Waterways Advisory Committee - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. Like to call the meeting of the Board of Public Utilities for the City of Santa Rosa to order. We may have a roll call please.

Board Member Wright.

I'm here. Sorry.

Board Member DeWitt. Present. Board Member Badenfort.

Here.

Vice Chair Arnoni? Chair Galvin?

Here.

Let the record reflect that all board members are present with the exception of Vice Chair Arnoni.

Thank you. Any statements of abstention by board members? Very good. We have no study sessions. We will move to item 5.1 which is a presentation. Director Burke.

Thank you Chair Galvin and members of the board. I'm very pleased that we have presentation of the American Public Works Association Northern California Chapter's Environmental Project of the Year. And making the presentation will be Greg Dwyer, Associate Civil Engineer with our CIP team, and Cheryl Childs, Chapter President of the APWA Northern California.

Good afternoon to both of you. Thanks for being here.

Good afternoon Chair Galvin. Projects engineering got it right. Okay, so we're here today because the Lower Cogan Creek Restoration Phase III project has been recognized as one of the environmental project of the year by the American Public Works Association Northern California Chapter. I'll talk a little bit briefly about the project. On the left here is the existing condition of the channel, the former condition, which is a trapezoidal channel that's been channelized since the 20s or 30s and it's been developed into a trapezoid.

It's choked off with vegetation, it has no way to dissipate its energy during high flow events, and during low flow events, sediment drops out which encourages weeds which traps debris maintenance issues and also also warms the water up for the fish. On the right you see is a photo during construction where you have a meandering channel that has floodplains to dissipate the energy and pools for fish and a low flow channel so water can move through in between storm events reducing the amount of sedimentation which brings cooler water for fish and habitat for other creatures as well. Some of the notable features of the project or stats is that there was over 40,000 cubic yards of excavation. The project restored 2,450 linear feet of channel into a natural meandering creek system. It provided increased flood protection and restored native habitat.

The work included features such as log habitat structures, turtle basking rocks, aquatic pools, planting native trees, shrubs, and grasses. The project area extended from Boren Avenue, which is to the top of the project up there and where you see the lower end there, that's Dutton Meadow, that's the end of the project. It completed the final segment of a three phase restoration effort creating 1.3 miles of improved creek corridor in Southwest Santa Rosa. Human focused improvements included a new class one bike and ped path and a pedestrian bridge expanding neighborhood access. This was really a unique opportunity to do an urban creek restoration of this magnitude.

You don't often see this in other cities. What you're looking at here is a fish rescue and these are members of our stormwater and creeks team. Many of those are sitting in the crowd out there right now. This project had many sensitive environmental components. They're out there waiting in the creek before construction began performing a fish rescue to relocate the fish turtles and other species downtown downstream of the project site.

Another project feature which I mentioned was the class one bike and ped path which is on the left, and on the right is a Sonoma water maintenance road so they can get on the other side of the creek away from the pedestrians and do maintenance activities, although they won't have to be out there as much now with the new creek improvements. So there's a lot of creek features here that I alluded to. You see a lot of the log structures there. Those are used for channel stability, they are also used for habitat. On the lower left there you can see those buttresses with those looks like sticks coming out, those are willow stakes that are driven into the bank and those are going to naturally stabilize the channel.

There's no concrete in this, it's all been bioengineered. So the project also included four community planting events from last December through April, and there's a picture of that right there, we partnered with Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation and Rainforest Rising to plant more than 9,000 native plants along the newly restored section of the creek. So the planting has been completed, it needs to grow. If you kind of want to see what it's going to look like, you can just go upstream and you'll see what it's going look like in four years, or you can go downstream and you can see what it's going to look like in twelve years because those are the prior phases we did and you'll see the tremendous growth. If you haven't had a chance to get out there, you need to get out there.

Now of course we couldn't have done this without all of our team and partners. The project was funded in part by grants from the California Department of Water Resources, Urban Streams Restoration Program that gave us $4,400,000, the Sonoma County Agricultural and Open Space Preservation District, as well as the State Wildlife Conservation Board who gave us $2,000,000. The project would not have been possible without their generous support. Other project partners were Sonoma Water, Rainforest Rising, and Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation. I would also like to recognize Cody Bedell, who's a project manager from Team Giladi, who kept this project on a tight schedule to make it through the environmental permitting regulatory timelines June 15 to October 15.

All this work had to take place in four months. Tom Gorman and Matthew Messenger with Green Valley Engineering for outstanding construction management and inspection making sure construction plans were strictly followed, permit requirements were met and for keeping the project on time and budget. I'd to thank Brian Bartel, Luke Walton, Ellen Cox with Prununsky Chatham for their nice design and expertise making sure all the specialized creek features were properly constructed. I would also like to recognize the many contributions from city staff including the survey department, materials engineering and right of way, more specifically Steve Brady, senior environmental specialist and Kellen Johnson, environmental specialist who labored over all the permit work with multiple agencies, secured grant funding, and monitored the site for California Tiger Salamander protection among many other things. There's several people I'm not even mentioning.

