And the first item on the agenda will be presented by Matt Harvey, and it deals with the septic collar rate adjustment.
 subject hauler or waste hauler is. These are the trucks that go around to people that have subject systems and clean those out. They have to take that waste someplace and they currently take it down to our Dillman plant. You wanna move? Go ahead. So I was gonna take you through kind of what we do currently and then take you through the analysis that was done by Crow and then present to you what our suggestion is going forward with these rates.
 So as I said, the septic colors dispose of the waste at Dilbin. They do that. Before they do that, they have to come here and they have to buy what's called a dump ticket. And that's when they pay the utility for them dumping their waste into our plant. Currently, those rates are based on that schedule that I passed out. There's several different rates. It's very confusing. And so part of the goal for the new process was to simplify it a little bit. And these tickets,
 When the waste haulers get to the dealment plant, they have to go into the front office, hand them the ticket, and then they go dump it, and then they leave. Those tickets are returned to our environmental team here at the service center, and our customer relations team tracks the payments currently. Go ahead. Sorry, so I have a full understanding. So these are private businesses who go to
 people who have a septic tank that are outside of the city, or potentially in the city, but have a septic tank, receive private payment for that, but to dispose of what is in the truck, they're going to Dillman to dispose of that. And this is that process. Thank you. They go to Dillman after they come here and pay us for a ticket, just saying that they did pay for a load to dump. So this next slide, oops, sorry.
 This slide is just a quick summary of the financial impact that we had in 2024 from these dump tickets. As you can see, we took in about 740,000 gallons of grease and we'll live $7.2 million a septic. And that averages out to about six cents a gallon for grease and about one cent a gallon for septic for weighted average of two cents, which will come into play when we are making our suggestion on how we move forward is why we brought the weighted average in.
 We did some research around some other utilities in the area that do take waste. Columbus, Indiana currently charges six cents a gallon, but they do not take grease. Terre Haute currently charges eight cents a gallon, and they do take grease. And again, if you see the weighted average between the two for us, it was two cents currently. But the new proposal is to get rid of the dump tickets.
 We've had badges are made, because there is a gate down at the Dillman plant. The idea would be for the waste haulers to have a badge that would give them access to the plant.
 a badge would be tied to a specific septic collar truck. And so if that septic collar truck is a 2000 gallon truck, every time they swipe that badge at the end of the month, we'll get a report from ITS here at the city. We'll get a report on how many times they swiped. And then every time they swiped, if it's like I said, a 2000 gallon truck or they'll get charged for 2000 gallons every time they swiped. So it'll just be like a one invoice every month instead of having to come by service center to buy tickets.
 Are there any questions so far on the process anyway? So is this kind of an incentive for them to come in with a full load? It's really meant to make the billing process simpler. I don't know if you grabbed one of these sheets, but currently we use this matrix to do the billing and the idea was just to make it more easier to follow and more straightforward.
 trying to think if from the efficiency standpoint for a hauler in their daily work flow, are we altering how they would do business? I'm just trying to make things as easy. I don't wanna, I wanna ask the questions about whether making this kind of a move where they would be charged
 How are they charged now? How do we know how much, how's this different than now? Now they're coming here. They come here and they buy a dump ticket based on this fee schedule. That's whatever, 50 lines long. And then they take that ticket and they take it into the front office at the Dillman plant. And then they're allowed to go back into the plant and dump. So there's, we don't measure how much they dump at the plant. We assume when they buy a ticket here that it's a full load.
