 we also documented reasoning for why supply options either advanced or did not advance for further consideration. This was really key to understanding why certain options made it all the way to the evaluation criteria stage. So what this ended, what this gave us or yielded us was really this manageable short list of options that we could put through a more detailed analysis. So once all options were screened and we came up with that short list we used defined metrics for each of the evaluation criterion for scoring. Each of the criterion we assigned weights to each of those to inform the scoring process and I'll present this the final kind of scoring here in a few slides. So here are 18 options for initial assessment they can be broken out into these six categories ground water purified recycled water or potable reuse, non-potable recycled water, desalination, surface or storm water and water use efficiency. Under ground water we've got these five options GW1 is looking at adding additional extraction wells, GW2 is converting the city's existing emergency wells to full-time production wells, GW3 is looking at aquifer storage and recovery so adding wells that you could inject groundwater into or excuse me other water and pull that water out as extraction. GW4 is looking at regional groundwater extraction wells or their opportunities to partner with other agencies and GW5 is looking at regional aquifer storage and recovery. Under purified water we're looking at PR1 to produce direct potable water from the Laguna treatment plant. PR2 is again direct potable reuse but producing that water at a satellite facility that would need to be constructed. PR3A is producing indirect use at the Laguna treatment plant and injecting that water into the groundwater via aquifer storage and recovery wells. PR3B very similar to 3a but instead of injecting the water into the ground water basin we'd be looking at in putting that into Lake Ralfine. PR3C is again similar just a little bit iterative producing the water at the Laguna treatment plant and adding it to Lake Sonoma or some other surface water body before use. And PR4 a regional purified recycled water facility. Non-potable recycled is looking at expanding the existing purple pipe system within the city. We have two options under desalination DE1 which is brackish water desalination would likely be regional. DE2 ocean desalination either something that the city would take on as its own project or regional as with other partners. Three options under surface or storm waters SW1 capturing excess winter flows from Santa Rosa Creek or Laguna de Santa Rosa storing that water in an aquifer for later withdrawal. SW2 involves storing excess winter flows from Santa Rosa Creek storing those in an enlarged Lake Ralfine and constructing a water treatment plant to withdraw that water and serve it to customers. SW3 regional storm water partnering with others to create stormwater programs there and then finally E1 additional incentives for existing efficiency programs such as turf removal direct install toilets to further reduce demand. So this was the list of 18 that we started with kind of rationale for why you see what you see here it really retains a broad diversity of options. It includes both city specific and regional projects as well. Given the city's strong commitment and success with efficiency we wanted to maintain water use efficiency as an option here and it also integrates input from as Colin mentioned the over 70 folks that have been involved in this effort on the water team community and the stakeholder group. So once we went through the screening analysis five options were dropped so 13 were carried forward the ones that you see struck through those are the ones that did not make it forward and as I mentioned briefly before the rationale for this largely has to do with efforts that have already been that are already underway in the case of SW3 regional stormwater or an option just wasn't feasible looking at PR3 be their Lake Ralfine just not having the capacity to support that effort and the cost effectiveness around that. So that's why these five were dropped. So this table shows the six options that were subsequently removed after the screening analysis PR1 PR3A PR3C RW1 and the two desalination options. These were removed for either cost effectiveness reasons in the case of RW1 that would not result in reduced reliance on snow water. So these are the six that were dropped. So the further seven the other seven you see there in green those advanced to the detailed feasibility analysis stage. So a little bit about kind of the rationale behind the screening what you saw on the prior slide what what is really retained are options that rank higher on the cost effectiveness and scalability. It does keep options that further diversify the portfolio. So you'll see stormwater maintained on there as well as satellite purified water. It also does still include city and regional projects continues with aggressive efficiency incentives so that is maintained on that list as well and it continues to integrate input from the water team community and stakeholder group. So here are the seven options that underwent further analysis GW1 which is adding the extraction wells, GW2 converting the city's emergency wells to production wells, GW3 adding aquifer storage and recovery wells, PR2 a satellite direct potable reuse facility, PR4 a regional direct potable reuse facility that would be located at the Laguna treatment plant, SW1 stormwater storage in the groundwater basin and E1 efficiency programs. So this table shows the evaluation criteria and the weights that were used to evaluate those seven supply options. So I'll walk through this cost effectiveness first criterion we looked at capital and O&M costs for this criterion it was weighted high by our stakeholders and water team and received a score multiplier of five. Scalability as I mentioned can the capacity be tailored to meet the need? How much can you scale the water coming from that option? That was also weighted high with a score multiplier of five. Those two were part of the screening analysis which is why they have that five multiplier score. Resiliency, equity, environmental performance, all of those received a score multiplier of three. Legal permitting and regulatory, city control and interagency coordination and whether or not the option was considered multi-benefit received a score multiplier of one. So this table presents the results of that scoring. What you see here a higher score is better. The two rows at the bottom I wanted to draw your attention to the total unweighted and the total weighted. The total unweighted is just summing the numbers in the table. The total weighted applies that weight that I presented on the prior slide. So the five, the three and the one for each of the evaluation criteria. So what this does if you look at the total unweighted row you have several options that are kind of clustering very close to each other. So it's not very informative as far as which options will rise to the top. The total weighted line you start to see a bit of a spread now and you can start to pick out which options based on our weight for certain criteria start to float to the top. So now I'm going to talk a little bit about our draft portfolios that we're currently working through. So when we sat down to start thinking about how we're going to develop these portfolios from the supply options that we have we wanted to use a variety of themes to develop these to capture different outcomes. So in this case we're talking about four portfolios centered around the themes of least cost. Fastest implementation most water and most flexibility. When I present the the portfolios you'll see that we use options that score well in multiple portfolios. So you'll see water use efficiency and converting emergency groundwater wells. You'll see those in each portfolio. But the portfolios also include other options that further diversify the portfolio. So you'll see storm water included as well and satellite purified water. One thing we thought quite a lot about when we were putting these portfolios together is the implementation logic. How would you actually go about implementing the elements of this portfolio? And then finally Colin had mentioned that we did receive some really great feedback from our stakeholder group on the portfolio. And so we'll talk a little bit about that today. But what you see today will represent lots of hours from the water team community and stakeholder group in developing these. So this is our draft draft portfolios. As I mentioned, there are four. Those are represented by the columns on the right. Portfolio one being the most economical. Portfolio two fastest implementation. Portfolio three maximizing water and portfolio being the most flexible or most adaptive. So on the left for this left column you'll see the seven supply options. The X's indicate that they are included in that portfolio. The two consider options in portfolio four will go into a bit more detail on what that means. But it doesn't necessarily mean that they would be fully implemented or implemented at all based on the implementation logic. In portfolio three, we're suggesting that SW one be studied further, but that it may not actually be implemented. So now I'm going to walk through each of the four portfolios in a bit more detail. Each of the four, I'm going to present two slides on each. One will be this implementation concept or logic that you see on your screen now. And the second slide will be around its cost and yield performance. So you'll see those two slides for each of the four portfolios. So starting with portfolio one, we have water efficiency E one and GW two, which is reclassifying the existing emergency wells as full time production wells. Work would begin right away on both of the components of this portfolio. Water use efficiency could be phased out depending on the need at the time. GW two would begin with a technical study and sequel regulatory process design and then actual construction and operation. This figure shows the cost and yield performance for this portfolio on the left. Y axis, you have capacity and acre feet per year. And on the right axis is the essentially the capital investment and O and M burden in millions of dollars. I want to draw your attention to the dashed line. What that represents is the estimated acre feet per year. That is within the larger blue envelope of the range of water capacity. So when we put together the analysis, we looked at, okay, what could this water supply option? What's the range that it