 Good afternoon. I'd like to call the meeting of the Board of Public Utilities for the city of Santa Rosa to order If we may have a roll call, please Chairman Galvin here vice chair and Oni Board Member Badenfort here or Member Bannister Or member Dowd here or member Grable here any statements of abstention by board members hearing none item 3 is the oath of office which I believe encompasses myself and Vice Chair Arnone Raise your right hand for me and Repeat after me. I state your name Do solemnly swear That I will support and defend The Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of California Against all enemies foreign and domestic that I will bear true faith and allegiance To the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of California That I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and That I will well and faithfully Discharge the duties Upon which I'm about to enter Okay, so next is item 4 minutes the January 17th minutes will be approved and Noted item 5.1 is our staff briefing on the groundwater sustainability agency update deputy director Burke Welcome. Good afternoon chair Galvin and members of the board So I wanted to give an update on where we are with the Santa Rosa Plain groundwater sustainability agency So we'll go through a little bit of background information on the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and how we formed the GSA for this Basin and then I'll give an update on some of the current things that are happening with the GSA in particular Proposed change to the basin boundary talk about where the GSA is with looking at a sustainability fee talk about a proposed groundwater users registration program that is being considered and then next steps so just a brief summary many of you have seen a lot of presentations on the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act or sigma and the GSA but for those that may not have seen quite as many This became law January 1st of 2015 and it applies to certain basins that are defined as either medium or high Priority that definition is determined by the State Department of Water Resources and in our county There are three basins that are currently defined as medium It's the Santa Rosa Plain the Petaluma Valley and the Sonoma Valley groundwater basins those particular basins are in a Reprioritization process right now and it may be that they become high priority It doesn't really change anything in terms of what we have to comply with but it's just something we're also keeping an eye on The requirements of Sigma state that we have to develop what's known as a groundwater sustainability agency or GSA by June of 2017 we did that in this basin actually was completed in all three basins and then we have to develop a groundwater sustainability plan by 2022 and achieve what's known as sustainability by January 31st of 2042 and sustainability is basically defined as preventing Unwanted consequences is the easiest way to put it so in particular for Santa Rosa the GSA was formed in 2017 and you can see that there were a number of cities as well as the county the water agency and the Sonoma and Goldridge Resource Conservation Districts That all met the requirements of being able to be a GSA on their own We all banded together and developed a JPA and formed the Santa Rosa Plain GSA We also allowed for Public Utility Commission regulated or PUC regulated as well as mutual water companies To join by agreement so there's a separate agreement that they signed with the Santa Rosa Plain GSA so that they could also be part of the GSA and they have a board member seat as well and Then the board is consisted of elected Representatives from each of the member agencies for the Santa Rosa Plain GSA for Santa Rosa Our current board member is Mayor Schwedhelm So just wanted to briefly mention that there are a number of goals of the GSA most importantly to comply with the law and To make sure that the GSP Reflects the goals and priorities of the community But there was also a desire when we were forming the GSA to really look at costs and funding Making sure that we used as much efficiencies as possible so we could have cost effective GSA's But also paid attention to who was benefiting by using this resource and making sure that folks contributed accordingly So now talking about the current things that we're looking at With the GSA The first thing I just wanted to touch on briefly is what's known as the basin boundary modifications As I mentioned earlier the state defines what a ground basin boundary is particular area the Santa Rosa Plain basin is defined by the actual basin itself and We had looked at potentially looking at the watershed boundary and seeing if the state would be willing to kind of look at something Maybe more broad They were not willing to look at a watershed boundary So they are only willing to look at what they consider the ground water basin boundary But what they did allow agencies and others to do is if you could make a technical justification or a Jurisdictional justification to change the basin boundary you could apply for that The city of Sebastopol which previously had been involved with the negotiations for the JPA is on the very Western border of the basin and the majority of the city and where they get their water from was is outside of the Official boundary of the Santa Rosa Plain basin So they initially declined to sign the JPA But because a number of things were occurring including looking at possibly having the Wilson Grove area need to comply with Sigma the city of Sebastopol applied for a Jurisdictional boundary change and the Department of Water Resources has conditionally approved that change We are anticipating the final approval to be sometime this month if everything stays on track And if it's approved it would add the entire city of Sebastopol plus three mutual water companies that are right around there And this map shows it's maybe a little hard to read But the blue outline is the current boundary of the Santa Rosa Plain basin And then that red area with the blue around it is what's going to be added with the basin change The good news if this does change is that Sebastopol will be part of the JPA They will sign on they will have a seat on the board and they will also be contributing funding to the GSA Which is good in terms of looking at future fees because it would help reduce Potentially reduce the fees for those that Are potentially going to have to be paying to comply with the GSA So now I wanted to talk a little bit about the funding and the fee study that's been going on with the GSA so when the GSA was Envisioned and we were looking at how the funding would occur There was sort of a priority and a goal that was set that the member agencies would agree to and did agree to Start-up funding and that start-up funding What eventually was agreed to is that the member agencies would pay for the first two years of the GSA and Within year one would start right away on a rate and fee study and try and determine what Funding mechanism would be for the GSA going forward so what you have in front of you is the member agency contributions for fiscal year 1718 as well as 1819 it was split evenly among all the member agencies with the exception of the Sonoma resource conservation district the Sonoma resource Conservation district is