 I have six 30 folks. So I'd like to convene this meeting the Board of Directors for the Severance and Valley Water District for March 16, 2023 in the session. Holly, can you take the roll please? President Smalley. Here. Vice President Hill. Here. Director Atman. Here. Director Atman. Here. Director Falls. Here. Director Maynard. Here. Tina, could you report on the one item that we discussed in the closed session? Yes. The report of actions taken in closed session is that the Board voted unanimously to approve the district manager's goals and objectives for December 2022-11 that's November 2023 with specified changes to publish the final document on the district's website. Thank you. There's nothing to report on the other two items under the discussed closed session. The decisions or deletions to the agenda stand by the chair. Okay. Oral communications. Do we have any members of the public? In attendance? No. Does anybody from the public have anything that they want to bring up for items that are not on the agenda this evening? Don't see anybody? And for the members of the public that are in attendance remotely I see nobody from the public physically here in the meeting. Mark, I wanted to suggest it might be helpful given that this is our first meeting back in person to see if either the attendees via Zoom to make sure they can hear us to see if somebody can let us know if they can hear us. Mr. Goldson, could you comment on the audio quality? Yes, can you hear me? Can you hear us? Not good. The audio quality is reverberant and it's a challenge to make out what people are saying. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. That's just my experience. But it's much worse than it was prior to going to the new meetings in format. This is the title. Okay. And records my understandings. Yes. We're moving ahead and we have an installation date yet but we are looking on that for both rooms. Can I ask a question? Would it be helpful to have a microphone system? I don't know. This is a temporary setup for tonight. A lot of cameras will be installed last week in March. Other equipment has come in. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your indulgence. Anything else from that procedural standpoint before we since this is the first in three years of an in-person meeting. Okay. The President's report. I have nothing at this point that I want to bring up. The district manager's report is at the end. Okay. Moving on and unfinished business. The investment update. Mr. Finance and your will present them to both of you. This item is in regards to the update on the investment of our 2018 COP and 2021 COVID-19 gross use. The January 18th budget finance committee meeting discussed investing the unspent funds from both loans into higher yielding accounts. The funds are previously being held in the Santa Cruz County fund earning an average of 1.4% and that is based on the December 2022 interest apportionment provided by the county of Santa Cruz. District staff chose to invest in treasury bills or T bills which are short term U.S. government debt obligations and the treasury department with the maturity of one year or less. These bills are sold at a discount to the fixed value and when the bill matures you are paid at fixed value. For example, you buy a T bill with a fixed value of 990,000 and you buy it with a discount at 980,000 and when the bill matures you are paid a full 990,000. Making the 10K on that. The investments are being made by the district's investment policy and the district has a long-standing relationship with those who are operating checking accounts with them and they were quick to respond to our inquiry regarding investments and we wanted to move as quickly as possible on these. Exhibit A in the agenda shows the project schedule that was prepared which shows the amount available from each loan allocated to each loan. The project schedule is being made to begin construction being. The project schedule will be referenced monthly and reviewed as project expenses are incurred to determine if changes are needed or if we have more time to re-invest. A schedule of each T bill purchase with their yield and maturity date will be provided for review of the next budget and we will then continue to provide quarterly reporting for the investment policy and we will continue to monitor as the project progress. Any questions? We will take them from the board before I solicit questions from the rest of the board. I do want to make note of an email that I received earlier this week from one of our rate fairs Mark Lee. Mark Lee is the individual that brought the recommendation to us previously that we consider these T bills. He recommends not placing these through Wells Fargo but instead through JP Morgan Chase based on the liquidity levels of Chase Morgan being a four times what Wells Fargo has. I received this on Monday. I think in part the Silicon Valley bank collapse that occurred last week is what prompted Mark Lee to put this together because he cites that in his email to me but given the fact that this was not part of the agenda was not able to be circulated to the rest of the board but he cites Wells Fargo cash and equivalents at 1.59 billion versus Chase Morgan at 5.67 billion in liquidity. So I wanted to put that out there to let the rest of the board know that I can receive that and who there will start to take other questions. I will start again. Good. I will ask the staff to respond to that would be that the T bills are back to the government so when the bill matures we will get that money back and if it is put back into an operating account we will have funds available to spend on projects. I am not sure it is entirely relevant so that is my response to that. Okay. Jamie? I was just wanting to clarify in the email that he sent us was he making an apples to apples comparison about Treasury bills? No. Because that was my reaction too when I read the staff report this is a short term investment vehicle it is not like the Silicon Valley but I have less concern about the bank institution itself. Okay. Any other questions on the not specifically is what any other questions on the agenda items specifically comment on that question. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I understand some of the email given the collapse of Silicon Valley bank which I have an account there unfortunately for deliberate reasons I understand that he was expressing but I think he does understand what was happening we are not buying equity in Wells Fargo hopefully we can explain that to you because I figured we would probably go into the office. I did have a couple of questions about the T bill range is about 4% or less at this point? It's about a year from I'll start out the schedule but over 4.5 to 5. Depending on the life. Exactly. Are you planning to do a lateral review? Yes. So what we did is we determined when we would need funding for the projects and what he did is he invested with the maturity closest to when the project starts to be conservative but as we get going and evaluate the expenses we need for the project we can determine if we want to do the same and the last question is what kind of cost did they charge us or did they do it because they were doing so much business with them and they didn't charge us in? So the email he sent me an email and said this is our rep at Wells Fargo it looks like management decided to waive the same thing with these testing T-bills really the cost of the transaction is what the focus is because there's no risk on security. Right. So he said please don't be received manager who will waive same thing until further notice. So I'll clarify what further notice means. And also there's a new cost that we did. I know they operate very thin margins okay great well I think this was really fantastic I'm satisfied I think I think we've done the right thing here and whether you personally care for one bank or another I think the risk is is almost zero here because we're putting the money into the bank doesn't have the money for companies and in times of all the chances of bank failure and so many things almost nothing yeah okay good okay I don't have any questions either Bob I just asked the one that I had so really with that is here the question will be of this profile on our accounts in Wells Fargo yes given that then I don't see a specific motion so oh thank you thank you does any member of the public wish to comment on this item I don't see any so are we concluded on that then I understand don't we have a motion okay thank you then moving on then to the agenda is the new business and it's the memo template and Barbara will present the memo okay well good evening everyone nice to see everyone in person again a little straight okay this item is regarding adoption of the memo template over the years many versions of the memos have been used to address the board and committee members to standardize and better organize memos district staff and the administrative committee created a memo template which is included as the instruction cover sheet details memo goals objectives and general instructions the template itself outlines each memo section is examples of recommendations and quotients at the March 3rd administrative committee many of you and the draft template recommended the board adopt a few changes incorporated these changes included adding environmental impacts if there are any provide further context in the background section ensure prior memos reports and other relevant documents were included staff recommended the board adopt the memo template and allow for further improvements to be identified for the following month that was the fair answer question okay okay I'm just really happy to see this this was something that I had advocated for a few years back and just wasn't timing we were visiting a lot of other things back in front of us I think it would be fantastic in terms of making sure that the board members are informed of the relevant information for the items in front of them and I would send you all some links to documents on the website which would be great I think it would be great for the community so thank you guys for putting it together something to do with that I'm sorry so great thanks a lot for doing it it's great job alright and I would like you to go to chair D.M and see if she can reflect on this first I would just say I'm really happy with the template I think that it will be a significant improvement just in terms of the organization of information I would like to emphasize what Bob said about including other information I didn't mean for it to be 400 pages of information but just point this to the links of past staff reports on the topics that were relevant that we might want to review as information for the current decision that would be really helpful to me so I love that we're encouraging people to do that I know it's going to be a work in progress I encourage staff to look at the language