[0:02] Oh, did we? Okay.
[0:27] I will I guess call to order the
[0:29] work session for city council
[0:32] on July 9th, 2026
[0:36] at 12 p.m. inside a city chambers. Today
[0:38] we'll be discussing um our water
[0:42] deficiencies in our PI system and the
[0:44] various projects that have been um
[0:47] proposed by
[0:49] Horox Engineering who did our water
[0:51] study for us.
[0:59] » Kaden, can you pull that PowerPoint up
[1:00] please?
[1:04] Go to the next slide.
[1:10] Okay, these, at least in my eyes, these
[1:12] are the the goals that I had for this
[1:16] work session. Um, first off, um,
[1:21] one of the main purposes I wanted to try
[1:24] to get out there any questions the
[1:25] council has regarding water and kind of
[1:28] moving forward with projects and try to
[1:31] provide answers to those. Um, and I've
[1:34] summarized the ones that came in in this
[1:36] PowerPoint in a few slides.
[1:38] >> Oh, wait. I do have one question.
[1:41] >> Yes. I'm sorry. I don't think we
[1:43] identified that. Sorry. Because this is
[1:45] not as formal as city council meeting.
[1:47] They said we didn't have to go through
[1:48] everything else, but um should we just
[1:50] go ahead proceed with the roll call so
[1:52] that you Sorry about that. Um, let's
[1:56] start from my left. Sarah Blackwell
[1:59] present.
[2:00] >> Andrew Young present. Brett Remler
[2:02] present. Jessica Sme present.
[2:04] >> Is Chrissy online?
[2:07] Okay. Will you text her and ask her if
[2:09] she is planning to and she does have the
[2:12] link? And I'm glad you can look it in
[2:14] person. Zoom in.
[2:20] Thank you. Okay. Um
[2:26] » Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Shane.
[2:28] >> Okay. Um so first off to answer any
[2:32] questions um that were sent in from
[2:35] council members uh get some input from
[2:39] the water committee. Um I'd like to
[2:42] determine the scope of what I'll just
[2:44] term the phase one PI projects.
[2:47] [clears throat] Um discuss potential
[2:49] conary water projects and then um touch
[2:53] on funding strategies.
[2:55] [clears throat]
[2:56] So, the PI system needs are identified,
[2:59] and a lot of this isn't new, so I'm
[3:01] going to go over this first part quick.
[3:03] Um, they're identified in this draft
[3:05] 2025,
[3:07] uh, pressurized irrigation master plan,
[3:10] um, which we will be bringing to the
[3:12] council for formal approval. We just
[3:15] wanted to make sure any questions or
[3:18] whatever were resolved beforehand.
[3:21] Um so within that study there's some
[3:25] recommended uh system improvements. Um
[3:28] this table one shows the existing
[3:30] deficiencies.
[3:32] So um there's a map associated with
[3:36] these this list of projects and then
[3:38] some associated costs as well.
[3:41] Um some of the projects are ones we've
[3:43] talked a lot about um like the Heritage
[3:46] Hills well uh 400 West Boosters which
[3:50] are a couple projects that uh Horox has
[3:53] recommended as kind of being the first
[3:57] two that they'd recommend if we you know
[3:59] are on kind of a limited funding
[4:02] schedule. Uh, next slide, Kaden.
[4:07] Table two in that study um shows
[4:10] buildout improvements.
[4:12] Um, so this includes the big pipeline
[4:15] from the Healey Well going up through
[4:17] town to the lower PI reservoir.
[4:20] Um, and then some other uh various
[4:24] projects that help with capacity and be
[4:27] a being able to get water to areas um
[4:31] where there are needs.
[4:34] Uh next slide. So
[4:37] if you're wondering how these uh
[4:39] projects were recommended and how they
[4:41] were determined,
[4:43] um to have impact fees, you have to
[4:45] develop a minimum level of service. And
[4:48] so within this study, uh Horox
[4:53] identified the minimum level of service.
[4:57] And when we get that slide back, it's listed there the different things
[5:03] And so like provide 40 PSI at all
[5:07] locations in the distribution system
[5:09] during peak day demands.
[5:12] Uh provide 30 PSI at all locations in
[5:15] the distribution system during peak hour
[5:18] demands
[5:19] and those days usually happen in July
[5:22] for the irrigation system.
[5:25] Uh maintain a maximum of 8 feet per
[5:27] second velocity
[5:30] um during peak hour demands. So the
[5:32] higher the velocity
[5:35] uh there's more friction loss which will
[5:38] lead to reduced pressures in the system
[5:40] the operating pressure and so that's
[5:43] where velocity and pipes comes into play
[5:47] and then maintain 5t per second velocity
[5:50] during peak day demands
[5:53] um unless pressures are not compromised
[5:55] and then there's some storage and
[5:57] waterite
[5:59] uh and source
[6:01] Um,
[6:02] >> Shane, can I ask a question before you
[6:03] move on?
[6:04] >> When it says peak day demands, is that
[6:06] the day of the week or the daytime?
[6:08] >> No, it's it's the day in the year that
[6:10] you see the highest demand. Okay.
[6:12] >> So, it's usually like I wouldn't doubt
[6:14] if it's going to be next week. We're
[6:16] projected to be 105 degrees. Um, a lot
[6:20] of times it happens sometime between
[6:22] July 4th and July 24th for us.
[6:26] >> Thanks. Um and then within that peak day
[6:31] somewhere there will be a peak hour. So
[6:33] that's saying the the maximum demand
[6:35] within an hour in the system. And so
[6:37] those are the parameters that are used
[6:39] in design and being able to provide that
[6:43] water.
[6:45] [clears throat]
[6:46] Um
[6:48] let's see. Okay. Um, you've all seen
[6:52] this email from John She. Uh, the
[6:56] question was asked, you know, which
[6:58] projects would be would provide the
[7:01] biggest bang for the buck, be the most
[7:03] beneficial to the city. So, he came back
[7:06] and recommended the Heritage Hills well
[7:09] and the 400 West Boosters and and
[7:12] piping.
[7:14] Um, next slide.
[7:17] >> Can I comment on that slide? Um, as I
[7:20] was looking at these recommendations and
[7:23] the order that we're going in, one of
[7:24] the pieces of information that's missing
[7:26] in it exists in the culinary report, but
[7:29] it doesn't exist in the PI report is a
[7:33] water gems model. And the reason I
[7:36] started looking at it was because I was
[7:38] talking with Jeff and he said, well, has
[7:42] this all been modeled? And so I was
[7:44] looking at the modeling. So the final
[7:47] results of the modeling exists in the
[7:49] culinary to support the recommendations
[7:52] and improvements but that modeling isn't
[7:56] part of the report. Can we have access
[7:58] to that? Just again as we're determining
[8:01] these large capital expenditures it's
[8:03] one more piece as council we can say hey
[8:06] and we actually will fix these problems.
[8:09] Not. We're hoping we fix these problems,
[8:11] but they will get solved because I know
[8:12] we've got some concerns in some of our
[8:15] mid zone around Alpine Elementary and
[8:17] other areas is once we do these
[8:20] improvements, are those things going to
[8:22] be fixed?
[8:24] >> Yeah, the answer is yes. Is the question
[8:27] whether there was a model?
[8:29] >> No, just can we see that model? I'm sure
[8:31] there was one because it would be part
[8:33] of the process just like it was for
[8:35] culinary.
[8:35] >> So the model for the culinary
[8:39] is not in this document. There's
[8:42] reference to it
[8:43] >> and if we need to add the reference to
[8:45] the model in the PI study, we can have
[8:48] them do that. It absolutely was done.
[8:51] >> Okay.
[8:51] >> That's the only way you can really
[8:53] monitor or or model and determine these
[8:57] improvements and where the velocities
[8:59] were high and where the pressures were
[9:00] low is through that model.
[9:03] So
[9:04] it's I used to do modeling when I was at
[9:07] Orox. Um it's a computer program. So
[9:10] it's not like something that you just
[9:13] place in the study. Um but it's a
[9:16] software program. It's really expensive.
[9:18] That's why we pay somebody to do it and
[9:20] not have it in house.
[9:22] >> Right. So I'm sure it exists. I mean
[9:24] these are like questions again just at a
[9:27] high level. confirm that every modeled
[9:29] node satisfied the adop satisfies, you
[9:32] know, the adopted improvements so that
[9:34] as we go through this $14 million of
[9:37] expenditures,
[9:39] >> we have the verification that we modeled
[9:41] it.
[9:41] >> Yeah. Back up one slide. Uh okay. So
[9:45] they use that model to make sure that
[9:48] this level of service that the the
[9:51] recommended improvements
[9:53] provided this level of service
[9:55] throughout the city. So all of those
[9:58] areas were covered.
[10:00] >> Okay.
[10:00] >> And we can have them make a reference um
[10:03] in the study to the model if it's not
[10:06] there. Well, and again, I think it's
[10:08] also verifying sequentially
[10:12] how we order our improvements because
[10:14] the modeling will show this is when you
[10:18] do this, it satisfies this. When you do
[10:20] this, so it it does give you also a
[10:23] sequence of how to spend.
[10:25] >> It actually
[10:27] doesn't always do that. So, an example.
[10:29] So,
[10:31] >> so, and I mentioned this in the
[10:33] PowerPoint that I sent out yesterday.
[10:35] Um, so there will be buildout projects
[10:38] which would you would expect to be later
[10:41] projects.
[10:42] So depending on development patterns or
[10:46] projects, a buildout project might come
[10:48] before something else. So the Canyon
[10:51] Crest PI Line, it's a buildout project,
[10:53] but we built it last fall because of
[10:55] another project. Um, we'll talk more
[10:59] about this. I think it was on the next
[11:00] slide, but the Page property is on the
[11:03] verge of being developed. Um, we've
[11:06] worked out with them to take the the big
[11:08] line through their property
[11:11] um to save a bunch of money and a bunch
[11:13] of expense going through asphalt and
[11:14] dealing with all the utilities and
[11:16] everything you do as opposed to in new
[11:18] construction. It's much easier and
[11:20] cheaper. Um, that's a buildout project
[11:23] that's going to end up needing to have
[11:25] priority because they're ready to go
[11:28] right away. And so it's really hard.
[11:32] Another example is the Fish Hero
[11:33] property. They're working on
[11:36] um getting their deduction or row to pay
[11:38] the annexation fees and finalize that
[11:40] annexation. Once they do, they'll submit
[11:42] a development plan. That's going to
[11:45] cause the need for other improvements
[11:47] that are buildout improvements to happen
[11:49] now rather than maybe 20 years down the
[11:51] road.
[11:51] >> Well, and then how does that relate to
[11:53] phase two? Because that's part of our
[11:55] conversation today. Um Chrissy was
[11:58] wondering why we're discussing phase
[12:00] two, but I realized that we actually
[12:01] pulled forward a project from phase two
[12:05] into this current development plan, and
[12:07] that was the low zone take expansion at
[12:10] like 1 point
[12:13] um I think one point
[12:17] um sorry 4.9 million. And so that will
[12:21] help us determine is there anything else
[12:23] in phase two we need to pull forward?
[12:25] we've already pulled forward something.
[12:27] Um, how do we evaluate if we need to
[12:29] pull forward something else?
[12:31] >> Yeah.
[12:32] >> Well, I think that's why we rely on the
[12:33] professionals that this is what they
[12:35] suggested and moving forward that's that
[12:38] we follow. You're not a hydraologist. I
[12:40] don't think any of one of us are. We are
[12:43] that's why we um contracted out with
[12:45] specialists and this is their core
[12:47] competency. I appreciate your
[12:49] thoroughess and going over it, but um I
[12:53] do feel like it's time for us to take
[12:55] action on the suggestions on this report
[12:57] and move forward. That's why I want to
[13:00] be confident that what the actions were
[13:02] taken because if we had taken the
[13:03] actions in 2021, it did not include this
[13:07] improvement of the low take expansion.
[13:11] So again, relying on the experts then,
[13:13] now we're looking at today and we've
[13:15] actually got more information. We've had
[13:17] people go to water meetings. We
[13:20] understand that we need to be able to be
[13:21] reliant and that we're actually spending
[13:24] this money
[13:25] >> most the most efficient way that we can.
[13:27] I'm not saying that I'm no more than
[13:30] expert. I'm just saying I want to make
[13:31] sure as I'm representing the public.
[13:33] >> So, it's been five years. So, yes, there
[13:35] has been a change in priorities and it's
[13:37] moved up from long-term to more current.
[13:40] And um there's no doubt in my mind even
[13:43] if we would have done the well that they
[13:45] probably still would have you know this
[13:47] is something that we should be looking
[13:48] at every so many years. But again I do
[13:52] feel like if there's something specific
[13:54] that you are concerned about we can talk
[13:56] about it. But I think right now I think
[14:00] what we're ready for I want to see the
[14:03] results of the what was it the W the
[14:08] water jams modeling. So these are the
[14:10] results.
[14:12] >> Wait, go to the before. Go to page six.
[14:16] >> Those are the results.
[14:18] >> It just as I did an analysis. It says
[14:22] the report does not include the actual
[14:24] water gems results. So I understand it
[14:27] gives an overview of how of
[14:30] recommendations, but it doesn't show a
[14:33] table or the actual results of the water
[14:38] gyms. Wait, are you looking at
[14:40] >> doesn't either
[14:41] >> are you looking at like where it would
[14:42] show where there are deficiencies or
[14:44] where there are problems?
[14:45] >> What it shows is it shows if you do this
[14:48] then you'll meet ah
[14:49] >> so this is that's what the water study
[14:51] is. You go through it's a very expensive
[14:53] program they go through all of this all
[14:55] the algorithms with it and they come up
[14:57] with this modeling right or the modeling
[14:59] shows what you need to do where your
[15:00] deficiencies are. So now um
[15:04] >> you said that in the culinary study that
[15:06] it showed the gem results. Where did you
[15:08] see that in the culinary um report?
[15:13] >> Let's let's first finish with this. So
[15:15] basically
[15:16] >> you're basing it off of it showed
[15:18] >> so is this a work session to ask
[15:19] questions and get better understanding?
[15:21] >> No, it is. But I'm just you're trying to
[15:22] compare it and you're saying well it
[15:23] showed it here but it's not showing it
[15:25] here. Well, I like
[15:26] >> Is this something that we normally see
[15:28] or I feel like do you know how to read
[15:30] those reports?
[15:33] >> I feel like as a city council as we're
[15:36] looking at spending millions of dollars
[15:39] that more information to be able to give
[15:41] assurities to the public that what we're
[15:44] doing is going to solve what we're
[15:47] asking you to pay for. It just gives us
[15:49] the ability to be forward facing and say
[15:52] as we bond, as we raise your rates.
[15:54] >> I know, but I guess I'm just trying to I
[15:56] understand where you're coming from
[15:57] there, but you're saying that you want
[15:59] to see the gem um modeling studies or
[16:02] the reports based on what you saw in the
[16:05] culinary water reports. Um I don't
[16:08] believe I've seen it. I've, you know, I
[16:11] think there's been vague references to
[16:12] it. We've seen kind of what the results
[16:15] are of that and that's what we've always
[16:17] gotten. But if you seen something
[16:18] different
[16:20] is in the PI.
[16:22] >> So so both
[16:22] >> report states that the water gems
[16:24] hydraulic model was developed and used.
[16:26] However, it doesn't include the results.
[16:29] >> We have a lot of tables and I think we
[16:32] may have an expert here or someone that
[16:34] can give clarity. I don't know mayor if
[16:35] that's okay if he can speak but I would
[16:37] love clarity in
[16:40] >> these questions.
[16:42] They do. And and
[16:45] >> yeah, both studies actually reference
[16:48] the software water gyms. One on page 12
[16:51] and one on page 13.
[16:54] Um
[16:56] PI is on page 12, culinary is on page
[16:59] 13. It's it's the exact same wording. A
[17:02] p a computer program called water gems
[17:04] 2024 was used to model each system.
[17:10] So it's available
[17:13] the information
[17:14] >> it's all in here. It's this is all based
[17:17] on that model.
[17:18] >> So that's as detailed as it's it was
[17:21] produced. This is
[17:22] >> as detailed information that's available
[17:24] for us to determine a plan to move
[17:28] forward.
