Good morning.

Welcome to the first financial audit and oversight select committee meeting.

Let me start with introductions to my far left.

Brandon Russell, Council Research.

Brian Parks, Council Auditors Office.

Philip Peterson, Council Auditor.

Joe Carlucci, District 5.

Ron Salem, group two at large.

Good morning, Chris Miller at large group five.

Good morning, Nick Howland at large group three.

Let me also recognize we've got Matt LaSell here.

Where did he go?

Oh, okay.

From the uh inspector general's office, um, who actually uh requested that the council get involved in this capacity fee issue.

We've got uh Rob's Zamatero.

I think I pronounced that correctly, who's here from JEA that is the water um person at the head of the head of the uh food chain for JEA.

Thank Rob, thank you for coming.

We've got uh Joe DeSalvo here, a board member, Mr.

DeSavo, we appreciate you coming.

And uh let me turn it over to President uh Howland for some comments before we get started.

Thank you, Chair Salem.

I appreciate it.

Am I on extra loudspeaker right now?

Or it's crazy.

It's like uh we're in an auditorium.

Hold on, I'm gonna swap.

We can all hear you.

All right, how's this?

Is that a little better?

A little bit more normal.

All right, fantastic.

Um, welcome to the first meeting of uh the FAO Select Committee.

I'm proud to be here.

I'm proud uh that you three have agreed to be on it.

Um as you recall, the the basis of this committee was um the fact that Doge did a great job winding up all of its outstanding charges.

The SIC had wound up almost all of its charges uh that it could work on except for the unbilled water capacity fees.

And uh so it stood to reason that we could combine those two into a new committee, a select committee um called the financial audit and oversight select committee.

And by our council rule 2.103 B, um a select committee is subject to uh uh it's limited to a single subject matter and a duration of 90 days.

And this one is charged with looking at those unbilled water capacity fees that the inspector general asked uh the auditors and uh council to look at.

Um the important thing about this FAO committee is um I think the people on it is a critical component of it.

Um and you'll see it's chaired by and comprised of experienced council members and um all who uh have experience in finance, governance, and public accountability.

It's it's kind of the dream team.

I mean, Ron, you've um kind of a long standing finance guru on council.

Um Chris, you're a former inspector general in the Army, and Joe, you're likely the next president.

So anything that we find that needs action that um needs to go multi-year, um, you can take that action.

So uh I'm hopeful this model will prove effective.

We stand up, we look at one issue, we have a uh time-defined um period to look at it, we make recommendations or turn it into legislation, and then we stand down.

Um, hopefully to stand up when another issue arises that merits the strength of this committee.

So hopefully it could provide uh future council leadership with a flexible and efficient oversight tool.

Uh so with that back to you, Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh President Howell, I'm told by um by Miss Mary that it's actually 60 days versus 90 days.

60 days, yeah, thank you.

So I think we've got all the introductions.

Um I uh I want to begin this by giving uh Mr.

Parks, who did a lot of the yeoman's work on capacity fees as much time as he needs to go through the issue.

Well what the auditors have found, and then we'll open it up to questions from um the committee and essentially anyone else that has any questions about this.

So um Brian, take as much time as you need.

All right, we'll do.

Thank you, sir.

All right, so starting off with our office was asked to determine the extent to which capacity fees may not have been collected in recent years and identifying any amounts owed to the city or JEA.

Um, based on our analysis performed by our office in conjunction with the work performed by JEA, the maximum amount not collected by JA since 2003 appears to be about 75 million on meters three inches and larger.

Of that 75 million, about 20 million is related to multifamily units.

Uh, we did some research into those multifamily units, and it doesn't appear that a lot of them changed from maybe what the initial capacity was paid.

So that number may be more in the 55 million as the true maximum amount owed.

As indicated by JA previously, there are still interpretations of the tariff, customer specific circumstances and other legal items that may reduce the amounts that would have actually been owed and specifically and more importantly could actually be collected today.

An important point to consider is that just because a customer's average daily flow exceeds the capacity paid for by more than 20% does not mean that customer necessarily owes an additional capacity fee.

Depending upon the interpretation of the tariff document, which governs how fees are supposed to be charged, the customer would have had to increase, expand, or change operations for them to actually owe additional capacity fee.

As it relates to whether an amount not an amount is owed to the city of Jacksonville, there is not an amount owed.

We did not perform specific testing related to meters three inches unless given the materiality of the capacity that could be grown within that meter size.

