And then there's a company that paid it. It's started. Once I've started. Welcome everybody. It is May 20th, I 31 PM. We're here for the event appearing at 6 PM. Nathan, do you want to start with. Notification of any conflicts. I don't have any conflicts with interest. China Brian, general, general manager, Neil Conflix. Vincent, board skin, no conflict. A lot of law and no conflicts. David Olson, no conflict. Scott, look in no conflict. There are a price and no conflict. Jerry, tax, no conflict. John, ball and conflict. Okay. Smallhouse, give me an item. We are not supposed to be taxing on communicating during these meetings and hearing. So if you have to take a text, that means just excuse yourself to take a text over and try to move the way from communicating electronically during meeting. If that works everyone but it's a emergency, that's what city of the city. So Sally, if you would like to comment before is your turn. I just hope you stop showing. It's just going to be a great day. It's going to be a great day. It's going to be a great day. It's going to be a great day. It's going to be a great day. It's going to be a great day. It's going to having a haircut here. All right. Well, thank you. Thank you. Administrative and financial. Do we have anyone on the line for public comments? No, bugs are on the line. I'm sorry. Did we have a not-in-life guest password? They had told us that a while ago. In neighbor's house? Yes. Yeah. They don't want any body outside of the organization access or network because I have a school and other things for privacy. So we have to go on our hats. Is that right? Yes. Item 3a on the agenda is the approval of the April 22nd, 2025 minutes. I'd like to open that up for you the discussion or approval. Everybody, on the floor. Thank you motion, sir. Second. Otto made the motion, Scott seconded. All favor. Thank you. The vote was unanimous. We have one invoice for which we are seeking approval. In your packet. So that's from Taicon construction for some road maintenance. Can you go one more slide please. And this time I'll open it up for questions discussion or approval. Was this for a matter of problem or something different? It was, yes, a wash-edge way, but it was related to that individual. Okay. All right. Is anyone having any deeper questions on this? What was this for? This is for a spongy road that wasn't draining. I remember correctly and it was puddling at the apex of the parent. So it was getting extremely far down and And I think part of Rome was getting clad onto a residence drive. It was just in a lost touchway, which was taught to the residents. Right. And motion to approve. Second. Scott made the motion. Auto seconded. Oh, in favor. I. I. The vote. It was unanimous. Last that we'll skip ahead. Just do that. Our time constraints here. But in a crisis calling in since he's out at the state right now. I don't think we have a long line yet because he did have two road updates. Jody, can you reach out to Chris and see if he can call on Erler? Yeah, I'll text him right now. Hey, there. We can move on now to item 5A. Yeah, there's Chris. Oh, that's all that. Well, Chris, we're running ahead of schedule. So he would like you to give a road and trail update. Okay, so we've started the spring grading. I know that they were on Crescent North. other day. I don't know what street they are on today, but we're working around to the so that we can touch the three miles of dirt road with the spring grading currently. Okay, anything going on with trails? Next, we got bigger. It's still there for us. Yeah, I'm still here. Okay, Scott was asking if you had any trail update. We don't have any trail work going on currently right now. Okay. Anything we can tell them about our roto mill? Uh, we'll know a date very soon. and then we'll prepare and give notice at that point once we have some dates. For that coming. And then of course we have the. Snow RFP that will be. We'll have our meeting tomorrow and then we'll have a bid opening on June 2nd. So tomorrow is the mandatory pre-bid meeting at the office? It's not a mandatory pre-bid meeting but it's an opportunity for any contractors to come, ask questions and then we'll answer all those questions and submit them out to everybody with answers and then all the bids will be due by June 2nd. Okay. All right. Any questions? I have a question. I know you and I hear it. Yeah. The question. Um. All right. Any questions? I have a question. Probably comment. I know. You are not here. Yeah. Tell me, you know, well, we're going to have another session of public comments coming up right after that 6 p.m Move waiting, but time wise, gap. I think we have them so come in. I think time wise, we're right. We have 20 times. Yep, sure. I'll ask you to identify yourself. Oh, the way I'm looking at it, it's $6.25 on the drive. I just wanted to know what cost more to maintain? A dirt road or a cave? A dirt road costs more to maintain. If it seems like some of the roads have been turned to So depending on how things are maintained depends on the quality of the road. So the cost to actually maintain a dirt road is more intensified than a road that is actually asphalted. But as the asphalt road declines, the the potholes which are the biggest issue, are more intensified pothole, that is more spread out or more depressed than actual a hole in the asphalt. So there's kind of significant differences there, but maintenance and upkeep of the dirt road exceeds the cost of maintaining and upkeeping an asphalt road. Also, we still have that big hole on the side of summit and solar break. I'm wondering when we might be able to address that mentioned in the last meeting. The two cars can't pass there and it's a little awkward because it's not a straight 90 degree angle. And two cars are trying to go on that road. Yeah, we were I was hoping to have a subcontractor out there to be doing some other work in conjunction with the crack ceiling. If they're unable to perform, then I'll have my crew take care of it. Well, the part that I think there's a dirt hole next to the asphalt. on the east, on the east, on the northwest side corner. All right, whether I sit for at almost, does that make sense? Correct. I've been up there. I know what you're talking about. So is that on the list, Chris? Yes, like if I can't have them address it, then I'll have my crew address it. All right. Any other questions or concerns regarding roads and trails? Hearing none, ask that we move to item 5A on the agenda, which is the resolution 2025-4 to amend the backflow inspection and the leak assistance requirements. And by the leak assistance requirements, we were modifying from every three year leak assistance application you can file two in every two year applications. Is the copy up though that the person has to have Ion water required fly? That is one of the criteria. And is the criteria have to be met prior to the leak or that's something they have to do to get the leak assistance after the leak is occurred? My understanding right now is is that you need to have iron water in order to be eligible for this leak before. Okay. Is that how it was worded previously? That's been a requirement. Yeah. But when I went through and I minted it as it made that a little more clear. Okay. But that's, I mean, certainly you can change that if you want. That's just been the best practice. That means good motivation to get. Yes. I have a point. Okay. But that, I mean, certainly you can change that if you want. That's just been the best practice. I mean, it's good motivation to get. Yes. I have a point. Is this the, this is the service that Chris was, So there's two things. So this resolution does two things. The first is the backflow. And so that is to come up with the more express, so I added a subsection and you can, I think see see the revised language and resolution. We already had a backflow section, but what we didn't have is a program by which people could ask Chris to do the backflow inspection at cost. And then also have the option for the upper lots that don't have to do it, but can if they want to or hire their own inspection or hire their own qualifying inspection to it. So I've added a section to allow that to happen. So having not reviewed the resolution you're talking about just yet, is the language. It doesn't necessarily direct people to to Chris's association. It offers that as an alternative to other people. Yeah, if you have an option, you have under this under state law, you've got to get it expected every year. You can either use the service areas water operator at cost. You know, I didn't put the fee in the resolution. The fee will be in your fee schedule. Or you can go out and hire your own inspector and have them do it. So is that common practice or other? Yeah. So serious that somebody in the service area is good. Yeah, a lot of cities that have their own inspectors go off. But the option is not to make that the service here the only game in town. If somebody else is another inspector that they want to do, they can use it. They don't have to use ours. That's what I wanted to do. That's only for the connected. That's only for the connected, but care you would ask that the last meeting include language that if the upper lots voluntarily want to have theirs inspected, they would have the same options. Okay, great. Now you will have to make sure that your fee schedule includes, because one of the things that this does, at least the way I drafted it, is to make it clear that if somebody does want to use Chris, that we will only charge them an at-cost fee. We're not going to use this as a money-making avenue, and so I've made that a requirement, but I haven't put the fee in this resolution. I've said the fee will be in the fee schedule, and the fee schedule will be at the actual cost. And I try trying to give you flexibility because usually if you're not going to have it specific, it'll just be okay. This is what the average is and that's what to feed it. And then you can adjust that each year. Well, it's going to be a time for I was having a separate bid in there just so that we can ensure this is harm's length. Do you know that happen? Well, you had asked us to look at the cost for some other entities and yeah, and so we were listing Chris at $99. I think that Jody didn't research in the cheapest one. She could probably like $125. And did you guys print that and realize it in the file? It's the case. Well, okay. Thank you. And just for clarification too, what we wanted to do was make it easy for the residents. So when they do sign up with the service area to do the inspections, to recurring each year, and what we build to this way. They're not to keep remembering every year to get this done. And so I went make one record for the note, one note for the record that would be easy to arrive at 5.44 pm. There is one kind of script and there's issues. So when I put this together and in subsection one of the resolve clause I had said subsection three two of the regulation is amended to incorporate the changes in Exhibit One, which are depicted in the strike through an underlying text. And the draft I said had strike through showing the changes in subsection 32, but what's in your packet? Just has a clean version without the edits. So it doesn't, did somebody change the strike through edit that I provided? I did. OK, so if you're going to pass it, then you'll need to change that first resolution to just say subsection three of the regulation is, I would just say, amended to include the changes depicted in exhibit one and just strike out that which are depicted in the strike through an underlying text. So do we need a motion motion to approve the act? If the board is inclined to approve the resolution, I would ask that it be moved subject to that change. Does anyone have any further questions or issues? You guys go. All right. Yes. Because I mentioned improve subject to secondary edit. So you want to explain. You can just a subject to demanding paragraph one. Are there for other resolve section to remove which are depicted in the strike through an underlying test. But they said. and sign up for the second second and David second and I will never bye bye I'm going to ask you to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to comments. Do you guys have any June on the side? And I would ask the members of the public if you would please sign in. Thank you. So we've allowed minutes. I get 11 minutes. Let's start with nobody wants that. I'm not good at energy. John of Soskey, 1129.4, or through this. Everyone here looks like a big of a lot of past meetings, but I thought it was worth at least for a marketing guide. I believe that this is the 10th meeting. John, since you started about the post-tax and rate, started taxing increases in the last few years, that's, you know, if that doesn't indicate problem then, then it should. I guess I should find out something. And I'm gonna thank you, because you guys have not only one, but two public comment periods on the agenda today. Just a few months ago, this is exactly the third. I built a few different names. That's not wrong. A few months ago, John, I think, is going to waste time, distraction of the comment periods before the board makes important decisions that affect us all in the long term. I don't think it is. This is important that you guys can address our concerns because we have a lot to say. Everything is for effect me and my kids are very long time. So thank you. You know, that shouldn't be a remarkable document of it is. So thank you for waiting on the agenda. Not twice three in the country. So, 2025 Procodes rate the increase for giving me this unruppinable, somebody else's sorry, said that we're all here because of Title 17 needs. not twice, three in only in the country, three. So, 2025 Procodes rate the increase for giving me if I'm repeating something else, sorry, said that. We're all here because of Title 17 needs, and we type that. It basically says you guys have to go for your increased taxes and rates. You gotta get noticed what you did. And you have to have pretty good reasons to do so. Otherwise, you're breaking the law. The only thing I'm going off of because I'm not good at it, a lot of the stuff that's going on in this business document, which is the proposed rate increase. And I'm going to be selfish. I'm going to focus on the only one that affects me, which is the one that's called SESA 3 Water Right Administration fee. The reasons provided for raising it from $182, $216 a year, or I'm just going to go from one by one, but quickly increase in from new, vegan replacement slash depreciation. That's not a good reason. Sorry, it doesn't pay for me. I paid for the reminder, and I put it in before it was big to do. Moreover, I could have gotten cheaper somewhere else. So the meter should be a revenue source for you guys, a cost So it's not a good reason to raise taxes. That's the first one Number two maintenance The Lord so recruit people might not know You guys don't know you guys don't maintain that well Well, I have a pump though. You guys don't give me a dime in fact you guys charge me money to maintain my So raising taxes so I can pay you guys to pay and maintain my law well is not a good reason to raise taxes. So those are two very false amounts of the false ratings. And the third on monitoring and monthly use interest payments. That's basically checking out how much water we're using, administering water rights, etc. We all know, we can get needs for like four or five months out. The cost of the service area to send out the monthly statements is going to get easier. It's going to spend the cost of the service area less money to send this monthly statements. So that's not a good reason for raise taxes as well. Perhaps you've already discussed some reasons to raise taxes, that you raise this particular tax, but these are not good reasons to raise taxes. It's very simple and common sense bias. This is not a good reason for these positions. The bring-news boards are kind of like, we don't care what the law is, you know, no one's going to find us where I'm putting. I would encourage you guys to do what is right, which is not to raise these taxes because they would be very deep long. The need would be opening up the service area to litigation, and it's not worth spending a third-hand right-winged made chats to buy for 36 dollar grantee tickets. So it's risk return there is a very bad one. And so you don't need it. All of the reasons provided to raise these taxes are the most of the false. If you want to raise taxes, that's fine. Legally you need a reason to do it. And these are not the reasons. And that's it. Thank you very much. Thanks John. So what John said, he referenced the mirror as we appreciate it. Is it the beacon, is this is the other specifically only for the beam. And I'll say something regarding that. Lisa Dier, so 8, 5, 8, 9, and a view. So the depreciate of cost when we might need to change our begins within 10 years. When we first moved to Silver Creek around 2011, 2012, we were to $200 a month fee from the service area for a sewer system that was supposed to be going in. I know, nobody currently knows about that, which is to my point. So we paid $200 every month, probably seven, eight years. And then it went away because they never put that sewer system in. It just never happened. If we do the same thing now, I think if you're going to say we need to raise this for the vegans, what you should consider doing would be putting that money in an account just for the vegans. Because then in 10 years, all of this is going to be different most likely you guys will be different maybe some of the staff will be different and just like that $200 that nobody seems to know that we paid for five six years it won't be anywhere that money will be used for something else and then the well owners will be charged for our beacons. We would rather pay for our beacon when we need to instead of having to pay for it now and that it disappears. If you're going to do that, then I think that money should be your mark. So that regardless of who is sitting on the board or who is in staff, when we need the beacon, we can go to the service area and pay for that already. And then they would change it. I have a question about the sewer fee because the service area doesn't provide sewer. I know. I know. When the sewer was there last time. So we purchased our house, it was probably 2011, 2011, 2012, and in order for us to purchase it, we had two, three to sign that we would pay $200 a month for that. I don't believe current residents have to do that. I think it was only the residents. And then one day they just stopped charging. Chris, that's with poor, I think pretty much anybody's's time staff. Do you recall anything about that? Nobody knows. Yeah, I'm not aware of anything sewer related that far up in Silver Creek. There might have been something down on lower like around East Creek Ranch,'re in. So I don't know that much regarding that site. It would be interesting, Lisa, if you shared a little information to understand just because you guys are so far up in the service area. There's not any plans that I'm aware of ever to go up that high. So right before we moved back, I threw away a lot of that all the old paperwork, but we were charged $200 every month by the service area for a sewer project. And that was based on us purchasing the property we had to agree. So it might be somewhere in our closing documents or something that I can look for, but that's my point. Was that when the sewer district is in the service area? What did you write the checks to? The service area. Yeah, I'll be honest, this is a little impromptu. Just because we're not in the sewer business. I'm just open. You're not putting the service district and maybe the the sewer district together by some means. But yeah, if you if you can find any information, but I I'm unaware of it. Ever the service area being in the sewer business and collecting something regarding that,. But let's discuss it and see what we can do to help you. Absolutely. And I'm not looking to get money back. Certainly my point is only that if you're going to collect something now for something that might occur 10 years from now, it should them be earmarked just for that, so that if I sell my house in five years, I can let the owners, that would be the new owners know, hey, you might need a vegan and a vegan in five years, the service area is gonna pay for it because we've been paying all along. So if you're not going to earmark it, I don't it's fair, and I don't