It started. Okay. Time is now 5.30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 22nd, 2025. This is the start of Summit County Service Area No. 3 public meeting. This meeting is being held at the Shelton Richens Building in Park City, Utah. The first item on the agenda is a welcome from the chair. Welcome everybody. we have have to be out of the room at the 30s so we have to stick to schedule, apologize, there's three minutes for each speaker to develop on this. We have to stick to it strictly. With respect to the agenda, there are items on here, we're going to stick to those as well. So, the interesting time, think about comment sharing, but it's more like, Thank you. This detail is possible. Well, sorry. Let's do a roll call and conflict of interest starting with Vince and we'll go later. Vincent Powell, board again, operations, no conflict. Journal brain, general manager, no conflict. Crystal, all roads and water, no conflict. to recognize the results of the conference. We can recognize the conflict. To take satisfaction no conflict. First, we have rural workers, appreciation, no conflict. John Ball, trustee, no conflict. John Blum, trustee, no conflict. Third, price, trustee, no conflict. Scott, we can trustee, no conflict. Kerry, past, trustee, no conflict. David Olsen, trustee, no conflict. Scott, we can trustee no conflict. Kerry cast trustee no conflict. David Olson trustee no conflict. And Jody. Jody and Agnes Office Manager no conflict. Just a reminder for the trustee that we're using version two of the board packet, which I've just had the net. One item was deleted out of version one so it's not big deal. So that one we're using version two as our reference. The next item on the agenda is public comments. We do the members of the public here. I ask that if members of the public want to speak. that you state your name in either a lot number or street address, and if you would limit your comments to three minutes, that would be greatly appreciated. that you state your name in either a lot number or street address. And if you would limit your comments, three minutes that would be greatly appreciated. But anyone like to speak? I would. We went to the mosque, because they find some of it right. I'm too excited for this one, I'm excited. So we have a really sad, hot hole on the corner of Silver Creek Road in summit. When was the month to say by summit right? I'm too excited for the information. For the way we're really sad, hot hole on the corner of Silver Creek Road in summit. I mean, it's not so overkill. And when it still has water, do you all know how deep it is? And two cars cannot pass in that little bit of a problem. I'm wondering when we might be able to get out next. Do you want to comment on this? Sorry, yeah. I'll go look at it tomorrow. Oh, I think so. Okay. I'll go look at it tomorrow. Okay. I may just be the road to prayer right now. That would be great. Anything would be really helpful. The main. My second question is, I don't know how it's phrased, but there's a part in the meeting where it says that you go into... There's a phrase. Sorry. There's a phrase available. There's a phrase in there. Yeah, thank you. There's a closed section. Do you have the... Can you remember the phrase of it? Do, correct some of it. So these are the statutory reasons that the board is going to close session. So the character, professional, confidence or physical or mental health of an individual is plenty of reason, limited litigation for the sale or purchase of industrial property. So those are the statutory grounds that the public body can keep it going to. My recommendation was to just put that language in the agenda if they need a close test to dog, people just they do, then they can just make the motion pursuant to the language. And they can admit it, like if they're not going to talk about, you know, for instance, if they need to talk about a pending sale, they didn't have to move to address the other. But often, you do have to have to address them. I just wanted to understand that more because it seems like there's frequently that. And for me, I thought it sounded like we're having a quick analysis that we have every time we're something. But so it's very, I don't have a single list of it. It doesn't usually have a closed session, at least that most of it. What kind of things is that really about that? If someone says the demand letter and we've got to respond or we have a settlement to do today. I'll need to go and talk about those things before the board can act. If there are HR issues and not all HR issues are bad. Sometimes it's simply doing really well. How do we recognize that? Or if it's, you know, if we're trying to acquire real property or a a expansion of water water, something like that. All of that stuff is something that's covered under closed question. This is something where the public relief of most e-cales would impair the district's ability to negotiate the best term. And I'm not going but anytime you're talking about a settlement, an legal strategy where someone sends a demand letter and I have to advise the board on days what we're going to do. I mean, so just because it's there, doesn't mean they have to go into. We just included it to sure they have something they can read. It complies with the statute. Okay. And then it also concerned that there's public hearing what I'm saying at the county that impacts silver Creek at the same time this is the help. And I found that a little bit bit frustrated. It actually starts in 22 minutes. Upstairs. Okay. We just have to schedule this. We put it on a 2025 meetings. We had scheduled back in November, December. Sometimes they have a conflict. We try to avoid a conflict as much as we can, but I think if you have a conflict down on all, we can do about it at this point. We also want to add up. No? What do you think about it? We're right in public comments now. So we're asking if members of the public like speak now, do you have time now? So ask that. Make sure that people were done signing. We have a signing clipboard. Somewhere in the miss. We sign in. We have someone online. Are you, but you like to speak? I'm going to say no. Okay, the next item on the agenda with the item 3A, which is the approval of the March 18, 2025 minutes. At this point, I'd open it up to the trustees for either discussion or voting on the March 18 minutes. Do you have any comments or want a motion to occur? Off. Look on. Big. Off. I think we have a full answer to one motion to approve. Okay. Thank you. I have a question for a second. All favor? I have a question. I made the motion. Auto seconded. The vote was unanimous. Next item on the agenda is item 3D approval of expenditures. We have two invoices for which you're speaking approval at this point. I'll open it up with a more for discussion on approval. We'll go ahead and switch to the position to approve. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. We'll go ahead and just move. Motion to approve. Second. All in favor? Okay. Tell us about both of them. Okay. Scott made the motion. Auto-seconded. the record at 539 PM, Rick Perisi, this is the present for the meeting. So this is the quarterly report. You're on the calendar year base, so this is only 25% of the year expired. So not really much to think of. And in fact, the general fund, which you're looking at now, is very, very on tab. There's not much of property taxes have come in because they've come in November. But we haven't had on the expense side because of no snow, so the little or no snow there's been very little expenditures on the snow plowing, which is a big item usually in the journal. On whether it's math, the journal fund is right on task. My estimate today is it's right on task. Well, there's anything major or minor in that figure. Stop me to answer any questions on the journal fund. The next fund we're moving to again is 25% of the year. The water fund, everything is typical with the water use heat being up and on based on the winter. So those charges are down a little bit, but that's typical with the cyclical revenue, the system's summer. On the expenditure side of things, everything's in line. There's nothing out of the ordinary. happy to answer any questions on the water problem. Again, it's based on my estimate. It's right on schedule or nothing. Nothing big or nothing small. It's happened that effect in any way, John's budget. We have a credit in there for $12000, come legal side Nathan, is that a recapture for the delegation? Yes. Thank you. Any further questions? Next item would be item 3D, which is our annual fraud risk assessment. The this form is required by state auditor of each year that it will be presented to the board and reviewed by the board. So they were signed to point value your risk towards fraud and some year high end your numbers are good. The only ones that really there's only four categories that you have to be applied with in the bottom three are normally for bigger organizations both with the low end. You have a low end at the top. But it's got a good score. I've seen, I don't really agree with this point very well, because I've seen organizations with very high front score can have for on. So it's not going to catch people colluding together or having now some relationships to by for take the fraud and try and go back. You got a good score for a small organization. State Auditor just requires that you review it. I'll save the bottom, John will sign up then. I'll sign and submit it to state auditors who are in to be honest. That would be to answer any questions on the phone. Same thing you did last year. Thank you. Thank you. I have been Zweeney here. proposed 2025 water rate and fee schedule changes. You see here is a document that we concluded to just highlight just the changes only. The proposed changes. At this time, I'd like to open it up for discussion. I'm happy to start. I've already kind of sent my, well I'll start with a question. Chris, with regarding the hydrant, is the rate that we have established now for hydrant sales, the 10 cents for gallon. Right. Galin one or like the way you sent it to me it was like a hundred for a thousand. That's just the cost breakout. Yeah. So it is. Okay, so that's consistent and then what we're going to have that's what's on the sheet that when they take out the meter and all of that that's listed. Correct. Okay, so that was question number one. And question number two is it listed on here as a change, but I have done some extensive research and maybe would like to ask Nathan or possibly Terry as an expert in these fields in terms of like a mercy rule. I see that we have a policy that's like every three years. Yeah, like forgiveness. My research showed that most areas have them 12 months or 24 month policies within. I know like South Jordan. I've experienced where we didn't have a link there where it's an annual one. Are you seeing as an arm with the, with the like most districts having every three areas, every four months, every 12 months, I have that week forgiveness policy in place. So that's an area where the board has a lot of discretion. So I want to say that there's a hard fast rule. I'm trying to recall why the board said it, because I think it was at one year originally, not mistaken. And then it was changed. And I can't remember why exactly, but it is something that's in your discretion. It's not like a state law with this. Yeah, no, I didn't find a state law, but I was more asking for more and more and more. Okay. I've seen it all over the map. I will say I think three is probably the more on the longer side, but I'm trying to think this like a district driver. Some don't even have a week to do this at all. Which the service area didn't initially do enough at all. I just wondered what I had found was like more like the 24 zone seems to be the norm in all the long-sci research. I tried to look as many as possible. So I was going to ask since we are doing a lot of policies, if the board wanted to consider instead of a baby three years to be a 24 zone policy. How long for do we have? Like history, what's the history tell us for our area? City. For a year. For a summer. They can't receive like four weeks of giving this application the year. Well, for the whole area. And some of these are related to actual leaks and then some of them have been to overuse in that they just didn't weren't aware of. Right. So we've had to work with those individuals. So yeah. Do we have a response? Yeah. We have to mend the water service regularly. What is approved currently to give this? Does that policy or water policy is not on the agenda or right in the fee schedule is on the agenda for us? Wouldn't that be part of it? They're kind of intertwined if you're going to make a change? So yes, and that's part of the reason why the foreign practice has been to discuss the fee schedule concessionally in-below-caring setting to see what sort of changes the board wants to make, and then if they do, sometimes they do require changes to the policy. Not always the water policy, sometimes it's like the road policy, like something else. So that is the purpose of today's meeting, is to get a sense of these are the rates they've been proposing. So more water will present on it. If you want to make related changes then we need to know that so you can prepare for the changes. Yeah, that's why I thought it was like inter-applying to raise data. So, thanks. So, can we motion that at the end of this segment or do you want us to do it and have to keep pace? I think if the board wants to give us some directions for how we want to present it for May, now is the 10th. I would motion the change 24 months for Seattle goes to throwing them for a year. That's the benefit of this maybe if you're supposed to work in service. I would if remote more conservatives people would be more likely to fix it. I think it's coming on a chronic, like so for example to get a fully acre of fun, leaking, you might not be the likely to fix it. That's coming out of chronic. So for example, if you're going to pollake or fund leaking, you might not be the likely to fix it. Get the leaf or the two things. I'm thinking of the opposite. My brain around. So in other words, if you can get it every two years, why would it be more incentive to fix your leak? If you as opposed to every three years, if you only get every three years then you have to be born on top of your leaks, right? But two years I think is more alive than someone for example who just have a line of a cut or a few to probably line your two or three to pop or ground motion. But there's big catbacks that as part of it maybe this is a step towards fixing something that maybe they think they want to use their full acre for a flood of flood. But our movement is about 24 or 36 months. And what staff can do is put together a staff to the floor. That's fine. I'll ask another staff. I'll ask another staff. I'll ask another staff. I'll ask another staff. I'll ask another staff. I'll ask another staff'm sorry. And the only thing I had on my list was which I did raise previous dates to the board is that I question or I don't want to be like I do think that we are, you know, although it shows like it's a change that like the 25 cents per gallon is what the current we never We never really enforce that like that wasn't something that was influenced. It was suggested last year and then it wasn't implemented or it wasn't what's the right word. It was last but then a moratorium was put on. A moratorium was where that was looking for. So it's actually our current rate is. It is, but it wasn't enforced. So I think that we are putting in play. I do agree with the structure. I think it will go well with conservation. And really we'll penalize if you're over certain balance. And it will make sure that people are really conscientious, whether you're unwell or connected. They're kind of the same structures. I see a lot of validity in that. And I know it's a nominal fee, but how many watts do we have in the lower? 