[0:14] I can't trust you. How am I coming
through?
[0:17] » Very well.
>> Thank you.
[0:21] » I guess I just heard the mayor's going
to be late. I'm not sure how late, maybe
[0:26] a few minutes.
[0:35] In your opinion, were you going to kind
of direct the conversation or leave that
[0:40] to the mayor?
[0:46] » I would probably defer to the mayor, but
I am also ready to try to go through
[0:51] this. I do
hope that everybody that's
[0:55] present has kind of reviewed the changes
in the agreement that was sent over.
[1:01] I have a copy of the prior changes that
I had requested and some notes after my
[1:06] meeting with Mr. Locke on Monday
morning, also. So, I'll try to fill in
[1:10] some questions and describe some of
their proposed changes where that um
[1:16] that leads us, any guidance I can give.
[1:20] » Okay.
[1:23] Can you
[1:27] start with those?
[1:31] Addressing those proposed changes?
>> Yeah, I would probably just take that
[1:36] from the top of the agreement.
Give me 1 second here. I have one other
[1:42] copy that I want to pull out.
[2:11] » So do we want to try to just go ahead
use our time since some of us are here?
[2:16] » Yes.
[2:20] » Okay.
Um so the
[2:23] first page that I have I have an
eight-page document in front of me.
[2:27] And I guess I will start with what were
Mr. Locke's last comments.
[2:33] He stated that it's his understanding
Locke's Grand really just wants the town
[2:37] to be paying a fair share
of any monthly fees or costs.
[2:42] And any fair share if an update or an
upgrade to their plant is needed.
[2:47] Um the second point was he really
thought that Crestone can be a partner
[2:52] in working to keep any foreign
substances out of the system moving
[2:55] forward and that really benefits both
parties also.
[2:59] I think that's a fairly um good
statement to hear from
[3:02] uh Mr. Locke. I was appreciative of
that.
[3:05] I would like to also state
it was relayed to me
[3:09] that they have done some
new metering some updates to their
[3:14] plant.
And that it appears they are operating
[3:19] not at the about 80% capacity they
thought they were at but possibly more
[3:24] in the 60% range.
So if a update an upgrade to their plant
[3:29] is really needed an expansion
he's hoping that that is years down the
[3:34] line and not in the next couple of
years. He did talk about some updates to
[3:38] their plant they're using for
um just personnel matters. I think it
[3:43] was a ventilation system and some other
minor updates but it's not a plant
[3:47] expansion. So um just for the the
board's knowledge that was relayed to me
[3:52] also.
>> That's pretty significant.
[3:57] » I think so.
[4:01] It does I mean, there's going to be a
plant expansion done someday. Growth is
[4:05] hopefully inevitable. Um I hope the
town's growing, and I think he believes
[4:08] Bach Grand's growing also.
Um but if this plant expansion is not
[4:13] ha- having to be undertaken in the next
5, 10 years even, um that buys us all a
[4:19] lot of time, and it also probably gives
us some time to really do some rate
[4:22] studies, and to see if that's coming, um
try to prepare for that also with our
[4:27] budgeting.
Both parties.
[4:30] » And then,
um
[4:34] Dennis is always referencing that
agreement from the past that indicates
[4:40] a a potential capacity for what the town
can send
[4:46] to the Baca or to the sent treatment
center, and Dennis is always
[4:50] pointing out that we're nowhere near
that. So, if
[4:54] if their system is determining that
they're only at 60 versus 80, that would
[4:59] just even strengthen the
the
[5:03] uh potential that we could develop
if we needed to an affordable housing
[5:09] unit or add more houses in town and
still not be at capacity.
[5:14] » So,
um Mr. Pazlusky, Trustee Pazlusky has
[5:18] brought that up a few times, and then I
need to be honest, what agreement is
[5:24] that? That is not in this agreement, um
just for my clarification, and I don't
[5:29] ever remember reading anything about a a
gallons per day, 60,000 gallons per day.
[5:34] Trustee, can you help me with that?
Point me in the right direction.
[5:38] » It's uh it's the
agreement that was I had asked for and
[5:43] been given by the previous town
administrator
[5:47] uh probably over a year ago
and it's both spoke I think it what did
[5:53] I say that was page two paragraph five
of that agreement that um made mention
[5:59] of that 60,000 GPD gallons per day.
This new agreement doesn't
[6:05] have a limit in it at all.
Um
[6:09] so
uh
[6:12] as it as I would interpret that and not
having a legal mind but then that would
[6:17] mean that it would not inhibit any of
our growth.
[6:20] But it does with the amount of affluent
that we record monthly that goes into
[6:25] the system
I don't think it's ever exceeded
[6:29] much over 16,000
gallon day which was substantially less
[6:33] than the 60 that I saw in print.
And um
[6:39] I I I
I'm surprised that you don't have and no
[6:43] one has the uh
the older agreement which is the only
[6:47] one that we're working on right now or
had in the
[6:49] » the agreement from 2020 I'm sorry 20
2000 to 2020. I do have that agreement.
[6:55] I just I did not remember that's where
that came from. So thank you for sharing
[6:58] that again.
>> Yeah and that's the
[7:00] » And yes to answer that question I do not
see a maximum capacity daily amount
[7:05] monthly amount anything that Boca Grande
is willing to accept. There is just a
[7:10] rate per
um
[7:15] thousand gallons and then also a rate
for BODs.
[7:18] » Right.
[7:25] And would it be correct for me to
interpret it then then it would they are
[7:28] not limiting us to any
there's I mean it's not in print here.
[7:33] There's no numbers. So
we we are not being held back
[7:38] by any uh
limit to our growth. Not that it's
[7:43] all happening that quickly. I think we
maybe tip put on two people a year if
[7:48] that's
might not even be right.
[7:52] » Yes, Trustee, that is how I would read
this agreement. There is no maximum
[7:55] amount.
>> Okay.
[7:58] However, it does keeping track of what
our
[8:02] average daily flows have been through
the year
[8:05] and maybe this isn't necessarily the
time to bring it up is a good indicator
[8:09] of just exactly how much of the plant
we're using not counting the BOD
[8:13] problem.
[8:15] » So,
um
[8:19] not to get too off topic, I did have a a
good conversation with Brent.
[8:24] Um specifically related to flows.
Well, I'll get back into this a little
[8:29] later when we get into discussion of a
meter with the town.
[8:33] Um [clears throat] it's my understanding
Crestone installed a new meter
[8:38] um early this summer, July-ish.
Um possibly even a little earlier. Um
[8:44] that meter was calibrated at the time.
The mount for that meter
[8:50] and I might have these numbers
backwards, it may be for a 6-in pipe
[8:53] when we have an 8-in pipe in service or
vice versa. So, the mount needs to be
[8:58] redone. The individual that um
brought the meter down that we purchased
[9:03] meter from and helped install the meter
also does work with Baca Grande. He's
[9:07] the individual that calibrates that
meter. The town is looking for that new
[9:11] mount. He's utilizing that individual
also.
[9:14] Um but there is some discrepancies
apparently between that meter's reading
[9:19] and the meter readings from Baca Grande.
I did not get into um with Brent too far
[9:28] about the possible separation and
distance of those two meters
[9:32] if infiltration is occurring in between
the two meters, if that's something to
[9:36] be taken into account.
But Brent did think that there is a
[9:41] substantial difference in those meters.
And right now, the contract, the prior
[9:46] draft was talking about basically
averaging those differences. This
[9:50] current proposed draft talks about
installing a new meter jointly,
[9:55] um paying for that cost jointly, and
then just having one meter. So, there's
[9:59] no discrepancies, there's no averages,
it's just one meter reading. If either
[10:03] party wants to calibrate that meter,
that can be done, but that's discussed
[10:07] further in this contract. I'll get into
that um here in a little bit, I guess.
[10:11] » All righty.
>> So, from the prior agreement, um there
[10:16] were some changes requested.
Changing language from
[10:27] I'm sorry, adding language that this is
the town system, adding the word town,
[10:33] um just to help with that delineation.
Um that was done on page one.
[10:38] Um no issue there by either party.
Um so, there were a lot of references to
[10:42] town added to the agreement throughout.
But that was in my notes indicate just
[10:47] the trustees wanted to really state that
this is the town system, just so that
[10:51] that is clearly stated time and time
again.
[10:56] On page two, there was an adjustment to
the rate.
[10:59] Um I did not do the math, but I did
believe that those adjustments were
[11:04] under 10%
and I did ask when the last time these
[11:08] rates were adjusted. Mr. Locke informed
me that he did not know when that was
[11:12] done, and I actually have not um
asked Ariel or
[11:18] someone that may have that historical
information when the rates were adjusted
[11:21] last, but it's not to my knowledge been
within the last 3 years at least. So,
[11:26] the rates did adjust slightly. They went
from per thousand gallons
[11:30] from $7.90
to $8.33
[11:34] and the BODs increased from $0.991
per pound
[11:39] to $1.05 per pound for BOD. So, the
rates were updated.
[11:47] » In the last month?
>> This would be
[11:51] um
when this contract is agreed to, is
[11:55] executed by both parties.
So, the rates have not increased from
[11:58] the prior agreement. This is a proposed
rate increase from Baca Grande.
[12:05] » From the
decades-long agreement or from what
[12:08] we're paying now?
[12:12] » Um I believe it is from what we are
paying now, which I also believe was
[12:16] carried over from the last increase.
That's when I don't know when that last
[12:20] increase was.
[12:34] So, to continue down through paragraph
two,
[12:38] there's some changes to the language for
sampling. Um the first section deals
[12:44] with the BOD.
Um it talks about both parties using the
[12:50] same individual. That would be Crestone
Labs in Alamosa to sample and to meter
[12:57] the BODs.
There was some discussion of having
[13:02] um once again the averages of the
samples,
[13:05] but those samples are taken by both
individuals and there is the language
[13:10] once again just trying to
to get rid of this discretion um as much
[13:14] as possible um as much of the averaging
as possible to try to if there's one
[13:19] bill, it's one bill. It's not going to
be averaged between these meters, which
[13:22] would then have to be read, sampled, um
the averages would then have to be um
[13:27] given to both parties and then the bill
would be sent. Um, so the sampling is
[13:31] done by the same individual and what we
are trying to say in that first
[13:35] paragraph, I'm sorry, what Mr. Locke is
trying to say is that he would ask that
[13:39] the parties agree that just the lab
meters from Sangre de Cristo Labs
[13:43] currently the lab results of the BOD
would be final and that would be taken.
