critical issue for our community and state and after being appointed to
fill Senator Greg Myers seat earlier this
year Senator Garson took this opportunity to
dive deeper into the challenges We would just want to say thank you
to Senator Garson for spending time with us in Owasco.
And to the public, if you're not currently following Owasco
on social media like Facebook or Twitter please consider doing so.
Steven Winters
led a discussion on Monday, August 10th with the Orange County Commission for
the environment on Owasco's draft P fast
guiding principles. Mary Tiger attended as well
to capture the discussion for the board's consideration
in finalizing the guiding principles. Number four
the Owasco Board of Directors cancelled the effective board governance training
that was to take place today. August 13th, this will be rescheduled
at a later date so that all board members can attend. We were short board
members today.
And number five the Owasco Board of Directors and staff
communications workshop will be held on August 27th, 2026, but
that's tentative pending some board polling results.
That's all I have. Are there any other announcements by board members?
Hearing none. >> Oh, it's just
that next month I'm going to be out. So, I won't be attending next month.
» We will continue to miss you. Thank you for giving us a heads up on
that. Anybody else?
» No, uh we we can talk after the board meeting.
That'd be great. >> Okay, thank you.
» Can I actually clarify, [clears throat] sorry, for everyone?
» Sure, go ahead. >> Can you actually clarify for everyone
that so the communications workshop would be pushed to uh September?
» Oh, the the effective governance training
um proposed to September, do you mean? Or the communications workshop?
» I'm not sure. What's what's beyond it in here?
» Well, the universal um the universal board of directors and staff
communications workshop scheduled on August 27th,
2026. But that's tentative pending on board
polling results to make sure we can attend.
» So the workshop that was canceled today would not be moved and the other one
pushed back. My understanding is they were sequential.
» The one that's canceled to those canceled for today, I'm going to poll
all the board members to see when we can schedule another date
for that. >> date.
» Yeah. Thanks for clarifying. Good point.
Yeah, so we will hold the effective board governance training
session when we can get most of the board here.
And I was, you know, thinking September. April's not going to be here in
September, so we will arrange a date when the board can be here.
» Great. >> All right.
Was that good enough? >> Um did you have a question?
» Yes, I'm sorry. >> So
we will not have the session unless all board members can be present. Is that
is that your intent? >> That would be my intent to make sure
that all the board members are present. >> Okay.
» [clears throat] >> Just want to make sure that that's what
we're going to go for and not change. >> Yes, ma'am.
» And and they would not go out of order then?
» No, that can't happen. They being the follow-up
» The three planned workshops. >> staff communications workshop?
» Uh all this all three all of the series. >> The series of three, yeah, would
continue as a series of three. >> In that order.
» Yeah. >> Okay.
» [clears throat]
» Is that good? >> I have no idea.
I don't know what those dates are going to be.
» Yeah, neither do we. Yeah, till we pull the board.
Pick the dates.
» I'm trying to be out of town on the 27th of August. [snorts]
» As am I.
» Okay. There you go.
That's very helpful. Thanks.
» I'm trying to be away. >> We will
We will duly note it. As we move forward. Thanks so much.
Any other announcements by board members?
» [clears throat] >> How about announcements by staff?
» No, thank you. >> All right.
Are there any petitions or requests from the public?
If there are any petitions or re- requests to speak,
there's any individuals, please approach the podium, state your name, and
organize your remarks in a permitted timeframe. We do have a speaker
scheduled for a specific item on the consent
agenda. This does not include that. All right.
Are there any petitions and requests from board members?
Hearing none, I actually have a petition to
ask with the staff. And the petition would be um
would be possible that the staff
could sometime in a coming meeting um provide a briefing to the board on
the approach and constraints of hiring consulting
engineers to do the design projects that we [clears throat] do.
» [snorts] >> And um
And and I had a briefing on this from the executive group earlier this week
and there's several different processes involved that um I think it would be
good if we were just aware of them uh considering that uh
you know, we do approve some construction
contracts. Yes, Todd. >> I'll say that's uh something that the
board's interested in, we can certainly get that scheduled.
» All right. Can I have a show of hands from the board of everybody that would
be interested in it?
Good. Thank you very much.
Are there any petitions and requests from staff?
» Uh thank you. >> The board will move into the consent
agenda and we have three items.
I have to read them all and then we'll just have a brief conversation about one
of them. Item number one in the consent agenda is
looking for the approval of the minutes of the July 9th, 2026 meeting.
» Wait, Michael, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I think that the appropriate method
is to pull something if something's to be discussed um
if we're going to have a presentation or discussion about it, we should just pull
it from the consent agenda and move it in to a different category on the on the
agenda. Um
So, is there I'm assuming it's item number two under the consent agenda that
perhaps we need to pull and move it? >> That was what I was going to suggest
when I got to it just now. >> Okay. Well,
then I'd like to make the motion that we pull item C2 from the consent agenda and
move that into um
discussion into under E for discussion.
Uh would you think that that's the appropriate place to put it?
» Um, I think that might be the appropriate place to put it and I was
going to announce to the public that that was, um, item number two to the
word of the galvanized service line replacement contract. And yes, um, I
would suggest
» it. >> You
want to pull? >> Okay, so let's move it to make item C2
becomes item E2. >> Second.
» All in favor. >> All in favor. [laughter]
» All right, yeah. >> Thank you, Susanna. Thank you for your
time. Um, [clears throat] item number three is
a resolution to adjust the board member compensation.
And I'm going to note that we have one
member of the public signed up to speak on the award for the galvanized service
line replacement construction contract. That would be Mr. Woods.
Um, Mr. Woods, please come to the podium.
» Uh, may I suggest that that the appropriate time for that is where where
it is now on the agenda at E2. That it's that that's then the
appropriate time for us to talk about that.
» Thank you. >> Starting.
» No, it's all it's all good. I appreciate that.
Thanks very much. Um, then I would ask, are there any
public comments on the consent agenda?
Are there any questions or comments or would a board member like to pull
another item from the consent agenda? >> I have a question.
» Yes, ma'am. >> Um, on item three, I just want to
clarify, um, whether or not board attendance at the meeting is required
each month in order to receive the compensation.
» Could you all talk up a little louder? I I'm not hard of hearing, but with this
environment it is difficult to hear. And I can't imagine anybody over there can
hear. Can you? Hear what's going on?
» let's not address the audience. >> I'm sorry.
» It's okay. >> I'll ask for mic help if it's needed. Um
Bob >> Well, that's part of what the board
might might discuss and decide one way or the other. I think that the uh
the idea behind the draft petition the resolution drafted is that the uh
regular monthly stipend is for all the work that gets done including attendance
to the meetings and including meetings that you cannot attend but that you've
had to do the work for to get ready for as if you were.
So, the idea behind the resolution was that you'd be paid
uh the same monthly stipend
» [cough] >> um
» [clears throat] >> whether you attended a meeting or not.
And it's drafted in such a way that it's quite easy to change if you want to make
attendance required. So, that you only are only paid for those months in which
you attend a meeting. That could be done but that's um
uh the original intent of the resolution was to
recognize that board members do a lot of work to get ready for meetings even the
meetings that they're not able to attend.
And so, the monthly stipend covers that work. The additional
meeting stipend covers additional meetings after the first regular meeting
of the month. >> [snorts]
» Okay, so where it says as each is able to attend that means
whether or not we actually attend. >> That's exactly what that means.
» And then for the additional meetings, the attendance is required.
» That's exactly what that means. >> Okay, thank you. I just wanted to
clarify. >> Thanks for asking.
» I move [clears throat] that we approve the items on the consent agenda.
Items one and three on the [snorts] consent agenda.
» Uh I'm sorry, I can't [clears throat] hear
» I move that we approve the items on the consent agenda.
» I second that. >> Thank you.
All in favor, say aye. >> Aye.
All opposed, say nay. Okay, cuz a motion was made by Susanna
and seconded by Judy. Thank you very much for the
So, the board now is going to move on to the action item agenda, which is number
one. Resolution honoring Stephanie Glasgow's
years of service. Todd Taylor's
going to begin this item or provide providing some very brief remarks. Mr.
Taylor.
» Yeah, thank [snorts] you. Tonight, we do have the privilege [clears throat] of
honoring Ms. Stephanie Glasgow, Owasso's director of human resources for 36 years
of service. And that kind of milestone is rare these
days when people change jobs like they change their clothes.
But, those of us that have worked with Stephanie for all these years, we know
her dedication and commitment to the work we do,
the community we serve, and most importantly, to the people here that get
it all done on every day. And retirement is a difficult decision
for some people, and I I certainly know it was for Stephanie.
Uh She's like an artist whose work is not
just a product that she's producing, but that that may something that they
poured a piece of themselves into. So, Owasso is part of her, and she is part
of Owasso. And we have been so fortunate fortunate
to witness a true master at work for these 36 years.
Uh Stephanie has built a work environment at Owasso where employees
feel like they belong, where they can be their best, and where
they are truly cared about. She is a treasure beyond value, and will
be missed very deeply by us all. As she transitions to the next phase of
her life, we thank her for all she has done for us, and we wish her much peace
and happiness in the future.
» Thank you, Mr. Taylor. >> [applause]
» Abe Curwen, our esteemed former direct executive
director of the Wassa, has also requested to provide a brief statement.
Thank you, Mr. Curwen. >> You bet. Good evening, board, and thank
you for your service on the Wassa board. As you well know, it's a huge
responsibility you you have. Um
and thanks for those words by Stephanie Todd. Um
you know, I join Wassa employees, past and present, and the board
[clears throat] of directors in honoring and thanking Stephanie for her 36 years
of dedicated and excellent service for our team.
She actively and cheerfully embraced her responsibility to all 115 employees,
regardless of their rank in the organization, to make sure they all were
treated fairly, respectfully, as required in our HR policy.
Stephanie always kept those focused on safety.
Of her many attributes, I believe her genuine and unending care and support
for our employees, who are our most important resource, is what made her so
successful and appreciated by all her coworkers. And that was very evident
today with the farewell party that the staff had for Stephanie. There were so
many retirees like me, older, younger than me,
um in addition to the current team. And and I know everybody really had a great
time today. Um
she worked very well independently and took the initiative to stay on top
of and implement HR best practices, as very well documented in the
resolution before you tonight. Um Stephanie's provided this and
previous boards the information needed for the board to make informed decisions
about competitive employee pay and benefits. And and we certainly thank you
and prior board for that. True pleasure to work with Stephanie.
Um and I enjoyed working with her closely
for 24 of her 36 and 1/2 years of service, and I wish her and her family
all the best in her well-earned retirement. I really appreciate the
board taking this action to honor her. Thank
you. >> Thank you, Mr. Board.
» [applause]
[applause] >> So, I will now read the resolution into
the official record, followed by presenting a printed copy to
Stephanie Glasgow in attendance.
This is a resolution honoring the service of Stephanie S. Glasgow to the
Orange Water and Sewer Authority in Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and the Orange
County community. Whereas, Stephanie Glasgow has served
faithfully and with unwavering dedication for more
than 36 years at the Orange Water and Sewer Authority,
{parentheses} OWASA, as human resources coordinator
from January 1990 to August 22,
then safety and training administrator from August 2002
to May 2010, and lastly director of human resources
from May 2010 until her retirement this August in 2026.
Devoting her career to serving the employees of OWASA,
the human resources and safety profession,
and the people of the Carrboro, Chapel Hill,
Orange County community. And
whereas, throughout her career, Ms. Glasgow was committed to
professional excellence by continually expanding her knowledge and expertise
earning the Society for Human Resource Management {hyphen}
Certified Professional the Department of Labor Management of
Environmental Safety and Health and the Duke University Human Resource
Management Certification and Master Project Manager MPM certification.
Whereas throughout her career, Ms. Glasgow has committed to protecting the
health and safety of the Wasson employees
by leading and strengthening Wasson's comprehensive safety program.
She championed a culture in which safety was a shared responsibility
through employee safety committees comprehensive safety training
voluntary OSHA audits the spill response team and through
accident investigation. Her leadership extended beyond Wasson
through her service as chair and vice chair
of the Mid-State Safety Council she was recognized as Safety
Professional of the Year and recipient
of the Shine Belkham Award for her outstanding contributions
to improving work space safety. And
whereas Ms. Glasgow provided invaluable guidance to Wasson's
leadership and the Board of Directors to help
ensure that Wasson's compensation and benefits remain competitive
she successfully led numerous classification
compensation and benefits studies and championed
employee focused benefits including
maternity and paternity leave compassionate leave
mentoring opportunities and other programs that strengthened
employee well-being recruitment and retention.
And whereas Ms. Glasgow was committed to
fostering a workplace where every employee was treated with
dignity, respect, and fairness. She played a pivotal role in developing
Alwase's diversity equity inclusion and belonging program
and promoted equitable employment practices.
Encouraged diverse participation and perspectives in hiring
and helped create a workplace where our employees feel welcome
valued and supported.
