 Okay, we're back in session. Item four is the approval of the minutes. So the minutes from November 15th and December 6th will be approved and logged. Next move to item 5.1, staff briefings, which is the status update on FEMA public assistance projects. Mr. Chairman, what about the report out on the closed session? There was no closed session. There was no closed session, it was a study session. Do you do a report out to the public that waited? There was a study session in the mayor's conference room on the organics processing facility. It was just a discussion with the board members and staff on that item. The avenues we can use. Well, that study session was open to the public, so Mr. DeWitt, so. Yeah, just to make clear, Mr. DeWitt, that study sessions are open to the public. Okay, it was on the agenda as the mayor's conference room, okay. Mr. Shavoni. Chairman Galvin, members of the board, I'm Joe Shavoni, Deputy Director of Water and Sewer Operations, joined today by Mark Kasra, Supervising Engineer for TPW Capital Projects. Mark is the project engineer for most of the projects we are discussing today, and he will be able to answer questions regarding contracts and project delivery. So the projects we'll be discussing today include contaminated water, supply system, potable water, pumps and reservoirs, sewer lift stations. Essentially, the sewer lift stations are any of the lift stations that receive damage that weren't enough to create their own project on their own. Those were all sort of looped together. These projects are all category F FEMA public assistance projects. And our intent today is to, sorry, is to provide a brief description on the project status along with a general description between the city cost estimate and the FEMA cost estimate and sort of how these cost estimates can be understood and what we plan to do on the difference. So we'll start with a contaminated water project. This project is unique in many ways, this unprecedented and unprecedented. This is a fire related issue that the city has had to work closely with FEMA and with Cal OES. This project doesn't fit into FEMA standard disaster projects and has been a little bit challenging for FEMA to fully understand and really grasp the concept of this being an issue related to the fire from the beginning. Because FEMA site inspectors can't see the damage caused by the fire, they have been reluctant to include all the components we have identified as damaged in the description of the project. The city is currently working with Cal OES and FEMA to correct what is referred to as the DDD or the damaged description and dimension for this project. And the DDD must be accurate to include all items that have been damaged and replaced if we expect to receive funding for the work that's been completed or the activities that we're currently completing at this time. An accurate DDD and scope of work will minimize the risk of needing to repay any reimbursement dollars that we receive from FEMA. Should the project be part of a future audit, which is very common for FEMA to audit their public assistance projects. We've been working with FEMA since late June of 2018 to correct a partial DDD that was entered by FEMA staff and did not receive the city approval. And although this project is nearly complete, we continue to sample and monitor the advisory area closely and collect samples from the system on a frequency that's been agreed upon by both city staff and the division of drinking water. And we want to make sure that the sampling effort will be included in the scope of work so we can seek reimbursement for it as well. Our next project is our potable water pumps and reservoirs. And this project includes damage to infrastructure at several reservoirs and pump stations similar to as I mentioned earlier about the sewer lift stations. And FEMA prefers to group these several small projects together to make one large project basically for efficiency. And we use a similar method of packaging projects together for overall cost savings when we put them out to bid. The FEMA status for this project is what they refer to as obligated. It's been obligated since October of 2018. And essentially an obligated project means that funds have been made available to the state via electronic transfer following FEMA's final review and approval of the public assistance project. So they've set money aside and it's sitting there waiting for us to go ahead and make reimbursement requests as the project moves forward. The current status of this project is the preliminary design stage. There was an RFP that was released in June of 2018, brought before you in October of 2018. We anticipate that the design will be completed around July of 2019 and an estimated construction completion of October of 2020. The cost discrepancies between the city estimated cost and the FEMA estimated cost are significant in this project. And FEMA allows and we plan to seek reimbursement based on actual costs for the project. So essentially whatever the cost is we will work with FEMA to make sure that we are reimbursed for that understanding that we have some discrepancies at this point. This will require some additional justification to FEMA and we will be required to inform them along the way as these discrepancies come up. So when we realize there's a cost difference we'll reach out to them right away. And we have been successful of obtaining approval for these increased costs several times on other projects. We basically demonstrate to them that clearly this is what the cost is. They understand that and we move forward. And as with all of our projects our goal is to obtain as many reimbursement dollars as possible and we hope to be reimbursed the maximum amount for each project. We are finding you'll see a similar theme in these projects that the discrepancy typically exists due to items that we feel FEMA at this time is underestimating in most cases which are standard project contingencies, design and construction management costs and then the mobilization and demobilization of the projects. Again our next project is a sewer lift station project similar to the potable water pumps and reservoirs. All the sewer lift stations that didn't have enough damage to create their own FEMA project were grouped into one large category F project. The status of this project is listed on our FEMA client portal as applicant signed. So this means that we concur with FEMA on the overall project and the necessary repairs that will need to be made. And signed projects ultimately will be returned to what FEMA refers to as their consolidated resource center or often referred to as the CRC for quality assurance and compliance reviews. And once the CRC completes their review and approves the project becomes obligated which allows us to then start seeking those reimbursement dollars. Again this project you'll see is in the preliminary design phase and we estimate the design to be completed in July of 2019 and construction completed in October of 