►
From YouTube: Water and Sewer Board - 10 Jan 2023
Description
Water and Sewer Board - 10 Jan 2023
B
C
A
A
B
B
C
B
A
E
F
So
this
item
tonight
for
consideration
is
the
updated
water
efficiency
plan.
So,
as
a
reminder,
utilities
is
required
to
have
a
state
approved
water
efficiency
plan
per
Colorado,
revised
Statute
on
the
slide
there.
Our
last
update
to
this
plan
was
done
in
2013,
so
this
was
overdue
for
an
update
as
they
are
to
be
updated.
Every
seven
years
utilities
received
a
grant
from
Colorado
water
conservation,
Board
of
twenty
thousand
dollars
to
update
this
plan
in
2022
and
we
prevented,
or
we
presented
our
initial
findings
to
the
board
back
in
September.
F
Those
additions
included,
low
water,
Landscaping,
educational
opportunities
and
proposed
updates
to
our
utilities
website
for
additional
education,
evaluation
of
water,
smart
landscaping
or
Appliance,
and
plumbing
retrofit
incentives,
as
well
as
changes
to
the
rate
structure,
to
promote
water
efficiency
as
a
part
of
our
next
next
water
rate
study
the
cwcb.
Let
us
know
that
Inglewood
is
is
one
of
the
last,
if
not
the
last
utility
in
the
metro
area,
that
has
a
declining
block
structure
for
its
rates,
so
our
rates
actually
go
down
the
more
water
that
is
used
by
a
customer.
F
So
our
Target
in
the
water
efficiency
plan
is
to
reduce
the
per
capita
water
Demand
by
six
percent
and
that's
over
a
seven
year
implementation
period
and
to
do
that.
We've
identified
30
water
efficiency
measures,
some
are
already
in
place
or
some
will
be
implemented
over
the
seven
year
period
to
reach
this
goal.
There's
30
measures
that
fall
into
five
main
categories
which
are
meter
and
billing
water
loss,
control,
Staffing
and
planning
technical
improvements
and
incentives,
rules
and
ordinances
and
customer
education.
G
Yeah,
so
what
this
all
means
is,
it
looks
like
there's
a
lot
of
cost
here.
However,
if
you,
we
have
two
numbers
that
we're
presenting:
one
is
37
million
and
one
is
974
000.,
so
the
37
million
is
in
the
majority
of
that
is
projects
that
we're
already
doing,
and
so
as
doing
those
projects.
We
found
that
we've
found
out
that
there
we
can
take
credit
from
a
water
conservation
perspective
by
making
these
improvements
and
those
you
know
so
replacing
leaking
lines
and
and
making
some
improvements.
G
Several
improvements
to
our
system,
especially
around
meters
and
meter
efficiency
and
potentially
Ami
in
the
future.
All
of
those
projects
are
things
we
were
going
to
do
anyways
as
part
of
the
master
plan,
and
so
we're
able
to
receive
credit
for
lack
of
a
better
term
for
from
a
water
efficiency
perspective
by
making
those
Investments.
So
we're
going
to
make
sure
that
we
account
for
that
as
it
relates
to
the
new
new
water
efficiency
programs
and
projects.
G
We've
got
a
that's
the
974
000,
and
so
we
have
a
the
next
slide
will
go
through
what
those,
what
those
projects
actually
how
they
break
down,
because
that
again
isn't
974
000
of
brand
new
work.
It's
it's
things
that
we
are
we
are
doing
or
we
can
utilize
existing
staff
staff
for
so
generally,
the
the
breakdown
is
between
water,
the
water
fund
and
the
general
fund,
and
then,
ultimately,
with
any
of
this,
we
would
be
looking
and
at
grants
wherever
we
possibly
could
to
to
help
support
this.
G
All
these
facilities
and
incorporating
low
water
use
fixture
appliances
and
making
those
kinds
of
upgrades-
that's
something
that's
already
underway
for
the
city
as
it
relates
to
just
upgrading
our
our
facilities
to
incorporate
this
aspect
of
it.
