Let's call to order the uh September
17th
Oh,
I feel much better now.
>> September 17th meeting, board of
» September 17th meeting, board of
directors meeting for the TTSA.
Uh please silence your phones if anybody
has a phone.
>> Oh.
» Oh.
>> Uh that would be very appreciative. And
» Uh that would be very appreciative. And
at this point, uh let's take a roll
call.
Director,
>> I'm here.
» I'm here.
>> Director Cox,
» Director Cox,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> Director Wilkins,
» Director Wilkins,
>> Director Hansford,
» Director Hansford,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> And
» And
>> here. And I guess at this point we
» here. And I guess at this point we
should uh stand for the pledge of
allegiance.
I aliance to the United States of
America and to the republic for which it
stands. One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty, liberty, and
justice for all.
And at this point, do we have any public
comments uh for anything not listed on
the agenda? Do we have any online or
written?
>> No.
» No.
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh and with that, let's
» Okay. Thank you. Uh and with that, let's
go ahead and move forward uh to review
and adopt the agenda. Uh do any
directors wish to wish to adjust or move
any items on the consent or uh regular
agenda?
Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion
to adopt the agenda? Move
>> to approve the agenda.
» to approve the agenda.
>> Second. Motion by
» Second. Motion by
director Wilkins uh Wilkins second by
director Cox
and we need a roll call for that or all
in favor.
>> All in favor please say I. I
» All in favor please say I. I
motion approved
and I believe Vicki
you are up with pretty impressive
work.
>> Yes. Good morning President Wilson and
» Yes. Good morning President Wilson and
directors. Vicky Lefrono, human
resources administrator. And yes, we
have a pretty significant work
anniversary this month and that would be
Bill Pendar from the laboratory with 25
years of service. Bill was unable to
attend today, but we would still like to
acknowledge and congratulate him. So,
great job, Bill.
I think 25 years speaks
a lot about the people and the uh agency
and culture. So, thank him for us and u
he'll be at one of the next meetings.
Vicki, I do have a question for you real
quick.
>> Sure.
» Sure.
>> One of the things when I first came on
» One of the things when I first came on
board was lost time to injury. Do we
know is that still in the thousands as
far as days since we've had one?
>> Oh. Um, yes it is.
» Oh. Um, yes it is.
>> Okay,
» Okay,
>> that is still correct.
» that is still correct.
>> Yeah. And uh for the newer board
» Yeah. And uh for the newer board
members, I don't know if you know this
or not, but I believe a year ago was I
don't know 3500 or 5,000 or some
unbelievable number. It was literally
years. And uh I bring it up now because
that's the type of stuff that just
continues to pay dividends and it really
speaks to the culture of where we are
and the fact that people take safety
very carefully. So thank you Vicki.
>> Welcome.
and we'll go ahead and move on to the uh
consent agenda
and the approval of the board minutes
for August 20th, 2025.
>> Move to approve
» Move to approve
>> actually
» actually
and the ratification of the general fund
payments. I'm sorry.
» Do we want to amend the motion?
>> Was was your motion, Dale, to approve?
» Was was your motion, Dale, to approve?
>> Just the minutes. Just the minutes of
» Just the minutes. Just the minutes of
his committee.
>> Well, they're both together.
» Well, they're both together.
>> Okay. I I'll I'll move to approve the
» Okay. I I'll I'll move to approve the
consent agenda.
>> Second.
» Second.
>> Okay. Motion by Director Cox. Uh second
» Okay. Motion by Director Cox. Uh second
by Director Wilson or Wilkins. Sorry.
Uh all in favor, please say I.
>> I.
Approved.
This one's a little confusing to me, so
please be patient. The appointment of
the agency board president and vice
president.
Uh
» I can present this. No problem.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Uh so effectively according to the ATC
» Uh so effectively according to the ATC
act the uh board has a responsibility to
name the president and the vice
president on fouryear rotating basis. Um
two-year rotating basis and we are uh at
the end of that cycle. Currently it's
oddnumbered years um is when it gets
determining. So uh we uh before the
board is an opportunity to uh nominate
and elect a board president and vice
president.
>> So just a comment. So there was a long
» So just a comment. So there was a long
period of time I don't know 38 years
Dale longer where we rotated well where
we didn't like this was before I was on
the board but where the president vice
president was the same person for a few
decades back when Oz was the board
president and we changed the probably
changed that tradition maybe eight years
ago where we started rotating it.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> And uh I think it's a good thing to
» And uh I think it's a good thing to
rotate it. Um, you know, you've been in
the president role just for a few months
now along with Bird, you know, cuz
you've basically filled out the rest of
Blake's term. So, um, yeah, I think if
you're willing to be president again,
that'd be great. And Bird's willing to
be vice president again, that would be
great. And years moved.
>> Yeah.
» He made a motion for um, you got it
>> for Scott, your president, B. So yeah,
» for Scott, your president, B. So yeah,
I'll second that.
>> Okay,
» Okay,
>> got through that, didn't we?
» got through that, didn't we?
>> Very good deal.
» Okay, I think now the one that's even
more confusing to me is the uh finance
committee.
>> Yeah, so we uh released the government's
» Yeah, so we uh released the government's
document that uh Liz crafted to help us
kind of formalize uh some of the
policies and procedures of the finance
committee, which was very helpful. Um we
wrote it into that policy to appoint a
member uh two members from the board on
the same rotating basis that we do
president vice presidential appointment.
Um this is all uh this is not the law.
The other one was the law. This one is
our own internal document. Um so we are
at the same point. We need to identify a
chair and a new vice chair of the
finance committee
for the next two years. U who's uh you
know is it you and Bert on the finance
committee right now?
>> Yeah,
» Yeah,
>> you're kind of getting a loaded plate
» you're kind of getting a loaded plate
here. Um Scott, but would you be willing
to serve continue serving on the finance
committee?
>> Well, my thoughts are to serve until
» Well, my thoughts are to serve until
January 1. So
>> that's only a couple of months
» that's only a couple of months
>> and then and then
» and then and then
>> and then uh we've had discussions or
» and then uh we've had discussions or
I've had discussions with gather.
>> Okay. What about you B?
» Okay. What about you B?
>> I'm here man. We're good.
» I'm here man. We're good.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> You're to do it next year.
» You're to do it next year.
>> I'm going to get
» I'm going to get
>> Are you sure?
» Are you sure?
>> Oh no.
» Oh no.
>> All right. So we got through that
» All right. So we got through that
hurdle.
Okay.
>> Um, I think we do need to address who
» Um, I think we do need to address who
would be the committee chair and vice
chair because someone needs to kind of
coordinate the meeting and start and
stop and that stuff.
>> I I would recommend that B chair can be
» I I would recommend that B chair can be
the vice chair at this point.
>> It would be fine.
» It would be fine.
>> And then so the document that the way
» And then so the document that the way
that the um packet read it would start
in the at the next meeting. Um, are we
all okay with that? changing in January
to get a next meeting as stated in the
staff report.
>> Good point. I think we are that's what
» Good point. I think we are that's what
works.
>> It works for me. I just want to make
» It works for me. I just want to make
sure we're clear with that.
>> Very good.
» Very good.
>> Let's put it this way. Whatever works
» Let's put it this way. Whatever works
for you.
» That's the reality.
>> All right.
chair and
and directors
as vice chair beginning in January 2026
and motion by director
CS.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Second by director.
» Second by director.
>> Sure.
» Sure.
>> As previous. Okay.
» As previous. Okay.
>> All in favor say I.
» All in favor say I.
>> I approve.
» I approve.
>> Yeah. Good job.
And I believe now Scott, you're up to
provide us with
update on the
» Oh, you got
you're already
board members. President Wilson.
So Scott Fleming, inter technical
services manager and senior engineer for
agency here this morning to talk about
nutrient removal and this project. So um
you guys have have known for a little
while now this was coming and we're at
that point now juncture point decision
on how to proceed to the agency. I
provided a quite lengthy uh board memo I
think a uh rude in for you guys to just
be reminded of the background that's led
us to this this point in time here. So
I'll I'll touch briefly on on the
background and kind of go into the
necessities of this project and how we
ended up with a recommendation. So um
yeah, as most of you are aware, we
engaged Corolla back in 2019 to to
perform a master plan for the facility.
We had quite a bit of aging
infrastructure staff were struggling
with identifying the appropriate CIP and
out of that master plan it was it was um
recommended to move forward with the
redeplication of the facility. There was
not any alternatives looked at at that
time by staff and by Corolla to evaluate
other alternatives to us utilizing
existing treatment techniques and
technologies that were established in
the 1970s through the 1980s for
phosphorus removal for for a nutrient
and then later on in the 03 expansion
for nitrogen. A lot of those facilities
are now coming due at the end of their
useful life both on an equipment basis
but also on a concrete or structural
basis. were having facilities that the
concrete's delivered long part because
you guys have seen there. So with that
in mind um we've been we were working on
implementing that CIP or those
rehabilitation projects bring those
existing structures up to present day
standards. As we were evaluating cost
and rolling out those CIP programs, CO
hit. As all you were aware, construction
costs rapidly increased and we saw
projects coming in two to three times
what we were anticipating for budget
purposes or that CIP
along that process. The thought was
thrown out there. Are we really sure we
want to double down with moving forward
with the existing treatment technologies
for long-term plans for this agency, for
the community, for the region? And are
we positioned well if our nutrient
limits change longterm to be able to
address those changes by the water if
they get more stringent or if we get
pushed to an alternative treatment
process because of what's called an MPDS
permit. Right now we're permitted with
the water or waste discharge
requirements what we're required to
discharge into the truck and river
directly through our disposal field.
Those concerns led us to
uh sorry recommending to the board that
we pursue a nutrient removal
alternatives to process evaluation
study. We went to Corollo to basically
re-evaluate the master plan with current
today's dollars and establish whether or
not there was the necessity to look at
other alternatives that weren't
previously evaluated as part of the
master plan or an alternative process to
our existing treatment technique that
long-term would be more cost effective
to implement for the agency relative to
a 25-year capital improvements program
that doubled down on rehabilitation
treatment techniques. So that study was
kicked off in 2024 in March and we
completed it as you guys are aware
towards the uh early part of this year.
I'm going to jump a slide here.
