 we'll call the meeting order on that. So, everybody join me in the Pledge of Allegiance please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Now I'm going to close my door up here. We will start with the approval of the minutes of the last meeting. I moved the way I approved the minutes that was written. Is there a second? All right. All in favor say aye. All right. I hear a call. Okay. I didn't hear them, but all right. All in favor say aye please. Aye. Chair votes aye. All right. Moving on. Joel, next on the line. Well, you have Lisa's financial report for April. And some good news is that compared to a year ago, we sold a lot more water than April of 2020. Our return on rate base is still low, but remember the last month or two it was negative. Now at least we're in the positive territory, so we're moving up. And I expect that we'll continue this spring and summer. Cash reserve is pretty much where we would anticipate. We did have a large bond and interest payment, principal interest payment that went out 1.2 million so that hit our cash reserve pretty hard and we'll recover a little bit for the rest of the year on that. I would anticipate. Otherwise, I did not have any additional notes on the financials. Okay. I get my agenda up here. Keep on going, Joel. Well, I'll move into the superintendent's report and for customer relations and fiscal. I guess one piece of news was we returned to the disconnect program as allowed by the Public Service Commission. And at the end of all of our efforts and such, we did disconnect seven customers for nonpayment and failure to make that deferred payment agreement. Late payment charges will resume in May of 2021, so that's underway now. We're in the process of transitioning to a new payment processor online called invoice cloud. We had previously been working with PSM for a number of years and they've been good, but they're a little bit unwieldy when there are problems and it's hard to get at customer information as easily as with the new package invoice cloud. We had no Public Service Commission Complaints filed and otherwise the return to more more normal activities, VRNF. For operations, as I mentioned, April compared to a year ago, we pumped 41% more water out of the plant than we did last year. So we're returning to some normalcy there, which is good to see. We did complete our basin cleaning and sludge removal for the early spring. That now is finished. There was some pretty extensive maintenance work that the crew had to do. The older basins have mixing systems that are underwater all the time and they're subject to a lot of grit and sand and damage and the crew normally every year or two has to do quite a bit of maintenance on those drive shafts and bearings that are underwater and things like that. That's all completed now and all three basins are back up in service. I think as you might have seen, lake levels have been dropping. We were at record high levels the last year or two and now we're seeing a return to some lower lake levels. That's good in terms of shoreline protection and wave action, not damaging our shore as much. Otherwise, lake temperature on average was 43.8 degrees for the month of April and we had just a range of maintenance in the plant as usual by the OM techs. Then moving into the distribution system, we had one main break on Ontario Avenue that the crew repaired. There's a new connection at Bookworm Gardens. We assisted in locating the water main in that area for their plumber to tap into. A lot of activity out on Georgia Avenue for the water main project there and street project. We had done our staking for the water main and set up for that project, which is now underway. Pretty much the highlights for attendance report. Do we have any idea of the 41% increase in pumpage? Can we tell where it's coming from, the industrial side or wholesale? Well, if you look the line under pumping, where it says Georgia Street booster, that's the station that sends all the water to the industrial park. So you can see the kilowatt hours used there went up by almost two and a half times. So a lot of it took place in the industrial park. That's one measure we can we can relate to. Anybody else have any questions for Joe? Not for me. Okay. Seeing I didn't have my agenda up at the time. Can I take a motion or make a motion to approve the superintendent's info covering all the areas? So moved. I'll second it. All in favor say aye. Aye. All right. Chair votes aye. All right, Joe. No business for all business rather. Well, on the raw water improvement project, RWI, we're now at 95% detailed design completion. We had a meeting with public works and city planning, city zoning, city attorney, and our engineering firm to kind of go through it one more time and flesh out any issues with the site and concerns over it. We spoke again about redesigning the disc golf hole and maybe one or two associated holes that are impacted by the project. And really, the project isn't eliminating any of the disc golf holes necessarily, but the fairway to hole number 13 would have to be changed for sure. But we'll be working with a firm that designs these sites and works with the disc golf community on the best way to modify the course to fit changes that are coming with our project. One item you'll see coming later is an easement for the project or modification of the existing easement, I should say. So we spoke at length with all those parties about that process and came to agreement