meeting to order. I'm going to start with uh introductions. We have Paula Bowman who is our assistant administrator. Gary Peters who is our public works director. We have council members present. Um Brian Grim and I can't even say Brian G. I know. Brian Brian Govern. See, you get me all mixed up. I I sent him a I sent Jasper an email and I said Brian G. And he's he sends me back the email. What? Brian Grim has nothing to do with this. I said, "No, I meant Brian Govern." Brian Govern, thank you uh for being here. Claudia Lacy, Peter Vicky, um Kathleen Refkin, myself, Lisa Whan, Jasper Krugal, administrator, Ryan Ryan Grim, um finance director, David Ael, community development director, and Sarah Sansala, our city attorney. Uh we have a um agenda before us, and I'm going to ask the council if we could move the Holstead Estates's petition for improvement district financing, that item. Can we make that number one? >> Yes. >> And then we'll move the other ones down. And the other one um is um Allison was going to be here for the swamp bathometric survey update and she is ill this evening. So we're going to um scratch that for now and bring it back um to a future work session. So then it consists of the Holstead State's petition for improvement district financing, the sewer fund budget discussion, the water rate analysis update, and then the Bayside Lane drainage update. Is there a motion to approve the agenda as presented as amended? >> So moved. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Peter. All those in favor signify with I. I. >> All those opposed, motion passes. So, we're going to start with the H Hallstead estate petition for improvement district financing. The way we're going to do this is um Jasper is going to give um a overview. Uh council can ask uh Jasper questions. We have Sarah here if you have legal questions that you need identified. And then if um if the council wishes, we can give the applicant about 3 to four minutes if you have any additional information that you haven't already submitted because we have um a a number of items in our packet that we've thoroughly read. Um I know all of you do your homework and so if there's anything else you you have that you can um uh uh distribute with us with that. Um Jasper. >> Yeah. Madame Mayor, members of city council, um before you have a it's it's kind of a petition, kind of a request. We're trying to figure out exactly what it is um and where it fits in in state statute, but um the development group from from Hallstead Estates, we'll call it the the development over by the where the trailer park used to be, um has requested that the city uh look at um uh creating an improvement district for that area. Um which would essentially mean that we would issue debt on behalf of those properties. we would assign that debt to those properties and then over the life of the bond those properties would then pay that back. Um it's not anything that we've done in the past. Um there is a process to do it. We kind of did it with the roundabout at Kings Point Road. Um there's a little bit different situation um because it was a MIDOT partnership and whatnot. So um but with this one um the way I understand it is it would be uh this money I think it's I think we're at $3 million is what the request is would be used for public improvements. Um the feedback we've given the development group and their their financing group um is you know that's a lot of risk for the city to take on um if the development does not go through we run the risk of uh assigning that debt to those properties those properties then going tax forfeite potentially and then we're still we still have to make that bond payment um potentially with that. So um that's kind of the gist of it. Um we have Sarah here. Sarah's really been working, I think, with their team and then they have legal counsel um in Minnesota that's kind of been working with Sarah as well. Um and we've been kind of going back and forth and we thought, well, let's just talk about this at city council, get direction as far as how you would like to proceed from a staff perspective and I think legal perspective. Um there's significant risk to this um taking on debt of this nature um for development which you know I think um is in its kind of infancy, right? We've done the pre-plat, we've done the the resoning. Um, but there's still a lot of work. There's a lot of conditions associated with the pre-plat before we'll issue final plat. So, um, that's kind of in a in a nutshell. I don't know, Sarah, if there's anything else that you'd like to add, um, since you've been working on it. >> Uh, sure, Madame Mayor, members of the council, I can give you an overview of the statute that they're citing um, in terms of what they're asking for. So, um, first of all, it's one that you're familiar with. It's uh Minnesota statutes chapter 429. That's the public improvement statute. And um you can petition for the making of an improvement. And um the thing is I think they're saying that we have to if they petition for it, we have to do the project. And the statute actually says in 429.031 that when there's a petition by all owners, the council may without a public without a public hearing order the improvement. So that means you have the discretion, right, to decide not to order the improvement. Um, you can do it the other way where they don't petition and you start the improvement project yourself. That's when you hold the public hearing on the improvement. I think we had one just recently. And then at that point, um, and at both points, you have to obtain a fe feasibility report. And that's something your city engineer puts together that talks about, um, if the proposed improvement is necessary, cost effective, and feasible. And from talking with the city engineer, I think the feasibility report in this case would probably cost between like 25 and 30,000. That's just a rough estimate. So that's that's one thing that's under 429. Then there's 428A and this is 428A.01 to 428A.101 and that's special service districts. And special service districts are um basically you can petition for one of those and um they can't include a service that is ordinarily provided throughout the city from the general fund res reserves of the city and unless increased level of service is provided in the special service district. And I guess one that I can think of um off the top of my head is um if you go downtown Minneapolis and you see those people walking around in the little outfits and they're watering flowers and sweeping the streets, they are part of the downtown improvement district and the property owners down there in the downtown zone petition to have the special service district where they these people come in and then the city assesses them for the costs of having those special services which are above and beyond what the city provides all the rest of its residents. So that's a special service district and uh for that the city has discretion to do a special service district or not. Under 428.02 the city may adopt an ordinance establishing a special service district. It doesn't have to establish a special service district. So if you don't want to do one, you don't have to do one. Um the other thing I'd like to point out on that is 428.03 03 service charges may not be imposed to finance a special service if the service was ordinarily provided by the city. And I think that's kind of what we got going on here. It's not people going around picking up trash and planting flowers. Um this is just general services the city would normally be be doing. So in that case, the service may only be imposed in the amount that is needed to pay for the increased level of service. So I don't even know how you would factor that in here. Um and then finally with that one with special service districts they must be imposed on the basis of next ne net net tax capacity of the property in which the service charge is imposed. So that's a special service district. And then the third one is um housing improvement areas. These are off of often called HASS and this is 428.11 and um this is something you'd see um I had in another city that I represent where they had a townhouse association and they had private land that was owned by the HOA and the HOA had they maintained the streets had private streets, private sidewalks, private tennis courts and um the HOA couldn't afford to maintain those things anymore and they were falling apart. So they asked the city to come in and do the improvements and then basically assess the costs back to the property owners through this ha. So these are housing improvements that are improvements to common elements of a condominium or other common interest community or to a manufactured home park. So it's typically seen in like a a townhouse development or a condominium development. Um the city council may once again adopt the ordinance establishing one or having a proven housing improvement area. So you don't have to establish a housing improvement area. It's just if you want to. And in that case, we actually in that city, they decided not to establish the housing improvement area because they had many people that were against it that lived in the in the neighborhood. And