All right, we'll call the meeting to order. Stand for the pledge 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. >> Any changes to the agenda? >> No, Mr. Mayor. There are no changes to the agenda. >> Get a motion to approve as the agenda. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? I uh We have presentations. We have oath of office for our firefighters. We're going to we're going to do chief and then we're going to have all you guys as as one. There's so many of you. So, we're going to go over the the wall. Can I stand next to >> Craig? >> All right. I say your name. >> I J Simon. >> Do solemnly swear. >> Doyle swear. >> I will uphold the Constitution of the United States. >> I will uphold the Constitution of the United States. >> Minnesota abide by law. All laws, rules, regulations. Slow down. >> Aide by all laws, rules, and regulations >> and the bylaws >> and the bylaws >> and policies >> and policies >> of the fire department >> of the fire department. >> I will faithfully perform my fire chief duties. >> I will faithfully perform my fire chief duties >> with compassion. >> With compassion, >> courage and honor. >> Courage and honor. >> I will treat all citizens with respect. >> I will treat all citizens with respect >> and dignity. >> And dignity. >> Each day I will display ethical and professional performance. >> Each day I will will display ethical >> will display ethical >> and professional performance >> and hold myself >> and hold myself >> and others accountable >> and others accountable. >> I will serve with pride >> I will serve with pride >> integrity and excellence >> integrity and excellence >> and provide excellence quality service >> and provide excellent quality service >> to the best of my ability >> to the best of my ability. >> So help me God. >> So help me God. Here we got one. We're gonna have everybody else have a preference cadence. Look at you. You guys ready? >> All right. I state your name. >> I swear >> do solemnly swear >> domly swear uphold the Constitution of the United States in the state of Minnesota. >> Uphold the Constitution of the United States and the state of Minnesota >> and abide by all laws >> abide by all laws >> rules, regulations, and policies. >> rules, regulations, and policies. The fire department. >> The fire department. >> I will face perform my fire captain, Lieutenant Lieutenant Assistant Fire Chief. Mr. Fire Chief and Captain Duties. >> I know you're duties >> with courage. >> With courage, >> compassion and honor. >> Compassion and honor. >> I will treat all citizens with respect. I will treat all citizens with respect, >> dignity, >> and dignity. >> Each day I'll display ethical and professional performance. >> Each day I will perform ethical and professional performance >> and hold myself >> and hold myself >> and others accountable. >> And others accountable. >> I will serve with pride. >> I will serve with pride. >> Integrity and excellence. >> integrity and excellence. >> And provide quality service. >> And provide quality service >> to the best of my ability. >> To the best of my ability. >> So help me God. >> So help me God. >> Congratulations, gentlemen. table, >> Adam, >> Josh, >> Kevin, >> Robert I'm sure >> you're going to be next to Kevin. Okay, scooch in like you know and like each other. >> Twisted here. >> Thanks, guys. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, guys. Settle down a little bit. Anybody here for public comment of anything that's not on the agenda? to approve. >> Second. >> Any discussion? All in favor? >> I public hearings. We'll move into general business. Uh, first item under general business is a review of a water quality concerns and request for reimbursement by Jeffrey and Don Soul. Uh, the council's being asked to consider a findings of fact and record of decision associated with that. All right, for this there's a some uh things we're going to follow for this. Um this process for reviewing the items is intentionally formal and structured. Everybody will be given ample time to present your information during a rebuttal or responding to council questions. You are asked to be concise and to the point. You are asked to speak only during your initial presentation and rebuttal unless asked by a question by councel. The initial presentations and rebuttals are your opportunities to present your information. Make use of those opportunities. There will be no additional back and forth and do not be courtesy and do not interrupt others while they are presenting or responding to questions from the council. With that, So uh the order of events for this is that um I'll provide background on the general topic area. Uh the detailed review committee will provide their background and basis and therefor and their recommendation related to the findings of fact and decision. Following that, the whit souls will have an opportunity to address the council with any comments, additional information that they might have as well. And then there'll be an opportunity for both groups to provide rebuttal or additional information if they feel it's appropriate. The detail review committee can pro will have an opportunity to provide information and then whit souls would have the opportunity to present last information um during the additional information rebuttal stage. Um the mayor's asked me to remind everybody that to stay concise um uh when they're doing that, stay on topic and then at the end the council will then ask questions, deliberate and then ultimately arrive at a decision on the topic. So on this particular item um in June of 2024, the city of Ela New Market was issued a DNR appropriations permit. >> I don't have a screen. This is verbal. I took my screen sharing down for the video. >> Um to increase the water the city's water supply under the provisions of the permit, the city's required to investigate water quality complaints and out of water quality complaints. So water quality and well interference complaints and determine if such complaints are the result of the city's increased water use at its municipal wells or the result of the pump testing that was conducted in association with the permit. As part of the permit process, we were required to conduct an aquifer pumping test. The test was conducted um in November and early December of 2023. And following the pump test, the city became aware of alleged water quality incidents involving private wells that coincided with the timing of the aquifer pump test. Staff's review of the available information led to the conclusion that the complaints appear to be generally valid and that the four weeks of non-stop pumping at daily volumes that were two to five times historical daily volumes may have um influenced the water quality episode. The pumping caused extra draw down um from normal water levels within the wells for much of the duration of the pump test. And it's believed that this allowed for natural and normally wet buildup of material inside the well casings and on drop pipes to be released into the water column and be captured by well pumps. Based on typical quality and well environments in the area, the material is believed to be oxidized and insoluble iron and maganesees as well as residue from bacteria that consumes these metals in that environment. The residue is not known to be harmful to humans despite the objectional and nuisance nature of it. City council expressed support um for reasonable compensation to affected well owners should the investigation show that the test was responsible for this episode. Council approved this compensation for well owners with the following objectives. One was uniformity of response. This recognized that the cause was the same for all of the wells within reasonable distance from city wells. So compensation should be the same for owners that look that took the time to submit and follow up on a complaint. Draw down estimates from pump test data includes impacts beyond 3 miles from city wells um would have been negligible city based on only 2023 aquifer pump test impacts. Um this was intended that complaints related to the claims of ongoing water quality issues and other complaints about city water use are not eligible for this compensation. Does not those are a separate item to be handled separately. So this process is intended only for those well owners that were impacted by the aquifer test. Common basis for compensation. The material released in quantity during the pump test exists naturally within area wells and routinely makes its way into homes though at much more manageable rate even during normal conditions. This is evidenced by the predominance of homes reporting use of iron filters or similar equipment at the head of any inhome treatment train. It follows that the city should consider compensation for impacts from the aquifer test based on the systems of typical homes in the area. Focusing on the actual impacts, the typical complaint reported um needing to prematurely replace up uh filters um other associated cleanup. Uh the episode would have involved materials that for um materials for that as well as some time to do that work. Time was also required to restock filters spent during the episode, file the complaint, complete and return the questionnaire, and make any follow-up inquiries. Typical filters are inexpensive and often purchased. Um that the offer offer the compensation would be on a take it or leave it basis. Staff uh it was recommended that we and we did mail forms, checks, and we did have a number of individuals that took the initial offer. So, at the 20 September 25th council meeting of 2025, um the council determined that it would pro extend an offer of $300 and of compensation to impacted well owners that met eligibility requirements. Um, however, uh, the council wanted to make sure that there was a separate process and instructed staff to develop a detailed review process for well owners who believe the offer did not adequately cover the costs they had associated with the pump test based on their specific circumstances. Requests for detailed review were to be considered for recommendation to the city council. Um, a committee was established consisting of the public works director Corey Schwike, the public works lead Derek Kavanaaugh, and senior planner Christensen. The council wanted to provide an opportunity for those requesting a detailed review to also address the council directly. Furthermore, the council wanted to make a final decision and hear any challenges for dispute to the recommending committee. And so, it was directed that the recommendations from the committee should come to the council for final decision. The city did receive request for detailed review um from Jeffrey and Don Whitell. They're owners of a private well at 26340 Thomas Avenue. They had submitted a request for payment by the city in the amount of $3,299 for replacement of their current iron treatment system. Uh they indicated that the failure of their current system is the result of the city's 2023 Oxford pump test and the 2025 pumping event. um they have indicated that they do not agree with the recommendation of the committee and have provided their comments um which have been included in your packet but they will have an additional opportunity tonight to either reiterate that or expand upon it. The proceedings tonight were are a presentation to the council regarding the recommendation of the committee and the whitel's comments and our dispute of those recommendations for the purpose of making a decision regarding the compensation to the whites related to the impacts resulting from the 2023 aquifer pump test. So at this point the committee would be asked to present their information to the council for consideration. I will be handling the presentation of the information and have prepared a PowerPoint uh to guide us through the findings. Uh Some of my first few slides are kind of redundant with some information I uh that Tom has already prepared, but um just a general overview. Um property located at 26340 Thomas Avenue. Uh properties platted is lot 4, block 1, Elco North Edition. Uh Jeffrey and Don Whitell have owned and lived at the property since 1999. According to county records, uh there is a domestic well that exists at the prop on the property identified as unique well ID number 562292 in the Minnesota well index constructed in 1996 and the well casing uh being 340 ft deep. Uh this as uh Tom reported the city conducted an aquifer pump test from November 8th, 2023 to December 6th, 2023. The pumping was associated with the city's request to amend its water appropriations