There's so many people that were part of this project. Charles Robinson, quality control associate, who kept the design reviews on schedule and led the inspection and oversight of boots on the ground. Jill Scott, real property managers for securing the right of way that made this project possible. And I myself was a project engineer who oversaw the whole overall project. So at this point, I'd like to introduce the American Public Works Association's chapter president of the Northern California chapter, Cheryl Childs.

Thank you. Thank you for invitation to be here today to recognize the project team and the leadership of the city and the board of public utilities in delivering this important project. Next. Oh, stay here. APWA was national, was established in 1937, and includes The US and Canada.

The Northern California chapter was established over seventy five years ago. The region includes the Northern Bay Area and the North Coast, including the city and county of San Francisco and the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Solano, Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Mendocino, Lake, Humboldt, and Del Norte. Our project awards, has the purpose of of promoting excellence in the management and administration and implementation of public works projects. And I, as a former planner, want to add planning to that list. Eligibility for the award meant that you had to reach substantial completion in 2025.

The award criteria we use includes the use of good construction management techniques, safety, community relations, environmental protection. Unusual accomplishments under adverse conditions are also considered, as well as value engineering, innovation, sustainability, resiliency, use of alternative materials or practices or funding. Our award categories every year are disaster, emergency, construction or repair, the environment, historical restoration, preservation, structures, small cities, rural counties, and transportation. In 2026, we received 25 nominations from 21 different agencies. These were all reviewed by a panel of APWA board volunteers, being careful to not have any conflicts of interest.

Many of the categories mentioned are further divided by dollar value and subcategory so that smaller projects can compete effectively when larger projects tend to be flashier. So skipping to the environmental category, which is why we're here, this award was presented at our banquet on March 5. Click. One more. Yeah.

As the master of ceremonies, I invited Flannery Banks from the city of Roseville and our APWA chapter board secretary to present this particular award. It is my distinct honor to present the this award for environmental project excellence in the 5,000,000 to 25,000,000 category. To the city of Santa Rosa for your Lower Colgan Creek restoration project phase three. Congratulations. And lastly, all winning projects were submitted to APWA National for consideration for a national award.

We're keeping our fingers crossed for you and hope to see your project featured at PWX in Houston. We also invite you to present your project, your lessons learned, or examples of teamwork at our chapter Public Works Conference November, the conferences in Oakland at the Holy Names University campus. Twenty twenty six's conference theme is teamwork. Thank you so much for having me. And here's the award.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much for the presentation. At this time just to follow our protocol we will open it up for public comment. If anybody wishes to make a public comment on this item, please move to the podium. Please state your name and don't start until the timer starts.

It was a wonderful Janice Carmen here. Greetings to all. It was a wonderful presentation and it's just fantastic to hear such good news on the environmental side in Santa Rosa. And I was just happy to be here and be present today to hear it. It's really super. Thank you. It was a great presentation.

Thank you very much. Are we going to have a formal presentation and a photo?

If the stormwater and creeks team could come down for the photo too, please.

So Mr. Dwyer and Ms. Childs, before you leave I think I neglected to open it up for any board member questions or comments. Mr. Dwyer? Okay. So I'll open the floor up to Board Member DeWitt.

Hello, I wanted to say congratulations to you and also ask a couple of quick questions so that we could replicate the good effort in other portions of the city. As I remember, it was probably a couple decades ago, city council member Jane Bender had been one of the advocates to pick the Colgan Creek project. As you said, it lasts you guys twelve years so far. What was the total cost so far?

For

I'm all three phases, not trying to put you on the spot, I'm trying to figure out how to get more money for the future.

Board Member DeWitt, we'll bring that information back, I don't think we have it at the top of our heads at the moment.

Okay, thank you kindly. I appreciate all your efforts on that and good luck to you at your competitions. Can we get an invitation to that conference in November? Yes. Alrighty, just remember me, I'm the bald guy that asked to come. Thank you.

Any other board member questions or comments? Okay, thank you again for the presentation. Congratulations on the award and it's a beautiful project.

Thank you.

Thank you. Item 6.1 is approval of the minutes for the April 2 meeting. Do we have any board member questions or comments Alright, regarding the we'll open it up for public comment on the approval of the minutes. Seeing no one rise, that will take care of the approval of the minutes and they will be entered. We have one staff briefing. Director Burke.

Thank you Chair Galvin and members of the board. Our staff briefing today is on Council Policy zero-seventy five City Asset Naming and Renaming Policy. And Luke Fazer, our Administrative Analyst in the City Manager's Office will be making the presentation.

Welcome.

Good afternoon. Thank you for having me. I'll try to make this quick and easy because it's not as exciting as an award but important nonetheless. I'll try to manipulate two screens, the microphone and my nerves at the same time. Please bear with Thank you Michelle.

Alright, so this is to go over city asset naming and renaming policy that was just adopted by the City Council last November. Today's presentation focuses on the role of this Board in the asset naming and renaming application process. This is not necessarily a training on the internal tracking tools or the administrative workflow but to provide an overall overview of how these applications will come before this body. What decisions you'll be made to ask and will be asked to make and how your recommendations will move forward to the council. During the presentation you'll have the opportunity to see the full application process from start to finish.

