 okay let's call our board of directors meeting to order so Cal Creek Water District first item up is a roll call here here next item is public hearing of which we have none we then go to the agent this consent agenda any directors wish to pull any of these items are anyone in the audience like to pull 3.1 3.5 any particular 3-1 3-1 I just wasn't at the meeting son okay all right abstain okay so we want to move the other consent items I'll move approval of the others second okay we have a motion second roll call please yes yes yes yes it works okay so 3-1 I guess we we have no other changes I would move approval of the three ones yes yes yes so that passes almost unanimously 3-5 okay I just had several suggestions for the what's on tap newsletter good let's get to them okay so starting with the first page I thought that it might be nice to show a photo of instead of just the wrecked pipe maybe show a photo of what new pipe looks like in comparison and what we're put it what we're putting in to replace it just to show that kind of comparison and on the second page 22 of the agenda but second page of this on the left hand greenish area there's kind of an explanation update on the different water supply options and I thought that we might not want to assume everybody knows what pure water soquel is and explain that it's you know a recharge project of advanced purified water just just to you know make sure we don't just assume everyone knows that purposes to stop seawater right exactly that's what I meant just an explanation of that brief explanation and all then down under desalination private company needs a space between it and then we might want to put when the EIR is expected even though I know that dates kept moving it might be an update there was an article in the paper just last week that says it's either gonna be the end of the year or early next year I just think it'd be worthwhile having that in there then on the finance article on the second paragraph about five lines down instead of developers I think we should put customers small amount of we collect from customers putting in new homes or subdivision I mean these are individual people not all large developers a lot a lot of them are just single family homes we don't have very many big developments here and on the next paragraph on the one two three four five six seventh Ryan seventh line I just thought instead of but for the district I just said for our district might be just clarify and then at the very bottom of that article something about I thought we should have something in that last paragraph about that that the reason we have this consultant and we have to go through this process we have to be sure all the rates are fair and reflect the actual costs because that's we you know it's not like we just pick rates they have to be really well researched and and justified and justified so I think that as long as we're explaining finances we might as well explain that all right next page sorry the free waterwise house calls this is more just a formatting issue on the little first paragraph it says includes a thorough irrigation system assessment to and then there's about five bullets the last two aren't really anything to do with irrigation so might want to just be includes and then have a bullet for irrigation and then put sub bullets for the irrigation items and then toilets and shower heads as a separate bullet maybe we just say a thorough assessment to and then yeah that's all just you know since I put it under the heading of and then my I think this is my last one on the last page under consumer covenants water quality report it says in 2017 we continue to water we continue to meet so we need to get rid of the word water and I said I would say meet or exceed all safety and water quality standards because most of the time we're not just right at the issue we were like there's no no did not detect for a lot of that is all question about the picture there though but what was the picture for the yeah there's no big landscape we wrote this and submitted it was a question yeah so what my day he was there and has taken some pictures so we'll put a picture is your imagination well I did but it was just so it wasn't a correction it was yeah it happened on Saturday yeah exactly I've got it just a minor thing on page two of the what's on tap page 22 of the agenda there's the second paragraph I think it is starts off with the district sole source of revenue comes from money collected from rent ratepayers for water service and then it says we also have so can't have a sole source and also so just primary primary primary major major vast majority and then and then kind of along those same lines little awkward down in the paragraph below it says but for the district money collected almost entirely from water rates is what enables us to provide reliable okay there maybe just reword that instead of collected but the revenues from water rates I I mean that I get the I get what the thought is that that gives us stability but just that's all I have all right I don't think we need to approve this this is just right by the we will incorporate those changes thank you thank you all right so where do we stand or communications unless we're doing that no we're not or communications right so this is the time for us to address us on any item not on tonight's agenda so if you wish to speak to us about something this is the time good evening my name is Christina Quavis I'm a member of the board of trustees of Cabrillo College and I'm here tonight to introduce our new president superintendent of Cabrillo Dr. Matthew Wetztein he comes to Cabrillo and Santa Cruz County is the former assistant superintendent and vice president of instruction and planning at San Joaquin Delta College in Stockton California there he led and participated in research and funding and institutional grants totaling eight million dollars prior to that Matt served as the interim dean of the San Joaquin Delta College agriculture science and math division and before that he was the dean of planning research and institutional effectiveness for five years he has he has received a PhD in political science and an MA in political science from Northern Illinois University and he holds a BA in political science in university from the University of St. Francis and Gillette University Illinois we the whole board and the faculty and the staff of Cabrillo College are really thrilled to have Matt Wetztein as our leader and I'm proud to introduce him as our new president and superintendent welcome yeah welcome yeah thank you very much it's a pleasure for me to join the community I've already met several of you we had a wonderful presentation in my office about a month ago with Ron and staff talking about the pilot project for the injection well to prevent the seawater intrusion wonderful presentation our board of trustees last week to discuss that project with our board of trustees as well so I appreciate Dr. Daniels and Ron for their appearance at our meeting I pledge to do anything that we can as a college to be a good partner for the the water district and obviously save as much water as we can as we're watering and using resources but if there's any way that we can partner on that particular project I'd like to see the college involved in in solving these kind of regional problems rather than being a part of them and so we look forward to working with the staff on further issues related to that and just wanted to extend my thanks for being part of this community I hope to meet many of you outside in other venues I'll leave my business card with you if you ever want to get in touch with me about college matters or things related to the water district please feel free to contact me so thank you so much thank you for coming thank you thanks for your support thank you anyone else wish to address us see no one bring it back we won't we skip over the reports and the wills serves and go right to 6.2 the presentation of Monterey Bay area-wide save water video contest awards so do we have anything from staff on this yeah do you want to I worry this yeah okay this is the fourth annual student-made video contest this year and it was organized and sponsored by SoCal Creek Water District in partnership the with the water conservation coalition of Santa Cruz and the water awareness committee of Monterey County making it a Monterey Bay area-wide contest the contest goal was to create high quality videos to encourage people to save and protect water the suggested care categories were inspire residents and our businesses to take one specific action that conserves water or prevents pollution to our water supply or tell a story about a resident or business that has taken action to conserve our water resources or prevent water pollution or create a visual representation of how much water is saved by taking a specific water conservation action local high school video production classes offered through the Santa Cruz County career and technical training program and other video production classes for high school and college students in Monterey and Santa Cruz County were invited to submit short public service announcements in English or Spanish some classes received presentations from staff about water conservation and water pollution prevention several teachers made the video project a class assignment for credit more than 50 videos were submitted from schools in the Monterey Bay area over 130 students learned about how to save water and participated in creating the videos once a water conservation staff and water committee members were invited to judge the videos judges were impressed by the creativity and wide variety of water conservation and pollution prevention topics that were covered in the video so we will now show you the videos el desperdicio de agua empieza con una gota a acabar con una sequía es fácil conservar agua uno si él había la llave cuando telaba las manos dos si llueve colecta agua y puede regar tus plantas cuando sea necesario tres por un rocedor a tu manguera cuando rígas tus plantas a gallon of water is an opportunity it is an opportunity to cook to clean to garden and to do a whole lot of other things that means that the average American family wastes 180 opportunities per week so don't waste yours you could save water by doing things like using a shower bucket not watering your plants before after and when it is raining turning off the tap when you're not using it and collecting rainwater who knows what you could do with all the gallons of water you'll save we're now going to present the awards to the students the winning videos and awards were chosen for their video quality entertainment value and ability to educate the viewer about saving water the top six winning teams share $500 for each team wasting water drives me crazy by kitty small from cabrillo college conservamos agua by odalis dominos rocio moralis from aptos high school conservando agua by Trina dying and Carmen Garcia from aptos high school easy ways to save water by matthew bill from aptos high school water wrapped by Jackson Moore from cabrillo college conserved tons of water with a simple trick by Ben hablet Emily Carrillo and Jordan broxton from aptos high school so if the students who won I want to come up for a photo opportunity come on up and we'll the the ones who gave me your address and we were able to cut your check we'll be able to give you your check tonight and so come on up for a photo opportunity with our board of directors so an individual opportunity yeah this is Jackson Moore now he's at cabrillo college right thank you for your great wrap water wrap here but I want to recognize also that near teacher Joel dome hop he his class has submitted the most amount of videos so I really appreciate your support of the contest and is are there any other teachers in the are they under any other teachers here I don't recognize you by your face so don't know all right well thank you to all the teachers who supported the contest as well all right so where it goes from here is your videos will be on TV on two different three different stations oh oh and the oh I'm sorry the runners up was Holden Barker from aptos high Dasary belt this belt Belles Terrace it's Zuri Gonzalez and Luis Sebalos and so after this your videos will be on TV and they're going in on Kate and KSBW KION and the community television of Santa Cruz County and they'll also be on our website and