[0:02] Hi, Jenna.
>> Hi. Look at I was just noticing Brandy
[0:07] and Mike match.
[0:14] [laughter]
>> Same colors.
[0:19] » Brown, [laughter]
>> right?
[0:25] » Are we waiting?
I think you might be virtual, but be
[0:29] here for the right
meeting.
[0:31] » Oh, okay. Perfect.
>> Just ask for a link for the pre meeting.
[0:34] » Okay. And I do need to catch up with you
text.
[0:39] All righty. Let's go ahead and get
started with first item on here are
[0:43] federal earmarks. Um I'm going to pass
that to Janine. Looks like we have a
[0:47] couple staff members here to talk about
the projects that we're looking at. So
[0:50] go ahead, Janine.
>> Thank you, mayor. So, um, we have been
[0:53] working to identify projects that we,
uh, have in the community or have
[0:58] already had in our capital plan that
would be eligible for federal funding
[1:02] through earmarks. As you know, um, here
at Hegelman's office is, uh, accepting
[1:07] again this year the earmark
applications. As you are aware, the city
[1:11] has been successful in past years
securing. Um, staff have put together a
[1:16] list for you. Um, Pete is going to
present that list and the information in
[1:21] your memo. So with that,
>> awesome.
[1:23] » Welcome to the podium.
[1:28] » Good evening, members of council.
Pleasure to be with you again.
[1:31] » Yes, this is our presentation of
potential earmark request. The formal
[1:35] name is congressionally directed
spending. These are things that uh every
[1:41] member of the House of Representatives
is allowed to request. Every member is
[1:45] allowed to request up to 15 different
specific requests that get attached to
[1:48] various different federal endeavors that
go into the budget. Presumably, this
[1:53] would be for the next upcoming fiscal
year budget for the count for the uh for
[1:56] the federal government. That would be
something that theoretically they would
[2:00] be passing around time passing by
September 30th of this year. So
[2:08] there are many many rules around the
kinds of things you can request. there
[2:13] many different subprograms and it's
actually rather complicated as far as
[2:17] matching a potential request to a
potential source of funding
[2:22] but but we have done a lot of work on
in-house amongst ourselves and also with
[2:27] our consultants to see strategies to try
to figure out an appropriate set of
[2:32] requests that are both timely for what
we try to get done high priorities for
[2:37] us that to accomplish and also matching
with a with a reasonable source of
[2:42] funding
Having gone through all that, we've
[2:45] we've come up with three different
requests that we think would be a good
[2:49] match for for potential for for the
potential needs of the city. We would so
[2:55] three requests that we have, one is a
uh an antenna and radio communication
[3:02] enhancements for the police department.
This is a $1.6 million request. It's a
[3:06] way to to add some additional encryption
to the police department's rating
[3:11] system. It would buy actual radios. It
would also install an antenna at or near
[3:16] the event center itself.
You would hopefully get this and uh the
[3:21] program we going through is called the
Edward Burn grant program. That's nice
[3:25] because it has no match requirements. If
if we were to get the if we were to get
[3:29] the uh award, we'd have to provide a
local match. We've also asked for some
[3:36] funding for bedline replacement. We know
a few places in the city where there may
[3:41] or or are certain very old water lines
which may still have a certain amount of
[3:47] lead in them and we certainly been
monitoring them for for years and years
[3:51] and years. This I mean get removing
removing lead from from the system has
[3:55] been a process of literally generations
of public services directors who've been
[4:01] gradually removing all those really old
lines. But there are still some left in
[4:05] there. And so this would be a request
that would allow us to remove some of
[4:09] the last of those and to make sure our
system is 100% free.
[4:15] That's about a $3 million request that
we would be asking for there. And then a
[4:19] third one would be Robertson Road.