[13:49] The pounds of BOD
um, are going to be produced and are
[13:52] going to be determined by a third-party
lab that is currently Sangre de Cristo
[13:56] Labs in Alamosa. And the town does have
the ability
[14:00] the town would on request be able to see
the documentation of the BOD. Once
[14:06] again, the third-party lab that is doing
that, that lab can change, but um, that
[14:10] is our local lab that's doing that
currently. Um, and also the BOD will be
[14:16] measured no less than daily.
And there will be a physical sample um,
[14:21] taken no less than weekly also that will
be provided to the lab. That's part of
[14:25] the sampling procedure.
[14:37] About halfway down through that
paragraph the language switches from BOD
[14:43] to the flow meter.
Um, as written the district is asting
[14:48] asking that the town and the district
split the cost of purchasing and
[14:54] installing the most accurate meter
available to measure the flow.
[14:59] And what this is, it gets back to my
meter discussion. Um, instead of having
[15:03] a town meter and a district meter, there
would be one meter for reading the flow.
[15:09] The town would not be prevented from
having an additional meter, basically
[15:15] kind of a
stopgap or a double check if the town
[15:19] would like. However, the official meter
that is declared by both parties would
[15:23] be binding. Both parties can request
that that be certified and inspected and
[15:28] both parties would have access to that.
I did ask which party would be the owner
[15:35] of that meter and Mr. Locke said that he
really had no
[15:40] position on that.
There's some pros and cons either way to
[15:44] that, but I I don't see a huge issue on
that either.
[15:49] I did ask his estimated cost. He worked
with his contractor during our meeting
[15:54] on Monday. He said the estimated cost to
install and purchase a new meter he
[15:59] thought would be between 8 and 10,000
dollars.
[16:02] So that meter would be kind of a
question. That's a point we're trying to
[16:06] do. Once again, that gets rid of our
splitting the difference if there is a
[16:11] difference.
My biggest question is really where is
[16:14] this meter going to be?
If there's a difference between our
[16:17] current meter and the the Loch a Gram
meter. If that is due to infiltration,
[16:24] that's really my question. I would like
that to be upstream as much as possible.
[16:29] Brent did state with me during our call
that he was down in Crestone during one
[16:34] of the recent rainstorms. I think it
might have been the 5th of September.
[16:39] And he was there kind of on purpose to
see if the meters would change during a
[16:44] rainstorm infiltration. That's really
what he was looking for.
[16:48] Um
infiltration depends it's not
[16:52] scientific. It may happen right away. It
may have some lag time.
[16:57] It was my understanding that Brent
thought the meters the readings really
[17:01] did not change during
immediately after and then a short
[17:06] period of time after a rainstorm in the
area. So he did not know
[17:10] he did not think that there was a direct
route of infiltration of rainwater.
[17:16] He thought there may be some small
infiltration of just ground water in the
[17:19] area, but that may not rise and fall as
quickly just with a rainfall event. Um
[17:25] but Brent does question the accuracy of
our meter and of Baca Grande's meter at
[17:30] this time. He would like to have that
new mount installed and calibrated also.
[17:36] One of my
>> Seth, when
[17:40] do you want to go through this and then
we can back up with individual comments
[17:44] or questions on on some of this stuff?
Or you want me to
[17:47] » I think now would be good. I may may
have one point, trustee, if you don't
[17:51] mind. Um
one proposal
[17:54] uh that was in my head was if the town
did install this new meter, I was asking
[18:00] Brent to give me the
um you know, the year, the make, the
[18:04] model, the specifications,
the calibration information, when that
[18:09] would need to be redone.
And if we could propose that the new
[18:13] meter the town has already installed
this year um take place of this new
[18:18] meter that the district is proposing to
purchase and install, that would be one
[18:22] option for the town. I have not
discussed that with Mr. Locke. Um Mr.
[18:28] Brett Vanderveer just got a hold of me
yesterday and did provide me some
[18:32] information on that meter and I would
like to
[18:35] just see if he would be willing to
discuss that with his board if that
[18:38] meter is acceptable. Brent did say that
that meter was fairly top of the line,
[18:43] um but I don't know if they would have
any
[18:46] any hindrance by using that current
meter. So.
[18:50] » Um
well, just so you're you're aware and
[18:53] everyone else who's in the room
um
[18:56] or listening,
a few months back the plan had been
[19:02] to us having our meter
the existing meter that Buckeye has
[19:08] and calibrate them together. So, at that
moment they would be reading the same
[19:13] and then
watch
[19:16] very closely weekly or bi-weekly
and record the readings to see if
[19:21] anything changed. And what I mean by the
change if one started reading higher or
[19:26] lower than the other and then we would
do a recalibration and try to figure out
[19:30] which one may or may not have been the
problem. So
[19:36] we had some time ago start initiated by
the former ORC applied for a grant with
[19:42] Dola and I think I I sent this
information that we're closing now which
[19:48] covered the cost of that meter and the
installation. So
[19:53] I guess what I'm getting at is I don't
want any of that to be in vain. We've
[19:57] already spent and gone through that
energy to be able to spend that money
[20:01] and gone through that to get that
up and very close to running right now.
[20:05] Um
It doesn't seem to make I I I would go
[20:09] along with the idea of about having
hoping Baca will accept the meter that
[20:15] we have as being the one and then the
other would be the duplicate to try to
[20:19] bracket see if there's any difference
discrepancies between the two. Hope that
[20:23] made sense.
[20:26] » It does. My discussion with Mr. Locke
was really that we do have two meters
[20:31] that appear to be reading differently. I
don't know if he was aware that we had
[20:35] installed a new meter this summer and
that's the information I was trying to
[20:38] get to him and also his operator to see
their their thoughts on that. And I do
[20:43] believe I understood you
the individual that calibrates these
[20:47] meters is the same individual. He comes
down from the front range according to
[20:51] Brent.
So he works on them together. But you
[20:55] had the kind of proposal that we need to
calibrate these meters. They should be
[20:59] theoretically reading
the same if we were to calibrate them at
[21:03] the same time. Once again, I don't know
if they're physically distant and how
[21:09] that may play into things. Um, if
they're fairly close, hopefully the flow
[21:12] would be fairly close.
Um, but you would like to see how the
[21:16] meters diverge through time, if at all,
um, was one of the things you were
[21:20] trying to do.
I think that was one of the
[21:24] um, points Mr. Locke is trying to get
across in his board
[21:28] is that having different meters,
um, especially if they are different,
[21:33] um, or diverge their meter readings, um,
how do we deal with that? And just
[21:37] removing that average, I think it does
affect their, uh,
[21:42] just the operating of that also a
little.
[21:45] Um, it takes some time to read the
meters and then they actually have to be
[21:48] averaged if they are different and then
that gets put into the bill. Um, so it's
[21:52] just a few more steps. If we have one
meter that we're both agreeing to, um,
[21:58] that's just it's done. There's no gray,
there's no wiggle room. I do like the
[22:02] fact or the opportunity for the town to
have,
[22:07] I mean, there would be some cost
involved, but just have another meter so
[22:10] that if the town is ever having an
issue, um,
[22:14] you know, they can request a
certification of both of the town's
[22:16] meters or the the shared meter and see
where those differences are coming from.
[22:21] You can have a backup. Um, but is that
even necessary? That's a question for
[22:25] the board. I I don't know and maybe Wren
should be involved in some of this also.
[22:30] I would just like to have one meter
and I do see the point in having one
[22:33] meter, I guess. I don't know what I want
to say that I don't like, but I do see
[22:36] the point in just having one meter. It's
read, it's certified on a schedule, if
[22:42] that's as per the town, as per Boca
Grande and as per the devices
[22:47] maintenance schedule. Um, that's kind of
what we should stick with.
[22:50] Having two meters does bring in this
gray area and I think that's what the
[22:55] two parties are, uh,
having some issue. Nobody wants to be
[22:59] taken advantage of. That's I I do
believe that's just where we're at. So.
[23:04] » My in my discussion a few months back
with some of the staff at the treatment
[23:09] facility there was they were in
agreement of the two meters because it
[23:13] did give a
an additional level of oversight and
[23:17] more involvement by staff to be more
conscientious in reading both meters.
[23:22] And if there was a problem, it was
caught immediately. So maybe the board
[23:26] their board is not aware of that um and
unless staff has changed their mind, I I
[23:32] would still lead toward lean toward the
two meter
[23:35] a system. But of course, I'm just I'm
just [clears throat] one person.
[23:38] » Yeah.
Um that was definitely not the
[23:42] the
the intent I took from the comment and
[23:45] maybe that changed or maybe some
disconnect between staff and the board
[23:49] that as you stated. Yes, sir.
[23:57] Any other questions on uh paragraph two?
>> What's the course of action based on
[24:03] what Dennis just said?
>> Well, I think that the board does need
[24:08] to just have some discussion to see if
they would like to propose using the
[24:12] town's meter, if the town would like to
have a backup meter, or if we would like
[24:16] both parties as written in this
agreement to purchase
[24:20] a
new meter, to install a new meter, and
[24:24] that would be our official meter. If
that's the case, both parties would have
[24:28] for lack of better words a backup meter
that they would have some oversight on.
[24:36] » So you're deferring
to a later time when the board can have
[24:41] a conversation about it?
>> I would like the board to think about
[24:44] it. I mean, we are kind of in that
conversation stage now. This is a work
[24:48] session, so we won't be making any
decisions, but I would like to hear your
[24:52] opinions.
>> Okay.
[24:54] Well, I agree with Dennis that
uh I mean, it's not very efficient or
[24:59] practical to turn around and
spend our capital reserves on a new
[25:05] meter when we just did that. So,
personally, I prefer either a two-meter
[25:10] system or that the meter we just
purchased be considered
[25:15] the new the shared meter.
[25:21] But, I don't know
if in their proposal if there's any
[25:25] indication of where that meter needs to
be or not.
[25:31] » No, there is not.
[25:35] Ariel is not.
>> Ariel is not.
[25:38] If that's the case, would they be paying
us back for half of the meter we just
[25:43] installed?
[25:49] » I think that they would
as this proposal is written, they would
[25:53] split the costs of installing and
purchasing the meter, yes.
[25:59] I think we would discuss with them if
that was grant funding, how much that
[26:03] actually cost, possibly.
It was stated on the record that that
[26:08] may have been from grant funding. I
don't know if it was fully grant
[26:10] funding, partially grant funding, and
what it actually cost the town, and
[26:14] there may be some administration fees in
that grant, also.
[26:18] » Is
is [clears throat] Ariel there?
[26:20] » No.
