 Good morning all. It does look like we have a quorum, but we are still missing two of our sub-tact members. So maybe we'll give it another minute or two before we start. Okay, so we will start shortly. Alright, we have four. Secretary Manus, did you hear back from Sonoma Water? See if we have a self-park rip today. I did not hear from Sonoma Water, although I did see a meeting forwarded to Emma Watson. So I don't know if she's stepping in on behalf of Michael Thompson. Alright, well, we'll go ahead and get started then since we have four out of the five. So we will call the meeting to order, you know, two and if, let's see, just a reminder that if you can stay on camera, that would be great. And Secretary Manus, can we do, if you're a sub-tact member or presenting. And Secretary Manus, can we do a roll call please? Thank you. City of Santa Rosa. Jennifer Rook, Santa Rosa Water, here. City of Katari. Frank Scott, City of Katari, here. Thank you. City of Renner Park. Vanessa Garrett, City of Renner Park, here. Thank you. City of Sebastopol. Ryan Crawford, from the City of Sebastopol, here. Thank you. And I'm just now promoting Michael Thompson from Snowmawater. So Michael, once you get your mic and camera on, we're on roll call. Are you present? South Park is present. Thank you. Let the record show all subcommittee or sub-tact members are present. Great. Thank you very much. So we will move to item number two. As you may recall, there are still opportunities until at least through this month to make special findings based on AB 361 to meet virtually. So you do have a resolution in front of you. I do want to remind the sub-tact that the anticipation is that the governor will be resending the health emergency at the end of this month. And then we have very limited options for virtual meetings and logistically we do not have that at the plant. So we will be returning to in-person meetings should the health emergency be rescinded by the governor starting next month. So any questions or comments from committee members? Before we get a motion, we will open it up for public comment. If you wish to make comment by a zoom, please raise your hand. If you're on the phone dial star nine. And secretary Manus, do we have any public comments on this item? I'm seeing no hands be raised via zoom. Okay. So before the sub-tact, if someone would like to make a motion and a second. Okay. I move to approve. I can second that. All right. So we have a motion from Katari and a second from runner park. And secretary Manus, can you please do a roll call vote for this item? Thank you. Sonoma water. Hi. City of Sevastopol. Hi. City of runner park. Yes. City of Katari. Great Scott Katari. Yes. Thank you. City of Santa Rosa. Jennifer Burke, Santa Rosa water. I. That motion passes the five affirmative votes. Great. Thank you very much. We will now move on to the minutes from October 13th. Are there any questions or comments? Okay. Seeing none. We'll look to accept the minutes, but we'll take public comments before we do. We'll take public comments. If you have any public comment on this item, please raise your hand via zoom. If you're on the phone, please dial star nine. And secretary Manus, do we have any public comments on this item? Trevor, we do not. Okay. So we will consider the minutes approved. And then we will now take public comments. If you have any public comments on this item, please raise your hand via zoom. This is a time to provide any comments on items that are not on the agenda. And if you are on zoom, please raise your hand. And if you're on the phone dial star nine. And secretary Manus, do we have any public comments on this item? We do not. Great. Thank you all. Great. That is a good point. Now, our project point one is a presentation on our fiscal year 2324 preliminary budget. And Nick Harvey, the budget and financial analysis manager. No. Analyst. Analysis manager will be making the presentation. Nick. Morning, everyone's pleasure to be here. And as director Burke mentioned, I'll be going over a preliminary budget look at the regional Okay. And can everybody see the slide? Okay. Yeah. Okay. So today I'm going to be going over preliminary anticipated increases to the regional budget, a quick review of annual flows for basically year 2122 and some revenue assumptions and finally schedule for our budget. So here's a quick look at our preliminary anticipated increases. These are just the ones we're aware of at this point. We're still very much in the process of gathering all our budget information. We'll have more information on increases as we move along in the process. For salary increases, we're moving into the last year of our currently adopted MOUs. And we have a 2.5% coal being implemented July 1st of 2023. We're also seeing continued increase in the cost of chemicals and PG&E rates. Not quite sure where those are going to land. So we'll be keeping a close eye on those going forward. Our O&M projects are a big investment ongoing, in particular funding for our MPDES permitting. And we have one additional staff member that being a wastewater operator supervisor planned for fiscal year 23-24. Hey, here's a look at the flows from 2122. And as you all know or are familiar with that, we use the actual flow amounts into the plant from the previous full fiscal year to budget O&M costs for the following year. So the percentages are really in the same place relative to where they were last year with the biggest change being that Santa Rosa's share of flows increased by 1% over the 2021 numbers with the result reflecting a small decrease in allocation for the other four partner agencies. So I've completed programming the miscellaneous. Nick, could you please go back to that other side, please? Yes, sir. I just wanted to look at it for a little bit longer. So it looks like every, all the flows, if I'm saying that across the board, Santa Rosa just went up more than others. Right, right. So since Santa Rosa consumed 1% more of the overall flows for last year, all of your, our partner agencies are seeing a slight decrease percentage wise. And I'm just curious, do you think, is that, I think weather related or is it, and maybe this isn't a question, I don't want to get off on that, sorry, but it just, I was just, I'm assuming it's weather and pandemic recovery related, but I was just curious. You know, we could look into that for you. I'm just not comfortable answering that question. No, of course. I'd prefer somebody with operational experience to address that one. Of course. So thank you. Yeah. Here's the preliminary look at the miscellaneous revenues that we've programmed for the year. The largest projected increase is coming from the high strength waste tipping charges, this line item here. We're expecting to see continued high demand and that in conjunction with planned escalation and tipping fees for next year. We're expecting to bring in quite a bit of money. Another reason we're planning for an increase is we had to shut down the operation temporarily this year as a result of the atmospheric rivers. And we don't expect that in a typical year. So we're assuming that won't be the case next year. And this line item here, dairy waste loan payments. We're no longer expecting any for the revenues in that program going forward as I confirmed with finance that all the dairy waste loans have been extinguished as of June 30th, 2022. And so as you can see, we're relatively flat year-to-year. And this is just a quick reminder of what your each agency's preliminary or sorry, final allocations were from 2022-23. So the year we're currently in. And here are the amounts of fund balance that were chosen by Rohnert Park and Sebastopol respectively to be applied against their allocations for the current year. So here's a quick look at our refund reserve balance. And this is where the bottom line is where reserves sit for each agency respectively. And so as we work through budget, you can refer to these amounts for your agency and start thinking about how you may want to apply those reserves for the 23-24 budget cycle. As a reminder, this large $12.8 million coming out of Santa Rosa's reserve balances because we moved that back to our wastewater fund after deciding to not cash fund any of the UV project. So we'd initially thought we'd put a big chunk of cash towards the project, but the bond rates were so advantageous at the time of the 2020 issuance that we decided to bond fund it a hundred percent. And so Nick, that last slide, is that the ending fund balance or is that the change in fund balance? That is the ending refund reserve balance. The other corollary I'll give you to this is that these balances will change slightly as a result of the operational refund calculation that finance does each year. And that's typically performed sometime between now and April by our finance department so that we have the latest information to consider when we're determining the final allocations that we take to council in April before the rest of the budget so that we