the water conservation coalition and the Monterey County Water Awareness Committee represent agencies from many from water agencies all over Santa Cruz County as well as Monterey County and so they're all of the people who voted were all water conservation specialists and water managers who are involved in the water conservation outreach for their agencies so they really appreciated your really fine work and it was really hard to only choose eight because there's some really great ones and from your classmates so I hope that they feel appreciated too and the video job the videos will be shown at three of the movie theaters as well yes and they'll be shown at three movie theaters the cinema nine downtown Riverfront Theater and one other one on the paper the Green Valley Cinema in Watsonville yeah so good job everybody did a great job you don't have to stay for the whole meeting it's okay everyone gets that award like Edward's note okay let's go back to five point one Yeah, I'll report out on a couple items. So this coming Thursday from 7 to 9 p.m. at Simkins Center is the MGA, Mead County Groundwater Agency meeting. The primary item on there is related to the approval of the budget, the next year's budget. So it's approximately about $1.3 million, much of that will be covered by the $1.5 million grant that we received, though, to help develop the Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Then on Wednesday, May 23, the following week is the Groundwater Sustainability Plan advisory committee meeting. I will be not attending that, I'll be in Washington, D.C., but I believe Bruce Jaffe, well, Dr. Jaffe will be attending, okay. And then I'll just make note that on May 21st is the Water Rates Advisory Committee from 330 to 5, and I know one of the committee members, President Daniels, won't be there, so hopefully the alternate Director Lather might be able to attend or buy a phone, and we can follow up on that. That's all I have to report out about the calendar. Any questions? I just wanted to remind the board that the next meeting on June 5th is going to be a community foundation. Okay. Thank you. And I'll just, the July meeting I might have to teleconference in, I'm not sure yet. Okay. So we go to 5.2, the special board assignments. Yeah, I really won't report much out, except to note that we added the items in red underline, I think they were from the previous meeting, there were several, about three or four items that the board directed staff look at in the future, so those have been added to the list. Any questions? And one marked off. Always like that. Any questions about these? I do not. All right. 5.3. Organization wide abbreviated status update. Yeah, does staff want to come up and... For conservation and customer service field, I don't have much to add. Are there any questions about the items reported? Yeah, I wanted to ask about the AMI meter system, the transfer, because it said that the shipment of the hybrid meters is dependent on the master meters completion of the licensing and so on. So is that going? It's going, they're probably about a week out from finishing the propagation, the radio frequency propagation study that has to be completed before they can apply for the licensing through the Federal Communications Commission and that's only supposed to take about a month and so we're pushing them. I think they are a little short staffed, but we are pushing them to get expedite our project, so we'll keep pushing and not let up. Can you take them and install them without activating them? You can install them and read them as drive by automated meter reading systems without the collector stations in place. But they have to be programmed before they can be shipped from the factory and they can't be programmed and shipped until they're licensed and so we have our order in and we're waiting on the propagation study and the licensing and then they'll ship those and we'll likely read them in the drive by mode until we can get the collector station placed for that area. Okay. Yeah, I just wanted to, the rough idea of what that meant, actually. And we'll be bringing that item back. We're shooting for the first meeting in June to bring it back as offset, potential offset generating project under the Water Demand Offset Program and then along with that there will probably be an update of where things are and our plans for moving forward. I had another, I had a question about what it meant, the third bullet down on the 30-day notice to the city and the county, the city of Capitola and the county about the conclusion of the retrofit, what did that mean? We've been enforcing the city of Capitola's ordinance and the county of Santa Cruz's ordinance that require fixtures to meet minimum efficiency standards anytime a property is sold. And because we've been doing that program for so long, we've achieved so many of the retrofits we were seeing very few homes or properties that were not in compliance and it takes a significant amount of staff time to administer that program so we came to you last month and said we think we've worked ourselves out of this job basically and you agreed and so we, because those local agencies have ordinances on the books, we've given them a formal notice that we're terminating the program and so they've been working on what they're going to do instead and in fact the city of Capitola just had a meeting last week to revise their ordinance to basically say that the program will not be continued in within the areas of the city served by Soquel Creek Water District. They'll continue to do it for the 10% of their area that's served by the city of Santa Cruz for a couple more years but we explained to them that through this program itself our rebates that we've had in place since 1997 and thousands of retrofits through our water demand offset program, there's just not a lot more out there to be done based on the current standards and there's also point of sale, California point of sale restrictions on fixtures and people are, you know, when they're redoing their bathrooms or whatever they're held to the California green building code requirements and so there's also those kind of passive things that have resulted in a lot of fixtures being retrofit so. I'll just add that, that was, we actually, the city and the county both gave us the authority assigned it over us so we could do that so a long time ago the board realized we had better resources and a better reason I guess to take care of it and so we did and now we're telling them we've done the job. I just wanted to hear what they were going to do. It sounds like they've got, they're making plans. And the county is going to continue with the program and they administer the program, it's kind of a, they don't enforce it actively like we've been doing, what do you call that when somebody's on their own, a trust system or honor system so they'll absorb the portion of the service area back into their program that they administer countywide. Engineering please. Good evening. The first bullet is something I want to expand on that we are wrapping up the bench scale testing for the water purchase between Santa Cruz water department and us. Preliminary results are promising but we're waiting for the final weeks of data to come in and we've scheduled a presentation to the board on July 17th so I hope we can look forward to getting that final report and presentation. Great, follow up questions on that I can answer them. Also we did put the Cornwell tank back in service so it's fully functioning and providing fire protection etc. to our sub area one. Ready for summer. And then I think I'll cover one item for O&M. Unfortunately last week we did discover that our main street well which is one of our main producers in sub area one likely has another hole in the well casing. We discovered several, well we lost 30 feet of gravel pack and it ended up going through the pump and into the reaction tank so it is offline now we'll be pulling the pump and doing a video to see what we have to do. If you recall a couple years ago we did do a whole rehab on that well and had a hole and we patched it in two locations and likely to be another problem. This is one of those wells where it's a hybrid of plain carbon steel and stainless steel and so the obviously the non-stainless steel does not last as long as stainless steel so we will be assessing that and coming back to the board. Now this is unfortunately not included in the budget but we would come to you for OCR to address that in a timely manner. We're going into peak season and we'll do what we can but we'll keep you informed. Thank you. Any other questions? I'm good. Thank you. Thank you. Finance or special projects? Oh I'm sorry, special projects. Sorry getting that one. I just wanted to report on two things and then if you have questions the big news in the last time we presented to the board is that we have done the start-up and commissioning of the tertiary pilot plan that was part of the Bureau of Reclamation's Title 16 grant that we received. So that pilot plan is down at the Santa Cruz wastewater treatment facility, Corolo engineers, City of Santa Cruz public work staff and Eileen who is our assistant engineer have been working on getting that started. It's kind of a soft start in the last two weeks. We've just been connecting it, getting it to the source water, doing some troubleshooting, setting up all of the SCADA and telemetry so that we can do kind of remote monitoring of it as well as we have daily field checks on it. That pilot plan effort was based on some recommendations that came out of the National Water Research Institute's recommendations when that panel recognized the source water which is the City of Santa Cruz's wastewater treatment plan is a trickling filter system. So to get more information, understand the type of design criteria for the MFUF system, they did suggest that we do the pilot testing. So we have a pilot unit, it has three different skids on there, two are ultra filtration and one is a ceramic system. We'll be running that for 12 weeks once we finish getting the start-up complete and we'll be putting out a press release letting the public know the City of Santa Cruz has been great to work with in terms of helping us troubleshoot and just kind of collaborating on the project together and so they are interested just as we are to get some education and outreach on it. The second item is obviously the environmental impact report which we've been working on for the last two years. We're going through the review of the second admin draft and we are looking towards the release of that public document at the end of June. No date set. So the tertiary treatment pilot plan project, they're going to be analyzing for I'm assuming multiple different things over the course of the whole 12-week period and then kind of comparing the different treatments to see what's most effective and what kind of other issues we need to deal with. What we're looking at for a lot of the purification facilities what they say is you can do a lot of it based on no knowledge of the water quality except for the component of source water. Everybody's source water is different. Santa Cruz's wastewater treatment plant, the technology is different and the kind of effluent that they get is different compared to Southern California. So this is the missing component in terms of some of the design if you're really trying to get it based on not looking at other design criteria and then plopping it in and going this is about the best guess versus where we can do some refinement. So they're doing a lot of source water characterization as well as treatment. The effluent from secondary will be the effluent for this, that's okay good. And because one of our options with the Pure Water SoCal project is to do tertiary there at the plant. It is something that they're interested because we can split or bifurcate that treatment plant to be a full purification where on one satellite site we have MF, UF, ROU, VAOP, the whole treatment train or we could just do the tertiary which is the MF portion and then the ROU VAOP either at West Anics or Shana Clear. Okay, anything else? Thank you. Finance, do we have anything to say about that? Yeah, I'll just mention Leslie's not able to join us tonight, but there is a board workshop schedule for June 19th. It's not shown on the calendar. Karen, is that going to be an earlier meeting? It starts at five. It