>> Is um
[26:24] the staff was accumulating information
to close out the grant. Uh they were
[26:30] accumulation accumulating that
information for Randy's from for Randy's
[26:34] need.
>> Uh-huh.
[26:35] » And um
I thought I thought the cost of the
[26:39] installation and the meter was
was in um
[26:43] was in the clerk's hands because I know
she was going to give that to Randy.
[26:50] » I do not know.
>> All right. We'll track that
[26:53] [clears throat] down, sir.
>> Okay.
[26:55] What I would propose after we we meet
today
[26:59] is that a few of our
negotiation terms, we'll try to put them
[27:05] back into this draft. I would like to
get that back to the board. If they need
[27:10] to set a quick meeting,
um I would like to try to get a copy of
[27:14] our edits
back to the Baca Grande. They are
[27:18] meeting
on the 25th.
[27:22] So, if we could possibly get them back
to them a few days before that, they
[27:26] would be able to meet and review our
edits on that date.
[27:31] » Okay. And I know this is a work session
today, but I would presume that
[27:37] based on our conversations today, you
would be able to walk away with
[27:42] uh
some casual direction to make edits.
[27:48] » I would have guidance to make edits that
would be presented back to the board for
[27:52] their approval.
>> Okay. And then, if we could just back up
[27:56] one second to number two,
initial cost of service, where they
[28:02] proposed the increase,
Dennis,
[28:06] if they go from 790 to 833 per 1,000
gallons,
[28:12] that could be approximately
$5 to $8 per day based on the numbers
[28:19] you told me of 16,000 gallons a day.
>> Yes.
[28:26] » On the BOD,
how many pounds of BOD do we average a
[28:32] day?
[28:36] » Um I'd have to look for that. Um
[28:41] » Is it comparable to the flow?
>> No.
[28:46] The uh
at at the 99.
[28:50] whatever cents that was per pound,
we're averaging, and I'm trying to do
[28:56] this from memory, a cost of anywhere
between 12, 11 or 12
[29:02] $100 to
on the high end, 14 $1,400
[29:09] on the high end
a month.
[29:13] Um
[29:16] I wish I had that information right
here.
[29:20] Let me uh
in court, continue on, but I'll see if I
[29:24] can get more accurate for you here.
>> Well, with the on the flow,
[29:29] it looks like it, you know, it'll be a
$150 to $200 a month increase, so that's
[29:35] manageable.
And if the BOD is somewhat comparable,
[29:39] then
[29:45] I have
I hope my math is correct here. If I'm
[29:49] doing that, the the rate
for the flow increased approximately 5%
[29:55] and the rate for the BOD increased
approximately 6%.
[30:00] » That's probably very close.
And
[30:04] the goal is um is to take those BODs and
substantially reduce them. So, the onus
[30:11] is on us.
Uh you know, we're we'll for the year
[30:15] we'll probably be around 14 or 15,000
for the entire year in cost for treating
[30:21] BODs, which to me seems extremely
outrageous.
[30:27] Um
so, our job is to lower that.
[30:39] » All right.
Okay, so moving on to paragraph three,
[30:43] this is increases in cost of service.
Uh paragraph A was added. There are some
[30:50] terms that I discussed. Um, Baca Grande
is a independent um special district.
[30:57] They are operating and they do increase
the rates on their users.
[31:02] Um, that is done through rate studies.
Some of the language that I did request
[31:07] in here, uh Mr. Block,
he'd want this to be made in the sole
[31:12] discretion of Baca Grande.
However, that has to be tempered with
[31:18] the increase has to be in good faith.
Um, this would not be
[31:23] out of proportion to increases that are
made to the in-district users.
[31:29] And
I guess I want to bring in the
[31:33] last sentence. Um,
what we are trying to state here
[31:38] is that costs given to the town, cost
increased increases,
[31:44] would take into account only increases
in infrastructure, operation,
[31:49] and administration
for the cost of providing services to
[31:53] the town,
not an increase in infrastructure cost,
[31:58] operational cost, administrative costs,
or other costs for the district's other
[32:03] customers.
Um, it does get us back into
[32:09] how I would
perceive this
[32:11] is and I'm just going to make these
numbers up here. If the
[32:15] cost of the town service flow of the to
the town
[32:21] is approximately a third of the cost of
the district's plant,
[32:25] increases would have to kind of be
proportional with whatever that third
[32:30] is. If they are increasing a cost, if
they are working on a a line that is on
[32:36] the district system,
that cost would not be passed on to the
[32:41] town through an increase.
If they are working on an increase in
[32:47] say the plant
and we are at that third
[32:50] 33%
approximately a third of that cost could
[32:54] be attributed to the town and that would
be made at the sole discretion but also
[32:58] in good faith by Boca Grande, that rate
would increase in some number or some
[33:03] percentage. What really what we're
trying to do is separate any costs and
[33:07] service administration or use to the
district on their system that is going
[33:13] to be separate and distinct from a cost
that would be possibly tailored to or
[33:19] attributed to the town system or the use
of the town.
[33:24] Um we we've hashed that out quite a bit
between Mr. Locke and I and I think
[33:29] we're actually getting to something that
um is fairly close to something I would
[33:33] agree on on this system.
>> Now if the collection system, in my
[33:38] words, if the collection system
were damaged or storm or
[33:44] erosion or dis- or was damaged
that's none of our responsibility.
[33:51] » Which collection system?
>> The sanitary sewer collection system.
[33:54] It's just the plant
where the effluent's treated.
[34:00] » And the small section between the town
system
[34:05] and the plant that is owned by the
district, I believe there's a small
[34:09] section there also.
>> Okay, I would consider that the
[34:12] interceptor that brings the two
together.
[34:14] » Okay. The interceptor, okay. So if a if
a line is broken, um you know, out on
[34:20] the far what would that be? The south
end of their system
[34:24] um that cost should not be attributed to
a rate increase of the town.
[34:30] » All right.
[34:34] And I I Mr. Locke and I have discussed
this paragraph quite a bit flying
[34:40] together, so.
[34:52] Any other questions on section paragraph
three? Sorry.
[35:04] » No.
>> Okay.
[35:07] Moving on to four.
This was where I did have some
[35:10] discussion with Mr. Locke. You know, he
did share that he believes the
[35:15] the new meters, the updates they've done
to their plant have lowered that number
[35:21] and I I do believe he stated these
numbers, but please take them with a
[35:25] grain of salt from approximately that
80% to the 60% range of their plant
[35:29] capacity is where they're currently
operating, which I believe in his words
[35:33] bought them quite a few more years. So.
As written, this is a 20-year contract.
[35:40] It's hard to to see where we may be in
20 years, but just keep that in mind. He
[35:44] thought that this would be at the tail
end of this agreement if it occurred.
[35:48] So.
And he did make some changes to
[35:52] paragraph four, wastewater treatment
plant upgrades and expansion.
[35:56] The district is in the process of
upgrading its existing wastewater
[36:00] treatment facility and may ultimately be
required to expand or replace its
[36:05] current facility.
He removed the words building a new
[36:09] wastewater treatment facility as that is
not their
[36:13] MO right now. They have actually taken a
step back from that and he was happy to
[36:17] share that with me.
There will be some upgrades. He He
[36:22] talked a lot about a ventilation system
improving the air quality in the plant
[36:26] for their employees and a few things
that are required to be done by the EPA
[36:31] and the state of Colorado also.
There's just some things that they do
[36:36] definitely to
increase worker productivity and make
[36:41] things just a better working
environment, but there are also some
[36:45] things that have to be done. It's
regulated by the state or the feds.
[36:49] As we get down into
[36:54] what the changes are at the bottom of
this paragraph on page three.
[37:00] The best calculation that I've seen
that's been proposed
[37:05] is using
our BOD and our flow meter readings.
[37:10] There is a calculation here
and basically it is giving the flow and
[37:16] the BOD a 50%
um
[37:20] weighting
in how to
[37:23] calculate
the town's
[37:26] overall responsibility or percentage of
a future plant upgrade or expansion.
[37:34] I do have a lot of notes here on this
math. I don't know if it's worth me
[37:38] going through all of those notes or just
trying to answer questions as best as
[37:42] possible after you've read through them.
[37:46] » Looks good to me.
>> Okay.
[37:49] And it is taking a 12-month average, so
the preceding 12 months.
[37:55] And as Miss Trustee Paslusney stated, if
the town has the ability to lessen the
[38:02] BOD load,
that may be very helpful looking at
[38:06] these numbers if a plant expansion is
ever to be determined.
[38:10] And I don't know if this is at all
possible, but if the
[38:15] talk discussion of a plant expansion
takes off again in
[38:20] um
5, 10, 15 years, whenever that may be.
[38:24] Um it may be very helpful for the town
to really see what they can do to
[38:28] decrease their BODs for that period of
time, which may lessen their overall
[38:33] burden in that plant expansion. But um
that's that's down the line. So
[38:38] in addition to the the current or
current reduction of BOD. So
[38:44] I did have one comment. Um He struck
some language about funding
[38:51] the expansion by grants for the town.
However, we just moved um some of that
[38:57] language down to a different section. So
I want to make that known. That language
[39:01] really wasn't struck. It was simply
moved to a different section.
[39:04] » It's still there also.
>> Yes, and it's brought It's just brought
[39:09] back up. There was a little bit of
wordsmithing done here by Mr. Locke. Um
[39:13] I just I definitely had that section
highlighted. Anytime I see something
[39:18] striking the town's ability to do
something by
[39:21] by grant funding, I just want to bring
that back up, that that was not removed
[39:25] on purpose. It was just re-edited. Okay?
[39:39] The paragraph B that was struck
um had to do with the um language of an
[39:45] arbitrator.
And that language really was reworked um
[39:49] and put back into
the language in paragraph three, section
[39:55] A. So that kind of that paragraph was
moved.
[39:58] That's why it's struck there.
[40:07] Give me 1 second to close my door.
[40:19] » Uh no changes were made to
um section five and six payment and
[40:25] discharge permit other than renumbering
those.
[40:29] We did discuss the discharge permit and
that is something the town would also
[40:32] have to sign as a um secondary part of
this agreement.
[40:38] The section labeled seven, district
wastewater collection system impact
[40:43] fees,
is where some discussion will be had, I
[40:46] believe, here. This is about um tap
fees. Mr. Locke self-admittedly came up
[40:51] with this long name, um
but he is titling it an impact fee,
[40:56] which helps them and possibly the town
in the future with some TABOR issues,
[41:01] but also removing um
kind of the the question of any citizen
[41:06] that may say they have two tap fees.
