[0:00] Let's call to order the uh September

[0:03] 17th

[0:05] Oh,

[0:07] I feel much better now.

[0:10] >> September 17th meeting, board of

[0:12] » September 17th meeting, board of

[0:12] directors meeting for the TTSA.

[0:15] Uh please silence your phones if anybody

[0:18] has a phone.

[0:19] >> Oh.

[0:19] » Oh.

[0:20] >> Uh that would be very appreciative. And

[0:23] » Uh that would be very appreciative. And

[0:23] at this point, uh let's take a roll

[0:26] call.

[0:28] Director,

[0:29] >> I'm here.

[0:30] » I'm here.

[0:30] >> Director Cox,

[0:31] » Director Cox,

[0:31] >> yes.

[0:32] » yes.

[0:32] >> Director Wilkins,

[0:34] » Director Wilkins,

[0:34] >> Director Hansford,

[0:35] » Director Hansford,

[0:35] >> yes.

[0:36] » yes.

[0:36] >> And

[0:38] » And

[0:38] >> here. And I guess at this point we

[0:40] » here. And I guess at this point we

[0:40] should uh stand for the pledge of

[0:43] allegiance.

[0:46] I aliance to the United States of

[0:50] America and to the republic for which it

[0:53] stands. One nation under God,

[0:57] indivisible, with liberty, liberty, and

[0:59] justice for all.

[1:07] And at this point, do we have any public

[1:10] comments uh for anything not listed on

[1:13] the agenda? Do we have any online or

[1:16] written?

[1:17] >> No.

[1:18] » No.

[1:18] >> Okay. Thank you. Uh and with that, let's

[1:22] » Okay. Thank you. Uh and with that, let's

[1:22] go ahead and move forward uh to review

[1:26] and adopt the agenda. Uh do any

[1:28] directors wish to wish to adjust or move

[1:30] any items on the consent or uh regular

[1:33] agenda?

[1:36] Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion

[1:39] to adopt the agenda? Move

[1:41] >> to approve the agenda.

[1:42] » to approve the agenda.

[1:42] >> Second. Motion by

[1:46] » Second. Motion by

[1:46] director Wilkins uh Wilkins second by

[1:49] director Cox

[1:51] and we need a roll call for that or all

[1:53] in favor.

[1:54] >> All in favor please say I. I

[1:58] » All in favor please say I. I

[1:58] motion approved

[2:04] and I believe Vicki

[2:07] you are up with pretty impressive

[2:13] work.

[2:14] >> Yes. Good morning President Wilson and

[2:17] » Yes. Good morning President Wilson and

[2:17] directors. Vicky Lefrono, human

[2:19] resources administrator. And yes, we

[2:21] have a pretty significant work

[2:23] anniversary this month and that would be

[2:26] Bill Pendar from the laboratory with 25

[2:28] years of service. Bill was unable to

[2:31] attend today, but we would still like to

[2:34] acknowledge and congratulate him. So,

[2:36] great job, Bill.

[2:42] I think 25 years speaks

[2:46] a lot about the people and the uh agency

[2:49] and culture. So, thank him for us and u

[2:53] he'll be at one of the next meetings.

[2:55] Vicki, I do have a question for you real

[2:57] quick.

[2:58] >> Sure.

[2:58] » Sure.

[2:58] >> One of the things when I first came on

[3:00] » One of the things when I first came on

[3:00] board was lost time to injury. Do we

[3:06] know is that still in the thousands as

[3:08] far as days since we've had one?

[3:11] >> Oh. Um, yes it is.

[3:13] » Oh. Um, yes it is.

[3:14] >> Okay,

[3:14] » Okay,

[3:14] >> that is still correct.

[3:15] » that is still correct.

[3:15] >> Yeah. And uh for the newer board

[3:18] » Yeah. And uh for the newer board

[3:18] members, I don't know if you know this

[3:20] or not, but I believe a year ago was I

[3:25] don't know 3500 or 5,000 or some

[3:27] unbelievable number. It was literally

[3:30] years. And uh I bring it up now because

[3:34] that's the type of stuff that just

[3:37] continues to pay dividends and it really

[3:39] speaks to the culture of where we are

[3:41] and the fact that people take safety

[3:44] very carefully. So thank you Vicki.

[3:46] >> Welcome.

[3:51] and we'll go ahead and move on to the uh

[3:53] consent agenda

[3:55] and the approval of the board minutes

[3:57] for August 20th, 2025.

[4:01] >> Move to approve

[4:04] » Move to approve

[4:04] >> actually

[4:07] » actually

[4:07] and the ratification of the general fund

[4:09] payments. I'm sorry.

[4:13] » Do we want to amend the motion?

[4:15] >> Was was your motion, Dale, to approve?

[4:18] » Was was your motion, Dale, to approve?

[4:18] >> Just the minutes. Just the minutes of

[4:20] » Just the minutes. Just the minutes of

[4:20] his committee.

[4:21] >> Well, they're both together.

[4:23] » Well, they're both together.

[4:23] >> Okay. I I'll I'll move to approve the

[4:26] » Okay. I I'll I'll move to approve the

[4:26] consent agenda.

[4:28] >> Second.

[4:29] » Second.

[4:29] >> Okay. Motion by Director Cox. Uh second

[4:32] » Okay. Motion by Director Cox. Uh second

[4:32] by Director Wilson or Wilkins. Sorry.

[4:36] Uh all in favor, please say I.

[4:38] >> I.

[4:42] Approved.

[4:45] This one's a little confusing to me, so

[4:47] please be patient. The appointment of

[4:50] the agency board president and vice

[4:52] president.

[4:53] Uh

[4:57] » I can present this. No problem.

[4:58] >> Yes.

[4:59] » Yes.

[4:59] >> Uh so effectively according to the ATC

[5:01] » Uh so effectively according to the ATC

[5:01] act the uh board has a responsibility to

[5:03] name the president and the vice

[5:04] president on fouryear rotating basis. Um

[5:08] two-year rotating basis and we are uh at

[5:11] the end of that cycle. Currently it's

[5:12] oddnumbered years um is when it gets

[5:15] determining. So uh we uh before the

[5:18] board is an opportunity to uh nominate

[5:21] and elect a board president and vice

[5:23] president.

[5:26] >> So just a comment. So there was a long

[5:30] » So just a comment. So there was a long

[5:30] period of time I don't know 38 years

[5:32] Dale longer where we rotated well where

[5:37] we didn't like this was before I was on

[5:39] the board but where the president vice

[5:42] president was the same person for a few

[5:45] decades back when Oz was the board

[5:48] president and we changed the probably

[5:51] changed that tradition maybe eight years

[5:52] ago where we started rotating it.

[5:55] >> Yeah.

[5:55] » Yeah.

[5:55] >> And uh I think it's a good thing to

[5:57] » And uh I think it's a good thing to

[5:57] rotate it. Um, you know, you've been in

[5:59] the president role just for a few months

[6:01] now along with Bird, you know, cuz

[6:04] you've basically filled out the rest of

[6:06] Blake's term. So, um, yeah, I think if

[6:09] you're willing to be president again,

[6:10] that'd be great. And Bird's willing to

[6:12] be vice president again, that would be

[6:13] great. And years moved.

[6:16] >> Yeah.

[6:22] » He made a motion for um, you got it

[6:25] >> for Scott, your president, B. So yeah,

[6:27] » for Scott, your president, B. So yeah,

[6:27] I'll second that.

[6:28] >> Okay,

[6:29] » Okay,

[6:29] >> got through that, didn't we?

[6:33] » got through that, didn't we?

[6:33] >> Very good deal.

[6:37] » Okay, I think now the one that's even

[6:39] more confusing to me is the uh finance

[6:42] committee.

[6:43] >> Yeah, so we uh released the government's

[6:45] » Yeah, so we uh released the government's

[6:45] document that uh Liz crafted to help us

[6:48] kind of formalize uh some of the

[6:50] policies and procedures of the finance

[6:52] committee, which was very helpful. Um we

[6:55] wrote it into that policy to appoint a

[6:58] member uh two members from the board on

[7:01] the same rotating basis that we do

[7:03] president vice presidential appointment.

[7:05] Um this is all uh this is not the law.

[7:09] The other one was the law. This one is

[7:11] our own internal document. Um so we are

[7:15] at the same point. We need to identify a

[7:17] chair and a new vice chair of the

[7:19] finance committee

[7:22] for the next two years. U who's uh you

[7:25] know is it you and Bert on the finance

[7:27] committee right now?

[7:28] >> Yeah,

[7:30] » Yeah,

[7:30] >> you're kind of getting a loaded plate

[7:32] » you're kind of getting a loaded plate

[7:32] here. Um Scott, but would you be willing

[7:36] to serve continue serving on the finance

[7:39] committee?

[7:40] >> Well, my thoughts are to serve until

[7:42] » Well, my thoughts are to serve until

[7:42] January 1. So

[7:44] >> that's only a couple of months

[7:47] » that's only a couple of months

[7:47] >> and then and then

[7:49] » and then and then

[7:49] >> and then uh we've had discussions or

[7:52] » and then uh we've had discussions or

[7:52] I've had discussions with gather.

[7:56] >> Okay. What about you B?

[7:58] » Okay. What about you B?

[7:58] >> I'm here man. We're good.

[8:00] » I'm here man. We're good.

[8:00] >> Okay.

[8:01] » Okay.

[8:01] >> You're to do it next year.

[8:03] » You're to do it next year.

[8:03] >> I'm going to get

[8:05] » I'm going to get

[8:05] >> Are you sure?

[8:07] » Are you sure?

[8:07] >> Oh no.

[8:09] » Oh no.

[8:09] >> All right. So we got through that

[8:10] » All right. So we got through that

[8:10] hurdle.

[8:14] Okay.

[8:14] >> Um, I think we do need to address who

[8:16] » Um, I think we do need to address who

[8:16] would be the committee chair and vice

[8:18] chair because someone needs to kind of

[8:21] coordinate the meeting and start and

[8:22] stop and that stuff.

[8:23] >> I I would recommend that B chair can be

[8:27] » I I would recommend that B chair can be

[8:27] the vice chair at this point.

[8:30] >> It would be fine.

[8:33] » It would be fine.

[8:33] >> And then so the document that the way

[8:35] » And then so the document that the way

[8:35] that the um packet read it would start

[8:38] in the at the next meeting. Um, are we

[8:41] all okay with that? changing in January

[8:44] to get a next meeting as stated in the

[8:46] staff report.

[8:48] >> Good point. I think we are that's what

[8:50] » Good point. I think we are that's what

[8:50] works.

[8:51] >> It works for me. I just want to make

[8:52] » It works for me. I just want to make

[8:52] sure we're clear with that.

[8:54] >> Very good.

[8:54] » Very good.

[8:54] >> Let's put it this way. Whatever works

[8:56] » Let's put it this way. Whatever works

[8:56] for you.

[9:00] » That's the reality.

[9:01] >> All right.

[9:08] chair and

[9:12] and directors

[9:15] as vice chair beginning in January 2026

[9:19] and motion by director

[9:22] CS.

[9:22] >> Yes.

[9:23] » Yes.

[9:23] >> Second by director.

[9:25] » Second by director.

[9:25] >> Sure.

[9:27] » Sure.

[9:27] >> As previous. Okay.

[9:29] » As previous. Okay.

[9:30] >> All in favor say I.

[9:31] » All in favor say I.

[9:31] >> I approve.

[9:33] » I approve.

[9:33] >> Yeah. Good job.

[9:37] And I believe now Scott, you're up to

[9:40] provide us with

[9:42] update on the

[9:48] » Oh, you got

[9:53] you're already

[10:00] board members. President Wilson.

[10:03] So Scott Fleming, inter technical

[10:05] services manager and senior engineer for

[10:07] agency here this morning to talk about

[10:10] nutrient removal and this project. So um

[10:13] you guys have have known for a little

[10:14] while now this was coming and we're at

[10:16] that point now juncture point decision

[10:18] on how to proceed to the agency. I

[10:21] provided a quite lengthy uh board memo I

[10:23] think a uh rude in for you guys to just

[10:26] be reminded of the background that's led

[10:28] us to this this point in time here. So

[10:30] I'll I'll touch briefly on on the

[10:32] background and kind of go into the

[10:34] necessities of this project and how we

[10:35] ended up with a recommendation. So um

[10:38] yeah, as most of you are aware, we

[10:40] engaged Corolla back in 2019 to to

[10:43] perform a master plan for the facility.

[10:45] We had quite a bit of aging

[10:46] infrastructure staff were struggling

[10:48] with identifying the appropriate CIP and

[10:50] out of that master plan it was it was um

[10:52] recommended to move forward with the

[10:54] redeplication of the facility. There was

[10:56] not any alternatives looked at at that

[10:58] time by staff and by Corolla to evaluate

[11:01] other alternatives to us utilizing

[11:04] existing treatment techniques and

[11:05] technologies that were established in

[11:07] the 1970s through the 1980s for

[11:09] phosphorus removal for for a nutrient

[11:12] and then later on in the 03 expansion

[11:14] for nitrogen. A lot of those facilities

[11:16] are now coming due at the end of their

[11:18] useful life both on an equipment basis

[11:20] but also on a concrete or structural

[11:22] basis. were having facilities that the

[11:23] concrete's delivered long part because

[11:25] you guys have seen there. So with that

[11:27] in mind um we've been we were working on

[11:30] implementing that CIP or those

[11:33] rehabilitation projects bring those

[11:34] existing structures up to present day

[11:37] standards. As we were evaluating cost

[11:40] and rolling out those CIP programs, CO

[11:42] hit. As all you were aware, construction

[11:44] costs rapidly increased and we saw

[11:47] projects coming in two to three times

[11:49] what we were anticipating for budget

[11:50] purposes or that CIP

[11:54] along that process. The thought was

[11:55] thrown out there. Are we really sure we

[11:58] want to double down with moving forward

[12:01] with the existing treatment technologies

[12:02] for long-term plans for this agency, for

[12:04] the community, for the region? And are

[12:06] we positioned well if our nutrient

[12:08] limits change longterm to be able to

[12:09] address those changes by the water if

[12:12] they get more stringent or if we get

[12:13] pushed to an alternative treatment

[12:15] process because of what's called an MPDS

[12:18] permit. Right now we're permitted with

[12:20] the water or waste discharge

[12:21] requirements what we're required to

[12:23] discharge into the truck and river

[12:25] directly through our disposal field.

[12:27] Those concerns led us to

[12:31] uh sorry recommending to the board that

[12:34] we pursue a nutrient removal

[12:36] alternatives to process evaluation

[12:38] study. We went to Corollo to basically

[12:41] re-evaluate the master plan with current

[12:43] today's dollars and establish whether or

[12:45] not there was the necessity to look at

[12:47] other alternatives that weren't

[12:49] previously evaluated as part of the

[12:50] master plan or an alternative process to

[12:53] our existing treatment technique that

[12:54] long-term would be more cost effective

[12:56] to implement for the agency relative to

[12:58] a 25-year capital improvements program

[13:01] that doubled down on rehabilitation

[13:04] treatment techniques. So that study was

[13:06] kicked off in 2024 in March and we

[13:09] completed it as you guys are aware

[13:11] towards the uh early part of this year.

[13:14] I'm going to jump a slide here.

