 the Board of Directors for the San Lorenzo Valley Water District for August 17th, 2023. How long did you take role? President Smalley. Here. Vice President Hill. Here. Director Fultz. Here. Director Ackerman. Here. I would like to note that Director Ackerman is participating remotely. Okay. Director Mayhood is not present. And Director Mayhood is still off ill by motion that we excuse her due to medical issue. Do I hear a second? Yeah. President Smalley. Yes. Vice President Hill. Yes. Director Fultz. Yes. Director Ackerman. Yes. Motion passed. Any changes to the closed session agenda? Director Mayhood. Staff have none. Sure. Okay. Rural communications. Reserve for members of the public. On items that are on the closed session agenda. I see nobody from the public online or here. I think we can dispense with that. Given that. I think we can adjourn to the closed session. Okay. Scott, are you going to call in that number in there? Or do you have it? I have 630, so I'd like to reconvene this meeting of the board of directors for the San Lorenzo Valley Water District for August 17, 2023. I'll leave you to take roll again. President Smalley. Here. Vice President Hill. Here. Director Fultz. Here. Director Ackerman. Here. And Director Mayhood is absent, but excused. Thank you. Rick, any additions or deletions? Let's just follow up. There are none. Good. I'm sorry. Were there any actions taken in closed session to report on? No. There were no actions taken from the discussion in closed session that we have to report. Thank you. Okay. Oral communications. Is reserved for communications from anybody from the public. For items that are within jurisdiction of the district that are not on the agenda for this evening. And I'd like to remind folks that. Presentations may not exceed three minutes in length. This. Oral communications. Or during comments that. Members may have. During any of the items that we have coming up. So does anybody have anything. Not on the agenda. They want to think about. Seeing nobody here. From our attendees online. We can proceed. New business. on the proposed infrastructure on Brookside Drive. Rick. Thank you, Mark. This is again, a carryover from our last board meeting. The staff recommends that the board review and comment in regard to Brookside Drive, the winter storm damage main replacement project in early January, 2023. Several culverts along Brookside Drive Belton became clogged by extreme winter runoff and debris during an atmospheric event. The clog culverts redirected the winter runoff from Schengel Mill Creek onto the roadway, washing out portions of the roadway, blocking access to many homes when the road erosion on the road occurred. It also damaged and exposed the district's two-inch water main located in Brookside Drive. Staff responded, restored temporary water service to the home's impactors. As part of the overall storm damage, the district submitted a damage claim to FEMA. Staff is currently working with FEMA to get this project obligated, which has approved the scope of the work for replacement, which in turn improves the funding for replacement. The damage to the road washed out, exposed the main in multiple locations, and there was some breaks at the west end of the road. The proposed replacement repairs would be a replaced approximately 1,650 millennial feet of exposed damage, main with new fully-restrained eight-inch duct-valent pipe to include excavation, bedding, pipe material, and appurtences, compounds, fire hydrants, et cetera. The permanent repair costs, including engineering, surveying, and environmental review, and the installation of mainline is estimated at 800,000. District Engineer Josh Wolk made this estimation from projects that are in construction now are latest and greatest figures that we have. To date, the district has procured services for surveying, which is needed for design work. The surveyors, I do believe that he was out yesterday, took some pictures, started some preliminary work, and I do believe they hope to have the survey completed by the end of next week. Once the survey is completed, and we will evaluate if the roadway is supposed to be actually in the right-of-way or on private property, et cetera, and then we will do start the mainline layout plan specifications for replacing the pipeline. Once we have a scope and a project designed, we will then start environmental review. Schengel-Mell Creek, the pipe crosses Colverx in several locations. It is a repairing corridor, so there will be some substantial environmental work that will need to be done before construction. We'll then bid the project after environmental review, and it is anticipated that we can start construction of the replacement main early spring 2024. Again, that would be depending on rainfall and winter. We have had several field meets out with residents and phone calls, and staff has really emphasized to the homeowners that the exposed main should not impact clearing debris and so forth getting into homes. That district staff would stand by or would be available to make repairs to the existing main through our maintenance budget if by removing trees along the road, because there are several trees out that are down, and there is some construction work that needs to be done rebuilding the roadway in a couple locations. We would work with the homeowners so they can move ahead and pretty much restore that road to pre-existing gravel conditions. We do recommend that paving is not completed because we will be installing a main right up pretty much the center of the road, depending on where the road lays out after the survey. And we wouldn't want to have to tear up fresh pavement. That's just something that we'll try to avoid. The funding hasn't been approved yet, but even if we have funding obligated and we have the money sitting, it is doubtful not unless the board would want the district to expedite an emergency install, expedite wave formal bidding procedures, which FEMA would probably disagree in that wood jeopardized funding. And we'd still have environmental to move through. So it is doubtful that we would be able to have this constructed any sooner. Nonetheless, we did not perform environmental, which I strongly don't recommend. The road has to be repaired before we can put a pipe back in because the district will not be rebuilding the road. So there is some work that needs to be done out there and you'll need environmental work, environmental review to do any road work out there. They do have a contractor that has been working with them, Granite Construction, but Granite Construction is not going to go in and do work, I doubt, without proper prevention in the right agencies. We have met with a homeowner that has experience with EPA funding, has given us some contacts for possible alternative funding or other funding for other projects. I've sent that information on to our grant writer and to our environmental planner to look into that because if we don't use on this project, we possibly could use it on other projects. That's pretty much my report today. Be more happy to take questions from the board. Okay, all right, why don't we start with you, Jeff? They only have a question at this point. Okay, all right, Bob? Yeah, is there an agreement between the community and the district that they can do what they need to do to get back to their homes and be able to do reconstruction as needed, all that? I mean, are they in a position to be able to do that? I can't answer that. So the public's here, so. Yeah, so again, I don't know. I mean, if you don't know, then maybe you guys can. Working with them, it seemed to be agreeable with that I've received emails that some of the neighborhoods, some of the neighbors didn't seem to be agreeable to that schedule. Well, I mean, I can understand. It's gonna be over a year. So I can't speak for the neighbors and obviously they are here, so. Okay, so they haven't told you that they're good, so maybe they can help enlighten us. So, let me interrupt. I'd like for the board to address any questions to Rick first. Sure. I would like to hear from the public. This is a pending question and I agree with Bob's. Yeah, we want to know what public has to say. Yeah, that's the number