then you also have to have findings that without the housing improvement area, the proposed improvements could not be made by the condominium association or the housing unit owners. And the designation is needed to maintain and preserve the housing units within the housing improvement area. So I think the intent behind the housing improvement area is that these are exist. This is replies to existing housing that has been around for quite a while and needs to be improved. >> So so with that those are the three things I think the developer is asking for here. So the housing improvement area, the special service district, and then the 429 public improvement project. You have discretion under all those statutes to decide if you want to to do any of those. I think you can do those, but as for what Jasper was saying, you know, there is some risk to the city if you want to do those. >> Thank you. All right. Um, and there's three parcels. Um, three parcels, so do the math. 3 million plus interest plus plus it'd be about a million dollars per parcel at this point. Um, and the other thing is, um, I know that, um, in the, uh, packet they were saying that we have to have a public hearing. So, I want to make that clear. We only have to have a public hearing if we go the the district or the 429 or we actually have a project that we're going to be doing. Um, as you know, um, as you know, we've done many 429 projects here in the city and then we authorize the feasibility report and then we authorize um, if we want to move ahead with it, uh, then we authorize uh, staff to put together plans and specifications. But then we also have open houses and we have um public hearings and we in notify the um residents who are going to be assessed what their assessment is going to be etc. But in this case uh the council has to decide first and foremost I think if they want to create this district and if we want to do this this project um if if we create the district then we would be doing the project is my assumption. Um so we would have to order the feasibility report. uh we would have to um charge that to the developer. Um I'm assuming how would that work then? Would that be part of the district? So we'd have to do all the upfront costs. So >> Madame Mayor, members of the council, that's correct. You would do the upfront costs and I guess you might be able to assess those back to the project. >> Okay. And then um so that that's somewhat of an issue because we do have a road improvement project but um as you know we're pretty tight on our water water fund and really tight and we're also really tight on our sewer fund and we would have to um upfront um feasibility reports and all of that. So, um it does create somewhat of a um financial burden to the city, especially since we've already done our uh budgets for for 2026. And also, this is something we've never done before. And um I I'm not sure why why the developer is asking this because I had a meeting with um u myself and Jasper and I believe David was there and Robert Balman and um the other gentleman next to him. um they said they had the financing, so I'm somewhat unclear why they're continuing to ask for the financing. So, anyhow, um other questions that you might need answered? I'm kind of new to this. Um how does this work on like paying out these funds then? Do is there like a trustee or somebody that then kind of oversees paying, you know, that the things do go where they're supposed to? I guess what I'm asking. >> So, I can I can weigh in. It could go however we want it, right? So, if the city's going to do the work and bid the work out and and do it that way, then city would be kind of the fiscal agent. Um, that would be probably our preferred method because then we're in control of the project. We treat it just like a street project like you see in a neighborhood in Minitrista. The other way to do it is to um allow the developer to do all the public improvements and then reimburse them. So they would submit reimbursement to the city and then they would get reimbursed. So um that situation and you know same with the development like Woodland Cove, we would have um inspection services and things like that out there. So you could do either way. Um but basically the city to answer your question would be the fiscal agent that would hold the money and disperse it when we'd feel fit. >> And then we would have a claim on uh those parcels and and the infrastructure. But the infrastructure would be the cities regardless of who does it and who pays for it. That that ultimately becomes the cities. Okay. >> Um unless they request private roads or something like that. And in this plan there were no I don't think there were any private road. There was one >> and the storm water ponds are private. >> Yeah. >> Right. So um but the um water the the trunk lines and all of that and the streets other than the the private ones are city infrastructure and that becomes the city's >> property. >> And then does it affect any property taxes on the properties? >> It would on the properties that they're selling. So the district would be o overlaid on only their only on them not on any surrounding properties. So it would it would encompass the three parcels that they own >> until it would be if I if I may until it would be platted and then broken up into the six smaller parcels. Then each one of those would have their own assessment >> and the homeowner say home. >> Yeah. And it would be for $3 million it'd be I think roughly like $55,000 incumbrance. So $55,000 assessment per parcel depending on it. That's the average, right? Some might be more, some might be less, but um and that would be paid back over 20 years. Uh the big, you know, and again, the risk is if this doesn't get off the ground and those parcels don't develop, then they're they're stuck there with a big assessment and nobody paying taxes potentially. >> Excuse me. Isn't there another risk that what if they just go out of business? That's what Jasper was saying. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. it could just >> then then we are we're the fiscal agent. We have to pay that bond payment over the next 20 years no matter what. So, and we wouldn't have any I think um Peter you were kind of alluding to maybe some personal guarantees like do we have any access to the land if let's say goes under. Um I I'm not exactly sure. I don't believe we would. We'd probably be second or third or some you know if anything on on a property, right? There's probably other people that would be >> I think the county would even have um first dibs versus us. I think I think the bankers and and if if it's a bankruptcy, something like that, then the bankers would go in and >> and they would have no personal guarantees. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Kathleen. Anything? >> No, I'm just No, we don't. Do we want to do we want to allow the I allow the applicant to say a few words? Um >> can I just ask another question? >> Yeah, absolutely. >> So if the financing was already in place, so we thought, right? That's what we've been told. So and this would be what did you say, Jasper? $3 million. >> I think that's what the request um most recently have. It started at a different number and it's been lowered. >> Until we would do the feasibility report though, we wouldn't approximately 3 million. We've I've heard thing from our um engineer possibly even four to four million. >> So it seems like a small amount in comparison to what you already have financing for. >> I think that would be a question for the applicants. So why don't we have Dean? Dean, did you want to for the sake of time I'm gonna ask Robert to get right up here because he limited three minutes. >> Thank you. >> Sales are going well. Good project. That's going to say I'll let Robert jump in here. Well, thank you. Thank you for >> Thanks, team. >> The agenda. >> Um, what was your question? >> So, you have financing already for the project. Is that >> We sent that letter to Jasper probably September 16th. Yeah. I Yep. >> Um, and how much was that is your financing? Can Can I ask this question? >> Well, normally no, but it's for the full project. It's spelled out. Okay. So, why do you want to Excuse me because I'm a neopight when it comes to this kind of thing? What why wouldn't you just add $3 million to the what you're getting financed? >> They wouldn't even have to add it. You're saying you already have it. >> They work together. Um, so they're a business plan that work together. So, it's an improvement district. Uh, >> but that's our problem then to make it an improvement district. >> I don't know if I can answer those questions. If you'd like me to, I can address some of the things that were said over here that are inaccurate, but I don't know if that's this time. >> Okay, >> that's inaccurate. >> Okay, maybe I shouldn't be asking these questions. >> Well, but it's a good question and I would be asking it too. It's an improvement district in the end, which hasn't even been talked about here, is I'm able to offer the property at discounts so we can fulfill it quicker and we can get to the tax coming in to the community sooner, like right around 1.4 to 1.6 every year, for example. >> Okay, I'll