 While you're coming up, I was just going to say that I thought they were, it was nice to have the detail and the organization of the warrants, I thought that was really helpful. And yes, ma'am. Thank you, Becky Steinbruner, resident of Aptos Hills. I would agree with that comment. They're much easier to read and to really see what is going on. And to that end, I was curious to see on page 23 that there was a trip to Washington, D.C., on May 24th by Ms. Strom, Mr. Duncan, Ms. Schumacher, Director Daniels, and Chairman LeHue. And I don't recall hearing that trip approved in your proceedings, and further in the packet in another item on page 102, it says there is another trip to come to D.C. for you at the end of this month. So I would like some public discussion about the purpose and nature of these trips and the need for them. I know you have paid a great amount of money to Capital Edge to do the lobbying for you in Washington, D.C. But I want to know why the five of you went to Washington, D.C. on May 24th, and there was no public approval or discussion of it. Also really want to thank you for putting in the warrants on page 35, the surface water transfer purchase price that's dated May 10th for $14,904. And I'd like to know the volume of water that that paid for. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Anyone else? All right, any other comments on warrants? Is that... We can approve them. Well, I'll move approval of the warrants. All second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? And I'll just... For the sake of the public, since that was brought up, there has not been a trip on May 24th, that's just when a bill was paid. So those are flights. And the purpose of the trip is to do our best to get funding for a project instead of having our ratepayers bear the entire cost. So we've been advised by the experts that it is most effective if we go. None of us really would like to go, but we're trying to help our customers. And that's all. The other item that was pulled from the consent agenda was 3.9. Thank you. And thank you for allowing me to pull these items for better discussion and for answering my questions. 3.9 is approve the updated district policy allowing customer options of alternate metering systems. That is, as I read it, your district would charge people $10 a month if they do not want to have a smart meter installed. I want to know that that is a conforming policy with this county of Santa Cruz and with the state of California. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? You've been provided information many times on wireless microwave meters and the biological harm. But you really should have, I think, is an informed consent form from every single person who is getting these meters on their homes. That this is known to cause harm, DNA strand breakage, calcium leaching from the cells, cancer risk that people who are living by cell towers and smart meters experience fatigue and had a increased diabetes incidence, and the list goes on. These are not safe in any respect, and this is just proliferating. I want to leave you also a copy of a rather new documentary called 5G Apocalypse, the extinction event, and it has a number of scientists whose literature I've given you, and so I will provide that. I think it is not only irresponsible, but bordering on the criminal. When you have been informed that something is harmful and been provided with the data, when you impose this on the public without their consent, and it's an experiment that is in violation of the Nuremberg Principles that says that people have to be informed of all the consequences of these kind of exposures and give their consent that has not taken place, there have also been many problems with fires, overcharging, it's just a depth technology from beginning to end, and I don't think any of your customers have been informed or given consent to this, and I think it should be stopped. We did have our water measured before without this, and it also has a big carbon footprint in the manufacture and distribution and the e-ways with all of this, so an opt-out is like, and I did this with the PG and e-meters, it's an extortion fee to be paid, not to be harmed. Thank you very much. Extortion fee. I approve. I would like to make a motion to approve 3-9. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. I'd like to just comment. Marilyn, I don't think we agree on the facts, and I'm insulted that you think that I would vote for and go in a direction, and I don't want to start a conversation where it's good. He's just making, you're done talking up here. That would harm people, so I just want to put that on record that I do not agree with the facts that you've presented. We had a thorough review of the scientific literature at the time we made the decision, and also this change actually lessens the transmission anyway. About two orders of magnitude. So significantly. Right. Okay, so now it is time. By the way, on the consent calendar, I want to just mention that we did vote for Director Christensen to be part of the LAFCO as an alternate. We did. Okay. All right. So oral and written communications, anyone from the board? I just wanted to draw our attention to, I just popped up on one of our emails that we all get, but the Water Education