on all three GSA's in Sonoma County so Sonoma Valley Petaluma Valley as well as Santa Rosa Plain and We agreed in the beginning that because they sat on all three and because their funding is extremely limited That they would only have to pay $20,000 per year Otherwise for every other entity every other member agency. It was evenly split for these first two years As I mentioned the expectation was starting a rate and fee study and that the GSA would be self-funded after the second year Some good news is through the GSA We have actually applied for and been awarded a one million dollar prop one grant That's offsetting quite a bit of the cost to help prepare the groundwater sustainability plan And we have also received some grant funds so to speak or basically services from the Department of Water Resources Where no cost for us to receive facilitation and technical support from the state so these Both these things have really helped to offset some costs going forward in The first year the GSA did hire a financial consultant Called Raft Ellis and they have been working quite a bit on the rate and fee study and there have been numerous presentations To date there have been Discussions and or presentations on the fee study at 14 different meetings and that includes advisory committee meetings Board meetings as well as community meetings Most recently there was a community meeting last week and it was very well attended and I'll give an update on that So through the rate study there have been a number of things that have been considered such as Possibly looking at a parcel tax or looking at different ways This could be funded and a number of things were quickly ruled out based on cost based on likelihood. They wouldn't be passed And so what we really looked at is What is our funding need and what are the potential ways that we can meet that need so After looking at the ongoing expenses after deciding that the GSA member agencies would not be repaid Immediately, but we would be repaid for the startup funding sometime in the future So we've all agreed to defer that repayment after getting the grant funding It's really whittled down the amount that's needed to be funded over the next three years to $337,000 roughly This could again be reduced down even further depending upon if Sebastopol does in fact join and what their contributions would be There's also the potential that there's a group of ag interests that have been working together to look at forming a Agency they are going through the LAFCO process and if that is approved They can also they would join the JPA and they would have funding that could potentially also lower this need as well So there have been six board meetings to look at all these various options for a rate-and-fee study The board did create an ad hoc committee as I mentioned They decided not to pursue the parcel tax because there was concern that One it would cost just as much to put it on the ballot as what is needed to be Raised through the fees and two it was likely not to be approved As I also mentioned the board did decide that all the member agencies would defer reimbursement of their Contributions until sometime in the future. We haven't defined a date and then Really focusing on groundwater use as the mechanism to determine how much should be paid for this fee And how it should be distributed among the users There was also a board direction to look at the development of a user registration program And I will talk a little bit more about that in a second But in essence in order for what's called de minimis users in the law or those that use under two acre feet per year The law prohibits Metering those users and the law also requires that if you want to charge them a fee You need some type of regulatory basis to do so which is why we're looking the GSA is looking at a groundwater user registration program There have also been six advisory committee meetings that gave feedback on all these various things and advisory committee Has been pretty much fully supportive of looking at and supporting a fee that would be based on Estimated or actual groundwater use and then we had a community workshop last year in March And then we had one just last week There were roughly I would say about 350 people so it was very well attended Which shows that the outreach did work to get people to come And I would say on that meeting probably about 75% were unhappy with the proposal for various reasons Whether it was they just don't like the law. They don't want their groundwater to be Affected in any way. They don't want us to have any kind of effect or Oversight of their groundwater use and they don't want to pay about 25 percent We're actually supportive thought that you know our basin does need to have our groundwater Maintain local control have it be sustainable and available for a future and we're supportive of paying some type of fee So now we'll talk about actually what is being proposed for the fee So it is going to be what's known as a regulatory fee So it will not be a rate So therefore wouldn't have to be tied to the land base and does not have to comply with proposition 218 But would be a prop 26 fee We are looking at either actual groundwater use for those that are metered or We're looking at estimated groundwater use for those that aren't metered So those that are metered would be like cities or other municipalities as well as mutual water companies a lot of them have meters There are some commercial entities that also have meters. So anyone that has meters will use that data Anyone that doesn't there have been a lot of studies that have been done to really try and determine what the estimated groundwater use of the various Customer categories and we're using that as the guidance Based on all the work that's been done This is what sort of estimated in terms of the various groundwater use It's roughly now about Third a third a third or so Well a little less than that. I guess fourth a fourth a fourth Kind of split up among these various groups You will notice that there's also golf courses that have been singled out specifically as well as really looking at the mutual water Providers and trying to really get a sense of how much they use for the rural residential Based on all of the information that the GSA staff has been able to get together the average rural residential property is 3.4 acres in the basin and the groundwater use is based on a number of different studies Which I'll show you in the next slide and basically averages out to about half an acre and half an acre foot per parcel There is recognition that there are properties that will use less there will our properties that will use more There are properties that are smaller. There are properties that are bigger But really what the GSA technical staff was trying to do is find something that was fair and could be applied to all residential properties What is also recognized that metered residential water use from those cities or other Entities that provide water supply public water supply is not really representative of rural residential use. They're very different characteristics So here's all the studies that have been looked at by the GSA technical staff and based on all of that information And looking at all those studies as I mentioned they came to an average usage Just for divvying