This transcript captures a joint special meeting between the **Moose Lake City Council** and the **Moose Lake Water and Light Commission**. The discussion focuses on a proposed Bitcoin mining operation by **Revolve Labs**, specifically regarding land leases, liability, and revenue sharing (the general fund rate). *** **[0:00] Jim Michalski (Mayor):** I will call the joint special meeting between the Moose Lake City Council and the Moose Lake Water and Light Commission to order for the city side. **[0:12] Jim Pederson (Power Superintendent):** And in the absence of President, uh, Commissioner Skelton, I will call the Water and Light Commission to order. And for anybody that views this, myself and Councilor Juntunen, who serves on both, so he is also a member of the Commission. We'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance. **[0:37] Group:** To the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. **[0:55] Jim Michalski (Mayor):** Oh, uh, introductions go around. Everybody know everybody? Okay. I’ll get an approval of the agenda. **[1:13] Lou Ohly (Council Member):** So move. **[1:15] Walter Lower III (Council Member):** Second. **[1:18] Jim Michalski (Mayor):** All in favor? [Ayes heard]. Motion carried. I guess I would have to do approval also of the agenda [for the Water and Light side]. **[1:24] Jim Pederson (Power Superintendent):** So move. **[1:26] Douglas Juntunen (Council/Commission Member):** And I will second it. **[1:27] Jim Pederson (Power Superintendent):** All in favor? I. Opposed? [None]. Carried. **[1:28] Jim Michalski (Mayor):** Public comment. This time is reserved for comment from the public. Matter is not listed on the agenda. Please keep comments to two minutes. Seeing none of the public, we'll move on to new business. Revolve Labs Bitcoin mining operation, a process and timeline discussion. **[1:51] Ellissa Owens (City Administrator):** Oh yes, just wanted to have a brief discussion about what meetings have occurred recently and the meetings that are yet to, um, yet to occur regarding this particular topic. So the City Council engaged in an emergency meeting, uh, yesterday morning, um, at 9:00 a.m. Um, subsequently following there was a Water and Light Commission meeting at 1:00 p.m. in the afternoon. We have tonight's joint City Council meeting with the Water and Light Commission. And then up and coming, we have a Planning Commission meeting pertinent to the conditional use permit for the project on Tuesday, February 24th. Uh, that meeting will occur at 4:00 p.m. here in the City Council chambers. And then subsequently following, we will have the City Council meeting at, uh, 4:00 p.m. on March 11th in which, um, estimated timelines would be looking for final review and approvals of the conditional use permit, the ground lease, and additional documents that might, uh, need to be drafted pertinent to attorney recommendations moving forward. **[3:07] Jim Michalski (Mayor):** Any questions or comments? **[3:16] Walter Lower III (Council Member):** Uh, these Flaherty & Hood [attorney] recommendations? **[3:20] Ellissa Owens (City Administrator):** So, administrative staff from both entities have been working with, um, the city's attorneys regarding the ground lease. And so, there have been lots of discussions regarding, um, what that might look like and how to implement components from the public hearing, um, and feedback from the community that can be addressed within the ground lease. Um, some of those items we have discussed and will continue to discuss might be, um, sound mitigation, um, berm things to happen on the site. The, um, pertinent, uh, uh, area specific to the utilization of the Bitcoin mining on the city's parcel, things of that nature will all be spelled out within the ground lease. Uh, we are continuing to meet regarding that. Um, in addition, we are having other discussions with the city's attorneys regarding, um, some of the metrics and components of our agreements and one of those being the, um, general rate. And so, uh, the city's attorney, um, did issue an attorney-client privilege memo, uh, within the last hour and a half here that went out to Council. Um, essentially what we're looking to accomplish is making sure that, um, we have, uh, the dynamics captured in documentation between the city and the Water and Light Commission. Something that, um, has not been established as far as the general fund rate is concerned, or or what we can't, um, seem to track down at this point. And so kind of memorializing that dynamic within a, within an agreement moving forward will be important. It is something that the attorneys are recommending and, and they did, um, call that out, um, to the City Council. In addition to that, there have been discussions regarding, um, the contracts and agreements and, um, you know, with any agreement and, and with all contracts, there is risk and liability associated with such, and so those, um, memos have gone out to Council regarding those particular topics. If anybody has any questions, please feel free to, um, to ask, um, or or to dis—you