Government Performance and Finance Committee - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call the order of the Government Performance and Finance Committee meeting of July 21st, 2026. Clerk, please call the roll.

Vice Chair Bushnell.

Present.

Council Member Rova. Here. Council Member Sevelle-Gay.

Here.

And Chair Hines.

Here. All right. We'll now move on to public comment. Clerk, please read.

Alright, clerk, has anyone signed up to speak virtually or in person? Neither. Alright, so with that, we'll move on to the items on our agenda.

So the first item on the agenda is our briefing item number one, consideration and recommendation of volunteers to serve on before and against committees for safe homes for all initiative, measure number one. And I'd like to call on Debra Kasparian of the City Attorney's Office.

Thank you, Chair Hines. Debra Kasparian of the City Attorney's Office. A few weeks ago, this whole council adopted Resolution 41956, which is to put the safe homes for all initiative measures on ballot in November. A few days later the clerk's office published information seeking volunteers to serve on the for and against committee for this initiative. The deadline was yesterday at noon and the city received five letters of interest to serve on the for and against committees, three We're interested in serving on the for committee and two are interested in serving on the against committee. State law requires the city to appoint these committees. Each committee cannot have more than three members. However, excuse me, community members can seek the advice of others. We're asking this committee to review the letters before each other that were submitted by yesterday. and recommend them to report to the full council. This is planned to go to the full council for formal appointment next week on July 28th. The deadline for the city to provide the board against committee members to the county is August 4th. And then they have a few days to draft their initial comments, either for or against, and then they have a few days later to do the rebuttal statements. I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right.

I have a question. I won't name this individual. This individual has sent an email. I know we had tried to contact him. Is there an opportunity after this if that individual did, from what I understand, get a letter of interest maybe not completely clear and does want to

The practice of the city is to accept letters by the deadline and to not accept anything of interest after the deadline. That's been the city's practice. The council certainly can look at other options and other processes, but there has been the past practice.

So that's a good question for Debra and Nicole.

So we are going to adopt this here, but the council itself has to adopt the whole thing at the next council meeting, next Tuesday? Or are we doing it this evening?

It's next Tuesday, the 28th.

Next Tuesday. So it's not our practice to change that, but the actual motion by which we will vote and send it forward to the county is next Tuesday. It is next Tuesday. Okay. That's where I'm at.

So thank you chair so much for that. And Debra, I have another question. Um, so one of the people submitted their letter after the time period, um, afternoon on the 20th and they had somebody else submit it. And we have a rule that we had put forward that said it had to be you who writes the letter. So I want to say that, um, we have in the past, and I just want to tell other people on this because they weren't, weren't here. We have denied other people from being able to put their letter forward because it came after the time period. It was after the time that we set. And I want to make sure that the people sitting here know that that really is important that we follow what we set for precedent. Because in this case, this is somebody else writing a letter saying that they're trying to submit their information. And then they sent their letter at a different time. So I just, I want to put that out there that if you're looking through the letters, you said the timeline was July 20th by noon. Yes. Okay, so there's two things wrong with this one. It's late, the person who wrote it is late, but also somebody else tried to write for them, and we have required the person to write the letter themselves. So I just wanted to put that out there for other people sitting there.

Yeah, that's it.

So, oh, no.

I think it's just a point of giving information out for people who are sitting up here that I'm uncomfortable changing what we've said for a precedent because at other times we've had really great people who've submitted things and they were too late. And we've said, no, they can't submit after that time period. I have an example, but I don't need to give the example.

I remember that example very good.

Thank you.

All right.

thank you chair um and just so just to reconfirm monday the noon was the was the deadline for submittal yes um and then does our rules allow for people to submit on others behalf i'm not aware of any rules you have to write your own letter that's what we had said in this committee i thought I just wanted to clarify that portion because that is a little ambiguous. And it's not that I don't disagree with you. I think that anybody wanting to apply for something should apply for it themselves personally. But I don't know. We don't have necessarily GPFC rules around that unless it's So I just would like to see it in writing. But I, you know, in terms of best practice, I don't think people should be submitting on behalf of others, in my opinion.

So... Any other questions? No, I mean, I think there's... I don't think we have any questions. We don't have that order here. You know... I think in my mind, right, hopefully, God forbid, we're not doing a lot of foreign against committees in the future. I guess maybe that's a good thing I've heard a lot about. Maybe it's not. But we don't do it that often. I think for my purposes, I think I'm fine with advancing all five names. I think I don't know if the... the rule pressing conversation right now at this moment. Like, of course, it makes a lot of sense. We have three people for, we have two people against. And moving forward for the Foreign Against Committee is what I'm thinking about right now. I do think there's a clear, we did have, we did, I think, if I remember correctly, when we did the Foreign Against Committees for the previous Home for All initiative, they submitted a list of here are the three people that are going to be doing our forum committee, and one person said one of them now said here are the three people. wasn't three separate letters and we did say well we'd really like to see people write independent letters for sure so i i think i there is a there's a piece there to that so if people want to go down the path of saying um you know this one person if somebody else submitted their name for them we don't want to put them on because that and we could have that conversation um i i don't know if that's That juice is worth the squeeze.

Can I ask one more thing? Yep. If Council Member Zadalga has another person against, then we could make it three and three. Otherwise, I think it would be okay if it was two and two.

Again, I don't think we can just put a name for absent them having said they want to do it. I guess that would be a question. Our rules say you have to submit a letter to be able to put it before a guest committee.

This council doesn't have any rules about this process. It's just passed a process.

Yeah, okay, well. Yeah, no, I, so, with that, I don't think there's any more questions. What is our further conversation, committee members? Councilor Michel.

You know, the reality is I would have much more pause if there was more people than what's slated here, if it was like seven or eight people. I don't think that not having the slate go through, as you mentioned, really would make that much of a difference. And it also doesn't prohibit people or individuals in the community contributing to whatever letter that goes through. It's just these are the people that are writing it and are going to be on the statements. And so at this point, I'm not sure that it really matters. And so, but I do think that there needs to be some clarification in future conversation, especially if it does become like we get eight submittals or 10 submittals, and then how we're going to, we need to make it a little bit more, less ambiguous and more streamlined. So I'm fine with motioning to move forward with the slate of folks that are here, but I do think this is a conversation that needs to be had.

