[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:06] Trecky Meadows Water, oh, it's good, it's on it. The Trecky Meadows Water Authority Board of Directors meeting for Tuesday, December 7th, which is Pearl Harbor Day, and my dad. Do you have any veterans in the audience? Is there anyone in Syvetron? Anyone? No, not a vet here? It's going to ask you to lead us in the pledge. Okay, yes, absolutely. Carl, you're a vet?
[0:34] Are you a vet, sir? Okay, all right.
[0:38] Okay, would you give us a roll call first, Ms. Falson, and then we'll get to the, we're going to get, we're coming back to you, sir.
[0:48] Here?
[0:49] Here.
[0:51] Here.
[1:05] Here.
[1:06] Thank you, Madam Clerk.
[1:07] Carl, I don't know your last name, sir.
[1:10] Cut.
[1:12] Mr. Cut, would you, sir, because of Pearl Harbor Day, would you lead us in the pledge?
[1:38] So I
[1:41] want to thank you for leading us and I want to thank you for your service.
[1:48] Okay, that takes us to item number three public comment.
[1:52] Madam Clerk, I don't have any cards in front of me.
[1:54] Do we have anyone signed in public comment?
[1:57] Is there anyone wishing to speak at this time?
[1:59] Seeing none, I will close public comment.
[2:03] Item number four, possible board comments or acknowledgements?
[2:06] Anyone?
[2:09] Okay.
[2:10] Seeing none, that will take us to item number five.
[2:14] Approval of the agenda.
[2:16] What I'd like to do board is I'd like to open items 10a and 10b together.
[2:23] And then items 12 and 13 together.
[2:27] If the board is amenable to that, I will.
[2:30] Mr. Chair.
[2:31] Yes.
[2:33] Yes.
[2:34] Mr. Chair.
[2:35] Yes.
[2:35] Mr. Floor, George.
[2:38] Mr. Chair.
[2:39] And I'll know if you can hear me.
[2:41] I can hear you.
[2:43] Sonia.
[2:44] Raise your hand if you can hear me.
[2:50] Here.
[2:51] I'll, I'll text her and let her know.
[2:53] Okay.
[2:54] You guys were muted.
[2:55] So we, the rest of us on here couldn't hear.
[2:58] Okay.
[2:59] So I just I don't know if you started the meeting or called the role but we we just have can hear you. Okay. Yes, we did call the role and the meeting has started and we are now an item number five, which is public, which is approval of the agenda under item four possible board comments. Do you have any comments, Mr.
[3:20] store. No, I just wanted to let you know I've been here since before the meeting started.
[3:25] Thank you. Okay. Approval of the agenda. Again, I'll say I would like to put items 10A and 10B
[3:33] together and items 12 and 13 together. And if that's amenable to the board, I will entertain a motion.
[3:38] Public. Second. I have a motion by Jardin. Second by Dare. Is there any other discussion?
[3:44] Madam Clerk, do we have any public comments on this item?
[3:47] Okay, I'll close public comment, bring it back to the board.
[3:50] All those in favor please signify by saying aye.
[3:52] Aye.
[3:53] Any opposed?
[3:54] Motion carries unanimously.
[3:56] Okay.
[3:57] That takes us to item number six, approval of the minutes for October 20th, 2021.
[4:03] Are there any mandations to those minutes?
[4:08] Seeing none, I will entertain a motion.
[4:10] Moved to approve the meeting minutes from October 20th, 2021.
[4:15] Motion by Anderson.
[4:16] Do I have a second?
[4:17] Second. Second by Jardin. Is there any other discussion? Is there any public comments on this item madam clerk?
[4:24] We'll close public comment bring it back to the board. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Aye any opposed?
[4:31] Motion carries unanimously
[4:34] That takes us to item number seven discussion and action on the adoption of the resolution number 298 a resolution to approve the
[4:41] Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021. Mr. Bowman, welcome.
[4:49] Thank you. Good afternoon, members of the board.
[5:16] I'm going to try my best to refer to this document no longer as a CAFER, but as an act for.
[5:22] We filed them on November 30th following the issuance of an unqualified audit opinion
[5:27] from I'd Bailey. Happy to report there were no comments or internal control matters noted
[5:34] from their audit.
[5:36] Everything went smoothly.
[5:37] I definitely want to thank Sophie Cardinal,
[5:41] who's right there, our principal accountant,
[5:43] for preparing pretty much all the audit schedules
[5:45] and coordinating the bulk of the audit,
[5:48] went off without a hitch this year.
[5:50] Sophie also drafted several of the footnotes
[5:53] within the financial statements this year.
[5:55] I also want to thank Sonya Folsom over there
[5:58] and Sandra Tozi for compiling the statistical section.
[6:03] of the act for which which I would recommend taking a look through because that those are some pretty interesting schedules it gives a lot of historical perspective to typically there they're shown with 10 years of history behind them and just some useful information for reference the staff report contains some financial information from the year I'm not going to go through that that's all pulled out of the act for itself and I've already talked about that too with our fourth quarter update that I gave you guys happy to answer any questions
[6:34] questions you might have, but a couple of things I do want to point out within the Act
[6:39] for this year. First is we implemented a new accounting standard, GASB 84, requires
[6:46] that Toma's two OPEB funds are recognized as component units of Toma. And so at SON
[6:53] page 34 and 35 of the Act for it's essentially a balance sheet and an income statement for
[6:59] the two OPEB trust funds.
[7:02] That's new this year.
[7:03] We've always prepared those financial statements
[7:05] and they've always been audited by IG Bailey,
[7:07] but now they just have to be included in the Act
[7:09] for thanks to GASB 84.
[7:13] They never ask you to do less.
[7:15] They always require more disclosure and more work.
[7:19] So that is what it is.
[7:22] You might notice that those financial statements
[7:25] have a December 31st year end,
[7:26] so that's because they're they're on a different fiscal year and again those are audited.
[7:32] The last thing I want to point out in the staff report it's actually on page 4 of the agenda item
[7:38] looks like this here so for the first time this year tumwa is going to do a paffer and ever since
[7:51] I started at tumwa michelle's been telling me she she's wanted to do a paffer and what that is is a
[7:55] a popular annual financial report.
[7:58] So this year with the help of our communications team
[8:01] and specifically, Cammy, Elquist, Lure,
[8:05] and Robert Sharpentier, we're putting this together.
[8:08] And what it is, is it takes information from the app for,
[8:12] it boils down that financial information,
[8:14] makes it digestible, and ours is gonna be about 15 pages,
[8:19] lots of graphics.
[8:20] It boils down into a report that can be useful for the public
[8:24] like somebody who doesn't want to read through the Act for,
[8:27] which is prepared under these accounting standards,
[8:30] very prescriptive, kind of boring.
[8:33] The Paffer is going to be, I think,
[8:35] a lot more useful and kind of fun to read.
[8:37] So we're excited about that.
[8:39] We're working on it right now.
[8:40] We should be presenting that to this board in January.
[8:46] So that's it for this staff report as far as what I want to say.
[8:51] And again, we're just asking for approval
[8:53] of the 2021 Act for.
[8:57] All right. Questions for Mr. Bowman?
[9:03] Mr. Ward, do you have any questions for Mr. Bowman?
[9:07] Thanks for asking. No, I don't.
[9:09] Okay. Thank you so much.
[9:11] I'll just note that operating revenues were higher.
[9:14] Hydroelectric revenues were lower.
[9:17] Our operating expenses were slightly higher.
[9:23] But it really, again,
[9:25] And Tom was in great financial condition, and I attribute that to having great staff.
[9:31] Thank you so much, and I'm still angry about losing Ms. Cardinal, but I'm not holding it against you, Mr. Bowman.
[9:38] Nor am I holding it against Ms. Cardinal.
[9:41] Our loss, Tom, was gained.
[9:44] Do we have any public comment on this item?
[9:48] Okay?
[9:50] Is there anyone wishing to speak at this time?
[9:53] Okay, seeing none?
[9:55] Mr. Dare?
[9:55] I need to make a motion.
[9:57] Okay.
[9:58] Go ahead.
[9:59] I'd like to make a motion to accept the end adopt.
[10:03] Resolution number 298.
[10:04] The resolution to approve the annual comprehensive financial report for fiscal year ended June 30th, 2021.
[10:09] Congratulations on a good audit and a good year.
[10:12] Thank you.
[10:13] Okay.
[10:13] So I'm a motion minister there.
[10:15] Do I have a second?
[10:16] Second.
[10:17] Second by Mr. Jordan.
[10:18] Is there any other discussion on this item?
[10:20] We have asked for public comment seeing none.
[10:22] All those in favor please signify by saying aye.
[10:24] Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously.
[10:30] Ms. Dura, I said aye.
[10:31] Yes. Thank you. Thank you so much.
[10:33] And if I don't hear you, I'm going to assume that you're an aye,
[10:36] but I know that you're online unless Ms. Folsom tells me otherwise.
[10:40] No, that's fine. Great. Thank you.
[10:42] Thank you so much.
[10:45] Yes. No, no. I understand.
[10:46] Unless you tell me otherwise, Ms. Folsom, I'll assume that she's there.
[10:49] That takes us board to item number eight, presentation of financial performance of the first quarter fiscal year 2022, Mr. Bowman.
