Representatives from HYDRA/Topcoat presented a proposal to the Beaver City council to produce and distribute an electrochemically activated disinfectant (described in the presentation as an “elegant biocide”), and asked the city to consider providing water access, site options and financial support to help launch operations.

Matt, a company representative, described the product as a disinfectant produced via electrochemical activation of water and salt, and said the company has spent “several million dollars” on testing and development in international markets. He said the company’s model uses a mobile, plug‑and‑play production pod and that North America would be an early target market. Matt told the council the company is seeking local partnerships and resources and summarized the ask: “We’re looking for your willpower. We’re looking for you to provide water, grant and tax strategies. That’s what we’re hoping to get out of you.”

Company representatives provided several operational parameters during the presentation and subsequent Q&A. In the meeting the presenters discussed an initial water demand figure near 60–66 acre‑feet in the first year (presenters used the figure “66” in the discussion and also gave a conversion example of 10,000,000 liters). They said an initial facility footprint could be about 7,500 square feet to start, and suggested a staged ramp in which the operation would add pods over time. The presenters also discussed employment projections (the company referenced roughly 15 employees during the first year and larger staffing several years out) and described a possible capital injection or prepay arrangement of about $7,000,000 to support start‑up and early operations.

Council members and staff raised several practical concerns. Economic‑development staff urged caution and recommended the city and the company first resolve the capital stack: “Let’s figure out that $7,000,000 investment piece first,” Jen told the group, adding that project subsidy or grant funding struggles are common in early stages. Council members asked whether the company had tested Beaver City water for compatibility with the manufacturing process and stressed the need to map available water sources before committing to a plan. Staff and council discussed potential sites and noted that existing buildings in nearby areas or leases might provide an interim location if a local building were not immediately available.

Legal and procurement questions were flagged: council members recommended a formal partnership agreement or contract that would spell out water allocations, lease terms, tax incentives and performance milestones before any city financial commitment. Several council members also noted that the city might provide initial water on a temporary or graduated basis tied to job creation and capital deployment, or could require proof of secured capital prior to allocating long‑term water supplies.

The council did not take formal action at the meeting. Members asked the company to return with more detailed financials and a clarified capital plan, and staff offered to follow up on water‑availability checks and potential site options. Several council members voiced interest in the product’s potential economic benefits but emphasized that any city support should be conditional on firm capital commitments, clear job projections and negotiated contract terms.

The presentation closed with agreement to continue conversations: the company left contact information and city staff said they would coordinate next steps, including discussions with regional partners and potential state incentive programs.