Wyandotte Creek GSA directs staff to prepare fee resolution after approving proposed FY 2025–26 budget

The Wyandotte Creek Groundwater Sustainability Agency board reviewed the proposed fiscal year 2025–26 operating budget, the GSA manager summarized administrative and SGMA compliance costs, and the board directed staff to prepare a resolution for adoption of corresponding fees at the June meeting.

Dylan, the GSA manager, explained the proposed budget separates GSA administrative expenses from SGMA compliance costs. Key administration highlights included audit costs for two annual audits (approximately $18,500 each), a projected program‑manager compensation increase (roughly $15,000 higher than prior year to cover salary and benefits), insurance increases to cover new groundwater monitoring infrastructure, a website/communication budget, and two reserves: a legal defense reserve and a future fee‑study reserve. Dylan noted the GSA has about $165,000 in designated reserves and about $150,000 in an operating rollover at the time of the meeting.

Dylan presented two budget scenarios: a proposed budget that includes the reserves and a reduced alternative that omits the added reserves to lower fees. With the proposed budget the fee‑setting total was $231,500; removing the reserves would reduce the GSA administrative line item and lower the fees. Using the updated assessable acreage calculations, staff said the maximum authorized revenue under the prior fee study (Prop 218 methodology) is about $252,000 per year.

Board members discussed whether to maintain legal defense reserves in case of future litigation; legal counsel advised that given ongoing SGMA litigation elsewhere, having a litigation reserve is prudent. Members also questioned long‑term monitoring costs: staff said SGMA grant funding covers much of development costs but operations and maintenance (O&M) for a larger groundwater monitoring network will move to the GSA's operating budget after grant expiration; the Sigma grant projects are due to be completed by March 2026.

Public commenters asked how Prop 218 collection works and whether the city of Oroville and other public entities are assessed; staff said fees are collected through property assessments under the adopted methodology and that most parcels except tribal and some federal lands are included. A public comment also asked about coordination with County Public Works on potential recharge/retention basins; grant project managers said there is ongoing coordination and landowner interest in retention basins for recharge.

A board member moved to approve the proposed FY 2025–26 operating budget and direct staff to prepare a fee resolution for adoption at the June meeting; a second was given and the board approved the motion by roll call. Board members asked staff to prepare a five‑year projection showing how the Prop 218 cap would affect future operating capability and to return with a more detailed long‑term forecast when Hansford Economic Consulting appears at a future meeting.

Ending: The board approved direction to staff to prepare the formal resolution and requested a clearer five‑year projection of revenues and expenses before final fee adoption in June.