 I would like to call to order this meeting of the San Lorenzo Valley Water District. We'll have a secretary call her all. President Hill. Here. Vice President Ackman is not present. Director Falls. Here. Director Mayhood. Here. Director Smalley. Here. And Director Ackman for me that she had a business meeting that ran late and was going to be delayed for this closed session. Okay. And there she is. Okay. Are there any changes to the closed session agenda for any oral communications regarding items of the session. Seeing none in both cases. We should adjourn to closed session at this time. Okay, it is 530. And time to get started. 636 30 time to get started. So I will call to order this meeting of the San Lorenzo Valley Water District. Holly, will you please call the roll. President Hill. Present. Vice President Ackman. Present. Director Falls. Here. Director Mayhood. Here. Director Smalley. Here. Okay. Check my agenda here. We have a roll call. Okay, we did have a closed session. We have nothing to report out from the closed session. So. Here. Changes to the agenda. Are there any changes to the agenda. For this evening's meeting. Seeing none. All communications. This portion of the agenda is reserved for all communications by the public for any subject that lies within the jurisdiction of the district and is not on the agenda. We address the board directors at this time presentations may not exceed three minutes in length. And you may speak only once during this period. Please understand that the Brown act limits what the board can do regarding issues not on the agenda. No action or discussion may occur on issues outside of those already listed on today's agenda. Any director may request that a matter raised during all communications be placed on a future agenda. We have two people that are attendees remotely that are having some hand raised as a link fresco and Jim motor. Hey, I don't see that here. So what am I missing? CTV, can you please promote Jeff Hill to a panelist. Can I show you. Can you pull up the bottom. Maybe I've got it here. Join this panel. Okay. So then I'll show you where you look. So if you click on participants, the little arrow next to participants. And then you'll see the hands raised. If you go over to attendees, you have to click on attendees. You can see the hands to raise. Okay. So, um, Do either of you to have a recording. So my name is Everett Downs. Have been there since around 2019. As of that time, I was required to put a sprinkle system in the home. And because of that, I was required to put a one inch meter in my. Now it's just my wife and I and dog that live there. And so I want to use it. She's about the same as a typical resident. In St. Lawrence Valley. However. Looking over the rates. Right now we're only paying. About $18 more per month or fixed charges. Then everybody else. And though I don't necessarily agree with that. That's acceptable, but. And I'm not talking about a year. I'm not supposed to talk about the rate increase. So I'm not. Directly. Going towards that. However. I have to speak about it a little bit. Because looking at just the first year's increases. We'll be paying an extra $32. That's approximately 56% more for the fixed charges. That every other resident. That's having a five eighths or even a three quarter inch line. I don't believe that's fair. We have the one inch line, but it's not being used. We don't use it much for. And there's no, what I was assuming is there would be a difference on how much what you use as to. More for how of your measure. But looking at it, other than what you get to a real user. There's no difference. So again, we're just using the rates and rates of a resident, except for these. And fees for no good reason. Other than the county may be put a one inch meter there. And so I. I spoke with somebody at the office today. And. I understand it can't be on the agenda today. But I'm going to request. I mean, what I'm saying here, I mean. Seven copies. I didn't know how many people would be here. Okay. It has my contact information on it. But what I'm here to do today, I guess, basically the request that this becomes an agenda item that we can discuss in detail. I don't know how many people are going to be here. I don't know how many people are going to be here. I'm not sure that's going to happen. I don't know how many people are going to be here today. I guess it's basically the request that this becomes an agenda item that we can discuss in more detail at a future meeting. Because I think this may not be an equities. And the other part of this is that I discovered also that the people who lost phones here, they're going to be stuck with that same problem. Either we're living in a home and all of a sudden they're going to have an extra $50, $60. They pay for water for no other good reason. Other than. There's a different size meter there. If somebody has a one inch meter for a reason, I understand that. But, you know, for usage reasons, but it's very simple. I think it's not fair. And I think it should be re-looked at. It's my understanding that this is a decision that's made by you folks, not the Board of Supervisors. At least that's what I've been led because I would take this out of the Board of Supervisors if I don't think they have jurisdiction. You folks just said. Anyway, that's my thank you for the time. Can I just respond? I just wanted to let you know that there and, and, you know, we can consider agendizing this, but there will be future meetings where we take up the rate increase discussion where it would be perfectly appropriate for you to come and participate. We'll have a public hearing on this in February. I know there will be a public outreach meeting where you can learn more later this month. So, so while we don't have it on this agenda, we are going to be taking up the rate increase discussion. I understand that. And actually the, the inequity is already in place before you have it, even if you don't approve those rates. I'm already paying more than the other person for the entire couple to just drink water and take a bath. So thank you. I guess if you would consider putting on agenda, I guess I would be contacted. I'm not worried. I think that the, we don't typically contact individuals about agenda items, but you are, we, we meet every two weeks since our agendas always go up usually by the Monday before our meeting on the Thursday. So you would need to check and just make, see when the item is agendized. But I would be curious and Brian, I'm not expecting you to answer this tonight, but why is the county requiring, I mean, I don't know why in your case that was required, but why is the county requiring one? For certain, for fire service? You need a certain flow, right? If there's free assistance, whatever the law, I think I have that through. So I think you would give service. Got it. Okay. Let's, let's move on. Thank you very much, sir. Elaine fresco. You have to click on this now. Elaine, are you there? Oh, I did not. I did not see Elaine anymore, whether she has, she's. You've been promoted to a panel. She dropped out. Now it's Jim Moser. Yeah, Jim Moser. You have a comment. Can you hear me, Elaine? Oh, okay. You're back. All right. Hi everybody. I just have a quick item to discuss with you. I own a few rentals in the valley. And of course I pay the water bills. And so I get all the water bills every month. But I'm also getting all the notices from SLVWD. About the rate increases, like the notice of public hearings. So I get all of those are not sent to my tenants. And I don't think I should be responsible for what am I supposed to do, scan them to them or go to their homes and deliver them. Or those should be going out to each individual address, not to the landlord or landlady to get that number of notices. I assume you want everybody to know about these public hearings. And I can guarantee you that. There are a lot of them that are not going out to the people who rent. That's it. Okay. Thank you very much. We'll look into that. Okay. Jim Moser. I think there we go. Can you hear me now? Yes. So I am speaking to alert rate payers and the board and staff that the friends of San Lorenzo Valley water has prepared an extensive frequently asked questions document regarding SLVWD's proposed rate, new rate increase in rate structure. Our group reviewed the notice of prop 18 public hearing that the district sent out as well as the district's FAQs available on the website. And that they did not adequately address the district's current financial picture, the rationale for the rate increase and new rate structure and its impact on rate payers. In particular, the materials do not show the impact of the proposed tiered rate structure on differing categories of rapid rate payers. That rate that heavy water users in the summer months, those with large gardens and pools and other summer water uses will be experiencing much higher rate increases than