2020. Next we have our stagecoach lift station project. This project is the FEMA status is obligated which is what as I mentioned before what we are looking for. And you may notice that the potable water pumps and reservoirs sewer lift stations and this project all have the same CIP project status and estimated completion times. That's because these projects are being designed concurrently by the same consultant and will likely be put out to bid as one project. You'll also notice on this project that the city estimate is actually lower than what FEMA's estimate was and we do see this at times. You'll see this on another project that we have. Again, our intent is to seek reimbursement based on the actual cost for the project and to maximize our reimbursement dollars. Our Skyfarmer project. The FEMA project status for this project is pending environmental and historical review as of January 4th. That's a recent move to this status. It's essentially waiting in FEMA's queue. So what we know this project and the Hansford court project which we'll be discussing next have been moving slowly through the FEMA process. And the slowdown happened when we asked these projects to be approved for what they refer to as 406 mitigation dollars to help harden the facility against a future disaster such as a fire. So this is we're asking to make an improvement to the previous facility that will help harden the facility against a mitigation in the future. We initially plan to move most of the infrastructure for this station below ground to reduce the impact of a future hazard. And but early in the design phase, we found that a submersible pump system really wasn't feasible for this location. Although we still intend to use the 406 funding to improve the fire resiliency for the structure with items such as steel trusses and fire resistant roofing materials. Next is our Hansford court lift station. This station is currently in the same status as I mentioned as our Skyfarmer project. Again, this project slow down due requesting the same option, our ability to use the 406 mitigation funding. And this station does appear to be a good candidate moving forward. And we'll have most of the essential components underground and will likely be built as a submersible station. So we will move this, most of the essential components from the above ground place where they're at now and the mitigated efforts will be to move them below ground. The location does seem to be a good fit for that. The city is currently following up with Cal OES regarding the steps necessary to get FEMA to obligate, to get this project to a FEMA obligated status. And we will continue to work with them to keep things moving forward. Right now with the transition between, this project went initially into the status when it was still mainly with FEMA. And now it's currently been moved over to Cal OES. So we've recently been dealing with a group of new contacts and new folks through the Cal OES team. And we're working with them to do what we can to try to get this moving forward. While that's happening, you'll notice these projects are at the 40% design stage. And we do have every intent of getting the design completed by July of 2019. And we are pushing as much as we can to get these projects, the construction completed by November of 2020. We don't want to slow down the process because FEMA is sort of slowing things down. They have recognized these as actual fire related projects. We just are trying to get them to the obligated status at this point. Last we have our water meter replacement project. As I know we've mentioned quite some time ago, but essentially all 2800, roughly 2800 meters in the burn zone were damaged really to the point where we felt it was not a good idea to keep moving forward with those. And we worked closely with FEMA to get this FEMA approved project where they recognized that this was an issue that we needed to make sure we replaced all the meters. And in some cases the meter boxes that were damaged by the fire. This project has been in an obligated status since November of 2018. And this project is slightly different from the other PA projects, mainly because most of the work will be completed by in-house staff. As you may know, we set all the meters and that has already started. As the rebuild effort has started, we are setting meters as needed throughout the city. And we are tracking all the labor and materials that go along with that. And our intent is to seek reimbursement for all of those. We do anticipate creating a relatively small CIP project for any damaged meter box that need replacement. This work can be done most efficiently by a contractor and will allow our operators to continue on their core mission. So we intend to be putting a small contract out to bid in the near future. And then I would like to mention that all of our water pump stations and sewer lift stations are operational at this point and being monitored by our SCADA system. And above is some photos of, the slide shows photos of some temporary measures that have been completed as part of our fire recovery activities. And we had two of our lift stations that were basically completely destroyed by the fire. We also needed to ensure that we have backup power at our stagecoach lift station where the generator was completely destroyed by the fire. So we early on recognized the need to ensure these lift stations were fully functional while we work through to complete the permanent repairs and while the rebuild effort is continuing. And the pictures that you see on the screen are the pump equipment and control and monitoring equipment that has been temporarily installed by our in-house staff. And we have, this is the Sky Farm A location. We have installed a very similar setup with temporary controls and monitoring system as well as a temporary pump in place at our Hansford Court location. And we currently have a mobile generator parked at the stagecoach location. So if we do need backup power, that station is also not only remotely monitored but has backup auxiliary power. And although all of these two systems especially are lacking the redundancy that we typically build into our infrastructure, we at both stations have been operating successfully since these temporary measures have been put in place. And we installed them and have been continually monitoring them. And we do have the ability to receive alarms and make sure and track the data that goes through the station, both of these stations. And we are seeing them at this point, the pumps that we have installed are handling the flows even at they were installed prior to the end of winter last year when not all of the sewer laterals had been capped. So we think that these stations will handle the peak flows. Again, they are just lacking the redundancy. Our pumps or our lift stations are typically built with backup systems behind whatever the need is. So in the event of an emergency, we do have the option of servicing these stations with our cleaning trucks. It's