about that. I mentioned last month the construction authorization was submitted to the public service commission. They're quite bogged down. One of their lead engineers retired. They have a new person on staff now. So they've received our request. They have not started reviewing it yet. And I'm told that they hope to get at least started in the next one to two weeks going through that project. Other news has been more along the financing front. The project did score number seven out of well over 100 state projects for the Safe Drinking Water Loan Program. So what that tells me is that we would almost certainly be funded by the program as we move forward. Safe drinking water loans fund, you know, the majority of water infrastructure projects that score high enough to get a loan and ours did. So that's a good outcome. If we did apply for the full amount of the loan, we would expect about a half million dollars in principal forgiveness under the program, which is another good thing. We would expect to market an interest rate that it's just slightly above market rate. There's another term for it, but the kind of minimum rate so it would probably be, you know, add or a little below 3% at this point. So now we have to continue that process and actually apply for the loan at a somewhat later date. And if we do need it close on it in 2022. Nice thing about the Safe Drinking Water Loan Program, it kind of adjusts to what you need. It's like a construction. It is really a construction loan. They don't just fund a certain amount of money. They pay invoices as they come in. And if we do receive other types of funding, then we simply reduce the amount we're requesting through the Safe Drinking Water Loan Program. And it's all very workable that way. So our high score was certainly a good outcome. And the utility accountant with some assistance from me and others did that application on our own as we usually do. And that was a really good outcome. The American Rescue Plan, the state is communicating more with municipalities about, and I'm told that funding is starting to flow. And the city is in planning and discussion about local projects. I think there is a specific category for sewer and also water infrastructure projects. And we've had some contact and flow of information about potential ARP funds coming to the raw water project to help offset debt service to pay for the project. I don't have any more details on that at this point. Another avenue is that the Congress re-enacted what used to be called earmark programs, but now it's called direct spending programs. And this is where elected officials are able to, federal elected officials are able to earmark or direct spending to certain projects that they select. And we have been in contact with Senator Baldwin's office about the RWI project. And we will be submitting an application before the end of the week on that line of funding as well. I have no idea about the likelihood of receiving any funding at all, but we certainly don't want to overlook it as a possibility. I have asked our wholesale customers to sign a letter of support. If the ability does not have to borrow, if we can borrow less, that means less debt service to the wholesale customers. They're a share of that as well. So it's really a win-win for everybody. But the deadline for application is this coming Friday, so it's a pretty simple application. One aspect that we do have to decide is how much funding to request. The current construction cost estimate is $36 million. And I've tried to ask persons in the senator's office, are there any guidelines? If we ask for too much, is that a reduced chance? Too little? Is there a magic spot? I couldn't really get much response on that. The utility accountant and I had some communication about it. And the board president had given me some communication about it. And I think I've kind of zeroed in on a range of something like $12 to $16 million as a request. And I think that's just based out of trying to ask for a significant amount, but realizing that perhaps if we ask for too much, it might reduce our chance of getting funding. But I would certainly be open to any board input on what is the magic number, what we should put. We're not allowed to put a range in. I have to put a number down. I'm coming to the end of that process and would like feedback on that. And I think with that point, I'll just conclude my update on RWI. Okay. Moving on to the agenda. Number 5.1, rule of the RO seeking modification of the easement. Yes. So in 2006, the board directed the superintendent to pursue the project with the city of Sheboygan. Utility lands are nearly fully occupied. We have no space for another construction project. A project of this size also means that we need our current facility fully operational as we're building this new facility. It isn't something that we can't have the plant out of service for days, weeks, you know, basically at all, all this other projects being constructed. So after a lot of analysis and consideration, the only reasonable site to build this facility is just north of existing utility lands along the shoreline in, in, uh, Volrath Park. And in 2006, we made a request and the city granted a permanent easement to construct and operate a raw water facility at that location. As the project matured and came into fruition and we realized there was shoreline protection issues and we realized the need for a service driveway and just some details that, you