Ahora, cuando os ayúdese al canal de Spanish, les recomiendo que os dejas el propósito audio, o por favor, o que os dejas el tradición de la español. Pablo, ¿puedes poner esto en español? Bueno, para los que recién se unen a la Reunión, Interpretación en Vivo está disponible, y los miembros o el personal que deseen escuchar en español pueden unirse al canal. Para unirse, haga clic en el icono de interpretación en las barras de herramientas de Zoom, que ahora se parece un globo terráqueo, y una vez que se una al canal de español se recomienda que apague el audio primario para que solo escuche la interpretación al español. Thank you. Good afternoon and welcome to today's city council meeting. Madam City Clerk, could you please call the roll? Yes, thank you mayor. Councilmember Schwedhelm. Here. Councilmember Sawyer. Here. Councilmember Rogers. Present. Councilmember McDonald. Here. Councilmember Fleming. Here. Vice Mayor Alvarez. Present. Mayor Rogers. At the record show that all council members are present. Great. We had no closed session today. We have no study session. We have no proclamations. So we can start today with our staff briefings. That's item number seven. Good evening Mayor Rogers and members of council. Item 7.1 COVID-19 response update. As COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations continue to decline. Sonoma County Public Health is transitioning resources to focus on vaccinations and mitigation. As well as strategically prioritizing the communities with the greatest need. Sonoma County Public Health continues to recommend getting vaccinated and getting a booster dose as soon as you are eligible. To encourage individuals of all ages to get vaccinated. The county of Sonoma has launched a Vaxvid video contest. Sonoma County students in grades 6 through 12 are eligible to create a 30 to 60 second video that addresses the benefits of vaccines. The first place video will earn $1500 and entries must be received by May the 9th. More information is available at SoCoEmergency.org. More information about local response to COVID-19, vaccinations and testing are available at SoCoEmergency.org. Thank you. Thank you Madam City Manager. Do we have any questions on the staff briefing tonight? Let's go ahead and see if we have any public comment on it. If you are interested in providing public comment on this item or any others. Good night. Go ahead and hit the raise hand feature on your Zoom when we get to that item. May I am seeing no hands raised via Zoom. Okay. We'll go on then to our City Manager and City Attorney reports. Madam City Attorney. Thank you Mr. Mayor. I have no report for this evening. Thank you. And Madam City Manager. Alright thank you. So I have a couple items to share with you this evening. Bueno. We are having a discussion with the City of Santa Rosa Housing and Housing Authority. We have discussions with residents including community rooms and exercise facilities. The project is supported by 8 project-based vouchers from the City of Santa Rosa Housing Authority, as well as a density bonus agreement that restricts 8 units to rents that are affordable to very low income household. de la generación de un fue reconocida por sus esfuerzos en investigaciones en control, y como detectador del año pasado, que desmanaló varias empresas criminales. Un par de ejemplos de detector Guller, servido en 2021, incluyó docentes de investigaciones llevando a la caída de varias armas de fuego, incluyendo goscones y armas automáticas, y narcotics en las calles. Durante una investigación de seis meses, en un caso de abuso de la edad, se recuperó $200,000 por la víctima. Detectivo Guller es una detectiva en el equipo de los crimes de propiedades, en el que él está proactivo en todas las empresas criminales y positivos con nuestra comunidad. Su dedicación a nuestra comunidad es reflectiva de la visión de los departamentos para ser el estándar de excelencia y servicio. Detectivo Guller será honrado por el Club de Existencia de Santa Rosa en junio. Así que congratulations. Mi última noticia es de la transportación y los trabajos públicos. Así que hoy la ciudad recibe algunas noticias excitantes, CalTrans y la asociación Federal de la fundación ha aprobado $4.75 millones en la fundación para reparar los trabajos públicos que han afectado a los trabajos públicos en 2017. La aprobación de la fundación permite a la ciudad mover la fase de diseño para reparar los trabajos públicos que han afectado a los trabajos públicos. Fountain Grove Parkway de Mandesino Avenue a la ruta de Hadley Hill Drive South. La trámita de la trámita es una combinación de comida para el recorrido y el recorrido. Hopper Avenue de Cresview Drive a Airway Drive. La trámita es el recorrido y el recorrido. Y Bicentennial Way de Mandesino Avenue a La Ruta de Hadley Hill Drive. Y la trámita también es el recorrido y el recorrido. Esta aprobación viene después de la transportación y el equipo de los trabajos públicos Tim Huller, para su reconocimiento, y un gran felicidad a nuestro equipo de transportación. Y a todos los colegios y oficinas de la ciudad, que sé que han estado trabajando delijamente en los proyectos de la ruta. Es un buen trabajo para el equipo. Vamos a ir a un comentario público y ver si tenemos las manos para este item. Número, vamos a seguir con las propiedades de abstentación de los miembros de la ciudad. ¿Hay alguien que tiene que abstainar de los miembros de la agenda de esta noche? Bueno, vamos a seguir. ¿Mierda y miembros de la ciudad reportan? ¿Quién quiere empezar? ¿Mierda y miembros de la ciudad? Me gustaría reportar que en el 4 de la ruta de Mendesino y Hadley Road, y la ruta de Bicentennial La Parque de la Ruta de la Ruta, vamos a estar recibiendo los reparos de la ruta. Pero, bueno, eso es muy serio. Pero en una nota sincero, en el mes de la historia de las mujeres de marzo, ha sido 102 años desde que las mujeres secuera el derecho a votar. Y he tenido el gran placer presentar a la Comisión de Status de las Miembros, y a la Santa Rosa Democrática con mis mejores colegas, Natalie y Diana. Y quiero recordar a todos los grandes servicios que las mujeres permiten, bueno, permiten la humanidad y otras cosas, y que les encarga a las personas a ver, ¿Tenemos recordaciones de esos videos? Probablemente no, pero hay mucha más información ahí, y voy a poner algo en mis redes sociales. Gracias. Gracias, consejero. ¿Alguna de otras noticias? Consejero Rodgers. Así que, podré atender el Clube Rotario de Santa Rosa Public Health Awards en marzo 16 con Vice Mayor Alvarez y la consejera McDonald. Y también podré completar mi inspección de desgracia con la ciudad de Santa Rosa, que he encontrado muy fácil. En un proceso muy precioso. Así que, si alguien no lo ha visto en el desgracia de la cacha, me recomiendo que lo haga, porque es muy fácil, y mi barco parece genial. Así que, creo que es un programa maravilloso para tomar parte, y nos ayuda a salvar agua. No has visto, no ha visto la cacha o la tienda, y no lo has visto en la ciudad, y no he visto nada, y no he visto nada. Pero, si usted le würda esto, estamos muy näcidas. Y me ha platicado mucho el huower. No puedo apreciar el cuervo, porque pero si no lo he visto, y otros lindos talentosos para observar las tradiciones de la comunidad chinesa, y fue muy mágico, me disfruté mucho. Y también el abogado de la La Fondita, que estoy segura del vicepresidente, te diré un poco más sobre eso, porque fue un momento histórico también, y muy orgulloso de tenerlos en la ciudad de Santa Rosa. Y también en el sábado, pudimos venir a la ciudad de la caja y intentar que el cariño patrullero de Mary Lou Lowrider se revelara, y yo estaba capaz de ir en el cariño patrullero, y eso fue muy divertido, y para ver la comunidad lindó cuando se vio el cariño patrullero por la ciudad de Santa Rosa, fue muy genial. Así que estoy muy feliz de ver que el cariño es completo, y que tendremos que ir a muchas funciones, y ver a los niños, y ver cómo su face es linda. Y para mí, eso fue un sentido de comunidad, y me gustó mucho, y me hizo mi corazón realmente sentir, como, desgraciada, con ver a todos ahí, y me gustaría dar un gran saludo a nuestra comunidad de engagement para todo el trabajo que pusieron para obtener ese evento, de la forma que fue, fue muy genial. Y, finalmente, un par de reconocimientos, marzo 18, es el día de apreciación transitaria, así que me gustaría agradecer a los colegios de la Santa Rosa transitaria y sus apoyos. Ellos son realmente geniales, y nos agradecemos por tu dedicación y servicio a nuestra comunidad. Me gustaría también agradecer a Jordan B y Robert A, juntos, viajamos varias veces, con ninguna organización o grupo, agregando tráfico, cegos, y, francamente, nada que no se despliega en nuestros puestos de agua, y es gente como Jordan y Robert que hacen Santa Rosa un lugar mejor para vivir. Tenemos un amor compartido para nuestra comunidad y la visión para una Santa Rosa mejor, pero para ir a un paso más allá, ellos han botho mostrado el colegio para llevar actividad con ese amor compartido, y así no que quiera ninguna reconocimiento, pero pensé que se podía agradecer por su servicio a nuestra comunidad. Y, finalmente, porque sé que el presidente está esperando por mí para arreglarla, pero estoy esperando por 7 o 9. Frida, April 22, es el día de ayer, y no puedo esperar para colaborar con Jordan, Robert, y otros grupos de comunidad para ver cómo podemos hacer una diferencia en nuestra comunidad, y espero que no sea solo el día de ayer, pero si podemos tener algunos proyectos on-going, que podemos continuar haciendo en nuestra comunidad, porque tenemos que continuar con el tráfico y otras cosas diferentes. Cuando veamos, sé que hay trabajos para hacerlo, pero creo que es todo nuestro trabajo. En una hora o una semana, si todo lo hicimos, creo que sería un gran impacto. Así que eso incluye mi recorrido. Gracias mucho. Gracias, presidente. Presidente de McDonald. Gracias. Aseguro de atender los awardes de salud, junto con el presidente Rogers y Álvaro, y eso fue enviado por el club de San Rosa de Roderí, y quiero un saludo a ellos. Internacionalmente, trabajan para eradicar polio, y eso es algo que es muy importante, porque la organización que llegué también ha trabajado muy difícil para implementar las vacunaciones de polio en las escuelas. Estos eran los inicios de eso a través de la PTA, y yo tenía amigas que pasaron de polio. Así que un saludo a Roderí para lo que hacen. Soy un speaker en el Valle de la Moon Roderí Club en San Patrick's Day, así que gracias a ellos por invitarme a venir y hablar de lo que estamos haciendo aquí en el Valle de la Moon. Y, además de mis colegas, fue el speaker para apoyar la historia de las mujeres al mes de San Rosa de la Club de Democráticos, y quiero agradecerles por hostear eso, y tener una gran salida, después de dos años, fue su primera reunión en persona. Y así, gracias por tenernos. Gracias, presidente. Presidente de la PTA. Gracias, señor presidente. Solo quiero reportar un par de mesos en los 22. He attendido y he tenido un rol de la reunión en el Valle de la Moon Groundwater Sustainability Agency Rate in Fee Study Community Meeting. Es virtual, pero bien más de 100 personas participaron, y en excesso de 200 preguntas fueron preguntadas. Y quiero apreciar a algunos de los staff de San Rosa de la Moon que ayudaron a responder algunas de esas preguntas. Es interesante que no hay muchas preguntas sobre el fee, pero hay muchas preguntas en los comentarios sobre la displejación sobre las necesidades de SIGMA, que fue una pasada de la PTA, y creo que fue 2014. Algunas de las áreas de preocupación, la expansión de cannabis creó, y esto es a través de la base, y así que un montón de estas no son particulares de la ciudad de Santa Rosa. También muchos miembros comentaron el aumento en el número de casas que están construidas. Hay mucha información sobre SIGMA y el Plan de Sustainabilidad de la Moon. Si alguien quiere leer más, por favor, vámonos al Plan de Sustainabilidad de Santa Rosa de la Moon. La página web de la asociación, donde el documento está ahí, y probablemente tiene 5 a 600 páginas. El Board estará reuniendo, de nuevo, en el 14 de abril, y luego la próxima reunión comunitaria, que tendrán que estar en persona, estará en el 27 de abril en un lugar para ser determinado. En el siguiente día, en el 23 de abril, la Continuación de Cabeza ha salido de la reunión regular, donde nos invitamos a los miembros de la nueva elección. Quiero hacer un punto, ahora tenemos 17 miembros en la Continuación de Cabeza. En la próxima reunión, yo empezó en esto en 2017, 2016, tuvimos 0 miembros de ciudad en un luego 15 miembros del Board, con su nuevo cuerpo. Hay 7 miembros asociados con ciudades en el Board, así que una gran extensión de eso, y es muy bueno ver a otras ciudades activamente involucrarse en eliminar la homelessness en Sonoma. Algunas de las otras notaciones que hablamos sobre el plan estratégico, y me impresionó que nuestros consultores, o las estrategias de concentración, participaron. Se escucharon ver lo que la Continuación de Cabeza está haciendo con nuestro plan estratégico. Ahora, con el plan de colegio de la COC, los estadounidenses están siendo entrevistados por la base de casa, y el desarrollo continuará en junio. También recibimos una notación de la necesidad de la acción de tres acciones, y como creo que mencioné antes, la Continuación de Cabeza va a estar en acceso a $4 millones, como el de la COC. Y lo que es diferente para esta ronda es que estamos actualmente claveando muy cerca. Estamos haciendo una aplicación jointa. Vamos a ver, y algunas de las acciones de la COC han sido identificadas por el estado, así que es un poco diferente también. Pero, de nuevo, creo que los objetivos que el estado ha enviado en el templo, estoy seguro que va a ser consistente con lo que vamos a estar haciendo con nuestro plan estratégico. Una otra cosa para tener en cuenta, si se puede leer en el papel, las ciencias del Congreso están cerradas, y ahora la COC está tratando de encontrar locaciones para todos esos personas. Si estés interesado, el hotel Astro en la ciudad de Santa Rosa ha sido un ciencias del Congreso, no es más uno de esos ciencias. Así que más notaciones sobre eso. Muchas gracias, señor presidente. Bueno, has escuchado un poco de los reportes que hemos estado activados en la comunidad, así que voy a simplemente tocarles a cada uno de ellos briefly. El primero fue, en realidad, el evento de la rota, donde estamos atendidos por el Centro de Episcopal. Eso fue un gran evento. Y lo que me impresionó, no solo fue los esfuerzos que están colocados en los problemas del mundo, sino también los problemas aquí en casa. Y tienen una barra en el lado de la casa que lee las cuatro de las rotas. Y quiero repetirlo para nosotros si pudiera. El primero es la verdad. El segundo, ¿es falso para todos los que están preocupados? El tercer, ¿verdad a construir un buen río y mejores friendships? Y, por lo menos, ¿será beneficioso para todos los que están preocupados? Y creo que esas son las buenas truths que podemos definir. En el segundo, ¿por qué hay que experimentar los tuscos al espacio? En el segundo, ¿por qué los que están preocupados por los problemas importantes? Por lo menos, y en el segundo y en lo que están muy curiosos, ¿por qué hay que experimentar? Porque todo lo que están haciendo, sobre todo, es mixed up de lo que están haciendo, es un tono, como se puede decir, más importante de lo que ha estado haciendo, en la comunidad roda que pat´en V watch television afternoon, örgvo elbul Light y en la y y en el ya en logror y h y con un y y de continúa ser al diálogo que nos da para que la gente esté en Barcelona. Tengo el minuto de 11 de de el mes en el City Hall. Pero quiero que las folgas fuesen que me siento apoyados por mis amigos, me siento apoyados por mi ciudad Y quiero que el mundo que tahu mi objetivo de realizar el 그리고 para que el poder local se podrá mejorar las trabaje se trató trabajar vi que era un chico y no pasaba nada, pero creo que estaba en un momento yess pero, en ese momento. Meりas lo que es haciéndose un chico voy. Una ama la menina deera ceféis es una no hétero y me dann. Con el fin de los primeros en lacile. de todos los que están en la ciudad y nosotros todos los que han pasado en sábado en la ciudad y hablamos de cómo podemos llevar a la comunidad y recuerdo sus palabras, ¿cómo podemos durar eso? ¿Cómo podemos hacer esto y luego y luego así 64 24 para esos efforts en elinned nuestra comunidad y lo que uno puede pumpkin que no puede pelear y al pivotario coleccionario. de la siguiente semana. Nuestro Psichen de otros candidatos. Queremos que de los que veo tonto de los que están aquí, lorez. pero eso irá a publicar un comentario de los mayores y el delito. Si estás interesado en dar un comentario, puedes entrar en el podium o puedes activar la gravedad de la mano por tu zoom. No lo see, pensamos que continuamos con nuestra agenda. Tenemos un set de minutos desde el 15 de febrero para el approval. ¿Dónde hay amenazas en estos minutos para los miembros del delito? por el prenso. infundad del völlig a la información le hizo el señor Jiménez. modular Santo Yepá de el señor Jiménez. mayor y p after item 14.1, se la opción para que el pide a los correctores que están en el número 1 de las minutas. Votan si ha tocado de votar en eso también y con esos correctores, los minutos pueden ser aprobados como correctos. ¿Otra que otros amigas? Vamos al publico. Si hay cambios de la publica, good afternoon, Mayor, Council members. Jason Nutt, the assistant city manager, I'll be stepping in for city manager Smith for the course of the consent items, and then we'll hand it back to her. We have 11 consent items. If I may. Thanks, I just wanted to explain City Manager Smith has stepped out. I will also now be stepping out as there are two items on the consent calendar. 