Foundation has, in their western, they did a review of the effect of saving water on the whole water system, the sewage and water system. It might be worth looking into because it wasn't to cast blame or to say something was bad, saving water is bad, or it could become bad. It's an attempt to look at all the repercussions of policy change, which now Californians are facing with the probability of another extended drought at some point in our future that, you know, there's pressure to continually save more and more water, and that might have a, it's not just an anecdotal evidence, it's more of a, there's more concrete evidence that it causes problems in sewage treatment systems throughout the state. That's all. There's a limit. Just a review. It might be worth getting as a reference at some point. Okay. And I was just going to mention just coming back from Seattle late last night, I just noticed at the airport that all of the toilets were being flushed with rainwater, which I thought, you know, it's nice to not use perfectly good drinking water for flushing toilets. All right, so nothing else? Anyone in the public who wishes to speak on an item, not on tonight's agenda? Thank you. Becky Steinbrunner. I know there's a bit of change in your agenda. You're now combining oral and written communications altogether here, and I note on page 71 of your packet, it talks about written communications. And again, I want to point out to you that if the public correspondence in order to get into your board packet has to be submitted by 4 o'clock Wednesday prior to your meeting, and yet your agenda does not come out publicly until Friday, how can people realistically send you communication regarding things that are on the agenda and have them included in your packet? You can. So I'd like to ask you to change that policy to conform when people can get information to you and have it included in the agenda packet for the Tuesday following. I see that it always says the communication will be available on the district's website at the earliest opportunity. Well I looked just before I came here, and the three pieces of information that you have on the back table, and thank you for supplying those. None of those are on your website. To that end, I want to follow up with a piece of communication here that I see is from Craig Wilson. You have used his persona, his influence in the community as the public safety officer for the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Department to really come out in support of your Pure Water Soquel project, and I protest that. He is not an expert in water. He is a very great guy. I like him a lot, but I feel like he's being used, and I don't think it's fair. I see in his communication to the Santa Cruz City Council these three letters are all to the Santa Cruz City Council, begging them to approve the agreement that you put through with them, hopefully hoping to get on June 25th at their last council meeting. He says Pure Water Soquel will meet all safety and quality standards. How can he say that? He's not an expert. This project will do the least harm to our local environment by discharging less water into the sanctuary. It's not going to reduce the contamination. It will concentrate it. Be more energy efficient over the other options. How can he say that when water transfers would take virtually little energy and the reverse osmosis energy demand is very high? Thank you very much. Thank you. I just want to say I protest that you're trying to push through the agreement with the City Council. Your time is up. Thank you. Thank you. All righty. Anyone else? I'm a specific issue. Are we on public comments now? It's not on the agenda? Yep. We are. Okay. I just wanted to be sure of that. We all know that firefighters are considered the strongest of the strong and the least likely to complain. In 2004, there was a test done on firefighters comparing those who lived, were sleeping in firehouses with antennas on the roof compared to those not. What happened was that the results of this study prompted the International Association of Firefighters Canada and the U.S. to call for a moratorium on putting these radiation emitting antennas on firehouses. The symptoms were what a lot of people complain of, microwave sickness. They were like in a brain fog coordination off, slowed reaction time, headaches, dizziness. Foster was one of the ones who arranged this study. We all know if it's doing that to the firefighters, we're all in trouble. This is a letter she wrote to Governor Brown two years ago opposing Senate Bill 649 and talking about people have a right to health and to decide what is happening to them. With the Senate Bill, and this is in process now with other bills, installing 5G in the public right of way, everywhere, every few houses, outside people's bedroom windows with this additional pulsed radiation, and this is an intensification of the destruction that's been taking place since the Telecom Act was passed in 1996. You feel insulted? I feel insulted that our rights are being taken away and that we are being forced into more and more radiation and that people believe the propaganda of these, the Telecom industry, selling these products. We were assured years ago by Dr. Smoking Cigarettes, it was fine. You'd feel