Good evening everyone. Welcome to the rate review committee meeting. Today's Tuesday, January 27th, 2026. This meeting of the air rate review committee will be held in person at the location provided on this notice. Members of the public are welcome to attend this inerson meeting. Please note that while
an option for remote attendance andor participation via Zoom is being provided as courtesy to the public, the meeting hearing will not be suspended or terminated if technological problems interrupt the virtual broadcast unless otherwise required by law. Members of the public with particular
interest in a specific item on this agenda should make plans for in-person versus virtual attendance accordingly. This meeting will be live on Zoom. The public may access the proceedings by joining Zoom meeting ID number 978-772-8220 or by calling 9292056099.
For additional information about remote participation, please contact Carly Anteneellis, assistant town manager at atmirair.mma. us or 978-7728220 extension 100 prior to the meeting. All right. First up is the review and
approval of the draft January 13, 2026 meeting minutes. Anybody have any concerns? Yeah. >> The chair. >> Um I noticed two things. One, on the bottom of page two, it says that I was still refining estimates to the fiscal
year budget. >> I was ing the water on the sewer. >> Thank you. Okay, we'll make that change. >> Okay. And the other >> um the other is on page three. Uh this t
stated the current balance of the sewer uh retained earnings as 4.8 million plus. And it says that it we used 600,000 whereas we increased by 600,000.
>> Got it. So instead of we we increased >> approximately 600 >> retained earnings increased by 600,000 last year >> for sure. Yes, >> for sure. Got it. Sorry about that.
>> All right. Anything else? Oh, there's nothing else. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as amended. >> I'll second. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> The chair says I. The meeting minutes have been approved. Okay. So, now we're going to continue
review and discussion of the proposed FY2027 water and sewer rate recommendation scenarios. >> Okay. >> Barbara, do you want to take it or Barbara? You want to take it? >> Barbara, do you want to go through the scenarios and I can make some suggestions as
well? These should all be in the same order. They're not in any particular order, but do you want to just go as they're in the packet? >> Yep. >> And that's this up on the screen. >> Uh, nope. This is our model on the fly. If we want to look at other scenarios. >> Okay. I'm just going to put that >> can decrease that.
>> Put the model right here. Rate review. So the first one is for water is a 2% assuming using 250,000. >> So for those that have the hard coffee
packet, it's the first page and that's it on the screen. >> So this scenario is one of the scenarios that we suggested. It's showing a 2% increase in fiscal 20 27 and using um 250,000 in retained earnings. So, you
can kind of see in the in the um diagram that it still looks a little short for 2027 and then we're going right back down. And just for all these models, I just wanted to point out on that second page, it's very small, but for all these
scenarios, I think it's really important to look at the water fund balance and water fund balance projections that come along with these. So for example, the water fund projection um would using 500, you know, if we use
250, it's projecting a 4.2 million, but then it projects it out like if we kind of continue these trends where our fund balance could end up. So I just wanted to point out to look at that. >> So that's going to decrease. You mean am I reading this right? >> Yes. So if we're using retained earnings
and it's going to project we continue to do so in this model because we used it for this model. Um it just gives you like a projection of where our fund balance may be going goes all the way through is that 20. >> So Barbara 27 following that model then
by FY32 there'd be a $1.1 million shortfall. >> Yes. if we continue the trend of using using retained earnings and >> okay >> so I just wanted to point that out for all the models so you can kind of get an idea >> um so essentially the disclaimer is is
that these models are fixed and they're not they're not interpreting what the humans are going to decide. >> So it does not it does project future years based on the current model and decision we're looking now. So it
does assume using retained earnings in the future. Yes. >> Okay. >> But it's also important to look that because if we do continue that trend what what it could look like. >> If I may, I'm not sure that it does. I could be wrong. Uh project that we
continue retained earnings. It looks like there's a decrease. So that means retained earnings is not carrying through and it's just going with a 2% increase from there. >> The 2% also does project for it. So it
does also assume just a 2%. I can look back at the model again but I when I when we look at the live version to determine that >> somebody make sure that anybody raises their hand because it's not showing up on this screen.
>> So just keep it keep me posted. >> Yep. So, do you want me to just go through each model or do we want to discuss each one as we go? Like all do you want me to go through all four scenarios and then >> Yeah, let's go through the other scenarios and then we can come back.