know, would come as you move into a design process. We realized the existing easement is, is a bit too small and we would like to request the modification of it to fit the final design of the project. And that includes adding some land towards the lake side again for the drive to the north to accommodate some external transformers and then to the south to accommodate large pipes that are crossing to utility lands and to the water treatment plant itself. So we would like the permanent easement modified to a somewhat different legal description. It's in the same basic area, but it's a little bit larger. And then we're also seeking a utility easement for a sanitary sewer ladder going to the north again through Park Lands up to, uh, Volrath Boulevard where there's a sanitary sewer main that the city would allow us to connect up to. We, uh, you know, attempted to fit the project under the existing easement and it just really was, was not feasible given all of the constraints that we're operating, operating under. So the RO would be the beginning of a process with the city to modify that easement. So we've got the, um, the exhibit A1 that shows the permanent easement. What is the area on that drawing that we're talking about changing? We're adding two. The original easement was 60 feet, nowhere it says 72.87 at the north. That was 60 feet and the length was more, what was 120 feet in about the same orientation. And then the portion at the end of the southerly and this is where the pipes connect up to existing utility, uh, property. So it's just kind of making those a little more continuous. Okay. So originally 60 by 120, um, in a rectangular shape. Now we're about 73 by 200. Yeah, more or less. Yeah. I mean, facing the west, I'm assuming to the right on that drawing is the shoreline. That's correct. Any questions for Joe on, the request for an adjustment to the easement, a permanent adjustment? Do you want a question? I have a, Joe, will the RO need to be signed by us or is our action here sufficient? The action here is sufficient and then we'll scan in your, your official signatures. Okay. I guess I will make a motion to approve the RO and, or accept the RO and present it. I would second that. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Chair votes aye. Next on the agenda approval of the audit report. Apologize. That was done last month. So, uh, that's good. Moving on. Yeah. How about the PSC report? Um, you should, you should have embedded there the actual report. Um, utility accountant has prepared that as usual and we've submitted that to the PSC and then each year the, the board submits that to the council as well. All right. So is there a motion to approve or to provide the audit report? So moved. I'll second that. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Chair votes aye. 5.4 approval for engineering proposal for the river water mean crossing. Uh, yes, this, uh, bring up one document here. Um, we have as the proposal, the, the design, uh, engineering proposal from a ecom and I'm just going to reference, uh, some information from supervisor McMillan. Um, the location of this project is adjacent to the garden toy factory apartments. If you can imagine the parking lot on kind of the southerly end of those apartments, we would have a river crossing perpendicular to the river at that point and exiting over on, on, uh, Wisconsin Avenue on the other side. Um, a number of the existing river crossings and service are more than a hundred years old. And except for the one to serve the area by the new art, uh, preserve, we haven't installed a river crossing in, in several decades. And one of the challenges of a river is that, um, you know, there's a lot of our water, most of our water demand is south of the river actually. And we have only a small number of pipes to move it down there. So even in, we've kind of had, had one in mind and targeted for quite a few years, but we're now moving forward with a design effort to actually get it in place. It would propose to be bored under the river. The days of open-cutting the Sheboygan River are long gone due to sediment issues and, and just other concerns and boringness is cheaper anyway. Um, so we had asked the EECOM who laid out the boring by, by Luther and High a few years ago to give us a proposal for this new site. It's a little more difficult site. More urban. There's a little less setup space, um, but it's at a critical point where we would need, where we would like to have more water distribution going under the river. We did budget, uh, for the engineering work and, and the proposal is really to do everything, including, uh, inspection services during project itself. And I think we've had good working experience with 80 EECOM on a number of projects recently. They do employ some local engineers as well. Um, and it's another example where we're working with, you know, several local engineering firms and trying to keep those dollars local wherever it's feasible. So in this case, we would have a 600 foot water main crossing and all the work, design work associated with laying that out and, and bidding that out and, uh, construction related services as well. And there's a not to exceed clause in here? Uh, yeah. We have an estimated fee of 48, 47, 875. And that would be not to exceed. Joe, just to be clear, this is engineering, including engineering services during construction, but not construction, correct? That's correct. Not, not any construction work itself, but