Zone 7 Meeting - August 19, 2026

The Board entered Closed Session at 6:05 p.m. Director Figuers arrived at 6:17 p.m. and Director Roberts arrived at 6:18 p.m. The Board adjourned at 6:40 p.m.

Item 3 -

3. Open Session and Report Out of Closed Session

President Green stated that there was nothing to report.

Item 4 -

4. Pledge of Allegiance

Director Palmer led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Item 5 -

5. Roll Call of Directors

All Directors were present.

Item 6 -

6. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items

There was no public comment.

Item 7 -

7. Minutes

Director Palmer moved to approve the minutes of the regular Board meeting held on July 15, 2026. The motion was seconded by Director Narum and approved by a voice vote of 7-0.

Item 8 -

8. Consent Calendar

Director Narum moved to approve Consent Calendar Items 8a through 8i, seconded by Director Palmer. The motion was approved by a roll-call vote of 7-0.

Item 9 -

9. Amend the Progressive Design-Build Services Contract to Authorize the Early Works Package for Long-Lead Electrical Equipment for the Mocho PFAS Treatment Plant

Mariza Sibal, Associate Civil Engineer, presented the item. She explained that the Mocho wellfield and Mocho Groundwater Demineralization Plant (MGDP) are currently offline due to PFAS, resulting in the loss of approximately 16 million gallons per day, or about 40 percent of Zone 7's groundwater production, as well as reduced system redundancy, water supply reliability, and salt management capability. The Mocho PFAS Treatment Plant (MTP) project will restore groundwater production and salt management and includes PFAS removal facilities, upgrades to the MGDP, electrical switchgear improvements, and replacement of aging well pumps. The adopted CIP budget for the project is $55 million, and the Agency is pursuing grant and forgivable loan funding to offset project costs.

Ms. Sibal reviewed the Progressive Design-Build (PDB) delivery method being used for the project and explained that early contractor involvement allows long-lead equipment to be procured before final design, reducing schedule risk and accelerating project completion by approximately 9 to 12 months. Garney Pacific, Inc. was awarded the PDB pre-construction services contract in March 2026. The proposed Early Works Package would procure long-lead electrical equipment, including switchgear, transformers, motor control centers, and variable frequency drives, which have been identified as critical-path items. Competitive bids were received under an open-book pricing process, with suppliers evaluated based on technical compliance, cost, delivery schedule, reliability, and support.

Ms. Sibal noted that early procurement is important to maintaining DWR grant eligibility and explained that the project may receive more than $26 million from a combination of DWR grant funding and the Emerging Contaminant Forgivable Loan Program. She stated that construction is anticipated to begin in 2027, with the MTP targeted for completion by the start of summer 2028.

In response to Director Burnham's question regarding whether the PDB approach results in higher project costs, Chris Hentz, Assistant General Manager - Engineering, explained that, in addition to the significant schedule advantage, the PDB approach allows the Agency to select a contractor based on qualifications and approach and provides a more collaborative process for addressing challenges. He noted that this reduces risk and the potential for significant change orders and delays. Valerie Pryor, General Manager, added that there is no evidence that alternative delivery results in higher costs and noted that recent Zone 7 projects using either delivery method have come in within budget. Director Burnham emphasized the importance of responsible stewardship of ratepayer funds and expressed his belief that the PDB approach represents proper stewardship. He also complimented the proposed facility design and asked about potential noise impacts from the facility. Ms. Sibal explained that noise would primarily be generated by the booster pumps, which would be housed within a noise-controlled building.

Director Lehrman asked about the MGDP reverse osmosis system and its ability to remove PFAS. Ms. Sibal explained that reverse osmosis can remove PFAS; however, water from a bypass line is blended with the reverse osmosis-treated water, resulting in PFAS remaining in the treated water. Ms. Pryor added that 100 percent reverse osmosis water cannot be placed into the system because it would be corrosive and therefore must be blended. In response to Director Lehrman's question regarding anticipated funding sources, Ms. Sibal stated that approximately $1.2 million is from DWR grant funding and approximately $25 million may be available through the Emerging Contaminant Forgivable Loan Program.