But I'll highlight some of the sections that pertain to this body in particular. So Council Policy 75 was adopted by City Council at the end of last year to provide guidelines on how city owned assets may be named or renamed by Santa Rosa residents and business owners. These guidelines were established to promote equity and consistency on how proposed names are considered and applied. This includes an application packet and a petition that must meet certain criteria based on what asset is to be renamed to ensure that any proposed name supports the city values and has support of the community at large. A complete application packet must include the application of course describing the city asset in detail so there's no confusion of what's being renamed and the naming criteria that's going to be considered.

Is it going to be for an outstanding individual, a historical significant landmark, a themed asset. A themed asset would be something that is indicative of the surrounding or the theme itself. Like if the Burbank Gardens want to be renamed after like an invasive species that they found there, that would be a themed asset. Not that that qualifies for this board but that's an example. There also has to be a letter sharing a compelling reason why this board should approve the name and applicants are encouraged to submit other materials like articles from the newspaper, recognition, anything like that that supports their case.

So right here you can see just a workflow snapshot of how the application travels from start to finish. Before an application reaches this board, it's reviewed by the City Manager's Office for completeness and eligibility and that's shown here at the intake step. Once assigned, application inserts a structured review process that may include up to three board or commission meetings, a public outreach session conducted by city staff here, a city council study session, and then finally a city council public hearing. So this slide represents the role city staff take during this process. It's just included here as just kind of an overview for transparency sake.

You can see who's involved and what their role is. This board is not included in this one but I included it for transparency. Alright, so these next few slides represent the typical path of a submitted application. For this board you may receive an application to rename maybe a water treatment plant, pump lift station or reservoir if it's owned by and controlled by the City of Santa Rosa. Assets that share responsibility would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

So for example, let's say the City Manager's office received an application to rename the Laguna Treatment Plant to Aquaman's Wild and Stinky Ride. The City Manager staff would review application and make sure it has all the required documentation and meets eligibility requirements outlined in the policy. Then it would go to the city manager to assign it to this board. And then next this slide kind of shows you the winding path of meeting number one which does involve this board and heavily requires Michelle to do work too. So the staff liaison would prepare and present a staff report and follow the procedures of a report item to this body and at meeting number one the board's role is to understand the city and its context, review and confirm the naming criteria established in the city policy that had already been established by the intake but it's also your role to review that as well.

You're also here to hear the applicant's rationale for that proposed name. And this meeting specifically is not a decision about the final name or a recommendation for the council. This is a discussion that determines whether a proposal should advance the public outreach or not. So you can see here in this little path here that board members may ask questions of the staff during that meeting. The applicant presents their proposal to rename the Laguna treatment plant Aquaman's Wild Sticky Ride emphasizing how it thematically matches.

And in this case let's say the chair makes a call for public comment, the board chair initiates a motion to advance the application to the public outreach step and then calls for a vote. Let's say this one moves forward just for fun to see what happens. So next it goes to the public outreach step. This outreach is designed to reach beyond the standard meeting notices and intentionally engage a broad and diverse cross section of the community and it may result in alternate name proposals either suggested by the public themselves or identified through the community engagement staff. Community engagement staff will distribute a survey to impacted residents, business owners or other people that may be impacted by the name change of the this case the treatment plant and they may also set up a community event to gather that more feedback as well.

The community engagement staff advises the community members that they'll have sixty days after the close of that initial survey to submit their own application packet with new petition for an alternative name. So for this example, let's say an affected resident thinks the treatment plant should be named after a prominent businessman like Bruce Wayne. So they would submit their application and it would be flagged as an alternate name for the intake process and to make sure it's assigned to this board for review. So then it would go to meeting number two. And meeting number two follows the same procedures as meeting number one.

However, this one includes all the public outreach results as well including the background research on alternate names, the history and relevance of asset. So for our example, let's say the affected business owner says Bruce Wayne is great. We want to name it after him. He's not trying to make the case that it's a stinky or otherwise negative implication of what goes on at the treatment plan. So your role at this meeting is to evaluate each options alignment with the policy.

See if that has community support and long term appropriateness. This is not about personal preference. This board should consider the full outreach results, assess whether that there's broad support weigh the long term impacts. The board may recommend additional outreach that results in an additional meeting number three which you can also include requesting a narrowed list or you can choose not to recommend a name if that's the case. And if that is the case that your recommendation is not to recommend a name, it goes back to the city manager's office to evaluate from there.

So for our example, let's say you say let's see where this goes. We'll move it on. City Council can make their decision. So we'd go on to a council study session where the council considers the board's recommendation during that time and they can have the discussion and direction before a formal public hearing. And then it goes on to the City Council public hearing path.

This is where the Board staff lays on rates and prepares the staff report that includes all the research, recommendations, all all the outreach and considerations and the recommendations from this Board and presents it to City Council. Recommendations are an important advisory input but City Council makes the final decision and they may accept, modify or reject the recommendation of this board. So for our example, Council determines that because Aquaman's Wild Ride isn't in the public interest and Bruce Wayne is a fictional character, the name will remain as the Laguna Treatment Plant. To close, think it's important to remember that the City asset naming and renaming process is designed to be thoughtful, transparent and community driven. This Board's role is not to champion or oppose individual proposals but to apply the Council's policy consistently, evaluate whether the applications meet the adopted criteria and ensure community input has been meaningfully considered.

