All right.

Good evening.

It's 6 31, and I'm calling the October 2nd Environmental Services Commission meeting to order.

First, we'll take our roll call.

Uh Commissioner Lutterman.

Present.

Commissioner DuPirtis.

He is currently absent.

Commissioner Hynosh is an excused absence.

Oh Commissioner DuPertis, can you hear us?

President Can you hear me?

Yes.

Thank you.

Commissioner Laxon.

Present.

Thank you.

Commissioner Margolis.

Present.

Thank you.

Commissioner Tyson.

Present.

Thank you.

Good evening and welcome to the October 2nd Environmental Services Commission meeting.

First item is the approval of the agenda.

May I have a motion to approve the agenda?

I move to approve the agenda.

And a second.

Thank you.

Are there any um requested changes or modifications to the agenda?

Hearing no uh changes, uh, the agenda is approved as motioned.

We will now move into our oral and written communications.

Oral and written communications are now open.

Remember that there is a three-minute time limit per person and 30 minutes total per meeting.

Public comment shall be limited to matters relating to city of Bellevue government and to subject matters encompass within the power and duties of this commission.

Persons participating in commission meetings must not engage in speech or conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of any meeting.

Disruptions may include and are not limited to failure of a speaker to comply with the commission bylaws concerning public comment.

In compliance with Washington state campaign laws regarding the use of public facilities during elections, no excuse me, no speaker may support or oppose a ballot measure or support or pose a candidate for an election, which includes your own campaign.

Any speaker who begins discussing topics of this nature will be asked to stop.

First off, Joe, are there any written communications this evening?

There are no written communications.

Okay, thank you.

Second, we have uh one person registered for oral communications, Mr.

Zimmerman.

Please come up.

Yeah, but yeah.

I'm so sorry.

Yeah, well, I can put this okay.

I will please yeah, this high dory Nazi pig.

You possibly come today and accept something, but is nobody in state Washington have.

Is this new rule?

What is come right now for trespass 400 every day?

But is commission have?

It's nobody have this.

I speak for 35 years.

For 35 years in Belavia, only one man who have trespasses.

One man, all Jewish disabled men, half trespasses for 35 years, only one man, only one man who support Donald Trump, who support Donald Trump for 35 years, have our one man who have trespasses.

It's me, Alex Zimmerman.

Why?

Guys, you cannot be all degeneratively idiot.

You can be a Nazi, yes, a bandita, yes, you are, but you cannot be total idiot.

Don't understand.

How is this possible?

So one man for 35 years have so many trespasses.

Look, this I witness her.

You know what this means?

You know what this means?

Who thought who I speak 35 years ago?

He in consul chamber for 35 years.

Yeah, I'm 35 years.

Talk to Bellevue, Council, and right now I need to speak to committee because they make a new rules.

What is nobody have?

No one committee.

Yeah, how hundred speaking hundred committee.

No one committee have trespasses for hundred every day.

You guys are real freaking Nazi psychopath, a pure Gestapo.

What the civilized war can use?

What this civilized word I can use, but don't broken law.

Yeah.

Union understand what's going on.

Viva Trump.

Viva New American Revolution.

Stand up, Slav and Happy Cow.

We have right now a situation what is absolutely unique.

When you go and go looking in King County, you know what is mean.

What is Anter Mother, Luther King, number one fascist county in America in Trump list, only one county from 500?

Yes, it's very simple.

So I like this slogan.

We don't like Donald Trump.

What we like, pay five dollars for gas.

It's nice.

Yeah, I love this slogan.

No Donald Trump, but five dollars for gas.

Yeah.

Guys, you're real make me sick.

You are real freaking beginning your activity.

You know what is meaning.

You in constant change choice committee here only for one particular reason.

So you can control everything.

Thank you very much.

Nazi pig approves this new rules for our examined.

Right.

Okay, next.

Um, is there anyone in attendance who has not registered would like to speak?

Uh if so, please raise your hand.

And if you're attending remotely, please raise your hand using the feature in Zoom or press star nine if you have joined by phone.

We do have a couple.

Uh who have asked to speak.

Uh please identify yourself and let us know what your comments are.

A Mishra, who's I've pulled in first.

Yeah, hello.

Can you hear me?

Yes, you're fine.

Okay, wonderful.

Uh, good evening, board members, commissioners.

My name is Ashi Mishra.

I'm a Bellevue Youth Link Adult Board member.

Um, we're a youth advisory board composed of 12 youth and six adults.

Uh, we are here today to extend our invitation to you for our upcoming annual Youth Link Gumbo Night happening on Wednesday, October 22nd from 6 to 8 p.m.

at Crossroads Community Center.

Um, for the past 26 plus years, Bellevue Youth Link hosts this special social event that provides an opportunity for Bellevue Youth Link members to dialogue with our elected and community leaders about important topics affecting our youth today.

Youth and guests share important conversations over delicious pots of gumbo and other food.

We hope that you can join us for this special and unique evening with our youth link members.

To RSVP, you can contact our staff, Patrick Volina via email at PLina at Bellevue WA.gov or call 425-452-2846.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, and thank you for the invitation.

And I believe Laura says sent also that uh invitation via email to all the commissioners.

You should all have received that in your City of Bellevue email box.

Anyone else, Joe?

Let me confirm.

K Bachelor, are you interested in speaking?

No one else.

Sorry.

Sorry, I'm really far away.

So this is spoty wifi.

No, I am good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Anyone else in the audience?

If not, I just want to let the public know that the environmental services commission does not condone hateful or offensive speech from any individual.

While we would prefer people refrain from making these types of comments, the commission respects individuals' First Amendment free speech rights.

Individuals are allowed to express their thoughts or feelings, whether we agree with them or not.

Next, um we are on to uh communication from city council.

Council member Lee, would you like to share any updates today?

Thank you.

It's always a pleasure for me to be here to thank uh the commission for your dedication and uh volunteer to serve the community.

Uh I really don't have much to report except saying that uh, you know, we are looking forward to a great uh rest of the year and looking forward to the next year.

Uh we're gonna have the uh you know bi-annual budget discussion, and I think the city is on a good shape.

Uh our financial situation is as uh is uh balanced and it's always uh working toward uh hoping that even with the economy.

We know you know it's kind of uh up and down and certain, but I think because of the city's uh fiscal responsibility and all great operation.

Uh one of the comments I would make is the utilities, you know, department is so well run because they have their own uh financial center.

Uh so uh we have no any real concerns in the tour future.

