 And I see that it is 5.30, so I'd like to open this meeting for the San Lorenzo Valley Water District regular meeting for October 5th, 2023. Holly, would you take roll please? President Smalley. Here. Vice President Hill phoned and he is running late, but we'll be here. Director Ackman. Here. Director Falls. Here. Director Mayhood. Here. For members of the public that are in attendance remotely, this is the closed session, which we will be having from 5.30 until 6.30. The open session is from 6.30 until we conclude. So given that, I'm not aware of any changes that we have to the closed session agenda. Holly, is the senior staff member here? No, there are no changes to closed session. All right. Oral communications regarding the one item that we have in closed session. Does any member of the public wish to comment on that? Seeing none. We will adjourn now to the closed session to the public. Please rejoin at 6.30. And we will see you then. Audio on. Just now. Oh, okay. Green ring right now. Just in case. So that don't. And Carly more so Carly. This meeting of the board of directors for the San Lorenzo Valley water district. For October 5th. 2023. Holly, would you take roll again? President Smalley. Here. Vice president Hill. Here. Director Ackman. Here. Director Falls. Here. Director Mayhood. Here. And we have nothing to report out as far as any actions taken in the closed session. Before we go to any changes in the agenda, I wanted to just briefly go over. Something that's in our board policy. After the last meeting, which was a bit. A little bit. I don't know. We're bouncing around a lot. I wanted to just reiterate a few things. And I'm doing this more as much for myself because I'm letting it happen. So just wanted to review with everybody. And I'm going to be more diligent about trying to make it happen. So that it's not as chaotic. Thank you. Board members are. Given the opportunity. For. One opportunity for comment from each director after presentation from the staff. Generally public comments then. If there are any followed by an additional opportunity for comment from each director. I'll be recognized by the chairperson before speaking. We do a lot of interjecting and talking over each other. To the point that some of the members of the public have stopped us in that saying we have hearing difficulties. We can't hear you when you're talking over each other. And I'm guessing also for members of the public that are attending remotely, it gets difficult then to hear. So we need to follow that protocol. Each director may seek additional information or comment from the staff. On any question. However, the right of any director to be heard. Is limited to the particular topic of item. A business that issue. If I can see that we're straying off into the broccoli fields. I'm going to do what I can to check that and bring us back to the question under discussion. I'm going to go over the item that we're talking about. If I stray off into the broccoli field. I'll ask the other directors to check me also. Chairperson. Shall endeavor to confine. To the question under discussion. Shall not roll out and shall roll out of order. Any irrelevant or repetitious comments by directors. But other than that I would like to take a raise on the agenda of the grant that is important. In order to ensure the extent permitted under the brown. So. With that. I'd like to continue with the meeting. Any changes to the agenda. Chair. I'd just like to make a quick announcement earlier in the week. I know the board that Kendra read the district's finance and I will be Kendra's last appearance as finance manager in front of the board. This is a youth loss to the district because Kendra has been an extremely valuable member of the management team and I really want to thank you for your service. Thank you. You're here. Thank you. Kendra from the board, we say thank you for your service. Would you like to? Yeah, I do have something I like to say. So I have been with the district for eight years and this place and my coworkers have become my family. I deeply care for the district and have valued my time here and all I have learned. With that said, I will be moving on to a position that will be less public and board-facing and will be overall better for my mental health. When taking the position of director of finance, I had to navigate learning new things and dealing with the board for the first time. The extensive scrutiny, criticism and in my personal opinion, disrespectful behavior towards staff and other board members from director Fultz has taken a toll. I want to be fully transparent and I know I'm not alone in this stance and I would hate for another valuable staff member to have to make the same decision to move on and put the district in an even more vulnerable place. I appreciate all of the support I have received thus far and I am truly going to miss this place. Thank you, Kendra. As the chair of the budget finance committee and the board member that's dealt with Kendra the most over three years that director may have been here, I'd like her to speak to this also. Well, I want to thank you Kendra for your many years working for the district and even before you jumped into the challenging job director of finance and when we asked you to do that, we realized that that was requiring you to take on unfamiliar tasks related to capital planning, budgeting and then the horrible, horrible thing, the rate study. And so both director Hill and I who are on the budget and finance committee have been really impressed by the hard work that you undertook and you're growing mastery of all of this material and so we're very sorry to see you go. I'm also very sorry to hear what you just told us and I think that it's very brave of you to say it because it's not always easy to say things like that in public but I had previously when I talked to you, you made it clear that it wasn't the whole board that was the problem. It was a single member of the board and Rick Rogers had earlier told me that he moved his retirement date up to early November because he could no longer tolerate the impact having to deal with director Fultz was having on his health. So we're now as a board in the position of scrambling to find an interim district manager and an interim director of finance on short notice entirely because of the damaging behavior of director Fultz. His treatment of staff has been a longstanding problem and it threatens the future of the district. I regret that I haven't done something about it before this but I think that the board needs to address it directly and publicly and for this reason, I regretfully make a formal request to the board president to put a discussion of this issue on the agenda for the next board meeting. We'll discuss that at the next board meeting. It's not on the agenda tonight. So we will discuss it then. Please submit whatever you have as far as it. Okay. Moving on to formal communications. This is portion for any members of the public wants to speak on an issue that's not on our agenda tonight. That is part of the district's overview of operations. And I'd like to remind members of the public that this is limited to three minutes in length. So does anybody here have any questions? If they want to cover it? A little question about it being on the agenda. I'm not seeing anything specific for the remote project. Is that something that's been discussed this evening? I believe that's part of the engineering department. Yeah, there's an update in my memo. Okay. We can cover that towards the end of the meeting then as part of the engineering department. I do see several members of the public online who want to comment about something that's not on the agenda. Mr. Dolson. Thank you. Can you hear me now? Yes. So I attend all the board meetings. I rarely comment, but in this case, I do have something I'd like to share. And in addition, based on the remarks that have just been made, I wanna say that I appreciate what President Smalley's intentions are in controlling the meeting. And I'm similarly very, very sorry to hear about Kendra's departure. And I think that's a huge loss for the district. I'll leave it at that. The comment I wanna make really is based on the previous meeting, there was a comment by a director which really concerned me there. And it actually fits in with some of the things people are talking about. Because I would urge the board to seriously address this, to put it on the agenda as well and gain some clarity on this issue. The claim was made that repetitious and tangential remarks by board members are actually a good thing because they serve to inform the public and that that's actually part of what board meetings are intended to accomplish. And my understanding is quite different. It's that the sole purpose of board meetings is for the board to expeditiously provide the district with essential guidance that's as well informed as possible. And the public is certainly free to witness the deliberations to provide oral and written input. But there's no legitimate basis for directors to treat board meetings as a stage that they can use to address the public. This distracts the board from its mission. It makes the meetings longer, more tedious for board members and the public alike. And so I urge the board to take this under consideration. But lastly, I wanna suggest that the board should not engage in any immediate comment on or discussion of what I've just said because this would just be another example of the behavior that I'm objecting to. Thank you. Other members from the public would want to speak on something that's not on our agenda tonight. Cynthia, does Denzel? Thank you. Can you hear me now? Yes. I would like to agree