know, discuss as need be. We are going to continue to work with the city attorneys on what their recommendations are for each of these documents moving forward. Um, and we'll make sure that we're collaborative with Water and Light as well. As information is given to us, um, we'll share it in order to work through anything that might arise. **[5:56] Jim Michalski (Mayor):** Any questions, comments? Kris? **[6:06] Kris Huso (Council Member):** I guess I got some comments, um, just regarding this memo we just received. It appears from their conclusions that all the, um, uh—what am I trying to use? Well, basically that the city is the only one that could be sued and so we're taking on all the liability. Um, has that—have you guys talked about that at all? Um, that you know how this would be... Is this something that we could put in an agreement that you guys [Water and Light] would hold us harmless? Because if you know, this, this is putting a lot of, uh, risk on, on the city, the taxpayers' shoulders. So I guess that's very concerning to me. **[7:15] Jim Pederson (Power Superintendent):** I could, uh, just start here and, uh, and maybe Jim [Michalski], you're most familiar with it, but we feel we've, uh, developed a very good contract with Revolve Labs, uh, to, to prevent anything from happening. Um, I'm not sure if you want, though, you could forward the contract to Kris. I'm not sure if it's in final—it’s pretty much in final form, uh, to see it, but I think we have, uh, uh, tried to minimize liability in any way possible for ourselves and for the city. **[7:46] Kris Huso (Council Member):** So the amended contract has been—have you signed the amended contract or is it just out there? **[7:53] Jim Pederson (Power Superintendent):** We haven't done the amended contract yet. We were waiting to get the conditional use hammered out before we committed more resources from Revolve, um, to, to facilitate that. **[8:04] Kris Huso (Council Member):** Okay. Is that something that—because my concern is when this contract was signed, um, is the city, obviously I'd have to believe, is named in there as part of this project? **[8:20] Jim Pederson (Power Superintendent):** On the purchase power agreement or the, or the land lease? **[8:24] Kris Huso (Council Member):** On the purchase power agreement. **[8:26] Jim Pederson (Power Superintendent):** There is... the only mention in the contract that I can recall right now without it in front of me is that the city would facilitate the land lease and conditional use. **[8:37] Kris Huso (Council Member):** Um, because it—I just, I guess I just want to say I'm disappointed that we weren't able to send it to the attorneys to review it. Um, ours, our attorneys. Um, and again, I just—in this amended one, if it hasn't even been out yet, I, I just—I'm concerned about the liability that, that the city obviously is on the hook for because it—and there's a mention here... [referencing the memo] well, are you referencing the memo that we just got? You know, it says per our conversation with Mr. Pederson, it appears that there is a high likelihood Revolve abandoning the project if certain lease terms are not drafted in their favor. I mean, that's kind of, to me, is a little, uh... **[9:41] Jim Pederson (Power Superintendent):** So, I will say that we haven't seen that memo. **[9:44] Kris Huso (Council Member):** Okay. **[9:48] Jim Pederson (Power Superintendent):** And I just found out about this about an hour ago. So we haven't had time to deliberate on our side at all about the, the newly identified risk. So I, I can't speak to that. We haven't had a chance to do that. And with regards to Kris's language that you just cited, um, there's no concern for me to make anything favorable for Revolve. Um, I've negotiated on behalf of the residents to get us the highest rate possible with them. Um, I just tried to help facilitate the language going back and forth. **[10:30] Kris Huso (Council Member):** Okay. So, do you, do you have any, um, concerns about them walking away or—? **[10:38] Jim Pederson (Power Superintendent):** Financially? That wouldn't be a problem for us. That would be a good thing. If they build the substation and walk away, we own the substation—like we talked about many months ago. We would own the substation. The infrastructure, all of this ground work would be done. We bring another customer in. **[10:49] Kris Huso (Council Member):** But I mean, prior to this being completed, they walk away from the project and just abandon it, you know, right here now because we won't agree to that? **[11:03] Jim Pederson (Power Superintendent):** I would say our exposure would be that they'd have infrastructure there that we could sell at the Power Commission level or continue to build a substation. But as far as exposure goes, we own the land—or you, as an organization, you own the land. Um, if they were half done with the substation, we could either choose to finish a substation and proceed or we could liquidate the infrastructure there and mitigate risk. But we—we're not in... during the process