be quiet. Sorry. Okay. I do need to So, you need to understand that we understand that you're not bringing more revenue into our community. Really, all that's going to happen is the revenue that we need that we levy is going to be spread out more. So, we don't get more revenue. So, if our budget is our levy is 7.5 million for instance for 2026, we don't get more than 7.5 million. That's what we get. the thing the difference is it's spread out over more homes and more value of homes. So just just for clarification >> that's a good clarification and I understand that. Okay, that's accurate. >> Okay, thank you. >> Yeah, no problem. >> All right. >> Um I was just stating that that would be part of your >> Yeah, >> I don't know how you put it here, but for me it's rolling money in my construction world. So it would be the money that allows operations to exist for all of us to be here. No problem with that. Um the the main push back if I can say a push back. Is that allowable? I just be respectful to everybody here. >> Say whatever you want. It doesn't matter. >> If I was at my construction office, this would be sounding a whole lot different. So I just want to be >> Kelly's probably laughing. My production manager over there. Why is Robert so nice tonight? Um so >> we'll forgive you this time. So you >> Thank you. Um the district is not responsible for any of this at all at any point. Um we are creating a nonprofit funded by a large insurance firm which allows me to lower the in the neighborhood. So instead of selling the lots, we have 12 or 13, I forget. Sorry, I got a lot going on with both companies. So we had 12 lots at 500,000 a piece. I'm just going to shoot you straight. Instead of selling them to 500,000 a piece, they're at 365. Well, that is 145 or 135 cost savings. If you put that over the same length of time, what you're saying the increase is the person living in that house for 20 years saves $1,80,000. And I'm giving that to them day one. That's the premise of the start of this. This is why this improvement district is in all lower 48 states. um ran by Rob Pocus, the one who brought it to me through Heritage Bank in Wilmer, Minnesota of all places. In fact, where I'm from in the country, uh Tim Long out there, brought it. And this is a great package, but it does not obligate the city, which is why I I was hoping to have Greg Miller here, my attorney, because he's way better at this than I am. You can tell, right? Um so, that one is in my notes right here at the top. It's no responsibility. And then >> Peter, >> yes, >> you you asked a question about who would be um in charge of the nonprofit entity. There would be a board of five people and an account, my accounting firm, which would be approving every single bill in and out and invoice, which is how these are designed to be put together as an improvement district. Um, and then that board is responsible for any audits that Lisa or Peter or I don't have my glasses, Kathleen or Claudia or anybody would ask. Here you go. It's all about that transparency. Or if you wanted to be Jasper wanted to be in charge of it or however it goes, then that's also there, but I would be on that board with them. That's all. No, no hard things. It's super easy. Um, and the money would be funded privately. Um, like I said before, from like Hartford or American Family or Farmers, this is their this is a funding mechanism created and funded through them. If you guys need more information on this, I can have my attorney move it up. I can have the the writers of the bond show you how it works in other places and things like that. Um, the end goal would be to offer, you know, $500,000 lots at a discount. So then we were able to move the property through quicker for me that it benefits me to move the land quicker so I'm not paying carrying cost and what have you. I mean that's the truth, right? >> But Robert, you're citing in your in your letter here dated October 7th to Sarah, you're citing um 429 and 429021 and 4 for um 42 28A.08. you're citing all of these um and that's what we're looking at and that's what we're um it's what you're talking about is completely different than 429 and 428A. So, um I think tonight we this this is a no-go. Um, we're not we're not going to create a a special taxing district based on 429 or 428 unless there's some other legal um laws that define what you're talking about because what you're talking about is completely different than what what we have in front of us. >> Um, that's why Greg would be to be here. >> Well, he was supposed to be here. I I talked with Dean and Dean said that your attorney would be here tonight. So, um, and I said, "Okay, our attorney is going to be here as well, and, um, our city planner, and so we're here. We're prepared." >> So, I'm going to be mean to you. Shame on you. Um, I lost it probably in my listening. I >> But anyhow, if you have other information and want to submit it right now, there is no petition in front of us. The other thing is, um, there is a request. And the other thing is um when there's a petition as as Sarah pointed out under the under uh we can we can authorize um improvements but there by a simple majority if uh if three 35% of the uh per foot frontage property owners are in favor of it but I don't think any of us are in favor of it unless I'm misreading. And the other thing is is if the city orders it yes then it has to be a supermajority. We know that we get that. We understand that once once we decide to do a project whether it's by petition or by city council then we have to h hold uh public hearings. Uh there's all these steps we have to walk through. We have to do the feasibility report etc. We understand that uh what you're talking about is something very very different than what's in front of us here tonight. So um what's in front of us here tonight I would say the city council is saying no to. If you have other information or you have um something different than what's here, then please submit that information to staff and we can think about it or reconsider it. >> Should I not answer or should I let the meeting adjourn? How do you want it to go? Lisa, you tell me. >> I'll give you two more minutes. >> Um I believe we have there's been several correspondents between Rob Procus and myself and Jasper. Um, which explains everything that you have shared. Those are all great points. I've asked those those questions myself 10 months ago when this whole thing started because I'm not about to get involved in this. We can just use straight money. Well, in in in this plan, um, when I read through classes, sorry. Well, the one of the 429s. Yes, I know it's funny. So the 429 it it in that language if if I had Rob and Greg here. What I'm sharing with you is exactly what we would do. There's there's no again I say I'm repeating myself. Sorry for that. There's no responsibility to the city. In fact the responsibility doesn't kick into the land until to your point Jasper till the final PIDs are approved. So, if if if if I fell off of my dad's hay mound next weekend when I'm home moving hay for the cows and I'm gone, oops, sorry about that. Um, the bond hasn't gone through, then it's not attached. It's not a it's not a grip that it has on it. It's it's not fully attached until the final PDS, but we have to ask for it beforehand. And that's why we're asking now. And again, the benefit to the community, which I could go on and on with with I have a list, but I'm not going to do that, >> right? >> Is way more than >> what we're talking about tonight. With all due respect, I >> Okay. >> I feel like we got a few wires crossed here. I I think that my plan is >> I think >> for the community. >> Yeah. Well, >> it really helps. >> Right now, what I'm hearing is that we'd have to float a bond. when we float a bond and we put our name on it, then we are responsible for it. There's no ends ends, ifs, or buts about it. That's the final that's the bottom line. And I'm I'm seeing my attorney saying, "Yes, that's correct." If we had our bond council here, he would say, "Yes, that's correct." Um, I'm seeing Brian Grim saying, "Yes, that's correct." I mean, I'm sorry, but I I don't think we are in a position to say yes to this because we would be on the hook regardless if it's a 401c3, regardless regardless if it's a nonprofit, we would still be on the hook regardless. And we can't go forward with this because as soon as you we say yes, then then we're on the hook to to follow through. So, if even if you fall off the haywagon next month, I'm sorry. will come to your funeral. No, just kidding. Um, but we we would still be on the hook to follow through and and we we would still be on the hook for the three or4 million and we don't even know if it's going to be 3 million. It might be four or five million. We haven't even done a feasibility report yet. So, and that feasibility report that was given to us was not a feasibility report. It's it's nowhere near what what what we would normally do for infrastructure. So, I don't want to argue about this here tonight, but if you have additional information regarding this nonprofit stuff that you think might sway us, and I would only offer you this. If you think it might sway us, you can submit