200, I mean, an upper, 250? Less than that. 200 and one in the upper. There's 586 total. So I just, I feel like the increase on the, sorry, I don't feel the difference to myself. 214 minus the 180. so 34 times 201. So. So the private water was just. So I feel like that the change in the policy to put an increase on the well users from the 180 to the 214 is something that we should not move forward with. And I would make a recommendation that unless we're gonna be looking at an increase to the connected users and to the well users that kind of aligns that same thing because even though it amounts to 68 hundred approaches at late as a whole, it's only about $34 per person. It's nominal. I just feel like it just doesn't sit right with me to give that increase to the well users and not to the connected users. And I just feel that it's in the best interest to kind of keep things level so that it doesn't seem like we're doing something in favor of one part of the community and not the other. And I know that there's history history like, you know about, okay, well, what about these litigation costs that came from the well users versus the connected. But there's also a lot of administrative costs associated with managing a water system that's connected to the burden of the staff of the testing, of the regulatory piece. And I just feel like in my mind, it would feel a little bit better if we were to have it, that yes, we implement this tier structure and maybe the next year we look at this nominal increase. But as a whole, it does seem a little bit like unfair or like doesn't sit right with me that will implement this and an increase to these people. But the connected users will remain at their 108. And to that point, 100, 109. We just raised the annual rate of 150 to 180. About two years ago, last year. So within three years, we're going from 150 to 214, for the well, so it's 1000 for the connected system. Well, I think it was my last year. He went up from not much. I don't think that's for months, from $50 versus $30. No, but for money, $100, we've already reached $1,000. For a few months, $1,000 is about $2,000. Well, this isn't $34 months. This is a $3,000 year. $3,000, yeah. I was about to talk. This isn't $34. This is a $34.0 year. It's a $34.0 year. Yeah. Yeah. But we're not, I mean, like if my well breaks, which I've had to replace the prompt or any maintenance whatsoever for my property as well as there, I maintain, I pay for every bit of it myself. There is not one thing that I would get from the service district. In fact, unless I'm watching I am watered effectively, which I do, no one even will call me. I've had three weeks in the last couple months, but none of them amounted to be much. They were like someone with a toilet cup stuck down. But if there's anything, it's neat. If you guys have problems, you have staff, you have report. I mean, there's a whole line of services associated with the connected user. But it just, I mean, if we're going to look at it and say, okay, we're going to do this 18.8% increase to the well users, then why are we looking at as a community as a whole? Like to me, we should start thinking about all of us as a community and not differentiated. And it also doesn't seem like, when there's only two of us on the board who are on well. And the rest is five people who are not on well, who are all unconnected. It just seems like, again, it's nominal. What's the justification? Yeah, where's the backup? Where's the justification? Why is this $34 in-crease? Like, again, it's super nominal. But it is a revenue increase of almost $7,000 worth of service district. But what are we getting? So I can speak closer to the $34 amount because up until last year we didn't have beacons and meters on all the well-leaders. And now that we have that, we incurred cost of the service area for the ion water. The begin for it to transmit is a dollar a month for each each house. So that's lower and upper. Yeah, for both lower numbers. So that's the same straight across. Okay, and then we have to account in there for that beginning meter replacement at some point in the future. And so we're depreciating that and so I'm kind of taking in that depreciation of the cost of the meter and the cost of the meter and the beginning and dividing it over 10 years so that we can get down to like that $20 mark. So that, you know, now we're $32. So this $34 wouldn't have been spared to add to all the well users last year because not everybody was compliant. Now that you're compliant for that $34, that's where I'm just applying the patent to $34. So, you know, there's no increase to the connected well. We've already added that. Yeah, that's already been added on for the same reason. One minute. We've been out of this. We've been connected with you think it was on before the well. Yeah, and when we collect that is in the monthly building and stuff like that. So your thing is it would actually bring you to equity. But we pay for the meters. So well, but you won't pay for it to replace it in the future. Why not? I paid for my meter. You paid for it, but because it should have been put in when you're well, was drilled initially. We brought you up this all for everybody. There's a difference. It's going to replace it. Yeah. And the beacons are separate unit from meter. Yeah. So anytime my meter breaks at any point I can call the service district and you guys are going to pay to place that I'm going to pay for the meter itself. If you you have some funding issues and stuff that's that's different. That's different than that. But the meaners that we have we're not seeing any replacement issues with those physical effects on them for several years. And we don't see any issues with those means or signal occurredly, but we have to be prepared for those depreciation. Lithium battery in that begin will die at some point and we'll have to replace that. The endpoint,? Like, you know, like what are the cost associated for that? Are we collecting, are we collecting, are we collecting, are we collecting, are we collecting, are we collecting, are we collecting, are we collecting, are we collecting like what are the cost associated for that? Are we collecting, like if we're gonna collect this $7,000, right, $6,800, whatever it is, what exactly is that $6,800 year over year gonna go towards if you don't have to root, like that's a pretty high level amount. I appreciate the item. You save the literally cheer for when it does break so that you have it all ready prepared. But it's one of them. We don't go into deficit when that issue is going. So your state's facility is going to go into a line that will use for any more. I'm assuming that that's how it works. So that's the way that it is. My understanding is the other chunk of this feed that the well users covers the assessments for the irrigation companies. Because almost all of the lobsters supplied by water shares. There's an annual assessment that's attached to the early things that rose into that. One hundred and eighty. I don't sell that. And they have been in those companies periodically increase their suspects. No, I don't know if they have. Have they increased their suspects? No, it's pretty much been consistent. So, some of those. Historically, that fee has been charged to pay the annual assessment to make paying shares, which is a condition of maintaining the water. And then so it sounds like the increase crisis due to the depreciated maintenance cost. For that $34 that made it so that now that everyone has the beacon and access to that and water so you can see your leaves and stuff. That's all accessible now. But I don't think we can appreciate something that you guys can pay for. If we pay for Joe. It is primarily the beacon. It's working with service area to pay for. So you guys can't take an appreciation. This is for the beacons. The begins the service area pay for the beacons and the service. The two separate components. So you have the meter. Then the beacon is the unit that transmits to our counting system. Usage. Transmit state of for your ion water that you're at. So that comes at a cost to the service area. Along with the maintenance, and then like Chris mentioned, it's the count for the beacon for its annual monitoring, which we all thought to pay. But you're also paying for that for connected users. Exactly, but we've been doing that for the last six, seven, eight years. That's the reason. I go back in time and try and collect things because you guys collected them previously on connected users. And now you want to say that the well users should pay like almost like more than the connected users to reach to your cost for something it sounds like. Like I've heard that comment more than once that, you know, like, oh, the connected at least paid for this increase. So, just to help me understand, you're thinking of $34, we're trying to go back and collect pass past. I felt like there was past litigation that we should be recouping. I mean, like I've heard a lot of. I was just trying to talk about. 34 dollars in the weekend. And that associated with on the other stuff. That's my. I am. I'm not going to let me let me have this question When do we raise from 150 to 180? Last in 2024 20.4 so that was a $30 increase in pay for Now we've gone from 180 to 14 that's $34 that's $64 Over to your period How much and that same period of time did the connected users for the regular $120 annually? How much? So what was the rate before? Where's the old rate? $99 per month. And that was what? 1.5. So it's total of $20 increase versus $16. It's a weekly clause. It's a clause that sells, ours is a hundred and it would be 120. And that was a clause that one. That one. You're getting connected to your services. They have to go forward. What does the answer in there? But there's a whole lot more that service that goes into it. But I think this $34 for a Christmas gift. I'm not $34. I'm just suggesting we try to increase in the cost. $50 last year. 30 dollars last year. That the right thing for the community is not to increase this year. Unless we're going to look at an increased first for the entire community. I got to jump in here. So I'm really uncomfortable with the framing of connected versus unconnected, like it's some kind of battle. Like we all have to say neighborhood and there's just different costs of delivering services in that they're trying to lay, you know. But your costs are... But our costs went up, right? Exit at home. Our costs went up $120. Nobody has complained. We don't get the service that you guys, we don't, we maintain our normal life. I think it's a very labor for the poor. You get more water and you pay way less. And our costs are our home. How much do you pay? You pay the same. When I put in my well, my well costs me $8,000. Okay. Well, that's not, that's what you can't have. I'm just glad you did that. I'm just so I'm just nervous. You can't ask me the question. No, no, I'm saying. How much my well cost? My well cost me $80,000. Thank you. Thank you. I will I have class each year that I have to pay to maintain. How much? Two, three hundred dollars a year. Okay. So we paid 13 hundred dollars a year in a quarter. We can hammer times the cost of the well. I mean, I think it's like, but the point is we're trying to a better deal, but I'm not going to be drugged, because you have a well, but they're so inherently different. Right? So you can't just say this is what we do in increase of the faith, they're completely different. Yeah, because I could look like a list of things that you guys get per month. And we have paid,. I mean, you don't pay enough then. Because you don't. But a poor system breaks even from a counting perspective. Or if there's a slight surplus that goes towards the capital for sure. So that's the appropriate amount. I think we should have detained more because you feel like you're paying too much. But I'll give you a different experience. Because I don't feel like I'm paying too much. I don't feel like we should have an increase. OK, but my point is this is that when I'm no mine house, I chose to go in that direction. So I've let 600 feet of polypide benefit, 5 feet. I had to cold tap a higher. My initial cap at expenses were very high. Over a 15 year period at 1300 rubles, to all nodes with trees. I mean, that's going to be what close to $20,000. So there's also cost to maintain filters, soft water, so we all have different expenses that are filled into whatever the cap is, cap access that we pay for our property. The $34, and I want some clarity on this too, is how is that exactly broken down in terms of services,筆ens, reporting? There's a piece of I don't think that you guys are talking about. But it's the new theory that you have to make sure that the water right is stayed to the service area. There's a lot of spec flat, data, and the huge charge. What is that cost like? And we can carry some deeper color on where these expensive come from. I'll ask the day. Hi there. What can I have? Hello, I'm Gershwin. So can you please mute your mic? So I haven't been involved with the feast schedule set. I do know that you know whenever the challenge we have is the well-work meter, so the big site demand letters, there's one piece of litigation that costs a lot of money. My understanding, not about the financial person's aid, and you guys are no better, is that those costs were largely borne by a lower lot. My experience with lower lots have always paid for, as subsidized, the cost of operating the upper cost. This is the speed that we're talking about now. My experience is historically just covered the assessment cost. So I can't speak to how, what does that mean? I'm sorry, what is it? So the upper lots are serviced by two water companies, one is the irrigation company number two, and the Davis and Weber Canal company, for the most world's partners. So, most of those upper lots are diverting water rights that we have that are really shares in these irrigation. So, those irrigation companies charge annual assessment every year to the service areas and they pay those shares, and they associate water rights in good state. I don't know. I think that would be helpful if we understood and you could mask something out. It's like what he's saying. Can we show has that gone up? Can we show where exactly this money is going to the 30 the $7,000,000,000,000 extra dollars? If you can sit in separate accounts, that's just going to serve as these investments. I think that would be really helpful for us to understand. And Chris, just for my, just for my sake, again, I'm not usually involved in a great set at this point. You know, if you guys have regulatory changes, but you get a job in order, that's where I can involve you. But my understanding is that the $34 is not the pay for the beacons now, it's the pay for the