►
From YouTube: 12 Sep 2022 Special Town Council Meeting
Description
Associated documents: https://cavecreek.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/52287/
A
As
we
discussed
last
time,
the
rate
revenue
that's
being
generated
currently
isn't
enough
to
pay
the
annual
operations
and
maintenance
expenses.
So
we
developed
a
plan
that
those
rate
revenues
will
exceed
o
m
expenses
over
time.
That's
not
currently
projected
to
occur
until
2028,
so
any
decrease
that
we
made
to
the
wastewater
rate
revenue
now
would
just
extend
that
point
in
time
before
revenues
were
sufficient
to
cover
their
operations
and
maintenance
expenses.
A
A
A
So
with
that,
the
the
slide
that
I've
got
up
now
shows
what
the
proposed
rate
revenue
increases
were.
Last
time
we
met
and
then
what
we've
done
now
so
the
first
year
the
eleven
percent
dropped
down
to
nine
percent
the
second
year.
The
five
percent
is
now
a
four.
The
24
25
went
from
three
to
four
and
then
we're
at
three
three.
So
we
came
down
a
little
bit
in
the
first
two
years.
A
We
had
to
go
up
one
in
the
third
gear
and
then
you
can
see
what
the
max
annual
debt
service
coverage
is.
So
in
2223
we're
just
barely
above
that
1.5
target
that
we're
talking
about,
and
if
we
were
to
to
reduce
that
nine
percent
down
to
even
an
eight
percent,
we
would
no
longer
hit
that
1.5
times
coverage,
so
the
9
was
as
low
as
we
we
felt
we
could
go.
A
That's
because
we're
anticipating
a
new
debt
issuance
in
2425
to
help
with
the
water
treatment
plant
upgrade.
So
we
wanted
to
to
do
some
modeling
to
factor
in
some
debt
funding
for
that
to
help
keep
rates
lower
going
forward.
So
you
do
see
that
little
bit
of
a
dip
in
that
third
year
there,
but
then
they,
the
the
coverage,
increases
again
in
25
26
and
26
27.
So
once
we
have
the
rate
increases
factored
in
for
those
years.
A
The
second
question
or
item
that
we
had
was,
can
the
base
charges
be
equalized
and
what
we
were
talking
about.
There
was
currently
the
three
quarter
inch
and
the
one-inch
meter
base
charges
are
the
same,
so
you
can
see.
We
had
proposed
last
time
around
that
the
five-eighths
and
three-quarter
inch
rate
would
be
the
same,
but
that
the
one-inch
would
be
higher
than
what
the
three-quarter
inches.
A
Multi-Families
we've
set
those
rates
the
same
based
on
what
we
heard
last
time.
We've
got
the
rates
in
the
first
two
tiers
have
gone
down
from
where
we
were
at
the
last
time.
So
it's
going
to
provide
a
little
bit
more
benefit
to
the
smaller
volume
users
and
then
we've
increased
the
charges
in
the
upper
tiers
to
help
encourage
conservation
and
that
the
larger
users,
the
more
water
they
use,
the
more
water
that
they
would
pay
and
we've
got
that
set
for
for
all
classes.
So
we've
got.
A
We
did
the
same
thing
for
commercial.
We
did
the
same
thing
for
the
common
areas
and
irrigation
class,
and
then
we
did
that
for
the
commercial
pools
class
as
well.
So
with
that
brief
overview,
these
are
what
our
next
steps
are,
that
we've
got
set
out
so
september.
19Th
would
be
adopting
the
notice
of
intent
to
raise
rates
on
november
21st
would
be
the
public
hearing
to
adopt
water,
race,
water
and
wastewater
utility
rates.
A
That
would
be
the
first
reading
of
the
ordinance
for
new
capacity
fees
and
then
december
5th
would
be
the
second
reading
on
the
ordinance
to
adjust
the
capacity
fees.
As
we
went
back
and
looked
at
things,
we
determined
it
wasn't
necessary
to
have
two
readings
for
the
water
and
sewer
rates
only
for
the
capacity
fees
and
then
the
new
rates
would
be
effective
january
4th.
A
C
C
A
Based
on
the
modeling
that
we've
done,
we
believe
the
answer
is
yes
and
that's
in
part
from
the
increase
in
the
base
charge
for
the
larger
meters,
there's
a
fairly
significant
increase
there.
So,
for
example,
we've
got
the
one
and
a
half
inch
meter
is
currently
at
141.79
a
month
in
the
last
iteration.
It
was
only
going
to
go
up
by
a
little
under
three
dollars.
A
We've
now
got
the
one
and
a
half
meter
inch
meter
going
up
by
58
a
month,
so
we're
recouping
some
of
that
revenue
from
from
that
group
and
then
as
well
as
some
of
these
other
customer
classes,
like
the
commercial
pools
we've
got,
some
increases
to
their
to
their
bills
is
what
their
rates
as
well.
So,
on
the
whole,
we
believe
that
we
are
going
to
meet
our
revenue
target,
as
has
been
identified
in
the
financial
plan
through
the
new
rates
that
were
showing
to
you
all
today.
C
A
Yes,
that
that's
a
fair
point
and
a
and
a
valid
point
to
make,
we
did
incorporate
some
some
elasticity
of
demand
into
the
upper
tiers
of
the
rate
structure
so
that
we
are
assuming
that
there
will
be
some
conservation
as
a
result
of
the
higher
rates
and
that
there
will
be
some
scale
back
on
water
use.
So
we're
not
we're
not
counting
on
everybody
using
the
same
amount
of
water
as
they
have
previously
we're,
making
the
assumption
that
there
will
be
some
water
scaling
back.
C
But
there
will
be
rate
increases
in
subsequent
years,
correct.
Yes,
this
is
just
an
opinion.
My
opinion
that
taking
the
existing
rates
that
we
have
now
and
reducing
them
and
then
jacking
them
up
again
a
year
or
so
from
now
is
not
especially
when
we're
substantially
increasing
the
rates
for
desert
hills.
E
D
D
F
Well,
marine
council:
this
is
actually
one
of
the
things
that
we're
looking
with
the
new
rates
to
increase
the
the
base
and
wow
the
the
sewer
enterprise
fund
to
be
fully
an
enterprise
fund.
So
it's
a
I'm
not
sure
if
kevin
it
doesn't
happen
first
year,
but
happens
within
the
five
years
of
the
study.
Correct.
