 Okay. All right. We'll call our meeting of the Water Rush Commissioners to order. We'll start. We'll start with the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic of the United States of America, and to the Republic of the United States of America, and to the Republic of the United States of America. I'm getting duplicate cameras here that says Council Chamber, but I'm showing up on that. Mark was just showing up on that. We need a motion to approve the minutes of our meeting from October 19th. So moved. I second it. And we move to second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. They're both side. All right. Financial reports. Everyone should have received copies of those financial reports. You want to give a few highlights. Well, you can see for the month of October, our billing was increased. That's primarily due to the rate increase that went into effect on the first of October. It actually, as you see later pumped about two and a half percent less water, but that was offset by that, that rate increase. You can see for the year to date total were still significantly down. And falls, although as I used more than last year. A lot of that has to do with whether the beam is recirculating system is up and running that's my guess what's behind that increase for them. Sheboygan itself and the village of Kohler were down and their total billing for 2020 to date. Rate of return is starting to go back up a little bit. It is being impacted still by the year to date totals, but I think we'll see that recover as we go along. The cash reserve remains healthy and as anticipated. I don't have any other comments on that. And then that would be my summary of the monthly financials. Any questions for Joe on the financials at all. None for me. Thank you. Not here. All right. Operations construction maintenance and customer relations. Coming up my report here. Give me a minute. But I had it, but it didn't seem like I do. So let me open it again. If it helps us underboard docs. Okay. Almost there. Okay. I'll start with the R and F and see for October, compared to last year. Total payments are down. That's 360 total payments. We are still seeing more late or non paying customers. You can see calls coming in again are well below last year. Account transfers kind of interesting are up. Those are people moving in and out of different places. And then we have the LPSC complaints for the month. We had the 71,000 almost $72,000 outstanding at the end of the month. Or districts three and collections. You can see our service techs out in the field or approaching their prior years driving totals more, more activity out in the field is what's being indicated there. We have two leak allowances come through and were approved. 2800 visitors to the website and some highlights, including commissioner Smith, the handcrafted automator lamp was a highlight. And well deserved. Otherwise, some highlights. We did implement. It's approved by the PSC. We're no longer charging for credit card usage. We're now allowed to roll that expense into our overall fiscal expenses. So that's a big change. We did have some our utility support specialists attended a customer service seminar remotely and found it to be worthwhile. To spend our Orion the radio read meters installation program due to the pandemic we still have about 1100 to complete the system and I think we'll achieve that goal next year. And then as we'll see later but I'll remind the board that the public service commission did extend the moratorium on disconnections until April 15. They've stretched that out a little initially it was the end of the year and now it's been extended the end of the end of the first quarter of 2021. Distribution we had a fairly quiet month one one water main break at the 1421 North 17th Street which the crew repaired. I would say that I may recall earlier this year we bought an electronic leak correlator device to help locate water main breaks and the crew members are really pretty excited about it they've been able to put 10 point leaks. You know previously they had to drill holes put things down try to listen with stethoscope and hear the water and sort of triangulate on the location manually and now they're able to use its electronic system and they're having very good results with it. Some work out at the Georgia Avenue stand pipe the water tower that was stripped and painted. The crew did remove what's called an altitude valve that had been in there since that pipe that stand pipe was constructed. And these are a mechanical valve that when the tank is full of water they shut so as to prevent overflowing of the tank. But those are kind of an outdated now that we have electronic monitoring on water levels and such we don't really need those and often they fail after time they're the kind of a maintenance issue so we removed that from the stand pipe all that service. The crew is able to do that. We did install an 8 inch tap for future water service that acuity this was off of Union Avenue there where the hospital construction is. And some cleanup on the shoreline restoration project behind the filtered plant. Around about the highlights for distribution. 