 Good afternoon. We'll call the meeting of the Board of Public Utilities for the City of Santa Rosa to order. If we may have a roll call, please. Chair Galvin. Here. Vice Chair Anoni. Board Member Badenfort. Here. Board Member Bannister. Here. Board Member Dowd. Here. Board Member Grable. Here. Board Member Mullen. Here. Any statements of abstention by board members? I'll be abstaining from the last minutes. Okay. Any others? All righty. Then we will, we have no study session, the minutes for November 1st, both the special and the regular meeting will be approved and entered. We have a couple of staff briefings, the first one 5.1 on the agriculture user group update. Kimberly Zanino presenting. Staff will provide an update on the work being performed with the agricultural user group. The beat goes on 9 out of 27. Have you, have you heard the exhaustion from the fire and all that? I didn't seem like it, but they didn't provide really enough information. Thank you, Dr. Peter. Thank you. I'm going to be giving you just an update on what is happening with the agricultural recycled water user group and the rates associated with that process. So today we'll be talking about key pricing considerations, the work that we have been doing in the discussions that we have been having with the agricultural working group, the working group input that we've received, desired outcomes. A possible proposed rate structure and then the continuing process. So key pricing considerations. As we started this process and as we move through it, we know that we need to maintain agricultural reuse as part of our disposal options. We know that certainty and predictability has value to both the city and our users. We also are very aware of that and we've brought to you and talked to you before about the fact that our current pricing in terms are very inconsistent between our over 60 customers. We also know that and have worked through this process because we know that user input is very vital to the sustainability of the program. And then we have also heard and we'll talk about this a little bit more than implementation of the new pricing or the new rates is important to provide our users time to prepare for any sort of rate, especially those that are not paying right now. So the agricultural user group was developed as we started this process. It consists of six of our agricultural recycled water users. Water staff is also involved and then also the reed group who has worked with us for many, many years and you had actually approved a couple months ago an amendment to the contract which included them to be a part of this process. This chart is just giving you a picture of agricultural versus urban reuse. So you can just get a picture of how much water is being used by our agricultural users versus the urban users. It really is used for this next slide that we're going to talk about as well just really to inform the process that we were going through and the different items that we needed to address during the process. During the process one of the things that we wanted to determine is really where that volume of water landed that was kind of what we're calling the sweet spot. So where is that predictable amount of reuse for us? And what we could determine by the data from that last chart is that the sweet spot really lands about 4,000 acre feet. That is a very reliable number of water that we can provide for our agricultural users. 5,000 acre feet is really listed here. We're showing you at about 90% of reliability. So we know somewhere in that range is right about where we can get to that predictable amount of water that we can provide. So as we went through the process we discussed multiple pricing options and this really kind of gives you an idea or a listing of the different things that we were talking to the agricultural users about. We talked about a standard uniform rate for the interruptible water supply. We talked about inclining blocks and declining blocks for tiered pricing to have a two tiered pricing structure. We talked about fixed allocation pricing and we spent actually quite a bit of time with our users on this just because based on input they really wanted us to look at those users who were providing more disposal for us or who were larger users. And so what we did is we looked at the possibility of creating a fixed allocation which would mean our users would come to us. They would give us an allocation that they would like to purchase for the year and then they would pay a lower price for using that water. The problem with fixed allocation, the downside to it is that you have to commit to using that amount of water or you have to commit to paying for that amount of water whether you use it or not and then you would get it at a lower rate. So we came up with that as an option as well. We also talked about temporary urgency disposal incentives and we'll talk about that a little later in the presentation. We've had some discussion about fixed charges for meters or equipment and then we also talked about some non-standard rates which we have not gotten into the development of or we've just really kind of touched on them at this point being frost protected. Being frost protection, off season storage and non-interruptible. So the input that we have been receiving from the agricultural users, one is that they are definitely our long-term partners and there has been a period of time where they haven't really felt all that appreciated being those long-term partners for us. So we really wanted to make sure that we started to work on that relationship with them, make sure that they knew how important they were as part of our disposal option and that we want to continue those partnerships that the goal of this process was not to remove that partnership but to make that partnership better. We know that regular communication is very important. There are times when we need them to take more water or we are running out of recycled water and keeping those lines of communication open so that they can plan and prepare is very important and if we aren't doing that then it can be extremely disruptive to them. After the discussions about the multiple options for rates it was pretty clear that their preference would just be something very simple, a simple rate structure that's easy to understand and easy to administer. We know that part of what we'll be looking at and I'll talk a little bit more about it later is the allotment process that we currently have in place so that was another concern that they had. And then we know there are some concerns at the end of the season. We're not sure that there's really much that we can do about it but as the ponds get lower there is issues with the water. The quality is not as good and so the lines get kind of gunked up and they have some issues with that water when it's being delivered. And then the other thing is the pumps and the meters. So we have been discussing the equipment that the city provides and it was a big concern for the users that we would try to make them responsible for the pumps and the meters that we've installed. They would not install pumps or as fancy meters as we have installed for them and we want those on the system for our own uses and so that would not be something moving forward that we would ask them to take on. So it was just a concern that they had expressed to us. The desired outcomes of this process was really to have the users be involved and have some concurrence on a rate structure. Not necessarily the actual rate schedule itself but we were working towards the structure to begin with. The development of the rate schedule itself. We are working towards consistent language in all of the agricultural contracts that we have. And then to adopt a policy on the recycled water and to bring to you a proposed rate structure in the future for your consideration. And then we've also talked a little bit with them about trying to do some coordination between the land leases because we have yet another layer of complication where we have contracts with ag users. But then we also have ag users that also have leases with us as well. And the timing of those two contracts are not consistent at this point. So as we came to the last agricultural user group meeting, we talked to them about having heard their concerns knowing that they were more interested in just a uniform rate. We also have heard them many times talk about how a phased implementation would be better for them so that they can prepare for it. And then also this temporary urgency disposal considerations that we've been talking about. So this is what we came to them with in the last meeting. A simple to understand, simple to administer rate structure. Same for everybody, no tiers, no fixed allocations, no having to administer how much somebody would like to buy or not buy at the beginning of the year and having to track that. And so we have talked to them about this has not gone out to all the users yet. So we'll still be looking for feedback from the rest of the users. But implementing it in a phased approach, as I said before, it's important to our users that they would receive or they would have the ability to plan in the future for what the rate structures are going to be. So to slowly implement up to $50 an acre foot starting in 2020 would be the first year. And the temporary urgency disposal incentives. So one of the things we've talked about multiple times is that there are times when we need them to take water and they may not have planned on taking water at that time. Or they we're asking