up what the fee should be of half an acre foot per year terms of agriculture Again, what's being looked at is really trying to understand the type of crop that is being used as well as the number of Acres that are being irrigated and then applying the appropriate crop coefficient for that type of crop We're also looking very hard at Recycled water use and surface water rights and so any property that actually has recycled water use They've backed that out as well as any property that has surface water rights sort of back that out to really get a sense of What's being used from a groundwater perspective? the GSA staff has also worked with a number of subgroups they pulled together like an ad hoc group of dairies They pulled together an ad hoc group of sort of small farmers to really work with them to get a sense and have an Understanding of what their groundwater use is and so that's really sharpened the numbers quite a bit So based on that what's being looked at right now is that sort of middle column, which is the proposed groundwater sustainability fee When I showed you that chart earlier sort of how much water is being used in each of these various categories That amount of water use and then we're dividing up The fee so it's that percentage of what's needed for the budget and then dividing up that fee among the customers so for Agricultural and municipal golf courses right now. What's being looked at is somewhere between 16 to $26 an acre foot And the big difference and range about that is whether or not Sebastopol will be joining and affecting what this range would be as well as getting a few more a Little more dialed in on the amount of water use in the agricultural community For rural residential Again, assuming that it's that point five acre foot per year It will be anywhere between eight to thirteen dollars per year per parcel for the next three years and then if you only use Groundwater for irrigation and have a connection to a public water system It'll be between one to three dollars per parcel per year in comparison If the state we're having to come in and actually intervene in our basin You can see that the fees from the state are significantly higher with an initial base fee of $300 plus $40 per acre foot of usage for Agricultural municipal etc and for rural residential Or any residential. It's a hundred dollars per year So really the GSA board was looking at trying to make sure that Keeping the community's interest in mind keeping local control and trying to find something that as Efficient as possible, but also simple and fairly easy to implement as well as Fair among all the categories of users So that's what's being looked at Right now and I do have some late-breaking information But right now the board was possibly considering this at their April board meeting and that may change And then last I wanted to talk about the proposed groundwater user registration program So as I mentioned earlier for those that use under two acre feet per year or roughly less than 653,000 gallons per year they're defined in the law as de minimis and That would be most residential Properties throughout the basin We can't meter de minimis users But you can charge them a fee as long as there's some sort of regulatory nexus So because the de minimis water users are about a fourth of the total groundwater use in the basin the GSA staff and board have felt that it's important that they also pay sort of their fair share and So the thought is that we would look at a groundwater user registration program that would also allow information if folks are willing to be shared about the wells and That may benefit what we're looking to do to achieve sustainability in the future So it wouldn't be required that anyone actually share information. They would just be required to be registered But if they're willing to share information that could be extremely beneficial to the GSA So what's being looked at is this would be a free program in terms of there's no cost to register The board really wants a very clear and simple program that basically would send Some information to the property saying based on all the information we have your property is not connected to a public water system Therefore you're assumed to use groundwater if this information is incorrect There would be a simple appeal process where they could provide data to show nope We don't use groundwater or know it's not in the basin and then that information would would go back to the GSA and they Would help they would have help from the County Agricultural Commission as well as permit Sonoma for kind of any Technical assistance or confirming the information that's being provided in the appeal process The GSA would be doing all of the outreach and sending the information out to folks And then as I mentioned if anyone's willing it would be great if folks would share information about their well But if not it's not required In terms of next steps as I mentioned there's some late-breaking news We just found out today that the February 14th board meeting is going to be cancelled So that is not going to happen and they're looking at Scheduling a meeting on March 14th instead for the board meeting and the April 11th board meeting is still tentatively scheduled at this time to possibly Approve the fee and the groundwater user registration program, but it will depend potentially on the March board meeting There is also a desire since we had so many people attend the community meeting to Potentially schedule a few more community meetings with the same information that was presented last week But allowing more people to actually attend and get the information and also looking at the possibility of videoing those meetings as well So that's what's going on with the GSA and I am happy to answer any questions The board may have and all of this information on what's happening board meetings advisory committee meetings the proposed rate as well as the Or sorry proposed fee as well as the registration program is available on the Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater org website Thank you very much before I open it up to board member questions and comments. I do have one speaker card Deborah And if you can use the microphone up there if you could give us your last name and any group that you're representing, please Yes, Deborah Tavares, and I'm representing myself and also of course though primary water org what I'm Wanting to find out is I'm hearing about this fee and that it would affect well water users. How is that fee going to be charged? I'm understanding it can't be a parcel tax fee But what I'm also very very concerned about is where is this leading with the increased cost of PG&E's abandonment of the eel river Hydro Station which will affect massively affect the amounts of water atmospheric water that's coming down and Increase costs that will see that will end up riveting into additional costs as well and how that might look with establishing Potential groundwater basins, which when you look at what? Trapped of water does in basins or reservoirs It's called impoundment and that causes earthquakes so I'm wondering to what degree of Advanced information you're looking at with the entrapment of water and the fact that we really do have primary water Which is the continual? creation of water from down below