Robertson Road, as you may be aware, has
[4:24] had a lot of congestion issues and
certainly this came up a lot when we
[4:27] were selling the truck lane property and
we've got a lot of people feedback at
[4:31] that time. Since then, we've done
studies and we've got a got a a vision
[4:36] for how we might go about making the
traffic at Marson Road a little bit
[4:40] better, widening it a little bit, adding
some trails to get some people off the
[4:44] roads, adding some left turn lanes. The
idea being there that we could uh try to
[4:49] get um try to try to clean up that
intersection just a little bit and we do
[4:54] believe that we could apply for some
highway funds there. Uh that one, like
[4:58] the water lines project, this one also
would have a 20% match. So someone
[5:03] requests 1.5 million for a $ 1.9 million
project.
[5:08] So
>> how much would that be?
[5:10] » So we would request 1.5
for for 1.9 the total would be 1.9. So
[5:15] we would have to we would have to
provide match
[5:18] to get the entire project done as as we
would like for that sector. Um but but
[5:23] uh in regards to that question certainly
when you make these requests, you never
[5:28] know exactly what's going to happen.
Certainly on the one hand
[5:35] you can make the request for that dollar
amount it might change where as it goes
[5:40] through the congressional budgeting
process which of course is extremely
[5:43] complicated and hard to predict.
It it it can it is entirely possible for
[5:50] for if the congresswoman were to support
our request which of course is the first
[5:54] question
then it has to get through various
[5:58] approvals at different committees and so
on they can
[6:02] of course they can deny the request
which is always their right. They can
[6:07] also change the dollar amount which is
not typical for it's it's one way in
[6:11] which this is different from a normal
grant request. If we were to receive
[6:15] this as as a regular grant,
[clears throat]
[6:17] we know exactly what we're asking for,
and chances are we'll get either that or
[6:21] nothing at all. In this case, it's
entirely possible to say, "Well, we'll
[6:26] give you half as much as what you're
asked for. Do what you can." And in
[6:30] which case, that's what we would do. Get
as much of the project on with the word.
[6:36] » Go ahead. So
this obviously wouldn't fund um that
[6:43] amount of money wouldn't fund very much
on that on that project in particular a
[6:50] roundabout
um with kind of a deal. The way I looked
[6:57] at it um that alone be several million
I'm guessing. Uh but uh um so is that
[7:07] not included
in the project or just widening
[7:13] some of lower Robertson road?
>> Sure. Um counselor mayor um that is not
[7:20] included in the project. Be certain we
did look at the overall [clears throat]
[7:26] study design the theoretical design we
would implement there. Certainly, it
[7:30] would go for much further than just this
little segment. And and I believe that
[7:35] original cost estimates were something
in the order of $8 million to do the
[7:40] entire length of what we would want to
do on Robertson River if funding were no
[7:44] object. Um so, so you're right. No, this
is just this is just that area closer to
[7:50] the CY Avenue. It's it's a bit of the
widening of the intersection and some
[7:54] other work in that area. It um and
certainly we had
[8:00] It's understanding that we could not
reasonably expect to get an award of
[8:05] that size of $800. It just that's that's
not in the that's not in the cards. So
[8:09] So we we thought we would ask for
something that's more limited which
[8:13] would could still provide some benefit
[8:18] questions for people.
You said the three we already talked
[8:22] about three projects already, right?
>> Yes, exactly. would be the lead lines,
[8:25] replacement of the water lines,
potential for lead contamination, the
[8:29] Robertson Road, and then an antenna for
the police department and the radio. And
[8:34] so, so yes, I guess the question that I
would ask for mayor and for council
[8:39] would be first of all, if that list is
acceptable, and then if so, what the
[8:46] prioritization among those three
projects would be because that is
[8:48] something that the congresswoman would
would ask us. what if if I only did one
[8:53] which would you choose and that is that
is something we will need to communicate
[8:58] that
>> I mean to me looking at them just from
[9:03] the from the 30,000 foot view the lead
service drinking water seems fairly
[9:08] important um as public safety
communication but I also know I know I'm
[9:12] not kind of I'm not very trying to
single any of them out the Robertson
[9:16] roads is important I know the vice mayor
has talked often about that in his ward
[9:20] Um, but if I had to look at something
for me personally, um, would be the
[9:25] suspected lead service would be probably
one of our number one priorities, but
[9:28] like to offer that, open that up to the
council, see what their thoughts are
[9:32] about priority.