 Okay, so we're really not changing things except we're getting rid of a step. And then they'll have, they'll just have access to it. They can just drive up to the gate and use their badge and then they can go dump and be on their way. Okay. So if their load is less than 2,000 gallons, they're still paying for 2,000 gallons. Correct. So when we say we're charging two cents a gallon, we're probably charging
 somewhat more because... Not currently, because this is the proposed process that we're not doing yet. We're still currently using the old process with the dump tickets. But from Kurt's question, no matter how much they... I see. So the process doesn't change. Not really. It's just simpler, yeah. But the point still is that they may be paying
 2,000 gallons when they dumped 1,500? Yeah, yeah. But that's kind of what they do now. Yeah, I know. But when we say we're charging them $0.02 a gallon, we're probably charging them more. $0.02 is the minimum. So if you're a hauler and you went and pumped somebody's septic tank and it was only 1,200 gallons, you might wait till the next day to actually go to the plant.
 So you have a full load. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. This might be answered later, but, um, so they would scan the badge to come in the facility, the plant, and then they would just be permitted to go right on back. There's not, like you said, when they get to the plant, then they check in with a person there, but we're eliminating that check in as well. So we're essentially giving these
 contractors, the full privileges of our plants? Is that what I'm hearing? I would say full. Yeah, so grounds access to wherever this particular dump site is. Yeah, right now we're going to be limiting it to certain business hours. So if that's part of the question, like would they be able to come in the middle of night and do it? Currently not right now.
 That may be an option we're exploring later to see how this, once we get this going, see how this goes. But it wouldn't be much different than currently because with the administration building, it's kind of separate from the rest of the plant. And so they check in there and then we'll come in and dump. So it wouldn't be much different. They would just not check in up here and just go right in.
 I currently have access to the whole plant, yes, once they're in the gate, but they go back to where they're... But they check in when they arrive, and then that stuff would be eliminated. Correct, correct. It would essentially be electronic though, so we could have a record even. We would know, like, somebody's checked in, like, you would know they're on site right now, not like, oh, I saw it later, oh, they came today, but someone would know that they're here. And then my other question is...
 How many contractors do we have currently that we work with that come in and receive tickets? I don't know that off the top of my head. Is it a guesstimate of like five, 20? It's no more than 20. Okay. It's a lot less than you think it is. I figured it wasn't a whole lot. It's not a whole lot. And has any of this new proposed process been from their feedback or is this strictly just from our
 This is just us trying to update the process. I don't know, it's been, has the fee structure and things hasn't been updated in over 12 years. And so that we, and then they've also, we want to close the gate at Dillman. And so changing to the batch process would allow us to close the gate at Dillman. Okay. Thank you. Sorry if this is already, sorry if this is already being asked, how will the haulers,
 What's the process for them getting an access badge? And since we have less than 20, will we communicate with them, tell them about the process, tell them? Obviously we will. But I guess what's the process for obtaining a badge? The process would be that we would have a badge assigned to each truck. And then based on how big that truck is, every month we get a report from ITS downtown that shows how many times that badge was swiped. And then we would bill them based on their swipes.
 Thank you. Oh god, sorry. So it's badged by truck, not by individual. Correct. Okay. What happens if somebody gets there and doesn't have their badge to get in? Do we have mechanisms to
 allow them to still do their work you know to come in like we can't be you know like sorry you don't have your ticket leave they can still get in if they go check in at the front okay the front desk and then they would have to call us and tell us the so-and-so is here with truck such-and-such and yeah and my other question is in regards to what's on this sheet what is it under pink I can't it's blacked out and I can't I mean it's been highlighted but it's been
 Oh wait, I think I can see it now. Grease waste. Yes, there you go. Grease waste, okay. I just had to turn my paper. You're good, you're good. It's not the most ideal thing. None, is there any action that we need to take? Oh, we're not over yet here. So again, the new process is simpler billing.
 and more access to the waste haulers with the badge. We did have Corot do a rate study for us on this. Their study came back in that they could justify us to charge 17.2 cents per gallon, which was an extremely large increase. And so what we're proposing, if you wanna go to the next slide, is that we kind of split the difference and move everything to eight cents a gallon. That doesn't give us our increase for now.
 And then what we would plan to do is the next wastewater rate case that we do, we would roll this in as part of that to get it up to where it quote unquote should be. So we don't have a pretty drastic increase for the waste haulers. So that was what we were going to propose in the title 10. Is that it? Yeah. So we just wanted to bring this to the board to give you all a chance to weigh in on what we're doing, why we're doing it.