others. By using averages, you underestimate the impact of those with heavy use during the summer. And that was part of the intent of doing the tiered rates that we discussed in the budget and finance committee. Our intent in doing these documents is to augment the district's materials and do not intend these as a criticism of either the board or staff. We recognize the intense pressure the district is facing with the departure of senior staff. And the many challenges the staff is addressing with the multiple repairs and upgrades that are in process in addition to the rate study. The FAQs are available at our website, www.friendsofsandarenzavali.org in the hot topics click. We would also like to encourage the board to put on the future review of the budget. We have an examination of the rate assistance program for low income residents who are going to have a hard time dealing with this rate increase. And as per the letter that we submitted to the board in December, I hope that you will consider increasing that, the financial benefits for low income residents and rate assistance so that it will lessen the address impact on those of us in the valley who are facing financial challenges, particularly seniors with fixed incomes. Thank you. Thank you, Jim. We will look at your materials and respond as appropriate. Okay, moving on. We have three items listed as new business. We have none on the agenda. New business. We have three items listed as new business. Comprehensive financial report for the fiscal year. All to be a pipeline replacement project contract change orders and board committee assignments. So let's start with a comprehensive financial fiscal report. Brian, would you care to present that for our staff? Sure. I'm going to go ahead and this report will be delivered by Heather and her consultant who's prepared the presentation so that together they'll be making a presentation for everybody. Thank you, Brian. Good evening board. I am Heather. I am the district's interim finance director. And tonight, the presentation will primarily be given by our representative from our audit auditing firm, the FDEC and Brown LLP, Jonathan Abedesco. And your motion before you tonight is to approve the financial statements for fiscal year 2223. And I do want to point out one typo in the report in the environmental impact section. The proposed action is an administrative activity of the district, not a city. And with that brief introduction, I'm going to turn the presentation over to Jonathan. Yeah, thanks, Heather, for that nice introduction. And regarding that minor correction, we will make the change on the final issue report. Thank you. So should I share my screen or somebody, somebody will share the screen. Jonathan, if you could share your screen, that'd be, that'd be great. Yeah, I'll do that. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Can everybody see my screen right now? Yes. Okay. So here's the Saldorensa Valley. Financial statement presentation for fiscal year 23. So if, so here's the professional guidance that we follow. So our audit process is governed by American Institute of CPAs or certified public accountants, auditing standards. And we follow the federal and state requirements, especially when we audit your grants or grants that you receive from, for instance, I believe that in the past two years, you receive FEMA grants. So we ensure that the district is in compliance with those federal statutes or state requirements. So gap or accepted accounting principles. We follow the rules governed by the governmental accounting standards board. So audit process, it's divided into two steps. The first phase is the interim fieldwork where we gain an understanding of the district's control framework from receipts, disbursements, bank reconciliations or your cash and payroll. So with that said, once we understand your process, we perform a test of your controls by selecting a handful of transactions. And so far in those testings, we did not find any material deficiency or any significant deficiency in those controls. So everything is operating as intended. So final fieldwork, we, that's the next phase of our audit where we obtain your trial balance. And we audit the assets, liabilities, revenues, expense and net assets of the district. Also, as part of our procedure, we also consider fraud in our audit. So keep in mind that we always have a professional skepticism mindset, meaning that this means that when we are presented documents, we question them, review them, and we audit them. We don't just rely on what management provides to us. And lastly, we always do an interview of board and management every year. And so far, so good. There's funds that are pretty much on point and we don't have any questions. Okay, as a combination of all this process, so on page one of your report or page 15 of your board packet, we have issued a clean opinion where your financial statements are in accordance with U.S. gender accepted accounting principles. Also in your board packet, I believe you have the management reports, so the management report just summarizes our communication with the board in terms of management that we don't have any difficulties encountered when we perform the audit. There were no disagreements with management and we did not consult with outside CPAs. So again, for this year's audit, as I mentioned a while ago, when we have performed your control, understanding of your controls and testing of your controls, we did not find any material weakness or any significant deficiencies in your control processes. So kudos to management, to district staff. We all did a great job. Okay, so on page 20 of your board packet, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, you can see this table. So this table shows you the financial position or the balance sheet, which is equivalent to the private sectors. So with this said, so your current assets, it decreased by $2.5 million. The reason being is that the district had several capital projects during the year, which I believe includes the Alta via main project and the Redwood project, which were the costs spent were shifted as part of the increase and part of the increase in your capital assets. Your current liabilities, it increased by $2 million due to timing of payments of accounts payable, which can be attributed to the capital projects you have during the year. Your non-current liabilities, it increased by close to $1.9 million. So the reason behind the increase was your net pension liability from CalPERS increased as compared to the prior year. So the reason behind the increase was there was an investment loss incurred by CalPERS in the prior year, which was the basis of their reports. Moving, do you have any questions so far on this page? Should I continue? Please do. Okay. So your total revenues, it increased by $614,000. The primary reason behind the increase was your non-operating revenues, which consisted of your investment returns being up by approximately $550,000 and your property taxes increasing by $60,000 compared to the prior year. Your operating revenue or your water sales is pretty much consistent during the year. It just decreased by a small amount due to the state drought mandate in the prior year. Sorry, in the current year, sorry. Your total expense, it increased by $440,000, which can be attributed to your personal costs, your personal costs increasing, your investment in JPA, from the Salamagrida groundwater agency, increasing as well. Those are the two main factors why it has a jump. Okay. So in summary, the district received a modified or clean opinion. Your net position, it increased by $2.8 million. Your total revenues, it increased by $600,000. As I mentioned a while ago due to investment return and property taxes increasing. And your total expense, it increased by $440,000 due to your personal costs, change in investment in JPA, and some capital asset disposals during the year. And that concludes my presentation. So any questions that the board may have on the report or any public members that have some questions? Okay. So I will walk through the board here and ask each of you if you have questions, Bob, start with you. I have no questions, but I have comments so we could do those later. That's fine. We'll do questions and comments. Okay. Cause I don't want to hold him up because my comments aren't related to what he is here for. Keep in mind here that what's on the table is whether or not the report is an accurate representation of what's going on. So it's the report and everything that is in it. Okay. The comments I have, we don't need him for to be here for this. Okay. So. Do you have questions? Like Bob, it's kind of both things, but let me just point out an additional error I found on page. 10 or 25 of the agenda where they refer to the. In addition to that, I think that's one of the conditions affecting the natural position. And obviously that should be the CZ youth fire. And in addition, it seems to me that. Can have whoever is speaking out there. Please mute themselves. Hard to. And under that same category. There's no mention of the damages that were caused by the. In addition to that, there's no mention of the damages that were caused by the damages. Given that that was on the order of $5 million, that should also be listed as something that is. A condition affecting the financial position. So I think those inaccuracies should be corrected before we. Accept the report. Okay. Another question I have, and this is, I asked this last year, but it's why do we refer to the annual fee that we pay to Santa Margarita groundwater agency as an investment? It is not an investment. We're not constructing capital equipment. It is, it is a flat out operating expense and to call it, anything else seems to me is kind of misleading because basically what we're paying for is the staff that runs it. We're paying for it. We're paying for the monitoring and things that go on. And so I, I, I just want to understand why again. This happened last year. I was told by the staff that they would look into it to see why that was. Because of staff changes, maybe that didn't happen, but perhaps somebody could explain that to me. So I will answer that director. So the reason behind the treatment is per governmental accounting standards. Any interest that an agency has with another agency jointly with other entities are viewed as an investment. It's just an accounting treatment. And I hear your concerns about. That is just an expense, but per accepted accounting principles. It should be treated this way. May I offer a suggestion? There is a really good statistical section that we do as an agency. It's I think one of the best things that we've done. I don't see any reason why you couldn't have a little bit in the statistical section, which is meant to be supplementary information that says, explain that even though from accounting purposes, it's this way. It really is this and explain a little bit more about what Santa Margarita. Yeah. And I think the other thing is I, I can't imagine anybody right. New what the GPA met. Sure. People know what Santa Margarita groundwater association means. And so that, that's another reason to do it Bob suggested so that people understand what, what this so called investment is. And also on regarding the explanation of the investment in JPA. That is explained on page 42. Or page 26 of the audit report under note, no, no three. Anything else I have to ask is probably best. Asked of those are staff. Okay. Thank you. Jamie. Can you tell me how many years have we been conducting a CAFER audit? How many years with audits do we have? I'm sorry. Your question was how many years are we conducting a CAFER audit? Yeah. We don't. Yeah, we don't. Well, I, I not just with your firm. I don't know if we used a different firm prior, but I'm just wondering how many years of, of these audits we have available. You mean how many annual reports we've done? I don't, yeah, we, I don't think that we have been doing CAFER audits though for. The entire course of our history. And so I'm trying to get a sense of how many years worth of these CAFERs have we done. I think at least through 20, starting in 2016, if not before that. Yeah. I mean, we have annual reports. Yeah. We have annual reports to go back further than that online, but I think it was 2015 or 2016 that we started doing the more. Comprehensive and formal. Got it. And have we ever received anything other than a clean opinion? No. Those were my questions. It sounds like they were answered here. Thank you. Mark. Okay. I think this is more to the staff. We've got almost 600,000 in investment income. That we generated this past year. Where's that coming from? That's a great question. Director. Our president Mark. So, so the reason behind that increase was. The market is up. In 2023 compared to 2022. And most of this are the unrealized loss on your investments. And I believe what happened was Kendra. I think with the board. You have made it. You shifted some of your money's to investments. And with that said. That earned a realized gain. On your investment as well for your end. I believe it was higher interest. Higher interest safe. I believe it was higher interest. I believe it was higher interest. The risk change money was taken from the county pool, which was at a very low interest rate. And invested in government. I thought we did that. In about the. June timeframe. Which shows how much more we might have made if we had done that sooner. And this report goes through. June 30th. So. Okay. Well, no, we, we. We make interest. Because, because we have these loan funds, which we have not dispersed in paying for capital projects that have been delayed because of COVID and other things. So that we get interest money on that no matter where it is, whether it's with life or the county or in CDs or whatever. So there's an interest income that we get. And that is separate from, that's totally separate from the issue of us. Taking some of the money out of the county and putting it. In. Treasuries. Jonathan, I think Jonathan can explain a little bit better. There's a fair, there's an annual fair market adjustment that is done. And I believe that that's what Jonathan was, was trying to say that was causing a lot of the increase. Jonathan, am I right? Yes. Let me explain to you. So I have the, I pulled up the working trial balance of the district. So the $703,000. That is part of the investment return. Consisted of interest in investments of $443,000. You have an interest. Dividend from your T bills of $47,000. And you have an unrealized gain. On the fair market value of the investments of $213,000. Okay. Okay. That is a gas. Yeah. That is, that is an accounting standard requirement. And sometimes your interest, your interest revenue or you, excuse me, your investment earnings will look like you received a decrease, but it's not a realized loss. In this case this year, most agencies received a gain because of that, that, that accounting standard or fair market value adjustment. Yeah, well said. So, so, so the realize gain or loss works like a paper. Gain or loss. So until you sell that investments. That's the time that you will realize that game. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. A comment on page nine where lists the directors. We're all now elected as of. November. December when we took office. So if you could change that. And there was only one president last year, not the two that are shown here. So you can make that change also on page 20. I see the very clear statement that's asking the question. The mission is that this audit was trying to, is the district better off or worse off as a result of this year's activities. And I see that as a very clear question that the audit poses. But then I'll look for the answer. It's not there. So if we're going, if you're going to ask a question like that, there should be a, I feel are corresponding. And here's what we conclude. So can you address that? Do you want to take that one or do you want me to take that one? One of the two, you either Heather for Jonathan. Yeah. So I would have better do this comment first and I'll. Yeah, next. In my opinion, and I'm going to, I'm going to actually refer to my report is as in. Let's see where is it net position. Increased by 7%. So in my, in my opinion. The district is better off. This year than they were last year. So that is my opinion. I'm looking for it. Point of order. Okay. So, yeah. I second your thought process. So you're correct. The district is better off this year compared to last year. Yeah. I think that's a good point. Especially when 2023. You have a state mandate or state mandated drought. So had the state. Did that post any estate mandated drought. You would have earned more revenues. In 2023 than last year. Okay. I just point of order is to place when staff is answering the question, please allow them to finish answering. Okay. Before interrupting. Yes. Just the common courtesy. Thank you. Okay. And on page 88. We refer to the pension liabilities. I'm not sure if you address this already. I see. There's a number for that. And that's about 18 to 20 21 pension liabilities are in the 4 million plus. Number. 