it. But I at this point, everything that we've heard, everything that we know, all of the legalities of it, um, we've been doing this quite a long time that has been submitted and we can take another look at it. That's all I can tell you. So, >> all right. Thanks for your time. >> All right. Thank you. >> Y All right. Next, we have our wonderful sewer fund budget discussion. >> Uh, yes, Madame Mayor and Council. So, uh, maybe I'll hit some of the high points here so that we're outlined in the memo. the uh the biggest driver of of this fund each year is always um the Met Council charge that they um allocate out to all the different communities. So, and you can see ours is a little over a half million dollars now, 56,000 per for 2026. Um it should be and um so that's about a 6% increase or so. So, I guess um right now our our utility rate per quarter is about that 120 or it is $120 a quarter. Um I guess staff would recommend we um pick up that uh what basically met council is passing along would be about $8 a quarter increase $32 for the year. However, you know um as far as that um you can see there's still um capital project or capital infrastructure that you know Gary has outlined in there as far as some different lift station and panels and pumps that he's got you know pretty good sequentially or in you know order to replace based on need there. So, um I don't know if anyone has any questions as far as the >> Do you know what the uh formula is? I mean, how do they come up with the this this portioning uh um formula? I mean, what what's the formula? What do they >> I think they take their total budget and then they take all the different uh flows that all the different municipalities report and basically it okay >> spits it out, Gary. Right. Or as far as I mean, I'm probably making that pretty summarized, but it's pretty much >> just throw darts at the board. Sometimes you want to know. >> I mean, >> well, that's that's a good question though, Gary. Do you know like do they do they monitor then the flow into their system? >> They have they have meters, excuse me, as it goes into their lift stations that we pump into, but they also take our data that we take. So, every year we go out and recalibrate our pumps. We do a draw down so we know how much. And then we submit that data >> to the med council every every month and every year for a total, you know, as compared to that. >> Um, >> and that's why we want INI out of there. >> Correct. Because we're paying for um >> you clean water to get basically treated and stuff. >> We do have um an agreement with St. Bonnie where we flow through them. We have the two flow stations that we pay a set fee for um which the I um which is determined I don't know Brian might know what the factor that they determine that you know to cover the cost for them. So we also pay them for that too. So >> Oh okay. >> There's two flow stations because half um about a third of it on the first phases flow through the by glacier into the area and then the rest of it all goes through um down Partridge into their through them. So we have no direct connection there. So it's a it's flow through their area. So >> So that's not metered. >> That's metered. Yes. >> That's metered every quarter. We do submit that to St. Bonnie and then we get build for that through St. Bonnie every month. So >> and about 80 90,000 here recently. >> Okay. >> And then we have I believe with mound with mound too we have some areas that are um that way too. Is it that we charge per house with mound or >> um I think >> just a few of them. I don't >> random properties that we have basically. But yeah, nothing to the extent, but we have a >> Do we charge them? >> Oh, for >> the mound ones. >> I'd have to check with >> I mean, seriously, if we're paying for their sewer, they should pay us for their for over there like on which street is that? Grand or >> Well, there's a few up here that are on 110 that come into ours, but we also have our area on 44 that flows to them. >> Okay. >> So, I don't know if it's a wash or I mean it's >> Oh, okay. >> So, the stuff on the other it says you're coming across peace uh priest priest. Yeah, I say that real fast. East Bay East Bay Bridge there um on the north side. Those few houses there that are in Minotarista flow to their system and the ones up on 110 here flow into our system. So I don't know if it's kind of >> kind of a wash. Okay. >> Yeah, that's why I kind of determined it. So >> Okay. Okay. >> You know, we can look into it more. I've often wondered that. I mean, I never did find any agreements or anything, but Brian, I could look into that. If it's if it's a big deal, I don't know. I mean, >> pretty >> if it's pretty even. Yeah, it's pretty it's just homes. So, I mean there's not a lot of you know there >> but they're paying mound or you assume that they're paying >> our people pay us and then the other people pay Mount the Mound residents pay mount I believe and then >> Okay, >> our we're we're billing our residents. So, >> all right. >> Okay, >> other questions. >> I noticed there are a lot of kind of maintenance things or things that need to be replaced. Uh is that it seems like that's just ongoing every year or is that >> Yeah, we've trying we've we've kind of looked at what we've got in place for what we have and what we're running into a lot of them. The control panels themselves are very expensive, but the components inside are getting um more scarce, hard to find replacement parts for them. And then when we do find parts that we could put in, then we have to modify the panel a little bit to make a lot of these fit. A lot of the times it's the soft start motors in there. Um the components for the alarm systems and stuff like that are not made anymore, not monitored. So it's we're trying to you know every year we kind of pick the oldest lift stations we can and pumps to kind of get that you know to redo them. So um we look at the pump lift stations. I mean once they you know we we we take them out. We do it all in house every year. We pull them out twice a year. Do our inspections. We buy parts as needed stuff. But some of them are getting to the point too where those are even getting hard to find parts for because as they age everything just becomes, you know, yeah, obsolete. >> That's really >> So that's we're kind of looking at, you know, a systematic replace. We started it probably six, seven years ago and just kind of this is what we're looking at doing and replacing. Um, CO really set us back on a few of them because we had it nicely set up and we got way behind because of the part shortage and that. >> Oh yeah. Um, just to give you an example, the end of this month on the 30th, we're finally getting lift station 13's panel installed that we ordered in 2023. >> Wow. >> Wow. >> So, it's gotten a lot better. I don't know why that one took a lot better two years, >> you know, but I mean, it was, you know, I So, it's it's taken a while to get certain parts in for them. So, it it's getting better and we've kind of grouped it up, but we're kind of Brian wanted me to look and we've been working to move stuff out again here to move it, you know, out a little bit to kind of keep it consistent. But, one thing that's not showing here, we do I do keep a tally on, >> you know, these are gueststimates. And then we do have an actual what we spent column. So, I mean, that's yeah, >> quite a bit different than what's on there because some of the stuff, you know, we've been getting a little better deal on generators and the install stuff like that. panels have gone up, but you know, we're we think we're close, but we have a lot of stuff in there, too, that's not used every year, like the INI repair that we don't always use all of that and the emergency lift stations money that's all in there. It's there just in case, you know, but it's, you know, it's insurance basically. It's not, you know, a lot of time we I don't think we've I think the only time we've used ever the emergency I can remember was a few years ago when the pump blew out on 12. We had to get that in emergency, you know, otherwise everything else is pretty systematic at getting replaced. >> That sounds good. >> Um, you've got a line item in here for the SCADA computer software um in the 2027 budget. Is that different than the AE2s SCADA? >> No, that'll probably be moved now because that's that's one thing we're looking to upgrade. So, we kept moving it out because of waiting for the treatment plant because it all be part of the that skater with the treatment plant that's coming in. We're we're pushing it out now. Okay. >> You know, we're we're making do. We we have to have them doing some upgrades to some of the programs that we have on the computer. Um that'll I'm not a computer guy, but somehow they're making it so that the newer software will run on this. It won't run as efficiently or as fast, but it'll work. So, it'll get us through until we need to, you know, get everything set up. I I don't want to spend that money now and then have everything have to be redone again. Right. >> We're trying we're trying to just keep everything running as much as possible. >> Right. Okay, good. All right. Um, so we're okay with increasing it to 128 