[10:58] You are still in the hot seat.
[11:00] Bill here. Hello again. Matt Bowman, again for the record.
[11:04] So this is our first quarter financial update.
[11:07] Like you're used to seeing, this takes our financial results for a period of time.
[11:13] We're looking at July, August, it's September of the fiscal year.
[11:15] and we compare it to budget for the same period
[11:18] and then prior year for the same period.
[11:19] So it's the same type of report that I typically
[11:23] present each quarter, I'll just be focusing mainly
[11:27] on comparisons to budget.
[11:29] And the takeaways here for this quarter
[11:30] is that we're in good shape, no big surprises.
[11:33] That's kind of the thing I want to be able to say
[11:35] every quarter, first quarter wasn't any different.
[11:40] You can see on the first page we're about $4 million
[11:43] dollars over budget on our change in that position about 18% that's sort of the bottom line.
[11:49] So what's impacting the bottom line on the positive side water sales are in line with budget
[11:54] we're about 1% over budget for the quarter operating expenses in total we're about 4%
[12:00] under budget capital contributions were higher than budget on the negative side slightly lower
[12:07] investment income during the quarter and we had a fair value investment loss.
[12:11] So I'll unpack that just at a pretty high level now if we want to go to page two of the
[12:16] staff report.
[12:17] The first table is operating revenues and here you can see that water sales were within
[12:24] one percent of budget which is good.
[12:26] It's always good.
[12:27] It's nice to just recognize what you had planned and it helps everything along.
[12:32] Hydroelectric revenue you can see was down 27 percent.
[12:34] That was because we had lower river flows during the quarter.
[12:37] We had planned for it but we ended up having to shut the plants down a little sooner than
[12:40] we had even budgeted for. But then what was interesting is because of all the rain we got in
[12:45] October, we actually got to turn them back on again, which doesn't typically happen in the fall
[12:49] like that. So we got to turn them back on for a while. They're back off now as the river flows have
[12:55] dropped, but that was a little bit of a bonus because we didn't expect to be able to do that.
[13:01] Other operating sales you can see is quite a bit higher than budget. What's in here, we have higher
[13:06] late fees higher call out charges and most of that's due to the quarter from last fiscal year
[13:13] where we were in the pandemic and those we weren't charging late fees. We didn't have a lot of call
[13:18] outs. We frankly probably under budgeted a little bit there because we really saw an increase
[13:23] this quarter. We'll keep an eye on that through the year but I expect that the level off to some
[13:28] extent. Not big dollars you can see that that's two percent or so or total operating revenue.
[13:36] We'll go to operating expenses which is on the next page. Nothing too significant to note here.
[13:43] We're four percent under in total. I do want to point out that we're keeping an eye on price
[13:47] increases and services and supplies. Just what does that mean for us? What are we seeing?
[13:52] being mostly anecdotal at this point but you know we'll see what it looks like after
[13:58] the next quarter and I wouldn't expect it but you know worst case scenario we'd have
[14:03] a budget augmentation and really have to look at that.
[14:06] On services and supplies you can see that we're actually 1% over budget on that line that's
[14:10] the third line in that first group and a lot that's due to timing.
[14:16] We're actually if I went through the detail and we're actually 4% under budget if we take
[14:21] out some timing related things that we budgeted even late throughout the year, but recognize
[14:24] a lot of those costs up front. So, we're looking good at this point, but, again, keeping
[14:29] a close eye on that category in the week is a price increases. And if we go to the next
[14:36] page, which is not operating expenses, nothing of much significance here. I mentioned fair value
[14:42] investment loss. That's really what's driving that interest expenses in this category.
[14:50] It's
[14:51] So our interest expense is basically all fixed so we should always be very close to budget in that category
[15:00] The last part of the income statement on the last page is capital contributions and you can see here we're quite a bit over budget, 26%. But more than half of that is developer infrastructure contributions, which is the third line down. And this really fluctuates throughout the year timing wise, we had a pretty low fourth quarter. And I think we caught up quite a bit there with just projects wrapping up, getting mapped and added into our fix asset ledger, and that's what drives that.
[15:29] It's non-cache, it's developers constructing assets and dedicating to TUM-1, we recognize them.
[15:34] So you can see that's quite a bit higher. I expect that'll probably level off during the year,
[15:38] though. And then the other one that's up quite a bit is developer facility charges,
[15:44] and that's supply treatment and storage. The volume of projects that we had revenue coming in during
[15:50] the quarter was pretty comparable to the quarter of last fiscal year, but we had some just higher
[15:56] dollar projects coming through the door and that's another one that is difficult to predict and
[16:02] you know can fluctuate but I think at this point there's no reason that we wouldn't expect to be
[16:07] close to budget throughout the balance of the year and that category as well. Last thing I want
[16:13] to point out the first line of that category is grants and we had some good news we just signed our
[16:20] award for our FEMA grant from the 2017 flood for the Glendale Diversion, which we repaired
[16:28] that and had applied for FEMA money. We had to go through a bunch of processes. This process
[16:34] called a version change request, but we did all of that. It just got the award and it's going
[16:39] to be $1.7 million that we'll be receiving and recognizing in Q2 of grant revenue. So good news.
[16:46] we've been waiting and waiting for that one. So I'm excited that that's finally come through.
[16:51] So that's the big stuff. Be happy to answer any questions. Again, take away is that there's a
[16:58] pretty good quarter as expected. No big surprises. Okay. Good. Not surprised with FEMA.
[17:06] Yeah. Yeah. All of those large governmental agencies, BLM FEMA, they all move at glacial
[17:12] speeds in my opinion fast tracking is I think that's fast for years is yeah I
[17:20] will point out this date of Nevada division of emergency management was very
[17:25] helpful throughout that process and really spent a lot of time with us
[17:29] helping us understand what we needed to do right right right right they
[17:33] I give them a lot of credit for just kind of holding their hand walk in a
[17:35] suit because they were very helpful our our capital contributions portion of
[17:41] this presentation is is is that potentially a canary in the coal mine? Are we starting
[17:46] to see things sort of slowed down in the developmental community a little bit?
[17:52] Not on the financial side. Okay. No, we're not. And I think
[17:59] Scott's group could attest that probably not in just their activity in the volume of what
[18:03] they're processing at this point. It's just it's just when they're when they're making
[18:07] in the contributions, is that what's happened?
[18:08] Yeah, yeah, so yeah, talking about the actual infrastructure
[18:14] contributions, yes, and that also there's timing in there
[18:17] as to when things are inspected and mapped
[18:20] and put into our GIS system, and then recognize.
[18:24] So it's, there can be a little bit of a lag as well.
[18:26] Yes, there can be, that's exactly right, there can be a lag.
[18:29] Understood.
[18:30] Questions for Mr. Bowman?
[18:34] Actually, just a comment, I want to say,
[18:36] And I'm confident I've told you this before, but I truly appreciate the quality of what you provide for us.
[18:44] I love that not only do you provide the data, but you anticipate our questions, and in your summary there, you pretty much most of the time answer mine, at least.
[18:53] And I just want to say great job. Thank you.
[18:57] Well done. I'm a story. Do you have any questions for Mr. Bowman?
[19:01] So again, a great job. Appreciate all the info.
[19:05] Okay. All right.
[19:08] So what is it that you need from us? This is an action item.
[19:13] It's just informational. You don't need us to accept the report.
[19:17] Okay. We're all good. Okay. Wonderful.
[19:20] Thank you so much. All right. We will close.
[19:25] Item number eight, and that takes us to item number nine.
[19:28] Discussion and action and possible direction to staff regarding the approval of an interlocal agreement between come one the city of Reno on construction and operation of the American flat advanced purified water demonstration facility Mr. N. Low
[19:41] Steph Morris, Miss Morris, and Mr. Bowman
[19:45] Mr. N. Low, there is Mr. N. Low, okay. I see I didn't see three three faces. Welcome the floor is yours
[19:52] That's more for the record Water Resources Manager. I am going to air on the side of brevity
[19:59] because this project has been presented to the board as well as the terms of the ILA.
[20:07] But I will give a high level summary and we're happy to answer any questions.
[20:13] The item before you is to authorize an interlocal agreement with the City of Reno.
[20:18] And that is for the design and construction of the one water Nevada advanced purified water demonstration project at American flat a very long name.
[20:29] At any rate, Reno City Reno was presented the ILA and they approved it in their on their November board meeting.
[20:36] And the terms are summarized in the staff report and they are consistent with what was presented by Mr. Bowman at our last report at our last board meeting.
[20:46] and you can find the deal points there.
[20:51] Largely, the construction and design is divided for cost
[20:55] and the planning and design 70% to Reno, 30% to Tomwa.
[21:01] The ongoing operations maintenance are split evenly.
[21:06] The water rights revenue that could be generated from the project
[21:09] are allocated 60% to City of Reno and 40% to Tomwa.
[21:14] And then the replacement cost allocation is by facility, some are 50-50, and others are
[21:21] the sole responsibility of Tumblr and the sole responsibility of City of Reno.
[21:26] The way that the cost we're allocated was to sort of acknowledge the need that the City
[21:34] of Reno had early on to deal with the effluent management, and Tumblr's longer range needs
[21:40] needs for water resiliency and their firstifying our portfolio.
