 Well it's now one o'clock. Madam Secretary, are you ready to go? I am. Thank you. Excellent. Could you do the roll call please? Vice Mayor Alvarez, Council Member Sawyer, here, Council Member McDonald, here, Chair Galvin, here, Vice Chair Arnone, here, Board Member Bannonport. Let the record show that all BPU City Council leads on committee members are present with the exception of Vice Mayor Alvarez and Board Member Bannonport. Excellent. Thank you very much. I do want to remind the committee members to keep their phones or their microphones muted when you are not speaking. Thank you very much. And we're now taking public comment. No, actually, no, sorry. Let's see. I think I have a, no, we do public, Madam Secretary, I'm showing a public comment on item number two, but we haven't had it introduced as yet. Item two is for public comments on non-agenda matters. Oh, that's right. Thank you. My omission has been a while since I hosted. So if you may wish to make a comment on via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you are dialing via phone, please dial nine to raise your hand. Madam Secretary, do we have any public comment? We do not. Council Member. All right. Thank you very much. And any, any, any, any other comments to read or play for a public comment on this on the Zoom? No, we receive no written public comment or voice message recorded public comment. Excellent. Thank you very much. Director Burke, are you ready to give us an introduction on item 3.1? Yes, I am. Thank you, Council Member Sawyer and members of the liaison subcommittee item 3.1 is our only business for today. And this will be an update on the proposed wheeling of recycled water in the geysers recycle water delivery pipeline. And Peter Martin, our deputy director of water resources will be making the presentation. We also have representatives from both town of Windsor and Jackson family lines who are also parties, potentially to this agreement at the meeting, as well as other staff that can help answer questions that the committee may have. And now I'm going to turn it over to Peter. Yeah, thanks for that introduction, Director Burke. Good afternoon. Members of the council and BPU that are part of this subcommittee. I'm going to share my screen if you can just give me a moment here. It's like everyone should be able to see my screen at this point. So this is a follow up today to a presentation that I last gave to this committee back in late April. At the time, the direction of this committee was to go forward and look at options and potential. So this is a configuration for a proposed wheeling agreement for wheeling town of Windsor recycle water in the geysers project pipeline for a irrigation of a agricultural project in Windsor's service area. So, I'll just start since it's been a while, just given a quick rundown of the project and some of the key components of the geysers operations today. Well, more than a billion gallons of water is sent to the geysers annually by the city of Santa Rosa from the Laguna treatment plant. And the contract obviously has performance requirements for Santa Rosa there's a there's a minimum delivery that's required every year under that contract with the geysers project. There are monetary and pumping costs contributions by Calpine. They also were a large contributor to the construction of the project. In total about two thirds of the total recycle water supply is sent to the geyser steam field annually. And you know, at the time, back in the early 2000s when they were looking at different options to reduce, you know, discharges to the Laguna. Ultimately one out and today still as lowest costs and whether independent why you reuse option for Santa Rosa and the regional partners ultimately saving significant amount of money and the partners and which goes back obviously to our customers on their bills as well. The operations for the geysers pipeline. The pump station Atlanta road just outside of Laguna treatment plant that conveys water, about 30 miles to a very tank at Bear Canyon myocomus mountains. There are three pumpkin stations that pump and series to get in the water over those mountains to that terminal tank at Calpine steam fields. Obviously, that pump station along our road is a very large pump station that pushes the water the majority of the way but it does get a little assist to get up over the mountains there. As I mentioned, Town Windsor does have an existing. Excuse me I should go back. This is sort of a display of the total, you know, length of the gadgets pipeline. There is an existing turnout at a proposed point of connection on east side road, where a 90 acre parcel is supposed to be irrigated for viticulture. And it is, you know, just right along the alignment and within Windsor's existing recycle water service area. Here's again just sort of a closer view of that pipeline and the existing turnout that is near that that proposed so that side on east side road. Windsor does have a point where they can include their recycle water in the pipeline, and they have a contract for a minimum of 193 million gallons per year that they also send to the geysers via this pipeline. So, this is a little bit separate from that, but they also convey recycle water much like Santa Rosa to several irrigation customers within their system as well. So there's just sort of a picture of Windsor's reclamation system and facility. The site at Windsor River Road and east side road is very far from where this existing system is so in order for them to be able