Waterways Advisory Committee - Regular Meeting

Very cool.

Big Bob.

It's kind of hard to take this traveling. Hello, Dwayne.

Good afternoon. I'd 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?

Here.

Board Member Meisler? Present. Board Member DeWitt?

Present.

Board Member Battenfort? Here. Vice Chair Arnone? Here. And Chair Galvin?

Here.

Let the record reflect that all board members are present.

Thank you. Any statements of abstention by board members? Okay, we have no study session. We have minutes for the August 6th meeting. So at this time, I'll ask the board if they have any changes that they wish to make to the minutes. Seeing none, we'll open it up for public comment on the approval of the minutes. If you wish to make a public comment, please move to the podium. Seeing no one rise, the minutes will be approved and submitted.

Please show that I was not in attendance for that meeting. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. We have two staff briefings. Director Burke.

Thank you, Chair Galvin and members of the board. Our first staff briefing is our water and recycled water supply update. And Deputy Director Peter Martin, Deputy Director of Water Resources Peter Martin, and Deputy Director of Regional Water Reuse Operations Mike Prins will be making the presentation.

Good afternoon, gentlemen.

All right, good afternoon, Chair Yalvin, members of the board. Here with a brief water and recycled water supply update for you. In terms of storage in Lake Pillsbury, on the Eel River, storage is currently at about 41,700 acre feet, representing about 20,000 acre feet below the target storage curve for this time of year. If you recall, that 20,000 acre feet is lost as a result of them not being able to operate the slide gates in Lake Pillsbury related to seismic issues on the Potter Valley project. But they have taken some proactive measures in terms of requests for relief in the form of reductions in flow and delivery through the project to the Upper Russian River that will allow them to manage storage adequately. And their goal for the target is to retain at least 20,000 to 30,000 acre feet of water by the end of the water year. And when I say they, I mean PG&E. And just to note, in Lake Mendocino, again, just mostly good news in terms of storage on the Russian River. They are operating under what is termed dry conditions for their water rights and the required fish flows. As of today, there's about 68,000 acre feet of water in Lake Mendocino. which is about 61% of available water supply for that reservoir. They anticipate, based on their modeling, that there will be approximately 55,000 acre feet of water in that reservoir by October 1, leaving a decent amount of water to carry over through the winter. And in terms of storage in Lake Sonoma where we get our contractual supplies, very full at about 242,000 acre feet as of today. Those levels are dropping about 2,000 acre feet per week. I think at the last update we gave you, we let you know that there's a time when the Army Corps is operating the releases of that reservoir, when it is above that gray line, and they're operating in what's considered the flood control storage pool. That was handed over to Sonoma Water for decision making and releases, you know, basically last month. And this is the latest time in the year that that's ever occurred in its operation since 1983. And then just a real brief update. You have been hearing from my colleague, Lisa Qualar, about outreach to the community that's being affected by the state's non-functional turf regulation. Just so you know, Letters will be going out to the community for all the identified accounts over the course of the next couple months. We'll be putting those out in batches. About 100 letters will be going out this week. So with that, we have been putting together additional resources for those customers who may be affected by the regulation. and we will be directing folks to the city's webpage, which is srcity.org slash nft, and also have a special email inbox for those inquiries at nft at srcity.org. So again, just trying to support our customers throughout this new regulation and requirements around the non-irrigation of non-functional turf. Non-irrigation, yeah, sounds good. That concludes my portion of the update.

Good afternoon, Chair Galvin, members of the board, Mike Prins, Deputy Director, Regional Water Reuse Operations, for a quick update on recycled water storage. This is a chart you've seen many versions of in the past. I would draw your attention to the red plot, which is the current water years, recycled water storage trend. Focusing on the right hand half of the plot, you can see the red trend relative to last year's trend, which is black. There's some changes recently, mostly attributable to the geysers annual maintenance shutdown. Last year, the trend during the shutdown was basically level. This year, we notice, as you can see in the red trend, an increase in storage. That I would attribute most likely to a relatively mild summer and an associated lower irrigation demand during the shutdown. Nonetheless, the system is back online and storage is coming down, mostly due to geysers flow, but there is some irrigation happening as well. Moving on, I wanted to highlight something that came to light during the geyser shutdown. We were notified by a vineyard owner of a recycle water leak, did not reach any waters of the state. It soaked into the ground, but it was at an air release valve in the Alexander Valley This map just shows the top end of the geyser system north of Healdsburg. The red X, as you would expect, is where the leak was detected. And this image shows the entire high pressure length of the pipeline up on Pine Flat Road up to the terminal tank. The ARV air release valve that was leaking was not in the high pressure part of the pipeline. It's in the relatively flat section before Bear Canyon. And this is a picture of actually, I believe it's an isolation valve vault, which is the rectangular concrete surface there. And then the air release valve is in the circular vault right next to it. You can see some of the water that had leaked out onto the ground. and it actually had flowed a short distance over land and soaked into the ground slightly down gradient from where this picture was taken. Inside the valve vault, you can see on the left-hand side the spray coming out from the air release valve. The leak actually was occurring in the riser or the pipe that comes up from the flange. The flange is actually part of the pipeline. And the leak was in a really problematic location in that it was right next to a flange. So we couldn't easily put what's referred to as a full circle clamp on the riser to seal off the leak. things were a little more complicated because when we attempted to stop the leak so that a repair could be put into effect isolation two isolation valves were not seating properly that's what we've been able to determine so far anyway and so we couldn't depressurize that section of the pipeline so fortunately during the course of the shutdown we had our on-call contractor come out and weld essentially a can over the ARV and effectively temporarily abandon it. Air release valves allow air to leave the pipeline because you do get certain amounts of air inside a pipeline and ARVs allow that to be purged essentially automatically so we are going to have to come back and fix this permanently in order to do that we are engaging a contractor to help us diagnose what may need to happen to tune the isolation valves and get them to seat properly so that we can disassemble that equipment and replace it essentially to depressurize that section of the pipeline So obviously on the left hand side that's the leak when discovered and on the right hand side that's the temporary repair afterwards. The green hose in the photograph on the left is just a suction line from a pump to dewater so we could get down to the equipment and investigate what was going on. With that, that's all I have for today, and Peter and I are available for questions.

