Board of Public Utilities - Regular Meeting

I'd like to welcome you to the Board of Public Utilities meeting. This meeting is called to order. We will now play the inclusion statement.

Pursuant to the City Council rules of procedure and order of business resolution, the members of all Boards and Commissions and the public are reminded that they must preserve order and decorum throughout the meeting. In that regard, members of the Boards and Commissions and the public are advised that any delay or disruption in the proceedings or a refusal to obey the orders of the Board or Commission or the Presiding Officer constitutes a violation of these rules. The city of Riverside is committed to fostering a workplace that provides dignity, respect, and civility to our employees, customers, and the public they serve.

Pete, would you like to lead us in the pledge?

We stand.

Roll call, please.

Good evening, board members. Board Member Wright is absent. Board Member Goldberg? Here. Board Member Rand? Here. Board Member Montgomery? Here. Board Member Evans? Here. Board Member Becker? Here. Vice Chair Wolgenmuth?

Here.

Board, I'm sorry, Board Member Cruz? Here. Chair Sayano? Here. Thank you.

We will now move to public comment. Public comment is now open for this item. Call 951-826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press star 9. When called to speak, press star 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

Do we have any public comment? OK. No public comment. So for item number two, I will ask our board members if anyone has any conflicts of interest to disclose on our agenda. OK. Not seeing any. I'll move to the consent calendar. Does anyone wish to pull an item on our consent calendar?

No? Do we have a motion to approve?

Motion to approve.

Second.

Please vote. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now move on to the discussion calendar. We'll now open for public comment for item number five.

Public comment is now open for this item. Call 951-826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press star nine. When called to speak, press star six to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

We call for presentation of item number five by Melody Morgan.

Good evening, Board Chair Siena, Vice Chair Wolgamuth, and members of the board. My name is Melody Morgan, senior water resources analyst, and tonight staff is requesting approval to extend the service lateral replacement program through fiscal year 28-29. This program has become an important part of our water loss control program by allowing us to proactively replace service laterals before they fail. So what are service laterals? Service laterals are small water pipelines that connect our distribution system to individual customer meters. In 2020, the Board approved the Service Lateral Replacement Program to proactively replace laterals before they failed. This program was extended in 2022 through June 2026 as part of RPU's Water Loss Control Program. Prior to the program, we typically addressed service laterals only after they failed. Service lateral life varies depending on pipe material, soil conditions, installation practices, and failure history. Those factors are considered when determining which laterals should be replaced. Historically, emergency repairs addressed only the failed section of the service lateral. Because the remaining pipe was often the same age and condition, additional failures commonly occurred later on the same service line. That resulted in repeat repairs, additional water loss, and repeat outages for customers. So this slide shows the criteria for replacements and implementation. Areas are chosen based on frequent failures, age, locations with recurring or active leaks, and opportunities to coordinate work efficiently. Work is completed by RPU field crews. Performing the work in-house typically costs about $3,500 to $4,500 per replacement, and that's about 60% of the cost of an outside contractor. Projects are prioritized using asset management and operational data to optimize scheduling, crew deployment, and coordination with other work. So we did receive some feedback prior to this meeting, and I appreciate that feedback. I wanted to provide a little additional context on this slide because it can be easy to misinterpret. And I apologize for all the numbers and small formats throughout it, but you'll see a trend, and I'll be able to point that out. This chart does not show, the chart shown here, it does not show or include the number of service laterals replaced through the proactive service lateral replacement program. Instead, this chart shows how we've responded to service lateral failures over time. The blue or bottom portion represents emergency repairs where we just repaired a section of the service lateral. The top, or orange portion, represents full service lateral replacements that occurred after a leaf was identified. And there are three trends that I wanted to point out. So first, you're going to notice emergency repairs, shown in the blue, have steadily declined over time. That's important because emergency repairs are disruptive, costly, require immediate response, and only address the failed section of the service lateral. Second, the increase in the full service lateral replacements, which is shown in orange, reflects a shift away from repeatedly repairing the same laterals and towards replacing the entire service line once a failure occurred. And then third, beginning around 2022, so that's going to be the last four bars, you're going to notice all leaks, both from emergency repairs in blue and the leak-related replacements in orange decline. And that's when the proactive service lateral replacement program began having a measurable impact. So rather than waiting for laterals to fail, we began replacing high-risk laterals before failures occurred. so you're also going to notice in the last four bars an increase in leak related replacements in 2025. that reflects a temporary pause in the proactive replacements during fiscal year 24 when field crews were reassigned to a higher priority regulatory requirement including field inspections for our service line inventory Once proactive replacements slowed, we saw more laterals fail that otherwise may have been replaced before failure. This highlights the value of maintaining consistent proactive replacement efforts. During planned work, crews can replace up to five laterals in a day compared to approximately one during an emergency response. The program uses existing field crews and replacement levels have been aligned with current staffing capacity while continuing to target the highest risk service laterals. So the key takeaway from this chart is that as we've shifted from reacting to failures towards planned replacement of high risk service laterals, emergency repairs have declined substantially. And that's exactly the outcome this program was designed to achieve. Continuing, this program provides several measurable benefits. First, since the program began, preemptive replacements have allowed us to significantly reduce emergency service lateral repairs while improving operational efficiency. Another benefit is reduced overtime associated with those emergency repairs. also shortened customer service interruptions, and reduced real water loss by proactively replacing high-risk service laterals before they fail. The program also supports compliance with California's Senate Bill 555 water loss management requirements. Finally, the program provides improved operational efficiency while allowing us to proactively manage aging infrastructure. Staff is proposing to continue the program for an additional three fiscal years through fiscal year 28-29. The proposed annual funding level is up to $350,000. The funding level reflects program delivery using our current field staffing. Funds do not carry over year to year. Based on our recent program delivery, annual expenditures have generally been at or below $300,000, making the requested funding level consistent with what current staff can accomplish while continuing to replace the highest priority service laterals. Funding is already included in the approved fiscal year 27 and fiscal year 28 budgets, with fiscal year 29 funding to be requested through the normal budget process. So with that, it is staff's recommendation that the board, one, approve a three-year extension of the Service Ladder Replacement Program through fiscal year 28 to 29, and two, authorize annual funding of $350,000 for each fiscal year of the program with separate work orders established annually. And I have Robin Glennie, Assistant General Manager, and Fareed Bushaki, Principal Engineer, and myself to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much. Do we have any public comment? Okay. We have no public comment. Any comments from the board?

