 Hi Pablo. Hi Charles. I'm going to go ahead and put Charles over into the interpreter channel for Spanish and then I'll do a test to make sure I can hear him from the Spanish channel. Can you give me a thumbs up that that works for you or an audio okay Charles. Okay. Thank you. Charles can you do a brief, a brief check from the Spanish channel and perfect thank you I can hear you loud and clear from the Spanish channel. For those of you just joining the meeting there are interpreter services available. If you prefer to join the Spanish channel you can click on the live interpretation icon on your zoom toolbar it looks like a glow. Once you join the Spanish channel we recommend you shut off the main audio so you can clearly hear the Spanish translation. Pablo would you be able to say that or those on the main channel? Pablo would you be able to state that in Spanish for those participating on the main channel the instructions on how to join the Spanish channel. Thank you Pablo. Quick audio test for interpreter Pablo Rodas. You can do loud and clear Pablo. Alright Madam City Clerk it's one o'clock and I recognize a quorum of the council. Let's go ahead and call the roll and resume our council meeting for today. Thank you Mayor. Council Member Tibbets. Here. Council Member Schwedhelm. Here. Council Member Sawyer. Here. Council Member Fleming. Here. Council Member Alvarez. Vice Mayor Rogers. Present. Mayor Rogers. Here. Council Member Alvarez have you joined us? Okay let the record show that all council members are present with the exception of council member Alvarez. Great and before we dive into our first study session can you please tell the public both how they can participate today's meeting as well as how to access the Spanish translation of today's meeting. For those of you just joining the meeting there excuse me the Spanish channel has been activated. If you'd like to listen to the meeting in Spanish you can click on the interpretation icon on your zoom toolbar. It looks like a globe. Once you join the Spanish channel we recommend you shut off the main audio so you can clearly hear the Spanish translation. Papa would you be able to repeat that please? Thank you Papa. Back to you Mayor. Alright great thank you so much. Thank you very much. Thank you Papua. Back to you Mayor. Alright great thank you so much. Thank you Papua. Back to you Mayor. Alright great thank you so much. Before we go on to item 3.1 I just want to reiterate an announcement that we made at the start of the meeting tonight or today at 10. We will be pulling item 3.2 that's the ADA self evaluation and transition plan from today's agenda due to a staffing issue but we'll have that back on the agenda as we can in the near future. With that Mr. City Manager let's go on to item 3.1. Item 3.1 2020 urban water management plan and 2020 water shortage contingency plan. Colin close senior water resources planner leading us off. Hi actually this is a Peter Martin deputy director of water resources I just wanted to quickly introduce the item. I just wanted to say thank you to you Mayor Rogers and members of the council for allowing us to bring this item to you today. I just wanted to highlight that the city's urban water management plan is mandated to be updated by the state every five years with firm guidelines in place that sort of create consistency statewide and so there isn't a ton of artistic license on the approach to how we complete these updates every five years. But I do want to note that staff have been kind of quietly whittling away at this plan for more than a year at this point and we're very close to the completion and release of a public draft. These five year updates always include very complex and data heavy analysis which relies upon information provided by the entire department's operations and coordination with our regional partners and snow water or water wholesaler. We should also acknowledge significant involvement by the planning and economic department staff as well. So this is sort of this plan is sort of an opportunity for the city to take the temperature with regard to our supplies projections and demand management activities for water supply. And that includes both a short term and long term planning horizon outlook. Thus it sort of has significant impacts to how we evaluate things like land use decisions, capital improvement projects and other planning efforts that have sort of implications beyond just the footprint of Santa Rosa water. So with that introduction today, I'd like to ask how I'm close to go ahead and proceed with the presentation. Thank you very much Deputy Director Martin and thank you Mayor and members of the Council were pleased to bring you this study session today on the urban water management plan and the water shortage contingency plan. Next slide please. The California Urban Water Management Planning Act was adopted by the legislature in 1983 and it requires urban water suppliers to do a significant amount of analysis and projection to make sure that their water supplies are adequate out over a 20 year horizon. We do recommend a 25 year horizon Santa Rosa uses a 25 year horizon. It is in fact a way to make our plan more robust and more useful in the in between years when we are in between update cycles so our plan will include a 25 year horizon. Of course this is to make sure that we have adequate water supplies today and into the future and I'll talk a little bit more in detail about some of the data and analysis that goes into that work. To ensure that we have adequate water supplies and also make sure that we comply with state regulations, and it does make us eligible for state grants and drought assistance. And I wanted to mention that urban water suppliers are defined as those with at least 3000 connections. We have over 54,000 in Santa Rosa, and who serve at least 3000 acre feet of water. That's about one billion with a B about one billion gallons per year. We deliver 19,000 acre feet or over six billion gallons a year so clearly the law does apply to us. So we're here today for the study session and we'll be back in June to ask for a public hearing and adoption of these plans. They are due to the state this year on July 1. Next slide please. There are dozens of requirements in fact the guidebook to develop these plans is about 400 pages but we thought you'd be interested in just a few of the requirements. We need to make sure that the public has an opportunity to talk to participate and I'll talk about that near the end of the slide. Excuse me near the end of the presentation and all the ways that we're doing that. We need to describe our water service area and our system and that includes things like population and population projections, land use and land use changes and projections, climate change, etc. So there's quite a bit of data that goes into this. We need to look at how much water we're using currently and how much we protect project we're going to need in 25 years again, assuming there will be development intensive changes and land use climate change population growth employment growth, all have to be considered when we look out over that 25 year horizon. And then we also need to talk about our water supplies we have three water supplies all describe those for you later. But essentially we need to consider not only what they are today but what they would be in the future under some risk scenarios. We have to consider different ways that those water supplies could be limited or impinged. And then we need to talk about six strategies that the state calls demand management strategies. These are ways that we work every day to ensure that our customers use water wisely and that demand for water goes down over time. And then also we need to provide a water shortage and contingency planning effort that law came into place in 1992. And we've had water shortage plans in place since that time. And we've had six updates. This will be our seventh update. Next slide please. Just a few of the new requirements again there are dozens of new requirements. These we thought you might be interested in. We need to include a lay description that's just a plain language non technical description of do we have adequate water supplies now and out over the next 25 years, assuming not only normal water supplies, but severely dry single years and five year dry periods. We also need to coordinate with our land use authority and we have for decades been working with our planning department on general planning, land use and water and how those all overlap with each other. So we have had tremendous support and input from the planning department to help us make sure our data is sound. A new requirement is to look at the immediate five years and do a modeling exercise. And I'll talk more about this drought risk assessment. It relies on looking at the dry five is five consecutive years on record, and considering what the rainfall patterns were like then and apply those to today and see if we would have adequate water supply. So we'll talk about those projections and the results of that analysis today. We also need to coordinate with our groundwater sustainability agency as you are probably well aware they're in the midst of developing their groundwater sustainability plan. And we have a member of council that sits on that board and we have staff involved in committee work as well. So we have a close communication with the groundwater sustainability agency and they're well aware of our efforts that I'll be presenting today. So we need to make sure that our water shortage and contingency planning effort is a standalone document that it is adopted as its own document and that it stand on its own two feet because the state wants to make sure that if changes need to happen to either the urban water management plan or the water shortage plan in between the five year cycles, either or both of those documents can be updated more streamlined fashion. So we prepared and we'll ask you to adopt our water shortage plan as a separate document this year when we come to you in June. Next slide please. This is a mock up of the cover of the plan and as Deputy Director Martin mentioned we will be having a publicly available copy of this online. We will also be providing a hard copy in the city manager's office. Our goal is to have those available for public review by May 7 that would allow 30 days for public review. The law requires 14 days but we always strive for 30 when we're doing these plans because they are so technical and complicated. Next slide please. The urban water management plan comes with a guidebook. The state develops a guidebook for us that helps us make sure that we're meeting all of the requirements. They recommend 10 chapters. We have found that to be very useful in the past so you'll see that we have 10 chapters this year as well. Our executive summary will serve as that lay description of the findings from the plan, very plain language, simple description of whether or not we anticipate having sufficient water supply. Chapter 1 will have an introduction and Chapter 2 will talk about all the rules and regulations we met in preparing the plan. Chapter 3 will talk about not only our water system and distribution area but also our customers, socioeconomics, current and projected population and employment figures, land use. So it's got a host of information of sort of foundational data that we used in developing our document. Chapter 4 will talk about our water use over the last five years and talk about what we anticipate the water demand will be over the next 25. And again that's going to take into account population growth, general plan, land use, changes, development, climate change, etc. Chapter 5 will be reporting to the state on our compliance with a requirement to meet a particular target by 2020. Next slide please. In Chapter 6 we'll characterize our water supplies. As I said we have three supplies of water so we talk about what they are, how much we expect to have from each of them and look at particular kinds of scenarios in doing that work as well. Chapter 7 is the heart and soul of the document. This is where everything comes together. This is where all of the analysis comes together to make findings and determinations about our water supply reliability and we'll share those results with you today. Chapter 8 will discuss the requirements for water shortage contingency planning, but the plan itself will stand alone. It will be attached as a document in the appendix of the urban water management plan. Chapter 9 will talk about those six strategies that we always have in place to reduce demand over time. And we'll talk about the successes of those strategies over the last 30 years today with you. Share you some some very good news. In Chapter 10 we discussed how we've met all the rules and regulations for adopting the plan, submitting it, and implementing it should we need to implement it in the future. Our appendices are actually A through P at this point, we've had to add a couple of more, and those will all be included in the public review documents as well. Next slide please. We'll jump right into the findings and the determinations. So rather than spend much more time on the first few chapters in the last few chapters, I'm going to get right into the heart of this document. Chapter 4 talks about our water use, and we look at our projections. One of the things we think it's critical to do when we come to you every five years is to show you what we projected in the previous plan, and show you what we're projecting in the current plan so that you can see that we do update these every five years. As data and circumstances change, we update those projections. In 2015, our actual water use was quite low, we were in the midst of the drought. So our water use was about 25% below the baseline year we were comparing to, which at that time was 2013. Population was still increasing. We saw very few changes in the law at that point, and we were expecting some new developments to occur so you can see that the 2020 projection was considerably higher than our actual water use in 2020. What we've seen since we did the 2015 projections is population has slowed significantly, and some developments that were anticipated to develop didn't develop, but will likely develop in the future. And we also saw that our water use efficiency of our community has stayed very low. There were some rebounds from drought from the 2014 to 2016 drought, but essentially water use has become more and more efficient. Not only due to our programs that I'll discuss with you later, but also state laws have changed around appliances and plumbing fixtures, etc. increasing their efficiency. So when we look at over the 25 year horizon, we anticipate that by 2045 given all things that I've talked about so far in terms of population growth, employment growth, more land use development, more intensive uses of land climate change. We anticipate needing 25,097 acre feet per year for our community. Next slide please. We also needed to project out what we expect to need in this immediate five years to do a brand new requirement, which is a modeling exercise. We need to first assume that the demand for water would be a normal demand. We had to assume as though there were no drought in sight, how much water would we anticipate our community needing as we have new population and employment changes and land use changes in growth. So this is our projection of how much water supply we anticipate we could need over the next five years if there were no drought in sight. A little later I'll talk to you about what we projected for the water supply piece of this for the water supply piece we had to assume dry years. Next slide please. Before I talk about water supply though we wanted to pause for a moment and give you one bit of really good news which is our compliance with the SB X seven dash seven requirements. In 2009 the state required that all were urban water suppliers reduce water use 20% by 2020. And to do that they first wanted us to set targets so we published those targets in our 2010 urban water management plan targets included a halfway point in 2015, and then the final target for 2020. So if you'll advance the slide I'll show you the results of that work. What you can see we went back to 1996 for this analysis and looking at what the baseline year would be for comparison, and you can see that the 2015 midway target was 136 gallons per capita per day. We came in at 84. So resounding success of course we were in the midst of drought. In 2020 our goal was that orange line that goes across your screen 126 gallons per capita per day and we came in at 99 so again, tremendously successful work in terms of reducing water use over time. I know there may be members of the public watching and I know that sometimes gallons per capita per day is a little bit of a complicated topic so I wanted to unpack it just a moment here if I could. With this law with this regulation, what they wanted us to consider was not only the water that's used by residents, but all water uses that includes commercial industrial irrigation of parks and green spaces and common areas. It also includes water for firefighting and for flushing our mains, as well as residential water use and a small amount of water that leaks from our water system, all water systems have a small amount of leakage. So when we take all of those water uses and divide them by our population that's how we get to the gallons per capita per day. The actual gallons per capita per day on the residential sector is much lower, but we wanted you to understand this is a a gross number gross gallons per capita per day because this is an important distinction compared to residential. Next slide please. We also need to make sure that we don't backslide. We had a goal that we had to achieve 126 gallons per capita per day and going out into the future we need to make sure we don't exceed that. And as you can see we've looked out over the future and even out to 2045 we anticipate that we'll remain in compliance with this law. Next slide. In chapter six we talk about our water supplies as I mentioned we have three sources of water. We purchase water from Sonoma water. It's about 94% of our water supply on average over the last 10 years. Under a contract with Sonoma water we have an entitlement of 29,100 acre feet per year in normal water views. We also have city wells at Farmers Lane those historically has become artesian at the end of the season when we stop using that water we use that water typically in the hot dry season. We don't typically poll 2300 acre feet per year from the groundwater basin but those wells are capable of producing that much if we needed them to. We also have a very small amount of water that we use to offset potable demand that we use for irrigation of parks and common areas and homeowners associations and business parks and that sort of thing. It's 140 acre feet per year and this is less than 1% of the amount of recycled water that's produced by our regional system. These customers are our top priority in terms of our contractual obligation to deliver water to our urban customers so we don't anticipate this water supply to be impacted by drought in the future. So we have a total of 31540 acre feet in our portfolio. This again is during our normal water years. Next slide please. Again for this immediate five years, this new modeling exercise, this drought risk assessment, we were required to project out how much water supply we would have and we had to use a particular scenario. We needed to select the driest five consecutive years on record and assume the rainfall patterns would be the same for 2021 to 2025. So 1987 to 1991 has been identified as the driest five consecutive years on record. We worked with Sonoma Water and they did the analysis and modeling to identify for our region what the driest five years were. So when we look at the driest five years on record, we can see that Sonoma Water Agency says that they could provide us 20,220 acre feet per year. We don't anticipate that our supply for water would be affected in terms of groundwater and recycled water. Apologize, I know the recycled water is a very small sliver at the bottom. It's very difficult to see, but again it's a very small portion of our water supply. So this would be our water supply if we had the driest five years on record. Next slide please. So again chapter seven, this is where everything comes together. This is again the whole important piece of this document. It's the crux of this planning effort. Do we have adequate water supplies for the next 25 years, knowing that there will be growth, development, new housing, more intensive uses of land, climate change, etc. We had to consider normal water years, a single severely dry water year. That year for us is equivalent to the rainfall in 1977 and dry five year periods. The state allowed us to define those five dry year periods. And in our region, Santa Rosa and our local regional partners in Sonoma Water decided to use a very conservative scenario which is the driest five consecutive years on record again 1987 and 1991 for that analysis. And again the drought risk assessment assumes a normal amount of water demand over the next five years, but rainfall patterns or hydrology that would be like the driest five year period on record. So let's take a look at the results starting with the normal water year