WEBVTT

00:00:00.130 --> 00:00:06.241
- It is now five o'clock. I'd like to call today's City of Bloomington Utility Service Board meeting to

00:00:06.241 --> 00:00:12.232
- order. The City of Bloomington Utility's mission is to enhance the quality of life in our community

00:00:12.232 --> 00:00:18.283
- by providing safe, sustainable, and high-quality drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater services

00:00:18.283 --> 00:00:24.394
- in a cost-effective manner promoting public health, economic vitality, and environmental stewardship.

00:00:24.394 --> 00:00:27.390
- If any board member has any personal or financial

00:00:27.522 --> 00:00:35.297
- conflict with any issues or individuals on the agenda, then please be sure to recuse yourself during

00:00:35.297 --> 00:00:43.456
- those portions of the meeting. We'll start off with petitions and communications. Are there any petitions

00:00:43.456 --> 00:00:51.308
- or communications from the public? Hearing none, we'll move along to the approval of minutes from the

00:00:51.308 --> 00:00:56.542
- previous meetings. First, we have a regular meeting on August 25th.

00:00:58.402 --> 00:01:11.440
- Questions or comments about the minutes from the regular meeting on August 25th? I'll move that we approve

00:01:11.440 --> 00:01:23.747
- the minutes of the meeting from August 25th. Second. A motion and a second. All in favor, please say

00:01:23.747 --> 00:01:27.646
- aye. Aye. All opposed, say nay.

00:01:29.442 --> 00:01:38.893
- Minutes are approved. Next, we have the bid opening from August 25th. Are there any questions or comments

00:01:38.893 --> 00:01:47.809
- on the bid opening? Do we have a motion for approval? I move we approve the bid opening from August

00:01:47.809 --> 00:01:56.190
- 25th. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, say nay.

00:01:58.210 --> 00:02:07.599
- The bid opening is approved. Moving along, we have the approval of claims. We start with the standard

00:02:07.599 --> 00:02:17.356
- invoices for a total amount of $453,020.17. Are there any questions or comments on the standard invoices?

00:02:17.356 --> 00:02:26.653
- Hearing none, do we have a motion for approval? I move we approve the standard invoices for pay date

00:02:26.653 --> 00:02:28.126
- September 12th.

00:02:29.890 --> 00:02:39.033
- Motion to the second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, say nay. Standard invoices are

00:02:39.033 --> 00:02:48.175
- approved. Next, we have utility bills for a total amount of $84,871.26. Any questions or comments on

00:02:48.175 --> 00:02:57.590
- the utility claims? All right, I move we approve the utility claims list for September 8. All in favor,

00:02:57.590 --> 00:02:59.038
- please say aye.

00:02:59.234 --> 00:03:10.311
- Aye. All opposed say nay. Utility claims are approved. Next we have wire transfers for a total amount

00:03:10.311 --> 00:03:21.387
- of $613,436.89. Are there any questions or comments on the wire transfers? I move we approve the wire

00:03:21.387 --> 00:03:28.446
- transfers for September 2025. All in favor, please say aye. Aye.

00:03:28.738 --> 00:03:36.828
- All opposed say nay. Wire transfers are approved. Thank you all. Moving along, we have approval of consent

00:03:36.828 --> 00:03:44.768
- agenda. Catherine Zager. Good evening, I'm Catherine Zager, utilities director. I'm presenting tonight's

00:03:44.768 --> 00:03:52.480
- consent agenda totaling $95,739.39 for all non-chemical contracts. Our first contract is with Cassidy

00:03:52.480 --> 00:03:58.302
- Electric LLC for $20,000 for on-call services for medium voltage electrical.

00:03:59.138 --> 00:04:06.986
- Next is with price electric ink for 20,000 for on-call services for low voltage electrical. Next is

00:04:06.986 --> 00:04:15.069
- with the dot look crane ink for $1,800 for a crane being used to remove and put back a pump for repair

00:04:15.069 --> 00:04:23.308
- at the Henderson pump station. Next is with electric plus ink for $5,175 to install wiring for a battery

00:04:23.308 --> 00:04:26.526
- charger at Monroe water treatment plant.

00:04:27.714 --> 00:04:37.877
- Next is with Troy Risk Inc. for $10,367.50 for a phase two environmental site assessment for the property

00:04:37.877 --> 00:04:47.560
- located at 6570 South Old State Road 37. Next is with Jacobi Carbons Inc. for $1.02 and a half cents

00:04:47.560 --> 00:04:54.942
- per pound for the supply of carbon aquasorb at Monroe Water Treatment Plant.

00:04:57.890 --> 00:05:06.496
- Next is with Air Gas Specialty Products Inc. for $0.1484 per pound for the 2025 supply of aqua ammonia

00:05:06.496 --> 00:05:14.935
- at Monroe Water Treatment Plant. Next is with Electric Plus Inc. for $3,970 to run three-phase power

00:05:14.935 --> 00:05:22.622
- in the Slow Mix building downstairs for the new carbon at the Monroe Water Treatment Plant.

00:05:24.098 --> 00:05:32.588
- Next is with Gonzales Companies LLC for $16,000. For West 8th Street and Fountain Drive detention ponds,

00:05:32.588 --> 00:05:40.997
- civil plans update, bid administration, and construction support. Next is with Aquatic Informatics Inc.

00:05:40.997 --> 00:05:49.406
- for $8,426.89 for WIMS software license and support at CBU plants. And last we have Amrise Building and

00:05:50.562 --> 00:05:58.646
- Envelop LLC for $10,000 for on-call services for roofing. Is there any member who wishes to consider

00:05:58.646 --> 00:06:06.730
- one or more of these items individually? Hearing none, if there's no opposition, these items will be

00:06:06.730 --> 00:06:13.854
- approved as recommended by staff. Hearing no opposition, the consent agenda is approved.

00:06:17.410 --> 00:06:28.914
- Item seven is request approval of resolution 2025-17, finance bond for 2025 water rate case. Chris Wheeler.

00:06:28.914 --> 00:06:39.034
- I'll actually be presenting this one. He skipped six. Oh, sorry. Sorry, I was reading. My bad.

00:06:39.034 --> 00:06:43.934
- That's okay. You're right, yes. Request. Yes.

00:06:45.026 --> 00:06:52.115
- Request approval of resolution 2025-16, Adjustment of Water Rates and Charges of the City of Bloomington

00:06:52.115 --> 00:06:59.002
- Water Works Utility. Kathryn Zager. Hello, Kathryn Zager, Utilities Director, requesting approval for

00:06:59.002 --> 00:07:05.889
- the Adjustment of Water Rates and Charges of the City of Bloomington Water Works Utility. I'd like to

00:07:05.889 --> 00:07:11.966
- first, we've had multiple presentations on this, but first I'd like to introduce STANTEC,

00:07:12.066 --> 00:07:18.714
- Stantec has been our consultant who has been essentially leading us and in charge of this cost of service

00:07:18.714 --> 00:07:25.111
- study, which we're basing our rates on. So Stantec has a lot of experience in helping water utilities

00:07:25.111 --> 00:07:31.571
- with financial sustainability analysis, developing their water rates and budgets, and has done similar

00:07:31.571 --> 00:07:37.843
- cost of service studies for other cities. Andrew Burnham, specifically who we've been working with,

00:07:37.843 --> 00:07:38.846
- has worked with

00:07:39.074 --> 00:07:45.312
- cities such as Ann Arbor, Michigan, St. Petersburg, Florida, Tempe, Arizona, and Nashville, Tennessee.

00:07:45.312 --> 00:07:51.612
- Stantec has worked with staff throughout this process, making sure that we were always on the same page

00:07:51.612 --> 00:07:57.668
- and understood where they were going, explaining things along the way, especially for me as I learn

00:07:57.668 --> 00:08:03.967
- as we go through this. They were also great about seeking input from staff when questions arose or they

00:08:03.967 --> 00:08:08.510
- needed clarification for some of the data that they were receiving from us

00:08:09.570 --> 00:08:15.626
- After working through them with this cost of service study, CBU staff feels confident that the cost

00:08:15.626 --> 00:08:21.803
- of service study approach has resulted in one of the most accurate data-driven water rate assessments

00:08:21.803 --> 00:08:28.283
- that this utility has had to date. And with that, I'd introduce Danica to go ahead and do the presentation

00:08:28.283 --> 00:08:34.339
- for the cost of service study. Thanks so much for the introduction, Kat. My name's Danica Katz. I'm

00:08:34.339 --> 00:08:38.942
- with STANTEC, and as Kat mentioned, we also have Andy Burnham here as well.

00:08:39.714 --> 00:08:46.548
- And today we're going to walk through the cost allocation and rate design. So we've got a handful of

00:08:46.548 --> 00:08:53.586
- slides here that Pat mentioned provide data-driven findings as well as just walking through the process

00:08:53.586 --> 00:09:00.488
- of the cost of service itself and ultimately where we land with those findings and rates. So with all

00:09:00.488 --> 00:09:07.390
- that, step through. So the first step of the process was to look at the test year and determine if we

00:09:07.490 --> 00:09:14.207
- had an appropriate test year with 2024. So we looked at things such as annual rainfall patterns.

00:09:14.207 --> 00:09:21.478
- Next slide. Some of the billing data that was provided by the city. So we went through detailed analysis

00:09:21.478 --> 00:09:28.749
- of all of that data that was provided just to confirm that we were utilizing a representative test year.

00:09:28.749 --> 00:09:36.158
- In addition to the billing data that was provided, the city also provided AMI data. Pop to the next slide.

00:09:36.994 --> 00:09:44.236
- Here's some additional build monthly usage that we went through. Next slide should show some of the

00:09:44.236 --> 00:09:51.768
- AMI-related data. So we looked at this on a very in-depth level by customer class for those appropriate

00:09:51.768 --> 00:09:59.156
- test years, which really ultimately gave us the backing for the peaking factors that were derived for

00:09:59.156 --> 00:10:03.646
- the cost of service. So we looked at it on both a daily level

00:10:04.098 --> 00:10:13.312
- the next slide you'll see we also looked at it from an hourly perspective as well. This shows the hourly

00:10:13.312 --> 00:10:22.174
- AMI data by those classes. And then you keep going, one more slide. This would show that all of that

00:10:22.174 --> 00:10:31.388
- data that was provided up until that point that we went through and did our analysis on would ultimately

00:10:31.388 --> 00:10:33.406
- get us to the max day.

