Good morning and welcome to the Western Regional Water Commission meeting for February 18, 2026.

And we'll call the meeting.

We'll call the meeting to order at 8 37 in the morning.

And can we start out with a roll call, please?

Here.

Clara Andrea.

Present.

Here.

Susan Sepper.

Here.

Here.

And we can hardly hear you here.

Kathleen Taylor.

Here.

Mary Louis Garcia.

Here.

Miguel Martino.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Great.

Thank you.

And uh could we get uh member Vanderwell to do the Pledge of Allegiance for us, please?

Sure.

If you'll please join me, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands.

One nation under our individual with liberty and justice for all.

Great.

Thank you very much.

And we'll go on to public comment.

Do we have any public comment?

No public comment.

All right.

Move on to item number four approval of the agenda.

So moved.

Second.

All right.

We have a first with uh member van der Well, second with Andreola.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Okay, passes unanimously.

Approval of the minutes from the November 5th, 2025, uh Western Regional Water Commission and Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission concurrent meeting.

Move to approve.

Second.

All right.

We have a motion by Andreola.

A second by Vanderwell.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Passes unanimously.

And we'll move on to item number six.

Uh action discussion possible approval of a scope of work funding not to exceed 211,000 from the Regional Water Management Fund for a professional services agreement with the resource concepts incorporated to update the 2020 integrated source water and 319 H watershed protection plan for public water systems and the Truckee River in Trucking Meadows.

And is this uh Burgett that's gonna be presenting this?

Yes, yes, thank you, Chairman, members of the commission.

Birgit Whitigram for the record record.

The 2020 integrated source water and watershed protection plan has been implemented by regional partners since this approval in 2015.

It's been five years since the plan was approved, and it's widely recognized by our partners that it needs a comprehensive update.

Jill Sutherland, senior engineer and director of RCI's environmental team, is here to present a proposal to update the plan.

I hope she's been having some difficulty hearing us.

So hopefully, Jill, are you available?

Oh, I'm not hearing her.

Thank you.

Can you hear me now?

Yes, we can.

Oh, great.

I don't know if you can see my slides that I have up or I cannot see slides right now.

Let me give one more try.

If you can't, I can go ahead and share my screen.

I think.

Yes, if you could share your screen, Birgit.

I think that would be a big help.

Apologies for the technical difficulties this morning.

Okay, let's see.

That's okay.

It's pretty much uh the way things are going this morning.

Yes.

Okay, here we go.

Great.

Um, thank you.

Um good morning, Birgit.

Good morning, Commissioner.

Thank you for having me here.

Um, I'm going to do a little overview of the project, which we'll refer to as the 2020 source water and watershed plan.

Um community is all about water.

And um, you've done a great job.

As Brigitte mentioned, next slide, Birgit.

Um the plan was put together in 2016 through 2020 and implemented through um the current time, um, 2026.

And it's been implemented so enthusiastically by the partners that it's really time for an update.

So who are the partners here?

On the screen, you'll see a graphic, and you can see there's a lot.

It's a long list.

And I have to say that partner who helped us put the plan together here, has also continued to implement their piece of plan.

Next screen.

And here we should have a screen that says implemented.

Everything from the city of Reno adopting Social Water Protection Code.

Hey, Jill, sorry to interrupt you, but could you do me a favor and try speaking either louder or closer to the mic?

It's difficult to hear you.

Okay.

Is this better?

Yes, thank you.

Great.

Sorry for that.

And I was just going to talk a little bit about what's been implemented to date.

There's a short list up on the screen.

And we've done a huge variety of things from City of Reno adopting Source Water Protection Code to the current rehab efforts on the gold ranch fire up by Verde that have been funded through some 319 grants and collaboration with other partners.org.

But we do have quarterly meetings, and we've heard from the partners that we need an update.

So what needs to be updated?

Next slide, Birgit, with the map of Hunter Creek.

One of the things that's key to this plan is was um and is a geospatial analysis of land jurisdiction and um and um ownership and that produces some of these pretty maps like you see on the screen, which are all throughout the plan.

The space was from um 2019 data, and now we're in 2026, and so that's one of the things that needs to be updated.

Next slide, Birgit.

So phase one of the project would be you know, first engaging all the partners and making sure that we hear what's needed, and then reviewing the public water systems in throughout the county and their water sources to see if there's any changes, and then updating the geospatial analysis and the mapping, and then reorganizing the uh website uh content with the help uh of the Trucking Meadows Regional Planning Agency, who currently hosts the Washoe County Cleanwater.org website.

Phase one will then inform phase two.

Next slide, phase two, Birgit.

So once we've got all the data together, then the fun part comes.

Um we get to come up with a long list, hopefully, of new projects.

A lot of the projects that were on the original list have been implemented or ongoing.

Also heard that the partners want to um improve the tracking of the plan to be able to demonstrate performance.

They also want to integrate it uh into the regional planning framework more seamlessly.

And then um sort of the final steps of phase two is to go back to all the partners and make sure the plan is approved.

And with that, the last slide.

Um thank you so much.

Sorry for technical difficulties, and do you have any questions?

Right.

Thank you very much, Jill.

Appreciate it.

Uh, do we have any questions from the members?

All right.

Um anyone uh that's tuned in virtually wish to speak.