D
And
that
takes
into
account
two
things
number
one
that
the
loans
for
that
plant
will
be
paid
off.
I
believe
in
about
five
five
and
a
half
years,
so
we'll
have
that
principle
and
interest
to
use
for
something
then.
Secondly,
we
still
have
or
would
not
have
the
half
a
percent
sales
tax
going
to
that
use
the
sewer
plant.
D
F
Yeah
american
council,
so
the
hassan
sales
tax,
which
is
currently
being
set
aside
and
being
used
to
pay
for
the
debt
service
on
the
2010
expansion
of
the
plant.
We're
not
considering
that
we're
not
trying
to
keep
that
so
that'd
be
separate
funding.
It's
just
being
used
to
be
the
debt
service
on
that
expansion.
What
we're
looking
at
is
to
make
this
an
enterprise
fund
just
for
operations,
not
including
the
debt
service.
There
is
some
future
debt
service,
that's
included
in
the
calculations,
but
not
the
existing
debt
service
in
the
system.
D
F
We
do,
and
that
estimate
just
goes
back
a
little
bit
in
time
and
the
difference
between
the
two
is
because
the
service
boundaries
of
the
two
different
systems,
the
wastewater
system-
is
a
much
more
confined
system.
We
have
opportunity
to
get
a
lot
less
new
customers
connected
on
to
it,
so
the
water
system
being
larger,
there's
the
potential
for
more
connections.
We
have
a
lot
in
the
town.
We
don't
have
as
many
neighborhood
subdivision
connections,
but
we
have
a
lot
of
single-family
connections.
F
Custom
home
builds,
which
a
lot
of
cases
don't
connect.
That's
the
difference
between
the
two
but
yeah
those
numbers.
We
could
take
back,
look
at
it.
We
did
work
with
our
both
the
building
safety
and
the
the
planning
staff
to
come
up
with
what
we
expected
to
be
numbers
for
growth
within
the
two
different
service
boundaries.
In
effect.
F
F
Like
in
this
example,
we
have
hidden
canyon
behind
town
hall
here,
so
that's
going
to
be
coming
on,
but
it's
going
to
take
a
number
of
years
to
absorb
those
units.
There
are
existing
sewer
connections
that
can
happen
in
stagecoach
past
the
states
we're
starting
to
see
some
development
pick
up
in
that
area.
So
yeah
we
thought
those
numbers
were
realistic.
We
could
look
at
them
again,
but
give
you
some
more
details
on
where
we
think
it's
going
to
occur.
It
is
a
bit
of
a
roll,
the
dice.
We
don't
know
exactly
what.
G
I
D
D
I
agree
I'm
using
well,
I
I
figured
about
2
000
gallons
a
month.
I
don't
go
above
that,
but
my
current
billing-
and
I
think
this
is
useful
for
people
in
the
audience
and
watching
this
on
there's
a
lot
of
information
in
our
packet.
There's
tremendous
amount
of
numbers
and
information.
It's
very
complicated,
cumbersome
hard
to
follow.
D
D
D
So
the
rates
in
the
sewer
haven't
gone
up
for
13
years.
Had
we
raised
it
a
little
bit
every
two
or
three
or
even
four
years,
we
wouldn't
be
looking
at
a
base
increase
of
roughly
54
a
month
to
81
a
month,
and
I
think
that's
a
better
way
to
manage
our
expenses
and
our
revenues
to
do
it
in
a
more
timely
fashion.
So
that
would
be
a
suggestion
of
mine
moving
forward.
F
Can
add
to
that
american
council?
One
thing
we
would
like
to
do
is
we
will
post
we've
actually
got
some
spreadsheets
that
show
the
differences
between
current
and
users,
so
we'll
be
posting
that
information
on
the
town's
website?
So
someone
can
look
at
that.
We've
talked
about
the
idea
of
having
a
rate
calculator,
so
someone
could
plug
in
their
at
least
having
the
base,
the
average
users
and
a
low
water
user
et
cetera.
F
We
provide
that
information
is
great
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
are
looking
to
do
with
the
resolutions
when
this
comes
back
to
council
is
actually
asked
to
adopt
not
just
one
years
but
potentially
at
least
two,
if
not
more
years
of
rates.
I
believe
council
has
the
authority
that
so
we
don't
have
to
keep
coming
back
every
year
and
we
have
that
built
into
our
base
budgets,
but
that's
up
to
councils
per
purview.
E
E
If
you
want
to
increase
your
rates,
you
have
to
have
a
study,
but
in
terms
of
funding
for
future
capital
projects
having
that
set
revenue
and
knowing
what
your
finances
are
going
to
look
like
for
your
enterprise
funds
is
important
and
again
it
sets
that
threshold.
You
know
so
that
we
have
the
debt
ratio
coverage
needed
when
we're
applying
for
loans.
So
that's
something
you
need
to
seriously
consider
when
adopting
not
doing
one
or
two
years.
Looking
at
the
entire
study
and
adopting
you
know,
four
to
five.
E
E
When
we
at
the
same
meeting
I
mean
I'm
assuming,
are
going
to
conduct
the
public
hearing
and
adopt
the
water
and
wastewater
utility
rates.
Is
that
true?
That
is
a
required
process.
Additional
meetings
are
always
welcome
and
we
are
currently
working
on
our
webpage
for
the
rates
to
establish
the
ability
to
inform
the
residents
and
and
do
a
whole
campaign
on
the
information
and
if
we
can
set
up
the
site
so
that
customers
can
go
and
enter
in
their
information
to
get
to
see
what
their
rates
are.
E
But
yeah
there's
a
whole
campaign
that
that
needs
to
occur
with
notification.
But
you
can
have
additional
meetings
if
you'd
like
to
well
and
that's
my
point
and
we
did
it
for
the
budget,
because
the
optics
to
having
a
public
hearing
and
then
approving
what
we're
talking
about
on
the
same
meeting
makes
to
me
appear
like
we're.
E
Rubber,
stamping
people
can't
come
to
the
meeting
and
object
to
anything
significantly
for
us
to
change,
because
we're
going
to
we're
going
to
adopt
the
water
and
wastewater
utility
rates
at
that
same
meeting,
so
my
preference
would
be
to
have
a
separate
meeting
for
the
public.
So
the
the
purpose
of
the
work
sessions
is
to
work
through
the
actual
study.
C
C
Well,
since
I
won't
be
around
at
the
time
that
the
final
decisions
are
made
on
this,
all
I'll
say
is
if
people,
if
people
don't
show
interest,
as
events
are
transpiring
and
I've.