Just a probably silly question. Why not just include this as a yearly budget item rather than doing extensions through 29? I'm assuming this is going to be in perpetuity. These pipes are going to have to be rebuilt over time. So why not just include that as a yearly budget and not have to worry about extensions

Thank you for the question. So our yearly budget, if this is part of the CIP budget, we do have a regular recurring budget that's for operation and maintenance. And it includes if you have a leaky lateral. But for something like this, we're putting it into the CIP program. And this also gives us a chance to change the amounts. Typically, the annuals that come to board a lot lower dollar amount than $350,000. I'm going to see if Robyn Glennie has another answer to that.

Thank you for the question. So with our regular budget and our annual work orders, we do get those approved through the annual process. With this program, because it is a three-year ongoing program and the funding mechanism is larger and tied to water loss reporting, we do like to bring this as a separate item. So great question.

Other questions? Tom?

How about now? Okay. Thank you. Anything we can do to reduce losses, we should be doing. If you go back to your chart, whatever, orange and blue, I guess that is, or purple, in the last four years you talked about, if you added the laterals that have been replaced on a non-leak basis, what would those bars change to?

So those bars do not include the service lateral replacement program.

No, I know that. But I'm asking you, what would they go to if you did include them?

Yes. So for example, 2025, and that's an excellent question, in 2025, there were approximately 80 laterals that were replaced. We spent, maybe it was a little more than 80, I think it was 85. We spent $300,000 in fiscal year 2025, so that last bar. So it would increase by an additional 85 laterals approximately. In 2024, and this is kind of important to pay attention to, we had to pause the service lateral replacement program because we were trying to meet a regulatory requirement, which required inspections of the pipe material that we had to do. So that one would increase it by zero. And I don't have the numbers for the other two years, but the goal for $350,000 amount It will allow us to do between 85 and 100 surface lateral replacements per year. So the goal is to be able to add 85 to 100 to that number each year that we have the program, assuming staff has the capacity to do it.

Okay, well, I mean, if you compare those last two years, there's quite a big apparent cause and effect that further demonstrates why doing this on a planned basis is the way to go rather than doing it, you know, fix on failure, which is more expensive for all the reasons you described. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Pete?

Thank you for the very fine presentation. Just out of curiosity, and I know it probably varies a lot, but how many homes are there on a service lateral? How many homes are... How many homes are serviced by the replacement of a service lateral?

Typically, if you replace a service lateral, typically you're going to replace one single family home. If it's a larger lateral, it could be an apartment complex, it could be a duplex, but one service lateral would typically be assigned to one single family home.

Okay.

Somehow I figured it would be more, but okay, that's just me. So I agree that this is a great program. And I like the way that you're attacking the water loss problem. It'll be interesting to see how things play out in terms of the volumes after some period of time. but it'll uh i'm it can't hurt certainly and i'm glad to see a proactive program here that is going to it looks like it's making a difference and i applaud everybody's big thumbs up across the board all right thanks

Okay, I had a couple of questions. I appreciate Tom's question because giving that number of 85 to 100 put some things into perspective for me. is confusing to me because there are some dramatic effects here that, you know, the drop of, I don't know, like 1,000 from 2021 to, or not 1,000, 700 or 800 from 2021 to 2022 can't possibly be because we replaced 85 laterals or 100 laterals or... And then the increase of 200 or 300 from 2024 to 2025 can't possibly be because we didn't replace 100 laterals. So I feel like I'm missing something from the narrative here. I assumed that I was going to hear a much bigger number than 85 because we're seeing much larger jumps. So is there something else going on? so i'm not sure if i understand your question completely well you said for example that the drop from 2021 to 2022 i know it you know there's noise and other things going on and whatnot but you said that was an effect at least partially in effect of us starting to proactively replace these laterals but if we were in 2021 if we replaced 100 And somehow we miraculously replaced 100 that were going to break in 2022, and it would only have an effect of 100.

So it is very interesting. It is very interesting because this graph shows you the leaks. So it really is showing you that in 2021, there were 1,186 leaks of service laterals where they went out and they had to go and replace the entire service lateral. And they started the program. at the very end of 2020, but it was fiscal year 21. So they did start it in that fiscal year. And it does reflect that the leak amount that was, that our leak registry did drop significantly after going out and strategically doing the replacements. The replacements are done where if they see a street that has recurring leaks, they're going to go and they're going to replace all the ones on that street. But I understand what you're saying. It is a significant drop, and it could be because you have several years where they're replacing full laterals, and it build up, and it just happens to coincide with also doing this replacement program.

Okay. Yeah, I think that must be the other piece that we've got. you're replacing a whole bunch, not just starting in 2020-ish, but before that you were replacing more and more instead of repairing. I think that must be a big part of this larger trend. So that's great. I just had a random question about what's the goal? If this kept shrinking, To zero, we might naively say, oh, that's great, no emergencies and no leaks, but that means we're clearly replacing them too frequently because nothing's, right, everything's fine and then we're replacing them. So I do have, or we could say this in another way, like is there a, you know, with the distribution system, I think we do this where we say we want an age We want something to be 75 years old and no older or something like this. Do we have something like that with the laterals that we're trying to accomplish? And are we close to getting there?

Yes. Thank you so much for the question. So copper service laterals last between 50 and 70 years. The majority of our service laterals, about 97% to 98%, are copper laterals. So a goal, a good goal, would be to say that we would like all service laterals replaced every 70 years. And so I'm going to tell you how we could come up with that number, how you could make it to 70 years. So if you look at the last four years of this chart and you look at the red part, so the red part is the service lateral replacements, the average number in that orange section is 570. So we have a total of service laterals in the system that are one inch and smaller of 64,000. If you take 64,000 service laterals and you divide it by 70 years, then you have a replacement cycle of 914 years. I'm sorry, you have a number of laterals that need to be placed, 914 laterals, to get the 70-year replacement cycle. So the goal is to come up with 914 laterals to replace every year. So if you look at those four years since the program started, that's 570 of those 914 laterals. The service lateral replacement program is going to add an additional 100. So now you're at 670 of the 914 laterals. So now we have to come up with the rest. The way to come up with the rest is when you have main replacement projects, they're replacing a main down the center of the street. And when they do that, if there are service laterals tied to it, they'll replace those service laterals. If they're not, they're not, right? So it just depends on the main replacement projects for the year. But to give you a reference, for fiscal year 25, which is the last bar, we did 175 service lateral replacements that were tied to mains. So if you subtract all those amounts, you're going to have about 70 laterals that you haven't done yet that would get you to that 70-year mark. Now, the way to come up with the last final 70 is you can either say, well, some of those service laterals are going to actually last 80 years, and there's your 70, right? And then another way is to say, oh, well, 70 of them are going to spring leaks, and they're going to raise that bar by 70. And then the third way is to just say that, I did do a little bit of research on this, Oh, the third way is to do more main replacement projects. Because the main replacement project has such a big range year to year of what we can accomplish, certainly doing another main replacement project could give you the final 70. And so that would be a good goal to do that 70-year replacement cycle.

