* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
           
          [00:00:05]
CALL 
          [1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/MOMENT OF SILENCE]
THE MEETING TO ORDER. 
          MADAM DEPUTY CLERK, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THE, OH, NO. 
          WE'LL DO THE PLEDGE FIRST. 
          JOIN ME FOR THE PLEDGE. 
          I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. 
          MOMENT OF SILENCE, IF YOU WILL. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          NOW, MADAM DEPUTY CLERK, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THE ROLL CALL? MAYOR BLO. 
          PRESENT VICE MAYOR PLU. 
          HERE, COUNCILOR DUNN. 
          PRESENT COUNCILLOR FOLTZ. 
          HERE. 
          COUNCILLOR FURMAN. 
          PRESENT. 
          COUNCILOR KINSELLA. 
          HERE. 
          COUNCILLOR FAF. 
          PRESENT. 
          OKAY. 
          ITEM 
          [3.a. AB 3172 Discussion/possible direction regarding the Wastewater  Reclamation Plant (WWRP) Facility Plan on PFS treatment, and possible  options for reclaimed water delivery and Advanced Water Purification.]
THREE, SPECIAL BUSINESS AB 31 72. 
          DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE DIRECTION REGARDING THE WASTEWATER RECLAMATION PLANT, UH, FACILITY PLAN, UH, ON, UH, THE PFS, UH, TREATMENT AND POSSIBLE OPTIONS FOR RECLAIMED WATER DELIVERY AND ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION. 
          ROXANNE, GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, COUNSELORS, ROXANNE HOLLAND, DIRECTOR OF WASTEWATER. 
          UM, I AM HERE THIS AFTERNOON TO PREVENT OR PRESENT A, UH,  FACILITY, OUR WASTEWATER RECLAMATION PLAN, PLANT FACILITY PLAN UPDATE. 
          UM, YOU'LL RECALL WE MET BACK IN JANUARY WHERE WE PRESENTED OUR, OUR DRAFT PLAN WITH YOU ALONGSIDE COROLLO, AND THAT WAS SOME OF THE MORE TECHNICAL DETAILS OF WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT. 
          UM, TONIGHT I'M GOING TO KIND OF, UH, GO OVER A BRIEF OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF WHAT THE, THE PLAN RESULTS WERE AND SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THAT PLAN, AND ADDITIONAL, UH, COST ESTIMATES AND EVALUATIONS THAT WERE DONE SINCE JANUARY TO THE PLAN FINALIZATION THAT HAPPENED IN JUNE. 
          UM, SO IT'LL BE KIND OF A HIGH LEVEL VIEW AT IT. 
          ALL THE TECHNICAL DETAILS ARE IN THE FACILITY PLAN ITSELF, UM, WHICH WAS MADE PART OF THE AGENDA BILL PACKET. 
          SO, ALL RIGHT, SO FOR OUR AGENDA THIS AFTERNOON, UM, I'LL GO OVER A SUMMARY OF WHAT THE PLAN ENTAILED, INCLUDING THE CAPACITY ANALYSIS THAT WE DID, UM, SOME OF THE PAS TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES THAT WE IDENTIFIED, AS WELL AS EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES ON HOW WE DISPOSE OF OUR EFFLUENT. 
          UM, FROM THERE, I'LL GO IN ON HOW WE EV EVALUATED THOSE AFFLUENT MANAGEMENT, UM, OPTIONS AND HOW WE RANKED THEM IN, IN ORDER, YOU KNOW, SCORING HIGHEST TO LOWEST. 
          UM, I'LL GIVE A BRIEF REGULATORY UPDATE ON SOME OF THE PFAS, UH, CON RULES AND A WP RULES, AND THEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT WHAT KIND OF UTILITY COORDINATION IS GOING TO NEED TO HAPPEN AND WHAT OUR NEXT STEPS MIGHT BE. 
          AND I DO HAVE TERRY SUE ROSSI AND, UM, JOHN SNICKERS FROM ARIZONA WATER COMPANY HERE TO CHIME IN AS NEEDED. 
          THEY'RE HERE NOT TO GO OVER, YOU KNOW, DETAILS OF HOW THEY MIGHT PARTICIPATE IN SOME OF THESE PLANS, BUT TO OVERALL JUST SHOW SUPPORT IN PARTNERING WITH THE CITY OF SEDONA IN, UH, LONG-TERM RESOURCE PLANNING, WATER RESOURCE PLANNING. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO, UH, LOOKING AT OUR FACILITY PLAN SUMMARY, UM, JUST A A A RECAP OF SOME OF THE PROJECT DRIVERS ON WHY WE DID THIS, THIS PROJECT. 
          UM, WE WANTED TO COMPLETE A CAPACITY ANALYSIS SO WE COULD DO SOME LONG-TERM PLANNING IF, IF, BECAUSE OF INCREASED FLOWS OR INCREASED STRENGTH IN OUR WASTEWATER, WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE SOME EXPANSIONS AT OUR TREATMENT PLANT. 
          UM, AND THEN WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME PFAS UH, RULES. 
          UPCOMING TIMING OF THAT IS, IS, UM, NOT EXACTLY KNOWN, BUT WE KNOW THEY ARE COMING AND TO REMIND EVERYONE PFAS IS THE PER AND POLYFLOR ALCOHOL SUBSTANCES OR THE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE FOREVER CHEMICALS. 
          SO, UM, WE EVALUATED WHAT KIND OF TREATMENT, YOU KNOW, OUR WATER MIGHT NEED TO REMOVE THOSE FROM OUR EFFLUENT. 
          AND THEN LASTLY, WE WANTED TO LOOK AT MAN EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES TO SEE IF WHAT WE'VE DEVELOPED IN THE PAST, BACK IN 2013 FOR A LONG TERM EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT PLAN IS STILL VALID, OR IF WE SHOULD, YOU KNOW, FURTHER EXPLORE OTHER OPTIONS SUCH AS DELIVERING RECLAIMED WATER, UH, TO THE PARKS AND SCHOOLS FOR IRRIGATION, OR, UH, FURTHER TREATING OUR WATER TO POTABLE STAND 
          [00:05:01]
DRINKING WATER AND RETURNING THAT TO THE POTABLE SYSTEM. 
          SO, ALL RIGHT, SO FIRST IS OUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS. 
          UM, FIRST WE LOOKED AT HYDRAULIC CAPACITY, WHICH IS HOW THE WATER, WATER PHYSICALLY FLOWS THROUGH EACH TREATMENT PROCESS. 
          UM, THIS, UH, GRAPH OVER HERE DEPICTS WHAT OUR CAPACITY IS FOR EACH OF OUR TREATMENT PROCESSES. 
          SO THE DARK BLUE LINE IS OUR CURRENT CAPACITY, UM, FOR STANDBY, WHICH YOU'LL RECALL IN WASTEWATER. 
          WE HAVE REDUNDANCY FOR EVERY STEP OF THE PROCESS IN CASE SOMETHING GOES DOWN. 
          AND THEN THE HATCH LINE HERE IS OUR ADDITIONAL TREATMENT CAPACITY FOR OUR REDUNDANT SYSTEM. 
          UM, THIS DASHED LINE IS OUR CURRENT PEAK HOUR FLOW. 
          SO WHEN WE LOOK AT CAPACITY ANALYSIS, WE DON'T USE OUR AVERAGE DAILY FLOW, WHICH IS WHAT YOU GUYS ARE USED TO HEARING. 
          THE 1.2 MGD, WE APPLY A PEAKING FACTOR TO THAT, AND THEN WE ALSO LOOK AT, UH, THROUGHOUT THE DAY, OUR FLOWS KIND OF INCREASE AND DECREASE ALL DAY LONG. 
          UM, AND SO WE FIND THAT PEAK HOUR AND WE DESIGN THINGS OFF OF THAT. 
          UM, AND THEN, UH, THE, THE SOLID LINE HERE IS FOR OUR BUILD OUT PEAK HOUR FACTOR. 
          SO THIS IS WHEN THE, THE CITY IS COMPLETELY BUILT OUT AND EVERYBODY WHO'S GOING TO CONNECT TO THE SEWER SYSTEM IS CONNECTED AND CONTRIBUTING TO THE FLOW. 
          UM, AND YOU CAN SEE WE DO HAVE, UH, ADEQUATE CAPACITY FOR, UH, BUILD OUT FLOW ON ALL OF OUR PROCESSES. 
          UM, ONE THING THAT WAS IDENTIFIED DURING THIS ANALYSIS WAS A POSSIBLE BOTTLENECK FROM THE BACK END OF OUR TERTIARY FILTERS TO THE FRONT END OF OUR U NEW UV SYSTEM. 
          UM, AND WE ALSO FOUND THAT WE HAD A DIMINISHED UV REDUNDANCY AT BUILD OUT, BUILD OUT FLOWS. 
          SO WE'VE INCORPORATED THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS TO INCREASE THAT CAPACITY INTO OUR CURRENT UV UH, REPLACEMENT PROJECT THAT'S CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. 
          WE WENT AHEAD AND DID A DESIGN CLARIFICATION ON THAT AND DID A CHANGE ORDER, UM, FOR THAT. 
          AND SO THAT'S BEING INCORPORATED INTO NOW RATHER THAN WAITING, UM, AND POTENTIALLY COSTING A LOT MORE IN THE FUTURE. 
          SO THAT CAME AT A COST OF $386,000, AND THAT'S ALREADY PROGRAMMED INTO OUR FY 26 CIP BUDGET. 
          SO, ? YES, SIR. 
          UM, REMIND US, BUILD OUT WHAT, WHAT DEGREE OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY IS BUILD OUT BASED ON. 
          SO BUILD OUT IS BASED ON ALL THE VACANT LOTS THAT ARE VACANT. 
          YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OR WHATEVER THOSE THAT VACANT LAND IS ZONED AT IS CONSTRUCTED, CONNECTED TO SEWER AND CONTRIBUTING. 
          WHAT ABOUT THE WESTERN GATEWAY PROPERTY? SO, UM, THE WESTERN GATEWAY IS INCLUDED IN THIS. 
          UM, IT IS BASED OFF OF ZONING. 
          UM, SO IT'S NOT BASED OFF OF WHAT THAT CONCEPTUAL PLAN HAS BEEN DEVELOPED. 
          SO THESE, THIS PROJECT WAS BEING DONE SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE WESTERN GATEWAY PLANNING, AND SO WE COULDN'T REALLY JIVE THE TWO, BUT, UM, THERE IS CAPACITY FOR THAT, THAT PROJECT, WHATEVER IT TURNS OUT TO BE. 
          AND WHAT ABOUT THE DELLS? SHOULD IT BE DEVELOPED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES? UM, THAT WILL BE UP TO COUNCIL WHETHER OR NOT, YOU KNOW, THAT GETS DEVELOPED, BUT THERE IS CAPACITY TO DEVELOP ADDITIONAL. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEAH. 
          AND IF I COULD TAP INTO THAT, UH, ALSO JUST LOOKING AT BUILD OUT, IS THERE ANY HIGH USE COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL OR GOLF COURSE, HIGH VOLUME USE THAT IS IN THE PLAN THAT MAYBE NOT? SO THE, NO, THE BUILD OUT, UM, PROJECTED BUILD OUT FLOWS ARE BASED ON ZONING AS, AS IT IS TODAY. 
          SO IF THERE'S A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OR AN INDUSTRIAL LOT, THEN WE APPLY, UH, SET FLOW VALUES TO THOSE ZONING TO CALCULATE IT SET, SET FLOW VALUE, KIND OF BASED ON WHAT OUR EXPERIENCE IS TO DATE. 
          IT'S ACTUALLY BASED ON ARIZONA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. 
          OH, THAT'S INTERESTING. 
          THEY HAVE A, A SET FLOW RATE FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, MULTIFAMILY, RESIDENTIAL, ET CETERA. 
          AND IF A HIGH USE ACTIVITY WERE TO BE POP ITS HEAD UP SOMEWHERE, WOULD YOU AT SOME POINT SAY, UH, IT'S NOT IN OUR PLAN AND WE HAVE TO RE REFILL THAT? UH, WHAT WE WOULD DO IS PROBABLY SAY WE NEED TO, TO PUT THAT THROUGH OUR MODEL AND JUST ENSURE WE HAVE A SUFFICIENT CAPACITY. 
          AND IF NOT, THEN A PLAN WOULD BE NEED TO BE MADE TO ADD THAT CAPACITY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEAH. 
          SO ROXANNE, BEFORE ON THE SAME DISCUSSION OF BUILD OUT, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT UNBUILT PROPERTIES, CORRECT? YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CULTURAL PARK PROPERTY, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, THE DELL'S PROPERTY, BUT WE HAVE OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE NOT ON THE SYSTEM SHOULD THEY NEED TO GO ON FOR, WOULD, WOULD THAT BE A POSSIBILITY IN WITHIN THE NEXT 20 YEARS THAT ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD MIGHT NEED TO GO ON FOR WHATEVER REASON? UM, SO UNLESS IT'S MANDATED, DO 
          [00:10:01]
YOU RECALL THAT WE DID A WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BACK IN 2018, AND AT THE COUNCIL AT THAT TIME HAD DECIDED IT WASN'T FEASIBLE TO MAKE ANY EXPANSIONS TO OUR EXISTING SEWER SERVICE AREA BECAUSE OF THE EXORBITANT COST TO BOTH THE CITY AND TO HOMEOWNERS TO MAKE THAT EXPANSION TO LIKE CONVERT SEPTIC TO SEWER. 
          UM, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE STATE MAY COME BACK AND MANDATE THAT WE DO THAT AT SOME POINT, BUT THIS PLAN IS BASED OFF THO THOSE ASSUMPTIONS OF, OF WHAT CAME OUTTA THAT WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN IN 2018. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT IF A NEIGHBORHOOD'S, UH, SEPTIC SYSTEM WERE TO FAIL AND, UH, A DEQ WERE TO COME TO US AND SAY THAT NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS TO GO ON SEWER TOTALLY UNPLANNED AND 2018, MOST OF THIS COUNCIL WAS NOT ON, UH, THE DAYS THEN, BUT, UH, THAT WOULD TOTALLY CHANGE THE NUMBERS AS WELL, RIGHT? UH, IT DEPENDS. 
          IT DEPENDS ON THE, THE SIZE OF THE SUBDIVISION, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF VARIOUS FACTORS IN THERE, BUT IT COULD CHANGE THIS PLAN, IT COULD CHANGE OUR BUILD OUT FLOWS. 
          AND IF MANDATED BY THE STATE, WE'LL JUST HAVE TO FIGURE IT OUT AT THAT POINT. 
          LIKE WE DID WHEN THEY MANDATED THAT WE BUILD THIS SEWER, PUBLIC SEWER SYSTEM, ICE MAYOR SYSTEM. 
          SO AREN'T WE CHARGING PEOPLE FOR SEWERS WHEN THEY DON'T HAVE THEM? NO. 
          STANDBY. 
          WE, WELL, SORT OF, SO IF THEY HAVE SEWER AVAILABILITY, THEY ARE PAYING A STANDBY FEE UNTIL THEY CONNECT TO THE SEWER. 
          UM, BUT IF THERE'S NO SEWER AVAILABILITY, THEY DO NOT RECEIVE A SEWER BILL FROM US. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND SO WE'RE NOT MANDATING THEM TO BE ON THE SEWER, WHICH NO, WE DON'T HAVE THE SEWER AVAILABILITY FOR, OR NO, FOR THE PEOPLE WHO, THE STANDBY PEOPLE, WHEN THEIR PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED, THEY ARE MANDATED TO CONNECT TO CITY SEWER. 
          THERE ARE, UM, A FEW PROPERTIES AROUND TOWN WHERE PEOPLE ARE REFUSING TO CONNECT. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND THEN THEY PAY A PENALTY FOR THAT. 
          IT'S, IT'S ESSENTIALLY JUST DOUBLE THE REGULAR SEWER BILL. 
          OKAY. 
          WHAT ABOUT HOUSES THAT HAVE, THEY'VE BEEN MANDATED TO CONVERT? THEY HAVEN'T, THEY HAD A DISPENSATION IN THE PAST HOW CELLS, THEY HAVE TO PAY THE, THE PENALTY FOR NOT BEING ON THE SYSTEM, BUT THEY HAVE TO CONVERT. 
          HOW ARE WE DOING WITH THAT TO BE ADDED INTO THE SYSTEM AND HOW MANY HOUSES ARE NOT PART OF THE SYSTEM OFFHAND? MAYOR, COUNSEL, I'M NOT SURE OF THE NUMBER, UM, ROXANNE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S VERY MANY THAT ARE, ARE REFUSING TO CONVERT, UH, AND THE, THE PENALTY RUNS WITH THE LAND, SO IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT SELLS OR NOT, SO. 
          NO, NO, I UNDERSTAND. 
          BUT, UH, IF ONE WAS TO, THERE'S OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITIES TO TAKE A, A, A MORE HEAVY HANDED APPROACH IN THE CODE TO, YOU KNOW, TO FORCE OR TO DO IT AND THEN LEAN THE PROPERTY, BUT THE DOUBLE PENALTIES IS, IS GENERALLY SUFFICIENT AS, AND BEEN WORKING OUT SO FAR, BUT WHEN THEY SELL, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO CONVERT. 
          WE LIKE, NO, THE NEW OWNER SO FAR, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S BEEN ANY NEW OWNERS, BUT YEAH, GENERALLY THE, GENERALLY IT AT THIS TIME OF A CELL, THE IS CLEANED UP ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. 
          RIGHT. 
          OWNERS, NEW OWNERS DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO COME AND PAINT DOUBLE PENALTIES, BUT, UM, THERE'S A POTENTIAL THAT IT COULD CONTINUE AT THE DOUBLE PENALTY. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER OF THOSE ON A PENALTY FEE, BUT, UM, IT'S LIKE LESS THAN 10. 
          IT'S JUST A HANDFUL OF HOMES. 
          KATHY, THANK YOU, ROXANNE. 
          I JUST WANNA GO BACK TO THE CAPACITY QUESTION THAT WE WERE FLOATING AROUND BEFORE. 
          UM, SO AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOUR ANSWER IS THAT IF CULTURAL PARK GETS DEVELOPED AND IF DELLS GETS DEVELOPED AND IF OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS WOULD HAD TO COME ON, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE'S CAPACITY WHERE WHERE DOES CAPACITY END? WELL, CAPACITY HAS TO END AT 2 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY BECAUSE THAT'S ALL WE'RE PERMITTED TO, TO TREAT. 
          SO, SO WHERE IT HAS TO END, WE HAVE TO CUT IT OFF AT THAT POINT. 
          UM, SO CAPACITY IS LIMITED TO OUR LOWEST PROCE, OUR PROCESS WITH THE LOWEST CAPACITY. 
          AND LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, ON THIS, THIS, UM, THIS GRAPH HERE, IT'S, IT'S OUR PROPOSED UV DISINFECTION SYSTEM AND THAT HAS A, A DUTY CAPACITY OF 4 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY AT A PEAK HOUR. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          AND ALL THESE POTENTIAL WILL STILL COME IN? YEAH, UNDER ANYTIME THERE'S NEW DEVELOPMENT, WE DO EVALUATE, YOU KNOW, CAPA THEY, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO GIVE US WHAT THEIR CONTRIBUTING FLOWS WILL BE. 
          WE EVALUATE, CAN WE TAKE THAT, WHAT HAVE WE ALREADY COMMITTED TO SERVE? SO THERE'S EVALUATIONS THAT HAPPEN WITH EVERY DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT WOULDN'T CHANGE WITH ANYTHING, UH, THAT HAPPENS AT WESTERN GATEWAY OR THE CULTURAL PARK, THE DELLS OR ANY NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE CURRENTLY NOT SERVED THAT ARE, ARE NEEDING TO CONNECT. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          SO THEN, UH, MOVING ON TO HOW WE LOOKED AT OUR CONCENTRATION CAPACITY. 
          THIS IS HOW STRONG 
          [00:15:01]
THE WASTEWATER IS, AND THE, THE STRONGER THE STRENGTH  OR THE MORE CONCENTRATED THE STRENGTH OF THE WASTEWATER, UM, IT ADDS, YOU KNOW, RETENTION TIME AND, AND, UH, CAPACITY FOR OUR EACH TREATMENT PROCESS. 
          UM, SO OVER HERE ON THIS GRAPH, UH, THESE ARE THE PARAMETERS THAT WE MEASURE, UM, CAPACITY WITH, UM, OUR FLOW, OF COURSE, UM, WE'VE SEEN FROM OUR 2012 TO 26 DATASET, WE LOOKED AT TWO HISTORICAL DATA SETS, UH, 2012 TO 2016 AND 2022 TO 2024. 
          WE COMPARED ALL THE LAB DATA AND FLOW DATA FOR THESE TWO, UH, DATA SETS IN. 
          OVERALL, WE'VE SEEN A 4% INCREASE IN FLOW FROM 2012 TO 2024. 
          UM, COD IS OUR CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND. 
          WE'VE SEEN AN INCREASE IN 9% THERE, TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS OR TSS 13% VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS 12% AND AMMONIA NITRATE 24%. 
          AND ALL OF THESE PARAMETERS ARE KEY INDICATORS OF WATER QUALITY. 
          SO IS IT POSSIBLY THE, IRONICALLY, THE DOWNSIDE OF LOW FLOW TOILETS AND WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES? YES. 
          THIS IS, THIS IS LIKELY A DIRECT RESULT OF CONSERVATION EFFORTS OF, OF, YOU KNOW, EVEN YOU CAN'T EVEN BUY A NON LOW FLOW TOILET ANYMORE, YOU KNOW? SO YES, THIS IS A RESULT OF THAT. 
          SO, AND AS MORE CONSERVATION OCCURS, WE'LL, WE'LL LIKELY SEE ADDITIONAL INCREASES. 
          UM, ROXANNE, WHEN, WHEN DID THE SYSTEM GO ONLINE? UH, THE TREATMENT PLANT WAS BUILT BETWEEN, I THINK IT HAD FINAL COMPLETION IN 1993. 
          SO 91 TO 93 TIMEFRAME. 
          SO IF YOU WERE CON TO COMPARE THAT, THAT TIMEFRAME BETWEEN THAT 1993 AND 2012, WOULD IT LOOK VERY DIFFERENT? UM, PROBABLY, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE MEASURED ALL OF THESE PARAMETERS BACK THEN BECAUSE WE, WE DIDN'T HAVE A PLUS RECLAIMED WATER UNTIL 2012. 
          SO COULD THAT'S WHY, WHY YOU START WITH WHAT, CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          CORRECT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO, UM, BASICALLY THE PLAN, THE EVALUATION, ALL THE MODELING, UM, SUGGESTED THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO TREAT INCREASED STRENGTHS IN WASTEWATER AND NO, UM, UPGRADES ARE RECOMMENDED AT THIS POINT. 
          SO THAT WAS GOOD NEWS, . 
          RIGHT. 
          SO MOVING ON TO OUR PRE, UH, PAS TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES. 
          UM, SINCE THERE ARE NO ACTIVE RULES FOR, UH, PFAS REMOVAL IN WASTEWATER FOR THIS STUDY, WE ASSUMED THAT THERE WOULD BE IDENTICAL MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT, UH, LEVELS OR MCLS AS WHAT IS IN THE CURRENT DRINKING WATER LIMITS THAT WERE RECENTLY IMPOSED. 
          UM, AND FOR WASTEWATER, THERE'S GONNA BE A, A TWOFOLD TYPE, TYPE OF, UH, REGULATION. 
          SO FIRST YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE A PLUS RECLAIMED WATER MEETING, UM, WATER QUALITY LIMITS FOR TURBIDITY, FECAL COLIFORM, AND TOTAL NITROGEN. 
          UM, AND WE ALREADY MEET THOSE. 
          SO THAT'S A, THAT'S THE GOOD NEWS. 
          WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE ANY UPGRADES TO GET TO THE A PLUS WATER QUALITY. 
          UM, FOR THE PFAS MCLS, UH, THE PARAMETERS FOR THOSE ARE LISTED HERE. 
          THERE'S SIX, UH, CONS, COMPOUNDS OF PAS THAT ARE BEING IMPLEMENTED TO BE REGULATED. 
          UM, AND SO THOSE ARE, ARE WHAT THESE MAXIMUM LEVELS ARE, UM, ALLOWED TO BE. 
          AND ONE THING TO NOTE THAT THIS IS MEASURED IN PARTS PER TRILLION OR NANOGRAMS PER LITER. 
          AND JUST TO GIVE A VISUAL ON THAT, UM, SOMETHING THAT IS LESS THAN FOUR PARTS PER TRILLION IS LESS THAN FOUR DROPS OF WATER IN 20 OLYMPIC SIZED SWIMMING POOLS. 
          SO WE ARE MEASURING AT LIKE INCREDIBLY FINITE LEVELS. 
          UM, WE HAVE ALREADY CONDUCTED SOME PFAS TESTING ON, UM, OUR, BOTH OUR INFLUENCE, OUR EFFLUENT AND SOME OF OUR POC WELLS. 
          UM, SO WE, THE RESULTS OF THOSE DO SHOW WE ARE EXCEEDING PFOA, WHICH I DO NOT KNOW THE ACRONYM FOR THAT. 
          UM, BUT IT'S, IT'S EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS FOR THAT. 
          UM, YOU MIGHT NOTICE THAT OUR I FLUENT IS LESS THAN OUR EFFLUENT, AND THAT MIGHT SOUND A LITTLE STRANGE, BUT THAT IS NOT ATYPICAL FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS. 
          UM, WE HAVE COATINGS, WE HAVE A LOT OF THINGS THAT MIGHT CONTRIBUTE TO INCREASED PFAS LEVELS. 
          SO, SO ROXANNE, IS THERE, IS THERE WORK IN THE INDUSTRY GOING ON TO FIGURE OUT, MAYBE INSTEAD OF REMOVE THE PFAS, WE FIGURE OUT WHAT THE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS ARE AND CHANGE THOSE COATINGS AND WHATEVER? IS THAT, 
          [00:20:01]
UM, THAT'S A HIGHLY SENSITIVE POLITICAL SUBJECT, YOU KNOW, AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, WHETHER, YOU KNOW, WE, WHETHER THE, THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS KIND OF MANDATE MANUFACTURING USING THESE CHEMICALS OR WHETHER THEY COME DOWN ON THE END USER TO THE, NO, NO, I'M THINKING MORE LOCALLY. 