beacons that will need to replace them. For a fan of hand, the monthly month from current investment, that's on the, or the beacons that fail between now. How much is a beacon? It's $4,500. For close to $200, the dough needs to like $181. $18. So it's roughly $200. How many are there? We have 170 on the bottom of 70 on the phone number and how much time to take to replace it. To go out and probably pass now or then hours of in on what it is. And then there's routine maintenance. We do if we get in the letter. We'll check the meter and the beacon. We do have, you know, in addition to adding these new beacons, which is a new cost to the service area. We are also paying for monitoring of those beacons to the cell signal, essentially, to transmit the data to our counting system and on water for the homeowners to use so they can see their usage. It also covers now that we're doing monthly water statements for what we've never done before. We start that later. We need monthly water statements. Well, not everybody's on a on water. And then so it's just another way to serve community, let them know, hey, here's your usage. I just think a lot of people aren't going out to read their readers on their own. Maybe the better question is, if this is implemented, are you ensuring that it's not going to raise again in the next week's set year? Yeah, if you're already already recouping it. In your already planning for the future, I think that we need to say, okay, well, this is going to go in right now. We want to have this money, but we want to hear mark this money. Is that going to be into a separate fund that they can manage? So we can put it away for the Z again? Yeah, that's a great question. Um, are so we will from us Dave, maybe without the idea that we can restrict it for obvious every line item and I think that would give more comfort to know that it's set aside for those costs. If we have years where whatever reason, well users enter into significant litigation, where is that going to get? I don't want to get into a situation where we start bucketing certain revenue from connected versus not connecting because all that completely was a phone antithesis idea that there's, you know, who's sad, you know, Norton South situation. Like it's, my big fear is that if the cost of living matters, because the cost of labor, you know, so I have a great work in stuff that's being working with seniors with a lower garden and a separate, but I don't know, because I think it doesn't seem to be, sorry guys. So, these number of loss are a point of eternal confusion because they're so weird. I don't have no other district in which government any owns the water I can trust for people who are called the private ones. So they are just inherently not aware of the age. Maybe there's another one in the state of it, but I'm not aware it's strange. It's strange in its weird, and so that just inevitably creates more administration. Every time someone new comes in, we go, let's play. The way that most water districts work is how your water system is set up, and that is that the cost of operating the water system are covered by the monthly user fee that people pay. That's, I assume, Terry, what's the point about it? This is how much it costs to operate the system and we've built that cost into the amount of water that you've used per month. Now, the way that the fee has always leaked my experience, which you were well-dumbed set up as there is no monthly use fee because if you notice, you guys are making sure the most part, right? So the only fees that have been historically charged have been the cost of the assessment to maintain underlying shares and then it sounds like the cost now is to help pay for the cost that being consumed. Today what you said is we could put it back, would that be a capital reserve fund that will be the industry restricted fund? We could do a restricted fund balance for all the money goes in. Now, the challenge with locking something into your questions is that inflation changes things with the cost of materials and five to ten years may be different. And with these ferrisons, the potential trade discussions that are going to be having to that knows what these will look like. So that's always kind of the challenge. But now this is odd, again, these private wells. But the concept of having a restricted fund, in which you know that you're going to have a capital improvement or an infrastructure improvement down the road and take money from what you can put it in it to save for that ready-date knock-knock. That's a pretty common. And we do have a capital reserve fund. The way staff looks at it is the overall system. And when we say the overall system, it's the entire water. It does, we use system not connected or well, we use system as all of our revenue is across the board and all of our expenses are across the board. And all we're trying to do is be equitable because if we don't raise this $34, that means that that money has to come from somewhere and it's going to come from the connected users. Can you guys break out the 180 and then 34, give it to us before it gets. Raise your resources. We'll be able to understand. Give it. We have free pet use going. Well, also, what was the justification for the increase given last year where it went from 150 to 180? Was that support the sequence as well? So this, so last year was our third rate increase and 18 years. Yeah, it was the third rate increase, and I think six to catch up. So we went through a period of time where rate increases didn't even come close to inflation back here where we went. The money set was the money was the concept towards the begin, towards the assessments. What was the community given as a justification why it went from 150 to 180? Everything that costs a lot more money nowadays than it gets to years ago. I mean, if everything is continuing to go up, shouldn't the community as whole start to continue to see like what if I was getting water from the system to the connected users, like has that gone up since last year? It's been one of substantially last year. So again, as they put it out here, it took effect last year at $10 a month or $120 a year. And that new C-C, the tier, that went up considerably as well. I don't have the exact comparison, but those numbers went up, I wanna say 30%. So, the usage, yeah. So we did do the increase across the board and kind of many boards ago, they took the approach of, we didn't wanna get a situation where, we didn't wanna do rate increase because every 10, 15 years. And so the concept was to look at water system in our true costs and revenue, and if they were keeping with, what's the best word for this Terry, maintaining a good capital reserve for the future. And accounting for any major leagues, things like that. We have an agent infrastructure. We're getting ready to pack with $7 million major upgrade to a 60 year old plus system. So those were all taken account. And so the board decided, and this was many, many boards ago, to look at reviewing the financials on the water system as a whole every two years. And then this way they would be small and grimmental. The problem was, again, that Chris pointed out with the weld meters. It wasn't until last year that we finally got everyone on well meters. So we didn't really want to start charging for something. You did. You increased from 150 to 80. That's a decent increase. Yeah, it is, but the cost of doing business out here in the last five years has risen some stamps. But if the theory was and the concept was that you guys were going to look at this every year, then I would argue that we look at this next year for both sets of the whole community as a whole. It created versus. It was the world one. Just the same, but most of them are one in certain I mean, I would say that if that was the world. One can just the same, but most of them are wanted, so it's a few ideas. I mean, I would say that if that was the philosophy from the fours to look at this every two years, I would argue that we should look at this as a whole for the connected and the non-connected and look at these spreadsheets and look at what these assessments are costing and look at this as a whole for the community next year Is that what's going on? Well, I'm very excited to pull that bread that you mentioned about treating community as a whole. The suggested rates have unreaded correctly. The well users end up paying, it seems to me, a little bit more because the over just start at one gallon, whereas the connected users are going to start to the 20,000 one gallons. Well, no, it's based on the allocation. It's based on over your allocation. Right, but we get 20,000 gallons per month. So that's another thing. Right. That don't complain about it. We get all we get. So we get the method. So we're preparing up this market. Again, yes, we're waiting to do connected users allocated 20,000 gallons per month. Anything over that, the edges and so that's included in whatever that. the face rate right now you pay $109 down to 20,000 So it takes us to take the first one up last year right? Yeah, divide it by 12. There's one up last year. How much do you pay for $20,000? A hundred or not. A hundred nine dollars. And so somebody on a well goes over, you don't have a monthly order. You have over 300, what is it? 425, 325. So that first tier is there? Well, it's a tier one. It's a tier one. It's a tier one. It's a tier one. It's a tier one. It's a tier one. It's a tier one. It's a tier one. It's a tier one. That's here when Derek starts at 325,446 connected starts at 20. So we don't pay that until after 20,000 and upper the proposed doesn't pay that after their acre photo water. So again, this is above your allocation. So technically connected you need to get like 240,000 gallons per year. But we can't use that because unless you want to pour out You know 14,000 extra gallons in January and put in a bucket and save it for July and in the way it works It uses so we could use half of our 244 and spill pay Overgives and July and August right right and we don't even come and use half of one or three-quarter acre fee with me. But you don't pay any cost for your well or for your maintenance. Of course, yeah. But I'm not complaining. But it's not a matter of like, it's looking at if the philosophy was to let these rates every two years and everyone got an increase last year. The philosophy would be everyone looked at an increase next year, not giving an increase to one set of the... But you could say that this increased. It increased the divide. It could have been put in last year. It was. We got a $30. And now we're implementing the increase that should have put the play at the effect last year. But we should be looking at every two years, the whole community not create a divide and seem like a board where five of you are on, connected are going to vote to have the non-connected. If you ask all five of us if we could switch to be on a final level. No, I'm not complaining. I'm not talking about your choice. Of course, I'm not. I'm just trying to prove a point to you. Is that the point of the battle? I'm just trying to prove a point to you. Is that point as a valid? So it is valid? No, it's not. I'm looking talking about the war. Of course, I'm just trying to prove a point to you. It definitely is a battle. So it is a battle? No, it's not. That's what I'm talking about. This is just like a meditation program. Yeah, but your health is more important. It's apples and oranges. I might even talk about what I have to eat or compare. I was talking about the water. Hold on with that. And I'm happy with what I have. You know, but it wasn't really 100% I think that you guys have a better interviewer. We're not so, I'm not complaining about it. That they're gonna see you in the little black. I'm not sure what I have. You know, but it wasn't really 100% I think that you guys have a better deal. We're not so many of them. I'm not complaining about it. That they're going to say those. You guys are going to say that. You wanted it. Break down of the 180 and that's 34. Right? Yeah. And. Yep. And. Yep. And one one question I would ask. the board to come play to this additional cost for the begin and monitoring and the staff time to send out the monthly statements, etc. Who pays for that. Everyone should pay for that. But if you're going to look at increases, look at them every two years for the entire community. I'm not sure if that's a correct answer. No. Every two years they might have thought this is that if we as connected users are subventing the cost of well users, when their additional expenses incurred by the well users, we're not saying I'm wondering if we have a connected are not saying push that cost back to the well users. That's the difference and I don't want to see us in a place where we start looking at legal saying, you're actually getting back to our box. That's me as wrong. If we can be kind of saying we're saying, it's not the same timing, the same schedule. but it's never going to happen. So, and as far as you want the board to just do, I appreciate the history. I think it's really irrelevant. There are a lot of things that weren't done perfectly, and I don't want to kind of move in that direction. So I appreciate the history that was brought to that point. I do have one more question. And if we draw the focus out very broadly on this whole thing, I've seen some verbiage in here about the water conservation fees. Is that really why we're doing this? That's a goal here to see if people can serve water. And to conserve our water from our water from the doctor. Right, because you have the best case. Why are we not raising the fees on a resident? We're in a so-and. Where would we be? Like the commercial sales construction. That rates staying as thin. But you have a word telling everybody you got to serve water. That was increased substantially in a couple of years ago. I think mountain regional. I think mountain regional, let's mountain regional. I guess I'll answer. It's almost an 8x pack. I really don't think that's relevant because the part of concern is drying up our office. Maybe the issue is we don't sell water to not rest. I mean, if water is concerned, anyway, no. If conservation is the key to the municipal water, that's there. So just the concern, at least from my perspective, with the allocation, just I can give some discussion on that conservation rate. Is not where exceeding our water, it's that when you have a system you do, it's very odd system, particularly after lots of everyone gets an allocation. Somebody else uses more than their allocation due to the amount of water available. On someone comes, I mean that's a good idea. So that is my concern with having a rate that incentivizes people to stay within their allocation or to go on and dedicate more water to whatever they stay with. So there was a bill in the past, the SB274, but I was asked to review IDUASD and type VAT. That bill was drafted largely by the big four water conservancy districts and attorneys, and it was a response and report, the vision of water rights is done. And the latest in years and years of work, and legislature has said we want people to serve. And we want to have top rates in your tier rate schedule that incentivize people to serve. And so the language that was used in that bill for your top rate is a conservation rate. So it's a term by the end of the last meeting to apply those. Well, it does. So what's the bill that is that it allows any public water supply or regardless of their size to have a top conservation rate and that rate doesn't need to be tied to actual cost and it's the end to be reasonable. If it's tied to some conservation goal and I checked with the people that drafted it. I said it is ensuring that people stay within an allocation to conservation yes. What's not required is all the large water districts or larger water districts that have over 500 connections to water systems, don't have to adopt mandatory conservation rate by 2020 stuff. I will tell you, this is just final personal take. Sooner or later, that mandatory requirement will be applied to every water district. Still left me but that's been the model that the legislature has taken those imposing requirements on big districts. We're looking at a place and then they'll turn it. So did you request a question? You can do a conservation if you want but it's not mandatory. The point is that what they're trying to get at I I think Scott is with your pointing out, is that this annual fee that's been charged to the upper last is only ever just covered the cost of operating, a pain for the assessments, and I guess whatever other cost. It's never covered in any of the administration costs that have been required to make sure that people use their allocation or get their leave. And so that's been a professional challenge is that almost all of the questions and the staff time, because minister and water rates are all uproar focused because again, they're uproar lots of weird and just naturally, if I were to buy a lot of silver grease, I would have had tons of questions about it too, right? So they just generate more work, but there's never been a fee to pay. So the prior board is was, okay, let's charge this over to the, so that the people that are generating the administrative costs are contributing towards the administration of this elephant. So that's the theory. Now you know they're not bound by that. So again, conservation versus incogeneration, the commercial sales are just a make-up. Are we doing any commercial sales? No, no, I don't. But are you referring to the non-residential? I assume that that's what that refers to. So is that like business-less, like, barbecue? I'm not going to get this unless we talk in general about how you can. Okay. So we're going to continue offering that whether anybody takes a cell phone or not, right? Yes. Non-armée. Yes. So and that's been that's around. This change slash there in the year before's the previous, the answer. And from what I'm hearing around the room, if we were to raid that, nobody would buy water because it's too expensive. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I was worried about that. That's fine now. We're looking at leaving it at 10 cents, which is considerably hot. If you'd like water for us? No, I don't. As a contract, I do not. Okay. All right. So we have priced our commercial sales when to a conservative price or conservation pricing format. Correct. Okay. I would just ask that you guys can prepare something to show exactly how you got to 180 to 18.89% increase is a weird number. Like, where did that come from exactly? I think it was a very, very good number. I think it was a very good number. I think it was a very good number. I think it was a very good number. I think it was a very good number. I think it was a very good number. I think it was a very good number. 89% increase increase is a weird number. Like where did that come from exactly? It would be great to understand if it's something that it sounds like a baby dead horse and it's going to happen. So I'd love to understand how we got to that because if we're in the same conversation next year and we're having this, I want to understand how we're getting these increases where they're coming from. We move on or can you have any other questions? So just from my, in terms of directions from the board, if we've got to do a 30-d notice, given the timing of this meeting happening this week, so they've already done the notice. Well, I was opening up and said this direction on what you want us to post in public in advance for the next week. So it felt like we wanted to make a change to the lead forgiveness from three years of sleep board. So that's one policy splash coordinate change. But with the act, because what do you have here of proposed change? The law will need to actually adopt as an actual fee schedule. If you have your other fees that are warranted, I think same the same, like these only will maintain. No, correct. So what the staff will need to do is they'll need to take fees proposed evidence and incorporate it into a new fee schedule and that's what we will consider at the end. So is the direction for the staff to proceed with these proposals but have additional information that justifies them? I think it's... a new piece, and that's what we will consider at the end. So is the direction from the staff to proceed with these proposals, but have additional information that justifies them? I think it is yes. Do we need to have consensus or bonus? I think we're asking for direction at this point in time. Because I think the one that's currently on it, do you need to vote, too? So, our motion to approve what Nathan is saying effectively that we only change making perfect notice perspective. This is from 36 to 24 months on the media and see going forward. And everything else here on this here. You have a positive on this whole schedule. It's different everything on the map. And then they end up as additional information to be talked to each other. I'll second that. All in favor. All opposed. Here. So if you haven't there was a post vote, can you do a vote call? I did it all tonight. Carry Katz. Scott, what can I? Good to see you. That's right. I chomble on my. John ball. I. I'm gonna be alright. You're at place. John. Moving on to item 3 F. We have a staff report. 2025 dash three in the start of the board packet. This is a lot of connection. Jody, would you like to speak to us? Yeah, I can. If there's any questions, please let me know. Basically, one of the things that Vince brought up last year and he proposed, I call it the sale. He basically talked about lowering the price of new connections in an effort. He was thinking big picture down the road, looking at increases that are going to have to come up with the connected users with implementation of the new loan when we take on the new loan for the infrastructure upgrade because we only have 214 connections. His idea was trying to get more connections so there was that thinking and then also talking to various residents there are a fair amount of residents who only have wells that are about 200 feet. I am familiar with a couple of residents that are on wells that want to eventually connect, but it is pretty, I don't wanna say cost prohibitive. The connection fee right now, the new connection fee is $12,000 plus the cost that the homeowner would take on to connect the line from their home to that connection point. Plus, you'd have to abandon the well. So there's a pretty extensive fees there. So there, this is also kind of along the same lines of people when they brought the water line up to Westwood that there was a handful of wells that were failing that more people would connect and I think only two people have connected along Westwood and we are still paying a bond for that water line that was brought up there. In the meantime, in this proposed that original idea, which put the seat in my head, we have been notified from the division of water rights that there's about six people who, let's say their water rights aren't set up correctly. They either don't have exchanges. They don't have a water right. They're not set up correctly. What happens is because Stetterville Basin is actually considered a closed area. If the water right isn't already moved in here, if the Weaver contract isn't moved into Stetterville Basin, as they were in the 80s and 90s, it's not gonna happen now. So we're looking at about six residents who are on wells who need to make decisions and are going to have to connect because technically they're on wells with non-compliant water rights. And this will also kind of be the opportunity for people whose wells are failing to connect. And then I think there will be a handful of people who are also looking to build this year who are just going to get lucky with this grace period. So what we're proposing is a grace period, dropping that connection fee 50% to 6,000, starting June 1 until December 31st of this year. And we'll have like a specific language contract that they get the discounted connection fee and then they must connect within 24 months by October 31st, 2027 or else they have to reapply and pay again. So that's the idea that we're proposing we would need the board to approve it to allow us to offer this grace period to the residents for this year. So he can I just add to your report, these are a lot owners that are located in lower silver trees. They're not offered lots. They all have allocations from the service area that they're not these are just perweswodig's cooperates. Well, but the westwood has some in lower right? So I mean, I thought these were all lower lots from the most part. this one isn't yes exactly. You're right. There's five of them that are on lower that they have They're on wells along the waterline because they were grandfathered in their wells were there before the water line But any of the homes of westwood's certification would be able to access this line and is there enough pressure on that line to bring it up even farther? Like down, ready for this? It's already down, ready for what? Sorry, I'll break it. No. Not currently. We would have to run the water model to see what that would take. It was a look around or something. And is there appetite? I mean, you guys heard from anyone up there. So the original rationale and again, this goes back 12 years, 15 years maybe, though, the Westwood extension was put in because there were reports of some of the first whole wells up there failing because there were drills so shallow at the time. Again, communities have been around a while, and most walls are now being drilled, hundreds and hundreds of feet, as opposed to 182, 250. So that was the original reason why that extension was put in. Today, I think there are only two homes, Trody, that's actually connected to that. I'm not positive, but that's kind of an underneath thing. Any of this connection process requires ambient violence. So the issue here is these are, I think the most part over homes, that they have their own wells for the service very high. So they just kept using it. But the problem is, if I think a lot of these folks just, if you can tell, difficult water rights, they just made out of the states and filed the right paper work with the state engineer before state engineer said, no more water rights can be put into this area. And so some of these folks, they have contracts with we rebate them to use some of we rebate these water, but they never filed a. And so if they have allocations from us, they're just not using them because they have to connect to the system. So I appreciate that explanation. Even some of the stand by fees, I've been talking with Tony, I don't think these people say this made honest mistakes. And what the staff's trying to do is, okay, now that the state engineers come down and and say you don't have water right, they're really the only option to connect. So since this wasn't something they did, it's very easily... It's okay. Now that the state engineers come down and you will say, you don't have bad water, right? They're really, they're only optional to connect. So since this wasn't something they didn't, it's fairly, that's just the intention. So given that explanation, there are other agencies involved with this process, say, whatever. The state has come in and said, you guys have a well, but you don't have a bad one. And you are illegally diverting water that you stayed on from your well and we're going to give you a period of time to fix that before we shut down your property. So my reason for that is, is this sufficient time considering that there are a next journal agencies involved that might or might not process paperwork with enough within six months, two months, two months, whatever. I just want to start. They've been given, I can answer that, Derek. I think first of all, it's important to note that private water rights are not our jurisdiction, so that's not our enforcement. That's the division of water rights. So we can help advise and give information. I'm going to say this. I'm going to say this. No, but, Jody, how long did the state give that no address? 100, it was 180 days. First they were like the initial letter. I think they had 60 days to respond. Everybody is responded to that. And now I think they have 180 days to be compliant. So we're giving them more time, the hooker space giving us steps. We can't control. Now, to be fair, I think we could call up the state saying we're trying to work with them. Can you give them a break? But it's not our policy in the state. Because the use of water rights, what we have at jurisdiction oversuits, connected to our systems, and then if we have water rights and people we're using, like you have for and the private water rights and private wealth as they deal with the state. Dirty team, ask for an extension from the state to see if they say yes or no? Yeah, I mean, yeah, I've talked to the enforcement person because when I started fielding calls from the residents, I asked him, you know, what deadline have they been given? And they obviously have a process. So yeah, most of them are in that 180 days out of six people I've personally heard from two of them. And they have the choice. They could either go buy a water right and have nothing to do with us or they can connect. That is a good point. I've actually made that. So say, you know what I don't want to connect with the system, I'm going to call an application. For a water, I'm assuming they can find one and I'll find my own change application. Then that they satisfy their problem with the state. What we're anticipating with that some or all of these folks will say, she's actually expensive or maybe I can't find one. what mildly options to connect to the service experience. And what Joanie is trying to do is get ahead of that so that you guys just do not come to you with a bunch of these and it's certainly a good thing. what mildly options to connect to the service area system. And what Joely's trying to do is get ahead of that so that you guys just, you know, come to you with a bunch of these and it's suddenly a little bit different. So, yeah, she's right. Some of them say, you know, all of them may just dip their own water right and keep their well. They make their wells too cold. So that's true, yeah. But they're using their wells now, There's a couple of them that definitely don't have consistent water throughout the year that have been talking about connecting. So just talking to those various people over the years, that's why we've kind of put this together, because we know there's different scenarios happening. So this would be something else we would have this in the line item into the revised fee schedule that we have kind of this kind of rate. I'll make a motion