[21:46] So that's largely the cost allocation.
[21:49] That was what Mr. Bowman presented when he presented the financial models.
[21:53] There are obviously broad regional benefits, and those are covered on page two of the staff
[21:59] report, including a local reliable drop-proof water supply.
[22:04] In the ILA itself, there are a couple of things of interest that maybe we hadn't focused
[22:10] done before that I'll just point out.
[22:12] One is that all of the grants or loan forgiveness
[22:15] that are received and for the project are also allocated
[22:18] in the 70% to Reno, 30% to Tumblr.
[22:22] We are actively and aggressively pursuing grant monies,
[22:26] and there are a lot that are becoming available
[22:29] with the Federal Infrastructure Act.
[22:31] So we will continue to do that as best that we can.
[22:36] In addition to that, I just wanna note that approving
[22:39] the ILA. It doesn't allow the parties, Reno, and Tamba to move forward with the full project implementation.
[22:46] However, it does provide for the cost allocation and responsibility should the project move forward,
[22:51] and it does commit the parties to completing the planning and design. And if you look in the ILA itself
[23:00] at the first exhibit, it has the overall cost of the project. And I think Mr. Roman presented the
[23:07] financial model in great detail at our last board meeting but we are both
[23:11] available as well as Mr. M. Lowe to answer any questions you might have.
[23:16] All right, let's go ahead. I'll before is yours. Oh, there are green
[23:24] green works, right? Okay, thanks. It's different over at Walshow County. So I am
[23:33] going to repeat some questions that I've been asking over at the City of
[23:37] Reno. I don't think you'll have the answers, but I think they're good questions to have
[23:42] for Tomoa to know how our partner is doing and our partner is Reno. And I view of us
[23:51] where both hats. So number one, and they're all fiscal. So except for a couple actually,
[24:01] I'll say, most are fiscal.
[24:03] Now under Reno's current rate structure,
[24:08] what are the revenue projections to pay this debt?
[24:13] And so if you had a model of Reno sewer rates coming in
[24:18] for the next 5, 10 years, how much debt
[24:22] is Reno going to be paying off for this project?
[24:26] Because they have taken already $65 million
[24:29] dollars for the expansion and this comes with on Exhibit A, another debt in
[24:35] Conference, is have you seen the revenues that Reno shows on their books to be
[24:40] able to pay for this debt and for paying for all the management of the
[24:43] collection system? That's number one question to you all about the partner you have.
[24:48] Number two is when Reno pays this debt how are they allocating that payment? Is it
[24:55] from connection fees or is it from rates?
[24:58] And I just as a side, have you looked at Reno's connection fees recently?
[25:03] Sparks has gone up 14% in the last 12 years.
[25:07] Reno has kept them flat for 10 or 12 years.
[25:10] So is your partner going to have the money
[25:11] and the resources to pay debt when they don't raise rates, okay?
[25:16] They keep rates stagnant in contrast to other jurisdictions.
[25:20] Now, when you look at this Rizworth and Reno's ability to pay for this project, are you
[25:27] also looking at their projections for their expenses to Tumblr?
[25:30] Because I understand Tumblr just included a capital plan that has some numbers and want
[25:37] to know if Reno's financialors are going to be encountering and projecting both of these
[25:42] expenses at both plants.
[25:44] I've also continued to ask and are very curious here about the sewer shed for this.
[25:51] So you're taking effluent from what sewer shed?
[25:55] I'd like to see the land and the land use assumptions that you think you're going to be recycling
[25:59] water.
[26:00] How much is existing?
[26:02] How much is plant development?
[26:03] How much is development?
[26:04] That's land that, you know, what is the status of this sewer shed?
[26:07] I think that is a very material question for Tumla.
[26:11] And I'd also like to know what the Cold Springs plant that the Washington County Utilities
[26:14] has is contemplated in this and Washington County's lemon plant.
[26:21] So I think those are good questions for Tom Warf to understand and be able to tell
[26:24] the public where you're getting this affluent from.
[26:30] Now one thing also about Reno's fiscal is Reno has an agreement with Stomwarf to sewer
[26:37] a portion of Reno. And that money all goes to the county for their wash-ow county utilities.
[26:44] It doesn't pay for the collection debt. So when Reno repays this debt, are they modifying
[26:49] that agreement with wash-ow county? And that might be something the county people want
[26:53] to ask too, because when you look at your sewer fund revenues, you get just checks coming
[26:59] from Reno. But that doesn't pay back for this debt. That's very interesting. And can Reno
[27:05] You know, continue to afford that arrangement and pay for this debt when they're sending all their money over to the county for a summer.
[27:13] I've also, Reno's about to stand up a stormwater utility, which will take money that's now going to pay for that for stormwater utility through the sewer fund.
[27:24] And I'm wondering if the financial modeling for your partner has taken that into account.
[27:29] Now, finally, and this is this and the sewer shed questions I think are the most important
[27:37] to TAMWA, although of course TAMWA should have confidence in the financial abilities
[27:42] and projections of your partner.
[27:44] I am very confused because it looks like the financial modeling here shows revenue for water
[27:51] sales, and that's, you know, the water portfolio is mentioned.
[27:54] But I cannot understand how this integrates with the Vidler water.
[28:00] So how is water going to be sold?
[28:02] If I'm customer Jenny in your watershed area that you're going to show the sewer shed,
[28:09] and I've got land over here and I want to buy it, who am I going to buy it from?
[28:13] And how does that work?
[28:14] Do I buy it from Vidler?
[28:16] That's been sitting with an asset here and all these agreements that we accounted from
[28:20] or am I going to go to you and say how won't your reclaimed water?
[28:24] I'm really trying to understand that and the ability of these waters to flow basins.
[28:31] So, I won't be supporting the model or the agreement, but I want everyone to know why.
[28:38] It's really foremost, I've asked a lot of here.
[28:41] I've been asking these for probably three years, these questions.
[28:45] I finally have a slide I'm carrying around.
[28:47] But hopefully I've provoked some thought for you all too, but it's just not, I'm afraid
[28:56] that we're moving forward, Reno in particular, taking on a lot of debt without showing on
[29:01] the back end what the payment's going to be, and the big surprise is going to be some
[29:04] rate analysis to Reno ratepayers.
[29:07] They're kind of out of sync at this point, and that's my number one problem.
[29:11] Thank you.
[29:15] I recognize that you are not in a position to answer most of those questions of financial
[29:22] status and et cetera.
[29:24] So if there are pieces of her questions that you can answer, you may, but there were
[29:32] many questions in there that I just don't believe that Tomois is in a position to make a comment
[29:37] on.
[29:37] That's my that's my particular take on on the questions that were asked
[29:42] Yeah, I would say on the the financial
[29:47] Questions certainly what you said and that someone needs to have confidence in their partner any kind of agreement
[29:52] And that's that is the key and I think we do at this point, but again, we're not moving forward with the project yet
[30:00] So, we, we wouldn't move forward if we did not have that confidence in our partner to this agreement.
[30:08] Yes. So, has this gone before Reno? Are we improved? Yes. Okay. Well, that answers the question that I needed. Thank you. Yeah. The ILA was approved. And so now comes to us. Yes. And so with that said, I think we stand with our jurisdiction at large.
[30:27] and I encourage us to do so. Thank you.
[30:33] We're on item number nine, Mr. Jordan.
[30:37] Mr. Ward, do you have any questions for staff?
[30:39] Yeah, yeah. I wanted to say that I definitely supported this over at Reno.
[30:45] When we voted on it, the only one thing and it must be the same.
[30:50] I assume it's the same.
[30:52] I had a question about the
[30:57] the number two, the construction cost of future effluent reuse transmission mean. I didn't remember that that was 100% Reno. It probably was. I'm sure it must be the same identical contract that we agreed to over Reno. I don't think there's any changes. I just want to confirm.
[31:15] That's correct.
[31:17] Okay.
[31:18] And I will just say, come and I sit over there.
[31:21] I think now more than ever.
[31:24] And I said over there that I really talk about my past as the state water planner.
[31:29] But in this case, it seems relevant in that.
[31:34] Back then, which was the 90s to the 2000s.
[31:38] I was a huge advocate of underground storage.
[31:42] And I continue to be a huge advocate of underground storage as a water supply source in that it has, it really protects the water from the vibration, the app of transpiration.
[31:59] Just this weekend, I saw an article by Lawrence Berkeley Labs that did a projection on our snowpack
[32:08] and I sent the article over to Mr. Foray to distribute to staff, but the sum and substance of it was
[32:16] that they were predicting that our Sierra snowpack would be severely reduced if not completely decreased
[32:25] within 25 years and I based on that I mean that's the first article I've seen
[32:31] to that effect. I mean I've seen many other articles about climate change but
[32:34] that's the first one I've seen specifically about this year's and I just feel
[32:40] it's ever more important that we work on expanding our underground storage and
[32:46] creating additional or new sources of water. This obviously is one this is
[32:52] is taking treated affluent, treating it to a plus plus standard,
[32:56] and then storing it underground for future use.
[32:59] And I know that that aquifer underground has a limit to,
[33:01] and I think our staff had said that that would fill
[33:05] potentially within the first five years.
[33:08] But it is a good and replenishable,
[33:11] and that we're going to keep using,
[33:13] or keep creating affluent.