          WHY WOULDN'T WE DO MORE DETAILED RESEARCH IN OUR PLANT TO FIGURE OUT WHERE WE MIGHT BE INJECTING P NOT INJECTING PFAS, BUT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE THERE THAT'S DEGRADING AND PUTTING, I'M SURE MICROPLASTICS IN THE STREAM, AND I CAN'T ANSWER THAT TONIGHT, BUT I'M SURE SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE THERE'S TREATMENT PLANTS THAT ARE LOOKING INTO THAT. 
          UM, BUT IT'S LIKELY FROM COATINGS, FROM OUR USE OF POLYMER, WE USE A POLYMER FOR, UM, DEWATERING OUR SOLIDS, AND THAT WATER THAT'S DEWATERED FROM THE SOLIDS GOES BACK TO THE HEAD OF THE PLANT. 
          SO YOU HAVE THAT CONCENTRATED PFAS THAT COMES OUT OF THAT. 
          UM, AND, AND IT'S NOT ATYPICAL, BUT I'M SURE THERE'S SOME RESEARCH OUT THERE OF WHERE THIS MAY COME FROM FOR THE, FOR THE PRICE OF PFAS TREATMENT, IT, IT MIGHT BEHOOVE US TO LOOK AT WHERE SOME OF THIS STUFF IS SOURCES. 
          YEAH. 
          WELL, AND UNFORTUNATELY, YOU KNOW, COATINGS ARE ESSENTIAL TO ALL OF OUR EQUIPMENT BECAUSE RAW WASTEWATER IS SO CAUSTIC. 
          UM, AND THOSE COATINGS TEND TO INCLUDE PFAS IN, IN THEIR MANUFACTURING. 
          SO UNFORTUNATELY, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE'RE GONNA BE DEALING WITH FOREVER, AND IT WILL BE THIS CYCLE OF HOW DO WE REMOVE IT AND NOT RETURN IT . 
          UM, SO THE, THE, THE FACILITY PLAN DOES, UM, RECOMMEND CONTINUED SAMPLING AND TESTING TO GET A REALLY GOOD BASELINE FOR WHEN THOSE MCLS DO COME OUT ON WASTEWATER. 
          AND SO WE HAVE BUDGETED THAT INTO OUR OPERATING BUDGET FOR NEXT YEAR, AND WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO SAMPLE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO LOOKING AT THE ALTERNATIVES FOR PFAS TREATMENT, WE, FOR THIS EVALUATION, WE JUST LOOKED AT TWO TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES, GRANULATED ACTIVATED CARBON AND ION EXCHANGE. 
          UH, BOTH WERE EVALUATED FOR OUR CURRENT CAPACITY, ABOUT 1.3 MGD, AND THEN FOR BUILD OUT CAPACITY ABOUT 1.8 MGD. 
          UM, THE PLAN INCLUDES CONCEPTUAL CAPITAL INVESTMENTS AND ANNUAL O AND M COSTS. 
          AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT I HAVE ALREADY PUT THOSE ESTIMATES INTO OUR 10 YEAR CIP BECAUSE WE KNOW THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WILL LIKELY BE HEADED OUR WAY AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO COMPLY WITH. 
          SO I'VE ALREADY PROGRAMMED THAT INTO OUR 10 YEAR CIP, UM, SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON OF THE TWO METHODS, GAC VERSUS ION EXCHANGE, BOTH ARE WELL ESTABLISHED TREATMENT PROCESSES. 
          UM, GAC REQUIRES MORE FREQUENT MEDIA CHANGE OUT ION EXCHANGE HAS LESS, UH, LARGER FOOTPRINT FOR GAC, WHERE SMALLER FOOTPRINT IN TERMS OF THE LAND REQUIRED FOR THE EQUIPMENT, UM, GREATER FLEXIBILITY FOR EXPANSION IF REGULATIONS WERE TO ADD ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS TO THOSE, TO, UH, LIKE ANOTHER COMPOUND OF P-P-F-A-S TO BE REGULATED. 
          UM, WHEREAS ION EXCHANGE HAS LESS OF THAT FLEXIBILITY, UH, THERE ARE SOME MORE ROBUST PRE-TREATMENT, UH, REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ION EXCHANGE. 
          UM, THE SPENT MEDIA CAN POTENTIALLY BE REGENERATED AND REUSED FOR, UH, GAC, WHEREAS ION EXCHANGE IT HAS TO BE, UM, INCINERATED OR DISPOSED OF AT A, AT A HAZMAT FACILITY. 
          SO, UM, AND THEN THERE'S LOWER POWER REQUIREMENTS FOR JAC VERSUS THE ION EXCHANGE. 
          SO THAT'S JUST A SIDE BY SIDE QUICK VIEW COMPARISON. 
          ROXANNE, ARE THESE TWO TECHNOLOGIES ACCEPTED TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR PFAS OR ARE THEY HAVE HISTORICAL OLD THAT WE THINK IS GONNA WORK WITH PFAS? YES, TO BOTH. 
          SO THEY, THEY DO HAVE, UH, PILOT TESTING. 
          THEY'VE DONE PILOT TESTING AND ALL SORTS OF TESTING FOR THESE TWO METHODS AS A METHOD FOR PAS REMOVAL AND IT DOES WORK. 
          UM, AND THEN THEY ARE KIND OF ESTABLISHED TREATMENT PROCESSES THAT REMOVE OTHER THINGS BESIDES PFAS AS WELL. 
          SO, SO FOR THE GAC, THE MEDIA CHANGE OUTS THAT HAS TO BE DISPOSED OF SOMEWHERE, IS THAT ALSO HIGHLY REGULATED? ? SO, WELL, THERE IS THE POTENTIAL TO REGENERATE THOSE AND REUSE 'EM. 
          SO YOU WOULD, YOU WOULD PROBABLY SEND THEM TO SOME FACILITY WHERE THEY WOULD KIND OF REHAB 'EM LIKE, LIKE A REFURBISHED IPHONE PFAS OUT SOMEWHERE, AND THEN THEY'VE GOTTA DO SOMETHING WITH IT, WHICH YEAH,  AND, AND I WOULD SURPRISE THAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO INCINERATE THE IION EXCHANGE STUFF, SENDING PFAS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. 
          IS THAT, YEAH, I, I MEAN WE, WE DEFINITELY HAVE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THAT. 
          THIS, AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS OF HOW THAT ALL HAPPENS. 
          THAT'S GONNA, YOU KNOW, IF WE GO THAT ROUTE, WE'LL DEFINITELY BE DOING MORE RESEARCH AND ANALYZING 
          [00:25:01]
ON WHAT'S BETTER, BUT, WELL, THANK YOU. 
          NICE. 
          MAYOR, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR JOHN. 
          ARE YOU IN, ARE YOU DOING PFAS REMEDIATION RIGHT NOW OR TREATMENT WE'RE, UH, WITH THE ONE WELL ON, CAN YOU HEAR ME? UM, WITH THE ONE WELL THAT WE ARE, UH, RESEARCHING TREATMENT ON HERE IN WEST SEDONA, WE ARE ABOUT IN THE SAME STAGE OF THE GAME AS YOU ARE. 
          AND WE ARE ALSO LOOKING AT THOSE METHODS OF TREATMENT, ALTHOUGH WE HAVE SEVERAL, UH, CONSULTANTS THAT I HAVEN'T SEEN ALL THEIR RESULTS. 
          THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING HIDING OUT THERE THAT SOMEBODY WANTS TO TRY, WHICH HAPPENED A LOT WITH WHEN THE ARSENIC RULE CAME DOWN, STUFF POPPED OUT, THAT DIDN'T WORK AS WELL, AND IT ALL BOILED BACK DOWN TO WHAT THEY KNEW WORKED. 
          SO THAT, THAT WE'RE PRETTY MUCH AT THE SAME SPOT WITH THAT. 
          JOHN, WHILE YOU'RE THERE, ARE, ARE YOU CONVINCED THAT IT'S THE GROUNDWATER SOURCE THAT WHEN YOU SEE PFAS, THAT'S WHERE IT IS? OR IS IT YOUR, WELL, THAT'S PUTTING PFAS INTO THE WATER. 
          I HAVE A THEORY, BUT, UM, IT, I THINK IT'S THE GROUNDWATER BECAUSE THAT STUFF'S EVERYWHERE. 
          JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT OVER THE MCL DOES NOT MEAN IT DOESN'T EXIST. 
          RIGHT. 
          UM, WHERE WE KNOW THAT IT EXISTS TO A POINT THAT WE MAY HAVE TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. 
          I THINK IT'S THE, THE OVERALL SOURCE, NOT JUST THE WELL, BUT SOME WELLS HAVE MORE INFLUENCE THE ONE WELL THAT WE ARE GONNA HAVE TO TREAT AS AN OPEN HOLE. 
          AND IT'S WAS DRILLED IN 1949. 
          UM, SO WHATEVER INFLUENCE CAME ABOUT HAS HAD A LOT OF TIME TO GET IN INTO THAT AREA. 
          THANK YOU, BRIAN. 
          OKAY. 
          SORRY, I'M GONNA GO TECHNICAL HERE THEN. 
          SO THE PFAS COMPONENTS, ARE THESE POTENTIALLY NATURALLY OCCURRING COMPOUNDS, OR ARE THEY STRICTLY MANMADE? I THINK THEY'RE STRICTLY MANMADE. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          IT'S, IT'S NOT LIKE ARSENIC THAT'S PFOS IS, IS THEY'RE MANMADE MATERIALS. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO TO YOU. 
          SO STAY THERE, JOHN. 
          THANK YOU . 
          UM, SO YOU'RE SAYING, OKAY, THE, THE WELL THAT NEEDS TO BE TREATED, IT'S BEEN AROUND SINCE 1949. 
          I THOUGHT THAT WHEN I'VE LOOKED AT DIAGRAMS THAT SHOW, UH, WATER, YOU KNOW, IN UNDERGROUND AQUIFERS THAT LIKE THE WATER THAT WE'RE EXTRACTING IS TAKEN LIKE A THOUSAND YEARS TO GET TO WHERE WE'RE EXTRACTING IT. 
          AND THAT'S NOT THE CASE THEN. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CASE, BUT I, I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SURFACE WATER INFLUENCE INTO OVER TIME IN, IN OUR STRATA IN, IN THE RED ROCKS AND THE CRACKS AND EVERYTHING THAT WHERE WE'RE AT UP UNTIL THE MIDDLE EIGHTIES WHEN THEY STARTED THIS, UH, THE SEWER PLANTS OR THE SEWER INSTALLATION, ALL OF WEST SEDONA AND ALL OF SEDONA, BUT PREDOMINANTLY ALL OF WEST SEDONA WAS ALL LEACH FIELDS, ALL, UM, EV EVERYTHING SOAKED INTO THE GROUND, YOU KNOW, UH, FROM THROUGH, THROUGH LEACH FIELDS AND, UM, THAT MY, MY ONE OF, WE WERE, I WAS ASKED TO TRY AND HELP SAY, HEY, WHERE DID THIS STUFF COME FROM? WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF FIRE FOAM AROUND HERE. 
          WE DON'T, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DOESN'T JUST SPRAY IT OUT ALL OVER THE PLACE. 
          UM, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE BIG LEADING, YOU KNOW, COMPONENTS FOR SOME OF THIS. 
          BUT THE, UM, I BELIEVE THAT THE, THE INFLUENCE IN THE GROUNDWATER THROUGH YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS OF, UM, OF THE LEACH FIELDS, UM, HELPED WITH, WITH THE CONTRA CONTRIBUTING THAT. 
          SO, SO IS THERE A WELL KNOWN DATE AT WHICH PFAS CHEMICALS BEGAN TO BE PREVALENT IN USE? I DON'T, I DON DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          COUNSELOR FOLTZ, THIS, YOUR INITIAL QUESTION HERE WAS A REALLY INTERESTING TOPIC AT THAT RECENT WATER SEMINARS THAT WE HAD WITH THE THREE UNIVERSITIES UP IN FLAGSTAFF AND WAS ACTUALLY INTERESTING FOR ME TO LEARN, UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, UP IN FLAGSTAFF LAKE MARY FLAGSTAFF HAS THE COCONINO AQUIFER THAT'S ABOVE THE ONE THAT WE TYPICALLY DRAW FROM RED WALL MOV COCONINO IS HIGHER AND IT'S NOT HERE. 
          UH, BUT RECENT, WELL, I MEAN, SOMEWHAT RECENT DATA SHOWS A MUCH FASTER INFLUENCE FROM SNOW MELT INTO THE SPRINGS. 
          SO THERE'S WAS A MUCH HIGHER, UH, INFLUENCE ON THAT. 
          UH, SNOW MELT ON, ON RECHARGING THE AQUIFERS. 
          THEY ARE BEGINNING TO BELIEVE THAT OUR AQUIFER, THE RED WALL MOUA ALSO RECHARGES IN THE SAME WAY, BUT PROBABLY WITH A LONGER DELAY. 
          BUT IT'S PROBABLY NOT THAT THOUSANDS OF YEARS, UH, BELIEF THAT WE'VE CARRIED FOR A LONG TIME. 
          SO IT REALLY IS WEATHER RELATED, SNOW MELT RELATED, UM, UP ON THE, UP ON THE RIM. 
          ANY FOLLOW UP, RYAN? NO, I'M GOOD. 
          . 
          I'M GOOD. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, OKAY. 
          SO LOOKING AT SOME OF THE COSTS FOR THESE ALTERNATIVES OR ALL OF THE COSTS FOR THESE ALTERNATIVES, 
          [00:30:01]
UM, THE CAPITAL COSTS, UH, WE RANGE FROM $28.3 MILLION TO 34.4. 
          THE, THE GAC IS SLIGHTLY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE ION EXCHANGE ANNUAL O AND M COSTS RANGING FROM 600,000 TO $900,000 PER YEAR, UM, WITH AN EQUIVALENT ANNUAL COST. 
          UM, ANNUALIZING OUT THAT CAPITAL COST, UH, RANGING FROM 2.7 TO $3.4 MILLION, DEPENDING ON WHETHER IT'S PHASE ONE FOR THE 1.3 OR BUILD OUT AT 1.8. 
          AND WHAT, WHAT, UH, ALTERNATE WHAT METHOD OF TREATMENT IT IS. 
          UM, WE'VE ALSO INCLUDED A COST PER THOUSAND GALLONS, EXCUSE ME, FOR EACH OF THESE. 
          SO THOSE ARE IDENTICAL FOR BOTH. 
          SO AS YOU COST THIS OUT PER THOUSAND GALLONS, UM, IT, IT IS $13 PER THOUSAND GALLONS FOR, UH, THE 1.3 MGD AND $17 AND 80 CENTS. 
          AND THAT'S TOTAL COST AMORTIZATION, BOTH THE CAPITAL OPERATING OVER 20 YEARS AT 4% KIND OF. 
          SO THE CALCULATION WASN'T DONE USING A FULL AMORTIZATION. 
          IT WAS USED PRESENT WORTH. 
          SO JUST A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THEORY ON HOW IT'S DONE. 
          SO. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ANY QUESTIONS ON THOSE COSTS? SO WE DO HAVE, AGAIN, WE DO HAVE THESE CAPITAL COSTS IN OUR CIP PLAN AS OF NOW, MELISSA. 
          SO WHEN YOU, UM, CAME UP WITH YOUR COSTS, DID YOU ALSO COME UP WITH YOUR COSTS FOR, DOES THIS INCLUDE A ESTIMATE AROUND WHAT THE COST WOULD BE TO SEND THESE OFF TO BE? UM, SO THE DETAILED COST ESTIMATE IS AN APPENDIX C AND I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY PULL THAT UP AND LOOK IF YOU'D LIKE . 
          WELL, I JUST WANTED TO KNOW, I MEAN, THESE NUMBERS, I'M ASSUMING THAT BECAUSE IT'S IN THERE, THE, THESE, I HAD IT UP JUST A SECOND AGO THAT THESE NUMBERS INCLUDE SENDING IT AWAY TO BE REGENERATED IN THE ONE CASE OR INCINERATED. 
          UM, AND THEN WE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WHEREVER IT'S BEING INCINERATED, ARE WE CAUSING MORE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE. 
          UM, WHICH WAS COUNCILOR FURMAN'S QUESTION. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THESE COSTS INCLUDED. 
          WE ARE ESTIMATE FOR THAT KNOWING YOU WON'T KNOW UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY DIG IN DEEPER. 
          SO WE ACTUALLY, I'M PULLING UP THE DETAILED COST ESTIMATE NOW. 
          AND MIND YOU, THESE ARE PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES. 
          THERE'S A 30% CONTINGENCY IN HERE. 
          THERE'S A PLUS OR MINUS 50%, UH, SWAY ON THESE ESTIMATES. 
          UM, BUT THE ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS DO INCLUDE MEDIA CHANGE OUT, INCLUDING SPENT MEDIA MANAGEMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO YEAH, I I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT COST, WE'RE LOOKING AT YOUR BEST ESTIMATE OF ALL UP COST SO THAT THERE'S NO HIDDEN COST ANYWHERE INSIDE OF HERE THAT HASN'T YET BEEN MENTIONED. 
          YES. 
          AND IT INCLUDES STAFFING, UH, ALL THAT. 
          ROXANNE, JUST FOR COMPARISON, DO YOU HAVE THE A THOUSAND DOLLARS PER GALLON COST OF OUR CURRENT PLANT? I DON'T HAVE THAT HANDY. 
          YOU DON'T? I COULD GET THAT TO YOU THOUGH. 
          DO YOU THINK IT'S OF THAT MA ORDER? DO YOU, UM, YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING TO RECALL. 
          SO WE, WE DO DO A COST PER LIKE WHAT IT COSTS TO TREAT A A MILLION GALLONS IN SOME OF OUR PERFORMANCE MEASURES AT BUDGET TIME. 
          BUT I DON'T RECALL WHAT THOSE ARE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. 
          SO WE COULD, WE COULD DO SOMETHING SIMILAR, BUT THIS WOULD BE OVER AND ABOVE OUR CURRENT COST. 
          RIGHT? YEAH. 
          . 
          OKAY. 
          I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF IT'S DOUBLE OR 10 TIMES OR YEAH. 
          WHAT UM, AND I DID WANNA NOTE THAT THE PLAN DID RECOMMEND SOME PILOT SCALE TESTING FOR OOPS, UM, FOR BOTH OF THESE METHODS JUST TO SEE WHAT WORKS BEST WITH OUR WATER QUALITY. 
          'CAUSE IT COULD VARY, LIKE JOHN SAID, ONCE YOU ACTUALLY START RUNNING, IT COULD VARY. 
          VERY. 
          SO, SO BASED ON WHAT YOU JUST SAID MM-HMM . 
          UM, THERE'S ANOTHER FACTOR HERE IN WHETHER OR NOT WHY WE SHOULD DECIDE IF WE SHOULD DECIDE TO DO PFAS AT ALL, THAT WHICH METHOD WE GO FOR. 
          THERE'S ANOTHER FACTOR HERE THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WHICH IS, GIVEN OUR CURRENT FORM OF WASTEWATER, WHICH OF THESE METHODS ACTUALLY PERFORMS AS EXPECTED? AND THAT'S A QUESTION, SORRY. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO I MEAN, OUR, OUR WATER QUALITY WAS RUN THROUGH, YOU KNOW, ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS BY COROLLA TO COME UP WITH THESE TWO METHODS AND THESE COSTS AND WHAT IT WOULD TAKE AND SIZING OUT BOTH OF THESE METHODS. 
          I MEAN THE, THE PLAN GOES INTO LIKE HOW 
          [00:35:01]
MANY FILTERS WE ACTUALLY NEED TO TREAT OUR FLOWS BASED ON OUR WATER, OUR PFAS RESULTS THAT WE HAVE NOW. 
          SO THERE IS AN IDEA, UM, DOING A PILOT SCALE TESTING REALLY CONFIRMS THOSE ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS. 
          SO IT WOULD BE NEEDED, UM, SOMETHING YOU SAID, LIKE WHETHER OR NOT WE DECIDE TO DO PFAS TREATMENT, THAT'S NOT GONNA BE UP TO US, THAT'S GONNA BE UP TO THE STATE. 
          IT, YOU KNOW, IT, IT COULD BE MANDATED. 
          WELL, THAT'S TRUE IN THE FUTURE, YES, IN THE FUTURE IT COULD BE MANDATED, BUT THE CONVERSATION WE'RE HAVING NOW IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. 
          I THINK BECAUSE WE COULD GET AHEAD OF WHERE THE MANDATES MAY COME FROM, SHOULD WE CHOOSE TO DO THAT, OR WE CAN WAIT UNTIL IT'S MANDATED AND THEN WE HAVE TO DO IT. 
          SO THAT, THAT TO ME FEELS LIKE PART OF THE CONVERSATION THAT THIS BODY IS GOING TO BE HAVING AROUND THIS CONVERSATION THAT YOU'RE PRESENTING US ALL THE INFORMATION FOR SURE. 
          I WAS NOT GONNA ASK FOR DIRECTION ON WHETHER WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH PFAS. 
          NOW I, I MEAN, I HAD ASSUMED WE WOULD JUST WAIT UNTIL THOSE REGULATIONS COME OUT, BUT IT'S, I MEAN, IF WE WANNA DISCUSS WHETHER WE WANNA GET A HEAD START OR, YOU KNOW, DO THE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE ENVIRONMENTAL UH RIGHT THING, I GUESS TO REMOVE THESE CONSTITUENTS, WE COULD HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AS WELL. 
          WELL, IT FEELS LIKE TO ME, AND I KNOW YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN THERE YET, BUT IT FEELS TO ME THAT PART OF THIS CONVERSATION ALSO GOES TO WHETHER OR NOT WE CHOOSE TO DO THE RECHARGE WELLS BECAUSE WE'RE PUTTING ALL THIS STUFF BACK INTO THE AQUIFER AND THEN RELYING ON, ON THE ARIZONA WATER TO MAKE SURE ALL OF IT COMES OUT WHEN THAT MANDATE IS, AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CONCENTRATIONS ARE. 
          SO I FEEL THAT THAT'S PART OF THE WHOLE CONVERSATION AS WELL IN MY MIND. 
          SO YOU MAY NOT HAVE BEEN EXPECTING IT, BUT I SORT OF HAVE BEEN EXPECTING IT. 
          YEAH, YEAH. 
          I MEAN, WE DO EVERYTHING THAT IS REGULATED, WE MEET. 
          SO, AND, BUT IT'S NOT TYPICAL FOR PEOPLE TO GO OVER AND ABOVE REGULATIONS BECAUSE OF THE COST THAT IS INVOLVED AND, AND HOW THAT IMPACTS RATE PAYERS AND WHATNOT. 
          SO EXCEPT FOR WHETHER THAT COST IS GONNA BE HUGE A YEAR FROM NOW OR TWO YEARS FROM NOW, GIVEN UNKNOWNS THAT WE CAN'T KNOW UNTIL WE UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF TARIFFS AND WHO'S BEING TARIFFED AND WHAT THE MATERIALS ARE MADE OUT OF AND WHAT SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES ARE AND WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE RESOURCES TO ACTUALLY DO THE WORK. 
          I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF UNKNOWNS CURRENTLY, UM, IN OUR ENVIRONMENT AND, YOU KNOW, THE LONGER WE PUT THINGS OFF, WE MAY BE PAYING MORE FOR IT, UM, IN THE LONG RUN AS A COMMUNITY RATHER THAN THINKING ABOUT IT NOW. 
          THAT, THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. 
          AND YEAH, THERE ALSO IS SOME RISK FOR DOING AHEAD OF TIME TOO WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE REGULATIONS ARE GONNA BE. 
          ARE WE DESIGNING IT TO WHAT THE REGULATIONS NEED TO BE OR WHAT WE ARE ASSUMING TO BE, WHAT IF OUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE WRONG? SO I SEE BOTH SIDES OF THE, WE'VE BEEN ANTICIPATING THESE REGULATIONS THOUGH FOR A WHILE AND THEY KEEP GETTING KICKED DOWN THE ROAD. 
          YES. 
          SO BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT THEM FOR A COUPLE YEARS NOW, DO WE HAVE ANY SORT OF REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF WHAT THEY MIGHT DEVELOP TO BE SO THAT YOU WOULDN'T BE SPECULATION? I MEAN, THIS GOES TO COUNCILOR DUNN'S POINT ABOUT GETTING AHEAD OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE CURVE ON THIS. 
          UM, IS THAT A RESPONSIBLE THING TO DO? AND AGAIN, I HEARD YOUR POINT ABOUT NOT WANTING TO WASTE MONEY, WE'RE WORKING OVER HERE AND THEN THE REGULATIONS COME DOWN OVER HERE AND THAT MONEY'S BEEN WASTED. 
          YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANNA GET INTO THAT, BUT IS THERE ANY WAY TO REASONABLY ANTICIPATE WHAT, WHAT WOULD IT MINIMUM BE EXPECTED IN THE REGULATIONS? UM, I THINK MOST MUNICIPALITIES OR MOST WATER WASTEWATER UTILITIES THAT ARE LOOKING AT, AT THIS RIGHT NOW ARE JUST ASSUMING THEY WILL BE WHAT THE DRINKING MCLS THE DRINKING WATER MCLS ARE. 
          AND THAT'S HOW, THAT'S OUR BEST WAY TO MOVE FORWARD IS MAKING THAT ASSUMPTION. 
          OH, I HOPE THAT ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION. 
          IT DOES. 
          IT'S, YEAH. 
          PETE, ROXANNE, YOU SAID SOMETHING THAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION AND IT WAS RELATED TO COUNCILOR DUNN'S QUESTION THAT I, I GUESS I, I GOT A LITTLE CONFUSED. 
          I THOUGHT SOME OF THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING WAS TO GIVE YOU SOME DIRECTION TO WHAT TO PUT IN THE, THE RATE STUDY, BUT NOW I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY, BUT PFAS PROBABLY IS NOT GONNA BE SOMETHING WE'RE TREATMENT MAYBE. 
