I received TTAN and moved back to Scotland and are they?
Okay, it is done.
Second was determined the legal committee requested that did are on the calendar under new business court of Scots and the United States after the dates that were recommended by that committee. You look at the Consent Calendar as items three see, while in 15. And then the third item Chairman, we would like to withdraw for discussion today. The item a&p, the parent policy, we will be bringing that back to the Florida your day but these for purposes of taping.
II
that would that be it miss Morrison? Yes, I think that yes, it is. Yes, it is. Okay. there being nothing else. And with those changes. Is there a motion to support to approve the agenda? This is just the agenda. Is there a motion? To support to approve the agenda? Support?
The second motion or support?
Yep. Then move to support it. All those in favor? Aye. All right now is there a motion to end support to approve the consent matters? So moved. It's been moved and supported Mr. Zack, thank you. And without objection, the consent matters are approved. And with those changes that moves us over to item six that will be public comment, Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Chairman, this is the opportunity for members of the public to come forth and address this board. They if they wish to do so they have three minutes to speak there are two ways in which public comment can be effectuated one is to come to the podium as from and the second is for those participating via zoom to either raise their hand and the application or press star nine on their on their telephone. And so at that point, Mr. Chairman, I don't see anyone approaching the podium in this room. I don't see I see two hands up. For public comment. The first beam is Marian Kramer vs. Kramer.
Yes, go right ahead.
Yeah, um thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak to you guys, people today. I lived in Highland Park, and very concerned about how we parked and I have some things, just one, one or two things I need to find out from you is how does the Lima assess the sewage changes in Highland Park as compared to other places? Hello,
any other questions on that item? Ma'am?
Wayman. Once a Kramer
yeah, here you go.
This is this is a freeman Hendricks. I'm the chairman of the board. Meet you. Yes, ma'am. This public comment portion is an opportunity for you and others in the public to make comment, ideas and suggestions. But it is not customary that we engage in a dialogue of back and forth questions and answers during this timeframe. So these three minutes that you have is your opportunity to state some issue that you have you may even ask a question, but we're not in a position at this time to engage in a back and forth conversation of questions and answers. Hope you can appreciate that.
You can't that was that was not a long tedious question. I think that in as much as you are handling this, you could probably give me some answers on this because this is this is a hot thing for folks in Highland Park.
Understood and we'll take it under advisement. And if at some point during the course of today's meeting, if there's an opportune time in which to respond to questions like that, I'll certainly do that. Do you have anything else was great? Okay, ma'am. Well, thank you very much. And your question is duly noted.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Next up is Reverend Turner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson.
This is Charlene Turner Johnson. Thank you very much. I'm a resident of Highland Park. I've been here almost seven years. And I'm also a volunteer in a nonprofit organization in Highland Park. We're getting ready to renovate an abandoned tax evader building to remove blight in our community. And I'm concerned about the debt that elite gleyber alleges Highland Park owes. I've asked the Highland Park officials, how do we get into this situation with the debt? And it was explained to me that it was because, yeah, emergency manager that changed the contract with the city of Detroit which was taken over by Glee WA. And in the changing of the contract. I raised were increased and that the height of the park officials didn't sign this contract. So I'm just here today to state that we would like residents would like this investigated. Residents of course do not want to have to be responsible for some $20 million worth of debt that the city of Highland Park is not actually responsible for. I've also asked the officials in Highland Park more about how this debt was actually calculated. Because I understand that there's not a meter, two meter the sewage that's running through the city in our pipes. That sewage is coming from other municipalities North actually calculate how much this is costing not only for the city of Highland Park, but for other communities. So I would recommend that Liwa provide this information to the residents in the city. If this 20 million plus debt is actually charged against the city, that the debt would go on the property taxes of the residents. And so as a property owner over 40 years, and as a volunteer and a nonprofit organization that owns property in the city of Highland Park, this would not be something that we could afford. This debt would destroy us as a city. And I think that the Great Lakes Water Authority should come to the city to the residents in the city and show us exactly how this alleged debt was and how it has accumulated over some I understand some 10 years. I feel that the decisions that have been made by the judges may have been legal. But I don't think that they I just I think that there is an injustice that has been against the city. And I think that Glee was had come and speak directly to the residents in Highland Park and let us know directly specifically how this debt was calculated, and what we can do about it.
Thank you. Thank you, Reverend Johnson. Again, your your questions or comments are duly noted and much appreciated. Next, Next hand. Mr. Wolf's
be next is Janet. Janet white
Good afternoon, everyone. I also agree with the person that just spoke Reverend Johnson. I also am a homeowner in Highland Park. And I'm very more I'm very much concerned about how was this regulated? How were the the debt the amount that we owe? How did it come to be? You know what process since there's no meters and all of a sudden, this is just something that we need someone to come to Highland Park and explain this? Because it's very important that there is a process and I just would like some answers hopefully soon. Thank you.
Thank you, Miss White. Next, Mr. Chairman is Linda G. Wheeler.
Miss Wheeler?
Yes, thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, ma'am. Yes. Thank you for taking my comments. I'd like to thank all the Highland Park errs and supporters Ohio and Parkers in this struggle that we're having with the Great Lakes Water Authority and Eagle as well. The mediation agreement for Highland Park that has not been explained to our our residents. We are basically a community of historical homes. And because of that, we are at least 70% retirees, seniors who cannot afford an extra burden of a tax basis. That Glama is alleging that we owe as Reverend Johnson mentioned, this has been going on for at least over 10 years. And we're not just tired, but we do pay our bills. And the media has marked us as indigent. As a poor community. We're not a wealthy community, but we wealthy in spirit, resilience and love because every time we turn around in Highland Park, something is being thrown against us. We pay our bills, but the media and glamour has betrayed us as indigent as we don't pay our bills and this is not true. I also would appreciate glioma to come to our city. Speak to our community speak to our officials make it public. Explain how this debt is allegedly owed. Explain. Will the state be a part of the mediation process? Explain media stances agreement stances? Well, let's have an open dialogue. Not just a one sided conversation. Um, you're not able to answer questions. I do appreciate that. I can make my comments. But I urge you again to open up this conversation with Highland Park because there's always one side to side of me three sides of a story. So let the third side be told thank you so much, and have a pleasant evening.
Thank you, Miss Wheeler.
Thank you, Chairman at this time, there are no hands up. So a second call for public comment in order. Any other
any other comments for public comment? Any other potential questions? Or for public comment?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have a Cassandra.
Yeah. Can you hear me?
Yes, please.