Thank you both, gentlemen. Board Member DeWitt.

Yes, sir, thank you for that report on the temporary patch. How long do you think it will take for this to be resolved, and do you think there's any kind of a price estimate because we're using an outside source?

I would estimate it may take between two and three months. I don't think that's gonna be a problem. I don't yet know what the conclusion is gonna be about the isolation valve, so that's a little up in the air. In terms of cost, I think fixing the ARV itself is gonna be pretty straightforward because we'll just remove the flange and the ARV from the pipeline, have a new one ready to go in. I would estimate that that's gonna be less than ten thousand dollars um ballpark figure in terms of the isolation valves i'm hoping that it may just be an adjustment on the valve stop to get the valve to seat more completely i wouldn't expect that to be very expensive at all i'm hoping that's what the issue is but right now we don't know for sure thank you sir good to have hope other board member questions or comments board member vandenfort

Thank you both. For Deputy Director Martin, I'm curious on the AB 1572 on the non-functional turf, which is our entire life at this point, it seems like. One, thank you for the deliberate and thoughtful outreach to customers. I think it will be very, very, very helpful and useful, because I think it is just by nature not the clearest definition in the world. And there's a lot of exemptions. Did you mention that you're gonna do kind of like a staggered outreach of letters that 100 per week are going? Do we know about how many accounts are gonna be affected by this?

yeah as of now the list of mailers is just under a thousand is my understanding but um you know that accounts for the fact that there are people who are you know uh leaseholders or you know actually on site and then of course you know the business owners that may be you know perhaps out of state as well so there are some duplicative reporting there may be some you know uh there was a lot of ground truthing in that to make sure we tried to assign the you know it's through imagery and different things of course too as well or you know um uh and so there was actually some ground truthing to go and look and see but there is a possibility that you know somebody may get notified inaccurately it's hard to tell you know which site is attached to which meter but you know we did definitely do everything we could to try to cast a broad net in that regard so

Fantastic. I think to actually to have notification going out to maybe multiple contacts on an account might actually be helpful because I think one situation we might run into is potentially the the person the customer that we have might not have any control over what actually happens on site with that landscaping and so um i think the more information the better the department has done a tremendous job preparing for it um we'll be interested to hear back how it's going so appreciate everything you guys have done to prep and roll out thank you

Board Member DeWitt. Yes, thank you for those comments, and I'd like to follow up. I'm a member of that subcommittee also. School districts basically kingdom unto themselves, and ours, Roseland, wastes water. Basically, they've got non-functional turf in front of the schools. two or three of them, and water runs out onto the sidewalk a lot, and all kinds of stuff like that. So I do hope you can reaffirm to school districts that it'd be nice if they'd help with the state loan. Thank you.

Other board member questions or comments? All right, we'll open it up for public comment on item 6.1. If you wish to make a comment, I see someone at the podium. If you would give us your name, please, and wait for the timer to start.

Good afternoon, my name is Fred Alaba. Regarding the before and after pictures of the air release valve, I'd like to compliment the photographer on the after picture. It's particularly well-framed, well-composed. That's a great picture. That could go on the wall of somebody's office. So whoever took that picture, my compliments.

I have a feeling it was Deputy Director Prince.

It was not, but I will pass the compliment on. Although I agree, it's a great picture, thanks.

Any other public comments? Very good, that'll take care of our staff briefing 6.1. We'll now move to 6.2. Director Burke.

Thank you, Chair Galvin and members of the board. Item 6.2 is our Efficient Fixtures Direct Installation Program Update, and Lisa Cuellar, our Sustainability Coordinator for Water Use Efficiency, will make the presentation.

