Public Works and Utilities Committee Meeting Mon, Mar 3, 2025 · Public Works and Utilities Committee https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/66 == Executive Summary == The Public Works and Utilities Committee met to discuss several key items, including a professional services contract for wastewater treatment plant upgrades and an amendment to a financial consulting contract. The committee approved a $2.9 million contract with Molzen Corbin for design and repair work on the wastewater treatment plant's SCADA system, sludge drying system, and lift stations. This investment was deemed "no regret spending" as it would benefit the plant regardless of future strategic plans. A significant portion of the meeting focused on an amendment to a contract with Financial Consulting Solutions Group Inc., which sought to remove a fiscal year cap on payments. Councilors expressed concerns about unspent funds from previous fiscal years and requested detailed justification for increased spending in the current fiscal year. Despite these concerns and a lack of a clear scope of work for an additional $25,000, the committee ultimately approved the additional funding for the consultant contract, with one dissenting vote. The consultant's work is crucial for developing water and wastewater rate structures to support capital plans. == Key Decisions == - Approved the agenda with items J and K pulled from the consent agenda. - Approved the consent agenda as amended. - Approved the professional services contract with Molzen Corbin for $2,94,200 for wastewater treatment plant upgrades. - Approved additional funding for the consultant contract with Financial Consulting Solutions Group Inc., despite concerns about previous underspending and lack of detailed scope for the additional funds. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve the agenda — Passed. - Motion to approve the consent agenda, as amended (excluding items J and K) — Passed. - Motion to approve Item J (Molzen Corbin contract) — Passed. - Motion to approve additional funding for the consultant contract with Financial Consulting Solutions Group Inc. — Passed (Councilor Michael Garcia voted "No"). == Public Comment == No public comment period. == Topics == - Utility Rate Increase - Wastewater Treatment Plant - Professional Services Contracts - Sludge Drying System - Strategic Plan for Water/Wastewater - SCADA System Upgrades - Contract Oversight & Management - Cost of Service Study - Staffing and Training - Las Vegas Water Situation == Full Transcript == We are live. Thank you. At 5:00, I will call to order the Public Works and Public Utilities Committee. If we could get a roll call, please. Councilor K. Romero Wirth: I'm here. Councilor Alma Castro: Same thing. Councilor Lee Garcia: Councilor Michael Garcia: Councilor Amanda Chavez: Is excused. You have a quorum, Madam Chair. Thank you. Do we have any changes to tonight's agenda from staff? No changes from staff, Madam Chair. Any changes from the committee? If not, is there a motion? Motion. Second. We have a motion and second to approve the agenda. All those in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? That motion passes. Moving on to consent. I believe there were two items pulled off of consent. Are you familiar with those, Director Roach? Yes, Madam Chair. Just to confirm, it was Councilor Michael Garcia with the motion and Councilor Lee Garcia with the second. I believe that's correct. Thank you. There were two items pulled, Madam Chair, both pulled by Councilor Michael Garcia, items J and K. Item J... Shall I read this? I don't think you need to. We're going to read them in just a minute. So, K, you also pulled K. Okay, thank you. Right. We have J and K. Anything else the committee is interested in? If not, is there a motion? Move to approve as amended. So we have a motion by Councilor Castro, second by Councilor Lee Garcia. So we have a motion, a second. All those in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? That motion passes. Okay, we do have a present... Wait, am I up? I'm the wrong committee. Sorry, I'm on Wednesday night's agenda. Okay, we do not have presentations tonight, so we'll go directly to the consent agenda. The first item that was pulled was item J: Request for approval of a Professional Services contract with Molzen Corbin in the total amount of $2,94,200. Doer, for being here. Just two quick questions regarding this contract. This is for the design of... Is it for a complete rebuild of the treatment plant, or what is... Can you tell me what they're going to be designing? This is not for a design of a treatment plant. This is actually for design and repair to work that is in our SCADA system, the system that controls the facility automation at the actual facility. Also for other sidebar designs. For one, it's working with a sludge drying system that can actually dry the sludge and make it lighter for our transport to the landfills. It'll actually, having a drier solid, less water in the weight, you can get more quantity on the vehicle and more goes to the dump. So it actually takes a lot less time and effort to get those solids to the facilities. Some of the other work is for lift stations, and I believe it's the