could potentially yield? And then what is a kind of a realistic number within that band that we could assume for our planning purposes? So that's what's represented there. So in this case, you can see that portfolio one, if you recall one of our water supply goals of 7500 acre feet per year. At its high end, portfolio one could provide that. But reasonably, what we're assuming is that it would provide about 5,000 acre feet. So you can kind of see how that can inform decision making. The red line is cumulative capital costs, relatively modest compared to some of the other portfolios that I'll present today. And then the operating burden down there at the bottom. Portfolio two is essentially the same as portfolio one with E1 and GW2, same implementation concept. What this portfolio adds is new extraction wells, GW1. That work would also begin right away, concurrent with effort on E1 and GW2. It would begin with siding studies, the CEQA process, the regulatory process, design, construction and operation. So again, this figure is showing the yield and cost performance for this portfolio, a much larger envelope here, and a bit more cumulative capital burden here as well. For portfolios three, recall this portfolio theme was around maximizing water. So we're kind of throwing everything at this. We've got E1, GW2, and GW1, similar to the prior portfolio. What we're adding here is direct potable reuse and stormwater capture in the aquifer. The way that this would work, this is where we start to see some of this implementation kind of rationale come into play. So direct potable reuse would begin with planning studies and then would just take off running. You'd continue working towards advancing that component of this portfolio. For SW1, we're really looking at what could this option provide as far as getting a bit more detail around its yield. So that work would begin with planning studies and stormwater modeling. Where is that water coming from and what is the yield? What could we use with that? Once those planning studies and modeling are complete, we would pause on this effort and look for feedback from how the other options are performing. So once we understand how much demand has been impacted by water use efficiency, what our actual yield is for GW2, and what our actual yield is for GW1, we would make a determination at that point how much further we'd want to invest in SW1. And if at that time it was determined that additional water is needed, then design, construction, and operation would continue for SW1. As you can probably imagine, Portfolio 3 has a much more significant capital and ONM burden, which you see here by the red line and the orange line. It does overshoot the mark as well as far as water supply goal. So if we're kind of benchmarking by that 7,500 acre feet, we're way up at the top there around 37. So Portfolio 4 is where it starts to get interesting and we start to look again at how we can be a bit more adaptive and more flexible. This was something that we heard pretty consistently from our water team stakeholder group and community. So it would begin similar to the other portfolios with E1 and GW2. Those would be kind of on their own path moving forward. GW1, these are the new extraction wells. Those would begin with siding studies where could those wells be placed. And that work would actually pause while E1 and GW2 continue to advance. Direct potable reuse while part of this portfolio, no work would begin immediately. And the rationale here is we want to wait and see what E1 and GW2 are going to provide. How much are they actually going to yield before we commit additional resources to these other options? So in this case, GW1 would be sized. The amount of wells could be scaled to meet the remaining need for water after E1 and GW2 have already advanced. If additional water is needed, then GW1 would continue along the path, CEQA, design, construction, and operation. And then if we turn our attention to PR2, direct potable reuse, at that point, once it's determined how much additional water is needed, we would be looking at doing planning studies. We would conduct those planning studies and then pause while GW1 advances. Once we understand how much water GW1 is able to provide, PR2, the direct potable reuse project, would move forward based on that remaining need. So here's the cost and yield performance for portfolio 4 not as severe as portfolio 3, but certainly more than portfolios 1 and 2. The other thing to note is this portfolio still does get us more water than our water supply goals at a pretty significant capital cost as well. So portfolio 4 really designed to be to maximize flexibility and kind of adaptiveness, right? You saw some of those adaptive pathways in the implementation timeline. And some of the benefits of looking at supply options and implementing portfolios in that manner is that each component or each project within that portfolio has really well-defined milestones at which a project can be re-scoped, moved more quickly, slowed down, scaled up, scaled down. The timing and scale of later projects you saw PR2 and SW1 are really informed by the remaining need for water based on how the prior projects perform. Early and expensive tasks are done off the critical path, even if the project's timing and scale may depend on earlier projects. So for example, you saw that on potable reuse where, you know, part of the portfolio assumes that you would be doing the planning studies and then pausing while you wait to see the performance of the other options before deciding to move forward. So that's an example of where you can start to do some of that early planning work and set yourselves up for funding opportunities or other regulatory environment advantages. So Colin had mentioned that we did receive some feedback from the stakeholder group on our portfolios and wanted to share with you their thoughts on portfolio four. They generally really liked the idea of this adaptiveness but thought that what they saw didn't take it far enough. They wanted to see more supply options to allow even greater flexibility and to also look at increasing regional and basin sustainability. So that was very important to them. They really stressed that the city needed to be able to move quickly in any direction and so that kind of feedback flows down into three sub points here. The first is related to groundwater siting studies. They asked that we consider sites eligible for extraction wells as well as ASR wells to support basin sustainability. For potable reuse, they wanted this plan to consider partnerships and regional collaboration. If you notice PR4 which was the regional direct potable reuse option was not included in any of the portfolios and they wanted to see that element reflected. Related to stormwater capture and use studies, they wanted us to consider ASR and potable reuse as well as locations for groundwater recharge for basin sustainability. So you'll see in a subsequent iteration of portfolio the inclusion of SW1 to potentially provide water for the ASR groundwater wells. So that was very critical to the stakeholder group as well. So the next couple slides here show these four portfolios all on the same scale all together. So you have that dark orange and it's a bit difficult to see on this because all four portfolios track very similarly up until 2030. That's why you see one line. At the 2030 mark the green and the yellow so portfolios two and three start to diverge. At 2034 the red and the orange start to diverge. At 2035 the green which is portfolio three that's maximizing water starts to climb. And then portfolio four diverges yet again at 2043. So you can kind of see how each of these portfolios how they're implemented and when certain components come online when that water yield would be expected. This graph shows capital funding needs by year for each portfolio again no surprise portfolio three being quite a significant investment particularly in 2035 when potable reuse would come online. The capital funding needs for portfolio one and two really don't appear on this graph because they are so minimal compared to the other portfolio options and the capital investment would end much earlier than portfolios three and four. This is cumulative capital investment through the planning horizon 2045 again portfolio three and the green quite significant followed by portfolio four portfolio two and then portfolio one at the bottom following the X axis. This graph shows the net operating burden for each of the portfolios you see dips in portfolios three and four in 2031 and 2035 as a result of reduced Sonoma water purchases in those years. Again portfolio three carrying a significant operating burden followed by portfolios four two and then one. I'll now turn it back to Colin to discuss next steps. Thank you very much Katie can you advance to the next one for us. Thank you so much. So just a reminder this is the table that shows the timeline of where we've been and where we're going. So today we're here before you with a study session. We'll go before our community with a highly interactive webinar on August 28th. We'll come back to you in September at your second meeting to do a study session on the draft plan and that draft plan will integrate all of the stakeholder input from the water team the stakeholder group in our community and in addition to what Katie pointed out with portfolio four expanding. We're also looking at portfolio four having a variety of variants different pathways even within this very adaptive pathway for portfolio four. So there's additional work that you'll see there and then we'll bring that to City Council that their next meeting following your looking at the draft plan and then in October will present the final plan to you first and then present the final plan to City Council in October. This is to remind the public that we do invite them to attend on August 28th our highly interactive webinar to talk about all of this information. We welcome their questions their comments their suggestions. We'll provide a project update will provide similar kind of information we've provided to you. We'll have a Q&A period throughout will probably stop at different points along the way so that they can ask questions and also there'll be live Spanish interpretation as we've had with all of these community meetings. If folks want to go to our website to learn more or to see some of the video of any of the public meetings whether it was a BPU presentation or one of our community meetings they're welcome to go to srcity.org slash our water future and we do have information about the upcoming meetings