that's being offered around the resolutions it's really helpful to the board to know clearly what's being asked of us and sometimes the resolutions can be a little like what are we adopting here exactly so I think we gave a lot of examples of the way that we would understand this is what we're being asked to do but other than that last time yeah I'm happy with it I expect there will be some modifications over time but that's the way things work so we got it working better okay yeah okay great we have one request and I'm looking at the memo template and can you bold whatever you're asking the board to do as far as the recommendation because I don't see that in this one and I'm used to seeing that in other ones such as the next one that we're looking at where the request of motion is bold it makes it easier for us on the board to grab that as we're thinking through the various documents that we have in place and then good job on setting the standard yay yay consistency then makes it easier I would hope for the staff to give it away but then also for us that we're doing so that we can see similar information in a similar format down the group and at last any thoughts following on who edits these to get them into performance well I suppose that would be my job and the key to that is getting them to me so that I'm not having to rush them out as soon as I get them so the sooner I can get this information I can review it and edit so that it follows the template all of that sort of thing um yeah I will need to get it in advance okay yeah that's actually true the question which is all the staff's body this is I'll give you a thumbs up okay have you seen it okay I don't know where it goes exactly I don't know okay well I'm not just asking because that will actually make all those jobs wherever it is easier I do have a request to all staff I'd like to send a couple of versions of the contract approval recommended motion can you speak up please oh sorry about that I was requesting to send Carly a couple of bullet points related to contract approval to put in here so that we have a couple of distinctions that may be important depending on what's being done see you'll be very fine that's all right this is great okay um any comments from members of the public on this mellow template thing um then the board adopts them I think the board adopted the mellow template with the suggested additions to the council board okay all right oh President Spali yes Vice President Yell yes Director Atman yes Director Falls yes the next item on the agenda is the Peabody and Tree Work right thank you and District Engineer will present this report to Justice thank you Rick in keeping with the previous item this demo is in the new format so if anyone has any changes or suggested revisions this is your opportunity so staff are recommending that we proceed with tree work on the Peabody and the portion of the Peabody and the five mile raw water alignments in this case what we are looking for is authorization from the board to perform a hazardous tree survey which will identify all trees which are hazardous and or damaged along the alignment referred to removal removal being the second phase of this particular operation will then allow us to get a topographical survey complete which is the next thing we need in order to proceed with determining exactly how it is we're going to proceed on replacing the raw water pipeline to that end I presented a memo and the proposal of my power's forestry and we'll take questions you said Peabody and five mile the greater Peabody and five mile, this is limited to Peabody so yes, Peabody searcher question is that Jeff wasn't clear to me what is happening with the slash trees that get removed they will be locked and I left in place as an urgent control interest okay any opportunity to recover any funds by selling this firewood or anything like that frame that you need the backpack to allow it would eliminate any possible in time yeah there's no vehicular access yeah yeah let's turn this together yeah I guess I noticed that it costs money to mark the trees and it doesn't take them out and so if you're going to remove them why is it necessary to mark them this is our our land and so in our there is a reason the reason is that in order to get a female reimbursement for work we must be able to provide an email with a latitude and longitude to 10 significant figures of every drum roughly one meter of accuracy for every single tree greater than 6 inches in diameter at breast 8 or roughly 14 of per yes every single tree an exhibit that demonstrates where they are and if we don't people won't pass so that's why we the tentage is facetious I suppose because one meter starts getting differentiated no it was not facetious we use tentage or accuracy I think female that's more than what we are better than tentage just under a meter yes we provide greater accuracy because that's the equipment sorry do you mean decimal 4, decimal 0.6 for 10s yes okay got it okay because I was freaking out it was 10 on the other side not 10 significant figures roughly one meter the other question I had is just to be really clear so the number 2 that's actually cutting down on the trees that is removal cutting down on identified hazardous trees lopping them up in place and scattering them on the side did we do hard people or solicit bits from multiple suppliers we have not and is there a reason for that yes because the primary other forester that we would use