 building data for our customers. There's even more information that's in it, but this is just to give you a picture of how complete the financial model will be taking all of this data into account. So the model will give us the ability to have a 10-year look at our funds. It will give us the ability to see how various financial items affect our each one of our funds and it will give us the ability to determine rates and rate needs based on increasing CIP funding, decreasing or increasing expenditures, debt service, and other factors as well. And it also will allow us to make adjustments as we need to. So as an example, this year when we needed to add large amounts of dollars for emergency response to CIP, we can add that to the model and see how it affects our funds. And then the second piece to this is the agricultural working group. We decided to add this group, which also is requiring us the need to also do an amendment to the contract for this additional scope of work. What we did is we developed a working group. The working group is comprised of city staff, Mr. Reed, and six of our agricultural users. The purpose of this working group is really so that we have the opportunity to work in a collaborative process with our ag users to develop a rate structure. What we needed to do in order to make this very collaborative and to develop a fair rate structure was to develop an understanding on both sides of recycled agricultural use, not just the city side but also the user side. So during this, we are making clear what the city goals are and also we are able to get a clear understanding of what our users' needs are. We're looking for input from them not only on pricing structure but on timing and reliance that they have on the recycled water from those users. Because as we have seen, the city's use or water use and generated wastewater has not increased as previously projected and unfortunately that has led to less recycled water supply than we planned. And so now what we have to do is the city needs to balance our disposal needs with our contractual obligations, which we have, and we want to balance that with the agricultural communities use. But as I stated before, we want to do this in a very open and collaborative process, which is the purpose of this working group. A driving factor for this group is also the disparities in pricing that we currently have. The historical development of agricultural contracts has led us to the disparities that now exist and you can see all of the different types of contracts and payments that we have for the various users. The timing of the city's needs for disposal and new customers coming on at various times have created this huge variety of terms that vary between users and have no consistency. And so our goal through this process is that all ag users are treated fairly. One of the commitments we've made is to communicate what we are doing. So therefore after each meeting, we are going to be distributing a communique of the meeting content. The users have received this already from the first meeting, but I will be sending out to you and the entire list of agricultural users in the next few days so that you can all see what we are doing in the meetings. And then as part of the efforts to include all ag users in the process, water will also be designing a survey that goes out to all ag users on the work that's being done in the group so that we can get feedback from everybody. And then as far as next step goes, we have two meetings that are currently scheduled. The working group meets again on September 25th and the ad hoc committee meets on October 25th. And then I will also be scheduling additional meetings after this with both groups. Therefore, it is recommended that the Board of Public Utilities, by motion, approve a First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement number F001662 with the Reed Group Incorporated to provide additional support and expertise for the extended agricultural water usage rate setting process, increasing the total contract amount from $99,880 to a not to exceed amount of $135,280 and authorize the chair to sign the agreement. And with that, I will take any questions or comments that you may have. Thank you. Any questions for Deputy Director Zinio? Yes, Board Member Grable. Yeah, thank you so much. I guess my first question would be when we've been discussing this in the ad hoc, the terminology, fair and consistent, consistent and fair to all customers, I do want to make sure there's still distinction in this process between, for instance, dairy users that have pasture land that is a much more efficient discharge contingency than a vineyard, for instance, and also a different time of year of use, whether one is frost protection and the other one, you know, maybe irrigation for grazing lands. It was brought to my attention that recently the Geysers Pipeline Annual maintenance took longer than expected and there was, you know, sort of an extension of usage put out by Santa Rosa Water to some of the ag consumers, which I would also like to sort of be aware when those unexpected, unforeseen contingencies come up related to ag water. It lets us make these decisions a little more effectively and thoughtfully, but it also highlights that our systems, contingencies and, you know, I mean everybody likes to think they're special, but in this case we are very special in what we do with our, with our treated wastewater and I'm not sure that any of the, in this rate study process part of the difficulty is trying to find, you know, like systems that have similar either contingencies or whole-cost analysis components that I don't know of any other systems that have the types of whole-cost componentry and contingencies that ours too is specifically related to the Geysers Pipeline. So I would just, I would really like to see that thought through in, since we are, you know, amending this contract and really trying to get it right and trying to open it up to all of these possible factors and criteria that it's not just being fair and, you know, not consistent to all customers because I don't think there's a consistent need across, I mean I think some, some we need more than others for