 Welcome, everybody, tonight. I apologize for escorting just a few minutes late. So we will read convenes and take questions at 630. There were some actions, 3,000, 4,000 closed slides. And those are the first of them, two items. The board voted three directors in favor with directors small and voting against to approve a possible living adjustment under section two of the district manager's employment agreement, a copy of which is available on the website. And on the other item, and that was for item 4A, and on two of the other items, item 4B and C, the board voted unanimously for the zero in favor of authorizing district council prior to a cross complaint. And former district council Mark Hines and his former has cross-dependence in the case brought back to her in the era. So let's move on to the agenda. And are there any additional revolutions to the open session agenda? Scott has none. Any director? Seeing none, let's move on to oral communications. And this is the portion which is appropriate for the public to comment on any matter of the district, which is not on tonight's agenda. Would anybody like to comment on any oral communications? Can I ask real quick, what was the cost of living? What percentage increase was that for the district manager? I have a number in my mind, but it holds up. 3%? 2 and 1 half percent. I don't want to talk about looking it up for sure. In the ballpark. OK. 3% or 4%. OK, it's my estimate of what that is. OK. Somewhere in that range. But that may not be precise. And we should reference whoever generates fossil living investments. We can get that in the range. Can I ask that anyone that would like to speak come to the lectern, because I have a recording device there, so I can get the information. OK. Would anybody else like to speak during oral communication? I don't see anybody stand up. So I'll close out during oral communications and move on to unfinished business. I have a 9A as the 2017 Education Grant Report. So I'm going to turn it over to Jen and have her give a presentation on the Education Grant. OK. As you all know, every year the Carter District sponsors a grant program, a watershed education grant program that educates students and adults. It's down in the valley about issues around water, water quality, watershed health, and in an effort to really improve the education of our community around our water sources, most of which are surface water, or about half the stream surface water and half the groundwater. And so last year the district funded six grants, I believe, by which have returned their final reports. So the total for those grants was $13,000 for these five grants. And I'll tell you a little bit about them. Just I won't take too much time, just a little bit. The elementary school science teacher has an elementary school program called Environmental Awareness Through Science Literacy, K-3 Science Enrichment at the San Lorenzo Valley Elementary School was awarded $2,500. And that money went to programming for students at San Lorenzo Valley Elementary from kindergarten to third grade. It reached hundreds of students. You can't remember exactly how many. That was quite a lot. And then there was another $2,500 to the elementary school for Family Science Night, which is a really wonderful program that, I think, fourth grade science teacher puts on there at San Lorenzo Elementary School, which is open to families and members of the community. And it's been really well attended. And they work with the Discovery Museum in San Jose to set up different science displays. And most of them are related to water. They have an outdoor section of water shed displays and an indoor section of the chemistry, water chemistry, things like that. They're very popular. I've done that twice. And the San Lorenzo Valley Middle School received a grant for $3,000 for an outdoor preserve for education, which is sort of an outdoor classroom that has really helped to fund some, I'm not sure, the chalkboards or some kind of presentation boards and some seating that's in an outdoor forested area where they can talk about watershed education and not in the outdoor setting. And then $3,000 grant went to the Museum of Natural History for exploring San Lorenzo River. One of those tours, there were, I think, 14 tours or something in the San Lorenzo River watershed. One of them I led at the Ovidio Watershed. It was well attended. And all of those have been very well attended. And the last one was to the Coastal Watershed Council for the Watershed Rangers Program. I'm working with a few of just a select number of kind of advanced science students at the high school. And they take them out and do really sort of concentrated focus watershed education on a variety of topics from groundwater recharge and water quality and forest health issues that are all over the bit to water. And so the grant reports are all available on the board agenda, and I would recommend that the board approve the grant reports, and that way we can finalize the context of these five grant reports. There were a thousand student experiences that I'll eventually want to sign on page two of their report on. I'd like to comment on page two also. I was really impressed by where does all the water go. I was thinking that those four items at the bottom of that page wouldn't be bad for some of the elementary school kids and the educators that brought to that level of knowledge to be explaining to the community and directors about how water does work, or does that water go, and how do you get it back? Just another couple of comments. I didn't make it this year, but I went to the previous year Science Night that was really great. And I didn't get a chance to go this last year, but that previous year was really wonderful. I did get a chance to go out to see that slow outdoor classroom when it was nearing completion. They did not have signage up, this was a few months ago, so I've not been back since then, but it is accessible in some way for those who have done this. Margaret is someone. I am. OK. Any thoughts? This is a fond part of my love for the district. I've been along with a quarter of other teams and up through the ranks as a member of the Water Education Commission, and I'm always excited to see the students work and the contributions that these small grants make so significantly to our community. So I've always been like, and like she said, the Science Night is cool. I wish I could have found this last year. I was in some other part of the state, but it's a fun night. And I would encourage members of the public to volunteer as well. I do contribute to the Science Channel reviews that are offered to the students as they refine their projects for science there. Let me open up to the public. Anybody want to comment on this? If I don't see any, anybody want to comment on this item? And bring it back to us. I'm really pleased. There are a few names in here I mentioned, people I bumped into. I had no idea that they were involved in this. They're good people. Occasionally, I see somebody who not only runs one of these projects, but then helps out somebody else doing it. So I think we've got a good community of people, OK, the gym, OK, on these things. And I think by doing that, we get a lot out of pretty small expense on these things. And it won't be too long before these people are involved in our community. And it'll be good to have people understanding our natural world out there. My only comment is that a couple of years ago, I was talking to a Friday morning better student at the high school. And he had gone through the watershed academy and came home and chastised his parents about all the things that he was doing wrong. This is a perfect educational opportunity for a 14-year-old. And she commented, that was the only thing he seemed excited about in school that year. And I know some of these projects, but our goal was to educate the whole community through these grants by chastising parents or whatever it takes. So I appreciated hearing that feedback from around that particular grant from my client. Sure, it's equally effective at this earlier stage of the educational process. Any other board comments on this, or staff? And I don't see any. I don't think we need to take a brief, formally We'd like to have a formal vote so we can close out the contracts. OK, very well. But I hear a motion to accept the five grants that are in tonight's agenda. I'll make a motion to take that back. OK, so if there's no further discussion, then we need to call a voice vote I don't think we'll make, because one director is not a political president. So how long do we call a voice vote? President Bobman? Yes. Director Bruce? Yes. Director Radcliffe? Yes. Director Spalman? Yes. And the motion carries four to zero. The full complement of the board as it exists right now. So let us move on to the second item, the luncheon is business on tonight's agenda, which is the vacancy in the office of the board of directors. So with staff on the same thing, I can no, this is pretty much speech for itself. Regrettably, one of our directors had the need to resign for health issues. And we have been operated with four to zero, I mean, a four-member board for a while. This has been noticed properly. And we've received two applications. So at this point, I think I would like to open it up to the public. That those two applications are John Dodge Hayes, who is a citizen member on our budget and finance community. And Lou Ferris, who is a woman formed by an active participant in our board. And we have certainly passed on one of our members in the faculty in 2000, both good folks. And I appreciate them both submitting applications to be willing to build this in the position. So would anybody in the public like to comment upon the process here or the applicants who have submitted applications? And I don't see any public members wanting to comment on this. So bring it back to the board. Any thoughts from? Well, I will say I currently serve with John on the budget and finance committee. I served with Lou along with the citizens advisory. I found them both really engaged, smart people that seem to really be interested in the best outcome for the ratepayers in the library. So I'm glad that we got two candidates. So I too was pleased. I would, with our current capital improvement project coming into the active phase, I would like to have John on, primarily because he has such a good feed on our