00:10:33.666 --> 00:10:41.646
- peak hour factors for each of the individual customer classes. And so that was the analysis that we

00:10:41.646 --> 00:10:49.865
- conducted on kind of an upfront customer demand usage and test year perspective. And then we went into

00:10:49.865 --> 00:10:58.243
- the actual cost allocation analysis itself. And for that, I guess just from a high level, the objectives

00:10:58.243 --> 00:11:00.318
- of the cost of service is

00:11:00.546 --> 00:11:07.102
- We take the annual revenue requirement that was provided by Crowe, has been presented thus far, and

00:11:07.102 --> 00:11:13.723
- ultimately the goal is to determine the cost to serve for each of those customer classes compared to

00:11:13.723 --> 00:11:20.278
- the current revenue that is being collected, ultimately to get us to that cost of providing service

00:11:20.278 --> 00:11:23.294
- to each of those individual customer classes.

00:11:28.578 --> 00:11:35.713
- So this just shows a high level approach for the cost of service study itself. So step one, we get the

00:11:35.713 --> 00:11:42.987
- revenue requirements from Pro. And our second step is to functionalize all of those costs into different

00:11:42.987 --> 00:11:50.122
- buckets or different functions for the system itself. The next step would then be to take all of those

00:11:50.122 --> 00:11:57.534
- costs, all of the functionalized costs, and ultimately allocate those to different demand characteristics.

00:11:58.018 --> 00:12:04.404
- That would be that base max day, max hour, and customer that you see there. And then the last step is

00:12:04.404 --> 00:12:10.852
- ultimately to take all of those costs and distribute them to the different or various customer classes

00:12:10.852 --> 00:12:17.113
- of your system or of CBU's system, which would ultimately tell us based on all the data that we had

00:12:17.113 --> 00:12:22.622
- and all the information that was provided by CBU the cost to serve results or findings.

00:12:26.306 --> 00:12:34.667
- So this will just step through in a little bit more detail, those high levels. So step one here is ultimately

00:12:34.667 --> 00:12:42.268
- the revenue requirements, which have been presented by PRO. So I just wanted to recap that. It just

00:12:42.268 --> 00:12:49.869
- shows all of the different components that make up that revenue requirements of that $29.1 million.

00:12:49.869 --> 00:12:53.822
- And so then in step two, we take that $29.1 million

00:12:54.338 --> 00:13:01.158
- revenue requirements and we functionalize them by line item based on descriptions working with city

00:13:01.158 --> 00:13:08.115
- staff in many work sessions to make sure that we understand how each of those line items apply in the

00:13:08.115 --> 00:13:16.094
- system. Ultimately get to a point where we functionalize all of those costs into their different respective buckets.

00:13:20.226 --> 00:13:28.150
- There on the next slide, this shows kind of the summary level of those revenue requirements by function.

00:13:28.150 --> 00:13:36.074
- So you can see 35% in that treatment and pumping, 11%, 14% in the supplies. Those are kind of the three,

00:13:36.074 --> 00:13:43.696
- I'll call them major categories. There's a 21% transmission, and then some smaller percentages there

00:13:43.696 --> 00:13:49.054
- on customer related and fire protection related costs, but ultimately,

00:13:49.474 --> 00:13:57.743
- Just taking that 29.1 million and functionalizing them into those different buckets. Okay. And then

00:13:57.743 --> 00:14:06.176
- step three, we allocate those functionalized costs to the different demand parameters. So you can see

00:14:06.176 --> 00:14:14.693
- here, majority of the functions get a portion of the average day demand costs. There's a handful there

00:14:14.693 --> 00:14:18.910
- that get a portion of max day as well as max hour.

00:14:20.002 --> 00:14:28.277
- There are certain functions that are strictly customer or meter related, which is the billing and services

00:14:28.277 --> 00:14:36.320
- that you can see over to the right there. And then just a small piece for fire protection. OK. And then

00:14:36.320 --> 00:14:44.054
- in order to get the percentages that make up each of those different spreads of base extra capacity

00:14:44.054 --> 00:14:48.926
- or the average max day, max hour, we just utilize system data.

00:14:49.122 --> 00:14:57.813
- provided by the city for 2024, which ultimately gets us to those percentages of the share between average

00:14:57.813 --> 00:15:06.095
- day, max day, and max hour that you can see there. And then the customer being allocated directly or

00:15:06.095 --> 00:15:14.294
- functionalized directly to customer. This is just a dollar summary. When you take those percentages

00:15:14.294 --> 00:15:17.246
- and all those functionalized costs,

00:15:18.050 --> 00:15:28.842
- This is the matrix that you get for a summary of all the costs by different function, by different demand

00:15:28.842 --> 00:15:39.126
- parameters, but still ultimately getting to that 29.1 revenue requirement. We also take into account

00:15:39.126 --> 00:15:47.678
- fire protection. So the city provided us detailed information of calls for service,

00:15:47.874 --> 00:15:56.995
- So we looked at certain calls for service and the number of those in 2024 in order to develop the fire

00:15:56.995 --> 00:16:06.027
- protection side, as well as the max day and max hour associated with those flows. Next slide. We also

00:16:06.027 --> 00:16:14.174
- utilized data on the fire protection side to differentiate between public and private fire.

00:16:14.786 --> 00:16:24.214
- So we were able to identify certain hydrants that were specific to public versus private based on those

00:16:24.214 --> 00:16:33.461
- demand factors that you can see here. Okay. And then ultimately when we get to the point here at step

00:16:33.461 --> 00:16:43.070
- four, we take all of the units of service and all of those functionalized costs and pull it all together.

00:16:43.426 --> 00:16:50.821
- This just shows this table right here, a summary of all of the units, so the number of bills, number

00:16:50.821 --> 00:16:58.508
- of customers, and then all of the usages. But ultimately on the next slide, we pull all of that together

00:16:58.508 --> 00:17:05.976
- based on all of those pieces that I just went through. And we get to a point where we say in the blue

00:17:05.976 --> 00:17:11.614
- bar what the cost of services for each of those individual customer classes.

00:17:12.546 --> 00:17:20.449
- compared to an orange, what is currently being collected for all of those, or what the existing revenue

00:17:20.449 --> 00:17:28.656
- is. You can see that the change between the orange and the blue is essentially that 13.5% overall increase,

00:17:28.656 --> 00:17:36.255
- but it shows the percent needs down there on the bottom between the different customer classes. You

00:17:36.255 --> 00:17:39.902
- can see residential showing that 18.9% increase

00:17:40.610 --> 00:17:51.722
- and so forth across the board there for that 30.5% increase. And so that was the cost of service. And

00:17:51.722 --> 00:18:02.616
- then we then moved into rate design or rate structure design. Just a quick slide here talking about

00:18:02.616 --> 00:18:06.974
- the CBU's current structure. Currently,

00:18:07.138 --> 00:18:14.836
- on the left side there are fixed charges by meter size, as well as on the right side, uniform volumetric

00:18:14.836 --> 00:18:22.461
- rates per thousand gallons by each of those individual customer classes or for each of those individual

00:18:22.461 --> 00:18:30.086
- customer classes. I just wanted to highlight the current structure there. Also wanted to highlight some

00:18:30.086 --> 00:18:36.318
- of the current fire protection charges. So there is a public fire protection charge.

00:18:36.482 --> 00:18:45.094
- by meter size for both inside and outside city, as well as a private fire protection for private fire

00:18:45.094 --> 00:18:53.538
- lines that has a separate charge by meter size that you can see over there on the right side. Okay.

00:18:53.538 --> 00:19:01.982
- We'll just quickly walk through. So the fixed charge components or the items that make up the fixed

00:19:01.982 --> 00:19:05.950
- charge include customer service related items,

00:19:06.402 --> 00:19:15.612
- anything meter related services or service drops and anything billing and billing collection. So what

00:19:15.612 --> 00:19:24.912
- this slide demonstrates is based on the cost of service findings that we showed on some of those prior

00:19:24.912 --> 00:19:34.302
- slides, we take those by each of those components and we either scale them or don't scale them based on

00:19:34.626 --> 00:19:42.402
- you know, the specific line items and how they operate in the system. But ultimately what it does is

00:19:42.402 --> 00:19:50.255
- it gets to a, in that bottom table there, the unit cost across all customer classes, or sorry, across

00:19:50.255 --> 00:19:58.032
- all meter sizes, that's flat, $5.32, and then the $2.84, which is scaled upon meter size. And you'll

00:19:58.032 --> 00:20:03.806
- see that, I think we have a slide coming up here that shows how that gets.

00:20:04.866 --> 00:20:13.153
- You can see that flat component is flat across all meter sizes or irrelevant to meter size. And then

00:20:13.153 --> 00:20:21.521
- the scaled component is increased by meter size based on a scaling factor, which ultimately get added

00:20:21.521 --> 00:20:29.726
- together to make up that fixed charge. And then you can see it compared to the current fixed charge

00:20:30.178 --> 00:20:38.684
- And you can see that dollar change and percent change there. So a slight increase on those lower meters

00:20:38.684 --> 00:20:47.026
- and then actually a decrease on some of the larger meters. We also went through a similar analysis to

00:20:47.026 --> 00:20:55.286
- look at the rate development for public fire protection. So we went through and took all of the cost

00:20:55.286 --> 00:21:00.030
- of service between public and private fire there based on

00:21:00.130 --> 00:21:08.129
- what I presented earlier for the split between public and private, and ultimately did something very

00:21:08.129 --> 00:21:16.286
- similar where we get to a unit cost between inside and outside, or a separate unit cost for inside and

00:21:16.286 --> 00:21:24.205
- outside. Then the next slide here, very similar to what we just looked at on the other slide, those

00:21:24.205 --> 00:21:27.294
- charges are then scaled by meter size.

00:21:27.426 --> 00:21:35.813
- And you can see that compared to the current charge, all these charges here for public fire are going

00:21:35.813 --> 00:21:44.117
- down slightly based on the cost of service findings. It showed an overall decrease for that specific

00:21:44.117 --> 00:21:52.503
- customer class. And then again, did something very similar here on the private fire protection. So we

00:21:52.503 --> 00:21:55.710
- take the findings for the private fire

00:21:55.938 --> 00:22:04.068
- billing from the cost of service, and we get to a unit cost there, $3.29, $5.32, which ultimately get

00:22:04.068 --> 00:22:12.357
- us to that total monthly private fire charge by meter size. And then we've compared that to the current

00:22:12.357 --> 00:22:18.494
- as well and showed that dollar change and percent change there to the right.

