 Good afternoon call the meeting of the Board of Public Utilities for the City of Santa Rosa to order. We may have a roll call, please Yes, Chairman Galvin here Vice Chair Arnone here board member Baden for it Board member Bannister Board member Dowd here board member Grable here and board member what here? Any statements of abstention by board members? Hearing none we have no study sessions the minutes will be approved We have no staff briefing so we will move we have two items on the consent calendar I'll move to approve the consent calendar Motion by Vice Chair Arnone seconded by board member Bannister to approve the consent calendar all in favor say aye Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Great. Thank you very much We'll move to our report items item 7.1 is the report on the ordinance amending the sections of the city code I believe mr. St. George is going to make that presentation Thank you Okay. Yes. I am Martin St. George Thank you board members for Having me here today appreciate it Can you move your microphone a little closer? Absolutely, at least I remember to turn it on this time. I'm getting better And I'm here to talk about an ordinance amending certain sections of Santa Rosa City Code title 15 sewers By way of background The Laguna treatment plant has a NPD S permit a national pollutant discharge elimination system permit and One of the requirements of that permit is to have any EPA pre-treatment program or source control program The requirement for a source control program has a minimum of five million gallons a day of water running through a plant Having significant industrial users or having impacted receiving waters The significant a significant industrial user is a user that discharges 25,000 gallons a day or more or if they have a large component of Discharge of say like TSS or BOD one of the constituents if they have a Significant percentage of that that they contribute to the Laguna treatment plant then they are classified as a significant industrial user Okay, so source control for industrial and commercial users What we do in the environmental compliance section in the water department as we inspect we sample and we permit And there's different strategies when we do source control Whether it's through the permitting or through best management practices or through local limits or through Water conservation or green chemistry product substitution These are all different strategies that are used to control the various constituents that we have to be Concerned about that are coming to the Laguna treatment plant We enforce federal limits as well as local limits Federal limits are limits that are detailed in the code of federal regulations, which are these books here This is my program these two books There is approximately 57 Categorical programs that are out there from metal finishing to chip manufacturing to various programs that we have various industries that we have in our Industrial user base And they all have their various either limits or best management practices that need to be implemented So we also protect our collection system and our staff in the system and we also Implement stormwater controls on our industrial and commercial users The reason for the code edits today they comes from an approved local limits study that we've been working on and it's recently approved and Also an EPA required changes from audits that the city had and there's also a new regulation for dental dischargers That has come into bay into into being A brief history on the local limits how local limits study is looking at your discharge of your treatment plant and Looking at the regulations and the stipulations on your discharge point and then working backwards with safety factors with Elimination of certain constituents through the plant And there's growth factors for the population and for the industries and we take into account all these different factors And then we came up you come up with a load that you can get into your head works Now this is all data that's been worked on and sampled for the past 10 to 20 years in some cases We have incredibly reliable data And we've had Woodard and Kernan and RMC a wooden and Kern company did the study for us They went by federal guidelines and standards to develop this local limits study and this was approved Verbally so far by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board I received an email this morning that said the draft letter of approval is circulating and will be coming shortly So we're very excited about that The city started this study in December of 2016 we presented the results to BPU in August of last year and had the approval to keep going and to keep moving it forward and We presented the results to the regional board for verbal discussions and just to see what they were looking for as far as what we proposed and we had some back and forth and then more recently and and In March we did get their their comments We moved on those comments and had a public notice that we put out at the request of the regional board for the regional board and and August of 2019 I'd like to bring your attention to the third bullet point for those of you on the outside to seeing this There's a typo on this and you are seeing presented results to regional board in 10 of 2019 and The typo was corrected in this slide internally in the chambers. It should be 10 of 2018. So thank you and excuse me for that error Public notice Happened in August. We have that verbal approval and now we're here with the with the board today So let's let's keep this moving Recommended increases to local limits These increases on this slide and many of the edits come from three areas That drove them were the reasons that drove them one is Corrosion control by Sonoma County water agency We had corrosive water in in the county that was being supplied that was leaching out some copper and Zinc and to a certain degree nickel out of some of our industrial base out of the stainless steel and the manufacturing processes so those numbers Really decreased after the control corrosion control was put into place and then we had a lot of industrial users that were Platers metal platers and that sort of manufacturing processes that discharge cadmium nickel copper And zinc and Several of those went away. I used to have 30 significant industrial users now I've got eight so to give you an idea of what's happened in the last decade or so Some of these companies are leaving And my hope is that in raising these local limits We'll be able to attract low water usage Discharges of metals because We are increasing our local limits But