can provide you all with your user agency allocations by May 1 of each year. So these will change slightly depending on the finance calculation, but we'll keep you updated on where those balances sit as we move through the process. And so if you can just help me understand so at the end of last year Santa Rosa had a negative 12 million, you just described it, maybe I need to hear it again, but there were several that had a negative reserve fund balance. And what does that mean? Well, what it means is that Kotati, so if you remember there was a metering, a change in the flows based on the actual metering. And so what that means is hopefully while Kotati sitting in a negative reserve balance, hopefully we have enough of a refund within the next year or two to where that negative balance can be absorbed and get back into the positive as we move forward. So Nick, if I might just to help clarify, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, but Mike, you want to look at the totals line, that is the fund balance. So that every year shows what was either added or reduced, but the total is what is available to each partner agency, correct? Yes. Okay, that thanks, Jennifer, because yeah, so okay, that makes more sense. And then, and again, so it's looking like Santa Rosa is going in with a negative 12 million dollar. No, the totals line, totals. Oh, the bottom, okay, gotcha, okay. We have 4.7 in Santa Rosa. Everyone has a positive fund balance except for Kotati. Gotcha. Okay, thanks. That was, that really answered my question, yeah, because it was, that's why I was asking if the main numbers in the box were the change in balance and the bottom then is the actual ending fund balance. Correct. Okay, thank you. Sorry for any lack of clarity on that. No, it's okay. I just, it just really helps understand. Thanks for the explanation. And it looks like Craig has a question. Let me go back to that slide, please, Nick. Yes. Yeah, thank you. Okay, just some more clarity on what that final reconciliation or that time you said there was an adjustment and these are going to change slightly. Is that basically saying, hey, we've still made an assumption for the last complete year going forward. And then now that we have the numbers, we can see what kind of a difference there was. Just what's that last change reconciliation you're making? Is that what that is? Is just seeing how we did with the projection versus what actually happened? Yes. And so, in a sense, what these represent is budget to actual. So each year, we prepare a budget and really the budgetary numbers are our universal set of assumptions. And then at the end of the year, we look at or finance looks at the total budget versus what was actually spent. And then they calculate a turnback figure, i.e., the amount of budget that wasn't spent. And then that goes back into our refund reserve. And so, it's pretty complicated calculation, but this account pretty much summarizes the cumulative total over all the years of our budget to actual. And so, in a typical year, we're adding to these balances. But due to the flow calculation change, Kotadi went negative for a bit, but we're hoping going forward that we're only adding to this balance and only subtracting in terms of when agencies decide to apply some of that balance to smooth their rate impacts. Yeah. I understand that. It was the turnback calculation. It looks like we're making progress. Absolutely. That's a huge hit for us to do that. But we're steadily getting there. Yeah. And as I said, sometime between now and April, by the time we go to council, to formally issue the partner allocations, we'll be getting those numbers from finance, and we can keep you all updated. All right. Any further questions? Okay. Just mechanically, so since we have a fund balance here, if we are doing a rate study currently, and if we were going to incorporate that into our rate study, do you, it looks like Santa Rosa took all of this at once, and did you put it back into your an account, or do you have to just request a certain amount to be paid off each month? So, yes, we did take it back into our account. In the context of Santa Rosa water, what that means is that so the regional or sub regional enterprise is its own enterprise, but it's really a subsidiary of the overall sewer operations for the city of Santa Rosa. And so what we use to pay for our agency allocations towards the plant operations is our local wastewater fund. And so we transferred each year our allocation out of the local wastewater fund. And so we got to a point where we had a large accumulated balance here available, which represents our portion of the refund reserve. And so when we got to a point where we realized we weren't going to be leveraging that cash balance against the UV disinfection replacement project, we simply decided rather than letting the money sit here that we would take that back to our local operations fund. And so that amount only has an impact on the city of Santa Rosa and Santa Rosa water. It's not taking away from any of the other partner agencies. Does that make sense? Yeah, yeah, it does. I was just curious if Rohnert Park can do the same thing if we were going to take that in for a CIP project potentially and use our fund balance? Yes, that 2.8 million is Rohnert Park's to do with as you choose. You do have that ability if that's what they were to choose, yes. Okay, thank you. No problem. And just just a little history, if I might. So prior to setting up this refund reserve, we used to issue the amount left over back to the partners every year. So it was just a bunch of swapping money. That didn't make a lot of sense. And so this is here and as Nick mentioned, it is available to each partner to use as they choose. But we do recommend keeping some in here because it's going to help a lot with rates moving. You'll see further in this presentation that Rohnert Park applied a bit of your refund reserve to last year's rates to help make them be a little less of an increase. And so just consider that as well. We don't know, you know, as Nick mentioned in the first slide, we have a number of things that look to be increasing this year. And so we're not entirely sure what the rates are going to look like. So this will help with rate smoothing as well. Yep, understood. Thank you. Okay. And as you all might recall, Deputy Director Zunino and myself have been working with Santa Rosa Waters Rate Consultant to develop a more specific rate model to the regional operations. So we've been working on that and we're going to show you a little bit of it. And this is just a list of the assumptions that we've built into that. So labor, as we discussed in an earlier slide, we're expecting a two and a half percent bump in 2324 and five percent thereafter. We're reflecting the one additional FTE. We're not assuming any future FTEs in the model, although those will likely be needed. We're continuing our one million per year cash funded capital program investment increase. As we have for several years, electricity, chemicals and MPDES permit are going up according to these numbers. Another important thing to point out is that we're not including any future debt service issuances, although they will likely be needed for upcoming infrastructure needs at the plant. And for the purposes of the model, these are the agency flows that we've assumed. Can I have a quick question there? Sorry, I couldn't get my hand up digitally fast enough on that one. Can you clarify that the MPDES permit is going up by half a million in a year? No, sorry. So the MPDES permit, the way the spending happens on that, my understanding from talking to our staff at the plant, is that we do experience spikes and expenditures from time to time. It really depends on when we discharge and how much. But really what we're doing programmatically in the budget is rather than running the balance down and then going out for a million, million and a half in one year of funding, what we've done is we're on a plan of funding it at about $500,000 annually to smooth that budgetary impact. And so every couple of years, we're building the balance and then spending it down. And then theoretically, we're continuing this yearly investment. It's really us smoothing this budgetary impact rather than causing spikes in the model unnecessarily. Great. Thank you. I remember that. I just thought you'd say it was going up by an additional half a million this year. Oh, sorry, not an additional, just the same 500. Thanks for clarifying. No, thank you. And also just now we have our reporter Waste Discharge coming up and permit negotiations. So we have to start planning for that. Looks like we have Vanessa with her hand up and then we'll go to Craig. Thanks. Oh, yeah. That was one of my questions. And then I just was curious on the cash funded capital program. It sounds like you plan for an additional million per year. Is that based on like a five year or 10 year CIP program or how was that number generated? It's my understanding that