So thank you very much, and it's always a pleasure to bring the greetings from city council.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Lee.

Joe, are there any staff reports this tonight?

Just a short announcement.

Um, you would have received an email about uh a training session, open public meetings act and the public records act.

It's a Zoom webinar coming up on October 16, 6:30 to 7:30.

And you can read the email.

It speaks to how often you should take the training as part of the commission role you have.

So um, if you could take a look at that, um train as needed, right?

So thank you for that.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, next step, approval of the September 4th, 2025 meeting minutes.

Um, may have a motion to approve those minutes.

I move to approve the September 4th, 2025 minutes.

Thank you.

Uh may I have a second?

A second.

Thank you.

Uh are there any requested changes to those minutes.

All right.

Hearing no objections, the minutes are approved as motioned.

Uh and next, we have no unfinished business, so we're going to move directly to new business tonight.

The first item is the proposed bylaw updates for the environmental services commission.

Let me pull up the presentation here.

All right.

So I just wanted to cover uh this was in uh agenda memo on the updates to the ESC bylaws.

Uh just we're seeking direction from the ESC to bring back recommended and updated bylaws for the final action and adoption at the commission's next regular meeting in November.

Just by way of background, I'll touch on that summary of the changes briefly and then next steps.

We um just read from this.

In 2023, Bellevue City Council updated its rules of decorum for public attendance and participation during council and board commission meetings.

These rules were intended to provide for the orderly conduct of said meetings.

Since 2023, City Council has expressed an interest in updating these rules to increase the maximum exclusion period for violations of decorum from 60 days to 180 days.

Consistent with other local governments.

Additionally, the council wants to revise and clarify the process to appeal any exclusionary period at the next council meeting, provided it is at least three business days from the receipt of a timely written appeal.

This ensures staff will have sufficient time to perform necessary administrative functions, such as including the appeal as an action item in any agenda, making or distributing copies of the appeal to council members, and providing sufficient time for council members to consider the appeal.

Moreover, the city council has sought to create more opportunities for broader community participation in council advisory boards and commissions.

Specifically, the council intends to limit service on any board or commission to two consecutive terms.

Previously, after two full terms, a person was prohibited from serving on the same board commission until there have been at a minimum a two-year break in service.

And previously, that individual would be allowed to immediately serve on a different board or commission without needing to observe the two-year break.

On September 23, 2025, City Council adopted ordinance 6864, which is exhibit exhibit B in your packet and ordinance 6865, exhibit C in your packet, which amend the Billy City Code provisions for all councils advisory boards and commissions, including chapter 3.55 uh Belly City Code, which applies to the ESC.

All right.

So just a quick summary.

Amending the section concerning membership as revised, limiting service to two consecutive terms on any advisory board or commission.

Also updating the BSC ESC bylaws to amend the section concerning decorum.

Consistent with the ordinances as revised, extending the maximum exclusionary period to 180 days, amending the section concerning decorum as revised, clarifying the process to appeal any exclusionary period, and then performing non-substantive and other formatting corrections, which you can see in track changes of the strike draft.

So persuadant to the commission bylaws, a two-step process is required to amend said bylaws after this meeting, consistent with any direction provided.

Final revisions will be presented at the commission's next regular meeting in November.

And any amendments require two-thirds of the membership to vote in favor of amending the bylaws.

So I'll just open it up for comment or questions.

Okay, I have a comment.

I get the intent is to exclude people that have served two consecutive four-year terms on any commission.

From immediate service.

Correct.

Without a weight of two years.

Without a weight of two years.

And if somebody comes on a commission midway through a person, somebody comes off a commission, say someone comes on with two years left, it's the two years plus a four plus a four.

Okay.

Yeah.

So that's not what this draft says.

So this draft, and you it sorry.

On your summary, you had up there, you had the words any commission.

But in the draft, we were given it says the commission, meaning this in article two A6.

Let me let me see if I can pull up the and share that.

I'm gonna what I'm pulling up is the red lines themselves.

Um and that's the one I was looking at.

Well, that's the one I would go with because the red lines um but there's a new paragraph six.

No person shall serve on the commission, right?

For more than two consecutive terms.

Um, and the word the key word there is the commission.

Okay.

So we will look at that.

So if someone just finished two four-year terms on Transportation Commission, this does not say they couldn't serve on this commission.

Thank you for that.

We I will follow up their attorney on that.

That's a good point.

We'll see if it's but both the city council memo and the summary you just put up there said any commission.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Thank you.

Good call.

We'll look at that.

Second second knit um article two H.

As in hotel, the since you're fixing the indents, the paragraph subparagraph H is indented bunny.

We'll look at that, see if it's a track changes issue or something that we'll clear up after it's accepted.

Comments.

Thank you for your comments.

All right.

Again, we will come back.

Uh next.

So I looked at this from January and February of 2024, and um we had a motion to bring it back.

We could do that, or we could just bring it back and we would then be looking for a motion to approve.

Um I think either approach works.

All right.

Would you like me to make a motion?

Um, let's go ahead and do that.

I move to bring this to our next count uh commission meeting for approval, uh considering the comments made.

May I have a second?

Second.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Thank you, everyone.

Uh next uh order of business is the sewer cost of service analysis, I believe.

Right.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Matt Thurber, Assistant Director for the Utility, and with me tonight, I have my good friend Matt Hobson, who is our fiscal manager and an all-around expert in cost of service.

We are very lucky to have Matt working for us at Bellevue Utilities.

So the purpose of tonight's presentation is to provide the commission with draft results of the cost of service analysis that was completed by our staff for the city's sewer utility.

Bellevue Utilities, as well as other public utilities across the country, rely on these types of studies to evaluate the cost equity or fairness of rates for its customers.

Public utilities also rely on these studies to assess the pricing of services as it relates to achieving their financial operational capital and environmental stewardship goals.

Oh, sorry.

Okay.

So for tonight's meeting, we're going to provide an overview of the purpose, assumptions, methods, and results of the study.

We'll also discuss how the city might use the results of the study to improve cost equity between the different groups of customers that make up the sewer utility.

So this is our roadmap for the next two meetings.

Again, tonight we'll focus on the background of why we do a cost of service study and the preliminary results.

We hope to use the latter half of the meeting to hear your general thoughts and to answer questions from the group.

We'll come back to the commission next month on November 6th to talk through the preferred options and rate design implications.

This is tonight's agenda.

So as we move through the presentation, please feel feel free to ask questions as we go.

Cost of service studies are relatively technical studies, and each step of the study provides the foundation for the next step.