 If you agree with the eight cents. I would also note that the eight cents is similar to other facilities in the region. So it was, you know, you're just splitting the difference, but also we used. It matched Terre Haute. So. What was the recommendation again? 17.2.
 So they would go from, the waste dollars would go from basically one cent up to 17 cents a gallon. But are they, I mean, how are they coming up with 17 cents? Are they looking at other areas and saying we could have, I mean, that would be comparable? They did a similar process that they would do for our wastewater rate case. They gathered our financial data and our cost data around servicing these customers and it came up with the 17.2 cents.
 So are we losing money? Most likely, yeah. Are we losing revenue? Well, not revenue, but we're losing. We're not charging them as much as it costs us to treat the waste. And for us to break even, if you will, it would have to be 17.2 cents per gallon. But given the fact that our rates haven't been updated in so long, that would just be a really huge increase for the haulers. And how much is the cost of installing this system?
 It was this ID system. Well, the gate was already there. So it was the cost of buying 50 new employee badges. Basically, it's existing system. Just adding them to it. Okay. So we know that it costs us 17.2 cents a gallon to process. Correct. Either. Well, grease and waste. We can buy them. Yes. Yeah. And that's
 Is that what we're going for with the rate case? But we would want to look at that during the rate case. Yeah, but we didn't want to do it all at once is because it's such a big, it's just a big increase for the haulers. So we're just kind of trying to take their perspective on that. So I'm thinking, why do we charge residential customers? Of course, the difference is the transmission system or collection system. But, um,
 Yeah, I'm trying to balance my thought between what it's costing us per gallon to process in terms of what we charge our residential customers if we've broken that out between collection and treatment. And then the other part of it is, how many gallons does it usually take to pump a septic tank? And how much is that gonna impact your average homeowner?
 Because it's gonna go from a penny a gallon to eight cents a gallon and That's a that's a sizable increase for someone getting this septic tank pump Which we encourage them to do responsibly so they don't fail. I Don't know what anybody know what the average septic tank I know how many gallons it takes to pump one and
 I do not know. Engineering? Nobody, any thoughts? Bill, why don't I always put you on the spot? I have a few hundred to a thousand back there. I used to have one, it was a thousand. A thousand gallons. A thousand and fifteen hundred according to AI and Google. Oh, thank you.
 for a two to three bedroom house might use 1,000, where a four bedroom might use like a 1250. So is this cost that the haulers have to pay eventually ends up adjusting their rates of what they're charging a consumer? Absolutely. Okay. Yeah, that's part of the reason we didn't want to just put the difference on the list.
 There's this balance between what it's costing us to do this and how much we're going to hit, I shouldn't say it that way, how much it's going to cost the customer to do responsible septic tank pumping and in the case of restaurants, it's a cost to their doing business as well. And I'm trying to balance the
 difference here because we try to phase these things in and not hit it all at once. This is a pretty big increase all at once for waste particularly. So that's what I'm trying to balance in my mind here about where that tipping point is. What does a typical rate payer pay now in terms of
 getting their septic time pumped. If I'm here, if we're saying the average is a thousand, a low average, we're charging $13 and 25 cents for a thousand of domestic waste. Okay. Now you're, then you're going to increase that by seven. If I'm, is that correct with my math that costs? So it's going to go from, let's say theoretically it was a thousand dollar or a thousand
 gallons at 1325, we've now increased it from 13 to 9275, if I'm doing my math correct. Yeah. But that's per what unit time? How often? Oh, and how many times they're pumped a year? I mean, if it's once a year, then that's not a big increase.
 If it's every month, that's a huge increase. So do you know what the average? What I've always heard is, as long as it's not a failing system, you're not going to have to pump it all the time. But if you're maintaining it regularly, it's what, every couple, five years? I've heard two to three, but. So you pump it every five years? That's not much to worry about.