permit. Um the city also conducted an increased pumping event from October 21st, 2025 to November 6th, 2025 where 1 million gallons per day was pumped. Uh the Whitell's private well is located approximately.77 miles from the nearest municipal well. Uh the Whitells have reported uh that water pressure issues and sediment problems became more noticeable after the city's aquifer pump test in late 2023 and also more recently after the city's increased pumping event in 2025. Um, the whites reported difficulty running two showers at the same time, reduced pressure at fixtures throughout the home and intermittent air and the plumbing, uh, described as sputtering or gurgling, most noticeably during the mornings. Um, they reported ongoing sediment buildup in the treatment equipment and concerns that the iron filter may have failed earlier than expected. Um on February 19th uh 2026, Whitells submitted a request for reimbursement by the city um of their current iron filtration system. Um so that's a brief background. I'm going to step back um a little bit. This is somewhat of a different um topic, but in uh 2024, the Department of Natural Resources identified uh potential wells that could potentially experience well interference. Um and they identified Whitells as one of several wells potentially at risk of interference during extended municipal pumping. Um the determination by the DNR was based on information contained in the Minnesota Well Index and uh which indicated uh to them that uh their well may have less than 10 feet of water above their pump during extended municipal pumping occurrences. Um on August 8th uh 20 24 um city representatives communicated with whites regarding their private well and the potential for well interference. Um and just a high level uh review again of what it well interference is. Um well interference occurs when a highcapacity well um pumping often a municipal well or irrigation high capacity irrigation well lowers the surrounding aquifers water level below the pump of uh level of a nearby domestic well causing them to be essentially out of water. So when we talk about well interference, it's really a well being out of water. And the graphic on the slide before you uh is just a simple graphic that shows a high volume pumping well and um how the draw down from that well creates this cone of depression and how that cone of depression uh can draw the water below a domestic well. And I've circled the bottom of the municipal well and the bottom of the domestic well to um illustrate that point. Um so in the city's effort to respond to the uh DNR's uh recommendation and the concern of well interference um the city investigated uh and did due diligence related to this uh topic. So the Minnesota well index records indicate that the Whitell's well was drilled by Gary's well company. the well casing outside of the well being 340 feet deep and that the well had 189 feet of drop pipe uh when installed in July 1996. Um, as part of the city's review, the city contacted Hartman Well Drilling, who um, we had been advised that was the current uh, company maintaining the well on behalf of Whitells to request any available records regarding uh, the well construction service history. Again, Hartman confirmed that they did not originally drill this well, but uh, they did have service records uh, since that time. Hartman Hartman's records indicated uh that the company had performed service work at the property in 2010 during which 72 feet of drop pipe was replaced. uh no additional electric wire installation was installed at that time. And this suggests to suggested to Hartman uh that uh the work likely involved replacing damaged pipe rather than changing the pump depth um or lowering the pump. Uh no measurements were recorded uh by Hartman because there was no indication of mechanical issues requiring further investigation. Again, this is reported by Hartman. Um, Hartman uh indic stated their records also indicate that they visited the property in 2016 to evaluate a reported concern uh but did not identify any problems with the well system and stated that no work was performed or build at that time. Um now moving on to um we also gathered information from uh the whitells regarding maintenance to the well and they submitted their maintenance history by completing uh a questionnaire that had been sent by the city as part of the city's data gathering. Uh, the Whit Hills reported that Hartman serviced their well in 2016 and that in 2016 all of their drop pipe was replaced. Um, and that they did come back at that time to redo 72 feet of drop pipe, put in a control box, a pump, a new pump, check the valves, and installed the new pressure tank uh, in their home. At that time in 2016, Whitells did report that they uh paid cash to Hartman for the work and that when they inquired with Hartman about the dates of service, um their records did not reflect the extent of the service performed that could be uh part of the discrepancy uh between the two records. Um city, we acknowledge uh and note that there is a conflict between maintenance reported uh by the whitetails and uh by the Hartman well drilling. Um because neither the city or Hartman um possessed what we thought were updated or accurate records confirming the depth of the pump. Um the city offered to hire Hartman while drilling to pull the drop pipe and the pump to verify the pump depth um at the city's expense. Um, if the measurement confirmed that the pump remained at its original depth listed in the Minnesota well index of 189 ft, uh, the city proposed lowering the pump further into the well casing, uh, by adding drop pipe also at the city expense. Uh, that would satisfy the DNR's concern of potential out of water or well interference um, at this well. Uh, Mrs. Whitzel agreed to allow the city uh the work to proceed and requested uh did request that the pump be lowered uh to help prevent potential well interference in the future. Um the city coordinated city staff coordinated with Hartman well drilling and the work was scheduled uh for November 11th, 2024. Uh, prior to the work, the whites did sign an agreement outlining costs and responsibilities related to the work that the city would pay for all labor and costs related to pulling and reinstalling the pump. Uh, the city would cover all costs associated with lowering the pump if measurements um confirmed that it was at its original height. Um if existing components such as uh the drop pipe pump or any fittings required replacement just due to age or corrosion um the homeowner would be responsible for those costs only uh while the city would cover labor associated with that work. So those agreements uh were signed and in place at that time. So again, on November 11th, uh Hartman well staff arrived uh at the property um pull to pull the well drop pipe and potentially add drop pipe. Um after the drop pipe had been removed, Hartman proceeded with um the interior of the casing, the well casing was cleaned in the area of the pump. Um, this is done by using an air compressor and a tool to remove buildup that may have uh built up on the interior of the well casing uh prior to reinstalling the drop pipe. Um, 21 ft of 1-in galvanized uh drop pipe was added uh by the city and the whites chose to add an additional 41 ft of uh drop pipe. So it was added by the whites. Uh following the work, Hartman reported that the total well depth uh of the well casing continued to be 340 ft and that the drop pipe depth uh now at 225 ft with the pump depth being at 231 ft. Uh the water level reported in the well at the time was 178 ft. Uh the city was uh the work here again uh was to resolve any potential well interference or out of water issues that had been identified by the DNR. Um as directed uh by the city council. Uh this is kind of moving on to uh water quality uh concerns. As directed by the city council, the city engineers office mailed water quality complaint compensation or detailed review request forms to Whitils as well as other well owners who had submitted concerns about their well or water quality as a result of the city's increased pumping. Uh the form offered a one-time compensation of $300 to those who had submitted concerns or in lie of accepting the $300, a well owner could request a more detailed review of their well and water quality concerns. Uh, the Whitells returned uh this form uh to the city declining the $300 compensation offer and requesting a detailed review of their concerns. Um along with the signed form, a letter was included. Uh this was dated December 4th, 2025. Um, also they also requested at that time reimbursement of $42.87 to cover cost of servicing their filtration system in November in of 2023 and they included a copy of the invoice. Their letter uh states that they experienced a loss in water pressure as a result of the city's 2023 test pumping and that their water was also affected by the 2025 pumping event. And the letter states that they had not had these types of issues prior to the city's testing. Uh so now uh research begins on the water quality concerns and uh the investigation was primarily conducted by um city's public works staff. So research uh first regarding the home's filtration system was conducted by public works staff um based on a site visit and homeowner discussions. Uh the filtration system inside the home was found to be configured as follows. The well line enters the home and feeds the pressure tank. Water then flows through a Hillenbrandt iron curtain 2.0 promate 6.0 iron filter followed by an aqua systems water softener and then into the house plumbing. The pressure tank and pressure switch were replaced on November 11th, 2024 by Hartman uh with the pressure pressure switch set at 35 uh to 60 psi. Uh the iron filter was installed by uh Cash Equipment Sales in November of 2009. Uh that installation date was found out uh later in discussions with um the contra contractor company that uh was associated with installing the equipment. The water softener um again is a aqua systems unit. The model and the installation date are unknown. Uh during the on-site visit, bypass testing of these two systems was performed. uh bypass testing bypassing the water softener resulted in little uh to no improvement in pressure or flow. Bypassing the iron curtain uh iron filter resulted in a noticeable increase in pressure and flow indicating that restriction um to water pressure was within the iron filter. Um the homeowner noted that historically the laundry tub had very high pressure and could not be fully opened without splashing uh at the time of the testing. Uh but the public works staff were there. Other fixtures in the home were operating which may have influenced observed flow. Um water samples were also collected at that time on that date uh for both raw water entering the home and posttreated water. So field testing showed raw water iron at approximately uh 3.75 milligrams per liter and treated water iron at approximately 26 milligrams per liter. Uh raw water manganesees uh measured at approximately 085 milligrams per liter and treated water measured at 0004 millig grams per liter. uh hardness was reduced from approximately uh 15 to 25 grams um per gallon to one point 0 to 1.5 grams per gallon grains per gallon. The raw water samples were consistent with historical uh and current iron and manganesees levels throughout the area. The results indicated that the iron curtain system was still effectively removing maganesees and most of the iron. However, buildup appear in the system appears to be restricting flow and contributing to the loss in pressure. Uh the next area of research um was related to what types of service had previously been done on the system. Um so public works staff uh was advised that Benjamin Franklin Plumbing formerly Cash Equipment and Sales had done the maintenance on the system. um staff contacted them regarding uh the maintenance and were given the following information. That the iron filter was installed in November of 2009. That the iron filter uh system was serviced in July of 2016. The contractor reports that the at uh in July of 2016 that the unit has very low flow, advised cleaning, pistons leak, micromatic timer relay is bad, and advised tuneup on the water softener. Checked and reset the programs on the iron filter and the water softener. Cleaned aation heads on the iron filter, installed new pistons, and stack assembly. The unit now has good water flow, tuned up water softener, ran cleaner through the system, cleaned injectors, and screen setup for correct water test. They reported that uh maintenance