to, you know, perhaps connect to that system would have been a substantial project, and probably not cost feasible so what really came out of early discussions was to look for an opportunity to wheel water through the city of Santa Rosa's geysers pipeline to which happens to run right alongside of where the property to be served is with additional turnout that was constructed when the original pipeline was constructed. So just in terms of a general update. We've come to the direction from this committee staff did meet with the town of Windsor and ultimately identified several key terms and conditions of a future proposed agreement so so we've met a couple of times come together and sort of laid out the some of the terms which I'll talk a little bit about today. And then ultimately we also met with Jackson family wines to discuss some of the technical specification specifications of a potential tie in at that turnout to serve the property that they're interested in receiving So some of the questions that came from that last meeting. You know, I, we weren't able to totally cover all of them but I just want to recap some of those those major questions that came out of this committee at that meeting was, you know, mainly, you know how much excess capacity does the pipeline have right now. There was a great question is to, to what is the benefit to Santa Rosa. And then, you know, ultimately there were questions about what are the risks and how can we mitigate any of those risks. So, so I'll cover these three particular questions today in my presentation. So with the first question, how much excess capacity exists in the pipeline. The design pumping capacity is a little more than 35 million gallons per day for the pipeline. The average daily flow to the geysers is about 11 to 12 million gallons per day. There's a max historical flow of about 18 and a half million gallons per day. And then just additionally I want to point out that the permitted capacity for Windsor's facility and their entry point into the geysers pipeline is one point so the facility itself can produce about 1.9 million gallons per day. The capacity of that pump station is about one and a half million gallons per day. So, in total, you know, it's safe to say conservatively there's about 15 to 20 million gallons per day of excess capacity in that pipeline. As many folks likely know, when that project was constructed and permitted. So there's a lot of anticipation for quite a bit more flows and treatment at the Laguna treatment plant. However, we've done such a great job with conserving water. And also, you know, we've dealt with droughts and other things which you're well aware of have reduced the flows well below what was anticipated back in that time frame so there is additional capacity and this this pipeline right now. The great question came up, you know, really what what is the benefit to Santa Rosa, you know, I think to my previous slide, you know, using the existing infrastructure capacity it's already built. You know, we know that we currently have unused capacity in the pipeline. And there's an opportunity for making full utilization of that, that pipeline and some cost recovery for utilizing that capacity. And then furthermore, turnouts were constructed anticipation of future delivery of recycled water in the region. This is just one of six turnouts. That was constructed with the anticipation that there would be additional recycle water being able to be delivered through this pipeline in the future. And then another benefit, of course, is this project with Jackson Valley wines is currently using surface water supplies from the Russian River. This is a great opportunity to utilize Windsor's recycled water to reduce reliance on the surface water supplies and potentially make more water available for the region. And then of course, just the partnerships and regional supply benefits is an opportunity to prove this concept up and potential future water supply options for our region so again you know utilizing and maximizing the full capacity and benefit of this existing infrastructure. And then finally just you know really what are the risks and how will they be mitigated. You know we know we don't want to impact existing operations and contractual obligations that we already have with Calpine and the geysers project so. And then you know furthermore, this is a high pressure pipeline. There was a turnout constructed with an existing ball valve. That valve has not been exercised in more than 20 years. So you know just it's very, very careful about how we construct that tie in and making sure that we're, we're doing everything can to protect that existing infrastructure and asset. And of course, you know just making sure that all costs are recovered, and that any impacts from this project are not on the ratepayers, or the regional partners that participate in this, this project. And of course, you know ensuring that all legal environmental and regulatory, you know, concerns are addressed will be important. So, in my next several slides, I'll talk a little bit about some of the terms and conditions that we've discussed that we believe fully will mitigate many of these existing risks and concerns in the future. So in terms of the configuration of a proposed agreement, you know recycle water is to be provided solely by the town of Windsor. As most folks are aware here, we have several customers in Santa Rosa that, you know, would like to receive recycle water but have been told there is no water available. So