[0:00] That's was our whole issue. >> Uh just a little refresher, I believe it

[0:04] was the meeting before July, which would would have been

[0:09] » that we all agreed and I think we voted on it that it would be a reoccurring

[0:12] item. >> I recall that we did the same thing

[0:15] » and it wasn't in October [clears throat] and I think the minutes reflect that the

[0:18] city agreed to do it and now it isn't in January again. I I talked Larry I talked

[0:24] Larry you had you and I talked about this a little bit but uh what was we

[0:29] there was an explanation why was it left off the agenda?

[0:36] » Well so I guess my understanding is the city's waiting for more information to

[0:43] give to us. So and a quick thing we can't really discuss this but I think we

[0:46] can we can I think we can do this on the agenda but quickly what we want to do on

[0:51] the proposed agenda. So the last agenda item is explain we need to start

[0:55] thinking about what we need to discuss as a committee and make sure that we all

[1:01] agree that these are items we need to put on the agenda so we can discuss. We

[1:06] don't need to take up the city's time with them to research things to put to

[1:10] panned out. We just need to be able to talk about them. So, if there's nothing

[1:14] the city has new, we still need to be able to discuss it. Um, but having So, I

[1:20] guess as far as this agenda item go, having more in the minutes, if we've

[1:25] asked for it several times, we would like to see that. I I agree with that.

[1:29] So, I think the proposed agenda item, we can probably talk about this a little

[1:33] bit more, >> right? I think we'll put it on for item

[1:36] six to put it on the agenda. >> Propose we do that. right now. I think

[1:42] what might what has been brought up [clears throat] is the fact that we

[1:46] thought that we were supposed to get some sort of report in our hands

[1:50] [snorts] and that hasn't been done and it I I recall the same thing that we

[1:55] [clears throat] should have gotten at least a report if it was available. So

[1:58] is I guess the question at hand is should the should the meeting notes I

[2:04] think the meeting notes need to be re relooked at and up draw up to date to

[2:08] make sure that they're correct. And then [clears throat] if there is a

[2:12] report available, we need to get a recopy of that report to read

[2:19] » you feel like. >> So we can discuss that further in item

[2:22] six, but for item one um we just need to focus on approving the previous uh

[2:27] meeting's minutes. >> Well, can we take a vote to that?

[2:30] » I that's the issue is the minutes are incorrect.

[2:34] » Um one of the issue with the minutes. >> All right. I'm gonna ask for approval of

[2:38] the minutes and if we approve them, they'll be done with them. If not, they

[2:43] don't get approved, then we'll have to >> I don't know what the process is.

[2:47] [clears throat] >> If we don't approve them, if we don't

[2:49] approve them, they'll have to be for for reasons, right? We'll have to come up

[2:53] with the reasons why. And Mike and we've already he's reiterated already what why

[2:58] we're not going to approve them if that's the case. And then we just need

[3:02] to have them re revamped, I suppose, right?

[3:07] Well, I think um one of the things [clears throat] that we need to look at

[3:11] is is they're not I think the I'm not sure the minutes are wrong as they're

[3:15] just incomplete. And in the past, we weren't I don't believe we were able to

[3:20] modify incomplete. You had to you had to say this was incorrect or I needed to

[3:25] make sure to clarify. So, it's Randy talking, right?

[3:30] » Yeah. Uh yeah. >> Okay. Okay. So, Randy, I think the issue

[3:34] is is is I I can agree with you in that we we did discuss certain things and

[3:39] certain things were not in the minutes as clear as they should be, but since

[3:43] it's even harder on the minute on the video to try to go through is probably

[3:48] unless you have something that you can state to say we would want this changed

[3:53] to that's what I believe we've done in the past.

[3:55] » I have a compromise >> probably just as easy to to approve it.

[3:59] Now, if you've got a comment and you say you want to go to section such and such

[4:02] and you want to add that, that's probably the best way and we can say we

[4:06] can approve the minutes based on these changes because if we ask them to go

[4:11] back and modify it, it's going, you know, there's really you're you're going

[4:15] to have to try to meet with the city to to try to figure out how to do it. Um,

[4:19] and to my knowledge, that hasn't been an easy task. So I think the easiest thing

[4:23] to do would be to say add your comments to the agenda and ask it to be approved

[4:29] with those comments. That's right reason I interrupted the approval process.

[4:33] » Well, I have a compromise if I could. Um

[4:39] I I'm willing to accept the meeting minutes. Um, but I would I I know last

[4:45] time you guys allowed us to speak a little bit about the effluent study on

[4:51] another agenda item. And if we could do that and if we could also

[4:57] uh have a vote on apply on making it a reoccurring item on the agenda so we can

[5:05] be kept informed. Do that today. >> I think I'd do that on six.

[5:09] » Yeah, [clears throat and cough] if we could do that then I'd be satisfied. We

[5:12] don't have to change the minutes. >> Well, to me it looks like it was we did

[5:16] that last time, >> right?

[5:17] » Oh, it was done >> the way the way it reads even

[5:20] » it was already been done, but the city doesn't recognize it for some

[5:22] [clears throat] reason. >> Yeah.

[5:24] » Well, let's let's Okay, we need to then I think what we need is a motion.

[5:30] » We can bring this up as agenda item on six

[5:33] » as long as we can talk about it. >> And [clears throat] we won't be able to

[5:36] talk about it today because it's not on the agenda.

[5:38] » Well, we did it last meeting. Well, they allowed it under I think I think that we

[5:42] have kind of circumvented the rules a little over there.

[5:44] » Well, I think we allowed it to on your report. It was part of the uh

[5:48] » I think we can get to it in the water report.

[5:50] » Yeah. I mean, I think we could talk about it. I mean, we did last time and

[5:53] you guys allowed it. Director St. If we can do it, we should be able to do it

[5:57] underneath the water. >> Sure.

[5:59] » The water report item number

[6:02] » under item number three. Correct. >> All right. Let's do that. I'm good. I'm

[6:06] for that, guys. Ready? >> Okay. Well, let's have a motion then to

[6:11] approve the meetings for [clears throat] October 1st, 2025.

[6:15] » I'll second. >> All right.

[6:18] All those in favor? I >> I

[6:20] » I >> opposed.

[6:22] » I >> opposed.

[6:25] All right. Passes with all all committee members saying I.

[6:29] » All right. Let's move on to uh item number two,

[6:34] [clears throat] possible action for the utilities 5-year capital improvements

[6:37] plan.

[6:42] Hello, Angela Maninan, budget manager. In the packet was the 5-year capital

[6:48] improvement plan for utilities. It hasn't changed since the last time we

[6:52] met. Um, we're going to a rate study which will address cash flow and see how

[6:57] much funding is available. So really until we start

[7:01] knowing what the rates are going to be and how much cash we'll have, we really

[7:04] have no new information on the 5-year CIP. But happy to answer any questions.

[7:09] » Um I have a question about [clears throat] under uh under the

[7:13] budget here underwater. We have the vector truck replacement underwater. Is

[7:18] that the correct spot for that? [clears throat]

[7:22] » Yes, we have two two vector trucks. One falls underwater. One falls underwater.

[7:26] That's what that's kind of what I looking through all the different budget

[7:30] items. That's what I was wondering, but I just want to make sure.

[7:33] » So, you just have them assigned to each department.

[7:35] » That is Yeah, even though it is one. >> I understand. I follow.

[7:39] » Yep. >> Okay, I'm good with that. Um,

[7:44] I also wanted a little bit of a clarification on the on [clears throat]

[7:49] the uh list station upgrades proposed for

[7:54] uh 2030 and 2031. We each got basically a half 500 $5

[8:01] million I guess on each one of those divided up into the two years. Uh,

[8:08] and is that those are just estimate? I'm sure those are just estimates. Best

[8:13] estimate you can come up with. But, uh, is there any way that we could upgrade

[8:19] one before the other? Are there any priorities that going to make that move

[8:22] up? [clears throat]

[8:26] » Yes, correct. We're working on lift station 4 right now.

[8:29] » Okay. >> And then we'll get to the other two. And

[8:31] one of the things that I'm diving into and looking at is a separation of we

[8:37] need to do our study our procurement study year onement year two year three

[8:43] construct right or redesign. >> Okay. That

[8:46] » and so there will be I got to I'm diving into and looking at that.

[8:49] » Yeah. Because so then that could be a change. You'd move the study part of

[8:53] that to probably 2029 >> a little earlier. Yep.

[8:56] » Yeah. And then [clears throat] I guess the other question I had is about

[9:00] funding of those both at the same time. Is that I mean is they're both failing

[9:04] at the same time. I mean is that you're going to combine that into one project

[9:08] or how's that going to how do you think that eventually will work?

[9:11] » And that that is where part of [clears throat] where I'm looking at and

[9:16] it's one of the things we we try to separate it where we're not doing big

[9:20] projects like that. >> Right. So hopefully we can do a study

[9:25] procurement year and then while we're doing the second year on lift station

[9:30] three then we can start doing a procurement for the next one.

[9:33] » Refresh my memory. Where's lift station 3 compared to one? Is it they in are

[9:38] they working together like one pumps of three?

[9:40] » Yeah. So you got all the way Pacifica's four.

[9:43] » Um you got one over by one's down the hill

[9:47] » Nevada Way and and Boulder City Parkway, >> right? Uh, three is um, no, excuse me.

[9:53] Four was off of Woodacre by Keys. Threes at Pacifica.

[9:57] » At Pacifica. >> Yep.

[9:59] » Okay. So, three goes to one. >> It does. And then

[10:02] » So, three needs to be done looked at first and then one capacities

[10:07] » and one's newer than the other two. The other two [clears throat] been around

[10:09] for a while. >> All right. Well, I'll leave that up to

[10:12] that. I just be I I like the idea of looking at that. So, okay. I'm happy

[10:19] with those. Anybody else?

[10:24] » Any other comments? >> Yeah, I've got a comment. Um just so I

[10:30] think um we just need to make sure. So I I believe in the study we're looking at

[10:35] possibly up to 10 years of financials. And so I think with the financials we

[10:39] we'll see. I think what you were saying, Howard, also that what I'm hearing too

[10:43] is because we look at fiscal year 30 and fiscal year 31 and those are really

[10:48] heavily loaded and so we're going to have to go a year or two out especially

[10:52] in [clears throat] the study so we know how much can be pushed out. So that

[10:56] would be and then the other thing is is we might in the study make sure that we

[11:00] can if there's anything that's in planning or something can get shipped

[11:04] around so we can move substation 4. You know, that's where some of these things

[11:09] like we made a motion so sort of relating to the minute to also we made a

[11:14] motion to that what we felt would be a good idea for for substation 4 and

[11:19] nothing was said anything was said about that in this package. So it's going to

[11:24] be part of the rate project I assume but um and we'll talk more about how often

[11:29] we meet and do that in a minute but these are there's a lot of data that we

[11:33] have to go through. We just have to make sure we figure out how we get to it.