versus 120. >> Any other questions? >> Um, if we when we switch to monthly for water, this will get filled out monthly then too. Then >> I think I think that's one thing we wanted to talk about council because basically the ones that aren't on water, you know, the sewer speed were now 128 and then the recycling and storm water. I mean, right now they pay 165. I guess my recommendation, we got to see how it all works with banning would almost be to leave those flat ones at a quarter and just move the monthly ones. Yeah. To water because really $175 bill still probably quarterly is fine for the ones that aren't on water, you know, sewer. So that would I guess be my >> We had talked about that. We had said then there's others that are only like $45. >> Yeah, for sure. Yeah. Why would you Yeah. Why would you build them $15 a month when you know if anything sometimes they get the most? >> I guess depending on you know as far as you know I don't they sometimes don't understand storm water. I don't use my recycling. So already just a touch point a quarterly with them for 45 bucks. Rene would probably say is enough or whatever. So >> I'll re I'll restate the people on city water that will be switching to monthly. This will be built up monthly on that. >> Yeah. Yeah. The ones that have all four services everything will be built monthly. Correctly when do Yeah. Correct. Yep. Right. >> Yeah. And then the only other probably point is yeah, I think we're we're slightly spending down fund balance in the sewer fund, but as long as I think, you know, I coordinate with Gary and see where we're at with the capital projects and stuff, I think we're we're doing fine right now. At some point, we might have to increase it a little more to come. >> But we don't have any uh debt too on the sewer fund. >> Um we have some small I think we pay about Yeah, there's a couple when we did Highland Road in 2012, we packaged in some sewer projects. We've got a Yeah, it's about like 80,000 a year. Minneapolis Avenue too wasn't uh the new lift station. >> Oh yeah. >> Yeah, there might have been a little. So yeah, >> that's a little bit. I don't know if there's a lot there, but I mean I think some of that was added because we rebuilt that entire lift station. >> Right. Right. >> And then to that point then the SCADA for the AE2s, how much of that will come out? I know it's going to be worked in between the multiple funds, but like how much will come out of this one? >> Most of it will go to water, but yes, some of that will definitely come to sewer. I mean, we can if we, you know, whatever we need for the alarm, you know, to change things over, we can have them break that up and figure they can kind of figure that out for us. >> Yeah. >> I'm I'm not an expert on that. But everything that they're doing with the skate, it will affect both the sewer, but most the plant most of it will be to wire up the plant and getting all that running. But when they switch it over and make the new on our hub, then this will all kind of, you know, take its place, too. So, we can have them divide that up and I can get, you know, rough numbers to see what it'll be. So, >> $700,000 in this fund balance. Let's use some of that on this. >> Yeah. >> All right. Um can we can we move to the um drainage update? Um because I think you're here for that, >> sir. >> Are you here for that? >> Actually, that his is >> his on Minneapolis Avenue. Um >> but that'll be on the main that'll be on the main meeting. >> This is just a base side. >> Okay. This is just for Bayside. So, you'll have to stick around >> main meeting to approve the award bids. >> Okay. Yeah. All right. So, Bayside, let's since you're up anyway, go ahead with the Bayside drainage update and then we'll talk water rates at the end. >> Let me get That's okay. >> Sorry, my computer just >> shut off here. Here we go. Um, yeah. So, back in September, we kind of met and talked about the drainage at uh issue with um the resident at 925 with the um added pump that they have in their shed pumping out to the street. The pipe is no longer functioning. So, they have now pumping overgrown. They're looking for an alternative. So, we were looking at uh 880 directly behind our 880. Um Jennings Cove has a a line that was installed at some time. We don't know when. They're not the original homeowners. Um, but tying into that system and helping drain the water from the uh resident at 925 to a new catch basin um and into here. One thing that um we were talking about and what WSB did a analysis of the entire area and how much water looking at the you know the worst case scenario which 24-hour 4 in of rain. This pipe will work for any for most situations except when it gets to be that or more that this pipe will not be able to drain water out of their um existing drain tail at their home to here. It will remain with water in it. 99% of the time this probably won't happen, but there's always that one chance. So our question is going to be whether or not do we want to keep pursuing with you know this scenario and somehow working uh with Kenny Graven on an agreement that this you know this may happen. So you know put some kind of stipulations in place with some kind of contract to keep you know and install the catch basin connected to the existing the existing then would become city going out from that catch basin to the road through the easement. The north south pipe would remain the property of the homeowner. We would not take that one over just because there is a saget pipe and we don't want to take that um responsibility. So we would do that. The other option that we were pursuing is we could see if we could directly um drill a 4-in pipe through there. We did contact uh some companies and it's possible. It's not cheap. Um the challenge becomes there's a well at um is it 8 right next door between 880 and 890? There's a well head right there and pipe that's right there and you only have a half a foot between where we have to go. So to keep it um on par for drainage and keep it straight, they can do it. It's it's precision work. There's companies that, you know, one guy told me, "We can do that. It's not a problem." The problem it comes into is keeping it, you know, within those boundaries. And we've gotten any kind of rough estimate for what the distance is from 18,000 to 40,000. So, um, you know, so it comes down to do we want to pursue one over the other and and you know, talk to the homeowner about what the options are and and they we did kind of explain to the resident at 920 what you know can happen and stuff, but um, you know, it it's basically up to you guys as to what you want to do moving forward with this. So, um, my personal opinion is and from day one I understand the issue and what happened. Not sure why the city ever back in the day did what they did. Um, this to me, I'm going to be very honest, is not a city issue. It's not city property. But, you know, we've done our due diligence. We brought out what we've you know to you guys what what's the options and basically we want to know from you guys is how do you want us to pursue moving forward and what you want us to bring to them and with some ideas or resolutions or whatever. So >> So how would this help number um 9005 cuz weren't didn't 9005 as well as 925 didn't they also have issues? and they did the gentleman that uh started the whole process here with it, they have sold that house. I don't know about the new owners. >> Um talking to the resident 925, they're more concerned about their own home. >> Okay. >> So, >> um you know, again, this is, you know, all it it's more to me a private matter. I mean, between the homeowners hooking up, but I mean, we're we're you know, we're stepping into do it. But I'm >> Am I wrong? Did I I maybe I missed this. It's basically like a mess and it's impossible to fix easily. Is that like the layman's terms of putting this? >> There's so much landscaping at 925 that they've done. I mean, it it is between 905 and 925 and that there, you know, it's correct. It's a it's a mess. I mean, it's a I mean, you could conceivably go from their footing at 925, but you have to go down way down past the property 400t before you actually get flow down >> and you're pushing, you know, now you're just pushing more water on a property. So, I what I don't know what the best solution would be. I have not a clue. I mean, to me, it's I don't know. Like I said, we we found no maintenance agreement. We found, you know, just some documents that says that the city, you know, opted to do the the plan originally, but there's no maintenance agreement, no anything in place for replacement. So, >> well, would wouldn't the city So, I thought we determined that the city had an easement or that we owned that pipe between 880 and 890. >> There's nothing that shows that we own it. >> Oh, okay. >> There's nothing. I mean the only thing it shows on the asbuilt it says um from the Jenny's cove. It shows from the manhole going up. It's just a and it's drawing in. It was you know pencileled in. It says 12 in PVC with a question mark. >> So it is 12in PVC but looking at the pipe and the construction of it I would say was probably put in um after some complaints from homeowners in that area