Board of Supervisors' Mtg Notes - Feb 6, 2001

February 6, 2001 BOS Meeting
notes by the Board Watcher

(NO BOS meetings February 13th and 20th.)

47, 48, 49 WATER PROBLEMS

54. Housing Study

55. Monte Rio Governance

The Pledge of Allegiance was given as it was the first Tuesday of the month. Chairman Smith noted changes to the agenda: Item 27 [Appointment of Sharon Bass to the Retirement Board] has been withdrawn. #19. Correction: Presiding Judge Tansil not Judge Sawyer.

SPECIAL DISTRICTS CONSENT CALENDAR: Items 1-6 Vote: 5-0

SONOMA VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT: 3 member board: Items: 7-9: 2-0-1.

BOARD's CONSENT CALENDAR:

Supervisor Reilly: On Item 28 [Canyon Rock Quarry], I think we have two separate actions: 1) to require an EIR and 2) to set the baseline. I vote Yes on the EIR and No on the baseline.

Supervisor Kelley: Record a No on 24 [renewing the Public Health Emergency: replace contaminated needles to qualify for clean needle exchange program] On Item 14 [construction of Animal Shelter]: Ag Commissioner John Westoby answered that the construction would be over 6 months earlier than expected.

Chair: Any objections to the adoption of the Consent Calendar? No, record 5-0. Item 17 on Special Districts Regular Calendar. I went right by the retirees.

[Each of the retirees had a photo taken with a supervisor.] The retirees were the following: Charlotte Gonzales; Ann Benton, 21 years; Tom Bain, 13 years; Frances Abrao, over 25 years; Ron Anderson, 35 years with Water Agency.

George Potter of the American Society of Civil Engineers was recognized. The organization is celebrating National/International Engineers Week all over the world.

Supervisors Cale and Smith recognized Water Agency Deputy Chief Engineer Mark Wolter and his wife who are moving to the San Diego area. The supervisors praised Mark as solving lots of problems for a lot of people in his work.

REGULAR CALENDAR

SC Water Agency

47. Pump and Collector Capacity Project-Caisson and Access Road for Wohler Collector No. 6 [$14.7 million project] Resolution of the Board of Directors of SCWA/BOS 1) A subsequent environmental document is not required to construct this project;

2) Approving plans and advertising for bids; 3) General Manager to execute loan program documents; 4) GM to dedicate revenues for repayment of state revolving fund loan;

5) GM to execute the agreement for consulting and drilling services associated with implementation of horizontal drilling and lateral installation pilot study for the project with Underground Construction Managers, Inc.; 6) GM to execute amendments not exceeding $250,000 including extensions of time and other changes;

7) Authorizing GM to terminate agreement with Underground Construction Managers, Inc; and

8) Authorizing GM to exercise Agency's option to sell drilling system to Underground Construction.

Staff Report generally follows these Background Notes. Authorized under the 10th Amended Agreement Construction includes the 16' diameter caisson and the horizontal well screens (laterals) into the aquifer. There will be a pumphouse over the caisson, a connecting pipeline, the Wohler-Forestville Pipeline will connect to the Santa Rosa Aqueduct and the Cotati Intertie. * Phase 1 will be construction of the access road to the site and construction of a 16' inside diameter steel reinforced concrete caisson extending approximately 120' into the ground. * Phase 2 will involve extending laterals from the bottom of the caisson into the aquifer (from 40' to 60' below the level of the river bottom), developing the laterals and pump testing. Ten 12" diameter conventional laterals will be bored and jacked into the aquifer approximately 150'. Plans, specifications and a memorandum are on file with the clerk of the board.

Additionally there will be 3 enhanced laterals using new horizontal drilling technology to construct intake laterals that are longer and larger in diameter than conventional laterals. These would extend from about 500' to 1000'.

Longer laterals have extra benefits: greater flexibility in caisson placement, resulting in less noise, visual and environmental impacts; greater extension into the aquifer resulting in greater area of influence and higher yield from the aquifer, hopefully. This technology has not been used before and would be a pilot study under a separate consultant.

* Collector #6 will produce about 8.5 to 12 million gallons of water during the fall/early winter. 17-23 mgd when the rubber dam is in operation. The range of rates depends on the success of the enhanced intake lateral system.

* At the end of construction UCM will prepare a report on the feasibility of using this newer method on future collectors and rehabilitation of the existing collectors.