starts at five. So we'll get that noted. That'd be Raffatellis coming back and continuing on with that process and also in conjunction with that there's several water rates advisory committee meetings that have been scheduled in May, June, July. So those of you on that have probably received an email. And then as clockwork is, the auditors are in our office are getting ready too soon here to do the interim annual audit. Questions? June 19th is budgeted at 5 p.m. Okay. Five to six. Human Resources. Good evening. I wanted to say thanks to Carla and to those of you who weren't able to make it to our employee breakfast that we had on Friday morning. It really is always a fun event when we get together. There was some fun and games to be had in the morning and it really is an opportunity for us to celebrate the great work that our staff does, especially in line with the public service employees recognition week that officially took place last week. So we did have a number of activities and we always love when the board shows up and gives their thanks too. So thanks. I also want to, for the board as well as those folks watching at home, to make that formal announcement that we do currently have a recruitment that's posted on our website. We are seeking a construction and maintenance worker one, two. And so if anyone's interested in that, please take a look at our website and the application deadline closes on May 28th. Thank you. Questions? Okay. General Manager. Yeah. So I'm just going to reiterate what's up there because I think it's important. So the Public Policy Institute of California, PPIC, came out with a report. Along the line, something we're doing, of course, it's a much grander scale and that's replenishing groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley. You know, they have huge, they're also a critically overdrafted basin like us. So it just highlights the opportunities for surface water and groundwater agencies to collaborate much in the same vein that we're aiming to do and have an MOU with the city of Santa Cruz. So a little validation there. And then I thought this was interesting. The California Municipal Water Agencies were surveyed and determined that 77% of the California Public Water Agencies indicate they're going to intend on going to indirect potable reuse, which is the project, of course, that Pure Water Soquel is evaluating. So and then along those lines, the State Resources, Resources Control Board, as you see up there, announced that the proposed framework for regulating direct potable reuse. So this is purifying the water and putting it directly back into the pipe opposed to what we plan to do, purify it and then create a sea water barrier. But it's up and open for public review and input. So you can see along those lines, water in every which way, from surface water to groundwater exchanges to potable direct and indirect is really starting to take hold. Thank you. Questions? Okay. I moved to 6.1 conditional. District Council. Oh, yes. All right. District Council. Well, Thursday is still on for the John Cole hearing. So we'll have a report back for you on June 5th. We won't get a tentative ruling until tomorrow afternoon at 3. So we'll have an idea of where the judge is going at that point. And then the hearing is on Thursday morning at 8.30. Okay. The other thing is that I attended Aqua on Wednesday of last week. The one in the afternoon was a lot about the State Water Resources, new regulations on conservation and the conflicts going over those, most of which you're already incorporating. So it doesn't really make too much difference. But the morning was interesting, which was a review by the people involved, the County Council and the Water District Attorneys, both the Santa Rosa fire and post consequences and the Montecito mudslides and fire. And what the lesson that came back, and I've talked to Ron about this, is that we really need to look hard at our emergency policies and emergency proclamation templates. Because the ability to move fast in those situations is critical. And you have to have some overriding things that the Board would have to adopt so that you could do that and move that way. But they thought that was the biggest lesson they learned because they didn't have all those things in place. And it caused a lot of delay and problems. It was worthwhile. So I think that's a good thing for us to do in the future. Yeah. We've started the ball rolling on that one. Right. Now we do the Unconditional Willserves. Hi. There are three Willserves for you to consider tonight. There are two renewals, single family residences. And the third one, unfortunately, came to us sort of after the fact. It was one of those that went through the county. And this is the first time I believe you're seeing it. It's an expansion of the Resurrection Church there at State Park and Soquel Drive. We did verify with that project that it obtained its development permit prior to the date that we set for qualifying into the old WDO program. And so they've met those requirements for 0.43 acre feet of offset. And so they're ready asking for unconditional approval to move forward with that. Any questions? Yeah. So the policy on renewals, is it unlimited number of renewals or how long? No. One renewal. One renewal. One two year renewal. Yep. All right. Anyone in the audience wish to address this on this item? I'll move approval of the three. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call please. Director Lather. Might not be there. Director Lather. Rachelle. Sounds like not. Okay. Okay. Yes. Okay. Director LaHue. Yes. Director Jaffee. Yes. Director Christensen. Yes. President Daniels. No. So that passes. So we go on to 0.1. Is that right? No. 0.3. 0.8. What am I doing here? 0.3. Very had 6.2. Yeah. 6.3. Yes. 6.3 because we did it. 6.2. Bond issues. Consider support and adoption resolution 1811 to California for the public vote. Okay. I'll go ahead and introduce this item just real quickly. California does have two water bonds up for the public vote this year. One in June and one in November. We have Matteo Crow here from the Natural Heritage Institute who was working a lot on getting information out about the proposed bond in November. But he would like and is available to talk on both issues. One is a citizen's initiative. What we have for the board's consideration tonight is one just to listen and learn and answer questions from Matteo as well as if the board would like to consider passing a resolution in support of these two bonds. Thank you guys for having me. As Melanie indicated I am here working on the November water bond which has now qualified. But I do a lot of work with Prop 68 and so I'm pretty proud of that so I can answer the questions on the content on that and in relation to our measure as well. So as Melanie indicated there are two water bonds on the ballot this year. California passes water bonds fairly regularly at the state level. There have been about 22 I believe in the last 45 years. 21 of them have passed. One failed when it had 11 competing bonds on the ballot. So the state of California's voters are generally quite positive about them. And these water bonds are really the state's main mechanism for funding a lot of the grant programs for I'll say for conservation, local water agencies, other public agencies, a lot of different stuff. And so the most recent water bond as I'm sure many of you are familiar with is Westprop 1 in 2014. It's been in the news a lot due to the storage projects on it that have been maybe going to get funding maybe not going to get funding. Aside from that surface storage allocation, most of Prop 1 has been allocated and we estimate or I should say we DWR estimates that it will probably be sometime mid towards the end of next year that all of Prop 1 will be allocated. So it is kind of coming up in the timeline for another water bond. So as Melanie mentioned Prop 68 is coming up in just a few weeks on the June ballot. It was sponsored by Senator De Leon and Assemblyman Garcia I believe. It is a parks and water bond so components of both totaling 4.1 billion. There is about 1.5 billion of that funding actually going towards water. There's about a billion and a half going towards parks and other open space and the remainder is going towards climate resiliency, some of the state conservancies, a number of different areas. So it is a great bond measure. Aqua has endorsed it. Our campaign obviously is not completely related to it. We do share some backers in the conservation community but it is a separate measure and the November water bond kind of came about actually because Prop 68 was developed as a parks and water bond and water was a little bit thrown into it, I'm not going to say at the last minute but it was definitely put in there by the acknowledgement of a lot of the Prop 68 people that water is popular among voters. Parks just on the basis of the topic isn't quite as much so. And so the billion and a half going towards water is about a third of that is flood control. 200 million is going to the Salton Sea. There's some funding for the conservancies. There's a little bit of funding, about 80 million I believe for groundwater. There's some funding for a little bit of funding for storm water and safe drinking water of course as 250 million is the other main component of that. So our bond, the November water bond overlaps with that on a number of those areas. Our bill also includes Salton Sea funding, safe drinking water funding, flood control, storm water and groundwater but often to a much larger degree because the November water bond is focused exclusively on water. So it was developed kind of the broader coalition I would say. So conservation ag water agencies and the environmental justice community I guess as well. It was actually the first water bond that aqua has endorsed before we qualified. But as I mentioned we did get qualified by the secretary of state on April 25th. So at this stage we're just waiting to get our proposition number which is going to happen on June 28th. And so the November water bond includes a lot of funding of interest to local water agencies and I would argue of course I'm probably a little biased but it is an improvement for smaller water districts on Prop 1 just in that a lot of the actually the main storage projects related to Prop 1 had to have benefits to the Delta which does not really benefit the central coast at all. And this is something I'm from Monterey County that I've run into quite a bit. And so this bond measure provides a lot more funding towards state grant programs which are going to go towards smaller projects. So there's funding for wastewater recycling, water, urban and agricultural water conservation, flood control as I mentioned. And the big change from both Prop 68 and from Prop 1 is sigma funding. So this bill includes 675 million for sigma. Prop 1 included about 80 or 85 million I believe. And actually the local agencies around here have done quite well on that. I believe you guys have gotten a grant. Pajaro Valley has gotten a grant contingent upon them failing with their alternative plan. Marina Coast got a grant. Salinas Valley got a grant. As I'm sure you guys know, this area, the central coast and the south San Joaquin are kind of the two serious overdraft areas. So this funding would go towards the development of groundwater strategies, towards recharge projects, feasibility studies, environmental compliance. Basically all the elements that GSAs are pursuing. And as you guys know, sigma was kind of put in as an unfunded mandate from the state. And so because it was passed in 2014, Prop 1 was able to get a little bit in there. But Prop 1 started being written about 2008 or so. So it was a little behind on that mark. So this will provide the first kind of big injection into that. And this is very popular among local agencies. AQUA has been a big supporter of this. And a lot of the, I think the GSAs that are uncritically overdrafted are moderately overdrafted basins are a priority to receive that. And also basins that are facing salt water intrusion. So I'd say the mid-county GSA is very well poised to receive this kind of grant funding, especially given that they got grant funding from the past, much smaller pool. And DWR is as far as we're going to try to spread that money out. So I am here because AQUA has endorsed our measure, Northern California Water Association, Southern California Water Coalition in this area, Pahar Valley Water Management Agency, Scots Valley and I'd like to request the SoCal Creek Water District's endorsement as well. The water districts are actually the best way we can speak with voters. Obviously, you know, environmental groups, civic groups of other types are crucial to our success and there's some innovation of information to their constituent members, I guess. But people really do look to their water district on these water bonds, which is probably a good thing. They trust that people are actually supplying their water. So I'm going to open it up to the board and staff for questions on our measure, 68, or the relation, anything of that sort. Questions? I was actually wondering how this overlap would, from one actually. How this would what? How the November bond overlaps like... So... Expanded funding for the segment, for sure, but... So this was done, it overlaps, I'd say, on a lot of the main water, what I call water supply programs. So, you know, wastewater recycling was included in proper watering, safe drinking water, storm water. A lot of these problems are programs that are popular with water agencies. The big difference, as I mentioned, the lack of surface storage funding. The other main difference is that this funding is not done through IRWM networks. So there is a five million dollar grant in the bill to continue the IRWM program, so that it continues to operate for the next number of years. But neither this bill, nor 68, puts specific money towards IRWM. So that's the main couple of differences. And the canal improvements? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So as an alternative, I guess, to surface storage, we have infrastructure repair funding. So it's only about a third of what even the surface storage funding in Prop 1 was, but it would go towards canal improvements in the flood spill-a improvements on the Orville dam. So those are technically Orville's state water project. The Fronkern Canal is a federal project. Technically, the federal government is supposedly going to cover both of them. FEMA has now come out that they're not going to fund Orville, it looks like. So this funding is actually not going to be enough. I think they're looking at closer to an 800 or 850 million dollar bill. And with the current administration's relationship with California, I can almost 100% guarantee it's not going to happen. I think one thing to note about Prop 1, which is, you know, we're kind of living in it right now, is we're really trying to personalize our infrastructure. And I think that's one of the things that we're going to be doing. And I think that's one of the things that we're going to be doing. And I think that's one of the things that we're living in right now is we're really trying to pursue some money under a Prop 1 groundwater grant program. When that was passed in 2014, the state was had in their guidelines or in that bond measure that it had to be spent and liquidated by 2021. So there's that kind of sunset on that. And there's a lot of projects that are out there that need funding. So this I think adds on. And I think one of the things that was really framing these two bonds is that they're complementary, not competing. And I think that's a big distinction that we're trying to get when people call us at the district office and ask us about these because Proposition 68 is great, but it has such small amounts to really effectively get things done statewide, especially as we know because we're a small agency, these larger water agencies can gobble up, you know, $50 and that's why I think the November one is coming through with $640 million. Yeah. And just to add on to that, Prop 68 is kind of a very different stage of the campaign. They're three and a half weeks out. And so I imagine that the water district section is giving a lot of calls right now because it's, I don't know, I get it on Facebook. I know people get it on Instagram or Twitter. They're advertising quite heavily. We are not at that stage right now. We're not at that stage because we're kind of staying out of the way of 68. And also we are five months, I guess, six months from the ballot so there's not a whole lot of value in campaigning at the stage. I have one question for Mr. Basso. I remember the Supreme Court case, I think it's Salinas about advocacy for measures that an agency might take that you could be factual about for things. And I'm wondering, I see all these warehouses in here, they all look fairly factual to me, but the now-therefore-be-at-resolve clause says that the Board of Directors of Soquel Creek Water District formally supports Prop 68, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And that language kind of smells like advocacy to me and so I'm wondering, is this even legal for us to do? While your general counsel is looking, I've run into this section with a number of agencies, you are barred from advertising anything about this on your website, obviously from any fiscal contributions, but I can't say what the actual agencies regulation guidelines say, but water agencies aren't affected by that Supreme Court decision in terms of advocating for proposition measures. I don't think this violates that. Okay. Yeah, I mean it's not, this is simply an endorsement and it isn't putting anything out there beyond that. Okay. Anyone in the public wish to address us on this item? Say no one. So, what are we doing? I think it makes sense for us to be behind it. Chloe, it would benefit the district probably. Yes. Well, I remember observing endorsements by state industry on Prop 1. You know, I've seen that in the past. This sample resolution, Aqua has sent out to all its member agencies. Aqua is not a government institution, so they could advocate for anything they want. Right. No, I mean this was out of toolkit for water agencies to use. Not a one that Aqua's signed, but. I mean, I'll make the motion that we proceed with endorsing it. Okay. Have a motion and a second. Roll call please. Director Lathar. Director LaHue. Yes. Director Jaffee. Yes. Director Christensen. Yes. President Daniels. Yes. All right. I can only help our customers. It would. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, 6.4. Approved scope of work addendum for professional consultant services. We're thrown and called well. Great. Shelly, if you can switch the presentation over here. I just have a couple slides to kind of introduce this item and then of course open it up for discussion with the board. But the item before us tonight is to do a scope amendment for Brown and Caldwell, who has been our technical advisor for the pure water soquel project. Last month we came to the board. To introduce. That the scope with Brown and Caldwell be expanded to include efforts related to the community water plan. And this slide is just saying you know since 2006 we recognize that the board has been working diligently on an integrated resources plan to diversify our soil ground water to include many other components that has now evolved to the community water plan and for supply options. So just highlighting in that blue area you know 2018 and 2019 we foresee that you know that the water plan will be expanded to include efforts related to the community water plan. And this slide is just saying you know since 2006 we recognize that the board has been working diligently and we foresee that you know in the last five years we've done a lot of efforts on our water supply options reevaluation to complete the technical environmental and financial studies on pure water soquel. That's the you know as you guys know the district's lead agency project all the other projects that we are considering we aren't the lead agency on. So a lot of the efforts that we're working on right now will be culminated in these next two years. To tee up for that the board can make some decisions on what supply options they want to pursue within that community water plan. One of the big drivers that we also tee up as we complete all of those studies is really pursuing grants. And just you know I think Mateo did a great job almost teed it up better than I could. Prop one money that was passed in 2014 is either long gone like with the recycled water component or there wasn't enough to fund things which is why they're going out again. We have an opportunity with the prop one groundwater grant which was an eight hundred million dollar pot of money that we qualify for because of our seawater intrusion problem we have here. So we have done a great effort in going for the planning grant the two million dollar planning grant and there is an opportunity for us to apply for this next round which is round two for implementation dollars. So with that in mind that that's really kind of driving us in terms of the schedule but really I think the schedule really kind of backs up from the two at the bottom which is you know the board set a goal to have sustainable water supply online in 2020 2022 with the ultimate goal of meeting that state law and that state mandate to restore the basin and be sustainable. So in terms of the supplemental water supply options and what we're doing they're all at different levels of evaluation, different phases of planning, different lead agencies, different studies but all of them need to have some sort of information gathered that would support the environmental efforts, the technical efforts and the financial efforts. The environmental efforts have been underway for two years with the ESA and we are looking towards release of the draft EIR this summer and the technical studies and the feasibility evaluation has gone on a very parallel track with the feasibility studies that we did with grant funding through the state water resource control board in the bureau. Right now the big push and the big emphasis is related to look deeper, look closer and refine the financial aspects of the project and that's really kind of what is feeding both the technical and the financial needs of our project right now within this task one effort that we have presented to the board tonight. Again really this is to help us continue that evaluation process so that the board and the community is ready for some decision making. Go ahead Ron. Yeah I'll just add so to put this in a broader context and then a couple narrow things. We brought a month ago at the board meeting we brought this portion of this item to you and you said okay do part A or part one but bring back a needs assessment for the rest of it. Well this is the rest of it and needs assessment has been conducted. We had one board member at least participate in that as directed by the entire board. So we went and did that analysis and now we're back saying okay this is what we need and basically we're juggling a lot of balls and we're going to drop one or two if we don't get some additional support. I'll give you an example the Prop 1 grant money that we've got 1.5 million for we thought we'd apply about a year later for that implementation part well they called us and said you better do it now and maybe because money's running out and they support us in our project this so now we're having to regroup and just that alone takes a lot of effort so that's just one example of several of the items going on but in the larger context this is really a lot of analysis but it's basically staff support is what it boils down to people some software but really more horsepower behind than what we already have. Under task 1 what we foresee a lot of the efforts to include is cost assumptions we have cost assumptions that were already placed in to the board approved 10 year financial plan of 2015 RAF tell us is updating that effort they've asked for information from the water supply options pure water soquel as well as storm water capture deep water deceler any type of water transfer purchase that we assume may occur within the 10 years so we'll be working on updating some of that information not just to what we have currently some of the dollar amounts that we have were estimated back in 2015 pure water soquel was done in 2017 for the 10 year finance plan and really more of trying to chase some grant money we're looking at projecting those cost out to midpoint of construction so that we have the correct ask or the correct cost estimate of what we're looking for when we're requesting grant money so near term Leslie and RAF tell us need some information on the community water plan components in the pure water soquel