[13:20] So in that that report Bolo was tasked

[13:23] with comparing the existing alternative

[13:25] zero which was rehabilitation of the

[13:27] facility which was the directive out of

[13:28] the master plan to any other

[13:30] alternatives in a universal alternatives

[13:33] through a series of workshops and camps

[13:35] plan camps are our role is acronym for

[13:38] basically a very detailed workshop that

[13:40] a couple of the board members sat it on

[13:42] where we looked at all the options on

[13:44] the table. We look at every treatment

[13:45] technology that the country has to offer

[13:47] and the world has to offer and look for

[13:49] our specific discharge requirements now

[13:51] and potential future discharge

[13:52] requirements. How do we best position

[13:55] the facility, the agency, the rateayers

[13:58] to really accommodate those treatment

[13:59] requirements for the water? They

[14:02] provided us two recommendations out of

[14:04] that. One was to move forward with doing

[14:06] a five-stage activated sledge process

[14:09] with MBR and then additionally a 10%

[14:12] conceptual design that laid out how that

[14:14] would live on the facility from

[14:15] feasibility standpoint. We did look at

[14:18] trying to I don't want to use the word

[14:20] shoehorn but try to use existing

[14:23] footprints in sites and the cost and the

[14:25] level of complication needed to try to

[14:27] establish

[14:34] that we can meet our discharge

[14:36] requirements were extremely concerning

[14:38] and very cost prohibitive. So green

[14:40] building the facility versus trying to

[14:43] intertwine it with the existing just it

[14:45] it didn't it didn't make sense. So with

[14:47] that in mind they took it to 10%

[14:49] conceptual design and they left it there

[14:51] and said okay here's the recommendation

[14:54] board. Would you like to accept the

[14:56] study and go out looking for a

[14:57] consultant to move forward with doing

[14:59] final design for the project? And that's

[15:01] where we've been at is working on trying

[15:03] to identify a permit ident going out for

[15:06] proposals from consultants. Staff issued

[15:09] a request for proposals on a

[15:10] qualification based selections process

[15:12] which is pretty pretty standard in

[15:14] industry for us to do that. I reached

[15:17] out and contacted prior to that RFP

[15:19] going out six firms that I identified

[15:21] that were qualified. These are big

[15:23] names, right? that we trust can design

[15:25] this project that have relevant past

[15:27] experiences delivering projects in their

[15:29] size and complexity. Of the six, we

[15:31] received two proposals and of those two

[15:34] proposals, we are coming forward with

[15:35] you with a recommendation based off a

[15:37] universal decision by staff to recommend

[15:40] that Corollo was unequivocally the most

[15:43] responsive proposal to receive. So with

[15:46] that, I included the proposal attached

[15:48] and uh and have the fee in front of you.

[15:50] It's about $18.7 million and typically

[15:54] in the past we've done for for jobs of

[15:56] smaller scale about a 10% contingency

[15:59] for construction related. Uh Director

[16:01] Wilkins has previously mentioned that he

[16:03] would like to seek consideration for

[16:05] future projects for design services

[16:07] including contingency by staff to cover

[16:10] unforeseen costs so we don't have to

[16:12] come back to the board on a regular

[16:14] basis if it's a small tweak or change

[16:16] the overall design scope. And so with

[16:18] that I included in here not quite 10%

[16:21] just with the fact that it's such a

[16:22] large amount of money to request from

[16:24] the board this project design but rather

[16:26] a 3% amount you know that equates to

[16:29] about half a little over half a million

[16:30] dollars. I think it's closer to six or

[16:32] so. Um and with the expectation that any

[16:36] major changes to scope or fee that would

[16:37] exceed that amount back.

[16:41] Um so with that in mind staffer come to

[16:45] the board recommending that we enter

[16:46] into agreement note and corollo engineer

[16:47] has to perform a preliminary and final

[16:49] design for new terms at $18,698,81

[16:54] with staff authorization up to

[16:55] $19,300,000

[16:58] I'll turn it over questions. Can you go

[17:00] back one slide? Yeah.

[17:04] So,

[17:06] a couple things jumped out at me on

[17:08] this. Uh,

[17:10] the annual operation looks like a delta

[17:13] of about we're saving $2 million a year.

[17:16] So, times 25 years is $50 million. And

[17:20] then the annual maintenance. And uh

[17:25] I know that when I looked at this, those

[17:28] were the two that I kind of like focused

[17:30] on. And uh

[17:36] I guess what I want to say is I applaud

[17:38] the way that everything was put into

[17:42] the way you presented it because those

[17:44] are things that those are the details

[17:45] that I personally really looked at. And

[17:49] uh I look at this as

[17:53] one

[17:55] the biggest infrastructure project in

[17:58] our region that I couldn't remember. uh

[18:01] it's not the biggest, it's one of the

[18:03] biggest. Uh and two,

[18:06] the decision we're making today is uh a

[18:10] generational decision. You know, it's

[18:13] since this plant was built, I've had

[18:17] children and grandchildren and hopefully

[18:20] not great grandchildren in the near

[18:22] future. Uh, but that's I think it's

[18:26] important to not just look at the

[18:27] numbers for what they are today, but

[18:30] look at what we're providing for those

[18:32] generations that come. And that was

[18:36] something when I made my decision

[18:38] extremely heavily.

[18:43] » Questions or comments?

[18:49] » Yes. who the other proposal was and was

[18:54] fe similar do we feel good about Kina's

[18:57] being

[18:59] >> so um that's it's an interesting

[19:01] » so um that's it's an interesting

[19:01] question so first the first first part

[19:03] of that stand engineering was the other

[19:05] firm that was reached out to and ended

[19:08] up proposing on the project the agency

[19:10] does not have a history of working with

[19:12] that firm in any regard um they did the

[19:15] Donner Summit PUD's membrane project and

[19:18] they also did the Reno that expansion.

[19:20] So, they're a huge firm. They're they're

[19:22] very large and very capable. Um, their

[19:25] fee, however, was quite surprising. So,

[19:28] the fee came in at approximately

[19:30] say it was right around just under $5

[19:32] million, which was substantially

[19:34] underneath what staff estimated for a

[19:37] project of this size and complexity, it

[19:39] would come out based on typical industry

[19:41] standards. we um consorted or consulted

[19:45] in staff and also just asked some

[19:47] industry professionals what are we

[19:49] missing here with their proposal gave

[19:51] them an opportunity to provide that

[19:53] additional level of detail and um

[19:56] honestly I I'm not sure where where

[19:59] directly it's missed other than we

[20:01] consistently saw across the board in all

[20:03] categories that Cor's proposal addressed

[20:06] all of staff's concerns associated with

[20:08] design and the reason we stand behind

[20:12] universal recommendation from all of the

[20:14] staff and all the code review panel

[20:16] staff members are involved in the

[20:17] selection committee is because while

[20:20] stand is substantially lower and we're

[20:23] not able to identify the specific

[20:24] elements to a te that drove that the

[20:27] concerns associated with what is being

[20:29] left on the table are missed some of

[20:31] that could be attributed to things like

[20:32] sheet count there was over 300 sheets

[20:35] lower on stand proposal because we

[20:38] require them to provide a sheet count

[20:39] for all the drawings and that's one of

[20:40] the indicators of how much a project's

[20:42] going to cost than what Corola was

[20:44] proposing with. So you translate that to

[20:47] millions of dollars estimated per

[20:49] drawing sheet and how much information

[20:51] that scantch is trying to convey on the

[20:53] same page of a drawing sheet that grow

[20:55] is. And I can tell you right now from my

[20:57] experience that translates typically to

[21:00] more open-ended designs that have holes

[21:03] in them that allow contractors to take

[21:05] advantage of designing on the fly in the

[21:07] field and then pushing those costs back

[21:09] on rate payers in the agency. So my

[21:12] concerns associated with that proposal

[21:14] and staff's work. We don't know

[21:15] explicitly what could be left out the

[21:17] plans and specs, but in order to achieve

[21:19] a price point of that that proposal be

[21:22] there are going to be things that are

[21:24] performed that would be concerning for

[21:26] us going into construction that would

[21:28] subject us to potential substantial

[21:30] contract modifications or contractor.

[21:33] self.

[21:34] I hope that it's it's a kind of a

[21:36] convoluted and we can speculate all day

[21:38] on why the feed was where it was for

[21:40] tech, but the other day they did not

[21:43] specifically explain to us how their fee

[21:45] other than there was a couple nuances to

[21:46] it. But as a whole, the GE count was a

[21:48] very large driver as well as the

[21:50] qualifications of the team that they're

[21:51] putting together relative to the team

[21:53] that was received proposal which we are

[21:56] that we did work with previously.

[21:59] So Scott, just to summarize what you

[22:02] just said,

[22:04] >> you're basically saying even though the

[22:05] » you're basically saying even though the

[22:05] fee was significantly less, the design

[22:10] part of it seemed to have quite a few

[22:12] holes in it that we would more we'd pay

[22:15] even more at the construction phase

[22:18] because the design would be flawed.

[22:20] >> This is incomplete maybe is a better

[22:22] » This is incomplete maybe is a better

[22:22] word.

[22:23] >> So I'm speculating here, right, Director

[22:25] » So I'm speculating here, right, Director

[22:25] Clement? and this is they they could

[22:27] very well say we can deliver an

[22:28] equivalent project or product for that

[22:30] fee and give you that sale. It's it's

[22:31] more of a calculate risk is the agency

[22:33] willing to take to save millions of

[22:35] dollars up front on the design. The

[22:38] concern is does that translate over to

[22:40] additional cost and construction? And I

[22:42] I can't make any guarantees that would

[22:44] come true, but that is my concern that

[22:46] we see as staff as we get into design

[22:50] projects with consultants that we

[22:51] haven't previously worked with. And we'd

[22:53] also see likely some substantial as they

[22:56] get a better scope of of work

[22:58] understanding with the project. There

[23:00] would be probably some conflicts

[23:02] associated with negotiating with be and

[23:04] scope amendments the full detailed fe.

[23:06] The reason I can say with confidence

[23:09] that's a concern of mine is because I'm

[23:10] actually working through that challenge

[23:12] right now. Another design consulting

[23:13] firm actually worked with us and they

[23:16] are coming looking to come to the board

[23:18] with the amended request if I will

[23:20] recommend it if I think it's reasonable.

[23:23] So we're already seeing that in design

[23:24] with another firm and I would be

[23:26] concerned that we'd be seeing that with

[23:27] this project as well much larger scale.

[23:30] Whereas with the Corolla proposal I feel

[23:33] confident that the fee provided is a

[23:35] fully inclusive fee that we are going to

[23:36] get a complete product that will

[23:38] minimize the likelihood that you learn

[23:40] instruction.

[23:42] Sorry that's kind of longwinded but do

[23:44] my best here.

[23:45] >> Sorry I just want to make sure I

[23:47] » Sorry I just want to make sure I

[23:47] understood what you were trying.

[23:48] >> Yeah to your point. Yeah, that is my

[23:50] » Yeah to your point. Yeah, that is my

[23:50] speculation, but I know if I had a

[23:52] crystal ball, I wish I did.

[23:54] >> And and as Scott has already mentioned,

[23:56] » And and as Scott has already mentioned,

[23:56] we did a gut check. We we talked to a

[23:58] half dozen other industry folks. Um

[24:01] several of them were industry folks that

[24:04] were considering proposing on this, but

[24:06] chose not to in the end, but had already

[24:08] reached a point where they knew where

[24:10] their ballpark figure was going to be to

[24:11] what they were going to propose. None of

[24:14] them could explain that level of kind of

[24:17] design. So that was a little tough

[24:20] difference.

[24:22] >> I did like that it's very comprehensive.

[24:24] » I did like that it's very comprehensive.

[24:24] I like the fact that it takes us all the

[24:26] way through to the bidding

[24:29] process and so yeah I just I was just

[24:33] curious and that's a big difference.

[24:36] >> It's a substantial one. It's one that

[24:38] » It's a substantial one. It's one that

[24:38] needs to be right. We did our best

[24:42] clarification within ter scopes.

[24:48] So you said staff universal a goes

[24:53] can you tell me a little bit about that

[24:54] process? Yeah. So, um, when we do a

[24:57] qualifications based selection

[24:58] committee, the way that we we do it here

[25:00] at the agency is we develop and identify

[25:03] the appropriate staff. In this case,

[25:04] such since it's a such large project,

[25:06] it's going to impact all departments. We

[25:08] had representatives from ops,

[25:10] maintenance, admin, and technical

[25:12] services representing each of the

[25:14] department managers and subsequently one

[25:16] representative staff or enlisted an

[25:18] admin. We didn't have to provide an

[25:20] extra staff. So, she was the uh the

[25:22] swing boat. Yeah. Per se. Um and so we

[25:25] had a panel of seven staff members with

[25:28] one from each department and subsequent

[25:29] ones from maintenance and technical

[25:31] services that on the selection

[25:32] committee. The way we do it is we do a

[25:34] seal sealed envelope feed based

[25:37] qualifications um review. So we look at

[25:40] their qualifications which are listed in

[25:42] here back up to it or it's on there.

[25:44] It's based off of experience, technical

[25:46] approach and presentation and each of

[25:49] those has a different weight. So the

[25:50] primary weights associated with this

[25:52] project were the fee the qualifications

[25:55] and technical approach. The presentation

[25:56] was worth I think 10% or so if I

[25:59] remember right is 15 or 15%. Yeah. I

[26:03] could look up the exact percentages but

[26:05] um staff review those pieces of the

[26:08] proposal and put a scoring weight next

[26:11] to each one. Out of that comes a

[26:13] recommendation from each of those staff

[26:15] members over which proposal responsive.

[26:18] We include into that the waiting of the

[26:20] fee structure. In this case, the the fee

[26:22] about approximately $5 million versus

[26:24] scrolls fee of 18.6. We wait the two off

[26:27] of each other for I think the fee was

[26:29] 30% or 35% in this case for 30 and uh

[26:34] that's weighted into the overall

[26:35] decision. When we waited the fee in,

[26:37] Corollo based off of qualifications did

[26:40] such a substantially more thorough

[26:42] approach to their proposal and their

[26:44] overall understanding of the work that

[26:46] even with the fees factored in on a

[26:47] weighted basis, Santex proposal, they

[26:50] could still not come in this correctly.

[26:51] They were close but because the feed was

[26:53] such a large hated it but they were

[26:55] still off by a factor of point. that we

[26:57] felt confident everybody knew this is

[26:59] the firm just on qualifications alone

[27:01] without the B was more responsive than

[27:04] when we factored B still he was

[27:06] responsive

[27:09] that give you

[27:11] yeah I think it's important also to note

[27:13] that those that were scoring did not

[27:15] know what the feed was while the

[27:18] selecting criteria just being

[27:20] >> these open post all the qualification

[27:23] » these open post all the qualification

[27:23] reviews because otherwise it potentially

[27:24] have some agencies don't even factor fee

[27:27] into their selections. Instead, they

[27:29] request the fee post selection. And

[27:32] that's something in the future we can

[27:33] discuss if we prefer to negotiate scope

[27:35] and fee on the back end after we make a

[27:37] qualification based selection. But a

[27:39] project of this scale, we wanted to get

[27:41] an idea that in a perfect world would be

[27:43] a came similar. And that's why we

[27:45] speaking with other consulting firms

[27:47] knew that a more typical fee structure

[27:49] would be closer to the role of there was

[27:52] very large concern about why it's going

[27:54] to take able to offer such a substantial

[27:59] question.

[28:00] >> Yes. Um,

[28:03] » Yes. Um,

[28:03] when you uh analyzed or reviewed the

[28:06] qualifications between SANTC and

[28:08] Curillo, was it a face-to-face uh

[28:12] interview with the representatives from

[28:14] SANTC and or was it a paper exchange?