 Even though it's seven times over five years. Yeah, from 13 to 90. Yeah, it's not. That's not an issue. I mean, if we're undercharging them, someone makes up the difference. And it's our rate payer. That's not fair either. Yeah. I have two questions. I see like an out of county column. How is this potential increase
 factored into that column. Out-of-county grease waste, it's $0.08 a gallon. I don't think there was any of you here in 2012 when this was implemented, but why? This was implemented for a reason, to charge our out-of-county customers more. Columbus folks can't go to Columbus and do that. Are they driving to Monroe County?
 to dump their waste, and then our local community is taking that on. So I feel that I do, with my limited information, support a difference with the out of county. My second comment is, what is our time frame on the next sewer rate case? Probably kick it off mid next year. And then implement when?
 Um, ideally, when would it be? Ideally, we would kick it off mid next year and implement any changes, um, at least the first phase in 2027. Okay. So things haven't progressed in like the water. And I know that's completely separate, but like, I think things are delayed somewhat.
 Right. Like we don't implement as fast as we expect. So with this, I mean, I can definitely like, I feel for these private businesses who are providing this service for our county customers. Um, and we need to provide this, you know, service to allow them to continue, um, disposing the waste. I see, um, the importance of phasing in the increase.
 But as it was already mentioned, then the rate payers have been taking on the sedential and expense. So we're not charging the cost of service. So I would like to see something that marks out, okay, you know, at this rate at this year, this rate at this year, this rate at this year, outside of the rate case, if that is a possibility, so where we can get it up to the 17.2 cents. And we know that and they can plan for that.
 of the rate case, sometimes things get delayed. There's a bigger difference with the water rate case with the IURC, and that is a little more time intensive. With the sewer and storm, we don't need to take that to the IURC. So typically sewer and storm rate cases can, I guess, be more timely. And we can definitely set out
 incremental steps, but ideally with our timeline for the sewer rate case, I could see that falling in nicely with such a timeline. Thank you. I have another question on the out of county expense. Even if we implemented this, how would we know if
 they were bringing in sewage from another county because there might be a contractor in Bloomington that services people in Brown County or down in Bedford. Our approach was that waste is kind of waste. It doesn't matter which county you come from, it's still waste. Again, that's kind of why we went to the one standard rate to just try to make this a little more clear and simple. I guess my thought was a business
 located outside of Monroe County. I wasn't thinking about a Monroe County business servicing customers outside of the county. In my mind, the out-of-county rate is a business coming from Bartholomew County and bringing that to Monroe County. And I don't even know who these businesses are. You all know. You know the customers. And that might not be a thing.
 So can you say that again? I didn't hear you. We have data for each holler, like each ticket is designated in county or out of county. So yeah, we can break that down. Okay. Thank you. So if we're at, if we're moving up to eight cents a gallon and this is going to put us in line with the highest cost provider in the region,
 I would assume that Tara Holt, who was mentioned, is also losing in this. Have we discussed that with them? Why wouldn't they? Why is that not a safe assumption, I guess? To get that number, I got it off the website. So I'm not sure. But I did actually physically go to Columbus. And they're talking about doing the same process that we're doing now
 with this, because they haven't upped their rates in a while either. So I can't talk to you if they're losing money or not, but I know that other places are considering moving their rate up. I think I'm good with this rate. With the understanding that as we take a look at the next set of sewer rates, we
 we might fall in line once we know we have a better idea of exactly what it's costing us to process a gallon of waste. So if it sounds like it's more than this, this is a good place to start. And as we take a look at a comprehensive view here next year, the next couple of years, then we might need to revisit this.
 that is the plan is to include this in the next wastewater case. So it will be part of that. I have one more question. I guess this is more of a plant question, but doesn't it? Wouldn't it? It seems like it would cost us more to process grease than it does wastewater. I don't know that. I don't know that we I don't. I'm a finance guy, so please take that. We have plants back.