project by September of 2018 and then there's several projects that we're looking at in the prop one grant we would need this information by October title 16 which is the federal pot of money that's always tied to the federal budget but we're foreseeing the end of 2018 and then of course the with the alone through the EPA and the SRF low interest loans we will be looking towards getting that those low interest loans to collaborate and compliment the task to like what Ron said we did go back after we got direction from the board to do a needs assessment and we conducted that on April 30th the highlights from that I think the priority is we just really need to augment staff and have some support from a consultant to do some of the things that we need to do and we'd like to do again we really feel that we've been doing a lot of monitoring and kind of keeping up to date with all of these community water plan supply options but we need and we think it's important to create the master schedule more importantly we need to really kind of track the progress and the development because there are so many different items that are going in parallel they have different timing elements different reliability different source waters different volumes of cost and then of course with that planning grant that we received through prop one we are required to monitor and track and that's a $2 million grant so there are a lot of requirements that we need to meet and support with documentation that we just are very limited on and then of course you know I think for all of us this type of lift for a project of our size at this point we should have quality control measures in our documentation to make sure that we can perform our tasks accurately and currently especially with all these balls that Ron mentioned I just have one slide here what we're looking at for right now oops sorry what we're looking at right now with this scope amendment is just to help the district in terms of some program support and staff augmentation through next year project management and program management is technically anywhere between 10 and 28% of a total project cost so as you can see the city of Santa Cruz just in 2017 they realized that they had a $200 million CIP project they hired HDR which is a engineering firm to help them with program management in February they brought to their water commission three service orders which totaled $3.2 this was in addition to another $500,000 that they had already approved for staff augmentation the slide on the bottom does illustrate kind of what they are looking at in terms of their program management for their efforts and they have a lot of the same things that we're looking at looking at creation of annual budgets creation of a schedule looking at asset management developing document and contract management with GIS support and the risk in voicing and project performance and reporting why this was important to the city I think are the same exact things that are important to us and they think they support what we've heard from our board is the challenges that we have are timing of cash flow we're a small agency where these projects and programs are going to come up in tandem with Taj's engineering CIP which is important for us so that Leslie can plan correctly there are implications to financing especially with our grants and loans and there is decisions that we could include within this that would be delivery model options or delivery methods so this is something that we're looking at doing just for the next two years if the board were to go forward with a component full fledged in terms of implementation we are looking at project management costs to be around $15 million and that's already been planned for when we talk about the pure water soquel project being $70 million that includes $15 million in engineering project management construction management and design so in summary I think I've already hit on a lot of these things but the work that we're asking Brown to do will help us support the financial analysis that are needed right now they're going to help augment the staff so that we can continue to move forward with what's important to the board in terms of identifying that goal of trying to achieve a water supply project to be online in 2022 and we're in a nice position with the Prop 1 planning grant in that these are tasks that we've identified in our scope so half of it will be funded through grant funding. I could add one just one thing that may help complement what Melanie said so you saw Santa Cruz I mean spending a lot more money on the project management we too may have to do that as we move forward but what we're trying to do here is a baby step just to get us up to the next stage so we can peer over the horizon a little bit more and a question that was asked last time that we did take to heart and discuss with our staff member that may be necessary in the future we're always reluctant to do that just because we're physically conservative but the other thing a consultant brings and having been a consultant half my life I mean they bring a deep bench that you just can't get with one person some of the support we're looking at is down here but it's also some of it's up here it's almost guidance for us they've been down the road before and um methods that really can help a lot I could give you an example or two but I'll leave it at that I don't want to beat a dead horse here but also the city of Santa Cruz engineering department water engineering department has 15 plus employees and yet they still need to go out we've got a fraction of that here so we're really coming to the board asking for assistance to get this program to succeed I mean it sounds like you know to take advantage of the funds we've already gotten for a grant and also to be in a position to move forward with getting funding and being ready for that so we're not missing any opportunities in timing as well any questions of staff I have a question on the on the actual attachment where it's program management under activities on page 60 of 89 it's really the first page of the attachment um under activities the second bullet under analyze water availability under each portfolio option um not just water availability but don't we need to evaluate the concepts of timeliness, reliability effect on climate change and drought so yeah in quality so I just I would want yeah in quality I would want that in there aren't a lot of those things in our feasibility studies though we had a feasibility study for pure water soquel and then Kennedy janks did this type of evaluation criteria based analysis on water supply options those have greatly changed so that would be part of this is just to kind of do that kind of qualitative analysis on the current community water plan components you'll kind of redo the feasibility analysis for all these then it wouldn't be uh redoing it in its entirety more qualitatively looking at just you know wouldn't be going through really a thorough analysis we would take what we've already done with pure water soquel and we would do I think basically capture what you've been doing when storm water capture and an update on the river water transfer the river water transfer feasibility study that we had in the development of the community water plan is does not even look like what the city is looking at in the water supply advisory committee or what is being pursued in this water purchase transfer that was based on the prop 50 conjunctive use system that was what the costs were based on well I have a question myself I'm done yes okay this task one is entitled program management assistance for the community water plans portfolio diversification analysis and rate study input and then that's on page 60 as well and I flipped page 61 under assumptions it says bc bounding call well we'll use the cost analysis from previous studies as the basis for developing portfolio options for pure water soquel class 4 level cost estimates from the 2017 feasibility studies will be used for other options class 5 level cost estimates from the 2014 will be used analysis reform based on the most current information available and so I'm wondering you know why do this study if they're just going to take the current estimates for costs and feed them back to us I mean that doesn't seem very useful so there I think if we focus on that lessons as says you know they're going to be based on the most current information available a lot of the things have changed over the last four years so we'll need to update that isn't it I think bc is not going to go through and develop a full class 5 estimate that that's a heavy lift that's probably doubling this effort what they are going to do is look and see how much has changed what does need it is and and go through that level of effort I think for the board and this is why one of the things that we talked about a lot of task one includes you know development of these portfolio options up to six do we need six maybe we don't need six what are they those six portfolio we haven't defined them one of the things that when we asked brown and causal to develop this is we didn't want to just assume what those portfolio options could be in kind of a silo between staff and bc we wanted to try to incorporate either a committee that the board set or utilize the what is it called water infrastructure sub water infrastructure standing committee and look at those so for example we know and I think we've talked about with the board the deep water desal or pure water soquel that's not an and that's an or so one option could be deep water desal one option could be pure water soquel one option could be pure water soquel with river water transfer so those are the kinds of things that we wanted to kind of work on together and the the way that a consultant agreement typically is done which is very different than a contractor is we we put it we put a scope together we say up to and then it's billable and so for a lot of our contracts we don't meet that or we exceed that where we have to come back this is we put this in we will spend what is needed based on that kind of iterative process but it gets us going especially because we're trying to meet those fall deadlines that are required by some of these other tasks and just to follow up on that as I look at the scope here one of those things that where all the money may not be spent and certainly wouldn't be charged we go over those bills quite thoroughly in task one it says BC anticipates a total of eight meetings or workshops for this task and I think what we were envisioning was the board would give me the authority to work with two directors and a group of staff and consultants and develop some of this now you may say we don't need eight and that's fine we'll take it we just wanted to give the board the opportunity to have as much participation we always appreciate that there are some big decisions along the way but we certainly can do that and report back and reduce some of those as we go along those are the kind of things we look for and we're aware of we just didn't want to sure change it and have to come back again any other questions anyone from the public wish to talk about this item okay seeing no one as far as I'm concerned I had concerns about task number two but it's good to finally see the needs analysis which was what we agreed to last time this came to us shame that that wasn't in the report but now that I see it I can support that I mean I I feel like we have to have confidence that the general manager and staff are going to utilize them as much as they need to get the task accomplished and no more you know and so that's where I'm at and we all are working towards the same goal and it sounds like pretty strongly they need this help to move forward so I'll make both motions I second okay we have no motion in second roll call Director Lacer I'm going to abstain from this I believe I have a conflict of interest Director LaHue Yes Director Jaffe Yes Director Christensen I just can't support it I have to vote no but it passes thank you alright so I think we move on next to 6.5 consideration approval for the district to join other organizations yes find my notes here yeah so you know the district already belongs to several professional organizations I mean Aqua alone is like 22,000 25,000 something like that dollars per year but it does provide a lot of value we were just up there last week I believe