they're being increased so that are a comparable level to other agencies water districts Municipalities in the Bay Area. This brings ours similar to theirs. We're still a little bit lower, but we'll be similar And silver that's an excellent Example of product substitution where you have digital replacing x-ray technology Photo finishing we all used to bring our rolls of film in and have silver recovery units from the x-ray Replacement digital x-ray and dentist's office doctor's offices all changed So those are the recommended increases from the local limits To remove we have biochemical oxygen demand total suspended solids total killed all nitrogen and The reason for these is strategy We have surcharge systems in place where we charge for these loadings to be discharged from industrial users and That is a much better strategy to discourage high loadings of BOD TSS and TKN and all the years I've been with the city of Santa Rosa 17 Only a quarter of these limits has been reached and and the data that I've seen coming from the industrial users So it's not the local limit. That's causing them to discharge less of these constituents. It's the surcharge So that's the strategy to take and we're trying to remove things from the local limits that don't have any bearing Or are not the correct strategy to be used and then it's it's more of a bookkeeping thing And you have to keep these up and then you're in our program We're prone to being audited and some things not correct. So it's better to have less But what you use is correct and used correctly And Tim and he Beryllium and thallium we don't even have in our industrial base during our inspections We see the raw materials the precursor materials. They're not there and we we don't see it when we test either Because they're just don't exist hexavalent chromium If the discharge or discharges or has hexavalent chromium processes They're part of a federal category. One of these 58 categories in here is covered by Would cover to test for hexavalent chromium so we don't have to have a local limit to test for hexavalent chromium As a reminder 30 years ago the tendency was to put everything into local limits now It's to back that out and we're not the only agency that's doing this We're we're paring down what is reasonable and right instead of throwing everything in Based on the beginning of a program 30 years ago a year ago I came in with a slide that had 1968 Neil Armstrong walking on the moon and some of you may remember that and We've changed a lot since then Although the pre-treatment program programs came into place in 1982 Selenium is not appreciate it is present and appreciable levels and we removed total toxic organics because It was a literature value that was put into the local limits And this is another one if you are a business and you're discharging total toxic organics Then it's covered by a federal category. So it's it's a duplicate limit and it's also a literature based limit not a statistically based limit and the only limits we wanted to have Going forward from our local limits study that were recalculated were defensible literature base Defensible statistically based limits We had some limits that the total petroleum hydrocarbons and BTECs were just limits for groundwater sites And there was some confusion about whether they applied to the industrial sector as well as the groundwater sites We clean that up and I have a bullet point at the end here. It we put on this slide. It's Not necessarily a clarification of local limits, but this waste hauler program Being a North Bay Northern being a Sonoma County Waste hauler facility We wanted to be able to give the option to some of the haulers to be able to bring in hauled waste septic waste from outside of the county a lot of these haulers work in various counties and it makes it easier for them when they're trying to meet the requirements of the California Department of Food and Agricultural and Inedible kitchen grouse program and some of the other septic hauling programs It's important to be able to put loads together and manifest them properly and because of that It's it's very important to be able to take some septic from out of outside of the area But it was a prohibition that said we wouldn't take it from outside of the county in the past We're getting closer a few more code edits here The reasons for the code edits came from an EPA audit. We have definitions and references some minor corrections And those are more the definitions were technical and that's what you see in the definitions section if you went over the ordinance And then and under the prohibitions There's been a change in how stormwater views some of these items like pool and spa waters our stormwater constraints have gotten tighter And you can't just dump your pool and spa to the gutter like you used to 30 years ago so now we clean this up and This was a prohibition so we removed these items out of the prohibitions because you can put it to the to the sanitary sewer And we added pesticides to the list that were omitted Back 30 years ago. It's supposed to reflect a certain suite of testing and there's about five or six that Weren't in that list and when we did this local limit study. We identified those Something new these federal categories we added a federal category the excuse me the EPA added a federal category 40 CFR 441 When we did a major code edit in 2008 and rewrote the title 15 sewer code and reorganized it we actually put in our own amalgam separator program dental amalgam program language in there and the EPA just recently is caught up to the city of Santa Rosa and has now developed their own 40 code of federal regulations for 41 federal dental office rule And in that rule they there's a little bit of different language than what we had in our code. So this code edit is just to Make our our language work with the federal language We'd like questions before or after the recommendation I'm sorry. Would you like to have would you like to make questions or comments before or after the record? I'm not up to the board for any questions Guess there's none beautiful Recommendation board member banister So this is all pretty technical stuff and I don't envy you having to memorize all those to two volumes of stuff you have there But on the surface to a layperson Increasing taking things off of the list of prohibited pollutants and increasing the tolerances for others Seems like going the wrong direction You know in some way because we're allowing things in that we haven't been or at higher quantities than we have been How would you explain it to a layperson so they could sort of get