There's
a
there's,
an
incremental
increase
to
the
cost
of
each
facility,
and
we
estimate
the
total
of
that
across
all
facilities
across
the
the
city
is,
is
generally
around
five
hundred
thousand
dollars.
G
It's
all
subject
to
whether
funding
is
available
to
actually
make
those
improvements,
and
so
we
see
the
split
between
that
is
generally
eighty
percent
general
fund,
because
those
are
general
fund
facilities
and
then
20
water
funds.
So
that's
that's.
One
of
the
biggest
components
of
this
is
when
we
upgrade
fixtures
putting
in
new
water,
efficient
fixtures
and
appliances.
G
G
But
the
the
remaining
the
remaining
numbers
in
this
table
are
over
a
seven
year
period,
which
is
that
seven
year
implementation
period
of
the
plan,
the
the
last
amount
is
essentially
everything
else.
So
all
the
other
line
items
which
which
are
you
know,
line
one
line
four
and
then
everything
from
line
seven
down
those
are
all
programs
and
and
changes
that
we
can
incorporate
into
current
staff
work,
and
so
we
so
there's
a
cost
associated
with
it
over
a
seven
year
period.
G
But
it's
really
about
incorporating
that
into
existing
staff's
workload
as
as
projects
that
they
execute.
So
it's
not
like
we're
hiring
new
people,
we're
not
we're
not
making
we're,
not
adding
costs
to
the
the
bottom
line.
It's
where
we're
incorporating
this
into
their
workload,
which
means
there
might
be
some
other
things
that
that
push
out
farther.
G
But
when
you
look
at
these
generally
over
when
you
look
at
the
the
summary
of
these,
a
lot
of
these
things
are
things
that
we
can
that
we
would
do
normally
anyway
days
and
really
are
things
that
are
they
don't
necessarily
add
a
lot
of
workload?
It's
just.
It
could
be
as
much
about
changing
the
way
we
do
our
work,
and
so
ultimately,
that's
how
that
974
000
breaks
down
as
it
relates
to
what
the
what
the,
what
the
plan
over
the
next
seven
years
has
identified
for
costs
to
the
cities.
G
So
it
gives
you
some
contextual
understanding
that
it's
not
a
million
dollars
of
of.
We
need
to
figure
out
how
to
fund
it.
It's
really
a
small
amount
of
additional
funding
per
year,
largely
in
the
water
fund,
which
we
can.
We
can
incorporate
into
our
financial
plans
and
make
work,
and
so
I
think
that
is
the
that's
the
end
of
our
presentation.
So
we'll
open
it
up
to
any
questions
from
the
from
the
board.
G
Yeah
we
worked
with
Martin
wood,
they
are
the,
and
actually
we
have
one
of
our
Martin
wood
Representatives
on
as
well
as
I
I
meant
to
highlight.
Stephanie
Ellis
is
the
internal
project
manager
for
utilities
who
ran
this
project
and
so
Stephanie's
on
as
well.
But,
yes,
we
utilize
Martin
and
wood.
That's
where
we
use
the
twenty
thousand
dollar
Grant
to
to
help
pay
for
them
to
look
at
all
this
and
prepare
this
plan.
H
G
In
that
37
Million
number,
so
the
Ami
is
we,
we
anticipate
Ami
to
be
something
that
everything
we're
doing
from
a
meters
perspective
strategy
is
building
towards
Ami,
the
likelihood
of
us
being.
It
would
love
to
get
Ami
in
place
in
the
next
five
years,
but
I
think
that's
an
aggressive
schedule,
but
it
is.
It
is
in
our
planning.
G
G
Where,
with
the
push
of
one
button,
you
can
read
the
entire
city,
the
other
great
thing
about
Ami
is
you:
can
the
the
customer
can
get
much
more
real-time
data
as
it
relates
to
their
water
use
and
it
helps
indicate
to
people
whether
they
have
a
leak
if
they
want
to
pay
attention
to
how
much
they're
using
and
they
want
to
try
and
drive
down
their
usage?