00:22:25.762 --> 00:22:34.550
- what we wanted to show was in the original cost of service graph that we provided were the full cost

00:22:34.550 --> 00:22:43.686
- of service. But what we are showing here is that we have capped the irrigation at four times the overall

00:22:43.686 --> 00:22:52.126
- identified rate increase of 30.5. So you can see that 122 is four times the 30.5 percent. And so

00:22:52.674 --> 00:23:00.380
- What we're doing here is just trying to get irrigation closer to cost of service based on prior rate

00:23:00.380 --> 00:23:08.161
- cases and discussions with CBU. So this just shows kind of that reallocation of irrigation to some of

00:23:08.161 --> 00:23:12.510
- the other customer classes here, but as a summarization.

00:23:17.602 --> 00:23:25.359
- And this graphic should look very familiar, but this is essentially with the cap and adjustments for

00:23:25.359 --> 00:23:33.117
- irrigation service. So irrigation is capped at that four times the overall rate increase. And so you

00:23:33.117 --> 00:23:41.489
- can see there's some small adjustments on some of the other customer classes to ultimately get to that 30.5%

00:23:41.489 --> 00:23:45.022
- overall increase or amount of revenue needed.

00:23:54.306 --> 00:24:00.586
- summary of rates here. This was presented on some of the prior slides. I just wanted to kind of put

00:24:00.586 --> 00:24:07.117
- it all together. We've got the current rates there compared to the proposed, and then the usage charges

00:24:07.117 --> 00:24:13.459
- as well. I think it was mentioned on the last slide highlighted for that general service. The reason

00:24:13.459 --> 00:24:19.739
- there's two rates there is because throughout the study or through the study, we've determined that

00:24:19.739 --> 00:24:22.942
- we're going to consolidate the commercial and area

00:24:23.234 --> 00:24:32.197
- commercial and industrial customer classes and that is just due to number of customers in the industrial

00:24:32.197 --> 00:24:40.903
- class as well as their trends and peaking factors being very similar between the two classes. You can

00:24:40.903 --> 00:24:45.598
- see the other rates there as well for irrigation sale.

00:24:52.290 --> 00:24:58.494
- Very similar on the monthly to show the comparison here. Like I mentioned, this public fire protection

00:24:58.494 --> 00:25:03.614
- rates are going down slightly and the private fire protection are going up slightly.

00:25:43.650 --> 00:26:10.878
- We may have lost our audio.

00:26:11.234 --> 00:26:16.837
- I can carry us through the last part of the presentation. Just on these customer bill impacts

00:26:16.837 --> 00:26:22.797
- for residential, this is just a summary of those specific rates and charges that Dana going through

00:26:22.797 --> 00:26:29.115
- and just applying them to residential customers with a five-eighths inch meter at different usage levels.

00:26:29.115 --> 00:26:35.314
- So as you work your way from top to bottom on the table, you can see the current bill with all charges,

00:26:35.314 --> 00:26:40.798
- this is one of the fixed charges, public tire protection and usage charges and the proposed

00:26:41.090 --> 00:26:47.156
- to see what the dollar and percent change would be. And so you can see for lower volumes of residential

00:26:47.156 --> 00:26:52.988
- use, that range of increase might be $1 to $5. And then as you get to those higher levels of usage,

00:26:52.988 --> 00:26:58.937
- you can see the levels of increase, you know, corresponding to increase. And then you have to get the

00:26:58.937 --> 00:27:05.236
- range of percentages, per person, that's about a 16% increase to 20%. We do have a couple of other benefits

00:27:05.236 --> 00:27:10.718
- on that. So if you go to the next slide, please. We also looked at general service customers,

00:27:10.818 --> 00:27:16.369
- And with general service customers, there can be a variety of different meter sizes as well as usage

00:27:16.369 --> 00:27:21.866
- levels. So we grabbed the two most common meter sizes, three-quarter inch and one inch. And then in

00:27:21.866 --> 00:27:27.362
- looking at the billing data, just kind of identified some profiles of small, medium, or typical and

00:27:27.362 --> 00:27:32.859
- large usages. We provided the same information so that you could see what the current bill and what

00:27:32.859 --> 00:27:34.398
- the proposed bill would be.

00:27:34.722 --> 00:27:40.649
- to kind of get a sense of the range of the impacts that the proposed rates would have on both the dollar

00:27:40.649 --> 00:27:46.745
- change and the percent change basis. So you can see for some of the small usage levels with a three-quarter

00:27:46.745 --> 00:27:52.389
- inch meter, that might be a $3 increase. The larger usage at that three-quarter inch meter might be

00:27:52.389 --> 00:27:58.034
- about $22. The range of increase would be 22 to, say, 46%. And then for a one-inch meter, a smaller

00:27:58.034 --> 00:28:03.848
- usage there would be about 15,000 gallons per month. And so the increase on that commercial bill would

00:28:03.848 --> 00:28:04.638
- be about $32.

00:28:04.930 --> 00:28:10.937
- If you look at a larger usage level at a one-inch meter at 25,000 gallons, that increase would be about

00:28:10.937 --> 00:28:16.828
- $54. So between that 45% and 50% level. And then if you go to the next slide, we again also looked at

00:28:16.828 --> 00:28:22.777
- billing packs for wholesale customers. And again, this will depend upon the level of usage, which here

00:28:22.777 --> 00:28:28.668
- again is much greater. As you can see generally, the range of increase is between 38% to 48% on those

00:28:28.668 --> 00:28:31.902
- bills, depending upon the volume that we're looking at.

00:28:33.730 --> 00:28:39.922
- And if you go one more slide, we also do have Indiana University Master Meter, six-inch meter. Again,

00:28:39.922 --> 00:28:46.114
- looking at the different range of usage levels for their account from Master Meter customer bill with

00:28:46.114 --> 00:28:52.306
- a range of increase of about 38% to 58%. Obviously, significantly higher usage levels here than, say,

00:28:52.306 --> 00:28:56.798
- residential or commercial customers. So the dollars are certainly larger.

00:28:58.178 --> 00:29:04.125
- And the last, but certainly not least, would be the irrigation meters. And so for a three-quarter inch

00:29:04.125 --> 00:29:10.188
- separate irrigation meter service, again, those bills would increase between, say, $30 at 5,000 gallons.

00:29:10.188 --> 00:29:16.424
- If you did 30,000 gallons a month for the irrigation, it might increase $181. This assumes no conservation.

00:29:16.424 --> 00:29:22.314
- So this is the current bill and proposed bill at the same amount of usage level. Notwithstanding that

00:29:22.314 --> 00:29:28.030
- with the irrigation, customers do have the ability to control the amount of usage on that service.

00:29:28.994 --> 00:29:56.798
- So we can take some questions from Stantec if you'd like.

00:29:58.754 --> 00:30:19.423
- Okay. Again, this slide is pretty familiar. This is the impacts on my own bill. We looked at our data

00:30:19.423 --> 00:30:23.678
- a little bit and the

00:30:24.034 --> 00:30:34.477
- So we say, you know, the average residential customer uses between three and five units a month. The

00:30:34.477 --> 00:30:45.230
- actual average is 3.5. So, yeah, so again, my bill went from 7101 to 7535. And, you know, that includes

00:30:45.230 --> 00:30:52.158
- my small sanitation cart using three units. Yeah, so there's that.

00:30:54.594 --> 00:31:02.992
- So, and I also wanted to point out, and we pointed this out in our public meeting on the 29th, where

00:31:02.992 --> 00:31:11.474
- we stand and where we will potentially stand if these rate changes are accepted, we're currently, our

00:31:11.474 --> 00:31:19.872
- combined water and sewer rate is 24th out of cities and towns in Indiana with over 25,000 people. If

00:31:19.872 --> 00:31:23.614
- these proposed rates are accepted, that will

00:31:24.802 --> 00:31:33.909
- essentially keep us at 24. Yeah. Um, and then looking at our, just our water rate at the next slide.

00:31:33.909 --> 00:31:43.287
- Thank you. Um, and that same group of cities and towns, uh, our water rate would move from in the lower

00:31:43.287 --> 00:31:51.582
- third to being in the lower half. So move from 30th to the 25th out of 39 cities and towns.

00:31:54.178 --> 00:32:02.061
- Now I'll go on to talk about our capital improvement plan a little bit. With this rate, we will be bonding

00:32:02.061 --> 00:32:09.649
- for some capital improvement projects, and so I'd like to talk a little bit about how we'd be spending

00:32:09.649 --> 00:32:17.090
- this money. So first I'll start with our water treatment plant projects. Our planned water treatment

00:32:17.090 --> 00:32:22.910
- plant projects total $30.7 million. Those projects include electrical upgrades

00:32:23.394 --> 00:32:31.455
- sediment base and rehabilitation, chemical building improvements and feed line replacement, which will

00:32:31.455 --> 00:32:39.594
- include restoring a safe and sustainable fluoride delivery system. Those also include some high service

00:32:39.594 --> 00:32:47.498
- pump rebuilds and variable frequency drives, essentially improving reliability and redundancy at the

00:32:47.498 --> 00:32:51.646
- plant. Next slide, yep. We also at our plant will be

00:32:51.938 --> 00:32:59.129
- making sure that we're funding our maintenance projects. We have quite a few maintenance projects. This

00:32:59.129 --> 00:33:06.527
- also includes the completion of our asset management system. We'll be doing treatment plant water handling

00:33:06.527 --> 00:33:13.442
- and delivery updates, bypass pumping improvements, and then we will do a residuals project with our

00:33:13.442 --> 00:33:20.702
- backwash pump replacement and improving the efficiency and consistency of our filter cleaning at Monroe.

00:33:23.394 --> 00:33:30.382
- Next, we have projects that fall into two major categories with our distribution system, that total

00:33:30.382 --> 00:33:37.370
- $34.4 million. The first category is booster station and storage tank rehabilitations and upgrades.