Welcome, Ms. Cuellar.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Galvin and members of the board. You'll see on this title slide that Gianna Varka, who is a Water Sufficiency Civic Spark Fellow, was supposed to be here co-presenting with me today. Unfortunately, she is ill and couldn't be here. And if I may, I just want to pause acknowledge Gianna and the significant work she contributed to the program I'm about to share with you all. If you're not familiar, the Civic Spark Fellowship is a competitive fellowship sponsored by U.S. AmeriCorps, and it places recent college graduates at civic institutions or nonprofits to further their planning initiatives and resiliency initiatives. It also is a great opportunity for career development and local workforce development. And I want to really acknowledge the work Gianna put into contributing to this program. She helped it move along very seamlessly and offered excellent customer service for customers throughout our service area. Okay, so to jump into the specifics, the US Bureau of Reclamation Water Smart Water and Energy Efficiency Grant Program provided funding for projects that result in quantifiable water savings, implement renewable energy components, and support broader sustainability initiatives. And on February 16th of 2024, Reclamation and Sonoma Water executed a grant agreement in the amount of $2 million And then Sonoma Water, acting as a pass-through entity, administered the grant for 11 participating agencies. Those are 11 water contractors of Sonoma Water that included the city of Santa Rosa. Sonoma Water and the participating agencies contributed an additional $2.4 million, so bringing the total project cost to $4.4 million. In July of 2014, the Board of Public Utilities did approve a funding agreement between Sonoma Water and the City of Santa Rosa in the amount of $1.8 million to fund what we refer to as the Efficient Fixture Direct Installation Program. And Santa Rosa's 55% match was just under $1 million. The grant term was from February of 2024, and it terminates at the end of next month. The Efficient Fixture Direct Installation Program essentially utilized contracted plumbers to install ultra high efficient toilets at qualifying homes. And where feasible, they would also install low flow shower heads, bathroom and kitchen faucet aerators. This was a completely free service offered to our customers thanks to the Bureau funding and our 55% match. It was available to single-family and multi-family water or sewer customers. And any old toilets that were replaced were recycled. The program details include the following. So to qualify, the toilet had to flush at 1.6 gallons or greater. And those high flush toilets were replaced with the Niagara Stealth Toilet, which is an ultra high efficient model that flushes at 0.8 gallons per flush. Those models are indeed EPA WaterSense certified. And then the low flow fixtures that went in, the shower heads, the flow rate was 1.5 gallons per minute, and the faucet aerators ranged from one to 1.5 gallons per minute. So Santa Rosa Water, the water sufficiency team, selected three contracted plumbers. They went through a pretty rigorous screening process. They were dispatched when approved applications came through to do the installations. Our water use sufficiency team would review the application, evaluate each individually, either through picture submittals, and sometimes they had to go and do actual in-person site visits. And then following approval, the selected plumber would go and do the installation approximately within two weeks of the application being approved. I do know that some board members participated in that program and had heard some positive feedback, so I'm glad you were able to take advantage of that benefit. We did engage in a pretty robust customer outreach effort that included distribution of water bill inserts to all accounts, approximately 54,000 water customer accounts throughout the service area were notified of the opportunity. We sent postcards to targeted neighborhoods. Posters and information were left at libraries and community centers. Our City Connection online newsletter, which has over 100,000 subscribers, ran promotional materials a few times. We had targeted ads to direct outreach to multifamily residential properties, tabled several city-sponsored and local events, like the St. Paddy's 5K run, Earth Day event, Water Smart Expo, and then we did tap our... community engagement manager to distribute promotional materials at many community events. This is just an example of the latest postcard that was sent out to customers, English on one side, Spanish on the other. A quick scan of the QR code would take you to the application. You can see we're really trying to impress upon folks that supplies are running out and to take advantage while they can. Regarding the additional targeted neighborhood outreach, we did focus on neighborhoods that have historically low water use efficiency program participation or neighborhoods with older homes where the toilets were likely to be those higher flush toilets with significant water saving potential once they were replaced. So all in all, this slide was completed before I got the recent totals. We've actually met our quota. We have assigned all 2,500 toilets for installation. So the program, the applications will actually close this week because we do want a short waiting list in case a few folks do drop out. So 2,500 toilets gone in by the end of September, they will all be in. And over 1,000 low flow fixtures were installed at approximately 1,200 residential accounts across our service area. The water savings are pretty significant. On an annual basis, 5.8 million gallons of water per year. The life of the toilets are estimated to be about 15 years. So again, significant water savings. for this program. And that concludes my staff briefing and I'm happy to field any questions from the board.

Thank you, great program. I participated in it and it was very seamless, very smooth. Board member questions or comments?

Member DeWitt? Yes, thank you for the good presentation and thank you for the information. The overhead photo of that additional neighborhood that has problem, it's right next to a county island, Clover Drive, and their homes are old also. is there opportunities where people in the county islands that may be annexed into the city in the future can participate in a santa rosa program like this or this thing's done now and they'll just have to wait till the county comes up with something

So this program is, as I noted, all toilets have been assigned. So this program's about to sunset. Our programs typically require that you be a Santa Rosa water or sewer customer to qualify. That's usually the base requirement. So as long as... somebody meets those requirements and then in the case of toilets you had to have a high flush toilet all programs are different have different qualifying criteria but as long as you have a service account with the city water or sewer you can participate thank you for those clarifications because many of these people have wells and to hear that you can do it if you have sewer connection with the city i appreciate that by now other board member questions or comments

All right, we'll open it up for public comment on item 6.2. Viewers, to make a public comment, please move to the podium. I see no one rise. That'll take care of item 6.2. We have one item on the consent calendar.

I'll move adoption of the consent items.

I'll second.

A motion by Vice Chair Arnone, seconded by Board Member Wright. This time we'll open it up for public comments on item number 7.1. Seeing no one rise, may we have a roll call vote, please?

Board Member Wright?

Aye.

Board Member Meisler? Aye. Board Member DeWitt.

Yes.