[17:28] >> I mean if you need something that's not
[17:30] here we can ask for it.
[17:34] >> I think she wants
[17:36] >> Jessica. Are you hoping that
[17:37] >> if the results exist? I'd like to see
[17:39] them. that they don't exist and and you
[17:41] say they don't exist.
[17:41] >> These No, what he's saying is this is
[17:43] the result of the modeling. Are you
[17:45] saying that you want the raw data from
[17:46] the modeling? Is that what you would
[17:48] look? Because if you know how to
[17:49] interpret them and you want them, I'm
[17:51] sure there's a way that we can get that
[17:52] from them. I'm sure it's in some
[17:54] database.
[17:55] Do you want to ask Horox if they want to
[17:57] spit out the raw data to Jessica and
[17:59] have her analyze those
[18:00] >> or is there like a heat map that shows
[18:02] where the
[18:03] >> If you study the figures in the back in
[18:05] the appendix uh in the appendices there
[18:09] uh like figure eight on the PI system
[18:11] plan um this shows
[18:15] uh let's see current pressurized
[18:17] irrigation system PCR pressure says pH
[18:21] pressure so it's colorcoded within
[18:24] ranges and And then
[18:26] uh the next figure nine is current
[18:30] velocities.
[18:31] Um
[18:34] figure 10 let's see that just showing
[18:36] the improvements. If you go to figure 11
[18:40] uh build out pressurized irrigation PR
[18:43] pressures. So this if you look at these
[18:46] maps against each other it will show the
[18:48] change in pressures in areas
[18:51] um with those improvements that are
[18:53] recommended.
[18:56] So,
[18:57] uh, this is actually more helpful than
[19:01] if you had like a spreadsheet or a CSV
[19:04] file or something like that. This is
[19:06] showing you graphically what the model
[19:08] is telling us uh, modeling the existing
[19:12] system versus the system with proposed
[19:15] improvements.
[19:17] So, where we see red and yellow and
[19:19] orange, is that indicating
[19:22] um deficiencies or that's just the color
[19:25] codes that was selected?
[19:27] >> So, let's see. Which figure are you on?
[19:31] >> Um the page that's on
[19:33] >> looking at 11,
[19:34] >> eight or
[19:36] >> 11.
[19:36] >> I'm showing figure 11 right now, Shane.
[19:40] >> Okay. So, if you look up PR pressures, uh,
[19:45] yellow is between 20 and 30 PSI.
[19:50] Um,
[19:51] like some of these, like there's one in
[19:53] Lambert Park. There's nobody even served
[19:55] in that area. So, that pressure is not
[19:58] important, but it's it's a node. So,
[20:01] each one of these dots represents a node
[20:03] in the model. And so they'll input
[20:06] elevation data, demand data from homes
[20:11] and all those kinds of things on those
[20:12] nodes. And now all the pipes are sized.
[20:16] Then they run the model and it will give
[20:19] them information and be able to produce
[20:21] maps like this.
[20:22] >> Shane, are they using actual like water
[20:25] meter to produce these numbers? We are
[20:27] now. Is it just like a uh mathematical
[20:31] formula using the pipe size and what it
[20:33] should be? That's that's why some of
[20:36] there's been some tweaks from the 2021
[20:38] plan because we now have meter data in
[20:40] the pressure irrigation system
[20:42] >> that they were able to bring into here.
[20:44] So, it's more accurate and John
[20:46] mentioned that when he was here giving
[20:48] the presentation,
[20:49] >> it's more accurate than it's ever been
[20:53] >> because of that. We've confidently moved
[20:55] from we think this is going to solve all
[20:57] of our our pressure our delivery and our
[21:02] pressure issues to we know this will
[21:05] >> well unless people start using more
[21:07] water or some condition changes. Yes.
[21:10] >> Okay.
[21:12] >> Yeah.
[21:16] » For the but for the we for the high zone
[21:18] not not necessarily for the other areas
[21:20] Jessica or council. Well, that's my
[21:23] question for all. I mean, we're not just
[21:25] asking the high zone to fund it, right?
[21:28] >> No. No.
[21:28] >> So, I think my direct question Yeah, I
[21:30] think it's for
[21:31] >> looks the whole But it's primarily the
[21:33] from what I read the West
[21:36] >> area.
[21:37] >> Well, I know it indirectly helps the
[21:39] whole city, but the from what it says,
[21:41] it it the big deficiency is north and it
[21:45] it's mainly trying to solve that
[21:47] deficiency. Obviously, it would take
[21:49] pain off of the other ones, but um I I
[21:52] bring up like examples like Alpine
[21:54] Elementary area where they have a
[21:56] deficiency. It might not fix that. Um or
[21:59] it wouldn't fix that. Am I correct?
[22:00] >> Well, that's my question. Is it going to
[22:02] fix that?
[22:03] >> Well, no, I don't think so. I think
[22:04] that's a different thing that needs to
[22:06] be fixed with a different solution. No.
[22:08] >> Yeah. That's Well,
[22:09] >> the model The model shows with these
[22:11] >> I'm not talking about the model.
[22:12] >> Let me just finish. The model shows with
[22:15] these improvements
[22:17] that it will fix it. So there's a
[22:19] planned pressure reducing valve on Grove
[22:21] Drive between the high zone or sorry the
[22:24] middle zone and low zone that would
[22:27] provide additional pressure to that area
[22:30] north of Alpine.
[22:31] >> Okay. Sorry. The the misunderstanding
[22:33] was I was talking about our current
[22:35] bond, the 9 million for the top two of phase one, but this model does show
[22:41] all of it, right? all of the different
[22:43] phase one and phase two implementations
[22:45] >> shows all the improvements in our case
[22:48] right that we need through buildout
[22:50] >> right all the improvements but Jessica
[22:51] what we're talking about the 9 million
[22:53] doesn't include those other types of uh
[22:56] what changes brought up the technical
[22:59] terms to fix those like Alpine
[23:01] Elementary's issue I'm sorry I'm just
[23:03] calling that it's like north
[23:04] neighborhood of Alpine Elementary the
[23:06] booster pumps and the well primarily
[23:08] solve the issues in the north but but
[23:11] not other ones as as far as I understand
[23:15] >> adopting adopting phase one improvements
[23:18] which is what we're talking about as it
[23:19] relates to the budget.
[23:20] >> Correct me.
[23:21] >> It's not 14.
[23:23] >> Okay. Okay. Feel free to jump in. I
[23:24] never get offended. Jump in.
[23:26] >> Well, the booster pumps pump into the
[23:28] middle zone on the west side of town.
[23:30] >> And that's our number two uh um line
[23:33] item on the 9 million bond, right? The booster pump
[23:37] >> one.
[23:37] >> Yeah. So that that that that might have
[23:39] some impact on more than just the north,
[23:41] >> but it in a different way it can help
[23:44] like Lake View Drive because right now
[23:48] water is going through a PRV
[23:50] from the high zone, Lake View Drive in
[23:52] that area into you know all of the west
[23:56] side of town which can pull pressure
[23:59] from the upper zone,
[24:00] >> right? And and so it disseminates it and
[24:02] helps. No, I'm not trying to be
[24:04] argumentative or or against. I just I
[24:06] was just trying to clarify and you're
[24:08] clarifying. So that's good. It's good.
[24:09] >> You
[24:10] >> It's good.
[24:10] >> The council's not expected to understand
[24:13] all the intricate details. I mean, we've
[24:15] hired professionals that have they've
[24:17] been in this business for Clorox was the
[24:21] original engineer for the city.
[24:23] >> I know
[24:23] >> as a consulting engineer like
[24:25] >> I know.
[24:26] >> So I think the question Oh, sorry.
[24:27] They're working for the city to
[24:30] recommend approvements
[24:33] to cure deficiencies,
[24:35] >> right?
[24:35] >> And provide, you know, the service to
[24:37] the public,
[24:37] >> right? We're just trying to understand
[24:38] them and make a good decision.
[24:40] >> Where is the low zone tank?
[24:42] >> Uh, it's the one by the Northstake
[24:44] Center.
[24:46] >> Oh, okay. So, that's the grant that
[24:48] we're going after.
[24:49] >> No, no. Oh, yes. Sorry. I was thinking
[24:53] culinary grant.
[24:54] >> Yeah. And so that additional storage is
[24:59] shown as a buildout improvement
[25:00] >> that pulled forward.
[25:02] >> Um but
[25:04] one thing that could move that up was
[25:06] phase one.
[25:07] >> If you pull that it's like the fifth
[25:09] item, right? Fourth. Fourth. Yeah. Thank
[25:11] you.
[25:11] >> One of the two exhibits.
[25:13] >> The map. Not that one. The other one.
[25:16] >> This one.
[25:18] >> So [clears throat]
[25:20] >> the storage is elevation dependent. And
[25:24] so I had Horox prepare this for us. Um,
[25:28] this shows elevations between 5160 and
[25:31] 5180.
[25:32] So that's kind of the band of property
[25:35] where we could add additional storage
[25:38] um for the low zone and make it work.
[25:42] And so
[25:43] >> that's helpful. You know,
[25:44] >> that's a cool graph.
[25:45] >> Just the low zone.
[25:46] >> If there ends up being Yeah, this is
[25:48] just for low zone. If there ends up
[25:49] being homes there, then it's a problem.
[25:51] So, if we can get ahead of, you know,
[25:53] finding a site and not have a home there
[25:56] or something like that, that's the best.
[25:59] Unfortunately, most of that area is
[26:02] build out. The the other issue
[26:06] uh like you can find some open areas
[26:08] like um
[26:11] kind of down by Bridal Pope in that
[26:13] area.
[26:14] >> Isn't there room next to the existing by
[26:16] the stake center? I kind of walked that
[26:19] whole area. It's up high enough you can
[26:21] take advantage of gravity.
[26:22] >> It's the best option and the reason is
[26:24] what I was getting to. You also have to
[26:26] have the pipeline
[26:28] >> to be able to get the water there and to
[26:30] send the water back down to the
[26:31] residence. So, let's say we think, oh,
[26:35] there's somewhere over here on the west
[26:36] side. Well, that's all great, but we
[26:38] have no pipe there um to get the water
[26:40] where we need to go. So elevation and
[26:44] location um with respect to the
[26:48] distribution system piping and sizing is
[26:50] very important.
[26:52] Um so really our best bet is to be
[26:56] looking somewhere near the existing
[26:59] lower reservoir.
[27:00] >> So that's the one that
[27:05] » turn.
[27:08] So yeah, that so the low zone tank tank
[27:12] expansion um Shane is working on um
[27:14] getting a grant for that one.
[27:17] >> Yeah.
[27:17] >> So when that was proposed in 2021 at 1.4
[27:21] million. Now it's increased to 5 million
[27:25] at that time. Why didn't we just go
[27:27] ahead and build it at 1.4?
[27:29] Uh we actually proposed like the well
[27:33] >> on the well the budget
[27:34] >> the expansion
[27:35] >> but it would
[27:37] be saying I'm using the well as an
[27:39] example because this is what happened.
[27:40] We proposed it on the budget and it got
[27:42] pulled off
[27:44] >> um because the council at the time said
[27:46] we don't want to do that.
[27:48] >> Um and so um
[27:53] >> I don't know.
[27:54] >> Well, that's an illustrative example. I
[27:55] think she was asking about we don't want
[27:57] to delay these important projects very
[27:59] long because things are just going to
[28:00] get more expensive. It is for sure
[28:02] >> and why we want to make sure we capture
[28:05] the full scope because I think at the
[28:07] time the council wasn't comfortable with
[28:09] the well because there was a deficiency
[28:12] only for agricultural users in 2021 but
[28:15] I don't think the scope and storage
[28:18] >> that was not proven that it was only the
[28:20] agricultural users for 2021
[28:22] >> the 2021 report come that's there's no
[28:26] deficiency in the 2021 report
[28:28] >> and that was the information we based
[28:29] our decision on was the 2021 report. It
[28:33] said there are no deficiencies. It was a
[28:35] delivery and a pressure issue and it
[28:37] said the only deficiency that exists in
[28:39] the city at this time is for a users but
[28:42] it had nothing to do with storage tanks.
[28:45] >> Okay. That's not what we were hearing
[28:46] from residents. So from residents we're
[28:49] hearing that there's a deficiency and
[28:50] that you know that we need to move
[28:52] forward and that was the presentation
[28:54] that was given.
[28:55] >> Can you go to page seven in the PI? So,
[28:58] I'm just saying again, we can just it
[29:00] it's important to know the history so
[29:02] that right now as we're making these
[29:05] decisions to bond and raise rates that
[29:08] we include
[29:09] >> and the 2021 report, when was that
[29:12] conducted? Was it 2020 or was it 2021? I
[29:15] know it was approved in 2021, but what
[29:17] day exactly was the report done?
[29:20] >> Um,
[29:21] >> and Councilwoman, Councilwoman Smooth, I
[29:23] would I want to hear your questions and
[29:25] concerns. So I
[29:26] >> I mean I think that it was a direct
[29:28] question. What we're looking at today in
[29:30] phase one as recommended by our water
[29:32] committee and our representative council
[29:36] member that for a while it was discussed
[29:39] that it we hope it's going to or it
[29:41] should. I want to have confidence in it
[29:44] will
[29:44] >> because we're asking
[29:46] >> the entire city to pay for these things.
[29:48] >> And to do that and then to not give them
[29:51] solutions in PI and in culinary
[29:54] >> is us doing a disservice.
[29:56] >> No, no, no. Totally agree. We need to
[29:58] address both of them, but right now
[30:00] we're talking about PI only and we will
[30:03] get to um culinary. That's definitely
[30:06] the order. Um but we want to tackle one
[30:09] thing at a time, right? um these are
[30:11] large chunks that you're talking about.
[30:13] Um but for me
[30:17] to have
[30:19] hydraologists and specialists running
[30:21] the program that are intimate with our
[30:23] program um or I guess our um
[30:26] infrastructure saying, "Hey, this is
[30:28] what you need and for the biggest bang
[30:30] for your buck, these are your two
[30:32] largest."
[30:34] I don't understand what the hesitancy is
[30:37] of not moving forward with the well and
[30:40] with um the booster pumps and the
[30:43] upsizing for the 400 West well that why
[30:46] can't we start with that because to me I
[30:49] know you want to do
[30:50] >> wait why are you sensing a hesitancy
[30:52] because
[30:53] >> no no no because your your suggestion to
[30:56] me was let's do it all. No, my
[30:58] suggestion is let's talk as a council to
[31:01] decide if we want to pull anything
[31:02] forward just as this storage upsize was
[31:07] pulled forward. So, I want to make sure
[31:09] that we've explored every avenue and
[31:12] that it with confidence we're solving
[31:14] what we're telling the public we're
[31:15] solving. SP $14 million. So, that's
[31:18] >> I don't think that we can pretend that
[31:20] we understand what needs to be up. I
[31:24] think the only thing that we can do and
[31:26] you can do as counsel is
[31:29] >> go on the suggestions of the
[31:32] specialists.
[31:33] >> Now, are you saying something that's
[31:34] outstanding other than what's already
[31:37] been done
[31:38] >> only that it doesn't come full circle
[31:42] >> and Shane's saying it does because they
[31:44] gave us pictures and not data. that full
[31:47] circle that if we go one by one and we
[31:50] say we do this improvement it solves
[31:52] this much. It's a turn on and off
[31:55] modeling. It's not like if we do all of
[31:57] this it solves it. You know we may find
[32:00] that that the $6 million spend gives us
[32:04] 10% relief.
[32:06] We might find that the $1 million spend
[32:10] gives us 90% relief. We haven't been
[32:13] given that information to determine how
[32:16] to move forward.
[32:17] >> So, you think that they gave us this
[32:20] recommendation based on what? Not the
[32:23] modeling. You think they just threw
[32:24] these out there because
[32:28] >> I don't think she's asking or trying to
[32:30] go against the specialist. I'm just
[32:32] reading this. I think she's just wanting
[32:33] more information or in a way she can
[32:35] digest it and understand it to make a
[32:37] decision. I don't think any of us are
[32:40] wanting to go against specialists. We
[32:41] love their input. We might not agree
[32:43] with it. Go ahead.