current financial situation. He has a very detailed understanding of finances. And I'm not that Lou's going to get there. But this way, I think John could hit the ground running on the finances part in particular. Again, I think both applications are great and both people will be effective as directors. That would be my preference. Bill or Mark? I have almost exactly the same substance as Jean. And furthermore, I would support John's application, not because Lou is also a strong candidate. And I appreciate his strong support of the district in his participation. I have really enjoyed John's approach at how he is a unifier and a problem solver and a pollution finder in a way that is very helpful and very professional. So I would support John's candidacy. OK. Jean and I are both in the budget and finance committee. So John has been on that committee with two of us. I very much appreciated his qualifications, their exemplary for financial matters. John has also been the president of a mutual. So he's had hand-on experience running a small water system and was instrumental in getting that system into a better place with us. So I appreciate his experience beyond the finances on that. And I especially value his temperament and his abilities to reach out to others. And I think that his participation with a good wrap-up of the surcharge for Juan Pico was invaluable. And I partly support John. I appreciate Louis Buffeting's name in here. And I hope he continues to be an active participant with our water district. But I have nothing to say about it. Oh, I know I've gotten in that bump, gentlemen. And I really like working with John on the Juan Pico surcharge here. That was pretty much a close call with me, but a very close call. But I'd like to place my vote for Lou, for what he does. Well, I think it's vote for Lou. OK. OK. OK. OK. If there is, how other members of the public like to comment at this point? OK. OK. Go ahead. I would like to move on. Oh, all right. So I love the brand of me. And as a new member of that committee, John's been really helpful in giving some background information and kind of shuddering me through different documents and issues. And he's spent some time with me, which I really appreciate. I also appreciate his knowledge and ability to work with a lot of different people. I support John. Thank you. Thank you. And since I brought this back, I'd like to thank everybody else. And I'd like to see the other hands up. I'll also have all communications with pleasure this time to get on this item and bring it to the board with the last comments. And then I'll see you. Would anybody like to make a motion regarding this way? You can see. I would like to make a motion to replace a member of the board with John Haines. And I'd like to second that motion. Just to clarify, your motion is to report John Haines to the board. Yes. Correct. OK. So no further comment. Holly, did you take a voiceover on that? President Bobman. Yes. Director Bruce. Yeah. Director Ratcliffe. Yes. Director Spalman. No. This pass redirects in favor. So I believe we have procedural matter. We need to complete it this time. So this is a square in ceremony. It'll work. You've got to get sworn in. OK, Bruce. You've got to get sworn in. Oh, yeah. OK. I will say your name. I, John Haines, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California. The Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California. Against all enemies. Against all enemies. For and domestic. For and domestic. That I will bear true faith and allegiance that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California that I will take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. And that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. There you are. I didn't want to point out that I already have a name plate, so I'm saving you money already. I didn't want to make a big deal out of it. OK. Welcome. And thank you. Let's move on to the next agenda. And that is the appeal from the board for further adjustment of the water bill by health pressure. This water views on private property are probably the single most difficult subject matter for this district to deal with because we greatly sympathize with residents having basic properties since that's one of the main things our staff deals with pretty much daily in the district system. We have a policy in place that provides an adjustment, a one-time adjustment of half of the bill for leaks. And last year we went through an effort to adjust that policy to transition to a one-time event versus what was in the past a one-month adjustment. Trying to get an event because oftentimes events don't pay attention to the stockings starting over the meter reading month and they cross over two different months. We have a situation such in this phrasier where one event, regardless of which month or billing cycle it happened in was very significant and resulted in a very large water bill. As I understand I was not here for the last quarter of a year but as I understand Ms. Frazier was asked to kind of give us some thought and see if she could develop a modification to the policy which she did and we're here tonight to discuss any modifications to the policy including the phrasier. Staff would like to point out that the lead adjustment policy is an effort to help. It's not intended to be punitive. It's intended to actually help the customers recognizing the difficulty in finding leaks in particular than a large parcel. District staff also recognize that the meters for the district are for district use. Any investment used beyond reading for district billing is first year and I'm referencing notifying residents potentially about leaks on their property or issues along that regard and then the third issue is that we do and we are in the process of replacing out the old meters that are due for replacement and we're replacing them in a cellular meter that do provide information through the net, through the internet to both the district and customers if the customers choose to do so. However, that program can be done it can be installed on an as needed basis. Staff look at it and consider the idea of maybe accelerating that program with certain individuals or residents or rapers who are willing to pay to have the meter installed early we would go out there and get that meter installed however doing so creates significant financial problems. Staffing problems for the finance department and for the operations department because meters are read we call it staff level books and those books represent neighborhoods and we read them in blocks and we have one, two, or three meters in that block that are not even read the same way it creates additional burden on staff and trying to manage that across an 8,000 meter district is potentially extremely problematic and so staff talk to itself out of offering an accelerator program. Staff is currently researching the ability to point residents in the direction of private water meter programs or retail devices that the residents can provide, combine for themselves and put on their system that they can then monitor the water usage on their own. I don't have a full description of the personnel offerings right now we're going to develop that and present that at a future board meeting and put that on the website so residents that are waiting for the cellular meters to be installed that is a seven year process to be a meter swapped out across the district so we are about two years into the replacement program so we still have about five years to go before all the meters are swapped out at a minimum that is a million dollar program so it's not a small number it's not like you can divert that money into a meter replacement program and as a staff you should do it well so we don't have a staff to do that but in the meantime we would like to provide at least a pointer to retail options regarding the proposal presented tonight and this is, I understand and I would hope that the rate bearer would be here tonight to make sure I understand it correctly because reading things and writing things are often times two different situations so what is being proposed is that anything up to 500% of average use would be waived and anything above 500% would apply to the leap adjustment policy that's how I understand that that presents a significant financial hardship for the district, I think that the staff calculated that out and came out to approximately this year alone it would have been a $80,000 loss staff, is that right? do you remember? $25,000 so there would be an additional $25,000 right now for the district this year if we had implemented this policy which is a substantial amount of money so staff appreciates the situation but I don't think staff can support the recommendation as written regarding the writing off of 500% if I understand it correctly but staff does support the addition of a single event standing no more than two consecutive billing sites staff definitely supports that we were there last year just to meet across the finish line so we'll have to see that happen again at some point in the near future we'll come back to that I'd like to take it to the person who wrote this to us first would you like to speak? I just want to the way I wrote it I'm just proposing that anyone that has a financial leap adjustment gets the burden on the individual is reduced so that the maximum bill of the debt would be 500 times the regular water bill versus like two or three thousand times the regular water bill is that the same age? like I said what I read might be right if your water bill is $100 a month then after $500 that would be wage so you would pay 500 times the regular water bill so my proposal is for individuals that have a one-time leap that they don't have a meter they don't have a smart meter that they have a one-time leap and that they don't present a financial hardship I now have a meter which is great but for people that don't have a meter how are they going to know that they can just be presented a bill for thousands and thousands of dollars and it just seems like hopefully you can mention it how many people I don't know good job I did a lot of people and I got a major leap when we were still in Mojito I was shocked to find out I had underground leap but I didn't clue about it and I felt comfortable but this woman has gone through it but it's my understanding that you can't get away with water so to say because