the meetings we've already had the PowerPoint presentations and we'll be posting the technical memo and the draft plan very soon there as well. So at this point we're very excited to ask you for your thoughts your questions. We're looking for whatever questions you may have on the information that we've presented. We're also interested in your thoughts about the seven water supply options that made it through the screening process and also about your thoughts about this idea of having four different portfolios in the draft plan that would allow us to have different options moving forward. I will say one thing about the seven water supply options that we may have mentioned in our previous talk with you when we came to you and told you we were going to study these and I think it's important to remember any of these that didn't move forward into portfolios are not excuse the pun they're not dead in the water per se they are simply options that didn't rise to the top based on all of the stakeholder input and the analysis that was done but none of the them are being recommended for no movement ever in the future they just didn't match the criteria that we had at this time so if there are other kinds of options in there that you have questions about we welcome those but we also want to make sure that you know the plan will not say that those are to never be considered they're just not the ones that rose to the top at this time so thank you and we'll be happy to take any questions and your comments. Thank you very much for the presentation I'll open up for board member questions comments Vice Chair Arnone. Thank you for that presentation it's been a long journey I remember the first time I remember talking about this project with you we we talked about the project not the scope of the study not including desalination and I don't know that might have been our first study session back in January I think we had a study session then but at the time you know I remember saying yes we're going to add that to the list and and I was very pleased to see that it was in fact added to the list I was not as pleased to see that it had been removed from the list before the opportunity for even scoring or having it participate in the same analysis as the seven options that did that did make it through and I and there's so there's and I would love to have seen how that would have scored in some of those things because I mean there was a discussion about the importance of scalability earlier on I can't imagine a more scalable project than having the entire ocean available as a source of water so it seems it might have scored well there it true it's going to be a very costly option but you had others of the seven that had a zero score for costliness so you know having having it be expensive is not doesn't seem like it should be a complete disqualifier for for study it seems to me that all the options that are being reviewed are all subject to one of the biggest variable factors that we're going to be facing which is climate change every one of the options depends upon you know somehow climate related water available water that is available as a consequence of our claim it whether it's groundwater whether it is the amount of recycled water flowing through the system all of those are subject to being impacted by massive droughts which I think we should anticipate and you know we're since we're looking at a really long planning window to eliminate desalination from the analysis over that period of time it seems like that was a little premature to to to eliminate it so I was concerned about that I had some other kind of other comments about things like water efficiency I believe it's a it's an option but I believe that the weight assigned to efficiency is probably more than I would have assigned to it given the fact that we have had such a amazingly good response from our ratepayers in decreasing the amount of water they use on multiple occasions and at some point that's got to lead to hardening and so to put any faith in the ability to plug this gap with efficiency measures seems problematic to me let's see the other thing that I didn't see an analysis of and maybe it was there I just didn't see it but a lot of these options rely upon reuse of our recycled water in different ways and right now a lot of our recycled water is committed contractually to the geysers and I didn't see any analysis of how the prior commitments might impact the availability of recycled water in any form to to plug these gaps and what might have to be done with our existing contractual obligations to make that happen so I think that's about it though those are those are kind of my comments well thank you if it's okay I'd love to respond at this point those are terrific questions and comments we struggled with all of those as well so I just wanted to mention I'll touch briefly on on each of those comments that you made but I think for some of the more technical pieces I'd like to have Xavier Arias help address that since he's got that kind of expertise in the scalability and cost effectiveness analysis that was done on the D cell as well as the the 13 options that were considered in the screening did have cost effectiveness and scalability assessment so but Xavier is much more familiar with that but I wanted to mention just in terms of anticipating drought you're right and so what we did very consciously in the modeling was rather than rely on the last 100 years of drought record I asked them to assume that the last 20 years are going to be what we're looking at and as you know we had nine very dry years in 20 years so I asked them to increase the likelihood of drought recurrence considerably and assume more severe drought so we did look at this as though you know not as though we're going to be looking at what we've had on average in the last 100 120 years so that modeling was made a little bit more conservative in terms of assuming a higher risk of drought and a higher severity of drought so I think that was a very good point and that was something that was on our minds as well in terms of water use efficient and hardening you're right we've seen that already with the three droughts that we've had and with 30 years of water use efficiency programming and 30 years of early adoption on building codes and plumbing codes and landscape codes we've seen that use per person go down so far and in this last drought our community did a terrific job of reducing but they were only able to hit 18% the previous two most recent droughts they hit 25% reduction so definitely we see demand hardening what we're looking at with those aggressive water use efficiency programs are doing programs that typically don't quite meet our cost-benefit ratio they're a little bit more expensive than we would normally be able to do under our current sort of approach to water use efficiency and one of them would be focused on aggressively going after toilets that would exceed the current state standard of 1.28 gallons per flush and they would go to the point eight gallon and they would be direct install toilets and you know we've done those programs with grants before we'd be looking at making those programmatic permanent programs within the city so we'd need some more staffing and some money to do that but those are permanent reductions as you know but then it reduces demand and then instead of perhaps needing nine million gallons per day perhaps it goes down to seven million gallons per day so there is a kind of a benefit in that way to that the other piece of it would be to really penetrate the market on turf replacement we think we've gotten into the market about seven or eight percent of the way but particularly with larger commercial projects that have ornamental grass when the rebate is high enough there's a cost-benefit ratio and that project pays for itself and it makes a good business case so we'd really like to go after those larger commercial sites that have ornamental turf that be happy to turn it over it's not being used for anything but it that getting over that hump that initial capital investment to flip that out and do the construction and the materials costs so so that would also be similar to existing programs but with a much more aggressive rebate again to bring down the demand so that what we need per day is lower and then with the recycled water purified recycled water and the contracts that's front and center on our minds as well so we did have cow pine at the table and we also had Doug Beretta farmer who's been using recycled water just about from the beginning when we started offering recycled water to ag so they were voices at the table in this discussion and they were the ones who still wanted to make sure that this became something that was included in the portfolio so they're very cognizant of there's sort of a risk in a way but they're also very interested in things like how they might contribute to other efforts like using farmland for flood irrigation in the winter using stormwater to penetrate recharge the groundwater so they're looking at how could they help achieve those goals and help you know make sure that we're able to be sustainable in our water use so so they're very cognizant of these and they were still very supportive of the portfolios and then in terms of just these cell I wanted to just say a couple of things and then it particularly with desal I think Xavier is going to be much more helpful than I can but from a staff perspective the thoughts that came to my mind as you were talking about this were that it wasn't just cost-effectiveness for desal or if for any of these options and scalability there were also things like the uncertainties with some regional projects if we do desal in itself of us the aqueduct runs south the water runs south so then we have to deal with water trading there's a lot of uncertainty with that also if there's a catastrophic loss from Sonoma water and they're unable to use their aqueduct for any reason then there's no water to trade because we would be on our own and so desal we wouldn't have it within our city so it's very difficult then to have desal in a regional partnership south of us and all of the sites that would be most reasonable for us would be south of us it doesn't provide new water for Santa Rosa in that instance because it's trading water so it's not water within the city itself there are also some disposal issues and there are some concerns about regulations and where how would we deal with that and could it be treated at the treatment plant so now there's a second pipe system and can it still go to the ocean there's