During the meeting, the senior city engineer provided an overview of the situation, explaining the historical context of the manganese issue and the city’s mandated efforts to address it by constructing a water treatment plant.

The financial challenges of the water treatment project were a core topic, as the council discussed the complexities of securing funding from state and federal sources. There was a notable disparity between the $750 million allocated by the Minnesota Management and Budget for bonding and the $3 billion in requests for drinking water projects. This competitive landscape was further complicated by the need for matching contributions, as articulated in conversations about navigating the bureaucratic processes for funding allocations.

Residents expressed their dissatisfaction with the water quality and the perceived delays in project advancement. Comments from attendees like “I’m sick of buying bottled water… fix it. Be done with it” highlighted the urgency felt by the community. The council also noted the stigma surrounding the water quality in Mound, with concerns about its impact on health and property values.

The conversation on funding options included potential self-funding strategies, such as increasing water rates. The council highlighted that the current average monthly utility bill could rise if funded solely through water rates, with projections estimating an increase from $17 to between $44 and $47 per month. This led to a discussion on the necessity of conducting a thorough utility rate study to provide residents with detailed financial implications and support informed decision-making.

The council also touched upon the operational challenges, including the financial burden posed by the water treatment plant’s estimated $30 million cost. The water fund showed a negative balance of approximately $4.5 million in 2023, with projections indicating a potential decline to minus $8.6 million by 2031 without a long-term financial plan. The urgency of stabilizing the financial situation was underscored, with council members emphasizing the goal of reaching a zero balance by 2030.

In addressing the water treatment project’s timeline, it was noted that construction must commence by July 2027 to secure crucial funding. Discussions included the potential of partnering with neighboring municipalities, as suggested by a resident, to share costs and resources. However, logistical challenges were acknowledged, given differing municipal facilities and requirements.

The meeting also covered community engagement strategies to ensure residents stay informed about the water treatment project’s progress and financial decisions. Suggestions included proactive communication efforts, such as mailing updates to residents and maintaining transparency about the implications of potential utility rate changes. Additionally, the council explored the idea of monthly billing to streamline payments and manage cash flow more effectively.