I think I agree, and that's probably a good conversation for OSAC as part of the council rules, because I think the appropriate place for that to land would be in the council rules. But again, I mean, we're only allowed to have three or four, and every time I've done this, I've never seen us, actually, I've never seen us tell someone that we had too many and we couldn't apply.

I don't think so.

We've always had, we've always, we've had, we've had, yeah, like, maybe too many in a for, and then too many in a against, so it's half.

I mean, but, oh, sorry, yeah, okay, you're, maybe, but, like, one, not twelve. Not, not necessarily twelve, but, like, one or two, but it could happen. It could, yeah. Okay, so, uh, is there, if there's any further discussion, I'm happy to entertain it, otherwise, I would entertain, uh, the motions.

I move to recommend the appointment of Kiss Shona Curtis, William Hanawalt, and Tyrone Moore to the initiative measure number one for committee. Second. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed?

I'm abstaining.

And one abstention. I move to recommend the appointment of Ben Lackey and Mark Molesnes to the initiative number one against committee. Second.

All right. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? So, next steps, Nicole and Deborah, this will go to the full council for confirmation on next Tuesday, July 28th, and then it goes to the office. Sounds good. Thank you. All right. And with that, We're done with the first brief item. We'll move on to the second briefing item, which is the Water Integrated Resource Plan. Even more controversial. What's that? Even more controversial. Even more controversial. What is it? It seems pretty straightforward.

I'd like to call on Glen George. Welcome back. Thank you, Chair Hines and members of the Government's Performance and Finance Committee. I am Glen George. I'm the Water Resources Supervisor for Tacoma Water. I'm here today to tell you about the 2025 Integrated Resource Plan. We shorten that to IRP. Next slide, please. A couple of really quick slides. These are in here just for your review, so I'm not going to spend a lot of time on these. Tacoma Water serves about 750,000 people, Tacoma Water. Our system has about 140 miles of transmission means. It has a plant value of about $1.3 billion. And right now, our average daily demand is about 35 million gallons a day. And that can increase up to 65 million gallons a day in the summer. We use about 95% of our water comes from the Green River. About 5% on an annual average comes from groundwater. Next slide, please. Again, another slide. You guys know what we are. Our system is about 30 miles wide, 20 miles tall. We run through 17 different political jurisdictions. On this map, you can see the dark blue is our direct direct service retail service the light blue is wholesale and our the green on the staff is our partners that helped us build pipeline five of the green river for green river filtration facility next slide can we just pause right so what's the difference between a partner a wholesale partner and a retail customer sure retail customers are get directly billed by Tacoma Water Wholesale customers, we sell the water to a wholesale company, and that company then sells the water to the retail customer. So our name is not on their bill. It's the other company that's on their bill. And the partners, they actually contributed capital dollars to building Pipeline 5 and the Green River Refiltration Facility. And so when they're paying for their water now, the only thing they pay for is the O&M type costs like electricity and chemicals and some of the top maintenance costs that would incur on pipeline 5 and the green river infiltration facility. So they get a little bit different cost structure than the rest of our customers.

Is there a benefit for us to not just have the wholesale customers be retail customers? It sounds like we sell at a low price and we let someone charge a cost premium on top of it that we could or could not capture. So I imagine your benefits are going to tell me that we don't own the infrastructure, so we're not responsible for it. We're just selling water to them. But is there a benefit to having wholesale customers versus having them all be retail?

This is getting outside my lane a little bit. Sorry. No, that's fine. But I would say we would like to have some of these wholesale customers become retail customers from the water. We would have to, when they do come in, All of these systems neighbor us, and we have contracts with all these systems. And in fact, we're going to see later on in the presentation that we're sort of counting on using their water. We're counting on them using the water that they have contracted. And so it would be beneficial for them to become water customers. And here is my superintendent's safety.

Occasionally, a neighboring system might ask us to consider buying them out, and we would evaluate that, and if it's a good deal for our rate payers, then we might do it. It's been a while since we bought out a system. Do you remember the last one we talked about?

Yes. I can't come up with a name right now. There is a process. That was something weird.

sort of told to do by DOH, too.

Okay, yeah. So water systems can get in trouble where they're no longer viable and they need to be rescued. So there's different situations where we might take over a system and then serve them as retail rather than wholesale. There's different ways that that can happen. But we, you know, if they have the authorization to serve their customers, we wouldn't typically, like, aggressively go in and try to buy them out. But sometimes they request it.

Yeah, I guess my... We do a really good job of keeping rates low for our customers. And so I, what's the value proposition of some of these wholesalers where like, I probably could get this cheaper if I directly bought from home water versus there's a middleman that's charging a, like a premium. Cause I imagine like they're, I probably getting in a lot more details. Maybe that might be a separate conversation.

So we can definitely talk about that.

And another feature, I think in some of these wholesalers is they have another source. And Tacoma Water is just either a part or even just a backup. And so it becomes more complicated when they look at if we took over all of it, they have some stranded assets there that we're probably not going to want. So the individual contract in each one of those situations can be pretty specific. Yeah.

And an individual customer in a wholesale customer service area can't choose to become a Tacoma Water.

Yeah, but I do wonder why we don't get more of them asking about that, right?

I mean, as things get more expensive, it's possible that more of that could happen. It happens every now and then.