So in that that report Bolo was tasked
with comparing the existing alternative
zero which was rehabilitation of the
facility which was the directive out of
the master plan to any other
alternatives in a universal alternatives
through a series of workshops and camps
plan camps are our role is acronym for
basically a very detailed workshop that
a couple of the board members sat it on
where we looked at all the options on
the table. We look at every treatment
technology that the country has to offer
and the world has to offer and look for
our specific discharge requirements now
and potential future discharge
requirements. How do we best position
the facility, the agency, the rateayers
to really accommodate those treatment
requirements for the water? They
provided us two recommendations out of
that. One was to move forward with doing
a five-stage activated sledge process
with MBR and then additionally a 10%
conceptual design that laid out how that
would live on the facility from
feasibility standpoint. We did look at
trying to I don't want to use the word
shoehorn but try to use existing
footprints in sites and the cost and the
level of complication needed to try to
establish
that we can meet our discharge
requirements were extremely concerning
and very cost prohibitive. So green
building the facility versus trying to
intertwine it with the existing just it
it didn't it didn't make sense. So with
that in mind they took it to 10%
conceptual design and they left it there
and said okay here's the recommendation
board. Would you like to accept the
study and go out looking for a
consultant to move forward with doing
final design for the project? And that's
where we've been at is working on trying
to identify a permit ident going out for
proposals from consultants. Staff issued
a request for proposals on a
qualification based selections process
which is pretty pretty standard in
industry for us to do that. I reached
out and contacted prior to that RFP
going out six firms that I identified
that were qualified. These are big
names, right? that we trust can design
this project that have relevant past
experiences delivering projects in their
size and complexity. Of the six, we
received two proposals and of those two
proposals, we are coming forward with
you with a recommendation based off a
universal decision by staff to recommend
that Corollo was unequivocally the most
responsive proposal to receive. So with
that, I included the proposal attached
and uh and have the fee in front of you.
It's about $18.7 million and typically
in the past we've done for for jobs of
smaller scale about a 10% contingency
for construction related. Uh Director
Wilkins has previously mentioned that he
would like to seek consideration for
future projects for design services
including contingency by staff to cover
unforeseen costs so we don't have to
come back to the board on a regular
basis if it's a small tweak or change
the overall design scope. And so with
that I included in here not quite 10%
just with the fact that it's such a
large amount of money to request from
the board this project design but rather
a 3% amount you know that equates to
about half a little over half a million
dollars. I think it's closer to six or
so. Um and with the expectation that any
major changes to scope or fee that would
exceed that amount back.
Um so with that in mind staffer come to
the board recommending that we enter
into agreement note and corollo engineer
has to perform a preliminary and final
design for new terms at $18,698,81
with staff authorization up to
$19,300,000
I'll turn it over questions. Can you go
back one slide? Yeah.
So,
a couple things jumped out at me on
this. Uh,
the annual operation looks like a delta
of about we're saving $2 million a year.
So, times 25 years is $50 million. And
then the annual maintenance. And uh
I know that when I looked at this, those
were the two that I kind of like focused
on. And uh
I guess what I want to say is I applaud
the way that everything was put into
the way you presented it because those
are things that those are the details
that I personally really looked at. And
uh I look at this as
one
the biggest infrastructure project in
our region that I couldn't remember. uh
it's not the biggest, it's one of the
biggest. Uh and two,
the decision we're making today is uh a
generational decision. You know, it's
since this plant was built, I've had
children and grandchildren and hopefully
not great grandchildren in the near
future. Uh, but that's I think it's
important to not just look at the
numbers for what they are today, but
look at what we're providing for those
generations that come. And that was
something when I made my decision
extremely heavily.
» Questions or comments?
» Yes. who the other proposal was and was
fe similar do we feel good about Kina's
being
>> so um that's it's an interesting
» so um that's it's an interesting
question so first the first first part
of that stand engineering was the other
firm that was reached out to and ended
up proposing on the project the agency
does not have a history of working with
that firm in any regard um they did the
Donner Summit PUD's membrane project and
they also did the Reno that expansion.
So, they're a huge firm. They're they're
very large and very capable. Um, their
fee, however, was quite surprising. So,
the fee came in at approximately
say it was right around just under $5
million, which was substantially
underneath what staff estimated for a
project of this size and complexity, it
would come out based on typical industry
standards. we um consorted or consulted
in staff and also just asked some
industry professionals what are we
missing here with their proposal gave
them an opportunity to provide that
additional level of detail and um
honestly I I'm not sure where where
directly it's missed other than we
consistently saw across the board in all
categories that Cor's proposal addressed
all of staff's concerns associated with
design and the reason we stand behind
universal recommendation from all of the
staff and all the code review panel
staff members are involved in the
selection committee is because while
stand is substantially lower and we're
not able to identify the specific
elements to a te that drove that the
concerns associated with what is being
left on the table are missed some of
that could be attributed to things like
sheet count there was over 300 sheets
lower on stand proposal because we
require them to provide a sheet count
for all the drawings and that's one of
the indicators of how much a project's
going to cost than what Corola was
proposing with. So you translate that to
millions of dollars estimated per
drawing sheet and how much information
that scantch is trying to convey on the
same page of a drawing sheet that grow
is. And I can tell you right now from my
experience that translates typically to
more open-ended designs that have holes
in them that allow contractors to take
advantage of designing on the fly in the
field and then pushing those costs back
on rate payers in the agency. So my
concerns associated with that proposal
and staff's work. We don't know
explicitly what could be left out the
plans and specs, but in order to achieve
a price point of that that proposal be
there are going to be things that are
performed that would be concerning for
us going into construction that would
subject us to potential substantial
contract modifications or contractor.
self.
I hope that it's it's a kind of a
convoluted and we can speculate all day
on why the feed was where it was for
tech, but the other day they did not
specifically explain to us how their fee
other than there was a couple nuances to
it. But as a whole, the GE count was a
very large driver as well as the
qualifications of the team that they're
putting together relative to the team
that was received proposal which we are
that we did work with previously.
So Scott, just to summarize what you
just said,
>> you're basically saying even though the
» you're basically saying even though the
fee was significantly less, the design
part of it seemed to have quite a few
holes in it that we would more we'd pay
even more at the construction phase
because the design would be flawed.
>> This is incomplete maybe is a better
» This is incomplete maybe is a better
word.
>> So I'm speculating here, right, Director
» So I'm speculating here, right, Director
Clement? and this is they they could
very well say we can deliver an
equivalent project or product for that
fee and give you that sale. It's it's
more of a calculate risk is the agency
willing to take to save millions of
dollars up front on the design. The
concern is does that translate over to
additional cost and construction? And I
I can't make any guarantees that would
come true, but that is my concern that
we see as staff as we get into design
projects with consultants that we
haven't previously worked with. And we'd
also see likely some substantial as they
get a better scope of of work
understanding with the project. There
would be probably some conflicts
associated with negotiating with be and
scope amendments the full detailed fe.
The reason I can say with confidence
that's a concern of mine is because I'm
actually working through that challenge
right now. Another design consulting
firm actually worked with us and they
are coming looking to come to the board
with the amended request if I will
recommend it if I think it's reasonable.
So we're already seeing that in design
with another firm and I would be
concerned that we'd be seeing that with
this project as well much larger scale.
Whereas with the Corolla proposal I feel
confident that the fee provided is a
fully inclusive fee that we are going to
get a complete product that will
minimize the likelihood that you learn
instruction.
Sorry that's kind of longwinded but do
my best here.
>> Sorry I just want to make sure I
» Sorry I just want to make sure I
understood what you were trying.
>> Yeah to your point. Yeah, that is my
» Yeah to your point. Yeah, that is my
speculation, but I know if I had a
crystal ball, I wish I did.
>> And and as Scott has already mentioned,
» And and as Scott has already mentioned,
we did a gut check. We we talked to a
half dozen other industry folks. Um
several of them were industry folks that
were considering proposing on this, but
chose not to in the end, but had already
reached a point where they knew where
their ballpark figure was going to be to
what they were going to propose. None of
them could explain that level of kind of
design. So that was a little tough
difference.
>> I did like that it's very comprehensive.
» I did like that it's very comprehensive.
I like the fact that it takes us all the
way through to the bidding
process and so yeah I just I was just
curious and that's a big difference.
>> It's a substantial one. It's one that
» It's a substantial one. It's one that
needs to be right. We did our best
clarification within ter scopes.
So you said staff universal a goes
can you tell me a little bit about that
process? Yeah. So, um, when we do a
qualifications based selection
committee, the way that we we do it here
at the agency is we develop and identify
the appropriate staff. In this case,
such since it's a such large project,
it's going to impact all departments. We
had representatives from ops,
maintenance, admin, and technical
services representing each of the
department managers and subsequently one
representative staff or enlisted an
admin. We didn't have to provide an
extra staff. So, she was the uh the
swing boat. Yeah. Per se. Um and so we
had a panel of seven staff members with
one from each department and subsequent
ones from maintenance and technical
services that on the selection
committee. The way we do it is we do a
seal sealed envelope feed based
qualifications um review. So we look at
their qualifications which are listed in
here back up to it or it's on there.
It's based off of experience, technical
approach and presentation and each of
those has a different weight. So the
primary weights associated with this
project were the fee the qualifications
and technical approach. The presentation
was worth I think 10% or so if I
remember right is 15 or 15%. Yeah. I
could look up the exact percentages but
um staff review those pieces of the
proposal and put a scoring weight next
to each one. Out of that comes a
recommendation from each of those staff
members over which proposal responsive.
We include into that the waiting of the
fee structure. In this case, the the fee
about approximately $5 million versus
scrolls fee of 18.6. We wait the two off
of each other for I think the fee was
30% or 35% in this case for 30 and uh
that's weighted into the overall
decision. When we waited the fee in,
Corollo based off of qualifications did
such a substantially more thorough
approach to their proposal and their
overall understanding of the work that
even with the fees factored in on a
weighted basis, Santex proposal, they
could still not come in this correctly.