8 inch taps seems pretty impressive for one facility doesn't it. Yeah. I think they're sort of planning for additions. We're not exactly sure what else. But yeah it's a very large tap there to go into that large parcel. In operation as I mentioned we produced about 2.5% less water than last year in October. So that's the exact explanation for that that's kind of you know routine variations and water usage I would say. Year to date high lift average. We're at 11.7 million gallons a day. Last year we were 1212.7 so you can see that that figure has been dropping so we are producing less water. Last year with the pandemic that definitely affected that number. But we do have a three year trend of that decreasing now which is not what we'd like to see but that's where we're at. And otherwise. For October. A lot of maintenance in the plant. We have a variety of things going on. We did start cleaning the south base and normally fall. Anybody there. Yeah, Joe. Joe is frozen. Yeah. Coming back up. I'm sorry. We lost it for a while. Okay, how about now? Good. We lost you when you were talking about maintenance and the plant. Okay, yeah. Yeah, just indicating that usually when we take those basins out of service we do have some maintenance issues and them due to the mechanical mixers underwater. I think that's the highlights of the superintendent's reports. Any questions for Joe on any of his reports. Joe, what's that picture that's included there. Oh, yes. Thanks for reminding me that is our loose gate that was installed in the clear well. And a little background when we built the ultraviolet system we had to extend the clear well and the new direction so that it would drain to the UV system instead of directly to high left. And when we did that, however, we realized that we might want to bypass around UV in the future. So we wanted to install this loose gate which goes over the pathway to the ultraviolet system. And now with it in place we can essentially bypass UV if we needed to, and shut off and isolate the clear well which is where we can contain our finished water. And that loose gate was installed last month. It was a pretty tight fit. And divers went in installed it. Check that it was functional, and we now are able to isolate the clear well, which was our goal on that project. A lot of different things down there that people don't always see. Any other questions or comments for Joe on his report? No, sir. And attain a motion to approve the reports. So moved. I second it. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Chair votes aye. All right. So, we're going to be held over for discussion. Long water improvements. So here we're talking about the intake and the suction well. Roller pump station project. We did complete preliminary design. And you had an update from CDM Smith last month on that. One thing I wanted to add to that is a little bit of information about the FEMA. Building resilient infrastructure grant program. We've been looking more into that it is a grant program for infrastructure projects and in particularly related to. Resilient projects in the face of high water levels or shoreline damage or. Issues like that. So in our project, we really considered at the beginning. The shoreline protection system that would be needed to build where we would like to build because we're right on the shoreline. And we do know that the waves can damage and erode the shoreline and we want to avoid that. So we have as part of the preliminary design a shoreline armor system that would that would go in into construction. And as significant cost about one to $3 million is a very rough estimate for that at this point. So between the utility accountant myself and the operation supervisor we've attended a number of meetings on the FEMA brick program. We've entertained two ideas one would be to try to apply for the entire project. And the second would be to try to apply for just simply the shoreline protection element of the project. We did get some feedback from a consulting company called stand tech that has been working with FEMA and the Great Lakes initiative group. And I think what we came to realize in discussions with Sam would be that in order to apply for the entire project we really don't have time to do that for 2021. We could do that potentially for 2022. We do feel we have time to apply for the limited the shoreline armor part of the project for 2021. And we're continuing to pursue that. There's a benefit to risk ratio or kind of a analysis that has to be done by the state to decide even if you want to go through the gate. If you don't have a sufficient benefit to write a risk then their advice is don't don't even bother because you're not going to get you just basically going to waste your time. So we have most the information we need to provide that and have provided some of that to the state. So our goal is to apply for the shoreline protection for 2021 and see what happens and for the whole country that the funding figures about $600 million which of course is a lot of money but over 50 states it's not that much money. What is our chance of getting grant for that portion? We really don't know. It's the new program. It's impossible to say. My own feeling is that we have a better chance to get a smaller portion than for the entire project. But I think we'll see what happens with the shoreline protection portion. And as we learn more maybe we'll feel like we would recommend applying for the whole project or maybe not. Grants are challenging. They're always well enticing but then as you get into details it becomes harder and harder. Again, the chance of funding the whole project with a federal BRIC grant I think is fairly small but it isn't zero. That's kind of a status of what we've been doing in the last