by the process of hydrogen and oxygen that turns to vapor and that's where the Hot and cold springs run Continuously around also where geysers continuously spray up out of the ground and where? waterfalls Cascade down from the tops of mountains in various locations such as Hawaii Continuously and also where Mo Mar Haddafi built what was called the great man-made river project. It's all primary water It's a renewable resource. We don't have to move around Atnospheric water as continuously proposed for the advanced fee raising and it's moving around toxic water As well because of of all of the radiation and the heavy metals that are in the environment So I'm just really concerned about How these fees are going to be based how they're going to be charged and the fact that we do have primary water And that's not being discussed and I'm most concerned about All of that. Thank you so much Thank you for your questions in your comments deputy director Burke. Would you like to respond? Sure In terms of if I understand correctly how the fees are being charged if it's it's the mechanism That's being looked at the mechanism that the GSA board is looking at would be to Use the property tax bills in order to actually get the fee out As I mentioned earlier, this is looking at a fee That's under prop 26 and so they'd have a public hearing and adopt it at the board And then they're looking at distributing the fee based on either estimated or actual groundwater usage Hopefully that answers your question. Mr. Veras I'll open it up now to board member questions or comments board member down I'd like to ask a question of deputy director Burke Excuse me when you started out your comments You said something and I may not have the right term but that the center was a plane our basin is a medium or Not a high level or whatever the terms you use and my question is what would Trigger us moving up into that higher Category and what would be the consequences of that and then finally the question is is anything we're doing now Considering this is a medium level basin Have to be undone because we've moved up Yeah, no, it's a great question. And so the State Department of Water Resources had initially put together some sort of parameters that they looked at for determining whether a basin was Media well, let me take a step back There's actually a very low low medium high and then there's I think it's critical It could be wrong about the top category That is for basins that are an overdraft. So we're not there the Very low and low our basins that you know either have very sparse population Have really, you know in balance from a groundwater perspective no water quality issues So there's various things that the state looked at and to find those parameters initially back in 2015 or maybe even 2014 is when they initially defined What all the basins were the three basins in Sonoma County that I mentioned were defined as medium Most recently last year they went through a new process where they expanded their criteria and expanded the parameters and redefined All the basins they looked at all the basins in California Based on that process that they did it actually had the possibility that there were a couple other basins in Sonoma County that were initially proposed to be medium and Then the three basins that were already medium in Sonoma County were proposed to go up to high In terms of what does that mean between medium and high right now? It means nothing different So the same things that we have to comply with for Sigma for medium are the same for high The only thing that would be different is if you somehow got up to that sort of critical overdraft category Whether or not that means something different in the future We don't know which is why we're watching it and trying to better understand the parameters the good news is that Working together the GSA boards in this County plus also various member agencies actually sent comments to DWR on the parameters they used and how they graded them and So based on that and re-looking at those parameters DWR actually did drop those other three basins in Sonoma County Back down into the low or very low category. So they didn't get reclassified For our particular basin Because there is a basin boundary modification that's occurring right now We will not find out if our basin is Reclassified as a high priority or medium priority until later this year once they finish the basin boundary modification Based on sort of the information that we know so far to date because They did make some changes to the parameters But it didn't appear that there would be enough changes that would affect Santa Rosa Plain actually going back down to medium So it's likely that we will stay in the high category But we won't know for sure until DWR finishes that analysis and again It doesn't make any difference right now, but it's something that we're going to continue to follow We're liver banister Thank you. I guess a couple of questions. Why does the basketball went in? What's it? What's in it for them? so It's a little complicated But why Sebastopol wants in is because as I mentioned earlier there were three basins That would potentially move up into a medium priority One of those is the Wilson Grove formation, which Sebastopol is in The Wilson Grove formation as sort of defined as sort of from Sebastopol down to parts of Marin County it it over So Sebastopol's over it. There's a portion of the city of Petaluma that was over it and then it would be the County Sonoma County Water Agency The Goldridge Resource Conservation District possibly Sonoma County Sonoma Resource Conservation District as well as Marin County that could potentially would have had to band together to form a GSA That would have been a lot more expensive for Sebastopol than to just join the Santa Rosa Plain So either way they were potentially going to have to join a GSA by proposing this boundary modification City of Petaluma also proposed a boundary modification so that they wouldn't have to be in two GSA's Those changes plus a couple other parameters that were looked at made it so I think the Well, they're still deciding on the Wilson Grove But made it so Sebastopol knows exactly what their costs would be and what they're going to participate in And the other question we've got another agenda item coming up that is Groundwater well on Highway 12 and I didn't see anything in here about urban Groundwater use and how that would be How it would be part of the plan. Yeah, so that would be that Same fee the top one there. So that would be considered the municipal So any wells that city of Santa Rosa has either to provide into our public water system or wells that we have for say parks properties Are in that municipal category Board member of Grable Thank you deputy directors great presentation. I'll keep it brief. I Just wondered if you had any data on the cost I know I know that's in addition to the cost You know for a farmer or landowner whoever to pump and I was just wondering if there was if there was sort of an average cost for the kilowatt and the required lift That this would be in addition to just for my own information because it relates to a lot of other policy decisions that we have Do you know about what that cost is? Area I don't but I can reach out to the GSA staff and get that information back to