indicated he was not interested so we could have gone through the process without one bid if there's only two guys in the area that can do the work because in fact they need to be registered in professional foresters I thought maybe one of them would just lay down okay great so at this point when this is all done it'll be safe for everybody to go out there and like to trail et cetera whether for many 90 given day yes very cool thank you I can tell me questions about the p9 replacement project although really interesting to catch about it being more expensive to mark the trees I'm taking out I just just you know it's a necessary step in the preparation for the tree removal that I will say since you invited comments on the staff report I'm really over it and thank you I thought it was really clear the only thing I have asked is that all of the recommendations don't worry about putting reading more because you know read it we're not doing our docks but otherwise thank you very much it was great staff work so to be clear the 13,550 that covers all of the tree removal so I assume somebody's been out there already to assess about how many of these trees yeah okay that is my understanding okay Mike I was very confident with his numbers okay good last month we spent 5,000 getting 9 trees revoked without any service we spent 700,000 that is like 700 trees yes and that's okay understood do we have an alignment or is the alignment that we're using the alignment for pipe it is the existing alignment okay okay that's what we're going with any environmental impact this this is I didn't see that in the memo but I do see that in the draft this particular work is in the nature of immediate repairs which we can do without getting clearance okay once we get on this we will need to look at environmental impact we'll also need to complete some biological surveys and potentially cultural so at least nothing bird and we're starting before September 1st or for the tree for the actual tree removals okay alright okay and I have been back to the previous item on the agenda since the memo that says that particularly for the construction budget to deal with any of those even because no environmental impact is going to be online you can keep that status and you don't ask that question okay okay that's all the questions I have on anybody from the public want to ask questions or comment on this tree removal item if not I'd like to make the motion that the board authorize the district manager to enter into negotiations with first Street LLC to finalize the award of the Peabody Pipeline Hazard Tree Serving Inventory and Trail Clearing 31970 dollars second thank you President Smolley yes Vice President Hill yes Director Ackerman yes okay moving on the update of the San Lorenzo River Worker Sanitary Serving is it time for you to present San Lorenzo so for the past few years the district has partnered with the City of Santa Cruz to meet the division of drinking water or BEW's requirements of completing a sanitary survey in the watershed the Sanitary Survey must be committed for all watersheds that act for drinking water source through partnership with the district through partnership the district has been able to meet this requirement with minimal investment however this economic approach has led the document to be recycled throughout the years this year staff has had a significant amount of time working with the consultant in making revisions the document does meet all BEW requirements in highlands and more takeaways the document could be significantly improved due to budgeting restrictions and high constraints to meet BEW's deadline staff in the city agreed to move ahead with submission of the survey to BEW after considerable edits requested by the district were made these edits included additional information on the impacts of the CBU fire on the watershed and district lands and a cover summary sheet highlighting key sources of contaminants and recommendations in the future staff recommends continuing to partner with the city of San Groups but starting with a fresh document instead of recycling the original document it's recommended that the board review and accept the 2023 update for the San Lorenzo river and north coast watershed Sanitary Survey and staff is prepared to answer questions This is quite a lost first thing isn't it? And I can see how it can be a fixed job that eventually needs to be done I was very relieved to see that it's a very analytical volcanic eruption Are you sure? Let's say some of the geology was a little scrambled but this report doesn't bother me too much because I don't think that there's stuff that is going to be acted on shortly the way, for example, some of our senate margarita reports are so it's not worth to go into detail the kind of things I thought were interesting one of the recent announcement of the new PFAS EPA requirements that you've got to be under the parts patrolling and that actually is probably two hours and I could do higher than that because we've set that at the protection level what most of the things are it was interesting that they got a number of pits in the San Lorenzo river that we love that and a lot of things are close I don't know I'm hoping that our should be problematic but I guess that's a question information I would think that it would be less because we're the geology that we're in but given especially that we've got a whole lot of watershed that burned it would just be useful to know to try that this