[33:15] Therefore, we could probably keep treating it
[33:18] to this a plus plus standard.
[33:20] So I think it's really important to start doing things like this, especially, I mean, I was absolutely stunned with this article about the potential impact on our snow packs.
[33:31] So I just want to reiterate my support.
[33:34] I did just so you know, went over this with our staff.
[33:37] I had a number of questions about the cost share with both wearing my Reno hat and my Tom Wahad, as you can imagine, I have to balance both sides.
[33:46] But I do feel like they came up with a pretty good split. So that's that's what I had it today for the good of the order
[33:54] Okay, thank you. Thank you
[33:57] Anyone else
[33:59] Hold on just a second
[34:02] Okay, no one else that hasn't spoke yet. Okay, let me let me jump in first Miss Brekis
[34:07] And then I'll allow you to so we're gonna create approximately this is gonna create approximately 2,000 acre feet of storage
[34:13] For some reason I thought we had a
[34:16] Approximately 10,000
[34:17] 10,000 in that aquifer
[34:20] 10,000 in the aquifer because I
[34:22] Thought it was much higher than that but
[34:24] So so but it's 2,000 under item 4 it's
[34:29] 2,000 acre feet for potential revenue
[34:31] And for potential revenues
[34:34] That's right because
[34:36] Sorry go ahead
[34:38] No, no that's that is that is that
[34:41] was portion? It's two thousand acre feet total that the project would generate
[34:46] annually when at full build out but with the aquifer where we can store it is
[34:53] ten thousand so year after year if we aren't selling that water if we are we
[34:58] can also be storing it for future extraction so all the water essentially is
[35:03] filtered and stored in the groundwater basin and pumped out.
[35:09] Okay to Miss
[35:10] And it's a good point.
[35:12] It's a very salient comment about how does this jive
[35:19] with Viddler?
[35:19] Now we're in now competition with Viddler water.
[35:22] And I realize that Viddler water is coming into play
[35:26] to fund this, not in the literal sense of fund,
[35:34] but in order to supply that water that gets reclaimed.
[35:38] How does that fit together Mr. Emile?
[35:40] Hi, John Emile for the record.
[35:42] So a good question regarding Vidler.
[35:46] We've had some initial discussions with Vidler because I mean,
[35:51] we obviously don't want to necessarily compete with Vidler,
[35:56] but this would be complimentary to their water and their project.
[36:02] So what we have contemplated in the agreement,
[36:08] is finalized yet, I would expect that we would bring it back for board approval at some point in the future, but we have contemplated a kind of a combination of resources.
[36:20] So say if someone requires 10 acre feet of water, what we may do is something like two thirds, fish, rings, water, one third, this water, that type of thing.
[36:32] At we would end up selling this water, the A plus water at the same price as what
[36:41] Vidr is selling their water for. And I believe Matt in the financial model, we've made some
[36:49] pretty conservative assumptions, conservative being low, that we would start by selling
[36:55] 50 acre feet a year of this A plus water and it would take 20 plus years to be able to sell the full
[37:06] 2,000 acre feet that this project would generate but that excess water of this A plus water. So
[37:15] we were talking, Steph was talking about so 2 million gallons a day will generate approximately
[37:25] a year that we will be able to issue will serve commitments
[37:32] against that water.
[37:34] So there's a revenue stream just like anybody else who's buying
[37:37] real seven water or fish springs water.
[37:41] So we have taken into account in our financial model
[37:44] that we would sell.
[37:47] When did it start?
[37:48] 2028 I think was what we assumed.
[37:51] 58.
[37:52] acre feet of this A plus water, complementary to the water that it springs is selling at
[38:01] the same price, and then the revenue from that 50 acre feet of water would basically go
[38:09] back to Tomah and Reno at that 60-40 split, 60 percent to Reno, 40 percent to Tomah.
[38:18] So one of the things we do want to do is formalize this kind of water rights strategy at some point in the future.
[38:28] This is just something that we've discussed and have modeled thus far.
[38:33] And I know Vidler would like to see it kind of formalized as well.
[38:38] Okay.
[38:39] All right.
[38:40] Thank you.
[38:41] Yes, Mr. Ford.
[38:42] I think logistically to do that with what Mr. Ann was talking about, we would just need to
[38:48] modify rule seven. I believe that is the water rights rule, the water rights dedication rule.
[38:56] Certainly with discussions with Hitler, but
[38:59] as far as what we would need to do to implement that, that's a pretty simple
[39:04] simple. Does modifying rule seven only entail this border? Does it have to go to the state as well?
[39:10] No, the dedication requirements would be the same, so it's really just a determination
[39:15] by this board.
[39:16] Okay.
[39:17] Thank you.
[39:17] All right.
[39:18] As for this, floor is yours.
[39:19] Thank you.
[39:21] Okay.
[39:22] You know, I appreciate the conversation on that.
[39:25] For me, it's all, you know, with infrastructure, how are we advancing our other goals, our
[39:31] land use goals?
[39:32] And before I started to think about some arrangement for the bidler versus this water, I may
[39:39] They actually want to have an understanding of how, in the whole concept of the valley
[39:46] and its growth, its redevelopment, the threats it has from, you know, maybe snow-packed
[39:52] deteriorating to the degree misduer saying is, you know, if you keep it all up in this
[39:59] valley, the bitter water in this water, is that the best way to advance the land use patterns
[40:04] that we're trying to develop?
[40:05] That's why I'm really curious about the sewer shed boundary, which I still have not
[40:09] seen. And so, you know, I think it's a bigger conversation to talk about how and where to
[40:16] deploy this water. And it gets to, you know, you're always talking about redundancy in the system.
[40:22] But when you're talking about this, I'm not hearing like you have a redundant system.
[40:27] You know, what do you call it conjunctive use sort of system? So, you know, maybe there's
[40:31] basin problems. But the question I did want to ask because I saw it in here, I get the cost share.
[40:37] And it's because Reno needs it today, so when you need something today you'll pay, you know, more shipping costs or whatever.
[40:44] That's how I see it.
[40:46] But that looks like this concept for a reservoir of $90 million red rock is off the table for Tom Watt to pay because it looks like a Reno issue.
[40:57] Likewise, we had a workshop a couple years ago.
[40:59] So I think it was a joint workshop with Tom Y. Even and the tribe, the colony tribe,
[41:06] came and talked about wanting water over to Hungary Valley.
[41:11] And their lobbyists reached out to me last week.
[41:12] I didn't have any good answers to tell them.
[41:15] So I'm trying to figure out, you want to put water in the ground and advance your portfolio,
[41:22] Reno thinks they need a reservoir, and the tribe at least got some sort of go ahead from
[41:27] this body to start exploring, getting water themselves. So, where is all that? How's that all
[41:34] being conceptualized at this point? So, just briefly, the discussions between the Reno
[41:41] Sparks Indian colony have been solely with the City of Reno. Tumwa has not been involved in those
[41:47] discussions. My understanding and Mr. Flanzberg is in the audience who could address a detailed question
[41:55] if the board so desires but the from my understanding Reno's first priority is this American flat
[42:05] project. Their second priority is the Red Rock Reservoir and expansion of their existing I'll just
[42:14] refer it as their purple pipe system. Those are their two highest priorities going forward. The timing
[42:21] of that Mr. Flansberg would have to speak to but the Reno's number one priority is this American
[42:28] flat project that we're talking about today. That's fine. I don't need to hear from him because he's
[42:33] going to be getting these questions tomorrow when he brings the ACOM contract back but I think
[42:38] there needs to be clear you know specification on what the plan is at this time to everyone
[42:45] and I appreciate that, thanks.
[42:51] All right, is there any other discussion on this item?
[42:55] Madam Clerk, do we have any public comment?
[42:59] Is there anyone wishing to speak on item number 9?
[43:03] Okay, seeing none, I will close item number 9 and bring it back to the board.
[43:07] Mr. Ard.
[43:10] Did you open 9 and 10 together?
[43:12] No, no, 9 and 10 are not open together.
[43:15] 10 a and 10 b I apologize if I was okay
[43:24] I'm looking looking for a motion
[43:27] either in support of or in denial of this Mr. Chair I'll make a motion to
[43:33] support this item okay I have a motion by Mr. Doer to have a second I'll
[43:38] second it second by Mr. Dare so I have a motion and a second is there any other
[43:42] discussion seeing none all those in favor please signify by saying aye aye all
[43:48] as opposed? Okay. Motion carries. What is it? We have five, six, two, one. I think. Is that
[43:56] what it is? One, two, five to one. Five to one. Forgive me. Okay. Thank you, staff. That
[44:03] takes us to item number 10, which we will open 10A and 10V without objection by our legal
[44:10] council. That is a public hearing on the rate amendments. Introduction to first reading
[44:16] of the amendments, 10A, rather, is the introduction and first reading of amendments to
[44:20] tumourate schedule WSF, water systems facility charges, revising area fee, supply and treatment,
[44:27] and storage unit costs. That's Mr. Estes, Ms. Sullivan, and Mr. Rotter, and then 10B is
[44:35] introduction and first reading of amendments to the tumourate schedule BSF, the business service fees.
[44:42] Also, Mr. Estes, Ms. Sullivan and Mr. Roder.