some concerns about that if it's brackish then we're either closer to like we're dealing with groundwater that's salty or we're dealing with the bay or the river again where does the brackish water go so those are some questions where there's some feelings of risk and uncertainty around regulations and then also the stakeholder input so in terms of the stakeholder input when we showed them what had dropped off there wasn't a single voice from the stakeholder group nor from the water team that said wait a minute and we spent time on it are you sure does anybody have concerns or worries a heartburn so it doesn't necessarily address the questions you're bringing up but I wanted to just leave from a staff perspective address that and then I want to make sure Zavio is able to talk more about the analysis thank you Colin and thank you for your your thoughtful comments too I hope to address them thoroughly and maybe I'll start with the option we call DE2 which is ocean desal because while desal has some similarities I think there are important differences I think what DE2 has going for it as you pointed out is that the oceans got plenty of water so it's scalable from the point of view that you could build a very large project I think when we say well it has some scalability downsides as well there's probably a minimum practical project size and then after you build whatever it is you build you have to run it right now with current technology about a 30% capacity just to kind of keep the plant reasonably healthy so you can turn it on when you need the water and desal particularly from the ocean rather than brackish it has a huge energy consumption so that hits you on O&M so if you're if there's a dream candidate for for desal it would be somebody that lives right next to the ocean and needs the same amount of water day in and day out from that project so you're neither of those things unfortunately so that's why DE2 came in as very expensive because we're looking at huge capital costs huge operating costs but that is with current technology so I would say a point that Colin made briefly at the beginning is that nothing is dead in the water I think it can be revisited should circumstances change including technology costs of energy and so on you know we've heard about the there will be a day maybe when energy is super cheap what we've seen of course is the opposite but if that were to happen it would it would warrant revisiting it so DE2 is sort of on technical grounds desal has a lot going for for some utilities more than others and as I said you're not the dream candidate for sort of the go it alone ocean desal so that's why DE1 is in there well is there an option that might be that might overcome some of those issues so brackish water is less expensive to treat less energy intensive but the reasonably the option for brackish then would involve as I think as Colin mentioned briefly it would be this this regional project and you know when we started the study I think the emphasis was on what could the city do to improve its self-sufficiency and as we've gone on we've certainly seen a lot of projects that could be made better potentially with regional cooperation I think the difference with DE1 is that it's not that it could be made better with regional it absolutely can't go without regional you know it's different in that way that it's it has besides the technology besides the cost it has the fact that it absolutely cannot go until at least two major partners would need to to actually advance the project not even just kind of go along with the project but you know if you have Marin and Sonoma water both would be hugely important partners and they would need to actually be driving the project in a way because of the water trade and the fact that the brackish DSL project would be built in this case we looked at Marin municipal it's a project that has you know it has pros and cons it may someday go but as you know it has formidable obstacles just on its own so we thought with it the sheer weight of that it wasn't the cheapest option by far I mean it was it's up there in the higher cost options not to say that we didn't include a high cost option you may purified recycled water is high cost and and we did note that well that's that's there to diversify the portfolio but a really important difference is that something that the city can do on its own and can opt in and scale it as you see fit in the future and knowing that it's expensive you saw its presented as it's not something you go charging out of the gate and do and it has its own technology and cost issues and so with that we thought well that one does happen later and it has some of the same cost burden as DSL but a lot more ability to determine your own future on that because it is your own stream of incoming water the facility would be built within your service area and and the particular option we chose is one that that would require less regional cooperation but still be able to benefit from a lot of regional cooperation should that materialize thank you for that good explanation and I agree with a lot of the points you make the very very good points I guess the one thing I would ask is I don't think I'm the only one that's going to wonder what happened to desalination and even if all those points are you know put it at the very bottom of the list it seems not to include it on a list of proposals that is supposed to look at the broad spectrum of options there should be some reference to it somewhere you know when we get to the final product so I'm just wondering if it had to consider at least adding it to the scoring matrix if nothing else just to so you can have it readily available those areas where it doesn't make sense and be able to respond to you know what I think is going to be a natural question so thank you for your responses very helpful thank you very much remember our flow thank you chair galvin and thank you for that presentation that is a lot of information it sounds like quite a few people put a lot of thought into this and thank you very much so my first question is is sort of an overarching question in the executive summary it says that we want to increase our potable urban water supply portfolio to enhance its resiliency during Sonoma water supply shortages or service interruptions due to catastrophic happenings but I guess my question is are we creating this for just that nine out of 20 years or once this infrastructure is put in place might it just be a better idea for us to be you know providing 30% more of our own water I guess I'm kind of unclear on that ultimate goal should I keep going or do you okay I'll leave it to you to decide yeah happy to address that or happy to wait until you've shared all of your thoughts whichever you prefer I'll keep going okay okay and just to sort of hop on what bill was talking about with some of the concerns over you know the criteria and how certain things rose to the top I'm curious as to how resiliency ended up a three instead of a five resiliency is our ability to pivot right and because there's so much unknown in the future with regard to climate change and whatever other catastrophes are going to hit us at some point I just you know that would have changed some of the different portfolios I think a little bit and so I'm curious about that and well that that's it for now well terrific yeah happy to address both of those and then I'll turn to the team to see if they have anything to add so in talking with our operational folks about the reality of adding these kinds of capital assets and considering what would make the most sense and then in addition looking at if we were out you know 10 15 years and we're looking at these major shifts in water supply such as purified water from our recycled plant that needs to operate 24 hours a day seven days a week at least at some level 30 percent or greater to be operational of whatever its capacity is so if it were you know six million gallons per day total we need to at least do a portion of that to keep it operational and then looking at wells they need to be exercised it's a good practice once they're up and running because they typically have a kind of treatment plant that does best if it's run 24 7 a green sands to help remove iron and manganese that sort of thing so in talking with our operational folks it seems reasonable that we would at some level run whatever projects we've built we would use them and wells would likely be seasonal so maybe 6 to 9 months a year and then they rest in the wet years to recharge that sort of thing we also have to be careful about groundwater sustainability and that we're balancing you know recharge projects with extraction projects so but yes it does seem to us that there would be some level of running those projects scalability would allow us for example to run wells at a lower GPM or for fewer months with purified recycled it could be that it's again a smaller percentage in very wet years and a higher percentage in dry years so there is some scalability built into that but we do think that these projects would operate on some level each year that does show up in the cost effectiveness model so what the team did Woodard and Curran took all of our input and they then averaged what the use would be dry years versus wet years how many dry years we expect how many wet years we expect with that climate modeling so that could be integrated into the cost benefit so it does take into account will likely operate whatever it is we build to some degree every year and then in terms of the criteria with resiliency so one of the things we did when we worked with our stakeholders was we asked them what were the most important both the water stakeholders the community and then the stakeholder group as well what were the things that were the most important to them and the two that were the most most important were scalability and cost obviously our stakeholder group in our community are very sensitive to rate paying rate rates what the rates are what you know how this could impact rates this didn't include a rate analysis but any new project would in some way affect that so because of that reason and also because they were used twice those criteria for were used for a screening process in which case those six of those options didn't pass over that hurdle to go on for the additional analysis so they were used twice and they were the most important to our teams but we do agree resiliency is incredibly important and we made sure that all of these options would have resilience in the face of long-term extensive drought to the best of our understanding