[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.

7.9.26 City Council Work Session

Transcript