OK, thank you. Yeah, I'm generally in favor of being very proactive. It sounds like the obvious thing to do is not fix these on emergency, but instead be proactive about this. And it sounds like we're close to the right number, but maybe not quite in terms of some sustainable replacement level.

So anyway, thanks for educating me on that.

I don't know what that was, but that was great. So there were multiple times that your AGM went to turn on her mic and you had your answer. So your preparedness level was super great. I just wanted to say that, one. Two, if we could answer that question before Brian has to answer it, because it answered and told the story so perfectly across that your graph wasn't getting to. And it just, Robin's shaking her head. She knows. So, mwah, that was great. Thank you. Thank you. I will move approval if it's ready.

Okay. Okay. And Sean seconds. Rebecca and Sean.

Please don't. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

Thank you very much. OK, we will now open for public comment for item number six.

Public comment is now open for this item. Call 951-826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press star 9. When called to speak, press star 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

And we call for presentation of item number six by Blake Yamamoto.

Thank you. Good evening, Board Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the Board of Public Utilities. Blake Yamamoto, Principal Engineer in Water Engineering. The item before you tonight is a formalization of a 1999 letter agreement for holding tank cost reimbursement between the City of Riverside and Robert Allen Shepard. This item was originally presented over a year ago back in June of 2025 and was continued for staff to obtain additional information at the request by the board. Just some background on this agreement. The subject parcel is 3625 Placentia Lane, which is located within RPU's North Orange Wellfield, over which it overlies the Riverside South Basin, which provides about 20% of Riverside's potable water. Historically, there have been three production wells on this parcel, the Russell A, Russell B, and Russell C wells. Due to the lack of sewer infrastructure in this area, developments in the past have utilized on-site septic systems. As early as 1993, RPU staff expressed concerns over a proposal by the property owner to develop the site and utilize on-site sewage disposal adjacent to RPU's Russell B well that existed on the site at that time. Staff requested that the property owner perform a wastewater investigation to assess the feasibility of this option. In 1998, due to similar water quality concerns, RPU denied a request for water service at another property being developed in the area by the same developer unless holding tanks were used in lieu of a septic system. Correspondence from the project files indicates that this issue was resolved when the developer accepted an offer by the city of Colton to pay for the cost of the holding tank and the cost to empty the holding tank, at which point RPU provided water service to the site. During this time, RPU staff was also working on preparing a source water assessment for the North Orange area as the first step in providing future protection of the groundwater basin. The State Department of Health Services at that time was also developing their guidance document detailing the requirements for such a process and expressed interest in this project to serve as an example and test of their new drinking water regulation. In an effort to prevent additional septic installations in this area, the public utilities director issued a written request to the city's planning department to consider denying future requests for septic installations within the North Orange area. On December 3, 1998, approval for construction of RPU's Russell C. Wall was issued by the Planning Commission. Construction of the wall began shortly thereafter and was completed by December 1999. Despite the request to deny future septic installations in the North Orange area, the development at 3625 LaCentia Lane was allowed to utilize an onsite septic system. Staff was made aware of this in late November of 1999, and in response, RP Director issued a memo to the City Council on December 7, 1999, requesting changes to the conditions of the development to replace the sewage leach field with a holding tank, and requiring the property owner to connect to the sewer system when it became available. The changes were made by the City Council, and the planning case was approved. Two weeks later, on December 21, 1999, a signed letter agreement by the Public Utilities Director was prepared, which documented a verbal agreement between the City of Riverside and Robert Allen Shepard regarding the reimbursement of costs by the City to empty and dispose of the holding tank waste until the site was connected to the sewer system. Following the completion of the source water assessment report that RPU staff had started in 1998, a groundwater protection plan was completed by staff in March of 2002 and taken to the RPU board, council land use committee, and finally city council. The plan proposed a septic band ordinance along with jointly funding a public works sewer line project to serve the new developments within the vicinity of Placentia Lane at a cost of $1.3 million and requesting that the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopt a similar position on new septic installations in that area. In July of 2002, City Council officially approved the septic ban ordinance and the Riverside Municipal Code was amended to prohibit the installation of septic systems for new developments within the North Orange area. Staff was not able to confirm that the original 1999 letter agreement was formally approved. Minutes from the January 19, 2000, RPU Board Water Committee meeting indicate that this item was presented to the committee members and that it was agreed that this should be placed on the board agenda. However, it does not appear that this happened. Additionally, a copy of a formalized agreement prepared by the city attorney's office and signed by Robert Shepherd on January 30, 2001, was found in the files. However, the city clerk's office was not able to find any record of this agreement having gone to board or council. Due to the uncertainty of the existence of an executed agreement and because total reimbursements have exceeded department head approval limits, staff brought this item to board on June 9th, 2025 for council approval to ratify the understanding between RPU and Robert Shepard. The board requested additional information and voted to continue this item. Staff has since completed additional research and has incorporated this information within the board report. So under our Riverside Municipal Code 14830, new developments within the North Orange area are required to be connected to the sewer system. A question arose regarding whether or not a recently completed warehouse development on Center Street was on septic. Staff has confirmed with our one-stop shop that this development is served by the sewer system within Center Street. Another question pertained to being able to connect the existing, connecting this site to the existing sewer line within Center Street north of the customer's property. In talking with One Stop Shop, sewer connections are required to be made to the sewer line fronting the customer's property. The site would need to be served from Placentia Lane and would not be permitted to run their sewer lateral through the adjacent property. In addition, due to ground elevations and having to ensure the proper slope of the sewer line, the closest connection to the nearest sewer would require just under 2,500 feet of new sewer main at an estimated cost of $4.1 million. There are several sizeable development projects on the horizon within the north side neighborhood, which are expected to require expansion of the sewer infrastructure to serve new demands in this area. As development continues, it's anticipated this will facilitate the expansion of the sewer infrastructure to eventually allow the site to be connected into the sewer system. Information was also requested regarding the locations of the existing sewer lines and septic sites within the neighborhood. The exhibit within the board report presents the GIS data obtained by both the city's public works department as well as Riverside County, which displays existing sewer mains and the sites that are currently on septic systems. The county's data only goes back to the early 2000s and does not contain older on-site septic systems, which exist only on paper records and have not been digitized into GIS. And the sites with septic systems there on the screen are those shown with the red dots. The indefinite term of this agreement was also raised. And based on correspondence within the files, it appears that this was the intent of the original understanding between both parties. And this is supported in a March 17, 2000 letter sent by RPU to the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, which requested a waiver of county ordinance 650 from a two-year limit on the use of holding tanks to an indefinite period of time until the city constructed a sewer within the vicinity of the project. the letter also reiterated rpu's arrangement of reimbursing the property owner for holding tank disposal costs and lastly there was a comment regarding the fact that the russell a b and c wells have been abandoned and whether rpu intended to install future wells at this site and if not the need for ongoing reimbursements the utility easements at the site have been quit claimed back to the property owner and rpu does not intend to install any future wells out of this parcel the However, RPU continues to operate and produce potable water from the North Orange Wellfield through a total of eight active wells. And the use of the holding tank continues to provide a means of protecting water quality within the underlying groundwater basin. Also, under the amended Riverside Municipal Code, the property owner is not able to revert back to on-site disposal. And his only option in the future, if he wanted to obtain a building permit for development of his site or for future additions, would be to connect to the sewer system. This reimbursement agreement is an uncommon one-off type arrangement that originated from the unique timing of the construction of RPU's Russell Sewell, the effort of RPU staff to implement protective efforts in the North Orange area, along with the development of the property. As RPU staff was preparing its source water assessment, the State Department of Health Services was also working to formalize their guidelines for its drinking water source assessment protection program. Through the early decisions made by staff and the use of the letter agreement, RPU was able to establish a mutually agreeable workaround with the developer that protected the water quality of the Russell Seawall, the underlying groundwater basin, while also allowing the property owner to develop their site until the regulatory framework could be established to prohibit future septic installations in the North Orange area. These efforts to protect water quality can often be easily overlooked as contamination of the water source never occurred, yet in comparison to the potential incurred costs of treating contaminated water, they have served as a cost-effective management strategy to protect the city's potable water supplies for the past 25 years. total reimbursements to date from september 7 2001 through the end of fiscal year 2026 amount to 92 737 dollars and 47 cents staff recommends that the board of public utilities recommend that the city council approve a holding tank cost reimbursement agreement between the city of riverside and robert allen shepherd which formalizes the terms of a 1999 letter agreement for holding tank cost reimbursement for an estimated annual cost of seven thousand six hundred dollars in addition to the ninety two thousand seven hundred thirty seven dollars and forty seven cents that has been reimbursed to date for septic tank cost reimbursement until the time that the site can be connected to the public sewer system and secondly authorize the city manager or designee to execute the agreement including making minor and non-substantive changes this concludes my presentation at this time i'd be happy to address any questions