I'm a highland Parker as well. And we've been here my family's been here since 1973. And I asked the same questions as the others asked, How is the sewage assessments may concern I'm also concerned about the debt and the changing of the contract. How was it calculated? And what is the process? I want to keep my home I'm a senior and I'm retired from the state of Michigan and I want to keep my home but I cannot afford the debt that you all wish to put on us. We do pay our bills here in Highland Park. So the whatever you've been told about Highland Park is not true. Again. Like I said, I've been here since 1973. We pay our bills. We take care of our property, but we're being overtaxed and I can't understand why. And then the fact that nobody will give us an explanation of why this has taken place. I greatly appreciate any help and information that Glee wa would provide us as well as this board of directors. Thank you and have
Cassandra, any other questions for public comment? Yes, Mr. Chairman,
we have Gracie Wooten Miss Wooten.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak with you. And I really appreciate other Highland Parkers who've been on the line. You know, I was looking over the water and sewage rates for this year, this fiscal year. In your financial report. And, and, you know, the water and sewage rates for Highland Park, you know, outline in terms of what other communities are sighs or are being charged. Also, I understand that you're doing a a well, what is it called it's called the Detroit Dearborn Highland Park transmission main water metering project and and that you're going to be and dine meters to measure the flow of water because it says that this project will construct master metering master meters in order to actually see what water is flowing through the cities. And in that way, you can more accurately calculate the usage, you know, different times of the day. So keeping that in mind. I think that, you know, you should take into account that we haven't had any new contracts and really negotiated with glue, and that until a new contract, you know, because we were under a contract with the with the Detroit system until a new contract isn't a ghost is negotiated, the meters and the meters are actually installed. That you know, that so that we can actually have an objective measurement of the volume that's discharged in Highland Park. That Glee was should publicly acknowledge that it's disproportionately billing Highland Park and it's in violation of the 1996 and 1983 agreements that were made. Just because the Supreme Court did not appeal doesn't mean that this is fair. So I again, I agree with what my other community members have said. And I think when you look clearly at this, you know, that we're being overcharged in this building is completely unfair. Thank you.
Thank you, Miss Wooten. Are there other members of the community, or are there other comments that wish to be made at this time? Now will be the time to do so.
Mr. Chairman, there are no hands up and that was the third call for public comment. So it'd be appropriate to call closed public comment at this time.
third, and final call anyone else? There being no one else. This will close the public comment portion of our agenda.
Mr. Any comments from board members? Sure. Yes.
Only because we had you know, several people commenting about the same issue is, you know, it's not typically our practice to respond. But you want to maybe provide an opportunity for Randall to to answer some of the questions. Well,
let me let me say yes, I'm willing to do that. Maybe we can kind of break protocol a little bit. We've had six members all from the Highland Park community but in there's obviously some information that's flowing in one direction and in from a different direction. I'd like verandahs made some some commentary, but over and above that, it may make sense for there to be some sort of meeting we've had. You know, we had a little run of town hall meetings, if you will. We took our board meetings on the road to various communities. We got away from that because of COVID. I think we're kind of out of the woods with regard to that. And if there's ever an instance where we probably need to do a public meeting, this would be a good one. And I think it would be in our best interest as an authority, the Great Lakes Water Authority to get out into the high the party well publicized, and take all of our information out there. So we can once and for all and maybe finally put to rest any misinformation that may be flowing from one direction and we not being given an opportunity to respond in a way that we believe is accurate, and in sync with what's actually been going on both historically, as well as currently. I will say one thing there was one one lady, I think it was Miss Wheeler, maybe not nobody's gonna lose their home because of what gleyber is doing here is nobody's gonna be losing their home because of the actions that we're taking. Brando you want to take the liberty of making some comments here. Sure.
Randall Brown, Deputy Chief Administrative and compliance getting in today's meeting and providing public comment as it relates to how Gao wa sets it charges. It is done in a public format. That is not only done at this honorable bodies meetings to discuss charges, but we do have meetings with stakeholders from Highland Park and the rest of our communities to kind of go through how we do it on an annual basis and it's our charges rollout. These documents are publicly available. I think what we can do is direct folks on our website as to where they can find those materials. So they can have that general understanding as to how we go about this process. Gio, WA is interested in a comprehensive solution that has Highland Park stakeholders at the table. They are we're in mediation currently to have a comprehensive solution to this matter. Folks may have heard that the state is engaged as well. They certainly are. They're listening not only to Highland Park officials to the VA officials, but they're certainly hearing from the residents of Highland Park as well. So their voices are being heard and being considered as we go through this process. To your point director Hendricks if this board feels that it's appropriate to to have some form of form of a forum, we'll certainly do that. But I think we should start with at least getting these materials available accessible so folks can digest them. And we can continue to have a cadence of providing that level of transparency to the to the members of Highland Park that have participated today and for other folks that are interested in how we set our charges.
So the timeframe in which folks can expect to see this information uploaded onto our website would be when
we're running into a holiday week, but I think 30 days, 30 days, okay, it's fine. And I think we'll
so before our next meeting, this information will be out there and then folks can come back during the public comment portion of an agenda to indicate whether the information they've received it, and they've been able to like digest
precisely and at the next board meeting. We will we can walk find that information on our website. I think that's the first step but certainly along this way for each and every year, there is a high level of transparency in terms of sharing how we're setting our charges, not only for the city of Highland Park, but for all communities that we serve and how many
communities out there. Oh, now
you're quizzing me 100 And Bucha. Well, thank you, Andre
as well. So there are 112 communities that we set charges for, which includes Highland Park, and as a system in the process that is equitable to everyone and consists.
That's correct. And there's a public hearing that happens before charges go into effect each and every year. Thank
you very much, Mr. Brown. I don't want to make your comment. I will move on. Okay, let's do that. No old business. Let's go to new business. A 2023 Dash 230 This is the Northwest water treatment plant. Repurposing update, Miss Porter. And welcome back.