out to 2045. Next slide. So the bars total 31,540 acre feet a year. That was that water supply slide that we saw when we were looking at that picture of Lake Sonoma. And when we look at the water need projection out to 2045 you can see that we certainly have adequate water supplies under normal water years. It's not surprising, but it is good news to confirm that. Next slide. When we look at a severely single dry year that would be equivalent to the rainfall in 1977, you can see that our normal water demand, the blue line that goes across would exceed the amount of water we have available. In a case like that we would activate our water shortage contingency plan and work with our community to reduce demands by anywhere from 11 to 14%. That's the difference between our normal demand and the amount of water supply we have available. We've activated our water shortage plan a number of times in the past and always been quite successful working with our community. So under a single severely dry year, we know that we would be able to implement our water shortage plan. Next slide please. When we look out over the 25 year horizon and assume dry five year consecutive periods like 1987 to 1991, the model shows that we would have adequate water supply. Modeling is terrific. It's very helpful for planning, but we want you to know that just as you're seeing this year with a second dry year, we don't wait to see what five years will bring. So while the five year model shows we'd have adequate water supply that rainfall would come and would replenish the lake, we don't rely on that in real time. We take action based on data that's real and current. We make no assumptions about what rainfall would come. So this is great news for our planning efforts for the future, but we want to reassure you that we make real decisions in real time based on real data when we're dealing with dry years. Next slide please. And again, this is that five year model for the immediate five years. It does show we would have adequate water supply if we had rainfall patterns that mimicked 1987 to 1991. And again, as you know, we had a dry year last year, we have a dry year this year, and we're already speaking with you and our community and our other partners and Snowmawater, our wholesaler about our water supplies and what steps we might need to take to ensure there's adequate water supply going forward. So again, the modeling is good news, but we assess the situation in real time and take action in real time. Regardless of what the model says, we tend to be very conservative about protecting our water resources. Next slide please. Next I wanted to highlight the six strategies that the state requires that we report on these are demand management measures that are in place all the time. Whether we have abundant water supply or shortage. We always have these six strategies in place working with our community to help them use water wisely and reduce demand for water over time. We have a waterways prevention ordinance that was adopted in 1999 and we actively enforce that consistently whether we have sufficient water supply or we're facing a shortage. All of our water connections are metered. And all of our water connections pay for water based on 1000 gallons of usage. So we have conservation pricing such that about two thirds of the water bill is driven by the amount of water the customer uses. If they use less their bill goes down. So this is conservation pricing we've had that in place since the 90s. We also have robust public outreach and education programs are water use efficiency team, particularly in years when we don't have coven very active in the community attending festivals, sponsoring expos and making presentations. We also have a water education effort from our energy and sustainability team, and they talk about taking water from the tap and the importance of water water conservation or water system and public water supplies. In addition, Sonoma water does outreach and education with K through 12 schools. So we reach thousands of students every year in addition to the general public. We also assess our water distribution system every year and analyze how much water is being leaked from our system. We have active leak detection patrols that look for leaks that aren't evident. We repair leaks quickly on our system so we have very robust system of maintaining and controlling and minimizing water loss from our distribution system. And then we have very active conservation programs and staffing. In fact, in 1991 we hired our first water conservation coordinator. So I want to tell you some good news about those programs for over the last 30 years if we can look at the next slide. This slide goes back to 1995 we had data that we could integrate with our GIS system to map for you going back to 1995 more than 30,000 customers have participated in our programs since 1995. If you look at the next slide please, we wanted to talk about how much we have accomplished over the last 30 years. We invested more than $21 million over the last 30 years. One of the important things to know though is that our water use efficiency programs are structured very specifically to pay for themselves. The lifetime water savings of our programs mean that we buy less water and the cost that we save in buying water pays for the programs that we have in place to help us reduce water use over time. We've provided rebates and direct install programs that have helped our customers exchange high flow toilets for low flow toilets over 56,000 toilets have been replaced. We've helped our community replace over three and a half million square feet of turf with low water use landscaping. We currently have more than nine rebate programs in place to help our customers and incentivize them to take steps to reduce their water use. And we have 10 additional ways that we help our customers. We offer workshops and technical assistance. We do site visits and analyses. We help with rebate processing so that our customers aren't confused about the paperwork. We provide resources and do it yourself kits and we have free fixtures for our customers as well, such as aerators and shower heads. All told, when we look at what our programs have saved, we can track 7,100 acre feet of water that is no longer being used in our community because of participation in our programs. That is a substantial savings. We in fact have seen a 44% reduction in our gross gallons per capita per day when we compare 1990 to 2020. Half of that savings is due to our programs. The other half is due to the fact that the state has put in place a number of regulations that require faucets, toilets, appliances, plumbing codes and building codes to ensure that water is used efficiently. Overall, when we compare the water use in 2020 to the water use in 1990, our community has literally used 14% less water in 2020 than we used in 1990. Again, that's a tremendous accomplishment. And in the meantime, our population increased 53%. So again, quite an accomplishment. Next slide please. Now I want to talk to you about our water shortage contingency plan. So while we have worked very hard to reduce demand for water and make our water use more efficient, we've planned out over the next 25 years our water supplies and we have contingencies in place for water shortages. We want to make sure you understand what those contingencies are and what our plans are for times when we do have water shortages. Next slide please. Water shortage contingency plan is preparation for water shortages and it is required by law. It is a planned set of response actions that we have in place that have been studied and vetted and tried and true that we know will help reduce demand for water when we have water shortages. This year the plan has to be a standalone document. And we have done that we've prepared it as its own document. I want to show you what the definition of a shortage is for our community and talk about some of the new requirements and also go through with you what the response actions are. Next slide please. This is how Santa Rosa defines a shortage stage and the reduction targets. In the plan that was adopted in 2015 by the council, we had seven water shortage stages. So it was almost identical to this plan. At that time stage seven was up to and over 50% water shortages. Because of some new requirements from the state we've split out the over 50% as its own water shortage stage. So you can see for example stage one would be up to 10% shortage. Our target would be to reduce water use by 10% community wide. And that would be a voluntary program. It would be a call for help from our community that was voluntary. Next slide please. We also needed to show, and this is a new requirement, how our shortage stages relate to the state's new standardized stages. We did not have to match it exactly but we had to show how our stage is aligned with the states. The state stages go up in 10% increments. And we know from our own experience that typically when Santa Rosa has experienced a need to reduce water use. It has been 10%, 15% or 20% typically. So therefore we wanted more flexibility early in our plan so that we would have response actions that were tailored to water shortages in 5% increments. So you can see while the state has stage two that goes up to 20%, our stage two goes up to 15% and our stage three goes up to 20%. We do a similar thing with the states at stage three. We provide two corresponding stages in 5% increments. Again, this allows us more flexibility and nuance and responding and working with our community during water shortages. Next slide please. So now I'd like to take a moment and go through the response action so that you can see that there's been quite a bit of thought and concern and care put into what would we do if we had a water shortage. First and foremost, there are probably about seven actions that I'm going to lay out for you today. But first and foremost, we know our success in the past has been predominantly because of the first two categories of response action. Outreach and education and customer service and assistance. Those are truly the ways that we have worked well with our community to ensure that we always make sure demand does not exceed the supply available to us. In terms of outreach and education, I talked a little bit about some of our programs, but also during water shortages, we have an outreach campaign that occurs to make sure everyone in our community knows what the target is, what the shortages, what they can do to help us reduce water use. The tips that we have in place are rebate programs just a tremendous amount of information going out to our community making sure everyone is informed. In terms of customer service and assistance, we have a small but mighty water use efficiency team, and they deal with thousands of requests for assistance from our customers during water shortages. They help our customers with tips, with workshops, with rebate processing, site visits and analysis. We do everything we can possible to make sure our customers have the tools they need to reduce water use. And again, these are the reasons why we've been successful in the past. We can also make operational changes, for example, reducing the amount that we flush our service lines and our hydrants, always keeping an eye out for public health and safety, but we can reduce those to save a bit of water on our own end. And then we have a long list of restrictions and prohibitions that we can put in place to eliminate water waste and minimize nonessential uses. Next slide, please. These are the prohibitions and restrictions. Our water waste ordinance is always in place. The water waste ordinance does not allow any runoff from a site, say, due to broken sprinkler heads or over watering. That's against our water waste ordinance. Also, leaks and breaks must be repaired promptly. Leaking is not a beneficial use of water, as you might imagine. In stage one, we would require that all hoses have automatic shutoff nozzles. We also provide those to our customers at no cost. We don't allow hard surfaces to be washed off with hoses, so driveways, sidewalks, patios. We ask folks to go ahead and get out of broom, unless there is a public health and safety reason to do so with a hose. In stage three in our plan for 2015, we did not allow potable water use for street cleaning. We've since learned that our upcoming plan, this will not be included as a restriction. We've taken a look at our NP DES permit, our stormwater permit for water quality going to our creeks, and this would potentially put us in a violation, so we will be eliminating that one restriction. But the presentation was provided before we had a chance to do that, so my apologies there. We ask that restaurants only serve water upon request in stage two. Next slide, please. In stage three, we have a limit on irrigation so that the least amount of water is evaporating possible, and we don't allow pressure washing with potable water unless a variance is obtained. Variances are free to apply for, and we just want to make sure that they're being used for uses that make sense like public health and safety, preparing for construction, or perhaps preparing for painting this sort of thing. In stage four, we don't allow ornamental fountains and decorative water features to be operated. This is when we're at a 25% shortage in water supply. In stage five, at this point, we're at a 30% shortage in water supply. We do not put a moratorium on new construction. Instead, we allow new construction, but it must offset demand on a one to one ratio. We don't allow new swimming pools and spas to be filled, and we require that construction sites use recycled water for dust control if recycled water is available, and if there's a filling station within one mile. This year, of course, we do not have recycled water available for this purpose. Next slide. Stage six is a 40% water shortage. At that point, new construction would have to offset demand two to one. We don't allow any new water using landscaping to be installed at new construction sites, and we don't allow existing pools and spas to be refilled. In stage seven, a 50% water shortage, new construction would have to offset demand three to one, and we don't allow anyone to install new landscaping at existing or new sites. In stage eight, new construction would have to offset demand four to one, and there would be no landscape irrigation. This would be over 50% shortage in water supply, so very dire circumstances. Next slide, please. You're also familiar with the next water response actions that I'm going to talk about. The first is the water shortage charge. This was brought to your attention during the Prop 218 rate study process. This would be a temporary increase in water rates that would only be in place during a water shortage emergency that has been declared by council and an ordinance would have to be adopted by council. So there's nothing automatic about this water shortage charge, but it would be a temporary increase in rates if it were adopted and that's structured to encourage conservation. In other words, if someone reduces their water use and hits the water reduction target, their bill would be about the same as it would be under normal circumstances with normal water use, normal water rates. So this has been structured very particularly to hit that goal. And it helps us partially bridge the gap in revenue shortfalls and avoids the need to permanently raise water rates because of a water shortage. We'd like to avoid that. Next slide, please. You've seen this chart before. This just shows you the structure for those water shortage charges. And again, if a customer hits the water reduction target, their bill will be about the same as it would be if they were in a normal water supply condition using a normal amount of water under normal water rates. So again, it's been structured very carefully to encourage conservation. Next slide. Two more response actions are water allocation. Sometimes those are referred to as rationing. Those would go into place only if council adopted a water shortage emergency and an ordinance to put these in place. This would be when we're at a 30% or worse water shortage condition. When we were in this were adopted water allocations would be assigned on a service by service connection by connection basis we take into account data specific to each account when we set those water allocations. We also have an excess use penalty that can be used to enforce those allocations. They are avoidable by all customers if a customer stays within their water allocation, there is no penalty. This action would have to be taken to authorize the use of excess use penalties through an ordinance. Next slide please. This slide's very dense. It's very busy. I apologize, but we wanted you to see a couple of things. One is there is a focus here, primarily on ensuring that there's adequate water for public health and safety, both at home and in the community and hospitals. This is the highest priority. Second priority is commerce, industry, making sure there's adequate water supply for businesses to keep their doors open. Our third priority during these water allocation stages would be landscape irrigation. It's important to focus on trees and shrubs that are well established. Those are very important for the health and well-being of our city in terms of climate change and a number of other aspects as well. And again, by the time we get to a stage 5, new development would have to start offsetting its demand so you don't see any reference to new development in these water allocations. Next slide please. Again, if Council so deemed it was the appropriate to move forward and we adopted excess use penalties, these would be used to ensure that folks stay within their allocations and if they didn't, they could be subject to an excess use penalty. These are avoidable by all customers. We do not count on this as revenue. We hope that all customers are able to stay within their allocations and that we don't ever have to collect penalties. But I do want to talk to you about enforcement because this is a process that we believe very deeply in and it's called progressive enforcement. And it would be for any of the water use restrictions that I've talked about so far, including our water waste ordinance all the way through to the excess use penalty. So if we can go to the next slide, we'll talk to you about our plan for enforcement. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, this is the table that shows those excess use penalties. And you have seen this before with the water rates. So we can actually go to the next slide. Thank you so much. So for compliance and enforcement, again, a progressive approach we've used this with our water waste ordinance for the last 20 years or so it's been very effective. Very often when a customer violates the water waste ordinance or during times of shortage, if they were to violate a prohibition or restriction, they very often have no idea that that's so that they've got their in violation. So first and foremost, we want to let our customers know they're in violation, what the prohibition or restriction is, why it's in place, what they need to do to come into compliance and how much time they have to do that. And also how we can help. We can offer technical assistance. Sometimes our rebate programs can be helpful. We can do site visits. So a whole host of things that we can do to help our customers come into compliance. So first and foremost, that is our first step. And it's been very successful in working with our customers in terms of all of our water shortages as well as in times when we're in normal water supply but have water waste ordinance violations. About 95% of customers respond very quickly and very positively to the alert that there was an issue. If a customer is non-communicative, refuses to address the problem, is recalcitrant, we can issue written warning letters. If they still don't respond, we can if needed enforce with penalties. It's very rare that we ever have to use penalties. Again, our customer base has been incredibly cooperative and helpful and very responsive in the past, whether it's with water waste violations or other kinds of prohibitions and restrictions. So we have found this process to be very, very useful. Next slide please. We also wanted you to be aware of the requirement to meet the to provide the public opportunities to participate in this effort. So we put out a notice to all of our county and other water supplier partners, make sure everyone knew that we were preparing these plans and that they would be available for review. We went to three publicly noticed meetings of the water conservation subcommittee that is a subcommittee to the Board of Public Utilities, and we went into great depth about the urban water management plan and water shortage contingency plan. We also went to the BPU on April 15th and provided them the information we're providing you today, a full study session on the two plans. So back to them at a publicly noticed meeting on May 20th and discuss the plans again. For public outreach and we have sent out a bill insert to all 54,000 water connections to let them know we are working on these plans and that they will be available by May 7th on our website. A short version of that web address is shown on the screen, srcity.org slash UWMP. That will allow folks to review those documents online and again, we will provide a hard copy at the city manager's office as well. We're also issuing social media posts will be doing other kinds of outreach and education to our community, encouraging them to participate in that public review process. We're here before you today and then on June 8th we'll come back to you for a public hearing on this topic as well as asking you to consider adopting both documents. So we've done a pretty robust job of offering the public an opportunity to participate. Next slide please. We've already gone over this calendar but this is just another another way of looking at next steps of what's coming up in terms of the plan. Rather than dwell on it, I'll just mention that on July 1st, these plans are due to be submitted to the state to meet the statutory deadline. Next slide please. At this point I'd be happy to take any questions that you might have. Great. Thank you so much, Colin. I'll start with councilmember Sawyer. Thanks mayor and thanks Colin. Excellent job on the presentation and I can tell that staff is doing their best to try to make it as painless as possible as we go through this process. Hopefully we won't have to hit those major restrictions or reductions, although it's always a good idea to reduce when we can and preach to the choir there. And then I think I remember at the last time we went with these serious situation that there were actually that I didn't see either didn't see it or didn't or it's not proposed to actually put a stricter on people's homes that if they simply are the unfortunate players that actually limits the amount of water that they can get through their to their home. Is that I did I miss that or is that not being proposed. It is not being proposed it's actually the technology and the implementation of that is not seamless. And so rather than that do that we prefer progressive enforcement where we just work with the customers and try to help them come into compliance. Great. Thank you very much. Councilmember Spudhelm. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you Colin for your presentation and really kudos to you Peter, Jennifer and the rest of the water team. I really appreciate how you've kept me informed as the whack rep and the GSA rep and this is just continuation of that. I do have a question on a couple of different stages. You indicated some new construction must offset demand for starting at stage five one to one up to stage eight four to one. Could you explain a little bit more what that means specifically as it may pertain to housing developments in our downtown area. Well at this point the program is under development so I don't have anything hard and fast for you to present to you today in terms of the actual implementation. But from just an overarching perspective the high level view. The idea is that once a project is constructed it would have a new demand on our water system. And so, you know, the timing all has to be worked out but essentially the idea would be that that new demand would be offset one to one through things like water use efficiency measures say replacing toilets or those sorts of things. Again, we need to work on the fine points of it, but I also want to just touch base with deputy director Martin to see if he'd like to add anything to this discussion. Yeah, I mean there's there's obviously a variety of options that we have, you know, available to us as far as the offset of the portable demand. We've been in contact with planning economic development department already to talk about that it's good to do a refresh on that but there's a variety of ways that they could perhaps you know invest in programs and programs and things that will help to offset future demand. And, you know, obviously, it would come in a little bit more of a burdensome cost for the developer, but you know obviously it's pretty dire situation in order to allow them to continue to connect to our system at that point as well. So, you know, and hopefully we don't get to a stage five but more information will be provided to council about what that actually might mean. I'm seeing your head nods of concept. Thanks it's all like. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. It would be a fully vetted plan and and certainly and again this is one of those things where council will have purview so while we have all of these elements in the water shortage contingency on the bottom line, when it comes time to authorize the implementation of a water shortage plan. Council has the authority to determine which restrictions and prohibitions go into place so staff will bring forward recommendations and council will have the authority to determine which ones are appropriate for our community. Great, thank you. Council Member Fleming. I was just impressed by the how comprehensive this presentation was and thank you so much for all of your efforts. I'm curious to know, you know, as a consumer, we see a lot of, you know, the things that consumer education for residential uses. And I'm wondering, you know, what goes into it on the commercial the non residential side of things. Yeah, definitely reach out to all of our customers equally but that certainly in terms of reducing water use when we have these initial goals anywhere from a stage one to a stage four those are community wide goals. So we're messaging all of our customers equally and asking everyone to contribute to that community wide goal. Additionally, we have terrific programs that can be tailored quite efficiently and effectively to industrial and commercial users so we have what is called our sustained reduction rebate program. So any business or any commercial enterprise any industry that wants to propose a new or innovative way to reduce water use sustainably. So if we don't already have a specific rebate program that meets their needs, they can propose one. And so they can work with our staff on that as well. And also we offer our site visits and our water smart programming to all customers. So if they want us to come out to their site, coach them, give them technical assistance offer suggestions, our staff are available for that as well. And initially stages one through four, we're asking everybody in the community to help us achieve that goal. Stage five we have the allocations, and that would be a direct outreach to every single customer so every single customer knows what their allocation is, and we're there to help them figure out how they can achieve that. Thanks so much I appreciate that's great. Yeah, I just want to add on to that too that we do do targeted outreach and these instances to as well to chamber and other associations, letting them know that these are available to our business community. We also do kind of keep a list of all the top irrigators out there as well and we kind of do targeted outreach to them as well. On a regular basis so we do kind of you know they are different customer class but we do kind of provide them with very specific set of programs and targets as well. Great thank you so much. Colin from the technical aspects of the projections. We are looking at what our future water demand is going to be particularly around housing developments and this is obviously one that council members get asked about a lot. Is it based on Rena numbers or is it based on historical trends of adding people to the city. There's a combination but the Rena numbers we felt were lower ultimately than we might see we try to be conservative and assuming. Okay scenario because it's kind of the wrong terminology, but we look at growth from the past and we projected into the future and we double checked with Rena numbers and again the Rena numbers were lower so we went with our higher projections. Okay, great thank you and then obviously we're in the midst of bad to your stretch one of the driest on record, followed by one of the driest on record. Have you seen I know you look at a five year, the five year trend. Have you seen the shift, the way that over this two year period have you seen that before. And the reason that I ask is because this is also a discussion around climate change and what the new normal looks like and trending in a direction of being more Aaron. You know, Mediterranean climates have periodic drought cycles. So, you know, as I mentioned the driest consecutive five years was 1987 and 1991. We had a single severely dry year in 1977. So, you know, certainly I think there are folks who are considering that climate change has impacted things like the number of hot days that was considered in this plan. The shorter storms that are more severe versus fewer rainier days all of those things are taken into consideration so definitely I think you know climate change is here we're seeing the effects. What this last two years means particularly I think that's still being analyzed and studied it, maybe a little too soon for me to jump in with much more than to say that we certainly considered what we've seen in in our analysis and projected out that climate change is going to be a consideration we have to consider as we move forward. I appreciate that. Council any other questions. All right, let's go on to public comment then for folks who are interested in giving a comment or asking a question. Go ahead hit the raise hand feature on your zoom, or if you're dialing in via your phone hits star nine. And Madam host I'm not seeing any hands let's go on and see if there are any voicemail public comments. This is a very important topic. Unfortunately, some city staff seem to forget that we are a very drought prone area, and we should be utilizing good water management and actually water reduction activities. Specifically in the recreation and parks department where they plan for new parks to have multi use turf, a very water intensive use something that's not needed. Many times, if the city staff would work with local residents, especially people next to where neighborhood parks and various facilities are being planned, they would understand how they could save water cut costs and work with the community, especially next to creeks, such as Roseland Creek, where a neighborhood has been saved to community activity. Taxpayers have purchased a lot of assets there, and city staff has squandered millions of dollars. It's sad, poor down housing. Now talking about throwing tons more money into multi use turf. It's a very long thing during water shortages. That's what we're going to have, perhaps for the long haul. Please keep that in mind. Don't let staff throw the water down the train. Thank you. Thank you so much. I'll bring it back and see if there are any additional comments from council. I'm not seeing any. I'll just say both for Peter and for Colin, I know you've been working on this for over a year, but I think that the timing of this presentation was pretty perfect, given some of the different conditions that we've seen locally. So thank you for your diligence on it and for explaining an incredibly difficult topic in a way that I hope that the public can understand and can definitely bank on for our future planning. Thank you very much. All right. So I've mentioned previously that item 3.2 has been held, and we'll discuss that at a future date. So let's move on to item 3.3. Item 3.3, Government Center Project Feasibility Analysis Update and Discussion of Options. Raya Sadilla-Rosa, Economic Development Deputy Director, present. Good afternoon, Mayor Rogers and members of the council. Before I start with the slide presentation, I do need to ask the clerk to please elevate Caroline Judy, if she hasn't already done so, as she'll be part of this conversation. And also, before I start with the slide presentation, I just want to take a moment and acknowledge the public interest in this project and to assure the community that there will be a public process if and when council decides to move forward from the current entry level analysis that's been done today. So what is before you today is just that. It's an introduction to the feasibility analysis that was conducted over six months between mid-2019 and the beginning of 2020. And so what you can tell from the February 28, 2020 date that's on the draft summer report that's attached to the staff report, it was a mere two weeks after that report was submitted when the county health officer issued the shelter in place order that caused the city to be covered on hold. And we had been preparing actually to go to council in April, but only got so far as to having presented to the long-term finance of committee in January of 2020. So that said, I'm going to be giving you a brief overview of the report today. What brings us, but what the point of today, I should say, is really to call the question about the county needs related to the possibility of accommodating parts of their government's center program in the downtown core. So up until March 2020, the city and county project efforts were moving at essentially the same speed. We had actually run into, I think in 2018, we'd run into the Caroline Judy, who's the county's general services department director at a public-private partnership conference. And from those beginnings, once we each brought on a real estate services firm that are experts in P3s, we pretty much met weekly if not multiple times a month to track our project, the city and county projects together to look for joint opportunities. And again, where the city paused our efforts in March 2020, the county continued and is thus a full year ahead of where we are as a city, and they're now considering their final site selection. So with the interest of accommodating their schedule, the county staff is bringing their site selection question to the board of supervisors on July 20. We just needed to introduce you to our study today, because again, it has not yet been presented to the full council. And if the county decides to locate some of their administrative functions in the downtown core, this would affect our own city options. So while we're gearing today's study session with that, I anticipate we'll need to do a quick check and update of the assumptions on the report to see where the county lands. And then we'll have another study session with our consultants, JLL and PFM, our financial advisor, so that we can dig in more deeply into the city hall and public safety analysis. Okay, so we're on the right slide and I have to say, you know, with the timing of this you might recall that, you know, at the time of 2018 2019 when we first started working on this. We were still charged from the Tubbs Fire and fully in the creative process of throwing everything we could at our housing needs. And this, this included looking at what land the city owns and tying it to our own facility needs. So we came up with the P3 goal to increase land availability for housing and mixed use development through the consolidation of government services into denser, more potent land use, thus providing streamlined access to services. Next slide please. So in addition to the opportunity to need to increase and diversify our housing stock from an internal perspective, the why can also be seen on this chart. The city has essentially been borrowing money against our facilities by deferring work. We're at the point where the bill has come due. And we have grossly understand on facilities, which puts us in the position of deciding whether to replace the most dire buildings or to invest in the substandard buildings that we have to get them into better shape. Both of these options should be noted are very expensive. Next slide. All right, so what is a P3. I will tell you, firstly, it's just a very lazy way of saying public private partnership, because those are the peas of a P3. And secondly, a P3 is a procurement model that uses an integrated and life cycle approach to delivering a public good or service that can incorporate design, construction, financing, operations and maintenance functions into one contract. It's an outcome based and offers financing options, allowing private capital to jumpstart and help finance projects while keeping ownership of the facilities with the government. I'm trying to depict on this slide what it isn't is a traditional design build, which is typically how government pursues things, nor is it on the right side, the full privatization where an outside entity would build something for us and then we would just be doing it for years. So a P3 can be a range of things between those extremes with the sweet spot being design, build, finance, operate and maintain or just design, build, finance and operate. Next slide. P3s take a deep bench and a great deal of expertise. We did a competitive bid process from which we brought on JLL to help us in seeking approval of the contract and I know at least two of you weren't here when we went through this process. But we outlined phases in OSRAM's promising council that we would check in at these points. Again, because we recognize that this is an expensive endeavor, just the pre-planning part of it. But the main goal of the first phase was to determine if it would be feasible to replace and consolidate outdated and inadequate city facilities and to address the underutilization of city land in the downtown core. And if so, what would it take to do so? So JLL helped us with this by confirming our vision and goal, conducting market analysis and surplus strategy, collecting data on very, very high level program needs and working with Bob Gamble of PFM to analyze financial costs and financing. Unfortunately, James Burkey, who's our JLL contact, had a long-standing conflict and so he's not likely to be able to join us today, but he might be able to jump on at the very tail end of this, but Bob Gamble is here today from PFM and is available for questions if needed. Next slide. Okay, I want to note here that the downtown stationary specific plan was in the process of being updated at the same time we were going through this exercise. So staff was able to consider the P3 vision and goals within that plan as they were, as they were putting it together. Anyway, we identified nine sites for JLL to analyze. That includes the City Hall campus, the White House lot, the Central Library, MSC South in the little call-out bubble there, public safety buildings, the D Street garage, lots 10 and 11 and some other public parking and right-of-way sites. JLL looked at the site and building characteristics, the potential for disposition and the value of disposition, and then the positioning of the sites for city use versus use for private development to enhance the downtown under the downtown specific plan. Next slide. For the initial program test that JLL broke the needs down into three program areas, general government, the Central Library and public safety. Since I know because I've been contacted about this, that there's a lot of hand-bringing related to the cursory level of assumptions, I just want to remind you that we needed to use planning assumptions versus actual transaction process for this report. So we just needed assumptions that are broadly reasonable and would give us sort of relatively conservative assumptions that we can move as we move or as the process moves. So there's a lot of flexibility at this stage, which we will reexamine at decision points to get to the next phase. For the initial program sizing, information was gathered on current staff counts, building areas and current parking counts that included fleet and visitor and staff parking. And what we found is that the general government currently uses around 300 gross square feet per staff person. And I have to say that I myself had to look up what gross square feet is because it seems like a lot. And so, unless anyone not know what it is, a gross square foot is the sum of all areas on all floors of the building. So it's calculated from the outside of the exterior walls and is inclusive of all the space within a building, including the vertical penetration areas for circulation shaft, etc. And that the things that connect one to another. It is not to be confused with net square footage, which is just the total square footage of all rooms or an area before. So for this exercise JLL assumed a projected staff growth of 10% with space reductions to 260 gross square foot per staff, which is in line with with industry workplace standards. And then for parking they maintain the same level but acknowledged it would be determined based on zoning and city policy and that city policy includes like a climate action plan, etc. Next slide. Okay, so based on the test fits and the many discussions with city staff and the executive team at the time as well as check in with the economic development subcommittee in the long term finance of committee. Three site alternatives were proposed. The concept diagrams were created to show a potential facility layout for each of the options, but are, and I can't reiterate this enough they're only representative diagrams of the test fit and they are not specific site programming. So these diagrams also states what we were looking to accommodate at that time. And at that time, it was really just a matter of the timing that we didn't have the numbers and information we have now about the county's needs. So these represent the best guesses on that front. I also want to note that as you look at these, though the mass might vary from what's shown you could swap out the titles on the diagram for other uses. So again, at