>> Okay. >> So, the second scenario is a one and a half% water. Are we going to do all water first as well or do you want me to look at sewer? >> We'll do water first. Okay. >> Sorry, hang on. I just lost our
>> the second scenario once he gets it up. >> There we go. >> Is one and a half%. >> So this will be one and a half >> and using 500,000 retained earnings. That's it. They're combined on the model. Okay. So we're
only discussing water, but it has both >> water. Okay. This is water one and a half% with 500,000 retained. >> Yep. So, just if you want to take a look at that and >> ears with retained earings.
>> Oh, sorry. >> Um, if I may, >> I would just say that it looks like with this scenario for fiscal year 27, we're um above what's needed. >> So, we would be putting money back into
retained earnings. So we would be we would be taking out of retained earnings as a buffer, but we would end up at the end of the year whatever's left over putting back into retained earnings. >> Do you feel like 500,000 is more than we need >> with the combination of the one and a
half? >> Okay. >> More. So, you're saying that the 1.5% with the 500,000 retained, it actually gives us more than what we need for FY27.
>> That's what it appears to me. >> I mean, based on the model. Okay. I just want to make sure I get it correctly. So, in essence, we could adjust the 500,000 potentially down. >> Correct. And then just for general information,
if you do not need to use a full amount of retained earnings, the way the year end calculates, it does drop back down into your balance. So just keep that in mind. >> So even if we decided to go with the head with the five, it it's not going to
hurt us in any way, >> right? It would probably give you a little more of a buffer for potential operating issues, expense issues, revenue. >> All right, the third model for the water portion,
it's 2% and 500 was sewer. Yep, that one. >> Okay, so this is water 2% with 500,000 retained. feel like it's the same result as the one we just we
just had up. If it gives you more, then we'll probably >> as far as retained earnings use. And then the last scenario is if we didn't use retained earnings, I
just kept upping the percentage increase. So you could kind of see what the percentage increase may be needed in order to cover fiscal 27 and beyond if we weren't using any retained earnings. >> And that what would that percentage be?
>> 16 and a half% for fiscal 27. And then um Kimberly actually adjusted it going forward um just so that it would cover the projected expenses and it was 16 and a half again in 28 8% and 29.
>> You want to raise rates 16 and a half%. >> We're Nope. This is just forformational purposes to show that if we weren't using if we weren't using retained earnings, >> we'd have to raise >> we would have to raise it to 16 and a half% to >> in order to have a positive cash flow
for the year according to the model. >> Whoa. >> So that was just for >> Okay. No, no, >> that's good. No, that's good. >> But wow. Yeah, we don't want to do that one. No takers on board.
>> No, veto that right now. >> Yeah. One thing to note is our revenues have gone down the past couple years, but with the clear project should we'll be producing more water and and selling more and our revenue should come up. So
that's what that's why we look so kind of far down most of these graphs and our revenue. Mhm. And also um >> they >> if I recall the people that did the model mentioned that nationally there's about a 1% decrease of water usage
nationally every year um because people are conserving. >> Yeah. More efficient fixtures. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Interesting. >> All right. Any initial comments on what we've heard so far?
I am leaning towards the actually the first thing with 2% um because we even with the 2% um we're still keeping revenue up
um and we we got to keep revenue up. So, I don't think the 1.5% will cut it. Um, and then as far as the retained earnings part, I would go with just 250 because as it shows in this other chart,
when we go to 500,000, that's nice, but we end up putting it back. We it really doesn't have a great effect overall. But I thought you said, Barbara, that if we did the water 2% with the 250, we won't have enough.