think it's appropriate, because we've already done stuff like that. If you're going to ear market, then maybe it makes sense, but otherwise, I paid $10,000 for my meter how much for the begins? $190. Okay, so in 10 years, I'll be happy to pay $190.00 for my new beacon instead of having to make her right now. I'm just a little confused. Can somebody from staff clarify these numbers like 2025, early breakdown, but versus current count? They don't really, my items like, they're about what we're saying the year account is, But some of them are individual, but some of them are in the proactive account as well. I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think because by all we can't do that until six. So some of these public comments have dealt with that. Why don't we just wait 30 seconds or so till six? And then I think typically the way that this works is there'll be a presentation on the fees. Board can ask questions, public can ask questions, and then the board can make changes or act as opposed. So now six o'clock, according to my clocks are good. If we want to give the public the chance because we ask the question is now let's say it's a clock. But it's up to you. I mean, typically the way I see the public hearings work is, is there will be... I'm not putting my clocks on. We want to give the public the chance to re-ask the questions now that six o'clock. It's up to you. I mean, typically the way I see the public hearing's work is there will be some presentation on the fee. So their context is described. You guys ask questions and then the public will have it at the end of the year. How to chance to speak and have their say over it. I mean, you could take public comments first, but it might be more helpful to have the presentation. I just want to make sure that questions that they have that pertain to water, magic into the hearing. And so. over it. I mean, you could take public comments first, but it might be more helpful to have the presentation. I just want to make sure that questions that they have that pertain to water, magic, and to the hearing instead of just the media. Yes. And let her be yourself just. Correct. So, yeah, Mr. Chair, we have in the Wigney part of the agenda. I felt that. I just wanted to make sure that you guys have questions it's a place before 6 o'clock they get asked again just so that we're all right. I just said it now because we made it. Okay. And I would ask from the board's physicians since this document was delivered fairly like we've been asking for it for a while and it just came through that you actually in the description go over this breakdown and the line items in there as part of your presentation because that was part of what the public was asking that I've been asking to. So I think that would be helpful for this to be part of what you're presenting. Okay. Because it is good to be able to present. I'll go ahead and if we go ahead and wait and see, get up. And we'll also... Right. We can look at each proposed change. If you will, the first listed change would be the grace period for the new connection. As I'm just going down the rate and fee schedule going through any of the proposed changes. And we had proposed this, what we're calling grace period, of a discounted rate to $6,000 from the current $12,000 for June 1st through the end of this calendar year. That's what the grace period connection fee is about. If you want to step up and just take a picture of that so I can actually see? Vince, can you please read it? And just in parts of what's the same for me, sir? I'm going to take a close look at that. Can anybody want to see this? Yeah, can't tell them. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going Anybody wants me to send you something? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I've done the work. Back as I was published. Yeah, I was assigned to you. Oh, I appreciate it. It's really easy. It's a pleasure. You see that? Yeah. Yeah, great. It's great. It's great. Oh, thanks. I'm going to go down a little bit first. and giving people, it looks like some of the trustees may have to get the documents. The next change proposed was the removal of our over yearly allocation fee for connected users because they are going to be receiving monthly over allocation fees. Scrolling down to- You think he could actually just read it? Read the entire document. A little bit. We're just going to go over changes. You just think to what we're proposing. So that yellow highlighted that's what's changing versus what was there previously. Oh, I understand. Yeah. It's just a change. That's a hydrant change. Yes. Yes. So anybody using a hydrant is $3,000 the deposit. So the proposed change for the hydrant would be a $3,000 deposit, $500 rental fee, and then a five cent curgallon usage fee So the the hydrant people buying water or buying water are less than the residents? Not ten cents per gallon or did you are you putting the same like well let's say that for bullet comments just because he's going for the presentation of Okay on to the next proposed change. adding the grammar fees, these are in line with state grammar fees. We don't often and we are't required often to be the photocopies, but we just wanted to have that on our rate and fee schedule should have been needed. And I shouldn't know, there's one thing we'll probably need to do is currently your grammar fees are in your records policy. So this has been something we've been talking about for a while is to put them in your fee schedule and delete them from the records policy. So if you make this change, we will then amend the records policy to take the fees out. The next proposed change was the, you know, there were water rights administration fee and that was a proposed increase of $34 and the way they're looking at this is just breaking down the $34 and to one the meter costs, not the meter, the beacon. the picking costs $190 over an expected 10-year lifespan. So that $19 plus the monitoring fee that runs part of that, that's just cost each well and begin $12 a year. And then we factored in about $3 for all that's for the work of sending out the monthly water usage statements So that's how we came up with $34 Can you actually bring out the spreadsheet that you sent to us? That's the detail that you're sharing parts of it. Yeah for the support for that. Okay, that would not part of the board packet. That was sent to the board reference, but we, I mean, I want to understand that. There's a lot of other fees that you're saying go into that $30. No, those I was breaking the $34 into those three specific items. Okay. Okay. That's why I'm monitoring. The new discussion doesn't read like that. There's like a category of weber contracts, one shifting, and seeing. We listed all the costs associated with upper left. So the total cost there was listing a lot more. I think we had $261. But we are asking right now to just fridge that. We had it broken down and cost about $260 per active user. Right now we're asking just for an increase of the $34 to cover those immediate costs of pretty much relatively new costs. John, I think it would be good to go over that because as Mr. Noloski pointed out one of the things we've got to discuss in this is why these fees are needed. So that's part of the is there a way to just break that down? I don't think there's anything confidential in that. It's just a breakdown of costs. Correct. So then I think that would be worse including in the record. So if you were to show it on the screen, we could go through that breakdown for should we go through the rest of the changes first? Yeah, however I want to do it. Yeah, because that might bring up other questions here. And that does seem to be a question that public has. And so I think it'd be good to go through that, particularly with sound like the cost you came up with higher than what you're actually Yes. Correct. Okay. Okay. So continue on and go down to our memory. Down the back and we'll discuss. Okay, and I'll try and get this over there. I don't know if I have a printing copy. I don't know if there's any way that I can pull it up. I will bring it up on screen as best we can here. And the next, some of the fees you see are repeated throughout the rate and fee schedule because we have them in the connected section and also in the well user section as well. And this is what applies now and you see the scroll down discounted rate of the grace period. So that's a saying $6,000 grace period for connection on that. And that's you know just open to maybe encourage some homes along maybe Westwood that they can connect and we also have some people with some water aid issues and this is giving them an opportunity opportunity to do no fault of their own writing into any water aid issues to be able to connect. It's falling down for the tears. I've got it. I've got it. So I think we're going to go through the rest of them. And we'll come back in because that one's probably going to be a while. So the tiered price there, you see? These are the same tiers listed in connected users, but now we're looking at having this as being the conservation rates for while users. Oh, pause here for discussion on this point. That would be being consistent with connected. This is identical. Yes. But so just to clarify the difference between well users and connected users, is connected users could have overdoses every month. Yes. Well users are just annually. Correct. Correct. They don't have monthly overdoses. It's going to see their conservation rates kick in if they go over their annual lock net. So they live here only July through September and use 100,000 gallons a month, those three months, and then be out of town and still not acquire overgives. Correct. They stay under that 300, because you have it in that. The reason for that is, the reason for the overage with the system is that more water used, the more stress it is on the system, more cost it is, the service here to provide that water. So they have an allocation, but there's also extra costs to the system provided each month. So that's why, but with the private wells, which are kinda unique to you guys, you don't maintain the wells. So there isn't that sort of monthly cost, but there is an issue if someone permanently overuses their allocation at the end of the year. So that's true. And there was, as we discussed before, but just for the record, there was legislation that went into effect on May 7th that allows districts like you to impose conservation rates that are focused on incentivizing conservation. They're deemed to be reasonable. They don't have to be tied to extra cost. Yes. I just want to clarify that. Okay. The hydrogen fee listed here. The next one is the same as previous. That looking at that would be a reduction of 10 cents a gallon to 5 cents a gallon. And also the gram of fees listed here are the same. Gram of fees listed earlier. And then we have that one more time near the end of the document. Excuse me. John, just a question on the, isn't it used for you? Yes. Are they paying $500? That's $3,000 deposit. Yes. And then $500 to rent the hydrant. Rent the near the hydrant. So that they don't get back. Correct. Okay. Again, $5,000 back. Okay. $500 is a fee. What was it before? The deposit was a, was it, was it, was it, it would change the deposit or the rental fee? Right. No. We're looking at only changing the ten-way rate of five cents. Okay. Thank you. It was ten cents. And then last, last item was the leak assistance, which we've talked about earlier of modifying that from a three year to two years that residents are eligible to submit the leak assistance for. So there's too many questions. So we can go back now and look at the breakdown of that document that Kerry referenced and what this is doing is breaking down all the costs associated with the Water Rights Administration fee as well. And so based on mostly you can see legal fees, costs us. You make it larger. This is hard on me. I'm like, do I need to come up like this? I feel like I need them. Oh, that's right. Yeah. So legal is obviously right now the highest cost. costs and we broke it down to four year average and that's costing us about $40,000 a year and that's only for those in lots of agency on upper as well. How many lots are there exactly? It's just over 200 but we have some of them are vacant as well. And how much of that cost is reimbursed if it had to do with someone obtaining water rights? Like are you great are you deducting that from that? Correct. So you deducted in those averages if you gave me 2024s the 55670 would deduct anybody's water right legal bills from that that you would be reimbursed for once they receive their water rights. If we're getting the inverse. Yes. Water right dedication said initially we charged. But have those dedications been deducted from those rates? You went through all of those dedications and you deducted them already from that total? Yes. The water dedications are really very rare. You don't get a lot of them. And I'm assuming that from 2024, without disclosing any confidentiality that there's probably one or two larger items, like homeowner disputes in those fees, that may not continue to be something that we pay because those people potentially will have right. That's why you wanted to do a four-year average just to make it so much easier, I wouldn't be like an anomaly or anything. So to carry point, yes. I mean, there are most of this was you had one piece of litigation that service area have prevailed in. You had the metering effort, which most of that is people sending to manletters or refusing to meet her in which we had to respond or send to manletters of our own so you have to comply. And then there's just the normal where there's probably kind of that I don't think we're going to see because everything's metered. So I think that's probably gone. Where I think you're going to see more of the, where the upper lots are more complicated is when you have these real estate transfers. So lower lots are easy. But when there's an upper lot, and there's a property transfer, there's often more questions at the title of, hey, am I good or what's this? And so there's more questions to me and my staff about, okay. You know, how does this work? Do the buyers will have questions? And so there's more. That I see is kind of the more ongoing stuff. As long as people are, We've metered everything and we're no longer fighting with everyone to get their meters and I don't really see hopefully not being too much. I'm Luke. Me charging a service area to people who are obtaining water rights in line with what other service districts are charging in that are we charging enough when someone's selling their home or buying a home or should that rate be increased to compensate for these types of questions that the staff may have because these are complicated things. Have you been able to review what we do charge to people buying and selling so that we aren't absorbing costs that potentially should be part of a fee that's passed to a seller buyer? That's a fair question. I don't know the answer to that. I do know the fee that the way you adapt about dedications. And so we do have a dedication fee. John, I think it's a story that's been like 2,500 or something. It's been that way for a while. But that's when someone says, hey, I'm buying extra water and I'm dedicating it to the service area. We change the rule a while back so that there's very limited circumstances in which people in the upper lots need to dedicate it to the service area. Most of the time it's just acquire extra rights, but there are some which they would. So I don't really see a whole lot of that happening more in the lower lots where we're going to get the medications, but in terms of the property transfer, I don't know. I haven't looked into that. We've raised it currently is $1,500, which was an increase from $500, three years ago, yeah, based on what was going to be a plus 1,900 for this year. Correct. But most of that is more with the enforcement of getting people to install their meters, the fee solidification we had, which is related to people not wanting to file their meters, and then they appeals people file with the metering fees if they didn't meet her. It was that. I would just ask that maybe it's obviously what are under the bridge because we have this hearing right now, but for future for next year to kind of evaluate research from those staff and find out if other service districts are charging any other administrative to be associated with the transfer of property because it does sound like a lot of little nuance questions come up and that builds into legal fees, right? Yeah, and those aren't much, but but that's what my point is is most of that deals with the multi-year effort to get everyone to meet. And so now that that's done, I think this year, 2025 will probably be more of a representative year of what the legal fees for the upper lot will be because everyone's metered. Hopefully all the disputes are done, all the questions are done. And then what you're going to see is just the day in and day out administration of what it costs to manage those water rights. And what I'm saying is even though they're not a very big thing, the most common after the metering issue is when we have transfers and questions buckled. Yeah, and that's why I kind of go back to my point that raising these rates right now is with a year that was kind of an anomaly with everything that went on. Well in a couple years but yeah they were anomalies for sure. That it would be more prudent as a board to look at this increase like the staff had said they're going to look at these increases every two years. So from my perspective, if this year's predicted to be a little bit more of a normalized year, then we wouldn't do an increase this year. And that next year we have the right data to really be like, okay, this is more representative and to then make a proposal to the board from the staff where we've had more time to a few would have more representative here looks like, because to me, we're using two years with this meter and last year being kind of a cookie with everything going on. So that's just a plug for me that still pass on this increase for 2025, and look at it in line with if you guys staff had said'd say we'll look at increase if every two years on the connected to have them on the same schedule. So that's just a little fun for that. I tend to agree because I'm not sure it makes sense to basically increase on anomaly. If I'm wearing your ugly Nathan, that then translates to the stephesis of not being represented as either. Right. Oh, the Katie one I haven't been involved with that. Yeah, I remember but if the legal fees are the ball which you said is the case and that's an anomaly which you said is the case, then that indicates to me that that's it is that ration. And that may be and I'm not directing it. I guess I'm not directing it. It's just like a thought. Yeah, no. We stand in the last seven, the last meeting. We want to look at these every two years. Well, the connected users received an increased last year. The thought and the comment was from staff was like, we want to try and look at these every two years. since this year sounds like it's going to be a more normalized year, to me it would make sense to look at the connected and the non-connected increases what's appropriate next year as a whole and look at okay what does that deficit really look like. And that's totally the board's call but as far as you know my, well again these upper lots are not normal and that's why it generates a fair amount of questions. But to me, now that everything's metered, litigations over, to me, what I see is the ongoing maintenance. It will be questions. We may have a title transfer, or questions if someone hasn't over it. And what do we do there? Questions about if we have any sort of water rights issues with the canal companies. You know, and then you have things that pop up that are weird. But for the most part, I'm hoping that the the metering effort, which was something was going on the entire time I hear, but really centered, I'd say, on maybe the last two and a half, three years is done. And that was the bulk of this. That was the most contentious. That's where people had the most questions. That's where the most fights and the manletters and other things came from. So, I'm just sorry, go ahead. I just wanted to clarify, the raise, the increase of a proposing has nothing to do with those anomalies, years, right? That's all legal stuff. I know. Please wait a little bit. Yeah. I just