and knowledge particularly is for example with groundwater for looking at recharge coupled with the groundwater projects so hopefully that helps I'm not sure did that address and just for anything to add I think I would just say that your comment around resiliency and that being an evaluation criteria I think the the way that portfolio 4 was structured right if we the way you define resiliency is kind of flexibility to pivot the design of that portfolio really is meant to meant to address that and that's some of the comments that we got from the stakeholder group that we weren't doing enough of that so the next iteration you see will provide more of that remember walls thank you Mr. Chairman first I want to say I think it's a very well done study I'd like the process and I think to come out with the more the more obvious lower-priced project first to actually identify actual savings and a decision case to go into the next one that adds a lot of comfort to the project so you're reducing the project management risk when you don't do all these portfolios I appreciate that and the explanations I do agree with with member Arnone and that some of the obvious the more intuitive questions that the public would want answered sort of the the global answers that the people look for and I'm wondering if we could consider just adding enough additional project tasks to at least write a white paper how we would consider this and when we would reconsider it if we don't get what we need out of the the other projects and if we just kind of did those inside projects I think that might be helpful desalination is going to come up also the storm water of use people were just asking hey wait a minute we know we're in a drought your charges extra we've got a cap on how can use water and my backyard's flooded do something with that right so that's sort of an obvious thing and I think last time we're looking for maybe what are we gonna do with the storm water has some budget now but maybe that would be something we could just look into even if it's just a right and exclamation so people are gonna say hey you didn't look at the obvious things and we said we did we wanted what you wanted it didn't pan out unless you really want to pay more so but I think that's important part of this for the public acceptance but I think it's a well done study you gave us enough to consider and argue about and it's kind of like you get into the family money talk when it's budget time you get into the the water talk when everybody's thirsty here you go but you didn't you didn't duck anything so I appreciate that on the what does equity mean when we consider this in a criteria to me it's how much does poor people have to pay for water bills to make sure that corporations and rich people get the water they need and so one of the questions I had is what's the marginal increase in revenues if we model the future economic benefit of water so it's the highest use of water and at what price so if we assume every contract we have today is going to continue forward rather than what would those constituencies be willing to pay and do we think do we include in these net cost studies and for some of these options that are will be done after you know the efficiency programs and the how do we how do we price this or assume all prices are today will the geysers pay more or less in the future we don't know that are they willing to pay more or less if we prioritize ag for reuse before the geysers is at a different price so I think before we start you know having people that don't have big ag interests and aren't selling energy to PG&E or wheeling it to Sonoma clean energy and you know to people that can afford solar on the rooftops I think we need to consider that who's paying how much for now and what would it be worth to them later if we start running out of water and did we calculate it all the increase in revenues not just a decrease in purchases from Sonoma water thanks very much thank you if I could I just wanted to make sure you had mentioned that you agreed with board member Arnone about the public wanting answers and I think you were referring to DSAL and making sure we discuss that more thoroughly was that correct absolutely thank you you mentioned so that sort of the storm water the storm water discharge it just seems like at some point even those projects are pricey there may be somebody willing to buy that when we start running out and if we prioritize first use of water it's gonna be the residents all right and then what's the next project who's willing to pay how much for it so we get down to the negotiations I've never even seen the geysers contract maybe look at it but you know it's maybe within the next 15 years off it's a great project absolutely has to happen save the environment reduce environment they don't impact for everybody I'm not saying it's not gonna happen it's beautiful it's an investment worth maintaining but it's just one of those things was how did we consider added revenues so at the marginal cost what are the marginal increase the revenue then if we find that you know the you know you just look at when you do a profit maximization curve just do the same thing with the benefit of water for constituencies thank you thank you very much and just for clarity this doesn't consider the marginal cost of revenue that wasn't included in the scope of work so but I do think that as you've seen with our rate studies we do look at the projects that we have in the projects that we need to do and that does get involved in that rate study process so I'm sure that in the future that that is absolutely something that would be considered the other thing I wanted to mention was I really appreciate your comments about storm water and how folks can experience flood in the middle of a drought and how strange that is that that's the sort of climate that we're experiencing we're in close communication with the stormwater team they they're watching this and deputy director Sean McNeil is involved he's on the water team with this and so we are already starting to think about how could projects that meet their stormwater best management practices low impact development needs how could those projects and groundwater recharge projects sort of work together find common funding sources that sort of thing so that's something that's on our minds as well it doesn't it's not super obvious from the technical memo and from the draft plan but it's certainly internally we're constantly looking at that multi benefits I really appreciate that thank you and I appreciate your sensitivity to it I think it's a great study you put a lot of it out there and I'm more comfortable asking you the obvious questions of me trying to answer them so so if you can help us out just you know have some white paper or side comments to say here's what we looked at and why that would be great because you know everybody's willing to have something that somebody else pays for right but I think we need to be able to answer the obvious stuff thank you very much you're welcome thank you remember Martha did you have follow-up I did thank you and yes thank you for the stormwater I mean you hear all the time you know if we could capture more of that natural stormwater that's falling from the sky and as our storms become more intense as they have that's super important my question was super specific there was a chart that showed portfolios three and four in 2031 and 2035 there are going to be reduced water purchases from Sonoma water I'm just curious like how do you know that already what what does that signify that it's just seemed really crystal ballish I'll go ahead and have Katie Cole address that question yeah it's a great question and it is I probably should have prefaced all of those slides with the number of assumptions that went into how you would implement these portfolios so if you recall the implementation concepts there was no scale right kind of all those dots and all the line there was no scale it's just time moving forward for the purposes of the graph that you're talking about and the graphs surrounding that we needed to put some assumptions about how these elements in the portfolio would actually be implemented what's the timing the duration of Sequa for a groundwater well versus a portable reuse project so I would not take it to the bank that that's exactly what you're going to see it really depends on how you implement these and again you know having those decision points in each of the portfolios allows you to speed things up slow things down scale right we talked about that so the dip may not be a severe it may be more severe it may come earlier it may come later but for the purposes of the plan and and providing the city some kind of roadmap if you will about how this could actually play out that was the assumption that was used and I'll just add as well that it this also harkens back to the question you had previously about would we only run these during dry years would we run these projects all of the time so as projects come online the assumption is that there'll be some growth in the city so perhaps our purchases would remain somewhat the same despite water demand going up but at some point depending on the amount of projects in place and how much they're producing we may then get to the point where we need to purchase less cinema water as well and as Katie pointed out when exactly and how much exactly that's yet to be seen also how much do each of these end up producing and that sort of thing but we do anticipate that we will have more independence and we'll be able to have more freedom to reduce purchases at times as we have more resiliency as well thank you board member questions or comments I would just echo what's been said up here at the dais I was concerned when I saw the lack of the desalination option I also feel that the I'm glad to see the GW one and the GW two because I feel like we've kind of dropped the ball in the last few years we were we're exploring wells both emergency and production wells and drilling some some test wells and stuff and then it seemed like we just kind of stopped so I'd like to see that really be an emphasis hopefully in going forward we're bad for excellent thank you thank you very much just a just a few comments and appreciation the stakeholder engagement one it looks like you really did a deliberate job on trying to incorporate from a community-wide scale a landscape scale a residential and agricultural I think it's it's one of the most robust stakeholder groups I work with several of these in my in my day-to-day life and I know that that you took really