[44:46] So I will open those together and we have the public hearing open.
[44:50] The floor is yours.
[44:52] All right, thank you, Mr. Chair, Danny Roder for the Record Engineering Manager, Scott
[44:59] not handed the button.
[45:00] Turn off to me, the last we saw you here. So he's done a lot of heavy lifting over the years, and I'm looking forward to bringing this forward into the future. Okay. So to give you a little bit of the update of what we've been up to since June, we proceeded to update our existing costs, update our existing growth that we've, the capacity that we've sold, we've updated our cost estimates for things going forward in the future.
[45:29] We reached out to the Builders Association in June and August, but we didn't hear back
[45:35] to be in front of their infrastructure and planning committee.
[45:40] We reached out to the NAO, commercial developers association, and we presented them in September
[45:47] and had some feedback from them that changed something, and I'll mention that a little bit.
[45:52] But we had a public workshop at Tomaw on September 29th and then we presented in front of
[45:58] the SAC on October 5th and the representative from BAN was there and we said, hey, if
[46:05] there's any follow-up, let us know and he was going to let us know that and we haven't
[46:09] heard anything back since then.
[46:12] So we've gone over this before, but I'll just briefly for anybody listening or watching.
[46:18] the process to update these as we take our current facility plans we review our
[46:23] historical construction costs which we do have an increase that we're seeing
[46:28] everybody's heard about it they've talked about it so we took a look at that
[46:32] with recent bid results we update our future costs we update our existing costs
[46:39] where we know we have actual costs that we've incurred and we know those and then
[46:45] And we update how much GPM has been sold in each area, and then we calculate the new
[46:50] unit costs.
[46:51] And so the calculation is that our actual costs, including finance charges and the cost
[46:59] of future facilities, minus our fees collected, is divided by the remaining GPM, and that's
[47:06] the remaining cost of growth, on a per GPM basis, for max data man.
[47:11] And so, the results are that some of them have gone up and a couple of them go down.
[47:21] I'll point you, there's the red line in attachment A, which you can actually see each area,
[47:26] the per GPM amount for supply and treatment, storage, et cetera, and the actual table with
[47:36] comparisons is on attachment C in a per GPM format which a lot of folks it's
[47:43] kind of hard to wrap your mind around because it's not actually a per unit. So
[47:48] what we did is on page 3 and page 4 you have an actual 6,000 square foot single
[47:55] family home in a number of areas around town and in a multi-family unit in a
[48:02] number of areas around town. And if you look at those, some areas like in
[48:07] Somerset and Kylie Ranch are down $82 and $29 per single family residence. But
[48:14] then in other areas north valleys at 500 increase per single family unit
[48:19] double diamond a thousand per single family unit on average 416 increase per
[48:26] single-family unit. And then the multi-family, they're again down 23-8 per multi-family unit,
[48:36] average 117 per multi-family unit. So those are the current costs. I will, I mentioned earlier,
[48:47] when we met with NAYOP in September, one of their suggestions or one of their suggestions was
[48:55] to combine some of the areas and one guy even said just give me one area and he said well
[49:01] that's not really apical because the feet just like we were talking about the infrastructure
[49:05] to serve north valleys is different than the infrastructure to serve spanish springs is different
[49:09] from the infrastructure to serve south trucking meadows but we did take a look and um actually
[49:14] combined previous area 11 kind of the double diamond stem get east area with area 14 the stem
[49:23] get West, Thomas Creek area, Galena area, and so that was one thing we did do, so when
[49:30] you look at the WSF schedule, you'll see that there.
[49:38] And then also along with all of this, you opened up 9A and 9B, 9B being the new business
[49:46] fees, the business service fees, and in our last update in 2018, we went through a process
[49:52] us to really track accurately and precisely what it costs to inspect a project or review
[49:59] plans or review water rights, et cetera, et cetera, and so that analysis was done also
[50:08] to actually pay for the costs incurred, the labor and overhead to actually do those things
[50:15] for view plans, provide planning, inspect, do hot taps, those sorts of things.
[50:21] And so those were up quite a bit, the engineering categories up 76%, the water rights are up 34%,
[50:30] the inspection and crew times are up 100%, specific to each project.
[50:36] And one of the anecdotes I'll just share with you, you were talking with Mr. Bowman earlier on,
[50:41] is this a canary on the coal mine?
[50:43] One of the things I've been looking at is our new business numbers, number of projects,
[50:48] projects, and that has remained fairly flat, but the GPM per project has been going up.
[50:56] So that means the projects are taking on more phases, more houses, more units per each
[51:02] project.
[51:03] So each project is getting bigger, which I think is also giving us some insight into each
[51:07] project takes longer.
[51:09] So when you have an application fee, you're not reviewing smaller projects, you're reviewing
[51:14] bigger projects.
[51:15] So I think that's also reflected in here.
[51:20] I think that's it.
[51:22] I have Michelle here.
[51:23] If there's BSF fee questions,
[51:27] and one thing I forgot to mention,
[51:28] this is not existing customer rates.
[51:31] This is developer fees paid for by new business.
[51:34] Right, new business.
[51:35] New business fees, not customer rates.
[51:37] Correct.
[51:38] Correct.
[51:39] Good. I'm glad you made that clear
[51:41] because that was certainly going to be one of my first questions.
[51:45] So, with that, we'll answer any questions and Scott is here, but I have the baton, so.
[51:52] Okay. Well, in just a second, Mr. Doer, I see your hand up first,
[51:56] hold on just a second. Yes, you're there and then you'll be second.
[51:58] All right. I just wanted to, or along the lines that were just mentioned,
[52:02] I wanted to confirm when he said new business, is this mean new business connection fees?
[52:10] Correct.
[52:10] In fact, I would say a WSE, WSFV, a water system facility charge, is synonymous with connection fee.
[52:20] Okay. Thank you so much.
[52:22] Yep.
[52:23] Okay, thank you.
[52:24] Mr. Davis, floor choice.
[52:26] So, one of the questions I have, just looking at what we saw before, that we're financially doing well, that things are going up.
[52:33] And things of that fashion, it bequests the question of why are we raising rates over in this level.
[52:37] I know we talk about this probably every time we do this but I think it's it's
[52:42] worthy of the conversation on our end to make sure that if we are going back
[52:46] because in the very end I appreciate what you said that this isn't going to
[52:50] existing come existing citizens at this point it's new but in the very end it just
[52:55] raises the cost of housing so in my mind maybe it doesn't but it seems like it
[52:59] does so and we're raising this people are raising and we keep just seeing this
[53:04] thing go to this level.
[53:07] Some point, we're already in a place where many of our own kids
[53:12] couldn't afford home if they wanted to live here.
[53:14] So how do we balance out that we know we're
[53:17] doing well over here?
[53:18] We see this going on.
[53:19] And is there any way to allow this to come together?
[53:24] Does that all make sense?
[53:25] I understand your question, yeah.
[53:27] I think in 2018, we were about 90 million.
[53:33] We did advance about $90 million to developers 80 to 90 and we're still at like 40 to 50 at this point where we have sunk costs that we have put into the system that we need.
[53:46] We still are going to be expanding and we're still going to be putting money into this based on our CIP plan.
[53:52] But we still are, the developers still owe $40 to $50 million in infrastructure right now.
[53:58] So this is all part of the calculation of how there's only a limited amount of GPM per area.
[54:06] And it's got to cover the cost of building that extension.
[54:13] So are we saying, nice again, I get that there are almost two separate funds in a sense of how our brain works.
[54:19] that works really well for bookkeepers and what's in countenance and all that you do.
[54:25] And the world I live in, this is turmoil altogether looking, you say you're making money over here.
[54:31] Is there ever a time that we could look and say we're not increasing this because we have this or we stuck with this being its own thing.
[54:39] Because I appreciate that we're doing well, so we say we're doing well.
[54:43] But now we're raising the cost to everybody who, because these new homes aren't just for
[54:47] people moving from another state, we're buying these new homes. It's driving these prices up.
[54:55] So real quick, Danny Rotter for the record. I have this discussion quite a bit
[55:00] and I added it Carson in previous years before and I would say that the
[55:06] for to continue this methodology and say that we've fronted costs and we're going to collect over time
[55:11] and that growth is going to pay that back.
[55:16] If we're going to strategize to lower these fees,
[55:20] the effect to me is that I'm not building
[55:23] as much growth facilities.
[55:25] I'm only focusing on our existing customer rates
[55:27] and I'm not staying ahead of growth
[55:28] so that when a growth comes in in South Trucke Meadows
[55:31] or North Spanish Springs, I say, I can't serve you right now.
[55:36] I have to build XYZ because I'm not going to get too far
[55:39] in front of myself with the dollars that she was talking about.
[55:43] So in my opinion it would be the effect of slowing down growth, slowing down those
[55:48] projects because we wouldn't continue to build growth further and further and further.
[55:54] Let me ask a question differently because I get what you're saying.