the engineering documentation during construction. Do we have a feel for the size of the lines diameter? Uh, is it a single or is it a double? It's a single, probably 12 inch, possibly 16 inch, depending on a few years ago, 16 inch was a lot more expensive than 12. We would rather have 16, but we need to kind of reassess what's the economics. I'm just curious, just because I watched a show recently about the pipeline crossing the Straits of Mackinac, of any feel for how deep this might be. It would be something underneath where we wouldn't have to worry about getting strikes by bullets or anchors or anything of that nature, correct? Yeah, it would be, my guess would be at least 10 feet beneath the lake bed, the river bed. Any other questions for Joe? None for me. If not, is there a motion to approve? So moved. I'll second that. All in favor say aye. Aye. All right. Terrible tie approved. All right. Moving on. Uh, submission of the WDNR needs survey. Well, we were invited, uh, based on task participation to participate again in what's called the WDNR needs survey. And basically they look at a number of utilities through the state and they, they say, tell us your upcoming projects in the next 10 to 20 years. And they try to use that information to kind of structure the loan program and how much they think they're going to need and what project demands might, might be like. It's a pretty, you know, significant amount of requested work that we do for them, but it certainly helps us in terms of improving the loan program. So I would just report that we completed the needs survey and, and submitted that back to the DNR as, as requested. I'm sure they appreciate us. Yes, I'm sure. Communication will open as well. Yep. Okay. And we don't have to take any action on that. That's just information, right? That's correct. All right. Moving on to the long awaited 5.6 approval for the health insurance plan renewal. So I'll give a little introduction. I think the board members know Julie Meyer from Hub International. Julie's been our, our long standing health insurance broker. I'll make mention of some of the documents that you have to review. So Julie is going to review the fully insured benefits spreadsheet and she's going to review the 2021 spreadsheet final firm on self funded plans at the beginning. And then we have a document called advancement of strategic initiatives from Mr. Fioretti, who's been a health plan consultant that we've been working with for about a year now. And then we have a summary of health insurance analysis that was prepared by the utility accountant buying some cost info. And then at the very end, we've got a summit summary of health insurance data, which I will try to present just in a basic form. And I think the goal here is just to give the board all of the subjective information from, from parties involved in, in the plan and working to keep the plan economically viable for utility staff members. So with that, I'll turn it over for Julie. And again, she'll be reviewing the self funded spreadsheet and the fully insured spreadsheet showing some renewal option. Yeah, I'll just go ahead and jump right in. Over the years, we've been fully insured quotes and, you know, comparing those to the self funded plan. And the self funded plan. Historically, it's been more flexible for the plan members, as far as benefit structure, and also includes retiree coverage. The fully insured does not. And when you can, when you compare benefit structure, because of the Affordable Care Act, fully fully insured is we're very, very limited in terms of plan designers and structure. So if you look at the bottom line of each of those, you'll see that we're getting to a point where you know, fully insured look can be looking more competitive, but the out of pocket costs are quite a bit higher. And then in some cases, there's there's network limitations. So leaving it at that, does anybody have any specific questions about what's in those spreadsheets? I don't know if any go ahead, Mark. I was just gonna say, where would you like us to start? What document would you like us to start with, Julie? Yeah, so why don't we go with the fully insured and I'll admit I'm going a bit by memory right now because I won't have as much access to technology as I normally would. I'm where I'm at. But if you look at the fully insured on the very left hand side, you will see some presentation Anthem Blue Cross, and those are the most competitively priced. You'll see the deductibles compared to the water utility. You'll see the coinsurance compared to the water utility. The water utility is currently at 100% coverage after the deductible. Anthem has coinsurance. You'll see some maximum out of pocket costs that are substantially higher than what the utility has right now. And then you will also see some co-pays for physician services and some co-pays for prescription drugs that we're comparing to what the utility has right now. So that's the plan structure comparison. If you go to the bottom line of the fully insured, you'll see the estimated annual costs. And so that's where you'll start to see that some of the carriers have relatively low annual costs. Some of them are really, really, really high. Okay. And then when you flip over to the self-insured spreadsheet, you'll see the current versus the renewal. And on the top, we start with the specific, we're buying a high deductible specific stop loss policy. And so you'll see on the top line the