[32:45] >> Sorry, Andrew.
[32:46] >> Um, perhaps it would be helpful to just
[32:48] maybe Shane reemphasized like the two
[32:51] projects that they recommended like what
[32:53] area they would service and how they
[32:56] would alleviate some of our culinary
[32:58] water for us. Could you maybe just walk
[33:00] us through those again?
[33:01] >> Yeah. So, so the Heritage Hills well,
[33:04] and we've stated this from way back
[33:06] when, our growth has taken place like in
[33:09] the Rigid Alpine in Cherry Point, those
[33:13] upper properties which are all in the high zone. And so, our concern then
[33:18] and now is, hey, we have these lots that
[33:21] are developed and approved in the city.
[33:23] Uh, when they're built out on landscape,
[33:25] we need to be able to provide water for
[33:27] them. And in a good snowpack year, we
[33:30] wouldn't need the heritage hills. Well,
[33:32] but any year like now or even last year, we went basically all summer
[33:38] with no rain and it wasn't a great snow
[33:41] pack then. It was way worse this year.
[33:43] But
[33:45] um those situations are when that well
[33:48] would really help because right now um
[33:51] especially from the start of the
[33:53] irrigation season till the first part of
[33:57] July um we rely on taking part of the
[34:00] growth spring water to feed the high
[34:02] zone because we're taking water at the
[34:06] lower diversion um by Zurker's house if
[34:09] you know where that is
[34:11] >> not up high.
[34:13] not up by above the the Forest Service
[34:16] parking lot. And so at that diversion,
[34:19] at the lower diversion, it puts water
[34:21] into the reservoir by the church,
[34:24] not the up, we can't get it to the upper
[34:26] one. And so it makes it challenging when
[34:30] it's a drought year and very little snow
[34:32] pack. So that well would pump directly
[34:36] into um the high zone which would if
[34:41] we're pumping it free up some water from
[34:44] the spring um that could be used in the
[34:46] culinary system.
[34:48] Um now we're set up so if we're not
[34:51] using all the spring water in the
[34:53] culinary system, we still captured it in
[34:55] the PI system. So we're not just letting
[34:58] that go. We're not wasting it. And that
[35:00] was designed that way on purpose.
[35:04] >> [clears throat]
[35:04] >> Um
[35:06] the booster pumps
[35:08] um
[35:11] we don't have [snorts] a direct way to
[35:14] feed water from kind of it's a little
[35:16] bit above Westfield Road up up to the
[35:19] north kind of city boundary. So,
[35:23] um I know the subdivision names, you
[35:25] guys might not, but Westfield Oaks and
[35:28] um all those areas basically from 400
[35:30] West or to Fifer Horn and from a little
[35:33] above Westfield Road up to Hog Holler
[35:35] Road or 600 North.
[35:38] Those areas are in the middle zone. They
[35:41] rely on pumps that we have on 400 West
[35:45] that aren't really big enough. Um
[35:49] and
[35:51] When we get these improvements in, if we
[35:54] pump like most of our big sources are in
[35:56] the low zone and so these pumps will
[35:58] allow us to move more water up to the
[36:01] next zone above
[36:04] since there's not a big well in that
[36:06] zone. We have
[36:08] uh we have three wells that pump into
[36:10] the high zone um when they're operating.
[36:14] We actually have two right now and one
[36:16] that's almost back online. Um
[36:22] but those also are planned for future
[36:25] culinary use.
[36:27] Um at least two of the two of the three
[36:30] are so eventually we'll need those in
[36:34] the culinary system and so we need to be
[36:37] able to plan for that.
[36:41] >> So currently [clears throat]
[36:42] like Fifer horn matter horn do they have
[36:44] low water pressure? Okay. So that's
[36:47] >> and hillside
[36:48] >> well and so high zone water this where
[36:51] it becomes complicated and a lot of a
[36:54] little thing here can affect multiple
[36:56] areas and that's can be kind of hard to
[36:58] describe but water feeds al besides
[37:01] being pumped up it also feeds from the
[37:03] top down. So it's taking water from the
[37:05] high zone to help feed the west side of
[37:08] town. So yeah, but from the top end.
[37:12] >> Yeah. So we'd be able to reduce that
[37:14] drop down water from the high to middle
[37:17] by pumping more from low to middle.
[37:21] >> So that's the reason for those pumps.
[37:23] >> I think I this has helped me kind of
[37:25] clarify my question like to the modeling
[37:27] point. Not specifically that I want to
[37:29] be the expert, but I am responsible for
[37:32] recommending the expenditures.
[37:34] And so when I look at the total cost of
[37:37] each one of these improvements and the
[37:39] heritage hills well cost 45% of the 14
[37:43] million and the low zone tank cost 33%
[37:47] and the booster cost 18% and then the
[37:49] other two are under five. I want to be
[37:51] able to confidently say
[37:54] that we are going to
[37:57] mitigate water issues for 45%
[38:01] of the public like that we're getting or
[38:03] 10% like at least I can say hey you
[38:07] we're all now pitching in. No, I No, I
[38:10] think that's a good way to look at it.
[38:12] But we are um that's like if you're on
[38:15] Defcon. Is Defcon one the most
[38:18] >> or is it three? Whatever it is, that's
[38:20] if you're like on this level here and
[38:22] you have the luxury to plan ahead. But
[38:25] we're at a point now based on our WA
[38:27] master water plan. We have approved
[38:30] subdivisions. We have entitled lots out
[38:34] there that have every right to build
[38:36] out. And what Shane is saying right now,
[38:39] we have people building that are putting
[38:40] in yards and we are not going to have
[38:43] enough water to service them. We have to
[38:46] we're obligated by giving them those
[38:48] building permits. We're obligated to
[38:50] service them. So, you're right. That's a
[38:53] lot of money. And are we going to be
[38:54] able to benefit 100% or 90% of the
[38:57] residents? No.
[38:59] >> I'm just saying the
[39:00] >> I don't know what the percentage is. My
[39:02] understanding is it's high and it's
[39:04] going to the middle, right? I'm not sure
[39:06] how much it's going to affect um the low
[39:09] zone, but my understanding is that it
[39:12] will service the high zone that we need
[39:15] now and then it will help equalize the
[39:17] pressure for the mid zones
[39:20] um that the well will do. Um as far as
[39:22] the low um the expansion tank,
[39:27] >> I bet a third town will benefit from the
[39:30] expansion tank. I mean, I'm just You
[39:32] look at it, you think about gravity.
[39:35] >> Um, everything report says we need more
[39:37] storage. There's nothing that doesn't
[39:39] say we need more storage.
[39:41] >> I bet a third of the residents are going
[39:43] to benefit from the expansion tape,
[39:45] >> right? But right now, it's
[39:48] being able to just give the bare minimum
[39:51] service to our residents that are
[39:53] entitled right That's why we have to go
[39:54] through this arduous process because
[39:56] we're already seeing what was modeled
[39:58] before and that we based our rates on
[40:01] and where we're at today and what we
[40:03] approved for incoming subdivisions.
[40:07] We are we were deficient and we can't
[40:10] meet our current recommended services.
[40:14] And so, so I think like you're maybe
[40:16] interpreting us really deep diving into
[40:19] this that we're trying to somehow be
[40:21] engineers of water, but we're actually
[40:23] being planners of a city.
[40:25] >> And I don't want to in five or 10 years
[40:27] come back to our residents and say,
[40:30] "Hey, we came to you and we said we were
[40:32] doing
[40:33] >> generational
[40:35] water solution." I haven't even told
[40:37] them we're not even talking about
[40:38] culinary. We haven't even brought
[40:41] culinary on to the table for the
[40:43] discussion.
[40:44] >> No, you're totally right. We haven't yet
[40:45] and we will,
[40:46] >> right?
[40:46] >> But what we have to look at is what
[40:49] little chunks.
[40:50] >> From our last city council meeting, you
[40:52] said, "Hey, let's do it all." And I'm
[40:54] like,
[40:54] >> "Let's discuss doing it all."
[40:56] >> No, you said, "What about doing both?"
[40:57] And I said, "No, I don't see that
[40:59] happening because the bonding amount is
[41:01] so much to me." So what we're doing now
[41:04] is breaking it up into chunks because
[41:07] there's no way even with all of these
[41:08] that we could start all these projects
[41:10] at the same time. Even if we had the
[41:12] money and the bonding in place, there's
[41:14] only so much you can do for the system.
[41:16] And obviously we can't be working on
[41:18] some of the system during the irrigation
[41:21] process, right? So you have to look at
[41:23] for me the way I look at it is um you
[41:26] know whether it's these two or whatever
[41:28] but that you break it up into chunks
[41:30] because me personally I don't want to
[41:32] pay interest on a bond on a project
[41:33] that's not going to get started for
[41:35] three to five years. I would like to
[41:37] bond on projects that we can get started
[41:38] right away and start working on that we
[41:41] can see immediate benefits and then once
[41:43] that's done let's see what other
[41:45] projects we can tick off on the existing
[41:48] deficiencies while we take advantage of
[41:50] the full buildout as situations arise
[41:54] and we can move forward. I think um the
[41:57] low expansion thing that's something
[42:00] that we're trying to address. Hopefully
[42:02] that will go through. But
[42:03] [clears throat] to me, it's let's start
[42:05] working on these projects that are
[42:07] suggested. Let's break it up into chunks
[42:09] that make sense. Let's not waste money
[42:11] on interest on projects that we're not
[42:13] going to get started for a while. I
[42:14] don't want to pay three years of
[42:15] interest on something that's not even
[42:17] going to start right away. I would like
[42:20] to be able to approve projects, get the
[42:22] bonding done, and get it started. That's
[42:25] what I think we need. That's what the
[42:27] specialists are telling us. That's what
[42:28] Shane is telling us.
[42:32] There's nothing to stop us from getting
[42:34] a second bond or expanding the bond.
[42:36] >> Oh, for sure. No, totally.
[42:38] >> I I that makes sense to me.
[42:39] >> To me, you break it up. Instead of
[42:41] doing,
[42:42] >> right,
[42:42] >> you know, a $35 million bond, let's do these two projects. Let's move
[42:48] forward.
[42:49] >> We need to but we need to also address
[42:51] culinary. So as we're moving forward to
[42:53] not say that culinary is part of our
[42:56] overall plan to make us self- sustaining
[43:00] >> and to improve that that's a huge miss.
[43:02] I'm not comfortable going to the public
[43:05] and saying we're we are working on water
[43:08] and it's fixed and then we haven't even
[43:10] put in the works conversation funding
[43:13] rate studies including I asked the
[43:16] gentleman from Horox or no from the bank
[43:19] hey are we going to use culinary because
[43:21] it's going to improve our culinary and
[43:23] he didn't even know about that so that's
[43:26] a huge miss we cannot go to the public
[43:28] without addressing culinary
[43:30] >> where's the concern In the culinary
[43:34] system,
[43:35] >> there's a several sheets of
[43:37] deficiencies.
[43:39] >> So, most of those, so the standard used
[43:41] to be uh 6 in pipes were the minimum and
[43:46] back probably early in my career, it
[43:48] changed from six to eight and and
[43:52] fireflow requirements changed. And so
[43:55] most of those are just overcoming a
[43:57] little bit of like all those little
[43:59] pipes you see like I'm trying to think
[44:02] Scenic Drive's got a little section. Uh
[44:05] Svin Street has a little section.
[44:08] Stonehenge has a little section. Um
[44:11] those are all little projects that we've
[44:13] been just chipping away at with our
[44:16] water uh line replacement projects
[44:19] besides some lines that have failed just
[44:22] to due to hot soils and different
[44:24] things. So those are things we can chip
[44:27] away at just as as replacement.
[44:32] >> Well, the experts are saying we have a
[44:33] $14 million capital improvement need. So
[44:36] that should go into our rate study and
[44:39] address it. Those aren't just little for
[44:41] the culinary study. That's a totally
[44:43] separate water study.
[44:45] >> That's what I'm talking about though.
[44:46] We're talking about water.
[44:48] >> We are, but right now we're talking
[44:50] about PI. These are two separate
[44:52] systems.
[44:52] >> And we're saying as a council, we want
[44:54] them together. Let like finish PI. We
[44:57] all want
[44:57] >> together. Why don't we do PI first and
[45:00] then we will bring back the culinary and
[45:02] then tackle the culinary. To me, what
[45:04] I've seen in the culinary, um, the main
[45:07] thing is the tank replacement. That's a
[45:10] big challenge.
[45:10] >> If we're spending $14 million, they're
[45:13] interrelated. I mean, we were talking
[45:14] about a $1.5 million roundabout somehow
[45:17] shutting down improving water.
[45:19] >> So, how is culinary?
[45:22] >> We're not shutting down improving water.
[45:25] >> How is $15 million not related to $14
[45:28] million?
[45:30] >> Yes, Chrissy.
[45:32] >> Okay. Luckily, um, I brought my water
[45:35] study with me and I'm I'm seeing this 14
[45:38] million. We'll start with that that
[45:39] Jessica's mentioning, but of the 14
[45:43] million, that's all to growth. So, the
[45:46] way things are funded is our also
[45:48] through impact fees. So, um,
[45:52] >> that's
[45:53] >> we we will we will and can get help from
[45:59] future residents
[46:02] with those those needs that that doesn't
[46:05] just fall to the general not the general
[46:08] population because it's attributed to
[46:11] growth. And so part of the study is to
[46:13] adjust the impact fees to pay for a lot
[46:16] of that 14 million um right there. See
[46:20] how they break it out. So the cost
[46:23] existing and growth. Now this is just PI
[46:26] I'm looking sorry I'm looking at her
[46:28] what she's talking about culinary is
[46:29] >> right the culinary existing cost is $12
[46:32] million.
[46:33] >> Okay you guys let's stay to
[46:35] >> I want to take that same I'm just that's
[46:38] where she ended. So I'm going to bring
[46:39] it back. You can pull up that table you
[46:41] just had open.
[46:42] >> So again, funding here. My question then
[46:46] relates back to what I just said about
[46:49] impact fees. We a lot. So we have $14
[46:52] million of pro not to confuse the 14
[46:55] million because the 14 million for PI
[46:59] she was referring Jessica's referring to
[47:01] culinary and I was showing that I'm
[47:03] looking here that that's 14 million in
[47:05] culinary is attributable to growth which
[47:07] is what the explanation from Shane just
[47:10] confirmed but that and if you go back to
[47:13] the table
[47:16] um that there's colonary see how a lot
[47:18] of its growth over there on the Right.
[47:22] And then
[47:25] >> okay, mine mine is mine is different.
[47:28] This was October 2025.
[47:30] >> Yeah. No, when he was talking about the
[47:31] upsizes, that was just a change in um
[47:34] state regulations or is it state or
[47:38] >> it's state?
[47:38] regulations. So, it doesn't
[47:40] have anything to do with growth on
[47:42] upsizing because that's right.
[47:44] >> A lot of that area is built up.
[47:46] >> Okay. I I'm sorry. I let let's not go
[47:49] because since we're looking at different
[47:50] information,
[47:51] >> but I don't think
[47:52] >> let's just talk go back where we
[47:53] started. What we should be talking about
[47:54] is the PI system.
[47:55] >> Exactly. That's what I was trying to
[47:56] say.
[47:57] >> Thank you. Let's just go I was just
[47:58] going to clarify that. But let's since
[48:01] I'm looking at different information, I don't have that chart that you just
[48:03] showed. So today we're talking but now I
[48:05] am looking at this. So of this uh so
[48:07] when we're looking at these specific
[48:09] projects, item number two is a Heritage
[48:12] Hills well. The total is 6 million. Is
[48:15] that what yours shows? Yes. 5 million 1
[48:18] million over there on growth. And then
[48:20] the other recommended project is the
[48:22] booster pipe 2.4
[48:24] two is existing deficiencies
[48:27] and then a small portion 400,000 comes
[48:30] from. So when we go to bond um can you
[48:33] help me understand the financing
[48:36] structure is that we would bond for
[48:38] let's just say we went ahead with the
[48:40] six and the two combined which is like
[48:43] we're saying 9 million.