22 it drops down significantly. And then 2023, it comes up somewhat. What's the reason for the significant drop. So to answer your question, the reason behind the jump in net pension liability was because the CalPERS calculation for this year was based off the measurement date of 2022. So in 2022, which was last year, it was a bear market. And so CalPERS as a whole, they have incurred $1.5 billion in investment loss. So this is like your proportionate share in that investment loss incurred by the entire CalPERS pool, which consists of several members. Yeah. All right. I understand. Thank you. Okay. That's all my questions. Since we're going to do it, I'll just go ahead and go. Yeah, I had the same question about the pensions mark that you did. If you look at what I consider to be the real number, because I think CalPERS 6.9, I noticed they're starting to drop their discount rate, but that is still wildly optimistic given historical trends. You look more at the $5.91, that's $8.5 million. But given that it's gone up and down like that, I think our structural deficit is probably somewhere into $2 million to $3 million, which we're not really addressing in any way. And we do pay a 7% tax every year on our, I mean, they're effectively, up until this last year, they're effectively loan sharking us because we're paying their hurdle rate for investments. No one is getting anywhere close to that over a period of time. So until we address the structural deficit that we have in our pension fund, we're going to see these swings as the market changes. I did want to say, though, on the good news side, we only have, and the Felton people have only four more years of payments on their acquisition of the system. So the glide path is definitely coming in, and we will see that shortly. I did have a question about the net position. I think this might go to staff. When we talk about the increase in net position, I think if I look at page 60 in the agenda, I think it's 44 in the report, I see that the net position includes items that are either non-spendable materials and supplies, and that's certainly good. But there's also this assessment reserve fund. And I just had a question about what that was. Page 60 in the agenda and 44 in the report. Jonathan, are you able to answer that question? I would be only guessing. I'd rather not guess. Yeah, no, I understand that. And perhaps it might be something that's accrued for a payment that's going to be made. Reserve funds like that, typically I don't view in my head, is unrestricted, even though from an accounting point of view they may be. So, Bob, which one of these numbers was for you looking at again? The assessment reserve fund. Okay. Thank you. So anyway, if you net those out, the actual cash that is spendable net, and this gets to my next point, actually went down by half million it looks like. I'm just looking at the line, spendable net position. And this sort of gets to where I think there's another section that needs to be added, perhaps in the statistical section, around our reserve position, particularly in light of a discussion we had a few meetings back around using loan money as reserves, really reserves of things that you can spend on whatever it is that you want as a district. We have a reserve policy. And I think there needs to be a section in the reports that shows what our reserve policy targets are based on current, as of June 30th, based on current, and what our position is on each one of those reserve funds. I think that would be a very helpful thing to do, because if you look at that, we are wildly underfunded on our reserve position. And so, while I appreciate the fact that our net position is going up from an accounting point of view, I caution people that accounting and reality aren't necessarily the same for the purposes of what you can do with that money. And the net position is a number that gives you sort of an accounting view. I look for cash and what our position is relative to infrastructure improvements to determine and what our operating expenses are doing to determine whether or not we are better off or worse off. Again, it gets back to your definition. So from a strict accounting point of view, I'll agree we're better off from an actual cash meeting or infrastructure requirements and holding expenses down, growth and expenses down, I don't believe we're better off. Doesn't mean I won't vote for the report, but just it's a different perspective. Um, last thing I wanted to mention, sorry, I'm still trying to navigate these things. Okay, so I finally found the uh, the uh, yeah, the assessment reserve fund. So those are your, yeah, because on your cash, um, accounts, you have two accounts, one for the Lobbico assessment and one for the Olympia assessment, which are, I believe it was, these are, these accounts are designated for those purposes only. So that's why it's called a spendable only for that purpose. It's not unrestricted in that sense then. Even though it's under the unrestricted section, it looks like. Yes, it's under the unrestricted section, but it's only can be used for the, towards the assessment reserve fund. Yeah. Well, I mean, again, it's accounting versus you know, what it is you do in a day-to-day operational point. Yeah. You do not want to spend, certainly the Olympia money needs to go to pay the Olympia loan. The assessment district has been quote spent. What does that mean from the fact that they're still contributing money or not? They're still debt payments. Yeah, they're still debt payments. And so that money actually probably goes into a capital fund or something. Anyway, I also wanted to talk a little bit about the population numbers. So I'm a little concerned about the population numbers that we put in here because I think they also are used for calculating what our position is relative to water usage on a per person per day basis. The number that's in here I think is about 19 page. Oh, sorry, 66 in the report 89 in the agenda. So you know, one of the best ways I think to figure this out is to actually use the not so much a calculation, but a combination of registered voters and the fact that our county is pretty high. It's 92% on average. If we assume that plus the number of students that are in the San Lorenz Valley Unified School District and a portion of those in Scott's Valley, the number gets up closer to 22,000. And that has a pretty big impact on what our number is for calculating where our customers are relative to conservation because I think they're doing an outstanding job. And particularly so if you use 22,000 rather than, you know, 19 five. I'd like us to take a closer look at coming up with a real number that we can all agree on when it comes to this because the numbers I've seen numbers sort of all over the place, depending on on the report. And I think we need to get to a unified number that we can agree on and a methodology for calculating. Again, won't affect this report, but I want to make sure we're giving people a good picture. I also want to point out that our water produced and water sold numbers are interesting. We're running up at about a 38% loss. I was going to ask about that. Now I'm assuming some of that's due to, you know, the fact that we do flushing and we didn't used to do that in the days gone by, but that is a enormous number. And it jumped quite a bit from the last few years. It's also troubling from the point of view of we just had a leak adjustment or excuse me, a leak report done. So I'm wondering maybe if we caught all the leaks or if there's some other thing that's driving that kind of a number. I also want to point out that from the peak number on this table in 2014, we're down 32% on water sold. So that means that the capacity that we have today, the infrastructure, treatment plants, storage tanks, water lines, everything that goes into the cost structure for rates is carrying 32% less water than it did 10 years ago. If you want to use water produced, it's carrying 17% less. That is a extraordinary number. I think it goes a long way to pointing out how much our customers are saving. But I think it also shows, if you look at the percent loss, we're actually, the district itself is one of the biggest defenders of that relative to the state of our infrastructure. And that's another reason why we need to really be focused on that. Which page are you on there, Bob? 82 and the agenda 59. So this is one reason why I think the statistical section is just absolutely fabulous, because it gives us a historical view of a lot of really key metrics in the district. Things from an operational point of view are much more important. The financials, as Jamie says, we've never had an unclean opinion. It's always been clean. I'm never worried about it from an accounting point of view. But these numbers are where I really focus a lot of attention because they go to the heart of how we're operating and managing the district. That's it. Thanks. If I could ask a follow-up? Yes, please, Mark. Since Bob mentioned the water loss, I did have that noted here also. Brian, last year we had asked our previous general manager for a water audit. We never saw that. Is that something that you and staff could take on and bring to the board at some point this year so that we could understand better where this 38% water loss is? So that we have some idea. How much do you guess this? Thanks. How much strange guess is this? Sir? Okay. Which page are we looking on on this report for talking about water losses? 