Your recommendations help maintain integrity and how the city assets are named ensuring that names reflect our shared values and endure over time. The city asset naming and renaming page located on the city's website provides valuable resources for the public and the members of this board to help them navigate this new process. I emphasize new process. And this has a link to the recently passed policy. Also has the guidelines with an interactive roadmap going in more depth than I've been able to go to here and has an application packet as well.

At this time, I welcome any questions. Thank you for your time here. I hope this framework works as intended. But again, I do want to say this is a new policy and we're going to try it out and make sure it works well. Thanks again.

Thank you Mr. Fazer. Appreciate the presentation and the fact that the city and the council are putting together a comprehensive program and policy for the naming of whatever within the city we might own. So thank you. At this time I'll open it up for any board member questions or comments. Board member DeWitt?

Yes, could you please tell me could anyone in the city anywhere ask to name something anywhere in the city?

As long as it's owned by the city of Santa Rosa, they could ask to name or rename that. They also would have to be living in Santa Rosa, has to a city resident or a business owner that has business in Santa Rosa. Those are the eligibility criteria for them to submit an application. There's also the petition also requires that they get public support from people within one half mile of that named asset.

And with that in mind, how many people within a half mile?

At least 1,000.

1,000 people within a half mile have to agree to whatever the naming might be. And then is there like a cumulative amount of number for the petitions like how many petitioners have to be on that for it to go forward and actually start an application process without being rejected?

So as long as 1,000 petition signers are included on the petition that is valid. It does have to be submitted within sixty days of the application however. But other than the thousand signatures that's the only requirement there as long as they meet those half mile guideline that I spoke earlier of.

Okay so that's 500 people within a half a mile and 1,000 anywhere in the city within sixty days. Yes. Thank you kindly for your time sir.

Other board member questions or comments? We'll open it up for a public comment on item 7.1. If you wish to make a comment please move to the podium. Please state your name for the record and wait until the timer starts.

Janice Carmen. Thank you for the presentation. It's just a comment, but when we're trying to see streamlining in the city, and I've lived through at least two presentations previously related to this over the last year, it just seems like it should be able to be a smaller amount of transitioning into the process? And also, like, how long is it supposed to take? Maybe you quoted it, but there was an awful lot of information in there, and I didn't hear how long this is supposed to take.

But it's those are a lot of little boxes, and most people don't have time to do all this. I mean, the biggest complaints I hear are challenge, challenge, challenge. I've listened to planning that's gone on for five years, seven years, you know, and we don't want that to happen here. We want to have things streamlined. We want people to be able to come to the city and to have a concept that you can help develop and look at them with respect and honor and say, it sounds like a good project.

And also, the many people. I wonder how many people are actually involved in this whole or what are you thinking? Or is it going to just be different people at different times because there's not a board specifically related to this. And, I'm also familiar with the art board, and Meredith works very, very hard to get her presentations and to get her concepts to be amicable with the city and with the public, and she's doing a fantastic job. But it just seems like there's an awful lot that's involved with this that I don't think it needs to be.

And I'm familiar with San Francisco and what they've done with the streets in San Francisco. It's very confusing. And it could be streets, according to the previous projects, streets or statues or whatever. But they are just like parts of it. So that's another thing. If you're gonna name a street, I think it should be the entire street, not just a part of the street, and you hope you're going to get paid for the rest of it to develop with other people. And just a real clear forward idea for what will be the end result. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments. Mr. Fazer, do you have any response? Particularly, maybe the timeline I think would be important.

Yeah, I can address that a little bit. So this policy was enacted to correct some of the inefficiencies in the policy that was already in place. Prior to this policy and the new guidelines being implemented naming an asset would go on for years. I'm thinking about the renaming of the Creekside where there was a lot of back and forth and inconsistencies on how what criteria needs to be applied, what documentation need to be supplied as well. And so this process helps to standardize all of the applications so everything is evaluated consistently, evenly, and equitably for everybody.

I encourage everyone to look at the comprehensive guide and the application packet that's available on the website because it does go into detail of what is expected for each review and how it will be considered going forward. And that is to help the staff make this go faster for everyone.

So does the information on the website, does it provide any kind of a timeline from date of application through the hearing process to final approval by City Council or this Board?

Unfortunately because there's no data to go through, there's not an application has gone through this process yet. There is no anticipated timeline that I can give you. There are certain milestones that occur in there that are subject to delays but subject to agenda constraints. There's also the application, there's that sixty day window after the application submitted where the petition needs to go so that's a hard deadline of the sixty days and then also the close of the public outreach survey has that sixty days as well. So there's one hundred and twenty days in there potentially that have to occur.

Beyond that, I unfortunately can't give you an anticipated time limit.

That's fine. So if they don't submit the petition or the signatures within that sixty day period, does the application lapse or is it automatically denied or do they have an opportunity to resubmit? How does that work?

They would have an opportunity to resubmit, yes.

Okay. Alright,

other board member questions or comments? Assistant City Manager? Chair Gavan, I just wanted to tag into this. Part of the reason that there's not necessarily a deadline on these things is the naming and renaming of a city asset needs to be done in a very conscientious and appropriate way. And we don't want to over expedite something and then have to repeal or undo it because circumstances weren't carefully evaluated.