it? to a layperson I would say I would say if you had a budget in your home and You have fixed costs in your budget in your home and you have Variable costs in your budget in your home and all of a sudden the fixed costs were cut in half That gives you more leeway with your variable a real discretionary money that you have in your household budget So relating that back to the the local limits We lost industrial sector Our industrial sector was significantly reduced so that if you have Okay, if you have less people using the same amount Then each person is going to be allowed to use more so increasing the concentration is the same idea of saying okay if I've got it if I have ten pounds of potatoes and I'm going to feed 50 people it's not going to go very far But if I have ten pounds of potatoes and I'm going to feed five people each person is going to get a lot more So that's the same idea with the concentrations if you don't have as many businesses They're not Polluting as much then there they should be able to discharge a little bit more Because our our fixed amount of what we can take at the plant is okay to it's okay to take that and We do not see any discharge Exceedances in any of these areas that we've been Doing the calculations on in any of these constituents Maybe I'm not a very good laypersons That was helpful, thank you Any other board member questions if not We have a resolution before us to make a recommendation to the city council Here I'm going to read that Sure, it is the recommendation by the water department that the board of public utilities by resolution Recommend that the city council approve an ordinance amending sections of Santa Reza city code title 15 sewers 1504 03 definitions 1506 120 publications of users and significant non-compliance 1506 200 appeals 1508 50 wastewater discharge permit classification 1508 070 prohibited discharge standards 1508 100 local limits 1508 210 hauled wastewater 1508 215 cleanup and remediation projects 1508 340 wastewater discharge permit contents 1508 430 sampling and 1508 567 melgood separators Moved I second I second that Motion by board member gadenfort seconded by board member dowd to approve the resolution all in favor say aye Aye any opposed Great, thank you very much mr. St. George thank you chairman and thank you board for the approval and Thank you for your patience on this technical topic Next we have item 8.1, which is a public hearing on the agricultural recycled water use miscellaneous fee schedule Deputy director Zanino welcome I probably don't even need the microphone I will lean in Good afternoon chairman galvin and members of the board I am here to give you information prior to the public hearing on the agricultural recycled water use miscellaneous fee schedule The agenda today will be goals of the process The items that we considered during the process Communication the various fee options that were explored I will update you on the template agreement And then I will go over the actual fee proposal and the recommendation before the public hearing opens So goals for the process We began when recycled water user agreements were expiring and it became important for the city to form some Consistency with the agreement language Various agreements over the last 40 years were based on the city's disposal needs and created a wide variety of programs agreements and language and fees With the many new regulatory restrictions and orders that were handed down to the city The city needed to explore options for disposal And after that exploration the geysers project was chosen But even though the geysers project was chosen it was still important for flexibility, which our recycled water users provide for us We also wanted to work towards a fair and reasonable fee that wouldn't discourage the use of recycled water for irrigation And we wanted to strengthen the relationship with the ag users that we had seen declining over the last few years As well as moving to a very transparent and open process Principles and issues we kept in mind during the process Or that we do have a lack of redundancy in the geyser system We have a need for operational flexibility The benefits need to be for both the city and the users and predictability is a very high desire on both sides We wanted to develop consistency Keeping in mind that water recycled water is a valuable resource as well as remembering the importance of our recycled water users A phased approach for fees as well Was looked at to limit disruptions to our users and was highly desired We really did want input from our ag users So we sent out a request to all of our agreement holders requesting that we get volunteers to work on a committee with us Which became the ag user group I'd like to say a personal thank you to those that volunteered to participate They were very committed to the process and we really appreciated their input In the beginning we struggled with communication on and working on how to reach all of the users though Because it was determined that email wasn't always the most reliable method for this specific group of users But i'll talk more about communication on the next slide We really wanted to hear the feedback and through the meetings as talking about fees It became clear that a simple approach was pre preferred for the fee structure Reliability rising costs long-term agreements and payment terms were concerns that also needed to be addressed So for communication Finding the right balance as I said took a little bit of time for us But we kept working at it because we wanted the process to remain open and transparent We did have the six users But we and they knew that they didn't represent all of the various types of use So we needed to provide opportunity for input from all of our users Therefore we developed a website the website includes all documentation from all of our meetings written communications copies of the proposals copies of the draft agreement We sent electronic and hard copy communications out We met with the executive director of the farm bureau We attended the annual agricultural operations meeting. This is the meeting that's held at the beginning of every season And all of our users are invited to and at that meeting We also handed out the the current draft at that time of the agreement as well as the proposal at that time the fee proposal at that time We did hold a meeting at the farm bureau and prior to that meeting we sent out a letter That also included the request for feedback on both the template agreement, which was attached to that and the proposed fee structure We posted all public meeting notices as