there is folks that are on standby. So there really is no recycle water to be added into the pipeline through what's produced at the Laguna treatment plant so it has to be provided. And we have to have assurances that will be utilizing only Windsor's recycle water. And then, you know, essentially, the goal is to have a wheeling agreement for utilizing the excess capacity between the Santa Rosa and the town of Windsor. So really the agreement is sort of limited to Windsor's use of that pipeline for the purposes of serving their customer in their recycle water service area. It's much like any of the other recycle water customers. Town of Windsor will have an agreement with Jackson County Wines for a sale and delivery of recycle water. You know, similar to many of the customers that they're existing customers that they have it's just a matter of how it gets there. You know, again, some of the terms and conditions we've discussed is that, you know, there is this 2008 agreement for conveying town of Windsor's water to the geysers. We have a separate agreement and making sure that it's subordinate to any of these additional agreements. So any and then of course, you know, any water that's conveyed in this agreement is interruptible and subordinate to the operational needs of Santa Rosa and the town of Windsor, in their ability to get their water supplies that are contractually obligated to the geysers project. So priority goes to those. And then of course, making sure that there's a solid operations plan for deliveries and that it's approved by Santa Rosa to ensure the accounting and the priority is preserved for those contracts. So furthermore, in terms of, you know, addressing some of the concerns about tying into this infrastructure. The goal would be have Santa Rosa have design approval and construction oversight for connection to that geysers pipeline. It would be compensated for all costs related to pre construction design review and construction oversight, including any in the future any operational or administrative costs. And then Windsor, you know, would be responsible for any and all permits is licenses and easements and right of way. They could of course pass some of those on to their, their customer at the project proponent. And furthermore, just Windsor is responsible for the operations and maintenance of anything beyond that turnout and the city of Santa Rosa's infrastructure. And then the term would be a ten year term. The town of Windsor would be the lead agency under the sequel California environment quality act and Santa Rosa would be responsible agency. And of course we want to make sure there's the standard indemnities and defense, you know, dual defense and protections for Santa Rosa and Santa Rosa water. And then just making sure that all the risks are passed to the appropriate responsible parties. They're going to make this project work with that I'll just stop sharing my screen and I'm happy to take some initial questions and feedback from the committee. I just have one basic question before I move to the committee. You looks like you have the mitigations and the legal consequences or ramifications pretty well buttoned up. Regardless of that, are you do you see any potential yellow or red flags as we move forward with this contract. I don't. You know it's just a matter of making sure that the terms are, you know, accepted by all the different parties. I think the next step, of course, is to get the attorneys involved if, you know, of course, bar, you know, bar in some direction from this committee and start to hammer out some of the details but I think that, you know, in general, there is a will and a want by all the project proponents and it really seems to make sense. So. Thank you for that. I appreciate that questions from the committee at this point questions or comments. I have a couple technical questions and I think these are some of the ones that we posed last time but Windsor be adding into the water pipeline once they tap into it are they planning on adding additional water that will be shipped to the geysers or not. So, you know, there is a there's a contract right now that has some some limitations. And that 2008 agreement, I think 193 million gallons is the minimum Windsor, you know, has the right to build into that and continue to add on more water. You know, much like Santa Rosa, and I, you know, I don't want to speak too much to Windsor's operations but their goal is never to discharge so, you know, they would make up the balance of whatever they need for their operations. Obviously, the geysers pipeline you can put water in during the wintertime which is advantageous. And so yes, I think their goal is to ultimately continue to increase the amounts of water under that that existing agreement in 2008. And then of course, you know, whatever water is necessary to serve this customer it's about 90 90 acres of vineyard. So, so that there would be increased amounts. I think Dr Burke can can add more she's she's obviously much more familiar with that agreement as well. If there's anything I missed. I think council member McDonald, your question. So right now we have a contract with Windsor. We're at the amount that they're contributing. We never want to up that amount we have contractual guidelines for them to do so but what they're looking at with what we're proposing here is really providing water to supply a specific customer for their needs so wouldn't be adding anything to the geysers at this time. Okay, so my concern on that is that if