Seen
this
before
I
worked
with
organizations
where
there's
a
due
date,
or
something
and
ins
in
every
single
instance
a
few
days
before
the
due
date.
I
would
get
people
going,
oh
my
god,
how
can
I
get
this
done
and
by
the
due
date,
I
said:
well,
you
had
three
months
to
do
it.
Well,
it's
it's.
Unfortunately,
the
same
thing.
E
C
E
B
J
K
Yes,
mr
mayor
council
member,
your
debt,
it
would
not
be
classified
as
general
obligation
debt
because
they
are
payable
from
the
from
the
revenues
of
the
system.
So
it's
not
a
it's,
not
a
revenue
bond
per
se,
but
it
is.
The
revenues
are
pl
the
to
the
bonded
indebtedness,
the
the
wiffle
loans
and
such.
L
Mr
mayor
members
of
the
council,
jim
strickland
financial
advisor
to
cave
creek,
when
I
got
hired
a
number
of
years
back,
I
was
looking
at
doing
this
intercept
project
and
I
looked
at
your
financial
statements
and
it
hadn't
met
coverage.
You
were
less
than
1.2
times
on
one
of
your
issues.
That's
when
you
did
your
rate
study,
but
you
only
did
a
rate
study
that
resulted
in
an
increase
sufficient
to
meet
that
minimum
coverage.
L
So
at
that
time
you
increased
rates
and
we
started
talking
to
wiffa
about
a
new
loan
and
the
general
conclusion
was
that
you
had
sufficient
revenue
for
your
existing
debt,
but
not
for
additional
debt.
In
the
interim
time,
I
took
a
look,
a
look
at
all
eight
of
your
with
a
loans.
Four
of
those
loans
had
a
pledge
of
repayment
of
your
excise
tax
and
sales
tax.
L
L
We
refinanced
the
third
excise
tax
loan
with
zion's
bank
and
saved
money
there
and
there's
no
reserve
on
any
of
those.
Four
issues
are
your
four
issues
that
have
utility
pledge:
they.
They
have
a
reserve,
that's
equal
to
about
approximately
1.8
times
or
up
on
8
million
that
you
consistently
currently
are
required
to
maintain.
L
In
looking
at
the
preliminary
study,
I
had
some
discussions
with
staff
and
with
wildan
about
the
amount
of
coverage
knowing
that,
unlike
on
an
excise
tax
pledge
where
they
want
two
times,
coverage,
they're
willing
to
release
a
reserve
if
you
can
get
to
one
and
a
half
times
coverage
and
maintain
it.
So
in
looking
at
the
initial
numbers
on
the
cave,
creek
utility
alone,
based
on
the
increases,
sometimes
you
went
above
and
sometimes
you
went
below
you
didn't.
L
And
so
with
the
adjustments
that
have
been
requested
last
meeting
and
the
discussions
that
I've
had
with
staff
and
with
wildan?
You
saw
that
that
they
showed
us
that
we
could
achieve
above
one
and
a
half
times
on
my
today.
I
had
a
call
with
the
executive
director
of
wifa
to
ask
about
that
information
that
had
been
shared
with
me
that
I
passed
on
to
them
and
they
said
they
would
consider
it,
and
they
would
also
consider
your
future
rate
increases
as
being
effective
if
you
adopt
them
with
rates.
L
So
if
you
raise
your
rates
for
one
year,
they're
going
to
give
you
credit
for
one
year,
if
you
raise
them
for
five
years,
they're
gonna
give
you
credit
for
five.
If
you
do
it
for
two
they're
gonna
give
you
credit
for
two
when
they
look
at
your
coverage
and
your
ability
to
repay
and
to
maintain
coverage
above
one
and
a
half
times,
because
it's
not
gonna,
do
you
any
good?
L
G
G
We
have
about
80.
85
of
our
customers
are
in
that
residential
5
8
to
1
inch
range,
and
it
just
don't
see
how
we
can
lower
rates
next
year
and
then
raise
them
back
up.
So
there's
something
wrong
with
that.
I
don't
know
what
it
is,
but
I
got
to
be
convinced
it's
right,
because
I
learned
a
long
time
ago
dealing
with
numbers.
You
don't
let
things
that
don't
make
sense.
Why
they're
unexplained
they
always
bite
you,
and
so
I'm
going
to
need
an
explanation
on.
G
Why
that
why
those
rates
are
so
low
when
we've
got
a
nine
percent
increase
in
revenue,
it
just
doesn't
seem
right
to
me.
So
that's
one
issue
and
the
other
issue
I
agree
with
david.
It
should
be
smooth.
There
should
be
no
dip
low
one
year
high
the
next
low
one
year.
We
need
some
consistency,
so
we're
not
explaining
all
these
things
because
it
can't
be
explained,
I
don't
think
but
other
than
the
normal
variation
in
the
town's
finances.
So
those
are
my
comment
there.
G
This
is
really
technical,
confusing
stuff.
It
really
is,
and
we
have
to
think
about
the
opinion
of
of
our
constituency
and
explain
it.
There
are
reasons
why
these
things
are
happening,
most
of
them,
external,
that
we
have
no
control
of
and
the
billion
and
a
half
dollars
from
carefree,
for
example,
spread
over
4
200
customers.
L
For
coverage
calculations?
Yes,
oh
okay,
the
pledged
revenue
available
for
debt
service,
so
so
there's
two
tests
that
you
have
for
your
covenants.
There's
your
annual
coverage,
where
you're,
maintaining
and
you're
able
to
demonstrate
to
wifa
or
through
that
you
have
sufficient
revenue
to
make
your
payments,
and
that
requirement
is
a
1.2
times.
Minimum
coverage.
H
L
Of
your
bond
issues,
there
is
a
specific
definition
that
the
lawyers
can
speak
to
and
that
they
develop
and
that
that's
what
you're
required
to
deal
with,
and
then
engineers
and
finance
people
we
we
try
to
you
know,
adhere
to
what
those
definitions
are
based
on
on
the
words
that
are
in
the
documents,
but
those
typically
are.
Direct
expenses
are
taken
away
from
your
gross
revenues,
and
then
you
have
net
available
for
debt
service
as
the
denominator.
Okay,.
G
L
Your
minimum
coverage
is
1.2
every
year,
if
you,
if,
if
during
the
analysis
and
and
this
is
determined
either
by
the
market
or
it's
determined
by
wika-
that
you're
doing
really
well
and
you're
in
excess
of
1.2
minimum,
then
you
don't
need
a
reserve.
