November 7, 2000 BOS Meeting notes by the Board Watcher Item 73. Ag GWSS Workplan is separate, see Navigation frame 71. Monte Rio Sewer Project depends on solving the governance issue. Supervisors want to know who is going to own, operate and maintain the system? ***Precarious situation for local control. The board meeting was called to order at 8:30 AM. The Pledge of Allegiance was given first. Supervisors Cale, Kerns, Reilly, Smith, and Kelley were present. Chair Mike Reilly: The first item, the Special Districts Consent Calendar, Items 1 through 11 and 16. Any questions from board members? Supervisor Kerns: On Item 10, the agreement with Entrix, anybody here from the Water Agency? I just had a question about the agreement. I wanted to know if the agreement is still under negotiations. Is it a flexible type agreement? [Item 10. Assessment of Hydraulic Capacity of Flood Control Channels. Water Agency Chief to execute agreement with Entrix for an assessment of flood control channels. $100,000 is the estimate.] Chair: We'll hold 10 until someone from the Water Agency comes in. Any other questions? Objections? Record a 5-0. Chair: Items 12 to 15, Sonoma Valley: Record a 2-0-1. Chair: That brings us to the board consent calendar: Item 25, hold until November 28. [25. Sonoma County Children and Families Commission Contracts] Chair: Item 60, one of several districts: Sonoma Valley vote will be separate.The entire board will vote on the rest. On 27 record a NO for Supervisor Kelley. [27. Emergency declaration permitting needle exchange] Chair: Was there someone here who wanted to speak on Item 64, the Williams Communication Encroachment Permit? Seeing no one coming forward... Supervisor Kerns: Mr. Chairman: I just wanted to thank the board in advance for their support on Item 46, flashing beacons to be placed on Adobe Road near Adobe Union School. This will allow us to get them installed. Thank you. Chair: Any other comments or questions on the consent calendar? Objections? Seeing none report a 5-0 on consent. Chair: We did pass some resolutions. Item 23. It is proclaiming November 15th Geographic Information System Day for the county. We're been very supportive on the development of GIS. We've given it our highest priority. Come forward, we'll take a picture. Supervisor Smith: It should be an overhead shot. Photo with Chairman Reilly and GIS representatives. Chairman Reilly: Item 38 has to do with the resolution honoring the First Annual Regional CyberCity Roundtable Symposium. Supervisor Cale personally thanked the men for sponsoring the event. "Without people like you, we'd probably still be in the dark ages." Photo with Supervisor Cale and sponsors. [Scheduled for Wednesday, November 15th, 7:30 AM to 11:30 AM at the SSU Information Center.] Supervisor Kelley: Ray Barenchi is here and he recently had a pumpkin at the Harvest Fair that weighed 954 pounds winning the fair weigh-off. Then he went on to Elk Grove and won with a 977 pound pumpkin, and went off to Salinas and won there. Ray, why don't you come on up and accept this resolution? Mr. Barenchi said the pumpkin would make 1000 pies. Someone else said that the 977-pound pumpkin was grown in Supervisor Cale's district while the 954-pound pumpkin was grown in Supervisor Kelley's district. Chair: Our last resolution for today, Item 58, recognizes Pauline Goddard for her 10 years of service on the Alcohol and Other Drug Problems Board. Photo with Supervisor Cale. Chair: Supervisor Kerns' question on special districts consent: Welcome, Mr. Poole. Chief, Water Agency Randy Poole: I apologize for being late. I was down in Petaluma this morning talking water issues. I think it ended in an hour. Supervisor Kerns: On the agreement with Entrix, I wasn't clear about the agreement. It says there was a cost of $100,000. Is that figure flexible? In negotiation? I wasn't sure how it worked. Randy Poole: It authorizes us to have an agreement for about $100,000. The difficulty is part of the Section 7 Consultation on our flood control activities. No matter how we maintain those systems or how we might decide for future design in view of the General Plan, what is going to be required? What that means is if we allow more growth of trees and other things in our tributaries and flood control channels, that's going to change the flood control capacity in those channels. And there may be some significant implications from that, that we don't know the full answers to. And so we're going to go through a process to look at them. We estimate the flow of those channels. We know what the change will be in the long term, but it may have impacts on existing developments in our region as well as the General Plan. I'll be surprised if the dollar amount stays at $100,000 quite frankly just knowing how this __?