meeting attending the conferences the old council reported out we met with the Bureau of Reclamation and what not so there's a list of those agencies that help with water and what I like to say such as California Special District Association but what we don't have on the list or more community oriented organizations and so you can actually go to the list yeah that list and because getting any kind of water additional water supply is really in some ways involves different agencies within the community I mean certainly the business community has an interest from their point of view whether it's a restaurant not having to cut back or somebody developing a house the let's see surf riders up there they may be interested in the pure water soquel project since it diverged 25% of the secondary water of 8 million gallons a day that now goes out to the ocean so forming relationships with these agencies joining their membership potentially may have value to the district I know I attend already some of the chamber meetings I pay a little bit extra I think it's just 5 bucks per meeting because we're not members and they're asking they already let me usually present on what's important in the world of water but they would like us to join show support for their efforts so that's it and what the motion really is about is to give permission to direct staff to budget for joining these organizations I think the total is around $7,000 or $8,000 $7,295 and but then not just wholesalely join all these agencies but direct the general manager to work with the board president and vice president to then I meet with these different agencies see if the value is truly there we give a couple line items to what the potential value is so we think it be valuable to the district and our customers and help us a further attainment of supplemental water supply any questions of staff so this is new concept for me so why is it necessary to join an agency to interact with them I'm not an agency organization yeah it's not absolutely necessary I mean we go and talk to most of these agencies are organizations I should say already I think it shows a little bit more of a relationship level it's another level I guess is the way I would put it versus me just attending their meetings and they go well the district is not really in it but the general manager cares about it and then we wanted to balance it with some of the environmental organizations against kind of the business side because on the flip side we're environmental storage too and one is coastal watershed council director Daniels actually asked about that one and I thought maybe that one should be removed and I thought well if we're looking at river water because they're really focused on the downstream portion of the San Lorenzo so I'm not sure first local or local first I said why is that on the list and Melanie said well they're all about local where local water that may be a little bit more of a reach but I didn't scratch it off the list because of that but it's really to forge a little bit stronger relationships yeah I would just add there are a couple organizations that have events and if you're a member you can throw and if you're not a member you can't we would love to have some events where people come and have their meetings and within our learning center and we invite and on the flip we invite people to come and if we're members then they're more likely to come it's always nice that synergy a couple of the agencies have been they've come anyway but I'm not sure how much longer we can continue on some situations how would you go about this is a proposed list and then you're going to re-evaluate it well what I envision and I'm certainly open to we're open to suggestions but the overwriting concept that is that you know it's a way to foster stronger community stakeholdership and relationships but I would probably meet with each organization say hey we're interested in this do you think it's of value and then report back to the board president and vice president and give my assessment and see how that synergy fits and whether we think it's worthwhile to our customers to join can you guys hear me really good to network and to find out what's going on in the community and present our own side of whatever the issues are in a way that networking rather than you know fitting out flyers I think it's a great idea yeah and let me add to that thank you director later so a good example you would think the Santa Cruz chamber of commerce why would we want to how would that benefit well through relationships actually I think Melanie forged a while back they've started inviting us to some of their subcommittee meetings and it's it's enlightening because there's a host of people there that are really you know whether it's Cabrillo or the college but they get to hear you know our update our side of our perspective and that sort of thing even though it may only take take place for a minute or two I think there's this value in that sort of thing well I'm really all for that community outreach to some of these I wonder whether we belong in there are they really directly a fit but I but I expect that that will be reviewed we'll call it a little bit I would think right right yeah it's yet to be determined if all of these and that's why we're not asking for you know carp launch let's do it we don't even believe that that's right but I suspect some you know we'll probably make the list and maybe if you won't have a question about resource conservation district isn't that kind of a quasi governmental agency it is it is it's it is with county it's an elected position I think so it's they're funded like but they call those donations pardon they call them donations versus membership so if we wanted to donate I think their members are appointed by the county so it's yeah so that may not work that's what I'm wondering yeah may not work yeah that may sure that one fits they are interested I think that you know environmental protection that's why that one was on the list understood their focus but yeah so it's not a lot of money that we're talking about here so I would support it with the with the acid test of only being a member if it's a there's a benefit that does that we would reap that we can't get with not being a member right and so I think to what you'd be doing is putting your faith unless you doesn't eight two other people but the board president vice president for when I come back and say here's here's my evaluation and really they get to you know they can make the call let's see of what the public has to say if anything one wish to address us on this item see no one okay and it doesn't have to be the president vice president one of you guys are interested in reviewing these but I think it is it is important to pick ones that have value for us yeah I feel like I have to justify each choice to the customers and maybe even going talk to each group beforehand or the leaders of the group or something given that and that the motion is motion one is general I'll make a motion to approve this I'm trying to decide on the second one I'll go for the second one to make a motion for one and two one and two okay I'll second okay we have a motion and a second for actually both motions first and second roll call please director later yes yes yes yes okay item 6.6 the resolution to consolidate the election yeah this is just an item really to save our ratepayers money where you piggyback on the November election versus doing a solitary election so it seems to make sense you've done in the past and I just like to give a nod to Karen she actually wrote this memo I came in one day and there was I was going to write it in there it was in my box so thank you Karen for doing it this is as always this is yes thank you Karen and this is one of those things that we've done every time yeah historically it's kind of standard makes sense as long as I've been on the board yes the chances of attire so yes to spend the money if it did runoff elections are super expensive yes well I'll make the motion public comment oh yes public comment no one okay I'll second motion to second roll call please director later yes yes yes yes we go into item 6.7 water demand offset program new applicant offset generating project proposal we have a lot of members of interlite church here tonight as well as oakmont senior living and they plan to come up and talk as well thank you for your patience yes good evening everybody tonight we have an applicant proposed offset generating project for the board's consideration this application was submitted by oakmont senior living who's currently in escrow to buy interlite ministry's church on so-called drive and convert it to a senior living facility with 85 living units this project is currently number 35 on the waitlist to purchase offsets with an offset requirement of 9.26 acre feet there are currently two ways in which new development projects offset their demand half of their offset requirement which would be 4.63 acre feet in this case can be fulfilled by purchasing offset credits from the district at a cost of $55,000 per acre foot these funds go towards long-term conservation projects the other half of the offset requirement must be met either through residential toilet replacements or by an alternative project proposed by the applicant and approved by the board which would save water at other places in the district as is oakmont's proposed project would require 772 residential toilets to be replaced to meet one half of their requirement so instead of residential toilets oakmont is proposing an alternative project in which they replace older less efficient toilets faucets and shower heads in hotel and condo tell rooms in seascape resort with low flow low water use fixtures the commercial toilet replacements they're essentially an extension of the existing wdo residential toilet replacement program which we have right now because they do replace 1.6 gallon fixtures with an ultra high efficiency toilet the exact fixtures which are being replaced are shown in the applicant's application as attachment one but there is a summary of the replacements in the first table on the memo each retro retrofit does go beyond the requirements for new construction which is found in our water use efficiency requirements and the california green building code and the proposed toilets meet our recommendation the lowest flush volume of 1.0 gallon per flush for commercial toilets the applicant used a consultant to calculate the water savings for this project and came up with the water savings of 18.16 acre feet we have reviewed the sources that they used the assumptions that were made in their calculations and we feel that they are realistic except for the changes that are needed to address the permanence which I'll get to in just a minute the calculations account for a 50% occupancy rate and an average of 2.63 guests per dwelling which were figures that were provided directly from representatives at the resort to address the issue of faucets and shower heads not lasting 20 years as is required for our project criteria we discounted the calculations that the applicant made we recalculated the proposed kitchen faucets and bathroom faucets to account for a 10-year lifespan and recalculated the savings for shower heads to account for a 5-year lifespan given those revisions we have a revised estimate for savings which is 9.06 acre feet permanence is only one of the criteria which the board considers when judging applicants the other two criteria are additionality so whether or not the savings would have occurred otherwise and measurability so how well the savings can be quantified since the savings achieved by plumbing retrofits are very quantifiable and reliable we think that the project meets the requirement for measurability to address the criteria of additionality the applicant did obtain a letter from the general manager at seascape resort which states that the resort was not planning on doing replacements to this level without the help from Oakmont in addition these retrofits do go beyond the green building code our water use efficiency requirements and the toilet replacement goes beyond our normal commercial toilet rebate also staff does not expect that the green building code will further lower the efficiency requirements for toilets in the future particularly in commercial settings nor are the state point of sale regulations for toilets expected to