[28:22] >> So, it was both director Fox. Yeah. So

[28:24] » So, it was both director Fox. Yeah. So

[28:24] we in the proposal they have to list out

[28:26] all of their their qualified team

[28:28] members that are assigned to the project

[28:29] as well as their level of effort, work

[28:31] hours and availability. And then as part

[28:33] of the presentation they're able to

[28:35] bring in an interview setting during

[28:38] that presentation they they had a

[28:39] 30-minut presentation followed by up to

[28:42] two hour and a half two hours of

[28:44] interview questions. And out of that we

[28:46] were able to directly ask concerns and

[28:48] questions associated with the proposal

[28:49] to the team to identify if the members

[28:52] of that proposal team were knowledgeable

[28:54] and understood the challenges associated

[28:56] with the project. And so it again did

[28:59] add a little more to that. We had very a

[29:02] very solid performance by extremely

[29:07] with their presentation team. team

[29:08] because we got all of the key members

[29:10] involved in the project across the board

[29:11] that we've already seen at multiple

[29:14] workshops and we know have the technical

[29:16] chops to deliver this project for us on

[29:19] time and that was sort of the confidence

[29:21] is there that it is a lot of money but

[29:23] we know this team can de project

[29:31] um

[29:33] question Scott so I think it's it's good

[29:36] that we've got the uh

[29:40] work scope and the cost that takes us

[29:42] all the way through uh bidding.

[29:46] Would did you guys consider

[29:50] um rather than a a recommendation to

[29:52] award the entire contract

[29:55] a recommendation to award like up

[29:58] through the 30% design now?

[30:02] um make sure the performance that we're

[30:05] expecting to get uh materializes you

[30:08] know through the design process.

[30:11] That's that's one reason that it can be

[30:12] useful. The other reason is that this

[30:16] this project may be well enough known

[30:18] that envisioning what's needed all the

[30:21] way through final design at this point

[30:23] may be more feasible. A lot of times

[30:26] with these large infrastructure projects

[30:28] as you as the design materializes

[30:33] sometimes it gets more complex sometimes

[30:34] it gets more simple. Um and often times

[30:38] in that 30% design phase you

[30:42] collectively as the consultant team at

[30:44] the owner learn a lot more about what

[30:47] the final project is going to look like

[30:50] and what level of design may be needed

[30:53] for that final project. So, um I I've

[30:57] seen projects like this where rather

[31:00] than awarding the entire contract, a

[31:04] portion of the work scope is uh awarded

[31:08] and there's a benchmark for both the

[31:10] owner and the design team to touch touch

[31:13] off of for what would be a future, you

[31:16] know, contract on the design. But it

[31:18] also provides both of us some

[31:20] opportunity to

[31:22] um kind of rescope that 60% and final

[31:26] design effort once we're informed by

[31:29] what comes out of the 30% design effort.

[31:31] So do you have any thoughts around that?

[31:34] >> Yeah, so there's there's a couple things

[31:35] » Yeah, so there's there's a couple things

[31:35] there. We we our standard contracting

[31:38] terms or services agreement for

[31:40] professional engineering consulting

[31:41] services. We are obligated to pay for

[31:45] the work performed and we typically pay

[31:47] it out on on the time materials basis to

[31:50] an extent per the agreed upon scope of

[31:52] this. At any point along the way if we

[31:54] don't have the confidence of the team

[31:56] our contracts explicitly states the

[31:57] agency has a right to to basically cut

[32:00] the work loose. We'd be obligated to pay

[32:01] them for the work perform date. So if

[32:03] they were in midpoint design deliverable

[32:05] and they had expensed hours for that

[32:07] work but we had not completed

[32:09] deliverable we'd have to pay off of

[32:10] that. But to I guess the first point

[32:11] there, we can consider after the PDR if

[32:14] there's an identification that the scope

[32:16] isn't quite hammered out to the level

[32:18] that was in the original proposal.

[32:20] That's where we'd be coming back if it's

[32:21] a substantial increase with a an uptake

[32:24] on the scope and being a a re-evaluation

[32:26] of that scope to with the scope a

[32:28] minute. The second part of that is is

[32:30] you did hit on it. This project is

[32:32] pretty well identified because we've

[32:33] already taken into a 10% conceptual

[32:35] design. If we would have taken adjust to

[32:36] that evaluation or study, it would have

[32:39] been more sensible for us to consider

[32:40] just doing a PDR for the next step and

[32:43] then considering putting out an RP

[32:45] potentially for other firms and and

[32:47] Corolla or whichever firm we would have

[32:49] gotten or firms we would have gotten

[32:51] proposals from would want to ensure they

[32:53] weren't going to be excluded from bottle

[32:54] design by doing that 30% design. But um

[32:57] in this case, there are a couple

[33:00] specific facilities where there were

[33:01] concept concepts uh put into the

[33:04] proposal that have not been fully

[33:06] detailed out yet. Specifically, I'll

[33:08] give one example. We have our two water

[33:10] ponds that you guys the lovely pond part

[33:12] next to over here that serves as uh

[33:15] utility water for the agency around the

[33:17] plan. And there are questions over the

[33:19] strategy long term of how to utilize

[33:21] that plant process water. as it relates

[33:23] to this project. We've identified that

[33:25] we needed to do a two water improvements

[33:27] project. However, baked into this scope

[33:30] is the expectation if we're already

[33:31] rerouting the new plant effluent line

[33:33] that goes to the disposal field that we

[33:35] tee off of for the two water, we need to

[33:38] identify how we're going to utilize the

[33:40] two water pond or andor fire flows and

[33:42] other things that that services. So

[33:44] that's not fully detailed out is a good

[33:46] example of what would be something that

[33:48] in the PDR we expect to get more

[33:50] detailed and know the cost at a more

[33:53] concrete level and that should trigger

[33:55] us needing to reevaluate if that's a

[33:57] struggling point for us during that

[33:59] preliminary design to come up with a

[34:01] concrete solution without delaying this

[34:03] project. So there are some things that

[34:05] harmonize and Richard uh Blante

[34:08] previously wanted a a specific broad

[34:10] item scope in there that any other

[34:12] projects identified during the PDR that

[34:15] need to be included to harmonize this

[34:17] project with our long-term CIP. So I

[34:19] think he was mostly focusing on

[34:21] rehabilitation of existing structures.

[34:23] If we already have a contractor

[34:24] mobilized on site, we know some of our

[34:26] primary clarifiers are 50 years old and

[34:28] need to be rehabilitated. Does it make

[34:30] sense while the contractors out here to

[34:31] include that in the scope of work? Right

[34:33] now that is not currently identified as

[34:35] a task in this project to rehabilitate

[34:38] primary clarifiers but it's a question

[34:39] to ask parole during the PR phase if

[34:42] they can evaluate providers level effort

[34:44] scope fee that we come back to the board

[34:46] if it takes over right it's a

[34:48] substantial change to the scope I think

[34:50] the moral to the story is effectively we

[34:52] didn't see enough constraint by going

[34:55] with an entire package versus a PDR to

[34:57] warrant going to separate efforts there

[35:01] >> and there was also um some financial

[35:03] » and there was also um some financial

[35:03] forecasting benefits to having a little

[35:05] bit of a solid this is going to happen

[35:07] and this is the relative period of time

[35:08] it's going to happen in so that when we

[35:11] discuss the next point on the agenda we

[35:13] can have better forecasting for if we

[35:16] were to do a PDR maybe it was a third of

[35:18] this cost and then we can assume

[35:19] twothirds of that cost later but when so

[35:22] there was a little bit of cloudiness for

[35:24] the forecasting this this shored that up

[35:26] a little bit for us um and we've always

[35:29] acknowledged that there's going to be

[35:31] several opportunities through scope

[35:33] modification this project is no e so

[35:38] >> yeah I mean generally things have to be

[35:39] » yeah I mean generally things have to be

[35:39] going

[35:41] pretty poorly to take project to a 30%

[35:44] design that switch consultants that it

[35:47] happens but I wouldn't see that

[35:49] happening here we've got a very good

[35:50] working relationship with corol have a

[35:52] high degree of confidence in the team

[35:54] they've put together so that's that's

[35:57] certainly not

[35:59] certified uh it's really more the um the

[36:05] potential for it's like oh gee we've got

[36:06] another we got another scope amendment

[36:08] we got another contract $18 million

[36:11] contract is compared to you know that

[36:14] strategy of you know do the PDR first

[36:17] contracting that have a pretty good idea

[36:19] as to what that next level of design is

[36:21] going to cost but then fine-tune that as

[36:24] part of a a future contract so that the

[36:28] the the likelihood of or no uh ongoing

[36:33] contract amendments because we've added

[36:35] clarifier building to the work scope

[36:37] where we've subtracted something. And um

[36:41] because the other thing we should look

[36:42] at is know if there's ways to simplify

[36:45] the project and there's elements that

[36:48] aren't needed then the design effort

[36:52] that would have gone into those should

[36:55] uh not be expended. But, you know,

[36:57] sometimes having done a lot of public

[37:00] works contracting, it's like, oh, that

[37:02] design work ends up getting sucked up

[37:04] somewhere else on some other design

[37:06] element. It's a lot uh easier for that

[37:10] to happen when the when when the

[37:12] contract maximum is already set as

[37:14] compared to if it's more incremental uh

[37:17] over time. So, yeah. No, and those are

[37:20] really valid points, right? And in this

[37:22] case, I think you know what you see in

[37:26] this level of detail in the proposal is

[37:27] staff's identification opportunity

[37:29] facility and knowing this is the

[37:31] specific scope we know needs to be

[37:33] addressed. So there's quite a there's

[37:35] quite a substantial lift on their part

[37:37] and I think that's why the fee is so

[37:38] high is you see well not so high but

[37:40] relative to the project cost it impacts

[37:44] almost every facility in some regard the

[37:46] or the other apart from what we're

[37:48] handling on the solid side with

[37:50] digestion currently and so I think you

[37:53] know we're still there's make no doubt

[37:55] about it we're still going to need to

[37:56] have CIP post this project right an

[37:58] ongoing work it's it's just more of to

[38:01] that effect of where do we draw the and

[38:03] and prevent and essentially with the

[38:06] project and ensuring that we're not just

[38:07] tacking things on going back to scope

[38:09] amendments as we identify more and I

[38:12] think when you read through the list of

[38:13] items at the the start of scope work you

[38:15] can see there's quite a lot there I

[38:17] think I'll turn I'll let I just want to

[38:20] answer your question Dan I mean I think

[38:22] what you're saying is we want to have

[38:24] the ability to be flexible and fluid as

[38:26] the design progresses and we're totally

[38:28] open to that we're not like okay we got

[38:31] this contract we're going to design this

[38:32] thing and set in stone. We we deal with

[38:34] this all the time. There's going to be

[38:36] changes as things become simplified or

[38:38] maybe they're more complex. So, we're

[38:39] totally open to being flexible on that

[38:41] and renegotiating the scope of fees as

[38:43] we see significant changes come about.

[38:45] We're not we're invested in making this

[38:48] project the best for the agency and

[38:49] we're focused on that one goal

[38:51] specifically. It's not about the, you

[38:53] know, us getting the most revenue out of

[38:55] this project. It's about getting the

[38:56] best project for you guys. So, we're

[38:57] totally flexible on all that.

[38:58] >> Yeah.

[38:59] » Yeah.

[38:59] >> Yeah.

[39:00] » Yeah.

[39:00] And it just requires diligence on both

[39:02] that team and for the

[39:04] >> and the agency reps to be monitoring

[39:08] » and the agency reps to be monitoring

[39:08] that sometimes sometimes you can lose

[39:11] track of the what the original contract

[39:14] was.

[39:15] >> That was definitely one of the lenses to

[39:17] » That was definitely one of the lenses to

[39:18] push us through.

[39:18] >> Yeah.

[39:20] » Yeah.

[39:20] In the event that they go that

[39:21] direction, how effective is our

[39:23] oversight commission team and

[39:26] qualifications and to placement part of

[39:29] the country and all those things were

[39:30] all part of that. So

[39:32] >> yeah recognized that it is going to

[39:34] » yeah recognized that it is going to

[39:34] require some several years of diligence.

[39:37] >> Yeah.

[39:39] » Yeah.

[39:39] >> Getting through 30% will be a telling

[39:41] » Getting through 30% will be a telling

[39:41] stopping point where we can step back

[39:43] and say are we still headed the right

[39:45] direction.

[39:45] >> Right.

[39:47] » Right.

[39:47] >> Yeah. And I would encourage that to

[39:49] » Yeah. And I would encourage that to

[39:49] happen. So if we award, if we do award

[39:51] the full contract,

[39:53] that would be a good point for both us

[39:56] and the consultant team to take a step

[39:58] back. So okay, where are we at? Are we

[40:01] still good with this remaining design

[40:03] work scope or should it be

[40:05] >> modified in some fashion based on what

[40:07] » modified in some fashion based on what

[40:07] we're seeing at that point?

[40:09] >> Yeah. And with that point, I think it's

[40:11] » Yeah. And with that point, I think it's

[40:11] I didn't put the proposed schedule in.

[40:13] It's in the proposal, but if you take a

[40:16] look at the schedule, I think something

[40:17] I heard from one of the board members

[40:19] previously is that active involvement by

[40:21] the board of knowing what's going on

[40:23] with this project, not just from a

[40:25] monthly update from staff, but also to

[40:26] being invited and having an opportunity

[40:28] to attend workshops and camps that is

[40:31] fully baked into the assumptions with

[40:32] this proposal. Part of the reasons we

[40:35] need to have direct involvement so

[40:37] everybody on the team, not just staff,

[40:40] not just the consultant, but the public

[40:41] as well as the board are fully aware of

[40:43] what's going on with this. And so the

[40:45] expectation or the hope is that some of

[40:47] the board members, if not all, and we

[40:48] can facilitate what is required are

[40:50] interested in attending some of those

[40:51] workshops. So they have a full interest

[40:54] in understanding of where this is going

[40:55] and doesn't get away from. So the level

[40:57] of oversight from the board the

[40:58] expectation there is there it's it's

[41:00] going to be work for everybody not just

[41:02] staff not just the consultant but also

[41:05] the hope is that there's some level of

[41:07] involvement engagement

[41:09] well and that's part of this is the er

[41:13] has substantial camp in the schedule the

[41:15] expectation is some if not all the board

[41:18] members however we can facilitate that I

[41:19] know there's implications I think the

[41:21] practic but make that word potentially

[41:24] you know so if it needs to be held

[41:25] publicly So be it, right? So everybody

[41:27] can be in attendance, understand where

[41:29] all these tech memos led to with the

[41:31] overall are with the project. Make sure

[41:33] we're all on the same page and we'll

[41:34] have a sharper idea of what the costs

[41:36] are going to be. And if that's the time

[41:38] we start talking about value

[41:39] engineering, we can do that, right? As

[41:41] well as along the way with looking for

[41:43] creative cost effective solutions with

[41:45] this project considering it.

[41:48] >> Yeah. And and then one final comment

[41:50] » Yeah. And and then one final comment

[41:50] kind of goes the cost differential

[41:53] between two proposals.

[41:55] the you know we've got a small by

[41:59] comparison engineering staff here that

[42:02] has a lot of work that they're you're

[42:04] trying to get done other than this

[42:06] project. You know, the fact that the

[42:08] Corono team has a bit of familiarity

[42:10] with the plant and the organization that

[42:12] they do uh will in my opinion

[42:18] make this you moving this project design

[42:21] forward a lot less labor intensive

[42:24] particularly on the front end for our

[42:26] internal staff. Um I I think if we were

[42:29] bringing in a new team,

[42:32] uh there's could easily be a 12-month

[42:35] period of getting that group familiar

[42:38] with our plan and the people here and

[42:40] our organization that I think would

[42:43] directly impact the schedule of the

[42:46] design. I'm confident that the Corollo

[42:49] team given their background will be able

[42:51] to

[42:52] um move much more rapidly uh into the

[42:57] design phase of this without the need

[42:59] you know for that I guess familiar

[43:02] familiarization

[43:04] with the plant and the organization

[43:07] that would be needed with a different

[43:10] team but I I think there's value in that

[43:12] as well. Yeah, and talking about

[43:15] workload, it's I know the situation

[43:17] right now as I'm living in it, but the

[43:19] expectation on my end is being able to

[43:22] identify when we get to a point with key

[43:23] milestone deliverables, having the avail

[43:26] ability to get a secondary opinion,

[43:28] right?