several years ago before my time with Santa Rosa Water, that this body came to the unanimous conclusion that we were under investing in capital. And so the agreement was made a number of years ago to increase our investment by $1 million per year every year. And we've done that for several years now. And so that's a continuing assumption that we're using for financial planning resources, especially in particular to this model. I don't know if anyone else would like to speak to that. Sure. I can add a little bit. So Nick is correct. It was not based on funding need. It was based on how best we could start to build up a CIP because we had a million, $1 million cash CIP for a $500 million treatment plan. So we have since done a master plan for our sub regional system. And we do bring those capital projects. We brought them forward to subTAC last year and we'll continue to update that. The funding need is greater than what we're investing by far, but we are still just building it up by a million a year to try and make that as easy on us from a rate perspective to start to continue to build that cash amount until we get to where we need. Yeah. And just a little bit more on that. I think we, I think we're, are we close to 10 years on it now? That I don't know whatever the amount is where you can tell, but whatever the amount, the amount is is how many years we've been doing it. I think we're at nine because we'll be at 10 million this year and we have that one. The idea though was that you should like a system should be funding itself at least doing cash funding at least to the level of depreciation of annual depreciation. And as I recall, Santa Rosa's depreciation was running, still is running in the $15 to $20 million range. And so each year, if you're not reinvesting that amount, you're, you're essentially mining or borrowing from your infrastructure. And so that was really the idea, just as a, it really is similar with Jennifer said, but that problem was realized that, you know, a million a year just isn't enough for ongoing capital replacement, as Jennifer said, with a system this size. So the, again, the goal, I think the first goal has been to get that up to the, the rate of depreciation. And then once it's reached that point, future tax can decide whether they want to go further, but that had been the intent. Oh, so I see it's an additional million, not just one million a year. Okay. That seemed very low. Thank you. Yeah, you're welcome. Okay. Great. Go ahead. Yeah. Thanks. So looking at the, the flow allocation, these are the assumed flows allocation for the 2324 budget. And then we were shown the flow allocation for the last complete year where you had mentioned that Santa Rosa's flow kind of jumped up and it resulted in a production. So yes, these are different than that flow allocation. So can you speak to how these, how this low allocation was derived? Yes. So in terms of long-term financial modeling, which is what this, this tool is, is meant to achieve, we, we never want to use a snapshot in time. And so while we're using the actual 2122 flows for the 2324 ONM allocations, it's not necessarily that, that, that one year result isn't necessarily indicative of what we expect to see for the indefinite future. So our right consultant and, and we have used some kind of average flows. So there's been some smoothing. I can't speak to exactly what that assumption is. I can look into that in terms of the model, but we, there's some sort of averaging going on rather than just taking a snapshot in time and making that the broad base assumption looking forward. Yeah, I'd like, if you could provide that additional methodology, that'd be helpful. Thanks. I can do that. Thank you. I do think Nick and Craig, we do have a Deputy Director Kimberly Zanino on. She might be able to reflect a little bit more on this. So Secretary Manus, if you could promote Deputy Director Zanino, so she could talk on this item. That would be great. Good morning, everyone. So just on this specific piece, we are using just average flows for each one of the partners, because this, this assumption here, Craig, or sorry, member Scott, tech member Scott, is really for just the model. So it's not being used for any of how we will determine what your allocation of the budget is. We'll continue to use those allocations, or continue to set those allocations based on that previous year's actual flow. But if we want to look 10 years out, we need to figure out, you know, what numbers we're going to use to do that 10-year look so that we can actually give you some numbers. And so what we did is we just took an average of several years to figure out what flows we should use inside the model. Those will probably be adjusted because every year what we do with our financial model is we take actuals, we put the actuals into the model, we enter the new budget into the model, and then we add any additional assumptions that would be happening that we can see coming in the future so that we can really continue. It's a dynamic model. It's not something that we just want to, you know, add figures to and then let it sit. We actually update the model every single year so that we can have really a better look at how that, you know, those next several years are looking inside of that 10-year model. Thank you. Any more questions? Okay, we'll move on. Okay, here's a snapshot of the projected allocations for the next eight years. One thing I wanted to point out is this 1.88 percent decrease being calculated for fiscal year 2031 is due to a sharp drop in estimated debt service figures. We have some debt service numbers starting to fall off around this time frame. However, we're continuously assessing our infrastructure needs and we'll need to issue debt to address them. So we plan on strategizing our future debt funding to smooth rate impacts over time. So while we hope to smooth this rate, we, this negative 1.88 percent will not be a reality at the end of the day because we will need to issue some debt at some point to address some infrastructure concerns at the plant. But this is just a general look at what we project. And here is the charted version of that information. So the difference between the ending fund balance, this blue line, and the target reserve level represents the balance in the refund reserve. The large dip in the beginning is again going back to that $12.8 million of refund reserve that Santa Rosa refunded. And the partner contribution change from year to year equals estimated net rate increases to meet our target reserve levels. You'll know, you'll also note looking at this chart that in the long term ending fund balance equals target reserve levels. And that's unique in this enterprise in that we expect these figures to always kind of meet because we budget the regional enterprise to meet its needs and don't plan on having any excess. So we always want our reserve levels to equal our target reserve levels just because that's the nature of the operation. And then here's a look at our preliminary budget schedule. We have upcoming meetings with this group in March and April as noted. BPU budget subcommittee, the subcommittee or the Board of Public Utilities rather is still working on appointments and the makeup of committees, I believe. So those dates are pending and we'll update you once we have that information. April 21st is the BPU budget recommendation to city council. And of particular importance to this group is the city council meeting on April 25th is when we plan to ask for preliminary approval to regional budget for the purposes of notifying your agencies of what your regional allocations are for 23-24. And then city council study sessions in early May and formal budget adoption on June 20th. And with that, we can open it up to more questions if anybody has any. Any questions or comments from sub-tech members? It looks like Brian, go ahead. Yeah, just really quickly. So it looks like under the current model we're projected to hit zero, or at least at budget overall by the end of the decade starting the next without some changes or additional allocations towards it. Yes. And keep in mind, this figure doesn't represent zero. It just represents our target reserve levels. And so the theory in our regional operations that we don't carry access reserves because if we carry a bunch of access reserves, then in theory that means we're overcharging you for the cost of operations. The only reason we have funding balance, ending fund balance above target reserve levels is because we're holding that refund reserve for rate smoothing. But the long-term assumption is that we're always budgeting to only hold our target reserve levels and therefore giving everyone as much access to access cash as possible for use in your own operation. So that's the theory behind that. That was perfect. Thank you. Yeah. Any further questions? Like Craig, you have your hand up? Yeah. You can hear me. So the bottom line is that what the kind of initial overall rate increase adjustment is