Thank you very much. Do we have any public comment? Okay. No public comment. Any comments from the board? Tom?

Yeah, thank you. This agreement goes back to the last century. Do you realize that?

Yes, it's been quite some time.

And it's always been predicated on, well, when they can connect to a sewer, it'll be over with. And based on that history, I would guess that hell's going to freeze over first. But, and also the agreement is totally one-sided in the sense that the city, the water customers have been subsidizing this one property owner for the last 25 years. which I think is completely unfair to those customers, even though you did in the beginning, presumably there was some nexus with water quality because we had production wells that were on that property, which no longer exists. So it seems to me that if we were going to do this in a way that had a soft landing so to speak for rpu customers water customers and the property owner would be to modify your recommendation in such a way that um the revenue that rpu or rpu uses to pay for this would not come from customer rates and that i um looked at the financial report and RPU has at least three other revenue streams that are not derived from customer rates, one of which is called other. And in other, there's revenue presumably from leases and things like that, but it's well over a million dollars. So I would think that we would pay for this from the other revenue or your conveyance revenue or one of the other categories, but not revenue derived directly from customers. And then the other part is I think that this does need to have certainty in terms of when it will end. And I would recommend that we have a five-year term. And if sewers haven't come within five years, then hell will freeze over. And we have an unlimited liability the way it's currently structured. So I would have a five-year term that gives the property owner certainty that he has to do something. We either get a sewer going or figure out something else or pay his own pumping. But at the end of that, the water customer's RPU would be out of the picture. So I can tighten it up to make a motion. But there needs to be certainty in this, and there's clearly none based on history.

Yeah, understood. I think, you know, the staff, you know, we've gone through the research and the files, and our intent was to present, you know, our findings and kind of go back and sort of try and reconstruct what the thinking was at the time and just the original agreement. But, yeah. Yeah. Thank you.

Pete?

Hi. Thank you for the fine presentation. My general reaction is what Tom said. I got a couple of specific questions here first though. You indicated that back in the midst of history, it was suggested that a sewer line could be put in for like $1.4 million, but that evidently never went anywhere.

No, actually there was a sewer line constructed, but it looks like that was used to fund that sewer line within Center Street at the border of Riverside and Colton.

Could you go back to the map?

Sure.

Okay, well, the problem with that is that back then Center Street didn't even exist.

Okay. So maybe it was the other line that goes over to the Reed Park. I'm sorry. The one on Garner. Lewis Center.

Yeah. Okay. So maybe there was the intention of putting in sewer, but it never got that far.

Yeah, I believe so. But I did look through the, we ran the city's financial system. And there was a line item within the capital budget for that North Orange sewer. And I believe it was about $700,000 that was expended.

OK. It would be interesting to know what we have to show for that. OK. According to this map, there's an awful lot of red dots. And from what you said, some of the older records that are evidently paper records aren't even on this map. So a lot of that area to the southeast of the property there, which are unincorporated county, are probably also on septic tank. But they're just not shown here because they don't have the permits in the GIS database. So there's a lot of septic activity in this area. I find it hard to believe that one more is going to make a big difference on water quality for the Garner B, Garner C, and Garner D wells, especially once there's red dots that are a lot closer to it down on Garner. I guess you're just caught in a catch-22 of some bureaucratic making, and that's unfortunate. But it seems totally unfair that the rest of the ratepayers are subsidizing this one property. And there's got to be a better way to do this. especially since back, and by the way, Tom, it's the last millennia, not the last century. It appears that this agreement wasn't even legal in the first place. It was like a handshake agreement with the utility manager at the time that was supposed to go to board and counsel but never did. So here we are 25 years later perpetuating basically an unauthorized agreement that we can't figure out how to get out of. So we're just going to continue it, like Tom says, until hell freezes over. So there's got to be a better way here. And I like Tom's idea of what he calls a soft landing, where we give notice to the landover saying that in five years we're going to terminate this agreement unless it can be hooked up to a sewer. And we're going to pay for the cost with non-rate revenue so the rest of us in the city aren't subsidizing this one particular property. So to me, it's a matter of fairness. It's a matter that we can't seem to figure out the right way to do this. There's this hope that primarily the soccer fields are going to bring sewer in, but nobody knows if and when that's even ever going to happen. So I just don't want to be here 25 years from now in the year 2050 and we're still paying for this. It makes absolutely no sense. So I would agree with Tom's solution as a mechanism to kind of wean us off of the current situation. But there's no reason that this landowner should get a free ride for what may be up to half a century to basically have the city, RPU, pay for his pumping costs because of a situation that no longer even exists on the ground. And I'm all for protecting water quality, but if you're going to do that, you ought to shut down all of these septic systems, not just this one, guys, which is going to cause a lot of frustration and hurt from, there's probably 500 sites here on the map that have septic systems that are going to impact the North Orange water field. Like I said, on the one hand, I can't see that one more is going to make that much difference, except that there's this agreement in place that we can't put any more new ones in, although this one might not be a new one, really. if it goes back to the year 2000. So I would agree with Tom with his proposal, and I would second a motion if that came to it. But this situation cannot be allowed to perpetuate into the future, because this is just not fair. Thanks. Question?