          SO, SO THIS WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE RATE STUDY BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY IN OUR 10 YEAR CIP I'M ALREADY JUST ASSUMING WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO THIS BECAUSE IT WILL BE REGULATED AND I'LL HAVE AN UPDATE LATER IN OUR PRESENTATION ON WHAT THE TIMING OF THAT MIGHT BE BECAUSE WE DO HAVE NEW INFORMATION. 
          UM, WHAT I'M ASKING FOR DIRECTION FOR IS MOSTLY OUR EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT OPTIONS, SO, GOT IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          VICE MAYOR, THEY HAVE A PROPOSED RULEMAKING OUT RIGHT. 
          NOTICE OF RULEMAKING. 
          SO, I MEAN, CAN CAN WE WAIT TILL I GET TO THOSE SLIDES AT THE END? ? NO, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY 
          [00:40:01]
THAT GIVES YOU SOME GUIDANCE, ASSUMING THEY DON'T DRAMATICALLY CHANGE WHAT YEAH, YEAH. 
          DRAFTS OF THEY DON'T HAVE PROPOSED RULEMAKING QUITE YET. 
          THEY DON'T YET, BUT IT'S, IT'S FORTHCOMING SOONER THAN SOONER THAN LATER. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, OKAY. 
          SO ARE WE OKAY TO MOVE ON TO OUR EFFLUENT? YOU KNOW, DROP THE PFAS CONVERSATION AND MOVE ON TO EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THIS ONE, UH, HAS A LOT OF ALTERNATIVES WITHIN ALTERNATIVES. 
          UM, SO HOPEFULLY I CAN MAKE THIS CLEAR AS MUD AND  NOT BE CONFUSING. 
          UM, ONE 10 PAGES OF CLEAR AS MUD . 
          YES. 
          . 
          UM, OKAY. 
          SO BACK IN 2013, WE LOOKED AT OUR EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT, UM, OPTIONS AND WE CONDUCTED WHAT WE CALLED OUR EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT OPTIMIZATION PLAN. 
          AND THAT PLAN CALLED FOR THE OPTIMUM COMBINATION OF EFFLUENT DISPOSAL METHODS TO BE ABANDONING TWO ACRES OF IRRIGATION. 
          AND WE CURRENTLY IRRIGATE 265 ACRES, SO WE WOULD ABANDON 200 OF THOSE. 
          THAT WOULD ALL BE IN AREA FOUR OR WHAT'S KNOWN AS THE DELLS. 
          UM, WE WOULD KEEP OUR 27 EXISTING ACRES OF WETLANDS. 
          IT'S A COMMUNITY BENEFIT, IT'S A COMMUNITY PARK, IT'S SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, THAT WE WOULDN'T WANT TO GET RID OF. 
          AND THEN WE WOULD ADD A TOTAL OF UP TO SIX RECHARGE WELLS TOTAL FOR BUILD OUT. 
          UM, WE CONSTRUCTED TWO OF THOSE SIX RECHARGE WELLS IN 2017 BECAUSE WE NEEDED ADDITIONAL CAPACITY IN OUR EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT. 
          SO WE HAVE TWO OF THE SIX IDENTIFIED IN THAT PLAN ALREADY CONSTRUCTED. 
          IS ONE A BACKUP OR ARE THEY BOTH USED? UH, THEY, THEY'RE NOT USED AT THE SAME TIME. 
          SO ONE IS REDUNDANT IN, IN THESE SIX WELLS IT WOULD BE FIVE DUTY, ONE STANDBY AT ALL TIMES. 
          WE ALWAYS HAVE ONE EXTRA OF EVERYTHING. 
          UM, IF WE WANT TO ABANDON THE, WHEN WE GO OR IF WE GO TO ABANDON THOSE 200 ACRES OF IRRIGATION. 
          IN ORDER FOR US TO DO THAT, WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE TWO ADDITIONAL WELLS CONSTRUCTED AND READY TO BE USED BEFORE WE CAN ABANDON THE IRRIGATION. 
          UM, SO OUR WASTEWATER RECLAMATION PLANT FACILITY PLAN LOOKED AT A COUPLE OTHER ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES, AND THE FIRST IS RECLAIMED WATER DELIVERY TO CITY PARKS AND SCHOOLS, AND THEN ALSO ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION OR A WP, WHICH IS TURNING OUR EFFLUENT INTO A DRINKABLE OR A POTABLE DRINKING WATER SOURCE. 
          AND THAT'S THE ONE AWS IS GONNA PAY FOR, RIGHT? A W YEAH. 
          AWS  A WC AND JOHN IS LIKE, YES. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UH, WITHIN THE RECLAIMED WATER DELIVERY ALTERNATIVE, WE HAVE THREE ALTERNATIVES. 
          AND YOU CAN ALSO THINK OF THESE AS PHASES. 
          UM, SO ALTERNATIVE ONE OR PHASE ONE, IT WOULD BE TO DELIVER TO THE HIGH SCHOOL ONLY. 
          WE HAVE EXISTING PIPE MOSTLY. 
          UM, AND IT SHOULD BE NOTED BECAUSE CULTURAL PARK WAS NOT PART OF THIS EVALUATION. 
          IT WILL BE VERY SIMPLE TO DELIVER TO BOTH CULTURAL PARK AND THE HIGH SCHOOL AT THE SAME TIME. 
          IT WOULD JUST BE A SHORT STUB TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY. 
          UM, IT'D BE VERY MINIMAL IMPACT ON WHAT THESE COSTS ARE PRESENTED TODAY. 
          ROXANNE, COULD I ASK WHY WAS DELIVERING TO THE HIGH SCHOOL PART OF ALTERNATIVE ONE AND NOT KIND OF LIKE A ONE A OR SOMETHING? I, I WOULD'VE THOUGHT THAT ALTERNATIVE ONE OR ALTERNATIVE ZERO WOULD BE, LET'S JUST MAKE SURE WHAT WE GOT IS UP TO DATE AND WORKING WELL BEFORE WE START EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF OUR OPERATIONS. 
          UM, SO HOW CAN I ANSWER THAT? SO IF WE'RE GOING TO DELIVER RECLAIMED WATER, I ALWAYS WANNA SAY TO TOWN, BUT NOW WE ARE PART OF TOWN OUT THERE, SO IF WE WANNA DELIVER RECLAIMED WATER, I'M CAN. 
          OKAY. 
          FOR ME TO SAY TO TOWN , UM, REGARDLESS, WE WILL HAVE TO DO THOSE ASSESSMENTS IF WE CHOOSE NOT TO THE PIPELINE ASSESSMENTS OF THE EXISTING PIPE. 
          UM, IF WE CHOOSE NOT TO DELIVER RECLAIMED WATER OR A WP, THAT PIPE CAN JUST STAY IN THE GROUND AND NOT HAVE TO BE REHABBED IN ANY WAY. 
          I, I HOPE THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          YOU KNOW, WE WOULDN'T WANNA DO THE ASSESSMENT IF THERE WASN'T A PLAN TO DELIVER WATER OF SOME FORM OR ANOTHER TO, TO I HEAR, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 
          DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? WE, WE ARE, WE'RE BUILDING COSTS INTO ALTERNATIVE ONE THAT WE MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY USE IF WE DECIDE IF THE SCHOOL DECIDES WATER'S TOO EXPENSIVE FROM US OR OTHER, OR WE OURSELVES DECIDE THAT THE COST OF WATER IS TOO MUCH AND WE'VE, WE'VE SORT OF LOADED ALTERNATIVE ONE WITH TECHNOLOGY 
          [00:45:01]
AND COSTS THAT MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY GET USED. 
          WELL, I THINK BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH CONSTRUCTING ANY OF THIS, WE WOULD LOOK AT WHAT, YOU KNOW, THE COST OF WATER WOULD BE TO THE END USER. 
          WE WOULD LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER PEOPLE WOULD EVEN BE INTERESTED. 
          I MEAN, WE WOULD LOOK AT THIS IN MORE DEPTH BEFORE ACTUALLY MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS. 
          AND THEN, UM, I GUESS I'M WORRIED THOUGH DEVELOPING A RATE STRUCTURE, A RATE STUDY, AND SO I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT HOW WE PACE RATE STUDY AND DECISIONS ABOUT RATE AND THEN TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS THAT FOLLOW LATER. 
          BUT IF WE'VE ALREADY BUILT THE COST INTO THE RATE STUDY, IT KIND OF GETS ALL YEAH, I WILL SAY THAT TYPICALLY, UH, RECLAIMED WATER RATES TO THE END USER ARE TYPICALLY LESS THAN A POTABLE WATER RATE. 
          AND THAT IS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU WANNA ENCOURAGE CONNECTION AND USE CONNECTION AND USE COULD ALSO BE MANDATED BY CITY CODE TOO. 
          SO THERE, THERE'S A FEW DIFFERENT OPTIONS. 
          AND, UM, SO, UM, SO I'LL TURN IT. 
          SO THIS WOULD BE TO THE HIGH SCHOOL AND CULTURAL PARK. 
          I'LL PREFACE IT THAT BRIAN. 
          OH, I'M SORRY, BRIAN. 
          OKAY. 
          SO ROXANNE, I THINK YOU JUST ANSWERED MY QUESTION. 
          SO RECLAIM IS OUR CURRENT A PLUS, CORRECT? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          WHAT'S THE HIGH SCHOOL NEED A PLUS FOR? UM, THEY HAVE A SOCCER FIELD THAT IS GRASS AND SOME, UH, BASEBALL FIELDS THAT HAVE NATURAL GRASS THAT ARE IRRIGATED AND THEN, YOU KNOW, A 40 BEHIND THE ARTIFICIAL TURN, FIELD ROUNDS, IRRIGATION, THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          IT WOULD JUST BE FOR IRRIGATION. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO JUST TAKING A LOOK AT WHAT THIS WOULD LOOK LIKE, UM, DOWN HERE IN THE FAR CORNER, WHICH YOU COULD BARELY SEE IS OUR WASTEWATER RECLAMATION PLANT, AND THERE'S A SHORT YELLOW LINE HERE THAT WOULD BE NEW PIPE THAT WOULD NEED BE TO BE CONSTRUCTED. 
          UM, AND THEN THIS ORANGE LINE IS EXISTING PIPE. 
          IT'S AN EFFLUENT RETURN LINE THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED WHEN, UH, WE ORIGINALLY BUILT OUR PLANT. 
          UH, IT'S OLD, IT'S BEEN DRY IN THE GROUND FOR 30 PLUS YEARS, AND SO WE WOULD NEED TO DO SOME ASSESSMENTS. 
          ALL OF THE COSTS MOVING FORWARD HERE HAS ASSUMED THAT THERE WILL BE SOME REHABILITATION NEEDED TO THAT LINE, BUT THAT IT WOULD BE USABLE. 
          SO WE WOULD DO SOME PIPE LINING AND, AND FIX. 
          IS THAT CAST IRON OR IS THAT PVC OR WHATEVER THE BLACK PIPE IS, WHATEVER IT IS. 
          I BELIEVE IT'S DUCTILE IRON PIPE, BUT IT'S WHAT KIND DUCTILE IRON? I DON'T QUOTE. 
          IT COULD BE PVC. 
          I DON'T. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M QUESTIONING THAT NOW. 
          I DON'T RECALL , SORRY. 
          NO, NO, THAT'S FINE. 
          YEAH. 
          BUT WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OF IT BEING SALVAGEABLE? OH, WITH, WITH TODAY'S TECHNOLOGY OF TRENCHLESS TECHNOLOGIES. 
          GOOD. 
          AND YOU CAN PUT IN PIPELINING AND RELINE THE WHOLE THING AND ESSENTIALLY CREATE A NEW PIPE INSIDE OF THE OLD PIPE. 
          YEAH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, SO ALTERNATIVE TWO OR PHASE TWO WOULD BE TO TAKE IT FROM THE HIGH SCHOOL AND THEN ALSO DELIVER TO, UH, SUNSET PARK. 
          SO WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE, HERE'S THE HIGH SCHOOL THAT EFFLUENT, EXISTING EFFLUENT RETURN LINE GOES ALL THE WAY TO OUR CARROLL CANYON LIFT STATION, WHICH IS LOCATED NEXT TO THE SEDONA RECYCLE CENTER ON SHELBY DRIVE. 
          UM, AND SO THIS, THIS OPTION OR ALTERNATIVE WOULD INCLUDE A, A NEW PIPING FROM THAT LOCATION AROUND SHELBY AND DOWN SUNSET FOR, TO GET TO SUNSET PARK. 
          AND THEN THE FINAL ALTERNATIVE OR PHASE, UM, WOULD BE TO DELIVER TO THE HIGH SCHOOL CULTURAL PARK, SUNSET PARK, JAMESON PARK, POSSE, GROUNDS PARK, AND WEST SEDONA SCHOOL. 
          UM, THOSE ARE THE, THE THREE MAJOR, YOU KNOW, IRRIGATED AREAS WITHIN TOWN OR THE, THE PARKS AND THE SCHOOLS. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THE USE DEMAND OF ALL OF THAT MIGHT BE? UH, WE DID IN THE PLAN, LOOK, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER IS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD WITHOUT LOOKING IT UP, BUT IN THE PLAN WE DID GET, UH, IRRIGATION DEMAND AT THE PARKS. 
          SO WE DO HAVE AN IDEA OF HOW MUCH, YOU KNOW, GALLONS PER MINUTE WOULD BE USED AND HOW MUCH OVERALL PER YEAR WOULD BE USED. 
          DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT FRACTION OF OUR SUPPLY IT IS? UM, NO, NOT WITH THAT. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S IN THE PLAN. 
          IT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE TO JUST KIND OF CALCULATE. 
          UM, ONE THING TO NOTE, YOU KNOW, IRRIGATION IS DEPENDENT ON WEATHER. 
          SURE. 
          LOW AND LOW DEMAND IN THE WINTER, UH, AND DURING RAINY SEASONS. 
          SO, UM, THERE'LL BE TIMES WHERE IT'S A LARGE PORTION OF OUR FLOW AND THEN TIMES WHERE IT'S ESSENTIALLY NONE OF OUR FLOW. 
          KATHY, WHEN THE EXISTING PIPE WAS LAID MM-HMM . 
          WHY WAS IT TERMINATED? WHERE IT WAS TERMINATED AT THAT TIME? WHAT WAS DRIVING THAT DECISION? UM, SO I THINK IT KIND OF TERMINATING AT OUR CARROLL CANYON LIFT STATION IS KIND OF CENTRAL LOCATION IN TOWN WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE COULD DISTRIBUTE IT TO PARKS. 
          UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS ORIGINALLY THERE WANTED TO BE AN OFFSHOOT OUT TO SEVEN CANYONS TO IRRIGATE THAT GOLF 
          [00:50:01]
COURSE, BUT I MEAN, THAT IS SEVERAL MILES AND IT, IT GOT TOO EXPENSIVE. 
          SO HAVE WE RUN A PIPE PIG THROUGH THAT PIPE TO INSPECT? WE HAVE NOT, WE HAVE NOT DONE ANY ASSESSMENTS TO DATE. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, HOW INTENSIVE IS THAT? IS THAT, UH, THERE'S WAYS TO DO IT? YEAH. 
          THERE'S, THERE'S DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES THAT WE CAN USE. 
          UM, IT, UH, UNDERGROUND ASSESSMENT OF PIPES WITHOUT HAVING TO DIG THEM UP OR IS A COMMON THING THIS, THIS DAY AND AGE. 
          SO I JUST NEED TO GO DOWN THAT PATH AND THEN FIND OUT IT'S NOT SERVICEABLE OR WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT TOO. 
          YEAH. 
          WELL, LIKE I SAID, THERE'S PIPE REHABILITATION TECHNOLOGY, UM, IN PLACE THAT WHERE WE CAN ESSENTIALLY JUST PLACE A NEW PIPE WITHIN THAT PIPE OKAY. 
          FOR A MUCH LESS COST THAN IF WE WERE TO TRENCH IN A NEW, A NEW PIPE OR REMOVE THAT AND REPLACE IT. 
          SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE IN REALLY BAD SHAPE FOR THAT NOT TO BE AN OPTION, IT SOUNDS LIKE. 
          RIGHT. 
          YEAH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          HOW DOES THIS PLAY, UM, WITH THE RECHARGE WELLS? SO IF RECLAIMED WATER IS SOME AMOUNT OF IT IS BEING SENT, HOW DOES THAT PLAY WITH THE NECESSARY NUMBER OF RECHARGE WELLS? UH, IT DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE. 
          IT DOESN'T CHANGE. 
          I'LL GO OVER ALL THOSE OPTIONS. 
          THAT'S IN OUR EVALUATION OF ALL THESE ALTERNATIVES. 
          UM, WE, WE HAVE SEVERAL KIND OF SCENARIOS WITH THAT AND SO HOPEFULLY I'LL BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION LATER IN THE PRESENTATION BECAUSE IT JUST FE SEEMS TO ME LIKE IF SOME AMOUNT OF OUR WATER IS GOING ELSEWHERE, WE DON'T, WE'RE NOT SENDING IT EITHER TO THE RECHARGE. 
          WELL, WE'RE NOT SENDING IT TO THE WETLANDS. 
          IT'S RIGHT. 
          THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH THAT WE HAVE. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO YEAH, I WILL SAY THIS, IF WE CHOOSE RECLAIMED WATER DELIVERY, IT WILL NOT REPLACE THE NEED FOR RECHARGE WELLS. 
          THE DEMAND IS JUST NOT THERE. 
          SO, UM, SO THEN THIS IS THE ROUTE FROM SUNSET PARK. 
          WE WOULD JUST KIND OF TAKE IT THIS WAY AND, AND THAT WOULD ALL BE NEW PIPE THAT WOULD NEED TO BE INSTALLED. 
          SO. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO LOOKING AT THE CONCEPTUAL COST FOR RECLAIMED WATER DELIVERY, UM, CAPITAL COSTS RANGE FROM, YOU KNOW, PHASE ONE OR THE HIGH SCHOOL 14 POINT A MILLION DOLLARS ALL THE WAY UP TO $28.6 MILLION TO GET IT TO WEST SEDONA SCHOOL O AND M COSTS, UH, ARE NOT EXORBITANT 200,000 TO $400,000 A YEAR, UM, WITH A COST PER THOUSAND GALLONS RANGING FROM $16 AND 10 CENTS DOWN TO $13 PER THOUSAND GALLONS. 
          THE MORE YOU DISTRIBUTE THE, THE MORE ECONOMICAL IT BECOMES PER PER THOUSAND GALLONS. 
          SO ANY QUESTIONS ON THE COSTS THERE? YES. 
          YES MA'AM. 
          SO IF YOU, I'M SORRY, I'M AHEAD OF THE, UH, THERE WE GO. 
          IF, IF IT'S ROUGHLY 7 MILLION ADDITIONAL RIGHT. 
          PER ALTERNATIVE ONE TO, FROM ALTERNATIVE TWO TO ALTERNATIVE THREE IN TERMS OF THE CAPITAL COSTS, RIGHT. 
          CAPITAL ONLY MM-HMM. 
          FOCUSED ON AT THE MOMENT. 
          HOWEVER, THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO CORRELATE BACK. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT LIKE HOW MUCH NEW PIPE YOU NEED AND THE CONNECTION, IT, IT'S NOT EQUIVALENT. 
          LIKE YOU'RE, YOU'D BE GETTING SO MUCH MORE FOR THE MONEY IN TERMS OF PAYING THE HIGHER COST OF THE 28, YOU KNOW, FOR THE LARGER BECAUSE YOU'RE GETTING, WHY IS, WHY IS THAT SUCH A SAVINGS? IT APPEARS TO ME AS THAT'S A PER UNIT SAVINGS, NOT AN OVERALL, OBVIOUSLY IT'S A BIGGER EXPENDITURE, BUT IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF FEET THAT YOU'RE GETTING FOR SERVICE AND WHAT YOU'D BE ABLE TO SERVICE, IT'LL, IT'S CHEAPER PRICE WISE. 
          UM, SO THE WAY THAT THAT COST PER THOUSAND GALLONS ARE, IS CALCULATED. 
          MM-HMM . 
          UM, LET SEE IF I CAN THAT UP REAL QUICK. 
          IT WAS, UM, THE EQUIVALENT ANNUAL COST, WHICH INCLUDES THE ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COST BROKEN OUT OVER 20 YEARS DIVIDED BY THE FLOW RATE. 
          SO HOW MUCH WATER IS GOING OUT DIVIDED BY A THOUSAND. 
          SO THAT'S HOW WE COME UP WITH THAT. 
          SO THE MORE WATER THAT YOU ARE DISTRIBUTING, THE CHEAPER, THE CHEAPER IT GETS PER THOUSAND GALLON, YOU KNOW, PER GALLON TO, TO, TO SEND OUT THERE. 
          YOU HAVE THE HIGHER CAPITAL INVESTMENT, BUT OPERATING AND DISTRIBUTING DOWN. 
          SO HOW LONG DOWN WOULD IT TAKE TO RECOUP THE DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF, UM, I THINK THAT WOULD, I DON'T KNOW. 
          WE DID NOT EVALUATE THAT. 
          UM, SOME OF THESE COSTS, YOU KNOW, THE PER THOUSAND GALLONS WOULD BE RECOUPED BY, UH, AN END USER RATE THAT WOULD BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH A RATE STUDY. 
          IT'S UNLIKELY THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO CHARGE 13, $13 PER THOUSAND GALLONS FOR PEOPLE 
          [00:55:01]
TO IRRIGATE. 
          I MEAN, WHO, NOBODY'S GONNA PAY THAT WHEN POTABLE WATER IS HALF THAT MM-HMM . 
          SO, UM, A PORTION WOULD BE RECOUPED THROUGH RATES JUST WAITING FOR HER TO FINISH. 
          OKAY. 
          YOU JUST STARTED ANSWERING MY QUESTION. 
          I THINK ROXANNE, BUT JOHN BALLPARK, I MEAN, SHE'S TALKING COST PRICE TO YOU. 
          WHAT IS PRICE LIKE TO THE HIGH SCHOOL PER THOUSAND GALLONS FOR THEM TO IRRIGATE THOSE FIELDS? ANY IDEA? BALLPARK. 
          SO I HAVE YOUR RATES HANDY, . 
          WE DID THAT. 
          I ASKED THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          AND KNOWS , LEMME JUST FIND IT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO ARIZONA WATER COMPANY CHARGES A TIERED RATE FOR WATER AND COMMERCIAL SETTINGS. 
          UH, IT IS, THERE'S A BASE FEE RATE, UH, OF $21 AND 8 CENTS RANGING ALL THE WAY UP TO $2,500 BASE FEE. 
          SO THAT DEPENDS ON YOUR METER SIZE. 
          SO THE SMALLER THE METER, THE LESS COST, THE LARGER THE METER, THE HIGHER THE COST. 
          UM, ON TOP OF THAT BASE FEE, THERE'S A USAGE FEE. 
          THE MORE YOU USE, THE MORE EXPENSIVE IT GETS PER THOUSAND GALLONS. 
          SO CURRENTLY THEIR USAGE FEES RANGE FROM $4 AND 97 CENTS PER THOUSAND GALLONS TO $6 AND 17 CENTS PER THOUSAND GALLONS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO ISN'T IT'S POT, WATER'S, POTABLE WATER, THIS IS RECLAIMED WATER. 
          I UNDERSTAND, BUT WHY ON EARTH WOULD THE, I MEAN, WE'RE NOT GONNA DO THIS AT A LOSS, RIGHT? SO WHY ON EARTH WOULD THE SCHOOL SYSTEM THAT'S HANGING ON BY A THREAD WANNA PAY FOUR TIMES MINIMUM MORE FOR NON-POTABLE WATER RELATIVE TO POTABLE? I MEAN, AM IF, AM I NOT, AM I MISSING SOMETHING OR IS THIS, SHOULD THIS NOT BE JUST DOA RIGHT NOW? HARD, NO, JUST BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMICS ALONE, THERE IS A, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRICE AND COST. 
          ROXANNE HAD MENTIONED EARLIER THAT TYPICALLY RECLAIMED WATER IS PRICED FOR DELIVERY LESS THAN THE COST OF POTABLE WATER. 
          AND FLAGSTAFF, FOR INSTANCE, IT'S 30% OF THE POTABLE WATER COSTS. 
          SO, BUT THIS IS, IT WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDY TO GET IT RUNNING. 
          WHY WOULD WE DO THAT? I, I MEAN, I WAS ALREADY KIND OF AT HARD NO. 
          ON THIS, AND THAT WAS BEFORE ACTUALLY REALIZING THESE ECONOMICS. 
          SO I, I JUST WANTED TO ASK, UH, COUNCILOR KINSELLA STARTED WITH A QUESTION, AND I WASN'T SURE I UNDERSTOOD EXACTLY WHAT YOU WERE SAYING, BUT THESE COSTS ARE INDEPENDENT FROM THE PAS COSTS, WHICH ARE ABOUT THE SAME MAGNITUDE PER A THOUSAND GALLONS. 
          CORRECT. 
          SO THIS IS ADDED TO IF WE CHOOSE PAS AND OKAY. 
          I WASN'T SURE THAT YOU GOT THAT RIGHT. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          I WILL SAY, YOU KNOW, ECONOMICS ASIDE, THE REASON WHY WE WOULD EMPLOY A RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM IS TO OFFSET THE PUMPING OF GROUNDWATER, WHICH IS A, A NATURAL RESOURCE THAT NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED IN ARIZONA, IT'S, IT'S COMMON ACROSS THE ENTIRE STATE. 
          THE ECONOMY OF SCALE IS MUCH BETTER IN LARGER MUNICIPALITIES WHERE THEY HAVE MORE CUSTOMERS AND CAN DELIVER TO MORE. 
          AND THEIR TREATMENT PLANTS AREN'T, YOU KNOW, SEVEN MILES AWAY FROM THE NEAREST CUSTOMER, UH, THAT KIND OF THING. 
          SO IT COMES DOWN TO WATER RESILIENCY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES. 