third page. I believe it actually starts on the first page of the contract scope. There are multiple different pieces called out. Dissolved air flotation systems that would be working with getting automation to those older systems. As you scoot over to the other side, the area will be marked out in the one through 12, and each one of them calls out what the actual work will be doing. This contract is for a two-year term, so it's not something that is going to be all done this year or this fiscal year immediately. Right. So just for clarification, it's for the existing facility. The existing facility only. Okay. How does this fit into a potential recommendation for the strategic plan that's supposed to be issued here in a couple months? This doesn't have very much, I guess, weight on the recommendation for these are actual parts that are to get the current facility running at its top possibilities so that we can extend, if we do go and build another facility, the plant can make it till the other one's built. Okay. I just want to make sure that we're not making a major investment, such as, you know, $2 million investment, what's being asked here, and this strategic plan points us in a different direction. It doesn't seem like that's going to be the case. Am I correct in that? Madam Chair and Councilor Garcia, no, this doesn't affect that thought or sway it one way or the other, but it does help keep the facility running at its best until another facility is built, if that is the direction we go. If it is not the direction we go, all of this will still be utilized for whatever rehabilitation we do at the facility. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Doer. No other questions, Madam Chair. Other questions from the committee? Councilor Lee Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. Director Doer, so this, my then, my understanding, this is kind of falls into that things that we need to do to keep the plant running, because when we had the presentation, I think we discussed, you know, obviously direction of a new plant, direction to rebuild the old plant, and the must-haves just to keep us on the direction of operating at full compliance. Is that what this keeps us in that same direction, the must, the must-dos? Madam Chair, Councilor Garcia, half of them, yes, are that. I believe they, the term they were using was "no regret spending," right? So everything but stuff that is working with the solids, such as the sludge dryer, if we build a new facility, the sludge dryer and the solids are still around. That doesn't change. We do not get rid of solids. We're still going to have to dry them somehow and either get them into composting or landfills of nature's, that kind of nature. Things that are more focused on, like the no regrets type thing, would be like the SCADA connections, because those are directly linking the facility equipment into a hub where an operator can control them remotely, or we can write in programming that'll explain what needs to be done, and an operator doesn't have to go out there and do it. The computer will do it for us, and it just, it really works towards more efficient run at the facility so that you can keep the facility in compliance a lot easier than having to focus on other pieces that could be running themselves, basically. And within, oh, go ahead. Director, with within that, what you just commented on in regards to, within our current employees, we have people capable or able to be trained to on top of this and make sure it's done, it's optimal performance. Madam Chair, Councilor Garcia, we are still understaffed, but the employees we do have are really able to go in and learn what is, what needs to be done. And also, we have really good instrument control staff right now that are keeping track of the equipment and making sure it's working correctly. In the instance that data is provided through that SCADA system, how do we address issues that rise from that data? Is it through our internal current staffing, or is it through outside contract? I would say both. I mean, we, we've, we have our internal staff that we collectively go in, focus on all the readings and data that we do have, and try to assess how we want the plant to run currently. And then we also have other staff or other contractors that will, one, look over the work we're doing to make sure that we are in the, in a process mind that we should be, and also to just go above and beyond whatever we may not be able to see or think through. They are kind of watching the background and able to provide advice of what we should be doing or what we could do to make it better. Thank you. And I guess the last question is on the sludge drying system. Now, I see that will make our processes more efficient. Councilor Garcia, yes, that is one of the one pieces that we've been dealing with a lot lately, that we're transporting a lot of sludge to, to landfills. We're trying to get to a point where we create more compost, but at the same time, things like this dryer will take it from say, like a 12 or 13% moisture content to one or two moisture content. So basically, like if you took a scoop of wet dirt and threw it in the back of a truck, you're going to set down that truck, it's