She strengthened Alwase's recruitment onboarding
and retention practices through diverse interview panels
structured onboarding and performance check-ins
the new employee welcome team and professionally following up with the
new hires throughout their first year of employment
to help ensure their long-term success. And
whereas knowing that strong organizations
are built on meaningful relationships and a sense of belonging
» [clears throat] >> Ms. Glasgow for fostered a culture of
appreciation connection
and engagement by establishing the employee human resources team
which meets monthly to share information and identify opportunities to strengthen
the workplace culture. She also arranged highly successful
employee engagement events, including employee appreciation day,
service awards, holiday gatherings, and countless other
opportunities that brought employees together
and strengthened the morale and culture of Owosso.
And whereas throughout her career, Ms.
Glasgow never lost sight of the fact that an organization's
greatest strength is its people. She was a trusted advisor,
thoughtful listener, mentor, and advocate who approached every
employee with kindness, respect,
compassion, and integrity. Whether welcoming a new employee
or helping someone navigate a difficult situation or
celebrating an important milestone, she made people feel valued,
supported, and genuinely cared for. And
whereas through her leadership, compassion, professionalism,
and unwavering commitment, Ms. Glasgow has earned the admiration and respect of
her colleagues. Her influence extends far beyond
policies and programs. It lives in the people she has mentored,
the careers she has helped shape, and the workplace culture she helped create
and nurture. She leaves behind an enduring legacy
of compassion, respect, and service to Owosso and the community
as she retires from Owosso on August 19th, 2026.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Orange Water and
Sewer Authority Board of Directors that the Board of Directors of the
Orange Water and Sewer Authority, OWASA, hereby honors and expresses
its sincere appreciation for the distinguished public service
of Stephanie S. Glasgow to OWASA and the people of Carrboro, Chapel Hill,
and Orange County. And the Board of Directors congratulates
Ms. Glasgow on her extraordinary career
and extends our best wishes for a long, healthy, and fulfilling retirement.
Adopted and presented on this 13th day of August, 2026.
May I have a motion and a second to adopt Stephanie Glasgow's resolution?
» I. >> Second.
» Great. We have a motion by Pedro and a second by Karen. All in favor, say I.
» I. >> I.
» Opposed? You're of course we're not going to hear any.
The motion passes with
seven affirmative votes. I think three six, seven.
Thanks.
» [applause]
[applause]
» Can I go again? >> Okay.
» [laughter]
[applause]
» Very nice.
» [clears throat] >> Mr. Chair, could I make a um suggestion
or a change to my suggestion about moving the um
uh the item from the consent agenda that perhaps we have it as the first item
under discussion rather than the second so
that uh since we have a guest to
» Yeah. >> who'd like to comment so that he doesn't
have to so we don't feel rushed during our
discussion of item E1.
» We have the guest speak first. >> Oh, yeah. I'm reversing.
» Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. >> Great
suggestion. So, we're going to now take on the item that was on the
consent agenda. Am I correct?
» Yes. Yes, that's what I'm suggesting just to spare him our um our discussion
later and also so that we don't feel rushed to get to him.
» [clears throat] >> Thank you.
» You're welcome. I apologize for not having that foresight before.
» It's all good. So, we're now going to move on to
discussing and taking action on agenda item on the
consent agenda item that we moved to now.
And Mr. Woods
» Might I suggest Mr. Chair, might I suggest that Steve
Bailey maybe come up and explain >> Better yet.
» project to the board and give you all some context.
» Thank you. >> public comment.
» Of course. >> Thank you.
» Um then we're going to have Steven Bailey come and explain the
background to the project. Yes.
» Nothing. Nothing.
» Okay. Good evening, board. I'm Steve Bailey, capital projects manager.
Tonight, we're requesting approval for contract award for the galvanized
service replacement program. Um I believe the last time I was before
you for this project was back in January when we described the
lead and copper rule program as well as the GRR galvanized requiring replacement
project that we were planning to proceed with.
Um since that time, the contract documents have been completed and we bid
the project. Um at the initial bid date, we did not receive three bids that were
required to open at the initial bid opening. So, we had to re-advertise. On
the second bid opening on January on June 23rd, two bids were received and
opened. Following that opening, we followed our
normal procedure of reviewing the bids. On the initial review, we did see that
the apparent low bid by BBUDC Incorporated was less than half of the
engineer's estimate for the project. That raised some concerns about whether
the bid adequately accounted for all of the work including replacements,
restoration, and coordination with property owners, Owassa, and the towns.
And if you remember, this project is the replacement of the galvanized services
from the water meters to the residents and connecting either under the house or
just outside the house, but most of them will be done actually under the
residents. So, all of this work is going to be taking place on Most of it's going
to be on private property. There'll be some work in the public right-of-way at
the connection point at the meters, but it's going to require coordination with
each of those individual property owners to schedule the work
and determine the location for the line of the replacement and working through
those issues on each individual property.
Um During our review, BBUDC had not
performed a CIP project for us in the past. So, we did not have direct
knowledge knowledge of the company's capabilities or job performance.
So, in order to gain some knowledge about the company, we reached out to
Owassa staff to see if they had worked with them. Our distribution and
collection staff did recall working with them on a couple of projects and that
there had been some issues on those projects including other utilities or
our utilities being hit. They also let us know that one of those
recent projects, uh the town of Chapel Hill, had some issues.
So, I reached out to town staff to discuss the project with them. Um they
let us know that there were some issues there, including
what from what they told me, work beginning before the town was notified
that they were working within the right of way.
They also, after the project had started, they worked with them to
continue it, trying to finish it, but that they had notified the contractor
and asked them to let them know when they were going to do the backfill in
the right of way so that they could observe the work being done there. That
did not happen, um and it was done without the town's
notice. And then since then they say that the
pavement repair in that area has failed in the road, and they've had to try and
work with the contractor to get it repaired, and they've not been
successful with that, and the communication has been difficult.
The galvanized service replacement project is unique for OWASA because it's
requiring this work on private property and within homes, and will require
require a great deal of communication with the property owners, tenants, as
well as OWASA and the towns. Being that the bid was less than the
half the engineer's estimate and the references that we received, we
determined that the bid was non-responsible.
We want this project to be successful for everyone, and we do not believe that
accepting the bid will be by BBUDC will be in the best interest of OWASA.
For those reasons, we're recommending that the bid be awarded to Stonewall
Construction. And I'll be glad to answer any questions
after the public comment.
» Thank you, Mr. Bailey. >> [clears throat]
» So, um as uh the some of the board members know, I printed out a a list of
the protocol that the chair should follow, and uh and I did that for my own
benefit, um because occasionally I have a hard time uh keeping us on track. Um
and so, you know, theoretically some clarifying questions would come now, but
I think Mr. Bailey, we're going to go ahead and uh with a comment from our
citizen. So, please uh Mr. Woods, come on up.
» Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, board members.
I appreciate your time and I will try to be brief.
Uh my name is Isaac Woods. I'm the chief executive officer for B Buxey. Some
people spell it out B B U D C. We've been
contractors. I've been doing this over 30 years.
Um we're licensed.
Uh we submitted the bid as he stated. The part that concerns me is the false
information that he just mentioned to you.
And I outlined that in my letter to Mr. uh
Bailey. And I'm going to just be brief.
First, we were the lowest bidder. B Buxey is the lowest responsible and
and responsive bidder. There is mathematical errors in the in
the engineer estimate. B Buxey bid was 24% of the engineer
estimate, not 54 as falsely stated in your report.
The The Stonewall bid
is 1.2 million. B Buxey bid was 140,000. The engineer
estimate is 977,000. So, I'm not going to go through the
fifth grade math. You can do the math. The The
summary also states the engineer estimate was 1. 1,602,000
and some change. Well, if you do the big tab and do the
math, it comes out to be 977,077.
So, false information, you can't make a good decision on false information.
And we we're not going to go mathematics cuz a fifth grader can figure this out.
Now, let me get to these false accusations
Mr. Bailey just made and what he put in his letter.
Uh First of all,
we work with OWASA. As any problems,
we resolved it. We didn't like the results, but
underground utilities is something you can't see.
You expect OWASA and any other utility company to locate
them. When they don't locate them, it's documented.
Then you have a problem. You lines may be
hit, but the point happens is what did you do to correct the damage?
What he didn't tell you, if you look at our supported documentation, is
everything was corrected. We paid for things that we didn't think we need to
pay for. But for 30 years, you want to give me four items.
You want to talk about four items over 30-year period.
And and let me just be clear.
He states he talks to people with Town of Chapel Hill as shown
in in the documents that I supported. Town of Chapel Hill, you got the built
you got the traffic control plan, you got the permit, it was paid. Who he
talked to, we've been trying to figure out who all these people he got this
information from. I asked for names, addresses because when I talked to Town
of Chapel Hill, they don't know what the heck he Mr.
Bailey's talking about. And so I like the math.
They're all making it all up. The same thing applies with the work we
did in OWASA. When you drive down, let me just clear this up. When you go down
Cameron Avenue today, you won't see no at 506, the road's been
paved. There's no deal There's no problems. There's no written notice from
Town of Chapel Hill saying B Boxley you did defective work. That's what you
don't have. All you have is some false accusations written up by engineering
and staff member for some odd reasons to deny
equal access on a bidding contract with a lower price.
In other words, they're telling you to pay somebody $500,000 more
to do the work than the person that had the lowest bid
and is qualified.
His his his accusations are lacking names, notices, or anything.
And And the >> [bell]
» And to sum up this is on one
we did like 40 sewer taps, Rogers Road. I mean, we all the way back from 2020.
I mean, yeah,
he he filed his statement damaged waterline. Yeah, waterline was damaged,
wasn't marked. Well, Orange County, if you look in the documentation that I
provided, they gave us a change order that said it
wasn't marked and confirm it and paid us like you're supposed to do. It's actual
work. Now,
what concerns me is
is the first lovely town of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and Orange County.
Your diverse staff that I work with in the field
said they have made no comments in regards to defective work on B Boxley.
What you don't have is is I asked Mr. Bailey
and the engineers, "Who are you talking to so I can approach them? Where are
they names? Where are the written notices that they gave B Boxley that the
work was defective or substantial? Where is that documentation at?"
Without that, what you have is a bunch of hearsay. What you have in the
paperwork before you is you have documentation.
I can give you email change from Q and A to Chapel Hill town.
I gave you a permit which contradict like he said, we didn't
even give a permit. Now, we have the same thing with Orange
County. I gave you where they wrote up the change order. I ask that you reject
this offer to Stonewall who I don't know.
You need to make decision on correct, accurate information.
Not false information that they normally falsified for some odd
reason. And I appreciate your time. And if you have any questions, I'll be glad
to answer them. >> Mr. Wood, let me just say on behalf of
the board, thank you for coming forward and and what you have said. And the
board is going to have some questions of Mr. Bailey,
maybe you, and then we'll have a discussion after that. But thank you.
» Thank you. >> All right.
Well, this is the section where I'd like for the board to ask clarifying
questions. And we might start with Mr. Bailey.
Would be my suggestion.
And of course, I'll call on any board member that
has a question to ask. Yes.
» Uh a few I have a few questions if I may.
» A few questions are okay. >> Okay. Uh
Mr. Bailey, Steve. >> Yes, ma'am.
» Um Have we ever worked with the alternate,
the $1.2 million bidder? >> Yes, ma'am.
» Uh have we been successful with them? >> Yes, ma'am.
» Um have they always been uh the lowest or highest uh how many times would you
say we've worked with them? >> Um
The one project they just completed at the waste at the water plant for us.
Uh I'm trying to think of another. They bid several projects for us. They have
not been the lowest price on all projects. Um I don't have an exact
number for how many they've done, but they they actually did a couple of
projects for us during the recovery from Hurricane
Chantal or from Tropical Storm Chantal as well.
» So, you're familiar with working with them and you're satisfied with the work
they performed. >> Yes, ma'am.
» What do you think is the disparity between the the bid of the of
Mr. Woods' company and the this other company?
» That I don't I would hate to hazard a guess I
guess about that. >> That's a lot of money, half a million
dollars. >> I do want to clear up one thing about
the estimate. The number that Mr. Woods quoted from the bid tabulation,
those two columns on the right far the right-hand side are not the engineers'
estimate. They're the average of the two bids that were received. We never
published the engineers' estimate. Typically, when
we're bidding a project, we don't publish the engineers' estimate unless
it's asked during the bidding process. And I went back and reviewed the addenda
and we never that question was not asked, so we did not publish the
estimate. But back in our January presentation to the board for the
project, we had the estimate of 1.6 million dollars in the presentation as
well as the board agenda packet. >> Why do you think there were only two
bids on this particular project? >> It's a unique project
because it is something that typically a plumber would do. Doing a service line
like this, you actually have to be a plumber to be able to pull the permit
and do it. But with the number of locations we're
doing, it's not the type of work that a typical that a plumbing contractor
typically bids. I think the number of sites that are
involved discourage Well, I know it discouraged
one contractor. We had another general contractor that has done work in the
past for Owassa was interested in the project and asked a lot of questions,
but they ended up not bidding it and the feedback they gave me was that their
insurance company was not comfortable with them bidding the project and being
on that many different properties. >> How um
how long is the duration of the services that are to be provided? Your best
estimate. Is it 1 week, 6 weeks, 6 months?