to accept the staff recommendation. I'll second that. All those in favor. I agree. Rick made the motion. I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I taking that all and allows the certified water operator to perform back flows in their jurisdiction. So meaning Chris can use back flow inspections in Severe Creek. What is that involved? So this is gonna be mainly on the system, certain systems. You're required by law to have a back flow device on that so that you don't contaminate the water system. If you read the little staff report to the Vintnysel picture, Eric Kaveth, kind of a brief description backflow. But when this, we're proposing that the service area provide a service at $99 a year for me to come out and do that inspection up to about 80 good panels. Yep. And what I know you gave it as a good hour when we had construction and it was a requirement for our furniture net to have that done or when we hooked up to our meter, I remember we had that service from you, right? Okay. This is different from the construction inspection. This is actually me putting connecting instruments to the backflow to make sure that it's operating correctly. This is a different. Okay. If it's an optional thing. It's the people want to use it, it's there if not, they can hire another company. But if they have to present annually, they're working with it. And inspection that is done, that there's a report that the certified inspector fills out that they need to file within the service area every year. And is that a new law? It was implemented. It's been in plumbing code but lost a week now it started in more and more. I'm forgetting. Is this for connected end well users? Well, I'm only focusing on connected as that's where the task is contaminated. That's the state requirement comes to. So this is what the pressure for proposing is only so the connected users because that's where the state law comes to. So the option is you can either hire a person to do it or you can go out and get your own person but either way of service has to expect. So can you just for purposes transparency? Can you pull two other bands and a lot of them just to make sure that people that ever comes up with. So the problem is it was harm's line that there's dilapidation, such other prevailing costs. Yeah, great. So to the point that Terry made, so there are a lot of requirements of an employment code under the State Drinking Water Act or other aspects of state law that the Division of Drinking Water haven't enforced. But that is changing because if you talk to the division of directors, they'll say, yeah, we haven't enforced it because we didn't have the money or the staff. But we got rid of all the basic polluters, and now we're going through and we're enforcing all these requirements that previously we just either overlooked or didn't have the ability. And so that's why we're giving here. this has been a requirement for I think quite something. It's just that hasn't been enforced by the Senate. I think if you look at what we were proposing there on the timeline, we started these inspections, but then hopefully by 2027, we have good compliance and then start actual enforcement after that two years from now. So we, the surrounding water districts are mandating it for ready. What is there like some documentation that we want to offer? Like in terms of if somebody does do the service with you or without, if they know where to submit those results, like that type of stuff, I didn't see it. I think that's what we need to prepare and find how we're going to do the guidelines as prepared as we prepare them for 2020. And is there any risk in terms of like for people on wells? We can do so risk. The risk is there. We can still use your service. Correct. Correct. I intended to be an at-cost service. Yeah, this is not a profit making. The advantage of the intent of this is that people can't get a contractor to come out and give a back home vendor or a crisis available. They want to get somebody else with them other contractor like we're basically giving an avenue to make it easy so reduce rate and then you all recurring service because like for myself if I have to remember a year to get a backflow I've got to go through trying to find a plumber and all that. It's kind of like the septic. I mean, that's not in the county requires, and I think it's $500 a year through one or two companies. Yeah, I've all made this comment last year when I was talking to the backflow inspectors on the state list that was five for some accounting. It's probably increased, but if you talk about five doing inspections for just our system, that you go to an operational that has thousands of homeowners by people, it's just not logistically fine. Yeah, I mean, we have that requirement on the set deck. So, and maybe if you just make it clear that you're offering the service to other people who are on well too, because I mean, I know that that would be something I would be interested in. We drink our water. We can ask the policy. Yeah, so we have people know it's available even though it's not a requirement. Yeah. Yeah. You know, so one of the things that why we came up with that 80 number is that was the number that Chris fell with himself being able to accomplish. 89. 80 custom maybe. 80 custom. I'm going to be here. I'll be here. That's low inspection for here. And so if we suddenly, you know, we get 214 that want to do it, we're going to have to farm that out, which is an additional cost. So again, this is just a way, what we're giving everyone the flexibility to do, whatever they want. We're just giving them an avenue and make it easier like yourself, right? Yeah, and I think so. Maybe like with some county, they do have a list of approved vendors for the septic. So maybe we can provide a list of other vendors who provide that. What we can do that is already on the state. Like what's up? The state industry and the water sites. Some people at least they can have choices. Like I know I have choices when I go to septic, who's different. And I think it's important to note that there are a couple residents that are already doing this. where we just automatically get annual reports for their file. So, it- know that there are a couple residents that are already doing this, where we just automatically get annual reports for their file. So it would just be a whole process of setting up a spreadsheet to start tracking it so we know which ones are coming in and everything. But some of them, there are, I'd say less than six that are doing this annually and we're getting the reports. They just automatically come to us. All right. Any other questions regarding the back to the little staff report? Since it could kind of clarify, make that a fairly long one. And also just to add that it's optional for the low-news list. And it sounds like I guess the timeline is as optional right now, but it's entirely encouraged, right? Yeah, we're trying to encourage it. Yeah. And then get everyone informed before your enforcement comes to it. So, yeah, Trotty's planning to do a bull on education, every newsletter, sending stuff out. So we wanted to get this in front of you and then really go to task of the information of the people. Yeah. Well, is there any more questions? Can we move on to section 4? We're through that. Um, chair, we still have. What these two areas in section 3. And we have the 3H, which is an update on the personal review committee. Thank you. My report of that is I circulated yesterday. Okay. I can confirm yesterday or today. I circulated a draft to Derek and Dave's suggested revisions that were all done in a red line version so that they could see clearly to the existing policy. I know that there was additional ones that Nathan has shared and I know that Jody have kind of taken a stab at like reorganizing. But I thought from best HR practices and what I've seen, just taking what we have and kind of trimming it down and modernizing it to some of the, you know, like taking out some of the data information was just a better first attempt at it. So I circulated that stem for their feedback. Once they have their feedback, they can circulate it to the full board. And to the staff, there's no surprises in there. It's just kind of cleaning up some stuff that you typically don't really see in HR policies right now. A little bit more modernized. But in terms of actual policies changing, there's no material changes to it. It's just trimming it down, making it a little more concise. So that's my update on that, at least. And I think you are going to give an update. Yeah, so just as a reminder of the record, we've established the performance evaluation committee. And so as a product of that, I sent out but self evaluation committee. And so as a product of that, I sent out self evaluation forms to get effective employees, including Christensen's Senate of 9. Those self evaluation has been returned to the committee. We're all in the process of reviewing them and look next step at these set appointments with Ben John and Judy to go over their self-evaluation The performance for our calendar year twice a month And who are the community press so I'll preview I mean that's And then is John and the everyone is officially and then I'll'll free you better. I mean, that's good. And then is Sean and the everyone is officially auditioned for that? I was like to be, since I'm, you know, a good concept of their day-to-day business, I think it would be important for me to be, the FFVN stamp, which I understand that. And I'm glad to have it. It can also have a negative effect depending on the direction the conversation goes. So is that the sort of that? I think that there's a benefit for you to be there for part of it, but I do think it would be fair to staff to give them an opportunity to share their some of their you know have an opportunity to talk to the committee. If there's things that they're looking for as well, you know in terms of needs and desires for their own growth that maybe they would just want to be able to talk to the board about. So I think it could be that for the majority of the meetings, you could be there, but maybe they're given 10 minutes of that time or 15 minutes of that time to be able to talk to the committee as well. I think that's pretty reasonable. It's a bit much. And I think the goal of any Pharmacy valuation is to look at, you know, like highlight and memorialize great successes, looking areas of improvement, but also hear what staff is looking for for their own personal growth and goals over the next year, and what types of things they want to accomplish and what they need from the board and from their managers to continue to achieve those goals. So I think it becomes just like a two-way door to get feedback, but also for them to give feedback for all of you to give feedback because what you need to continue to grow and what will help you grow and get you to stop done. What is the like when you're talking about doing a review because they didn't have a one last year right now and have one out of place. So is there like something how do you do a review of past performance when you don't have? I think it's more just done. You can only look at what you have. Well, they've had their jobs. The possibilities for years and those like, a little back to the year 2012. So, just that again, the job descriptions that they provided with you, those batch, but what they they were hired for. That is good. We were given some of it, no. But you were hired that when you got some of it. I mean, some of the job descriptions were the same for more than one person. And so I think, yeah. Some of the self-destructing in debt, just for people. Yeah, I think they were initially hired on a pretty general, I think the responsibility developed by the individual, that the employees are very detailed and a much better assessment of. I think that next year will be in a much better position, because we'll, we had a lot of turnover with the board from last year. So obviously this is a new board so there's only so much you can really evaluate right now last year, the small snapshot, but then next year and a year after the thought is the policy really does look at doing this annually. So if we do this annually two years from now, we'll be in a much better position than we are right now. So is this, I don't want to put words in any of those math, but is it safe to say that the intent here is to formalize the specific roles or put a components that pre-existed last year and trail-exploit them. We'll be looked at and then give a benchmark to proceed with or have not met expectations. I guess what I'm saying is this is less of an odd. It didn't bother staff. to proceed or have not met expectations. I guess what I'm saying is this is less of an audit on the staff than it is to fact find on what they do, how they do it, how they do it better. I think the initial one, I think, yeah, I think it would be hard. I think it's the majority. There's also a component that needs performance management. Based on what your tone of year's supposed to be, or I did think of that as well as it should be. And what do you think recommend, well, the three of you or the board make particular recommendations of what you find? Yeah, the board. Yeah, that would be a bit of goal, is to share with the board what the finding part. But again, I think Scott's point, like yes, it may not fit into the category perfectly because we only have a certain snapshot in time, right? But it may be like these are areas of improvement, these are things that look like they're gone really well. These are things that your goals, what the goals of the board are, whatever. So yeah, the timing we shared and discussed as a whole. And we have just a great opportunity to start as a platform and to build them there and be better at this next year because we only have a small snap because I see that being on the board since September. Thank you. What do I have to jump? I think being laid around. All right now. Oh, second. We do have one more item in administrative section, which is item three. I may do this once again, an update for the the next process. I wanted to give you guys a heads up on the change at the legislature and after we're going back up and set. This will pertain to the upcoming election. Tony, I think we have two seats. We have three seats that are open. Three seats. And so, three. one upper and two lower. So the legislature is requiring all candidates or local office municipalities and special districts to fill out same conflict of interest disclosure that someone running for, I see in the legislature. It is a very, very extensive, you'll have to fill out a lot of information about your employers, your rights and employers who lives with you, or you've been convicted of any felony misdemeanors that haven't been exposed. It's a very detailed list and it's going to take a lot of time. The record I like is Bill. I think it's going to disincentivize people run for local office where it's already hard enough to get people run. I understand the needs but it's not like the interest when you're dealing with the state efficient because the laws of the state legislative past affect everybody but I don't personally understand why someone who's got a maybe a spouse that works in Salt Lake or a company that has absolutely nothing to do because the district needs to disclose that. Nevertheless, that's