 Oh yeah, there you go. I didn't know Hector was here, sorry. It takes more effort because it's not going to the pump station. So you need to involve heavy equipment, you need to involve labor, space, et cetera. So yeah, it is more expensive. We worked so hard to keep grease out of the collection system.
 In my mind, I was just thinking, how hard is it on our treatment system to be dumping 500 gallons of grease in the middle of it? So we have designated lagoon for that. And the plan that we are working right now is how we deal with grease. Pre-treatment help us to get samples to make sure that we can send it to the landfill.
 and how we deal with the grease is we pump that out, let it dry in another process in the drying vets, and then from there it would get hauled to the landfill. So what you're telling me, Hector, is if there's extra steps involved here, then your standard wastewater. Yes, in the standard wastewater it will just get here. So we may need to think about in the future what that costs us to do.
 because we're shipping this stuff to the landfill. Got it, thanks. We came to the average of 17.2 cents a gallon, but did it differentiate between grease and waste or not? Okay. But you can assume that maybe that is pulled up higher because of the grease, right? So there's two different treatments.
 like they're treated separately. So when you think about like grease in our treatment system, like they're two different processes entirely. So I don't know if the way that we process grease is inherently more expensive than the way that we process septic waste or the way that we process like sewage through the wet well. Cause there are a lot of, you know,
 expensive and complicated things as part of that treatment system. Yes, Greece involves heavy machinery and a different process, but it's not going through the same system. So it may not be inherently more expensive. Okay. Just thought, just food for thought. Not every county has a landfill. So some counties take landfills from other counties.
 Are we obligated to take septic waste into our system or can we just tell haulers you're going to have to take it to Brown County or Terre Haute because it's we're under charging and it affects negatively our system to do it. So I mean it's a nice thing. I'm just I'm just asking.
 Yeah, there's like a myriad of reasons why we would want to provide the service to the community. So, yeah, we're not obligated to accept it, but, you know, we would like to provide the service to the community so that people who have septic tanks keep them maintained, you know, so that folks who have grease, like restaurants who have grease interceptors, they keep those maintained to prevent grease from getting into our district or
 collection system. And so we're promoting, you know, best practices by providing a place for them to dump grease and septic waste. And you're talking about out of county, correct? Is what your question was about out of county? Well, no, I'm just generally cost to our ratepayers and the cost to our system is really high. Then, you know, I'm just asking. I understand that it's not an obligation, but
 It is, it does have benefits, so. As long as we're able to ultimately get the charge fair to what it cost us, then I'm fine with doing it, but I hope that can take place in a relatively short amount of time. And other communities reciprocate and take our waste that we, like I know some Madora is on our, you know, something every,
 a month or two. But I think I like the idea of if you're out of county, it's a higher rate. Probably we're charged higher rate to haul our sludge somewhere else too. I would be interested to know that. Okay. Any other questions? If not, do we need to take a committee vote on this and then bring it to the whole board?
 Yeah, I don't think we need to take a vote on this. Yeah, it's gonna be part of something that will bring to the board in the future. So it's coming in. It's coming for vote. Yeah. Yeah. We're not voting today to increase the correct the radar change the process. Correct. We could take a committee vote to say that so the committee recommends the full board.
 So this will come back to us No, this is not the official Then a community member who's maybe a business owner that does hallways to our plant
 and would have the opportunity to come and make a comment or something too, right? This is just gonna be part of something bigger. Yes, okay. You know, we're on that topic. I think when it does come back to us, we'd wanna bump the effective date out a month or two so that the haulers can start to make, they're gonna need to make customer rate adjustments in their systems.
 notify their customers of the changes, so you'd wanna bump that out a bit for the effective date. Yeah. Yeah, we would plan to phase this in, essentially putting an end date on when older tickets are still valid, and when we would be officially moving to this. So some folks have like, I come in and buy 10 tickets today,
 but it might take me until October to go through all 10. Correct. Okay, so you don't necessarily, you're not coming here every single trip. Right. Okay, thank you. Okay, if there are no more questions, we can move on. We can move to the second item on the agenda, which is the budget update for 2026. Yeah, so it is the 2026 budget season.