Or
things
like
that?
That's
why
it's
got
a
really
strong
connection
to
conservation,
because
it
helps
people
really
understand
their
water
use.
I
G
I
I
G
F
I
Not
last
year,
the
one
that
just
was
this
year,
actually
I,
I
kind
of
I
noticed
that
when
I
was
researching
with
the
water,
health
and
I
just
noticed
that
they
there
was
a
and
I
can't
remember
exactly
what
month
it
was,
but
I
made
sure
I'll
follow
through
that
and
then
respond
to
that.
But
I
just
was
really
curious
is
like
how
many
percentage
of
people
are
responding
with
that,
and
how
does
that
affect
your
decision?
Making?
Is
this
this
decision
making
coming
from
the
customer?
G
So
I
think
there's
a
there's
a
couple
things
that
I
think
I
can
clear
up
here.
So
the
for
the
water,
the
water
efficiency
plan,
which
is
the
plan
we're
talking
about
now
we
put
that
out
to
public
notice,
and
we
we
receive
public
comment.
That
public
comment
is
was
all
it
came
from
members
of
the
community.
G
We,
it
also
came
from
Colorado
water
conservation
board,
who
who
reviews
it
all
of
the
items
that
they
presented
were
things
that
were
were
made
sense
from
a
a
modern
water
utility
perspective
to
incorporate
into
a
water
conservation
plan.
Given
the
the
goals
of
water
conservation
around
the
Front
Range,
so
I
think
that's
one
piece
of
it.
The
second
piece
that
I
think
you're
asking
about
is
the
declining
block
rate
structure
to
an
inclining
block
rate
structure,
so
that
is,
that
is
actually
something
that
we'll
be
evaluating
this
year.
G
That
is
more
of
a
industry
standard,
as
it
relates
to
how
we,
how
organizations
charge
for
water
to
to
account
for
the
fact
that
higher
water
users
have
a
higher
impact
and
demand
on
system
need,
and
so
as
there
as
a
user
is
using
more
water.
We
have
to
build
a
bigger
system
to
accommodate
that
inclining
rate
structure
is
something
that
and
that's
what
Sarah
mentioned
is
something
that,
like
cwcb
said,
is
not
something
that
they
think
that
we're
the
last
ones
to
to
have
a
declining
rate
structure.
G
Frankly,
when
I
got
here,
I
was
shocked
when
I
saw
it
was
a
declining
rate
structure,
because
I
didn't
realize
that
anybody
had
it
and
really
it's.
It's
got
a
connection
to
water
conservation
in
some
respects,
but
it's
also
got
a
a
tie
back
to
the
cost
of
the
system
that
has
to
be
built
in
order
to
supply
a
higher
water
user.
I
G
G
One
of
the
comments
from
last
year
around
the
survey
was
to
potentially
do
it
a
little
bit
later
in
the
year
more
towards
the
summer,
when
people
are
really
using
the
summer
and
Frank
using
the
water
and,
frankly,
when
we
potentially
sometimes
have
the
issues
with
water.
So
maybe
we
can
get
a
real
sense
of
how
customers
feel
when,
when
maybe
we're
having
some
of
the
summertime
issues
with
our
water,
so
we'll
probably
likely
be
issuing
that
survey
a
little
bit
later
this
year.
G
D
G
So
I
think
it
depends,
and
so
so
a
Turf
replacement
is
you're
you're,
pulling
out
the
turf
and
you're
replacing
it
with
something.
That's
more
of
a
xeric
based
Landscaping
I,
don't
know
that
you
can
necessarily
pull
out
the
turf
and
then
and
then
replant
a
whole
different
type
of
low
water
use.
Turf
I
mean
personally
in
my
house:
I
use,
what's
called
RTF,
it's
a
rhizomatic
tall
fescue,
it's
a
more
drought,
tolerant,
Turf
and
I
put
that
intentionally
because
intentionally
because
it
does
use
lower
water
use.