You hear me now? Can hear you man. All right. So why are we here today? Well, we want to talk about where we are. We want to give you some insight as to why we're making this particular PowerPoint presentation today. And we want to give you some idea as to where we're going. This is relative to our water master planning effort and the implementation process. Why we're here from an operational standpoint, there have been some things that have changed since the water Master Planning Initiative for right sizing. And we want to talk about what those changes are and how we feel they may impact our future. And this is the start of the conversation. Again, it's the operations in the in the engineering team that have daylighted news that we think is imperative that we have a conversation around. So we had a watermaster planning update in 2015. Plans or plans. They can be static out of that plan. There was initiative, our recommendation that we proceed with right sizing our system. As we are all well aware. We have substantial capacity treatment capacity within our system and we have aged infrastructure. And as we are making capital investments in those infrastructure, part of the process was find some operational efficiencies, right size your systems so that you are meeting the needs of your customers but since 2015, and the update of the water master plan, Gian WA has been involved in a robust national conversation around climate change and resilience. And for me as the chief operating officer for the Great Lakes Water Authority when I think of resiliency, it is about putting me in a position so that our staff can recover from any upset as quickly as possible. But when you look at the analysis from the watermaster planning, the designs in the recommendations only looked at meeting our day to day responsibility, which is the average day demand. But we learned something with our one with our 120 and water main break that brought attention to the operations team that is having us rethink the repurposing of Northeast and and taking the treatment offline. With a 120 inch water main break that is the largest transmission main in our system. It happened during peak season which is during the summer, and it took one of our one of our water treatment facilities offline. So this was a worst case scenario. And what we discovered is that operationally, we mean maybe heading in a direction that will not give us the operational flexibility to be resilient, especially during emergencies. When we identified this vulnerability, we're not saying that right sizing is not the option we definitely feel that we must proceed to find that operational flexibility in our system by right sizing but we do not feel that we want to go as far in right sizing is taking the treatment processes off at Northeast. It's my job to raise this issue so that we can begin the conversation because the decisions that we make today impact our ability to operate in the future consequences that will be pronounced especially during emergencies. So the bottom line, if I was to assess that we were at had the close northeast and had that 120 break, we would have impacted a larger amount of communities and we would have had been out of normal operations for an extended period of time. And I don't think that that's where we want to be. We are still dealing with aged infrastructure. The second point that I'd like to open up with is regulatory pressures. So in my 26 years, as part of operations, we've always had an advisory recommendation relationship with the state. But that's changing today. They are taking more of a directing specific actions as opposed to just making recommendations. And with that type of direction. You have this honor while body has seen us make some changes in our capital plan. They have insisted that we move forward on some of the scheduling of the treatment improvements and all of our plants and we have brought those scheduled modification projects to this on Wednesday. The third point that I'd like to point out is economic conditions. I'm not going to really go into this particular point because our financial team has done a phenomenal job with this honorable body and keeping you abreast of the the circumstances around economic conditions. They do have an operational and a capital cost impact for us that we are managing toward. So the question, Have we gone down this road and spent money and isn't there going to be a loss? Yes, we have made some investments that may not see 100% return on that investment. And as an operator, I don't really think in terms of wins and losses. I really think about operational optimization. And I think about risk mitigation, along the backdrop of providing a level of service to our customers. We have a very large system. And in order for us to find operational efficiencies in order to engineer out risk, we have to take a minute to look at our system and how it functions and how we want to make improvements as we're making those capital investments. So that requires that we have a study phase, a design phase and a construction base. So when I look at the investments that have been made, they have been associated with the study and design phase. This is again an operational engineering perspective in shifting the recommendation that came from the water master planning effort. That is saying, Yes, we do want to right size our system, but we want to be careful as to how much of that capacity we take out of the system. And we don't want to move forward with removing treatment from Northeast. Again, this is the start of the conversation with this honorable body and also with our member partners. Now I'm going to turn it over to Tim Coons, who is our Director of water engineering. And we are always here to hear your questions and provide answers to those questions.
Okay, again, as Cheryl mentioned, my name is Tim coons I'm the director of water engineering for GL wa we oversee the design and construction of all water facilities anywhere from our raw raw water intakes all the way to the meter where it's delivered to our customer. And as she mentioned, this is kind of an opening discussion on the northeast, repurposing and an update for the board. So I have a few slides I'd like to share with you today. If I can advance the slide
Okay, so as Cheryl mentioned, in 2015, we completed a master plan. At the time of the master plan for those that weren't around. There was a excess treatment capacity identified at all our treatment plants, a total installed capacity of about 1770 MGD. And we hadn't seen flows at that time. That even approached 1000 MGD. So the system had excess capacity. The consultant helped DWSD and now gol wa to help identify ways to right size the system. And and and so the the recommendation from the master plan was to repurpose northeast meaning take the treatment facilities offline at Northeast operate a booster station and then reduce treatment capacity at all other water treatment plants. And then, so So today we've actually revisited this topic multiple times since 2015. Because of different reasons, much of it having to do with the economics of of constructing large facilities and we did that just to make sure we were on the right path in terms of of doing doing the right thing for the system and making sure that you know we're not eliminating redundancy in the system and things like that. So every time we looked at it, we would compare, you know, the rehab of northeast to decommissioning the northeast at 260 MGD. of treatment or delivery to that site. So you can kind of see in the graphic there. What that basically amounted to was doing a lot of work at a water treatment plant or doing a lot of work out in our transmission system. The scale on the left represents the rehabilitation in northeast and we'll talk about all the individual projects that are required for that. And then the scale on the right shows all the individual transmission projects that were required to decommission northeast and those included flow flow control facility and then three transmission main projects, largely all constructed with it or rehab within the city of Detroit. Some of the considerations that we looked at specifically and Cheryl talked about these and touched on these a little bit, and we'll get into it a little more detail. There's there's some operational considerations, not only the 120 inch main break that would occurred, but also, you know, some of the the operational considerations within the city of Detroit specifically and we'll talk about those, again, that there's regulatory considerations. Shell talked about this a little bit and in that eagle has moved from an advisory kind of more of an advisory role to more of a compulsory requirements on on a lot of our water treatment plants. So we'll talk a little bit about that. We'll update the life cycle cost analysis as part of this presentation. And then we'll talk about some of the canceled project. Capital Expenditures, if our ultimate decision is to, to move away from decommissioning north northeast treatment and go towards rehabbing the plant and just give you a quick summary on what we've spent to date on that on this endeavor. What changes the CIP if we keep North is Eastern service and then the future cat capacity in northeast we talked about right sizing facilities and that's still our goal here. So, operational considerations anytime we make make a change in our system or upgrade a facility, one of the things we always look at is emergency scenarios. What if we lose a transmission main or a booster station or a water treatment plant out in the system? How do we evaluate that and typically we evaluate that on a non peak scenario meaning generally between the months of September and in April and the reason we do that is often it's cost prohibitive to try try and provide your normal level of service during during the peak demand season it it the costs become exponential and so that's that's kind of been our, our basis for evaluating system improvements and, and endeavors like this. And as it turns out, you know, during the 120, Mitch break, what we'll see on the chart here is is the output from our Northeast water treatment plant during the 120 inch break and you can see normally it would fluctuate in generally be below 160 MGD. And, and during the break, it jumped up to 180 to 200 MGD. So, this sustained pumpage would have been if we had if if we would have already been in the repurposed condition, the transmission system that we were planning for would have only been able to deliver around 160 MGD to that site. And so what we see is that we wouldn't have been able to supply all the users that we needed to during that that break. And so that was one of the key operational considerations. And so, you know, that's, that's, that's those are really some of the things we're thinking about when we were re evaluating this this endeavor. The second sub second topic is regulatory considerations. So in the past, typically we do Eagle would do sanitary sewers surveys at at all of our water treatment plants and then the past if there was an issue that was operational nature, it was it was deemed a recommendation from Eagle and and then GL wa was given the latitude to kind of evaluate that recommendation and identify the best path forward those recommendations in our sanitary survey have have turned into requirements. And so you know, some of the things that that eagle has noted in our sanitary sewers, especially specific to northeast, because we were just a little bit of background, we were putting a lot of projects, as many as we could on hold at the plant. Because we knew that or at least at the time, we were full bore planning on on decommissioning that treatment. So that didn't make sense from a cost perspective to to sink a lot of money into these, these this particular water treatment plant. Especially since it would be decommissioned. Will a lot of those improvements that we've we've we've had to do some in the interim, out of necessity. Some of those include the flocculation system. We've also done other projects at the plant, but one of the requirements Eagles putting forward is doing filter upgrades. If you look at the picture, this is a picture from our filter, gallery piping, and it's a wet environment. It's been operating in this harsh environment and many of the valves are or some of the valves are inoperable. And so it makes it difficult to maintain. We've come to a point where we got to do something with the filter system at Northeast and so and that that is also being pushed by eagle as well. So just some of the regulatory considerations we're thinking about as we kind of reconsider this decision.