>> What was yours again?
[9:35] » Uh, the suspected lead service drinking
>> water.
[9:39] So, I think that's been a problem around
the state if I'm not mistaken.
[9:42] » Certainly, it's been it's been a problem
nationally actually.
[9:45] » Absolutely.
>> Yes. No. Um, and it's been something
[9:48] that's that the EPA and
a long time.
[9:53] » Decades.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
[9:55] » Michael, sorry, Vice Mayor. I'll get
you.
[9:57] » My thoughts are the lead in the water
pipes. I'm pretty sure EPA is going to
[10:02] start going to come out with grants for
us to be able to do that if we can't get
[10:06] this. I think the antenna would be a
little bit more
[10:11] important, but
they're all three. Great.
[10:15] » They are.
>> Vice Mayor,
[10:18] » thank you, Mayor. Uh, Pete, I was hoping
you could in regards to the antennas and
[10:22] the radios. In the memo, it says that it
will allow us to comply with the state
[10:28] of Wyoming's updated mutual aid
encryption protocol.
[10:32] Could you provide a little bit more
context and like are we currently not in
[10:36] compliance with the mutual aid
encryption protocol and
[10:41] under what sort of timeline are we bound
to? If not, what sort of timeline are we
[10:47] bound to get into compliance? A little
more context in that regard if you could
[10:52] please.
>> Thank you, Mr. Um, I can provide at
[10:55] least a little bit more context. Um,
certainly our radios are currently
[11:00] encrypted and they do allow for cross
communication with other agencies. Um,
[11:05] however, there are these uh call them
back channels. That's not the proper
[11:09] channel where where the radios can be
turned to another channel. And for some
[11:14] of those channels, they are not
naturally encrypted. So the state is now
[11:18] upgrading its requested level of
encryption to include both the front and
[11:23] the back of the house if you want to
think of it that way. So So right now
[11:26] many of our radios or should say some of
our radios are already compliant with
[11:30] that higher standard, that new standard,
but not all of them. So, so the purchase
[11:36] of the radios would allow us to all the
police department's radios was for also
[11:42] sworn staff but also the other all the
other police department officials who
[11:46] have to carry radios including CSOS and
you know patrol officers and other
[11:49] people have to have radio. Anyway, it
allow us to replace those older radios
[11:53] with zero kind
for both the front half and the back
[11:57] half encryption and and move to the
higher level of encryption which is also
[12:02] a two key encryption rather than a one
key encryption. Please don't ask me what
[12:06] the difference is. [laughter]
[12:10] » Yeah, go ahead.
>> Thank you, Pete. Uh so for followup, I
[12:13] think I got the answer uh in the
additional information you provided, but
[12:17] these radios are radios that we will
need to purchase at some point in the
[12:22] future. They're replacing existing
radios. They're not in addition above
[12:25] and beyond radios we're currently using.
We're not adding to our kind of
[12:30] inventory of assets. These are radios
that need replaced at some point in
[12:34] time. And when they do need replaced,
they will need to have this encryption
[12:40] protocol. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, um
that is my understanding. Yes, that um
[12:45] that certainly you had at one point
requested a timeline. I don't know if
[12:50] the state has given us a deadline thing.
Thou shalt have your radios ready at
[12:54] this time.
However, I believe chief police is
[12:57] standing behind me. [laughter] No
pressure. He might have more information
[13:01] than I do on this subject.
[13:05] » Thank you. Great job.
>> Thanks. Thank you, [laughter] Mayor
[13:07] Counselor. Um so I'd really just speak
about the antenna itself. We do have
[13:11] some dead spots in Casper and if some of
you remember, we've had some critical
[13:14] incidents. They've been in the past, but
some of our older buildings are concrete
[13:19] and these portables that we have now do
not um most buildings that are older do
[13:23] not require that. Um
>> I want to make sure I got my language
[13:27] right. So it's bilateral communication.