[11:41] » Okay. Any other comments?

[11:46] » All right. >> Thank [clears throat and cough] you.

[11:48] » All right. Thank you. All right. Let's move on to item three. Uh update from uh

[11:55] acting utilities director PO Dctor regarding water and power consumptions.

[12:00] This is for information only. >> [clears throat]

[12:07] » C >> could I make a comment real quick before

[12:09] you start? I I looked at my package. I didn't have anything on power. Did you

[12:13] mean to not put anything out? It was just on water

[12:16] » on the graphs or on >> Yeah,

[12:18] » Josh. I'm just There was a There was a link in the staff report. There's a

[12:22] link. >> Did I miss the link?

[12:23] » Yeah, the link The link was >> The link [clears throat]

[12:26] » Holly is able to pull it up if um if you want.

[12:28] » No, that's all right. I just thought I wanted to make sure it was me then.

[12:30] Yeah, it's right it's right down here on >> Okay, I missed that. Thank you.

[12:36] » All right. Uh Gary Poenixter, public works director, acting utilities

[12:40] director. Give you a quick u overview of the uh

[12:47] for the uh excuse me, the demand. So, we got the electric demand decreased uh

[12:51] 38.5% from 40.61 61 megawws in September 2025

[12:57] to 2498 megawatts in October 2025. November's peak demand further declined

[13:04] to 2405 megawatts represented 3.7 decrease in October. These reductions

[13:10] are typical as the cooler months temperatures occur during the winter

[13:13] months. Our water deliveries continue to decline throughout all fall months.

[13:17] September 25 decreased by 22.7 compared to September 24 followed by a

[13:23] 17.5 decrease in October 25 and 11 decrease

[13:28] in November 25. Uh water deliveries in 2025 were nearly 4% lower and than the

[13:34] prior year and these reductions are attributed to cooler weather and the

[13:38] city's ongoing conservation e efforts. Um now so part of number three is

[13:45] discussion item. I know you mentioned on the affluent side. Um, and

[13:51] we could it is for this is more offormational on item three, but we want

[13:57] to give a quick where we're at. >> Yes. So, for the item, uh, you want to

[14:02] discuss, uh, Randy? >> Yes.

[14:04] » Um, we plan on, uh, meeting with you guys individually to educate you on this

[14:09] whole process and the history of it. Um, but as far as any updates, there aren't

[14:13] any. We were like, like we told you last time, we received the report from uh

[14:17] SNWA. We um sent our feedback back to them and we are just awaiting to see

[14:23] what's next. Uh I I followed up with um SNWA uh recently in December to get any

[14:30] updates and I haven't heard anything back. So, we're just waiting to see

[14:34] what's next in this process. >> When did you send the re the your your

[14:37] comments out? Do you know how long ago? >> Uh it was in December. um probably the

[14:42] last week of December >> because I think uh director St said they

[14:46] had already been sent out I thought in October.

[14:49] » Are you saying are you saying the comments for the

[14:51] » the comments for the cost estimates? >> Okay. I thought you was talking about

[14:54] when did I follow up? Uh we receive I think that was back in October we sent

[14:58] that. >> Yeah, I think it was he had said they

[15:00] had already sent back. So >> No, no, they weren't sent back. We

[15:03] didn't receive anything back from >> No, I mean you sent it to them.

[15:06] » Correct. >> I was just wondering the time frame of

[15:08] that. You sent it to them before October then?

[15:11] » I think it was around I I will have to get you the date. I I

[15:15] don't remember the exact date. >> I mean way before that [clears throat]

[15:17] or near October or >> Yeah, I I can get you the exact date we

[15:20] sent our comments back to SNWA. >> Is there any reason why we can't see the

[15:24] report or the comments? I mean, >> it's a technical report. It's just a

[15:28] technical report. >> Is that a decision you made or they

[15:31] made? Is that a decision >> that you guys made as far as city

[15:35] releasing the reporting report or is it a decision they made? They don't want us

[15:40] to see it until it until the comments go back and forth even though the report's

[15:44] complete is to my knowledge with all the data in there that we really don't know

[15:48] much about at all other than what was in the newspaper and what uh director

[15:53] Stubix told us but he wasn't real uh I mean he I mean it was hard for him to

[15:59] relay all that information because it's quite a bit of information.

[16:02] » Correct. Uh once we meet with you guys individually about this, we can discuss

[16:07] that further as far as sharing the report and everything. Okay? But we need

[16:11] to for now um we're not going to share it. But once we meet with you guys

[16:16] individually, we can talk about that further.

[16:17] » So it's something you don't want to share with the public. You just want to

[16:20] share with us. That's >> we want to make sure we have all the

[16:23] right information. Um and we're getting you the correct information back. Um but

[16:28] we will we're going to put a timeline together also. And uh when we do meet uh

[16:33] individually if to discuss it more there's been no direction of not sharing

[16:39] it it's more [clears throat] on the lines of making sure any information

[16:42] that is put out there is correct. >> Correct. So

[16:47] » so we'll we'll we'll be informed on everything and then we can disseminate

[16:52] if somebody asks we can disseminate some of that information now that you're

[16:56] assured that we got the correct information.

[16:58] » We want to make Yes. Correct. And we could do that before the next meeting is

[17:02] » that is that would be our goal. >> Great. Yeah, that would that would I

[17:06] would like that. >> I got to put a timeline together and and

[17:08] dive into this stuff and we'll go from there.

[17:12] » Any uh >> I I have a few more comments on that if

[17:16] I could. >> Okay.

[17:18] » Um again, I I might be wrong on some of this stuff, but uh I did a little

[17:22] research and uh if I'm wrong, please inform me. Um,

[17:29] just a short statement

[17:33] because this is a a project that's near and dear to my heart. Um, I've done a

[17:38] little research on the cost of the SNWA turf reduction program and water saved.

[17:44] And SNWA put out about $40 million in 2024 to save the equivalent of

[17:50] approximately 400 million gallons of water a year, the amount Boulder City

[17:55] dumps in the desert every year. I would like to know what the study says of ways

[17:59] to fix this problem. That is build a pipeline to Henderson for treatment or

[18:04] build a treatment plant in Boulder City, etc. Whatever that the other um reasons

[18:10] are. And the cost so a comparison can be done. The cost of saving water via turf

[18:15] reduction program is borne by all SNWA customers. Asking BC residents to bear

[18:21] the cost of any improvements to our treatment system and not spread the cost

[18:26] to all customers seems unreasonable since we are a small slow growth town

[18:31] that doesn't get growth income from increased users. And by correcting our

[18:36] problem, we would save the equivalent of water that SNWA customers spend $40

[18:41] million a year on the turf reduction program. If I recall correctly, SNWA

[18:47] offers offered to pay for and build a pipeline to ship this water to Henderson

[18:52] several years ago and our city council and mayor with some opposition rejected

[18:57] that offer because of concerns of the pipeline making water available to the

[19:02] Elorado Valley and therefore opening the door for housing in that area. I was

[19:07] surprised at the time that some kind of deal or agreement could have been made

[19:12] to prevent this pipeline from starting a housing boom in the unincorporated areas

[19:17] of the Elorado Valley. A person can draw their own conclusions why this subject

[19:22] is not something that the city or SNWA likes to talk about or move forward in a

[19:28] reasonably quick time frame. Yet, we continue daily to dump over a million

[19:33] gallons of water into the desert instead of coming up with a way in a reasonable

[19:37] time frame to treat and gain credits for this vital water resource.

[19:42] And again, that's kind of why this is project is u

[19:47] I've been following it for a long time and uh it's just taken forever. So, it's

[19:51] kind of uh to me kind of disturbing that we continue to do it. That's why I want

[19:56] to become informed and that's why a lot of people ask me about this and I don't

[20:00] have a lot of answers which I think I should have. So I appreciate

[20:04] » the fact that we're going to talk about this again in another month or two.

[20:10] » Any questions on the water power? >> Um I' [clears throat] I'd like to see

[20:16] can we have a a table similar table to your water to the water use to with the

[20:21] wastewater flow >> those a link just Yeah.

[20:24] » Yeah. a link would be fine. This shows the same set of graphs here because I

[20:29] think it's important that everybody understand the amount of differences

[20:34] between water use and waste water that's generated

[20:40] so that we can see so you guys understand the different how much water

[20:45] is used for irrigation purposes and how much is used for consumptive use. I I

[20:50] have a I did a little research on that, too. And I do have a couple things that

[20:53] I came up with. Um, uh, BC disposes [clears throat] in the

[20:59] desert about 1.2 million gallons a day or 4 acre feet a day. That is basically

[21:06] residential and commercial down the drain. And again, if I'm wrong on these

[21:10] figures, please let me know. Uh, landscape and evaporation are extra.

[21:16] That comes out to about 400 million gallons or 1,200 acre feet a year

[21:21] disposed in the desert. In July, 10% of our daily usage water goes down the

[21:27] drain. Of course, that's our high usage month, highest. In January, 33% of daily

[21:32] [music] usage water goes down the drain. So, that's probably our least amount of

[21:36] uh of uh water use outside of the drain. So, that that's a few things I

[21:43] » How much how much did you say was going on annually?

[21:46] Well, I I I only took July and January. So January I mean July it was only 10%

[21:52] of what we use goes down the drain and could be recycled. I mean I I've done

[21:56] the looks at that myself and if you look at the numbers where if you look at

[22:02] monthly flows I did it for like year 2023 but the numbers show that we use

[22:08] about roughly about 100 gallons per person per day which isn't which is what

[22:13] should be expected from wastewater wastewater generation anywhere from 80

[22:19] to 100 gallons per person per day. So those number that's that's what I'm want

[22:24] to show. That's why we need to look at how much do we generate and how much is

[22:28] used as irrigation purposes. So I want to make sure that we understand that

[22:32] part. >> Well, that that kind of shows in our

[22:34] peak month, >> right? Well, peak you peak months you're

[22:38] going to use a heck of a lot, >> a whole bunch of water,

[22:40] » right? And then can you trim that or whatever? That's going to be the

[22:44] discussions I think on what you can do to reduce those those peaks and from

[22:49] June through September. That's Those are the those are the real real high months.