was conducted again uh approximately three and a half years later in December of 2019. Um the contractor reports that they checked the iron filter, the aation head was clogged, the inlet check valve is clogged, advise minor cleaning, clean aation head and inlet check valve, clean bypass assembly and verified proper uh flow rates. The unit is now operating properly, maxing out at 9 gallons per minute flow. um contractor notes that they noticed after running the water for several minutes that the water uh pre the well pressure was extremely low and the well was having a hard time keeping up with demand advised the uh owner to possibly have well service or have a well company look at the well. Uh the iron filter system was again serviced uh by Benjamin Franklin Plumbing in November of 2023. Uh the contractor reports u cleaned iron filter aerration head was very dirty recommended cleaning in two years. Um this service call was oh I don't remember exactly six days after our pump testing started or >> something that There was another another service call to uh Benjamin Franklin in January of 2026. Um the contractor recommended replacement of the system and cost estimates were provided for replacement of the system. But um based on the service records that were provided by us, uh maintenance of the system was probably not done at that time. Um so there was uh previous service appeared to be to uh as noted in the service orders due to aation head being clogged and iron head being dirty. Um staff uh continued to ask um about service recommendations or frequency of service. Um Benjamin Franklin Plumbing advised public works staff that recommended maintenance of that type of system is would be as follows. Um they explained that some units uh that they have need to be maintained every six months to a year and some can go as long as three to four years without needing maintenance. Really depending on the quality of the water. Um Benjamin Franklin recommends an inspection every year to make sure the unit is operating correctly and to make sure it doesn't need repairs um any repairs or service. Uh they stated the filter media should be checked yearly with the inspection and the filter media relates to um what's inside the filter that that basically filters out uh the iron or u manganese note. Um Benjamin Franklin Plumbing recommends having a uh this was just a side note. It uh might be different in every situation, but they did advise staff that they recommend having a sediment filter before iron filter units to catch any debris that uh and that helps prolong um service intervals on the iron filtration system. Um staff did try to reach out to Helen Brandt uh several weeks ago with no response. We reached out again. Um, more recently, Hel Helen Brandt, who is the manufacturer of the iron filtration system, uh, responded to the city, um, through emails recommending annual maintenance of the iron filtration system. Um, moving on to life expectancy. uh when asked those same questions of the uh Benjamin Franklin and Hillbrandt. According to uh the staff who we corresponded with at Benjamin Franklin Plumbing, the typical life expectancy of this type of iron filtration system which when properly maintained is approximately 10 to 15 years. Uh Helen Brand the manufacturer uh reported that the life expectancy of the unit is 10 to 15 years. city staff uh on February 6th, 2026 met with the Whitells to further discuss their concerns and and what the next steps would be. Um they outlined their options that they were considering for continued repair or replacement of their system. They indicated that they would like to meet or were planning to meet with one more vendor before making a final decision on uh replacement and staff explained that the city is continuing continuing to analyze the information um gathered which would be forwarded to and reviewed by a designated review committee. The whites uh were informed that if they had a request for reimbursement uh for repairs or replacement of the filtration system, the city would, you know, need documentation and uh clearly identifying the specific amounts and and reason for those amounts. And then it was further explained that a committee re uh would review all of the findings and a recommendation would be made uh prepared for city council consideration. Um shortly after uh February 19th and 20th, emails were submitted uh by Don Whitell. Uh the white cells have submitted e emails indicating that they do intend to replace their existing iron filtration system with an evergreen air ozone scour uh filter. In addition, they do plan to install a pref filter on their system. They indicated that the uh prefilter would be a new addition to their system and is was not part of their original configuration. Um as such, they are not requesting reimbursement. uh for the cost of the pre filter. Uh but they are requesting that the city reimburse $3,299 for replacement of the current iron filter system which is now approximately 16 years old. um as directed by the council, there was a internal review committee uh to review the findings which consists of Corey Schwike, public works director, Derek Kavanagh, lead public works worker, and myself, Renee Christensen, senior planner. Uh the committee met on March 12th, 2026 to review um all of the findings related to the well and the filtration system. And this as part of that the city the committee considered information provided by the whitells site inspections and interviews with the whitells conducted by public works staff information contained in the Minnesota well index well service history provided by Hartman well drilling and the whit souls water filtration system service history provided by Benjamin Franklin plowing water sample results and filtration system maintenance recommendations from Benjamin Franklin Plumbing and Hillenbrand. Um, the committee has reviewed the information and uh everything that we were able to obtain and have made a recommendation to the city council for denial of the request for payment of $3,299 for replacement of the iron filtration system and approve a $300 payment for water quality complaint compensation. Uh the the recommendation is based um on facts outlined herein and and noting that uh the white whites iron filtration system was 14 years old at the time of the city's initial pump test. Uh the the system is currently just over 16 years old. According to Benjamin Franklin Plumbing and the installer, the typical life expectancy is 10 to 15 years when properly maintained. The iron filtration system did have a history of clogging and needing cleaning prior to the city's pumping pump testing events as evidenced uh by maintenance performed in 2016 and 19 prior to the city's testing. Uh the need for replacement of the iron filtration system does not appear to be related to the city's increased water use or result of pump testing, but rather because the iron filtration system is in need of maintenance or andor had reached its life expectancy. Um the city found no evidence um indicating the city's increased water use uh caused the need for replacement. So those findings were put in uh into a findings of fact document which was also included in your packet and um provided to the white whites souls. Again uh Tom noted that the whites have submitted a rebuttal and that was included in your packet. At this time I'll turn it over to you if you have any questions or if you want to turn it over to That concludes u my presentation. If you have any questions for me or Corey or Derek, >> it's good evening. Don Whitel, 26340 Thomas Avenue. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, city council members. I have to say this is very uncomfortable. Um, but I hope that I inspire others um to stand up for their protection also to to kind of lead the way on that. I'm going to kind of lead into this by taking a little time to illustrate my perspective when I went into this went into the process. Um, I told you before I got my degree in public administration and I did work for municipal government and the very first city that I worked for was a city by the airport by MSP and I was hired um as communications. I had to work with residents um and go to the legislature and go to the airport because the MSP was putting in a new runway and the runway was running parallel with the city and as a result of that, you know, the the experts determined that the city would have low uh low frequency impact and that would be to the residents that were parallel. go with that runway. So, I was specifically hired to have meetings with residents, to have meetings with MSP, to go to the legislature that help protect our residents. Um, and as a result, the residents got sound insulation. Um, but the city had to pay thousands of dollars to protect their residents. And it was a decision that they didn't make. they they were a neighbor to the airport, but they found that to have residents stay within the community, to have businesses want to locate there, um to have people want to move to the city, they had to show that they would protect their residents even from something that they had nothing to do with. So that's the perspective that I come from. You know, city city government is there. I mean to protect its residents and that's what I'm asking for tonight. Um just like in my story about the city by the airport, our residents and businesses need your protection. They need to be heard. They need to be valued and they are your constituents. Um I sent you a report kind of my my take on on what was happening. Um, basically a summary of the claim is that the November to December 2023 aquafer pump test directly caused water quality impacts that led to the premature failure of our iron filtration system. And what is also noted and and and it didn't didn't bring this up in um the city's report is that the city and the experts acknowledged the fact that four weeks of continuous high volume pumping pumping which is two to five times the normal levels created this excessive draw down releasing the material and that along with the de debris within the aquifer entered it and damaged our system. Now, um did they did talk about, you know, ours being one of the seven at risk wells for potential interference. Um the direct correlation within one test or one week of the test beginning, we experienced extremely low pressure and required service and severe contamination was documented. And I did send you a picture on that. And then the impact of it being our system shifted from three to fouryear maintenance cycles to requiring significantly less after that. Um early rep early replacement is necessary due to high levels of iron and contaminants now in the media as well as low pressure caused by additional contaminants sustained during the three weeks following the cleaning. and before the well pipe was lowered by the city. It remains unknown what changes were made to the aquifer after the extremely high levels of pumping. Um and then I I talk about some inaccuracies. I mean if it was a story about you, you'd want to get it straight. Um so the inaccuracies that we found in the report is that um the city reported a life expectancy of 10 to 15 years. I can tell you straight out I I remember at that time because I mean we didn't have a whole lot of money and we had to buy this this new system and we wanted a system to last as long as possible. Um we knew our kids were growing up in the area. We knew we were going to be staying in the house and I can guarantee to you that we would not have purchased a system that had a you know a 10 to 15 year. Our system is rated for 15 to 20 years um that we were specifically told at the time of purchase and we were also told that it can last even longer again dependent on the quality of your water and water usage. Um, and at the time of testing, we estimated six or more years of life remained. And I kind of gave this illustration and and I'm sure you have it, too. Um, we had a front load washer that we had for 20 years. We still have the the first dryer that we came here with, and that's over 25 years. So the filtering system could have lasted even significantly longer as that than that time. Um another inaccuracy that we found within the city's report is the mischaracterization of the maintenance history. Um and in it you you saw that I said we didn't have this type of problem before. Yeah. I mean we we had a cleaning in 2016 and a cleaning in 2019 and they replaced some some things in 2016 and in 2019 um you know it was noted that there was minor cleaning. There is no no abnormal system requirements