said that. Right. It has everything to do with it. It has nothing to do with it. The $34 is strictly to do. We've been over a million times to live. I mean, at least 15 times. I said the same thing. It's for the not them beacons. Beacons. The maintenance. Those three items. up to $34. That's what the proposal is. This is just showing you kind of how what kind of financials. It began the maintenance, those three items, add up to $34. That's what the proposal is. This is just showing you kind of how, what kind of financials. How to justify what the increase is. They're just showing you the health, like the cost of the system and how we're running a deficit, but the $34 is right there, so it's three items. It has no $34. You know what I'm gonna show. This was here. This wasn't even supposed to be. It was here. This was because you asked me this last one. I would have charged because those are the fees to what they are. Absolutely. Yes. Service area. So my weekend goes out today. We wait for your service. We're in better places that this financial goes out today, we will start a service area. I think that's our suggestion. Correct. The service area replaces it as it costs the appropriate. The question I think is a valid one is, you know, we purchased them, right? Was there an initial start? So you're. Serpentary. Okay. But so you're going to maintain them only at, I mean, that Chris mentioned that they usually last 10 years and there is no maintenance on them. It's about 8 to 10 years. Okay. So the maintenance is broken down into that line item, but there is no maintenance on that tree. There, there, there is in a sense that they're not 100%. We don't get 100% of them with that eight-year life. Some of the batteries will go out in three years. They're under warranty. Chris Scott, go out and replace them, send a factory manufacturer, and do all that. Why wouldn't we have, if they break, here's the cost to replace it. If there is a maintenance to be done on it, here is the cost for maintenance. It's like it just seems like, why are we charging a fee for something that's gonna, yes, over, okay, take $19 a month, the year year towards this from each of the 200 whatever lots we're not we've been told that you're not going to put that into a separate fund towards the weekends even though that was like something that like can we dedicate this to the beacon fund but why could we have a see for the beacon specifically like if your beacon breaks here is the cost to break here for the cost of your beacon. If your beacon needs maintenance, this is the cost to maintain your beacon. So the service area owns the beacons for monitoring. That's how we are able to comply with currency and usage. And so the service areas cost in the last two years to install the big guns out of pocket is over $30,000. So, you know, if we want to get some nuts and bolts that whose paying that $30,000. But that's not what's in those three line items. Like, that's not the relev like the depreciation, that's not relevant. The relevancy. So can I just illustrate differently? The negative 8141 is the deficit per user per year. If that's good. Yeah. So if you back out the 34, you're still at like $47 and change in the breath. If that was actually accurate because the bleepalpes are implated for those. Yeah, but I was like, no, the bleepalpes were paid and they were proof. So they're not implated. And if you have three out of four years that are more less in average, that's not an aberration of a definition. It's two years that is the, is the, is the, I mean, if you look at the four years in your average, this year might be less. I mean, I mean, I've got those change applications that we discuss the class being, but those are for the lower line. So aren't we the upper line? I mean, I'm not really interested in that. I mean, I'm not really interested in that. I mean, I'm not really interested in that. I mean, I'm not really interested in that. I mean, I'm not really interested in that. I mean, I'm not really interested in that. end of last month. So where do you think it'll be extended June? We'll just double that number. Well, I mean, I've not really a tips. We don't have anything. I mean, I've got those change applications that we discuss at class, but those are for the lower lives. So aren't for the upper lives. That's the adjunee minutes. So I don't believe it'd be 25 by the end of June. No, by the end of the year. By the end of the year. Yeah, I think it'll probably be about, you know, maybe you're almost half. I think that's probably about 20. I mean, maybe less. I mean, most of this has been preparing for this hearing and then some of the residual stuff from from last year. So if the average is 40 in your 25, that's a delta of 15,000, right? Yeah, we're maybe 20 or more. And if you spread that over the users, the numbers, users that we have, what does that have to do? That's what 200? Yeah, I have a gun and a map. So 75,000. I say, we got 20,000. It's about 75 dollars ahead. Oh well, excuse me. We got 90 dollars. We got 20,000, 20,000 divided by 15. But we're going to charge We're going to separate the, we're going to talk about connected and non-connected and this, not. So if you want to charge this beacon, appreciation maintenance, great. But I ask that it just be put into a beacon fund. As long as there's not a deficit, I personally have no issue with itemizing revenue. So if you want to get certain revenue, that's okay, but if you're running a deficit somewhere else, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this where Truth and Taxation comes into budget process for instance? So this isn't, let me just be clear, this is not a tax hearing. You're not posing a tax, these are fees. So they're a different process. So truth and taxation would be if you're going to charge a property tax which we're not doing. This is a fee for services so it's a different process. Okay, so then for me again. So they're different process, but so truth and taxation would be if you're going to charge a property tax which we're not doing. This is a fee for services, so it's a different process. Okay, so then from an accounting perspective, don't you have to offset a deficit with surplus revenue? So if you're going to budget this for future use, if you're still running a deficit somewhere else, who's paying for the deficit? Well, you would have to have Dave involved. The Dave said it was fairly typical in the last meeting to put this in an account towards vegans. who was painted for the deficit? Well, you would have to have Dave involved. The Dave said it was fairly typical in the last meeting to put this in an account towards Beacon's. Obviously, if there was a deficit at a certain point, we'd have to talk about, do we need to let it speak in fun? But if the deficit of the buzz doesn't really exist if we're at 20,000 instead of 55 and 40 cents. We don't't know that yet. Well, I mean, but you just were trying to get him to give us a projected. So if we go into the deficit, that's definitely a conversation you have. But if you wanna collect the beacon, wanna have the depreciation of the beacon remaining to the beacon, then have a line item, doesn't have to be a separate account, that just says, this is how much for transparency purposes, we're collecting the beacon. And part of the day, if he still comes out, Nathan,000 difference. That's $75 per well user before assuming there's 200 users. That's more or less breakeven. That'd be basically a $6 deficit. And with respect to what you're saying, if we got to that kind of parity, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with it, but I think there are well users who don't want to get to act with a agent, with a maintenance, with a service, over that. And I don't know. So that's just something to think of. Well, you're already doing it here, but I mean, like the Weaver contracts, the flagship ditch, the state engineer, those are only having to do with the upper wells just to be clear. I mean, I just think that if it's a transparency issue, you want to collect it, I'm obviously going to be in the minority. I would just say, just show a line item how much we're collecting towards these vegans, whether we have to make a motion at a future date, like, oh, we're operating at a deficit in this area. That's what you're talking about. We need to talk about that. That deficit is an accurate. What? It's not going to be accurate because you're looking at two anomaly years. Overlooking an hour over four sentences of projection. But you're not going to be at that amount if you go back down to 20 this year. You're not going to 25 this go to 25 this year, we're still running a deficit. You said it, maybe even less than 20. You're going from 15 to 20 to 25. But I think- Again, yes, yes. And yes, yes. I have a question. So is it common for us to bucket things like that? Are other things bucketed specifically, or do we just keep them more general? We have a capitol reserve that goes into one bucket. Again, and that's you're kind of baking that capitol for if and when a water main for it. Yeah, you know, for example, the $30,000 that we spent the last two years to install the beacons came of that capital reserve Which if if you look at it all the problems with the silver the bullet right those came out of that those repairs had to come out of there correct Right Well, yeah, that again that's coming out of the Capital Reserve. Okay, but those all came out of capital reserve those Those deal with connecting users, but there was funds in there that were collected from last year that were in that capital reserve. I'm not trying to delineate between connected and I'm just trying to discern and like what you're suggesting about making it into a separate line item. Like I'm just asking is that a common thing we do? Or would that be the only thing we we've done a separate bucket is more on the tax size if we were planning let's say five years throughout a complete rebuild so what creek then that would be a property tax because there's a big difference between enterprise fund which is the water in and the general fund, which is not. Because my understanding from the last meeting when he was here when we asked this in the live session at the Rikin Center, with that he said that there were other service areas that had these types of line items. I think that's the end of the day, if you like us to put in a capital reserve for Beacons as a line item, we can do that. I think that would just help for visibility and transparency. But if we are chronically running a deficit, and this year hopefully we know in terms of legal fees. So we have to reevaluate it. Right, but if you're asking to reevaluate it after we've had four years where there's a deficit specific to legal fees. Well, we shouldn't even be doing an increase this year because the staff had said they look at increases every two years. That was a thing. I haven't had an increase. It's been 25 cents a gallon. Yeah, but they... So you guys say one of the other, you can't think of who. Answer the point. But I mean... I'm having an increase. I'm having an increase. I'm having an increase. I'm having an increase. I'm having an increase. I'm having an increase. I'm having an increase. I'm having an increase. I'm having an increase. I'm having an increase. I'm having an increase. I'm having an increase. I'm having an increase. I'm having an increase. I'm having an increase. I'm having an increase to the upper, this year instead of looking at increases to the upper and the lower on the two-year cycle next year. Can I offer the idea that for the past four years, that there was a group that was funding this deficit that's now asking for unity after the fence. I don't know what that means. I'm trying to say without being divisive but if connected users were paying for the deficit in terms of the massive legal fees for the past four years and this is is the one year we're projecting to each other. That's a great thing. And I said, comment. That's still created by it. It's an answer to your question. It's not. It's not because I'm new to this. I don't. I'm new to her. I mean, I've never run over. I mean, from a personal perspective. Not that I'm running over. Well, it is because at the end of the day, I'm pretty neutral. I'm looking out for my community. I'm not looking out for myself being a connected user or not. I'm looking out for my community. And to me, this seems unfair to do an increase on the upper when they had an increase last year. and to not look at it next year when we're supposedly on that tier cycle and we look at an increase because there was no increase last year to the, there was an increase last year to the connected users. Yes, $120. And there was an increase last year to the, well, but you don't pay for your well. Oh my God. All those things going to- We do, we pay 1,300 a year, right, for three quarters of the water that you have and I understand Well cost like growing well expensive. I totally get however if you look at it in a 15 year time period You know think about your cost over like if I put it into the chart it would take you actually like a hundred years to get to how much our wells cost us. Did you drill well? What? Did you drill well? We had to fix our well. Where did you drill it? I did not. Okay. I paid $60,000 to hullers. Yeah, that's not an valid argument. Why? Because there were problems with the well. Excuse me, I had catbacks when I built my house. But again, the cost of what we pay in the lifetime of our wells embedded in the cost of the property, whatever. We pay twenty- over 15 years. The bottom line is if we're doing an increase, we did one last year for the ever, we should look at them at the same time. There's no precedent for that. There's nothing that says that that's even a factor. And in the end, let me finish. You've been talking a lot. I'd like to say a couple things. It's not a great question. It's not a great question. No. I'm done with you. It's unnecessary. Say what you just said. It's amazing that the four people fighting for this are the connected people who have a vendetta against the nodding effect. That's what fairies say. It's really not unfair. I don't see it. Rick, do you want to say that? That's what Ferris said. We have to let that down. of the data against the non-connected. That's unfair to say. It's really not unfair. That's unfair, I don't know. Rick, do you want to say that? I'm sorry. That's unfair to say that we have the data I can sue. Well, you don't say that. I've been saying from the beginning, I've been trying to say I don't want to have a divisive between upper and lower connected and unconnected. And you don't do an increase this year. So, finish your thought please. Okay. What I'm saying is that the two-year thing you keep bringing up was like a comment by staff. It wasn't a policy. It's not anything. Now, we have to debate whether or not we want to have this increase. The staff has provided information on why they feel there should be an increase. And we can vote on that. Okay, but please don't take it as like upper versus lower. It's not that. Okay, and it's totally like you guys are having a discussion about like the cost like it's totally apples and oranges, right? Like you guys are on a well, I'm not on a well. It's totally different. Our costs are gonna be different. The amount of water we get is different. So we're just two different types of users operating in the same service district. Okay, so it's not a matter of us against you. And I'm not on this board to save myself $34 a year. I'm not even in this meeting to save myself $34 a year. So you are or at least some of the board has said, oh, will we pay it for these little costs in the past? And we need to, that's the reason why you're trying to say we're running a deficit that we need this increase. But the deficit calculation. No, Gary, that's not true. Okay. Like I think Scott's just trying to point out that in the past that the connected users paid that even though they haven't been responsible for the legal fees. But again, we're not asking for that back. Okay. We're just saying that this is what the costs are. And they're saying this is, you know, it's $19 for the beacon. $12 for monitoring and $3 for annual bill. All right. That comes at $34. How many lots are there? 167 lots on beacons that are built out, 13 are vacant on standby fees. And the difference is properties that are on their own water rights. So the $12 you're saying is monthly per person. Year yearly. It has monthly right next to it. It's 12. Well, it's $12 for the year. It's a dollar a month. Then why does it take a minute to set it up? Because I wanted to break down that redift bill, a yearly fee, and we're charging $12 for the entire year's year for that. I can take that out. right? It probably should say monthly that, but it's a $12 annual cost for a beginning to ask the monitor. So we're going to collect almost $7,500 additional dollars. If you total this over the $220 loss, correct. It's under. On the 34 times to 20. I'm going to No, 160, 67. Is that 220? No, it's 220. So 167 acts of lots like it says on the bottom there. So what about the inactiveact of all of them? They pay a $250 stamp ID. Okay, so it's a hundred and a half million? Sixty-seven. So $5,678. Okay, so that's $5,678. I don't know if I'm going to go through this conversation. I need to do it after. I'm sorry. Yeah, before the vote ready for public comment? Yes. Is there anything else? Breath. Okay. So rules apply to on three minutes for person. Not sure. Okay, we're going to open it up. So this is our, we're going to, these public comments are asking that feel be for a rate and fee specific. And then later on in the meeting, we're going to have public comments again for general. But right now, we'd like to open it up to public comments specific for a rate and fee. John, if you'd like to start. John, I saw a few on Cornell, Criteria, South. I already said what I said before, even if we stipulate that the beacon here if he we said for those of us that the city. Oh if they will let me do that I have to shut me up and put that up. It's just because we're going to allow it so I'm sorry but can we please get the gate again? Two minutes. Okay I'll come back. Even if we stipulate that beacon which may or may not needed replacing a gate to ten meters does justify that not to increase. I gave you guys two very good clear examples of other areas in which uppercase of the clock are going down. You're saving much money, saving the emails instead of mailing out stuff. And you're also not actually maintaining any big new letter that is going to save the engineer I talked to, save engine is off this list. Nothing's been done, which can prevent you to understand the great. So that cost is getting lower. These costs are getting lower. So even if the theoretical begin cost has to happen, those wash out, those without wash out if you look at that. So that's that if you just didn't do anything, that would be that would be a wash number two with some legal fees. Don't invite litigation and the legal fees will go down. If you jam through tax increase or giving fee increases, that invites litigation. When we have fight status between neighbors, between board members, that invites litigation. Our legal fees will go up if we beg for it like this. If I gave two very good examples of thoughts going down. John and staff give a good example of these that might justify a cost increase. Let's hash that out and actually have no longer a thing we agree on as a group. Before shelving this very increased through, I'm not going to spend very grand to my work, fight me as a 36 dollar increase. There's a whole bunch of people, so it's pretty good. So don't invite the question, if you don't want litigation, so let's agree on something, come to your nameless decision, or if you have clarity on the data, before we fight about it in court, because that's how we avoid those cost increases. And that's all there. Yes. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks. So. Thank you. Thank you. So. cost later. And that's all. Sally. Yes. Sally, why I tell you to pay for it. Can someone explain to me like for your own why I'm paying more for my making a lot for water. Please, and I don't have a well on versus what I paid for my house block. I think it's 300, I heard it's 2.3, it's 2.5. Correct. It's being 300 for a vacant line, 250 for the standby fees. How's that put? No, I don't remember. How's the program? It is a further administration of the standby, without a well, or what is the detail line? For the vacant $300, I think. And Chris can jump in on this one because he's the one who like, he talked me when I first came here about like a the service area puts out like an incentive to build. I think there's a property test. So they're not like a property test. So they can help you understand how to did it. I did it. Yeah. So that's a, it's just been more, more like they call it incentive to build. incentive to build. Okay. That's the one. That's right. We don't sell it. Is that so. So make it. Stand by if he is. We have to build. We want to build as opposed to having this beautiful land. to build as opposed to having this beautiful land that health and use more water. And use more water. I use no water in that. So, in seven of them, I'm curious about something. So, how might we build out petitioning or saying, would we consider that? What is our process? Or submitting respectfully respectfully saying it doesn't make sense to me. And I'm not as smart as all of you when it comes to this, but I just don't get it. Is that, I don't know if that's on the agenda for tonight, so I don't know if we can actually... Okay, sorry. I can talk with you afterwards if you want. And then I just have to be something of the next rate and fee hearing to discuss. And I think it's a very logical spot for you. I'm not really getting that really good. I'm getting that really good. I'm getting that really good. And then that might just have to be something of the next rate and fee hearing to discuss. I think it's a very logical. It's not like I'm getting it. No, it's not. It's going to be a hearing. 30 days though. I can afford the $300. So it's not going to be just. I don't. When I understand things. 30 days. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I've been able to do that. I've been able to do that. I've been able to do that. I've been able to do that. I've been able to do that. I've been able to do that. I've been able to do that. I've been able to do that. I've been able to do that. I've been able to do that. I've been able to do that. I've been able't do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. you send the grammar request by email and John's and stop me daily to make grammar requests. When you couple a refusal and a dictate to submit grammar requests along with a fee increase with grammar requests, that's unfair. You don't have to repeat. I thought, believe I forward you guys that. So if you guys, if John says, I'm not answering, I'm not answering, I'm not answering the grammar, I'm using it. And then you jack up the grammar fees. It's a question. My hands are tied. You're making you pay more to something that I'm legally entitled to. That's not cool. So I'll shut it. Anybody else? Lisa, do I go to my bank? I'm going to be wrote. I have a couple of things here that I've written down. So for the well users, our rates are considered conservation, right? So they go with the conservation, I think Nathan said, those that money can only be used for conservation. So does that go into a separate account? I don't think that was... That's a requirement for other types types of water providers and it's the top rate that would be the conservation rate. Right anything over the 100,000. Yeah, but that's not a requirement for special districts, but it is something you can do. The point is trying to make the last meeting is charging a rate to essentially the point there is incentivized people to conserve and use less, stay within their allocation, basically. And then also to reimburse you for your costs in forcing. So that is considered when the bill is being drafted, check with the drafters, that checks the conservation button. Now there were requirements in some of the initial drafts, but the final draft is that requirement that the conservation money go into a special fund doesn't be applied to you, but you could certainly do that. If you wanted to, you could take that conservation rate, put it into a fund, and then you have kind of a rainy day fund if we have to go and enforce those. That's certainly something you could do if you want to. It's not a plier anymore. Not under the draft that passed. Okay. Other water providers, private water providers, those types of things, but not for you. Okay. The second one was the change for the hydrant for people that are coming into purchase water was changed from 10 cents to 5 cents as of our last meeting. When did that happen? When did it change? Because it didn't happen when we were all sitting. And why would we pay more for water than somebody from outside, like construction company, coming in to buy water? Why wouldn't we charge them to stay? Like when did it happen? Because we were not least fighting not here that at the last meeting. That was proposed at the last meeting to change it from 10 cents to 10 cents. Not when we were in the room. Thank you. We're here. I promise you that it was there. I was there. I was at the meeting. Yeah, but we did discuss it last month in it. I'm sorry, Scott. It's basically because no one, no constructions company's bought any water because it's too expensive. Okay, and then I don't I don't necessarily necessarily although you can say they're paying less I mean if you They're buying less than the top the top over a drain Right, that's a point. That's right. So like Chris said one of the companies bought you know three million gallons of water This was way back and they bought it at like a cent a gallon something so So now we're saying, okay, they do come to get water. We want to conserve water. We've been told for now two years that we're worried about it. The aquifer we need to conserve the dates trying to conserve why less than short our time. A lot of investors. Okay, can I ask you, would you mind getting an illustration from Vince on a three different, is correct correct three different types of water that we have access to because it's like we have residential, yeah, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, right. Yes. But it's all coming from the same places, right? Guys, it's coming from our different water rights. That's what water rights, but it's still coming from our our general supply water. So there's just for example, and this is just my interpretation, if there's a hundred trillion gallons of water under our feet, we are only entitled to defer what our water shares quantify out. Is that right? Yeah, so your water rights, so the state owns the actual water molecules, what you write to your bird, and so you have a limited right, you have about 400 acre feet total. Those rights are approved differently. There's a little bit of overlap. For the most part, you have shares in irrigation companies, the charge and annual assessment that are the underlying rights for the upper lots, and then you have other water rights, a bunch of mix for the water system. So my understanding is this is coming out of the water system based on the water system rights. So by way of example, I'm originally from the Northeast, and whatever water set under our house, for example, was what we could access. And it's very different out here. So that's called the riparian right system. And what that is is that if you own land, you could basically use whatever water you have on your property within reason. Out here in the west, we have what's called the prior appropriation system, a much moreid system. And here's your right is what your right is. You have that limit to. If you could go for it for quite a year. Yeah, there's no, there's no reasonable test to it. And it's reason for that is back east. The repaying rights comes from England and other countries where there's just more water. And I'm from these two. Funny water I had a well. Never mind to worry about water too much water is the problem back there too little prop water is the problem. I don't know for a match on this but is the idea of conservation really so that other people in the problem back there. Too little water is the problem. I don't want to throw a match on this, but is the idea of conservation really so that other people in the state can develop? Is it really about us actually saving drops of water? Well, I can't, I'm not gonna speak to the legislature's intent for it. I think, but for your sake, the challenge is, is that you have 400 acre feet of water. It's just, this isn't the way it is, but just to make it easy 200 for upper 200 for lower And so if you have anybody who's got an allocation and either of those say let's just say they use double their allocation And it's not some leak or something it's permanent Then they've lessened the amount of water left for everybody else and so if someone calls up and they say, hey, I'm thinking of selling my property or I'm thinking buying this property, you know, what's my allocation? We say, well, you know, it's one, but we have this other guy that we're letting them just divert forever and use whatever they want. It diverted the amount of water that's available for the other person, even they're not using. But so that's That's the point of the conservation is to keep people within their allocation. Legislature has multiple reasons for doing it. That's one that I've never heard stated on the record. But who knows, for a lot of developers in legislature that may have been there in 10. That's okay. I'm taking my time. I wanted to say something about to Lisa about that. I'm not sure. Tell me if I'm wrong on this, but I feel like the water we're selling to the contractors is going to be used one way or another. right? If they don't get it from us, they're going to get from somebody else. And so it's a revenue source. And so we're trying to capture some revenue that we would otherwise not get. And obviously, we still need to stay within our 400 acre feet or whatever it is that we have. But in words, as far as conservation, if a construction company is using water, they're going to use it. It's just a matter of they get it from us, but they get it from somebody else. So our rates and fees, then let's finally like, set it out loud. Our rates and fees are not truly about conservation. It never really has that. Our rates and fees are about supplying money to the service area. And I'm not saying that's a wrong thing, but it's about supplying money to the service area to do whatever projects they have to do. And it's really not about conservation. What they'd say is conservation, conservation, conservation for years now. And then we do everything pretty much against that. Like build a house and use water because so we're going to charge you more so you build a house on your open lot or you know don't buy another water right and then use more water because you've heard just another water right that's not about conservation to me and that's okay I still have a couple of questions so just say okay I guess yeah other question I'm sorry so why we a community, why would we not if people are selling homes and there's a cost like through title policy or through whatever to the service areas, answer questions on that. Why would that not be charged to the person selling their home or the person buying the home and don't put it on the community as part of annual fees? You talk about the transfer fee for real estate? Yeah. That's paid by the buyer or the seller. No, okay, but it's not enough. But it was on the legal fees. It was part of legal fees. It was part of legal fees in the justification of why we wanted increased fees was that. That wasn't specific to the transfer fee. It was a transfer fee. I mean, it fee. It was a transfer fee. It was a transfer fee. It was a transfer fee. It was a transfer fee. It was a transfer fee. It was a transfer fee. It was a transfer fee. It was a transfer fee. It was a someone has a transfer fee, it's usually like 10, 20 minutes. It doesn't have big, long standing fee. I don't know if your fees enough to cover my time. My fees is not the part of the justification to increase that. And the $34, guys, it was not- It was good into that. It was pretty significant. That was upon the payers. When that piece of paper was up on the board, that was part of that discussion. Was that folded into some of those legal things? You bring that back up. And that's what she's saying is Nathan, when we ask, when we ask what goes into your fees, if there is that litigation this year, you said you get questions from staff about transfers, about right-to-use. Yeah, it's basically basically it's basic administration. It's like I have this we have this right that's approved. There's the state engineers giving me a notice where I do it that we've got this transfer question enough to cover each of these transactions. I hope things should just go to that homeowner. They should just be able to know what is time is on what question and and then put it on the homeowner and not use it as a justification to increase fees. So it's not listed there for one thing. So usually like I said, those transfer questions are usually pretty simple. It's usually, I'd say 10 to 20 minutes, maybe half an hour on those transfers we don't involve. Yeah, and I only get involved in a couple. So I don't, I would think the 1500 sounds like it's probably enough, but I defer to you guys because I don't, I only get involved when you ask me to. Does that get 100 touch the water side of the revenue, or is that allocated towards the general sum? That's the general sum. So in fact, this is question, how does that 1500 factor into any legal fees associated with the water? It does because I don't build those transfer fees to this. I mean, that could we could set this up differently, but those are usually built to the general matter and I'm not the water matter. So what will go into the water matter? This here is a not litigation. So if they're not litigation, if we have any sort of an extension request with the state engineer's office, if there's questions about any of the. For what? So every so as a public water supplier, you're entitled to hold water rights essentially indefinitely, but there is like a 40 year time period and other things. But long as short of it is, most public water suppliers don't prove up their rights because when you prove up to your rights, you go in and you say, Hey, here's how much water I'm using. Stay as you'll come out measure it, and then they'll give you a... long as short of it is most public water suppliers don't prove up their rights because when you prove up your rights you go in and you say hey here's how much water I'm using state as you come out measure it and then they'll give you a certificate for how much are actually using and so here where we have other lots that aren't built yet if we were to go and improve up our rights now we get a haircut from what we're ultimately improved from so the law says if that's your case your public water supply you can hold water for the future growth. What you have to do is essentially check in every so many years and file an extension request. So we have... There you happen... says if that's your case, your public water supply, you can hold water for the future growth. What would you have to do is essentially check in every so many years and file an extension request. So we have they happen every couple of years. I think we had one or two this year. So you have extension requests. You have questions if constituent has a question about what their water is, if there's, you know, just usually there's not much outside of all this other stuff. But it could go down. I hope it does. I've said this before, my recommendation has been that the service area has been off several lots. They've been very controversial, but that's easier said than done. That would require more costs. That hasn't happened. We set up a private water company, deed all the water right over to them, they could manage their own company. If the official screen wanted to do this how would they do it and how would they coordinate with you and then would you be able to provide a rough idea of what it would cost? It's kind of a separate thing but my suggestion has been that we create a separate private water company That's more in line with this type of thing have them manage it for lots to but they'd have to they'd have to pay the cost of managing it They'd have to have their own board of trustees. You have to go through all that They'd probably have to hire their own attorney. I wouldn't want to represent the company in the service area And I don't know and you said that when I first had my first conversation for you, that's barely as typical like you never, you know, that's what you told us. But what's weird is, yeah, and then, and I think roll water said the same thing at the last meeting. I'm not aware of another public water supplier that holds water and trust for people to own private wealth. And that is where most of the questions come from. Someone buys a lot. They're from somewhere else like me. They're from Becky's. They're like Scott. They're not. They're used to the riparian rights where they have a well, I own the water. And then there's a bill in dispute or they're saying, why am I getting this over to math? And then the questions come to me. So water stays separate and then the roads stay right? Well, yeah. So the service area would own, they've consumed and maintain the water system. They just maintain the roads up there. But that's not what's on the topic today, it would be a separate thing. But my point is to yours, I don't, the upper lots are weird. And so the general thing is you have administrative costs just maintaining the right, dealing with the state engineers, so the napkin a lot. You have questions, the staff and people have just about things. And then you just have just the general uniqueness of it where constituents will have a problem or a question and that comes to the staff about the water rights or how it works and then I'll ask me or maybe they'll submit a grammar request and then I'll have to get involved with the staff can't answer it. And so there's just more people on the water system don't have questions about the water system as much as people. Because it's basic. Because it's basic. Yeah, everybody's lived in a city, and like me, I South Jordan, I pay my bill, I don't have a well. And so that's, people just have, they see a bill and they're like, wait, I own this well, why am I getting this bill? just more, more, more, there's no constituent interaction. Let me put it that way. And there's no help. Like it's not the fault of the service area that they can't help us. When we have an issue on our wells, I've spoken to Chris about it and he's like, I'm so sorry. I can't help you. I've called a column, or an axe call an extubator. I have to do all that myself. So then, you know, $34 is not a killer. I don't think any of us here can't afford $34 a year. This is my final comment. The $34 is representative of, it's a difference. And you're saying, well, it's for these past legal fees or I needed for the beacon or any, there's no real clear reason why. And it goes back now again to the 25 cents that new Bradford's there was really no clear reason I'll pay for my beacon when it breaks I think most of us in here that have wells would be happy to pay our hundred and ninety dollars when our beacon breaks if we have to we have to we putting you know meters for ten thousand dollars seven thousand, those are huge expects, but everybody did it. The $34 just seems not fair when it's not, let's be one whole community, treat everybody as one community and not as these two secrets, and you say, I don't wanna divide, but it does appear somewhat divisive. And I know it's not a popular opinion, but it just doesn't make much sense. And all of the justification, like what I got out of all of the justification is obviously wasn't really what the justification is. But we're we're dancing around all of it. If you're trying to collect fees from the past and we're like, we're going to do that on the on the back So you guys because 15 of your neighbors decided they wanted to sue then just say it because if that's what it is Then that's what it is but don't make it about other things because it just it feels just ingenuous But please have none of that 34 dollars is related to any of the legal fees Right, and I guess that's what it's very confusing because when we started the meeting, they're like, well, really, it would be 287, but we're only trying to collect 34. Sure. It is part. It's a use of a justification, Rick, that's just trying to push us to a certain narrative, and it feels not genuine. It feels like, let's put all these numbers together and you know smoking mirrors and