not an ideal situation, but it is a backup plan. And we have some experience in doing that as the winner approached early after the fire last year. And we did not have these temporary measures in place. And again, as time goes on and we as a rebuild effort can continue, we know that some of the flows to these stations will increase. And as that happens, as I mentioned, we'll be monitoring those to make sure that the performance is really happening the way we want it to. And we can make adjustments in the future if needed. If I can answer any questions. Board Member Dowd. I think the question that goes through my mind, I suspect just about everybody's is what's the whole picture look like? Obviously streets and carbon gutters and storm drains and other things may have also, and certainly driving through Sky Farm Found Grove, certainly the streets have been, the quality has been impacted by not only the temperatures of the fire, but the debris hauling and now the construction activities, both for the city facilities and private ownership facilities, those streets are really being hammered. So the question is, as we look at the whole picture, the city of Santa Rosa, what's the forecast? Where are we going and how badly are we going to be damaged financially? And you've shown us half a dozen here. But it would certainly give me some relief if we saw a greater picture. And some of that falls as an example that I just already used, the Transportation Public Works Department will have a play in this, as Parks and Rec, most likely, will have a play in this. So how are we going to, how are we in the public going to see what the situation is and overall analysis? So an overall analysis of the situation, I can kind of give you a very brief description of the items outside of water just having been involved in some of the meetings. There's currently a consultant that's involved with the city that's helping the city work its way through the nuances, if you will, of working with FEMA and then with Cal OES. I can tell you that there are projects that, for a wide range. There's projects for street surface repair. There's projects that are related to curb and gutter repair as well as vegetation removal, it's a pretty wide range of projects. Not all of those projects are moving at the same rate that these projects are moving forward, they oftentimes require a negotiation between FEMA. And the consultant that's currently with the city is helping the city in general, not just Santa Rosa water, work through some of those negotiations to hopefully, again, maximize the dollars that return. And where we see areas like street repair, obviously that will, it's a big impact to the public. They tend to see those items as, you know, the photo that we see there, when we recote Reservoir 5, the public is going to see that the damage that's on the outside of that will, you know, will be repaired. I do think that's going to be a fairly slow process, but we should start seeing some of these repairs. And I think that on the public work side as well as the park side, they're working to receive as many reimbursement dollars as they possibly can as well. If I might add, Deputy Director Shivoni does have some unique insight into kind of the efforts of other departments and their FEMA projects because he is involved with our FEMA efforts. But Deputy Director Urbanik is in the audience today from Public Works standpoint. If she doesn't mind, she is welcome to come down and kind of give some more specifics surrounding where Public Works is on their projects. Chair Galvin, board members, excuse me. To answer your question, how are we going to get this sort of bigger picture information out to both you and the public? We're working on what would be called a dashboard with the Information Technology Department. And I've seen some graphics that are preliminary. And I believe there is an active dashboard on the FHIR Resiliency website. I don't have that exact address, but I can send it to each of you. Where it shows by sort of category what the damage dollars, what the assessment is and what the dollars associated, what the city's costs share potentially will be and where we are. So we're building this product so we can track the projects by sort of category parks, roads, things like that, emergency protective measures. So that'll all be available on the city's webpage. Vice Chair Arnone. I have two questions about the term obligated when FEMA deems the project obligated. The first question is, does that mean we're actually receiving revenues right now when we send in requests for reimbursement or does that happen in the future? Are we getting current dollars now? That's my first question. And then the second question is, when it's deemed obligated, is there a limit to the obligation? Is the obligation limited to their estimate or is it depend upon the reimbursement requests received? So in terms of the project being obligated, it means that FEMA has set aside funding that they have essentially given to Cal OES. And when we complete portions of the project, we will start to send in the request to be reimbursed for those portions of the project. Currently, water has not done that for the projects that are listed here, the category F projects. There's a long process that the project goes through prior to becoming obligated. Once it is obligated, it essentially means the money is there to then seek reimbursement. With regard to the estimate, the limitation on the estimate becomes an issue when you start to exceed what that limitation is. So along the way, you can continue to collect dollars that exceed what the line item estimate might be. But once you get to the point of the fully estimated amount of the project, that sort of triggers another process that goes along with you seeking reimbursement at a higher level than they had estimated along the way. It essentially makes you wait a while before you get that final amount. You continue to get approval as time goes on for the dollars that exceed what their estimate was for that line item. And then once you meet their maximum estimate, they sort of hold off on paying you the reimbursement dollars. Once the project is completed and you have close out, then you seek the difference of the two. Okay, so there could be a significant delay between project completion and incurring the costs and then getting reimbursed as they work through that delta between the estimated and the actual. There is the potential for that. That's correct. Thank you. Port member Grable. Yeah, thank you for the presentation and all the work. I had a similar question about in terms of I know the consultant is there for this reason. And I'm sure they have studied a lot of these contractual precedents and appeals and what's been reimbursed and what hasn't. But just from my understanding of it all, it does seem that as Vice-Chair Manone was saying, the gap between identifying fire-impacted systems, infrastructure, whatnot. And then having the funds obligated and then the