We took over University Place back in the 90s. We took over the place called Summit Water, which is in South Pierce County. And then there's another one that just is very recent. I just joined a black company in We just took that over at their request. This is just a fun cartoon map. North is to the left on this diagram. I just use this sometimes just to talk about some of the great parts of our system. Our forefathers and foremothers have given us a great resilient and reliable system. We have a closed watershed. We only have a handful of watersheds in the country that are closed. We have a large ground rock capacity. We'll talk about this later in the presentation. Two redundant pipelines, Pipeline 5 and Pipeline 1, that take different routes to get to Tacoma. It makes us very earthquake-resistant. A state-of-the-art filter plant. Low-rate system. We already mentioned low-rate system in other parts of the region and also when you compare them locally. All of our finished water reservoirs are covered. We have a robust asset management system. We have excellent long lasting materials in our system, steel, transmission mains, duct liner mains, or the vast majority of our mains. And most recently, we have advanced meter capabilities on all 100,000, roughly 100,000 of our delivery meters. So it's a great system, and that's just a fun diagram of our system. Next slide, please. Let's start, finally, talking about the IRP. What were the objectives of the IRP? This graphic shows how the IRP fits into Tacoma Water's strategic planning process. You can see the dark blue one there on the left-hand side. It's sort of just a piece of the entire planning portfolio that Tacoma Water has. And what the IRP does for the planning process is incorporates large system changes into our planning process. And we'll discuss these large changes to our system later on in the presentation. It combines both water supply and demand into a single analysis. It projects the ability of current and future supplies to meet the increasing water supply demands. We investigate groundwater concerns and ensure the health of our groundwater system. And it aligns with other strategic planning activities, such as the PFAS evaluation, the All Hazards Vulnerability Assessment, Water System Plan, the Tide Flats Master Plan, which includes the West Rock Shutdown, the thinking about the West Rock Shutdown, the Wells Master Plan, which we'll discuss, And it also considers the Cascade Water Alliance contract, this thing called forecast-informed reservoir operations. We'll discuss that on a future slide. And the fish passage facility construction. And we do this IRP process every six years. We may be decreasing that frequency every five years, depending on what the board wishes to do. Next slide, please. When we started the IRP process in 2024, we formed a public advisory committee. We met five times with the public advisory committee. It was made up of a variety of stakeholders, wholesale customers, including partners, our department of U.S.S. partners, to regulators from the Department of Ecology and Department of Health, to neighborhood council members from the South Oklahoma Neighborhood Council, and to people like academics from the EWT and some other folks who were on this committee. It was a really well-rounded, really thoughtful committee. They gave us input on a variety of topics. I'm not going to read all these to you, but the one on the lower left was a large topic of discussion for us this year, and it was talking about the South Tacoma groundwater system and the South Tacoma ground water protection district and they gave us a lot of good insight on their thoughts on how we should be protecting our ground water and we ended up working with the city hand in hand. It's a city, part of the city code is the south border ground water protection district and we ended up working with the city quite a bit because of the work that was going on. It was a really good talk. Next slide please. We've had a lot of changes to our system since our first IRP in 2018. The IRP looks at two sides of the equation. It looks at both the supply side and the demand side. And so in these next two slides, I'm going to be talking about all the differences between the 2018 IRP and this IRP. And so this slide is talking about supplies, the changes in our supplies. One of the big things that we're working on is the additional water storage project, and we're anticipating that to be done in 2030 and be ready for use in 2031. And that's going to give us access to an additional 10,000 acre-feet of supply. Another large Army Corps of Operations initiative is called FIRO. It's called Forecast and Perform Reservoir Operations. And what it is, it's really studying atmospheric rivers and the weather, and it's trying to get the core to be a little less conservative than they are. And what this will allow us to do is start filling the Howard Hansen Reservoir earlier in the year, and it will greatly increase our reliability of getting that reservoir full every year. So that's a really cool project. And it will also be ready for use in the early 2030s. We need to redo this thing we call the Wells Master Plan. We had a Wells Master Plan coming out of our first IRP in 2018. When we were going to improve our wells, which ones we were going to do, and it's a very tactical plan. It went down to the level of which pieces were going to get to be replaced. We need to redo that. We've had so many changes to our system that we need to incorporate all those thoughts into the Wells Master Plan. The shutdown of West Rock was one major event that really affected our ground-large system. Our whole ground-large system was set up to serve the tide flats, and we used to have so much industrial demand down there that we could serve a lot of well water down at the tide flats. With West Rock, by the way, a 16 million a gallon a day demand, that was very impactful to how we operate our ground-large system. is regarding PFAS. You guys have heard about PFAS. It's everywhere and it's now been regulated in drinking water. And that's been very impactful to our well system as well. So we need to step back and think about that in our Wells Master Plan. The Wells Master, as we will see in some future slides, wells are going to be of great importance to common water in our future. We will need a healthy groundwater system. Both the aquifer, the pumps, the pipes, the treatment systems, they're all going to have to function very efficiently in the future. And that's very different than what we do today. I mentioned earlier in the presentation that we only get about 5% of our water from groundwater. And in the future, that could be up to 33% on an annual basis of how much water we're going to be supplying will come from groundwater. It's not very different than what we used to do in the 1980s. We were able to provide up to 55 million gallons a day of groundwater in the 1980s, and we can do that again. We have all the same wells are still there. The aquifer is still very healthy. It hasn't decreased in capacity at all since the 1950s. And so we're going to be heading back up towards those larger groundwater numbers in the future. We're going to see why here in just a second. Next slide, please. So that was the supply side. This is the changes to our demand side. Again, I'm mentioning West Rock closed. That was a $16 million a gallon a day demand drop. A large new contract with Cascade Water Alliance. That's going to be a large change for our system. We have changing zoning and densities home in Tacoma. We had to consider that in our thought process, and that's included in these thoughts on these graphs here. We updated our retail demand forecast, and that was informed by growth projections of the Puget Sound Regional Council, their Vision 2050, and the Pierce County Coordinated Water System Plan. And then we also had changes to our retail demand reflecting rates and conservation efforts that we've undergone. Both of these graphics are for average annual demand. The upper graphic is total customer demand from present through 2070, and the lower graphic is retail demand only from 2000 to 2070. And to be clear, to be conservative in the model runs, we're assuming full wholesale In the upper graphic, that's that light pink zone that's sitting on top of a maybe dark pink zone. So we're considering full wholesale in our considerations, and that is conservative. We just talked about that. So far, we don't serve very much wholesale water. We have up to 18 million gallons a day of contracted capacity that we have to be ready for, which is what that's showing. But really today, we only serve It's basically life. We're the only wholesaler that really takes water from us on a regular basis. That's about two and a half million gallons a day.

So can I, just before we switch off the slide, so the bottom graph is what our actual retail demand has looked like over the last few years, and then when does the pink take over? Is that starting tomorrow? You know, like the bottom graph.

Yeah, the bottom graph is... average annual demand for just the retail part of our system, and that is showing what it has been in the past, in the blue, and the pink is taking over in the future.

But the pink is more of a capacity exercise that we're prepared, because if I was to look at that graph, it looks like our water consumption is declining. And I think all indications that we are is we want people to use less water.

Correct.

But our predictions going ahead are forecasting that we're going to see increased water consumption.