then we're just going to charge them $34 and I don't think it's really worth $30 I think it's the point. And depending on where Nathan's face fall in, it actually could not be that deficit. It's like if you want to use the deficit because that's why it's there to create a story just something like that. We're trying to just have the deficit no longer is there. So that's why I keep suggesting, let's look at this year and see what comes and reevaluate this for next year. Same. We're only going to charge five cents per water to contractors because we want to make money. Done. That makes sense. To. You need to get there's no way. You know, like it's simple. This is not simple. So I'm just taking under advisement for you guys, for your sake so that we can come to meeting side three people and be telling myself, sorry. Anybody else would like to ask a question? Can I address something at least this one? I'm sorry. Is that okay? Of'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. What was your point on that? So when we first heard about this new policy coming from the state legislature, when it was originally, they were speaking about it. They said any piece or how I remembered it was any fees collected that were pinned for water conservation had to be used for water conservation. Okay, that wasn't it. Okay, so I think it was a little bit too addressed. So when you said you alluded to, we have so much water that we're just charging overages, it's not really conservation, we're just charging overages to like, I know they said that. And I did three times. So speaking, I had a very great conversation with Nathan and he kind of explained the ins and outs of what's going on. So I don't know if you guys know this but the state of Utah monitors are usage. So correct me if I'm wrong but I think if we're allotted 400 acres and if we egregiously or just like screw it we're just going to whatever they want. In an extreme case, the state could come in and take over. So, yeah, so let me, let me see. I'm just saying that's what we're doing this collectively for us as citizens of this community as a whole. So, putting in, you know, conservation, penalty fees. Right, and I don't have a problem. I think they did a great job on the new rate V schedule. I have no problem with the rate V schedule. My only question was when you get to that higher level of those sort of conservation rates, were they going to earmark that just for conservation, but they don't have to. So I can read the actual legislation. So there were. So what it says is the use of revenue collected from the portion of any block of unit of water design to encourage water conservation may include funding water conservation efforts that are shared with or administered by another public water system or holds their water.. Then there's also some separate language for if the public water system is a for-profit entity, which you guys aren't. There are a few for-profit water companies. They may not use revenue from the highest usage block unit of water design to encourage water conservation to pay profits or dividends to the public water systems investors or owners. So those are where it ended up, but since you aren't a for-profit and the others are made, you're not doing anything with another water company, it doesn't really apply to you. But you could still do it if you want to, nothing in the bill that says can. I just want to, I just want to rub it getting out there is going like, well we don't really need to consider it. Yeah, and the point, and this predates my time, predates, I think everybody on the board started 2016 earlier, actually before that trying to get meters for a couple of reasons. Your water rights as a condition of them all require that you ensure that everybody who is a diverse service area water rights has to make it. That's in your water rights, it's also state law and David to your point. And I don't think that we're at risk of this now I mean just be clear of that But if we were to get to a point where we're exceeding our 400 acre feet. Let's just say we'd sit pay attention to it And everybody we're using 420 and say danger comes in. It's the only get 100 You got to tell these other people that are using the 20 to cut back and so if they build a to use or they build buildings or they have who knows what that they're relying on, they would lose that. Now that's not us losing our water, right? It's losing that excess that we... the 20 to cut back. And so if they build ADUs or they build buildings or they have, who knows what that they're relying on, they would lose that. Now that's not us losing our water, right? It's losing that excess that we've been using. But the biggest concern that Ford had that I had is if we allow people to permanently use more than their allocation, that theoretically, lessens the allocation that's available to everyone else. So even if someone else isn't using their allocation, if they come to us and say, hey, how much water can I use? And we say, well, you know, it used to be one acre foot, but all these other people used double. the allocation that's available to everyone else. And so even if someone else isn't using their allocation, if they come to us and say, hey, how much water can I use? And we say, well, you know, it used to be one acre foot, but we've let all these other people use double or triple. And we now have less for you. You know, that's the problem. That's the concern. And so any other thing, the other point, The reason why is the board wanted to have all their ducks and row with the water situation given that water is getting drier. This area in particular is one of the most contip. The reason why is the board wanted to have all the ducks in the water with the water situation given that water is getting drier. This area in particular is one of the most contentious, most expensive water I've ever seen as you water deal well across the west. And the idea was, we want to be prepared that if anyone ever says that we're overusing or they have a question, we could say no, here's the data. We've got it all metered. We've combined with everything. only up enough there's no basis for anybody to come any princess. Stay there you go. I'm good. Yeah. Thank you. They say, no, here's the data. We've got it all metered. We've combined with everything. We're only up enough. There's no basis for anybody to come and be precise. Staying here. I'm good. Yeah, thank you. Are there any other people who want to address the suspect? I want to. Maybe address everyone. To see now, I'm going to vote for the $34. and I would, if I lived in the upper, I would have no problem voting for it. In regards to not putting that in and let you pay for the beacons on your own, my issue with that is, I'm not doubting that you would pay for it if it broke it away. But the amount of time we spent trying to get and wanting to comply with the meters and all the money it costs is legal and everything else just to get that done, it's me to believe that there's a lot of people when the beacon breaks, we're going to be fighting with them for years and it's going to go back and better. And it's going to cost a lot of, it's going to be the same problems. Not saying you would do it, but just based on the meters and the mess that was for so long. So it would just be easier, just, we're, the sufferers, it's broken, we're gonna replace it. And then we're gonna be able to balance it out on our everything. At that point, though, I don't know that there should be somewhere written for the people that are going to have that issue in 10 years. I know I agree. I know I've worked or something so that if I sell my house or John sells his house or Andy that we can say to the new people buying, don't worry about this beacon because we've already paid for it. We'll be able to serve this area every year. Yeah. And then we'll replace it. I don't know that it needs to be a separate separate account But it just needs to be common knowledge that that when that goes that's not the homeowners responsibility Yeah, that's fine. That should be should be the service area of paper it that came from tax dollars It's a reserve. We're in a comfort Our Our capital reserve. So the 30-year reserve, where do you get that money? From the entire water district. So tax dollars water separately. We have more savings here. Went into that, correct? Tax dollars are separate from the water funds. We can only spend water funds on water funds. We can only spend tax fellers on roads, trails, parks. To me, these though, that, and I don't know if you're aware, but that kind of comment is what creates the divisiveness that you are saying, well, it's coming from everybody. It's that are paying for those beacons we've also been paying but we've been paying for part everybody. But truth is a lot of the connected users we've all contributed to the fund and that body went to. Exactly and probably ours. And we paid for it. Yeah and our. Yeah. Yeah. We all love these. So we can only. For the well users they're not for the is there a beacon that monitors the lower. We have beacons only for the well users, they're not for the, is there a beacon that monitors the lower to? We have beacons on every unit meter. Yes, yes, yes. Inactive uses that beacon as well. Yeah, we have meters on. And how many beacons are there? Like how that happened? 167. And so each house, so each house on the lower with the beacon, you? Yep. That's connected. I believe that was part of the reason for the increase, the last increase in the lower it was to pay for the beacon so it went to the lower. But we had an increase last year that also went to the increase last year. No, not the beacons. What did our increase good last year go to that? We did this last year. What did last year's increase go to from 150 to 180? It went from 2020 to 2021 to 2024, or from 150 to 180. No, last year. Last year there was a $30 increase. Yeah. And he's saying that was from the previous raise was at 2021, so that was three or a gap and then after 36 months, it was $30. I don't know. I think there was an increase from the last meeting. There were three increases in the past for over years. Can you qualify that and get back to be something? Yeah. Somebody had written that we were talking about it, that it had been increased everybody. That's why it was so, and then staff had said that's where all that came from. The staff said, let's wait two years and now it's increasing only well users. So, you know, so they then, I just have a good question addressing something that you brought up. So you talk about, like, as the public spot this up, and like, there remains no matter what we say, like, it does feel like there's still an ongoing thought of an exit versus not infected, all that. If there was a, how many community members would you need on the upper to come forward and to say they want to be on a separate water system? Well, that's it would be up to the board. It's the board owns the water rights or the service area and so water rights If the board is willing to convey those over to a separate water company that's up to the boards of the site There isn't a process for that. I'm aware of for people to petition because it's I don't know know, of another situation like this. And so, um, no other service districts happy is there. There may be one I just in my personal experience have never come across another public water supplier city or district that holds water rights and trust for private oil owners to different. I'm not aware of it. There might be, I don't know, rural water apparently had a sanity. So, they're in what, and this is, this is again, part of why you're legal, fees are, there aren't laws that are set up for it. You know, everything's a weird, unique thing. And so I want to be clear, I don't think a water company necessarily would be, you know, most water companies operate a system, you know, they're not holding water rights in, in trust And again, the problem that we have is that your rights are based on shares. And Chunko, those are Davis and Weaver shares, which can't be divided to increments of less than three. That's a company policy. Entrepreneurigation company number two is the other, there's our again, I think can't be divided to, I'm trying to remember like 1.5. Now, if those companies change their policies, maybe we could just segregate them off and deed them off. And so that's another potential thing you could have. But this is all I think outside the realm of the right fee. And it needs to be something we discussed in another meetings. Does anyone have any other questions with respect to Lisa's questions? Cause I want to make sure we get to everyone when we still have a time. I guess that a quick question. I'm just saying. I'm telling you like I'm on 64 made will drive. Have you guys for lower silver Creek ever considered like a hybrid where it's a lower monthly and a lower allocation? And once you go over that, it's like a per gallon price because it seems to me that would be more equitable rather than like this plan get $109 charge. That does. So we have a compassionate rate. So if those who meet the income eligible for a $75 per month rate, that's 10,000 for 10,000 gallons. Okay. Well, what about doing it even like a $2,000 or $5,000 dollar gallon minimum the lower monthly rate for everyone and then charging for gallon because it seems like to really encourage conservation that came for gallon isn't better way to do it. if you win. You might unintentionally give up some of your allocation to hurt yourself if you like to do it that way. Because it might get really expensive. Let's say you have two leaks inside of two years, and then you're on the hook for that third week, and you're getting, I'm just gonna pull a number out, 15 cents a hour. Yeah. That could be insane, except for those leaks. I think he's leaked that leak after the first round, You know? I think that would be more of an encouragement for people to take action rather than just like giving so much water because I mean, like thinking it for 10 years ahead too. Like I'm thinking in 10 years, like it's going to be a much different state of water than it is now. And so looking at something like that where you hate her balance after a certain amount would be a better way to increase revenue. And I think also I like the idea for the water management of splitting up. I like that idea that we discussed because it seems really complicated with the well versus the unit, not municipal, but whatever we are. Yeah, it is weird. So. I mean I think for the other parts of the neighborhood management like having them together is good but for the water to secretly because it seems like yeah as a lower silver crate person I didn't know what it would be because I'm a castor. So I think that's a good and good move for. But I also think this hybrid model could be a good structure to really encourage conservation. So that's what we have. So they have a coffee and tea. Is it every, she's been there the other day? I've been there. I would say draft something and bring it the next time. And see if you can get traction on it. Thank you. Any other questions for you? Your idea is for conservation for the equity or anything else. Yeah, and also the future because our water supply. Right. Because right now maybe this year we have plenty of water, but maybe next year we're going to have a bad winter. And we just don't know. I mean, the winter of 1415 I think was pretty bad. And if we had a couple of winter winners I got the next three years, we could be in a much different position And so if you truly want to encourage conservation, you make people pay their fair share and that is gonna be a more powerful Sino has been yeah, so I'll fix that leak Hopefully the first one and that way they don't have to do three months ago. Thank you first Any other questions Andy? Yeah, Andy the broadsling 70% of the road. Two things I was curious about. Like some weaver and I'm sorry from the east, so no, no, all this here. Um, I'll just visit another contract, revert contracts and launch it. So it's flat. So it's not of me. In, you have different types of water rights out here in the west. So one of those is called what's called a we-re-basin exchange contract until there's the we-re-basin water conservancy district. district. They're a big, let's call the wholesale water supplier. They, their service area covers most of some accounting and were basin and some others, or the weeb, or Davis and were county. And what they do for people that don't have the ability to get water in a closed basin, so this area is one of the most highly, it's closed. There's no more water available to no more water rights. And so in the past, they don't allow this anymore. People could come in and say, hey, I want to drill a well. There isn't any more water that I can buy. And they would enter into an exchange contract with Weaver Basin. And what Weaver Basin would say is, hey, we operate a bunch of big reservoirs. We'll release an acre-foot of water into the stream system. And in exchange, you can divert that acre-foot from your groundwater well. So those are contracts. tracks, they're the most expensive water there is because you have to pay a property tax to maintain that. And so sometimes those are the only water rights that are available and people have come here and they've dedicated a weaver basin exchange to the service area. And so those have rates that can increase every year and that's what that is. So when you see the weaver contracts, those are the weaver based exchanges. So it's a type of water right that's been dedicated to the service area. It has a very expensive annual cost. Now we have some policies that go off, set that cost, and go into at some other time. But that's what we were based in contracts are. Wantship ditch refers to Wantship Irrigation Company number two. So most of the lots in the upper lots are serviced by two irrigation companies. And I don't see Davis and Weaver up there too. Davis and Weaver is one and Wonship irrigation is for business too. And so that's basically the company owns the water right. And they issue shares in their shareholders the same way you would get a share in an apple. And each share entitles you to a certain amount of water. So the person who to Allen Lewis who set this whole thing up, he based all the locks and the uppers over Creek on shares and these two irrigation companies. And in order to maintain those rights, the companies charge the service area and assessment each year. Those assessments can also increase over time. And so if you don't maintain those assessments, we could lose the shares, they could be before fitted, the company could sell them, and they're also in expressed condition of our water rights to maintain it. And so those are costs that they have every year that they have to pay. So it looks like, for instance, the Weaver contract is about $2,300, the Wantship ditch is $735. And so those will increase over time. A year. That's a yearly. Yes. I don't know what the day this is. Now the day the reason the Davis are split between upper and lower. And so those are you might be a cap there's not that there's not as many Davis and weaver I think there's trying to remember like 20 some acre feeder Davis and we Weber and like 61 of Wandship and then there are some decreed rights that you guys own outright make up the rest. So you calculate those like, they're an allocation within those on track that go to. Yes. So you have separate for the most part you have a handful of water rights that are based on these shares So the Wandship change application is based on the Wandship shares and that lists individually each individual well in the upper Lots that's entitled to divert those shares and then saying the Davis and weaver is kind of split a little bit where Some can divert from upper and and then it just lists the service areas municipal wells as the other points diverge So So usually they're separate rights. They don't necessarily mix and match. So are these numbers then for the whole service area connected and? No, those are for upper because. Just for upper because of the water. Because the upper lot, and it's not this way for all of them, but for the most part, the upper change applications, particularly the one ship, are only approved for the upper ones. So this really is why there is an annual fee at all? Exactly. So not necessarily because there's been no real change, so it's not more. So it's not a justification, actually, for any kind of increase. So you know, you don't have these other fees to the state