looking like? Or is this just a part of it? Because I mean that looks hopeful to us that we're going from six to about 2.9%. Is that what you're indicating the increase in 24 is looking like? Tentatively, yes. I would also say that we're very much still working on this. This is a work in progress. And we do have some upcoming critical infrastructure needs that may have an impact two to five years out, namely the LTP, electrical infrastructure. There's several things that we're planning for CIP-wise in assessing and studying at the plant. And so while these are preliminary numbers, I wouldn't say that that's definitely what it's looking like because we may have cash impacts by this point in the plan that would change those figures a year or two down the road. I think also Craig this year, the one thing that we don't know yet but we're starting to get numbers on, which all of you probably are seeing as well, is that we could see definitely 24 be higher because of PG&E costs. We are the largest, pretty much one of the largest users I think in all of Northern California of electricity. And if some of those numbers that PG&E is putting out there right now come to fruition, that's going to be probably a significant jump for us. We've heard as much as a 45% rate increase or 53% rate increase in electricity. We're not at this point planning to budget that much of an increase but when you're talking about the treatment plant, that is a significant, one of the most significant costs that we have. So we have to keep working towards getting those numbers in in order to set budget for this year and then we'll show it to you. In the model, we're just using the assumption that we showed you, which was I think 15% was what we showed you. So you'll get more firm numbers just even by the next round because we'll have everybody's budget in and we'll have collected some more data on some of those costs that we don't have any control over unfortunately. Well, thanks for dampening my hopes. I'm sorry. I wish it was better. Maybe it is. Maybe there's been a lot of talk from our politicians in Sacramento saying that they want those costs being looked into. So maybe it'll be a little bit better than they're putting out. All right. Thanks, Craig. Mike. Yeah, a couple of questions. One related to this and one more tangentially related to this since I have Nick and Kimberly on the line. One is, at least for us, we've been seeing essentially our, I think we've all been seeing that inflation has been running around 7% over the last couple of years or so and we have been seeing that. Actually, we started to see that going up before I think the general public did, which I'm sure, and I'm just wondering if that, if you have seen just in looking at your last couple of years that you've seen just what an impact. My question is, I guess, what's been the impact of inflation on your operational costs? So, I'll jump in. Sorry, Nick. I think the biggest one we're seeing is chemicals. Chemicals have increased significantly. The cost of goods, you know, luckily we usually have agreements in place for with vendors to buy and to purchase. And so some of those have been in place from beforehand. And one of the biggest costs we saw last year were the purchase of equipment for the old UV system because we needed to stock up on parts. So that was, you know, a pretty big expenditure. And we're just seeing the cost of all of those goods going up. Right. Once again, electricity. This winter, we used a lot of electricity. So we're in the, when it's bad for us on the water side, when it's dry, it's less expensive at the plant. But when it's wet, it's more expensive at the plant. So, you know, it's a balancing act. But we definitely, you know, have seen, at least this year, not only volume of electricity, but cost of electricity go up for us out there. So those are some of the big ones that we're seeing. Chemicals, I think, is one of the ones we've seen the most. And that just had to do with supply chain. When they could charge more, they did. So things were scarce. And we definitely saw that. Thanks. Yeah. And that's one of the great things about being in both water and wastewater. There's really never a good year for both or a bad year for both. You know, see, it depends on what you want to look at. The last question, again, is tangentially related. I know that the city of Santa Rosa participates in AWWA's utility benchmarking study they do. And we're embarking on a similar, following that and doing the same metrics. And I just wanted to find out who can I best talk to? Who's the best person to talk to it? Santa Rosa water about getting the city's benchmarking numbers. We can get that from our asset management group. They put together the benchmarking for us. Oh, they do. Okay. Great. Yeah. So if you could get those to me, that would be great. Or if there's someone I can talk to, it would be really helpful. I think the person who did it is no longer with us. But you can talk to, we'll put you in touch, Mike, with Gloria or Bannock. So. Oh, Lori, okay. That would be great. So, okay, that's all I had. Thank you very much. Great. Thanks, Mike. Ryan, you had a question? Just a real quick one. So it looks like either in the model or the intentions by the end of the decade or to really get the ratio of your regional debt to sort of pay go capital to go down? Or is that just sort of chopped off on the looks like there's an intent to, you know, like for now, our regional debt is roughly, you know, two thirds projected by the end of the decade. I just figured, is that something? Is that like a target? Or is that just an effect of something? Well, when we, when we talk about the overall funding scheme, we don't really target a specific ratio with, you know, of debt versus cash funding. It's basically an ongoing analysis and we basically do it off of two factors, one being cash flow smoothing and the other one being just the sheer need of timing for cash flows. So for example, we came up to a couple years ago, realized we were going to need a lot of cash for the UV disinfection replacement project. We went out and got a bond for it. It was a favorable market. And so it was really the, so the potential rate impacts and the cash need, the cash flow requirements that kind of inform that we're not ever really shooting for a target ratio in any respect, if that makes sense. It just may end up that way. Just for how that's being projected right now. That's a longer term outlook. Okay. Exactly. It's not a specific strategy in terms of ratios or anything like that. It's just kind of financial sustainability impacts to rates and cash flow needs. Okay. Thanks. Well, and I think Ryan, I think Nick mentioned earlier that we know that there's going to be some more debt service that we're going to have to incur. We have, you know, an electrical project that is going to be tens of millions, right? And with the cost of things increasing. As I think we've talked about in previous meetings, the UV project that Nick mentioned, you know, was $50 million when we got an estimate and it came in at $70 million. So, you know, we're seeing significantly increased costs there. And so at some point, we'll have to do that. We just haven't added it to the model yet because we need to see more about the projects in order to determine the costs that we're going to need to go into the model for that. But we have it set up so that we can add that to the model and that that can be distributed in the model as well so that people can see, you know, what the effects of those are when we get closer to knowing what it's going to be. Because that is six, seven years out. So that's pretty tough but it's hard to imagine it going down that much. But yeah. Okay. Any other questions? All right. Not seeing any. And again, I just want to acknowledge and thank Nick and Kimberly for all the hard work on this and the partners. You had requested that we put together a model. So we've done so working with our re-consultant. But as caveatted, there's a number of things that still fluctuate quite a bit. So hopefully this is a helpful tool going forward. And so we'll be updating it as mentioned and bringing it forward every year. With that, we will go ahead and assuming there's no more questions or comments from sub-tech members, we'll open it up for public comment. And if you wish to make a comment and you're on Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're on the phone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. And Secretary Manus, do we have any public comment on this item? We do not. Okay, great. Again, thank you, Nick and Kimberly. And we will now move on to item 5.2. Item 5.2 is a regional operations division update. And Deputy Director Water-Reuse Mike Prince will be making the presentation. Okay, everyone just confirmed that you can see my screen. Okay, thanks. In the interest of time, I'm going to go quickly, probably faster than I want. So if there are gaps that we want to fill in with questions after my