걱esiones. El más importante thrilled que ha hecho es el sesi. Lo que seule dice que tiene que ser un chico. He pasado por el grey se es un chico y el el chico es un chico. El chico es un chico para 16 0 8 11. Second amendment to IPS group incorporated for single space parking meter services and supplies. Item 12.2 a resolution professional services agreement with terrorists Barnes, Walters, Boyngan, Health Lester Incorporated or Heath Lester Incorporated for public safety special tax outreach. Item 12.3 resolution amendment secretary deficientes con computational río Geotrauma y la museums de porfa Grand Agreements, the portal 12.7. 13146.2 y 13146.3 de la calafonia y el cdc para el calendario 2021. 12.7. Resolución de los tiros de teleconferencia de la unidad de todo el odio de comisiones y extensión de proclamación de existencia de una emergencia local relacionada con el riesgo de la salud hospitalaria. 12.10, Resolución, Agendamiento número 1, de los Aguilinos de la Comisión de Manegría y Introducir una ordenada para aumentar la compensación del agüilino de la Comisión de Manegría, por dar la efectiva, April 10, 2022, una costa de costa de living salary adjustment and $500 annually for wellness. Item 12.11, Adoption Ordinance, ordinance of the city council of the city of Santa Rosa increasing the compensation of the city attorney to provide one, a 3% cost of living salary adjustment effective November 7th, 2021, two, a 2.5 cost of living salary adjustment effective April 10th, 2022, and three, a one-time non-pensionable lump sum payment of $5,000 and $500 annually for wellness. Councilor, do we have any questions on the consent calendar? We'll go to public comment and see if you have comments on items 12.1 through 12.11.  I see one hand. Let's go to Kathleen. I think we'll go on there. Good afternoon, everyone. This is Kathleen Finnegan. And I want to address question of 12.3. And I want to say, first of all, that I'm very pleased that after all this time, we're going to have a policy for extreme cold emergency storm on housed people. It's desperately needed. I think that's perfectly obvious. However, I see some flaws that will virtually wipe out the good intention here. The starters, the new parameters for calling an emergency are unrealistic. Three consecutive overnight lows forecast below freezing, or three consecutive nights forecasting rain with major or extreme risk levels. Last December in that freeze, Mayor Rogers told me the existing protocol for extreme cold was three consecutive nights with low cast, lows forecast at 35 or colder, or even just one night forecast below freezing. I think these are absolutely essential to restore in this program and add in the rain protocol with it because if you want to try out sleeping at 35 degrees at night, hang out with a cheap sleeping bag and a tent and a couple of flimsy blankets and then think about how you're going to feel about it. Let me tell you, you're not going to be happy.   So I'm suggesting again, these original criteria would be reinstated with the rain addition. I'd like assurance also that if the $15,000 being held for Catholic Charities in contingency of another event in this fiscal year, if it doesn't, we don't have another one.  And I also want to look at $15,000 per event that Catholic Charities has charged the city of December and in February. I believe that's an exorbitant figure for some outdoor pop-up tents, chairs, and radiant heaters.  So in any case, the fact of the matter is, people need a warm and closed outside or inside space lift costs to rest on for heaven's sakes. So, you know, we're looking at human beings being ignored systematically and treated like some sort of unworthy underclass We know that that's always set up in a heartbeat of tough fire victims. Why wasn't this available to homeless people in their emergency? So I don't want to hear any more talk about great, great equity stuff. I want to just challenge all lawmakers and government 1000, sorry, government housing authority. Thank you, Kathleen. Please. I don't see any other hands. Do we have any pre-recorded voicemails? We do not, Mayor. OK, I'll bring it back. Jason, there was a question there about how did we come up with the criteria for the warming centers? So if if Kelly Kaikendall is on, if not, I'm happy to chime in. Just promoted Kelly. Thank you. I'm here, Jason, give me just one minute. OK, I'm making sure you can all hear me. So we didn't have an existing policy for a warming center in place. We did look at two existing policies that the city has for cooling centers during extreme weather heat waves and then also for public, the PSPS, the public safety power shutoffs. And our fire department also reached out to several other communities to see what policies that they have in place. And we developed our policy based on that research and city staff meeting internally to develop the policy. And, Mayor, if I could add in the $15,000 per event was an actual cost that we derived working with Catholic Charities through the first two events. We made efforts to track and log all of those costs so that we knew when we came to prepare the ask to council that we had a number that we felt confident would do the job that was necessary if we were to stand these events up again. It is some of that is that startup costs, the cost of the heaters were after the event we store the heaters and then can use them again. Presumably, it should be a little bit less than the startup. Kelly, do you want to take that or? And I'm fine with budgeting the total amounts. Make sure we budget enough. But the assumption is that it would be a little bit less. So one of the biggest costs was private security to staff the warming center overnight. We stood in December, we stood this up very quickly in about 36 hours in response to the temperatures. And Catholic Charities did not have the staff at that time, largely due to COVID to staff it. So we did hire private security with the first activation of the warming center and the second activation. I'm still waiting on those costs. We did use private security for the second activation of staff and private security for both activations, but private security was the largest cost. And, Mayor, from the materials standpoint, Public Works had worked with Catholic Charities to provide the propane and some of the materials for that event. As you said, the capital cost is a one time and that, I believe, was covered by Public Works and Catholic Charities incorporated into their estimate just their cost of service and the contract associated with public safety. So I don't believe the 15,000 includes the one time startup cost when we initiated this back in December. Great. Thank you. Are there any other questions from council? Let's go ahead and put a motion on the table and then we'll do some comments. Thank you, Mayor. I move items 12.1 through 12.11 and wave further reading of the text. Second. I've got a motion from the vice mayor and a second from Council Member Sawyer. Council Member Rodgers. I was just going to say that I do believe that it's a large amount of money for not a lot of days. And I know that we were working under time constraints. So I'm very happy that we were able to provide a service that was needed. But I'm hoping that we can re-evaluate and look and come up with maybe a better plan for next year if there is a better plan because that is a lot of money for not very many days and not a lot of people that were served. So I would like to increase the number of people that are served, whether that I don't know how we get the word out to let people know that they can come or ask people maybe why they didn't come to get feedback or I don't really know how we would do that. But I would be interested because it was very cold and I would have like to see more people have used the site. So that would be my feedback. All right. Thank you, councilmember. Councilmember McDonald. Apologize, I went back and I did have a question, but it's actually under a different number. If you don't mind me doing that and that's an order under 12.4 under the professional services agreement for us to look at the solar that's needed. I just want to clarify. Is there also an ROI that's included in this as part of this contract so that we actually would have an understanding of the return on investment for doing solar to offset general fund. Thank you, councilmember McDonald. If we could promote Doug Williams, he can provide you with that answer. I can also support as needed. And you can hear me. Yes. Can you see me all right? No, you don't have video on Doug. We go. OK, there we go. Mayor Rogers, councilmember. So the question was was it a request for information? So basically we had a a council item for an energy audit that was approved in December of 2020. We brought that audit on the information to the Climate Action Subcommittee and we needed some more information that wasn't provided in the original audit. And so we went back to a ecom that did the energy audit and we asked them to help us with a business plan. So basically that's what the consultant is going to do for us is create a business plan. They're going to be able to have some drawings for some PV solar. And then we're also the consultants also going to look for funding opportunities because with everything solar, there's a lot of private businesses that help municipalities to get these systems up. And so that's the reason why we wanted the amendment. And I'm not sure if I answered your question. And if I didn't, please let me know. Councilmember, if I could just add, yes, the study will identify a return on investments and so we'll try to talk about the payoff time if we were to lease or public power purchase agreement or some other type of a financing mechanism. With that said, the consultant is going to give us an estimate on that ROI. Ultimately, we will get firm and we'll get a firm number when we go out and actually hire the consultant or the contractor to do the installation because they're going to have to give us a firm price. So we'll get a snapshot as a part of this and it'll be a good estimate, but we will wait for a permanent return on investment at the time we do the investment itself. Thank you. Any other comments? OK. Mr. Vice Mayor, thank you. Mayor, sorry about the late notice on that comment in regards to the extreme weather warming center policy, how are we informing our transient residents that there is a policy where three consecutive consecutive days of 32 degrees or under or three days of rain? What efforts are being done? I'd like to invite Kelly back. Thank you for the question. So this is a new policy. We just are implementing. And so in terms of getting the word out about opening a warming center, you know, we push that out through our communications team on the city's website in various social media outlets and then also through our outreach team, homeless outreach services team, which is a program of the Calcutaries and then in terms of sharing that we have a warming policy moving forward. Like I said, it's just been recently approved by the city manager's office and we can get that information out to the community now. There has been some interest about the policy and we have started to share it, but we can certainly share it more broadly. Thank you, Kelly. House Member McDonald. Under Item 12.6, I just wanted to do a quick shout out to our fire marshals as well as the fire department for doing 100% of all inspections that can be no easy task. And so I'm sure it's trying consuming and lucky me, I was actually at a place of business this morning when a fire alarm check went off, so I do know that they're out there doing them and just want to say thanks for all their hard work on that. Under Item 12.6, 100% is an A plus, so well done. All right, let's go ahead and call the vote. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Schwedhelm. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Rodgers. Aye. Council Member McDonald. Aye. Council Member Fleming. Aye. Vice Mayor Alvarez. Aye. Mayor Rodgers. Aye. That motion passes with seven ayes. Thank you. We'll move on. Well, we get our city attorney and city managers back. It is not yet five o'clock, so we'll bypass our first public comment period. We'll come back to it. And for now we'll go on to Item 14.1. Mayor, I'll go ahead and introduce us while we wait for City Manager Smith to return. Item 14.1 is a report item Sonoma County Water Agency 2022-23, Water Transmission Budget and Rate Increase. Jennifer Burke will be presenting with Jake Spalding. Sorry about that. Thank you Mayor Rodgers and Council Members. We actually are presenting Kimberly Zanino, our Deputy Director of Water Administration, is kicking this off. And then we will be having Lynn Roselli, the Administrative Services Division Manager for Sonoma Water, making this presentation. So I'm gonna go ahead and hand it over to Kimberly. All right, good afternoon Mayor Rodgers and Members of the Council. I'm here just to introduce Lynn Roselli from Sonoma Water who will present the proposed Sonoma Water Transmission System Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-23. Before she begins, I will just give you a brief overview of the process. There are multiple steps that are taken prior to Sonoma Water's request for approval to their Board of Directors. There is a subcommittee that reviews the budget and then provides a recommendation to the Technical Advisory Committee or the TAC as it's called. And then the TAC votes to recommend to the Water Advisory Committee or the WAC. In addition, the budget comes through for the BPU and City Council to recommend and direct city, the city's representative on the WAC, how to vote on the recommendation to Sonoma Water's Board. The TAC subcommittee and the TAC have both voted for recommendation as well as the Board of Public Utilities at this point. I put all this information out just to let you know that all of the steps up to this point are all recommendations only. The approval and adoption of the budget and the rate increase are at the discretion of Sonoma Water's Board of Directors. So before handing it over, I would like to say that staff appreciated all the work that was done by Sonoma Water to reduce the proposed rate increase with costs increasing for all of us, and Sonoma Water's revenue being a fully volumetric rate. The continued drought creates less revenue to cover expenditures and that is reflected in the rate increase. We do want to point out or recognize that they spent a significant amount of time looking for solutions to make reductions. And now I will hand it over to Lynn Rizali to provide you with details for the budget for this coming fiscal year. And then at the end, I will give you a brief update on the effects to our customers and provide a request for recommendation. Thank you, Kimberly. Good evening, Council members. Lynn Rizali, Administrative Services Division Manager to present the fiscal year 22-23 proposed budget and rates for the water transmission system. Next slide, please. So the budget is prepared on three aqueducts and the contractors on that aqueduct pay the budget and rates for that aqueduct. The city of Santa Rosa is on the Santa Rosa aqueduct, so they pay the budget and rates associated with that. The Santa Rosa aqueduct is that purple line in the upper part of the figure there. Next slide. And as Kimberly Zunino mentioned, we engaged in a transparent and collaborative process that begins in January and goes until the board of directors. We bring it before the board of directors on April 19th this year. And we want to thank Kimberly Zunino and Jennifer Burke for their participation in the subcommittee that reviews our budget and provides input. And we take it to heart and we do our best to come up with budget and rates that work on both sides for both the water contractors and Sonoma water. Next slide, please. So the budget includes multiple water transmission system activities and funds. Those activities and funds are shown here and we're going to go through and just discuss the budget for each one of these items. Next slide, please. So right now we're gonna start with the capital projects budget and that is 3.2 million. It's budgeted for hazard mitigation projects to increase the resiliency of our aqueducts and other infrastructure and to reduce the risk of failure during an earthquake or flood event. The top three projects are under construction now will be under construction next fiscal year and they all have offsetting grant funding from FEMA and the budget for these hazard mitigation projects for next year is 3.2 million. Next slide, please. And then we have 10.1 million in other capital projects to build water supply resiliency and to shore up our infrastructure just want to point out that we have a couple of well rehab projects, production well rehab projects that will be converted to aquifer storage and recovery projects. These are very critical for the purposes of the drought to provide increased water supply to the water contractors. There is grant funding offsetting these projects as well. So there are savings for the water contractors. So the total capital projects budget including the mitigation projects is 13.3 million. Next slide, please. So we have a budget of 38.7 million for operations and maintenance and the focus really is on maintaining aging infrastructure, catching up on deferred maintenance and both on the side of just tank recotes, cathodic protection and also doing studies to help inform future improvements and also help us prepare to get more grant funding for various projects and to build water supply resiliency and focus on hazard mitigation and improving and upgrading our infrastructure. Next slide, please. And then we have 13.9 million that will go to the biological opinion project primarily the Dry Creek Habitat Enhancement Project. Mile four would begin construction this summer. The core is providing a 65% cost share, major savings to the water contractors and the other part of this 13.9 million is also a very robust water conservation program working collaboratively with the water contractors in the saving water partnership to really roll out a very strong water use efficiency and water conservation message. This summer we also have grant funding that will help support water use efficiency projects going forward. Next slide, please. So our total budget is 71.83 million with 15.31 million in offsetting grants, fund balance and bond proceeds. Operations and maintenance is increasing to address the major aging infrastructure improvements. The tank recotes, cathodic protection, capital projects is for the hazard mitigation projects and the well projects. Biological opinion compliance is for Dry Creek Habitat Enhancement and then water use efficiency for the grant funded program and additional messaging during the drought. And then we're issuing 15 million in bonds to cover all the capital projects costs. Next slide, please. And this slide shows the allocation of the budget according to the different functions and operations and maintenance makes up the majority and it is funded primarily by rates. Grant funding is usually not eligible for operations and maintenance, routine operations and maintenance projects and the restructured agreement does not envision loans or bonds for operations and maintenance projects. And so, but we do have 15.31 million in offsetting bonds, grants and fund balance to help offset the costs and you can see the distribution of costs to these other functions. Next slide, please. And so this slide is an example of how the rate is calculated based on the total budget and this is prescribed by the restructured agreement for water supply and it takes the cost of operations and maintenance or the revenue requirement and divides by the quantity of water sold to get the cost of water per acre foot. As Kimberly Zunino mentioned, it is a fully volumetric rate. Go ahead and click. You can click, go ahead and click four times and to get to the cost of water and the quantity of water sold has to be the lesser of the three year annual average or the 12 months of water deliveries, whichever is less. The three year annual average is slightly less and that is the amount that is used in this calculation for the budget for next fiscal year. And the main point of this slide is just to point out that the quantity of water is in the denominator. The denominator, if it is lower, lower deliveries, the cost of water is going to be more. So it is, it puts pressure on the budget when we have lower deliveries, when we have a drought, that kind of situation. Next slide, please. There we go, so it's $1,000 per acre foot is how we get the math. Thank you. Next slide. So we did, as Kimberly Zunino mentioned, we implemented a number of measures to bring the rate increase down from where we began at 9.99% to 6.84%. We decreased O&M costs, spread them out over a couple of years. We ended up dropping off a couple of projects off of the priority list. We increased the use of fund balance. We're selling 15 million in revenue bonds and we're using 4.9 million in offsetting grant revenue. And then the water contractors were able to further reduce their rate increases because there is a discretionary capital charge, aqueduct capital charge, that is a charge that the water contractor set that builds fund balance for future projects, capital projects on the aqueducts. And it also acts as a rate stabilization tool. And so the water contractors on the Santa Rosa aqueduct agreed to drop the increase down to 6.06% in that way. And now our cost per gallon is 0.003 dollars. Next slide please. And so the proposed rates for fiscal year 22, 23 for the Santa Rosa aqueduct is $1,061.04 represents an overall rate increase of 6.06%. This is based on water deliveries of 45,748 acre feet, which are the water deliveries of all the water contractors combined. And you can see that discretionary charge there about three quarters of the way down the page that $11 that is the charge that the water contractors were able to drop from $20 down to $11 to bring the rate increase down to 6.06%. Next slide. And we show this particular slide to give you an idea of what other wholesale water contractors in the Bay Area have in terms of their wholesale water rates. Sonoma water is on the far left, has the lowest rate. And we continue to work with the water contractors closely to address rate increases. But many of these wholesale water contractors have rate increases north of 7% and we're at 6%. They may be having, you know, they have some large, some of these other water contractors have water wholesalers have some very large projects, but nonetheless have much deeper rate increases. Next slide, please. And so our next steps are, well, we had the technical advisory committee vote on March 7th and it was a unanimous vote to recommend that this budget and rates be moved forward to the water advisory committee vote on April 4th. And then our board would adopt this rate increase on April 19th. And with that, I pass it back to Kimberly. Next slide, please. We just wanted to let you know that water charges are increasing by 3% based on the previously approved rate schedule. So for 2021, July of 2021, you'll see there are customers who will see a 3% rate increase on water charges. When the last rate schedule was approved, we removed the wholesale rate that passed through to the customers. We did this so that our customers could have better planning tools, not have two increases a year and be able to know in advance what their actual rate increase was going to be for the entire year. Where before with the pass through, they would not always know exactly how much it was going to be until we got done with this process. The good news with that is that there is no impact to our customers or the current rate schedule. I will also let you know that we did do a long range financial plan in Santa Rosa water and that's a 10 year model that we're looking at. And in that model, we actually included increases for our wholesale rate at 6% knowing that at times, the rate increases could be higher. And so it also is not affecting our long term look for the finances for Santa Rosa water. And then next slide. All right, so with that, I will put out the recommendation which is that Santa Rosa water and the Board of Public Utilities recommends the city council consider Sonoma Water's budget and proposed water rate increase and by motion make a recommendation regarding the city council's direction to its water advisory committee or WAC representative for the WAC vote on April 4th, 2022. And both Lynn and I are here now to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you very much for your presentation. Mayor, I appreciate the opportunity to take the helm on this one. Council, do we have any questions? Seeing that there are no questions, let's go ahead and open the item 14.1 for public comment. If you wish to make a comment, you can either raise your hand via Zoom, start nine via telephone, or if anyone here in the public would like to make comment, I see none. Do we have any comments being Zoom? Vice mayor, I'm seeing no hands being raised and we did not receive any advanced public comment for this item. Thank you. Let's go ahead and bring that back to council. Any comments or questions that we may have? Seeing none. I believe this is council member of Fleming's item. If you would like to present a motion. I'll move forward the recommendation put forth by staff. Do we have a second? Second. Moved by council member Fleming, seconded by council member Rogers. Let's go ahead and take a vote on the item 14.1. Council member Schwedhelm. I, and I do want to just apply the technical advisory committee going from a 9.99 to 6.84, and every year it seems like they go through that, but I really do appreciate the technical expertise that they bring to get these rates dropped to what we're approving, or maybe approving today, so thank you. Okay, council member Sawyer. I think I would echo those comments and I remember the days of 9% increases every year, and so it's really nice to see these more reasonable increases and leveling of those increases, so good work. Is your vote aye? And it's aye. Forgot that part. Council member Rogers. I would also like to thank the tech board and that would be an aye. Council member McDonald. I would like to thank staff for the report itself. This was quite a confusing item to me, so I really appreciate the thorough job of explaining it to council from a new council's perspective, and that's an aye. Thank you, council member Fleming. Thank you, my vote will be aye, and the thing that I'm always pleased about, while nobody likes increases, what our staff has done a really great job of and the technical advisory committee has done a good job of is making sure that the increases are consistent.  I think it's easier for people to plan when they know that it's gonna be somewhat predictable and that predictability gives stability to our businesses and our residents, so thank you. Vice Mayor Alvarez. I will also be voting aye, and I do also wanna echo the comments made by my colleagues in regards to the long range forecasting, looking forward a decade to make sure that our residents can properly prepare for any increase should that happen, and I know we saw a little bit of rain in the last few days, let us keep hoping for more. And Mayor Rogers. Aye. Okay, that motion passes with seven ayes. All right, thank you so much. I'll take the gavel back and we'll jump back to item 13, that's public comment for non-agenda items. If you have a comment on something that falls within the city's jurisdiction, but is not on today's agenda, go ahead, hit the raise hand feature on your Zoom. We'll start here in the chambers. Good evening Mayor Rogers and City Council members. My name is Dan Gro, and my wife and I and our family are residents of the Woodside Hills area in Santa Rosa, and we're here to talk about short term rentals. Our homeowners association prohibits short term rentals, although we have several of them. And what I'm about to talk about are some events that have happened throughout the city of Santa Rosa and have happened in our neighborhood. And it's just not one or two events in our neighborhood, it's a dozen events. And I'd ask you to think about this. How would you feel if it happened in your neighborhood and what would you do about it?  