threshold above that, which if there's additional costs, my biggest concern is that we're carrying all those costs with our reserves, I'm assuming. And worst case scenario, from my understanding, is like Northridge and then maybe there's a worse case than that, but Northridge was, I think, 25 years, 24 years from event to closing out final FEMA contract. And that was over, you know, after many appeals were denied, there were significant gaps in deltas. I'm assuming our consultant is going over that stuff, but I, you know, and this was a great update on those things. I would love to see kind of in that dashboard. Maybe I know that the dashboard is accessible through the Sonoma County Recovers.org site. It'd be nice if we had a portal or a link to that dashboard from the Santa Rosa Water website. I don't think, you know, as IST and our SRIT gets that stuff onboarded, it'd be great to have that portal from SRWater so we can see kind of independently what's going on there. But as we get these updates, it'd be really great to see what the costs we're carrying are and what is coming in, what's obligated, what's not. Just so we have, you know, some idea of the rate of reimbursement. And granted, I know it's going to be an uphill battle, but just be good to know for, you know, purposes of transparency and letting rate payers know. But thank you for trudging up that hill. Thank you. I appreciate the update and recognizing that we're in the midst of a marathon with our discussions with FEMA and that's kind of how they operate. But it's a little concerning when we hear from our president about his intent to perhaps withhold some of the FEMA funds that California has sort of staked out. Sort of staked out in response to the various disasters we've had in recent years. What are we hearing back from the FEMA staff people or are they as stunned as the rest of us in California to hear the president sort of try to extort the money so he can build his wall if the legislature won't allocate those funds. So what are we hearing from the FEMA people in response to the president's latest tweet? That's a good question. Our focus has mainly been on the projects themselves. And many of our projects have moved into either the obligated phase or into Cal OAS's hands. There's certainly, I know there's work through the city manager's office to work on just this issue that you're describing. I don't have updates on that for you at this point. I would imagine that our city manager will be updating as time goes on. We do know that there are furloughs from the FEMA staff. At this point we're not seeing those have an impact. The standard holiday impacts we saw as far as the projects moving forward. And the consolidated resource center where we still have projects that need to go through is still in FEMA's hands. And so we will be our standing is that our last meeting they describe those as FEMA's essential staff. And so those folks are still in place. So we're hoping for that to continue moving forward. The FEMA dollars I don't think I could speak to on that as far as how much the president will be allocating or the intention or what we're hearing back as far as whether that's going to how long that will go on. Well, I would just hope and I'm sure we're on top of that but hope that we are contacting our elected officials at the state and federal level to remind them don't forget about us. And you know we're in line here and we're working with the system so that hopefully we can put some pressure to bear on the fact that there's tremendous need here and in other communities in California. And it's not helpful to to make overtures about pulling that money out for some other purpose. So thank you. The message from the city manager's office has continued to be we are working with our partners at FEMA to seek every dollar for reimbursement and we will continue to work with FEMA to do so. And that's been the consistent message out of the city manager's office. Thank you for the update. That'll conclude that matter. Item 5.2 is our water supply update. Public comments will be. Was there a public comment on this particular last item? On this item? I didn't get a card but sure. Go right ahead. That's fine. Just wondering if it was open down there. Well, my name is Thomas Ells and I'm a civil engineer and I was here during the presentation before of the Fountain Grove reconstruction that expected to be $46 million. And so what I'm talking about is the dashboard. So I was here during the dashboard presentation as well. And on that, there's not yet a reconciliation of changes to what happens to the dashboard. So it was, and the consultant was hired, I think it's Ernst and Young was going to do, was consulting on $110 million of reimbursements that were going to come from FEMA. And now the dashboard says $56 million. I think it's $56. And the reason was because of the change in what happened at Fountain Grove, right? So it wasn't the full amount, it was only the $8 million. So they don't have a reconciliation yet of that. So if you're to look, my point is in the future, as you look at that, it could be $56 now, approximately $56 or something. And it can go up or it could go down depending on what happens with the contract or the agreed obligated amount or these different amounts. And so that dashboard can go up and where did that come from? Or it could go down and say, hell, we did something but not, but something maybe didn't get done. It just changed from being one estimate to a different estimate and things like that. So you have to be careful. You need a reconciliation in there. And I don't think that it was yet in there. That's why I was going to just warn you in the future. The dashboard is great, but be careful. Thank you very much for your comments. We'll now move to the water supply update. Deputy Director Burke. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Galvin and members of the board. I'm here to give an update on the potable water supply side. And then I will turn it over to interim Deputy Director Joshua and he is going to give an update on our recycle water supply. So first I wanted to start off with a little bit of background information and updates on some of the work that the Sonoma County Water Agency has been doing. In order to see if there's possibility and potential to increase the amount of water supply that's able to be stored in particular in Lake Mendocino. The water agency has been leading a collaborative effort with a number of different entities to look at the ability to use more real time data as well as more newer technology on forecasting when weather events will be coming in, in particular looking at what we call atmospheric rivers. That is the type of storm event that we just experienced yesterday. To see when those will be coming into hit land and the effects that they might have on the ability to store water behind the Coyote Valley Dam up in Lake Mendocino. I think the board is aware that during the winter time the flood pool actually grows, the