Director Narum asked what would become the next critical-path item following authorization of the Early Works Package. Ms. Sibal stated that the next steps would be to continue with long-lead equipment submittals and procurement, followed by the construction phase, and that installation of the electrical equipment ultimately remains on the project's critical path. Director Narum also asked about the timeline for obtaining the necessary right-of-way or land easement. Mr. Hentz stated that the Agency is working with the City of Pleasanton to develop an easement agreement and associated documents and would like to have the agreement in place by the end of the year. He added that the necessary land rights should be in place early in 2027 to support construction.

Director Roberts asked about the status and timing of grant funding. Ms. Pryor stated that the grant funding for the electrical equipment has been secured and that the Agency expects to hear about the larger funding opportunity by the end of the year. President Green asked whether the $1.2 million DWR grant deadline was a reason the electrical equipment was considered a critical-path item. Ms. Sibal stated that the grant deadline was a consideration but noted that electrical equipment has very long lead times, including approximately 52 weeks for switchgear, making early procurement essential to meeting the overall project completion schedule. In response to President Green, Mr. Hentz stated that approval of the proposed action would put the Agency in a position to meet the grant deadline.

President Green asked about the impact of the MGDP shutdown on salt removal. Ms. Pryor stated that the Agency did not have a detailed estimate of the impact but would like to resume removing salts from the groundwater basin as soon as possible. President Green also asked whether any particular factors were contributing to the extended lead times for electrical equipment. Ms. Sibal explained that the long lead times are attributable to current conditions throughout the electrical manufacturing industry.

Director Narum expressed strong support for the PDB approach, citing her experience with its successful use on school district bond projects, including cost savings and faster project delivery. She applauded the Agency for using the delivery method to advance important infrastructure projects more quickly and noted that accelerating the project by 9 to 12 months is significant.

Director Narum moved to adopt the Resolution authorizing the General Manager to negotiate and execute an amendment to Contract A26-67-GAR with Garney Pacific, Inc. Director Palmer seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a 7-0 vote.

Item 10 -

10. Award a Contract for Preliminary Design and Owner's Representative Services for the Regional Groundwater Development Project >

Elliott Levitsky, Associate Civil Engineer, presented the item. He explained that the Regional Groundwater Development Project is a joint project between Zone 7 and the City of Pleasanton intended to increase groundwater production capacity in the Bernal subbasin and replace groundwater pumping capacity lost by Pleasanton when its three wells were removed from service due to PFAS. A joint feasibility study and basis of design were completed to evaluate a project that would meet both agencies' needs while providing cost savings and long-term operational efficiencies. The project consists of two new groundwater wells in Pleasanton, approximately 4,000 feet of transmission pipeline to convey untreated groundwater to the Hopyard Chloramination Facility, and upgrades to that facility to accommodate the additional water supply.

Mr. Levitsky reported that the Board authorized the General Manager in May 2026 to negotiate and execute a cooperating agreement with the City of Pleasanton establishing project responsibilities, authorities, and cost sharing. The agreement was expected to be considered by the Pleasanton City Council in September. He explained that the project would use the Progressive Design-Build (PDB) delivery method to accelerate the schedule and allow early procurement of long-lead equipment. Luhdorff & Scalmanini, Consulting Engineers (LSCE), which was competitively selected for Phase I, would provide preliminary design and Owner's Representative services for Phase II. The scope includes preliminary design, advancement of the electrical design to facilitate early procurement and PG&E service applications, CEQA and permitting, and PDB procurement and contracting.

Mr. Levitsky reviewed the project schedule and explained that following preliminary design, the Board would be asked to authorize the PDB contract, an Early Works Package for long-lead electrical equipment, and ultimately a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) and construction phase. The PDB approach and early procurement are intended to support a target project completion date of December 2029. He recommended authorization of a professional services agreement with LSCE for preliminary design and Owner's Representative services in an amount not to exceed $2.25 million, including a 10 percent contingency.

Director Narum expressed concern about the December 2029 completion date and asked whether equipment other than electrical components was expected to have long lead times, noting the importance of having the additional groundwater production available in the event of a multi-year drought. Mr. Levitsky explained that the project is at an earlier stage than the Mocho PFAS Treatment Plant project and that the primary critical-path items identified to date are electrical equipment and the PG&E application process. He noted that switchgear can have approximately 52-week lead times and that beginning the PG&E application process early would help mitigate schedule risk.