» Uh for each replacement or the total >> total the entire project.
» Uh I think we provided 310 days
uh for the work to get done because there's
we're estimating up to 90 sites if we get everybody
» 90 sites? >> to agree to let us do it. So, yes.
» Which takes two or three days per site perhaps?
» Yes. And and part of that is the coordination of trying to get it
scheduled and work out all the details. >> Uh Mr. Woods uh indicated that you he
didn't know who you had spoken to at the town of Chapel Hill. Can Can you en-
enlighten us, please? >> They have told me that we can use their
names. I don't know if um it's uh Jason Staley, Greg Ling, and Michael
Wright. >> And what are their roles at the town of
Chapel Hill? >> Public Works Department
uh within the Streets Department. >> And so, they weren't happy with the
results. They wouldn't recommend is what your
analysis is. So, how do we
uh the disparity of a half a million dollars is significant given the cost of
the project. >> Yes.
» Is there a way to um if you How long you've How long have you
been at WSACC? >> Um
Less than a year and a half. About 17 months.
» Okay. Um so, you're familiar with all the
operations and you have excellent management to oversee and discuss with
you all these issues. Um
Your concern is that you will have problems. My concern is is there any way
with the higher bidder that we can negotiate for a lower price?
» I >> All right, Mr.
» Yes, sir. >> think that's allowable in the bidding
process. >> Okay. Okay.
I got you. Okay. >> Yeah, and uh let me let me go around the
table. >> Okay, I just wanted to
get something clear cuz I'm totally unfamiliar with
Thank you. >> Thank you for asking them.
Um now I see Todd and Elmira. Elmira, please.
» I have a couple of questions. >> Yes, ma'am.
» First one is um do you investigate all of the
contractors in the same way that you did B Budsy
in terms of the quality? Do you go looking to see, check references?
» We do if we're not familiar with their work personally. And I think that's the
difference here is that with Stonewall, they have performed work for us in the
past. So, we're familiar with their work.
» Next question. Is there as a public utility, are we
required to go with the lowest bidder? Why do you have a lowest bidder process
and are required to get three bids? >> The The general
The general statute states that we're required to award the contract to the
lowest responsive responsible bidder.
And so, the responsive part is did they complete all of the paperwork
appropriately and are they licensed? The responsible part it gets to
are they capable of performing the project in
your best estimation? Um and it's in I think there's language there about
making the award that's in the best interest of the agency that's providing
it. And so, that's why we our determination was that they were
non-responsible based on references and their price.
» And have you ever had that type of response? Has anybody ever done a
perfect project? >> [laughter]
» Probably not. >> Okay, so I'm I'm just wondering why that
one the this one was particularly um
troubling. >> Based on the reviews and the references
that we had, we do not think that it'll be a successful project. That with the
amount of property owners that we'll have to coordinate with and the amount
of places the different properties we'll have to work um
cuz they there's going to be unknown utilities on these individual
properties. The further out of the right-of-way you get and the smaller the
utility lines are, the harder they are to locate.
Each one of these houses a lot of these houses will probably you know they'll
have an electrical line. It may be underground or maybe overhead. They'll
have a water service. There'll be a gas line, probably potentially cable or
internet. There's a lot of different things we'll have to work around and
the history that I have from the references I've got is that um they're I
would expect a lot of utility hits and that's just more impacts for our
customers when we're on their properties.
» Okay, just from experience so the utilities come out and mark the lines. I
mean even the cable people come out and mark all the lines before they come in
and even put in Google you get three or four different lines. So,
why would that be trouble for a contractor rather than for a homeowner?
Are you thinking that the homeowners aren't going to cooperate? But that's
not >> Um well, we we don't know yet if all the
homeowners will cooperate with us or not. Um we're still working on that
getting their permission to be on the properties to be able to do these.
Um as far as utilities that say like a irrigation line. If somebody has
irrigation in their yard, that's not a public utility that somebody marks. So,
it's up to the homeowners to do it or either the contractor has to kind of
look and figure out what it is and where it is.
But, that's that's my concern is is working on the all these different areas
with each individual property owner. If we're going to have issue a lot of
issues and it's difficult to get those resolved, it's going to take a lot of
our staff time and it's going to it it's not going to be a positive situation for
our customers. >> Okay, so I want to go right back to back
to the question I asked about the lowest bidder.
» Mhm. >> So, it's a hearsay thing really about
whether or not you think they can do the work
at the price that they quoted. And if they can't do it at the price
that they quoted and they quoted you the price, but they're going to do it at
that price, why is that a problem? >> Well, if the problem is
in my experience, if a contractor has underbid a project, then they'll either
look to cut corners to get it done as cheaply as possible or there'll be
issues with change orders coming in trying to add cost to it.
And there's things we we don't want this to be a project where
maybe the line is done, but it's not restored the way we want it, the way the
property owner wants it. It's just it's it'll take a lot of it's
it's much more effort from both the
homeowners and from Owasso staff to make sure the project is completed
appropriately. >> Okay, so if what a person that overbid
and is overcharging you is not a problem.
» I don't I don't know that and they're the the second bid was also below the
engineer's estimate. >> Okay, thank you. Let's go to Todd.
» Yeah, I think one thing that would have been helpful in this is to have that um
actual engineer's estimate like right up front. Um so, the other bid is 25% under
uh the engineer's estimate. So, and mean, was kind of responding to you like
it's it's already lower than the the engineer's estimate.
» Yeah, I I my my reaction is I look at this and
how often do you have bids that are less than half of the engineer's estimate?
» Not not too often. It it it may happen occasionally. You
usually we have the other problem is that they're coming higher than the
engineer's estimate. >> So, that I I remember when we first
started talking about this project um I think it was the estimate was
around this is going to cost probably $10,000 a property minimum. So, I do I
do the math on um
the DEDC's bid and it's like $8,000 a property um something like that. So,
yeah, I I I'm very confused as to how that could actually
work at that price.
That's that's the perspective I have. >> Cool. Any other questions before we move
into comments and board discussion?
Pedro. >> Yes. Um
I would like to know if when you spoke Mr. Bailey, when you spoke with the town
of Chapel Hill, did they provide documentation or or was it verbally it
was coming verbally? >> Yes, sir.
» Okay. Um so, did were you or were you supposed
to contact Mr. Woods, is that the last name?
to conform or or or see or if the information that it was given to you was
accurate or did you try to clarify that with them with the
company or him? >> No, I did not contact Mr. Woods with
those specifics. Um that was in initial conversations. It's somewhat
confidential with the town staff and getting their opinions on those. Um, and
so no, but I did not request documentation from them or email chains.
Um, there are partners that we work with. Um, but it's also based off of our
own staff's um,
observations from in the field as well. >> So, you also had people from the inside
of Wasatch that provided >> Yes.
» information. >> Yes.
» That lead you to believe that? >> Yes.
» Um, >> I would
» Go ahead. >> Wouldn't you think that it was
probably important to see more documentation from the town?
» It's I'm A lot of times it's not the town I'm not
sure what documentation they may have some email chains.
But they're not typically grading the contractors like putting together a
reference material. Typically is not I mean, I don't even think we do that
typically now. Great at so it's it's sometimes there's not a tremendous
amount of documentation on that. >> The the the next question that I have if
we have a situation like this is there a was it proper for the board
to know or have some discussion about this
uh, items or the before we we uh,
do a contract with that another company. Would it be proper to
talk to the board before in a situation like this to
» Let me answer the question before >> Okay.
» for the board staff. No, that's not the process that we have followed previously
or or necessarily would make sense to follow at this point because of the
bidding process that we go through with the sealed bids being delivered being
opened and then they're analyzed by the staff. So, just just the way the
protocol works. This is the This is the moment when we have to make a decision.
» Okay. >> Yes, ma'am.
» My concern, following up with what he was saying, is influencing the decision
process is is important for us to know if others outside of Owosso are
influencing the decision process on who gets the award.
» And I'm not going to disagree with you. I was just going to suggest
» Cuz that seems to be what happened here. >> We move that to the discussion section.
» Oh, okay. Well, I thought we were talking.
» I'm with you. >> [laughter]
» Um this is still questions central to the um proposal. Judy.
» Thank you for the clarification. Um that was going to be my next question. Is
what was the uh um engineer's estimate? And the second bidder, Stonewall, is it?
» Yes. >> Uh is is still below is 25% below.
» Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. So,
I believe that you've done your due diligence. I
believe that's your role, and you've done what you're supposed to do to to
verify and validate who we're going to select. So,
um I and and you have worked with this this
the other bidder, the higher bidder, and it's still below. So, I think our role
is to >> Is this still a public discussion?
» What's that? >> Is that a question?
» I'm going to ask a question. >> Okay.
» Somewhere in there. >> [laughter]
» Okay. Your Honor, I I will get there.
Okay. Um
So, I thank you for doing your due diligence. This is very difficult for
you to come before us and to present this because there's a conflict. Um I
I'm respectful of your role and the due diligence you've done. I think you've
verified, and so given I think that we have to go with your I'm going to be in
favor of your suggestion. And my question is
» I'm waiting. >> Okay. Because I can't ask if you can
negotiate it. Do you feel that their bid they can
deliver on the higher bidder can deliver at the
rate without coming back with change orders? I got there.
» Yes, ma'am. >> Okay.
Thank you. >> Thank you for your questions.
» Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Karen's light is on.
» You can go first if you want. >> I want to know if change orders are
allowed in a contract. And if it is, why is there a problem
with that? If it's not, it should be specified in
the contract and there should not be any work orders change of work orders. So,
is it allowed? >> Yes, but they have to have First of all,
you have to enter into a contract. What you're doing tonight is approving
entering into the contract. Then the work has to begin. In the course of the
work, sometimes unanticipated circumstances
or conditions are encountered that require work that was not specified
or additional work than that specified in the contract. When that happens, the
contractor notifies the project owner and says, "Look, we have found
this. It's going to require extra work. Our calculation is we'd be entitled to
this much extra compensation." And there's a negotiation about what pay for
that change order bid. There's only a change order because
there's discovered along way a change of
circumstance. It's
You shouldn't uh
I don't I hope you will not conclude from what you've heard so far tonight
that a change order is something that is anticipated from the time you sign the
contract. It is not. Your Your duty tonight as the board is
to determine whether or not the board's recommendation
is appropriate and if so, then to approve the execution of the contract.
Uh the board has determined that the has has made a recommendation to you
about the lowest responsive responsible bidder.
Responsive and responsible are judgments ordinarily made in the professional
judgment of the staff of the engineering department. It's usually done in
accordance with the uh the recommendation of the project
engineer, that is the consulting engineer.
And [clears throat] uh one of the things I've been listening to hear is for you
to be told uh what the project engineer's recommendation was in this
case. >> If there's a follow-up to Peter, can we
save that for discussion? >> Of course.
» Sorry that I went on and on. >> No, it's
» Thank you. Thank you both. >> Um I had a question, I think, going back
to what Todd had mentioned earlier. Is there anything after the bids are opened
to prevent you from publishing the engineer's estimate?
» You know, no, there's not. I don't think so.
» Okay, and in a situation where there is negative feedback about a contractor, is
is there any reason we can't provide that feedback before it's made public in
material such as these? It might affect reputation moving forward.
» Um as far as the providing the engineer's estimate to
» And and feedback on what areas of underperformance you are worried about?
» Um we could we could have more discussions with the contractor with
that. >> Okay, those are my questions.
» Cool. Should we go to the door?
» Yeah, I mean, again, I don't know when the opportunity if we want to dig into
this, but as I'm looking at the two bids,
um the origin
» Is that a question? Oh, this is a question.
So like how much does a pitcher filter and replacement cartridges cost?
» Um >> Cuz one of them says it's $145 and the
other says it's a thousand and there's a hundred of those. So that's the
difference of a hundred thousand dollars versus fifteen thousand dollars. And you
see a lot of these. So I guess I'm
it seems like you know
I I don't know how much they cost.
» [laughter] >> I don't I don't know the answer to that
exactly what they cost. Um but I do know that probably the bigger more than the
cost of the material is probably the labor if we're providing those.
» [clears throat] >> I think there was a certain time frame
where we had to provide them the length of time.
» So I mean a lot of these you know it's it's valves or
there's one line access not provided. Okay.
» [snorts] >> Do you know access not provided?
» That is if we schedule the way I remember the contract being written that
if we if a homeowner has agreed to allow a replacement to happen
it gets scheduled and then when the contractor
[clears throat] shows up to do the work the homeowner either no shows or then
changes their mind and say nope you can't do it. It's it's somewhat like a
scheduling fee but it's basically a way of
trying to build we tried to build some line items in here to take out some of
the unknowns for the contractor if things changed if we could because some
of a lot of the some of the access is outside of a
Wasa's control.
