 Hi, Dina. Can you hear me? Hi, Kimberly. Hi, Glen. Is it us so far? I'm in Arizona. I tried to log in an hour early. We're on the date with it. Arizona doesn't do daylight savings over here. Oh, right. Just a reminder, we are broadcasting to the public at this time. Good afternoon, everyone. I believe we do have everyone on the line. All right, well, then let's go ahead and get started. And I apologize, I am sick today. So if you don't, if I sound awful, or if I miss something, I just want to apologize ahead of time. But let's go ahead and get this meeting started at 101. Secretary Manus, if you could do a roll call. Thank you, board member Wright. Here. Board member Walsh. Board member Walsh. You're on mute, board member. Here, thank you. Thank you. And chair, what? Here. That's a record show of all members of the Board of Public Utilities Budget Reuse Subcommittee are present. Thank you. And just a reminder for committee members to mute their phones and microphones when they're not speaking. So we'll first open it up for public comments on item two, which is public comments on non-agenda items. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. And if you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Secretary Manus, do we have any live or email or voicemail public comments? We do not have any public comments for this item. Great, thank you very much. So now we will move on to item 3.1. Director Burke, if you could introduce the item. Thank you, chair Watson, members of the subcommittee. Our only item is item 3.1, which is our miscellaneous fee update. And Kimberly Zanino, our deputy director of administration will be making the presentation. Okay, good afternoon, chair Watson, members of the committee. Today we are going to discuss updates to the miscellaneous fee schedule. So what is a miscellaneous fee? Miscellaneous fees are charges to our customers for services that are not city-wide, but specific- Deputy director, apologies for the interruption. Are you going to share your screen? Oh, I'm sorry, hang on. Yes, I am. Is that showing properly? All right, sorry about that. Okay, so once again, we're going to talk about miscellaneous fees as director Burke said, and we'll start with an explanation of what miscellaneous fees are. They are fees to our customers that are for services that are not city-wide services, but services that are specific to either a customer or a property. We developed these fees so that we are not spreading the cost of the services to the entire rate payer base, and we bring updates periodically to the BPU. The last update was approved in March of 2019. The typical calculation for a miscellaneous fee is based on staff time, vehicle cost, and materials, but there are some other methodologies used, and today we will actually be discussing a fee that was developed in another way using other factors. So with this round of updates, we have several new fees that we have that have been developed. As you may be aware, we have a couple of different payment plans available for demand fees. We have a downtown area payment plan, and we have residential payment plans. These are provided to our customers to give them the ability to pay their demand fees over five years. The residential payment plan was developed for existing properties that had health hazards and are required to connect to our water and or wastewater systems, and the downtown area plans were developed as the city began to implement measures to increase density in the downtown corridor. Both plans require payment of interest on the principal amounts of the actual payment plan or the demand fees, I should say. When the update to the guide to water and wastewater policy came to the BPU this last March, there was approval with that policy for a fee to process these plans. And now that we are updating the miscellaneous fees, that fee has been developed. And that's what you see here for the $320. The next fee is a manual water meter reading fee. And it is for the few properties in the city that are not on our automated meter reading system. We only have 12 accounts left in the entire city that do not have meters that are automatically read. And while we don't have an official opt-out program for AMI, we have allowed these customers to retain their manually read water meters upon their request. In order for them to have their meters read manually, however, we are proposing a fee based on a meter technician having to specifically drive to a property to read the meter for monthly billing. And that's the $25 fee that you see here. The next fee that we are proposing is a credit card charge back fee. We have some customers that put stop payments or they report fraud to their credit card companies after paying their water bill. And when they do this, the bank charges us $25. So we are proposing the fee to recover that cost. We are also proposing a new fee when a customer is disconnected for water waste. The disconnection happens after the customer has been notified multiple times and warned that they are not complying with our water waste ordinance. We already do have a disconnection fee, but it's for non-payment. And that fee is specifically related to that work and also has some constraints based on legislation. So we developed a separate fee specifically for water waste disconnection. And that's the $50 fee you see there. And then finally, the last new fees being proposed are the water demand offset application fee. You will likely remember that the water demand offset policy came before the full board for a recommendation in March of 2022. And it was followed by city council approval later that month. When the policy was brought before you and city council, staff did report out that there would be a fee developed for processing the applications. There are two possibilities from the offset policy. The developer can pay the demand offset fee approved with the policy, or they can develop their own program. If they pay the offset fee, they will pay the smaller application shown here, the $160. But if they choose to develop a program, there will be an evaluation of the proposed