[55:57] So if we have any extra that we beyond what we normally thought we would get, is it possible
[56:04] to create any kind of funding on an area that says we're going to offset and try to help keep
[56:09] our prices down I get that everything has it's almost seems like this is its own drive we're not
[56:15] willing to mix it but I'm saying I am if we can try to hope bring prices to a better place now
[56:21] again I'm not an accountant and maybe I'm a nightmare but with that said if we I don't like seeing
[56:28] prices keep going up I mean obviously they're going to but I some of these are huge 105% increases
[56:34] that's huge. So anyway, those are my thoughts. I don't know if there's an answer or a thought,
[56:40] but I would, if we have extra over here, I don't want to just see prices going up just because it's
[56:44] its own lane. Is there a way to take what's here at all and say, hey, we're going to create a small
[56:48] like we did our rainy day fund. We have maybe a contingency fund helping to keep these prices
[56:54] where we're not seeing such a big hit. Is my question very specific that the customer rate should be
[57:00] based on what the customer cost.
[57:04] I'm sorry, is my mic on?
[57:07] Is Michelle Sullivan for the record?
[57:09] It's just, it's very specific that the customer needs
[57:11] to benefit, you know, and what he pays for
[57:15] or she is what it costs to deliver the water.
[57:19] And there's, it's almost like you have to keep
[57:21] the two fun separate growth pays for growth
[57:23] and customer pays for the delivery of water.
[57:26] So operating expenses, there's certain buckets
[57:28] It's that those are considered covered by the customer water rate.
[57:32] And then another bucket is covered by growth.
[57:35] And if you, growth is supposed to pay for growth.
[57:39] And if you do decide, there's no, there's no, you know,
[57:43] slush fund in the middle.
[57:45] So you can't just decide, well, I'm going to move money around.
[57:49] It's very specific.
[57:52] Mr. Chairman, yeah, I'd like to expand on that.
[57:56] Yes, they are two very separate funding mechanisms.
[57:59] The reasons one is to pay for water service on a monthly basis to customers.
[58:06] They can't be intertwined because the board has a policy against cross subsidizing one to the other.
[58:12] And if you look at the numbers at Miss Sullivan stated,
[58:19] we were behind by about $90 million before our last increase in 2018.
[58:25] We've knocked that in half.
[58:26] We cut that in half, we still have 45 million that we have fronted for the development community.
[58:33] That means that when they are ready to build, they just have to pay fees.
[58:38] They don't have to get together with five or six different developers and fund a $7 million project themselves.
[58:45] So that's kind of the nature of the beast.
[58:47] And when you talk to, like Scott and I talked to,
[58:51] the ban, their committee about this three years ago, the alternative that Mr.
[58:58] Rotter mentioned was mentioned, and that was not the preferred option to them to have
[59:06] to get together as different developer groups and fund big projects.
[59:10] So it's all in all, nobody likes pricing increases, but we were seeing construction costs go up
[59:17] significantly like everybody is and again the growth for growth requirement that we have
[59:27] here and the policy to not cross subsidize keeps those two really separate. So thank you.
[59:33] Thank you for the conversation. I just obviously concerned, but I understand. Thank you.
[59:40] I mean, what how I feel is this is a real good model, and it drives me nuts that it's
[59:49] not the same model that Reno's doing with their sewer fund, you know, their sewer
[59:53] fund is one area, their sewer fund has not even increased on a CPI, which I don't
[1:00:00] And I think it's the best. Rates are increased on a CPI. Here you calibrate your rates to your CIP in a periodic manner. That's best practice, bar none. And so, you know, great. And when you get to talk about household costs, that's, you know, that does come into play. And I think it's even a best practice there because you have a firewall between the rates, which are household costs, reoccurring household costs.
[1:00:28] and these one times for housing production.
[1:00:32] Reno has no firewall and three of my questions
[1:00:34] that I've been asking for three years
[1:00:36] are related to how debt for new growth
[1:00:38] is gonna be paid, no answers.
[1:00:42] And ultimately it does come to the questions
[1:00:44] that one no one can afford to live here.
[1:00:45] It's so expensive.
[1:00:47] Yeah, but I don't think it's fair to hit a water board up
[1:00:49] for large macroeconomic trends
[1:00:52] that are generational, billionaires making more money,
[1:00:54] of the investment in, you know, the middle and lower class increase in poverty.
[1:00:59] I mean, that goes quickly to that point, but keeping a water board solvent in really best
[1:01:06] practices in planning for your costs is going to be so important in this Western mountain
[1:01:13] scenario that Ms. Doer was talking about.
[1:01:17] I mean, it's really a good practice.
[1:01:19] I just wish Reno was doing that on the, on the effluent, but I'll tell you what, if they
[1:01:24] We would not be doing those agreements because we would have a real cost on what that little treatment plant is going to be and when those
[1:01:33] Rooster when those cows come home to, you know, whatever roost missed my metaphors. It's going to be a real day in Reno.
[1:01:41] So thank you.
[1:01:43] Okay.
[1:01:45] Mr. Charden, make like a tree and get out of here.
[1:01:47] Thank you very much.
[1:01:48] it cows graze. I'm just helping her. Sorry, I knew where she was going with that. I'm just getting
[1:01:54] the farm animals correct. So I guess I'm kind of in the middle on this. When I totally understand
[1:02:01] and I'm supportive of it and I kind of see both sides as someone who fully understands the delicate
[1:02:05] balance of growth and the need to keep costs in check for them to be able to produce so we can get
[1:02:11] more product to the market. I also understand this this very important concept of the growth
[1:02:18] of favor growth, but also whenever we have any project that comes before any public body.
[1:02:24] The thing that we hear consistently is you need to put the infrastructure in before you
[1:02:32] build the whatever.
[1:02:34] You need to make sure certainly that it's not lagging behind it, and we get those sorts
[1:02:39] of communications with great regularity.
[1:02:41] Now this may not get us all the way to future build out before a stick bill, anything goes
[1:02:47] vertical, but it certainly gets us closer to that. And to me, that's the answer that we are – the
[1:02:53] question that we are answering here today is moving in the direction of having the infrastructure
[1:02:58] in place so that the growth to meet our housing demands can occur, not have the lag, not have the
[1:03:03] confusion and what's on the backs of the developers to solve the problem. So I totally get it. I don't
[1:03:10] like to see any fees go up, but totally understand.
[1:03:14] And again, this is growth, thank you, growth.
[1:03:17] OK, and look, and I concur, just
[1:03:20] to follow up and finish up here.
[1:03:24] I do not believe that we should be on the hook
[1:03:26] to front load any infrastructure at the municipalities.
[1:03:31] We get that all the time.
[1:03:32] You can't build this because the infrastructure doesn't exist.
[1:03:35] Well, it is a condition of approval.
[1:03:37] And this is sadly in 2021.
[1:03:41] one. This is the cost of doing business. I don't know whether any of you have
[1:03:44] noticed the cost of everything in the grocery store. I used to be able to get
[1:03:49] out of Costco for a hundred bucks. I can't get out of there now for under three
[1:03:52] hundred bucks. I get out for under three hundred bucks. I'm looking for a
[1:03:55] certificate. You know, some kind of a win.
[1:04:01] It's just the way it is now. So I'm also
[1:04:05] supportive of this, but I understand there's a it's a delicate balance of it's
[1:04:10] this constant spiral upwards, but what we're looking for today is what's written in our staff
[1:04:19] report. That's what's in front of us. As we have this conversation, Madam Clerk, do we have
[1:04:27] anyone else who would like to chime in under public comment?
[1:04:32] Is there anyone wishing to speak under
[1:04:33] public comment? Okay, so what staff is asking us for is a first reading with a second reading
[1:04:41] an adoption on the first reading today, a second reading and adoption on January 29th
[1:04:46] with an effective date of Monday, January 31st, 2022, or January 19th, rather.
[1:04:53] Let me rephrase that, a second reading and adoption of these rates at the Board's
[1:04:56] January 19th, 2022 meeting, forgive me for that, that misstep, and an effective date of
[1:05:03] Monday, January 31st, 2022.
[1:05:06] to. So if we have no other discussion, I will entertain a motion to adopt this first
[1:05:13] reading.
[1:05:14] Mr. Chair, if I could just interject, please, the preferred procedure would be a motion
[1:05:18] to refer to a second reading. And if you could do it in two separate motions, one for 10
[1:05:23] a and one for 10 b, that would be appreciated. Okay, so the so we do it a little differently
[1:05:29] at the county. So every jurisdiction doesn't have to tell us historically done it as a motion
[1:05:35] to refer to a second reading. Okay, so that's, so that's what we're doing. We're not doing
[1:05:39] a first reading and an adoption and then a second reading. Okay, okay. Does everyone understand
[1:05:46] what Mr. Pony is looking for? Good. Since I heard nothing. Okay, I'm looking for a motion.
[1:05:54] I'll move to refer 10 a and 10 b for a second reading at the January board meeting.
[1:06:00] okay so do I need a vote on this because at the county we don't need a vote we
[1:06:06] just need we just need an adoption come on historically it's taking a vote
[1:06:11] okay so I have a motion do I have a second I'll second okay so I have a motion by
[1:06:17] Miss Breckis I the first second I heard I'm sorry my store was Miss
[1:06:20] Chardon so I have a motion and a second we have asked for public comment is there
[1:06:26] any other discussion on this item you know it would be good to have a point on
[1:06:30] that I thought second readings were only for ordinances and not, you know, rulemaking
[1:06:34] for a non-ordinance-producing body.
[1:06:38] Mr. Pony.