of construction, we don't have any exposure in the build. That's on their dime, and everything that they build we own. So there's not really any risk—quantifiable risk, I guess. **[11:42] Jim Michalski (Mayor):** If I could just speak, I think with everything we do there's liability, and hopefully we have minimized every—or looked at everything to minimize liability as much as possible. Uh, if I'm not mistaken, the agreement that Glencoe had was like a six-page agreement. Ours is like 28 pages or something like that. And, and that is to, uh, you know, to protect ourselves and to, uh, in the end protect the city as well. But you know, liability—everything, uh, the city does has some liability with it. **[12:35] Kris Huso (Council Member):** But can I respond to that by saying generally our Council would review something like that? Um, you know, I, I don't think our Council got to review the document last year. Was it... I don't know, did they? **[12:53] Ellissa Owens (City Administrator):** So, the City Council still has not seen the agreement, um, because we... um, because it went to... I believe you shared the originally signed agreement with our city attorneys? **[13:10] Jim Pederson (Power Superintendent):** Because that's all we have on our desk. **[13:13] Ellissa Owens (City Administrator):** Correct. And it was... there was never permission given to disperse it, and so it has not been dispersed collectively, you know, amongst anybody, um, at this point in time. Uh, the city's attorneys are aware of an up-and-coming amendment potentially, and so, um... and, and we just received, uh, a communication from attorneys that went out to Council right prior to this meeting, too. And so there hasn't been an opportunity for a lot of digestion on it. Um, in order to, uh, make sure Council has all the information possible, it have—it has to be distributed in a timely manner and was done so. Um, I, I think, you know, if there's a way to, to collaborate moving forward on potentially the amendment and/or anything of that nature... Is, is that something that you're asking for? **[14:02] Kris Huso (Council Member):** Well, yeah. I would like to see that our attorney, um, has, you know, some input or receives this amendment prior to any signature on it because there are certain, um, things the city needs to have, you know, protection and, and, um... so yeah, I would definitely like to see us work together and, you know, have our attorney have some input before. **[14:31] Douglas Juntunen (Council/Commission Member):** Yeah, I think it's more difficult to, you know, when people in the public ask us what's going on and we don't really know anything about that agreement. It just makes things difficult. **[14:43] Kris Huso (Council Member):** Yeah. Makes it difficult to decide what's the right thing to do. **[14:55] Walter Lower III (Council Member):** I, from that memo, I couldn't tell if... is, is there some, something that Revolve is saying, if they don't get certain things they're going to walk away, or is that just conjecture? **[15:15] Jim Pederson (Power Superintendent):** It's hard to quantify that. It's—it's not conjecture. Um, there are limiting languages in the, in the ground lease document. Um, that's open for negotiation. It's—it's... I'm not negotiating on behalf of Revolve Labs. I simply try to help facilitate the communication going back and forth to expedite the process. But anything that's in the contract that makes a city feel secure is certainly something that I would recommend the city present to Revolve Labs and negotiate on their own. I don't negotiate on behalf of the city. Um, I'm just trying to do what I can to facilitate the, I guess, the agreement. Um, but yeah, I can't speak for what Revolve would view as a, an issue or an exception to the agreement. **[15:58] Jim Michalski (Mayor):** Any other comments? **[16:21] Ellissa Owens (City Administrator):** Well, we are on to the land lease agreement discussion. Um, so these discussions occurred collectively with the Council, um, at a—an emergency meeting on Tuesday morning. Um, the Council had made a motion to, um, propose the land lease amount to the Commission in the amount of $50,000 annually. Um, that consideration was brought forth, um, to the Commission, uh, on their—at their meeting yesterday afternoon. Um, is, is the Commission open to, you know, sharing what was reached from a Commission perspective back to Council at that meeting? **[17:01] Jim Pederson (Power Superintendent):** I'm sorry. You just want—well, basically what we agreed to do was, uh, to... [searching papers] And do I have the resolution here or the motion? We basically voted to approve. **[17:10] Douglas Juntunen (Council/Commission Member):** Yeah, we voted to, uh, approve that $50,000 proposal for lease. **[17:14] Ellissa Owens (City Administrator):** Um, so with both parties being in agreement, um, we, uh, can share that information back to the attorneys. They are working on finalizing that ground lease document. Um, and so the ground lease is going to be, uh, between, uh, the city and