Getting your questions answered as we go and as they come to you will help us all arrive at the same place as we go through these results.

We'll spend the first few minutes providing a general overview of cost of service studies as well as the public utility industry.

We'll spend time moving step by step through the study process.

At the end of the section, we'll present the cost of service for each customer group in the sewer utility and compare the revenue collected from each class.

We'll allow changes.

We will show changes that can be made to each customer group's rate to improve cost equity.

And then finally, we'll provide options to improve cost equity and then open up the meeting for discussion.

So what is a cost of service analysis?

So first thing to note is that Washington state law does require that public utilities base their rates on cost of service.

And furthermore, the City of Bellevue's financial policies require that utility rates for water, sewer, and drainage are based on cost of service so that rates are equitable in proportion to each customer class's use of the system.

There are three main purposes of a cost of service study.

First, it provides a defensible and rational basis for determining the equitable or fair share of utilities cost for each customer group in proportion to the demands that they place on the system.

Second, the results of these or the results of these cost of service studies show they show that in comparison to the revenue collected for each customer group, how that measures to each customer class's use and equity in the system.

The cost of service is the most widely used and defensible basis for setting utility rate pricing throughout the industry.

So because the city adjusts rates for every year, the cost of service completed on each year's financial needs otherwise known as otherwise known as the revenue requirement.

The widely followed approach used in the industry is to select the next year that the utility plans to adjust rates and use that year as what's called the test year.

Because the city has already adopted rates for 2025 and 2026, the test year used for this cost of service study will be 2027.

The graph on this slide itemizes the major elements of the sewer utilities revenue requirement over the next 10 years.

These costs have been updated based on the utilities forecasts, which includes the latest expense forecasts provided by King County Metro in May of 2025.

The single largest operating expense for the sewer utility is contracted costs paid to King County for transmission and treatment of sewage flows.

It's approximately half of the revenue requirement between 2027 and 2031 and each year thereafter.

The forecast for this expense is based on the 20-year forecast provided by the county and presented to the city council in May of this year.

So these rate increases are largely due to the Mouth of Duwamish combined sewer overflow project and other sewer overflow projects, cost estimates, and timeline acceleration.

So this was required after the consent decree was amended between King County, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Washington State Department of Ecology.

Other major expenses include city and state taxes and franchise fees, as well as the annual cash transfer to the utility capital fund to support the six-year CIP, as well as the long-term asset replacement program.

So before we go any further and talk about methodology, any questions so far.

Okay, I'm going to turn it over to Matt to talk about methodology.

Evening.

So I'm going to liken the rest of the presentation to a marathon, not a spring.

So and Matt mentioned earlier, please ask questions as we go along.

Each step really does it serves as a foundation for the next step.

So throughout the following slides, I'm going to be using some terms over and over again.

I want to make sure that we all have kind of a similar understanding and definition for those terms.

The first one is going to be one of my favorite flow four-letter words, it's flow.

And it is basically it's wastewater.

You know, we measure flow in terms of uh increments of 100 cubic feet or CCF.

And that essentially is every time a toilet flushes, every time you take a shower, every time you turn the dishwasher on.

What it doesn't count is water that customers use to irrigate their lawn.

This is domestic water entering our wastewater system.

We call it flow.

Um, and it's measured in 100 cubic feet.

We're gonna I'm gonna use the term CCF a lot for 100 cubic feet.

Um, the other thing I will use a lot terminology is a customer account.

Essentially, that's a bill.

Um we send out six bills a year to all of our customers, and each of those customers, I'm gonna may use the word customer, I may use the account, it's synonymous as we move forward.

I do want to take a point of personal privilege and uh acknowledge my team uh who worked on this cost of service study over the last six months.

Um, they're a crackpot bunch of group.

Um, Kendrick Dow specifically was our lead analyst on this project.

Uh so the cost of service analysis follows a three-step process that is based on principles that are widely used and generally accepted in the public utility rate setting industry.

As Matt mentioned, these are this method is designed to produce rates that are equitably recovering the cost to provide service to different groups of customers.

Um three steps are one, we take the overall revenue requirement, that 2027 stack of dollars, and we're going to determine and break that revenue requirement into different activities or functions.

Um, a function might be producing a bill.

It might be paying King County for contract treatment costs.

It could be maintaining our infrastructure to move the flow from a house to King County.

The second step then is to create um functional cost or demand components for each of those functions.

So, for example, the cost that we incur as a as a city to produce a bill, we would develop a unit cost by taking that number and dividing it by the number of bills that we send out.

Conversely, when we look at our treatment costs, how much money do we spend on treatment?

We would divide that by the amount of flow we send to King County, and that gives a pretty good equitable unit cost for that service or function.

We wouldn't take treatment costs and divide it by customers because not every customer generates the amount of flow.

Um my favorite restaurant does not produce the same amount of flow as you know an apartment building.

Uh and then a final step is once we have those unit costs by function, we'll say, well, how many units of demand is coming from our single family customer group?

How many are coming from our multifamily residential, and how many are coming from our non-residential?

And that becomes their equitable share of the revenue requirement.

The last step is to take those cost shares that we've assigned to each customer group and compare that to how much revenue we currently collect from them, right?

Comparing their share of the cost against what we charge them for that service.

In a perfect world, those numbers will always be the same.

This worked for a while, and that's never happened for me yet.

Um there's always going to be a difference.

And so I want to start out this conversation with this idea that a cost of service analysis isn't a grade.

We're not doing a test on this utility saying, are you being fair?

These are checkups.

These are used routinely in the industry to measure equity, cost equity.

And if there are differences, we make adjustments to improve that equity.

Um we try to do these every three to five years to check on our rates to make sure we're being fair to customers.

So these aren't bad grades.

These aren't, you know, you flunk the test.

This is how we doing, how what we can do to improve.

Okay.

Next slide.

Thanks.

Before we go through each step, I want to spend a bit of time talking about what we what I'll be calling customer groups or customer classes.

These are those groups of customers by which we'll allocate costs to determine cost equity.

We start with the customer groups as defined in the city's sewer ordinance.

And there's three of them.

Just kind of characterize these classes, the largest class by bills we send out.

Most of our customers are single family homeowners by by bills.

Um every house is a bill.

Every house gets a bill from us.

Uh non-residential is defined as really any other customer account that isn't a single family home and it isn't an apartment or multifamily complex.

It could be a restaurant, it could be a school, it could be a fire station, it could be a high-rise.

So there's not a lot of uniformity in that class.