[22:53] You would hope you could somehow keep that more like what April, May, and

[22:59] October, November would look like would be a goal. And that's that's going to

[23:04] have be a big mindset of change people's ideas. Clean green Boulder City is going

[23:09] to have to be modified, things like that. So that's a whole cultural issue

[23:14] that's going to have to be changed. Uh

[23:17] » well I think if you don't >> did interrupt for a minute with the with

[23:22] the process here. So I think this that this helps with this agenda item I think

[23:27] as we go through. So and we'll get to the rate and we'll get to the um to the

[23:32] agenda item and try to figure more things out. But there again this is just

[23:35] there's a lot of data that we have to understand and go through just to

[23:41] understand for future stuff but also for the this rate process so we can get the

[23:46] best understanding and work for the future and get the future aligned in the

[23:52] most efficient way we can. So we need to look at water um who's using what how

[23:59] much we're being charged for etc. We need to look at the energy more. Um, so

[24:04] Gary, I it's a question. Do we do we know how we're falling in with the in

[24:10] the budget for the power? Are we online or have we um how is the power cost this

[24:17] year? Do you have any idea or Josh that are we in sh good shape or or did we or

[24:22] are they up a little bit again? >> No, it's market prices. the as far as

[24:26] the power prices, those are predetermined by SSEA like um we we pay

[24:32] what's budgeted for the fiscal year and we pay we pay what was budgeted. As far

[24:36] as the budget versus actual on our usage um I can get those numbers but I don't

[24:42] have them presently because SSEA they lost a lot of personnel so their

[24:47] reporting has been delayed. >> Oh great that's something we definitely

[24:52] need for the rate process. we need to. So I guess what I'm back to make sure

[24:56] I'm saying is we got water, we got power and we have sewer and all those things

[25:01] or we have to understand and so one more thing we can't really discuss this issue

[25:05] but I'm just going to make a comment just like you did Randy in that one of

[25:09] the reasons that there was a problem with the we need to talk about this more

[25:13] that's why we have to have a agenda item. One of the problems with the

[25:16] Henderson one was most of us understood there was at least a million dollars at

[25:21] least a million dollars a year in the future that had to be paid to to

[25:25] Henderson to to uh um work with the water. Sorry for lack of a

[25:33] better word um for them to to to uh process the water. So those are one of

[25:38] the things but that's why it's important. So, and so in the agenda item

[25:42] and and numbers on numbers our last item again, we want to talk about we're going

[25:47] to have to have additional meetings because there's just so much data to go

[25:51] through that we you sort of need to think about maybe people need to go back

[25:55] and figure out, okay, how long is this going to take just to talk about these

[25:59] different items? You're talking about water, you're talking about power,

[26:02] you're talking about sewer. Each one of them has its own time frame and each one

[26:07] has a needs to be fully vented. Well, needs to be discussed in the rate

[26:12] process. >> I think you as you mentioned, let's get

[26:17] that properly agendaized and bring it up at a future

[26:22] uh meeting whether we schedule a special meeting once we have all the correct

[26:27] information. >> Yeah, we we need to look at we need to

[26:32] see the report. You know, I I think we're flying blind if we don't have to

[26:36] report. So, >> Right. Right. But I think what I'm

[26:40] saying here as far as this [clears throat] agenda item going, we're

[26:42] we're seeing a certain amount of data with water and power and but with this

[26:47] rate process, we need this is an opportunity to try to get a better

[26:51] understanding of what like Ry's trying to get out in the sewer, but we need

[26:55] that in power. We need that in water. We need to understand how things are

[27:00] shifting. So, um, the reason I'm using this agenda item is because we're

[27:05] talking about water and power. Now, we're going to have to put it probably

[27:08] in another agenda item in another meeting, but it's not going to be You

[27:13] can't have one meeting to discuss what everybody's talking about now.

[27:17] So, I'm sorry. We'll push that off till later. You're correct, Gary.

[27:20] » Well, we have to. So, all right. Any other comments?

[27:24] » Um, I have a few. Um

[27:29] » um we talked about last meeting about um this uh new peak power usage increase

[27:36] that Nevada Power put through. Um and we were supposed to discuss it at the last

[27:42] meeting. I talked about at the beginning and I just totally spaced it out. So I I

[27:47] don't know how much you know about it. uh

[27:50] » to see what Josh >> uh I I it would be nice if we got a kind

[27:53] of an overview from you guys just a quick overview on how how they do it and

[27:58] if it's something that we can do or is that something we could discuss on this

[28:02] agenda item? >> Uh we can discuss it on this agenda

[28:04] item, but I don't have enough information at this time to discuss it.

[28:08] I remember when we talked about it last time, we were supposed to talk about it

[28:12] again, but there just hasn't haven't been any updates with it at this time.

[28:16] So there there's not much to talk about and I'll have to dig into it a little

[28:20] bit more. >> Do you guys know much about it or

[28:22] » I personally don't know much about it as of now. I I know I know of it but I

[28:26] don't know it at a deep level. >> So maybe we can discuss it next meeting.

[28:30] » So what are we doing there for what? >> Can you can you repeat that again Randy?

[28:35] What what you're Nevada Power? It was in the newspaper and that's where I got my

[28:39] information that uh Nevada Power has a new program where they're going to

[28:43] charge uh a fee for peak usage. The higher your peak usage is, the more

[28:48] they're going to charge you. It's going to be a search charge of some sort. And

[28:51] a lot of people were against it. Um, and I just wondered I I understand why

[28:56] they're doing it because they cost them so much for peak usage and they want to

[29:00] try to reduce it uh and try to force their customers to be more cautious when

[29:05] they turn on their washing machine and their dishwasher at 12 in the afternoon

[29:10] in July. So, I understand it, but I didn't it didn't give a lot of detail.

[29:15] And of course, I I wonder if it would be a good thing for Boulder City as a

[29:19] utility to do the same thing. So, I just wanted a little more information on it.

[29:23] Uh uh if it's feasible for Boulder City and uh um what you guys thought about

[29:28] it. So, that was >> Yeah, like I said, we don't have much

[29:30] information on it right now because um we're our own utility. We don't do uh

[29:34] necessarily what uh Envy Energy does, but we are about to go through a rate

[29:38] study and throughout that process. Um we'll we'll be left with a lot of

[29:42] options and maybe that might be an option.

[29:43] » Yeah, that might be something we could talk about with the rate study. But I

[29:46] think it'd be nice to know what they're proposing so we can

[29:50] understand what we're up against. >> Again, it's just what I read and it said

[29:53] that they're if you use [clears throat] so many kilowatt hours over a certain

[29:57] amount, they're going to charge you a sir charge every month on your bill.

[30:00] » Some places have where if you go over the peak or you get a demand, it it

[30:05] applies to your entire bill for that month or that time frame,

[30:09] » right? >> Which is can be devastating to people.

[30:13] So, >> you know, so I agree. We need to

[30:15] understand that. >> Yeah, we talked about this a little bit.

[30:19] So I think we're still in the power brief. So we I can explain a little bit.

[30:23] So with this consultant as Josh said this is planned to discuss and I think

[30:28] one of the consultants or it was discussed but that demand might be done

[30:33] but it's also discussed and that's what this rate process will be high we need

[30:38] to work with is that we might want to say yes we need to do it in the future

[30:42] but it is a little bit of a shock do it right away. So we're going to do a rate

[30:47] for this year, we'll do this rate. Next year we'll do this rate. rate there

[30:51] after that we'll do this and we'll see what we can do or we can sort of say

[30:55] let's push for conservation. And I think that's what one thing we're trying to do

[30:59] is say okay here is try to get the information out. Let's conserve. If the

[31:04] conservation doesn't work and we're because what's happening with our power

[31:09] is is yeah during your heavy peak season we're still buying on the market during

[31:15] that time frame and that's killing us. So if we can if we can get off that

[31:20] market during that time or reduce that that will help a lot. The second thing

[31:24] is is if we can get conservation. So there are ways around this, but again

[31:29] I'm just going to keep emphasizing there's a [clears throat] lot of data

[31:33] that this committee needs to go through to understand what is the best way to do

[31:38] the rate. So cost you we're doing a cost of uh

[31:43] cost of service and then they're going to look at the rate design and then

[31:47] they're going to say here's what uh other municipalities here's what you can

[31:51] do as a at cost and what can we do to try to try to work things out but again

[31:57] I'm sorry to repeat it but it's a lot of data so we have to have time to be able

[32:02] to discuss it to say pros and cons. Yeah, I'll just make one more comment

[32:10] » if [clears throat] I could. >> Some of these items should be on number

[32:12] five, the rate study on we're still on three.

[32:15] » Oh, you want to go to the rate study for this?

[32:17] » Well, if what we were just talking about on

[32:20] » Yeah. Yeah. >> I don't know what your comment unless

[32:22] your comments are about >> uh

[32:24] » the current consumption we just went over.

[32:26] » We can just cover it under. >> No, this is Well, yeah, this I can I can

[32:30] » I can comment. It's just a quick comment. I can do it on the rate study.

[32:32] » We're doing it in the rate study. >> Okay.

[32:34] » Okay. >> All right. Any more items on

[32:37] » one more thing? >> Go ahead.

[32:38] » Uh about uh um the refuge disposal, I guess. Is is that appropriate on this

[32:46] agenda item? >> Um

[32:48] » if uh we can actually uh No, we need to agendaize that. But

[32:54] » okay, >> is it appropriate on any item or just on

[32:57] number on number six for an agenda item or

[33:02] » probably number six? >> Yeah, number six for utility for

[33:04] upcoming meetings. if it's something you want to put on there.

[33:07] » Uh if it has to do with the contract, no. If it has to do with uh

[33:12] » just in general, I'm just curious about what I read in the paper and what's

[33:15] really true about refugees disposal and about issues.

[33:21] » Uh save it for six. Okay, great. >> Okay, we'll close out item number three.

[33:27] Agenda item number three. Now we're on to agenda item number four. status up to

[33:32] date from utilities engineer Bill Grunig on progress and developments of ongoing

[33:36] capital improvement projects.

[33:41] » Um who's filling in? >> I'll fill in. Bill is um he's out sick

[33:45] today. So I will take that over one second.

[33:53] [clears throat] So, for our ongoing projects, we don't have

[33:58] um a ton of updates other than from from what we had last meeting. Um what I will

[34:04] say is in uh I have a couple key highlights for some of our projects. Uh

[34:08] starting with let me look at electric. So for E2301, the uh substation 3

[34:14] rebuild, um that project is ongoing and Burns and McDonald, one of our um one of

[34:21] the subcontractors that CRC uses, they um just finished about 30% design work

[34:28] on that. Uh E2505 or E2305, our meter upgrades, as you know, we have

[34:36] an ongoing AMI pilot for our electric meters. And this uh pilot project is

[34:41] going very well and we are thinking of adopting that adopting those meters and

[34:47] upgrading them citywide. So there might be a project for that in the future. It

[34:51] probably >> which number was that Josh?