Total Costs $14,743,399

$2,648,134 Caisson

$2,929,134 Pilot Study

$3,529,350 Pumphouse

836,248 Connecting Pipeline

$4,800,125 Wohler-Forestville Pipeline

It is also required that a resolution be adopted by the Agency's governing body dedicating a source of revenue for repayment of the loan. The Agency proposes to dedicate revenues derived from water sales to the Agency's water customers and deposited in the Agency's Water Transmission Operations and Maintenance Fund as the source for repayment of the loan.

Michael Patterson: Environmental Compliance: CEQA Compliance, Endangered Species Act Compliance and Various Permits for the Project

The project is an element of the Russian River/Cotati Intertie Project. It has been addressed in two previous EIRs. It was approved by the Board of Directors in 1998. There have been changes since 1998. The Water Agency conducted an analysis to determine if a supplemental EIR would be required. The analysis concluded that no new EIR was needed.

The Agency is currently participating with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Army Corps of Engineers on the impact of the Water Agency and Corps work in the Russian River including Collector 6. These are called the Section 7 Consultations. The Agency specifically prepared documents analyzing the impacts of Collector 6. The analysis concluded that the collector will not impact listed fish species and is in compliance with ESA.

A general construction permit will be needed prior to work on #6. It requires information to be answered by the contractor and will be obtained after the award of the project.

Supervisor Reilly asked how much water would be produced if the extended laterals don't work? Cordell Stillman said that would be reduced to 12 to 15 mgd [million gallons a day].

Supervisor Kelley: We need to move forward on this. We have to come up with our obligations to our contractors. [WAC]

Supervisor Kerns: Just for the record I met with staff yesterday and we discussed this project and I'm prepared to support the requested actions today.

Chairman Smith: This has been a work in progress for some time. Collector 6 is meant to assure the 600,000 people that rely on this water are going to get it. It's a lot of revenue being put into it and there is some innovation and some risk that goes along with it. It's a move that needs to be made and made now, so it's time to move forward. Madame Clerk, record a 5-0.

Doesn't the public get to speak? Brenda Adelman, Russian River Watershed Protection Committee: We're really in crisis mode, I believe, even at this moment. We may be facing drought conditions, and there's no question that this is necessary. I just want to say if it weren't for the massive growth that's occurred in the last few years in this county and what's anticipated in the next few years, this $15 million dollar project wouldn't be necessary. I also question your using a 25-year-old EIR. I'm not sure that population projection in that EIR mesh with the need for this particular project. The environmental justification for this was rather skimpy. I just want to throw into the mix that I think Rome is burning and I'm afraid you guys are playing your fiddles.

Chairman Smith: Madam Clerk, record a 5-0, and I would only mention in reference, this collector was referenced in the 1998 environmental document as well. With that, record a 5-0. We'll move on to 48.

48. Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement for Biological Assessment of the Russian River (relative to the federal Endangered Species Act) with ENTRIX, Inc. ($798,000) 4/5ths vote required.

Jane Christianson with Amy Harris introduced the subject. In Dec 1997 SC Water Agency entered into a MOU with the US Army Corps (USACE) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to participate in a Section 7 consultation under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) regarding the Agency and USACE actions on the Russian River. Those effects are evaluated on the coho, steelhead and chinook salmon. The Water Agency entered into a contract with ENTRIX, Inc. to prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) adding the following items to the original agreement: 1) added chinook salmon to the BA;

2) additional meetings relating to preparation of the BA; 3) additional biotic and hydrologic analyses; 4) extending time of completion for BA;

5) increasing cost by $259,000.

Currently the BA is targeted for May 2002.

As work progresses, Agency staff has determined that additional analyses is necessary for a sufficient BA. Therefore, Amendment 2 requests the following: 1) additional analyses for Interim Reports and BA; 2) assistance with development of project alternatives; 3) development of a proposal for a conservation hatchery program; 4) assistance with ESA planning and compliance; 5) technical support for Recovery Planning activities; 6) provision of additional Section 7 consultation services. The contract cost is increased to $1,568,000.

Under the proposed amendment, ENTRIX will develop for the BA potential alternatives/changes to the operations of the Agency and USACE including:

1) operating the fish hatchery facilities at Warm Springs Dam and Coyote Valley Dam as "conservation" hatcheries; 2) reductions of ag diversions from the Russian River or its tributaries by supplying recycled water; 3) changing flood control practices;

4) constructing a pipeline from Warm Springs Dam to the Agency's Wohler/Mirabel diversion facilities to reduce flows in Dry Creek;

5) modifying fish screens and changing the operation of the inflatable dam at the Wohler/Mirabel diversion facilities.

