Mike do the chair. Thank you. May I please have a roll call? David Dole here. Marggo Moring here. Nicholas Andrews here. Debbie Cole here. Justin Henderson
here. Dean Haddock here. Matthew Filer here. Thank you. Are there any changes or corrections to the minutes dated 14 April um 2025 noted by any members? Don't think we had minutes for this
agenda. Do we not? We don't from the last meeting. They those minutes will be available on the next uh meeting. They were provided to us a little late for posting. Is there any correspondence for any item
on the agenda? Nope. No correspondence. Then I guess we're going to move to new business. Uh may we please have the staff presentation for the comp plan text amendment. All right. Thank you. How's everybody doing? Uh, so this is something that some of you may have seen before. Um, in
2018, we were required by statute to develop what's called a water supply facilities work plan. Uh, which we did and it was adopted by reference into the comp plan. It's a separate document. It's not very very lengthy. Um but it requires us to basically just look at our water capacity for portable water,
water usage and and look at projections moving uh out into the future years uh to ensure that we have the capacity to provide portable water to the community. Um so when the uh regional water supply facilities water supply is is updated um
we are then required to update our local one within 18 months. So our deadline is fast approaching. Unfortunately, we were too tied up with the comp plan and LDC update to get this to you any sooner. Um, but again, it is it's a standalone thing. It just gets adopted by reference
into the comprehensive plan. Uh, so what you have before you, again, I think it's nine or 10 pages, is the same document we had in 2018 with all of the data updated, the capital improvement projects updated, um, and some of the projections for population and water usage updated. So, I'm happy to answer
any questions. Uh we worked with public works to get this data updated. Um so they've got all that information and then we move it forward as a comprehensive plan update. So happy to answer any questions you guys have. Otherwise, this is just kind of boilerplate stuff the state requires us to do to make sure we have enough water
for our community. Yeah. Uh so looking at this packet of things compared to I didn't never saw the old packet. Is there anything different? No, the only thing that's different is some of the um information like the the maps are essentially the same because our our water supply system hasn't changed. Um some of the
information in the tables has been updated in terms of what what treatment plants are operational and what um how many gallons a day if there were changes to that. Again, some of this didn't change because like I said, we're pretty built out and our treatment plants are got, you know, they're there. They're
not um decreasing or increasing capacity. Uh and then really just the population numbers. We, you know, update those and get as much as we can. Uh on page six, you'll see millions of gallons a year. That's part of our consumptive use permit that's issued by the water
management district. This is pretty uh static. This doesn't change. But otherwise, no, it's just the the format of it hasn't changed. Just some of the information uh contained with within it. Our capital outlay projects, those were provided by public works. So, from the last one to this one, was there anything with the last plan that we that stood
out that we didn't like, didn't work, needed to be changed? No, it was blessed by the water management district. They said, "Good job. It checks all the boxes for them for as far as the requirements go." And so, we expect the same this time. Question. That's right. Um, yeah,
this is a little bit of a different um context here, but I'm noticing on page five at the bottom, can everybody hear me? Okay. Um, on page five at the bottom there's a reference to, not to freak anybody out, but as best as cement
pipes, and my assumption is that, um, the removal or, you know, dealing with those in any way is what would expose um, citizens to risk or anything like that. But um and I don't know that I can make a motion um as uh alternate, but I
do want to at least kind of consider is there any review, assessment, evaluation that might be advisable as to whether we at least assess the risk of keeping those in the chain of the water supply versus maybe evaluating whether that is
something that should be removed at some point. So, u that's a great question and there there is a project right now that has identified properties that may have the pipes that we don't want. Um, and so I think homeowners, it's it's done through public work, so it's not really done as
part of this. You're able to do an evaluation to see if your home needs to be upgraded for those. So, we can, you know, slowly eliminate those like we do with septic tanks, something like that. Um, but it's something I think that we just, you know, have identified in here as part of the process that we have a variety of different types of infrastructure.