[34:53] » E2303 meter upgrades. >> Oh 2303. Okay, that makes sense more to

[34:57] me. Okay. >> And for water uh W2301

[35:05] 20 Hold on. 231. Let me see. Yeah. So, AR ARVM backflow replacement. So, we

[35:11] replaced two ancient two 8 in over at uh MUN with that one.

[35:17] Um S2302 down to sewer.

[35:22] So, re rehabilitate uh sanitatory sewer mains. Uh Wilson Engineering, they're

[35:27] doing a lot of work for us on this. Um uh we just um paid a couple invoices for

[35:31] them doing some of that work. and um S2401

[35:37] uh lift station 4 improvements um mount mountain Pine is doing work uh is

[35:42] ongoing on that right now and uh those are like the key updates with these

[35:45] projects everything else um there's no significant updates of note on the rest

[35:50] of them right now at this time >> I do have I'll add on the water side uh

[35:55] we went out to uh bid for copper services so we went out to three

[36:00] different uh bids we have two different contractors

[36:04] that were awarded. Um, Asaw one, Acme, two of them. So, that would they'll be

[36:09] uh they're already beginning. And uh >> sorry, what was that for? I missed.

[36:14] » Upper service replacement. Sorry, that sounds better, doesn't it?

[36:16] » Where where the street where they replace it from the to the h from the

[36:20] house meter. >> Yeah, they'll put a new they'll the

[36:23] trench down, the pothole down, >> the ongoing one, right? get rid of the

[36:26] old curb stop or corp, put a new one in, run a new line, copper service to the to

[36:31] the meter, and then at that time we replace the meter if needed to an AMR.

[36:36] So

[36:41] » So Gary, was that um so we're getting you've got did you say two or three

[36:46] different contractors online for that? >> Three projects, two contractors.

[36:52] » Okay. And so is that going to um make sure that we get the a the ARP or the

[36:59] » AMR >> the extra money

[37:01] » the paid used.

[37:05] » Oh, >> is that helping with that? Make sure we

[37:08] get that money used. >> Yeah, the that's all ARPA that was all

[37:12] spent. This was >> the ARPA fund that quite a bit of

[37:16] meters. We finished those projects. >> These are three new projects not ARVA

[37:21] funded. Oh, okay. >> I see. I see. Okay. Thank you.

[37:29] » Okay. [clears throat and cough] Any other comments from the committee?

[37:35] All right. We'll move on from item four to item five.

[37:41] Agenda item number five is update of utility rate study and overview of next

[37:46] steps.

[37:51] Josh. >> All right. Josh is our man.

[38:00] » So, for the uh utilities rate study, um it just got approved at council uh last

[38:05] night at their meeting uh with our consultant that we selected, which we

[38:09] told you about uh pre at the previous meeting. So, the next steps um once we

[38:13] get the contract signed by um our staff and uh FCS, uh we're going to have a

[38:18] kickoff meeting. It'll be um at the end of this month on the 29th. And once we

[38:23] um once we have the kickoff meeting, uh Larry uh the appointed liaison for this

[38:30] committee, he will be involved in that as well. And once we have the meeting,

[38:33] we'll go from there and continue regularly provide you up updates. uh you

[38:37] guys will uh have meetings with the consultant as well as um is was in the

[38:43] scope of work to keep you guys informed and uh we've already started sending

[38:47] them uh data. So that's that's all we have for now as far as the rate study.

[38:52] Any questions?

[38:56] » One thing [clears throat] I noticed in the in their proposal I I suppose this

[39:00] is their proposal for the rate study. Uh I was confused by the it I'm assuming

[39:08] we're going to have a wastewater rate study as well.

[39:12] » Yeah, all utilities will be evaluated. I think the

[39:15] » it says it says that in other one spots and then it goes and says they're

[39:19] looking only at water rates. So I'm I'm assuming it's um

[39:22] » I'm assuming [clears throat] the water rate wastewater rates and water rates

[39:26] are mean are the same. But >> no, they're not the same. But

[39:29] » I know but I mean they're included in the same type. I I think the confusion

[39:32] is and we had uh some other people get confused on this as well. The cost of

[39:36] service isn't being done by all utilities. The only uh utilities getting

[39:40] a cost of service study, a full analysis is electric and water landfill and

[39:44] sewer. They're getting evaluated, yes, but they aren't receiving a cost of

[39:48] service study because it's simply not necessary.

[39:50] » Okay. Well, I think that's something we want to determine. But yeah. Okay. All

[39:55] right. I I guess that's how I was misreading it then is that I was looking

[40:00] for the wastewater study. Is that part of that? That makes probably clears up

[40:04] my cost my question and I'll read I'll read

[40:07] » Yeah, Howard >> if I can help Howard that. So basically

[40:11] what you've got you remember we're only paying the one one rate for the sewer,

[40:17] » right? >> And so basically you're you're going to

[40:20] determine how much we plan to do in the future and that's where the SNWA is

[40:25] going to be very important. And so right now, unless you change that um rate into

[40:31] something else, there's really no need for a cost of service because it's just

[40:34] like, okay, you're just going to break it in. You're just going to that's where

[40:37] you sort of do do a percentage of an increase. Whereas the water and the

[40:42] power, then there are several different rate aspects. If you look at the the

[40:47] resolutions, you'll see, you know, you've got different several different

[40:51] rate designs and rate structures. And so the cost of service then goes into all

[40:56] that whereas the landfill and the sewer doesn't need to. Does that make help

[41:01] anymore? >> I I understand what you're saying,

[41:03] Larry. That's a good but a good point. [clears throat] But I think I misread

[41:07] what I think Josh cleared it up for me what what I was looking at why I was

[41:12] what generated my question. So >> um

[41:15] » right. But what it I think we want to sort of go through the steps so in the

[41:19] rates so we can so we want to we need to do it somewhere in the middle minimally

[41:25] we don't want to get at the end or the draft report and say well do we

[41:28] understand this data properly or can they can we have some input so that's

[41:32] where we as a committee in maybe either discuss it a little bit here or at least

[41:37] in the next one is okay are do we agree when we might want to have another

[41:43] meeting so instead of just an agenda item. We need it we need probably one to

[41:48] two additional meetings minimum between now and uh July. So we got one

[41:54] in April and we need to see when they're available and what the data is available

[41:58] whether it's going to be a going to be May March or May that we have at least

[42:05] one more meeting and then we got to figure out how we can go over a lot of

[42:09] the data

[42:14] » when so data collection is s is scheduled for it looks like

[42:22] data review Project initiation data review. It looks like it's got like a

[42:27] two or 3 week window here, but that's kickoff financial plans, progress

[42:31] meetings.

[42:35] » Correct. And like I said, I've already um they already sent me their data

[42:38] request sheet like back in December, like middle of December, and I've

[42:42] already um collected a lot of the data that they requested and sent it over to

[42:46] them. uh still got a couple more things, but by the time the kickoff happens,

[42:51] they should have everything. And if not, uh they'll we'll discuss it during the

[42:55] kickoff and see what what else they need.

[42:57] » Yeah. I mean, there's no schedule on this on their on page six of their um of

[43:02] the schedule here. It doesn't even It shows that we have eight meetings two

[43:06] per utility, but it doesn't have any SK any estimated times because I'm sure

[43:11] they're going to have to that's this looks like it's about a two

[43:16] and a half month program as far as kickoff progress review getting all the

[43:23] data together. The cost of service analysis starts in

[43:28] the middle of the third month or the second month.

[43:32] Oh, I I guess meeting I guess what I'm getting back to is want to get back to

[43:36] what Larry's suggesting is when we need to set up these meetings. What's going

[43:40] to trigger our our request for a meeting so we can put something together.

[43:46] » We plan to keep you updated in between meetings and if needed we can at that

[43:51] time we can schedule a special meeting. >> All right. Larry Larry's going to be a

[43:54] part of the this discussion. Correct. I mean yes.

[43:57] » He's going to he's going to be active in this. So, we're I guess we're going to

[44:01] have to rely on you, Larry, to when we're going to have to have a meeting.

[44:05] Kind of appears to me. >> Yeah. I guess I don't know if we talk

[44:08] about here the next next agenda item, but I guess what we'd have to assume.

[44:12] So, okay, maybe Yeah, we I'll ask of the next agenda item is how we how we get

[44:16] that special meeting if it's not on one of our meetings. Um because we'd have to

[44:21] email or call the city would have to contact everybody to say, "Okay, is it

[44:25] willing?" So, if we have a meeting before

[44:28] um April and we don't make the meeting in this meeting, then we'll have to

[44:32] figure out how that works. Um because the biggest thing is is is that I'll be

[44:37] involved. But like I said, with all this data, we want to be able to discuss it

[44:41] and make sure that all the committee members understand the data and

[44:45] understand the pros and cons and how we might want to push for them to look at

[44:50] the the the rate data or what, you know, how we would advise, put it that way,

[44:55] because that's what our job is. How do we how do we best advise,

[44:59] » right, >> which direction we think it would be a

[45:01] good idea. Well, still I think it comes down to if

[45:06] you're going to be directly involved some to a I think that's going to maybe

[45:11] be one of our you're not you know when we're when we're going to have to

[45:14] trigger a meeting and I would say we're have to anticipate something in March.

[45:19] It sounds like to me if we if they can get through their data and get what they

[45:23] need because February looks like they're going to have that's probably going to

[45:27] be analyze time. So I would suspect in March it' be our

[45:31] next opportunity to tentatively think about a meeting.

[45:38] » Right. So let's put >> according to their schedule.

[45:41] » Right. Right. Let's put let's look at the next agenda item and say the agenda

[45:45] and meetings. I think that has for both areas. Is that do is that correct?

[45:54] » What's that? >> Yeah, that's correct.

[45:56] So Josh, would you agree that the agenda where we want possible agendas, we can

[46:00] discuss the meeting at that agenda item a little more too?

[46:04] » Yes. Correct. >> Okay. So we can discuss it among the

[46:07] committee members. This one is more or less okay. What do we think with the

[46:10] rate process which is we're talking about the meeting? So we all I think you

[46:15] and I agree. What do the rest of the committee think? Um how much discussion

[46:19] do they think they're going to want to have on the rates? I think what I think

[46:24] that's this agenda item we can sort of just say that

[46:27] » yeah this agenda item is uh just for information only. So um shouldn't be too

[46:31] much discussion here. Um I I gave you the information uh the updates and the

[46:36] next steps and if you guys have any questions on that process and the next

[46:40] steps I'll be happy to answer them.

[46:45] » Okay. And I guess that's that's the key issue we have to still after all these

[46:48] years I'm still trying to make sure because I thought so because when it

[46:53] says for possible action that's most of the time we're going to vote if we're

[46:57] just saying we want we this is how we feel. We're not asking

[47:02] for people's vote. We're just saying do they think that's a good idea. So isn't

[47:09] that still part of information or does that have to be under an action item?