Inclusion of these items in the BA may increase the likelihood that NMFS may include these as requirements in any incidental take authorization under Sec 7 of ESA.

Documents on file with clerk of the board: Amendments I, II, and original Agreement

6 items are listed under ENTRIX's Assistance with Conservation Hatchery Program at Warm Springs Fish Hatchery and Coyote

Dam Facility: 1) program goals; 2) operational protocols; 3) tech assistance and peer review for a benefit/risk analysis; 4) monitoring and evaluation plan; 5) hatchery and genetic management plan; 6) a conceptual design for a conservation hatchery.

Supervisor Reilly said that he was glad we are moving in the direction of an overall recovery plan.

Supervisor Kelley noted that they had just heard this at the Section 7 meeting in Ukiah on February 2. This is an example of their work. It's a pretty costly endeavor, and it's costly to the ratepayers. We should thank the ratepayers for being willing to come to the table and pay for these studies. We're paying for a lot of this work that National Marine Fisheries uses. They should be paying for their own. The ratepayers should be thanked again. And last, I caution my colleagues, we and the ratepayers can be asked to pay for studies on what their facilities make impacts on, not necessarily the whole watershed. There are other impacts out there. If National Marine Fisheries wants to do that, they should probably do it on their own dime. I don't want to see NMFS directing our staff's work. I'm glad to see ENTRIX out there.

Chair: I think if we really hope to improve the situation of anadromous fish in our watershed, this is the kind of information we have to develop. If we're going to continue to enjoy our unique water system, we going to have to work toward restoring the fisheries. Record a 5-0.

49. Temporary Impairment of Reliable Water Production Capacity - Inflatable Dam

Jay Jasperson and Marc Baptista from the Water Agency: This item is intended to provide you with information regarding the Agency's production capacity should we be unable to operate our inflatable rubber dam. REQUESTED BOARD ACTION:

1) Authorize General Manager after consulting with County Counsel to declare the capacity of the water transmission system temporarily impaired when the inflatable dam cannot be operated and demands on the transmission system approach or exceed the capacity of the transmission system and require GM to report the basis for such declaration and the actions taken by the SC Water Agency as a result of the declaration to the Directors/Supervisors of the Water Agency at the next Board meeting.

2) Direct GM to implement the recommendations contained in the September 2000 report An Analysis of the Water Production Capacity of the Sonoma County Water Agency Water Diversion Facilities Without the Diversion Dam.*

3) Direct the GM to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the capacity of the Agency's water transmission system.

* The Wohler inflatable rubber dam increases the water production capacity by increasing the rate of aquifer recharge and allowing the use of the Mirabel infiltration ponds. It is primarily used to meet peak summer demands. On numerous occasions it has met demands during fall/early winter months, and to 45 to 60 mgd during the spring period. If the Agency is precluded from operating the rubber dam for reasons such as environmental laws, high river flows or mechanical problems, the capacity could be temporarily impaired according to the report.

The 11th Amended Agreement contains provisions for curtailing delivery to water customers during periods when the capacity is impaired. First, water is delivered to contractors as necessary for human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection. The GM will report to the board at the next meeting the basis for the declaration of temporary impairment.

Recommendations from An Analysis of Water Production Capacity 60+ pages:

* Increase monitoring of water level and pumping data for Wohler and Mirabel facilities to better understand aquifer conditions and predict production capacity when rubber dam is not in operation.

Refine the aquifer flow model. Collection of water level and pumping data can be incorporated into the existing computer flow model to assist in predicting production capacity during different hydrogeologic conditions.

Evaluate operational strategies to maximize production capacity of Wohler and Mirabel facilities: evaluation of flow control for collector wells (e.g., throttling valves or variable speed motors) to maximize average pumping rate and optimizing the sequence of production well operation for the RR Well Field.

Evaluate the water conveyance system within the Wohler and Mirabel facilities to identify whether there are any constraints in the pumping and piping system that inhibit production capacity.

The Agency's ability to meet fall/early winter/spring demands rests on the ability to raise the rubber dam at this time.

* Aquifer conditions during the fall/early winter represent the period of lowest production capacity because the regional groundwater levels are lowest after dry summer months and the infiltration rates from the river to the underlying aquifer are lowest due to the build up of fine-grained sediments and organic matter while the diversion dam was raised. In future years as demand increases it may be necessary to raise the inflatable dam to increase production.