programs water savings, which will take significantly more staff time. And there is a much higher fee for that that you see here also $970. I'll let you take a look at these for a minute before I go forward. So in addition to the new proposed fees, we are also asking for your consideration of the modification to the high strength waste tipping fees. Staff hired a consultant to review and evaluate the program. And with that study, they developed a fee each schedule. In that fee schedule, there are two new categories and other categories that have proposed updates to them. They also with staff input develop the schedule to be implemented over a three year period. On this slide, it's busy, got a lot of information for you, but I'm really just providing it so that you have and can see some of the information that the report identifies as the various components that they use to evaluate the fee schedule that they set up. The consultants considered the effect of the increase on the waste haulers. As a little background, the fees were intentionally kept reasonable in the past to increase program participation. And it's possible to do this because the waste that these haulers provide increases our ability to generate power. So there is a benefit to the regional system as well. In addition, it provides a local option that decreases the distance trucks, large trucks have to travel to dispose of the waste, which helps with reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. These factors were included in the development of the fees and is also the reason for the three year implementation. Current capacity was evaluated, expansion of the program and market and regulatory conditions were also considered. This chart is showing you that new fee schedule, which also identifies two new fees in the schedule. The new fees are not new waste streams to the plant, but it was just determined during the study that they should be in their own category instead of being charged where they currently are. They are the medium and the low strength categories on here and they have the asterisks next to them. The chart identifies for you the current fee and the three year implementation. Since the waste hauler fee is based on volume, we thought you would like to see how it will affect customers. So we also provided sample billings here for various categories. These are monthly billings. So I'll just give you a chance to take a look at those before I go forward as well. This is just to make you aware that when we bring the resolution with the fee schedule to the full BPU, it will include all existing fees. It'll include anything that already exists, the modified fees that we're proposing and any new fees that we're proposing. And they're all just consolidated into one document in that resolution that we bring forward so that it's easier for staff to have all fees put together all in one spot. And that the only ones that you're really recommending are the fees that we were discussing today. And then next, this is our tentative schedule. Because this is a public hearing, we need to notice it in the newspaper. There was actually a publication that went out today. So we noticed today in the newspaper, there will be a second notification that goes out on November 12th. And then the public hearing would be held on November 17th. The fees take 60 days after adoption to go into effect. And so the effective date of those fees would be January 15th of 2023. So it is recommended by Santa Rosa Water that the BPU Budget Review Subcommittee recommend revisions to the Santa Rosa Water Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Schedule as proposed to the Board of Public Utilities for a public hearing. And with that, I will take any questions that you may have. Great, thank you very much for the presentation. I already see that we do have a Board Member Walsh. You have a question. So I'll let you start. Thanks very much. It's a question and a comment and maybe even a request. We didn't see these fees or the calculations prior to today's presentation. And there's a lot of information all at once. Also, we're going to evidently bring this as part of a comprehensive presentation of comprehensive fee schedule. My recommendation is that we look at that work in the detail and have a different meeting because I'm concerned the public didn't see a notice that we're going to have which fees might be raised and to what extent. And so to be inclusive and transparent, I think we should see more information. That would include the calculation of the cost, the consultant's report that recommended the change in fees. And yeah, that's my comment is that we're not prepared because I didn't know which fees were going to be raised by how much or why. So prior to the meeting, I wasn't prepared to look at these fees. I literally couldn't. So the public, I'll probably direct that to Director Burke. Do you want me to send the information or? Well, if we had, I'm sorry. So when we do, so with the public notice, what we do is we send the public notice, we put that in the newspaper. We're notifying customers who would have the meter reading fee. So they will all get a letter. Those letters were sent out today. We're sending information to the developers and the contractors in the city so that they would have information about the water demand offset policy application fee. And then what we do is in those notifications, we tell them that if they want to see the detail behind all of it, that they can contact me directly or I think one of the letters has them contacting water billing. And then when the entire staff report comes to the Board of Public Utilities, all of those fee calculations are listed also in a chart. As the subcommittee, I'd like to see that before it goes for a recommendation or we call the question for recommendation. So I don't have enough information from which to make a recommendation. Like that information available to us in the public before we do so. Thank you, Board Member Wright. Yeah, thank you. Two questions and I kind of agree a little bit with Mark because I didn't totally understand