[43:29] Jacobs is another firm we've

[43:30] historically used quite a bit or the CH2

[43:33] and Hill and they're pretty aware of

[43:35] this facility and so during major

[43:36] milestone deliverables specifically and

[43:38] I I've already alluded to this with this

[43:40] team is there's the potential to engage

[43:42] a firm if necessary and if there's

[43:44] concerns presented about getting that so

[43:46] hydraulic and and nutrient models

[43:49] associated with forecasted loadings with

[43:52] the facility is something that it it's a

[43:54] lot of trust to place and I'm I'm not

[43:56] saying I don't necessarily trust the

[43:57] firm they have the full capability to do

[44:00] it, but just it's a lot writing on one

[44:02] firm and that's where at certain

[44:04] intervals we might want to bring someone

[44:06] in as a third party to provide some

[44:08] secondary opinions or support for staff

[44:11] for reviews of major milestone

[44:13] deliverables. I'm not talking about

[44:14] hiring a full second independent third

[44:16] party uh project manager for us on the

[44:19] behalf at this point, but just having

[44:21] them available to provide some of those

[44:23] independent third party reviews at

[44:25] certain junctures where staff identify

[44:26] those would require me that scope for

[44:29] staff to come back to the board and

[44:30] request those support services when

[44:32] identif So right now, see how it goes

[44:34] with the confidence level and where

[44:37] we're at with the water board with

[44:38] updates to our WDRs and where that's

[44:40] headed, which is still ongoing

[44:42] discussion with ops. Once we have a

[44:44] clear picture on that with the the

[44:46] updates to the permit and where our

[44:48] nutrient loads are currently where they

[44:50] could be and there's some major changes

[44:52] which see that will drive also us with

[44:55] the model in sizing with facility and

[44:57] just getting opinions on sizing because

[44:59] that's the worst thing is we're in

[45:01] startup and there's something wrong and

[45:02] I think just having that that comfort at

[45:05] night knowing we had someone else take a

[45:06] look and confirm those everything seemed

[45:08] to pop would be a prudent thing for

[45:10] depending on the associate vendor right

[45:12] so That's also a heads up to us. She

[45:14] might be hitting us up with another

[45:16] contract.

[45:16] >> I'm going to be hitting you up with a

[45:18] » I'm going to be hitting you up with a

[45:18] lot of contract over the next month. So,

[45:20] but again, we need CM services for

[45:23] digestion

[45:24] out that needs to come back for third

[45:27] party CM services because that's been

[45:30] said there project. Um, and then

[45:33] additionally too, we have some

[45:35] additional identified needs with some

[45:37] projects associated with our SCADA

[45:39] upgrades that we're planning long term.

[45:41] So the facility is hitting the end of

[45:43] its useful life on a lot of our

[45:45] programmable logic controllers that can

[45:46] sell this equipment. And with this

[45:49] project, we would like to harmonize the

[45:50] replacements of those PLC's to position

[45:52] the agency that have a cost effective

[45:55] solution long-term development support.

[45:56] And so with that, there's going to be

[45:58] quite a few number of other contracts

[46:00] coming forward that we're going to need

[46:02] to hire.

[46:03] So um and the timing of that is

[46:06] something you're working on both from a

[46:08] financial perspective with Liz as well

[46:09] as with updating that capital program is

[46:12] the whole suite and that's something

[46:14] we're trying to aim by prom

[46:23] um you know you had quite a few firms

[46:24] that were interested and you talked to

[46:26] them afterwards. What was their reason

[46:28] for not proposing?

[46:29] >> Yeah so I figured I might get this

[46:31] » Yeah so I figured I might get this

[46:31] question. So to be perfectly honest and

[46:33] it's kind of a testament to the work RO

[46:35] has done is the amount of upfront effort

[46:38] RO has done taken into a 10% and their

[46:40] history with this over the last couple

[46:42] years made it too large of an effort for

[46:44] them to overcome. They didn't think they

[46:45] had that same opportunity that it wasn't

[46:49] I I don't want to say the term a level

[46:50] playing field because they had every

[46:52] opportunity to propose on it. It was

[46:53] publicly advertised. The time frames

[46:55] were reasonable for them to get a

[46:56] proposal to us in. But for a project of

[46:59] this size, for a firm to come in from

[47:00] the outside and put that that amount of

[47:02] effort into your proposal, I was hearing

[47:04] figures approximately 50 to $100,000

[47:06] plus depending on the firm and how much

[47:08] effort they want to put into it. And so

[47:10] every firm has to weigh their workload,

[47:12] their time frame. And so for these other

[47:14] firms that I was hoping to get at least

[47:16] 200 proposals on, they just didn't feel

[47:18] confident they could compete with this

[47:20] team to receive. And that's what I think

[47:22] you're seeing the quality of the number.

[47:24] It is a it's a nationwide effort. You

[47:26] can't just pull resources from one local

[47:28] market for a project of this size. So

[47:30] always bring in technical experts from

[47:32] folks in Colorado, Florida, few other

[47:34] places. I'm sure Tim could talk about

[47:36] that that provide the staff, the agency

[47:39] that the knowledge knowing we're getting

[47:41] those lead roles and they're assigned

[47:42] the time for this project roles really

[47:44] put those resources in where the other

[47:46] firms with their assessments didn't

[47:48] think they could compete on putting

[47:50] those those resources to use in the

[47:52] time.

[47:54] stop you know

[47:58] any questions comments I have one

[48:00] comment

[48:02] the Alpine board has been working with

[48:06] Corollo on a new development that's been

[48:10] in the works for 20 years

[48:14] and it's a major financial commitment

[48:16] and the developer brought in Stantech on

[48:19] the other side to work with Corollo to

[48:23] uh figure how to get the cost down.

[48:26] And the surprise was, well, you need to

[48:30] change your standards and your policies

[48:32] and procedures

[48:34] so that you don't have to deliver as

[48:36] high level of service was the response

[48:39] from St.

[48:43] I don't have the final reports or

[48:44] anything else, but that was a little bit

[48:46] shocking. So yeah, to compromise your

[48:49] standards to cut costs and, you know,

[48:50] make something happen for whoever else

[48:52] is paying you, uh, frankly, um, is not a

[48:57] good sign.

[49:01] » Yeah. Are you comfortable with

[49:04] >> Yeah.

[49:05] » Yeah.

[49:05] I I got a a question and you might have

[49:08] alluded to what Scott and it got by me,

[49:10] but

[49:13] I attended the the camp meetings that

[49:15] Corillo put on and repeatedly I heard

[49:20] that

[49:23] our agency has a wastewater discharge

[49:26] requirement that exceeds any level that

[49:30] Carillo has ever worked with before.

[49:33] And

[49:35] with that being said, Scott,

[49:38] our wastewater um discharge requirements

[49:43] are kind of at a level right now that

[49:46] Curillo is um preparing to do a design

[49:51] phase.

[49:53] Are we confident at this agency that our

[49:57] WDR is going to stay the same through

[50:00] the design phase of this project?

[50:03] or at some point in time during the

[50:07] design phase of this project, can the

[50:11] state come in and intensify

[50:15] our WDR requirements?

[50:17] I know Tim's going to want responsible,

[50:19] but let me

[50:20] >> Yeah, let me let me address your comment

[50:22] » Yeah, let me let me address your comment

[50:22] because what I what I see

[50:26] >> is that as we move forward, we have

[50:29] » is that as we move forward, we have

[50:29] waste discharge requirements that are

[50:32] the highest in the industry. And that

[50:36] does not mean that they can't go higher.

[50:39] And if they go higher, is Curillo

[50:44] prepared to meet that demand?

[50:47] So I I I'm not going to speak directly

[50:50] on behalf of them, but let me first talk

[50:51] about ours and I'll I'll also I want to

[50:54] bring Mike on this conversation. So

[50:57] currently we're on an existing WDR

[50:59] permit that was established after the

[51:00] last plan expansion, right? I think it's

[51:02] >> 2002

[51:03] » 2002

[51:03] >> 2002. See, that's uh that's 22 years

[51:05] » 2002. See, that's uh that's 22 years

[51:05] ago.

[51:06] >> And that those limits partially were

[51:08] » And that those limits partially were

[51:08] driven by there was an active and it was

[51:11] a settlement between ourselves and some

[51:13] other entities that all discharge into

[51:15] the Truckucky River. Those discharge

[51:17] limits set by our state water board are

[51:20] set under the assumption we're not a

[51:22] direct discharger to the Truckucky River

[51:24] and our limits are driven explicitly.

[51:27] And Jason's also very informed on this

[51:29] talk about it. So I can we can turn it

[51:30] over to a couple people to get to the

[51:32] heart of the matter here. We won't know

[51:34] explicitly what the state's planning,

[51:35] but we don't anticipate substantial

[51:37] changes to our WDRs. Is that relatively

[51:40] correct?

[51:41] >> That's the the general intuition we're

[51:43] » That's the the general intuition we're

[51:43] getting based off some preliminary

[51:45] conversations with the water board. We

[51:47] don't have a draft permanent review, but

[51:49] once we do, we'll confirm that. The

[51:51] second part of your question was more

[51:53] associated with if we did get pushed to

[51:56] stricter limits. Let's say we got pushed

[51:58] to an M MPDES permit which is a direct

[52:00] discharge of the river and they said new

[52:02] limits for us at that point is Corollo

[52:05] position to adapt to provide us the

[52:07] technologies and improvements at the

[52:09] facility to meet those lower limits. I

[52:12] believe the answer is yes. And because

[52:13] they already in their initial study

[52:15] evaluated that if your your limits get

[52:18] pushed down to a lower level, you're

[52:20] talking about intensification systems

[52:23] like sideream treatment using reverse

[52:25] osmosis that are very cost prohibitive

[52:28] and you don't you position and design

[52:30] the facility to be able to prepare if we

[52:32] got pushed in that direction. But we're

[52:34] not actively designing to have those in

[52:36] this project because it would be you

[52:38] look at it as a a price per gallon

[52:40] treat. is is kind of the holistic look I

[52:42] I like to look at with the wastewater

[52:44] industry and because of our limits our

[52:47] price per gallon treated is is quite a

[52:48] bit higher than a lot of other but we'll

[52:50] be after this project right now rates

[52:52] don't reflect that but we'll be longterm

[52:56] more in line with other markets that

[52:57] have to treat to these levels right so I

[53:00] guess Dale to your point and your

[53:02] question this grow team I'm sure has

[53:04] staff on hand that can design those

[53:06] systems and Ricky confirmed first ice

[53:09] cream treatment processes to get our

[53:11] limits down to meet future discharge

[53:13] requirements if necessary. And what

[53:15] plays into that and something I baked

[53:17] into this proposal requirement is we

[53:19] currently use sodium chloride. We moved

[53:22] away from chlorine gas and there were

[53:24] always concerns associated with TDS with

[53:26] our permit. The intent is that if

[53:28] longterm we have issues with our

[53:30] disinfection technology. currently using

[53:32] impacting permanent limits in the

[53:34] future. We could implement something

[53:36] like a ultraviolet UV system that can

[53:39] disinfect instead that doesn't tick us

[53:41] out. And so with that expectation from

[53:45] Corolla with this team is to design the

[53:47] facility to accommodate a future and and

[53:49] this will be a PDR juncture point at the

[53:51] camp is we have sodium hypocchlorite

[53:53] tanks that are going to be three or 4

[53:55] hundred yards away from the proposed

[53:56] site. So we're going to either dog leg

[53:58] out or bring a pipe over to this new

[54:00] facility to connect those tanks in or we

[54:02] can look at the cost of doing UV now

[54:04] versus at a later date and that

[54:06] positions us again as well for being

[54:08] like ready for a permit change with UV

[54:10] already in place. Right? So there's a

[54:13] lot of moving pieces here but I have the

[54:15] utmost confidence this team is is a

[54:17] nationwide team that have seen quite a

[54:19] few of these things. They they have to

[54:21] make assumptions that are within cost

[54:23] justifications for us as a community for

[54:25] what we need to mean currently and then

[54:28] plan for the future but not necessarily

[54:30] implement at this time because it would

[54:31] be overly cost prohibitive to put in a

[54:33] side street Maro treatment and jack the

[54:36] price of treatment way up if we don't

[54:37] need to. So planning for it having the

[54:40] space available and the design ready

[54:42] that if we want to implement a future

[54:44] improvement that can bring our limits

[54:45] down that was the whole driver behind

[54:47] going with the membrane facility. Sorry.

[54:50] Rick, you want to add anything?

[54:51] >> Yeah, just Dale uh director Cox, I just

[54:53] » Yeah, just Dale uh director Cox, I just

[54:53] wanted to direct the record on on the

[54:55] statement about um having designed

[54:59] facilities that have these low nutrient

[55:01] limits. So, we have designed several

[55:03] facilities that have your current low

[55:05] nutrient limits. So, the the TN 3

[55:08] milligrams per liter total nitrogen and

[55:10] total phosphorus of.3. Um, currently

[55:13] Truckucky Meadows Water Reclamation

[55:15] Facility down the hill, Reno has similar

[55:17] limits to to this facility as well as

[55:19] several designed in Florida in Colorado

[55:22] and other places. Um, I think what you

[55:24] were thinking was the lower limits, the

[55:26] potential lower limits that we talked

[55:27] about if you had to go to an NPES permit

[55:31] that we were talking about a TN of um I

[55:33] think it was a TN of one and a half and

[55:36] a TP of 01. those are limits that no

[55:39] other facility currently has in in the

[55:42] country. And so I think that's that's

[55:44] where that confusion was. So yeah, there

[55:45] have been facilities designed to those

[55:47] low limits and those would require um

[55:49] adding in something like uh like what

[55:51] Scott was talking about a partial RO to

[55:54] to potentially to get there because of

[55:55] the salt organic nitrogen that's really

[55:57] hard to remove and it's something that

[55:58] Tom's looking at right now currently as

[56:00] well because of of where they're uh

[56:03] they're are currently with their permit

[56:05] with the ND. So anyway, but um as far as

[56:09] the the current limits, the three and

[56:10] the.3, we have design of the facilities

[56:13] that meet those and we're highly

[56:15] confident that that we yeah, we won't

[56:17] have any trouble getting there with our

[56:19] design. Also wanted to say that the

[56:21] selected alternative, the one of the

[56:23] reasons we selected this alternative and

[56:25] your staff selected this alternative was

[56:27] because it's the best available

[56:29] technology to meet those limits

[56:30] currently. And so we wanted to best

[56:32] position the agency to not only meet the

[56:34] current limits, but if you did get more

[56:36] strict limits in the future that you'd

[56:37] be best positioned to meet those as

[56:39] well.

[56:39] >> You're confident that you can meet the

[56:41] » You're confident that you can meet the

[56:41] if if there is a a surge in

[56:46] in intensity in our WDR. You're

[56:49] confident that you can meet that meet

[56:51] that goal

[56:53] >> if if it gets more stringent.

[56:54] » if if it gets more stringent.