what the law. So it's a form that they would have to fill out. I know if there's still the requirement for a certain date in June, I don't know if it's an agent. And that is yet to be the other part of them. So the first thing is if anybody is running for reelection for, well, none of you have filled this out. So in January, they made all of the large districts that had over $10 million. Everybody was on the board had to fill out one of these forms. But now they're basically requiring it for anybody who runs for office. So if you were on one of those big boards and you'd already filled it out and ready to fill it out again, but since none of you would fill it out, anybody who runs for reelection or anybody that chooses to run its money needs to fill out the score. And so far at your point, there's a declaration of Kennedy period filing that'll start. Anybody who runs for reelection or anybody that chooses to run is going to need to fill out this form. And so far at your point, there's a declaration of Kennedy period filing that will start the first week of June. And what I want to avoid is the situation when someone comes in to go fill out their declarative candidacy, maybe on the last day towards the end of the final and then find out by surprise that they got so out this big, over-sports. So, when they did the form earlier this year, every city council member, regardless of the size of the city, had a facility. The antenna governor's office together form for those folks. They did do one for the districts, the UASD, however, to put together a template form. I'd have a template form that I put together, but I'm waiting to see if the Senate governors all have to still the form because obviously if they have a form, let's use this. But if you don't, what we're doing in the notice that I think is the post of the upcoming election, we're including kind of a warning. Hey, if you want to do this, you're going to have to have this. And I think we're going to need to post the form when we have it. We should have them the next week or so on your website and do whatever we can to help educate people. Because I don't want some of them to come in and say, I want to file and run. And Jordy says, under the law, I can't accept your declaration of canesty. And so you fill out this big long disclosed at the hours. And so can we also include the steps for putting one cell the ballot for those people who want to put on the ballot or a ballot for the people? Yeah, and that's a simple thing. The difference of Kennedy process, the ability to come in during that filing period, we have a packet of these packets for years that they'll fill out. It's a pretty simple thing. But this, because historically, finally, of course, in Canaan City, you just go to the office, you sign your name on the thing, if there's a couple of the closures you have to sign. And then they'll be put on the ballot. And then they will be put on the ballot. And if they do it with some of that time, but now they're going to have to go through a much more onerous conflict of interest disclosure process. And this is an addition to the existing conflict of interest things that they would have to do when they are elected. Now, the other part of this, but I want to be very clear of it. But you mean information will become publicly available? And if we don't, the forum will be publicly available. Just close your arms with the forum and publicly, that will be posted on our website under the space law, and it will remain there as long as the election is set. All of the entire forums? Yes. Okay. And that is the whole financial disclosure. Well, these are the list. Your name, name and address of your current employers and each of your employers during the preceding year, brief description of your employment, including your occupation and job title. If you were an owner of a business, the name of the entity, a brief description of what you do in your position. Each individual for whom or for which you have received $5,000 more income during the season year, that's a list income, I just have to say, like I have another water board where I've got a board member who's like, I've got five businesses. None of them have any of you who in this water district are not ever relocated here. Do I have to both them choose that? So that is Sam, what he's making, You just have to say this is where I got my income from. You have to include, if you have stocks or bonds with a fair market and over $5,000, the name of the entity and your description of his fight. You can put a range, like by own a share. Yeah, you don't have to say I want you to I have shares in Apple or I have an index on you. You have to live trips of any real properties that you own. The name of your spouse and any other adults that live in your house that are not related by marriage. What do you think the intent is? This is the intent. And like I said, I don't like this bill. And what I don't want is I don't want people to come and get mad at Jody for trying to follow the steps. So that's why I want to get ahead and educate people. I think the reason for this is the legislators were like, if we have to fill this out so that all the other If you have everything to be my say, we're both vulnerable or you're both trust. If we have to fill this out, so do all the other. If you have everything to be left to say, or if we're vocable or you're vocable to trust. You've missed that. This is for us, but not going to start there. Yeah, you've missed the contents. You don't have to list the amount of money you just have to say. Now, again, keep in mind that this list was initially intended for legislators. And it makes sense there because anybody who's elected to the state legislator, me as a citizen, I want to know, okay, why is this person running this bill? Oh, they're a part of this industry. They may have an ability to get some sort of a benefit. That's the point. But here, where most of you I assume have businesses outside of the service area, they didn't do business with the service area, it doesn't make sense. But it's still a lot. So that's, I just wanted to give you that update more to it than that. But the long story of it is, the Shogun can accept someone's declaration of candidacy unless they completed this course. And then it goes to the Lieutenant Governor's office to make that. No one's that said, we just posted on our website during the election. And it would be a public record. So after the election someone wants to take a minute grammar equation to see it. So David, if someone says yes. We just posted on our website during the election. And it would be a public record. So actually the election, someone wants it, they could submit a grammar request. So David is someone says, yeah, I don't like the way David's voting. I wonder who he's to fund page four. Yeah. He's been a grammar request. So here's the thing. Right. But if we don't do it, it could be subject to a private right of that. Yeah. What are the chances of the pushback from this from local districts that they would amend or make a change? I'm sure EOSD is yaknerior off about this. I would say the majority of opinion of most legislators, particularly with districts, is the districts are kind of a shadow government that people don't know that much about, so they are focused more on providing more transparency about it. And the UAC board did discuss this. It was just one of these things that just got happened. It's been facing it like that there's like, we have to do it. There was an exception. You know, when they did this last year for people that are already elected, they didn't make an exception for $10 million. But I can double check that I don't see it in this bill. And one thing I did one, this is my fault. I said the wrong bill numbers included in the agenda. It's actually a little foggle for you. where there were two identical bills, five or four is the one that passed, the one that's listed there is the other pin, a big business. But just wanted to give you a heads up. I think just to say that my advice to the staff is to be able to educate people that they don't want anyone to be disinterpreter. Let me ask this. Have they done anything like that as you hired new employees that don't have to also feel at those disclosures? No, this is just for the for elected boards that that's how their key distinction results some districts are pointed towards particularly have a district that represents multiple jurisdictions usually like a sewer district that each city spends their mayor those don't need to fill this out because they're already filling those out of city settlements. But since you are elected officials, and this is a separate government, and you will be able to fill this out. Exactly. So that the people are on the board. They're trying to continue. They don't have to do it. Technically, you don't have to fill it out, but I'm willing to bet that will change coming to you. So there is I agree because like I said, the chemistry requirements that every sitting or town has to do it in districts that have a bunch of over $10 million. That's what you see in these days able to do last year. But this year, this requirement has to be first to standards be applied for anybody's problems for any of those. So technically, you guys are running you that's have to go without, but you will when you run, again, or if they change the statute. We don't have anything for item 4a, so we're going to move ahead to item 4b on the agenda, which is the change and exchange applications in the packet. So, as you know, we were in the process of building the drilling doing well for the municipal system. And so this requires the filing of work called either change or exchange applications with the state engineer giving us the authority to divert our water rights from that well. So you have like most water districts a range of different types of water rights that require different types of applications. So what you have are five separate applications, each of which are needed to allow for your municipal system rights to be diverted from the student level. So, one of those, I believe I'm not sure which one this is, but one of them you have three rights that you own just outright, those are the creed rights. So, that's one that you will file, I a step along for that. We have one in space on shares that you own and Davis and we were canal company that the shareholder changed application. So I need to get if you're okay with it, I need to get the company's approval before I get filed. So that's why that's done separately. Then you have we have an old dedication that we've been waiting to get. We haven't filed a change because we knew would be drilling the municipal well and so we wanted to get the well for that. That's part of this. And then we have a dedication from a business that's what's called the re-revation exchange. That's a separate cycle water I could have been done in a separate cycle farm. That's a separate one. And then we have some other existing re-revation exchanges that you've already owned. So the way this simply works, this is is a form that the State Engineer in Office has. I filled it out, I worked with the staff, Chris has provided comments. What I want to do in our practice is always do, before we do anything with the State Engineer's Office, we make sure that the board is comfortable with it. And so what I would do is if you're okay with this, if I would go to the State Engineer in Office, I'd say, I say here's our draft forms. They would review it. They'd put it into a final form that we find. Sometimes. And so what I would do is if you're okay with this, if I would go to the state engineer office, I'd say here's our draft forms, they would review it, they'd put it into a final form that we find. Sometimes they make technical changes, like they prefer a different type of legal description because they don't have, and then they would produce a form that we would sign and select. For all of them, but one, and the one with the data, so we were shared, I will leave you go again, the data so we've recanted canal, nothing of approval to file that. On the other ones, we were shared, I will need to go and get the data so we can now come into approval to file that. On the other ones, we should be good to go. Once we fit in, there's a bit. But before I go and talk with the data, here's obviously an avis discussion. I wanted to make sure the board was comfortable for that sub-wide aspect. And the will, by the way, will be going on a silver bullet site. That's land at the art. The tank is going on another. A wrapped building a well for that. We have to be able to stay. That keeps land by the highway. Yeah, that's where the tank will go. That's what we were thinking about putting the well there but there's some that's on the other side of a sub-base and divide under this side of the groundwater management plan which makes moving our water rights over there more difficult. So we decided let's put it and we still were current still were bullet by because then we don't look it's a straight-up change. It's within our scope base. Thank you. So if you can, I, I would like to vote on this because what I don't want to do is, I know first lessons I learned with the service area when I started here, one of the board members had gone and gotten a change of application filed that have grew without checking the bill of those, you know, the big fund. So I like to make sure that the board's okay. that I get a motion to proceed as I outline what the state is. I vote for Nathan to proceed as outline will be stated. All right. Second. All of them are. I have gotten the motion. Carrie seconded. What was unanimous. Item 4c. It's a lot. 122 agreement. This is not part of the package. It's a graph. This is not part of your packet. It's a graph that we go and document. But if from what I am looking for is trying to make sure I don't get it. So this is a appeal that we have over. This is one of our outstanding. Meenering fees. There is a dispute over this. We can talk about it more and closer to what, but this is intended to resolve the dispute between this property owner and the service area over the fee that we charge for the non-compliant leader. That's not a name. That's a settlement. So you've all seen it. It's not part of the packet because it's not final. It's still a draft. The other part is fine. So if we need to go into close to discussing the detail we can if you credit. So if we want to close, we can come back and vote on it because it is notice to me that we can't vote on it. Okay. Let me learn through item five, which is rose in trails and do have enough date for my road manager. I just want to give an update. Gary Gordon, our road engineer has visited with the contractor for the roading melt for I 80. and they said the war was going to be going on. What's going on? What's going on? What's going on? What's going on? What's going on? What's going on? What's going on? What's going on? What's going on? What's going on? the road and mail for I-80 and they said the law is going to work out to get that road announced. That's great. But I'll have to work with Gary and that to get some upgrades and time to start so we can get notice to the point. So that's forthcoming to the summit. Sorry, do you have to go I can go back to water. I skipped over for our data with like for carry to discuss the water rate model. So. Again. These