82 in the poll numbers. Last 10 fiscal years for water sales, water produced. So you're asking for a detail of basically this table? Rick could describe a water audit. I don't know what's in a water audit. I mean, it could even be as simple as 30% of it goes to flushing and 10% to unproductive uses. It can be pretty basic, right. But we don't know. We could have also lost a fair amount in broken pipes from floods. But it sounded like between Rick and James, they had an idea of what the causes are for this loss. And it sounded like it was something that, given some effort they could put together, but we never saw it. Okay. No problem. Thanks. Okay. So the question on the table is, do we accept this report as is? Do we ask them to go back and correct some of these things we've brought up and accept it at a later meeting? Or can we accept it with specific? Yes. Okay. So Can I make a motion? Yes, please. I was going to modify the existing motion. I move that we accept the audit report with the following change that the reference under conditions affecting financial position to Boulder Creek fire be changed to CZU fire. And that an additional item referring to the approximately $5 million in damages caused by the winter storms of 2022-23 as also an additional item under that. Is that sufficient or? I mean, we talked about a number of things here. I think that was an inaccuracy that has to be some of these other things. The rest of these are for future consideration, I think. Okay. I will second that motion. Holly, can you put a word of the public? Excuse me? Yes. That's right. Well, not before a motion. You can have a motion. Yeah. Well, we have a motion. You're about ready to take a vote. Yeah. We have a motion. Are there any comments from the public regarding this motion? Okay. Seeing none. I'll second that motion. Okay. Director Mayhood made. Seeing none, I think we can proceed to a vote. President Hill. Yes. Vice President Ankman. Yes. Director Falls. Yes. Director Mayhood. Yes. Director Smalley. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Jonathan. Thank you, Jonathan. Yeah. Thank you so much for having me tonight and happy new year to all and have a great evening. Thank you. Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye. Next item on the agenda is the ALTA via pipeline replacement project contract change orders. Would staff care to present that and give us the details? Yes. So this will, this item will be presented by Garrett and he can walk us through it. Yeah. So staff is recommending approval of three change orders. Two of the change orders are for work. That's already been completed. And then the third change order is for work that we need to complete for a Caltrans project. I could read the memo or answer questions. Dale. Could you just, you know, we, we discussed this project and the talking about the Mona Way soldier wall and we voted against, against doing that. So can you just explain to me how these things, two things kind of go together? Sure. Yeah. So the Colver repair was at the location of the retaining wall and the temporary bridge installation is at the location of the retaining wall. But not the permanent solution. It's not a permanent solution. Okay. Correct. All right. So that's still, I guess what I'm asking is was, the last time we discussed this, we sort of said, go away, think about it again, come back with another solution, but it sounds like we still don't have a solution yet. Is that or? That's a different option and that's not on the memo here. Sure. That item's not, that's not being discussed. That's not a change order. I understand that, but okay, thank you. Any other thoughts? Yes, I have questions also. I think these are pretty, I mean, I'll get to a procedural one later. This, the two of these actually look pretty minimal, but the third one, I wanted to make sure I understood that. That wasn't part of the Alta Via project to start, right? That was, they were already there right across the street, rather than go to bid for a project that came up in the middle of what they were doing. We said, hey, why don't you just go over here and do this? Is that correct? So they are actually abandoning the old Alta Via line that goes up from Highway 9 and it's at the same location. Well, but the projects aren't related, right? I thought that the Cal Trans Viaduct project, the $302,000 was for something that was completely separate from the Alta Via work. The only connection is the location and there's work for the Alta Via line to abandon the existing line, the lateral that comes off the main and Highway 9. So that is part of this project. Did we not specify that in the original? I mean, that's a big change order. It is, right? And it sounds like, is that due to the fact that we missed something in the original bid? We actually have money allocated for this relocation, but it was not included in the plans. Was that because it was a part of what the Alta Via project was originally visioned to be or was it all supposed to be part of the same project? I don't have the background on why Josh made the project as a change order as a add to Alta Via. And how did we come up with $302,347? And has this already been spent, by the way? So this one hasn't been spent, but this is the price from the contractor. Okay. So maybe let me take a stab at answering this. My understanding is this is related to the project because it's the same pipeline, etc. that we're dealing with that we are under contract with. It was not in the contract documents, but Caltrans came along after the fact and said, hey, we need you to relocate your line. We have the contractor there. It's related enough to the project that I could see it's like, okay, yes, we could actually justify this as a change order under the same project, whether than inventing a new project and going out to bid and going through all that. Whereas it's related enough and within the scope of work enough that we could say yes, we could do it under a change order with less staff lift, less lift all around. If Caltrans hadn't come and said, hey, you got to move the pipe, would we be doing this work? Probably not, no. Okay, good. That's what I was trying to get to. Let me also answer Gail's question because we are going to revisit the other item that you mentioned, the retaining wall, but we're still noodling on that one. That's all I want to know. So it's not in this and it's not implied in this at all. These ones are standing on their own, but we are going to look at that one and bring something back to you that's been retooled. Okay, so just a couple of quick follow-ons in. So this is their effective bid for this. We, because it can be considered a change order, we don't have to go out for bids and that sort of thing and create a new project for it. That's basically what you're saying, right? Okay, when it comes to accounting for the Altavilla pipeline project in terms of the amount of money that was spent on it, can this be put into a separate category for the Caltrans Viaduct relocation as opposed to Altavilla? I'm sure we can separate it somehow and I'm sure we will because it's, yeah, we can certainly separate it. Yeah, from the point of view of looking at, you know, what the original bid was and what this is, I also wanted to add, we did vote on about $90,000 worth of change orders before. So does this $2.2 million, was that the original bid? No. No, 2.2 is the original bid plus $92,000. The original bid is $2,107,470. Okay, so it's the original bid plus the $92,000. Yes. Okay, and then with this we get up to about a half million dollars more than the original bid more or less. Okay, great, thanks. No problem. So to follow on Bob's question, is this work in Highway 9 what you had characterized before is the emergency work that Caltrans was asking to have done? This is a separate issue. So this is not that emergency work that we were talking about at the beginning of November timeframe. Is that correct? Okay, so is this 302,000 that emergency project that Caltrans was coming to us for and we said, I'm up, you can't do this? No. Okay, so this is different than that. We're still working on a design for that emergency work. We need to get bids for the emergency work. Okay. All right, so this is a completely separate. I did have one follow-up on that. Are these in roughly the same location? That is, is this work that we're proposing here going to impact the emergency work that Caltrans wants done? No, it's the opposite side of the Altonia project. So down by Brookdale? Down by Clear Creek. Yeah, exactly. Okay, all right. And related to that portion of the change order, the contractors excluding inspections, testing permits, are we going to see another change order for those or is Caltrans covering the inspection permits because we're in Highway 9? We will have inspection fees from our construction management consultant. Okay, and permits? Permits. We have an encroachment permit from Caltrans. Okay, so we're covered on that. Okay, all right. And then back to Gail's part of the