          OKAY, BUT THIS IS TO WATER GRASS, RIGHT? OR, OR PLANTS. 
          UH, RECLAIMED WATER CAN ALSO BE USED IN A VARIETY OF OTHER THINGS, WHICH WE DID NOT EVALUATE ON, ON WHAT THAT DEMAND. 
          SO SOME GRAY USES, IT CAN BE USED IN TOILET FLUSHING, IT CAN BE USED, UM, WE COULD HAVE LIKE A STANDPIPE IN TOWN WHERE CONTRACTORS COULD COME GET IT FOR, YOU KNOW, DUST CONTROL IN CONSTRUCTION. 
          IT CAN BE USED IN FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS WITHIN BUILDINGS, BUT NOT PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANTS. 
          UM, SO THERE'S A VARIETY OF USES. 
          IT CAN BE USED TO, UH, IRRIGATE FARMLANDS, IT CAN BE USED TO LOTS OF FARMS, UH, PROVIDE LIVESTOCK, YOU KNOW, DRINKING WATER FOR LIVESTOCK OR WE'RE ALLOWED TO, LIVESTOCK IS ALLOWED TO DRINK RECLAIMED WATER. 
          UM, SO THERE'S A VARIETY OF USES THE COWS. 
          AND I WILL SAY TOO, IF, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE CAPITAL COST WOULD INCREASE IF WE CHOSE TO NOT JUST DELIVER TO WATER GRASS AT SCHOOLS, BUT TO DELIVER TO INDIVIDUAL HOMES. 
          RIGHT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, THE COST PER THOUSAND GALLONS WOULD GO DOWN TO US BECAUSE WE'RE DELIVERING TO MORE CUSTOMERS. 
          AND THAT COULD BE USED IN IRRIGATION OF PLANTS, DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM. 
          IT'S, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE, UM, BUT THAT, THAT GRASS, BUT THAT BECOMES A CONSIDERABLE EXPENSE TO EACH HOMEOWNER THAT NOW WANTS TO CONNECT TO IT DOES ANOTHER WATER SOURCE. 
          IT DOES. 
          I 
          [01:00:01]
I, IT, IT BOILS DOWN TO WATER RESILIENCY AND SUSTAINABILITY. 
          SO, SO LET'S GET RID OF GRASS AND LET'S ZERO ESCAPE AND NOT DO THIS. 
          I MEAN, SURE. 
          I MEAN, EVEN WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT FIRE HYDRANTS, ALL THE OTHER EQUIPMENT, THOSE DON'T USE A LOT OF WATER. 
          THEY STAND, HOPEFULLY NEVER GET TO BE NEEDED BECAUSE NO FIRES. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO, UH, YEAH, I HEAR YOU. 
          OTHER ALTERNATIVES, , WHAT'S THAT? OTHER ALTERNATIVES. 
          OKAY, WE CAN MOVE ON. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO NOW WE HAVE ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION. 
          THIS IS TURNING OUR TREATED EFFLUENT INTO A DRINKABLE WATER SOURCE THAT CAN BE DISTRIBUTED TO TAP TO THE TAPS OF RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES WITHIN SEDONA. 
          BEFORE YOU EVEN GO ON THERE, LET ME JUST ASK WHAT COMMUNITIES ACTUALLY DO THAT? AND DO THE RESIDENTS BUY INTO IT? AND ARE THEY FREELY SAYING, I'M GONNA BE DRINKING THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S PURE AND EVERYTHING ELSE? WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT ANY RESIDENT WANTS TO, BECAUSE NO ONE WHERE IT CAME FROM, EVEN THOUGH IT'S TOTALLY PURE. 
          UM, I DON'T THINK IT'S UP TO THE RESIDENT. 
          I THINK IT'S UP TO THE, THE WATER UTILITY ON WHAT THEY SUPPLY IT IS ALLOWED. 
          IN ARIZONA, THE RULES WERE DEVELOPED AND ADOPTED. 
          AND THERE ARE CITIES WITHIN ARIZONA THAT ARE CURRENTLY PERMITTING TO DO THIS. 
          UM, THIS IS COMMON PRACTICE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. 
          I BELIEVE THERE MIGHT BE SOME IN TEXAS AND, AND FLORIDA AS WELL. 
          AND WORLDWIDE, IT'S ALSO A COMMON PRACTICE. 
          SO, BUT THAT MEANS IT'S AVAILABLE. 
          IS IT BEING USED YES. 
          UTILIZED BY THE RESIDENTS? YES, IT IS. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S WHAT MAYOR, I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE A CHOICE. 
          LIKE, IT, IT IS YOUR WATER. 
          YES. 
          IF YOU WANT, YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE WATER IN YOUR HOME. 
          THIS IS, THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE PROVIDING. 
          AND I THINK WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET AWAY, THEY'RE, THEY'RE TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM THE TERM TOILET TO TAP. 
          RIGHT? LIKE THAT'S BEEN THE LESS THAN FA, SAVORY, UH, WAY OF REFERRING TO IT. 
          RIGHT? YEAH. 
          IT'S TRUE THAT THIS, THIS IS TECHNOLOGY THAT'S OUT THERE AND OPERATING IN SOME PLACES. 
          BUT TO BE FAIR, IT'S BEEN ALL PLACES THAT ARE MORE HIGHLY WATER CHALLENGED THAN SEDONA IS WAY MORE CHALLENGED. 
          CORRECT. 
          YEAH. 
          WHERE THE COST OF UN TOILET TO TAP WATER IS HIGH. 
          WAY HIGH. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT THIS WAS A COOL IDEA UNTIL I SAW THE PRICE TAG ON, BUT ARE WE, IF WE WENT AHEAD AND DID SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WOULD WE BE STARTING OUR OWN WATER COMPANY IN ESSENCE? WOULDN'T WE BE COMPETING? WELL, THAT'S WHERE THE PARTNERSHIP WITH ARIZONA WATER COMPANY WILL COME IN. 
          AND, UM, WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT MORE IN THE LATER ON IN THE PRESENTATION. 
          SO, ALL RIGHT. 
          SO WITHIN THE ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION AFFLUENT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE, THERE ARE, AGAIN, THREE ALTERNATIVES WITHIN THE ALTERNATIVE. 
          UM, AND YOU CAN THINK OF THESE AS PHASES AS WELL. 
          SO THE FIRST ONE IS 0.9, MGD, WHICH IS OUR CURRENT FLOWS, BUT ALSO KEEPING OUR RECHARGE WELLS, UM, 1.3 MGD AS FLOWS INCREASE AND KEEPING OUR EXISTING RECHARGE WELLS. 
          AND THEN FINALLY, 1.8 MGD, ASSUMING ALL OF OUR FLOW GOES TO A WP, WE COULD ABANDON OUR EXISTING RECHARGE WELLS. 
          WE COULD KEEP THEM FOR BACKUP. 
          UH, IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ABANDONING, BUT WE WOULDN'T USE THOSE. 
          WE WOULD JUST TREAT THE FULL FLOW AND DELIVER THAT AS A POTABLE WATER SOURCE. 
          UM, SO THE, THE COSTS ON THESE ARE, IT COULDN'T FIT IT ALL ON ONE SLIDE AND MAKE IT READABLE. 
          SO, WE'LL FIRST LOOK AT THE CONCEPTUAL CAPITAL COSTS. 
          UM, I WILL JUST GO DOWN TO THE TOTAL RATHER THAN BREAKING IT OUT. 
          THIS DOES INCLUDE A 30% CONTINGENCY. 
          IT INCLUDES ENGINEERING DESIGN, IT INCLUDES PERMITTING, IT INCLUDES, UM, CONSTRUCTION, THE WHOLE GAMUT OF WHAT IT WOULD COST. 
          SO ALTERNATIVE ONE, A HUNDRED THIRTY TWO $0.2 MILLION TO IMPLEMENT ALL THE WAY OUT TO, IF WE'RE DOING 1.8 MGD SIZED, UH, FACILITY, 161.1 MILLION GALLONS, OR I'M SORRY, MILLION DOLLARS. 
          THE, SORRY, ROXANE, WHAT'S AN INDIRECT COST? UM, INDIRECT COSTS, ENGINEERING PERMITTING. 
          OKAY. 
          THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE CONCEPTUAL O AND M COSTS, UH, A WP REQUIRES A LOT OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. 
          SO ANNUALLY, UH, WE'RE LOOKING AT 2.8 TO FOUR AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY TO OPERATE A SYSTEM LIKE THIS, THAT INCLUDES STAFFING, TRAINING, ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATIONS NEEDED BY OUR STAFF, UM, EVERYTHING. 
          WHERE WOULD THAT, WHERE WOULD THAT FACILITY BE ON, AT OUR WASTEWATER 
          [01:05:01]
TREATMENT PLAN? ACCORDING TO THIS PLAN, YES, THESE COSTS INCLUDE THE RECHARGE WELLS AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS WE'RE PLANNING TO DO. 
          UM, I THINK IF WE WERE GONNA MOVE TOWARDS A WP, WE WOULD WANNA JUST ABANDON THE IDEA OF RECHARGE WELLS AND MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION, GIVEN THE COST. 
          AND WE WOULD ALSO LIKELY ABANDON ANY RECLAIMED WATER DELIVERY AS WELL, WOULD JUST KIND OF ALL GO THAT WAY. 
          THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION. 
          IF YOU'RE GONNA MAKE THIS INVESTMENT, LET'S GO FULL, FULL IN ON THIS, BUT IT SAYS, KEEP TWO EXISTING RECHARGE WELLS. 
          UH, THAT'S BECAUSE AT 0.9, IT WON'T HANDLE ALL OF OUR EFFLUENT. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          SO WE WANTED TO PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, A STEPPED THING, BUT IN MY OPINION, IT WOULD BE LIKE, GO ALL IN. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR EVALUATION OF HOW WE SCORED OUR EXISTING AFFLUENT MANAGEMENT OPTIMIZATION PLAN VERSUS THESE NEW, UH, DELIVERY METHODS OF, OF, UM, RECLAIMED WATER OR A WP. 
          SO, WITHIN OUR RANKING AND SCORING, WE HAD FIVE DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES. 
          WE KIND OF WANTED TO GET A COMBINATION OF THINGS. 
          SO ALTERNATIVE ONE IS KEEPING EVERYTHING THE WAY WE DO IT NOW, IRRIGATION WETLANDS ARE TWO RECHARGE WELLS. 
          AND THEN AS FUTURE CAPACITY IS NEEDED, WE WOULD ADD ADDITIONAL RECHARGE WELLS. 
          ALTERNATIVE TWO IS ABANDONING OUR 200 ACRES OF IRRIGATION AT THE DELLS. 
          WE WOULD HAVE TO ADD THE TWO RECHARGE WELLS NOW FOR THAT. 
          AND THEN TWO ADDITIONAL RECHARGE WELLS UP TO TWO ADDITIONAL. 
          IT COULD BE ONE, IT COULD BE TWO, UM, FOR FUTURE CAPACITY. 
          SOME YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, THERE'S THAT WORD AGAIN, . 
          UM, ALTERNATIVE THREE WOULD BE KEEPING OUR IRRIGATION, OUR WETLANDS, AND OUR CURRENT EXISTING RECHARGE WELLS, BUT IMPLEMENTING THAT RECLAIMED WATER DELIVERY TO PARKS AND SCHOOLS. 
          UM, ALTERNATIVE FOUR WOULD BE ABANDONING OUR IRRIGATION, KEEPING OUR WETLANDS AND OUR EXISTING RECHARGE WELLS, DELIVERING THE RECLAIMED WATER TO PARKS AND SCHOOLS, AND ALSO ADDING RECHARGE WELLS FOR NEEDED CAPACITY IN THOSE OFF MONTHS WHEN RECLAIMED WATER ISN'T BEING USED FOR IRRIGATION. 
          AND THEN FINALLY, ALTERNATIVE FIVE WOULD BE ABANDONING 200 ACRES OF IRRIGATION, KEEPING THE WETLANDS, KEEPING OUR TWO EXISTING RECHARGE WELLS FOR BACKUP, AND THEN IMPLEMENTING ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION AND DELIVERY TO, UM, AS A POTABLE WATER SOURCE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO WHEN WE DID THIS EVALUATION, WE DID, UH, WE EVALUAT WE BROUGHT TO YOU IN JANUARY SOME, YOU KNOW, SIMPLE CRITERIA TO EVALUATE. 
          AND WE, AFTER THE CONVERSATIONS, WE EXPANDED ON THAT BASED ON SOME INPUT FROM COUNCIL. 
          SO HERE'S A LIST OF ALL THE, THE CRITERIA THAT WE HAD. 
          I CAN GO THROUGH THOSE, BUT WE'RE KIND OF, YOU KNOW, OVER AN HOUR INTO THIS. 
          SO, UH, YOU CAN READ THESE FOR YOURSELF AND THE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THOSE ENTAILED. 
          UM, AND WE HAD A TEAM OF FIVE EVALUATORS, TWO STAFF MEMBERS FROM THE TEAM TEAM FOR COROLLA THAT WORKED ON THIS PLAN. 
          AND THEN THREE OF OUR WASTEWATER STAFF. 
          IT WAS MYSELF, KELLY, OUR REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST, AND MIKE, OUR CHIEF WATER CHIEF PLANT OPERATOR. 
          UM, OKAY, SO NOW I'M GOING TO EXIT THIS AND BRING UP OUR EVALUATION, UM, SHEETS. 
          SO I CAN EXPLAIN HOW WE DID THIS PAIRWISE RANKING. 
          SO WHAT WE DID TO COME UP WITH A WEIGHTING FACTOR OF EACH OF THESE CRITERIA, HOW IMPORTANT IS THAT CRITERIA TO THE OVERALL DECISION? WHAT WE DID IS WE CAME IN HERE AND WE SAID, OKAY, CAPITAL COST COMPARED TO OPERATIONAL COST A OR B, WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT? AND WE'LL SAY IT WAS CAPITAL COST. 
          SO WE WOULD PUT AN A IN HERE. 
          UM, AND SO THEN IT CALCULATES THAT'S A HUNDRED PERCENT WAITING FACTOR. 
          SO WE WENT THROUGH THIS AND WE THEN WE COMPARED CAPITAL COST TO LIFECYCLE COST AND DETERMINED WHAT WAS MORE IMPORTANT, AND WE MIGHT SAY C THERE, AND YOU CAN SEE HOW THE, THE WEIGHTING FACTOR CHANGES BASED ON FOUR CAPITAL COST BASED ON ITS COMPARISON TO THE OTHER CRITERIA. 
          AND WE DID THIS, UH, SO FORTH AND SO ON, ALL THE WAY, YOU KNOW, DOWN TO COMPARING O AND M TO PERSONAL PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS. 
          UM, AND THEN FROM THERE, WHAT IT DID IS IT GAVE A RATING FACTOR, UH, A WAITING FACTOR, SORRY. 
          UM, WE DID THIS INDEPENDENTLY, UH, WITHOUT WORKING ON IT AS A GROUP. 
          SO THESE ARE JUST INDIVIDUAL OPINIONS. 
          AND THEN WE CAME TOGETHER AND WE EVALUATED, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE SEDONA AVERAGE WAS, WHAT THE AVERAGE WITH COROLLA WAS, AND THEN COLLECTIVELY WE, WE CHOSE, YOU KNOW, WHAT THAT WAITING FACTOR IS. 
          THEY WERE VERY SIMILAR ALL ACROSS THE BOARD. 
          AND SO THIS WOULD BE THE, THE FINAL WAITING FACTOR OF EACH OF THOSE CATEGORIES 
          [01:10:01]
WITH THE HIGHEST WEIGHTING FACTOR BEING PLACED ON ENVIRONMENTAL, UM, IMPACTS, LIKE BENEFICIAL REUSE OF OUR, OUR EFFLUENT, UH, WATER RESOURCES SUCH AS EX AQUIFER SUSTAINABILITY, AQUIFER SUSTAINABILITY, AND WATER RESILIENCY. 
          UM, DEPENDABILITY OF US TO BE ABLE TO DISPOSE OF OUR EFFLUENT. 
          UM, AND THEN THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF BOTH THE PUBLIC AND OUR, OUR STAFF. 
          SO FROM THERE, WE, AND THIS IS KIND OF SMALL, SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN, WE CAN SEE IT. 
          LEMME DO THIS. 
          UM, SO FROM THERE, WE HAVE EACH, EACH CRITERIA, WE HAVE THE, THE, UM, PAIRWISE RANKING. 
          AND THEN FOR EACH OF THOSE FIVE ALTERNATIVES THAT I WENT THROUGH BEFORE, WHAT WE DID ON A SCALE OF ONE TO 10 IS WE CAME IN AND WE SAID, OKAY, WHEN IT COMES TO CAPITAL COST ALTERNATIVE ONE, UM, FOR CO CONSIDERING COST ONLY, UM, DOES IT GET A, A ONE TO 10 RATING? ONE WOULD BE IT'S THE HIGHEST COST, 10 WOULD BE THE LOWEST COST. 
          SO FOR THIS EXAMPLE, THIS IS JUST KEEPING THE THINGS, THE, THE WAY WE HAVE IT, NOT ABANDONING IRRIGATION, JUST ADDING WELLS FOR, FOR FUTURE USE. 
          UM, WE SCORED THAT A 10 BECAUSE IT IS THE LOWEST COST OF ALL THE ALTERNATIVES. 
          SO WE DID THIS FOR EVERY CRITERIA, FOR EVERY ALTERNATIVE. 
          UM, AND THEN THIS CRITERIA, THIS RATING, THIS, THIS RATING WAS THEN APPLIED THE 7% WEIGHT FACTOR. 
          AND SO THEN IT WOULD GET A 0.7 AND THEN SUMMING UP FOR A TOTAL SCORE OUT OF 10 FOR EACH OF THESE ALTERNATIVES. 
          DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? OKAY. 
          UM, SO I'LL GET OUT OF THAT AND GO BACK TO OUR PRESENTATION, AND THIS IS HOW THE FINAL RANKING TURNED OUT. 
          SO, UM, THESE ARE ORDERED IN, UH, WHAT SCORED HIGHEST TO WHAT SCORED LO LOWEST. 
          UM, AND THEN I ALSO JUST WANTED TO PUT WHAT THAT CAPITAL COST WOULD BE AT THE BOTTOM OF THOSE, SO YOU CAN GET AN IDEA OF WHAT THAT IS. 
          SO RANKING AT NUMBER ONE WAS ABANDONING TWO ACRE, 200 ACRES OF IRRIGATION AND ADDING RECHARGE WELLS. 
          THAT IS OUR 2013 EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT OPTIMIZATION PLAN. 
          UM, SECOND WAS ABANDONING IRRIGATION, ADDING RECHARGE WELLS AND DELIVERING RECLAIMED WATER TO PARKS AND SCHOOLS. 
          THIRD, UH, WHICH KIND OF SURPRISED US GIVEN THE HIGH COST, BUT, UM, THIRD WAS ABANDONING IRRIGATION AND IMPLEMENTING A WP AS A POTABLE WATER SOURCE. 
          UH, SO, AND THEN THE IRRIGATION, KEEPING IRRIGATION RECHARGE WELLS AND RECLAIMED WATER CAME IN FORTH. 
          AND THEN THE, THE L LEAST, UH, SCORING ALTERNATIVE WAS, WAS KEEPING THINGS THE WAY THEY ARE NOW, BUT JUST ADDING RECHARGE WELLS TO, FOR CAPACITY. 
          ANY QUESTIONS ON THE RANKINGS? SO MANY . 
          OKAY. 
          DO WE WANNA TACKLE THOSE NOW, OR I, YOU GUYS, I MEAN, I, I THINK, RIGHT, I'VE GOT LOTS OF QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME OF THE INDIVIDUAL SCORES, ESPECIALLY WHEN I LOOK AT ALTERNATIVE ONE, THE LEAST EXPENSIVE ALTERNATIVE HAS THE MOST ABSOLUTE LOWEST SCORES. 
          AND WHEN I LOOK AT SOME OF THE, WHERE THOSE CRITERIA ARE, BOY, I THINK I COULD DEBATE YOU ALL DAY LONG ABOUT THAT. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU, WHAT I CAN ASK YOU, CAN YOU MAKE ME FEEL BETTER ABOUT IT? CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME EVIDENCE THAT YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THAT AND REALLY LOOK HARD AT THOSE? BUT SURE. 
          SOME OF THOSE SCORES, YOU KNOW, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GIVE ALTERNATIVE ONE A ONE AND THEN THE NEXT LOWEST SCORE IS A FIVE OR SIX. 
          WHEN I LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCES THERE, I JUST, I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT I THINK ALTERNATIVE ONE WAS SCORED FAIRLY. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          SO I CAN, I CAN PROVIDE SOME INSIGHT TO THAT. 
          UM, FROM A SUSTAINABILITY STANDPOINT, IRRIGATING 265 ACRES WITH WATER IS BASICALLY THROWING OUR WATER IN THE TRASH. 
          UM, IN TERMS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL STANDPOINT, IT, IT SERVES NO BENEFIT OTHER THAN JUST BEING ABLE TO, TO DISPOSE OF THE WATER THAT WE TREAT. 
          UM, VERY LITTLE OF THAT WATER MAKES IT TO THE DEEP WATER UNDERGROUND AQUIFERS. 
          DO WE KNOW THAT BY STUDY OR JUST CONJECTURE? WELL, THEY'RE BOTH. 
          UM, WE HAVEN'T STUDIED IT PERSONALLY, BUT GIVEN THE GROUNDWATER DEPTH AND THE, THE GEOLOGICAL LAYERS BETWEEN WHERE OUR GROUNDWATER LAYS AND WHERE THIS WATER IS VERY LITTLE OF IT MAKES IT TO THE, TO THE AQUIFER, IT WILL NOT REPLENISH HONOR. 
          I THINK I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, ADDITIONALLY, IRRIGATION OPERATIONALLY IS DIFFICULT. 
          [01:15:01]
SO WE HAVE LIMITED HOURS. 
          WE CAN RUN IT IN THE WINTER. 
          WE HAVE PIPES THAT FREEZE. 
          IF IT'S A WET WINTER, WE WON'T BE ABLE TO IRRIGATE AT ALL BECAUSE WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO RUN OFF ANY WATER FROM OUR IRRIGATION AREAS OUTSIDE OF OUR PROPERTY. 
          IT'S PART OF OUR PERMIT. 
          UM, WE HAVE A 70 MILLION GALLON RESERVOIR. 
          UM, AND IN MY TIME HERE, UH, EVERY YEAR WE GET NERVOUS WHETHER WE'RE GONNA OVERTOP THAT OR NOT, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO STORE THAT WATER WHEN WE CAN'T IRRIGATE IT. 
          DO YOU HAVE THAT ONE CHART WHERE YOU SHOW THE, FOR EVERY MONTH THE FLOWS FROM THE THREE DIFFERENT SYSTEMS? I DON'T HAVE IT HANDY TO PUT UP. 
          IT APPEARS TO ME IN THAT. 
          SO I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS THAT YOU'RE HAVING. 
          YEAH. 
          BUT APPEARS TO ME IN THAT CHART THAT WE'RE NOT FULLY USING THE INJECTION WELLS THAT WE HAVE ALL THE TIME. 
          AND WHY WOULD NOT THAT BE THE BASE CASE OPERATION THAT YOU FULLY USE THAT AND THEN YOU USE THE OTHER ONES WHEN YOU HAVE TO? SO WE DO, UH, OUR RECHARGE WELLS ARE, WE'RE HAVING PROBLEMS  WITH SOME OF THE EQUIPMENT RIGHT NOW, SO IT HASN'T BEEN USED MA MAJORITY OF THE SUMMER. 
          BUT AS THAT RESERVOIR WA UH, LEVEL FILLS, WE THEN HAVE TO BRING IT BACK DOWN BECAUSE WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO OVERTOP. 
          SO THEN WE HAVE TO FOCUS ON IRRIGATION WHEN THE WEATHER IS IDEAL FOR IRRIGATION. 
          SAME WITH OUR WETLANDS. 
          UM, IN THE SUMMERTIMES, OUR WET IN THE SUMMERTIME, OUR WETLANDS WILL JUST SOAK UP ALL THOSE PLANTS AND ALL THOSE, UH, UH, CATTAILS WILL JUST SOAK UP A TON, LIKE UP TO HALF A MILLION GALLONS A DAY IN THE SUMMER. 
          IN THE WINTER, IT'S ZERO AND THERE'S VERY LITTLE EVAPORATION. 
          SO IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, UH, IT'S KIND OF A CAT AND MOUSE GAME. 
          UM, THE GOOD THING ABOUT THE RECHARGE WELLS IS WE, THEY CAN BE OPERATED 24 7 365, BUT IF WE'RE FEEDING THAT, WE'RE NOT ABLE TO FEED IRRIGATION AT THE SAME TIME. 
          THE WAY THE, THE, THE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED, UM, WE ARE ON AVERAGE DISPOSING OF ABOUT A HUNDRED MILLION GALLONS PER YEAR INTO THOSE RECHARGE WELLS. 
          SO WE ARE CONTRIBUTING ABOUT A QUARTER OF OUR TOTAL EFFLUENT FLOW TO RECHARGE WELLS NOW. 
          SO I, UM, I WAS INTERESTED TO HEAR YOU SAY THAT THEY'RE NOT REALLY WORKING VERY WELL, AND SO NOW WE'RE THINKING ABOUT BUILDING MORE, BUT THAT'S, NO, IT'S NOT. 
          THE WELLS THAT ARE WOR ARE NOT WORKING. 
          WE HAVE SOME EQUIPMENT ISSUES WITH OUR, WE DO A SMALL DOSE OF CHLORINE AND WE GENERATE THAT CHLORINE ON SITE. 
          WE HAVE A MACHINE THAT GENERATES THAT CHLORINE. 
          UM, AND WE'RE HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THAT. 
          AND SO WE ARE, WE'RE NOT FEELING A HUNDRED PERCENT COMFORTABLE, YOU KNOW, GOING GUNG-HO WITH RECHARGE WITHOUT THAT SMALL DOSE OF, OF CHLORINE, NOT BECAUSE THE WATER'S NOT SAFE, BUT BECAUSE WE RISK BIOFOULING THE WELLS AND THEN THERE'S AN EXORBITANT COST TO, TO REHAB THOSE. 