>> It looks like it's not quite there on the >> But if we did the one and a half with the 500, we actually get more than enough or for 2027. Yeah. And >> so we could do a one and a half with maybe a 350 retained earning. Just throwing out a
number for conversation. we do have the lives model >> because then we can just get us you know what what we need with maybe a little bit of a buffer. >> So my my one concern is that um
continually only doing 2% or less and I get we want to try to alleviate as much our taxpayers. This is you know the combination between taxes and water rate. My one concern is if we continue the trend of every year using retained earnings and every year doing a lower
percentage that in the future we might end up having to pay play catchup to an extent that may hurt more for our residents. Um but I I digress on that. >> Yeah. Yeah. I kind of second that we saw that
16 and a half% raise. Is revenue going to make up all 16 and a half% of that? probably not. So, you know, I think we we still need to consider some raising now so we don't have to do a major raise later potentially. I think that's I'd say
>> I'm just it it just it makes me concerned looking forward future of the next five years >> that I wouldn't want to >> like charge less now and then have to do the larger >> no years for now. But again, that's just
from >> Well, that's why we have a public hearing. We only make a recommendation. >> Yeah, >> we only make the recommendation. So, well, okay. So, you want to stay with the water 2%. You think that's a good idea, but I understand what you're saying about retained earnings, but at
the same time, should should we not use or do you want to use 2% no retained earnings? >> Well, I don't think if I think if we only raise 2%, we'd have to use retained earnings or else we'd have an op operating revenue shortfall. >> All right. And and what would you want
to use? Or I know you don't want to use retainers. You're a money manager. You're like, I really don't. >> Um but if 250 is going to fall short and 500 is too much, would 350 be okay? >> I mean, we can plug it into the model,
but I'd like to hear from the experts. >> Yep. Right. If I may, >> um I would I believe my understanding is we are very low on our rates nationwide. We compare very low. I would like to see
more of a 5% um and using some retained earnings um as a buffer until we have a better sense of how the Clearwell project will improve our revenues. I do feel that
continuing to to lean on retained earnings just kicks the can down the road and eventually we're going to run out of retained earnings, run uh fall beneath that dotted line, which is the suggested um amount that we should have in
retained earnings and we're going to have to have a large increase like the 16%. So, keeping it trying to ease people into that increase because if you look at the chart, those the
expenditures do not decrease. They only increase until this one year 33 when some debt service goes off the books. It looks like >> I'm just concerned that a 2% from last year to a 5% for this year is a big jump.
Would you like me to plug a different percent with the 250 in the model? I do have the model um editable. >> Yeah. Live if you'd like. >> Then we can have a sense of what the the rate would actually be. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. No, that'd be good. >> This is a live document. So if we were
to in the revenue for water right here is where it would go. If we were to keep that at 250,000 knowing not quite enough and I can show you where it's easier to see. It's just it's hard to print all these screens, right?
But as you can see, even with a 250 at 2%, it's showing a $75,000 um cash flow shortfall. >> So, what about a 3%? cash flow >> it it does decrease it
>> less than I would have thought but again this is using the model >> does this in so this is the 3% is this including the 250 in retained earnings too >> yep so I mean >> goes negative in the next We didn't want to raise it more than 3%. I mean, you can also look at like Janet, what did
you say? 350. >> Yeah, >> we're kind of doing a little compromise to start weaning people on >> this is really close. Oh, we should have looked >> at 48 positive >> by increasing. So
that would give us a little bit of a buffer in the event there was ever a shortfall of almost 50,000 in the operational revenue. >> Go back to the dash for a second. >> So where are we at right now? >> 3% using
>> go down to the bottom right. It's like your typical single family residential bill. Just wondering what that looks like when you go >> this chart right here. >> Yeah. So your water is the bottom number. So it' be you go for $133 a year in FY2 137
on 3%. Okay. >> Okay. >> It's not bad at all$2 to3 a year. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> This is why we have all these scenarios because it's a good conversation. >> Yes.
>> Um so I will write that scenario down as something to send out. So >> Okay. So, we're right now we're talking 3% >> 350,000. >> 350 retrieve. >> Did you Did you plug in the 350? Oh, okay. >> And that gave us a buffer of about 48,000.
>> Correct. >> And I mean, >> and then the next year we if you know once we look at the scenario, whatever's going on and everything, we can look at like a three and a half to just throwing out for conversation with a 250 retained
and start doing it that way. >> Yeah. And also once the clear clear well is done, if we do find the increased reduction makes difference. >> Yeah. Right. >> Okay. >> Can I just make sure I understand because that's what I was thinking
about. So okay, we're with the 3% and the 350 will be look good this year. We start going negative next year already. Um, however, if that clear well, if the revenue, correct, >> the actual usage and revenue keeps going
up because of the clear well, that'll >> maybe offset some of that off right off the bat. >> Right. So, our our conversation next year on water could be a whole different thing. >> Yeah. >> So, but okay. So, >> it's always most accurate first year as you get three, four, five years out, it
it's, you know, we're dealing with projections. >> Okay. So, how does everybody feel about that? A 3% with 350. >> Yeah, I think it well it's incrementally moving towards and I understand where exactly where you're coming from,
Kimberly, as the water and sew superintendent. I think it's moving us in that direction and then we have the clear well going online, you know, this year. So, when we reconvene next year, we'll have a a refined picture, as they say.