Um not too many accounts there.

Uh, roughly uh it's a one of the smallest classes with a widest level of use variance across the class.

Multifamily has 700 customer accounts.

But within those 700 accounts, we have 30,000 residents, right?

So it's important to distinguish that we build to the property, we build to the to the account.

We're not setting bills to individual households within that account.

That plays a role when we get to the rate structure you'll see on the table here.

So for single family residential, remember one bill is one account is one home.

Every home will be charged a fixed monthly charge of 116.56 cents every other month.

In addition to that, um, we will bill them for flow in increments of 100 cubic feet or CCF, $6.75 per CCF for the first 50, and then it ramps up a bit for anything over 50.

Very, very, very few of our customers ever get past that 50 CCF.

So that 675 is generally the factor rate that most of our customers pay.

For the multifamily residential, a little unique here, 141 dollars and 47 cents, but it's not assessed to every account.

It's assessed on the number of dwelling units in that property.

So a 10 unit complex, they're getting one bill.

It's gonna be 141 dollars 10 units.

Um, so it's a distinction there that'll come up to play at the end of the presentation.

I wanted to emphasize.

Within that 141 dollars, um, you can see that the variable charge to the right of it is $11.67, but that doesn't kick in until the first 11 CCFs are absorbed of flow.

We call that an allowance.

Essentially, the first 11 CCFs are built into that fixed dwelling unit charge uh charge per dwelling unit.

Okay.

Finally, for non-residential, um, they are assessed $13.98 per CCF, unless their flow is such that it would produce a bill less than the 217.50 cents, in which we would bill them a fixed minimum amount of 217.50.

Okay, clarify that.

Per CCL.

The per CCF is for every CCF.

It doesn't have an allowance like the multifamily.

Yep, out the gate, it starts at zero.

So if they only use one CCF, they'll still pay 217, but if they use 100, they'll pay 100 times that.

Correct.

Okay.

So just to give you an idea, then when we talk about customer groups, why we why do we choose three customers' groups?

And why do we call them this?

Um state law requires us to charge customers in proportion to their cost.

And it it groups customers, it defines customers in terms of customer groups.

That your the group is using similar usages, similar characteristics.

And so look at these three different types of customers.

For single family residential, 33,000 customer accounts, about 2 million CCFs of flow, averages about 10 and a half CCFs per flow per account uh every two months.

I'm gonna go to the multifamily then.

These are these are folks who live in homes.

This some homes are smaller.

These are multifamily homes.

I live in a town home.

And so in this case, we have 700 customer accounts, but they're housing 33,000 uh uh uh uh units.

1.5 million total flow.

Look at the difference between the average flow per dwelling unit for multi-res versus single family.

They use our services differently, even though these are residential properties.

And then finally for non-residential, 1600 customer accounts, once again, variable restaurants, fire stations.

Um, 1.2 million.

The average is 121.4 CCFs, but that average is just a point estimate.

There's a lot of variability in that number.

So this gives you an idea of you know why are these groups different?

It's because they use our services very differently from one another.

Okay.

So now I'll move into the actual method.

Step one, I said we we take out revenue requirement and we're going to divide it into different activities.

Four activities specifically.

Um, and these activities are used um fairly consistently across sewer cost of service analyses.

We're not picking activities for Bellview that are different from other sewer utilities.

The first customer group is the customer uh first function, excuse me, is the customer function.

And think of that as costs that we incur as a sewer utility that really don't get affected by flow.

Um, when we produce a bill for a customer, it doesn't matter if it's a thousand CCFs or one CCF, that the cost of paper and that envelope is gonna be about the same.

This is also for our customer billing system.

Uh low are going to be those costs that the city incurs to basically move the flow from the customer's property to the King County transmission lines.

It's not just the operating costs, it's a long-term replacement of those assets.

Um then the treatment bucket is is specifically and only the cost he incurs from King County to pay for transmission treatment and discharge of sewage overflow of sewage flows.

Finally, the last function is the island of misfit toys.

Um, it's costs that really don't fit into any of those.

Um, and these would be things like tax expense.

Um, they would be things like me being here tonight, you know, as a member of the fiscal team.

We do account for those costs.

I'll show you how we allocate them in the process.

Okay.

So taking those four functions.

Uh, we'll walk through this, just uh start with the left pie chart first.

This illustrates um the 2027 revenue requirement to those four functions.

The largest function is treatment.

This is only King County treatment expenses incurred by the city of Bellevue, $54.3 million in 2027, about 52% of our expenses.

Flow, those costs to move flow from a property to King County's transmission mains, is about 35% of a revenue requirement.

Customer costs to produce a bill, our customer billing system, about 2% of our costs.

And then the all other bucket is about 12 million dollars, and that includes state and local taxes.

It includes um our business administration group, um, any net cash flow that we produce in our rates in excess of uh our revenue requirement.

And then we do have some non-rate revenue for um development permit fees, for example, that can offset the revenue requirement.

As I mentioned, the all other think of it as the island of misfit toys, and so we have to account for those costs somehow, and how we do that is we roll, we reallocate that all other bucket into the other three functions that have defined units of demand.

The one exception to that rule is most of the all all of the all other bucket really serves the city of Bellevue sewer utility.

So it really serves the local portion of the customer sewer rate.

So we do not allocate any of the all other bucket to the treatment bucket, it's all being allocated to flow or customer.

Step once done, we're 33% of the way there.

So step two is we're going to take identified units of demand that we can use to develop unit cost for each of these functions.

For customer, the demand component is the number of accounts.

For flow, it's the assumed or actual annual flow as metered at the water meter.

For treatment, there's a wrinkle here.

Um we dealt the cost component based on how the city of Bellevue is charged by King County for these expenses.

And King County adopts a method called a single family residential or residential equivalent customer equivalent.

I'll go through that here in the next slide.

We use we use basically how we incur the cost is how we allocate the cost to the customer cool group.

And then all other as I mentioned gets recirculated back into the other three buckets.

What that is is every every uh let me get this right here, every quarter, Bellevue and every other system under the King County system reports the number of our single family accounts and report the amount of flow we have from all other accounts.

That's not just us, every every sewer regional agency.

And then we are assessed by King County, $58.28 per month for every residential customer account, single family residential account, excuse me, and then 5828 for 750 every 750 cubic feet of water for all other customer groups.

And this is the same rate basis for every regional system in the in the county.

And so we've allocated treatment cost to our customer classes based on this method.

Final step, we're almost there.

Uh yeah, go ahead.

