> So, and this is just me providing kind of a brief cost estimate on everything. So, we've got the water plant cost. I understand it's small. uh the you know just total of some of the professional services for mostly the water plant work and then the other projects that we are tracking um and I added these pipeline projects to that blue chunk just so we can see kind of total investment in water infrastructure recently again the pipeline projects are very kind of time dependent they're not urgent right now but we do need to plan for them in the future um >> so before you finish here another question and I I kind of had the same one Kathleen pointed out go back to um >> way >> Pinnacle Way one um why why stop it right there is that are you then saying the developer for let's say H Hallstead and or um any other parcels >> why would have to bring that in >> why would it replace part of the 10in and make it the 12 in on 110 farther >> or would that be the developer's um cost. >> So, so you're you're asking why so we're >> this is just a looping connection. >> Yeah. >> Okay. But so where it like where the 10-in connects to Cardinal Cove Drive, why wouldn't we get rid of that 10- in and make it just 12 inch farther to the next connection point, I guess. Why would we keep that pink line and not replace? >> We could do that. Yeah, you could go all the way to >> Again, these are really just kind of cartoon ideas. We would absolutely talk about that further as we get into design. >> Okay. All right. Maybe that's why it's 311 versus 187. >> Unfortunately, not. >> Okay. >> And then quickly timeline. So I guess again we're we're putting all these out here as kind of more of a transparent holistic like these things will need to happen eventually. Uh it's up to the city to decide timing. The thought was if we wanted to proceed with these, you could design this year, bid next year, and then you'd have a couple years to build it. You talked about, and we can come back with some more detailed recommendations as far as the need and the demand and how that might uh interact. But, you know, if you spent two summers building these pipelines, uh the plant is intended to be done. uh substantial complete by J end of January of 2028 and final completion by um end of June or sorry 1 of July 2028. So you'd be finishing up these pipelines kind of the same construction season. Um and you >> and then what so then Paul what's your timeline in terms of starting and needing I mean you would have water right you would because you would tie into the existing 12 in. >> Yeah depending on again that's the basement. >> Okay. So, so you're not under a timeline. >> I mean, we're hoping to get in construction next summer. >> Okay. So, >> exactly how that first phase looks. We don't know yet. And that's something I mean, MI is obviously they're 80% of the neighborhood. You know, we're Rachel is a small portion. And so, I think they're a little bit more driving the bus on exactly what the first phase will look like. >> We we're actually in the middle of discussing now right now and trying to figure it out. >> Okay. But that previous discussion, I mean, I guess this would be my suggestion and take it with however you do, but I we're already adding 20 24 million in the next two years to do these. I think to the mayor's point, you could easily do this in 2930 to I mean, some point there's a tipping point for our residents. There just is. I mean, that's what I mean. You guys are residents. >> So, I mean, I guess I don't know why we'd even talk about doing these in the next two years. I mean you could design them maybe in 28 and do them in 2930 but let's at least get the 20 some million we've already committed to >> I know that's my concern and who knows what what the market is going to do. I mean I I'm assuming am I and Rachel knows a lot more in terms of what the market is doing as hopefully could you have a crystal ball I'm assuming um but if these homes don't come online then >> 1500 I think we're already good with and I don't know how many days we're pumping 1500 gallons per minutes I think it's one or two or three and I don't know Gary would know but it's not all year I mean so it's >> well let's we we'll have more discussions on this but I I'm really reluctant to spend another $34 million. >> If we if we absolutely need it, then we have to figure out how it's going to be done. But if we don't absolutely need it, maybe maybe we look at the Cardinal Cove one or the County Road 110 one like maybe that needs to be our first one and maybe that's in 2029 or something after we have a little more funding in our bank account. >> I'd be fine with the 2300,000 one. That's fine. with this 358 million or whatever these other ones are. I mean, at some point we got to be reasonable, I guess, or >> the breaking point. >> Well, and if I may, so what we're trying to do is try to be proactive with some of these conversations so we're not having them a year after we should have had them, right? So, we're trying to get this in front of city council. The highest priority one for the whole system and which was talked about in conjunction with the water treatment plant is this the the South Highway 7. Um, so >> according to Gary, it's the car. It's the one >> that's Gary's cuz he had a >> bad experience. >> Bad experience there, which that one should have been done a while ago. I mean, I think, but um, >> so we want to be try to be proactive with this because we don't want to be the bottleneck and the limiting factor for, you know, potential development or, you know, miss a price point that, you know, we have a we have, I think, probably favorable bidding conditions for pipe work right now. Interest rates are okay. Um, so we we you know, I think in hindsight, everybody wishes they probably would have done a lot of this stuff back when