going to weigh it down pretty well. But if you take that same amount of dirt that is almost dry and there's nothing in it, well, you could just be topping off that truck until it keeps going. I mean, it, the, the weight difference is huge. So therefore, you can obviously pipe it more by the ton. That's all by tons. So it cuts down on transport cost, it cuts down on tipping fees, it, it lowers all of it just by being drier, because we're not paying for that water weight to get moved from the facility to a landfill. It's a big difference. Thank you. I think Director Roach, you had something you wanted to add to that. Madam Chair and Councilors Michael and Lee Garcia, I appreciate the questions, and I think the question, the concern that we might be spending money that we wouldn't, that we might be investing in something that wouldn't be a long-term value is, is one that's first and foremost in our minds. And in fact, today we had a meeting discussing the draft report that Coro has prepared, and the major area that we spent time on comments was really focusing on, are these really things that we have to have, or are these things that might be different depending whether we rebuild or whether we, um, rebuild what we have or whether we go in the direction of a new facility? So we're really focusing in on that to make sure that any investments we make in the next five years are exactly what we need to keep things moving along or would be useful in either situation. Thank you. No further questions. Other questions from the committee? Councilor Castro. I just want to remind members of the community that we do have very inexpensive manure that they can come by from us. I'm not sure that's what we call it, though. Sorry. I'm compost. Yeah, because, yeah. Okay. Anything else? If not, is there a motion? Move to approve. Second. So we have a motion from Councilor Castro, a second from Councilor Michael Garcia. And Director Roach, we're going to need a roll call. Councilor Carol Romero Wirth: Yes. Councilor Alma Castro: Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes. Okay, that motion passes. We are on to the second item, which is item K. Thank you, Mr. Doer, for coming tonight. Request for approval of Amendment Number One to Professional Services Contract Item 21-0522 with Financial Consulting Solutions Group Inc. to remove the fiscal year cap for amounts payable to contractor for utility rate and financial services. And Director Roach, I believe you're going to be answering questions on this. And Councilor Michael Garcia, you pulled this item. Thank you, Madam Chair. Director Roach, why are we removing the cap? Madam Chair, Councilor Michael Garcia, we're removing the cap because we're up against the way this contract was structured. And I'm going to use very round numbers here. It was approximately $600,000 total contract cap for four years, and approximately $150,000 per year cap. We're up against that cap for this fiscal year, but there remains contract capacity, and this is the final year of the contract. And so, because we do have contract capacity, and the only thing keeping us from spending it is this sentence that says, "In this year, you can spend about $150,000," we wanted to strike that so that we could access more of the available contract capacity. Do we have a breakdown of the previous fiscal years? Because as you mentioned, each year there is a set, set amount of resources that are to be expended. You know, first year, $141,000, second year, $157,000, third year, $151,000, and then this year, $154,000. Are you able to provide what they pulled down based off of those numbers? Because I don't want us to be in a situation where somebody sees that there potentially is money left on the table, let's get more work done, let's pull more resources down, when that should have been done in the previous three years. And I'm not saying that's what's happening, but it, at face value, it somewhat looks like that, and I want to understand what, what was pulled down each of the years that's allowing us to have excess to allow for work to continue more this year. I mean, it seems, I mean, when this contract was negotiated, we should have We've done so in a manner where we knew we were going to get a full year's worth of work. So let me start there. And then, yes, Councilor Garcia, the contract was, and I'm again going to give you pretty round numbers. I did sort of put these numbers together. If you want very specific to the dollar, I can get those. But in the first year, FY22, approximately $116,000 was not spent. So we only spent about $30,000 or $35,000 in FY22 on this contract. In FY23, we spent about half, leaving about $70,000 unspent. And then last year, FY24, we spent most of it. We left about $119,000 unspent. And then this year, there's been a, we've been asking the consultant to do a whole lot more work on different scenarios related to water, both water and wastewater utilities, as we face potential rate hikes with both utilities. We've been trying to be very careful that we really understand what those, what the revenue requirements are. And in the remainder of this fiscal year, we would like to prepare for the consideration of council some possible rate increase