is something that really scares me I suspect that we're going to find out that 90% of the service order is in violation of these standards and how we're putting out this the other question I had was there was a statement here about there's an upward trend in the all form abundances in both Fall Creek and Borden Creek and most notable was the big jump in 2021 and so I guess one question I had was when were these measurements made in 2020 in other words were they before the fire that's a great question and that would be something that so Jesse our water quality manager did go through the drama as well through the water quality sections so that might be something that you think this is under investigation but it's pretty important that we know when it gets testimony because if that number is pre-fire then what we when we recollect in 2021 what we'll get in then is some effect perhaps it has something to do with the fire and I don't know why California would necessarily go on with the fire and James you may know one reason you know what we do is we do something in the moment like what's happening before the fires are out there in 2021 well we do that monthly so these are okay so do you add how geometric means yeah so we do that monthly and it's it rotates throughout the whole district so we actually take weekly coliform bacteria tests so it's a continuous all the time sampling thing but I guess I would still say what I was going to say which is we should at least for those for the paul-free conformity which places would be in our water is go back and look at those for the fire the raw water is quarter I understand that I understand that these are raw water bodies but I'm just trying to understand whether this is a fire whether it's suggested that it may have something to do with the drought although 2021 is also a drought we can look and see what percentage we're taking on that data that's pretty good just okay I'll take my question no problem alright James yes yeah just a couple of questions is this something that's driven primarily by the city of Santa Cruz and we piggyback on that that's right so in the past the city we actually don't believe confide in 1996 when the first report was due I believe the actual requirements are in 1991 with the five year intervals and then we were supposed to submit by 1996 and I don't believe we actually did about that time I'm not sure exactly what history is there I don't know if Rick knows so for the compliance it started in 1991 and I don't believe the district actually submitted a report for 1996 when the first one was due and I believe we started to partner with the city in 2006 was the first one we did with them and so they had completed it for our entire watershed and we were able to partner with them because we share the same source waters in the watershed and is your view that the content and the views mostly the city of Santa Cruz view of things in terms of assessing a variety of factors yes because the report started out as just a city document does highlight a lot of city portions so what I ended up doing this year particularly was really adding in and SLBWD does this and here's the components we're doing for ourselves to protect the source water and you found a remnant of those of your parents without any issue and apart from cost point view you have an idea what the split cost is so we do it by connection so the city does pay the larger portion of the document we pay $18,000 this year for our portion and I think I actually have that I can provide to you yeah I understand it probably isn't significant it would be interesting to we have a lot more commercial it's not an apples and apples site given the connection deltas between the organizations but we don't need any material thank you yep so our website we have annual sanitary surveys or personal water safety surveys we did not do one or we don't have a postal for 2022 is this a replacement for that we do it every five years okay well there are annual ones for those reports that should be a separate report the sanitary survey that are annual are of the actual water system and the distribution system and the treatment system yeah the reports we get from the state okay my only question was how does this relate to that so once we put it on our website our reports just relate to it so this is a combined larger scale and the water system where the other ones don't have water okay and is that why we don't see 2022 data exactly so it covers 2017 to 2021 okay all right chapter 6 as I'm trying to go through it seems to say to me continue doing this testing continue what we've been doing continue doing the same thing is there anything to report results in us do we as far as any significant new actions that we will have not not really I think the other part of it being a recycled document is it does kind of stand to stick to the same you know our sort of contaminants our risk of change that's it recommendations that to me looked like all the recommendations that things were already doing and that we've been doing and it's probably the same recommendations that they've seen through last 10 or 15 years okay okay those are the questions that I had then oh one editorial since we've already talked about memo templates and formats the proposed motion comes at the end and already holds forward to follow the recommendations so look at that okay any questions or comments from the public on this sanitary survey aspect seeing none so I believe that you're