Windsor is not going to be adding more water and I don't mean this in any disrespectful way but our own ag doesn't have enough water for our customers. It seemed to me that it would be hooves to say if Windsor wants to tap in to serve one of their customers they should then amend their contract to add more of the water, so that our own ag is able to then have more water, given to them from Santa Rosa. I'm fine with them tapping into the pipe. What I have the issue with is, you can't tap into the pipe and then just give it to one of your clients, you should be contributing to our contract for City of Santa Rosa, so that our own clients can benefit as well. And if they have extra that's even better we should go back and renegotiate the contract to reduce what we're sending to the geysers from this 30 year contract because now we have another source to be able to do that and then in fact everyone could win. So it's a great point. Let me add some clarification. So Windsor is currently providing water to the geysers and they are helping offset it's such a small amount in comparison to what Santa Rosa sends and so the way we operate our system is we operate it such that we free up as much water as possible for our ag customers. We do work very cooperatively with Windsor so that when they have excess water if we can have them provide that water earlier in the year. We'll provide that to the geysers to hold more back in storage to provide more to our ad customers, but this amount that they're looking at here is is water that is wouldn't make a difference, quite frankly it's such a small amount and it's serving that one particular customer. So there were discussions and Jackson family lines did reach out we did make that very clear that we had concerns and they had to make this okay with their existing our existing customers. And the feedback that we received was that they did reach out and the Farm Bureau is supportive of this as well as customers because that was a concern that we did have. I have not heard that and so my my concern goes back to the fact that someone's tapping into our line they're helping out a client which I'm really happy that we can figure out how to do this what my my biggest thing is. Can we get more people contributing so that all of Sonoma County ag industry can benefit from this so I'm going to keep pushing back on that until I get the answer that I really would prefer to hear which is we're able to give them more water and and then therefore give more water to our own agriculture so I might just be that one girl that's going to keep on, you know, tagging on to that particular one. The other question I had was, does the 10 to 12 million gallons per day meet our contractual requirements and then if Windsor does tap in. Does it actually add to that, or you're telling me that it isn't going to be significant enough that we can actually reduce what's going up there. So, so our contract. We have a certain amount that we have to deliver every year it's an annual amount we fluctuate million gallons per day and Windsor's contract that supports that we existing the existing contract we have they're already tied into the geyser system. And so that water anything that is sent to the geysers helps us meet our contractual obligations and then allows us to have more water and storage. So they are absolutely helping us meet that obligation on an annual basis and providing more water supply, recycle water supply for our existing customers. That is definitely a benefit. And this is this is very, it's similar but extremely different in that all we're looking to do is move some excess water that Windsor has not always available, similar to us. So when we have it we provide it to our customers when we don't, it's not available that's the same thing that Windsor's looking to do here. Okay, and then the last question I have is on the 10 year term is that the end of the length of our contract with the geysers is that why you went to 10 years. That was just, you know, kind of an initial proposal the concern was obviously that the contract extends to believe 2037. And we wanted to be free and clear of any, you know, potentially any conflicts with that timeframe. So we just proposed an initial 10 year timeframe. Obviously that gives us time to prove up the project to. I think that's the only thing is, you know, these long term projects on water that we're unaware of unless Santa Rosa is getting some type of benefit from it I hate to be in contract for a long period of time when we don't really know what, what's going to happen it feels a little bit like a pilot, but I'm not sure what the, you know, everybody else has to say about that I also like things to be long enough so that we have a data and some reference points along the way but that is a little bit long to me simply because I feel like the geysers contract in general is was done at too long right so. Yeah, I would want to know what terms would come back and if there's any room for renegotiation if in fact, we did need them to contribute more water we were having to reduce more and we saw something as a result of them tapping into the system. Yeah, you know I don't I think you're right I we don't know what the future of beyond the 237 date obviously that was a contract that was written, you know, to give time to pay back some of the significant capital costs for that project. You know, and so there is contributions from Calpine for that to as well they're they're paying for the water obviously. I think, you know, the 10 