with what Mark said. I had been wondering why Rick Rogers was planning to leave sooner than what he had indicated earlier. And I think most of us were very worried about that and to know that it has to do with discomfort with the attitude of one of the directors makes us feel even worse. I am sorry that I personally haven't expressed more appreciation. Cynthia, Cynthia. Yes. Cynthia, I'd like to convey or have that discussion next week. I think your comments are very often to what I don't wanna discuss this evening. I'd like to deal with that next week. Okay. I just wanted to express appreciation for manager Rogers. Thank you. Thank you. Point of clarification though, I do think it's important to acknowledge that oral communication for items not on the agenda is for items not on the agenda and it's not your preference about what people say. So I think we have to be careful about that. But it's something that we will cover. Correct, but it's, yeah. Okay. She's right. Seeing no others on the, we can move on then. I'm not seeing anybody else right now. The unfinished business, yes, unfinished business. The revenue model to be used for the 2023 rate study. Rickerson, the finance manager will introduce this side. Kevin. Share my screen. Okay. So the 2023 rate study by Raft Ellis was the consultant company contracted to undertake this study, relayed their goals of the rate study at the July 13th, 2023 meeting, which was a workshop and rates 101 to kind of go over how the rate study is conducted in the process. The first financial plan presentation was brought to the board on September 7th and a discussion was had. And then at the September 12th budget and finance committee, more discussion was covered and there were a few minor changes that resulted in the final presentation at the September 14th special board meeting. I'd like to point out that the public was invited to both the September 7th and 14th meetings and the district did reach out to its largest users, Bear Creek estates, schools, mobile home parks to encourage people to intend and provide their input to those meetings. Based on comments from members of the public and the board members from the September 14th meeting, staff worked with Raftelis to slightly modify the models presented at that meeting to arrive at the final versions presented herein. So we'll start with the water financial plan. This is basically the same financial plan as scenario one presented at the 914 special board meeting. This includes the 25 million in capital expenditures that are spread out over the five year rate period for CCU fire recovery and other natural disasters, recovery spending and other unforeseen repairs and maintenance. Staff is recommending this financial plan instead of the scenario two, which is the higher capital spending for disaster recovery presented at the 914 board meeting for the following reasons. Scenario one would result in smaller revenue adjustments needed. The revenue adjustments would be 10% for the first two years, 7% for the three following years, as opposed to the other scenario, which would be the 12% for the first two years, 10% for the two following years and 6% for the fifth year under the scenario two plan. The reserve levels, there is more reserve fund coverage under the first scenario and our historical capital spending is limited to stock bandwidth. So basically with the retirement of the general manager, the loss of our district engineer Josh in June and now with my resignation, this will decrease the district's capacity to plan it and manage the capital projects until the replacements are up to speed. Garrett is obviously getting up to speed, but he's still getting me to solve the project. So it's gonna take a lot more for a collaborative effort to come together. Next slide. So this is just showing kind of a rundown of the scenario one and showing the revenue adjustments that are needed. And this also assumes the $19 million debt issuance in fiscal year 2024. There'll be no change to the fire recovery surcharge and it assumes 25 million over five year period of disaster recovery spending. So I kind of wanted to talk a little bit more about capital expenditures and the debt issuance. So in fiscal year 2024, we have 24 million in capital spending slated for that. So most of that funding is already in contracts, about 15.2 million in loan funded projects. So that makes up the majority. There's a 3.8 in other FEMA projects and 3.1 a million in grant funding. So the need for capital expenditure coverage requires us to issue debt and that's 19 million at 4.5% for a 20 year loan. This debt issuance provides cash flow coverage to cover any of the capital expenditures that are needed with the lag of the FEMA reimbursement coming in. We chose a conservative 20 year loan because it results in higher animal debt service. And issuing debt will spread the cost of recovery over the 20 years. So it's not, if we weren't to do this, if we weren't to issue debt, we would need higher revenue adjustments to cover all of the capital expenditures. And this just shows the breakdown of the capital financing. So you'll see in the first fiscal year, 24, the remaining loan proceeds in the dark gray is the majority of the loans that are in contract. And then there's a few of the grant funding and then the light gray will show the how much is going to the new debt. And then this is just showing the dotted line is if we're at our current revenues, we say our current revenues, we won't have sufficient revenue to cover our operating debt service and capital projects. For the wastewater financial plan, this one is actually going to be different from the three scenarios that were presented in the nine 14 meeting. These, this scenario is assuming that we're not doing any type of upgrade to the collection system. So no capital spending, the revenue adjustments are just based on the annual inflation and what's needed to bring our reserves to target levels. Since the wastewater monthly charges are already very substantial for the barricade to state's customers, we thought this would be a better approach since the connection to the county is outside of the five year rate setting period. So, you know, we think it'd be prudent and helpful to the barricade customers to defer the funding until a more concrete project can be proposed and all grant funding options can be explored. And Rick, I don't know if you wanted to- No, you did a fantastic job. I'm sorry about that. The barricade working with the county would be an expansion of the county's CSA-7 which is the wastewater system at the Boulder Creek Golf Course. The plan and what is looking to move ahead is combining downtown Boulder Creek and areas in CZU fire along Big Basin Way into the sewer system and also bring the Bear Creek Estates wastewater down to Boulder Creek and then out to the golf course combining with CSA-7. It's a much bigger customer base and our initial studies with the county bring in and tend to lower the monthly maintenance cost to about 50% of what they're paying now. It's a very significant lowering because there's much more connections and it's a much better system. The one thing though about this is it has a long timeframe, 10 to 12 years of the county estimates, but we are looking for grant funding or we hope to find grant funding to cover most of this. We feel that if we really don't have any projects to start building a capital improvement, we don't have a project. So it's tough to sell that to the folks in Bear Creek telling them we want to raise their rates if you don't have a project. Yes, we're not in compliance, but the regional water control board knows that the district and county are working. And I think everybody involved sees this as the final fix to the Bear Creek in the downtown Boulder Creek area. We could spend money, we could spend a couple of million dollars on upgrading what we have out there now, the operational costs would cost those folks more than they could afford, but almost double it. So at this time, we're just kind of staying in status quo. We're definitely have a little to build up their capital reserve because they have almost no capital reserve right now. And then we're going to continue to explore grant funding for the final project on Bear Creek. Thank you. And then I forgot to share this screen. This just shows the 3% for the five years revenue adjustments that would be needed under if we were to select this financial plan, which is the no capital spending. And so then with that, we have a motion and I can take questions. Okay. All right. I'm actually very familiar with this and know what you've been doing. And I'm quite happy with it as it is. I'm not really having questions at this point. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. There's just two things I'd like to emphasize before we sort of open this up for wider discussion. Already what we've heard from Henry and Rick has explained why we've ended up where we are and what the motion is in the packet for the board to consider. But what I want to just say is that the proposed financial plans and the revenue model are just that models and models never capture reality perfectly. They're just our best attempts at trying to understand things for the purposes of decision making. Their greatest value is in terms of just sort of putting the boundaries on what the possibilities are, not in exact predictions of the future. So for that reason, there's not much merit in quibbling about small aspects of the model or changing input variables a little bit. As Kendra explained, we already had Raft-Hellis do some minor changes based on comments that we got from the board and budget finance. So that's accounts for the changes between September 7th and September 14th. And since then, Kendra, Rick and I have worked with Raft-Hellis to do a little bit further modeling based on some comments that we got on the 14th, answering questions like what would happen if you spread out some of the capital projects over a little bit more time? Like if you took 5 million and then spread it out or what if we took out a slightly smaller loan, 16 million rather than 19 million or what if you took out two smaller loans spread out over time? And what it turns out is that those kinds of changes have very little effect on the amount of revenue that we need. You have to make much bigger changes like cutting the amount of capital expenditures that we would have for recovery in half or cutting the, or doubling them or you'd have to cut the loan amount in half for it to have any effect. And then the second thing I'd like to emphasize is just to remind people that tonight what we're really voting on is just on the first stage of the rate study process. And that is the financial plan and the revenue model that sets the amount of revenue that we need to capture in the new rate structure for the next five years. It does not set the actual rates that our customers will pay, which is what's taken up in the next step. And just as an example, if we have say, a 10% increase in revenue that does not automatically translate to a 10% increase in rates that our customers will see, because for example, were we to adopt tiered rates, lower use people would probably see an increase less than 10%. And then foolish people like me that has flowing pools would see an increase above 10%. The other thing is that we'll be part of this next step is deciding whether we want to assign parts of the revenue to restricted accounts that could be used only for specific purposes. And these might be things like disaster recovery, other types of capital projects, a drought reserve or watershed protection. And also decide whether we would want such categories reflected in the rate schedule and on the customers bills. So it was transparent to our rate peers exactly where their money is going. None of these things are on the table tonight because they are part of the next stage of the rate study process when there'll be ample time to take them up for discussion. Thank you. Well, I want to make sure I understood what it is that we're being asked to vote on. Are we being asked to vote on the financial model that was delivered at least to me a week and a half ago or so, is that what we're adopting along with the low capital expenditure associated with the raw water? Just the financial plan that was presented in my presentation. So basically the same from the waste, the water is the same from the September 14th meeting with some slight updates to what we're calling the scenario. And then the wastewater is a new financial plan that we're suggesting, based on no capital upgrade spending just on regular inflation and bringing our reserve levels to target levels. Sorry, I need to be very specific. So the model that was delivered showed a particular plan for revenue and operating expenses, operating expenses growth about 4.5% a year. That's what we're being asked to vote on. I mean, I don't know when it was sent to you but there could have been changes made since then. But so yeah, I guess the what was presented to you tonight was a product of the model. I mean, I'm uncomfortable voting on financial plans that have bar graphs basically as the output or for what I'm supposed to be looking at. That's why I'm trying to relate it to the model that I got whether or not we're voting on that or voting on something different. It sounds like it's still very flexible. And I said earlier about this being a model, Gail, but we will eventually be asking our community to do more than just participate in the model. They're gonna have to open their checkbooks and give us money. And that needs to be a bilateral commitment. And right now, we haven't made that commitment as a district, as a board. But we're- So we're, well, yeah, but I mean, I'm trying to figure out what it is I'm voting on right now because, and also for the community, I'm assuming that the attachments were meant to be hotlinks, is that correct? Yes. They're not working on mine, unfortunately. So I'm, the community may not be able to access that either. Okay, on the Bear Creek estates, we're showing a 3% increase in rates. Revenue, I understand. How much of that, you also say that we're gonna be raising it modestly and then creating a reserve. What's the split between operating and reserve out of that 3%? That I would have to look into further. It's just, I mean, it's a blend of, assumptions from the inflation, which were consistent with the water financial plan. And then also bring the target, the reserves to target level. Well, what would that number be, the target level? Let's see here. And what would that be based on? Our reserve policy. 2.5% of the cost of the infrastructure. Yes. Okay, so what would that number be that we expect to have dedicated for reserves at the end of this five year period? Let's see here. It's on the graph. Yeah, it's on the graph. I just, I don't have the... Sorry, I'd be happy to look at it more, but I wasn't able to get to it before tonight's meeting. Well, it should be in the memo. Oh, here we go. So it looks like for fiscal year 25, we're up to 100,000, fiscal year 26, 200,000, fiscal year 27, a little over to like 250,000. And then by fiscal year 2020, 300,000. Okay, so we're building reserves, but it isn't going to be at the target level at the end of the five years. Yeah, it will be above the target level. If you look at the graph, the reserve target is the black line. And so we're under in fiscal year 24, 25, but as a fiscal year 26, we are above the reserve level. H-12, the agenda. H-12 on the agenda. Please, Doug. Fine. Okay, so we're valuing the current capital infrastructure there at $8 million. Now we're taking 2.5% of that and we're building up to that. Great. Any kind of violation for being out of compliance on the wastewater side? Is there, aside from getting notices, do we know is there any other mitigation that we're required to do? We are out of compliance right now and we are reporting that quarterly and working with them. They have not been aggressive towards us as long as we're continuing to try to come up with a solution. And I believe that they're also supporting the CSH7 consolidation. So they haven't been aggressive towards us, but yes, we are in non-compliance by the nitrogen exceeding the 50% nitrogen reduction and I and I in the collection system. Is there any legal jeopardy that that opens us up to, like lawsuits, perhaps from other water users of the San Lorenzo River? I think anything's possible because the city of Santa Cruz where nitrate issues are a concern in the San Lorenzo River so obviously it's right along Bear Creek and Bear Creek flows into the San Lorenzo River but those are all monitored. There's water quality samples in that. It's a very little and I think it's almost negligent that we increase nitrate from Bear Creek but we're not meeting the 50% reduction. So anything's possible, Jamie. I wouldn't say no to that, but highly unlikely. I appreciate that. I mean, I am in agreement that raising the rates without a clear project is a real challenge in terms of what we're asking the community, but I obviously have concerns in terms of our environmental stewardship of the watershed that we're responsible for. I wanted to clarify my understanding of the conversation that we're having tonight. I think what we're looking at is the basis on which we are going to then consider how we structure our rates. The model is a tool that gets us there. It's the outputs from the tool that we're now taking a look at, right? And so I feel like we have done our due diligence here in terms of considering how we might adjust the model to ensure that we are giving our community the best understanding of the basis on which we are next going to consider our rate structure. And it is not our job as the board, my understanding to then dictate the terms of the tools that is being used to give us these answers, right? So the model's a tool, the outcomes are what we are considering. Is that fair? Well, I mean, we do have some control. Excuse me. Thank you, I'd like to touch that. Yeah, I mean, so the ones we select a financial plan based on the model, from there, you know, the Raphtela School structure, you know, the rates and what the in the five year rate schedule is gonna be for each, for the customers and taken to consider consideration, alternative rate structures like Gail mentioned, you know, like potential capital improvement, surcharge or drought surcharge or whatnot. But, you know, it's my understanding that once we select the financial plan, we won't be making any changes to the model because that's what the, you know, financial plan is based on when we select. Thank you. I'd love to hear what Director Mayhood was going to say. I was only going to say that the, we're not given the model by Raphtela and then it, you know, comes down on stone. We obviously have made some changes to some of the input values and we've provided some feedback for it. But you're absolutely right that after that's happened, then the result of the model is what we're using. Thank you. In the presentation that you put together, I saw the statement in here that the revenue model has a 25 million over a five year period. It requires reserves to be used for emergency projects while at the same time, we're recognizing that our reserves are too low right now. So how are we balancing those two? We're low right now, but we're saying that we're going