Um, so when we had the incident at the
[13:31] hospital with the active shooter at the
hospital some years ago, we were unable
[13:35] to communicate in the hospital because
the hospital did not
[13:38] » that bad bilateral antenna is what it's
called. [clears throat]
[13:41] We have some dead spots across the front
of the Casper Mountain. This new
[13:45] antenna, if we got it, would help clear
up some of those dead spots. Um, as well
[13:50] as you also remember, we had the hostage
situation down on North Popppler
[13:56] in the uh old state building.
name names but it was state agency where
[14:03] unsecure building an attorney was taken
hostage turned into a whole thing. We
[14:07] had a problem with their interoper
interoperable communication with our
[14:10] portables because of the dead space down
there. So this antenna at that proposed
[14:15] site when we had a um some radio
engineers come out and do a site survey.
[14:18] That would be the best place to have it.
Currently what we're operating on is a u
[14:23] tower that we call the the tall grass
tower. It's in Converse County. So, a
[14:27] lot of our traffic, depending on where
we're at, has to hit that tower down in
[14:31] Converse County and then come back. It's
not really a repeater anymore, but it
[14:35] goes through that wild link system and
then comes back. And so, this would help
[14:39] with take some of the burden off that
tower. And also, some of our traffic
[14:42] here up on the west side of town hits
the radio tower clear out at Alcoa. So,
[14:46] this would help take some of that um
traffic off those two towers and put it
[14:51] here and help increase our
communication. the portables themselves
[14:55] when uh the state went to Wildlink and
ponyied up some of that stuff. We're
[14:59] still in good standing on those
portables, but as you know, we being one
[15:02] of the larger agencies in the state,
sometimes we can call to go other
[15:05] places. These portables will be able to
flip a switch through dispatch, be able
[15:09] to communicate seamlessly with those
other agencies even though they're not
[15:11] necessarily programmed. Their channels
aren't programmed in our portals. That
[15:15] makes sense. So, that's what Wild's
trying to get to.
[15:21] » Any other questions? Yeah, go ahead.
>> Um, thank you for that, Chief. And I
[15:29] my understanding when I've brought up uh
the lead issue at regional water after
[15:37] last year's I think it was wham
um summer convention
[15:44] um and brought back you know some
concerns from that um via DEEQ
[15:52] in a presentation
um It's pretty well.
[15:58] I think they're tracking at least in
Casper where where the problems are and
[16:05] I think they're down to less than 100
100 properties
[16:10] uh that they're still tracking uh if I
remember right. Uh but uh but anyway uh
[16:19] I you know listening to some of the leg
legislative stuff and some of the
[16:26] hearings recently on on different things
that sounds like the wild link um you
[16:34] know and trying to keep keep up with
technology.
[16:38] I I think that's probably
a quicker quicker need. Nothing against
[16:46] you know they're all good projects.
>> Yeah.
[16:50] » So
[16:53] » um I would just add a few things if I
could council. Um so with respect to the
[16:58] lead lines this came up during capital
budget review and your understanding is
[17:03] my understanding as well. Um this has
been being tracked for some time. couple
[17:07] years ago um during the Biden
administration, the EPA really up the
[17:11] ante and mandated uh jurisdictions that
were not inventorying their system for
[17:17] potential lead or other pipes that could
can um hold lead.
[17:22] They created a deadline for that to
occur. So, Casper Regional Water has
[17:26] that inventory has been chipping away at
this. What kind of brought this to my
[17:31] attention um and why I asked that maybe
we look at this and um escalate the rate
[17:38] at which we address lead lines is that
Biden era mandate to inventory and then
[17:45] remediate uh is still out there. Now,
with the Trump administration taking
[17:49] office, there was some question whether
the Trump administration would roll back
[17:53] these regulations like they have for
things like um the toxic plastics and
[17:59] groundwater, mercury, etc. But the most
recent news I've seen is that the Trump
[18:04] administration is saying they're going
to hold firm on the mandate to
[18:07] remediate, but the grant program, to
your point, counselor, that would have
[18:12] come with this to help with remediation
remains in question. So, um I think your
[18:18] point is a good one. If the grant
program receives a federal green light,
[18:24] then sure, we would love to utilize that
funding and maybe make our other
[18:28] project, one of the other projects a top
priority. Um, what I will say though is
[18:33] with the knowledge that these locations
exist, I had concern that maybe we need
[18:39] to get out and remediate these sooner
versus later because we have a known
[18:43] liability in in the pipes and um, lead
is serious as we all know. So anyway,
[18:50] what I would maybe suggest hearing what
you've said, I think it's a good point.