Director Narum asked about land rights for the proposed well sites. Mr. Levitsky stated that land rights were not included in the existing agreement and would need to be developed. Ms. Pryor explained that the proposed sites are located in City of Pleasanton parks and that Zone 7 would work with the City to obtain permanent easements and comply with applicable permitting requirements.

Director Roberts asked whether Zone 7 would wait for the Pleasanton City Council to approve the agreement before proceeding with the consultant. Ms. Pryor stated that the City Council was expected to consider the agreement on September 1, or September 15 if necessary. She explained that although Zone 7 would not proceed too far ahead of the City's action, there was a sense of urgency and the Agency did not want to unnecessarily lose one or two months of project progress.

Director Burnham asked whether the Owner's Representative would report to Zone 7 because Zone 7 would own the facilities and fund the larger share of the project. Mr. Levitsky confirmed that Zone 7 would execute the contracts and would have primary responsibility for implementing the project under the agreement with Pleasanton.

Director Palmer asked about construction of the transmission pipelines and whether permitting or underground conditions could delay the project. Mr. Levitsky stated that no major issues had been identified but noted that the project was just entering preliminary design. He explained that potholing and other exploratory work would be conducted to identify existing utilities and inform pipeline design, thereby reducing the potential for unforeseen issues. He added that Underground Service Alert would be used to identify utilities before exploratory excavation. Ms. Pryor emphasized that Zone 7 would work closely with the City of Pleasanton because the pipelines and well facilities would be located within City streets and parks and that both agencies have an interest in expediting the project.

Director Burnham asked why Zone 7's share of the Hopyard Chloramination Facility improvements would be 77 percent when its share of other project facilities is 64 percent. Mr. Levitsky explained that the 64 percent allocation is based on the proportion of anticipated project water allocated to Pleasanton, while the Hopyard facility is an existing Zone 7 facility whose upgrades will benefit Zone 7 and Pleasanton differently, resulting in the 77 percent allocation.

President Green asked why the PG&E application process could be lengthy. Mr. Levitsky explained that obtaining new medium-voltage electrical service requires multiple steps, including an application, detailed electrical drawings, PG&E review and comments, and potentially multiple rounds of revisions. He stated that PG&E is responsive but strictly applies its standards, which can result in substantial back-and-forth before approval.

Director Lehrman expressed concerns regarding the overall project, including unresolved financial, legal, and environmental risks and the potential for groundwater pumping to affect migration of the PFAS plume. He stated that the groundwater model and underlying geology are complex and expressed concern regarding assumptions involving the Bernal subbasin boundary and their potential effect on modeling PFAS plume migration. Director Lehrman suggested obtaining an independent third-party review of the groundwater model and potential PFAS plume migration before proceeding.

Director Burnham acknowledged the uncertainties associated with groundwater characterization but questioned whether the additional cost and time necessary to obtain a more detailed understanding of the geology would materially improve decision-making. He stated that potential adverse impacts could be mitigated if necessary and expressed support for the project while recommending that groundwater production be operated conservatively to provide an additional margin of safety given the uncertainty.

Director Narum expressed support for the PDB approach and the project, emphasizing the importance of completing the project to improve water supply reliability in anticipation of future drought conditions. She noted that numerous alternatives had been evaluated by Zone 7 and Pleasanton and stated that the proposed project appeared to be a cost-effective means of obtaining the needed water supply. She also expressed confidence in the groundwater modeling work completed to date.

President Green acknowledged the concerns raised but stated that the Board must consider geology together with the other factors involved in the project, including timing. She expressed confidence that the information currently available was sufficient to support the Board's decision, while recognizing that the groundwater model would continue to be refined over time. President Green expressed support for the project and encouraged opportunities to expedite the schedule where possible.

Director Palmer moved to adopt the Resolution authorizing the General Manager to negotiate, execute, and amend, as needed, a new contract with Luhdorff & Scalmanini, Consulting Engineers. Director Narum seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a 6-1 vote, with Director Lehrman dissenting.

Item 11 -

11. Sites Reservoir Project Workshop #2

Valerie Pryor, General Manager, introduced the item and emphasized that the workshop was informational and that no Board action was requested. She explained that the Board is expected to make a final participation decision later in the year after additional workshops and receipt of updated information, including the revised water right order.