They were close but because the feed was
such a large hated it but they were
still off by a factor of point. that we
felt confident everybody knew this is
the firm just on qualifications alone
without the B was more responsive than
when we factored B still he was
responsive
that give you
yeah I think it's important also to note
that those that were scoring did not
know what the feed was while the
selecting criteria just being
>> these open post all the qualification
» these open post all the qualification
reviews because otherwise it potentially
have some agencies don't even factor fee
into their selections. Instead, they
request the fee post selection. And
that's something in the future we can
discuss if we prefer to negotiate scope
and fee on the back end after we make a
qualification based selection. But a
project of this scale, we wanted to get
an idea that in a perfect world would be
a came similar. And that's why we
speaking with other consulting firms
knew that a more typical fee structure
would be closer to the role of there was
very large concern about why it's going
to take able to offer such a substantial
question.
>> Yes. Um,
» Yes. Um,
when you uh analyzed or reviewed the
qualifications between SANTC and
Curillo, was it a face-to-face uh
interview with the representatives from
SANTC and or was it a paper exchange?
>> So, it was both director Fox. Yeah. So
» So, it was both director Fox. Yeah. So
we in the proposal they have to list out
all of their their qualified team
members that are assigned to the project
as well as their level of effort, work
hours and availability. And then as part
of the presentation they're able to
bring in an interview setting during
that presentation they they had a
30-minut presentation followed by up to
two hour and a half two hours of
interview questions. And out of that we
were able to directly ask concerns and
questions associated with the proposal
to the team to identify if the members
of that proposal team were knowledgeable
and understood the challenges associated
with the project. And so it again did
add a little more to that. We had very a
very solid performance by extremely
with their presentation team. team
because we got all of the key members
involved in the project across the board
that we've already seen at multiple
workshops and we know have the technical
chops to deliver this project for us on
time and that was sort of the confidence
is there that it is a lot of money but
we know this team can de project
um
question Scott so I think it's it's good
that we've got the uh
work scope and the cost that takes us
all the way through uh bidding.
Would did you guys consider
um rather than a a recommendation to
award the entire contract
a recommendation to award like up
through the 30% design now?
um make sure the performance that we're
expecting to get uh materializes you
know through the design process.
That's that's one reason that it can be
useful. The other reason is that this
this project may be well enough known
that envisioning what's needed all the
way through final design at this point
may be more feasible. A lot of times
with these large infrastructure projects
as you as the design materializes
sometimes it gets more complex sometimes
it gets more simple. Um and often times
in that 30% design phase you
collectively as the consultant team at
the owner learn a lot more about what
the final project is going to look like
and what level of design may be needed
for that final project. So, um I I've
seen projects like this where rather
than awarding the entire contract, a
portion of the work scope is uh awarded
and there's a benchmark for both the
owner and the design team to touch touch
off of for what would be a future, you
know, contract on the design. But it
also provides both of us some
opportunity to
um kind of rescope that 60% and final
design effort once we're informed by
what comes out of the 30% design effort.
So do you have any thoughts around that?
>> Yeah, so there's there's a couple things
» Yeah, so there's there's a couple things
there. We we our standard contracting
terms or services agreement for
professional engineering consulting
services. We are obligated to pay for
the work performed and we typically pay
it out on on the time materials basis to
an extent per the agreed upon scope of
this. At any point along the way if we
don't have the confidence of the team
our contracts explicitly states the
agency has a right to to basically cut
the work loose. We'd be obligated to pay
them for the work perform date. So if
they were in midpoint design deliverable
and they had expensed hours for that
work but we had not completed
deliverable we'd have to pay off of
that. But to I guess the first point
there, we can consider after the PDR if
there's an identification that the scope
isn't quite hammered out to the level
that was in the original proposal.
That's where we'd be coming back if it's
a substantial increase with a an uptake
on the scope and being a a re-evaluation
of that scope to with the scope a
minute. The second part of that is is
you did hit on it. This project is
pretty well identified because we've
already taken into a 10% conceptual
design. If we would have taken adjust to
that evaluation or study, it would have
been more sensible for us to consider
just doing a PDR for the next step and
then considering putting out an RP
potentially for other firms and and
Corolla or whichever firm we would have
gotten or firms we would have gotten
proposals from would want to ensure they
weren't going to be excluded from bottle
design by doing that 30% design. But um
in this case, there are a couple
specific facilities where there were
concept concepts uh put into the
proposal that have not been fully
detailed out yet. Specifically, I'll
give one example. We have our two water
ponds that you guys the lovely pond part
next to over here that serves as uh
utility water for the agency around the
plan. And there are questions over the
strategy long term of how to utilize
that plant process water. as it relates
to this project. We've identified that
we needed to do a two water improvements
project. However, baked into this scope
is the expectation if we're already
rerouting the new plant effluent line
that goes to the disposal field that we
tee off of for the two water, we need to
identify how we're going to utilize the
two water pond or andor fire flows and
other things that that services. So
that's not fully detailed out is a good
example of what would be something that
in the PDR we expect to get more
detailed and know the cost at a more
concrete level and that should trigger
us needing to reevaluate if that's a
struggling point for us during that
preliminary design to come up with a
concrete solution without delaying this
project. So there are some things that
harmonize and Richard uh Blante
previously wanted a a specific broad
item scope in there that any other
projects identified during the PDR that
need to be included to harmonize this
project with our long-term CIP. So I
think he was mostly focusing on
rehabilitation of existing structures.
If we already have a contractor
mobilized on site, we know some of our
primary clarifiers are 50 years old and
need to be rehabilitated. Does it make
sense while the contractors out here to
include that in the scope of work? Right
now that is not currently identified as
a task in this project to rehabilitate
primary clarifiers but it's a question
to ask parole during the PR phase if
they can evaluate providers level effort
scope fee that we come back to the board
if it takes over right it's a
substantial change to the scope I think
the moral to the story is effectively we
didn't see enough constraint by going
with an entire package versus a PDR to
warrant going to separate efforts there
>> and there was also um some financial
» and there was also um some financial
forecasting benefits to having a little
bit of a solid this is going to happen
and this is the relative period of time
it's going to happen in so that when we
discuss the next point on the agenda we
can have better forecasting for if we
were to do a PDR maybe it was a third of
this cost and then we can assume
twothirds of that cost later but when so
there was a little bit of cloudiness for
the forecasting this this shored that up
a little bit for us um and we've always
acknowledged that there's going to be
several opportunities through scope
modification this project is no e so
>> yeah I mean generally things have to be
» yeah I mean generally things have to be
going
pretty poorly to take project to a 30%
design that switch consultants that it
happens but I wouldn't see that
happening here we've got a very good
working relationship with corol have a
high degree of confidence in the team
they've put together so that's that's
certainly not
certified uh it's really more the um the
potential for it's like oh gee we've got
another we got another scope amendment
we got another contract $18 million
contract is compared to you know that
strategy of you know do the PDR first
contracting that have a pretty good idea
as to what that next level of design is
going to cost but then fine-tune that as
part of a a future contract so that the
the the likelihood of or no uh ongoing
contract amendments because we've added
clarifier building to the work scope
where we've subtracted something. And um
because the other thing we should look
at is know if there's ways to simplify
the project and there's elements that
aren't needed then the design effort
that would have gone into those should
uh not be expended. But, you know,
sometimes having done a lot of public
works contracting, it's like, oh, that
design work ends up getting sucked up
somewhere else on some other design
element. It's a lot uh easier for that
to happen when the when when the
contract maximum is already set as
compared to if it's more incremental uh
over time. So, yeah. No, and those are
really valid points, right? And in this
case, I think you know what you see in
this level of detail in the proposal is
staff's identification opportunity
facility and knowing this is the
specific scope we know needs to be
addressed. So there's quite a there's
quite a substantial lift on their part
and I think that's why the fee is so
high is you see well not so high but
relative to the project cost it impacts
almost every facility in some regard the
or the other apart from what we're
handling on the solid side with
digestion currently and so I think you
know we're still there's make no doubt
about it we're still going to need to
have CIP post this project right an
ongoing work it's it's just more of to
that effect of where do we draw the and
and prevent and essentially with the
project and ensuring that we're not just
tacking things on going back to scope
amendments as we identify more and I
think when you read through the list of
items at the the start of scope work you
can see there's quite a lot there I
think I'll turn I'll let I just want to
answer your question Dan I mean I think
what you're saying is we want to have
the ability to be flexible and fluid as
the design progresses and we're totally
open to that we're not like okay we got
this contract we're going to design this
thing and set in stone. We we deal with
this all the time. There's going to be
changes as things become simplified or
maybe they're more complex. So, we're
totally open to being flexible on that
and renegotiating the scope of fees as
we see significant changes come about.
We're not we're invested in making this
project the best for the agency and
we're focused on that one goal
specifically. It's not about the, you
know, us getting the most revenue out of
this project. It's about getting the
best project for you guys. So, we're
totally flexible on all that.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
And it just requires diligence on both
that team and for the
>> and the agency reps to be monitoring
» and the agency reps to be monitoring
that sometimes sometimes you can lose
track of the what the original contract
was.
>> That was definitely one of the lenses to
» That was definitely one of the lenses to
push us through.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
In the event that they go that
direction, how effective is our
oversight commission team and
qualifications and to placement part of
the country and all those things were
all part of that. So
>> yeah recognized that it is going to
» yeah recognized that it is going to
require some several years of diligence.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Getting through 30% will be a telling
» Getting through 30% will be a telling
stopping point where we can step back
and say are we still headed the right
direction.
>> Right.
» Right.
>> Yeah. And I would encourage that to
» Yeah. And I would encourage that to
happen. So if we award, if we do award
the full contract,
that would be a good point for both us
and the consultant team to take a step
back. So okay, where are we at? Are we
still good with this remaining design
work scope or should it be
>> modified in some fashion based on what
» modified in some fashion based on what
we're seeing at that point?
>> Yeah. And with that point, I think it's
» Yeah. And with that point, I think it's
I didn't put the proposed schedule in.