That's
their
policy
that
if
you
can
achieve
above
1.5
times
so
you
have
more
revenue
as
a
denominator,
and
that
gives
you
a
better
ratio.
G
M
L
It's
not
it's,
it
is,
or
it
is
less
of
a
subsidy.
So
I
think
that
that
is
the
direction
that
you
guys
are
trying
to
go
is
to
have
self-sufficient
utilities,
and
so
typically,
what
happens
in
in
the
case
of
being
self-sufficient.
Then
it's
a
surplus
and
you
typically
are
looking
at
repair
replacement
funds
that
increase.
L
You
know
money
is
set
aside
for
future
projects.
You
accumulate
the
cash
and
pay
for
projects
out
of
you,
pay
as
you
go
versus
borrowing
again
in
the
future,
so
there's
different
ways
of
looking
at
it.
But
in
your
case,
I
think
what
you're
trying
to
do
is
make
the
utility
sell
sustaining
by
producing
excess
revenue
that
is
actually
covering
your
operating
expenses.
E
G
E
G
L
L
When
you
start
to
layer
it
there
may
be
a
year
where
it's
much
greater
and
that's
the
coverage,
not
today's
coverage,
because
we're
looking
at
doing
two
years
of
interest
only
so
our
today's
coverage
is
going
to
be
better
than
if
you
take
into
account
three
years
from
now
or
four
years.
But
we
can
talk
more
about
that.
L
L
You
also
have
policy
reserves
in
most
cases
for
most
communities
that
are
a
function
of
operating
costs
and
surpluses,
and
so
the
gfoa
guidelines
for
operating
reserves
are
typically
a
minimum
of
two
months
of
operations.
You
know
that's
really
kind
of
low
and
most
places
have
three
months
of
operations
as
a
reserve.
Some
have
one
year's
debt
service
as
a
reserve
as
a
target.
Those
are
policy
decisions
and
those
are
different
than
the
covenant
that
you
make
to
a
bond
holder
or
a
bank.
G
L
Okay,
now
the
additional
bonds
test
that,
at
the
time
that
you
go
to
borrow
wifi,
for
example,
will
want
to
make
sure.
Just
like
you
have
an
annual
1.2
times
minimum
coverage.
They
want
to
make
sure
that
today
you
could
meet
1.2
times
in
the
future,
and
so
that's
where
they're
projecting
revenues
and
projecting
future
debt
service
from
this
new
borrowing
and
what
the
maximum
combined
revenue
and
expenditures
are
to
do
that
calculation
and
that's
where
it's
a
little
bit
gray,
how
they're
going
to
interpret
your
rate
increases.
L
G
G
H
Mayor
and
members
of
council
shirley
fox
director
of
finance,
I
compared
the
budget
that
we
used
and
when
we
I
found
the
exact
one
from
kevin,
and
I
worked
together
to
figure
this
out.
So
in
mid-may
was
a
preliminary
budget
presented
to
you
and
that's
the
one
that
kevin
initially
used
the
preliminary
mid-may.
So
I
compare
that
to
the
one
that
you
actually
approved
in
the
end
of
june
and
there
are
very
minimal
differences
across
revenue
and
expenses
across
cave
creek,
as
well
as
the
three
enterprise
funds.
H
The
one
big
difference
that
was
important
is
that
we
had
included
that
grant
revenue
of
2.5
million
in
that
initial
preliminary
and
it
needed
to
come
out
when
we
didn't
receive
the
congressional
discretionary
spending.
So
that's
the
material
difference
in
revenue
between
when
you
approved
and
when
kevin
used,
so
they're
really
line
by
line
revenue
and
expenses
across
them.
They're
very,
very
small
differences
in
material.
H
And
I
just
wanted
to
make
one
more
clarifying
point
and
it
might
be
helpful-
and
this
is
including
debt
in
desert
hills.
Desert
hills
is
supported,
including
its
debt
interest
and
debt
is
382
800,
that
is
the
budgeted
subsidy
to
desert
hills
from
the
general
fund.
In
this
current
year,
budget
382
800
wastewater
is
1
million,
393
400..
H
So
that's
the
subsidy,
including
interest
and
expense
that
expense
for
wastewater,
1.3
and
cave
creek
water
is
different.
We
I
had
a
good
education
from
kerry
when
I
was
new
about
an
hour
explaining
the
water
infrastructure
fund,
how
it's
funded
through
spur
cross
and
how
that
passes
through
to
only
cave,
creek,
water
and
only
for
infrastructure.
H
So
keeping
that
in
mind,
when
this
budget
was
written,
we
took
the
cave,
creek
water
capital
projects
and
funded
only
those
with
the
water
infrastructure
transfer,
except
for
forty
thousand
dollars.
So
there's
862
coming
over
from
the
infrastructure,
but
the
cave,
creek
water
capital
projects
are
8.22.
H
So,
knowing
that
there
was
going
to
be
a
half
year
rate
increase
or
maybe
all
the
projects
wouldn't
occur,
I
felt
that
we
could
have
40
000
excess
and
it
would
probably
come
together
without
spending
more
on
anything
other
than
infrastructure,
because
it
was
made
very
clear
to
me
by
kerry
that
that's
an
infrastructure
only
for
cave
creek
water
only
when
it
comes
over
from
the
water
infrastructure
fund.
So
our
intent
going
forward
is
to
always
use
if
we
need
to
for
cave
creek
mother's
capital
and
not
from
the
general
fund
is.
G
That
helpful
and
and
that
subsidy
to
desert
hills
that
will
be
captured
in
the
fund
balance,
so
so
it
won't
get
lost
like
it
did
for
the
first
10
years
of
the
water
company
and
we'll
be
able
to
see
that
and
it
will
increase
or
decrease
that
reserve
so
that
future
councils
can
we're
not
losing
it.
It's
just
that
it's
a
bobble
in
our
checking
account
is
that
a
correct
way
to
think
of
that
for
our
reserve.
Our
savings
account.
H
H
G
H
G
H
J
G
E
E
G
A
So
it's
going
to
be
sean
might
be
better
to
answer
this
than
I
will,
but
I'll
take
a
first
stab
at
it.
So
I'm
in
2425
we
have
a
capital
project
on
the
cave,
creek
water
system
for
a
water
treatment
plant
upgrade
so
the
3.69
million
debt
issuance
that
we're
showing
there
is
intended
to
cover
the
cost
of
that
capital
project
in
that
year.