months on RWI more on the funding aspect of it. Well actually the shoreline protection would be from a risk to benefit analysis probably more so than the whole project. That's part of our thinking as well. Any questions for Joe on that? Part of our agenda? No. Not for me. Okay. Good. Thanks. What was that? Excuse me. Let's clear my throat. Oh, okay. All right. Review the RWI final design proposal. So to backtrack a little bit we began this project. Actually in 2004 with some field work and we did some underwater work and started to prioritize the project. Had other projects of higher priority ahead of it. Several years ago then we embarked on the feasibility study of this project with CDM Smith out of Chicago. We've now completed the preliminary design portion of the project on time and per the engineering budget and I think certainly staff itself have been very happy with the work done by CDM Smith. They did team with our local engineering firm Donahue and associates in a very significant way. And they also brought in Collins engineering out of Milwaukee who has especially coastal engineering expertise. So it really is a team effort. It isn't just CDM Smith as the team CDM Smith Donahue and Collins to a lesser degree. When we embarked on the preliminary design CDM Smith provided a kind of an overall proposal and assessment of the project. At that point in time they felt that due to a lot of unknowns. It would not be in anybody's benefit or a favor to try to come up with a consulting engineering fee for the whole project. It just was too complicated and too many unknowns. So they initially gave us a proposal for the preliminary design work. And it was just completed. And then they gave us estimates for final design including bidding and then construction engineering or what we might call inspection of the construction phase of the project. So at this point in time or we're ready and eager to move into detailed design or what I would call final design and bidding. So we do have a time frame with the state of Wisconsin. One of our potential funding sources is a safe drinking water loan through the state. And in order to apply for that we need an engineering a final engineering report by the end of June of 2021. So we have a reasonable amount of time but not. So what you have before you now is CDM's proposal for the detailed design and bidding phase of the project. And you can see it involves detailed design kickoff. Now one thing that emerged that again we didn't exactly anticipate. And page one dash one task one which is field and other investigations. And I think at the end of the day to summarize this is that they're recommending that we not rely on the underwater data that was taken in 2004. Entirely. They're not saying it was not worthwhile. It actually allowed us to lay out the path that we're on now. But they feel that that time lapse creates enough uncertainty that bidders are going to look at that and say that's pretty old data what if the lake subsurface has changed significantly and we run into things that we didn't anticipate. And the concern is that they're going to have to put risk into their bids to offset that put dollars into their bids to offset that and that those dollars are probably going to be pretty significant. So what is included is additional underwater. Five additional underwater moorings into the subsurface. Along with more of a like a sonar echo survey, a bathymetric survey as it's called to establish the lake bed all the way from the shoreline out 7,000 feet. The best is is about $285,000. When we embarked on the project, you know, we didn't. We weren't sure if we would need to do that again. They're recommending that we do that and that work would actually be subbed out to FTS. And that was included in the scope, which again was one of those things that we maybe didn't think we would need up front. We could reject that element, but I think the risk in doing that is probably the benefit of doing it is. It's pretty high. Anybody have any questions just about that other field work aspect of the detailed design. Perfect sense to me. No, I don't have. You know, it does involve them bringing out a barge and drilling off of it again, but not as extensively as the first time when customers thought maybe we're drilling for oil or something out there. Similar to that activity. Detailed design final design permitting. I don't have a whole lot more to say about that. WD and I are safe. Drinking water revolving fund support. They're talking about the documents needed for us to apply for the long program. Bidding services and project management up through the end of bidding. I think they have all the details laid out here. I won't go through everything. One of the aspects they are including quite a bit of hydraulic analysis on the actual intake structure. And also the the shore well structure where water comes in to the pumps to avoid, you know, unnecessary turbulence or issues there so they actually have included computational fluid dynamics modeling along with physical models. There's a lab at Clemson that specializes in making a physical model of our shore well and assessing if we have a nice non turbulent alignment of our pumps and our structure. They would continue the 3D model we saw a little bit of that earlier. The board wasn't able to see that in great detail but it does allow you to step into the station look around and see things that may be like or maybe dislike. The design would include a