I agree with the board members here. I would like to know what kind of liability the RPU or the city would have if we say we give them five years and they have to do something about it. What liability do we undertake at that point? So I think it's important to understand that first before we go into a motion to say it's a fire or sunset. We need to understand liability on the RPU side.

Yeah, I was going to ask a similar question. What is the utility's stance on whether this letter of a verbal agreement from 27 years ago is binding? Can we separate a view on that?

Yeah, I would have to defer to our city attorney's office on that one.

So given the likelihood or the possibility of litigation over this, it's probably not best that I give you legal advice here in a public forum.

Right. I mean, that makes a lot of sense. OK, well, then while we're here, I'm going to ask relevant questions, but somewhat adjacent. So related to what Pete said, there's a lot of homes here without dots. And when I first looked at them, I said, oh, clearly there's a sewer line there, and then somehow A few of these haven't switched over, but we're saying this is just very incomplete data, and actually there is no sewer line there? Like the Avignon, Toulouse, Cannes, all of the south of France here.

Yeah, that's correct. We don't have sewer in that area. Oh, so all of the, okay. Right.

I see. Okay. Okay, thank you for that clarification.

Yeah, and I believe that was one of the things that prompted this study was just, you know, the number of developments out there and knowing that it's going to expand and we don't have a septic van ordinance in place. This is back in 98 when they started the source water assessment.

Do we have an idea of the volumes? We're pumping out relative to what's being produced by a normal home?

That I don't have that information. I believe from what I saw from the source water assessment report, I think they estimate maybe about 40 to 50 gallons for a residential customer, 40 to 50 gallons per person per day. that's sent through the septic leach field.

From a home? From a home. And that could be what's coming from this business, or there could be 50 people, 50 employees or something, I have no idea.

Yeah, except that this business right now currently has a holding tank. No, I understand.

I'm saying if it switched out, would it be the equivalent of just one other home in the area, or would it be, you know?

Yeah, that I don't know. I believe the holding tank that was installed on site was 1,500 gallons, and they pump it out maybe every two weeks, twice a month or so, or three times, twice a month.

Yeah. Okay. Mm-hmm. Okay. okay so that it's not that much more than a home or two okay I don't know I'm sort of in agreement that it would be nice to find some obviously we don't want to just drop this you know we do need yeah a soft landing but it would be nice to find some long-term resolution where address this, or start to address this. I appreciate, I know there's been more than $7,000 worth of like person hours gone into this archeological dig for all this information, but anyway, yeah, I concur with the, I think everybody probably does here, well, I don't know, I'm not gonna speak for everybody, but I also agree that it would be nice to find something some long-term solution here, but I think it also requires some discussions that can't be done in the public forum.

I have something. I appreciate the history, but there's no like, and we've talked about this. What if we say no? So this is what you're faced with now. So what if we say no? So at some point, there needs to be a conversation with planning about what is actually permanent and planned around the area with Public Works when they're going to lay potential piping and decide what a potential soft landing is. And frankly, if not, I know it would have to come out of not right payer funds, but What's one more at this point? It is different information than pre Tom sitting in this chair. So What if we had a different solution?

So that's a great question. And one we really can't answer at this moment in time. But we have had several discussions and are in monthly meetings with planning department, with CEDD, with Public Works, and others about potential developments in this area. And if they were to progress, one, if not all, would bring sewer to this area. I think another thing important to note, most septic systems have leach fields, so your liquids percolate into the ground, and the ground naturally filters this out. RPU put a condition, or the planning department put a condition on this parcel to protect our wells under the source water assessment from contamination from bacteria such as coliform or E. coli or heterotrophic plate count, that would render these wells um unable to be used until they were cleaned up and so that source water protection in the long run even though these wells are no longer there is a very low cost of treatment overall compared to the amount of treatment technologies we would need to clean up those three wells at that time so in the long run even though it is a savings overall um no those wells are not there any longer and i think the original intent was that there would be development that would take this over and it wouldn't have lasted this long um and we just can't answer the win yet because we don't know when these developments are going to move forward how quickly they're going to move forward, which one's going first. There's a lot of things still up in the air that we can't really answer at this point, but we are actively engaged with all of those other departments. And so I think the big thing is we condition this parcel to do something different. If we stop paying to pump out that holding tank, he can't just go and change it back to a leach field. It's not allowed under the Riverside Municipal Code. He's stuck with the holding tank until it fails. And when sewer goes in, this person will have to connect to the sewer system. We just don't have that timeline yet. So I apologize for that.

So at this point, it's been, what did we say, 27 years? I can't do math right now. I feel like another couple of months is not going to matter. So I get that some of this can't be answered. But what I would ask is how much it would be to connect them to sewer. At the very least, that is a cost we should know, because it changes what the timeline and potential landing is.

And so that is the $4.1 million, unless the development comes in. That is the $4.1. Correct. OK.

then I think, at this point, I would still table it and ask staff to come back with recommendations on soft landings, to Tom's point. And or the source of funding is not clear on where it's going to be paid from. And it's a well-raised point. So that needs to be adjusted. But I'm not prepared to make a determination based on points that were raised tonight.