00:33:37.370 --> 00:33:44.917
- This will include the addition of emergency generators, which will improve our preparedness and reliability

00:33:44.917 --> 00:33:52.254
- during natural disasters, electrical grid issues, or other emergencies. The other category is water main

00:33:52.418 --> 00:34:00.219
- projects, maintenance, testing, and replacement. This includes replacing our aging water mains and servicing

00:34:00.219 --> 00:34:07.448
- our valves proactively in a more cost effective manner than just emergency repairs and replacements.

00:34:07.448 --> 00:34:15.034
- And then finally, we have the water portion of the Winston Thomas Service Center, which is $18.7 million.

00:34:15.034 --> 00:34:21.118
- I think this board has discussed extensively our need for a new service center as we

00:34:21.570 --> 00:34:30.146
- outgrow our current one. This is going to set us up for operational excellence, fiscal responsibility,

00:34:30.146 --> 00:34:38.473
- and community resilience. That is all of the slides we have to present. Happy to take questions. We

00:34:38.473 --> 00:34:46.799
- also have Jennifer with Crow as well if you have questions about revenue requirements. Thank you to

00:34:46.799 --> 00:34:49.630
- the representatives from STANTEC.

00:34:50.210 --> 00:35:00.585
- who did hard work as well, and CBU. All this information is valuable. I'm opening it up to questions

00:35:00.585 --> 00:35:11.576
- from the board. I have a question on the cost of services study, the methodology in step two. I understood

00:35:11.576 --> 00:35:19.486
- it other than why extensions and replacements was assigned to all functions.

00:35:29.058 --> 00:35:38.088
- All functions based on the five year capital project that was provided by CPU. And that is because all

00:35:38.088 --> 00:35:47.029
- of those extensions and replacements. Sorry, they are categorized based on the way that the five year

00:35:47.029 --> 00:35:48.958
- CIP is categorized so

00:35:49.218 --> 00:35:56.629
- We try to really assign those based on the functions that were identified in the CIP. So if there was

00:35:56.629 --> 00:36:03.967
- a specific amount of projects that were assigned to pumping and treatment based on the capital, then

00:36:03.967 --> 00:36:11.595
- the extensions and replacements gets allocated on that corresponding percentage. So it's really a direct

00:36:11.595 --> 00:36:19.006
- allocation from the provided five-year capital. This is a better way to say it. Okay. So are there...

00:36:19.106 --> 00:36:26.553
- Were there projects within the capital improvements plan that were not related to in the ground

00:36:26.553 --> 00:36:34.931
- infrastructure that you would think normally would be associated with say treatment pumping or transmission

00:36:34.931 --> 00:36:42.843
- or distribution storage? Were there for some reason other types of projects in there that and is that

00:36:42.843 --> 00:36:46.334
- why it got distributed across all functions?

00:36:50.434 --> 00:36:56.994
- So it seems to me when I hear those words, extensions and replacements, I'm thinking about in the ground

00:36:56.994 --> 00:37:03.304
- infrastructure or some other hard infrastructure. And it seems like a lot of the other functions are

00:37:03.304 --> 00:37:09.552
- not hard infrastructure. That's why I have the question. Can you explain that to me, why extensions

00:37:09.552 --> 00:37:15.862
- and replacements got allocated across all functions when some of the functions seem like they're not

00:37:15.862 --> 00:37:18.174
- associated with hard infrastructure?

00:37:22.786 --> 00:37:29.529
- and replacements is when you look at our budget, so we just did our budget, extensions and replacements

00:37:29.529 --> 00:37:36.013
- is its own line. That is essentially our, and correct me if I'm wrong, essentially that is our cash

00:37:36.013 --> 00:37:42.691
- for projects versus bonding for projects. And so in extensions and replacements, that cash goes to all

00:37:42.691 --> 00:37:47.230
- these different process. It's not just extensions and replacements of

00:37:47.554 --> 00:37:57.573
- underground infrastructure necessarily. Or tanks. Or tanks. It goes for all types of projects that could

00:37:57.573 --> 00:38:07.115
- be related to customer service or something. Thank you. No problem. Got you. Thank you. That was my

00:38:07.115 --> 00:38:14.462
- one question on that part. Thanks for the presentation. I've got to say that

00:38:15.298 --> 00:38:24.438
- cost of service analysis made perfect sense to me, and I was surprised that I understood it so easily.

00:38:24.438 --> 00:38:33.489
- I have one question for you, Kat. It seems that with our increases in rates, if I heard correctly, we

00:38:33.489 --> 00:38:42.363
- did not change positions relative to other cities in Indiana, and I would have thought unless there

00:38:42.363 --> 00:38:44.670
- are a lot of other cities

00:38:44.930 --> 00:38:54.793
- also changing their rates that we would have decreased somewhat. So that surprised me. So we did, if

00:38:54.793 --> 00:39:04.559
- you're looking at our combined rate, we moved up, but it was really just 24 to 24. That's, I forgot

00:39:04.559 --> 00:39:14.910
- what number slide that is, sorry. It's the one before that. Yeah, so you would think that we'd move down.

00:39:15.170 --> 00:39:25.521
- Every city or town that has a two next to it, those actually have pending rate increases. So we'll probably

00:39:25.521 --> 00:39:35.680
- shuffle in there after those rate increases happen. That's what I assumed, but I couldn't read the slide.

00:39:35.680 --> 00:39:36.830
- No problem.

00:39:43.138 --> 00:39:50.433
- just the water rates, there's a whole bunch of them at the top that were exactly the same. Is that because

00:39:50.433 --> 00:39:57.250
- there's a cap? Is there a cap on water rates in the state? Is that why they're all the same? That's

00:39:57.250 --> 00:40:04.340
- a great question. I think maybe Jennifer would be the best answer. Yeah, this is Jennifer Wilson. Yeah,

00:40:04.340 --> 00:40:09.726
- all those communities are all served by Indian American. So they have the same

00:40:10.082 --> 00:40:16.970
- rate structure, even though they're located in different parts of the state, they all are under the

00:40:16.970 --> 00:40:23.859
- same rate structure, so 5,000 gallons calculates the same for all of those. And it's about twice as

00:40:23.859 --> 00:40:29.438
- much as it is here. I guess we're happy we have a municipal-owned utility. Yeah.

00:40:40.226 --> 00:40:48.550
- So a little bit of historical, a couple of historical questions here. So the last time we did a rate

00:40:48.550 --> 00:40:57.204
- case review on water was four years ago, correct? Or were a little longer? A little bit longer. A little

00:40:57.204 --> 00:41:05.693
- bit longer. Okay. I was on the board when we did this previously, and I don't recall the exact number,

00:41:05.693 --> 00:41:08.990
- but I feel like four or five years ago,

00:41:09.762 --> 00:41:19.424
- we were still at this same point. And that point being the cost of service was 30% higher. Maybe it

00:41:19.424 --> 00:41:29.762
- was 26% higher. Does that ring a bell? Sure. Yeah. I'm sure it was more than, yeah. So I guess my question

00:41:29.762 --> 00:41:39.038
- is, are we doing enough? Are we going to come back in four years and that number is going to be

00:41:39.746 --> 00:41:46.480
- 32.1%. I mean, are we doing enough to just kind of keep it status quo? We're not moving there.

00:41:46.480 --> 00:41:53.569
- And to me, that really doesn't matter to me personally. What matters to me is that we are providing

00:41:53.569 --> 00:42:00.941
- the most excellent water that we can and we're a great place for our employees to work and we're a safe

00:42:00.941 --> 00:42:08.030
- place. So, you know, where we fall in the state really doesn't matter. What matters to me is are we

00:42:08.610 --> 00:42:18.542
- setting our, by not taking perhaps a higher increase, whether it's now or later, we're never going to

00:42:18.542 --> 00:42:28.668
- catch up with what expenses are. And there are many organizations that I know of, you know, non-profit,

00:42:28.668 --> 00:42:37.918
- for-profit, city organizations that we, it just costs, it costs too much, or the costs do not,

00:42:38.530 --> 00:42:47.017
- get covered by the revenues. And are we just going to continue to be in this hole for years to come?

00:42:47.017 --> 00:42:55.671
- If that makes sense. I guess that's what I mean. Are we doing enough? Are we doing enough? And in four

00:42:55.671 --> 00:43:04.074
- years from now, are we still going to say it's 30% or 35% against cost of study? I'll say that it's

00:43:04.074 --> 00:43:05.502
- hard to predict.

00:43:05.634 --> 00:43:13.828
- what it would be the next time if it's gonna be a 30% or a 25% need as the economy changes, as our goals

00:43:13.828 --> 00:43:22.101
- change, and as the projects that we want to be able to do to provide the best quality water in the future

00:43:22.101 --> 00:43:29.905
- changes, right? Right now with where we are in our CIP and the projects that we've prioritized that

00:43:29.905 --> 00:43:35.134
- we've used the business risk analysis study from Westler, this is,

00:43:35.650 --> 00:43:43.203
- what we can do and what we can handle in the next four or five years. And this rate helps us do that.

00:43:43.203 --> 00:43:50.831
- So when we come around for another rate case, it'll be dependent on what are the goals of the utility?

00:43:50.831 --> 00:43:58.607
- What are the projects we have planned? What are, you know, where are we at in comparison to the economy?

00:43:58.607 --> 00:44:03.198
- And so that's, those I think are the major factors that would

00:44:03.810 --> 00:44:15.213
- influence an x-ray case. That answers my question. Thank you. I'm just repeating things I've said before

00:44:15.213 --> 00:44:26.290
- relevant to Amanda's point. It is likely, I suppose, that the state regulatory board will not give us

00:44:26.290 --> 00:44:33.566
- as much of an increase as we're asking. And secondly, it will take

00:44:34.530 --> 00:44:42.516
- a long period of time before it goes into effect. So I simply repeat my statement that I make every

00:44:42.516 --> 00:44:50.661
- year, that wouldn't it be nice to be out of the grips of the state regulatory commission and doing it

00:44:50.661 --> 00:44:59.047
- ourselves more quickly and efficiently and without having it cut by someone who may not understand fully

00:44:59.047 --> 00:45:03.838
- what our needs and costs are. So I just put that out there.

00:45:11.522 --> 00:45:19.672
- I can only ask what's the other option. What's the other option? That we set our own. That there are

00:45:19.672 --> 00:45:27.902
- cities in Indiana that are not under the jurisdiction of the State Regulatory Commission. Is that not

00:45:27.902 --> 00:45:36.132
- right, Chris? That is right, Jim. We can go through the process of removing ourselves from the IORC's

00:45:36.132 --> 00:45:41.054
- jurisdiction. We didn't think that was prudent in this case.