E
And
if
I
could
just
kind
of
talk
generally,
there
was
a
comment
at
the
last
meeting
about
why.
Why
would
we
cash
fund
capital
projects
and
again,
I
think,
jim
and
and
and
tim
could
as
part
of
the
rate
structure,
if
we,
if
we
show
that,
in
the
rate
study
as
being
debt
funded,
it's
going
to
affect
your
debt
fund
ratio
and
trying
to
keep
that
1.5
percent?
So
so
we
wanted
to
show
you
that
this
is
the
next
project
that
needs
to
be
financed.
G
Okay,
yeah
and
I'm
I'm
perfectly-
I
mean
funding-
is
the
fairest
thing
and
the
best
thing
for
our
customers,
because,
instead
of
paying
a
million
dollars
this
year,
spread
over
40
200
accounts
you're
paying
70
80
000,
so
it
just
makes
and
the
future
customers
pay
their
fair
share
of
that
improvement.
So
I'm
I'm
all
aboard,
but.
E
E
A
Right
so
the
we
we've
got
a
mix
going
forward
over
the
next
five
years,
where
some
projects
are
cash,
funded
some
of
the
smaller
projects,
if
it's
acquiring
new
meters
or
something
and
it's
a
25
000
project,
I'm
just
pulling
numbers
out
of
the
air.
If
it
was
a
smaller
dollar
value
project,
we
were
anticipating
cash
funding
that
this
particular
project.
The
3.69
million
is
a
larger
project.
Here
to
your
point,
bob
council
member:
it's
going
to
have
a
useful
life.
A
G
A
So
we've
got
the
the
base
charge
for
multi-family
is
going
to
be
based
on
the
meter
itself.
So
if
it's
a
smaller
multi-family
complex,
where
it's,
for
example,
a
townhouse
where
the
two
sides
are
are
being
served
by
one
meter,
a
one
three
quarter
inch
meter,
they
would
pay
the
three
quarter
inch
base
charge
for
that.
For
that
one
meter.
If
it's
going
to
be
a
larger
apartment
building
itself,
that's
served
by
a
two
inch
meter
or
multiple
two
inch
meters.
A
F
That
was
one
of
the
changes
that
was
made
from
the
last
presentation
where
we
had
a
different
proposed
volumetric
rate
for
multi-family
residential.
Now
we've
kept
the
category
it's
table,
3.,
312
and
313,
but
now
all
residential
is
the
same
multi-family
versus
single-family,
residential,
the
same
rate
structure.
G
What
one
of
the
principle
one
of
the
principles
in
this
whole
situation
is
getting
better
water
conservation,
an
apartment
building
with
one
meter,
and
everybody
pays
the
same
amount,
no
matter
what
happens
does
not
engender
conservation,
and
I
I
talked
to
you
before
about
we
shouldn't
be
permitting
any
new
multi-family
that
does
not
have
meters
that
that
where
the
user
pays
for
their
share
so
that
we
have
a
reason
for
people
to
conserve
water
is
that
is
anything
needed
to
put
that
into
effect?
Is
it
in
effect?
F
So
I'm
not
as
I'm
not
thinking
it's
as
necessary.
We
can
talk
to
those.
We
can
talk
to
those
specific
users
about
how
to
conserve
some
water,
but
I
was
surprised
when
we
actually
did
the
analysis
and
showed
that
they
are
actually
some
of
our
lower
water
users
in
town
as
these
multi-family
units
that
have
a
single
meter
going
to
the
different
units.
As
it
comes
up,
it's
something
we
can
monitor
better,
that's
why
we
want
to
keep
it
in
as
a
different
rate
classification.
Just
so
in
the
future.
Something
does
happen.
F
We
can
break
that
out
the
new
projects.
Maybe
we
have
asked
that
there
would
be
individual
meters
to
the
units
we
have
a
number
of
those
already
in
the
system.
We're
actually
classifying
them
that
way,
just
from
a
tracking
standpoint,
everything
through
our
annual
reporting
with
arizona
department
of
water
resources,
they
actually
have
a
multi-family
category,
so
we're
breaking
that
apart.
F
G
F
And
that
would
go
towards
our
water
policy,
where
we've
allocated
a
certain
volumetric
limit
to
the
individual
units
themselves.
So
if
someone
wanted
to
bring
a
large
unit
in
like
that
to
meet
our
policy
that
actually
individually
have
to
individually
metering
so
that
that
forces
it
though
so
the
20
2021
water
resource
policy
would
direct
them.
That
way.
M
D
D
The
answer
is,
quite
honestly:
no,
when
you
look
at
all
and
listen
to
all
the
comments
from
all
our
consultants
and
all
our
experts,
there
really
isn't
it's
a
somebody
mentioned.
It's
pretty
well
fixed
and
then
I
agree
with
the
comments
relative
to
the
rates
going
up
base
rates
and
then
down
and
then
back
up.
I
think
it
needs
to
be
level
even
so
that
it's
easy
for
a
resident
to
understand
what
it
is.
D
We're
trying
to
do
we're
going
to
raise
we're,
proposing
raising
your
water
and
sewer
rates
and,
as
I
say
so,
they
need
to
see
something
on
a
simple
piece
of
paper
on
a
website.
I
found
a
website
that's
easily
understood
and
that
they
can
plug
in
their
own
numbers
to
see
what
it's
going
to
cost
them,
and
then
to
talk
about
the
fact
that
there's
not
much
we
can
do
to
rectify
it.
D
You
know,
don't
forget
we're
losing
what's
the
number
540
homes
that
on
our
cave,
creek
water
system
that
we're
in
carefree
that
you
know
and
there's
fixed
costs.
I
think
mr
morris
pointed
out
that
you
know
we've
got
to
spread
that
fixed
cost
over
540
less
units,
so
it
needs
to
be
pretty
simple
and
now
whether
we
can
do
that
before
the
next
meeting.
D
D
We're
gonna
want
to
know
how
much
am
I
gonna
be
paying
more?
Is
it
gonna
last
and
is
there
anything
that
can
be
done
to
mitigate
it?
Those
are
the
questions
we
need
to
answer
and
I
think
if
we
do
that,
it'd
make
all
our
jobs
a
lot
easier
nobody's
going
to
like
an
increase,
but
if
you
explain
why
it
is
and
that
you
know
it
really
can't
there's
not
much
movement
in
it.