Okay, I thought I understood that last bullet, but I think I don't.

Can you back up and what is how is that determined for non-residential?

Yeah, so uh we will report the amount of uh essentially water flow less irrigation and other deductions to King County.

They'll take that number.

Let's say it's let me make my math easy.

Uh 750,000 cubic feet.

They'll divide that by 750 cubic feet of water, which equals one RCE, and then bill us 5828 for each of those.

Okay.

For the actual water used.

Less some, yeah, we we we can we don't get billed for irrigation forductions.

That goes into the sewer, yeah.

Okay.

But after they have taken out the fifth, the do they count for the number because they know the number of residential units.

Yes.

So yeah.

They subtract those on front and then great, great question.

We only have to report our flow for the multifamily and for the non-residential customer classes.

So we don't report any flow because they're essentially paying for resingle family residential being billed not for their flow, but for every customer account essentially.

Okay.

So we have our cost of each function.

We have our demand components.

So the first table is just taking that ease, the division, total cost by function divided by demand units, customer costs are we allocate them based on the function of customer accounts.

So the cost to produce a bill to run our billing system, that equates to about $10.84 per account every two months.

That's the functional cost of service at a unit basis.

For flow, it's about $10 for uh per CCF of flow.

For treatment costs, it's about 146 per RCE every two months.

Now that we have unit costs, we simply take those unit costs and multiply them by each of the demand components for each of the classes.

So I'll start with customer on the second table.

As I mentioned, our cut our residential customers, single family, they make up the majority of the bills we send out.

So they're gonna get the majority of our customer cost pool, 93%.

For flow, we we allocate those costs based on the metered or or or estimated flow for each class.

So single family will get half the cost of flow, even though they make up more than 90% of the bills we send out.

And then treatment, we allocate on the proportion of residential customer equivalents.

Um single family would get 44% of the King County cost that Bellevue receives uh from the county.

And that produces that total column on the right side, and that's the our estimate of the cost of service for that class.

So the billion dollar question.

Well, it's the 103,872,111 question.

The bottom on the bottom right-hand corner is how do those numbers compare to what we collect from each class?

Um I mentioned it's not uncommon to see differences.

Um go to the next slide if you would.

And and um what we're showing here are the the sum total results.

It's comparing um total revenue collected from that class divided by the cost of service.

Think of that as the cost recovery rate.

Ideally, every class is at 100%.

What we collect from them is what it costs us to serve.

This is the checkup portion.

This is not this is not the grade portion, this is the checkup portion.

So for example, single family residential.

Um before I do that, let me just walk through the graph here.

So you'll you'll see uh sets of columns at the bottom of the x-axis, the names of the customer classes, and then three dotted lines running across.

I'm gonna start with a darker column.

That's our estimate for the cost recovery rate in 2027 for each of those classes.

So 91% for single family residential, 91% for non-residential, 123% for multifamily.

The next column over to it, uh the kind of celeste green.

Um, that is our estimate of an internal cost of service study we did for sewer back in 2019.

It's helpful because it serves as a as a barometer.

Like are we getting similar results?

That's a good defense kind of thing to look at.

Um, using similar methodologies, what's changed is really the cost.

Are we landing in the same places?

The answer is yeah, generally we are.

Um I want to talk to those three horizontal lines now.

The one in the middle, the dotted black one.

That's just running across the 100% cost recovery level.

We'd want all those columns to be right at that black dotted line.

Then there's two yellow dotted lines above and below the black line, and they're running at 110% and 90%.

In cost of service analysis work, we are dealing with a lot of data.

We're dealing with point and time data.

The flows we get this year may be different next year, and the flows we get today may be different from last year.

And so we put a range of reasonableness on the results of plus or minus 10%.

Essentially, if a class falls within that range, it could be argued they're caught, their rates are within cost of service guidelines.

Um, if they are outside that range, what that tells us is there is a subsidy occurring.

If a rate class cost recovery rate is over 100%, what that means is that their rates are being used to subsidize other classes.

And the converse holds true.

A rate class below 100%.

Um, that means that they are being subsidized by other rate classes.

It is okay, it is common to have subsidies in public utility rates as long as they're intentional.

We have subsidized, we subsidize low income rates in the city of Bellevue, and many utilities do that.

That's an intentional subsidy.

What is not considered good practice is having unintentional subsidies.

That's what we want to work towards eliminating.

I think we're gonna move on.

I'm gonna take it.

This is the time to breathe.

Uh, we've covered all the technical results.

Uh, I want to take this time just to answer any questions or go back to slides because the next part of the presentation is really how do we take these numbers and put them to work in terms of improving cost equity?

Um, but I wanted to make sure we have a clear understanding together before we move on to that that part.

So my question is were actions taken after the 2019 um analysis, because it looks like those numbers have gotten less good.

Great question.

Yeah, so one of the reasons why we so the short answer is no.

Um, one of the reasons why we recommend doing cost of service analyses every three to five years, um, is you can build up a trend over time.

You can see if the results are really an anomaly or if they're really holding.

Um, the cost of service study that was conducted in 2019, it had been many years since one had been done prior to that.

So you were dealing with really one data point.

Now we have two, and results, while they are getting worse, they are they're they're close.

And so and I understand you would not want to make drastic changes based on what could have been an anomaly of that one time period.

Yeah.

So that's your question.

Yes, thank you.

Uh Commissioner Dupertis.

Any questions?

No questions, but I do want to say I'm tracking the whole thing, and I think it's very high quality.

And thank you.

Great.

Thank you, Commissioner Dupertis.

Commissioner Margolis, any questions?

Yeah, thank you for the um for the work.

Uh, can you explain why?

Maybe I missed this.

Why is multifamily selected sounds like intentionally as the class to subsidize the others?

Yes.

So this would be an example of an unintentional subsidy.

So it is it's a finding we we want to uh present options to correct.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

So we go before I go into kind of how we put the the uh the results to work.

Um, I think it's important to kind of talk why did we get these results, both in 2027 and then the previous one as well.

Um so and it all comes down to the unique rate structure that we have for the multi-residential customer class.

And I kind of teased at the beginning that we we only send one bill out to every apartment, but we our rates are based on the number of apartment units in the in that um in that building.

And that's gonna play a role in these results.

Um earlier in the presentation, I talked to how the fixed charge is 141 dollars for a multifamily property per dwelling unit.

And in that 141 dollars, there's an assumed allowance of an 11 CCFs of flow for every dwelling unit.