_ stuff is progressing. And we're also working closely with county counsel on this issue because it isn't going to be an easy one to resolve. Chair: 5-0 on Item 10, Special Districts Consent. HUMAN SERVICES 68. Sonoma WORKS Report Accept the Second Annual SonomaWORKS Report Temporary assistance to needy families decreased by 44%. Child only cases remain the same. If children are not enrolled and attending school, the family gets a benefits reduction. People who have mental health, alcohol, and domenstic violence problems will find treatment programs. There is a Welfare to Work program and a Homeless Services program. Supervisors approved the report 5-0. "Great report, Excellent, Personal story very powerful," were some of the comments. 69. Dept.of Health Services: Director to sign an agreement for $275,000 from the US Dept.of Justice to implement the Drug Free Communities Support Program for FY 00-01 to FY 03-04 for alcohol and other drug prevention. Accept $5000 from the Wellness Foundation and sign agreement to develop a leadership academy for residents in target neighborhoods. Resolutions authorizing budgetary adjustment. Resolution amending allocation list adding 0.65 positions. They also want to expand to Rohnert Park and Cloverdale. Reduce marijuana use and alcohol sales to youth. Develop a training program for people who sell alcohol. Vote: 5-0 70. Resolution amending position allocation for PRMD to add 0.5 FTE Environmental Health Specialist due to a 34% increase for well and septic applications in 4 years. Vote 5-0 71. District Formation Loan to Monte Rio Sewer Service Project and Selection of Design Consultant Staff: Rich Palmer, Ted Walker. Norm Hatchie from Questa Engineering will come up. This item concerns the selection of the design consultant and authorizes up to $143,442 for the county's share of the collection, treatment and disposal system design for the sewer service project. Qualifications were technical abilities, experience, understanding of the project and the ability to complete the design in a timely manner. Then the proposal was reviewed for cost. Questa came out as most qualified and also was the lowest in cost. We're recommending selection of Questa Engineering for design of the system. We reduced the design costs to $700,000. We also reduced the survey costs by using GIS and a prior survey in the area. $25,000 will be necessary for peer review and $15,000 for PRMD staff costs. Current revenue sources are a grant from SWRCB for $246,558. State Coastal Conservancy has agreed to $350,000.These are outright grants to the district which leaves a balance of $143,442. This will be repaid by the district ratepayers. It's similar to the Mirabel Heights procedure. There is a short letter of support from the RWQCB. Timing is critical. Delays could jeopardize getting grants for construction. Supervisor Smith: $140,000 aside, who's going to own, operate, and maintain this system? Rich Palmer: There are a number of options available. We did meet Thursday night with Sweetwater Springs board. Unfortunately, they did not have a full quorum. Of the three members present, there was very strong support for taking over the sewer system. We felt that was very encouraging. If they don't, there are a number of options.We would like to explore those after Sweetwater Springs has taken final action on our request in December. A __?__ option might be to form a county service district that might consolidate one of these special districts that exist in Monte Rio at this point. There are five special districts in that area. Another would be to establish a zone of benefit under CSA 41. That would be operated by the public works department, the Water Agency or possibly PRMD. Another possibility is annexation to the Russian River County Sanitation District. It doesn't have to be contiguous to be annexed to it, and it can be operated as a zone of benefit under that district. Any of these would require a formation of an assessment district and a Prop 218 vote by the voters in that area. Supervisor Smith: What kind of prep work has been done that this is going to happen with 218? The reason I ask this question is that we're being asked to loan $140,000. I'm not interested in the county operating any more sanitation districts. My chief discomfort comes from not knowing where this plant will be operated and who would own it. And if there's sufficient interest in the folks in Monte Rio, I would suggest you go nail down Sweetwater Springs and find out what that's going to be. I understand that without the design, we don't know the cost overall of the project itself. It seems to me there are lots of unknowns. Moreover, with the letter from the regional board, I looked over that last sentence and that word *could* is in there rather than *will*. It seems to me that although the water board is interested in funding a portion of the design, that's far from saying that's going to meet their water quality criteria. Am I wrong about that? Rich Palmer: The regional board staff cannot __?