That's correct. We've seen decreasing demands in our system since the 1980s. In fact, we hit our peak supplies back in the 1980s, even though our population has increased drastically since the 80s. But we used to serve the tide flats a lot more water. conservation program and people's conservation ethic here in the Northwest is just very high. And then the plumbing code of 1992 also had a really drastic effect on demand. So all of those effects are now sort of baked in, and that's our current demand. And then going forward, we don't see those won't see those effects having such a drastic effect in actually decreasing our demand anymore it'll actually start to show up as increasing demand even when people move into the area intellectually it'll actually start to increase so the reason we're predicting growth is we're protecting residential growth people are going to live here and because i guess otherwise i'd like what is the evidence that we are going to see any increase in consumption when all the evidence over the last

my entire time I've been alive is that people are reducing consumption, and we're also encouraging people as much as possible to reduce their consumption.

Yeah, the per capita, you know, per person amount of water is probably near its minimum, right? And so now when a new person moves into the water district now, that's what really matters.

So just for context, that graph is something we've, It's looked the same for the past and the future for a long, long time. And then as we move into the future, it still goes down. So to your point, we think that's ending. But to your point, as history is our guide, when is it really going to start going up? I think there's some ambiguity.

There is. And we're recalculating this regularly because I think the flip side of that is we end up with a lot of stranded assets because we build for the capacity demand to show up. So this is a snapshot going forward, but you said every maybe five years we're re-snapshotting.

Yeah. We look at it much more often than that. We actually redo the actual IRP every six years, maybe five years.

But you're looking at demand only. Correct.

Is it okay to ask a question?

I mean, if you want to talk about this specific piece of it, maybe not go all the way back to the beginning of the presentation. I'll just wait. Okay.

And Flynn mentioned that all of the wholesale capacity is built into those forward projections. So that's the additional conservative thing that's built in. It assumes that all of a sudden our wholesale customers start using everything they've purchased or that they've reserved.

And they haven't. And they haven't.

And they haven't.

So I guess the question I have is like, When I see this projection chart, it is a guide by which we make some of our financial decisions. It's not that we are all of a sudden investing for this huge demand, which we may or may not will show up, and assuming that our wholesale customers will tomorrow turn on the tap, though I know one of them that is still very upset that we fluoride our water, a customer I've heard, and I don't think they want to turn their tap on ever. That's for a whole other conversation. As I was looking at it, I just want to clarify that because I was getting it like, oh my gosh, we're building all this infrastructure for demand level.

And we are looking at ways to increase the wholesale, the amount that they actually use rather than what they purchase. So we're aware of this challenge and looking at different ways that we might address it going forward.

And this is a long-term plan. And so that increasing consumption is something we're aware of, but we don't invest. We're not investing a ton of money right now to have the capacity on the far end of it. Like Flynn says, he does it every few years. So the dollars that get spent get spent wisely for the current situation.

I have a couple slides later on that might address, I'm going to talk about resource accuracy standards, and that helps talk about not wanting to have stranded assets. Let me get to there.

Yeah, I'll let you keep going. And I feel bad because I've stopped three times. I don't know.

Also note on this, I mean, one more, oh, I'm sorry, can you go back one? Yes. I'm sorry. Also note on this graphic, the highest demand here, you can see like a triangle wedge shape sitting sort of on top of that upper demand graphic, and that highest demand occurs in year 2061, and that triangle shape is being caused by a contract with Cascade Water Alliance. They start taking water in 2041, and they incremental up how much water they take every year up to 2061. They have two contracts, one's a permanent contract, one's a temporary market-based contract. One of those contracts drops off in the year 2061, and that's why that sharp drop off occurs in 2061. And I just wanted to mention that while we're on this graph, that 2061 is a known, that is going to be our peak year that we need to produce water for. So our demand is going to grow from 54 million gallons a day here in 2025-26 to about 88 million gallons a day in the graphic shown in that graphic. Next slide, please. We have a model to help us work through all this. We tortured the English language a little bit, and we produced this thing called Wisdom. And it's water, yield, supply, and demand model. And that helps us. I think I'm running out of time. I'm not going to add some things to say about this model, but I'm going to skip that and move on. It's a robust model. It's used by many large organizations here in the West, the Bureau of Reclamation, Army Corps of Engineers. Many of the large utilities in California, Arizona, Colorado all use the same RiverWare system that we use. The model has, and we'll see this in a couple of later slides, the model also has access to 10 different climate scenarios that we can incorporate into our So that's all I want to say about that. We'll move on for the sake of time. Next slide, please. This is what Slido was alluding to, Council Member Hines, or Chair Hines. This is in 2018 when we did our first IRP, we asked the board to help us develop this thing called the Resource Advocacy Standard. And the purpose of the RAS, the purpose of the RAS is to give us basically permission to come to the board with projects and actions that will maintain our system, such that our system will not experience any RAS exceedances. What the RAS says is that water sources and systems will be sufficient to meet demands such that mandatory curtailments will not occur more than once in 25 years as long-term action. It's a fixed measure for us that our model will help us determine. over a variety of hydrologic conditions or rough projections. It recognizes that occasional contaminant water is not a system failure if it's infrequent. It is the best use of our available resources. And I think that's what you're alluding to, Mr. Hines, is that we wouldn't want to build for 100% supply and then have those assets be stranded for 24 out of 25 years. And so that's what we're doing.

One thing I think is really important to note here is when we talk about mandatory curtailment, we're only ever talking about outdoor water use, right? So there is no scenario where we would curtail indoor water use. And I just think that's extremely important for people to understand. Yeah.

In the last one, 2015, the last curtailment, right?