one question for him, but I have a few others. Is it realistic to get the environmental and done and the bid out responded to and selected by spring? September, October, November, December, January, February, March, seven months. I do believe it's realistic. It will be, it will push other projects behind this one. It'll move this topic to the list, but this will be contingent. I will refer to Carly and put you on the spot if the core will get involved. I know you have not been out there, but it depends on the regulatory review and what regulatory agency is involved. The core is involved. It's not set. I can't answer that, but Carly, maybe Carly can speak to that. It depends on what exact, I haven't reviewed the project and where it's actually crossing the riparian corridor. And we need to get the survey in so we know where the road actually is. So there's a few steps to jump through. I get that, Rick. If things line up and standard project, even so we're in the riparian corridor, if we're not actually digging in the stream, which I don't think we would, and I don't intend to do that, I think we could make that schedule, but it will push to the top of the list. Okay, but I mean, I want everybody to know that there is a big question mark here relative to the environmental review. And there's a big question mark on a lot of things if we have another El Nino in the district. Yeah, yeah. Of course. I mean, this is not guaranteed by far, but this is the target that we will shoot for. Okay, I just want to be crystal clear with the community as to what we're looking at here. That's all. I understand about the survey. We had an issue recently up where I live that. Yeah, always throw. Yeah, it wasn't in the road. Culver responsibility. It was this, is this a private road and is the Culver responsibility, the responsibility of the owners of the road? The district was not planning to take on the responsibility of road building or culvers. I didn't ask that. I ask who owns the road? Do you know who owns the road? You're not. Okay, so maybe we can have them address that as well? If the public knows that. If they know it. Well, I mean, it's either a county road, a county and maintained road or a private road. That's the choices that we count for. Each individual parcel could own the road. That's still a private road. Yes, right. Okay, when did we identify as a district, when did we identify this as an issue? Storm damage issue? When did we identify this situation as an issue? Okay, right. When it happened. Okay. The beginning of the year, when we had the outages we responded to when the actual flooding. Okay, and this was on the project list that we assembled. I don't know that I've seen a project list yet. This has been a FEMA project when it has happened. A service order was produced and it submitted to FEMA right away. Is there a reason that we didn't engage a survey or right away or back in April or May when things dried out a little bit? I don't have the exact dates, but there was a time that we couldn't even get in there. PJ and he wasn't going in there, there was trees down. We looked at it, we had everybody back in water. So it wasn't a tough emergency to get in because folks were restored in water relatively quickly. Okay. And what kind of risks do we think are gonna be to the pipe if they do what they need to do, taking out trees and that sort of thing? Are we looking at effectively having to replace? The pipe looks like it's located where it's exposed in the center of the road so that when vehicles travel, but it depends. It's potentially could get damaged, dragging trees and so forth. It's a small main. We will move right in and fix another maintenance budget. Okay, and by right end, that means like same day. Same day, same day. Hopefully eight hours. Yeah, okay. All right, great. Thank you. Okay. One of our board members is participating remotely this evening. Jamie, any questions on this? Well, you know, I heard Rick say that there are projects that will get pushed down the list in order to accelerate some of this work. And I'm not opposed to that necessarily. I think it's, you know, when we're trying to accommodate customers that does come at a higher priority for me than projects where, you know, the sequencing can be done without directly affecting other private work with homeowners who are trying to go through the recovery process themselves. So that's to say, I really appreciate that you have taken these steps to try and push this forward, but I do want to sort of understand what kind of long downstream effects, if you forgive the pun, that this might have for other projects that may also be very critical. Is there any, you know, do you have visibility into that, Rick? I don't know if I've heard because you're kind of broken. Did you ask what that would happen if I pushed that project to the top of the list? What the impact would be on other projects? Well, there'd be some impact, but you know, and most of this will be consultants. We will send out for the habit design, and then it will just be staff review. A lot of the other projects aren't obligated yet, some of the bigger projects. And Jamie, it would be typical for us to move a project of this nature where the road was gonna be being paved to the top of the list to make sure that, you know, we wouldn't go in and destroy payment. And we've done that in other situations. Okay, okay, thanks, Jamie. Along the lines of what Bob was asking earlier, can we issue the request for proposals? Next. Based on staff availability, can we issue those requests for proposals soliciting for engineering design firm and for environmental reviews? Because that's the first step that we need to take in both of those aspects. We'd like to get the survey done first so we know what we're up against. Once the survey is done, which the survey should be, what is it typically on return of a survey? But. A month, two weeks. Yeah, maybe two weeks. But it's gonna take staff time on both of those aspects. To prepare all of the background information. The survey is part of it. It's part of what the engineering package at least goes out with. You're arguing for parallel.surreal. Exactly. I understand that. Yes. I don't like to rush. I know what you guys are looking for. I do not like to rush the project, the process, because this is when we make mistakes and things get... He's not asking for rushing. I'm not saying rush it. I'm saying staff availability and staff prioritize this. Yes. I'm not saying cut any corners on this. No, but simply that. I still don't believe it'll get the project installed any sooner than it will spring. Because that's a pretty ambitious schedule to get to that. That's not what he's saying either. I'm not saying that. I'm saying can we, this is the first step that we would need to take. I would hope that we're not back at this point in November saying, oh, well then now we need to get a design console. No, I want to see what we can do to begin to move this along because other projects that are to the more pressing nature, it can take us a while. So can we get some staff availability to get those procedural aspects issued to our piece? We can try. That's where the staff time comes in to start doing that. And that's what is our problem right now. Yeah. They're working on other staff. So we have a considerable construction project going on. Let's try to stop it right now. Okay. All right. I did see a mention in one of the emails about the possibilities of some other federal funding aspects they mentioned two specific ones. Can we get our grant writer involved? I already have sent that email out both currently and our grant writer to investigate. Okay. All right. Just as long as it's not USDA type funding. So can we hear back from that at a subsequent board meeting? Just on the status of that is. Okay. And then you're going from two inch pipe to eight inch pipe. That's correct. Tell us why. Higher flow. Okay. Good. That's what I expect. That's a good one. Okay. Oh, those are all the questions that I have. So Bob, you asked two questions that Rick had to beg off on that we think that somebody from the public can address. I'm looking for customer satisfaction. I have results. Yeah. Okay. So based on