packages for each of those utilities. And also, in the case of water, revisit some work that we have done with this consultant in the past, looking at potential changes to the rate structure. So we really have wanted to lean heavily on this consultant this fiscal year because of those revenue requirements for those two utilities and the rate structure questions we have for the water rates. Okay, thank you, Director Roach. So based off the numbers you stated, there was for the previous three fiscal years about $205,000 that was not expended. Based off of the projections, what do we anticipate the remainder of this fiscal year will be? I mean, are you trying to get all $205,000 out the door? And if there is, I'd like to really see those costs justified with projected deliverables. I know you had mentioned some of them, but those aren't necessarily in the memo. And if we're going to allow for these funds to be expended, I'd want to be able to justify why we're allowing for such a removal of cap. In this instance, it's what I would call a carryover of funds in a different realm. Councilor Garcia, I actually reached out to the consultant this afternoon to ask that exact question of what we thought we might spend in the next four months, and I didn't get a response from them. And as you have noted, I think I agree. I think there's approximately $200,000 of contract capacity. And because we've never spent more than $130,000, we only have a small amount of the fiscal year left. I would anticipate, and again, I will give you their response when I get it, I would anticipate the additional spend will be on the order of $50,000. But I will get you the number, provide you with a better number once I've spoken to them about kind of really estimating for the rest of the fiscal year what that might look like. Okay. And did you say they've almost at capacity for this year? We've allocated $154,600. Where are they at with that mark? I think there's about $20,000 left. So we will come to a quick halt with them. There are, we're trying to set up meetings with them to help us sort of lay out potential structures, and we'll quickly have to put that work on hold if we don't, and we aren't able to backfill. Okay, so is it reasonable that this $20,000 can get you through the next 30 days? And the reason I ask is because I have a hard time saying yes to this without being able to understand how much of this $205,000 they think they would be requesting, and then in addition to that, the deliverables that we're going to be getting if we allocate additional resources. I don't think that they can make it through the next 30 days. I think they make it through the next two weeks. And we have a tentative meeting scheduled with them in the middle of this month, and the hope is that we would have more money available to direct them at that time. Okay, so that's quite challenging to me and concerning, given this is coming at the 11th hour. And I just have a hard time supporting this without the justification that's necessary in my opinion. I apologize. Director Roach: No other questions, Madam Chairman. Other questions from the committee? Councilor Lee Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. And yeah, I also pulled this item because I had some of the similar concerns. I guess, given the dialogue that we just went through, this does not allow for more than the total amount to be spent, is that correct? Madam Chair, Councilor Lee Garcia, it does not allow for more than the total contract capacity to be spent. And so it's not, it's also not allowing for you to extend the date, which is beyond this fiscal year, correct? Now you said that theoretically, it's likely that you'll only have to spend about $50,000, is that about right? That's my estimate, and I will need to get back to you once I get a confirmation from the consultant. And what, how long is that going to take? I should have an answer this week. Yeah, I think that the work is important to kind of have that information for us to be able to make decisions. Obviously, rate hikes aren't something that, rate increases, hikes, in the eyes of the public, it's going to cost some more for a service. And I always like to err on the side of, is this the only way that we are able to achieve? And I think utilizing this contractor is just one contractor, given the information that they can provide, will allow us to be able to make best reasonable decisions. We have an idea of when rate increases possibly could come for. Councilor Garcia, I think that's an excellent question. And tentatively, what we're shooting for is to have the wastewater, the first wastewater rate increase as soon as July of this year, and the first water increase as soon as January of next year. And so we really are under the gun to try and make sure we can start to build the revenue that we need to make the improvements that we have outlined in our capital plans for both wastewater and water. Yeah, I, what, what then would happen to the, if your contract is only up to, you only spend $50,000, roughly leaves $175,000 to $200,000 on the table. What, what happens with that? Councilor Garcia, I think in very round numbers, if we spent $50,000, we would leave about $150,000 of contract