required But we also Tried to go the extra step by sending that out hard copy to all of our agreement holders as well We went through a couple of meetings with the ad users talking about various fee structures in other communities and that was when we Came to a consensus that a simplified approach was better These are just some of the items that we looked at we looked at a standard rate Which is where we landed we looked at two tiered rates both inclining and declining blocks We looked at fixed allocation pricing We looked at temporary urgency disposal Effects to pricing and i'll actually talk about that more later because that did get incorporated into the proposed fee structure We talked about fixed base and some non-standard rates as well While the interruptible agreement is under the director signature authority It was a large part of the work that we did with the users So I just wanted to update you on that before we move on to the actual fee proposal We worked to make the agreement beneficial to both the users and the city We worked to make it comfortable for all i'm not going to say Happy or pleased because it is a legal agreement and there has to be give and take on both sides But we came to we came to some agreement through the negotiation We agreed to a longer term For the agreement which was a major concern from the users And the city understands that users are making some concessions on there and for that length of time We did end on a 12 year term and that seems kind of like a strange timing Instead of using a 10 year term But the reason why we did that is because some of our agreement holders also lease property from the city And those leases have shorter terms and so they'll go through several cycles of lease terms And then when their lease term is at I believe it's the fourth cycle Their two-party agreement and their lease will come up at the same time so that all all that work can be done at the same time Adding length to the agreement was also possible by moving the fee schedule out of the agreement This allows for a much more public and transparent process as well, which is a high priority for the city We do still have addendums to complete for the irrigation equipment and frost protection Which are specific to only some users But those being separate allow us to keep the base agreement for the use of recycled water consistent for all So that addresses any of our regulatory requirements since all of our users are actually under our permit Some of the highlights from negotiations. I'm I'm listing here We worked very hard with the users to get where we are today and the city did make some concessions on The fee to accommodate the phased approach and to get consistency The starting point was only for users with expiring agreements and applying a three-year structure For those that were currently not paying But we moved to a five-year structure And will allow users that are currently paying to receive a temporary decrease and pay the same as the others That are entering into new agreements It was important for the city to commit to making all efforts to maintain the system which is stated in the agreement Because of the length of the agreement There was the need to balance fiscal limitations, of course That could arise based on the needs of keeping the treatment plant operations remaining within the permit and regulations But we did make the commitment on the city's behalf in writing just to confirm that it is the city's intention To continue to provide recycled water for agricultural irrigation The long term or the term of the agreement we already discussed But additional items are also mosquito abatement Which is clearly defined now as the city's responsibility in the agreement As well as protecting the users if there were regulations that were to be developed that would interfere with their commitment to use the water So now I will actually talk about the fee proposal itself I'll start by saying that the original proposal would have started at 12 and 50 cents an acre foot in 2020 But during the last ad hoc meeting there was a request for adjustment And that was approved with a two one vote, which is the proposal you see before you now The current fee before you today or the proposal before you today Is year one it says year one it has two years there But that's because by the time a miscellaneous fee can go into effect, which is 60 days from today We'd be at the end of the year. So there's not really much of 2019 left So year one is really 2020 At no fee per acre foot Year two is at 12 and 50 cents an acre foot year three at 25 Year four at 37 50 and then year five in 2024 at 50 dollars an acre foot The 50 dollars an acre foot is the original fee proposed by staff and that is based on half of the electrical cost to deliver an acre foot of water And as stated previously we started considering The phased approach to limit disruptions to our users very early on in the process, which is why you see the multi-year ramp up All users will pay the same fee when a new agreement is executed Even those that are in an agreement with fees now, they will all be under the same fee structure I did mention earlier the urgent disposal need Which is incorporated now into the actual fee schedule and into the resolution The city had if the city asked Their users to take water to help us with an urgent need. We will not charge them during that period We will also we also added to the agreement the ability to recover some costs in those situations So as an example if the city needs to reduce pond volume And a user has already removed their equipment from some of their fields We know that they may have to pay labor to re-establish those fields and start irrigation again for us And so through guidelines in the agreement, they would be able to request reimbursement from us As far as the fiscal impacts go I'll start by pointing out that the revenue decrease stated at the ad hoc meaning was at $225,000 But it's lower in what you see here And that's just because we need we I did calculations based on $50 an acre foot in my head And we wanted to be fair and say that the decrease for next year should be based on On the fee schedule that we were proposing which would have been that $12 and 50 cents an acre foot We also only have some people that are coming on as first-time users And we will have those that are using now at 50 or $25 an acre foot Not paying for next year and then joining the fee schedule with everybody else We will see a decrease over the next few years. So I have that outlined here for you However, please remember that the number directly relates to the