[18:54] Um, if we could elicit some information
from the feds as to whether or not that
[18:58] grant program will be reinvigorated and
kept whole by the Trump administration,
[19:02] then this could be depprioritized among
the three. Um, but if we can't, then
[19:09] maybe it it's a more urgent issue. So
anyway, just some perspective for you.
[19:13] And if any of our water engineering
folks want to address this, they're
[19:17] certainly welcome to add to to that.
>> Don't feel pressured.
[19:22] » You don't have to. [laughter]
>> Don't feel bullied.
[19:28] » I think everybody has covered it very
well. Uh these are areas that we have
[19:34] been track tracking for a while. They're
not currently areas that we're concerned
[19:39] with the
quality as in life cycle of the pipe.
[19:44] They're they're not exposed or they're
not having frequent breaks or anything
[19:48] like that. So, this is really just a
lead service line or suspected lead
[19:52] service line issue that we we'd rather
get out ahead of than than wait for
[19:58] other opportunities if we can.
Just wrapping up, the concern is if the
[20:03] mandate to remediate remains and we
don't secure funding, will we find
[20:06] ourselves down the road in a situation
where oh, we have to have this
[20:10] remediated in a year and there is no
money. So, we're trying to be proactive.
[20:14] So, thank you, Ethan.
>> Yeah, just a quick question. I'm just
[20:18] wondering, we're talking about
prioritization and I'm wondering it
[20:23] appears that these are coming from
different pots of federal money. So, is
[20:29] there really a need to I mean, are we
talking about in terms of which one we
[20:34] would advocate for more strongly or
because it looks like they're from
[20:39] different pots of money. So, if they'd
be competing or not,
[20:44] Mr. Mayor, Councelor Bond, um the answer
to your question is that under the rules
[20:49] of the House of Representatives, every
representative of the House can can
[20:52] submit only 15 requests. I see. I see.
So, so inevitably you're not the only
[20:57] agency that might asking
>> and so she she may have to make some
[21:01] choices.
>> I see. Thank you for that clarification.
[21:04] » All right, sir.
>> Thank you, Mayor. I have a question,
[21:06] Pete. I know previously we've always
worked with Representative Hagman. Does
[21:10] the Senate not also have any
opportunities like this or
[21:14] » Mr. Mayor, Mr. President? Um, the Senate
can, but uh our senators have have
[21:20] chosen to opt out of the this process.
[21:27] submit any of these requests on their
behalf.
[21:33] » So, it sounds like the two that I'm
hearing obviously are the communications
[21:38] for the police and and the lead. Um, I
guess I would offer or ask um what you
[21:45] guys kind of look at those two. I'm
sorry, Kyle, but it sounds like the
[21:49] » I was going to say if no one's going to
speak to it, I'm happy to advocate. Do
[21:52] you want to advocate for before we move?
>> Yeah, I mean since we haven't mentioned
[21:56] it, um you [clears throat] know, uh
councelor Sweeney, uh to your point,
[22:00] this is everything south of the bridge
to see why. Um I'm really thankful. I
[22:06] think it was when Andrew Beamer was our
public services director. I had asked
[22:10] for some help with restriping that area
of road and that did help tremendously.
[22:15] Um so I'm very very pleased with that
what that's done. But still the hill
[22:19] leading up from north uh from Robertson
Road Bridge 2C is only two lanes. And
[22:25] this most recent snow event that we had,
I was on my way to work or something. Um
[22:30] it is often the case vehicles, two wheel
drive vehicles get stuck on that hill.