Board Member Battenfort. Aye. Vice Chair Inouye. Aye. And Chair Galvin.

Aye.

Let the record reflect that the consent calendar passes unanimously.

Thank you. We have a couple of report items. We'll take item 8.1 first. Director Burke.

Thank you, Chair Galvin and members of the board. Our first item is our Clean Water State Revolving Fund Application and Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Letter of Interest and Loan Application for the Fulton Road Sewer Lift Station Relocation Project. I think it's our longest title ever. And making the presentation will be Katie Robinson, our administrative analyst with our administrative division.

Welcome, Ms. Robinson.

Thank you, Director Burke. Good afternoon, Chair Galvin and members of the board. My name is Katie Robinson and I am an administrative analyst with Santa Rosa Water's budget and finance team. I'm here today to present Santa Rosa Water's financing applications for the Fulton Road sewer lift station relocation project. including an application to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund through the State Water Resources Control Board, as well as a letter of interest and loan application for the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Today I'll provide some background on the funding programs, give a brief overview of the project, discuss the financing details, and then conclude with staff's recommendation. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund, or CWSRF, is a federally funded program administered in California by the State Water Resources Control Board. It was created through the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act as a low-interest financing program for water infrastructure projects. Since then, it has helped communities fund the construction and improvement of wastewater treatment facilities through long-term below market rate loans. The CWSRF programs operate much like banks. Federal and state funding is used to capitalize the programs, which then provide low-interest loans for important water quality projects. As those loans are repaid over terms of up to 30 years, the funds are recycled back into the program to support future water quality and public health improvements. In addition to the CWSRF program, the EPA administers the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, or WIFIA program. Established in 2014, WIFIA provides supplemental, flexible, low-cost financing for large water infrastructure projects. WIFIA loans can cover up to 49% of eligible project costs and can be paired with other funding sources, including state revolving fund assistance. For this project, those financing programs provide an opportunity to address some significant challenges with the existing Fulton Road sewer lift station. The Fulton Road sewer lift station has reached the end of its useful service life and needs to be relocated and rebuilt. This project is a key part of improving reliability and reducing the risk of sewer overflows during emergencies and severe weather events. The station conveys a large portion of the city's sewer flow between major sewer trunks, so taking it offline for demolition or reconstruction would create operational challenges and require extensive bypass pumping. Rebuilding on the existing site would also require construction of a new sewer force main beneath Santa Rosa Creek. In addition, the current site is too small to adequately support regular operation and maintenance activities. The upgraded station will improve resilience to future challenges, including power outages, flooding and seismic activity, while also supporting increased system capacity and overall system performance. the total estimated cost of the project is approximately $35 million. To fund the project, Santa Rosa Water is seeking a combination of financing through two water infrastructure loan programs, a $17.15 million WIFIA loan and a $17.85 million CWSRF loan, both to be repaid over 30 years. The WIFIA program provides flexible, low-cost financing that helps reduce the need for cash funding upfront. One of the major benefits is that repayment terms can be customized to align with projected revenues for up to 30 years after project completion. And payments can even be deferred for up to five years after completion. The WIFIA interest rate is based on the US Treasury rate at the time of loan closing and is calculated using the weighted average life or WAL of the loan rather than the final maturity date. Because the wall is generally shorter than the full loan term, this results in a lower overall interest rate. The CWSRF program also offers long-term financing of up to 30 years with no maximum funding cap and highly competitive interest rates. The current rate is calculated at half of the average general obligation bond rate, with the current GO bond rate at 4.71%. The resulting CWSRF interest rate would be approximately 2.355%. For both loans, interest rates are locked in at closing, and interest does not begin accruing until funds are actually drawn for the project. This means the city does not pay interest on funds that have not yet been drawn. Together, these programs provide a long-term financing approach that supports the project while minimizing the need for upfront cash. One thing to note is that the WIFIA loan program includes federal equal employment opportunity requirements that contain some terms requiring further review. The City Attorney's Office will review those requirements in detail prior to final application submittal. So based on that, it is recommended by Santa Rosa Water that the Board of Public Utilities, by motion, recommend that the City Council authorize the submission of a financial assistance application to the State Water Resources Control Board for Clean Water State Revolving Fund Financing and a letter of interest and loan application to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Financing and authorize the city manager or designee to represent the city in connection with the financing agreements, including taking all necessary actions to execute and administer the agreements and any amendments thereto. And thank you for your time, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Very complete presentation. Board member questions or comments? Vice Chair Arnone.

This is just a comment that I wanna express my appreciation for the fact that you did not write down all the text that you spoke because I think that's what, this is how a presentation is supposed to be structured so that it's not just a matter of reading the text and you did a very good job of separating the titles from the text and I just wanted to express my appreciation, thank you.

Other board member questions or comments? All right, we'll open it up for public comment on item number 8.1. Any public comments? If not, we'll entertain a motion.

Okay, we have another long one here. I will move that the Board of Public Utilities recommend that the City Council authorize the submission of a financial assistance application to the State Water Resources Control Board for Clean Water State Revolving Fund Financing and a letter of interest and loan application to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Financing and authorize the city manager or designee to represent the city in connection with financing agreements including taking all actions necessary to execute and administer the agreements and any amendments thereto.

Second.