Ken Minn, Water Resources Manager, presented an overview of the Sites Reservoir Project and Zone 7's ongoing evaluation of the project's benefits and obligations. He explained that Sites would be a 1.5-million-acre-foot off-stream reservoir located northwest of Sacramento and would capture excess Sacramento River flows after senior water rights, environmental requirements, and other regulatory obligations have been satisfied. The project is fully subscribed with a waiting list and is currently targeted to become operational in 2034. Mr. Minn stated that Zone 7 has participated in the project since 2016 as part of its efforts to increase water supply reliability, improve drought and climate resilience, supplement supplies for future build-out demand, obtain new water rights, and diversify its water supply portfolio.

Mr. Minn reviewed the evolution of Zone 7's participation, noting that the original project concept was based on an expected average annual water supply but shifted in 2022 to storage-based participation. Under the current structure, participants purchase a share of reservoir storage capacity and receive a proportional share of water diverted into Sites. Participants may manage their storage by holding, taking, selling, leasing, or exchanging water. He explained that Zone 7's current participation is 62,340 acre-feet (AF) of storage capacity.

Mr. Minn described how water would be diverted from the Sacramento River using the existing Red Bluff and Hamilton City pumping facilities and conveyed through existing canals and new project facilities into Sites Reservoir. When released, water would travel through the Tehama-Colusa Canal, the planned Dunnigan Pipeline, the Colusa Basin Drain, and the Sacramento River before crossing the Delta and entering the State Water Project system for delivery through the South Bay Aqueduct. He noted that use of existing facilities reduces project infrastructure needs but also subjects Sites deliveries to facility availability and operational constraints.

Mr. Minn explained that conveyance losses occur throughout the delivery process, including estimated Delta carriage-water losses of approximately 25 to 35 percent. As illustrated in the presentation, a 1,000-AF dry-year release from Sites could result in approximately two-thirds of the released water ultimately being available for delivery.

Mr. Minn reviewed several project elements that remain under development, including the final water right, facility-use and operating agreements, participant yield estimates, conveyance arrangements, and the Benefits and Obligations Contract. He explained that the final water right will establish the conditions under which Sites may divert water from the Sacramento River and that Zone 7 will continue evaluating how those conditions and other agreements affect expected project yield, conveyance losses, operational constraints, and financial considerations.

Mr. Minn then discussed the relationship between storage capacity and water yield. He explained that under the traditional Sites operating model, participants would fill their storage during wet periods, hold the water for several years, and take delivery primarily during dry years. Water held for extended periods would be subject to evaporation losses, estimated at approximately 8 to 12 percent annually, as well as subsequent conveyance losses. He stated that Zone 7 has a different opportunity because of its planned Chain of Lakes Conveyance System (COLCS) and local storage capacity. Rather than holding Sites water for several years, Zone 7 could take delivery more frequently in normal and other available years, move the water into local storage, and use and replenish that storage over time.

Mr. Minn stated that modeling by the Sites Authority indicates that coordinated operation with COLCS could increase Zone 7's Sites yield by approximately 20 percent. The presentation estimated that 62,340 AF of Sites storage would provide an average annual yield of approximately 5,000 AF without COLCS and 6,000 AF with COLCS, while 30,000 AF of Sites storage would provide approximately 2,500 AF without COLCS and 3,000 AF with COLCS. He explained that regularly moving water out of Sites would also create additional vacant storage capacity, increasing Zone 7's ability to receive future inflows.

Mr. Minn discussed the benefits and challenges associated with continued participation. Benefits include access to a new water right, additional dry-year supply, diversification of Zone 7's water supply portfolio, storage and conveyance entitlements, and opportunities to coordinate Sites operations with local storage. Challenges include the need for excess Sacramento River flows to fill the reservoir, upstream and downstream conveyance constraints, limited transfer windows, conveyance and Delta losses, evaporation, and continued dependence on the Delta and State Water Project facilities for delivery to Zone 7.

Mr. Minn explained that increasing storage does not produce a proportional increase in water yield because conveyance capacity eventually becomes the limiting factor. He stated that operating within a smaller storage range and frequently moving Sites water into local storage could provide a more favorable balance between storage investment and water yield. Under the current financial projections, maintaining Zone 7's 62,340-AF participation would result in approximately $1.11 billion in total debt service and average annual debt service of approximately $27 million. A 30,000-AF participation level would result in approximately $553 million in total debt service and average annual debt service of approximately $14 million.