Wiggle
room
and
we're
gonna
have
to
do
it.
B
M
B
M
B
M
Want
to
echo
what
gunslinger
morris
was
talking
about
that
I'd
like
to
see
this
considerably
simplified.
It
seems
to
me
that
we're
making
a
lot
more
categories
and
making
this
a
lot
more
complicated
than
we
need
to
be,
and
people
may
have
difficulty
in
terms
of
understanding
that,
but
I
just
don't
think
we
need
to
make
it
that
compliment
that
complicated.
M
I
think
that
the
major
effort
on
the
part
of
our
consultants
has
been
to
bring
a
balance
between
the
income
that
we
are
generating
and
the
needs,
and
I
think
they've
done
an
excellent
job
there,
but
again
that
it's
not
addressing
a
an
extremely
important
point
and
at
this
point
we're
using
somewhere
around
twenty
thousand
acre
feet.
Excuse
me
two
thousand
acre
feet
per
year
in
cave
creek
and
we're
looking
at
a
limit
of
not
a
lot
more
than
that.
Maybe
we're
using
I'll
take
a
very
rough
figure.
75
percent
of
our
allocation.
M
Well,
as
the
town
grows,
that's
going
to
be
a
very
difficult
ceiling
and
I
think
the
only
way
we
can
really
get
a
handle
on
that
is
by
having
a
much
larger
differentiation
in
the
cost
of
the
customers
between
those
who
use
a
lot
of
water
and
those
who
don't
use
very
much
water.
So
that's
that's.
My
concern
here.
D
F
M
H
M
A
That
was
something
that
came
out
of
the
last
study.
It's
something
that
we
carried
forward
with
this
study,
to
the
extent
that
we
want
to
make
changes
to
that
ratio.
We
can
certainly
do
that.
So
we
could
come
down
a
little
bit
on
how
much
revenue
we're
generating
through
the
base
charge.
That
would
give
us
more
flexibility
on
the
volume
side
to
to
play
with
those
tiers
a
little
bit
so
that
we
do
send
a
stronger
conservation
signal
that
we
do
have
the
higher
rates
for
those
for
those
higher
tiers.
A
J
J
J
B
B
J
Getting
the
information
to
the
citizens
is
extremely
important,
waiting
for
more
than
three
people
to
show
up
at
a
councilman
that
it
isn't
going
to
do
it.
We
can
put
stuff
on
the
town's
website
how
many
people
really
go
to
the
town
website.
How
many
people
are
pc
literate
in
my
former
life
having
faced
this
marketing?
E
M
E
Variety
of
newsletters
and
social
media
yeah
our
best
with
the
staff
that
we
have
in
place
right
now
like
and
I'm
speaking
from
what
we
did
for
the
water
forum
for
tomorrow
night.
We
got
it
online.
We
got
it
on
social
media,
we
did
flyers,
we
did.
You
know
a
sandwich
board
sign,
so
there
are
ways
to
reach
our
community,
but
it
has
to
take
multiple
paths
and
we're
pretty
much
aware
of
how
to
do
that.
E
C
C
One
of
the
things
in
here-
that's
awfully
hard
to
explain,
is
why
it
needs
to
be
done
that
you
know
one
time
there
was
a
candidate
running
for
office
in
cave
creek,
who
said
it
takes
a
year
to
to
become
a
council
member,
because
it
takes
that
long
to
understand
what
you're
doing
in
some
respects
a
year,
probably
isn't
enough.
It
takes
longer
than
that
unless
you've
had
previous
experience.
C
But
I,
when
I
sat
there,
I
sat
in
the
in
the
audience
when
the
mayor
and
other
people
in
carefree
explained
things
and
did
it
in
a
succinct,
concise,
not
overly
technical,
yeah
technical
way.
It
would.
I
thought
that
the
people
that
were
in
the
audience
were
all
going
to
go
and
take
that
information
away
with
them
and
start
talking
to
other
people.
C
C
I
also
look
at
carefree's
crap
on
youtube
because
they
fight
with
each
other
a
lot
more
than
we
do,
and
but
I
think
that
it's
something
that
could
be
considered
because
we
you
know,
I'm
not,
I
I
never.
I
didn't
mean
to
say
to
you
that
we
shouldn't
be
talking
to
people
telling
them.
I
think
it's
critical,
I
understand
what
the
rates
are
about.
I
understand
why
they
need
to
be
done.
C
C
M
Know
I
want
to
comment
on
what
ernie
has
to
say
about
all
the
information,
the
political
I'm
not
going
to
use
the
word
that's
going
into
our
mailboxes,
but
if
people
know
what's
going
into
their
mailboxes
is
going
to
cost
them
or
save
the
money
directly
they're,
much
more
likely
to
pay
attention.
I
think
catherine
has
made.
J
M
B
B
F
Okay,
okay,
sorry
yeah,
thank
you
mayor
and
council,
so
on
table
3-19
the
proposed
wastewater
rates,
something
that
we
did
in
the
last
study
was
actually
we
created
a
grease
chat
monitoring
fee
and
then,
when
we
did
that
we
actually
set
that
and
we
set
it
as
a
volumetric
fee.
We're
rethinking
that
that
actually
it's
not
we've
looked
at
the
fees
been
in
place
now
for
a
little
bit
and
then
it's
not
completely
equitable.
F
So
we're
looking
at
actually
with
it's
not
in
the
table
right
now,
we're
trying
to
do
it
before
the
study
gets
finalized
in
a
month,
which
would
be
to
look
at
doing
more
of
a
flat
fee
type
of
structure
having
it
volumetrically
we're
realizing
is,
is
not
the
best
way
to
capture
the
funds.
What
we're
trying
to
do
is
capture
instead
of
grease,
trap
monitoring.
Also,
we
want
to
re-label
it
it's
part
of
the
what
we
refer
to
as
the
pre-treatment
program.
F
So
these
are
all
the
interceptor
devices
that
are
required
on
the
on
the
collection
system
to
make
sure
that
things
don't
get
in
the
system
that
we
don't
want
in
the
collection
system,
and
they
do
include
things
like
oil
and
sand
interceptors.
With
the
way
it's
been
captured
right
now
and
last
the
rasp
rate
model.
F
We
can
only
do
grease
interceptors,
so
we
want
to
actually
make
it
a
pre-treatment
fee
and
we're
looking
at
doing
more
of
a
flat
fee
so
that
again
right
now
it's
based
on
volumetric
the
volume
the
different
users
are.