Yeah, I sort of an agreement that I'm, you know, we've been we've had this sort of informal, I guess, situation. And, you know, if it gets kicked down the road a few more months, well, okay. I know, it's absurd to be spending this much time and effort and this many agenda items and stuff for seven thousand dollars a year however it's also absurd that there's no end in sight and it's not formalized so you just have to deal with it but yeah i don't think there's anything wrong with uh keeping the status quo until we get some i don't want to you know ratify something here that is forever right so yeah

a question um in the letter that's in the packet i see bill carnahan who i've actually worked with in the past uh signed it but richard allen never signed it so it doesn't seem to be executed by him is that accurate that is yeah that is correct we haven't been able to find a copy that bob shepard signed but we did find a formalized agreement that was prepared um that he did sign

With Bill's signature? No. So this time, Robert Shepherd signed it. And I believe it was dated January 30, 2001. And we had that in the files. But it was never executed on the city side. So it appears that it wasn't. And we checked with the city clerk's office. There was no record of it being taken to board or council.

Well, there's no agreement.

We have the informal agreement that the utilities director signed, and then we have the formalized agreement that the property owner signed. But not on the same document. No, correct. Not on the same document.

so but both parties have been acting in good faith for some time so i know that the attorney's not going to jump in which is fine but yeah at some point right like we're in a relationship yeah so they're just trying to finalize paperwork just yeah no doubt but we have paid on it so unless we're going to try to go back and collect the images what's the point that's not to say that maybe he has a copy

Say that again? That's not to say that maybe he has a fully executed copy. We just don't know. That Robert Shepard does.

I'm sorry, have we not asked him? Why? I mean, we've clearly made it public. Why haven't we asked the human?

He has been very difficult to work with and not willing to share some information.

That's fair. Okay. Maybe he will now.

Tom, did you have something else you wanted to say?

Well, I just, it's also important for full disclosure that the property, this whole thing is predicated on the assumption being somebody else builds the sewer system and there's a main running down the street. And so he has to run whatever, however far to get to the street. But there's a sewer connection fee that he's also going to have to pay. He ought to know that. And I don't know what the sewer connection fee is these days for a commercial property, but it's probably several thousand dollars. So when that magical time occurs, when there's a sewer line in the front in the street, he is going to pay not only to physically connect, he's going to have to pay the connection fees, right?

Yes, that's correct. Yeah, and it's stated in the informal letter agreement and also in the formal agreement.

To pay the connection fee?

Yeah, if sewer is within, so the informal agreement was 160 feet, or I'm sorry, 200 feet, but even under RMC, the Riverside Revised Municipal Code, if it's within 160 feet, he needs to, if his system fails or he wants to get a building permit, he's going to be required to tie into the sewer system and pay the connection fees.

Okay, and it says that explicitly?

Yes, that's in the code. Okay. Well, that's good.

Because it's important, again, for no surprises in this whole process, even though right now, as I say, he's benefited to the tune of $97,000 subsidized by Riverside Public Utility water customers that no other customer gets. So, like I say, I think irrespective of There may be a lawsuit at the end of the day. Who knows? But I recommend, I make a motion that we agree to continue to pay a $7,600 a year reimbursement for the pumping of his holding tank for a term of five years or until sooner of when sewer is available in his immediate area within a hundred and fifty feet or whatever it is or five years period.

Or the tank fails.

Huh? Or the tank fails. Well, right. Yeah, then he's responsible for that. Sure.

How do we know if the tank fails?

And how long do they last usually? There'd be a big mess. Like would he tell us?

So typically if a tank fails, there's seepage or leaks. Yes. And so if that happens, they have to do a report out to the Certified Unified Reporting System, or CERS, CUPA program for like a chemical spill, those kind of things. The Riverside County will then in turn notify us to make sure that our potable water system is okay they will also notify the state water resources control board the regional water quality control board and several others and then we have to report back any findings that we have if it did impact any of our infrastructure or not we we get one maybe two a year from different spills throughout our service area related to chemicals sewer septic etc and we go out and investigate as needed

But only if it's reported.

Correct.

Okay.

I feel like that would waft into the park area and people would complain and other people would call it in.

I don't know if that's effectively a septic. It's beyond my expertise. We have a motion from Tom. I personally would like to table this. Because I just don't want to formalize the thing that is before us in perpetuity. But we also have a motion from Tom. I just don't know about what our findings on the legality of that will be.

it it feels weird to vote on something that's that's an operational question right because like i said we should table it so then like what hap like then tom made a motion so then you agree with tabling i don't understand in terms of order does my table require a second before tom's motion i mean now officially made my head do that tom's very first motion was seconded by pete

But it wasn't, yeah.

It wasn't clean. Fair.

So in that sense, we could vote on that first. Yeah. If it hadn't been seconded and then I put something forward, then we would first vote on mine. That's right? Yeah.

Please vote.

So we are voting on Tom's motion, seconded by Pete. Okay. Okay.

somebody hasn't somebody hasn't voted okay so we have three yes votes four no votes one abstention remember goldware abstains remember round descents remember becker descents and chair siano descents remember chris descents motion fails

Okay, so I would like to motion that we table this, but put forward that we should effectively also find some way to resolve this, I don't know, behind closed doors, figure out if this is binding or not, and have some timeline. addressing this also Thomas a great point that a commercial property would have to be paying some monthly or annual fee for septic could this not be applied at least that portion of it applied to to the hauling away of this so anyway I would like to have you know go back to the drawing board on this I apologize

Can I ask a question? Yeah. What purpose, what good does tabling it do? We continue, we're still subsidizing this customer.

Right, I would like the utility to seek to effectively do something similar to what you're suggesting, I just don't think we should be defining it because we don't have the full information about the legality and whatnot. But I would like the utility to come up with something with a, you know, five-year term is a very reasonable, something like that horizon.

We're not saying no to it. We're just trying to get more information before we make that determination. So then you could bring that motion at the next meeting once we get more answers to it. That's my take on it.

I have a procedural question, though. Is this going to go to city council? If we table it, is this going to go to city council in a week or two anyways? You're asking us for a recommendation to city council. Is it scheduled to go before them?

no so typically with our normally scheduled board meetings we come here we get your recommendation and then we get on the council agenda so we are not in that queue yet because we don't have that recommendation there are times where we do have to stack meetings for for timeline purposes etc and we always note that in the packet i just want to make sure because sometimes a table would be worthless if they're going to hear it next week thank you yeah great point tomorrow

If the motion is on the table, I'd like to second it with the caveat that we potentially look at that as a potential solution once we get a little more clarification. Yes, I second the tabling. Second tabling, but I want to make sure that that potentially is something that we can bring back to the discussion.

Yes, I agree. Yeah, I don't want to just... have this, you know, a board look at this in 10 years and say, why didn't they address it? I would like to have it addressed, I just don't, I'm not in favor of what, I think several of us are not in favor of what's proposed here.

