Hi, Roberta, did I connect okay? Yes, you did. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. I'll call the meeting of the Board of Public Utilities for the City of Santa Rosa to order. We may have a roll call, please. Chair Galvin. Here. Vice Chair Arnone. Here. Board Member Baddon Ford. Here. Board Member Grable. Here. Board Member Walsh. Here. Board Member Watts. Board Member Watts. I believe Board Member Watts is joining, but I know she's dealing with an urgent medical issue with her mother. She might be a few minutes late. Thank you. Board Member Wright. Here. Good afternoon, everyone. Reminder to please mute your phones or microphones when you're not speaking. Please try and keep your video on. Also, please put away all cell phones and personal computers. Do we have any statements of abstention by Board Members? Hearing none. We have no study sessions. Item four is the approval of the minutes from November 4, 2021. At this time, we'll take public comments on the minutes approval. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Secretary Aether, do we have anyone? We have no public comments. And we have no one here in the chambers. So the minutes will be approved and entered. Well, next we'll move to item 5.1, which is a water supply update. Deputy Director Chavoni. Thank you, Chair Galvin. Introducing item 5.1, water supply update, presented by our Deputy Director of Water Resources, Peter Martin. Thanks for that introduction, Deputy Director Chavoni. Just go ahead and get started with a very brief water supply update if we could go to the next slide. So just to give you a little snapshot of what's going on in the upper watershed Lake Minasino. Lake Minasino is about 20,000 acre feet or about 36% of the target water supply for snow and water. We did hear that the obviously increasing natural flows are from the recent storms that allowed snow and water to continue to make their minimum releases there at Lake Minasino. And of course, you can see that has resulted in them banking some water early this year. You know, I think essentially this week, we heard that some water staff said that they don't expect those natural flows to subside during the term of the existing temporary to change order, which as you recall, lasts through the middle of December. But I do wanna, since we're talking about Lake Minasino, just something interesting to track in terms of what to expect Lake Minasino in late October, some water did learn that PG&E was having issues with a transformer at the Potter Valley project powerhouse. And so therefore the powerhouse has not been generating power since October. And so that means pretty much that PG&E is not bypassing any water beyond their minimum fish flows and the FERC license, which is about 45 CFS plus about a five CFS buffer. Typically the powerhouse can move about 240 cubic feet per second when generating power. So you can imagine this kind of results in less water being introduced into the eastboard go to Russian River and then it's the Lake Minasino. Now obviously something very concerning, you can imagine that what we've heard is that PG&E is out of place where they're no longer pursuing the license. So the conclusion is that they may not be interested in investing in the capital improvements to fix the powerhouse at this time. So this has taken on a little bit more urgency in terms of snow and water's actions. And so with the fact that Decision 1610 that governs the minimum releases, the minimum in-stream flows for the upper and lower Russian River are tied to Lake Pillsbury and the Potter Valley projects in terms of the hydrologic index, determining whether it's a critically dry year and the amount of minimum releases from those reservoirs, snow water updated and filed another temporary to change petition to go beyond the existing order that expires in the middle of December. And it reflects this issue that they don't anticipate additional supplies coming out of the Potter Valley project. I apologize, I meant to put a slip of slide in, but unfortunately that change order didn't come through until late on Tuesday night. So next slide. So as you can see from this graphic, Lake Sonoma is at about 122,000 acre feet or about 50% of their storage pool capacity. They're making about 52 feet per second releases at this time to support the fish hatchery. There is continues to be lots of natural flow. So they're obviously seeing some storage increases. You know, just I think the point to make by looking at this graphic here is that that kind of sky blue line above the black line is where we're at today was where we were at last year. So in terms of storage in Lake Sonoma, we're at about 40 to 50,000 acre feet less than we had at this time last year. So definitely, you know, thankful for the rains this point, we've got a long way to go before we are able to kind of relax a little bit and not be as concerned about our water supply for next year. Next slide. This is sort of the latest graphic in terms of how all the contractors are doing overall since July. Cumulatively, the water contractors have worked and some water has reduced their diversions as a result by 22.7% compared to this time in 2020. I believe the last time I wasn't, I didn't give your water supply update at the last meeting, but I believe you're aware the state water board did suspend the requirements for this 20% reduction in diversions and those water curtailments are no longer in effect. So compliance based on this is no longer necessary, but it is a good graphic just to see how we're doing in terms of our regional water conservation efforts. Next slide. So some good news for October, you know, thanks to some rain and some other things and the customer's commitments, the community reduced water use by 29% compared to 2020 in October. The good news is, you know, as you're aware, we're not going to be receiving allocations for the months of November and December, but we did over the timeframe of July through October, utilize only 94% of the allocations given to us from snow and water in this timeframe. So, you know, thank you to the community for responding and the staff for doing all the good work to get the message out. We definitely did a good job in meeting our targets and our allocations from snow and water during that timeframe. You know, as you can imagine, we're still putting the message out there, the city remains in a stage three mandatory 20%, up to 20% target reduction and that will remain in effect until we have a little bit of a rosier water supply picture. And so, you know, beyond this, although we are no longer subject to that 20% curtailment to governor's order is in effect, which calls for statewide a 15% reduction in communities statewide. And then of course, the WACC and all the contractors are continuing to ask 20%. So we'll stick with stage three for now. Next slide. So just a real quick snapshot of our winter campaign here. Our messaging is just kind of reinforcing what I just told you is that despite the early rain, water conservation is still required. We're getting that message out to our customers as much as possible. And you know, we'll just continue to ask our customers to eliminate any water waste, of course, and adopt water conserving behaviors indoors. You know, we're gonna focus very much over the next few months on helping people fix leaks and making those kind of immediate behavioral changes, shorter showers, you know, doing a lot of things around the house to save water, but also long-term investments in the form of the install of perhaps gray water systems, you know, low flow toilets and fixtures and as well as doing some rain barrel workshops right now which have had a ton of attendance. So there's obviously folks that are out there thinking about it. Go to the last slide here. That does conclude my water supply update. I'm happy to answer any questions the board may have. Thank you, Deputy Director Martin. Any board member questions or comments? Board Member Grable? Yeah, thank you for the presentation. And it looks slightly optimistic getting back to those expected levels from last year, you know, the new normal levels. I had a quick question on the PG&E Potter Valley. Do we have any indication, you know, I know that's been a long-term sort of per-fuffle with PG&E with the licensing agreement, opening it up to bids, you know, potentially, and it doesn't seem like anybody else is interested. And of course that diversion tunnel is however, 120 years old at this point and needs to be rebuilt and that's cost prohibitive, all those things. Do we have just kind of like an overall snapshot of like how that's going and where it might be going in the near future, just so we can kind of keep tabs on it and be informed? Yeah, sure. So thank you for that question, Board Member Grable. You know, the public process still continues to play out through the re-licensing effort by the two basin partnership that, you know, there's still some documents that are needing to be filed here in the next couple of months. I believe that we communicated to this Board that the partnership had asked and there's some correspondence out there for an advance to work a little further amongst partnership to be able to make some meaningful progress on the funding to make sure that those studies can be completed for their FERC licensing process. So there is, you know, as perhaps there's been some letters out there, you know, asking for support for additional funding for those studies necessary to, you know, obviously finish those hurdles that are required for that, those licensing process or a series of studies that's necessary.  They have not heard back from FERC on any of, you know, in a public manner on how they respond to some of the product supports that are necessary. So we're continuing to track that and those are available. I think in terms of PG&E, current operations of the projects, I think, you know, I think they are not comfortable saying that they can bypass additional water during this timeframe and they're not sure if that's allowable. Snowmow water and their temperatures you change petition to the state pretty much said that they don't believe that they can count on additional flows beyond those minimum flows for this winter. And thus there's an emergency to asking for them to allow them to continue to operate with minimum releases out of Lake Minnesina and Lake Sonoma for that reason. You know, obviously Lake Pillsbury is filling up fast. And so it's very much disconnected because remember they use that, that is the hydrologic index to indicate type of water year it is. So it's just showing more and more that that project is and that is very much disconnected from what's going on in the upper rush river. And thank you for that. And in terms of just our own ability to respond and not be flat footed, I know you and others with the technical expertise are obviously not flat footed on this even following it closely. But just in terms of our worst case scenarios so that we're well informed, if PG&E were to walk away from it and abandon the diversion and the Podralli project, what does that look like for our water supply scenario and the index? I believe that, you know, I wish Jennifer or Director Burke was here. I believe that I had heard some modeling scenarios that said that the upper Russian river would go dry similar to what we saw this year, six out of 10 years based upon some of their presentations. So it's a little scary in the upper Russian river, you know, in terms of our supply, you know, it's not as connected to Lake Sonoma as a contractor, but you know, you're talking about impacts to many of the users on the upper Russian river. They're gonna potentially lose out and be in a pretty critical situation in more years than historically. And that's just directly related to not being able to rely on those inflows in from the project anymore. So it's something that's no water is very much aware of and looking for ways to perhaps find better ways to manage supply, acknowledging that that may not be relied upon as much as it was in the past. And there is sort of a, you know, my understanding is that there's many things that each of you would have to do before walking away from the project. So I think there's, we'll have some, it won't be a jolt, it'll be, but we'll have a better idea as things kind of flesh out over the next year here. Thank you. Any other board member questions? Oh, and I just wanted to add one thing in response to the question that director Grable just asked. Just as Peter was just explaining, PG&E support for the ongoing project is only one piece of the puzzle currently as to what the future holds. I believe the partnership that includes Sonoma Water is still in support of maintaining some sort of diversion such that the two basin, what's referred to as the two basin solution is still very much on the table. Now, this, you know, as Mr. Martin was explaining, the problem is that right now, PG&E is not even maintaining the infrastructure and they've got a transformer down, which is affecting the flows to the upper Russian river. That's a new development. I don't think everybody knows how this is gonna play out particularly because PG&E is still investigating how much water they feel that they are able to bypass and what they're able to send down. But for the longer term, the partnership I believe has been operating with the assumption that PG&E is not supporting this project that they want out. But they've been pursuing this idea that some level of diversions could potentially continue to be part of the future. And I think it's just at this point unknown what that is gonna be. So. Thank you, Assistant City Attorney Donovan. Any other board member questions or comments? If not, we will open it up for public comments on item 5.1. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Secretary Aitha. We have no public comments. And we have no one in the chambers. So that will take care of item 5.1. Thank you, Deputy Director Martin. We have one item on the consent calendar, item 6.1. If there are no board questions, I'll entertain a motion. Move to adopt the consent calendar. Second. We have a motion by Vice Chair Arnone to be seconded by Board Member Grable to approve the consent calendar. So at this time, we will open it up for public comments on item 6. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Secretary Aitha, do we have anyone? We have no public comments. May we have a roll call vote, please? Chair Galvin. Aye. Vice Chair Arnone. Aye. Board Member Baden-Ford. Aye. Board Member Grable. Aye. Board Member Walsh. Aye. Board Member Watts. Aye. Board Member Wright. Aye. Great, thank you everyone. We'll now move to our report items. Item 7.1, Deputy Director Savoni. Thank you, Chair Galvin. Introducing item 7.1, amended 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan presented by Senior Water Resource Planner, Colin Close. Mr. Close, you've been promoted to a panelist. It looks like you're muted and your video is off. Alrighty. How was that, Ms. Aitha? Perfect, thank you. Oh, terrific. Okay, great. Thank you so much for pointing that out. So we had mentioned to you during your study session about the Water Demand Offset Policy that we wanted to propose a couple of simple amendments to our Water Shortage Plan. So this item will present to you two changes that we're recommending. One that's directly related to that policy and the other that isn't. So if we could go to the next slide, please. You're very familiar with this slide, but this is really for the sake of any members of the public who may be watching. The California Urban Water Management Planning Act was adopted in 1983 and the city is subject to this act and has complied with it continuously since that time. We do two things to comply. We develop a Urban Water Management Plan that looks out over the next 25 years at our Water Supply Reliability and Availability. And we develop a separate Water Shortage Contingency Plan. So this item is focused on that second item, the Water Shortage Contingency Plan. These are prepared and adopted by city council every five years. We also bring them to you in study sessions and report items so that we make sure that they are in alignment with your understanding of the direction we need to take. And these can be amended in between those five-year cycles. It's really up to the water supplier to decide if that's in their best interest. And we have determined that there are two small changes that we think would serve our community well. Next slide, please. So again, for the sake of the community, a Water Shortage Contingency Plan is the way that water suppliers prepare for water shortages that could come. These are required by California law and they have to be a standalone document and they have to define what a water shortage is and how water shortages are determined. They have to be updated, et cetera. Our plan includes a long list of response actions that we can take to help our community reduce their water use. Next slide, please. Our plan defines water shortages in eight stages. And as you recall, we've had shortages over the years, typically in the range of 10 and 15%, occasionally 20% as we are today. There's maybe one time where we are at a 25% shortage for a short time in a summer due to some restrictions in Sonoma water's infrastructure. But if we get beyond that, that would be considered a severe drought. And that's when we would go to allocating water or rationing water among our existing customers. So stages five, six, seven and eight are those severe drought conditions. And that's where the two changes to this shortage plan are being proposed. Next slide, please. The water allocations adopted by council in June of this year lay out a methodology so that we can assign a limited amount of water to each individual existing customer so that they know that this is the amount of water they can use so that we don't exceed the amount of water we have available to go ahead and make sure we have plenty of water for health and safety throughout the length of that emergency. Next slide, please. We have an enforcement arm for that and that is the excess use penalty structure. So we brought that forward and explained it to you into city council and it was adopted with the water shortage plan. This makes a lot of sense when you do Excel spreadsheets and you look at how this would be implemented and how it would impact our customers. However, when we brought this forward to our vendor that manages and provides our software for our billing system, it became quickly apparent that this does not work with our billing system. In part, that is because this is a bit too complex and a bit too reliant on fractional use of thousand gallon units. We bill in thousand gallon units and so this quickly bumps into problems about having partial thousand gallon units being charged and there really was no way to adequately implement this particular program. So staff looked at a number of different models, crunched numbers, used our single family residential average customer and went through the process until we found a structure that would work with our software system and that would provide the same kind of results in terms of encouraging folks to stay within their allocations that this current structure would have done. So if we can see the next slide, please. What we've done here is we've looked at assigning a penalty per thousand gallon unit and our average customer uses about 10,000 gallons per year, I'm sorry, per month. And so going over that would be going above that hundred percent mark and over, I'm sorry, over a 200% mark. So what we've done is we've looked at how this would impact our customers. We've run the model again with the single family average customer and this has the same or very similar impact in terms of the penalty structure that the previous one would. And again, this could be implemented with our software. Next slide, please. The second amendment is one that you've heard us talk about before and that is to flatten the requirement for offsets so that if we're in a severe water shortage, we have one offset requirement for new demand rather than an offset that increases as a water shortage gets worse. We feel that the one to one offset is adequate. So we would recommend that we change that in the shortage plan as well so that shorter stages five through eight, the offset requirement simply be a one to one relationship or a 100% offset. Next slide, please. These elements show up repeatedly throughout the water shortage plan in sections and tables and appendices. So we would need to make sure that we update all of those elements accordingly to make sure that there's consistency throughout the document. We would also need to add the public noticing. We will be taking this item to city council and public notice is being published today. And we would need to add the city's signed resolution should the council adopt this amended document. So a number of things would need to be updated and added to the existing plan to make sure that it is fully incorporating all of the regulations. Next slide, please. So with that, it is recommended by Santa Rosa water that the board of public utilities by resolution recommend that the city council adopt the amended 2020 water shortage contingency plan and introduce an ordinance approving revisions to the excess use penalty structure that has been set by a previous ordinance and it changed city code. So we need to update that city code with the new excess use penalty structure. Next slide, please. I'm happy to take any questions or comments that the board may have at this time. Thank you, Mr. Close. I'll open it up now for any board member questions or comments. Seeing none, I will entertain a motion to approve the resolution that we have. I'll move a resolution to the board of public utilities recommending that the council, the city of Santa Rosa adopt the amended 2020 water shortage contingency plan and introduce an amendment to the city code and waive the reading of the text. I'll second. Thank you. We have a motion by Vice Chair Arnone and seconded by board member Wright. At this time, we'll take public comments on item 7.1. Who wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Secretary Aitha. We have no public comments. Very good. May we have a roll call vote, please? Mr. Galvin. Aye. Vice Chair Arnone. Aye. Board member Baden-Fort. Aye. Board member Grable. Board member Grable. Aye. Board member Walsh. Aye. Board member Watts. Aye. Board member Wright. Aye. Thank you. That passes. That'll conclude item 7.1. We'll now move to item 7.2. Deputy Director Savoni. Thank you, Chair Galvin. Introducing item 7.2. Water demand offset policy, fee study and fees. Call in close, Senior Water Resources Planner and Mark Hildebrand of Hildebrand Consulting will be presenting. Thank you very much. And again, Chair Galvin, members of the board, we're pleased to bring this item before you as well. Looking at the water demand offset policy, fee study and fees. Next slide, please. We wanted to add a few slides, just to add a bit more information to this presentation, just based on some comments that we've had from you and also from City Council, we wanted to make sure that there was sufficient information. So just a reminder that when we went through the process of developing the Water Shortage Contingency Plan and we worked with the Water Conservation Committee and also with the full board on developing that, the priorities that we confirmed for our water shortages is to, when we're in water shortage emergencies, is to focus first and foremost on making sure that our existing customers have water for health and safety and then to the greatest extent possible, supporting our existing customers for economic stability and existing customers with landscaping and then of course, new demand to the extent that we can. Next slide, please. Again, we have eight shortage stages and again, when we get past a 25% shortage, that would be a severe drought situation or a severe shortage situation. And again, that's when water allocations or water rationing come into play. Next slide. We have quite a few response actions. I think you're very aware of the sufficient outreach and education that we do, the abundant customer service and assistance that we provide, the operational changes we make and then we also have a series of prohibitions and restrictions and we wanted to talk to you about the impacts of the water allocations on our existing customers. So if we can go to the next slide, first we wanted to review, here are all of the prohibitions and restrictions on our existing customers in stages one through four. So early, we are making sure that our customers are beginning to eliminate any water waste or unnecessary uses of water and these are additive. So in a stage four, it includes all of the previous prohibitions and restrictions plus any new ones in stage four. So again, for any stage, it includes the previous prohibitions and restrictions. Next slide, please. In stages five through eight, again, that's where we're starting to do water rationing or water allocations and there are additional restrictions that apply to all of our customers as well. Next slide, please. So during these severe shortages, we're rationing our water, whatever existing amount we have, we're rationing it to try our best to make sure that our existing customers have sufficient water for health and safety throughout the duration of the emergency. So every service is allotted a specific amount of water based on the classification of customer and then based on customer specific data as well. And as you know, violations are enforced with our excess use penalty. And again, as you're aware, there isn't water then available for new demand when we're rationing water amongst our existing customers. Next slide, please. We also wanted to let you know how much work our community has done over the years to become more efficient. And this is one of the reasons why it becomes more and more difficult to achieve cutbacks during water shortages and why when we get beyond a 25% shortage in water, we need to ration water. So over the last 30 years, we've seen a 53% increase in our population, but a 44% decrease in the residential gallons per capita per day. So we went from water sales to our customers of 120 gallons per person per day in 1990 to the residential sector using only 67 gallons per person per day in 2020. And that's phenomenal. I also wanted you to note that 42% of that decrease, so nearly all of that decrease occurred by 2010. That's terrific news. What that means is that we've had tens of thousands of customers participate in our programs and become more efficient in addition to new state requirements so that when properties are sold, they have to come up to current water code. So these two combined efforts have been able to help our customers who have older units become nearly as efficient or even more efficient than new building sites. So this is great news for us in terms of managing our water supplies over the long run. Next slide, please. So when we get into water rationing, water allocations, we start seeing really significant impacts to our customers. In a stage five, the residential sector has cut down to 40 gallons per capita per day and a small allotment for irrigation during May to October. Depending on the month, that's anywhere from a 20 to a 30% reduction in water use. Commercial and health and safety have smaller percentage reductions, but they don't have the advantage of being able to turn off irrigation. Most of these accounts serve only the indoor uses. Our irrigation services, those meters that are dedicated for landscape irrigation have the greatest cutback because they are third on our list of priorities. So they're cut back to 54% of their typical usage during a stage five water shortage. So this is just to help you see that we're implementing our priorities with public health and safety, economic vitality and landscaping with these allocations. And obviously there's no allocation for new demand during water rationing. Next slide, please. So this is stage six. So you can see that in the residential sector, they've gone down to 36 gallons per person per day. There's only 1,000 gallons per month for irrigation during irrigation months.  So as you can see, this gets more and more restrictive. In stage seven, next slide, please. Even further reductions, no allocation in the residential sector for irrigation. Irrigation is still allowed in a stage seven, but customers would have to give up indoor uses in order to stay within their allocation and irrigate. So it's technically not disallowed, but it would become very difficult for folks to irrigate during that time. And then next slide, please. Stage eight, you can see there's no allocation for irrigation services. In a stage eight, we ban irrigation for all accounts. And you can see the residential sector is down to 28 gallons per person per day. That's really a significant cutback in water use. Next slide, please. So if we are in one of those very severe shortages, we also have a housing shortage crisis. And so there again, there's that balancing act that this policy is looking at, it's looking at, how do we balance a housing shortage crisis, which is ongoing with a water shortage emergency? This city has done taken tremendous steps over the last 10, 15, 20 years to adopt plans and processes and procedures to make sure that they remove barriers so they can achieve those mandates, but it's quite a struggle. Next slide, please. So in developing this policy and in working in the water shortage plan, staff across numerous departments work together and we considered alternatives. We could have proposed a moratorium. However, we do have a housing crisis and that is also tied in its own way to economic vitality and the wellbeing of our residents. It didn't seem like a viable option to any of us. There are cities and water suppliers, whoever who do opt for moratoriums during severe shortages. We didn't think it made sense for our community. We could require developers to find new water supplies. Typically that would be groundwater. They would have to build the public drinking water standards, which is much more expensive and it can take two to three years to get a well permitted. So that didn't seem like a viable option either. We could require developers to offset demand with new projects that they find and implement themselves. But that would take a considerable amount of our staff time, administration, oversight, inspections, data analysis. It really isn't all that much less expensive and it can be significantly challenging for new developers to develop a program when they don't know which customers would be eligible and that sort of thing. So it does, we've heard that it's very challenging for developers to do that. We could have proposed that the offset fee be due when the permit application is filed. That's when all of the other fees are due. But as we talked with you during the study session, that really didn't make any sense to us because the impact occurs at the time of final inspection or occupancy of any kind. And if we are not in a severe drought at that time, there's simply no need to collect fees. So we think it's better to collect the fees at the time of impact if in fact that fee is needed at that time based on a severe water shortage. Next slide, please. So the policy is this mechanism to implement the offset requirement in the shortage plan. And it does balance the need to