tense, coughing, go home and smoke a cigarette and it will relax you and saying this is my favorite cigarette. So here's from the CISRB officer and one more, I'll just say the title, will the Telecom industry be the final straw in our planet's ecosystems? So let us move on to the next item, which is the management update. I don't have anything to add for a conservation customer service field. Do you have any questions? I know that we're just starting with the AMI upgrade. When again, I could not remember when you said customers would be able to have access to the information on a more real-time basis. We're thinking probably towards early fall that we'll be able to offer up the portal access to the people that have been upgraded, that have had their registers replaced and where we have the infrastructure in for that area. Okay. And then over the course of the year-long project, as more and more services and infrastructure added, we'll be making that available to those customers. And then we'll be evaluating kind of changes in their water use. We'll be looking, staff will be looking on a daily basis at the leak reports even before customers have access to the portal and we'll be acting on that. Thank you. Anyone else on? No? Okay. Moving right into engineering. I just had four bullets and I can answer any questions on them if you have any. I do. Okay, go ahead. It worried me that we already had to have a tank coding evaluated and, you know, on the Cornwell tank, you said it found some abnormalities. Does that mean it might not last as long as it's supposed to? Because aren't those supposed to last like 20 years or? Yeah, generally it was really looking really good. It wasn't until we actually got into the office and looked and we saw a few small bubbles, pimples, I would call them, in a small area, isolated area. We didn't see that anywhere else, but we're going to drain the tank. It's normal that we inspect it within the two-year period of the warranty, so it is covered and, you know, we did have an inspector there throughout the whole course of the recoding. Don't think that the whole tank is going to delaminate or anything. I think it's a small enough blemish that we do want to drain the tank and look at it and they will make repairs and do it as a perfect coating would have. Okay. And the outside looked great and the inside looked generally really good other than these small blemishes. Okay. And I also just wanted to thank you all for working with the C-Cliff Park residents to help them find a solution. Thank you. Thank you. I too don't have anything else to add unless you have any questions. Maintenance. Everybody happy? Well, that's good. Thank you. Special projects. There she is. Hi, yes. I don't have anything else to say except I did just want to point out since it was brought up earlier. The public outreach and committee has been working on creating kind of some more awareness to the community water plan and building off of the community water plan being formed by our community members. Also just, you know, a lot of people have provided us a lot of information or questions and answers. And so we've actually created kind of this, it's not on my screen. Oh, is it on my screen? So I did just want to clarify that this one is not in response to pure water. So Cal, Mr. Wilson had provided us, you know, kind of his opinion and his feelings related to the efforts that the district is doing to combat sea water intrusion. So the quote that he has here is really the problem of saltwater intrusion and ongoing overdraft must be addressed. I am pleased the water district is responding to the serious issue before it's a full scale crisis. Again, just to kind of reiterate, that is something that our community has focused on, the awareness that we have an inadequate water supply. We did a phone survey, 79 percent of our customers said that that is something that they recognize and that over 65 percent of the people on that survey said that they are very concerned about the severe shortage. So recognizing that, you know, we are quote unquote in this together, that's the campaign and we will be doing other advertisements and other pieces on our website just to raise awareness. And I think actually you've done a great job in just getting the word out and letting people express and, you know, go ahead and speak publicly about their views. So I appreciate it. Anyone else for? Hey, we could HR. I don't have anything to add, but I can answer questions. Are you going to do finance? I'm sorry, I forgot finance. But Leslie's not here. So I guess I forgot and you were waiting. So we'll go back. OK, any questions I can answer? Congratulations on being one of the barriers. Top 10. Yeah, it's not top 10, but it's one of the top workplaces. Talk about that a little bit. Thank you. Yeah, that says a lot. And Ron, did something about finance you want to add? Yeah, I'll just point out again in that vein of being customer advocates, finance after receiving some feedback, and this is highlighted in the report, they extended by an extra week, so 25 percent, the collection time on bills, get people an extra week going from three weeks to four weeks and just thought that was the right thing to do. It's an administrative act, so we just took care of it. Great. Any