new 54 inch intake out to a distance of 7000 feet with two alternate materials. A concrete pipe and steel pipe. All of the yard pipe work necessary to connect it up. Again the shoreline protection by Collins engineers. Overall civil and site improvements. There's a raw water pump station with traveling screens pumps electrical room. Two gas natural gas backup generators and one chemical feed room. A new electrical service. However, we would retain our current structure which is favorable. There's alternatives that, you know, we're not sure we can afford or wish to spend money on or not but one is a second or what we're calling the redundant emergency intake 1000 feet out. CDM to design that that's a bit of additional cost. And then also an intake heating and camera system. And this would be heating at the very intake. Grading structure and a camera at that same location so that we can see more what's happening out there. There's a number of meetings as you would expect most probably all those will be remote and that's been working out fine. Updates on the opinion of probable construction cost at 60 and 90% time frame November through June 2021. There's a very detailed layout of the deliverables in terms of drawing numbers and drawing details and all the permitting both state and local efforts. And then the bidding, you know, this is the, I'd call it a fairly unusual project. We certainly need assistance to bid it out properly and to get to get good competitive this hopefully many of them. They did include an exhibit a breakdown of hours and fee and of course we've reviewed that. And, you know, there's there's nothing there that I would flag as is unnecessary or that appears to me out of line. They do give a breakdown, even a how much would be in in Donna Hughes portion of the project, which is about $430,000. And then about 285 to STS for the underwater work. And you can see some of those breakdowns as well. The design work for the optional or the emergency intake is about a $47,000 extra. And the design work for the heater and camera system is about a $35,000 extra. And then at the very end they have the 124 different drawing sheets laid out already in anticipation of how that's going to be structured. And I think the only other reference I would make I did send some summary of the engineering cost previously so that the board could see. And I think as the project has been fleshed out it has grown significantly our current estimate is about a $35 million project. So that's still an engineer's opinion of probable construction cost and I feel that that is still conservative, but it has grown from what we thought initially. And I think the engineering costs by percentage have decreased. So that we're now at about a 14% figures is what we would estimate. And finally, you know it's very significant engineering cost. And I think breaking it down as we've done is really the best way to try to ensure that we're getting a good project and not getting things or services that we don't need. My own recommendation is that CDN has done an outstanding job of working with our team and really considering a lot of options. We have our input. You know they have sometimes the tough job of telling us well you know that would be nice but you know here's what it's going to cost. If we do everything that you might want to do. But I think we have very good communications with them and they certainly have the expertise that we need to move forward with the project. And they've demonstrated a very high level of commitment to the project. And I think we need to manage the team. I think they're working with Donnie who and others in a very cohesive manner. And I really would only have a positive recommendation about continuing to work with them. So I think that that's my summary summary of the proposal that we have before us tonight. What do you think about those options Joe. I think we should pursue both options is my recommendation that the camera is not as critical. We could potentially save a few thousand dollars by having the camera removed. But I think in one issue with heaters and you know I think you're very aware of some of these issues mark but there's not a lot of experience with intake heaters. There's a few. There's one small company that is has some installations and word of mouth and anecdotal evidence is that they seem to be effective. But there isn't like an array of different options and vendors that are providing intake heaters at this point. But I feel like it's very it's very inefficient to do something like that after the fact. Right. That's exactly what I was thinking. You know we can't guarantee that the heaters going to mean we don't ever have icing at that intake that we can't manage. But if we don't put it there will will never be able to put it there. I guess I would put it that way. So I would actually recommend both options. I was thinking along the same lines as far as the heaters. One thing I would imagine they must be a maintenance pain in the neck though the way the water movement and whatnot they must get knocked off and we do an annual inspection I would just expect that we might have maintenance on them as all. Yeah the most successful installation has been at Evanston Illinois and they've been very positive about it. It's only been in place you know 5 to 7 years. So I think you're exactly right. We would expect ongoing maintenance with it. But I wouldn't mind is that they simply when when the water temperature