[48:45] Do we pair do we pay off as we collect
[48:48] impact fees and and new lots are
[48:50] approved or using fund balance of impact
[48:53] fees not the um utility fund fund
[48:56] balance? Can we use that to fund these
[48:59] projects and how much of the projects do
[49:02] you anticipate funding from impact fees
[49:05] rather than bonding on the two that are
[49:08] proposed?
[49:09] Is it just like it's been shown here? Is
[49:12] like a the breakout between the existing
[49:14] column and the growth or how much Yeah.
[49:17] How much can we count on from impact
[49:19] fees to help with the cost of these
[49:21] specific two
[49:22] >> project? Projects we can't not if we're
[49:24] going to get started right away. You're
[49:25] talking about future growth. So these
[49:27] are based on as they come in for their
[49:29] building permits, they have to pay
[49:30] impact fees for water, road,
[49:33] infrastructure, right? Sewer, parks,
[49:36] whatever else that we have. um that that
[49:39] is all future money not now money when
[49:42] you're
[49:43] >> right but the bond is for if the bond
[49:45] because as you know I just started
[49:47] working for a water district and so what
[49:49] I'm seeing is as same everything is very
[49:52] familiar and it's you know seven
[49:54] different districts so only one has debt
[49:58] and there it was taken out like 10 years
[50:00] ago as we collect in my in this new
[50:04] district I work for as we are collecting
[50:06] impact fees is um you know it's taken 10
[50:10] years to build out, right? We're not
[50:11] even halfway through. We've got a long
[50:13] ways to go. We do we do collect impact
[50:15] fees and then we redeem some of the
[50:18] bonds with that because we couldn't like
[50:21] you're saying we didn't have all the
[50:22] funds to begin with. Is that how this is
[50:23] going to work? Yes.
[50:24] >> Are we going to fund it all and then
[50:26] eventually we could the potentially
[50:29] collect um another 1.5 million just
[50:32] looking at this chart in impact fees and
[50:34] redeem some of our bonds.
[50:36] >> As we collect impact fees, they will go
[50:38] towards the bond payment which is what's
[50:40] been happening right now. Part comes
[50:42] from fees and part comes from impact
[50:44] fees.
[50:45] >> But the problem with impact fees
[50:48] >> is they can be unstable because growth
[50:51] patterns change,
[50:52] >> right? We're not in a high growth time.
[50:55] Um we we build a ton of infrastructure
[50:58] in this city with impact fees back when
[51:02] growth rates were much higher
[51:04] >> and so you have to be careful relying
[51:06] too heavily on those to make your
[51:08] payments. That's why the user rates are
[51:10] very important. if you
[51:12] >> um so though in anticipating these I
[51:15] know they're not on topic but since
[51:16] we're going a deep dive into water today
[51:19] these these two four projects that are
[51:21] not making no three projects that are
[51:23] not making the list um the one being the
[51:26] low tank zone expansion where that's a
[51:29] big chunk the 4.4 4 million could come
[51:32] from growth. Have we, how do I want to
[51:35] say this? Have we collected impact fees
[51:38] um lower than what the new costs are and
[51:42] so we have to make up the gap or do we
[51:44] anticipate future growth covering this?
[51:47] If we if in the magic world like we have
[51:50] a 20-year bond over the next 20 years we
[51:54] fill fill out to 100%. Could we expect
[51:59] to expect 6.1 million in impact fees?
[52:03] >> So
[52:03] >> or is that not a 1:1 ratio?
[52:05] >> What you should actually expect is to
[52:07] have to bond for this and then hope you
[52:10] get impact fees to help cover some of
[52:12] the payments because you can only hold
[52:14] impact fees for six years.
[52:17] And so it gets very challenging these
[52:20] days in Alpine to collect enough money
[52:23] in six years with maybe 30 homes a year
[52:27] to build one of these projects with
[52:28] solely impact fees.
[52:30] >> No. Right. I understand we have to pay
[52:32] for it up like I understand that we're
[52:33] going to have to bond for the full 9
[52:35] million. This is how I'm just trying to
[52:37] understand the how do impact fees factor
[52:40] into the financial side of it. So we
[52:43] bond for the full thing. As we collect
[52:45] impact fees, we can pay off. We can use
[52:47] them to make the bond payment in gross
[52:50] total like just if everything you know
[52:52] worked out according to this chart. Are
[52:55] we is there enough buildout to to
[52:57] collect whether it takes 5 years or 20
[52:59] years 6 million in impact fees?
[53:02] >> No, that's where that's where the rate
[53:05] studies will go into effect.
[53:07] >> Well, that's the impact fee. The
[53:09] recommended impact fee is based on these
[53:13] tables that show a certain amount of one
[53:16] project being growth and the rest of it
[53:18] being an existing deficiency. So all the
[53:21] growth component
[53:23] is uh taken into account in calculating
[53:26] the impact fee.
[53:28] >> Right. But so as that's what I'm saying
[53:30] in that in that calculation that you're
[53:32] talking about Shane, it's done in such a
[53:35] manner that they're looking at what our
[53:36] future buildout would be and I'm just
[53:39] saying if everything worked out
[53:40] perfectly, which it never does, it would
[53:42] we could collect 6 million potentially.
[53:44] >> Yes.
[53:45] >> Okay. Okay. because I do think that's good to for us to understand that
[53:50] when we're looking at the full cost of
[53:52] our 14 million in PI a lot of that is
[53:56] not just coming from our current
[53:58] taxpayers our current residents and and
[54:01] Jessica has pointed out how many will
[54:03] benefit well a lot of the benefits of
[54:05] these projects not these two
[54:07] specifically but if you look at it in
[54:09] whole 6 million of the 14 million is
[54:13] going to benefit future residents
[54:15] they're going to pay through the nose
[54:16] for all that because our our impact fees
[54:18] are going to collect 6 million pe $6
[54:21] million from future residents. And so
[54:23] we're asking, you know, current
[54:25] residents to pay the 8 million. So, I
[54:28] just want to unders I just wanted to
[54:30] point that out and understand that yes,
[54:33] we need to bond for the full nine
[54:35] because we we're not growing fast enough
[54:37] to pay for stuff um with impact
[54:38] [clears throat] fees, but over time we
[54:41] will collect impact fees that would
[54:44] reduce the the obligation on our current
[54:46] residents.
[54:47] >> Could I ask a follow-up question?
[54:49] >> Yeah.
[54:49] >> So, with
[54:51] Is that correct though? Is that a
[54:53] correct assumption though? I I I'm not
[54:55] there so I can't see you're visually
[54:56] nodding your heads yes or no.
[54:58] >> I can give you an example. The sewer
[55:00] system was built in the late 70s like
[55:03] finished I think in 79. Um if you look
[55:06] at our sewer impact fee plan u because
[55:10] extra capacity was built into the
[55:12] system, we can actually take uh some
[55:16] impact fee money each year based on the
[55:18] number of building permits we have and
[55:21] transfer that to the sewer general fund.
[55:24] Okay. Right.
[55:25] >> Because they're buying into that system.
[55:27] >> But is the potential for us to collect
[55:29] impact fees? The total 1.124 million for
[55:33] the Heritage Hills well on impact fees.
[55:35] And then the booster pump is the 440. So
[55:38] a total of 1.55
[55:40] million going towards the 9 million.
[55:44] >> Right? So that would that would be the
[55:45] balance would be 7.5. You know, using
[55:48] very rounded numbers. Do you know what
[55:50] I'm saying? I'm just pointing that out
[55:51] that in these two projects, the bulk of
[55:54] it is not for growth. It's to meet
[55:56] existing deficiencies. But if we if we
[55:58] were talking about and we will in the
[56:00] future, the low zone tank expansion, you
[56:03] know, the bulk of that project will be
[56:04] paid for by future residents. So, I just
[56:07] wanted to just be clear like on the all
[56:10] three columns are being understood about
[56:13] who's paying for what. And that was the
[56:15] end. if when we get to a different um
[56:19] when we get have a different spot. I I
[56:21] had another comment or clarification I
[56:23] needed but I think this is a good
[56:26] thought process. So go ahead uh Sarah
[56:28] and and we'll get to the other my other
[56:30] thing later.
[56:31] >> Okay. So for the Heritage Hills well you
[56:33] said it serves the Ridge and Cherry
[56:34] Point developments. Is there a reason
[56:36] why not more of that is being paid by
[56:40] that growth, those new developments?
[56:43] Only 1.12
[56:45] is being paid by growth. Aren't those
[56:47] fairly new developments? Why wouldn't if
[56:50] that well is going to help serve?
[56:51] >> There's there's other areas and other
[56:54] homes that are already in that zone. But
[56:56] though I gave those to you as examples
[56:59] >> of you got a lot of vacant lots up
[57:01] there.
[57:02] >> Yeah. that the demand is not there yet,
[57:05] but it will be once they landscape.
[57:07] >> And you also have to consider that um
[57:10] this is all brand new. The numbers are
[57:12] because if you look at the 2021 study,
[57:15] the numbers are much less. And so we
[57:18] based our impact fees on the lower
[57:20] amount. And so that's why it's not a
[57:21] higher number. You're you're seeing all
[57:23] I understand where you're coming from.
[57:24] you're seeing all this growth that's
[57:26] happening recently, but this is just as
[57:29] of what end of last year that we got
[57:31] these numbers. And so, um,
[57:35] >> that's what you're looking at.
[57:37] >> Mayor Br.
[57:40] >> As taxpayers, we're generally concerned
[57:43] that when taxes rise, they very, very
[57:44] rarely drop. Same thing with these are
[57:46] fees. So, same thing, fees. So, we're
[57:48] going to base our fee structure on this
[57:50] $9 million bond, which is great. I think
[57:52] that's the right way to go. We've
[57:54] already disc as we've discussed, but as
[57:56] we get impact fees to pay down that
[57:58] principle, will there be an adjustment
[58:00] to the rates to take into account the
[58:02] application of those impact fees to
[58:04] reduce the cost of the borrowing? Or is
[58:07] it are we always going to collect the
[58:09] same rates based on the $9 million bond
[58:12] and then just apply that to future
[58:14] projects? Well, I I think it's
[58:17] back to we're chipping away at projects
[58:20] whether you know we take on the $9
[58:22] million worth of projects or add and do
[58:24] more than that. Um, but that's just like
[58:28] a small piece of the puzzle. So, we're
[58:31] still paying off our first bond. Well,
[58:34] it's our second because we refinanced
[58:36] and added some money and there's like I
[58:38] think four more payments left on end.
[58:41] But I'm just seeing like a continual
[58:45] bond.
[58:47] Um,
[58:48] >> so maybe it would reduce the amount we'd
[58:50] have to bond for the future.
[58:52] >> Yeah.
[58:52] >> Or that we could use it towards these
[58:54] other projects, right?
[58:55] >> Yes.
[58:56] >> So that we don't have to maybe bond as
[58:58] soon.
[58:59] >> But is there ever a chance that we
[59:01] reduce rates or is that something that
[59:04] >> Yes, there is. With cost going up,
[59:06] >> it's not needed. Yeah.
[59:07] >> Okay. I was just curious.
[59:08] >> But you actually have to if it's not
[59:09] needed, right?
[59:10] >> Yeah. Okay,
[59:12] >> it's not looking possible in the near
[59:14] future. I'll just
[59:15] >> I would think the only way would be if
[59:17] we just had a ton of rain and we are
[59:19] supposed to get monsunal storms next
[59:21] week
[59:22] >> then you know that automatically brings
[59:24] down your water bills but that's bad for
[59:26] us for our bond payments though. How are
[59:28] we going to make up for the
[59:30] >> and going back to the comment that
[59:32] culinary is separate from PI. I'm still
[59:35] having a hard time understanding that
[59:36] when it's been presented that this is
[59:40] going to give us culinary relief. And if
[59:43] the Heritage Hills well
[59:46] is going to be part of the culinary
[59:47] relief effort, aren't there some things
[59:49] that we need to do to improve the
[59:51] Heritage Hills well so it can deliver
[59:52] culinary water to our culinary system if
[59:55] we are looking for redundancies?
[59:57] >> No, we're not we're not planning the
[59:59] Heritage Hills well to be culinary. So
[1:00:02] it doesn't improve culinary.
[1:00:05] >> Well, it does for what I said before. If
[1:00:07] I think as a byproduct, it does
[1:00:09] >> spring
[1:00:10] >> that's currently being used in the
[1:00:12] irrigation system, it would be replaced
[1:00:14] by the Heritage Hills well.
[1:00:16] >> Okay. And then
[1:00:17] >> we already have redundancy in our
[1:00:19] culinary system.
[1:00:20] >> We have wells that aren't being pumped
[1:00:23] >> with those.
[1:00:24] >> So how is that water delivered into our
[1:00:27] culinary system? Do the delivery systems
[1:00:29] exist or do we all
[1:00:31] >> the wells? They do. Yeah.
[1:00:32] >> Yes. Indoor.
[1:00:33] >> Yeah. But just think back before PI 100%
[1:00:36] of our water indoor and outdoor went
[1:00:38] through the colonies.
[1:00:39] >> So what was our population at that time
[1:00:41] though? Uh, I mean,
[1:00:44] >> so Jessica, I think you're
[1:00:45] >> four or five
[1:00:46] >> probably.
[1:00:47] >> I think Jessica is kind of going through
[1:00:48] the same misunderstanding that I did
[1:00:50] that there was a huge deficiency in our
[1:00:51] culinary system because we had a couple
[1:00:54] instances whether we had to turn off the
[1:00:56] um splash pad and where we had to ask um
[1:01:01] some of the residents not to water, but
[1:01:03] that was because there was a breakdown
[1:01:04] in the system. like there was a pump,
[1:01:06] there was a booster pump that broke and
[1:01:09] then there was I forget what that was,
[1:01:11] but I thought it was a huge deficiency
[1:01:13] and that we needed to provide more
[1:01:15] culinary work.
[1:01:16] >> No, we we actually show that we have
[1:01:17] more than enough as far as supplyinary.
[1:01:19] Yes.
[1:01:20] >> My big concern is redundancy that we're
[1:01:23] spending
[1:01:25] several million dollars redundancy for
[1:01:27] sprinklers, but we right now don't have
[1:01:30] a redundancy to service every Alpine
[1:01:33] resident. And so I We have several to my
[1:01:36] own home and before like if I'm looking
[1:01:39] in my own home.
[1:01:40] >> So Shane, how many culinary wells do we
[1:01:42] have? I know
[1:01:44] >> we
[1:01:44] >> one for three.
[1:01:45] >> We have three.
[1:01:46] >> Okay. So we have the spring and we have
[1:01:48] three culinary wells. The three culinary
[1:01:50] wells are the redundancy.
[1:01:52] >> And are those three wells enough to
[1:01:54] service the city with culinary water in
[1:01:56] case of like let's say there was an
[1:01:58] earthquake the spring something. We we
[1:01:59] can't access that water anymore.
[1:02:01] >> Yeah. right now. Um, I'm put on the
[1:02:04] spot. I would say yes, but okay.
[1:02:06] >> I I think so.
[1:02:08] >> Okay.
[1:02:08] >> Well, again, reviewing.
[1:02:11] >> We're not talking about culinary right
[1:02:13] now.
[1:02:14] >> Let's talk about PI
[1:02:15] >> because we're spending $9 million, but
[1:02:18] sprinklers, not drinking water.
[1:02:20] >> So, to say they're not related is doing
[1:02:23] our public a disservice.
[1:02:25] >> Jessica, I told you we're gonna go over
[1:02:27] that. It's a whole different work
[1:02:29] session. It's a whole different thing.
[1:02:31] >> And I did have a couple slides on
[1:02:33] culinary because some questions that
[1:02:35] came in were culinary. So I added some
[1:02:37] there. But but
[1:02:40] >> so when is the last time in general that
[1:02:43] we had to ask residents to back off 50%
[1:02:47] on their culinary use?
[1:02:49] >> We we haven't had to. Our culinary
[1:02:51] system is good. There's little things
[1:02:54] here and there. If you look at those
[1:02:55] maps, we need to replace some 6 inch
[1:02:57] lines with 8 inch lines. and do some
[1:03:00] looping and a couple things, but our
[1:03:02] culinary system was good. We had to shut
[1:03:04] it off uh for the splash pad couple days
[1:03:07] early because it happened on a Friday.