fixed costs for the premiums for that policy along with the fixed costs associated with administration through prairie states. And then there's a line with total fixed costs. And then some lines with expected costs based on expected claims. There's a line for total expected costs. And then there's a line for worst case scenario. So any questions on that so far? Okay. Now the thing with the expected costs and one of the reasons we continually continuously look at fully insured plans is that especially on smaller groups of stop loss carriers in the last probably 10 years or so have started lasering out specific conditions. And last year we had two lasers. This year we have one plus a conditional laser. But that is the, how should I say, limitation that we're running into with with self-insured plans. So you'll see later, Lisa put together an analysis of where it's been good for the water utility in the past. We're sort of coming to a crossing point, I think, where we need to look at fully insured. But also understanding that, you know, to the members the plan isn't as good. And it hasn't been, you know, the culture really of the water utility to some private companies that for lack of a better word will quickly and rapidly change plan designs without much consideration, you know, for how it might consider the group or affect the people in the group. The water utility has not traditionally done that. So that was the reason, I think part of the reason we brought Anthony and as an outside consultant to look at sort of, you know, does self-insured still make sense. And I think for the immediate term it does. But to have some sort of a strategy for transitioning over to fully insured, if that changes. So, Joe, did I adequately describe that or is there anything you think it should address or add? I think one thing on the self-insured spreadsheet, Julie, we did have the there was a renewal option with the $60,000 stop-loss limit, a $70,000 and also an $80,000. Yeah, and the $80,000 stop-loss deductible does reduce the fixed costs. And if you look at the difference between 60 and 80, it probably makes sense overall for the plan to switch to the $80,000 to keep that fixed cost down and that expected cost down. And the expected costs are what we use to calculate the employee's contribution to premium. So, that also helps keep their contribution limits a little bit lower. Right now, the plan members are paying roughly 12% of the premium, roughly. And that's something too with working with Anthony. We're looking at some options for, you know, restructuring those contributions. You know, to maybe shift around single and family a little bit, but I don't think we have any immediate plans right now to do anything drastic. I think, Julie, on the fully insured plans, there's a range from about $650,000 to $809,000. And one thing that was noted was retirees could not be on these fully insured plans. So currently, a retiree, when they retire, they have an option to stay on the utility plan, but they pay full dollar for it. So currently, they're paying, I'll stop in my head, I can't remember, but I think they're paying something like $1,900 a month for plan under a fully insured scenario. They wouldn't be able to access the utility plan. They would have to go in the marketplace. And one other note was that some of the other services under a self-insured plan, like administration of the dental vision, HIPAA, and some other elements like that are not included with the fully insured plans. Julie, is that correct? That's correct. The water utility would still need to pay for those separately. They would need to pay Cobra, HIPAA, and medical and I mean dental and vision would still need to be paid for separately and on top of what's on that benefits spreadsheet. So we can find another source for those, but that would be a separate vendor and a separate cost. So, you know, Anthony has looked at this. I've looked at, we have a bridge to go to fully insured if we need to do that, but the recommendation, and by the way, we don't have to wait until that's June to do that if we need to pull a trigger earlier. But we're losing you, Julie. We may have lost her though. Maybe she'll dial back in, but we could jump to one of the other documents. The 2021 summary health insurance analysis. Technology is great when it works. Well, do you want to call this summary, Joe? Yeah, I'll send Julia a note to dial in again. But yeah, moving to the summary health insurance analysis document. So this was prepared by the utility accountant with info from Julie and others. And I would just review a couple of points here. Well, let's turn the mic off. Okay. But Lisa had done an analysis of 2011 to 2020 comparing the self-funded plan at the water utility with costs if we had been on a fully insured plan. And by her numbers, you can see our actual cost was $6.19 million. The fully insured plan cost would have been about $6.15 million. They were actually pretty close. Not sure why I'm echoing here now either. I came back in by phone and I'm trying to get, yeah, I'm in by phone now. So hopefully this is better. Yeah, it sounds good, Julie. Okay. We kind of lost you on your final recommendation, I think. Yeah, I apologize for that. What I was going to say is because of where we're at and, you know, it's really, really close between fully insured and self-insured. But at this point, from a financial standpoint, I should say really close, not from a plan design standpoint. At