respond to state law and local circumstances in a severe water shortage and respond to state law and the housing shortage crisis that we have locally. Next slide, please. This does apply to projects that have not yet applied for a building permit and that are subject to new or increased connection fees. Next slide, please. So the process would be that a new project would be applying for a water demand offset as part of the building permit application process. We'd need to memorialize in an agreement what the fee is, when it would be due and under what circumstances it would be due. And there is an appellate process built in to make sure we comply with the mitigation fee act. Building permit would be issued, the project would proceed and then payment wouldn't be due until final inspection or occupation of any kind, if and only if there's a declared water shortage emergency that also includes water allocations or rationing water among our existing customers at that time. Otherwise there's no fee. Next slide, please. Again, the fee would be due at final inspection or request for any type of occupancy if we're in a water shortage emergency that calls for water rationing. And the fees will be collected and segregated and tracked separately to comply with the mitigation fee act. And they would be used to very aggressively implement city programs and projects to create water demand offsets to achieve those offsets so that we make sure that there isn't an impact from that new development. Next slide, please. We also wanted to expand on that concept of the 44% reduction in residential per capita use by showing you an analysis that was done for our urban water management plan process. We asked our consultant to look at our water use in our customer sector for residential and multifamily by age of development. And what you can see is the pre-1994 group, that's the darkest line, the 1994 to 2009 group, that's the line with squares. And then the 2010 and earlier development or more recent development, that's with the triangles. Depending on the year, you can see that they really roughly have a right about the same amount of water use. And so what we know is, again, while new development is built to be more conservative with water, it depends on how many folks live in that property, how much landscaping it has. And also our existing customers prior to 2010 have done tremendous work to increase their water efficiency in their homes. In the multifamily sector, it appears as if the newer projects are significantly more water efficient, but there's a caveat there. The multifamily sector prior to 2010 includes both in the pre-1994 grouping and the 94 to 2009 grouping, most of our multifamily developments occurred during those two time periods, and they include quite a few accounts that do not have a separate meter for irrigation. So if we add in the irrigation use to the 2010 and up, you'll see that they would be right in parallel with the water use of the other multifamily residential users. And again, this is in large part because our older stock has participated quite robustly in a number of our programs over the years and become much more efficient. So this is good news, but again, it does make it challenging during water shortages. We have that sort of demand hardening occurring. Next slide, please. So at this point, what I'd like to do is ask Mr. Hildebrand to talk again with you about the fee study. Great, thank you, Mr. Kloes. And thank you for having me again today. In the water demand offset fee study, what we did was that we looked at different factors to understand what it would cost to offset the new demands created by development. So we started by looking at four years of water use patterns from existing customers to understand how much water residential customers typically use on average. And we also looked at the, we analyzed the cost of saving water by looking at known programs, programs that the city has been running for a number of years at different times. This includes a direct install bathroom conversion, which included a number of different fixtures that could be replaced with low flow options. We looked at the rebate program for high efficiency clothes washers. And we also looked at your turf removal program. And by looking at the cost of those programs, both the administrative and staff time, as well as the actual costs, direct costs such as rebates and fixtures, we are able to assess how much a cost per gallon to offset water through water savings. Next slide please. We applied those concepts to different types of development. And so you can see here in this table, there's a fee associated with various types of development, smaller lot, single family residential, medium lot, large lot, duplexes, condos, various ADUs, and commercial, industrial institutionals treated a little differently. So for the residential development, again, we looked at historical water use for those types of development and to understand how much water they typically use. And we applied the cost of water savings to that level of water use to understand what the water demand offset fee would need to be in order to fund programs that would offset those types of developments. The commercial industrial institutional is treated a little differently because each installation is so different that your development department actually assesses how much water is expected to be used by the applicant and a fee of $415 per thousand gallons per month would be assessed. Next slide. And I will give back to a project that is very close. Thank you so much. So in terms of the implementation, if this were to move forward and council were to adopt it on November 30th, the Mitigation Fee Act states that fees can't go into effect any sooner than 60 days after adoption. When we count out 60 calendar days that takes us to January 29th. So the last day of January and the beginning of February would be the earliest that this would go into action in terms of starting to request water demand offset applications and developing those agreements. Next slide please. There was a question posed about whether there would be alternatives to charging developers water demand offset fees. So staff had a number of meetings and discussions and looked at what are some possible alternatives. Certainly the general fund is eligible to be used for this kind of an expense. And it could be that council could recommend subsidizing all or a portion of water demand offset fees with general funds. Council could decide to limit offset, or I'm sorry, subsidizing only housing. They could limit it to a subsection of housing such as low or very low or affordable housing. Council could decide to limit it to a geographic area or do any sort of combination of those areas. But the general funds could be used should the council decide that that was what they wanted to do. When we look at water funds, the equation's a little more difficult, it's a little different. Our rate payer revenues cannot be used. As you know, Proposition 218 does not allow us to use rate payer funds to subsidize other groups. So we would not be able to use rate payer funds. We do have some cell tower revenue. You're probably familiar with that because that currently funds our help to others program that allows low and very low income customers to have some help with their water bill. So cell tower revenue is not subject to Prop 218. And if directed, staff could no longer fund the help to others program and use those funds if needed to offset water demand offset fees. That's not our recommendation, but it is an option. We could also have any excess use penalties that would be collected used to help offset water demand offset fees. There's no restriction on how those penalties would be used. However, we don't anticipate receiving much by way of excess use penalties because our goal is not to collect penalties when we're in severe drought. Our goal is to have our customers comply with the limits on their water allocation because that's at a time when we're very short on water supply and more than anything, we need to make sure our customers adhere to those allocations. So then we have sufficient water to last. Of course, if customers are recalcitrant, non-responsive, of course, we can absolutely use excess use penalties and we can even shut water services off if we had to. But again, what we try to do is work very quickly with our customers to bring them into alignment with whatever restrictions and prohibitions we have because when we're in water shortages, that's the key issue that we're facing. Next slide, please. We promise to bring back to you a thorough update on public outreach and the comments that we've received. We sent letters to over 170 groups and individuals, including contractors, developers, community groups, environmental groups, housing advocates, interested parties. And we also, in the top of that, there were probably, I think, somewhere in the neighborhood of about 20 staff members from other water suppliers, water districts and water agencies that were really interested in how we're tackling this problem. And so they were also kept up to date about what we're doing. We made presentations at publicly noticed meetings. I wanted to mention that at the Planning Commission meeting on October 14th, there were no comments from the public made. The commissioners asked some great questions. We were able to address all of their questions during the meeting. There were two comments that were made and we thought they'd be of value for you to have those brought forward so you know what they were. One commissioner mentioned they wanted to know the potential impact of the water demand offset fees on the price of a single family home. And we didn't have that information available at the time, but we've done a little bit of research. And depending on the database and the day that you look, the average closing cost of a house right now in Santa Rosa is anywhere from 600 to 690 thousand dollars that's kind of varied over the last month. If the average cost were at 600 thousand dollars, the fee is anywhere from one third of 1% of that cost to three quarters of 1% of that cost if we're considering the small lot versus the large lot water demand offset fee. So it is less than 1% of the cost. We thought that might be of interest to you. Another commissioner wanted to have the rebuild resiliency zones excluded from the policy and actually those are excluded because those folks already had meters previously, they're not having to pay new or additional demand fees. They were also interested in making sure ADUs are excluded and all conforming ADUs, those that are not subject to any of the other fees and connection fees, those are also already excluded. On October 26th, we had a study session with city council. There were two comments from the public that were one was recorded and one was live. The recorded was from an individual who requested to be added to the outreach list and they had already been on the outreach list but we went ahead and sent them the outreach letter again regardless after that meeting, we just went ahead and sent it to them again. And they also expressed concern about making sure that we enforce excess use penalties and enforce offsets. Their concern was that people could gain the system. So they really provide a lot of support for us to make sure that we do enforce, we do keep people in line with their allocations and that we do keep developers in line with their offsets. We also had a live comment from a member of the generation housing nonprofit. The gentleman said he would like a clarification about why this wasn't subject to AB 602. So we went through the timeline of AB 602 and why that didn't apply. And he seemed satisfied with that information. And then he also encouraged that the council adopts subsidies to stimulate additional affordable development. The council members, there were five present. All of them expressed support for this item, for this policy and fee structure. All of them expressed support for flattening the offset requirement to 100%. One council member though did express that this isn't their preferred way to go because of the housing shortage crisis, but they didn't see an alternative. They also expressed a desire to exclude multifamily development and or specific geographic areas, but they did not have a recommendation at that time about how to subsidize the costs of those offsets, but they did express that interest. In addition, we did receive one letter, one public comment letter from all of the outreach that we did. We received a letter from the Coastal Action Group and they had a lot of really interesting comments and observations. And so we provided them with additional information about groundwater use and water supply, water shortage planning, a whole host of information. And then they had three comments, very specific to the policy. They commented on whether or not CEQA would apply and we provided them with the water code to show how CEQA doesn't apply to water shortage plans and the implementation of those plans. They had a question about table four, what shows how much water would be saved. And so we provided additional information about how that was utilized. And then they had a comment about the relationship between collecting fees and achieving offsets and that collecting fees would not guarantee there would be offsets. So we provided them with some additional information about our 30 years of success in implementing programs, our ability to be very agile and quick in implementing programs and in achieving offsets. Also in all of our materials that we have sent to the public, we had a major that they realized there was a webpage. They could download the draft policy and the fee study and that that was available. And also contact information was available on that webpage as well. And that has been up since October 20th. Next slide, please. So with that, it is recommended by Santa Rosa Water that the Board of Public Utilities recommends that City Council adopt the water demand offset policy, the 2021 water demand offset fee study and the water demand offset fees and 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 1st, starting in 2023, using the engineering news records 20 city CCI. And next slide, please. Without, we're happy to take any questions that you may have. Thank you, Mr. Close and Mr. Hildebrand. I'll now open it up for board member questions and comments, board member Gravel. Hi, thank you to everyone. It's just something that I've followed very closely as someone who has been in the housing policy world for a while, second generation in Santa Rosa. First off, I wanna thank staff for their diligence and responsiveness and ability to do accredited research and really be an example to other jurisdictions about how to tackle what is an extremely challenging issue, not just now or in a temporary fashion, but also in the foreseeable future across the Western United States, especially. So thank you and that has not lost on me the depth and the difficulty of that challenge. So thank you so much. I wanna jump to specifically the WDO fee structure and how it applies to housing. Just this is something in my wheelhouse that I can speak to with some credibility and I wanna make sure I make my point really thorough in that way. So I apologize if this is lengthy. There's one myth that I think, sometimes when we are in crisis management, when we're looking at extreme challenges, climate change, water shortages, right? There's one myth that I just wanna address really quickly and this is not something that I believe staff or the water department is participating in, but more publicly there's this myth that somehow producing more housing or more types of housing, more housing availability