» Mr. Bender are you good? >> Uh yeah.
» Any other further qualifying questions before we
We'll on? See if we can get public comment and
engage in a board discussion. Seeing none.
Any further comments from the public? Seeing none, we're now going to close
that period and enter into board discussion.
And I got to look at my notes.
We're going to go around the table and I'll recognize members as we can. If
there is a follow-up questions, perhaps we'll ask the chair to um
uh the chair will ask somebody to come back to answer it. So, let's open up for
discussion.
Anybody want to go first?
» I
I'm looking at the process that it was being done when they were investigating
Mr. Woods. I do not agree that
the best procedure was being done because
one, they did not ask the town of Chaparral for documents.
So, I don't think that that should be done
that way. I think it should be more um
investigated. Uh in my opinion because um
it was taken their word uh
to to null
a contract. And um
even though there was some some uh comments from the inside of
WASA, I think the exterior uh comments were not being supported. I
don't know if what uh documents we have from the
interior from inside of WASA,
but from the outside, I think it wasn't done properly and I
I I wouldn't recommend to follow up this the same procedure for the for the
future. I think we need to do more investigation when we award a contract.
» Thank you, Pedro. Can I move on to Mr. Bender?
» What level of evidence? What what's >> Documentation, pictures, documents that
proves that the person that is submitting their bid is not qualified
and and the reasons why because if the if the town is saying that they
he didn't fulfill his word, then they should have documents. And if
they don't have documents, I think it should not be allowed to
to proceed those comments if they wouldn't support it.
» So, there's one the pavement repair of the sex evasion is since failed and
today town staff has not been successful at getting uh the repair
to repair the the failed pave pavement to the town's requirements. It seems
like that should be something that's >> It should be documented and it should be
some proofs that whatever the town says is true.
For for us to to adopt it, their testimony it should be documented.
» Okay. I think we understand that position,
yes, Tony. >> So, I mean regardless of any of the past
performance, um
You know, you you try to get something repaired and
somebody gives you a bid for half of what you say you know it's going
to cost. >> Or expect.
» Is it half? >> It's less than half. It's 46% of the
engineer's estimate. So, I I'm coming at this from how could
this possibly be? We're seeing order of magnitude difference in
estimates. And again, this is rolling together
labor and actual materials, but you know, one person is saying this is going
to be you know, this is a $1,600 valve and the other is saying this is $250.
So, >> Um
» Who's inflated? >> Which line is it?
» Uh this is line G pressure pressure reducing valve, for example.
» Can I I >> Can I go to uh Elmira? Did you have a
comment? >> Just [snorts] a simple uh I guess uh
comment about how you evaluate >> [snorts]
» the quality of the proposal and not investigating the other people
cuz you just give them a pass because you know them.
» Mhm. >> Is inappropriate when it comes to
comparing uh bids on a project. You look at the
project for what it's worth. The people are qualified to do the work and
everybody's qualified to look at what they offer. Rather than unless you were
going to investigate everybody that put in a bid to see whether or not their
work is quality, then why are you going to investigate one? That's the concern
that I have about it. So, and and to take
and I'm going to call it hearsay following up on what Pedro said because
unless you see the documentation, it is hearsay. To a point where in any project
and any any construction, people have change orders all the time. If a project
is completed to the satisfaction of the town of Chapel Hill or any other town or
any other project, if it's completed to the satisfaction of the people that you
contracted with, whatever change orders that took place and whatever it cost, if
the contractor completed it, then they completed it. End of story to me. I
don't have to go and investigate how many hours it took them to complete it
when I when they completed it when I asked them to complete it. So, that's
what I thought we doing here was trying to get this project completed and done
at the least amount at the least cost. If that's not what we're doing and we
can just give a contract to anybody, we shouldn't have a low bid process. We
should just give it to who that whomever we choose to give it to.
Based upon whatever evidence that we are it's not an
evidentiary process. So, clearly it's a hearsay and who I like to give it to or
who I want to give it to cuz everybody's got friends.
» [clears throat] >> Thank you very much for the perspective.
Going to call on somebody that hasn't spoken yet.
Susan? >> Sure. Um
the I as I follow through you know, as I as I
follow the steps on this, I I I can have um I have sympathy for all parties. Um
uh our staff has looked at the taken the
bids. The even the highest of the two bids is still below what the engineer
estimate is. The low bid looks too low to be a
um perhaps a correct bid or an an adequate
um uh understanding of the project. Uh so,
I'm just kind of walking through the the process that if if I had been in in um
Mr. Bailey's position, I would be looking at. I think that um so, I
understand how he got and so, he checked has anybody else worked with these
people and got some feedback. Um I think that where I feel like
some perhaps something was missing in this
process was the conversation is then looping back to um to bid package number
two and talking with them about why am I seeing some discrepancies that are very
different from what we got from our engineers regardless of what this is. Um
I I'm bothered. I'm not sure that my thoughts are very organized here. Um I'm
bothered that we're having this discussion in public because of the um
because of the damage that it can be doing to to reputations. And so
I'm I'm very bothered that this is a public conversation.
But [clears throat] I also understand the desire for answers about why
why the lowest bid was not awarded. So I I'm struggling with this a bit.
And I I think that I mean I have some
questions as as Todd has pointed out about the discrepancy on these items. Um
on some of them being very significant. Miscellaneous concrete.
100 cubic yards at 900 100 cubic yards at 245.
Concrete is a commodity. It shouldn't have that much of a difference in
in in the cost in the cost difference. So I have a bunch of questions, but I
don't have the technical background to be able to interpret them. So that's
where we depend on our staff to be able to do that. So I'm I'm
rambling a little bit right now. I'm >> All good.
» So I will sum it up by saying I understand how staff why staff is
making this recommendation. I am concerned at
I'm concerned that that an opportunity a conversation didn't happen with this
lowest bidder to find out why his bid was so out of
out of sync with what was expected. >> Okay.
» [clears throat] >> Chair, can I call on you?
» Yes. I think with some of the communication
failures here, it's important for us to take a period of time to repair the
communications. And so I I feel like what would be really important and
helpful for us to see is the comparison of this with the actual engineer's
estimate and commentary on the discrepancies.
And I also think that we are not here just to make a decision about this
contract today, but how is Owasso best served by nurturing good relationships
with contractors in the future? Um and to that end, I think it's important
to provide a little bit of mentoring and feedback when things don't meet
expectations and um really repair that communication so that
this isn't the end of the road. So that there is, you know, if something came up
short here and it doesn't work out this time that there are future opportunities
to work together and collaborate. Um so that's that's my
position. >> Thank you very much.
Judy, turn your phone off, please.
» I believe uh that it is up to the staff to
assess each bid. On all levels, both responsible uh and
price and uh reputation or, you know, for having done
other work. And in this case, um um Owasso is familiar with the work of
the higher bidder. Number one. So, my main
that this point is that I think sta- it's up to staff to look at the bids and
make a decision. And it is our job to rely upon the assessment of staff.
Unless we have, you know, it being out of whack what the bids are, that's not
my job. My I've done this stuff before as a developer and as a person who's
done bids. It's up to staff to go through this. But they they went through
the legal process. I believe that Steve did his due
diligence. I don't think you have to write it down. I don't think people like
writing it down who work for governments uh and and towns and you don't want to
hurt anything and put it in writing. I think it's more damaging.
Mr. Woods probably repaired everything and did everything right and concluded
the job. But how much stress was it in the estimation of the town's people? And
that I think that's what Steve's trying to
assess. How much grief is this going to be?
That's the first point. I think he did his due diligence. I think he's made his
assessment and I think he prefers the other company because he has experience
with successful work from them. And that was one of the questions, the first
question I asked. Have we worked with them? Has it been successful? Were we
satisfied? And his answer was yes. Mr. Woods is new to this process and hasn't
worked with the Wassa. Hopefully he will in the future and he'll be open to other
bids. We're not here to hurt his reputation. He's come and he's presented
a contra information saying that's not accurate and we've heard that and we
respect that. But you also have to take into account that the bid is so low.
It's less than half of the bid by the
engineer what they thought it would cost.
» [clears throat] >> The second thing is um
uh that it's the regardless of the details
in the bid, that's up to staff. I'm I'm for awarding this
this to be two things. To be awarding to as as our staff has recommended with
recommendations on future processes that uh which I don't know. Do we allow
somebody who's bid to come in and sit down with the Steve and say, "Okay, tell
me about this." Do we allow that process?
» I suggest that's a great thought. And that maybe we hold that
» Well, I'm I'm I'm sharing it with staff now as a potential policy. You would
mention this. There needs to be communication. It can't be just blind
bidding. Here's a thing because you want to know that you're going to meet if
you're bidding, you want to meet the the needs of the company that you're going
to work for that you're going to contract with. That's what I would do.
But in anyway, in conclusion, I think we need to trust staff to do what's
appropriate. I don't think change orders are part of this unless something
unusual happens. And you're going out to people's 90 yards. You don't in yards,
you don't know what you're going to find when you dig underneath.
Okay? So, I'm in in these bids there's always contingencies. And then if it
goes beyond contingencies, that's where you get into change orders. I think our
job is to decide um whether we support Steve's
recommendation and the process or not. And I think he's done his job.
» Thank you. So, what I'd like to do is um before we
have a chance to uh um >> to share?
» Say again? >> I think you you haven't had a chance. Do
you want to share? >> You.
» Well, I was going to share when I wrap up the discussion I heard from everybody
else. >> Okay.
» But that's okay. Um I'm all right. >> You're it.
» Okay. I mean, do we have to make a decision tonight? Can we take this until
we get more information or get more analysis done?
» Um yes, we have to make a decision tonight. Um all I guess let's leave that
open for um a motion.
And so, what I'd like to do now is just kind of following um
the protocol is to wrap up the discussion, just kind of repeat what I
heard from everybody, and then ask for a motion from the floor.
So, I've I've heard a a variety of opinions.
Um and a couple of them resonate with me.
Um I understand the And I And y'all, I've been part of the bidding process
for decades. And I've seen um situations just like
this. And it's a tricky project.
And unfortunately, we only had two bids. And so, you know,
on staff's part, you know, they followed a protocol that I've seen done before.
Um um to one comment you noted on
Todd about the pavement repair, you know, one of the
homework we might have us done on that is whether that was in the warranty
period or not. And the extent to which that was part of
the scope that uh should have been done. I know that's pretty tricky from having
done a lot of it. And you know, Pedro to to your comments and
others about the equity and the way the homework was done,
you know, I think those are valid comments. So, I'm not
going to stake out a position until [snorts] um
until we call for a motion. And after the motion, we can have a discussion
about the motion. There can be amendments to it. But that's what I'd
like to do next. And we just need to move this on. So,
would anybody like to make a motion? >> I mean, we accept Steve's
recommendation. Steve Valley's recommendation.
» Great. Is there a second? I hear a second from Mr. Van Doorn.
So, [snorts] all in favor of that >> Discussion. Discussion.
» Say again? >> Discussion.
» Oh. >> Any additional discussion?
» I appreciate that. That's why I made the motion.
» Sorry. >> No, no, no. I need help here.
Any additional discussion? >> Oh, Mr. Voter, I have to go. I'm sorry.
But you keep on with the discussion. >> Can you stay to vote here now?
» I can't. But I don't want to rush the voting.
So.
» All right. >> Because I really have I have to go.
» So, is there any further discussion? >> Um sorry, what is the alternative if we
» The alternative would be an amendment or to not vote for it.
» And what would happen if we don't vote for it?
» Then we would have another motion to decide what to do next.
» Do we wait? >> Do we table it? Do we
» Do you have to have five votes for this? >> I believe if I look at the counselor,
he would affirm that we have five votes. >> I I'd like to make a motion, but I need
to wait until after we vote on the first motion.
» Okay, yes, that would be correct. >> [clears throat]
» All right, we have a motion and a second. It would be time to vote.
All in favor of the motion, raise your hands and say I.
There's three. The motion four. The motion does not pass. The four were
Judy, Michael,
Todd, >> and Susanna. And Susanna. Four. So, the
motion does not pass. Would you like to make an alternate
motion, Karen? >> Yes, I would motion that we come back at
the next boarding board meeting with um complete information that was requested
tonight and um decide at that time. >> I second that.
» All in favor Oh, any more discussion?
All in favor of the second motion to bring it back at the next meeting with
additional information that we discussed tonight and wanted to look for.
Um all in favor of that motion, say I. >> I.
» I. That was one, two,
three, four, five. >> It's actually six. One, two, three,
four, five, six. >> Oh, sorry. I missed your hand.
Six. Thank you, Susanna. >> Thank you, sir.
» The motion passed. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair.
» Sure. Thank you, all. >> Is uh
Pedro excused so that his vote is not counted as yes on any further business
what tonight? >> Pedro, yeah.