you. That'd be great. Thanks Any other board member questions or comments? Thank you for the report. Thank you Item 5.2 is a staff briefing on the high strength waste receiving facility deputy director schwall Chair Galvin members of the board It's been about two years since the high strength waste receiving facility was Commissioned at the Laguna treatment plant. So we thought this would be a good opportunity to give an operational update on how things are going out there, so I will be giving a quick talk on description of high-strength waste itself how it's treated at the plant What the goals of the high-strength waste project were and What the facility looks like at the plant and then we'll talk a little bit about the performance over the past year and then looking back It's the beginning of the of the project What's that going to work? So high-strength waste is received at the plant is about 40% Fog or fat oil increases primarily restaurant grease We receive about 15% of chicken processing from a Petaluma plant and The remainder being food or beverage processing waste either from a food Manufacturer processing plant or from a breweries wineries creameries in the area High-strength waste is is very different than the the normal waste stream that we receive at the Laguna plant Obviously, we receive most of our waste through through the sewage. So the waste is in the water So it's very dilute and most of the energy in the plant is used to extract that Dilute and and perhaps dissolve nutrients out of the water and and treat it in that way with high-strength waste the The waste is delivered via truck. So we're able to keep it out of the water We offload it off the truck directly into storage tanks and from those storage tanks And we're able to feed it directly into our anorewit digesters Anorewit digestion is a much less energy intensive treatment process We can use the waste heat from our Engine generators to heat the digesters and we use electricity to mix, but that's really it. So it's very less intensive energy process and Treatment process I should say and in addition to that anorewit digestion produces Digestory gas as I'm sure you're aware 65% of which which is methane and so we're able to use that Digester gas and produce electricity with our engine generators. So the more food what we Provide to the digesters or the more high-strength waste we give to the digesters the more Gas would be produced and then the more additional electricity we can produce So a little background of the project itself goals of the project were Provide local local disposal options to the local waste haulers prior to this project haulers needed to travel to Napa or more commonly I think to Oakland to dispose of their waste So by providing a high-strength waste facility in in our area we We could help shorten or even or reduce the number of trucks on the road on our highways In addition, we were expecting to receive tipping fees for any deliveries and Of course the additional electricity that we Produced every kilowatt of electricity we produce is one less that we have to buy from the utility so back in 2015 the board approved the construction contract for the facility Construction was completed in 2016 and in September of that year. We started Operating the facility and receiving the high-strength waste the total project cost including design construction and construction management was two point six million dollars The facility itself consists of four 12,000 gallon stainless steel tanks above ground tanks that you can see there on the other side of the truck besides the tanks were two bumps for offloading and Mixing of the high-strength waste and two additional pumps for feeding the waste directly into the digester feed line so It's from a from a component standpoint is a fairly simple facility So looking at 2018 The facility received for 4700 Deliveries or loads of high-strength waste All different sizes some 5000 gallon tankers some 800 gallon grease tanks From those deliveries we received over nine hundred thousand dollars in tipping fees and produced Almost a half a million dollars in electricity For a total gross benefit of $1.4 million the cost the cost to Operate and maintain the facility are split between labor Maintenance of high-strength waste facility itself Additional maintenance of our CHP facility because we're producing more electricity We're running the engines more and and there's of course more maintenance involved in that I mentioned labor I think We also Experienced a 20% increase in our solace loading and solace handling Coincidentally with this and so it in ways far it's hard to tell what causes what but it does look like that 20% increases is based on is because of the high-strength waste receiving we also had a Buying a little bit of natural gas to help study the engines and We've had some damage to the pavement because of the Traffic from the large trucks and so we've had some costs for a paving repairs So that all added up to about seven hundred thousand dollars and in costs for in the past year for a net benefit of just over seven hundred thousand dollars and I've Just to give you a sense of scale I've shown that graphically here the tipping fees and Avoided electric electrical costs are on the left and then in the next six negative Costs against us are on the right and you see of those six that maintaining those very sophisticated engines Is the is the highest? highest cost to be charged against the facility and the total benefits the $700,000 shown on the right so looking at the whole The whole life span so far of the facility It is as I mentioned it opened in September of 2016. So that's a very short year But what I'm showing here is in green. I've got tipping fees And then in orange the avoided electrical electrical costs for each year and then in the negative side in black is the costs for each year From this further facility and then the bottom blue line is Representing the project costs over time. So in 2016 it starts at 2.6 million and then As we've recovered those costs You know ratchets up to an hour about 1.6 Million dollars left to recover from from that facility for its project costs so after two and a half here just over two years where we've recovered 40% of the project costs so far So if we make the assumption that 2018 is going to be indicative of future years we can project out a few years to Show the timing for recovery and complete recoveries a simple payback of the of the project in some time in 2021 we should be in the black and Making money so to summarize the the major points of the entire lifespan we've so far we've Received 7,000 hauler trips, so there's 7,000 trucks that did not have to go down to Oakland and did not have to go to Napa We have received nearly 101.5 million dollars in tipping fees We have produced over a million dollars in electricity and in Against that is about a one and a half million dollars in operational and maintenance costs So with regard to the project goals I'd say in my opinion we've done pretty well meeting those goals Looking ahead a little bit now, and this is my last slide, but looking ahead a little bit The city of Petaluma is is constructing a similar facility right now they hope to open it and I'm not familiar with the size of it, but I do know that several of our More valuable waste