Oh, yes.

Kathleen, go ahead.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thanks for the presentation.

Jill, I think you answered this in your presentation, but I just want to ask the question that you are coordinating with regional um planning and Jeremy Smith over there making sure that we're not duplicating efforts.

I know they're doing their we're doing our natural resources plan.

So um wanted to make sure that that was a resource for you, and you had everything you needed for collaboration.

Um, yes, they've been an essential partner um from when we started the planning process with folks um in like 2017, and they continue to host the website and make sure it's um integrated with what they're currently developing and even more integrated going forward.

And they continue to host the website and make sure it's um integrated with what they're currently developing and even more integrated going forward.

We really appreciate them.

And I think at the regional level, we are boosting our GIS services too.

That's something that we are going to be working towards in the future.

So I if you need any help with that, please let us know.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Yes, go ahead.

Oh.

Okay.

You're welcome.

Sorry.

Having some uh hearing difficulties here.

So any other questions from the commissioners?

Yes.

This is Naomi.

Yes, go ahead, Naomi.

Yeah, I was just wondering when the project would be completed.

I think the update would be completed.

We're looking at um fiscal year 2028.

Um by the time we take it back before all the participating partners and get their approval.

2028.

So two more years.

Yeah.

Okay.

And the last plan you said was completed when it was completed in 2020.

So thank you.

Member Dewar, did you have another question or was that it?

No.

That was it.

Okay.

Uh call for questions one more time here.

All right, not hearing any.

Uh, we'll go ahead and um open it up for a motion.

Um approve a second.

Um motion made by uh Andreola.

And I thought I heard someone else.

Do our second.

Do her.

Thank you very much.

A motion and a second.

All those in favor signify signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Aye.

Aye.

Passes unanimously.

Moving on to item number seven, presentation, possible acceptance of the Raftalis final report and findings of the wastewater regionalization feasibility study, phase one A, identification of challenges and objectives.

And I believe this is you, Miss Rigdon.

That's correct.

Thank you very much, Chairman.

Good morning, members of the commission, Kim Rigdon for the record.

Um, as you know and heard back in November, RAF Talis has completed phase 1A of the wastewater regionalization feasibility study.

And we have the project manager back.

We're happy to have him back to give us a presentation uh of the results of that report.

And then in the next item, we'll talk about next steps and how we're moving forward.

So, Zach, are you online?

I see the presentation slide up.

Okay, great.

Can you hear me?

Can you see me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay, great.

Just let me know if I need to speak up at any point.

Mr.

Chair, this is um Kathleen.

I need to write read a disclosure very quick, quick for seven and eight.

Oh, oh, I'm sorry, please go ahead.

Yes, thank you.

Chair, I'd like to make a disclosure regarding this matter in relation to NRS 281A.420.

I'd like to disclose that I understand Jacobs Engineering to be a subconsultant to Rap Talis on this project.

My company, Taylor Maid Solutions is a subconsultant to Jacobs Engineering on an unrelated project.

I have no connection to this project.

As a result, I conclude that the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in my situation would not be materially affected by this relationship.

And because this is not a case of a disqualifying comp disqualifying conflict of interest, I am going to be voting on this matter.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Member Taylor.

And uh Mr.

Green, go ahead, sir.

All right, great.

Thank you.

Um hi everyone.

Thanks for uh having us today.

Uh as Kim mentioned, I'm the project manager um for the wastewater uh regionalization feasibility study.

Um my colleague John Mostracchio, our project director is on the call as well.

And I do want to acknowledge uh contributions in phase one A from Jacobs as well as Zan Harrow and in particular Gwenmore Tully and Dylan Menis.

Um so we recently completed the first phase of the feasibility study.

Uh it was focused again on regional planning and management of wastewater utilities and effluent disposal.

Uh we delivered a revised final report on that phase of work.

The scope consisted of documenting regional challenges associated with wastewater management and really identifying the specific objectives for this exploration of regional wastewater management alternatives.

So the work completed in this phase we hope is a foundation for further evaluation in future phases.

Initially, we we said submitted sort of an end-to-end scope, and what the group wanted to do was do a little bit of, I think, problem definition and kind of set the path forward in that phase 1A.

So there's a subsequent contract under item eight here for your consideration.

But first, I'm going to go through kind of the final findings from phase 1A.

Some of this I don't think will be new to the group.

But I'm glad we've kind of gotten comments from everybody and are now able to present where we landed.

So again, this is about documenting the challenges.

You know, they're they're different for every organization, but some of them are common to the region.

The participants, of course, included the commission members, um organizations.

Um documenting challenges and exploring those objectives for uh regionalization.

And really we hope our report kind of covered all that.

And I think um we did get a broad set of comments, but I think generally there was agreement that we were kind of on the right track so far.

And uh I hope you'll agree.

Um, what did we do in this phase one A?

We reviewed a lot of documents and data, and this was something that I think um folks on the staff commission and NWPC really wanted us to do.

Um, there's a lot of organizations involved and a lot of complex challenges with respect to you know, local economics and the environment and then local government management.

Um we we took a lot of time to really become uh experts or at least very familiar with um what these organizations are doing and what they're struggling with and what they're excelling at too.