So to Mr. Fazer's approach here, we intentionally didn't define timeline to complete because we want to make sure that both the boards that are evaluating the initial applications as well as the council take the time they need to ensure that they've reviewed all of the concerns, questions or options that are in front of them.

Thank you. Board Member DeWitt? Yes, one more

question on that. Regarding the petition and the signatures, when annexations occur, each signature has to have a date and then the date is when the time starts. So when these people come forward with 1,000 signatures, do those signatures have to be dated and they all have to be within the sixty days?

That is correct. Yes, they would have to be dated.

So within sixty days, the proponent of a project has to get 1,000 signatures and 500 of them have to come within a half a mile of what they want to rename.

That is correct.

Thank you kindly, sir.

Thank you. Appreciate the presentation.

Thank you again.

We'll now move to the consent calendar. We have five items on the consent calendar.

I'll move the consent calendar.

Second.

We have a motion by Board Member Wright, seconded by Board Member Badinfort to approve the consent calendar. This time I'll open it up for public comment on any of the consent calendar items. Seeing no one rise, may we have a roll call vote please. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. If you have questions or comments go right ahead.

Yes, I have one question and it's a bit of a comment also. Sole source contracting to me doesn't necessarily seem to always be the most monetarily efficient, considering we're going to be facing some more difficult financial times in the future. So I just wanted to put into the record, would appreciate if we could find a way to get back to competitive bidding on as much as possible. Thank you.

I think it's fair to say that staff is doing everything they can to make sure that we do as much competitive bidding as possible, but in certain circumstances where one company has the only product that we're using and we need it, sole source is the option. Any other board member questions or comments? May we please have a roll call vote on the motion?

Board Member Wright?

Aye.

Board Member DeWitt?

Yes.

Board Member Badenfort? Aye. And Chair Galvin?

Aye.

Let the record reflect that the consent calendar passes with Vice Chair Anoni absent.

Thank you. We have two report items. Item 9.1 we'll start with Director Burke.

Thank you Chair Galvin and members of the board. Item 9.1 is approval of FlexNet system software hosting and maintenance annual services agreement with Aquametric and Kevin Buchanan, Budget and Financial Analysis Manager will be presenting this item.

Welcome Mr. Buchanan.

All right, thank you Chair Galvin, members of the board. I'm here to talk about an agreement with AcoMetric. This is for the FlexNet system and it's specifically about the hosting and maintenance component. And the FlexNet system is part of our AMI network and I'll kind of get into the details of what's covered in this contract. So it will help to go into the background because the history here is that in 2016 when the city decided to go into the advanced metering infrastructure project, we signed one big contract at that time with Census and it covered four big areas.

There was the implementation of AMI, there was a blanket purchase order because we were standardizing all of our parts and equipment, we needed to have this SaaS agreement which was Census delivering the water meter data to us and then also the hosting and maintenance of that SaaS agreement. And that was all encompassed in one big contract that we had in 2016. And for nine years that's how we operated until March 2025 and Census gave us written notice that they were terminating that contract and it had a lot to do with the way they were kind of restructuring their business and they were getting out of the direct sort of connection with municipalities. So that has created this effort to now kind of patch that 2016 contract back together piecemeal. So last fall we came before BPU and got a new blanket purchase order with Aquametric because Aquametric is now the provider of the meters and equipment and just moments ago you reauthorized that blanket purchase order again.

In October we signed the SaaS agreement which allows Census to just continue to send the meter data to us. And so today we're trying to kind of finish this puzzle by having the board approve a hosting and maintenance contract that used to be with Census but Census is routing through their third party vendor Aquametric. The hosting and maintenance is considered sole source because Aquametric is the only company that provides this hosting and maintenance. If we did not go with Aquametric we would have to have several meter vendors. We'd have to be investing in multiple networks to transmit water data if we had different companies with water meters.

So it's in the city's best interest to standardize and have just one company. This hosting and maintenance contract will provide the network infrastructure, they provide us updates to user reports, there's technical assistance and software patches. The terms of this agreement is an initial five year term with language built in that we could renew for an additional five years. There's an annual increase of 3% a year which the city believes is favorable and is pretty common for these types of ongoing network technical contracts. So the potential is a ten year contract that would not exceed $880,920.71 Part of this contract also provides for annual training for our staff on a variety of the technical aspects of the AMI network.

So with that it is recommended by Santa Rosa Water that the Board of Public Utilities by motion approve the annual service agreement with Aquametric in an amount not to exceed $880,920.71 and I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. I'll open it up for any board member questions or comments. Board Member DeWitt? I guess it's my

busy day today. Hello, I appreciate your presentation. I'm curious are we making sure that we have the 3% escalation per year written in that it cannot go above that?

The language says it's a 3% escalation every year.

I get that. Yeah. But if the economics of our country change, if difficulties arise, they may want to come back and say you know what we need 4.5%. Can we limit it to 3%?

It's 3%, I mean either party can terminate the agreement and that's actually kind of a big part of what happened with Census last year.

Yes,

The I contract with Census was a 3% escalation on those parts and equipment and 3% increases from 2016 to 2025 was not enough for census to recoup. The city was getting really great pricing for a long time. So to answer your question, they could terminate the agreement and come back and say we'd have to look at higher costs.