[56:54] >> Yes. We there there with the current the

[56:58] » Yes. We there there with the current the

[56:58] current alternative the way it's laid

[57:00] out we're we're designing it to meet the

[57:02] 3 and.3. If it gets more strategic

[57:04] there's probably going to be some

[57:05] add-ons. We'll have to evaluate what

[57:08] gets added on to it. Um but there's ways

[57:11] to do that and we'll have to look at

[57:12] strategy. So another strategy could be

[57:14] maybe look at you know reducing the

[57:17] amount of discharge you know to the

[57:18] river or to to the uh not to the river

[57:21] but to the uh disposal field right. um

[57:24] if there's ways to offset with um

[57:27] purchasing water rights so you're not

[57:29] discharging as much out of it. It gets

[57:30] complicated but there's other strategies

[57:32] that could be looked at in addition to

[57:34] to the treatment. So, it's an

[57:36] interesting time with the PDR and in it

[57:38] works. So, I keep saying 100 because

[57:39] that's like the picture I want all of us

[57:42] is we need to come around a long-term

[57:44] solution for this facility in the

[57:46] region, right? Whether it's this

[57:47] direction or you know, we would have

[57:49] changed directions on and gone a

[57:51] different route. We we have to come up

[57:52] with a plan that we can base financial

[57:54] decisions off of for Liz, but also

[57:56] benefit and ensure long treat long-term

[57:59] treatment solutions for the area. And so

[58:02] with the WDR and the water board, we

[58:04] have been given a a general

[58:06] understanding that by the end of the

[58:07] year, we should be getting a draft

[58:09] version of that. Um, with that said,

[58:13] that will give us a better picture of

[58:15] where they are trying to go with our

[58:16] permit. And that's right in line with

[58:19] the timing of this PDR getting word that

[58:21] we could be in contract with Rolo them

[58:23] designing and for some reason the water

[58:25] board pushed us to revision to that

[58:27] permit that lowered the standards. The

[58:29] PDR immediately is going to have to

[58:31] shift to address that concern and issue.

[58:34] There might be talks about assumptions

[58:36] made by Corollo assuming that

[58:39] information best best presented shows

[58:41] that our discharge limits aren't going

[58:42] to change based off those conversations

[58:44] with the water board. But we will not

[58:46] know that guaranteed until that process

[58:50] starts.

[58:50] >> Just so just so it's out there and we're

[58:53] » Just so just so it's out there and we're

[58:53] aware of it,

[58:54] >> this is a industry rife with unfunded

[58:57] » this is a industry rife with unfunded

[58:58] mandates.

[58:58] >> Yeah.

[58:59] » Yeah.

[58:59] >> Everybody in the entire country and

[59:01] » Everybody in the entire country and

[59:01] especially in California, the Bay Area

[59:04] just got hit. Everybody down there is

[59:06] scrambling because they have nutrient

[59:08] limits. They never had nutrient limits

[59:09] in the past. Now they do. None of those

[59:12] facilities are designed for that. So

[59:14] everybody down there were panicking.

[59:15] They're talking tens and tens of

[59:17] billions of dollars of infrastructure

[59:19] wings get put in into Bay Area. No one

[59:21] knew that was going to happen 12 months

[59:23] before it happened. If and when we get

[59:27] any kind of unfunded mandate, reduced

[59:29] limits, whatever it looks like, we're

[59:31] not going to get a ton of notice. The

[59:33] reason we selected this alternative was

[59:36] because this is the one that allows us

[59:38] to design to meet what we need to now

[59:40] because it would be irresponsible to

[59:42] spend the money to meet something we

[59:43] don't need to. And if the event comes

[59:47] up, oh, all of a sudden our limits are

[59:49] ridiculous, then we have the opportunity

[59:52] to plug and play as easily as possible

[59:55] to get us compliant. Um, there were

[59:58] Yeah, go ahead.

[59:59] >> No, go ahead, pitch. There were other

[1:00:01] » No, go ahead, pitch. There were other

[1:00:01] alternatives that were capable of doing

[1:00:03] what we're proposing doing with this

[1:00:05] alternative that were cheaper but were

[1:00:08] much less adaptable to that

[1:00:10] plug-and-play alternative.

[1:00:12] >> I want to add one thing. So, Director

[1:00:14] » I want to add one thing. So, Director

[1:00:14] Cox, one thing I wanted to make sure you

[1:00:16] are comfortable with is this is a

[1:00:18] municipal plant, but we also have a

[1:00:20] whole other group that deals with

[1:00:21] industry related to data centers and

[1:00:23] others that treat ultra pure water for

[1:00:26] processing and cooling towers. And we're

[1:00:28] actually designing a facility out in the

[1:00:30] Reno Tahoe Industrial Center right now

[1:00:32] that is a zero liquid discharge ultra

[1:00:34] pure water facility RO and we've done

[1:00:37] this all over the country for for um

[1:00:39] private sector group clients Intel TSMC

[1:00:42] and others. So we have that capability

[1:00:44] and staff to treat to those levels

[1:00:47] doesn't get applied to IND to municipal

[1:00:49] clients very often if ever cost

[1:00:51] >> because of cost. So this is at the

[1:00:53] » because of cost. So this is at the

[1:00:53] facility we're designing out at the

[1:00:54] Tarino Wing Center is a $187 million

[1:00:57] facility for 2MGD. So there's a lot of

[1:01:00] things at play there that we have dealt

[1:01:02] with in the past related to those ultra

[1:01:04] pure limits. So, I hope that helps you

[1:01:06] understand that.

[1:01:07] >> That helps me uh because as as we go

[1:01:10] » That helps me uh because as as we go

[1:01:10] through this discussion, and it's been

[1:01:12] several months now, um the the

[1:01:16] possibility of of having this agency be

[1:01:20] hit with a a more strict WDR and what

[1:01:25] kind of effect would that have on the

[1:01:27] direction we're headed right now? It's

[1:01:29] kind of a moving target and uh as I see

[1:01:34] it, it could be an an incredible amount

[1:01:38] of money added to our plan. And um

[1:01:43] >> so just

[1:01:43] » so just

[1:01:44] >> gives me a vote of confidence that if

[1:01:46] » gives me a vote of confidence that if

[1:01:46] you say that your team can meet and

[1:01:49] exceed any kind of of uh of increased

[1:01:54] WDR requirements on our behalf,

[1:01:57] I'm good with it.

[1:02:00] So my my question to you Jason is the

[1:02:02] water the water board meetings are

[1:02:04] public when we could attend.

[1:02:05] >> Yeah the reason why

[1:02:07] » Yeah the reason why

[1:02:07] >> and you send out the dates for those

[1:02:10] » and you send out the dates for those

[1:02:10] for sure.

[1:02:10] >> I personally think a board member or two

[1:02:13] » I personally think a board member or two

[1:02:13] showing up with a commentary that says

[1:02:16] hey these are the strictest already and

[1:02:17] to go further you're going to bankrupt

[1:02:19] you know the community. Um needs to be

[1:02:22] said.

[1:02:23] >> Yeah. Uh again, as as Scott mentioned,

[1:02:25] » Yeah. Uh again, as as Scott mentioned,

[1:02:25] we we don't have a crystal ball, but

[1:02:27] we've got no indication they plan on

[1:02:29] going that direction.

[1:02:31] >> This is a policy.

[1:02:33] » This is a policy.

[1:02:33] >> We all know Maui decision and how it

[1:02:36] » We all know Maui decision and how it

[1:02:36] could potentially impact us. We there we

[1:02:38] just unfortunately we don't I would love

[1:02:40] to know. I would almost rather knowing

[1:02:43] that it's going strict, you know, and

[1:02:45] just get it done than have it hanging

[1:02:47] over us. But

[1:02:49] >> and and staff did initiate the

[1:02:51] » and and staff did initiate the

[1:02:51] conversations with the water board to

[1:02:53] look for revisions to our permit, not

[1:02:55] just to verify the discharge limits, but

[1:02:57] there were some other things was looking

[1:02:58] for. Um the reason I bring it up is a

[1:03:03] lot of times to Jason's point,

[1:03:05] wastewater treatment facilities get hit

[1:03:06] with new nutrient limits kind of out of

[1:03:08] the blue and they have to scramble to

[1:03:10] address those. In our case, we're trying

[1:03:12] to plan long-term CIP around fiscally

[1:03:16] sound decision decisions with our

[1:03:18] budget. And so, we wanted to force the

[1:03:20] conversation to ensure the water board

[1:03:22] wasn't going to as we're approaching 90%

[1:03:25] design with this project get hit with

[1:03:27] lower limits after the fact. They still

[1:03:29] do it, but the idea is that if we have

[1:03:31] them revisit our permit now and we can

[1:03:33] get that in time to know that our limits

[1:03:35] aren't going to change, then it's an

[1:03:36] economically and fiscally sound policy

[1:03:38] to design this specific system. If they

[1:03:40] change something, then inevitably that

[1:03:42] is a risk the agency is going to have to

[1:03:44] take is that we're marching down after a

[1:03:46] PDR and then the water board did that to

[1:03:50] director Clement's point. That's when

[1:03:52] you start talking about rate to treat,

[1:03:53] right? And the cost incurred on rate

[1:03:55] pairs and and then the state's

[1:03:57] willingness to hear those commentary

[1:03:59] points. But a lot of it's just driven by

[1:04:02] the EPA and what they want to see out of

[1:04:04] water body.

[1:04:06] But but kind of on the WDR

[1:04:10] um

[1:04:11] limit setting process that that does go

[1:04:15] through public board hearing. So I think

[1:04:17] the way that would typically play out is

[1:04:19] right now it's at a staff level of uh

[1:04:22] dialogue at some point. There will be

[1:04:25] communication from their staff to us

[1:04:28] saying here's what we're looking at. Uh,

[1:04:31] and then if that's

[1:04:34] something we feel like we're comfortable

[1:04:37] with, then there's probably not a whole

[1:04:39] lot of lobbying. And

[1:04:41] >> yeah, at that point we're like, this

[1:04:45] » yeah, at that point we're like, this

[1:04:45] could be a big deal. That's where we,

[1:04:47] you know, think about what's the

[1:04:49] political strategy to, you know,

[1:04:52] potentially try to create an influence

[1:04:55] on that. Seems like it's a little

[1:04:56] premature right now.

[1:04:58] >> I I would agree with that.

[1:05:00] » I I would agree with that.

[1:05:00] I think we need to find out what our new

[1:05:04] discharge requirements are and not draw

[1:05:06] a lot of public attention to it until it

[1:05:09] becomes an issue needing to be

[1:05:10] addressed. Right.

[1:05:11] >> See what they are. I mean that's that's

[1:05:13] » See what they are. I mean that's that's

[1:05:13] the end of the process.

[1:05:14] >> Not see what they are but preliminary

[1:05:15] » Not see what they are but preliminary

[1:05:15] numbers that they're planning that

[1:05:17] should be proposed.

[1:05:19] >> Right.

[1:05:21] » Right.

[1:05:21] It's a risk and staff feel pretty

[1:05:23] comfortable that this plan has

[1:05:26] identified enough resources toward

[1:05:28] mitigating a potential risk that it

[1:05:30] gives us enough of a safety blanket in

[1:05:33] the event that it happens, but we're not

[1:05:34] going to waste a bunch of money going

[1:05:36] down that road just yet.

[1:05:38] >> I I think what I'm hearing is that that

[1:05:41] » I I think what I'm hearing is that that

[1:05:41] risk is the risk no matter what if

[1:05:44] that's this plan that we currently have

[1:05:46] or it would have been one of the other

[1:05:48] options. What I'm hearing is the plant

[1:05:51] we're looking at has perhaps the best

[1:05:59] I think you call it plugandplay option

[1:06:02] going forward that that plan would be

[1:06:06] the easiest one to

[1:06:07] >> adapt

[1:06:08] » adapt

[1:06:08] >> adapt. Thank you. That was what was

[1:06:10] » adapt. Thank you. That was what was

[1:06:10] identified in the report is this

[1:06:12] positions us best out of all the

[1:06:14] existing current treatment options on

[1:06:16] the market to achieve our current limits

[1:06:18] and positions us for lower future

[1:06:21] limits. But we would have to add

[1:06:23] additional processes to get down because

[1:06:25] because if you were going to RO you'd

[1:06:27] have to have a membrane process ahead of

[1:06:28] that RO anyway. So you'd have to have

[1:06:30] ultra filtration or membrane that

[1:06:31] process ahead of that. So you're already

[1:06:33] putting in the membrane process. So

[1:06:38] >> thank you Scott. I didn't mean to throw

[1:06:40] » thank you Scott. I didn't mean to throw

[1:06:40] that in there, but it's a moving target

[1:06:43] and um

[1:06:45] you you guys gave me a vote of

[1:06:47] confidence that uh we can get this we

[1:06:50] can get this done if we have that

[1:06:54] anomaly happen.

[1:06:55] >> It's a good point.

[1:06:58] » It's a good point.

[1:06:58] >> We have any more comments or questions?

[1:07:01] » We have any more comments or questions?

[1:07:01] >> Government,

[1:07:06] please.

[1:07:06] >> Indeed. I'll make a motion to

[1:07:10] » Indeed. I'll make a motion to

[1:07:10] I'm going to read it right now. Yeah.

[1:07:11] Approve the nutrient removal

[1:07:13] improvements project engineering design

[1:07:15] contract.

[1:07:16] >> Second

[1:07:18] » Second

[1:07:18] now not to exceed

[1:07:21] uh 187 or what was it?

[1:07:25] >> So the language is we would sign a

[1:07:26] » So the language is we would sign a

[1:07:26] contract withdrawal for that 18,600

[1:07:31] 98,000 approximately. The not to exceed

[1:07:34] is that amount. any additional amount

[1:07:36] they want to charge has to come to us in

[1:07:38] writing with a request for an amendment

[1:07:40] for a scope and fee. Staff would be

[1:07:41] authorized to spend up to 19.3 million

[1:07:44] without having to come back to the board

[1:07:45] for authorization of additional funds

[1:07:47] for this project. So instead of every

[1:07:49] time we have scope creep in the past we

[1:07:52] have to come back to you to ask for $5

[1:07:54] and it takes me 20 minutes to explain

[1:07:55] why we need $5 and in this case that's

[1:07:57] per exaggeration but that there's a

[1:08:00] reasonable expectation that we need a

[1:08:02] little bit of contingency in there for

[1:08:03] things. I lowered it to 3%. On smaller

[1:08:07] projects, you might see a number like

[1:08:08] 10%. Right? Where if it's a $200,000

[1:08:11] job, design fees with engineers can vary

[1:08:14] with one task could take up to 10%,000

[1:08:17] scope and beed. So in this case, we try

[1:08:20] to throw out the 3% optimization as a

[1:08:22] reasonable level that the board would

[1:08:24] trust staff that be within a working

[1:08:26] range within the project's overall scope

[1:08:28] before needing to come back for a major

[1:08:30] scope for something substantial like

[1:08:33] designing a side stream or or building

[1:08:37] something that was not planned to.

[1:08:42] » Okay, Rochelle, could you um repeat the

[1:08:46] motion on the floor, please? We have a

[1:08:48] motion by Director Hanssburg and a

[1:08:50] second by Director Clement for the

[1:08:52] approval of the nutrient removal

[1:08:55] improvements project engineering design

[1:08:57] contract. All in favor?

[1:09:01] >> I I

[1:09:07] I'd like to make a a comment since I've

[1:09:10] been on this board. This was the best

[1:09:13] discussion and best questions and

[1:09:16] comments of anything that in the last

[1:09:19] three years that I participated. So big

[1:09:22] deal

[1:09:25] a lot more discussions.

[1:09:26] >> Well, I'm glad we got rid of all the

[1:09:27] » Well, I'm glad we got rid of all the

[1:09:27] slackers. That's good.