instance and that should be reflected. Just in that process it's really important that the work that came out of the ad hoc so far and in our field trips and all of that, that that's, you know, obviously interrogated deeply and that I see that in the criteria in the rate study. So if I could briefly respond I'd say absolutely understood and unlike some initiative staff undertakes where we dive deep into the technical issues and bring you recommendations or a couple alternatives. We are well aware that this is a politicized process and a difficult process and has all the history. Our intention is through the meetings with the user groups to simply explore concepts but ensure we do not get ahead in any way of the ad hoc nor the full BPU and we are going to take this very slow and take all the input and bring to you from the users, invite them to the next ad hoc committee meeting and take all our direction from certainly the ad hoc group and the full board when we bring these issues to you. Well and if I may I think that's the benefit of having our consultant at the meetings with the stakeholders so that that consultant can hear those issues and have a true understanding of all of the issues that we're facing in this process and so it's valuable to have him there. Vice Chair Arnone. Just piggybacking on what you just had to say. The main purpose for this amendment is to allow greater time for the consultant to spend with the group of users for these resources and I can say Board Member Gravel and I did have a chance to do a field trip and went on site to talk to three specific users and I found that to be tremendously helpful in framing the issue, getting a sense of what is important on both sides of or all sides of the argument and so to the extent that this amendment facilitates further input from the group of users I'm all in support of it and I'm glad that we have the resources available to allow greater participation of the users in the process of coming to a final rate structure if you will in resolving the issues out there so I'm all in favour of this proposed contractual amendment and I'll be ready to move it to approval when it comes time. Any additional board member questions or comments? Board Member Rommalin. Not a question as much as a comment it's reading the staff materials and listening to the presentation it's reassuring at least from my perspective of the fact that the regroup is assisting the staff in this I've both received and worked with the regroup over the years on this very subject and I have seen them in the trenches if you will dealing with diverse agricultural users and it's highly charged and there's a lot of emotion that generally comes to the surface when you start to establish rates for long-time users who have received the recycle water from the city for years either free or subsidized or at a nominal fee and to have to transition from there into what is now a commodity that has market value and establish that I found that that Bob Reed and his his group is very good dealing with that dynamic and then coming forward with recommendations that are in plain English that both the users and the decision making bodies can understand and recognize and make educated decisions is really an art and they do a terrific job with that and so I think we're in good hands bringing this forward and I look forward to the recommendations that come out of that. Thank you. Any other additional comments or questions? If not we will entertain a motion. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'd like to move that the Board of Public Utilities approve amendment number one to contract F001662 for additional support and expertise for an extended agricultural water usage rate setting process with the regroup in the amount of $35,400 increasing the total contract amount to $135,280. Second. Motion by Vice Chair Arnone seconded by Board Member Grable to approve item 7.1 on favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Any abstentions? Passes unanimously with one absence. Thank you. Thank you Deputy Director Zinino. Item 7.2 is a report on the project work order approval for the freeway well planning project. Colin Close is going to be providing the report to the Board on this item. I did want to, I'm sure it'll, I suspect it'll be in the presentation, remind the Board that this effort is 50% funded from a grant that we received and the intent is to really explore and resolve a long-standing issue in the department. We used to have production wells at this site and there was contamination that crept into the the cone of influence pulling up and they've been abandoned since that time and it does reflect this initiative to some extent the challenges that we've had developing emergency wells, the costly challenges and here we do have a potential opportunity to explore is there an opportunity to do some sort of remediation of the site and have these wells as a key piece of our emergency groundwater even production wells it is setting expectations at this point it's very unclear what the what we'll find through this effort we may very well find that the nature of the contamination is such that we would never tackle it from a liability standpoint potentially or from a cost standpoint to get the return on the investment, the alternative is also possible. What may come out of this is this decision to just permanently put these wells, cap them and put them to bed or proceed with a difficult decision of potential cleanup so we'll keep the Board of Prizes as we move forward but with that Colin. Excellent thank you Director Hernstein so again I'm calling close senior water resources planner and what I'd like to do is provide some additional background going back to the 50s talk about the sources of funding as Director Hernstein mentioned the work plan that's being proposed today the scope of services the timeline remind you of the recommendation before you and then answer any questions that you might have so going back Freeway well was constructed in 1957 over 800 feet deep about 16 inches in diameter so this is a big well very productive can produce a million gallons per day sustainably in the city operated it for 30 years in a sustainable manner