[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.