It's in the proposal, but if you take a
look at the schedule, I think something
I heard from one of the board members
previously is that active involvement by
the board of knowing what's going on
with this project, not just from a
monthly update from staff, but also to
being invited and having an opportunity
to attend workshops and camps that is
fully baked into the assumptions with
this proposal. Part of the reasons we
need to have direct involvement so
everybody on the team, not just staff,
not just the consultant, but the public
as well as the board are fully aware of
what's going on with this. And so the
expectation or the hope is that some of
the board members, if not all, and we
can facilitate what is required are
interested in attending some of those
workshops. So they have a full interest
in understanding of where this is going
and doesn't get away from. So the level
of oversight from the board the
expectation there is there it's it's
going to be work for everybody not just
staff not just the consultant but also
the hope is that there's some level of
involvement engagement
well and that's part of this is the er
has substantial camp in the schedule the
expectation is some if not all the board
members however we can facilitate that I
know there's implications I think the
practic but make that word potentially
you know so if it needs to be held
publicly So be it, right? So everybody
can be in attendance, understand where
all these tech memos led to with the
overall are with the project. Make sure
we're all on the same page and we'll
have a sharper idea of what the costs
are going to be. And if that's the time
we start talking about value
engineering, we can do that, right? As
well as along the way with looking for
creative cost effective solutions with
this project considering it.
>> Yeah. And and then one final comment
» Yeah. And and then one final comment
kind of goes the cost differential
between two proposals.
the you know we've got a small by
comparison engineering staff here that
has a lot of work that they're you're
trying to get done other than this
project. You know, the fact that the
Corono team has a bit of familiarity
with the plant and the organization that
they do uh will in my opinion
make this you moving this project design
forward a lot less labor intensive
particularly on the front end for our
internal staff. Um I I think if we were
bringing in a new team,
uh there's could easily be a 12-month
period of getting that group familiar
with our plan and the people here and
our organization that I think would
directly impact the schedule of the
design. I'm confident that the Corollo
team given their background will be able
to
um move much more rapidly uh into the
design phase of this without the need
you know for that I guess familiar
familiarization
with the plant and the organization
that would be needed with a different
team but I I think there's value in that
as well. Yeah, and talking about
workload, it's I know the situation
right now as I'm living in it, but the
expectation on my end is being able to
identify when we get to a point with key
milestone deliverables, having the avail
ability to get a secondary opinion,
right?
Jacobs is another firm we've
historically used quite a bit or the CH2
and Hill and they're pretty aware of
this facility and so during major
milestone deliverables specifically and
I I've already alluded to this with this
team is there's the potential to engage
a firm if necessary and if there's
concerns presented about getting that so
hydraulic and and nutrient models
associated with forecasted loadings with
the facility is something that it it's a
lot of trust to place and I'm I'm not
saying I don't necessarily trust the
firm they have the full capability to do
it, but just it's a lot writing on one
firm and that's where at certain
intervals we might want to bring someone
in as a third party to provide some
secondary opinions or support for staff
for reviews of major milestone
deliverables. I'm not talking about
hiring a full second independent third
party uh project manager for us on the
behalf at this point, but just having
them available to provide some of those
independent third party reviews at
certain junctures where staff identify
those would require me that scope for
staff to come back to the board and
request those support services when
identif So right now, see how it goes
with the confidence level and where
we're at with the water board with
updates to our WDRs and where that's
headed, which is still ongoing
discussion with ops. Once we have a
clear picture on that with the the
updates to the permit and where our
nutrient loads are currently where they
could be and there's some major changes
which see that will drive also us with
the model in sizing with facility and
just getting opinions on sizing because
that's the worst thing is we're in
startup and there's something wrong and
I think just having that that comfort at
night knowing we had someone else take a
look and confirm those everything seemed
to pop would be a prudent thing for
depending on the associate vendor right
so That's also a heads up to us. She
might be hitting us up with another
contract.
>> I'm going to be hitting you up with a
» I'm going to be hitting you up with a
lot of contract over the next month. So,
but again, we need CM services for
digestion
out that needs to come back for third
party CM services because that's been
said there project. Um, and then
additionally too, we have some
additional identified needs with some
projects associated with our SCADA
upgrades that we're planning long term.
So the facility is hitting the end of
its useful life on a lot of our
programmable logic controllers that can
sell this equipment. And with this
project, we would like to harmonize the
replacements of those PLC's to position
the agency that have a cost effective
solution long-term development support.
And so with that, there's going to be
quite a few number of other contracts
coming forward that we're going to need
to hire.
So um and the timing of that is
something you're working on both from a
financial perspective with Liz as well
as with updating that capital program is
the whole suite and that's something
we're trying to aim by prom
um you know you had quite a few firms
that were interested and you talked to
them afterwards. What was their reason
for not proposing?
>> Yeah so I figured I might get this
» Yeah so I figured I might get this
question. So to be perfectly honest and
it's kind of a testament to the work RO
has done is the amount of upfront effort
RO has done taken into a 10% and their
history with this over the last couple
years made it too large of an effort for
them to overcome. They didn't think they
had that same opportunity that it wasn't
I I don't want to say the term a level
playing field because they had every
opportunity to propose on it. It was
publicly advertised. The time frames
were reasonable for them to get a
proposal to us in. But for a project of
this size, for a firm to come in from
the outside and put that that amount of
effort into your proposal, I was hearing
figures approximately 50 to $100,000
plus depending on the firm and how much
effort they want to put into it. And so
every firm has to weigh their workload,
their time frame. And so for these other
firms that I was hoping to get at least
200 proposals on, they just didn't feel
confident they could compete with this
team to receive. And that's what I think
you're seeing the quality of the number.
It is a it's a nationwide effort. You
can't just pull resources from one local
market for a project of this size. So
always bring in technical experts from
folks in Colorado, Florida, few other
places. I'm sure Tim could talk about
that that provide the staff, the agency
that the knowledge knowing we're getting
those lead roles and they're assigned
the time for this project roles really
put those resources in where the other
firms with their assessments didn't
think they could compete on putting
those those resources to use in the
time.
stop you know
any questions comments I have one
comment
the Alpine board has been working with
Corollo on a new development that's been
in the works for 20 years
and it's a major financial commitment
and the developer brought in Stantech on
the other side to work with Corollo to
uh figure how to get the cost down.
And the surprise was, well, you need to
change your standards and your policies
and procedures
so that you don't have to deliver as
high level of service was the response
from St.
I don't have the final reports or
anything else, but that was a little bit
shocking. So yeah, to compromise your
standards to cut costs and, you know,
make something happen for whoever else
is paying you, uh, frankly, um, is not a
good sign.
» Yeah. Are you comfortable with
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
I I got a a question and you might have
alluded to what Scott and it got by me,
but
I attended the the camp meetings that
Corillo put on and repeatedly I heard
that
our agency has a wastewater discharge
requirement that exceeds any level that
Carillo has ever worked with before.
And
with that being said, Scott,
our wastewater um discharge requirements
are kind of at a level right now that
Curillo is um preparing to do a design
phase.
Are we confident at this agency that our
WDR is going to stay the same through
the design phase of this project?
or at some point in time during the
design phase of this project, can the
state come in and intensify
our WDR requirements?
I know Tim's going to want responsible,
but let me
>> Yeah, let me let me address your comment
» Yeah, let me let me address your comment
because what I what I see
>> is that as we move forward, we have
» is that as we move forward, we have
waste discharge requirements that are
the highest in the industry. And that
does not mean that they can't go higher.
And if they go higher, is Curillo
prepared to meet that demand?
So I I I'm not going to speak directly
on behalf of them, but let me first talk
about ours and I'll I'll also I want to
bring Mike on this conversation. So
currently we're on an existing WDR
permit that was established after the
last plan expansion, right? I think it's
>> 2002
» 2002
>> 2002. See, that's uh that's 22 years
» 2002. See, that's uh that's 22 years
ago.
>> And that those limits partially were
» And that those limits partially were
driven by there was an active and it was
a settlement between ourselves and some
other entities that all discharge into
the Truckucky River. Those discharge
limits set by our state water board are
set under the assumption we're not a
direct discharger to the Truckucky River
and our limits are driven explicitly.
And Jason's also very informed on this
talk about it. So I can we can turn it
over to a couple people to get to the
heart of the matter here. We won't know
explicitly what the state's planning,
but we don't anticipate substantial
changes to our WDRs. Is that relatively
correct?
>> That's the the general intuition we're
» That's the the general intuition we're
getting based off some preliminary
conversations with the water board. We
don't have a draft permanent review, but
once we do, we'll confirm that. The
second part of your question was more
associated with if we did get pushed to
stricter limits. Let's say we got pushed
to an M MPDES permit which is a direct
discharge of the river and they said new
limits for us at that point is Corollo
position to adapt to provide us the
technologies and improvements at the
facility to meet those lower limits. I
believe the answer is yes. And because
they already in their initial study
evaluated that if your your limits get
pushed down to a lower level, you're
talking about intensification systems
like sideream treatment using reverse
osmosis that are very cost prohibitive
and you don't you position and design
the facility to be able to prepare if we
got pushed in that direction. But we're
not actively designing to have those in
this project because it would be you
look at it as a a price per gallon
treat. is is kind of the holistic look I
I like to look at with the wastewater
industry and because of our limits our
price per gallon treated is is quite a
bit higher than a lot of other but we'll
be after this project right now rates
don't reflect that but we'll be longterm
more in line with other markets that
have to treat to these levels right so I
guess Dale to your point and your
question this grow team I'm sure has
staff on hand that can design those
systems and Ricky confirmed first ice
cream treatment processes to get our
limits down to meet future discharge
requirements if necessary. And what
plays into that and something I baked
into this proposal requirement is we
currently use sodium chloride. We moved
away from chlorine gas and there were
always concerns associated with TDS with
our permit. The intent is that if
longterm we have issues with our
disinfection technology. currently using
impacting permanent limits in the
future. We could implement something
like a ultraviolet UV system that can
disinfect instead that doesn't tick us
out. And so with that expectation from
Corolla with this team is to design the
facility to accommodate a future and and
this will be a PDR juncture point at the
camp is we have sodium hypocchlorite
tanks that are going to be three or 4
hundred yards away from the proposed
site. So we're going to either dog leg
out or bring a pipe over to this new
facility to connect those tanks in or we
can look at the cost of doing UV now
versus at a later date and that
positions us again as well for being
like ready for a permit change with UV
already in place. Right? So there's a
lot of moving pieces here but I have the
utmost confidence this team is is a
nationwide team that have seen quite a
few of these things. They they have to
make assumptions that are within cost
justifications for us as a community for
what we need to mean currently and then
plan for the future but not necessarily
implement at this time because it would
be overly cost prohibitive to put in a
side street Maro treatment and jack the
price of treatment way up if we don't
need to. So planning for it having the
space available and the design ready
that if we want to implement a future
improvement that can bring our limits
down that was the whole driver behind
going with the membrane facility. Sorry.