deliberate feedback from them from everyone who is a user to engineers and former you know VP members so much appreciated I just want to echo even if it's to just confirm its rank that it didn't need the criteria on diesel it's just such a long-standing reoccurring idea that by nature technology may change energy cost may change so even if it's a narrative or a full ranking I'd like to see that in there as well excellent thank you so much any other board member questions or comments mr. nut thank you chair just quick question about gw3 and you know it's identified as one of the seven that gets that's moved forward in the study in the evaluation but quite frankly there's not a lot of detail or information about how that's being included in the discussion and so I'm wondering how we can describe more information about the injection component the aquifer storage component because in the study it talks about that being valuable component needs to be integrated with all of the other groundwater well projects but when we get into the presentation there's a lot less information about how that's going to be included what value that holds and and what steps we might take during any of the portfolio discussions to determine where it might fit in or might not and and and what the rationale for potentially not being valuable is so I that would be the question I have as you as you move forward is how do we incorporate that particular piece thank you assistant city manager nut that's a really important point and it's one the stakeholders brought out as well in our stakeholder group meeting when we went into detail with the portfolios so it's being added in a more direct way in portfolio for as something that should be studied so that when we look at well siting studies that we look particularly not only for extraction but sites that would be optimal for injection so that is absolutely on the forefront of our mind right now there's not a lot of data available within city limits that shows where the geology would be ideal there have been flyovers by the state to look at where the geology might be optimal on the west side of town and there are lots of areas where that could be very optimal we'd like to see if there are locations within city limits so that the infrastructure costs are lower in terms of piping into our own distribution system but that is absolutely been added and I think what we'll do is we'll take another look at the draft plan that in the narrative portion and make sure that's really clear that because for groundwater sustainability that's going to be really important aquifer storage and recovery as well is simple to explain in some ways but it's actually quite difficult to implement can be really complex the water quality you inject has to be very high so you can't just take runoff from creeks and inject it so there are some considerations about if it were stormwater what level of treatment would be needed and then in terms of treatment how that impacts the ground water because there can be unintended chemical reactions also with if we were to use excess water that's normal water has in the winter that's been treated it has chlorine chlorine has to be removed before it's injected so there are some complexities with it but the stakeholders were absolutely clear this must be considered if we're going to look for new well sites we must consider aquifer storage and recovery for the ground water basin sustainability as a whole and that's also speaks to why stormwater capture is also an important piece because while we may not be able to find a perfect location for plenty of ASR wells aquifer storage and recovery wells perhaps we can do flood projects that take advantage of high flows recharge the basin but the actual well is located in another place but we're banking water we're recharging the basin while we're extracting so the again stakeholders were very clear they to a person when we went around to ask for comments this was a very important point to them so thank you Dr. Burke thank you chair galpin and if I may I just wanted to add a few things first a big thank you to the team and everyone's working on this I hear very clearly that from the board the direction we're getting from you all is that include more definitions on the why some were not included so we will make sure that that is in the plan as was mentioned earlier it doesn't mean that we won't bring this back and so we'll also include not only the why it wasn't selected at this moment but what would be the triggers to have it come back in the future this is not going to be a one-and-done plan we are definitely going to be revisiting this over time and it starts providing us the pathway of where we're going to go I did also want to note on the question about well two things I wanted to note one is on the geysers our current contract does expire in 2037 and so we are starting to think now what does that mean and what will that look like in the future and by doing this process where we're focusing on what do we need on the portable water side for resiliency and how that fact how recycle water factors into that that starts to let Cal pine know this is what we're thinking in the future so that we can start having those discussions as we get a little closer to the contract being completed and looking at what future is you know it's going to be a lot of discussion and negotiation that we're going to have to do with Cal pine and we recognize that but this is starting to say hey start thinking about your plans because we're thinking about our plans right and then the other thing too I just want to note about stormwater which I think most probably recognize while stormwater capture we're definitely very interested in figuring out how we can get it into the ground you know some of the comments that were made by some of the board members about will people see it flooding absolutely and we can't use that water as it exists right so just because it's flooding the streets and the and what have you it needs to be in some kind of storage area there is not a likelihood that we will ever see another big damn built so we're not going to see that so we're figuring out how could we potentially slow that down so it gets in the ground but then it does have to be treated to be used so it's not just something that we can say oh yep we've captured it and we can use it it doesn't meet drinking water standards so there's definitely a big process and so stormwater capture really does have to go hand in hand with some kind of recharge and then groundwater so that we treat it to appropriate levels because we can't use it just in the form it is right now so I just wanted to provide those comments and and just think the board very much for your direction and input I know we took a lot of notes and I hear very strongly and clearly we'll do some relooking at some D cell and we'll make sure we include the why on some of the other reasons and then the triggers going forward for when it would be appropriate to revisit some of these projects great thank you director Burke any other board yes vice chair and only I just want to say that this kind of planning this kind of discussion I think is so incredibly important and I'm very proud of being part of an agency that is engaging in this advanced look at our core mission and I think this is a really healthy process and thanks thanks all the people that were involved in this study but this is right at the core of what we should be doing and we're doing it ahead of the curve not behind it so I just want to thank everybody involved for that well said any other questions or comments if not we'll open it up for public comments on item number 3.1 if you wish to make a comment via zoom please raise your hand if you're dialing in via telephone please dial star 9 to raise your hand secretary Ledezma we have no one in chambers wishing to make a comment no voicemails or emails were received and no comments in zoom great that'll take care of item 3.1 thank you again for the presentation we'll look forward to seeing the next reiteration of the draft plan item 4.1 4.2 and 4.3 are the minutes for on July 20th special meeting July 20th regular meeting on August 3rd regular meeting I'll open it up for public comments on the minutes approval if you wish to make a comment via zoom please raise your hand if you're dialing in via telephone please dial star 9 to raise your hand secretary Ledezma no one in the chambers wishing to make a comment no voicemail or emails were received and no zoom comments in zoom great all three sets of minutes will be entered then we'll now move to item 5.1 director Burke thank you chair governor members of the board our first staff briefing is our Creek Week 2023 and unfortunately one of our staff who is going to present had a conflict and so we are going to have his supervisor present and we are very excited to have Claire Myers our stormwater and creeks manager do the staff briefing thank you director Burke and good afternoon chair Galvin and members of the board as noted I'm Claire Myers not Kyle Spomberg who was called away but happy to be here today to let you know about Creek Week it is coming up next month and our team has organized a lot of fun events to get folks out on the creeks Creek Week is an annual celebration of our creeks watersheds and the ocean during this week many stewardship organizations throughout California host events to help raise awareness about the harmful effects of pollution in our natural waterways so on Tuesday September 12th a proclamation will be presented at city council proclaiming September 16th through 23rd as Creek Week in the city of Santa Rosa for over a decade here in the city Creek Week has offered fun educational events and volunteer cleanup opportunities for members of our community so this year to kick off Creek Week we have partnered with the Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation to lead a beginner's workshop on nature journaling which will take place on Saturday September 16th on Sunday September 17th our own stormwater and creek staff will lead a guided nature walk along Santa Rosa Creek beginning at Flat Rock Park due to very popular demand we have increased this year the number of downtown underground tours that we will be leaving we'll have two on Tuesday September 19th and two more on Thursday September 21st to explore the culverts that run beneath City Hall there they're really fun tours and encourage you to attend if it's a place that you haven't been before not listed on this list up here on Wednesday September 20th city staff are invited to participate in our second annual