[1:03:11] Uh Greg started running out of water. We
[1:03:14] could turn the 300 East well on, but we
[1:03:16] had to get a bacteria sample first. It
[1:03:19] was on a holiday weekend. We couldn't
[1:03:21] have the bacteria sample back until
[1:03:23] Tuesday. So, the best option we had is
[1:03:26] to shut the splash pad off
[1:03:29] >> to make sure people had water inside
[1:03:31] their homes. That's why that was done.
[1:03:33] If we had had the bacteria sample
[1:03:36] already on the well, we could have
[1:03:38] flipped the switch,
[1:03:39] >> pumped it to waste to clean it up, and
[1:03:41] turn it into the system.
[1:03:42] >> It was just one of those perfect storms
[1:03:44] where, yes, we had to turn it off three
[1:03:47] days early. I think that was fine. I
[1:03:50] know it was an inconvenience, but that
[1:03:51] was something that happened once that I
[1:03:53] know of.
[1:03:54] time that I've noticed.
[1:03:55] >> Mayor Chrissy raised her hand again,
[1:03:57] just so you know.
[1:03:58] >> Oh, Chrissy, go ahead.
[1:04:03] » I I'm listening to Jessica and um I do
[1:04:06] going back to the funding because you
[1:04:08] guys know that's yeah an area I focus
[1:04:11] on.
[1:04:12] Um these are two separate funds and so
[1:04:17] although
[1:04:19] we're talking about water, everything
[1:04:22] stays in its own fund. So they're not competing for the same
[1:04:27] dollars per se, except that if we have
[1:04:31] to increase the rates for PI to meet
[1:04:34] these deficiencies and for growth that's
[1:04:37] expected or already been approved, that
[1:04:40] will impact a water bill because we
[1:04:43] combine um PI water
[1:04:47] billing with our culinary billing on the
[1:04:51] same bill. But from when you look at it
[1:04:54] from a financial p perspective like we
[1:04:57] can't fund culinary water projects with
[1:05:01] PI water projects there's like you know
[1:05:03] that line in the sand where they're they
[1:05:05] operate independently they need to you
[1:05:08] know be self-funding. So, I understand
[1:05:11] that it it does impact um the whole
[1:05:14] system and everybody's residential, you
[1:05:18] know, pocketbook budgets are all
[1:05:19] affected, but just keep in mind we're
[1:05:22] talking about we cannot mix the funds
[1:05:25] because they're two separate enterprise
[1:05:27] funds. So, we are going to talk about
[1:05:30] culinary in another time, but it's hard
[1:05:33] for me to talk about one system
[1:05:37] um
[1:05:38] or it's hard for me to talk about both
[1:05:40] systems because they do need to be
[1:05:42] self-funded and running independently.
[1:05:45] So, um I just want to put that remind
[1:05:48] ourselves that these are completely
[1:05:50] separate funds
[1:05:51] >> and that we did not notice it as a
[1:05:53] culinary that we would be discussing
[1:05:55] culinary. This is just PI.
[1:05:57] >> I just want to say I do I do see where
[1:05:59] Jessica's coming from just like as a
[1:06:02] resident if they find if they hear we're
[1:06:05] bonding for $9 million to help improve
[1:06:08] our water.
[1:06:09] >> And then they find out, you know, my
[1:06:11] mind as a resident would be like, "Oh,
[1:06:13] that's great." You know, we're going to
[1:06:14] make sure we have enough water because
[1:06:16] culinary is life or death. PI is just
[1:06:18] for our grass. So I I think I see where
[1:06:22] Jessica's coming from in that just in
[1:06:24] the fact that, you know, it would be
[1:06:26] great to be able to say we're bonding 9
[1:06:28] million and then understand also how
[1:06:30] this would affect our culinary water,
[1:06:33] which it does has there's a byproduct
[1:06:35] there. That's why I see where she's
[1:06:36] >> talking about I understand where she's
[1:06:38] coming from also, but we're talking
[1:06:39] about two separate bonds. If we have to
[1:06:41] bond for the culinary, that's a separate
[1:06:43] bond. You know that, right? because it's
[1:06:44] a different form of
[1:06:45] >> I understand that but I was presented
[1:06:47] the information that they were related
[1:06:50] to each other one of the reasons the
[1:06:51] wise be why we needed to do these
[1:06:55] expenses these capital expenses was
[1:06:57] because it was going to improve our
[1:06:59] culinary so we can't say it's going to
[1:07:02] improve our culinary and we need to
[1:07:03] spend all this money and then say we
[1:07:05] can't talk about culinary like don't
[1:07:08] tell me that this is going to help us
[1:07:10] with culinary without allowing us to
[1:07:12] like fully explore improving our
[1:07:15] culinary.
[1:07:15] >> I do feel like you're kind of mixing it
[1:07:17] up a little bit. And as far as saying
[1:07:18] that, you know, you're talking about our
[1:07:20] drinking water. Our city has never been
[1:07:22] in a position where we have not had
[1:07:24] culinary water for drinking in or for
[1:07:27] use inside the homes ever that I am
[1:07:30] aware of. I've been here and granted
[1:07:32] I've only been here what 27 years. Um I
[1:07:35] don't you have you've been here about
[1:07:37] that long?
[1:07:39] >> I don't know.
[1:07:40] >> I've been 40. I Yeah. Have you do you
[1:07:42] are you aware of any situation where
[1:07:44] Alpine City has said because we don't
[1:07:47] have drinking water please don't bathe
[1:07:49] don't don't flush your toilets I
[1:07:53] understand for the future didn't we
[1:07:55] >> that's a great thing and
[1:07:58] >> the deficiency is not in our culinary
[1:08:02] system for drinking so you're mixing it
[1:08:04] up the deficiency might be um as Shane's
[1:08:09] already discussed and then also Also, if
[1:08:12] you know there are um breakdowns in the
[1:08:15] system or the timing of it, you've got a
[1:08:18] three-day weekend, you want to start up
[1:08:19] a pump, you have to get testing for it.
[1:08:22] They're circumstantial, but as far as us
[1:08:25] not having the water and not having the
[1:08:27] delivery system.
[1:08:28] >> Well, Jessica,
[1:08:29] >> that's not at a level where um
[1:08:32] >> can I ask Jessica a question?
[1:08:34] >> Yes. Jessica, if you find anything that
[1:08:37] you are concerned about and you think
[1:08:39] should be a higher priority on the
[1:08:40] culinary side than anything we're
[1:08:42] discussing, would you let us know? Would
[1:08:45] you tell us?
[1:08:46] >> I think this thing is more important for
[1:08:48] culinary than this thing for PR and we I
[1:08:51] would I would gladly support.
[1:08:52] >> Well, and we didn't get to hear the
[1:08:54] feedback. you guys went to a water
[1:08:58] meeting and I don't know if it only
[1:09:00] talked about pressurized irrigation or
[1:09:02] if there was also a topic because we're
[1:09:04] getting new information all the time.
[1:09:07] We're about to have you know it was
[1:09:09] about CUP water.
[1:09:11] >> Yeah, we talked about both
[1:09:13] >> but yeah.
[1:09:14] >> And what's the projections on culinary?
[1:09:16] >> Do we need to be have redundancies? Is
[1:09:18] that best practices? Yeah, like our our
[1:09:21] main overall goal was just to become
[1:09:23] self-sufficient as a city and so if
[1:09:26] which I think we can do with all
[1:09:28] >> Yes. And with like cup water and new
[1:09:30] development going south of Utah Lake,
[1:09:32] that's where they're going to see the
[1:09:32] majority of growth. It's kind of
[1:09:35] expected or anticipated that we won't
[1:09:38] get the same aotment of CUP water as we
[1:09:40] are currently receiving. So that's for
[1:09:42] PI obviously, but also just like making
[1:09:45] sure that we're self-sufficient in case
[1:09:46] of emergency for culinary water was also
[1:09:49] a discussion. So So we're in a very
[1:09:52] fortunate situation that we do have
[1:09:55] these great culinary water sources and
[1:09:57] we have the infrastructure for that in
[1:09:59] place for the redundancy. Do we have
[1:10:02] deficiencies? Yes, obviously we do. That
[1:10:05] is something that we are chipping away
[1:10:06] at. I think um you know we're already
[1:10:09] working towards one of the upsides on
[1:10:11] the culinary water um tank. I mean it's
[1:10:14] not something that we're completely
[1:10:16] ignoring but I think um right now we're
[1:10:20] coming to um council with the PI system.
[1:10:24] Um we wanted to move forward with these
[1:10:26] projects. Jessica wanted a work session
[1:10:28] which I think is apppropo. This is
[1:10:31] information that has been out there for
[1:10:33] five years. I feel like the only thing
[1:10:35] that's really changed recently is they
[1:10:38] did suggest the two projects put them up
[1:10:40] higher and then um obviously the new
[1:10:44] costs um since their original report um
[1:10:47] and then you know couple it's very minor
[1:10:49] changes. What I'd like to know is do you
[1:10:52] guys have any questions regarding our PI
[1:10:56] system and specifically
[1:10:58] any questions or concerns regarding the
[1:11:01] Heritage Well and the 400 West booster
[1:11:03] pump and um piping up size.
[1:11:06] >> Can I just ask one question about like
[1:11:08] funding? I know you guys are exploring
[1:11:10] potentially a grant for the low zone
[1:11:12] take expansion. So if we bond for the 9
[1:11:16] million for the two, is there the
[1:11:18] potential to also find other funding
[1:11:20] sources for the others?
[1:11:22] >> We're always that's, you know, that's
[1:11:24] Shane does a great job of that. I
[1:11:26] actually think he found something else
[1:11:28] that he has not had the time to um
[1:11:31] pursue because he spent copious hours
[1:11:34] redoing our budget to submit to the
[1:11:36] state and then preparing for these work
[1:11:39] sessions. Um but yes I we are always
[1:11:43] looking for funding that's
[1:11:45] >> so that might be helpful just you know
[1:11:48] in going with just the two versus all
[1:11:50] five not only from an interest you know
[1:11:53] paying more interest but also just maybe
[1:11:55] that would buy us some time to find
[1:11:57] other funding options. Yeah, I say we go
[1:11:59] for the two that's been suggested by the
[1:12:02] specialists move forward, but I mean
[1:12:04] that's something that ultimately um
[1:12:06] council will have to vote on. Um but
[1:12:08] yeah, the suggestion I believe is to go
[1:12:10] with what the study shows is to go with
[1:12:14] the heritage hills well and the booster
[1:12:15] pumpson um upsizing. Andrew, you said
[1:12:18] you had questions or
[1:12:19] >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh but before I do, I was
[1:12:22] under the understanding you were going
[1:12:23] to finish your PowerPoint and then we're
[1:12:25] going to go one by one. Am I wrong? Can
[1:12:27] we do that? We can we can do that and I have in all these slides that I sent
[1:12:32] out.
[1:12:32] >> Do you want to go through the last
[1:12:35] question? So we can
[1:12:36] >> that's what I was kind of hoping to get
[1:12:38] to.
[1:12:38] >> I don't for completing myself at two for
[1:12:42] another meeting. I guess I could
[1:12:44] >> Can you do it in like 10 minutes? I'll
[1:12:45] do my questions in like 10 minutes.
[1:12:47] >> Yeah. I mean the next couple of slides
[1:12:48] were uh the same as the first the just a
[1:12:51] summary of the um existing deficiencies
[1:12:54] and the growth projects for culinary. Um
[1:12:58] >> good those are in there.
[1:12:58] >> And just a note on this one of the big
[1:13:02] factors with the deficiencies in the
[1:13:05] culinary system um is the size of homes.
[1:13:10] uh the the the
[1:13:13] biggest part of the storage requirement
[1:13:14] or tank size requirement is based on
[1:13:18] fire flows and so with huge homes uh
[1:13:22] brings huge requirements for storage in
[1:13:25] tanks. Um just wanted to point that out.
[1:13:28] But um uh one thing we skipped the last
[1:13:31] slide on the PI section Kaden uh other
[1:13:34] projects
[1:13:35] >> size can the impact fees be assessed
[1:13:38] based on those
[1:13:39] >> stop with all the additions.
[1:13:43] » It's costing us so much more for storage
[1:13:45] capacity because they're so big.
[1:13:47] >> We should be able to justify that in a
[1:13:49] >> in an impact fee study to charge greater
[1:13:51] impact fees for those lots.
[1:13:53] >> Yeah. And one issue with impact fees,
[1:13:56] the legislature keeps tightening the
[1:13:58] screws on impact fees and what you can
[1:14:00] do. So, it's because there's a lot of
[1:14:04] home builders in the legislature.
[1:14:06] Um, but it's something to look at. Uh, I
[1:14:09] just wanted to point this out that
[1:14:12] uh we have a couple things going on
[1:14:15] right now. I mentioned the Page Project.
[1:14:17] um you know, we're going to have to
[1:14:19] participate in putting that um pipe
[1:14:22] through there. So, that will be an
[1:14:24] expense. We're working on getting those
[1:14:27] costs.
[1:14:28] >> That will be quite a lot, right?
[1:14:30] >> Uh way cheaper than what Canyon Crest
[1:14:33] was because there's no utilities in the
[1:14:36] way.
[1:14:37] >> Okay.
[1:14:37] >> With it, it'll all be new construction
[1:14:39] and we're not digging up asphalt and
[1:14:42] having to replace that. That's a huge
[1:14:44] expense. a lot of a lot of there's a lot
[1:14:47] of savings by doing it this way,
[1:14:49] >> right? No, I I know it'll be cheaper. I
[1:14:51] just meant that's a big project like
[1:14:52] that's not a small thing.
[1:14:54] >> And then another one um there's a
[1:14:57] potential project by the Healey Well um
[1:15:02] that we'd like to get an easement um to
[1:15:05] put the pipe from the Healey Well to
[1:15:07] Healey Boulevard.
[1:15:10] Um not sure on the timing of that yet.
[1:15:14] There's still things being worked on and
[1:15:15] details. So, I just want to throw out
[1:15:18] that there's a couple other things.
[1:15:20] Again,
[1:15:22] projects that might be in the buildout
[1:15:24] are thinking they could be 20 years, but
[1:15:26] they could be next year. Um, so we have
[1:15:28] to consider that. Um, skip down Kaden to
[1:15:34] the the next slide down.
[1:15:37] So, I put responses to all of the
[1:15:40] questions that I received. I don't know
[1:15:42] if you want to go through those. It
[1:15:44] might or if you want to read those on
[1:15:45] your own.
[1:15:46] >> Well, can you just give a rundown of
[1:15:48] them really quick if uh
[1:15:50] >> not read them?
[1:15:51] >> Uh, no. I apologize. I did not read
[1:15:53] them.
[1:15:54] >> So,
[1:15:55] >> read them. Do you like them?
[1:15:56] >> Who is Black? [laughter]
[1:15:59] >> Oh, sorry.
[1:16:00] >> Black Welder.
[1:16:01] >> Sorry, Sarah. I apologize.
[1:16:03] >> Okay, we I can read through them if you
[1:16:05] don't. I know a black welder in town
[1:16:08] >> and I that's I was really wanting to get
[1:16:11] this out yesterday and I apologize.
[1:16:14] >> I'm not offended. It's totally fine.
[1:16:16] >> It's a cool last name. Black welder.
[1:16:18] Sounds awesome.
[1:16:18] >> Change that please.
[1:16:21] >> Okay. If you if you don't want to go
[1:16:22] through them,
[1:16:22] >> I do know your name, but I I totally
[1:16:25] made a mistake.
[1:16:26] But I do know
[1:16:28] >> um
[1:16:31] I mean
[1:16:33] >> we Yeah, I think that'll be the best
[1:16:36] because we could spend two hours.
[1:16:38] >> I just thought you wanted to go through
[1:16:39] stuff. Want to make sure you had gone
[1:16:40] through it all.
[1:16:41] >> They're they're going to go they're
[1:16:42] going to lead to a lot of other
[1:16:43] questions I think from people. That's
[1:16:45] fine. That's fine because I took
[1:16:47] questions from each council member and
[1:16:48] just try to address those. But I think
[1:16:50] if you read them and then contact me if
[1:16:53] you have follow-ups.