year term was just a number. You know, that's kind of what we were pursuing but it's obviously subject to you know whatever the desires of the elected officials are appointed officials so. So, so just for a little bit additional detail, if that's okay. We recognize that this is a large capital investment that would need to be made by the customer and by Windsor and so we do not want one of the very clear things was you know the geysers contract is through 2037. We have no desire for that and date to be close to that. So we were looking for a term that would still be acceptable for making the type of capital investment that they're looking to make which is going to be significant, but not put us in any way close to the, the term date, the end date of our current geysers contract. So this is, this would put us about this would put us five years ahead of when the geysers contract would terminate and so that gives us time to see, you know, we're, we're don't want to get off agenda but we are looking at already what we're going to do in the future with the geysers contract we're about 15 years ahead. This is the time to start looking. What does it mean what does the future look like so this gives us a period to allow for this to happen if that's so the direction of the liaison subcommittee, and then also give us time to, you know, continue to explore options and have an end date that is prior to the geysers contract so we know kind of where we're going to be going with our future water supply. Does thank you so much and I really appreciate Windsor being on as well and and you know I really hope that no one takes my comments is pushing back significantly, but I do have a lot of concerns around our own ag and that you know this, this is an opportunity I think to help us all win a little bit and that would, I'd prefer to see that. I mean, your cautions are definitely reasonable and before I move to chair galvin. Ms Burke or director Burke or Mr Warren, could you reiterate I think it's in your presentation actually the subordinations that move to protect kind of their off ramps if you will. Could you reiterate those that subordination element and how that creates an offer amp for us in the potentially in the future. Yeah, you know obviously priority goes to meeting our contractual obligations the same goes for Windsor, they're going to want to protect themselves. So, you know any interruptions, unforeseen or otherwise to the pipeline, or you know, other issues that may prop up. And this, this is subject to, you know, being supported to meeting those contractual obligations and potential interruption to so so there's, it will have to be built that way. Because you know obviously the contractual obligations have some, some clawbacks and some penalties if we don't make those those deliveries to the geysers so. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Peter, I just had a question. Anticipating what you think the regulatory requirements are going to be for example is this subject to sequelers. What are we looking at as far as having to meet any regulatory issues. When the project was built. There was a substantial EIR with with multiple addendums. So we think that in general, the project as it is today does have sequel coverage to continue just to expand, you know, deliveries into the pipeline. What occurs on the beyond the turnout probably still needs to be figured out. We're proposing that Santa Rosa would not be the lead agency for that reason just because it's really outside of our sphere of influence our service area, and really the operations to the geysers pipeline isn't changing significantly. I think it should should pre qualify that I'm not a sequel attorney or, you know, specialists, but, but, you know, I think, you know, I think that in general, because, you know, it's recycled water and we do know that the regional board is kind of already given a preliminary thumbs up to this project, just in some preliminary discussions. But I think sequa should be relatively easily but you know it's obviously anytime you're disturbing any earth constructing anything. Someone has to do analysis there to make sure that everything's covered. Thank you. Mr. Arnone. Thank you john. My question has to do with timing. And I believe our first meeting on this was back in April, and we're now almost October. My recollection was that there was some request at least for some. I don't know not urgency but some timeliness of acting on this. So I guess my question is, how, what, what do you envision as the timeline on this project. I think, you know, I think we can actually move pretty swiftly. Now that we've been able to swap terms and conditions. I think once we have that that agreement that was the major component of getting just the agreement between town of Windsor and the city of Santa Rosa, getting us in the same room. So I would anticipate I think, since it's so high profile. I've discussed sort of offline with Jennifer bring it back to the BPU and then potentially back to the council to, you know, so I think my suspicion is that we could see something in terms of a draft agreement in the next few months. I would hope, you know, we can move swiftly. It's just the matter of figuring out the construction piece I think that's going to. And you know, obviously, others are going to have to figure out, you know, just making sure through the specifications. Not holding, of course, to find the it's buried right now the turnout. So, you know, that would probably be the piece that maybe just