» Pedro, if you want your vote not to be counted
as yes on anything else that happens tonight. You should you should ask to be
excused. And I think the board is willing to
excuse you, but >> May I be excused?
» [laughter] >> May be excused. And we do not have
another item >> I I I motion that Pedro be excused.
» All in favor, say aye. >> Aye.
» Aye. >> See you, Pedro.
» Good night. >> Good night.
» We're going to move on now to our discussion to general item.
It's going to be a review of our financial management policy by Mr.
Steven Winters. Provided 20-minute overview.
» [snorts] >> Jesus.
» Thank you, Steven. >> Maybe I can do it even faster than that.
» In advance. >> Thank you.
» Hi, everyone. So, um as you know, we've got a financial management policy and uh
that Sorry.
Um And it includes performance measures
that help us stay financially stable and um and sustainable. And each year, when
we develop our budget, we take into account these financial measurements and
we typically design our budget to be to where we meet these these uh
objectives. At one of our budget work sessions, you
all asked us to uh um
to to have a discussion with you all about
what if we change some of the parameters of the uh
of the performance objectives. So, how would that impact the rates that we
charge our customers? How would it impact our
uh ability to borrow, you know, all of that sort of stuff. So, tonight I'm
going to go through the what the performance measures are.
Uh and then at our next meeting, we'll come back and talk about, you know, if
we change them, what the impacts of those might be. Um and if there's
anything you know, as we go through tonight,
please feel free to interrupt with the questions if you have them. Um but if
there's anything that we go through tonight and you think, "Hey, I'd really
like to see you you model a changing this thing, you
know, we'd I'd be happy to take that into account.
So, um the financial management policy is available on our website. Anybody can
access it. It's also included in the budget. We call it a budget book, the
document that that you all have I'm sure you've seen and it's on the website as
well. The policy was last modified in 2012.
Um no prejudice in that. There's there's
been no reason to change it. I'm not saying anything, but that previous
boards have been derelict. So, um there's nine performance
measures. The first three have to do with our reserve funds.
The first is our working capital reserve and these are all defined in the policy.
The balance in the working capital reserve should be the greater of either
a third of our operating budget or 20% of the next 3 years CIP budget,
whichever's higher. Um you know what our CIP budget is. It's
definitely the next 3 years, 20% of the succeeding 3 years CIP currently is
higher than a third of our operating budget.
Um and so for fiscal year 2027, the budget is um for this reserve is 32
million. The purpose of it is uh you know, it's kind of like a savings
account if you um you know, it's it's meant to be able to
cover your operating expenses in case something bad happens, you know, we
don't not getting revenue or you got expenses that went way up or pandemic
happened, uh things like that. The second reserve is a capital
improvements reserve and it is um the the calculation on that is it's 2%
of depreciated capital assets. Our depreciated capital assets are in the
hundreds of millions and for fiscal year 27, the balance in that account um is
budgeted to be 6.9 million. The purpose of this reserve is if we
have um you know, a big oops. Um a few years
ago, probably 10, we had a project in the CIP to inspect our the dam uh
gates out at Cane Creek. And we're we're just going to like uh do some
maintenance on them, oil them or something. I don't remember exactly
what, but when they did the work, they noticed there was a problem and it was a
million-dollar problem. We didn't have to dip into the
fiscal reserve then, but that's kind of the purpose of it.
For things like that. And we've had And you you uh Rogerson Drive pump station
was before you all, but that was a $7 million uh an
uh an emergency happened that we had to deal with right away. So, these are the
kinds of things that that that reserve's for. The final one
is called a rate revenue stabilization reserve. Um it's to be 5% of our
budgeted annual water and wastewater revenue for fiscal year '27. That's $3
million. And it's intended to provide uh cash
flow when either
expenses are higher or revenues lower than than what we had uh anticipated.
Um and this is the purpose of this one is to is to allow some flexibility if uh
so you don't have to raise rates in the middle of the year, you know, it so you
so you're not running that that tight. There is some overlap in these in this
particular set of policies. It's probably obvious that between working
capital and rate revenue stabilization. So, without any of you asking, uh when I
come back next month, we'll we'll have some information or some analysis around
this this this subject. >> I have a question.
» Yes. >> So, in this scenario, the minimum
balance is 32 million plus 6.9 million plus 3
million. >> Yeah, about What's that? 42 41 42
million. >> 42 million. Okay, thank you. So, they're
all So, it's belt two belts and suspenders.
» I wouldn't characterize that way. >> [laughter]
[snorts] >> Okay.
» Uh >> [clears throat]
» Yeah. >> All right, thank you. So, all of all of
these things would have to go wrong. >> For us to spend We'd have to
» For us to use all of that that's in reserve. All of them would have to go
wrong in the same year. >> Well,
um you know, you you
Let's say that happened. If it did, we we'd have zero balance in
our reserves, and so for the next several years we we'd be looking to
build that back up. So, you know, you really wouldn't you wouldn't it's not
reasonable to anticipate that all would go wrong, right? It's that this is the
level of cash based on this, you know, set of
formulas that you would need to be able to be prepared to deal with all these
things. >> Okay.
All right, thank you. >> You're welcome.
Uh the next five of the performance measures have to do with debt
management. Um you know, debt is a um
a necessary thing, especially in a business like ours. I think I've said
this to you before, but we you know, we're about to invest in a in
an asset over at the Clearwell that hopefully is going to last another 100
years. Um it that wouldn't make sense to pay
cash for that and burden today's rate payers with all that money. And
that's you know, that you could carry that philosophy to other examples.
Um the first one on this in this bucket is the debt service coverage ratio, and
I would submit that this is the most
critical one. The way it's calculated is it the we
need to have in net income twice what our debt
service is. So, you may recall that our budget for
fiscal year 27 in debt service is 12 and 1/2 million. This means this means that
our net income revenue less operating expenses, should
be 25 million. Um and just to remind everyone, you
know, off who I'm talking about income, OASIS is a nonprofit, so what that that
money that's left over after paying operating expenses is used to fund
capital improvements programs, debt service, and uh to replenish reserves to
the extent that's needed. And the purpose of this one is just to
make sure you have enough cash to be able to pay your
pay your principal interest on debt. The next one um is debt serve debt
burden to asset value, and it says that our amount of debt should be no more
than uh half of our depreciable assets for fiscal year 27, we're at 30%, so
we're you know, we're comfortably under that limit, and this measures our debt
capacity. So, theoretically, you know, we could borrow uh more than we're
borrowing now. That would increase our debt service,
which would affect that first uh issue. Happy to explain that if that's not
clear.
Um the next is sufficiency of revenues above debt requirements. This says our
debt service should be no more than 35% of our revenues, and again, we're
comfortably under that, and this is another one that's just meant
for us to to make sure that we've got enough cash to pay our debt service.
Uh this one is cash financing of capital.
Over a 5-year period, this this policy means that we'll pay at least 30% of our
CIP uh expenditures with cash. In other
words, you won't borrow more than 70%. Uh and this is just to prevent us from
becoming too overburdened with debt. And then finally, our credit ratings.
The the uh policy in uh says we should have no
less than eight the the uh
ratings that are listed there, AA2, AA+, and AA+ from three rating agencies,
Moody's, Fitch, and Standard & Poor's. We're actually slightly better than that
um in two of the with two of the the rating agencies. And this is measures
credit worth- worthiness. It affects how popular your bonds are when you go to
sell them. It impacts your um the amount of interest that you pay, but admittedly
going from an AA one to an AA2 wouldn't have a big impact
on our interest rates.
The final um
performance measurement has to do with our service affordability. We talked
about this in one of our budget meetings. Karen, you may remember asking
some questions about this. The um
the the formula in our policy mirrors what kind
of the industry average is for the affordability ratio.
And it's a measure of what is how how big a percent of the median household
income is our annual water and sewer bill.
So, for our policy, if you take a year's worth of our water
and sewer bills, they ought not be one and a half per- more than one and a half
percent of median household income. So, currently, based on the
budget you all just passed recently, these are the projected
um for service affordability ratios when comparing the average bill to median
household income. You know, we're slightly above it in 2027. We get a
little bit further away as we go go out further.
A few years ago, the board asked us to start tracking
instead of average bill, what's the median bill?
And so, as the but that's not what the policy said. This is just something you
all wanted us, you know, to to use. So, um
if you use the median bill compared to median household income, you know, it's
a lot less percentage of of household income.
We might feel good about this because we're Either way, we're either almost
meeting it or meeting it. Um but 20% of our
fellow residents in this community make $25,000 a year or less.
So, uh
the percentage of their annual income, you know, our bill is a much higher
percent. In fact, um it's above 5%. So, it doesn't make sense
and it's not feasible for us to lower our rates for everyone in the community
low enough to make it affordable for folks that are having a hard time paying
it. They don't, you know, make enough money to
uh to completely pay their water bills. And
this is why we have the Care to Share program, which helps people, you know,
pay their bills. And which is why we're also
uh pursuing a sustained uh
customer assistance program. The Care to Share is meant to cover kind of an
episode episode. Like, if I am without a paycheck for a few months
for whatever reason or have a big medical bill, then this is meant to help
Look, here's some money that that uh that can help out.
Folks that are in this lower category here, um it's our opinion that they need
more sustained assistance. They need help with their bill every month, not
just once every now and again. So, again, that's why we've gone to the
towns to to look for money. Uh you know, for support for the
program.
So, um just to summarize, you know, I think
our our uh policy has served us well, kept
us financially sound, in good shape. Um I know people are always asking
[clears throat] about debt, but I can assure you we're um you know, not
overextended. Uh
our We have really good bond ratings. Our financial condition is well. And we
we uh our bonds are usually very popular in the market. And, you know, the terms
of those are usually good. So, again, at our next meeting, we'll talk about what
some changes to any of these might mean. Back to you for questions.
» Thank you.
My next question would be, are there any public comments?
Seeing none.
So now we're going to facilitate a board discussion. There's no motion for
tonight. And so I'd like to just go around the
room and have a discussion.
» I have some more questions. >> What questions?
» Yeah. >> Of course.
» Sorry. >> Excuse me.
The next set would be
clarifying questions. >> Yes. Uh
» Thank you. >> Thank you very much for the
presentation. That's helpful. It's good context. Um [snorts]
I am uh
as you know, I I was looking forward to this because I feel like we have a um
the the root of some of this is with the the
projected uh the projected increases over the next 8
or 10 years that um complying with these policies um
necessitate and that is related to the the large capital projects that we have.
Um to your
was this when the when these policies were created
had OWASA seen any uh large projects oh I'm curious, you know, it's the it's the
clearwell, the hundred million dollar clearwell that we're trying to pay for
now. That's an 80-year lifespan or the last one was 80 years.
So this next one we hope will be another 80-year project. Um and it's kind of I
think of it as like the um the boa the boa constrictor that
swallows the elephant. It's a big lump. Um and has lots of kind of but sorry,
setting up my question is this. Has there ever been an expenditure as large
as this that these that these financial policies have been applied to?
» Um I think this policy was original originally adopted in 2010 and I don't
know what was in place before then. I think there probably was something it
just wasn't this. >> When was the Cane Creek waste water
done? >> Earlier than that, in the '80s.
» Okay. >> But there was a
» Sorry. >> There was a big project down at the
waste water plant when it was expanded. It was like $50 million. I don't
remember maybe somebody else will whether that
was before or after 2010. Before.
So I I think the answer to your question is
probably no. >> Okay. Because that's where my question
is coming from is that are we applying policies that were created for normal
circumstances and this is an abnormal circumstance.
» So first of all, the first thing I want to
say is I think it's a good idea to to take a look at these policies every now
and then and previous boards have talked about it but
we for whatever reason haven't done it. Um but I would argue that having a $100
million you know, facing a $100 million project
is exactly why we need these these policies. Or or you
know, I'm not necessarily have to be exactly this, it can change.
Um but it's to be able to we're we're in the
one reason we're in the position we are now to be able to deal with this is
I think because of adherence to policies like this.
» Okay. Let's go to the we'll get back to questions.
» Sure. >> Oh, sorry.
No, I I have a follow-up question. >> All right.
» The um If [clears throat] you could go back on
your on your screen to the debt coverage ratio and the bond
ratings. >> Yeah.
» Yeah. What are the requirements of the bond agencies for debt coverage ratio?
» Um it Well, it depends on what rating you
want. Um but generally for the ratings that we're
in, somewhere between Oh, I'm sorry. Bond debt service
coverage or I was getting ready to say cash cash on hand. Um what we have about
two. >> Really? Cuz the information that's been
in our packets is 1.4. Or not in our packet, I have seen
elsewhere 1.4 referenced as the um, debt coverage ratio for public
utilities. >> That may be an average, I don't know.
Um, >> I
it would be helpful to know that information.
» What? The average? Or like what the typical?
» more have more references to what the debt coverage ratio requirements are.
» Okay. >> Um,
» would it >> But
» Go ahead, sorry. >> Just it's the information that I've seen
elsewhere is that it's significantly below the 2.0.