Revolve Labs, um, in the amount of $50,000. Um, and so we will make sure that that amount is incorporated in the, in the document moving forward, and all parties at this point in time, from a city perspective between the city and the Commission, are in agreement about the amount. **[17:50] Jim Michalski (Mayor):** Any other discussion on the land lease side? **[17:55] Lou Ohly (Council Member):** We have not been—we haven't seen the created document. So, nobody here has seen it. So, it'll be hard to know what's in there for sure in the final one. You know, it's been negotiated. **[18:14] Ellissa Owens (City Administrator):** Yeah, we've seen the draft and we've been working through, uh, working through the draft, and we'll make sure that it's visible, uh, to everybody and all parties, um, upon completion of the, the drafting phase. Okay. Any other discussion on land lease? General rate discussion. Um, so the general rate is the, the other component in which, uh, involves the city and the Commission. Um, and so what has been asked is that the Commission essentially bring forward, um, a—a proposal to the city regarding the general rate. And that is the handout that, um, you received from, from Dan—Mr. Dan Brown today. And so we've asked Dan to kind of go through this and, and give the Council an update regarding, um, the general rate and what, uh, a reimbursement of such would look like. **[19:13] Dan Brown (Financial Consultant):** And actually, this is probably more all-encompassing of the entire financial situation than just the general fund. I just wanted to make sure everybody was aware of how this deal looks as it is today. Um, so, uh, the general fund will be at the bottom, so I'll, I'll save the best for last. There's three columns. Uh, and that's just based on the usage out of Revolve. Uh, 10,000 kilowatt hours. Those are all in—in megawatts is probably what they'll come in at. That's about 50% capacity. So, day one, that's probably the column they're coming into. Uh, 18,000 is our currently approved maximum with the GRE [Great River Energy]. They've approved up to 18 probably about the time they're going to be alive. So they could go to that about the time they're turning on. Uh, and 20 is the maximum that they're allowed. Um, so that'll be the, the maximum this, uh, this deal can be. So, um, the revenue is really the gross, gross amounts, um, being billed to them based on that usage. Um, we, we take a—basically just a adder fee, I guess we call it. Um, and that's the revenue that, that we get out of the deal in total. Um, we do have to basically pay for the equipment, uh, over time. Uh, it just reduces that, that revenue, um, over—it kind of depends. The payback period is just based on which column they're falling into at the time. So that will be a reduction to our cash flows, so resulting in the total bill to Revolve. So that's, uh, that's the total. Obviously, sending the general fund, uh, over to, uh, the city and the land lease... that's essentially coming out of our pocket, um, results in net cash flows in the green and the percentage of the, the cash flows, uh, that Moose Lake Water and Light receives. And then just down below that, just trying to get to identifying your sources. Uh, general fund is just the opposite of what's above, uh, land lease and sales tax for what it's worth. Uh, that will be certainly, uh, coming—that's the—just the city portion, obviously a big chunk will go to the state and the county also. Um, and that gets you to your total cash flows. I did back out sales tax, um, out of the next group there and, um, yeah. So without sales tax, um, you know, we're looking at, at the full 20 megs, uh, 90,000—almost $91,000, uh, without sales tax. 138,000 with sales tax, and that would be 19% of the deal at the—at that, uh, in that bucket. Um, so removing the city... I mean the, the, uh, equipment reduction, um, you know, getting back to you, not, not assessing the equipment part, um, and calculating out what your real percentage is. Um, you know, we're looking in that 11 and a half, 12, 12% range. Obviously, our cash flows will include that equipment reduction. It’s... that will last the first two columns, it'll last well past the first 10 years. Um, and, uh, the last column, it will almost last the entire contract. So that will be our equivalent reduction for most of this contract in the far right column. Equipment reduction is based on which column it is. So it accelerates into that far right column for the 5.2%. Any questions on that part? I guess I should ask first. **[23:30] Ellissa Owens (City Administrator):** One thing I think it's important to mention, um, from a city perspective is, um, when you look at averages across the state for, you know, profit sharing and revenue sharing from municipal electric utilities back to the cities that they operate, um, within the state average is right around that 12%. Um, and so it's good to see that, um, the general rate and the, um, land lease, you know, afford the city a percentage that is within that—that realm of, of sharing and is, you know, is