Um we then sort of interviewed key staff across the organizations to hear from them uh about what they're struggling with and what they're looking to accomplish through this study, and conducted follow-up discussions and then really held um some topic-based workshops based on what we were hearing.

And that's what you see on the right side of this slide.

So the topics that we covered, there were eight of them.

Um, and I believe uh we took two days to kind of go through all these sessions.

So we we looked at governance and valuation, future water balance and demands, optimizing existing capacity, uh, how uh cost shares might be negotiated in the future, um, navigating aging infrastructure and innovation on new investment, um, sewer shed misalignment that we'll talk about in a little bit in terms of where you have sewers leading to a plant that has a different owner, um, just other general collaborative opportunities, and then stormwater management is a big part of this feasibility study as well that I know folks are interested in hearing if there's a regional opportunity there as well.

So, across all of these eight workshops, we had identified case studies in the issue identification that allowed us to say, you know, how might this look currently?

What are we struggling with?

How could this be different under a regional alternative?

And so I think those case studies were able to help the group kind of ideate a little bit on what they might hope to accomplish.

And that really helped us refine those those regionalization objectives and even uh uh preliminarily at least identify um what some wastewater management alternatives might look like.

Um, so the the challenges that um we distilled, there are also um eight of those, and they they do align with kind of those those workshop topics um to a large extent that we talked about.

Um they're listed here.

I don't think any of them changed in any meaningful way uh, you know, from the draft report or prior presentations to today.

Uh, and I don't want to be too redundant, so I'm gonna I'm gonna keep moving.

You know, in general, these are covering um challenges that really any wastewater organization is gonna struggle with to some extent, but where there's a belief that the current sort of fragmented governance, um, you know, maybe making things more difficult, or in the case of stormwater, where it's really handled very differently by each entity.

Um, one I wanted to highlight though, that sort of emerged as more prominent, I think, as we spoke, is just the acknowledgement that there are sort of layers of interlocal agreements that have sort of built and evolved over many years.

And there's a question as to whether those agreements are driving complexity or slowing decision making that that could be better in a regional alternative.

So we don't have the answers to solve these challenges yet.

What we have are objectives that folks want to see studied through future phases of work to determine if there's a there in terms of regional options to address these challenges.

Or I should say coming together.

I think you guys already are working together significantly and well in many ways.

But those areas are fewer.

The question is can we increase financial and administrative efficiency?

So can we bend the cost curve going forward is how we like to think about this.

But if we look at the future and how much they're expected to increase, can they increase less?

Often that's one of the most realistic uh goals.

But you never know.

Sometimes you can achieve it, uh real savings as well.

And it depends, it's going to depend sort of regionally where rates are currently and whether you're looking at the near term or the long term.

So that's a question.

If we're going to do a regionalization feasibility study, we have to understand how this is going to impact financials and the elegance of sort of overhead roles and administrative efficiency as well.

Next objective, integrated water resource management.

What we mean by that and get into significantly in the report is that there is a nexus between water supply, wastewater management, and even stormwater management.

And that there's a hypothesis that those could be better coordinated or more easily acted upon and influenced through a coming together that doesn't just include wastewater, but maybe also includes water and stormwater, or maybe it's just wastewater and stormwater coming together and Tumwas stays by itself.

So we'll talk about those alternatives in a bit.

Other objectives around operational optimization and reliability.

Maybe there's staff specialization and expertise that could be deeper in a regional entity where things are maybe more siloed and people don't have to wear so many hats, like might be the case of a smaller organization.

Strategic planning and problem solving kind of gets at the idea that when you have layered governance, it can be harder to achieve the momentum to make big changes, to invest in innovative ways.

And then maybe with more unified governance, you can do that more easily.

I think some of what we heard is that there's some sense that that happens quicker at an organization like Tumwa that has brought the region together.

Greater certainty for development is one that I think some of the commission members here have reflected that they have heard.

So that is to say that the develop the priorities of the development community shouldn't be necessarily the north star of a wastewater utility, but that there may be an opportunity to sort of uh smooth the way their experience for the benefit of the region through regional alternative, to make things more consistent, to make decision making and infrastructure that's related to uh development sort of be unlocked more efficiently for the benefit of the region economically.

Um and doing that, of course, um, while being a continuing to be a good steward to the environment as well.

At the same time, there are certain concerns and obstacles that bubbled up in phase one A, and I think we have to be mindful of these if we do move forward.

Um, in any regionalization feasibility study, um, a prominent theme can be fears of a loss of local control.

So, will I feel represented as a currently separate municipality or agency on a more regional in a more regional governance structure?

So I may have a seat on the board, but how are decisions made?

How many seats do I have?

Um, and do I feel that my community is being heard, that my community is being invested in?

So that comes up frequently.

Um, financial and resource equity, there are investments that have been made and infrastructure assets that are not fully um through their useful life.

So, how do we navigate transition to a regional entity in a way that is equitable to communities?

Governance complexity and political will, I think I mentioned a little bit before, in terms of the opportunity, there's this thought that with fewer layers, um, there's an elegance and decision making that might be preferable.

Um, but at the same time, what that means is that under the status quo, saying yes to a regional alternative might be difficult.

Um it's it's hard, it takes a lot of work to build the political will.

Um, in terms of staffing and labor relations, people want to make sure that their job isn't threatened.

