Speaker 7: I have some comments and questions. I think if we can address the questions raised by Ms.. Fortuna, that would be great. I think one of the things that we want to definitely try to be clear about is that. The policy through the policy, AMP is making every effort to cover costs. But I think what what I'm hearing from his Fortuna is now how is it that that we're characterizing the cost and how is it that we know that we're going to cover it? Is that honest? Why are we certain that that that in other words, where.
Speaker 3: The CPC Rule 32 allows for telecommunication companies to set aside a certain amount of money per year they collected already on their rates. So we're all we're all paying for it already. That money set aside in a reserve fund for programs like this. So as the program gets implemented, as long as we have met CPC criteria, the CPC regulated companies such as AT&T or Comcast can pull from that regulated money. They're required to pull from that regulated money to cover the costs. My numbers are a little bit different, actually, to put a piece of conduit in the ground and run a run on AT&T service lateral or Comcast lateral actually has very little cost involved in it at all. The trench is already going to be opened up to run the underground, the underground service. And in fact, in a lot of modern developments, Comcast will go ahead and put their stuff in for free because they're going to recover that recover that in their in their pricing structure. So the the piece of conduit in the underground isn't really a very big cost at all for AT&T, and it is covered under the rule 30 to a recovery.
Speaker 7: Well, thank you, Mr. Drake. I really appreciate that. Ms.. Fortune, I hope. Now on the matter of an American on the matter of cost, I do want to. Well, let me just say from the outset, I think the process that you put in that started under the leadership of Girish and mentioned and and continued by Mr. Glenn Steiger, I think we're incredibly credible process. We certainly appreciate it. And I think the policies and the plans that are before us are also incredibly great. So let me just make sure to state that from the outset. But I do again on costs. And I want to add, the reason why I'm driving on cost is because, you know, when we say we're going to make every effort to cover the cost of items, you know, we're we're really raising the bar here. So and and and we want to make sure that it's a promise that we can keep. And I suspect it is. On Policy three, for example, on Policy three identifies that you UDV will fund the underground utility district fund will fund all necessary conversion costs up to a pre-established limit. That's policy three. So we have a sense of what the pre-established limit is. And then Policy five says that we're going to basically review every five years. The one thing that I just want to make sure. In a way, this is an accounting issue. But. But it could have subsequent. It is important. I want to make sure that we take into account the effects of inflation, basically in terms of how we characterize the cost of an issue. So for example, let's go back to Policy five. Policy five says that we're going to readjust the costs every five years. Well, if the actual cost of doing an undergrounding for a house is $3,000, $4,000, whatever, you know, digging up the ground, getting the labor, if the actual cost is $3,000 in year one and let's say AMP produces a document say that says per policy three , that is our pre-established limit, $3,000. So the actual cost is $3,000 in year one. And if we assume just a normal rate of inflation of 3%. It's not bad. Five years from now. From then, $4,000 will equal roughly $4,600. If we had it because you compound it but $4,000, let's say hypothetically, $4,000 in year 2000, $16. Is the same thing as $4,600 in year 2021 because of inflation. So I want to make sure that that that. We don't still have the $4,000 in the books, in our documents, and then five years later, we require someone to pay 600 extra bucks.
Speaker 2: Hmm.
Speaker 7: So I want to make sure that we're going to adjust the well effects of inflation.
Speaker 3: That won't happen under this policy for a couple of reasons. It's a very good point that you're making. The first is the pre-established limit is is denotes denotes the the cost of the master contractor doing the work and establishes that there are some limits to the program. If people want to go above and beyond those limits, they're going to do so at their own cost. However, the program is designed to cover 99.9% of the cost. The second piece of it is, is that every five years, so there's not an established cost. There is the cost that the master contractor denotes for that particular you you'd at that particular time. Interestingly, over the last five years, since every four years since we got what you would cost, we did a price check and costs haven't changed that much. Not to say they won't in the future. However, with that rate of inflation, the rate of the 2% that we're going to be collecting is going to increase as well. And so you're going to see the fund increase at some incremental level, whether it's benchmarked to inflation or not, above or below. But it's going it's going to go up. Also, just one thing that the project doesn't necessarily readjust after five years of simply what we're simply doing, what we didn't have before was any kind of check mechanism for the entire policy. We don't have a formal mechanism for bringing the policy back. We believe that five years is a good time to come back to council and say, is this still the policy we want? And the answer may be yes or no, you could be. Now people need to contribute or share differently. It could be some other socioeconomic economic reason, but it doesn't necessarily change any kind of dollar amount because there is no pre-established dollar amount. It really is. The fund is going to fund what it costs to do the program. Ultimately, we may decide to do things differently, and that would be a council decision with public input.
Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $567,000, Including Contingencies, to IPS Group, Inc. for the Purchase, Installation, and Operation of 822 Single-Space “Smart” Parking Meters and Authorize the City Manager to Execute any Necessary Documents. (Public Works 224)