[1:09:36] » Sorry. Couldn't help it.

[1:09:38] >> That's a tough act to follow in. I lost

[1:09:40] » That's a tough act to follow in. I lost

[1:09:40] half of my audience. So, I'm not take

[1:09:42] that personal, guys. Thanks.

[1:09:45] They're tired of the sound of mine.

[1:09:48] >> Sorry, I didn't move it ahead.

[1:09:49] » Sorry, I didn't move it ahead.

[1:09:49] >> That's all right. I'm gonna just take a

[1:09:50] » That's all right. I'm gonna just take a

[1:09:50] technology break. Here we go.

[1:09:53] >> We're good.

[1:09:53] » We're good.

[1:09:53] >> Right. Well, good morning, President

[1:09:56] » Right. Well, good morning, President

[1:09:56] Wilson, members of the board. I

[1:09:58] constantly fail to introduce myself here

[1:10:00] because I feel like everyone is tired of

[1:10:01] hearing the sound of my voice, but I'm

[1:10:04] Liz Cook, your fearless finance leader,

[1:10:05] and I'm here today to take care of

[1:10:07] something in my realm is called

[1:10:09] housekeeping. in your realm is probably

[1:10:12] a much bigger and more significant

[1:10:14] moment because I don't believe that we

[1:10:15] have done a reimbursement resolution

[1:10:17] before. So, I'm going to quickly walk

[1:10:19] you through what the housekeeping item

[1:10:20] is and this is going to kick us off on

[1:10:23] our debt journey. I have stood at this

[1:10:25] podium. I have stood sat in this room

[1:10:27] around the table at a Corollo camp and

[1:10:30] held conversations about when it would

[1:10:32] be time to issue debt, the steps that

[1:10:34] need to happen until I have the

[1:10:36] documents or I have the data to build

[1:10:38] documents that I need to take to the

[1:10:39] rating agency. We've been working on all

[1:10:41] of that. So, this is our first official

[1:10:43] step with the reimbursement resolution.

[1:10:46] What is it? It's a legal document that

[1:10:48] I'm requesting that you approve in

[1:10:49] science day that gives us the ability

[1:10:52] from 60 days prior. So if you approve it

[1:10:55] today, I could go back to July 17th and

[1:10:58] anytime this fiscal year that I issue

[1:11:00] debt, I can reimburse our toppers for

[1:11:02] any money that's been spent. Now, that

[1:11:04] would be a super cool story if I was

[1:11:06] going to tell you we spent millions of

[1:11:07] dollars already this year. We spent less

[1:11:09] than a hundred on the two projects that

[1:11:10] are tied to this. But the approval of

[1:11:12] the Corollo contract today really sets

[1:11:15] that wheels in motion. They're going to

[1:11:16] be working and billing and we're going

[1:11:18] to start seeing invoices. So today I'm

[1:11:21] asking us to preserve the agency's

[1:11:23] ability to recover these costs that have

[1:11:24] been incurred or will be incurred

[1:11:26] through this fiscal year. This action

[1:11:29] does not authorize the agency to

[1:11:31] actually issue debt. It just says should

[1:11:34] you you now have the ability to do this.

[1:11:38] Last month the governance document that

[1:11:41] said I don't have to come here and speak

[1:11:42] to you every single month about our

[1:11:43] monthly financials. That was a good move

[1:11:46] because I'm still going to be here every

[1:11:47] single month talking about our debt

[1:11:49] journey. Um, we have lots of things to

[1:11:52] cover as a board. Um, I am working with

[1:11:55] Steven Gartler who has come here as our

[1:11:57] financial analyst. I'm actually meeting

[1:11:59] with him tomorrow afternoon to kick off

[1:12:01] what our calendar looks like. Um, what

[1:12:04] agenda items we will have for you all

[1:12:06] and when we can have a workshop. I'm

[1:12:08] looking to spend some dates out there

[1:12:10] for you all in October so that we can

[1:12:12] have our debt 101 workshop. You've heard

[1:12:15] words like SRF1,

[1:12:18] bank line of credit, um bond market.

[1:12:21] Those are all terms that I deal with

[1:12:23] every single day and you're only going

[1:12:24] to hear on occasion. So, the that 101

[1:12:26] workshop will do two things. It will

[1:12:28] give you definitions. It will also try

[1:12:30] to point you to questions you should ask

[1:12:32] when Stephen and I are spanning here,

[1:12:35] items that you should look for in

[1:12:36] documents that we put forward for your

[1:12:38] approval. Sound like a good game plan?

[1:12:42] All right, that was the short condensed

[1:12:44] version of the presentation. I saved my

[1:12:46] words for Scott. He still has another

[1:12:48] presentation to go. Um, but I would like

[1:12:50] to turn it over and answer any questions

[1:12:51] that the board might have about this

[1:12:53] reinforce my resolution.

[1:12:57] Liz, he uh used the term benefit

[1:13:02] of plans. So if um if we had not issued

[1:13:07] debt by the end of this fiscal year, but

[1:13:10] and then we still have expenditures in

[1:13:12] the next fiscal year, would we just do

[1:13:13] another reimbursement resolution for

[1:13:15] next fiscal year?

[1:13:16] >> It's my understanding that I'll be

[1:13:17] » It's my understanding that I'll be

[1:13:17] bringing you this reimbursement

[1:13:19] resolution every year going forward

[1:13:21] because we're going to be facing with

[1:13:22] multiple uh debt vehicles. Maybe we'll

[1:13:25] issue multiple issuances to the bond

[1:13:26] debt. Maybe we'll have a SRF loan and

[1:13:28] some bond debt. Um, and so we want to

[1:13:30] identify that.

[1:13:32] >> Yeah, thanks.

[1:13:33] » Yeah, thanks.

[1:13:33] >> Add more words to that answer even

[1:13:34] » Add more words to that answer even

[1:13:34] though you didn't ask this. I did

[1:13:36] include two projects. This isn't for

[1:13:37] every capital dollar out. It's only

[1:13:39] capital dollars associated with

[1:13:40] digestion improvement and the nutrient.

[1:13:43] >> Yeah. Good. Thanks.

[1:13:46] » Yeah. Good. Thanks.

[1:13:46] >> My question was sort of along that line

[1:13:48] » My question was sort of along that line

[1:13:48] too was 20 million. I was like, how do

[1:13:50] you like determine the amount? But I

[1:13:52] guess if it's just for the fiscal year,

[1:13:54] um, that makes sense. I didn't know if

[1:13:56] we had to put a limit on it. I put a

[1:13:59] limit on it for this year because that

[1:14:00] is the capacity of debt that I believe

[1:14:02] that we can spend. Stephen and I have

[1:14:04] been making charts. I brought Mountain

[1:14:06] and Bar charts here to say, I think it's

[1:14:07] here. I think it's here. Oh, we're going

[1:14:09] to be right here. That spending trend

[1:14:11] has now started. And so the 20 million

[1:14:14] um also is noted to be maybe 10 to 15

[1:14:16] year bonds, not that 30-year BL because

[1:14:18] it's a little expensive right now. Um,

[1:14:20] so we'll be bringing back information

[1:14:22] that will specifically lay out how we

[1:14:24] intend to borrow that $20 million for

[1:14:26] approval by the full board in the next 2

[1:14:28] three months.

[1:14:32] » Questions, comments?

[1:14:36] » Yep. None. Uh,

[1:14:40] entertained. Uh,

[1:14:42] >> I move to approve resolution 2025.

[1:14:47] » I move to approve resolution 2025.

[1:14:47] >> Yes. Second by director Wilkins,

[1:14:50] » Yes. Second by director Wilkins,

[1:14:50] could this be a roll call?

[1:14:53] >> Normally it's just ordinances, but we

[1:14:55] » Normally it's just ordinances, but we

[1:14:55] can go in and do that.

[1:14:57] >> Let's do a roll call, please.

[1:15:00] » Let's do a roll call, please.

[1:15:00] >> Director Clement

[1:15:01] » Director Clement

[1:15:01] >> in favor.

[1:15:02] » in favor.

[1:15:02] >> Director Cox,

[1:15:03] » Director Cox,

[1:15:03] >> yes.

[1:15:04] » yes.

[1:15:04] >> Director,

[1:15:06] » Director,

[1:15:06] >> yes.

[1:15:06] » yes.

[1:15:06] >> Director, yes.

[1:15:10] » Director, yes.

[1:15:10] >> Yes.

[1:15:10] » Yes.

[1:15:10] >> Thank you everyone.

[1:15:14] Morning

[1:15:22] again board members. Um here in front of

[1:15:25] you today to uh represent the Rotary

[1:15:27] Club. They're looking to add additional

[1:15:30] benches onto our property down along

[1:15:32] town of Truck East Legacy Trail. Um

[1:15:35] they're proposing in installing another

[1:15:37] four benches um in addition to the

[1:15:40] existing four they have on our property

[1:15:41] to make a total of eight. There was a

[1:15:43] map included um that I made for you

[1:15:46] guys. Hopefully, it's somewhat visible.

[1:15:48] I'll just point in here. It's easier for

[1:15:50] me at this point. So, two of them are on

[1:15:53] TD property of the 10 shown on this map.

[1:15:55] So, they're not relevant to us. And then

[1:15:57] of the colors shown on here, the pink

[1:16:00] are the existing benches. They they've

[1:16:02] already put in and the orange dots are

[1:16:03] the proposed locations of it. I didn't

[1:16:05] confirm all four benches being proposed

[1:16:07] are on our property. I'm going to

[1:16:09] straddle the line with the Cal right

[1:16:10] away, but it's just inside that line

[1:16:13] with that and turn it over to you.

[1:16:16] >> I move to approve

[1:16:24] » third

[1:16:26] motion,

[1:16:27] second by director. All in favor? I

[1:16:32] >> thank you. While we got this discussion

[1:16:34] » thank you. While we got this discussion

[1:16:34] going on,

[1:16:38] this is going to seem a little trivial,

[1:16:39] but I think it does have some merit.

[1:16:42] Um, I have uh some neighbors in

[1:16:47] Valley that use the Wilkins Legacy Trail

[1:16:50] regularly regularly.

[1:16:54] They've asked me and I don't know who we

[1:16:57] should talk to whether it be the the

[1:16:59] Rotary Club or the town of Ky

[1:17:02] that is

[1:17:04] there's no place for a female to relieve

[1:17:08] themselves along the trail.

[1:17:11] Would it be possible

[1:17:14] to sit and have some kind of a uh port

[1:17:19] somewhere along that trail man?

[1:17:23] probably nothing but

[1:17:26] that's why I'm looking at you.

[1:17:28] >> It's your trail and you should help us

[1:17:32] » It's your trail and you should help us

[1:17:32] out to maybe facilitate facilitate

[1:17:37] getting a portaotti somewhere along that

[1:17:39] trail midway beginning end or whatever.

[1:17:42] Uh because uh I I'm being nagged I'm

[1:17:45] being nagged about this trail and it

[1:17:48] doesn't have anything to do with TTSA,

[1:17:51] but it does go across our property.

[1:17:53] >> Sure. Immediately you can uh let them

[1:17:57] » Sure. Immediately you can uh let them

[1:17:57] know that there's restrooms up at the

[1:17:59] Riverview Sports Park

[1:18:02] which are which the trail ties into.

[1:18:05] >> That's true.

[1:18:06] » That's true.

[1:18:06] >> Yeah. So

[1:18:08] » Yeah. So

[1:18:08] >> hopefully

[1:18:09] » hopefully

[1:18:10] >> I I'll direct I'll direct the comment to

[1:18:13] » I I'll direct I'll direct the comment to

[1:18:13] you Dan the next time it happens.

[1:18:15] >> That's fine.

[1:18:15] » That's fine.

[1:18:15] >> You better hope you better hope that

[1:18:17] » You better hope you better hope that

[1:18:17] you're uh retired to me and tell him to

[1:18:21] call me in January.

[1:18:22] >> Okay.

[1:18:26] » Perfect. Thank you, Scott.

[1:18:27] >> Okay. Thanks. I had to get I had to get

[1:18:29] » Okay. Thanks. I had to get I had to get

[1:18:29] that in there.

[1:18:31] >> Well done.

[1:18:33] » Well done.

[1:18:33] Thank you.

[1:18:36] >> Okay. Uh so next item on the agenda is a

[1:18:38] » Okay. Uh so next item on the agenda is a

[1:18:38] brief discussion of the remainder of the

[1:18:41] calendar year into the beginning of the

[1:18:42] next forum meetings. We got a lot of

[1:18:44] holidays coming up. Um there's some you

[1:18:47] know decisions some years skip meetings

[1:18:50] to you know accommodate uh holiday

[1:18:53] schedules. I would just tell you the one

[1:18:55] thing um I have been communicated it's

[1:18:57] been communicated to me part in the past

[1:18:58] is that we must have the December board

[1:19:00] meeting whether it happens on the 17th

[1:19:03] or whether it becomes a special board

[1:19:04] meeting is irrelevant but we need to

[1:19:05] have a board meeting in December given

[1:19:07] timing for finances

[1:19:09] uh other than that we have this is the

[1:19:11] schedule as it stands and will happen

[1:19:14] unless

[1:19:18] you can't see there we

[1:19:21] Thank you.

[1:19:23] >> So if there is an opportunity for

[1:19:25] » So if there is an opportunity for

[1:19:25] discussion or if ever if anyone knows

[1:19:27] immediately off the top of their head

[1:19:28] they will not be available, we can have

[1:19:30] that discussion and make modifications.

[1:19:33] >> Yeah, I I'll I'll just throw out and I'm

[1:19:35] » Yeah, I I'll I'll just throw out and I'm

[1:19:35] not asking

[1:19:37] for modifications

[1:19:39] unless it's helpful to other board

[1:19:41] members as well. But I'm

[1:19:44] not going to be available for the

[1:19:45] October board meeting

[1:19:48] and then the November board meeting I

[1:19:51] will be uh out of town but I can

[1:19:54] participate remotely. Okay, that's

[1:19:57] helpful.

[1:20:01] And I will not be available for either

[1:20:03] of the January.

[1:20:11] B any

[1:20:14] No, we're looking good. I don't plan

[1:20:16] that far in advance

[1:20:19] like some of you.

[1:20:22] >> Yep.

[1:20:23] » Yep.

[1:20:23] >> I'll get with Rochelle. But uh it

[1:20:26] » I'll get with Rochelle. But uh it

[1:20:26] appears that uh I'll miss the uh

[1:20:28] November meeting, but I will be remote.

[1:20:31] I'll be here for uh December.

[1:20:35] Um planning ahead past December. I'll

[1:20:39] let you know, Michelle.

[1:20:42] Yeah, actually the February

[1:20:44] the February 1848

[1:20:47] not available for that one as well.

[1:20:50] >> Yeah. And again, if it if it's a matter

[1:20:52] » Yeah. And again, if it if it's a matter

[1:20:52] of someone won't be here and that's

[1:20:55] okay. That's kind of, you know, at the

[1:20:57] board's discretion, obviously it's a

[1:20:58] quorum. But if we're rearranging in case

[1:21:02] this would be the opportunity time, but

[1:21:03] if it's just you're going to be remote

[1:21:04] or you're not going to be available,

[1:21:06] then I think we can manage that.

[1:21:08] >> As long as we can

[1:21:11] » As long as we can

[1:21:11] district boundary.

[1:21:13] Uh

[1:21:14] >> I have no at this time. And I don't have

[1:21:16] » I have no at this time. And I don't have

[1:21:16] any conf

[1:21:45] Morning

[1:21:46] board of directors. President

[1:21:50] um Michael P operations department

[1:21:52] manager. Um so for the operations

[1:21:55] department report for the month uh all

[1:21:58] plant waste discharge requirements were

[1:22:00] met performed well. Um after competitive

[1:22:05] in-house selection process, two

[1:22:08] operators were promoted to senior

[1:22:09] operator positions and um we had zero

[1:22:14] completed work orders for pending.