          SO, OKAY. 
          UM, BUT I, I MEAN, YOU ALMOST MADE MY CASE FOR ME, IF WE USE THE WELLS A HUNDRED PERCENT, THE WELL, ONE AT A TIME, YES. 
          IT WOULD LESSEN THE DEMAND ON THE, THE BIG STORAGE FACILITY. 
          RIGHT. 
          IF YOU'RE PUMPING MINE, YOU DON'T, IT DOES, BUT IT DOESN'T ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR THAT STORAGE. 
          NO, IT WOULDN'T. 
          BUT IT WOULD, IT WOULD REDUCE THE DAYS WHERE YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IT OVERFLOWING. 
          IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'D BEEN PUMPING FULL GAS ON THOSE INJECTION WELLS SINCE THE, UH, CONSTRUCTION OF OUR RECHARGE WELLS, THAT IS LESS OF A CONCERN. 
          YOU KNOW, IT HAS MADE AN IMPACT OVERALL TO THOSE RESERVOIR LEVELS OVER TIME, YOU KNOW, AND HOW CLOSE WE GET TO OVER TOPPING, BUT RIGHT. 
          SO THEN MOVING ON, WHEN YOU PUT THE WATER INTO THE AQUIFER, YES. 
          I'M, I'M THINKING ABOUT BENEFICIAL REUSE AND I LOVE PUTTING RECHARGING AQUIFERS, RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT. 
          BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHO'S IT BENEFITING. 
          DO WE KNOW WHERE THAT WATER GOES? UH, GENERALLY FLOWS IN A SOUTHWEST DIRECTION. 
          SO IT'S REALLY NOT A BENEFICIAL USE TO SEDONA REGIONALLY. 
          IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT RECHARGING OUR AQUIFER, IT'S FOLKS DOWNSTREAM OF THAT ARE GETTING THE BENEFIT OF OUR, OF OUR ACTIVITY, PERHAPS. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          AND CURRENTLY WE'RE NOT ABLE TO TAKE CREDIT FOR ANY OF THE CREDITS THAT WE'RE GETTING FOR DOING THAT BECAUSE THE STATE LAW SAYS WE'RE NOT A REGULATED WATER AREA. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO WE ARE BANKING THOSE WATER CREDITS. 
          WE DO HAVE AN UNDERGROUND STORAGE FACILITY PERMIT AND A WATER STORAGE, UH, PERMIT. 
          SO WE DO GET THEORETICAL CREDITS FOR THE VOLUME OF WATER WE'RE CONTRIBUTING TO. 
          THAT CAN'T TIME NOW. 
          IT DOESN'T HOLD ANY VALUE RIGHT NOW MONETARILY, OR, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS TRADING, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT AN INACTIVE MANAGEMENT AREA. 
          UM, THOSE RULES MIGHT CHANGE IN THE FUTURE, BUT IT'S KIND OF, WE'RE JUST KIND OF KEEPING THAT FOR SAFEKEEPING IN CASE IT BECOMES SOMETHING VALUABLE IN THE FUTURE. 
          WELL, BENEFICIAL REUSE REALLY GOES TO COTTONWOOD CITIES DOWNSTREAM, SALT RIVER PROJECT, WHO'S TRYING TO PROTECT THE VERDE RIVER SYSTEM BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT SOME BIG CLAIMS ON IT. 
          AND I SURE WOULD LIKE THEM TO BE SITTING AT THE TABLE PITCHING IN MONEY ABOUT 
          [01:20:01]
IF, IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT EVEN MORE INJECTION OF WATER INTO THE WELLS. 
          I MEAN, LET'S, LET'S HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE BENEFITING. 
          SO THEN WE GO ON, THERE'S A LAND USE TOPIC AS WELL. 
          THIS WOULD BE THE LAST ONE I TALK ABOUT. 
          YOU KNOW, BUILDING HOUSING AT THE DELLS COSTS THE CITY MONEY. 
          IT'S NOT A BENEFICIAL , IT'S NOT A BENEFICIAL SCORE. 
          HOUSING COSTS MORE MONEY THAN WE GENERATE IN ANY KIND OF TAX REVENUES, SALES REVENUES, OR ANYTHING ELSE. 
          SO WHEN WE SAY THAT USING THE 200 ACRES FOR IRRIGATION SCORES, A ONE AND BUILDING HOUSING SCORES, A 10 OR A SIX OR A FIVE OR WHATEVER THOSE NUMBERS ON THERE, BOY, I JUST, I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S A FAIR SCORE. 
          'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT IS A HELPFUL THING. 
          IT'S A COSTLY THING. 
          UM, I WILL SAY WHEN WE DID THIS EVALUATION, WE HAD NO MIND, WE HAD NO USE IN MIND FOR THE DE'S LAND. 
          IT WAS JUST LIKE, ARE WE GOING TO GIVE UP IRRIGATION? ARE WE GOING TO KEEP IT? IT REALLY DID NOT FACTOR INTO WHAT WOULD OR COULD OCCUR AT THE DELLS. 
          UM, THERE WAS THAT ECONOMIC FACTOR, WHICH, UH, WAS GENERALIZED IN LIKE, DOES THIS MAKE AVAILABLE LAND FOR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER. 
          IT COULD, IT COULD BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IT COULD BE, UH, COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, CENTERS. 
          IT COULD BE GOLF COURSES, IT COULD BE CROP, YOU KNOW, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT USE WOULD BE. 
          AND WE DIDN'T FACTOR THAT INTO OUR EVALUATIONS. 
          IT WAS MORE LIKE, COULD THERE BE SOME KIND OF REVENUE FROM THAT? BUT COULD THERE ALSO BE SOME KIND OF COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT YOU DIDN'T FACTOR IN THAT REVENUE GENERATED? THEN IT'S REALLY A SCORE OF ONE FOR WETLAND. 
          'CAUSE IT WAS IRRIGATED AND A SCORE OF FIVE OR SIX FOR LAND THAT DOESN'T EVER GET IRRIGATED. 
          AND I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DELTA ON THAT SCORE. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THAT'S RAW. 
          THAT'S ALL STUFF. 
          TAKE THAT. 
          OKAY, BRIAN AND THEN DEREK. 
          THANK YOU MAYOR. 
          ROXANNE, WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE POSSIBLE IDEA OF TAKING OUR WATER AND PORTING IT TO THE VERDE? UH, WE DID A PILOT TEST ON THAT. 
          SO THAT PILOT TEST WAS DONE BY THE YAVAPAI APACHE NATION OR CONSULTANTS FOR THE YPI APACHE NATION. 
          UM, I'M GONNA ASK KURT TO HELP ME WITH THIS ISSUE ON HOW THAT CAME , HOW THAT ALL KIND OF CAME OFF THE TABLE, UH, WITH THE YAVAPI APACHE NATION IN DELIVERING WATER TO THE VERDE. 
          I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND I WAS PART OF THE COUNCIL DECISION THAT TOUCHED ON THIS, BUT JUST FROM A, HEY, IF WE WANT TO GET RID OF OUR TREATED WATER, IT, WHAT WOULD BE OUR COST TO DO THAT TO, TO DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WATER? MM-HMM . 
          UH, WE WOULD NEED ADDITIONAL SIGNIFICANT TREATMENT TO REMOVE NITROGEN TO MEET WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR A SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE. 
          SO IS THERE A BALLPARK PERMIT COST OF WHAT THAT PERMIT, I MEAN, DID NO, THAT WAS NOT EVALUATED BY THE CITY AT ALL. 
          UM, THAT WOULD'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, THE CONSULTANT FOR YAVAPI APACHE NATION THAT DID THAT EVALUATION. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE. 
          THOSE WERE NOT SHARED WITH US IF YOU'S DONE. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT I MEAN, SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD'VE BEEN WORTH TO KNOW. 
          I MEAN, IF IT'S A $50 MILLION PRICE TAG, YEAH, THAT'S PROBABLY NOT VERY INTERESTING. 
          IT, IT PROBABLY WOULD BE WITH THE ADDITIONAL TREATMENT, THE PROXIMITY OF OUR TREATMENT PLANT TO THE VERDE RIVER, ANY KIND OF, YOU KNOW, NUANCES WITH THAT. 
          IT, IT WOULD BE TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO IMPLEMENT THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          I, I DON'T, I DON'T, UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING YOU NEED TO SHARE, KURT. 
          I DON'T, I DON'T NEED ANYTHING FURTHER UNLESS MY COLLEAGUES DO. 
          I WANNA PIGGYBACK ON THAT THOUGH. 
          ISN'T THERE A SCENARIO IN WHICH, UM, SOMEBODY WHO, TO WHOM WE WERE GIVEN, YOU KNOW, THAT WATER WAS AN AGREEMENT FOR THEM TO BE THE RECIPIENT, UM, OF THEM COVERING THE COST FOR BRINGING IT UP TO THOSE NITROGEN LEVELS REQUIREMENTS? UH, IT NEVER REALLY GOT TO THAT LEVEL OF DISCUSSION. 
          IT WAS MORE JUST CONCEPTUAL. 
          CAN WE STUDY, YOU KNOW, WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO DO THIS, BUT IT NEVER GOT TO NEGOTIATING, YOU KNOW, COST SHARING. 
          BUT I GUESS MY POINT IS, THERE COULD BE A SCENARIO WHERE IT DOESN'T HAVE AN ADDITIONAL COST TO US FOR THAT, BECAUSE WE COULD PASS THAT ON TO WHOEVER'S THE RECIPIENT OF THE WATER. 
          RIGHT. 
          E EXCEPT THAT IF IT, IF THE AGREEMENT WAS A IN PERPETUITY AGREEMENT AND WE ENDED UP IN A ACTIVE WATER MANAGEMENT AREA IN TERMS OF A COUPLE OF THE WELLS BEING CONSIDERED SURFACE INSTEAD OF GROUND, THEN, THEN WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THAT. 
          RIGHT. 
          I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT RIGHT. 
          BLEW EVERYTHING UP. 
          RIGHT. 
          WHY WOULD, RIGHT. 
          WHICH I THINK SINCE WE NEVER KNOW WHAT'S COMING DOWN THE PIPE, HA HA HA. 
          [01:25:01]
UM, WHY WOULD WE EVER HAVE AN IN PERPETUITY AGREEMENT? YOU KNOW? IT SHOULD ALWAYS BE SOMETHING THAT HAS A SUNSET AND REVISITED AND VETTED AND, YOU KNOW, SO AGAIN, THOUGH, IN THAT INTERIM COST COULD BE PASSED ON. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT IN THE MEANTIME, THE ENTITY HAS SOURCED WATER NOW IS MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          RIGHT. 
          THEY DON'T NEED OUR WATER NOW. 
          LIKE I THINK THE SITUATION IS MOOT. 
          KURT, DID YOU WANT TO JUSTIFY ON IT ANYWAY OR? NOPE. 
          YOU'RE GOOD. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT IT SEEMS EVERYONE'S RECOLLECTION IS CORRECT, SO, OKAY. 
          BRIAN, ARE YOU DONE? I'M GOOD, THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, KATHY, YOU HAD YOUR FOLLOW UP? YES, I DID SOMETHING. 
          DEREK, IF WE ABANDON THE IRRIGATION TO FREE AND FREE IT UP FOR DEVELOPMENT, DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S ANY LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE TO MAKE THAT USABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT OR, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WOULD BE, BECAUSE IT IS IS WATER THAT'S TREATED TO A PLUS RECLAIMED WATER STANDARDS THAT IS IRRIGATED OUT THERE. 
          IT'S THE SAME WATER WE, WE RECHARGE INTO THE AQUIFER. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN I ? SURE. 
          HOW LONG, HOW MANY YEARS HAVE WE BEEN, UM, PUTTING EFFLUENT WATER ON THAT LAND? UM, SINCE THE PLANT WAS BUILT, IRRIGATION WAS, OKAY. 
          SO SINCE, AND WE HAVEN'T ALWAYS NINETIES BEEN SINCE. 
          YES. 
          AND YOU HAVEN'T ALWAYS BEEN CORRECT A PLUS. 
          CORRECT. 
          SO FOR HOW MANY YEARS IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHEN WE STARTED PUTTING EFFLUENT AND WHEN WE BECAME A PLUS? UM, ROUGHLY 30, 20. 
          YEAH. 
          SO I THINK THERE MIGHT BE SOME ISSUES WITH THE LAND THAT WE WOULD WANNA MAKE SURE WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD NEED ANY MITIGATION OR REMEDIATION OF THAT LAND BEFORE WE WOULD PUT EITHER THE PLANTS THAT PEOPLE EAT OR WHETHER WE PUT PEOPLE THERE. 
          WE PROBABLY WANNA MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THAT WAS DONE AND THEN THERE COULD THEREFORE BE COST NOT ONLY IN THAT STUDY, BUT ALSO IN REMEDIATION ITSELF, POTENTIALLY. 
          YES. 
          SO HYPOTHET, IF WE HAD SOME LAND, UH, IN THE CITY WHERE WE WANTED TO PUT OUR OWN MANMADE LAKE, COULD WE PUT THE WATER TO THAT AND CONSTANTLY RECHARGE AND LET THAT GO BACK INTO THE GROUND? YES, I BELIEVE SO, YES. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL SET. 
          SO WOULD THE LAKE BE ANY DIFFERENT THAN THE PONDS THAT WE HAVE NOW? NO. 
          UH, NO. 
          NO. 
          IT'D BE EXACTLY THE SAME. 
          UM, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I WAS UNDERSTANDING. 
          YEAH, SO YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SWIM IN THE LAKE, I BELIEVE, RIGHT? FOR THE RULES, IT'S NON, NON-USABLE EXCEPT BY WILDLIFE. 
          RIGHT. 
          I'M NOT SURE IF I LIKE THE IDEA ANYWAY. 
          I JUST WANT TO ASK THE QUESTION. 
          WELL, THE SWIM IN THE SAME, I DON'T KNOW, POOL. 
          UM, WELL, YEAH, THERE WE GO. 
          AT THE POOL. 
          AT THE AT, YEAH. 
          THE SALT WATER POOL. 
          WE NOW NEVERMIND , IT'S NOT ALLOWED IN, IN IN POOLS. 
          , UM, UH, ALTERNATIVE FIVE IS NOW, UM, THE THIRD, WHICH IS A WP CORRECT. 
          ADVANCED WATER. 
          AND MY QUESTION IS, IN THE CONVERSATION THAT YOU AND I HAD HAD, YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO DO A WP WITHOUT HAVING TO DO PFAS FIRST, CORRECT? RIGHT. 
          AND THE 161 MILLION DOESN'T INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL 18 MILLION THAT YOU WOULD NEED IN ORDER TO DO THE PAS TREATMENT. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? OR DOES THE 1 61 INCLUDE THAT? NO, IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THAT. 
          RIGHT. 
          THAT'S JUST FOR TAKING IT. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO THE TOTAL COST IS ACTUALLY 1 61 PLUS THE ADDITIONAL 18 THAT YOU WOULD NEED TO DO PFAS AT THAT SAME LEVEL? CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          JUST WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYONE IS AWARE OF THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          UH, SO JUST TO REITERATE, PFAS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO. 
          A WP WOULD BE AN OPTION TO US, SO, CORRECT. 
          BUT, BUT HERE YOUR ALTERNATIVE THAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING IS ABANDON THE IRRIGATION, IMPLEMENT A WP AND POTABLE WATER DELIVERY, WHATEVER ALL OF THAT WOULD BE. 
          YOU STILL BEHIND THAT, YOU HAVE ANOTHER 18 MILLION, SO IT'S REALLY A WHAT, 179 MILLION, 180 MILLION IN, IN ORDER FOR US TO DO THAT. 
          SO I'M GONNA ASK THE SAME QUESTION. 
          WHAT I'M, WHAT WHAT I'M SAYING IS REGARDLESS, WE'RE DOING THE PAS, SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL COST TO GET TO A WP BECAUSE REGARDLESS, WE'RE DOING PFAS TREATMENT. 
          AS LONG AS IT'S REGULATED, IT'S STILL A ADDITIONAL COST MAYBE. 
          SO WE CAN DO, IT'S STILL ADDITIONAL COST. 
          MY WHOLE POINT IS THAT THE BOTTOM LINE WE'RE WHAT WE, WHAT WHEN WE DO THE PFAS IS A CONVERSATION THAT THIS GROUP HAS TO HAVE. 
          WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO TRY TO GET AHEAD OF IT OR WAIT UNTIL YOU TELL US TOO BAD. 
          NOW YOU HAVE TO DO IT. 
          WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO THAT. 
          I AGREE. 
          BUT THERE'S STILL THAT UNDERLYING, I DON'T WANT ANYTHING TO APPEAR 
          [01:30:01]
HIDDEN TO ANYONE WHO MAY BE THINKING ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          IT'S, WE STILL, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO 18 MILLION BEFORE WE DO THE 161 MILLION, REGARDLESS OF WHEN WE DO THE 18 MILLION. 
          WELL, AND THAT WOULD BE TRUE FOR ANY OF THESE ALTERNATIVES. 
          RIGHT? SO THAT THEORY, YOU WOULD ADD 18 MILLION TO EACH ONE OF THESE ALTERNATIVES. 
          I'M NOT, I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH THAT. 
          I'M JUST, I'M JUST SAYING THIS NUMBER'S REALLY BIG AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE AWARE IT'S ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIGGER THAN THIS. 
          RIGHT. 
          THAT, THAT'S ALL I WAS YEAH, THAT'S ALL I WAS SAYING. 
          UM, THANK YOU. 
          IT'S ONE WAY HALF, HALF A DOZEN, THE OTHER TYPE OF WAY TO LOOK AT IT. 
          YEAH. 
          SO ROXANNE, ALTERNATIVE TWO IS WHAT WE'D BEEN PLANNING TO DO? CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, I THOUGHT THOSE WELLS WERE 5 MILLION A PIECE, FIVE POINT SOMETHING MILLION A PIECE, RIGHT? MM-HMM . 
          AS THE LAST CALCULATION THAT COULD BE, YEAH, IT COULD BE MORE SIX MONTHS AGO, A YEAR AGO. 
          AND SO ON ALTERNATIVE TWO, IT DOESN'T SAY HOW MANY RECHARGE WELLS WE WOULD BE ADDING. 
          WE'D BE ADDING THE FOUR. 
          UH, SO WE WOULD, WE WOULD NEED TWO RECHARGE WELLS RIGHT AWAY TO ABANDON THAT IRRIGATION. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND THEN UP TO TWO. 
          SO IT COULD BE ONE, IT COULD BE TWO. 
          UM, DOES THE 22 MILLION ASSUME FOUR? IT ASSUMES FOUR. 
          YES. 
          AT TODAY'S DOLLARS,  AT TODAY'S DOLLARS IN ADDITION TO PFAS, WE HAVE IN ADDITION TO P, WHICH BY CORRECT STATUTE CORRECT. 
          I WANNA KEEP GETTING THAT OUT THERE. 
          THAT, SO THERE IS A PO THERE IS POTENTIAL THAT WE WOULDN'T NEED A SIXTH. 
          WELL, YOU KNOW, WE DID THE BEST WE COULD TO LOCATE THESE WELLS AND MAXIMIZE HOW MUCH WATER THEY WOULD TAKE. 
          UM, BUT UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY START TO USE THEM, YOU WON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT FIVE WILL GET US THE CAPACITY WE NEED OR WE WOULD NEED A SIXTH ONE. 
          IT IT REALLY IS DEPENDENT ON, ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WELLS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN, UH, ALL OF THESE ALTERNATIVES INCLUDE MAINTAINING THE WETLANDS, RIGHT? CORRECT. 
          YEAH. 
          DEREK AND I, MYSELF AND THEN MELISSA. 
          SO I'M STILL HUNG UP ON THE QUESTION ABOUT MITIGATION. 
          HOW WOULD WE ANSWER MELISSA'S QUESTION? WOULD WE DO PHASE TWO TESTING? TAKE A COUPLE CORINGS, SEE WHAT'S THERE? YEAH, THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO. 
          KIND OF TAKE SOME SOIL, UH, SAMPLES AND EVALUATE THE, THE IMPACT OF OUR IRRIGATION ON THE, THE QUALITY OF THAT SOIL TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT, I MEAN, DOES THE A ONE PUSH THE AFFLUENT DOWN TO THE POINT WHERE IT WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE OR WE DON'T, I DON'T KNOW. 
          THIS WORKS, SO I CAN'T, YOU DON'T REASONABLY ANSWER THAT. 
          WE'D HAVE TO TAKE, BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO ADDITIONAL FOLLOW UP STUDIES TO DETERMINE THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN I PIGGYBACK FOLLOW UP? NO, I WANTED TO PIGGYBACK YOU, YOU PIGGYBACKING TOO, YOU HAVE TO PIGGYBACK ON DEVICE  IS, BESIDES POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION, IS THERE SOMETHING WITH HAVING SPRAYED FOR 20 YEARS, NOT QUITE 20 YEARS ON A, ON A PIECE OF LAND THAT WOULD HAVE OTHER CONSEQUENCES BESIDES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES? MELISSA MENTIONED THAT AGAIN, AGAIN, WE'D PROBABLY NEED TO LOOK INTO THAT. 
          YEAH, I, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT TODAY UNFORTUNATELY, BUT I UNFORTUNATELY ARE THERE OTHER THINGS BESIDES THAT COULD HAPPEN? YEAH. 
          UM, I CAN'T REALLY THINK OF, YOU KNOW, ONE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD ON THE SPOT HERE, I'LL TELL YOU WHAT I WAS THINKING. 
          THERE'S SEVERAL REASONS FOR WHY WE WOULD WANNA ABANDON THE, THE 200 ACRES AND ONE OF WHICH WOULD BE DEVELOPING IT POTENTIALLY. 
          YES. 
          POTENTIALLY. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO THAT'S WHY I AM THINKING IS IT POSSIBLE BESIDES, UM, ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE MITIGATED, WOULD SPRAYING WATER ALL THOSE YEARS DO SOMETHING TO THE SOIL TO MAKE DEVELOPMENT MORE DIFFICULT? DESTABILIZATION WITH, WITHOUT TALKING LIKE COMPACTION OR SOMETHING? YEAH, YEAH. 
          WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, TAKING SOIL SAMPLES AND EVALUATING IT, DOING SOME GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION, THEORETICALLY. 
          I DON'T KNOW. 
          I CAN'T EVEN ANSWER THAT AT A THEORETICAL BASIS. 
          I DON'T KNOW. 
          ANDY, CAN YOU, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? I, I KIND, I TEND TO AGREE THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO DO SOME FURTHER ANALYSIS ON THAT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, LIKELY YOU'RE GONNA HAVE MINERAL DEPOSITS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          UH, YOU KNOW, HOW IS THAT THE, THE NICE THING IS THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A REALLY STEEP SLOPE HERE THAT COULD HAVE ISSUES GEOLOGICALLY, LIKE LIQUI ACTION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          I DON'T SEE THAT BEING AN ISSUE, BUT, UM, I DO THINK IT MERITS FURTHER INVESTIGATION FOR SURE. 
          SO, SO MY TAG ON, AND ANDY, YOU'RE PROBABLY THE ONE TO ANSWER IT. 
          WHAT'S A BALLPARK COST? TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WOULD THERE BE REMEDIATION REQUIRED, 
          [01:35:02]
UH, AN INVESTIGATION LIKE THAT? I WOULD EXPECT IT TO BE UNDER 10,000. 
          UH, I'D LOVE TO SEE DIRECTION FROM MY COLLEAGUES TO SAY, LET'S, LET'S, LET'S DO THAT. 
          LET'S FIND OUT, BECAUSE IT'S A TOPIC THAT COMES UP IN THE COMMUNITY REGULARLY AND LET'S KNOW, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER MM-HMM . 
          IF WE HAVE AT LEAST ONCE A DAY COMES UP. 
          YEAH, I, I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. 
          SOMETIMES 10 TIMES A DAY. 
          UH, WHAT'S THAT? SOMETIMES 10 TIMES A DAY. 
          EXACTLY. 
          BUT I MEAN, IF WE'RE GONNA THINK ABOUT IF WE'RE GONNA FACTOR INTO THIS, THE FACT THAT WE MAY BE ABLE TO USE THIS LAND FOR SOMETHING ELSE, I JUST, I WANT TO KNOW THE, KNOW THE WHOLE THING. 
          SAME THING WITH LIKE THE PIPELINE. 
          I WANT TO KNOW THE CONDITION OF THE PIPELINE BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION. 
          'CAUSE IT COULD BE DIFFERENT. 
          WORST CASE SCENARIO, ANDY, WORST CASE, WHAT COULD, WHAT COULD WE FIND OUT WITH THAT REPORT THAT WE'D HAVE TO RECLAIM THE, THE, UH, LAND TAKE 200 ACRES OF TOP SOIL, THE FIRST FOOT, TWO FOOT, THREE FOOT, FIVE FOOT OF DIRT OUT. 
          I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS? ONE, UH, BENEFIT THAT WE HAVE IS WE HAVE A MOUNTAIN OF MATERIAL RIGHT ACROSS THE HIGHWAY. 
          YOU SURE DO. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE WORST CASE IS THAT WE HAVE TO DO SOME SOIL AMENDMENTS TO, YOU KNOW, EXCAVATE OUT AND REPLACE MATERIAL AND THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A VERY LARGE AREA THERE. 
          MM-HMM . 
          SO, YOU KNOW, COULD WE LIMIT THAT TO CERTAIN AREAS OR, OR, YOU KNOW, THAT ARE LIVABLE OR WHATEVER THE CASE THAT I THINK THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE ANALYSIS FOR SURE. 
          THAT'S A WORST CASE SCENARIO, RIGHT? YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, ROXANNE, WHAT'S THE SIZE OF THE, THE RADIUS OF ONE TANK, UH, ACRES? UH, AN ACRE OR A HUNDRED, COUPLE HUNDRED FEET? A WELL, A, WELL, A WELL, YES. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          UH, EACH WELL SITE IS APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE IN SIZE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IF YOU NEED SIZE WOULD BE FOUR ACRES. 