great resource for us and for our water customers in case you're kind of struggling to figure out exactly where this is on the map this is on Cleveland Avenue north of west college and south of cutting town so that might kind of position it a little quickly for you since this map zooms in a little bit close on it and as Director Hernstein mentioned routine testing in the 80s revealed that the groundwater had been contaminated by volatile organic compounds from sites that were not this property but in the nearby area in light industrial zones and the regional water quality control board is aware of a number of sites that could be the source of contamination that has reached this well but there are a number of them and there are a lot of questions that need to be answered once staff realized there was contamination in this groundwater the well was taken offline it was disconnected physically from the city system in 1994 and it's been sitting out there as this potentially very incredible asset with this problem that we haven't been able to really study and resolve and so staff has wanted for quite a long time to figure out what we could do and how we could look at the feasibility of what options might be before us staff before my tenure as a senior water resources planner discovered that Proposition 1 had some groundwater grant funding that could be potentially used to do a comprehensive feasibility study and so they were able to submit a pre-application in July of 2016 the state was very pleased with that and asked for some simple revisions and some new approaches and did lots of discussion and correspondence we were able to submit a final application in August of 2017 and some of you may remember we came to you a couple weeks before that just to let you know this was moving forward we did came back to you again after we heard that the award was going to be given to us in January to get your recommendation to city council that city council authorized director hornstein to assign staff to negotiate the contract and to get author authority for him to sign the grant agreement and so we did move that forward to council council did agree with that and unanimously so we've been negotiating with the state all the finer details of timeline and scope of service and CEQA compliance and all the many things that you can imagine would go into a project like this so we've been given word that the contract is finalized and we expect it to land on my desk any day now so that I can bring it forward to director hornstein for signature it's already been reviewed by legal so we've we've done all of the the steps we need to but the timeline is a little tight on this project so we thought it would be very important to get the project work order in order ready to go so before you today is the project work order to implement this grant even though we don't have the signed contract in place we're moving these parallel so that we don't lose any time the clock is ticking the projected cost for this project's 977 866 dollars and that's the best we could do in terms of really logging locking down what the cost would be the state will pay up to 50 but no more than 500 000 on these projects so we were eligible for the 50 the discrepancy between the city's match on that is we looked at the tasks and tried to divide them out between grant funding and local funding so that it would be easier with bookkeeping and auditing and all of that down the road so there's a city's picking up about 1200 more on that but it essentially is 50 percent statistically I just want to mention that that source of funds locally partly it will be matching funds in kind services so staff time will apply so that won't be hard cash out the door so some of our work will actually be part of that matching fund also some work that was done previously by the consultant on studying this is also considered eligible and so some of that money that we're showing is matches already been spent and so our hard match is a little bit less than the actual value shown there in terms of cash this money was allocated over the years for the emergency groundwater supply program so that money is already in appropriated we're not asking for any additional funding for this projects with existing funds so the scope of work under this grant I wanted to point out that the bulk of the work that will be done will be done by under this project work order so the scope of work will include reviewing records and gathering data to make sure that we fully understand what's already known about the area contaminated sites responsible parties monitoring wells in the area hydrogeology well logs everything that we can find so that work is a big portion of what needs to be done initially understanding compiling and analyzing what is already known then we need to do some work to understand better the hydro hydrology and hydrogeology so there'll be a test boring that will be drilled on the property and it will have three nested monitoring wells built into it and they'll be at each of them at a discrete depth so we'll have monitoring well one in the shallow aquifer two in between and three in the lower deeper aquifer so that we can really start to differentiate where are the volto organic compounds where's the contamination how is that issue really playing out in the hydrogeology below the site next we need to do aquifer pump testing and that will be pumping the the freeway well itself and seeing what impact it has on those monitoring wells as well as wells that are in the area so we'll be looking at setting up agreements with folks who have monitoring wells at contaminated sites to also put traducers in their wells to better understand the impact of this aquifer and the pump testing and then we'll do a feasibility study once we've gathered all the data we better understand the problem we have a more comprehensive view of it look at as director hornstein pointed out what realistically are our options for either restoring farmers well or excuse me freeway well itself replacing it on site if that's possible we're abandoning it if that's what needs to be done so then we need to really look at what all the options are what are the treatment options available