That's just my perspective. >> Did you want me to look at any other scenario? The five that you mentioned. >> That one's good. Well, okay. Do a 300,000 instead of a 350. >> And let's just see. Um,
>> yeah. >> I'm just curious. We don't have to go up that much. We won't >> at 48 almost 49. So >> and just through the through the chair if real quick could we just as Kimberly
was saying I just see what 5% no retained earnings and maybe the screen that Dan had just to see what the difference in the >> Yeah, that sounds good. >> Just to so 5% no retained earnings. So, it looks like it's predicting a
little bit of a shortfall, but if we wanted to see how it affects the customer's bill by doing 5% before adding retained earnings, >> it looks like $6 >> to 139. still a dollar for the this is the average
>> per single family >> and how much money does this generate in terms of the cash flow >> so it's >> so at 5% no returned earnings the average bill $6 increase >> we we got a negative 253 by doing 5%
with no retained earnings so we could easily say still use 300,000 for a $47,000 cushion So if we did the 3% with the >> 350 we get we come out with um in the black of 48,000.
>> Yeah. >> And if we did 5% with 300 it would be about the same thing. >> So if we say we want to use 350,000 in retained earnings but there's a chance we might not have to use it and then it comes back. >> So then we haven't lost anything.
>> Correct. So in the way the budget it works is if you know operating revenues come in higher than the projections of the model potentially not have to use all that retained earnings. Well, it sounds like our best scenario
right at the moment, what was it? Was it three and a half%. >> Oh, no. It was 3% 50,000 350,000 >> would put it estimated at about 48,000 in the black for FY27. And the difference in the average bill was
>> four bucks, >> $4. And then if we did 5% the difference was $6. We would have to do 300,000 in retained earnings in my opinion to have a positive cash flow. >> Okay. >> So, we're still gonna end up using retained earnings. >> Yeah. We would use we would budget 50
we'd have to we could budget $50,000 or less according to the model and still have a positive cash flow. So, those are the two scenarios. So your point being taken losing about the 5%.
What are your thoughts on the other side in sense of incrementally getting at the 3% with three? >> So um I I still would like to see closer to 5% just to get us stepping a little
closer to not having to use retained earnings. now just over the next few years. And to be fair, and just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting 5% without retained earnings. I was suggesting 5% with like 250, >> okay? >> Retained earnings because if we weren't using any retained earnings, we already
saw we'd have to be at like 16.5%. >> Okay. Um, >> but with this approach just to the chair >> as you you run the whole show and Dan's your assistant. >> I appreciate and I think you get getting
to that point the 5% right. if we did for this year the 3% with the 350. So we know that's going to put us in the black at 48 >> and the Clearwell is scheduled to go on this summer or this spring summer and
all things being equal that should inre increase sales production, right? Fingers crossed. Would that be a in your opinion a proven approach and then we revisit next year? I know what you're getting at. We want to get to a point of it not using
retained earnings and having the percentage. But on the flip side with the rateayers and the way that footing the bill and everything is so expensive. Yes. >> I think that balance. >> Yes. >> I agree. >> I do.
>> All right. So, right now we're I want to make sure I didn't get lost in that conversation. We're looking at the 3% with the 350 in retained earnings. >> Yeah, >> I believe so. >> Okay. All right. And that should give us about a 48,000 buffer. >> And if we're lucky, it'll give us bigger buffer. And then next year we'll be like, woohoo.