finance questions? Then then we'll go to Ron for General Manager. So, you know, I thought this was we'll go to the graph first. It kind of shows you how recycled water has been increasing over time. So since you can see right around early 80s, it just kind of took off and how it's being used. And then if we go back up to the to the quote, and this is from the Public Policy Institute of California, so they try to do unbiased reviews. But what caught my eye here was I here was that they, you know, they're talking about the growing opportunity for water recyclers, especially with the new state laws. And then the bottom line, literally the bottom line, this will require close coordination between water suppliers and wastewater agencies. And I just think, you know, the city and us have been doing a good job and really a shout out to them for their efforts in collaborating with us and trying to take the word wastewater out of the lexicon and make it resource water because we all know that it's a valuable resource. Okay. And anything else on your report? Ron. Nope, that's it. Can I add one thing? Sure. Just on the graphic on page 77, you know, where it has the actual parts per million, I just thought maybe somewhere there we should put in that seawater is 35,000 so that people would know that at La Selva Beach, it's basically half of what seawater comes from. And often we have 250 as the secondary MCL. So we'll. Well, but even just so people can compare with seawater. Yeah, yeah, both. Okay. That was all I had. Thank you. Also on general manager. Okay. And then let's see that does, I think, include the management update. So is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on the management update? Thank you. Becky Steinbruner, resident of Aptos. I'd like to point out to you an error on page 73 into the special projects where it talks about the representatives of the city of Santa Cruz. The ad hoc committee on the city water commission is Commissioner Baskin, Wilschersen and Doug Engfer. Mr. Baskin is listed twice. But Doug Engfer is also part of that. And it was actually chiefly Commissioner Baskin's concern that that document looked like it hadn't been looked at by an attorney. So I am glad that they're looking at it more carefully. I am, I am disappointed that they bowed to the pressure of the presenters that night that did not really say the reason for the rush is that all grant money to be reimbursed must be spent by February 29th, 2020, which is what I learned in one of the ex parte documents and declarations by your general manager, Mr. Duncan. They didn't know that. They just were pushed to approve it and get it on the commission and city councils June 25th thing. So the agreement, whatever they come up with, will not have been vetted by the full water commission. And I think that's a travesty. Um, regarding the recycled water and the graphic, I want to know where is the purple pipe in your district in going over the documents. Lately I've seen that originally recycled water had tied to it irrigation. And I'm not seeing any irrigation. Where's the purple pipe because there's plenty of use for that at Cabrillo College, athletic fields, the golf courses, the 10 to 14 parks that are in your district. There's a tremendous opportunity for using this water for irrigation that would also decrease pumping by seascape wells and by Cabrillo Colleges, three very large wells. So I want to see purple pipe in your district. Thank you. Thank you. So anything else on specifically the management update? And since you're discussing recycled water, it's very problematic. And I listened to the radio program where Ron Duncan and two of you were on the radio and somebody called in and said, what about the removal in this recycled water of pharmaceuticals and pesticides? And it was just glossed over all well like they're using recycled water here and there. It must be OK. And the language you use, let's not say wastewater. Let's say, what did you say, resource, or instead of, you know, there's a sewage treated water or poop water effluent. The language is used to convince people that there's something is good that really is very problematic. And I think this whole plan of an awesome begs the question, why are there so many poisons in our water? Why are these corporations allowed to pollute the earth and our bodies and all creatures on this planet? And then we're supposed to try to clean it up. I think recycled water is really dangerous. If it's popular, it doesn't necessarily mean something is good. Where is the proof of safety? Where is the proof of no harm in using recycled water or sewage treated water? Where is the proof? I don't see any. Thank you. So, since I was on the radio show and answered that question, I will say that I actually specifically said that wastewater treatment plants are not designed to remove pharmaceuticals. So, whatever goes into rivers, whatever comes out of septic tanks into rivers and then gets treated at normal water treatment plants, they're not designed to remove those. However, when you go to recycled water and go through microfiltration, that removes some of them. But by the time you go through reverse osmosis and advanced oxidation and disinfection, they're removed and safe to drink, essentially, even though it's going