availability of supply and demand This is weather dependent. So some years we may be able to sell more water And it is a use-based fee We do feel comfortable. However, that we will sufficiently cover any decrease Based on increase from other programs revenue that's coming in from other programs During the budget season this year. We discussed the high strength waste discharge program That's where waste haulers bring actually martin was just referring to it waste haulers bring waste to our plant for disposal This has generated more revenue than we expected and this year we estimated that revenue to go down a little bit But it it was because pedaluma is going to be opening up a similar program We know now that pedaluma will likely not be opening their program for at least a year So so what we estimated and what we will collect will actually be a little bit higher When we do reach the final $50 an acre foot in 2024 Almost all users will have switched to the new agreement and be paying a fee Which once again will be based on supply and demand. So it depends on how much water we have available and how much they need And then that could could generate up to $300,000 a year I do want to mention that we did Have a meeting a couple weeks ago with the sub regional technical advisory committee. Those are our sub regional partners We wanted to inform inform them of the process We wanted to inform them of the fee proposal any revenue impacts And we received only positive feedback for moving forward towards consistency regardless of any short term decrease in revenue And with that it is recommended by the agricultural ad hoc subcommittee And santa rosa water that the board by resolution Adopt an agricultural recycled water use miscellaneous fee schedule Thank you deputy director Zanino at this point I will open it up for a public hearing I have a couple of speaker cards here Doug Beretta You can either come down here or you can use the microphone behind you there, sir Good afternoon My name is Doug Beretta. I am representing Beretta dairy. We have been Utilizing reclaimed water wastewater from the city of santa rosa since 1981 We're one of the larger users. I use about 80 million gallons a year Working with the staff and with the ad hoc committee After a tough first couple years, but now that we have new staff members has really been a benefit to the ag community We've worked very well together. They've listened to us and really tried to reach out and and understand our concerns The biggest concern I think that all of us have is we were such a huge component to this system You paid us for a number of years when you had to get rid of this water and now all of a sudden it has become a commodity And now you want to charge us We've probably all agreed that there is going to be some fee schedule I think I can agree to what we've come up with but I do like waiting for 2021 before we're starting to be charged through these Meetings we had comments that the city was going to get out there and get all the meters Ready to go as you start charging us. We a lot of us have meters that Are getting up there in age. They're not working right. I mean I reached out this year And was told that I don't used Less than four inches of water Where I usually use over the other years between 12 and 16 inches or my meter's way off But nobody's been out there to uh to take care of it and get it dialed in So I think this gives the city a whole year to get it dialed in we start paying at 2021 is Looks like would be very good for agriculture. Thank you Thank you, mr. Beretta for your comments the next car to have is for tani tisconi Hello, and thank you. My name is tani tisconi And I represent the Sonoma county farm bureau as our executive director The Sonoma county farm bureau is a local organization over 100 years old here in Sonoma county And we have approximately 2000 members I wish to express my appreciation to you for all the efforts of the city staff The ad hoc committee the entire bpu board For your willingness to allow the water users to provide input on developing an agreement and fee schedule for the ag recycled water program Granted that there's little ag production lands within the city limits We cannot lose sight of the hundreds of centers of businesses and thousands of city residents This livelihood depends on agriculture Sonoma county's agriculture industry impacts beyond ugbs and city limits lines The relationship between our farmers and the city of santa rosa Regarding the use of recycled water has existed longer than some of you board members have been alive It has been a mutually beneficial partnership that has not only benefited the farmer in the city But also all those folks living in santa rosa that pleasure their toilets or takes a shower I believe that there has been some discussion about whether the fee schedules should start at the beginning of 2020 As suggest as first suggested or a year later in 2021 I urge you to accept the ad hoc committee's fee schedule recommendations that has the fee starting in 2021. Thank you Thank you for your comments bob mule rath Good afternoon Um My name is bob mule rath. I've been a water user for since about 1979 so About the beginning of the the reclamation program From the laguna treatment plant. I live in farm out near the plant And I would just like to to thank The board For considering this and I'd like to thank all the staff And all the the ag users that were on the committee to work with staff to uh to develop this this schedule and The last two or three years have been a little bit contentious because City council changed the board has changed. I think mr. Doubt is the only one that's Been on here that can remember any of this other stuff. So Um I'm just I just want the board to know that as far as I'm concerned and I think most of the ag users Are are pretty pleased with with the relationship that we have with the city and the board of public utilities And the staff so thank you Thank you, mr. Mule rath Any other members of the public wish to be heard? If not, I will close the public hearing and open it up for any board member questions Board member battenford Thank you. Um, is it also appropriate time for just some comments and then a couple of follow-up questions First and foremost, thank you very much. Um for taking some time to our users for attending today I know that it's not easy and it's not always a convenient time Um as has been acknowledged. This has been a long uh a long process Uh, I really want to take Some time to recognize director Burke deputy director zunino and the staff For their work throughout this last couple