Um, you know, in an ideal world, they are getting better pay or benefits, if not the same through a transition and their responsibility is not being diminished.

So that's always tricky, and um you have to pay a lot of attention to that through a transition.

Um, the short-term priorities of agencies may be different than a regional uh you know, decision-making body might uh initially move towards.

So are those things in congruent?

You know, can the can one agency do all the things that each community feels are urgent, or do they have to prioritize in a way that the individuals currently feel could could be not beneficial or optimal for their community?

And then again, just momentum and risk aversion.

I think there's been some conversations about regional wastewater management before.

Um, you know, they have made progress in some cases, they led to commissions um like the one I stand before today.

But there's this question of whether you know the the ball can be pushed much further depending on how the feasibility study turns out.

So we do have a proposal in queue.

It's the next item on your agenda.

Uh it comprises two phases that may play out over anywhere from 10 to 14 months, we think.

Um I think our initial timelines were a little bit longer as proposed, but we have shortened them based on feedback, and we think they're still achievable.

Um, the goal here is to really validate regional alternatives that came out of the first scope of work um to address the challenges and objectives that phase one A, you know, you know, phase one A was really trying to just distill those challenges and objectives.

But I think through that, some possible alternatives emerged.

They weren't really um formed fully.

And so I think phase one B is about more fully forming what those alternatives are.

So this preliminary evaluation will consider a regional wastewater agency.

It will consider a combined regional water and wastewater agency.

It will consider how uh inclusion of stormwater might look in either of those two alternatives.

And then it will consider an alternative that is less different than the status quo if those other larger regional alternatives prove not to be viable.

And that is the alignment of sewer sheds that I mentioned earlier with the water reclamation facility ownership.

Um so where we have a bifurcation in the horizontal assets from the vertical assets, if we just bring those things together, um, will that sort of improve thing?

Well, will that represent maybe an improved version of the status quo where we don't have full regional governance, but at least we now have asset alignment.

Um so the goal will be to select a short list of regional models for further evaluation in a phase one C.

And this really would get into the meat of analysis.

A lot of what we will have done through phase one A and parts of one B is more qualitative.

In phase one C, we will be looking more formally at organizational structure, but also staffing and collective bargaining and salaries and benefits and organizational charts under alternatives, um, budgets and rates and debt, um, asset compensation valuation and how that impacts our ratepayers over time and other sort of administrative considerations that really require um rigorous analysis.

Um, so you know, Raf Tell us has a lot of pedigree as a financial and management consulting firm, and I think this is where we can really add a lot of value to help you guys make decisions by turning sort of um concepts into uh our best estimate that we can come up with this time of the impacts financially and operationally for wastewater management.

And so that out of that you would get an assessment of the feasibility of proceeding with regional alternatives that will allow you to make a decision.

Um we did initially also propose a phase one D, but I think there's a thought that um that will come depending on the outcomes of one B and one C, that would develop an implementation plan and do things like stakeholder engagement to vet all this analysis with uh a broader audience.

Um with that, I will pause uh and we are happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Zach.

Um that was that was very informative and and likewise the material that you provided.

Um I'm gonna go ahead and open up for questions uh here in Sparks.

Any questions up here?

Okay.

Um Ms.

Taylor, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you for the presentation.

I don't know if this is an appropriate question for this presentation or the next one, uh, Mr.

Green, but I am really interested in accelerating the timeline of this.

If you want to put that slide back up, I think this is something, and you can let me know if you want me to ask this in the next slide or or now if it's appropriate, but it's it's your agenda.

Well, I guess my question for you is are you prepared to answer it right now?

Okay.

Let's hear what the question is.

I think if phase one B is four to six months, phase one C is six to eight months.

I mean, living in the consultant world and study world, I'm looking uh about two years just before we can move forward with this.

What are your ideas?

Um, and I'd ask my other my colleagues if there's interest in this to move this faster.

Yeah, so imminent problem.

Yeah, I mean, one thing I will say is that um, you know, in terms of uh our capacity to execute, we're looking across the phases at a 475,000 scope.

We have a relatively large team that is going to bill far more than that across all of our clients in the next year.

Um, and you guys are high on the list because we're early in the year, right?

That work builds through the year.

So I don't have any concern that we don't have the capacity to execute this work in the time proposed.

The constraints on being able to do that are that um there are big decisions here.

We're talking about a prioritization of um regional models at the end of phase one B.

In phase one C, there's a lot of complex analysis that we need to work with y'all to make sure you understand and give you time to review it, right?

So um I know that we have the capacity to execute the work.

We've already collected a lot of the data that is needed.

We may need another tranche of it just because we're later on in time than we were at the beginning of phase one A.

Um, so we may have to recollect some of that data.

But because we started with phase one A, I think the agencies were wise in that they've given us a leg up as we come into one B and one C to move faster.

I think with an authorization early in this year, um, we will be well equipped to execute as quickly as you guys are capable of making decisions.

Okay, so that's the key point for me.

Is you guys are ready to go, you have the resources, you have the capacity, we need to allocate the appropriate budget and give you what you need from our side to move this through faster.

So I guess maybe that's a discussion for the next for the next item.

But I I guess to confirm you have the capacity, you have the resources.

If if we were to say we want to do this in 12 months, which I don't know if there's an appetite to do that, you would be able to come back and say, yes, that's doable.