streams originate in Petaluma, so I'm expecting that we'll lose Some portion of those time will tell what impact that is to our facility We also have to operating the facility for a couple years. We've identified a couple improvements that need to need to happen one is to improve the flushing system so we can clean the Grease out of the systems each day in an easier and safer manner and there's also some Improvements that need to happen to the odors scrubber to help us comply with the air permit more reliably And as I've already mentioned the pavement we've done some kind of spot repairs of damaged pavement, but we'll need to focus on that in a you know a bigger way in a next year or two to Preserve the pavement of the plant and with that I'll open up to open for any questions Thank you very much a quick question Do we have any idea what the tipping fees will be charged by Petaluma when they open their facility? I don't know what they'll be charging. We charge four cents a gallon And is there any regulation that they charge more or less or is it just an open competition? It's open competitions. It's marketplace. Okay. Thank you Vice-chair Arnone Understanding that we're still paying back the investment and so we haven't hit you know the plus minus entirely Are there restrictions on what we can use the profit if you will for in terms of how we use this revenue? Or is it simply general fund revenue that can be used for anything? I really can't answer that The investment was made by the water department So those are funds that need to be used to maintain the facility and can only be used by the enterprise Okay Thank you For member Grable Yeah, I just had a question on sectors. Do we know I would been keeping metrics on You know growth in certain sectors for instance, you know, it is plenty weak My question is how much of that is coming from breweries and the growth in in small craft breweries? And in the with the Petaluma facility coming on board. Does does Lagunitas for instance have its own? High-strength waste processing like Lagunitas. Yeah, it did have one It didn't turn out well for them I think they were Yeah, it's hard if you don't have anaerobic digestion. It's it's it's hard So it's much easier for a facility that's doing other things than just high-strength waste So Brewery waste Lagunitas does come to us. Okay. It's actually one of our Least valuable waste because it's washed down water. So it's mostly water. Okay, and and the same with winery waste It's it's it, you know, I was all excited about the Lagunitas waste I thought it'd be leaves and you know very rich, but that's not what comes to us Okay, and then and some of those are they they have their own like bioreactor A water reuse technology is not necessarily high strength waste Digesters, but I know they have like bioreactor kind of water reuse technologies It was uh when you know, we honored seismic for instance for their Very efficient technology and bioreactor not too long ago Is that is that partly why it's mostly water is they No, I think it's because uh, they We're getting the kind of the last of their rinse. Okay, which uh, they're they want need to keep out of their sewer But it doesn't have enough value for them to be using So then just by sector, what are our biggest who are our biggest customers? Uh Our biggest customers are uh restaurant grease haulers. Okay. Yeah Remember banister So the methane gas that's produced by the anaerobic digesters is used to create electricity Is it is that process a burning of that methane gas or how does that exactly work? It's used in internal combustion engines okay, so Is there any discharge of any of that gas because I'm just asking because I know methane gas is you know, a super powerful greenhouse gas and Wonder whether there's any of that that's getting into the atmosphere well, um ideally No, anything that any of the methane that gets into the engine is all combusted and we have very strict error permit requirements for our For exhaustion those engines so no all the all the methane is being converted. Thank you very much Um, could you tell me a little bit about our capacity and demand? Is there has there ever been? Do we have kind of more? Coming in than we need or want or do we think about expansion in the future? Um Even I guess now with the pet alone facility coming online. I guess that could that could change but i'm just curious so Most days of the week we Don't reach capacity we're allowed 38,000 gallons a day to pass through I'm sorry. It's wrong. It's 46,000 gallons a day that we're allowed to pass through And that's that's by our by our air permit so Most days we're underneath that But um, I would say Oh A few times a month two or three times a month that we do fill up and we make the phone call and tell them tell them Not to bring anymore Part of it is managing the loads If we wanted to fill up every day we could we would Tell a lot of need is to bring us everything But it wouldn't be the quality that wouldn't really do us any good that was quite a learning curve to um You know learn how to manage that because we were logon e just was Filling us up and we were turning away Much higher quality high strength waste some some days Any other board member questions or comments? Thank you for the update the facility is obviously doing very well so far so good We have two items on the consent calendar Chairman galvin Um, I I'm definitely supportive of these two, but I would like to have just uh, Especially since miss scott is here just to have a poll 6.2 off and just see Where we are and where we go next with That groundwater well Okay, we'll pull off 6.2. I'll entertain a motion to approve 6.1 so moved second Motion by vice chair Arnone seconded by board member badden fort to approve item 6.1 All in favor say aye. Aye any opposed It's unanimous 6 0 Item 6.2 is the acquisition of the emergency groundwater well easement Good afternoon chairman and board members. Um, did you want me just to go over the acquisition part? Or did you have specific if you just give us a summary of where we are and where we're going and And part of why I want you to come up here is to say thanks for getting this done We've been working hard and spending quite a bit of money trying to find Sources of groundwater and it's great to have one in the fold. So that's Basically the reason for it Thank you. Um, I'd be happy to tell you a little bit about where we are And then I'll defer to jennifer for anything regarding the actual well itself Um, as you know, we waited a long time for this property It was the number one choice of the consultant for the city for the emergency groundwater program Um, a developer is in the process of developing that area and we worked with the owner and the developer to Um, obtain an easement area for the emergency groundwater well The actual well itself not a test well Um, that was a long process but went well and we're at the end And ready for the acquisition now. I think we have everything in order For that acquisition and did you want to talk a little bit about the well itself? Sure, I'm happy to um Check out the members of the board um board member dowd As was mentioned the last time we were here kind of looking at the emergency groundwater program We have a number of things that we're looking at one of the things that we're looking