what discussions Rick has had with you at this point, sound reasonable. Because I think what I'm hearing is we can do other work in there. Getting a tree off of somebody else's house. We can be there. Repair flow. Does this sound like an acceptable approach? Okay. Or the best of your took the lead last time all. Thank you. Or the best of the worst approach. Thank you for your questions. Please. If you can go to the mic. Oh, okay. Because I don't know how well your voice is then heard by others. Hello. Yes. May I ask you to identify yourself and where you're from? Yes. My name is Chris Keller. I live in 899 Brookside, Travis. This is Ed Covey and Steve Farrell. And we were here two weeks ago. We're three of the 12. So we speak for all of our community. And this timeline is frustrating for a lot of them. Four of those still cannot access their homes. Two of them have the trees still in the home. So for those folks, this timeline is outrageous. Just because it's been eight months and we have spent eight months trying to get this onto Rick's radar. Unfortunately, it took coming here two weeks ago for him to return my phone calls. So when my neighbors hear his timeline about spring, they are limited because they are renting in rentals. One gentleman, 75 years old has been going every weekend and chiseling that tree from his home because he can't get a crane or a crew up there. And so that's frustrating for him. That's frustrating for all of us. So the timeline is, I don't know, it's disappointing that we've wasted so much time and that we're almost in the winter again. So they're all concerned that this is just gonna happen again. So one point about the environmental. I know fish and wildlife is expediting prominence as it relates to disaster. And this is, we received the funding through the 4683 disaster. And apparently to find the 4699 to get the funds to do all of this. But they are expediting prominence. This is Eddie, he is the one that works. And I didn't know if you want to tell them your title. Hey, hold on a second, I would like to respond to each one and not as the groups to these. Hang on a second. And who owns the road and is it a private road? It is a private road. Okay, so the culvert maintenance would have been? Home owners, homeowners? So that we have been doing that because the district, you know, does not come when we have a clog culvert. So we hire someone to do it out of. Sorry, which district? Not our, it's not our road. So it's a private road and we understand that, that you guys actually don't have responsibility over the culverts. Okay, thank you. The pipes, right? So that's, that's what we're speaking to. Okay. The culverts are under the, what we would hope Grand Construction would do is to sort of reinforce those culverts. I'm sorry, would you identify yourself, please? I'm at coffee, I'm at nine, five, six, seven, eight, seven. Thank you. Okay. So, well, just to break you. Yes, please respond. I mean, I have, you know, I understand their frustration and they want to get this done, but the pipeline didn't preclude, you guys getting into your home didn't preclude you guys moving in and removing trees and so forth. No one, I asked Josh Wolf, our district engineer, our past district engineer, he was working with several of the homes. I'm moving this project forward and to say that we kept you and keeping today, people from entering their homes, it's just not true. You can get, I drove up to the last house and he met me out front and said, yeah, I can't get propane. I understand that, but that's not from our pipe. It's from the road washed out. They won't go around the trees. I've been up there and I sympathize, but I think we should make sure that we have straight backs. Don't tell the board and me that we're stopping you to get it home. That's not true. You can drive in and you break the pipe, we'll fix it. The pipe is not that bad. It's exposed, it's not a standard and yes, it needs to be replaced, but we're not holding you back from fixing the road, fixing culverts, we'll work with you. Yes, but why didn't you tell us this eight months ago? Josh Wolfe was working with you. Yes, and I met with Josh. Yeah, and so we were working with you all to move this ahead. And we've had a lot of projects and I'm not saying that your project isn't important, but we had you in water right after it happened. Make sure you were in water. Yes. And then the next is to move in and do the repairs. So I mean, I think you should work with us a little better and don't come in and tell me that I'm stopping you from getting home or getting the trees out of the houses. Your area was hit the worst I saw. That brookside drive took it hard. There is no doubt in my mind. And we want to get in and replace that pipe, but it's going to take a little bit of time for us to do it. When did you first see brookside drive? Now the car was in the hole still when I was up there. So that was three weeks ago. Whenever that was, I was up there. When did the neighbors got a bobcat and moved trees? No one was there. I mean, I didn't talk to anybody. Then the next time I went up, I talked to the guy who was at the end of the street. And Josh went out there and the director of operations went out there right after the fact. And Josh put together a budget description for FEMA. You know, I know you guys want to get this done. I don't play, but we do have a process to go through. And we're moving, I think, pretty fast compared to other projects that are three or four years old. I know several Mexicans. Honestly, I can understand the frustration and I'm sensing that. Yeah, I'm sorry. And I understand that. It's taken a while. And from residents perspective, maybe the district wasn't out there as soon as what residents thought they should have been. I can't speak to what staff was doing. Otherwise, what we can talk about, I think better is what are we doing going forward? Because I can't change what happened last week or last month. Unless it's what happened then shouldn't happen now and we can improve on it. So I hear Rick saying that as far as the tree that's in place, if a homeowner will give us notice, we could have staff available. If that line breaks, we can get it fixed. Right? I have a question. If this is- I think one of the points of attention to why this frustration is because of the lack of coordination is not so much that you think that you're doing nothing. But the perception, however, is that no one has come out to the road. Right? And three weeks ago, I believe it was the first time wherever it was to see the vehicle before it was pulled out. So we're talking about coordination at least a face to face. We haven't had that. We were just barely getting to that place. So I think that's where the frustration was. We also know that it's not your fault that any of this happened, right? And I think where the frustration lies again is just in that coordination. Because if we could have gotten to this, we had gotten an initial rollout of funding from FEMA for individual homes at $41,000 per home. We could have gotten started on hasty things. But we had waited for the contact from you guys before we even considered moving any dirt because of considerations for that pipeline and as aging and your aging infrastructure. So that was really the reason why we helped back. We understand that we could have gone to proceed it. But we were consulting with them. Our concern was that pilot, what we might do with the pilot had even gone out and told neighbors to not firm up because you're gonna break that pilot. And our road is in a situation where it becomes harder for folks to come up even for you guys. Right. Okay, so if Bob wants to comment. The question is, I'm still not clear on this. I need to get clarity on this. Can you or can you not get equipment up to the last house on the road to get the tree and the other house to get the tree off the house? No. Okay, so how do we, I mean. Is it not properly, you know? Now, is that due to the road being out? It's the best to do to the condition of the road. And so like Chris has said, we've been, this neighbor's been essentially cutting his tree to pieces, a dug fir into pieces so that it can move from the property. And so this being