But
I.
G
D
G
Recovery,
there's
not
really
a
payback.
This
is
a
cost
over
a
seven
year
period.
That's
an
estimated
cost
over
a
seven
year
period
and
and,
like
I,
said
the
way
I
broke
down.
Those
costs
is
they
aren't
new
costs,
they're
just
quantifying
the
the
investment
of
both
staff
and
resources
of
the
city
to
achieve
the
goals
of
the
plan,
some
of
which
are
already
existing
staff
and
and
and
priorities,
some
of
which
are
are
new
things
that,
as
a
result
of
the
plan,
make
sense
the
study
that
weren't
originally
factored
in.
G
But
when
you
look
at
that,
that's
that
hundred
and
twenty
four
thousand
number.
So
over
seven
years
we
estimate
the
real
new
cost
being
124
000
of
things
that
were
driven
outside
out
of
the
water
efficiency
plan.
The
500
000
is,
if
we
want
to,
if
we're
gonna,
upgrade
the
fixtures
in
the
in
a
building
to
upgrade
creating
with
low
water
use
as
opposed
to
normal
water
use
fixtures.
So
that
there's
that's
that's
already.
All
those
other
costs
are
somehow
incorporated
into
just
the
normal
modernization
of
a
city
and
and
a
utility.
D
G
G
What
it
shows
is
if
we
stay
on
our
current
trajectory
and
we
don't
Implement
any
of
these
programs
to
try
to
conserve
water,
we
continue
to
have
an
upward
Trend
in
term
in
terms
of
annual
acre
feet
per
year
needed
for
to
supply
the
city.
If
we
incorporate
these,
you
can
see
that
that
drops
from
6.481
6481
acre
feet
down
to
6093..
G
So
really
that's
370,
or
was
it
388
a
thousand,
so
it's
300
or
388
acre
feet
is
the
benefit
in
terms
of
the
conservation
on
an
annual
basis
that
we
would
see
by
year
by
The,
Seven
Year
seventh
year
of
this
plan,
and
so
frankly,
that's
like
that's
like
going
out
and
finding
new
water
instead
of
going
and
finding
new
water
to
meet
our
demands.
If
we
can
lessen
our
demands,
then
we
actually
have
more
available
water
to
supply
the
the
city
as
a
whole.
A
J
Thanks
yeah
Mike
Peter.
My
question
is
regarding
the
the
declining
rate
structure
that
we
currently
have.
If
I
remember
right,
the
number
of
you
know
gallons
per
month
was
quite
high
like
that
that
where
you
got
the
rate
drop
and
if
I
thought
it
was
probably
above
what
a
residential
customer
would
use.
I'm
just
curious
how
this
would
impact
residential
customers
or
is
the
the
the
increasing
rate
structure
targeted
more
at
large?
You
know
commercial
or
industrial
water
users.
J
The
reason
I'm
asking
is
we
had
this
when
we
were
reviewing
this
plan
with
a
sustainability
commission,
they
had
a
similar.
You
know
similar
concern.
They
wanted
just
they.
They
had
wanted
to
see
the
race
structure
change,
but
one
of
the
pushbacks
on
that
was.
Regarding
you
know,
if
you
have
a
large
residential
household,
you
know
if
you
have
seven
people,
for
example,
living
in
one
home
that
that,
in
you
know,
usually
results
in
a
higher
water
use
with
those
larger
household
sizes
get
punished.
G
G
It
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
be
two
blocks,
it
could
be
multiple
blocks
and
and
what
what
you
typically
try
to
do
is
you
try
to
have
your
first
block,
be
a
typical
indoor
use
for
a
typical
home
and
that's
a
block,
and
then
the
next
block
is
a
an
indoor,
home
and
plus
one
with
irrigation.
So
then
the
next
block
is
trying
to
Target
the
irrigation
component
and
then
the
the
block
over
that
is
anything
in
excess
of
those
those
typical
scenarios.
So
what
we
do
is
we
try
to
find?