[1:22:23] Uh this was the flows and the limits for

[1:22:27] the month for affluent

[1:22:30] and the cost chemical to consider.

[1:22:34] Any questions for

[1:22:41] Thank you.

[1:22:50] All right. Good morning.

[1:22:56] All right. So for the month of August,

[1:22:58] um we did provide support for digestion

[1:23:00] improvements project, nutrition removal

[1:23:02] project which we've discussed at length

[1:23:04] today. So um the redundant serving

[1:23:07] project which was approved by the board

[1:23:09] previously and few months back um SCADA

[1:23:12] upgrade project which is a new project

[1:23:14] you'll be seeing uh shortly. Uh Scott

[1:23:16] alluded to that earlier and the TRRI

[1:23:19] lighting project.

[1:23:21] Um for the month, notable tasks for the

[1:23:24] month, replaced a bar screen water

[1:23:26] solenoid. Um made some modifications to

[1:23:29] that to a new style. Um ongoing

[1:23:32] replacement of some chem sludge valves.

[1:23:33] You'll see some pictures of that later

[1:23:35] on. What a chemother valve looks like.

[1:23:36] They're they're pretty in-depth. You get

[1:23:37] those things in there. We bought a lot

[1:23:39] of them. It's a big project. board new

[1:23:41] base for the digesttor number 30

[1:23:43] recirculation pump and installed the

[1:23:45] pump. Um, replaced dewatering centuge

[1:23:48] motor mount assemblies. Um, also a

[1:23:50] bigger job than it sounds like on paper.

[1:23:52] So, pictures of that. Um, ongoing

[1:23:55] defensible space abatement. Um, that is

[1:23:57] an ongoing project and we're developing

[1:24:00] long-term plans and goals in

[1:24:02] collaboration with Turkey Fire onsite

[1:24:05] training uh for barcreen and watch

[1:24:07] press. Uh, we had a come out with some

[1:24:09] training for us. was good at help us get

[1:24:11] through some of the issues we have with

[1:24:13] wash presses. Um we relocated and

[1:24:16] configured the smart cover for the TRRI

[1:24:18] lighting project and um we installed new

[1:24:21] conductors to the flock mixers and

[1:24:23] replaced the motors. You're going to see

[1:24:24] some uh pictures along those lines.

[1:24:28] They're old, they're aging. That's part

[1:24:29] of our aging infrastructure

[1:24:31] infrastructure that we need to keep up

[1:24:32] and running because that's stuff that's

[1:24:35] going to go away in the future. So,

[1:24:36] we're trying to do everything we can to

[1:24:38] keep them going, save money where we

[1:24:40] can. Um, we replaced the exhaust fan and

[1:24:43] the pipe gallery and some scrapers on

[1:24:45] secondary number four.

[1:24:49] Oh, sorry, I was on the wrong side

[1:24:51] there. Apologize. I wasn't following

[1:24:52] along there.

[1:24:58] All right. Uh, we still have three

[1:25:00] unfilled positions. Um the SKA

[1:25:03] specialist one two is um out right now.

[1:25:06] We have an open recruit for that. Um the

[1:25:08] other two are still being revised and

[1:25:10] assessed. Work orders for the month uh

[1:25:13] stayed pretty flat month over month with

[1:25:14] a slight uptick in a couple of areas. Um

[1:25:18] but we're still maintaining within

[1:25:20] certain margin of error there.

[1:25:25] All right. So as you can see that's what

[1:25:28] a flock mixer looks like. There's a big

[1:25:30] blade underneath that that goes into the

[1:25:32] basin. Um, you can see that's pretty

[1:25:35] old. Um, we spend a fair amount of time

[1:25:38] on those, but we do have to keep them up

[1:25:39] and running because they are critical

[1:25:40] for our operations. And, uh, that's just

[1:25:43] some pictures of some of our staff

[1:25:44] performing work on the conductors, uh,

[1:25:47] pulling the underground wires through

[1:25:48] and

[1:25:50] getting those up and running. There's a

[1:25:52] digesttor 30 recirculation pump and the

[1:25:55] base.

[1:25:57] And to the right there, um, I was

[1:25:58] talking about the motor mount

[1:25:59] assemblies. That's a that's a large

[1:26:01] motor that sits into that cavity for the

[1:26:04] blue motor bases there. So, it was a big

[1:26:07] job for both of our dewatering

[1:26:08] centrifuges. So, we found cracks in

[1:26:10] those. They had to be replaced.

[1:26:13] And that's a picture of some of our

[1:26:15] sledge valves. Couple of our staff

[1:26:17] working on that. We still have about

[1:26:20] that many more to do still on the other

[1:26:22] side. So there's this is anoid project

[1:26:24] when we can coordinate with operations

[1:26:26] for downtown

[1:26:29] and that's just one of the solenoid

[1:26:30] valves I talked to talked about earlier

[1:26:33] to the right there is the secondary four

[1:26:35] uh scrapers. You see those scraper bars

[1:26:37] now at the bottom. This requires us to

[1:26:39] do an entry into that space um you know

[1:26:42] with ladders and things like that. We

[1:26:44] have to have monitors and and whatnot.

[1:26:46] So, uh, we got that job done pretty

[1:26:48] quickly and, um, yeah, released at tops.

[1:26:53] Any questions I can answer?

[1:26:54] >> Uh, the three unfilled positions.

[1:26:57] » Uh, the three unfilled positions.

[1:26:57] >> Yes.

[1:26:57] » Yes.

[1:26:57] >> Do we anticipate any of them being

[1:27:01] » Do we anticipate any of them being

[1:27:01] filled by the end of the year?

[1:27:02] >> Well, we're hoping that the scape

[1:27:03] » Well, we're hoping that the scape

[1:27:04] specialist is going to be uh filled as

[1:27:06] soon as possible. The ENI technician

[1:27:09] position, uh, that's the one that's

[1:27:10] under assessment right now. Um, we

[1:27:12] haven't done the budget currently

[1:27:13] because if we needed, there was a

[1:27:16] position there. We have not filled it

[1:27:18] yet because we're trying to see the

[1:27:19] impact to the workload because it may

[1:27:21] present an opportunity to not fill it

[1:27:24] and eliminate the position.

[1:27:25] >> Okay.

[1:27:25] » Okay.

[1:27:25] >> So, we're trying to be as efficient as

[1:27:27] » So, we're trying to be as efficient as

[1:27:27] we can, but we need the data to say

[1:27:28] whether we do or don't make the

[1:27:30] position.

[1:27:31] >> Thank you.

[1:27:33] » Thank you.

[1:27:33] regarding CMS GIS technician. That's a

[1:27:37] position that we're looking at closely

[1:27:39] to hopefully redefine it um to get

[1:27:42] better value at it

[1:27:43] >> um for that position and that would

[1:27:46] » um for that position and that would

[1:27:46] require a rewrite of the job description

[1:27:48] as well. So, we're looking closely at it

[1:27:50] and we'll have more at a later date.

[1:27:53] >> Okay. Thank you, Paul.

[1:27:58] Morning

[1:28:08] again director Scott technical services

[1:28:11] manager uh provide you a technical

[1:28:13] services department report. So, starting

[1:28:15] off digestion improvements. Currently,

[1:28:17] we're uh working with Brown and call

[1:28:19] progressing towards that 60% design

[1:28:21] deliverable, open app, some renderings

[1:28:23] to show you guys on on what we're

[1:28:25] actually planning on building out there

[1:28:26] after that is received. Um, and then, as

[1:28:29] I mentioned previously, we're going to

[1:28:30] be working to get an RFP issued here for

[1:28:33] construction management services. Um,

[1:28:35] we've got currently, I believe, five

[1:28:38] consultants that all intend to put a

[1:28:39] proposal together for it. Um and so with

[1:28:42] that in mind, we'll have a selection

[1:28:44] committee and and hopefully in the next

[1:28:45] month or two we can come back to you

[1:28:46] with that recommendation to report that

[1:28:48] CM services agreement to one of those

[1:28:50] firms. Um and then we're working on

[1:28:52] critical path equipment uh items

[1:28:54] specifically needed to be pre-

[1:28:56] purchased, pre-negotiated, pre-selected

[1:28:58] with legal and with those vendors. This

[1:29:00] is specifically the linear generator

[1:29:02] that we've talked about that the board

[1:29:04] would need to authorize the purchase

[1:29:05] agreement with that proprietary

[1:29:07] technology to reduce our our risk of um

[1:29:10] getting price gouge during construction

[1:29:12] and then also a waste gas burner that

[1:29:14] we're looking to solic

[1:29:18] sourcing of those two pieces of

[1:29:19] equipment. Um I did include a schedule

[1:29:22] just as a visual representation for

[1:29:24] those that prefer these. So this is just

[1:29:26] a highle overview of where that project

[1:29:29] is at right now. So you can see we

[1:29:30] kicked it off in May of 2024. We started

[1:29:33] with the basis of design verification

[1:29:35] and then entered into final design this

[1:29:37] past spring. So we're progressing on

[1:29:39] track as anticipated to date and

[1:29:41] approaching that 60% design deliverable

[1:29:43] which is anticipated towards the end of

[1:29:45] October followed by an agency review

[1:29:47] period. Um total amount invoiced to date

[1:29:50] is approaching a million dollars as of

[1:29:52] their August invoice. So it's also in

[1:29:55] line with the task item amounts

[1:29:57] associated with each of those specific

[1:29:59] separate subtasks for those designs. So

[1:30:02] nothing to report yet, but I do

[1:30:04] anticipate a potential fee and scope

[1:30:06] some additional scope items that were

[1:30:08] not anticipated with that project.

[1:30:10] Specifically, we're designing a a new

[1:30:11] access road behind the board here along

[1:30:13] the fence that's going to come up to

[1:30:14] that new 60%. I will present those

[1:30:18] additional items that triggered that

[1:30:19] scope and feed.

[1:30:22] Um, moving over to Truckucky River

[1:30:25] Interceptor Rehabilitation Project. This

[1:30:26] is manual 33 to 35 Alpine Meadows to

[1:30:29] Olympic Valley. So, um, this is the

[1:30:32] first official week of the project

[1:30:33] kicking off. I included two slides ahead

[1:30:36] of where we're at with that schedule.

[1:30:38] It's probably pretty difficult to read.

[1:30:39] I tried to make it as big as I could

[1:30:40] while conveying the information. So, as

[1:30:43] you can see, we're on the week of 9:14.

[1:30:45] the contractor submitted a much more

[1:30:47] detailed version of this and he for

[1:30:48] whatever reason decided to build the

[1:30:51] schedule around Sunday and started

[1:30:52] working for them. Um so with this in

[1:30:54] mind this this gra our schedule for

[1:30:56] those interested represents when we

[1:30:58] anticipate the Truckucky River trail

[1:31:00] closures um to complete that work for

[1:31:02] the lining project. So, um, what I can a

[1:31:05] high level will tell you with the

[1:31:06] schedule is contractor made a very, uh,

[1:31:09] solid effort to minimize the full

[1:31:11] closures or hard closures of the

[1:31:13] Truckucky River Trail with Taho City PD.

[1:31:15] We've been coordinating with them. Um,

[1:31:17] so the the big challenge is while

[1:31:19] construction work activities are

[1:31:20] occurring during typical work days,

[1:31:22] Monday through Saturday, 7:00 a.m. to

[1:31:23] 5:00 p.m. shown in orange or yellow.

[1:31:26] There's going to need to be intermittent

[1:31:27] closures and no trail access due to no

[1:31:30] being heavy equipment to produce

[1:31:31] liability for ourselves as well as for

[1:31:33] TO city PUB. Um and with that in mind

[1:31:36] this week really the trail is still open

[1:31:38] up until Friday we're anticipating

[1:31:41] they're currently clearing out the sites

[1:31:42] for where they need to stage equipment

[1:31:44] around manholes and then they're also

[1:31:46] bringing in um highdensity polyethylene

[1:31:48] pipe HDP pipe that's going to be used

[1:31:50] for the bypass. So they're offloading it

[1:31:52] adjacent to 89 near Olympic Valley and

[1:31:54] you might see that depending if you're

[1:31:55] driving in that corridor and then

[1:31:57] they're moving it through a temporary

[1:31:59] construction to be secured over a bridge

[1:32:01] and then fusing it and dragging it onto

[1:32:03] the trail starting more or less uh this

[1:32:06] weekend. So um that's where that project

[1:32:09] is at as far as the scheduling goes. Um

[1:32:13] and I guess I can open it up

[1:32:14] intermittently for questions if you guys

[1:32:16] want to jump in or we can

[1:32:17] >> What was the total cost of that lining?

[1:32:20] » What was the total cost of that lining?

[1:32:20] It's approximately $1.2 million. The

[1:32:22] original estimated amount was like about

[1:32:24] 2 and a.5 million I think we budgeted

[1:32:26] for.

[1:32:26] >> So we were 50% of the uh

[1:32:31] » So we were 50% of the uh

[1:32:31] 50% of the

[1:32:32] >> Yeah, it was a happy surprise right for

[1:32:34] » Yeah, it was a happy surprise right for

[1:32:34] the the bids we received relative to

[1:32:36] what we anticipated to cost with the

[1:32:38] logistics of the project.

[1:32:40] >> 1.2.

[1:32:42] » 1.2.

[1:32:42] >> Yes sir.

[1:32:43] » Yes sir.

[1:32:43] Um, as you guys are aware, you just

[1:32:46] awarded the nutrient removal

[1:32:47] improvements project to Corollo. Um,

[1:32:49] scope and fee negotiations were

[1:32:50] completed prior to coming to the board.

[1:32:52] So, on the back end of that, um, we'll

[1:32:54] now get into contract with them, have

[1:32:56] them sign services agreement to be

[1:32:57] signed general manager to move into

[1:32:59] scheduling to kick off the project in

[1:33:01] early October

[1:33:06] lines. He's about um

[1:33:09] 90% done with the inspection for that.

[1:33:11] They're anticipating wrapping up this

[1:33:13] week. We'll follow all the CCTV call

[1:33:17] similar post television inspections and

[1:33:20] then we're all going to be awaiting

[1:33:22] deliverables. So the sequencing do the

[1:33:24] inspection work. They compile all those

[1:33:25] videos and then they put them into a

[1:33:27] format that they can hand over to us. So

[1:33:30] 50% of that payment will be forthcoming

[1:33:32] to be authorized by staff upon

[1:33:34] completion of the field work and the

[1:33:35] other 50% upon receipt of a complete

[1:33:37] collaborative from the contractor with

[1:33:39] prohibi uh lab activities quarterly

[1:33:41] pre-treatment sampling and annual

[1:33:42] sampling is occurring proficiency

[1:33:44] testing began this month and will

[1:33:46] continue throughout the rest of the year

[1:33:47] and then continuing California

[1:33:49] Department of Public Health co sampling

[1:33:50] optional task that they they basically

[1:33:52] provide us the materials and it's no

[1:33:54] real additional cost to us going and

[1:33:57] then corrective actions for the lab this

[1:33:58] month two with three pending. On the IT

[1:34:01] side of things, there were 29 completed

[1:34:04] corrective work requests with five

[1:34:06] outstanding. Um there's preventive

[1:34:09] maintenance for completed and few

[1:34:11] outstanding. And then there's ongoing

[1:34:13] work um with the firewall. The permit

[1:34:15] portal is ongoing with us as well for

[1:34:18] that. We uh we have some installed in

[1:34:21] test and remote software support for

[1:34:23] staff. So that way um IT department can

[1:34:26] remote in two laptops and desktops to

[1:34:28] support that if they're not available to

[1:34:30] do it in person. Uh website migration

[1:34:33] project and new laptop commissioning and

[1:34:35] rollouts have about I think 11 purchased

[1:34:38] this year for staff for outgoing old

[1:34:41] outdated laptops. coordination meetings

[1:34:44] with the operations technology team, uh,

[1:34:46] password vault integration for

[1:34:48] operations technology team, and then we

[1:34:49] piloted the new IT ticketing system,

[1:34:51] which has gotten pretty pretty good

[1:34:53] reviews from staff to simplify how we we

[1:34:56] go about processing work requests for IT

[1:34:58] related issues for admin and counter

[1:35:00] staff relative to using our asset

[1:35:02] management software.