to go through another step. So, I just wanted to clarify that for the public. Since you brought it up. And the board took a trip to Orange County Water District that's been doing this for decades and talked specifically with a vice president there who had been in charge of labs, I think he might still be. And he explained to us that the process gets rid of molecules that are above a certain size. And those molecules that it does get rid of are the pharmaceuticals that are above that threshold. And they're also, since you bring it up, we had an unbiased panel of experts evaluate whether this was a, whether the water coming out is safe and their conclusion was that it was safe. And they had no reason whatsoever to come to that conclusion other than the scientific evidence. And once again, I mean, none of us would be doing this if we thought it was unsafe. Yeah. Can I just follow up on a comment that was made about the water commissioners? I appreciate the, we did list David Baskin twice. So thank you very much for that notification. Doug Infer was on that. Just to be clear, in case it wasn't, it did go to the Public Works Commission of Santa Cruz first. And it got a 5-0 vote, the project contract to move forward. Then subsequent to that, a couple of weeks later, it came to the Water Commission with a 5-0 vote in favor of it based on conceptual purposes. They liked the idea. They liked everything about it and moved the contract forward. They did have some issues with some of the language. So they designated three committee members, Doug Infer, Linda, Will Susan, and David Baskin, to form a focus group with the water director and some others. To refine the language and see if it was ready to go to the city council. And what I really want to, and so that was a 5-0 vote also there. But just the effort that those three commissioners put in over the last two weeks, my hat is off to them. And it was really public service. I mean, there was a lot of effort put in there to make sure it was absolutely where they wanted to be so they could make a recommendation to the city council. And so, well, to the whole Santa Cruz staff and those three commissioners in particular. Okay. Next item is district council. There's really nothing to report. The legislation isn't moving too much. They're working on the budget. And the cases have just kind of stalled. So I'm waiting. Okay. We have a couple of closed session items we'll talk about later. Okay. And then item 6.2 is a scopes of work for six different entities. Yes, typically after the fiscal year budget is approved by the board, we do reevaluate existing contracts that need to be furthered for the following year. In terms of the pure water Soquel project, I have brought forth six proposed scopes of works, including budget for next fiscal year. And if you have any questions, I can answer them just in summary for the amount of effort for the pure water Soquel project for this next fiscal year. This represents, let me see, I think I wrote this down, 5%. Questions from, yes, Bruce. And reading through these, most of them seemed okay, but the one that kind of surprised me was the outreach one. $150,000 seems like a hell of a lot of outreach for something that we've kind of already got approved. So I just wondered, I realize that everything is on a, you know, need-to-do basis, and we may not do much of it, but I was still surprised. Talk about the data instincts. Yes, data instincts was when I have several notes. Number four. Page 104. Yeah, I'll start at high level on that and then Melanie can jump in. And if you, you know, since it was mentioned, go into some of these various sites that do water purification. I think you might have been to five total. But one of the leaders is Orange County. And one of the things that they said, Ron Wildermuth, who's now since retired, but he was kind of the guru of this, if you remember, he said, one of their secrets to assess is the education component. And not education just before or when you get approved and not when you just even produce water but continually doing it after that. We may be in a little better position than they were just because people have become much more accepting of this and educated about it. So that's one thing. So I do think it behooves us and the community to keep educating and informing. But they also help us formulate plans and that sort of thing too. So it's not just the traditional outreach that you think of. Let me just add just, since before you answer. So I thought, you know, staff seems like they do most of the work from what I see on the public outreach. And so I just wanted to kind of get a feel from you about how much data instincts is actually doing because I don't really know. And then under on page 108, they mentioned helping promote the educational mobile trailer and tracking effective. So I think that's the effectiveness of this effort and also the tracking the effectiveness of the onsite learning center. So I hadn't heard about how they're tracking the effectiveness. Sure. Yes. In terms of data instincts over the years where they have helped us, this is the highest contract that we've had this thus far. They typically are below 100,000, sometimes even half of what we asked for this year. When we asked him to propose for this