gets to about 34 they just turn it on and leave it on. Yeah, if you if we go through this huge project planning for the future and we freeze it up someone or we're going to wish we had done this. And I'm assuming I mean between the heater and the camera. There's got to be some protection to those pieces of equipment if in case there were a problem down the road. Yeah I think they make every effort to make them rugged but you know it is harsh conditions and I think they after 10 years 15 years I would definitely expect maintenance but one point I do want the board to understand with our current intake well and intakes the well is very small. And when we do have ice build up what what we're able to do is put water. You know as we take water out of the well, the level goes down. So icing what we do is we dump water from our wash tank up on the hill into the shore well increase the height of water and we essentially push water out the intake. And that helps dislodge ice that isn't built up too much. Now the new intake well is size is much larger. It's not going to take itself as much larger. We're not going to be able to dump water onto it and do that same back flushing as we call it. It would take a huge amount of water to do that and it's just not available to us. And that's another argument why we need the heater I think because we're not going to have that back flushing capability any longer and we'll still have it on the old one in service. But it's just not viable on this new installation. We're looking at something that we're hoping is going to last for 50 years plus to skip that at this time, you're not knowing what's going to happen, even 1050 years from now. And you definitely want to be proactive and make sure that we're covering, you know, for any future possibilities. And I think the only optional element that I could identify again is that that bathymetric and underwater drilling portion I know the board could determine that that isn't something to be invested in and we could pull that out and and bid the project. And I guess I tried to explain the risk that we might end up paying for if we if we do that but that's about the only other optional element I could envision here. I think your explanation of the reason for that was was right on as well Joe. Anytime there's more risk, then you're going to get more spread in the bids and the spread is going to go towards the right side of the chart, not the left side. But I think both operations supervisors swearing gin and and I have have reviewed the proposal. And we feel comfortable and confident in it. And would would recommend it to the board. We need to take action tonight. Yeah. That was my question as well. I'm sorry, was there a question or I didn't catch that. Yeah, I just said, is that something we need to take action tonight on a proposal. I would recommend it because that June deadline is looming and we would like to get started. Okay. Any further discussion on that. Nothing for me. Thank you. Not me either. So we have a motion to accept Joe's recommendation. I would move that we do so. I will second that. All right, all in favor say aye. Thank you. Joe excellent job. You and bill. Thank you. All right, next on the agenda is chemical bids for 2021. Yes. So we have our tabulation of annual bids for aluminum sulfate fluoride. I put chloride and liquid phosphate. And we have recommendations at the bottom. I guess the only thing I would note here, the aluminum sulfate, there is an iron free grade and a food grade. And we would recommend because the cost difference is not very large to go with the food grade. This year, we've done that in the past when they cost has been reasonable to do so. But otherwise we were comfortable with the low bidders. As presented here. So just for my edification, what's the difference between the food grade and the iron free grade? Well, the food grade is certified for use in the food industry. So I think it's guaranteed to a higher level of purity. So aluminum sulfate is added early as a pretreatment chemical and mostly settled out in sedimentation. So the, the iron free grade, you know, can have a higher level of, I'd say additional components that are certainly not harmful, but that end up in our sludge. Okay. Most public utilities use the iron free grade, but we kind of discovered the food grade was available to us and just felt more comfortable with it and have been bidding that for the past few years. And basically we use it as a flocculant. Yes, exactly. Okay. Okay. I would make a motion to approve all as recommended by the Joe. Yeah, I agree. I would second that one thing that's just taking note of the cost increase in the fluoride is interesting. But that doesn't stop my seconding the motion. Yeah, we've had trouble getting, as you can see, much competitive bidding on these chemicals in the past few years. And we don't really have a whole lot of control to extend the market to chemicals because of their bulk nature. It's kind of a radius of operation around us that we can bid into and it seems to becoming more and more limited. Any comments or questions? No. Motion in a second all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Chair votes aye. All right. Our bankruptcy is in right off. So utility accountant got sucker has prepared a list of basically uncollectible accounts at this point that we're recommending right off. The sewer and garbage fees and recycling fees. When you look at it. Yeah, the water portion is smaller and then I guess to be accurate we're recommending to the city right off of those other fees that they wish to pursue them on their own they're able to do that. The motion to approve. Yes, sir. I will move so. I'll second it. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Chair votes aye. All right. Make payment charges. Yeah, so we have two documents from the public service commission. As they've been adjusting to the current situation, they've decided to extend the moratorium on disconnection through April 15. And basically that means public utilities are no longer able to disconnect customers for non payment. And we're certainly abiding by that. If you should have a report on mods going to the tax roll, it certainly is increased. Disconnection does result in people paying. But I think the PSC is reflecting the current economic hardship of many of our customers by extending that moratorium. The portion, excuse me, the portion for the board's consideration. Is really what to do about late fees. As per the PSC guidelines. Utilities may continue to waive late fees in a non discriminatory manner until April 15 as well. On the other hand, utilities could continue to impose late fees and make them collectible at that later point in time. I did ask accountant that sucker as well for an estimate if we were to waive those late fees. How many dollars would we expect that to be. And I'm just going to pull that up here. And what she did was looked at our last several years. And came up with a calculation of about $27,000. And we did not impose those late fees through April 15. So that's our estimate of what that would embody. So my, I guess I'm asking the board for action on whether or not the utility should waive those late fees or impose them for compliance in April 15, 2021. If indeed they're not paid, are they added on to their tax bills? Yes, at the end of next year, they would be added on to the tax bills. Late fees would be along with any pass to water. Correct. And sewer charges and garbage charges. But depending on what the city does. Correct. I was, I was wondering what the city is doing. Well, the city isn't real isn't regulated by the public service commission. So they, they could maintain late fees. If they, if they wanted us to do that on their behalf for sewer and garbage collection. So they don't. They don't abide by the PSP. They haven't given us any direction on what they'd want, want to do with those things either, right? Not at this point, no. So what are your thoughts, Joe? Well, my thoughts are that we do have a number of customers who are facing economic challenges. I mean, it's an unusual situation. And I think anything that could be done to reflect that is, is, is a benefit. So, you know, my feeling would be in favor of waiving those late charges for that limited period of time. Well, from my experience working for the utility, we were all of our customers, including the customers here in Chicago in the city of Chicago. About 25% of our customers were having trouble paying their utility bills on an optimal basis. And that was before this economic and virus thing started. I can definitely see where that would continue or even accelerate as far as economic impacts on customers. I'm wondering if we decide to be kind and the city decides not to be kind, I wonder how that plays out. Not necessarily that we, we have to worry about what the city is doing, but it might put the city in an awkward position when people see that on their bills. Yeah, that's a factor. I think our accountants figure I'm sure is very conservative. You know, maybe it would be more like $20,000. But as we know the sewer and garbage collection fees are higher than the water fees. So they may be, you know, it may be more like $30,000 of late fees and those charges. I think that should necessarily be a driver for a decision just the city might have some planning to do. Exactly, exactly. Tom, do you have any thoughts? No, I'm okay with waving those fees. It's, you know, as a total of the total number of dollars is pretty small percentage. From my experience with the utility, there's one thing that's kind of gnawing at me a little bit and that is the fairness factor for those who are able to make their payments and who don't and take advantage of the situation. Meanwhile, there are those who are who are struggling and yet are baking their payments and it's not really fair to them to cut slack to others. I still see what you're saying, Joe. It's just a, it's just a thought, because being a regulated monopoly, we're always in that situation of trying to be fair. Well, I guess it could be argued that by delaying the disconnection moratorium means that essentially people don't have to pay those bills until later and they're getting more time and if that results in having some fees, maybe that's not ideal but they have had more time and that is at least a factor. If we don't wave these, does that preclude us from not forgiving them down the road? Even on a case-by-case basis? Yeah, the PSC wants, we actually have to report to them what are, what are we going to do? Okay. So they want to know. Non-discriminatory matter. I guess I would make a motion agreeing with the crew of you that we wave the fees for late fees at this time. You're never wrong to be kind. Did we budget for this? I mean, do we budget for the late fees as income? Typically, yeah, we do include that then as income, but I would say, you know, within the level of