Right. No is voluntary. Yeah, good point. Thank you. Next slide. We're doing okay. Is that the next slide? Can you go back one? Okay, next slide. Okay, this is a complicated graphic. These next two slides are the heart of the presentation, but they're complicated, so let me orient us to these slides. This is for the year 2041, and in 2018 we showed three scenarios. In this 2025 report, we're showing 10 scenarios. We're going to talk about four of those scenarios more in depth in the next slide. Shown on the graphic are the 10 models that work the best in the Pacific Northwest. There's like 60 or 80 different climate centers around the world. Climate labs are all running different global climate models. And we had an expert in that tell us which 10 work the best here in the Pacific Northwest. These are the 10. Shown on the graphic are the climate scenarios and where they basically represent where we anticipate temperature and precipitation to fall. So if you look at the vertical axis on this graphic, you can see that all the models, all those sub-flank saucer shapes, they're all showing that it's going to be between 2 and 4 degrees hotter than it is today. And on the horizontal axis... Is that Celsius again? Celsius, degrees Celsius, correct. Thank you. Good catch. And on the horizontal axis, you can see that most of the models are actually saying it's going to be wetter. Only one model is being represented as being slightly drier than it is today. So that's like the axis, and that's where these climate models are sort of falling. If you think about it, the most likely of the future climate scenarios is in the center of this graphic. And as you move away from the center of the graphic, those climate scenarios become less and less likely. And then the demand percentiles themselves, the actual flying saucers themselves, those are demand percentiles from 5% to 95% demand in the year 2041. And so the reason it's flying saucer shaped is that 50th percentile, that one in the center, is the most likely population in the year 2041. And then the color of the flying saucers, is indicating if there's any RAS exceedances. And this graphic here is very boring. They're all green. We have no RAS exceedances in the year 2041. We meet all conditions in 2041. As I mentioned before, 2061 was the highest demand year that we were anticipating, so we chose 2041 as the rough halfway point between now and 2061. It's also an even 20 years from 2061, so that's why 2041 is being represented here. So that's the setup. And then we're going to show you year 2061 on the next slide, please. All right.

We have one question about 2041.

Real quick, this is showing that given all of our current supply, with up to generally a 4 degree Celsius increase in temperature, and whatever the models say, precipitation change, we believe we have enough supply based on these 10 models. So that's a supply of both groundwater and storage.

Correct. And I would just change the way you said it just a little bit. Today's sources and supplies and some of the sources and supplies that I mentioned in that earlier slide, we're anticipating that we get that 10,000 acre feedback because of the fish consignment facility construction. And we're anticipating doing groundwater work such that we can- Got it.

That was going to be the second part of my question because I was wondering how that is coming about when we know that some of our electric generation We've seen lower snow packs and whatnot. I thought maybe it's because of a different sound or something. But it also assumes we get 10,000 acre-feet back in our storage facility after the fish passage.

And a couple of other things I mentioned on that other slide, like the forecast before and after operations. Yeah.

I think this is I was mostly interested in climate change was my first. So you brought up the wisdom stuff is something actually wish we spent a little more time on. But my question was basically tied to what Council Member Siddalke was saying that just because you get more rain doesn't mean you get more capture. I just I'm curious you talked before you mentioned you mentioned 10,000 acre feet of supply means what? I just wanted to know what that meant, because I don't know what that looks like, and can you compare that to something else we already have, and how does that work to capture and be able to utilize in our system, and how would it be utilized?

Yeah, okay. Good. Thank you for slowing me down a little bit. I sometimes go way too fast. So an acre foot, if you have an acre of land, and you put one foot of water on it, that is one acre foot of water, it's about 100 Olympic swimming pools full of water. And if you multiply, and then our storage reservoir currently can hold 10,000 acre feet of water, four ton of water. We're gonna double that in 2031, and then we'll have 20,000 acre feet total of access to produceable water.

And then the issue is, as Council Member Sadalgi was talking about, snowpack, what's really great about snowpack is you can control the amount of runoff, the water melting, so you don't have that scenario where we, it seems like, I've grown up here, that we have the same amount of water, but it's coming at faster paces, and we see more drier times. And that's my curiosity, is we're not going to build structure to allow for, to capture all the water. I just want to understand how we're planning for – how do you – so we're obviously going to – have we had to buy water from other people? Okay, so I guess I'm just curious as we see – 4 degrees Celsius is huge. That's a lot of growth in temperature.

It is. And we have that in our plan. We've modeled that, and we are okay with our anticipated sources there. The 20,000 acre feet that we have is sufficient to supply the water up to the 2070s, which is what this is looking at. And you're 100% correct. What we see right now is a certain profile of how water is stored and comes off of the mountains into our reservoirs. And in the future, that snowpack is going to decrease. It'll increase the flows in the winter and decrease the flows in the spring and summer, right? And so that's why storage is so important, right? That's why those 20,000 acre feet that we're looking at, or the additional 10,000 acre feet that we're looking at, that's why that's so important to us. We're lucky here at Tacoma. Our watershed is actually a mid-elevation watershed. We can either fill our storage from winter snow it comes off in the spring. Or we can fill our storage from spring rainfall. Some watersheds are very snow-padded. If you don't get the snow, you're basically done. Our watershed, if we don't get the snow, we hope for the spring rains and then we can still fill the reservoir. So we sort of have two shots or two bites of the apple here in Tacoma because we are a mid-elevation watershed. And again, all of that is anticipated in our modeling. Those climate scenarios are represented. I would say that four degree temperature increase is unlikely, but it's possible. But the three degree, it's very likely. It's right in the wheelhouse of what this graphic is trying to represent.

I appreciate that we're talking just about conservation for outdoor watering. those kinds of uses, I also think that we should never move away from the idea of talking to people about how they utilize water inside their house. I know it's a small amount, but it's a mindset that allows you to then move to the outdoors and say, oh, I probably shouldn't be watering like twice a week or something.

It's not a small amount. I mean, no, you're 100% correct. We do have a conservation program. We do have messages on our website. We have staff that go water this.

When Jackie Scott met with us, Jackie Flowers met with us earlier and she told us about the snowpack and what it looked like. And then I immediately started into like everything I could do to save water. So I just want to say, I think this people in Tacoma care about this conversation. They care about what we're doing and I appreciate all of this modeling. It's really important. And it was, this is very helpful. Thank you.

Let's look at 2061. Yeah, let's go. Now, if you didn't like 2041, let's look at 2061.