The other piece that's that's constantly been changing, especially in the last 24 months has been the lifecycle cost evaluation in the in the early stages. If anybody was around in 2015 The original concept was to slip line the raw water tunnel to the northeast plant and use that as transmission to deliver finished water to that site and then decommission the treatment. There was a lot of challenges on that. And many of them were operational, which made it not possible. And so, you know, at the beginning, it was a less expensive endeavor. And gradually we've had to look at other options. Delivering finished water to the site which have made made the Northeast decommission or repurposing option more expensive over time. And ultimately, we've we've settled on on constructing four miles 81 inch pipe through the city of Detroit, as well as doing rehab on about 20,000 I scratch at 38,000 feet south of I 94 to repurpose that piping to deliver the 160 MGD we had planned for all that piping projects. In the last 24 months the cost of transmission projects is gone, gone through the roof, as evidenced by some of the recent bids that we've received on on different projects. And so when as we're taking those bids in and adjusting to the market, we're seeing that the capital costs northeast repurposing is going up significantly, and the cost of rehab Well, while it's still getting escalated, is not seeing the kinds of sharp increases we're seeing with transmission main projects. So when you look at the capital cost, on balance with the expected Oh nm, you see a In fact, this is the first time we've done the present worth analysis where we've seen the net present worth of rehabbing the plant lower at a lower cost and then repurposing northeast and so, even the lifecycle cost evaluation suggests that that it may not be as cost beneficial to to decommission treatment at the site. This is just a I gave you the bottom line on the cost but this is just some of the background information on some of the the transmission costs associated with the commissioning northeast. Again, I mentioned that the 81 inch transmission main that that's from I 94 and northeast in the city of Detroit, there's three renewal projects, the first ones on seven mile and Nevada and then the other ones are the garland V wick and Hurlbut pipeline renewals south of I 94 Which would connect waterworks Park basically to the the Northeast plant and be able to deliver finish water from that site to northeast but you can see in total, we're looking at total capital costs about $428 million for that option. If you look at the northeast rehab option, certainly there's some some pricey line items in terms of capital costs here. Some of them have been basically set to zero because we've done those projects already. The for example, the raw water tunnel, rehab that's already underway and is going to be completed shortly. The other one is the flocculation which was in the rapid mix and lime six there so that's been reduced. So as we do these projects, the the the capital cost of weightings that we expected is reduced also reducing the benefit of decommissioning ne in terms of what we've what we've done so far, okay. So this is this is kind of the the well this is the expenditures that we would have incurred that may not be used as useful as we had initially anticipated if we indeed canceled the decommissioning of Northeast treatment. And so the first one we see here is the waterworks Park, the Northeast transmission main. A lot of the money spent on this that third, just shy of $30 million was for the Northeast flow control facility. And as we were as we mentioned, this board at the time that we got authorization to do that design, build and construction, we're going to use that facility anyways, we have the garland main that feeds from our waterworks Park to northeast site and it can still be used to transmit walk finish water to the northeast site. And that'll be useful not only to supply additional float in the Northeast site, and potentially right size the northeast side even more, but it also provides an operational benefit. If we can deliver regularly flow through the reservoirs. It allows us to basically buffer pressures within the city of Detroit. Oftentimes we have to rely on the high lift stations to supply pressures directly to the residence and to the local distribution mains in the city of Detroit. If we had the reservoir and we can, we can use that to buffer pressures within the city of Detroit it'll provide operational benefit as well. So there were other ballots on that in the amount of $8.5 million dollars that was largely having to do with the route study and additional design to the larger pipeline, that that 8.5 million is, as they said, largely for the 81 inch pipe design. And then some route study work that wouldn't be used going forward if we didn't you commissioned northeast. The second line item is a seven mile on Nevada transmission main. This is to rehab seven miles of 48 inch transmission main on Seven Mile. Sounds a little confusing, but but throughout the course of that we've spent $8.3 million to do the design on that project. That a lot of that will not be able to be used as a design going forward. A side note on on the Seven Mile net and Nevada transmission main as we were doing that one of the tasks as part of that was to do some inspection of the main we have identified some weak spots in the pipe that we plan on rehabbing especially under i 75 in the freeway. And so, you know, 8.3 was spent on design but as part of the investigation phase of that project, we did identify some some useful rehab projects that that could could also benefit the system so it's not all out for nothing. And then the last one is the girl in her book and B wick transmission main project in the amount of 2.7 and that was to rehab those mains and and that one was earlier in the design and so we stopped worked earlier on that. So in total just short shy of $20 million of design work that was done in this endeavor. In terms of what changes in the CIP, just I'll just go through it really quickly. Projects that may be cancelled, the Garlon Hurlbut and B work transmission main renewal project, the waterworks Park the Northeast main project specifically the 81 inch main and then projects that may in part or whole be canceled if if northeast treatment is kept in service the Seven Mile Nevada project. As I mentioned earlier, we've identified some weak spots in the pipe and so some work may actually be done to renew pipeline to prevent failures in the city of Detroit. And then if if, if it's kept in service, we'll have to move into a filter project and we don't even have a CIP number assigned to that as you can see from this and then projects that will remain for Northeast water treatment. If treatment is kept in service. We have the high lift pumping station improvements, the Northeast header gallery, building improvements and then the flocculated improvements which is in progress. And then additional projects will have to down the road we'll be looking at the lower left at that site. So there'll be some significance flux in the in the CIP. In terms of the future capacity, in short, we're looking at 200 MG D down from 300. So we'll be right sizing it in reducing the capacity of the plant by by 100 MG D which means we won't have to rehab as many filters. We won't have to you know do a lot of the the treatment facilities that you'd need for a 300 MGD plant. We can pair those down. And so basically we were finding significant right sizing can be achieved at the plant.