and diversity that somehow that means more population that there's just all of a sudden more users and like if you build it, they will come, right? At a certain point, that may be true. Sonoma County is certainly not at that point. So I wanna make it clear that just from what we know in the city of Santa Rosa right now, we need a minimum of seven to 10,000 units of affordable and low income housing for our current residents and people who live and work here. And for anyone who wants to see just how dire that is, there's an article that just came out today in the President Democrat that details how specifically our workforce, our service workers, our farm workers and really this disproportionately affects what are equity priority populations previously referred to as vulnerable or marginalized populations. And these are our workforce, our families that are immigrant families, refugee families, people of color, those with disabilities, seniors. These are equity priority populations. And what we know is that those folks already live here. We're not creating, these aren't additional users. This isn't even an additional demand really. This is people who need a better quality of life who live here currently. And if you read the article on the PD today, you'll see that most of these folks are living in substandard conditions overcrowded. And it's not fair. It's not fair that we would in any way limit the potential diversity of housing options for those folks specifically. And that is why there are equity priority populations. We have to make equity for those folks a priority across all public institutions right now. The housing that is typically available for people who are extremely low income, people who are in equity priority populations is typically affordable, subsidized, multifamily, smaller square footage housing, right? Those types of developments currently are already operating on the smallest margins of feasibility. They've had declining revenue sources publicly for decades since the disappearance of redevelopment funds and other fund sources. This is widely known to the developer and construction and housing community. So, I wanna make sure that that's understood. This isn't just, this isn't more population. This isn't population growth. This is really making sure that we are providing diverse housing options to create a better quality of life for the folks who already live and work here first and foremost, right? I do think unlimited growth is obviously an issue for all communities in the world right now in terms of our resources and the allocation of resources. That's an issue for sure. But I don't think that's not where we're at right now with the availability of housing and the production of housing in Santa Rosa and Sonoma County. So, I wanna make sure that myth is really sort of taken to bed right there because that's what we're facing locally and those are the folks that it affects the most. So, on top of that, I would just add that when we're looking at those types of housing, I really like that you provided some alternatives both for us and for the council and that includes excluding or limiting excluding fees or limiting subsidies to housing affordable low, very low income and that there's a geographic component there because later on in the discussion, I will propose that we do recommend that that affordable and high density housing and housing in the downtown corn priority development areas is excluded from that just full transparency that I do agree with that alternative that you proposed. The other reason I think we are able to do that not only is it the right thing to do, right? I think that equity priority populations need to be a priority and those housing units to provide a better quality of life for people that are already here, that needs to be a priority and we can't we can't be increasing housing costs arbitrarily for that sector I think and I don't mean to say the whole thing is arbitrary, I just mean a fee multiplier, right? We know that fee multipliers, they're typically a regressive fee mechanism, right? That affects disproportionately lower square footage and low income housing. That's true statewide. Regardless of how I feel about fees in general, this is more about water, right? So does charging that fee create more water supply? In the long run, if we build up enough of a bank for it, it's possible, right? But I think those users are already here and we run the risk of not creating more water but still raising the cost of and raising the costs of housing and adversely affecting the availability of housing to folks who need it most. So that's why I really want to target, I think everything else in the Water Shores Continuity Plan and in this plan is really good and I really appreciate those targets. And what it details for stage five through stage eight specifically, right? That's, there's some really dynamite stuff in there that I think isn't, we are in dire need of, specifically in the housing and the WDO fee, you know, that's what I would like to discuss there. The other thing I would say is when you said, you know, funding sources, I just had a question on the source of funding for the cash for grass program, which I fully support but Deputy Director Close, could you just remind me what's the funding source for cash for grass? So thank you for giving me a promotion. But the source for cash for grass, all of our conservation programs currently that we have are funded in a way that they ultimately pay for themselves over the lifetime savings of that water. So we fund it with our rate payer funds and we have a tiered rate system so that that second rate is to help fund conservation because conservation is a little bit more expensive than just simple straightforward water. So we, but the programs are designed so that something that will save X gallons of water over a 15 year period will then essentially pay for itself. It pays for that rebate and staff time. So they're structured that way. The offset would allow us to go over and above that usual equation, add to that rebate amount so that we could offer much more than we would normally offer to increase the rate of participation, the number of participants and the size of the participants particularly in that cash for grass sector. So that's why it's structured that way and why we can't offer more than we do already is because we're trying to make these programs cost effective with our rate payer funds. When we, if we get offset funds, we can then go over and above. Okay, that definitely clarifies. So I would just also comment that as someone who fully supports the cash for grass program and voted on the water conservation subcommittee to raise that amount and everything, I just wanna point out that that is something we already do that doesn't equally benefit all users from the cash perspective. The cash for grass specifically goes to people who have longs who have single family homes typically with irrigation on a property that supports that sort of vegetation or lawn exactly. So I just wanna point out that we do currently do that. It's a good thing that we do, but it seems to me it does, specifically the cash goes back to a certain user that has a certain level of property ownership for instance, right? And so I do wanna point that out it's just something like with rate payer funds that I will leave that up to those on our water staff, you, Mr. Close and others and the city attorney to figure out exactly what that nexus is of rate payer funds and cell towers and everything, but I do think there's things we already do there. So for me, I'm comfortable saying like, I support the water contingency plan, the water shortage contingency plan and I support almost everything in item 7.2, but in terms of the WDO fee on housing specifically, I would like there not to be a fee per unit on affordable high density, low income housing city wide and specifically on all housing in the downtown core and the priority development areas. So thank you again for your presentation. You're welcome. And if I could, I just wanted to add two pieces of information in case it is helpful. I don't think it affects what you've just said, but I think it's a good thing to do because that's what you've just said, but in terms of the offsets, the offsets don't necessarily have to find new water. That could be a way offset money is spent that we actually develop a new water source, but we designed the study to look at programs that would reduce demand, freeing up room with our existing water shortage supply to allow for development to continue without a hiccup. So yes, new water supply could be a program that is funded, but the three programs we have sort of on deck that would be ready to go very quickly should we need to are conservation programs that would reduce existing water use with our customers so that new customers would have water supply available to them. So I just wanted to mention that. I also wanted to mention that a lot of what we would focus on, for example, with the toilet program, direct install toilets are essential for low income housing, particularly multifamily, what we found with a grant that we received that we ran in 2015 and 16, 80% of the toilets were installed in low income, multifamily sector because those folks, typically it's very difficult if there isn't much of a margin when you're operating as a nonprofit with a low income housing unit. And so the benefit for them was they needed to come up with no upfront capital. They could just participate in the program and have anywhere from a couple of dozen to a few hundred toilets in their complex replaced. And so we were able to put to rest some of those really old toilets, three and a half gallon, five gallon per flush toilets that previously they just weren't able to do because coming up with the capital upfront and then trying to get a rebate later is very difficult, as you're knowing that in this housing sector. So that's one of the reasons why there's that program would be targeting because there is a real direct benefit to our existing low income customers as well. So we tried to come up with programs that kind of went across the range, one that really can help in the multifamily sector. One, the clothes washing rebate is very good for the single family sector and the CII cash for grass is very good for the commercial sector. So we tried to make the offset program, create it in such a way that we have flexibility to try to serve major sectors of our community where we haven't necessarily seen as much market penetration as we'd like. So I don't know if that's helpful information, but I just wanted to add it in case that's of interest to you or the public. Thank you so much. Thank you. Where my walls. Yes, thank you, Chair Galvan. First, I want to say I'm supportive of Member Grebel's comments. I think it's great to look at this as a housing issue and know that we're committed to saving the water and that we will have enough water and not look at it with fear of the population growing. I think the population hasn't grown and we're now struggling to serve the people that need housing. And I think the city's on the right track when they're saying that they want more housing and they want housing to take care of everybody. And I want to commend the staff. I was skeptical of the item at the first study session and Director Burke and Senior Planner Close and Hildre Brand consulting did a great job at answering the questions and doing away with some of my concerns and the increasing amount of information available. So I truly appreciate that. In general, I'm supportive of the item and appreciate the extra work. I do have the same concerns to Member Grebel if there was a way to have these fees not impact low income housing and development, that would be great. Just a couple of considerations if there was a square footage adjustment, a square footage per unit adjustment that might be helpful. I know in single family on the chart, we're looking at lots at 6,000 square foot is kind of the cut-off. Now it's kind of the size of a lot around the 1940s and 50s. They're getting a little smaller now. And then on the, we did adjust for the condos, apartments and mobile homes per unit and that that's reduced. So if the single family lost 1,964 bucks in the condo with separate irrigation services to like 1,300 bucks, there is some drop there. I was wondering if staff just had any suggestions do they think using a square footage per unit would drop that any further? But I do know they considered it. I just was hopeful that if there was a density, sort of a density bonus for that. Well, the density bonus shows up in that last fee, the small units that are in high density apartment complexes. So that's where we integrated that. Oh, gotcha. I'm sorry, I see it. Oh, terrific, good, good. Now I'm actually happy. Oh, great. Oh, good, yeah. Thank you. I do want to thank you for all the work you put into this and how careful you are and how gentle you were in teaching us about how you put all this together and I appreciate it, good work. Yeah, and I just want to again thank Mr. Hildebrand because he's really got a talent for taking very complex detailed databases and being able to pull out useful information. And I'm a bit of a data wonk myself. And so he ran under the scrutiny of my red pen, but he dodged it most of the time. He's really very good at this work. I agree. I think we have the right crew. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Galvin. And thank you, Collin, I appreciate all of your work on this and staff's work. It's really clear that you guys have worked really hard to understand and accommodate the concerns, several of which I agree with that have been stated already by board members Walsh and Grable. I do struggle with this proposal, not because necessarily of the legitimacy or the data in the proposal itself or the staff work that's gone into it. This city, BPU and city council has really made a clear commitment to improving the availability and affordability of housing in Santa Rosa, which is of course impacted by a whole bunch of other competing priorities, a safe and stable water supply being really high on that list, which is what we are charged here to do and to prioritize. But similar to Boire and Grable's comments, I've had a lot of conversations and heard a lot of input from our community and stakeholders around this this last few weeks. 