>> Right. So the well, all fingers and toes across at the Clarewell will increase uh production and sales. >> And I do like reducing how much we're using in retained earnings, even if it's gradually, so that we slowly >> No, I agree. I think this is a good
approach. Me, too. >> Good approach. >> Plus, you can buy some more water, right? >> See? Plus, I just wanted to throw out one other consideration. So, hope this what we're talking about is is assume is
hoping and assuming which is pretty good that revenue is going to increase. Um, also will the settlement money that hopefully we'll get some now and maybe some more in the future that might have a positive effect. That's more
gray. Well, if if I may, >> that settlement money can only be used towards PAS related >> Oh, okay. >> um operations. >> We don't even have PAS expenses every expenses. >> Um but it's not as if we can just take a
chunk of that and put it towards um like we do with the retained earnings. >> But that being said, the PAS needs for fiscal 27, they are recommending using the settlement money for that. So those expenses are not in this model,
>> right? So it decreases what we're borrowing. >> All right. So yeah. Okay. So we're really this is looking forward we the water is tight. U so we're going to go up with three at
least 3% and and then the 350 and the >> looking into the future increased revenue may help. with future stuff also. >> Y
>> All right. All right. Sounds good. >> All right. And then we're switching gears uh to sewer wastewater. All right. Mouse. >> Do you want to start with that one
that's up there using no? >> Okay. So if All right. So >> backwards if we Yeah, we'll go in order folks have >> Let me just go back. So, >> okay. So
>> the first one was that we did with 2% 250 had no was just a water one. So first one to start with is the 1.5. >> Okay. So >> 1.5. Oh, >> it's the one that says >> water 1.5.
>> Yeah. >> Open for you. Here you go. >> So this is >> 2% with 250. So 1.5 with 500. No. >> So now we're gonna go through. Yeah. But you read the rest. >> Got it. Sorry gang. Stewart 2% with
250,000 retained. >> Go ahead Barbara. >> Yep. So you could see it's the right hand side. Um >> what is it for revenue? >> Yeah. I mean I that's a half percent lower
than what we've been increasing for the last few years of two and a half% click there it should Yeah. Here we go. >> Oh I sorry. There we go. Okay. Yep.
So on the 2% 250 scenario, >> you're saying that's on the percentage side, that's a half percent less than what we've been doing. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> So you want me to plug this into the live model? >> Yeah, maybe the live model I think gives
folks more detail. >> Yeah. And if we were to use this is the 250,000 that we're looking at right now. >> Correct. cash flow first and it looks like right there we already
have but that's it's looks like it's going to use some of the retained earnings. If we have 131,000 cash flow then that's projecting we'll use about 120,000 of the retained earnings with this scenario. So, if you
lower the retained earnings, >> lower the retained earnings. >> Do you want me to do the 150,000? >> 15. >> Yeah, do 150. >> I think I had it backwards in my head. >> Looks like there's still a positive
>> 2%. So 2% and 150 according to the model for FY27 you'd be 31 about 31,000 in the black. >> Yeah. >> But we are still using some of the retained earnings.
>> Oh, I mean you you want me to look at the norm we've been doing of the two and a half% to see what that looks like? >> Sure. of two and a half% >> I'm gonna if it's okay just pull out the retained earnings first. >> Okay. >> And if we do the norm of the 150 let's
see what that >> it's predicting a $97,000 shortfall. >> Okay. >> If we do two and a half >> what if we did 100,000 in That's really tight, but you know, um um >> Barbara, may I ask you to go to the
dashboard, please? >> Sure. >> And move down a little bit to the C fund balance. >> I just, if I may, I would just like to note how close the retained earnings is to that dotted line. So, the less we use
of retained earnings, I would advocate for that. What would be the impact on the residents based on the current scenario? >> Increase >> and that's two and a half% using $100,000 of retained earnings. Um would
you like me to plug in zero retained earnings and see what percent we would need? Yeah, just to see it. >> Yeah, >> I'll I'll just go just this is just for midway not
see where our cash flows would be. >> This is at 4%. >> No change. All right. written in the impact on the residence of the >> that's a 16 that's 16 bucks >> so if we want to kind of gradually also
do the same thing I don't know what the percentage would be but same thing with sewer as But if we did a small So right now with the 4% we're going to have a shortfall. What if we did 50,000 in retained earnings?