[47:15] Um, I think the things that you guys have kind of veered off to should go in

[47:19] the next agenda item. Uh, but like I said, uh, for this item, uh, we've

[47:23] reviewed the race study process and the next steps. So, any questions on that,

[47:28] I'll be happy to answer. >> Otherwise, um, I think we can have a lot

[47:32] more discussion on the next agenda in the next item.

[47:36] » Okay. I'm just trying to make sure. Thank you. I'm done then.

[47:40] » Uh, just curious. I I'd have to look at the schedule, but the next we're going

[47:45] to have the meeting probably when the first meeting to

[47:47] » uh I believe April is the next official UAC meeting

[47:50] » for our meeting. >> No, no, for for the city to meet with

[47:53] the consultant. There's the first stage. >> It's the 29th and 29th.

[47:57] » 29th of January. >> Yeah, that that's that's the kickoff

[48:00] meeting. >> Okay. And the second the second meeting

[48:03] is what now? >> Uh we haven't discussed that yet. I'm

[48:06] pretty sure we'll get the schedule and everything during the kickoff of when

[48:09] we'll meet with the consultant next. I just wondered how far along in the

[48:12] process we're going to be before our next meeting, our our quarterly meeting.

[48:16] » That's what I was looking at here. This agenda.

[48:19] » Yeah, I know it's on the agenda, >> right? So, if you

[48:22] » I don't have it in front of me >> how attended that is. So, we just

[48:24] » So, when does this when does the second phase [clears throat] start?

[48:27] » Second phase phase two starts. Phase two starts in mid January. Okay. So, we're

[48:33] here. >> So, we're into it go for three months.

[48:35] » That's what I'm going to say. people by the time they award the contract quick

[48:38] how quickly they award the contract they're already requesting data. It's

[48:42] going to have to shift somehow in there. >> So I know we have a lot of feedback for

[48:46] things that would be included in the rate study and since

[48:51] it seems like we're 3 months down the road and they're going to be well into

[48:55] it by the time we give some input into what we think they should some of the

[49:00] things they should look at in the rate study, right? like you know this peak

[49:03] thing we talked about where if we could have a way to encourage people to to not

[49:09] use their washers and dryers in at 12 in January I mean in July things like that

[49:15] that's something that would be included in the their study.

[49:19] » Yeah. So with with the kickoff meeting on the 29th, we'll have a better idea of

[49:23] a timeline and the added meetings and I think it was mentioned earlier at least

[49:28] minimum of two extra meetings in between [clears throat] to give plenty of time

[49:32] to review the data, review where we're going and meet back up uh during a

[49:38] special meeting. >> Yeah. So we'll have some input before it

[49:41] gets too far along. >> Yeah. And individually we can uh we can

[49:47] meet with you. we can uh also have a a brief a briefing individually brief

[49:52] individual briefing, excuse me. Um and definitely keep you up to date in

[49:56] between. That is the plan. So great. >> So everything really based is going to

[50:00] be based on getting that January 29th meeting scheduled.

[50:03] » Yeah. >> And what the schedule they'll come up

[50:05] with after that and that'll give us some definition of possible times for our

[50:10] meetings. >> I think that is I believe that is the

[50:13] way to go is get that off. Larry is going to have to be the one I think to

[50:17] » trigger that for us for at least getting us involved. So

[50:21] » yeah. >> All right.

[50:22] » We do not plan >> I think I mean but anybody else thoughts

[50:24] or concerns? >> Sounds reasonable to me.

[50:27] » Okay. Cool. All right. >> Larry, anything from you

[50:35] » on this agenda item? I'm good. Thank you.

[50:37] » All right. Anyone else? >> And I'm corrected assuming we're not

[50:40] going to talk about uh uh in this rate study. They're not going to talk about

[50:45] the refugees uh the refuge or the dump I guess you'd say as a rate study.

[50:52] » Landfill. >> The landfill. I was trying to think of

[50:54] the right term. >> Landfill is included.

[50:56] » Uh that's those rates going to be discussed also. They are, aren't they?

[51:00] » Yes. >> The uh it the landfill itself we

[51:02] overlooked, not the contract the contractor that we have. That's a that's

[51:07] » so they'll look at the rates. the rates >> the rates will be studied and ways of of

[51:13] I guess uh fixing a system that might be a little

[51:17] broken or something like that. They're going to talk about ways of of of of

[51:22] getting more income [clears throat] or getting a reasonable amount of income.

[51:26] That that'll all be talked about in the >> utilities were included in the in the

[51:29] study or are included in the study scheme.

[51:35] » All right. Any more question? Any more discussion on item number five?

[51:41] All right, we'll close that out. And now we'll go to item number agenda item

[51:46] number six for possible action discussion. Discuss potential agenda

[51:50] items relative to revenue requirements of the utility for upcoming meetings.

[51:55] [clears throat] [snorts]

[51:57] » All right. Open.

[52:00] » Well, we do we do have a have an agenda item for the

[52:05] » utility study. That's going to be automatic, right?

[52:08] Until this is done, we'll have one on every agenda.

[52:11] » Correct. Yep. [clears throat] And then we also wanted to make sure

[52:15] that the SNWA studies on there. >> Well, no. I guess you're talking we're

[52:20] not going to do that on the agenda because we're going to have a separate

[52:23] meeting for that. Correct. >> Well, I think we should have it. I still

[52:25] think we should have as an agenda item. >> Oh,

[52:27] » no. I think you're right. But No, I think we

[52:30] » Oh, if that's >> We want it as an agenda item.

[52:32] » We already agreed to that. >> Yes. Yes. I mean that's

[52:36] » our request was not needed to so we need to make sure that's on there's no

[52:40] information is that something >> even yeah even if there's no information

[52:43] » so we'll have a meeting between now and the next meeting so we become informed

[52:48] and then we're going to have an agenda item every meeting until this issue is

[52:52] resolved just to talk about I I don't know what you want to discuss in an open

[52:57] meeting as far as details since we'll be all informed at the next meeting

[53:02] » right >> uh was it just be an update from the

[53:05] time we have our little meeting between you guys and then the next regular

[53:08] meeting here. Is that what it'll be encased in that? Uh you follow me?

[53:13] » No. >> Okay. So, we're going to we're going to

[53:15] get all up to speed in another month or two, right? With a separate meeting

[53:20] » on the effluent and then >> on the

[53:24] » on the effluent >> and

[53:27] » the the goal is to bring it back to you on that. That would be but I believe it

[53:32] also and correct Josh called help me out on here and I apologize I'm diving into

[53:37] a lot of this new information for me um but I believe it does have to go to does

[53:41] it have to go to council >> first? So so in other words this

[53:47] compromise of us having a meeting and becoming informed is going to take away

[53:51] the requirement to have a reoccurring agenda item. Is that correct?

[53:56] » Correct. I >> because you don't want to get false

[54:01] information out in this meeting. Uh I'm still

[54:04] » I think we >> because we are going to have progress

[54:06] between the time we talk about this in a special meeting and the next utility

[54:12] meeting. There's going to be progress there. And if we don't discuss it and

[54:17] don't and you don't tell us of the progress, then we're kind of out in the

[54:21] dark again. You see what I mean? >> Well, hold.

[54:24] I'm going to confuse here. it we an item we we had in our last meeting in October

[54:31] we had SNWA effluent reuse item should appear as a reoccurring item on the

[54:36] agenda. >> I think that's what we want. I want

[54:39] » that's what we want but it looks like the city I think we should ask we we

[54:43] we're committee. >> Okay.

[54:46] » Well, I' I'd like to input again why we because maybe I misunderstood you why

[54:50] you don't want it on the agenda reoccurring. If you guys want a a vote

[54:56] to put it on the agenda, like by all means, like like you just said, Howard,

[55:01] » we can we can do that. >> Mike's already pointed out, it is we

[55:04] did. >> We already did it, but we could do it

[55:07] again. >> Correct.

[55:09] » A restate. [laughter] >> I think we should Okay. Okay. I I need a

[55:13] motion then on restating that we want a reoccurring meeting re an SNWA reffluent

[55:20] reuse item to reoccur monthly or each at each meeting

[55:24] » at least a status report. >> Yeah, just just we'll just put it on so

[55:28] we can discuss whatever >> a status report of of

[55:33] » let's discuss this really quick before we put the motion down. I got to make

[55:36] sure which way we're doing it. But um so what we want is there's two things I

[55:41] want to bring up to the fact and it's so Howard, I'm going to I guess I'll ask

[55:45] bluntly. Are you going to are you thinking about reapplying

[55:50] um for another pos another uh three years for this committee?

[55:55] » I didn't realize I could, but I will. Yes, I will.

[55:59] » If it was allow if it's allowed, I will. I know there's a lot.

[56:03] » So what the reason reason I bring that up is that April would be your last

[56:08] meeting and my last meeting if we don't get reappointed,

[56:11] » right? >> And so you have the wealth of the

[56:14] knowledge of this sewer issue. >> And so we want to use your knowledge to

[56:20] discuss this among the committee and we're only advising. So if we have

[56:26] certain facts we can discuss then we need to be able to discuss it not just

[56:31] an update >> we need to be able to discuss it. So

[56:34] April is a very important time just in case some reason you and I don't get

[56:40] reappointed. >> Right. Right.

[56:43] » And so those are the facts that we have to make sure everybody understands. So

[56:46] that's why it's important to understand how it's written as an agenda item.

[56:51] Well, first off, that it gets to be an agenda item and how what and what

[56:55] freedom we have to discuss the agenda. We don't want to be into rumors or

[56:59] anything like that, but we need to be able to say, can we get on a similar

[57:03] page with all five committee members to understand

[57:07] what's what the facts are that we understand?

[57:10] » Well, >> and then if we don't understand it,

[57:12] because we we are advising the council. So,

[57:14] » right, >> minimally it has if it goes to the

[57:17] council, it's got to come back to us before the council finalizes it.

[57:20] » Right. Exactly. >> So, the more data we can discuss early,

[57:24] the better off we are. >> But,

[57:26] » and if we're going to keep these meetings down below 3 hours, you have to

[57:29] have be able to discuss things as they come along, not just, oh, here it is.

[57:35] We're going to we're making the decision the next council meeting. So, what do

[57:39] you guys think? But the key part to that to me is that we don't even have the

[57:42] report. And without having a report, we don't have any facts or even what

[57:49] » it's all inu. It's all it's all been rumors on what what could be out there.

[57:54] We're working off a whole data >> injection wells and all kind of other

[57:59] » the city council has agreed to have a special meeting to inform us of

[58:03] everything they know. Correct. >> I mean everything you can share with us

[58:07] details and Has basically has the report has the report that you've already

[58:12] commented on >> has the city council seen that report?