it's a big bill you shouldn't have to pay it I'm not comfortable with that I think it's one thing to say we're not giving you a a cessbook that you use to touch water but in her case it was something she didn't know about and the tickets as soon as could be done but I still can't think of just take away a big bill anybody else let's bring it back to the board just a general policy thing we talked about leap just the policy was it last year last year my concern with the process is we don't want to get in the ordinance 8th situation where we're doing reactive policy making where and I do think the tendency is just because there's an outrageous event like this that really is outrageous that we will shift the policy for the entire district because there's a real standout issue and the old ordinance 8th was full of those kind of weird little nuggets of policy that didn't make any sense that were probably instituted because of some crazy one-point episode in the distant past but they didn't really relate to the general situations within the district and so just as a policy level decision I really I'm concerned about making reactive policy changes although you know there are, literally it's not whole healthcare there are sections here perhaps have more merit than others some of the proposed changes obviously make more sense than others but just want to make that comment first and hear what everybody else says about the specifics of the policy so I think in a moment we'll take a look at some other example, these adjustment policies and they are in some respect a little bit more lenient than ours and well, I appreciate that $25,000 is real money I would like to point out that the water is all that I was trying to prove and it's not reasonable for us to expect that we see repair promptly and that we afford our conscientious customers some relief other water districts say put the amount of adjustment in varying percentages say 75% of the overage without cap some say both that I looked at just recently have said within five years a customer can supply for at least one to every five-year period is not indefinite for the lifetime of that customer's account in a five-year period and they often span billing cycles with the understanding that a week may stand or timeframe before it's found so to Gene's point if we make a decision tonight we may not have enough information to fully address all of the pieces of parts that we want to take a look at in reforming or adjusting this policy one part of the policy is a question about is the relief appropriate is the relief average another part of it is is the timeframe of identifying relief and responding to the relief appropriate and so third is how often may a customer apply for such a relief adjustment one and that's one is done or one in every specific period of time so I'd like to suggest that we either commit times this evening to a more full discussion of all of those points or that we take this back to staff for a a review of larger districts who may or may not be in our area and do some benchmarking against other district policies and bring ours into line with both what staff makes sense from a fiscal standpoint as well as what makes sense from a benchmark with other policy standpoint thank you last time we discussed this I always recommend that there be a ceiling you know a ceiling amount for these problems I had one too and it was $800 down to 400 or whatever with the relief adjustment but this is a lot of water and and you know it's the homeowners have to share the burden of relief especially at this size I mean this is really a lot of water but however I do think that there should be some sort of a measure with that the amount of water amount is you know I mean last time I mentioned $1000 I think maybe about this that might be a little too late because of the amount of this water this is a serious problem and as a property owner I mean you need to there's probably a duck pond in the back you know you need to keep an eye on the stuff and if we just hey you get a freebie on it's pretty serious fine with this I'm not fined by the charge for this but I believe that this ceiling needs to be in place because the leak gets up to these thousands of dollars of work I believe that this district has an obligation to put in a system that would be responsible to track and find these leaks not maybe just about meters or anything but a monitoring system with the district that can not only see homeowner leaks but leaks within you know because we have leaks on water leak et cetera like that so our water system needs to be improved so it can catch leaks like this but the homeowner I believe that maybe it should be reduced a little bit but I believe that this district should decide on the ceiling you know with the what we already have um and Bill I like where you're going with the cap but since you weren't here for that old ordinance eight days I'll tell you we got outdated numbers so that's why I think rather than having a dollar amount having some sort of percentage because you don't want those things to get stale you know if we put a policy in place we'd like to get one so the numbers don't get made point by inflation for example so that would be my my approval there is just put it as some sort of percentage and I think it sounds like some other districts have done that in a variety of ways so sure some base the percentage on an average of the customers billed over the three months or the same month or the same billing period of the prior year or three years or something like that so you can you can baseline it again something comparable just a few comments first I have some questions from Margaret I appreciate this question for bringing something I asked you know I suggested that idea and she did the thing about her proposal the idea of being two monthly covering two months of the period so it's one event is absolutely correct so that needs to be in there having a point at which the customer is no longer responsible at all I think should not be part of the policy I think there are there are people who will gain the system and once it's become you know egregiously bad then then that's kind of free water for a while or something and there's all sorts of things that people can do you know water lawns in order to sell their houses okay so I think we if we're not you know I don't think this proposal is right I understand the sentiment and I know this is okay a very serious event in this person's life so I think what we have tonight is whether we want to make a decision to essentially keep our existing policy with an aspirational goal of maybe something that will be added in the future and of course working together you know Bill has mentioned things you know that we would like to have a link protection system in place but in five years we're going to have that basically when you roll out the rest of the bathroom meter but in the meantime would you feel comfortable just coming to admin to be looked at in admin to shove it and comment on it or absolutely and with the hopeful that staff would also provide some physical input about what are the potential where they think the inflection point is we are sufficiently rigorous to ensure that people are not going to as you put it in the system personally I don't think there is any wood but nevertheless it is of our concern and that our district cost for addressing these kinds of leak events is also taken into account but that it is not punitive because I you know it's enough to take in the next and a half I have to oh my gosh I have a link I have to fix this I don't think we are in the business of being punitive we certainly want to encourage people to respond quickly and address it but what is that not? I think the wording is important here this policy is not meant to impose a penalty I mean it's actually right it's a forgiveness of some of the expenses that are implied by our system so it's you know I may not feel like it at the time but there is some generosity in offering as much as is offered but I think we should have a little bit of a discussion here as to whether we want to continue this discussion after this meeting and a proper opinion which I think might be appropriate in the end since she is the chairperson of that that would be an appropriate suggestion by the new director it's the new guy so I think the board you know setting policies is one thing the board has the ability to make exceptions for specific cases too and that's what she's doing is kind of appealing for discussion and I'm speaking with her more about the circumstances around this it seems like the configuration of her property and the water line involved she would discover the leak it was a really remote area and she didn't discover the leak and the amount of the water was massive and she still didn't discover the leak until it was known as the water leak talking a break about the whole situation because of where the leak was and how water is limited to that location it seemed unlikely that the district could have picked up on the fact that we were losing a probation tank with a water in every couple of weeks so massively but I like the idea of a maximum I think as a district we're producing more water than we're selling and our leaks and the amount of water that we're losing out there is running about twice where it really should be as a kind of as a best practice as a percentage where it's like about 10% higher than the time it should be compared to other districts as a best practice so I think would be ingenuous I think would be we need to be flexible given that we're running high and we have a high leak rate so I think it's important to question where my customers at the same time so I would support the idea of an exception for this particular case and take the policy to the admin but make the exception for this customer to do what she suggested which is which is limit set a maximum on what she should be paying for this particular leak not setting a policy for this particular leak of course my concern is that's exactly what we have policies so we don't make subjective decisions and that's and I understand you're saying that while we're in the process because it's really it's really difficult and somebody at the last meeting I can't remember at May 17th but this is a very large dollar amount where it's going to hurt anybody or smaller dollar amounts for those people that smaller dollar amount