of years It's pretty clear that this process started under different leadership and was bumpy To say the very least and the change in the tone and the change in relationship is is obvious and a benefit To our city and and I appreciate that This decision has been a complicated one and an important one both to the city and to our users We're home to a very unique sub regional system Where our ag users have played long played Uh and provided a crucial partnership for us primarily the the ability to dispose and irrigate While maintaining our geysers obligations. We avoid significant fines Environmental penalties and all of the the benefits that staff And our users have noted As our geysers age at infrastructure ages and needs to repair this redundancy has never been more critical We've settled on a rate of $50 an acre foot. This may be less than other systems, but because of our independent relationship And the ag users this this the comparison is a bit apples to oranges for me So even though that we've completed rate studies and we've looked at other jurisdictions our geysers uh project our ag users and the interdependence that they uh that they play Makes it a difficult choice one. What is the value? That's what I've tried to keep in mind all the way through this process that what is the value Of our agricultural users to the city It's not easy to quantify. I don't know if I have an answer for that other than tremendous The other component that I think that I walked in with some concerns around and some questions that appears to have been settled And I appreciate it is around the responsibility for equipment I'm interested. I'll have a follow-up question at the end About the frost protection and irrigation equipment addendums that the staff might be working on We committed to um year one at zero and A ramp up uh over a multi-year process We then took nearly I don't know 10 11 months to get through year one. So I strongly believe that Maintaining that commitment through january 2021 is critical for us We've changed we've had different users at different rates and we need to solve that And as for the expense I do view it As an as an expense of doing vital business and of maintaining our system in the city of santa rosa Just as sometimes we need to make Decisions to expand contracts or contingencies Or sign contracts that are well above an engineer's estimate It is the cost of maintaining a system I was one of the the two votes to Extend the contract. I strongly believe That extent I don't even know if we look at it as extending it by a year. It is the recommendation I believe that starting in january 2021 is actually what we committed to thank you Thank you for your comments, and we'll get back to the questions in a minute board member dowd I was not a member of the agricultural ad hoc subcommittee But with almost 50 years of business experience Putting agreements for my companies together with clients and whatever I certainly support the concept that's been presented by the ag representatives today and in your discussions as you Mentioned board member batten for I totally I totally believe that a way to make a good agreement is that Uh, both Sides of the agreement are comfortable with where it's going. And so Uh, I totally support the concept that will delay the implementation of the program presented by deputy directors and you know By that one year so that everybody gets their equipment in order And we're ready to hit the ground running. So that's my opinion Thank you Board member banister To follow up on that last point it didn't just be clear the slide that you showed that had the fee proposal in there Already incorporates this one-year delay that we're talking about correct That's correct. So it's not a not no one's asking for anything that's delayed past what we see here This is the proposal that's before you Okay Secondly the next slide was the fiscal impact and I found this one a bit confusing You showed can you that uh, yeah, um, you showed the decrease revenue in the first year second year and third year can you Since some people aren't paying at all now or paying less I you know, can you just go over where these decrease revenue or are they really decreases from now or they decreases from some prior proposal So we have people who are paying now who will not be paying next year We have people who are not paying now who if we had a fee next year would be paying next year Which is why it gets a little bit confusing And so this would be the amount if those people who were paying now Went down to the twelve dollars and fifty cents And if the people who are going to be coming on to paying were paying the twelve dollars and fifty cents So we we knew from the beginning Even with the previous proposal that year one would be the twelve dollars and fifty cents And so that's what we're really talking about as far as a decrease in revenue because now we won't have any Revenue coming in for that first year and then each year it goes down by half because the fee actually goes up By twice as much for each year until we get to 2024 And the two to three hundred thousand that you show here as total revenue expected in 2024 Is what compared to today? I I guess Well today we have several people who are not paying so it would be we would be getting probably another 50,000 I believe from the new people who would have been coming on so Right now you have to remember the people we are charging some are paying 25 some are paying 50 Most are paying 50 dollars an acre foot And so like in that account there was 70 thousand dollars worth of fees that were in there for this year So it's going from that amount to everybody paying up to 300 thousand And that's obviously based on I also did the calculation on 6,000 acre feet So it's around 1.8 billion gallons of water But that is also the high side so that that is what it could go up to because that's what we can provide in a very wet year when we need More more reduction from the ponds Well your explanation alone Supports the need for the program because some people paying nothing others paying 50 Some rationalization of this program is certainly the goal and I support that goal. Thank you Board member gable Yeah, I just wanted to echo my colleagues comments and and Really thank the members of the subcommittee Chair on any and by street baton fort and thanks staff for really taking the time Sitting with the the recommendations and the advice and and the the user knowledge From from the farmers the ag users And and really taking the time to sit with it and and develop this it It was really Just inspiring to see that happen in