I get that but you missed my main point. Have we written in there that we want it to stay

at three It's written in at 3% but you're saying if they came back and said 4%, what they would do is they would probably notify us that they are canceling the contract.

So they hold us over a barrel in a sense? They basically got it out, this is what it is and that's how it goes? Okay, I get it sir, thank you.

Through the chair, I would just ask our assistant city attorney to chime in on the contract if you could. It's written as 3%, it would be 3%. But if you could please confirm.

Yeah, if it's written as 3% it would be 3%. Yet that it's written at 3%. What I'm asking is do they put a stipulation in there that it must stay at 3%? If not, I understand that. Thank you kindly.

I think the contract specifically says it's a 3% per year. That doesn't preclude them from coming back and asking for more which we can refuse and hold them to the contract or they can then exercise their rights to terminate in which case we would potentially be renegotiating. But yes, I think the contract as written does require 3% and does not require anything more or less than that.

Thank you kindly sir. Appreciate everybody's involvement.

Any other board member questions? Hitting the button? Board member right.

Yeah, well I'm hitting the button. Can I move a motion?

That's what I'm hitting the button for. Let's open it up

for public comment. Okay, sorry I'm getting ahead of myself.

So open it up for public comment on item 9.1. If you wish to comment please move to the podium. Please again state your name for the record and wait till the timer starts.

Thank you. Janice Carmen. I agree with Duane. It sounds like you're between a rock and a hard spot with it. But I also agree that the meters have to be in consistent, fluent compatibility, and to get that, sometimes it takes a little more.

And we don't know what the future will bring, and hopefully it's gonna get better and better. But for the time being, we need to have good water resources. And we've done pretty well with water, exceptionally, I think. So, I think we should just go with it. And I don't think that they should be put in a position of being held to a specific amount because most contracts would do that if it was something that was due to going up or going down. 3% I think is reasonable. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. We'll now entertain a motion.

Okay, well I'll move that the board approve the annual service agreement with Aqua Metric in the amount not to exceed $880,920.71.

Second.

We have a motion by board member Wright, seconded by board member Badenfort. At this time I'll ask for a roll call vote please.

Board member Wright.

Aye.

Board Member DeWitt?

Yes.

Board Member Badenfort?

Aye. And

Chair Galvin? Aye. Let the record reflect that motion passes unanimously.

Thank you again Mr. Buchanan. We'll now move to item 9.2 which is our second report item. Director Burke.

Thank you Chair Galvin and members of the Board. The second report item is a resolution of the Board of Public Utilities approving the reimbursement agreement between the City of Santa Rosa and the South Park County Sanitation District for sewer asset replacements for the McMinn Ave. And Hughes Ave. Sewer, water, and storm drain improvements project and delegating authority to the Director of Santa Rosa Water to execute future reimbursement agreements for capital improvement projects necessary under the transfer agreement. And making the presentation is Candace Michael, our associate civil engineer.

I think you made that long on purpose.

That was doozy wasn't it? Apologies for the title. I was under the impression it had to be the resolution name. Good afternoon Chair Galvin and members of the board. My name is Candace Michael and I'm an associate civil engineer with the asset management team for Santa Rosa Water.

Today I'll be presenting on once again the reimbursement agreement between the City of Santa Rosa and the South Park County Sanitation District for sewer asset replacements for the McMinn Avenue and Hughes Avenue sewer, water and storm drain improvement project, and the delegation of authority to the Director of Water to execute future reimbursement agreements for capital improvement projects necessary under the transfer agreement between the city and the district. I will be discussing the project background, reimbursement agreements, the location of the project within the South Park County Sanitation District, prior review by the BPU and City Council, a brief analysis of the project, recommendations by the Water Department. A transfer agreement between the City Of Santa Rosa and South Park County Sanitation District contains conditions that must be met by the district prior to its dissolution and transferred to the city. One of these conditions is to complete infrastructure improvements. Occasionally, the city has utility replacement capital improvement projects that overlap with the boundaries of the district.

When there is overlap and sewer assets are owned by both the city and the district, there is opportunity to collaborate on projects. Instead of completing two separate projects to replace the sewer assets in a project boundary where ownership is split, the parties can coordinate to complete a single project and execute a reimbursement agreement. Either the city or the district can manage the project and the party that is not managing the project is responsible for reimbursement of the project assets that are under their ownership. The reimbursement agreements are reciprocal. When the city manages a project, the reimbursement agreement states that the district has the responsibility to reimburse the city for costs associated with the replacement of assets under the district's ownership.

Inversely, when projects are managed and completed by the district, the city has the responsibility to reimburse the district for costs associated with replacement of assets under the city's ownership. The reimbursement agreements take project design and construction cost sharing opportunities into account as well. Project ID 16O1, the McMinn Avenue and Hughes Avenue sewer water and storm drain improvement project is partially located in the South Park County Sanitation District and has sewer replacements for both city and district assets. This project is located South Of Sebastopol Road and West of Highway 101. The limits of the district are in a hatched pattern.