all the fees and what came in behind it. Although they all don't seem significant. But one point, one question I have is on the $25 credit card charge. Do we have that many people that actually sort of default on their credit card like that? I can see if there was only a very few, it's kind of an aggravation. These poor people are attacked and now their city's charging them $25. Actually, these are people who actually make a call to their credit card company and report it as fraud. Or they actually call the credit card company and they ask for a stop payment on the payment that's going to the city. And it happens pretty regularly. Oh, okay. So they're saying that the city charges fraud. Oh, okay. I thought that their credit card got hacked and they showed it. That just seems like too painful for me. And then on that slide, it was only up for a second there which had the, you know, at listed septic and a bunch of other items. What was the unit on those? I saw there was 64,000. Is that, that can't be six. Was that $64,000? Yeah, let me bring up that one again. And I can also bring up the other slide. Let me get back to it. Hang on, just give me a minute. I believe the examples are monthly gallons that are brought to the plant. And so we're showing you the calculation of the fee. Right, they're 1,000 gallons. They're 1,000. I just wanted, that wasn't per customer. It was per month, amount of gallons deposited. Yeah. I guess I just, oh, that fee's $1,000. Right, so it's 1,000 gallons. Yeah, but, okay. Yeah, so it's the next slide that was... So what is that the next slide? What is, here we go. So this is... These are monthly. This is the monthly of all that. So one customer didn't do 64,000 gallons of one septic probably. It's probably 60 customers or something. Right, it's the total number of gallons that they dispose of at the plant. Yeah, per month average. Correct. Okay, I got it now. I just didn't understand that. And then I was going to go back to this slide to provide for you what the dollars were and where the dollars came from for the different fees that we're proposing. So as you can see for the payment plan processing, it takes about four hours for one of our CE techs in labor in order to process a payment plan. And so when they do that, we use a fully billable rate for that. And that's where the $320 comes from. For that meter reading fee, that is the labor for the meter technician to drive out to the property plus some costs for the vehicle use as well. And then the credit card charge back fee is just the charges that the bank is charging to us. So that's where the $25 comes from. For the waste or water waste, sorry, disconnection fee, the $50, that is also a fully burdened labor rate for the meter technician to go out to the property and turn off the meter, as well as some vehicle costs added into that. And then for the water demand offset, the calculation is just a CE tech, two hours of their fully burdened rate in labor. And then for the proposed program where we have to evaluate whether or not their program or how much their program would save and have in water savings, that is a, we feel a big evaluation that would have to be done by the Water Use Efficiency Coordinator. And so it would be about 10 hours worth of time. So that's where the calculations come from for all of the different fees that were proposed, except for the waste hauler ones, which were done in a report and they used the strength of the waste that was being discharged into, and then those other factors that I spoke of before to determine what it would be per 1,000 gallons. Okay, so you've given us 90% of the calculation and a little bit in a report somewhere. So I got that. And yeah, I was fine with the cost associated with all the other labor and driving out to protect the meter, just that $25 slap on the face of the customer, but I didn't realize exactly what it was. So I'm done, thank you. Thank you. Yes, that credit card charge was a little confusing for me as well. I thought it was if someone was over their credit card bill and so forth and it would be a charge to those people who are probably already low income. So I was concerned about that. So I do think that that could use some clarification when we bring this to the full board. The other one, if you could give an example of the waste, I should have taken a picture of the slide, the wastewater, not the demand offset fee. I understand that. And the calculation rolled into the evaluation of a project seems actually probably low compared to all the work that probably have to happen on that. But the one above that, if you could give kind of a scenario of what that would look like, I was a little confused about that fee. I think it's on slide four, the wastewater disconnection fee. Or water waste, sorry, water waste disconnection fee. So when we get to, we send letters, contact the customer, there's a long lengthy process that goes on when we find that there is water waste going on. And the final step would be, if they do not comply with the water waste ordinance, that they would be disconnected. And so that is the fee for the meter technician to go out to the property and turn off the water. They also get a door tag. They've had letters, phone calls. They've had multiple notifications that they need to correct whatever the situation is that is the wasting of the water. Okay, thank you. That clarifies it. Board Member Walsh, did you have an additional question? Yes, just to make sure that I understand some of them. So the payment plan fee of 300 bucks, who does that normally apply to? That applies to anybody who enters into a payment plan. So that would be those customers that on the residential side, if they have a health hazard on site and they are connecting to our water or our wastewater or both systems, we give them the opportunity to do a payment plan with us and pay off those demand fees over five years. That's been in place. I'm going to say I could look it up for you, but many, many years. When I was back in engineering many years ago, and we were providing those payment plans. Most of the time it is for