them to take more water than they had previously planned. As an example, when the geysers was down for an extended period this year, that was unexpected. We asked for some of the users to take additional water so that we could give a little relief to the storage. And so during those times we are proposing that that is a need that we have. And so at those times we would not be charging them for anything per acre foot. It would be basically free to them at that time. And this piece when we talked to them about it, one of the other things that came up is that there are periods of time. However, they would be pretty rare. But there have been times in the past where there's been a need in the wintertime when they have already pulled everything off of their fields and they don't really need our water. And we've asked them to take some of it. And so they have to hire people to come out and run lines and do work for them. And so they have asked us to take into consideration times like that when we would ask them and some sort of reimbursement plan in place for when we would ask them to do that outside of irrigation season. For the continuing process, our city attorney is now working on the beginning of a standard language agreement that would be for all of our users. We will, as soon as we have that template and that draft in place, we will be bringing that back to the agricultural user group. We are continuing to work on our communications with our groups so that they are aware of how much water we have. When they might be, right now we were, or this last year we were informing them of when they were getting close to their allocations. But they need a little bit more information like how much storage is left. Is there a possibility that we will want them to take more? Is there a possibility that there would be more available? And so we'll be working on improving those communications and keeping those lines open. We also, as I mentioned before, have been talking about the allocations. Several years ago, we had decided to put an allocation on everybody at 16 inches. Well, some users don't need 16 inches and have never used near 16 inches. And then we have other users who would prefer and would like to get more recycled water than that. And so for the next, probably a couple of months, Bob Reed and I will be working through all of the historical data to try to figure out what an actual allocation schedule could look like. And that would be better for both the customers and for us. We have had discussions about frost protection. Frost protection is not a real disposal option for us. Very little water is used. It's very inconsistent. And it happens at a time of year when we don't really need the disposal. So we are having discussions about that, although we have not really moved anywhere near making any decisions or even proposing anything there. We want to make sure that when we have those discussions that we bring more people in that are actually users of frost protection. We don't want to just do that with the group that's volunteered. We want to make sure that the people affected by it are involved in that process. And then, as I said, we've been discussing the onsite equipment. So the city provides equipment for our agricultural users, not all of them, but some of them. So we have discussed the possibility of phasing out the maintenance and the provision of that equipment that is onsite. Once again, this does not include, however, the meters or the pumps. Those, the city will maintain. Those are a benefit to us to really be able to monitor what's being used, where it's being used, when it's being used. And so we will continue to retain the maintenance of those. And then next steps. So the agreement development is one of the next steps. We'll continue to have user meetings. We will continue to have ad hoc meetings following the user meetings so that the ad hoc is informed on everything that's going on. And then at some point when we've gotten through most of this work, we will come back to the BPU with a full study session and a recommendation for our right schedule and the agreements. And with that, I will take any questions that you may have. Thank you very much. Board questions, comments? Board Member Batenfort. Thank you. I am a new member to the ad hoc committee. Obviously our relationship and our business relationship with our ad customers is complex and it's long-standing and incorporates agreements from many, many councils and departments ago. But it remains a priority that we continue these relationships. My understanding is that this, the development of an ag water rate is one component that will culminate in larger formal contracts with each of our users. But we'll also include new rules around the responsibility for different infrastructure and equipment on the property. In addition to pumps and meters, what other equipment on our user's property has been installed by the city, has been used by the city, not only just for water delivery, but for our kind of emergency disposal needs. So we have, we supply, they're called K lines to some of our ad users and big guns is the other piece of equipment that is common that we are providing for them. So it's the actual equipment that they use to irrigate their properties with. And that's it? And so that's anticipated to transfer? Yes. Responsibility would be to transfer? Yes. And so it's a very small group that I think knows that have it, not all of them have it. I think it's a pretty small group actually now that receives equipment from us. And of course I understand the interest in a uniform rate both administration wise. But as we know all agriculture isn't the same and we're not talking about 3,700 users. And even then they could be bucketed, right? The needs and the reality and the very property of those users are very diverse. But you still could almost bucket it into those with crops and those with pasture and the needs and the level of water disposed very, very different. And so is there any scenario where a non-uniform rate is an option? Is something that would be appropriate for the city and for users to entertain? We are going to, as we send it out to all of the users, see if there's any feedback to go in that direction. I think it's important to know that the users that are in the group are most of our larger users. So they're the ones who are going to be taking on most of the burden of the cost. And from that group in a way they're seeming to be pretty comfortable with the direction that we're going. But we're definitely just like I've done with all of the other meetings. I send out a communique to all of the agricultural users. So everybody who is a participant in our program, they'll get a communique. They'll get information from us and then I'm requesting feedback from them each time on the next piece. And as far as the contracts go, what we're doing here really is we're separating out the fee structure from the contracts so that they can have long, well, we don't know how long, but they would like some long-term contracts that are the rules around using the water and then having the fee structure be separate from that. So that's one of the pieces of the work that we're doing. And then those contracts would also probably have some addendums to them. We don't know what those will be yet, but there would be a standard contract about this is, you know, these are the rules, these are the agreements around using the water, but then there may be specific circumstances where we may want to put an addendum in for that. It seems that kind of by nature we're moving from disposal to water as a commodity. I have some questions around the interruptible service, obviously some predictability on their end, right? We have agricultural users that we've had relationships with for decades who 40 years ago and 30 years ago and three and a half years ago built businesses around the structure that they have, including how much water they have access to, how much that water costs. And obviously over time things change, how we value things changes, but it's not lost on me that the impact to our users is potentially extremely high for how much gain for the city. I don't know, I'd like to hear a bit more around that. And then just a bit more also around if we're shifting from disposal and this kind of collaborative relationship of give and take without an agricultural water rate, how can we then move to a water rate that increases by 100% over three years while also reserving the right to interrupt their service. I think there's a much larger context to have this discussion and I don't know what the right context is to have it, but it's a large conversation that's extremely important and very complicated. I'm not a farmer nor an engineer. So I think that there's a lot of questions left. So I think one of the biggest shifts that we've had is the fact that we have had so much regulation come in over the years, over these 40 years where we did use mostly agricultural use and we also were able to discharge, you know, a lot more water and at different times. Really, when the Geysers project came in, we had never expected for our actual recycled water for the volume to go down or to stay the same we expected for it to grow. So there was never an expectation that we would have not enough water for both, that we would be able to meet our needs. That we would have not enough water for both, that we would be able to meet our contractual needs with the Geysers and that we would also be able to meet all the needs of our agricultural users. And unfortunately, that