such a focused and thoughtful way Um Instead of this, you know, what seemed before to just be this this kind of fiscal vortex of like, you know It's just numbers and commodities like no, we're talking about people and contingencies and relationships and and good business practices as well as You know the the geysers redundancy the service life To me also the the complexity that the interrupt ability presents with the psps coming It's my understanding that we don't have backup power on either our geysers pump stations or the Pumps is that correct? For actual pumps that go to the sites. Yes, that is that would be private, but Um geysers does not have a backup Right, so it's for me. It's just it's another it's another aspect Other folks typically would have water through a psps Whereas the ag users would not so it's just another thing that tells me we really have to be thoughtful and flexible You know, especially when when pj and he throws these things in there that are that are just not ideal for anyone Um, but again, thank you to everyone who participated in this is is really an example of where Government and thoughtful partnerships can we can we can be facilitators not and not encumber, uh, you know Good community benefits and also are you know being being real responsible with our rate payer funds Um, so yeah, I fully support the recommended fee schedule and the maturation rate and the fresh start is how I see it um, and I would also like to say that there's the Part of the reason for for starting in 2020 and having this go through I think it would have been different if even if the um, even if the fee schedule, you know Was implemented if we got it done before may for instance There's a there's a big disparity between our needs for urgent discharge And the seasonal needs specifically for irrigation, you know the reality on the ground for farmers and and for ag users for dairymen Uh and pasture lands and grazing lands They're typically completely separate times of the year. We need to discharge typically before uh, may They need water from may through, you know potentially November And so since we've taken the time and I'm glad we did We have gone past that that time of need I would say for the farmers and so I think in good faith It's it's just great that we're starting now fresh and and we will have that time where we need to ask them Frequently through through the the winter months to take water and and and they do and very grateful for that They don't need they don't need it at that time But we are certainly grateful that they're that they're willing to do it And then as we get to may they will have The water they need at at this this fresh maturation rate So I really appreciate that aspect as well knowing that we have completely different kind of seasonal needs, but it's a mutual aid relationship Thank you Vice chair of noni Thank you, mr. Chairman. I I think Point I would like to make is that I think the most important thing that's come out of this process is that we have Repaired a relationship that may have been tarnished over time And the fact that we have so many representatives of the ag community here today Supporting this and expressing their appreciation to staff is the most important thing to me I think the finances Any negotiation process is a balance and you have to balance interests and and In those interests change and the balances change over time I I Supported the staff recommendation made at the last ag community ad hoc ag meeting and I support the recommendation made by staff today I think it is more important that we reach a collaborative agreement one that everybody is appreciative of and that everybody supports then balancing the dollars in such an amount that Is is manageable from the city's perspective and it's important from the ag user's perspective. So My I'm going to support this proposition or this resolution And I am very appreciative that staff has worked so hard to come to this point and to repair a relationship And I appreciate the ag users involvement in the process And the fact that they made the effort to show up here today and express their views too. So That's my comment Point member watts Thank you chair This has been a really interesting meeting for me. It's I've been on this board for I think four years now and The recycled water use program has always been something I've been educated in the importance of it But the fee schedule until this proposal happened was something that I didn't quite understand And it seems that that might have been the case among a lot of even just the the users and It's really refreshing to see The response from our agricultural partners also understanding and recognizing A change in leadership and a change in tone And that's not always the case that we see when we're on this side in in the government and usually you're seeing The public's input being just set aside and not usually engaged and made part of the process. So that is You know, it's something that I think that staff and And the agriculture users that were involved in this process should be really proud of because I think that's unique and and I'm very You know in support of this proposal and and I hope that The can you know the negotiations moving forward continue to be You know as respectful as they have been and I'm I think it's something that We can all you know learn from and hopefully used to Install this process maybe among other departments and other things that happen in the city. So thank you Thank you all for your comments. I have to say that in my almost Over 16 years now. I think on this board. It's always been troubling to me The relationship between the city and the ag users and how it was seemed more acrimonious and Also the inconsistencies within the program in terms of who was paying what some were paying zero some were paying a lot and It's it's very gratifying to me to see that both sides have been able to come together So I commend staff and the ag community for doing that I think we've got a program now that will be a benefit to everybody and will be consistent And everybody will know what they're getting and how it's how the program is going to work And everybody will be treated the same. So Again, my my commendations to staff and to the ag community and obviously I will be supporting the recommendation as well If there are no other comments, we have a resolution before us I'll move the resolution Second Motion by vice chair Harnoni seconded by board member grable to approve the resolution on item 8.1 All in favor say aye Any opposed Great passes unanimously. Thanks again everyone Item number nine