[1:16:54] >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Good way to go.
[1:16:56] >> I'm reading them right now. There's Did
[1:16:57] they were saying they wanted to speak? I don't know. Do they have a time to
[1:17:00] speak?
[1:17:00] >> Uh Kaden.
[1:17:03] >> Um so the uh water committee provided
[1:17:08] some recommendations um to us and I
[1:17:13] don't you want to
[1:17:15] >> Yeah. If the mayor's okay.
[1:17:16] >> The mayor's okay with it.
[1:17:22] » Sounds like it's on. Good. So, I've
[1:17:25] participated greatly in the last year
[1:17:27] and been totally impressed during that
[1:17:30] 12-month period with the thoroughess of
[1:17:32] the council and the staff.
[1:17:35] [clears throat] We learn all the time.
[1:17:36] And since March, April as it is, we've
[1:17:39] had a a citizens advisory water
[1:17:41] committee. We've got Clyde uh Stopper
[1:17:44] here and Svin uh Love also with us. On
[1:17:48] there is Sarah is our council woman.
[1:17:50] Well, now it's Sarah Black Welder. It's
[1:17:53] our
[1:17:55] Okay. I appreciate the focus today on um
[1:17:59] PI. It's and I I guess as I listen as a citizen, I'm impressed that we're
[1:18:06] thinking about things that will need to
[1:18:09] be addressed year by year by year by
[1:18:12] year. Even if we had infinite funding, I
[1:18:15] don't think we could fix everything
[1:18:17] realistically, even in a short period of
[1:18:20] time so as to face the citizens and say,
[1:18:23] you know, don't worry ever and your
[1:18:25] grandchildren shouldn't worry ever
[1:18:27] because we fixed it. I mean, what the committee when we went through this
[1:18:31] and we went through this thoroughly and
[1:18:34] then uh of course uh councilwoman uh
[1:18:38] Sarah I'm the one set out the
[1:18:41] recommendations and really it came down
[1:18:44] to and one of our council members said
[1:18:46] will said I don't know why we're
[1:18:48] discussing this so much we're not the
[1:18:50] experts and we had Sullivan in the room
[1:18:52] and we had Clyde and we had Will and
[1:18:55] Brian and I are not experts but we're
[1:18:57] not dumb.
[1:18:58] And it came down to we trust the staff,
[1:19:03] especially considering we have Shane and
[1:19:06] Greg and others who have been here for
[1:19:08] so long and intimately understand the
[1:19:11] system. We trust Horox who've been
[1:19:13] surveying us forever and ever. And
[1:19:16] again, to get to a start of something,
[1:19:20] phase one was really a no-brainer. Okay.
[1:19:23] And I'm I want a little concerned if we
[1:19:26] are going to try to shave something off.
[1:19:29] What I'm learning to understand is and
[1:19:31] it's it's kind of like u a home equity
[1:19:35] loan. If you know the basement, if I
[1:19:38] can't use sweat equity, then I will need
[1:19:40] to make that as part of my uh home
[1:19:43] equity loan. If I can do a deck, if I
[1:19:46] have six projects, my wife and I agreed
[1:19:48] to, you know, if I can do from savings
[1:19:52] or from self uh u sweat equity, then I
[1:19:56] don't need to take out home equity, but
[1:19:58] I'm a little concerned that with be even
[1:20:00] with best intentions, I know we'll move
[1:20:03] chunk by chunk, but those phase one are
[1:20:06] important. I think it's important that
[1:20:08] we put a stake in the ground and say
[1:20:10] yes, we will fund them and have a plan
[1:20:14] and maybe plan A is bond for three of
[1:20:18] them, plan B is for another one. We can
[1:20:21] literally see in the future enough funds
[1:20:24] left over that we can do it. I think the
[1:20:27] disservice will be to go to all this
[1:20:29] expense at the last five plus years and
[1:20:32] all the professional input and then have
[1:20:34] something fall off. So, we we encourage
[1:20:38] you to continue to ask hard questions.
[1:20:41] We all learn together. We encourage you
[1:20:44] to consider phase one in its entirety to
[1:20:47] make sure that when we say we're funded,
[1:20:50] that means we have a schedule of when
[1:20:53] monies will be available either through
[1:20:55] bond or sweat equity or if def you know
[1:20:59] um enterprise funds to do those
[1:21:02] projects. Okay. Steve, can I ask a
[1:21:05] couple questions to him from his board
[1:21:07] just so I have some clarification?
[1:21:09] >> What I'm reading here is so the the the
[1:21:11] water committee is recommending
[1:21:15] >> apologies. Thank you, Deian. Uh uh she
[1:21:18] does such a good job. Uh you water
[1:21:21] committee, the citizens water committee
[1:21:23] wants all of phase one, all five things.
[1:21:26] Is that correct? Will you give it to us
[1:21:28] specifically? What do you guys
[1:21:29] recommend?
[1:21:30] >> We we recommended all five of those. So
[1:21:33] you're recommending right now bond for
[1:21:36] >> No, we're recommending that there be a a
[1:21:40] schedule of funding through whatever
[1:21:42] sources.
[1:21:43] >> Okay.
[1:21:44] >> But you want the first five done.
[1:21:45] >> First five done. And you know,
[1:21:46] >> I totally agree that the Heritage Hills
[1:21:49] well and the 400 West booster and piping
[1:21:52] up size are absolutely essential to do
[1:21:55] ASAP. Get them shovel ready. And if that
[1:21:58] means, you know, solidify the bond and
[1:22:01] then we need to, as someone has said,
[1:22:03] increase bond over time, uh, after we've
[1:22:06] made changes in rates,
[1:22:08] >> you're okay with whatever funding
[1:22:10] mechanism possible. You just want them
[1:22:12] done, or are you sold on the bond? You
[1:22:14] really want to go do it with
[1:22:15] >> debt? We're not experts in in funding.
[1:22:18] We we're learning, too, and we know
[1:22:20] there's different options. It really
[1:22:22] comes down to at the end of the year, do
[1:22:24] you have extra money that you can put
[1:22:26] the deck in next year? Okay. If not, you
[1:22:28] have the council and we're going to
[1:22:30] expand it to a swimming pool and
[1:22:31] therefore we need home equity. So, it's
[1:22:33] the same sort of thing.
[1:22:35] >> I understand
[1:22:35] >> where we we leave the again, we're
[1:22:38] leaving that sort of thing up to the
[1:22:39] experts. The experts have spoken
[1:22:41] regarding what needs to be done and the
[1:22:44] water committee has focused specifically
[1:22:46] on PI. We haven't gone into the culinary
[1:22:50] at all. We know there are byproducts
[1:22:52] that will benefit culinary with these
[1:22:55] six projects, but that wasn't our focus.
[1:22:57] >> Understand?
[1:22:57] >> And that can become a focus. As the
[1:22:59] mayor said, as we plan for other
[1:23:01] workshops, we'd be glad to become more
[1:23:04] involved in trying to understand and
[1:23:05] make recommendations.
[1:23:06] >> Last question. Do you guys feel um
[1:23:10] uh I just lost my train of thought. Um,
[1:23:14] are you okay with uh
[1:23:17] other options besides these if they do
[1:23:19] the if they get the fix
[1:23:21] or and are you also so two questions
[1:23:24] these are the last are are you okay with
[1:23:25] other options to be explored that would
[1:23:28] basically get us the same result
[1:23:30] >> and then the other question is are you
[1:23:33] we want you to focus on the six
[1:23:35] >> okay the experts have spoken for five
[1:23:38] plus years I don't know I don't need I
[1:23:41] don't know if there's an alternate to
[1:23:44] any of those five.
[1:23:46] >> I'll bring up something that I hope for,
[1:23:48] but
[1:23:48] >> the other question is we say experts
[1:23:50] have spoken. I think it's more expert.
[1:23:53] >> That's nothing against Horox.
[1:23:55] >> Uh it's correct me if I'm wrong. This is
[1:23:57] like would you be okay with us getting a
[1:23:59] couple options of experts to give us uh
[1:24:02] recommendations.
[1:24:03] >> So my understanding is Jeff Davis who's
[1:24:05] also on the water committee when I spoke
[1:24:07] to her when I spoke to him he works for
[1:24:09] a totally different firm.
[1:24:11] >> That's helpful. and he is saying yes he
[1:24:13] agrees with this list
[1:24:14] >> expert that's right okay that's um I I
[1:24:17] meant like so the the core of the
[1:24:19] question mayor is
[1:24:21] >> like there was somebody else too that
[1:24:23] came to that open house he is a
[1:24:26] colleague of Jeff Davis also um and I
[1:24:30] was speaking to him and I said hey have
[1:24:32] you seen our water study I'd really like
[1:24:33] to see your opinion on it and he's like
[1:24:36] I haven't studied it in depth but I read
[1:24:38] it over but yeah he said I I concur
[1:24:40] >> that's helpful And so that's three
[1:24:42] different people, but I don't know who
[1:24:43] this Do you remember who that guy was? I have his application and I know he
[1:24:48] wanted to be in the water committee, but
[1:24:49] he never
[1:24:49] >> last name Clark.
[1:24:51] >> It's uh mayor where this is coming from
[1:24:53] is it's more like
[1:24:54] >> fame clerk.
[1:24:55] >> Yeah, it's more like uh
[1:24:56] >> Clark works for bone.
[1:24:57] >> Sometimes sometimes on whatever level
[1:25:00] government when they have one contract,
[1:25:02] let's just use war like when Rathon or
[1:25:04] something or um they'll just get the
[1:25:07] prices really high because there's not
[1:25:08] really a lot of other options. So I just
[1:25:11] wonder if we had Horox 2.0 know if that
[1:25:13] would be helpful to maybe get a second
[1:25:15] and I guess if we were juxtaposed if the
[1:25:18] staff with the experience they have and
[1:25:20] the recommendation they had is juosed to
[1:25:23] Horox I'd say we need yet another
[1:25:26] opinion but they haven't been this the
[1:25:28] experts continually with expertise I
[1:25:30] don't have come up with the same
[1:25:32] recommendations and any delay
[1:25:34] >> I know sometimes they come up with
[1:25:36] different numbers
[1:25:36] >> increases the total has increased twice
[1:25:40] >> I guess the way that look at it So,
[1:25:42] Andrew, you're you're worried about the
[1:25:44] total. Let's say we do a $9 million
[1:25:46] bond. Let's say the numbers come in
[1:25:48] less. If it is, then great. It'll free
[1:25:50] us up to be able to do the maybe enough
[1:25:53] to do the Healey booster upsize also,
[1:25:56] >> right?
[1:25:56] >> To me, um, you know, if the numbers come
[1:26:00] lower, I don't see a negative in that.
[1:26:02] My concern is if the numbers come up
[1:26:04] higher than this that we're going to
[1:26:05] have to come up with the difference.
[1:26:08] >> Okay. It was basically the question was
[1:26:10] if you'd be open to get secondary
[1:26:11] companies looking at
[1:26:12] >> I think the secondary
[1:26:13] >> sounds like you like ORox
[1:26:14] >> secondary input. I don't think there's a
[1:26:16] question that this needs to be done. I
[1:26:18] think the next question is uh RFPs to
[1:26:22] determine who's going to come in with
[1:26:24] the best solution at the best price.
[1:26:26] That's where the competition comes.
[1:26:28] >> Okay. Okay. Thank you for
[1:26:31] >> Yes. Go ahead. Do we have any idea of h
[1:26:33] one how soon these could be started and
[1:26:35] two can any of them be done in tandem or
[1:26:37] do we can you do you only have to do can
[1:26:40] allowed to do one at a time
[1:26:44] >> it all depends on like when they're
[1:26:46] available like you know I think
[1:26:49] Stephen's been talking with Shane quite
[1:26:50] a bit so yeah we start off with getting
[1:26:52] an RFP first about the design work so we
[1:26:56] have to get the design work done first
[1:26:58] and then once the design work goes out
[1:27:00] then you do another um you go out for
[1:27:04] bid on the project itself and then we
[1:27:07] choose that and then we can get started.
[1:27:08] So it's it's a long process and that's
[1:27:10] why I want to get started now.
[1:27:12] >> I agree. I agree. So if we let's say we
[1:27:15] bond for nine and start with the two can
[1:27:17] we like I don't know schedule out or
[1:27:21] like put how can we plan to do the rest
[1:27:24] or do we have to come back revisit make
[1:27:26] a decision and move forward with the
[1:27:28] other
[1:27:28] >> I think
[1:27:29] >> three in phase one
[1:27:30] >> right now I say we get started on these
[1:27:32] two um on in bigger cities with larger
[1:27:35] staff because we our staff does have to
[1:27:38] even though we contract out staff does
[1:27:40] still have to be heavily involved in
[1:27:44] Um, and I think let's get started and
[1:27:46] see what we can take and then, you know,
[1:27:48] move forward. I think my understanding
[1:27:51] is that um I think council realizes that
[1:27:54] we need to move forward.
[1:27:56] At least I'm hoping that's the
[1:27:58] realization. But
[1:28:00] >> but that
[1:28:01] >> I I'll go last uh because I want to say
[1:28:03] some things. Go ahead.
[1:28:04] >> We're going to be running out of time
[1:28:05] soon. But that um you know when we go
[1:28:11] » that we start with these see how the
[1:28:13] workload is like right you know just
[1:28:15] even watching um on a very superficial
[1:28:19] level with the fire station. Shane has
[1:28:22] spent many many hours with the
[1:28:24] contractors even though we have people
[1:28:26] helping and whatnot he still has to be
[1:28:27] heavily involved. Um these two I think
[1:28:30] Jason and Shane will be involved. Um, I
[1:28:33] think we'll have to kind of look at that
[1:28:34] along with all their other duties and
[1:28:36] see what else we can take on. Um, but I
[1:28:39] think we'll try to do as much as we can
[1:28:40] with the monies that we have.
[1:28:42] >> Do any of them require any sort of land
[1:28:44] acquisition or anything to prep for?
[1:28:47] >> No. The Heritage Hill Well, we already
[1:28:49] own the property and then the um No, we
[1:28:53] have the rightway. We have the well on
[1:28:56] 400 West and then the piping. We have
[1:28:59] the rightway. Right.
[1:29:00] >> Yeah. the Heritage Hills. Well, we saw
[1:29:02] an opportunity to gain the property we
[1:29:04] needed several years ago, like five or
[1:29:06] six years ago, and so we brought that to
[1:29:09] council and actually got that done.
[1:29:11] >> And same like with this uh potential
[1:29:14] project by the Healey Well and the Page
[1:29:17] Project, as soon as the pages came in, I
[1:29:20] said, "Hey, we have a pipeline. I'd
[1:29:23] really like it to go through your
[1:29:24] property." And so we've taken those
[1:29:28] opportunities every time they've came
[1:29:30] up.
[1:29:32] >> And [clears throat] that is one thing
[1:29:32] that I do really appreciate, Shane, that
[1:29:34] with your expertise in public works and
[1:29:37] engineering that you look for those
[1:29:39] opportunities. And I don't think that's
[1:29:41] really something that you see in your
[1:29:43] run-of-the-mill city administrators that
[1:29:45] um I appreciate that you have that eye
[1:29:48] for engineering to be able to save money
[1:29:51] where you can and then to be able to
[1:29:52] capitalize on it. and also that you're
[1:29:55] fiscally conservative enough that we
[1:29:56] have those funds so that we can act on
[1:29:59] it when those opportunities arise
[1:30:00] because we never know. We can't force
[1:30:02] people to do it necessarily without it
[1:30:04] costing us a lot. And so if we want to
[1:30:06] take advantage of a cost-saving um
[1:30:09] event, we have to have those funds there
[1:30:12] to be able to act on it.
[1:30:13] >> I have a question about just the pro the
[1:30:15] order and the process. If if the
[1:30:18] recommendation and it's all
[1:30:19] timesensitive and it's going to cost
[1:30:21] more if we don't move forward, why would
[1:30:25] we hold off on doing it other than it's
[1:30:28] just um staffing issue? Because there
[1:30:31] are positions called owner's reps that
[1:30:33] can come in move projects forward that
[1:30:36] would there's probably some of these
[1:30:37] that Shane doesn't have to touch
[1:30:39] intensively that an owner's rep could
[1:30:41] manage and balancing the cost.