 Just want to preface this that this is a draft that this is just our first Crack at it here. So it's subject to change, but I just wanted to get the general story out there So if you wouldn't scroll down the revenues So we'll start off with the revenues here so you filled in
 We got actuals from 2022 to 2024. We just put in the budget this year. And then what we were currently proposing for next year, from a revenue perspective, we were really not expecting much change. As of right now, there's no rate changes for water or wastewater or stormwater going into effect next year at this point. We're hoping that we do get some water relief at some point next year, but we don't currently have that in the budget.
 So again, not a whole lot of change from the budget from a revenue side. Can you scroll down to the expenses? Again, this is the expenses. The thing that we really want to highlight on the water side,
 is the extensions and replacements line. Usually that is not a negative number. What we use that for is our budget has to be net zero. From a budget perspective, we can't show that we made or lost money. So how we do that from a budget perspective is we use the extensions and replacements as the plug to get it to zero.
 And so what this is saying is that based on our current roll-up, which again is still draft format, is we're gonna be short about $600,000 in next year's budget. On top of that, I think we brought this up quite a few times. We do have a critical project at the water plant to repair the chemical feed lines that we're working on. I don't know if that jars any memories or not, but we're also gonna need to borrow, we're gonna be short
 cash to pay for that on an ongoing basis. So in last year's budget cycle, we mentioned that we could possibly take a loan from wastewater to cover these things until we get our rate case. Based on what we're proposing, that's probably gonna happen if the water rate case gets delayed much more. So that's kind of why we're showing the negative E&R. We're just kind of calling out the fact that we probably gonna need that loan next year.
 That's the biggest story here. Yeah, go ahead, sorry. All correct. But other than that, there's no major changes, so. Yeah, and I think one thing worth, not to pound ourselves on the back here, but one thing I'm glad we've been able to do this year is we've really been closely monitoring our water cash funds, and every expense that's outside of regular operating, we've been,
 you know, saying like, okay, we have to think about this and what can we not do because we have to do this. And we've been really closely monitoring that for almost a full year now. Yeah, we meet every month and we go through the projects and update the spend and make sure we're not spending money that somebody else needs. Right.
 And so we've really been trying to be really tight with that. And I would say that because we've been doing that, we've been able to put off that loan for a while. But once we get into 2026, it's inevitable, especially with that large project. Yeah. You talked about a big expense for a chemical feeder system.
 Is that the system that involves getting fluoride into the local water? That I don't know. That does have an aspect of the fluoride system. I don't want to get into it too much in the finance subcommittee meeting. I will be bringing that to the full board just to let you all know that that project does have an aspect that touches the fluoride system, but the issues with the fluoride tank and
 feed system are bigger than that. So I will get into that in the full, make sure we have everyone here. So if we have a shortfall, I'm trying to figure out what these numbers, we're trying to increase the budget by 2.2%. So that's our estimated revenue increase.
 My apologies. No, no, it's okay. I just okay. Yeah, I do the same thing. I'm like, okay, so that was okay. So I've our if our anticipated revenue is increasing by 2.2%. What do we I mean, I don't like looking working in a negative and I'm sure you guys don't either. But something will have to change in the budget in the next year or we get a rate.
 change in a rate. Will we get the answer on the rate case in the next year? Yes. We are making good progress on that now. I just didn't know if that's something like where they're like, yeah, we'll have it to you. We'll have it to you. And then we're in 2027 and we didn't make any adjustments for that. And now we're 1.2 million in the hole.