[1:06:39] So, Tomas procedure under the cooperative agreement gives some latitude on how you
[1:06:44] go about in your rulemaking process.
[1:06:46] The board has followed generally the procedures in chapter 318, which apply to general improvement
[1:06:53] districts.
[1:06:53] You're not bound by those statutory procedures, but those are the ones you generally follow.
[1:06:56] that's why we do two readings in introduction and then a second reading on
[1:07:00] adoption. I get that. It's our decision to do a two step process but if we
[1:07:07] wanted to shorten the streamline things we could certainly reconsider. Thank
[1:07:10] you for that. We have a motion. We have a second seeing no other discussion. All
[1:07:14] those in favor please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries
[1:07:19] unanimously with a second reading to occur on January 19th, 2022. Okay. Thank
[1:07:26] Thank you so much, staff.
[1:07:27] Moving right along, that takes us to item number 11.
[1:07:32] Presentation of the Trekkie River Fund activities
[1:07:34] for the calendar year 2021, Ms. Falson, floor is yours.
[1:07:40] Oh, Mr. Enlow, I'm sorry.
[1:07:49] Okay,
[1:07:52] with keyboard in hand.
[1:07:54] Thank you, good eye.
[1:07:55] That's all right, thank you.
[1:07:59] Good afternoon, members of board, Sonia Falson.
[1:08:03] Before you have agenda item number 11,
[1:08:05] presentation of the Jackie River Fund activities for calendar year 2021.
[1:08:10] This is just a summary of all the projects that you approved or denied in 2021 and this year we
[1:08:18] a total of 193 projects were approved since inception of 2004. 12 were approved in 2021
[1:08:26] and have those the total amount of resolution approved was 15 million by come along in total
[1:08:34] last of the grantees was $25.2 million. In 2021, we had, I'm sorry,
[1:08:49] I had it in here
[1:08:50] but anyway. Okay,
[1:08:55] so I, here I'm sorry, look at the wrong document. So in 2021, we had
[1:09:03] And a board approved $928,000 approximately, and they had a match of $1.95, $1.95 million,
[1:09:13] which is significant.
[1:09:15] And then in, so the remaining funds that Turkey River Fund has for a fiscal year 2022
[1:09:22] to allow for spring RFPs is approximately $163,000, $500.
[1:09:28] dollars. And the projects that we summarize to you're in the staff report, many of them are
[1:09:36] returning, the steering about a journey, key trucky metals beautiful, one trucky river fund,
[1:09:45] as well as Washer County for their trucky river port gore outreach program.
[1:09:55] And with that,
[1:09:56] Ms. Brecus. The only question I have is I notice the city of Reno appointees are each of
[1:10:07] them are moving on 17 years of service. Do they expire? I know it's always a can of worms
[1:10:15] when you start asking about board members but 17 years is a long run and does that go
[1:10:21] over to Reno then? It does go over to Reno so the appointees here for the
[1:10:25] trackie river fund are outside of tummo's purview. So the it's based on if
[1:10:32] they're willing to continue and they go to their okay okay jurisdictions. Now
[1:10:39] Miss Phillips the chair she she has been talking about leaving leaving but
[1:10:44] she is as you can see one of the longest term serving members and has a lot of
[1:10:51] knowledge. Yeah, I'm over from Tumwa. When she retired, she started serving on the
[1:10:56] Tricky River Fund Advisory Committee. She is the president of the Tahoe
[1:11:01] Pyramid Trail. Yeah. And so she has, she has a lot of historical knowledge and
[1:11:06] she really values the committee and doesn't want to leave it, you know, unprepared.
[1:11:15] Yeah, so with that being said Brian Bonafonks who is the vice chair and he's been vice chair this past year and
[1:11:24] She's looking to let him the plan is for him to sit in vice chair for a year or two and then transition out
[1:11:33] And then let City of Reno know. Okay. I'll look at it. These appointments over there because each one of ours is 17 years in the running
[1:11:39] it's a long run. My camera just retired from the nature of conservancy but
[1:11:44] decided to continue to serve. Yeah. Okay. That's good. And Ms. Phillips has been
[1:11:50] amazing. She had a personal tragedy in her life. I know she's back and off
[1:11:54] I'm doing a lot of this stuff and so she's but she's still very active and and I'm
[1:12:02] I'm deeply appreciative of all the work she's done and especially on the bike
[1:12:05] Oh my god. I don't think it would happen if happened without Janet. I mean she was, she's, she's a monster.
[1:12:14] She's got a lot of horsepower in that. Now any other questions, Mr. Garrett?
[1:12:19] I'm just looking at the ones that, I mean this is exciting. Anytime we can help. This is a great, good job.
[1:12:25] But some of the ones we didn't do, sometimes they just wonder what, why do we decide not to? I'm looking at the river clean up.
[1:12:33] So this spreadsheet, I thought I had my notes in one and I haven't on the other
[1:12:38] spreadsheet.
[1:12:39] So this spreadsheet on the 11 by 17 is not the full list of the Truckie River fun active
[1:12:43] projects that were approved or not approved.
[1:12:47] It would go on to 20 pages plus.
[1:12:49] So this is just, I cut it off at 2018 and until 2021.
[1:12:55] So if you have a question about a particular project that was not funded, I take an example.
[1:13:01] So,
[1:13:04] the tricky river watershed, this is 211, I just want, so I understand, I'm just picking
[1:13:09] on that one.
[1:13:10] But, I mean, I liked the trash removal involved, some of those things.
[1:13:14] Why would somebody choose this one and say, no to this, but to another cleanup crew, yes.
[1:13:20] Okay.
[1:13:20] Any idea?
[1:13:21] Without having the project description and full our fan front of me, I can't answer to
[1:13:26] the specifics.
[1:13:27] but generally speaking, the tricky refund advisor committee would reject or the tumble board would reject approval of said projects.
[1:13:36] If it was outside of the tricky eventals service area or downstream, for example, or it didn't fall under one or two priorities of the of the grant priorities that are listed in the.
[1:14:07] And I want to commend I do want to just add the conversation about Ms. Phillips I can't say enough about what she's doing.
[1:14:23] done for the community and this particular effort, so thank you so much. So this is this is just
[1:14:32] for discussion and presentation only, but is there anyone wishing to speak at this time? I don't
[1:14:36] have any cards in the audience. I did not receive anything. Okay. All right. If no one has any further
[1:14:44] discussion or any other questions, I will close item number 11 and that takes us now to item 12 and I
[1:14:50] I will open item 13 at the same time.
[1:14:53] So let me read those.
[1:14:54] Item number 12 is discussion and action impossible direction
[1:14:57] to staff regarding the appointment of John Combs to.
[1:15:00] To the Standing Advisory Committee or the SAC, to fill a wholesale customer representative alternate position for the term beginning January 1st, 2022 to December 31st, 2023. That is for action or possible action item 13 is discussion and action and possible direction to staff regarding appointments to the standing advisory committee or the SAC to fill vacancies in existing positions whose terms expire on December 31st, 2021.
[1:15:29] One such appointments to be made for new terms from January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2023 from the following list of candidates.
[1:15:38] One, Chris Melton, primary representative wholesale customer, two, Johnny Pullman, alternate representative, multi-family customer, three John Crompotic, alternate representative, commercial customer, four, Colin Hayes, primary representative from ban, five Jim Smith, alternate representative from ban, six,
[1:15:59] Alex, Christine Brown-Calliger, primary representative from the Reno Sparks Chamber and seven and silver alternate representative to the Reno Sparks Chamber.
[1:16:08] This is awesome. The floor is yours to deal with items number 12 and 13.
[1:16:13] Thank you Mr. Chair. So with the first item, number 12, the appointment of or confirming the recommendation to appoint John Combs as the alternate representative for some valid GID.
[1:16:24] the San Valley G.I.D. Board felt it was appropriate to have an alternate in case Mr. Melton, who
[1:16:31] could not attend, and John Holmes is the general manager.
[1:16:35] And then for the rest of the members, I received a notification from Mrs. Susan Hogue, thank you,
[1:16:47] who is not going to continue, nor is Mr. Harry Culbert, even though his term expires next
[1:16:53] year he notified me this year that he's not continuing. So those two vacancies
[1:16:58] will are open and every other member has confirmed that they will continue
[1:17:04] for another two-year term. We are awaiting confirmation from Mr. Jim Smith,
[1:17:09] actually from Van for reappointing Mr. Jim Smith and as of this moment.
[1:17:26] And that's
[1:17:27] Since I see no questions do I have any public comment on this item? I don't have any cards. Is there anyone wishing to speak of this time?
[1:17:34] I will close public comment and bring it back to the board. Okay. What do we want to do?
[1:17:40] Check your pulses.
[1:17:44] All right. Does someone need to call Ramza? I can go. I can make a motion Mr. Chair ahead. Go ahead. All right. Well, I'll motion to
[1:17:53] to make the appointment says outlined by Ms.
[1:17:57] Olson?
[1:17:57] In the staff report.
[1:17:59] Is that part?
[1:18:00] Is that both 12 and 13?
[1:18:07] Well, excuse me, yes.
[1:18:09] Thank you.
[1:18:09] Yes.
[1:18:10] Thank you.
[1:18:10] Okay.