[22:34] In this case, it was a bus kind of jack
knifed across that one lane of traffic.
[22:38] Nobody can get through. It turns into a
huge issue. And I'm sure there's dozens,
[22:44] maybe hundreds of people that are very
late to work those mornings. And it
[22:48] happens almost every significant snow
event. And so, you know, uh for people
[22:52] that live in that area of town, you
know, it's hard for me to say it should
[22:56] be prioritized above clean drinking
water and uh public safety critical
[23:00] communication equipment, but certainly
um I support this being on the list. And
[23:06] uh you know it's a $2 million project
that would eat up currently our streets
[23:10] funding you know annual budget is 3.7 so
that would eat up over half of our
[23:14] annual budget. So it's something that
would be very hard to do without some
[23:17] sort of federal assistance. Uh but I do
think it's it's a significant need in
[23:22] that area town. So just my two cents.
[clears throat]
[23:28] » So sounds like we we're seeing now that
you guys everybody heard from Kyle. I
[23:32] agree. No I want to give you that
opportunity my friend.
[23:35] » Appreciate it. Um [laughter]
uh but it sounds like the real
[23:39] priorities where we're looking at are
the lead um and the uh communications.
[23:45] Uh I guess what do we want to be I it's
going to be hard to put those two
[23:50] » um or is everybody anybody leaning
certain one? Mayor, I I think you
[23:56] proposed all three, correct? Yeah.
>> And then then you get kick back from
[24:01] Egamman's office and saying, "Okay, this
year I've got 45 in front of me. What's
[24:06] your priority?"
>> Is that how we want to do? Because I
[24:09] know you in the in the memo it said you
want to give us a priority now or am I
[24:15] wrong in that, Peter?
>> No, Mr. Mayor. You are correct. It would
[24:18] it would be helpful at this time to know
what your what your top priorities would
[24:22] be so that we could communicate that.
[clears throat]
[24:25] Thanks, Mayor. I mean, if budget is not
a variable in this equation and it's
[24:30] just number of projects, we're asking
for twice as much for the lead water
[24:35] lines. And if we were to get that, you
know, coming up with 1.6 for the police
[24:39] department is probably easier than
coming up with three million for water
[24:43] lines.
>> Water lines. Yeah.
[24:45] » Um
although rape payers. Yeah. I mean, so
[24:49] that you know the ask is twice as much
for the other one. Um, which again will
[24:53] be borne by the rateayers in that case,
but if we can do them a solid, I think
[24:56] we owe it to them.
>> Amber,
[24:59] » yeah, I I had the same line of thought
and ultimately I think the order that
[25:03] they're in in the memo is the order I
would
[25:05] » Yes,
>> if I had to prioritize them, I think
[25:07] they're all worthy of being on the list,
but uh if I had to prioritize, I would
[25:12] just say proceed as is. Yes,
>> I would second that.
[25:18] » Anybody against that? Awesome.
So, as the order it is in the memo.
[25:24] » Thanks so much, sir. Appreciate it.
>> Thanks. Thanks, Steph.
[25:27] » Appreciate it. Thanks for coming up,
Ethan.
[25:31] » All right. Agenda review. Anybody have
anything they'd like to talk about
[25:35] that's in the P or in the um agenda for
tonight? Anything? Questions,
[25:40] clarification?
>> Yeah, go ahead.
[25:43] » So, Mayor, um I I probably should have
asked to pull
[25:52] off the consent agenda as far as the
rate increase for the golf course. No, I
[25:58] can't
um
[26:05] authorizing
[26:09] the water utility rate adjustment
amendment that's on consent. Um,
[26:16] weren't we hearing tonight the the golf
[26:23] course?
>> Sounds like it's next
[26:25] » coming up sweetie.
>> Oh, it's not on.