G
Before
what
we
did
is
we
found
the
10
or
15
highest
water
use
highest
water
users
and
then
ran
through
the
existing
model,
the
existing
rate
structure,
their
bill
and
then
the
new
rate
structure
to
show
what
the
difference
in
their
bill
was,
and
in
that
instance,
we
met
with
them
individually
in
advance
of
any
of
these
changes
to
help
give
them
time
to
prepare
a
lot
of
times.
You'll
see
these
would
be
in
in
the
communities
that
I
worked
in
before
they
were
Community
open
space
areas
that
were
irrigated
large
large
irrigated
areas.
G
In
Aurora
we
ran
into
this
with
there
were
some
high
water
use
around
bottling,
water,
bottling
things
like
that.
I
know,
Englewood
in
the
past
had
a
had
a
I
think
it
was
a
Coca-Cola
or
a
Pepsi,
Distribution
Center
here
that
was
like
actually
producing,
and
so,
if,
if
you've
got
something,
that's
a
high
water
user,
like
that,
what
we'll
do
is
we'll
identify
them
and
then
understand
what
the
effects
on
them
are.
So
that
comes
with
the
process.
J
J
It's
the
the
kind
of
unintended
consequences
where
mainly
large
household
sizes
or
low
it.
You
know
low-income
folks
that
have
large
households
that
end
up
falling
into
a
larger
water
use
bracket,
just
because
of
the
number
of
people
in
the
household,
perhaps
even
their.
You
know,
their
per
person.
Water
use
is
lower
than
other
households,
but
they
get
trapped
into
a
scenario
where,
since
they're
all
on
one
meter,
they
get
hit
with
a
higher
rate.
So
that's
the
one
one
piece
I'm
concerned
about.
G
A
H
G
G
The
most
current
numbers
that
I've
heard
are
CBT
water,
so
Colorado,
Big,
Thompson
and
I
think
it's
upwards
of
fifty
thousand
dollars
an
acre
foot
to
purchase
the
water
right.
So
that's
that's
to
secure
the
water
right.
So
if
you
took
388
times,
50
000
I'd
have
to
do
quick
math
on
that.
But
it
sounds
like
a
lot
of
money
so
but
I
think
that's.
The
number
I've
heard
generally
is
about
50
000,
acre
foot.
G
This
is
why
I
shouldn't
estimate
this,
because
I
am
not
an
appraiser
and
I.
Don't
know
these
numbers,
so
it
could.
It
could
very
well
be
75
000
and
given
the
the
pressure
on
on
this,
my
number
could
be.
You
know
my
number's,
probably
five
years
old,
because
it
could
very
well
be
75
000..
So
if
you
take
75
000
times
388,
it's
it
it.
It
quickly
approaches
tens
of
millions
of
dollars,
foreign.
G
Yeah
well
I
appreciate
that
and
thank
you
and-
and
you
probably
have
a
better
better
knowledge
of
what
CBT
water
is
this
now
than
than
I.
Do
I
think
it's
something
we'll
actually
be
able
to
get
some
some
data
on
this
this
year.
We're
working
through
some
some
appraisal
work,
so
we'll
actually
be
able
to
get
real
numbers
on
this.
A
C
G
Okay,
the
first
thing
we
have
today
is
bulk
chemical
purchases
update
and,
if
anybody's
wondering
it's
29
million
dollars,
that's
the
calculation
from
the
last
one
so
I
just
so.
It's
a
lot
of
money,
bulk
chemicals.
So
on
both
chemicals.
Last
month
we
had
talked
about
our
our
bulk
chemical
purchase
process
and
in
that
I
had
said
that
we
were
getting
Maple.
Pricing
I
was
wrong.
I
thought
we
had
resolved
the
mapo
pricing
issue
a
year
and
a
half
ago,
but
it
turns
out.
G
We
are
part
of
mapo,
however,
because
we
weren't
part
of
we
weren't
a
named
agency
when
the
the
bids
went
out.