to do is kind of just um Re-look at some of our demand projections and needs and supply So we're going to be working down that process But this particular site as was mentioned by um, scott is our Top site in terms of looking at all the analysis and where we could potentially find groundwater and a great producer So we're very excited to have this possibility and and looking at all the options We have and where we can best direct our resources to continue to put Potential emergency wells in the future. So this is going to be right there in the mix that we're going to look at Any other board member questions or comments? I guess i'll say Congratulations, it's great to see it. We really needed it. It's been a concern of mine for quite a while Especially if you know where the rogers greek fault goes through our community and how are we going to Work out the separation of our city In east and west and have a water supply this adequate forum. So This is great news that we're finding some sites Then we'll let you make a motion. I I so move The recommended action second Do we have a second second Motion by board member dowd seconded by board member grable to approve item 6.2 all in favor say aye. Aye Great Item 7.1 as a report item regarding our additional contract for contingency replacement of water services Good afternoon chairman galvin and members of the board My name is jillian tillers and i'm an associate civil engineer with capital projects engineering I'm here today to talk about the contract 2 2 1 3 replacement of the water services affected by the tubs fire This contract Is for the replacement of the contaminated water service lines outside the advisory area This contract was put together during the water quality investigation last spring There was an urgency to complete the work and to Get started replacing the water service lines where we had shown success removing the contamination It was anticipated that more services would be added during construction So the contract was structured to compensate for the additional services via force account There are 115 parcels identified at the time of contract award These parcels are shown in blue As the work progressed the water quality monitoring continued in an additional 38 services were added These parcels are represented in orange The services were identified and completed by the contractor northern pacific corporation as they moved through their proposed sequence and schedule At the end of september northern pacific corporation Requested to be paid via force account for 29 of the of the 38 services However, the contractor failed to provide notification prior to beginning The work and there was no way to accurately go back to account for the labor equipment and materials We recommend that these 29 services be paid at bed item prices The remaining nine services that they completed after their notification will be paid at force account Those are shown in the red hatch The water service lines were replaced Um, the work was completed november 1st 2018 The permanent trench paving was completed at the end of january right now The contractor is completing the sidewalk restoration and we anticipate that work to be finished At the end of february and and that's assuming good weather It is recommended that the board of utilities approve a change order to phase two replacement of water services contract with northern pacific corporation To extend the time for completion of work through the end of april 2019 And to reallocate bed item 11 phase two additional water service replacements to include the additional 38 water service lines and to increase the contingency for the additional permanent trench paving In the amount of $60,000 for a total contract amount of 724,719 dollars Thank you for your consideration. Do you guys have any questions? I think it should be pointed out um that this matter did come before the contract review subcommittee earlier this week We had a chance to thoroughly vet it with staff And go over the circumstances under which these additional service lines were Were repaired or replaced by the contractor And it was the unanimous recommendation of the contract review subcommittee that this matter be approved by the full board There are any questions for miss tillis as a part of the Review as a member of the contractor review subcommittee I certainly vote for a motion to approve this It's warranted given all the things that happened up there on the sky farm foundry area due to the fire so I recommend a Approval Okay, we have a motion Was that a motion? It was a motion. Okay, then i'll then i'll second Motion by board member dowd seconded by vice chair arnone to approve item 7.1 All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Great passes unanimously Item eight is the election of the vice chair, which is a formality now that we've all been Reappointed so with that i'll open it up for any nominations I I would ask If I could chairman galvin to recommend the reelection of Vice chair Mr. Arnone to serve another term on our behalf. He's been doing a great job and Would like to see him continue Okay Any other nominations All right, we have a nomination of vice chair arnone all in favor of his reappointment as vice chair say aye I Very good unanimous Welcome aboard again. Thank you. Mr. Tavares item nine is public comments on non-agenda matters Yes, thank you very much. Um debor Tavares non-agenda item I just wanted all of you to be aware We have family members that lost a home in fountain grove repurchased in sky farm or skyhawk And a new home that was under construction during the fires. They moved in few months Into 2018 There was a red flag warning Just prior to Thanksgiving of last year And they decided to stay home because they felt uncomfortable with leaving a home since they had gotten burned out It was a good thing that day did because they started to smell smoke And when they went outside they discovered that the unoccupied model home immediately next door to them The backyard was on fire The rear wooden property line fence was ablaze. The flames were already starting to climb up the um post for the overhead deck and all already then starting to go under the house when the fire department arrived They were using hoses to try to put the fires out It wasn't determined at the time what caused that fire But was later determined that it was the high rated low e windows that the contractor had installed On the south exposure of the homes there in that area It's a very interesting anomaly And no one knew about the fact that there is the reflective reaction of the sun That then turns into a magnification and a combustibility And when they were searching High efficiency low e windows fires They found cascading reports all over the country for many years Even in europe as well And the only reason i'm putting this before you is that many of you that may know people that are rebuilding This is not being disclosed by the manufacturers of the window companies And the developers are unaware of this and it could end up being a very nasty Litigated situation and even worse burning down homes Which is not the intention you'll see in the cascading reports of what these windows do The light can even reflect on your neighbor's car and burn the car up It can burn the siding off of neighbor's homes and in the