besides the point though of the pipes and construction, but this, we got into this place because again, we've been waiting for that contact in that coordination and we're barely getting there. So that's where the frustration is. It's on the board's radar now. Yes. I can say that it wasn't on our radar until two months ago. Which makes our point. Mark, I have a question. Our engineer was working with those folks. Just a minute, Jamie. I mean, it was on our radar. Josh was out there working with, I don't know who he met with, but he was representing my office. I talked to Lucinda two or three times. Over the last months on the project. I just mean, I don't think you're getting the right information. I was just, I wasn't aware of the, I wasn't aware of this. I didn't know anything was going on. Right. I don't think the risk of the board was to this degree. I have one question for you gentlemen. We have three of you there representing your neighbors. And I'm assuming that the rest of, most of the rest of the people are, there are also your neighbors. Have you as a group designated a person to be the primary contact? So that Rick has someone that? Yes. Okay. Yeah, that's me. Okay. Is that your understanding also, Rick? I've been contacted by several different people. Okay. So I think one way, I don't know if it's an actual road association or it's just... Okay. Usually if it's a road association, there's a designated person. In January or when the storm's hit, we established Chris as that point of contact. Yeah. So in a situation like this, it's best to have contact point, contact point. And you represent your contact people and you represent the district. And that way we keep the communication straight and we don't have what we were saying. Well, somebody was out here with a truck last week. I don't know what he wanted. That's our nature. We have frustrated. We have established Chris as that person. But whoever's making contact with whoever. Okay. We can't help you. We wanted to make sure that we had a clear line of contact. Okay. Jamie, you have another comment or question? Question for the speakers. When did you get confirmation of your FEMA funding? That stuff, it was May March between March. We got our first payments in March and then they sort of rolled in after that. So, yes, in March. I mean, the other aspect of this too, is the fact that with inflation, the way it is, every day that goes by, they're losing money, right? We're taking money out of the pocket. So other question too on this, on the FEMA funding. You applied to a special FEMA program, as I understand it, for homeowners associations, private road associations. Private road, yes. Are they prioritizing those projects over public agencies like us? Because we find FEMA to be very, very slow in processing. FEMA is only worried about emergency response. Yeah. So I worked for the US Army Corps of Engineers. I was the Deputy Public Affairs Officer. I'm currently a writer for the Environmental Protection Agency. I've reached nine. Not as big a position in my previous at the Army Corps of Engineers, but I've been on emergency response and I've seen how fast FEMA can respond. FEMA walks up to a certain line and it's up to the next agency to take it over. So right now you have a situation where EPA should be stepping in, but EPA doesn't step in until you reach out. And I've given contacts at the earliest point of this when this happened. WIFIA, CWIFP, the Army Corps, and from the US EPA. So those things can be expedited given the considerations and situation that we are in currently. And I'm not talking about $15 million in private loan. I'm talking $100 million. That could have been delivered to you on low interest, as well as forgiving. Expedited. I'm as calm as I can possibly be. I'm trying to be calm. But again, I've been out of my house on emergency response for a portion two. Well, I can't get help on our right. Guam, now Hawaii, right? So this is where we're at. Okay. So I understand that there's a process. But in this situation, I know the process can be expedited. You've heard what Rick has had to say at this point and what our plans are going forward. We don't have a motion in front of us. I expect this is gonna be an item that's gonna be on future agendas that update not only us, the board, but the public also. What is your next step then, right? Other than the survey that you told us about? We'll start with the plans and specifications. The R&Ps. The R&Ps, okay. For those. And then we'll start reaching out to regulatory agencies on SQL. Okay. And that can be done concurrent. But we can't start the SQL process until we have plans and specifications or at least a plan. Right. Okay. And then that'll slow down. That'll go pretty quick to that point, but then it will slow down. And we'll reach out to a consultant, do an RFP and have a consultant do the plan specifications for those paid out and done. I mean, I would hope that whoever's reviewing this understands the situation and would take this to the top of the triage. This is- Well, you know exactly how it's gonna go. These regulatory agencies. Possibly, but this is where you start talking about triage on emergencies. If he can't get his truck up there and we still don't have- I want them to drive up to the end of the road. If he can't get the truck up there to get the tree off, then I don't see a solution here yet. He can't get a crane. Right. Can you get anybody? It's a crane that he's talking about. A bit of crane. Okay, but can you get anybody of any kind? Can you get a pickup up there? It might be a little something. But wait, I think you've already identified that getting the crane up there is a condition of the road. Right. Right. It's not- Mike. A tow crane or Christian or a smaller truck. Right, right. So I don't think that that's an issue. The PG&E have their cranes and their trucks in there because they replace poles, isn't it? Okay. But removing the tree in- Yeah. I don't know where the trees are on the houses. But removing the tree, I don't think it's something that we can- No, it's not our responsibility. Hang on, guys. It's not our responsibility. It's the point of which we're talking about. Right. It's understanding. It's not our responsibility to do, but we're in the critical path on that. If- Now, can you get a smaller truck up to cut it up into smaller pieces? That's what's happened, yes. Okay. All right. So Rick, it sounds like in addition to complete the survey, get RFPs prepared. You're working with the grant writer. So you have some things here that you could begin- Well, we'll flesh out FEMA before we go for a loan. Okay. Or we look at other grants. We're not gonna- You don't have to. You can apply for a WIFI right now today. And we'll look into that. Okay. Can we put together a checklist of all of- Can we put together a checklist of the steps that we need to do and keep it current between them and us so that we, both sides know exactly where we are? Appreciate that. That would be helpful. And I want to apologize, Rick. I didn't mean to get personal. That's just, we are very frustrated and I'm venting the frustration from my neighbors. So I'm happy to work with you and I appreciated your phone call two weeks ago after the last meeting. And you also spoke to Josh and we have been working with neighbors. Lucinda and I talked to several times. Josh has been out there. I mean, we have been working with you. I just want to make sure- We've not made any progress. So- Especially if we've had months of a gap. That's where a checklist would help. Yeah, a checklist would help. Task one is to check them off when they're done. Well, you understand where you're at, isn't it? That would relieve a lot of the tension that we're feeling. Okay. I think we're- Yes. We've been looking forward to this. Discuss as far as we can at this point then on this. Thank you gentlemen. No, thank you for your time. Thank you for your time. Thanks. And we will be discussing it at a future meeting. If I may, John and Jameson, I live up the health release focus on lost acre drive. And I envy either them or you guys having to work with so many crisis situations, which in a way, the world is going to pay yet even more frequent. And you don't