the time we were, if we were to consider only the city needs, the preferred option was this one, which is called urban core. So this was all for a development of a new city hall library and fire station at the White House site and reuse the current city hall site for dense mixed use residential development while also daylighting the creek. We also removed first street for use as part of the development and move the police station to a cross town to MSC. And this was partly preferred because using the White House lot would eliminate the need for swing space, meaning the city hall complex offices could continue to operate as they are, until the new, the new facility was built. Okay, option B or city hall gateway position city hall and the library, essentially where city hall currently is with potential partnership or other developments located within the same area of the complex. The other development options could include the county offices with potentially a new parking garage possible at the White House lot for the county if that was needed. And then the fire station and you see the emergency operation center would be rebuilt at the their Sonoma Avenue location. And again the police station would be moved across town to to MSC property. I should have mentioned all of the options daylight the creek and provide a setback, because that was one of the criteria into the exercise. And it also speaks to the need to eliminate first street in order to accommodate the the buildings. Okay, option C or the civic service hub again has city hall and the library essentially where city hall currently is and co locates police and fire on the same site along the D street side. And so this also allows for other developments or other partner opportunities in the area where where the cat annex currently is. Next slide. So the options that moved the police station to the municipal service center lands. This slide just shows what those options look like. And again, we can come back to that one at a later study. Next slide. Here we have a summary of the programming components, including parking needs alongside the conceptual cost comparison. So broadly speaking, the total capital cost for all options is about $290 million to retake. Each of the options have a different combination of sites the city could potentially sell to offset the construction costs of the new facility, which you can see in the chart on the right as being deducted from the capital cost, along with the assumed rough debt financing cost of 4% on a 30 year term. The annual debt service payment can be offset by potential enterprise fund payments or potential partner payments if that still remains an option. And again, well, Bob Gamble is available to speak broadly to this and the next slide, because the data is now a year old. My recommendation is that we have another study session to focus solely on the cities options and next steps. And that would allow us time to really reconnect in earnest with JLL and PFM to update the information and, and by then, ideally, we would know what the county's final site selection is. Next slide. All right, so pursuant to the last JLL. Again, they worked closely with PFM, our financial advisor, and to connect the financial framework with potential financing alternatives, which is what you see here. So these methods typically offer lower borrowing costs than private capital. And we've used a number of these forms in the past. They can be used alone or in combination with some having better success for certain projects than others. So, for example, general obligation bonds, which provide the lowest cost of debt tend to be most successful for public safety needs. That said, they require two thirds voter approval, which can only occur during a general election. And so those considerations affect the timing of what what we're doing in our planning process. So the other options are project based financing tools that have the advantage of being tied directly to the project and not affecting the general fund. But again, the fabulous Bob Gamble is on the line to answer any specific questions you might have financing and he would be better to do so than I am. Next slide. Okay, this is the last slide on the city feasibility analysis before I hand it over to director Judy to provide you an overview of the county's project. And in her interview, I know you'll you'll further understand the difference of where the county is versus where we are. This slide just also allows me to reiterate that the public should not be concerned that the city has made any decisions or that a project is imminent without the value of having public input or engagement. What the what the slide indicates is that we are, we've simply completed only phase one the phase one feasibility and financial analysis which you see here on the left. With the conclusion that yes, the city has a viable pathway to pursue a government center projects, we would have to identify funds to advance to phase two. The cost for the next step, very considerably with an estimated range of between $400,000 and $550,000. But the tasks which you see here would include a robust communications effort, engaging both internal and external stakeholders. And the first phase of architectural programming financial planning site and cost refinement and transaction structure planning. And thereafter we would have to do another phase of detail programming and solicitation planning and execution, which is all of the things that you see on that that colorful top line there. Again, I just want to point out that we built in Council check ins and offerings along the way or clauses even as we do acknowledge the cost of this endeavor and certainly as we've seen this past year. Events that might cause staff to pivot to address other issues. To the point of the pre development costs, or the cost of what we're incurring today if we, and if we move forward, pre development costs could be considered part of the project costs, and could be included in the financing options. So I understand from JLL that most P three mechanisms do have room for soft costs like pre planning. And with that, I will now hand it over to director Judy to go over the next three slides so if you could. Next slide please. Thank you very much race. And thank you to the council members for allowing the county the opportunity to come and present some information about our process. As noted, we have been working in parallel in partnership with the city for over four years now to try to build a shared understanding of the P three financing model, and the opportunities that we both have to replace aging facilities, and then additionally to look to see what sort of synergies could be created between the city and the county in that partnership together. So in partnership with the staff level, we have evaluated potential sites that are owned by the city in the downtown area, as well as considered privately owned sites that might facilitate the county moving downtown. We may have shared the objective of replacing our outdated and inadequate facilities that are no longer cost effective for us to support to operate and overall the objective of reducing our climate impacts from operations. The county's cost per square foot of operating facilities on our administration campus has increased 41% in the last 10 years, increasing from $2 and 33 cents a square foot in 2010 to $4 and one cent a square foot now in 2020 last year. These increases were primarily driven by the age of our existing buildings, 80% of which are well beyond their useful life. Meanwhile, due to staffing reductions, our building mechanics are now managing twice the square footage per person that they were managing in 2010. County staff presented the financial rationale for replacing our campus buildings and a comprehensive report to our board of supervisors in May of 2019. However, the objective of replacing the county's facilities has been in front of our board of supervisors since the 1980s, and at least several directors prior to me have attempted to bring that forward to the board for a decision. The county has partnered over those years with internationally recognized consultants, including HOK and Gensler to evaluate options for the overall property portfolio. And similar to the count to the city's contract, the deep bench that Risa mentioned, the county is currently working with PFAL and Nausman to prepare a P3 solicitation to replace our administrative facilities. Next slide please. The PFAL analysis provided to our board in January evaluated multiple options, including those at the county government center campus in downtown Santa Rosa and at the airport. The criteria presented evaluated the capacity of each site to accommodate the overall program, design considerations and complexity, the schedule and acquisition impacts, and the relative cost of each location. The decision of where to locate facilities is a board of supervisors policy decision is not being driven the staff level. The county has over 4000 employees. Half are either providing neighborhood based services or they serve as justice partners and will continue to remain at the county campus or out distributed throughout Sonoma County. The county's base case need for administrative offices is 696,699 square feet. And we originally considered industry standard of 2787 parking spaces based on a formula of one parking space to 250 square feet of office space. We also considered a reduced square footage based on continuing the successful remote work model that we have all deployed in the last year responding to COVID. The focus of our discussion with the city has been on parking because we already know we can fit the program that the county has in either the city hall site or the White House sites. The county's subsequent analysis has really evaluated subsequent to January's presentation has evaluated parking ratios similar to those that were studied by JLL were 68% of employees would have parking available 32% of employees would not have a parking space, which is consistent with continuing that remote work model. The resulting need for parking is 2358 spaces. This includes 1661 spaces for the employees expected to move to new facilities fleet parking fleet needs and customer parking needs. Next slide please. The county received this comprehensive analysis of the potential sites and the relative cost of each site in January. The board directed that the ad hoc work with the city to further evaluate potential opportunities in the downtown, involving the acquisition of a combination of the White House or library and city hall sites, specifically focused on opportunities and specifically focused on opportunities to address the parking needs. Subsequently, we we refined our data on client parking and adopted the same formula that the city is using of 68% employee parking. So we need a total of just to remind you 2358 parking spaces, which is essentially the entirety of the vacant city parking garage spaces that were identified in the Walker study, as well as additional on site parking. We directed that the ad hoc return to the full board and bring back further analysis in order to make a site decision so that we could move forward in July. As mentioned, the county's ready to move forward into the next phase, which is our solicitation phase. Once the site decision is made, consistent with the timeline, we intend to to issue our RFQ request for qualifications in September, and then we will announce a short list of p3 developers in December of this year, then the qualified p3 entities will prepare proposals for consideration for award in June of 2022, and so on moving through the major milestones to occupancy in June of 2022. We look next slide please. We continue to partner with the city and share the objective of replacing our facilities and ensuring that our operations meet our climate goals. And further we share the objective and appreciate the city's support of dedicating surplus properties to develop much needed housing in both the communities. Thank you, I'll turn it back over to you, Risa. Thank you, Karen. Okay, so that brings us to our list of options for council to consider. For starters, we need to know if the council is interested in moving forward with or without the county as a co-location partner. Assuming the council's interest in some degree of co-location, you know, the other part of that is what is your interest in accommodating the county's needs downtown or, and this question was asked in us asking the county to come downtown. Conversely, would the council at all consider moving the city administrative services to the current county administrative site? So basically moving uptown. And while I note here there are other potential partner opportunities and considerations, I again believe that that would be better handled under a follow-up study session. Next slide. So succinctly, I hope, to meet the July 20th Board of Supervisors meeting needs, the questions the county needs answered today to consider moving some of their functions to a new downtown project site includes site acquisition, which bluntly they are looking to require little to no cost, parking agreement, and an understanding of the surplus timeline or essentially an agreement on the timeline I think Director Judy had mentioned by June for the city to surplus the properties to the county. Before I ask Director Judy if there's anything else you want to add, I do want to let you know that all of the remaining slides on here and there are many are there for reference and can be called upon if you have specific questions. I also want to remind you who from the city team, we have available to answer questions today, and those are assistant city manager nets acting planning division director bill rose parking manager can may do real estate manager. Jill Scott, and our financial advisor Bob gamble, and then also in addition to director Judy is office of resiliency and recovery director. And we're going to talk about crystal kitty cat oh, and before we conclude challenge there anything else you want to add before I hand it over to Council. Now that's it. Right so thank you very much for succinctly representing the basically the three things that we need that are part of our financial analysis that we need to bring back to our board in June in July. Thank you. All right, Council wants to start with questions. Council member Sawyer. Thank you, Mayor. This is a question that probably very difficult to answer, potentially from staff. Are we able at this juncture. Do we have enough questions answered to be able to answer these three questions. Well, we have enough information under our belts to be able to answer these questions. We know what the cost and I might ask Jill Scott to come on, if I may, and we know the cost of the of the White House site, which I believe is the preferred site for the county. And so, we do have enough information I think with between Jill and also Kim may do our parking director parking manager. Those are the two core elements we understand how much parking we have we understand what the cost is, and we would have to get to the negotiation which is something that Jill would do on behalf of the city, and we would have to to understand the impacts on parking on not just the city's uses and needs, but also we've considered those parking spaces surplus parking for the growth and use of other private development. And so Jill do you want to speak to that a little bit as well. Sure, I'm happy to rise I really stated pretty clearly what I think we're going to need going forward. Most of this we can talk about in closed session regarding price surplus timeline from the timeline set forward I think if council can is comfortable making some decisions we can meet the timelines. I wouldn't say concern but my biggest. I think the thing that council really needs to come out of this is that our site is not quite ready to go forward and the county is ahead of us, not knowing which site the county is going to choose. Council just needs to be aware that White House site could be one of those and it was also one that was available to the city that wouldn't require swing space so we want to make sure that councils aware of that going forward and as far as the acquisition timeline I think we can meet it if, if we can make some decisions. If I could chime in Council Member Sawyer. I think both rice and Jill hit the nail on the head which is we have enough information to move forward it's really a function of whether council would like us to proceed with some, some fairly difficult discussions about the future of the park and how that impacts potential future development. It may, it may fit nicely. It may be a challenge. We do have some other parking issues that are going on in the downtown at this point in time which, which sort of highlights some of the difficulties with that we've had, but I do believe that we've got enough basic information we're just kind of look, we're just looking for a council council concurrence to continue to pursue sort of what we talked about last week which is are we going to look in an aggressive manner in an effort to try to bring the county downtown or not. Thank you Mr. not that that's very helpful and Mayor are you you're looking for questions only at this point. Yeah. All right. Council Member sorry I do want to add to or just for the benefit of everybody, you know whatever we decide with the county because we're so far but I think Joe might have said this, and I missed it. But you know it really affects what our options are in the future for our own needs and so it just to restate that point where we can get there, and then we would narrow our options. Thank you very much. Any other questions from Council director I've got a question for you and it it's really just sort of a how out of the box or be able to think about this. So, for example, when we talk about adequacy of parking. Is there a direction that the county have that you have is it specific to on that site, or within a specific distance, or for example, if the city wanted to utilize an existing another property that we have in the downtown core with the guarantee of running a shuttle bus at specific times, so that your site, your staff could park off site and still get to the buildings. Is that an adequate agreement. Thank you. We did look at out of the box kind of concepts, including, you know, what does it, what is the available parking within a five block radius of the White House or the city hall site. We figured that five blocks was probably a reasonable walking distance for for employees. It's a little longer than we would like to have clients, but having a shuttle service is a very effective way of helping folks employees and clients get to services, you know, particularly in the winter months when hopefully we'll have a little more rain than we did this year. So, you know, addressing transportation transit connectivity with the shuttle is an excellent idea so thank you for that. So just to make sure that I'm clear so you've got a five block radius for walking. Does that radius get extended if we can come up with a partnership that involves a shuttle or other types of transportation. It's a question of where, you know, where can we find those parking spaces. We spent a fair amount of time looking through the Walker study at what was available, or listed as unoccupied in various garages and lots. We didn't consider street parking, metered parking as really a viable option for employees in particular. As sure we've all experienced the sort of situation where we have employees running out to feed meters, it's productivity loss. So, we did look comprehensively. Also, after our as I indicated after our January presentation, we really drilled down and we did a in depth analysis with our department heads about the number of visitor trips that they are seeing, and sort of augmented numbers that I presented to you with that that visitor frequency. We do have significant number of visitors that receive, you know, they come to county facilities for services. I think our overall visitor count daily count was 1431 visits. Of course, not all of those folks are arriving at exactly the same time and looking for a parking space, but just to recognition that that high number of trips. You know, in the current world. It's a lot of it's a lot of traffic coming in and searching for parking spaces. So we really do need solutions that are providing that parking in particular for our clients. Absolutely. And I do want to acknowledge in particular I've spoken with the chair and other supervisors who have much more rural districts, and there is concern about their constituents having access to county services as well. So I did want to acknowledge that like council members what help. You might quite I'm struggling with this parking issue to and I just want to rise if you have any idea, like when the state building was built or the federal building. Where are those employees and guests are just to visit our state or government officials. Unfortunately, the parking manager and they know it's not on but I have talked to her about this and I believe that they mostly have spots through permits in the D Street garage. And I think that's the most frequently used garage. Yeah, because I know is on. Would you like me to have her answer that. Sure, I'm just looking at other people have done it just like what we're trying