needs a little more time but, you know, I think we can move swiftly in the next six months probably. Okay, thank you. Thanks bill. Any other questions or comments from the committee. Okay, so let's move to public comment. If you're making comments on item 3.1 if you wish to make a comment via zoom, please raise your hand if you're dialing via phone, please dial nine to raise your hand. Madam Secretary, do we have any comments of any type on this item today. Council Member Sawyer I see no hands being raised via zoom and receive no written or voice message public comments. Thank you very much. Then let's move to the final question for me which is director Burke what are you looking for us from us today. Yes, thank you Council Member Sawyer and committee members so we are looking for, in essence, some type of either concurrence or feedback on the proposed again I want to make this very clear these are proposed terms and conditions that staff has has come to based on the questions and direction we received from the committee last time. And based on that, do you want us to continue to move this forward and if so, then we would start to work on agreement language related to this based on this concept. And then that would be what we would bring forward likely to BPU we either come back to this committee first, or we go to BPU and to Council, I'm envisioning likely a study session and then a final agreement that would be considered. So those are the terms that we would need to still work out on on, you know, the other end as well Windsor still is going to need to work on portions with Jackson family lines and ultimately then determine how we're going to move this forward in terms of construction. I think this would be, you know, still take quite a bit of time but right now we're looking for the terms and conditions that we've outlined do they in essence address some of the concerns that you brought up at the last committee are you supportive of what we put forward and do you want us to continue to move down this path based on the proposed terms and conditions that we outlined. Yeah, so in essence, this is a bit of a bit of a preliminary nod potentially from this body to move forward and then if something comes up as things change. We, we, it may or may not come before this body it could go directly to the BPU. I'm happy to bring it back to this body first if you guys would like to see it again as a sort of a draft, and then we could go to BPU and to Council. So it's, it's whatever the committees preference would be. Given some of the concerns that Council Member McDonald brought up, I would want to, I think it perhaps it would be important to bring it back for to touch bases on this, this committee before moving to the BPU. And if there are, we're still concerned from Council Member McDonald and it would be an opportunity for her to voice those and perhaps create a little more comfort in moving forward today with a preliminary nod in moving forward with the negotiations and the contract. Council Member McDonald are you comfortable with that. Yeah, I was going to say if it comes to Council and some of those concerns that I was, you know, pretty set on early on are still there. You know, I'm just going to bring it up there so I'd prefer to try and hash some of this out. It defeats the purpose of a committee if we can't hash some of this out before it goes to Council directly so that'd be my preference is if we could see a draft draft and certainly a one hour meeting should be sufficient again. You know, hopefully we don't have to take up too much time for everyone but I would say those would be my directions is that we need to be able to see what we could do for City of Santa Rosa with no disrespect to what Windsor currently contributes to the water pipeline. I think it would go a long way if we are able to come to some terms and agreements on additional contributions so that our own ag potentially could win in those moments where we also could have a little bit more water so. Well, I know staff will be aware of those concerns and I was the one who said a number of months ago what's in it for us. So I can I can relate to your concerns and your cautions. I think the entire committee is sensitive to that and with that, barring the need for a motion if the committee is in agreement with having it come back to this, come back to this body before moving to the BPU. If I'm not mistaken, I think you have your direction count director Burke is that am I am I reading my committee correctly. Okay, excellent. Thank you very much director Burke any other questions any other needs for you today. Thank you Mr. Noni. My only comment would be that if we do come back and I think that's a good idea that perhaps might alleviate the need for study sessions before both the BPU and the city council. So, if we can turn too many into one meeting I think that's a great idea. That's a good point. Thank you. We will, we will take that feedback and figure out the most expeditious way to bring this forward before both bodies. Okay, excellent. Well, my thanks to the committee and thanks to staff and excellent job it's so it's a, it is the first time that we've had this week, this kind of request. So, but the not the first time you've dealt with contracts I know you have a plethora of those out there with our own ag partners. If there are no other questions or comments I believe I can bring this this committee meeting to a close. All right, thank you all. Thank you. Yeah, thanks for your time. Thanks everyone.