question on this change order for the temporary bid. Is the fact that this temporary stuff that's in there now, is that potentially part of a solution in addition to a retaining wall? I don't need the answer now, but then the question that I want to ask, do we buy the transplates instead of renting them? If we're going to leave them there, and can we do this with the size of a retaining wall? If it's working now, how long can we continue to make it work as a bridge across there? Okay, that's all the questions, comments I have on that. I have only one question. How much, if any of this is reimbursable by FEMA or other government agencies? So the project is FEMA, we're getting reimbursed by FEMA. Okay, so we'll submit all the billing to them. I think five and seven might be good, but is number eight related at all to any disaster? I mean, is Caltrans building the project because of disaster? Because of the disaster. Yes. Okay, so they have to build because of the disaster. I would say there's too loud. Yeah, I would say there's risk. Okay, any other questions? Members of the public, do any of you have questions regarding this change order? I do not see any hands up. So I'll make the motion that the board approved contract change orders five, seven and eight for payment to Anderson Pacific construction for the Alta Via pipeline replacement in the sum of $333,851 to the not to exceed contract amount from $2,200,001 and $213 to $2,535,064. Period. Second. Second. Molly, will you call of hope? President Hill. Yes. Vice President Ackman. Yes. Director Falls. Yes. Director Mayford. Yes. Director Smalley. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you all. Okay, the next item on the agenda is board committee assignments for 2024. And I can find that here. I will present that myself. Page 140. Page what? 140. We're actually 139. 139, yes. Okay. So I did not receive any significant number of requests. And how many requests did you receive? Plus yourself. Plus myself. Did we, did we get a okay that that's a from a brown act point of view okay to do? I believe so. Yes. I didn't. Okay. I'd like to follow up on that a little bit later now. Okay. Because I didn't get an answer whether or not I would have submitted something, but I didn't get an answer whether or not that communication directly from us as directors to you as opposed to just talking about it here in the board meeting was a violation of the brown act or not. Okay. I don't have that off the top of my head. I could maybe offer a suggestion as next time is just director answers to the board secretary please. I'm sorry. Next time just direct your answers to the board secretary. Yes. Okay. Avoid the issue. I thought that's what Well, the request came through her, but I was ambiguous as to whether they should get back to me or her. Okay. So it was ambiguous in that regard. So the question is we do have to have committees. So do we wish to proceed with this or do we have questions, comments? I don't have any comments on it. Okay. I don't see any reason why we couldn't make an adjustment to a committee in the future if we had to. Yeah, I just want to make a meta comment about committee assignments. Historically in the past, there has been a general rotation of committee assignments. That is where people would in order to get a better feel for all aspects of the district and its operations that board members would move through committee assignments. In the last few years, we seem to have just gotten folks locked in to a particular committee assignment. That's where they are. I understand there's expertise that folks have in particular areas or expertise that people believe they have. I think it would be worthwhile for us to consider going back to a rotation where people actually do different things in the course of the year as part of their committee assignments. So you're not rotating within the year? Well, not necessarily within the year, but for the four-year term that they're not in the same committee for four years. I think that would be a better service to the district, better visibility for the board members. I think it's something that we ought to consider doing. Basically, what I see here is pretty much there's a lot of locking in over a course of multiple years. So that's again my historical meta-comment about this. I also want to mention that the motion also needs to include what the committee size is. Jeff, would you like me to make a motion? Yes, please. Okay. I move that we appoint Director Ackman and Fultz as the board representatives on the administration committee and that that committee size be set at three. That directors Mayhood and Hill be appointed to budget and finance and that that committee size be set to four. And that engineering and environment is directors Smalley and Hill and that that committee size is set to four. And that the representatives to Santa Margarita Ground Water Agency are directors Mayhood and Smalley with Director Ackman as the alternate. So I have a second. I'll second that. Do we have any further discussion among the board? And do we have any comments from the public on those assignments? I do not see any hands up. So Holly, will you take the vote? President Hill? Yes. Vice President Ackman? Yes. Director Fultz? Yes. Director Mayhood? Yes. Director Smalley? Yes. Okay. Just to follow up, Holly, what's the plan in terms of arranging for the first meetings or? You know, tomorrow I will be sending out an email to each of the committees, every person that's on it, asking them if they are available for I'll put out some specific dates. And then once those, once each committee has a date and each person can attend, they will then meet and decide on their monthly meeting time and go over those sorts of things. So we want to do that in January, if we can. So the first meeting would be in January? Hopefully. Yes. That's why I asked is because we've got the outreach for front to 18 and that hearing. And so I would hope that the admin and budget finance meet before. Okay. Great. Thank you so much. Okay. So we have finished the active items on the agenda. We have the consent items to consider next. Thank you so much. I understand. Bob, you had? Yeah, I'll be pulling A and B off of that. C, I will not pull because we got an updated agenda, which had the agreement. I was reluctant to have it pass through. I can't hear what you're saying. Sorry. Pulling the Redwood Park Pipeline Replacement Project and Fall Creek Fish Ladder Rehabilitation Project from the consent agenda. I did have one question about the long line agreement. Then you have to pull it. Okay. Even if I have a question about it now, sorry, because just pull it. Yeah. All right. We'll do that then. Okay. Okay. So I do not know the process of this one. So you don't have to vote on the rest. So now you just Yeah, the rest, you don't have to vote on that. So now we just, and we'll have to bring these back. Sequentially, now you just go through the three that Bob pulled. Okay. If I may, I believe you both on the remaining consent item is one. Yes. No, we do not. That's not our practice. It's a consent item and you don't have to vote. Nobody objects. Actually, I found out that that's what we have been, we're supposed to be doing. That's why we could put a resolution in a consent item because we are actually voting on it. That was my question. Okay. So now you have the answer. We do need to vote on the rest of the items on the consent agenda. But we don't have to vote on it individually. No, just as, as the consent agenda items 11E, 11F and 11G are going to be both approved. Can I withdraw my pulling a C with that answer? Can I just clarify what you're saying we need to do. So in other words, do, do we just simply approve the consent agenda in its entirety except for the things that were pulled? Exactly. All right. So that's what you do now. Point of order. Yes. Can I pull my, can I withdraw my pulling of item C from the consent agenda? I have no issue with that. I don't think anybody has an issue with that. Barbara is nodding the whole time here. So yes. Barbara is nodding the whole time. Yes. Okay. So can we get a motion to accept the consent agenda minus the two items that Bob has pulled? I know we approve the consent agenda. Point of order. Do we need to ask the public for their input on this as well? Are there any public comments on this subject? Specifically on the items that haven't been pulled from the consent agenda, right? On the items that have not been pulled from the consent agenda. Seeing none, we'll now move forward with the motion. I'll second it. Second. Holly, call the roll. President Hill. Yes. Vice President Ackman. Yes. Director Falls. Yes. Director Mayhood. Yes. Director Smalley. Yes. Okay. Too much paper. Redwood Tank. Redwood Park. I'm sorry? Redwood Park. That's what we're going to do. I can't hear you. Redwood Park is the first one. Okay. Would staff care to tell us? Well, I just have a