to be using reserves for emergency projects. So that's where the issuance comes into play. So, you know, all of the FEMA projects, we have to pay upfront until we receive reimbursement. You know, and reimbursement can be one to two years or whatever it may be down the line. So to make sure we have enough cashflow coverage, we need to issue that debt to ensure we can pay for those capital expenditures. So it basically is issuing debt to make sure our reserves are not depleted anymore. I like what you've done with the wastewater plan changes based on input that we received from the community at the last meeting and the council met and being able to go back and look and see when we would be doing that lateral to get into the county's new system. I think the county's on an 11 year program to eventually get to that point. We're not going to be needing to do any of this in the next five years. Probably it's on the order of more like eight or 10 years out that we would be doing something for that. So good. And the district has done a lot since we inherited that wastewater treatment system in an effort to do upgrades to it. But the district has still not been 100% successful. We've reduced it some, but still not completely successful on that. So I do recognize that. And the 25 million for the replacement of the Royal Water Pipeline I think is appropriate and this is the correct approach for us to take at this point. So with that, just Mark Lee has been patiently having his hand up since interested citizens, he would like to address the board and he hasn't think we're seeing him. Oh, okay. Right around Mark Lee. Mark Lee here. He also sent a text in. We haven't taken public comment. Right. Okay. When I get to public comments, I will address him then. Okay. So at this point I'd like to read out the motion and then solicit public comments. It's going to be a point of order. Would it be possible to split the motion into two? I'd like to read the motion as we have it here and go from there. If somebody wants to make an amendment to this, we can consider that thing. But I'm going to read this so that we all have it on the record. Move that the board instruct the staff and retell us consultants to use the modest disaster recovery spending financial plan described in this memo to develop possible water rate structures for the board's future consideration and to use the no spending for major upgrade financial plan described in this memo to establish a recommendation for the rate structure for the wastewater usage at Bear Creek Estates. Second. Okay. So with that out there, I'd like to solicit public comments on what we've discussed here. Anybody here in the audience? I'm Bruce Holloway from Boulder Creek. I guess what I've been hearing is the district is going to borrow its way to reserves. But that's not the way I think of reserves. I think of reserves as something that can be used for any purpose to call a reserve. They're not committed to something that's already going on. So I think, and I kind of wonder where everybody came from, that you think that you can borrow $19 million and call that reserves. I mean, that's what I've been hearing, isn't it? The district got into two long-term debts in the last few years and there's financial information in the packet. The district borrowed 29 and a half million dollars two and a half years ago and more than four years ago. And the financial information here shows that there's, as of August 31st, there was still 17 million of the 29 and a half that had not even been spent. And now you want to go borrow another 19 million. I have never heard of this kind of financing. I don't understand. I guess if you, I have my own model for the lifecycle of a project and construction projects included. And my model is, I wish there was a whiteboard, I could draw this. It's an S-curve. You start out slowly, you wrap up, you eventually hit your stride and you have an inflection point when you're spending most of your money. And then maybe it levels off at the top and you do the finishing touches. So you have an S-curve to a project. And it looks like these projects that began in 2019 that S-curve, the inflection point is three years. Three years or more out, which I think there's some IRS curve that says three years is the one map. I'm not quite sure how you've gotten past 30 years. But the way, the kind of financing that the district is getting into with these certificates of participation, it looks like you borrow the full amount up front. And we start paying interest up front for the whole project. But meanwhile, this S-curve doesn't really reach its inflection point for years in the future. So we're paying interest. And I guess you've already discovered last year that in this interval, you've got a treasury management problem. So it's not just a project management problem, it's a treasury management problem. What do I do with $19 million when I haven't figured out how to spend it? I've never seen this kind of financing. I mean, maybe Mr. Fulton, now he's got a lot more experience than I do. I have no idea how this, this is the strangest thing I've ever seen. You have borrowed more than tens of millions of dollars for years as you can't even spend it. You got 17 millions totally committed to projects and you've got more, you want to do it again. The other thing I'm a little disturbed about is I came to the last meeting. You've already decided you're gonna go with the above ground. I mean, it's a true shambles in the last meeting. Yes, the finance committee came to a consensus on an unagendaized item last, and now it's the same thing for the debt. So there's $19 million of debt. It looks like it's a done deal. There's no process. You can wrap up your comments, Bruce, I'm being cold. I know you don't want to listen to me, but you're in your third tier of borrowing money that you haven't even figured out how to spend. Thank you. Anybody else here want to say? Yes, I'm Eric Martin, here at Local and Molden Creek, right by the proposed home station, as probably everybody knows. The construction company that's doing the work, anybody that lives on the other side of Highway 9, is this focused to? It's part of the projects, and I don't know if you're aware of what's going on up there, but right now we're commenting on this budget model. We do have an engineering project summary that we will be discussing later in the meeting, but are your comments related to this revenue model? Well, I'll address the revenue model. Having no small amount of experience in the construction industry, I agree with what Mr. Holloway said. Borrowing money up front and then throwing it in the bank, unless you have a really good investment broker, banker, is a fool's errand. You borrow it as you use it. All of my construction projects that I did, my customers paid for them as installments. They didn't just give me $10 million up front and say, woo-hoo, go spend it. And I agree with that. There needs to be a more comprehensive project. And I do small, I did small stuff, and I don't know what he did, but I'm looking at this going, the math just doesn't make sense. Anybody else here in the audience? Otherwise, I will go to folks attending remotely. Mark Dalson. I'm sorry, I should have lowered my hand long ago. Okay. And I've been informed that Mark Lee would like to speak also. Is that correct? See any? You might have to raise your hand. Okay. Really having communications with problems with Mark because he did text the person in the audience, so I understand, but I can't, yeah. Can't pull it out of the, Peter, this is for him. All right. Given that then, we've heard from the public, but we put a hand up. I'd like to solicit any other comments from the board on our second round. Jamie. So just a couple of follow-up questions. Are there project financing rules that require us to demonstrate cash on hand in order to proceed through design and construction approvals? Or are, you know, like what seems to me, I understand why we need to finance the projects because we can't raise enough money with reserves fast enough unless everybody wants to look at 25% increases in order to have enough cash on hand to proceed through these projects. But I'm just wondering if there are financing rules that we deal with and, you know, if those limit our ability to finance things closer to the date of actually implementing construction. To be honest, so I wasn't involved with the last loan. So this would kind of be my first, would have been my first time dealing with that so that I'm not familiar with that piece of the information. Rick, maybe you have a better idea. I was thinking back to that, but you know, I know that, you know, we didn't move ahead with projects until we were sure that we received the loans. So we didn't want to go out and find out, you know, we weren't getting the loan. So one came in and then what happened that money would have been spent that it wasn't for the supply chain backlog. And you know, some of those projects were held up over a year during COVID supply chain. And that's why now we have such a big backlog and we're spending over and we're in construction right now of 15 million. So we're catching up and that money will be spent shortly that money's going out in large quantities. So we will be catching up on that. But we like to make sure we had that money before we committed, you know, on projects and budget. Okay, thanks Bob. Yeah, I mean, at the last meeting, I remember maybe the meeting before I spoke about the fact that we're as a board and through the numbers that were put together by our consultant, conflating real reserves with debt in terms of how we're looking at things. To classify debt as a reserve is insane. But I