Consultants and city staff on Sept. 16 presented an updated general sewer plan and related utility work that models capacity needs, inventories assets and proposes capital improvements. Eric Skyler, lead consultant for the sewer plan, described the two‑year update and said the plan integrates basin modeling, condition assessments and the city’s six‑year capital improvement program. “My name is Eric Skyler. I am the production manager for this general sewer plan,” Skyler told the council. Skyler and CONSORT staff said the plan uses existing as‑built drawings, field interviews with long‑time operations staff and targeted on‑site condition assessments (pump stations and other facilities) to build the capital plan where full city‑wide CCTV (TV) inspection is not yet complete. Staff said about 23.1% of the city’s gravity sewer has been TV inspected to date and that the TV and smoke‑test programs are ongoing. The consultants explained how model outputs prioritize capacity projects first, then obsolescence and condition issues. City operations staff and consultants told the council that, because some pipes and facilities are old or undocumented, the plan includes an annual pipe‑replacement allowance to cover unknowns. Dennis (city operations) and consultants recommended additional maintenance capacity: CONSORT’s assessment identified a shortfall of two full‑time equivalent (FTE) operations positions needed to carry out proactive maintenance (lift‑station maintenance, TV inspection programs, smoke testing and routine cleaning). The recommendation to add two staff was supported by several councilors during discussion. City staff asked FCS Group (the rate consultant) to compute rate scenarios that would fund the additional crew. FCS’s parallel rate study showed that, under the existing rate structure reform proposal, the city would need roughly a 3.5% annual revenue increase from 2025–2030 to meet obligations; including the two additional sewer FTEs raised the scenario to about 4.5%. A city staff summary said that embedding the two FTEs in the rate model increases household sewer bills by roughly $1.50–$1.80 (depending on the chosen scenario) compared with the baseline proposal; staff presented both step‑up and averaged approaches for council consideration. Council members debated pacing (step increases vs. flat averaged rate) and the long‑term implication that a flat lower rate now could leave a later council with a larger, less palatable increase. Several councilors signaled support for including the two FTEs in the revenue model and asked staff to present the 4.5% scenario at the upcoming public hearing on utility rates. Staff did not take a final vote at the work study; the council directed staff to include the recommended FTEs as a funding option in the rate ordinance and to present public‑hearing materials showing the 3.5% and 4.5% alternatives.