Mr. Minn reviewed the Agency's Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which found no projected shortages under current demand during a five-year drought. At the projected 2045 build-out demand of approximately 51,000 AF, assuming 30,000 AF of COLCS storage and 30,000 AF of Sites participation, no shortages are projected through the first four years of a drought, with a potential shortage of up to approximately 10,000 AF in the fifth year. He stated that future Chain of Lakes expansion, water banking, conservation, transfers, and the Delta Conveyance Project could provide additional options for addressing future shortages.

Mr. Minn stated that, based on the information currently available, a 30,000-AF participation level appears to provide an appropriate balance of cost, benefit, and risk and is consistent with the UWMP. He emphasized that no decision was requested at this workshop and that the Agency would continue evaluating new information before making a final recommendation. The Board is expected to receive an update on the revised water right in September, participate in a third workshop in October, and consider approval of the Benefits and Obligations Contract in November. He noted that execution of the Benefits and Obligations Contract would represent a long-term, approximately 50-year financial commitment to the project.

Director Figuers asked how water entering and leaving Sites would be allocated among participants, particularly during wet periods and during periods of limited conveyance capacity. Mr. Minn explained that the Sites Authority is developing formulas to allocate inflows based largely on the amount of vacant storage each participant has available rather than solely on total storage ownership. Once water is stored, individual participants will have considerable authority over whether to take, sell, trade, or exchange their water. He added that a separate allocation methodology is being developed for situations in which participants collectively request more conveyance capacity than is available. Director Figuers noted that allocation and conveyance constraints could become particularly important during extreme wet and dry conditions.

Director Narum asked about the estimated cost per acre-foot of Sites water. Mr. Minn stated that the unit cost has increased as total project costs have risen and projected water yield has declined due to water-right conditions, environmental requirements, and conveyance losses. He estimated that the unit cost could exceed $3,500 per acre-foot, while noting that the Agency believes the project may prove to be a valuable long-term investment.

Director Narum also asked whether the Chain of Lakes would have sufficient capacity to accommodate Sites water along with other supplies, such as Article 21 water. Mr. Minn stated that approximately 29,000 to 30,000 AF of Chain of Lakes storage is currently anticipated, which is one reason the proposed Sites participation has been calibrated at approximately 30,000 AF. He explained that Zone 7 could cycle water through the Chain of Lakes into its treatment and distribution system, creating capacity for subsequent supplies. He added that additional Chain of Lakes storage is expected to become available over time.

Director Burnham asked whether the principal limitation on obtaining greater yield from a larger Sites participation level was local Chain of Lakes storage or the ability to convey the water from Sites. Mr. Minn clarified that the primary limitation is the delivery system. He explained that if Zone 7 cannot move water out of Sites quickly enough, it would both increase evaporation losses and reduce the vacant storage available to capture future inflows.

Director Burnham asked whether Sites could be considered an environmental benefit by replacing some of the natural snowpack storage being lost as the climate changes. Ms. Pryor stated that the project includes recognized environmental benefits supported by state and federal funding, including fisheries benefits, cold-water management, refuge water, flood protection, and recreation, while acknowledging that different organizations may characterize the environmental effects of the project differently.

Director Burnham also discussed the diminishing water-supply benefit of purchasing additional storage after conveyance constraints begin to limit yield. Mr. Minn agreed and stated that the most efficient participation occurs before that point on the storage-versus-yield curve. Director Burnham questioned whether reducing Sites participation could create additional risk if the Delta Conveyance Project is ultimately not constructed and asked whether that scenario should be analyzed. Ms. Pryor stated that the Agency was not planning a specific analysis of that scenario because Sites and the Delta Conveyance Project address different water supply needs. She explained that Sites provides new water and storage, while the Delta Conveyance Project is intended to preserve the reliability of the State Water Project. She added that if the Delta Conveyance Project is not built, another solution would ultimately be needed to address State Water Project vulnerabilities.

In response to a further question from Director Burnham, Ms. Pryor emphasized that regardless of the amount of water stored in Sites, Zone 7 must have a reliable means of moving that water through or around the Delta and into the State Water Project system. She stated that additional Sites storage would therefore not substitute for the reliability function of the Delta Conveyance Project or another future solution.

