CCMIN11172020 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to Councilmember Brown's inquiry, Finance Director Olson confirmed these projects will continue to carry forward unless there is City Council action to add or remove an item but added current balances may be different than the June 30th figures because work is ongoing on some of the projects. Councilmember Brown proposed removing the Tri-Valley Potable Reuse Study for $300,000 and redirect them to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) removal which takes a higher priority than earmarked funds for potable reuse. She cited Policy 3 of the Water Chapter in the General Plan, "do not utilize water reclamation techniques, including reverse osmosis, which could adversely affect or have potentially negative impacts on drinking water quality, surface water or groundwater resources." Councilmember Brown stated her second issue with this line item is the Water Roundtable received a presentation stating potable reuse is four times the cost of water through the state water project. She showed a chart of the availability of wastewater required to create potable reuse but in the summer all the water is being used for purple pipe irrigation water. She advised water is not needed at four times the price in the winter and noted her desire to see PFAS be the focus of the City Council moving forward. Councilmember Narum expressed concern about being caught off-guard by this discussion and her recollection the City had committed at the Tri-Valley Roundtable with the other cities to do the second phase of the Potable Reuse Study partly to understand the flow of the aquifer. She requested more information on the ramifications of withdrawing Pleasanton's support of the measure in conjunction with the other cities. In response to Councilmember Narum's inquiry. City Manager Fialho offered to agendize this matter soon as it is a policy discussion unrelated to closing the books on FY 2019/20. He recalled the discussion was paused because of the time and energy expended on dealing with the new concept of PFAS so the City never agreed to participate further in the regional study. He noted it was not done for a pivot in the City Council but rather a need to focus on something more pressing. City Manager Fialho suggested a discussion in December or January about the project status and whether the money should be reallocated, but it is not for tonight's discussion on a financial document which accounts for balances as of June 30. Councilmember Brown stated her surprise the funds are still on the books when a decision was made not to move forward. Councilmember Narum agreed potable reuse is worth discussing although her recollection does not include deciding not to support the project but rather deciding it was a matter to continue. Councilmember Narum stated she is not comfortable taking the line item out now without discussing the possible ramifications of that action. In response to Councilmember Narum's inquiry. City Manager Fialho could not confirm if Pleasanton is the only Tri-Valley municipality not to fund its share of the study but expressed it is his belief. Councilmember Narum agreed with Councilmember Brown in expressing her support for bringing this item back in a future meeting. Councilmember Testa expressed her interest in bringing the matter back but recalled having a discussion where the City Council said it would not participate in the study. Mayor Thorne opened the public hearing, there being no speaker the hearing was closed. Councilmember Brown made a motion to accept staff recommendation on Item No 21 for budgetary consideration and approval. She added she will condition her approval on bringing back the issue of potable reuse funding in the value of $300.000. Councilmember Narum seconded the motion. Councilmember Pentin expressed support for the motion. City Council Minutes Page 11 of 13 November 17. 2020