capacity that would be unused at the end of the fiscal year. All right. Director, no further questions. Councilor Castro. Thank you, Director. So my understanding is the contract doesn't really change. Was there anything that maybe slowed down this contract because we did expend less than we had originally anticipated in some past fiscal years? Were there any holdups with this contractor? Madam Chair, Councilor Castro, I have, in my interactions with this contractor, I've been very pleased with the work they do and the responsiveness that they provide. They are busy, and they are, I think, in demand. They aren't always available immediately, but usually within a day or two, they will get back to me. And when I do schedule a meeting with them and make requests, they're very responsive. So I have not noticed any delays in terms of their response to our request. But maybe that's not exactly what you're asking. Let me clarify. My question, I apologize. Because of the complexity of projects like these, in particular, updating our whole utilities billing, have we maybe not hit some of the benchmarks that we had anticipated? Oh, okay. This, the consulting services that FCS provides for us are not related to the implementation of the billing software. Really, what this firm does for us is for every one of the three enterprise funds, so water, wastewater, and ESD, each year they look at projected, they project our revenues for us. And then they look at our sort of operation budget and our capital plan and put those things together and see, do we have the revenues that we need to support those things? And they do that every year for every one of the enterprise funds. And then on an alternating year, they do a cost of service for one of the three. And so that's sort of the recurring services that they provide to us to really help us make sure that we have a good sense of what's happening with our finances going out five and 10 years so that we're not caught totally off guard. Thank you for that clarification. So I too am a little concerned that we're having to sort of bill into the future, which I hope that we won't do again. It's not going to influence my vote today, but let's try not to do that in the future. Thank you. Okay, I just want to clarify a couple things. This consultant, as you mentioned, has nothing to do with utility billing and in fact is responsive to your needs year to year and does those overarching things you just spoke of about doing a cost of service for one of the enterprise funds at periodic intervals, but then also making sure that our, basically we can cover our costs year to year for all three of these enterprise funds, ESD, water, and wastewater. Am I understanding that correctly? Madam Chair, that's correct. And so the fact that you didn't spend certain money in some of these fiscal years just means that we didn't need that consultant, we didn't need as much as we thought. And I think some of this goes to the way it was structured. It could have been like an on-call for $600,000 and not divided year by year. Not sure why it was divided year by year. Do you have any sense of that? Madam Chair, I'm out of my lane on the sort of requirements that end up in those contracts. And we keep thinking that we could set it up as sort of a contract basis, and it seems like the annual spending limits keep coming back in. So I think I'm not completely clear on those requirements. Yeah, and so it seems like they were sort of, they're roughly similar amounts in each fiscal year. As I look at this, in FY22, $141,000, FY23, $157,000, FY24, $151,000, FY25, $154,000. So, within a few thousand, roughly similar amounts of money to do, I would assume, similar amounts of work. But the fact that you didn't spend all of them just means that you didn't use this consultant as much as you had guessed you would. And there's some money there. And now we have some really critical work we need to do to structure and understand the water and wastewater increases that need to come forward. And we only have $20,000 left in this fiscal year. So we kind of need to draw on the carry, the excess that wasn't spent in those prior ones. And that still is under the contract cap of $600,000 for the four, one, two, three, four years. Am I getting that correctly? Madam Chair, yes. Okay. And I would just, I would just note that this is going to finance next Monday. And I have had over my two terms as a councilor several interactions with this particular consultant. I know him to be very responsive, and I anticipate that you'll probably have an answer by tomorrow. So I'm not even worried that you won't have an answer by the finance committee meeting. And the fact that we have $200,000 that hasn't been spent in the first four years of the contract and $20,000 that's still available this year, and you're saying we may use a fourth of that, I'm not sure where the concern is here, because I think we're going to have the answers that the committee is looking for. And I don't know, am I under, am I not, am I missing something here? Madam Chair, I apologize that I didn't arrive at this meeting with all the answers that I think are fairly being asked, but I think that you are making a fair assessment of the