presentation, or even after the meeting, you can get in touch with me. But to kick it off, this is a picture of the UV project excavation that's going on right now. It's the first phase of mass excavation that I just wanted to wet your appetite. I have a few more photos to show you. That excavation is only the first phase. There will be shoring installed and that excavation will actually wind up being about 12 feet deeper, actually. Let's see, moving on. So, Dina, I'm not, there we go. Okay. Dina is my backup if there's a problem with the presentation today. Topics I want to touch on today as quickly as I can, a recap of 2022. I want to talk about 2023 so far because 2023 has been pretty eventful so far. I'll touch on recycle water storage and the fact that that is related to a discharge event that we went through recently. And then I will touch on the disinfection system upgrade as well. Regarding our agricultural irrigation customer base, 2022 was a very good year but weather was very favorable. Things were not quite as hot and dry as they could have been and as we have seen in the past. Irrigation for our ag customer base ended October 12th. We guarantee allotments through September 30th. Overall, our ag customer base used 89% of their 1.27 billion gallon allotment. The highest use was a little over 100 million gallons but only 74% of the allotment for that particular customer. That customer has a wide range of uses of recycled water irrigation. Pasture vineyard and they even have a vegetable irrigation. Let's see I believe on their property. Our lowest use was 0%. We have some small hobby farms that we supply recycled water to but in some cases they didn't use any recycled water. Very small usage I might add when they do use water. Regarding our urban recycle water supply and geysers, urban irrigation tapered past October 12th. We still had some dry weather. Rohnert Park's usage was 307 million gallons of a 450 million gallon allotment. Just a little over two thirds. Santa Rosa's urban usage was 31.6 million gallons which is relatively normal. On our geysers contract fulfillment we hit 91.17%. We need to hit 90% or better otherwise there are contractual ramifications that are undesirable. So by hitting near 90% but above 90% we maximize water availability for other customers besides Calpine. This is a quick summary of the general trend of geysers deliveries since 2017. Obviously we've hit the lowest of those years and in some cases we've hit above 100% as was the case in 2017. Shifting to 2023 we did experience some pretty significant flooding at the plant. It's not as bad or it was not as bad as it has been such as 2006 which was quite bad but nonetheless Laguna to Santa Rosa water levels were high enough to where we needed to rely on some temporary flood protection measures. This is a view more or less looking north and you can see the Laguna in the foreground. There's actually a truck fording flood waters after having gone over the bridge of the Laguna and you can see the main entrance of the plant is inundated as are other areas of the plant. A few more photos of that. This is a different perspective almost the opposite perspective that shows how flooding creeps into the plant. I'm going to zoom in on this in a little bit but overall this is not as bad as we have seen but you can't tell for sure how bad things are going to go get so you have to prepare for the worst when you see flooding potential increasing. We protect certain portions of the plant with temporary flood walls these these orange water bladders if you will that tie into an array of concrete blocks that are installed in various ways throughout the plant to protect a region of the plant that is low lying and has a lot of electrical equipment. When flood waters look like they're going to be approaching the plant we do deploy these temporary flood barriers over roads that are normally used for access. That's what they look like when they're inflated if you will or filled with water we do use recycled water for that by the way and they do work. This is a shot showing it a tiger dam as they're referred to it's a name brand holding water back flood water back the water that you see on the other side of the berm is storm water that accumulates in that area because we have to block storm drains otherwise you would get backflow from the Laguna into the plant into protected areas so storm water doesn't have anywhere to go but it's much less than the flood water would be impacting. I'll also point out this is a relatively strategic photo because the tan boxy looking infrastructure behind the yield sign is a load center it's electrical equipment that we're trying to protect it has a low capacity flood wall concrete flood wall around it but that's been deemed to be insufficient and it isn't actually as useful as the system that we have in place outside of it but we need to protect electrical equipment for a variety of obvious reasons. Moving on that same tiger dam just a broader perspective from a drone shot that was taken showing how it is actually making a difference there at the plant. Shifting gears into recycled water storage the red curve if you will it's kind of a irregular curve but that shows 2023 and I should say water years since October and into the calendar year 2023 what recycled water storage levels they're quite high we're actually breaking records right now that's attributable to the array of atmospheric river related storms that came through in January the black trend is last year's trends you can see we're substantially higher and the other lines I won't spend time discussing but I can answer questions about those if needed. The fact is though right now plant flows are in the vicinity of 20 million gallons a day and geysers flows are in the vicinity of 18 million gallons a day so we're in kind of a sweet spot right now our recycle water storage levels are high we do not have a discharge window of opportunity because there's no rain we need rain to elevate creek flows to facilitate a discharge but the the benefit of not having rain is plant flows are not as high so storage levels don't climb as much so we're we're going to see how things go but if the rains come back I would want significant rains to allow us to have a discharge opportunity I do not want light rains because those will increase plant flows and storage levels but will more than likely not facilitate a discharge so we're in kind of a holding pattern right now as far as storage levels are concerned uh we did initiate and conduct a discharge operation between January 18th and the 26th it's the first discharge we've done in a while this chart is just to show you this photo it's just to show you the relative location the red circle is delta pond that's our primary discharged location the purple circle is where LTP is located and just for orientation the blue line is highway 12 and the yellow circle is where uh the utilities offices are in the utility field offices at 69 stony circle um delta pond is about six miles from LTP uh and our discharge was uh just under 87 million gallons which is a relatively small discharge uh the discharge goes through a an array of duck bill diffusers in the bottom of Santa Rosa creek it was constructed a number of years ago this is a shot of those duck bill diffusers and then the interior of the manifold that they are attached to and this is a screenshot of a great video that was taken by one of our reclamation team members but you can see the disturbance at the surface of Santa Rosa creek in the photo um proving that our discharge manifolds are working as intended they had been blocked by some gravel and deposition um in the creek for quite a while and that was cleaned off this past summer i think i may have shown you photos of that operation so we benefited significantly from getting that operation done um historical discharge trend back to 2010 shows that most years we don't discharge um but in some years we'll discharge as much as 1.2 uh billion gallons i want to clarify that our maximum storage capacity is in the vicinity of 1.4 billion gallons so 1.2 billion gallon discharge as was done in 2016 2017 that was a very significant discharge um the discharge that we've done so far obviously is going to register very low on this scale but we're not out of the year yet so we're not showing that total yet but generally speaking infrequent discharges sometimes significant but often zero um pine flat road is an important road to us uh because we have the geysers pump stations three of four geysers pump stations on pine flat road and as you can see from the photo on the screen right now there were some pretty significant events shall we say on pine flat road um the biggest boulder in this photo is probably tens of tons quite frankly it's bigger than a full-size pickup and the road was completely blocked for a while um snowm county did get some crews out to clear that so we could get a lane open fairly quickly um but it's significant because you can see where the