So giving some background to this, it's important to note that everyone agrees that there is an issue with additional capacity fees potentially owed not being identified with additional capacity fees potentially owed not being identified in charge.

The disagreement kind of gets into the pervasiveness of potential overall financial impact and what options are available to address this at this point in time.

While JA has been working on aspects of this dating back to 22 as came up in previous meetings, their work as it relates to all of the businesses more in the last 18 months with even more extreme focus in the past six specifically.

For our part, we met with 15 around 15 JA employees throughout this process so that we get an understanding of capacity fees, additional capacity fees in particular, the problems with additional capacity fees, and what JAA was doing to identify and address the problem.

We received access to various JA systems, which were beneficial as we work to calculate and validate the amounts that were not collected throughout this process.

JA and its employees have been cooperative, and nothing we did would be possible without the work that they had done first.

JA's calculation of baseline capacity fees paid.

They spent a lot of time over the past year establishing the amounts paid by business count because first they had to figure out what had been paid.

This has been a longer process to undertake given that there's 25,000 plus business accounts.

Since this was not trapped in a centrally located field, they needed to go through.

So for prior to 21, they're actually hard copied documentation.

However, they in their systems, the amounts paid were logged within the customer system so they could back into the amount that was of capacity paid for based on the fees in charge in place at the time they paid.

Given the you know 25,000 plus business accounts, JEA focused in on the 1679, 1,697 meters that are three inches and larger for the review to validate the amounts.

Once they got the amounts paid, they then discussed they spent time in 2026 pooling and validating actual usage on those three inches and larger.

The flow usage calculation is needed to flag amounts that may be owed by businesses.

Although this work may appear simple at first, there are many things that need to be accounted for, such as meter at replacements because if there's a broken meter, billing adjustments, also because of that, uh getting data broken down into consistent time frames because uh billing periods are different for different services, even with the same customer.

Um as they work to get that, they got to a good set of data.

JA then had to flag and calculate what amount might be owed by customers.

To do this, JA first had to establish the baseline capacity amount.

This was done by crediting the customer with the greater of the capacity fees paid identified by JAA or the average daily flow for 2005, 2004, and 2005, given that 2000 there was not available earlier information.

JAA then compared the baseline amount to the average daily flow information by year to figure out the first year a customer trip the 20% increase limit to owe additional fees.

JA then took the average daily flow for 2025 and multiplied it by the capacity fee in place of the year they tripped 20% to determine amount potentially owed.

So this is taking their flow in 2025, multiplying it by the fee in which the year in which they kind of went over that limit to calculate, so that kind of reduces the amount that might be owed slightly.

So that they calculated a 25 million dollars based on that method.

Um which is reasonable when you're calculat trying to determine what is the amount that's owed today, potentially.

As part of our analysis to validate the data, we recalculated the average daily flow for a sample of customers to determine if the data by JA appeared to match the customer bills based on this work.

We were able to get comfortable with the data from JA for the purposes of our analysis.

In general, we reperformed the calculation with the same approach as JA.

The major difference in our approach was that we took the average daily flow by year and then and compared it to the baseline capacity.

Each year that the 20% threshold was tripped, we reestablished a new baseline capacity amount for the customer based on that year's flow.

The increase in capacity over the 20% threshold in each year for all customers was then multiplied by the capacity fee in place at the time to determine the amount that might be owed for that year.

This resulted in approximately 75 million being owed potentially.

Other considerations to keep in mind is important to know that just because a business is flagged as potentially owing does not mean in fact they owe additional capacity fees.

Other things that are being analyzed by JEA include the impact of different agreements, exemptions, and how the statute of limitations may impact the amount potentially owed, as well as the need to ensure that everyone is treated fairly within the tariff.

At this point, I can answer any questions.

And also JEA is here as well.

I don't see anybody in the queue, but I I have a few.

Yes, it's the flow back to that point in time, yes.

Okay, and as someone went above the 20%, that became the baseline for the future, and then if they went above again, that became the baseline going forward.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay.

For our calculation method, yes.

Okay.

And then and again, I I you can I make a point on that on the O3 piece.

Um when we were talking with you, it came up as well.

Is keep in mind that the fee for uh capacity fees prior to that time was not as much.

So the materiality of any amount before then it would be much less than now.

So whenever we were looking at it in our calculations, you're in an eight to ten million dollars per year kind of thing in recent years, but in those other years, it's more of a couple million dollar type impact.

So because the capacity fees have increased drastically about four or five years ago.

So why is that?

Let me go back for a second, because I've got uh President Hallman in the queue.