» Could could we maybe Could I ask for some structure to this whole thing? So,
what I would like to see, um,
when we have a broader discussion on this,
is I'd love to know one,
what are the actual legal requirements for any of these?
Two, what are peers doing? Um,
and then three, uh, to what extent are we seeing
overlap? Um, if you go to the previous slide, all
of these different buffer funds, um,
» Oh, oh, oh, the previous slide. >> I I I look at the
Is it Did you want to go there?
» Yeah.
Um, I I kind of look at this and it's it's like the the adage, you know, have
uh, is it six months of emergency funds?
And it's like, want to have six years. It seems to me like even the example
that you gave where there was an emergency, we didn't even use the fund.
Now, I'm absolutely for having large emergency
funds, but $42 million in around money. Um what I would love to understand is
what are the costs of having this as cash essentially
relative to having it I don't know in other investment vehicles or spending it
on you know, but what are the what are the ultimate
impacts of this level of working capital relative to
um rates.
Um the
I I I think that would be very handy to understand.
Um So, that's maybe number four. And number
five, how long does it take to borrow money?
» 6 months or so. >> 6 months. Okay.
Um I'm curious as to like
you know, a lot of the
you know, the uh capital improvement line here. So, um
so, unplanned CIP expenditures I don't know what kind of like
time horizon that concerns, right? So, this is stuff that would be planned and
implemented immediately. Um
is that specifically for what would be planned and implemented immediately?
» Yeah, it these they'd be like stuff that's not in the CIP plan or it's in
the CIP plan years years from now something like that, yeah.
» Okay. It'd
be useful to see when these have been used or what they
like situations where they would be used.
» Okay.
Can I go to Elmar? Thank you.
There's couple of things I can respond to you
real quick. So, I don't have to uh
hold you up with the answers to that. Uh there there is no we don't have any
legal debt limits. Towns do, we don't. Um, the
regarding the debt service coverage ratio,
our policy says what it says, 2.0. Um, it says we could go down to 1 and
1/2 if unusual circumstances and we've done that recently in in your tenure.
Um, and then our bond order is probably the closest thing to a legal uh,
commitment that we have and it says it needs to be 1.2. And that's pretty
bare bones. I I you I don't know how many people we feel
comfortable operating there. But anyway, that's
the legal. And now, I don't know you said something about your uh,
the peers, so I'll have to look that up. >> Sure. Just to understand
like are these right down the middle and
these still totally make sense or is this like
you know, we're the only ones doing this. They're so
» Yeah.
Yes, ma'am. >> Elmira.
» Okay. Thank you very much. >> Your report is the one I understand the
most. So, thank you very much for keeping up with the state financial
standards of the industry. I did want to know, first of all, simple
question. Who's giving us the AAA? >> Um,
Standard & Poor's. >> Oh, okay. That's pretty
» [laughter] >> Uh,
another one is the money the working capital that you have that's sitting
there is invested, right?
Uh, what do you got it in? Money What do you got it in?
» We're very limited in what we can invest in. It's in something called a North
Carolina Capital Management Trust and then we're around around 3%. 3%.
» I didn't even hear what you said. >> No. Okay, so it's in the North Carolina
Trust. >> Yeah.
» Yes, we are limited to that today.
» Um >> not limited.
It has to be at a bank that's and it's got to be fully collateralized with cash
and if there's just just some banking weird banking stuff that we have to
» Because of the Republic Utility >> Yeah, we can't invest in
» Korea Korea >> AI stocks and that kind of thing.
» [laughter] >> Well, we don't want them, but okay.
Thank you. That's That's all I had. That's all I just wanted to know what we
were doing. Thank you.
» You're welcome. >> Here are the changes we're going to do.
» Okay, go ahead.
» [clears throat]
» Uh in in addition to considering um the policy whether it should be 1.2,
1.3, 4, 5, you know, um how conservative it it should be to
have this cash. If we don't have the cash,
uh if we then we either lower rates or spending it on more capital improvements
and we have this unique circumstance now this $100 million clearwell. So, in
setting the new policy when we have our full conversation, I guess it's next
month and we really look at all this stuff.
How much do we borrow on that? Our conversation the other day when I had my
orientation with you um the state has a fund that we may be able to borrow
against at no interest. >> Or the
» We may not be a good candidate for that cuz a lot of people going to want some
of that money. Um is that right? You know.
» Yeah. >> And and so we're going to go out for a
bond issue for anywhere up to $100 million.
If that's the whatever the figure is Is that the figure on clearwell?
» Yes, but but we're only allowed to borrow $50 million of that under the
current policy. >> Now, um if it was just that one project,
we could have we could have our 70. >> Uh-huh.
» We could do what? >> 70
under the current >> So, that that is I'm bringing that into
the mix as to what we need to consider in the policy. I don't have an opinion
yet. I'm I'm totally open to learning about
this because, you know, the trade-off, you know, do you keep more cash
or do you borrow more money? And the And you indicated the current rate for bonds
at about 3.2%. And is it a 30-year, 40-year, you know,
how long is the bond, etc. And do you You obviously need to keep cash reserves
for that. Um
in regular business and in commercial business,
at those rates, you want to borrow as much money as you can cuz that's like
free money. Zero is free money and 3.2 is very, very low, as well.
» It's 3 and 1/2 to 4, but >> Oh, it's up. Okay. Um so, whatever it
is. And then but in with a public utility when you're dealing with, you've
got to You've got to [clears throat] pay. That would be if we borrowed 100%
of it. If that were our policy to borrow 100%
of it, we'd be paying 3.2 million or 4 million a year interest on the bonds,
correct? Whatever the bond rate was, that's be
our annual and we'd certainly have to have those cash reserves. What's the
trade-off? How does it affect the rate payer? How does it affect the rates or
the raising of the rates? And if those are the things we're talking about, that
financial planners, and they all They have all kinds of formulas. So, I'd like
to see as much of that how much because it will help in establishing our policy.
Do we not borrow enough? In other words, if it's very low interest, let's borrow
all we can. Um if it's I mean, that's that's an assumption. And if it's higher
interest, you know, we borrow less because we have to service less. And all
of that is How does it affect the rates? How does it affect your reserves? Do you
need all of that on reserve, you know, in case of all of that happening at
once? And I think that Is that not what our consideration is?
» that's where we're going on the September 10th
» Yeah, and I'm glad we're now considering this. I You know, I've heard about this
since I came that you know, the one the first meeting I was at was at one point
you know, it's one we keep >> [clears throat]
» really high. What are we at two? At two point 2.0?
» Yes. Yeah. >> Um
And so there's room, do we want to uh have a policy to make more room?
» Let's hold that to September 10th. >> Okay. Okay, so I am sharing the
conversation I had with Steven that you the other day on all these issues for
consideration. >> That's great.
Um go ahead, Steven. >> Yeah, two quick points I'm I keep
thinking of these things that someone else has asked that I want to get to.
Um first of all, and I know we talked about this the other day, we don't we
don't and we can't borrow for working capital. It's got to be secured by a a
capital improvements program. or project. Um so that could affect I
said six months. If you got everything lined up ready to go, it takes six
months. A lot of times it depends on where
projects are in the bid process and how many do you have and can you can you
bundle enough with 100 million it's not a problem, but a lot of times we're
bundling up several different projects to make a bond issue. So that can affect
the timing as also.
» You know, go ahead, Karen. >> Um
it sounds like we're kind of opening up the discussion to how do we want to
benchmark ourselves in the future? And when I think about benchmarking, you can
compare yourself to your past performance, you can compare yourself to
others, and you can compare yourself to an ideal scenario that you would like to
have in the future. Um so I think what we may not be as aware of here for
context is the comparison to others. Um and so I am curious if AWWA or IB Net
might have numbers on these specific indicators or indicators
that are similar that would give us a little bit of context to how others see
it. >> Yeah.
» They might and and I was I was meant to ask something earlier and I was afraid I
was interrupting. Um so another way to get at this is to
talk to the rating agencies and and you know, they'll tell you
for a rating of this, this is what you need to have and I've got some of that
information from previous discussions that we have. So I don't know if that
would be helpful or if you know, cuz [clears throat]
peer comparisons can be a little tricky, you know, maybe somebody else has a
lower rate, but their financial condition is is not what we would want
or there's something about their system or where they are in the process.
I'm happy to get it. I'm just posing the question.
» Is that a >> I just have so many questions about how
these things ripple,
» [clears throat] >> you know, how they one one affects you
turn you turn a knob and you move a lever and multiple things can happen. If
you do both or one or the other, different things happen. Um
I'm thinking about things like as
as this
given the parameters that we have that we are growing our budget significantly
so that we can eat this great big swallow this big elephant that is the
hundred million dollar uh
clear water critical infrastructure uh piece of equipment that's going to
last 80 years, we hope. Okay, so we're going through all of these rate
increases to make this to be able to swallow this big thing.
And then once that's done, we've established rates that are really high
and we don't have the capital needs after that.
» Now, I >> Or are you expecting that we're going to
have hundred million dollar projects moving forward?
» So I I we do do 15-year financial plan. So we're looking 15 years out in the
future and you know, that's a lot of estimates in there. So, you have to
consider that. But, um if you look at the
I I showed you 10 years in the budget process and at some point towards the
end of that 10-year period, we come back to where we're 3 or 4% 4% I think rate
increases. Um when you get into the years 11
through 15, it's around the 3%. Um so, you know,
there are other that that the CIP pipeline doesn't go away. There's still
things in there, not $100 million projects, but um
it's not a situation where we've raised rates so high, we're going to be sitting
on all this cash and we're going to not know what to do with it or have to lower
the rates or anything like that. It's just that's not the way this works.
» There are also two components here that Thank you. That that is helpful. And if
we were to um
And we're Well, we'll get into that later cuz we're
talking about policy right now. The um it seems that there are two parts here.
That there's this these this working capital or this these reserves that you
need to have in the bank, okay? And there's the debt coverage ratio in
the budget that is um And I Are those two I'm trying to figure
out how those two are related to each >> Sure.
» Cuz they seem independent to me. >> No, they're very they're very related.
And in fact, the the debt service coverage ratio this
is not 100% true, but if you
hit what your target is there, almost all these others fall into place.
Not not always. The reserve sometimes doesn't doesn't work out, but those
other ones the other debt ones the fit you know, no more than this or that for
these. If you get the debt service coverage right here,
you're pretty much going to be okay on everything else.
» Our biggest year ever
how close were we to the having to
take on the a project of this size in the biggest year ever in your in your
time here. Have we ever come close to a hundred million dollar project?
» Mhm. No.
» Okay. And so these these policies have been applied
in uh
in a world in which we were not taking on a project of this size.
» Yes. But I'd like to add that I
these numbers are pretty agnostic uh to stuff like that. I mean
they they scale up and down, right? So whether you're
um
Let me qualify that a little bit. So a couple of years last year or year before
um I recommended that we not meet the 2.0 debt service coverage ratio. I think
we budgeted it one and a half. Um because
everything else looked good, our reserves looked good and uh
we were we would have been raising rates just to meet that debt service coverage
ratio. Um
I'm not sure where I was going with that I but I just do want to point out, you
know, it's not something that we've rigidly or or must rigidly stick to, but
it was something we need to be smart about if we want to take an exception.
» Okay. I agree.
The fifth the fifty million dollar project back in before 2010 is
comparable almost to I mean it's close to a hundred million dollar project now,
but that's before this policy. So, you know, it's just it's a different price
tag, but proportionately it was serious. Yes, and were there financial problems
that that it that were created because of that that
perhaps led to this policy? I because we're we're looking at this policy in a
vacuum that it was created in at some point and
» I mean these are I think what you'll find and I'll
give you some information about it or they're pretty
mom and apple pie type things. You know, you might tweak with a different, you
know, formulas and all that kind of stuff, but the elements are pretty
common. Um
There were I mean you're you're you are mentioning something that did happen
when right about before this policy went into
place and this is where that rate revenue stabilization fund came from and
a lot of utilities did that still have it is that's when people was doing
conservation. You remember that graph that I show you guys of
the water sales when it started heading down a lot of utilities
couldn't predict the conservation that was coming so they were missing their
revenue targets every year. So this was one of the reasons
that these went into place. >> That was right after the major drought
of 2007-2008. >> I remember it.
» Don't So maybe I can clarify what I asked for
before. I would like to understand
legal requirements and peers on
these figures. Right? What are what are their like working capital and
you know, general what what are their goals? What are their
Do we have legal requirements on this? Um and then I would like to understand
the effect of this working these working capital goals on rates. So how is this
affecting our decision making? >> Okay.
» Um
I mean I look at this you know, 20% of next 3 years uh CIP budget.
So all of a sudden our CIP budget is spiked
quite a bit. I mean so how is that affecting working capital which is
affecting rates >> [snorts]
» when maybe like I think that would be very useful.
Um, I'd also like to understand how these might overlap.
I mean again, it's it's the question of are we being double triple conservative?