[58:15] » No. >> All right. So, none of us have seen that

[58:18] report. No one's seen that report. >> So,

[58:21] » but you're going to share as much info as you can with us.

[58:25] » Once we get comments, our comments get replied to and we know we can get it to

[58:31] council. >> But what's holding that all up?

[58:34] » We just reached Josh just reached out to him again. SNWA.

[58:38] » I mean, this has been going on for what, three years?

[58:40] » Three years. Yeah. >> We don't manage them.

[58:42] » I understand. So, we're trying to work with them. But

[58:44] » I mean, >> I mean,

[58:46] » we we were right there with >> I mean, if we don't have I mean, in the

[58:49] first time we did get a report or a some sort of status update from SNWA. There

[58:54] were absolutely no costs involved in that report. That's one of the things we

[58:59] asked for is what is the cost of each proposed solution. There were at one

[59:06] point I think almost up to five or six different solutions and there were

[59:11] absolutely no costs involved with each one of those and there are I'm telling

[59:14] you there's going to be significant cost in anything we look at because even if

[59:20] we just pump it over to Henderson you know they're not going to give up

[59:25] a million and a half gallons of water capacity in their plant for nothing

[59:30] because that takes that takes away 15,000 people from their advanced from

[59:35] their buildouts. So that's going to cost somebody something.

[59:39] » But it's like Randy said that the >> but even everything

[59:43] » the SNWA will be gaining the advantage of getting that water put back in. So

[59:51] everybody should be paying for it. There shouldn't be a Boulder city

[59:54] » and what's you know I'd like to understand what the dollar what almost

[59:58] to me it almost has to come back to us as what is the dollar

[1:00:03] per gallon or million gallons of return flow how much is that what is that cost

[1:00:09] to SNWA what's that benefit to SNWA what's the benefit to the city citizens

[1:00:16] here is it worth it >> well

[1:00:18] » right now right now we're just pushing it out to the

[1:00:21] » All you have to do is look at how much money they're spending to [music] do

[1:00:24] turf replacement. Right. And and I agree.

[1:00:27] » And according to director Stubitz, >> they have estimates the city is has

[1:00:33] estimates that they're sending to SNWA on how much it'll cost

[1:00:37] » for these six or four or whatever measures to correct this. So the the

[1:00:42] figures are out there right now. We just don't have access to it.

[1:00:45] » Right. Right. >> So we're going to reel things back in on

[1:00:48] on >> I agree. But you realize what we're what

[1:00:51] we're what we're not getting and we're sitting up here

[1:00:54] » and we don't have the information. >> Oh, I don't think so. You guys got the

[1:00:58] Joe said he had the information. He said that they came up with estimates

[1:01:02] » and it was comments back. So, if we supply information that is not fully um

[1:01:09] I haven't I haven't read it. I haven't looked at it.

[1:01:11] » Oh, really? >> Yeah.

[1:01:12] » Wow. >> So,

[1:01:13] » yeah, >> it is something that has to go to

[1:01:15] council, too. and it's something I'm going to check in on a little further

[1:01:20] and I can get back to you. But we do need to get back on track and it is

[1:01:24] something we're going to look just to clear something up um on the

[1:01:30] rate study. Our the focus was the electric and water because as Randy

[1:01:35] mentioned the different classes the different um uh structure has a lot more

[1:01:40] structure than our landfill and our and so the f the rate study is a focus on

[1:01:45] our electric and water and Randy I know I just want to thank you for being a

[1:01:50] part of that selection committee is that >> what was in depth on the landfill

[1:01:57] co it wasn't we're not doing the cost of service on it but on

[1:02:01] the rate study itself. >> Okay. So Gary, this is Larry. So Larry,

[1:02:07] I'm sorry asking. >> Sorry.

[1:02:09] » No problem. >> So I believe with the landfill is be

[1:02:12] similar to the sewer is that you you need to figure out what the overall

[1:02:16] costs are. And that's I think they were trying to look at like a fiveyear but I

[1:02:19] think it was possible 10 year financial study out of that. Then you need to

[1:02:23] figure out the revenue requirements and then you figure out are the I I I'm not

[1:02:28] sure if this rate study was going to suggest I think they they will a basic

[1:02:34] let's say that they say that we need to do something more than just the rate we

[1:02:38] have um for right now we have sewer um the rate study uh h the landfill has two

[1:02:47] three aspects to it um and then you would say that so I believe it's going

[1:02:52] to be looked at but not into the major depth. But I believe they they would

[1:02:56] have alternatives and if it's some basic requests, I don't think that's going to

[1:03:00] have a problem to make sure that they do that um with with the with the sewer and

[1:03:06] landfill. Does that did I say that right?

[1:03:13] » Yeah, that's correct, Larry. >> So, does that say G is that what you're

[1:03:18] » Thank you. So, I just wanted to clear that up. So,

[1:03:22] » so I think but I think but the key issues we're asking for and that's why

[1:03:25] this this agenda item always gets complicated is because we're asking for

[1:03:30] to be able to discuss issues. We're asking for things on agenda items and we

[1:03:34] al so we've got I guess we have like this today we're doing I think we're

[1:03:38] doing four things we're doing okay can we have it on the agenda item um and

[1:03:43] then we go to how is the agenda item going to be defined we need to make sure

[1:03:49] we can discuss it so if an update doesn't allow us to discuss it then we

[1:03:53] have to say for possible action um that way we can discuss it and if we did make

[1:03:59] a motion just to say do we all agree that we're on the same page page if

[1:04:02] that's what it takes for a possible action we need to have that stated and

[1:04:07] then and then so maybe it is only three then we need to say okay I think we can

[1:04:11] still do this on this one do we have um do we have need another meeting to go

[1:04:17] over it so what we're trying to do is we're just trying to understand make

[1:04:21] sure we understand the facts so there are certain facts out there with the

[1:04:25] sewer issue that has should be there from when we ask for the request from

[1:04:31] there So not not the data that we're waiting on, but the data that we knew

[1:04:35] for sure that you know we requested just to have two two things. Well, can you

[1:04:41] tell us is the Henderson being considered again? Maybe is that

[1:04:44] something we could tell? So in the individual ones there are data I think

[1:04:48] you could share with us individually to say this is what we do know. The other

[1:04:54] information the council hasn't received yet. We haven't. But there is a little

[1:04:57] problem. We need to work with that too because if we're advising the council, I

[1:05:01] don't understand why we can't see it if even if we have to make a declaration

[1:05:06] that we're not going to share it that we're going to we need to advise the

[1:05:09] council. So sometimes we need to see it either before or at the same time. So

[1:05:14] that that's where I'm confused on some of this issue also with when it comes to

[1:05:18] the agenda and meetings.

[1:05:22] So, so as you have before, put it request if you're requesting it to put

[1:05:27] on the agenda. In the meantime, I'll get some more information and I'll have to

[1:05:32] get back to you guys. >> Then we'll have a special meeting. I

[1:05:35] appreciate >> and

[1:05:36] » yeah, I I think the reason we're pushing back is we're just hoping that we can do

[1:05:40] it sooner or later because it does relate to the rates and so if if SNWA

[1:05:46] drags their feet, it doesn't get to the council and nothing happens before the

[1:05:49] rate process and we can't discuss it before the rate process, it's another

[1:05:53] factor that just doesn't get resolved. That's why we're pushing back so hard.

[1:06:00] » Yeah. We just want to make sure there's not misinformation out there. Uh as

[1:06:04] mentioned there's different directions that were recommended. We those might

[1:06:08] change. We don't know. Um so that is something that before it gets any

[1:06:14] misinformation is put out there. We need to make sure it's correct. So we'll have

[1:06:18] to get back to >> I think we were

[1:06:20] » right because I think the minimum we'd like to do maybe that if we could do it

[1:06:24] before April is just can we get the committee members on the same page. So

[1:06:29] if the if you were willing to say this is the information that we had before

[1:06:34] the new committee members came on minimally would that be because you the

[1:06:39] information that's public. So that's the type of thing minimally that we could we

[1:06:43] could then we could discuss that okay this is the information we knew going

[1:06:47] into the study. Um can we talk about that? See I think that's what we're

[1:06:52] pushing back for just in case um you're saying well we don't have that much

[1:06:55] data. You do have the data that we went into the study with.

[1:07:01] » Correct. So, if you want to put it on the agenda, uh, we'll go from there.

[1:07:06] » Well, we had a motion. >> Okay.

[1:07:08] » Well, is again, do we need a motion or not? It's already been requested.

[1:07:13] But do we need to clarify what we're requesting?

[1:07:15] » I think we should clarify it and make another motion.

[1:07:17] » I think so, too. I >> I can make it or you can make it.

[1:07:19] » Go ahead. >> Okay. I make a motion that um we uh have

[1:07:24] a reoccurring item on the effluence study where we uh are told progress or

[1:07:30] lack of progress and we have uh can ask questions and get answers

[1:07:35] um that we might have of the process and uh does that cover it?

[1:07:41] » Does for me >> just to make sure we put for possible

[1:07:44] action. I think for possible action needs to be

[1:07:47] » okay >> and for possible action.

[1:07:49] » Okay. for possible action. >> I don't think action would be taken on

[1:07:52] it would be discussion. >> I I'm kind of confused on the action

[1:07:56] part. I mean we're gonna >> Can we say discussion or and action or

[1:08:00] just have to do >> I mean all we do is make recommendations

[1:08:02] right to the city. >> Yeah. But if we [clears throat] don't

[1:08:04] have the complete information and if we are bringing something that's to discuss

[1:08:11] I don't know if there would be necessarily any action taken on it.

[1:08:14] » So we have >> Okay. So just make see here's what

[1:08:16] here's what I'm trying to clarify Gary and Josh you can help me. So in this

[1:08:20] last agenda item on the rate update it was for update only for update only. Um

[1:08:29] now then and so I didn't know how many options we had. If we can say for

[1:08:34] discussion that's fine but we were sort of shut down on the last one with the

[1:08:39] rate because well here's what I have to offer. We really don't we're not

[1:08:43] supposed to discuss it on this item because we didn't it's an update only.

[1:08:47] That's what I'm trying to avoid. So if actions inappropriate that's okay but

[1:08:52] there has to be some way we can discuss it action.

[1:08:59] » So the because we've been this has happened for six years. This happens to

[1:09:03] us quite often is that we get to the agenda we think we can talk and then

[1:09:08] it's like well no it wasn't written that way and this is all you can do. So, all

[1:09:11] I'm asking is that we can make sure it's written in a way that we can discuss it.