interest rates were near zero and really, you know, um, hungry contractors. But, you know, so we want to make sure that we're talking about this stuff well in advance um, of when we actually need it, right? >> Just so we're not, you know, forced to do a project at a higher cost. It's favorable times right now. So, um, what we're looking at is, um, if there is an appetite, I'm not really I I'm unsure right now about what we what we want to do, um, as a group, but if there is an appetite, we would look at doing something, um, possibly at the next meeting to talk. If there's more questions, let me know, um, if you have more questions. Um, and I'm not sure if if we should meet at the next meeting about this or or not or what what what are the thoughts? >> To wait and find out if we get bonding money. >> Will that change? >> Well, I mean, yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, if we get a couple million, that would offset some of the costs that we could put towards this. >> I mean, that that would be the only reason I would want to go forward with spending another $3 million on a pipe between now and 2028. I think that's reasonable. And again, um, looking at the needs and everything, we're not under pressure to do this. So, I think even if we waited till May to find out if we get bonding money, then we can have a do more of a deep dive. >> Yep. >> And I know everybody's aware of this. It's just, you know, the the numbers that we showed today, those are going to every year we wait, it's going to go up. So, you know, it's always going to increase. >> Um, So just kind of keep that in mind too. >> The bottom falls up then everything. >> Yeah. I mean there there's been abs and flows >> I guess. >> I mean there's been like there's been like one game from that is not worth the damage in other areas. >> But I do have a question Paul in >> Thank you. Um do you have questions? >> Yeah I think our only question would just be concern. And I think we did talk at that meeting um if there was concern about any issues with water pressure after a certain number of homes are built. >> Well, there were some spiking things. I mean like like it's how we fit as a puzzle piece into the whole system whether and it sounded like this these truck wings helped the entire system sort of operate in more of an equilibrium. Um, and so that I guess we just want to work through a little bit more and make sure that we're all on the same page >> because by the time you get um, homes online, I mean, we're probably talking 28 28 29, I mean, you're going to get some, right? But if you get, let's say, 40 more homes or in 28, then another 40, whatever it is. Um, I think we have enough time to figure out that trunk line and the cost and all of that, even if we wait until May to find out if we get any bonding money. So, um, yeah, maybe that's the route we should go figure out, um, maybe find out if we get bonding money and then if if it's May or maybe it's first meeting in June, we come back with some more details and answered questions >> and we'll explore the timing. >> Yeah. reality a little bit further to make sure we're not being overly optimistic >> and maybe by that time you might have your more information too. >> So I mean we're not trying to hold you up. >> So we're still working through with a lot of >> and I know there's a sewer issue too that we're going to have to discuss at some point. So okay lot of >> not really an issue it's just it's solved with >> money. It's solved with money. So the the pipe on seven and then they're going to tear up seven and do whatever. Where is our pipe in relation to when they fix Highway 7 and you know make it not a pot hole filled road. >> Right now they're not going to tear it up. It's just a mill and overlay. Yeah. And we're hoping um that they'll add some roundabouts. Um that's to be determined. >> So be any issue with the piping? >> Well, they would do directional drilling, wouldn't they? For the most part. >> Are you talking about the south line? Mhm. Yeah. >> My suggestion would be to stay out of the mind right away and we get an easement agreement with the three rivers cover park district there and run it down their property line on their side. So we're out of minds right away completely. >> That would be my suggestion. >> We've talked directional drill. >> Okay. >> Just to avoid as much surface disturbance as possible because we're in three rivers. So >> Okay. >> And we don't anticipate there'd be an issue with uh getting an easement from the park district. Well, that was a good luck. >> It all it all depends on their on on their mood. I mean, I don't think it would be that big of a um deal to get one from them there because it's close enough to the mind easement and they're never going to develop that anyways. Nothing will be done there. So, we're going to be 8 ft under the ground. I mean, I don't I don't see an issue with getting something from them. >> And they'll do directional boring. So, it >> all be directional boring. Yes. >> So, the trees above will be fine. That's what >> it's like swamp land that runs around Highway 7 there. It's on >> there be room to put it in. >> Yeah. >> All right. Lucky land. >> All right. I think >> questions. >> I think we're good. So, we'll take a quick I think for now we're good. Thank you. And we'll see you in >> June for sure for the groundbreaking which has already been broken. But all right. Um, with that, that concludes all the items on our um, agenda. Um, is there a motion to adjourn the work session? >> So moved. >> Thank you, Mr. Refkin. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Brian. All those in favor signify with I. I. All those opposed. Motion passes and we come back for a regular meeting 15 minutes, right? Yeah. So if this is right, it looks like >> based on current capacity obviously