Rick, you want to add anything?
>> Yeah, just Dale uh director Cox, I just
» Yeah, just Dale uh director Cox, I just
wanted to direct the record on on the
statement about um having designed
facilities that have these low nutrient
limits. So, we have designed several
facilities that have your current low
nutrient limits. So, the the TN 3
milligrams per liter total nitrogen and
total phosphorus of.3. Um, currently
Truckucky Meadows Water Reclamation
Facility down the hill, Reno has similar
limits to to this facility as well as
several designed in Florida in Colorado
and other places. Um, I think what you
were thinking was the lower limits, the
potential lower limits that we talked
about if you had to go to an NPES permit
that we were talking about a TN of um I
think it was a TN of one and a half and
a TP of 01. those are limits that no
other facility currently has in in the
country. And so I think that's that's
where that confusion was. So yeah, there
have been facilities designed to those
low limits and those would require um
adding in something like uh like what
Scott was talking about a partial RO to
to potentially to get there because of
the salt organic nitrogen that's really
hard to remove and it's something that
Tom's looking at right now currently as
well because of of where they're uh
they're are currently with their permit
with the ND. So anyway, but um as far as
the the current limits, the three and
the.3, we have design of the facilities
that meet those and we're highly
confident that that we yeah, we won't
have any trouble getting there with our
design. Also wanted to say that the
selected alternative, the one of the
reasons we selected this alternative and
your staff selected this alternative was
because it's the best available
technology to meet those limits
currently. And so we wanted to best
position the agency to not only meet the
current limits, but if you did get more
strict limits in the future that you'd
be best positioned to meet those as
well.
>> You're confident that you can meet the
» You're confident that you can meet the
if if there is a a surge in
in intensity in our WDR. You're
confident that you can meet that meet
that goal
>> if if it gets more stringent.
» if if it gets more stringent.
>> Yes. We there there with the current the
» Yes. We there there with the current the
current alternative the way it's laid
out we're we're designing it to meet the
3 and.3. If it gets more strategic
there's probably going to be some
add-ons. We'll have to evaluate what
gets added on to it. Um but there's ways
to do that and we'll have to look at
strategy. So another strategy could be
maybe look at you know reducing the
amount of discharge you know to the
river or to to the uh not to the river
but to the uh disposal field right. um
if there's ways to offset with um
purchasing water rights so you're not
discharging as much out of it. It gets
complicated but there's other strategies
that could be looked at in addition to
to the treatment. So, it's an
interesting time with the PDR and in it
works. So, I keep saying 100 because
that's like the picture I want all of us
is we need to come around a long-term
solution for this facility in the
region, right? Whether it's this
direction or you know, we would have
changed directions on and gone a
different route. We we have to come up
with a plan that we can base financial
decisions off of for Liz, but also
benefit and ensure long treat long-term
treatment solutions for the area. And so
with the WDR and the water board, we
have been given a a general
understanding that by the end of the
year, we should be getting a draft
version of that. Um, with that said,
that will give us a better picture of
where they are trying to go with our
permit. And that's right in line with
the timing of this PDR getting word that
we could be in contract with Rolo them
designing and for some reason the water
board pushed us to revision to that
permit that lowered the standards. The
PDR immediately is going to have to
shift to address that concern and issue.
There might be talks about assumptions
made by Corollo assuming that
information best best presented shows
that our discharge limits aren't going
to change based off those conversations
with the water board. But we will not
know that guaranteed until that process
starts.
>> Just so just so it's out there and we're
» Just so just so it's out there and we're
aware of it,
>> this is a industry rife with unfunded
» this is a industry rife with unfunded
mandates.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Everybody in the entire country and
» Everybody in the entire country and
especially in California, the Bay Area
just got hit. Everybody down there is
scrambling because they have nutrient
limits. They never had nutrient limits
in the past. Now they do. None of those
facilities are designed for that. So
everybody down there were panicking.
They're talking tens and tens of
billions of dollars of infrastructure
wings get put in into Bay Area. No one
knew that was going to happen 12 months
before it happened. If and when we get
any kind of unfunded mandate, reduced
limits, whatever it looks like, we're
not going to get a ton of notice. The
reason we selected this alternative was
because this is the one that allows us
to design to meet what we need to now
because it would be irresponsible to
spend the money to meet something we
don't need to. And if the event comes
up, oh, all of a sudden our limits are
ridiculous, then we have the opportunity
to plug and play as easily as possible
to get us compliant. Um, there were
Yeah, go ahead.
>> No, go ahead, pitch. There were other
» No, go ahead, pitch. There were other
alternatives that were capable of doing
what we're proposing doing with this
alternative that were cheaper but were
much less adaptable to that
plug-and-play alternative.
>> I want to add one thing. So, Director
» I want to add one thing. So, Director
Cox, one thing I wanted to make sure you
are comfortable with is this is a
municipal plant, but we also have a
whole other group that deals with
industry related to data centers and
others that treat ultra pure water for
processing and cooling towers. And we're
actually designing a facility out in the
Reno Tahoe Industrial Center right now
that is a zero liquid discharge ultra
pure water facility RO and we've done
this all over the country for for um
private sector group clients Intel TSMC
and others. So we have that capability
and staff to treat to those levels
doesn't get applied to IND to municipal
clients very often if ever cost
>> because of cost. So this is at the
» because of cost. So this is at the
facility we're designing out at the
Tarino Wing Center is a $187 million
facility for 2MGD. So there's a lot of
things at play there that we have dealt
with in the past related to those ultra
pure limits. So, I hope that helps you
understand that.
>> That helps me uh because as as we go
» That helps me uh because as as we go
through this discussion, and it's been
several months now, um the the
possibility of of having this agency be
hit with a a more strict WDR and what
kind of effect would that have on the
direction we're headed right now? It's
kind of a moving target and uh as I see
it, it could be an an incredible amount
of money added to our plan. And um
>> so just
» so just
>> gives me a vote of confidence that if
» gives me a vote of confidence that if
you say that your team can meet and
exceed any kind of of uh of increased
WDR requirements on our behalf,
I'm good with it.
So my my question to you Jason is the
water the water board meetings are
public when we could attend.
>> Yeah the reason why
» Yeah the reason why
>> and you send out the dates for those
» and you send out the dates for those
for sure.
>> I personally think a board member or two
» I personally think a board member or two
showing up with a commentary that says
hey these are the strictest already and
to go further you're going to bankrupt
you know the community. Um needs to be
said.
>> Yeah. Uh again, as as Scott mentioned,
» Yeah. Uh again, as as Scott mentioned,
we we don't have a crystal ball, but
we've got no indication they plan on
going that direction.
>> This is a policy.
» This is a policy.
>> We all know Maui decision and how it
» We all know Maui decision and how it
could potentially impact us. We there we
just unfortunately we don't I would love
to know. I would almost rather knowing
that it's going strict, you know, and
just get it done than have it hanging
over us. But
>> and and staff did initiate the
» and and staff did initiate the
conversations with the water board to
look for revisions to our permit, not
just to verify the discharge limits, but
there were some other things was looking
for. Um the reason I bring it up is a
lot of times to Jason's point,
wastewater treatment facilities get hit
with new nutrient limits kind of out of
the blue and they have to scramble to
address those. In our case, we're trying
to plan long-term CIP around fiscally
sound decision decisions with our
budget. And so, we wanted to force the
conversation to ensure the water board
wasn't going to as we're approaching 90%
design with this project get hit with
lower limits after the fact. They still
do it, but the idea is that if we have
them revisit our permit now and we can
get that in time to know that our limits
aren't going to change, then it's an
economically and fiscally sound policy
to design this specific system. If they
change something, then inevitably that
is a risk the agency is going to have to
take is that we're marching down after a
PDR and then the water board did that to
director Clement's point. That's when
you start talking about rate to treat,
right? And the cost incurred on rate
pairs and and then the state's
willingness to hear those commentary
points. But a lot of it's just driven by
the EPA and what they want to see out of
water body.
But but kind of on the WDR
um
limit setting process that that does go
through public board hearing. So I think
the way that would typically play out is
right now it's at a staff level of uh
dialogue at some point. There will be
communication from their staff to us
saying here's what we're looking at. Uh,
and then if that's
something we feel like we're comfortable
with, then there's probably not a whole
lot of lobbying. And
>> yeah, at that point we're like, this
» yeah, at that point we're like, this
could be a big deal. That's where we,
you know, think about what's the
political strategy to, you know,
potentially try to create an influence
on that. Seems like it's a little
premature right now.
>> I I would agree with that.
» I I would agree with that.
I think we need to find out what our new
discharge requirements are and not draw
a lot of public attention to it until it
becomes an issue needing to be
addressed. Right.
>> See what they are. I mean that's that's
» See what they are. I mean that's that's
the end of the process.
>> Not see what they are but preliminary
» Not see what they are but preliminary
numbers that they're planning that
should be proposed.
>> Right.
» Right.
It's a risk and staff feel pretty
comfortable that this plan has
identified enough resources toward
mitigating a potential risk that it
gives us enough of a safety blanket in
the event that it happens, but we're not
going to waste a bunch of money going
down that road just yet.
>> I I think what I'm hearing is that that
» I I think what I'm hearing is that that
risk is the risk no matter what if
that's this plan that we currently have
or it would have been one of the other
options. What I'm hearing is the plant
we're looking at has perhaps the best
I think you call it plugandplay option
going forward that that plan would be
the easiest one to
>> adapt
» adapt
>> adapt. Thank you. That was what was
» adapt. Thank you. That was what was
identified in the report is this
positions us best out of all the
existing current treatment options on
the market to achieve our current limits
and positions us for lower future
limits. But we would have to add
additional processes to get down because
because if you were going to RO you'd
have to have a membrane process ahead of
that RO anyway. So you'd have to have
ultra filtration or membrane that
process ahead of that. So you're already
putting in the membrane process. So
>> thank you Scott. I didn't mean to throw
» thank you Scott. I didn't mean to throw
that in there, but it's a moving target
and um
you you guys gave me a vote of
confidence that uh we can get this we
can get this done if we have that
anomaly happen.
>> It's a good point.
» It's a good point.