this point, I'm recommending that the water utility room renew with Prairie State from the self-funded plan. Anybody else have any thoughts or? I'm sorry, Jerry, I didn't hear that. If anybody had any questions or thoughts? It might be helpful to look at Mr. Fioretti's document, which is kind of thoughts about some of those bridges. If the board does determine to remain self-insured, we've got this document advancement of strategic initiatives. And Anthony, you know, kind of the fruition of our year working with him has been a number of things, but he's got some recommendations here to reduce some cost on a self-insured plan in addition. And basically they involve either increasing the deductibles or increasing coinsurance. You know, currently our out-of-pocket maximum is $850 for single and $1,800 for family coverage. And those, according to Anthony's benchmarks, in our industry are low. So he has three alternatives, and in each case is recommending an increase in those out-of-pocket maximums to get us closer to what are more benchmark figures now. So he has an option, alternative A, B, and C. And I think C is the most extreme, increasing those out-of-pocket maxes from $850 to $2,000 and $1,800 to $4,000 kind of in one fell swoop. The other two, A and B, are a little more moderated. A keeps the deductibles the same. B has a slight increase in deductibles, along with an increase in the coinsurance. The other thing which we had a presentation from Anthony on a couple months ago was this private clinic offering. And one of the strategic elements in the planning is also to offer private clinics and to encourage people to use those to try to keep from kind of a scheme rolling of costs within some of the larger providers that sometimes aren't maybe beneficial and can be addressed earlier at a private clinic setting where people are going more often and not kind of as a more urgent need situation. So one of these alternatives would be, I think, should be considered if the board decides to renew a self-insured plan, along with an increase in that stop-loss limit that Julie had mentioned. And I think the other note I would make is the final document, the summary of health insurance data, and that's very short, just giving us a little information. Where did this info come from? Julie is here. Accountant Lisa has been involved, and Anthony, if you're ready, as well. The basic plan info we talked about, self-insured versus fully insured during that nine-year interval. If the board determines to remain self-insured, there's also a recommendation to increase the monthly family coverage contribution. So currently, family contribution per month is $300. And that, again, was identified in Anthony's benchmarks. It's a little bit low. And there was a recommendation to increase that to $375, but keep the single unchanged, because it actually is in line with the benchmarks, the premium or contribution for single coverage. And with those changes, the estimate was that employees and retirees would be offsetting about 13% of costs due to direct contributions. The other alternatives, the deductible changes, the co-entrance changes, appeared to have potential savings of anywhere from $10,000 to possibly $25,000 a year, you know, depending on exactly what happens in terms of case loads. A lot of data to look at on a TV screen or a monitor. Joe, do you have a feel for how many retirees are under the plan presently? Three or four. And what I'm reading here is, and correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation, but it sounds like we're still considering or recommending going with a self-insured plan and making some tweaks to it. There would be tweaks based upon the co-insurance and the deductible, but not to the prescription coverage. Possibly to the prescription coverage as well. In fact, probably Anthony had made that recommendation and what we want to do, these changes would all take place on January 1. What we want to do is measure the impact to the members, how many members would be affected versus what the cost savings would be. In other words, if the cost savings were minimal, but we're impacting many members in an adverse way, we'd maybe want to back off on that. He's suggesting, and I don't think it's a bad suggestion because it's steering people to generic drugs, but he's suggesting a $10 co-pay for generic drugs and then 70-30 coverage for all other drugs, meaning that the members would pay 30% of the cost of drugs other than generic. So then if I get it right, then we're basically talking plan A as recommended by Anthony, correct? If my recollection is correct, he had co-insurance on a number of the plan options. Yeah, he certainly did, and that sounds like the plan A with the insurance that you had mentioned, Julie. Right, and the 10% co-pay and 70-30 on all others. And 80-20 co-insurance, 1500 single auto pocket max, 3,000 family auto pocket max. Right, that one has 70-30 coverage on the prescription drugs as does alternate B and alternate C. So the only drugs that would take a $10 flat co-pay would be generic drugs on any of those three alternatives. Am I answering your question, Jerry, or? I'm good, I'm good, yeah. Mark, are you satisfied or do you have another question? I believe I understand it. One other question, Julie, and this is, I apologize for being ignorant on this. Could you help me understand what is a lasered cost, please? Yeah, so last year we had two lasers. This year we have one laser. My