question. We don't need to go through a lot if we don't want to. I just have a quick question on the service connection transfers that were done. The three connections. Yeah. That seems like a lot of money for three connections. Yeah. And so I'm kind of wondering why it's so much money for the three connections. I mean, did they have to trench 100 feet? Did they have to do a lot of extra work? What was driving that? I mean, those are gold, platinum, titanium connections. It's my understanding that the connections were made and the pressure was off. And then they had to go back in, dig it all up and connect it to the other main because the two mains were installed in the same trench. And unfortunately, the price was $24,200 and the chain order was agreed to and signed by Josh and by Rick. And that's the information I have on. So this has already been agreed to. And they literally had so that they made the connection, they covered it up, and then they had to dig it back up. And okay. All right. Well then, I guess that makes a little more sense. I was sitting there going, I can't understand why there's at this cost so much. Okay. Yes. I'll cover procedural item the next one, but we can, that was my only question on that one. Okay. So any other comments on that one? Wasn't there a second one? Oh, I thought, yes, I have questions about Falk Creek, but we could vote on this first. Does anyone in the public have any comments on the Redwood pipeline project contract change order in the amount of $24,200 and $24,200? 62. Yeah, that's change order number one. There's change order number two for the big quantity items. Yeah. So the motion is for both though, right? Correct. The motion. Can I read the motion? Yeah, please. Press any keys to continue this conference? I move that the board approve contract change orders one and two for payment to E.C. Construction, Inc. for the Redwood Park pipeline replacement project in the sum of $62,900, increasing the not to exceed contract amount from $504,601 to $610,501. Second? I'll second that. Any further discussion from the board? Any discussion or comments from the public? Holly, call of vote. President Hill? Yes. Vice President Ackman? Yes. Director Falls? Yes. Director Mayhood? Yes. Director Smalley? Yes. Moving on to the Fall Creek Fish Letter Rehabilitation Project. Yes. Staff Carrot too. Again, I just have some questions. I don't need to go through the whole thing. Have the change order four and five already been agreed to by the district? The change orders four and five were negotiated by staff. We are recommending that we approve it. It hasn't been approved by the district. And the other three change orders are they, I mean, there are a couple of credits, I think, but yeah, so change order one is actually been signed by Rick and by the engineer record and by the contractor. But the change orders two through five have not been signed. Okay. Is it the policy that if it's under $30,000 on the change order that Rick goes ahead and signs it, has that been what we followed in the past? I'll answer that. My understanding is perhaps that was Rick's interpretation that the change order was under $30,000. My interpretation is once you have this fountain, it's above $30,000 and it's gone to the board. If it's a nickel more, is it has to come back to the board unless you've given us some, unless there was a contingency baked in there where you gave me 10% above that, then I would have the ability to sign administratively for another $3,000 on top of the $30,000 or whatever the contract amount is. So in this case, I've instructed Garrett, in fact, we came up with the spoiler plague, I've been going with finance and everything is sort of streamlined now so that we can handle these a little more quickly and Teflon coded administratively, but make sure that they are in fact correct. So if we had a contingency built in there, then I have an ability to sign up to that amount administratively. If we go over that or we didn't have the contingency, we have to bring it back to the board. Well, I would recommend to the board that we examine that as part of the purchasing policy, which is admin committee thing. Because I think there is some flexibility, absolutely need to have. It shouldn't be a nickel, Brian. There should be some flex there, in my opinion. In terms of how these numbers were arrived at, the 48,000 and 84,000, was that a they came to us with, you know, twice that amount and you had a quarter that amount and you agreed, I mean, was there a negotiation or did they present time cards and the contract that said this is what our overage charges are for this work? You owe us this amount of money. They submit pricing that they feel is fair. And the district, we look at the plans and try and find contract work that they're trying to bill us for as a change. And we negotiate till we get the price. So all parties agree on. Yeah, I mean, as a consultant myself, change, you love change orders because that's where you make a ton of money, typically. I think another thing that we might want to consider as a board is how we approach these contracts. I'm not sure that we actually see the construction contracts, whether or not they include items like, you know, district ability to inspect the products that come in to make sure they're not coming from places they shouldn't be coming, whether it includes overage charges, whether it includes them having to do time cards to keep track of what their overage is or whether we're just saying, come to us with a number and, you know, we'll negotiate it. But we've seen a ton of overages over the last year, year and a half. I expect some overages. Some of them were a little bit more than I expect. And I'd like to make sure we have a handle here on how we're managing overages going forward. I can't hold you for stuff that, you know, accountable for stuff that happened in the past. So I'm not, I'm not going there, right? But yeah, but going forward, we ought to figure out how we get our hands around these overages so that we're not deemed quite as much as I think we've been seeing. Agreed. I think we should have products of no change orders. That would be ideal. Well, your lips to God's ears, but the world doesn't work that way. If I may, it's, I mean, change orders are a pretty much, I mean, we didn't invent the term change order at the district. No, no. Certainly Garrett and I didn't just cook this up over the last week or so before we put this together. I mean, change orders are around and they are an quantified mechanism for executing a contract. And I may reframe that as they're not necessarily an overage, they're just a matter of, it's an adjustment to work that actually unveiled itself as the project goes. Anybody that's, you model a kitchen or a bathroom or even your back deck knows exactly as soon as you start pulling nails, you find out what's underneath and usually it exposes additional work or the contract is structured in a way that you've got quantity items you have to take care of. Admittedly contractors, you typically charge a buck 50 on the dollar for a change order and credit you back 50 cents on the dollar for something that they didn't do this. And it is for us to try to muscle them as much as we can. Sometimes we have that ability to flex our muscles and other times we don't. And that's the simple unfortunate reality. Yeah, I understand all that Brian. I'm not asking for zero change orders. I don't think that's realistic. And it could be in the case of change order five in this one, the bedrock elevation that because we're dealing with the creek, we didn't have an ability to drill down to where bedrock was as part of the pre construction testing. Since bedrock was obviously a key part of this. This is more of a general thing. We've just been seeing a lot. It's not really clear how they've been managed, how the contractor charges for it, what the arrangements are in the contract to deal with it. It's something I think we ought to take a look at because we have tens of millions of dollars of construction we're going to need to do over the next few years. That's my. Okay. I wanted to comment on this also. Change orders four and five are for conditions, unknown conditions. We couldn't quantify in the big documents what these conditions were like prior to going out there. That's common as Brian is pointing out. You don't know what the conditions are like behind the drywall in the house until you take the drywall off. So that's both of what these are. So I feel that the contractor coming back for these is valid. Now the price is something that's negotiated to a point that Bob was making. Did we review what they were submitting to us and they were asking for 60,000. We came in with 25 and we got to a number somewhere in the middle. I hope that that's what happened. But going forward, is it appropriate to reflect some of that in the memo? Is a question that I wanted to ask Brian. Is