* A sustained period of lesser rainfall/river flow events appears to recharge the aquifer better than sporadic large rainfall/river flows. There is a wide range of spring aquifer capacity, 45 to 60 mgd before the inflatable dam is installed. Variations in the April, May and June weather can cause differences of 36 to 71 mgd.

The Agency's ability to meet production demands depends on its ability to raise the rubber dam as necessary.

In addition to the above information, the Agency operates three emergency production wells located in the Santa Rosa Plain: Todd, Sebastopol and Occidental Road wells. They can produce a total of 7 mgd, but water quality issues may limit their reliable production capacity. Currently the Agency is working with the Department of Health Services (DHS) to identify the reliable production capacity while meeting secondary water quality standards.

Supervisor Kerns asked what the capacity of the system was without raising the inflatable dam. The answer was fall/early winter are the months of low water capacity about 35 to 40 mgd. The rubber dam has been in use well into January this year. We've not had to do that in the past.

Supervisor Reilly: The inflatable dam has a fish ladder. What happens with the public impact when impairment is declared?

Staff: In this situation we're looking at non-peak demands. The first priority is for public health and fire and those demands are for about 30 mgd close to what our natural capacity is without the inflatable dam in place. It would be different from the summer where there is much more to allocate - beyond the basic core of water supply needs.

Supervisor Reilly: So what happens when impairment happens? Is there water there or isn't there?

Staff: Yes, there will be water there, but the phases of water conservation have to kick in - voluntary and perhaps mandatory. We're looking at short-term issues with raising the dam. Situations that weather and climate bring us into.

Supervisor Reilly: I think we need to be very clear with the public as to what the impacts will be. I don't think we're putting it out there as clearly as we need to.

Chairman Smith: That reminds me of two years ago when we had some empty tanks for fire protection in the city of Santa Rosa. When you zero in on health and safety issues, that puts this thing over the edge. We want to avoid having one of those experiences very quickly.

Randy Poole: The goal is to declare the impairment and move forward, ask the [water]contractors of the cities and special districts - do they have additional well field supplies, do we need to ask for additional conservation including the voluntary 15% so it gives us the flexibility. We did declare last year in December the summertime impairment. So this completes the entire annual period that we can now talk about what we do in each phase of the year. Moving forward on this program would be helpful and working with all the contractors in solving the water supply problem.

Supervisor Kelley: First, is this a new engineering feat - an inflatable pond? What would preclude us from using the inflatable dam?

Staff: We could have a mechanical or maintenance issue. We have to look very closely at weather patterns to decide whether or not to raise the rubber dam. There are potential environmental constraints. If we were limited from when we could operate the dam, when we could raise and lower it? Or how long?

Supervisor Kelley: It's more likely NMFS will prohibit its use. The ENTRIX study found some impacts to individual fish. National Marine Fisheries would like to follow in the steps of PG&E and cause rolling dry outs. Then so be it. It's not my intention that we do that if NMFS says we can't raise the inflatable dam causing water supply shortage for our people and our constituents - then I expect we would have this back before us. I personally wouldn't mind directing the Water Agency to raise the dam regardless of what NMFS says. I know there maybe some concerned about that. I'll state it again for the record, people are more important than fish in my opinion. It may be a laughing matter, but I will go to jail for my constituents to have water. This is a pretty critical issue. You have bureaucrats sitting in office on top of Santa Rosa Creek, by the way, that could potentially make decisions that could effect people's lives. You may not be able to take a shower, and you may not be able to take it all the time. I'm trying to point out we can't overlook those.

Ray Aireo: I'm on the Grand Jury Water Committee. I'm happy to see the concerns about the water here from our board of supervisors. I have only one question: Has any assessment taken into account groundwater aquifers, the vast number of wells in our county as far as their impact on the total water picture is concerned, particularly in relation to the Russian River?

Brenda Adelman: I guess you can guess what I'm going to talk about. This is a highly complicated problem. Just to say, "To hell with the fish," is not going to solve the problem because we need fish to live. Fish are a vital part of our environment that we are connected to and that we are a part of. And ultimately down the road, it would be very sad for all of us if you just focused in on our needs and not look for alternatives. I think that what this points up is the problem with the current system. That the rubber dam is not going to be working in the future. I have an article here, "Expert Sees Dry Decades." NASA scientists are predicting a lot more dry weather. This effects our ability to have enough water, but also our ability to have enough hydroelectric power.