00:45:41.186 --> 00:45:48.812
- to council, council would set the rates, and we wouldn't have that next step of going up to the IURC.

00:45:48.812 --> 00:45:56.363
- So we understand the advantage, that one advantage, what are the disadvantages? Disadvantage is that

00:45:56.363 --> 00:46:04.438
- the buck stops here. We don't have the IURC reviewing the rates and having the OUCC protecting the customer

00:46:04.438 --> 00:46:10.718
- classes against the rates that we've set. Doesn't seem like much of a disadvantage.

00:46:11.330 --> 00:46:19.591
- And are we currently exploring this? I mean, Jim has brought this up several times. And I understand

00:46:19.591 --> 00:46:28.178
- that we are in the rate case situation right now, but I was under the impression about six, seven months

00:46:28.178 --> 00:46:36.030
- ago that there was a conversation happening about what would we do? What are the pros and cons?

00:46:39.618 --> 00:47:00.476
- Thank you What happens if the I or C does not accept like what what will the utilities department do

00:47:00.476 --> 00:47:09.150
- in that case what will you have to cut or

00:47:10.466 --> 00:47:21.271
- So if the full rate is not approved by the IURC, we will need to look at our expenses and likely cut

00:47:21.271 --> 00:47:32.932
- projects. So those priorities are not known yet. What would be cut in that case? We do have a prioritization

00:47:32.932 --> 00:47:38.174
- from Westler. So we would prioritize things like

00:47:38.274 --> 00:47:47.832
- much needed improvements at the plant. We would prioritize being able to continue to deliver clean and

00:47:47.832 --> 00:47:55.070
- safe drinking water. But those changes would come before the board. Oh, yeah.

00:47:58.626 --> 00:48:05.458
- I've answered many of my questions throughout all of the fellow board members. One of them was that,

00:48:05.458 --> 00:48:12.222
- so it's 3.5 average units per month for our average customer. Because when I appreciate you sharing

00:48:12.222 --> 00:48:19.460
- your bill, and when we see the monthly impacts on our residential customers, those using say 5,000 gallons

00:48:19.460 --> 00:48:26.563
- and below, it's $6.06 increase per month and then less, but then reaching up to our 50,000 gallon users,

00:48:26.563 --> 00:48:28.592
- they have an increase of $48,

00:48:28.592 --> 00:48:35.546
- and 10 cents per month. And so I recognize that's a significant or a much larger dollar amount. And

00:48:35.546 --> 00:48:42.570
- so at some point, I would be interested to see a breakdown of like how many customers fall into each

00:48:42.570 --> 00:48:49.594
- of these different categories just on average, not like a big, it took me a whole day's work to find

00:48:49.594 --> 00:48:56.618
- this information, but maybe if that's something that we've provided with the study that we could see

00:48:56.618 --> 00:48:58.078
- sometime, thank you.

00:48:58.978 --> 00:49:06.073
- I also have concerns about thinking back to our last rate case and I was newly on the board at that

00:49:06.073 --> 00:49:13.167
- time and they did, IURC did not give us what we had requested. Have we taken, what feedback have we

00:49:13.167 --> 00:49:20.262
- taken from that experience and applied to this rate case so we're more prepared and more likely for

00:49:20.262 --> 00:49:27.428
- them to say yes, City of Bloomington Utilities, we see that you have these needs and we are going to

00:49:27.428 --> 00:49:28.350
- approve them

00:49:28.642 --> 00:49:36.144
- to be implemented? So I can definitely name one. So our last rate case came with a settlement where

00:49:36.144 --> 00:49:44.022
- there were entities called interveners. And so an agreement as part of that settlement was that we would

00:49:44.022 --> 00:49:51.599
- have these meetings before we filed to discuss our cost of service study. There were a lot of things

00:49:51.599 --> 00:49:56.926
- that we agreed to. This cost of service study was one of those things.

00:49:58.402 --> 00:50:05.949
- And so I think that having that open communication with these stakeholders will go a long way in the

00:50:05.949 --> 00:50:13.646
- IURC hearings and just doing everything we can to do pre-filing meetings and to communicate well ahead

00:50:13.646 --> 00:50:21.118
- of time to give plenty of time for deliberation. I think that's gonna really help us out this time.

00:50:27.586 --> 00:50:37.063
- Like here's the evidence for why we need this kind of thing. Oh, yeah, I think. Thank you for that answer.

00:50:37.063 --> 00:50:46.540
- And then I'm just double checking. I've got everything. Oh, I was not able to attend any of the additional

00:50:46.540 --> 00:50:55.486
- public meetings. Can you please give us feedback? Did we have any customers that attended? OK, sure.

00:50:55.938 --> 00:51:04.312
- So it was sparsely attended. So you provided the opportunity. Yes. And that's what's important. And

00:51:04.312 --> 00:51:12.686
- for plenty of people we have, for those of you who can't see and you're watching from home, we have

00:51:12.686 --> 00:51:21.143
- a whole room full of chairs here for you. Yes, we provided space and seating for I think at least 60

00:51:21.143 --> 00:51:24.158
- attendees out in the chairs. And we

00:51:24.418 --> 00:51:31.906
- Each had a presentation from, we also had a screen out in lobby in case we had overflow. Um, we had

00:51:31.906 --> 00:51:39.917
- presentations by myself, which is a lot of what you saw today. Um, this was kind of an abbreviated version

00:51:39.917 --> 00:51:47.555
- of that. And then, uh, we also had presentations by Crow and Stantec at the meeting as well. Uh, Jeff

00:51:47.555 --> 00:51:53.470
- attended and, uh, gave us a lot of great questions and a lot of good feedback.

00:51:56.706 --> 00:52:01.643
- Thank you. And then I just want to highlight the things that I really heard that were important with

00:52:01.643 --> 00:52:06.580
- this rate case that we're providing safe and sustainable a fluoride delivery system, which I know is

00:52:06.580 --> 00:52:11.517
- important. And when our customers hear about the increase, I know that's something that they see the

00:52:11.517 --> 00:52:16.405
- value in that and know the importance of it. Obviously they see the value in everything, but that's

00:52:16.405 --> 00:52:19.582
- like a really important and our water main replacement projects.

00:52:19.874 --> 00:52:28.404
- and our improvement and preparedness for disasters. So those are some of the things that really stuck

00:52:28.404 --> 00:52:37.102
- out to me along with all of the other things I feel are very valid that our organization needs and will

00:52:37.102 --> 00:52:45.883
- benefit from and I hope that the IURC sees the dedication that we've put into this rate case and rewards

00:52:45.883 --> 00:52:48.894
- us with an accepted proposal. Okay.

00:52:49.154 --> 00:52:56.702
- Thank you. We've talked a little bit about the capital improvements plan and there's been some discussion

00:52:56.702 --> 00:53:03.824
- over the last year and a half about maybe we got behind on some of this. We weren't keeping up with

00:53:03.824 --> 00:53:11.443
- all the things that needed to be done as fast as we should have. And that's probably, as you've mentioned,

00:53:11.443 --> 00:53:19.134
- it could be a combination of constraints on our ability or capacity to do so much at a time, but maybe also

00:53:19.554 --> 00:53:26.939
- resources, so it may be a combination. Are you comfortable with looking at the capital improvements

00:53:26.939 --> 00:53:34.990
- plan that Wexler's put together for us? Are you comfortable with us tracking so that we don't find ourselves

00:53:34.990 --> 00:53:42.449
- playing catch-up ball? And we've kind of talked a little bit about this before, but are we are we in

00:53:42.449 --> 00:53:49.022
- good enough shape with this request that we can fully stay on track with what Wexler has

00:53:50.242 --> 00:53:59.161
- projected that we need to replace. Yes, I see this capital improvement plan and what we've put into

00:53:59.161 --> 00:54:08.168
- this as our catch up. You know, I'd love for this plan to have, you know, more innovative treatments

00:54:08.168 --> 00:54:17.444
- and, you know, looking at things that we could do to improve our treatment processes and modernize some

00:54:17.444 --> 00:54:20.030
- things. But really what this

00:54:20.290 --> 00:54:30.210
- What this capital improvement plan does is play the catch up in necessary electrical and instrumentation,

00:54:30.210 --> 00:54:39.850
- making sure our equipment is up to date, and making sure that our treatment plans and our distribution

00:54:39.850 --> 00:54:50.238
- system is in a good position. Have we pushed ourselves much with this? Like, if we had the ability to do more,

00:54:51.746 --> 00:55:02.294
- Capacity wise, have we in this request kind of asked for a little more to get us there in case we could?

00:55:02.294 --> 00:55:12.642
- So are you asking if this request includes additional funds for projects outside of kind of what we've

00:55:12.642 --> 00:55:20.478
- laid out in the capital plan or? Well, maybe if you look at the capital plan,

00:55:21.634 --> 00:55:29.779
- and we expect this to take us the next four or five years. Did we maybe put the stuff from year six

00:55:29.779 --> 00:55:38.250
- in there? That's a different way to look at it, not specifically, but... This is very much the... Yeah,

00:55:38.250 --> 00:55:46.395
- actually, Phil would be great to talk about the capital improvement plan. Thanks, Phil. Phil Peton,

00:55:46.395 --> 00:55:47.454
- Engineering.

00:55:48.450 --> 00:55:54.409
- As she said, we went through the business risk assessment. Wessler did that study, and so what we did

00:55:54.409 --> 00:56:00.427
- was we took those numbers, and I don't have them in front of me, but I want to say it was seven to 10.

00:56:00.427 --> 00:56:06.561
- The highest scoring ones made it on the five-year CIP, and then we know that there's some that are going

00:56:06.561 --> 00:56:12.403
- to fall below that that are now put on a 20-year CIP so that we're tracking those so they can be in

00:56:12.403 --> 00:56:14.974
- the upcoming rate cases as we move forward.