And this cuz all of this money is not beating inflation. If it's sitting there
at 3% in this I mean we're losing money with with this much cash essentially on
hand, it seems like. Um, I'm not saying we shouldn't have
cash. It's just I I I got to ask if it's wise to have $40 million in the other.
Um, and then I guess it's it's
if we were to change the policies on this reserve piece,
how does that then affect so you know, the the second slide, all
of these different indicators of that. I guess um,
I I don't get a sense of how much these actual indicators change
the board the the policy.
So like, you know, oh okay, this is going to be the investment, this is
going to be the rates. Here's how the indicators play out.
» I'm not sure I follow that last. >> So,
we're going to have X rate, X borrowing, and our debt service ratio is Y.
Okay, we're we're we're allowing it to go low enough, you know, lower than it
was in another year. It's a it's a internal goal.
The question is are we actually then changing rates or changing CIP goals in
service of the metric? I can't remember the paradox. It's when the metric
becomes the goal, >> Yeah.
» then it's a bad metric. >> That's what we're doing.
» And that's I think that's the fear, right? Is
um, to what extent are these metrics the the next slides this metrics, actually
determining you know, what gets prioritized, the IP,
what gets I mean, cuz I think that's the thing we want to stay away from. I don't
know if it's implicit or explicit. >> If I could begin to wrap up
just uh and just you know, to the point that um
suggest we might want to consider moving on and
um and the question would be have you
gotten enough information at least to lead us on the temp and the direction to
answer the questions and Susanna, you raised your hand.
» I feel like we're not going to have um
I I don't I feel like we've been presented this information and we're
going to come back in a month and we're going to say do we want to keep them the
same or do we want to move them different?
And I feel like we're going to need information, we're going to need to
understand scenarios and concept risks and consequences and all of those things
in order to know whether anything and and benefits as well, whether these are
worth reconsidering. Um without without
turning the knobs and moving the levers, we don't know whether there's any
benefit to changing the policy or what the risks might be or how that affects
the rates and that's the whole reason we're having this conversation to begin
with. >> Sure.
» So >> What can I make one comment?
» Sure. >> This is the industry standard across
not just public utilities but across government.
The stuff that he's presenting with regard to with these rates at the end of
the reserves is industry standard. It doesn't have to be a public utility, the
university has the same similar standards as far as reserves and so does
most other public organizations. >> [clears throat]
» I mean, it's just normal it's bi- it's just business as usual. This is not
exceptional. That's probably why they got voted in
years back. People have I'm just saying, it's just industry standard.
» Do we know that? >> I know it, he knows it and you can
probably look it up in the financial planning book and try the same thing
out. >> So, if I could come back to your point
since if >> I'm just saying.
» What Yeah, I hear you. And I think we all do. So, what what how would we get
to where you want where we need to be? With your thought process. Todd, and and
I'm not trying to diss you. I'm just trying to say how do
we How do we get to where you guys want to
be? >> Well, I guess I I'm asking for the for
information. Um it's basically since >> sensitivity analysis.
» Yeah, it's what I It was what I would love to see.
» And then I think if we get that and I don't know before the next meeting, then
then we'd have the information to make decisions.
» Well, that's helpful. >> I I agree. That's That's exactly what it
what where it comes from. It's that well, let's say
And again, each of them are different components to it, but if if you go to a
1.4, if you aim for a 1.4 as your standard debt coverage ratio, what does
that do to the you know >> looking for models, financial models.
» Yeah, sensitivity analysis. >> I'll put it in the models.
» Yes. >> [laughter]
» Yes, exactly. >> Which is a lot of work, but it we need
to have the input and some assumptions made.
That which is modeling. >> Yeah, so my [clears throat] plan was to
come back next time with may not meet your expectations, but with
attempting to meet those expectations. Sitting here tonight and having this
conversation, I've become a little skeptical that it can be done in
one meeting, next meeting, but um let's get as far as we can and see what
questions remain. >> Would there be an opportunity that you
could provide us requested some information to consume
for the board to consume before the next meeting?
» Um well, you'll for sure have it in the as in the a week ahead in the budget
package. And if I can get some stuff together beforehand, I don't I sure
don't mind sharing it. I I Sitting right here, I'm not sure
I can promise that but >> Okay.
Board?
» Can I have Can I have a show of hands that we can
» Oh, I just want to move on to the next item. I wanted to make a comment
if I may shift Mr. Chairman. See, in taking from for staff to take a
look if we spent more money on capital improvements to in preventative
maintenance, how much longer could we keep some of the equipment going and all
those kind of things is in part of the planning. And so do we want to increase
capital improvements every year? I have you know cuz
constantly need work. So it's it in the modeling that
It's okay. In the modeling, I mean well that's a
consideration for me. Um you know, you keep stuff pieced together
but this is an old system that has been >> And that's what our capital improvement
plan takes into account for. >> Right.
» That that our staff has done a remarkable job in in in evaluating and
planning out the capital improvement plan over time. I don't think anyone is
questioning that. >> Okay.
» The what we're asking about what I'm asking about what I hope others are
considering is whether given the circumstances that we have
with this large this large 80-year project
project coming on board whether it is worth making an exception to these
policies or changing these policies so that it has a lesser impact on our
ratepayers. >> That is the point.
» Yes. It's not I that I agree. They have a capital
improvement plan that that staff has done a remarkable and and detailed job
not kicking the can down the road. >> But they in consideration of that plan,
they're always using this as the measurement how far they can go. Would
they go further if these numbers were different?
And that's what the modeling is. >> Um sorry, I just want to point out I I
think we're unfortunately going to be losing you at the end of the year with
your retirement. And so um it may not be the best timing to go to
sort of a very technical um fancy solution um at this point. So I'd love
to just hear your perspective on that at the next meeting, too, on whether you
think any proposed changes are going to be
sustainable and recommended given the staff transition as well.
» You mean right now do I think that? >> You don't have to answer now.
» Um well, I think that there's um some duplication in the reserve area and
I would you know
I think it's worth taking a look at, yes.
Um
So >> I don't anticipate anti- uh being
uh in favor of making drastic changes, but um
tweaks, yeah, I think I think that's possible and and could be warranted.
» Thank you. >> Let me see if we can have a show of
hands about moving on to the next item, please.
Thank you. >> I had so much more to say.
» [laughter]
» All right, team. Thank you very much. Um
we're [clears throat] going to do a section where uh Mr. Taylor is going to
review the board work schedule. >> Yes.
» Request. >> Yes.
What happened to number two? >> Is it time for requests?
» Is it time for what? >> Requests.
» No. >> Yes.
» What happened to number two? >> Requests from board members.
» Okay. Um
» The policy review is not happening. >> Excuse me.
I'm sorry, Joe. Picking it up in my ears. Say again.
» 82 >> Thank you, Mr. Woods.
» That was the bid process. You're already there.
» [snorts]
» We're on F1, correct? >> We are on
on What do you say? F1 what?
» Um the board work schedule. >> Yes.
Review for board work schedule.
» Okay. Okay, so I would like to formally
request that the board approve development of an informational memo by
the Owasso staff prior to our discussion and action item that's scheduled for
September 10th, 2026 titled review draft developer reimbursement policy.
And the following winter 2025 the Owasso board and staff co-developed a memo
template to be used in future instances of requests for new or expanded
services. The draft policy proposes creating a new
financial management service to be fully implemented and overseen by Owasso staff
as well as levying substantial fees on newly connected customers moving forward
to reduce the financial burden on housing construction companies that
install new water and sewer pipes in our area.
In line with the agreed upon procedure, I have requested an informational memo
to accompany the draft developer reimbursement policy via our internal
written correspondence on June 4th, 2026.
No board members raised any objections at that time. The proposed subheadings
included alternative approaches, the overlap with existing policies, examples
from other locations, estimated implementation costs and fees, impact
projection including pros and cons, and ethical considerations, and a monitoring
strategy. Following extensive conversations with
the Owasso staff, thank you Monica and Fishman who's not here, um I believe
that the limited information consisting of the draft policy itself and the
endorsements that we've received today um have been incomplete and balanced and
potentially misleading in a few of these categories.
So, I would briefly remind the board that we have all sworn an oath to fairly
represent the interest of current and future WASA ratepayers when taking
decisions, and I don't believe that we can achieve our common value of robust
and defensible processes to ensure community confidence in our
decision-making without having access to the supporting evidence.
My request is that the members of the board make the collective will of the
board known at this time by verbally indicating their support or their
reasons for declining support for the memo preparation. Thank you for your
consideration.
» So, I think you're asking us to show of hands
to support what you're proposing. >> What what are you asking for?
» I'm asking for the staff to prepare an informational memo prior to the
discussion and action item at the next meeting.
» That includes the your
That sounds like a simple request. The detail that you've just discussed sounds
like a lot of information. >> Yeah. There's some categories in the
memo just like the other memo templates that we adopted previously.
» [clears throat] >> Can you go through the line items in the
memo you're requesting? >> Yes.
» I think you're I think your request is fair. I just want to enu- if you
enumerate what you're asking for. >> Okay. So, alternative approaches to this
specific policy. So, this policy um being compared to other alternatives
that might be available. >> Do you Do you know of other
alternatives? I mean, I'm just asking. >> Yes. So, alternative could be the status
quo that there is no new policy. Another alternative could be a coalition among
developers that works on creating private contracts. So, there are several
other alternatives that need >> Didn't we vote that we were going to
have this new policy? That they were going to work on the reimbursement
policy, and we were going to We've already voted I think.
» No, the vote failed. >> Oh.
» Huh? >> The vote failed.
» No, the prior vote is to there was a
previous vote that we adopted a reimbursement policy.
» No, we did not. >> We didn't adopt the actual policy, but I
thought we voted on >> to proceed into draft one. That's what
we voted on. >> the the go ahead to staff
» to draft one. >> to to redraft it and
» So, we didn't include in that alternatives. We just said come up with
a policy that meets what we passed in our motion.
» Yes, so we received a draft policy and we received endorsements from specific
people. We haven't received a memo that analyzes the effects of the policy.
Do you want me to go through >> Yeah, go ahead. I'd like to. Thank you.
» So, alternative approaches, the overlap with existing policies, so specifically
um the excess capacity credit policy that
we have in place right now. Uh examples from other locations,
estimated implementation costs and fees, the projection of the impacts, the
magnitude of the impacts including the pros and the cons, ethical
considerations, and a monitoring strategy.
» See, I thought that's what we discussed. All of these
that you're talking about were part of the conversation should we have a
reimbursement policy? That was the initial threshold question I thought.
And we decided we should if a developer down the road, you know, was there going
to be mechanism for a reimbursement to them.
Okay, and and I think what we had asked them to come up with is a is the
mechanism, but we already approved prior what failed was their proposed
mechanism I thought. I could be very confused. Council, do Do
what I'm talking about? >> Yes, I do.
» Thank you. Somebody does. >> [laughter]
» The board has decided to
task the staff with coming back with a reimbursement policy.
That that decision by the board
I think was based on a judgment that there should be a reimbursement policy.
The specifics of that policy were were not set out in that vote.
» And that's what failed. >> that's why the
the staff was tasked with going out and bringing you back a draft
reimbursement proposal that would include the things the staff understood
the board agreed about. And the staff has been hard at work on
that, and there is such a document that would would come before the board.
I understand that Karen is asking for further analysis of the impacts
and the alternatives before the board votes on
the the draft that the staff has been
working on. And
you know, that more information is certainly always beneficial. It's up to
the board as to whether you want to do that or whether you want to
proceed to consider the the
draft from the staff. I assure you that in conjunction with general
counsel, the staff has worked very hard to come up with a draft that
incorporates what I'm going to say we
understand the board has said they approved.
Uh and with that said, uh I absolutely
agree that the things that Karen is asking
be done further before the board votes would be helpful to the board's analysis
of the issue. Is that fairly stated?
» So, let me ask staff. >> Mr. Taylor,
do you think that's achievable? >> Not in a month.
» It requires considerable research.
» All right, Mark. >> How much research are you envisioning?
» Well, Monica, do you want to speak to that? I know we've had several
conversations about your previous requests.
That information may not be as readily available as you would think.
» So, Monica Dotson, Deputy Executive Director. Um
we've done research on similar policies uh for uh water and sewer utilities and
we've looked at other towns' policies. What we haven't done is look at have
done conversations with them about the application of it. Um you know, what's
the success rate of it? You know, have there any been any other unintended um
consequences to the policy or again, what's been the success rate? So, we
would need to reach out to towns and the other agencies to get more of that more
in that information. Um
the effects of the policy. So, for the alternatives analysis, it would
definitely be helpful uh
to understand what other alternatives that the board's aware of. Um we looked
at other ways that the mechanisms that we
looked at meet the growth pace for growth principle. So, um if there other
mechanisms that the board wants to pursue us or other alternatives that you
want us to look at within that, we know we can certainly do that. So, you said
that sound like you said there's like a status quo. There's partnerships with
other developers. I guess maybe when we do our research, we can we can also see
if there's other ways that that towns or cities are accomplishing this, but um we
weren't readily aware of any other alternatives. So, to answer the
question, I think we're going to have to do more research on uh what other
alternatives might be out there. Certainly, do some more extensive
research with the application of the policy within
towns and and other water and sewer utilities.