Yeah, okay.

So do we vote on that?

I believe that the table does require tabling does require a vote certainly wouldn't hurt even if it wasn't required please that you do realize it's been a year that this came up we've had plenty of time to come to conclusion on this but anyway

six yes votes one no vote one abstention member goldware abstains member evans dissenting motion carries thank you okay thank you we will now open public comment for item number seven

Public comment is now open for this item. Call 951-826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press star nine. When called to speak, press star six to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

And we call for presentation of item number seven by Fadi Meghala.

Good evening, board chair and board members. My name is Fadi Mighella, engineering manager, and I'll be presenting today, or this evening, two projects. First project is Riverside substation bank six addition, and the second project is Harvey Lynn substation expansion project. First I want to start by saying it's not very common for us to bring two projects on the same board memo. But those two projects share the same timeline and share a lot of the procurement, same equipment. So it made sense for us to consolidate the procurement for efficiency and we don't have to repeat the processes. And also probably we can get benefit of economics of scale if we're basically purchasing more equipment. So the two projects are located at Riverside substation and Harvey Lynn substation. Both projects are part of our five year capital improvement projects. And both projects actually share the same goals or the same purpose. First of all, we're trying to replace our aging infrastructure to improve our reliability. And in addition to that, we're trying to add a little bit of system capacity for future customers and also for improving our contingency. So starting with the first project, which is Riverside substation bank six addition. So starting with a background about the substation Riverside. Riverside serves roughly around 10,000 customers in the area of downtown, east side, and wood streets. The substation was commissioned in 1960s, and when we started this substation, we started with two transformers, or what we call two banks, transformer one and transformer two. At that time, the distribution voltage was 4 kV, so those two transformers serve 4 kV. Throughout the years, the load has increased and the substation has expanded, and we added transformer 3, transformer 4, transformer 5. But by the time we added those transformers, the distribution standard changed from 4 kV to 12 kV. Obviously, 12 kV is more efficient. We can serve three times the customers using the 12 kV compared to the 4 kV. So right now, as we're standing, Riverside substation has both systems, 4 kV and 12 kV. So what are the challenges we have? First of all, we're dealing with aging infrastructure. The first installation, which was Transformer 1 and 2, they were installed in early 1960s, so they're approximately 65 years old, and all the associated system with them, the switch gears and so on. In addition to that, we have an active program to basically convert from 4 kV to 12 kV. So when we're converting from 4 kV to 12 kV, the first question we have to ask is do we have capacity inside of the station to be able to serve the converted load from 4 kV to 12 kV. Right now, we have 1 and 2, as I said, those are the 4kV, and then we have 4 and 5 and 6, those are, sorry, 4 and 5, 3 and 4 and 5, those are the 12kV. We looked first, do we have capacity in those three existing 12kV transformer to be able to feed the load after we get rid of 1 and 2 and be able to feed our customers who used to be served from 4kV? The answer was no, we don't have enough capacity in those three banks, nor do we have even space in the switch gear to be able to connect those circuits. So right now, the only solution we found to be able to solve this problem is we need to expand the substation, add a 6-bank, that's 12 kV, and add the switch gear, add new cables from the switch gear. And by doing so, we will be able to retire our aging infrastructure, the transformer 1 and 2 and their associated switch gear, and we'll be able to support the 4 to 12 kV conversion at the station. So that is basically the goal and the scope of work for the first project. The second project is Harvey Lynn. So going a little bit of background about Harvey Lynn, it feeds 24,000 customers, by far more than any of our stations. And that probably has to do with the area there is heavily residential, so we have a lot of customers there. And the substation was commissioned in 1965. And we also started with Transformer 1 and Transformer 2. The difference here is between this station and Riverside is the station here, by that time we had 12 kV, was our standard. So Harvey Lane only have 12 kV. And again, as the load increased, similar to Riverside, we have added throughout the years Bank 3, Bank 4, Bank 5. So right now, as we're sending Transformer 1 and 2, they're over 60 years. And when I say also, when we look at, we don't look only at the ages of the equipment. We also do testing. We do yearly testing, what we call, we take an oil sample to figure out the condition of these acids. And all our testing reveals that this is deteriorated acid and needs to be replaced. But at also Harvey Lynn, we want to do more beyond actually trying to retire one and two. We have also a lot of oil circuit breakers. Some of you may remember maybe five, six years ago, we came to the board for a program to replace all our oil circuit breakers in our entire system, with the exception of two stations. Hunter, because we knew that we were going to do a CIP project, Hunter Replacement, And also we knew about the Harvey land that we have that we're going to be doing that project. So we basically left the replacement of the oil circuit breaker to be part of that project here. So again, when we start looking into how we're going to approach the project, Ideally, we would like to replace basically switch gear one and two in their place, like we basically replace them and put the new switch gear and new transformers in their place. But we found that that's not feasible. The reason why it's not feasible, because the newer gear and the new transformer trunk are larger, they're much bigger in the capacity, and they wouldn't fit there in the same place. But even if they would have fit, we wouldn't be able to do that because during construction, we have to be able to transfer the load to another station or to the existing banks, and we don't have the capacity to do that. So the only solution we found there, we have to expand, again, also the station and be able to add two banks there to be able to replace switch gear one and two. So again, the scope of work will include adding two new 45 MVA transformer, adding also two new 12 kV switch gear, and also replacing the conductors and cable coming out of the switch gear, and replacing the aging 66 kV oil circuit breakers. So that project overall will add another 40 megawatt capacity and will give us additional four circuits and will enable us to be able to retire bank one and two and their associated equipment. So we went for a bid, sub 872, to procure three transformers. Two transformers for Harvey Lynn substation and one transformer for Riverside substation. We ended up with two bids and we're recommending awarding to the lowest bidder, which is Delta Star, and the cost came below our engineering estimate. The second one was bid sub 873. This was for breakers and service transformers. So we requested nine transformers and two service transformers. So two of those breakers will go to Riverside, and seven will go to Harvey Lane, and the service transformer will go to Harvey Lane. And service transformer is just an auxiliary power transformer that provides power for controls. And we're recommending to award to one source supply solution for 1.587 million. And that, again, was below our engineering estimate. We have been struggling in general. I just want to make a general statement regarding procurement. In the past, we used to get more bids, but right now we're getting less bids. We're lucky to get two, and sometimes we can get three. But the challenge we're seeing is in the past, we used to be, as a utility, the only player in the market. But in the last eight, ten years, I mean, we have been seeing right now the large-scale PV, large-scale battery storage. All those, they use also the same equipment. They compete against us because they have substations, or they build substations to be able to connect to them. Not only right now we're seeing PV and various sources, we're seeing data centers. Those large data centers, 500 megawatts and so on, they require also transformers, breakers, switch gears. So we're attributing that's probably being part of it. So the first project, the Riverside Substitution Bank, we're estimating the final cost of the project when we complete it will be roughly around $13.4 million. But today, we're only asking you for $6.3 million, and then we're going to come throughout the years, and we kind of outlined a plan when we're going to be coming to you for future, basically, approval for more equipment. The same for Harvey Lynn. The overall project cost is estimated to be $28.8 million, but today we're only asking for $14 million. And again, we're going to be coming back to you for future approvals. So this is the recommendation. It's a little bit lengthy, so I'm not going to read it in verbatim. I'm just going to summarize it a little bit. So the first request is to award bid numbers sub 872 for transformer procurement to Delta Star in the amount of $14,878,000 and also authorize 10% change order authority. And also award bid number sub-873 to one source, and that's for the procurement of the breakers and the service transformers. And approve the initial capital expenditure of $6.3 million for the Riverside Substitution Project. and approve the initial capital expenditure for the Harvey Lentz substation expansion in the amount of $14 million and authorize the city manager or his designee to execute any documents necessary to effectuate the project described here. And with that, that brings me to the end of my presentation. I'll be more than happy to answer any of your questions.