[1:30:46] um right you know to get that going
[1:30:48] might outweigh
[1:30:52] » but I mean you look at the two that's
[1:30:54] the bulk of it and you've got the low
[1:30:55] zone tank expansion we're going for a
[1:30:58] grant in that and we feel really good
[1:30:59] about getting that grant the other two
[1:31:01] projects are fairly I like I said I
[1:31:04] think we're going to see where the cost
[1:31:06] comes in
[1:31:08] >> um and go that and also
[1:31:09] >> why approving one and three like why
[1:31:12] would we only say two and four. Why
[1:31:16] wouldn't we say 1 2 3 4 5? I I'm
[1:31:20] >> I have an answer.
[1:31:20] >> I'm confused about the inconsistency in
[1:31:22] the reason.
[1:31:23] >> Let's ask Shane.
[1:31:24] >> I I think it comes down to how tolerant
[1:31:26] your citizens are going to be that
[1:31:29] raised rates.
[1:31:30] >> If you feel like you can double rates,
[1:31:33] let's go for all five of them.
[1:31:35] >> Well, they're not they're going to be
[1:31:36] less.
[1:31:36] >> I think that's where it comes down.
[1:31:38] >> Yeah. If we come back in two years and
[1:31:39] then triple them
[1:31:41] >> because costs are going up. So, if we're
[1:31:44] going to if we're going to make
[1:31:45] decisions based on costs increasing,
[1:31:49] it doesn't make sense to me to delay
[1:31:51] anything.
[1:31:53] >> Yeah. And that's that's a council
[1:31:55] decision. That's something you're going
[1:31:57] to have to weigh and and Steve, you
[1:32:00] okay, we show that table. Steve put this
[1:32:03] table together, which I think was great.
[1:32:05] Uh, you know, that second document that
[1:32:07] I had you pull up there, Kaden.
[1:32:12] So, uh, Steve put this together just
[1:32:14] showing the cost in 21 versus 25. These
[1:32:18] two, uh, reports we have and the percent
[1:32:21] change. The Healey booster. I'm not
[1:32:23] sure. I have to ask John about that. Why
[1:32:26] that didn't change. Um, could have been
[1:32:29] an oversight. I'm not sure. But, um,
[1:32:33] anyway, pretty pretty big significant
[1:32:36] difference
[1:32:38] uh, in cost increases in four years.
[1:32:41] Right.
[1:32:43] We we know this and we appreciate it. We
[1:32:45] also know why it happened. Like this
[1:32:47] wasn't an ordinary four or five years.
[1:32:51] >> So yeah, I guess that's what I would ask
[1:32:55] council is
[1:32:57] we have a recommendation for all five.
[1:33:00] We have information that costs aren't
[1:33:02] going to come down.
[1:33:04] Why delay? I'm I'm I don't understand
[1:33:07] that process. So for me it's, you know,
[1:33:10] you're looking at the two biggest ones
[1:33:12] except for the low zone um holding tank.
[1:33:14] Um we're feeling really good about being
[1:33:16] able to get the grant for that. So um
[1:33:19] and if we don't, the suggestion would
[1:33:22] you know if that opportunity for the
[1:33:24] grant for the um low zone um holding
[1:33:26] tank were not there, I would heavily
[1:33:29] push for those top three probably. Um,
[1:33:32] but because I feel really good about our
[1:33:35] ability to be able to achieve and get
[1:33:37] that grant. Um, and then the other two
[1:33:40] projects are less than a million
[1:33:41] dollars. And I guess I'm being ultra
[1:33:45] optimistic that we might be able to do
[1:33:47] that without having to go for additional
[1:33:49] bonding.
[1:33:50] >> I'm not saying to include it in the
[1:33:52] bonding. I'm saying include it in
[1:33:54] >> the buildout that Steve is recommending.
[1:33:57] >> However, the funding comes together.
[1:33:59] Yeah,
[1:33:59] >> they would like to see a plan moving
[1:34:01] forward and based on all the information
[1:34:04] up to right now, these should all be
[1:34:07] moved forward, not peacemeal
[1:34:10] >> and they should all be included.
[1:34:12] >> No, I think
[1:34:13] >> I'm ready.
[1:34:14] >> So, I think we just Hold on. Um I think
[1:34:16] what we'll do is the go by the do these
[1:34:19] two large projects move forward. If we
[1:34:22] get the low um zone expansion tank, then
[1:34:25] if we get the grant for that, that would
[1:34:26] be started, right? And then as far as
[1:34:30] funding for the Healey booster upsize
[1:34:33] and um the Grove Drive PRV to mid zone
[1:34:37] that I mean to me doing these projects
[1:34:42] in that first phase or in that first
[1:34:44] table those we have to do
[1:34:48] >> but I feel like the priority should be
[1:34:50] the two that they suggested and then
[1:34:52] with this grant funding opportunity to
[1:34:54] move forward with that and then do the
[1:34:57] other to as we can.
[1:34:59] >> Well, why again? Why not do all four and
[1:35:03] then conditioned the expansion on the
[1:35:06] grant and then have a plan to move
[1:35:08] forward if the grant doesn't come in. So
[1:35:10] again, we're we're approving the
[1:35:12] parameters with a plan moving forward
[1:35:14] and
[1:35:15] >> so maybe the plan would be let's do the
[1:35:17] well and the um so do according to this
[1:35:21] table do items two and five and then
[1:35:23] phase two will be one, three and four.
[1:35:27] start off with these two. Let's get the
[1:35:30] um bonding going. It's kind of a new
[1:35:33] process for all of us. We'll know how it
[1:35:35] works and then um we'll know what you
[1:35:38] know hopefully by then once we get the
[1:35:40] projects going and um because I think
[1:35:44] the well itself is 18 months to a
[1:35:46] two-year project, right?
[1:35:47] >> So, while we're waiting on that, why
[1:35:49] wouldn't we go ahead and do number one
[1:35:50] and three? And right now, we're in the
[1:35:52] middle of approving our budget for next
[1:35:54] year. So that would just be a 700,000
[1:35:59] $760,000
[1:36:01] improvement for item one and three.
[1:36:03] >> Did they prioritize the last three? I
[1:36:05] know they gave us the two as the biggest
[1:36:06] bang for our buck to Is there a way for
[1:36:09] them to kind of prioritize the other
[1:36:11] three on how we should
[1:36:14] think that
[1:36:14] >> I can ask?
[1:36:15] >> That would be great. any advantage for
[1:36:18] just bonding for 10 and then if we get
[1:36:20] the grant then we have Sorry, another
[1:36:24] you could do that.
[1:36:25] >> I don't know. I'm just just I was just
[1:36:27] asking a question. I'm not
[1:36:28] >> No, you could totally do that.
[1:36:29] >> I would love it if there's more than one
[1:36:31] of these we could do at a time and try
[1:36:34] as I I don't know how many of them we
[1:36:36] can do combined at the same time, but
[1:36:37] I'd rather not wait till the wells built
[1:36:39] to do number three or number one. Like
[1:36:42] if there's a way we could
[1:36:45] >> I feel like I wanted I agree with you,
[1:36:47] Sharon. Jessica,
[1:36:48] >> one and three should just happen this
[1:36:49] winter.
[1:36:51] >> I I'm I'm I feel a hesitancy, and I'm
[1:36:53] not sure why there's a hesitancy. We
[1:36:55] have a committee that says, "Let's do
[1:36:56] phase one." We have experts that say,
[1:36:58] "Let's do phase one." We have a council
[1:37:00] that's aligned to do phase one.
[1:37:01] >> I guess I'm worried about our um
[1:37:05] I'm worried about our general fund
[1:37:07] balance. Um
[1:37:09] >> this is all an enterprise fund. This has
[1:37:11] nothing to do with the general fund.
[1:37:12] >> Well, doesn't
[1:37:14] the bond is paid from is a
[1:37:16] >> to get these two to get these two
[1:37:18] projects done. We're going to have to
[1:37:20] start right away on the um RFPs and the
[1:37:23] design process, which isn't cheap. And
[1:37:25] we're going to have to front that
[1:37:27] because I don't think we'll be able to
[1:37:28] get the bond in time.
[1:37:29] >> The longest bond time period is what 90
[1:37:32] days.
[1:37:32] >> That's if you do it privately.
[1:37:35] >> That was the longest one.
[1:37:36] >> The private placement was approximately
[1:37:38] 60 days. Uh I forget the term. It's in
[1:37:42] >> and then the state one is six to nine
[1:37:44] months
[1:37:44] >> like 15 right there. Yeah.
[1:37:47] >> Uh 90 days
[1:37:48] >> 90 days per market.
[1:37:50] >> So
[1:37:50] >> but you can do an intercomp fund. Um you
[1:37:53] borrow from the fund, you borrow from
[1:37:55] yourself and then pay it back
[1:37:56] >> with the bond funds. So
[1:37:58] >> exactly.
[1:37:59] >> I'm just saying you can use our general
[1:38:01] fund for this and then pay it back over
[1:38:03] time or whatever.
[1:38:05] >> That was paid as soon as the bond is
[1:38:07] funded. [clears throat] So, I'll just
[1:38:08] say project number one on that that
[1:38:11] table one, we can probably do that PRV
[1:38:14] with the fund balance.
[1:38:18] >> So,
[1:38:18] >> and and how soon would that be?
[1:38:20] >> But but then reimburse the enterprise
[1:38:23] fund.
[1:38:24] >> Well, the fund balance from the
[1:38:25] enterprise.
[1:38:26] >> Oh, great. Oh, sorry.
[1:38:27] >> Yeah.
[1:38:27] >> All right. You guys okay if I have a
[1:38:29] moment and then uh Chrissy, I'm sure,
[1:38:31] would want a moment? She hasn't spoken
[1:38:33] much. Can I just finish asking Shane
[1:38:35] just like
[1:38:36] >> you know like how soon could each one of
[1:38:38] these be done and about approximately
[1:38:40] how long would they take?
[1:38:42] >> Sorry, is that okay for design and the
[1:38:45] project?
[1:38:46] >> So the boosters probably roughly a year
[1:38:49] each.
[1:38:51] The well, drilling the well, equipping
[1:38:54] it, doing everything probably two years.
[1:38:57] Um the tank
[1:39:01] uh probably a year.
[1:39:03] And you said the Grove Drive PRV that
[1:39:06] how long is that?
[1:39:08] >> There'd be some design on that and and
[1:39:11] we probably could build that.
[1:39:14] >> Okay.
[1:39:14] >> With fund balance.
[1:39:17] >> Uh
[1:39:18] >> Grove Drive
[1:39:19] >> just our from our PI just our PI general
[1:39:22] fund.
[1:39:22] >> And then what about the Healey booster?
[1:39:24] Did you say how that would be funded?
[1:39:27] >> We we'd have to borrow money to do that.
[1:39:30] So, just add it to the bond amount.
[1:39:35] » And um how long would it take to do the
[1:39:37] Grove Drive PRV to mid zone?
[1:39:40] >> Uh
[1:39:41] like design and everything, less than
[1:39:43] six months. Oh,
[1:39:44] >> okay. And then um how soon could any of
[1:39:48] these get started once we get funding?
[1:39:51] >> Um it depends on consulting schedules.
[1:39:54] So, it's really hard to say. you know,
[1:39:57] we put the RFP out and we put time
[1:39:59] parameters in there and then if they
[1:40:02] can't meet that, they probably just
[1:40:04] won't submit a proposal.
[1:40:05] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:40:07] >> Yeah.
[1:40:08] >> Sorry, Andrew.
[1:40:09] >> It's okay. Chrissy, do you want to go
[1:40:10] first or should I
[1:40:13] >> I had to step away, so you go ahead. I
[1:40:15] did have uh something at when at last.
[1:40:18] >> Okay. Thanks, Chrissy. This gives us
[1:40:20] enough time for us to have a turn. So,
[1:40:22] uh these are the questions and the
[1:40:24] thoughts I have. uh hopefully they can
[1:40:26] be helpful to the committee and the
[1:40:28] council and provide some additional
[1:40:31] ideas that might be able to help or if
[1:40:34] not here they are. So, so couple
[1:40:37] questions I have. Um, one is I need to
[1:40:40] know how much per resident this would
[1:40:42] raise. Whatever we decide on or a
[1:40:44] ballpark just figure if it's for the 9
[1:40:46] million. I need to know how much per
[1:40:47] resident so I can start.
[1:40:49] >> So, when they come back for the bond
[1:40:51] that presentation will have the numbers,
[1:40:53] >> right? But I I can't vote.
[1:40:55] >> We can't give you a number until you
[1:40:56] tell us what projects.
[1:40:58] >> Well, okay. So, let's
[1:40:58] >> totally dependent on scope.
[1:41:00] >> And we're not voting today.
[1:41:01] >> For now, let's assume I know. But I in
[1:41:03] order for me to make a decision, I need
[1:41:04] to be able to tell them. So let's just
[1:41:06] assume it's for the two $9 million bond.
[1:41:10] So I can give them a ballpark figure.
[1:41:12] This is what we're looking at. 30 80
[1:41:14] ballpark. I know it's going to range
[1:41:16] because people use but a ballpark. I
[1:41:18] just need something.
[1:41:19] >> Didn't we talk about that before? I
[1:41:21] think
[1:41:21] >> we did in counsel when we had this.
[1:41:23] >> No, that's the number I came up with by
[1:41:24] doing my math.
[1:41:25] >> No, we we provided a number. We just
[1:41:27] took the 9 million divided by
[1:41:29] >> and you you got around 20. that that's
[1:41:31] what I got around in our meeting, but
[1:41:33] that's just doing math. That's not
[1:41:34] probably right. It's just a ballpark.
[1:41:36] Well, it's not even a ballpark. It's a
[1:41:38] so something really close would be
[1:41:41] helpful. The next question is um the the
[1:41:44] debt I was on the understanding it does
[1:41:47] not all come from the enterprise fund
[1:41:48] that we are funding this from other
[1:41:50] sources. Am I wrong? Is this all coming
[1:41:53] from the enterprise fund? The PI
[1:41:54] enterprise fund.
[1:41:55] >> It should. That's what we'd recommend.
[1:41:56] Yeah.
[1:41:56] >> Yes.
[1:41:58] >> Okay. The only caveat I'd say to that
[1:42:00] and I mentioned it in the my responses
[1:42:02] in the PowerPoint. Uh we received money
[1:42:06] during CO and back then the council said
[1:42:09] what should we do with the money and we
[1:42:10] had some little things like the entrance
[1:42:12] to city hall and different things but we
[1:42:15] recommended drilling the well with it
[1:42:18] >> and it just kind of ended up
[1:42:21] >> right was something in the capital
[1:42:22] improvement fund.
[1:42:24] >> Yeah. So part of our roughly $8 million
[1:42:27] fund balance in there, there would be
[1:42:29] some of that money in there.
[1:42:31] >> Okay, that's so let me just go through
[1:42:32] the three things just so you know where
[1:42:33] I'm at and hopefully this helps. So the
[1:42:35] overall picture, there's just three
[1:42:37] things and ultimately I I don't think I
[1:42:39] can support a bond, but I'll get there.