could well be even more financially burdensome it just depends on your individual possible circumstances and I don't remember the specific tip from last year that was really large and so that's why I think that subjectivity is a little bit tricky because I would like to have a policy that is formulated to be fair to both the rate payer and the other people in the district who are in some sense, you know picking up the slack that's why I think about doing a policy that can stay in place without specific numbers is sort of the end goal and many of those cases could come for exception and it would be a joke not true but any of them could well we heard from a couple rate for the last couple of years and if I say every household has different financial situations so the strict dollar amount is not always the best indicator of what an extreme hardship is but by the standard this is extreme I agree everybody has to I have a toddler in the garden and goes down from the neighbor story that I have to tell you about a different way of dealing with our life I would like to say I am reluctant to make exceptions because there will be other times when we will be faced with that whether to have an exception and then do we apply the same standard and are we consistent in that I think if we do anything it has to go back and get fixed very quickly so that whatever is done is done and I think we have one commitment from one person who is inclined in that direction I will join you on that I get a little bit of thoughts from others that that would be an appropriate way to do it and I would hope to get some feeling coming from this that it is reasonable to do this but we will be able to deal with this in a timely manner so somebody needs somebody needs to do the research I think tasking that with committee members is probably not the best way a staff needs to do that and I would like for staff to buy into that at least in the soul to be willing at least so anybody else want to do we have a are we getting to an opinion here we have different views on that I am a negative policy person and I think if the committee has the time to get it done quickly you know it is not really complicated we have already got some staff getting this and probably got some suggestions from members of the public I think that is a good idea so task packing but in a form where there can be more discussion we will do more research before we make decisions I like the idea of bringing in templates from other districts as a market can I just say please first of all you guys all agree this is an exceptional situation and at the same time we are reacting to policies because of exceptional situations we also don't want to break the policy because the policy should fight regardless of the situation so there is a bit of a catch 22 there so that is how I make that clear and the other thing I want to say I don't understand how anybody can gain this system I don't understand how people can gain the system where there is a one time adjustment it is not like you can get another game and I don't understand what you are worried about there and my third point is this is really a nonissue when people have that so it is just a temporary situation until people have the leaders that is one of the things thank you what were you talking about gaming is too strong a word but I did have one neighbor under these red wood trees and that lawn has never sold the property and that lawn is long gone so there are unusual uses that I doubt they are serious what they put in a request for a weak adjustment on that basis anyway thank you for the talk anybody else I just want to clarify what staff is hearing and did a schedule out there for consideration this weak adjustment policy is going to be remanded back to to the administration committee the next meeting of the administration committee meeting is on July 11 staff is being cast with presenting a potent weak adjustment policy with the balance that has been discussed and also bringing forward samples from other agencies to the admin committee to compare and contrast if the admin committee is willing to commit to making a recommendation on July 11 staff can get this back onto the board agenda for the July 19 meeting so it would be a month away and as I understand what the board is also considering is giving this forager another 30 days before she actually has an answer that's my understanding and just information on the logistics of this I want to be in California on July 11 but Margaret has managed to make her presence known here tonight so we can look out something on that if that's agreeable to the chair of committee I assume that's the case absolutely if the committee can coordinate a different meeting date earlier than the 11 but not too early we still have some research to do on the staff side it doesn't matter it doesn't matter I will put most of the elements to be on Margaret for doing the face to face communications that it helps to be able to do but I'll admit to making every effort to be present again remotely on the iPad I will do my part I want to extend my thanks to our community members for their patience in this process okay the intent behind any of that was to do more than refer it to the admin maybe that would be a good kind of motion but this is really just a referral to the committee no actions required I did not see any crack okay I think that's enough okay very well last question I want to make sure that someone's not being penalized because she hasn't been paid for this no well now it's not for like trying they've been really reasonable just want to make sure that you're okay anybody else want to point to Sean I don't see anybody decided thank you for coming again and I hope we can forgot something that may not be perfect but it will be a little bit better okay let's move on to the next item on the 19th window which is the sandal command and monitoring plan for the district's conservation area within the Olympia Water District property staff is recommending that the board award contract that we brought for doing the preparation of the prior habitat management monitoring plan the conservation set aside at the Olympia Wellfield this is in effect an extension of services for doing the project working with us on this regard for quite some time this is an additional requirement that we have regarding the conservation set aside for this area so staff is hopeful that the board can improve this earlier with Judy exemplary on all things sandal I have only fairly unimportant comments so let's go to anybody else first yeah I would I think this we have a spending problem with a lot of these environmental requirements and it's really in my opinion kind of giving environmentalism a bad take because actually the probation take project is going to benefit the environment because it's going to give us more water storage we need more water storage so that will prevent less over drafting of the groundwater basin and it's very close to where there was actually large earth moving machines next to the Hanson quarry and bottom line what happens with these construction projects yes there are a lot of the plants and animals or whatever they do get removed to build a water tank up there but the bottom line is they don't get wiped out they don't get extinct so over the years we've really created this whole industry of paying people that do studies for permit requirements etc to do all this environmental work which I don't believe the rate pairs of this water district should be obligated obviously we're not going to stop this is a long issue this you know is he timing the time again that we need to confront and to do it and this is going to get I'm going to tie this into something else that's going on but I'm not saying no you know let's just say no to every time there's the state fish and wildlife says oh we got to make sure that we don't do this or do that I'm just saying hey let's you know say talk to them they're not lawmakers they're rule makers and so they need to be negotiated you know look we're not going to kill off all your little bugs here we're not going to do this and stuff like that and you know all right about any issue you know I I look at money and I look at what the value of money is to do and I also I'm a strong environmentalist so I want it I don't want this isn't really a true environmentalism it's expanding the business it's putting the name environmentalism to make money to do things to do it this proposed study nobody's going to ever look at it it's going to get done and it'll have a place and stuff like that but it won't be useful really for anything you know the best thing to do with the environment is to leave it alone and not do it so we don't anyway we don't really need this study now the funny thing is about this this is right where we have the scott's room call okay and I don't know if you recall last April I said let's do by a lot let's consider manual following with with biological monitoring and that's where I think this would be useful to have a biological to pay for a biological monitor during the manual following in that way because you know that there's a pro use of roundup people and the people that I represent are the people to ban herbicides ban pesticides use in the entire valley and it just because it's the water district and I've heard the excuse that the water district say oh well the county does it well sorry I mean the county just stopped agreed to stop using roundup from forest but the same thing that Rachel Carson faced in 1963 is you have scientists come in and they go towards the more complicated scientists studying chemicals and that science is very very complex and it's unsolvable so we have this blue ribbon panel which we don't have not keeping records of the minutes of this thing so Bill I don't want to interrupt you but these are topics for a discussion for which that's agendized we need to decide what contract or a report I'm almost finished I know this is boring because it might be kind of complex for people to know she's some nods here I'm getting it that the blue blue ribbon panel information that I have is thoroughly in towards studying the science of the chemical effects of vitamin C which is very difficult science and whether it's in the watershed or whatever whether it causes cancer whether you notice the effects on the bugs itself anyway this is a very complicated scientific study they must consider my