When you try to explain to them that you are not a VRBO or an Airbnb and you don't know what they're talking about, they get really upset and say you're scamming us, we've got your address when we rented this property. Finally, the homeowners say it's across the street and the people leave. Next event. It's evening and a giant school bus, the size, excuse me, a giant wine bus, the size of a school bus pulls up next to you and a whole mess of people get up and walk into their short term rental and start to party outside nice and loud. This happened to me. So I walked over to the bus driver and said how many people just got off your bus? And he said all about 20 some. And he said, boy, are they in a party mood. So big loud party, screaming and yelling, noise outside, cursing, cursing, cursing and what are you gonna do about it? What are you gonna do about it? So the next day I said I'm gonna do something about it. So I walk up and talk to one of the guests and I said, could you keep it down after 10 o'clock at night? No, the cursing and the loud drinking and all this kind of stuff. And she said to me, oh, I can't keep it down after 10 o'clock at night. And I said, why? She said, because we don't go to bed, to midnight. What I've learned from this is we have no power whatsoever. You have the power. You need to deny permits in homeowners associations that forbid it or in best case, you need to say to yourself they've got to be hosted full time owner occupied by someone who's currently on the deed of trust. This will help keep the noise and the disturbances down. If you don't, then in essence what you have done not thinking about it, I understand, what you've done is you've just rezoned every single residential neighborhood from residents to commercial hotels. Thank you so much, Stan. Good afternoon, my name is Rick Abbott and I imagine you can guess that the subject is short term rentals. My wife Sharon and I are privileged to live in Victoria Fleming's fourth district. Mayor Rogers and members of the council, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today on the subject of short term rentals. When you passed the current urgency ordinance, we were hopeful that it would result in a significant reduction in the neighborhood nuces created by short term renters. Sadly, that has not been the case. When you consider a more permanent ordinance, we would encourage you to eliminate the de facto commercial hotels that operate under the guise of short term rentals. And to institute an effective mechanism to enforce that ordinance. Our current zoning regulations limit hotels to commercial districts. Large multi-bedroom homes converted to short term rentals have effectively become hotels. These hotels regularly attract large groups who are intent on partying. The renters often ignore the standards set forth in the urgency ordinance and have little or no consideration for the neighbors. Since October of last year, we have worked with the city staff in an attempt to rein in these commercial operations, to no avail. We implore you to limit all such hotels to the commercial zones where they belong. The permit fees generated by the urgency ordinance are approaching $300,000. That is certainly sufficient revenue to hire at least one and probably two new staff whose sole responsibility would be to manage the permitting process and enforce the short term rental ordinance. That staff member should be on call Friday and Saturday evenings to be able to investigate violations and should have the authority to immediately issue citations and fines. Only if the city takes enforcement seriously, will we reclaim the residential character and tranquility of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your support. My wife and I look forward to continuing to work with you and city staff as a permanent short term rental ordinance is developed. Thank you so much. And as I mentioned, we can't get into a back and forth on an item that wasn't agendized, but this will come back for discussion later this year before the council. Madam Deputy City Clerk, did we have any hands on Zoom? Mayor, I see no hands via Zoom. Okay, I'll go ahead and bring it back. Let's move on then to item 15.1, please. Mayor, with your permission, I play the prerecorded voice message. Absolutely. Thank you. Item 13, public comment on non-agenda matters duined with from Roseland. Recentemente, información has been made available that shows extra money has been donated for the completion of a Roseland Boys and Girls Club along Sebastopol Road on a site that has already been purchased. The city of Santa Rosa has funds available that could be utilized to help that Boys and Girls Club in this community of concern. Roseland has been a disadvantaged, overburdened and underserved community for decades. Santa Rosa has known this, it has surrounded this neighborhood and it has not really helped the Roseland neighborhood which the portrait of Sonoma County Update 2021 shows Roseland as the least served community. The community at the bottom of the list in terms of Human Development Index. Our children in Roseland need help now. The city makes plans down the road, puts money aside and says they'll do grand things elsewhere. We need your help right now in Roseland today. The city of Santa Rosa officials, you elected people, could make a difference in helping that Roseland Boys and Girls Club get built sooner and better and larger by putting forward some money to match what is given to the project by a woman by the name of Mackenzie Scott who's donated millions of dollars while others have also put money up. The city of Santa Rosa should put millions upon millions of dollars up from the American Rescue Plan Act fund coming from the federal government and help that Boys and Girls Club to be the best thing that has ever happened in the entire city. Make it a better Boys and Girls Club than the one in Montgomery Village. Put in a swimming pool there. Put all the things we need there now and get that project started now instead of waiting for the supposed ideas you have for the Bellevue district to the south one and a half miles away. Help Roseland now. Go forward, be bold. Put forward funding and the federal taxpayer funds of the American Rescue Plan Act to help Roseland Boys and Girls Club to be built as soon as possible as big and as beautiful as possible. Thank you. Mayor, that concludes public comment. All right, Madam City Manager, let's go to 15.1. Item 15.1 is a public hearing. Breed district of city council districts introduction of ordinance to adopt final map establishing new district boundaries for election of council members. Fair maps act, final public hearing. I would like to introduce our city clerk, Stephanie Williams. Thank you, Mayor and City Council members. This is our final public hearing for adoption of a district map. And I have Chris Chaffee from redistricting partners who will be making the presentation on new information that was been submitted since our last public hearing and presentation of a draft map for adoption. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Excuse me. Thank you for having me here tonight. And as your clerk introduced, this is a brief presentation on some new maps that were presented since the last meeting and then draft plan A2. So can you go to the next slide please? So one thing that we always want to do is start with the criteria that we use to draw these, each of the draft plans before you. And there criteria that are set forth in the California Fair Maps Act and they're on the slide. And the biggest one, of course, with redistricting is that every 10 years after the census comes out, we need to rebalance all district lines so that they're relatively equal in size. This is based on people, of course, not citizens and that the courts have given local jurisdictions a tool to allow for the following criteria to be introduced.  That allows for the next, roll the next four criteria. So the second criteria is that each district should be contiguous. You don't want islands of one district and another. And the third criteria, and the one that really has driven this process and driven the Fair Maps Act, this cycle is maintaining communities of interest. There's been lots of testimony, there's been numerous district or maps submitted throughout this process and we've tried our best to incorporate those communities of interest testimonies into the draft maps. The fourth criteria is looking at other jurisdictional boundaries and the fifth criteria is that districts should be compact. So we want squares and circles as much as possible without any strain, shapes or appendages. Can you go to the next slide? So this process has really been driven, as I stated before, by seeking out community of interest testimony and having the public submit draft maps. And following from those, the testimony and the draft maps, we've presented you with a series of draft plans. Next slide, please. Two maps have come forward since our last meeting and they're this slide and the next slide. This slide is a submission, it looks like of your ARPA areas because these maps came well after the draft maps have put out, we haven't really used them to, of course, draft the maps. But I think this is an interesting discussion or an interesting map that shows the ARPA areas within the city. The next, can please go to the next slide. And then this was the other map that was submitted showing community advisory areas. And it's an interesting map, but it's only five district areas. So it's a little bit, it doesn't really well apply to the city council maps. So I don't, so those are the two maps that also have come before or have been presented between now and the last council meeting. Go to the next slide. So the map for review tonight is the draft map A2 that you basically drew at the last council meeting. And I just wanna remind you of, you can go to the next slide, your existing lines. So these are your existing lines and one of the things actually you can go to the next slide is the reason that we've gone through this process beyond the fair maps act is the overall census populations of 2020 of your current lines. And you can see that you do have that 10% total deviation, but that draft district two grew faster than the rest of the city and is currently at 7.7%. Whereas district four did not grow as fast as the rest of the city. So it has a 12%, it's underpopulated by over almost 13%. So when you put those two together, you get the total deviation of your current plan and you're at 20.6%. So that's really where we started from. And go to the next slide. So map A2 is a variation of map A, which is your minimal change plan. So we took your existing lines, made as few changes to them as possible and got the deviations down to as low as we could. Following major city boundaries and looking at neighborhood lines. And then at the last council meeting, I feel good to the next slide. You can see that map A has that peninsula of district five and district seven that comes out. Yeah, exactly that's being circled by the cursor. I mean, that wasn't necessary. Oh, actually go to the next slide. I'm sorry. So the circle in, this is map A with your current lines. You can see that peninsula really wasn't necessary with the current deviations of your district lines. So we go to the next slide. You can see that A2 is now removed that peninsula. And it's using the same current lines as boundaries between districts five and seven as your existing lines. So A2 actually means that districts one, six and seven. I think if you go to the next slide, it'll show, sorry. So this is the circle showing that there's no peninsula of five into seven. And if you go to the next slide, you can see that districts one, six and seven are exactly the same as your existing lines. And you can see because of the lack of growth or the slower growth of district four, it's had to expand into district five, district two and district three along its southern border. So those, if you go to the next slide, you'll see the areas circled. Those are the shifts between the existing lines and A2. All of these lines, we try to use major thoroughfares and your neighborhood lines to create as few splits as possible.  So you're well below that 10% threshold that is the courts have provided, cities and other jurisdictions to use. You're at 7.2%. With districts two still, your highest populated district at 2.6% over and district five as your smallest district at 4.6% underpopulated. If you go to the next slide. So tonight, you have a couple of different options. If you'd like to make further changes, we can do that, but you would need to have another hearing to meet the requirements of the Fair Maps Act, or you can make a motion to adopt plan A2 to move forward. That's, I think that's the end of the presentation, but I'm here for questions or any points of clarification. Thank you so much, I really appreciate it. Council, do we have any additional questions on the presentation or on the maps? All right, let's go ahead to open the public hearing then. See if there's any public comment on the presentation or on any of our proposed maps. Let's go to Gregory. Thank you, Mayor. This isn't a comment as much as it is a request. I participated in the process and I actually found the tool that was used to be an excellent tool for the average resident to try to figure out what is their community of interest? What is their neighborhood? How do you define it physically? So my request is don't take this down for a little while. Let us use it to try to build a sort of community-driven map of the city and all of its community interests. I think it would be an excellent project. I'm willing to put some energy into it and so work out something where it doesn't disappear quickly. Thank you. Thank you, Gregory. Did we have any pre-recorded voicemail public comments? We do, Mayor. Public hearing number 15.1, Duane DeWitt from Roseland, fair and inclusively redistricting of the boating districts for the city of Santa Rosa should put district one entirely on the west side of Highway 101. Splitting that district between two of the poorest areas of Santa Rosa, Roseland and South Park makes it extremely difficult for the people in those disadvantaged areas to actually get as much representation as they need. The area to the east of Highway 101 at Bennett Valley Road, where you've taken out the old senior center, should be in the Bennett Valley area. That district should work with South Park. Roseland should be in district one to the west, keeping district seven perhaps a little smaller, but then you have representatives from district one and district seven who are helping those disadvantaged areas working with people of color, and then you have somebody in Bennett Valley working with the people of color who live in South Park. That is a more fair and inclusively districting.  You're actually just trying to keep the same old, same old pattern going of underrepresentation for those most in need while helping those well to do people in Bennett Valley and Fountain Grove, just keep the same old, same old rolling forward. Once again, all of district one to the west of Highway 101 and to the east of Highway 101, South Park rolled in with Bennett Valley. Thank you kindly. Mayor, that concludes advanced public comment received. All right, I'll go ahead and bring it back to council members. Are there any additional questions on the maps? All right, council member Rogers, can you put a motion on the table please? I would like to make a motion to introduce an ordinance entitled Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Rosa, amending chapter one through 12 of the Santa Rosa City Code adopting a final map of revised district boundaries for district based elections of council members following receipt of population data from the federal 2020 decennial census and in accordance with the California elections code section 21620-21630 and wait for the reading of the text. Second. So we have a motion from council member Rogers and a second from council member Sawyer. I'm gonna look for comments from council members. I'll look to my right first. Any comments? And I'll look over here. Any comments on my left? Mr. Vice Mayor. Thank you mayor. I'm very content with the map A2 with the removal of the island and I think most importantly with district elections being something new for the city of Santa Rosa. I believe it's important that we let our residents not be confused by moving the lines, so to speak. So I'd hope that we'd move forward with the current map being presented. All right. Madam City Clerk, can you please call the vote? Council member Schwedhelm. Aye. Council member Sawyer. Aye. Council member Rogers. Aye. Council member McDonald. Aye. Council member Fleming. Aye. Vice Mayor Alvarez. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. Whenever it is a decision passes with seven eyes. Right. And I want to thank really fast, our city attorneys team, our city clerks team. I want to thank redistricting partners for all of the work on this as we've seen. It doesn't always go smoothly in every jurisdiction, but this one certainly went smoothly here in Santa Rosa and it felt like there was a momentum that built over time for this map that we ended up adopting. por la próxima 10 años, muchas gracias a todos de ustedes por tu trabajo en esto. Madam City Manager, ¿Pueden ir a Item 15.2? Item 15.2, public hearing, water demand offset policy, fee study, and fees. Me gustaría introducirle la llamada. Buenas tardes. Muchas gracias City Manager Smith por la introducción y buenas tardes a la mayor y a los miembros de la ciudad. Recuerda que tenías un public hearing el 30 de noviembre en este item. Water demand offset policy, fee study, and fees. Y en ese momento, te invitaste a hacer algo adicional. Hemos hecho ese trabajo y estamos regalando el resultado de eso. Por favor, el siguiente. Este item ha sido disponible para una revisión pública desde octubre por más de 5 meses. Hemos llegado a un número de grupos de comunidad y hemos hecho una presentación a la Comunidad de Existencia de los Filters North Coastal, la Comunidad de Comunidad de la Afuerza. Hemos also publishado una página de water demand offset para información pública. Hemos sido capturados desde octubre. Hemos also hecho cinco presentaciones, oh, perdón, siete presentaciones en las reuniones de la ciudad publicamente. La más reciente fue el martes 17, y se convertió en el Comunidad de Existencia de los Filters North Coastal. ¡De aquí! Ya se han permitido para condenarse en una opción, como la de tal vez, sobre la Tierra de Provinciones, y en todo el mundo en la que se ha tenido la Auguridad de Existencia. Una vez que lo mudamos para la Comunidad de Existencia de los Filters North Coastal, o lo que troubles, uno del múltimo por el momento, fue el partido y decimos lo que es lo que es lo que es lo que es. Perfectamente, así que, por favor, nos estamos發展ns. I wanted to draw your attention to the last bullet on this slide, the purpose of water shortage contingency planning is to ensure that we have sufficient supply for human consumption, sanitation and fire protection for our existing customers throughout the duration of an emergency. So we have to make sure that we're looking not only today, but into the near foreseeable future and potentially after another dry winter whenever we're planning for water shortages. Next slide please. The California Water Code states that a water shortage emergency must be declared when the ordinary demand of existing customers can't be satisfied without depleting that water supply. To the extent that there would be insufficient water for human consumption and sanitation and fire protection. The Water Code also states that during a water shortage emergency, a water supplier must adopt regulations and restrictions on water delivery and water consumption. To conserve supply particularly for the greatest benefit with particular regard placed on domestic use, sanitation and fire protection. Next slide please. California Water Code also states that local regulations and restrictions may include a range of approaches, including denying applications for new or additional service connections. That's sometimes referred to as a moratorium. It also includes being able to discontinue service for customers who willfully violate regulations and restrictions. And then finally, we wanted to point out that the Water Code states that restrictions in a water shortage emergency prevail over the right of an individual to receive water during a water shortage emergency. These sections of the Water Code have been tested in court. And while I'm not an attorney, we have asked our city attorney's office to do research and we've worked with them to better understand. So we wanted to also share with you a little bit of the case law. Next slide please. Case law testing these sections of the Water Code have upheld them. They state that a water supplier is in power to anticipate water shortages and impose regulations and restrictions where without controls, the water supply would become depleted and not sufficient to meet the demands of existing customers. Landowners that don't have a water connection do not have a constitutional right to one. And water suppliers have discretion to determine how to respond to water shortage emergencies so they can impose rationing on existing customers and they can ban new connections. And all of this sounds rather daunting. However, from the city's perspective, this is very good news. So we wanted to point out 3 things that are important about Water Code and case law that directly benefit the city of Santa Rosa. The city of Santa Rosa as a water provider. First and foremost, the Water Code and case law support local control, local regulations, local prohibitions and restrictions on water use during water emergencies. That has been essential to our success as a water provider over the last 30 years as we've responded to water shortages from time to time. So local control, Water Code and case law support that. Second, the Water Code and case law support water rationing with existing customers. And that's very good news for us because if we were to ever have a very severe water shortage, water rationing would be a critical element of managing a very limited water supply over a potentially extended period of time to make sure we've got water for our existing customers for human consumption and sanitation and fire protection. So the law supports rationing water and that's important. And thirdly, while the law allows for imposing bans on new connections, it does not require them provided we're managing our water supply to maintain adequate supply for our existing customers. City of Santa Rosa, for over 20 years and our water shortage plan has made sure to take advantage of these 3 elements of the law. So we have a water shortage plan that is tailored to our community, its needs and responsiveness, what we need to do to make sure we can manage supply during shortages. And in that water shortage plan for over 20 years, it's been reviewed and adopted by council on five year cycles. And each time council has reviewed and adopted elements that help us to manage water in case we get into a severe water shortage. That includes rationing among existing customers and requiring new demand from new construction to offset that new demand. So it has essentially a net zero impact on water demand. This allows us to avoid the need for any moratorium, even in severe shortages. So again, case law and water code are incredibly important to Santa Rosa's strategy and our success to date. Next slide please. The Santa Rosa water shortage plan has eight stages of water shortage. The first four are categorically different from stages five through eight. In stages one through four, the target is community wide. We ask our customers to each individually do the best they can to conserve water so that collectively we achieve our goal. We do not monitor water use for quantity used on a case by case basis. Instead, we're asking the community to work together as a whole to achieve our target. This has always worked in each circumstance where we've been in a stage one, two, three or four in the past. We've never had to go to a stage five, six, seven or eight. That would be a catastrophic, very serious, severe water shortage. If we get to a stage five, we move to individual mandates. That's where each individual customer is only allowed to use a certain amount of water. Closed to 90% of our water connections serve the residential sector. Single family homes and multifamily complexes. The vast majority of our customers are residential customers. If we get into individual mandates, water rationing in stages five, six, seven and eight. What it requires is that each residence adhere to a specific amount of water according to the number of residents in their home. For example, in a stage five, water use is limited to 40 gallons per person per day. It doesn't matter if that's a large single family home on a hill or a multifamily complex in the center of town. It's the same requirement for all customers. If they don't comply, we will enforce with progressive enforcement as we've discussed with you before. So first we warn them, we offer to help. If they don't comply, we find them.  Because as you recall from your public hearing, what's critical in stages five, six, seven and eight is the water supply. We do not have enough for existing customers to use more than their fair share. Next slide, please. We also wanted to remind you that we have four strategies to deal with the fact that we will have significant revenue shortfalls, particularly in severe water shortages, unless we implement strategies. So we have four strategies to deal with revenue shortfalls. And the good news is that will allow us to avoid becoming insolvent and not have enough money to run the water operation and deliver clean, healthy water to our customers. And it also avoids the need to increase water rates permanently after a drought is over. One of those methods is to have a temporary increase in water rates. It can range from 5% in a stage two to 45% in stage eight. And that would be an additional cost per unit of water used. We can also reduce our existing budget. We can delay capital projects and we can use catastrophic reserves. So when we're in severe shortages, our customers are using less water and they're paying more per unit of water. The water shortage charges are set up to the greatest extent possible so that the water bill for each customer would remain about the same, particularly for customers who are low water users. We want to make sure that this is not a serious hit. Next slide, please. Durante water shortages, we have a range of prohibitions and restrictions that we can enforce. These have been decided locally. Most of these have been in our water shortage plans each time it's come before council for more than 20 years. We always have in place a water waste ordinance. That water waste ordinance means that even when we have lots of water available to us as a community, customers are not allowed to have ongoing plumbing leaks. And they're not allowed to have water leave their landscape from over watering or broken sprinklers and that sort of thing. And then as we move through the stages, each of the prohibitions and restrictions that come before are added to the next stage. So for example, in stage four, all of the prohibitions and restrictions on this slide apply in a stage four. Next slide, please. So again, stages five, six, seven and eight, all of the prohibitions and restrictions from the previous slide still apply. And just a reminder in stage five, that's when we start rationing water among our existing customers. We'll provide a couple of charts that we hope will help illustrate why that's such a critical piece of what we'll need to do for in a severe shortage. Next slide, please. So there is good news. The good news is that because our community has participated in water use efficiency programs and because the state has implemented a number of requirements and because we've been early adopters of building codes and plumbing codes here in Santa Rosa, our water supply is quite healthy in normal water years. That means water years where we have average rainfall or even slightly below average rainfall. So the blue bar shows a representation of the average amount of water available during normal rainfall years, 31,540 acre feet. The first yellow bar for 2020 shows the amount of water our community actually used in 2020. And as you can see, it's well below the amount of water that would be available in a normal water year. And as you might remember from our urban water management plan that you reviewed and adopted in June of last year. We do anticipate that our community will grow, that we'll have more businesses, parks, schools, churches that will have more residents, more housing. And so we anticipate that there could be as much as 30% higher demand for water in 2045 than there was in 2020. And as you can see again, the good news is that our water supply in average rainfall years is more than adequate to meet our needs as a community today and into the foreseeable future. Next slide please. Of course the challenge will be if we ever hit a severe water shortage. So if we have a severe water shortage, that means water supply is not just below normal. It's below the ordinary demand of our customers. So you can see normal supply on the far left. You can see the 2020 demand. And if we were to go into a stage 5 at the end of this year due to lack of rainfall, you can see that with stage 5, that would mean our water supply is 30% less than the ordinary demand of our customers in 2020. That stage 5 water supply is nearly 60% less than normal supply. So we're talking about severe conditions. In a stage 6, we're looking at a 40% shortage compared to ordinary demand. In stage 7, we're looking at a 50% shortage compared to 2020's ordinary demand. And in stage 8, stage 8 is anything over 50%. So we've put 60% here as an illustration, but it could be 70% below ordinary demand or 80% below. So with this in mind, when we simply do not have enough water to meet the ordinary needs of our customers. That's when we would ration water among our existing customers and require new connections to offset their demand. So that the demand during a water shortage that is this severe is not increased by new connections, but stays at the level playing field of that 30% below ordinary demand. In a stage 5 and so on with stage 6, 7 and 8. Next slide please. This is a reminder of just how close we came to a stage 5 in 2021. First, I'll point out that this chart goes from October of 2019 through January of 2022. It may seem strange that it starts in October. The water year, when we're planning for water, begins in October and goes through September of the following year. So that's why we're showing you this in water years. The orange line at the top shows the average amount of water stored in Lake Sonoma based on a 30 year average from 1992 to 2021. So any month that shows the average amount of water supply for that month compared to the 30 year average. The blue line shows actual storage. So it starts with 2019 October and goes through January of 2022. And if we had been able to include February and March, you would see the blue line is already trending downward because we've had nearly bone dry weather since the last storms we received in December. Other than the small storm we received just a few days ago. So you can see that the storage is not only below the 30 year average, it came dangerously close to that red dashed line. 100,000 acre feet storage in Lake Sonoma is a key metric. If storage goes below 100,000 acre feet, the state can require that Sonoma water, our water wholesaler, the agency that manages Lake Sonoma for our water supply. The state can require that Sonoma water reduce its deliveries by 30% or more. We were incredibly fortunate in October of 2021. You can see the line jump up. It got very close to the 100,000 acre foot mark, but then jumped up because of that large storm we received. And then we had a couple of storms in December. So this is also depicting something that's a little harder to see here because we don't have another line to show you. But when we look at the monthly storage each month over the last 30 years and we compare it to the current every month for the past 15 months, the amount of water in Lake Sonoma has been the lowest for that time of year for the last 30 months. So we're not only well below average, we are at the lowest point each month that we've been in the last 30 years. Next slide please. So severe shortages do trigger a need for offsets because we will not have that average water supply, which is more than adequate for our growing needs. We would have a water shortage emergency where the amount of water available is less than ordinary demand. In stages 5 through 8, that's anywhere from 30% to 60% or more below the ordinary demand of our customers. So we would ration water among