customers because they have the health hazard on site and they can't afford to pay the entire demand fee. And so we let them pay it over five years. And then the other one is for the downtown area. There are payment plans available for the downtown area as well. And why are they, why is it just the downtown area? That was the direction of city council. They were looking for ways to encourage development in the downtown corridor. And so they came to us, or actually it was planning an economic development came to us and asked if we would consider working through a payment plan with them. And so that has been approved through the city council. And what would we want to recommend that we do that for other areas as well? Yeah, the plans are, yeah. Payment plans are incredibly difficult for us. They're incredibly difficult for us to collect on. These are for new development only. So it's new development, anyone that's a new connection to our system. And it is really important that we, you know, as we require all new development needs to pay for their connection to our system. So we do have them for hardship cases, but a lot of times we're having to go after them in collections, it's not something that we would recommend. They're very difficult for us to administer, very costly for us. And so we are finally bringing forth the recommendation to at least get some of the processing costs back, but this is not nearly what it actually costs us to continue to basically check on those on an annual basis and get the fees collected. And a lot of times we wind up actually have to go after them either on collections or go after the property. So it's not something we recommend doing at all from a technical perspective, but council was interested in hardship cases and also revitalizing downtown. So we did have that as an offer, but it's not something we recommend. Okay, and it's four folks that need either need a new connection because we want downtown growth or they need a new collection due to health. And then we want to accommodate, right? So then we do that and then they can pay. So it's for demand fee payment plans. And then it's for the downtown area or if there's a health issue and we connect to help somebody out in the short term to help mutually resolve the problem. I just wanna make sure I understand that one. Only for demand fees, that is correct. So it's only in new connections to the system. And only for these two circumstances. Correct. Or to make downtown grow faster. And then we don't wanna let the areas not downtown have that same benefit, is that true? And so that's true. And so the collection on this payment fee, it's because it's really hard to track these receivables and they're relatively high magnitude low volume. So you have to stop to do this one type of receivable, right? And you might have to do that many times. So 300 seems reasonable. I have seen the calculation. And then so that answers that on the payment plan. On the meter reading fee, just an idea if somebody has some issue with not wanting automated readings. I love because it's efficient. And then now we have some people are more inefficient. Is there a way they could pay ahead and their meters get read less than 12 times a year? Cause it seems like we're gonna be charging them 250 and 50 we're gonna charge them 300 a year to get their meter read each month. Is there a different way to do that? Our system requires that we have a read for them every single month. Otherwise it can't bill. We don't have any other way to build that monthly. We'd have to change the entire billing system in order to do that. The other reason why we like to be out there and get a read off the meter is because that's how we make sure that there aren't any issues on site. Especially if you're talking about during drought. One of the things we love the most about the automated system is that people don't go 30 days without us catching that there is maybe some sort of issue on site. And so it's very important for us to be keeping track of that water use and making sure that everything seems to be the way it should be on site. Gotcha. And that's great. So it's more than just reading the meter. Literally you have a set of eyes that are interested in all of our goals seeing that. And I love the AMI. So just save me some bucks already. The disconnect fee, that makes total sense. And then the demand offset fee, just another idea. I think similar result is if on the $160 fee that seems fine, that's cheap. We have to evaluate something. Will this really work or not? And then how are we gonna process? We received the fee in advance or not? Is the fee on or off, right? Do they get it back on the fees where the developer is gonna do their own offset? Is there a chance, just by chance, could we lower that if they save more than the required amount? I think, I mean, it's a good question. We can look to bring it back. This is the time that we're anticipating on average to review these projects. And so it really is about making sure we're recovering costs for the time we spend. So that's what we're looking to do. We wanna make sure that these things that are very specific to individual customers are not covered by the entire rate base, which is what is done now in certain cases. And so we always said we would come back with the application fee. I suppose we could look to see how many hours these are taking. We really don't know because no one's proposed any yet. They've all been willing to pay the fee, which is what I suspect will occur. But we're estimating that it'll take us about 10 hours to review because if they're proposing something, it's gonna be a pretty complicated project. So we could always come back and revise those estimates once we have had a few and look to, you know, one thing, Kimberly, I'm thinking and I'm thinking out loud, could we make this basically a $97 per hour fee with an estimated hours and then actually charge them the true value? We could do that. So that might address your concern. Better board member Walsh, I'm not sure, but. Actually, I didn't like the idea as soon as your answer started because I