equitable from that perspective. **[24:14] Jim Michalski (Mayor):** Thank you. Any other questions, comments? **[24:25] Ryan McKeon (Finance Director):** I'll add something. Just when looking at this first year, I think it's important to note that also what wouldn't be in here is like the attorney fees for this first year that are going to come in. They're going to come in pretty high, knowing, uh, Flaherty & Hood and stuff like that. And then of course our overtime hours that it's been working for this. So just keep that in your mind as well. **[25:01] Dan Brown (Financial Consultant):** All right. Um, to the general, uh, general fund. A general fund is assessed based on electric, um, usage, kilowatt hours. I don't know the origination of that, why we used kilowatt hours. Um, but obviously we determined pretty early on that kilowatt hours on this kind of a class of customer, uh, would, would be enormous. Um, uh, so we kind of looked at what's an equitable way to figure that out. Um, and so we started to look at, you know, the general fund as a percentage of electric revenue, uh, taking it from the revenue side. And, um, so this kind of says that in 2024, our last audited period right now, we collected 234,000 in general fund, um, fees, and that was assessed on $4.5 million of electric revenue. Um, and so we calculated that 5.2% would be the percentage that would kind of get you there from revenue. I mean, if you—if we recalculated the way we do things, if we had charged 5.2% of revenue, we'd come to the same $234,000, uh, to our customers. Um, so I guess then we applied that to the very top, uh, old row, the revenue per year—not after equipment or anything like that. It's based on... so on the far right column, $788,000 times the 5.2% is the, uh, is the general fund transfer there that's indicated. So calculated differently, but generally equatable from a revenue perspective. Any questions on the left portion? **[27:21] Kris Huso (Council Member):** So, I'm a little confused here. So, is this the—what is the general rate going to be for Revolve? **[27:35] Dan Brown (Financial Consultant):** Um, yeah, at first it—it's right under total bill to Resolve—or Revolve, sorry. Uh, transfer general fund—that is the amount of that, that second row, revenue per year times 5.2%. Uh, gets us the numbers on that general fund row: 20,000, 36,000, and 41,000. **[28:16] Kris Huso (Council Member):** Is there a specific rate? I mean, what is a—what does the average user of a home do for general...? **[28:28] Dan Brown (Financial Consultant):** Yeah, I mean, it's—it's, uh... like what does the average residential user...? **[28:31] Kris Huso (Council Member):** Or a big facility, any of them? That I mean, is it...? **[28:35] Dan Brown (Financial Consultant):** Yeah, it's—it's not—it's not big for any one customer, um, honestly. Um, I don't—I don't have that in front of me, but it is 5.2%. **[28:56] Kris Huso (Council Member):** Right. Um, yeah, like even the, the state facilities, you know, they obviously be two of the larger ones. Um... **[29:05] Dan Brown (Financial Consultant):** Yeah, I don't... uh, I apologize. I don't have it. I can definitely get it for you. **[29:16] Kris Huso (Council Member):** I'm wondering if it was comparable or... **[29:21] Dan Brown (Financial Consultant):** Yes. I mean, in—on paper, it would be absolutely comparable. Um, I mean—I'm sorry, is the—is the 41,000... I mean, that's compared to 234,000 for all other customers combined. So, um... so collectively without Revolve, it's $234,269. From Revolve by themselves, it's $41,000. **[30:54] Ellissa Owens (City Administrator):** So, the, the Water Light Commission has put a lot of time and thought into coming up with an equitable way to, um, address the general fund rate for this unique customer. And it's a—this unique customer, a unique scenario. Um, and so they've crunched the numbers and come up with 5.2% of revenue as the reimbursement back to the city. That will be based on usage. So as they build up over time, um, from a usage perspective, that number will change. Um, but the combination of the 5.2% from the general fund reimbursement with the land lease, um, without sales tax, gets us to that, um, that threshold of, of state average from a, a sharing—profit sharing perspective with other municipals and cities alike. So, um, I can appreciate the time that has gone into that calculation. Um, and I—I don't see another mechanism, um, in order to, to establish a reimbursement amount and, um, it's—the numbers aren't coming out, um, in—in an equitable way for the city. **[32:14] Dan Brown (Financial Consultant):** I think to answer your question, I—my—my gut would say that that is comparable to like the state facilities. **[32:20] Kris Huso (Council Member):** Okay. **[32:21] Dan Brown (Financial Consultant):** I mean, it should be right around that area. **[32:24] Kris Huso (Council Member):** That's good. It's a good analogy. Um, yeah, I just want to say I appreciate the hard work you've done to bring some more revenue as far as... **[32:38] Ellissa Owens (City Administrator):** The Commission has already formalized via motion this reimbursement structure. We are looking for, um, you know, formal acceptance from the Council on this particular rate structure. Then what we're doing moving forward is that allows us to then, um, draft some of the documents that the attorneys have recommended be drafted between the city and the Commission to kind of formalize this process and, and reimbursement of the general fund rate. And so from a city perspective, we do need, um—if Council is prepared to engage a, a motion that would formalize the 5.2% general fund reimbursement. Based on the information that was received today via, um, the attorneys, and, and to address Councilor Huso's concern, um, there—there is always the opportunity to, uh, incorporate that we will have a—a formal agreement between both parties as recommended by the attorneys, um, in order to, you know, substantiate that reimbursement. And if you want to incorporate that in, in the motion as well, there's always the opportunity to do so. **[34:01] Jim Michalski (Mayor):** Any other discussion on the general rate discussion? Are we looking for separate motions for the lease amount and and then the rate amount? Is that—we want to do the rate amount first? So... **[34:25] Ellissa Owens (City Administrator):** You accepted the lease amount. **[34:27] Jim Michalski (Mayor):** We already voted on it? Did we? **[34:29] Ellissa Owens (City Administrator):** I thought it was a proposal. **[34:31] Jim Michalski (Mayor):** All right. I was sleeping. Okay. Yes. Yes. Thank you. So we'll move—the motions, not the motions... **[34:55] Jim Pederson (Power Superintendent):** I see you have us first. I don't think we have any motions to be made here. **[35:04] Jim Michalski (Mayor):** Thank you. This—this agenda was established prior to having our additional meetings. So, I apologize. It was done. So, before that... **[35:10] Walter Lower III (Council Member):** I'll make a motion that we, um, set the lease amount for Revolve at 50,000 annually. **[35:24] Douglas Juntunen (Council/Commission Member):** Second that. **[35:28] Jim Michalski (Mayor):** Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? [Ayes heard]. Motion carried. **[35:46] Ellissa Owens (City Administrator):** Um, the 5.2% as presented from the Commission, um, based off of total electric revenue and the general fund amount billed by other customers, does—does present as an equitable way. Um, and I think it is important to, um, kind of memorialize that dynamic and that partnership in a—in an agreement based on attorney recommendations. And so, um, if—if Council's ready to engage at the 5.2%, uh, my recommendation, uh, would be to also include, um, a—the drafting of an agreement by the attorneys. **[36:52] Jim Michalski (Mayor):** Any questions or comments? **[37:05] Kris Huso (Council Member):** I'll make a motion per kind of like you said what you said. It's 5.2% with a signed agreement after attorney's review. **[37:21] Ellissa Owens (City Administrator):** That's what I've tried to say. **[37:25] Walter Lower III (Council Member):** I'll second that. **[37:34] Jim Michalski (Mayor):** All in favor? [Ayes heard]. Opposed? [None]. Carried. I do appreciate how much work you guys put into this. I think once we all get on the same page... I think we've kind of started in all different directions. Um, but I'm hoping once we can get to the end, and... um, a good thing. But I do appreciate your guys's work. I know it's been a lot. **[38:20] Walter Lower III (Council Member):** Yeah, I want to thank you guys for all the hard work that you've been doing here, and I think that everybody in this room is trying to do the same thing to better the community for everyone, for all the entities involved. But one, one thing as, as a Councilor, I—I have to be able to sell this to the public. And, uh, one thing that I think that would help sell, sell this to the public... you know, I, I don't know if we don't have all the figures yet, but, uh, if we could get a list from the City and from the Water and Light on all the positives that this is doing for the, uh, the residents of, of town. You know, uh, like for the city: sales tax, the lease funds, jobs, things of that nature. And for the, the Power and Light: uh, you know, the infrastructure that they're going to be putting in up there at the south part of town and the costs of that. You know, like I said, I don't know if—what you have for figures yet, but once, once that stuff comes in, uh, and then the, the payment to the city and, and how that works. You know, if we could have that information so when people approach us, you know, we can tell them all the benefits and the reasons why we support this. And that will—that’ll go a long ways to, uh, helping us explain this all to the people that—that we talk to. Because I've been approached by quite a few people; some are opposed to, some for, but, uh, until I have that, I don't have like any hard evidence, hard numbers. You know, if we have the numbers, then it's easier to