scroll to 13. I'm going to start reading. Of course. You only talked about this? Yeah. Your title statement. I'm going to be a lot of different. So this is something that I've done many times although this has got a lot more complex than any I've ever done. You guys have got lots of different elements. I I do is take the historical data of usage is, as an export out of the billing system, put it in the background. And then I acted like that based upon the current rates and then provided with actually three different scenarios or ways that you can go and change the rates, it's sort of a comparison by side. So you can see the tolerance of current and then we have rates and we were kind of in to change the volume. So you can see the top one's apparent and then we have rate and you can share with the Furry. So by doing this, you can kind of say, okay, what if we did this? How would our revenue change? Typically, this is done when a water system finally reaches that day when they realize that they they're not bringing enough money in and they get any pay for operation they've made this last year or they just barely broke even. And so, you know, and so there's some, of course, some analysis that goes into this outside, and we're looking customers and kind of keeping it fair and equitable. A lot of times we do this for including commercial and industrial which you folks don't have, or don't have to much of. And so, and then the, the road. Tell me your name again. Yeah. David. That's a nice. And so, and then the, the, what's the name again? Dave. Another variable over there. And so, he has dropped his spreadsheet or is. It's bunched in there and we can tie that into this now and. Actually have those numbers changed based on where the looking to rate can't see that. So that's kind of what I've done here. Any questions? So if you look back to that first, stress you a little bit. I understand. Pop there's grants. Then we have scenario number one. Yes. Um, Art, if you might understand how there's grants. Then we got scenario number one. Yeah, there's a good. They're responding page though. We're each one of those where you can change the rates. They're only effects that. So this doesn't respect it. What is the rate rate? Is the same. I, I put it all the same numbers. I don't know what's the depth and not. Oh, I guess it's ready to go now. So you're just presenting that tool, right? Yeah, just start out with, you know, I believe this, not what these numbers in, this is currently what we are using. Tell me, is my correct answer to this. Yeah, so these are all based on historical data that we have from 2024. So by rate and usage. So those are all calculated into this. I gotta tell you I'm a self-professed data guy. I really don't know what I'm looking at. It's kind of a reogurt. So if that's second, that column, that's real revenue. That's from that's what we. Okay. From my calculating based upon the usage is that we're brought in the billing system based upon the rate rate in that current rate paid down at the bottom. That's the calculated amount of revenue. It should have been brought in. I'm not going to say what it was, but that's that's what's calculated. So what's your estimation on our rates, the piece of the revenue is, what would put away for capital reserve. And then that's a tough one is to address without looking at the bigger picture. I don't know where you're at with aspects. What you, what you got that, for example, water pains, are they, have they, have That's why they near and the end of life, they're the idea of post everything. Hard men, I think we're hearing, I think we're wrong end of the post everything. Hard to admit, I think we're hearing people from wrong, but it's definitely not something. I know you've got a project where you're going to do a new water tank, two things like that. What really needs to be done, maybe, is a nasty evaluation where you're going and say, OK, you know? And there's a spreadsheet for that. And we can help you out with that. I've been working on that because that's a requirement for upon. So that's our growth revenue last year. So the law system. Let's try to appear. And then how much was put into capital reserves? So, last year, once we deduct debt service on our existing, we were at a $9,000 boss. And then how much should we put into capital reserves? Nothing. So, the net revenue was about $5.99't you see that? Well, it's expenses for $7.64. We lost my grant. We're probably $7.50. Yeah, $7.50. What do we print the capital reserves for last year? Not the one. Nothing. Yeah. We lost money. And that primary losses because we ended up, I think, three water leak mains. Main. None of that. Leaks on water mains. There's always going to be something, right? There's always something, right? And the year before our, you know, our fences for emergency repairs was much less, you know, maintenance was 118 versus kind of class never they break even without any cap of reserve coverage. Correct. Sorry, thank you for doing all this. So if I understand, like this is really a tool for us to be able to budget and like friends, we say we need to set our, if we set our over a trade at this, probably reflects in the revenue or if we increase, you know, this is better than I do. Or even tier one, tier two, you know, different ways of coming up with. And you've got three additional options besides the current rates. Right. So you know, and that all reflects on that of the page, you can let monsters build themselves. Yeah. And one of the things that we've put in here with this performance is what the service looks like once we have to start paying on that bond for the infrastructure. Yeah, so everything stayed the same, we're looking at roughly in the next two years, 120,000 that will go to capital reserves. You can quickly see as these payments start coming in effect, we're now at an operating loss of 76 ADA, which really starts digging into the capital half reserves that we've had. So again, this is all planning that we're going to have to do. The bond payment doesn't start until the first year after completion. So we've got a couple years to figure this out. But it's also one of the reasons why, and again, in the last 18 years, the two or three rating increases have only been done really right before COVID, a couple years, maybe year two before COVID. Knowing that we had to address this, but that also contributed to this favorable terms that we got on the spawn because we started writing the shelf, we started putting money away, but not only that, we're raising rates. And they said, you may have been late to the game, but you started doing it. They do with many districts that are still at $30, $40 a month but are bleeding money money because nobody wanted a raised raise. But there are terms of some of the percentage rates I were seeing were like 5, 6% on multimillion dollar loans. This is, I talked to the opioid water manager and this is exactly the same. They get a far more penance. Nothing. We've not even had a crazy raise. Yeah. And since part of the two, they're not building enough. And part of it is their income. So much higher as we were. So whatever you did to get around that. Yeah. Yeah. And a lot of that was, you know, I'm going to give credit to Chris, you know, being our water manager in John, that we were meeting exactly what the state department drinking water needed on a reporting monthly quarterly yearly basis for we weren't getting Dean points. So part of that loan application, Brooke, if I'm on Terry, is that it's it's all points. So if you have no Dean points with division and water, you rank higher. If you have money aside, you rank higher. If you did regular rating increases, you rank higher. So because of all that, we ended up with, again, mind boggling in a good way. Yeah. You've been tired to just ride it, and it's addition to all of that. And, you know, they call it the state your fault, but yes, R.M. from the delivery and the drinking water it's funded by both the state and the federal. And that's dry up. I mean, it's that night of having a drink of water, or meeting the spot, because of the uncertainty, there is there any coming in yet. So yeah, you got a time to just drive. And we keep them running when we submitted our applications. They had a more torrented applications because of this. But Terry, for my understanding, so you created a tool, you will water, you grant this tool, right? You not, you guys you and rule of water are not making recommendations. No, and I thought, I guess I was on the understanding that you guys would come in and study with me at that, you would have a record test. We have a separate internet here. Well, and I don't want to typically do this, but I'm a spreadsheet guy, so they drop my life. You know you can do more of this, but you know, we kind of stay in our lane a little bit. I mean, it was a smaller system. We would go and come in and do an asset, but that's usually more of an engineering thing. So was that my business understanding at first, staff? Like, about that's kind of how it was presented. No, so what a rate study does is it gives you what your current costs and expenditures are versus revenue and then as you look forward to appreciation and capital improvements, whatever. I understand all that, but we had people from the community who were saying, hey, very charge in this raid, this place is charging that raid. We had all these, you know, minions and they should be insubbed and the staff said, hey, we're bringing real water in and they're going to vlog our service. But at no time, they're going to be agent for a recommendation. So this is in my experience, you may not characterize this in recommendations,, but these tools are there recommended. These are the serious ways to do this. And the idea is that you guys know you're just in American systems better, you take this information and then sum up with the final product. Now, Terry Krickman from long, usually these race studies don't look at what other districts you're doing because's a really average of my good others. And so that's a common difference. I know that's what I think this is what he said. Like, that's not what they do, but I was so understanding that they were going to say based on what we're seeing that you guys are doing and whatever we recommend. Maybe I only want to. No, I think at the very beginning, like I think I know I also had the understanding I thought it was going to be because we're talking about what are the rates and other places and I thought it was going to be that but then shortly after that I think I learned that that was not the case and that it was going to be more of a okay it's not going to be a recommendation because there's so many differences right well I want to discuss it and say, you know, this is what we're charging. And look at it. And the problem we have so often is these systems that haven't really achieved rates have it for a reason. They're not doing what it should be in the background. Right. But in January, we were given inputs and it was called that the water had done the wrong inputs. So, I'm convinced that you were going to go back to where a water and represent something new to us. Yes, so this is Terry's revise because again like Terry pointed out earlier, our rate schedule is complex because we've got monthly yearly tiered standbys, et cetera. So the calculations and I kind of know spreadsheets and I say that loosely, but when I look at some of these formulas, he's the spreadsheet guy because they are complicated and they're to set up in a way that now makes it easy for us to go to the various rate tiers. So for instance, rate one would be a scenario of if we changed these rates, what would happen? Right. So we can charge more here or less here or charge more here and less here. And so again, this is just to give us various scenarios to meet that end goal. You know, what do we need to charge knowing we've got this big debt, inflation, cost of goods, everything else. This is something that we already done. I think our last rate study that they helped with was, I want to say six to eight years ago, which was again very similar. And this is, you know, again, this is stat. The most available to stat, Terry, when did you present this fact to stat to BLT of this school? Yesterday, no. I built this month or so ago, and then I got a lot of those things that I've done since these. And I can sit there on the bank earners, and then Vince came to consider who we need that now. So I worked, had I worked on an accident, I said, I didn't send it. And he presented it to us on Monday. What's the guys' version? I thought we were talking about this in December, like why did it not get to rural waters, towards the Terry's death, till a month ago, when we were talking about this in January, when we were going to be represented with something. But why is it right now? In just a few days. A month ago, but we were talking about this in January, when you guys sent it out. Even working on this for the last few months, and then you have to legislate of session that took everybody away for a month or so. And in overall water also worked with many other districts throughout the the state. They're not at our back in call. Yeah, it just seems like for us to get this like the day before, a couple days before seeing strange when we were supposedly working on this since. This is not, this is not affecting our rates for. No, it's not that we thought it was going to be that's why we're waiting. That was what this thing is. That we were always waiting, waiting. No, we were waiting on the legislature to pass the stills that we were in an empty water here. Now before the legislature, if we look back at the benefits of January and December, we were thinking that we were getting information like Derek said, from rural waters. If you know, the meeting that we have with rural water in the office was I think right around the fires where it's alive, which was crossed on February, if I remember correctly. The fires are early gender, and they're all gender. No, it's, it's a little gender. Fires in LA. So whenever the rural meeting wants that, it's what fire you put back and they still had a report that the new iteration of the template that you have created. When did you give the data to robot? January 7th for the fires. I am the only thing I've been involved in is the profile. Okay, we do as well. Okay, all right. All right. I'm feeling that I've been involved in the pro-farm. We just went, or I was not going to have a go. They extend, you know, Ben says revival, because I didn't know that that service paid for me. Mine was just a pro-form. That was my best estimate that I've done. So you have to use the pro-forma to tell you that when the death service payment is on board, that you're gonna go negative. And so then what he's provided you as a goal to say if we make these changes, we'll bring in this much more water, never knew that we'll change the pro-forma to make us positive. That's the connection you got. And he's just giving you a goal, and you can look at the various rates, however you see it fit, as a board. So, at the end of the day, this is really just a projection based upon the anticipated debt service year after product is done. So, the business that's explained is you've got a couple of years where you're going to have to add to the system after the bank. And then when the debt service