ÍáÍáÂþ»­

BEMIDJI — The Bemidji City Council does not formally hold any public forum policy, but this could soon change.

During a Monday work session, the council provided feedback for a new public forum policy to guide city staff. Councilors unanimously agreed that the city should adopt a policy and that public comment should remain a part of each regular meeting.

The council also received an update from City Engineer Sam Anderson regarding a effort to or components, throughout the state to provide cleaner drinking water by 2033.

Water pipes, known as service lines, connect a water main to an interior plumbing system of a building. Lead in a pipe can eventually seep into drinking water, which is a health concern. Galvanized pipes only further the issue.

"The issue of galvanized is based on the year it was normally used for material; it was still pretty common to see trace amounts of lead in the solder and the fittings," Anderson explained. "The other nuance of that is if you have upstream lead lines, either within your home or as another service line, galvanized is known to absorb lead. That is the reason why the state and the EPA say if you see that, it is good to get rid of it."

Courtesy / City of Bemidji

Bemidji developed an initial inventory with Karvakko Engineering last year that was approved by MDH. Inventory included current lead, non-lead, galvanized and unknown service lines throughout the city.

Although the city discovered no lead pipes in the system, there are still 127 known galvanized pipes that need to be replaced. Bemidji also harbors 256 unknown pipes and 4,289 non-lead pipes that do not need replacement. This list will evolve as the city continues to examine existing infrastructure.

Bemidji's contribution to this state-wide effort is not as intensive as some other areas.

"We as a city have a very small problem compared to some of these other cities," Anderson admitted. "Obviously, the metro, being an older area, there's certainly a lot more of this issue. I think we're sitting in a pretty good place."

The next step is to secure funding.

Federal funds will be available as a reimbursement grant through the courtesy of the 2023 Minnesota legislature and the

Two important deadlines necessary for the project are fast approaching. The deadline to register for the Project Priority List is May 2, and the deadline to apply for the Intended Use Plan is June 6. Anderson anticipates the city will have no issue meeting these deadlines.

He also believes Bemidji will be able to request between $2 and $2.5 million for the project. Funding will be made available as early as the 2026 construction season.

There are some minor details that could affect the project.

If a galvanized line begins to leak before a grant is secured, the city can contact an MDH-approved plumber to replace it. The homeowner would be reimbursed by the city and the city would then be eligible for reimbursement through a grant.

However, if a homeowner decides to replace a galvanized line that is not leaking prior to grant funding, costs will not be eligible for reimbursement.

Involved homeowners should have received a letter in the mail regarding the project. Around two dozen homeowners took advantage of free testing, which is still available to help gather more data.

Those interested in having their water tested can reach Water Superintendent Todd Anderson at (218) 333-1854 or todd.anderson@ci.bemidji.mn.us.

Alternatively, residents can contact an MDH-accredited to purchase a sample container and instructions. The city notes that this may not adequately determine all sources of lead present in the water, however.

Finally, residents who would like to have their galvanized line replaced can contact Anderson at (218) 333-1851 or sam.anderson@ci.bemidji.mn.us.

During the meeting, the council shared ideas for a new public forum policy that the city could adopt in the future.

City staff have spent time answering questions regarding public comment without an official guideline, so the idea was brought to the council. A listed goal on the states that a policy could help public comments be "as productive as possible."

Currently, public comment takes place at each regular city council meeting after approval of the agenda, previous minutes and consent agenda. Citizens do not need to sign up ahead of time, but must state their name and address. They are given three minutes to speak their mind on any topic not on the current agenda. The meeting continues without a council response or open dialogue. The council can ask a clarifying question or give extra time if needed and reasonable.

The council held a productive dialogue on Monday using the current format, questions and policy examples from around the state. All councilors agreed that public comment should remain a staple of regular meetings and that the city should adopt a policy moving forward.

Some items of interest included:

• Should the current format be shaken up at all? All councilors seemed to prefer the current format. Some pondered if the time limit should be raised or stay the same. Mayor Jorge Prince made a distinction between public comment and a public hearing, stating he thinks three minutes is good for public comment and five minutes is good for a public hearing.
• Should residents be allowed to present material on a monitor or over Webex? The general consensus was no. Prince did make another distinction between what counts as presentation material. He stated he was OK with a handout but not a presentation on screen.
• Should public comment have an overall time limit? General consensus was yes. Ward 4 Councilor Emelie Rivera added it should be no more than 15 minutes. Ward 3 Councilor Mark Dickinson said a general time limit is good, but that the council should adjust as needed to accommodate all speakers.
• Should residents need to provide their address? Ward 2 Councilor Josh Peterson stated that some residents are uncomfortable with sharing an address since the meeting is public. Dickinson added that he likes hearing an address, but if it is not pertinent to the comment, then it isn't as important. Prince mentioned that the speaker should at least state what town or city they live in.
• Should staff be allowed to follow up with speakers? The general consensus was yes. Rivera gave an idea to allow speakers to write down their information and check a box if they would like staff to follow up with their comment.

City staff will review the comments made by the council and work with legal staff to develop a policy that attempts to find a compromise while not obstructing free speech. A new policy should be up for board review in the near future.

The council will next meet for a regular meeting at 6 p.m. on Monday, May 5, at City Hall. All meetings can be viewed on the