needed or increased maintenance noted you know within it. Those reflected routine maintenance not a systemic failure of our system. also brought up um is let's see unsupported conclusions on um the city's report page four number five the determinate we didn't decide that the determination lacks factual support service records indicate standard maintenance in 2016 and 2019 and it wasn't until November 15th 2023 after the pump testing began that records noticed noted a very dirty aerration head and recommended service in two years instead of the typical 3 to four years. Um, and also on that page number six, the city downplayed the significance of the very dirty aerration head immediately after the pump test. Again, in reference to the picture, this condition was highly unusual, documented and consistent with uh consistent with debris and gunk released by continuous high volume pumping. Um, another inaccuracy is about the assumption of the filtration system. Um, we didn't use a pref filter. We we admit to that our system didn't require it. um we didn't have the sediment. Um so we were told when we purchased it that we didn't need a pre filter. Uh and I even did some research on our system and they talked about the media lasting up to 20 years, 10 to 20 years depending on the water quality and the usage. And um it even oh gosh I don't even remember where it said but it indicated that we had low usage. It was an I can't remember what report and I I do believe I talked to the city about that too. Um and in it it said recommended service for an iron curtain system is every four to six years at peak efficiency or to maintain peak efficiency. The system uses a multimedia depth filter which is generally more durable than standard single media filters contributing to ex extended lifespan. Um there was a statement within um city's report about inexpensive filters. Um and I can tell you they're all over the board. Um one of the quotes that we had you had to buy 80 to $100 filters. um and sometimes that's one to two times. So we we looked at a series of different models. We looked at prefilters and that um and so that's why you know we chose to continue looking at the brand we currently have. Um another inaccuracy are incorrect service recommendations. Um, the city's report includes a statement by Benjamin Franklin Plumbing recommending an annual inspection and apparently Helen Brand did too, which floors me because we just talked to their salesperson and nothing was ever said about anything like that. And again, he stated the three to four year maintenance on a new Helen Brand. So I am I don't know um who people are talking to but we've never heard anything before before reading it in the report here about an annual inspection and it's excessive. You know I don't know what they're going to inspect in order to clean it. They have to take it all apart. So um anyway uh 2016 2019 2023 service records there were no mention of inspections or pre-filters and we followed verbal and written guidance from the installer and the service providers. Um and another inaccuracy prefilter claims are inconsistent with service history. The city report states that Benjamin Franklin Plumbing recommends having a sediment filter before the unit. The city added whitelss do not have one. Um, we feel that these statements are misleading. Uh, prior to high volume pumping, a pre-f filter was not required. No pre-F filter was recommended by service providers until January 15th. And that was only because I brought it up when I asked about quotes. Do we need a pref filter? Are it because the city had um said we should look into a pre-f filter in December, the the month before. Um and that was the only time that it was brought up. Uh the initial Iron Curtain um quote from Premier Water Technologies did not include a pref filter and then when I asked him, you know, if one was needed, he stated, "Well, it wouldn't hurt." Um, they'll put it in, it'll catch some sediment, but I didn't see sediment in yours. Um, you just have to make sure, and this is an iron filter that we can clean ourselves. So, if we were looking for something, we would want to do it do it that way. Um, we see a definite vendor credibility issue when it came to Benjamin Franklin um, making statements about our system um, about annual inspection prefilters. They bought Kess. They didn't sell um the system that we did. They never did sell it. They cleaned it for us. Um so reliability on their statements um we didn't find very high. Um I do note some some sporting evidence that I I don't think I need to get into. uh time timeline highlights November 8th the pump test in 2023 the pump test began and by November 15th we required immediate service because and it's noted that the aeration head was very dirty on from November 16th then through December 6th um we didn't know that a pump test was going on we you know we had it cleaned right away but from that November 6th date to December 6th, there was a continued highle sediment exposure during testing. And then it wasn't until August of 2024 or or around that date that we had found out about our well-being at risk by the DNR and that public testing had been conducted during that time period of November to December 2023. In November 2024, um pipe we additional pipe was purchased and the pump lowered to mitigate uh draw down and like it was mentioned the city funded 21 ft. We funded an additional 41 ft at our own expense. We did this because um it costs a lot of money to have a well company come out and and do work. And we knew that the city um had plans to for development for for businesses coming in and that it would only mean um more water, you know, more uh more downdraw. And so we funded it because we didn't have to want to go through this again. Um so we um purchased 71 or excuse me 41 ft at our own expense and we put in a new pressure tank that we um had put in in 2016. We replaced that one. So we paid um $1,797. Um, and I just make a note here about this whole discrepancy about 2016 and and that when the city came out for mitigation in November. Um, you know, there was no age related pipe replaced. It had been done in 2016. In 2016, we had to replace pipe that was leaking from when we had re when we had put it in in when we had replaced it in 2010. So, um, and in in the report, it mentioned something about, well, if it hadn't been replaced since 2010, then the owner would need to to replace it then in 2024. Well, there was no age related pipe that we had to purchase at that time. Um, after inspecting our well, the city funded lowering the pipe. Again, like I said, this confirms that interference from pumping, not aging infrastructure, was the relevant issue. Um, in fall of 2025, we experienced reoccurring pressure issues and this was within two years of the 2023 cleaning. And then in January 2026, we started seeing sediment and iron staining and that's when the replacement of the system and pre-f filter was recommended by by the different places. Um some additional uh context um for this our maintenance interval interval changed from 3 to four years of maintenance to less than two years after the pump test. New and ongoing costs were introduced after post testing, meaning the pre-f filter. Service providers that came out and talked to us confirmed that there was an increased sediment affecting homes in the area um and at least and you know just mentioning the the files uh or complaints filed with the city and other residents have experienced equipment failure also. So in conclusion, there is clear evidence of a direct link between the 2023 pump test and the degradation of our iron curtain filtration system. Our system functioned properly prior to the pump test with regular maintenance as advised. There was immediate and documented impact following the start of pump testing. The system sustained continuous sediment exposure throughout the pump period pumping period and possibly until the mi mitigation point resulting in increased maintenance needs and reduced lifespan. We were one of seven wells identified by the DNR at at risk. And I think almost the most important piece of this is the city has admitted fault on this already and have and Rich's quote I think sums it up well. It is concluded based on this evidence that bofilm and or mineral buildup inside the well casings was exposed to air for up to several weeks during the draw down at the private wells affected. The exposure and or rising water as aquifer pressure levels recovered facilitated the release of the exposed material from the well casing. After being released into the water column, the material was drawn into the well pump and delivered into the plumbing system in the connected home. The material may have been flakes or clumps that were churned to a slurry by the pump, which was then captured by filters or treatment equipment in the home. Incomplete removal by home treatment would have resulted in color, odor, and taste changes by the user. Once the material was removed by home treatment and or flush through the system, the user's water returned to normal. And most importantly, failure to return to normal as reported by some users might be explained by residual material in the home's plumbing system. information. The pump test and resulting water level aquifer changes prior to mitigation cause the premature failure of our system. What we are looking for costwise is the cost of a pre filter and a filtering system of $39.98. Um, we've paid over $2,200 right now. Um and this request for the 39.998 is reasonable compensation. Um in going through the process we if you continue doing it we we have some recommendation recommendations for it. Um I know you talked at length about who was to be on the review committee. Um and um council member Timberman had had stated several times that she was really willing to be part of it. Um we just find that having staff write a report um put everything together and then make eval make an evaluation on their own conclusions is a very clear conflict of interest. there's no independent representation to to question any findings um in it and you know council member Berg questioned the need for review committee review group um and if it continues we agree um it'd be just best for staff to write their own um write their own opinions. Uh the group appears to be labeled as a review committee primarily to create the appearance of impartiality but it's anything but. Um I feel that the committee made decisions based on inaccurate statements. We were never asked to submit a formal statement to the review committee. We were told you know give us give us information. Um, but I I'm not afraid I'm not afraid to write a report uh or or opinions or something that will help out a review committee. And we weren't asked for to create a formal statement. We weren't given the opportunity to refute inaccuracies before the re uh report was submitted to the review committee. uh city staff did not follow up on key issues or seek clarification regarding their conclusions. Um and to a lesser degree, you know, we weren't invited to to speak or even to listen at at the review committee meeting. Um we went into this with full full faith of the process and you know we've been taken aback by by some of this and uh we just really feel that a lot can be learned from this. You know what what took place and um how we can really make our residents feel like they're protected. Thank you. >> You want me to respond to >> you? >> Okay. Um, clearly there is some discrepancies in information you have provided and information that we gathered. So the information we gathered was from uh Benjamin Franklin who yes was formerly cash and they don't they don't sell Helen Brand anymore. >> The recommendations we had were um 10 to 15 year yeah 10 to 15 years lifespan. You had 15 to 20. We were able to reach out to Helenbrand the factory direct have emails from them. They said 10 to 15 years with proper maintenance. I specifically asked how long are the maintenance intervals and they said annually. I asked what needs to be done annually. The media needs to be checked. I said how long does it be to last? 5 to 10 years. So we're going off information that are from not from you from your information but also from the vendor who worked on your house and the manufacturer that provided recommendations to us. So when we're going off of the 10 to 15 years, that's what we're told. What they told you I what you're telling me is 15 to 20. So what the information we were going off is what we were able to gather. We're only getting as much as what they have. Um so