Okay.

Um you're saying today you expect capacity fee uh amounts to be in that six to eight million, ten million dollar range going forward that that we need to get fixed so that we can collect those dollars appropriately.

Yes, and I can't necessarily say going forward because I'd be projecting what you know increases will be, but in the more recent pieces, yes, they're in that six to ten million dollar range because of the fact of what the um capacity fee rates are now, where they are combined about $30, where in the past they were at you know $461 and stuff like that.

So that is a drastic change in the rates based on the rate study done by JEA where they have a consultant that comes in and does that piece, and so I would defer to them on how that rate is actually calculated to bill.

Okay.

I'm gonna go to President Howland at this point.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Brian, uh the 20% number.

Did you get that?

Because that was kind of ubiquitous in all the tariff documents when it um was talking about water capacity fees, or is that just something that you and JEA agreed when it when would trigger?

There is a provision through the chair to Council President Howland.

There is a provision in the water tariff that talks about once you go over a 20% that you may there, there is other stipulations that talk about change of operation.

So it is not a you go up by 20%, it's automatic.

There are also other times that you could owe for even not going up by 20% because you change their use.

So there's some different things that come in, but that is a guideline that to utilize that we utilize for this analysis, yes.

Okay.

And did you get a chance to look at any of those tariff documents or contracts um for any of the select customers you chose with you know meter uh meters over three inches?

It is one tariff that doc that governs them all.

So that so it's not like I have to go into a different where the other agreements could come into play is when you're dealing with somebody that might have some sort of agreement dating back to the 1980s or 90s and stuff like that.

You have some of that stuff that could come into play, but the tariff document within the tiers applies the same.

Okay, and here's something that's been mulling over in my head for a while.

I hope I can enunciate it clearly, but the tariff document doesn't put the onus on the customer to report when they've exceeded the 20% capacity and then adjust their payments to JEA, right?

It JEA still is responsible for invoicing the customer for additional capacity fees when the 20% threshold is triggered.

I think some of that might get more into a legal thing that I'd want to be very careful on what responsibility the customer.

JA did have a responsibility to bill them and in the, you know, it at least flag and notify whether or not the customer is also responsible.

I would prefer to defer to legal and JEA ultimately.

And a collection is when something's been invoiced, it's overdue, and you turn it over to collections to collect it.

It's that's why in my memo, I I suspected that none of these folks over the past 10 or 15 years have received invoices for the water capacity fee increases.

So therefore it's not really uncollected, it's unbilled water capacity fees.

I I think is probably a more proper kind of way to term that, uh, unless Mary or any anyone knows GCO focused on contractual law feels differently.

Um it's kind of how I'm thinking about it.

Okay.

Can I just jump in?

You know, the the question in my mind, and you you bring up one very important point is if someone is expanding their plant and and they know their capacity is going to go up, do they have a responsibility as well to contact JEA and say, hey, we're going, we we know we're gonna go above, we're alerting you so that we can get our billing correct.

That's that's my thought.

It's it I don't think it's the only way to go, but I think that that balances what you're saying.

Okay, with that, let's go to was it Mary?

Were you gonna to the chair and through the chair to the council president?

So I'm I'm happy to work with you offline and the auditor's office to talk about that.

I'm not as familiar with their documents and kind of what's at play here to want to render uh any legal opinions, so to speak, at this juncture, but happy to kind of facilitate let's get that information together so we can get you a response.

Thank you.

Because uh, if you don't mind, Mr.

Chair, um because the auditors and IG have done the hard work of now identifying the issue and now quantifying the issue.

Um now we need to determine, I think, if if any of it is indeed collectible.

Um and in a scenario like Chair Salem says, where if if they reported that they were gonna have to you know expand so they would owe additional water capacity fees, then maybe there is an element of um collectible revenue there.

Um but otherwise, if we determine that of that 75 million, none of it is collectible because it's never really been invoiced.

Um it's just unbilled.

Uh what we got to do is as a FAO work is work with JEA to make sure that water capacity fees when they trigger the 20% threshold get billed appropriately moving forward from here.

And I can't say through the chair that that is exactly what JEA is working on in conjunction with our office.

I imagine that at least some of this is going to absolutely be collectible.

I mean, we're having to look at it in the context of statute of limitations and things like that.

And again, they as referenced in the memo from the auditor's office.

If there were any exemptions or agreements in place, those are all things that we're kind of working through to kind of get to this legal question now of who owes and how much.

So that's part of the ongoing process that's occurring with our office.