become more stringent so that kind of wraps up my overview of the project but we do have some representatives here we have Hannah Darty which is the project manager for Oakmont senior living and she's going to give a brief overview of their project and then either she or I can answer any questions before we do that any questions of staff okay see none thank you thank you good evening president Daniels and members of the board my name is Hannah Darty I am a project manager for Oakmont senior living Oakmont senior living is a family-owned development construction and management company and we're located a couple hours north of here in Sonoma County in the town of Windsor we have over 25 years of experience building and managing senior focused communities throughout the state of California we're currently working with Reverend Deborah Johnson and interlite ministries to purchase their property on so-called drive and we would like to build an 85 unit assisted living community on that site as Alyssa just mentioned we've been looking in the Santa Cruz County area for quite some time it's a beautiful community we'd really like to be a part of we feel that this is an ideal location for a building such as ours and we think it'll provide an excellent option for Santa Cruz County seniors who are in need of care we've been through many versions of the program that is presented to you this evening we feel that this one maximizes efficiency we're going to go above and beyond regarding saving water for proposed community as you can see and Alyssa had mentioned as well on page 79 of the staff report we used sources that were recommended by district staff we used an estimate provided by seascape for guest averages as well as a conservative 50% occupancy rate to make sure that the calculations were based on actual and real information the program also meets the board's criteria for additionality and measurability when we realize that an offset program would be necessary our real estate representative would approach seascape with the offer that as part of an offset program Oakmont and Interlite would bear the cost of upgrading their very outdated fixtures with ones that go above and beyond current standards as Alyssa also said being that we're updating old fixtures with new fixtures it's a very easy way to measure the savings that will be produced we felt that the requirement of permanence was met the current fixtures at seascape are very dated and very old and we could see that we felt that they would be there for the next 20 years but I do understand that staff has some precautions on this matter we very much want to become part of the so-called community to understand and respect the concerns regarding water and the aquifer which is why we presented a program this evening that, like I said goes above and beyond what is required which is that 4.63 acre feet as Alyssa mentioned as well the measure, the original savings we had calculated were 18.16 acre feet per year but staff has been incredibly helpful and we'll definitely look to them for guidance on the suitability of this program so the 9.06 acre feet saved makes sense to us as far as permanence goes they have obviously much more expertise in that matter so even with staff's recommendation the program saves almost double what is required we believe it's an excellent solution that provides an opportunity for us to construct and run an assisted living community in Soquel but that will not have a negative effect on the water district or the aquifer so that's the end of my presentation and we're available to answer any questions you may have thank you very much Any questions? What are the fixtures? The 85 the senior living center but will you be doing the same fixtures in the senior living center? We have not gone that far we have a very rough site plan right now but we would be meeting the current requirements for the district I can't speak to that but we have a number of steps there's a gold green, gold platinum and each one reduces the amount you have to offset Yeah and let me just throw it in there too that 9.26 which is their offset that we've calculated that's without any gold green measures so if they do elect to do any of those that would come off of that number May I ask is that also with the multiplier in there? Yeah We could potentially require gold green I'll just point out that the number that they're offsetting as per our regulations is twice what is really anticipated to be used and then you could naturally require or entertain or direct staff to work with these folks on going green and the fixtures that are currently at Seascape are probably at least 20 years old now I'm just saying it was in the 90s I don't remember what year Yeah it's pretty old quite a lot of leaks there too Not only do these tiers save you offsets but they also save water they're designed so each tier adds on top of the other and uses things that are water efficient which also saves you water rates that we would charge for the usage So it's a good idea to look at them seriously I have one other question so in terms of the 35 being 35th on the list though is this size of this project is that it's a justification to do this project and get the It would take them forever Yeah honestly That's pretty big No I think each round and round That's a good question I think that's one of the reasons they went out because per the program that you listen Shelly design and that was brought to the board and approved the max you can get when you purchase toilet you can purchase toilets they're just going out and doing direct and that is an avenue is one acre foot right Half acre foot so they'd have to get in line 20 times roughly I just wanted to make sure that the size and the scope of the project is part of that condition enough of the condition to jump the list Yeah that's the benefit of the propose your own offset project is to bypass that meeting half of your offset through the toilet retrofits or toilet rebate program and the wait list So the program is has an outlet to allow this to happen people to be creative it's not a variance or anything like that it's going to be clear as it's built in Okay Anybody else No other questions anyone from the audience wish to address this on this item Seeing none back to the board I mean to me this seems reasonable I mean this is it meets our criteria It sounds like it's exactly what we had set up to and there's a lot of people going through seascape resort so the water savings happened this summer as soon as they get them in I'd make the motion to approve it I'm going to second it but I'm going to bring something up So essentially they jumped the list 18 times by doing this big project and I'm very supportive of the water savings but what's to keep somebody who's number 10 on the list to jump the list They find a project Everyone's got the same option So they could go and find enough toilets somewhere and jump the list It's additionality That's the thing And the program allow It's based on toilet rebates a large portion of it right now And I just want to be clear Jumping may not be the correct terminology because it's going outside as bypassing as per the program allows to do that I don't want to be misleading So the additionality is the only question in my mind It's obvious there's a lot of a lot of water savings that they're finding and it's I just don't the additionality is So the fact that this wouldn't be done otherwise at this scale I think meets that criteria Well it seems additional to me because it's over and above what our rebates apply to commercial and our current $300 for toilet 0.8 does not apply to commercial Sounds like it squeaks why I mean we're hoping that people would be creative and go out there and love it And I think they were It also provides more movement in our list for smaller households and things like that so that there's more movement there so that those projects can get done too So I think the whole concept was good I think that we should approve it One thing I would like to consider after this is directing staff to consider changing our commercial toilet rebate because if the commercial thing is out there and we'd like to move to 0.8 or even to 1.0 Yeah somewhere in the memo talked about not recommending below 1.0 Then 1.0 But certainly that would be something to look into Okay I think we have a motion in a second roll call please Director Lather Yes Director Jaffee Yes Yes Congratulations Thank you Item 6.8 Proposal to restructure the water wise garden grant Yes we've been taking a look at our grant programs and starting to take a look at some of our rebates and there'll be a follow up rebate item to this one We've had a garden grant program since around the year 2000 and it's really to encourage and to fund innovative outdoor renovations with water wise plants and drip irrigation and the grant's been limited to schools, public agencies and nonprofits and the maximum amount that we've granted over the years has been $2000 We in our current fiscal year have $10,000 budgeted for the grant program and we've only granted one this year over the course of the 18 year program only five grants have been awarded which is not a high level of participation and so we're taking a look at ways that we can incentivize the grant further and get more people to participate and in doing that we identified some barriers The first barrier is really the cost of these projects is pretty expensive It started around $4 to $6 per square foot and now it's up to about $10 per square foot just for the landscape renovation and our grant requirements also call for signage which can add significantly to the cost so the grant award of $2000 is certainly a barrier to larger projects participating in this program so that was one of the barriers we identified we also feel like because of the cost tying it to a square footage might be a better way to issue the grant and that's what we do for our long time turf rebate program which is up to $1 per square foot and covers materials so we're really looking at ways to incentivize the grant over the turf rebate program for those bigger projects because there's a real opportunity there for the education and outreach that goes along with it we're also seeing that the current grant only including materials as reimbursable expenses might also be a barrier and we're proposing to throw in costs such as landscape design irrigation system installation and graphic design for signage which can be expensive and to also include costs associated with purchasing and installing rainwater harvesting systems and stormwater management practices like sink it, slow it, spread it get it into the ground through rain gardens and those sorts of measures the last change that we're proposing well there's a couple more is really not a barrier but we have a good opportunity to tie the grant to another program that we've been promoting for a few years and that's the Monterey Bay friendly landscaping requirements and so tying those things together and getting more awareness of that program out there is also a benefit of basing the grant eligibility on those same requirements for Monterey Bay friendly landscaping and those are listed in the memo and then lastly we've heard and we recognize that the current grant application is pretty lengthy it's 13 pages long and a lot of things could be simplified and there might be an opportunity to get rid of a couple requirements that are just administrative and add a lot of time so those are the changes that we're proposing we're asking that the grant amount be a maximum of $10,000 with no more than $10,000 being awarded in each fiscal year which is what we've budgeted this year and proposed in next year's budget so if we had we could do two $5,000 grants if that's what came in or we could do one $10,000 however they come in when that money's expended then there'll be no more grants issued that year we're proposing to base the grant award on a maximum of $2 per square foot again to make it on par with or create an additional incentive over and above the rebate and to include the reimbursable costs that I mentioned professional services, rainwater harvesting and stormwater management practices to base the eligibility on meeting the Monterey Bay friendly landscape requirements and directing staff to make changes to streamline the application Any questions of staff? Yeah so somebody comes in with a $10,000 application the first day of the