at the time of the pump test in 2023, it had been about four years since you had maintenance. >> Probably And then so before that it was three and a half years before that. >> Um and Helen Brand recommends maintenance every year. So if there's nothing done and I don't know if anything was done between 2009 and 2016. We don't have any records. Benjamin Franklin didn't have any. You guys have not provided any. I don't know if any maintenance was done. So those are some of the things that we're going off of when we're when we're doing this. >> Um intering. >> Yeah. I'm sorry. Yeah. No, I'm sorry. I just >> directing her. >> Yeah. Yep. Um, so I'll just start from the direct correlation. I'm just work through this if you want me to. You guys have it in front of you. Uh, they don't have it in front of them. Um, across from their house, we had a test well at the Coons, which is 200 feet from you guys, couple hundred feet across the street. So, we had a a level transducer in there. So at the time that they initially had problems in Coon's well across the street, it only dropped 2.3 ft. So at that time in that six days, it's not like you experienced the drop that you did after wells two and three turned on two weeks later. So initially this was all well four, which is a mile and a half away. The draw down wasn't nearly as bad until wells two and three turned on which was November 21st and that's where it dropped to a total of 8.3 ft and that was as far as it went. Then after everything shut off it went back up. So that's where uh in Rich's description stuff would you know be oxidized and fall off. >> Their well is also deeper than ours is. >> Okay. But the the water table is the water table. >> So the level there should be relative to where it is. >> I was going to go back. >> Yeah. No, I So the water table is water table. So it doesn't matter how deep the well is, the water's at what level it is. Um um so back to go through the impact back to a lot of it the Helen brand their recommendations annual maintenance um and going through it we found that um obviously maintenance was not done annually what they were told if they were told four years that's what they were told um I can't dispute that but what we were told is what you know annual maintenance. Um I would say that in the reports that you stated that there was never anything clogged in 2016 it's or 2019 it did say you said no abnormal system requirements increased maintenance noted. Um in that one it said the aation head was clogged. The aeration head was clogged and air aation head needed to be cleaned. So, that was clogged. So, we're going off of a clogged thing in 2019. Um, there was It did not, you're correct. It did not say anything about being clogged in 2016. Uh, 23. It did say very dirty water. Um, see here. Um when I talked to Helenbrand um asked about the annual maintenance, they told me lifespan was 10 to 15 years. Um when they did ask what needs to be maintained annually. The aation tank should be cleaned and there's a stack and piston and the filtering valve that should be changed out for new parts. The media itself will last 5 to 10 years depending on usage and water quality. If the unit was from 2009, we would recommend replacing the unit for new. Uh, based on maintenance history, the filter media had never been changed out since the system had been installed in 2009. When I sent the picture of the dirty, rusty media to Helen Brand, their response was that can happen over time if the system is not serviced. For this application, I would recommend service every 12 months, maybe even every eight months to ensure the system functions properly. Uh, I just want to point out like Renee had talked about wells at risk. Yes, there was their well was one of seven that were at risk. That was for out of water. That was not for water quality. That's it was at risk because it would be within 10 feet of where the water level could be. So that's why the city paid to extend the pipe down. I believe that's all I have. So, and again the information we got from uh Hartman is inconsistent with the information that they have from Hartman. Again, we can only go off the information that we receive from the vendors or the contractors, which there's clearly discrepancies between their information, our information. Um, I guess unless anybody needs any clarification on anything, I think I'm Can I res respond? Um, there are a couple things and I really don't want this a tennis ma match back and forth where obviously you know you're going by what Helen Brand says and what you know what Benjamin Franklin says. Um, and I can't argue with that. You sent Helen Brand a picture and said what do you think about this? They don't know the situation. you know, it's taken out of context. And I guess that's where my frustration is. Um, the coons completely. They might be right across the street from us. They have um a water softener. They don't have an arm filter. They have no need. They They have a completely separate need than we do, even though they're right across the street. So, um, I get and I'm just a little bit frustrated. Um, and also, you know, this this whole yearly inspection thing, never heard of it, never told about it, never in any report that you saw. So, to hang your hat on that, um, is just a just a big disservice. You know, we did what it took. We were good homeowners. Um, and I hope that you see that. Thank you. >> Can you just give me what's remaining in the process so I know that I understand what's going on. >> Ask questions after that. >> Okay. I mean, I will ask a silly question just to make sure. I mean, maybe it's not silly, but when we're talking about the water level and the amount that was dropped, how was that measured? Because it seems like we have a different understanding across. >> So, uh, the water was measured in the Coons well across the street. So, basically a level transducer gets dropped down into the well. It would take readings every I think it was every hour. >> Is it like from the ground down to where you find water? >> Yes. So it would equate to the elevation of the water in the aquifer or there's there's two different ways from the top of the well casing down there would be a measurement but then there's also an elevation measurement. So where the actual water is in their well. So the hole is drilled into the aquifer and the water comes up to a certain level. So when the W so a level transducer that automatically would send um throughout the whole process of our pump test we have transducer data from across the street where the level starts here for the first two weeks dropped about 2.3 ft after the first two weeks because it was pumping in well four which is a ways away at a lower rate. It was 850 gallons a minute. Once wells two and three turned on at,250 gallons a minute, the water dropped for a total like 8.3 ft. So it dropped an additional six feet in those wells in that area for the additional two weeks and then once it was shut off then the graph would gradually climb back up. So that basically showed what our pumping did as Rene had showed our cone of depression, how far out it went. So we had, I believe, 10 transducers all over. We had some in our own wells. We had some out by where the Niagara site is. We had one in Coons. We had one in uh another house on the gravel road on Main Street that was 6 miles away. So they had even more drop than what was noticed out there. So the transducer just basically showed what the aquifer did during the pump test. >> Can I expand a question on that question? Does it have anything to do does the draw down or how the water is measured have anything to do with let's say house A is here house B is here different elevations but the the well their well is deeper because they're higher up versus their well is shallower because they're lower. Does that have anything to do with where the water tables are with inside the casings that maybe the draw down is different from home to home? >> I'm not an expert on that, but I would not think that there is any difference between because you're drilled into the same aquifer. >> Okay. I I I if if one well is 33. >> That was a very good question. >> You might as well just It's ridiculous. this is our life and we're frustrated. >> Don, can I and maybe it's >> a question like your comment while he was talking about the like can you explain what you mean? >> We've also got two properties in uh New Market Township in the little business park. One well is 40 ft deeper than the other. And same thing, we don't have an iron filter in one building. The other building we do. So the depth of the well makes a difference. >> Yeah. But what I'm talking about the depth of of the draw down what I was talking about. >> Yeah. But if my well is 30 feet higher than the coons, that's a huge difference. >> So I think the issue is we're crossing different topics. The point that can two wells have different water characteristics. Yes. But the the discussion at the time was in the context of how much draw down had occurred in the well at what point in time and would have led to what potential degree of slough off within the well. So whether or not well across the street is 10 ft shallower 10 ft deeper really doesn't matter. We know that regardless of where they sit, two wells across the street from each other are going to have the same level of water in their be at the same elevation and it's going to draw down because approximately at the same rate. So we know it's reasonable to infer that the draw down in well was x distance over that time it's going to be basically the same across the street across the street regardless of how deep the well is drilled. and the welling would be at the same ele. >> So an aquifer never changes its depth to the elevation of the land. >> So the the elev so yes one well if one house is up on a hill and one house is lower one well could be deeper than the other but the actual elevation of the water is going to be at the same level. So you can have a well, a house here, a house here, but the level of the aquifer with homes in close proximity is going to be at the same height elevation. So that discussion gets to how much draw down there had been from normal position, how far and how long, and then to what degree that might You want to keep going or we want to bounce around? >> Well, I guess I mean I I mean I think we're debating something that experts are going to have different opinions on. I was able to just pull up quickly that Kona depression is not symmetrical. Hydraulic connectivity matters more than distance. You could have neighboring wells with very two different impacts um caused by draw down. So I mean I want to pull out of the details a bit a little bit and ask some of the process stuff um in in the sense of who is the burden of proof on right here is my question. First one >> the burden of proof would be on the whitels to establish that there was some impact on their system. City's not required to provide this payment but they are choosing to do it. So it's up to the whites to establish that need. >> And so kind of a followup to that and and you kind of led into where I was going. What level of something some impact is sufficient to show that some impact was made that would then be reasonable to >> so this isn't a criminal matter so it's not beyond a reasonable doubt it's as a city you typically are required to make decisions based on reasonleness and so you're you're acting as a factf finder here and a judge generally Um, you're looking at the weight of the evidence and making a determination on do you which which evidence do you believe more? Well, and and um you know, I think going back to that September 25th meeting and re listening to most of it, trying to find out where I was quoted and I don't think I found where I was quoted, but um hearing what Rich said, I do agree. You know, it was stated that I mean, Rich said multiple, our city engineer at the time suggested or stated several times that there were impacts caused by the draw down or by the pump test that uh I think I even asked a question about, you know, these pipes are this big. Can really two feet of of uh sludge fall off and would it matter? and he he clarified and stated that yes, it could matter because of the circumference and or the surface area or some smart response that he had. Um and then later on he also said that you know this this pumping this this impact the sludge the the slurry of stuff um could cause one two potentially three filters to be clogged up um and need to be replaced. And I and so that I wonder, you know, what level