explain. **[39:59] Jim Michalski (Mayor):** Thank you. And, uh, just from the Commission point—and I speak for both of us—it has been a process. Other than... I’ll just say this one. It's a unique opportunity that has presented itself to Moose Lake. Uh, and by chance, uh, just happened to be where our Superintendent and... it was the Superintendent of Glencoe, and said somebody's looking at this opportunity. And I still go back to when we had our informational meeting. Uh, I don't think anybody could probably put a private building in the city of Moose Lake that would generate this much income for both Water and Light and for the city. It's a—it's a—it's a unique opportunity, and I hope, and I think we have—I sincerely believe we have addressed the issues that people are most concerned about. Yeah, if I read the, um, uh, Pine Knot article correctly, it was... one was the sound issue. And I think—I think we've worked a lot on that sound issue to, uh—that that sound is not going to be impacting the community. And, uh, and I may be—you can correct me if I'm wrong here, Jim [Pederson], but, uh, for people that... I—I think the sound would be more of an issue in the wintertime, but the fans shut off in wintertime with the foliage gone. And I think at some place—I'm not sure, I'm—don't quote me on numbers here—but say at 50 degrees fans begin to get shut down, 40 degrees fans are not running anymore so much. You know, we live in an area that is, uh, not over 40 degrees enough of the time; uh, it will, uh, it will eliminate a lot of the sound, there won't be that sound issue. And, uh, I know from our community meeting, uh, there was the—the water issue, where it was not a water issue. Uh, they just need water for a restroom. If, uh, water goes out to the area, it may be because Water and Light wants water to the area for our facility there. It is the reason it will go to the area, not because of this, uh, uh, project or anything like that. So the water issue is not there, the sound issue—that was the issue we began addressing from, I think, about probably meeting one. So, uh, we hope to, uh, get this all in place so that this can move forward perhaps as early as June, July, something like that. **[43:10] Walter Lower III (Council Member):** Yeah, the city's always been unique by having the advantage of having that power plant. You know, it's always been a benefit that most small towns don't have. And you know, we have this new technology that's coming out, and it always takes a long time for new technology to make it up to northern Minnesota. You know, the technology usually starts in California or on the East Coast somewhere, and it takes 10 years for new—new technologies to make its way up here. You know, using an example, you know, like grocery store scanners. My dad always brings those up, like they were using grocery store scanners 10, 15 years in California before they ever made it to Minnesota. And now we have the new technologies that are coming out with Bitcoin and AI, and we have an opportunity to make some—some profit off of a new technology and, uh, bring us—sort of to say—Moose Lake out of the dark ages and into the—into the—into the light, in, in—in a way, by, by going towards this new technology. And I don't think a lot of other areas of northern Minnesota are going to benefit from something like this. And if Moose Lake has the opportunity to take on a project like this that can help the city, help the Power and Light, and mostly help the citizens, you know, I, I think that it's—it's a—it's a great thing. If, if we can get it all to work out and that, and everybody agree, I'm all for it. **[44:11] Jim Michalski (Mayor):** And, and again not to keep laboring the point here, uh, Councilor Lauer [Lower], but one of the concerns at the informational meeting was that this is going to turn into a data center. It really cannot turn into a data center because we do not have the fiber, the capabilities, uh, the redundant, uh, internet, etc., to turn this into a data center. This is probably about as far as we can go, uh, that, uh, and the land and all those things. We'll leave the data center to the people in Hermantown. **[44:42] Jim Pederson (Power Superintendent):** And to echo that point, aside from infrastructure issues that wouldn't allow this to become a data center, um, Ellissa and I have been working diligently, uh, with the city attorney to construct language in the contract that would not allow them to do anything other than the operation that they would be doing today. **[45:04] Jim Michalski (Mayor):** Any other comments? Can I get a motion to adjourn? **[45:09] Lou Ohly (Council Member):** So move. **[45:10] Douglas Juntunen (Council/Commission Member):** Second. **[45:11] Jim Michalski (Mayor):** All in favor? [Ayes heard]. Opposed? [None]. [City side adjourned]. **[45:15] Jim Pederson (Power Superintendent):** And I'll make a motion to adjourn [for Water and Light]. **[45:17] Douglas Juntunen (Council/Commission Member):** Second. **[45:18] Jim Pederson (Power Superintendent):** All in favor? [Ayes heard]. Thank you.