yellow symbol is the yellow flash symbol is roughly where this occurred and we have uh three pump stations all similar capacity in terms of pressure and flow that we have to access to make adjustments and do maintenance and sometimes address problems on an urgent basis so having a problem on pine flat road such as occurred earlier in january can be very significant um i will also say that right now is a very sensitive times in terms of geysers operation on an annual basis because we are relying on 100 of our pump station capacity all five of five pumps at each pump station are running at full output right now update about uv construction a lot of details on this slide i'm just going to touch on a few the groundbreaking did uh happen on the 26th i think some of you october 26 that is i think some of you are in attendance we've rerouted traffic on at the plant to facilitate construction we've done some relocation of some features at the plant underground and above ground and next up we are going to be finishing the dewatering system relocating our hypochlorite facility and continuing with the mass excavation um this is an overview of the the overall project that includes a purple line which is a very significant diversion pipeline to retreat water if there's a problem with the system that pipeline is 42 inches in diameter and it's several million dollars worth of scope in the project uh here's kind of a great drone photo of the groundbreaking ceremony with a whole bunch of people some of you i think even in the photograph um it's a very fond memory for me um and then here's a picture that was just taken the other day from a drone showing the mass excavation starting for the main part of the facility in the green box there on the yellow box shows the existing hypochlorite facility where it will be uh demoed and then rebuilt in where the red box is uh the red box is the new hypochlorite facility footprint so that's it pretty fast maybe too fast but i think we're short on time are there questions that i might be able to answer and if we don't have time you can always follow up with me after the meeting as well thank you mike do we have any questions or comments from the sub-tech all right oh mike do you have question i don't okay see no thanks for the presentation you bet all right seeing none uh thank you uh mike and um we'll now open up for public comments on item 5.2 if you uh wish to make a comment and you're on zoom please raise your hand if you are on the phone dial star nine and secretary manis do we have any public comments on this item we do not all right great thank you very much uh deputy director prince we will now move on to item 5.3 and that is our environmental services update and our deputy director of environmental services shawn mcneal will be making the presentation don't see shawn did we lucia oh there he is oh i'm here uh you know when i get promoted everything goes dark uh for me so um uh thank you i'm gonna start sharing my screen uh uh thank you uh director burke uh members of the sub-tech i'm excited to be here today to share with you uh rather briefly some updates in the environmental services division i really um seeing we were running uh long on time i cut out a little bit of the presentation um which i can come back next time and update you on but i'm going to just focus on um our latest sampling of PFOS give a little over overview of what PFOS is and what it means to the wastewater industry and then a little bit about phosphorus um our phosphorus compliance uh because as nick talked about um in his presentation uh a big component of our expenses um that uh spike are related to our phosphorus compliance so PFOS chemicals are manufactured chemicals that consist of fluorinated carbon chains uh these are used in food uh containers packaging carpets clothing paint sealants electronics and coatings and firefighting phones uh the uh amongst many other industrial uses as well but these are widely used in our um our household products as well as the clothing and carpets that we have uh it's become uh the big topic at many conferences uh and journals related to wastewater um and it seems to be one of the biggest issues that we're facing primarily these PFOS compounds have been shown to bio accumulate in uh animals and people um which of course are a subset of animals um it's found in every surface water body uh so there's been uh our use of PFOS has has led to atmospheric deposition as well as groundwater and um uh and as I mentioned in animals and humans uh and that the city is involved in two different studies in PFOS uh looking at PFOS in wastewater um why we started learning about this the state board issued water quality order 2020 uh dash double zero 15 dwq um in july 9th of 2020 required the sampling of 31 separate PFOS compounds I want to make it clear there are thousands of compounds it's just these 31 that we have methods for detecting that have been approved uh for looking at in in um their research methods for wastewater um and we were required to do quarterly sampling of our influent and effluent and biosolids as well as a one-time sampling of our groundwater wells in areas where we uh have recycled water and areas where we use uh biosolids uh for application uh here's our sampling locations at the plant we have our influent right over here uh our biosolids is sampled right here and then our effluent so those three samples were all within our plant uh that we did quarterly um and I will share some of that data after we look at our other sample locations uh so looking in Santa Rosa Plain um in the northern part here this is Delta Pond this is Santa Rosa creek running there this is our irrigation uh study site we have monitoring wells where we're applying irrigation both in up gradient so uh on the um up groundwater up gradient portion of the site so presuming that it's an area that's free of interference with our recycled water applications and then another well downstream and I'll I'll zoom these up uh and you can see so here's our upgrade insight this is our down gradient site um and so we can compare in uh the input of PFOS there and then here's our biosolids application site we actually have four monitoring wells on this site uh monitoring 103 is our upstream or up gradient site and 101 is our down gradient site and then we have this 102 well which is mid gradient as well um and this 115 is an alternate up gradient site um but it was not used in our analysis so here's the data um so there's some funny trends these trends are seen throughout um the wastewater industry uh influent is the blue uh bars and effluent is the orange bars and then on the uh y-axis we have the amount of total PFOS and this is in nanograms per liter which is parts per trillion I will make sure to update you because when we look at biosolids um it's a different um uh we do it in parts per billion but you can see here uh that we have more in our effluent than we do our influent uh this is supported uh through many wastewater treatment plants and is assumed to be that there's a breakdown of some of these chemicals um that aren't the 31 that we're testing for that then as they go through the process they they um take the form of the chemicals that we are testing so we are not necessarily making PFOS we're breaking down ones that aren't a part of that 31 so and then we have our biosolids and this is as I mentioned this uh is in parts per billion which is nanograms per gram on the y-axis so these values are a lot higher than the the water values that I shared with you by an order of a thousand um and so the other thing that you can see in both of these graphs is that there does seem to be some level of seasonality with a greater amount of PFOS in our plant and biosolids in the winter compared to spring and summer so when we look at our irrigated uh lands um our upgrading site relatively low these are in parts per trillion uh relatively low in the upgrading but not zero uh and in the down gradient monitoring wells uh it was slightly elevated but it's only one data uh point so it's hard to make any comparison but it's relatively low um compare that to the biosolids this graph is a little bit different so it's a stacked bar graph looking at all of the different constituents that we did detect of those 31 that we were monitoring um and I'm showing you the stacked bar graph which is a little more complicated for the these wells because um the largest indicator of PFOS is this one chemical which is the gray bar here which is PFBS um and so this is something that is uh was a little alarming when we got our first initial data which is monitoring well 101 our down gradient and 103 our up gradient site so we decided to do a second sampling in July so this occurred in the winter we did a second sampling in July and the uh monitoring well 101 uh decreased in the summer months stayed relatively same in the up gradient and then we added that mid gradient well to that second sampling and you can see it's a intermediary between the the two