The issue is if you go to the next next box, please, that in reality, the average flow coming out of a dwelling unit in an apartment building or a duplex or four plexus is only seven and a half.

So what that essentially means is is our rates are structured to provide an allowance that it that it really is in excess of what a customer actually uses, and that's resulting in the high cost recovery rate.

Um, it's a function of our rate design, um, not really a function of how we allocated costs, if that makes sense.

Um this is the fundamental reason for the results you're seeing today.

And I wanted to pause to see if there's any questions on this.

It's one of those things that once you see, like, oh, that makes sense, but you know, is you're you're slamming your head against a table for four months trying to figure it out.

So uh okay.

So we're gonna talk now about how we use these types of analyses to make policy options and choices uh to improve cost equity, um, ensuring that our prices are fair uh to each customer group.

And these policy actions come in two flavors.

We're gonna talk about the first one a lot tonight, and we're gonna talk about the second one in November.

And the reason we're gonna hold off on the second one is the second set of options is because they really get triggered based on what you talk about today on the first set.

Um there's a sequence to it.

So the first set of policy actions are hey, we have a result, we see an unintentional subsidy.

Question is what should we do about it?

Do we correct it all at once?

Do we correct it over time?

That's really the core question for this first set of options.

Do we make a corrective action and how quickly do we make it?

The second set of actions are there things that we can do to the actual rates that we charge to our customers to not just improve cost equity for the class, but maybe there are things that we can do to improve cost equity within that class.

So not all customers can have the same amount of flow.

Can we do things that make not just their class revenue equitable, but every single build more equitable?

Um, can we do things to improve other goals of our utility, affordability goals, revenue stability?

Those are really the second sets of policy options.

Um, because the first set of policy actions really determine our revenue target for each class, how quickly we're gonna achieve cost equity, and once we know that number, we can build rates off of it.

Okay.

So recommendation number one from this is uh staff recommendation to the to the commission, and we have several options for you all to consider, is that we recommend at the very least that we make incremental improvements to cost equity uh over time and not all at once.

And the reason we're recommending this is that because single family residential customers are being subsidized right now, if we were to correct it all at once, instead of being an 11% rate increase next year, it's gonna be a 20% rate increase.

Um we can there's no requirement we make the corrective actions all at once.

We need to demonstrate progress towards improved cost equity.

Um for this reason, we're recommending somewhere between three and five years.

We'll show you both options to kind of stair step our way towards full cost recovery.

So I'm going to show you one option.

The first option is if we were to get to achieve 100% cost equity for every class over the next five years from 2027 to 2031.

I'm going to spend most time talking about the graph.

The tables are there for more numerical reference if you want to know the precise numbers.

So for each of the for on the graph, you have five years and then three columns for each each year.

The first column, the darkest column is single family residential rate increases.

The next one's the multi, the non-residential, and the final one is the multifamily.

There's a dotted line that runs across the graph.

That's the across the board revenue increase we need to fund the revenue requirement.

So think that that's the average rate increase for the utility each year, around 11%.

A big picture to do a five-year phasing, what that would mean is that whatever our revenue requirement each year is for the average for the utility, single family would have to be two percentage points higher than that number.

So if it's 11% per year, single family would need to be 13 or 14%.

For the non-residential, it would be 2% higher every year compared to the average rate increase.

And then for multi-res, it would actually be five points below the average.

So if we need 11% next year, the rate increase would only be six and a half or so.

That's over five years.

As we compress the transition period, it's going to make the subsidized subsidized classes pay more, a lot more early on, and the subsidizing customers pay a lot less.

And I'll show you the three-year.

So you can see for the three-year, it does require higher rate increases for single family.

Overall rate increase over the next several years is 11%.

For single family, it's going to be three to five percentage points higher than that average.

For non-resident, it would be about four points higher than the average.

And then for multifamily, it would actually be seven points lower than the average.

You know, kind of the sticker shock for me is you see 11% is what we're projecting overall say we're sewer revenue requirements under the three-year phase in, we would only raise multifamily rates by about four points, four percentage points each year.

Allows them to grow into their existing rates.

So that by year three, by year 2029, looking at that bottom table, and it's that green column, you can see every class's cost recovery rate is really close to 100%.

So kind of to bring both options together so you can compare and contrast.

First of all, I wanted to bring up the question.

Um, so why aren't we looking on on options beyond five years?

Well, one of the reasons is I mentioned we we want to do these types of studies every three to five years.

So by setting a five-year outlook, we can make decisions now, and then five years from now, do another checkup.

If we wait seven years, we could see even more drastic changes that we didn't account for.

So it's important to do these these studies fairly frequently.

Um, the longer you wait to do them, the more often you're gonna see surprising results.

Um so aligning our phase in plan with the next sewer cost of service study is a great way to say we have a five-year plan, let's check in five years and see how good we're doing.

Um the table uh here just shows you the um rate increases for the single family residential class.

The the bold first row is status quo.

Essentially, we just raise every class's customer rates across the board the same level, um, around 11% each year for single family.

Under the five-year phase in plan, it would be more 14s and 13s.

Under the three-year plan, it'd be you know, 16, 15, and then and then stabling out out in the outer years.

And just for other reference, I think I I had a slide I promise that had the other classes here.

I'll make sure it gets included.

Um this one has the biggest impact for the most bills.

I'll point that out.

Um that's what we wanted to present tonight.

Um, I do have some discussion points for you all uh that we can talk through.

Just in terms of big picture, we covered the draft results of the technical analysis tonight.

We talked to the phase and options to improve cost equity, providing a three and a five-year option.

We don't need decision tonight.

What I'd love to hear is kind of your thoughts on both options.

And then in November, we'll come back and say, well, you've had time to think about it.

Is there one that you all are leaning more than than the other?

Um, and then also follow up with here are some things that we can do to improve intra-class equity in our rates.

Um, once again, we need to know that the the first policy option timing before we can give you some good numbers on the rate side.

Uh based on the discussions we have here and the draft results that we've come up with, the plan would be to um bring the technical results of the study of the city council, because these are these are big findings.

Um when you see this these levels of of cost equities to improve.

Um, and then ideally incorporate the recommendations into our sewer rate financial plan for the 27-2028 budget process.

The reason once again that we're not making these changes next year is we've already adopted rates for 26.

The next year that we would be looking to make rate changes would be uh 2027.

I hope you enjoyed.

I love this stuff.

Um and like I said, the the goal of these technical studies is to give you all rational information to make informed policy choices.

I have the easy job of crunching doing the math.