to do. And again on that same block. They didn't build new parking structure. I don't think they did anyway. I know there's some surface for the federal building maybe the state building. But I'm like the mayor is, you know, how creative can we get with some of the solutions. You know, look at some of our housing development downtown were uncoupling parking with residential housing. I know it's different than a governmental entity, but how creative can we get. And I'm wondering how the feds in the state got creative. Kim would you like to answer that. Yes, good afternoon. When the state building was constructed, they did enter into an agreement with the city to for the city to provide parking at the D Street garage across the street. And initially they actually had a and Jill will correct me. I'm going to call it an easement but I might be using the wrong terminology. They actually had acquired parking in the garages or in that garage for their fleet and for some of their tenants. And they gave that up about five years ago, and how they're they still have some permits in that garage but I don't know beyond the permits, which are small now that they acquire from the city. I'm not sure how they're handling parking. And of course, you know, with the current conditions, I think a lot of people are working remotely. And as far as the federal building goes, we do not in my tenure anyway, have not had any arrangements with with the federal building regarding parking, and they do have their own lots. They have two lots, or you could maybe look at it as one big lot. And presumably that is serving their, their needs. Kim for those lots of the federal building and just so we're talking about the same ones. I believe those are just for employees, not for community members. That's my understanding. Thanks. And Council Member Schwedhelm I think that's part of the question that we're asking Council is, is how aggressively should we as staff be looking to try to accommodate the request coming from the county. We have had as staff a number of different conversations about exactly what you're saying, looking at what the city's new normal is based on our downtown plan, how we're interacting with our private entities. The county has come and evaluated the JLL study which we utilized as Carolyn mentioned to be able to state that they've made some adjustments that are more in line with what we're looking at. And we, we're still not necessarily walk. We're not necessarily seeing the future the same way per se. And, and I think that's where I think staff is hoping to receive some feedback from Council is to whether or not we're, we're comfortable continuing to negotiate with the county recognizing we may have a different long term vision on how we incorporate parking into a program of this size. And raise it with your earlier presentation on slide 12 and talk about the estimated project costs between 283 and 285 million. Those numbers for me are almost like funding numbers right at this point given our recent experience with building a fire station. How was parking factored into just that city perspective that you started out the presentation on. Do you mean like all the development that we're pursuing in the downtown area. Well, more so, again on slide 12 is that utilizing available spaces or is that 283 to 285 million incorporating building a new parking structure for city employees. No, we were not anticipating building a new parking structure for city. So it would that includes it would be the parking needs for the city would be status quo and it anticipates us incorporating the status quo numbers or needs that we have now specifically for fleet for city purposes. Furthermore, there's been an acknowledgement that we anticipate not meeting as many say staff parking spaces that is a programmatic question that may change over time, as well as, you know, again linking things to our climate action plan etc. So we're looking to have flexibility to more parking, as I think is common these days generally into other uses in the future. Great, thank you. Just kind of following up on that question. Does the county's analysis of your existing site. Does that require an addition of a new parking structure or new flat lot. We depend upon the board of supervisors objectives for using surface existing surface parking for housing development on the county site, and the extent of that housing development overall in the 42 acres or so that we have available. We anticipate that because of the new state courthouse and the loss of three, four parking lots associated with the acquisition of property by the state that we will need to build a parking structure on the county site. And that structure is again going to depend upon the extent of the housing build out and any additional mixed use kind of needs associated with that. Okay. Vice Mayor, did you have something. I just wanted to say in listening to all this and 2358 parking spots. I want us to remember both county and city that we are really trying to gear towards people not driving as much and using public transportation and the impact that it has on the environment. So, I know that we have to look at this number of slots but I know the county has programs where they encourage their employees to go ahead and find alternative means of transportation and the mayor was talking about a shuttle maybe getting a smart train and seeing if, you know, but just having some partnering mask transit, you know, so people can have alternative means to getting to work that doesn't take away from the public meeting to utilize the sites but just kind of think out of the box on that part too. Yeah, and we'll do we'll do comments after public comment as well. But I just want to reiterate that what we have in front of us right now is is the director who has a directive from her board with the expectation that that we find a way to make this work. I know I've spoken with Supervisor Corsi and others on the board as well about whether or not I think that they're they should be incorporating their climate action plan, a little bit more. But I just want to reiterate for the council that what we have in front of us as a director who has direction from her board is we're trying to figure out how we can make that that work. With that I'll go to public comment. So folks are interested in giving comment on this presentation or to ask questions go ahead hit the raise hand feature on your zoom or go ahead and hit star nine if you're participating on phone. We'll start with Willard, followed by you. There are several things we can agree on. It's advantageous to have the new government office class close enough to the smart station that many workers will walk. Now is not an ideal time to be building Parker parking structures. The imperative causes a need to drastically decrease petroleum use by decreasing vehicle miles traveled, and the advent of autonomous vehicles make future parking needs uncertain. Santa Rosa has an excess of parking spaces, but most are not near the office sites discussed today. Santa Rosa Plaza has gates that separate a portion of the parking structure for employees, and also sales parking permits. And the city owns a large parking lot across the street from Macy's that is close to the Santa Rosa Park Plaza parking structure. But the city has an agreement with cornerstone properties to develop that side. Cornerstone properties owns the press Democrat building and plans to repurpose it. And the up to not this building is on the same block as the parking lot and the BD building and is advertising that space is available. Based on those things my comment is I expect there is a price that would persuade cornerstone in the city to change course. And enter into negotiations to locate the new government office center on the block that has the parking lot and the BD building. I expect the agreement would be negotiated with the Plaza the section off the portion of its parking structure for government employees. In the same way its own employees are sectioned off and that visitors to the government center could have their parking validated. Some plans just discussed include replacing the county library. Would it be easier to relocate some of the businesses now on the same block as the BD building. Does eliminating the need for a new parking structure lower the costs enough to compensate for the cost of persuading the cornerstone properties and the city to change plans. Are there cost advantages being closer to the smart station so less shuttle services needed. I would like to hear that this option has been explored and that some of these questions have been answered. And that the discussions properly address the climate imperative that requires us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Thank you. Thank you Willard. It's got a hue. Let's go ahead and unmute you here. Yes, can you hear me. There we go. Q futrol representing the downtown Action organization. I chair and ad hoc committee of the deal which is created to support the re-location of county facilities into under the downtown core because of the very significant multiplayer economic effects for downtown including sparring housing demand and other benefits. The ad hoc committee is comprised of various experience development design. including Peter Stanley and Charles Evans, Tom Robertson, myself, together with Peter Rumble and Caden Zallinson. As you know, we've made proposals to the county and the city to, on a pro bono basis, provide some additional technical analysis to assist that decision-making process. And we do appreciate the focus of the city and city staff and the county on this possibility. So we strongly encourage the city to take affirmative steps to facilitate the county being able to make a positive decision because of the potential impact on the public interest and time, of course, may be drawing short to accomplish that. So we wanted to emphasize a few other points going forward. One, again, we stand ready to assist the county and city to provide our technical knowledge to supplement the work of third-party consultants. Third-party consultants often are limited in time and focus and market knowledge, and we can help vet that on a pro bono basis, our organization and the more than 100 property owners and several hundred merchants that we represent, obviously have a keen interest in this. Second, on the issue of parking, there's no doubt that there may be some surplus, but I would not overstress that to achieve the city's general plan goals, even without a county relocation, that surplus can disappear very, very swiftly. So I would encourage, and the ad hoc committee would encourage, council be very cautious about this. It is, in fact, extremely probable that a high degree of structured parking would be required for the county to locate into the White House site. Despite all the praiseworthy and important objectives related to climate action, that is almost inevitability and there shouldn't be any illusions about that. And finally, regardless of the decisions that are made, we stand ready at all times to assist the city on a pro bono basis. Those of us who are on this committee and who are active in the field have deliberately absented ourselves from any possibility of responding to RFPs so that our motivation and the DAO's motivation can be clearly understood. So we strongly encourage affirmative steps, reasonable affirmative steps as swiftly as possible to facilitate the county to be able to make a decision that's in the public interest. So thank you very much, Mr. Mayor and council members. Thank you so much, Hugh. Are there any other hands here for public comment? Okay, let's go on to voicemail public comments. Please do not use so much taxpayers' money. One of the boondoggle type approaches for the Land Sharks and Profiteers to come in and make big money on real estate developing what's actually needed as you folks to reassess how our local government has worked so well for the last year without so many employees coming in. The remote work, the social distancing has worked really well and you're still at it after 13 full months. We don't need all these extra employees downtown. Things have gone forward. You should be congratulating yourselves. You've saved some money. Now go even further and save a bunch more money by not getting involved in some bamboozling, boondoggling type bureaucratic building. It's not necessary. It's not needed. These are just politicians playing to get their things with their supporters. But typically our developers and real estate professionals, imagine that. Keep what you got and pare down the use of people even having to come in to City Hall. Remote work. You proved it. Stick with it. Hey, that concludes voice message public comment on item 3.3. Great. Thank you so much. We'll go ahead and bring it back. I did hear one question from Willard in the discussion. Wanting to know if we had any type of analysis or any type of outreach to Cornerstone related to the smart property? Are you talking about for the county to be on one of those sites? Correct. I don't believe for the county to go on to the smart site property there. But it does bring up the fact that we have had inquiries or interest from private developers saying for the city's portion that they would be interested in discussing with us additional options other than city sites. So that could be part of an ongoing discussion at a future study session. Okay. Council Member Tibbets, do you have a question? Maybe let Director Judy go. She just raised her hand. Go ahead. Oh, thank you. I just wanted to say that in our financial modeling, obviously, acquisition of a site sort of tips the balance towards the existing owned properties. So that's part of the challenge for us in looking at private sites is we need to really look at the cost effectiveness of acquisition, which of course we can do that we didn't specifically look at Cornerstone. And does your analysis also include potential sale price for some of the land at the current county complex to offset the cost of site acquisition? So we haven't quite got there yet. That's part of what we'll be bringing back to our board in July is looking at all the puts and takes, the least cost savings that come from consolidating properties, then also looking at the opportunities for sale of county assets that would no longer be needed if we were able to consolidate and build new facilities. So that's that'll be part of what we bring back in July. Okay. Council Member, if I could chime in just a second. I just want to clarify for what Mr. Richards was asking about the lot too because the city's in an exclusive negotiating agreement with Cornerstone for the sale of that property or for the development. We did not that was not included in the available properties for the county during our discussion. So so we the city did not bring that up as an option. Great. Thank you. Jack. Thanks Mayor. I just want to kick kick off the feedback loop if it's the right time. Yeah, I'll go ahead and have you start, but I'll have Bryce to just remind the council one more time what specific feedback she's looking for. And I'll have you started off. Yeah. I mean, I think the core point here is that if the council is not willing to negotiate 2300 parking spaces for the county, I think that is the critical place where it would probably halt the conversation. And then thereafter, because would be the acquisition of the land, because we would have the site acquisition of whatever parcels are decided upon because we can get to closed session to negotiate those deals. But but what we would have to do now is decide even if the 2300 parking spaces is an option for this council. Okay. So I'll kick it off. I am willing to to negotiate on parking. I do want to see a parkless or park parking free downtown, but I just don't think that's that's the reality. I think we need to start that negotiation in order to find alternative creative solutions, but I'm definitely supportive. I'm also willing to have conversations around county's acquisition of the necessary land and taking any steps to investigate how do we do that vis-à-vis surplus property as well. Right. So was there any more on that slide? I'm sorry. I was going off of it, but I think those were generally your two questions. Yeah, because the the question of the site acquisition leads to the surplus timeline. And I think we can leave that in closed session. We can negotiate that piece of it. Great. And yeah, for whatever it's worth, and I know it's liable to change and likely to change. I was also a big fan of option A that you presented. And yeah, I just, I think that we need to be aggressive about this. I think that the city needs to take steps necessary to being a good partner to the county because I think the county in this conversation is the group that is likely to kind of break the chain of events. If it doesn't work for them, it's easy for us all to just stay put and status quo. And obviously the city has the most I think to gain, particularly our downtown, where we've been focusing so much of our efforts. We have a renewal enterprise district focusing its efforts and all kinds of development going on there. So I do want to see us be aggressive. I think financing tools, especially enhanced infrastructure finance districts, this is a good time to talk about that. I'm a little bit reluctant on the special district taxation, at least we need to obviously have a conversation with the district that just formed there and how amenable would they be to another layer of taxation. But I think there's a lot of tools that we can look at to make this work. The one question I do have is the library. And if you mentioned something, I missed it, but I just want to make sure that we're actively talking with the library because I know that we've had issues with that building. I don't know if they're looking to move or not, but I think any new civic center should include them, at least part of the conversation, to see if there's an opportunity to co-locate with them as well. Yes. So absolutely the library is part of the consideration. We have not opened a conversation with them about specifics for their programming needs, but we recognize two things. One, that they have a dated and two small building, and two, that there are more opportunities related to the library to offer a sort of 24-7 sort of off-hours programming opportunities to make sure that the whatever site that we potentially develop has other active uses besides government. And I have to say they're not the only ones in which we've had preliminary discussions in looking to consider within a county, I'm sorry, not a county complex, but a government, a city government complex. And so we have not yet pursued those conversations to a point where we would have accurate programming assumptions, but that is in the next phase. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Thank you, Council Member. A really quick question for the city manager on the site acquisition portion of this. What specifically would that entail in terms of staff impact? Does, is that Jill having to do an assessment of our existing facilities to be able to have that discussion or is the team ready to have that conversation? It will include an appraisal, but right now we're trying to get direction and try to understand where Council is on this issue. You know, we've already communicated, the county communicated to us asking for direction on a series of these items by May 18th. We've made it clear and you, and I've communicated that to both the mayor and Council Member Sawyer that that is not possible, but we are here to listen, get direction from the council and move forward. But we can't move that quickly. I've communicated back that this is, this could very well be to the county administrator, depending on the outcome here, we would be back evaluating things for the summer. So we're ready to move forward in those conversations, but that's an example of additional work that Ms. Scott and her team need to do an appraisal. We need to get into closed session. But, but again, as Mr. Futrell mentioned and Ms. Judy mentioned, there would be significant costs associated with building a parking facility. And who's paying those costs? I say we have a lot of conversations to be had, if that's the way we want to go. So there's, while we're here, there's a lot of uncertainty. I will say a little bit of this exercise and the mayor and Council Member Sawyer knows that has been, again, not not blaming the county, but how are you going to help us solve the problem? We need to hear from you about where you want to go. Parking is going to be an issue. We may want that it's clear the county has needs. I suspect we've gotten refined numbers over the weekend. Just this weekend, we got the 2300 number after the really hard work the county staff did to try to understand better their need. But there's a long way to go in that conversation, including how do we meet that need? Do we have existing spaces? It's going to be a busy summer getting through a lot of these questions, but appraisal is going to be one of the first things we need to do to understand the value to begin that process. Great. Thank you. Council Member Fleming. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you to everybody who worked so hard to make this presentation come forward today. I think that there's some countervailing initiatives that, for us, is on the city side of things, which is we want to bring development to downtown. I know that I believe that a city-county co-location would add to, I believe not only the service availability for residents of the city and county, but additionally for transfer city staff and county staff to work more collaboratively and have a vibrant downtown. On other hand, it's very clear that the county wants parking and may need the parking that they're saying that they want, and I find that to be really problematic in terms of developing a dense downtown and trying to meet our climate needs that our housing needs. And so I feel inclined to be very aggressive in getting the county location for one of our surplus locations. But the parking continues to give me heartburn, and I'm not there yet, and I know that that's inconvenient. But one of the things that I think about is how so many times in the past in this city, we have believed that we needed to develop at all costs in terms of, you know, and that's led us really with the surplus of parking that we have now. And so, you know, if we actually had, if we were under-parked, we would end up investing more in public transit and bike lanes and so forth. So, you know, it's a bit of a chicken and egg thing, but I think that we need to lead with our values here first, which is, you know, we want to be collaborative and good partners, but we also really need to be clear that parking is not a priority in our downtown and don't want to tell the county how to do their business and interrupt their flow for all of our neighboring county land and cities. You know, so I understand that the parking may be something they need. I just don't know that it's going to work for our downtown. So, I'm interested to hear what the rest of my colleagues have to say. All right, Council Member Sawyer. Thank you, Mayor. Well, what Council Member Fleming speaks to about the parking does resonate with me. I have heartburn about the idea of building another parking garage. I was really hoping that we had built our last one. That being said, I have been, after having been in business in downtown for 35 years and seen any number of projects that were meant to change the success of the downtown, this in addition to housing could be one of the most transformative projects ever initiated in our downtown. And, you know, we've tried beandering 4th Street and we have, and even the San Jose Plaza was touted as being the savior of the downtown. There are a list a mile long of initiatives that have tried to help us with the downtown once we lost it as our core shopping environment and started to branch out into other parts of our city, which is a natural thing that cities do, the downtown suffer. It continues to be a financial center and I expect that to continue long into the future. The fact that it could also be a housing center and a governmental center co-locating the county in the city I think would be a coup, not only for the employees, but also for our residents as well. So I agree with Mr. Futrell. I'm looking for, considering reasonably any affirmative steps for co-locating the county's, those parts of the county administration offices that they are looking to move or eliminate from the current campus or at least reorient them if they stay in their current location. So this is an opportunity that will never come again. I would like to continue the conversation. It is unfortunate that the timeline is so short. I wish we had more time. I would hope that we could have more time for something that will affect us for the next half century, if not longer. So I'm looking for that conversation about reasonably or reasonable alternatives steps to co-locating the county administration offices downtown and including whatever is necessary in the site acquisition, the parking agreement, and of course the surplus conversation. So I am looking forward to moving forward in a reasonable way and I know that won't be easy, but I'm willing to give it the best shot we possibly can and hope that both of us, the county and the city working together, can achieve those goals that we both find very, very important. Thank you. Thanks, Council Member. Council Member Alvarez. Thank you, Mayor. I agree with the concerns about the parking. I also believe that this will be the, maybe not the last time, but for the stars to have aligned that our building is outdated and the county's buildings are also outdated. I believe it's a true opportunity for us to really solidify and bring together the two agencies. I want to see you move forward. I do not lose concern over the parking, but I think it's a great opportunity we should take advantage of. And for downtown Santa Rosa, it's imperative. It's dead in the water and I see it definitely be a way we can revitalize. Okay. Council Member Sweatham. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you, Director Jiti, for participating in this Council meeting. I know you probably have a laundry list of other things you'd be doing for the county, so I appreciate your attendance here and hearing what we have to say directly. So, first of all, we've started this discussion. I really look at this from a community perspective, and to me it's an absolute benefit, I think, for all the community for us to do that, develop this jointly. I'm choosing to use the 2300 or whatever the parking figure is as a discussion point. I think we can continue to, or the dialogue there, and it's not a drop dead number. If you don't do this, we can't do it. I really hope we continue to discuss and have, you know, let's make this work, let's provide the direction. We want to do this jointly because it's in the best interest of the community. One of the other things, too, I know, you know, thank you, Ry, for explaining the process to date where we are now, because I really think there is a lot of local talent and expertise that can help us, you know, more minds, especially, we heard from Mr. Futrell and I've heard from others, and maybe have some other creative solutions that let's solicit their input there. One of the other things, too, is, you know, when I've been thinking about this for years, I think there's some other opportunity sites that haven't been mentioned. You know, I really don't think we need a mail delivery building right and smacking our downtown. So I think there are some other opportunity sites that we can take advantage of, and I know there's pros and cons for all those. But I will just remind, you know, those of us that have been on council for a while, and even the new folks on council, it took us 30 years to annex Roseland, but we did it, right? We stayed focused. I am the prize, we stayed focused. Reunification of the court has square. Some folks said it would never happen. But if we work together, we will find a way, and that's what I'm hoping we'll be able to do this. So I say let's proceed forward working together with the county. Thank you, Council Member. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Director Cutie, for coming. I hope my comment did not make it as if I was not grateful for your presentation and for you being here. But you guys know how I feel about the parking, but equally, I feel that this could be a great opportunity for the county and the city. So I would like us to keep the dialogue open to see how we can continue to move forward in hopes that as the dialogue progresses that we can come up with alternative forms for parking. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think for me, and you've all heard me say this before, this is a catalytic project for our downtown. And I know that the parameters that staff is working with are very narrow from the direction of the Board of Supervisors. I will continue to talk with each of the supervisors and make sure that they understand both the desire from the Council to implement our climate action plans specifically around parking, but also our urban three study that shows that it's in the best interest of the county to put investments in downtown because the return on our economics is so much greater in this area when we invest. I am all in favor of us moving forward for our staff to talk about the acquisition of the site. Jill and your team, I know you do a great job and let us know when you need to come back to closed session to talk with us. Same thing with the surplus timeline. And then, yeah, let's be creative about how we find the parking. I know that your direction right now is to find 2,358 parking spaces. And I know that staff is going to work hard to try to help make you find those numbers. And in the meantime, I think all of the Council members can go elected to elected and advocate for more outside of the box thinking about how we make those needs meet. I'll also point out that once this project is downtown, I anticipate an increased demand in some of the housing projects that we're working on. So your 2,358 might reduce just by having folks who are located within that five block radius that you're talking about as well. It's going to take time as Council Member Schwedhelm said. And I hope that you see the city as a partner doing it. I hope you take these comments back to the Board of Supervisors and really just illustrate to them that we're trying to do something that is going to be really impactful and meaningful for both of our constituencies. So let's find a way to get it done. With that, is there any other direction needed? Reisa, Judy? No, thank you so much. That we can pursue this then with an understanding of what your interests are. So thank you very much. Thank you very much, Council. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak and your thoughtful comments. Great. So that's our last study session. We do have a regular City Council meeting that starts at four o'clock. The Council will go ahead and take a 45-minute break and come back at four. For those of you just joining the meeting, there are interpreters on the line and a Spanish channel is available. You can listen to live translation on the Spanish channel by clicking on the Zoom toolbar icon. It looks like a globe. Once you join the Spanish channel, we recommend you shut off the main audio so you clearly hear the Spanish translation. Pablo, would you be able to repeat that in Spanish? Thank you. All right. And Madam City Clerk, I am seeing a quorum. So can we go ahead and call the roll? Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Tibbets? Here. Council Member Schwedhelm? Here. Council Member Sawyer? Here. Council Member Fleming? Here. Council Member Alvarez? Present. Vice Mayor Rogers? Present. Mayor Rogers? Here. Let the record show that all Council Members are present. Great. Thank you so much. Let's go ahead and start with our report out from our closed sessions. Madam City Attorney, do you have anything to disclose? Yes. I'll report out on all three items. The Council met in closed session and discussed public employment of the City Manager. In that item, Council did receive an update on recruitment for an interim City Manager and an update on the recruitment for the permanent City Manager. Second item 2.2, Council met with its labor negotiators and gave direction to the negotiators. On item 2.3, Council met with legal team concerning existing litigation, the name of the cases, Palio v. Utility Partners of America, and the Council gave direction to the legal team on next steps. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much. We'll go on to our proclamations. We do have 2 tonight. We'll start with item 6.1, a proclamation for Affordable Housing Month, and I believe Council Member Schwedhelm. I believe that's your item. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, it's my pleasure to read this proclamation. Whereas Affordable Housing is good for businesses, people, and the quality of life in the city of Santa Rosa, and whereas our community thrives when all families have a place to call home, and whereas Affordable Housing is an essential element of our equitable COVID-19 and fire recovery processes, Affordable Housing plays a key factor in attracting and retaining a quality workforce pool, provides a foundation for people who need a hand up to improve their lives and benefits the entire community, and whereas the City of Santa Rosa and Housing Authority of the City of Santa Rosa have made affordable housing an important goal to be achieved by providing annual funding for the development of new units and our decreasing barriers to the construction and rehabilitation process, and whereas an adequate supply of single and multifamily rental housing and home ownership units is necessary throughout the city in order to meet the needs of all economic segments of the city's population, as well as all demographic segments of the City of Santa Rosa's residents, and whereas the City of Santa Rosa is committed to safe, stable, and affordable housing for all its residents, and whereas United to Raise Public Awareness, participating with organizations throughout Santa Rosa and Local Affordable Housing Month to elevate the critical need to preserve and increase affordable housing in our communities, and whereas these organizations are encouraged to partner with local agencies and community members to recognize Affordable Housing Month, which supports the sharing of best practices, opportunities, and solutions to provide affordable housing that is the right of all individuals, and whereas the City Council supports the efforts of the Housing Authority in developing and sustaining affordable housing, the valuable services provided to the residents of Santa Rosa. Now therefore be it resolved that Chris Rogers, the Mayor of the City of Santa Rosa on behalf of the entire City Council, is hereby proclaim May as Affordable Housing Month, and I think we do have one of our key community partners, Jen Close, here to make some comments during public portion. Councilmember Schwedhelm, Jen was supposed to be on the line, but we didn't know that we were going to be this far into the schedule or into the agenda this early in the game, so I believe she was going to be on at 4.30, my apologies. I know she's thinking about us, but back to you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you so much, and we can definitely hear from her in our public comment a little bit later on today. We have a second proclamation. It's item 6.2. It's our proclamation for Sexual Assault Awareness Month. The recipient is Chris Castillo with Verity, who I think is also likely to speak a little bit later in the agenda, and Councilmember Fleming, you have this item. Thank you, Mayor. It's my pleasure. Whereas Sexual Assault Awareness Month is intended to draw attention to the fact that sexual violence is widespread and has a profound and lasting impact on every community member in Sonoma County, and whereas Verity Sonoma County's rape, crisis, trauma, and healing center worked with over 1,000 survivors in Sonoma County in 2020, and whereas national research indicates that one in five women will be raped at some point in their lifetime, and nearly half of all women will experience some form of sexual violence, and whereas one in 17 men will be raped at some point in their lifetime, and one in five men will experience some form of sexual violence, and whereas young people are at greatest risk of sexual violence, and youth aged 12 to 17 are two-and-a-half times more likely to be raped, essentially assaulted or more than their adult counterparts, and whereas disabled people, people of color, queer people, homeless people, transgender people, undocumented people, youth and foster care, and people of under-marginalized entities are even more likely to be victimized by sexual violence, and whereas over 18,000 members of the military and over 80,000 people who are incarcerated experience sexual violence every year, and whereas with leadership, dedication, and encouragement, there is evidence that we can be successful in preventing sexual violence in the City of Santa Rosa throughout increased education, awareness, and community involvement, and whereas the City of Santa Rosa strongly supports the efforts of Verity and encourages every resident to actively engage in public and private efforts to end sexual violence, including conversations about what sexual violence is, how to prevent it, how to help survivors of all backgrounds connect with crucial counseling and other support services, and how every segment of our society can work together to better address sexual violence. Therefore, be it resolved, the City of Santa Rosa reaffirms its commitment to address the issues of rape and sexual violence by remembering victims, believing and supporting survivors, fully perpetrators accountable for their actions and challenging social myths, societal myths, and behaviors that perpetuate sexual violence in our community, and now therefore be it resolved that Chris Rogers on behalf of the entire City Council reaffirms its commitment to address the issues of rape and sexual violence by remembering victims, believing and supporting survivors, holding perpetrators accountable for their actions and challenging social myths and behaviors that perpetrate sexual violence in our community and do hereby proclaim able to be sexual assault awareness month. Thank you, Council Member. We'll go to public comment for items 6.1 and 6.2. There's anybody who is interested in speaking on either of our proclamation tonight, go ahead and hit the raise hand feature on Zoom. If you're on your phone, hit star nine. We'll start with Jessica. Hi, can you hear me? Yep. Hi, I'm on behalf of Chris Castillo. She currently is in Costa Rica at a hardware store. I was losing her. She's gone up the mountain, but she wanted to let me know that if she was in person, she'd bring you guys all her goodies or brownies and her cookies. But I just want to thank you all for just being here today. We want to thank the Santa Rosa DVSA unit and SRPD, especially giving a shout out to Tim Raymond. He's worked with our human trafficking survivors, and we just really will miss him. He's going back on, he's switching out of his role. And thank you all again. And if there's anybody who would want to speak to an advocate or receive services, the best way to get a hold of very, anybody have verities through our crisis line, that's 707-545-7273. Thank you so much, Jessica. And I hope Chris is enjoying Costa Rica. Yes, yeah. I'll let her know that you said that. I'm not seeing any other hands, so let's see if there's any voicemail public comments. There are no voice message public comments on the proclamations, Mayor. Oh, and I did just see one additional hand pop up. Let's give Luke a chance to speak. Hi, good afternoon, Mayor Rogers and Santa Rosa City Council. Sorry, I'm coming live from YouTube right now and switching over to the Zoom, so sorry about that. Here on behalf of Gen Close, who with Generation Housing was going to present you and could not make it, but really happy to be here to support your proclamation for Affordable Housing Month. As we all know, affordable housing is critical to the success of the City of Santa Rosa, our county as a whole. The strength and integrity of our community relies on everyone's ability to live here. And there are so many in our community, through the fires, through the pandemic, who are not able to afford to live here. And this is a critical part of our mission as an organization, and we really appreciate everything that you're doing. So we know that this is not an empty proclamation, you're talking the talk and you're walking the walk and we just applaud you for everything that you're doing and are appreciative of working in partnership with you to make sure that we can house more people affordably now and in the years to come. So thank you so much. Well, thank you, Luke. Thank you for being here as well. All right. Council, I'll bring it back. Any other additional comments? Great. Seeing none, we'll sign those proclamations and get them off to folks. We'll move on now. We have no staff briefings tonight. So we'll skip item seven and go to item eight, our city managers and city attorneys reports. Nothing for the city manager to report. And nothing from the city attorney either. Thank you. Okay. Madam city attorney, wasn't there a ruling that just came down that you might want to fill us all in on this? Yes. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I do appreciate that. Seems like a few days ago, but I do want to announce that we did get a the final ruling in our litigation concerning our all electric reach ordinance. The hearing on the matter was back in January, late January. So we just received that, I believe on Thursday or Friday. And the judge upheld the all electric reach ordinance in full. The challenge was brought by William Gallagher, who is a local developer and no relation, different spelling. And under CEQA, filed under CEQA, made a number of different assertions that we had not complied properly with CEQA. The judge in a 35 page ruling walked through each of those steps, found that all of our citations to exemptions were appropriate. All of our procedures were appropriate and upheld the ordinance in full. So we were very pleased with that outcome. And happy to answer any questions if anyone has any questions. And thank you again, Mr. Mayor, for reminding me to report that out. I appreciate that. So I just wanted to make sure that the council had an opportunity to thank your office and your staff for a job really well done on a pretty high profile case that was brought. And I'll tell you, I've heard from other cities that were interested in moving forward, but feared litigation that now seeing a positive outcome means that they are able to move forward here in the near future as well. I'll go ahead and open up for public comment for item number nine, excuse me, item number eight, our city managers and city attorneys reports. I'm not seeing any hands. Do we have any voicemail public comments? No, sir. Great. Then we'll go ahead and move on to item number nine, statements of abstention from the council. Do we have anybody who needs to abstain from an item tonight? Seeing none, we'll go on to our council member reports who wants to start. Council member tidbits. Thank you, Mayor. Just a quick appointment. I will be appointing Steven Spillman to the board of community services. And Dina Stephanie, I don't know who's working on those these days, but I'd love to provide you with his contact information via email. Thanks. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Schwedhelmz. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just one brief thing. Just last Thursday I attended an event at Security Public Storage. Wasn't really an unveiling of a mural, but it's just a recognition of the mural. And it's a wonderful mural of Santa Rosa, different portions of it from Charles Schultz to Luther Burbank Pacific Air Coast Museum. So you're all invited to District Six on Hopper Avenue. It airways a beautiful mural that they're doing these throughout the North Bay. So we are the welcome recipient of one of those murals. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Not seeing any others. We'll go to public comment for council member reports. Again, not seeing any hands. Do we have any voicemail, public comments? We do not, Mayor. Okay, we'll keep moving then. We have four sets of minutes today. We have the February 2nd, February 9th, April 6th, and April 13th regular meeting minutes. Were there any amendments to those items? Okay. Let's check public comment, see if there were any additions from the public on those items. Seeing no hands, Madam Host, did we have any voicemail, public comments? We did not, Mayor. Great. Without objection, we'll show items 11.1 through 11.4 adopted as submitted. Mr. City Manager, go ahead and do the consent calendar. Item 12.1, Motion First Amendment to Instruction Management and Inspection Project or Order with Green Valley Consulting Engineers for Pacific Avenue Reconstruction Project. Item 12.2, Motion City of Santa Rosa Park and Garage as number 1, 521 7th Street, number 3, 5735 5th Street, number 997 D Street, and number 12555 1st Street, 2020 Repair, Scope Edition, Approval, and Contingency Action. Item 12.3, Resolution, Adoption of California Department of Transportation, Local Assistance Procedures, Manual Chapter 10, Policies and Procedures and Approval Professional Service Agreement, Professional Design and Right-Away Services for 101 Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing Project. Item 12.4, Resolution, Contract Awards, City Bus Electrical Vehicle Fleet Electrification Project. Item 12.5, Resolution, Confirming City of Santa Rosa Compliance with the State of California Circus Land Act in order to pursue current and future grant funding. Item 12.6, Resolution, Coordination Agreement with Bolt Mobility, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, Transportation Authority of Marin, and Partner Agencies to implement a regional bike share program. Item 12.7, Resolution, Approval of Appropriation of Funds for Welfare Preparedness, Mitigation Resilient Projects, Utilizing PG&E Settlement Funds. Item 12.8, Resolution, Amendment to Portrait Purchase Order 162712 with Municipal Emergency Services for Personal Protective Equipment. Item 12.9, Resolution, COVID-related Temporary Parker, Parking User Fee Reductions. Item 12.10, Resolution, Extension of Proclamation of Existence of a Local Emergency Relating to the Threat to Community Health Opposed by COVID-19. Item 12.11, Resolution, Extension of Proclamation of Existence of a Local Emergency Relating to 2020 Glass Fire. Item 12.12, Resolution, Extension of Proclamation of Local Homeless Emergency. All right, Council Member Tibbets, you have a question? Actually, a comment, Mayor, I apologize. I thought I remembered a declaration of homeless emergency. As you know, I need to abstain given my professional work for savings in Nepal. Great, thank you. Are there any other, any questions from the Council on any of the consent items? It's seeing them. We'll go to public comment. If you're interested in providing a public comment on any of the consent calendar items, go ahead and hit the raise hand feature on your Zoom or hit star nine if you are on your phone. All right, it's seeing done. Do we have any voicemail public comments? Yes, we do. One moment. Consent items 12.5 and 12.6, Dwayne DeWitt from Roseland regarding 12.5, which states the California Surplus Land Act. And it says the city, at least on this agenda, is going to pursue compliance with that act in order to pursue current and future grant funding. It brings to mind the fact that the city of Santa Rosa destroyed a number of houses on Stony Point Road. It widened a road that would have been under Public Works Department. And the land has been sitting fallow. 17 housing units were lost. It would be an excellent opportunity to explain to the community how if you're going to declare that land surplus, how it could be utilized for affordable housing to replace the housing that you tore down. And to do it in an accountable manner, actually reach out to the community and tell them the truth regarding item 12.6. This idea of a regional bike share program. This is another one of those boondoggles that you just have to look at in amazement. The city believes the smart train is going to bring so many people up here and they're going to rent bikes. When this is the bike theft capital of Northern California, look on any side street where the homeless are hanging out with all those extra bikes. They didn't buy those babies. They ripped them off. And what's going to probably happen is those rental bikes are going to end up starting to be pilfered and then shopped. Basically, like shop, shop. Mayor, that concludes voice message public comment for item 12. Great. I'll bring it back to the council. I'll make a really quick comment. I know that a lot of folks at SCTA are very proud and very excited for item 12.6, the shared bike program. There's a lot of folks who've been working pretty closely together across jurisdictions and about 1 in 10 out of all of the smart riders come via bicycle. So, when we talk about the first and last mile problem with our housing production with public transit in specific, this is one of those steps that we're taking to try to fix that. With that, Madam Vice Mayor, do you want to make the motion? Yes, Mayor. Thank you. I move items 12.1 through 12.11 in way for the reading of the text. Okay. We have a motion from the Vice Mayor, a second from Council Member Sweatham. Let's go ahead and call the roll. Council Member Tivitz. Aye. Council Member Sweatham. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Fleming. Council Member Fleming. Thank you. Council Member Alvarez. Aye. Vice Mayor Rogers. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with seven ayes. I now would like to move item 12.12 in way for the reading of the text. Second. Second. Motion by the Vice Mayor, second by Council Member Sweatham. Let's go ahead and call the roll. Council Member Sweatham. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Fleming. Aye. Council Member Alvarez. Aye. Vice Mayor Rogers. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with six ayes and Council Member Tivitz abstaining. Great. So it's not yet five o'clock, so we'll skip over our public comment for non-agenda items and come back to it later. Let's move on to item 14.1. Item 14.1 report approval of the preliminary fiscal year 2021-22 regional water reuse system operating and maintenance capital improvement and debt service budget and allocation of costs. Kimberley Zanino, Deputy Director of Administration, present. Good afternoon. Mayor Rogers, Vice Mayor and Members of the Council, before I get into the presentation, I want to give you just a little bit of background on this presentation. There are five partners that are responsible for covering the expenditures of Santa Rosa Waters Regional Reuse Facility, Runner Park, Katadi, Sevastopol, South Park Sanitation District, and Santa Rosa. And each year Santa Rosa Water brings a request to the City Council in April for a preliminary approval of the regional reuse budget. This is ahead of the regular budget study sessions, and we do this based on the requirement of our subregional agreement to provide our partners with sufficient notice of their contributions so that they have time to prepare their annual budgets for their communities. Next slide, please. As an overview, we will discuss today the budget drivers, expenditures, what each partner's contribution to the budget will be, our CIP funding, and the budget schedule. Next slide, please. The yearly budget drivers include costs for operation, a 24-hour operation, the significant number of regulations we must comply with, the deliveries per agreement to the geysers, and in the last several years the aging infrastructure has become a factor with the plant since it is now 52 years old. Next slide, please. Specific budget drivers for this year that we wanted to point out, first is at the end of last year we brought you a request for approval of a new bond for the replacement of the UV disinfection replay bar system. While we haven't heard additional debt based on that bond because of the bond sale being so successful, the increase in debt service is at $2.1 million, which is significantly better than the $3 million we had previously estimated. Professional services are also increasing this year, which is due to an agreement with a company called LizTech. LizTech is the company that we contracted with to take our biosolids when the decision was made to decommission Santa Rosa Waters biosolids composting facility. While we are seeing an increase right now because of the agreement in the long term, that decision saves us over $8.7 million in the next 20 years and a significant amount of capital costs because that facility was rapidly degrading and would have needed millions of dollars to repair. In addition, O&M projects is another increase this year and this is due to a couple of factors. The first being that aging UV system and the new compliance issues for that system, they are requiring us to do additional maintenance this year. We cannot meet our regulatory compliance until the system is completely replaced without that additional maintenance. There is also one other item that is increasing those O&M projects and that would be the combined heat and power engines and generators, which are due for a 24,000 hour service. We just could not suggest delaying either of these maintenance projects since we are already seeing an increase in emergency projects because of the aging system and emergency projects always create more risk and are more expensive. Next slide please. This is just a look at some of the fun changes. I wanted to point out that department-wide our overall operations and maintenance budgets remain flat. However, the regional budget is increasing for operations and maintenance by 1.6% and that is based on those maintenance projects that I mentioned in the previous slide. Then that debt service is increasing our debt service expenditure by about 9% this year. Next slide please. This is really just a pie chart to show you the full look at the budget. It is including some miscellaneous revenues that come into the fund. It is also including an increase to our O&M reserve, CIP funding, debt service, and then all other expenditure categories. Next slide please. This slide represents the total amount of the O&M and CIP expenditures to be allocated to the partners. Debt service is not included in this slide that will be shown in the next slide. This shows you in the top right corner you will see the total O&M for the regional reuse facility. Below that is the CIP cash fund being at $8 million this year and then as well as a small increase of $31,000 to the O&M reserves. By policy we carry a 15% O&M reserve and so therefore we have to bump that up slightly because of that increase in the operations and maintenance budget. At the bottom right you will see the total of those three items and then a reduction based on revenues that come directly into the subregional fund. There are some just miscellaneous revenues that are collected and become part of the actual fund for the subregional system. Those fees are for things like services we provide to Windsor, recycled water revenue, tipping and dumping fees, and other miscellaneous fees that are collected directly into the subregional fund. Those revenues are removed from the total amount at the very bottom right and you can see what the total distribution of O&M and CIP is to the partners. Next slide please. This chart identifies the total contribution from each of our partners. Operations and maintenance which includes the reduction for those miscellaneous revenues I mentioned. It's distributed by recorded actual flows to the plant by each of our partners. CIP cash funding is allocated based on the subregional agreement between the partners and then debt services based on the repayment schedules of the various debt. Santa Rosa's responsibility is covered fully by the wastewater rates, demand fees and other miscellaneous fees collected in the wastewater fund and we are responsible for about 73 percent of this year's budgets. Next slide please. Next slide please. So you will have seen in several of the previous slides that the cash funding this year for the regional system for CIP is $8 million and this just provides you with a simple breakdown of the types of projects being funded in year one or proposed to be funded in year one. The majority going for infrastructure to the plant and the geysers project. You will see a full look of the project lists as you go through the budget process later in the budget season and that will identify all specific projects being proposed for year one funding. Next slide please. So here's our schedule we are here today with you to request a consideration of the preliminary budget to let our partners know what that will be. This was submitted quite a while ago so you'll see that the May dates are wrong because I think should be the 18th and the 19th now for your budget study sessions and then you will have this again in front of you for consideration of adoption of the full city budget which will include this as well on June 22nd. Next slide please. So therefore it is recommended by Santa Rosa Water the sub regional technical advisory committee and the board of public utilities that the council by resolution approved the preliminary 2021-22 regional water reuse system operating and maintenance capital improvement and debt service budget and allocation of costs for the purpose of notifying the regional water reuse user agencies of their allocation of such costs by May of 2021. And with that I am well I am well mean any questions that you may have. Council any questions? Council Member Sawyer. Thank you Mayor. This is Zunino. What is our current reserve balance at Santa Rosa water and are we comfortable with that all important account? So we're looking at just the sub regional system right now. On the sub regional side we carry that 15% O&M reserve. We carry a very small reserve for catastrophic reserves because the majority of our funding comes from the wastewater fund. The wastewater fund also has and operations and maintenance reserve. It also has reserves for for catastrophic purposes as well which we are talking about possibly increasing and that would come forward as a policy decision. And so we are feeling good about especially our undesignated fund balances as well at this point as you know when we look at them we look at them from the previous year they give us a date and time. But as far as the sub regional system goes basically the way the costs work for this one is that we distributed between all five partners they all pay exactly that amount that is distributed to them each month during the entire year. And so we are feeling comfortable that you know obviously if there were to be additional disasters that we would be able to work with our partners and use at least from Santa Rosa's portion of it wastewater funds for any reserves that we would need. Excellent thank you very much. Any other questions? Let's go on to our public comment on this item then. Go ahead and hit the raise hand feature if you have a comment. Item 14.1 not seeing any. Do we have any voicemail public comments? Hey are we to not receive any voicemail public comments on 14.1? All right then I'll bring it back to the council. Are there any additional comments? Council member Tibbets this is your item. Give me just one second to pull up. Sorry mayor I'm having a hard time finding the document Dina sent out with our assignments. If anybody else has it handy that would be helpful. I could take it mayor. I'm still looking for it. Go ahead council member Sawyer. No problem we've all been there. I'd like to introduce a resolution of the council of the city of Santa Rosa approving the preliminary fiscal year 2021-2022 regional water reuse system operating and maintenance capital improvement and debt service budget and allocation of cost and wait for the reading. Second. Motion by council member Sawyer second by council member Tibbets. Let's go ahead and call the roll. Council member Tibbets. Aye. Council member Schwedhelm. Aye. Council member Sawyer. Aye. Council member Fleming. Aye. Council member Alvarez. Aye. Vice mayor Rogers. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with seven ayes. Okay. Thank you. We'll move on to item 14.2. Item 14.2 reports authorization for the city of Santa Rosa become an additional member of the California statewide communities development authority SC CDA community improvement authority approving issuance of revenue bonds by S excuse me by C SCDA community improvement authority and authorization to enter into a public benefit agreement for the acquisition of Acacia on Santa Rosa Creek Apartments at 4656 quick drive Santa Rosa Megan Bassinger interim director of housing and community services presented. Good afternoon Mayor Rogers and members of council. Next slide please. The city is being requested to join C SCDA the community improvement authority as an additional member and this is similar to other JPA arrangements that the city participates in throughout the state. C SCDA community improvement authority proposes to acquire an existing market rate rental community known as Acacia on Santa Rosa Creek through bond financing. This is located in the rink and valley area of Santa Rosa. If this is approved by council the community will be restricted to middle income households. These range from 80 to 120 percent of area median income and this is generally an income category that we are unable to assist with our affordable housing funding. Next slide please. The parameters of the transaction would allow tenants to remain in place and not be displaced through the transaction. The bonds would be issued by C SCDA specifically for this acquisition with city approval only if the city is an additional member. This helps promote the city's housing goals by protecting preserving and assisting with market rate and affordable housing units. This feeds into the housing for all strategy we have. C SCDA recently created this community improvement authority to focus on middle income housing and it's similar to other JPA's that are operating in this arena throughout the state. The cities of Anaheim and Long Beach have also participated and acquired assisted in the acquisition of existing rental complexes in recent months. Next slide please. So here you can see on the aerial the in the center of the screen is Acacia on Santa Rosa Creek. So it's located on highway 12 and then that's Mission Boulevard which is in the lower portion of the photo. Next slide please. So the proposal is to join C SCDA as an additional member which would allow the developer or other developers to access bond financing. If approved they would acquire the property and this would help secure additional middle income households to 80 to 120 percent within the city limits. The city would also be requested to enter into a public benefit agreement which would allow the city to exercise an option at year 15. At the end of the term of the bonds any sale proceeds will be split between the city the county of Sonoma and school districts and part of the rationale behind this is that because C SCDA is a governmental organization it will not pay property taxes so the reimbursement at the end of the term will help refund those losses to the organizations. Next slide please. So similar to the title it's a lengthy recommendation so it's recommended by the housing and community services department that the council by resolution authorized and this is one singular resolution authorized the city to join C SCDA the community improvement authority as an additional member approved the issuance of revenue bonds by C SCDA for the purpose of financing and acquiring the vacation on Santa Rosa Creek apartments located at four six five six quick drive and then authorized the director of housing and community services to execute the public benefit agreement between the city and C SCDA. That concludes the presentation and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Councilmember Fleming. Yes thank you for the presentation I'm curious to know of what percentage of the 80 to 120 AMI for those individuals or families will it be the traditional 30 percent of one's income? So this particular regular regulatory agreement identifies 35 percent of income so our affordable housing units that are restricted through the housing authority funds are targeted to 30 percent of income this regulatory agreement goes to 35 percent and it should also be noted that this regulatory agreement would not be administered by the city. Do we have a sense of why the deviation from the traditional model? This is and also I should note that John Penkauer who represents C SCDA is listening and participating so he may raise his hand to weigh in on the matter. This is a ceiling it's a public benefit so they are establishing affordable rents that they have not chosen to go with the 30 percent. Okay are there questions from council? We'll go to public comment. Do we have anybody interested in giving public comment on item 14.2? All right do we have any voicemail public comments? We do not mayor. All right then I'll bring it back. Let's go ahead and put a motion on the table for discussion. This is your item councilmember Swethel. Yes thank you Mr. Mayor. Please offer a resolution of the council of the city of Santa Rosa authorizing the city to become an additional member of the California statewide community's development authority community improvement authority proving the issuance of revenue bonds for the acquisition of 4656 quick drive Santa Rosa known as Acacia on Santa Rosa Creek Apartments and authorizing the director of housing and community services to enter into a public benefit agreement and waive for the reading of the text. Second. So motion by councilmember Swethel second from councilmember Tibbets. Do you have any additional input or comments from council? Councilmember Tibbets. Just yes in my backyard. All right with that we'll go to the vote. Councilmember Tibbets. Aye. Councilmember Swethel. Aye. Councilmember Sawyer. Aye. Councilmember Fleming. Aye. Councilmember Alvarez. Aye. Vice mayor Rogers. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with seven ayes. All right. We have two items left on our agenda for tonight. One is item 15.1 which is a public hearing. We will not have that before five o'clock. We also have public comment for non-agenda items that we'll do following that public hearing and so we will take a 15 minute recess here and we will reconvene at five o'clock for that public hearing. All right it's five o'clock. Let's go ahead and resume the city council meeting. Madam city clerk do you want to call the roll? This is mayor one Councilmember Tibbets. Councilmember Tibbets. Here. Councilmember Schwedhelm. Here. Councilmember Sawyer. Here. Councilmember Fleming. Here. Councilmember Alvarez. Present. Vice mayor Rogers. Present. Mayor Rogers. Here. At the record show that all councilmembers are present. Great. Mr. City Manager, item 15.1. Item 15.1. Public hearing. Public hearing authorizing submission of the fiscal year 2021-22 action plan and approval grant agreements for public services, fair housing, and housing opportunities for persons with AIDS. Once again, Megan Bassinger, interim director of housing and community services presented. Actually I'd like to introduce Angela Morgan who I believe is on and she'll be giving this presentation. She's a new program specialist with housing and community services. Thank you, Megan. Good evening council. So I will be presenting this information tonight regarding the fiscal year 2021-2022 action plan to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, also known as HUD, and funding recommendations. Next slide please. Item before you today is required by HUD to receive CDBG, home, and HOPAA federal annual allocations. We kindly request the following. Authorize the submittal of the action plan to HUD no later than May 15th, and approve funding recommendations. Next slide please. HUD requires the annual action plan to define how funds will be spent, identify housing and community development needs, priorities, goals, and strategies. Next. The action plan was created using a HUD template and based on the 2020-2024 amended consolidated plan, which is also submitted every five years. Next slide please. The priorities identified in the action plan shall increase affordable rental housing stock, provide housing assistance and support to low-income households with HIV or AIDS, preserve existing affordable housing stock, and provide housing and services to special needs populations. Next slide please. In the event that funding allocations are increased, the action plan identifies a second tier goals. They are increase access to home ownership, provide funding for public facilities and improvements, as well as promote economic development. Next slide please. Fiscal year 2021-2022 allocations for this year's funding cycle by resource are CDBG of $1,536,993, home funds in the amount of $815,307, and HAPWA in the amount of $454,734. Next slide please. Outreach efforts to encourage public comment include a virtual community meeting that we held on February 16th, notices sent out to the continuum of care listserv, social and traditional media announcements. Next slide please. Other outreach efforts include the city's websites and the city connections newsletter. Public comments received prior to plants at middle to head will be included. Next slide please. Of the fiscal year 2021-2022 CDBG allocation, 15% shall be used for public services. Under council direction staff has made the following recommendations to meet these goals. $96,000 to Catholic Charities Family Support Center, $102,000 to Catholic Charities Homeless Services Center, and $32,549 to the Living Room Center, totaling $230,549 for public services. Next slide please. Fiscal year 2021-2022 annual funding includes a federally mandated program. In response to the 2012 Sonoma County Analysis of Impediments for Fair Housing, staff recommends $36,000 to Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California from real property transfer tax funds to meet this requirement. Next slide please. Fiscal year 2021-2022 annual funding allocation include federal HOPWA funds with the goals of providing housing assistance and support for low-income households with HIV or AIDS. Staff recommends $441,092 to face-to-face and the balance of $13,642, which represents a 3% of the category funds to be used by city for administration costs. Next slide please. The fiscal year 2019-2020 annual performance reported 2,069 homeless individuals were served by public services funding. The annual HOPWA performance reported 73 households receiving housing subsidy assistance, 231 households received supportive services and 193 households received housing information. Next slide please. The annual reporting for Fair Housing activities include compliant intake, training, testing, counseling, renter seminars, and higher visibility. Next slide please. The Fair Housing Report chart indicates the population served by income levels. They are 47% at extremely low income, 23% at very low income, 8% at low income, and 15% at low to moderate income tiers. Next slide please. It is recommended by the Housing and Community Services Department that the Council by Resolution authorize submittal a fiscal year 2021-2022 action plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development HUD. Approve the fiscal year 2021-2022 grant agreements for public services, fair housing, and HOPWA funds in the amount of 707,641. Authorizing the Director of Housing and Community Services or its designee to execute the grant agreements with service providers and authority to city manager to execute the annual federal funding agreements with HUD and any additional forms or documents required by HUD to implement the fiscal year 2021-2022 action plan. Next slide please. This concludes this presentation and I am happy to address any questions. Thank you, Angela. Council, do we have any questions? Vice Mayor? All right, I was trying to figure out how to raise my hand. I should know that by now, huh? Okay, so my question is for the annual funding, the breakdown, I see there's quite a substantial amount going to Catholic Charities. Has Catholic Charities, are they already performing what these funds would be going to? Is it just like rolling over or are they already performing those tasks or is this new? Thank you for the question. It is not new. It is an allocation that the city has provided to Catholic Charities for both the Family Support Center and Homeless Services Center over the past several years and they had, as a matter of fact, they had exactly the same funding award for the previous federal funds as well. Okay, so how many years have they been in this role? Megan is also on the line. Maybe she can give a little more information historically on the projects. I'd be happy to try and answer that. So first, we require annual applications from public service providers so any eligible homeless service provider can participate and in the recent years we have taken the living room as an additional service provider. Catholic Charities has provided homeless services to the city. I want to say for an excess of 15 years, they started the Sam Jones Hall Homeless Shelter and prior to that had the Brookwood Homeless Shelter. And I believe there are discussions and the city manager can correct me if I'm wrong to evaluate an RFP in the near future for services to the city. But this does support the city's coordinated entry, the 600 Morgan Street Center, which refers people to Sam Jones Hall and then also the Family Support Center, which is the family serving shelter in Santa Rosa. Yes, the vice mayor, the plan is to do a solicitation in the coming months to provide an opportunity for competitive applications to provide support services to the city and our homeless endeavors. The timing would be a new service provider could step into the role by the beginning of next fiscal year. So that would be fiscal, it would be July 1st, 2022. But currently that RFP is in development. Thank you, city manager. Oh, thank you, Megan. I'm sorry. And Angela, welcome to the team. Thank you so much for the presentation. Thank you. Any additional questions? All right, we'll go to public comment on this item. Attendees, go ahead and hit raise hand on your zoom feature. You'll find it under participants. Mayor, please be sure to open the public hearing. We will go ahead and do that. We'll open the public hearing here. I'm not seeing any hands raised. So we'll go ahead and see if there's voicemail public comment. There is no voicemail public comment received on this item. All right, then I will close the public hearing and I'll bring it back to council. Council Member Alvarez, you have this item. So let's go ahead and put a motion on the table for discussion. Thank you, sir. Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Rosa, authorizing submission of the fiscal year 2021-2022 action plan and approving grant agreements for public services, fair housing, and housing opportunities for persons with AIDS and wave further reading. Second. So we have a motion by Council Member Alvarez, second by Council Member Tibbets. Are there any additional comments or questions from council? All right, let's call them. Go ahead, Vice Mayor. So I know Sean just said it, but I cannot stress enough how important I feel on us getting the RFP out and seeing if there are other community providers that we can get involved in servicing our city. Catholic Charities is great that they cannot do everything. And when we load so much on one entity, it makes it very hard for them to be great and perfect. All a strive for perfection, great and perfect at doing something when we, when we as a city and as a county and we just keep loading them up with things. So Sean, I know that you're leaving, but I cannot wait for us to get that RFP out just so we can see what other organizations we have in the community that can help provide services to our residents. Thank you. Any additional comments? All right, Madam City Clerk, let's call the roll. Council Member Tibbets. All right. Council Member Shwedham. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Fleming. Yes. Council Member Alvarez. Aye. Vice Mayor Rogers. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with seven ayes. Thank you, Council. We'll move on now. It's going through my agenda. We have two written communications tonight, items 16.1 and 16.2. We'll move on to our item number 17, public comments for non-agenda items. So this is the time for folks in the public. If there's something that you'd like to discuss that was not on tonight's agenda, feel free. Council cannot get in the back and forth discussion, but we are happy to hopefully give some direction to staff or get back to folks as we can. So I'll start with Eric, followed by Gregory. Hello, everyone. How's everyone doing tonight? My name is Eric Forstall. I'm with Craker Architects here in Napa. And for the last several years I've been working on projects in the city and in the county. And I want to bring to your attention and encourage your support of the local fire department, specifically the building plan check division of the fire department. Even before the fires in 2017, the fire department during the plan check process had a significant backlog, which is in some ways a good thing when you see so much building going on. But that has gotten worse when the delays for plan review with the fire department has extended. Even with COVID, we are currently at an 8 to 12 week turnaround for plan review. Just for them to look at projects. They're extremely, from my understanding, understaffed and it needs some more additional support. I've had conversations with both Ian and with Jeffrey over there doing the best they can, trying to review plans, reaching out to all the outside plan check services that are available for the fire department. Unfortunately, the time frame that takes to get these projects reviewed 8 to 12 weeks is a significant amount of time for a few of my clients. I can get building complete. I can get a youth permit completed and I'm held up with fire. And I'm not sure what additional support they need, but either being financial, being able to hire more personnel. But it's been a consistent issue with building permits for about a year, a few years now. As I mentioned, here in the city of Napa, and currently on some of our projects where less than five shower spring grades are impacted on a project that's commercial related, we're permitted to provide a C16 letter from a contractor who's a C16 as a fire smoker contractor basically stating that no more than five beds are going to be impacted on our projects and we're allowed to proceed with the building permit. And if for any reason, you reach more than those five beds and we hire that contractor has to submit plans. I put that out there as a recommendation, but obviously I believe that their hands are tied. So I just want to encourage everyone, there's anything you can do to help reach out to Ian and maybe provide more financial support so they can hire additional personnel or maybe more flexibility on who we can and cannot bring in as an outside consultant to review plans would be fair in both of our communities, specifically when you're taking consideration. Thank you, Eric. I need you to go ahead and wrap up your comments. That's all I had to say. All right. I really appreciate it, Eric. Thank you. Gregory, followed by Davina. Good evening, Mayor Rogers and members of the council. I'm here just to give you a heads up and a little bit of reality to one of your items that I missed earlier in the meeting. The heads up is it saves and homes or homeless will be presenting during your budget hearings. More information, another proposal about safe parking RV parking and modular parking or modular housing. We've been working hard and we hope to be able to excite you about the use of property that the city owns or that we can find ourselves. On a related matter, item 12.5, I think, about surplus land. I want to give you a little bit of history that brings to life is have done. In instances, the city transferred property that it had two nonprofits in the past to do exactly what that resolution that you passed earlier says that you have been doing. I just want you to be able to know and see what that is. Across the street from the police department, there's a small house, 915 Sonoma, that long ago, the city transferred to SA. I became first youth shelter in the city and has been used ever since. There is another on Grand Avenue in South Park at 1019 grand that burnt to the ground in a meth lab burning. The city seized it and transferred it to community support network and we built a four bedroom house that is the first permanent supportive housing residence in the state of California. It was a partnership between the city and community support network. Ripley, another house that was demolished, we built upon the city's transfer for a dollar, the coffee center, which all of you probably are making sure that we had the kind of facilities that the city needed. So you've done it. You're continuing to do it. We want to be your partner to continue to do it and I just think you need to be able to see what it is that resolution was all about. Great. Thank you, Gregory. Next up is Devina. Devina, are you able to unmute? There I am. I apologize. Good afternoon, everyone. I just wanted to take this opportunity to hopefully advise all of the city council members that there's a lot of us here in the community that while we want to see Santa Rosa grow and respond to the housing crisis that's affecting sort of all of California, the city's made some promises to its citizens to give us good quality of life, especially those of us down here in the southwest Santa Rosa area who were affected by the Roseland annexation project. The city made some promises to us about infrastructure, policing, future development. And so I wanted to just urge the city council to work with the planning commission to make sure that in the planning department to make sure that when new developments are going in, actual thought is given to the quality of life, not only of those living in those new developments with regards to the size of the lots that these houses are being put on, the size of garage space, but to also consider those in the surrounding areas who are affected by traffic and other infrastructure issues. Okay. Well, thank you, Devina. Do we have any other commenters for our public comment for non-agenda items? Do we have any voicemail public comments? Item 13, public comment on non-agenda items. All right. Barham Avenue has been repaved. I'm Dwayne DeWitt from Roseland, and that road has been in need of repaving for decades, and it finally has come to pass, so it's important to say thank you for that. The negotiations between the city and the county of Sonoma that stretched for over 25 years regarding ending the county island that the city of Santa Rosa made back in the mid 90s were always prefaced by the city that they couldn't afford to take care of the things that needed to be done. But actually, they could, they just directed the money elsewhere rather than putting it into the area of Roseland, where the county has its most disadvantaged neighborhoods, not just one or two, but three of the most disadvantaged neighborhoods in the entire county of Sonoma lie in Roseland. That would be Roseland Shepherd and Roseland Creek, Census District neighborhoods, and now the city has an elected official that hopefully will begin a process in which those neighborhoods can be brought up to city standards. The city always said, oh, we have to make sure that everybody's treated the same in the city, although that was never really the case, especially with South Park always being disadvantaged, even though in the city. So the city combined the two most disadvantaged areas, Roseland and South Park, together in one district, and it needs to have a strong emphasis on authentic community engagement to get things going forward. Unfortunately, the city's community engagement team and its community advisory board are more about blowing smoke and just kind of talking and not really doing any walking and getting it done. With hope, many have voted for the current District One representative on the city council, and we do hope that that person will be able to avoid being led down the path by city staff who don't really care about making things better, just marking time, going forward to that pension. Yeah, that's a big thing for them. So let's get working together. Let's have authentic community engagement by reopening our government and making it. Mayor, that concludes the voice message public comment on non-agenda matters. All right. Thank you so much. With that, that's our last item on our agenda tonight. So we will adjourn. Thank you, everybody.