We need A, B, and C.

Yeah.

Yeah.

No, so we could definitely produce those timelines.

And you know, John, I know I know you're on, um, you're our project director.

If there's anything else that you would want to add in terms of what's critical to make sure we stay on track, uh given the urgency being expressed here, uh, feel free to jump in.

Yeah, no, Ms.

Taylor.

Um, I think um I think we could um accelerate this more.

I think the opportunity for one B to accelerate um is is there.

I think one C is is got a lot of um a lot of analysis that we would need to get through.

So that one, it may be a little bit harder to to uh condense, but certainly one B, if we combine one B and one C and do that within a within a 12-month time frame, I think that's very doable.

I appreciate those answers, and I look forward to hearing my colleagues can um input on that too.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

All right, thank you.

Member Dewar.

Thank you very much.

Uh that was a very interesting presentation.

I know you guys have been working on this for a long time.

Um, and I think it's about two years, roughly.

Is that right?

Uh how long we've been working on it?

Yeah.

The whole project about the sewer.

Uh well, if if if we're actually able to get through everything, um, you know, no, no, how long have you been not going forward?

Yeah, yeah.

I think just over the last year.

Um I was wondering two things.

One, could you summarize uh what you've said?

You know, where are we in terms of I I know you've vetted a lot of this with our various staff that deal with sewer.

And just how would you summarize what you just told us?

In terms of the challenges and objectives.

Yeah.

Yeah, but I mean, you've uh you've done the identification work, but have you found like a a critical issue or something that you think if we did want to regionalize would be like the thing we have to do.

I think I can I think I can highlight that.

Um, but you know, there may be uh others on on your side who who might clarify things, but I I think it was, you know, one thing that was said early in the project, but also repeatedly, is that in terms of water supply, you don't have a near-term capacity issue, but there are opportunities for long-term optimum optimization.

In terms of wastewater capacity, you have a near-term challenge, uh, near to midterm challenge with significant capital investment uh ramifications that is already starting to bump up against uh growth.

Now, there are decisions that could be made under your current governance structures to unlock that.

Um, but those are decisions that are having to be made, I think over and over again and are expected to come up more and more in the future.

Well, are you talking about our sorry to interrupt?

Are you talking about basically our capacity to treat effluent or sewer?

Is that what you're talking about?

Just the infrastructure to push the water through.

Uh yes.

And that we have to make investments in order to keep up with demand.

Correct.

Yes.

And you know, so you don't see demand um leveling in any way.

I mean, you your uh region is of course growing, and and I think is a really nice uh sort of success story uh uh for for the country, really, um, an area where um there is land where there's growth, um, and if we manage our resources well, um there are resources to support that growth.

But um there's a lot of complex decision making that goes into making the investments in infrastructure to ensure that continues in a way that is sustainable environmentally and economically.

Well, like an example would be I know that the Lemon Valley plant that's owned by Washoe County is you know was really significantly impacted by a 2017 flood out there, and they're looking, and it's an older plant, and they're looking to either combine with the Reno Stead plant or you know, do us something.

And I'm sure their decision would be um strongly influenced by what we decide to do here.

Like I'm sure they're waiting to see is this going to be a regional issue for infrastructure, or is this gonna be or are they on their own?

Um that's right.

I mean, they could still decide to decommission that facility uh and route the flow to Risworth, um, even if there's no regionalization, but maybe that transition would be easier under a regional entity.

So that's a good example.

Our challenge at the Reno Stead plant is that you know, we have to have a place to put the effluent.

And that's why, you know, we've looked at these alternatives from a reservoir to sending it out Long Valley Creek to you know, doing what we're doing, which is investing in the one water Nevada, the, you know, turning it into uh drinking water.

So but and and that's gone through its pilot phase and is now into an implementation.

But I think, and I don't know if anyone on the team uh recalls the current date for that process to be completed where we go live.

Because it won't be until we go live with that, then we could actually add capacity, Reno Stead.

Right.

And the timelines of infrastructure decisions uh and operational considerations are never going to align perfectly with a regionalization study and a decision to go or no-go a regional authority or anything like that.

There's always going to be things where it's like, well, how do we budget for next year and bridge this transition, right?

So I definitely hear what you're saying.

Um, but I think that was indeed one of the case studies that was the focus of the workshops.

And I think as people thought about it, my sense was that um those case studies collectively provided a motivation to continue studying regional alternatives.

So I'm glad you highlighted that.

Okay, well, the last question I had was you mentioned something in your presentation.

I don't think I totally understood it.

You said something about it shouldn't be developer-driven.

And I wasn't sure exactly what you were getting at.

Yeah, happy to happy to um uh share on that and be frank.

So I think early in the study in one of the first meetings when we went out there, somebody said something like, I think this whole thing is being driven by developers in the ears of commission members or you know, boards or something like that, you know, that a developer is coming and saying, I want this development on lock.

So, you know, why can't you do things more like tomwa?

Comments like that, right?

I won't be, you know, specific.

I don't even remember specifically who said that.

And so as consultants, we're trying to listen and interpret and and make sure we're capturing things.

I think as the study went on and that that sentiment was regurgitated, there was a reaction that sort of said, let's make sure we aren't letting developers drive decision makings in isolation in the region.