Yeah, I didn't get all of the things that
you're looking for in that. So, I think what what I would want to do is take
some time to kind of go through that, better understand if this is something
the board would like to pursue, what would the board members want to see out
of that so then we can give a better estimate. So,
based on what I see now, I don't think we could do it within a month. But, I
would want to make sure that whatever we did met all the board members'
expectations. >> So, I think
what we need to do as a board is to agree to go ahead
with Harris' proposal to defer it past the September 10th
meeting. >> Yeah.
» So, again. >> I'm sorry. I'll wait till you're done.
I'm going to ask respond to what you're saying.
» Okay, great. Um >> Mr. Chair, normally requests and
petitions from board members would follow a process
where you all decide if So, it would take five members to decide
you want to advance that request and then it's referred to staff to do
exactly what Monica suggested, which would be to to try and
determine how long it would take us to address the request. So, I think the
first item is to determine if there is a majority of the board that wants to
pursue the request. >> Exactly where I was going, but thank you
for saying it better than I did. Appreciate that. So, that's where I was
going to go. I was going to suggest now we have a vote and see
from the board members that are here >> Well, there's no second Is this a
motion? It's a request.
» Okay. >> If If I respond to that, we have
already, in my opinion, said that we're going to have a reimbursement policy.
Considering alternatives or considering status quo is opposite to what we've
already agreed to move forward. What And I think more information is great. I
don't oppose that. But but the how expansive it is is making an
assumption that we would actually reverse what we have already decided to
do, which is to create a reimbursement policy and not maintain the status quo.
So, I would oppose those portions of it that you're requesting that are so broad
to because we have a development community. Our job
is to Our job is to represent the ratepayers, not the developers,
not the town of Chapel Hill or Carrboro, the ratepayers in the 22,000 people uh
uh accounts and the people involved. That's our job.
And they're paying a lot of money, and I've asked the question many times, if
we have more ratepayers, we certainly have the capacity, can we uh if we have
more development, are there more people to share in these rates and to pay the
bills? Cuz that's our only source of money. And we, based on the
conversation, we passed the threshold issue. So,
I think that delaying this is not fair to the ratepayers, nor to the developers
who are sitting there wanting to spend tens of millions of dollars to bring
utilities. How do they get fairly reimbursed? How do other towns, other
communities deal with it? And that was the mechanism we've asked the staff, and
we voted on to have the staff pursue for us. We did when we did the threshold
issue. So, I'd like to keep that moving forward. I don't represent developers.
I am represent taxpayers, and things get stalled here so long with so much study
and then looking for counter and counter. You voted against
moving forward with any mechanism and I'm respectful of that. But I don't want
this recommendation
to be a way to stall the process cuz I don't think that's fair. There were four
votes for, it would have passed but we needed five. By September there will be
five votes is my guess. And it will pass under some mechanism that's recommended.
And I'm just saying I I'm for some of your proposal and others I oppose
because it's down a rabbit hole we've already decided not to go.
» All right. How many of us would vote to move
forward with Terrence's recommendation and allow the staff time to
do some more research. I'm likely not meet the September 10th
deadline and bring it back.
» [snorts] >> Show of hands, please.
» To What what are we voting on exactly? Like
the problem is >> The The request that the staff have
permission to prepare a memo. >> Right, but you read off like there's
like 20 points on the memo. >> There are not 20 points. There's seven
subheadings which is similar to the memo template we've already adopted last
fall. >> So so are we talking about all seven of
those that we're voting on including the the status quo?
» Judy has suggested that she does not want to consider any alternative
approaches besides this policy or no policy. She She believes those are the
only two approaches we need to be considering.
» I think we are >> I think she was not saying that. I think
she was saying um
a pol- this policy or another policy, but no change in policy has already been
voted on. >> What's wrong with asking providing
clarification? What's the problem? Oh, there's what's the problem with
getting clarification? >> Yeah, none. For a decision for a
decision that we not have been made later.
» Well, >> cuz that's what she's asking for.
» I've I've objected to including in that the status quo or alternatives. We've
already decided on a policy. So, why would we
» We decided to move forward with a policy. That doesn't mean this specific
policy is the only policy that could exist.
» Well, the we did say we do a what is it called? A reimbursement
policy. We voted on a reimbursement policy, not an alternative and not a
status quo. A a a moving forward establishing a mechanism. That is what
we voted on in my recollection or maybe my memory's gone.
» There's no room for this policy to change at this point.
» can't No, no, we have no policy as far as
what the mechanism is. That's what we've asked them to do is come back with lots
of information. What's the mechanism that is fair that we proposed to the
developers and they came in with various things that had to do Did it include
interest? Did it include a variety of things? And we looked at it and we said,
"Go back, you know, talk to all these stakeholders and come back with a
mechanism that we can then address and vote on."
And so, an alternative to it that mechanism for
reimbursement or status quo having no mechanism is not it
would be going backwards to asking for something we've already that isn't on
the table.
» There there's no guarantee of approval of this.
Though, I I have to point that out. So, the status quo is a future possibility.
» I I would say that when we voted for a mechanism,
more than five people voted and and we we know that developers want to put
infrastructure in at their expense with a reimbursement policy, a mechanism to
be reimbursed. >> Wait, if you believe there's no
information in the world that exists that could possibly change your mind
about what's in that policy. >> What I know in the world Oh.
I I don't need to use AI and I know there's not an alternative or a status
quo that will work for putting in infrastructure and
reimbursing >> Okay, that's how you feel. That's fine.
» That's how I feel. Now, the other >> for the future and that's all
» No, yeah, and I don't think we we're reversing That would be reversing it, in
my opinion. Those two particular points. The other
information, let's research it. >> So, we have
multiple polar perspectives.
» I I don't understand We aren't talking about voting. We're
talking about getting information. >> Correct. That informs our ability to
make a decision. >> Moving forward
» Yeah. >> with the request
» Yeah. >> for more information
to thereby defer a vote on September 10th.
So, the >> What's the rush?
» I We've >> I could do it like rappers say, "What's
the rush?" >> We've had a single memo
without any memo informing our discussion. And I've had to ask for
hours conversations questions to Monica over and over
because we have not had a well-prepared memo going into a discussion yet.
» But, they're going to give us one next >> I would like this not to be wasting my
time, either. >> But, okay.
It is interesting that the people who've already voted no against having any
policy are for stalling this and delaying it. And I think it's a delay
» accusation, but it's not an attack. >> I'm actually I spent years studying
evidence-based policy and I don't think that's what we're doing here. And and I
have an issue with it and that's my ethics and that's my values that I have
to uphold for myself. So, I don't appreciate that.
» And I'm respectful of that. >> You're not.
» But, I am saying the two things you said >> There's a proposal
uh before the board and you asked for votes
and I think people started to vote. But, uh I suggest that
arguments at this level are not useful and that you go ahead and vote and see
if there five votes for proceeding
uh with Karen Turkquist or not. If they are
not then the matter is not still on the table.
» Let's proceed with the vote. All in favor of Karen's request, raise
your hands, please. Say aye. >> Aye.
» Three Three votes for it.
All opposed, say nay.
Three votes against. So, Karen, it did not pass.
» Mhm.
» Thank you for suggesting it.
Pat Taylor is now going to review the board work schedule.
» Yes. Uh reflecting back on the board's earlier discussion about the um
effective governance training that was canceled for today
um and trying to determine what needs to happen next
with the August 27th. I would like some direction
from the board on whether we're proceeding with a training on August
27th or we pursuing [clears throat] other dates. And I would remind you all
that uh we also have to coordinate those
dates with the consultant uh to be able to have their availability as well.
» I think that if it is important for these three sessions to happen in order
that uh you just have to go back to the drawing board and ask the consultants
what the next three dates are for um if they don't have to be in order
then you know, the 20 then poll the
the rest of the board for whether they're available on the 27th or not. Um
» Well, we can all we know several board members will not be available. And the
requirement for non-board members to be there is going to present a
» It's going to be a challenge regardless. >> That is almost insurmountable.
» Well, that's what the chair said. >> I'm sorry, say it again, please.
» You said it. All nine people had to be there.
» I think that I I cannot understand moving forward with a series like this
without all nine board members. >> So, that there isn't a rule?
» Say again? >> I said that's the rule then, right? I
nine nine of nine. >> I would gently push back on that. I mean
» Push back? >> I I'm not going to be on the board after
a year. So, like I mean we're we're we're spending months making, you know,
doing workshops. Like I I'm term limited out. So, like we're nine board, you're
going to have a new board eventually. So, I think it we we could relax that
requirement. I mean, I can't remember the last meeting where all nine people
were here. >> [laughter]
» How do you all feel about >> I think it's unrealistic to to try to
schedule three events with all nine board members.
» Okay. >> And I think that it that we just need to
get this we need some training, we need some materials, and and we need to
collectively move forward. So, I would encourage you not to have that as your
bar. >> Okay, I would accept the encouragement.
What's the minimum threshold?
» Majority rule. I Well, I would >> [laughter]
» I would say goal the goal would be seven.
Um seven of nine seems like a a significant amount. The goal would be
seven. I'm not saying that's a hard fast rule,
but um you know, if you get less than six, then you know, you really are
dwindling in terms of the ability of the organization of the of the board to
to gain knowledge and work together and learn how to be more productive.
» Okay, I I accept that.
» Oh.
» So, between the six of us, we'll set a threshold of
» [laughter] >> seven? Six.
» Right.
I'm I'm just kidding. Cuz we could have had the meeting today.
» Yep.
» Help me with this and stay on schedule. >> I I would
» Seven. >> Seven.
» Seven. >> Aim for seven. And if you can't get
seven, see if six will I mean, it's just like with this many people
» We'll get what we can. >> You get the most you can. And if it's
important for those three things to happen in order, then
the 27th could be one of the dates or
move onward. >> Okay, can you also video it so that the
people that miss can go back and see what happened?
» I think the material I don't know. I don't know. I I was
» If If you really care about them learning it,
why not video and let them see? >> I would defer that to others. I wouldn't
make that >> I would say participation
would be critical in the actual conversations
rather than just observing. >> But some knowledge is better than none.
» [laughter] >> I mean, it wouldn't be a bad idea to
have it videoed if we could, just even for memory.
» We can do that. >> So, Todd, I think we have marching
orders. >> So, August 27th,
we will see if we have seven board members available for that date and then
go from there. >> The 27th of August.
» Yes. >> Yeah, I'm trying to be Fs.
» [laughter] >> Just kidding.
» Thanks. >> Um September 10th, we do have uh quite a
quite a lengthy agenda there. As was discussed earlier,
uh we will uh move the um the uh
galvanized service line replacement item to that agenda for further discussion
and bring back the information if board asked for.
At that same meeting we also have the just talked about the draft development
reimbursement policy. We'll continue the discussion on the financial management
policy. We also are going to have a review for
you all on University Lake extension of services policy. And just briefly on
that we do expect that we're going to receive a petition from the
state. There are some billing wells out in the
area of the old Towers gas station out on 54 that have
become contaminated from some of that. And we do expect that the state
approaching us about extending services out there. So we're thinking that might
be coming in October. And I wanted to give you all an overview of the policies
that dictate extension of services in that area.
» And who pays for them? >> Yes, this would be a state funded
project, but there are specific policies we have on development out in the
University Research Park. So we have that on there. We'll have an
update on our developer community engagement.
And then 12-month calendar if you all look ahead
having questions on that it's in your packet as well.
» Okay.
Any questions from board members about the schedule?
If not summary of our board meeting on your schedule.
» Yes, I I mentioned one about moving on the gallon service line replacement to
the next meeting. We also had a request to schedule board presentation on
professional services procurement. And we will look for an appropriate time to
get that scheduled as well.
» I don't think you missed anything. Thank you.
If there are no other business for the board,
are there any other business for the board?
If not, without objection, the board of
directors will be in a closed session to discuss confidential information
regarding cybersecurity in accordance with NC General Statutes 143-318.11.a.9.
Following the closed session, we will reconvene in open session
after completing any other business. The board was planning to enter a second
closed session to discuss personnel matters. However, I'm going to suggest
we cancel that on the fact there's just not enough board members here tonight to
have a conversation.
I think we need more than six.
All right.
So, we're going to enter closed session. >> Yes.
» Excellent. >> Thank [clears throat] you.
You're going to stick around and Tim and you're going to be here for the
This is the cyber >> I'm sorry. I'm glad I missed that. Yes.
» This is closed session on cyber? >> Yes. Closed session on cyber security.
Do you want to stay? >> Yes, so you'll stay.
» So, me, Monica, and Stephen will stay as well as Tim and Simon.
» Great. >> I need a shirt.