plan with biological monitoring which is easily scientifically to see the negative effects of that because all you would do is pull the plants and do biological studies and actually I'm almost done I'm almost done how does it relate to a lot of people bring this into the room yes I'm bringing it in right now I will not look for this plan until they uh I want a new proposal that this biological monitoring is done after we manually pull the scotch broom plants carefully but we do this study in conjunction with it so in other words it's about six acres so we'll manually pull the scotch broom okay we'll get a study and then if it shows no negative results then we can go ahead and manually pull the entire history without using ground up and this is very extremely important people don't want to use ground up in this thing it's a big issue so I don't see any reason why not we can't do that and that's how I try to do it thank you I'd like to bring this to the staff can you give every summary of the legal requirement of having an avatars monitoring requirement to be able to fulfill the requirement you need that and okay either of you I don't want that one okay the district is opted to set aside 6.7 acres of high quality sand parkland habitat which actually contains no french broom or brooms of any kind it's very high quality habitat with endemic and endangered species that are thriving in a very healthy environment right there this habitat and management and monitoring plan is required as part of the mitigation plan that we have provided that we have created which is agreed to which we've already approved and we've already issued a permit for some of the projects that are going to be mitigated through this habitat conservation plan which is a lot of jargon but basically the San Bernardin Valley Water District operates a lot of infrastructure in sand hills habitat in order to provide water and we're going to do maintenance or repairs on infrastructure in sand hills habitat there are impacts to the species and endangered species that are in those habitats where we have to do construction so this is a habitat conservation plan but what it is is it's compensating for the impacts to the endangered species on future projects including the probation tank including the wells that we're replacing including the future pipeline that have impacts on sand hills habitat and endangered species that live in that habitat so this habitat conservation plan was written and adopted by the board back in 2016 and we've already been issued several permits on it and now as in our agreement we've agreed to write a management plan for the 6.7 acres set aside that will be protected in permanent protected status in perpetuity and so this management plan will be what the water district will look to over the years to manage, monitor and protect that very high quality sand hills habitat that will continue I'd like to add this was referred to repeatedly as a study it's not a study it's an action plan and part of that will be to monitor endangered species and ensure that they're persisting and to in the management whatever endangered species come in and to deal with those first and to always make sure that we're maintaining the high quality status of sand hills and parkland habitat on that 6.7 acres set aside which is on the same property as the 68 acre coastal that we're also managing but this is sort of a separate high quality set aside that's been this is a special habitat management plan just for this set aside not for the entire property just to clarify and Jen's done a brilliant job putting this together I mean it's going to save the district hundreds and thousands of dollars compared to the options which were to go buy land with other mitigation banks that exist out there we wouldn't have to pay this year to buy that land to get the permanent for the probation thing but we don't have to do that because Jen's created our own mitigation zone and it's not only for this project but for future projects what we're set for the future and at a much lower cost and do I understand correctly that the question before the board at this moment is whether or not we agree with the environmental regulations that we have already agreed to but it is shall we approve this proposed contract to execute the agreement that we have already made a commitment to the question is is this person is this resource whom we will use to conclude our commitment correct I would make a motion I would second that oh my gosh no we're no more you're bobing okay we have one more discussion and then I'll bring it to you but I would like to throw my two cents so go ahead this is a non-discretionary kind of thing you know the plan is but I do think that Adjournment of Broad is well known that the area has been a specialist in this very special habitat and we certainly benefit from having, you know, expertise already on board so I think it's a very appropriate selection for this project and so I think that she's an excellent choice I think there aren't that many okay we must have to sort of like somebody who has some credentials in producing a management plan internally I think probably wouldn't fly by somebody would it okay and so this being non-discretionary I don't see any other reasonable choice but to proceed with this so anybody in the public can we open up a public comment on this I think I just wanted to state that as I understand it does have to be actively managed it's not something you can just leave alone it's major it'll be fine it's a type of habitat that it has to be constantly managed and cared for in an active way or it will be lost so I understand what needs to be done and thank you for all of your questions anybody else I have no problem with the contract but I'd like to know what the amount is problem is we have about I'd say about 300 and 500 acres of sand hills already in a sand hills preservation zone it's administered by the county there are certain stipulations for regulations already applying to that particular apartment for example on my one acre in the sand hills if I want to add a building I have to set aside 30% of that property as a mitigation plan what I would like to see in the language before we adopt this is that this mitigation studies mitigation management of the HCP they call having that conservation plan be applied to every property owner in the sand hills because this can be planted as a total EIR requirement if you look at SEPA closely there's an allowance for that so I don't want it to apply just to a 6 acre piece Director Spalman is correct we need to use our money wisely and I would like you to have a broad brush approach every parcel that is located umbrella under the land conservation zone notice sand hills if you know what that map looks like thank you the contract the cost of the contract is $24,617 $76 $76 $76 $76 it is what it is my concern is how it's applied to the rest I'd like to see the language and how it's applied to the HCP language I'm not so concerned about the language you understand what I'm saying any staff comment I this is this applies to our property it's money to set up this mitigation for our I staff's comment does that support Mr. Lee's desire to put these requirements across the entire sand hills we don't have that out we agree to do this for this for medicine yes, no shaker ahead this permit is for district projects draw up and reapply it you know that's not true okay any other comments on this okay comment on this motion in a second any other questions I'd like to call for the first vote on this President Buckman yes Director Bruce Director Ratthead yes Director Stahlman oh, I'm sorry Director Hays yes okay that's nice thank you that concludes my and we'll move on to new business which is either the 8th, section 10 Sandalinda Valley Water District Committee we have opening of the Engineering Committee which will need to be a member of the board and for the long-term assessment district oversight committee for a member of the public and the recommendation is that the board tonight will the Engineering Committee open and direct staff to advertise members of the public for the long-term assessment district oversight chair can I ask you a question we currently have three city board members on the budget and finance committee and although we don't have a plan on how we're going to rectify that there will eventually soon be an opening on the budget and finance committee and I was going to ask the board to direct staff to advertise for the opening on the lab committee to immediately start seeking applications not under this agenda I am just I am not certain that the staff has the authority to do that that's about it okay any other staff I think it's pretty clear on the side first open to the public anybody in the public would like to comment on this item I was very excited to see this opening on the lab committee but first going to the engineering committee I would like to recommend that John H.B. appointed to that he's very familiar with all the projects the finance and familiar with the finance of the district and I think that his input on that is not that he doesn't have an engineering background but the financial aspect is really helpful among all the board members available I think that would be the best choice for that far as the lab committee I think a lot of this is going to depend on I intend to work with sites to how we decide to react to the grant and report recommendations in advance of that I'm hopeful that you're going to adopt all the recommendations because that's just so exciting going forward it is so exciting that I'm going to apply for the lab position the idea of getting trained and producing a report is exactly where this should have gone from the beginning and I'd love to be a part of that I'd love to be a part of that team not only me but I think this is going to be attractive to a lot of people that you're actually going to be able to do something NDA accountable and report that to a lot of people so I appreciate you forward with everything that you can to fulfill that Thank you First of all, we're from Boulder Creek The district manager was incorrect when he said that there's three members on the finance committee because the third position is for someone who's not on board and so when the board appointed Mr. Ainsons of America he went off with the finance committee so there's still two board members on the plan and as any