is not the case. The case is that we, you know, are not producing more recycled water like we thought we would. It's not increasing, mostly because of whether has a piece with that, but a lot of that has to do with conservation and the fact that our water users are just not using as much water as they used to use and that doesn't continue to increase. And as more building regulations come into place, even with new development, we're not seeing an increase in that use because they're required to build things that are much more conservative than they were previously. So it certainly has changed over the years to a factor of a supply and demand issue as well. And I know that at least half of our customers, it's not volumetrically half of what's being used, are already paying the $50 an acre foot. And so we were moving towards getting everybody at that same rate, but we didn't want to move them all at once, which is why you see it double, because we wanted to move them slowly and give them time to prepare for that. So that's why you see it doubling. It's only because we're trying to get everybody to that same price point that we're at currently. So as time goes on, I mean, I think that what we're at least hearing from the users is that they're comfortable with taking on some of the costs. It's not close to the cost to actually provide the service. It's just a little bit of relief for the city and for the other ratepayers who are now paying for all of that disposal option. And then moving forward, we haven't made any discussions about future increases at this point. We have had the request of, will there be some sort of inflator that is added to it? We haven't had discussions on that really, because we really need to take a really close look at that and what would be appropriate and what's not appropriate there. But at this point, it's really just to kind of bring everybody to the exact same place as the users that are already paying for it. And if I can add, I'm sorry, I think the consistency across the board and how we're treating our recycled water users is really important. So I mean, this has been a progression, and as things have changed and new users have come on, we have had those fees in place. And so we're looking to try to, you know, make that progress and towards consistency and having a fair and consistent system in place or structure in place. And I think we're having additional ad hoc meetings. So there still would be an opportunity to have further discussions in that setting as well. And I think one other piece to that, the last piece I guess I would add is that, you know, in the past, the other difference is that our agricultural users could take a lot more water, but based on our permits and runoff and all the requirements around that, it really has changed the way that we can dispose of the water. In the past, we could just continue to supply and over water and now we really have to pay attention to that as well and have to be very careful with that. And then my kind of final note is kind of moving forward. I absolutely see the need to evaluate this, even to move forward with changes in our rate structure and the ability to kind of keep that in and of itself. But I think what I'll continue to be kind of toiling with and looking for answers on is there's this whole other piece our whole other implications of our ag water users that the city would be in great danger without them. The redundancy is crucial for us. And so there's a conversation to be had around what is the value of just them being there and then what is the value of when we do dispose and what's the financial relationship and implications for when we do dispose on that property? How often do we dispose there? How much do we dispose there? How much in discharge fines does it help us avoid? And I think that all of those things as we move forward with a rate that could have dramatic impacts on our users that we consider this entire picture moving forward. So thank you. Board Member Grable. Yeah, thank you for the extensive answers to Board Member Battenport's questions are very similar to my own. It's been helpful to be in the ad hoc meetings and see this process unfold and see staff respond really well to some of our questions and recommendations on how we assess these rates and the criteria that we use especially to determine them and what the valuation is of the opportunity cost versus the cost. To reiterate some of what Board Member Battenport was saying in terms of the big picture, the overall sort of whole cost perspective, I do want to say that it's important to me to have some valuation of, you know, because I mean the money we're talking about even at 50 acres a foot in 2022 it was, that's what $220,000 value at 4,500 acre feet which is the sort of the optimal rate and then what is probably 30% at least just admin costs and maintaining that. So the net income on that is maybe 150,000 just in that distribution but then our overall costs are above that obviously and it's just an offset. So I mean if we're saying it's a $150,000 net like in our overall budget it's, that doesn't seem to me to come anywhere near what the opportunity cost is of not having it. And so one, the reason I bring that up again is specifically in relationship to the onsite equipment. It does seem to me that having the option, if it's only say five users, which I think it is that are using equipment like K-Lines and big guns, it might behoove us to continue to provide that if it's I think the cost of just those was maybe 70,000 I think all of them. It might behoove us to make sure that those are there if we need them because otherwise from talking to the users and going out in the field on their properties, it seems to me that if the K-Lines aren't in place and there is a contingency where we need them to discharge for us, it's a lot of times it's cheaper for them to just feed with grain and not graze. And I think it gets into a larger conversation with that about obviously the opportunity, not just the opportunity cost of not having the ag user, but also grazing in general, groundwater recharge, the GSA coming down, what's the cost benefit for those users of not putting the straw on the ground and just pumping out which I think is more costly to them but more predictable. And obviously it's a private property right combined with GSA rate structure, which isn't established yet, but that seems to me to be something that we can at least start to hone in on some values as Board Member Batenport said. Because we're talking about such a small amount of money net to us from it, it's much more about like the whole system's valuation, like what is that offset worth? What is the contingency worth if the geysers goes down? And then also in our negotiations with the North Coast Regional Water Board, there seems to be a value to that in the way that I think we are at least negotiating with them about the whole nutrient offset program, right? That is also coming up and it will come up again and I think there might even be a way to evaluate and monetize that offset of having that contingency, even in a force majeure, not discharging. Because say the geysers goes down on an earthquake, it's a force majeure, but there's still a value to not discharging into the Russian River watershed in a force majeure. And if we have that capacity, why not use that? And maybe there's a grant from the North Coast Regional Water Board that can offset that. It just seems to me that's the big picture perspective in terms of honing down on those values and opportunity costs and contingencies. The second thing I would just say is the timeline of this, I know it's gonna come back to the ad hoc, but I would like to have a good timeline on the sort of the, at some future meeting in the near future, a timeline on not on the implementation, but on the contract finalization and really knowing that we've done our due diligence with listening to the user group and looking at our operations and our staff and our overall budget and our projections for the next 10 years, 20 years on this stuff. Seeing just any kind of potential timeline on that would help me just in terms of like how quickly we need to have these conversations and make sure that we're getting the feedback that we need. The third thing I would say is just as that implementation phase comes... For the rate structure? Yes, as the implementation, if that's the proposed implementation phase, the way that we write these contracts, I would say, for these rates should have, and maybe this is already happening and it's news to me, but having some flexibility in there, in coordination with the GSA stuff, which has a similar timeline of implementation by 2023, that's the deadline I think for the GSA, or the GSP, sorry. 2022. 