 We have solid deadlines that we are meeting now. And I feel confident that we will have an answer on the rate case by next year. And as soon as we can get that, we'll be able to have the adjusted rate and whatever bonds that come with that. And also, if it helps to think about it, the loan from sewer
 I'm trying to explain the cash versus the budget. It won't have any budget impact on wastewater. We issued a really large bond last year in wastewater and we can't spend it as fast as we got it. So the wastewater side of things is really flush with cash right now. So what the plan would be is to take some of that cash from wastewater
 I'll let water use it for a short amount of time until we get the water rate case done and then a water bond issued. And then once we issue that water bond, we'll pay wastewater back. Right. And the projects that we're currently hoping to fund with that are accounted for. So it won't be like take unexpected. Right. And I have one other question. I know that last year's
 budget process, we were in a very different situation with leadership and whatnot, and I recall bringing up at the meeting a question about on the budget, are we working with the, are the department heads having a say so in how their budget is being constructed? Very much so, yes. Okay, good. Very collaborative process.
 Yeah, it's very collaborative and I think that is especially so for CBU. I appreciate that because I think it's important to engage all those folks because they, you know, you're a number cruncher. You're not doing Hector's job or
 And that's what I tell them, it's not Matt's budget, it's Hector's budget. Yeah, and I'm happy to hear that because I think it's very, very important that those heads who are actually going to have a budget accountability and where they're gonna have to report back to you guys and say, sorry, we're not meeting this, we're not meeting this, that they don't have buy-in from the get-go to be able to say, I need this and this is why, and we have overtime on this, and I mean, they're the ones that
 need to know the minutia so that the budget can get, it can be in a good spot and that we don't go into the negative. This has been a few years of the making. I appreciate that and I'm sure the department heads do as well.
 about the personnel services. So I know that we, I think we budgeted higher this past year because at that time the budget was due, the salaries new structure was not in place yet. So, and we don't have our like final 2025, but I guess you feel like this meets all of the needs of our staff.
 In the budget this year, we had an estimate for some wage changes that were gonna happen. We didn't have final numbers that we have actually seen six months of that impact, so we have a better idea what that actually is. And then we have a little, they're supposed to do another one here. They just sent out an email today, didn't they? About updating the policy again, so. Yeah. So does this, I knew there was gonna be like a second wave of maybe revisions, like things just right, so does this,
 Do you feel like that takes into account for those revisions as well? I do, yeah. Okay, thank you. Go down to wastewater. So again here, there's not much of a, there's not much change here. Like I said, we're not expecting any big increases in revenue. So it's kind of, just kind of status quo.
 And there's no negative E and R to talk about. Storm water is pretty much the same. There's real big changes to talk about. So there's no big changes coming down the pike that we're aware of the plan for. So we're kind of keeping it as is.
 budget hearings. So August, isn't it? Yeah, so right now I asked that very question very recently. So we are either going to be scheduled, we're still trying to finalize the date for CBU, we're either going to be Monday August 25th
 or Wednesday, August 27th. I think I have those numbers right. And when will we see the budget memo? Yes. I am currently planning on bringing the budget to USB on the 28th. 28th of July. Will there be a finance committee that in advance
 Is that all? I'm happy to do one. Yeah, we don't currently have one scheduled, but we can. No, I'm just asking because I didn't know if we had to have another committee meeting or not. I feel like at least the Finance Committee saw that budget memo or has seen it in the past prior to you presenting it to the budget, to the group. It's been my experience.
 a finance meeting before the meeting we were taking it to the board. So we'll put a finance meeting before that one. And then so that's the 28th. And then the 11th, if, say, we bring it the 28th, and you're like, actually, we'd like to see, let us know what if any changes you'd like to see, or corrections, or we just want to make sure that we're giving you plenty of time for review.
 and so that it can come back on the 11th if needed. Or if you see it and you think it's the best thing you've ever seen, you can vote on it. But we want to give at least two opportunities at two separate meetings and that will give plenty of time then for us to take it at the end of August to council.