so this is something that we're planning to look into more um and we're working with uh biosolids um support throughout the state and it's another reason why we're involved in those research studies so we could get a better handle on what are we seeing here what are the potential sources of this and uh what we might be able to do um to prevent uh further degradation of this uh source um and so just a this is that data showing you the map uh and locations so our PFOS summary is that the PFOS concentrations increase in the winter months um there's no significant trend of PFOS in our irrigated lands and there's some elevated PFOS in monitoring wells in areas of biosolids land application we don't know the source of that sources of PFOS in our wastewater we're beginning to start looking at this we know um from research uh that there's a background that's just coming from our residential uses um primarily through uh laundry um and our kitchen sinks uh from our cooking products uh then we get landfill leachate at the wastewater is another thing that we're looking at seems to be one of the larger sources of PFOS um into our system and that there might be uh when looking at groundwater there might have been legacy sources that we no longer have from our industries these were not sampled because they were not EPA regulated so we didn't sample these at our industries so there could have been some legacy sources um that we no longer have um driving uh some of these um groundwater issues that we're seeing in our biosolids so with that I'm going to transition rather quickly over to our phosphorus compliance um and so we've developed a phosphorus credit tracking database as I've reported in previous meetings we have moved from the nutrient offset program to the water quality trading framework there's a different calculation of credits and and there was a need for us to bring credits from the nutrient offset program into our water quality trading program we currently under the water quality trading from program have 13,736 credits available um our database can track all of the credits that are developed purchased sold and used to offset a discharge we get a unique identifier with each credit so it allows us to uh have the uh control of these as if they were um financial trades as well so we know how much we have in our banks how much we're generating and how much um we can sell purchase or develop um we did um complete a phosphorus trading agreement with the town of Windsor giving uh the city uh and the town options to buy or sell credits uh just as a reminder some of these credits do expire so this gives us greater flexibility in our ability to use all the credits that we've developed um and the terms of this agreement uh stipulate that the cost to develop the credits plus a 20 markup for any uh handling fees uh to cover any um handling of those credits is is how that will work um right now the town of Windsor does not have any credits so at this point we would be looking at selling credits to them uh and that we are in the process of working on a new phosphorus removal project uh for Colton Creek restoration uh from Todd Road to Yonah Road working with Sonoma water on that project so the phosphorus accounting because we did start a discharge this year so far um uh in doing our analysis our average concentration of phosphorus in our discharge pond was 2.0 milligrams per liter the amount we discharged was 86.9 million gallons so far and then our fat our phosphorus mass loading so far is 1449 pounds much less than the credits that we have um and in working with the town of Windsor it's looking like they they have been doing a discharge and they're looking to um purchase anywhere from 500 to a thousand credits uh and we can do that true up at the end of discharge season to meet our our permanent compliance as well as theirs and then just briefly this is the location of the Colton Creek restoration project it's near the plant um will provide additional flood uh uh capacity as we remove a bunch of legacy sediments from this section uh and then increase water quality by doing uh habitat restoration in that reach so with that I'm happy to take any questions thank you very much Sean any questions or comments from sub-tech members all right seeing none again thank you Sean for that presentation I'll open it up for public comment so if you are on zoom and you wish to make a comment on item 5.3 please raise your hand if you're on the phone please style star 9 and secretary manis do we have any public comments on this item we do not all right great thank you so much thank you again Sean and with that we'll move to our last item uh item 5.4 is going to be a update on santa rosa water santa rosa's hour water future water supply alternatives plan and calling close senior water resources planner will be making the presentation uh there we go let me start my video as well thank you very much director Burke I will bring up the presentation did I lose yes I lost that let me try one more time apologies for that let's see if we can get that to share excellent thank you again I'll give a brief update on the water supply alternatives plan I know that a couple of members are participating in this so I don't want to belabor it too much and I can provide additional information offline if anyone needs more than is provided today the purpose of course is to increase our locally owned and operated water supplies so that we can mitigate the impacts of any shortages that Sonoma water might experience because about 93 percent of our potable supply comes from them so we're looking at a wide range of supply options studying all of those and then we'll develop a plan looking at the most feasible options for increasing our supplies over time to date there have been quite a few meetings this project by design is soliciting input from a wide range of interests so we've had two working sessions with our internal water team interdisciplinary group two community webinars that are two hours each two stakeholder group meetings these working sessions included a couple of folks here from the sub-tac as well as folks from across Santa Rosa leaders in a wide range of industries and interests that we held a study session with our board of public utilities and of course our consulting team has been helping all along to refine information and lead these meetings and provide technical assistance with this so as I said quite a bit of input received to date some of the key themes from the groups that we've worked with is there needs to make we need to make sure that there's a focus on equity so for example making sure that we don't inadvertently impact vulnerable communities for example by locating a facility in an area that would disrupt quality of life in some way in one neighborhood versus another we have to look at the cost effectiveness of supply options also community impacts so will this actually help make sure that our community is less burdened during droughts in terms of their conservation the impacts on the rates they pay that sort of thing and then obviously the whole point of this project is to have greater independence from Sonoma water so that we are more resilient and also so that more water is left in Lake Sonoma for the use of all of our regional partners so in terms of the timeline that first block of work has been completed all of that work to establish our goals our criteria the study methodology the water supply options that would be studied all of that has been completed and the feasibility study is now underway the water supply resiliency goal with all of the input that we received has been refined to this to diversify and increase our supplies to reduce our dependence on Sonoma water particularly during any water shortages or disruptions that Sonoma water might experience volumetrically we're looking at 30% of the city's water demand so being able to provide that ourselves during a severe drought that would reduce the impact significantly so that we can provide 30% of demand in 2045 when we look at our projected demands that volume would be about 7500 acre feet that we would produce ourselves if there were a natural disaster some sort of short-term disruption in the ability of Sonoma water to provide water to us that would provide about 9 million gallons per day that would reach about half of our normal indoor domestic demand so we'd be providing about 19 gallons per person per day or so and would also provide water for commercial industrial institutional and of course for health and safety so we would be able to provide whatever was needed for fire protection hospitals those would be prioritized when we have normal water years the peak day demand we'd be able to shave off about 9 million gallons per day so again all of this works to support Santa Rosa's independence and resilience protect the interests and concerns of our customers but also it leaves more water in Lake Sonoma so we're looking at a wide range of options for study I'll go over those in a moment but