_ until action's been taken by their board. In other words they can't jump ahead until their board approves a project. Approval would require __?_ of waste discharge requirements and final design plan. At that point their board will act on it and issue waste discharge requirements.Until that time you can't say, they absolutely support the project because they've not taken final action on it. In regard to your concerns about repayment of funds, these are at risk funds. If for some reason the district didn't proceed, then the district formation funds would not be reimbursed. Supervisor Smith: Let me be clear about something. $140,000 is one thing and if it would resolve a long standing problem in Monte Rio, I'd be happy to say, Sure I can get the contribution from the county. What we don't know is if $140,000 will help us get to that end. Typically what happens around here is, Board, please give us the money, and then we'll find out if we can actually make this happen. What is the timing on this? Is there a way I can get more answers? Chairman Reilly: I think the real question is what is the status of state construction funds and where we are on the list for that? Ted Walker: [The first part of the answer was not audible.] As of last week, six projects went to construction funding and right now there is about $20 million dollars left of $30 million. It's first come, first served. This is what happened to the Water Agency when they were working on the Mirabel Heights project. So they want you to go to the next step and in this next step the design goes in three phases:10% design. 50% to 90% for __?__. We then go to Sacramento to get our share of the $3 million dollars that's been allocated for our project. The consultant is responsible for meeting with the community and other groups on district formation as well as what we call a _?__ engineering report so the homeowner will know exactly what the costs will be when they do the __?__ to the election. That's part of the design half that they have to do. When we do Prop 218 we're at 90% design. The state also wants to see that number as well. Norm Hatchie: We're anticipating that the 218 vote would be in March or April of 2001. We actually have a timeline sent to us by the State Water Resources Control Board. We have to remain on the timeline in order to remain eligible for the state construction grant. Supervisor Cale: A couple of design questions: The system that's being proposed is not talking about secondary treatment. Originally it was supposed to be tertiary. Are you suggesting now that the regional board is going to allow us to put in a secondary treatment leachfield adjacent to the Russian River? Does this mean they're going to get off our back about the Russian River plant that is tertiary and we're never going to get fined again? Ted Walker: I can answer that one. The treatment system is one that takes us to a secondary level. Yes, they can take the system up to a tertiary level, but the price tag for O & M is much higher. Here we'll have no discharge to the river. The water board was very comfortable with taking it to a secondary level. Supervisor Cale: Isn't there a trigger in the Basin Plan that mandates you have to go tertiary? Mr. Walker: No, only when you go to surface irrigation or you go directly to sewer discharge. Supervisor Cale: Why is there no redundancy built into the system? Norm Hatchie, Questa: Are you speaking of the pump system in the collection system? There's quite a bit of redundancy. Yes, you're right. An individual connection to the system would be a single pump. It would be maintained by the district. All would be interchangeable pumps within the system. The particular pump you're looking at has a very good track record, a 10 to 15 years design line. There will be oversight of those wherever we can cluster those. We have two __?_ or greater redundancy. That's part of the design approach. we'll be finalizing. There's backup power that would be provided through a portable generator operation of the system. There are two systems for every house. It's the typical way we do our design. __?