The
solicitation
went
out
in
2019
for
Maple
pricing,
not
all
the
because
we
weren't
in
named
agencies,
not
all
the
providers
have
to
honor
Maple
pricing.
That
was
a
Nuance
I,
didn't
understand
our
our
finance
department.
Let
us
know
that
Maple
is
actually
the
the
contract
is,
is
solicited
through
Aurora,
so
they're,
the
ones
that
lead
the
effort.
G
We
are
now
they're
going
to
reissue
this
spring,
a
new
round
for
Maple
pricing,
and
we
are
a
listed
agency,
both
us
and
South
Platte
renew,
so
that
should
take
care
of
that
issue.
So
what
does
it
all
mean?
We
actually
have
one
of
our
suppliers
who
supplies
Alum
does
honor
the
maple
pricing
for
us.
So
there
is
no
change
in
the
the
cost
for
that
chemical.
The
other
supplier
does
not
honor
Maple
pricing
for
US
there's
an
incremental
increase
in
the
cost,
and
so
for
our
caustic.
G
We
pay
four
and
a
half
percent
higher
and
for
our
bleach
we
play
1.9
percent
higher.
So
what
does
that
all
mean
annually
from
a
cost
to
the
utility
perspective?
It's
actually
not!
It's
not
that
significant.
So
caustic
essentially
costs
us
twenty
three
hundred
dollars
more
annually,
because
we
don't
get
that
Maple
pricing
and
bleach
costs
us
thirty
four
hundred
dollars
more
annually,
because
we
don't
get
that
Maple
pricing,
so
I
wanted
to
clarify
that
with
the
board,
because
I
I
was
under
the
wrong
impression
that
we
were
receiving
Maple
pricing.
G
G
F
A
formalized
payment
arrangement
policy
for
overdue
water
bills-
and
this
is
a
part
of
an
effort
that
the
City
attorney
off
city
attorney's
office,
is
currently
working
on
to
formalize
a
collections
policy
for
the
city.
That's
been
requested
by
city
council,
so
tonight
I'll
walk
through
the
elements
of
our
proposed
policy
and
get
feedback
from
the
board.
F
So
we've
Incorporated
that
in
our
proposed
policy
here
and
then
to
develop
the
rest
of
the
policy
we
reached
out
to
several
area
utilities,
to
see
what
they
do
so,
like
Denver,
I,
think
Thornton
others
in
the
in
the
region
and
of
course
everybody
does
something
a
little
bit
different.
So
we
incorporated
elements
of
the
others
that
seem
to
fit
with
inglewood's
customers.
So
these
elements
include
a
signed
payment
arrangement
agreement.
F
So
the
arrangement
for
overdue
amounts
that
that
we've
set
by
the
overdue
balance
is
an
equal
payment
for
over
two
months
for
balances
under
five
hundred
dollars.
Between
five
hundred
and
fifteen
hundred
dollars,
we
looked
at
four
equal
payments
over
four
or
equal
payments
over
four
months
and
then
greater
than
fifteen
hundred
dollars
equal
payments
over
six
months.
F
Since
we've
reinstated
shutoffs
from
February
last
year,
there
really
aren't
balances
that
large
they're
more.
The
majority
of
them
are
in
that
under
500
dollar
range
and
then
our
final
element
to
this
policy
is
for
three
consecutive
broken
Arrangements.
We
would
then
not
allow
a
customer
to
be
eligible
to
make
payment
arrangements
for
a
24-month
period
and
we
would
require
payment
of
an
overdue
balance
prior
to
turn
on.
F
So
one
of
the
reasons
that
we
wanted
to
incorporate
this
particular
element
to
the
policy
is
that
we've
had
a
customer
that
since
2008
has
made
56
separate
payment
arrangements
and
has
broken
35
of
them.
This
is
cost
countless
hours
to
from
the
billing
staff
and
our
utilities
Administration
manager,
as
well
as
being
elevated
through
me
and
up
to
Peter,
to
where
he's
also
had
to
spend
several
hours
addressing
this
issue.