[1:09:17] » So, you're talking about two motions. One one to uh get an update and the

[1:09:22] other one to ask questions. Is that something we would need to

[1:09:25] » No, no, no. It should it should be one agenda item.

[1:09:28] » Yeah, we can just say update and discussion and that'll be fine.

[1:09:31] » We can just do it like I said. >> You can just say update and discussion

[1:09:34] and that'll be fine. >> It's fine.

[1:09:35] » Discussion. How about a discussion and possible action if you that's an action

[1:09:40] but >> I I I don't I'm confused about what what

[1:09:42] an action means. >> Yeah. Let's I mean

[1:09:44] » so what what are you saying Josh? >> We can just say update and discussion

[1:09:48] » and that allows us to freely ask questions and discuss it without

[1:09:52] » correct >> whatever we're told we can we get a

[1:09:55] report on. >> Knowledge anyways.

[1:09:58] » Correct. But [snorts] no no I mean if it if we're told it's what can we discuss

[1:10:01] only what we're talk told about? You can discuss what's on the agenda and a four

[1:10:06] possible action is if the body is going to make a motion and a direction or some

[1:10:12] type of action on it, but it has to be within your scope,

[1:10:15] » right? >> But you absolutely if it says update and

[1:10:18] discussion, you can discuss it. You just can't make a direction, right?

[1:10:22] » And for instance, like when you're talking about this rate study, at that

[1:10:25] point there there would be no motion to be made because it's already been

[1:10:30] approved by the city council, >> right?

[1:10:33] to to complete what's in within that agreement that scope of work has already

[1:10:37] been approved. >> All right.

[1:10:42] » Right. But Tammy on that case it's that so we weren't talking about a motion. We

[1:10:46] were just trying to say okay even if we were just saying do everybody does

[1:10:50] everybody on the committee agree with this concept. So that's we weren't

[1:10:54] asking for a motion on on the rate process. We were asking for a for the

[1:11:00] race consultant. We were asking for just an understanding as the committee

[1:11:05] understand what we believe needs to be done in the next couple steps and that's

[1:11:11] so that's a discussion. So the action would be that's where I'm confused just

[1:11:16] to make sure we're on the same page. >> She was just giving an example.

[1:11:19] » Yeah. I was just given an example and for the record I didn't say Tammy Mccay

[1:11:23] city clerk. So, I I I'm not even understanding what I I'm not

[1:11:28] understanding, Larry, what you're asking to do with the rate study that was just

[1:11:33] approved by the city council. Are you suggesting that this group would make

[1:11:38] changes to what's already been approved? >> No, no, no, no, no, no, no. That's I

[1:11:43] never did that. I never said that during this meeting at all. What I was saying

[1:11:47] is there's a lot of data. What I kept repeating was there's a lot of data that

[1:11:50] we have to go for and when do and we most we're pretty positive we need at

[1:11:55] least one more meeting other than our normal meetings.

[1:11:59] » Yeah, I heard that and that's that's not an issue. Gary point Dexter can work on

[1:12:03] a meeting date >> but

[1:12:05] » okay so those are we're okay. I'm not I wasn't trying to be derogatory on on the

[1:12:09] four, but it was and that's one thing I'm just and and as the chairman too, I

[1:12:13] greatly appreciate Howard doing this today, but as as the regular chair, I'm

[1:12:17] just trying to understand what we have what we need to ask for. Um, so if it's

[1:12:23] an update or it's discussion or action. So I think there's three things. So if

[1:12:28] we were to do a motion on like the the working capital where we like we we

[1:12:34] would say we want to do something or we advise something on the not working on

[1:12:38] the capital as an example then that would be have to have an action. If

[1:12:43] we're just saying we want to discuss it then we don't have to have an action but

[1:12:47] can we discuss it? Can we ask the committee if they agree? Is that does

[1:12:51] that have to have an action or is that just a discussion? No, I mean you would

[1:12:55] get that out of it just by the discussion whether or not somebody's in

[1:12:58] favor of something or not. But but Larry, outside of the meeting, we can

[1:13:03] work on the on the next meeting and I'm happy to work with you regarding the

[1:13:05] language of the agenda. >> Okay. Cuz cuz I guess what I'm

[1:13:10] » I'm sorry, Larry. >> You're done, Larry.

[1:13:12] » I'm done. >> Okay.

[1:13:13] » I'm done. I guess what I'm confused by is that or how this all comes about is

[1:13:19] if we learn say we learn some information in the report. We're we're

[1:13:24] listening or we have the report in front of us and we wanted to discuss specifics

[1:13:28] like why is this if if we're whatever one solution came up and it didn't have

[1:13:34] enough cost or we wanted explanation on the cost. Can we ask those questions and

[1:13:40] get answers or do we have to make a motion to get more information? How does

[1:13:44] that pan out? >> No, we we can just write the agenda

[1:13:48] title um the item to go over everything that you're asking

[1:13:52] » because I almost feel like we're handcuffed on what we can talk about and

[1:13:56] I want to and I don't want to delay it to the next meeting. I'd like to get you

[1:14:01] know suggest they you know like we find out something has costs or we don't have

[1:14:06] enough costs or whatever. How can we direct that to be improved or added to

[1:14:11] or whatever? I that's what I that's why I want to be clear on

[1:14:17] what what we learn and what we feel is an action or collectively come up with

[1:14:22] another solution or or more information needed.

[1:14:26] » No, we we can make a four possible action and if it's something that you

[1:14:29] feel strongly about as a body that you want to make a recommendation to the

[1:14:33] council, then you can do that. It is a recommendation. Okay.

[1:14:37] » And that's the judge. That's the motion I made. You'll include that so that we

[1:14:42] could make a recommendation and vote on it if we for instance feel like one

[1:14:46] solution to the affluent problem is better than the other or that we

[1:14:50] shouldn't have to pay for it. Uh we should all SNWA should have to pay for

[1:14:54] it. Those kind of instances we can make a recommendation.

[1:14:57] » Well, if that's something under your scope, I need to go back and look at and

[1:15:00] see if that's something that is under this body scope.

[1:15:03] » Mhm. and if we have the information that

[1:15:06] you're saying. So, >> yeah, again, we've done that in the

[1:15:09] past. We've made recommendations and we've voted on them and with an agenda

[1:15:12] item where we we're filled in on what's going on and we ask questions and that's

[1:15:17] been pretty common if I recall in the last year or and a half or so I've been

[1:15:21] here is we've been able to do that, make recommendations. We just want to make

[1:15:26] sure that the uh motion that I'm carrying here allows us to to do that.

[1:15:30] » Yeah, I'll look into it. >> Okay. So

[1:15:33] » yeah, Ty, one thing too and for the rest of the committee, so I'm not trying to

[1:15:36] push back too hard here, but just I think to help clarify, one of the one of

[1:15:40] the main scopes of this committee is is the revenue requirement. And so if there

[1:15:45] are additional costs, that's a revenue requirement. And that's what we would

[1:15:48] say is, hey, correct, >> this looks to be that it would be a re

[1:15:52] increase to the requirement. >> I'm happy to bring that matter back when

[1:15:55] it's been agenda. So if you want that as a future agenda item, I I hear you

[1:16:01] » and it's been noted, but it's not really up for discussion right now is in great

[1:16:05] detail like you're providing. >> So okay,

[1:16:08] » is is so is my we make another motion? >> I mean, is my motion okay?

[1:16:13] » Yeah, that's not Yes. Do we make another motion or from what just

[1:16:16] » Yeah, you don't even need to make a motion. This this item is regarding

[1:16:19] upcoming agenda items and I'm sure either Josh or Gary has noted down

[1:16:24] » what items you're looking to be brought forward

[1:16:26] » because I my feeling is after from the discussion we've just had is that when

[1:16:31] this report is made available to us or the information that whatever that we

[1:16:35] could freely discuss it I want to be able to do

[1:16:40] » and we want to make a motion because this is the third time and Josh said we

[1:16:45] could make a motion and we could appro you

[1:16:48] And I've already made a motion so we can continue on it. Right.

[1:16:52] » Well, >> on the motion to

[1:16:54] » It sounds like we don't need a motion. >> Well, again, I I

[1:16:57] » It's not a motion. This this item that's on here is upcoming agenda topics you

[1:17:02] would like to have for the next agenda. >> Well, it's it's a motion is to have a

[1:17:05] recurring agenda item. Correct. >> That's the motion.

[1:17:09] » It's not a motion. It's just a discussion on upcoming agenda items.

[1:17:13] Yes. From what's being said, it's going to be on there next time.

[1:17:17] » Oh, okay. Okay. So, we don't need that. >> And if it's if it's in within the

[1:17:21] utility advisory scope on what your duties are. Yes.

[1:17:24] » Okay. Why don't you resend that scope to us?

[1:17:27] » I will. >> So, we don't need a motion then.

[1:17:30] » Should be on the agenda next. >> All right. What was it? The other We had

[1:17:32] another item >> if it's within your scope. Yes.

[1:17:34] » Okay. Okay. >> Yeah.

[1:17:36] » Thank you. >> What was our other thought we were going

[1:17:37] to put request? Um, well, I just Well, first of all, I wanted to ask because

[1:17:42] there is a term out on committee members, correct?

[1:17:45] » No, there [clears throat] is not. >> Just uh uh we serve at the pleasure of

[1:17:50] city council. No terms. >> No, you have you have terms.

[1:17:52] » I thought there was terms. Uh what are they?

[1:17:55] » Well, I don't know off the top of my head, but I'm happy to email it to you.

[1:17:58] » My question is we were talking about him and having to be reuped. Well, how long

[1:18:03] have you been a >> I think I've I thought I had the limit.

[1:18:06] I thought I was at the limit. That's what I was saying.

[1:18:08] » It has a limit, but it's 12 years. >> I haven't been on for 12 years.

[1:18:11] » Okay. Then you haven't Well, you know the limit. Okay.

[1:18:14] » If it's at least if you know that for sure. I haven't

[1:18:17] » I think I've been appointed. >> You guys have threeear term limits, but

[1:18:20] I don't know when you were appointed. If you were appointed to a full term, an

[1:18:23] expired term was a full term to start with.

[1:18:25] » Yeah. I'd have to go. I mean, we have it all recorded.

[1:18:27] » My second term. >> We have it all recorded in our office. I

[1:18:30] just don't know off the top of my head. >> My second term.

[1:18:32] » If you haven't done 12 years, then you >> Yeah, there can't be. We haven't been

[1:18:35] around that long yet. if it's a 12-year limit. That's what I thought it was, but

[1:18:39] » Well, that's good to know. >> So, Tammy, excuse me. I just searched it

[1:18:42] and it what it says is no. Members of the utility advisory committee in

[1:18:47] Boulder City are not term limited. They serve at the discretion of the city

[1:18:52] council, >> but you but you hold terms. I I'll go

[1:18:55] look and tell you what your terms are. >> Yeah. Okay. Well, that's that's

[1:18:57] » this is a the members here will be appointed to a three-year staggered.