[26:28] » It is tonight or is not tonight? [cough]
>> Uh, [clears throat] so actually when it
[26:33] comes to the recreation enterprises, you
all established a resolution of the
[26:38] council that our rates would be set
based on our cost recovery goals. And so
[26:43] we have not since 2018 when that
resolution was instituted uh passed
[26:48] specific resolutions for rate increases
to any of the enterprises except for the
[26:53] cemetery. That's the exception because
of specific statute related to
[26:56] cemeteries. Um so generally speaking we
have not brought a resolution for a
[27:01] formal approval. Once you all give
conceptuals we move forward with
[27:06] implementing those rates based on that
um 2018 resolution.
[27:12] me to hear any feedback or concerns that
you might still have.
[27:18] » So, I didn't vehemently oppose it and I
didn't give it a I didn't give a thumb
[27:26] either way or a finger either.
[laughter] So,
[27:33] » I didn't know that was an option.
[laughter]
[27:36] » Something new every day.
But um I I just uh but you know the
[27:44] majority voted and and it was all good.
But uh tonight I if if it was and I
[27:51] thought I had seen it but I got it mixed
up with with the um amendment. Um, so I
[27:59] I just think
with the winner we've had and lack of
[28:05] winner up on Hogadon, those losses are
going to be tremendous. Um, and u I just
[28:13] don't know if we want that much more
misery because I I do believe we're
[28:18] going to have to water a lot more this
summer um than previously. Hopefully
[28:24] [clears throat]
this storm does hit and dump in the
[28:29] snowies and Sierra Madre and that's
where the most of our north flat water
[28:34] comes from. So um that might help but so
I I
[28:42] you [clears throat] know
majority rules so
[28:48] late to the dance.
>> Yes. So,
[28:52] thanks for [laughter]
[28:55] any other questions. Do you have
anything to add?
[28:59] » No, I I was going to mention going
through parks and recy board. That's the
[29:04] only
right.
[29:09] I think that's probably clear.
>> Want to address
[29:13] » add a comment in response. We will
absolutely monitor course conditions um
[29:19] you know and and navigate the end of
season as best as possible. We do also
[29:25] offer um our package options of
[29:31] F season pass that starts July 1. Um so
look at altering that as well. I I think
[29:40] there are options available to us and we
would bring forward um some
[29:43] recommendations if we felt like there
needed to be a change. Um but we will
[29:48] absolutely be monitoring the watering uh
and the conditions of the course. Um but
[29:54] would also say that you know season
passes are the foundation of our revenue
[30:00] streams and I think historically pass
holders understand that. Um, and I think
[30:06] when I did the math, a passholder would
only need to golf 16 times to break even
[30:11] as compared to paying a daily rate. Um,
and so we still feel like our
[30:15] passholders are getting good value and
even in a dry summer, they would likely
[30:19] far exceed that 16 time break even
point.
[30:25] » Thank you, Vice Mayor.
>> Thanks, Mayor. No question, but uh I'm
[30:29] just really thankful to have learned
that uh you can go play the course for
[30:32] free over the winter. And I went last
weekend and it was beautiful and walked
[30:36] 12 holes and and still a little sore
about it. So yeah, just uh appreciate
[30:40] it. It's nice. Those fairways run pretty
good though in these dry winter
[30:44] conditions. So that ball won't stop
moving.
[30:55] » So just a reminder of the non-conent
where we had anything 500,000 or more
[31:00] that we would discuss about that. So,
just wanted to give a reminder Janine
[31:04] was the heads up on that, but I think
it'll be probably remembered. So, thank
[31:07] you, Janine.
>> So, um for items that are $500,000 or
[31:13] higher, uh those will now be on your
non-consent agenda.
[31:17] » And tonight, you have two uh one is the
screw pump project, what I which I think
[31:21] most of you are very aware of, and the
other is the McKinley Street uh work
[31:24] with YOT.
>> Brought it up after the 1.6 million
[31:28] sewer interceptor project a few weeks
back.
[31:31] That was the vice mayor initiative
>> exercising my authority.
[31:36] » You [laughter] guys, you guys put me in
the role. It's time to hand. [laughter]
[31:44] » We need to be careful.
>> What we paid for it.
[31:47] » Thank Zelma.
>> Thank you, Zelma.
[31:51] Thanks.