>> That would that would cover it. >> 4%. >> We're using a little bit but we're also gradually starting that increase of rates, right? >> Without doing it a lot. >> Yeah, >> I see what you're saying. Okay, >> that would be four and then six,
>> but I'll I defer to >> I don't have a buffer >> gives us an a small buffer, >> but it's at least going towards that trend of doing more than the two and a half%. Mhm. >> So look looking right there and the the
rate increases with you FY23 24 table >> I'm just saying the table up top >> that's what we've done in past years for sewer 5% 5% last year was the only time we did two and a half correct >> oh I thought it was two years okay we're still
>> so we've still Okay >> or would be lower than what we've normally been doing I remember tell us that >> typically it's around five or six% Now that you say that, y >> are you doing for increases? >> We did. We did. It is just last year we decreased. Good catch. I was reading
>> or with 50 bits today. Once you get sort of more longterm, it's usually what the five years a picture of 10. We're starting to have a deficit if we're doing straight four%. So should we go >> really%
>> we did >> with no retained earnings? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So do you madam chair Dan do you think we should go back to the 5% trend that M repellis recommended or do you think the four is
>> put in the five. Let's see what the uh impact is on the resident. impact. >> No, and that's with the 50. >> Oh, fair. >> Let me just But I'll take it out just in case.
>> Cash flow. >> Cash flow. >> You're there. >> Okay, we're there. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Very tight. But I mean, we always have Springtown meeting in the event of something un No. >> And it's a $20 >> $20. So
>> the whole year >> and sewer is Yeah. waste water too, right? >> So >> that I think that could you look better long term, right? If we go to the top graph again,
>> our fund balance looks better. >> Yeah. um at least for the next couple years than it did on the last one, >> right? But the model thinks we're going to do the same thing every year, which we know in two years it could be a whole different thing. So,
>> but it does because it's going to project 5% for the future years, too. So, >> what are some of the things that are coming up for sewer that are going to we're going to need to do? We still have W uh treatment plant improvements to do.
>> One more phase. >> One more phase. >> That's what 3.5 million >> at least. 3.8. >> 3.8. >> All right. >> All right. >> Oh, 3.5. But then 350 is another year.
Okay. Did the five with the 50,000 do anything on the bill of a rate payer? >> I'm sorry. >> It was $20%. Yeah. >> With 50
>> if I add >> that was with no retained earnings. >> Yeah. I don't know if um using retained earnings affects the bills. It's more just the rate increase. But >> okay, >> we can look. It definitely now gives you a little more cushion if you budget the 50 because it was very tight which is
the 5%. >> No, no, >> because you're still raising 5%. >> Oh, thank you. Okay. So, >> so are we leaning towards the 5% then with no retain >> I don't know that there's a consensus
but I is giving. >> Let me throw out the elephant in the room. Uh but um storm water. >> Are we going to discuss?
>> We're not touching storm water. We just because it's just started getting paid. >> Okay, that's right. Okay. So, we're not touching that this year. >> No. No. We talked about that last meeting and it there's there's no way. We've only gotten a couple of months worth of even people paying for it. I
haven't it hasn't appeared. Well, I think it's on my new bill, the one that I'm getting that I that's arriving this week or something. >> So, my the main reason I bring that up is that there is not going to be with this what we're looking at as far as
storm weather is no increase. >> Correct. >> Correct. Right. >> Yeah. >> Can I ask a question? Oh, >> this is Sarah Wy. >> Hi, Sarah. Um, did did the DPW director say that he said most years were 5%
except for last year for the wastewater increase? >> Correct. >> Okay, there we go. All right. So, so if we did 5% I'd still recommend 50,000 from retained earnings as a
buffer because it was so close in the model. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, I agree. >> I will defer and then if we don't need it, it'll just fall back to retain our >> What are we looking at? 5%.
>> Yeah. plus 50,000 retained and that would put us about 10,000 in the black, >> right? Okay. >> Plus, we will be in the black going forward, too.
>> Potentially. >> The model certainly >> Well, I will point out that this model is plugging in $50,000 in retained earnings. >> This one is for >> It's projecting. >> Is it for every year? >> It is for every year. It's projecting that, right?
>> Yeah. So, you see how it whenever I plug in, >> right? >> Yeah. >> So, >> you don't have to take that into consideration. >> All right. So, just to recap sort of where we're at
in discussion. So on the water it we were at 3% plus 3% with 350,000 in retained earnings for FY27 would put the fund approximately 48,000 in the black and as
discussed that doesn't include the clear well going back on line and then as of right now on the sewer returning uh back to the 5% with 50,000 in retain retained earnings would leave the put the sewer fund for
FY27 at 10,000 in the black. That's just sort of where we are in the discussion and storm water there's no change. >> I think I think last year it was similar time of year, right? And and inflation and costs were a big thing. So we did
some reprieve then with what we could but you know I think we're really seeing the reality the 5% is really needed and the same with the water 350. So I think we kind of did a down year already. >> Yeah. >> You know what I'm saying?