Thank you.

I just if I can add one other piece to this that's very important to me.

Um at some point, this data is going to go to the JEA for analysis and determination, and eventually to the board.

I would see that for them to make a determination of what's collectible, what should be billed, and those kind of things.

I think it's I I've been very consistent about this, whether it's employee issues or capacity issues, ultimately, our form of government says that seven-member board is ultimately responsible.

My only concern is that discussion on where they go once they get all this information and make that determination is done in the sunshine.

So that everyone sees it, understands it, understands the thought process, so that we all can be comfortable that that's a reasonable approach, whatever that approach is.

Let me go to uh Vice President Carlucci.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um and yeah, just to kind of piggyback on what's collectible and not, and Mary, you just kind of hit on this.

The statute of limitations, right?

Typically five years for like written contracts, but I know there's a bunch of different you know, caveats with that.

And Brian, you touched on it too.

So where do we stay?

How do we think we stand on that?

And if someone from JEA can speak to that, obviously, we're we're looking at back into 2020 or 2003.

So let's just assume statute of limitation applies in a five-year time frame.

Now basically everything pre-2021 is totally irrelevant for the sake of what's collectible.

Do we have any idea of where we're gonna land on that?

Um through the chair to council vice president Carlucci.

So, first off, yes, they are their team is working on certain things related to it.

So it by the way in which we did the analysis, the last four years were about 35 million dollars, because again, think about that fee change.

But ours was not reset setting a base in 23, so we'd have to do the analysis slightly different because we weren't factoring that in.

But that's probably a good guide, but keep in mind that there are other legal issues that they're working through, and it may be good to hear from them to kind of explain those processes of where they're going so that they can eventually bring a pro uh the everything to the board so the board can make the ultimate decision on how to handle right, sure.

And through the chair to if anyone's here from JEA that would like to speak to that, only because I I would be hard-pressed to think from since any amount of time.

Y'all have never gotten into some type of legal argument or discussion about hey, you got to collect this.

Oh, it's been 10 years, sorry.

So do you have any light to shed on that?

Uh yes, thank you.

Um this my name is Rob Zimintero.

I'm the chief water system officer for JEA.

Um, I really appreciate the conversation and a lot of the questions, because the questions that you're all are discussing here today are many of the things we've been talking about over the past several months.

So I like to personally compartmentalize the discussion into going forward and retroactively in the rears.

Um, you know, going forward, um, we are modifying our billing system so it will be automatically tracked and all that data will be reproducible.

Um going forward is fairly easy.

Um we do have to extend a little bit um to write a policy.

Because you heard a lot of the questions whose responsibility is to um you know bring the 20% to the light as a JA or the customers and things like that.

So even though the existing tariff language is very specific, um, there's a lot of details missing.

So a policy for going forward um will have to be written, um, and that will be presented to our board.

Um is in regards to going backwards.

Um we will do a separate policy for that, um, but that is with legal guidance.

Um there's a lot of um pitfalls and there's statute of limitations.

Um of the businesses um have changed hands.

Um there's specific agreements out, and the list goes on and on as far as some of the issues and make which make the everything very complex.

So um we will have two policies, one going retroactively and one going forward.

Um by the beginning of next year, we hope to be in front of the board with those policies.

Um and in within those policies, we will be discussing a lot of the things that you guys have mentioned today, um, such as calculation methodology, how we set the baseline, whose responsibility, um, what is the customer's appeal process if they don't feel it's a fair invoice.

So um customer outreach, what our responsibility is as far as contacting our customers with the overarching goal to be fair and equitable to everybody, not just the businesses we're discussing, but the other residents that would be subsidizing it if they did not pay.

So um, did I answer that question for you?

Um yeah, I mean, I it it's it's a hard question to answer because I'm while you're talking, I'm just sitting here thinking, like, okay, obviously you've got to determine what the previous contracts have said, if there's ownership changes, and then going forward, do you do you have to create a new contract?

Who identifies the usage?

Obviously, it's way easier for JEA to identify that.

I don't think it really matters at the end of the day as long as it's identified and then sent to the customer and said, Hey, this is it, you can appeal it if you want.

Um, but anyway, so there's there's a whole once you start pulling the thread on this, I think it just begins to show so many things that will unravel.

But ultimately, I'm glad to hear that you have you know some type of framework you're working with in to make sure going forward, uh, the most important that can get um really buttoned up and identified because that's a lot of money to you know, quote unquote leave on the table.

And obviously, y'all are incentivized to collect it, right?