year, I did ask for an up to amount not to exceed and based on if we needed them or not. We have been increasing education and outreach for the project as well as district overall and in terms of the community water plan and going forward with pure water soquel and some of the efforts that will be developing, including potentially expansion of some of the outreach, youth outreach and other programs. Data instincts sometimes will help us strategize and kind of create a work plan for us to do that. Vaidehi's time is very much focused on youth outreach. We've talked about whether or not we were going to cut back this year. We have not yet cut back on anything related to really the youth outreach or her participation in the water conservation coalition. That is another area that while it's regional, it does fall a lot on Soco Creek Water District to kind of shepherd that through. For the metrics and data that was collected for the trailer and for the learning center, we did solicit some assistance from data instincts where we were capturing. We do have a survey that comes for people that come in and come out and we are collecting that data and it goes into the annual reports. It's something that we're tracking and we had them do that instead of do that in-house. And what role does data instinct have in that tracking? Data instincts create, last year data instincts created the questions before and after and then they're the ones that are telling it and they're going to prepare like a report. Yeah, as much as a traditional outreach, I mean this is their forte recycled purified water. They're really advisors to us. We have a couple and this is one team that we lean on for high level advice. I just wanted kind of to find out how much they're helping. I mean, if it's an up to amount, I'm personally okay with it. I'd like a report back on whether we go up to the up to as it's going along. And I'd like to see, well, your point Ron about there's never enough outreach, especially on a project where there's so much misunderstanding like recycled water purification. And I'd like to see without putting undue work on the staff, I'd like to see students and interns be involved with the outreach. I think that's cost efficient. And I leave it to staff to determine when and where to use that strategy. But the question I have is, and I could be an outlier here. One of the issues I have with data instincts is that to me, it's reaching out to a different demographic in that their graphics are beautiful, expensive color, et cetera. Morene County, and I just wonder whether the outreach committee has a similar opinion that I do of that, keeping it basic and we'll get the points point across better than making it too, let's see. Well, we just had an outreach committee this past week ago and we've reviewed all of the things that are out there and the outreach team has been working on. And honestly, I don't know how much that contract will ultimately be worth, how much they'll be asked to do, but it really seems as if it would be helpful to have someone who's sort of out of the, not directly trying to be boots on the ground, but adding, acting as a true consultant in this area and how best ways to present things. So otherwise, this task for this small team can quickly get overwhelming. And if you're talking about students and interns, I agree with that in principle, but that is a whole another level of more work. For the staff, I realize it, yeah. And they're pretty maxed out. But they just did the Waterwise Academy, which is not students and interns, but it's training people to then understand the system and then be advocates. That's exactly what you're talking about. It's utilizing community members to get the word out. Well, I'm thinking back to the iPad, questions that were asked at Farmers Market and whatnot. And I don't know, I know there were some issues with some of the questions that were asked and how it's done, but something like that I heard, the feedback I heard was that it was well received within the community. So I don't know if that's something that's available. And the cost certainly would be fairly low on that. Again, I'll leave it to the staff to determine, you know, I'm not in touch with the workload and whether this creates a new amount of work. Okay, we'll incorporate some of that. Okay, anyone else? Okay, any public comment on this item? Thank you, Becky Steinbruner. This is an astonishing amount of money. $881,194 total just for one year, just for this project that's under legal battle and for which there's a lot of public resistance. I think you're taking a big risk here. I have questions regarding some of the things I read in the contract proposal. Ms. Gutierrez is going to help you with the WIFIA loan applications. I'd like to know how much that was on your agenda last time. I asked to know more about it and was only told it was a federal loan program, but I still have not seen a dollar amount that the district is planning to ask for in this low-cost federal loan. And that needs to be made public. I also am surprised to see yet another legal firm being brought on, Hansen and Bridgette in San Francisco. And for the agreement with the city of Santa Cruz alone, it's $78,000. That raised my eyebrows, having been at the Santa Cruz City Water