Basically, you need to look at your long term water needs. It's becoming more and more likely that a surface water treatment plant will be necessary. You need to open up the public dialogue. The public has been left out of this process. There are no simple solutions. Just saying "To hell with NMFS" is certainly short-sighted in the long range. And I'll say it one more time: this whole growth issue, just thinking that we can keep growing at whatever pace we want without looking at the ultimate capacity, the people living here now need to be aware that all this growth now is going to impinge on their needs for electric power, water, etc. We need to look at what's the ultimate capacity of this whole system?

Chairman Smith: I'll just say that much of what has been said is about frustration of ratepayers being on the receiving end of regulatory actions. To make a statement that the board is not concerned about fish is completely inaccurate. We as a board have to prove we are going to improve the lot of anadromous* fish in this watershed. Trying to get all the regulatory agencies lined up to assist is like arguing over the diagnosis of the dying patient until he expires with nobody agreeing about the remedy.

The last item is that the rubber dam is not a fish barrier. Believe me, we'll be the first to know that. It's irresponsible to throw around rhetoric that is basically inflammatory and not based on fact! And that's a problem. What this board is going to grapple with in the next couple of years as we're doing the fisheries assessment, a recovery plan, and a whole host of other things that will come down with other county agencies relative to the 4-d Rule [ESA, preserving habitat]. Our work is just beginning. We're trying to take this on two tacks: One is to be very environmentally sensitive because it's our job and two, it's our legal responsibility and three, it's the right thing to do. And finally, I hear this growth thing thrown around continually, and I get very frustrated with it. We are complying with what the 8 contractors are asking for in their General Plans. These are not fictional water supply numbers. These are coming through hours of public hearings, from environmental documents. We are not proposing a darn thing. Go to your city council, go to the place where they're making the special request. If you want to vent, that's the place to do it.

And lastly, really the last thing [laughs from the audience]: I'm not going to apologize for having 3 kids. The mortality rate in this county is 50% of the birth rate. And not to make positive things for the future generations, for some kid to be able to live, I think is about the most self-centered thing one could possibly listen to. Madam Clerk, is there any objection to the adoption of this resolution or authorization?

Someone asked, "What's the item? I forgot."

Supervisor Cale: It has to do with the rubber dam.

Supervisor Reilly: Could I respond to the person who asked about the groundwater? My understanding in terms of groundwater exploration is that the Water Agency is working with the US Geologic Service to examine the groundwater capability of the major basins in Sonoma County, primarily located in the Santa Rosa Plain and the valley areas. The board has initiated a contract through PRMD with Kleinfelder to at least do an exploration of the water-scarce areas and the continued impact of well permitting in water-scarce areas in Sonoma County. I believe that report is due back to this board in 30 to 40 days.

Chair: I thank you for raising that. I had completely forgotten about that. Any objection to adopting the resolution or authorization? Madam Clerk, record 5-0.

Item 50 [Pipeline and Pump Station Easements] will be heard sometime after 2:15 this afternoon.

[* "anadromous" refers to swimming upstream.]

TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR

51. 2000 Combined Fund Drive: Tom Ford Tax Collector/ Treasurer reported. Our county employees donated $241,118. The overall campaign brought in $5,000,016. Cathy Patton was the true leader of this campaign. Department heads and campaign leaders were recognized for their help.

REGISTRAR OF VOTERS

52. Supervisorial Redistricting

Discussion and policy direction regarding the process of redistricting supervisorial districts to reflect population changes and other legal requirements.

An advisory committee will be appointed: The supervisors decided they wanted more elected officials on the committee: the County Clerk, the Assessor, the Auditor, County Counsel. Providing staff support would be Transportation/Public Works, Road Commissioner, PRMD staff, Registrar of Voters staff. Chairman Smith added Information Systems staff support. County Clerk Eeve Lewis will draft the resolution.

53. Sonoma County Long-Term Solid Waste Management Alternative Analysis Project

Accept the report and direct staff to proceed with steps necessary for implementation of selected long-term solid waste management strategy:

Expansion of Central Landfill beyond its current permitted capacity within site and regulatory constraints.

Siting of an integrated resource management facility to include organics processing (anaerobic digestion or biorefining), green waste composting, and landfilling.

Formal agreement among all cities and county to direct flow of refuse and green waste to the new integrated resource management facility.

Mandatory source separation of recyclables from the solid waste of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional waste generators.

Public Comments:

Mike Anderson, Graton: I've been serving on the County Recycling Committee for 25 years. We had wide community support and direction. This will get us about a 50% recycling rate. It's outstanding, and we spent over a year working on it.