There would be a fee to the district for
[41:12] the wastewater collection system impact,
and then the town would be able to
[41:15] impose a tap fee, also.
As proposed,
[41:20] a resident in Crestone that desires to
hook up to the system or is required to
[41:26] hook up to the system,
would have to remit to Baca Grande
[41:32] 50% of their tap fees
for the sewer tap,
[41:38] and that would be the tap fee that is
assessed to any individual in the
[41:42] district at the time they hook up.
Um the prior version did have that at a
[41:49] tap fee would be remitted to
um Baca Grande at 100% and then we also
[41:54] discussed that at 50%.
This does not prevent the town from
[41:59] collecting a tap fee,
also amending or changing that tap fee
[42:03] in the future so that they can recoup
costs and also use those fees to offset
[42:09] the cost of installing the new tap and
maintaining the increased load on the
[42:14] town system.
The district did
[42:19] He said that he did get a lot of strong
guidance that the district feels they do
[42:24] need some sort of a fee because there is
an increase that does in fact impact the
[42:31] plant and a small section of their um
What was that term you used? I'm sorry.
[42:36] Trust me pass loose knee from the town
system.
[42:39] » Interceptor?
>> Interceptor.
[42:42] The interceptor section, but most of
these costs
[42:49] are going to be aimed at the um impact
in the plant because that is really
[42:53] where they do feel the impact and that
is where the um need for the system
[42:58] comes in and that's where all the work
is actually done.
[43:02] » Can I say something?
>> Yes, sir.
[43:05] » Um
I like the um
[43:09] description of an impact as it using as
an impact fee
[43:15] and if we need to establish some
uh dollar amount of what that be and
[43:20] it's 50% of the tap on fee which is
I think $600.
[43:27] Um
>> Their tap fee.
[43:30] » What's that?
>> It's on the Baca's tap fee.
[43:36] 50% of the of what the Baca charges, not
what we charge.
[43:41] According to the language.
>> Huh.
[43:43] » Yes, that is my understanding, too.
>> And so what do they charge?
[43:48] » $5,000.
>> Then that means we would be adding
[43:51] approximately $2,500
[43:56] to our current tap fee and all of that
would go to
[44:00] Baca water.
>> Yes.
[44:03] » Okay, let me let me All All so then I
misunderstood that. Let me say this.
[44:08] Uh
I'm I'm a I personally I would be I see
[44:12] the worth and I agree able to uh
to a impact fee for that.
[44:18] But I don't want it associated in any
way
[44:20] uh even in wording be be called a a tap
on fee.
[44:25] Uh
because if we decide
[44:29] that we want to raise our tap on fees, I
don't want anything
[44:34] uh
to go that way to go to pay for that
[44:37] surcharge. And if they decide to raise
their
[44:41] fees, which I now I understand that
that's what it's based on anyway,
[44:45] that $2,500
of a $5,000 full tap on fee could get
[44:50] really really high.
Um
[44:53] So, if we can establish an amount, I
guess is really what I'm saying,
[44:57] for now that will last for
hopefully the duration of this contract,
[45:03] I would be happy with that. But to just
keep it open,
[45:06] I mean, what if they decide to change it
to $10,000?
[45:09] And we'd have to come up with five
grand.
[45:12] » How about
>> That would be the case and that would be
[45:14] for any new customer on their system,
though. They would be paying that
[45:18] $10,000 for a new tap on.
>> Mhm.
[45:21] » What if we just
uh within our own organization decide to
[45:27] set our tap fees
at whatever their tap fees are?
[45:35] » We can have them.
>> And then from there on out, they get
[45:37] half of it and we get half of it.
[45:42] » Um
that's something we could discuss. Uh
[45:46] that
kind of
[45:48] sends me in a slightly different
direction. I was definitely thought that
[45:52] the board's intent was to have as small
a fee as possible,
[45:56] but that is something we can do. I do
think that
[45:59] these rates
um
[46:02] they do adjust. They do go up. It
depends when you do your rate study, and
[46:06] I think that there would be some
pushback on having a set fee, especially
[46:11] with a 20-year contract.
>> Yeah.
[46:14] Set fee
>> I I just do get some pushback. I think I
[46:16] would get there.
>> It wouldn't really be
[46:19] uh
fair to
[46:23] to town to not uh if like we have to pay
50% of uh
[46:29] uh their fee and then
>> Well, the town does not. It would be the
[46:33] applicant, the person
wanting to do the hookup.
[46:38] » Oh, okay. So, it would be like um I see.
They would Okay, that makes sense. So,
[46:43] they they would have their own
um billing way of billing them. Is that
[46:49] correct, or would we bill them and then
we would and then the money would
[46:53] I'm just wondering, is it like they
write a check
[46:55] » As stated, it says the town will the
town shall collect this fee
[47:01] from the user,
and that fee will be 50% of the then
[47:05] current sewer tap fee
uh from the
[47:10] the district.
>> So, then we just have to change our
[47:14] language in our It's basically a whole
'nother
[47:18] line item that has to be created in our
fee schedule. Is that what you're
[47:23] what you're saying?
>> Yes, that would be one way to address
[47:26] that. And the town can and will have the
ability to address its own tap fees,
[47:33] what those amounts are,
and adjust those, amend those as needed.
[47:38] » Okay.
Okay.
[47:42] » That could really
[47:46] that could really really increase and
make it almost impossible for some
[47:50] people to be able to tap on.
So, you you said
[47:56] Correct me if I'm wrong. Did you say you
did talk about a set fee with Mr. Locke,
[48:01] I believe his name is, or not?
>> No, I did not. Um I
[48:06] believe that a a set fee would probably
meet a lot of pushback from Mr. Locke
[48:11] and their board due to the fact that
that amount would not be able to
[48:15] fluctuate or change over the next 20
years, which is uh
[48:21] a a long period of time.
>> Yeah, even if we were to to uh
[48:26] forget the 20-year part, but have a
uh
[48:30] calculate a system that if at some
particular growth
[48:35] um
or a GPM or GPD, gallons per day, were
[48:40] to be reached, then that adjustment
of the set fee could be raised.
[48:47] Um
I don't know if I'm explaining that
[48:49] right. I can think about it right, but I
don't I don't know if the words are
[48:51] coming out right.
>> probably is uh
[48:55] something that
Boca Grande uses.
[48:58] Um they I'm sure that they are doing
some sort of a rate study every 2 years
[49:03] approximately, and those numbers do go
into their tap fees and their monthly
[49:08] fees. So, some of those studies, some of
those numbers are actually looked at
[49:12] already. And once again, this is tied
directly to
[49:17] the sewer tap fee for Boca Grande. So,
if Boca Grande
[49:23] does prevent growth, um
the growth is actually affecting
[49:27] Boca Grande by having such a high fee,
um you know, at a 100% rate versus the
[49:33] town at the 50% rate.
Um just that's my two cents. So.
[49:39] » My my limited experience
uh
[49:43] with the the vacant properties there is
that many had prepaid
[49:49] uh uh, their tap-on fees
years ago, so probably at a very, very
[49:56] much lower cost, and now
with new development coming in, and
[50:01] maybe all of those prepaid fees
is, um,
[50:05] is not good enough for them, and I'd
hate for us to be carrying that cash
[50:09] cow.
Um,
[50:11] it's it's just going to create
it create a hardship for people in our
[50:16] town that's going to want to tap on.
>> Okay, I understand your point, and I do
[50:20] want guidance from the board. Um, I have
heard that there are some lots that are
[50:24] prepaid out there. However, that does
take into account, um, the actual cost
[50:29] of the tap. They are having to then pay
a monthly fee, and then there also is a
[50:34] service availability fee out there also
that vacant lots that do not have the
[50:39] tap, but have the ability to tap in are
also paying.
[50:43] Um, I did some research. The town of
Parker
[50:48] for a
3/4
[50:51] which is considered a small residential
water,
[50:54] um, sanitary fee.
Um, town of Parker, Colorado,
[51:00] $20,000, $21,050
for water,
[51:05] $10,420
for sewer.
[51:10] Uh, if you go to a 1-in line, that
almost doubles. It goes to $42,100
[51:15] for water,
$20,840
[51:19] for sewer.
Uh,
[51:22] I had a sheet
out here.
[51:25] Most of these are Front Range.
[51:34] » Yeah, I I
uh,
[51:37] I am concerned about what Dennis said.
So, if somebody paid a tap fee 10 years
[51:43] ago,
are they then
[51:45] considered that they've paid their tap
fee, and they will not have to pay the
[51:49] additional
to the Baca if they hook up in 2 years
[51:54] is one question, but to your point,
Seth,
[51:58] I think you're right
that our tap fees are pretty low, and as
[52:02] we approach build out in town and in the
Baca, there's no reason that a person in
[52:08] town
shouldn't pay the same tap fee as a
[52:13] person in the Baca
with the consideration that 50% of that
[52:17] goes to water and sand and 50% of that
goes to the town.
[52:22] That seems reasonable to me.
>> Well, in the the 50% going to the town,
[52:28] that could be adjusted. I mean, if town
does desire to have a low tap fee, they
[52:33] can charge very little, but if they do
need to have more due to a rate study,
[52:36] it could actually be more than whatever
is there. The town of Trinidad is
[52:40] approximately $9,000 for water and
$7,000 for sewer, also. I had a list of
[52:47] these. Um but, yes, trustee, I think
that if a individual in town
[52:52] has prepaid, has already paid for a tap,
is paying for a service connection
[52:56] monthly, they may not have any flow,
that does work to their advantage, also.
[53:01] » Let me Let me uh
add something in here. We have
[53:05] and are getting ready to, hopefully, go
out for engineering on a grant from
[53:11] Department of Local
from DOLA,
[53:15] a pre-approved grant. We have the money,
and in that grant, if I remember
[53:19] correctly,
the stubs for the sanitary sewer line
[53:23] are included, meaning the service lines.
So,
[53:28] um
how will that affect
[53:32] what we're talking about now?
The
[53:36] uh if that line is extended
and ready to be put into operation, do
[53:42] we now
as people hook on,
[53:47] will they have to pay, even though
they're not going to pay through the
[53:50] grant,
the the tap on fee because the grant is
[53:54] paying for that service line,
will they still have to pay that fee
[53:59] to us at Tabernacle?
[54:06] » Trustee, that's very new information to
me. I I don't
[54:10] know that for certain.
>> I think that's maybe something that we
[54:13] have to talk about by ourselves and get
that straight with uh
[54:17] Department of Local Affairs.