          AND WOULD THAT LAND BE BUILDABLE ON TOP OF, OR YOU CAN'T BUILD ON TOP? NO, NO. 
          YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD ON TOP OF IT, WOULDN'T IT BE ON THE SAME SIDE AS THE TREATMENT PLANT? UM, SO WE HAVE, WE HAVE SEVERAL WELL LOCATIONS. 
          I BELIEVE THERE WOULD BE ONE MORE OVER ON THE DELLS AREA, AND THEN THE REST OF THEM WERE ON THE TREATMENT PLANT SIDE. 
          IF I RECALL CORRECTLY. 
          THEY WERE, THE LOCATIONS WERE DONE ON THAT OPTIMIZATION PLAN. 
          MM-HMM . 
          I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK THOUGH EXACTLY WHERE THEY ARE. 
          RIGHT. 
          I, WE TALKED ABOUT IT A LONG TIME AGO, BUT YEAH, I, I RECALL IT THE WAY YOU JUST DESCRIBED, BUT I WOULD THINK THAT WHEN WE'RE TALKING 200, 200 ACRES, THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM. 
          YEAH. 
          IF YOU LOSE FIVE OR 10 ACRES, EVEN TO THE TREATMENT PLAN, THAT'S NOTHING. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          I JUST WANTED TO KNOW. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          I THINK, WAS THERE ONE MORE QUESTION? I KNOW, PETE, I'M SURE YOU HAVE 20 OR 30 QUESTIONS, BUT I HAVE, I HAVE ONE. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO STILL ON ALTERNATIVE FIVE, UH, WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, UM, I DON'T KNOW WHO NOW BROUGHT IT UP, BUT IN THIS CASE, WOULD WE LOOK TO HAVE SOME KIND OF A PARTNERSHIP WITH SAY ARIZONA WATER COMPANY WHERE THEY WOULD HELP DEFRAY THE COSTS? THEY HAVE PLENTY OF MONEY SINCE WE ARE NOT, I DIDN'T SAY THAT RATE INCREASE, BUT WE YEAH, THAT'S OKAY. 
          JOHN, DON'T HAVE A HEART. 
          I DIDN'T SAY THAT, JOHN. 
          I JUST WANNA SAY THAT  DON'T HAVE A HEART ATTACK, JOHN, US . 
          BUT THE POINT BEING THAT WE'RE NOT A WATER COMPANY. 
          YOU HAD SAID EARLIER WE'RE NOT PLANNING ON CREATING OUR OWN WATER UTILITY AND THEREFORE THIS WATER WOULD BE STORED SOMEWHERE UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE WATER COMPANY THAT CURRENTLY SERVES SEDONA. 
          SO THAT GIVES US EITHER OAK CREEK WATER OR ARIZONA WATER COMPANY. 
          UM, I'M ASSUMING THAT SINCE THEY'RE GETTING ALL THIS POTABLE WATER, THAT THERE'S SOME CHARGE INVOLVED OR THERE'S SOME FEE MITIGATION INVOLVED DURING THE BUILD OUT. 
          I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU'D HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. 
          I'M STARING AT JOHN TOO. 
          I'M TRYING TO LOOK AT BOTH OF YOU SIMULTANEOUSLY. 
          SO I DON'T, TERRY SUE IF YOU WANNA CHIME IN ON THIS, BUT, UM, YES, THERE WOULD BE A PARTNERSHIP AND AGREEMENT THAT WOULD BE NEEDED WITH ANY WATER UTILITY COMPANY THAT WE PARTNER WITH TO PROVIDE THIS WATER TO. 
          AND THAT WOULD OUT OUTLINE NOT ONLY THE COST SHARINGS, BUT THE RESPONSIBILITY SHARING. 
          SO DOES THE CITY TREAT IT TO A WP STANDARDS AND THEN HAND IT OFF? DO WE DELIVER IT ALL THE WAY UP THE HILL TO THEM AND THEN HAND IT OFF? DO WE JUST DELIVER 'EM OUR WATER NOW AND THEN THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR TREATING IT TO A WP STANDARDS AND WE'RE NOT EVEN A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE IF THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED BY A DAQ. 
          SO WE, WE HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT. 
          BUT, UM, THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT SCENARIOS AND THE DETAILS OF THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, FAR BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS PLAN. 
          SO WE HAVEN'T EVEN EXPLORED THAT. 
          UH, WE'RE KIND OF HOPING FOR DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL. 
          DO WE WANNA GO DOWN THAT ROAD AND 
          [01:40:01]
START HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS OR WHAT? UM, AND I, I HAVE SOME OF THAT IN LATER IN THE PRESENTATION AS WELL. 
          SO I KNOW YOU HAVE 10 MORE SLIDES TO GO. 
          . 
          I KNOW THERE GOES MY HOUR, UH, ESTIMATE OF MY PRESENTATION. 
          RIGHT. 
          UM, OKAY, SO ARE WE, WE, ARE WE OKAY TO MOVE AWAY FROM THIS RANKING? AND I JUST HAVE PROBABLY NOT. 
          ONE MORE LITTLE QUESTION. 
          AN ALTERNATIVE ONE, WHY WOULD WE KEEP THE EXISTING IRRIGATION AND ADD TWO NEW RECHARGE WELLS? UM, BECAUSE WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN PLACE, THE IRRIGATION, THE TWO RECHARGE WELLS IN THE WETLANDS WILL NOT SUSTAIN US THROUGH BUILD OUT FLOWS. 
          SO WE WILL NEED ADDITIONAL CAPACITY IN THE FUTURE. 
          A TIMEFRAME FOR THAT, UH, , IF I HAD A CRYSTAL BALL, YES. 
          UM, NO, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, DON'T YOU HAVE PROJECTED DEMANDS OUT TO, WE, WE HAD A, FROM OUR 2018 MASTER PLAN EFFORTS, WE HAD A 2027 PROJECTION OF 1.6 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY. 
          UH, WE'RE AT 2025 AND WE'RE STILL SITTING AT 1.2 EVEN GIVEN, YOU KNOW, RESORT DEVELOPMENT AND WHATNOT. 
          SO IT COULD BE 50 YEARS FROM NOW, IT COULD BE 30 YEARS FROM NOW, LIKELY FAR INTO THE FUTURE FOR THOSE BUILD OUT. 
          WE COULD STILL BE ON THE COUNCIL SITTING HERE ON THE DAY. 
           THE SAME SIDE OF QUESTIONS. 
          SAME, THE SAME SET THE QUESTION. 
          THAT'S RIGHT, DEREK. 
          SO IS OUR DIRECTION, IS OUR DIRECTION TO STAFF TO DO PHASE TWO TESTING AND GEOTECH TESTING? SO WE KNOW. 
          WELL, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT THOUGH. 
          AND THIS GOES, I GUESS TO ANDY. 
          SO WHEN WOULD THAT BE, WHERE IS, WHERE ARE YOU GUYS CAPACITY WISE TO TAKE NOW THAT PROJECT ON? WE HAVE PLENTY OF . 
          OH, IT'S, YEAH. 
          THE ANALYSIS. 
          YEAH, I MEAN, I MEAN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT ROXANNE'S GROUP COULD HANDLE. 
          YEAH. 
          IT WOULD SIMPLY JUST BE HIRING A CONSULTANT TO DO THAT ANALYSIS. 
          SO IT WOULDN'T BE A HUGE TIME COMMITMENT OR HOPEFULLY ONE OF THOSE PRE-APPROVED, UH, CONSULTANTS THAT WE JUST, UH, DO WE DO HAVE A CATEGORY FOR THAT IN THOSE MSAS? IT'S TRUE. 
          THAT WOULD APPLY. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE, SO ARE WE GIVING THE, WE DO HAVE A CONSENSUS NOW, CAN WE? YES. 
          I THINK WE, I'M NOT, I'M NOT, I THINK WE'RE PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE ON THIS. 
          I THINK THERE'S REALLY BIG QUESTIONS THAT HAVE TO BE ANSWERED FIRST ABOUT WHETHER THERE'S ANY DEMAND FOR ANY OF THIS WATER AND WHETHER OR USAGE, IF THERE'S NO DEMAND FOR IT, THEN THERE'S NO REASON TO DO IT AND WE STICK WITH WHAT WE GOT. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW WHY WE LET THE DECISION ABOUT WHETHER GEOTECHNICALLY THE ACRES IS READY FOR DEVELOPMENT OR NOT. 
          WHEN WE GOT BIG QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER SOMEONE IS GONNA HELP US PAY FOR THIS STUFF OR ANYONE WOULD EVER BUY IT. 
          I THINK WE'RE GONNA SAY THE SAME THING ANYWAY. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, BRIAN? YEAH, I THINK COUNSELOR FURMAN, MY, MY VIEW IS, IS THE, THE GEOTECHNICAL QUESTION IS NOT ABOUT CAPACITY OR, UM, UH, HOW WE, UH, MANAGE EFFLUENT. 
          IT IS ANSWERING A STRATEGIC QUESTION THAT WE FACE. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT SEPARATE FROM THIS WHOLE MATTER, YOU'RE GONNA STIR UP A POLITICAL CONVERSATION THAT IS FAR TOO EARLY FOR US, TO BE HONEST. 
          IT'S ALREADY STIRRING, THE POT IS BEING TURNED DAILY, SO I SEE NO REASON NOT TO HAVE THE ANSWER RATHER THAN SPECULATE ON IT. 
          MM-HMM . 
          ANY LONGER THAN NECESSARY. 
          THANK YOU, KATHY. 
          YEAH, I, YEAH, I AGREE. 
          I WAS GOING THE SAME EXACT PLACE BECAUSE I THINK THERE IS A QUESTION OUT THERE, UM, THAT AS LONG AS WE DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION TO ANSWER IT CORRECTLY, MISINFORMATION BREEDS AND KEEPS GROWING OUT THERE. 
          SO I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE THIS IN ORDER TO CONTROL, YOU KNOW, THE ACCURATE INFORMATION. 
          DEREK, YOU LOOK LIKE YOU HAVE AN OPINION. 
          I I'M IN THE SAME BOAT AS THEY ARE. 
          I THINK THAT WITH THE CONVERSATIONS GOING ON ABOUT THE WESTERN GATEWAY AND THE DELLS AND ALL THIS, WE NEED TO KNOW, I'VE ALWAYS BEEN INTO THE IMPRESSION THAT THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE ENVIRONMENTAL AVIATION, RIGHT? WE, I TALKED TO PEOPLE ABOUT YEAR OR SO, WHEN I'VE TALKED TO PEOPLE ABOUT DEVELOPING THE DOUBTS, IT'S LIKE, WELL, WE HAVE TO TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION. 
          WELL, IF WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, I WOULD'VE QUIT SAYING THAT. 
          SO, AND I THINK THAT, I THINK THAT LESS THAN $10,000, IT'S, IS WORTH IT SO THAT WE CAN CONSIDER ALL OF THIS TOGETHER. 
          I, I THINK IT, IT MIGHT, YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE THINK, OH, WE JUST THROW MONEY AT THAT AND, AND DO THE REMEDIATION, IT'S NOT GONNA COST MUCH. 
          I'M NOT SAYING I AGREE WITH THAT, BUT THE PEOPLE OUT IN THE, UH, COMPUTER WORLD, IN THE INTERNET WORLD BELIEVE THAT, OH, IT'S JUST SIMPLE TO DO. 
          WE COULD JUST BUILD THERE TOMORROW IF WE WANTED TO. 
          THIS MIGHT HELP CLARIFY THAT, HEY, THIS IS A BIG PROJECT. 
          WE'D HAVE TO REMEDIATE 200 ACRES, OR WE DON'T NEED TO REMEDIATE 200 ACRES. 
          EXACTLY. 
          AT LEAST, 
          [01:45:01]
UH, IT WOULD GIVE, GIVE AN ANSWER TO THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          I, I TEND TO AGREE WITH BRIAN ON THAT. 
          SO, SO, UH, RIGHT NOW I'M SEEING, UH, SIX TO ONE IN FAVOR OF MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT. 
          PETE, YOU YOU WANNA CHANGE THAT OR YOU WANNA STICK WITH THAT? I WOULD ABSOLUTELY THINK YOU'RE MAKING A MISTAKE ON THIS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UH, KURT, DO YOU HAVE ANY KIND OF LEGAL OPINION ON MOVING FORWARD? YOU'RE QUIET TONIGHT. 
           BEEN QUIET. 
          BUSINESS DECISION. 
          I, I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          I KNOW. 
          AND I'LL LOOK TO ANDY AND ANNETTE AS FAR AS THE STAFF WOULD BE REALLY ON ROXANNE TO HANDLE, I DON'T WANNA OVERBURDEN ANYBODY ELSE, SO, OKAY. 
          ONLY OVERBURDEN ROXANNE, BUT SHE CAN HANDLE IT. 
          WE HAVE A NEW PROJECT MANAGER. 
          IT'LL BE, WELL, YOU HAVE A NEW PROJECT MANAGER. 
          THERE YOU GO. 
          SEE? THERE YOU GO. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THERE YOU GO. 
          DAVE JUST GAVE YOU AN A SIGN . 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          OKAY, TO MOVE ON TO OUR QUICK REGULATORY UPDATE. 
          YEAH. 
          YOU GOT THAT AT 14 MINUTES WORTH, RIGHT? YEAH. 
          I, I MEAN, I THINK I CAN GET THROUGH THIS IN 14 MINUTES. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, REGULATORY UPDATES. 
          A WP RULES WERE FINALIZED IN MARCH. 
          UM, SO THOSE ARE OFFICIAL AND WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH PERMITTING ON A WPI WILL SAY THE PERMITTING PROCESS FOR THAT, UH, IT REQUIRES A YEAR WORTH OF WATER QUALITY SAMPLING AND, UH, TESTING. 
          IT REQUIRES PILOT SCALED STUDIES AND THEN, UH, SOME EXTENSIVE PERMITTING, UH, THING. 
          SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY A TWO TO THREE YEAR PROCESS TO, TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE YOU HAVE A PERMIT THAT YOU COULD THEN CONSTRUCT AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE TIME IT TAKES TO CONSTRUCT AFTER THAT. 
          UH, RULEMAKING FOR PAS TREATMENT IN WASTEWATER IS IN ANTICIPATED WITHIN THE YEAR NOW. 
          SO A DEQ OPENED THE DOCKET FOR RULEMAKING PROCESS, AND TYPICALLY WITHIN ONE YEAR OF OPENING THAT DOCKET, THEY BEGIN THE, THE RULEMAKING PROCESS. 
          THE RULEMAKING PROCESS GOES OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, ET CETERA. 
          THAT CAN TAKE A, A YEAR TO TWO. 
          SO I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY AROUND TWO YEARS TILL WE HAVE A RULE FOR PFAS. 
          UM, AND THEN THERE WILL BE A COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE LIKE THERE WAS FOR, FOR WATER, POTABLE WATER, UM, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A THREE TO FIVE YEAR COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE OR SOMETHING. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD BE, BUT RIGHT. 
          SO WE'RE LOOKING FIVE-ISH YEARS BEFORE WE NEED TO MAKE THIS INVESTMENT IN PFAS. 
          ROXANNE, IS THERE ANY FEDERAL LEVEL INVOLVEMENT IN PFAS? UH, YES. 
          SO IT, IT STARTS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. 
          A DEQ IS THE GOVERNING, UH, REGULATORY BODY FOR ARIZONA, THOUGH. 
          OKAY. 
          I MEAN, BUT THIS JUST SEEMS LIKE A, A GREAT EXAMPLE OF WHERE THE CURRENT REGIME IN WASHINGTON WOULD SAY, WHO CARES? AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THIS DROPS OFF THE AGENDA. 
          IS THERE, WELL, THEY DID OPEN THE DOCKET, SO THAT MEANS THAT THEY'RE GONNA START THE, THE RULEMAKING PROCESS. 
          IT DOESN'T MEAN IT WILL BE FINALIZED, BUT YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANKS, MAYOR. 
          QUESTION FOR JOHN. 
          JOHN SNICK FROM ARIZONA WATER COMPANY. 
          CAN YOU COME UP TO THE PODIUM? WE'RE GONNA TURN THE SPOTLIGHTS ON YOU IN JUST ONE SECOND. 
          JUST, ARE YOU GOING TO START PFAS TREATMENT BEFORE THE RULES ARE FINALIZED? UH, WE'RE MOVING FORWARD. 
          ALL I CAN SAY IS WE HAVEN'T CHANGED STEP ANTICIPATING THAT, UM, THE CHANGES OR THE INFORMATION'S GONNA COME OUT IN A TIMELY MANNER. 
          WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH OUR, OUR STUDIES AND OUR, OUR INVESTMENT TO BUILD A PLANT ON, ON THE ONE WELL THAT WE HAVE TO TREAT. 
          WOULD YOU LIKELY COMPLETE THAT BEFORE THE RULES ARE FINALIZED? UH, THAT I CANNOT PREDICT, AND THAT'S PROBABLY BASED MORE ON BUDGETING THAN COMPLIANCE. 
          IF THERE'S NOT A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT, BUT YOUR RULES ARE FURTHER ALONG, THEY'RE ALREADY, MOSTLY THEY'RE FINALIZED. 
          IT'S THE WASTEWATER RULES THAT AREN'T DONE YET. 
          RULES FOR DRINKING WATER, WERE FINALIZED. 
          YEAH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, ROXANNE, GO FOR IT. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO NOW ON TO UTILITY COORDINATION. 
          THIS IS WHERE WATER, PRIVATE WATER COMPANIES COME INTO PLAY. 
          UM, SO YOU'LL RECALL BACK IN OCTOBER, 2024, ARIZONA WATER COMPANY AND THE CITY COUNCIL HAD A JOINT MEETING. 
          UM, AT THAT MEETING, ARIZONA WATER COMPANY PRESENTED THEIR WATER RESOURCES STRATEGY, WHICH INCLUDED REGIONAL AND LOCAL WATER RESOURCE PLANNING EFFORTS, AS WELL AS, UM, THEY PRESENTED CURRENT PUMPING DEMAND FOR THE, THE SEDONA SERVICE AREA. 
          AND THEN ALSO, UH, SHOWED US THEIR FUTURE DEMAND ANALYSIS FOR WHAT, YOU KNOW, THE PUMPING DEMANDS MIGHT BE IN THE FUTURE. 
          SO THE FOLLOWING SLIDES ARE DIRECTLY FROM THAT PRESENTATION. 
          [01:50:01]
UM, SO JUST A CURRENT LOOK AT THEIR FIVE YEAR AVERAGE IS IN WHAT THEY PUMP FOR THE, THE SEDONA AREA. 
          UM, WATER FOLKS LIKE TO TALK IN ACRE FEET. 
          I DON'T GET THAT. 
          I LIKE TO TALK IN A MILLION GALLONS PER DAY. 
          SO THEY'VE DONE THAT CONVERSION FOR US. 
          SO THEY'RE CURRENTLY PUMPING ON AVERAGE ABOUT 2.77 MGD. 
          AND I DON'T RECALL IF THIS INCLUDES VOC OR IF THIS IS JUST WITHIN SEDONA LIMITS. 
          IT'S JUST SEDONA CITY LIMITS. 
          SO YOU MIGHT WONDER HOW THEY'RE PUMPING MORE THAN WE ARE SEEING AT THE PLANT. 
          IRRIGATION, WATER LOSSES, ALL SORTS OF THINGS. 
          SO SEP, SEPTIC . 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO, AND THEN THEY, UH, PRESENTED THIS SLIDE, WHICH, UM, WAS A BUILD OUT DEMAND SUMMARY. 
          AND THE THING I'M GONNA FOCUS ON TONIGHT OR THIS AFTERNOON IS THIS NUMBER HERE. 
          SO THE BUILD OUT DEMAND, UH, IS ROUGHLY, I DID THE, THE CONVERSION HERE, UH, 2.98 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY. 
          UM, AND THEN THEY LOOKED AT THEIR DEMAND PROJECTION OUT TO 2050. 
          UM, THIS IS ALL AN ACRE FEET, BUT THE THING TO, TO FOCUS ON HERE IS WITH THE WATER SUPPLY, THEY'RE, THEY'RE PUMPING GROUND WATER, BUT THEY'RE ALSO ASSUMING A HUNDRED PERCENT REUSE OF OUR EFFLUENT. 
          WHAT WASN'T, UH, REALLY INCLUDED IN THEIR PLAN. 
          AND TERRY SUE CAN EXPAND ON THIS, IS, IS WHETHER THE, THE USE OF OUR EFFLUENT WOULD BE DIRECT POTABLE REUSE OR A WP, WOULD THAT BE AN OFFSET OF GROUNDWATER PUMPING WITH WATER CREDITS OR, OR RECLAIMED WATER DELIVERY OR ANYTHING THAT WASN'T, HOW THAT WOULD BE USED WAS NOT DETERMINED IN THIS. 
          IT JUST, THEY ARE PLANNING ON USING OUR AFFLUENT AS PART OF THEIR WATER SUPPLY, UH, FAR INTO THE FUTURE. 
          SO DO THESE NUMBERS HAVE THIS REDUCTION BETWEEN WHAT YOU PUMP AND WHAT WE SEE BECAUSE OF IRRIGATION AND LOSSES AND SEPTIC? THIS WOULD JUST BE THE PUMPING. 
          THIS IS JUST PUMPING, YEAH. 
          SO THIS ISN'T REFLECTIVE. 
          YEAH, IT'S, WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT WE MIGHT SEE. 
          IT'S SCALED DOWN. 
          RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO THAT IS JUST A REALLY BRIEF, YOU KNOW, UH, SUMMARY OF WHAT WAS PRESENTED IN, IN, IN, UH, OCTOBER. 
          AND WHAT THE IMPORTANCE HERE IS, IS THAT WE NEED TO PARTNER WITH OR FURTHER PARTNER WITH ARIZONA WATER COMPANY. 
          AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALREADY PARTNERING WITH THEM ON OUR INTEGRATED DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND OUR RIPPLE EFFECT TO FOCUS EFFORTS ON CONSERVATION AND WHATNOT. 
          UM, BUT CAN I GO BACK TO THAT CHART JUST REAL QUICK? YEAH. 
          I HAD TROUBLE KIND OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT THIS MEANT, TERRY SUE. 
          AND THE DECREASE THAT WE SEE TO THE RIGHT OF THE BLACK VERTICAL BAR LINE IS THAT EFFORTS OF THE CONSERVATION. 
          YEAH. 
          THOSE ARE PROJECTED, UM, REDUCTIONS DUE TO RIPPLE EFFECT. 
          AND WHAT'S THE RED LINE ON TOP? THE RED LINE WOULD'VE BEEN THE DEMAND WITHOUT, WOULD'VE BEEN THE DEMAND WITHOUT THE, THOSE EFFORTS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND THE BROWN REPRESENTS THE EFFLUENT PIECE, RIGHT? AND THE BLUE IS THE GROUNDWATER AND THEY ADD TOGETHER. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THE TOTAL DEMAND WOULD'VE BEEN, UH, LIKE 3,500 ACRE FEET WITH LOST A COUNTER FOR WATER. 
          UH, IF YOU OFFSET THE EFFLUENT, THE EFFLUENCE, LITTLE OVER A THOUSAND ACRE FEET, AND THEN THE REDUCTION OF THE, UM, DEMAND IS, I'M GONNA GUESS, UH, WELL, WHATEVER, ABOUT 3000. 
          OH, IT WAS 20%. 
          IT'S 20% REDUCTION OF 3000. 
          SO 600 ACRE FEET ROUGHLY. 
          AND SO THAT OLIVE GREEN AREA, THAT LINE REPRESENTS OUR MILLION GALLONS A DAY, GROWING A LITTLE INTO THE FUTURE. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MM-HMM . 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO, YOU KNOW, MOVING FORWARD, REGARDLESS OF WHAT OPTIONS OR ALTERNATIVES WE MOVE FORWARD WITH PARTNERSHIPS, UM, ARE GOING TO BE KEY FOR LONG-TERM WATER RESOURCE PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY WITHIN OUR, OUR REGION. 
          UM, CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS ON WHAT THAT PARTNERSHIP WILL LOOK LIKE, WILL NEED TO BE HAD, UM, TO DETERMINE THINGS LIKE COST SHARING AND, AND WHERE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR EACH PHASE OF THE TREATMENT AND DELIVERY PROCESS LIES. 
          UM, AND I DON'T KNOW, TERESA, DID YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING IN TERMS OF LIKE, UH, YOU KNOW, HOW ARIZONA WATER ENVISIONS, UM, PARTNERING WITH THE CITY AND WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU SUPPORT? WELL, WHAT I'D, UM, MAYBE LIKE TO SPEND A COUPLE MINUTES TALKING ABOUT IS OUR OVERALL WATER RESOURCE STRATEGY. 
          SO IT'S REALLY SIMPLE. 
          IT'S A DIVERSE WATER SUPPLY, AND IT'S USED EVERY DROP OF WATER WE HAVE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE SUPPLY EFFICIENTLY. 
          AND WE ARE DOING THAT BECAUSE, UH, NOT, NOT TO GET GREEN POINTS, NOT TO NOT TO DO THE RIGHT THING. 
          WE'RE DOING THAT BECAUSE WE NEED TO PROVIDE WATER TO THE, THE RESIDENTS AND THE BUSINESSES OF SEDONA FOREVER, 
          [01:55:02]
RIGHT? SO IT ISN'T, UM, IT'S, IT'S NOT A, A PR CAMPAIGN. 
          UM, AND WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS SINCE 1955 AND WE, WE DON'T INTEND TO EVER LEAVE THIS SYSTEM. 
          THIS IS, THIS IS WHAT WE DO FOR A LIVING. 
          SO IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO US THAT THE EFFLUENT, UH, BE CONSIDERED A, UH, A LEGITIMATE WATER SUPPLY THAT NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE COMMUNITY TO BE USED. 
          UM, AND, AND THE WHAT OR THE HOW IS I THINK WHAT'S UP FOR DEBATE. 
          AND THERE MAY BE AN INTERIM SOLUTION. 