Commission and heard attorney David Baskin said, it looks like no attorney has ever looked at this agreement. And Mr. Duncan said, well, actually there have been three. So I really think you need to take a close look at this expenditure with this law firm and yet another law firm. The information in the contract with ESA to me was very enlightening on page 95. It talks about how the conveyance construction would begin June 2020 and would be the only project component whose construction could occur within fiscal year 2019-2020. In the absence of detailed construction approach and schedule information, which follows what the lack of information in your EIR, we assume conveyance facility installation will involve simultaneous construction in two separate pipeline segments or headings beginning in late June of 2020. And it talks about how it is further assumed that construction of each pipeline segment will progress at a rate of 200 feet a day, five days a week, or roughly 4,000 feet every 30 days, 200 feet a day, is that realistic? Because you're gonna be, if this goes through, you would be going through some very urban areas, traffic delays, I think you're in for a nightmare. And I know you signed a statement of overriding considerations to just scoot around that, but this is huge, not to mention the 18 stream crossings that this project would do. And it talks about the Pond Turtle relocation and 100 feet vegetation clearance and clearance for staging areas, yet the staging areas were never identified in the EIR. All right, thank you very much. You talk about educational outreach and I would actually like to see a forum with Becky Steinbruner on educational outreach. I heard two of you on the radio lauding this pure water plan, but we aren't hearing the real problems, some of which you just heard and narrated here with this whole project. And I've mentioned this before, this book keeps coming to mind and you're hearing pure water, pure water all the time, all the time. And I'm thinking this is pure poop water, they just keep saying pure water, but this is not really pure water. The book, Toxic Sludge is Good for You by John Stopper and Sheldon Rampton. Toxic Sludge is Good for You, lies, damn lies and the public relations industry. And there are quotes in there of the public relations industry that go, you know, work arm in arm with the corporations. And one of these firms says, the role of our communication is to manage perceptions which motivates behavior to create business results. I think we're talking about big business results here and manage perception, you know, oh, we've got to do this, this is the behavior we've got to do, we've got to give money to all these corporations. And then people, when they hear oft-repeated lies and are misinformation, it's like they're in a frame and to try to get something in to this perception or misperception, the truth bounces off. I'm for truth telling and there's big problems here. And I would like to see this project halted. I think it's an answer is in the future here if you proceed and once you put those poisons in the water and I've said it before, it sounds like fracking to me, injecting this horrible stuff into the groundwater, the aquifers that have been there for eons of time but to deliberately put what you're putting in there that sounds to me like a chemical soup. It's just a disaster on the horizon and you're so self-assured that this will work, this will be the way. Very dangerous. Thank you and I just would like to just say that we just disagree and we're basing ours on. I'm afraid I feel that you're quite misinformed and I would recommend that you read the study that was pretty detailed about the safety of the water that we had done. But that conducts that action. I'd like just to make one comment. This water needs to have minerals added back into it because it is so, the minerals were taken out by the process, it's a misconception thinking that this water is toxic sludge. Okay, any board members wish to make a motion? I'll make six motions, basically. I'll second the six motions. Would you be willing to add that we have an update on the outreach? Yes. Maybe every what, half year? Half year, yeah. Half year. An update on the expenditures for data and states. I'm in my motion to exclude that. Okay. And I'll amend my second. Okay, we're all amended. All in favor? Yes. I. I. Opposed? Okay, that carries. And then we have. I'd just like to make a statement that some of the information that Ms. Steinbruner said regarding the statement of a writing consideration stuff was incorrect so I just want to make that statement. Right, and I'll, I'll, you know, if they have questions about the city's response to her characterization of the water commission meeting, I suggest they talk with the director of the Santa Cruz Water Department, Rosemary Menard. Six three? Six three, a happy one. A happy one. Let's end on a happy note. How's that? That's great. So I shared with the board that the district was recently made aware that we are being recognized as a top workplace by the Bay Area, excuse me, the Bay Area news group. And we're, we will be having the, the publication will be released on this Sunday, the 23rd. And it's a standalone publication that the Bay Area news group provides to all of its