realized, yes, you need to collect costs to do these water savings programs or they don't happen and we don't save water. I mean, yeah, I'll take that back. So they want to save more. Cool, we're really happy with that. No, I get it, I totally get it. So you can wind up doing 20, 30 hours with the work, get no reimbursement, and then how do you get the resources to do, you know, to keep saving the water? So no, I appreciate that. And, you know, I don't want to pick bits on that. I just think that I just thought that was an idea, but it's not how the program works, is you need to get economic resources in there to keep the water savings programs alive. So no, I like your answer. And I also know that Mr. Close did a lot of research prior to bringing the water demand offset policy to both the board and city council and checking in with other agencies that have that option, it's a very uncommon option to take. But the city council wanted that still to be added back into the offset policy so that they did have that option if they chose it. Yeah, I appreciate that. It's likely if somebody's going to do their own like that, they are going to have a relatively large project and the magnitude of the fee in relation to the financial magnitude of the project shouldn't be that big. And they'd have to implement it and then watch it and then make sure that it's working. And that's probably more than, you know, developers would be interested in taking on. Yes, okay. Thanks. Just a question, approximately how many households are refusing meter reading of like automated? I'm just curious. We have 12. Okay. There are 12 meters in the entire city that do not have an automated reading device on them. Got it, okay, well, it's just interesting. I didn't think that that was an issue, but I guess there are some people that didn't want them. So, well, I just wanted to ask, you know, the group, I know, Board Member Walsh, you were concerned about not seeing the calculations ahead of time and the fees ahead of time. Do you feel comfortable moving this forward? I know that we would see it at the full BPU as well and I'm sure the presentation will have documentation behind it. And when we see it at the BPO. Well, I appreciate the question. And I have a suggestion maybe we can make this work. I read slow and sometimes I process slowly. I couldn't see the whole slides because we didn't get the slide deck or anything else, right? So I've got the small iPhone and I'm trying to go like this and stay on the screen at the same time. So, I apologize if you've got a close up of my face. Maybe if there's a chance and I'll ask if we could let people know, see these slide decks, what type of fee and then some of the background like the reference consultant's report. I think the cost per hour completely reasonable, right? And then if we see that maybe the consultant's report and then see the slide deck and then what's going to be proposed, post that online so the public could take a look at it in case they're interested in this because when we say misrelations in these fees, they didn't know necessarily that it's going to be 25 bucks with a credit card or 50 bucks, whatever that was, right? So I literally didn't know what it's going to be looking at and I didn't get something to look at. But I think the process or the thinking on the fees is right. I think the justification on the fees is right. What if we were to have a meeting prior to the next BPU, half hour meeting, maybe even, and go through this and then with the anticipation that we're going to recommend it to the BPU? Just another crack at it because I didn't really get to look at anything the way that normally would look at a fee. So I'm not sure we're recommending it today but I'm completely, I would anticipate being able to recommend it if we could have one more meeting before the next BPU. All right, board member Wright, any thoughts here? I'm actually comfortable with, after we've had this discussion with what was presented today and I would move to push it along. And maybe there's some in between, maybe we can send Mark or board member Walsh's all the reports and things and or send to all of us and have, and if he sends the chime up, we'll have another meeting or all, it's Zoom, we can all do another meeting if we need to or whatever we need to do, but I'm satisfied with the whole thing. But actually, I think the fees are almost kind of low on some of these cases knowing how long it actually takes to do things. And especially if you're depending on submittals from consultants to consultants, it's very difficult to get things done and you spend hours and hours and hours and hours. So I'm not worried about overcharging our customers based on these fees, based on my experience. Okay, one comment that the public gets us to get any of this. And they wouldn't know what fees that we're gonna recommend. And so if our process normally is, the public gets a chance to look at our meet to see that we've got a meeting coming up that might affect whether they pay or don't pay, they should get a chance to see what actually is in question. And the public did not get that shot. So if it matters, the public has input at a subcommittee meeting because sometimes the subcommittee the ball rolls into a regular meeting. And then the regular group thinks, okay, so the subcommittee got a full crack at it. Maybe they would get some public did too. So if we were gonna vote on such a recommendation, I think we should comment that the public didn't get a chance to see which fees we're talking about. That's the bigger concern. Whether we're right or not, we can make a mistake and just later, but it's the process. What do we get to look at? What the public get to look at? And then where do we go from there? Cause we didn't get to hear from them. So Chair Watts, if I might, so we are more than happy to schedule a second budget subcommittee meeting. If the board is that, if that's the direction of the subcommittee, we did put notice out to the public through, so the miscellaneous fees are very totally understand what board member Walsh is comments and concerns. It's