So the left graphic is, this is 2061, and the left graphic is the same sort of setup as we saw before. This graphic, again, to your point, Mr. Soldago, our groundwater usage is 47 million gallons. It's predicted to be 47 million gallons a day. An additional storage project is predicted to have been put in place. or forecast-informed reservoir operation is assumed to be in operation. And we've actually re-rated the Green River infiltration facility from 150 MGD per million gallons a day to 168 million gallons a day. The left graphic is the same as I just mentioned. You can see by the coloring that we have some RASC sequences. We're also naming these three of these climate scenarios to be very similar to what we have in the 2018 IRP. least stressed, most likely, and most stressed. And in this work, we also found one more scenario that was interesting, and that was called seasonally stressed. Note that under the most likely, okay, this is important, so let me slow down and say this slowly. The most likely climate prediction and under the most likely climate scenario and the most likely population scenarios, we meet the RAS under all conditions, right? And in fact, under most of these scenarios, scenarios we we all all conditions under all the rest is always met we do have some RAS challenges in the hotter and drier or more stressed and we do have a RAS exceedance in what we call the seasonally stressed scenario and that's that's an interesting hot dry scenario is you know it's intuitive it's hotter or drier the seasonally stress scenarios is interesting in that particular climate run We have very little precipitation in the spring and summer, and the summer is hotter in that scenario, and that's what's causing stress for the system. The graphic to the right is just another way to represent this information, and it's showing the four name scenarios and their RAS performance. Note that in each column, we're showing the number of years in which the curtailments are needed. So look at all the grain in those columns, right? We're performing very well in all of the model runs. And I should remind us that here in the Pacific Northwest, as Kerry alluded to, curtailment is usually a temporary, short-term issue that really only applies to outdoor water. So if we do end up with a RAS decedence, it'll be a short-term scenario. And all of these scenarios that we're seeing here are without improving our system other than what I've said, right? So next slide, please. So what can we do? about those potential RASN sequences, well, we have some places to go. Number one, I'd like to mention that we have time, right? We saw that in 2041, we had no RASN sequences, right? So we have time to react to these changing conditions. If we start to see that we're heading towards that hotter, drier climate scenario, we can accelerate some of our efforts. If we start to see that more population is moving into the area, our home in Tacoma is a really densifying population, We can accelerate our thoughts. But some of the things that we have in our back pocket are developing additional groundwater. The groundwater I showed in those model runs is only about 47 million gallons a day. We have over 100 million gallons a day of water rights in our groundwater rights. So we could produce more groundwater if we needed to. Lake Haven, or the federal way, has an aquifer storage and recovery system up there. It's called Oasis. And we could run water down pipeline five in the winter, store it in the ground at Lake Haven, and then pull it back out of the ground in the summer when we need it. And they're working at the pace, that system is being worked on at a pace that the region sort of needs. So like right now, there's not a lot going on. This water storage project phase two, it's raising the level behind the dam by an additional 10 feet, more water for us. And then finally, we could do some customer behavior changes. We could do aggressive peak shaming. We could indicate to our customers through rates that perhaps we'd like to see them save some water. We could also offer all sorts of incentives through a conservation program similar to what the low-flow shower heads, low floor toilets, that kind of stuff.

When Glenn talks about the aggressiveness of shipping, and he talks about using rates to signal to customers that we want their behavior to change, what we're talking about is making water above a certain standard use more expensive. That's a way to not impact low-income customers for indoor water use. You're mainly impacting Customers that are using more outdoor water. Right. And so it's a good, it's a good signal to what you talked about, continental robot, which is that we want people to use water wisely.

And that's currently, and we already have that.

Yeah. And I bought this breath cause that reason. Exactly.

So we have just two tiers right now. Some water systems have more tiers than that. Right. So there could be even another tier on top of our top tier. Right. If we, so that would be a way to, that'd be another way to accomplish that aggressive peak shaping.

Yes. On the residential side. On the residential side. Couldn't we also just, we have irrigation contracts too. We do. Couldn't we just crank on them or crank on outdoor agricultural use? I mean, we have classifications. We do. We have different classifications. Yeah.

You know, a lot of irrigation occurs through residential meters, right? Because most residences are not, they don't have a separate irrigation meter, right? And so like 68% of our outdoor watering is actually happening through a residential meter. Our irrigation customers are mainly partisan schools. And some homeowners associations, apartment complexes, that kind of thing. Yeah, so.

But, I mean, they're also a separate class of folks that are billed separately. They are. Do they have escalating rates for how much they're able to consume, or is that part of their rate that they buy?

Yeah, so our irrigation customers are only charged for months when they actually use water, because a lot of them aren't used at all. Right, and then I think that's all one plot. I think our irrigation rate is just one block.

Alright, next slide. Last slide. So, as I tried to portray in this presentation, Tacoma Water has a robust system with multiple potential sources of water to establish and maintain a reliable and resilient water system. And you can find our full idea up here or on the website where I can provide you a copy. And if you have any more questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Alright, that was a great presentation. We're running out of questions out of the way, but I think I can open it up. to further questions.

This is one I don't think you can answer right now, but if there are resources that can be shared with me over time or with the rest of the committee or council. I see this in the context of just our supply, but we are in a region where there are many other supplies. water service providers do modeling like this and have they looked at future capacity for them and what that looks like to understand if our neighboring jurisdictions have maybe greater or worse demand on their water system? and to kind of understand what their kind of thoughts around that are, because that would help us understand what the future demand on our system would be. Because if we're the only ones, you know, in a world in which we're the only ones that seem to have enough water, but if everyone else doesn't, that could have a greater impact on us, right?

So to answer your first question first, yes, depending on the It's almost size-dependent, right? The larger you are, the more planning. In general, the larger the water company is, the more planning they do. We're the largest water provider in Pierce County, so we do quite a bit of planning. Seattle does a ton of planning. Cascade Water Alliance does a lot of planning. And then as you get into smaller systems, they do less planning and less sophisticated planning, right? So that's all true. And then, as you mentioned, though, we try to take into account that our neighbors might not do quite as much planning as we do. We try to take into account that they might not be quite as sophisticated or as weak as our planning is. And so we try to anticipate what would happen if they fail or if they need more water that they didn't anticipate. Are they going to come onto our system that's in our plan?

Yeah. I mean, Cascade Water Alliance is coming onto our system, right? Right. That's one of the reasons I asked is, if there is information for our region i think contextualizing some of this information with what maybe it's very little information maybe it's just saying you know these are the other you know water providers in our area they don't do this just letting us know that right or seattle and cascade does it's less to add that as further kind of color in the future, just so we kind of understand. Many of us also serve on regional boards, and we can bring it up in our conversations with our neighbors, because the thought I had was just, okay, we seem okay based on some very reasonable assumptions, so what are the potential stressors?