what are the costs are they sustainable all of those issues need to be studied so the timeline for this project is just two and a half years and the clock as I said is already ticking so we're hoping that if you're comfortable with this project work order we can begin working this month and in the first 12 months that would be focused on records review data gathering and developing the specifications and the bid for drilling services i'll point out the cost for drilling services and monitoring well installation will be matching funds but the oversight of that and the spec specifications development and the construction management all that would fall under the project work order but the actual cost of the drilling would be city matching funds already accounted for in this grant in the second 12 month period the test warring would be drilled the monitoring wells would be installed and we would do the aquifer pump testing and then the last six months now that we know what we know we'd look at what is really feasible at this site is it possible to use this property for an emergency well site or is it not and if it is how would we move forward and again the most cost effective and sustainable manner so just to remind you our recommendation is that you approve this project work order so that we can go ahead and get things in order get started get rolling with this the amount is not to exceed $557,731 and that doesn't include a five percent contingency just in case there are some unintended or unexpected pieces that come up in that a very complicated process of implementing this project this is under an existing master professional services agreement for the emergency groundwater program so we're not asking for any new contract just a project work order under an existing contract so with that i'm happy to take any questions that you might have or any comments that you have thank you mr close any questions by the board board member mullin thank you um as we proceed first of all i want to commend the staff for obtaining that that grant that's fantastic um in looking at the alternatives with with this well up to bringing it back on service or abandoning it will part of the evaluation include either retrofitting or or if we proceed with reactivating the well is providing an opportunity for it to utilize groundwater recharge since that's an element that seems to be gaining traction in this county with groundwater given the value it's it's clearly has will will there be consideration or uh equipment installed so that it's an easy connect and ready to go if we put it back in service the well as it is currently configured wouldn't be set up for that it would have to be it would require a new well to be installed in order to do something like that however it's artesian when it's resting so that's one of the issues in groundwater many places in santa rosa so i'm not sure it would be actually a but it's certainly something we can discuss once we understand some of the options in which way to move forward but i also wanted to mention that it may be that because this well was drilled at a time when we would put perforations at every possible point in every possible aquifer we may find that drilling a new well on the site is actually what is most viable in terms of being able to perhaps get into a deep aquifer that is untouched by volatile organic compounds and that would be the opportunity probably more likely to even consider more of what you know the option you're talking about in terms of recharge but at this point we're really just looking at the feasibility it's we're not yet looking at what the next steps would be we need to get all that data first but we'll certainly put that into the hopper in terms of you know once we have the recommendations understand what's feasible look at that as one of those options thank you any additional questions or comments yes from your banister so i apologize if being a new member this has been discussed before but what i didn't see was the purpose of checking out this well or spending the money to determine its feasibility is it an emergency supply or what's why do you why do you want to check it check it out excellent question director banister thank you for asking that yes definitely this would be part of our emergency water supply absolutely previously it was part of our production supply but we now purchase the vast majority of our water from the water agency but we are in short supply for emergency water and in case something were to happen where we didn't have access to the county's water supply so definitely it's part of what we want to build up our our cadre if you will of emergency wells and this one is one of the most productive wells the city's ever had so it's an incredibly productive well and very sustainably productive so pulling a million gallons per day letting it rest it restores itself very quickly so it's really a fantastic opportunity and it would be for the purposes of having emergency groundwater supply hearing no more questions i'll entertain a motion i would move resolution number 1156 resolution the board of public utilities recommending that city council authorize the director santa rosa water to negotiate and execute a grant funding agreement with the state water resources control board for the freeway well planning project designate the director santa rosa water as a representative for the project authorized use of non-general funds to match the state funds being awarded and authorized the chief financial officer to increase appropriations in the amount of the grant award and weigh the reading of the remainder of the text just to clarify we have just this approval is by motion but i think that the content of the motion will stand i just wanted to clarify that i i i'm not sure if that was was that a motion in the pack or was that a resolution in the packet not it's a motion absolutely right okay great thank you second okay with that clarification that this is a motion we have a motion by board member dowd seconded by board member mullin to approve item 7.2 all in favor say aye aye any opposed any abstentions very good thank you mr close item number eight is public comments on non-agenda matters seeing