the study is going to look at describing the sources getting a sense of how much water they would provide what limits there might be there may be seasonal limits or there may be some sort of regulatory limits on that supply describing those looking at proposed locations trying to ground these in real locations so that to the greatest extent possible this is an assessment of a very high level of real projects look at what needs to be constructed consider all the other options and and considerations that need to be taken into account so these are the areas that we're looking at with this study for groundwater looking at not only our typical groundwater extraction wells but aquifer storage and recovery considering purified recycled both direct and indirect considering non-potable recycled so expanding for example expanding storage so that we can store more winter water and potentially have it available for use during the summer for customers desalination considering potentially brackish and ocean desal and then looking at surface and storm water could we capture that flow from creeks or from the Laguna from Sonoma water and Russian River and injected store it stored above ground looking at those options and then targeted efficiency programs that would have very aggressive incentives that go well beyond our cost benefit analysis in order to reduce demand as a way of providing a lower demand decreasing the need for additional supply so I won't go into detail about those but just that's a very high level view of the kinds of options that we're considering and you'll see that there are regional as well as city projects that we would be considering in this study and just again as a reminder this is sort of a class five level study so this is very high level so what we're going to end up with is not project specific plans and specs that we go out and implement but rather how do we compare one project against another and then if we do capital projects in the future of course all of those would go through a secret process and budgeting process all of that sort of thing so this is very high level so the evaluation criteria we started with 16 criteria and through all of the input that we received from all of our stakeholders and interest groups we've condensed these down and so you can see that cost effectiveness is important scalability that's not only how much water the project would provide as built but does it have the ability to scale up and scale down as needed Is it resilient? Will future drought or regulations remove that as an option? We need to consider that What disproportionate impacts could have on vulnerable communities? The environmental performance is over and above the CEQA process that is would this in fact have some sort of environmental benefit or environmental impact in some way that isn't considered in CEQA but we need to keep in mind. Legal permitting and regulatory of course and then is it city controlled is it interagency coordination of course city controlled is going to rate a little higher because it's within our control there are some risks with interagency coordination it takes time it takes effort folks can you know in working out those agreements it's a lot more work to do and then multi-benefit so for example if we do stormwater capture are we also addressing flood control issues so what are the multiple benefits of projects? The methodology is to look at all of those supply options that I showed before and do a high level assessment of cost effectiveness and scalability some projects are going to fall out we know that but that will at least let us document why those are falling out if they're not at least on a high level cost effective and scalable we need to remove those and then we'll have a shorter list of options for a very detailed analysis and that detailed analysis is going through an assessment based on all of the criterion and then assigning weight to those criteria so high level and then short list and then detailed analysis. When we look at the detailed analysis these are the same criteria that I showed before but these would be then weighted to some degree so what Woodard and Kern is currently working on is a matrix that will have numeric values and the higher something scores the better the project is so we're going to be looking at perhaps five anywhere from three to five metrics for every one of these and then their score would be weighted to some degree to help us compare these projects against each other just to let you know the next steps this is where we are today the supply goals the supply options and the criterion methods have been developed and now the study is underway we're going to bring back our key stakeholders the water team the stakeholder group in the community in May to look at the study results the draft findings take that input that'll get finalized and then Woodard and Kern will develop synopsis of portfolio so they're going to develop some options of mixes of water supplies that could help us reach our goal those will be brought back to folks for review in June and July and then we will also be looking at the draft plan in July and then in September we'll have the public review draft ready that'll be shown to bpu and city council and then we'll finalize that report present it to bpu and council in October and we are currently on track we are still on schedule as defined so with that I'm happy to take any questions that you all may have right thank you Colin any questions or comments from sub-tact members yeah Colin real quick would you mind putting up this slide showing the alternatives you're you're looking at you bet let me just share my screen and I think you meant this slide is that correct I did okay terrific and I can provide through the secretary I can provide a four page handout that has all of the study criteria in it so it includes the goal the supply options the criteria and the methodology it's a nice four page summary so I'm happy to provide that as well okay thank you excellent happy to help uh Craig looks like you have a question as well yeah so as this group may recall I was actually assigned to represent our group at the stakeholder meetings so I attended the two stakeholder meetings and was impressed by the variety of interests and how it was um so well um conducted by the consultant team and Colin um and um like uh so so the general scenario was we were separated out into groups around each table and provided questions to kind of tease out what our preferences were with this group of options and um there there were I was probably the most technically um let's do person on there and and that was kind of refreshing to see this input from a lot a big variety of of different interest groups and so um we saw the rates become a very high priority equity I kind of I was on the other side of that gun um thinking with the engineering part of my brain like how is this going to provide us more supply but but I kind of got um became more aware of what that importance was um so I just wanted to recap uh you know you see purified recycled water is is in play as well as the non-portable recycled water um and then uh as as far as the impacts to the partners as these actually come about in the plan um is yet to be seen but I think if if those options are realized it it could put you know we would have a role in that so very very aware of our perspective at that these stakeholder meetings and I look forward to seeing the draft report thanks thank you so much for that synopsis and we and the the whole project team has been I would say actually floored by the quality of the questions and the input particularly from the stakeholders but also the community as well um and the commitment and the engagement it it's really been very very impressive to us and very helpful we can look at it technically we can look at it as a water provider but to understand the concerns and interests of our community from business construction um service agencies etc it really makes a difference for us so we've really appreciated any other questions or comments from sub-tech members all right seeing none thank you very much for the presentation Colin and before you go we'll open it up to public comments for item 5.4 if you wish to make a comment please raise your hand on zoom or if you're on the phone dial star nine secretary manis do we have any public comment on this item we do not all right great so with that uh thank you all we are adjourned and just a reminder that uh likely going forward all meetings will be in person at the sub-tech and Jennifer likely going forward um Emma Walton may be your new representative for South Park well that would be excellent yeah I think she may have a little bit of knowledge about the treatment plan well uh well thank you Mike and if you do want to make that official change please just let us know okay and if you do uh uh thank you for all of your service on this board over the years yeah my pleasure have a great day everyone thank you bye bye thank you