[54:26] » And I guess the question is
the tap fee for the town,
[54:32] does that only pay for the stub out,
or is that paying for other services
[54:37] that um would be included in the the
standard tap fee?
[54:42] » Since our new ordinance,
the um
[54:46] if if if we did not
if those stubs were not installed,
[54:53] the individual requesting the per the
the service would have to construct that
[54:59] service line.
>> out and the tap fee.
[55:02] » And the tap fee.
>> So, it seems like that may not be
[55:06] included in the tap fee because it is an
additional fee. But once again, I'm just
[55:11] postulating here.
>> All right. Yeah, me too. I'm trying to
[55:14] trying to put the put it together as
we're going because we're going to we're
[55:17] going to have that situation both with
prepaid taps that haven't been used yet,
[55:23] and so on and so forth, and then they're
connected and we develop a new account
[55:27] for them. Uh that that's something that
we've got to kick around a little bit
[55:31] more, i- i- including with with the with
Baca Water and Sewer,
[55:36] and see what making sure I don't want to
be hit with any surprises. I don't want
[55:39] our residents or our customers to be hit
with any surprises.
[55:42] Like, "Oh gee, I thought this was all
set."
[55:45] And and it's not. So, yes, Phil, a point
of discussion, I guess.
[55:56] » Trusty Kenny, Mayor, any additional
comments here?
[56:00] » Um I do think that we should have
probably spent more time in the past
[56:05] looking at our fee schedule and
increasing it over time. It's It's now
[56:10] kind of outdated as far as, you know, I
know that it's
[56:14] you know, in some ways it's it's a cheap
place to build, um which is fine. I I
[56:19] think it's uh it's good for
for people, but it's also got to be fair
[56:24] for everybody.
Uh
[56:27] the town and you know, we're providing
this service and I I do I do think that
[56:32] we need to figure out a way to
uh
[56:35] increase our tap fees,
um eventually increase
[56:41] some of our fees for for water,
sanitation,
[56:45] and each thing and and do it in a way
that, you know,
[56:49] is somewhat in harmony with with the
town and what's happening with
[56:53] inflation. I mean, we're, you know,
parts are twice as much as they were a
[56:58] few years ago. Everything has gone up,
so it's like if we don't follow that,
[57:03] we're going to get left behind and and
we're not going to be able to
[57:07] um
we're we're going to be get further away
[57:10] from any kind of enterprise status that
we've ever wanted. Um
[57:15] and uh I just I just, you know, I want
to be fair, but I also know that we have
[57:21] to be fair to ourselves as well.
Cuz it's it's just not um
[57:26] we're we're getting further out of
harmony with with the with the fee
[57:29] schedules and the tap fees.
>> Now, the town almost seems to be
[57:34] subsidizing
water and sewer for the residents
[57:38] through other means.
>> We are.
[57:41] » We are.
>> Yeah, my the only point I would bring up
[57:46] is I think maybe what Dennis was saying
uh that
[57:50] it would be really nice to have a
comprehensive list of
[57:54] which sewer tap fees have already been
paid by whom
[58:00] and given that we've changed our
ordinance for what a tap fee covers, if
[58:06] that person
plans to actually hook up or develop in
[58:11] the future, um
is town
[58:15] paying for that installation based on a
10-year-old $800 tap fee?
[58:24] » Well, well, not Yeah, not only that, it
if So, we develop an account number to
[58:30] bill for that sewer tap, uh I don't know
what what what Baca's going to want as
[58:35] far as uh information getting from us on
who taps on, when they tap on, so on and
[58:41] so forth. So, along those lines, someone
has prepaid a tap on fee, very much like
[58:45] in their community, but now they're
tapping on 10 years later and the fee is
[58:50] is five $5,000, 25 of which is going to
go to Baca. Is Is that Is that how we're
[58:56] going to treat that?
And how do we let our public know?
[59:00] » Yeah.
>> So, we need to We need to have set out
[59:02] just a little bit more.
>> Yeah, and if
[59:05] » I I agree with you, Mayor. We Our Our
fees are low across the board from
[59:09] permit building permit fees to
to everything else.
[59:13] They're They're low.
>> I was concerned that Brent was going to
[59:17] run out of things to do.
So, maybe now we can have him start
[59:21] putting together those comprehensive
lists.
[59:27] » And I guess I I'm looking for any any
guidance the board may have here. Does
[59:32] that comprehensive list really affect
>> No.
[59:35] » paragraph seven here?
>> No.
[59:42] » Okay.
Any other questions there?
[59:45] » No.
[59:48] » So, moving on to eight, once again, we
added um
[59:52] town to the system to just really try to
delineate that this is the town system
[59:57] as much as possible.
[1:00:02] Um I do not have I do really like your
language, Trustee Pezzulo, of the
[1:00:07] interceptor system. Um I'm going to try
to make a note of that and use that
[1:00:11] going forward as that connection between
the town system and the plant. Um but
[1:00:16] that section talks about I&I
and really
[1:00:21] if there is an issue there, if we do
however continue with our multiple
[1:00:25] meters, um if they're continuing to read
differently, this section may come into
[1:00:30] play where we're saying, "Well, where is
this I&I coming from?" And I I once
[1:00:34] again don't know Do you know how far
apart those meters are?
[1:00:38] » I don't. I thought they were very very
like within a foot or two of each other.
[1:00:43] » Oh, really? Okay. Well, that's helpful.
>> Yeah, I think it's some difference with
[1:00:47] where the the uh uh
the partial flume might have been and
[1:00:52] being up in the pipe.
Uh but I've never
[1:00:56] I've never seen it myself. I have to go
down and look in the manhole
[1:00:59] to get it straight in my mind.
So.
[1:01:02] » I do believe the
and for lack of better words, the town's
[1:01:06] meter is on a pipe. I don't know if
that's a 6-incher an 8-incher. That was
[1:01:11] one of the the statements Brent made.
And that the Baca's meter is on the
[1:01:16] flume.
I do have notes from Brent.
[1:01:21] » I don't know if the part was replaced,
but I think it's an 8-in pipe and then
[1:01:25] the part the attachment was a 6-in and
they modified it to fit, but it's not
[1:01:31] ideal. And he said that they
>> not been replaced yet. The parts are
[1:01:36] basically on order. And when that
individual comes down from the front
[1:01:39] range, they will install that new
um
[1:01:44] » Okay.
>> I forget the term he used. Um
[1:01:46] » It's a attacher or a
>> mounting bracket.
[1:01:49] » Bracket, yeah.
>> And there Brent also shared that um he
[1:01:53] thought that both of the meters that are
used
[1:01:57] are actually fairly accurate. I
I don't have this written down I or I in
[1:02:02] front of me.
Brent stated that at a higher flow
[1:02:06] Bockus meter may have a slightly um
higher technologically advantage for
[1:02:12] reading higher flows, but at lower flows
um the the technology in our meter that
[1:02:18] we installed may be a little more
accurate, but very minimal. Um just once
[1:02:22] you get to those extremes.
So, um I guess just the differences in
[1:02:28] technology. I don't want to pretend to
know I
[1:02:31] I know what I'm talking about there.
That was a conversation with Brent, so.
[1:02:38] Uh any questions on
paragraph eight?
[1:02:43] » Uh
[1:02:48] So, we already had like a
We had a jetting and scoping um
[1:02:54] I think again, if we
if we raise our
[1:02:59] tap Do you think that like our tap fees
could go towards
[1:03:03] um something like that? Or where would
we
[1:03:06] we get money if we wanted to do another
jetting and scoping to find out if we
[1:03:11] had I&I like where where
um
[1:03:15] We we kind of got it out of this grant
and it was part of the problem with why
[1:03:20] we might have to reimburse Dola.
Um but
[1:03:25] it seems like jetting and scoping is
something that we should be doing on a
[1:03:29] fairly regular basis.
Um there
[1:03:33] Yeah.
Uh
[1:03:36] Brent was telling me that one of the
metering devices he has
[1:03:40] uh which is town it brought previously.
Uh I don't know exactly when. I think it
[1:03:45] was either before maybe even during
Miguel's time
[1:03:49] has the ability
to
[1:03:53] and I'm going to try to quote him the
best I can
[1:03:56] to do a version of the jetting and
scoping. In other words, to be able to
[1:04:01] to to photograph what's going on inside
the pipe. I think it [clears throat] was
[1:04:06] a matter of him getting to learn how to
use this device and some programming
[1:04:10] that has to be done. So, in simplest
terms, it's not it's not like it would
[1:04:15] be able to do the whole system, but we
would be able to do sections. And what I
[1:04:20] need to do is get with him or we need to
get with him, look at that interceptor,
[1:04:24] see how accessible the manholes are, and
where they're at. And I think we could
[1:04:28] do a lot of that ourselves.
That'd be great because uh
[1:04:33] I remember it costing like what? 40,000
or something? You remember that?
[1:04:39] Yeah.
I think it had to do with the repairs
[1:04:42] too, but yeah, it's expensive.
But it's really, you know, besides this
[1:04:46] other system, it's the only way that we
can recognize
[1:04:50] I and I accept it, you know, or at least
locate it if we have uh
[1:04:55] um
you know, it's it's kind of like
[1:04:59] if it's on us to
to be
[1:05:03] uh what is it? I I saw it. It's you
know, it's our responsibility and it
[1:05:07] should be our expense
for the reduction. I mean, we we need to
[1:05:11] figure out a way at least every 5 years
to do a jetting and scoping or or
[1:05:15] something. You know, I don't know if
that's
[1:05:18] something we we could take out of our
um
[1:05:23] that fund.
>> Capital?
[1:05:25] » Capital.
>> I'm not sure about that, but
[1:05:28] » Capital fund?
>> I'm not either. I was going to say that
[1:05:30] that this time with the removal of our
enterprise status, um all of our funds
[1:05:35] are coming out of the general fund.
That's
[1:05:37] » But we do have No, we do have that 5% We
do have that 5% that comes out of and it
[1:05:43] goes into a separate fund.
Uh we're
[1:05:46] that we're we're holding for capital
improvements, I would say.
[1:05:51] Yeah. But that that
>> I would have to look into that, and I'd
[1:05:53] want the clerk to maybe just We should
all remind the clerk that we do at least
[1:05:57] have a capital CIF fund um
on our budget as that's going to be
[1:06:01] prepared here, too.
Um our budget will look a lot different
[1:06:04] from last year as we have removed the
enterprise funds from that budget. So,
[1:06:09] there will be quite a few
separate line items. It's all just going
[1:06:13] to be bulked underneath um general fund.
So.