of if you don't replace them right away, that could have a negative impact on the system as a whole. And, you know, I'm not a water filtration expert. Um, but I I'm trying to wrap my head around what level of impact or that the burden of proof of some kind to take out some of the the stuff that we don't I don't think we need to debate as much. and was there an impact that could have caused or can we as a city say that there was no impact at all. Um, and if we can confidently say that, you know, I I'd entertain that. But I think we have a city engineer that said it did cause an impact and then it's just how much of an impact and could it have caused um the issues here? I mean, I I hear the debate of, you know, 10 to 15 years, 15 to 20. When I did a quick AI search, it was 15 to 25. Um, and then the media was 8 to 10 and and you know, they don't even post any of the the required or recommended maintenance schedules anywhere. Um, even in the manuals. I was looking through the manual quick and they don't have the recommended things in there. So, based on that, it was a one to threeyear recommendation for regular maintenance. So, I mean, I think there's going to be discrepancies in who says what and um and and what information we gather. So, like I'm trying not to get bogged down in that stuff because then I think I mean I think we're going to get lost in this. My question is was there an impact? And if so, is it reasonable that the city pays for it? Uh, and that's just where I'm stuck or at. >> And I would say our decision to offer the $300 is us saying there there may have been an impact. I don't know if others feel that way, but that is my assessment of our situation. We are, like Andrea said, acting in good faith and doing this kind of outside of what is expected of us because we admit that there may have been some problems and we are willing to allow people to come to the table and express what those problems might have been if it's outside of the scope of that 300. >> You weren't asking me, but >> I guess that's my answer and my assessment of where we are today and what we're doing right now. >> In the presentation, I said you were considering You're going to replace um your system. Did you replace it already? >> It It's scheduled for next week. >> Yes, >> we are doing the pre-f filter as a preventative. Did you take a photo of the filter? >> No. >> Uh, he didn't take it apart. >> Yeah, he we had um staining coming up in a in a shower. when it does what the pre-f filter I got kind of the same response you did that uh basically you could put one in if you want to um from Helen Brand that's what they got back they said in this situation I would recommend one but it's up to them because you're going to change out more filters if you need to. It's just another maintenance issue. So, I kind of did get the same response from them, which was different than Benjamin Franklin, which again, discrepancies in what information is gathered. >> Your current system is 16 years old, >> correct? >> Yes. >> John, I do have a question for you. Um, in reading through your paperwork, you do have the multimedia depth filter, correct? >> Yes. >> And from my research, a multimedia depth filter uh allows for a finer, deeper filtration cleaning versus a single depth filter. Correct. So, technically, it should be cleaning better than a single by about 25 to 30 micros is what I found when I did research. Is that correct? >> That sounds about right. When we when we first bought, we had four people out and this was >> Well, technically the system you had should have been doing a very fine job at getting rid of any filament, any coming through because you had the the multimedia depth filter. Correct. >> Yes. Sorry. >> That was a lot. >> I don't know what you just said. >> So, if I may, >> if I may, mayor, >> you may. >> I I would be cautious about council doing their own research because it's not evidence that's being presented here. >> I just know the definition of what a multidia depth filter was versus a single. It's just kind of outside of the scope of the evidence that's been presented tonight that everybody has access to. >> Sorry. >> Any other questions? >> Well, yeah. I mean, I think back to the more the legal side or the, you know, just what we're here to do. Determine the reasonleness of we use that word a lot now. Is it reasonable? Could we reasonably expect that the pumping increased the need for the filters to need to be changed and the potential aging of a system? Um, and I mean I think it would be reasonable to make that assumption um especially based on the information that was presented at the September 25th meeting. Um, >> Josh, can I interrupt? >> Yeah. No, >> you're getting to the next part. >> Oh, am I? >> Yeah. So >> if there's do you guys have any more questions of staff or the >> maybe one more for Andrea. What recourse do do they have? Let's hypothetically say we deny you know the the request or deny um the the payment of this. Is there recourse beyond this? Yes, they could certainly bring legal action if they chose to do so through the court system. >> Additionally, it's our understanding under the terms of our the water quality response plan portion of our permit, they could since this is related to a water quality issue, it could be appealed to the DNR if they don't agree with the decision that's made by the city. And I confirmed that recently in discussion with the DNR. >> And if I may one more quick clarified thing too. So in in this I don't believe you know any decision we make for against whatever um is a prec precedence setter. I mean I think we sometimes worry that if we make a decision one way it's going to lead to you know a bunch of things having to be decided a certain way in the future for or against. But like this is we're looking at each of these requests if we receive more than this one as individual situations based on individual findings of fact and research and and all that stuff. Correct. So what the decision we make today doesn't have any potential bearing on future decisions we'll make on other distinct things. >> Two things I would say. Number one, it could depend based on what you base your decision on. That could apply to many others. Um secondly, it it depending again how you decide it be um more of a political issue for you legal president. No, >> I have one more question. What was the city's expense for the 21 ft and whatever other maintenance was? Give me one second. >> 2933. >> Correct. 2933. All right. Any other any other questions? >> I mean, I have a question because what if I have questions while we're talking about this? >> Understood? We'll address them as they come up. >> All right. Now, we'll move into our discussions. What we're how we're going to be moving forward here. Our discussion and decision time. Yeah, continue with your thought that I cut you off with. Sorry. But >> I mean, talking about reason, >> would it be reasonable to assume that there was an impact um on the pump test outside of normal and standard things? And I think that was even something that the city engineer stated was this was above and beyond, you know, whatever. um and above and beyond the normal I can't remember the exact words processes or or things with these types of systems. It always happens with these systems but it happens at a slower rate. Um so I mean I just I struggle knowing that there are discrepancies with with the findings of the fact of the the ages of the or the life expecties that was presented by um the different groups of of that. So that causes pause in my brain to think there's a difference and a discrepancy there. Um, and you know, I think we heard through through the the process over the last few years, so not necessarily specific to this, that there are differences within the aquifer and potential variations um of the water table and how it's impacted by draw down. and we had experts on from all different groups talk about that. So like I I just is it reasonable to assume there's an impact? I in my brain it is reasonable to assume there was an impact. Now to what what Megan brought up too is a good point of reasonable beyond the $300 and the justification that we gave for that $300 of replacing a few filters and things like that. I mean this changes when a system fails. Now, did it fail because of old age? Perhaps. I mean, it very well could have, but it very well could have not. It could have been caused by I think reasonably another assumption could be that it was caused by the pumping and the impacts of that test. So, I can't definitively say, and I know I don't have to definitively say one way or the other, but that's where I'm struggling um to make a recommendation or determination on recommendation. >> I'm hung up on the age of the system. I don't know if other people feel that way too, but >> yeah. So, I think that's a factor, but then also is that >> Yes. Thank you. Do I need to bring it closer to you? >> Maybe. Okay. So, I think the age is definitely a factor, but obviously the pump test is also a factor. So, I don't think it's like one or the other. We have to find where I don't know I'm not going to do any creative math but I think that we have to figure out what makes sense because my opinion is it is to me there was regular maintenance done on this system like maybe not the recommended annual if that is a thing but let's be honest not all of us are going to keep up with that on a as human beings So I think it's clear to me that the white cells are taking care of their system and they're you know regularly maintaining their system. So I think that is what's putting me at I'll just say at more than 300 but not for the full amount of the new system. >> I agree. Um, age of the system 16 years old. We've already invested $2,933. I'm middle middle maybe split the difference um or or maybe even figure out what the what that five years would have been that maybe would have got out of it. Figure out what that expense is and and build on that. >> I agree Amanda that I think both can coexist. And to that point too, I think I guess Is pror rate the right word? Like where you would >> My dad just got sideswiped the other day and his car was totaled. So he got a very small amount for his vehicle he's had for the last 15 years. He probably would have gotten another five out of it. >> Can we prorrate for that loss because it may have prematurely failed due to >> absolutely we can. That's what we're going to decide right now. So yeah, >> how do how would you figure that out? I mean pricewise, how do you >> I was Yeah, I was looking. >> I know. And then you would take a look at um either replacement value. Think of your insurance whatever it cost for your ro but got 75% of your rose for 25% of the cost of replacing that type of methodology you guys as There are different sources offering different opinions with regards to that. >> I have a question now. The $2933 in my my scribble at this point. What was the intent of it? Was it the intent to save the system or to just limp it alone? That was to drop. >> Yeah, that would be independent from this discussion. That was related to the well interference and dropping the well >> pump. So, that has nothing to do with this. >> That was an obligation we had related to lowering the pump. So, it would be independent of this. >> Okay, that makes sense. >> So, that dollar amount has nothing to do with the 3,998. >> Correct. >> Okay, that makes more sense. >> Mayor, if I may. >> Yeah, >> I would just recommend I think there's two steps here. Number one, you need to decide does the city do you all agree or predominant number of you agree that uh this was the approximate cause of any issues that they had? That's first and then you can get to what you think the damage was and what you would want to contribute for that. >> I mean, and I'm going to flip that. I can't say that it wasn't the cause uh of the issues that they're facing or were facing, are facing, whatever the right tense is. Um, and I wish it was clean and clear like that. Like I wish I wish it was cut and dry. Um >> but I I can't say with certainty that it did not have an intact did not shorten the lifespan however much lifespan was left that it did not enhance the need to replace or expedite the need to replace their system. So backwards way of flipping it back then to say yes I think there is a reasonableness to say that it did expedite >> I think we could all I think we're all agreeing that that's reasonable >> and I was figuring out >> question or comment. >> Um the one that I mean none of this is easy but with this you know that when