understand that that's a typical thing that folks do because it is money that's available to be spent. Historically, since I was around for the last two loans, I think there was some optimism that the ramp up time for the projects would be much shorter. As it turns out, you know, we took the loan out in 2019 at the end of that year. We started out in the first part next year, we got into COVID and then we got in 2021, we got into the fire. And in 2021, I think there was just a lot of trying to do too many things at once, basically. So I think we were overly optimistic at how quickly it would take us to ramp up. What isn't clear for me on the loan is whether or not that 19 million is required in order to cover cash flow for the district. That is because of the incredible delays in getting FEMA reimbursement, we would run into a cash flow situation. Early on, I'd ask for more of a granular, and especially for the public to be able to present a cash flow projection. I think we got something, but I don't know that it was really clear showing exactly why that 19 million was needed up front. It is just unfortunately a fact of life that FEMA does not, or has not been reimbursing us very quickly. I think we're gonna cover that here in another agenda item. The other thing about models, because I do wanna address the models, the model should reflect closer to reality. The model that was used in the last rate increase talked about 3.5% increases in operating expenses. Our budgets that were actually passed were consistently in the 6%, the 7% increases, or three points over what was in the model. It is because of that, that I'm skeptical that a model showing 4.5% increases in operating expenses, given that inflation is now much higher than it was back then, is in any way realistic. And it is that concern about making sure that we are presenting to the community a realistic model about operating expenses. It's really driving why I'm advocating so strongly for that. I am willing to bet that the budgets that get passed will not be 4.5%. They'll probably be in the 6% to 7% range, which would be anywhere from 3% to 4% over the models. I understand the issue behind that, which is if you show the operating expenses increasing too quickly, you're then forced into higher rates. And so that is why I think there's this tendency to underestimate what the actual operating expense increase is gonna be in these models. And then what happens on the backside of that is you lose operating margin that then reduces our ability to have reserves available to us. And these are the reasons why the model that's been presented by our consultant, the numbers that have been presented by our consultant are not in anywhere related to what the reality is going to be. And it is for that reason that I simply can't support this. I think it's, I think it does a real disservice to our community when we don't present models that reflect reality. Okay. Yeah. Okay. To that $19 million loan. Is there any reason we would be taking that out soon than what we would need to? No. What do you mean sooner? Like? Front loading it to the point of having it in hand before the engineering team said, here are the projects that we're gonna be having coming up next year. So that we would be holding it for years. I mean, in order to cover the capital expenditure needs, we would need to issue that then. Okay. And I mean, like the previous two loans, those funds are designated for a specific project. So it would be similar to that where we would designate specific projects to the loan funds. So, but it is needed in the early on in the first year because of the big capital expenditures we have in fiscal year 2024. Okay. So we have a motion in front of us. Did we get a second? Yes. Yeah. We guess. All right. Okay. That was me. Okay. Excuse me. I'd like to offer an amendment to that. I think we have to vote on the motion before us that's been seconded. I don't think that you can amend the motion once it's been seconded. Actually, you can't. I'd love to hear from you. Okay. Can you comment for us? You could ask to do a counter motion and see if you get a second. Thank you. Okay. So feel free to make a counter motion Bob. Well, actually I definitely want to look into that a little bit more and all the boards I've been on once the motion has been seconded you can make an amendment. I'll argue with what Barbara proposed here. Yeah, we'll argue about it later. So yes, I would like to move that the board instruct the staff and Raphael's consultants to use the modest disaster recovery spending financial plan described in this memo to develop possible water rate structures for the board's consideration. Period. Second motion. I move that the board instruct the staff. You take one motion at a time. If you want to make two separate motions you do one motion at a time you see we get a second on the one motion. Okay. So Bob's put a motion out in front of us. Do we have a second on that? Hearing none. Is there a reason to proceed with your second? Well, these are two very different questions and I'd like to support one but not the other. But okay, if the board says I can't do that that's fine, my apologies to the Bear Creek Estates people that the board will not allow me to support them. I think it's the rules. That's not the rules. We're following the protocol that our attorney has advised us. Okay, we have a motion out in front of us. Holly, did you take the roll please? President Smalley? Yes. Vice President Hill? Yes. Director Ackman? Yes. Director Falls? No. Director Mayhood? Yes. Okay, motion passes. New business, the public assistance and disaster recovery management services contract. See that three times fast. Yes, and the environmental planner will present this item to the board, Holly. All right, thank you, Rick. Do you want me to move a microphone a little closer? Can everyone hear me? Because I think you start off. All right, there we go. Thank you, Rick. You often start off with a check. And then, All right, great, thank you. All right, so FEMA offers project management cost claims through category Z at a not to exceed rate of 5% reimbursement based on the total obligated project costs. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex fires and December 2022 and 2023 storm events damaged or destroyed district infrastructure. This resulted in over 60 FEMA projects over the three disaster declarations. Due to staff bandwidth and the difficulty of reporting and compliance requirements associated with FEMA public assistance funding, the district released a request for proposals for RFP for public assistance and disaster recovery management services. Can you hear me? You speak really quickly. Oh, sorry. We're running together and it's also. I'm sorry. Okay, I'll slow down. The RFP outlined the district's need to complete the FEMA public assistance and reimbursement process. The RFP closed on August 4th and two proposals were received. One from Aptum and another from Berquist Recovery Consulting or BRC. District staff reviewed both proposals and found that each were substantially different in costs and hours needed. On August 28th, the district sent out a project list shown as exhibit D for the consultants to more accurately define hours and costs. However, the differences between the two proposals were still very great. After further review, district staff were recommending award to Aptum. Aptum's proposal clearly defined objectives outlined a clear schedule and laid out hours that realistically reflected the scope of work. Staff is prepared to answer any questions because there's more detail in the memo. Okay. All right. Well, I don't know about the rest of the board, but I have a lot of questions on this. So let's get started with it. I'll sort of give. Oh, I'll defer to you. Go ahead. Okay. And I prefer to go last on this. Bob, are you prepared to come ahead? Okay. I don't have- Where shall I start into? Yeah. Because I actually don't have a lot of comments about this. I think it's an important, you know, program and we just need to award this contract. The RFP and the proposal with, or the proposal submittal, they're both coming at us together here. The proposal for the RFP or the need for the RFP wasn't reviewed with, I don't think, the budget finance committee. It was not. Okay. Do you care to comment on that? It's been in development since I believe July. Right. I, you know, I saw it was pretty straightforward that there really wasn't a lot to it. Okay. That, you know, they needed those great knee or, this CZU fire estimate damage, you're now paying at 75,000. That's what the panel looks- Depending on what we, you know, depending on which way we go and we have not determined yet on the construction technique on the raw water. Right. But so it could be as much as that. Okay. But that's your estimate for right now. Could it be as much as that? And the 2023 storms, you picked it for me. It's probably going to be a little low. Okay. The RFP requests support for getting grants. And it spells that out, I don't know, in four bullets. Are those grants separate from FEMA funds? Or is that grants that are kind of under this bigger FEMA umbrella? FEMA is, FEMA considers they call that what their funds- Grants. Okay. So if it's seeking FEMA funds in general, and- Right. And we'll also look at other projects or other grants to fund projects to help us import. Okay. And I want to quote as best disaster-related work is further stretching staff capacity. And, well, you're laughing at Kendra. The fires happened three years ago. And I think, at least on the engineering side, I've been asking for questions. Do we need help? Do we need help? I've been hearing no. This is a bit of a change for well-being, right? So