Um, the more difficult job is putting them to work.

Um, and so really interested to hear your y'all's thoughts.

Okay, so my question is I I see the three and the five year were uh tell me about your thought process of considering even longer.

I mean, the uh the 14 and 15 and and almost 16% increases there are kind of eye popping.

Did you consider like a seven-year even kind of analysis?

And then in five years from now, we can look at it and say, oh, yeah, we're on that track of that seven-year plan.

Yeah, we certainly we did we did look at a seven, one and we we had to come up with two packages.

We could come up with like several packages.

We came with two, but if you want to see the seven year numbers, we can certainly share those with you.

I'm gonna grab them here actually.

That would that was just my first analysis and looking at those percent increases over five years, those are all hefty increases.

And yeah, I mean, let me let me provide as a follow-up then the seven year schedule.

Uh that that is, yeah, that's a good point.

Do you want to sure?

I would just say as you get into like seven and even 10 years, you're you're not going to make a significant dent in those.

So you're not getting down, for instance, to like single digit uh rate increases.

It's still in the range of for a single family, you know, 11, 12, something like that.

I'm just without seeing the number, I'm just guessing.

It's just it makes a little bit of a difference, but nothing significant, just just so you kind of have an idea of the order of magnitude.

Well, and as you say, so the baseline is 11.2.

So non-residential and single family have to go up above that at some point to make up this difference.

That's exactly right.

Yep.

Any other questions or discussion topics from any of the other commissioners?

Uh I appreciate the analysis and I think that you all provided a lot of great background for us to understand context for the analysis and proactively answered many of the questions that we have.

Um, I agree with Kurt about your questions about what's that kind of length of time, you know, that um when something is askewed to that extent, um, it something so abrupt or you know, kind of would cause a lot of sticker shock that perhaps would be unnecessary to do something so abrupt.

So I too kind of lean towards, yeah, what does that time horizon look like that we're moving towards, you know, what we believe or calculate to be better equity?

Um, but recognize that there's still variables in you know these forecast years ahead, and we could overshoot in some way, and then the next conversations about well, remember when we did this in three years, we should have done it in five.

Or so that that would be interesting to see that information.

Thank you.

Cool.

Um, I'm just wondering if you guys have an opportunity to like do like as we're kind of deliberating on potential options, um, kind of doing outreach to single resident customer or single family customers, um, non resident customers on kind of potential options and how that would might impact them.

I'm going to um uh cowardly uh walk away and say I'm the finance manager.

Yeah, so uh part of the outreach would would be through DSC, it would be through city council.

Um we would we would obviously we have uh public meetings as we go through the budget process um where we reach out to residents directly, go to community groups.

So yeah, all those things are possible to try to try to walk them through this and help them understand what goes into their rate.

I I think that can be really helpful for people to understand what's behind the numbers.

Um, so we'll definitely make a point to do that.

Yeah, um one of the one of the the goals of that second set of policy options is it's always more uh um it's less worse news if you provide more options for customers to control their bill.

Like, yes, across the board this would be the rate increase.

However, if we give you more control of your bill by changing rate structures, then then you could proactively adjust your bill.

And the example I will give to you is multifamily today, most customers' bill is just based on that fixed charge because they never go over the allowance, right?

So they can't do anything about a property or can't really do too much to change the size of their bill, apart from abandoning units, right?

And there's ways that we can restructure that rate so there's more control that more of your bills can be based on flow, and you can influence flow a lot more by installing efficient fixtures and things like that.

So there are other ways um to provide uh there are multiple ways to provide uh more control and flexibility in customers build, we want to explore with you all.

Yeah, I had that thought specifically with multifamilies.

You said that uh your analysis shows that generally they're under that uh allowance, and that I would think in a multifamily situation broadly, they're looking at less square feet, fewer toilets, fewer residents per housing unit.

Um that if we can incentivize that rate structure to encourage as well as acknowledge those facts to to recognize those facts and then to encourage conservation.

Bring up a great point because now I'm thinking about my apartment complex and whether I'm paying the same rate as someone with I don't know, three bathrooms because I only have one.

So I don't know.

Great point.

Uh any questions from Commissioner Margolis or DuPertis?

No, thank you for the presentation.

Um the other comments we've covered some of my questions.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um then maybe if I can just ask some clarifying questions for me just to kind of put this all into context here.

So the whole point is the cost of service analysis is to ensure that there's equity across the three classes, right?

And state law has some guidance as to that.

Does the state law require equity within a certain time frame?

Because you're presenting us with options that go from three, five commissioners are asking about seven, fourteen.

Does the state law dictate?

Yeah, we have to make up the gap between a certain time period, or can we say, heck, let's do 25 years even.

What is the driving force here?

You know, when I was a consultant, I would feel free to talk freely about that, but now there's a city attorney's office.

I have to be more careful about that.

Um if I can put on my my speak freely hat.

Uh is what I have seen in doing these studies across Washington State is two things that are important.

Is if you have a if you come across a finding that there is subsidies that you demonstrate there is progress being done.

That that is the most important thing, as opposed to saying I've gotten this feedback from doing these studies five times in a row, and I still just don't acknowledge or do anything about it.

I think that's the most important litmus test.

I have come up with rate plans that have extended 10 years out.

Um wouldn't recommend that if I were, you know, running that organization because you want to really align your your phase in plan around when you do these checkups anyway.

And you the longer you wait, the more surprises you get.

So that's how I would answer it, but but I also would defer that if the attorney's office tells me I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.

Just to be clear, it's it's not prescribed specifically in the law that there is a time frame.

But I think to Matt's point, you know, when you when you see results like this, you you know better and you want to do better, but there's not a time frame that's specifically in the RCW.

Okay.

And then I may be overreading this, but I know in the years where we talk about the capital uh CIP and all the investments, there's a city policy, and you generally are trying to not have rates spike, right?

And that in this scenario would also lead you to whatever longer time frame it is because it's smoother than the shortest time frame you have on the board here, the three-year time frame is definitely a spike up, if you will, right?

So is that part of the thinking as you go through your recommendation here?

Absolutely.

You know, I uh I brought the this is the copy of the city's financial policies, and I was like, if you remember, there was a US editor named Robert Bird, and he'd always carry the copy of the US constitution.

I'm not Robert Pird, but I'm carrying my financial policies.

So um, yes, there are financial policies related to gradual rate increases, um, predictable rate increases, and so it's a balancing act, right?

And we're trying to identify what is that that right balance working with you all, working with the city council eventually.