Director Lehrman asked about environmental concerns and opposition to the Sites Reservoir Project. Ms. Pryor stated that the project includes environmental benefits and mitigation measures but acknowledged that organizations opposed to the project have raised concerns and that the Sites Project Authority disagrees with some of those positions. Director Lehrman also asked why some participating agencies may seek greater participation. Ms. Pryor explained that agencies have participated for many years and may adjust their desired participation as they refine their water supply modeling and evaluate other available opportunities.

Director Lehrman asked about the use of the Colusa Basin Drain and whether salinity could affect water quality. Mr. Minn explained that the drain is an unlined earthen facility and that improvements would be made as necessary to support Sites operations. He stated that salinity has not been identified as a significant concern, although participants have raised other typical reservoir water-quality issues, including algal blooms. Ms. Pryor added that water from the Colusa Basin Drain ultimately enters the Sacramento River, where it would mix with much larger river flows before reaching the Delta.

Director Lehrman also asked about evaporation from water stored in the Chain of Lakes. Mr. Minn stated that evaporation may be lower locally, but explained that the more significant distinction is that Zone 7 intends to turn over Chain of Lakes storage much more frequently rather than holding Sites water there for four to six years. Director Lehrman then asked about Zone 7's percentage ownership in Sites, and Mr. Minn stated that the Agency's current 62,340-AF participation represents approximately 4.5 percent of the reservoir.

At Director Lehrman's request, Mr. Minn summarized why the larger participation level carries greater risk. He explained that with approximately 60,000 AF of Sites storage but only approximately 30,000 AF of local Chain of Lakes capacity, Zone 7 could be unable to move all of its stored water locally at one time. The remaining water would remain in Sites longer, increasing evaporation losses and reducing available storage capacity for future inflows. A 30,000-AF Sites participation level would more closely match existing local storage capacity and allow the Agency to turn over its Sites storage more effectively.

Director Palmer observed that Zone 7's strategy of moving Sites water to local storage during years when other participants may not be taking deliveries could reduce competition for limited conveyance capacity and potentially allow deliveries under more favorable water-quality conditions. She expressed support for maintaining a diversified portfolio of water-supply projects, including Sites and the Delta Conveyance Project, and stated that reducing Sites participation to approximately 30,000 AF appeared to make sense from an operational and financial standpoint.

President Green confirmed that Zone 7 would have the ability to sell its Sites water and could also sell its participation interest in the future. Mr. Minn confirmed that participation interests could be bought or sold. President Green also asked about responsibility for maintenance of the existing canals used to convey Sites water. Mr. Minn stated that the specific obligations remain to be determined in the facility-use agreements, but participants would likely contribute toward maintenance. Ms. Pryor explained that the cost of using another agency's facilities is generally incorporated into a wheeling rate that includes operations, power, and a component for repair and rehabilitation.

Director Burnham reiterated concern about relying on the Delta Conveyance Project as part of long-term planning given the uncertainty regarding whether it ultimately will be constructed. He suggested that the Agency consider whether other combinations of Sites storage, Sites conveyance capacity, and expanded Chain of Lakes storage could provide an alternative if the Delta Conveyance Project does not proceed. He stated that additional consideration of such alternatives would help him evaluate the potential consequences of reducing Zone 7's Sites participation.

This was an informational item only. No action was taken.

Item 12 -

12. Committees

There were no comments on the Water Resources Committee meeting notes of July 28, 2026.

Item 13 -

13. Reports - Directors

Director Palmer reported on the July 31 ACWA Board meeting, including ACWA's Vision for Our Water Future initiative and development of criteria for identifying projects of statewide significance. She noted that ACWA is working to strengthen coordination among local, state, and federal agencies and improve consistency in reporting requirements. She also reported on the August 1 ACWA Region 5 meeting, upcoming Region 5 activities, and ongoing efforts related to modernizing water management.

Item 14 -

14. Items for Future Agenda

There were no items for a future agenda.

Item 15 -

15. Staff Reports

Valerie Pryor, General Manager, highlighted the FY 2025-26 Living Arroyos Program update, noting that the multi-agency program promotes community engagement, urban stream enhancement, watershed stewardship, and public awareness. She also highlighted the annual Strategic Plan progress report and noted that the Agency has made significant progress during the first year and a half of the five-year plan.

Item 16 -

16. Adjournment

President Green adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m.

You are here

Zone 7 Meeting - August 19, 2026

Site Search