A rush for the second. We have a motion by Board Member Wright, seconded by Board Member Battenfort. May we have a roll call vote, please?

Board Member Wright.

Aye.

Board Member Misler. Aye. Board Member DeWitt.

Yes.

Board Member Battenfort. Aye. Vice Chair Inouye.

Aye.

And Chair Galvin.

Aye.

Let the record reflect that motion passes unanimously.

Thank you again for the presentation. We'll move to item 8.2. Director Burke.

Thank you, Chair Galvin and members of the board. Item 8.2 is an update to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Sustainability Agency. And Peter Martin, Deputy Director, Water Resources, will be making the presentation.

Welcome back. Yeah, thank you, Chair Galvin and members of the board. A brief but very important item for you today to consider. Just a little background, if you'll allow me the privilege. In 2014, the state legislature passed a suite of bills which are known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, or colloquially as SGMA. And it was in response to declining groundwater levels, water quality issues, subsidence throughout various groundwater basins in the state, particularly in the Central Valley of concern. There was a risk of irreparable damage to some of the groundwater basins throughout the state. So something had to be done. This regulation was created. And one of the important pieces that made it unique was that it required the formation of what was called groundwater sustainability agencies. And the intent of that was to give local control to the entities and chart out their future in terms of achieving sustainability for all these groundwater basins throughout the state. And so it empowered folks with land use jurisdiction, water authorities to form these entities. And they had to be formed by 2017, which was no small undertaking. I assume Director Burke spent years pulling together this joint powers authority agreement to which you are evaluating today. So yes, the Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Sustainability Agency was a joint powers authority formed in 2017 pursuant to SGMA. They manage over 78,000 acres of area with about 5,000 wells. And if you're looking for a trivia fact for your next dinner party, I recently found out that there are over 45,000 wells in Sonoma County, making it the most wells per capita of any county in California. So, a lot of wells. And so the governance of this Groundwater Stability Agency is comprised of a board of directors of the initial members of the Joint Powers Authority, with representatives from the various cities and the town of Windsor, as well as the County of Sonoma and Sonoma Water. and also there is a seat for independent water systems, those being entities that are not privately owned water companies. There is a administration comprised of staff and consultants who are carrying out the various activities of the Groundwater Sustainability Agency, as well as an advisory committee comprised not only of the entities that comprise the board, but also special interests, including agricultural community, rural residential, various business and environmental interests, as well as seat at the table for the tribal interest in the basin as well. Your representatives for the city are listed on the left, including myself. So just the authorities of a groundwater standard agency really envelope two things. It's quantity and quality of the activities in the basin. So making sure that the quantity of water does not diminish over the horizon of the 20-year planning period, as well as making sure the activities do not result in any deleterious water quality effects. So the GSAs are empowered to conduct studies, register and monitor various wells, can require groundwater extraction reports, regulate groundwater extraction, and assess fees to cover the costs for operating the agency. So we are in the third phase of the steps to sustainability by the year 2040. And step one, of course, was to form the Groundwater Sustainability Agency. A plan was adopted in 2022, and we are off and implementing and trying to achieve a long-term sustainability for the basin. So a little background on the Joint Powers Authority Agreement has not been modified since it first became effective in 2017, with the exception of adding the City of Sebastopol in 2019. The Board of Directors, as you know, As time progresses, things evolve, has identified various efficiencies and needs to conduct business for the agency in a more efficient manner, given that they are collecting fees from different extractors, and gave direction to the administrative staff to facilitate amendments to the JPA agreement and the bylaws. The 2017 agreement does require that all the governing bodies of the respective joint powers authority agencies unanimously approve any amendments to that agreement. So that is the reason why I'm here before you today. I will just briefly try to summarize some of the proposed changes to the Joint Powers Authority Agreement. That being allowing section 6.02 allows for each member agency to appoint a second alternate director who may exercise the rights and duties of the primary directors when they're absent or recused. It does have limitations in that those folks can only be limited to attending no more than two meetings a year. And then there are some changes to the supermajority voting requirements. It clarifies that a supermajority is required to only change the total number of advisory committee seats, but is not required for individual appointments. rotating cast of groups and filling those seats has become challenging, and also getting the supermajority vote to obtain that as well. And then it removes the supermajority vote for contracts with member agencies for technical and outreach services. For instance, Sonoma Water provides various technical services and also outreach services. A supermajority vote would not be required to contract with them, which is in the best interest of the basin. And then just some clarifying language, allowing the annual budget to be approved at any time before the beginning of the applicable fiscal year. There was some time constraints that made it so that it had to be presented at a certain date around the time of April, and you know, They are trying their best to reduce the number of meetings every year and save money, of course. So being able to have the flexibility to present that budget earlier and get buy-in earlier would be advantageous. And then also, there are some minor administrative amendments that to the agreement to be approved by three-fourths majority of the Board while continuing to be required unanimous approval. So these are just kind of some cleanup related to the composition and voting requirements. And then there are other minor revisions throughout the agreement, outdated requirements, projects that are no longer relevant and applicable that are in there as well. So with that, the red line and clean version of the proposed amended and restated joint powers authority agreement was part of the packet today. So staff are seeking or recommending that the Board of Public Utilities by motion recommend that the City Council approve the amended and restated joint exercises of powers agreement for the Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Sustainability Agency. So thank you. With that, I can take any questions you may have.