2022. So it coordinates pretty well with that. Now, if just having some coordination there so that we know, is there a criteria in that for recharge above use, in which case we're actually feeding into recharge above use if we are discharging on a grazing property, which has the highest rate of recharge over pasture land compared to other urban uses or whatever. Just seems to me the biggest, yeah, the biggest coordination piece there would be with the GSP, and that's probably already happening, but I just wanted to make sure that there was some flexibility written into the contracts themselves to allow for that, depending on what gets decided, because it's kind of siloed right now, obviously in a different JPA. I think we're really hoping that there's going to be movement towards more indication of where that's going as far as fees go as well as this moves forward. We have a lot of things going on at the same time, and we don't know what those are going to be yet, but we are watching that very closely to try to see where that lands, because we don't want to be more ever than it would cost to pay fees to go through groundwater use. And because we don't know those things, all I'm saying is having the flexibility to be written into the contract as a contingency for if the GSP is this or this and those rates, obviously we would not want to incentivize only groundwater use when we have this resource available. But thank you. Member Dowd. Thank you for your presentation, Deputy Director, as you know. As I look through this presentation, the first thing that caught my attention because it was my understanding that the chairman had set up a subcommittee of ag reuse, and when I got to chart number four, I was concerned that no member of that subcommittee was involved in some of these discussions to gather information. And when I think about the fundamental needs of our system and the integrity of our system, ag plays a very important part in how we balance the water that we collect and treat and then dispose. Later in the presentation then it's said that you were going to have additional meetings with the ad hoc subcommittee. I believe that two members who have spoken already are both on that committee. I don't know if there's anyone else or not. But it's really important, in my opinion, that that subcommittee weigh in on some of these issues as soon as possible if you've gathered enough information because this reaches into, which I think I've heard both of our other my colleagues say, it reaches into the MPDES permits. It's a full package. So I certainly want to see the subcommittee actively engaged in it and then bringing their recommendations that are developed with staff and any consultants like the regroup that you're using to bring a recommendation to the board. So what we have been doing is we've been scheduling an ad hoc meeting after a user meeting and then we invite the users to come to the ad hoc meeting so they have the opportunity to give comment and discuss with the ad hoc committee so that they have, not only do we have the time where we're spending with the user group themselves, but then we invite the user group to come to ad hoc so that they can have discussion at those meetings as well. And as I'm sure you're well aware, Deputy Director, because of all the things that you've processed through, it's very important, in my opinion, that we continue to use the process that we've had here for years and years and years, which is very important. And I think we have members of the BPU engaged in the creation of the recommendations that come to the BPU so the BPU can recommend to the City Council over issues as important as this is to the whole system. That's my point. If it's moving along in that direction, it wasn't readily obvious to me as I looked at this. Yeah, that will be the plan that we're going to do in the future. Thank you. And just so you're clear, Board Member Dowd, Vice Chair Arnone is also on that ad hoc committee. I thought that was the case. Board Member Mullen. Thank you. It's clear to me listening to the presentation and reading some of the background materials that we're heading in a different direction. So I think that's what the Ag users is now moving into a new sort of an era. And as some of the other board members have stated, it's now moving into the commodity side of this where before we in essence begged them to take it and they took it. And so there should be some reward, I believe, as we move into the next chapter to reward those long-time users that they provided to us during a time when we absolutely had to have it. However, at the same time we it's also no secret that reuse, water reuse is the most expensive disposal option of any of the others that we use because of all the costs associated with power, pipes and manpower and so forth. And so this public-private partnership and the discussions and I know Bob Reed and staff have developed relationships and done this before in other jurisdictions. But to everybody move towards the center point where everybody feels like they can live with that. And it's fair to both sides. One thing that I would appreciate seeing when the rates come back if I'm still sitting at this table that the cost recovery that we try to achieve with whatever rate structure comes forward that we show so that the rate payers and everybody that is interested in this can see how much we're actually recovering through whatever rates we settle in on compared to what our cost is to provide it. I think that's going to be a very telling number because it will see that we're clearly not recovering anything close to our total cost but we're recovering something. And I know how hard it is with some of these users to go from zero to something. And so I would hope that we bring forward something in that kind of vein. With respect to the piping and whatever other facilities are beyond the meter on the user's property if we're moving towards a commodity I would as one person would like to see us moving into a situation like we are on the freshwater side where our obligation ends at the meter. And if there are facilities on the property that have historically been provided by the city to certain users I have no problem letting that equipment go through its useful life but when that useful life is over then the obligation for maintenance and purchase and replacement repair becomes the obligation of the users so that we then our obligation ends at the meter if something goes wrong with the equipment that we have provided on the user's property we're not on the hook for any kind of damages because of erosion because of whatever could result from damage to that equipment that we provide so I for one would support ending our obligation at the meter when the water is out there now continue at its useful life and when it ends then it becomes the obligation of the user long term do we see these rates in this process of dealing with this commodity to add users down the line for instance if somebody came to staff tomorrow and said I have 100 acre vineyard and I don't have a water supply or pipeline can I get some water would we entertain that so currently we have a waiting list because we just don't have the supply to add any additional users as people leave properties the new users come along and typically if they've already had recycled water then they also take on recycled water because a lot of the users now they don't have active wells on their properties because they've been using the recycled water so we do have people who are interested and we actually have a waiting list for other recycled users right now so knowing that and that there are people waiting for the water perhaps again as a way to kind of reward our existing users is anybody that's in the door by whatever date these new rates are adopted gets the tier grade whatever the tiering is but new users come in you're up here we're trying to get to versus the people that have been with us all the way along you get to phase in so that the new users then come in because they have a need the water the fresh water supply in this basin is getting tighter all the time and water rights are starting to shake out and enforcement actions are so we may see more and more people coming forward and I think those people should be treated differently than the longtime users that there should be a rate up here this is the rate and everybody else is kind of phasing up to that over whatever number of years ultimately gets decided on my last question is related to the urban users so do we have a rate or are urban users do they pay a rate now or do they get it free now our urban users actually pay quite a bit it's 95% 95% of the potable rate okay just see my notes here last question I think this is for our attorney the fact that whatever rate we adopt for these users it's a rate for willing users that come in voluntarily and want to sign these agreements that say this is how we'll do it and this is the rate we're going to adopt outside of a prop 218 situation on amending or adopting these rates yes we are outside of the prop 218 because it's not considered a property-based benefit it's interruptible service and it's something that people are not there's no it's not essential that they have the water as it is in urban commercial or residential use my last question is when we come forward will we have a some of the information include comparisons to other ag rates we have some of those now other ag rates that have been developed are pretty high some of those are communities that don't have a disposal need so there is it's just a commodity for them others have worked with those cultural users who have said we'll pay more if we can get the water so they've developed rates there so we do have some that we can show you in the future again just so that we can show the public rate payers and everyone here's how these proposed rates would compare to other jurisdictions that are in place now the ones that we can find are between $150 and about $800 an acre foot thank you I think when we looked at rate comparisons it was not really useful just because our system is so unique in that the geysers contractual obligations and as far as I know there isn't another water department that has that type of system at least in the United States I'm not sure I think Windsor is the closest to us because they actually