the problem seems to be getting FEMA to respond. And these folks have the track record and the staffing to continually inquire with FEMA and to work through them. And are generally seem to move to the top of the list. I don't want when we spoke to other Northern California fires, Paradise and therefore. And then the same people are found with their insurance companies. It's very similar by bringing in a consultant to understand the fine lines of FEMA or the insurance. Have a tendency to move it ahead faster. We're at a standstill on CZU. Okay. So have we been reimbursed anything for CZU fire costs? Yeah. Or has it been so? Grand total is like 475,000. Yeah. How much have we spent on CZU? Oh gosh, almost $5 million, I wanna say. And I do believe that the initial best for the reimbursement was for the emergency response. It was the nickel dime stuff in the very, very beginning. And that was a large problem. Minimal so far. Right. And keep in mind not only we haven't received the money more, but we haven't had these projects obligated to say that they will pay to do these projects. Okay. Who will manage this consultant for us? If we bring this consultant to us? It would likely be the management team. Which one? Who? It will be the management team depending on where it's at. Because there'll be finance, there'll be engineering, there'll be operations. Right, okay. So most likely it'll wind up the majority of it in the engineering department. But also finance will have a great role involved on that. Okay. So it will be, I know what you're looking for. You want one individual that will coordinate the district manager. So it would be the district manager who is responsible. Okay. Would be the person to. Would be the person to hold this on. That's great. Because can we see in a future? After Tim? Is that? General manager. Is that them? Aptim. They have a list of 12 different personnel or so at varying rates that they would have involved in this. Sounds somewhat similar. You would have the appropriate staff working with them. But with district manager or general manager as the point person focused on this. Okay. I see that Aptim's proposal provides for a little more than 2000 hours over a two year period. That's one individual working half time. So I take that as a fair amount of involvement over that period of time. And I realize it's not one individual that they're providing us because they all provide different levels of expertise into that. It's providing for a two year period. What's the likelihood that we're going to need this beyond two years? Given where we are now? I mean, keep in mind it is a not to exceed contract. So if they were to be able to finish up the work within one year, I don't think we would extend. We obviously wouldn't. That's what he's asking. I don't think that's a question. Okay, that's on the, I'm sorry. Well, what's the recovery timeframe for getting money from FEMA? I think it's going to be longer than the two years given where we, you know, what we've been able to recover so far. Is it likely that if we're working successfully with a firm like this that- So the big- They're going to be coming back to the somebody else. Well, the big thing- The staff is going to be coming back to say, yes. The big thing is getting the project obligated because once the projects are obligated, that's when we can start submitting for all of our expenses incurred to date and whatnot. And once they're obligated, you know, the invoices that whoever consultant we choose, those are also reimbursable as well. And, you know, these companies have extensive knowledge in working with FEMA and working to move the project along and get it obligated. So, you know, having them to help us with that, especially with our, you know, short staffing would be beneficial to start getting reimbursement. It may be years because you got to remember they don't reimburse until the project's completed. We pay. So, but we'll break off on this company once obligated and once that we have a obligated project which means as long as you don't go out of the scope of work, FEMA pays actual construction costs. So that's a benefit. Let me clarify one thing he said. If it's a large project, which, you know, the raw water pipelines would be and all that, and it is obligated, you can take project drawdowns. You don't have to wait till the project completion to get the full funding. So you can draw down what you've expensed to date on that. And I wasn't clear about what you were saying earlier, Carly, with this project Z level or category Z, not exceed. So can we get Aptim's fees covered by... Exactly. So the category Z would pay for this project management consultant. And that is not to exceed 5% of the total obligated project costs. Right, but at their current, we would need to have a project cost of seven and a half million. Right. Okay, we have a lot more than that. And they re-expense for, reimburse for our time spent as well. So we track our time in the same category. This is a recoverable cost that we have here if they are successful in getting us the full funding. Okay, and we checked any references on Aptim? We have not. They're actually from a reference. Yeah, they're actually from Paradise. We, during the fire, we worked very closely with Paradise on our quality and so forth. So we established a relationship with them and this is their recommendation. Highly recommended. Okay. Yes, we did. Okay. And a technical point on page 17 of the contract that we asked Aptim to sign already because they see their signature on it. You have a district council name. No wonder, of course, Gina's name is still on that contract. So we need to get that revised. Okay. Excuse me, I couldn't hear you. The name change district council. Oh, okay. On the contract. All right, that's all of the questions that I have on it to the rest of the board now, Jeff. So I believe I've got this right, but to put it in real simple terms, staff does not believe that the district has personnel who have the available time and the specific expertise to manage the claim process with FEMA in-house. And therefore, these are consultants who do that as we're living. And the belief is that we will be reimbursed more quickly and perhaps more richly because of their expertise. Does that put it in a nutshell? Okay, that's what I thought. Okay. All right. And just yet one more thing that we have to pay for up front. But I totally understand why this is necessary. And the grant writer has more than exceeded our expectations for what she's doing. I'm just grumbling. I'm not arguing against it. All right, just understand that. All right. I'd like to move that the district manager entered a contract with Aptim and an amount not to exceed $365,121 for the purpose of public assistance and disaster recovery management. I'll second that. Public comments on this. Anybody here? Anybody online? I saw Mark Lee's and pop up for about six seconds and it's gone now. Mark, I think he's having problems like here. Okay. Not seeing anybody else online. Okay. Sorry, we've come back to- I'm sorry, that's right. Yes, a second round. Jeff? Yeah, the only thing I had their question on is whether or not they had some forecast on how this would impact our cash flow. That is, are they going to be able to advance the reimbursements to the point where our cash flow requirements are not as severe? Are you asking the consultants are gonna do that? Or are we gonna have- Yeah, I mean, what's, when you're talking with them about paying them this money, and they're really good at it, which is what I'm hearing, are they gonna be able to start delivering cash to us so that we can accelerate the cash flow from FEMA so that we can be a little bit more flexible in taking out that $19 million loan? That's our plan to get to use this company to jumpstart FEMA and they keep this, start getting our reimbursement. Did they give you any ideas to how long they thought it would take to ramp up on that? What that S curve is looking at? I have a question now, but I'm not sure they gave us any projections of when they would say cash would start rolling in, Bob. Any examples of previous clients in terms of when you're checking references, how quickly they were able to start getting money in the door, and that's really what we're paying for here, right, is making sure that we get obligated, but more importantly, that we get cash faster. Any- Yeah, I don't believe that question was asked directly. Jamie, follow-up questions, please. I don't have any follow-up questions. I appreciate the concerns from Director Fultz about how quickly we can move this process forward. I think we're all eager to see FEMA begin reimbursing us as quickly as we possibly can. I would assume that what Paradise shared with you about them was that they saw improved returns by using these services, or? That, and Paradise had some issues with damage by not being obligated, that being turned down, and so they had to go a different avenue than FEMA could finally get. Their pipe was damaged from steam, and they wanted to replace all of the pipe, and FEMA said no, just the part that melted, and this company, through testing and working through them, got them to finally approve through the appeal process to replace all of the piping and all of the services. Paradise being the first one that had this contamination and having issues, Paradise went through a lot of different problems being the first one that we were fortunate to learn from Paradise. Right, and so one assumes that it would be foolish for any consulting organization to make a specific commitment about a timeline that FEMA's gonna pay us on because they actually don't have control over that, but what they can do is