          THERE MAY BE A LONG TERM SOLUTION. 
          UM, BUT JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF, UH, THAT 1.8 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY, IF YOU CONVERT THAT INTO ACRE FEET, THAT'S LIKE 2000, ROUGHLY 2000 ACRE FEET. 
          FOR ME TO ACQUIRE A 2000 ACRE FOOT WATER RIGHT TODAY, UH, WOULD PROBABLY COST ABOUT $50,000 AN ACRE FOOT. 
          AND I CAN JUST QUICKLY DO THE MATH ON THAT, AND THAT WOULD BE ROUGHLY OVER A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS JUST FOR THE WATER SUPPLY. 
          SO, UH, I I, WHILE YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO, UM, MONETIZE IT DIRECTLY TODAY, THAT IS A VALUABLE RESOURCE. 
          AND IT'S NOT ABOUT THE ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AREA, IT'S REALLY ABOUT THE ADJUDICATION AND TO WHAT EXTENT WE WILL BE IMPACTED BY THE ADJUDICATION. 
          SO THE REASON THAT THE ANN WANTED THIS WATER SUPPLY WAS TO SHORE UP THEIR OWN WATER SUPPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ADJUDICATION. 
          BUT I WOULD SAY IT GOES BEYOND THAT. 
          IT GOES TO ACTUALLY PROVIDING WATER TO THE RESIDENTS AND THE BUSINESSES OF THIS COMMUNITY FOREVER. 
          AND THAT'S HOW WE VIEW IT. 
          BRIAN. 
          YEP. 
          THANK YOU, MAYOR. 
          SO DO YOU HAVE A PREFERENCE? YOU KNOW, IF YOU WERE SAYING, UH, SIT, SIT ON CITY COUNCIL, THIS IS WHAT WE'D LOVE TO SEE YOU DO RIGHT NOW. 
          UM, DO YOU HAVE A PREFERENCE BETWEEN A WP VERSUS WE JUST CONTINUE TO USE INJECTION WELLS AND KNOW THAT WE'RE RECHARGING, YOU KNOW, THE LOCAL AQUIFER DOES THAT? WHERE DO YOU GUYS STAND? UM, SO I WASN'T A PART, WE WERE NOT A PART OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS. 
          UM, I, IT JUST IN MY MIND, I CAN THINK OF EVEN SOME MORE POTENTIAL, UM, ALTERNATIVES THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT OFF OFFLINE. 
          UM, BUT, BUT I DO THINK THAT THIS IS A VERY BIG DECISION. 
          IT'S A HUGE DECISION. 
          WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS THAT YOU NOT, UM, UH, LOP OFF OPTIONS AT THIS POINT. 
          UH, DON'T DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD PREVENT YOU FROM DOING ANY OF THESE THINGS AT THIS STAGE, AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. 
          YOU KNOW, YOU JUST LIKE PULLED A PIN ON A GRENADE SAYING, WE'VE GOT OTHER IDEAS WE COULD SHARE WITH YOU. 
          . 
          RIGHT. 
          JUST THOUGHTS. 
          THEY'RE NOT REALLY, THEY'RE JUST LIKE THOUGHT BUBBLES, . 
          AND SO, BUT SOME OF THEM ACTUALLY CAME UP DURING THE MEETING. 
          ONE OF YOU MENTIONED THE POSSIBILITY, I THINK MAYBE IT WAS YOU MAYOR, THE POSSIBILITY OF RECHARGING IN IN TOWN. 
          UM, SO THAT THERE'S, UH, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE WELLS IN TOWN AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT IF WE, IF WE RECHARGE, WHAT VALUE IS THAT? UH, DOWN AT, DOWN AT THE DELLS, IT IS NOT MUCH OF A VALUE BECAUSE OUR WELLS ARE LOCATED UP HERE. 
          BUT IF WE RECHARGED UP HERE, THERE COULD BE A LOT MORE VALUE TO THAT FROM A ADJUDICATION STANDPOINT, FROM A SUPPLY STANDPOINT. 
          UM, SO, SO THINGS, THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          UM, THAT YOU COULD ALSO LOCATE THE PRODUCTION WELLS DOWN IN THAT AREA AND BRING THE WATER FROM THERE UP INTO, UH, THE CENTRAL AREA HERE. 
          SO THOSE ARE JUST A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF IDEAS. 
          SO BASED ON WHAT YOU SAID, THE COST WAS TO ACQUIRE A COUPLE THOUSAND ACRE FEET OF WATER AS A SUPPLY, UH, BY COMPARISON, OUR COST THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT FOR WATER DELIVERY BACK INTO TOWN, YOU'RE LIKE NO BRAINER THEN? WELL, A A, THE WATER SUPPLY, THAT WOULD JUST BE THE PURCHASE OF THE WATER SUPPLY. 
          MM-HMM . 
          THEN WE'D HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO CASCADE IT UP THE SYSTEM AND THEN WE WOULD BE FACED WITH THESE SAME OPTIONS. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE, BY THE WAY, TODAY. 
          WE APPRECIATE IT. 
          SO ROXANNE, ON THE REQUIREMENT FOR PFA, PAS, THEY HAVE THE REQUIREMENT, I UNDERSTAND THE SAFETY AND ALL THAT, BUT THEY GIVE NO MONEY. 
          THERE'S NO GRANTS FUNDING. 
          WHAT, WHAT DO SMALLER COMMUNITIES DO THAT CAN'T AFFORD TO DO ANYTHING? UM, I IMAGINE THERE WOULD BE SOME GRANT FUNDING WHEN THOSE RULES ARE FINALIZED. 
          THERE, THERE COULD BE SOME GRANT FUNDING AVAILABLE THERE. 
          IT'S NOT AVAILABLE YET BECAUSE IT'S NOT REQUIRED YET. 
          UM, AND IF GRANT FUNDING 
          [02:00:01]
DOES COME OUT, OF COURSE WE WOULD, WOULD PURSUE SOME OF THOSE GRANTS. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, MELISSA, SO MY UNDERSTANDING ON THE REGULATORY SIDE WAS THAT THE PFAS RULES HAVE ALREADY BEEN SET FOR DRINKING WATER. 
          UM, IS THERE ANY WORLD IN WHICH PFAS RULES FOR WASTEWATER WOULD BE MORE STRINGENT THAN DRINKING WATER? UM, I DON'T BELIEVE SO, BECAUSE I'M PRETTY SURE THE LEVEL AT WHICH  THAT IS, IS THE LOWEST DETECTABLE LEVEL THAT THEY CAN TEST FOR. 
          SO I DOUBT IT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT, THAT'S KIND OF MY POINT. 
          SO IF YOU WERE DOING, UM, A WP, IF WE WANTED TO GET AHEAD, WHETHER WE DECIDE TODAY OR TOMORROW OR WHENEVER, ABOUT A WP DECIDING THAT WE WANT OUR PAS SYSTEM TO BE ABLE TO BE AT DRINKING WATER LEVELS OF WHICH THE RULES WERE ALREADY KNOWN, WERE HEADED IN THE DIRECTION THAT IF WE CHOSE TO, OR SOME FUTURE COUNCIL CHOSE TO DO A WP, YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT UNLESS THE DRINKING WATER ROLLS CHANGE, IS THAT MORE OR LESS AN ACCURATE STATEMENT? SO WILL YOU LOOK CONFUSED OR WORRIED? SO, UM, I'M, I'M HOPING I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, RIGHT? SO IF WE DO PFAS REMOVAL AT THE TREATMENT PLANT, IT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED ON THE WATER SUPPLY SIDE BECAUSE IT WOULD ALREADY BE REMOVED. 
          THE A WP WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ARE MORE STRINGENT THAN THE PAS STANDARDS IN TERMS THAT THERE'S ADDITIONAL CONSTITUENTS THAT HAVE TO BE TREATED. 
          AND PFAS IS ONE OF THOSE, RIGHT? NO, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT WOULD BE ALL WE'RE DOING. 
          I'M SAYING IF, IF WE CHOSE TO SAY, LET'S START THINKING ABOUT PFAS REMOVAL. 
          UM, IF WE SAID, LET'S USE THE STANDARDS THAT CURRENTLY EXIST IN LAW FOR DRINKING WATER, ANYTHING THAT DOES COME OUT WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR OR SO FOR WASTEWATER WOULD BE LESS THAN THAT. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, NOT AS STRINGENT AS THAT. 
          GOTCHA. 
          SO IF WE, WE SAID, AND THEN YOU'RE ON THE ROAD TOWARDS A WP AND I REALIZE THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT YOU HAVE TO DO, BUT SINCE PFAS IS ONE OF THE THINGS YOU MUST DO FOR A WP, WOULD WE BE ON THAT ROAD NOW WHEN PERHAPS THE COSTS ARE A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN THEY ARE A YEAR OR TWO FROM NOW? OKAY. 
          I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING NOW. 
          UH, YES. 
          I THINK IT WOULD BE A MINIMAL RISK TO SAY IF WE TREAT TO WHAT THE DRINKING WATER MCLS ARE, THAT ANYTHING WOULD BE MORE STRINGENT THAN THAT. 
          UH, I THINK THE RISK WOULD BE THAT MAYBE WE DESIGN IT TO A HIGHER THRESHOLD THAN WHAT WOULD BE REGULATED, BUT I DON'T THINK THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE. 
          I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE MORE STRICT THAN WHAT DRINKING WATER MCLS ARE. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          CONTINUE ON. 
          OKAY. 
          SO ABOUT 40 SLIDES OR SOMETHING. 
          40 SLIDES. 
          UH, WE ARE ON THE LAST SLIDE. 
          SO , UH, HERE'S WHAT WE KIND OF ENVISION THE NEXT STEPS TO BE. 
          SO IDEALLY WE'D LIKE SOME DIRECTION, NOT NECESSARILY TONIGHT, UM, ON THE PREFERRED APPROACH FOR OUR AFFLUENT MANAGEMENT, UM, OR ANY OTHER INFORMATION THAT YOU MIGHT NEED US TO BRING BACK TO HELP YOU IN THAT DECISION MAKING PROCESS. 
          UM, IDEALLY WE'D LIKE TO INCORPORATE WHAT DIRECTION WE'RE GONNA MOVE FORWARD IN, INTO OUR RATE STUDY THAT IS COMING FORTH. 
          I BELIEVE IT'S BUDGETED FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR, UM, SO THAT WE CAN SEE WHAT THE IMPACT OF THESE DECISIONS WOULD BE ON OUR, OUR WASTEWATER RATES. 
          UM, WE ALSO WOULD LIKE TO START EX YOU KNOW, EXPLORING WHAT THOSE POTENTIAL PARTNERSHIPS WITH ARIZONA WATER COMPANY AND POSSIBLY OAK CREEK WATER COMPANY, WHICH IS THE OTHER PROVIDER, UH, IN WITHIN CITY LIMITS. 
          UM, TO SEE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AND KINDA START HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS ON, ON HOW THAT PARTNERSHIP WOULD LOOK. 
          UM, IDEALLY THE TIMELINE FOR THIS WOULD BE IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS OR SO, SO THAT WE CAN START PROGRAMMING THIS INTO OUR CAPITAL 10 YEAR CAPITAL PLAN. 
          UM, I REALIZE THAT'S A SHORT TIMEFRAME TO MAKE SUCH LARGE DECISIONS. 
          UH, HOWEVER, WE ARE AT A POINT IN TERMS OF OUR AFFLUENT DISPOSAL WHERE WE EITHER NEED TO MAKE INVESTMENTS OF WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY DOING, OR WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH OTHER, SOME OTHER TYPE OF AFFLUENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY. 
          UM, WE, WE HAVE PUSHED THAT OFF PROBABLY ABOUT THREE FISCAL YEARS NOW. 
          UM, AND THE LONGER WE PUSH THAT OUT, THE HIGHER THE, UH, O AND M COSTS ARE GONNA BE, THE LESS RELIABLE IRRIGATION IS GOING TO BE. 
          UM, AND THEN WE MIGHT PUT OUR 
          [02:05:01]
OURSELF IN A PREDICAMENT WHERE WE ARE NOT ABLE TO DISPOSE OF ALL OF OUR EFFLUENT. 
          SO OPERATIONALLY, THAT'S WHY THAT TIMELINE'S A LITTLE MORE IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, RATHER THAN SAYING, OH, WE'RE GONNA MOVE FORWARD WITH ALTERNATIVE X BEFORE WE GO TO KATHY. 
          UH, WHY IS IT THAT WE'RE NOT SEEING, UH, OAK CREEK WATER AT THE TABLE HERE WITH US? BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH ARIZONA WATER, BUT ARE, HAVE THEY BEEN INVITED, NOT ATTENDED OR NOT BEEN INVITED? UM, YOU KNOW, OAK CREEK WATER IS A SMALLER, I UNDERSTAND, SMALLER UNIT. 
          I MEAN, IF, IF WE WANT TO LIKE REALLY PURSUE BRINGING THEM TO THE TABLE, UH, WE, WE CAN DO THAT. 
          BUT IF THEY MAY HAVE NO INTEREST, THEY MAY, THEY MAY NOT HAVE ANY INTEREST. 
          YEAH, JOHN? YEAH, WE DO HAVE A PLAN TO ROLL THEM INTO THE, UM, OUR IDMP THIS YEAR AND, UM, AND, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, REACH OUT AND TRY AND DO SOME FELLOWSHIPPING THERE TO, UM, TRY AND GET EVERYBODY TO THE TABLE. 
          IN THE PAST THEY JUST KIND OF JUST STAYED TO THEIRSELF, YOU KNOW, AND, AND, UM, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY ISSUES OR ANYTHING THERE, BUT MAYBE JUST REACHING OUT LIKE THAT IS GONNA BE, UM, BENEFICIAL AND, AND HOPEFULLY THAT'LL LEAD THEM TO, IN, IN THE DIRECTION OF COME TO THESE MEETINGS. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          BECAUSE I, I'M SEEING HERE BEGIN BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS WITH ARIZONA WATER COMPANY. 
          I THINK WE HAVE A REALLY GOOD PARTNERSHIP E EXPANDING THAT PARTNERSHIP EXPAND. 
          OKAY. 
          JUST WANTED TO KNOW KATHY AND THEN VICE MAYOR, THE GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION THAT WE JUST DIRECTED FOR BEFORE, HOW, WHEN DO YOU THINK YOU'D BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT FOR US? 'CAUSE I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT GOES INTO THE TIMELINE OF RESPONSE YOU NEED FROM US. 
          'CAUSE IT'D BE SOMETHING GOOD TO HAVE, UM, IF WE GET RIGHT ON GETTING A CONTRACT TOGETHER, SAMPLING MAYBE THREE-ISH MONTHS. 
          YOU THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE ESTIMATE? YEAH, ABOUT THREE MONTHS, SIX MONTHS. 
          BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEM. 
          YOU DON'T KNOW, RIGHT. 
          I MEAN, THAT'S JUST ASSUMING, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE THE CAPACITY. 
          YOU TRY TO DO AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE, BUT YOU DON'T KNOW, YOU CAN'T SPEAK FOR SOMEBODY ELSE. 
          IT'S NOT A, A ENTIRELY COMPLICATED PROCESS. 
          AND IT'S SAMPLING, TESTING AND THEN EVALUATING THOSE RESULTS. 
          SO, AND THEN WHAT THE REMEDIATION TYPE WOULD BE SUGGESTED, WE COULD INCLUDE THAT IN IN THE SCOPE IF, IF SOIL SAMPLING INDICATED THAT SOME REMEDIATION WOULD BE NEEDED, WHAT WOULD BE THE SCOPE OF THAT? YEAH, WE COULD INCLUDE THAT IN THE SCOPE OF WORK. 
          IS THAT GOOD FOR YOU? MM-HMM . 
          UH, VICE MAYOR. 
          SO WHAT WOULD, WHAT COSTS WOULD TYPICALLY BE INCLUDED IN THE RATE STUDY OF THESE CAPITAL COSTS? ALL OF THEM. 
          UM, YEAH, BECAUSE THEY'RE CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, YOU KNOW, AND, AND THE O AND M COSTS AS WELL, BECAUSE ALL OF THAT, YOU KNOW, THEORETICALLY IS PAID BY THE REP RATE PAYERS AS AN ENTERPRISE FUND. 
          SO, SO YOU'D USE, YOU KNOW, A 20 YEAR, 30 YEAR TIMEFRAME, OR I CANNOT SPEAK TO LIKE THE FINANCE, HOW THE FINANCIAL PEOPLE WOULD DO THAT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE, WHEN WE LOOK AT PROJECTS LIKE THIS AND DO THE COST ASSESSMENTS OVER A 20 YEAR LIFECYCLE, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE SAME IN TERMS OF UTILITY RATE SETTING. 
          WE'D, WE'D NEED FINANCE TO CHIME IN ON THAT, YOU KNOW, AND IN ADDITION TO, AND THAT'S A REALLY GOOD POINT, LIKE IN ADDITION TO OUR PARTNERSHIPS WITH ARIZONA WATER COMPANY, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO BRING OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS IN ON THESE CONVERSATIONS. 
          PLANNING, UH, PERMIT, YOU KNOW, COM, DEV ALTOGETHER, FINANCE, LEGAL, THERE'S SEVERAL CITY DEPARTMENTS THAT NEED TO COME TO THE TABLE AS WELL. 
          OH, THANK YOU. 
          UM, VICE MAYOR PLU, UM, IN OTHER RAID STUDIES I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN, IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS, IT'S TYPICALLY WHATEVER THE PLANNING HORIZON IS. 
          SO IF WE'RE DOING A 20 YEAR PLANNING HORIZON, THEN THEY BUILD THE FINANCIAL MODEL WITH THE, WHATEVER THE CAPITAL PROJECTS ARE THAT ARE PLANNED DURING THAT TIME. 
          AND TYPICALLY THOSE FOLKS THAT CALCULATE THIS WILL ALSO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS BACK BASED ON THE TIMING OF WHEN WE ANTICIPATE PROJECTS NEEDING TO HAPPEN AND LIKE THE CASH FLOW NEEDED, THEY WILL PROVIDE BACK, UM, WHETHER IT SHOULD BE DEBT FINANCED, UH, PAY AS YOU GO, LIKE HOW THAT WOULD IMPACT RATES AS WELL. 
          UM, AND HOW TO, UM, HOW THE, UH, WHAT DO WE CALL, DO WE CALL IT A CAPITALIZATION FEE HERE? UM, THE BUY-IN COST. 
          THE CAPACITY FEE. 
          YEAH, THE, YOU KNOW, WHEN A NEW DEVELOPMENT COMES IN. 
          SO THEY TAKE ALL OF THAT INTO ACCOUNT AND DO A FINANCIAL MODEL FOR THE CITY THAT SHOWS WHAT DOES THE RATE NEED TO BE. 
          ADDITIONALLY, THEY WOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHATEVER THE ASSUMPTION IS ON THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF GENERAL FUND SUBSIDY THAT'S HAPPENING IN THE WASTEWATER FUND. 
          SO THEY WOULD LOOK AT THAT ASSUMPTION. 
          SO ALL OF THAT GOES INTO, UM, THE FINANCIAL MODEL AND THEY WILL PROVIDE 
          [02:10:01]
SCENARIOS TO THE CITY ABOUT HOW YOU WOULD WANT TO APPLY ANY OF THESE THINGS TO COME UP WITH THE RATES AND WHETHER YOU WANT TO TIER THEM. 
          YEAH, THEY CAN DO ALL KINDS OF THINGS FOR YOU. 
          WHEN WERE YOU PLANNING TO START THE STUDY? I BELIEVE BARBARA, UM, WAS LOOKING AT DOING THAT THIS WINTER. 
          IF WE KNEW, UM, A GENERAL IDEA OF WHERE THE COUNCIL WANTED US TO HEAD WITH THE CAPITAL PROGRAM HERE. 
          LIKE WHICH ALTERNATIVES YOU WANT EVALUATED IN THE RATE STUDY. 
          SO IS THAT DONE BY THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT VERSUS YES. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          MM-HMM . 
          DEREK AND NICK. 
          KATHY, ARE YOU ANTICIPATING ANY ADVANCES IN PFAS REMOVAL TECHNOLOGY? OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE ARE WORKING ON OR, UH, YEAH, I MEAN THERE'S ALWAYS TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES FOR ANY TYPE OF WATER QUALITY. 
          UM, CONS, YOU KNOW, TREATMENT, UM, AS TIME MOVES ON, THERE WILL BE ADVANCEMENTS. 
          YES. 
          BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THAT WOULD, THAT MIGHT SUPPORT WAITING A LITTLE BIT. 
          ON THE OTHER HAND, IF WE WAIT UNTIL THE REGULATIONS BECOME EFFECTIVE AND SUDDENLY THERE'S A MAD RUSH FOR EVERY MUNICIPAL ALITY IN THE COUNTRY TO SNAP THIS STUFF UP AND, YOU KNOW, WE MAY SEE THE COST GOING UP OR, OR WE MAY OR YEAH. 
          OR WE MAY SEE MORE PEOPLE GOING INTO THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING THESE PRODUCTS. 
          I DON'T KNOW. 
          BUT I MEAN, I JUST, UH, YOU KNOW, KIND OF PULLED TWO DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS ON THIS ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD GET AHEAD OF THE CURVE OR, OR WAIT, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW. 
          JUST SOME THINGS I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE IN, TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION AS WE'RE THINKING ALL THROUGH. 
          KATHY. 
          SO MY QUESTION IS TO MY COLLEAGUES UP HERE. 
          SO WE KEEP PUTTING OFF MAKING SORT OF DECISIONS OR GIVING DIRECTION THAT'S NEEDED FOR SOME OTHER PARTS THAT, THAT NEED TO COME TOGETHER IN THIS HUGE PUZZLE, RIGHT? LIKE TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE STUDY. 
          IS THERE AT LEAST ANYTHING THAT WE CAN LOOK AT FROM ALTERNATIVES, VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES THAT ROXANNE HAS PRESENTED THAT WE CAN ELIMINATE RIGHT OFF THE BAT SO THAT WE CAN NARROW THIS DOWN IN TERMS OF GETTING CLOSER TO DIRECTION? I JUST WROTE OUT MY SUMMARY THOUGHTS ON, UH, WHAT I WOULD DO IF IT WAS JUST MY DECISION ALONE. 
          SO NUMBER ONE, PFAS, I'D KICK THAT DOWN THE CURB UNTIL WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO DO IT. 
          I WOULD NOT CHOOSE TO GET AHEAD OF IT BECAUSE WE MAY WIND UP, UH, NOT DESIGNING FOR AND IMPLEMENTING WHAT ULTIMATELY BECOMES REQUIRED. 
          AND I WOULD HOPE, HOPE, HOPE FOR GRANTS. 
          SO WHY SPEND OUR MONEY TILL WE KNOW IF WE CAN GET SOMEBODY ELSE TO PAY FOR IT? UM, I THINK COUNCILOR FURMAN HAS A GREAT QUESTION AROUND, UH, OPTION ONE NOT RATING BETTER. 
          AND TO ME, FROM WHAT I HEARD FROM YOU ROXANNE, THAT THE OPTION ONE INCLUDES TWO INJECTION WELLS FOR BUILD OUT CAPACITY, BUT I BELIEVE I HEARD YOU SAY WE COULD BE MORE THAN 10 YEARS BEFORE NEEDING THOSE. 
          SO REALLY TO ME, OPTION ONE IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE COST TO MAINTAIN CURRENT IRRIGATION, WHICH ISN'T IN THERE, RIGHT? THE OPTION IF WHAT WE DECIDED TO DO WAS TO REBUILD THE EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM, THAT'S NOT AN ALTERNATIVE. 
          IT'S, IT IS AN, IT'S NOT. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT INSTEAD OF $11 MILLION, REAL REALISTICALLY OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS, OPTION ONE IS PROBABLY MORE LIKE 2 MILLION, 1 MILLION, UH, NO, IT WOULD STILL BE THE 11 MILLION PLUS BECAUSE WE WOULD NEED TWO ADDITIONAL WELLS. 
          TIMING UNKNOWN. 
          BUT THERE'S ALSO SOME IMPROVEMENTS TOO. 
          SO I, I MISSPOKE TO YOUR QUESTION, PETE. 
          IT IS NOT INCLUDED. 
          UM, BUT, BUT THE TIMING, YOU SAID REALISTICALLY IT COULD BE 10 YEARS BEFORE THOSE WELLS ARE NEEDED. 
          SO FROM A 10 YEAR CAPITAL PERSPECTIVE, I, I'M, OPTION ONE REALLY MIGHT BE A ONE TO $2 MILLION OPTION. 
          THERE IS A, IN 10 YEAR OVER 10 YEAR PERIOD, THREE PLUS MILLION DOLLAR INVESTMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE IN OUR IRRIGATION SYSTEM CAN SAY THAT NUMBER AGAIN, THERE IS A THREE PLUS MILLION DOLLAR INVESTMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE IN OUR IRRIGATION SYSTEM. 
          UM, AND THOSE ARE THE TWO ALTERNATIVES THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED AT BUDGET FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, UM, THAT HAVE JUST BEEN PUSHED OUT AND OUT AND OUT. 
          'CAUSE WE DON'T WANNA SPEND $3 MILLION TO TURN AROUND AND THEN ABANDON IRRIGATION. 
          UM, SO YES, I MISSPOKE THAT $11 MILLION DOES NOT INCLUDE THE 3 MILLION. 
          IT'S ONE OR THE OTHER, OR, YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN WE'RE GONNA GET THIS ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY DONE, AND THAT'S GONNA GIVE US INSIGHT INTO WHETHER ANY REMEDIATION WOULD BE REQUIRED AT THE DELLS, WHICH COULD PROVIDE FURTHER INSIGHT INTO WHETHER OPTION TWO BECOMES REALLY IS 
          [02:15:01]
THE, THE TOP CHOICE. 
          IF WE WANT THE FLEXIBILITY TO POTENTIALLY DEVELOP ON THE DELLS SOONER THAN LATER, IF WE WERE FORCED INTO THAT FROM A VOTING PERSPECTIVE, UH, OF WANTING TO GET HOUSING BUILT, UM, THAT WOULD BE THE REASON WHY TO PURSUE OPTION TWO. 