So I think we've talked about the findings. I won't talk too much about this, but the excess capacity was useful at Northeast when we had the break. Regulatory regulatory environment doesn't seem to permit delay any further on some of the Northeast projects and the higher costs of the pipeline projects. You know, really sways the balance in favor of keeping the treatment online at Northeast. And that's that's the presentation. As Cheryl mentioned, we're open for questions if there are any.
I'm sorry, there was one thing that I forgot to mention the numbers that we're talking about here are strictly from an operational engineering perspective. We do have some work with our financial partners that we're going to have to do to shape out what those actual costs are going to be from an accounting perspective. So I did want to make that I forgot to make that point earlier.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to underscore that we're really at the start of this dialogue with this board and with our member partners, but we thought it was important to get the operational thought out to you right now and obviously it's a conversation that we will be continuing over the months to come.
Yeah, my first thought bill is that the CIP committee, we've got to have a series of meetings in which all the board members attended in really go through the history of how we got here. And where we go because this is a lot a lot to take in. We've spent 10s if not hundreds of millions dollars getting ready to do this. And the whole time that I was listening to the presentation, I was thinking of the same that Mike Tyson used to say that, you know, every fighter has a has a plan until they get punched in the face. Well, we got punched in the face with Brian's 120 inch line, it broke and now we're throwing the plan. We're switching. We're switching directions with the plan and i i in no means would advocate that if we were going down a road things have changed that we shouldn't have to have to change. Absolutely. I would not expect us to go down a road that we know is not the right path. But Cheryl, you mentioned three things, two of which we don't control and one of which we do and you talked about regulations and how regulation is changing in Lansing but like regulations is always going to change and Lansing depending on whatever administration's in power at the time and and I just have so much confidence in Bill and Randles ability to go toe to toe with the regulators because I've seen them do it and I've seen them win more than they've lost that isn't as much of a concern for me as it seems to be in making this decision. Secondly, economics economics always change I mean, you know, we go through recessions we go ups and downs and and we heard a very good presentation at the audit committee the other day where we went to 6%. Inflation is down to 4%. It's coming down but it's not a two. So inflation is always going to be a factor we and we don't control either any of that, or very little of that but we do control the decisions we make at this table. And I was around in 2014 and even before them and unlimited capacity with the water department. And I really never thought you'd get the votes to shut down northeast attorney to get into a pumping station. I just thought that was going to be a heavy lift but you did. You're able to do it based on the savings that we're going to be created operationally and maintenance wise by eliminating a facility that was making more water than we actually producing more water than we actually need. It was based on costs and now we're changing directions again, based on on on cost. And so I just think that we need to have some real in depth conversations about the direction we're going in rationale for why we're doing it. And then a cost analysis on what we've already spent to go in that direction. Not only what we've spent what we what we haven't spent on northeast because we were going to decommission that or turning it into an pumping station. So a lot of the maintenance hadn't been done that now is going to have to be done at a higher cost. So there this is a really big decision as it was when the decision was made to go in that direction. The first time though, I think there's I know that the gym facade board which was a court ordered board grappled with this that yo DWSD board grappled with this and we've been grappling with this and we've spent a lot of money going in in one direction and now we're going to change and I just think that it would be worth our time that not just three members of the board here, at least some of the preliminary background conversations about this decision, and then turn it back over to the board to trust us to vet it. But we are going to need we're going to need that type of discussion about this subject before we make any decisions about going forward. At least. I'm going to need that kind of information. I'll stop there. I know.
Yeah, I echo Gary's point. On the one hand, I think it's we should be complimented to not be afraid to change course if the numbers dictate that and then or the circumstances change. The master plan and 15 I assumed you know, or had taken into account that the 120 could break it had broken once. Although now that it has, you know, that's certainly good information to take in. I'm wondering, you know, the sunk cost the 50 million that we've already paid, if that's in the analysis in terms of the net present, worth of it. I guess that's one technical question. I don't need that now. But I assume you guys are gonna run this through the committee's as well. Right. The locals? Yes. Committees. Yeah, we'll have to keep keep crunching the numbers, I guess. Yeah. My question I guess to share would be let's say you know, it was still $100 million savings, would you recommend that? Or is the 120 inch the key that broke that is too much of a risk regardless of the dollar amount.
So when the master planning effort came, they only looked at average day. And they did not give us operational flexibility that we currently have. And so with our experience with the 120, I think we need to go back and reevaluate that analysis with the additional information that we have from the experience, because we were thinking about 160 But we needed 120
Or I mean, 180 200, right. Yes.
So So that's, that's where we need to cope and take a pause and take a deeper look so that we're not cutting ourselves too thin. So that if we have a future break on the 120, or similar scenario such as this, and we've taken capacity out of our system, where we used to be able to respond and now we won't be able to respond. That's what we want to take time to take that deeper look.
And even if it was $100 million savings, you still may not recommend it. Because of that risk,
right? I want to do the appropriate analysis on that risk.
Starts with there. Yeah, and I assume you're you're considering that there are no other treatment plants you can boost to divert instead of Northeast
the overall direction that the watermaster planning effort recommended. Was right sizing we agree with that. We believe we're not our average day isn't what it used to be. So it does not make sense to make all of the capital investment to keep that does treatment design as it is designed today. But how how deep do we cut? You know, right now waterworks Park is that at 250? I don't think we were where we think about reducing capacity or worse part. So we need to look at that and we need a deeper look at what what was recommended. And does that give us the operational flexibility that we currently enjoy?
Okay. Well, I think it starts there. And I don't know if it's premature, just we're just getting a heads up that it may occur, but I think that's where it starts, right? Yes. Okay. All right.
All the questions on this side. Now, is there a motion to receive files from open grounds maker on favor? Thank you. That motion passes. Next item be Nikki. We've got a resolution regarding the approval of the series ordinance authorizing issuance, and some water supply system revenue by
undefeatable public finance manager who has worked on this. I have a number of team members, they actually have a number of items on the agenda. In recognition of time, I'm going to jump in in front of them. They're here for questions. Just because we have a lot yet to cover around the agenda. So the item before you is sorry, my notes on page 170 of your binder. This is a resolution for approval of a series ordinance issuing the sale of water supply bonds and an amount not to exceed 20 point 9 million and this is a matter that and recommended for approval by the audit committee. Again, this is State Revolving Fund loan dollars for DWSD. So DWSD the money flows through GL wa DWSD reimburses 100% for any debt service commitments. The this project as a you have two items, this item and another one that follows it. This is a large watermain replacement projects. So it's split into two segments. So this is the first of the two segments. A description is on page 172 And a paragraph near the top it says project plan that identifies the various neighborhoods throughout the city Detroit, which will receive water main improvements as a result of this action. So the series ordinance is the legal document drafted by Laura Bassett, our bond counsel from Dickinson Wright, who was on the line and this is a little document that authorizes us to proceed with the state of Michigan to do this low cost for the local system. Now this is an action that will result in the issuance of debt so we do need all five board members present to support this resolution. Okay.