 No, that was all that we were going to present today. Yeah. That's all the budget slides and the septic hauler slides. We didn't want to make this a specific item because it came pretty late before the agenda came out. So we're not presenting any documents today.
 but we have gotten some initial revenue requirement data back from Crow for the rate case. Right now, what we're looking at is a 30.5% increase. We will be officially bringing that to the board, to finance subcommittee.
 We're going to encourage the public to come to those meetings. We're going to advertise those a little bit more than we advertise our usual USB meetings. But that's where we're sitting at right now. We've gone through two out of the four meetings from our settlement with the interveners. Just to give some update as to where we're at, because I know we had talked about this taking a long time.
 We are obligated to have four meetings with the interveners from our, sorry, that's such an interesting word. And that's from the settlement that was agreed upon with our last rate case. They're really interested in seeing the cost of service study based off of the AMI. They wanted to see cost allocation and
 review all have an opportunity to review the different aspects of the rate case. So far, I think the meetings have been pretty positive. Yeah, that's where we're at. And we are shooting for October for filing. Yes. So that's that's where we stand right now. That is a draft rate that I presented, obviously. But
 Since you're the financial subcommittee, I thought I'd be on topic. So will we get a preview of what you intend at these meetings that the public comes to? Because I would like to make sure that what's presented to the public is good justification for an increase.
 the increased in our costs are, what we're doing that's new and better, and how we'll serve the public better. I've been to some of these, like the Duke presentation for their rate case, I thought was horrible. I think it irritated more people than it swadged. So I would like to
 give you a chance to practice it or let us know what the presentation might be like. Because I fully believe it's justified, but people offhand are prone to think it's gouging. So the number I presented, that is not necessarily the rate
 people will see because we've yet to do the cost allocation aspect of it right yeah the cost allocation so that's just our revenue requirement percentage so but whatever the percentage is yeah the public doesn't like it yeah it's true
 I would say a huge number percentage, but not that people like it any better, but if you give them a dollar amount, then I think that sometimes doesn't seem quite as harsh. I know an expense to anyone's budget, you know, you've got to make adjustments, but a quick question. So I'm glad to hear that you said we'll have like four meetings about that for the public to attend and comment. Okay.
 Those are meetings with IU, um, Washington township, OUCC. Yeah. Um, but then we'll have, um, we can do maybe like a run through meeting here. Um, but I really am hoping for the public meetings to really be these meetings, um, to encourage the public to come here and talk about it. And, you know,
 This is where we make our decisions. And so. Yes, I want to promote it a little more than we promote our regular meeting.
 Well so like I know you mentioned 30 percent that's not like a final number or anything I know that I read that a rural customer has a 42 percent increase in their rates and a lot of people I think jump on the bandwagon assume that is CBU right not but I think since that's already stirring then a lot of
 people hopefully will share what their opinions are. This obviously, a lot of our meetings we fill it with staff. And so I'm wondering if one of them we should meet somewhere else where there is more space to give that public opportunity to like, hey, we did anticipate that you might come rather than, well, we didn't expect to have more than 18 people back here. So I think that,
 that also when there's I've been to a meeting a public meeting when there was standing room only and people were capacity not allowed in the room and that really upset people a lot more about the issue and I think that can deter conversations where if we would
 And hopefully people will read what's presented ahead of time and feel satisfied with that. But I would like to see at least one of the meetings at a larger location, if that's possible. We will look into that. I just want to make sure that if we move the meeting that it isn't violating something. One possibility is the city council room.
 the city cooperates. Which, I mean, this is brought to the USB and to council, which is another opportunity, you know. But I would rather people come to our USB meetings and hear about it from our customers, as we're the board that represents our rate payers, rather than, you know, going to the city council meeting. At that point, it's already gone through our discussions, and they're reviewing our recommendation, typically.
 But I think that's good that you put that out there. 100%. Approaching five o'clock for our regular meeting. Let me ask, are there any petitions and communications out there? Seeing none, is there a motion to adjourn? I move we adjourn. We are adjourned.