for you know for the drainage issue. I would believe that the developer probably did that on behalf of this, you know, and the city, but we never, it's never been recorded as an easement or anything. So, I think they've always kind of determined it was theirs, especially where it was put in. I don't, you know, that'd be my only thought. You know, the one going east west up between the two houses is in the drainage way, you know, in um the drainage easement, but the north south is so far inward. It's kind of an odd >> Yeah. Right. efficient that they would have ever done that and not moved into the drainage area. So, was it a city project? Probably not. Was it, you know, done with sometime during development? I would assume so. >> Um, so the the green line that's on the border between 925 and 945, >> that's all that's city owned. >> That was the one the city put in back in the early 2000s. That's where it comes off the corner of the house at 925. comes to this pumping station basically into their shed which another sump pump and pumps up to the road. So >> okay >> why whoever came up with this engineering feed is you know never should have been done. I mean because what you're doing it should have been tapped into the house itself should have been you know that drain tile that they put in should have been stubbed up into their own sump pump into their house pumped out through the original then we you would have no problem. this setup that the city that whoever approved it back in the day, you know, the engineer that came up with it, you know, was an easy easy solution, I guess. But >> Okay. So, gosh, I just So, could the homeowner at 925 just tap into that the line between 880 and 8.90? Well, what we would do is what we were looking at doing is determine we put a catch basin in. Um, if up on the original picture up there, you would put a new catch basin in and then let them connect to that. >> Like I say, you'd have enough fall from there to there, but on a heavier rainfall, >> you might you might get their >> grain towel to back up and not drain as as fast, >> but then it would just back up into their yard, >> which is what it's doing now, right? or into the it could back up into their house, you know, because it is right at the footing. >> Okay. >> You know, so like I say, I mean, it's the way it was designed is >> yeah, >> it it's very strange to me. I I would have never have done anything like that, but in the day, I guess that's what they kind of looked at. I you know, >> I guess what what what can we do or what I guess what's your recommendation then? Or what's what is staff looking at? >> Leaving it alone. >> That's you guys. I think it's >> I there's two options. either you either put this pipe the >> put in that new storm structure and let them connect to that with you know an agreement made up with >> would they be willing so if the city were to do this since it's more or less owner issue um would they be willing to be assessed I mean would they or pay for it I mean if it solves their problem I mean >> the option that costs anywhere between 15 and 40k >> 18 and 40 >> 18 Is that that's this option? >> Yeah. I mean the other option, you know, putting the pipe in the more expensive one might be the ticket, but you know, is it, you know, be 100% guarantee that they're going to be dead accurate? It's hard to tell. You know, I mean, if you get any little dip in that pipe and all a suen you got a little bit of, you know, flow issue, >> you know, they're pretty they're pretty good with it. I mean, they they can pull a pipe pretty darn straight and narrow and they pl said they could do it. It's just a matter of but, you know, there's the expense of it and it's not cheap. Yeah, I >> but how much of this, you know, I'm be honest. I mean, I understand where they're coming from in I25 and but how much of this is our issue, I don't know. >> So, none of the water that they're experiencing on their property is flowing off of city streets or or any easements or anything like that? >> It's coming through the backyards. Um, drainage from the north. Everything flows through here. And like I say, there's so much landscaping in here that it, you know, it'd be very tough to, you know, to get 905's water to flow out there. 905 could come into this other catch base on the north. But from our from our engineering standpoint and, you know, just looking at the video and stuff with the sag in the pipe, we don't want that because you'd almost have to fix that first. >> Okay? >> You know, maintenance, you know, on that to make that more. But again, all the water from 870, 8, 860, 850, 840 up to 830 is all coming this way. That's a lot of yard, a lot of drainage water coming here. >> So, not to mention, not to mention roof gutters, you know, kind of looking at that. And that's what they all look into. So, on a, you know, on a say it's a even a three-inch rain, there's a lot of water coming this way as you saw in that video when he brought it in that time and that was a, you know, what a inch, two inch rain. So, you know, I I don't know what the solution is for these people. I I mean, I'm not going to say one way or the other which way I would go. I mean, that's your decision ultimately. So, to guide us, where do we want to go? >> Okay. Council tough. >> Well, it seems like doing a half measure then >> doesn't solve the problem. It's the heavy rain that they're worried about. And so if we >> step in with the less expensive option, it's not going to work. >> Is there still a homeowners association or anything in >> They have one, but I think it's kind of defunct. >> Bayside. >> Bayside. Yeah. >> I Yeah, they we looked into it with the pond issue that they had back there when we redid Minneapolis Avenue there. It's no longer functional. I believe that Jennings Bay has one, but you know that has really, >> you know, if a $15,000 fix was permanent and it would solve all of the issues, I'd be fine with that, but we don't even know if a $40,000 um project is going to fix it. That's the problem because the only other way to do it is like you to hopefully fix it is with a directional boring and then we don't know if that's going to work. So I I >> happened you've got a half a foot of fall between that distance. I mean you would have you would have drainage but >> I wish that is there any way we can just tell the homeowner that our engineer could try and work with them on their particular project and we could spend a th000 or 2,000 on engineering. I don't know. I mean >> we've already spent quite a bit just kind of doing calculations on >> I don't know rainfall and everything else and coming up with this. I mean we've spent you know >> some money on this already. Yeah. >> All right. So, council, what do you want to do? >> I think we tell them we can't fix it. Like, we we can't. It's just >> because we can't. >> Yeah. >> There's no good solution that's going to fix it. >> I think we maybe commit to the 10 or 15,000 that we thought and then let them, you know, come up with the rest. If they don't, they don't. >> Yeah, that might be an option. That's kind of in between. So, you're saying say we can do a $15,000 project that may or may not solve your problem or a $40,000 and you pay the difference between the 15 and 40. >> But then if it doesn't work and they come back, are we still >> No, we'd have to >> No, there we have to we would need a we would need something drawn up from Kenny Grave that would state that, you know, special things. >> We're no longer liable. Well, and I think this might set a precedent because I know that there are other properties in Minista that have this problem and I think we're just going to be >> doing this for everybody. >> We might >> I mean I I >> Well, I know there's know this happens in other properties and they just figure this is our problem >> and and if we did put it in, we would be obligated to maintain it in the future. We we would if we would take over option the first option with the catch basin the pipe going east west up to both up to the new catch basin including the old catchbas that pipe would fall under city responsibility. The north south would not but that would then become ours for >> that little one in between. >> But right now that pipe's in great shape. We did video it just to make sure. I mean there would not be that a lot of maintenance on in the future for that. It's it's PVC smooth wall PVC. So, >> I like Peter's idea like tell them that our engineer can't guarantee the $15,000 option will work. If you want to pursue a different option that costs more, we'll spend the 15. And >> would we spend the 15 even if they say we agree to release the city of any further liability or responsibility? >> If they want the bad, >> they'd have to sign because we had remember we had that one a few years back. >> I mean, that's fine. they want the less reliable solution and they're going to we're going to be released from any future responsibility then that's fine but then they have to know like the odds of it working are >> okay >> you know >> I I could go with that >> we can we can take that back to them um as far I can talk to them and take that I venture to guess at the next meeting then we'll have something in place