100% of the input I've heard is centered around the potential impact to housing, excuse me, in Santa Rosa, specifically the creation of new supply across frankly a range of income levels, new affordable units, of course being the highest on that list, facing impact fees and construction costs that already really can't pencil. I mean, in many situations with public dollars we're out in the parking lot just throwing money at each other, trying to get one more unit built, right? And saving one more drop of water along the way. So I appreciate that you've built in some levers to pull that it wouldn't go into effect unless we hit the next level of restriction and that the fee wouldn't be required if we were no longer in that stage of restriction. And I think that that was really thoughtful and creative and I like that. I have a handful of process questions, of course some for myself as I continue to learn every day here, but also several from stakeholders that I've heard of. They've reached out, we've got a lot of policies that we're subject to and they're really complicated from local policies that we've set ourselves and state regulations, tax policies, finance requirements and the questions really center around why this, why now and what alternatives are legal and possible at this time. If this proposal doesn't end up creating more supply and we're in this crisis moment, a crisis in housing and a crisis in water supply, why do we have to do it now if we're in this crisis if this proposal is to encourage compliance with limits that we're putting forward, can this be a penalty only structure? I guess that's too, Kotlin. Well, thank you very much. The policy is different from the water allocations that existing customers would have to comply with. So that piece is independent. So if I'm a water customer and I'm refusing to stay within my water allocation, I'm unfairly using twice as much water as has been allocated to me and I can't make an argument that there's a public health and safety reason why I need twice as much water and the city works with me and I absolutely refuse. That's a whole different matter. That's around me complying with that allocation and there's penalties and we can shut their water off and all of that. This is around a new demand from a new project that's being built that didn't previously have a meter or had a meter and the use is gonna change significantly. A dry warehouse is becoming a very water rich kind of say a resort setting of some kind or a series of I don't know of restaurants or something. So there's this new demand on the water. Well, we've divvied up what we've got among our existing customers. There's nothing left to give away to make sure we get through the water emergency. So what this does is it collects funds from projects that would be coming on to the city's system at that time when they're gonna go for occupancy or final inspection. And that money would be used to look at our existing customers and then reduce the amount of water that needs to be reduced from those users. And maybe this new development needs 100 units. Let's just use a really simple number, 100 units of water. We would take that fee and we would work with our existing customers to reduce 100 units of water from their use through toilet replacement or turf or another program if we found another program promised to be less expensive and more effective or something like that. That 100 units of water then would be available for this new site to consume. And that would be a way of making sure that they have enough water while our customers have enough water. If we don't do that, we're left with having to ask our customers to reduce their water use overall. So for example, in a stage, I think in stage seven, we were up to 55% reduction in single family water use. We'd have to be asking them to do a 56 or a 57% reduction in their water use. And so in order to make room for a new development. So what this does instead of just saying to all of our customers, you all must reduce even more to make room for new development. It says, who's willing to come up, work with us, reduce your water use, have some sort of incentive to do that. You do that willingly. And by your acting in that way and getting a slight benefit from it, that allows this new development to come on board and have sufficient water supply. So there's kind of a couple of different issues. And so the other question that sounded like it was in there was that why now? And I think really the why now is that as we move forward and we're seeing climate change and we're seeing that, although we are as a region done a tremendous job to conserve water. For example, Santa Rosa in 2020 literally used 14% less water than we did in 1990, even though our population increased 53%. We see this very severe year and a half of lack of rainfall and we see our lake levels at the lowest they've been since they were filled. And so what we realize as well right now we're in a stage three, we're closer than we've ever been to having to be in a water rationing situation. We've never been this close in the last 30 years of having water shortage plans. So the why now is that just in seeing our current water conditions and the vulnerability that we currently face right now in this moment. So that's why now. And I think I may have mentioned to you and if I didn't mention this in the study session and I apologize in the last 30 years we've never had to ration water. So if we had implemented this policy back in 1992 we would have collected exactly zero fees in the last 30 years. So this is something that we've never been in this condition before. We hope we never have to go to rationing water but we do need to be prepared because we are more vulnerable today than we've been in the last 30 years. So hopefully that kind of helps a little bit. I'm not sure if I answered all of your questions. Thank you. It helps definitely. I still have a couple of more. Yeah, sure. I remember Grable already brought it up. It sounds like I don't know the entire landscape of options whether it is tax policy restrictions or offsetting between our different funds. But as an individual board member, for example, this proposal went out to our community and immediately I heard from the community around why this, why now, if it's not creating water can we do other things? Is it really a money issue? Is it a finance issue? Is it really just trying to incentivize folks to not go above allocations? Is it about offsetting new units? What other options may or may not have been out there? I think as a, I guess I shouldn't say relatively new board member because I've been here for a little while now but I'm still very new to water engineering and municipal water management. I think I would have, it really would have helped me to have had a more, a pre-conversation before maybe it marched out to the community with, hey, here's a proposed increase on a new fee in this really contentious, difficult area. And here's four options. Even if the other three weren't any good, I think it would have helped me be able to think through this a little bit easier. I try and do as much as my own study as I possibly can, but I can only know what I know. Obviously the need to safeguard our system and our water supply is paramount. That is what we're here for. Can this fee only be applied to certain types? Can it be waived or accommodated with certain types? And a final process question, I'll just tack this one at the end so I don't have to come back is, it strikes me that just the impact fee or whatever we wanna call it, just the fee being on the books, there's a perception real or otherwise that we'll see a chilling, a further chilling on new projects that we so desperately need. We know that this wouldn't go into effect if approved. Unless we were right up against or coming into that next level of restriction, we'll have some notice that we're walking into that next level of restriction. Can this essentially be paused and pushed forward the week before it does? So it's not on the books for today and still a lover that can be pulled in the event that we very much are looking at stage four or stage five or stage six. So I think those are my final process questions. Thank you very much. Yeah, is it okay if I go ahead and take some time to respond? Would that be helpful? Sure. I will loop that to Chair Galvan. Okay, terrific, yeah. So you're making really important points. I do wanna just clarify again, while this doesn't necessarily create new water supply, it could be used to create new water supply, say new wells, it could be invested in new water supplies. Probably the quickest and most cost effective thing would be to actually reduce existing demand with our existing customers, which then frees up water to be used by a new development. So it's about water supply. So it's about making sure we have adequate water supply and that could be achieved by creating new water sources, but it can be achieved as well. As I said, we used 14% less water in 2020 than we did in 1990. We don't have new water supplies, but what we have is we have folks who've participated in our program. So it's kind of a, I know it can be a difficult concept, but these offsets would be used to reduce water use. And that's a very real way of freeing up water supply. So I just wanted to kind of reiterate that. And also if we could, I don't know if Ms. Aitha could bring up the slide show again and maybe go to that slide that's near the end that shows the alternatives to charging water demand offset fees because I think, Chair Member Bedenfort, you brought up some issues and I think maybe having that slide in front of us would help us talk through it just a little bit. Is that, oh, terrific. So, oh, keep going. It'll be very close to the public outreach piece, I think. It's page nine of nine. Backup one, maybe? Oh, no, page nine of nine. Okay, so that'll be slide 18 probably or something like that. I'm sorry.  Let me see if I can find it. Oh, yes, the next one, I think. Perfect, oh, thank you so much. Really appreciate your assist with that. So in looking at alternatives, certainly you could recommend to the city council that they use general funds to subsidize this. So because we can't simply waive the fee without somehow paying for it, but out of Prop 218, we just simply can't do that. The water fund couldn't absorb the cost without violating Prop 218. So we could use general funds and we could redirect sell taro revenue from the water fund. Of course, we don't recommend that. We think the help to others program is helping this particular group of folks that we're very concerned about already. So, but the general fund could certainly, there are problems with the general fund, as you know, in terms of budgeting and that sort of thing, but you very certainly could recommend to city council that it look at whether there could be some general funds to subsidize, as you and I think chair member Grable have brought forward geographic areas, types of housing, subsets of types of housing, you could formulate a recommendation that includes that. Without recommending some kind of subsidy though, it does put us all in a little bit of a bind because the water department can't simply waive the fee without having some way to subsidize it. So it ties our hands because of Proposition 218. So we need some help from you on helping to recommend to council, how would that be funded? So there is that piece. And we wanted to also just make it clear that the reason we would have the water demand offset agreement at the very beginning, and it would have very clear language so that both parties know that the only time this fee would be due is if they are connecting or doing a final inspection, going for occupancy during one of those severe droughts, otherwise the fee is waived. So it'd be very clear in there, but also developers need to know what their fees are up front. So there's case law and state regulations that say when they go for their building permit and that building permit's issued, they need to know exactly what their fees are. And so to add a fee later after they've gotten a building permit, it starts to get us into all kinds of trouble. And it also raises problems for folks who are developing low and very low income housing because they need to be able to hit milestones with their funding. And I don't know a lot about this, but in talking with our planning folks, they need to be able to hit milestones with their funding and to have something come in at the last minute on a project like that could destroy it. So they're better off actually knowing what their potential obligation would be at the very start as they're navigating the funding scenario and that sort of thing. So that's one of the reasons why we very carefully looked at where would the fee get memorialized in an agreement with the understanding that fee doesn't get paid until the impact is felt and only if we're in that severe of a water shortage. So that's one of the reasons why there's that very careful piece negotiated in theirs that in talking to our building official, he made it clear that we have to tell them right up front at the building permit application what the fees would be. So we don't know a way around that piece of it. So I think those were my notes. I may have missed and I apologize if I did. I may have missed one or two of your comments or maybe not replied adequately, but please, if there's additional questions, I'm happy to do my best. No, that was great. I appreciate it. I see that I'll look forward to hearing a bit from board member Watts and potentially some members of the community and other board members. I appreciate the conversation. I'll make my last plug for anything that we can do as a board and as a city to really take seriously and look at our above and below ground storage options. I would be interested in learning more. Thanks so much. Board member Watts. Thank you. Thank you very much for the presentation. And I know that you've had a lot of comments and back and forth feedback from board members and members of the public. And so I really appreciate all your work on this item. I just want to emphasize a few things that have probably already been said, but I do think that the biggest concern about this item for me is really that affordable housing piece. And I understand that we have some restrictions of Prop 218 and I would support looking at, recommend you to counsel, maybe looking at the general fund to supplement those fees in particular. I also had just a comment around some of the projects to offset the demand. And I understand that that is separate, not necessarily just creating a new water source, which would be probably more costly and a longer project, but maybe also looking at flow restrictors for those different units that are not abiding by the restrictions that are in place and lowering their water usage. I know that there are other agencies that have implemented that policy and looked at flow restrictions or in the process of that. And I have brought that up to staff separately. So just wanted to state that publicly that that might be another project that could lower demand and look at that penalization part for certain units that you have done that education and that outreach with, but there's still some issues with their usage. And then I just had a couple other comments. One was, I think it was board member Walsh talked about the square footage with the condos and lower. And I do see that the ADUs and the single room occupancies have that lower fee. I was curious though, that, you know, and I don't know what the definitions are of like small high density apartment units, what, how many units, what the floor levels are and those types of definitions. But, you know, for looking at condos and apartments, it seems that they could vary greatly in size and affordable units often might be those SRO type things, but it still feels like there could be some wiggle room within those different areas that maybe we could use a square footage to define that a little bit more. I see that senior housing has been put into that lower fee, which I appreciate for that vulnerable population. I was just curious if legally you are allowed to put other populations into that fee or is there something that allows that senior housing to be in there, which I would support senior housing being as low as possible, that's a huge need. So that's one question. And I have to look at my notes for the other one, but maybe I'll let you respond to that. Okay, yeah, certainly be happy to. So we are definitely considering flow restrictors and we are talking with other water agencies who are facing some of these challenging times as well. So absolutely in terms of managing the allocations with our customers, we are wide open to looking at that. Of course, that's a different, it's a separate issue, but it's an important one. And we really appreciate that you've brought some of these ideas and connected us with some other agencies. So thank you for that. And absolutely that's important. In terms of square footage, what we have seen is that there is a natural break and how much water is