[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.

09-13-2024 Work Session - BGSWD Agreement

Transcript