Don Sanders, Sierra Club, Santa Rosa: Our report shows a very good scheme for dealing with our future. I think it serves all the interests of the Sierra Club as well as other organizations.

Jim Anderson, Geyserville: I started this journey in 1998 as a NIMBY. Now my neighbors call me an environmental activist. I was amazed the group was able to come to consensus. I want to thank Ken Wells and county staff giving me information for my community. I'm sorry that the group thought 80% recycling rate was politically difficult. I think the kitty litter mentality method of digging and burying our garbage has to change. By the end of this study period, I'll be 106 years old. I'd like to see the entire waste stream utilizing these new technologies.

Adoption of the report: 5-0. Thank you very much.

PRMD

54. Participation in the Countywide Housing Nexus Study Authorize county participation with Santa Rosa in Countywide Housing Nexus Study $34,000.

Memorandum from Michael F. Martini, Mayor, Santa Rosa: We would like to identify the jurisdictions interested in proceeding with this study by February 13th so that work may begin. To that end, please contact Wayne Goldberg (543-3220 or wgoldberg@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us) with an indication as to whether or not your city wishes to participate in the nexus study. Participation in the nexus study certainly does not commit your jurisdiction to applying a fee, but the adoption of an impact fee cannot legally be instituted without a nexus study.

PRMD Staff Member Pete Parkinson explained: At this point all cities are dealing with their housing issues in a fundamental way. Initially Cloverdale and Healdsburg had declined to participate but are reconsidering. This is not simply a nexus study but they will look at a range of issues. Having a study in place would meet state requirements. The city's going to be using Economic and Planning Systems, the same firm assisting the county with its housing element revision. A lot of the tasks are going to dovetail nicely.

The memo from Mayor Mike Martini is attached to your package. He calls this a nexus study. I think it's a broader look at workforce housing issues than simply a nexus housing study. It's going to provide a detailed analysis of the jobs/housing balance, any jurisdiction countywide and look at a range of issues related to jobs, growth, and housing demand and provide documentation that supports any programs that the county and the cities want to implement to address that housing need. One aspect of the study scope of work refers to the linkage fee which would attach a dollar value to various industry sectors impacts on housing demand. That could become a basis for a mitigation fee should the county or any of the cities want to implement that. That's the actual nexus study part of this. Neither the county nor the cities have committed to adopting that fee. Having the study in place would meet state law requirements for establishing the nexus between the housing impact and a fee should the county or the cities want to go forward with that in the future.

In addition to looking at that linkage fee issue, the study is going to evaluate other options for addressing workforce housing needs, something like a private/public housing trust fund type of arrangement or privatized home ownership assistance programs, regulatory incentives and other types of options. There will be a full menu of things in there in addition to the linkage issue.

This is something that does truly cross jurisdictional boundaries with the mobility of both workers and housing, workers and employers, making it important to analyze this on a countywide basis.

We believe the county's participation in this is a very appropriate step forward in beginning to achieve some interjurisdictional cooperation on housing issues. We propose to use funding already appropriated in PRMD's budget for the current year for the General Plan update activities, and we recommend your board authorize county participation with the city in a workforce housing study not to exceed $34,000.

Supervisor Reilly: I'm going to support this. It's pretty clear we're not going to achieve workforce housing on a business as usual basis. I'm going to be watching our efforts in the low and very low income areas. That's where my primary concerns lie.

Supervisor Kerns: I certainly support the county's participation. The data we receive from this will be extremely important. I encourage the cities to participate in these studies. We need to develop strategies to solve the problems.

Supervisor Kelley: It's a good price for many of those cities since the county's paying the most. It's a good opportunity to implement some housing ideas. I'm not convinced that an impact fee on commercial development is a good idea. Fleshing out ideas on trust funding, using businesses to funnel dollars into community housing, making contributions to nonprofits which could provide some housing opportunities are worth exploring.

Chair: Information is always valuable. I'm somewhat skeptical as to where it may lead us. I think there are some things which are going to have impacts on Sonoma County beyond the study such as its being a very desirable place to live: the climate, the aesthetics, the birthrate, a whole host of things. I'm anxious to see this maybe help us make an impact on this housing crisis. I'm particularly interested in the finance trust, helping first time home buyers. I hope when we discover a fee does come into place...costs have a way of getting passed through. I hope the employees aren't paying the price through wages and other things. Those costs will land somewhere. I'm looking forward to getting some information on this. 5-0 to go ahead.