used, not so much based on square footage, but based on the type of development. Now square footage with a single family, that's directly related to the size of landscaping. So you can see where that nexus shows. But what Mr. Hildebrand did was he took our very complex database of, I don't know, I think there were 45,000 accounts over four years. So you can just imagine the amount and it was monthly water use. So you can just imagine the amount of data that he was wrestling with. But what he did was he drilled in to see where were their natural breaks and they follow what we show for that fee study. So what we're seeing is, that correlates to the use by those types of users. So that's how we've grounded this in actual water use data. Certainly, I'm sure that it would be possible to do a study that looks at square footage specifically and perhaps only. The difficulty is that's not a database that's readily available to us. And so there may be some real questions about how one would go about actually analyzing that. Our database allows us to look at parcel size and type of development and whether or not it has a separate irrigation meter and then the monthly usage by these types of usages. And we just, again, we see these clumpings, these very natural breaks in water use and that's why the fee changes for each of those. It's based on their actual, the water use history for over four years of accounts that have 12 months of history in them. So I think we really did the best we could and we did find there were some natural breaks related to like the high density apartments naturally fit into that lowest fee. But otherwise, I'm not sure how we would tease out square footage honestly of the unit size beyond what we've done already to look at the actual water use history and what the pattern is within these. Again, given that we don't have those data sets and then I mentioned that about flow restrictors. So, and I think you had another question, Ms. Watts. I really appreciate that. And I thought the square footage was not probably something that you would have at your availability. And I would not wanna put it on staff to try to do a whole other study that would probably cost as much as probably some of the fees that we would be looking for. So the other question I had was around the decrease in our population. It looks like that we've had a dip on, I think it's slide eight. And was that taken into consideration seeing our population decrease over time? Yes, and we're waiting for the census data. The census data projects actually that 2020 was 178,000 which would be an uptick but they haven't officially published that. They go through a QA, QC process and there's a number of iterations. So we anticipate that probably in 2022, maybe sooner we'll see how that data rolls out. And that will also then, what happens is the state then goes back and re does its past 10 years projections or estimates and it may update previous years as well. But we didn't wanna mix and match data and we didn't wanna use data that hasn't officially been published and released. So yes, it looks like we lost population in 2020 but we actually think it has just slightly increased just a very small amount. But we're sticking with one database and we're gonna stay consistent with that just because we wanna make sure that we've matched what we used in our urban water management plan and our water shortage plan as well. And then if we get updated data certainly we can update those charts. Thank you so much. And I do apologize after this item I will have to drop off for a family situation that I made myself available for the meeting but I just wanted to let everyone know ahead of time before I just drop off after this item is over. But thank you very much for your comments. Thank you very much, Board Member Rod. Well, first of all, I wanna add my thanks to Colin and everyone in the staff that worked on this item the amount of legwork and groundwork that you've done and the support that you've developed for the proposal is impressive. And in particular, I'm impressed by the amount of public outreach that was involved in bringing this proposal to us today. And the fact that you sent letters to over 170 groups had at least five public meetings spoke to North Coast Builders Exchange and that level of dissemination in the community the affected community is I think critically important. And the whole purpose of that is of course to bring to the front any objections in the affected communities that might be productive in crafting a better proposal. And it sounds to me like the reaction that you got in this extended outreach was if not actually supportive at least wasn't opposed to the proposal as being presented. Is that a fair characterization Colin? I believe so. You know, I'm sure folks may have different conversations with board members and they necessarily might with staff but we received very little, you know we've shared with you what we have received. I will say at the North Coast Builders Exchange they asked terrific questions. Most of it about water supply and how do we determine shortages and that sort of thing. But the one question I thought was very telling was one member said if asked if this was in fact a policy established to avoid a moratorium. And we said yes, absolutely categorically. Yes, we want to avoid moratoriums. And another member of that governing affairs committee did express some of the concerns we're hearing from some of the board members here in just in terms of how were those fees set and for multifamily and is this sort of in alignment with the council's goals around affordable housing. So, you know, there was one voice that did have that same similar concern but nobody has come before us and said this is ridiculous. This is terrible. You shouldn't have this policy at all. I think all of us want to avoid a moratorium. We just don't want to get into a situation where we don't have enough water and we don't have a way to address that. And somehow we stop the forward movement of housing projects as they go forward. We just wouldn't, we would hate to see that. So, yes, I think you're right. You've characterized it accurately. Thank you. Any other board member questions or comments? In the interest of full disclosure I am the chairman of the governmental affairs committee for the builders exchange. So I was chairing the meeting when Colin and his staff made that presentation and it was very well received. I appreciate the comments from all of the board members. I think that I believe that the staff and the consultant have explored all options that this is not something that was just brought up at the last minute this process and this policy has been in discussion for a couple of years. Like vice chair Arnone, I feel that despite the outreach, very little response or comments from the housing industry, I can tell you I have not been contacted by anybody with regards to any issues with this offset policy. So I am prepared to support the recommendation and the resolution to go to city council. We have no other comments. I'll go ahead and open it up for public comments on item 7.2. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Secretary Aitha, do we have anyone? Yes, we have two people who have raised their hand. The first is Ananda Sweet. Ms. Sweet, I'll allow you to talk and you can go ahead and unmute. Yeah, thank you so much, Chair Galvin and members of the board. Ananda Sweet with the Santa Rosa Metro Chamber of Commerce. At first, I just wanna thank you all for your thoughtful approach to this discussion. We really appreciate the conversation on drought impact and completely support the need to assess our water resources and conservation and supply solutions. The primary challenge we see with the water demand offset fee approach is that it doesn't align with the city of Santa Rosa's housing needs and the city's stated goals and stated strategy of encouraging housing by offering aggressive mix of lower fees and reduced permitting process burden. From the frame of water conservation, new development as you all know is much more water efficient and the water demand offset fee is an approach that brings a lot of risk in terms of discouraging needed housing and highly water efficient new development by adding another layer of permitting burden and potential development cost calculations to every project. And it does with this with little to no benefit in that negative impact when the actual fee will only apply if we reach a certain stage, adding a new layer of uncertainty to the development process. Of course, what we're talking about here is a revenue generating solution to fund other conservation efforts. And even if a WDO fee was determined to be an appropriate revenue generating solution, some of the negative impact on housing development could be alleviating, be alleviated by at least putting this on pause and it's needed down the road bringing it back as part of a menu of options once closer to a stage in which it would apply. In the meantime, we'd really like to see a much broader conversation and a comprehensive approach to water resource management and how that aligns with our community's needs and priorities. Thank you. Next, we have Callum Weeks. Mr. Weeks, you can unmute. Board of Public Utilities Chair Gallupin, Vice Chair Arnone and Board members, my name is Callum Weeks and I am the Policy Director of Generation Housing where we advocate for more, more diverse and more affordable housing. You know, first, I just really wanna acknowledge and express my appreciation for our hard work staff. I'd also like to express my appreciation for all the thoughtful questions and comments of Board members today. I think they all raised excellent points and quite frankly, brought a lot of my own concerns, our own concerns with this WDO policy. You know, obviously drought is here and it certainly requires substantial attention and action by all, but you know, still from an, you know, an equity standpoint, I think we should be very alarmed. Long term, these fees, especially this one in particular, will, I still think do very little in terms of creating more water and may in fact be inequitable in that application. I think it all brought up an excellent point. You know, it also adds additional layers of what kind of uncertainty in the development process at a time where low income affordable housing is the top priority, not only for Sonoma County, but for the state of California. And so I really wanna emphasize that as much as possible. I guess if this has to proceed forward, the one thing that we would also really emphasize is that we look to the general fund for a subsidy for affordable housing. We cannot make the process of building affordable housing more on risk, you know, more costly. We just, we can delay no longer. It's just, it's not an option. And so yeah, again, I would just really like to highlight that we are deeply concerned, you know, when it comes to looking at this from an equity standpoint. And I guess I would just end with one question and I apologize that this was answered previously, but if this was for some reason punted to January of next year, would that result in this policy having to be changed in some respects in order to adapt to new state law and beyond that, I have nothing more as always again, you know, thank you all for your service and I really appreciate your time. Secretary Aitha, do we have any other comments? Those are all the public comments. No emails or voicemails? No, sir. All right, maybe we have a roll call vote please. Oh, I'm sorry. I have an additional comment. I'm sorry. I have an additional comment if I might. Sure. Yeah, so I believed what I had proposed before during Mr. Close's presentation was to offer an alternate proposal, amending the resolution. I'm not sure from a process point exactly how I'm supposed to do that, but if I could get clarification on that, that'd be great. I apologize. I did not catch all of that fully. I was... We'll let City Attorney Donovan respond. Okay, great. Well, we don't have a motion introduced yet, do we? So I think it would be preferable to go ahead and introduce the motion and then Board Member Grebel, if you would like to introduce an alternative, we could do that, but we don't have a motion currently on the table yet, do we? So is the process similar to what is that Council where a motion for the resolution is adopted and then I offer a friendly amendment? Or do we vote on the current resolution and then I offer another proposal? It seems to me that if the motion is put on the floor and if it gets a second, then it's appropriate for discussion on the motion. And if there's an alternative proposal that is offered by someone is and a friendly amendment is requested, I think that could be considered. And I think that's, am I, is that right? Assistant. Whoops, yes, sorry. Yes, an amendment to the motion can be considered after we have a motion on the table. We could go ahead and do a vote or we could, you could introduce your amendment and then we could, it's at the, if someone wants to second the amendment, we could do a vote on that, so. Point of order, point of order, please. I'm sorry? I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, point of order. I believe you made a motion. Is that, Deputy Council, I think you're wondering whether a motion has been made. Is there a motion on the table? There has not been a motion and a second yet. Thank you, sir. I would, I would suggest that member Grable make, make the motion. The motion doesn't have to be as offered by staff. Well, I think Vice Chair Arnone was in the process of making a motion. Oh, I'm sorry, sir. Mr. Arnone, I'm sorry. I would, I would wait, wait for that motion. And then we could make a motion to amend it if we needed to correct. Exactly, exactly. Even before, even before we vote on the motion. That's my understanding. Yes. That there could be a motion, there could be a motion. There has to be a motion on the table first. And then we take various procedural steps to modify the results on that motion. But I think there has to be a motion on the floor first. And I was attempting to put one on when we started this discussion. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Chairman Galvan. I mistakenly thought a motion was on the table and had it already been made. Thank you very much. Oh, if I can continue, I would like to make a move, adoption of a resolution of the Board of Public Utilities recommending that the Council of the City of Santa Rosa adopt the Water Demand Offset Policy, Water Demand Offset Fee Study, and Water Demand Offset Fees, and waive the reading of the text. This, I'll get that motion. All right, we have a motion by Vice Chair Arnone, seconded by Board Member Wright. Mr. Chairman, request to amend the motion. Go right ahead. Thank you, sir. I would like to add to that motion that the Santa Rosa City Council also consider subsidizing the Water Demand Offset Fee for low and low income housing with the general fund monies as they deem appropriate to meet their goals for housing in the first three years that the fee is in effect. I believe that amendment fails unless there's a second approved by the group. We have a motion to amend the motion. I'll second that amendment. And we have a second by Board Member Watts. Assistant Attorney Donovan, do we take a vote on the original motion and then a vote on the amendment? We should vote the amendment. This is an amendment to the motion rather than a substitution is my understanding. We would vote on the amendment first. Yes. That would be my understanding also. We could also discuss the proposed amendment. Right. Yes, and I don't know if you want to have some discussion of this proposed amendment. I believe there is, there was one question raised by the commenters too that Mr. Close might want to respond to. And that was regarding what if this is put off to next year, is there any change in it that would be necessitated by changes to the law? My understanding of the answer to that question is that it is no that the recent statutes that were enacted by the California legislature would not affect the policy as it is proposed. I would concur with that legal opinion. Thank you. So at this point then we'll have some further discussion I guess on the amendment to the motion. Board Member Gravel. Yeah, I have a question. So for whatever staff can answer this question, do we currently already wave or is it a waiver or a subsidy for the demand fees for ADU 750 square feet or under, under the resilient city ordinance? Can you clarify what the language is on that? Is it a, do we wave that fee or is it a subsidy? It's a great question. I'm not probably in the best position to answer it. I think that we can't require a fee for the 750 and smaller by law, but I'm wondering if perhaps, yeah, I just, yeah. So state law prohibits us from charging the ADUs under 750 square feet and under. We passed that resolution though before the state law changed when David Guillain was planning director into the resilient city ordinance. And I'm wondering when we passed that in the city of Santa Rosa, was it a subsidy because it also included water demand, water and sewer demand fees as far as I'm aware. Was that a general fund subsidy or did we exempt that type of unit from fees? I honestly, I do not know. I don't know if that's something that our legal counsel can speak to. I'm only familiar with the element of it, of it complying with state law. So your memory predates my knowledge base. I apologize. And, oh, and so, yeah, it sounds to me like I've just gotten a little bit of communication from another staff member who says, they believe that we enacted that to comply with state law and not to pre-date the state law. But again, I don't have that first hand knowledge. So I apologize. Okay, I only say that because I think there is a precedent for that that doesn't violate Prop 21 team for that reason. It'd be something to look into when this is presented to the council because I know that that question will come up. Just a point of discussion and a question for Board Member Walsh. When we, and for staff, in amending our recommendation, the wording that would go forth in the resolution, if we were to say, we would like the WDO fee to include a proposed subsidy or exemption for units that are high density or affordable, high density and or affordable housing units in the city of Santa Rosa. Do we, in your proposed fee schedule, I just, I want to be really clear about where that designation is made because we're not saying it on a square footage basis. We're generally, we know what the land use is if it was high density multifamily or subsidized affordable. We know what that is, right? But I just want to make sure we're making that designation because in your proposed fee schedule, basically everything under 6,000 square foot, including single family homes and down, you start to have those incrementally reduced fee fees in the schedule that is the draft schedule that you presented. So I just want to be clear about what we're including and I just ask Board Member Walsh to be, to speak to the details of his proposal for what units then would be either exempted or subsidized and that it's really clear that that's what we're recommending to the city council. Great, I appreciate that and the opportunity to do it. And it was just for the city council's very gentle amendment without a lot of specificity because the city council is in charge of the general fund budget and all of them, the only city council can appropriate funds on behalf of the citizenry. And so the comment was just a very gentle amendment that we accept staff's recommendation and then we just make an addition and then we also recommend that city council consider is just recommended that they consider general fund subsidies for low income housing. And they could consider that they, could be that they consider subsidizing developments overall, but the alternative is obviously the general fund can pay in if we didn't want others to pay in. And so it's just that we ask the city council to subsidize low income housing to meet the housing goals that they have. Yeah, just consider it. And then, cause they're in charge of the budget, if they can't do it, they can't do it. If they can, they will. And then at the budget policy discussion, what does the city want to do with their money? Then people may want to change that as well. And if the council wanted to, they could actually change the implementing ordinance later and say they want to add other types of housing that they subsidize or they could just subsidize themselves without any other action, I believe. So that's all we're doing is we ask them to consider subsidizing the types of housing that to meet their goals. And they do that now. They allocated $10 million to underwrite loans. Okay, that's all. And this is a point of clarification of the unit. Assistant city attorney. Oh, I just wanted to note in relation to what you're saying, Board Member Walsh regarding your amendment. So the resolution before you is to recommend that the council adopt the fees. And I want to make sure I understand what you are saying, which is that you would still be moving to adopt the fees as proposed for the types of development as proposed. But with the recommendation that when this, when we get into a situation where, well, actually I guess the way the fee, the policy is going to impose these fees is that once the policy becomes effective, people proposing development would acknowledge when they come in for their building approval that this policy applies. But the fee is only due if we are in a shortage stage of fiber greater when they go for occupancy. Mr. Close put up those slides. And what you're saying is that you would recommend that the city council, if we are just declaring a stage fiber greater, look for means of potentially subsidizing. I just wanted to make sure that in the recommendation, we're clear, I guess. So we're only a recommending authority overall, right? So we're just going to recommend that this is the right fee calculation and this is a water demand offset fee need. And that we need the water demand offset fee. And part of a resolution says into support the housing that's already needed. And then it's just additive that, and we recommend also that the city council consider a general fund subsidy for certain types of housing to meet their housing goals if needed, right? So that would be low housing. And they could do that in any budget year. And if they obviously they want to consider that during the year, they could do that during year as well, regardless of the stage of drought or the status of whether or not there's an application. I guess I think that's how it could work. But once they have the conversation at the city council, then obviously the specifics would be directed by the council's conversation and decisions. Board Member Gabel. Yeah, then I wish, I totally respect, I respect Board Member Walsh's comment about the general fund, that it puts us in a difficult position because yeah, we are recommending appointed board and we certainly can't force the city council to exact general fund spending. I would just say that I can't be supportive of the WUFE and the resolution as it stands. So for me, the amendment would need to have more teeth some way if it was included in the motion. I'm worried that that's not gonna be communicated effectively to the council if it's not in the motion itself. The existing population we have is, they're living in less than ideal, very inefficient and overcrowded conditions, especially if you read today's article. And I just, I want there to be more housing for those people that have a better quality of life here. So I'm not gonna support the motion, the resolution as it stands, if there was a way for that to have more teeth some way, especially in the designation of which units, affordable, multifamily, high density. The units that are underneath in the fee schedule that's proposed that Mr. Klose and Mr. Martin worked on, that's really detailed. It's basically all those categories underneath, underneath 6,000 square foot lots until you get to the commercial and industrial uses. And I understand that. So maybe the alternative is we've looked down the amendment and you offer another one and that wouldn't hurt my feelings. So that's an option too, because I don't know if the deputy council, if she was charging us per question she'd be rich today. But I don't know if we just want to vote down the amendment and then you can offer a different one, but we're just recommending authority overall anyway. So the council can obviously change this, right? So we can only recommend. But if you want to have more specificity in that recommendation, if you think that would better serve our causes, I would be happy to have you either change my amendment or just vote it down and you offer a different one. Council, what's the deputy attorney, what's the, do you have a suggestion for the best way to do that? I appreciate every's patience. I'd like to hear what Chris would want to offer for the amendment. Is your mic on? Sorry, I turned it off. You could withdraw your amendment to the motion or we can, because there's actually two steps we would take on an amended motion. The first is whether to accept the amendment and take a vote on that. And then we would vote on the amended motion. Now, if you want to withdraw your amendment, we can or we can vote on whether to accept the amendment, but I leave that to you. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request to withdraw the amendment in deference to member Grable's comments and anticipation that he will offer an amendment. All right, very well. The amendment will be withdrawn. Or member Grable. Yeah, so adding to what Mr. Walsh, has already proposed, I'd like to propose that in the motion, I want to make sure I get this right, in the motion that staff will present the water demand offset fee policy 2021 WTO fee study and WDO fees with the recommendation that housing under 6,000 square foot lots, duplexes and triplexes, condos, apartments, mobile homes with separate irrigation service without and eligible ADUs, senior housing, single room occupancy and small density apartments and subsidized affordable housing that that be recommended to either be exempted or subsidized and not included in the fee, the WDO fee schedule. Okay, we have a new amendment. Do we have a second? Question about that. I don't think the word exempted can be allowed because of Prop 218 unless there is, unless there are specific designation of it being used to be paid for by the general fund. I think that language has to be in there because of Prop 218. Vice Chair Arnone. Questions for Council. Is it required that the party seconding a motion must agree to having the motion withdraw or can the moving party withdraw the motion without permission of the party seconding the motion? I believe that the moving party can withdraw. I have to admit I haven't faced the same question. All right, I just tried to look it up and I couldn't find it. If I could chime in Chair Galvin, I actually believe that Vice Chair Arnone is correct and the seconder needs to also approve of removing and withdrawing the motion. Otherwise it needs to be acted on by the board. And then if it fails, then a second alternative motion could be offered. And the reason I asked the question is because I just wanted to express as the moving party of the original motion, I was prepared to accept the friendly amendment that was being offered by Board Member Walsh. So I don't know about the seconding party on my motion was member Wright. I don't know if he would be willing to accept the amendment, but I was willing to accept the amendment as the moving party on the original motion. Well, I'm willing to accept the amendment. All right, Assistant City Attorney Donovan. Where are we? Then I would propose per Board Member Watts and Vice Chair Arnone and what we heard from a city attorney, I would like to withdraw the word exempted. Okay, so first we have to deal with the motion, the first amendment we had. So to go back, now your Board Member Arnone, you had seconded that motion now. I would accept the friendly motion amendment made by Member Walsh. Okay. And I believe that Member Wright said as a seconding party to the first motion, he would also accept the friendly amendment offered by Director, by Member Walsh. So you have both the original moving party and the seconding party accepting the friendly amendment. But that amendment was withdrawn. But it wasn't, was it withdrawn by the seconding party? Correct. Now the question is the Mr. Arnone's motion with my amendment, I believe, is that correct? That's right. I mean, then you as, you have, you're free to vote on your friendly amendment up or down as you wish. Okay. Member Walsh, you're free to go either way based on what you said. But I think procedurally your friendly amendment was still on the table and I am agreeing to accept it because the seconding party is too. So then everybody can just now decide if they want to vote on up or down on this amended motion. Okay. I think that's where we are. Okay, so. There's a point of clarification on that. If you, if Board Member Walsh withdrew his amendment and I put forth a new amendment, what's the procedural? Okay, so far, we have, and I apologize because I am at fault for causing some of this confusion. We have an amendment that was made and seconded and subsequently withdrawn. And then we have a second amendment that was made and not seconded. So we technically have two amendments that are not ready for a vote on acceptance. Now what we can do because recognizing our second amendment was not seconded is Board Member Walsh, if you want to put your amendment back on the table, Board Member Arnone, if you want to second it, I believe for all of us, it would be helpful to very clearly state how we are amending the original motion. And then we can have a vote on whether to accept that and then we will go forward dependent on that vote. As the party who's agreeing to a friendly amendment, let me make it clear what I understood. I was agreeing to. What I understood the friendly amendment to say is that we were accepting the proposed resolution offered by staff, as is, and that in addition to accepting that, we were requesting that the City Council consider the use of general funds to subsidize affordable housing and without any guardrails because that's their province, not ours. Yes. That's what I understood. You said it better than I did, but yes, that is the amendment. Okay, so Board Member Walsh, are you making that amendment and then Board Member Arnone, you have seconded that, right? I believe Board Member Walsh just said he would make that friendly amendment, is that right? Yes, simply that it was the original motion to recommend that the Council accept the WDO rates with and but also to add that the Santa Rosa City Council consider subsidizing with the general fund for affordable housing when it's. And I'll second that. Okay, and it looks like we do have some Board Member comments. The one thing that I would note is that I don't know if you want to put parameters on how you're going to define affordable housing or allow the City Council to simply have that discussion. I understood the motion to expressly not do that. Okay. Correct. That's my intention. I'll let them decide what they want to subsidize under what conditions is a City Council decision. Board Member Baxter. Because it's their money. Thank