recollection again is $400,000, and then there's a big contingent laser, but that's not likely to be incurred because they're simply not covering something that's considered experimental and investigational, which isn't covered by the plan anyway, experimental and investigational. So something that's lasered would not be part of the plan. This is health insurance for Donys, Julie. Right, right, I understand. What they're lasering is excluded by the plan as investigational and experimental and investigational. Should that particular laser one day get approval, like FDA approval, that would be another reason for wanting to have a plan for bridging over a fully insured plan. And again, they're to the fully insured plan would not cover anything that's experimental and investigational. Okay, thank you. I think I would just add, Mark, we've seen lasers before, and what the normal laser means is that on a certain individual, it's like a new stop-loss limit for that individual. Right, that's a separate stop-loss for that individual. Right, so they have, we have seen this a number of years running now. Okay, any other questions or comments? But we need to decide what we want to do. We've got it, we've got to do that at this meeting, correct Julie? Excuse me, we need a decision before June 1st. Right, right, we are making a special meeting. Yeah, so this is the other thing that I just want to make clear. We're setting a path for being able to maneuver off of June 1st, if we need to. We had discussions about January 1st, you know, pulling the trigger on January 1st, but if we needed to, we could do it sooner than that. But the idea being not to, you know, cause disruption for a lot of people in the plan suddenly and unexpectedly. It gives us a little bit of time to see what's going on as well. I'm sorry, Daria, that was kind of muffled for me. Okay, I'm saying it just, it gives us a little time to analyze exactly the effect on everybody in the plan. Yeah, I apologize. I couldn't catch that. Okay. It just gives us a little more time. Right, right, exactly, exactly. Is there a motion to continue with the self-insured plan? I'm sorry, could you say that again? I said, I'm asking for a motion on approving the self-insured plan. Okay, all right, thank you. I will move the way you continue with the self-insured plan as recommended. I will second that. Any further discussion? Hearing none. We'll take a motion on just, I guess, approving the self-insured plan. Now do we take a motion to change some of the, I guess, the deductible, the copay, and or the prescription drug coverage to what was presented in basically all ones, A, B, or C? That was a change that we were proposing for January 1, so I'm not, I'm not on the board, but my recommendation would be to maybe hold off on that motion and board for us to integrate. Yeah. Okay, all right. I think I would request, if the board is going that direction, though, the employee contribution would become effective June 1st, if the board wanted to make that increase. And that employee contribution would go from 12% to 13% of the actual plan cost, correct? Yeah, roughly. So 300 to 375 a month for family coverage. I would so move. I'll second that. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All right. Sure, both sides. Excuse me, I'll be right, I'll be right back. I have to take it from the right. To discuss on health insurance. I'm sorry, Jerry. I said anything else we need to discuss on the health insurance topic? I don't think so unless you really hit something to add. No, not on the health insurance specifically, no. We want to talk about baseball or? Did you have the, did you have the clinic next on the agenda? We're all be part of this topic. Yeah, I think we, we have to discuss the private clinic then because I thought the changes for January 1st would be acted on. So when Mark comes back, we'll have to revisit that. Okay. Yeah, and we, we can even do that as soon as, you know, a month or two from now in the next month or two meetings. I'd like to analyze the prescription impacts a little bit more deeply first. That 7030 is a significant change for members. Right. But we could still act on, the board could still act on the private clinic. Just that, adding that aspect regardless. Or are you recommending waiting on that, Julie? No, I'm not recommending waiting on the private clinic. I am recommending on waiting on the plan changes. They'll be implemented on January 1. But for further analysis, you know, for June or July meeting. So we'll just hold until Mark gets back with us. There is. Yeah, the dog needed to go outside. Priorities. One thing that Joe brought up that we should probably bring up at this time or is what do we do about the private clinics and take action on that now? I don't see a problem with that whatsoever. I think it's a good option. I think so too. Especially if we're thinking about making changes in the future. It's a, it's an opportunity to progress and have people get used to the idea. Right. Do you have any thoughts? I think the private option is a great idea. I think it gives the employee a lot more flexibility and I'll let you get their health care. All right. Is there a motion to, Joe, anything else that we need to discuss on that or elaborate on? I don't think so. No. So we need a motion to approve adding the private clinics to our plan. I'll move the way you do that. I'll second that. And as far as discussion goes, would we need to have some sort of a plan laid out or do we have a sufficiently flushed out plan right now that we can go ahead just by saying that here's the plan? It's fleshed out and it would be with the two providers that are shown on the document. I can't recall a name of them right off. It used to be Eladium or Paladena. They're renamed and then the Philadelphia Superior Avenue. Which document is that in? It's not in one of the five we have today, is it? I haven't seen it. No, I'm sorry. It's, yeah, it's a separate. Yeah, it wasn't in the board docs. But it lists those two entities as the private clinics. Okay. So there would be some limits. They can't just go anywhere. Right. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Chair votes aye. Motion carried. Anything else, Julie? No, there's not other than thank you for the patience with my internet connection. Okay, well, we'll be, we'll be talking again, I'm sure. I'm sure too. And happy tax day. Nice seeing you again, Julie. Thanks, Julie. Thank you. Bye now. All right. Bye. All right. Number 5-7, B&R Sanitary Survey Results. They should have the actual document from the, the DNR on their recent visit in April and they really just issued a couple of very minor corrections, which is typical screening on some overflow pipes and the height of an overflow pipe, things of that nature. Nothing, nothing real significant. But we'll take care of those and make the corrections and keep moving forward. Okay. Any questions on that from the board members? So just things forward. Go ahead, Tom. Sorry. It looks, I said that your report looked pretty clean. It's those four minor ones and their long-term stuff. All stuff will be covered by the raw water improvement. Approval is not required on that. Again, that's information. So moving on to 5.8. Approval replacement of lead service lines on Indiana Avenue. So Indiana Avenue is an upcoming DOT project and we've joined in to replace some very deep and old water main. And it turns out there are several parcels there that do not have water service to the, to the right of way. Because they're either not developed or they're in the town of Sheboygan. And I think because of all the work going into the roadway, in this case we would like to incur the cost of installing four water laterals to the curb now. And then if when those properties are annexed and want water to be connected, they would pay the connection fee of that amount to the water utility and we would not have to dig up the road to connect them to water. And we've done this before. Yes. I would vote for approval. I would second it. And just for my benefit, this will be all towards the Lutheran High University area. Yeah, it would be east of that. East of that, okay. Yep. Yeah, that's that's actually town of Sheboygan and you know, this is just I guess a way to plan ahead, you know, for the future. At some point if we have to serve water, we've got it out there. We don't have to turn around and go through all kinds of hassles at that time. That's right. Any further discussion? You good. No, sir. Okay. So before we go into closed session, all in favor say aye. Aye. Chair votes aye. All right. Next on our agenda is basically we need a motion to go into closed session pursuant to section 19.85 per N1 per NC, the purpose of considering employment, promotion, compensation, and performance evaluation data of a public employee or public employees or which the governmental body has jurisdiction or exercises responsibility. We will go back into open session after the closed session. Is there such a motion? So moved. For a second. I'll second it. All in favor say aye. Aye. Chair votes aye. I do not have video, so one of you have to tell me if we are now in closed session. All right. We are back in open session. And I would like to make a motion to accept Joe Trueblood's recommendation on the engineering department. And the board will review all senior or all supervisory positions between now and the end of the year. All on all exempt positions, correct? All exempt positions, yeah. Okay. I'll second that. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Chair votes aye. Next thing on the agenda is our next meeting, which would take place on June 21st, that being the 3rd Monday. Any problems, conflicts? I'm good. Those are mine. You think we'll still be virtual, Joe? Well, I don't know how does the board feel about that and one more month or? I think let's take a look at it before that meeting and we will make that decision well in advance, so we don't have to wait until the last minute. One question I would have when we get to there is how is your family doing? Are we giving any risk to your family by meeting in person? I'll keep evaluating that, Mark. I think it could be pretty minimized. You know, the further we go along. So I think the three of us are all fully vaccinated now. Yeah. So there's not much risk to us to getting together. I just want to make sure that your family's safe. I agree. Yeah, I appreciate that. Well, again, let's set the date and we'll determine whether it's in person or virtual for one more month and go from there. Very good. That's good. All right. With that, the next motion is a motion to adjourn. So moved. I second it. All right, gentlemen. Have a great evening. I'm going back to tax returns. Have fun. We are adjourned. I got five extensions to do it, so. Wow. Better you than us, Jerry. Okay. That's a great. Better you than any of us. Thank you. All right. Enjoy the evening, guys. Bye.