have to answer me, but talking to yourselves as to whether you have enough hands to do the work. There's a lot of it out there. Okay. Thanks, John. Okay. Moving on then. Item 10B, since we do not have any motion to deal with there. The stream flow monitoring. And I will ask our district environmental planner to present this on to the board and public please. Carly? Thank you, Rick. So in 2014, the district began a long-term stream flow and water quality monitoring program to collect and record stream flow and diversion data. This data is used to inform regulatory agencies, assist with operations and establish baselines for future projects. In 2019, the district refined the monitoring program and reduced the number of gauges to only gauge non-op or only gauge operational diversions. So in April, 2023, the district released a request for proposals for qualified firms to complete the 2023, the 2025 stream flow salinity and temperature monitoring operational gauging program. The RFP closed on June 8th, 2023, and two proposals were received. We received one proposal from Balance Hydrologics and another from CBEK Inc. Ecoengineering and both are included in the agenda packet for review. Both firms met all the requirements of the RFP and were qualified. Staff is recommending Balance Hydrologics for the contract due to their local experience, history with the district's monitoring gauging program and their total budget for the 2023, 2025 program. The cost for the three-year program is 118, 181, and 85 cents and staff is prepared to answer any questions. Okay, thank you. Bob, you look straight. Yeah, I mean, it looks fairly straightforward. It is just from a presentation point of view, it's always great to have a table or something summarizing the financial part of it. I had to go look for it and it looks like Balance Hydrologics is actually lower cost, correct? So that's actually a flashing type thing you wanna highlight in your report. Yeah, I mean, they've been doing this for a while and been doing a good job on it. And yeah, we don't need to do more than we're more streams that we're doing now. We collected a ton of information during that five-year period. So let's go. Jamie, questions on this? No questions. Okay, Jeff, no questions. Okay, I have one, Carly. Balance includes 15,000 for contingency. Who controls that money and do we need that? Right, so in the past, we have used contingency for different data requests that we had for Balance. So if we needed something analyzed or a lot of times we're not getting reports back at this point, so we've dropped that off of the proposal or their budget. So we have gone back to them to ask for that data and that would use up some extra hours and that would likely come to Rick for authorization to use the contingency. Okay, so if we're not getting reports on an ongoing basis, which costs us having this there instead for the one-off requests periodically, that makes sense there. And it's not, Balance has that money already. It's through our request of additional work. We need you to do this. Tell us what this is gonna be. All right, that's another of 16 hours. Okay, I'm on the right step there. Okay, then I'd like to move that the board direct the district manager to enter into a contract with Balance Hydrologers in the amount not to exceed 119,000 for the purposes of 2023, 25, stream flow, salinity and temperature monitoring and operational gauging program. So I made a motion. Second. Thank you. It took me so long to get to the end of that. Okay. But it was a complete motion? Correct, it was. Yes. Before we take a vote on that, any members of the public wish to comment on this? Seeing none here, seeing none online. Oli. President Smalley. Yes. Vice President Hill. Yes. Director Falls. Yes. Director Ackman. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Moving on, the conjunctive use update modeling. Contract award. Yes, and the environmental planner, Karlie Blanchard will present this to the board. Right, thank you. So tonight we do have Mike Podlick, our fisheries biologist on the project, as well as Chris Hammersmark, the director from CPEC engineering to co-present an update on conjunctive use and a proposed technical support scope and budget. Scott, if you wouldn't mind pulling up the slide show. Scott, do you mind scrolling through the slides for me? Okay, I can go to the first slide. So just because we haven't brought this item to the board for some time, I wanted to give a quick update or a little brief summary of what conjunctive use is. Oh, thank you. Okay. Thank you. You're competing. All right, yeah. So this first slide is really just an overview of what the conjunctive use plan is and kind of the history. So the goal is to identify opportunities for improving the reliability of surface and groundwater supplies throughout the district's jurisdiction while also increasing stream base flows for fish. As part of the conjunctive use plan, we created two supporting documents, the water availability assessment and the fisheries resource considerations assessment. And right now the district is working on an environmental impact report as part of the CEQA analysis. A few years ago, we did complete an initial study. However, we received some concerns and decided to move on to an EIR or the environmental impact report. So just as a review of the water availability analysis or the WAA as we call it, this document looked through 24 conjunctive use scenarios for the district. It was focused primarily on water supply reliability and sustainability with a particular emphasis on groundwater sustainability. And it was based on simulated monthly flows. So this document was used to feed into the conjunctive use plan as well as our operational planning and will be worked into our environmental impact report. The WAA also, thank you, Scott. Forgot I wasn't controlling it. I'm controlling it at my computer, but it's not going. So the fisheries resource considerations assessment was built off of the WAA. And it's a planning level analysis of fisheries effects of district selected water availability analysis scenarios. But it used the WAA simulated flow results in stream flow monitoring data. And it did not establish habitat flow relationships or in stream flow needs. Mike Podlick did write this document. And I don't know, Mike, if you wanted to jump in here and add any information. Not at this point. Okay, perfect. All right, next slide. All right, so just as a overview of the existing operations for the district, we have a NOR system that only uses water that uses both surface water and groundwater sources. We have our south system that is groundwater surface tors only. Sorry. And then our Felton system is surface water only. And we have emergency energize that run between North Felton, North South, and then South to Scotts Valley Water District. Not currently used as our operations as our lock lumen allotment, which is 314 acre feet a year. That was an agreement that we entered with the city after we sold some land for them to build their lock lumen reservoir. We also do have a water right in Lompico or Zionty. However, we did file a petition to dedicate that water back to the stream. That's a 1707 petition that we submitted. So that is in process. Next slide. We just went through this on the last item, but we are working on a stream flow and temperature monitoring program. It's been a five year of extensive gauging from 2014 to 2018. And that included agency input and annual updates. This really did capture a broad range of water type years. We had very wet periods and then very dry periods within that range. So it's a really good summary of what it looks like in our operations and our diversions, as well as our streams. It's also included water temperature effects analysis by Don Alley, another fisheries biologist in the area. And then we did reduce the scope in 2019. And we also had pretty limited data in the past few years due to the CZU fires and then our 2023 storms, we lost gauges and we did put them back after the 2020 CZU. However, we did have the big storms that took out most of the gauges again. So entering into a new contract, we'll reinstall all those gauges and get our data back online. Next