So you're looking for some action now.
I'm requesting approval of the resolution for the series. ordinance 2023 Dash oh three for DWSD 765601 water main replacement project, okay.
Whereas clay town
I'm looking at
these communities and the project plan, play Township. I recognize all of these communities except play town
clay Township is in St. Clair County. Okay,
it says clay town. It doesn't say clay town shit. Okay. Are we on page 171 72? Gregory St. Mary grandma spring wills McDougal bright more warrendale. The neighborhood's up and then there's clay town. I just want to make sure that that note belongs in that gotta be destroyed. Does it
yes it does. There's an area in the west side called clay down.
Wow. So he is and never saw it. slipped by me huh? Okay. Oh, trip. Nope, nope. That's okay. Just show it to me on the map. You're looking for a motion to approve? Yes, sir. Is there a motion?
So moved. Mr. Zack said
it was first around. Mr. Brown. Will you support that? Yes. Any other questions? Do we need a roll call?
You don't Mr. Chairman. It just needs to be unanimous.
Okay, all those in favor? Aye. Aye. Is there any opposed? None opposed that passes? What's next, Nikki? Yes.
That is on page 195. This is the companion resolution for the area be identified in the project plan as outlined at the top of page 197. So project B is a separate contract contract inside of us. That's why there's a separate series ordinance or resolution. Again, this item was presented to the audit committee was unanimously recommended for approval. Again, it secures low interest financing for this important project for the city of Detroit water main fraud program. And to the extent there's debt service, it's reimbursed to gr cents and may be subject to other further provisions that are favorable for DWSD. To secure this project
portions on this side. There's been a motion to approve, motion support, moved to support any other questions. All those in favor indicate by the sign of aye. All right. Any opposed? Motion passes also. Next slide. I'm Miss Nick.
Yes. Joining me at the lecture as the person who's done a lot of hard work Lisa Manzini, our financial planning and analysis manager and members of the FPA team, you can raise your hand these folks worked around the clock last week, as we faced some challenges in our last quarter of our fiscal year on increases in utility costs. Given the interest in time, I'm going to speed go through this and Lisa is going to correct me if I mess anything up. So again, this is the fourth quarter budget amendments were June 30 year end. So we're in our fourth quarter budget amendments must be adopted before the end of the fiscal year which is this weekend June 30. This matter was presented to the audit committee and was unanimously recommended of the fourth quarter budget amendments begin on a nice memo that Lisa lays out beginning on page 223. And I'll just give you the highlights and notes to get a flavor for the nature of what is in the proposed amendments. The water system operations increased. increase in operating expenses of 3.1 million. Do an high part to the other this is actually on the revenue side for our water system. As you notice we have a lot of dry weather. We have a lot of dry weather that means more revenue for the system. So we anticipate through this week increase of 3 million in revenue that helps to offset nearly $7.6 million in operating costs increase increases for the water system, largely driven by utilities at 4.8 million, with electricity being the driver in that category of 4 million. So dry weather. Yay more revenue downside increase in electrical expenses. And again with the academy over the past year, we saw significant increases in electricity. We will be having discussions with our vendor as we try to get our arms around the impact of this going forward as well if there's things that we can do to address that much long some of the nature of operating costs that Cheryl and Tim mentioned some increase in costs and chemicals for our sewer system. oh the other thing I forgot to mention on the water system. We also saw increased operating expenses, the final bills coming in for the 120 inch main break, as well as work on the 12 mile project and that was about $3 million sewer system more moderate increases. There we did have a little bit of revenue coming in, relating back to weather events of July June and July 2021 of 1.2 million to help offset increases in operating costs which included again for the sewer utility gas was a primary driver with an increase of 2.9 million. And then as it relates to our construction activity, we always look at what we use a factor called the capital spending ratio. Our water system is ahead of spending based on the board approve CIP entered and 7% were able to accommodate that because we had a bond sale last year and anticipated that the water system might be over by the end of the year. Based on the pace of project delivery. The sewer system is below at 86.2%. And we adjusted the capital funds for that that really is kind of a cash flow analysis. So with that, what we have on page 269 is the resolution to adopt the budget amendments. And what's included here are tables that identified the key totals, the new revised totals to where there were changes that we discussed, for revenues and expenses for the water and sewer system. Any sometimes there's some tweaks to the debt service calculations based upon timing and some variable rate debt that we have, and timing of SRF draws. And then lastly, our capital funds the improvement and extension bond. And on the last page the construction bonds. Again, this matter was reviewed by the audit committee who met with us Monday morning at 8am. And this also does require five board members to support the resolution
who choose the audit committee. Brian Baker motion on this.
Yeah, if there's no questions I'm
not seeing none. Mr. Baker makes a motion to support Zack. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes. Next item
is Chairman that brings us to Item eight i which is the municipal advisor. contract that was originally on your time. Thank you
very much for that way.
And go right ahead. Bill.
Thank you. There was a textual error in that contract that I believe Miss Bateson is going to address on the municipal advisor contracts.
i That's why Nick was correcting me as I was heading back towards my seat. I'm so sorry. No problem. All right, and this matter is in your binder and on page 141. So a municipal advisory services so these are our financial advisors related to bond transactions. And the current firm has is PFM advisory. We went through a competitive selection process. And we receive for firms that responded. We conducted interviews with all four firms. We had a five member evaluation panel, which included the DWSD chief financial officer as well. As in addition to a member partner, the finance director from Redford Township, the committee unanimously recommended reappointment of PFM financial advisors. This matter also was approved by the audit committee and recommended for approval by the board of directors. The reason why we pulled this the agenda from you and there is a memo there was a typo in the calculation of the proposed fee. What you see on page 140 ones it reads 2.5 million, it should be 3,150,000 the nature of the error is when we looked at the fee basis for bond transaction, it's a separate fee for the water system and the sewer system. When we did the table we had only included the fee for one table so the additional fees needed to be added. The team did a very good job negotiating with the vendor to hold the fees. The vendor has services since the inception of the GL WA and has held their fees constant for quite a long time, despite general economic costs increases so with that, we would respectfully request the board to authorize us to enter into contract to 204949 municipal advisory services with PFM financial advisors at a cost not to exceed $3,150,000 for a duration of three years, including to potential one year renewal options.