We need to take a broader lens.

What's right for ratepayers?

What's right for my municipal bottom line, right?

So that's where I was coming from with that.

I gotcha.

Yeah.

Okay, but we've sort of put that aside and we're focusing on the regional needs, separate and apart from any one or two or 10 developers, and and looking at the whole system.

And they're absolutely a stakeholder.

So they're they're not uh, you know, that sentiment is not going to be ignored, but it's going to be blended with a lot of other sentiments.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh member Andreolett, go ahead.

Thank you.

I I just really want to thank you for this.

It's many of the people that actually are on this call probably remember uh this conversation starting uh quite some time ago, but really has um narrowed down to where we're at now and engaging your expertise and analysis and looking at um a solution or a variety of solutions.

And so I really want to thank you because um I remember in 2023, sitting in a room with many folks and saying, look, we really need to have um this kind of big decision as we move through growth, regionalization seems to be a topic for all of us in various capacities, but this is really critical to our future.

And it's really nice um to actually hear that our area is actually doing things very uh effectively, and this is going to be, I think, another milestone for the future of our community.

So having it accelerated is always wonderful because I've been talking about this since 2023, and I'm sure others have been talking about it long before then.

But I I don't want to compromise the quality for acceleration either, but I would like to hit the pedal on the gas a bit too.

So um without jeopardizing the quality of what needs to be done and the um outcome to be the best it can.

I think there's gonna be some tough decisions.

I think all jurisdictions are really open and recognizing to uh what we're all gonna be faced with and what that looks like, whether it is possibly standing up another comparable organization, much like Tomwa was stood up.

Uh time will tell, but I just want to thank you for the great work that you're doing and um and being able to celebrate in the advance your expeditious outcome and the results would be wonderful.

But thank you.

Thanks for sharing that feedback.

We appreciate it.

Um before we go to uh member Dewar, are there any other members um online that have any questions?

All right, uh go ahead, uh Naomi.

I just wanted to put the exclamation point on what uh Commissioner Andreola said, which is that even 10 years before that, she mentioned 2023.

So roughly 10 years before that, or let's just call it nine.

Um, a bunch of elected officials, 10 of us sat in a room, uh, members of Chucky Meadows Regional Planning Agency Board, governing board, and all to a person said our number one issue affecting growth and our future was our ability to deal with sewer issues.

And as part of that, I think it was almost understood that at some point we probably would need to regionalize.

We've seen the benefits of regionalization in other entities.

We've seen it, of course, with Tumwa, as mentioned, but we've also seen it with flood.

We've also seen it with this board itself.

Um, and so it it may, and we're working on fire now.

So it makes sense from a lot of perspectives to bring our resources and our talent together to do better for our region.

And so I I commend what Ms.

Andreola said and support it and uh times two, because this has been going on quite a while.

Back about eight, nine, ten years ago, we didn't know the answer.

We didn't know how bad, you know, that the growth trajectory would increase as much as it did in this last 10 years, but I think we subconsciously understood where things were going and what the challenges were.

I mean, we began the what we called in Reno, the flow shave program, I think it was eight years ago, trying to create more capacity without actually building more plant.

We ultimately had to double the capacity of our plant.

And then we were left with how do we what how do we deal with the effluent, the big the big bottleneck and that.

So um anyway, um I I've been supportive of this project from the start and look forward to us concluding it.

Thank you.

Hey, Zach, I do have a couple questions.

So could you do me a favor and clarify the stakeholders that you've um been working with thus far?

Yeah, I mean, maybe the first thing I'll say is we look forward to engaging with the tribe who was not involved in phase one A as much, um, other than through some of the commission presentations.

Uh, but I know there are stakeholder we want to engage with.

I think that our the phase one D that I mentioned, um, you know, the thought is that that will include stakeholder engagement.

We feel it's important to start explaining what you guys are doing as soon as you're comfortable doing that.

Um, but that's a decision you have to make.

And we have resources to help support communication planning when you're ready for that.

Um so far, we've engaged with obviously both commissions um and the agencies within them.

So Washoe County, the city of Sparks, the City of Reno, as well as the Sun Valley General Improvement District, as well as Tom Wa.

Okay, thank you.

And I guess the one thing I would encourage is it sounded like in the presentation that it was in one C.

Um, but to your point, I think the sooner that we engage other partners, whether it's tribal, ratepayers, um, even developers, that the better off we're gonna be.

Um because it seems like sometimes we look start looking at regionalization without including all the folks that are actually a part of this region.

So I I would encourage that we we focus on moving that forward as quickly as possible to begin that engagement process.

Okay.

Uh I appreciate you sharing that.

I mean, there's a very structured process you can go through to figure out what are our messages, what are we comfortable sharing at this point?

Are we just explaining that we're doing this study and here's what the study is?

Um are we sharing analyses and findings as they come out?

Um and then what you typically do is identify your stakeholder set um and I d and prioritize them on different axes.

Um, you know, who just needs to be you know kept informed of the highest level and who really needs to be engaged persistently along the way at a more detailed level.

Um yeah, so perfect.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um open it up for uh one final call for questions.

All right.

Then do we have a motion to approve?

Mr.

Chair, I'll move to approve as presented.

Thank you.