help to speed the process because they have the time, the bandwidth, and the expertise to navigate those conversations in a way that we just simply don't have staff that have dealt with the FEMA process often enough to have that expertise, and that's why, when I saw the staff report, I immediately thought this is exactly the right thing that we need to do right now. I just wanted to add one comment to sort of the process that we have been experiencing because we talk a lot about the history of what didn't get done or what didn't get spent when. There was a pandemic, a season of fire, a terrible series of winter storms. We lost our original director of engineering and had to replace him during this period. So for a long period, we were without that important staff role, and so that slowed down our ability to move these projects forward. Then we hired someone who unfortunately passed away, not very long into his tenure in that role, and that obviously has direct impacts. There have been other staffing changes. We've been unable to fill the project manager role, which was the role that was going to help us deal with these things. So I appreciate that staff has been trying to find paths and reaching dead ends for years, and this is gonna be a tool that will help us move forward at a time when we really need it, so. I view this as staff augmentation. We don't have the expertise here right now. Don't let the pandemic happen, okay? We have a motion in front of us that's been seconded to Holly. Would you take the vote? President Smalley? Yes. Vice President Hill? Yes. Director Ackman? Yes. Director Falls? Yes. I beg your pardon? Yes. Yes. Director Mayhood? Yes. Motion passes. Okay. Moving on to the consent agenda. Is anybody want anything that's here? Moving on to district reports then. Department status reports. First up is engineering. Okay. So to the board members first. Yes. How are you all coming? Yeah. Well, you know that Mr. Martin to ask about his, I was curious about the fish ladder situation. We have 10 days. Yeah, so I was just at the fish ladder today and they're currently placing the ROXO protection between the control weir and existing weir one. And there were some difficulties placing a half ton rock on the opposite bank. So they're actually placing a smaller class rock that's going to be concreted in place. And that's currently what they're up to. And- They're still on schedule to get out of- We are asking for a one week extension from Fish and Wildlife. So we'll have until the 20th to remove the cofferdam and the bypass. It might still be removed by the 13th, but that will give us a little extra time in case it pushes another week. And as Fish and Wildlife said, yes. We've received the extension from the state water resource control board thus far. That's good. With some extensive water quality data sampling that we have to complete daily, but we have been granted that. And then the Fish and Wildlife we're still waiting to hear back on. Okay, but I mean, the fact that one dead is a good indication the other one probably will as well, yeah. Okay. The Felton Heights situation, where are we on being able to move that one forward? So we've received proposals for the survey and we just need to enter into the contract with the selected surveyor. Okay, that's good news. Thanks. Okay, no problem. Jamie? No problem. Okay, I do have one question before I go out to the public for questions on this. Let's see on Breckenbrain 4 Springs, Santa's is close to wrapping up their portion of the work and they're gonna be ready to begin to prepare an RFP. One of the things that they're gonna finalize are their cost systems. I'd like to bring their cost estimate back to the engineering and environmental committees so that we can take a look at that. Again, comments are their cost estimate is here. DWR is giving us this much of the money and I want to be able to have discussions to do with any shortfall based on our engineer's estimate. It's not the contractors but it's at least the preliminary. It'd be my pleasure to bring the cost estimate to the committee meeting. Okay, once you have that in mind. Yeah, it's my understanding they're gonna be done with that very soon. Okay, good. All right. So, I mean, are you moving past engineering at this point or I wanted to, because we do have a citizen out there. There's several folks here that have questions I believe all the engineering projects that we're doing. That's what I wanted to offer. So, please. My name is Rocky DeForge. I live from the Thurmond area at Lord's Harbor. I have questions and comments about projects going on down there. Quick little background, like Richard Piccini and undergrad construction, NASA Electric Projects for the last 25 years. Managing projects like this as well. When the project started down there we were getting a notice, a five day notice that the project was starting. And the project started the next day. But the notice we were given was a five day notice. It was for another street in Lord's Creek. The, kind of the history about the water per day down there, it's been leaking for probably 30 years or more. There's probably been 50 to 70 leaks since we've been in the last 18 bless years. And what our concerns are is it's damaged the road base underneath it. The asphalt is all alligator from the continuous leaks that have been going on. We really appreciate the work that's been going on recently to get it done. But we're concerned about the restoration of the asphalt surface after you guys leave. If we want to know what the plan is for the restoration of the asphalt. The contract you guys have during the work is just incredibly, incredibly complicated. Working with PGNIA. I mean, if we didn't work like that, we would be soon left and right. You'd be this contractor. I mean, they don't use traffic control. They don't use cones, they don't use signs. They don't open trenches. I got pictures of an eight year old gentleman carrying a brush, stepping over a trench with nobody around. They don't direct traffic. They close the roads down. They don't tell the fire department. They don't tell the post office. They don't tell the residents. I have a business there. They just literally shut it down to my customers. They just tell us, my daughter drives my wife. It's a closed period. I know that the post office has had concerns. They talk to the foreman, maybe to the project manager before the project's been managed terribly, terribly. I'm just like, look at the end of this project going. I hope it's coming to a close quickly. Because it's just, it's terrible. The traffic in the back has been horrendous. The restoration, I really hope we talk to the contractor at once. I've talked to the camera who's been prayed. They said they're gonna overlay the asphalt. I really hope that's not the only fix. It's gonna be complete because the road base below the existing asphalt is wasted. It needs to be asphalt removed, re-combacted, and new asphalt put on. On the most, oh, especially Vernonwood. I mean, literally, we come down the road. I mean, literally the water's leaking out of holes. They just fixed the day before. I mean, there's, I'm not exaggerating. 50 to 70 leads on those three streets. I mean, we call it. Documentation by emails. So we appreciate the work that's being done, but the way the contractor knew the work was just unbelievable, unbelievable. We've talked to the foremen numerous times. I think the only stable grace is that they're off our street right now. There's somewhere else. They've literally piled dirt up against our redwood fence. It's been sitting there for the last couple of weeks without talking to customers. I think that's just like, again, in my world, the PCU, we would do stuff like that, mess with people's driveways, literally put in equipment, people's driveways. It's just, it was my mind. Without permission, no commission now. I have to apologize for the level of work that the contractor is doing out there, but I do want to ask Rick, are you aware of this? Yes, I spoke with the neighbors. We did get off to consider a back start down there. The contractor is extremely messy. I agree. It's not the easiest thing in the world to control contractors, but we have staff down there all day long. Cameron's down there as an inspector, Garrett spending time down there. I don't believe that Rocky's exaggerating. I think he's right on. I have talked with Garrett about conversing with the county because they are county roads to talk to them about re-establishing the roadway to the depth of what we should do to repair just the overlay. That pipeline was, we had pipe that when, actually that pipe was replaced not that long ago, but we had to have, we must have got some type of defected pipe because the pipe develop pinhole leaks like a soaker hose and has been a terrible problem down there not exaggerating the amount of weeks for the last few years. That's why it's being placed, but there is a lot of cleanup and I have to agree that a better job needs to be done down there and that we need to get the contractor to clean that mess up. And we do hold the purse strings and we will ensure that the road and the yards and everything are put back to the preexisting, so we'll do a walkthrough with the neighborhood and make sure that we make this as right as possible. Okay, I would like to hear about this project at the next board meeting then, so with that, okay. I appreciate it, thank you. Okay, thank you. Anybody else want to ask on your engineering projects? Eric Martin from Boulder Creek again. Just to carry on with this gentleman was talking about the construction company is absolutely horrible. No traffic control, 236. Anybody that lives on that side of highway