[1:06:17] But I and I on the town system will come
from the town. That cost would come from
[1:06:22] the general fund or another fund or a
grant system. That would not be on Baca.
[1:06:26] And any I&I on Baca's end would be their
sole responsibility.
[1:06:31] » Okay.
[1:06:35] Then then that that number eight, I
guess, is the way it is. It's um we
[1:06:40] can't There's nothing we can do about
you know. And it should be our
[1:06:44] responsibility in some ways. I mean,
it's if we want to keep our system as
[1:06:49] our system, then we need to
make sure that we're
[1:06:53] taking care of it.
>> Well, there is a you know, some sort of
[1:06:57] a cost-benefit analysis.
Every thousand gallons that uh we
[1:07:02] do not send down the interceptor system
to the the plant um is
[1:07:13] um approximately $8.33. We won't have to
pay.
[1:07:17] So, um
and that I'm sure I and I there's
[1:07:20] different types, there's different ways
to do that. Once again, not an engineer,
[1:07:24] but you know,
I and I that occurs 24 hours a day adds
[1:07:28] up.
>> Oh, for sure.
[1:07:31] » It does.
>> So.
[1:07:33] Okay.
>> The place where
[1:07:35] » BODs.
Yeah.
[1:07:37] » Right.
>> And slightly related to the BODs, uh
[1:07:40] paragraph nine is the fats, oils, and
grease program.
[1:07:44] Um [clears throat] this would partially
be the
[1:07:48] related to
[1:07:53] the adoption of exhibit A. I'm sorry, I
lost that track, also.
[1:08:02] Um the discharge permit um that the town
would also be signing.
[1:08:06] Um it would probably be good for the
town to
[1:08:09] look into
uh fats, oils, and grease program. Uh I
[1:08:15] know there's not a lot of fryers in
town. Um that's definitely where some
[1:08:18] things come from, but looking at our
restaurants, looking at the grocery
[1:08:22] store, what is put down um any of those
drains um either on purpose or on
[1:08:28] accident. Um floor drains are a lot of
times connected to your sewer system.
[1:08:33] Um just things that are going into that.
So, a few things to discuss there. We
[1:08:37] also added in language again, town, just
trying to strengthen the the delineation
[1:08:42] between the town system and Block and
Grand system.
[1:08:46] » Ted, so you're aware, our municipal code
addresses fats, oils, and grease
[1:08:50] program.
Not phrased that way, but
[1:08:53] those wordings are in there.
And uh Brent is if he hasn't done it
[1:08:59] already
in the process of notifying first the
[1:09:02] businesses and I think we put out a PSA
public service announcement as well to
[1:09:08] the rest of the community about that. Um
So, just so you're aware, we have that
[1:09:16] wording. We're trying to do the best we
can and get it going. And uh we'll keep
[1:09:21] doing it until until we accomplish that.
And that's directly tied
[1:09:26] » But I did read that in our code and it's
directly tied like you said. I remember
[1:09:29] going to say I'm sorry about to the
BODs. Um any biological matter that is
[1:09:33] going down the drains, it is metered.
So.
[1:09:36] » Yep.
>> Okay.
[1:09:41] Uh paragraph 10 is pretreatment. I have
to be honest, I I would kind of defer to
[1:09:46] Trustee Paz Lucero and Brent here. Um it
doesn't appear that this has changed at
[1:09:50] all other than we're continuing to add
the word town in front of the word
[1:09:54] system. So.
[1:10:03] Uh moving on to 11.
Uh
[1:10:07] the town is going to be bound by the
discharge permit
[1:10:12] and the rules and regs um
of Baca Grande.
[1:10:16] Really, this is tied to the fact that
most of the rules and regulations Baca
[1:10:21] Grande is abiding by are state and
federal. It's not um there's not a lot
[1:10:27] of
[1:10:30] add-ons just for local concern.
Um
[1:10:33] the district does not want to tie its
own hands by requiring it to do anything
[1:10:38] or very much more than the state or the
feds are requiring. Also, but the town
[1:10:43] is also subject to those rules and
regulations.
[1:10:49] And they will be modified from time to
time as as rules and regs change.
[1:10:55] Okay.
[1:10:57] 12 this a paragraph that I think we
added and I really do like this
[1:11:03] paragraph. This is just at the trustee
recommendation and this was added a few
[1:11:07] drafts ago.
Um, just once again, the town is going
[1:11:11] to be responsible for its system, but
also just the delineation. This is the
[1:11:15] town system.
Um, this is not a
[1:11:18] buying project. This is not the Baca
Grande taking over the town. There is a
[1:11:23] separation between the two systems.
[1:11:31] 13, there was a small addition after we
reworded um, the prior section about
[1:11:37] plant expansion.
Um, just trying to really reiterate that
[1:11:41] the town and Baca Grande are both going
to make efforts to obtain grants and low
[1:11:46] interest loans related to any type of
upgrade or expansion to the system.
[1:11:52] » I have a question about the loans.
>> Okay.
[1:11:57] If uh, one of us is to apply for a loan,
that doesn't obligate the other party,
[1:12:01] does it?
>> Not by this um, agreement. There are
[1:12:06] some loans that do require a pledge of
fees.
[1:12:12] So, basically your tap fees would go
first or I'm sorry, your user fees, your
[1:12:17] monthly fees may go first to paying down
that grant. That is just part of the
[1:12:22] grant program. Um, but to my knowledge,
the town has not entered into any of
[1:12:27] those grants at this time, um, but that
would be something to consider. Um, but
[1:12:31] it would not affect the district or the
town if either party was to go into
[1:12:35] their own loan.
>> Okay.
[1:12:38] » I I have not seen Baca Grande's books. I
haven't asked. I would I would bet that
[1:12:42] they have multiple loans out um, at this
time just for operating.
[1:12:47] Those do not affect us.
[1:12:56] » Um 14, I
a
[1:13:00] government cannot indemnify
another, that being a municipal
[1:13:05] government, another individual.
Um so this section was left in with the
[1:13:12] caveat of to the extent permitted by law
and without waving any governmental
[1:13:17] immunity provided under our CRS.
Um so we are not providing any
[1:13:22] indemnification to the other party at
this time. That's really how I read that
[1:13:25] section even with this being in here.
And also um
[1:13:30] » [snorts]
>> special district is considered a special
[1:13:33] um subdivision and also they would have
an anti-indemnification statute also by
[1:13:39] understanding and knowledge.
[1:13:44] 15 is an assignment clause. Um
Basically what that is really saying is
[1:13:49] Baca Grande
is not going to make an assignment to
[1:13:53] allow um
another entity to run or operate Baca
[1:13:58] Grande at this point in time.
Fairly default or I'm sorry, fairly
[1:14:02] common contract language.
Um 16 is default. Talking about trying
[1:14:08] to pay our our bills on time and also if
there's anything that we need from Baca,
[1:14:13] there should be some time limits there
also.
[1:14:15] 17, notices. Um there may be a slight
change there. Um I might I made a
[1:14:20] comment about our town manager.
I don't know if we want to have our town
[1:14:24] manager
um
[1:14:26] or just our clerk or even the board of
trustees
[1:14:30] be who the notice is given to. I do like
having one individual
[1:14:35] um be that that recipient.
So I guess at this time I would ask if
[1:14:39] you have a
leaning toward that being our clerk or
[1:14:44] if we are going to have a town manager
slash clerk, that might even be a
[1:14:48] section to put in there.
And my last recommendation would be to
[1:14:52] the
board of trustees.
[1:14:56] Partially also because the board of
trustees does not meet or is not in the
[1:15:00] office four or five days a week, so it
may be some time before they get there,
[1:15:04] which would possibly put us in
um conflict with any of our bills or our
[1:15:10] notice requirements if we can't get back
to Baca Grande right away.
[1:15:15] So, I would like a staff member there.
That would be my recommendation.
[1:15:22] » Um
I don't think that we're going to be
[1:15:25] hiring a manager in the next
year, two, three. I'm not sure how long,
[1:15:31] but
so, I would definitely
[1:15:33] uh put it as the clerk.
Um
[1:15:37] I mean, it it even the clerk
clerk's office, maybe, because then it
[1:15:42] could go through the aid as opposed to
just the clerk, you know, if the clerk
[1:15:46] is out. For sure.
Clerk's office.
[1:15:51] Do you guys agree with that?
>> Yes.
[1:15:56] » Yes.
[1:15:58] » That's an easy change.
And then 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
[1:16:06] 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 um did not
change
[1:16:12] at all other than having our numbering
be updated.
[1:16:15] » Okay.
[1:16:19] » Awesome.
>> Yeah.
[1:16:21] » So, I know we're getting a little close
on time here. Um I would ask if we've
[1:16:26] got a few more minutes,
can I just run through some of these
[1:16:29] requests so that I have everything
written down? And if you have anything
[1:16:33] you want to add, please let me know.
And then possibly just a few statements
[1:16:38] now that we have the mayor there. Um
about the plant capacity, a few other
[1:16:43] things you may not have heard at the
initial conversation of the meeting.
[1:16:47] » I'm going to bow out. Seth, I really
appreciate it. And Dennis and Benji,
[1:16:52] thank you very much. I'm going to head
to work.
[1:16:56] » Okay.
>> All right. Thank you.
[1:16:58] » Thank you, Trustee.
And I I guess I want to say while
[1:17:00] everybody is here, um
I've got a conference in Crested Butte
[1:17:05] this week. I really was hoping to go up
to the Energy Fair. And I hope to make
[1:17:09] it next year. So, I've got some friends
that are headed up there. They're pretty
[1:17:12] excited. So,
um yeah.
[1:17:16] » All right. Safe travels.
Enjoy Crested Butte.
[1:17:20] » Thanks, guys. Uh one of my
kiddo's mountain biking coaches is
[1:17:24] actually works for REC, and Brant is
going to meet up with him this week on a
[1:17:29] separate subject, but I told him to say
hi. So,
[1:17:32] » Hi, Seth.
>> Hey, Mayor Benji.
[1:17:34] » Yeah, see you. Have a good day.
>> So, Mayor, uh page one, no changes other
[1:17:40] than we just had the town, the word town
added, just really to delineate the town
[1:17:44] system.
>> Uh-huh.
[1:17:46] » Um page two, I have no changes in
two. I just have a note that that's an
[1:17:52] approximate 5% change on the flow and a
6% change on the BOD.
[1:17:57] We did have some questions to ask
um about the flow meter,
[1:18:04] if that could be
And I guess I don't have clear notes
[1:18:08] here. Is the
overall direction to use our meter, in
[1:18:13] which case we would not have a backup
meter?