water supply pool shrinks. And we're in that time right now. So right now Lake Mendocino can only store 68,400 acre feet and be operated by Sonoma Water. As soon as it reaches that amount it goes over to the Army Corps and the Army Corps starts operating the dam as a flood control facility. Typically because the rule curve is set by an actual act of Congress, the rule curve for Lake Mendocino was initially put into place in 1959 and was most recently updated in 1986 but has never taken into account any new technology or information and the Army Corps is supposed to operate exactly as that rule curve dictates. So for example, back in December of 2012 you may recall that we had a very big atmospheric river and got a good amount of water supply into Lake Mendocino. But the Army Corps, following the rule curve, which is that dashed orange line, I guess you would say, on the graph in front of you, had to release all of that water even though all of the forecasts and all of the weather data showed that we were going to have a very dry period for an extended amount of time. And not only did we have a very dry period, we actually had one of the driest years on record in 2013 where we only received six inches of rainfall the entire year. So what FURO allows the water agency and the Army Corps to do is to actually look at this technology and information and radar and weather forecasting and use that instead of following the rule curve. So this is a demonstration pilot project. They've been modeling it for the last couple of years and now this is the first year that it's actually going to be put into action. So the exciting thing is that they have actually, the Army Corps has agreed to what's called a major deviation to allow between Sonoma Water and the Army Corps to store 11,650 more acre feet into the flood pool. So that's really great news. It'll allow the flood, the water supply pool basically to grow from 68,400 acre feet to 80,050 acre feet. That's enough water to provide for about 100,000 people for a year. So it's really, really good news. That said, if more storms are predicted, if they're looking at some kind of concern with flooding, that's still going to be their top priority and they will release water, but they're able to do it with a lot more sophisticated control and information. So I wanted to let the board know that this is really good news. It's something the water agency has been working on for the last couple of years and this is the first year they're actually going to be putting some of this into effect. They will be able to potentially pilot this year, pilot again, or have a second year next year. And then if all goes well, it's likely that they'll be able to make a change to the rule curve. At least that's the plan right now. So really good news. And this technology and information will also be available to be used at any other reservoir throughout the United States if helpful. Mostly it's much more useful in the West Coast because we typically get these atmospheric type rivers as our water supply. So with that, where we are currently with Lake Mendocino and the good news is we actually have received a lot of water. This is from I think Monday, January 14th was Monday. And on Monday we had 66,600 acre feet in Lake Mendocino and I just checked. And as of one o'clock today, because of all the rain we've received, we're now up to 72,486 acre feet in Lake Mendocino. So the good news is they're able to keep that water right now. I know they'll be watching it very closely. And if there need to be some increased releases they can, but they still have quite a bit of storage potential because of that major deviation. For Lake Sonoma, again, we've seen a lot of change in Lake Sonoma just since Monday. So on Monday there were 209,470 acre feet, which was 85% of the water supply pool. And as of this morning there were 227,765 acre feet in Lake Sonoma, which is 93% of the water supply pool. So we're looking good on both reservoirs. It's really good news and we're hopeful that we'll continue to see storms throughout the storm season. It's always really great if we can have rainfall in the late spring and that's really going to help us with our water supply for the year. Switching over, I wanted to let the board know some of the things that are going on and related to our water use efficiency team. So after the fire, one of the things that first came about was when we were starting to talk about rebuilding was whether or not California law which requires a water efficient landscape ordinance needed to be in effect or not for the rebuild. Everything that we researched and the information we had was that yes it would still apply to anyone pulling a permit. And we wanted to think of ways that we could really help the community. So we had come up with an idea to see if we could develop template plans that would make it a lot easier for the community to rebuild and use those plans for their landscape. We brought this idea to the Sonoma Marin Saving Water Partnership and they were able to take it and put out a contract and work through an RFU process. They hired a landscape architect, had a number of community meetings and were able to develop eight different landscape design templates that can be used. They're scalable up to 2,500 square feet. They're for the front yards because that's what the water efficient landscape ordinance applies to. They are free. You can download them. They're available on the website. And they will comply with the ordinance and they're also ready to permit. So this is a really helpful tool. My understanding is a lot of folks have already used them in the coffee park area and they've been really happy with the results. We have a number of developers that have also been using these template plans and they seem to be something that they really appreciate. To help the community with these landscape plans, our staff will be at a couple workshops. The first is tonight at 6 p.m. at the Utilities Field Office. There will also be other staff from the partnership as well as a number of other organizations that are helping. This will be an overview that will let anyone who's rebuilding know what they need to bring and the information that they will need to have their plans reviewed. And then on the 26th, there will be two sessions. They're all day long. It's an all day long event, but they're two different sessions. One, the first session is from 10 to noon. And the second session is from 1 to 3. And community members will be able to bring their plans and potentially have them approved right then and there. So if anyone needs more information, that's the really long website that will get you to where you can register for either the overview that's tonight or any of the two workshops that are coming up on the 26th. This is the second time we've done this type of workshop and breakout session and they've been, the first one was really successful. I think there were over 100 people that participated. We anticipate that this one's also