Thank you, Deputy Director Martin. I'll open it up for Board Member questions or comments. Board Member DeWitt.

Yes, thank you for that. There's some questions in the community of well owners that see themselves as farmers. And they're concerned that ag, typically in large organizations such as this groundwater management agency, is kind of influenced heavily by the wine industry more than any of these other folks. So someone actually even got in contact with me because they see some people come here and speak about this groundwater management system and approach. The question I have is, you talk about the stakeholders, ag community, environmental, et cetera. Could you explain to the public that may be watching this who those are specifically?

So I don't have the roster before me, but Mr. Allerbach is representing some of the users as well, but it's comprised of different folks, and I could, of course, it's available on the website as well, but I unfortunately don't have that roster before me, but there are Varied interests, folks who have expertise and represent these individual interests.

Thank you kindly for that explanation. The fallback is always it's on the web, but there's a lot of folks, especially older folks with wells that occasionally watch this type of thing. having that information available helps them. I in no way, shape, or form try to represent myself as a representative of the city in any of this stuff, all right? But people contact me because they know that I'm coming to meetings, et cetera. So one last thing, and this is really important, The well owners that I know out there, some of them are frightened still that think in the future, their well is gonna be required to be monitored. And they feel they use water much more conscientiously than the big users like the wine industry. So if you could maybe talk with this agency and have them put stuff out to allay those fears of those small well owners who are careful with their water, and then point out that you're working with the wine industry to help them conserve more. There was actually talk at the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday about ag issues, and these kinds of things would be helpful. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Other board member questions or comments? All right, we'll open it up for public comment on item 8.2, if you wish to make public comment. Please identify yourself and wait for the timer.

Hi, my name is Fred Ollebach. I'm the Sonoma Water appointee to the Santa Rosa Plain GSA Advisory Committee. I wasn't planning to speak, but since some things came up that are of interest to me, I'll answer maybe some of Dwayne's questions that among the basin stakeholders, agriculture is one of the largest users of groundwater, but I believe that municipal use in aggregate is even larger than the groundwater stakeholder. So there's commercial, ag, municipal, small public systems, small private systems, industrial use. And so those are the people who are at the table. And these people have wells and they're in the JPA, they're in the GSA, because they're players. And ag is a big player, there's a big fish, and you just got to deal with them. And so that's who they're there. And as far as the small users, any small, Rural residential property that uses less than two acre feet a year is not required to be metered. So if they have a small orchard or whatever, if they use less than two acre feet a year, they'll never be metered. So those are more like hobby ag, hobby vineyards, but they're not under ag per se. And so Sonoma County is full of a lot of rural residential properties. I don't know, there's a lot to say about all of the basin. I had thought that, you know, I would just give a quick synopsis of that the basin comes from Matanzas Creek, I mean, I'm sorry, Laguna de Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa Creek marked west, it flows west towards the Laguna, runs up against the Mendocino Mountains, pools there, and then runs north out to the Russian River. And the basin is basically stable surface and deep aquifers. And there doesn't look like there's any current problems in the future. There could possibly be some hundreds of acre feet less storage per year because of drying climate and population growth. But I don't know if the ag growth is gonna keep up with those projections. but I think that the basin really looks pretty good, and there's projects and management actions to defray that hundreds of acre feet potential loss. So I think that the GSA has well managed Sonoma water, is particularly professional, and it's kind of a slow dance, it's a little frustrating, but I think they're doing a good job.

Thank you very much for your comments. Other public comments on this matter? If not, I'll entertain a motion.

I got it right here. I'll move that the... Board of Public Utilities, by motion, recommend that the City Council approve the amendment restarted Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Sustainable Agency.

Second.

We have a motion by Board Member Wright, seconded by Board Member Meisler. May we have a roll call vote, please?

Board Member Wright?

Aye.

Board Member Meisler? Aye. Board Member DeWitt?

Yes.

Board Member Badenfort? Aye. Vice Chair Arnone?

Aye.

And Chair Galvin?

Aye.

Let the record reflect that that motion passes unanimously.

Thank you again. We'll move now to... Item 9.1, which is a public hearing. So I will now ask Director Burke to introduce the presenter.

Thank you, Chair Gabbin and members of the board. Our public hearing is to consider revising the schedule of miscellaneous fees and charges for water and wastewater related services. And Nick Harvey, our Deputy Director of Water Administration will be presenting.

Welcome, Deputy Director Harvey.