[1:18:18] And the second option would be to
purchase a new meter,
[1:18:21] in which case both parties would have a
backup meter, but the new meter would be
[1:18:25] the
um
[1:18:28] deciding factor. That would be the meter
that is read and binding on the parties.
[1:18:34] » And we were
we were going to because the meter that
[1:18:38] we have is just been recently funded and
installed. Um
[1:18:44] feeling that we should use that meter
and let either Baca use their old meter
[1:18:48] or buy a new meter for themselves.
>> Okay.
[1:18:52] Um I did ask Brent and he supplied me
with a lot of it. Um
[1:18:56] very specific information. The name,
make, model, manufacture date, um
[1:19:02] you know, some specs on the meter that
was installed and some background on
[1:19:06] that. I wanted to provide that to Mr.
Locke to provide to
[1:19:11] I forget his name, their individual that
would basically probably give their
[1:19:14] board some direction on his thoughts on
which meter to use if that would be
[1:19:18] acceptable.
The town would still be able to install
[1:19:21] a sec- second meter if they would like
just as a backup. But if we go with
[1:19:26] option one there using our meter, the
town would not have a backup meter. So
[1:19:31] » Right.
>> I would but we're using our meter
[1:19:33] specifically just to compare against
their readings, not um using it as a
[1:19:38] billing
format, right?
[1:19:40] » So the prior version of this contract
had
[1:19:46] um
[1:19:49] I don't want to say convoluted, but it
had two meters being read and the the
[1:19:55] ability to average them if there were
differences.
[1:19:57] » Right.
>> What Mr. Locke is proposing is cutting
[1:20:00] that out and just having one meter and
that meter being binding on the parties.
[1:20:04] That way there's not these
discrepancies, there's not back and
[1:20:08] forth. I think that gets into possible
billing issues in the future. Um but
[1:20:12] just going forward with one accurate
meter that both parties can um rely on
[1:20:17] and calibrate according to its its
records. I did just have some discussion
[1:20:21] that if the town wants to install a
second meter
[1:20:24] kind of as some oversight,
[clears throat] they could do so, but
[1:20:26] that cost would be on them.
Um there was discussion also
[1:20:30] if we do use the town meter,
um the district be reimbursing the town
[1:20:37] for some of those costs on that meter?
And I just want to be fair and upfront.
[1:20:43] If most of that cost came through a
grant, I would like that known and
[1:20:47] shared. So the cost may be lower, which
may be an incentive to use this meter
[1:20:52] also. But if there is some cost to
administer that grant, that should also
[1:20:55] be split if that is what we decide to
do.
[1:20:58] » I have a question about using our meter.
Are they planning on then having access
[1:21:03] to our meter and billing us or are we
billing ourselves? Or what's the what's
[1:21:08] the
protocol?
[1:21:11] » not discussed here and I think that gets
into
[1:21:14] are these meters a foot apart?
Are they a mile apart? I don't know
[1:21:19] that. I did have discussion too with Mr.
Locke about if we installed a new meter,
[1:21:24] who would own that meter? And he really
didn't have a strong stance. I don't
[1:21:29] either. You know, there's pros and cons
there. I think both parties would have
[1:21:33] access to that.
In the end, somebody would have
[1:21:37] ownership of it, which would have some
small tax implications, I'm sure. But
[1:21:41] also both parties would be then
splitting any of the maintenance and the
[1:21:45] ongoing costs with how I would want that
to be done.
[1:21:48] » I guess
it just seems really confusing that I
[1:21:51] thought I thought the way we were doing
it was that they have a meter pit that
[1:21:55] is further out and we were just going to
compare
[1:22:00] and make sure that we're within a
certain range of their meter.
[1:22:04] I would like to see
if that if if we're using our meter, you
[1:22:09] know, we we're going to need to have
some kind of agreement on how that works
[1:22:11] because
is it like that we rely on Brent to take
[1:22:16] readings and then he transfers them over
to
[1:22:20] Tabernacle Water?
>> Those are details that would need to be
[1:22:22] figured out. And what Mr. Locke was
really trying to do
[1:22:27] and my discussion also was eliminate
that gray area of 2 m.
[1:22:31] Um just have 1 m so that we're not
averaging meters. We don't have this
[1:22:36] argument of well, we're out of range of
16%. So now we're going to require a
[1:22:40] recalibration and an average for this
month. Um just having 1 m that is read
[1:22:45] and that is binding on the parties.
>> Okay. Well, I guess I guess my point of
[1:22:49] having 2 m was because
that way
[1:22:53] we are checking each other. It was kind
of like a check and balance. Um
[1:22:58] if we're not going to do that, then I
would recommend that
[1:23:02] uh
that we split a meter and we have a
[1:23:05] separate meter for the town that we we
just check and
[1:23:10] and then the the second the meter that
they have is an updated, you know,
[1:23:14] high-level and and that we contribute to
that somehow because
[1:23:21] uh our meter is like on our property.
It's I think it's like
[1:23:26] you know, within our town boundaries.
Their meter is further out closer to
[1:23:31] their
their facility.
[1:23:35] Um
I don't know. I just I don't think it I
[1:23:38] don't think town should be using
uh you know, I I thought our meter was
[1:23:42] really just like a a check and balance,
but maybe I'm wrong. Do you remember
[1:23:47] that, Dennis?
>> You're right. That's That was the
[1:23:50] intent. The former ORC
um
[1:23:54] I don't know. It was before my time, but
from what I understand, it convinced the
[1:23:59] board to go ahead and get the second
meter as a or get this meter as a checks
[1:24:03] and balances between the two because
there was suspicion among some people
[1:24:09] that we were being charged incorrectly
uh so on and so forth. And so well,
[1:24:15] okay, let's get another meter so we can
do the comparison. I still think it's a
[1:24:19] good idea for both sides, actually,
to be able to have two meters, calibrate
[1:24:24] them both at the same time, you get the
same reading, and then see
[1:24:29] uh as flow continues
where there is, if in fact there is a
[1:24:34] discrepancy,
and then we'll be able to track it down
[1:24:37] further. To have one meter is going to
take us right back down the
[1:24:41] rabbit hole of suspicion that
it's not right.
[1:24:45] » Right. It puts us on It puts us on a uh
you know, that they
[1:24:51] they could say that, you know, our
meter's not correct or whatever. I I
[1:24:54] just feel like if that's
>> Well, as written, this is asking for a
[1:24:58] new meter to be installed.
>> Okay.
[1:25:01] » Right. So, brand new meter, we're
starting our agreement with the new
[1:25:04] meter that's calibrated. I do not have,
you know, specifics about where the
[1:25:08] placement of that meter's going to be,
who would own that. Those are some
[1:25:12] questions I had. Um but as written, this
is going to ask for the parties to
[1:25:16] install a new meter, split that cost,
share that cost equally.
[1:25:20] » Okay.
>> And then, in all of reality,
[1:25:23] each party would have a backup meter
um that is simply for informational
[1:25:28] purposes, though. It may provide
information that we do want that new
[1:25:34] meter to be recertified or to be checked
a little more frequently.
[1:25:38] Um but what I was trying to do is
consider if the town has simply
[1:25:43] installed a brand new meter in the
recent past, it is state of the art,
[1:25:47] it's up to date. I don't know if that's
the case, but I understand that it's
[1:25:49] it's it's fairly good.
If we could share the cost of the meter
[1:25:54] that we just installed, but what I'm now
understanding
[1:25:58] is I think we do want to proceed with a
new meter
[1:26:01] that would be split by the parties.
The placement of that's to be
[1:26:05] determined. So, the install and purchase
would be split by the parties,
[1:26:10] and both parties would have meters
for a very just informational backup
[1:26:15] purposes. We would have still have a
removal of all that language about um
[1:26:20] averaging
um just separate meter reading I'm
[1:26:24] sorry, not separate meter readings.
Um I guess I have another question about
[1:26:27] who would be reading that that third
meter. It may be electronic. It would
[1:26:32] probably be an instantaneous thing, kind
of a monitoring log. So, it's it's
[1:26:36] constantly monitored. They're you're
removing some of that human error.
[1:26:40] Um but the town would have its new meter
that we installed previously this year
[1:26:46] as our backup and just kind of as a
question mark or a check. But that would
[1:26:50] incur a cost. Uh Mr. Locke said that he
thought that installing that new meter
[1:26:55] may be about $10,000. So, it'd be about
$5,000 of the town's share.
[1:27:00] So, it's my understanding we're going to
continue with the
[1:27:04] » That would be a good place for our
capital improvement. I know that there
[1:27:08] was a limit like $5,000 was like our low
end, but of what we could
[1:27:13] use that money for. We it had to be more
than 5,000 or something I
[1:27:18] I remember correctly, but I we do have
this little fund that we we get from
[1:27:23] sales tax that is specifically for
capital improvements, and I think that
[1:27:28] that would be ideal spot to use this.
[1:27:33] » Okay.
Um well, I think that that actually
[1:27:37] takes out a lot of my edits to this
section. There are just simply some
[1:27:42] questions
about where that placement of the meter
[1:27:45] may be.
If that's electronically monitored, um
[1:27:48] and just how that goes. Um few questions
to figure out there. The town would be
[1:27:52] able to keep its meter as a backup if
need be, and just also as a check.
[1:27:58] » Good.
>> I under
[1:28:02] As I understand, Mayor,
I just want to bring this up.
[1:28:06] That meter will
take samples also,
[1:28:11] and there will be some hand samples
taken for the BODs.
[1:28:15] Um they're trying to once again prevent
some of this discrepancy, this gray
[1:28:19] area.
Um currently Sangre de Cristo Labs in
[1:28:23] Alamosa is used by the town and Baca to
do the BOD measurements.
[1:28:28] Um we tried to remove this language
about discrepancies in the two readings.
[1:28:33] Just have the lab reading be our final
our final say. Um if a lot of this does
[1:28:37] come from our electronic meter anyway,
I'm just trying to eliminate some of
[1:28:41] this gray area. So
A lot of questions there, but no edits
[1:28:45] to section two
either.
[1:28:49] » Okay.
>> Um
[1:28:51] moving on to section three,
I wanted to say that I had a lot of back
[1:28:56] and forth with the group. Did you hear
this already, Mayor?
[1:28:59] » No.
>> Okay.
[1:29:01] Um
this section does
[1:29:04] make the
increases in cost of service to the town
[1:29:09] at the sole discretion of Baca Grande.
However, that's tempered that they also
[1:29:14] still have to be in good faith.