Hartman lowered their well you know that there was nothing wrong with their well or their drop pipe. So we we we know that where other cases that we are looking at, you don't have that information because you don't know what's in their well. So with this one, you know that their well, their casing, everything is good. Where in other ones, we've seen issues with people's wells going bad or holes in their drop pipe where you know with this one that they have good drop pipe, they have good pump. So it's not anything that was caused by a failure of their well equipment that's underground. Does that make sense? >> Well, what I'm hearing the council say is that but you believe that to some degree undefined at this point there may have been an influence of the aquifer test causing the sloughing off of material which has been um hypothesized by the city engineers office and we've endorsed that concept as a city which is why we're offering the compensation. um that would be unrelated from an equipment failure that's just related to normal stuff that builds up in every well to varying degrees. So I think going to Andre's comment, you guys need to make a determination to what to what degree you think it may have impacted knowing that it's a reasonable test. There are no absolutes of information that have re related to that. It's u it's a decision based on the accumulation of the total information and what you believe is reasonable. So when Hartman dropped that pipe that is separate from this issue, it was Good. >> Yeah, they they they reason Hartman was there was to verify how much pipe was in there >> and then at the time they pulled it and the city paid to add 21 ft and then Whitel's paid to add another 44ish feet. Um, so you know that that that pipe is at at least the bottom pipe that is in the water was good and if there was any pipe that was bad, I'm assuming they would have replaced it at that time. So that's why I say like you know that their their well, their pump, their drop pipe was good. >> Remind me when was that? >> Uh, November of 2024. And in that process, and I think was this the one where they had to go back and get a air compressor or something to clean the pipe. >> When they do that, I assume they also then I mean they don't just spray the stuff off and then let it sit there. They make sure that it's cleaned out. >> Yeah. So basically they'll they'll use a high pressure air tool that scour everything. And then what they'll do is they'll pump all that stuff out until they have good clean water. And then they'll put the pump then they'll drop the pump all the way back down. And the reason they do that is because there is stuff on the sides and when you put it down it's like it's like when you >> Yeah. It's just when you put the plunger in the toilet or drop a rock in the lake, it stirs things up. So, they want to get it as clean as possible before they put it down. The technician that was out there did say there was sand in there and that's was his first issue. He cleared the maganesees out, but then he had sand that he had to clear out. And that's what the compressor is for to help push all that whatever settles in the case. >> So in November >> that was done in 2024. Correct. But we're questioning in 2023. >> Correct. This is rel so this discussion is >> related 23 not 24 but they didn't document any bad drop pipe at that time. >> Correct. And there's a photo from November 2023 that >> and then again in December 2025 they're completely clogged again which I qu like what's the deal because in November 2024 it was clean but November 2025 they're clogged. >> I mean two separate things. >> The the drop pipe is in the well. So that the you have the well casing >> goes on the ground, drop pipe goes in there. >> So what they have there in that picture that's in their iron filter >> that's inside their house that basically their iron filter looks like a water softener. >> So that's what that is. >> And that's time stamp November 2023. And I I I go back to >> Sorry, man. Go ahead. >> I was just gonna say I go back to like I don't disagree like I don't disagree with what anybody's saying in any of this conversation. So, I don't know how to make that clear without like I I truly believe that that is all everybody's being accurate in their responses and it's not a 100% the whitels need to prove that it was the pump test that caused it fully and completely nor does the city have to defend it 100% to say without any reasonable doubt blah blah blah. So I go back to the reasonableness of it that there is a possibility that it would be reasonably understood that yes there could have been an impact and and then it's the next step. So >> all right and that's where the all right the system is from 2016 >> 2009 >> 2009 um it's 16 years old that's where that came from in my head um maybe get another five years out of it. So what's the difference? >> How did we confirm the 2009? Because I feel like early on in the report it said installed date unknown and then later it said 2009. >> The reason for that was because uh the first part of the report findings was based on an interview with the white schools and they stated at that time they didn't know the exact installation date. Later when an interview was uh conducted with Benjamin Plumbing or Benjamin Franklin plumbing, they had records from the former cat's equipment that it was installed in 2009. So then it was clarified later and we could adjust that report going forward. >> So the council can be confident of that at least in our finding this the staff's findings related to the installation date. >> And in 2023 it was 14 years old. That being the case, proate. >> Yeah. Five years. >> I'm just doing math. >> It's like 800,000 bucks. >> What? >> 800,000. 800 or 800 to a,000 boxes. But >> would you guys be okay with that? >> I heard I was like, where did that come from? >> I heard 800,000. I'm like, >> do a thousand. >> You're going to buy him a whole new >> be in that ballpark. >> You did good. Did you do that? >> But then we're basing that's based off of 20 years versus >> a 20 year. Yeah. >> Giving them the difference if it would have lived for 20 years. >> Yeah. >> Benefit of the doubt. 20 year life. >> Yeah. 14 of 20%. >> So giving them I also removed the pref filter because I don't think that that is part of our responsibility to cover. >> Yeah, the pref filter is not in >> so 30% of the 30 of 32.99 which is the iron curtain cost is $99 >> for close. pay for 30%. 20% if we were to. So I I based it off of if we did like split between the 15 and 20 year life at 17 and a half and we have 20% of life left of the system which would be $660. So those are my two with the 20ear plan better >> the 20% >> of life so if it would >> split in the middle 30% >> I think you asked this already but I might have missed it what would that mean then if we move forward with that for the other like the president they're talking >> somebody else has to kind of make a claim same same >> and we probably do the same thing for somebody else >> well I mean and this feels is consistent with the appeals board process the the stuff that I've been doing for half a dozen years now where based on specific situations and whatever we have a policy administrative policy in place that then you know makes it easier for staff to make decisions timely and whatever people can appeal they provide additional documentation and it feels like we do this on a consistent basis um and we don't always grant the full request of you know whatever and we we do this quite a bit um with the water appeal stuff. >> Um and and we find a reasonable difference uh to compromise at if um you know whatever. So just this feels like in line with that way of thinking um from our how we do things at the city. But >> can we just add one thing into that 32.90 whatever price since you're taking out the pre filter in November uh what is it? November 15th, they did have to of 23, the time period we're talking about, the whitels had their um had to service their iron filter and clean their iron filter for $42. So would we be including that into that 32? And there's so I'm as I'm thinking through that >> it's like 2019 was the last service of the iron filter but then 2023 it needed to be cleaned and then was it again >> 23 it was service. >> Yeah. But okay. So I'm I don't know now I'm sort of going back just because >> seemed like it would have been >> routine. Maybe that would have been like routine time and just happened to meet at the time of the pump test. >> But it was only a few days after the pump test. >> Yeah. What day we start? >> Start on the 8th. >> Eth started on the eth. And that was I believe the call was made on the 14th. But yes, there was maintenance done in 2016, 2019, so I think three and a half years later, and then 2023, but >> I think it's same similar maintenance done. >> It it was cleaned uh their aation head. Um, I think it I think all the maintenance is pretty similar. It's definitely worded different in 16,9 and 23. In 23 it did say very dirty head or very dirty filter media. Um, it did say very dirty and then in 2019 it said it was clogged. So, different verbiage, but I would think that it's maintenance. I think we've kind of arrived to a conclusion here. >> Do you want to add that? Were you thinking to adding that expense of the >> Well, I was actually thinking that I mean obviously you all want to prorrate it, which is is fine. I but I was thinking that if nothing else we'd split half and half cuz cuz I can tell by reading the room you we're not all going to be in favor of paying the full amount of 39.98 or 32.98 or 30 whatever that total is. So, if we could meet in the middle at half, but >> can I make a comment or suggestion? If the council is applying a proration logic going to Josh's comments that there may be something there, but not definitively one way or the other, the service that was done in 2023 is in line with the regular service. But if the council believes that there some of that service may have been the result, you could apply whatever you decide for the proration, you would apply it to the service call because it would there's some logic that that would follow. >> Feels consistent. It feels more consistent that way too. Then >> I'm at a pro rate and then we could prorate that as well. the their expense for that. Where are you at? >> I think pro rate. >> I agree. >> Pro rate or 50/50? >> I'm I I 5050. >> I'm at pro rate. >> And I don't feel like I need to what? >> We have to determine this. Yes. >> 30 or 20. >> I mean, I just like >> 30% or 20% >> in Excel, but I don't like >> I think we agree 30% or 20% and I'm at 30. >> And then what sort of somebody's going to have to check this work. >> I just did six years from 14. If we assume 20, so got 14 out of it. >> Or we just round up thousand for the >> just on six. That's 980,000 bucks for that. And then >> if you want to get technical, >> thank you. I know I needed to >> I mean I I I think we go with as precise as we can because when or if there's another situation again no precedents all that but then we'll be able to potentially apply a similar type of logic in the future. So if we're going to prorrate and we think that that makes sense then prorrated to you know maybe not the scent but instead of rounding because then we'll get into the you know how when do we round up and when don't we and >> Okay. Fair. >> Just trying to think through that a little bit. >> 90ish >> plus whatever 30% of 402 is >> $12086. >> So 1110 is >> 1110ish or 1110 >> 111056. but they don't make pennies anymore. Um, I just want to say that this is a very thorough review and we have a lot of records here which I think is a big factor in making these decisions. >> Like the history and the maintenance are very important. just need like because you have me paranoid about precedent >> to some degree, >> but there are a lot of factors that are playing into this in the amount of information that that has been provided. And then same with public works and going through the level of detail and the process that's gone through there as well. >> Not everybody that comes to us is going to be as well organized as the whites were or you guys will always do your jobs as well as you did them here for us, but there will be other people that might come forward that do not have the records that the whitels had. And I think that helps me fall on the side that the city is at at more fault than they are at fault. That's why I wanted to touch on we know that everything in their well is good >> because I know there's other ones that we are working