nine, 20 to 30 minutes. And if they're smart enough to go to West Park, this morning the 10 wheel dump trucks started going down the street at 40 miles an hour and 25 mile an hour posted at quarter to seven backup alarms, loaders, all kinds of stuff going on. This in any other planet would just be not acceptable. The complete lack of traffic control or even concern for the people that live in the area. When I see a 10 cubic yard dump truck going by 40 miles an hour where people are walking with their kids and their dogs, I get a little excited because what's going to happen? They're going to run over somebody. They don't stop at the stoplight at West Park Ridge. I haven't seen one truck. Granite, every single granite truck has blown through that stop sign. Probably for the last two weeks, maybe three that I've been paying attention. And the same thing with all of their equipment. The yard that they've taken over at the corner of West Park Ridge. It looks like an industrial dump and that starts at 6.30 in the morning and it just continues on and on and on. It's a nose to tail stream of heavy equipment, backup alarms, my house. We today had to have all the doors and windows closed because the trucks were going to lie blown up so much dust that we couldn't even put our food out on the table. So that's what you brought to our neighborhood. Thank you. I do have to ask Rick, is this the same contractor that's doing both of these or is this the same project I'm on? Well, if they are actually granite, I don't believe we have granite work reports, but it may be. Granite is delivering this work. Okay, go Granite's delivering, sorry. Okay, that's a cement truck channel, you gotcha. But the dump trucks, there's multiple projects going along 236 in West Park, but I do know that we have had these issues with the contractor. And to the point that we're just gonna have to stop work to get these, just an issue of stop work notice to get these contractors' attention because it's a daily event trying to get them. And I agree, they're driving too fast at times, but you talk to them, it's difficult to get control of the project. We're dead in the street. So when they come off our homes around the boat, they're all, I mean, they're going to. I totally understand your question. But there are contractors, do we need to go so far as to shut them down for a minute? That's probably our final resort to be, we would have to shut them down because Garrett has spent time with them, Cameron has spent time out there. We've asked him not to start, they do have working hours. And we have a construction management firm. Well, the construction manager firm is not on this project. This is our project, we're managing, okay? Do we need, do we need other help on this? You need a company, who's the contractor? Who is the contractor? Until I talk to the council. What's the name of the contractor that we put on this project? JMB. JMB, thank you. They're more damaged than repairs. They damage, they may fix the pipe, but then they break it up the road, they're dumping things in people's driveway that can't come home. Some of that is, and I agree with this, but some of that's part of the construction and they will clean up. We will ensure that you clean this up and repair anything they damage. Some of that is part of it. These roads are so narrow and it is difficult to work on there, but it doesn't excuse it at the final. And we will address this more. Do we issue a stop-work notice? I'd like you to talk to her. I think we'll talk to legal council first and before we go deeper into this tonight here at the public meeting and we'll see what our options are. I'll speak with Garrett and we'll look at our contracts and we can go from there. All right. Okay. For one small thing out, if you want to control the traffic, have CHP strategy, and then we'll turn it all to CHP. They won't do anything, they won't listen to us. I'd like to put a hold on that. Yeah, Rick actually addressed again, I've referred to the contract. I would be curious at maybe one of our engineering committee meetings to have a review of our contracts. Because if we don't have any mechanisms in the contract to control behavior, our ability to do anything shut down is going to be limited. I think Garrett and I were already spoke to that, to make sure and we're keeping a running list of what we need to, like for instance, the storage yard needs to be fenced and that's not in, we don't want to cover it down. So we will update our specifications and see what we can do. Right. I agree. To get this back under control. They're describing trucks that are going well above the speed limit. Is there an accident waiting to happen there? Absolutely liability to you guys. If there are going to be. So, okay. We'll lock our entrance to our driveway or whatever with their sand and their gravel. And then people are trying to drive around it. They're telling neighbors to go into other neighbors' property and car. And trenches aren't being part of it. I want to encourage that we have a public comment and not a two-way conversation. Because this is a board meeting. All right. Thanks for the comments on this. District management staff is aware of it. Okay. Other questions then on the engineering reports? I've looked at the minutes of the engineering meeting which I attended. And I thought that there was some decision or some recommendation made. Taking out the 500 trees along the P-vine pipeline. As I recall the district manager doesn't even want anybody walking out there to look at the place where the pipeline used to be. And I thought we'd discuss this. And I didn't see anything in the minutes about it. So, does the district need to borrow $19 million before they can send out the trees along the P-vine pipeline? We've asked the district manager to get a contract for tree removals. I do believe we're out to bid or we're getting ready. Yeah, but we have to pass the time of the works. Okay. Okay, I understand that the minutes don't necessarily reflect everything. Any comments from members of the public online regarding this? If not, I'd like to see if we can move on to the environmental reports. On the grants ongoing section, Carly, are all of these in process or did we receive money in 11 months? If we did, when did we receive the money? Yeah, so I think I believe the table was put into the memo this time. It's not, it's so tiny, it's so hard to read. I see, yeah. And embedded spreadsheet might help. Right, okay, we can make that change. So the IRWM has been awarded which is for the hardening of the pump stations, the wooden pump station structures. And then the, sorry, going through them. Proposition one, that's that one. The fuel reduction has been awarded but we're waiting on a couple different agencies who are running those projects. That's CalPyro grants. And then the other, the USDA one we're looking into this next week with our grant writer to see if it's a possible fit. Okay, yeah, because while the grant money's still out there, we definitely want to go after as much as we can. Right. And we still on track for the Habitat Conservation Plan to come to the committee in October. I believe so, yeah. Jody's understands that we're trying to update the committee in the board. And she'll be prepared with the schedule. Right, I'll make sure. I do have one question on the environmental. There's a reference for the Altavira project, FEMA meeting for the Environmental Historical Preservation. Right, so. What's? As part of the FEMA process, you have to go through an EHP review, which is Environmental and Historic Preservation, where they pretty much check off the NEPA requirements. So we do go through CEQA, but then there's the NEPA, which is the federal level. So we checked the state, but we didn't check the next. So now we have to, so is the project. We're trying to not have it go on top. They're gonna start the work in the next two weeks. We have a meeting with FEMA tomorrow. Okay. Unfortunately, how FEMA likes to organize is instead of just having a call or an email, they wanna organize a 20-person meeting, which is really difficult to schedule with everyone's time. So we finally got it on the calendar for tomorrow. Okay, and I would hope that this is the flag putting up for us on other projects that you have FEMA involvement. This is gonna be, it sounds like you need a firm advising you on the FEMA projects. Do you know anybody like that? Some of this broke through the cracks when we lost Josh, because he was on it and it broke through the cracks. I'm not blaming, it just happened, but... It sounds like you need an outside firm. Anybody? You're joking. I'm fine. Okay. All right, moving on then. Questions on finance? Jeff. Jamie. Committee reports, oral communications. I see nothing there that we need to bring up. Do you wanna bring up one email communication we've received from Kelly Fuller? Email from an incident or something on 433 Western Avenue in Brokedale. Could you... Is that part of the agenda? It's not part of the agenda, but... We've addressed it. Okay, then in a future meeting, just... Yeah, we have addressed it with a breaker and gave her guidelines on that. Okay, I have questions about that, so I'd like to cover that in the future meeting. Okay, okay, then Rick, did you... Would you like to cover that in the future meeting? Okay. Okay, thanks. Yeah. I'm sorry, I didn't hear. What is... I have her printed email here. I can leave it with you. This is from Kelly. Oh, I have. And so I'll talk to the legal counselor. It may have to be in a closed session because this is pending litigation at this time. Okay, fine. That's better than mine. Yeah. That's what you're doing. Adjourned. Yeah, excuse me. Okay, we'll just...