is public comments on non-agenda matters Can we just officially close the public hearing? I don't know if that did we I think I did before the comments Thank you. Sorry. That's okay Seeing no public comments no referrals no written communications Do we have any subcommittee reports? Board member reports. I I uh Board member dowd I am sitting on the nutrient offset subcommittee And we had a meeting this past week Chairman galvin is the chairman of that committee And he may have other comments to make but we were asked to read some documents And I reported to assistant city attorney McLean before the meeting started that The agreement that is now in draft form Is a little confusing and interchanges the words sonoma water and sonoma county water agency And so for clarity it needs to have One of those entities and you can put a parentheses. It says which all includes the other But when you read the document it goes. Well, wait, wait, wait So that's that and then the other part is the multi-benefit Draft I totally support where that's going Uh, and we'll require a significant additional negotiations Between the party so it's not appropriate at this point to say Cross out this word and put in this word or whatever because there's a lot of work yet to be done But the concept is so important To get included so that We're not Taking care of phosphorus In teaspoon levels, but we're actually doing it in area wide areas so that We and other agencies if they join us in this Can benefit by the reduction in the phosphorus. Thank you Thank you for your comments and yes the nutrient offset committee will be meeting again on october 10th I believe it is and after that we'll have certainly more to report to the full board Any other board member reports Directors report Thank you chair galvin I have a couple things. I want to report first Perhaps I should have said this under the last item, but I do really want to thank the ag ad hoc subcommittee We know we asked a lot of you. It was a lot of work and in particular Vice chair Anoni board member grable and board member baden for it We really appreciate the time and effort and the guidance you provided and we're very happy to come to a good Outcome that worked for everyone. So I just really again want to thank you all for your work on that I do want to let the board know that You had I think received a little bit of information for me Regarding the potential public safety power shutdown last week The city did initiate our emergency operation center or eoc While it turned out that we didn't actually have a shutdown that affected the city of santa rosa I do think it was very helpful for us to go through that activity And really kind of embrace it as if it were going to happen and affect a number of our customers Based on the information that we had received it was the potential If the shutdown would have occurred as Anticipated that we would have had approximately three quarters of our facilities running on backup power Which is a really big deal to the water department So it really gave us the opportunity to put To really kind of run through our department operation center or doc and put our activation plans in place and really think about and prepare for These events so while we're grateful That it didn't happen and we didn't have the shutdown. It really was a good opportunity for us to Work on and take everything that we've been working on these past few months I know you had a presentation and an update on sort of what we've been doing related to the psps potential And and hone it even further to really understand You know what would be impacted what information needs to get out there Kind of get some feedback from the public and understand the questions they had So it's really helping us continue to refine that and prepare for Which is likely will be an eventual psps at some point in our city So I wanted to make sure the board was aware of that Also wanted to let the board know We've been kind of giving various updates over the last year or so On the potter valley project and the work that the snowman county water agency is doing with the other Four partners that they have in the planning agreement process Just wanted to make sure that the board was aware at On monday of next week. We're going to be having a special water advisory committee meeting or WAC meeting And at that meeting The the WAC will be voting on a proposed resolution That indicates our our interests as contractors of what we'd like to see the water agency continue to Make sure that they're putting that forward through the negotiation process In particular really looking at the really resiliency and protecting our water supply for our community As well as ensuring that any type of financial impacts really are proportional to the benefit That is received by the contractors so pending on the outcome of that WAC meeting we will share this information with the board so you can have a copy I also Wanted to introduce a new employee that we have Who's in the audience today? We have a new sustainability coordinator for our water use efficiency team Claire Nordley and Weave We're excited to have Claire join us. It's actually quite a fun story. Claire was an intern with the city of santa rosa and our energy and sustainability team 11 years ago, I believe and so And now has come back to santa rosa. So we're really excited about that prior to Working coming back to the city. She most recently supervised water conservation at east bay mud east bay municipal utilities district and she was managing the advanced metering infrastructure project. She is Currently has a bachelor's in environmental studies and is very close to completing her masters in environmental policy and management So we're really excited to have Claire join the team and i'm sure you'll be hearing from her over Over board meetings in the future. Sorry about that And then last I wanted to let the board know that next week October 6th through october 13th is water professionals week and I'm just really excited that this is And something that's recognized Not only here, but sort of nationally. We have a great team Really dedicated and passionate professionals and it's great when we can take some time to recognize all that we do So as part of this week, uh, we will be posting a number of employee Spotlights on our social media channels To highlight the value of the service that we provide and also to highlight the highly trained professionals That deliver these essential services So that is my report. Happy to answer any questions otherwise. Thank you questions for the director Hearing none we are adjourned