___: The treatment plant itself will actually have two sequencing batch reactors and two separate leachfields as well as over a day's storage in the event of any problems. Supervisor Cale: What happens if one of them shuts down? Answer: That's why we have storage - so we can get replacement parts in a timely fashion. Supervisor Cale: In the middle of a flood, how are we going to get out there? Ted Walker: Access to the site is not in the floodway. It's up above the 500 year event. They'll have free access to that building. These issues were studied in great detail. The same questions were asked by the regional board. They asked us to add more capacity to avoid any possible spills. Supervisor Kelley: What is that storage backup capacity? Answer: In the treatment plant itself, there's actually a 1.3 days' reserve planned into it. We also have a day's capacity at each individual house. There'll be some shared systems that will drain into a common sump. Supervisor Kelley: Was there any talk about doing the engineering in a phased manner? If we get this thing designed and proceed on with formation, the who's-going-to-run-it question still looms out there. Do we have time to settle that? Answer: None of this will be spent tomorrow. We'll put in monthly billing. We get paid on the basis of our monthly drawings. The state repays us 80% of the bill we send to them. The county match is 20% and we would have an incremental level of expenditures over time until the 90% design was achieved. Is that what you're asking? Chair: Is there any public comment on this? Wanda Poullon: I was on the CAC on the Monte Rio Project. That was 2 and 3/4ths years ago. We have worked closely with Supervisor Reilly, Questa Engineering, PRMD, and the citizens of the area to find solutions on wastewater and pollution problems. We've found a solution and an area in which to construct our project. We've found substantial grant money. Costs have risen. The longer we wait, the higher the costs. Please help us now. Thank you. My name is Lee Torr IV, member of the Citizens Advisory Committee. I just want to emphasize our committe's and our community's concern. I want to forward the support from the Monte Rio Chamber of Commerce on this project. We've been good supporters all along toward the goal of attaining proper, and normal, and adequate sewage disposal for our community. I think our community will be very supportive. We want to see this process through. There are a series of opportunities that will come before us. There is a sentiment in the community to be the masters of our own destiny in that regard. Local control is a very big issue. This is something that's been on the backburner for 20 years. Nothing's really happened until now. The opportunity is here now, and I think we should actively pursue this. Thank you very much. Chair: Any other public comment? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the board. I'll just say from the beginning, this has been foremost a public health issue. This is the first grant given out on pollution into the receiving waters. I think we're fortunate to have the support there. What's the pleasure of the board? Supervisor Smith: It would be helpful to me to have some timelines as to how this is going to work. I'm going to say it one more time. I don't want the county in the business of running a sanitation district. At what point are we going to have some assurance of what we're going to have in the way of governance? Chair: Mr. Palmer mentioned that we had met with the Sweetwater Springs Water District. They were considering taking over the sanitation project in the Occidental area. They will put Monte Rio on the agenda for their next meeting in December. Supervisor Smith: There has to be some understanding about who will operate the system. I don't see local control here. Supervisor Kerns: I also share concern about the governance issue. Is there a way we could condition this appropriation with resolving the governance issue before we move forward? Answer: If we could proceed with the initial parts of the design and bring it back to the board in December after Sweetwater Springs has taken action, we would minimize the costs to the county if Sweetwater would not accept it, but still keep on track for our construction grant. Supervisor Smith: That's acceptable to me. Supervisor Cale: As long as it's written into the resolution and have county counsel bring it back at 2:00 PM. Steven Woodside: We can do that and if I understand what Mr. Homer has said this would allow the staff to go forward but this would be subject to a recision. If after December it's brought back to the board for a decision, it would be subject to an order by the board to halt the project. ___?__: The direction I was thinking of was basically authorizing up to the next couple of months enough money to match whatever use [not audible]. Chair: Subject to counsel's language...Mr. Walker? Mr. Walker: Supervisors, in the contract you have before you is a milestone, and the first milestone is 10% design which is due January 18, 2001. Chair: Why don't you work with counsel on that? See if you can get something back by 2:00. On a straw vote 5-0. We'll bring it back. We're late for the 9:30 hearing. I didn't anticipate an extensive hearing. We'll take a short 5 minute recess and convene the hearing at 9:50. ___________________End of Notes The morning session didn't end until 2:05 PM.