00:56:15.906 --> 00:56:24.836
- Ms. Burnham asked a question earlier, and I think I would just add to Kat's response in the fact that

00:56:24.836 --> 00:56:27.550
- we are allocating funds toward

00:56:27.842 --> 00:56:33.767
- toward the projects that are in the five-year CIP. But I think when you look at the 10-year CIP, you're

00:56:33.767 --> 00:56:39.521
- going to see a very similar line of like, you know, it averages 13 million a year. We're going to be

00:56:39.521 --> 00:56:45.503
- similar for the next 10 years. As far as at least I've looked out. And so that is, so you had 64 million

00:56:45.503 --> 00:56:51.655
- plus the 18 million for the new service center. So we don't have a new service center in the next five-year

00:56:51.655 --> 00:56:57.808
- CIP that's in this one. So that's 64 divided by five, something like that. I feel like that's a projection.

00:56:57.808 --> 00:57:03.625
- hold me to it because that's there's still some fine-tuning with that CIP. As a staff we went through

00:57:03.625 --> 00:57:09.498
- this five-year CIP to see what we felt like was the the highest priority based on Westler's report and

00:57:09.498 --> 00:57:15.201
- what if there's anything that we could push off that maybe we didn't have time or at the allocation

00:57:15.201 --> 00:57:20.960
- of resources staff to manage those projects at the plant maybe some of those projects can't go on at

00:57:20.960 --> 00:57:23.070
- the same time something like that so

00:57:23.170 --> 00:57:30.162
- We looked at that and we're able to cut, let's say, like 20 million out of this five-year CIP that will

00:57:30.162 --> 00:57:37.020
- go to the next five-year CIP. So we've looked at that. What I would say, at least my opinion is, that

00:57:37.020 --> 00:57:43.878
- we don't have a lot of buffer in the five-year CIP for additional projects if they come up. We didn't

00:57:43.878 --> 00:57:50.602
- have it in the last rate case. The SCADA project, the electrical project, there's multiple projects

00:57:50.602 --> 00:57:52.350
- that were in the previous

00:57:52.642 --> 00:58:00.397
- previous rate case that we never got to because we didn't have the funding to do so. By the time those,

00:58:00.397 --> 00:58:07.929
- Ms. Zegar has mentioned in the past that that was based off of a 2019 estimate that we had COVID, so

00:58:07.929 --> 00:58:15.758
- those estimates were off plus some other factors that came into play where that funding wasn't available

00:58:15.758 --> 00:58:19.934
- to handle the growth, the whole aspect of each project.

00:58:20.450 --> 00:58:28.069
- We're trying to catch up from what we couldn't do in the last break. And it's a lot of replacement to

00:58:28.069 --> 00:58:35.538
- things that the plan, and it's not expansion or anything like that. It sounds like we have a pretty

00:58:35.538 --> 00:58:39.422
- good case to get to these goals then with the IORC.

00:58:40.674 --> 00:58:47.672
- I feel like that that's true, especially with Wessler's report where we've really came in and gave it

00:58:47.672 --> 00:58:54.670
- a score and we know is that prioritization of each of each item that's listed in the CIP. The comment

00:58:54.670 --> 00:59:01.531
- was, I appreciate the fact that we've got some significant amounts here for generator and emergency

00:59:01.531 --> 00:59:07.774
- backup. That's been something we've learned that we have to deal with almost annually now.

00:59:08.290 --> 00:59:17.993
- of full use of those systems and we've come closer to running into trouble than we might realize sometimes.

00:59:17.993 --> 00:59:27.157
- So we want to stay ahead of that too. Thank you. And I also think we as a board recognize some of the

00:59:27.157 --> 00:59:36.500
- challenges that you guys have had, changes in leadership, things that were completely out of, you know,

00:59:36.500 --> 00:59:37.758
- control here.

00:59:38.882 --> 00:59:47.568
- I have to use my, I've washed my phrasing here. Some of the demands that are put on us by other entities

00:59:47.568 --> 00:59:56.006
- when we have to save limestone or we have to protect something here or somebody has done something in

00:59:56.006 --> 01:00:04.278
- their previous business and we're now found out about it. So there's all those things that are just

01:00:04.278 --> 01:00:07.422
- part of being a business that happen.

01:00:07.938 --> 01:00:15.379
- And those things have affected the bottom line of the budget when all of a sudden you have something

01:00:15.379 --> 01:00:22.893
- that has to be done that's not gonna get reimbursed, that we can't get a grant for, and we need X, Y,

01:00:22.893 --> 01:00:30.260
- and Z accomplished no matter what the cost is. So we can do all kinds of planning, but there's just

01:00:30.260 --> 01:00:37.406
- things that are just gonna happen over the next five years that are gonna be out of our control.

01:00:38.018 --> 01:00:46.508
- I just want to say that for things that haven't happened, there's sometimes been reasons why things

01:00:46.508 --> 01:00:54.997
- haven't happened. And we're working forward so that we can control what we can control and continue

01:00:54.997 --> 01:01:01.534
- to work through those issues and work as a team. So I just want to say that.

01:01:04.194 --> 01:01:13.417
- Finally, I'd just like to repeat something I've said before. I can assure any of the public that's watching

01:01:13.417 --> 01:01:22.041
- that every employee of CBU, whether it's engineering, environmental or administration, is incredibly

01:01:22.041 --> 01:01:28.446
- underpaid. Given their experience and their expertise, they are underpaid.

01:01:28.546 --> 01:01:37.198
- There are no big salaries out there that are eating up your monthly payments. And the service on the

01:01:37.198 --> 01:01:45.764
- board, we do get paid a modest amount, and I guarantee that nobody among the seven of us is serving

01:01:45.764 --> 01:01:54.587
- on this board because of pay that we're getting. We aren't paid. So, you know, I just want to say that

01:01:54.587 --> 01:01:58.014
- because this is an incredibly well done

01:01:58.210 --> 01:02:09.139
- organization, given the expertise that it takes to do what these folks do. I want to go back into the

01:02:09.139 --> 01:02:20.069
- weeds just on one topic. I'm sorry. So I asked at an earlier meeting what the estimated amount of the

01:02:20.069 --> 01:02:27.998
- new building is going to be. And I'm wondering if someone can state that.

01:02:28.194 --> 01:02:41.526
- where we're at with that number today. Again, I'm asking because in the in the capital improvement plan,

01:02:41.526 --> 01:02:48.382
- you know, it's listed as 17 million for the building.

01:02:49.250 --> 01:02:58.200
- buildings, sorry, and 1.75 million for the soft costs. So 18.75 million. If we indeed are splitting

01:02:58.200 --> 01:03:07.329
- the cost 60-40, then that works out to just under 47 million for the entire package of soft costs and

01:03:07.329 --> 01:03:15.294
- building. Is that our number that we are still at? Or is it indeed larger as I remember?

01:03:15.682 --> 01:03:24.031
- It's an ever-growing number. The longer we wait to build it. And so at one point, 46, between 46 and

01:03:24.031 --> 01:03:32.545
- 48 was the number depending on the add-ons. So Weddle did kind of a construction management assessment

01:03:32.545 --> 01:03:40.811
- of it and said it's between, you know, 46 and 48 depending on your add-ons. And some of the add-ons

01:03:40.811 --> 01:03:43.870
- were not really optional. They were,

01:03:44.578 --> 01:03:55.900
- definitely a part of the service center. So 48 is a little closer to what they had given us in the summer

01:03:55.900 --> 01:04:06.687
- of 2024. If you take the construction cost index, price index, and apply that to that number, by the

01:04:06.687 --> 01:04:13.950
- time we end up actually paying for it, it'll be closer to 52 to 54.

01:04:14.114 --> 01:04:25.918
- that is where we're at and so we're hoping to line up our yeah so as far as how we are planning on funding

01:04:25.918 --> 01:04:37.061
- it we are taking we have not bonded for the project in either utility because we were waiting to see

01:04:37.061 --> 01:04:41.694
- how this rate case will go seems like the

01:04:41.954 --> 01:04:50.475
- right financial decision. Um, so, but we are holding, we are, we have been approved for the wastewater

01:04:50.475 --> 01:04:59.575
- portion, but we've been holding back the money that we would be paying for debt service on that to anticipate

01:04:59.575 --> 01:05:08.261
- when we take out the bonds for the Winston Thomas project. Um, when we do our next sewer and storm rate,

01:05:08.261 --> 01:05:09.502
- we will adjust

01:05:10.018 --> 01:05:17.975
- that estimate as part of that rate case so that we're trued up both in water and in wastewater. Does

01:05:17.975 --> 01:05:26.090
- that help? Well, if at some point you could show us on a piece of paper how those numbers work, I hear

01:05:26.090 --> 01:05:34.205
- you all, but that last little bit, I don't understand where we'd get the water side of it from a sewer

01:05:34.205 --> 01:05:38.302
- rate increase. But if you could at some point soon,

01:05:38.466 --> 01:05:47.847
- Present that to us and just in how that's going to work and where the money is coming from that would

01:05:47.847 --> 01:05:57.135
- be helpful. Yeah Yeah, take a note and Visually, it might be easier for me to wrap my head around it

01:05:57.135 --> 01:06:00.446
- if it's written out And then on the

01:06:00.578 --> 01:06:10.032
- the capped usage rate for irrigation, and it changed our residential from 18.9 to 19.8, so less than

01:06:10.032 --> 01:06:19.673
- a 1% difference. And if we apply that to $30 for the bill, the water part of the bill that was on your

01:06:19.673 --> 01:06:29.502
- bill? Yeah, so that's, you know, then we're talking about 30 cents. Thank you, Jim, for your quick math.

01:06:29.986 --> 01:06:37.754
- So it's not nothing, but it's very, very small. It's not fair, but that's what we're stuck with. And

01:06:37.754 --> 01:06:45.752
- the hope is, again, to realize the full cost of irrigation at the next rate case. Is that correct? Yes,

01:06:45.752 --> 01:06:53.904
- this will get us closer to the full cost of service for the irrigation customer class that we are hoping.

01:06:53.904 --> 01:06:59.134
- And then when our consultant, Stantec, was talking at the very end,

01:06:59.394 --> 01:07:08.595
- the man's voice, I'm sorry, I forgot names. Andy. He talked about something about conservation in regards

01:07:08.595 --> 01:07:17.362
- to irrigation, but I didn't understand that statement. Sure. So a rate can also be a, oh, what's the

01:07:17.362 --> 01:07:25.522
- word I'm looking for? Andy knows the word. It's essentially, it's a motivator to an incentive

01:07:25.522 --> 01:07:27.518
- or disincentive. Yeah.