newspapers as an insert. And I provided a copy link in the packet. So hopefully you've had an opportunity to take a look at what that publication looks like. The 2018 version was included. So you have a view of what we can expect to see with some familiar faces, hopefully, at Soquel Creek Water District, included in that, in that recognition. We will be going to Santa Clara actually on Thursday to receive that recognition. And we may receive at that time kind of our ranking as the memo indicates, this ranking was actually kind of a side note to what we felt was a really important survey that we put out to our employees and the results of that, the results of the survey and the data that came from that survey actually was used in comparison with many other industries and we received that ranking. So we're very proud of our employees and hope to keep doing good things. And thank you for all your input and Ron, you too. Yeah, just a shout out to Tracy for number one, doing the getting the survey done and really this wasn't even on our radar, the top workplace being recognized for that. But it does go to the core, I think as a organization we work a lot on. I know Tracy and I spent a lot of time just trying to get that very bottom cultural piece right and it's not easy, it's a constant, you can never stop. And it's one of those things you think you're there and then you got more work to do, but if nothing else, it is front and center for us because it's the platform from which we can really excel as an organization. If we don't get that right, it's hard to really get much above that. So we continue to strive and thank you for your efforts on that Tracy. And all the managers too. It's a 46 and a half person effort plus a board plus a legal counsel and then- 45.8. 45.8, whatever, effort. So thanks to the whole organization. Thank you and any comments from the board? It's great. Any public comment on that item? Okay, well then we will go to closed session. Common and closed session. Pardon? Closed session. Yeah. Thank you. Becky Steinbruner. I am the petitioner in Case 19, CV 00181. And I just want to let you know that I've been working very hard, I don't know what you're gonna hear from Mr. Basso. Mr. Basso, I really want to thank you for hosting that telephone conference in your office last week that helped a lot and we're still working hard at trying to come to resolution on the administrative record. I have, in doing some research, I have learned more than what I knew at the initial case. My first discussion about this case with Michelle Ullat from Best Best and Krieger so I have written some information about that. But our first case management conference is coming up Thursday. The judge has been disqualified. Judge Burdick will no longer be hearing our case and it will now be heard by Judge John Gallagher. And I want to assure you that I'm doing this because I care about the public. I care about the environment and I'm not convinced by what I see. I'm not convinced that the environmental review on this project was thorough and I'm not convinced that the people of Lake Oak were given a fair shake in being able to say at the appropriate times when it could make a difference what was coming to their neighborhood. So I'm doing this and I'm spending a lot of my time and I'm not getting paid big bucks. I'm not getting paid anything. But I'm doing this because I care, not because I'm trying to be an obstructionist, not because I'm trying to keep secrets or anything like that or hold the record hostage as I've been accused of multiple times. I'm working very hard but I'm not an attorney and I'm not familiar with litigation process so I'm having to work very hard. I'm spending hours every day in the County Law Library to learn and I'm doing my best because I care about the people, the community, the environment and the long-term impacts that a project like this could have. And what I want to ask is why isn't the district looking at using this water for irrigation instead of injecting it into the groundwater supply that is the potable water supply for not only people in your district but others and those others have no say. That's what's really bothering me a lot. Thank you. We will go to closed session now. Thank you. You have one more. Oh, this is on the closed session, Madam. I want to say it's support everything Becky Steinburner said. She's someone who I've known over the years who is working to defend our rights and have a healthy environment. She researches thoroughly and I think she's right on the mark and what she has researched here. She's not paid. We need a lot more people who are looking carefully at government policies and propose policies and evaluating them and digging deep and revealing the truth. What I see is the truth that's going on and like being whistleblowers, these are people who should be listened to carefully so that we can make wise decisions. That's my comment so I support Becky Steinburner on this. Thank you. I'll just say that we're all here because we want to do the best thing for the district and I'm glad that's your motivation. We just try to base on the best science available and I unfortunately think some of yours is based on misinformation but that we can agree to disagree. And we will turn to a closed session.