We have a motion made by member Andreola, a second by Vanderwell.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Sorry.

All opposed.

And it passes unanimously.

We'll move on to uh number eight action discussion possible approval of a scope of work and funding not to exceed 475,000 from the regional water management fund for RAF Talis to provide financial consulting services for phase one B and one C of a feasibility study study on regional planning and management and wastewater utilities and a fluent disposal.

And does it stay with you, Zach, or does this go to you, Kim?

This comes to me, Chairman.

Thank you very much.

Members of the commission, Kim Rigdon for the record.

Uh, based on phase one A findings, we have a recommendation from the Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission uh during their February 4th meeting to move forward with phase one B and 1C and approve funding in the amount of 475,000 from the regional water management fund to do so.

Based on the conversation at the in the previous item and expediting things, uh we previously staff had previously funded 175,000 to get us through this fiscal year and 300,000 to get us through next fiscal year.

If there's um any anticipation of expediting this or moving this a little bit faster, we uh may need a recommendation from the board to fully fund the 475,000 dollars, which would allow them to continue moving this forward this fiscal year.

I would leave that up to the board to decide and we do have the funding available rather than stop and go at the you know end of sometime during this fiscal year through next fiscal year.

So I'll leave that up to the board to make that recommendation.

But I did want to let you know that we do have the funding to go ahead and fully fund this fiscal year.

And with that, um, I don't I don't think Zach Zach, I don't know that you need to add to this.

I think you went through it really well in the last presentation.

So unless the board has any questions on the next phases and scope of work and funding, we'll turn it back over to the board for a decision.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Chair?

Uh yes.

Umless Mr.

Green has anything in addition, I would like to actually move to fund it in full at the 475,000 with um lots of prayers on Ash Wednesday for expeditious result.

I'll second.

Mr.

Chair, I have a discussion item.

This is Kathleen.

I'm wondering if in the motion we could say something about trying to get it done within a year time frame, or or I think it sounds like the board is um dedicated to moving this forward as fast as possible.

And seeing what it would take to do that.

And that's more for discussion.

Okay.

Thank you, Member Taylor.

We already have a um a motion.

Mr.

Chair, I I obviously am very supportive of moving as quickly as possible.

I think the fact that we are funding this based on Miss Rigdon's recommendation that we look at the full funding so that uh one B and one C can move as quickly as possible is um for my perspective.

I'm confident enough in them hearing the sense of urgency and not trying to put a timeline that where they may run into something and then they may have to come back.

So I'd like to go ahead and leave it as um mentioned.

And if uh legal would like me to read the actual motion as written, I'm happy to do that as well.

I don't think that's necessary.

Thank you.

It does have a completion date of June 30th, 2027.

So you know, and earlier would be great.

Okay, so we had a motion made by member Andreola, um, a second by Vanderwell.

It was due work, actually, but okay.

Is was there comment before we go to vote?

Okay.

Um not hearing any, then we'll go ahead and and go to vote.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Passes unanimously.

Move on to item nine, action discussion, possible direction to staff approval of the draft WRWC fiscal year 2026-2027 or FY27 tender budget.

Ms.

Rigdon.

Thank you, Chairman, members of the commission, Kim Rigged for the record.

I'm just gonna ask Jen in the room.

I'm not in charge of the item slide.

Tim, could you do me a favor and either move closer to the mic or speak up?

How's this?

Is that better?

A little bit.

Thank you.

Okay, I'll do my best.

I'm sorry, I'm in a little hotel room with a laptop, so I'll do my best to yell into the computer.

Um, Jen, do you have the item slides up?

And can I cue you on advancing slides?

I'm not seeing them on my screen.

Perfect.

Can everybody see the the item slides now online and in the room?

We can here.

Perfect.

Thank you so much.

Some members of the commission, it's budget season, and we're doing ours a little bit early because we're not going to have a meeting in March to approve the tentative budget.

Uh, we have to submit the tentative budget to the Department of Taxation by April 15th.

And staff has scheduled a public hearing for the WRWC to approve the final budget on May 27th to meet our adoption deadline of June 1st, 2026.

So in your board packet under item eight, attachment A is the fiscal year 27 tentative budget.

And staff has worked closely with the Washoe County budget office to make sure that our projected revenues can cover our planned expenses.

Total anticipated revenue from our one and a half percent water surcharge fees, which is where revenue comes from, is estimated to be 2.1 million dollars, and that is up almost $96,000 from last fiscal year's projections due to water rate increases over the past couple years.

Total estimated expenses, including professional services contracts and the contract you just heard about, uh the the last two items on the agenda.

Um, those are estimated at 3.9 million, and those are up from 3.4 million last year.

The estimated cash balance that we have in our bank is 2.6 million, and that is up one uh from 1.8 million last year.

So if you note that the cash balance and anticipated revenue uh combined are sufficient to cover all of our planned expenses at for that fiscal year.

For fiscal year 27, projected cash projected cash balance of 732,068 meets our minimum six-month recommended operating budget at the end of the year.

And next slide.

All right.

So I like to present this slide.

I think this is a great breakdown when we talk about in in some of our previous discussions.

We talk about how the regional water management plan addresses different water to water planning topics under the regional water resources planning effort.

And so you can see as a part of attachment 8A is our professional services budget detail.