dispose through the geysers as well and they have a disposal need but they're not as large as us so they don't have the same need that we do Board Member Bannister thank you I can certainly see the need to rationalize the system and bring some uniformity to it so I think this is great I'm curious the rate the target rate of $50 where did that come from? that basically is the rate that was developed for the customers that were coming on they're getting the water for free or being paid for it and so we decided just to move towards that consistent rate of $50 it is less than the electrical costs even for per acre foot for it but we still as we keep discussing it's not just about us recovering costs it's also about our disposal need and wanting to make sure that we don't certainly out price our AG users we want them to be have the incentive also to use the water because it's at least the least expensive option for them so they so it was a negotiated rate in some ways and they are supportive of that ultimate rate some of the users that are on the user group anyway are already paying that they're already paying the $50 an acre foot and so the very long-term and some of those are customers that actually were long-term and then they signed new contracts with us and so really what kind of facilitated us moving towards this is that we have a lot of those long-term contracts that are coming up and they're expiring and they should all be expired I believe that 2027 is that what it is? I'm not sure of the last day for an additional year and I'm not sure how many would still have an additional term beyond that on their own I'd have to look up that information but yeah this was the time when all of those contracts were starting to term out and so this was the time that we really decided to take a look at the consistency between them thank you Board Member Bownford thank you circling back actually you mentioned consideration of some changes to the frost protection process that we have now obviously these are kind of long-term businesses where stability is king are there decisions that are being considered at the staff level at this time that will come before either the ad hoc group or BPU as a whole and what's the timeline on that we haven't made any decisions about frost protection we've just started to actually have those discussions and so when we had the discussion with the agricultural user group we actually have a couple of customers there that use the frost protection and their their thoughts are that if we decide to move towards actually just not even providing frost protection that we would need to give them much time to plan for that because there are other ways to do that but it would take them time to plan and implement anything one of the other discussions that has gone on is if they have storage on site then they can just take the recycled water store the recycled water and then use it for frost protection when they need it instead of us having to go through the process of middle of the night emergency situation going out making sure that things are working properly on a pretty rare basis we have some public-private partnerships around storage on some other property do we actively work with the RCDs or with farm bureaus or with any of the ag entities or even individuals on developing more capacity more ponds on more properties that one I would not know maybe Joe would you know I'd have to check in and see I mean in the past we've looked for more opportunities for storage when we were looking at the geysers that was our entire plan was to try to find storage somewhere else and reuse that water but unfortunately there were too many issues that came up around that just based on our area with tiger salamander and other endangered plant life so I know that was a complication before I don't think that we have been but I would need to check in on that we've actually looked to anybody else to try and get any more storage capacity thanks actually I had one more comment that I forgot to address on the the lease the land lease for ag users it's my understanding that before we leased some of our farm lands to ag users that the land management was not going so well and I'd like to learn a little bit about what was going on and how it was characterized before we leased that land but I appreciated that bullet point about coordinating specifically on the land management side because we do own that property like you said we are liable for a lot of other things that go on on that property including the tiger salamander stuff which we've incurred liabilities for in the past it does seem to behoove us to have very accessible and coordinated rates on our lands that also corresponds to other I would say pasture lands in the Laguna and the Santa Rosa Plains specifically because we have those sensitive species but also just long term we're starting to recognize the value of pasture land for recharge for climate and carbon sequestration for wildlife and biodiversity it does those corridors having them effective genetic corridors for instance for all of that biodiversity it seems to have a significant value when you talk to the scientists like Lisa McAlea at Pepperwood or some of the folks at Sonoma State focusing on CTS that to me was just another thing that I really wanted to hone in on some sort of future valuation showing that there is value it's not a gift of public funds it's not just something we're doing because we've always done it there's actually science to back up the fact this is a public resource it is a insurance policy for climate for availability of groundwater drinking water and biodiversity and wildlife which has all kinds of other positive externalities so it's something that I know the metrics are not there for yet but globally they're getting there so it would be something to include in our maybe explanation to the public but also in our future plans for what we value in terms of land management and priority any other board member questions or comments well I would echo most if not all of the comments that fellow board members have made I think it's been critical the amount of work that the staff has done and I really want to commend staff and the three members of the ad hoc committee and I know that they'll be working hard along with the city attorney's office to get that agreement in a condition where we can review it and hopefully approve it and move forward with that in the setting of the rates so thank you for the presentation and we'll look forward to future updates. Item 5.2 is a staff briefing on the producer responsibility legislation for unused medicines and sharps Mr. St. George welcome we need to get your microphone working better Martin St. George yeah there we go thank you thank you director Martin St. George with the environmental services division I'm in the environmental compliance section and we're going to be on the other end of the spectrum of Mrs. Innu's talk about recycled water we're the group that helps protect the water and water and we're looking forward to the public lay-own treatment works so what am I going to talk about Senate bill 212 and what it means for Santa Reza and the whole regional system as well as the county what is senate bill 212 it's the pharmaceutical drugs and sharps take back program it's an extended producer responsibility legislation it includes pharmaceuticals and sharps we see here Governor Brown signing it on the right of the screen we've got Senator Hannah Beth Jackson and she was the one that brought it forward and has been a champion for the cause along with many stakeholders which include the collaborative of our safe medicine disposal program that we have right now in the regional system so the implement implementation timeline for the senate bill the California department of resources and recycling and recovery or Cal Recycle as we know them as will be overseeing the implementation of the program it's approximately a three and a half year implementation process they've got until Cal Recycle has until January 2021 to promulgate the program and get it set up in the state administration July 1st 2021 or approximately six months the stewardship plans have to be submitted by the manufacturers of the sharps and the pharmaceuticals and we've got October 1st 90 days for approval of those stewardship plans and then there's to be fully implemented it's another 270 days so it's roughly three and a half years the first couple years there'll be no support from the manufacturers and taking back any sharps or medicines so we're going to have to address that and we'll see that in some consecutive slides the enforcement of the program will be by Cal Recycle they'll be overseeing the enforcement and they do have penalties and fines of the $5,000 for incidences to help make sure it happens the key provisions for the manufacturers and the manufacturers may participate as individuals or as a group or through stewardship organizations as it's set up now in many of the other counties that had already adopted ordinances for their county it's predominantly run by stewardship organizations so we anticipate that's what's going to happen statewide the manufacturers of sharps and medicines will be paying for the programs and they are also responsible for the promotion and the education for consumers to participate in these take back programs the convenience standards this is something as we came forward to discuss with bpu and council throughout the years is these convenience standards are landing on 50, every 50,000 people it is possible to have more than 50,000 