[1:18:11] I just wanted to be sure.
[1:18:12] Mr. Pony, do we need to take separate motions on 12 and 13?
[1:18:16] Or can we combine them?
[1:18:17] You can combine them.
[1:18:18] Okay.
[1:18:18] Good.
[1:18:19] All right.
[1:18:19] So I have a motion by Ms. Stewart's second.
[1:18:20] We've already asked for public comment.
[1:18:24] We had none.
[1:18:24] Is there any of the discussion on this item?
[1:18:27] All those in favor, please think if I'm saying aye.
[1:18:29] Aye.
[1:18:30] Any opposed?
[1:18:31] Motion carries unanimously.
[1:18:33] Well done.
[1:18:34] Okay.
[1:18:34] Thank you, Ms. Folsom.
[1:18:36] Item number 14.
[1:18:37] Discussion and action on scheduling regular board meeting dates and times for the calendar year 2022.
[1:18:43] Ms. Folsom.
[1:18:45] Hi.
[1:18:46] So happens the floor is yours again.
[1:18:47] Make it simple and efficient.
[1:18:49] Well done.
[1:18:50] Yes.
[1:18:50] Yes, before you have the proposed schedule for 2022, we have stuck with the third one
[1:18:57] day of every month, and we will keep the Sparks Council chambers as our location when we
[1:19:02] meet in person, and except for the October strategic planning meeting which is scheduled
[1:19:08] for October 19th, and I've outlined that that will be held at Tomoa and it's approximately
[1:19:13] four hours. The four dates that I am going to call out here that are different are that Thursday,
[1:19:22] May 19th, date for our budget hearing that avoids any conflict with any other jurisdiction.
[1:19:29] Thursday, July 21st and Thursday, November 17th have been moved because there is a conflict
[1:19:34] with City of Reno Council, meaning that's held on Wednesday, July 20th and Wednesday, November 16th.
[1:19:42] And then the December meeting, we moved up quite a bit because third Wednesday is on the 21st and that falls really close to holiday season, as well as cutting it really close with filing the aquifer for tumble with the state.
[1:19:56] And we moved that to Thursday, December 8th. All the times have remained the same.
[1:20:01] If that works with everyone, I think you can approve that for 2022 unless you have any questions.
[1:20:07] Thank you.
[1:20:18] I'm trying to get some confirmation there was some discussion about City of Reno moving their January meeting to I think the 19th I think that's the same day.
[1:20:29] Okay, so I don't know. I do have some information. I'm sorry to interrupt. Thank you. I didn't I just didn't want this to go by without that there's been no action taken on it. I just know there has been some discussions about that.
[1:20:42] Yes, thank you. I happen to talk to our not our manager, but JW Hodge or special project strategic planning.
[1:20:51] And he said they were looking at moving it, but just they had just confirmed that the mayor could not make that new date.
[1:20:58] And there was also a challenge with a hearing that had to be held within so many days, so they had to keep the January 12th meeting.
[1:21:06] That was just what I heard as recently as today.
[1:21:09] Great.
[1:21:10] Claire's that up there.
[1:21:11] Thank you so much.
[1:21:12] Ms. Breakfast.
[1:21:12] Yeah.
[1:21:13] Reno did do something.
[1:21:15] Little Catty Wong-Kiss.
[1:21:15] And I can see what happened to their norms.
[1:21:18] But my questions are the July and the November that are in blue.
[1:21:22] We often cancel a couple of meetings a year, right?
[1:21:26] Are those the two that we cancel?
[1:21:27] Yes.
[1:21:28] So we'll decide that like the meeting before or so, right?
[1:21:32] Correct.
[1:21:32] Got you.
[1:21:33] We've kept those meetings in case something comes up throughout the year
[1:21:37] that it needs to be addressed and it's on your calendar so I'll go back to
[1:21:42] the office and get that scheduled for 2022 and if it's determined that we
[1:21:49] don't need to have that meeting then I will delete that meeting invitation
[1:21:52] and send out a cancelation. Those are the two months that we typically do. Okay thank
[1:21:56] you. Is there any other discussion for staff or any questions for staff? Is there any
[1:22:03] public comments on this item. I have no cards. I see no one wishing to speak in
[1:22:08] the audience. I'll bring it back to the board with do you need from us miss
[1:22:10] Folsom do you need us to adopt this schedule. I need you to approve the proposed
[1:22:15] town. Okay. We're going for a motion. I have a motion by Ms. Jarden. Do I have a
[1:22:20] second? Second. Have a second by Mr. Anderson. Is there any other discussion on this
[1:22:25] item? Seeing none all those in favor please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed?
[1:22:35] We are moving along nicely well ahead of the schedule that I had set forth on my own agenda that takes us to item 15 general manager's report.
[1:22:51] That's good, it's not too bad.
[1:22:51] Yeah, that's good.
[1:22:52] My house last night.
[1:22:56] Yes, so Sadler.
[1:22:58] We're looking
[1:23:02] at another thing you'll be in the town manager report.
[1:23:09] The court case, the
[1:23:14] pumping groundwater that may have any kind of contaminant
[1:23:19] could.
[1:23:25] The staff's going to come up here and help me with this a little bit.
[1:23:29] But it could, the California case could hold a public utility responsible for
[1:23:36] for being a transporter of hazardous waste,
[1:23:41] even if the water meets all drinking water standards.
[1:23:45] So we have some, a lot of utilities have very low levels
[1:23:49] below the drinking water standards
[1:23:51] of certain contaminants in the water,
[1:23:53] but this case was problematic for pretty much all water utilities
[1:23:59] and although we, yeah, and although we did not intervene
[1:24:04] Intervene as a as in an amicus we are a member of the Western urban water coalition a group of the largest urban water utilities in the West and they
[1:24:15] are in the case now as a
[1:24:19] Amicus am I am I correct just wanted to let you know about that and go ahead stuff with
[1:24:25] Correct correct me where I'm wrong
[1:24:26] No, it was right. The ninth circuit did decide a case. It is a California case, but because we are in the ninth circuit, it would be binding for us on appeal.
[1:24:37] And it's under Rikra, and it does make it made the city of Vacaville. It's the Friends of the River versus the city of Vacaville case.
[1:24:44] case. The Ninth Circuit panel decided that the case couldn't be dismissed on the basis
[1:24:51] that the city hadn't transported the what the the hex chrome is what it was. And essentially
[1:24:59] they said it could be a transporter which is pretty much a strict liability under regret.
[1:25:06] And so a lot of people are concerned about it because everybody acknowledged and the facts
[1:25:14] would treatment plant down the way it had caused the contamination and the city had nothing
[1:25:19] to do with it. It's just that it had hit the groundwater basin and was being pumped
[1:25:23] and they're out of their wells and served. So even though it met all drinking water standards,
[1:25:28] it was still a transporter of a hazardous material under Rikra. So if you think about the
[1:25:33] logical conclusion, that means if you got on your yard and you turn on the water, you spray
[1:25:37] the hose that you also are a transporter. So it's a bit of a stretch.
[1:25:42] So what they asked to do and what we, um, what Wu Wack filed an Amicus brief on was for the whole night circuit on bond. So all of the justices to rehere that case and we are still waiting to see if they will reher it.
[1:25:57] They asked the plaintiffs to respond.
[1:25:59] They have to respond at the end of this month and we likely won't hear until January, February, if they will reher it.
[1:26:06] Hopefully that's clear.
[1:26:09] Ah, the joys.
[1:26:13] And that's all for me.
[1:26:14] Thank you.
[1:26:14] Thank you, Mr. Ford.
[1:26:16] Okay.
[1:26:17] All right.
[1:26:18] That takes us now to item 16.
[1:26:21] Our final public comment.
[1:26:22] Ms. Folsom, do we have anyone wishing to speak at this time?
[1:26:26] Okay.
[1:26:27] Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak?
[1:26:29] Seeing none, I will close that.
[1:26:31] That takes us to item 17.
[1:26:32] Board comments or requests for future agenda items?
[1:26:34] Ms. Prakis, do you have anything?
[1:26:36] Mr. Dan?
[1:26:37] Mr. Anderson? Mr. Anderson? Mr. Jordan? Mr. Doer? Yeah. Just one thing, this article that I sent
[1:26:50] to the Tomwha to Mr. Forrey, I'm hoping that he'll review it and see if there's any other
[1:26:56] articles in this similar line. And then at some point, bring us an update on what people are thinking
[1:27:03] about the potential impacts of climate change on the snowpack.
[1:27:08] So this isn't necessarily for next meeting,
[1:27:10] but at some meeting within the next quarter or so perhaps.
[1:27:14] Okay.
[1:27:15] We can do that.
[1:27:16] Thank you.
[1:27:16] All right, thank you, Mr. Forrey.
[1:27:18] Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
[1:27:19] As for me, I would like to wish everyone a happy holiday,
[1:27:23] have a healthy, safe Christmas, and a happy new year.
[1:27:28] We won't see you before then.
[1:27:30] And if there is nothing else from the board,
[1:27:33] We are adjourned.
[1:27:37] Yay!
[1:27:39] We did it!
[1:27:40] Another year.
[1:27:42] I got a schedule.
[1:27:44] Have a good evening.
[1:27:46] Yeah, we've tried to find out about that.