engineer fee. So there are, even if, even if I charge zero, if we don't have any issues with the upper locks at all, you would still have those fees to maintain your water rights. And that's a baseline. But that's been covered year over year based on what we're charged annually. It has been, but my understanding is that, in, at least since I started representing you, it's never been enough. There's always been, since I started representing service here in 2016, that annual fee to the upper lots has never covered the clauses. And there have been, in other words, before I spent a lot of time on legal work either, but I think prior boards, you know, coming out of the 2008 recession, 2008 recession, this was unique to a lot of public bodies. They didn't want to raise taxes. They spent as little as possible costs increased. And then you ended up with a lot of water providers in deficits and then they had to catch up. And there was this big owners fee increases, big owners property taxes. And so now, and this is the service here for save, the trend has been let's stay on top of this and let's do annual increases or annual touchbacks to see if, you know, so it's not 10 years and then this massive increase. Are there any additional questions? No. Sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm not a non-compl regulation fee. That was on the schedule. If you change to noncompliance regulation fee, it's $200.00. What is that? I was trying to check the repy pass of year. No, we had noncompliance came into effect when we had people who were non-compliant, meaning they did not have a meter. Okay. So what is it that what is it changing now? It's okay. It's okay. It's okay. It's okay. Go ahead. If someone pulls a meter off it turns. So it's so they're only that only effect should be like rip your meter out or something. Yeah, we had that. I'm not a professional, I'm a new construction, and new wheels are held and they don't go to town for fear. So nothing you can do. It's not like extra fees if you go over or something like that. It's just only that. Yeah, and we did have this happening with. Yeah, we had this happen one last month and a half. Somebody disconnected their meter or auto auto. Probably I think the other one is more common is. Somebody. They get a permit for when he's vacant lots they drill the well they don't put a meter on it and then they start diverting our water right and we can't report it to the state we're in violation but that's what that's what that's I think I'm done now. So I guess maybe say say what they would say. Yep, sorry, Susan Goldsmith, 8953, so would be good. So I'm just still, sorry, a little confused on the legal fees. Fine, the $34, yes, I agree with you, Otto, actually, on the metering we had some issues when we did drill our well. We're all land did the whole thing. So fine, it was something went wrong. It all worked out fine. We probably wouldn't have put the meter back on after a broke. So there is a lot of contention. So I do agree that yeah, you should now that we have a reason to have a meter and see how much we use, and we have a quest around instead of the mystery world of how much water do I use. So, but what I'm really struggling with is these legal fees for the lawsuits. And for people that are doing water transfer, water transfer that came in just over a year ago, very near us, with additional water rights coming in. Is that something that we as a community are being burdened for for this handful of people? So for the to dedication's know, because they pay a deposit to the service area to cover My cost and the engineers' costs to look at it and to process that. So how are we amortizing these legal fees? I'm still just unclear on how that is coming across. I've done that calculation, but I think you guys just took the amount of money that you, I build you for those years and average it out over the period of years. Isn't that right? Correct. We've, we have. I think it even went and pulled out the stuff that was specific to the after law. Chaudy did. So these legal costs were specific to upper. Okay. So specific to all 167 of us or specific to a different lot than my lot, my building. I'm just trying to understand are they individual specific, because if they are, they should not be born by the community. I can just kept to the chase and express my concern and you guys can deal with it later, because it's almost 7.30. If they are community-wide, if they are community-based, because of all 167 lots7 lots legally in upper silver group that you are dealing with fine. Then we all win together but if it is not then that is not fair because we went through it we did the right thing we called when our stuff went wrong we had the water queen sit in my driveway for two weeks live drilled making sure she could put my meter on that day so we've been compliant to the end of the degree since we built our past. Who are you referring to with respect to the water? Well if you don't know So if you are a pensioner, that's the way it is. And so it's just, so we, it shouldn't be bundles is what I'm saying. Figure it out. I, we don't need to rehash it. You guys have tried to explain it. It's not clicking for me, but I'm just saying, if it is based on individuals, that is a red flag, that lacks transparency, and that is what is going to continue to cause the problems addressed by my neighbor John, which I agree with in stirring the pot that is making this difficult for everyone. So underneath it are the legal fees that's both litigation and administration. Yeah, so we had one piece of litigation. And they challenged that we, they challenged that right to require the mere. So that was, if we'd lost that, that would have required the mere for anybody. So we prevailed in that litigation. That was $30, $40,000. The rest of it is just general questions. Like for you. Or questions to me, or the staff would know there was a big effort to come up with a series of letters and notices that we would send so strafting that every time the staff would send a notice or person would write back and say don't agree with this so that's kind of there's there's kind of a cost of doing business that this fits in so what we don't have is a well every time you ask John a question and it's a legal one and he has to call me I mean I don't know of any district that just says okay before I can answer your question. I mean if this holy water and right desire surfaced in our small area near my house I called everyone I knew who dealt with water rights try and educate myself because like, how is this happening? There's no water rights. So I called five different people and I learned, oh yes, they're playing with water rights. I was like, I'm going to get a water rights. I'm going to get a water rights. I'm going to get a water rights. I'm going to get a water rights. I'm going to get a water rights. I'm going to get a water rights. I'm going to get a water rights. I was like, how is this happening? There's no water right? So I called five different people and I learned, oh yes, they're plenty. They just swap them around left and right. One from old ranch road apparently got as a wire. Yeah. I still don't understand it, but that's what I want to make sure if it is for the greater good, if it is administrative for all 167 blocks. That's why. Well, that's what that is. Things like we need well meters. And I have learned that because I also happen to have exposure to one that was using two to three times the amount of water because the walking path and still degree who are watered from nine to four for two and a half months in the summer. So it is a need to monitor people's water use and make sure they know what's going on whether it's a week or whether it's just excessive use. So yes, we need that administered. We need to protect our water rights. As Carolyn said, water is our most precious resource. So we're not saying we're not willing to pay, but we just need a little clarity because it's... So that is correct me. Those are the administrative calls. What that doesn't include is the dedication amount. If someone comes in and they file a dedication, they file a deposit to cover my cost, to cover the engineers cost. That's not included in those costs, right guys? Right. On the rare case where it's a complex issue, they get built for. They exceed it, then they build them more, and then we won't finalize the dedication until they make it. And the lawsuit was because you felt like the potential negative. They sued us. It was a challenge. Basically, we said, you need to meet your wealth. They disagreed. They appealed the service series decision to acquire the wealth. And actually, it didn't make a record. It just went to the ALJ. But there was a lot of work, a lot of questions on a back and forth. And so that wasn't a lawsuit that the service area initiated. It was, and it's like I called a lawsuit, but it was an appeal. And that was really most of those administrative costs for people saying, I don't... And so that wasn't a lawsuit that the service area initiated. It was, and this is why I called it a lawsuit. It was an appeal. And that was really most of those administrative costs with people saying, I don't want to meet or my well. I don't think you have the authority to meet or my well, and I'm not going to do it. And so then it's like, OK, Nathan, we sent them the nice notice. What do we do next? then I have to write them a letter or we can't a series of forms or then it's like they had this question about the law you know these guys aren't attorneys that's what that is for the most of the other parts of it aren't property specific. Now the transfer, there's two things. There's, I'm buying a water right because I want to build a big house and it's going to use more water than my one acre foot allocation is or usually, and I'm going to dedicate this extra water to you you. That not included in that, that's paid for by a separate water dedication deposit. The other question, which also I don't think is included in there, is, hey, I'm buying a house, I have questions about the water rights, that's covered by the transfer fee, the $1,500. It's expensive. So all of that is just administration, questions, disputes, demand letters that people send because they don't want to comply with some some Serviciary water regulation in the after-walsh So there's no litigation or hammered quest. No, there are in that But but those aren't we don't have a I thought I Thought you said there wasn't Somebody a combination of its combination litigation and grammar requests, then everything is just pretty good. And it's just general questions about how to administer a very, very good system. It's unfair that everyone winds up paying $40,000 litigation because for one person or for all the grammar requests that come in, everyone has to pay for people who want to do that. You talk a lot. No, but there's legal fees involved in getting that all put together. Would you tell us to pay a boss recoup? We went to that case, we went to the ALJ, didn't make it to court. It was resolved administratively. We can always benefit. Go ahead, go on to court. We would have asked for attorney's fees and courts sometimes do. Sometimes don't. Most of the time they go. I've asked this before and I think this thing you guys were saying, which is, can we have a policy within the service area that the prevailing parties entitled to recent attorney feces? I use that commercially and it is almost always a great to term with so much to consider litigation. So if we want to do a connection agreement which we are working on, that's already in there in the draft. But the thing is, if someone, as a matter of policy, if you're going to tell somebody, hey, you have a right to appeal a service area action, which they do, constitutionally, state law, otherwise. And then you say, you know, we're going to get attorney's fees out of that. If you, if you screw, if we win, then people are just not going to be incentivized to appeal wrongful decisions made by the board. So I'm not aware, if we have a contract or something like that. From a board to a resident, I'm saying, without naming names, litigation from last year, I mean, if we were entitled to our reasonable fees to associate with that. If we were, if we were, if we were, if I'm a personal defecate twice, that I go in that far. but the thing is is how do we get you know for for the most part, this predates me. Your connections are governed by your rules and regulations. We don't have service contracts per se. Now, we are talking about having a service contract. So a new people come in and they want to connect. We have them sign a service contract instead of it just being subject to the rules. And that service contract, we could say there's any litigation for billing party sign. But we don't have that under our rules. And I've always been a little concerned about, and I'm not even sure we can include a prevailing parties rule that says, hey, if you challenge something we do and we win, then we're entitled to attorneys, we know litigation, we can ask that. We don't need that in an agreement to ask. And so if we're going to do service contracts, so when someone builds a new house, build a new connection, or there's a transferring title, and we want to do it that way, we can get it there. But just because it's in the contract, doesn't mean you actually get it. Most cases don't go to court. They settle. And usually when they settle, people don't agree to pay the other attorney's fees. You're never going to get in court on it. No, thank you, John. So, I've tried too. I think in the last 10 years, our firm's gotten attorney's fees twice. And it was really, really, really accrued to see. even if it's in a contract. Yeah, that's true. And so we can ask, but it's not a guarantee. And hardly ever happens. really, really, really accrued to. Even if it's in a contract. Yeah, that's true. And so that's, I mean, we can ask, but it's not a guarantee. And how are there ever? So here's the reality of it. The upper lots are weird. They're different. They're unique. People naturally, reasonable people will naturally have questions about them. And they are going to ask those questions to the staff. complicated and they're going to be odd and it's just constantly going to generate questions and potential conflicts with me and the staff. And that's why I've always said, let's create another water company and have it be their problem rather than yours. Now that's easier said than done, but that's the gist of it and it's not to disparage anybody up there because if I moved in from Aaron Where I'm from without being a water attorney. I would have the same question because I grew up when a well I never had to deal with a company because my well we could divert news whatever we want That's what people are used to they come in they get all this complicated stuff all these reasonable questions Like what's we were based in exchange contractor? or what's, what's Wonship ditch? I mean, you've got like six separate type of water, right? In one small little service area, and that's not uncommon in Utah but to have that applied to somebody's individual well is weird. So I'm weird I'm not a good guy too here we're here I'm gonna be looking after and ask questions on my unusual I don't expect all my friends and neighbors to try for that. So I'm happy to have been with you for that. Oh, I'm thinking of pointing them. So if I have a question and a neighbor, I can come here as part of the meeting when we all agree we want to pay you to be here, that if we have one-off questions that don't pertain to everything, then why should everybody else have to pay for it if I'm... Then that's, I represent the service area. I can't represent you. You can't pay me because it creates a conflict of interest. So you get a different lawyer. I think a lot of these problems that we are spending all this time would be potentially eliminated if we took your advice and created it. Now, the new board, the new private water company board would have all the same problems you do. So I'm acting selfishly and saying, have that meet someone else's problem? But it wouldn't be really the same problems because it wouldn't be a connected versus non-connected argument. We have to deal with our issues within our wells. You would and I will be clear that part of the reason why the board has never done that is it will be a lot more money for you guys to do it on your own because you'll still have to fund, just to be far the service area for roads. You'll have to do that all on your own. You'll have to have your own separate governance structure that will be paid for with your water company assessments. And so it's not a silver bullet, but they're seeing It's great. Center though and look at the pricey. Oh yeah. Yeah. I'm going to discuss that information. Yeah, but I think it's John's going to be a little, it's pretty in depth because now you've got 200 and what, 20. Some homes on high on water. So now you're going to have to split the cost for the app, cost for the maintenance, the cost for the updates. So it's not just your cutting these scale decrease. It'll be more money. It'll be your monthly cost. It's a bad idea. It's not just a job. Excuse me, just put it in your community. Yeah. That was it. That was my, we're hearing I mean, we have questions. Do you have any questions? Okay. Does the board have any additional questions for anyone considering that? Good. Staff, you guys get it? Okay. Let's keep going to board. The next item on the agenda is 4C, which would be voting on resolution 2025-03 about adopting the rate and fee schedule. So the board has the option to adopt it as is. You can make it amendments. We could prove now or if you want them to make further changes and bring it back to do that. I personally, I personally like to make a close into further discussion, evaluate, to avoid potential litigation, you know, that $30 increase and looking at it for the next calendar year. And again, like we got $10, $34 going to lunch, whatever it is to go. It's not about that. I mean, I'll go to the grocery store tonight and I'll spend four or five times that. I'm not a family of five in a teenage boy. So it's not about $34. It's about the overall divide that we continue to feel, the fact that there was an increase last year, the fact that we're looking at a deficit that may or not be accurate. We're not in an anomaly here. So for me, I would love to, you know, adopt the policy. I think the staff did a great job. I like to turn structure. I think it meets a lot of things that the legislation is looking for. But I do think that we create a continued drive of the guys, I guess it would be called between connected and non-connected and why there's another increase this year. Again, we will all between now and tomorrow at this time spend $34, many times. So it's not about the $34, about the principle behind it. And so that's entirely the board's call. If the motion carries to approve the fee schedule as presented minus the $34 increase and keep it at whatever it was before that can certainly be the motion. We made two motions on one, so we vote on that one first. Yeah, you could vote on that one first. And then it's a new motion to amend. Well, she hasn't, she's, she's, she stated her opinion. It hasn't made a motion to amend and then it goes down, I guess. So I guess the question is is are you saying Because it sounded like you're okay with the fee schedule except for the 34 increase So what you could say these are your options. This is your motion not mine You could say I moved to approve the fee schedule minus the 34 dollar increase which I I propose to be the same, but we'll prove everything else minus that. Or you could say I move to table the fee schedule to the next meeting to have further discussions on the $34 or you could do anything ever other. So I would just motion to improve the schedule as is, everything that's in the schedule as is, except I move to postpone for their conversation about the $34 increase. Would you keep the current fee for the upper lots the same? I would keep the current off the fee for that the last is the same. So you need a second. Second. All right. Gary made the motion. Derek seconded. All those in favor? To do a roll call vote for this one. All those in favor. What's that that went John John ball. Carry tanks and favor. Their press Scott. We can not favor. Rick per you see not in favor. David also not favor John love not in favor. Okay. Motion failed. So now we have the motion to vote on entirety. Well, someone else would