55. Governance Options for Monte Rio Wastewater System Provide direction on governmental structure for Monte Rio Wastewater System (Held from 1/23/01)

Ted Walker: On January 23, 2001, the board met and discussed the options for governance of the Monte Rio Wastewater Project outlined in the attached board report. After discussion of the different options, the Board directed staff to meet with the Ad Hoc Committee to review the options in greater detail, in particular the creation of a new district capable of providing sewer service and return to the board with recommendations.

[BW Note: Chairman Smith appointed the committee: Supervisors Kelley and Reilly, Steven Woodside, Mr. Sharp, Mr. Holmer, Mr. Walker, Mr. Hanshee.]

On January 29, 2001, PRMD staff, county counsel, the USDA Funding Representative met with Supervisors Kelley and Reilly. Staff also communicated with the State Funding Representative before the meeting. The rep indicated that there is significant risk of losing State and Federal grants totaling $6 million if the option of creating a new district is pursued at this time in the funding process. If funding from either the state or the USDA is not secured, there will be inadequate funds to proceed with the project.

The Committee recommended the Monte Rio Wastewater Pollution Control Project proceed under governance of a CSA 41 Zone of Benefit until completion of the project as outlined in Option 1 of the board report. After the project has been operational for 6 months, the county initiates the process for transferring ownership and operation of the project to an existing local district or a newly created district.

Specifically the board is requested to take the following actions: 1) Direct PRMD to initiate formation of a Zone of Benefit under County Service Area 41 for the Monte Rio Project as outlined in Option 1. PRMD will oversee construction of the project and will contract with a private contractor to operate the system.

2) Direct PRMD to proceed with completion of the engineering design, funding applications, and the Prop 218 protest proceedings prior to construction.

3) Direct PRMD to initiate the process for transferring ownership of the facility 6 months after completion of construction to an existing local district. If an existing district will not assume ownership of the facility, PRMD will pursue creation of a new local district to take over local control and ownership of the facility. That concludes our report.

Supervisor Kelley: As the board we had a long tortured discussion about keeping away from liability, trying to encourage local control, wanting a local district to own and operate the facility. It was evident that creating a separate district would put all the funding in jeopardy. The 218 Protest Vote will give us a first indication if it can proceed. It was strongly felt that once the construction is accomplished, the local district would be more apt to step forward. I suggested having a timeline put in there. It triggers whether a local district actually takes it over. If that doesn't happen, then there's the creation of a district protecting the board from having to run this thing forever.

Chair: Thank you. Does anyone wish to address the board on this matter? I'd ask you to be brief and to the point.

Brenda Adelman: First, I'm wondering why you'd lose the grant if you pursue the governance issue now? That was unclear. You want to build the system, then find a local district to take it over. Well, I see a lot of problems with building the system which may indicate you won't find anyone to take it over. I think local control is very important. I totally support it. Without local support you're not going to have people who want local control. I don't know if there's a lot of community support for this project. What happens if you don't have any local community entities that want to take it over after 6 months? How would you go about creating the district? Who would be involved in that? What would be some of the steps you'd need to take? And if you run into problems with this system the way you did with Guerneville, it's liable to be an enormous fiasco.

And one of my big concerns: the last time I mentioned your building a system totally dependent on electricity and maybe a lot of people in the community don't know you've chosen this yet. I don't know if it's been adequately explained to them, but we're in an electrical crisis right now. I'd be curious as to how you as the county are addressing that crisis. I'm not aware of any efforts on your part to encourage people to conserve, and here you want to put in a system that's liable to be just an incredible expense for a local community that doesn't have much money. I just think a lot of issues need to be addressed before you move forward. There's a lot more at stake here than just money, and I don't know that all these have been addressed. Thank you.

Terry Nautzig, Monte Rio: I agree with many of the things Brenda just said. I strongly believe there's not community support for this sewer project. I believe money would be better spent addressing septic systems that do have problems rather than building a sewer system that will create more problems for us, more building. I have no problems with septic systems in downtown Monte Rio, and I think they can accommodate a small area. I did talk about canvassing the neighborhood and talked to people who would have to connect to the system. They do not want the septic system. They feel it's being forced on them. They're not against repairing systems that need repair. There are systems that we're able to repair and some we can't repair. Being in the building business, we know we could repair them, but we're not allowed to get a permit to repair them. I feel it's time to put this aside and find something that better addresses the problems in Monte Rio.

