Chair Gasca called a special meeting July 24 of the Ukiah Valley Water Authority Water Executive Committee to review a draft application to the state’s SAFER program that would redesign the valley’s water system around a single north–south master trunk line and fund planning and construction to improve reliability.

The draft application, presented by staff (identified in the transcript as Sean, staff member) describes a trunk pipeline running along the railroad easement that would interconnect the valley’s production and storage facilities. “There’s kind of two main components here … a blue line sort of running north–south, along the rail easement, and that is one master trunk line,” Sean said. The plan also proposes expanded recycled-water and untreated raw-water distribution to serve agricultural connections in the Willow/Robinson Creek area, reducing use of potable water for irrigation.

The application is informational at this stage; staff asked committee members to review the pages circulated for the special meeting and provide feedback before the authority’s next regular meeting so the application can be finalized. Sean said the full application runs roughly 1,200 pages and that the committee should focus on the core design narrative and figures in the shorter packet provided.

Why it matters: SAFER grants target low-income and disadvantaged communities and fund reliability and consolidation efforts. Committee members and ratepayers pressed staff for clarity about costs, who applies for and manages the funding, and whether local boards or properties could be annexed as part of meeting state consolidation requirements.

What the draft proposes and the budget figures discussed

- Master trunk line: The draft’s Figure 10 shows a single north–south main intended to eliminate existing bottlenecks and intertie most local east–west mains, allowing transfer of water among systems and increasing redundancy.

- Agricultural raw/recycled water: The plan would expand recycled water and introduce untreated raw-water service for about 10 existing agricultural connections in the Willow area to reduce use of potable water for irrigation and create a separate ag rate structure. Sean said the ag connections in Willow number “about 10 ag connections.”

- Planning and design cost estimate: Sean cited a planning, design and environmental estimate of $13,620,452 for the package of studies, engineering and environmental work required to advance the project.

- Construction cost context: In the presentation staff estimated construction costs variously during the discussion: at one point the consultant said much of the overall build might be in the ~$80 million range, and elsewhere the presenter cited an $8,000,000 figure when referring to a construction subcomponent; staff also said the total capital improvements package could reach roughly $93,000,000. The transcript includes those different figures as estimates from different parts of the discussion; the draft application itself and future cost estimates will need to reconcile those totals.

Governance, who applies for the grant, and consolidation

Staff told the committee the City of Ukiah will be the funding entity on the application and would act as the entity that holds and administers the grant (the city, staff said, has experience advancing and cash‑flowing large state grants). “The city is the entity on the hook for taking all the grant and getting the project done,” a staff presenter said.

Committee members and audience speakers repeatedly asked whether the SAFER grant would require annexation or consolidation of local water districts into the city. Staff said SAFER’s program goals include reducing the number of separate water systems and that some form of consolidation would likely be required by the state, but the shape of that consolidation is undecided. “There needs to be less agencies than there are now,” the presenter said, adding that how that reduction happens is to be determined and that the initial annexation map provided internally has already been pared back.

Public outreach and rate concerns

Residents asked whether ratepayers had been notified and whether grants would raise rates. Julie Golden, identified in the transcript as a resident, asked whether directors were sending notice to ratepayers; staff replied dissemination to ratepayers is expected to flow through each district’s board and that the project “is largely if not all gonna be grant funded.” Sean said, “It is entirely grant funded. It’s not going to affect anybody’s rates,” while also noting that grant funding is state tax money and not local rate revenue.

Timing, funding flow and construction sequencing

Staff described SAFER funding as episodic and dependent on state budget cycles. They said awarded grants typically reimburse project invoices over time rather than delivering a single lump sum, which requires the recipient to have institutional capacity to cash‑flow bills and submit timely reimbursement documentation. The transcript notes the city and state have experience on prior, large grants, including a $53,000,000 recycled-water project that required staged reimbursements.

The presenters also discussed sequencing and temporary reductions in service during construction. For example, replacement of a 2.5‑million‑gallon concrete tank above a golf course would be staged so a smaller tank is built first and the older tank removed, and staff said portions of the system may be offline in sequence while work proceeds.

Questions that remain

- Final cost totals: the application includes multiple cost figures in the presentation; a reconciled, line‑item estimate will be needed before construction funding.

- Consolidation pathway: staff said the state will require fewer independent systems, but the specific governance changes (annexation, merger, service transfer or other structural changes) remain under development.

- Effect on hookups and growth: staff said SAFER’s primary aim is reliability, not creating new water rights or large growth; hydraulic modeling and state decisions will determine whether any moratoria could be lifted and how many new connections might be feasible.

Next steps

Staff asked committee members to submit comments within two weeks so revisions can be made before the regular meeting on August 7. The draft application will then be submitted to the state board for review; staff said review and approval is slow and that state feedback is likely.

Ending: Committee members and residents voiced support for pursuing state funding while pressing for clearer outreach to ratepayers and more detail on consolidation consequences and maps. The committee did not take formal action on the SAFER application at the special meeting; the item was informational and staff requested written feedback ahead of the next meeting.