existing customers and this is to make sure that we maintain sufficient water for human consumption, sanitation and fire protection for our existing customers throughout the duration of the emergency. So if we had to go on to a stage 5 later this year, we're not only considering the needs of our customers in this immediate period, but we have to know that there could be another very dry winter. So we would have to be looking at not only leading up to winter, but if we had a dry winter, making sure we're rationing water with that in mind, that more water may not be coming to replenish the lake in sufficient amount. And with our water shortage contingency plan, we avoid the need for moratoriums even during severe water shortages by requiring new construction to offset its demand. There's no available water for new demand. The available water is less than ordinary demand of our existing customers. Water supply is being rationed among them. So new construction can come online if it offsets that new demand in a one to one ratio. Next slide, please. And just a reminder that we do call water rationing, water allocations in the water shortage plan. And these are site specific. And again, the top priority is conserving water for our existing customers for human consumption, sanitation and fire protection throughout the duration of the emergency. And as you know with drought, it's sort of a slow moving catastrophe. We don't know when it will end. Drought is not over until there's sufficient rainfall and there's no way to know when that would occur. The individual mandates are enforced on a meter by meter basis and customers must adhere to their fair share of water and no more than that. So if customers are limited to 40 gallons per person per day in a residence and they use more than that, in their monthly billing period, they'll get a warning. If they continue to exceed it, they'll get a fine. If they continue to exceed it, their water will be shut off. There simply is not enough water when we're in severe water shortage for anyone to use more than their fair share. Next slide, please. This is a way to illustrate the severity of water shortages. In a stage five, our customers will be paying 15% more for their water per unit of water used. And the amount of water available will be 30% less than the ordinary demand and all customers will have to cut back on their usage. And we'll do that through rationing. Next slide, please. In a stage six, customers will be paying 25% more per unit of water. There will be 40% less than ordinary demand and all customers must reduce their use. Next slide, please. In a stage seven, customers will be paying 35% more per unit of water. The available water will be 50% less than ordinary demand. And again, there's even a further reduction. So for example, in a stage seven, our residential customers will be down to 32 gallons per person per day. Regardless of where they live or what type of home, it's the same across the city. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. In a stage eight, our customers are paying 45% more per unit of water and there is more than 50% less than normal. 60% here is being used to illustrate. I just also wanted to point out that St. Helena is currently rationing water and they are not allowing any new connections. They're a small service area. They have about 900 connections. They are allowing 65 gallons per person per day and not allowing new water connections. For us in a stage five, we would be cutting back to 40 gallons per person per day, but allowing an avenue forward for new connections to continue to occur if they can offset their new demand and have a net zero impact. So this is a strategy that we can use because California water code and case law allow us to avoid a moratorium. Next slide, please. So staff does have a sense of urgency about this policy. The water shortage contingency plan that has been adopted requires new connections to offset their demand at a one to one ratio. When we're rationing our very limited water supply among our existing customers and we have 30% or less reduction required compared to ordinary demand. Without a water demand offset policy, there's no mechanism for new construction to achieve that offset. So we need a policy in place so that we can allow new development to occur. We worked with an interdepartmental team. So while this is related directly to water, this is not a water policy per se. This is a city wide policy that's supporting two critical elements of the city's function. One, the city is a water supplier in our jurisdiction. And two, the city has land use authority within our jurisdiction. The interdepartmental team therefore included managers and senior managers from planning, economic development, building, development services, the city attorney's office, and of course water. We worked together in meetings from May through October to develop the policy, and we had assistance from consulting firm Woodard and Curran to help us with the policy and Hildebrandt. And consulting to help us with the water demand offset fee study. And from the very moment we convened as an interdepartmental interdisciplinary team, we knew that the purpose was to develop a policy that would ensure the city can manage severe water shortages, ensure adequate water supply for existing customers while continuing to support housing and development despite a severe water shortage. Next slide please. The water demand offset fee study is a relatively short document, but it's quite robust. It describes the methodology used to figure out how much water different types of new development will need. It looks at the known water savings from proven water conservation programs that could be implemented to achieve offsets. It looks at the cost to implement those programs and the cost to achieve water offsets for new demand and then provides the water demand offset fee schedule. Next slide please. You've seen the fee schedule before and one of your core questions on November 30th was if fees were to be collected in the future at some point, if we were in a severe water shortage, the policy was in place and it was applicable to projects, how would we achieve offsets with the fees that are collected? So we'll be talking more about that in just a moment. Next slide please. Just a reminder that this policy only applies to construction projects that need a new building permit and are subject to new or increased connection fees. Therefore, homes that burned in a catastrophic fire are not subject to this policy. In addition, all of the development, housing projects, business parks, anything that has already applied for a building permit, whether or not a building permit has yet been received. All projects that have applied for a building permit are not subject to this policy. The developer who is subject to the policy would be one who needs a building permit and is subject to new or increased connection fees and the policy has already been adopted and is effective. The developer can submit a water demand offset application that provides information to staff to determine the water needs of that site and the fee that would be associated. The policy has also been revised to provide an alternative to paying a water demand offset fee. The intention of staff was to include a red line version of the policy in your agenda packet and we have to apologize. There was a clerical error in converting the water demand offset policy from a Word document to a PDF document. The PDF conversion process accidentally accepted all changes and provided the revised policy without the red line. So we sincerely apologize for that clerical error. However, the red line version of the policy that shows this alternative included has been published on the water demand offset fee page that has been up since early March with the red line version of this policy. A link to that water demand offset policy page was published with the public notice, excuse me, the notice of public hearing and it was included as a link in the staff report as well as in the PowerPoint. So moving forward, the developer would submit an application and either indicating their preference to pay a fee or to do a project of their own. They can propose any type of project they feel will achieve a net zero impact of their new development. Then the agreement is signed and now the developer would have certainty about the cost, the timing and the applicability of this policy to their project. If they are not able to come to agreement with staff on the amount of water that needs to be offset or the fee or the project, there is an appellate process available for them to formally appeal to the Board of Public Utilities and then to City Council. In the meantime, as per the mitigation fee act, the building permit would be issued and the project would proceed. So the implementation due date is driven by the developer. The developer will decide when they wish to request final inspection or wish to request occupancy of any type. At that time, that's when the fee would be due. Typically all of our development fees are due at the time of the building permit application except for this. This we would propose be delayed until the point where that new water connection would be serving occupants and would then have an impact on our water system. And there's potential for good news. There is uncertainty, but the only uncertainty is good news. If a project comes online and we are not in a severe water shortage rationing water among our existing customers, the fee is waived. So the only surprise at the end of a project would be good news for the developer. Next slide please. If a project were coming online during a severe water shortage and the project had a water demand offset agreement in place and they were requesting final inspection or occupancy of any type, they would pay those fees. Fees would be collected and deposited into a separate account and the fees would be used exclusively to implement a water demand offset project to achieve water offsets for the project that paid that fee. And the cost and activities to achieve the offsets for that development would be tracked separately. And we have three budgets to show you as examples of how this would work. Next slide please. In the first we have senior housing, then we'll show you affordable housing and then we'll show you market rate housing. We want to note though each of these will show a specific development in this case 3575 Mendicino Avenue. We use that for illustration purposes only. They have long ago applied for a building permit. This policy does not apply to this project, but it is useful to provide you with real concrete examples. So we're using it for illustration purposes only, but again, none of the projects we're going to discuss in the next few slides is subject to this policy. In this case, 94 senior housing units at a cost of about $56.6 million. The water demand offset fee is calculated just under $82,000. That fee is less than one fifth of 1% of the cost of the project. So if it were added to the cost of the project, it would add 0.1% to the total cost. It would increase the city's total fees by about 2%. So for example, on this project, the city's fees were about 6% of the total cost of this project. Adding the water demand offset fee would be about 2% of that 6%. Next slide please. Here's how money would be spent to achieve offsets. In this case, we are showing you a budget for bathroom conversion projects. We think this would likely be the quickest and most reliable way to achieve water offsets if we needed to implement the water demand offset project. We know from the water demand offset study that per senior housing unit, we need to offset by converting about 1.1 existing bathrooms per new senior housing unit. So you can see in the middle of the chart the conversions to achieve offset 104 existing bathrooms being converted to very high efficiency bathrooms with 0.8 gallon per flush toilets, high efficiency aerators, high efficiency shower heads. The budget would include city labor to oversee the project, make sure customers are eligible, implement and manage contracts with plumbers, oversee invoicing, data collection, doing inspections to make sure work was done according to standards. And then a small amount to target our market to make sure we can get folks to participate very quickly in this program. The city labor is estimated at 10% of the budget. The plumbers fees and materials are estimated at 87% and the graphic design and ad buys to target our market at 3%. The plumbers fees and materials would be predetermined in a contract. So that contract would say what the eligible materials and service fees are, what the eligible amounts they are allowed to charge. So all of that would be clear between the parties between the city and the plumber so everyone would know in advance what is eligible for repayment and what those reimbursement rates are. If we were to instead of doing bathroom conversions, we were to do turf conversions, we would focus on large landscapes in CII sector, the commercial industrial institutional sector. There's a lot of acreage of ornamental turf that could be converted without affecting playing fields and picnic areas. So we would incentivize those folks to convert those large areas to low water use landscapes. And in that case, we limited it to the commercial industrial institutional sector because the water savings per square foot with that sector has been proven to be three times higher than it is when we do this kind of work with our single family customers. If we were to develop a budget for that, it would be nearly identical to this one, except where we show plumbers fees and materials that would be customer rebates. But the city labor would be right in the neighborhood of 10% and again about 3% to target our market. But again, we do believe that the bathroom conversions is probably the quickest way to go to achieve these water offsets. So once the fees would be received, we would immediately begin implementing this project and very quickly convert 104 bathrooms. Next slide please. I'll take less time on the next two examples because you've had a chance to walk through and see the details of that first one. This example is affordable housing based on 5173 Highway 12. The project is not subject to the policy and this is only for illustration. It's 99 affordable housing units at an estimated cost of $71 million. The water demand offset fees would be in the neighborhood of $125,000. We actually believe it would probably be considerably less because about 40% of these units are very small and would qualify for the high density rate. We use the higher rate to show the maximum impact possible. That $124,641 is 0.18% of the estimated cost, less than one fifth of 1%. It would increase the city's fees by about 3%. So in this case, the total fees are about 7% of the cost of the project and this would add 0.1 to that. It would become 7.1%. Next slide. So the water demand offset budget is, again, you'll see 10% for city labor, 87% for plumbers fees and materials, and about 3% for graphic design. And in this case, to offset 99 units in a multifamily complex, the conversions would be 159 existing bathrooms being converted to ultra high efficiency, well above state standards. Next slide, please. The third example is 325 Yolanda Avenue. Again, the project is not subject to the policy. They have applied for a building permit long ago and this is just for illustration purposes. This is a market rate apartment complex with 248 units. The estimated value is about $39 million and the estimated water demand offset fees are about $312,000. That's about 0.8% of the valuation or eight tenths of 1%. It's about 5% of the total city's fees and it would add about 0.8% to the total city fees. It would go from about 16% of the cost of the project to 16.8%. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. So again, city labor is 10%, plumbers fees and materials are 87% and targeting our market is 3%. And again, this information comes out of our water demand offset fee study. So that cost per conversion and the number of conversions needed, that information is found in our water demand offset fee study. So we would need to convert almost 400 bathrooms to offset the new water demand for this market rate housing complex. Next slide, please. We also looked at single family homes, the average value of a home in Santa Rosa without regard to the actual size of the property. It's about 700,000, just a little under. That's based on January public published values from redfin.com, zillow.com and realtor.com. If that were on a small lot, the water demand offset fee would be less than 1 third of 1%. If it were on a large medium lot, that would be less than 1 half of 1%. If this were on a large lot, the water demand offset fee would be less than 3 quarters of 1%. So in all of the analysis that we did, the water demand offset fee is consistently under 1% of the cost of the project. Next slide, please. City Council also expressed concerns about the impact to rent. We spoke with the directors of our affordable housing program and Section 8 program. What we learned is that participant rent is not tied to the cost to build projects, but is tied to the income of the folks who are renting. It's also tied to the size of the family home in the affordable housing program. So any of the city's fees, anything that drives the cost to build of a project is not affecting these calculations for these participants in our affordable housing programs. Their rent would not be changed. We did try our best to determine how this could potentially affect rent in market rate apartments. It's a very difficult thing to get at because what we've learned is that market rate rents are driven by the market. So it's what the market will bear when we did try to look at if this were a one-time fee that were included in, for example, a mortgage over 30 years. What potential impact could it have on a month-to-month rent? It looks to be in the neighborhood of a couple of dollars. But this is a difficult calculation to make because, again, it's not really truly directly driven by the cost to build. But there is a potential impact to increase rents by a couple of dollars per month. Next slide, please. City Council also requested that staff come up with new alternatives. First, we wanted to share with you the alternatives that have already been discussed with Council in previous meetings. Talk about three additional alternatives and just cover a little bit of information about Prop 218. Next slide, please. Proposition 218 does prohibit some of the alternatives. Proposition 218 is a voter-approved California constitutional amendment that went into place in 1996. And that constitutional amendment changes the requirements for how local government can raise taxes and fees. It also restricts the use of property-related fees. And our water service fees and our sewer sewer fees count as property-related fees under this California constitutional amendment. So under this amendment, property that is subject to a fee must be specially benefited by whatever improvements or services are funded by that fee. And the amount of fee or charge has to be proportional to whatever service is attributable to that parcel. So as you can imagine, charging existing water customers a water demand offset fee to allow new construction to connect to our water system is prohibited by Proposition 218. Next slide, please. So alternatives that have previously been discussed are to take no action and maintain the status quo. This would be a de facto moratorium. Our water shortage plan states that we will ration water in severe shortage stages 5 through 8 and we will require new development to have a net zero impact on demand. Without a policy in place, without a mechanism to achieve that, there's no way to move forward with new development in stages 5 through 8. This would have significant negative impacts on housing development and economic vitality. It is feasible, but it is not recommended by staff. Just along those lines, of course, council could require a moratorium in stages 5 through 8. This is not recommended by staff. Next slide. Council could adopt the policy and subsidize some or all of the water demand offset fees with the general fund. And this is feasible, but staff does not have a recommendation on this. This is within council's purview. We do have some additional information that council can consider, but we would leave it to council to determine whether this was the right step. So it is feasible, but we do not have a staff recommendation. Number 4 is not feasible. Council adopting the policy and subsidizing the water demand offset fee with existing water rate payer funds that would violate Proposition 218. Number 5 is feasible. Council could adopt the policy and subsidize the water demand offset fee with cell tower revenue. However, that revenue is currently being used to help low income water customers in our help to others program. So it is feasible. It is allowed, but we do not recommend it. Next slide. Option 6 has been included in the revised policy. It would allow developers to propose an alternative to achieve offsets instead of paying a water demand offset fee. The policy does not delineate what types of projects would be eligible. It's left open to developers to decide for themselves what solution they think they would like to propose. But, for example, a developer may prefer to implement their own self funded water conservation project at existing water customer sites in the city's jurisdiction. Or a developer may provide the city with a fully permitted public water supply that is as much or greater than the amount of water they would need to offset. Of course, this can be expensive and challenging for developers, but it is now included as an option. There would need to be some service fee paid for city staff to evaluate proposals and conduct any work that needs to be conducted to ensure an approved project is implemented as it has been described. We might need to do inspections or analyses or take other actions to verify the alternative meet standards and achieve offsets. But this would be based on an hourly rate. It would not be based on a unit by unit rate. So it would be significantly less than the water demand offset fee. And again, the draft policy has been revised to include this option and for folks who are interested in seeing that red line version. They can look at the city's water demand offset policy public information page. Next slide please. A former council member at the public hearing who was then a current council member asked if the council could adopt the policy and subsidize water demand offset fees with excess use penalties. First, I'll say yes, this is feasible. But secondly, it doesn't appear viable. And just as a reminder, when we are rationing water with our existing customers, they must adhere to their fair share of water. If they use more than their ration, they're first warned. If they continue to exceed their ration, they are fined. And if they continue to exceed the ration, their water is turned off. Single family homes are more than 85% of our water services. So we looked at the average home water use and looked at what would happen if during peak summer months, they made no effort to conserve water whatsoever. They use the ordinary amount of water they would during a regular year. The penalty would range anywhere from $5 to $25 depending on the exact site, but roughly about $15 per month on average. However, ongoing non-compliance is prohibited and would result in water service shut off. So we don't anticipate that this would collect much revenue. The water demand offset fee for one multifamily unit would range from 58 penalties collected to 84 penalties collected depending on if it were a high density unit or a senior unit or a standard sized market rate unit. The water demand offset fee for a complex of 250 multifamily units would range between 14,500 to 21,000 penalties that would need to be collected. So if we were to rely on excess use penalties, we're afraid that projects would be left waiting. They may be ready for final inspection and occupancy, but it's not likely that one third to one half of our customers would be in a penalty phase during a water shortage emergency. So it's not likely to be viable and it is not recommended by staff. Next slide. Staff also looked at whether there could be additional alternatives. The first two are not feasible. They do not comply with California law. The first would be adopting the policy and subsidizing the fee by adding a new water demand offset fee to water rates. But again, we cannot charge a property a fee when it doesn't directly specially benefit from that fee being paid. So it's not feasible. We also looked at could we revise the policy and institute a smaller water demand offset fee on all development on every building permit that is submitted all the time in good years and in dry years and gradually accrue enough funds for all offsets. This is not feasible. When we looked at the mitigation fee act, it's very clear. If we're going to charge an impact fee on local development, it has to be directly related to the mitigation required. However, most of the time no mitigation is required for new development. We have sufficient water supply for our growing community. It's only if we were to hit a severe shortage. So there's no way to use the mitigation fee act to collect a small fee all the time to accumulate it to offset the water demand offset fee. The 10th is feasible, but not recommended. Council could direct staff to revise the shortage plan and remove the water demand offset requirement altogether. That would require staff to go back and change the rationing allocation methodology for our customers. So instead of requiring customers to cut back 30% in a stage 5, our community would have to cut back, for example, 35%. And then we would set aside that extra 5% for new development. So we don't think, A, that we would know exactly the right number to pick because it's never clear how much new demand might come on in any year. So we may not have enough water for all projects and some projects could be delayed. In addition, this puts an undue burden on our existing customers who are already being required to ration their water use under the penalty of a fine and potentially having their water shut off for not complying with their water rations. We also think that there could be public outcry if customers were being required to reduce their water use even further in order to allow for new development. So this is feasible, but it is not recommended by staff, but it is an option available to the council. Next slide please. This summarizes those alternatives. And again, number 6, revise the draft policy to allow an alternative to the water demand offset fee has been included in the policy. Next slide please. So in summary, the feasible options that we can see is to take no action and maintain the status quo, but that would be a de facto moratorium. B, council could direct staff to revise the policy and require a moratorium in stage 5 through 8. We do not think that that's a viable option for council. Council could adopt the policy and subsidize water demand offset fees with the general fund. We would leave that to council and we have a slide following this one that provides additional information. Council could adopt this policy and direct staff to subsidize the water demand offset fee with cell tower revenue that currently helps our low income customers. E, council could direct staff to revise the policy to remove the offset requirement altogether and reduce the rations available to our existing customers. We serve about 175,000 residents of Santa Rosa. There are some risks there about it not being sufficient for all new demand. En addition, the other risk is if the state felt that the rationing was insufficient for public health and safety, we could run into potential liabilities there. F, council could adopt the policy and could institute subsidies at any point in the future. Council does not have to institute subsidies simultaneous to adopting the policy. So, for example, if the policy needed to be implemented later this year or in five years or 10 years, council at that point could look at its available monies. And it's a current housing and development priorities and decide what to subsidize and with what funds. So that could be done when declaring a stage 5, 6, 7 or 8 shortage. It does not have to be outlined tonight. Next slide, please. However, if the council does wish to subsidize the water demand offset fees with general funds, the council could do that, as I said, at any point now or in the future. Council would have some options and we would ask that council direct staff to provide very clear understanding of what subsidies would be applied. Working with the planning department, we were able to identify some options that council may wish to consider. We do not have a recommendation, but we do have planning staff available to answer council questions and to talk through these if the council wishes more information about these options. Option 1 is to subsidize projects anywhere within the city or there are 4 subsets. It could be projects anywhere in the city, but only housing projects or only housing projects anywhere in the city that are 100% affordable or projects anywhere in the city that have at least some affordable housing. Or D, only the affordable housing units within projects anywhere within the city. And this is a unit by unit fee, so option D is easy to implement if that's a direction that council wanted to take. Option 2 simply limits the geographic area. Council could do ABC or D, but only within a priority development area. Again, it could be limited to only housing projects, only affordable housing projects, only projects with some affordable housing or only the affordable housing units within projects within priority development areas. Next slide please. So with that I'll read the recommendation, but I also just wanted to mention that we do have Dan Galvin with us this evening. Mr. Galvin is the chair of the Board of Public Utilities and he's going to say a few words to us after I read this recommendation. So I'll go ahead and read it and then I'll ask that chair Galvin be allowed to speak to the council briefly. It is recommended by the Board of Public Utilities and Santa Rosa Water that the council by resolution 1 adopt the water demand offset policy. 2 adopt the water demand offset fee study. 3 adopt the water demand offset fees and 4. Authorize the water demand offset fees to be adjusted on an annual basis to account for inflation at the beginning of the calendar year, January 1 starting in 2023. Using the engineering news records, 20 cities construction cost index. The last slide just refers to questions, but again at this time, if we could, I'd like to allow chair Galvin to say a few words. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, go for it. Thank you, Mayor Rogers and members of the City Council. As indicated, my name is Dan Galvin. I am the chair of the Board of Public Utilities. On March 17, the Board of Public Utilities considered the new information and additional options requested by the City Council at your meeting on November 30. This also included revisions to the water demand offset policy to allow developers to propose their own projects to achieve offsets instead of paying a water demand offset fee. The water code allows for restrictions on development when necessary to preserve water supplies. Typically, water suppliers implement moratoriums during severe water shortages. However, this policy avoids a moratorium by providing a mechanism for new development to have a net zero impact on water demand during emergencies. The policy ensures the city complies with its mandate to manage its water supply wisely for existing customers during emergencies while also supporting the city's housing and development needs. After carefully considering the additional information and revised policy, the Board of Public Utilities unanimously reaffirmed our previous recommendation that the City Council adopt the water demand offset policy, the fee study and the fee. Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions about the Board of Public Utilities recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your service on the committee. Thank you, Colin, for a really exhaustive and well done and thorough presentation on this item. I'm going to look to Council to see if there's any questions before we go to public comment. Council Member Sawyer. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Colin. Outstanding job. I wanted to ask about, let's see slide 43, and with these, if Council wishes to subsidize, isn't it true that at any point in the future, future councils could use any of these tools here that if they deemed it necessary? We wouldn't necessarily have to adopt. We wouldn't have to articulate these tonight. These would always be open to future councils to make the decision. We would have to make decisions on these water demand offset fees with a general fund if they so chose. That is correct. Okay, thank you. Council Member Sveto. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to echo, Colin, thank you so much for that presentation in the entire team. I know it has put a lot of time, energy and effort into educating not only Council Members, but the community on this vital issue. So thank you so much. A couple of general questions earlier in the slide show, you talked about the Lake Sonoma water level when it drops below 100,000 acre feet that the state can require more reductions. Is that DWR and how much head lead up would they give us if they are going to go in that direction? That is related to the water rights that Sonoma water has and how they must manage that water supply in the lake. So I'm not sure if perhaps Director Burke might have additional information to help flush that out. Thank you. And thank you, Council Member Sveto. As Mr. Close mentioned, this is governed by Decision 1610, which is the Sonoma waters water rights. And it does give the state water board authority to implement a 30% reduction. We anticipate similar to what was occurring last year. Sonoma water staff was in constant communication and talks with the state water board and knew, you know, we're sharing with them the information about how closely we were getting to that 100,000 acre foot threshold, including their modeling. And that we would be kept informed about how closely that would happen. So we will be given time because we can see through the modeling. But in terms of how fast the state water board would act, we won't know until we get closer to that timeframe. Thank you. And hopefully it's just a theoretical question. We will never have to worry about that. The second generic question I had too, Mr. Close, you talked about if we get to stages five through eight, where it's individual and you talked about gallons per day. How do we do that? Do they count each day, you've got to be below it, or is it accumulated over the course of a week or a month? How would that work should we get to those stages? Yeah, that's a terrific question. It's based on the billing period. So if a customer had 30 days in their billing period, it would be on the number of people times the gallons per person times the 30 days in that billing period. If they had 31 days in the next billing period, they would have a slightly higher allocation recognizing they have an extra day. Great. Thank you for that. And then a question I had about the bathroom conversions. I know in the Fee Study report on page six it said it's assumed that the city would convert approximately 1,000 locations per year. What was the process that led us to come to that figure? That is a way that we used to determine some of the cost based on a grant that we had. We applied for a grant 2014, received it and implemented it in 15, 16, 17. And we were, I'm sorry, 15 and 16, we were able to convert over 6,000 bathrooms at that time. But we know that, you know, we might not receive enough need for water demand offsets to do say 6,000 in a two year period. So we had to look at what the number of typical applications might be. So we were looking at if this were in full swing and we were seeing development at sort of the kind of rates we might anticipate what would be needed. So we have some experience in this arena. It's not just shot in the dark. Okay. Thank you so much. Again, once again, I really compliment everyone who led to this report because it was very comprehensive. I really appreciate it. Thank you very much. Got some member Fleming. Yes. Hi Colin. Thank you for your presentation. Nice to see you. I'm curious to know on slide 13, it looks to me this is the one with Lake Sonoma. And the 100,000 mark. It looks to me to be pretty obvious that we're going to go below it this year. Just given that at this point last year, we had more water than we do in January. I'm just going off of the most recent January. So in January 2022, we're at about 145, 145,000 on this graph. And then in January of 2021, we're closer to 160, maybe 150 now and 160 then. And I know we haven't had much precipitation since then. So my question is given that we are headed on this collision path with that red line, why we haven't already taken up something more severe and significant. Like, I think it's your suggestion E. I'm going back to the end of the presentation here. So the. You'll recall that our water shortage was declared June 28th of last year. So we had been messaging our customers from December of 2020, because we were seeing we were having a dry, a second dry winter, and letting them know it's going to be important. Could they help us by cutting back, but officially June 28th of last year, the council adopted stage 3 water shortage with the mandatory 20% reduction. At that point, we saw an immediate and significant response from our community. So we were able to achieve from that point through the end of February a collective 21% reduction in water use compared to 2020. So we still have that stage 3 in place. We did not have that in place January, February, March, April, May, until the end of June of last year. So we're going in already with our customers primed and understanding. We're in a severe shortage. Well, I should say it's a significant drought and that we need them to help us achieve that goal collectively. So there is that piece to it right now. That's that's really where our focus is on continuing to support our customers. If they continue to save each month and we continue to stay at that rate, then we'll be using less water than we did the first half of last year. That's good news. But if we don't receive rainfall, yes, we do anticipate that it could be in November that we could cross over that 100,000 acre foot line. The hope is that we will not, but so far our customers have been helping us out considerably and we've seen that customers with our other regional partners in Sonoma County are also having success with their customers getting back water, yes. Okay, thank you. And councilmember Fleming, if I could also add, the Sonoma County Water Agency has done a lot of work and they have put forward to the state water board a temporary urgency change petition in December of last year. That allowed them to actually change the hydrologic index to be based on Lake Mendocino instead of based on Lake Pillsbury. And because of that change and then due to the lack of rainfall, they've actually been able to have reduced flows in the Russian River earlier than they did last year. So last year they were not able to reduce flows in the Russian River until July. This year they are already in critical conditions and able to reduce flows. So they're taking that into account as well as the savings that all of our communities are doing and based on their modeling, they will be giving us new allocations and based on current conversations, our allocations are still going to be putting us in a stage three 20% reduction that should allow us to get through until the winter months and stay above the 100,000 acre feet requirement in Lake Sonoma. Thank you. That helps me to understand what's happening. And I just wanted to add for folks who are less familiar with some of that conversation, what that means is that the water agency is allowed to release less water from the lake for environmental purposes. So they're able to hold more water in the lake. So for folks who may be tuning in where that wasn't clear, that's why that's so critical for us. Councilmember McDonald. Thank you so much for the presentation. So I agree with having the water demand policy. I think it's a way for transparent government to allow developers who are potentially looking at Sonoma County to know that this is a potential fee structure that we would have in place, of course, if we hit the unfortunate, you know, perfect storm or lack of storm thereof. So I did have a couple of questions on this and clearly we don't want to deter any potential developers from coming to Sonoma County. But I think what this really does is reassure them that they know if they do come here, they have a plan in place for that. So a couple of questions that I have on this is do we have any statistical data on how many multiple families live in current households, meaning in my household I have two adult children that live with me. Hopefully they will move out shortly, but that is if they can only find affordable housing. The only change on water for that specific thing would be they'd have their own water bill and me not paying for theirs. So I think this is something I discussed with you earlier, but do we have anything around that where we know when we're building affordable housing because oftentimes in multiple family homes, they are the ones that could be impacted by lower income housing for availability. So I'm kind of curious if you have anything around that or if that's something we collect. So there's a, I think there are a couple of pieces to that. One of them is of course based on US census data as an average household size of 2.7 for Santa Rosa. But again, that's an average and of course, no household has exactly 2.7 people. That's a little hard to do. But the other piece of it is that it's important to note that when folks are living together in higher density, we tend to see lower per capita usage and it tends to be a little higher when they're living on their own. So I think it's important to be aware of the fact that now they have a yard or they're doing a patio garden or now they have their own clothes washing machine and they're not having to wait at the bathroom for everybody else to get their shower first. And so for whatever reason, we do see that sometimes smaller households have a little bit higher use of water. So it's just a kind of a, you know, something to keep in mind. Sorry, I just lost my train of thought. But I do want to see if Director Burke, did you have anything you wanted to add to that? I think you covered it well. That is what we know on the data. And we do look at new connections and we do know there is demand. So for all new connections that are added to our system, there's additional demand that comes into play. So that is what we factor in because we do know a new connection has new demand. Thank you. Do we also have any statistical information on how much this generates in taxes when we do have more houses built for the city? I know we get a portion of the property taxes, but do we also have any statistics on revenue or sales tax when we're able to have more folks living in the city of Santa Rosa? Is there anything? That is not something that the water department would have. I know we have our chief financial officer on Alan Alton and I know we have our planning department folks on, but that is not something that the water department tracks. It's something we can try and get more information on unless perhaps Alan might have some more information on this. The reason I ask it is because if we're looking at general fund as a potential way to offset charges in the future, if that would be something that the council could potentially do, I think it would be good to know what we would be getting as far as revenue based on additional housing. So they're, excuse me, thank you councilmember McDonald for the question. So in the past we have done studies. I know when we were looking at development in the downtown, I believe that there were some studies done that could show that the general economic impact growth of those developments. I don't think we've done one in a while. So I don't have anything relative to this that would show those impact. It's something that we could do. But right now I don't have what that would be. And I appreciate that. And then I just have one more question. Well, maybe, sorry. But it's about the water consumption that was potentially used during the fires. Is there any way for us to know how much of that was actually used during all the recent fires that we've had? And then is there any way to work with the state because they've allocated money specifically for fire mitigation around being able to change some of our infrastructure of water to capture more water when we are clearly in an area that seems to be unfortunately primed for future fires? So I know there's also climate change dollars, but is there any way that we can allocate some of that money that the state has set aside for our potential water infrastructure to be able to capture more water? I don't have a thorough answer, but I do believe that Director Burke will be able to help me out a little bit here. I would just say that there was water, two elements to water that happened during the catastrophic fires in 2017. One, homes that burned down, their water meters, the water connection was running initially constantly until we were able to get staff out after the fires were under control enough to be able to turn off their water connection. So there was some water lost just because with the house not there with no faucet to turn it off, there was water flowing. So there have been some estimates about how much water has been lost through that. The amount of water used to fight fires within the city, the fire department does do its best to estimate that every year, and we report that to the state each year with our, we have what's called a water loss audit. So we do our best to look at how much water is lost from our system, and we include known uses of water that don't generate revenue like fighting fires. Further, I just want to mention, you know, where we got into the wild land outside of the urban interface and into the wild lands, much of that firefighting was done with tankers and other sorts of equipment so that it wasn't necessarily city water per se. So, you know, taking water from nearby water bodies to fight the fire. So some of that firefighting wasn't directly public water supply per se. But in terms of some of the funding and some of the other elements of your question, Dr. Burke, can see what she might be able to add. Thank you. And thank you, Councilmember McDonald. We have, Colin mentioned all correctly, depending upon where they're fighting the fires, they can go specifically to lakes and grab water through water tankers. We have looked at the needs for fire flows in the city. And so our development and development requirements based on fire flows for fighting fires within the city. We had, we did do an updated analysis with the