Thank you, Director Burke, and good afternoon, Chair Galvin, members of the board. Nick Harvey, Deputy Director of Administration with Santa Rosa Water, and we're here today to discuss possible adoption of increased miscellaneous fees and charges. So as background, whenever we bring miscellaneous fees to the board, we like to always define what a miscellaneous fee is and how that differs from the ordinary rates that we collect from our rate payers. So the difference is that fees and charges, or miscellaneous fees rather, fees and charges reimburse Santa Rosa Water for specific services. and they're only charged to those customers who receive the service and are not spread to the entire ratepayer base. So think things like meter resets, construction meter sets, meter locks for delinquent accounts. Again, this is an important distinction that they're only charged to the customers for whom the services are performed, and that's an important distinction to be made with regard to Santa Rosa Water's ongoing Prop 218 compliance. They're calculated considering all costs, including our labor rates and vehicle and material rates, if applicable. And again, the motive here, it's not a profit motive, it's strictly a cost recovery motive with regard to miscellaneous fees. That's another important distinction. And of course, the fees are adopted by the board at a public hearing. And the last public hearing you may recall was back in October 2024 when our last miscellaneous rate schedule was adopted by the board. Our only proposed fee modifications this go around is for the truck waste tipping fee schedule. The truck waste fees were, or the truck waste recommendations that we're making today rather, were informed by the truck waste program evaluation report that was published and performed by Brown and Caldwell, an outside consultant in 2022. And that report is, I believe, attached to the agenda as exhibit B to the proposed resolution on this item. It was an overall evaluation of operating costs and revenues, staffing, capital needs, and overall market conditions to make recommendations on the amount and timing of tipping fee increases to ensure the financial sustainability of that program going forward. The tipping fees were not increased when the schedule was last adopted in October 2024 at that public hearing. There are several reasons for that. mainly that at that time we had staffing needs. In particular, we had proposed the position of truck waste coordinator and the plant wanted that manpower to specifically manage this program and that was not something that was yet in place at the last public hearing and so we wanted to err on the side of conservatism with regard to any increases and we've since filled that position. and they will be doing ongoing evaluation of the program as we move forward and their input will be valuable in future proposed increases to this program and its rates. So should the proposed fee for the updated tipping fees, the updated schedule be adopted today, the rates that are charged per 1,000 gallons of waste delivered for each of the categories as stated in the table would take effect on July 1 of each respective year in the table through July 1, 2030. And just to serve as a reminder with regard to our other miscellaneous fees, so at our last public hearing in October 2024, the Board adopted resolution number 1332, which authorized the Director to adjust all fees not escalated on a separate basis annually by the change in the Bay Area CPI. As of July 1, well, the first increase was authorized as of July 1, 2026, and further made that authorization effective for each July 1 thereafter. The fees have been escalated for the first time under that authorization. You may recall a few weeks back I circulated a memo demonstrating that calculation and the methodology thereto. And because it was authorized, that methodology was specifically authorized via that resolution, the public hearing is not required for those escalations. And again, certain fees were not escalated, and those fees specifically would be, since this is a cost recovery mechanism, those fees that our costs have not appreciably increased have not been escalated by this methodology. So think non-sufficient fund charges on return checks, collection agency percentages withheld, things of that nature. And again, fees that did not, we charge by the whole dollar increment, so fees that escalated by less than a dollar under the approved methodology were also not escalated. In terms of public outreach, we did send letters to targeted audiences, namely the waste haulers at the Laguna Treatment Plant. I worked with the aforementioned truck waste coordinator to circulate letters to the waste haulers, and we also, I believe, posted notices at the waste receiving station at the Laguna Treatment Plant. The BPU Budget Review Subcommittee met a few weeks back and this updated fee schedule was recommended by that subcommittee for adoption by the full board. And pursuant to state law around public hearing, we did publish twice in the Press Democrat, once on August 5th and August 10th, informing the public of this public hearing today and their opportunity to provide input. So again, in terms of the overall schedule, we published August 5th and 10th of this year. We're obviously here today on the 20th holding the public hearing and should you adopt the recommendations today, again, pursuant to state law, those fees would take legal effect 60 days after adoption. So in this case, that would be October 19th of 2026. And just a reminder, so as the previously mentioned Resolution 1332 authorized, we will continue to escalate fees each year by the increase in the Bay Area CPI, but in the event that that is not sufficient to cover our costs and achieve full cost recovery for those line items, we would bring them separately as we have done today with these fees as a separate public hearing item in the future for your consideration. And with that, it is recommended by Santa Rosa Water that the Board of Public Utilities by resolution, one, adopt revised truck waste program tipping fees effective October 19th, 2026. Two, approve the additional tipping fee adjustments shown in the adopted schedule for July one of each year from 2027 through 2030. And three, authorize the Director of Santa Rosa Water to implement the Board approved adjustments on the respective effective dates. All other miscellaneous fees and charges adopted by resolution number 1332 would remain unchanged. I'm happy to take any board member questions, if any.

Thank you for the presentation. We'll open it up now for board member questions or comments. Board member Wright.

One small question. In the outreach we did to our customers, did we get any responses or was it pretty much nothing?

I will defer to our truck waste coordinator. It doesn't appear that we did receive any responses, so no, and that's not atypical given our prior experience with public outreach, but we still attempt such nonetheless.

Other board member questions? Board Member Meisel.

I'm just curious, who is impacted by these fees? Who pays them? Is it people, individuals with septic systems, or is it larger users?

I would invite our Deputy Director of Environmental Services, Sean McNeil, to come down and answer that question as this program is run by his team.

Good afternoon, Chair Galvin, members of the board. Thank you for the question. The users of this program are entities that are unable to treat the waste on site to completion. And so, yes, septic haulers is one of our customer types. We've seen an increase in customer types from vineyards. As the regulations changed on how they manage their wastewater, they found it a beneficial service to be able to bring some of their waste to our facilities. We also have other types of material that can't just go into the sewer like fats, oils, and greases. And so those can come to us by a pumper truck, and we can pump that into our system there. And that way, we don't clog our pipes. So it's an important service to our community that we've learned through this project. having these this program and we'll be coming to you with a greater update on our program our truck race coordinator will give a presentation to you on September 3rd going over the entire program so continuing on my question is this so if you for example are a septic user an individual

you know, residential septic user that cannot comply with PERC requirements or whatever it is. How often does the pumping occur? What I'm getting at is how impactful are these increases in cost over time to individual?