it appropriate contractor originally asked for this? We ended up at this based on discussions and negotiations because in the work that I've done previously, that's often what I did for a client was to show, here's what we got to eventually. Here's what the contractor was asking for initially. Here's what I negotiated them to. Here's what I recommend we agree on. I guess, you know, in certain cases it may be appropriate. I know it really depends but often putting these reports together, we're trying to also just distill it down to where the dust settled. I mean, there are instances where I mean, contract changers, they are a challenge. Certainly, you know, sometimes what you do is you try to do maybe a schedule of values before you start a job. For instance, if you're pouring concrete, you have a pretty good idea of what concrete costs and et cetera and so when you go over on quantity. And we have used the schedule of values in one of the other change orders that we saw for the Redwood tanks where you adjusted based on the quantities. So we're specified the quantities and the contractor. I know Garrett brought me a whole list of one city-city flat out rejected and so can I support him when he can, you know, we can just tell us that. Can you tell us that? This is the sense of... Sure. You know, like I said, it's, you know, for us, it's like we're also in the throes of trying to get projects done. So the primary goal right now is to actually spend money. Honestly, well, it's like we're paying interest on money that's just sitting there and we're not getting it. And the other one is just, I'm also saying when I say spend money is also we have free money that we need to get moving on projects in order to make sure that we don't lose that free money, meaning grants or FEMA or whatever. So often the reporting up, it's like, yes, if we can, you know, give you the bottom line. It's like, yeah, we try it. And sometimes it is frustrating. I will say that change orders are a frustration for an engineer because sometimes you simply know, you know, they're taking you to the cleaners and you don't really have much you can do about it. Yeah. Agreed. It's like me taking my car to the dealership. It's really frustrating. Go to George. I'm not saying put any undue additional work into something like this. Consider that as something that you might be able to do. For future ones. In other words, yeah, we arm wrestled and right. Sure. Yeah. For the ones that are $2,000 and we requested this work ahead of time. Anyhow, no. For the ones that they're giving us their daily work tickets with hours and vehicles. No. But for these of the unknown conditions, we'll have it. And again, that is an option is to go to a TNM. But TNM could be very risky and those can go sideways too. I don't advocate for the time of materials. Well, sometimes in one case, we just made a decision to go that way because we didn't like the lump sum price. But then you have to also then you're burdened to babysit and then you have to do your daily. I want that to be staff's call. Right. You make those kind of decisions. Yeah. Yeah, no, I understand we do. And I'm just saying that that's the dilemma. That's the the balances that we look at. It's like, Oh, well, TNM. Yeah, there's an inherent risk with that. Right. Certainly you can monitor and say, See, it only took you five days. See, there's no way you can charge us 10,000 a day because you only had so much equipment right anyway. Okay. Okay, so we need a motion to accept this. I'll make the motion that the board approved the contract change orders. One through five for payment to Siblon Reconstruction for the Fall Creek Fish Ladder Rehabilitation Project in the amount of $123,627 increasing the not to exceed contract from two million three hundred sixty five seven hundred twenty to two million four hundred eighty nine and thirty three hundred and forty seven dollars period second second. I'll talk to you second. I need public comment. President Hill. Anybody. Do we have a public any public comment on this one? Oh, have to ask. Go ahead. Hi. President Hill. Yes. Vice President Ackman. Yes. Director Falls. Yes. Director Mayhead. Yes. Director Smalling. Yes. Okay. District reports. We have no district reports. Brian, would you like to take a moment and give us your thoughts on frequency of district reports? Anything on that? Okay. So we discussed this amongst the management group, etc. So what we'd like to do is I know at one time, I guess we up to now we've been doing monthly, but we'd like to go back to quarterly reports, at least from each of the engineering, environmental, etc. I would make a record early report, but also make updates as needed. If there's something more urgent that needs to be brought to the attention, but that was that was the consensus amongst that. So you will get a report the next the next meeting. January 16th. January 18th. And the following one is April 18th. Yes. That's what we're looking to do. Yes. I'm okay with that. I don't see any objection here. I don't think we need to hold the vote on that. Written communications. We had an email sent to the board of directors from Big Basin and public water initiative and a letter from Big Basin water customers. I think we at this point should just acknowledge that we received that. Do we need to, I mean, they're coming to us with a request. Yes. Do we at least need to agendize it to hear what they have in mind? I'm happy with that. We can agendize it for the next meeting. None of us have had sufficient time to really digest what they're requesting at this point. So let's see if I may just make a suggestion is and director bolts with respect is in this case, the board has made a decision on this. As I know that by putting this letter in our agenda, we've made it public, which allows somebody at the county to also take action on it and follow up with believe it's some sources at the state to try to help and get funding moving for this. My only suggestion really would be to draft a letter for myself and perhaps you could just look it over that just says this has been the board's position. We've what we've decided on this issue. However, we do encourage you to reach out and put pressure on your electives from the state and then for funding to help your cause because that is how you're going to move this along. I mean, in so many words, basically just put that letter and then have it be, you know, anyway, I follow what you're saying. But that was a concerted, you know, it's it's one consolidated response from all of us that just says that. And I know that there are people working behind the scenes that are, like I said, trying to get funds for this group. And so by having this letter public, because they'd asked me for this letter and I couldn't share it until it became public. And now they can use that as more evidence to try to help their cause. I mean, we did get an email from Eric Hupold, senior water resources control engineer with the division of financial assistance at the state water board. I don't know if that's any source of communication. It hasn't fundamentally changed our position, but I think we should acknowledge that we've received them. I think go ahead, Jamie. Well, I was going to say that I think that we're kind of going beyond this isn't an agenda item. So we should, I think that what would probably be appropriate is for you to draft the letter that you're suggesting. And then I would leave it to you and legal counsel to decide whether it's appropriate to bring it back to us in closed session for further discussion or whether it would be an open. If it's a letter speaking on behalf of the board, it needs to come to the board. And something like this, I think you would be speaking on behalf of the board. At least that's my position. Well, actually, what I'm suggesting is I'm not to say anything on behalf of the board. It's just to say what the board is already in that case, then that's fine. I agree. And my suggestion would be is to look for funding to put fresher for funding and a story. And there are people working on the rest. And the suggestion on looking for funding isn't something that you're suggesting that we we or you and staff are going to do, correct? Make sure that's clear. Yes, it is. Yes. Yeah. Okay. That's it. Yes. But it's just then that it's saying that we heard them and pointing out what the board is already reminding them as a director. I'm happy to rent it by council. But basically, I'm just reminding them as a director what we've already decided on the board level. Yep. Yep. Okay. So, informational material, public committee members 2024. I think we've already covered that. Yeah. So, I believe we're done. So we have a motion to adjourn. You just can declare it. That's right. We are adjourned. Thank you. We're adjourned at 8 11 p.m. Thank you. Thank you, Barbara. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. I just want to go in there.