slide. So the revised conjunctive use project description. From the initial study, we have updated or changed a few of the project needs. So right now we're looking at taking our energizer and making them usable for non-emergency use. So that'll be analyzed in our environmental impact report to understand what those potential impacts are. We're also looking to understand what the transfer of unused potential diversions would be throughout the district and what those impacts could potentially be on our streams. And then we also are analyzing the Loch Lomond allotment and how that would fit into our system, how we'd bring it into our system and how we would treat it. We are in the process of releasing a Loch Lomond feasibility study RFP or request for proposals. And hopefully we'll have that back soon and that'll give us more information on what we'd need to do to upgrade our treatment plants as well as where we would tie in with the city of Santa Cruz and tie up some discussions we need to have with the city as well. Another piece is we do need to change our place of use for our felting water rights. So right now our water right only allows us to use felting water within felting. And we'd like to be able to move that throughout the jurisdiction of our water district. Not included is the changes to the big trees gauge of water right restriction that we have there. And then aqua for storage and recovery or ASR. We're not analyzing either of those in this EIR. And Mike, this might be another place that you might have interest in jumping in. So I'll give you a. I think you summarized the grade and if there's any questions afterwards I'd be happy to answer those. Thank you Mike. Great next one. So the next steps to move the EIR forward. We did award a contract to RINCon consultants in August of 2022. They were the original consultant that completed the initial study. So we felt that it made sense to move them into the process and they are on board. However, we've had some delays due to all the emergencies we run into as well as getting a better understanding of exactly what our operations would look like with Loch Lomond brought online as well as how we would exactly move, win and how much water from our diversions. We did lose all the north system diversions in the CZU fires. We currently have one online, which is Foreman Creek. We're also working right now to model some different climate change impacts as well as understand what the impacts could potentially be to the city of Santa Cruz operations by increasing our diversions during high flows and then as well as the Loch Lomond allotment and what that would do for their temperatures and their HDP that they just went to or their Habitat Conservation Plan. And we originally brought RINCon on to update the project description out of 30,000 purchasing authority and then awarded them the contract in August just as a side note. Next slide. We've recently brought on Sebeck Ecoengineering to help us get a better understanding of what we would need to do to complete the EIR including water right place of use changes and associated water diversion permitting. We did enter into another $30,000 purchasing authority under Rick's district manager purchasing authority. The initial scope began the preliminary hydraulic and habitat modeling on Boulder Creek which is the confluence of Foreman and Peabind Creeks and stream flow data processing for operational planning with the idea that the comprehensive scope and budget would be developed based on needs defined upon establishing the work from this initial contract. Since the modeling kickoff Sebeck has proposed the attached scope of work or actually it's in the board packet Scott I think you might have jumped ahead but there we go. The work presented in the proposed budget includes the 30,000 initially authorized so we're actually asking for $71,674 with a $10,000 contingency and I'll allow Chris to jump in here and explain what we've done thus far and what we would do if the work is completed or the contract is approved. Sounds good thank you Carly. Hi everybody I'm Chris Hammersmark I'm a director at Sebeck Equal Engineering and run our Santa Cruz branch office or based down in Sebeck we have five local staff that support your needs as well as many of your partner agencies in fact we're conducting stream flow monitoring for San Margarita groundwater agency. Sebeck was asked to provide three tasks. They're summarized here. The first is assess changes and habitat availability and fish passage due to changes in flow on Boulder Creek. The second was to synthesize without project or natural daily stream flow records for use by others in the CUPIR-CQA how about that for some else with that suit analysis. And then lastly we've been asked to modify scale those records to future potential hydrology scenarios with various climate change analyses added and we're doing that, well I'll tell you more about that in a moment. So next slide please Scott. So the first task was to look at habitat and fish passage on Boulder Creek. The previous work that Mike provided asserted that the district's diversions shouldn't affect and the local and the regulatory agencies in general agreed but they said we need something hard to point to to support that professional opinion and that's why Mike brought us in. And so we are working on a roughly 350 foot reach of Boulder Creek pretty close to the bottom right over there and it was chosen as representative reach of the Boulder Creek meaning the conditions there should reflect what fish steelhead in particular experience elsewhere along Boulder Creek. To conduct this work we provided a detailed survey. Next slide please Scott. And with that we are able to develop a DEM of the reach with that this just shows you the DEM and the various survey points. Actually could you go back one slide? Just what we're really trying to get at is the picture on the left you see a riffle with threads of water going through and we would have been tasked with estimating at what point how low does flow have to drop such that an adult steelhead could not swim through that riffle. So that's more or less what we're trying to get at and then you see the pool downstream of it where effectively you're being asked to say how much does an increment change in flow affect the availability of rearing habitat or habitat for baby fish to get bigger before they head out to the ocean. Next slide please. So first we collected a detailed hydrophilographic survey. We use that to build a 2D hydraulic model which we then are able to run scenarios and evaluate hydraulic conditions. Next slide. So these are some of the preliminary results from the hydraulic modeling on the left side. We can see that it's hard at this scale. I apologize, but on the left is a lower flow condition, 18 CFS and presenting the depth of water. On the right is 59 CFS and resulting depth of water. We are currently running a sweep of other flows primarily at the lower end to analyze at what point the flow through the three riffles that are provided or included within our reach. At what point does the depth get less than 0.6 foot deep and narrower than two feet? And those are the criteria that we are, we work with the research agencies to identify as passable for stealing. So we will use the model and then see at what point it would technically become impassable. And then Mike in doing his fisheries analysis and looking at changes in flow based off of various potential outcomes due to the conjunctive use plan, would any of those affect that? Would we get to a point on older critique where it flow dipped below and because of your upstream diversions, passage could potentially be impacted or delayed. So that's what we're currently working on. We built the model, we're currently, the model's been run, we're currently doing the analysis and reporting. So we're a good chunk of the way through this particular task. Next slide. The next piece is to prepare daily stream flow records to then again analyze how various conjunctive use, various alternatives could affect those stream flow. As we just heard, the district has been working with non-cydrologics to provide hydrologic data on the streams of interest and this data has