>> I do. >> Yeah. >> And the sewer is tighter than the water, >> right? All right. Okay. Any other further discussion on that?
So, we're looking at 3% with 350 in retained earnings for water sewer, 5% with 50k in retained earnings. >> Okay. Any other further discussion on this?
All right, let's uh >> schedule our next meeting. >> Oh, we Oh, >> one other >> Oh, am I missing something? What >> was other Oh. Oh, that's right. I'm sorry. I read that >> I was reading it myself. >> So, for folks that's in that packet I
gave you and online is on the screen. So through the chair uh whether Dan or Kimberly that put the memo together, if you want to give us an overview of >> if I may um through the chair, >> currently we um we um do backflow
testing and we charge for those tests. Right now it's $100 for a test and it's $75 for a retest. It costs us the same amount of money to test a device whether it's a regular test or a retest. So, I'd like to standardize that um fee that we
charge to $100 per test, whether it's a regular test or a retest. >> Okay. >> Sense. >> All right. >> Um the next item is a fire service connection fees. We already have these fees established for um 4 in through 12
in. We don't have a 2 in established. Um we do have 2 in going in. So, we'd like to um establish a rate a rate fee for that. And my recommendation is $2,000 for that. It goes in line with how the
others are being charged. Um and it does cover our costs. >> The last one is the water and sewer connection fees. And so these are um these are based on and future costs,
capacity, water supply, waste, water collection. And so we have a um a calculation we do which factors in future capital, easy replacements, II renewal, etc. And so I replugged that in
um with our latest most upto-date um values in in here. You can see our current connection fee is $4,800. Pretty wide. That's pretty your typical three bedroom house. So that would rise to 5,100
and sewer similarly 6,6375. Um so they the last time we had grave fees was 2023 I believe. I didn't write it down here. >> Been a few years. >> Years. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah.
>> All right. Sounds good. I mean it'll be a part of the hearing. So, >> yeah. >> Yeah. >> Pauline, you have a question. >> Two very quick questions. The um models that you had Barbara run on the live
projection were great. Very hard to see in remote land, but that's all right. Um those were for discussion purposes. You will eventually hold a vote as to which ones you prefer as a as a group. Is that correct?
>> Right. probably at our next meeting. >> Okay. >> When we've got everything clearcut in front of us. >> Sure. So, will you consider what you had proposed the 2% and 2 and a half% compared with what you all discussed tonight? So, those of us who might attend will at least have that
information or will you simply go with the proposals you did tonight? >> No, we can go with that. We'll clean everything up and at our next meeting have everything uh cleancut and then we'll have a full picture and be able to
vote as to what we're going to recommend for the public hearing. >> Perfect. Thank you. The second question is simple. Are you are these rates being proposed for water and sewer only presuming no general fund subsidy?
>> Correct. >> You're fingers crossed. >> Correct. Okay, that's all. Thank you so much. >> Yep. >> Be safe. Have a good night. >> You, too. >> Okay. How's everybody feel about these rate increases for the connection fees?
>> I think it's well done. >> Yeah, I think it's fair. >> Right. Okay. So any further discussion on this? All right. So let's schedule the next meeting when we're going to
have, you know, um the scenarios and the new scenario. We'll have it clearcut um on everything and uh and then from there we'll decide what's going to go forward
for the public hearing. Okay. So, let's see. >> Barbara, would that would include u these u >> the proposed >> connection fees would go on the public hearing? Yes. >> Yeah.
>> All right. Days today. Today's the 27th. Um did you guys want to vote on these connection fees now or do you want to wait till the next meeting? We can do it as part of the next meeting. Do it as a whole package.
>> Okay. >> All right. So, today's the 27th. You guys want to meet on the the 10th? Giving you guys two weeks. How's that sound? >> Yeah. >> Okay.
February 10th at 4:00 p.m. That'll give us plenty of time to get everything together and to even schedule a public hearing date and everything. So, yeah, we're right on
track. So, we're going good. >> Yes. >> Any other questions, comments? >> All right. Motion to adjurnn. I have a second. >> All those in favor?
>> I says I we are journ.