people in a time period we advertise the program and get more pharmacies involved now which they can do voluntarily if they choose to and we had some very good sites locally that were strong participants in this program in the past which we're hoping they'll come back and I'll explain a little later why they dropped out who qualifies for this any retail pharmacy hospital management agency will qualify for this program individuals who don't have the ability to get to a site can also have mail backs for their medicine for their so they can request a package and they'll get a prepaid package to their home and this also applies to caregivers they can also order them for somebody who may not be able to do it for themselves so they're really trying to include everybody they can in this they're a little different they don't have the kiosks or the drop off spots like we do with the safe medicine but it will be all mail back and mail back containers which they will be given when they purchase their sharps and the other nice caveat on this is the SB212 will mandate producers of needles to reimburse local governments for any needles they collect and dispose of the local agency collaborative that will be available back in 2007 Chairman Galvin and Board Member Dowd and Deputy Director Burke and myself and others we're all here when we first started down this path and it's been a ways coming and we get to see how government works together how collaborative groups work together well this original collaborative Santa Rosa and the regional system and the other we have a lot of people in the county water agency Russian River Water Set Association Sonoma County Waste Management Association and the Sonoma County Department of Health I call them all out because this group is just a small representation of what was happening all over the country we have wastewater concerns we had water reuse concerns we had sharps concerns we had all issues that we see in the headlines rarely now and things that we're dealing with significantly here in the regional system and the city of Santa Rosa so it's a day to celebrate for many of us that started off that process then and to where we are now and it's very exciting to see this come to fruition our next steps as a collaborative we will continue to operate our own agencies medicine disposal programs and we will continue to fund those right now I'm spending 20,000 less than $20,000 a year on the program to keep them going and we anticipate maybe a slight increase in costs if we get some more sites back in but right now this is where we stand the collaborative as a whole will continue to pursue grant opportunities because there have been opportunities advertised and promulgated to stopgap funding for some of the municipalities or agencies that don't have the funds to keep it going who weren't planning on this such a long interim period also we will continue to perform pharmacy outreach to increase the sites as well as conduct public awareness campaigns and we will continue to continue to do it to do something if you will right now we have about four police stations and a sub regional system that we are taking back out I wanted to share these are county disposal totals but they do parallel what has happened in the city of Santa Reza as well and the regional system the bar chart and you can see where the line graph and the bar charts peeked out in 2015 2015 is when the DEA had some very stringent regulations that they implemented which really controlled what could be a site and controlled how you could move the waste medications that were taken back so after that we saw decline and then there was another decline after 2017 a fairly sharp decline and that was after the Board of Pharmacy made it much more stringent for pharmacies to place these kiosks and have oversight over the kiosks inside their facilities and many pharmacies dropped out at that point a lot of our local independent pharmacies dropped out at that point frustrated with the regulations at this point though we are pleased that moving forward we are going to see the numbers grow again we are going to see sites or convenience standards as we are calling them now increase and we are pleased that we are able to continue on with this process and I just again like to thank the Board for hearing me today and letting us participate in this program and to see to anticipate the success that it is going to have in many ways in our own city but across the nation eventually and it is very exciting thank you thank you Mr. St. George any Board member questions or comments Board member Bannister so that last graph is interesting because it obviously demonstrates the correlation between number of sites and how much is actually brought into those sites in tonnage and and then earlier in the presentation there was a mention of bin for per 50,000 people but are the bins different than the actual collection kiosks or whatever that are at the pharmacies I don't follow that the bins in the kiosks are somewhat interchangeably used when dialoguing about the disposal sites so you would have a bin or a kiosk the bins began to be called kiosk somewhere along the way in the process because it's a little more sophisticated than just a bin there's a double lock system on it there's a certain amount of placarding that's required by law to state what's acceptable what's not acceptable in the bins they have to be able to be locked out entirely if the bins are not over being able to be observed during hours so if they're placed by a pharmacy and you're counting on a pharmacy technician to watch that bin and they close the pharmacy well they want to be able to lock on so nobody can tamper with them and to get into the bins to remove an overall secondary container inside you have to have a double key system a double key and a pharmacist or a technician in a pharmacy has another key has a safety precaution so that there'll be no diversion and that was always the DEA's concern of this whole thing was diversion so their kiosk and bin is virtually interchangeable okay so in 2015 when we had 38 20,000 pounds of safely disposal and that's gone down now to something like 5,000 pounds because we've lost a lot of sites that's what you see when you have a drop-off in convenience yes but the number of one site that bin per 50,000 would imply that we're going to continue to reduce the number of sites or that's a minimum and there's also the mailback program that is also part of the convenience standard so you can request those mailback packages which will increase the convenience standard there are some other regulations like 15% of any company's pharmacies have to have at least 15% of your pharmacies participating in an area some pharmacies which I'm not going to call out already have systems in place with mailback so in a sense we're already ahead of our convenience standard but it's going to take a while for these totals to be realized increasing and I mean realized as being increased numbers but the convenience standards will be higher than the 50,000 as it plays out but that's just what was written initially and how that gets allocated the collaborative will work with Cal Recycle to get representation in an area because there are some concerns from different board of supervisor members and other collaborative members about wanting representation in their areas and will we have more representation in areas where there will be high usage and that sort of thing where the population demographics you know like a Walgreens out on Highway 12 admission that's a very good site for taking it back over the years we had a lot return there and I have to believe part of that has to do with Oakmont using that site so things like that strategic placement is important and that's part of the reason why as a collaborative we want to market and reach out to pharmacies or other potential sites to get them involved now because once they're in now then they're grandfathered in when Cal Recycle adopts and everything's fully processed through I would just hope that we can maximize those number of collection sites so that we can maximize the collections thank you Board Member Grable yeah I would like to tag on to that not only would we benefit and the water benefit obviously from more collection sites but as we know the rate of opiate use is as far as I know going up in Sonoma County and as a preventative measure and also because I think there's a lot of funding available for this through programs that are specifically designed to combat opiate use and opiate addiction it does seem to me that in a case where someone obviously needs to be prescribed Oxycontin or some other opiate pain which for some people works a lot better than others and I understand pain management is really important in this day and age especially for an aging population it seems to me that the marketing side in terms of having the funding for a really effective public information campaign would be almost as important as having more sites of collection where if you're just looking at that rapid decline based on number of bins or disposal sites that you're talking about if that corresponds in that way to me the first thing I think about is then doesn't that increase the likelihood that someone will have access for the first time to for instance Oxycontin or something because it just happened to be still at their grandma's house or their parent's house or whatever it is because there wasn't necessarily a really effective public information campaign of saying not only are these places available for this