been incredibly valuable for our process. So we're relying very heavily upon the past work video of investment. We have, as Carly mentioned, we are looking at the 2014 through 2018 periods because it captures a very wide range of hydrology. We don't need to look at 100 years. We can look at nearly the dryest year on record and one of the wettest years on record within those and then a couple of intermediate and so they provide a good range of hydrologic years for us to evaluate potential impacts or effects. Our job was to compile those data and then to fill in some gaps in those data because at times gauges go out or there are other issues. Next slide, please. Again, this is the gauging system that Balance has been working on and will continue for you. I'm not gonna really summarize that too much but we were able to develop a daily streamflow record for all of these locations from April 15th, 2014 to September 30th, 2018, giving us about four and a half years to analyze and future efforts. Next slide, please. So some of the gaps were range from a few weeks to a few months. Norman Creek had a two-year gap that we needed to synthesize and so it wasn't really just going in and filling in a day here or a day there. There was decent chunks that needed to be synthesized. Next, next slide, please. This is an example of one of the hydrographs. So this is from water year 2017 at Fall Creek. The blue line is showing what the gauge record was. The orange bar periods that we filled in based off of linear regression from other nearby gauges. And so we had to go through and look at the various data pairings and see which one simulated the flows or which were most closely correlated. And then we used that to fill in those gaps. So we did that on all nine sets of records and at various different points in the record. Next slide, please. That's another example of on Peabind Creek where we had to fill in a section of an early flow there. Next slide, please. As you're all aware, the flows that are monitored have been altered by upstream diversions. And so the next step was to add those diversions back in such that we had a without project or natural condition to then apply potential future diversions to. Next slide, please. So this is an example of what one of those looks like after we've taken the monthly diversion records from the district and added them back to the daily hydrographs that we had developed previously. Next slide, please. So we are done with the gap filling analysis at this point. And what is left for us to do is the climate change analysis where we take these various hydrologies that we've developed that were measured and then have been completed so that they're continuous and scale them for potential future climate change effects of temperature and precipitation. We don't have one answer on what the future may be. And so a suite of potential scenarios are being used. We're working very closely with the city of Santa Cruz to utilize identical methods to what they did as a means to not have them have an issue with what we've done in the future. So we're working really closely with them. We're communicating what we're doing and they're saying, yes, that sounds good such that when we come back to them we anticipate there will not be the same sort of pushback that was received last time. Next slide. Back to you, Karli. Great. Yeah, so we can go ahead and take some questions. We're ready to respond to anything that you guys have questions on. And it looks like Jamie has left the building. Yes, left the meeting, is that correct? She said she was gonna leave about 7.15. So she has signed up. Bob? Yeah. First of all, on the presentation that wasn't in our packet, correct? That's correct. And will that be posted on the website? Yes, we'll post it to the website and add it to the minutes as well. Great, thank you. Is the process that you're going through something that could have been done within the construct of negotiations around an ISM and D? Potentially. A lot of this work will lead into our permitting with the regulatory agencies as well. Mike, it looks like you're stepping in as well. Do you wanna answer that? I mean, the original ISM and D that we prepared and that Santa Cruz almost exclusively pushed back on forcing EIR, but I'm kind of curious whether or not this kind of analysis could have been done as a supplemental to the ISM and D to avoid the huge expense of EIR. I don't think I can respond directly to that question, but I don't know if you've had a chance to read the comment letter that the city provided on the ISM and D. The first half of that was legal arguments regarding how this project really requires to be analyzed under a full EIR versus an ISM and D. And as official as biologists, I'm not qualified to comment on what the legal validity of those arguments are, but I think that the council, legal council that the district was receiving at the time said that there are some valid points and that decision was made to move forward with an EIR. So it was really that decision that kind of was the impetus for the more rigorous analysis. So no, it wouldn't have been done as part of the ISM and D. And I don't think just doing that additional analysis and then still kind of trying to process it under an ISM and D would have put it this way. It put it this way. It may have still been challenged simply because of the, because I think the city primarily felt that, I think it's the public input portion of the EIR versus an ISM and D that they were really recommending or lack of better. Well, I mean, all those could have been addressed and I think the only public input in her EIR will be from the city of Santa Cruz and possibly a couple other regulatory agencies. The people up here completely understand the surface water, groundwater situation. The community does, it's very obvious. Second question I had was around, hey, we're actually operating those emergency interties under the emergency situation that we have as a result of the CZU fire. Is any of real life data going into this analysis? Because we're in effect operating as we want to operate with the exception of obviously a p-vine and clerk rate for the most part, but we're operating as we wanna operate post EIR, send water from any source to any destination as we operationally view beneficial to the community and to fish. And that's correct. So we did take into consideration any data that we had from these emergency situations. We actually used 2019 and 2020, I think, to start looking into our operational planning. So we are using that, as you mentioned, there are some handicaps, right, that we don't have all our diversions online right now, but it is giving us a good idea of what we can actually move from Felton when needed and how we would operate if we had this clearance to move water as we needed throughout our jurisdiction. Yeah, and that's going into what they're... Right, it's somewhat of a separate analysis that CBEK is working through, but the climate change analysis will take into consideration. Yeah, I mean, at this point, I understand the diversions outside of the district, but my primary focus is on operating the district as a unified whole as opposed to diverse, I mean, we just gotta get much more efficient in how we're using our water sources and staff to support delivering water to the community. If I may just add to Colle's response, it's important though to recognize that even though the current operations are sort of like a future conjunctive use plan, except that right now, there is no 313 acre feet from Bob Lume. I'm completely discounting that, Mike. I think the costs associated with that so far, the ROI has not been proven yet. And in fact, that was gonna be my next comment slash question is there was, I think, an article written about how we're making great progress with Santa Cruz. Are there any concrete numbers in place relative to purchasing raw water and treated water from Santa Cruz that could be used as part of a financial analysis before we spend a lot of time and energy reviewing other aspects? Because right now, I don't see the ROI given the costs that are associated here. Right, so that Loch Lomond feasibility study that we're hoping to enter into once