going to be quite full. And so we are anticipating that we might be doing another workshop in the future, but right now this is what we have planned. And the plans, if anyone's interested in the template plans, they are available through the rebuild websites. A related event is actually the Russian River Watershed Association is going to be having their fifth Russian River friendly landscaping event. This one in particular is called planting resilience, stories, science and strategies. And it's another free event, but you do have to register. It'll be on Wednesday, February 6 at our utilities field office from 7 to noon. And the keynote speaker will be Douglas Kent, who has a lot of publications, including Firescaping and Ocean Friendly Gardens. And also, I'm pleased to say that one of your fellow colleagues on the board will also be one of the presenters, board member Grable, will also be presenting at the event on the 6th. They'll come on out to see him. It's going to be a great event that's going to talk about all the different aspects of the Russian River friendly landscaping and really looking at taking the approach from science to soil, plant selection, habitat. And then again, this event will end with information on those landscape templates for the rebuild area. And then last, although I'm sorry I don't have a slide, I do have copies if anyone's interested in the audience or on the board. But we have been working a bit with the Santa Rosa Junior College and they are hoping to develop up to five demonstration gardens, also focusing on rebuilding water use efficiency, low water use plants. And they are asking for some help for the community. So they are having drop in workshops or work days, sorry, on Thursdays every Thursday from 11 to 3. And you can go to 437 Elliott Avenue and just come on. They do ask that you sign a waiver so you can either go on the website to sign the waiver or sign it there. And our staff will actually be participating on January 31st from 11 to 3. And so if anyone else is interested, we can get you more information. So those are some of the events and things that are going on in the water use efficiency team. And I'll now pass it over to Joe and then we'll be available for any questions if you all have any. Chairman Galvin, members of the board, Joe Schwal, interim deputy director, sub-regional operations. I'm here to talk about recycled water storage and update what's happening in recycled water. This is our storage curve that I'm sure you're familiar with. It shows on the bottom axis the water year from October through October. It has the upper and lower limits of our operating curve, the maximum storage capacity at the very top, and then three lines depicting our average storage for 14 years from 2004 to 2018. The black line shows last year's storage curve and the red line shows the current year. So as you can see, we're currently early in this storage in our water year. We reached a bottom of something lower than 200 million gallons, which is just where we want to start in November. And then with the rains, we have increased our storage to about 492 million gallons as of a few days ago. I didn't check the website this morning, but with the rains, I'm confident we're probably in the 540 million gallon range. So we're looking good. Where we want to be, the flow to the geysers is at the maximum right now. So we're storing water and we're providing water to the geysers' steam fields at the same time. So as long as the storms come at the pace they have been, we should be good. Of course, the goal is for us to have plenty of water for the geysers' steam fields and for our ag and urban irrigation users without having to discharge through the years or in the water season to stay within our limits. Are there any questions on the storage curves at this point? No. If not. Any board member questions on either of the reports? Very good. Anything further? I'd like to continue. Sure. I'm sorry. I do have one thing to report out on. This is Delta Pond. This aerial view, we're looking northwest, essentially. So the north is to our right on that bank. We are expecting to have a construction project on the north levy of that pond, either this summer or next summer. That levy is, that portion of the levy is a mile long, almost exactly a mile long. And the Bureau of Dam Safety has been, as they do, they'll inspect our ponds every year. And they have noticed and pointed out to us erosion damage on the levy, which is expected on the north side. But it does bear repair. And the sooner we repair it, the less damaged it will be and the less costly it will be. So our hope is to begin repair on that levy either this summer or next. And in order to do so, we will need to have the pond drained for the contractor to be able to work on the levy and at the bottom of the levy. So draining that pond will put a strain on our operating practices on the north end. So staff will be tasked to coordinate irrigation activities on the north end of our system. That's, as you're well aware, our delta pond is our largest storage pond, 600 million gallons. And it's also, it's where we tend to discharge most of our flow from if we need to discharge. So it's really a linchpin pond for our activities, our processes. We need it to be full in the winter. And for several summers we'll need it to be empty in the summer when we do this work. The construction work is expected to take 12 months. And of course it can't happen all at once. So we're expecting the construction to last for, you know, three months every year for four years if all goes well. We have a similar project identified at the middle lane ponds, ponds C and pond D. If we don't start to work on delta pond this summer, we're likely to do the similar work on C and D. That won't be as intrusive to our activities, our irrigation, but it'll still be something that the staff will need to watch very closely and take care of as the season goes on. And that's all I have. Any other questions? Very good. Thank you for the report. We'll move to the consent calendar. There are three items on the consent calendar. I'd like to request that we pull off 6.2 for just more discussion with our assistant city attorney as to how this, I think we can all understand the need for this. But we'd like, I'd like to know how it's going to be managed. Very well. We'll move item 6.2 off the consent calendar. That'll leave items 6.1 and 6.3. I'll move the balance of the consent calendar. Second. We have a motion by Vice Chair Arnone seconded by Board Member Grable to approve items 6.1 and 6.3. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Very well. We'll move to item 6.2 and I believe Vice Chair Arnone will be excusing himself. Yes, I will. I need to abstain on this item because I have a conflict of interest in that my firm represents one of the parties to this transaction. So I will be removing myself from the dais at this time. We'll come find you when we're finished. Item 6.2, Director Walton. I'll ask that Deputy Director Joe Schwell come down. He will be available to answer any operational questions that you may have regarding this matter. But I anticipate most of your questions will be answered by Ms. McLean as they will likely pertain to legal questions. Very well. So item 6.2 is approval of the Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement with Calpine Corporation and Geyser's Power Company. I'll open it up to the board for comments or questions. My question is certainly if it's confidential information that Calpine and the Geyser's Power Company have requested, I can understand that. But I believe it's going to be Assistant City Attorney McLean who will be dealing with the information that is provided. And my concern and question is, will the board and city council know what's going on in that delivery of information? So if and when we need to make a decision about it, we will have the necessary foundational information to do so. Yes. Thank you, Board Member Down. That's an excellent question. At this point, I do anticipate that I would be the main contact for receiving the information, but it would also be necessary to distribute that to certain staff members. In particular, it's likely to be financial information because they're asking for a release of the Calpine guarantee from the parent Calpine Corporation. So I expect that we'll see, though I have not received any information yet because we're still at this juncture, financial information for Geyser's Power Company. And regarding the financial viability of that company to support the obligations of the contract without the release. I am not a financial analyst, and so I would need to make sure that that information was shared with those appropriate to conduct that analysis. So I think that we'll be talking to the Chief Financial Officer, myself and interim director Walton. And we may even consider getting some outside consultants on board and they may need to sign on to a non-disclosure agreement as well. As far as the steps in the process and including the Board and the Council, we'll have to have very frank discussions with Calpine and with Geyser's Power Company. They're obviously aware we're a public agency and that those decisions have to be made in accordance with the Brown Act and all of our other requirements. And that the Board members and the Council members would have to be fully apprised of the information necessary for them to weigh in on those decisions. So I don't know exactly how we will have to navigate that, but I know that we'll be having those discussions and so likely we will have presentations that will give summaries, but we'll have to work with Calpine and with Geyser's Power Company on exactly where there may be protected information that we would have to summarize or they would be able to waive any potential requirements under the disclosure agreement in our moving to the next step. So that's somewhat yet to be determined, but we certainly are aware of the issues. And I understand that you can't make a comment on what you don't know you're going to see in the future, but try not to. It shows on the second page of the presentation that we received that its city staff will then be in a better position to determine next steps, including the possibility of any future action by the BPE or City Council. And so what I tried to say in my question about this matter is as we move forward with this and I don't have any objection to us doing it, but that when it comes necessary for the BPU to either make a decision or recommend to the City Council a decision that we get enough foundational information that we can make an accurate and appropriate decision. Yes, and that's something that we'll have to reiterate. I think we've already made that point to CalPine and GPC or at least I have to their legal counsel, but we'll have to reiterate that they'll, we'll have to work with them to make sure that you have the information necessary that they're comfortable with the information being presented in a public forum. Thank you. Following up on Board Member Dowd's comments and question, in reading the materials and in discussing it with Ms. McLean earlier today, I think I have a pretty good understanding of where this is going, that this is sort of a preliminary step very early in a long process that should go for quite a while since we do have a long-standing agreement with the Geysers and CalPine and it's a public-private partnership and the private side operates quite differently than the public side because they have profit and stockholders' allegiances and we have a different set of rules and goals and I understand that part of it. It's an agreement that I think has been like no other for utilities, not just in California but across the country and maybe the world as far as public-private partnership and both parties have seen significant benefits from that relationship and if this over the long period of time leads to whether it be an extension of that contract or modification and I understand there have been amendments to the agreement so far, if this leads to another one where we continue both parties continue to reap benefits from this partnership, then I think it's a very positive step. And proprietary information when you're dealing with a private company is very important in any negotiations that they had or will have going forward and this may go nowhere or it could result in something very significant and beneficial to all of us so I think it's a great first step and hope that it bears the positive type of relationship that we've enjoyed to date. Thank you. Yes, thank you. Board Member Mullen, I appreciate that and we certainly have had a very productive relationship with the Geysers Project and it is a P3, we've been very successful I think in the collaborating on the operation of that and that is one of the reasons why I think staff was interested in at least getting to this point, bringing this forward so that we can at least entertain their request and see where to go from there. I had two things. I haven't looked at that agreement in a while but my understanding that the only guarantee that we have is from Calpine, correct? There's no other guarantors on this. That's correct. It's Calpine Corporation is the guarantor. And my second question, does staff anticipate that this matter once the information is received and digested by staff would potentially come before the contract subcommittee? Yes, absolutely. We would engage with the contract review subcommittee for a recommendation to the full board. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? I'll entertain a motion. I would move that the board approve the Confidentially and Non-Disclosure Agreement which is identified as attachment one on this 6.2 item. Second. Motion by board member Dowd, seconded by board member Grable to approve item 6.2. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes five with one abstention and one conflict. Or one absence, excuse me. Item 7.1 is a report item. Director Walton. As we discussed earlier, we are moving this item to the next board meeting. My apologies. We pulled that. Item 8 is a public comment on non-agenda matters. Seeing no one rise. We have no referrals. We have one written communication. Any subcommittee reports? I know that the contract review subcommittee I think is in the process of scheduling a meeting but we don't have a date of yet. Board member reports? I would first like to report that we sent all of you a list of the current subcommittees and ad hoc committees and after going over those with staff I am going to be disbanding the longer needed the landscape ad hoc committee, the Healdsburg ad hoc committee, the word ad hoc committee, the biosolids management ad hoc committee, and the ground water management committee. I have also indicated that we are going to set up an ad hoc committee for the biosolids matter and we will be doing that as soon as I hear from each of you and I would ask those that have not responded to Gina's e-mail to contact me and let me know your preferences regarding staying on the committees that you are currently on, moving to other committees or areas or committees of interest. And lastly, for me, this will be Board Member Mullen's last meeting and I want to express to him our sincere gratitude for all the time that he's put in. I can't remember in my 15 plus years on this board a board member who's come on board and got up to speed as quickly as he did and that's no offense to the rest of us but that's just the facts. And we're certainly going to miss him and I hope that he will continue to keep an application on file with the city manager's office in the event that there is openings either on this board or some other board because the city will definitely benefit from your knowledge and your expertise and I wish you much good luck. I would absolutely totally second that information Chairman, your comments Chairman Galvin, it's been a pleasure to work with you Mr. Mullen and I do hope that there's another avenue for you to continue to serve the City of Santa Rosa and its citizens. If I may Mr. Chair, thank you for the kind words. The time that I've spent on this board has been a great honor of mine. I want to thank former Mayor Corsi for appointing me. It's the heavy lifting that goes on up on this day is just unbelievable and I don't think this board gets enough credit for the work that it does in relation to that. And secondly the staff is top drawer. They're very dedicated staff people here. Some of you in the audience and those that aren't here please pass my thanks to them that they've been very generous with their time when I wanted to get a tour. I had questions and it's really a pleasure to work with such a great group of people. Not just the board here but the staff and it's an honor to have served here and I thank you. Any other board member reports? I have a question Chairman Galvin about your ad hoc committees. I totally understand on all of them but one and that is the I think it was the ground water management ad hoc committee and it's my recollection that we still have something going on with the freeway well and we still in my opinion need to have a way to provide water during a disaster to the east side of our community. So while it may not be a need to have a standing ad hoc committee there's still in my opinion maybe needs to have discussions about it. I think that's fine and if the need arises we can always reconstitute the ad hoc committee. Director's report. Director Walton. I do have a few comments. One I just want to acknowledge that I've been given a great opportunity here to serve as the interim director for the next two months at which time Deputy Director Burke will fill in as interim director starting in the beginning of March. So just want to appreciate the opportunity. As you may recall Martin St. George provided the board with briefing regarding our reevaluation of the local limits and just wanted to appreciate you that that effort is moving forward. We have engaged in conversations with the regional board and we plan to start the formal notification process for raising some of our local limits which will be a beneficial to the city as a whole. Also an update on the sustainable groundwater management excuse me the water sustainability agency. They are holding a public meeting on January 30th from 6 o'clock until 8 o'clock at the Finley community center to provide information around their proposed fees. Additional information for that meeting can be found at Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater.org if you're interested. Again that meeting is January 30th from 6 to 8 at the Finley center. And then finally I just wanted to take a minute to recognize Mike Seamy who is our water quality supervisor. He has taken an opportunity a promotional opportunity with the city of Roseville and will be leaving the city of Santa Rosa. It will be a great loss for us. His last day will be the beginning of February. So we have him for a little bit longer. But I did want to take a minute and read something that a synopsis of something that one of his coworkers has written about him. I actually had the unique opportunity of working with Mike during the fire response and he's just an amazing individual and deserves a lot of praise. So this is written by one of his coworkers. During the Tubbs Fire, Mike showed his leadership working as part of the water department's operation center. During the early hours of the Tubbs Fire and through weeks of state emergency, Mike worked 12 hours plus shifts at the DOC and they were closer to 16 hour shifts that Mike worked. He was an integral part to the water contamination task force and was responsible for developing and leading the sampling and flushing activities throughout the burned area. The benzene issue, as we all know, is a very daunting task. And we were left with many questions such as what caused the contamination, who caused it? Is benzene the only contaminant? How big is this contamination? How can we fix it? How fast can we fix it? Mike utilized his talents and his peers and subordinates to set up systems so that we could track this massive amount of data and this massive efforts. And through his efforts, we were able to come to a very certain answer around this issue and save the city millions of dollars, which is very impressive. On top of dealing with the fire and the contamination, at the same time, Mike also had to be responsible for his regular duties protecting our water system and the quality of our water and has done so with grace and perseverance. And he's just an amazing individual. He has been with the city for 16 years and 15 of those have been with the water department. So it will be a great loss. We will miss him. And I feel fortunate that I got to work so closely with him. Thank you. Much good luck to you, Mike, in your new career. Any questions for the director? If not, we will adjourn this meeting in honor of our outgoing Board Member, Board Member Mullen.