Thank you very much. Do we have any public comment? Okay, there's no public comment, so any comments from the board? Well, oh, yeah, Tom?

I just have a question. What, for example, on Harvey-Lynn, you're asking for 14 and the project you expect to be 24? 28, yeah. Huh? 28, the overall, yeah. So what, why not ask for the whole thing?

We don't have enough money in our budget right now. So it's planned. It's part of our five year. So right now we have up to this amount. In addition to that is we don't like to basically approve the entire amount upfront and we pay basically I mean, bonds on it when we're not using it. So we prefer to kind of come in basically per milestones. Whenever we need the money, we'll come back to you for approval for it.

I just want to comment to Daniel Honeyfield, assistant general manager. Um, this is the first step, right? So we're just asking for the procurement of materials and I don't think fatty mentioned the lead time, right? So this is a long lead time item. So we really want to get the ball rolling with the transformers. I think we're, is it three years? Yeah.

Close a little bit. Yeah.

And then we'll come back once we have the final design, we have a better idea of the total estimate for construction costs and that's, and we'll come back for additional approvals at that time.

Okay. Other comments? Yep.

Go ahead, Christian. When you do come back, I'm assuming it's $28 million, but is that also taking into account inflation when you do come back in later years?

Yeah, when we came up with the cost estimate, we basically looked into the future equipment we're going to be buying, and we assumed that basically a percentage of 30% per year. Some of this procurement actually we're going to be coming this year also, I mean this fiscal year, by end of the fiscal year, and then some will be next year. So we applied a multiplier for that. Okay, thank you. We believe that the estimate should be good. If anything, it potentially can be slightly less. But obviously, we cannot control inflation. We'll see.

I had a few comments. First of all, thank you for explaining why you combined two projects into one. It did make it a little bit more confusing to read the report, but, you know, if you could save a little bit of money in the procurement, buying more transformers at once. I can figure it out, so that's fine by me. In this case, it seems to have made sense. You said that some of the, I don't know, transformers or some of the equipment has shown signs of degradation and that it needed to be replaced at Harvey-Lynn, but we're not gonna get this equipment for a few years, a couple years. Is that okay? I'm just wondering.

I mean, when I say degradation, the degradation is appropriate to the agent. When you have an old equipment like that, you know you're at a high risk. This equipment experience basically stress. This stress because our system sees faults. can I guarantee that it will last two years, three years? There's no way for us to know that. It can't even last beyond that. But all we know is based on the aging, based on the testing results, we have enough evidence and enough information that we see this is a liability, it's a high risk, and it's time to replace it.

Okay, and one question for my edification. No, for sure. You said that by the time you built Harvey Lynn in 1965, that we were already transitioning to 12KV. Yes. I did not realize this. And I thought, when I've been told that we're transitioning from 4 to 12, I thought that was over the last decade. I didn't know that was over the last, you know, before I existed. And we're still not done with this transition.

But that project will facilitate that, especially at Riverside.

Well, I think it was at that time that they started to use 12 KV as the new standard. And then it's right to then go back. Well, you had a lot of 4KV that was in use. You've already paid for it. You want to get the life out of that. So then, you know, years later, do we start to, but we do have a plan to eliminate all the 4KV off the system. And these projects, especially at Riverside substation, lends the ability to do that. And I know we've come to the board just recently for the make ready projects. So that makes our distribution system ready for when the substation is then ready, it's a quick conversion.

Yeah, we wouldn't have business case at that time to go and replace equipment that we just installed.

Okay, thank you. Do we hear a motion?

Move approval.

second okay thank you please motion passes unanimously thank you uh thank you do we have any board or staff communications to report on for item number eight Okay, I'm seeing nothing. Are there any items for future consideration for item number nine? Well, I did want to, I don't know if we need to put it here, but I do want to address this septic slash holding tank thing. I don't know if we need to put it on there, but it would be nice to. while we all still know about it, get some kind of resolution. So it would be nice to put that item on there so we don't just kick it down the road forever. And then something which has been on my mind that I would like to hear more about. There's been a lot of news recently about municipal water utilities being hacked maybe by, I don't know, foreign actors. and it would be nice to get some sort of an update, I guess it might have to be a closed door session maybe, on what we do to prevent this, both on the water and electric side.

At some point, I don't think this is super urgent, but I would like to hear more about that.

Well, I guess I have a procedural question. When something gets tabled, doesn't it get tabled to a date certain? Isn't that supposed to be part of the process?

It can be. I'm not sure it has to be. I don't think it has to be tabled to a date certain.

Okay. Okay.

Well, yeah, I guess we should have done that. But since we didn't, I do want to have it, you know, we can add it to this list.

So if I could expound on that a little bit. Typically, table does not get tabled to a date certain. That would be continued. Continued to a date certain. Tabling is just tabling it. It doesn't happen all that often.

Okay, yeah, thank you, yeah, but I think we all agree we want to, but we want to get this to such a state that it seems resolvable with a vote rather than, you know, more discussion. You now see where we stand, so. Okay, okay, we'll now turn the time over to David Garcia for the general manager's report.

Thank you, Chair. I have reports 10 through 14 in your packet. I have nothing further to share.

Okay, then this meeting is adjourned. Good night.