Um, like I said, this isn't the we've done all the quantitative work, and really the the policy work is where this begins, and determining what is that right balance on what is too too abrupt of a rate change.

Yep.

Yeah.

Excellent point.

Uh and then my last question uh has to do with the fact that you presented this as a cost uh uh analysis relating to sewer.

And doesn't the utility bill that goes out to customers cover more than just sewer?

Does so it are the numbers here the total bill increase that a single family resident account would see, or is it just the sewer component?

The sewer components.

Yes, right.

Okay, so I think for me in assessing the options, uh, I don't know if you can do this projecting out to 2027, given the other components of the bill, what does that look like?

I mean, if it I mean 11, 14, 16 percent look pretty huge, but I know sewer is not the only thing.

If you add the other ones and blend them all together, what percentage are we talking about?

That would be very helpful for me at least to kind of consider as you're moving forward.

Right.

That um well, if I can I have to write the memo anyway, so I'll put that in the agenda memo for the November meeting.

Okay.

All right, yeah.

And well, do you do similar analysis for the other components?

And just this year you're doing sewer.

Correct.

So sort of on a rotating basis.

In 2026, we have stormwater scheduled, and then after that, we'll do water.

Okay.

All right, and then we'll be doing the same equity reconciliation every time you do these analysis.

You'll be looking at yeah, the equity between customer classes with each one of these.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions?

All right, thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

Okay, Joe, you want to review the calendars?

I do.

I'm gonna um get this out of my way here.

So I led you if it's okay with the commission.

I'd like to revisit one of the comments that we had on the bylaws for clarity and and to get make sure I'm going the right path.

I led you maybe astray by just so I'm showing you what I uh had in my presentation.

This uh summary of the article related to the ordinance 6865, limiting to two consecutive terms on any advisory board and commission.

And the word operating word, I think is any.

And so in the bylaws in that are draft in the strike draft, it is uh Kurt is correct.

It does say on the commission for more than two consecutive terms, which could, if you if you as we continue reading this, I highlighted the area that I think the uh our attorney was was thinking about is right here.

Um I have my computer getting in my way.

Okay, the limitation to those two consecutive terms means service on the the commission for two successive terms or service on another city board or commission for one term, followed by service on the commission for another term, and whereby a term is defined as a service of two years or longer.

Each of the commissions and boards are getting these bylaws.

So whether you're coming onto this commission or going on to another, I think this part of the bylaw of this uh four six addresses your concern.

I don't think it does.

So can you help me understand why?

I just want to make sure I can.

Okay, so that last highlighted part, you've got let's say it's four years on transportation commission, and then four years on environmental services.

Right?

Where it talks about or service on another board followed by service on the commission.

So that's limiting.

But then if they want to go back to transportation, they'll the the commission the transportation bylaws will have this as well.

And so the back and forth.

I I'm I don't think it's possible to go back and I I would just ask you have the lawyer look at it.

I will run it by the attorney.

And and I would say in that first sentence, change the word the to any, and then it and then it follows the language of what the city council resolution was.

Okay, and then I think it makes it really clear.

Okay.

But I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on TV.

I know, and I also just want to I just want to address your your comment.

Yeah, make sure we can get it right and not do it back too much because I want to bring it back in a final form.

Okay, well, being the lawyer, then I will just say, I mean, Kurt's comment.

I think I I agree with it that I think that it the word the and the word any commission is an issue in this case, but I also think that your highlighted language down below doesn't it it doesn't cover all the scenarios because it only covers someone coming being on the one another commission for four years and then coming to the commission, our commission.

Right.

There's also a scenario where it's the reverse with the bylaws in the other commissions and boards being identical in reverse, if that makes sense.

Yeah, well, yeah, but you know, in our bylaw, it'll say you can come to our commission for four years if you've only served on another commission for four years, right?

Right.

But what if the person is coming from our commission after four years and then going to another commission?

There will their bylaws will cover that.

That's what I want to make sure.

Yes, in fact, in the ordinance itself, it speaks to every Bellevue City Code and Commission called out by number.

Okay.

So it it that's the intent.

Now, whether it does satisfies the intent that what I'm hearing, right?

I'll talk to our attorney.

Oh, Kurt just wants it to be just double checked, and I think that's fair.

Okay.

This is the city council resolution here.

And and it has the word any in it.

So it's talking about the whole city rather than a singular commission.

Yeah, it does.

Yeah, it calls them all up.

Okay, I will follow, I'll follow up on that.

Let me see if calendars make this a little bit bigger.

Uh commission calendar.

November, as you can see, uh BSC bylaws.

We've talked about that, solid waste programs update memo.

Um, we've been in the progress of getting our uh survey completed and and collated, and we'll have some uh some of that information into the memo.

And then the COSA sewer cost of service rate design.

That's the COSA discussion we just were briefed on.

And then uh this was deferred, I believe, from September, the utility bill assistance program.

Um couple of the commissioners have been asking about this, and we will be bringing a presentation on the um utility bill assistance programs.

Uh December uh is a we do this every year.

We sit down, we'll uh have a off-site uh evening, call it a mini retreat at best, but um we don't meet here, and uh we'll look at the year in review and do some planning for probably a lot of I see budget in our future in next year.

So um heavy budget, in fact, yes.

Um on council calendar, uh storm and sewer pipe defect repair 2024.

Keep in mind these titles are when we start doing design.

So you might see a uh water main phase one 2023, and that's when we we call it that because that's the year we start the design work.

So these projects take some time.

Yeah, uh December, uh Kelsey Creek culvert at Lake Hills Boulevard, sewer pipe defect repair 2025 and monitoring replacement 25, phase two and PRVs.

Um so that covers the calendar, uh, and we wind down and kick it off again in 2026.

Any questions?

Uh Joe, one question for me on the um if you can go back to the previous calendar.

Yeah.

The um solid waste program update memo.

That's with Republic Services, right?

Correct.

Will that also include an update on timeline perhaps on when we start relooking at the new contract?

Because I remember that's been brought up before.

I will I will talk to uh Scott Edwards and John Geyer about uh uh whether that's in the memo itself on Republic.

I don't know if that it would make sense to have it in that memo, the value of that, but uh certainly get an update.

Yeah, if we at least get a staff update there.

Yeah.

Great, thank you.

All right.

Well, with that, we are at the end of the meeting.

Um may have a motion to adjourn.

Move to adjourn in a second.

I second.

Thank you.

Uh we are adjourned at 7.52 p.m.

Thank you, everyone.

Good evening.

Second.