uncertainty in the budget, the $20,000 deficit, if it ends up being that much is not going to be a huge factor. Is there a second to my motion for further discussion? I will second it. All right. Okay. We've got a motion and a second to inform the PSC that we will be waving late fees. And then we will just have to see what the city wants to do with their portion of a water bill. And I think that went on as unanimous. Is that correct? We haven't taken a vote yet. Tom and I were fighting over so that's probably unanimous. I share what's up. Now it is unanimous here. Okay, thank you. Any PSC code changes and 5.5 on our agenda? Oh, just a moratorium. Okay. 5.6 proving vouchers. I would make a motion to approve the vouchers as presented. And second. Okay. Any other discussion? I assume you got my email. Okay. That's a joke. Okay. All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. And chair votes aye. Section six personnel 6.1 review plans regarding COVID-19 risk reduction. Okay. So that's an update report. We have had several staff members now with positive tests. And they have been out of the workplace very quickly. I think in all cases actually. Fell on a weekend when they began having symptoms and promptly got tested. And I'm. But with the numbers in the county getting so so high, I'm not surprised when I did a just a calculation of the percentage of positive cases in the county. Based on population and the number of cases we've had at the utility. It's similar percentages. So I'm not surprised. None of that has affected our ability to complete our core missions. I think we've had to shuffle staff a little bit. Make some adjustments. I'd say right now we're in kind of a high protective mode. The pay window remains closed. We are cycling staff on remote work whenever possible. We do have some folks needing to take COVID leave as schools are going remote again in some cases. I think our system is robust and I think. Things are looking looking good. At the moment. Is there one area in the workforce that is. The cases on work level. Not really. We had two cases on the construction crew. I don't think we have any, any pattern to. Okay. To show. Okay. So we don't think it was contracted in here was contracted elsewhere. In their lifestyles or whatever. That's my belief and we have emphasized in our. Have been very. Strong about going in and getting tests as soon as there's a concern. And that's been very good. And our staff has been. You know, really embraced all of our safety measures early on. And I think doing everything they can to stay healthy. I just think with the numbers getting higher and higher. It's inevitable that we're, we're going to see, you know, a few cases. Other city departments as we know. Those were kind of all for meeting. Those are in house as well as. Working remotely. Yeah, that's correct. Any other further questions or comments? All right. Reviewing wage proposal. So provided a proposal to. All of us and. I think we're going to have a couple of questions. With numbers that he had come up with. And Lisa had also come up with as far as. Increases. Through the workforce. Any questions or comments? I think a comment. Would be in order about the level of service that's been provided by the. Staff. And the cooperation with the efforts to. Have an effective and safe water supply. And should wagon should wagon falls and core. Are much appreciated. And. That level of cooperation and maturity. Is. Something we should recognize. I have done research. For other organizations I'm involved with. And look at what. What's going on in. Not only the government area, but also the. Non-profit area. And the. The private sector. And what Joe is proposing. Is probably even a little bit less than what is showing up. Elsewhere. As far as the percentage of increase we're talking about. Across the board. And I echo all your comments. And I'm sure Tom feels the same way. We are responsible. Health and welfare. Not only people at Sheboygan, but. City of Sheboygan falls and the village of core. Which is very, very important. And we've been able to do that without any. Any problems. And everyone should be committed. I think I would just add to summarize that. You know, again, this is a unique year in our history. And. In the past, I've been very happy with our, our five tier performance evaluation system. And I think it's worked well. But I just think everybody at the utility this year has performed at a very high level. And I just couldn't recommend trying to. You know, break down wage increases this year based on performance because they really think everybody. You know, they're committed to their commitment to the community and to the water utility and to their. Their duties and really everybody. It's formed at a high level this year. I think we agree. I agree. In mind. We've got a motion to approve. Wage increases as proposed by Joe. I'll say aye. Aye. Aye. No. Trouble sign. Thank you, Joe, for your comments, your thoughts and putting that together. Thank you. All right. Item number seven on our agenda is setting a date for our next meeting. Which we're looking at December. Monday would be the 21st. It's already there. It's already there. If our next meeting will be on the 21st of December, 3.30 again. Thanks to the staff at City Hall for getting this arranged and getting it taken care of. Everybody have a happy Thanksgiving and I will move to adjourn. Let's second it. We're good. Thank you gentlemen. Happy Thanksgiving.