for you guys to um to approve so you know we we'll have we'll have everything set to go we can talk to a couple contractors to get you know better pricing on both things here just kind of give us an idea. But um just be prepared that the resident at 9:25 will probably be present then at the meeting and >> talk to you which you know we don't have an issue I don't have an issue with but you know >> okay all right >> that's what we can do that's what we'll work on for you. >> Thank you. Um so we don't have a lot of time left for the um water rate discussion. So let's let's spend maybe 10 5 10 minutes and then you'll have a 20-minut break. Is that good enough? And then if we we can always bring this back. I was thinking even if we have to bring it back November 17th um at our work session if we don't come to finalize it but anyhow all right Jasper. >> Yeah madame mayor members of council um at our last meeting we staff was directed to kind of come up with different price points for the base rates um related to the water rate. So, in your packet, what you can see is is what that looks like with a um $50, $75 or $100 quarter base rate and what that does for the usage rate requirement. So, um pretty straightforward as far as um where we're at right now. Uh you know, where I I put the I put the 25 rates in there so you can kind of compare, but you know, it's for the $50 it's a 22% increase in the base rate. um 75 is 83 and then 100 is 144%. Um what we've done is in lie of having the water treatment fee, we've just included it all into the base rate, which I think is probably the cleanest way to do it. Um council member Ruffkin kind of had some more round numbers um that are essentially what this is, but you know, instead of 1876, it's some it's a round number. So, and I think if you have, you know, if you have a proposal, I think you have a proposal for another tier potentially. I think those what those fit in there as well. I think the revenue, we have certain revenue goals that we need to hit year to year. >> Um, I will point out this is going to be an ongoing thing that happens yeartoear. Um, it's going to be based on these numbers and what our financial needs are in 2027, we're looking at a 20% increase in 2027. 2028 is a 15% and then it's like seven and then six something like that. So, but just know these things change significantly or can change significantly yeartoear. So, if let's say we have a development come in um that has an we have an influx of cash in the trunk fee line item. Right now, we only budget $10,000, but if a large development comes in, that could be multiple millions of dollars coming in, which then affect the rates. we just can't predict that or budget for that. So, it's important to know, you know, we really can only set the rates yeartoear. We know what our need is next this next year. Um, but that can change if we have additional development and things like that. So, um, I'm not sure if if this is the information that you're looking at or if you want to give us direction or or or provide some feedback. Um, I know that there's been a talk about monthly billing and in the here I alluded Brian took some time and met with his staff and and has a big list of things that we need to go over before we can go to monthly. I talked to A2S about a communication plan because we have a bunch of different things coming um with the plant and then potentially with the rates and and things like that. So um it's important, one of the most important things we do or try to do is communicate with the residents, which is very hard. um not everybody's paying attention. Uh so, but this is a big change. So, uh I think I think in a nutshell, the more time we get to transition to monthly, the better that outcome will be. Um as far as resident relations with both staff, city council, um because we're we need to give them the same information multiple times for it to maybe right maybe hit. So, >> so but I was I I really think we need to go to monthly. So I I don't think that's the question. I think the question simply is when do we go to monthly? Um and talking to um Jasper and it doesn't sound like we can do that January 1. So could we do it feasibly um the next quarter then um April one? >> This is how I'd summarize it. >> Okay. All right. >> January one complete chaos do that. So hopefully that's >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. We'll agree. We'll go with that. >> Okay. Jan's off the table. April 1 would be somewhat chaos. >> Okay. >> I think July 1 is sequentially. I think we got the plant coming. We've got the rates. I think July 1 you'd have you know you do the quarterly the first two and you do July the end of July you do the first reading for July usage. Send out the bill in in August and just keep rolling monthly from there. You'd have the chance to send out some correspondence newsletters social media. >> Okay. If we do that um >> and it would be it would capture usually had the hardest trouble. It would be July, August, September would be monthly bills. I mean we never really have had issues in first or second quarter. We just don't I mean I >> So I mean I would say I think we can have it in place I can I know we can have it in place by July 1st of 2026 to start monthly billing in July of 2026. >> Okay. It gives us a couple of cycles to put that on the bill back even, you know, to say, "Hey, this is going to transition to >> you." I'll look at your bill back. >> I do. I do. >> Do you? I mean, >> I can guarantee most people that's part of the problem, right? We have to we have to hit like multiple communication streams because not everybody looks >> put a billboard up right there. I mean, we could do for for $550, we could do the billboard and off of seven money, >> but that would only get, you know, a third of the people. >> Who knows? Yeah. I think just working through the financial software, the communication piece. Um, are we going to in outsource anything on some of it? You know, the printing, the distribution, are we going to >> There's a lot of questions. We've talked about the finance step and started to get Jasper and other city hall staff. >> So, here's what I think we should do then. if the council's agreeable billing starting July like you said but in before then give us a plan give us that that communication plan that would be really good communication plan so that we know when things are going to go out and we may have some ideas whatever so start July with like you said having said that um what does that do to our usage rates so now we're going to be billing quarterly and so what my concern is not so much the increase, but it's the base increase because now all of a sudden if we go to a hundred, let's say $100, and that's kind of where I'm going with this, but I don't know where you all are. So, um, you'll weigh in here in just a second. If we do a $100 a quarter, are we going to get tons of people calling being really, really mad? What is it right now? Do you What is the base? >> Little 41 bucks. >> $41. So, it' be a$60ome dollar or nearly $60. >> Yeah. The original plan was to bump it with or the straight percentage wise it would have bumped it to about 50 or whatever. Right. That was the first >> um is so and I don't know what this would do then. What if if we're doing quarterly um and it would be two quarters, right? Okay. Would we do like So it's what did you say it was 40? 660. Now what if we increased it >> 41 right now? >> 41. So if we increased it half of that for January and then the other half for the next quarter, you know, I mean, you know, so it's a little a little jump. a little jump and then when we do the monthly, if we do a hundred for instance, it'd be $33 or whatever. >> If we would do that, I think there'd be a just a minimal revenue shortfall and we'd have to maybe instead of doing the 9% rate adjustment, we'd maybe do 10 >> or or we wanted to maybe offset it by >> with the usage rate or with the base rate. >> Yeah, something like that. I'm just wondering, >> but if you ease into it for the first two quarters, there's some revenue there. Um, but >> do we know how much? Can we run the numbers real quick? >> I think um >> we have 2400 um 2400 times um $50. Let's just say >> so you're talking >> in this in the options that were in the packet because we have right now we have about 2,250 accounts. So was like was like just shy of 400,000. was 675,000 was for the uh 75 and it was about 900,000 for the 100 for the base rate revenue >> for the base rate revenue portion 900 per quarter. >> Yep. Yep. >> 900 per >> and then the rest we have to make up in the >> in the rates >> usage. Okay. So rather than 900 um that would be the increase not the total. >> 900,000 would be the total >> the total >> total for the year for the base fee. >> Yeah. So if you >> So really wouldn't be that much. It'd be probably just you you'd be having you'd be somewhere between 675 and 900,000. You'd probably be halfway there. >> 150,000 short fault probably. Um and then that's where we'd probably have to move rates up a little bit more slightly. >> Or base rate at >> just put the base rate at 35. >> Base rate at 30. >> Base rate at 35 for Yep. That would also probably get us there. >> And and