parent comes on, then you're going to start going a little bit negative. Right. And so in two years, you have to use this tool or sooner, use this tool to say we've got to we've got to make up $100,000 or $200,000 in the top line how we're going to achieve that. And you can look at this scenario and say, base rate, $119, over $10, $11, $4. They give you an option to change those and you got to have it the product of the revenues that you want to think. Simple is bad, so the component of users are going to be taking a lot more if you don't add new additional users. Right. Yes. And then what is there a scenario? What is the anticipation of rates changing like what that would type with? What is the period of rates changing to keep up with? That's what this is trying to tell you. You got two years. So the state drinking water anticipates because they do their own based on our rates. And they say, you know, you're pretty much going to anticipate your month waiting within first couple of years of that sort of stuff and having to be around $149. Yeah, but are we going to have to revisit these rate changes every two years, three years, or any know, every year, every year? So what work? So staff wise, because we're going to take a bit in the day to day, right? We're monitoring expenses. We're understanding what inflation is doing in the back. I know Chris is very much in tune with overall what contractors are. And we're also talking about their municipalities and things. So we have kind of, and again, it's a guess and game. They will be the first one to tell you this is your wild ass guess because inflation could go through the roof by December. And we have no idea what our expenses are going to be. He's got inflation in there is what, 3% I think? Yes. Okay. If you also, if you compare this against, you know, the regional summit in Park City, the connected rates are still a fraction of what we have in the lowest rates in all the connected water systems with them, the hard-get-a-graph-goyer. John O'Brien, who lives across the freeway, over by trailside, paying 160 and 61 base rate. That's his base rate. What do you pay for? Well, yes. Do you have no water? No, no, no. If I stay within my lot of it, yeah. Okay. They have an allocation somewhat. I have a, yeah, that 230,000 annual out of ancient. But it's going to be 161. And that's all because we only use 3000 health. So, okay. The rates are going off without question. Yes. Right. we are able to find. We accomplished some of this, beating this negative cash flow by lowering our rates of commercial sales. By the way, we can't lower rates anymore. I mean, 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. I believe you did 10,000. That's one thing that I'm really wrong. Well, 120, life was in 2010. I was saying it was in 2010. Well, I think, under it, one of the, yeah, it's very broad that I'll say. Yeah, I mean, we do. I mean, we're not in school. We're not in school. I'm just a little broader person. Right, so last, I mean, we also have a lot of money or a good, we're in a comfortable position. when you presented radio play table. We've got some money to land. It's not a radio or a cheaper radio. But if you... or if it's a comfortable position, or if it's a good church, when you presented previously available. We've got some money to spend. It's a great way to achieve the right. But if you, so, to the ears, it gives my bank account the commission wasn't to bank. And to know how to get out of that meeting for a water, I think Scott, this is the last request just before. The size of our system, the number of connections in our budget, our capital reserves is where it should be. She said we are the ideal position of what our reserve is because they may look like a lot of money. But again, we have three water weeks that costs us $400,000 and that's just a water-making week. So that's where staff come in and we have the big perpetrator. We have a boss. Oh, there crew cost. You know, we got a $7 million out of some equipment. That's our flow. Water tanking in New Well in arsenic. I see. I mean, one thing I think we support to build a point out though that distresses me a little bit is when we were here in January. John, I think you were sitting here and there was like a dispute amongst the board whether they wanted to be involved in everything with these conversations with water. And some of the boards said no, I just want to be involved in the end result. And there was me and I think you do want to be more involved. I think Scott wanted to be more involved. There was one meeting that I know of, which I had an emergency and I wasn't able to get. But we weren't involved like we had asked to be. And like you had made a point in that meeting. Some more members wanted to be involved in these communications. So to receive this, I couldn't even open the file until. Well, they they just given you a tool. And you know, like, for example, I think it through a scenario that just happened that basically we created for more. They went into that they build a new. Reservoir. Tank. It was $7 million. Let's say that Dallas $200,000 a year have increased. They go, okay, present revenues are not supporting this debt. So we got to raise $200,000 in water fees. And you give it, he's giving you a tool to say, how do you want to do it? Plug him in. You say, I want to go to 149. Don't change any tears because that gave us $200,000. He's giving you the tolls. I don't think much has been. Nothing's been decided yet. This is just the tolls. Maybe you want our pricing scheme out which is the other way. So I don't think there's any business. Gary, we're going to be to use these tables for years to come. Should, look at this. So let me tell you, give me a little, I'll give you a little background on the real one. I don't think there's anything. Terry, we're going to be able to use these tables for years to come. Should. Okay. So let me tell you, give me a little background on rural water. We're a non-profit company. We don't charge existing costs to dime. And we do, as they all say, in the Los A to Z, training and everything, operate or certification. I mean, we're spread all over the place. So place themselves You know when it comes to really digging into a lot of debt Becoming and recommend grace would take because you don't have the staff with that and that's really important engineering And so you know what you might want to look at is doing a water system master plan. And I think you already have it. We have on that five years old. Yeah. So we want to revisit that. And just see what what their estimates are going forward. What needs to be done? How much it is new system. To see what those what you can be to those water that you're talking about. Kind of alarm. If it costs that much, that's funny. It really has to be put into place. I think part of the frustration is that people, I think we were looking for guidance on, okay, how are we going to manage? Yeah, how are we going up? Here's 20 people. And so instead of like, yeah, there's a tool, but also maybe recommendations like, we think you got help. What other districts do is this or that I really hate to go down that road because you can look at water system right all over. I'm going to like to have a little bit of slides. And that's what you're doing. What have they done? Who has said before, are they taking care of things? Are they in the infrastructure? I think this is where we're getting into what staff gives recommendations to the rate and peace schedule. I often say that all the factors are in use. So if the guys in the three appreciation, they do. You know, they keep their rates artificially low because they're not keeping a specific amount of time. And someday, somebody's keeping a paper that. So it's really up to us as a board and staff to watch over the final area. That's what's been doing on a daily basis. So we have a free entry you recommend. You guys guys have the tool you're going to put together. Different scenario with different pricing. And then you're going to present it to us saying that this is going to be the outcome of these tables. So essentially what's going to happen here in the next few months is we have a bond attorney. And once we shore up some things that we'll talk about in closed session, we can start pursuing that. Our bond requirements have certain parameters. What your rates are probably going to be what you should be starting the razor rates and they kind of have us tiered. So we're not the giant lumps on now, but that's going to come like your 20 or 30 kind of deal. And so the bond attorney essentially from what this form is going to say is okay Here comes the rate analysis Here's to the board. You know, we got a pay for this somehow, right? And so know if we take money away from here, we're going to have to raise money there. By the way, so. And that's where because staff knows kind of the intimate knowledge of this system, we have a master plan that's already given recommendations for life and replacement, etc. We can start planning this and saying, hey,, this is where we could be, but we also know of things that could potentially come down. If I find that, could actually, we wouldn't need to raise rates, right? So our probably biggest deficit with our water system is we only have 214 connected water users. We don't have the economies of scale of summer water, which are in the tens of thousands, or Mountain Regional, which is in the hundreds of thousands. Right, so we are constantly trying to figure out how do we best manage this knowing that it's our community. We've got fixed income, we got new wealth coming in, we're across the board, and we're being mindful. That's why we would rather do these incremental increases every year, every two years, whatever it may be, then here's a big $100 jump or a big $30 jump. We now have to go on a monthly basis. So, I think that's why you have staff is because the intimate knowledge of that in detail is there. And then we can give, hey, here's our recommendations, here's some options. And then far away ask us the questions. So what do you guys need to get that going? We have everything we need. The key is going to be getting together with this bond attorney in the next couple months to close this deal and then figure out the way to figure out the rate. Well, you know, again, to meet expectations of the bond requirements, knowing that we may be two or three years out from this. So we have some time. And what I would hate to do is really dig into forecasting right now, given kind of economic uncertainty, right? I can see. I can throw whatever I want in there, and it'll probably be wrong tomorrow. What you've got to determine is what revenue you need, and then look at your rate structure, how you want to get that relevant. So you look at the record, and the rate is constant, but all that depends on the bond. And the things we things we feel either way. So these proposed rates here and the other proposed rates were still waiting on those proposed changes. Those are the ones we're recommending for change. And so this year, the tiered rate one is again to amend the 25th set. Right. Getting rid of the proposed annual for connected rates to a prep group. And there was no cost that came into the annual either. Correct. The 2020 form. The annual and the connect correctly. Yeah, I understand. It's really a little bit at the point. The chair, no, and well, no, it's a yes. It's no correct. I guess we just kind of cleaning up the right schedule Yeah, so I finally know that we have 45 minutes remaining. We put a log on this like when can we expect to see a populated spreadsheet with suggested rates? And to the year? This year. I think it depends on bond. Yes, and when we close. And when you close, what's your payment? Then we plug in, say, okay, we need this, we need $200,000 more of the rent amount. How do you guys want to change the race? Get your own. Get that. So is that the district's own? The bond's going to close that end of the year. Well, so we'll get in some real estate acquisition in closed session, because that's kind of the driving as far as timing. There's also a few variable closed session that we talked about before and that variable when you play the year may change. Yeah. Sorry. Good. Anyone have additional boss or questions or degrees? Terry, thank you very much. This is, yeah, thank you very much. I can do it. The only thing I'll point out to you is, you know, this is based upon a snapshot of usage one year, that one was. And so, yeah, we, the question you've got to ask yourself is, is that it could to come here? Get a figure, line breaks though, that was a, you know, you got to look at the model. Same with usage because some of the usage, the way over-usages are going to be mitigated by water acquisition on those lots. So that's against something we look at in this forecast, some of those details. And right now with climate, you know, there's no set pattern anymore. Yeah. Real good of us. Very, very, very good. I appreciate you coming up and spend the day with us. That's why I was trying to sneak out on that. I didn't realize what you needed to do. I was like, you'd gone past it. We kind of forgot. The next item is public comment. Part two. One member of the public president. I want to make it. If you want to make the public comment. I think there's a lot of these already. And so, but it isn't bubble. If you thought just for the record, if you want to say something just for the name, and not just please. Yeah, I was like this first of all, to make you on your discussion earlier. And I think you're very fortunate to have some metrics in the group. She's a real flux. That's a very good. Bob Olson is making a public comment. Anyway, that's my comment. Keep both of you going. I'll see you tomorrow morning. Thank you. Thank you, Bob. All right. Do we have anyone online? I have a piece of property that's contained. Thank you. Thank you, Bob. All right. Do we have anyone online? I have a piece of property. I have a piece of property that is continuous to my house property. I was all confused because I was curious if I had water rights. I called the office and I had to hang up because I got another call. I just wanted to give a shout out to Jody. She immediately called me back and she helped me walk through and understand exactly what I had and then if I decided to put a well on it or settled or something like that, what I needed to do, what I needed to file for. Just a compliment. Jody, thanks so much for your help. And the presentation with me and helping me figure out my own water scenario on my lab. So thanks. Thank you, Sally. Do we have anyone else online who would like to make a public comment? I'm not sure. No, but I don't see any Henry. Thomas was on, she dropped off. I read for EC motion that we move out of public meeting and move into a flow session to discuss the character professional confidence or physical or mental health of an individual pending or recently imminent litigation and or the sale or purchase real property pursuant to Utah code 52-4-204-205 to someone second this motion. Thank you. Oh, a favor. Hi. Rick made the motion. David's second. The time is 7.51 pm on Tuesday, April 22nd, 2025. This is Summit County Service Area number three, moving out of public meeting. Let's wait for the recording to stop. You're sitting there. It's so pretty nice. So it's really hot in here. Yeah.