disposal but you need to do this and you know it does seem to me to be an imperative on that end specifically related to those problems when I'm sure you're much more aware of the data and the metrics and how those things relate but it seems to me that if there's a correlation there it's a huge preventative opportunity for that as well but it has to come with a significant public information campaign that I know is very expensive so maybe combining with the grant money that I know is available for those programs just a thought and maybe you can give some feedback on how that relates well that's one of the nice things about having the county health involved with us is they have a you know they have a steady line to a lot of those grant opportunities and they are applying to them and they are helping us from that end and also we are some of the drop off too was we weren't doing as much marketing because we weren't sure about the state of the program we weren't sure what it was going to look like as you know the county ordinance was moving along to potentially have a county safe medicine disposal program and was basically a month away from the first read and we were potentially two to two and a half months away from being adopted but because we saw SB 212 was being so successful the Board of Supervisors said hey let's just wait and see what SB 212 happens because they are going to be voting on it when we potentially would be doing the first read let's put it off a month and this is what we ended up with SB 212 passed and back over the last couple years of the program there were other uncertainties to do with the hauling and to do with the Board of Pharmacy and the DEA's office and pharmacies were not sure where they wanted to position themselves so we were having a hard time advertising sites that we weren't sure if they were going to be internet now that we have terra firma we can start building on something and with the pharmacies with Cal Recycle with our collaborative group and you know have very set sites that we can market and feel comfortable with marketing around them whereas before it was too variable we wanted to be strategic with those limited dollars and we have found what marketing works in the past we had very successful bus ad campaigns movie theater campaigns you know the bus ads on the outside and the inside and we had a meeting earlier and that's we were discussing where we're going with marketing does the bill provide for a floor or ceiling for the manufacturers to contribute a certain amount or percentage towards the market? does the bill provide for a floor or a ceiling for the manufacturers to contribute a certain amount or percentage towards the promotion and education of these programs? you know I don't have those numbers at hand they are responsible for promotion and they are responsible for total collection but as far as the ceiling I can't tell you at this point but there is some measure that they have to live up to in order to there are metrics included in the bill for a member down thank you very very much in favor of getting these call them medical products sharps and various drugs out of being just thrown away but I find it interesting that the group that you see that you state in your presentation Cal Recycle oversees a lot of this and yet your chart says county disposal totals so the disposal and recycle are not the same thing and I really wonder especially after watching this week's upheaval of the whole recycle market because China has shut down receiving various things how is all that going to impact and what does this really look like what happens to this stuff that gets put in the bins and kiosks does it just go into the landfill anyway what's going on with it they will continue to be incinerated the medicines the leftover medicines unused prescriptions and whatnot that are turned in they go to incinerators and that'll be the fate you know I'm not as versed in the sharps so I don't want to venture that as far there's the county department of health has mentioned two ways of disposing of them one is to also incinerate them it's a different incineration point and then the other one is they can be autoclaved and put to landfills but the problem with that is if you get them at a local landfill and the container breaks open nobody knows if it's an autoclave sharp or an un-autoclave sharp and it can create issues so they're trying to avoid any kind of local landfill there's a hope that it'll be a cheaper disposal cost associated with the sharps if they can line that up not all the moving parts are in place and that's one of the reasons for the two year period for CalRecycle to get the program promulgated I would just point out that some of those questions will likely be answered in the promulgation of regulations that's going to take place and the other board member it's pretty shocking to see the drop-off in collection sites and collection pounds in the last few years it sort of explains the dilemma the personal dilemma I had a couple of years ago when my sister passed away she had a bunch of old medication that I volunteered to dispose of not knowing that it was half a safeway bag full of stuff all over a city in Marin County and called people asking where I could dispose of this stuff safely and none of them had the capability to take it except the police department and as I walked in there with my safeway bag I'm imagining if I'm perhaps somebody else and there's a camera in there and here I come walking in with this safeway bag full of stuff and dump it in that bin where it's securely taken care of that some people may be reluctant to do that just for that environment but to see the drop-off it's pretty compelling why it's so hard to get rid of this stuff now and so it's encouraging on the other hand that the legislation now is going to help start this back up and make it perhaps even more effective but the stakeholders that you had here on the collaborative I notice a couple of areas or stakeholders missing the cities I realize they're members of the waste management agency and some are contractors with the water agency and some are part of the sub-regional system that Santa Rosa operates but not all of them some of them operate their own and so I don't see all the cities represented there and of course they have a stake in that because they're dealing with the same issues we all are so it'd be interesting to see how we bring all the cities into that and in the same way the solid waste haulers have an obligation to participate in recycling in accordance with their franchises and they're just as concerned with what goes in those bins and so I don't see them listed anywhere in there in this collaborative and it'd be interesting to see why and how to bring them into the under the tenth so to speak including Republic who runs the landfill for the county and they are dealing with whatever comes through there and now there is that hazardous waste facility down there but I'm sure some stuff sneaks through people put out in their bins that perhaps shouldn't so with adding some of these other areas to the collaborative it would seem that it for grant opportunities that would make us a stronger candidate because we've done outreach to every stakeholder in the county from Cloverdale down to Petaluma and brought them into the tent so that we can do collaboration with programs with monitoring with reporting with information sharing programs that work programs that don't work and you get a universal message all the way across the county whether you're in Cattadi or you're up in Cloverdale so it would I would encourage us to the staff in this collaborative that's been formed and operating for the last decade or so that we try to cast a wider net and get some of these other stakeholders that I think have real purpose and more responsibility and we certainly have obligations to deal with some of this and can perhaps do some more cost sharing for all of us which benefits everyone some of these some of these groups and the collaborative are very widely encompassing groups like the Russian River Waterside Association which includes like the town of Windsor and Healdsburg and those cities and we do have a member of the household hazardous waste team is also part of the Russian River Waterside Association so they come to our meetings as well and so through the Russian River Waterside Association many of the groups that you brought up are in that and I apologize for not expanding on who's a part of that more. But the solid waste haulers are they at the table in any of these groups? They're at the table by the household hazardous waste groups and also the Department of Health is carrying on and continuing dialogue with the sorters and at Recology and what not and Republic because of the sharps issues that happen at Recology and that sort of thing. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Thank you very much Mr. St. George. Appreciate it. We have no consent items, no report items. Any public comments on non-agenda matters? See no one rise. We have no referrals or written communications. Any subcommittee reports? Hearing none. Any Board Member reports? I know Board Member Doubt had something I think he wanted to bring up so maybe we'll pass on the Board Member reports for a moment and I'll turn the meeting over to our committee for some comments on her recent aqua attendance. Thanks Chair Galvin. I wasn't the only staff person that was fortunate enough to attend the aqua conference as Association of Clean Water Agencies, our California organization we were a member of last week Deputy Director Burke as well as Colin Close and Nicole Dorotinsky from the water department were also in attendance. I'll touch on a couple of the highlights that I noted at the conference. SB998 was passed recently. That's a legislation that was carried by Dodd, sorry Senator Dodd, and it deals with a local agency's ability to shut off water service for delinquency. It extends the time in which user has to be delinquent in their payment to 60 days before shut off can occur. It requires us to have procedures in place and it also limits the amount of fees that we can charge to restart water service based on 50 or 150 depending on whether it's storing business hours or not. It also has some limits based on income level and health so exceptions to whether the city would be able to discontinue water. So those are things that we're going to be looking at. I think it becomes effective at the beginning of 2021 or 2020, sorry and it's possible that there could be some legal challenges based on unfunded mandate from the state as well as Proposition 218. As you are probably aware the city has the H2O program helped to others and fortunately we might be able to have some diversion into that program if we have issues but we'll be looking at that and it's another requirement that water agencies have to investigate. There's also possible state legislation that Aqua is sponsoring that would create a trust fund and also mechanisms to increase monies into the trust fund that could be utilized in a statewide program that would provide assistance for water users who had difficulty or income eligibility to pay water bills so it's an issue there as far as looking at ability to pay and how to alleviate the cost where there may be a need. I think you may have heard of the water tax which was a proposal to put a fee basically on everybody's water bill that has not been carried yet forward but it's still out there and being discussed and as a way to fund development in disadvantaged communities for safe clean drinking water everybody wants there to be safe clean drinking water in these communities but the difficulty and the question and discussion I think is how should that be paid for and who should carry the cost of that so that's an ongoing discussion at Aqua. In the GSA ground water sustainability agency category there's a number of ground water sustainability that are based in boundary amendments in conjunction with some potential re-prioritizations that could increase the number of basins that need to comply with the GSA requirements and have a GSA and then a ground water sustainability plan in place by 2022 so there's a lot of rulemaking going on in the implementation of that that the city and our water folks are involved in. On the legal front there was a case called wild versus city of dunsmer which is proposition 218 case and the question is whether the an ordinance setting fees for water rates can be repealed so basically an ordinance setting water rates can be repealed by referendum. We know that the initiative process can be used but there hasn't been a question yet or final decision about whether a referendum could repeal the appropriate of option of race so Aqua is looking at the legal committee is looking at the legal process to repeal the authority publication potentially amicus brief also if it goes up on rehearing or appeal so. Thank you for that update we'll go back now to item number 12 board member reports board member dowd. Yes my report comes from an expatriate meeting that I was talking about and it was about them having been selected by I believe it's proper Sonoma county waste management agency and it was regarding the proposed compost facility that was going to be created on the north side of the Laguna treatment plan long story short there seems to be a lot of balls up in the air over that and what my request is in this report is I would like to have staff and consultants and possibly outside agents like recycle Sonoma prepare a presentation to the bpu on what the status is where we're going what decisions are in play etc etc it seems to me there's a great deal of confusion and changing going on that's my request chairman thank you the way we handled this typically since it's a request from one of the board members if I can get a second on that we'll put it on the next agenda for a formal vote and then move forward if we're in concurrence with the staff presentation we'll have a motion to second all in favor any opposed great so I'll direct staff then to make sure that that becomes an agenda item at our next meeting anything further from the board members then we'll move to the directors report acting director shavoni thank you chair galvin as a follow up to a previous email I wanted to inform the board the interim water department director over the next six to seven months while the recruitment for a permanent director is being conducted deputy director walton will be the interim director from Monday December 10th through March 3rd and deputy director Burke will be the interim director march 4th through May 12th we have some good news on the refinancing of the water 2008 series bonds and the 2007 waste water bonds the original estimated net savings were about $1.2 million for the water bonds and about $847,000 for the wastewater bonds after entering the market net savings will fall around $1.6 million for water and $1.8 million for wastewater so the wastewater refinancing more than double the estimation so now both will provide over $100,000 in water and water and water needs and the program will be available for all the things I also wanted to notify the board that this meeting will be the last board meeting for deputy director Rita Miller Rita will be retiring from her position as the deputy director of environmental services on December 27th we're very excited for Rita and wish her all the best and has demonstrated her commitment to the city and to our environment in so many ways. And many Santa Rosa water and transportation public works employees have the benefit of working with Rita in multiple activations of the department operations center during the October, 2017 wildfires. Rita also worked on the watershed task force showing her unwavering commitment to our environment by making sure any of the contaminants produced by the wildfire were not impacting our creeks and streams. So Rita, we like to thank you for your service and commitment to the SO organization and we wish you all the best. Any questions for the director, acting director, or Mo Grable? Will there be a formal meeting and ceremony for Deputy Director Miller? Is it, did you say this was the last meeting? This will be Deputy Director Miller's last BPU meeting, that's correct. Okay, where's the cake in the fireworks act? I mean, I would like to say thank you as well. As someone who got to see Deputy Director Miller in action at the watershed task force and just very difficult circumstances and her leadership, I mean, was really an inspiration to myself and many others I know who were looking at her for a lot of expertise and guidance in what were pretty tough, fast-moving times. And yeah, I cannot, I can't give enough praise or gratitude to her for that leadership to, especially to me personally and others I know who were in those cold, noisy army tents. And of course, in the rest of her work and career, just amazing, amazing service. So thank you so much. I would echo that, Rita, and we wish you all the best in your retirement. I hope you'll come back and see us and I'm sure you'll stay in touch with the Water Department staff and it's gonna be tough to fill your shoes. So much good luck to you. So our next book, yes, I'll go right ahead, absolutely. Pardon me for being unconventional, but since this is my last meeting, I thought you'd forgive me. I really appreciate acting directors' comments and I would like to just take an opportunity to really thank the BPU for your amazing service to our community. You support Center of the Water for being such an outstanding leader in our industry and you have supported our ability to provide safe, clean drinking water to our community, to provide reliable sanitation services, all the while also promoting beneficial environmental protective actions aligned with our operations. So I wanted to thank you for your service, the volunteer position, and you come every meeting well-prepared and dedicated to help guide us in our activities. So I also wanted to take an opportunity to thank all of my colleagues. It's been a deep honor and pleasure to work in this position and to work for the city of San Rosa over the years and please don't worry about my leaving. There are a number of really excellent candidates who are probably ready to step into my position and I think you will be well-served by the next deputy director. I'd also really like to thank our community and our ratepayers who are very informed, they're very environmentally, I guess, inclined. So they've really helped me in my job working with regulators, NGOs, interested stakeholders and staff in the city have just really made my job and honor and a true privilege. So it is with mixed feelings that I leave my position but I will long remember and feel very grateful for the time that I've spent in this department. So thank you very much. Thank you. So our next meeting I believe is on January 17th of next year, is that correct, Gina? So I'd like to wish you all happy holidays. We'll see you in the new year and I think we will adjourn this meeting in honor of deputy director Rita Miller. We're adjourned.