Because these are these are dollars that are going to build your new treatment plants and your new infrastructure projects and whatnot.

So yeah, with that, I'll I don't have any other questions, Mr.

Chair.

I just wanted to mention a couple other things.

I I think it's important to the committee, uh, Rob, that we get some type of report periodically from your team on progress 30 every 60 days, let's say we can kind of put that in place, Mr.

President.

Um Mr.

Chair, I would just recommend that if that's the case, the report would potentially be to the council or one of the standing committees, because as you know, this committee will end in 60 days unless extended by the president.

60 days through the chair puts us uh what August um September 20th.

Well, you made the memo effective July 1st, so we're looking at very beginning of September.

But the finance committee, if you wanted to select a standing committee is the most likely based on its charge, okay that would receive the reports after that date.

Yeah.

And and I think I actually put on establishing the FAO select committee effective July 20th.

So I think we have a little bit more.

Um you're calling for their final report on September 18th.

Ah, perfect.

Yeah, good.

Because I think then if um September 18th, 19th, 20th, it just has to be done by then.

And and the charge of it is to is exactly what we're talking about here with the plan, you know, to move forward that's acceptable to counsel for uh JEA board to you know to end this issue and this investigation in JEA board to implement.

Um so you're right, some kind of report.

Uh luckily it's after the the heavy lifting of the budget is due.

Um so the first second week of September, something like that.

Okay.

That's number one, and I think it's important once you have a uh a plan in place for for particularly going forward that the auditors are are are going back in to audit that progress and make sure that everything is going as as we think it is.

And uh that may be sometime early next year in the first quarter once everything is set up.

I think it's important uh that would really close the door, so to speak, on this for the auditors to go back and see that everything is in place.

Uh with that, let me go to council member Miller.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um through the chair, I just like to start out with um an observation that I really do appreciate.

How well it appears the auditors and the JEA personnel are working together, um, as well as the inspector general office, it seems like everyone's trying to find that that way forward is as well as um general counsel and uh the legal team um that they're working with as well, because in my opinion and and as uh I think we all share, uh, this is important.

This this money um doesn't belong to us, so it's not a situation where we're trying to recoup uh things that are um coming back to us personally, obviously um as like with most uh fees, um these these belong to the taxpayers and are used in a way that should go in line with what the taxpayers should be able to expect.

Um to that point, what could you could you put on the record, Mr.

Parks or or whomever, um what's the normal, what are the normal uses of these capacity fees that are collected, or someone from JEA, Rob could someone speak to that?

I just want on the record for people to understand why is this important that we not only get it fixed going forward, which thank you also for those efforts, um to make that so, but that we also go back and recover what is legally recoverable.

Um there are good reasons for doing that.

If if you would just um share with us a little bit about what these fees are used for, through the chair.

Um so capacity fees are specific to the plant capacity.

Um so to kind of I guess overly simplify it, um when it when you build a new plant um as people connect to it, they kind of purchase their portion of the plant, their little slice of the pie per se.

Um those capacity fees help go and pay for that infrastructure that we have bonded up front.

So whenever somebody pays for a capacity fee, whether it be water or wastewater, it's specific to the plant capacity and the capital improvements that went into building that facility.

Um it has nothing to do with their um consumption, their monthly bill, those are not fees that are involved in this.

It's specifically just for the infrastructure at the facilities.

Uh through the chair, thank you.

Um and also along the lines of uh the goodness in in going through this process is um because it had been brought to our attention, it been brought to your attention and um and we need to put things in a better place.

Um I did want to just follow up and ask um, you know, and I don't want to get into the the details of things here, but um it's to me it's not only important that we fix it going forward and as I said, recover what we can, but also um what do we learn through this through the chair accountability-wise.

Um I see a lot of things the inspector general looks into, and then those who were responsible for doing it, and there was set responsibility and people who should have been on top of this.

Um what has happened in that regard?

So um to put it in context, um, I mean, I believed it to be a 30-year issue.

Um Brian pointed out he had found this tariff language back to 1971.

So this tariff language has existed for 55 years.

So these are additional fees for customers.

So you know, we are addressing and discussing a 55-year-old issue, which I'm glad has been brought to light.

So when we talk about accountability, it's definitely a miss.

Unfortunately, I think it's been there for so long it became business as normal.

So I think the focus at JAA is fixing the problem, moving forward, making sure that we are, you know, that we are catching all those things in the tariff.

I don't have a an excuse or anything to say that, hey, this is you know why it was missed or whatnot.