also a different level of materials that are put out for miscellaneous fees versus our rate study, right? It's not an actual true study from that perspective. We did have some recommendations from the study that was done of our high strength waste. And so we can definitely share that report. That report really is more about the program as a whole and has just a very small amount that's recommending some changes to the miscellaneous fees. So you're gonna get a relatively big report for a small amount that's focused on the fees. We tried to take that part out of the report so and share that in the presentation today. But we are more than happy to put that information out. There is a public notice that is going out in the paper. I believe it's being published today and then we'll again be published next week as required for changing miscellaneous fees. So we do require to have two public notices in the newspaper, which we are doing. And then as was mentioned by deputy director Zanino, if anyone's interested or has questions, they get in touch with her and she can provide them with the background and the calculations. But basically we show them what the existing fees are and then the proposed new fees, that's it. There's no details like the rate studies that we typically do. And if they want more details, that's why we have them contact deputy director Zanino and she can walk them through all of those. So if you would like, we would probably would ask that we could pull the board to find another time this week that we could reschedule. We do need 24 hours. We actually need probably we would need about, I would say 48 hours. Just because we need to prep the agenda, we need to post it. And it requires us to post at 24 hours in advance for a special meeting. And otherwise we can look to do something later, but that would probably push back our November 17th BPU meeting and we'd have to republish the public notice on the paper, which we're happy to do as well. But just wanted to give you a couple of options that we have if the board would like, or if the subcommittee would like to meet again today or meet again on this item. Sorry. Maybe one other option that's actually easier. I apologize, just thought of it. What if we didn't have a recommendation? So we discussed it and decided to bring it to the full BPU, right? So we could have a bigger conversation. So that's another option is that we just, with neutrality, just bring it and then we'll have a chance to look at it and then we all know what we discussed today. And people knew we were gonna talk about miscellaneous fees in general. So we just left it at that and didn't have a recommendation, just discuss, right? The recommendation is that we discussed it fees because that's what it says, right? Didn't say approve a schedule or anything, right? And then just- That is another option, correct. Yes. Let's talk about there. A lot of times it's exactly the same presentation anyway. So board member Walsh, that's actually what I was going to recommend that we move forward that way. And we have this item will be presented to the BPU. We'll have the slide deck ready for the public to see at that meeting, as well as I think that deputy directors, and you know, mentioned that there was already targeted outreach to those like developers or the ones that are not on the meters and those things they are already seeing those in targeted outreach. So I would feel comfortable moving it that way. And we will not have to have another meeting with all of our staff time, reiterating the same information and we can just move it to the BPU that way if that is acceptable. Yes, I think that'd be great. So we keep the communications clean with the ratepayers and we keep the purpose live and we keep the positive, right? So we just say, we recommend a full discussion at the BPU with all the materials, right? Yes, I think that sounds great. And I think we're being transparent with the public as well. So, but with that, I still would like to open it up for public comment on item 3.1. So if you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you are dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Secretary Manus, do we have any live email or voicemail public comments on this item? We have no public comments on this item. All right. So I think that we are going to move this item forward without a recommendation at this time and we will see this at the full board meeting. I'm not sure if there's a specific action that needs to be taken for this or if we need to raise the motion and it gets shot down. I'm not sure if we can just kind of table this to the full BPU meeting if that's allowed. We won't take, that's fine not to have a recommendation at this point. I'll circle back. We may want to reconvene the subcommittee and postpone the schedule so that we can actually have a recommendation from the subcommittee. So I'll be, let me check in with the chair and also with our city attorney's office. Madam chair. Yes. So the action item on the agenda is the staff will present recommendations. It didn't say that the subcommittee will make a recommendation to the full BPU. Because we do not have our city attorney on the meeting I don't want to state exactly what is allowed. I'm much more familiar with, you know Robert's rule of order and I know we could just table this item but there's also different elements that are needed for this type of public meeting. So I don't want to miss speak but I think that we can, you know move to table this item at the full BPU meeting and then director Burke can come back and find if that is sufficient. If not, we will all get online real quickly to make a formal vote. Yeah, I understand. I just want to point out that there is no, we didn't say what staff would recommend. Staff would recommend no increased fees, lower fees recommend that we recommend to somebody else. There's no real defined action item. All right. Well, I think we've discussed everything that we need to discuss at the moment. So with that we can adjourn the meeting. Thank you and board members look out for further communication on this item.