dash for trash competition and we'll compete for a chance to earn the coveted trash cup trophy so we'll have cleanup stations with supplies staged near our municipal buildings downtown at Santa Rosa Creek at the Prince Memorial Greenway and also at Santa Rosa Creek at Stony Point Road this photo up here shows last year's esteemed cup winners the folks at communications and intergovernmental relations shout out to Kimberly oh she left who picked up over a hundred pounds of trash between the four of them on Friday September 22nd members of the public are encouraged to hop on their bikes and join us for the tour the Creek Trail bike ride where they can enjoy scenic views and learn all about the pathways and trails that go along the creeks in our city and then finally we will be capping off Creek Week on Saturday September 23rd with a volunteer cleanup along the Prince Memorial Greenway on Santa Rosa Creek we do ask that anyone who is interested in attending one of these events please visit our website at srcity.org forward slash Creek Week to register and then for anyone who can't attend one of our in-person events we do have several at-home activities listed on our website as well so thank you for your time and we hope to see you at one of these Creek Week events thank you thank you Ms. Myers any questions is board member Washington thank you very much for doing what you're doing here I think it's the important work and what matters most with respect to creeks and I wanted to say I think last the last meeting we had I was asking questions about the stormwater fund also stuff and I don't think that was fair to keep asking those questions that way so Kimberley Zunino helped me afterwards she said it look we're gonna put something together we'll talk to you about it and I think what you do get done is more important than counting the beans I'm really good at finding that information and I should have just loaded down a little bit but I want to say I could have been I could have could have had a better conversation so I apologize for that and I appreciate what you do well absolutely and I'm you know happy to always talk about the budget in the future other board member questions or comments yes board member bad and Fort just a quick thank you when I was a new BPU member I went on the apparently now very popular downtown underground tour with your team it was fantastic so glad to hear that it's growing in popularity I learned a lot and it was it was a fantastic afternoon so thanks so much for promoting that's great to hear thank you all right I will now open it up for public comment on item 5.1 if you wish to make a comment via zoom please raise your hand if you wish to dial in via telephone please dial star 9 to raise your hand secretary Ledesma we have no public comments in the chamber no voice mails or emails were received and no hands are raised in zoom very good that will take care of item 5.1 we'll now move to item 5.2 director Burke thank you chair galvin and members of the board item 5.2 is our second staff briefing disinfection system upgrade project update and Mike Prince our deputy director of regional operations will be making the presentation thanks for good afternoon chair galvin and members of the board I am happy to be here to give you an update on the pretty significant capital improvement project we have going on at it out at LTP I have a ton of photos to show you in the interest of time I'm going to go very fast but the presentation has been published so if you want to take in any of the photos some of which I'm pretty impressed by myself later the presentation is available but the first slide just wanted to point out how dramatically the site has changed from an aerial perspective on the left is the condition obviously pre-construction and on the right is an aerial photo taken maybe as recently as two weeks ago I do want to emphasize that I have a lot of aerial photos in the presentation and I want to give credit to Joseph Easterbrook at somus who's part of the construction management team he's been doing a fabulous job keeping me visually updated from perspectives that I cannot see from the ground so anyway thanks to Joseph for that this is another perspective more or less just showing you a little more of the plant similar perspectives similar time frame again these are published so you can look at the details in the published version this project's been underway ultimately from a planning perspective through construction over a span of about ten years there have been a lot of players at various junctures throughout the project we have a new player and that is shimmy construction they are the contractor on the project they have a lot of staff with a lot of different skills some of them are commuting great distances including I've heard up to three hours I think it's worth acknowledging the effort that is being put into the project from them then also somus is represented by the icon at the upper left they are a new player on the project as well moving on there was groundbreaking last October I think some of you may have been in attendance that was a pretty momentous occasion we actually even had some dignitaries featured in this room including our own director Jennifer Burke and we have the city manager Marquesha Smith on the right and at the time the mayor Chris Rogers moving on this is sort of after the groundbreaking what what things looked like and this is a view more or less to the southwest towards the main gate and this is just the initial cut of excavation for the the biggest part of the excavation which is for the off-spec and stormwater pump station wet well those two pipes that just look like an elevated section the excavation are actually the original effluent lines from the treatment plant headed towards the original discharge location which is no longer active and hasn't been for quite some time they had to obviously be removed out of the excavation this is the beginning of the shoring installation actually there's a fair amount of shoring installed already in this photo but that was a pretty significant and arduous effort to get those sheet piles into the ground so that the excavation could be done in a concentrated footprint to minimize the area of the excavation this is another photo obviously taken with the drone it's really hard to figure out which photos to show you because there are so many great photos that have been taken with the drone again thanks to Joseph for those this is just to show you the scale of the sheet piling and sort of a two-shot time series to show you how it goes in some of those sheet pilings go in relatively quickly others seem to get stuck and encounter really resistant materials and move more slowly but nonetheless we got it all in and there's been a lot of excavation work done this picture what is a fairly recent photo as well that shows a bunch of the almost looked like whiskers in the bottom of the excavation and those are micro piles to provide uplift resistance due to groundwater on the bottom floor of the wet well those tie into the foundation or the bottom slab of the wet well it's busy it's very busy there's a lot of people working in various capacities throughout the project site the existing hypochlorite storage facility that we have is in conflict with part of the footprint of the new facility so what you see here is the construction of a new hypochlorite storage facility it's the slab and the containment structure this is just a different perspective of that it's pretty significant construction effort in its own right but we needed to do this in order to get the existing hypochlorite storage facility removed from the facility footprint another perspective there there is a significant disinfective aspect diversion pipeline that needs to be constructed as part of the project this is the beginning phase of that trenching a 42 inch pipeline is going to be installed this is just the opposite perspective of that photo if you were to go to the upper left of this photo you would come to where that pipeline will end and terminate at the flow equalization basin where off-spec water would be diverted that large structure that you see there is forms for what is in this photo the diversion discharge box that's obviously before the concrete was poured and this is what it looks like now that's about 80 yards of concrete there have been some safety issues I want to make a very large caveat there's been over 70,000 hours of labor on this project and no reportable injuries nonetheless there have been some concerns we had a dump truck tip over that truck was totaled as a result of that there was just some clay materials stuck in the top end of the bed of the dump truck when it went up and it over it went and the truck was totaled no one was hurt that's just another perspective on the damage we have some operators on the crew who are a little too determined at times to get heavy things off of flatbed trucks and this was a definite safety issue which the contractor took extremely seriously and it was I was glad when the loader came all the way back down to the ground when I took that photo rebar whenever you have a lot of concrete on a project you have a lot of rebar and there can be significant impalement hazards which was a concern we've very well addressed that with the contractor and the orange caps that you see on rebar there represent a normal protective measure to prevent impalement hazards there have been challenges access and traffic control the plant is affected staging is challenging because there's not a lot of real estate at the plant to store things for construction flooding is a problem in the winter we have to keep the plant operating during all points in this project which is challenging when certain items of work need to be done and we are making some design enhancements when opportunities present themselves during the project and the timing of that can be challenging this just to represent that we do have road closures at the plant to do this project sometimes things show up unexpectedly and roads get closed unexpectedly such as this case where some pipe large diameter pipe was being offloaded this is the construction project during flooding conditions it's a pain when this happens but the contract includes provisions warning the contractor about flooding this is the condition in the bottom of the main excavation where we had mats crane mats floating and flood waters in the bottom of the excavation all of this comes with a price tag we've made a lot of construction payments so far starting in November we have a bid price of $68 million in the project