This is a long run-on sentence
[1:29:21] and what I am trying to take out of this
is that the district
[1:29:26] is not going to
consider fees or charges
[1:29:32] for costs to their system that do not
benefit the town
[1:29:38] into an increase in service the town
sees.
[1:29:42] If there is a major repair, a blowout on
the
[1:29:46] on the
Baca's system, on say the the far south
[1:29:50] end, that is not attributable to the
town.
[1:29:54] Um what is attributable to the town
is costs
[1:29:58] in infrastructure being
what I call what I'm calling now the
[1:30:04] interceptor system.
[1:30:08] The operation of the plant, and the
administration of the plant
[1:30:13] um providing wastewater treatment
services to the town. And then those
[1:30:17] would also be
um
[1:30:20] determined in some percentage factor. I
I I'm not saying this is correct, but
[1:30:24] I'm saying a third. If the town's a
third of the plant capacity currently,
[1:30:28] um those increases would be a third
proportional to the town's rate
[1:30:31] increase.
Here, if I may, I guess I should back
[1:30:34] up. Um
[1:30:38] No, I'm sorry, that is next system.
That's the next paragraph. Um so, a lot
[1:30:43] of back and forth went on there, but the
um the very last part of that sentence,
[1:30:48] and not increases in infrastructure
operation, administration, or other
[1:30:52] costs over time of providing wastewater
treatment services to the district's
[1:30:56] other customers.
So, there should be some delineation
[1:31:00] there in those fees.
If there is a major project that goes on
[1:31:03] on the south end of Baca, that should
not affect an increase in our fees and
[1:31:07] our rates. That may be attributable to
their other their customers, but not the
[1:31:11] town.
>> And that's in good faith. So, I mean, we
[1:31:14] » Yes, that is tempered in good faith,
which
[1:31:17] is ripe for litigation, but it's a it's
That's just what it is.
[1:31:22] So.
Um section four,
[1:31:26] I I wanted to to start with a small
background. Mr. Locke
[1:31:31] shared that
they have done some updates to meters
[1:31:35] and their facility.
Um
[1:31:38] It currently appears
that the plant capacity is around more
[1:31:43] of a 60% rating
instead of the 80% they were talking
[1:31:47] about in the last year or two.
Um in his opinion, that pushes back a
[1:31:54] requirement of building a new plant for
quite a few years, hopefully the tail
[1:31:58] end of this contract. Um so, rewriting
this, they are not in the process of
[1:32:03] building a new plant. They do anticipate
some expansion and some updates. He
[1:32:08] talked specifically about ventilation
updates in the plant and some uh
[1:32:14] uh PR matters trying to make the plant
just a little more um personnel
[1:32:19] friendly.
Um, so definitely right now at this time
[1:32:22] though, building a new plant is not
something they're looking at. He's very
[1:32:25] happy to share that.
>> Yeah.
[1:32:28] » Um
There are some changes here at the
[1:32:32] bottom.
Um, the funding by a grant
[1:32:36] um, that's that's just edited. It's not
removed in any way. The town can still
[1:32:40] pursue any grants that it needs, any
low-interest loans for its potential
[1:32:45] share of the expansion or updates.
Um, there is a calculation here. I've
[1:32:51] got a lot of notes on this math.
Um, but what it does is it ties our flow
[1:32:57] and our BOD reading
um, together. They are both responsible
[1:33:02] at 50% for any increase here.
So any decrease we make in our flow or
[1:33:08] our BOD
is um very set and it does or would
[1:33:13] decrease any potential share of uh
expansion that the town would have.
[1:33:19] » Okay.
[1:33:30] » So there were quite a few changes there.
I think a lot of it really is
[1:33:33] wordsmithing.
Um
[1:33:36] but just trying to make this as easy to
read as possible.
[1:33:43] I believe the flow
decreased and also the BOD numbers
[1:33:48] decreased to get it from that 80% to 60%
and those are just ranges, but that's
[1:33:53] what Mr. Locke was sharing with me.
>> Hm.
[1:33:56] I think
>> Um, so any any changes were any changes
[1:33:59] or edits requested on section four?
>> No, I was just going to say that's a
[1:34:03] pretty big drop in what they thought.
Um
[1:34:08] Surprised they got to that point where
they
[1:34:11] dropped it 20 20 whole
basis
[1:34:14] » Approximately. Yeah.
>> I mean that's Yeah. I mean that's great
[1:34:18] news, but it's also like
for the past, you know,
[1:34:23] few years it's been going on with the
fact that, you know, they're at 80%
[1:34:26] they're going to have to expand, blah
blah blah. So
[1:34:30] a lot of
finger pointing.
[1:34:34] » Finger pointing and yeah, I mean
were they using the best information
[1:34:38] possible? I don't know. But apparently
they're sharing what they have now, so
[1:34:44] » That's good.
>> Um the
[1:34:47] section B there was struck,
but that was actually added back in
[1:34:52] under 3A. So that entire paragraph that
is struck was really moved back to 3A.
[1:35:01] And by my notes that gets us back to
section seven, which is the district
[1:35:06] wastewater collection system impact
fees, which I believe you were present
[1:35:09] for.
>> Mhm.
[1:35:13] » Okay.
>> Yeah.
[1:35:19] » Okay, so my proposal for the board is
that I am going to work on some of these
[1:35:22] changes. I will have a
draft sent over to the board for their
[1:35:29] review. They probably won't take any
action on it, but I would like some
[1:35:33] comments
if anything that I have is wrong, um not
[1:35:37] stated clearly enough.
I would like to try to provide this to
[1:35:41] Mr. Locke.
They have a board meeting on the 25th,
[1:35:45] so a few days before that if at all
possible.
[1:35:48] So I would like to have this draft sent
out to the board next week.
[1:35:52] And if I could possibly have any
comments back by Friday
[1:35:57] so that we could then send this back to
Mr. Locke on the 20th or at least the
[1:36:01] 23rd, which is a Monday.
[1:36:06] » Okay.
[1:36:08] Yeah, uh 23rd.
And then
[1:36:12] we would have it brought up at our board
meeting in October or would it be for
[1:36:16] this mid mid meeting?
>> Uh the 25th, I don't know if they will
[1:36:23] have any
[1:36:27] any comments back to us on the 26th for
your second meeting?
[1:36:32] Or no, I'm sorry. Are you meeting on the
23rd or the 26th?
[1:36:35] » Uh we are meeting on
>> the 23rd.
[1:36:39] » 23rd. I I won't be here though. I'll be
out of town. Um
[1:36:42] » So, they will not have comments back
because they will not have met by the
[1:36:45] 23rd. So, this would be in our October
meeting.
[1:36:48] » Are we are we supposed to be doing a
public hearing on this or is this kind
[1:36:52] of something that um
just goes in the public meeting?
[1:36:56] » This is an IGA. Um at this time I do not
think a public hearing is required on
[1:37:01] this.
>> Okay.
[1:37:03] So, if
if
[1:37:05] the wording gets worked out and
and um we do we I mean, can't could it
[1:37:11] get approved on the 7th?
>> Uh
[1:37:15] » Sorry, not the 7th, the 14th.
[1:37:20] Or would it be worth having a special
>> No, I would say it could. I think in all
[1:37:24] reality though, it will probably be
the 28th.
[1:37:29] Um I think the 14th is
pushing it a little.
[1:37:35] » Okay. 28th.
>> one more round of back and forth in
[1:37:38] between now and then.
>> Okay.
[1:37:44] Seth, you
uh do you feel overall like there's been
[1:37:48] some real progress and that we're now
finally coming into a a good
[1:37:53] agreement with them and we're
you know, there's no like from a legal
[1:37:59] point of view or a lawful point of view
that you're
[1:38:04] you're comfortable protecting this
contract?
[1:38:08] » Definitely. I really think that a lot of
it is a carryover from our original
[1:38:12] contract. We didn't really have any
issues in 20 years.
[1:38:16] Um
I hope to
[1:38:20] This is not legally. I hope that the
parties are participating together and
[1:38:24] find this mutually beneficial.
Um that is something I think is is
[1:38:29] needed out of contract law.
Um
[1:38:32] It's very easy to point at a contract
that's created and you have an issue
[1:38:37] come up and say, "Well, why did Why was
that not addressed?"
[1:38:41] Uh while you're creating a contract
and I am trying to look 20 years into
[1:38:46] the future
there're probably going to be an issue
[1:38:49] or two come up. That is just all there
is to it. There are things that I did
[1:38:53] not anticipate.
Um but I don't see any of those glaring
[1:38:58] at this time that I can eliminate. So
Um it's very easy to point at the guy
[1:39:03] that wrote the last contract and say,
"Why didn't you address that?" Um it
[1:39:08] That's just life. So
>> Well, in 20 years I'll be 97 96. So
[1:39:14] » Mhm.
>> Okay. I'm good with that.
[1:39:16] » And still have
>> you're still drinking good water and
[1:39:18] your toilet still flushes.
[1:39:22] » Hopefully I have a reason to flush the
toilet.
[1:39:29] Oh.
Okay. [clears throat]
[1:39:32] Thank you, sir.
I'm glad this is coming to an end. I
[1:39:34] really am.
>> I believe they are too. I will try to
[1:39:38] work on this. I
I am very busy today and the I have
[1:39:43] conferences from 8:00 to 5:00 Saturday
and Sunday. So, I'm going to hope to get
[1:39:47] this out to you by the early part of
next week.
[1:39:51] Um that's my goal.
>> like we're we're not rushing it. So, I I
[1:39:54] mean, what we've you know, we're
we we know what we we discussed today
[1:39:59] and and we're
you know, really it just has to come,
[1:40:04] you know, early before the next uh
meeting that we have on the I would say
[1:40:08] before the
14th meeting if we had it like a week or
[1:40:12] two before that, we'd be happy.
>> I would anticipate that Mr. Locke gets
[1:40:17] it back to us by the 30th.
>> All right. Okay.
[1:40:22] » That would be my hope.
>> Okay.
[1:40:25] » And uh we'll see where we're at on on
the 30th.
[1:40:28] » Okay.
[1:40:32] Sounds great.
>> Okay.
[1:40:34] Well, I have these notes. Uh best of
luck in
[1:40:39] » Florida.
>> Florida. I was going to say Mexico,
[1:40:43] but Florida. Um
Trustee also Pezlusney, if you need
[1:40:47] anything, please give me a call. Thank
you and Brent for his help this week.
[1:40:52] And um
until next time, gentlemen.
[1:40:55] » Yeah.
Wait. I have
[1:40:57] » Have a good
Adios.
[1:40:59] » Adios.