Areas in the district are dispersed mostly in the southern region of Santa Rosa. The inset view of the map is the McMinn And Hughes Avenue project. The yellow highlighted area is where sewer improvements will be completed. The project is located on the border of the city and the district and plans to replace 2,500 feet of sewer main. Eleven forty feet or roughly 45% of those mains are owned by the district.

On 02/20/1996 by resolution 22,586 the district and the city entered into the agreement for dissolution of the South Park County Sanitation District and transferred to the city of Santa Rosa. This was the original agreement to upgrade the district sewer infrastructure before the city would take over operations and routine maintenance of the district sewer collection system. On June 2632 by Resolution 28,112, the district and the city entered into the amended and restated agreement regarding district operations and transfer to the city of Santa Rosa. This is what I've been calling the transfer agreement throughout the presentation. Resolution 28,112 addresses the eventual dissolution of the district after the district fulfills certain obligations including any current and future debt payment obligations, required infrastructure improvements, and the district's obligation under cleanup and abatement order R1 2,000 and seven-forty issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

On October 2437 the city by Resolution 20 seventeen-two 11 approved the first amendment to the amended and restated agreement regarding district operations and transfer to the City Of Santa Rosa. This first amendment to the amended and restated agreement outlined rate restructuring to match the city's sewer rates, responsibility of development projects, and set forth provisions of the transfer of governance of the district. The McMinn Avenue and Hughes Avenue sewer, water and storm drain improvements project managed by the city once again will replace approximately 2,500 feet of aged out sewer main, seven manholes, and three clean outs. 45% of the sewer mains in the project boundary and lateral connections are owned by the district as well as three manholes. A portion of other project related costs will be reimbursed including but not limited to mobilization, trenching, paving and ADA compliance.

The 40% design cost estimate to be reimbursed by the district is currently estimated at $977,000 Additional coordination for future CIP and reimbursement agreements will be necessary to replace all of the district owned sewer assets that are aged out. There are more than 96,000 linear feet of sewer mains that are currently owned by the district. Approximately two thirds of these sewer mains have been replaced within the last forty years and do not require replacement. The remaining one third of the sewer mains in the district are near or at term and will need to be replaced under the transfer agreement. The map shows the district boundaries and the age of sewer mains within these boundaries.

Red and yellow colored mains represent the one third of sewer mains needing to replaced. Each time the city has a project that overlaps with the district, the water department or project manager in capital engineering must present a new resolution to the Board of Public Utilities to approve reimbursement agreements with the district. This proposed resolution would allow the director of Santa Rosa Water to enter into future agreements that fall under the transfer agreement. This resolution would save hours of staff time by streamlining the process of entering into these cooperative agreements between the city and the district. It is recommended by Santa Rosa Water that the Board of Public Utilities by resolution approve the agreement between the City of Santa Rosa and South Park County Sanitation District for sewer asset replacements for the McMinn Avenue and Hughes Avenue sewer, water and storm drain improvement projects and delegate authority to the Director of Santa Rosa Water to execute future reimbursement agreements for capital improvement projects necessary under the transfer agreement.

And with that I'll open it up to questions.

Thank you very much. Let's open it up for any board member questions or comments. Board Member DeWitt?

My busy day. I support this. My questions have to do with a little bit better understanding. The analysis map you have there with the purple and the yellow might be a good map to look at as we talk about that. I noticed that the title of this resolution includes storm drain improvements. And so what we've talked about today is just the sewer. But you're going to be running a line right down as I understand it, McMinn Avenue from Sebastopol Road down to Hughes Avenue and that's going to go right down the middle of the street.

I don't have the specifics on the alignment but it is a replacement of a main that is already currently there.

Yes. In order to replace it you're not aligning that one that's there, you're putting in new piping?

That is correct.

Coming down the street typically. So with that in mind, at the corner of Sunset Avenue and McMinn Avenue, the, intersection is really beat up. The concrete there is all torn up, and in the past, Hughes Avenue was one of the worst streets in all of Santa Rosa, and it was just recently repaved. So that connection coming from McMinn over to Burbank Avenue on Hughes that will typically also go in the middle of the street. Will you repave the street?

The project scope is to replace the sewer and water and storm drain assets along McMinn and Hughes and there will be repaving of all of the streets and also ADA improvements. There's going to be sidewalk improvements and improvements to the crosswalk areas.

Thank you kindly, that would be a very nice thing. When will they come back to tell us about the stormwater improvements?

Probably when they are trying to get the contract approved.

Okay, so it's a different matter entirely. It's just part of the title today?

Correct, yes.

Alright, I'm getting to understand this better. Thank you for your patience with my learning process.

Thank you.

Other Board Member questions? Board Member Wright?

Thank you for the presentation, and again I support this as well. I'm just curious on the payments, do we pay based on engineers estimates or do we pay actually on actual contract bid amounts?

Yes, we'll be paying on actual amounts not the estimates. Right now written into the contract is an estimate but there's a provision that states that we'll be updating them along the project timeline.

Good, thank you.

Other board member questions or comments? Alright, we will open it up for public comment on item 9.2. If you wish to make a comment, please move to the podium. Seeing no one rise, I'll entertain a motion. We have a resolution that was in our packet.

I will move that we go forward.

I will second that.