situation. Okay. Yeah, I mean, obviously, Obviously, we all like to have all the information we can have, and I appreciate that you reached out to the consultant prior to this meeting. Again, I do know him to be very responsive, so I'm sure it must have been his workload today. I'm sure that we will have this information when the Finance Committee meets on Monday. Councilor Castro, before I go to you, Councilor Michael Garcia had, I think, another question, and then I can come back to you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it's fair to have concerns when something like this is brought forward because the critical work that's being proposed to be spent on this, the big question is why wasn't this done in the first three years of the contract? Why wasn't staff managing the work that was supposed to be produced? And now, at the 11th hour, when the contract's about to expire, we're trying to get the work done. That's concerning to me, that there wasn't the oversight on that. Now, when we get into another concern I've got, should this move forward, is that this ultimately leaves a blank check for the remaining $25,000. I know Director Roach mentioned that in your assessment, it might be $50,000, but we have not heard from the contractor what it might be. And until, the way I look at it, is anytime there's services rendered, there's always an estimate in regards to, "We're going to have such work output, and it's going to come at this cost." And we don't have that in front of us, and that is the concern to me, is that we're saying we're going to get some extra work. It's not guaranteed, it's not in writing, and then we don't know at what cost, knowing that there is this big $25,000 that they could ultimately draw down fully should this, in the manner it is. I'd be more comfortable to hear back from the contractor to say, "We are going to do X, Y, and Z, and it's going to cost this amount." That way, we have it clear as day in regards to what the deliverables are and what it's going to cost the city. Right now, we don't have either of those, and all we're saying is there's going to be additional work, and we're going to open up the checkbook to potentially $25,000. And so, I think, again, I just can't support it in this means. I don't sit on the Finance Committee. I don't have the information. I don't get a say at that. This is my opportunity to really ensure that we're doing the work of the residents and making sure we're protecting their dollar. So, I appreciate you bringing this forward, Director Roach, and I don't think that if we were to hold this here for a meeting, it's going to really derail the work that's being done, because if we hold it for two weeks, we can get the information needed. It can go before the next governing body, and the work presumes as potentially planned. Those are my comments, Madam Chair. Councilor Castro: Thank you so much, Chair. I want to just echo Director Roach's concerns on some of the caps. My previous question had to do with maybe if we are updating some of our billing systems, maybe it's getting more expensive to do some of the audits. I know personally, we've been discussing some needs that the community has with like language access, for example, in some of these billing situations, and that has a price tag. And so, I'm not so much concerned that we are overspending, but rather that these arbitrary caps might be causing a problem in some of our contracts, and that we need to take a look at those once again. Thank you. And Councilor, I just want to correct you, this has nothing to do with the billing system. Correct. I apologize. I just want to make it clear that that was my misconception that because we are implementing a new billing system, this contractor might have extra work, but that was not the case. Yeah, and again, if there's only $20,000 to pull down on, I don't think this is a question of the staff not managing the work. I think that the fact that there wasn't a need for what is now being asked of this consultant now, and there is only $20,000, so I would take issue with delaying this two weeks, because again, this information, as Director Roach has pointed out, is very important for getting the rate structure that we're going to need for the amount of money we're going to need to carry out the capital plans for both water and wastewater, and it takes time to pull that all together, then run those rate increases through the governing body process for approval. So, I again, I understand if there's a councilor who feels like they don't have the information tonight to vote in the affirmative on this, but I would caution the committee about holding it up. It does go to Finance, and it then does go to governing body. So, I think that the concerns, I'm not suggesting the concerns aren't valid, but the information can be made available to everybody as this moves through the process, both at Finance and then later at governing body. Councilor Lee Garcia: Thank you, Madam Chair. Since we're kind of hashing this out a little bit and going through information, I want to revisit the reasons for expenditures in each of the fiscal years. So, in fiscal year '22, you said we spent about $116,000, of which about $30,000 was