[1:19:01] Yeah. Okay. >> Threeear staggered, but I don't know

[1:19:04] when you're >> You're not kicked out. No,

[1:19:06] » but can we get back to discussing the uh potential agenda items for the next

[1:19:10] meeting? >> Yep.

[1:19:13] » So, we have one state of >> reiterated.

[1:19:16] » Anybody else? Larry, would you did you have one? Let me look at your notes,

[1:19:20] Larry. I think the biggest thing was just again

[1:19:24] the uh so the do we need to uh so I guess Tammy since you're here so if we

[1:19:30] want to request the >> okay if we want so just we need just to

[1:19:35] understand if we can request I think we can request a meeting special meeting

[1:19:40] during the time frame I can request it if I understand this stuff right um to

[1:19:45] request a special meeting and then the city would put a email out to everybody

[1:19:50] all the committee members, I believe. So, as long as as Josh and Gary think

[1:19:54] that's right, then then we would just need to look after the kickoff meeting

[1:19:58] to what we want to do for the rate process.

[1:20:04] » I think we're good with that. Anything else? Anyone else got a action?

[1:20:10] » I I was thinking about um putting something on agenda item

[1:20:15] about the U landfill like I talked about. Um there seems to be a little

[1:20:20] controversy now flowing about the landfill. I uh I I is the contract up in

[1:20:26] the next uh year or 6 months or >> so it would be outside of what this

[1:20:32] committee would discuss if you're talking about the contractor.

[1:20:36] » Okay. >> Yeah, that would be for council to

[1:20:38] » Okay. >> But that but you can also say that that

[1:20:42] » has to do with the cost of the landfill. So is that not part of our duties

[1:20:48] » as part of the rate study and what the landfill operation is?

[1:20:53] » Not the operation but the cost of the operation.

[1:20:56] » Yeah. But the the contractor itself within what uh the agreement between the

[1:21:02] city and the cont and the contractor would not be.

[1:21:06] » No. No. But but >> but if you have some other Sorry. Go

[1:21:10] ahead. just just the amount that it cost the city to to run the landfill or to

[1:21:16] have somebody run the landfill would be part of our

[1:21:20] » duties rate study. >> Is that saying

[1:21:24] » um >> I might have to get I'll have to look

[1:21:27] into my understanding is it would be if to operate

[1:21:33] to what the city has operated in the landfield. Yes. But then like so if

[1:21:38] we're putting new fence in any kind of projects that are going out there

[1:21:42] improvement projects and then also but I but I understand what you're saying

[1:21:47] because that falls under that total cost but that's something I'll have to get

[1:21:51] back to.

[1:21:57] » Yeah. My my reason for bringing this up though is uh

[1:22:04] um there is some controversy about uh

[1:22:09] people dumping things that aren't from Boulder City and I know the contract is

[1:22:15] probably kind of loose on that about the con and so I I was just trying to get

[1:22:19] some information uh also on the recycling program. Um,

[1:22:25] » if you'd like to meet individ like with myself, we can schedule.

[1:22:28] » Can I do that? >> Yeah, that'd be great.

[1:22:30] » Okay. Yeah. I just have some questions and I rather than putting it as an

[1:22:34] agenda, I'm sure if I could talk to you right now, I I just like the

[1:22:37] » Well, talking outside of this meeting. Yeah, I got to do it outside.

[1:22:41] » Yeah, that would be great. >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:22:43] » All right. Anyone else? >> Well, then the last one,

[1:22:47] » sorry, the last one. So Gary, um, since it got brought up a little bit more

[1:22:52] about what our scope is, do you think we can talk about that during the rate to

[1:22:57] make sure it's in our scope or do we have do we want to do a quick agenda

[1:23:00] item to say let's just review our scope?

[1:23:07] » Well, Tammy's going to send us what our scope is.

[1:23:10] U Do you want to have that as an agenda

[1:23:14] item, Larry? >> It's just a matter of discussion. So

[1:23:18] again, do does the committee understand are we on the same page as

[1:23:22] far as we see our scope goes? >> Um

[1:23:30] let's well we could uh we could put on review we could put on something like

[1:23:36] review scope of of the uh utility services

[1:23:43] uh committee the UA the UAC. We could just say

[1:23:48] what is a discussion on s on scope of the UAC or whatever.

[1:23:55] » Yeah. I don't know if we want to do that before the so be this item right before

[1:23:58] the agenda or right before the raids. That way we can sort of keep we can keep

[1:24:03] oursel in you know make sure that we're understanding what we so we stay try to

[1:24:07] stay out of the weed.

[1:24:13] » Do we want to agendaize that? Yeah, we general. I think we should.

[1:24:17] » Is that help, Gary, or is that getting is that problematic?

[1:24:20] » No, I I think that that's good. Thank you.

[1:24:24] » Yeah. Then we then we don't have any discussion. We don't. If we do, we do.

[1:24:29] » Right. Right. Exactly. >> All right.

[1:24:33] Anyone else? Everybody good?

[1:24:38] » All right. Looks like we're

[1:24:41] » so for the next so for the next agenda we're going to include uh the recurring

[1:24:46] the recurring items along with additional items to discuss the rate

[1:24:50] study progress a fluent a feasibility study and reviewing the committee scope.

[1:24:54] Correct. >> Correct.

[1:24:57] » Everybody good with that? Just just to clarify when we're reviewing the the

[1:25:01] scope is we're going to >> we'll get some more detail on on and

[1:25:07] [snorts] a little breakdown of that. So we have uh and that's what you guys are

[1:25:11] looking for. >> I think so just so we know where our

[1:25:14] limits are here. >> Okay.

[1:25:15] » Or how we can put other agenda items on for display.

[1:25:19] » Okay. All right. Would there be would there be anything um that you that you

[1:25:25] all would want to remove from um the next agenda because um you might want to

[1:25:30] talk about the rate study a little more in depth and uh some of the recurring

[1:25:33] items there there just might not be um many updates on such as uh like ongoing

[1:25:39] projects or the 5-year capital plan or um uh power and consumption updates. Uh

[1:25:45] those are usually um not a whole lot of updates regarding those. So maybe you

[1:25:50] might want to take some of those off for the next meeting and focus more on rate

[1:25:54] study. Just a suggestion. >> I'd be willing to do that. As far as the

[1:25:58] uh I [clears throat] don't know about the uh the uh amount of electricity and

[1:26:03] water we use. I mean that's I always find that interesting. But the other

[1:26:06] two, the capital improvement fund and the um um what was the other one?

[1:26:11] » Ongoing ongoing uh project >> ongoing projects. Yeah. I' I'd be

[1:26:14] willing to forgo those for this next meeting because of the length of the

[1:26:17] meeting if you guys are okay with that. >> Yeah, because if we talk we're going to

[1:26:22] be talking about those in detail in the rate like I agree with Josh. Those could

[1:26:26] be >> a ter.

[1:26:32] » What's a pleasure? What's a pleasure? Do we want to take off item two and

[1:26:37] temporarily take off items two and two and four? Or if you don't if you don't

[1:26:41] think we need to hear about the power and water usage is that

[1:26:45] » I'm okay if you >> I'd almost like to get the reports.

[1:26:49] » Yeah, if we just >> I could still send the reports but if

[1:26:52] you don't want it on the agenda. >> Yeah, I think it'd be nice to get you

[1:26:55] know it'd be nice to get the information for two, three, and four. We don't

[1:27:00] necessarily have to have them on the agenda. Can we do that?

[1:27:04] » Of course. And that that information is readily available on um uh the

[1:27:07] dashboards that I provided u many u meetings ago.

[1:27:12] » Easy to get to. >> I'm sure it is. But it's easy for you to

[1:27:14] get them. >> That's with my problem as well.

[1:27:17] » I already missed the one because I >> I couldn't see good enough.

[1:27:21] » Yeah. >> Glasses on, glasses off.

[1:27:22] » We can uh blind uh send out an email. >> I I'd rather have us, you know, big bold

[1:27:28] letters. There's the here's the >> Okay. Because otherwise Yeah. I've I've

[1:27:32] been on that I haven't been on that website for or that link for a while and

[1:27:36] it was not that >> usually to be used first the last time I

[1:27:41] used it. It may have improved >> because I haven't used it for a long

[1:27:44] time. So >> no problem.

[1:27:45] » I think we're uh anything else on the >> I think we're I think we're ready. So

[1:27:51] we're going to remove items >> or just just for info. We don't have to

[1:27:55] » we want information on items two, three, and four. We're going to take them off

[1:27:58] the agenda. >> Not to discuss, right? We're going to

[1:28:00] take them off the agenda for the next meeting.

[1:28:02] » Well, I don't know if you take them off. If you want the information or you just

[1:28:05] want to email us the information, can you

[1:28:06] » I can email it to you. >> Yeah, if you could just email then

[1:28:09] that'd be great. >> We can take them off then.

[1:28:11] » But let's make sure we need them back on when we need them.

[1:28:14] » Oh, yeah. Just for this next upcoming meeting.

[1:28:16] » So, right. So, we'll make sure in the following meeting they're back on

[1:28:20] possibly. >> All right. Cool. Everybody ready for

[1:28:24] that? Does that make Sounds like we're rolling to an end?

[1:28:29] Sounds good. >> All right. I'm going to uh

[1:28:34] I'm going to move into the next level of public comment. Each person will have

[1:28:39] three minutes to speak at discretion of the chair. Comments for during the

[1:28:43] public comment period. Agenda may be on any subject

[1:28:47] that's that they want to discuss. So, we'll open that up again right now. Uh,

[1:28:54] please call in if you'd like to on phone call would be 702-589-9629.

[1:29:01] That's a call in for the public comment period after the meeting. Uh, a post

[1:29:07] meeting uh 702-589-9629

[1:29:12] and we'll wait a minute or so here to see if anybody calls in. There is no one

[1:29:16] present in the chambers other than who's here at this point. So,

[1:29:22] no comments from the gallery it looks like at this point. So, please call in

[1:29:27] if you want to

[1:30:10] I think we're good. All right. Yep. We just about a good minute there. Uh we're

[1:30:15] going No more public comment. Uh do we need a motion for adjournment?

[1:30:21] » Ready, everyone? We're done. All right. Me is ajourned.

[1:30:27] » Thanks. [clears throat] >> Thanks a lot, Howard. Appreciate

[1:30:29] » it. See you guys. Have a good trip, Larry.

[1:30:32] » Thanks. >> All right.

January 14, 2026, Utility Advisory Committee Meeting

Transcript