01:07:30.178 --> 01:07:38.364
- Yeah, essentially like if it's a higher rate, it's incentive to use less. And irrigation is a customer

01:07:38.364 --> 01:07:46.312
- class where you can be encouraged quite a bit to use less. And a rate can help encourage you to use

01:07:46.312 --> 01:07:55.134
- less, a higher rate. What is the word I'm looking for? OK, but there's still a fixed cost and a cost per unit.

01:07:55.298 --> 01:08:01.605
- we can't mix conservation rates and cost of service base rates, right? It's not a conservation rate.

01:08:01.605 --> 01:08:07.850
- That wasn't man, it was just that there's a higher cost, they're gonna be incentivized to conserve.

01:08:07.850 --> 01:08:14.219
- That's all he meant. Okay, thank you. That's all my questions, thank you. So that was a question that

01:08:14.219 --> 01:08:20.589
- I've actually missed because it was, yeah, the irrigation is closer to the cost of service and you've

01:08:20.589 --> 01:08:22.462
- said we'll work to get there,

01:08:22.562 --> 01:08:29.568
- Like I don't know if any of us will be on the board when the next rate case comes around, but like,

01:08:29.568 --> 01:08:36.924
- I think our hope would be that we close, the gap is closed at the next rate case. Like not still getting

01:08:36.924 --> 01:08:44.070
- there, but it's done, I guess. I don't know, I don't feel like that's fair to pass along that even at

01:08:44.070 --> 01:08:49.534
- 30 cents or however much when other customers are using it, just like in the,

01:08:50.018 --> 01:08:57.105
- case of for annexation our county residents pay a higher rate because that costs more to get that to

01:08:57.105 --> 01:09:04.402
- them and so like I think that if our different customer class is using you know that cost higher amount

01:09:04.402 --> 01:09:11.700
- to get to them that I think that they should be billed the actual amount. I guess looking ahead I would

01:09:11.700 --> 01:09:12.542
- have rather

01:09:13.154 --> 01:09:20.342
- put in here the case for their actual amount, and then maybe the IURC said, you can't charge them that

01:09:20.342 --> 01:09:27.390
- much, and then it backed it off, and I don't know. But I feel that, specifically the irrigation, and

01:09:27.390 --> 01:09:34.578
- I'm not thinking of any particular customer in mind, so I just think that they should pay their actual

01:09:34.578 --> 01:09:40.510
- cost. Can I ask a follow-up to that? Yeah. What's the downside? Why didn't we? Yeah.

01:09:40.610 --> 01:09:49.419
- So, when we're looking at the rate design basing it off of the cost of service. We generally want to

01:09:49.419 --> 01:09:56.222
- avoid things like rate shock. And it's, it would be a huge spike all at once.

01:09:56.802 --> 01:10:03.201
- which is why we did make the decision to cap it at four times the revenue requirement. Even capping

01:10:03.201 --> 01:10:09.920
- at four times the revenue requirement is still quite a bit of a jump from a previous rate. And so that's

01:10:09.920 --> 01:10:16.639
- how we can do this a little more incrementally, um, and gradually get them to the cost of service. Would

01:10:16.639 --> 01:10:23.422
- we be worried about like people going out of business or like impact detrimental impacts to the customers

01:10:23.422 --> 01:10:25.790
- by dealing with that level of shock?

01:10:26.050 --> 01:10:34.838
- I believe that it's in general, one of the concerns behind rate shock is that, you know, it would have

01:10:34.838 --> 01:10:43.456
- acute adverse economic impact. Correct me if I'm wrong, Andy. I think you're right. And I also think

01:10:43.456 --> 01:10:51.988
- there's past precedent with the IURC as well in terms of maximum levels of increases that have been

01:10:51.988 --> 01:10:54.462
- accepted through past cases.

01:10:54.754 --> 01:11:00.854
- for customers in terms of being higher than one to two times the overall level of increase. So we're

01:11:00.854 --> 01:11:07.135
- kind of working in that kind of a context and environment as well. But I think this approach definitely

01:11:07.135 --> 01:11:13.416
- gets us closer. And I think we'll make more progress than what was done in the last case, and even from

01:11:13.416 --> 01:11:16.254
- what I read from the case before that as well.

01:11:23.522 --> 01:11:34.794
- Any other questions or comments? I move approval of resolution 25-2025-16, adjustment of water rates

01:11:34.794 --> 01:11:46.289
- and charges for the City of Bloomington Water Works Utility. Second. All in favor please say aye. Aye.

01:11:46.289 --> 01:11:51.646
- All opposed say nay. It is approved. Thank you.

01:11:51.810 --> 01:12:01.108
- Request approval of resolution 2025-17, finance bond for 2025 water rate case, Chris Wheeler. Good evening.

01:12:01.108 --> 01:12:09.889
- Chris Wheeler with City Legal. And this is the finance bonding that's before you. We had Brad Bingham

01:12:09.889 --> 01:12:18.326
- come in and speak with the board. Well, virtually come in and speak with the board in the finance

01:12:18.326 --> 01:12:21.598
- subcommittee meeting a few weeks ago.

01:12:21.986 --> 01:12:28.834
- and also with, I think the board as a whole then at the regular meeting. He's with Barnes and Thornburg

01:12:28.834 --> 01:12:35.484
- and he is with us again this evening. And I think he's gonna walk us through at a fairly high level,

01:12:35.484 --> 01:12:42.265
- the bond ordinance as proposed. There he is, Mr. Bingham, please take it away and then we will ask the

01:12:42.265 --> 01:12:43.582
- board for approval.

01:12:50.978 --> 01:12:56.986
- The proposed resolution is kind of a companion piece to the rates and charges increase. Just like the

01:12:56.986 --> 01:13:02.936
- rates and charges, any bonds that the water works would also have to be approved by the IURC. So the

01:13:02.936 --> 01:13:09.239
- idea is to move these two pieces in tandem. The maximum authorized amount of the bonds would be authorized

01:13:09.239 --> 01:13:15.129
- to $71 million. That's consistent with what Jennifer Wilson has assumed in her cost of study survey

01:13:15.129 --> 01:13:20.254
- as well. It would be used to finance the bonds listed in exhibit A of that resolution.

01:13:20.482 --> 01:13:26.214
- That's just a subset of the overall projects in the capital improvement plan. It's contemplated there

01:13:26.214 --> 01:13:32.002
- would be two separate series of bonds, one issued in 2026 and a separate series in 2028. Each of those

01:13:32.002 --> 01:13:37.790
- would have their own separate 20-year maximum bond term. And again, this approves the form of the bond

01:13:37.790 --> 01:13:43.465
- ordinance that would actually go to the council. So this is more of a recommending step. And then if

01:13:43.465 --> 01:13:49.534
- the council approves it, then it goes to the IURC for their consideration along with the rates and charges.

01:13:50.402 --> 01:13:59.772
- having any questions about the resolutions or the ordinance or just the overall financing process. Any

01:13:59.772 --> 01:14:09.233
- questions? And then do we have a motion for approval? I move we approve resolution 2025-17, the finance

01:14:09.233 --> 01:14:18.421
- bond resolution. Second. All in favor please say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Request is approved.

01:14:18.421 --> 01:14:19.422
- Thank you.

01:14:24.290 --> 01:14:31.866
- Item eight, request approval of resolution 2025-18, bid acceptance and contract award for Toric Engineering

01:14:31.866 --> 01:14:38.951
- for Blue Chipool SCADA improvements. Mark Menafee. Hello, Mark Menafee with Engineering, here to ask

01:14:38.951 --> 01:14:46.386
- approval of resolution 2025-18, and that's to accept the bids from Toric Engineering for the Blue Chipool

01:14:46.386 --> 01:14:50.174
- SCADA improvements. Be happy to answer any questions.

01:15:01.474 --> 01:15:11.137
- Approve resolution 2025-18, bid acceptance for the Toric Engineering and Blucher Pool skater improvements.

01:15:11.137 --> 01:15:20.168
- Second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, say nay. Request is approved. Next, we have

01:15:20.168 --> 01:15:29.470
- request approval of service agreement with Toric Engineering LLC for Blucher Pool skater improvements.

01:15:30.306 --> 01:15:39.822
- I'm also here to ask approval for the service agreement, the contract with Toric Engineering for this

01:15:39.822 --> 01:15:49.432
- project at Blucher Pool. Happy to answer any questions. I move we approve the service agreement, Toric

01:15:49.432 --> 01:16:00.254
- Engineering, for Blucher Pool skated improvements. Second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, say nay.

01:16:00.866 --> 01:16:10.155
- is approved. Thank you very much. Next we got a request approval of letter of engagement with Ice Miller

01:16:10.155 --> 01:16:19.089
- LLP for PFAS litigation. Chris Wheeler. Hi Chris Wheeler City Legal this item before you is a letter

01:16:19.089 --> 01:16:26.078
- of engagement the city would like to hire Ice Miller to represent the city and

01:16:26.786 --> 01:16:34.689
- in a class action litigation that's going on against 3M and DuPont concerning Forever Chemicals. And

01:16:34.689 --> 01:16:42.671
- this is not going to cost the city. This is one of those matters where if any kind of payment is made

01:16:42.671 --> 01:16:50.887
- to the city out of the class action lawsuit, the law firm would then get paid out of that. That includes

01:16:50.887 --> 01:16:56.286
- any expenses that they may have that they will incur for litigation.

01:16:56.450 --> 01:17:03.586
- It will also allow the city to do additional testing of its drinking water at the source, and I believe

01:17:03.586 --> 01:17:10.585
- drinking water at the plant in order to see where our levels of PFAS currently are. We have tested in

01:17:10.585 --> 01:17:17.516
- the past. We have folks here who can talk about PFAS and what our levels are now. They are extremely

01:17:17.516 --> 01:17:24.446
- low. They are below what the federal recommended allowed level would be at this time, but any amount

01:17:24.738 --> 01:17:31.853
- any trace amount, any amount whatsoever of PFAS found in our drinking our source water allows us to

01:17:31.853 --> 01:17:39.111
- be eligible for this class action lawsuit. I attended a seminar with Ice Miller discussing this class

01:17:39.111 --> 01:17:46.796
- action lawsuit. Then we had a meeting with Ice Miller with most of the assistant directors and the director

01:17:46.796 --> 01:17:53.982
- and myself included to discuss the merits of going forward with this. And we believe it is a benefit

01:17:54.498 --> 01:18:01.928
- to the utilities, to the city, to the citizens of the city if we would engage in this class action lawsuit.