Yeah, so it's my understanding, well, I have a septic system. The tipping fees is a small percentage of the overall cost of the service. The actual pumping and the hauling of the material is a much greater part of the expense. you've heard in this presentation earlier, we're just recovering our costs for that treatment. So it is relatively inexpensive, and when you compare our costs to other wastewater treatment plants, we are a little bit cheaper in most of our waste types compared to our other competitors. I wouldn't say competitors, service offerers. Boy, I'm inarticulate.

Thank you for satisfying my curiosity there.

Other board member questions or comments? All right, I'll now open up the public hearing on item 9.1 for consideration of the revising of the schedule of miscellaneous fees and charges for water and wastewater related services. If you would like to make a comment, please move to the podium. Seeing no one rise, I will now close the public hearing and ask for a motion.

I'll move adoption of a resolution of the Board of Public Utilities of the City of Santa Rosa adopting changed miscellaneous fees and charges.

Second. Motion by Vice Chair Arnone, seconded by Board Member DeWitt. May we have a roll call vote, please.

Board Member Wright.

Aye.

Board Member Misler. Aye. Board Member DeWitt.

Yes.

Board Member Badenfort. Aye. Vice Chair Noni.

Aye.

And Chair Galvin.

Aye.

Let the record reflect that passes unanimously.

Thank you again. Next item on our agenda is public comment on non-agenda matters. If you wish to make a public comment on a non-agenda matter, go ahead and state your name again for the record, please.

My name is Fred Allbach and I have an important question. I want to know where I can get one of those nice blue water bottles for me and my wife.

Thank you. I'll bet if you ask the director, you might be able to get a couple. Any other public comments? All right. We have no referrals, we have no written communications. I believe we have a subcommittee report from Board Member Wright.

Thank you. Yes, the budget subcommittee met on Monday, August 10th, to review and consider the proposed changes to the miscellaneous fees and charges which the board considered at today's meeting. The subcommittee unanimously recommended approval, and I'd also like to point out that Vice Chair Arnone was present, and he pointed out that the meeting only took 18 minutes.

Thank you. That's a record even for a full board meeting. Any comments or questions on that report? If not, we'll open it up for public comment on item 13. If you wish to make a public comment, please move to the podium. Seeing no one rise, that'll take care of our subcommittee report. Any board member reports? Board member DeWitt?

Hello. I wanted to talk about this morning I was with a group of people along Roseland Creek in an area we call the Roseland Neighborhood. I'm a creek steward volunteer, and there were people there from different parts of the community, plus some transient vagrants who habitat in the community there. i wanted to make sure everybody here understands whenever i'm doing this volunteering i do not in any way shape or form try to pretend that i represent the city of santa rosa i have a nice shirt that i really treasure if you will it was given to me because i am a creek volunteer and it's kind of messed up now from doing so much out there but the whole thing that's really important is When people approach me about my involvement with any of these things I do here, I'm very careful to point out that I am not representing the city and I don't have a point of view that is the city's. I speak for myself only, never saying that I work for the city when I speak at any other meeting or any other place. This is important because one of the people that came today was under the impression that somehow i could influence some city stuff and i was like no it doesn't work that way this is really important because um we need to get better communication if we will from the santa rosa water to the people out in the community all the different stuff that goes on and i understand it's a very difficult job so I'm always making sure to get it on the same page if I can with folks. Last but not least, I also want to ask for some permissions to talk to some city employees. I've been given permission to speak with Mr. McNeil and Claire Myers, and I didn't realize if I have that position and that permission to speak with them more than once because there's some things I'd like to follow up on. And then there's the employee Brian Wallace and Nick Sodano. These are involving matters about creek water improvement, all kinds of stuff like that. So it's relative to the work here of the board, but I wanna make sure I have the permission from the director of the enterprise agency to speak with those employees, please.

Sure, just send me an email to Sean and myself and we'll get you what you need.

Okay, you can't just say yes or no right now?

If you could work through Sean and myself, that would be great, thank you.

All right, thank you kindly.

Any other board member reports? We'll now take public comment on item number 14. If you wish to make a public comment, please move to the podium. Seeing no one rise. Director's report.

Thank you, Chair Galvin and members of the board. I only have one quick item today, and that is I wanted to share some good news. Two of our Stormwater and Creek staff members have been invited to present at the California Stormwater Quality Association annual conference in October. Aaron Nunez, our environmental specialist two, has been asked to present on a multi-year research project into the pathogens and sediment reduction that we have achieved through the Lower Colgan Creek Restoration Project. And Nick Sudano, our senior environmental specialist, has been asked to present on the city's pilot trash reduction project that focused on reducing trash on streets and in storm drain infrastructure. So just wanted to share that good news. And it's always great to have other agencies and associations ask our team to present at various conferences. And that's my report. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Congratulations to both of them. That's very good. Board member, questions for the director? Okay, we'll open it up for public comment on item number 15. Seeing no one rise, that concludes our agenda for today. So we are adjourned, thank you.