Um so I can't speak on behalf of that, but can say that everybody um from the auditors department to the inspector general to the current staff leadership at JA, everybody's committed to making sure this going forward is does not happen again.

Through the chair, thank you very much.

Yeah, I I'm gonna go to Joe.

I just want to make a point.

It's important that we get this done right.

I mean, we just went through a rate increase.

Um, and I understand this is completely separate from rate increases, but there's a we don't want the perception that we've got fifty-five million dollars here that we're not gonna collect, and we just raise the rates on the rank and file homeowners, et cetera.

So I just think it's important we do everything right, make sure if this ever happens again, we jump on it, fix it.

Um and and I know this was uh maybe not a priority a few years ago, and and I commend everyone that identified it this time and fixing it.

Um Mr.

LaSelle, you're back there.

Did you want to make any comments or uh um you you're the one that sort of got us into this, and I would welcome anything that you have heard that uh that you're comfortable with or anything else that you want to recommend before I go to Mr.

Carlucci?

Yes, uh Matt LaSalle Inspector General, through the chair to the entire committee.

First and foremost, I'd appreciate all the um the effort that's gone into fixing this problem.

We had the problem was brought to us uh and again we reached out to the council auditor's office because uh we just did not have the capacity in-house to be able to adequately address this issue.

So very thankful for the auditors for the phenomenal work they've done.

And JEA has been um very cooperative with us.

We we released a report in June of this year highlighting the issues, highlighting the um again, it is a 50-year-old problem.

So we appreciate that.

And this administration, meaning the current board and the current CEO of JEA has been very cooperative with us in trying to rectify this and make it right.

I have assurances from the CEO that this whole process in terms of going forward and going back is going to be in the sunshine.

Uh in her response to our report, she was pretty clear that everything was going to be done out in the open and and in the public view, which is one of our primary recommendations was that.

So I'm appreciative of that.

But going forward, uh from our perspective, the issues have been identified, the issues being worked, uh, great work by the counselors, the city council auditors office.

So unless there's any questions from me, I I don't see we'll still continue to monitor this, but in terms of recommendations going forward, we we've made them and and JEA has adopted most of the recommendations we've made.

Are you supportive of the auditors going back in at some point once this is resolved and just making sure everything is good?

Absolutely.

I think there'll be very in terms of a follow-up, we'll follow up with the auditor's office and get kind of a time frame of when that's going to happen, and then we can make that part of our our report.

Okay.

Mr.

Vice President Carlucci.

Okay, thanks.

Uh this question, yeah, is it back to just and someone might have already said this, but we're throwing a lot around whoever from JEA or our auditors.

What's like an average number that y'all collect in capacity fees?

A year.

So I know it's probably fluctuating.

It does fluctuate.

Um, over the past 30 years, um, we've collected over 9 billion.

Um, so that's I'm sorry, say that say that again.

So over the past 30 years, since 1997, um, we pulled our total amount.

So the total amount over the past 30, 29 years we've been around is in excess of nine billion.

So that's what we have collected for new connections.

Okay, so on average um 60 million a year.

Yeah, now.

And that number is varied greatly over the past 30 years.

But right, right, right.

I gotcha.

Okay, cool.

I'm just trying to build some context around some of the numbers here.

Um that's all I had.

Thank you.

But the the increase in capacity fees, that 60 million is the standard capacity fee.

The the increase is six to eight to ten million dollars a year.

Just so we got our numbers correct.

Yeah, that I I'm not as comfortable as Brian with that number.

Um, because I what's going to happen, and you you kind of saw it in the report when they went back and started auditing multifamily.

Um the number went from 70 million down to 55 million because they didn't meet the tariff requirement.

I have we're gonna have to go in and audit each one of these accounts individually, and I just I don't feel like the number is gonna be that large.

Um you're probably in the order of magnitude of two to three million a year.

Um, but we just looked at flows um due to time and expediency.

We looked at flows to try and get a ballpark figure.

When you start going in and looking at contracts, um exemptions, um, certain schools systems are exempt.

Um it's gonna be a I think a lower number, but that that's an estimate.

The other issue I just wanted to mention the uh city council uh survey of the CEO.

Um Mr.

Thiel and I had a call late last week, and uh the select linked is finalizing their report.

We hope to have uh hope to have something in the next uh two weeks, I would say is that a fair assessment, and we will then coordinate with the JEA board some type of presentation on that on that information.

Okay.

Anyone else have anything?

We stand adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

Well, that's