>> We have any more comments or questions?
» We have any more comments or questions?
>> Government,
please.
>> Indeed. I'll make a motion to
» Indeed. I'll make a motion to
I'm going to read it right now. Yeah.
Approve the nutrient removal
improvements project engineering design
contract.
>> Second
» Second
now not to exceed
uh 187 or what was it?
>> So the language is we would sign a
» So the language is we would sign a
contract withdrawal for that 18,600
98,000 approximately. The not to exceed
is that amount. any additional amount
they want to charge has to come to us in
writing with a request for an amendment
for a scope and fee. Staff would be
authorized to spend up to 19.3 million
without having to come back to the board
for authorization of additional funds
for this project. So instead of every
time we have scope creep in the past we
have to come back to you to ask for $5
and it takes me 20 minutes to explain
why we need $5 and in this case that's
per exaggeration but that there's a
reasonable expectation that we need a
little bit of contingency in there for
things. I lowered it to 3%. On smaller
projects, you might see a number like
10%. Right? Where if it's a $200,000
job, design fees with engineers can vary
with one task could take up to 10%,000
scope and beed. So in this case, we try
to throw out the 3% optimization as a
reasonable level that the board would
trust staff that be within a working
range within the project's overall scope
before needing to come back for a major
scope for something substantial like
designing a side stream or or building
something that was not planned to.
» Okay, Rochelle, could you um repeat the
motion on the floor, please? We have a
motion by Director Hanssburg and a
second by Director Clement for the
approval of the nutrient removal
improvements project engineering design
contract. All in favor?
>> I I
I'd like to make a a comment since I've
been on this board. This was the best
discussion and best questions and
comments of anything that in the last
three years that I participated. So big
deal
a lot more discussions.
>> Well, I'm glad we got rid of all the
» Well, I'm glad we got rid of all the
slackers. That's good.
» Sorry. Couldn't help it.
>> That's a tough act to follow in. I lost
» That's a tough act to follow in. I lost
half of my audience. So, I'm not take
that personal, guys. Thanks.
They're tired of the sound of mine.
>> Sorry, I didn't move it ahead.
» Sorry, I didn't move it ahead.
>> That's all right. I'm gonna just take a
» That's all right. I'm gonna just take a
technology break. Here we go.
>> We're good.
» We're good.
>> Right. Well, good morning, President
» Right. Well, good morning, President
Wilson, members of the board. I
constantly fail to introduce myself here
because I feel like everyone is tired of
hearing the sound of my voice, but I'm
Liz Cook, your fearless finance leader,
and I'm here today to take care of
something in my realm is called
housekeeping. in your realm is probably
a much bigger and more significant
moment because I don't believe that we
have done a reimbursement resolution
before. So, I'm going to quickly walk
you through what the housekeeping item
is and this is going to kick us off on
our debt journey. I have stood at this
podium. I have stood sat in this room
around the table at a Corollo camp and
held conversations about when it would
be time to issue debt, the steps that
need to happen until I have the
documents or I have the data to build
documents that I need to take to the
rating agency. We've been working on all
of that. So, this is our first official
step with the reimbursement resolution.
What is it? It's a legal document that
I'm requesting that you approve in
science day that gives us the ability
from 60 days prior. So if you approve it
today, I could go back to July 17th and
anytime this fiscal year that I issue
debt, I can reimburse our toppers for
any money that's been spent. Now, that
would be a super cool story if I was
going to tell you we spent millions of
dollars already this year. We spent less
than a hundred on the two projects that
are tied to this. But the approval of
the Corollo contract today really sets
that wheels in motion. They're going to
be working and billing and we're going
to start seeing invoices. So today I'm
asking us to preserve the agency's
ability to recover these costs that have
been incurred or will be incurred
through this fiscal year. This action
does not authorize the agency to
actually issue debt. It just says should
you you now have the ability to do this.
Last month the governance document that
said I don't have to come here and speak
to you every single month about our
monthly financials. That was a good move
because I'm still going to be here every
single month talking about our debt
journey. Um, we have lots of things to
cover as a board. Um, I am working with
Steven Gartler who has come here as our
financial analyst. I'm actually meeting
with him tomorrow afternoon to kick off
what our calendar looks like. Um, what
agenda items we will have for you all
and when we can have a workshop. I'm
looking to spend some dates out there
for you all in October so that we can
have our debt 101 workshop. You've heard
words like SRF1,
bank line of credit, um bond market.
Those are all terms that I deal with
every single day and you're only going
to hear on occasion. So, the that 101
workshop will do two things. It will
give you definitions. It will also try
to point you to questions you should ask
when Stephen and I are spanning here,
items that you should look for in
documents that we put forward for your
approval. Sound like a good game plan?
All right, that was the short condensed
version of the presentation. I saved my
words for Scott. He still has another
presentation to go. Um, but I would like
to turn it over and answer any questions
that the board might have about this
reinforce my resolution.
Liz, he uh used the term benefit
of plans. So if um if we had not issued
debt by the end of this fiscal year, but
and then we still have expenditures in
the next fiscal year, would we just do
another reimbursement resolution for
next fiscal year?
>> It's my understanding that I'll be
» It's my understanding that I'll be
bringing you this reimbursement
resolution every year going forward
because we're going to be facing with
multiple uh debt vehicles. Maybe we'll
issue multiple issuances to the bond
debt. Maybe we'll have a SRF loan and
some bond debt. Um, and so we want to
identify that.
>> Yeah, thanks.
» Yeah, thanks.
>> Add more words to that answer even
» Add more words to that answer even
though you didn't ask this. I did
include two projects. This isn't for
every capital dollar out. It's only
capital dollars associated with
digestion improvement and the nutrient.
>> Yeah. Good. Thanks.
» Yeah. Good. Thanks.
>> My question was sort of along that line
» My question was sort of along that line
too was 20 million. I was like, how do
you like determine the amount? But I
guess if it's just for the fiscal year,
um, that makes sense. I didn't know if
we had to put a limit on it. I put a
limit on it for this year because that
is the capacity of debt that I believe
that we can spend. Stephen and I have
been making charts. I brought Mountain
and Bar charts here to say, I think it's
here. I think it's here. Oh, we're going
to be right here. That spending trend
has now started. And so the 20 million
um also is noted to be maybe 10 to 15
year bonds, not that 30-year BL because
it's a little expensive right now. Um,
so we'll be bringing back information
that will specifically lay out how we
intend to borrow that $20 million for
approval by the full board in the next 2
three months.
» Questions, comments?
» Yep. None. Uh,
entertained. Uh,
>> I move to approve resolution 2025.
» I move to approve resolution 2025.
>> Yes. Second by director Wilkins,
» Yes. Second by director Wilkins,
could this be a roll call?
>> Normally it's just ordinances, but we
» Normally it's just ordinances, but we
can go in and do that.
>> Let's do a roll call, please.
» Let's do a roll call, please.
>> Director Clement
» Director Clement
>> in favor.
» in favor.
>> Director Cox,
» Director Cox,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> Director,
» Director,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> Director, yes.
» Director, yes.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Thank you everyone.
Morning
again board members. Um here in front of
you today to uh represent the Rotary
Club. They're looking to add additional
benches onto our property down along
town of Truck East Legacy Trail. Um
they're proposing in installing another
four benches um in addition to the
existing four they have on our property
to make a total of eight. There was a
map included um that I made for you
guys. Hopefully, it's somewhat visible.
I'll just point in here. It's easier for
me at this point. So, two of them are on
TD property of the 10 shown on this map.
So, they're not relevant to us. And then
of the colors shown on here, the pink
are the existing benches. They they've
already put in and the orange dots are
the proposed locations of it. I didn't
confirm all four benches being proposed
are on our property. I'm going to
straddle the line with the Cal right
away, but it's just inside that line
with that and turn it over to you.
>> I move to approve
» third
motion,
second by director. All in favor? I
>> thank you. While we got this discussion
» thank you. While we got this discussion
going on,
this is going to seem a little trivial,
but I think it does have some merit.
Um, I have uh some neighbors in
Valley that use the Wilkins Legacy Trail
regularly regularly.
They've asked me and I don't know who we
should talk to whether it be the the
Rotary Club or the town of Ky
that is
there's no place for a female to relieve
themselves along the trail.
Would it be possible
to sit and have some kind of a uh port
somewhere along that trail man?
probably nothing but
that's why I'm looking at you.
>> It's your trail and you should help us
» It's your trail and you should help us
out to maybe facilitate facilitate
getting a portaotti somewhere along that
trail midway beginning end or whatever.
Uh because uh I I'm being nagged I'm
being nagged about this trail and it
doesn't have anything to do with TTSA,
but it does go across our property.
>> Sure. Immediately you can uh let them
» Sure. Immediately you can uh let them
know that there's restrooms up at the
Riverview Sports Park
which are which the trail ties into.
>> That's true.
» That's true.
>> Yeah. So
» Yeah. So
>> hopefully
» hopefully
>> I I'll direct I'll direct the comment to
» I I'll direct I'll direct the comment to
you Dan the next time it happens.
>> That's fine.
» That's fine.
>> You better hope you better hope that
» You better hope you better hope that
you're uh retired to me and tell him to
call me in January.
>> Okay.
» Perfect. Thank you, Scott.
>> Okay. Thanks. I had to get I had to get
» Okay. Thanks. I had to get I had to get
that in there.
>> Well done.
» Well done.
Thank you.
>> Okay. Uh so next item on the agenda is a
» Okay. Uh so next item on the agenda is a
brief discussion of the remainder of the
calendar year into the beginning of the
next forum meetings. We got a lot of
holidays coming up. Um there's some you
know decisions some years skip meetings
to you know accommodate uh holiday
schedules. I would just tell you the one
thing um I have been communicated it's
been communicated to me part in the past
is that we must have the December board
meeting whether it happens on the 17th
or whether it becomes a special board
meeting is irrelevant but we need to
have a board meeting in December given
timing for finances
uh other than that we have this is the
schedule as it stands and will happen
unless
you can't see there we
Thank you.
>> So if there is an opportunity for
» So if there is an opportunity for
discussion or if ever if anyone knows
immediately off the top of their head
they will not be available, we can have
that discussion and make modifications.