So there are regional coordination committees, right, in Pierce County. There's some other ones that are broader than that. So, you know, there's really only four utilities in our region that are treating surface water. So it's Everett, Seattle, us, and then down to Portland, right? And so those are the big water purveyors that are doing kind of this major long-term planning. And then cascade, they, they aspire to become one of those, um, as they develop like taps as an additional water source. Right. So that would make that sort of fifth regional provider, right. That's actually like treating surface water. And so we have a water supply forum where we meet regularly, uh, with all of the, well, not Portland, but, um, over in Seattle, us in cascade. Right. And so we're coordinating with them all the time, and we do joint studies and that kind of thing. So, yeah, we can definitely get you some information about that. There's all kinds of regional planning that's going on. you know, it's interesting when you think about the way we distribute water and compare it to the way we distribute power, right? And we think about this power grid where all these different systems are sharing with each other all the time. And I think, you know, we project that water supply will become more like that going into the future, right? We will have more inner ties where we are thinking of a regional water supply grid and we're sharing more with each other. And, you know, our system right now where we have our partners and we have our 60 wholesale customers, we have additional customers where we have just emergency intertags. So we're sort of a small example of that. And we predict that that will become more of a regional approach going forward. And that's definitely what we're always looking for. Yeah.

Okay. I think that's right. Any other questions?

Vice Chair Bushnell. uh thank you chair i just appreciate the presentation and i've gone through a few of these before in the past and so appreciate the updates um one of the questions i had or not maybe not a question is like um we saw the graphs on like the kind of demand sides what i didn't necessarily see was kind of like where rent capacity in comparison to what our future demands are i think i've seen graphs like that in the past um so i didn't know if you have that available or not because i i Like I want to preface a lot of these scenarios on the fact that we do have a pretty significant amount of supply and also expected supply capacity. And you had mentioned that, but not necessarily, we didn't necessarily see the graphs in comparison, like the pinks where the demands are going to be.

I do have a graphic that shows that.

Yeah, for sure. So especially any kind of public presentations, I think contextually it would probably be helpful for folks to be able to see here's what our current supply is, here's our expected supply, and then our demand based on all the scenarios, just as a big picture. Because it feels like there's a lot of doom and gloom, right? And it's like, especially, and there could be, especially with those more stressful scenarios way back out in the 2061s, but there's still, as you've mentioned, there's still options for us as we plan out to the future to help ease those concerns. But I think also just being realistic about what our actual supply is and any concerns around that.

Yeah, I agree. We're definitely not in a doom and gloom scenario, right? So even in that 2061 scenario, you're seeing some short-term mandatory curtailments. That is not a terrible thing, right? To have a mandatory curtailment of outdoor water every now and then. Utilities in California, Texas, Arizona, they are under mandatory curtailment all the time. They are never not under mandatory curtailment. And so you can have a vibrant and growing community even when you're constantly curtailing outdoor water. So yeah, we definitely are not intending to present a doom and gloom picture. That's not where we are.

And even in that slide that did show the red, the RAS exceedances, that's without doing anything other than what we said. We still have other levers to pull. We don't want to have excessive bunker challenge. We don't want to be here for long.

Once every 25 years. That's right. That's right.

Yeah. That's part of the reason people choose to live here, right? And we want to honor that. Definitely, you know, the improvements to the Howard Hansen Dam and that additional capacity is our next cheapest water supply, which we already have underway. After that, it is most likely groundwater, as Glenn mentioned. water rights to the aquifers under Tacoma that are not developed yet. So we can continue to invest in developing that groundwater supply. And that's a very reasonable next step for us to take us even out of that scenario. where we have a mandatory curtailment once every 25 years and you mentioned we have water rights up to 100 million gallons and then we're only currently utilizing or have infrastructure capacity for 40 million Well, so our demand peaks in the summer months at about 88 MGD. And that is with all of our wholesale customers and our partners, right? So that is the most our system has demanded that we deliver in any year is 88 to 90 MGD, right? You know, without restaurant. Yeah, without restaurant.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Thank you. That's why Glenn can't retire for 25 years.

We have many Glenns that are coming.

I feel like I got my questions answered under your wisdom stuff, so I appreciate all of that. I love what Councilmember or Vice Chair Bushnell brought up about how you're going to show what it is, what it was, what it is, and what it will be. Um, council is cares when you bring something forward and they kind of sometimes forget things. I think the model with that wisdom is really important. So, um, I would really focus talk about it does really shows the system. No, but I was just thinking about that. I was just thinking to sound silly, but I was thinking about the hydro, um, the hydraulic system of water and, um, how I wish we had started with that because it's just so elementary, but that's exactly what you're talking about. in some way, but it's much more of technical, but you know, I'm glad that we're doing more to increase our capacity, but you know, you don't want to build concrete because it's so expensive and just sitting there. So I'm glad we're finding other ways to use what we already have and utilizing things from, um, federal way. Sounds like a great idea. Thanks for all your creativity.

No, I think. your point uh about there's kind of three major players between stormwater or surf's water for drinking water in the western part of the united west are they operating under the same benchmark of 25 years one you know one curtailment i mean what's the benchmark there do we know

I don't, Seattle would prefer to never have any mandatory curtailment ever at any time. And Everett, I'm certain, works that way too. They are typically less restrictive than us.

I mean, to your point, right, if you build so that we never have one, then 90% of the time we're gonna have a ton of excess capacity that's gonna go unused. 96%. 96%. There you go. so you don't want to spend all the money for that right so it's there's a there's a trade we're making right and even in the most so in the most dire scenarios you predicted is were you looking at just one potential razz in that between now and 2061 or two i mean what were they how many times would we have to detail in the most dire prediction um we do have some voluntary commitments about once every 25 years in the in the

In the most likely demands, in the most likely crime incident, in the most likely demand scenario, we have one voluntary curtailment anticipated.

And in the most dire, I think it was three.

Three. I mean, so I think that's just something to kind of, while we say doom and gloom, I mean, that is actually a really good outcome to say that, where, you know, for California, you can't even get water at your table. They're not even serving you water. at the restaurants unless you ask for it. That's one of the issues. So I think that's really good in thinking about how we're planning for that. And then, you know, further, so that was my question was, you know, we want to make sure we're building enough capacity but not so much that never gets used, right? There's basically what I meant as insurance policy, right?

You know, what are we doing to manage that?