01:18:01.928 --> 01:18:09.014
- And I would ask the board to approve this letter of engagement. Any questions or comments? Who are the

01:18:09.014 --> 01:18:16.031
- other complainants in the class action? Multiple cities across the country. I don't know who they all

01:18:16.031 --> 01:18:23.048
- are. So beyond Indiana. It's an awful lot, yes. There are multiple cities within the state of Indiana

01:18:23.048 --> 01:18:24.286
- that are engaged.

01:18:24.418 --> 01:18:32.319
- and then all across the country. Thanks. How do we select ice Miller for this? Well, because they are

01:18:32.319 --> 01:18:40.220
- currently engaged in representing cities in Indiana in this class action, and they were the ones that

01:18:40.220 --> 01:18:48.044
- presented the seminar. And so I brought them to meet up with elements of the utilities department to

01:18:48.044 --> 01:18:50.910
- discuss the potential of using them.

01:18:56.514 --> 01:19:04.588
- time you've already put into it what kind of time even though there's no cost will you or any of our

01:19:04.588 --> 01:19:12.743
- staff be putting into the lawsuit. That's a good question and I don't know that I can really give you

01:19:12.743 --> 01:19:20.977
- a good answer to that. I'm not sure what amount of time would be asked of our employees to provide any

01:19:20.977 --> 01:19:25.694
- data or information. We were already doing testing so that

01:19:25.794 --> 01:19:34.023
- Data is already, we've already sunk the cost of getting that data. The additional testing that will

01:19:34.023 --> 01:19:42.992
- occur will be from an outside testing company that will come in and do the testing for us, so that shouldn't

01:19:42.992 --> 01:19:51.385
- take up, and that is not at our expense as well. That's additional benefit to us to get those results

01:19:51.385 --> 01:19:54.430
- at no cost anyway, right? Thank you.

01:19:57.858 --> 01:20:06.731
- I don't understand where this is coming from. What has... There's a class action lawsuit currently going

01:20:06.731 --> 01:20:15.520
- on against 3M and DuPont because they manufacture forever chemicals that go on to various products that

01:20:15.520 --> 01:20:23.971
- are used throughout the country that have caused a great deal of contamination in drinking water in

01:20:23.971 --> 01:20:27.774
- soil. And so the fact that it's going on now

01:20:28.066 --> 01:20:36.067
- they are there are agreements and settlements that are occurring and if we opt into the class action

01:20:36.067 --> 01:20:43.990
- lawsuit we are eligible to receive some of the settlement that will come out if we miss out on this

01:20:43.990 --> 01:20:52.467
- opportunity we could still sue some companies that use forever chemicals but we may not be very successful

01:20:52.467 --> 01:20:56.190
- in getting after 3M or DuPont who are the main

01:20:57.186 --> 01:21:03.749
- I want to say culprits, probably not the best word, but the main manufacturers of these chemicals that

01:21:03.749 --> 01:21:10.184
- have caused problems for our citizens and for the country. So there is a timing element that we want

01:21:10.184 --> 01:21:16.810
- to get involved so that we can be eligible to receive some of the funding somewhere down the road. Some

01:21:16.810 --> 01:21:23.755
- of the payments that come out of the settlement. Thank you. And that money that would come under settlement,

01:21:23.755 --> 01:21:26.558
- would it come to CBU or is it the city that

01:21:28.738 --> 01:21:40.795
- Well, it goes to the utilities department because it's a water issue. It'll go towards our ability to

01:21:40.795 --> 01:21:53.089
- someday down the line treat for if we need to and try to prevent PFAS from being in our drinking water.

01:21:53.089 --> 01:21:58.526
- So we tested for PFAS in our source water and

01:21:58.658 --> 01:22:06.722
- Our last tests, if I'm remembering correctly, the amount of PFAS in the source water was less than the

01:22:06.722 --> 01:22:14.785
- federal limits at the time for PFAS in finished drinking water. And our drinking water was non-detect.

01:22:14.785 --> 01:22:22.770
- I'm thinking more of like... It was non-detect, is that what you said? Yeah. Yeah, that's... The work

01:22:22.770 --> 01:22:28.094
- that was done on the west side, like in case... Oh, those are PCBs.

01:22:28.322 --> 01:22:36.752
- So the federal limits are coming are being determined by the EPA and if if we ever if we ever get to

01:22:36.752 --> 01:22:45.182
- a point where we need to start treating for PFAS it's extremely expensive so the money that we would

01:22:45.182 --> 01:22:53.529
- we would like to be able to receive some of the funding if we can I keep calling it funding but the

01:22:53.529 --> 01:22:55.198
- settlement payments

01:22:55.586 --> 01:23:03.422
- We would like to receive some of those if we can, because we would like to be able to use those to go

01:23:03.422 --> 01:23:11.412
- towards any kind of treatment that we may need to do, changes in our techniques. Yeah. And just to kind

01:23:11.412 --> 01:23:19.478
- of, again, reiterate what you're saying. It's nothing that we are, it's not chemicals that we're putting

01:23:19.478 --> 01:23:24.702
- in. No. It's not anything that CBU is doing. It's consumer product.

01:23:25.602 --> 01:23:33.889
- items that are getting into our water systems that are, whether it's through boating or whether it's

01:23:33.889 --> 01:23:42.095
- through fertilization or fertilizing or whatnot, that's the type of stuff we're talking about. It's

01:23:42.095 --> 01:23:50.628
- nothing that CBU has done through the treatment process. It's all outside source. Thank you. So I heard

01:23:50.628 --> 01:23:52.926
- you say that our raw water,

01:23:53.122 --> 01:24:00.805
- is detectable but below the limits and our finished water is undetectable. So our treatment is doing

01:24:00.805 --> 01:24:08.793
- something it would seem, is that correct? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yes, our current treatment methods are doing

01:24:08.793 --> 01:24:16.552
- something, yes. Thank you. They weren't designed specifically for PFAS. That's okay. Yes. Sounds like

01:24:16.552 --> 01:24:22.334
- this is another step in our mission of safe and sustainable drinking water.

01:24:22.690 --> 01:24:29.854
- I move we approve the letter of engagement with Ice Miller for PFAS litigation. Second. All in favor

01:24:29.854 --> 01:24:37.230
- please say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Request is approved. Thank you. Next we have request approval

01:24:37.230 --> 01:24:44.323
- of agreement for professional services with GRW engineering incorporated for lower cascades culvert

01:24:44.323 --> 01:24:46.238
- replacement. Jane Fleague.

01:24:46.978 --> 01:24:53.565
- chain fleet for the record. This is a request to approve a professional services agreement. This is

01:24:53.565 --> 01:25:00.482
- for the design and permitting of a culvert project in lower cascades. There's, I don't know if you drive

01:25:00.482 --> 01:25:07.266
- down that road very often, but there are a couple of head walls that at least the one on the east side

01:25:07.266 --> 01:25:10.494
- is broken. We want to replace that culvert under

01:25:10.658 --> 01:25:19.336
- Cascades Road and actually continue it to a connection point to the east it's about 80 feet long and

01:25:19.336 --> 01:25:28.272
- this would be the design and the survey design and Working with the permitting agencies because we will

01:25:28.272 --> 01:25:33.342
- be working in a floodway so IDNR IDM a 401 a 404 permit so

01:25:33.634 --> 01:25:42.519
- We're asking for this contract in the amount not to exceed $181,860. It does currently include potential

01:25:42.519 --> 01:25:51.151
- construction engineering services, but those could be, we could decide at a later date that those are

01:25:51.151 --> 01:25:59.783
- not necessary, but it's currently shown in there. I'd be happy to answer any questions. So remind me,

01:25:59.783 --> 01:26:00.798
- is there a,

01:26:00.994 --> 01:26:09.768
- Is there a minimum distance under which these projects fall within city jurisdiction and beyond that

01:26:09.768 --> 01:26:18.630
- it's county or is that just bridges? Any bridge structure over 20 feet in span is county. There would

01:26:18.630 --> 01:26:25.406
- be county bridges. This is about 16 feet in span. Okay, otherwise it would be

01:26:25.730 --> 01:26:43.989
- And it is lower cascades old State Road 37 which is a city-maintained street I Don't know I was gonna

01:26:43.989 --> 01:26:47.390
- say if it is we've

01:26:47.522 --> 01:27:02.758
- We got 90 years out of it, so not so bad. These are concrete head walls. I'm sure that this company

01:27:02.758 --> 01:27:16.318
- will be able to tell us that before it's over. Yes. Well, I'll move approval then of the

01:27:16.738 --> 01:27:24.837
- Agreement for professional services with GRW Engineering. Second. All in favor please say aye. Aye.

01:27:24.837 --> 01:27:32.937
- All opposed say nay. Request is approved. Thank you. Thank you. Moving along. Old business. Any old

01:27:32.937 --> 01:27:41.522
- business from the board? Old business from staff. New business. New business from the board. New business

01:27:41.522 --> 01:27:42.494
- from staff.

01:27:44.770 --> 01:27:53.197
- Subcommittee reports, we had none today. Staff reports. Yeah, we just have one. We would like to welcome

01:27:53.197 --> 01:28:01.785
- Derek Belcher, who's our new instrumentation and control specialist, who will be working in our operations

01:28:01.785 --> 01:28:09.892
- division. We're very excited to have him. Welcome. How did your branching presentation go? Oh. Yeah.

01:28:09.892 --> 01:28:13.022
- Oh, that was weeks ago. 100 years ago.

01:28:13.730 --> 01:28:22.064
- I think the budget presentation went really well. There were some good questions. The council did some

01:28:22.064 --> 01:28:30.316
- follow-up questions that were written, which we gave written responses to, primarily asking about the

01:28:30.316 --> 01:28:38.731
- negative budgeted number in E&R for water, which we've explained. But yeah, I think it went really well

01:28:38.731 --> 01:28:41.886
- overall. I stayed under time. Awesome.

01:28:43.138 --> 01:28:52.105
- Next, petitions and communications. Any petitions or communications from the public? Hearing none, do

01:28:52.105 --> 01:28:54.654
- we have a motion to adjourn?