Yeah. And I think calling that out was Oh, sorry. I have some experience with this. So, um, asbestous concrete pipe is a non-fryable asbestous. Um, it's only real, uh, risk is that they tend to degrade over time and cause a lot of leakage.
Um, but they're not a health threat. Plus, when we distribute the water, there are um, things in the water that actually stick to the pipes to keep the water flow more linear and smooth. So, um, those pipes aren't a risk to health safety. They're really just a risk to water supply as far as degradation and
leakage. So, thanks for that. I actually read the exact opposite, but I trust your facts more than my uh Google research, Christian. Uh, any day. Um, I wonder if it's worth
considering anything related to the um the potential for any kind of contaminants, material erosion, that kind of stuff from an environmental perspective at some point in the 10 years of this uh plan. Well, so if I could kind of um answer that a little
bit. So, this is really just focusing on our water supply. public works generates an entire other report that has to do with water quality and I believe they do that annually. Um it's probably on our website. I've seen it there before. So that's where that kind of issue would get addressed. So if you're interested in seeing that, I'll see if I can find
it and send it to you. That's what I was getting at. Thanks, Heather. That that's exactly it. So that makes total sense to me. I have no other questions. Thanks. Is there are there any further questions for the staff? And that's a good note. I read that as well. It's a warning.
That is a warning word. Asbestous sets everybody's lights off. Yes, it does. Okay. Um I believe I still have to ask this although I think the answer is very unlikely. Does anybody have any exparte communication on
this? Okay. If not, do I have a motion? Motion to approve. Second. I have a roll call vote. David Dole. Yes. Margot my yes. Debbie Cole. Yes.
Justin Henderson. Yes. Nicholas Andrews. Yes. So, and then uh do we have a uh planning department report? Um I do not believe we have I have to double check real quick, but I don't think we have any cases for the next
first May meeting. So, it'll be uh the second meeting in May where I know we at least have two items, but let me just double check real quick. Thank you. Yeah. Anything that we've got coming up will be on the second meeting in May. I'll email you guys if there's
any changes to that, but um there are a couple items for that meeting. So, we'll get that out to you as soon as it's ready. All right. The ging something. So, just to clarify, second meeting in May. Yeah, I believe so. I'll double check when I get back to the office, but I don't recall having anything that's
been advertised for the next meeting. Okay. Uh, do I have a motion to adjurnn? Mr. Chairman, can I just ask a question? Is that okay? Absolutely. That's right. It'll be the 27th. I'm sorry. Because the um the holiday on Monday. Okay. So,
27 May, next meeting, next set of business that we're going to have. Yes. All right. We had talked at the last meeting about potentially talking about um the date and time for upcoming meetings. So, I'm not suggesting that we, you know, kind of have a an
exhaustive discussion now, but maybe we should have a date where we intend to have that conversation so that folks can think it through. Um, it's just a thought. It it kind of doesn't affect me because I'm not around that long, but but certainly for you guys, you know, if
you don't want to do seven pms or don't want to do Monday or whatever. So, just just a thought. Thanks. No, actually, it's a good suggestion. And um I'm not prepared to actually discuss that right now. I haven't looked deeply enough at it.
However, can we set um if we don't have uh the first meeting in June, can we is that that should be enough time for everybody to consider it. I just don't want to extend uh the 27 May meeting. Yeah, there are a few items for that. So, I mean, it's up to you if you guys want to put on the
agenda for the first meeting in May. That's simple. Is it would it be useful and and would this be appropriate if you solicited um over email uh folks recommendations and then you could kind of handle that async
and then we could discuss any proposed changes um as an agenda item versus like kind of a free-for-all where everybody's pulling out their calendars. Uh we've done that with council before just through survey monkey. Something like that. I can see. Yeah, we can we could probably do something like that
which is easier. We could just, you know, give some options and you guys pick and we'll Yeah, I would prefer that. Give the results. Yeah, that's pretty easy to set up. We can do that. Okay. And I like the fact that you used async. Oh, is that asynchronous? All right. Uh do I
have a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. Second. Any opposed? Second. We're ajourned.