Actually
they
get
a
different
rate
and
they're
volumetric
for
the
wastewater
loading
they're
putting
into
the
system
so
we're
trying
to
separate
that
function
out
and
and
just
capture
the
cost
of
running
the
pre-treatment
program
itself.
So
that'll
be
something
that
it's
not
right.
F
F
It
could
be
restaurants,
but
it's
not
just
restaurants,
because
again
sand
oil
interceptors
right
now
we're
not
collecting
fees
for
the
sand.
Oil
interceptors,
where
we
have
automotive
companies
and
they're
actually
part
of
the
program,
and
we
actually
do
monitor
them.
Also,
so
that's
one
thing
that
was:
it
fell
through
the
cracks
and
we're
trying
to
correct
that
and
again
by
having
it
set
as
a
volumetric.
It's
not
really
fair,
it's
more
based
on
the
accounting
of
us
doing
it
rather
than
the
amount
of
flow
that
goes
through
the
system.
F
E
C
B
O
Thank
you,
council.
Thank
you,
mayor
dan
piodeo,
one
of
the
owners
of
harold's
chorale
up
the
road.
A
couple
things.
This
is
catherine
made
a
very
good
point.
This
was
brought
to
our
attention
from
a
bill
that
we
got
and
working
with
shirley
and
my
partner
marie,
who
does
more
of
the
billing,
could
make
it
today,
so
I'm
filling
in
so
bear
with
me.
O
So
there
was
a
statement
early
that
you
know
there
hasn't
been
a
sewer
increase
in
13
years,
but
for
commercial
businesses
that
has
this
rate.
That's
a
65
percent
increase
in
one
year.
One
of
the
suggestions
made
earlier
about
raising
annually.
So
you
don't
have
this
bite
of
a
29
increase
on
water
and
sewage.
That's
something
you
guys
should
take
into
consideration.
O
O
When
you're
talking
about
water
usage,
I
would
ask
that
that
reflects
and
what
we're
paying
or
helps
helped
subsidizing
with
those
those
those
taxes
that
were
put
on
those
many
years
ago.
A
couple
questions
I
have
and
again
this
is
all
one
more
statement:
the
idea
of
educating
the
public
when
we
need
to
do
that.
I
don't
know
why
the
town
didn't
have
a
committee
when
they're
talking
to
business
owners
and
residents
hey
what
are
you?
What
are
your
expectations
on
this?
O
O
O
O
O
I
already
told
you
about
the
sewer
not
going
up,
but
in
commercial
with
the
bod
monitoring
which
to
me
doesn't
make
any
sense
back
in
the
day
when
they
added
this,
when
they
put
monitors
on
grease
traps
was
to
capture
how
much
bod
goes
into
our
sewer
system,
and
at
that
time
there
was
500
homes
hooked
up
on
on
it.
My
partner
bill
made
a
great
statement.
O
Now
we
have
900
homes
how's
that
really
affecting
the
bod
comparison,
because
that's
why
we
were
charged
before
on
bods
now
it's
a
monitoring
rate
that
is
quite
significant
for
businesses.
If
you
go
by
percentages
yeah
just
how
much
how
much
both
commercially
and
then
residentially,
what
impact
will
be
would
be
very
helpful.
That's
all
I
have.
B
N
My
house
will
pay
less
because
of
the
reduction
proposed
at
the
250
on
the
revision
from
the
309,
but-
and
I
wouldn't
do
it
this
way,
I
would
have
more
charges.
I
would
drastically
increase
rates,
starting
at
the
ten
thousand
to
twenty
thousand.
I
would
be
keeping
the
new
rate
suggested
before
today,
which
was
five
fifteen.
Instead
of
the
3
73,
I
would
drastically
increase
20
000
to
30,
000
gallons
per
month
residential
rate
usage.
N
I
would
drastically
increase
the
two
cent
raise
between
the
30
000
and
50
000
gallons
per
month
and
again
I
would
drastically
increase
the
more
than
50
000.
It's
it's
it's
ridiculous
and
I
mean
I
almost
think
that
we've
become
way
burdensome
on
the
rate
payers,
who
are
more
than
likely
required
to
have
an
inch
and
a
half
service
or
an
inch
and
a
half
boosted
or
a
two
inch
service.
N
N
Their
line
their
meter
size
on
some
of
these
instances,
so
I
think
there
was
progress
made
definitely,
but
I
would
still
tweak
it
a
little
bit
myself,
I
think
in
providing
the
information
the
goods,
the
good
idea.
The
good
news
is
is
that
you
will
be
decreasing
the
amount
of
information
you
will
be
likely
trying
to
express
to
somebody
because
we're
going
to
get
rid
of
some
of
this
proposed
stuff.
When
we
go
to
transmit
the
information
to
the
public.
N
Also,
the
sooner
you
can
get
a
calculator
live
online,
the
better
off
you'll,
be
that
is
a
surefire
way
for
everybody
to
do
their
own
homework.
And
if
you
put
that
online,
there's
no
reason
for
anybody
to
be
surprised
because
it
can
do
the
tax
it
can
do.
The
gallons
and
people
know
about
how
much
water
they
use.
N
N
We
don't
have
to
put
this
three
three
plus
million
dollar
investment
into
water
purification
in
2025,
but
we
can't
get
there
until
we
can
get
across
from
our
existing
challenge,
and
our
existing
challenge
is
our
innate
bias,
and
our
innate
bias
is
is
that
we
can't
let
go
of
water
treatment.
We
have
to
get
past
that
we
have
to
we're
too
small
of
a
water
company
to
have
this
much
energy
going
into
the
treatment
process.
N
Think
about
it.
Epcor
desert
hills,
cave,
creek,
carefree,
scottsdale
and
phoenix
we're
still
out
at
the
end
of
the
cul-de-sac,
but
if
we
all
work
together
with
all
these
entities
and
we're
being
drawn
together,
we'll
find
out
tomorrow
how
much
we're
being
drawn
together,
because
the
water
sources
are
drying
up
they're
going
away
we're
going
to
be
forced
to
work
together.
The
sooner
we
do,
the
better
off
we're
going
to
be.
N
B
I
I
Is
certainly
something
I
think
everybody
in
desert
hills
needs
to
be
aware
of.
You
know
that
this
29
base
increase
for
the
desert
hills,
guys.
That
seems
a
pretty
big
jump.