on that we don't have the same information on them. So the other ones that we will be reviewing are going to get more difficult because we know for sure that they're well as good because it was pulled and there's more drop pipe put on it. >> So we agreed 1,111. Lucky. >> Is that where we're we're landing? >> Yeah. >> Do you need a vote or >> mayor? Oh, go ahead. >> So, if that is the council's decision, this is obviously not consistent with the draft findings of fact and decision. So, we would recommend that the council direct staff to go back and prepare a revised finding of fact and decision based on your discussion and conclusion this evening that we would place on the consent agenda at the next meeting. >> I'd make a motion to do that. >> I was going to say my question is do we need a motion? >> Uh any discussion? But just one last little gentle push back on the statement that you know the whole point of this process was to allow for an additional step of due process and impartiality and to have this discussion. So while I don't necessarily love I see this at all levels of government where we you know as a license e we uh tried to contest something that the commissioner may say we did wrong and the decision ultimately lands back at the commissioner. I mean it feels like it's a losing battle. Um but I think hopefully what this is trying to show is like there is this extra level of analysis or uh review because we do trust our staff and the information that they get but also that there are ult more variables to it and um due process is not alive and well right now in anywhere and I think trying to protect that is what I'm trying to do or we're trying to So, I I don't know. I appreciate this process. I appreciate I mean, I'm sure there's going to Nobody's probably feeling great about any of this. Uh staff aren't whites aren't. Um but I think that's probably a decent spot to be in for this one and we'll see how it goes in the future. >> I would just say that staff doesn't feel any way. Our our our mandate was to go collect information. This committee's charge was to collect information and make a recommendation based on the information that they had. To your point, Josh, this process was intentionally put in place to allow for other variables to be considered, other opinions to be considered, and just as Don and Jeff did, provide their opinion or their perspective with the understanding that the council's the final arbiter, so to speak, on this and makes the final decision. I have a question about process. Is now the time for that? I mean, okay, I'm just gonna ask it. Don made some recommendations about the process and I'm wondering if we can have a further conversation on that. Not tonight, but like later. >> Yeah, that's up to the council. the process tonight was the council was is the process that was dictated by the council. The council can always change that process at any time. >> I absolutely >> it's not a change of the process but >> addition to >> some more details in expectations of like timing and things of that nature. That's all >> and I just I just caution us to to start changing things on one data point. So I mean I don't necessarily disagree but um I think we'll know a lot more as we continue to do this refine this as will everybody throughout this process. So, um >> I think it's the piece is what I don't know is like the timing of the whitell's got the report. It's on the agenda like >> timing length of time opportunity to review. >> The white souls had expressed an urgency to getting this resolved. We got it on the council agenda as quickly as we could. They determined that they had concerns with the report and they wanted to provide counter opinions. So we changed the date to reasonably allow them to be able to do that because they should have the ability to have adequate time to prepare the response. So the timing of when it initially went on was based on trying to be responsive to their desire to get this resolved quickly and then the change was responsive to their des to provide them reasonable time to dispute which we found out after we provided the report. >> Thanks for that detail. That makes sense. >> All right. So we have a motion uh to revise the factf finding and add it to the next consent agenda agenda. All in favor? I >> I >> Thank you, >> Mr. Mayor. Sir, >> I have to bail. >> Good night. >> No, you need to go get some sleep. >> I have to bail, too, but I'll just show up late. >> Oh, you have to go to work. Go to work still. I'm fine. They can live without me. All right, that concludes general business reports. Start with you, sir. >> Um, I have nothing specific under administration unless the council has any questions on anything. >> Nothing. No. Um, office remodel, painting, carpet is completed, which was a very long process, but uh, the guys did a great job doing everything down here and keeping everybody in the office happy. Um, so they finished up with that earlier this week and we're rolling into spring and summer. So, and again, Derek and I are still working on a lot of these, which as you can see the detail that Renee put into this. We're giving her all the information, and she's been doing an amazing job at that, but it is a lot of work. It is just trying to paint the picture and gather information is >> um >> yes, it's it's a lot of work. So, >> it was really really great. I just want like that I mean, the amount of work you guys did was fantastic. >> It's It's great. >> Chief, >> um, good news. Uh, Officer Meisner is just about done with field training and I believe next week he'll be on solo patrol. Um, so we are excited to to get him on the road by himself. And, uh, we're still struggling though to hire more people. Um, we just did not just one one candidate on uh we do have two candidates some background but um we'll have to kind of see how things go. That's it. >> No fire, >> sir. Um there's an update in your your packet. Uh happy to chat on any of those items. Um y >> I require a joke. >> Oh, okay. Yeah. So >> like we all I was trying to read the room. I was going to let you guys bring it up whether you >> start with the president. Oh, >> now it has to carry through forever. >> On the way here though, I was I was driving by the and there's a barber shop there and >> there's a line of folks. There's bunch of guys lined up right outside that barber shop and I'm like, "Oh, look. It's a barbecue. >> Happy to answer any questions." >> Community development base item is probably earlier tonight the interview process we conducted. So, >> okay. Parks. >> Um, we had a discussion last this week, actually last night at the parks commission. Uh, the primary topic was looking at the capital. Well, two parts. One was to look at the Highlands Park and and Highlands at Eagle View and confirm the park name as Highlands Park. Um, the other part was to approve a conceptual layout continues for going out and getting quotes for work to be done um on the site. The other half maybe the other twothirds or threequarters of the meeting was to go through the capital outlay um going forward. This will be coming forward formally in the um budget process, but they are recommending based on anticipated future needs with other parks that are becoming online that at a minimum we continue to increase the park's capital outlay by $5,000 a year. That previous plan was scheduled to end in 2027. So they're recommending that that should continue forward in the capital outlay. Um there would be no impact to that in the 2027 budget because we've already planned for it. So this is more for we should start putting something away until we have more definitive numbers based on the actual timing of the parks and what actually gets built. >> Right. TCO went really well. We don't I our next meeting is until April 21st. I don't have final numbers unless shared something with you guys. >> Um I they do have a final number. I in the office. I haven't I have not been provided with it yet. >> We did 325 bags and there was probably I would guess maybe 25 or 30 bags left. >> I bags is not a good indicator the cash is. >> That's why I'm That's why this >> I want to I want to say I thought I heard a number of around 220 and change >> which >> yeah which is a little bit on the lower end of our typical range. We've usually been between like 220 240 240 being like really good and two 20 being kind of fairly consistent with our historical numbers. So, >> Beth said she had an absolute blast. >> It was awesome. >> Now, you have to you you have to recruit her hard now because I've been trying to get her and she's not doing it. Then you recruit her >> for sure. It's a for sure thing. >> She did great and she's going to help out at rescue. >> Send her a text. Tell her we're going to be >> whether it's meetings or whatever. Just tell her drag her in. >> I will. if she watches this. >> Yeah. >> Question on composition. >> Oh, um, yes. So, composition we Oh, I was on I don't know what happened to it. Sorry. Composition is we've doing the four businesses. So, we have um Oh god, sorry. My head is swimming right now. >> Scouts fire relief. scouts, fire relief, lion uh lines, and then I don't know about Tony yet. We haven't heard back from Tony. Um but if Tony won't be there, uh we believe Crossroads. So Gordon and his co his um people will be there. And then we have three people that are at large. One is Heather Sawyer. Um, I did talk to your wife about being at large. I haven't heard back yet if that's what she wants to do. She was going to think about it as being a >> She didn't bring it up. I'll ask later. >> And then um I thought we had one more. >> Monica Engel. >> Yeah, Monica Engel. Thank you. Yeah, I just always tie her into Boy Scouts, but that's the other lady. So that's what our composition looks like going forward. >> So if the council agrees with that generally and with the names that were proposed, that can be brought up back as a resolution in the near future. >> Sounds good. >> But let's wait till we hear back from Miss Ganfield and see if she would like to work. Okay. >> All right. Um >> is tomorrow. >> Scale is tomorrow. >> Yep. Service delivery is later in the month. Um on the insurance consortium item. Um Kelly and I are planning to bring you a presentation on that probably at the next meeting. We were able to meet with the consultant on the updated feasibility study where it has more data specific to us. um that data given the model and it's like every other model. You know, it's a it's a a lot of there are assumptions that go into it, but it does indicate um that there would be notable benefit to us to participate in the consortium versus probably going to the market alone in 2027. Now, that's not a guarantee, but it's assuming that if you plug the same information into the consortium model versus an independent model using similar assumptions, you get an order of magnitude of difference. Um, and it does indicate there would be positive. So, we'll come back with the details on that. And what we would be looking for from the council is we're staying on the bus to the next step where it's actually going out for formal quotes and working and working through the governance issue. And then the next step after that is basically in or out um at that particular point. And the turnaround on this is relatively quick. They're looking for us to basically come back with our answer by midmay. So we basically have the next council meeting or the council meeting after that to make that decision about whether or not we're still on the bus to the next stop or not. Um, oh, and then we have me. The big topic is I as the chair of service delivery, um, I've been connecting with all of the service delivery primary participants, the people that are regularly engaged and getting feedback from them about the value of service delivery committee, what it's doing, how it's operating, how it's run, etc. And then um my plan is that at this month's meeting we'll I'll present that to the larger group um if there are themes and get some feedback and some discussion and direction from the committee itself. >> All right. Anything? Nothing major from this morning other than we're getting a 24% rebate on our dues for >> we'll get a couple back and >> yeah we talked more about public transit today so not too big of an impact down here but >> gonna let them see >> that should >> really come off we keep it should really come off but by the time we take it off it's going to be that season again it Any discussion by council? Seeing none, >> motion to adjurnn. Second. Any >> discussion? All in favor? I adjourn.