no one rise uh we have no referrals we have one piece of written communication subcommittee reports hearing none board member reports um i didn't hear anybody make this announcement but i presume that board member batten fork did inform either you chairman and the director that she had a fall in her home and uh is in i guess some significant pain and i just wanted to be sure that everybody was aware what had happened and my hope is that you'll have a complete and quick recovery thank you she did notify us and we wish her speedy recovery any other board member reports director's report juror galvin i i do have a few comments to share first i i did want to build on my earlier comments that tomorrow we're bringing two items to the council one is the item you heard from deputy shivoni the the other item is an update on the benzene issue that we've been keeping the board apprised on but to share a little bit of what we're going to be sharing tomorrow to the council is the status of where we are in terms of the replacement of the service lines all that work has been complete also sharing with them the change order we brought to you to have the contractor do the targeted replacements of the three mains on the courts where we did have some residual benzene contamination and that work will be complete next week and we'll be doing some follow-up sampling and the expectation is we'll have resolution of that issue which then moves this to lifting the advisory and we'll be sharing some of the rather detailed efforts that we've been working with the regulators on the approach to do that both the sampling and flushing regime that's rather extensive prior to lifting the advisory the communication efforts staff will be doing to the broad stakeholders in fact last night we met with the 13 homes that it went very well in fact to share at the end of the meeting two folks came up to us and thanked us for a job well done and we'll have other broader community meetings for the Fountain Grove area to share this and then rather extensive sampling regime developed post advisory lifting where we would it's a detailed process that we'll be sharing once it's in a fully developed form of course with the board of you know decreasing frequency of sampling assuming all the data holds for an extended period of time to maintain the confidence of the community that this issue is fully resolved and that will go on for an extended period so i did want to provide an update on that and of course if anyone wants more information on that they can contact us at water quality at srcity.org or visit srcity.org slash wq advisory to sign up for our newsletter that now we have i believe over 10 000 subscribers to that and have found it to be a relatively good way to communicate to the public on this ongoing issue i also wanted to share with the board that this past week or so we discovered a small leak in the geyser pipeline and that was discovered really alert staff during a routine shutdown notice that an isolated segment of pipe kept losing pressure and the pipe was isolated and it was going up the hill at pine flat trod and so a leak was identified as the very likely cause of that and after quite a lot of work of potholing and excavating we did find the leak the good news is the leak was due to an expansion joint meaning good relative to some corrosion or some larger more systemic problem and we're working with some experts to develop a fix to that we do have a number of other similar expansion joints in the system there and we'll be doing a follow-on project to excavate those look at those our understanding is this is about the time their youthful life has exceeded and in that effort we'll also be looking at the pipelines 15 years old we don't have redundancy it's a critical piece of infrastructure certainly what other appearances are due for replacement or preventative maintenance activities or at least inspection so we'll be talking more and bringing that effort to you at the right time also wanted to note that this afternoon in fact stormwater staff is participating on a panel at the regional board in front of the regional board on preparation for the upcoming wet weather season i think getting the invite from the regional board is reflective of the collaboration that staff continues to do with their staff on this issue and i think it says a lot that we were invited and we're participating in that also wanted to share with you some very good news that we have selected our new deputy director for our engineering services division emma walton who is here in the audience there she is congratulations to miss walton and she already has a very full plate and is you're aware among the many activities on her plate is developing and thinking about a long-term plan for our infrastructure renewal that is ahead of us and of course we'll be bringing more of that to the board as work is developed with that effort and a good part of it will dovetail with the long-term financial plan that we're working with with a reed group led by deputies as you know on that so that'll dovetail together with that and lastly i wanted to share that staff is putting together a recognition for staff of the one-year anniversary of the fire and we expect at the october 5th board meeting to have the opportunity to share some thoughts potentially from the board to staff on that item and we're looking at drafting a resolution for chair galvin to consider as part of that effort and potentially some refreshments at the end of that that concludes my comments if you have any questions on the items i'll i'll take them now any questions for the director very good well again welcome to board member banister look forward to working with you congratulations to deputy director walton and again i would encourage you if you're able to attend tomorrow's city council meeting right here at 10 a.m. board member dad i failed to comment uh under board member i failed to comment under board member reports i did report at our last bpu meeting that i will not be in attendance at the next bpu meeting on the 20th of september i'll be out of town and i am planning on attending the city council meeting tomorrow at 10 o'clock thank you we are adjourned