have to make a motion on what you want to do. So you could vote to approve it as presented. You could motion to make it to approve it with other changes. You could motion the table it for another meeting. I would like to make a motion. I. I'm in favor of everything except for the decrease in the commercial water rate. Hydrant water rate. Simply because of the the optics of it really. Having worked in the whiskey industry, we used to buy whiskey by the tanker truck. I I'm not talking about a three-axle truck, I'm talking about an 18-wheeler, it's 6,000 gallons. We're proposing to sell a 18-wheeler of water for $300. And the optics of that, if you had 10-18-wheeler's rolling through the neighborhood, neighborhood that would just be $33,000 to the neighborhood. And that's a lot of water in the neighborhood. So I- Dave? Yeah. Can I ask you to separate out that one because I'd like to those when used? Yeah. I'm part of what you're saying, but not all of what you're saying. Okay. Okay. So $500 a fee, they're plus three. Correct. Okay, sorry, I would like to keep the fees, but do not decrease the per gallon from 10 cents to 5 cents. Sorry. But I can't. So I'm not seeing a separate get out. Like $34. No, not the $34. Like the increase on the water, the decrease on the water. I want to agree with you on that. I don't want to agree on the rest of the policy, because I feel about the process. I think it's like a process in the end. It's a motion just on the water. So that's what I'm emotionally doing. If you could just motion on the water, then we could do the whole thing separately. Yeah, I'm saying, okay. You said a motion on the water, was a commercial water decrease for Gowd. I just said, can we have a discussion on that? Yeah, you can, he can make the motion. You can have a second. You can have a discussion, but the motion as I understand it is to increase the hydro fee from five cents to ten cents per gallon. We want to keep it the same. So it already is 10. Okay. Okay, so as far as discussion, I felt the same way about the optics, because we're going to lose their minds when it was like, you know, 10th, cheaper, you know, cheaper for it. But we also talked about the revenue, right? And how the revenue wouldn't be good. And they're going to use the water anyway. They're just going to go somewhere else and get it. So I guess the question is, how important is that revenue? And does it threaten our water supply by selling it? I don't sell it. If we sell it to them, if we sell it to them at $5 a gallon, the amount of water that we're going to sell to them is that's when it's impact our ability to have water for our community. But you don't know how much you're going to sell. Whatever reason, all that construction on the highway 80 that's projected into the summer becomes all the sudden, we need more water than they thought they were going to need. And then it does create how we know if it's going to create a deficit or not. It's a waterless beacon and it's real time. And then it's a long way to go. The most sensitive is also adding language to the contract. We have the right to stop. So the idea is that it's going to have something excessive now. We can set a receipt for that. Is that correct's correct. And even if five cents per still substantially higher than mountain regional for water. So I thought Chris said we weren't once you added in our fees and versus their fees because I was residential. Not the commercial. Can I just make a point of order? Sally pointed this out. You guys don't follow Robert's rules of order. We have them kind of a catch all. But the point is maybe you should see if there's a second if we have a discussion, because if there's this, okay, so now it's seconded, go ahead and have a discussion. Okay. I think, you know, Monday's money, but 25,000, okay, say we raised $25,000. Is that really worth losing five a half a million gallons of water? 25,000 dollars. Personally, I think that doesn't impact the total quantity that we're using as a neighborhood in that specific, is that considered enterprise sales or is that in the enterprise sales bucket, which is actually a different quantity than the resident bill? And then the more amount of truth confused less than non-residential commercial. So each bucket, and correct me from wrong, has a certain amount of acreage per bucket. So do you guys know what the enterprise sales, what we can sell out of that? So it's considered municipal water, which allows us to resell that municipal water. So what is the quantity that we can remember from the energy feed? So that's designated municipal. All your rights are municipal. So I'll connect and read. Every single one of your water rights is a municipal water rights. So, if that means that we use for anything within your service, basically. So, to make the point is to do right now the lower water rights aren't being overused. And then we've had the lower system metered for a long time. And so, and in part of that, it's not fully built out. Part of it is the lower latch system used that much. There's smaller latch. And so as long as you guys can meet or you can see how much excess capacity you have and you can monitor what the people are using theoretically, you could be able to sell it without impacting everybody else. Now, in its temporary, that's the big thing. The concern with the upper latch is what we were seeing is people coming in building permanent uses that would, you know, not just a leak, but it's like I built all these other buildings that use more water than the allocation is and that's a permanent thing. This is theoretically different in the sense that it's a temporary use that someone buying water for temporary project. If you have the capacity that year, this will allow you to sell it. I guess it would benefit us if we had a lot of small buyers because they're each paying $5,000 fee, right? $500,000. What they have? $500,000 fee. So $3,000 a deposit. So it's right there. Okay. But is the deposit refundable? Yeah. Yeah. It's basically that is to secure the meter back to us. But traditionally, you're exactly right. Majority of the water sales have been in term pre-construction. I'm filling the pool or putting it up hockey rink. They've been small, they've been temporary. We've just seen a jump because of infrastructure that way. But we won't see that for another 20 years easily. Aren't we getting that with the flyover this summer? But that's the UDOT and I was thinking that as infrastructure. Right. Yep. So UDOT will be coming in, but I highly doubt UDOT is going to pay our rate considering how much water they use because they are gonna be looking at every penny. And just because we have it doesn't mean we're gonna approve that mutation. So if you've got it did come in, we're probably gonna say no because it's probably gonna be a million so gallons. So are we positive that we're losing sales? We cut this tens of them. Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, year in October when we became on the board and we went to the office and they were like sending notices to people from years past that they hadn't collected those fees. I think they were only two. Yeah, I mean there, there was a collection. I reviewed the folders with Derek and there was ones from four years before that they were sending out the staff was sending out notices or three years before that hadn't been collected. So really there was a couple, there were some water sales last year from October through December that we're kind of these that were collected. So really there was a couple, there were some water sales last year from October, through December that were kind of fees that were collected, but there wasn't as good of a process to managing, reviewing, charging, meant like overseeing the whole process is what when the new board came on came to everyone's attention that it was just something there was a lot of other initiatives that were maybe more important but that was something that the policies got tighter on and the staff like was like okay that's important to this board let's take that under consideration but previously I mean how much did we collect and water hydrant sales last year that's been paid because I know some hasn't been paid. I'd have to give back to give you a specific number. I mean, I don't think it's a huge number, which they came out to be. We had to say I just want to say I don't want the intimate action here. I think it's like a total, but because one of them hadn't paid, I think the total is like 25 or something like that. It was approximately that's. And have one big one from Jimmy being built like they had they had had the meter since March or January of the year before and they weren't collect there wasn't a collection regularly so it was like I don't know how we could say right now that we're Chris if he's still on the line said he thinks we're losing out on water and people have said like the water's so expensive. But we didn't have like a lot of people coming and saying we're not buying the water right now from what I heard. I can jump in here. Chris jumped off, but Chris and I work on this together. I can tell you that in 2024, we made $43,709.40 in water. I started the end of 2023 so I don't have great numbers on previous years. But last year was high because Red Hawk had that leak and we sold them water. There were projects like we talked about with the roundabout and then residents who are also and so last year and I can tell you for an act that when Geneva talked to us about the hydrant when they took the hydrant from us for the roundabout work they asked us what what rate we charge and when we told them Chris said he would match the mountain regional water because they weren't going to go to us. They were going to go to them because it was so much cheaper. So that definitely happened. Do you remember what that rate was? I can't remember honestly. I don't remember what the number was. Chris could probably tell you off the top of his head, but I just remember him saying mountain regional charges this and Chris said, I'll match it because we were working with them on that project. They had the meter in the meat. June, they are $1,018. June, 2024 on the record. Chris said at the meeting that it was five cents. So that's different if it was one or two. But I believe that the accountant was going to also put these water sales into a separate line item so that we could start actually seeing them. But I also believe that you mentioned Red Hawk. I think there's some of these revenues that we're talking about haven't fully been collected yet. Is my understanding? No, they've been paid. All of that. Like two weeks ago, I had been told that one of those hadn't been paid. That's first. Okay. Okay. So I guess so is this if we sell. That was a. Let's just say a bag of maximum our maximum amount, five cents, this over the summer. Are we in a danger of, I guess, limiting our resources by doing that? Currently no. Okay. I mean, they don't have to sell the water. If there's a water scarcity, let's say there's a water leak in the system, they don't have to sell it. Yeah. It's not a mandatory thing. That's the difference. If someone connects to our system or they buy a lot, they pay the fees, they comply with it. We have to provide them that one. This is optional. Is that going in? Then now as a line item, as we had all discussed last year, where we will see hydrants, it is like actual money. Because I didn't see 43,000 in the hydrant bucket ever. Well water that's our We're getting making taking measures to prevent that we have those employees We offer as money for padlocks on most of the hydrants and I think the public was taking pictures and Christmas like Out there immediately and bus people It changed I think the idea so we're pretty was a free water water so and are we just dedicating one hydrant to our labor sales? Yes, okay, it's the one close to the office. When we talked about the in place this previously though in 2024, I believe staff had said that we needed to create some of these increases when the 25% was in play because there is a problem with conservation potentially if people are abusing the water on their properties like overusing the water, you know, frivolously for the back to Nathan's concern on protecting our rights. Yeah, but so I think they just conflict a little bit with each other still that we could sell it for a lower rate. It's not a lower rate though because if you look at what the unit cost is, as always is whatever example, but I'm connected it's $109 for 20,000 pounds, which works out as a point like 0.5 per gallon, whereas this is 0.05. So this is actually called 10 to 12 times more expensive than what we connect in user base. And if you look at a non-connected user with 325,000 ounce at just 200 bucks, it's been exponentially cheaper. The hydrogen cell is exponentially more expensive. So the only time it's, excuse me, more expensive is when you get to like 50,000 over, or if you're connected in like the 40,000 per month of both. So does that contract like the form that you guys have already say that any point we can refuse to sell? We are. That's the contract that's currently being reviewed to include language like that. Well, we don't have to sell now. I mean, the contract would be if we sell you this, we can't even cancel it any time. Can it just be like, because they feel out of form is not when you're standing, right? The form has the terms on it. Yeah, we have that form that's maybe not confused because that's what we're using is the form that you're wearing. So we have to see how we have this question on how much water. I mean, again, if you got came to us and said we want application to purchase water via the hydrants, or in likely we would deny it. But think that could there be language in there that says something to the effect that yes, we're, you know, agreed to sell you water at 0.05, whatever it is. However, at any point in time during this contractual relationship, we can ask for the meter and sees all rights, whatever it is, you know, like to the to taking the water. Yeah. You know, something just like that's easy to put in. And I just had another question, Vince, you had mentioned that you didn't have a problem from a budgeting perspective to kind of monitor. I mean, obviously it was like seeing that there wasn't a consensus that we, we don't have the $34 increase. About, you mentioned earlier that we could let add a line item like Dave had said would be okay to look at the cost of the $19 into the begin. Yeah, we can create a separate line item for just to see how much we're collecting, even if you're not putting it in a separate account so that we know... Well, no, you would have to put it in a account. So we would create a new charge of account for beacon. And basically, it creates more work because basically whenever we get a payment, we're going to have to give Dave X amount of dollars goes into this chart account and then $19 will go into a gig and capital reserve as opposed to Right now capital reserve is that access money But it sounds like he had indicated that that was it wasn't something atypical and he was doing it with other ones of his clients and again, I think he was referring to dedicated projects that you're saving up for five years now. You're saving up for the beacons to be like breaks to be maintained. You have money for it. Pay prints out of that fund. So there's a battery of he needs to check on something. Yeah, we can do that. The only problem is, you know, if you're collecting $19 a year times 167, what if we have three P can say, go out that year? Where's that money going to come? It just comes from the fund as a whole because that's what you're building for. Because they're never going to go out. I want to get back to what Dave was talking about, so we're going to check over this portion. And then... comes from the fund as a whole because that's what you're building for. Could you point it over? They're never going to go out. I want to go back to what Dave was talking about, so we're going to get over this motion. And then if we need to, we can address the $34. Well, the $34 piece didn't pass, right? So I think before we could go on this whole thing, I'm asking for the beacon to be like. But things not here so there's no way that we can bring the Captain perspective to it and his motion was to carve out correctly if I'm wrong, but carve out the hydropiece keep it the way it is and then go on everything else that was but I think I think my answers have been You know, questions of an answer so if your motion wasn't seconded I'm okay with it. Okay. So if your motion wasn't seconded, I'm going to work. It's the first one wise, but my question has been answered too on that. I'm OK with it. Yeah, so I'm OK with it now. OK. It's just my concerns. Were are we going to put ourselves in trouble? Are we really not going to sell water at 10 cents gallon, which it sounds like we're not? And yeah, if we can raise money forward the community and still be conservative and I'm trying to... Can we add language? In respect to the hydrogen sales, I mean, we want some more than a million gallons of charred for putting them on the audit just. So that seems more like a policy change than a fee change, because the way that, at least the way that most districts work is you have your regulations which hopefully don't change too much and then your fee schedules with your fees are. So fee schedules updated more frequently than the whole world. And so all this is a fee schedule that says here's how much we're going to charge on people's cell. The agreement, all that other stuff is a policy discussion. So we're back. We want to play cap on it at the next meeting. Yeah, or you could, I mean, what you could say in the fee is maybe we'll charge up to this amount to this maximum amount of water. You could maybe include that in the fee schedule, but all this other stuff about, you know, prevailing parties and that sort of thing. Those are, I would, I think that's outside of the fee schedule discussion. Okay, so at this point do we want to motion voting on the totality of those proposed? I can I ask that's outside of the ski skid. Okay, so at this point, do we want to motion from voting on the totality of those proposed? But can I ask you a thing that is separating out the beacon part of this? Or is that something that we can talk to Dave about what the ramifications are? So the beacon cost is that's, I see that that's upper lot of talking about water sales. So what I hear you proposing, Scott, put a cap on it. So I think you can in the fee schedule context, if you say, okay, we're willing to charge $500 or we keep the deposit, there's a $500 upfront fee and then it's whatever, if you keep it at 10 cents a gallon up to a total sale max of X. I'm not saying no more than a million gallons per year because that address is your concern. Yeah here's a recommendation what if it's five cents per gallon up to X amount of gallons. Look at the tiered system. Yeah and then it goes to 10 cents above. I like that. That's great. Yes. I like that. or extend your breath as it gets. Yep, and that's it. And then this way, at five cents, it benefits the community. And they're doing a project, new construction, etc. But, you know, if Geneva comes back in, or if you dot comes in. So we still would have that language in there though, and say it's at any time. It could provoke us. So we just have that language in there. We need to have a guess. Chris Rebunner, we do if we're going to talk about the 1010. So it's part of it. If we had the two systems, the same system that both the connected and non-connected have is that what you're suggesting then? No, I'm just suggesting we have 5.5. Yep. 5 cents up to is this per user or per total usage for the service usage per user to use their per five hundred dollar rental right and so moment of point be? How much order did Red Hawk end of the music? $1,600. So you figured that monthly allocation on a system user is $20,000. Trying to think with the average usage. I would probably give you a year if you want me to tell you what people I have it all written down here in front of me. Well, the average usage, Tony. Well I think just to give you an idea, Geneva used 1.2 million for the roundabouts. Red Hawk we sold a little over 300,000 gallons to them. And then there's smaller ones like Tycon came in and they were... Well that was we paid for because it was our road project. They used 15,000 for a road project. That's something that we wouldn't charge for because it was our project. But Killgore