case there that day It might most likely Would have developed that unoccupied home fully and who knows where it would have extended from there So it's those uh low e energy windows They are also supported by the department of energy Again with no no consideration Of what has been happening across the country with the cause of fires. So I just wanted to point that out. Thank you very much Thank you very much for that information. I might encourage you to talk to our planning department and See what they're doing in terms of plan review with regards to the quality of windows that are being used in the rebuild I have another speaker card thomas ells Thank you very much. Who knew About the reflection of the state buildings windows if you've ever driven Yeah, I don't know but uh, there's a lot of reflection It's just maybe some of you started to study. I don't know um I Mentioned in the card that I'm actually here from all saints um All saints orthodox church and I'm talking about the Thanksgiving Lutheran church, which was purchased And we're very interested in that and Really, uh, I've spoken to some people in the city and don't really know exactly how to coordinate this I'd like to find out how to but What we've proposed is to buy the church for what you paid for it And subdivide off the part that you want And that we take the other part I think that's in the back and provide you with easements so that you can do the construction of the Of the sewer pump lift station and anything that you want For access and and whatever and maybe possibly Perfect an access along the creek for you in general for maintenance and everything else like that uh But for for actual construction and things like that But we're very interested in in offering you what you pay for rather than having it sit around for 10 years or Whatever it might be that was in the paper. It was listed that it wouldn't actually be Utilized for the lift station for potentially 10 years or sometimes five or 10 years or something like that But in the meantime, you could have anything you wanted you'd have your money back and We'd have an operating church. So I definitely want to put that out there, but we're very interested in that And and who should I speak to thank you mr. Ells I would suggest you speak to any members of the staff. Maybe deputy director Burke Could start the process or at least the initial discussion and She can I'm sure direct you to uh Other members of the staff who'd be happy to talk to you We have no referrals. We have no written communications any subcommittee reports Board member down, um, I just wanted to report to the other members of the bpu that Deputy director Zunino and administrator Roberta atha have got us The budget review subcommittee lined up with three meetings over This month and next To start the budget review process and I Really do want to say to all the members of this board A lot of work gets done at the subcommittee level And I know the chairman does I did well I was chairman of this group deeply appreciated the effort that was put in at the subcommittee level And we all take our shots at different subcommittees and and it's a successful Way to run our business And efficient I believe and so that's the status now with the budget review and we'll be making reports to you over the next Several months anyway great, obviously the budget subcommittee does yeoman's work and happy that all of you were willing to step up and Uh offer to serve on the various Commissions or excuse me committees that I've appointed you to If you have any issues with where I've put you let me know and we can make adjustments as necessary Any other subcommittee reports? board member reports directors report Thank you chairman galvin So i'll start off with just an update on the church property since our last speaker Mentioned it as of january 31st the lutheran church the thanksgiving lutheran church has left the property and Is occupying a new home a few blocks away on third street Prior to the church leaving the property we were experiencing Vandalism on the property in anticipation of their departure. We prepared to Set up temporary fencing to Try and prevent further vandalism from happening. We also Installed no trespassing signs Just to try and keep that property as secure as possible as we work towards Installing a permanent fence around the property As the speaker did mention there is a lot of interest in that property both internal Use and for external use Regarding leasing and purchasing of the property And we do encourage anybody who is interested in the property to reach out to jill scott our right-of-way agent She has been gathering the interest and will be going over our options and Coming to this board with with the recommendation of how we're going to proceed With utilizing that property. So there's a brief update on the church property Um The we haven't given the board an update on the micro grid project Since november. So I just wanted to take a minute to update The status of that project as you may recall The city is working with train to receive a grant from the california energy commission to construct The micro grid project at the plant Um, the the water department has dedicated staff resources to assist with the management of this project and to work with train in in in Completing the project we do have some good news to share The installation of the emissions equipment on one of the engines has been completed And the second is is scheduled to be completed Um by the uh by mid march it's it's the installation will begin next week and will be completed by mid march We've also been working closely with pg&e on The agreements that will be necessary in order to facilitate the project and Next week city staff and train are going to start performing dry runs on the system in order to ensure that the connection with pg&e has been established properly While there has been progress made on the project Train is it's not complete and train is still under a very tight time frame In completing the project in order to receive the grant funding Train is actually the recipient of the grant not the city For installation of the project so where staff is doing everything we can to help Keep that project moving looking at ways to maybe extend time frames or expedite time frames in order to Ensure that that project is a success And then final and and we will be bringing a more detailed update to the board In the coming months once the project is complete once we kind of have some dry runs under our belt and have more information to share We'll be bringing a Detailed presentation And then finally just wanted to share that here at santa rosa water. We love tap water And this february we're sharing our love by launching our hashtag eye heart tap water campaign We're going to be using our ticket from the tap branding to magnify the message and We'll be promoting the benefits of tap water through digital and radio advertising With residents online and at community events And we'll wrap up the month by sharing a video Of highlighting staff that help bring high quality water To our community and in that video you may recognize some friendly faces So we're looking forward to that campaign and look for us on social media Any questions for the interim director? Thank you for your report. We are adjourned