>> Yeah, I I'll I'll just throw out and I'm
» Yeah, I I'll I'll just throw out and I'm
not asking
for modifications
unless it's helpful to other board
members as well. But I'm
not going to be available for the
October board meeting
and then the November board meeting I
will be uh out of town but I can
participate remotely. Okay, that's
helpful.
And I will not be available for either
of the January.
B any
No, we're looking good. I don't plan
that far in advance
like some of you.
>> Yep.
» Yep.
>> I'll get with Rochelle. But uh it
» I'll get with Rochelle. But uh it
appears that uh I'll miss the uh
November meeting, but I will be remote.
I'll be here for uh December.
Um planning ahead past December. I'll
let you know, Michelle.
Yeah, actually the February
the February 1848
not available for that one as well.
>> Yeah. And again, if it if it's a matter
» Yeah. And again, if it if it's a matter
of someone won't be here and that's
okay. That's kind of, you know, at the
board's discretion, obviously it's a
quorum. But if we're rearranging in case
this would be the opportunity time, but
if it's just you're going to be remote
or you're not going to be available,
then I think we can manage that.
>> As long as we can
» As long as we can
district boundary.
Uh
>> I have no at this time. And I don't have
» I have no at this time. And I don't have
any conf
Morning
board of directors. President
um Michael P operations department
manager. Um so for the operations
department report for the month uh all
plant waste discharge requirements were
met performed well. Um after competitive
in-house selection process, two
operators were promoted to senior
operator positions and um we had zero
completed work orders for pending.
Uh this was the flows and the limits for
the month for affluent
and the cost chemical to consider.
Any questions for
Thank you.
All right. Good morning.
All right. So for the month of August,
um we did provide support for digestion
improvements project, nutrition removal
project which we've discussed at length
today. So um the redundant serving
project which was approved by the board
previously and few months back um SCADA
upgrade project which is a new project
you'll be seeing uh shortly. Uh Scott
alluded to that earlier and the TRRI
lighting project.
Um for the month, notable tasks for the
month, replaced a bar screen water
solenoid. Um made some modifications to
that to a new style. Um ongoing
replacement of some chem sludge valves.
You'll see some pictures of that later
on. What a chemother valve looks like.
They're they're pretty in-depth. You get
those things in there. We bought a lot
of them. It's a big project. board new
base for the digesttor number 30
recirculation pump and installed the
pump. Um, replaced dewatering centuge
motor mount assemblies. Um, also a
bigger job than it sounds like on paper.
So, pictures of that. Um, ongoing
defensible space abatement. Um, that is
an ongoing project and we're developing
long-term plans and goals in
collaboration with Turkey Fire onsite
training uh for barcreen and watch
press. Uh, we had a come out with some
training for us. was good at help us get
through some of the issues we have with
wash presses. Um we relocated and
configured the smart cover for the TRRI
lighting project and um we installed new
conductors to the flock mixers and
replaced the motors. You're going to see
some uh pictures along those lines.
They're old, they're aging. That's part
of our aging infrastructure
infrastructure that we need to keep up
and running because that's stuff that's
going to go away in the future. So,
we're trying to do everything we can to
keep them going, save money where we
can. Um, we replaced the exhaust fan and
the pipe gallery and some scrapers on
secondary number four.
Oh, sorry, I was on the wrong side
there. Apologize. I wasn't following
along there.
All right. Uh, we still have three
unfilled positions. Um the SKA
specialist one two is um out right now.
We have an open recruit for that. Um the
other two are still being revised and
assessed. Work orders for the month uh
stayed pretty flat month over month with
a slight uptick in a couple of areas. Um
but we're still maintaining within
certain margin of error there.
All right. So as you can see that's what
a flock mixer looks like. There's a big
blade underneath that that goes into the
basin. Um, you can see that's pretty
old. Um, we spend a fair amount of time
on those, but we do have to keep them up
and running because they are critical
for our operations. And, uh, that's just
some pictures of some of our staff
performing work on the conductors, uh,
pulling the underground wires through
and
getting those up and running. There's a
digesttor 30 recirculation pump and the
base.
And to the right there, um, I was
talking about the motor mount
assemblies. That's a that's a large
motor that sits into that cavity for the
blue motor bases there. So, it was a big
job for both of our dewatering
centrifuges. So, we found cracks in
those. They had to be replaced.
And that's a picture of some of our
sledge valves. Couple of our staff
working on that. We still have about
that many more to do still on the other
side. So there's this is anoid project
when we can coordinate with operations
for downtown
and that's just one of the solenoid
valves I talked to talked about earlier
to the right there is the secondary four
uh scrapers. You see those scraper bars
now at the bottom. This requires us to
do an entry into that space um you know
with ladders and things like that. We
have to have monitors and and whatnot.
So, uh, we got that job done pretty
quickly and, um, yeah, released at tops.
Any questions I can answer?
>> Uh, the three unfilled positions.
» Uh, the three unfilled positions.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Do we anticipate any of them being
» Do we anticipate any of them being
filled by the end of the year?
>> Well, we're hoping that the scape
» Well, we're hoping that the scape
specialist is going to be uh filled as
soon as possible. The ENI technician
position, uh, that's the one that's
under assessment right now. Um, we
haven't done the budget currently
because if we needed, there was a
position there. We have not filled it
yet because we're trying to see the
impact to the workload because it may
present an opportunity to not fill it
and eliminate the position.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> So, we're trying to be as efficient as
» So, we're trying to be as efficient as
we can, but we need the data to say
whether we do or don't make the
position.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
regarding CMS GIS technician. That's a
position that we're looking at closely
to hopefully redefine it um to get
better value at it
>> um for that position and that would
» um for that position and that would
require a rewrite of the job description
as well. So, we're looking closely at it
and we'll have more at a later date.
>> Okay. Thank you, Paul.
Morning
again director Scott technical services
manager uh provide you a technical
services department report. So, starting
off digestion improvements. Currently,
we're uh working with Brown and call
progressing towards that 60% design
deliverable, open app, some renderings
to show you guys on on what we're
actually planning on building out there
after that is received. Um, and then, as
I mentioned previously, we're going to
be working to get an RFP issued here for
construction management services. Um,
we've got currently, I believe, five
consultants that all intend to put a
proposal together for it. Um and so with
that in mind, we'll have a selection
committee and and hopefully in the next
month or two we can come back to you
with that recommendation to report that
CM services agreement to one of those
firms. Um and then we're working on
critical path equipment uh items
specifically needed to be pre-
purchased, pre-negotiated, pre-selected
with legal and with those vendors. This
is specifically the linear generator
that we've talked about that the board
would need to authorize the purchase
agreement with that proprietary
technology to reduce our our risk of um
getting price gouge during construction
and then also a waste gas burner that
we're looking to solic
sourcing of those two pieces of
equipment. Um I did include a schedule
just as a visual representation for
those that prefer these. So this is just
a highle overview of where that project
is at right now. So you can see we
kicked it off in May of 2024. We started
with the basis of design verification
and then entered into final design this
past spring. So we're progressing on
track as anticipated to date and
approaching that 60% design deliverable
which is anticipated towards the end of
October followed by an agency review
period. Um total amount invoiced to date
is approaching a million dollars as of
their August invoice. So it's also in
line with the task item amounts
associated with each of those specific
separate subtasks for those designs. So
nothing to report yet, but I do
anticipate a potential fee and scope
some additional scope items that were
not anticipated with that project.
Specifically, we're designing a a new
access road behind the board here along
the fence that's going to come up to
that new 60%. I will present those
additional items that triggered that
scope and feed.
Um, moving over to Truckucky River
Interceptor Rehabilitation Project. This
is manual 33 to 35 Alpine Meadows to
Olympic Valley. So, um, this is the
first official week of the project
kicking off. I included two slides ahead
of where we're at with that schedule.
It's probably pretty difficult to read.
I tried to make it as big as I could
while conveying the information. So, as
you can see, we're on the week of 9:14.
the contractor submitted a much more
detailed version of this and he for
whatever reason decided to build the
schedule around Sunday and started
working for them. Um so with this in
mind this this gra our schedule for
those interested represents when we
anticipate the Truckucky River trail
closures um to complete that work for
the lining project. So, um, what I can a
high level will tell you with the
schedule is contractor made a very, uh,
solid effort to minimize the full
closures or hard closures of the
Truckucky River Trail with Taho City PD.
We've been coordinating with them. Um,
so the the big challenge is while
construction work activities are
occurring during typical work days,
Monday through Saturday, 7:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. shown in orange or yellow.
There's going to need to be intermittent
closures and no trail access due to no
being heavy equipment to produce
liability for ourselves as well as for
TO city PUB. Um and with that in mind
this week really the trail is still open
up until Friday we're anticipating
they're currently clearing out the sites
for where they need to stage equipment
around manholes and then they're also
bringing in um highdensity polyethylene
pipe HDP pipe that's going to be used
for the bypass. So they're offloading it
adjacent to 89 near Olympic Valley and
you might see that depending if you're
driving in that corridor and then
they're moving it through a temporary
construction to be secured over a bridge
and then fusing it and dragging it onto
the trail starting more or less uh this
weekend. So um that's where that project
is at as far as the scheduling goes. Um
and I guess I can open it up
intermittently for questions if you guys
want to jump in or we can
>> What was the total cost of that lining?
» What was the total cost of that lining?
It's approximately $1.2 million. The
original estimated amount was like about
2 and a.5 million I think we budgeted
for.
>> So we were 50% of the uh
» So we were 50% of the uh
50% of the
>> Yeah, it was a happy surprise right for
» Yeah, it was a happy surprise right for
the the bids we received relative to
what we anticipated to cost with the
logistics of the project.
>> 1.2.
» 1.2.
>> Yes sir.
» Yes sir.
Um, as you guys are aware, you just
awarded the nutrient removal
improvements project to Corollo. Um,
scope and fee negotiations were
completed prior to coming to the board.
So, on the back end of that, um, we'll
now get into contract with them, have
them sign services agreement to be
signed general manager to move into
scheduling to kick off the project in
early October
lines. He's about um
90% done with the inspection for that.