came in and did a Crel work for Basin Rec. They used a thousand gallons. We have a resident who regularly every year fills his ice rink. He uses about 12,000. It could also be filling a pool and that's pretty standard. So they're usually, I'd say, under 15, 10, 15,000, there are some higher users, some are resident used 40,000 on a new build. But like Red Hawk was high, that was an anomaly last year, that was 300,000. And of course, Geneva was 1.2 million, and that was a lot. What about if we just say like five cents up to a hundred thousand gallons and then beyond that is ten cents and then there's always room to say you know different circumstances. We can get it. Yeah. To be an negotiated for contractors like I want to use 200,000 but I don't want to. Yeah and generally the way staff looks at it is if it's a community Infrastructure project I you tax dollars either ours or some counties. We're not charging retail rate Right, that's just a taxing ourselves right? So you know these again would be the Private use but as you were saying that I was jotting down a to 150,000 first tier and then 10 cents after that. All right. I'll make a motion to. We have a motion on the table or where it's been seconded. Do you want to withdraw the motion, David? Do you want to do a motion or a man? Yes, I want to withdraw all the motion because I think it's an umbrella. My question still isn't answered because we're trying to put the whole thing in. No, no, no, we're just dealing with that. So David, David had a motion that was specific just to the hydrogen sales. My understanding is you want to withdraw that motion. Correct. Rick, it sounds like you're making another motion that's just specificchairs. No, my emotion would be to accept the proposed free fee schedule as is with the only change being that any sales of over 100,000 gallons goes to 10 cents per gallon. Yes, that was a high good, I say that. What exactly are you proposing, say it again, please? To accept the fee schedule as proposed. But that's why I asked to ask my question about the beacons before we vote it in the fee schedule. Okay, let's ask the question. The question is, I'd like to have Dave's weigh in if we can have the $19 from the Beacons as a line item in the budget to monitor the growth of that, what that we can do whatever we want. I think this is a record of that up. That's how long you can do that and change. We also have, I mean, you just see Beacons for the lower right? Yeah, I don't want you can have like if that's something that've recorded that up, and that's how long. Keep in mind that you can do that, and change that. We also have, I mean, you just change meetings for the lower, right? Yeah, I don't want you can have, like, if that's something that we want to look at. Right, but that's, I think that's a separate question. Have we made the time after this? Something that's why I asked Nathan, is that something that we should be loading in or is it something that we just talked about? I think it's the latter because I mean... It's an accounting question. Yeah it's an accounting question. Okay so you live moved to approve the fee schedule as presented provided that the hydrant fees are five cents per gallon up to a hundred thousand gallons per user per user after, or for customer, let's call them customer. For customer. After we're rental. For rental, rental customer, after which they will be 10 cents per gallon. Yes. So it's up to 100,000 as the car. Yes. And just I'm thinking about that now, when you say parental, that kind of is good because you get that $500 thing again, if they want to say, well, we're going to do two separate rentals. We could do, we get the $500 each time, so that kind of covers that. Yeah. Okay, I'm happy with that. And David, you seconded that motion. Yes. Does this even roll call? Yeah, I think all these are going to be roll calls. So anytime I typically, if you're doing something where there's a chance that there's going to be a navel, you want to do a roll call. So John, let's start with you. I agree. So John, you may. Charity checks. There, guys. Yeah. Richard, Richard, Richard, Richard, Richard, Richard, Richard, Richard, Richard, Richard, Richard block it. So the vote was six in favor. One opposed. So the motion. That was easy. Long room. Is that enough to ask the resolution? Yeah, that's why you were passing the resolution subject to that change that change so we would have to go I mean the resolution is just saying or adopting you have to go in and a man the actual fee schedule. Is that resolution include um Paris proposal changing from 36 months to 24 months to reveal someone as a piece. That was the resolution you approved earlier. This is your piece. Yeah, so you guys are earlier in the meeting we talked about the resolution you approved earlier. This is your fee schedule. So you guys earlier in the meeting, we talked about the resolution to change the backflow preventer to give people the option to be either higher in Cricut cost or higher in your own inspector to backflow. Just for lower giving the upper lots the option if they want to do that. You have to and then changing lead forgiveness from 36 months to 20. So you've already approved that. John, could you bring me else? We have another public comments that we was gonna be open to non-rate and fees, and then we'll have a close, we do have items for close session. Okay, so public comments, we see more stuff. So this is not gonna be very popular with some of you guys, but I'm noticed and a couple of us have noticed that comes to every meeting. There are a few board members that are pretty rude to one board member here. I know she has a lot of questions. She really, it does feel truly like she is representing us and it comes across as bullying and it's a very bad look. So I think think about just how you're speaking to each other and how you dress each other. Some have stood up and said that's not necessary but it's very disturbing as a woman especially and watching how this products. So there's that. on the $34 increase, if you're gonna take $19 a month or $19 a year. I think this is not water-related, right? On the begins, excuse me. It's just supposed to be non-water-related. It's just on. So we just, I'm not talking about this. That doesn't work. It's just, it doesn't work. No, it doesn't have to be specific to water until the coming. Thank you. Because you're only doing this for the beacons on the well users, I do think there needs to be a line item for it. And we need some kind of something. That's a guarantee that that money will go to our beacons won't just disappear. Now that's the condition that I heard discussed and which is the only reason why I voted for it. So make sure it happens. Because I agree with you. I think that's a little different. So my vote was on the commission. I don't think the rating was appropriate, but if it happens anyway, there should be a caveat in there just so that it actually can kind of be a fair and not as unfair as it actually is. So we all have big hints, right? Right, but we are paying extra this year for AdWords and that was the justification of part of that. So you're being separated out from all the begins. The well owners are being separated out this year for Ad begins. So I promise you that I will look into whether or not one is going to be that the connected users will increase the previous year if part of that was towards the beginning or not. So I said I will not. I don't know if it's going to be. I will either. If you're point, I will clarify will clarify that personally and get back to you. Because getting a rate increase every year, even if it's minimal, it's not fair and it's not writing. When we really don't get that much, like we really do have to monitor ourselves. So to Nathan's point, separating out, every time this stuff happens, it becomes more and more attractive. Can you just share that with Laura, to everyone who's on that. I'm going to be. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you, Scott. Last time I promised we would all be home two and a half hours ago if the upper silvery preclose were allowed to separate out. And either indigenous and the native indigenous regions were not.. Whether it's via a nonprofit or company or individually letting us buy our water rights, which we again, hand you guys about a two-hand of not a check. I already have enough neighbors to make that happen. And they would make Johns and Chris did it. And that would be really for me again. Well, he would be home eating dinner and having fun with their families right now because I would keep about 90% of what we're talking about tonight has been offered versus La Verste. And we've worked together as neighbors and everybody's unhappy so we've probably had a good job. But I've clouded this road before, what everything Nate said is correct. I've already spoken with all of the parties involved. I would be happy to make this happen. It is doable. It is easy. It would give you guys money. Everyone with your home, but earlier, John can ever have to talk to me again. If everyone would be happy if this happened and it would allow you to be easier, I'd be pleased to let me try and thank you guys. That is all thank you. We're about stopping you. Yeah. Yeah. I use your permission. I've asked four times in writing to present to you guys. I think so. Can you please send it to the board? I would love to. Thank you. Thank you. OK. Can we talk about the trail through our community? We're going to talk about the last year. There was a pretty good effort with grading and new service that went up along silver creek and shone down westwood. What is the plan for the rest? Because if you walk anywhere on the trail, one would have gotten massive battered probably. And it just like the one on redden is pretty much maybe 18 inches. You think it. I actually talked to Chris about that. Yeah. That's the same question because I'm up beyond the last three. And so you enter with this cost nine grand. Okay. You saved up for it. I think it was two years, three years, something like that. Um, you need to have the same amount of money to continue. That was his answer. You can go for a reason. And it's there because I know well Charlie's done it. I a number of people in the neighborhood have just kind of dragged it on their own. Is it even with like a Harley race? Or can you say drag it? I don't know. You don't have to bonus out. Yeah they've just dragged their graders and I'm using like a, I don't know. I don't know what we can use. I don't know who's don't have to bonus out. Yeah, they've just dropped their graders. I think that's just like a, I don't know. I don't know what we can use. I don't know who's done it. I mean, plenty of people in Upper Sylford Tree have done it for years. Did that be a community event? Exactly. I just, I'm gonna just, I mean, everybody has factor around here. I'm not gonna get people's horses are gonna be at risk. It was a pretty big bager winter. And my husband lost our stretch from our house to running with a shovel. I'm probably in every three months basis to fill in the hole. Sheldon, just a pair of shoes. Should I do my six ones? Yeah, I'm gonna take them out. Thank you. I'm gonna take them out. Edgers through the years. You say again, I'm sorry. Well we used to have a lot of community days to work on the trails. And through the years, that's kind of faded just because there hasn't been volunteers to step up to do it. So there's no issue other than man-n-erst. Right, so. Well, I thought I remember some of the objectives of the community. For my people, or something. Well, if you can, I mean, for snow or for health care, it's different whether there's snow under or not. I mean, having people trying to sit as maintained that trail. I thought somebody brought it up a point to me and go, yeah, that wasn't okay. Yeah, I think we can talk about like if someone got hurt. Yeah, so individually, I think there becomes a liability issue on individual doing the work. But if it's like a service area sponsor to that and we have like Chris or somebody else, they're helping us direct, right? Because your idea of my idea is doing trim, and it's may not be the right thing to do. So I mean this staff has always been a proponent of these community get together. It's just whenever we've thrown it out, they've had very few responses to actually assess. I'm pretty more greeted. I'll be there. Yeah, so we'll definitely, you know, Jody puts together a newsletter. We can definitely look at sometimes to see if we can re-ignite that and get some more community involvement with that. We would love to do that. It's a pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty. Yeah, I just, I think there are a couple of things to think about it from a community standpoint, because Neil used to do a lot when he had his dogs and stuff. Is that whoever is doing it does need to either be educated or have a little bit of reference that they aren't from an approaching standpoint. Yeah, because someone did it randomly once at ours and they absolutely took off the whole edge of art, which we don't care, we don't have anything there, but it just makes it so continues through road and the road at the edge of our property. So it does, there is, it's great if you can do this community, but there's a tiny bit of, shall I say, attention or skill, maybe a blend of both. Correct. That would need to come together to just make sure you are within whatever the easement is. You're not encroaching. You're not causing erosion and all of that. So which one of you want to be a part of this committee just your head? Who's the most handsome? Who's the most handsome? Who's the most handsome? Who's the most handsome? Who's the most handsome? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yes, yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Of course, it said that very proudly that there was only three miles of unfaith road in Silver Creek. And I happen to live on one of those roads that's not paved. And when we moved here, it was about 18 years ago, the only paid road was silver creek roads. Everything else was dirt. That was fine. We were accustomed to dirt roads all the different places that we had lived. A properly maintained dirt road can be fine. The trick is properly maintained. Initially our road was great. The past several years, not so good. The road never got graded at all last year. Even though he said it would. The grader was up there and greater our world yesterday. Yes, it is. It's not as good as it usually is. One of the main problems, because it's on a hill. And I'm sure that a lot of other stuff has gotten paved first because it's low hanging fruit. I feel is a whole different monster. One thing that they did do right a few years back was they redid the ditches. If the water's coming down off, they can go and there's no ditch. It goes down the road and erodes the road. I've got some pictures few years back where it was really horrible. And you could barely drive it because the trenches in the mud were so deep. Now okay it got great at yesterday. He says ditches are gonna be done but we have no idea when. If it rains tomorrow, it's going down the road. Now, someone the last time they worked on the ditches put very lovely rock in it, rounded rocks. Beautiful. No, not practical for being able to make the ditches. And the greater has totally filled in the north side ditch. There is no ditch there. There hasn't been for a couple of years. So the water is all going right down the road. Now I've also heard, maybe Rodemail later this year, I'm not sure wrote a mail it is going to hold on that ill. And instead of wasting money on wrote a mail which would be cheaper initially, I'm wondering if it would be correct to pay this correctly and maybe even pay the ditch so that they can be properly cleaned. Which role do you live on? The president's question, no, I'm not going to go. The president has access to the audio from this. Listen to it and get back to your question. Re-want some groceries and bring your whole suitcase. I'm just going to drop them. Oh, that would be fine. I got it. Okay, that's okay. Alright. listen to and get back to you. Yeah, we went to a road to the airport for a case. Okay, okay. I have talked to a person in the past. And talking about litigation and on this summer, I am commented where the low spot in our road is there, is a culvert. When they put the road a mill, or the two, not the road a mill, they put road a mill on the bottom part up to our road's right way. And then they cut it out. It's some experiment or something and tried to grind it in. That's a Chris question. Yeah. Well anyway, the problem there was that there was a culvert not longing up in that bottom area and I suggested you while you're tearing up the road and you'll put in a longer culvert. Yes, longer culvert, same location. There's not, it doesn't go far enough on the left side and the road. You could have somebody coming down the road following the road, slight miscalculation and they're going to go in that culvert ditch. And that could be a financial liability. Thank you for talking to us. Thank you for talking to us. I mean, there's a couple little white things to come out there, but. I will talk to Chris Marborn. And I'll make sure he listens to this and get back to you on the top floor. Thank you. So longer, longer culvert, but it's longer around the downhill side, where it's not really needed. No. So are there any additional questions for us? Yeah. Zane, we have any questions for Susan. We do have one online. Yeah. Trevor Ramatta wants to say something. Go ahead, Trevor. You can unmute. Sure. Trevor Ramatta, 7850 Wasatch Way. My question was also for Chris. So when he listens to the recording here, it was just looking for an update on the possibility of receiving Rotomail this year on whether that was still being planned on. Yes, we got final confirmation from the Rotoh engineer that we do have access to the road of mail when that project comes. We're in the state of getting some RFPs to see what the cost would be to actually have the work done once we have the material. What we're hoping for is come the next board meeting for staff to present those findings and make recommendations for laying down the road of mail, compacting and doing an overlay over it. Okay, thank you. From your with everyone's questions, comments good? Right? Yes. And just as the seats that are up, there are three seats, right? For election? To lower one of those. To lower one. It's Rick and you, right? John? Yes. And Eric's up. All right. So it's a revolution to move the closed session at this point. Or a majority here. So, well, we've already heard it's done. This is public comment. So it is a point of what I mentioned in this discussed. You have two separate closed sessions. One is professional character conduct of an individual. My recommendation is you do those separately with two motions so we can do the first one which is the purchase or acquisition of real property. That one we have to record but then if you want to have the personnel discussion if you do it separately by itself you don't have to record it under the open public. So that's an option. You can do it all together, but if we do it together, we got to record it. Let's separate it. Yeah. OK. So then what we do is, like the suggestion is we do the real property once first. That way, Jody can be on. She can record it. And then when we go into the personal one, will come out of that first close and do a second motion for the second one. That doesn't need to be recorded. There is an app a David statement that Scott will only design and I have a form that I'm saying don't report it because I don't have to record it step and we've missed the one type of meaning, the one type of close that you don't have to record. OK, thank you. Greg, you have a privilege in trying to view somewhere. So you just read under the agenda there. I was named from the Nevada. You would just read the second part, close session to discuss the sale or purchase of real property. Okay. I refer you to a motion that we move out of public meeting and move into a closed session to discuss the sale or purchase of real property pursuant to Utah Code 52-4-204 through 205 does someone second this motion David seconded Hello, is it favor The vote was unanimous The time is now 8.33 pm on Tuesday May 20 2025. This is the end. This is some kind of service area three moving out of the public meeting slash hearing into closed session. All right. I'm going to make stuff reporting and then restart it. So.