and that's represented by the yellowish line at the top of this chart we are going to be making progress payments every month between now and when the project ends in 2025 we have not had to pay any change orders yet or pay for any change orders yet they will be represented on this chart in the future when I present a version of this chart in the future but so far we've paid under just under $20 million the maximum payment was actually our first payment which was nearly $6 million and our minimum payment to date has been just under $1 million so with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have did it in under 10 minutes too I was over my allotted amount I apologize for that no you weren't I was timing you I'll open it up for board member questions and comments or member walsh just one comment I think seeing the the administrative for the shovels that was a little more dangerous than that truck all right thank you for the update deputy director Prince I'll open it up now for public comment on item number 5.2 you wish to make a comment via zoom please raise your hand if you're dialing in via telephone please dial star 9 to raise your hand secretary Ledesma we don't have anyone in the council chambers wishing to make comment no hands are raised in zoom and no voicemails or emails were received great thank you thank you again we'll now move to item 5.3 water supply update director Burke thank you our third staff briefing is our water supply update and Peter Martin our deputy director water resources will be presenting all right good afternoon chair Galvin members of the board I'm here with you with a very brief water supply update we've got a package ended today so first I just want to highlight Lake Pillsbury storage is at about 47,700 acre feet representing about a 1600 acre feet week over week change over the last week or so as you recall I've briefed this board previously FERC is in the process of approving PG&E's variance request which should be it may actually already be in place at this time so I would expect that black line this year to start to tail off and flatten out for the remainder of the year as they are allowed to reduce their releases into the upper Russian River so in terms of storage in Lake Mendocino as of today storage is at about 87,300 acre feet which is about 80% of the Firo water supply curve so above and beyond the typical operating supply curve so water supplies remain plentiful the represents about a 1750 acre foot change in storage week over week releases are at about 200 cubic feet per second in the upper Russian River and in terms of Lake Sonoma storage story hasn't changed much with the exception of the fact that storage has now moved back into the storage pool so if you recall up until the last few weeks the Army Corps was still operating in their flood control pool so they they passed over those operations to Sonoma water this month so in all about 242,000 acre feet of storage and 107 cubic feet per second releases so yeah the big story is obviously they're out of the flood control pool in August so and then just generally just wanted to recap some of the messaging this month to our customers we're going to continue to encourage customers to take advantage of our water smart programs we'll be out there putting a lot of media out this month about that promoting the water smart garden maintenance manuals never too soon to start thinking about when are renovating your garden and planning ahead for that and then also promoting the water smart irrigation recommendations for your service area as well as the needs of your specific low water use plants I also it's been a little time since the water use efficiency team came with the agreement for the funding for the direct install program I wanted to give a brief update on a couple things that have occurred recently we closed the request for qualifications in July we did receive six responses for those being local firms so actually a good response and some of those were approved one did drop out this last week after we had a coordination meeting but it looks like we're going to have plenty of pre-qualified plumbers to do the work so that's a very good outcome in all has a this phase one funding is going to install about 2,000 toilet packages over 500 customers think we're up to about 530 customers have already been actually I think I take that back 600 now customers have been pre-approved for the program that will be the one-and-a-half million dollar funding that we received from the state and their earmark under the last fiscal year budget phase 2 we did apply for funding through the water smart Bureau's water smart program what through the saving Sonoma center we're in saving water partnership a carve-out has been made for the City of Santa Rosa to get funding again for an additional phase to that funding so stack those on top of each other you've got about 2,000 toilet direct installs going on in the coming years so and then just in terms of the marketing of that program I wanted to come back and let the board know at the board's direction we have concluded our outreach specific to the mobile home parks our H2O customers snick connection articles radio and several news article newsletter articles have gone out we're also doing direct outreach to certain customer classes as well as putting up posters in publicly available spaces of course I forgot to mention that marketing has been done in both English and Spanish and you can see some of the materials right there on the slide there as well so customers are at want to participate are asked to go to src.org slash toilet that concludes my water supply update I'm happy to answer any questions you may have thank you Deputy Director Martin any questions or comments from the board very good thank you for the update we'll now take public comments on item 5.3 if you wish to make a comment via zoom please raise your hand if you're dialing in via telephone please dial star 9 to raise your hand secretary Ledezma we have no one in the chambers making a public comment no hands are raised in zoom and no voice mails or emails were received very good we're going to move item 5.4 to our next board meeting as we will not have a quorum with board member Bartholome recuses herself today so we'll now move to the consent calendar we have one item on the consent calendar I'll entertain a motion I'll move adoption of the consent calendar second we have a motion by Vice Chair Arnone seconded by board member Badenfort to approve the consent item at this time I'll open it up for public comments on item 6.1 if you wish to make a comment via zoom please raise your hand if you're dialing in via telephone please dial star 9 to raise your hand secretary Ledezma we have no one in council chambers wish to make a public comment no hands are raised in zoom and no voice mails or emails are received may we have a roll call vote please board member Bartholome yes board member Badenport vice chair Arnone chair Galvin hi this passes with four affirmative votes with board member Wright and Walsh absent thank you we have no report items now move to item 8 which is public comments on non-agenda items if you wish to make a comment on item 8 please raise your hand on zoom or dial in using star 9 on your telephone secretary Ledezma there are no public comments in the council chamber no voice mails or emails were received and no hands are raised in zoom very good we have no referrals we have no written communications do we have any subcommittee reports hearing none do we have any board member reports board member Bartholome thank you chair Galvin I would just like to thank director Burke and the staff for the great tour of the geysers last week it was really fun hanging out with you Jason and the other and board member Walsh and the other San Rosa City staff I learned so much I mean the scale of that operation is absolutely mind-blowing but it it was such a great tour well organized and I remember one of the staff members saying without Santa Rosa recycled water the geysers would have literally lost all their steam so thank you very good thank you I'm glad you're able to make that visit we'll now take public comment on item number 12 if you wish to make a comment via zoom please raise your hand if you're down in via telephone please dial star 9 to raise your hand secretary Ledezma we have no comments in chambers no voice mails or emails are received and no hands are raised in zoom thank you last item on our agenda is the director's report director Burke thank you chair Galvin and members of the board I have two quick items for you today first I wanted to let you know that we are in the process of finalizing our pathogen special study and this was a study that was required by our last MPDS permit this study analyzed any potential pathogens that may exist in our recycle water ponds we gathered samples weekly for five months analyzing the bacteria in the ponds and we have some good news to share our study shows that the recycle water ponds are not a source of pathogenic bacteria into local water bodies so that was really good news we will be finalizing the study and submitting it to the regional water board before the due date which is July of next year 2024 I also wanted to let the board know thank you very much for the action that you took at your last board meeting regarding right elementary school following the approval of the water service agreement we went out and had our local clues set up a temporary meter to provide city water to the right elementary school while the process of completing the permanent connection continues so the school district now has water supply from the city and they will be making the temporary connection from the temporary meter to their water district water distribution system on site in the near future so again thank you to the board for the action you took to help us make that happen and then last I just wanted to let the board know after talking with the chair and getting the chair's approval we don't have any items that are pressing for September 7th and so we will be canceling the September 7th board meeting and enjoy your Labor Day holiday and that's my presentation thank you any questions or comments for the director very good we'll now take public comments on item number 13 if you wish to make a comment via zoom please raise your hand if you're dialing in via telephone please dial star nine secretary Ledesma we have no comments in the chambers no hands are raised in zoom and no voicemails or emails were received that concludes our agenda for today thank you all for being here and we are adjourned