I think my other question was around The peak shaving conversation is something I've been very interested in since we went to AMI. We know exactly what people are consuming and then thinking about how we can better titrate that. One of the concerns that was brought up by Council Member Slovey's predecessor that has given me pause is I have been the type of, we should have multiple tiers and as you consume more water, it cranks up higher and higher and higher as a demand signal. And if you want to have a green lawn, you just got to pay for it. My lawn is green. I hate to say it. It's kind of green-brown. It's not super green, but it's greener. But I'm willing to pay for it. I appreciate it. This is not for this conversation, but there is a broader conversation, which is in all the doom and gloom and curtail water situation, we still need people to actually consume water. We still need people to use it. And actually, our history from 1980 until now is a complete I don't want to say decimated, but our industrial base has fallen out. So at some point, if it keeps going that way, we're already overbuilt. So I think there's a strength to balance there. But I thought that's really good to think of escalating tiers. You really have to have a more as you consume. And just now through AMI, we can communicate that more clearly to rate payers. Hey, you're getting close to exceeding this limit. Bear in mind, you can send them a bunch of information. Alishco did bring up something I had not thought about, but people who run gardens and things in their house to feed themselves. So maybe lower-income folks who have gardens in their yards, if they use that to have to water their gardens to feed and eat, that's the one hole in that conversation of, well, if you crank hard enough, you know, it's not just maybe the yard, green yard people and the golf course is going to be someone who's like trying to run a backyard garden. So that was the only, that was the only, that's the only time I've ever, like that was a complicating factor I'd heard from her at one point in time. But otherwise I do think that idea of like, how do we do that and use demand response as a way to similar, I mean, in the power sector, right? We're looking at virtual power plants in the conversation of like, how can you use demand response during peak times so you don't have to add a bunch of capacity because it's so expensive. Very interesting thing about how we do this here. My only other question was around the wholesaling, right? I know we spent a lot of money in the last 20 years on treating our runoff water, right? The water treatment plant is up there at the Green River. and doing cryptosporidium and all those things. When I went on the tour, I talked about crypto, and I thought, how is fake money part of the water system? But it's cryptosporidium, which is a They kept saying crypto over and over. We treat all the water and then we wholesale it out. I would imagine as part of our contract with our wholesalers, they're paying for a portion of the entire process, the infrastructure to get the water to them, and then all the stuff we have to pay for is part of that.

We do a cost of service analysis, so that's all built in.

All right, well, with that, I think those are all my questions, and I appreciate it. But board chair, are you on board chair right now?

I'm not chair anymore. Oh, but you're just your board member. Well, the chair could not be here today, so I'm sitting in for her. Would you like to add anything to that? Just one thing, and this is an example of really complicated, in-depth, a lot of planning that Tacoma probably shines nationwide on. there's another piece that is related but not that we got a presentation on is the PFAS issue and again looking at all that not spending a bunch of money now but making prudent steps today so that you know in some likely scenarios going forward that we'll be ready to deal with that if we need to at the time so I think they do a really good job and it is a valuable effort and it's worth the money we invest in it because it gives us that range of options and then we pick the rational one for today with an eye towards 20 40 50 years down the road and you know that's the kind of thing that you really need a water utility because you can't they don't turn on a dime but they uh carefully plan for the future and we get the benefit of that today yes i think

It's better to invest in the right technology versus the earliest one. I think the joke I always tell is that the entire Library of Congress is all in on early technology. I think that's good. Oh, this is not for this presentation, but maybe for a follow-up, but it's not you all, it's somebody else. I have to ask this question. Gray water usage and reusing water? That didn't come up in this part of the conversation because you all are looking at our assets and how we filter drinking water and you don't drink gray water. But I think maybe if that would be a conversation, maybe the environmental services needs to come in and talk about how does that fit into our broader ideas here? Because I know they've talked about in the past. I know that was something that environmental service looked at about how to use gray water and West Rock was part of that. Maybe a follow-up, Andy, on where that went.

Can I say something about Greywater? I know that when I lived in California, that was a practice that was set up for like from your laundry to be able to water your lawn. So I'm sure at some point we'll figure out what we're going to do, but they obviously are doing it in other places.

For sure. There are communities all over the world that are doing that. And, you know, there's such a variety of approaches to reuse, right? You can treat the water that's coming out of your wastewater treatment plant to a higher degree, and then you can put that through purple pipe and irrigate with it, or you can do on-site reuse. right these very small self-contained systems that allow an individual property owner to reuse their water on site there's mid-size systems that parks and schools could be looking at right um and so yeah there's there's a lot of great technology out there and there's a lot of room for property owners to invest in that yeah we can keep our eye on it we're talking with olympia city of lacey

You know, when, you know, other groundwater is paving after they, like, they do a lot of groundwater injection. They take their gray water and re-inject it back into the ground. We're watching that, and we'll do what makes sense.

Yeah. I think that'll probably make our conversation. Much to your credit, I mean, I think to you all, just like power, I mean, one of the challenges with me putting solar panels on my roof is the power that comes through the wall from TPU is cheaper than what I'm going to get out of that, and it's not going to be worth it. So I do wonder about... you all provide a high quality product at a very low price. Doesn't even make sense for me to look at a gray water system because I will get the return on that. It'd be just cheaper to use our water. So.

Yeah, that's a great point. Property owners have to look at that. I think when you get to be like, when you look at parks and schools, that is where to me, that's the low hanging fruit, right? That's where they could really, I could be part of their future in saving money.

Okay. Well, environmental services might be a good conversation about that. Okay. We'd love to have you all be part of that conversation, too. But maybe some other time. Maybe that's the first.

That's a little further. All right.

Thank you all very much. Thank you. Okay. With that, we'll move on to topics from meetings that I'd like to call an intro. Executive liaison for topics from meetings. My computer will work. We'll get there. I can read them if you can. That's okay. On August, you're going to woke up.

There you go.

Yeah, so August, we have our friends from TPU coming back about hydro project relicensing. And then August 18th is the rates day where we have environmental services and our friends from TPU talking about projected rates. So a couple of meetings in August. Yeah. For the TPU folks who are here, environmental services folks who may be listening, it would be great if we have any preliminary, like what other rates are going to be looking like in other parts of the region to have that as part of the conversation. I know PSE has already kind of daylighted some of their rates conversations from coming here, so that's a good data point for us all to have. We also, if we have any from Seattle Water or the other water providers, just to have that in the background. Because I think the first, often the conversation that comes out is, well, where are we at compared to everyone else? So, I'm sure that was already part of the rates presentation, but if it's not, just to make sure that it is. Okay. Any other, I'm interested, we did, We just entered one route that may or may not end up here. I am going to read back the second half of the housing proposal stuff back to the committee sometime probably in September. We'll work on a date for that. Otherwise, anything else?

Okay.

I'll entertain the final motion. Move to adjourn. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? All right. We stand adjourned. Thank you.