other the public will bring it back to the board there are a number of ways in which we could address this opening on the engineering committee this evening it could be Mr. Ainsons or it could be one of the other directors to possibly be appointed to that committee and Mr. Ainsons could be appointed to a different committee so I would like for everybody to think about the possibilities and just to not be too vague on this one of the possibilities would be for myself and the engineering and I think our excellent financial person John might be a very good first position to be on finance so anyway any other board thoughts on this matter I have a question I hadn't thought about the switch I would sort of paint my name to John on finance just because we have a little grasp of the detail and the big picture as well which is so useful but I understand that the issue also I want to solicit your interest your I think we have a lot of great momentum in the finance committee right now I think that that would be probably the best bit for me Chuck's got a lot of points in the engineering that I'm using and I think it's important to have a function engineering to be right now on the deficit I think the deficit too so I think Chuck can put a lot of organization and direction in that I think that would be helpful so I agree with Chuck thank you Margaret do you have any thoughts I would defer to your judgment Chuck I have a chair of the board and John Krupp okay well it's time for somebody to make a motion okay I would balloon this is a two part motion that John Hayes he chose as a director member of the budget finance committee and that Chuck often chose to fill the agency on the engineering okay I'm going to ask your opinion just a moment Margaret sorry I'm questioning whether we can appoint anybody to the budget finance committee tonight oh oh because that's not on the agenda okay thank you but we could make the first step yes okay to respond to your earlier question your direction is not required to start the process correct we will see for what for budget finance committee can I add my motion I will add my motion to propose that Chuck Boblin be appointed to fill the agency for the director on the engineering committee okay do I hear a second okay is there any other discussion okay see any so Ali would you call the woman president Boblin yes director Bruce yes directors Hallman no yes yes okay okay okay so public public public public public public I see nothing well on the public, so we'll bring it back to the list. Yeah, community members, yeah, community. We haven't visited them at any point. I don't... There's no restriction. I don't see any restriction. So I would say put in an application and I think I'd be... No, I'm just going to go and see if there's any questions. She didn't hear you, speak louder. Or she'll nominate somebody else. She has a virus question. She's... She just heard you, so... They're nominating some for all the community. Oh, no. That's due. Okay, so any other questions? So let's do... My requirement... Okay, so consider... Consider themselves directed like that. Action direction, not to. We will proceed with seeking... We're seeking applications for the lab and the legislative finance group. Okay. Okay, let's move on to the next item on the agenda, which is items 10D, a resolution of appreciation for every camera. And recommendation is to review, assume, and approve a task resolution of appreciation for every camera director. So I think in matters like this, it's appropriate for someone to read a resolution of appreciation. And as the board president, I would like to do that. So for us, on December 18, 2014, Eric Hammer took the oath of office to serve as director of the Samaritan Body Water District Board of Directors and for us, director Hammer served on the board of the Resignation of May 23, 2018. And for us, director Hammer served on the communication, environmental, administration, and humanitarian committees. And for us, during Eric Hammer's turn on the board, the district received the district transparency certificate of excellence from the Special District Leadership Foundation. And for us, also during his turn on the board, energized two, three, four, and six were completed. And for us, director Hammer was instrumental in the capital improvement program and the restructuring process as well as numerous other projects. And for us, Eric Hammer is truly deserving of special recognition and commendation for service to the Samaritan Body Water District. Now, therefore, be it resolved in the board of directors of the Samaritan Body Water District that Eric Hammer is hereby commended for his years of devoted and dedicated service as a member of the board of directors to the Samaritan Body Water District that he has the deepest respect of all those who have been privileged to know that the outstanding effort and dedication will be slowly meant. So I'd like to give the other board members an opportunity to say anything to them. You know, I can certainly endorse everything in the resolution. I served with Eric on a couple of different committees. And he brought a really great perspective, different from mine. He had a business orientation that I appreciated. And he had really deep, long-term local knowledge that was really invaluable. And, you know, he really cares a lot about the district and the region. And I think it was really great to have him serve on the board. I'm sorry that he's not able to continue. I think the resolution speaks well for our regard and admiration for Director Hammer and our fellowships for him. And finally after having read the resolution, I want to say personally that I appreciate the time you put on there. I appreciate his especially bringing his engineering perspective on that. And he had an awareness of the community that ran deep. And I think that was valuable to us. So I do appreciate the time he spent with us. And I am sorry that his help puts him in a position that he can't be doing this now. Is there anybody else who would like to comment on the point? Okay. Then I would like to recommend that... Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, thank you. Public comment on the slide. Is there any public comment? Okay, seeing none. So, I'd like to do this on... I think we can do this on a voice vote. Or... We'll do a roll call. So, Holly, could you... So the motion is to review it to approve the attached resolution. We appreciate you for everything. I'll second that. Okay. President Plotkin? Yes. Director Bruce? Yes. Director Hayes? Yes. Director Radcliffe? Yes. Director Smallman? No. Okay. Let's move on to... I intend to see the award of contract for the Boston PM roll. It's a Well 6 replacement. So, the district is in need of a replacement of a well. And we took the other claims and specs and contract and advertised it out for bid. We received four bids of back. They're a listed in the agenda package. The staff is recommending the award to a majority or a relative in the sum of $425,345. And this is going to be very important well for us. And we move forward. The staff is very excited to get this one along. The staff is going to see the award. I'll just comment that two of the bids came in quite close to each other towards the low end of the scale. I don't know if you heard the recommendation for tonight is that the lowest of those two bids approved. It does not seem like a difficult to meet in a decision to come forward. So, any other comments? Anybody in the public want to comment? I don't see any. So, I'll bring it back to the board. Anyone for the discussion? So, Pauline. And I'll move the motion. Okay. It's to approve a contract with Majira or other of Watsonville, California in the sum of $425. No resolution. Okay. Approved resolution number 2517 to award construction contract. The resolution reads contract. So that can be directed, I hope. Okay. Any further board discussion? Seeing none, I'll move the board's vote. I'll move the roll call. President Pauline. Yes. Director Cruz. Here. Director Hayes. Yes. Director Ratlin. Yes. Director Spalman. Yes. I said resolution is approved. I'll move the roll call. I'll move the roll call. Yes. I said resolution is approved. Thank you. So, let's move on to item 10D, a more assertive agreement for APM 081-1053-25. This is actually a more detailed water distribution system improvement agreement whereby the developer of the parcel is required to install facilities that will be turned over to the district for operation pipelines and because of this project we're going to go into our system to make improvements but he's responsible to pay for them and he's responsible to make sure that they are installed properly and that's what we're asking for at night is that the board authorizes to enter an agreement to ensure that the facilities that he is required to install will be taken care of appropriately. Mr. Shiaske has been working with us for another part of three years now at least. He's been doing this done so it's actually a pretty exciting project for the environmental and environmental districts. And this is that the parcel that we built not too many years ago. Yeah, it's not ending anymore. Well, it's got a good foundation. It's got a concrete foundation. It's just on the south in the Boulder Creek, right? Part of the sort of water. Correct. All right. Bring it back to the board. Okay. Okay. Oh, I didn't see your hand. Okay. Okay. What was the total contract cost? There is no price associated with contract use responsible for constructing it. And we don't know necessarily what his costs are going to be but we do know that we're going to be constructed for district standards. We have an estimate. We have a $500 inspection fee that will be deposited with the district. But he'll put a fire rider in and they'll love you around $10,000 and then he has to put all his planters and fire stores in. Thank you. Any other public comment? Okay. I don't see any. Okay. I hear a motion. I will move approval of resolution 2717-18. Agreement for water to be used in system improvement. NPM 081-253-25. Okay. I hear a second. Okay. Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. None. How many could you call? We'll go to resolution number 5. President Popman. Yes. Director Cruz. Yes. Director Hayes. Yes. Director Ratcliffe. Yes. Director Smallman. Yes. Which brings us to the next to the last new business item. Which is discussion and action on discussion and possible action by the board regarding the 2017-18 grand jury report. So before I get started, I want to first ask the public to put on this. Would anybody like to comment? Yes. This grand jury report is awesome. I want to first thank some people. I want to thank the grand jury for the time and integrity of putting this together and all the work they did. And with the good news, it turns out we've been asking all the right questions. I want to thank LADOC for sticking with it. Members, President LaRouche, Shaw, and Anthony Norton. Tony, who has a chair for a year and is like hacked through a jungle. She stayed with it. And also April Crittenden and John Grunam who have resigned who did just an amazing amount of work in very hard conditions. I want to thank great graduates during their operations. He attended the first LADOC meeting for the first time. This last one. And it was a remarkable difference and I hope that we'll be able to see them at more meetings. And I want to thank John Hayes, our new board member for his interest in helping all the long-term projects in the world. I sent a letter to the board on June 6th. Holly said she inadvertently forgot to put it in the agenda package tonight. And it's very short. I just want to read it paraphrase logically. I request the board give full support and endorsement through all recommendations that was outlined in the grand jury report on SOVU. At least make it reversed. And that's to be done at the next board meeting or a special meeting or as soon as possible to address this item on the agenda. I believe an immediate responsive written statement and press release from the board with your unequivocal enthusiastic support to endorse and immediately begin, all recommended changes, partially response, obviously due date, will greatly benefit the district and make a positive progressive statement to the public served. There are two items on the Long Pico and one I want transparency having to do with communications in the district. I think every single one of those recommendations will move this district forward into a new place. And I'm very hopeful that there's a new change and a wave coming. Especially with the press banner report today I came out that there is a slave to three people whose top priority is ability and transparency. And I think we need to move on that. All the work putting together the Long Pico merger was done in a very positive atmosphere. We had a supported SLP, the staff at SLP, the county, our supervisor, our fire district and Valley Women's Club all wrote letters of support and came to meetings and spoke in support. It was a very positive atmosphere and when we hit the wall here in 2016 I didn't know what was happening. I don't understand it but I think it all needs to be set aside and we need to move forward in a whole different light. I'm especially happy to see as I said earlier the Long Pico oversight can be resolved and enhanced. And as I said anybody would like to be a part of that team. It's very exciting. This report recognizes and recommendations enhance the accountability and transparency for everyone in San Juan and Valley Water District. I think as I said it will be a big step and I encourage you to adopt all recommendations. Thank you. Thank you. I want to congratulate the grand jury for making recommendations. I thought it could have been a little bit more strenuous and like Deborah Lawman I agree that we should support the grand jury recommendations as soon as possible and I'm glad there's a new slate coming up for election. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anybody else? I don't see any other hands up. So I'll go back to the board for the discussion. Who wants to leave? I was interested in the memorandum introducing this about the recommendations to take the craft in response to what I thought was a very useful recommendation. I thought that was a good point. Anybody else? No. That was my initial forward. I wanted to endorse that. It's a good idea because it is the majority of the findings that are made specifically to that region of the district. That's what the place is to start. I'll say that I agree with that. I think all of my colleagues should be offered the opportunity to comment to the extent that they want to. I hope that will be very wholesome. And that should be part of our process of getting to a response to the report. So anybody... I'd like to take the comments first and then maybe I'll make some suggestions. Or I'll hand them over. Okay. Do you want to do it? Anybody? I can go ahead and make suggestions. Oh, I'd really like to do that. So I'm going to move forward. Let's just face it. This assessment was a complete failure in my opinion. So I'll just... Let's just let it go. Let's move forward. And what is... These grand jury reports are sort of complicated. I really understand that. But I think this district really thinks hard to look at it and do all the recommendations that are on this thing. And hopefully we do have an engineering committee meeting of this Monday that we can start making some improvements. And then also I made agreements with spending more time going to the Long Pico oversight committee. And for all those people that don't live on Long Pico, the big problems that people would think the mistake was is that it got sort of political work. People were thinking that we were favoritizing Long Pico. But let me assure you that this is a district-wide issue because what I believe is that the Long Pico budget for all this assessment district projects, if we don't do this correctly, it will go over budget. And the people in Long Pico we're only tied to the hook of 2.9 million dollars. That extra money that if it does go over budget that we do not aggressively get these projects done, it will go over budget. And not only that, it's also exposing us to liability as well because there's several items for fire protection. I'm concerned because that isn't a particular agenda. I don't know more about the process for preparing a response because we need to make a response by August. I think it's 29. We have a limited... Let me tell you all that together that our response should include the response that we are, we look past our past mistakes. I'm starting to think that we are going to follow the grant to report to a team. This is an item on the agenda that is basically about how we will prepare a response. And personally I think I have a lot of appreciation for the work that the grant jury put in and there's much value in that. So I want to be sure that all directors thoughts on this matter of mine, yourself, Bill are brought in in a way that reflects not necessarily a consensus, but at least some level of integration of the thoughts and feelings that the board has about this group. So these require crafting language in a way that I don't think can be done initially in a broader context and it needs a sub-step of our board in order to get to it. So there's a couple of ways to do that. One would be to have the board president do that and bring a draft to the board. That's not what I believe would be the best way to proceed on this. I think we should consider having an ad hoc committee of two board members to work on this. And my recommendation for this is that those two people be and certainly going to entertain other ideas that those two people be myself and our new member John Hayes who has worked, has not been on board and has worked well with Longhiko and that we come and after taking some input perhaps at a special meeting to be held next week in which people could bring their thoughts to that and after that at that meeting we chose to form an ad hoc committee and we could take some of that input and bring it draft in response at some point. So this needs to be done precisely and at any point this is a broken comment from Longhiko on this but this is, I think, a reasonable thing to do to bring in two people a board committee that will exist strictly for the time I live to prepare a report and do the draft and try to get this as quickly as possible. And that probably means draft at July 29 and that possibly or July 22 July 19 but then come back at the latest for the August meeting so any other board I think that's a pretty ambitious schedule but I think it makes sense because I really wouldn't, I don't want it coming to the August meeting because it's just not a good time to get input from everybody so I think it could be worked on and done back to our regular journal until I'm leaving that would be much preferable. Okay but what I am saying that you would have a special meeting a week from today in which members of the public, members of the board could compose their thoughts or present them orally or present them written at that time and in that meeting we would consider finding a link whether to have a committee at that time so my comment about this is I am the most qualified person to on this subject I serve on one people for three years I know everything that's on this document pretty much by hand and I'm not going to tell you how but because all that when it was all done but I'm just saying that I believe I don't I just believe that we need to come up with a response but my concern is that we interpret the grand jury report we accept it and we do the recommendations which I feel that I'm the most qualified person to implement I would support the chair's position that he should be the chair of the ad hoc committee and I appreciate his nomination of John Hayes as his co-ad hoc board member I would point out that from the bottom line of the Long Pico board it's not a grand jury investigation and I don't believe that any of its findings were responded to besides the actual paper response I'm not aware of any actions Long Pico actually took to correct the findings I would also point out that if you wanted to convene during the evening of the week from today that's landing on the Santa Margarita Grand Water Board of Directors meeting that's right well then we would need to and I think I'm open I wouldn't be open to another day but I do think we would leave preferable so okay okay okay any other thoughts okay okay do I have a motion in this regard or would you like me to make a motion I'll make a motion since I'm bringing the idea okay so I'll make a motion that we schedule a special meeting actually okay at the latest time possible so that people can gather their thoughts so I'm hoping for Wednesday