And here you'll see the breakdown of all the projects that the Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission has prioritized to implement the regional water management plan.

You'll see that some of the projects haven't been fully developed or don't have a fully developed scope of work, and they're labeled TBD to be determined, and that there's a project contingency line of $900,000.

That project contingency is the same as last year, and that's been made available on the budget to address those TBD to be determined projects as their scopes of work are developed throughout the year so that we have adequate budget to prop those projects up.

There was a significant increase in the wastewater and effluent management category uh this year compared to last year, obviously, to uh accommodate the RAFTALUS feasibility study and in the water quality category to include the uh RCI update to the source water and watershed plan.

You heard both of those presents uh presentations today.

And due to the increase in water surcharge fees and expenses coming in a little bit lower this year on some of our projects, the contingency budget remained the same, and we're gonna have no problem funding those projects.

Next slide.

All right, so I just like I wanted to throw up our our budget uh our routine operating budget totals from last year compared to this year.

You'll see a slight increase due to cost of living increases in both the staff services and non-staff services.

Our non-staff services include um our video company, SOSU that accommodates our broadcasts our meetings.

Um we have other contracts as well that have staff in those contracts that have a cost of living increase.

So we did see a little bit of an increase in both categories.

So our routine operating expense total is 819,333 this year.

Next slide.

Great.

And and that's what I have on the budget.

I I just well turn the time back over to you, Chairman.

Um, we're really confident the budget, it's been really steady from year to year, and we haven't seen any uh any issues with meeting our expenses from year to year.

We have our again that $900,000 in contingency funding to accommodate our projects as they're developed.

And with that, I'll turn it over to the board for questions on the budget.

Thank you, Kim.

Do we have any questions on this item?

All right, then uh we'll go ahead and bring it back for a motion.

Move to approve.

Um we have a motion from member Vanderwell.

Um, a second from Member Andreola.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

All right, thank you.

Passes unanimously.

Move on to item number 10, election of WRWC chair, vice chair, secretary, and treasurer for the 2026 calendar year.

And Miss Regden.

Thank you, Chairman.

Every year we hold officer elections for the WRWC.

Those seats, uh the vice president, vice president.

Oh my goodness.

The chair, vice chair, and secretary treasurer positions.

I I apologize, but we can barely hear you.

I'm so sorry.

I don't have my external speaker.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

So I'll start over.

So every year the Western Regional Water Commission has holds officer elections at the beginning of the year.

The chair, vice chair, and secretary treasure positions expire on December 31st until the next board meeting where we uh that the board can hold elections and re-elect those positions.

So the current chairman is obviously you, Mr.

Paul Anderson, Alexis Hill is the vice chair, and Susan Sievert is the current secretary treasurer.

So I'll turn the time over to the board to make some nominations.

Okay.

We'll open it up for uh nominations.

Um, Member Vanderwill.

Mr.

Chair, I make a motion that we keep uh keep you as chairman.

Uh member Andreola as vice chairman, and if uh Miss Sievert would like to continue as uh Secretary Treasurer, uh I will propose that slate.

I'll second it.

Okay.

Um we have a motion uh for uh Chair Anderson, Vice Chair Andreola, and Secretary Treasurer Sievert.

Um questions or comments.

Any questions or comments?

All right.

Not hearing any.

Oh, yeah.

Please let me know if you're online and uh you would like to ask a question or make a comment.

Okay.

Not hearing any, we'll go ahead and go to vote.

Um, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Passes unanimously.

Thank you.

All right, move on to item 11, discussion, possible direction to staff regarding agenda items and dates for future WRWC meetings.

And Kim, this is still with you.

This is still me.

Can you hear me okay?

I'm trying to get close.

Okay.

Thank you, Chairman, members of the commission, Kim Eggdon for the record.

Uh our next meeting is April 15th.

We will not have a March meeting.

Uh staff will be at the Water Reuse Conference in Los Angeles.

And it will be held at the Sparks Chambers at 8 30 in the morning.

We also have our budget hearing scheduled for May 27th.

Uh, and that is at the same time.

We we coordinated that with the flood management authority as well as Temwa to hold those budget hearings all on the same day.

That'll be held at nine o'clock in the morning in the Sparks Chambers.

And if there's any other um items that the board would like to make recommendations on hearing from us on, we we look forward to hearing that.

All right, thank you, Kim.

Uh let me open it up to the board.

Uh anyone have any questions on this comments.

Uh Mr.

Chair, real quick.

Um, Kim, this is member Taylor.

If you could just keep us posted on the regional water management um study and moving forward with one B and one C in the timelines and let us know if there's something that you need from us to keep us going.

I would really appreciate that.

I can do that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Member Taylor.

I I appreciate you mentioning that.

I think that's a good idea.

Um with that, then we'll go ahead and and uh request a motion.

Move to approve.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion by member Andreola.

Andreola.

Um second by member Vanderwell.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Passes unanimously.

And we're gonna open up for uh final public comment.

Do we have any public comment?

All right, thank you.

We'll close public comment and move on to commission comments.

Uh, do any of the commissioners have any comments?

All right, hearing none, we'll close that and move on to item 14 staff comments.

No staff comments at this time, Chairman.

Okay, thank you very much.

And with that, we're gonna go ahead and adjourn.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks all.