[1:35:04] That's it from technical services. Any

[1:35:07] specific questions?

[1:35:12] We're good. Thank you.

[1:35:21] » Good morning again. It's still morning.

[1:35:23] We're making great progress on this

[1:35:24] meeting.

[1:35:26] So, I'm here to talk about the

[1:35:27] administrative report for August. Um for

[1:35:30] risk and safety, um we actually attended

[1:35:32] a mutual aid training down at TSD. There

[1:35:34] was some response training as a piece of

[1:35:36] it. It was really awesome for me to make

[1:35:39] contacts with for our team to see what

[1:35:41] happens when um one of our member

[1:35:43] agencies has to respond to something. I

[1:35:45] learned that I can make shapes and

[1:35:46] measure. That was also I learned my role

[1:35:48] and responsibility during this bill is

[1:35:50] not to be out on the ground looking at

[1:35:51] things but to be back at home providing

[1:35:53] numbers, contact information. That was a

[1:35:56] great regional training. We also still

[1:35:58] have our recruitment for the safety and

[1:35:59] compliance administrator going on. On

[1:36:02] the finance side of the house, we held

[1:36:03] our August finance committee meeting on

[1:36:05] August 12th, and we took care of making

[1:36:07] our AP payments, our payroll payments,

[1:36:09] all of those items. From building and

[1:36:11] customer service, again, no pictures.

[1:36:13] We're still working on our outdoor

[1:36:14] pictures, but she did go out and do two

[1:36:16] commercial account inspections along

[1:36:18] with the general duties. Uh same for

[1:36:20] purchasing administration, running that

[1:36:22] front desk and making sure that we're

[1:36:23] purchasing everything that we need. Um

[1:36:25] on the general administration side, I

[1:36:27] went to the CSBA conference in Monterey.

[1:36:29] I really did want to sneak a picture of

[1:36:31] my garlic bread bowl clam chowder in

[1:36:33] there. I just chose to talk about it

[1:36:35] instead. It was amazing. I also attended

[1:36:38] a few really great sessions. I went to

[1:36:40] anything that was talking about issuing

[1:36:41] debt or financing large projects. Um

[1:36:44] there was someone there from South Tahoe

[1:36:46] and we just financed a project. So I got

[1:36:48] to have contact with her and learn about

[1:36:50] their journey. I also went to a session

[1:36:52] on Monday to learn how to present

[1:36:54] policies to the board uh so that the

[1:36:56] board will approve the policies. though

[1:36:58] I hope to get a little sharp work for

[1:36:59] you all on that as well. Um, and as

[1:37:02] always, we performed various

[1:37:03] administrative duties at the pleasure of

[1:37:04] the GM or directed by you.

[1:37:07] Last but not least, here is a breakdown

[1:37:09] of our connection fees for August. A

[1:37:12] conversation came up in finance

[1:37:14] committee about the actual EDUs per

[1:37:16] year. So, I'll be adding some historical

[1:37:18] information to this and giving us maybe

[1:37:20] the last three or four historical years

[1:37:22] for connections. So, we can keep an eye

[1:37:24] on that as we talk about projections and

[1:37:26] looking at art.

[1:37:28] I

[1:37:28] >> think that does it for my report. Are

[1:37:30] » think that does it for my report. Are

[1:37:30] there any questions?

[1:37:32] >> Thank you.

[1:37:33] » Thank you.

[1:37:33] >> Hi, shorty.

[1:37:40] Uh so, yeah, lots on the uh packet

[1:37:43] obviously most of it covered by other

[1:37:45] departments in some capacity. I do want

[1:37:46] to just give an a special shout out to

[1:37:49] TSD for NCWA for hosting that event. Um

[1:37:53] we have, you know, a substantial

[1:37:56] pipeline and um it's a risk in our

[1:37:59] community. So having the local agencies

[1:38:02] communicate and work together to

[1:38:04] identify what that response would look

[1:38:06] like if we ever, you know, hit the fan,

[1:38:08] boy, that is a reassuring thing. So, um,

[1:38:12] lots of, uh, future resources is going

[1:38:14] to be committed to improving those

[1:38:16] relationships and getting more of a

[1:38:18] regionalized, uh, concept put together.

[1:38:21] So, I'll just again shout out that, um,

[1:38:23] we've been having, uh, various

[1:38:24] discussions about, uh, the land surplus

[1:38:28] and, um, not a lot to report on that.

[1:38:32] Uh, we had some interviews uh, as was

[1:38:34] mentioned in the operations report. We

[1:38:36] had a couple promotions, which was

[1:38:38] great. Um, love to see those things. Uh

[1:38:40] we had the first all hands meeting that

[1:38:43] I was able to present. It was uh it was

[1:38:45] a good time. We all kind of got together

[1:38:47] and established a little bit of the

[1:38:49] temperature and what expectations are

[1:38:51] and I think it was wellreceived. People

[1:38:52] had a good time. It was uh it was

[1:38:55] reassuring. Um the traffic fest

[1:38:58] happened. Good news about that is we

[1:38:59] didn't even notice it. So they've got

[1:39:01] that thing nailed down and it doesn't

[1:39:03] really impact us. So that's good story

[1:39:06] there.

[1:39:07] Um, we've been having more and more

[1:39:10] people attending conferences wherever we

[1:39:12] possibly can. We're getting more

[1:39:13] involved in CSDA, CSRMA, CASA, all of

[1:39:17] the kind of administrative things that

[1:39:18] maybe in the past we didn't have as

[1:39:20] thorough coverage on. Uh, we also have

[1:39:22] several individuals including myself

[1:39:24] going to webte in Colorado, which is the

[1:39:27] big industry uh, conference for the

[1:39:29] year. So, that should be amazing. You've

[1:39:31] got a lot of uh we're lined up pretty

[1:39:35] detailed with Corollo already scheduled

[1:39:38] to go talk to very specific um vendors,

[1:39:41] look at very specific uh operations,

[1:39:44] talk to other people that have gone

[1:39:45] through similar uh upgrades. So that

[1:39:48] should be very very busy. Um again,

[1:39:50] we're we're utilizing CSDA training.

[1:39:52] We're going to have uh is going to

[1:39:54] attend some board um secretary training

[1:39:56] and conference. So that's those are

[1:39:58] always good. Um and again uh uh

[1:40:02] continuing on with uh the outreach

[1:40:05] that's going to be you know that's

[1:40:06] something that's been brought up

[1:40:07] specifically by a couple open board

[1:40:09] members. Outreach is on our docket. We

[1:40:12] are moving into it now. We've got a

[1:40:14] story to go tell. Um so story is going

[1:40:17] to go get told. So any opportunities

[1:40:20] that you can facilitate in your boards

[1:40:22] or at your local agencies or even within

[1:40:25] the communities of that area, we would

[1:40:27] love opportunities to go and speak and

[1:40:30] get people kind of rallied around the

[1:40:32] the cause.

[1:40:34] Any questions?

[1:40:39] Think we're good.

[1:40:44] Uh final board comments or questions.

[1:40:48] I need to give a finance committee

[1:40:51] readout. I believe

[1:40:53] uh so at finance committee the main

[1:40:56] things that we talked about were the

[1:40:58] connection charge policy

[1:41:01] there's some interesting state

[1:41:03] regulations around it but something that

[1:41:04] we should look at uh definitely when we

[1:41:08] go to our next rate increase. Um, also

[1:41:11] on the agenda for October for the board,

[1:41:14] uh, you guys should be aware that we're

[1:41:16] going to put a policy in front of the

[1:41:19] board on reserves and how we handle

[1:41:22] reserves. Uh, it's really housekeeping

[1:41:24] in advance of going to raise any debt.

[1:41:26] We've got some funky ways of how we fund

[1:41:29] certain things that need to be fixed

[1:41:30] because right now it's not it doesn't

[1:41:32] make any sense. Um, so we're going to go

[1:41:34] ahead and fix that. Uh, we also reviewed

[1:41:36] all the capital projects. um including

[1:41:40] the

[1:41:42] me the membrane plant stuff. Um you

[1:41:45] know, if we have to go down the ozone

[1:41:47] path, we'll have to raise another 200

[1:41:48] million, but we're not going down that

[1:41:50] path right now. Um but we went through

[1:41:52] all the capital projects to make sure

[1:41:54] that we were on target with that as

[1:41:57] well. And then the reimbursement

[1:41:59] resolution, we talked about that. You

[1:42:00] guys approved it today. So that's really

[1:42:02] the readout from the finance committee.

[1:42:04] We feel that we should give you that

[1:42:06] every month when we don't present

[1:42:08] full-blown quarterly financials and

[1:42:10] everything else. Um, and that's the way

[1:42:13] we're going.

[1:42:15] Any questions?

[1:42:17] >> Thank you, B. You're welcome.

[1:42:19] » Thank you, B. You're welcome.

[1:42:19] See,

[1:42:20] >> I I just want I I couldn't understand

[1:42:23] » I I just want I I couldn't understand

[1:42:23] why we don't have alternatives as a

[1:42:26] board. You know, most agencies like this

[1:42:29] that I've worked with have alternatives.

[1:42:31] Um, alternatives, not alternatives.

[1:42:36] >> being a new alternative to

[1:42:41] » um, but and I assume it has something to

[1:42:45] do with the fact that we are written as

[1:42:46] a special act for this district agency.

[1:42:50] Excuse me. Gosh. Um, and I just didn't

[1:42:53] have I didn't find the time honestly to

[1:42:55] to really research it. So, it's not

[1:42:58] something I'm just curious. Maybe we

[1:43:00] could delve into that a little bit. I

[1:43:02] you know it's not a necessary thing but

[1:43:05] astronomy is odd. A and B I thought you

[1:43:09] know it does provide an opportunity for

[1:43:11] someone else to come and kind of learn

[1:43:13] about it and you know perhaps become a

[1:43:15] replacement for someone in time. So I

[1:43:18] wouldn't mind if we could maybe just do

[1:43:20] a little bit of research on it. Um,

[1:43:22] again, no rush, just

[1:43:24] >> so so you're talking about like like I'm

[1:43:27] » so so you're talking about like like I'm

[1:43:27] not going to be here for the October

[1:43:28] board meeting like Taho City PUD

[1:43:32] appointing an alternative.

[1:43:33] >> Correct.

[1:43:34] » Correct.

[1:43:34] >> Yeah. But each question

[1:43:37] » Yeah. But each question

[1:43:37] >> Yeah.

[1:43:37] » Yeah.

[1:43:37] >> So each organization would have to alter

[1:43:40] » So each organization would have to alter

[1:43:40] that

[1:43:41] >> if it's possible even possible. I don't

[1:43:43] » if it's possible even possible. I don't

[1:43:43] because it's a special act.

[1:43:45] >> Yeah. No, I get it.

[1:43:46] » Yeah. No, I get it.

[1:43:46] >> Very different. Um anyway, it just

[1:43:49] » Very different. Um anyway, it just

[1:43:50] struck me as I came onto the board. Oh,

[1:43:51] I don't have an alternate. I was really

[1:43:53] surprised that I didn't have an

[1:43:54] alternate.

[1:43:55] >> I'm not sure I could find an alternative

[1:43:58] » I'm not sure I could find an alternative

[1:43:58] in my case.

[1:44:01] >> Yeah, that that's definitely something I

[1:44:02] » Yeah, that that's definitely something I

[1:44:02] can research. Um I if the board's

[1:44:05] interested, I can make it a topic um an

[1:44:08] item for the board to discuss maybe next

[1:44:10] month or the month after after I've

[1:44:12] talked to legal and um done some

[1:44:14] research on that.

[1:44:15] >> Probably be anformational item first.

[1:44:18] » Probably be anformational item first.

[1:44:18] Legal would be what I would think. time.

[1:44:20] >> Cool.

[1:44:21] » Cool.

[1:44:21] >> Yeah. No r no rush. Just

[1:44:23] » Yeah. No r no rush. Just

[1:44:23] >> speaking of legal.

[1:44:24] » speaking of legal.

[1:44:24] >> Yes.

[1:44:25] » Yes.

[1:44:25] >> Can you tell us this?

[1:44:27] » Can you tell us this?

[1:44:27] >> Yeah. So, we um Josh was not available

[1:44:30] » Yeah. So, we um Josh was not available

[1:44:30] this meeting. Um and he had asked me if

[1:44:34] there was a desire to have an alternate

[1:44:36] show up for this meeting. And so, we had

[1:44:39] a pretty good discussion about his

[1:44:41] position, Josh's position on the

[1:44:43] necessity of having legal present for

[1:44:45] every single meeting. um and we came to

[1:44:48] the determination that uh when we have a

[1:44:52] agenda finalized, we'll take a look at

[1:44:56] it. We'll ask them to take a look at it

[1:44:58] and if either of the parties feel that

[1:45:00] there's a legal nexus or a benefit to

[1:45:03] having legal there attend that meeting

[1:45:05] that we can make that call what the week

[1:45:08] prior. Um that's how we're operating

[1:45:11] under this meeting. We did not elect to

[1:45:14] have his uh assistant show up. If that's

[1:45:16] not the direction the board wants to go,

[1:45:18] then we can change. But otherwise,

[1:45:19] that's how I plan to proceed with having

[1:45:21] legal present in the future.

[1:45:23] >> And we saved a thousand bucks.

[1:45:26] » And we saved a thousand bucks.

[1:45:26] >> It's a dollar figure. I don't know

[1:45:27] » It's a dollar figure. I don't know

[1:45:27] exactly, but yes.

[1:45:30] >> Do we have case?

[1:45:31] » Do we have case?

[1:45:31] >> Yeah, exactly.

[1:45:33] » Yeah, exactly.

[1:45:33] >> Do we have an update on the employment

[1:45:34] » Do we have an update on the employment

[1:45:34] pattern that got kicked around a couple

[1:45:36] months ago?

[1:45:39] >> No. November.

[1:45:41] » No. November.

[1:45:41] >> November. Okay.

[1:45:42] » November. Okay.

[1:45:42] >> Mid November. I'll have an update in

[1:45:44] » Mid November. I'll have an update in

[1:45:44] close session.

[1:45:44] >> Thank you.

[1:45:46] » Thank you.

[1:45:46] >> Um I'm I'm comfortable with that on the

[1:45:48] » Um I'm I'm comfortable with that on the

[1:45:48] legal. I'm very comfortable with that.

[1:45:51] That's

[1:45:52] >> appropriate.

[1:45:53] » appropriate.

[1:45:54] >> Okay.

[1:45:54] » Okay.

[1:45:54] >> Well, that I will let Josh know that

[1:45:57] » Well, that I will let Josh know that

[1:45:57] that is how we proceed.

[1:46:01] » I move to adjourn.

[1:46:04] >> You're on fire.

[1:46:10] » All right. Good job, Scott.

Board of Directors Meeting

Transcript