year so that precludes any other applications for the rest of the years that you're proposing That's what we're proposing Of course staff can always come to us for So you can come to us We have to approve all of them anyway We have to approve all of them anyway Okay Yeah I think it's a good idea to expand it The grant we just awarded to SoCal High School for example for the landscape renovation they did last weekend they had originally intended to do the majority of that traffic island but because of the funding being limited to $2,000 they weren't able to do the whole thing So that's kind of an example of the limitations So can they come back They can come back for a second grant Yep I had just one idea and you can throw it out if you want just whether just as a baby step do we maybe limit each grant to $5,000 so there's a chance for two in a year I don't know or maybe we could decide on a case-by-case basis I have one question What grants we get have matching fund requirements I would be a little upset if someone, some organization decided they want to put in a garden and they came to us for $10,000 to put in a $10,000 garden and they didn't put anything to it themselves and just kind of use us as a funder for their garden So I think having some skin in the game is a good idea So I'll decide on the ratio but I mean typically it's one of the things we get Yeah, but it could be labor You know It could be labor in the case of students I'm trying to have a grant proposal so I think that's how it would be evaluated Yeah, maybe I don't think it's necessary to put a set number on it but it could just make them aware that's one of the criteria that we will evaluate based on and we can, but I agree we don't want it to be misused Yeah I guess we should have probably comment Anyone wish to address us on this item? Seeing none, back to us I'd like to make the motions one through five Which is essentially everything that the staff has asked for I'll second We have a motion to second Director Lather Yes Director Jaffe Yes Yes And we roar along to item 6.9 restructure the graywater rebate Okay, so we've had a graywater rebate for a number of years and we had some statistics in here about how many we've been every year but it hasn't been significant and so we've been scratching our heads and wondering why more people aren't taking advantage of this and really again I think it boils down to the cost of implementing this conservation measure is pretty expensive even for the version that doesn't require a building permit so long-distance landscape systems can range from $400 to $800 and a rebate amount of a current rebate amount of $150 that's not covering very much of the applicant's cost and so we're thinking if we break out the graywater rebate into two types recognizing that long-distance landscape has a lower cost for the branch drain systems such as connecting your showers and your bathroom sinks breaking those out and giving a higher rebate amount for the branch drain systems which require building permits and plans to be drawn up so a lot more expensive and then increasing the amounts of both of the rebates so for the Laundry to Landscape we're proposing increasing that to $200 I believe and going for the branch drain systems up to $1,000 per household not per connection but per household and we think that that might help incentivize and get more people to take us up on that and we've heard from some landscape contractors consultants that install these systems that cost is a really limiting factor or barrier we are also proposing like we did with the grant to expand the coverage to include additional costs beyond materials which is all we rebate now so contractor performs labor and if required for the branch drain systems it is required the cost to secure building permits and install backflow protection because those are pretty substantial costs I think building permits are about $370 and I think to install a backflow it can be up to $1,000 and then you have to have the annual testing done so that's another proposed change and then lastly we've heard from landscape contractors and customers that the pre-inspection and post-inspection requirement that we call for can be a barrier too because they have to take time off from work to have us come out two times in addition to having contractors come out and give them quotes and then you know being around when the work scheduled to happen so what we're proposing there is to allow for contractor installed systems to allow those licensed contractors to sign off on a rebate application just like we do when we have plumbers do toilet retrofits for retrofit on sale or the direct install program under water demand offsets we allow those plumbers using their professional certification contractors to sign off because they're held to meeting standards of their licensing and in the case of applicant installed and in the case where an applicant does their own Laundry to Landscape system we're proposing to eliminate the pre-inspection but still follow up with the post-inspection to make sure that the system was installed according to the plumbing code and the county and cities requirements so those are the motions as a condition for the rebate any questions yeah I do I noticed that the figures based on the gray water figures are based on 2001 data are we really saving that much gray water anymore we did look at that Vickers is kind of the bible of water conservation and even though it's an older source there are two ways that they look at water use there's kind of an average and then there's a conserving home average and we use the conserving home average we also did take a look at the residential end use study which was completed in 2014 which is a lot more recent but that again is a nationwide and it was actually higher than the 2001 so we did put an odd into there that this might be a little bit high but it's really the best that we have to hang our hat on right now and it didn't look too far off because they do it per capita and that average conserving home and so we multiplied that by two and a half people per home and then separated out the gray water sources so the amount of water per capita used for laundry showers and faucets I think it's might be a little high but it's pretty good Has staff ever investigated the status of ones that we've given rebates to in the past and are they still using them We have not You'll have to remind me how many do we I thought I had that one here We did put it there It's not very many Let's see Since 2012 so six years we've done 24 gray water rebates and they've all been for laundry to landscape systems so it's only about four per year on average We set this current rebate or some reasonable fashion of it right when all this was happening we participated on that so it was just a kind of best shot and I appreciate all that work If there are no other questions Okay, please So the 14,000 gallons per year Is that assuming only the laundry No, that's all sources So laundry showers and baths and bathroom sinks A more expensive system then So how does this compare in terms of say to a toilet rebate on how much we give versus how much is saved We haven't done that Breakdown We kind of moved away from that I think a little bit in our rebate program when we do have a lot of rebates where they're serving an educational purpose and the amount of water saved is not really like the primary reason for the rebate it's more of to get people to take baby steps like the downspout redirect where people are taking their storm water and they're putting it into a rain garden There's a real difficulty in determining how much water is actually going to get down into the groundwater basin Same with rain water There's not a lot of water saved per dollar rebated So we've kind of gotten away from that a little bit and we haven't done that analysis for this rebate So you see that the educational value of this is great enough that it justifies the level of rebate that you're suggesting It could range, I think it could be greater or less than equal to the toilet But I think on these kind of things where people everybody's used to replacing a toilet and it's easy to take advantage of that rebate where a step to grey water needs a little extra nudge probably in general I've had people ask me about this and saying they'd be willing to do it but they don't know how to do it Carrillo's done classes And there's a couple outfits in town that kind of specialize in this that I think we don't recommend people but we do give a list at their own risk We planned to with whatever gets approved tonight we planned to do some outreach around this to address the Cabrillo classes work with the instructor and also work with the contractors in the area that do a lot of these systems or you know are looking to do them more so and I'm doing more outreach Anyone from the audience? Seeing none Personally I don't think that this particular rebate is ever going to save very much it's quite a difficulty I know we put one out I have to go out like every six months and put my hand down in the tank and pull out the greenie algae that's formed in there and unplug the pipe and then we move the hose around all the time because it's labor intensive But I think it's kind of bragging rights that we support kind of every reasonable rebate there is and that's a good thing and if someone wants to really do one like these 24 people over the last six years it's good to support them I would mind having re-evaluating it after I mean sooner than I mean fairly shortly to see because I looked into it myself in my house too I don't have the right kind of washing machine It doesn't work for every household and if the years go by the washing machines that really save a lot of water are not going to be even in operation that much I mean I think having that kind of help cover the cost of a contractor putting it in is going to help a little bit for some people because they won't want to be a do-it-yourselfer but they still have to maintain it but I'll make all five motions and I'll second them with that proviso re-evaluating a year at least two years at the latest a couple years we'll add that to the motion with a re-evaluation in two years and under discussion I'd say that if you actually do this rigorously it makes a big difference our water use is now flat so that the winter and summer is pretty much the same so basically all of our outdoor irrigation we've also replaced all the grass with fairly drought tolerant things but it's all using water that's already been used on the washing machine so it's a good thing if you do it we have a motion to second roll call please director lehue yes director christensen and president daniel if I may just say when these three the last three items all related to conservation came through a week ago and I was reviewing them for the board packet you know I told shelly I'm it just reflects a kind of camaraderie of innovation continuous improvement they're not just sitting back there talking they make it easier for our customers what's going to work better and so you know you had three you know specific different projects brought to you tonight I think of that level so we saved more water yeah thank you yes thank you for that all right we go to the last item which is item 7.1 communication to the board no comment I have a comment when I saw this somebody suggests conflict of interest by staff members I look into it and I looked into it and I recognize that exedio who is the software consultant for the district has been with the district for a long long time long before Mr. Reese came and Mr. Reese has no financial connection to that business whatsoever and the other item which was a reference to Mr. DeFore having been an employee was totally incorrect it was in fact an endorsement of them as providing services to public agencies and others who have done that include Perette Harmon from Scotts Valley Water District and others so this complaint is wrong on almost every score and I think the board should know that and the public should know it I think one of the other issues is that they don't have complete total discretion over their decisions like they have to go through our general manager to have these kinds of things approved so the notion that illegalities is happening here is just false but thanks for pointing that out thank you alright good I think then we're done thank you everyone see you two weeks see you soon