          AND THEN TERRY, SUE, YOU SAID DON'T CLOSE OFF OPTIONS. 
          UM, AND THESE DON'T, THESE FIRST COUPLE, UH, DON'T, AND THEN AT SOME FUTURE POINT, UM, YOU'RE GONNA WANT THE WATER FROM US AND IN PARTNERSHIP, YOU'RE GONNA MAKE IT WORTH OUR WHILE IN SOME MANNER, UH, IN TERMS OF OFFSETTING OUR COST TO, UH, PROVIDE THE WATER BACK INTO TOWN ESSENTIALLY. 
          AND I KNOW I'M LIKE BEING WILDLY PRESUMPTUOUS, BUT FROM A BLUE SKY, JUST SKETCHING OUT IDEAS PERSPECTIVE, WHAT YOU SAID IT COST TO ACQUIRE THAT SOURCE OF WATER, UH, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT WE WOULD NOT BEAR A LOAN NET NET THE, THE COST OF DOING THAT. 
          SO, UM, SO BEAR IN MIND THAT THE, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PAYING THE SEWER BILLS ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE PAYING THE WATER BILLS. 
          SO WHEREVER YOU DECIDE THOSE COSTS ARE GONNA GO IS WHERE THEY'RE GONNA GO. 
          UM, SO I WOULD RECOMMEND US COLLABORATING AND FINDING THE, THE SOLUTION THAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE RESIDENTS NO MATTER WHICH BILL IT'S PAID ON. 
          UM, AND WHEN I LOOK AT THESE OPTIONS, YOU HAD ASKED ME EARLIER, YOU KNOW, WHICH OPTION, WHEN I LOOK AT THESE OPTIONS, I ACTUALLY THINK THAT TWO WOULD, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, BE A PRETTY DECENT OPTION BECAUSE IF YOU BUILD RECHARGE WELLS DOWN THERE, WE WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD RECOVERY WELLS. 
          WE COULD THEN PUT A LINER IN THE PIPE AND THEN BRING PORTABLE WATER UP INTO THE, INTO THE, INTO THE, INTO THE MAIN AREA. 
          SO THAT, TO ME, OF THESE OPTIONS LOOKS LIKE ONE THAT DOESN'T CLOSE OFF ANY OF THESE OTHER OPTIONS, BUT THAT I COULD SEE BEING, UM, A REASONABLE OPTION FORWARD IN A SHORTER PERIOD OF TIME IF WE HAVE INJECTION WELLS AND THEN YOU PUT IN RECOVERY WELLS, SHOULDN'T WE JUST, ISN'T THAT JUST HANDING  OFF ONE TO THE OTHER? WELL, THERE, THERE IS, THERE IS TECHNOLOGY TO ACTUALLY DO INJECTION AND RECOVERY. 
          UM, THAT TECHNOLOGY IS NOT AS SMOOTH. 
          UM, SO WE WOULD HAVE TO STUDY THAT MORE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WOULD BE THE BEST THING TO DO. 
          UM, JUST IN LOOKING AT THESE ALTERNATIVE TWO, TO ME SEEMS TO BE THE ONE THAT IS BETTER SUITED FOR COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE TWO UTILITIES THIS TIME AND KEEPING YOUR OPTIONS OPEN IN THE FUTURE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THE OTHER THING IS THAT, THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED BEFORE IS THAT THAT RECHARGING THERE, ALL IT DOES IS BENEFIT COTTONWOOD. 
          WELL, IF WE HAVE RECOVERY WELLS THERE, IT WILL NOT BENEFIT COTTONWOOD BECAUSE THOSE RECOVERY WELLS WILL CAPTURE THAT WATER AND WE'LL MOVE IT BACK UP THE RETURN LINE AND BRING IT BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY. 
          BUT IF THEY'RE CAPTURING WHAT WE JUST STUCK IN, WHY ARE WE STICKING IT IN SO THAT YOU CAN TURN AROUND AND CAPTURE IT? RECLAIM WATER VERSUS, WELL, THERE'S POTABLE WATER, SOIL AQUIFER TREATMENT WOULD BE THE SOIL AQUIFER TREATMENT, SOIL AQUIFER TREATMENT WOULD BE THE ANSWER TO THAT. 
          SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE IS A FILTERING BENEFIT FROM STICKING IT IN HERE AND PULLING IT OUT HERE? YES. 
          I'LL BUY THAT. 
          IT'S, IT'S TERMED INDIRECT POTABLE REUSE. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT WOULD BEEN DIRECT POTABLE REUSE. 
          AND THERE MAY ALSO BE SOME SYNERGY IN THE PFAS TREATMENT AS WELL. 
          THERE MAY BE THINGS THAT ARE MORE AFFORDABLE TO DO ON THE WASTEWATER SIDE THAN IT WOULD BE ON THE POTABLE SIDE AND VICE VERSA. 
          SO WE COULD MAYBE GET SOME SYNERGY IN THAT AS WELL. 
          SO I JUST, IN LOOKING AT THIS FOR THE FEW, FOR THE TWO HOURS, TWO HOURS AND 20 MINUTES THAT I'VE BEEN HERE, I WOULD SAY THAT ALTERNATIVE TWO SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE BEST OPTION IN TERMS OF THE COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE TWO ORGANIZATIONS. 
          AND OAK CREEK IS A, A SIDE LINE, RIGHT? SO WE HAVE A CONNECTION WITH OAK CREEK, SO ANYTHING THAT WOULD COME INTO OUR SYSTEM, WE CAN PROVIDE TO OAK CREEK, BUT, BUT TERESA, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY URGENCY TO NEED THAT WATER FROM US AT THIS TIME. 
          CORRECT. 
          UM, SO WE HAVE PLENTY OF WATER SUPPLY TO MEET THE DEMANDS. 
          SO OUR CONCERN HAS ALWAYS BEEN A LONG TERM CONCERN ABOUT THE RIGHT TO USE THE WATER THAT WE'RE PUMPING. 
          IS IT SUBFLOW OR IS IT NOT? MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE SOONER YOU ADDRESS THAT ISSUE, THE BETTER IT IS FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THIS COMMUNITY. 
          TAPPING INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT, IF I MIGHT TERRY SUE AT SOME POINT, ARIZONA WATER AND ALL OF THE ITS RATE PAYERS WOULD BE FACED WITH A DECISION IF YOU LOST SOME WELLS ON THE ADJUDICATION, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHETHER YOU JUST DRILL ANOTHER WELL THAT'S FURTHER AWAY FROM OAK TREE, OAK CREEK MM-HMM . 
          OR PAY FOR MORE EXPENSIVE, ADVANCED TREATED WATER OR EVEN PAY DAMAGES TO THE, THE WATER RIGHT HOLDERS THAT WE WOULD BE 
          [02:20:01]
SUBJECT TO. 
          YEAH. 
          WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME WILL BE. 
          WE DON'T KNOW THE IMPACT. 
          WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE WELLS THAT ARE ONE THAT'S IN THE SUBFLOW AND ONE THAT IS LIKELY TO IMPACT THE SUBFLOW. 
          UM, AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ONES OUTSIDE THE SUBFLOW TO WHAT DEGREE THEY WILL AFFECT IT YET BECAUSE THAT'S ALL BEING DEVELOPED RIGHT NOW BY THE COURTS. 
          BUT THERE'S A, A LOOMING, RIGHT? I, I UNDERSTAND THE INTENTION OF WANTING TO REUSE THE WATER. 
          IT'S ABSOLUTELY THE RIGHT INTENTION, BUT YOUR RATE PAYERS MAY JUST TELL YOU NO, THEY'RE NOT GONNA SUPPORT THAT AND BRING OUT THE PITCHFORKS AND TAR AND JUST YOU'RE GONNA DRILL ANOTHER. 
          WELL, POTENTIALLY YOU MIGHT THEN DECIDE TO JUST DRILL ANOTHER WELL AND NOT USE THIS STUFF IN THE FUTURE. 
          EVEN THOUGH IT'S THE RIGHT DECISION. 
          WE ACTUALLY THINK THAT IT'S THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE DECISION TO USE IT. 
          SO DRILLING THE WELL WE DON'T THINK IS, WE THINK THAT'S A SHORT TERM SOLUTION. 
          WE DON'T THINK THAT'S THE, THE BEST SOLUTION FROM A LONG TERM. 
          AND THOSE WELLS ARE EXPENSIVE. 
          THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT CHEAP TO DRILL. 
          OKAY. 
          ARE YOU GOOD WITH JAKE? HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE YOU GUYS TO GET TOGETHER AND COME BACK TO US WITH A, YOUR THOUGHTS? I MEAN, YOU CHOSE ALTERNATIVE TWO AND TWO HOURS AND 20 MINUTES, BUT IF YOU STUDIED IT AND HAD CONVERSATIONS, I MEAN, IS THIS SOMETHING YOU COULD START PRETTY QUICKLY IN TERMS OF HAVING THE CONVERSATION? I MEAN, WE CERTAINLY CAN START WASH OUT SOME PARTNERSHIP CONCEPTS, RIGHT? MM-HMM . 
          FLUSH OUT THOSE CONCEPTS. 
          BUT IN TERMS OF LIKE DETAILS ON, YOU KNOW, DESIGN OF, OF NO. 
          OKAY. 
          NO CAN AT A CONCEPTUAL LEVEL AND JUST A PARTNERSHIP LEVEL. 
          I, I THINK WE COULD CERTAINLY DO THAT IN A AND AS LONG AS IT DOVETAILS WITH GETTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS, AND NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS VERY STRATEGICALLY, MELISSA. 
          YEAH. 
          I, I THINK THAT WOULD HELP US REALLY TO, TO MAKE A BETTER DECISION. 
          SO I, I THINK I'M HEARING SOMETHING THAT SEEMS TO BE NOT SHOWING UP IN THESE CONVERSATIONS, IN THESE COMMENTS. 
          AND THIS IS PARTLY ABOUT HAVING SOME DIRECTION. 
          SO WHEN THEY DO THE RATE STUDY, THEY HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST FOR THEM TO DO THIS. 
          NOT IN A YEAR, NOT IN 10 YEARS, BUT IN 20 YEARS IF THAT'S THE WAY WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS. 
          AND SO YOU, YOU'VE GOTTA, WE HAVE TO STOP KICKING THIS DOWN THE, DOWN THE ROAD AND, AND MAKE A DECISION HERE, UM, SO THAT THERE'S SOME DOLLAR AMOUNT INVOLVED IN THIS. 
          AND YOU CAN SAY, LET'S NOT GET AHEAD OF OURSELVES WITH PFAS, BUT YOU'RE DOING PFAS WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, WHETHER IT'S THIS YEAR OR NEXT YEAR OR TWO YEARS FROM NOW OR THREE YEARS FROM NOW, YOU ARE DOING PFAS. 
          THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS CONVERSATION. 
          AND THAT $18 MILLION THAT'S IN TODAY'S DOLLARS, WHICH WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS, HAS TO BE PART OF THIS RATE STUDY NO MATTER WHAT WE DO HERE. 
          AGREE. 
          I AGREE. 
          SO WE JUST, WE JUST HAVE TO BE HONEST HERE AND SAY THIS, PARTLY WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR IS AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW ARE THEY GONNA DO THE RATE STUDY? WHAT'S THE AMOUNT, UM, WHAT ARE THEY GONNA GO AND TALK WHEN THEY GO AND TALK WITH, YOU KNOW, THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THE RATE STUDY AND THE AMOUNTS AND ALL THAT STUFF. 
          'CAUSE I'M ASSUMING WE'LL HAVE SOME OUTREACH HERE. 
          UM, WHAT ARE THEY TELLING THEM? AND IT, IT, IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING IT CAN'T BE, WELL, MAYBE WHAT I'M SAYING, WE'VE GOT THIS AMOUNT. 
          I'M SAYING, WHAT I'M ASKING IS IT'S GONNA TAKE THREE MONTHS, REALLY SIX MONTHS TO GET THE SOIL, TO GET THE ENVIRONMENTAL HOW LONG. 
          AND THEY'RE WANNA DO A RATE STUDY IN THE WINTER. 
          IT IS NOW JULY. 
          MM-HMM . 
          SO WE HAVE A FEW MONTHS, RIGHT. 
          WE HAVE THOSE SIX MONTHS. 
          CAN THEY BRING SOMETHING BACK TO US WITHIN THOSE SIX MONTHS OF CONCEPT? WE HAVE ANOTHER MEETING. 
          WE MAKE A DECISION, WE GET IT IN THE RIGHT STUDY. 
          YEAH. 
          I'M NOT, I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOU. 
          I'M PUSHING BACK OVER HERE. 
          . 
          NO, YOU'RE, YOU'RE A MISUNDERSTANDING ME, COUNSELOR DUNN, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE TO DO P-F-A-S-I, NO QUESTION. 
          WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO, BUT WHY DO IT A MINUTE SOONER THAN WE NEED TO WHEN THERE'S UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE RULES, THE TIMING AND POTENTIAL GRANTS. 
          I, I AND I, BUT I'M SAYING SEPARATE THE TWO. 
          THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY A CONVERSATION AROUND LET'S GO GET IT DONE AND WHAT'S IT GONNA COST AND GO FIND THE RIGHT CONTRACTORS. 
          THIS IS A CONVERSATION AROUND WHEN WE GO TO DO THE RATE STUDY, IS THERE AN $18 MILLION THAT WE NEED TO EMBED IN THE COST WHEN THEY GO AND THEY FIGURE OUT THEIR CALCULATIONS FOR THE RATE, WE HAVE TO DO THAT REGARDLESS OF THE, SOMEWHERE IN THE NEXT 10 TO 20 YEARS, WHATEVER THAT TIMEFRAME IS, WE'RE DOING PFAS. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THAT, THAT'S A KNOWN, IT'S WHETHER OR NOT WE DO ANY OF THESE OTHER THINGS. 
          [02:25:01]
THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          THE $18 MILLION FOR PFAS IS ALREADY IN OUR CIP BUDGET IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS. 
          SO, SO YOU'VE ALREADY, YOU'RE ALREADY INCLUDING THAT IN CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE CAN JUST TAKE PFAS OUT OF THE CONVERSATION AND JUST SAY, WE KNOW WE'RE GONNA DO THAT. 
          THEY'RE ALREADY INCLUDING IT. 
          WHAT OTHER PIECE DO WE WANT THEM TO INCLUDE IN THE RATE STUDY? WHERE DO WE WANT THE WATER TO GO NOW IF YOU WANNA WAIT SIX MONTHS FOR THEM TO COME BACK? WELL NOW WE'RE PUSHING RIGHT AGAINST THE WALL OF, OF THE RATE STUDY THAT, THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN. 
          WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GONNA TAKE SIX MONTHS. 
          THE, THE DIFFERENCE REALLY IS DO WE, IN MY MIND, DO WE DO ALTERNATIVE WATER OR ALTERNATIVE TWO? YEAH. 
          RIGHT. 
          THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. 
          DEPENDING ON THESE CONVERSATIONS. 
          BECAUSE IF ALTERNATIVE TWO IS NECESSARY OR IS VALUABLE TO YOU AND YOU'RE WILLING TO PAY SOME OF IT, , I ALWAYS ADD THAT IN. 
          UH, IT'S, IT'S JUST IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT INFORMATION. 
          AND I AGREE WITH YOU. 
          IT'S WHAT IS GONNA BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          I I I ALSO JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T LOSE SIGHT OF, I, I HEARD ROXANNE DESCRIBING A DISCHARGE ISSUE. 
          SO WE HAVE OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE DISCHARGE ISSUES AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE DEALT WITH. 
          SO IT'S PART, PART OF THE ISSUE, I THINK. 
          OKAY. 
          MOVING RIGHT ALONG. 
          YOU'VE HEARD FROM SUMMARY  OUTSIDE. 
          DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING? YEAH. 
          SUMMARY. 
          I MEAN, IF WE'RE OH YEAH, NO, NO. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I, NO OTHER QUESTIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          DEREK LOOKS LIKE HE HAS A TON OF QUESTIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO TO SUMMARIZE OR COMMENTS, UH, SHOULD WE SAY P FOR THE LAST AND WE JUST MOVE DOWN THIS WAY? I THOUGHT I ALREADY DID SUMMARIZE. 
          YOU DID. 
          I THOUGHT YOU DID. 
          AND THEN I CLARIFIED FOR COUNCILOR DUNN'S BENEFIT THAT I'M NOT AS CRAZY AS SHE THINKS I AM. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE, THAT EVERYTHING'S, EVERYBODY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY EVEN THOUGH WE'RE A HALF HOUR PAST OUR SCHEDULED TIME. 
          I'M JUST GOING TO CONTINUE DOWN. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          VICE MAYOR, ARE YOU GOOD? YEAH, I THINK WE JUST HAD OUR CONVERSATION. 
          YEAH, YOU DID. 
          I I YOU DID. 
          UH, DEREK, YOU'RE GOOD. 
          KATHY, YOU'RE, I AM WITH MELISSA. 
          OKAY FOLKS, I THINK WE'RE DONE. 
          GO AHEAD PETE , TRY TO BE CONCISE. 
          IF YOU DON'T, I'LL LAY ON THE TABLE WHAT I THINK WE SHOULD DO MOVING FORWARD. 
          AND I REALLY THINK IT'S, LET'S FIX THE, THE TREATMENT PLAN AS IT IS RIGHT NOW. 
          'CAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED. 
          WE'VE, PREVIOUS COUNCILS HAVE STRUGGLED WITH THIS RATE PAYER ISSUE IN, IN THE PAST. 
          WE HAVE, AND IT'S DIFFICULT BECAUSE THE PRICES ARE BIG AND I THINK THEY'VE GROWN SINCE WE'VE DONE IT BEFORE. 
          'CAUSE THE PLANT'S GETTING OLDER, WE GOTTA DO MORE TO IT. 
          AND WE'VE NEVER REALLY RENEWED THE PLANT YET. 
          THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'RE GOING THROUGH IT. 
          AND I THINK IT'S GONNA BE A BIG ENOUGH CHALLENGE AS IT IS FOR FIXING THE PLANT, KEEPING IT GOING AS IT IS, AND, AND TELLING OUR, OUR, UM, COMMUNITY WHAT THE RATES ARE REALLY FOR OPERATING THIS THING WITHOUT A GENERAL FUND SUBSIDY, WHICH WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO IN THE FUTURE. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO I REALLY THINK THAT OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS, WE'D BE GOOD ENOUGH JUST TO RUN THE PLANT, HOW IT IS FIXING PERHAPS THIS UV FLOW ISSUE, THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          MAYBE WE DON'T EVEN NEED THE TWO ADDITIONAL IRRIGATION WELLS, UH, INJECTION WELLS TO SUPPLEMENT THE PLANT AS IT IS THAT THAT'LL TAKE US OUT 10 YEARS. 
          UH, UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, AT THE SAME TIME, AND NONE OF THIS EXTRA COST NEEDS TO BE IN THE RATE STUDY BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY UNKNOWNS YET. 
          AND, UH, REGARDING THE PFAS, I GIVE GREAT LATITUDE FOR THE WORLD CHANGING ABOUT PFAS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK MOST OF, UH, AMERICANS KNOW HOW MUCH PFAS IS GONNA COST THEM. 
          IT'S NOT JUST IN SEDONA, MAN, THIS IS EVERYWHERE AND IT'S A BIG COST. 
          AND I THINK THERE'S GONNA BE SOME REVOLT ABOUT THAT AND THEN MAYBE SOME TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS ABOUT HOW WE TREAT FOR IT. 
          BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, I THINK WE SHOULD SPEND SOME MONEY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF WE CAN FIX THE PLANT FOR P-F-A-S-P-F-A-S ISN'T COMING INTO OUR PLANT, IT'S COMING OUT, WE'RE DOING IT. 
          AND MAYBE THERE'S DIFFERENT GREASES OR DIFFERENT LINERS OR DIFFERENT PUMPS OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE FAR LESS EXPENSIVE TO TREAT RATHER THAN TO BUILD THE REMOVAL PLANT. 
          I MEAN, RECYCLING ALL, ALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUFF SAYS STOP DOING THE BAD THING AT THE START AND IT'S US DOING THE BAD THING. 
          IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S NOT COMING INTO THE PLANT. 
          SO LET'S SPEND SOME TIME AND MONEY SEEING IF WE CAN FIX WHAT WE GOT. 
          AND THEN, YES, I CERTAINLY ENCOURAGE US TO BE LOOKING, HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE PARTNERSHIPS. 
          BECAUSE IF, YOU KNOW, THE ADJUDICATION MIGHT BE JUST, THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ADJUDICATION. 
          IT MIGHT COME DOWN THAT 
          [02:30:01]
WAY. 
          THERE'S RIGHT, THERE'S ENOUGH DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALLUVIAL BASINS AND OUR ROCK FRACTURED BASINS. 
          IT MIGHT NOT EVER COME TO NEED THAT. 
          THEY REALLY NEED THE WATER AND THAT'LL AFFECT HOW THEY THINK ABOUT THE PRICE OF THE WATER. 
          AND SO WE OUGHT TO HAVE SOME OF THESE CONVERSATIONS RIGHT NOW ABOUT WHETHER ANYONE WILL EVER BUY OR EVEN BUY EVEN THE RECLAIMED WATER. 
          RIGHT? THERE'S SO MANY THINGS THAT WE DON'T KNOW YET. 
          WE ALREADY KNOW WE'VE GOT A BIG ENOUGH PROBLEM WITH THE COST OF THIS STUFF AND WHAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, IMMA KEEP WHAT YOU GOT GOING UNTIL YOU CAN'T. 
          AND WE DON'T HAVE A CAN'T IN THAT EQUATION YET. 
          WE, WE DON'T. 
          AND IT'S 10 YEARS. 
          AND IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SAYS PFAS IS REQUIRED FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, WELL THEN WE GOTTA DO IT. 
          AND WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO EVERYONE AND SAY, HEY, HERE'S THE NEW REQUIREMENT. 
          WE GOTTA DO THIS. 
          BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO BUILD IT INTO THE COST. 
          NOW THAT'S GONNA JUST CONTINUE TO SCARE EVERYONE MORE THAN IS ALREADY A SCARY SITUATION. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'LL MOVE FORWARD. 
          I THINK THAT I DON'T WANT TO, UH, REPEAT WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN SAID. 
          I WILL GO WITH THIS GROUP OVER HERE,  AND, UH, I DON'T KNOW, GROUP OVER HERE IS, I THINK WHAT I RESOLVE ANYTHING. 
          I THINK WHAT I HEARD WAS DO THE SOIL STUDY, DO THESE PARTNERSHIP CONCERT CONVERSATIONS, COME BACK TO COUNCIL WHENEVER THAT STUDY'S DONE. 
          AND WE HAVE ADDITIONAL, UM, CLARITY ON THESE PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES, HOPEFULLY BEFORE THE END OF THE CALENDAR YEAR SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE THIS DISCUSSION AGAIN. 
          BUT IT'LL BE A, A MORE FOCUSED BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE NARROWED STUFF DOWN. 
          RIGHT. 
          I THINK THAT'S WHAT I HEARD THE MAJORITY SAY. 
          MM-HMM . 
          UM, WAS, AM I MISSING ANYTHING? YOU WANNA SOMETHING? I JUST AM LOOKING FOR A BLOOD OATH UP HERE THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA YET AGAIN, THEN KICK IT DOWN THE LINE. 
          I MEAN, I THINK I'M HEARING COUNSELOR DUNN'S CONCERNS ABOUT THAT, MY CONCERNS ABOUT THAT AND COUNCILOR FURMAN'S CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. 
          I THINK THAT WE'RE, WE REALLY JUST KEEP, YES, THERE'S ADDITIONAL INFO WE WANT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE, I DON'T FEEL THAT WE'VE, NOR DO I FEEL THAT I'M COMPETENT TO JUST GIVE THAT, BUT WE HAVEN'T REALLY GIVEN ENOUGH DIRECTION. 
          I THINK I, I MEAN IT'S UP TO STAFF TO TELL US, BUT IF I WERE YOU GUYS, I'D BE REALLY FRUSTRATED WITH US. 
          RIGHT. 
          ROXANNE, DIDN'T YOU SAY YOU NEEDED THIS FEEDBACK FROM US BY THE END OF THE CALENDAR YEAR, ROUGHLY, UH, ROUGHLY SO THAT WE COULD INCORPORATE IT INTO THE RATE STUDY AND OUR 10 YEAR CIP AND WHATNOT. 
          SO, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING WE WANT TO TRY TO DELIVER ON MM-HMM . 
          BLOOD OATH. 
          WHAT? BLOOD OATH. 
          PINKY PROMISE. 
          . 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          PINKY SWEAR. 
           AND THAT, DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH? YEAH, I THINK ROXANNE AGREED. 
          OKAY. 
          I DO. 
          YES. 
          ARIZONA WASN'T GONNA PAY FOR THE WHOLE THING, SO WE'RE ALL GOOD. 
          RIGHT? OKAY, GOOD. 
          ALL EXPENSIVE . 
          OF COURSE JOHN HAS A SUITCASE WITH HIM. 
          'CAUSE HE'S LIKE, I'M GETTING OUTTA TOWN AFTER THIS MONEY. 
          HE'S BRINGING US THE MONEY. 
          RIGHT. 
          TERRY, SUE, THANK YOU JOHN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOU'RE VERY HELPFUL, ROXANNE. 
          ALWAYS YOU GUYS, WE DO APPRECIATE THE PARTNERSHIP, SO US TOO. 
          THANK YOU, ROXANNE. 
          AS USUAL. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          GREAT. 
          GREAT JOB. 
          OKAY, UH, 
          [3.b. Discussion/possible action regarding ideas for future meetings/agenda items. ]
ITEM B, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING IDEAS FOR FUTURE MEETING AND AGENDA ITEMS. DO WE SEE ANYTHING? OKAY. 
          HEARING NOTHING, UH, NEXT BEINGS IN ABOUT A MONTH. 
          AND, UH, THIS MEANS 
          [5. ADJOURNMENT]
THIS BEINGS ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.