Lenny Weinstein, resident and businessman in Monte Rio: I fully agree with what Terry and Brenda just said. The good gentleman Mike Reilly said a couple of times, "The train left the station." It sounds like a subtle admission for great flaws and a rationale for going ahead. I think it's on the wrong track and I think it's going to a dead end. I think if you can stop it and get a grip on it before it becomes a boondoggle. I don't want to say anymore. I don't want to drag this out. I think Mike has good intentions, but I don't think this is the right project. Thank you.

Supervisor Reilly: This is a brochure that the RR Community Forum put out. You're listed as the contact person for that. On the sewer and water expansion there's a statement in here, "The Guerneville Plant should not be regionalized," which is the other option in this EIR. "Expansion would cause more problems for the river....Wastewater disposal should occur by land-based means in the community of origin." That's precisely the system being recommended here. I want to say that for the record.

Lenny Weinstein: You have a good point, Mike. It's in the wrong place, and it's not going to work. It's on the river's edge. It's right off the scenic highway. 116 is a very jelly-like road. The topography requires more than just a sewer system.

Chairman Smith: I'm going to stop you right there. I don't want to relive the environmental document. Thank you.

Lee Torr IV: I want to thank the board in selecting a good project. There are members of the community that will come to the plate and serve on the official body to see this project through at this 6 month point. There is some controversy but it's from outside the area. It's only because of Supervisor Reilly that this has come to the fore and is before you for resolution. There hasn't ever been the opportunity for that kind of grant money in our community. Our community's low-income status was one of the reasons we got the grant, the lowest in 9 bay area counties.

Gregory Haas: I agree with Mr. Torr. There is a lot of community support for this project. Let's move on and do the project.

Traney Amador: There is a significant welling up of pressure against this project in the community. Over 160 homeowners in the core area have pledged to vote against this project. The EIR did not prove that our systems are polluting the river. The leaking septic systems are leaking down from Staret Hill. The board chairman of Sweetwater Springs said that he had been inappropriately approached by one of the supervisors. That says to me, Mr. Reilly, that you've been overzealously approaching this project. It's ironic this board is crying "Foul" to the Feds because they aren't listening to you about the Indian development going on right now. We've been saying for the last two years, the people in this area need to be listened to.

Ray Airo: The purpose of the Grand Jury is to make recommendations. Maybe we can take some of the load off your shoulders. My head's swimming from just one day here. Since there are other systems for waste disposal, what has prevented their use?

Supervisor Reilly: Regarding jeopardy of funds, the federal commitment depends on the state grant commitment. We're working on a similar arrangement in Forestville and Occidental. We do the construction prior to the time they take over those operations. It's probably the most realistic strategy in this case as well. Mr. Amstrad who's looks at projects from Washington, Oregon and California made the comment that this was above and beyond almost any environmental assessment/ mitigation report he had seen for a small system. The fact that we're doing not only engineering design, but peer review on engineering, state review and we've already had a preliminary review from the Water Quality Control Board and a letter of assurance that this meets all Clean Water Basin Act requirements. This should have some impact on the continual misrepresentations made about the system.

Chairman Smith: Unfortunately, nobody's come forward to take this off the county's hands. We've gone through an arduous process to winnow down to reasonable things that would work. Those came down to this project. It would cost $2.5 million more to go to the Greenville Plant. There is a significant amount of savings to people who would benefit from this system. For that reason I intend to support it. I'm really biting my tongue. You might sense that I'm not a very happy camper. I'm going to support this system because we're trying to help folks out there. The county has absolutely no obligation at all to do it. The issue's not going to go away. If for some reason this doesn't...or people turn down a 218 vote, then this will have to go to Greenville. This has been a really difficult process, and I just shake my head. And Supervisor Reilly, some of you folks might be angry with him or not, without the persistence and the elbow twisting, and the bludgeoning that I've gotten out of that office, I guarantee I wouldn't be voting for it at all. I hope this will work and I hope the 218 vote meets with some degree of success. That's what this process is all about. If people don't like it they can say "No, I don't want it." You can try something else, and I just wince when I think about what those alternatives are. So I hope when you consider that, you consider the whole thing in its totality. With that, Madam Clerk, record a 5-0 with one real strong groan.

Items 56, 57, 58, 59 deal with Juvenile Hall. #56. 5-0 Juvenile Hall Replacement

57. 5-0 Juvenile Hall Construction

58. 5-0 Juvenile Hall - Detention Alternatives Update Report 59. 5-0 Appropriation of $1,538,758 to Juvenile Hall Replacement

End Morning Session

Copyright ©2001 by the BoardWatcher