just so you know, like the we looked at various rates and and a base rate of $30 isn't much. I mean there are communities that have more than that per month. So it's not complete. It is a huge increase right monthly but there are communities that have newer water treatment systems that are in that range already. So it's not quite out of the realm of you know reality for for other communities. So it's not just don't think it's it's it's a lot for our community because we're used to lower rates. But um >> I guess I you guys can and the two of you are on city waters, so you might want to weigh in a little more, but I'd rather prefer a a jump and then another jump and then maybe another, you know, but what what do you think? >> I concur with that. I think that makes it a little easier to for folks to understand. Obviously, we need the communication plan so they don't think that it's uh going to jump every month for the next multiple years. Uh directionally too, I like the uh higher base fee because it spreads it out and protects us against dry years. >> Yeah. Yeah. Plus, I always say everybody needs a treatment plant who's on city water. I mean, you you want to have clean, healthy, um safe drinking water, and that's what the the treatment plants provide. So, everybody needs that whether you use 5,000 gallons a month or whether you use 20,000 gallons a month. So, I think it's fair that um everybody kind of pay their fair share, so to speak, for that. And that's what the base rate does. That's my theory >> because we'll have to come back and update the fee schedule in in like basically in late spring or whatever anyway to make it monthly starting July 1 or whatever. So, we'll have >> that'll be the time then to adjust the base rate too or whatever, you know, bas or the rates again if we have to take another >> crack at it. >> Crack at it. Yeah. >> Well, yeah. So, I guess I'm confused. Um, are we talking about just changing the base rate then starting Jan 1 and then agree adjust like adjusting the tiers and the gallons per usage in starting July one? Are we going to tweak everything Jan one and then possibly tweak it all again in July? >> I think we're talking about doing a tweak in Jan, a tweak in April one, right? Q2. >> I think I do July, Jan, whatever. Okay. So, it is two >> and usage rates. I think you said you run with first and second quarter. >> I thought you were talking about ramping it up Q1 and then Q2. I think we would need to do that. I think the rates I think the rates would be whatever they're going to be for the year or we think they're going to be for the year. It's the It's the base rate that you start out a little bit less for Q1 and then a little bit more for Q2 and then by the time you're doing monthly it's going to be $35. So, we would do a jump in Q2 as well and then a jump >> but the rates would stay the same. the the the usage >> usage. Okay. >> How how many people are on the base right now or they're kind of the minimum >> about 2,250 connections we have accounts we have right now. So >> 25 I guess what I'm asking is how many people kind of the minimum. >> Oh that way um probably nobody because they have the base fee and then there's a usage. >> So the base fee is not going to include any water. No. >> You know some people go oh my gosh. Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. That doesn't include >> I mean a few snowbirds maybe or something if they have very little usage they'll know that stuff their bill's gone up because we've jumped the base rate you know right >> but there's not okay >> so >> it's kind of like electric your electric bill I'm sorry your electric bill or your gas bill you get a base get a base fee and then and so on okay >> so did we want to talk about rates and the tiers then now or do that in November >> depends on what if you want a break or [Laughter] We can do that in in November. So, but um Kathleen has this. So, can you share that then with >> Yeah, Jasper's got it. >> Yeah, I have it. Um >> so, we can see all of all four options. There's You had three options. >> Well, I Yeah, I can bring it up, I think. Let me see. I basically made a I did four options because I added a $30 a month one and then while we were speaking before council I added another one that has four tiers and then has the base rate at 35. Um so just include all that and then we can look at it and I think >> well they're all pretty much >> is more for rounded numbers and I'm fine with rounded numbers. I hate it when you're like um 873 or 6 um 921. I mean, let's let's figure out if we can do rounded numbers. >> So, Kathleen's numbers are essentially what's in there already at this 50 7500 price points, but they're rounded nicely. >> Yeah. And then I tweaked the >> And then there's another one. >> Yeah. Then there's the four the one with the four tiers, but then I tweaked the gallons. Um I did different tiers. I did because I put it all for monthly. So I did 0 to 8,000, then 8,0001 to 20,000, and then over 20,000. And then I thought the 8,000 to 20,000 was too big. So then the the fourth tier was 8,000 to 16,000 gallons and then 16 to 24 and then over 24. So I just added a fourth one in there and broke them up by 8,000. Basically I looked at my water bill and Jasper said the average usage is 5500 gallons not including summer including summer it's 8800 >> per month. >> So yeah per month. So that encompassed most users being in the lower tier and then if you want to use that much water in the summer, you're going to pay for it. >> You know what? I just spotted something. We have to adjust these tiers. Yeah. Because if it's on a monthly basis, a lot of people are It doesn't work. So >> So they have to Yeah, we're planning on doing that with when we make the switch. That'll be a fee schedule adjustment to >> We would divide by three. >> But Kathleen is talking about parsing them down a little bit more. >> Yeah. Well, let's So let's bring this back. bring back all these numbers again um to our November 17th. >> Do you guys like the four tiers or should we stick with three tiers? >> Four sounds. >> Four. Okay. So, like four. >> We'll do four tiers with some other um Do you like the higher base rate? >> Yes. Yes. >> Yeah. >> Like the like should we look at 90 and 105 or 105 would be $35 a month. >> Yeah. >> Right. I think so. So 90 and 100 90 and 105. >> Um and then four tiers. Okay. >> Okay. >> Rounded numbers. Now, when you say rounded numbers, Kathleen 660 versus 663. I mean, that's okay. We're not talking. Yeah. Okay. >> I mean, I think in that like penny which one >> I wanted to ask one last time. So, it's council looking to I would recommend I think J was do we we do the base rate and the usage rates JN1 and then we do that that's that additional base rate and and usage rate July 1. I don't know if I would do any April one changes. I mean, what's >> I don't either. Okay, that's fine. Let me muddy the waters a little bit, Mary. >> Okay, that's fine. Just do it twice. >> Well, I think the idea is that we get the rates and the tiers set up November. So then when we switch um July 1, you can straight just divide by three and then here's your new monthly. We won't have to adjust the rates or the tiers >> at that point. >> Then it should almost be this. It should be >> then you're going to go with the 105. >> Just roll it out right away. Just 105 base rate. We'd have to make a fee schedule adjustment. >> Yeah. No, I'm saying like we wouldn't change like Jan one. We wouldn't do like um you know just a 50% increase to the current tiers, whatever we have now. We'd reset all the tiers and the rates and then be able just to divide by three. Do the amendment that we need to do, but there wouldn't actually be a long meeting redising it all again. >> Yep. Yep. I got that going with one question. the base rate. I know we talked about do you want it to be >> 105 on Jan one or do you want it to be like phased in into 105 >> 90 then 105 or less than that? >> Well 105 what's >> that's 35 a month >> a month 90 but what I'm saying is between what they pay now and the 105 split that in half and that's going to be >> there and then 105 will be 35 a month starting January 75. Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. And then the only thing to add to that for November, Jasper, is then um commercial >> um their tiers and their base rate. I had mentioned before the meeting started possibly increasing >> the school commercial buckets base rate >> to a higher amount than what the residents pay. >> Well, we'll keeping the So, that'll be in as well. >> Yeah, we'll talk about that. All right. So, you'll bring that back in November. Okay. All right. Motion to adjurnn. Second. >> Seconded. >> Thank you. All those in favor signify with I. I. I.................... All. Those opposed. Motion passes. >> You knew where she was going. >> I like that kind of direct direction. It would be catastrophic. It would be utter chaos. >> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you for that. >> I tried to make it simple and correct and whatever, but I I think Yeah. from talking. >> Yeah, I think we'd lose people potentially. I don't know. >> The midpoint of that is 73. >> Yeah, I think that's fine. >> BCBA out. Your wife said,