asking us to accept this then I'd like to make the motion that the board accept the 2023 update for the San Lorenzo River and Norquist Wireships sanitary survey second President Smalley yes Vice President Hill yes Director Ackerman yes okay includes the business items the consent agenda does anybody want to comment on this otherwise it's approved as as noted in here just for reports just manager manager yes we've received today the funding agreement the sign funding agreement the mistake or the Polish frames so now we can start requesting reimbursement for your funding agreement in place so so San Francisco so we can submit those I am also wanting to know turn around or what do we submit okay good thank you about how far are we to the internal expenditures that we're in that's where we're going to be and percent wise all of us here's I would be exactly but I would say it's pretty substantial yes I would be very nervous but way more expected okay so the the questions on these we'll start okay yeah Jamie so Bob I didn't know this were we just get us to that can you get us over that yeah if the storm's internal creeps up into really dirty, turbid water plants will not shut off but once it gets super dirty we get them back on line very quick and we're still sending surface water to Scotts Valley and we can continue doing that for a foreseeable future not under the emergency situation we're so we're kind of doing in lieu already we're not having a pump in Scotts Valley which is the the we're actually a couple of different ones we just made the surface water a little bit strong this year I'm shocked I'm pretty comment on that I'm just putting it in my hillside right now he might be doing surface water a little bit longer than me okay that's great okay thanks Bob a couple of questions me on the engineering Josh, when do you expect Sandus will complete the design and update their engineers cost assessment for for I'm expecting a complete set of preliminary plans at the end of this note that is for all pipeline work does not include necessarily the tank site the tank site work which is not fundamentally safe we follow that the updated cost estimates should be done with that preliminary assessment okay and on the oilhole pipeline you noted the damage that was done out there is any of that potentially related to the fact that we had a contractor out there and we disturbed Brown or is it potentially the situation as of this afternoon so it's not necessarily in the back of here we had on site they had a little bit they're in two episodes if you will the first half of the part of county took responsibility for it is a diagonal process under drain with an outlet into the field in the park which they own entirely their project the second episode which is much more recent this past storm last two storms we started seeing sinkholes going down the oilhole towards again so just down to the oil circle we talked to the county played with them for safety through this last couple of days at Grand Rock out today where they moved into damage they see there's a little sinkhole which actually broke all the way through they found two moids in the sand just wash out and here's that that wash out happened when water struck the backfill and we put in slurry which acted as a water of our forced water down below through our pipe I would like to know the size of that slurry is a county specification and it works with a county detail so whether where that's all going to end up I can't say but I would say that yes the damage is likely a result of the slurry but the reason the slurry is in there is I understand that okay have we formally notified Grand Rock of this damage aspects the question is to you and to Gina do we need to have an indication of that in the end how it's coming back to us for costs on this I'm going to recommend that we take the discussion online and that I circle up with Rick and Josh about what steps good thank you okay okay that's all the questions I have questions on any of the department's status reports committee reports don't see anything else here come in what is the SLP that we are in Grand Rapids yes why is that there's no context yes I don't know what did you say that I believe you had asked good but no context is that actually it's there's no introduction information there's too why I did that sometimes we need to I thought this was being sent out as an inspirational email so sorry we went back and so please refresh my memory on what this is for this was an application to retain the grant proposal that was submitted and the board kind of approved the resolution and you requested to see the proposal that's the context thank you excellent okay we have to go back to the closed session but we concluded this portion of the open session yes and now we'll see our logistics when we come out of the closed session we have to re-copy that one yes we do need to re convene we could do what we have done for some of these in the past when you go back to the closed session at the end of the meeting and announce for the betterment of the public that there's no anticipated important open session so there won't be any there's nothing else on the agenda there's not going to be a closed session there's not going to be anything happening there's not going to be a closed session okay thank you for that great to see you great to see you not really Mark what time is it? I have 7.24 okay we'll look at our new clock my clock says one thing that says one thing