They're anticipating wrapping up this
week. We'll follow all the CCTV call
similar post television inspections and
then we're all going to be awaiting
deliverables. So the sequencing do the
inspection work. They compile all those
videos and then they put them into a
format that they can hand over to us. So
50% of that payment will be forthcoming
to be authorized by staff upon
completion of the field work and the
other 50% upon receipt of a complete
collaborative from the contractor with
prohibi uh lab activities quarterly
pre-treatment sampling and annual
sampling is occurring proficiency
testing began this month and will
continue throughout the rest of the year
and then continuing California
Department of Public Health co sampling
optional task that they they basically
provide us the materials and it's no
real additional cost to us going and
then corrective actions for the lab this
month two with three pending. On the IT
side of things, there were 29 completed
corrective work requests with five
outstanding. Um there's preventive
maintenance for completed and few
outstanding. And then there's ongoing
work um with the firewall. The permit
portal is ongoing with us as well for
that. We uh we have some installed in
test and remote software support for
staff. So that way um IT department can
remote in two laptops and desktops to
support that if they're not available to
do it in person. Uh website migration
project and new laptop commissioning and
rollouts have about I think 11 purchased
this year for staff for outgoing old
outdated laptops. coordination meetings
with the operations technology team, uh,
password vault integration for
operations technology team, and then we
piloted the new IT ticketing system,
which has gotten pretty pretty good
reviews from staff to simplify how we we
go about processing work requests for IT
related issues for admin and counter
staff relative to using our asset
management software.
That's it from technical services. Any
specific questions?
We're good. Thank you.
» Good morning again. It's still morning.
We're making great progress on this
meeting.
So, I'm here to talk about the
administrative report for August. Um for
risk and safety, um we actually attended
a mutual aid training down at TSD. There
was some response training as a piece of
it. It was really awesome for me to make
contacts with for our team to see what
happens when um one of our member
agencies has to respond to something. I
learned that I can make shapes and
measure. That was also I learned my role
and responsibility during this bill is
not to be out on the ground looking at
things but to be back at home providing
numbers, contact information. That was a
great regional training. We also still
have our recruitment for the safety and
compliance administrator going on. On
the finance side of the house, we held
our August finance committee meeting on
August 12th, and we took care of making
our AP payments, our payroll payments,
all of those items. From building and
customer service, again, no pictures.
We're still working on our outdoor
pictures, but she did go out and do two
commercial account inspections along
with the general duties. Uh same for
purchasing administration, running that
front desk and making sure that we're
purchasing everything that we need. Um
on the general administration side, I
went to the CSBA conference in Monterey.
I really did want to sneak a picture of
my garlic bread bowl clam chowder in
there. I just chose to talk about it
instead. It was amazing. I also attended
a few really great sessions. I went to
anything that was talking about issuing
debt or financing large projects. Um
there was someone there from South Tahoe
and we just financed a project. So I got
to have contact with her and learn about
their journey. I also went to a session
on Monday to learn how to present
policies to the board uh so that the
board will approve the policies. though
I hope to get a little sharp work for
you all on that as well. Um, and as
always, we performed various
administrative duties at the pleasure of
the GM or directed by you.
Last but not least, here is a breakdown
of our connection fees for August. A
conversation came up in finance
committee about the actual EDUs per
year. So, I'll be adding some historical
information to this and giving us maybe
the last three or four historical years
for connections. So, we can keep an eye
on that as we talk about projections and
looking at art.
I
>> think that does it for my report. Are
» think that does it for my report. Are
there any questions?
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Hi, shorty.
Uh so, yeah, lots on the uh packet
obviously most of it covered by other
departments in some capacity. I do want
to just give an a special shout out to
TSD for NCWA for hosting that event. Um
we have, you know, a substantial
pipeline and um it's a risk in our
community. So having the local agencies
communicate and work together to
identify what that response would look
like if we ever, you know, hit the fan,
boy, that is a reassuring thing. So, um,
lots of, uh, future resources is going
to be committed to improving those
relationships and getting more of a
regionalized, uh, concept put together.
So, I'll just again shout out that, um,
we've been having, uh, various
discussions about, uh, the land surplus
and, um, not a lot to report on that.
Uh, we had some interviews uh, as was
mentioned in the operations report. We
had a couple promotions, which was
great. Um, love to see those things. Uh
we had the first all hands meeting that
I was able to present. It was uh it was
a good time. We all kind of got together
and established a little bit of the
temperature and what expectations are
and I think it was wellreceived. People
had a good time. It was uh it was
reassuring. Um the traffic fest
happened. Good news about that is we
didn't even notice it. So they've got
that thing nailed down and it doesn't
really impact us. So that's good story
there.
Um, we've been having more and more
people attending conferences wherever we
possibly can. We're getting more
involved in CSDA, CSRMA, CASA, all of
the kind of administrative things that
maybe in the past we didn't have as
thorough coverage on. Uh, we also have
several individuals including myself
going to webte in Colorado, which is the
big industry uh, conference for the
year. So, that should be amazing. You've
got a lot of uh we're lined up pretty
detailed with Corollo already scheduled
to go talk to very specific um vendors,
look at very specific uh operations,
talk to other people that have gone
through similar uh upgrades. So that
should be very very busy. Um again,
we're we're utilizing CSDA training.
We're going to have uh is going to
attend some board um secretary training
and conference. So that's those are
always good. Um and again uh uh
continuing on with uh the outreach
that's going to be you know that's
something that's been brought up
specifically by a couple open board
members. Outreach is on our docket. We
are moving into it now. We've got a
story to go tell. Um so story is going
to go get told. So any opportunities
that you can facilitate in your boards
or at your local agencies or even within
the communities of that area, we would
love opportunities to go and speak and
get people kind of rallied around the
the cause.
Any questions?
Think we're good.
Uh final board comments or questions.
I need to give a finance committee
readout. I believe
uh so at finance committee the main
things that we talked about were the
connection charge policy
there's some interesting state
regulations around it but something that
we should look at uh definitely when we
go to our next rate increase. Um, also
on the agenda for October for the board,
uh, you guys should be aware that we're
going to put a policy in front of the
board on reserves and how we handle
reserves. Uh, it's really housekeeping
in advance of going to raise any debt.
We've got some funky ways of how we fund
certain things that need to be fixed
because right now it's not it doesn't
make any sense. Um, so we're going to go
ahead and fix that. Uh, we also reviewed
all the capital projects. um including
the
me the membrane plant stuff. Um you
know, if we have to go down the ozone
path, we'll have to raise another 200
million, but we're not going down that
path right now. Um but we went through
all the capital projects to make sure
that we were on target with that as
well. And then the reimbursement
resolution, we talked about that. You
guys approved it today. So that's really
the readout from the finance committee.
We feel that we should give you that
every month when we don't present
full-blown quarterly financials and
everything else. Um, and that's the way
we're going.
Any questions?
>> Thank you, B. You're welcome.
» Thank you, B. You're welcome.
See,
>> I I just want I I couldn't understand
» I I just want I I couldn't understand
why we don't have alternatives as a
board. You know, most agencies like this
that I've worked with have alternatives.
Um, alternatives, not alternatives.
>> being a new alternative to
» um, but and I assume it has something to
do with the fact that we are written as
a special act for this district agency.
Excuse me. Gosh. Um, and I just didn't
have I didn't find the time honestly to
to really research it. So, it's not
something I'm just curious. Maybe we
could delve into that a little bit. I
you know it's not a necessary thing but
astronomy is odd. A and B I thought you
know it does provide an opportunity for
someone else to come and kind of learn
about it and you know perhaps become a
replacement for someone in time. So I
wouldn't mind if we could maybe just do
a little bit of research on it. Um,
again, no rush, just
>> so so you're talking about like like I'm
» so so you're talking about like like I'm
not going to be here for the October
board meeting like Taho City PUD
appointing an alternative.
>> Correct.
» Correct.
>> Yeah. But each question
» Yeah. But each question
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> So each organization would have to alter
» So each organization would have to alter
that
>> if it's possible even possible. I don't
» if it's possible even possible. I don't
because it's a special act.
>> Yeah. No, I get it.
» Yeah. No, I get it.
>> Very different. Um anyway, it just
» Very different. Um anyway, it just
struck me as I came onto the board. Oh,
I don't have an alternate. I was really
surprised that I didn't have an
alternate.
>> I'm not sure I could find an alternative
» I'm not sure I could find an alternative
in my case.
>> Yeah, that that's definitely something I
» Yeah, that that's definitely something I
can research. Um I if the board's
interested, I can make it a topic um an
item for the board to discuss maybe next
month or the month after after I've
talked to legal and um done some
research on that.
>> Probably be anformational item first.
» Probably be anformational item first.
Legal would be what I would think. time.
>> Cool.
» Cool.
>> Yeah. No r no rush. Just
» Yeah. No r no rush. Just
>> speaking of legal.
» speaking of legal.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Can you tell us this?
» Can you tell us this?
>> Yeah. So, we um Josh was not available
» Yeah. So, we um Josh was not available
this meeting. Um and he had asked me if
there was a desire to have an alternate
show up for this meeting. And so, we had
a pretty good discussion about his
position, Josh's position on the
necessity of having legal present for
every single meeting. um and we came to
the determination that uh when we have a
agenda finalized, we'll take a look at
it. We'll ask them to take a look at it
and if either of the parties feel that
there's a legal nexus or a benefit to
having legal there attend that meeting
that we can make that call what the week
prior. Um that's how we're operating
under this meeting. We did not elect to
have his uh assistant show up. If that's
not the direction the board wants to go,
then we can change. But otherwise,
that's how I plan to proceed with having
legal present in the future.
>> And we saved a thousand bucks.
» And we saved a thousand bucks.
>> It's a dollar figure. I don't know
» It's a dollar figure. I don't know
exactly, but yes.
>> Do we have case?
» Do we have case?
>> Yeah, exactly.
» Yeah, exactly.
>> Do we have an update on the employment
» Do we have an update on the employment
pattern that got kicked around a couple
months ago?
>> No. November.
» No. November.
>> November. Okay.
» November. Okay.
>> Mid November. I'll have an update in
» Mid November. I'll have an update in
close session.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Um I'm I'm comfortable with that on the
» Um I'm I'm comfortable with that on the
legal. I'm very comfortable with that.
That's
>> appropriate.
» appropriate.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Well, that I will let Josh know that
» Well, that I will let Josh know that
that is how we proceed.
» I move to adjourn.
>> You're on fire.
» All right. Good job, Scott.