Three plus two.
It no it's in total 3,000,001 50
No I'm sorry, three years plus 12 years. Questions on the side. Most of Mr. Baker.
It was 2.5 So I guess I'm missing the question. Now. This was QPS. How did the other pricing look? Do you remember?
The pricing analysis? I'm not sure if Joan is on the line? I am here. Yes. Joan. Is there a tabulation of the other vendors fees in here?
Yes, I will pull that up right now.
And while she's looking at Nikki, the difference between a 2.5 and a three 150. Was that an internal edit or audit? We found it? Yeah, what
happened is this week Joan Salewa. Sir, who's our procurement team member supporting this was working on the contract and discovered the math error. Okay.
You think BFM would have figured that out? That's okay. I'm sure they weren't here once we sent them the contract.
And Joan, I can't remember in terms of fees, I don't think PFM was necessarily the lowest. Ah, we like I said we did negotiate. There was a significant difference in their scores compared to the other firms. Yes, there was the number two was a number to buy a lot. Yes,
I do have the bid tabulation. Up. Do you want me to share it? I don't know how I can but
see, can you give us a perhaps a feel for the So John's having a technical difficulty and that she's not authorized as a presenter on zoom so she can't share her screen with us. But Joan, could you give us a feel for the did we tabulate a range?
Yes. So the range for bond financings as an example ranged all yours 125,000 up to 130,000 35,000, which is what PFM came in with initially, but this bid tab that is prepared does not account and show the negotiations that took place. So the negotiations that took place actually brought them in line on the averages, so they're not outstanding.
I guess the grand total what was the grand total of the others? 3.1 was there as what were the others?
They were not total that way. Brian? I we were doing it as an analysis of hourly rates and bond financing not knowing how many transactions would take place.
Yeah, the only reason I mean I was questioning it when it was at 2.5. But right, right now I know it's been a number of years but it's almost doubling the average yearly cost I know that's through fifth from fifth. So I know costs have gone up.
And I think what also might be why it's difficult to do an apples to apples comparison of previous versus current is we're doing a lot more SRF transactions, both for DWSD and GL wa
Yeah, but that that way. That's why it'd be helpful to see what the others
yeah totaled.
I don't think we have that analysis handy
and you're saying it was close to max. BFM
was the highest and in terms of fee were they out of the market? No. I think the others had lower fees, but it also reflected perhaps not as much experience. There was one firm that really did not have a lot of experience doing this. And so I think their fees were low, hoping to get the business.
Are you are you marking them up a little bit because of the institutional knowledge of us having
worked with them? So I would say it was the others. Were not firms that we would pick if we had the choice for various reasons. One firm is on the west coast. And we've had some bad experience in the past was trying to get things done timely. On a bank bond transaction. And we didn't necessarily see the succession planning and their team and that concerned us over the next five years because that's very important to us is that when we're dealing with the firm, that they have a deep bench that can support us. So I think there were things that were just did not feel that the other choices were the best fit for GL ws needs. And that the again PFM has held their fees constant during the term that they've had us. They've continued to hold it I think stable for the first two years for the first three years and then the fourth and fifth year have increases so I thought that you know we thought the fact that they held things steady you know was about the best that we could hope for and the circumstances recognizing that they were by far the preferred choice
Nikki did Joshi a lower amount, yet know much.
So the amounts in year four and five under the contract is what they had proposed beginning with year one. So the team said, you know, we appreciate the fact that you've held the fees the same for the past five years. We're in tough economic times. Could you hold them constant for three more years? And they agreed with some back and forth
that said, mister,
anyone else? Anyone else? Does that,
Mr. Chairman, does this require a five votes? Does not? Does not?
Is there a motion? Support?
I don't hear support.
Is this so urgent that we can't go back and get the questions answered?
Yeah, I mean, my thing, Nick is, I mean, I'm prepared to support you because, you know, you you're at the table you're dealing with this and this is the group that you want. But I'm a little found that you can't do an apples to apples comparison and answer Mr. Buzz question at 3.1 5 million. Can you get numbers that equate to argue arrived at PFL is not sure. I mean, I still may you already told us it's going to be higher. Right? It's a bigger saying how much I know you told us that they're willing to hold their numbers constant for three years all of those are good things. But just asking the question, let me
check in with John one more time. John, were you able to find any tabulation that support all the items
on the agenda if you guys in the next hour or whatever can we do what you need to do? And then come back after closed session. Okay, I appreciate you. We'll be up and running. That would be great.
Thank you. That would be great.
Let's do that. So we're gonna hold this one for now. Right, Miss Zack? Yes. And then is there anything else are we going to report? To remarks, Bill?
No, we are that would, other than to remind the public that closed session that the new business will continue after the closed session. Right. We will be on remarks at this point, Mr. Chairman.
Any remarks from board members other than what's already been stated?
Just briefly, Mr. Chair, I you know, concerning Highland Park and the calls that they they came in with, I mean, these these are obviously senior citizens that are very, have a lot of angst about what's going on. You know, this afternoon from 630 to 1030. I'm going to be standing with the mayor in the community answering questions from the community. It's a shame that that isn't happening in Highland Park. But be that as it may, I think the information that gets posted I think we can anticipate you know, the questions the average questions that are coming out of Highland Park and that we should attempt to answer them in layman's terms, as opposed to you know, put in a lot of technical data on the website regarding how rates are formulated. So I think Michelle would do a great job of creating most frequently asked questions in Highland Park, we know what they are, and just answering them in layman's terms. And then I think your idea of having a community meeting and Highland Park that shows that this boar out there is is is willing to answer the tough questions is appropriate. So just
answer them but go out there and stand Yeah, let them whatever they want to do. But Michelle, you got that right. Along with whatever spreadsheet you gotta put out there. Attorney Brown. Michelle, you put your frequently asked questions, and Nat in the third grade reader, right that so everybody can get it. And then we can figure out from that point, and the next 3040 days or whatever. Get out there before the weather changes. on us.
Mr. Chairman, this this meeting that we're talking about which I'm 100% in favor of having in Highland Park, are we talking about it just being a single issue meeting, but not a board meeting? I mean, we were we just tackled one subject to try to have a board meeting
I think that's to be chairman, but I think having our board meeting out there, and then be prepared within the context of a board meeting to have a lengthy enough session where people's questions get to get answered. Makes sense to me. We can conduct our business. We don't have to make a special trip. But my vote would be we go out there under the umbrella of a regularly scheduled monthly board meeting and put aside enough time for the members of the community to come forward and talk to us.