or Friday but that can be determined later and that committee be composed of myself and John Hayes and then the other aspect is it's a recommendation that we just bring that to that meeting or discussion and if we choose at that time to take a form that committee then any inputs that people have brought to that meeting can be will be public documents and can be part of the process of this athletic committee considering this and the last part of this I would like to consider is whether or not we should make this a recommendation at that committee that we have one or two members online and I don't see Ms. Shaw here anymore so okay okay okay okay um then the staff has an understanding um of that but I can meet you next week okay I just have to think for it uh the Ropiko Grand Jury Report Mr. Correct American Birth the main recommendation by the 2010 I can't remember what year it was but the main recommendation was to Burke and we did that but I don't know what really I don't know what you're talking about and the board got a recommendation um there's more discussion on this um I'll close that this time um and the last item I think it's part of the motion that was made that motion was drawn and the last item on the business this evening was that ordering an election and the board of directors reviewed this memo and adopted resolution number 26 uh 1718 ordering an election requesting senators counting elections to conduct the election and request them to consolidate and set the election for senators about the largest in the level of the nose of the county court of elected offices choice is request a change of statement regarding um yeah 200 words or 400 words and I looked at um the last one I was answered in 200 words um at that time so any staff thoughts on you um okay um any public discussion on that question um so the order in the election it's for the members and you're suggesting that we uh increase the appropriate representation in the narrative from 200 or 400 words for each candidate I'm not clear on that um no I'm not recommending that I think we're seeing this that's the only discretionary item in this decision and the default decision is 200 words so there is no I'm not making a recommendation to change that okay so it remains as it stands and unless some discussion changes that's the recommendation okay that's what you're already having any public comment on this I don't see any reason to bring it back to the board I think 200 words is adequate um yeah Margaret any thoughts on this no I think it's just finding a way to 200 words is fine the election doing this is not discretionary so do I hear a moment resolution in that 26, 17, 18 ordering an election requesting any elections to conduct the election or requesting a validation of the election one second I'm ready I'm ready any other questions I see none are you done Professor Klopman yes Director Bruce yes Director Ratcliffe yes yes that concludes the consent agenda I mean it concludes the new business agenda for this evening we'll move on to the consent agenda if anybody's having any member of the public want to comment on this see no public members wanting to speak on this item so I'll bring it back to the board so do I hear a motion to approve the consent agenda so do I okay second any other questions Professor Klopman yes Director Bruce yes Director Hayes yes Director Ratcliffe yes Director Klopman yes can I add a report for during what's written and answering questions if there are any people don't like it can you just do you want to talk about do you have any questions staff has any that she wants to call or get the opportunity can we hear it hear it I was looking for the cover sheet anything we can say before we drill on the new well Castle 7 we're getting ready to put it back online and production is picking up is that it staff has a bit of an answer okay I'll bring to the public to get some point in this on this report please bring any comments I don't want to get up again I'm going to do more do you have staff is currently working with the engineering farm shake and wheeler on the proposal of the three residential sites I couldn't find anywhere could you give me an answer right now but could you send me that information I wasn't aware that there were the last thing I know is WSC something like there were $60,000 and $250,000 for WSC to be working on like I said we're both having a puzzle here maybe you could just fill it out who has shaken wheeler when were they approved by the board to be working on this shaken wheeler have not been approved by the board to work on this that's why they are preparing proposals so that staff can bring back the board with a recommendation to go forward for the shaken wheeler worth one of the three firms that were selected to be the oncology engineering firms and silver you asked exactly no we asked to do that just a couple of months ago that was when the board formed an ad hoc committee to pursue this further to have three engineering firms on board working with this on not only the USDA but also the assessments for providers so they weren't approved but they're getting a proposal to the board for the oncology engineering firm that's what we're all in and I assume we're more than on people projects you were talking about the role of the CIS for the oncology engineering and the board right we have a whole lot of this is typically for the section of this three tank projects we're looking for presenting a role to the board to be designed on the three tanks I have not seen much working on that This is addressed to the District Council without having a practical report was there Anything, is this proper to, okay, go ahead, okay, go ahead. The legal report, is there anything that came out of, out of the closed sections that referred to any litigation other than the current cases that are being litigated? Is the question. There were two statements read out of closed sections. Maybe were you here? No, I was not. Then those, I don't think it's necessary to read those, but those will be part of the minutes, okay, of the, of tonight's meeting. So, yes, there were two reports out from closed section. Okay, so they're online? They won't be. Okay. Thank you. I haven't seen any, so I'll come back here. Any committees wanna say anything about the, okay, environment or, I think the meeting, no speak for themselves. So, I don't have that, okay. And then, any directors, communications? Yes, I just wanna mention there were a couple of events there was a meeting held last week in Belton and the community's center about the County Park library water district project, where the water district's current plan is adjacent to the county park, and public library is going to be built in Belton, and our environmental staff has been working with the county, and we have applied an easement to help the county parks. And that sounds like a really great project, great opportunity for watershed education. And it's just one of those very happy points is where everything's sort of synergistic, and everybody wins in this one. It's, they're going to be maintaining property that we cannot use, and they'll be maintaining property that we can't use in our communication. And everybody that heard about it there, members of the public seem to be very happy about this project. We're only involved very appropriately, but I know that our environmental staff has been working quite diligently with county parks on that, and public parks, I believe. And the other thing was that at the ground water summit, are you gonna be talking about that now? For a good idea. As a director of the San Juan River ground water authority, I was in Sacramento, along with two directors from the City of Scott's family and their general manager. We attended a workshop in San Jose about the Sustainable Ground Water Management Act. Very, very useful. They have a lot of people there from the Department of Water Resources, they have a lot of technical staff, engineers, hydrologists, people of that sort, and they have a lot of people from criminally overactive basins in the partial state that are two years ahead of us on the Sustainable Ground Water Plans. So, very practical, got a lot of really useful information regarding the legal requirements of the Act and some of the complexities of actually putting together plans. So, it was a really useful event and I got a lot of good contacts, particularly with the Department of Water Resources. I didn't know anybody there before and I think that's going to be a great resource for us. So, I was really happy that the ground water agency enabled us all to attend. I'll follow up on the back of reminding everybody that next week, this ground water sustainability agency meets on the 4th Thursday of April, which is the nature of the conflict this evening, we're going to set up another meeting. And that this schedule would be a presentation from our hydrogeologists at that meeting, Nick Johnson. So, this might be a very interesting meeting to attend, especially for people from the San Juan Valley Water District. And I did find the ground water somewhat extraordinarily useful. I think, GRAA of California, the Ground Water Resources Agency of California is the best venue in which to address the ground water concerns. Lockwood does a reasonable job at it that they are spread more broadly. So, and I'll actually be listening a week from now to a webcast on ground water modeling. So, they provide some excellent, just as from your desk, from my laptop. So, anyway, don't worry about our ground water agency and come on the, at the current, every two months, but that they be reconsidered, they're going into more ground water sustainability filled with land development and green water. I think that's for me, anybody else? Any other diverse communications? Margaret? That's been for me out here, Dr. Meadows, and we all here at your channel. So, I got a little bit of a share. In fact, and then a solicitation of any meeting agenda items for next time from the director. So, that really closes out district reports and we have now written communications and the informational material in our package is available for anybody to produce a picture. So, at 8.39 PM, we will adjourn this meeting. Thank you, everybody, for coming. Thank you, everyone, for letting me participate this week. Thank you for your time. I'll go down and take a peek for me. We'll catch up later. All right. Thanks, Margaret.