[1:42:41] Uh the overall picture is this is 175
[1:42:44] million over 80 years, 2 million a year,
[1:42:46] a little bit over. We're looking at a $9
[1:42:48] million bond that will cost us 13.5
[1:42:51] million and then another $20 million
[1:42:52] bond to do this phase two that will cost
[1:42:54] us uh nearing 28 million. Uh this is all
[1:42:59] for a centralized system that we
[1:43:01] currently have expanding it which we are
[1:43:04] learning can be turned off if anyone
[1:43:06] violates it. We get a warning, we get
[1:43:09] meters when they break, we have to pay
[1:43:11] for them. Um the aquafer is going down
[1:43:15] and this results in ultimately our fees
[1:43:17] endlessly raising. I do know the
[1:43:20] residents want a solution. Um I think
[1:43:23] they're mad more about the texts than
[1:43:25] they are actually about the water, but
[1:43:26] that's just my opinion. Uh I feel like
[1:43:29] the money we have is going to other
[1:43:32] things. It's going to fire department
[1:43:34] fire uh building restructure. um it's
[1:43:37] going to a lot of uh raises that we've
[1:43:40] given in salaries. Um so anyways, that's
[1:43:43] where I'm looking at an overall picture
[1:43:44] of this 175 million over uh 80 years and
[1:43:50] the and the ones right in ahead of us
[1:43:52] that the water committee is doing. This
[1:43:54] is generational. Um I think it's too
[1:43:56] much. I I just I just don't think we can
[1:43:58] sustain it. Our our um residents are
[1:44:00] actually decreasing from our tax
[1:44:02] meeting. We found out we are not going
[1:44:04] up, we are going down. Horox thought by
[1:44:06] this point we would have a 30,000
[1:44:08] population. Oh yes, it's written. I've
[1:44:10] shown it to you. In 1991 in their in
[1:44:12] their study, they thought by 2025 we
[1:44:14] would have a 30,000 population.
[1:44:16] >> And that's possibly because there's a
[1:44:18] huge annexation potential out west.
[1:44:20] Right. Right. And it wasn't determined
[1:44:22] at that point.
[1:44:22] >> It's just based on what they knew. Okay.
[1:44:24] So we learned things. Right now what we
[1:44:25] know as of this month is our population
[1:44:27] is not increasing. It's decreasing for
[1:44:30] the first time. Um, so anyways, what I
[1:44:32] would be hope for and this is the work
[1:44:35] session options I can provide that I
[1:44:37] hope will be at least considered in part
[1:44:39] or full is a different funding
[1:44:42] mechanism. I am for uh fixing the water
[1:44:45] but with a different funding mechanism.
[1:44:47] I would be in favor of raising the uh
[1:44:51] enterprise fees and then knocking them
[1:44:53] off one by one. That allows us to pay 9
[1:44:56] million but not the extra almost four
[1:45:00] for debt. It will take a little bit
[1:45:01] longer. The residents might be a little
[1:45:03] bit disgruntled, but I think based on
[1:45:06] what I'm hearing, they would be okay
[1:45:07] knowing that they wouldn't have debt.
[1:45:09] >> So, Andrew, I just did an amorization.
[1:45:11] I'm giving you numbers for 20 year $9
[1:45:13] million at 4% is
[1:45:16] >> um based on 3,000 households, which I
[1:45:19] believe we're about at $18.17.
[1:45:23] For a 25-y year loan or 25-year bond,
[1:45:26] it'd be$1,584
[1:45:28] >> plus or minus. I arrived at the same
[1:45:30] numbers. And so I realize that's small.
[1:45:32] The problem is
[1:45:34] we're doing it with everything. It's so
[1:45:36] hold on, but let me finish. I realize
[1:45:37] that's small. They're not getting hit
[1:45:38] with an extra $15 bill. They're getting
[1:45:40] hit with the same thing from
[1:45:41] electricity, same thing from property
[1:45:43] taxes, same thing from insurance, same
[1:45:45] thing from every every other bill.
[1:45:46] They've got food, gas, and so it's
[1:45:48] actually more like five to $1,000 extra
[1:45:51] a month. So there's just one thing on
[1:45:52] top of it, but I know they need a fix.
[1:45:54] Anyways,
[1:45:55] >> I think if it's going up 5,000 extra
[1:45:57] that you I mean there's no way I'm
[1:45:59] saying the school district.
[1:46:00] >> I Yes, that too. That too. So, I'm just
[1:46:03] saying I'd be for it for a different
[1:46:04] funding mechanism. The other option is
[1:46:06] there's been a developer that would said
[1:46:08] he would partner and pay the fee for the
[1:46:11] well if we would be helpful for his
[1:46:13] development. Um I don't like making
[1:46:16] deals like that, but it would cut the
[1:46:17] cost on. So, I'd be more
[1:46:18] >> he's not has he said he'd pay 62.2 2
[1:46:21] million that was not
[1:46:22] >> they've offered to contribute
[1:46:24] >> not to contribute. So so I would I would
[1:46:26] be more open for something like that to
[1:46:28] save on the cost versus just a blanket
[1:46:31] um uh bond with Zans. Uh it's just me
[1:46:35] now. Take it or leave it. I'm I'm just
[1:46:36] trying to add a different This is all
[1:46:38] left field over here. This is where left
[1:46:40] field ideas come from. Okay.
[1:46:41] >> Okay. Let's
[1:46:42] >> I'm almost done the last two things. So,
[1:46:45] um, I I would be more in favor of
[1:46:48] different solutions than even what the
[1:46:50] experts have brought up. Okay? I know
[1:46:52] you're not supposed to go against
[1:46:54] experts, but sometimes experts are
[1:46:56] trained and modeled in a certain way
[1:46:57] where they miss other options. We see
[1:47:00] that in NASA. NASA always did something
[1:47:02] one way. All of a sudden, some
[1:47:03] non-experts got involved. Now, we do it
[1:47:05] a completely different way. We catch the
[1:47:07] rocket out of the air. Never been
[1:47:08] thought of. We'll never go back. Okay?
[1:47:11] So experts are often trained in a model
[1:47:13] and in a system that doesn't allow them
[1:47:15] to veer out. So we appreciate their
[1:47:17] feedback, but sometimes there's extra
[1:47:19] stuff that are not trained. So every
[1:47:22] expert I have talked to on the ground,
[1:47:24] employee and above has all said that the
[1:47:27] actual way to solve this is storage.
[1:47:30] Every single one of them have come back
[1:47:32] to it. If you actually want to solve
[1:47:34] this, it is long-term storage. Now what
[1:47:36] they mean is like reservoirs, which is
[1:47:38] impossible. I know that. But it is not
[1:47:41] impossible. I've been looking at it at
[1:47:43] disseminated storage. And this is why a
[1:47:44] lot of other industries are going
[1:47:46] they're going towards disseminated
[1:47:48] power, smaller nuclear or batteries on
[1:47:50] homes. I feel like we can do it for
[1:47:52] cheaper. Well, so I'm I am for
[1:47:54] disseminated storage. It would do
[1:47:56] everything that these options want. It
[1:47:59] is way cheaper. It more than doubles all
[1:48:02] the reservoir storage we have. So right
[1:48:04] now we have, if the water committee can
[1:48:06] verify, we have about 7 million uh
[1:48:09] gallons of water storage. If we do
[1:48:11] disseminated water storage, and if you
[1:48:13] don't know what that means, that's tanks
[1:48:14] of people's houses. If we do
[1:48:16] disseminated storage, which can be done
[1:48:18] immediate, not a year, not two years, we
[1:48:21] can have more than double our long-term
[1:48:23] water storage capacity. And we don't
[1:48:25] just pull it from the aquafer, we pull
[1:48:26] it from snow, we pull it from rain, they
[1:48:28] can fill it up with their hose, anything
[1:48:30] like that. So anyways, they're $2,500 a
[1:48:32] piece. If you buy a lot of them, they're
[1:48:34] down to 2,000. So I would hope that the
[1:48:36] council might be in favor of adding
[1:48:38] maybe 70 to these. If you're if you're
[1:48:40] not fully against them, maybe adding 70
[1:48:43] of them to disperse them to see if they
[1:48:45] can work. They help with fires. They're
[1:48:47] actually mandated in in California
[1:48:49] because of fires. Um they would be
[1:48:52] immediate. Um those who need more water
[1:48:55] can add as many as they want or they can
[1:48:57] have them. Those who don't need more
[1:48:58] water don't have to get them. So that's
[1:49:01] disseminated storage. I think it is
[1:49:02] actually the way of the future versus a
[1:49:04] centralized system which can be shut
[1:49:06] off, breaks, and we're seeing this in
[1:49:08] the electrical grid. I think we're going
[1:49:10] to see it on the water grid as well over
[1:49:11] time. I'll just get the last one. Um I
[1:49:14] don't see a path forward on this unless
[1:49:16] we can fix the actual resident problem
[1:49:18] that's being brought up even in a wet
[1:49:20] year, which is the Alpine Elementary
[1:49:22] area. Even in a wet year, they have a
[1:49:24] problem. Even in a big snowpack year,
[1:49:27] they have a problem. We're not actually
[1:49:30] addressing their problem as well as I
[1:49:32] think we could. If this came pushed down
[1:49:34] to shove, I would love to add that in
[1:49:36] there because that's the actual only
[1:49:38] well not the only that's an actual real
[1:49:40] problem we have right now where they
[1:49:42] don't have pressure when it's wet, when
[1:49:44] it's dry during any time period. So So
[1:49:47] uh I think we should do that fix. Um we
[1:49:49] could do that without doing any of this.
[1:49:51] It's a cheap fix. It's actually the one
[1:49:53] that with or without text residents have
[1:49:55] beenounding me andounding the city to
[1:49:58] fix the pressure which is uh very low or
[1:50:00] non-existent on the north side of Alpine
[1:50:03] Elementary. Um
[1:50:05] so uh that's that's that's the ones I
[1:50:08] had. I can't support everything I know
[1:50:12] from looking at this funding. I cannot
[1:50:14] push a 25. I I've tried. I mean these
[1:50:16] are my neighbors. These I love these
[1:50:18] people. I I grew up with
[1:50:19] >> Okay, let's go. I'm I'm saying I I can't
[1:50:21] support the 9 million bond at 13.5.
[1:50:24] >> Chrissy, did you have something you
[1:50:25] wanted to say?
[1:50:29] » I'll just be brief.
[1:50:31] >> I just um I just want to say that we as
[1:50:34] far as debt is concerned. I we've spoken
[1:50:35] about this before before. I just want to
[1:50:38] say that it does match the cost matches
[1:50:40] the b the people who benefit from the
[1:50:42] project and that's a bonus for that. Um
[1:50:47] the other thing is whether we borrow
[1:50:50] nine or 10. It is possible for Zans to
[1:50:53] tell us for every million dollars you
[1:50:55] would see this amount of money um per
[1:50:59] resident and that may help us decide
[1:51:02] whether to do just the first phase or
[1:51:04] all of it. I think that's you know it's
[1:51:06] just a matter of changing numbers in a
[1:51:08] formula for them. And so they could give
[1:51:11] us option one is the nine and then if we
[1:51:13] want to do everything option two. I
[1:51:15] think that might be helpful based on
[1:51:17] what I was hearing although I didn't
[1:51:18] hear everything. Finally, I do um
[1:51:21] appreciate the in-depth discussion about
[1:51:24] where our issues are and what they are.
[1:51:28] And I think um where Jessica started out
[1:51:30] saying, okay, how many people would
[1:51:32] benefit from this project? It's it's
[1:51:34] hard maybe it's hard to identify but I
[1:51:36] do feel like we're obligated to bring
[1:51:39] equity to every resident because
[1:51:41] everybody's paying into the system at
[1:51:43] you know our same rates. So where I live
[1:51:46] at the you know the bottom of the lower
[1:51:48] elevation in the city we don't have any
[1:51:50] pressure issues. So to to to be asked to
[1:51:54] fund projects that bring other people to
[1:51:57] the same level of service that I receive
[1:51:59] to me is totally fair because um they
[1:52:03] have pressure issues and they we need to
[1:52:05] build redundancy or maybe we need to add
[1:52:07] new sources. All of that to me is part
[1:52:10] of our responsibility is that every
[1:52:12] resident has an equitable level of
[1:52:15] service and that's what I feel like
[1:52:17] these projects are meeting. And as far
[1:52:19] as the funding, I've already addressed
[1:52:21] that. So I would be open to um you know
[1:52:24] grants or bonds or whatever it needs to
[1:52:27] happen but I do believe in the overall
[1:52:30] purpose is to provide equity to all
[1:52:33] residents and that um including those
[1:52:36] that are going to move in to our town
[1:52:40] and we've already approved lots. So we
[1:52:42] need to provide the infrastructure that
[1:52:44] they get the same level of service as
[1:52:46] those of us that have lived here longer.
[1:52:49] And so that's the that's the big
[1:52:51] picture. Just wanted to say that I
[1:52:53] appreciate all the time and effort. Um
[1:52:56] like answering questions, the reports,
[1:52:58] everything just for me builds
[1:52:59] confidence. I am a numbers person. I do
[1:53:02] go through all the details and it just I
[1:53:04] appreciate all that and that's all I
[1:53:06] have to say.
[1:53:06] >> Siri, did you have last comments?
[1:53:08] >> No. Okay, Jessica, go ahead.
[1:53:11] >> I'll just reiterate that I don't want it
[1:53:13] to be in lie of addressing culinary
[1:53:16] needs that the professionals have said.
[1:53:18] We have $14 million of deficiencies. And
[1:53:21] so we need to recognize that if we're
[1:53:23] going to follow the experts guidelines
[1:53:26] with our PI, we definitely need to
[1:53:28] adhere to their guidance with our
[1:53:30] culinary. Um I also think that
[1:53:34] we shouldn't peacemeal phase one. phase
[1:53:36] one has come to us as a whole solution
[1:53:40] and that if we're going to move forward,
[1:53:43] let's move forward confidently and
[1:53:46] provide equity across
[1:53:49] the whole city instead of one little
[1:53:52] fixing one area and not fixing all
[1:53:54] areas.
[1:53:55] >> Right. just that I like the idea that
[1:53:58] Sarah and Jessica and Chrissy I think
[1:54:01] talked about I think Chrissy of doing
[1:54:04] one, two, three, and five and holding
[1:54:05] off on four until we can see if we're
[1:54:08] going to get that that grant unless
[1:54:10] there's a possibility of getting grants
[1:54:12] for the other projects. If if we think
[1:54:14] that's a strong possibility, I would be
[1:54:16] in favor of delaying just I I too am
[1:54:19] very averse to borrowing in my personal
[1:54:21] life. I do understand the need for it
[1:54:23] sometimes in the government sector to
[1:54:25] try and I know you're I understand the
[1:54:27] concern about a 15 to20 a month increase
[1:54:30] in your PI rate to pay for this 9
[1:54:34] million now potentially $10 million
[1:54:36] bond. But to be able to raise that money
[1:54:39] to do these projects and in a recent
[1:54:41] amount of time that rate increase would
[1:54:43] have to be significantly more. and by
[1:54:46] the time we raise enough money for one
[1:54:47] project, the cost is going to be
[1:54:50] probably 50 to 100% more. So, I just
[1:54:53] don't see that as an option. If we're
[1:54:55] going to do it, I think this is the the
[1:54:58] prime example of when we would bond to
[1:55:00] not only be able to do it now at a lower
[1:55:03] cost and to spread that cost out over
[1:55:04] years. Granted, there is an interest
[1:55:06] component, but that same interest
[1:55:09] component applies when you're delaying
[1:55:11] the project. The same cost increases
[1:55:12] >> for sure. the rate of inflation. And
[1:55:14] then also the thing that I do like about
[1:55:16] bonding is people that are using it are
[1:55:18] actually paying for it.
[1:55:20] >> So you don't have people 10 years before
[1:55:21] and then they move and are paying into
[1:55:23] it, paying into it, and they'll never
[1:55:25] see the fruition of it.
[1:55:26] >> Exactly.
[1:55:26] >> I mean, there's always that piece of the
[1:55:28] equity puzzle.
[1:55:29] >> So that's my last comments.
[1:55:30] >> Can I just ask one follow-up question?
[1:55:32] Are we planning on having a work session
[1:55:35] on culinary water anytime soon? Okay.
[1:55:40] >> Yes.
[1:55:44] same thing. If you can send me your
[1:55:46] questions, email me your questions on
[1:55:48] culinary and where your concerns are,
[1:55:51] >> that would be.
[1:55:51] >> And I will one last thing is I I I will
[1:55:54] reiterate that I
[1:55:56] since this is an enterprise product, it
[1:55:59] should be funded through enterprise
[1:56:00] funds as recommended by staff.
[1:56:02] >> Yeah. I'll entertain a motion to
[1:56:04] adjurnn.
[1:56:06] >> I'll move to adjurnn.
[1:56:07] >> A second.
[1:56:09] >> All in favor? I
[1:56:11] >> I
[1:56:12] >> there's there's a meeting gathering in
[1:56:14] the conference chambers.