unspent. Way around the other way around, so we spent $30,000 and $116,000 was not spent. Is it safe to assume that in that year, we really didn't have directives or the intent to take a look at our rates at that in that year? Councilor Garcia, it's a good question. I'm not sure when, maybe we could look at when the date became effective. That was the first fiscal year this was effective, and as I mentioned, each year they do a revenue requirement study for all of the enterprise funds, and then one cost of service study. And the cost of service study is more detailed and represents the bulk of the workload. And so, it's possible that we didn't, either we didn't ask for, we didn't need the cost of service study that year. I think the fact that it's underspent also indicates that they're responsive to our requests and they don't do work without being asked to do the work. They're plenty busy, and so they sort of are available to us as we need them. So then, if we go into FY '23, about half was the answer there. And so, in FY '24, we spent the majority of the allocated money. I do recall, I would say, can't recall if it was '23 or '24, that we did an increase in rates for environmental services. I don't recall either, but I know we did, and I'm assuming that when we did call on the contractor to bring their expertise in identifying those rates, I do remember we had presentations and we had a discussion at this committee about that. So, I'm on the side of fiscal responsibility. I do understand Councilor Michael Garcia's concerns. I also, though, do realize that we don't have a whole lot of time left in our fiscal year, and I really would err on the side of caution and state that the best work that we can get from the contractor for the best price is always going to be what my request is. And that being said, I feel okay with moving this forward. And so, I believe we may have more of this discussion in Finance. I really believe that at this committee, and I know that the other councilors that don't sit on Finance, this is their opportunity to take a look at the money issue with it. And my concern at this committee level for me is kind of, how important is it that we need this extra money? And it sounds like we're needing it pretty quickly. We do need to utilize that as soon as possible. In my opinion, we do need to keep this, the momentum that we have built going with this consultant and these efforts. Thank you. No further questions, Madam Chair. Thank you. And I agree, we need the information, and I think, again, I believe this consultant will provide the information, and all the councilors will have it by the time it goes on final pass. Any other questions, comments? I'm okay. Councilor Michael Garcia, back to you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one last request, Director Roach, given, you know, we are asking for additional money, and I do, I am somebody who works off of results. And so, I'm looking at the scope of work, and there's A, B, C, D, E, five items, F, six. One, I'd like to get a report on what work was done on each of these items. But again, I'd like to bring to the committee's attention item E, which is utility cost of services study. And it brings back my concern of why wasn't this done previously? This is clear as day that this was work that was expected, and I want to learn more in regards to what has been accomplished in regards to the scope of work, because obviously there has been charges to the city in tune of roughly $400,000. And I want to really understand what we've gotten for those resources if one of them has not been fully met, which is item E, is the utility cost to service study. So, we can get an update on that, that'd be great. Yes, happy to do that. I will say that the utility cost of service study is the piece that is alternated, and each year they do a cost of service study for one of the three enterprise funds. And so, it's on a rotating basis. I will find out which funds were done each year, and if they were, if that was always done, and if it wasn't done, it was probably because we didn't request it. But I think, you know, asking for a summary of what was done on this scope is a fair request. Anything else, Councilor? Madam Chair. Okay. Any other questions from the committee? If not, is there a motion? Second. We have a motion and a second to approve this item. We do need a roll call. And did you get those? I sometimes move this too fast. Very good. Motion by Lee Garcia, second by Councilor Castro. And roll call would be great when you're ready. Councilor Carol Romero Worth? Yes. Councilor Al Mastro? Lee Garcia? Councilor Michael Garcia? No. The motion passes. Yes, it does. Motion passes. Thank you. Okay. I believe with that, we have finished our consent agenda, and we can go to Matters from Staff. I will just provide one brief update on the Las Vegas water situation. My understanding is that they did not take any water over the weekend, that they are stabilizing their plant, but they're still not completely out of the woods, so they're leaving the trucks on standby. Thank you. Matters from the committee. Matters from the chair. Our next meeting is Monday, March 17th. And with that, we are adjourned. Thank you, everyone.