Motion by Board Member DeWitt, seconded by Board Member Wright to approve the resolution that was in our packet and approve this item. We have a roll call vote please.

Board Member Wright. Aye. Board Member DeWitt.

Yes.

Board Member Badenfort. Aye. And Chair Galvin.

Aye.

Let the record reflect that resolution passes unanimously with Vice Chair Arnone absent.

Thank you. This time we will move to item number 10 which is public comments on non agenda matters. If you wish to make a comment on non agenda matters move to the podium. Please wait for the timer and give us your name.

Thank you. Hi Janice Carmen. Last time I was here, it's been a while since I've come to this meeting, you approved an easement on Hartville Road for PG and E. And I've previously come here two times talking about EMFs and problems with PG and E. And I'm here today to state that since the fires have taken place, they've gone into bankruptcy, as most people know.

They've also changed the name, started a nuclear facility over on Mount Diablo in a different county. And they have not paid the settlements of the people that lost their homes, their property, some had to move, the fire rates went up for insurance, all of those things. And the public really should know these things because currently they're being evaluated for costs and it's a huge cost. They're saying they're undervalued to be taken over by San Francisco in the city right now. And they shouldn't be allowed to do this until they've paid the settlements.

It's now nine years. For most lawsuits, it seems like they're done in five years, six years, maybe seven years, and they're pushing it out. But nine years is a long time. A lot of these people are quite aged, and it's just a disgrace. And it's a disgrace for the city council, the board of supervisors, the state of California, anybody else to support PG and E or give them any considerations for anything additional when they have not settled the fire settlements from the beginning with the twenty seventeen fire nine years later and there's been two other fires that I know of and probably multiple ones in Napa etc. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments. Any other public comments? Very good. We will move on then. We have no referrals. We have no written communications. I don't believe we have any subcommittee reports. Do we have any board member reports? Board member DeWitt?

Yes. Excuse me. Soon we'll be having a water conservation subcommittee meeting. One of the things that interests me is that private industry, many businesses here in the community have been undertaking their own water conservation efforts to do waterless urinals. It sound like a small project but some people say that you can save up to 30,000 gallons per urinal by switching to waterless.

So I'm hoping that we can look into that a little bit and get better research and I will be bringing it forward at the water conservation meeting and talk about it because I do believe even though we had some rain, we're going to be slipping back into a drought cycle again and it's always better to be prepared. My motto as a youth, if it's yellow, let it mellow. It happened fifty years ago, it'll be back. Thank you kindly.

Thank you for your comments. Any other Board member reports? This time we'll open it up for public comments on the board member report. Do wish to make a comment? Seeing no one rise. Director's report.

Thank you Chair Galvin and members of the board. I have a couple things to update the board on today. First, I wanted to let the board know that unfortunately Board Member Mullen had to resign from the Board. He resigned immediately effective April 13. He did note in his resignation letter that it was an honor and a privilege to serve on the BPU and serve my city and he appreciated being part of the essential services that the board oversees.

So we are looking for actively looking for interest in the board. Information has been put out through social media channels as well as information is on our website if anyone is interested in applying for the Board of Public Utilities, we now have two vacancies, one that is council member Fleming's appointee and one that is council member McDonald's appointee. We will be inviting board member Mullen back in the future if he would like to come so that we can honor his service. We really appreciate the work that he did on the board and he will be missed. Second, I wanted to let the board know that this Saturday May 9 from ten a.

To four p. M. The sixteenth annual eco friendly garden tour will be taking place across 25 gardens throughout Sonoma and Marin Counties and there'll be five gardens featured in the city of Santa Rosa. We will have our water use efficiency staff hosting a table at one of those gardens and that will be at 1098 Odell Lane in Santa Rosa. This particular customer participated in our cash for grass rebate program in 2022 and staff will be there to promote our outdoor water smart efficiency programs including our residential cash for grass program, our efficiency irrigation, and rainwater harvesting rebates.

In addition, other events throughout Sonoma and Marin Counties as part of this tour include plant and seed sales, workshops, kids arts and crafts, and a Marin County bike tour. So this is a free self guided community event and you all are welcome to participate and anyone in the public is welcome to participate. The only thing that's asked if you would like to participate is to sign up and register and you can do that by going to www.savingwaterpartnership.org/ecofriendlygardentour. That is the updates that I have and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. I just want to comment that Board Member Mullen did call me to advise me that he was going to have to resign for personal reasons and was very sad to receive the news but I totally understood the reason behind it and wish him only the best. I hope that he will come back and be properly recognized by this board. Any other questions or comments from the board? Board Member DeWitt?

Yes, two quick questions. On the eligibility for the people to serve on this board, do they have to be in Ms. Fleming's district and Ms. McDonald's district to be appointed by each of those people?

No, it is not a requirement. Members can be at large. Some council members do try to look for representatives from their districts.

And then on Odell Lane, is that off of is it out in the Roseland area? Is it the Odell that's out in Roseland?

I don't know that information. Can look at

So I should get my map out and

check it.

Thank you kindly.

Thank you. We'll open it up now for public comment on the director's report. If you wish to make a comment please move to the podium. Seeing no one rise, thank you for the report. That takes care of our agenda for today So we are adjourned and we'll be back here in two weeks. Have a nice afternoon.