G
And
the
last
time
that
I
spoke
with
this
customer
I
said
you
will
not
have
the
opportunity
to
engage
in
any
future
payment
arrangements,
given
your
pattern
of
breaking
those
payment
arrangements,
and
so
we've
spent
a
lot
of
time
with
this
customer
and
there's
a
certain
point
in
time.
We
want
to
be.
We
want
to
help
our
customers,
because
we
realize
that
people
run
into
problems,
but
there
we've
we've
found
at
least
one
that
takes
advantage
of
it.
G
G
H
G
A
A
Yeah
we've
had
it
as
a
potential
agenda
item
a
little
bit,
but
never
made
it.
So
no
I
mean
you're
free
to
no
specific
discussions
planned
from
this
end,
but
Jenny.
If
you
would
like
to
open
discussion,
we
certainly
can
I
personally
would
not
would
just
suggest
we
not
even
I,
don't
want
to
entertain
the
idea
too
much
until
I
know
we're
at
least
through
the
winter
wave
of
stuff,
but
as
we
get
to
safer
season,
I
think
if
people
would
like
to
do
that,
we
can
talk
about
that
or
a
hybrid
arrangement.
H
A
I
A
J
Yeah
I
would
I
would
like
to
have
the
discussion
regarding
in-person
meetings.
I
mean
I.
Think
a
hybrid
option
would
certainly
make
sense,
but
I'm
I'm
on
a
number
of
boards
and
commissions
and,
of
course,
have
regular
City
Council
meetings
and
there's
nothing
unsafe
about
meeting
in
person.
I
think
we
should
open
that
option
up
for
people
to
you
know
number
of
people
in
a
sport
who
haven't
even
met
each
other
in
person.
This
has
gone
on
for
quite
some
time
now
so
anyway.
J
A
I
meant
Thai
at
Costco.
That
was
an
interesting
one
or
hey
I
think
we
know
this.
We
know
each
other
sounds
good
and
Joe
our
dude
welcome
to
when
we
maybe
again
get
that
that
a
little
bit
but
be
nice
to
know
what
other
boards
have
done
and
done
successfully
if
anyone's
tried
the
hybrid
option
in
that
kind
of
arrangement,
yeah.
J
B
J
Worked
quite
it
works
quite
well,
you
know,
I
I
would
prefer
everybody
be
in
person,
but
I
understand
it's
convenient,
sometimes
to
to
have
the
option
you
know
and
even
on
City
councils.
You
know
I've
been
a
little
bit
sick
and
have
attended
virtually
at
times
as
well.
So
but
I
do
think
there's
you
know
it
makes
sense
to
just
just
go
back
in
person
at
some
point
or
at
least
have
the
hybrid
option.
So
I'll.
D
Yeah
with
our
Parks
and
Recreation
Commission
meetings
we
are
hybrid,
have
been
for
probably
well
getting
close
to
a
year
if
not
a
year,
and
it
is
worked
out
there's
typically
times
unless
we
meet
in
a
park
or
something
like
that.
But
if
we're
meeting
in
a
conference
room,
the
hybrid
has
been
working
out
quite
well.
G
G
So
what
we
actually
went
to
was
a
more
of
a
quarterly
where
we
do
one
meeting
in
person
a
quarter
and
then
the
other
two
would
be
remote
virtual
and
then
so
we
were
at
least
getting
to
we're
at
least
getting
together
in
person
four
times
a
year,
while
still
meeting
12
12
times
a
year.
So
that's
just
another
just
another
model.
That's
that
we've
are
utilizing
foreign.
A
Give
that
some
thought
in
the
next
next
meeting
or
two,
and
we
can
give
everyone
a
chance
to
kind
of
weigh
in
what
they're,
thinking
and
figure
out
what
the
board
was
to
do.
I
am
not
seeing
any
further
questions,
and
so
with
that
I
will
adjourn
the
meeting
happy
New
Year
everybody
have
a
good
evening.