I'm in full agreement. I just from the standpoint of we, I suspect this discussion will won't be short. But there'll be a number of people that have perhaps questions or may want to make a comment. I just want to make sure that the we go into this with the idea in mind that we're not going to kind of try to hold the whole things back. But we're going to give time give people time to express themselves and get answers so that when we leave a meeting they leave the meeting feeling like to understand why it is what it is
exactly. But first things first is that we get the information out on the website. There will be another meeting in this forum subsequent to that and then we'll figure out what the appropriate timeframe might be to have a such a meeting.
As Mr. Brown indicated we're going into a holiday period here. And so we want to get the information out into their hands so they can look at it. Certainly Michelle and her team will will do the same technical information and information. It's kind of in layman's terms, so that they can kind of get ready for what comes up. Because I know there'll be a lot of questions and are afraid like the latest. I don't want to lose my house.
And All right, so the next item on the agenda is a CEO Report. Mr. Wilson, you got that? Yes, I
do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just on behalf of Su coffee who is taking a well deserved break for this meeting. Just want to highlight a few things. First on Highland Park. We've had a lot of discussion about that. But I think it is important to note that that today we are asking the Board to act on the $1 million interim agreement. And and really it is important again to indicate the GL who will not benefit from that $1 million payment rather the payment will be will be utilized to begin the process of distributed it to those member partner communities zoar portions of Highland parks bad debt expense. I just want to talk a minute about system resiliency and we've talked a lot about the 120 inch main today, and how that has has impacted our planning and our operations. And I want you to know that as part of our linear system integrity program, we are preparing to perform an aboveground survey of the 100 and the entire 26 miles of the pipe which runs in the Lake Huron water treatment plant in Lake City booster pumping station. And that survey will gather information on the main appurtenances and land surface use for future condition assessments of the 120 inch main. And then I just want to briefly talk about another resiliency effort that the utility has undertaken undertaken. And that is a submission of our record return policy to the state and that may sound like a small, small matter, but it really has been a dialogue that's taken taking us over a year because how we handle those records really shapes. A lot of how we will do business in the future. So record retention is far more far more important than it may appear on the surface. And like was coffee. I just want to take the opportunity to provide some kudos first to Miss Porter, our Chief Operating Officer of water and Field Services, who has now been formally elected president elect of the American Water Works Association gratulations Cheryl.
Second, I'd like to highlight Dr. Magic tan who is our Director of wastewater operations. He has been elected as the president of excuse me to the position of Vice President of the Michigan water environmental Association am weta and that puts him in the path to becoming president of this statewide organization in 2025. In addition, our director of wastewater engineering Christmas Valley and I don't know if Chris is here today has been elected as the MWe A's Federation delegate to the water environmental, National Water environmental Federation and I just want to say congratulations to both margin and Chris. That's really nice achievement on otter for just a second and turning to the world of entertainment. I want to let you know that GL WA has won its first like for its educational video that explains how our wastewater treatment conveyance system works. And it's where does the water go? And it's my pleasure today to congratulate a couple members of our public affairs team who are here, Mr. Jason Matthews and Mr. Curtis verse right and if they'll come up to the podium, our Emmy award winning team. Just want to say Curtis is our visual storyteller, and was the executive producer on this project, a lot of visionary work. Jason was the producer on the project did a whole lot of planning in terms of, you know, scripting, managing and keeping the process on track. And I think without them it just really couldn't have been done. And really thank you guys. It's a It's a first for us and really appreciate your efforts. Then I of course,
you excuse me? Yeah.
Would you like to say anything?
Well, I do I do want to take a second to say something when I have this opportunity, a guess right? That's
why I'm winning. But
you know, though the Emmy is great. And I do want to thank Naveen muram Christina Stolley. So folks that way trim and the first byte team that helped put those wonderful animations together. Any of my colleagues and everybody here that knows me knows that storytelling is what I do. This is the impact that that I would like to create, because important work in field right next to air water is the most important thing to people's lives. So I want to continue to tell remarkable stories in remarkable ways. And I just want to continue to ask your support for Jael WA and our PA team to continue to tell these remarkable stories in remarkable ways. Because if we don't do that, people won't remember and they'll forget. So we need to help them understand the complexities and importance of the treatment of wastewater and I mean the treatment of water and the conveyance of wastewater. So I really, really want to put my all my effort into that. And we just ask your continued support in that. Thank you guys.
All right. Thank you very much. All right, Bill. Good.
Okay, and then I did just want to mention to be around and Christmas dolly who couldn't be here today. There is no truth to the rumor that they are in Hollywood. And with that, you are any of your colleagues have any questions?
Any other questions on this? Or Steven file? Move the sport movement. Supporting bacon, Mr. Brown. All in favor? Aye. Motion passes. Thank you very much. That moves us on to a it's time for our closed session but to remind the public that new business will continue after the closed session
and one other other matter Mr. Chairman, just just so the board knows. We will be doing some construction in this room in September and October. We've been working with the DWSD team to make sure that both their board and our board will have continuity of operations during that period.
Again, all right. So
good afternoon, Randall Brown, I have several closed sessions that we just need to run through the script on first one is in DWSD versus Highland Park and UWA versus Highland Park. This honorable body can meet in a closed session to consult with his attorney regarding trial or settlement strategy. In connection with pending with specific pending litigation, but only if an open meeting would have a detrimental financial effect on litigation or settlement position of the public body. I believe what I have to discuss with this honorable body in a closed session would have a detrimental financial effect on our litigation or settlement position. Request to be in a closed session to do so. The same applies to the general mill supply company versus GL WA, for the exact same reasons that having a meeting or having a discussion in an open session would have a detrimental financial effect on our litigation or settlement position. fighty can meet in the closed session to discuss attorney client communications. I do have an attorney client communication that is exempt from disclosure. And were requested we do so in a closed session.
All right. So on Item A is there a motion to go into closed session?
So move we go into closed session to discuss item eight.
That's important. Sport Roll Call. Chairperson Hendricks Yes. VICE CHAIRPERSON Baker? Yes. Secretary Nellore Yes. Dr. Brown? Yes. Yes.
All right, that passes. Next item is item B. This is closed side and closed session for general meals. Is their support to go into closed session.
Is there a motion? Yes. Motion may brown
support?
Yes. That
roll call. Yes. Nice to person Baker. Yes. Secretary matter.
Yes. Director Brown. Yes. Director is it? Yes.
All right, that passes and then the third and final question item is an attorney client communication. Is there a motion to go into closed session?
Nor support? Baker? Roll Call? Person Hendricks Yes. Faster person Baker? Yes. Secretary. Yes. Director Brown?
Yes. Yes. All right.
recording stopped. Mr. Brown.
We just gotta wait to go on to the next session.
Okay. I have to stand up. Just got to stand up. Stand up. are talking to me. Go get a little drink of water.