I
understand
that
the
desert
hills
system
needs
this
infrastructure
because
our
our
system
was
kind
of
broken,
but
we're
also
faced
with
january
1,
maybe
a
rate
increase
for
desert
hills,
plus
the
water
cut
back,
because
I
understand
that
desert
hills,
the
water
allotment
that
was
purchased
for
desert
hills
is
nia
water,
which
actually
will
be
affected
by
the
21
cap.
I
So
as
far
as
the
calculator
thing
goes,
I
think
that
has
to
happen
mail,
something
with
a
qr
code
or
a
link
in
the
mail.
They
can
see
how
much
water
they
used
pump
it
into
the
calculator
and
say
hey.
This
is
what
it's
going
to
cost
me
next
month
and
I
would
like
to
know
between
the
water.
This
is
something
maybe
sean
could
answer
between
the
the
the
water
that
the
wells
provide
versus
how
much
is
supplemented.
How
much
is
going
to
be
cut
back
from
the
nia
water?
I
That
seems
like
a
big
giant
big
puzzle
to
put
together
to
try
and
figure
that
one
out,
but
just
so
that
desert
hills
would
have
an
accurate
deal
of
once.
The
water
cutbacks
happen
in
january
and
the
rate
increases
happen
at
the
same
time
they
could
brace
for
that
and
yeah.
I
think,
like
I
said,
the
the
calculator.
I
think
a
lot
of
folks
here
agree
that
the
calculator
would
be
a
super
thing.
That's
all
I
have.
B
B
B
J
J
K
J
G
G
A
I
was
just
going
to
say
that
at
any
given
point
in
time,
some
of
the
assets
that
are
in
the
ground
are
going
to
be
old,
so
we're
we're
trying
to
bring
them
up
in
today's
cost.
If
we
were
to
replace
them
today,
but
not
all
components
of
the
system
are
being
replaced,
which
is
why
we're
being
they're
being
depreciated
but
to
the
extent
that
there
is
a
component
of
the
system
that
is
taken
out
and
is
replaced
by
a
new
asset,
then
that
new
asset
is
reflected
in
the
fixed
asset
records.
A
The
value
of
that
asset
reflects
the
fact
that
it's
new
in
the
fixed
asset
record
itself,
so
we
are
in
some
ways
it's
a
combination
of
new
assets
and
appreciation
depreciated
assets
in
the
ground
at
this
at
any
given
point
in
time.
So
it's
not
all
completely
depreciated,
but
it's
not
all
brand
new
either.
A
It's
some
combination
thereof
and
the
process
that
we
went
through
with
the
the
replacement
cost
new
approach
using
the
nr
is
to
bring
those
assets
up
into
today's
standards
and
then
to
the
extent
that
they
are
older
asset,
we're
depreciating
them.
If
it
is
a
brand
new
asset
and
there's
no
depreciation
included
in
the
fixed
asset
records,
then
that
asset's
not
being
depreciated
so
we're
trying
to
come
up
with
a
fair
value
of
the
system.
J
J
A
I
would
have
to
go
back
and
see
what
year
those
assets
were
placed
in
service,
the
if
it
said
new
new
water
meters
in
the
in
the
name
of
the
asset
itself.
That
could
have
been
a
labeling
issue
on
my
part
and
then
it
should
be
labeled
more
correctly
and
not
say
new
at
the
end
of
it.
I
can
double
check
that,
but
if,
if
it
was
a
22
asset
or
a
21s,
then
there
should
not
be
that
depreciation
on
it.
J
A
In
this
instance,
the
assumption
is
that
that
nine
million
dollars
loan
was
forgiven,
so
rate
payers
did
not
pay
that
nine
million
dollars
back.
So
the
money
that
came
from
the
general
fund
to
make
that
purchase
came
from
sales
tax
or
some
other
general
fund
revenue
source,
not
from
the
rate
payer.
So
if
we
were
to
include
that
9
million
dollars
in
the
capacity
fee
calculation,
new
development
would
be
reimbursing
existing
rate
payers
for
an
investment
that
they
didn't
make,
it
came
from
a
source
outside
of
of
the
ratepayers
themselves.
A
Right,
in
which
case
the
rate
payers
didn't
make
that
investment,
because
the
money
didn't
come
from
them,
it
came
from
an
outside
city
source.
So
if
we
were
to
include
that
in
the
value
in
the
calculation
of
the
capacity
fees,
then
we'd
be
repaying
rate
payers
for
something
that
they
ultimately
didn't
pay
for.
To
begin
with,
it
was
paid
for
from
a
different
source.
G
Isn't
it
isn't
that
codified
in
state
law
kevin?
There's
a
state
law
you're
referring
to
now
that
that
correct
yeah?
This
is
state
law
rich!
That's,
correct,
council
member,
the
the
home
builders
put
this
through
our
friends,
the
home
builders
and
that's
one
of
the
things
they
put
in
there.
It's
right
there
in
the
statute.
J
A
So
the
idea
behind
excluding
that
one
is
that
that
debt
is
going
to
be
paid
through
rates
going
forward.
So
if
we
were
to
include
that
in
the
capacity
fee
calculation
then
we'd
be
asking
new
development
to
pay
for
that
debt
in
their
capacity
fee
itself,
and
then
once
the
new
homeowner
or
new
business
or
whoever
it
is
is
paying
the
rates
going
forward
would
be
paying
that
debt
service
a
second
time
they'd
be
paying
for
it
through
the
capacity
fee
that
they
were
charged
up
front
and
then
they'd
be
paying
for
that
debt.
A
J
G
Well,
I
I
just
want
to
be
on
record
as
saying
that
I
I
have
a
problem
with
the
the
cost
facilities
in
any
way.
I
I
don't
think
that
the
replacement
value
is
correct.
Today's
and
my
recollection
is
the
2013
had
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
as
replacement
costs.
I
don't
think
it's
gone
down
since
then,
so
that
is
the
only
criticism
I
have
of
it
is.
G
A
Whichever
metric
we
want
to
use
at
today's
current
rate,
sean,
if
you
and
I
can
figure
out
what
the
current
rate
for
a
linear
foot
of
pipe
is
and
how
many
linear
feet
of
pipe
you
have
in
the
ground,
then
we
could
incorporate
that
into
the
calculation
as
opposed
to
increasing
the
the
cost
of
the
pipes
based
on
the
enr
index.
That
might
be
a
better
reflection
of
what
it
actually
would
cost
to
replace
the
pipes
today.