you Chair Galvan. And thank you. This has been a learning experience. And thank you Board Member Walsher putting forward the alternative, the amendment. And to Board Member Grable, I think that all of us have expressed sentiments about our concerns and our hopes for affordable housing, the impact. I think that for me as an individual Board Member, I'm supportive of Board Member Walsh's amendment. I feel like were we to go any more specific into levels of AMI and types of housing and how dense they are and what funding should or shouldn't be looked at for how many units on what front? I would feel like I would want to do more due diligence on the whole bucket of proposal that went forward to City Council. At this point, I'm very comfortable with the staff work that has been done thus far. And I really do like leaving the door open for the City Council with the opportunity to have more staff expertise and input should they consider looking at subsidizing affordable housing and I would caution against putting any more guardrails around that actually. I think we probably want that to be as open as they need that to be. I think that stating affordable housing gets that message across. Thank you very much. I think that was the intent of Board Member Walsh's amendment was to put the onus on the City Council to determine number one if they're willing to subsidize and if so at what level and in what types of housing. Thank you very much. All right. Okay. So our, Oh, I'm sorry. Our next step will be to vote on the acceptance of this amendment. First, I think it's important that we very clearly make it, we make it very clear that all prior amendments have been withdrawn. We have a motion or an amendment to the motion right now. And I'm saying this, but I want to make it clear on the record. So I want the board to repeat. And then we will vote on the acceptance of this amendment which has been made by Board Member Walsh and seconded by a Board Member Arnone. Are you saying there's two votes? No, I just wanted to be made very clear all prior amendments have been withdrawn. Is that correct? Board Member Grable and Board Member Walsh. Board Member Grable. Yeah, just to clarify the point of my amendment was to just add to what Board Member Walsh had said in terms of the language proposed by staff in their staff recommendation, because although it's true that we don't have the authority to change the guardrails in terms of what is subsidized by the general fund, the purpose of that exchange, I think between Board Member Walsh and I was that, affordable housing in general is obviously very specific in one way because usually it means subsidized housing, but very general in another way in which it's not geographically bound and you're not talking about square footage and all that. So what I had gone back and done is used the language in Mr. Martens and Mr. Close's actual fee schedule to delineate which housing we're actually talking about when we say that. I understand if other Board members are fine with leaving it more general for council to whittle down, but my worry personally is that the point of my clarification there and of my comments earlier were that I can't support the resolution as is and I don't know that it'll be communicated as effectively if it's without those details. So I won't be supporting the resolution as is because I do think there has to be a direct conversation about equity priority populations in housing, but I understand if the rest of the Board is comfortable with the more general language about affordable housing. I believe that's what the amendment was was a more general language. It was not as specific as what you were discussing, Board Member Gravel, Vice-Chair Arnone. Just to clarify, I don't think it's correct to say that all prior proposed amendments were withdrawn. I think what's correct to say is that one of them failed for the lack of a second and the other one was clarified. It wasn't withdrawn, it was clarified and then he removed that, he removed his motion. And so I don't think it's correct to say that both motions were withdrawn, both amendments were withdrawn. Yes, that you are correct. One motion failed for lack of a second and then the other one is as reintroduced or as withdrawn and then reintroduced by Board Member Walsh. So we'll be voting on the original motion as amended by Board Member Walsh. Yes, and our first vote is whether to accept the amendment and then we will vote on the amended motion. I thought you said we're not having two votes. I thought we were having one vote on the amended motion. Well, actually, technically to meet Robert's rules, we first need to vote on the acceptance of the amendment and then we will vote the amended motion. Sorry, it's... But the amendment was accepted by the person who made the first motion by Chair Arnone to incorporate the amendment into his motion. So it seems to me we should be taking one vote to approve the original motion as amended by Board Member Walsh in one vote. That's what I thought. I mean, I'm comfortable with either way, but I thought that what the Chairman said was correct. Oh, okay. Sorry. The original motion was not... We can do it your way. So we are voting on the motion as amended, yes, okay. That's right. Okay, I think we have an agreement. We have, I think, a motion with an amendment to it. I think we've had all the discussion that we need. Mr. Nutt, did you have a comment? Do I see your hands raised? Yes, thank you, Chair Galvin and Board Members. I just wanna clarify that in the recommendation that's moving forward as part of the amended motion. It's a recommendation that Council consider utilizing general funds in an effort to subsidize affordable housing. It is a Council decision as you've discussed to this point. Council will ultimately make that call from their dais, but I think the message of considering utilization as Member Walsh explained, I think, is appropriate. Great, thank you. Thank you. Okay, at this point, I'm gonna open it up for any further public comment, just so we make sure we're covered. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine. Secretary Ata. We have no additional public comment. And there's no one in the Chamber, so we're ready for a roll call vote, please. Chair Galvin. Aye. Vice Chair Arnone. Aye. Board Member Badenfort. Aye. Board Member Grebel. Nay. Board Member Walsh. Aye. Board Member Watts. Aye. Board Member Wright. Aye. All right, thank you for the discussion. So it passes six ayes and one nay. That will conclude item 7.2. Thank you, Mr. Close and Mr. Hildebrand. We'll now move to item 7.3. Deputy Director Savoni. Thank you, Chair Galvin. Introducing item 7.3, Contract Award Montrose Air Quality, LLC Professional Services Agreement presented by Environmental Services Officer, Heather Johnson. Hello, good afternoon. Chair Galvin and members of the board. That is a lot to follow.  That was quite the item. Anyway, I am here to give a sort of an expanded version of the presentation that I gave at the Contract Subcommittee because there were some questions about some of the language changes to the Professional Services Agreement that were proposed by the contractor Montrose. And so I'm hoping that this answers some of the questions that were brought up next slide, please. Okay, so just to put the contract into perspective, the solids from the treatment plant here at LTP are sent to our four anaerobic digesters. The digesters create gas and the gas from the digesters is sent through a gas conditioning system initially where we have the iron sponge to remove hydrogen sulfide and we have carbon vessels to remove siloxanes. From there, the treated gas is sent to our four combined heat and power or CHP engines for combustion to create power, electricity to power the plant. So the emissions from all of that from the digesters to the treatment of the gas and from the combustion of the engines is covered and regulated under our Bay Area Air Quality Management Permits. Next slide, please. So for this contract, we needed the contractor to be able to provide monthly emission monitoring for the CHP engines, monthly process monitoring for the gas conditioning system, specifically for the siloxane removal portion of it, an annual compliance demonstration source test on all four of the CHP engines. And then we needed them to be able to provide any as needed monitoring that may come up. And then in the end, we need a timely submittal of a report that we can then submit to the Air District for our reporting requirements. Next slide. So the request for proposals, we posted the RFP on plan of bids. In addition to that, I sent about 30 solicitation emails to all of the contractors that are listed on the California Air Resources Control Board as approved independent contractors. From that, we received two responses. There was a three-person proposal review and we unanimously selected Montrose as the most qualified. Next slide, please. And the PSA contains all of the things that I spoke to earlier. It has monthly annual and as needed emission monitoring. They will submit a draft and a final report when they're done with the testing and the proposed cost is $200,000 over three years. Next slide. So when we were going through the review process with Montrose, they initially came back with several changes to the language in for our standard PSA language. And in consultation with risk management and the city attorney's office, there were some things that we were able to accept and those are presented here. And then there were some things that we were unable to accept and we sent those back. And so there was a back and forth between Montrose. And if you wanna go to the next slide. So the language that was removed in that insurance section from the previous slide is basically language that allows the city to recover funds against any other potential access insurance held by the contractor. So that's item B and then in item C, there was some language that referenced item B. And so when we were evaluating the work that will be performed by Montrose here at the treatment plant, it was determined that the biggest risk to the city that would be if they failed to monitor or they didn't submit a report and so it could cause permit violations which could result in fines. But the likelihood of needing any insurance beyond what we've required in attachment one or any indemnity is minimal. And so at the end of this presentation, if there's further questions, I can try to answer, but also assistant city attorney Donovan is prepared to speak on it as she has been part of this process and I've worked with her on this. So next slide, please. In conclusion, it is recommended by the contract reviews of committee and the water department that the board of public utilities support approval of a professional services agreement with Montrose Fair Quality Services for emission testing services at the regional Laguna treatment plant. Thank you and I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. I will report to the board that as was mentioned, this did come to the contract review subcommittee. We had some questions about some of the language that was removed. I'm satisfied with the updated report and the staff report and the reasons why some of those changes were agreed to. And so I'm fully supportive of letting this contract out. Any board member questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to accept the recommendation of the contract review subcommittee and the water department that the board of public utilities by motion approve the professional services agreement with Montrose Air Quality LLC the amount of $200,000 over three years. I will second that motion. Thank you. I have a motion by vice chair Anoni seconded by board member Walsh. We'll now open it up to public comments on item 7.3. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Secretary Aitha. We have no public comments. And there's no one in the council chambers. May we have a roll call vote please? Chair Galvin. Aye. Vice chair Anoni. Aye. Board member Badrin Ford. Aye. Board member Grable. Aye. Board member Walsh. Aye. Board member Watts. It's now gone and board member Wright. Aye. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. That'll take care of item 7.3. We'll now move to item 7.4. Deputy director Savoni. Thank you, chair Galvin. Introducing item 7.4. Direction to Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Sustainability Agency Board Member. Regarding adoption of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin. Presented by our Deputy Director of Water Resources, Peter Martin. Thank you very much, chair Galvin and members of the board. Very pleased to be before you at this critical milestone in terms of our groundwater sustainability planning efforts in progress towards meeting the state legislative mandates. If we could go to the next slide, please. So just to give you a brief outline of my presentation today, I will cover what the Stable Groundwater Management Act requires, and to give you an overview of the Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Sustainability Agency, as well as talk a little bit about the public input process and the public hearing of the Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Sustainability Agency. And then lastly, we'll talk about the staff recommendation. Next slide. So what does the Stable Groundwater Management Act require, also known as SIGMA? It was a law that became effective January 1st of 2015. Really was several mandates as part of that legislation. But one was that groundwater sustainability agencies must be formed by 2017, which this Groundwater Sustainability Agency did do, and submit a Groundwater Sustainability Plan by January 2020 for critically overdrafted basins. And January 31st, 2022, for the remaining high and medium priority basins. Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin is a medium priority basin, and thus must have a Groundwater Sustainability Plan submitted to the state by January of 2022. These Groundwater Sustainability Plans, or GSPs, must include measurable objectives and milestones in increments of five years to achieve sustainability as coined by the legislation itself within 20 years of the adoption of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan. And of course, the GSP development must be open and transparent, and that is what we are doing today. So next slide. So to just kind of cover in general, the Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin encompasses approximately 80,000 acres. It is bounded on the west by the low-lying hills of the Mendocino Range, and on the east by the Snow Mountains and the Mayakumas Mountains. The Subbasin is approximately 22 miles long in its length, and the width varies from approximately nine miles at Santa Rosa to six miles wide at the south end of the valley near the city of Katadi. The Subbasin includes, as you can see on this map, the town of Windsor, and the cities of Katadi, Runner Park, Santa Rosa, and Sebastopol. And of course, there are unincorporate areas and rural communities throughout the region as well. The principal streams in the Subbasin are Mark West Creek, Santa Rosa Creek, and the Laguna de Santa Rosa, which also drain and combine watershed area of approximately 250 square miles. Next slide. As I mentioned, the Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Sustainability Agency was formed in 2017, and is a joint powers authority comprised of the representatives, cities, and towns that are in the basin, as well as the county of Sonoma, Sonoma Water, two resource conservation districts, and also represented from several independently-owned water systems in the basin that utilize groundwater. This Board of Directors has an advisory committee, which is comprised