we release the request for proposals, that will analyze those pieces. So the costs that's associated with bringing Loch Lomond online, these studies are somewhat. Santa Cruz delivered numbers that would inform the financial analysis that would need to be done because the article that was written did not say that. Right, they are, when we complete that study, that's going to be fed into that. They haven't, they've recently. Okay, what is going to be fed in? What is the number? The numbers that they provide to the consultant that completes the study. Okay, so they haven't yet though. They have not. Okay, will they provide those numbers prior to the start of that effort? Because otherwise, we're just barking up but that's free for no reason. That might be something Rick can answer? No. Because the article was not specific. Well, I didn't read the article. He's one that Mark wrote in conjunction with Mr. Keely. Oh, okay. Yeah, I didn't know what he was talking about. We're looking at part of that study, we're going to look at several scenarios on the Loch Lomond water and one will be treated first raw and then we'll be pricing associated with that. As far as the negotiation goes, entering into a final financial analysis before getting their number puts us out of disadvantage. We can't move ahead with numbers until we sit down with them or on numbers. There's a lot of variables and this study will work on them. You're missing his point though. What he's saying is that, I don't know any other way to put it but if we do everything except get their numbers and their numbers are the last thing that comes in. We're screwed. They have the opportunity to make those numbers whatever they want to affect our plan however we want or they want. So those numbers need to come first and then we do the analysis and then if the numbers don't work out, we can go back and try to renegotiate but we're not at the tail end where we're basically getting wagged by their dog. That's your opinion. I mean, we're working. Well, that's the way negotiations work, Rick. Okay, so if you put yourself in a weak negotiating position, you're gonna get screwed. But your question Bob was, has Santa Cruz provided that? The answer is no. Yeah, no. Okay, great. We should ask them to provide it before we finally spend any money on this effort because this is a big dollar number to upgrade the plant or to install pipe to take treated water and they're certainly gonna have a different number for treated versus raw water. So the cost to do this and we're very far away from this item right now. Yeah, but it's part of the conversation. You're gonna have to bring a cost to us to do the analysis for this feasibility study, correct? Yes, you'll get a purple and R&P will come in and we'll have bidders and we'll bring it in like we know. That question Bob is asking. That's the appropriate. You can ask that to the consultant to see whether we have that number from Santa Cruz. I mean, Santa Cruz is not gonna deliver it if we're gonna allow them not to. But we're not gonna be able to answer that. Not tonight, I got the answer I wanted, which is no. Correct, right. And I'm very clear about where I'm at in this. Okay, the next thing I wanted to talk about was a process related question because I'm a little confused here. What is in front of us the result of a bidding process? There's not. So the purpose of a $30,000 maximum is not to sort of provide a seed way to not then do a bid later if in fact the project is of the scope that we're looking at now. In my opinion, at least when I was on the budget finance committee, that was an explicit conversation that we had. So I, and it sounds to me like that might have also been a situation maybe with the EIR consultant where we did a $30,000 first and then more later. That was voted on by the board. The $30,000. It was. Okay, great. So we need to not do these kinds of things going forward because it is a workaround around the open bidding process that is the policy of this district. So, okay. Well, I'm glad we have clarity about the process which is not great. Okay, thanks. Okay. Yes. Okay, I don't have anything beyond what's already been discussed. Okay. Did RINCon have any allocation screen flow monitoring or anything else that in their EIR budget? They did not. Okay. The actual data collection or work, the analysis. Has RINCon participated in the discussion for the scope of work? Yes. So we did provide the initial scope to RINCon and I don't know if they've actually reviewed this updated scope and budget. That's a good question. But they were initially involved with the process that we were entering into and signed off on the three tasks that we had discussed with CVEC. Are we doing more than what we need to? It is kind of where I'm going with. But that's the question with this, with it'd be great, nice to have this data. But is it needed to support their aspects of the EIR? Because it sounds to me like that's why we're doing this additional work. Right. That's one part of it. So that'll actually give us the alternatives to be able to compare to. We'll be able to take this data and use it to use as the alternatives for different scenarios of how we operate. But it's also going to probably support all our permitting with our bypass flow restrictions that we'll probably end up with on our diversions. Okay. So it's beyond the EIR. It's operational aspects. Exactly. Also, as to where we can be taking water, how to take the water. Okay. You mentioned unused potential diversions. And that's not a term that I've heard before. What are those? I can define that. That comes from your previous consultant who prepared the water availability analysis. What it essentially means is that for the conjunctive use plan, the district would not be increasing the diversion capacities or treatment capacities beyond anything that is existing. But as you know, your demand goes down in the winter when streamflows are higher because people don't irrigate, et cetera. So you have what the previous consultant called an unmet demand. Sorry, an unmet potential in your diversions in the winter that are not being used. So that is the amount, the additional amount that is available within the existing capacity that could be transferred to the south system for in new reach. Okay. Hold on a second. I want to follow up now if I can. So my understanding though is that we're already operating. We're going to be using data that we're gathering right now for transferring water to the south system. Correct? Because we're doing that. In the wintertime, we were transferring surface water to the south system. Are we factoring that into this study? I'm not sure I'm understanding your question. So you're asking with our current operations under the emergency conditions. Yes, we were sending surface water to our Scott's Valley system. Is that being factoring to this analysis and not treating it as an additional diversion, but actually treating it as this is the way we're going to operate going forward. In wintertime, surface water is going to the south system always permanently. Yes and no. So with the diversions, what we're looking at with the Habitat Study is really based on what we're taking out of the streams. Like we're trying to understand what our diversions are and how the diversions are impacting the stream conditions. Where we're operating what the south system moving water from Felton, it's somewhat separate. And we're also don't have all our diversions online. I'm not sure I'm capturing what you're asking here. I mean, we do have some operational experience with sending surface water to Scott's Valley. If we're not factoring that into the study, I think we're missing a big question. Well, it'll be factored into the EIR. But it won't necessarily be factored into the study that CBEK is working on right now for Boulder Creek. The typical requirements both under CEQA as well as state and federal permitting for water diversions, if you're changing some operations and granted the operations you're discussing now that the current operations, but they're very recent operations. So in an EIR or in a permitting environment, you need to provide a wide range of water year types and show what your proposed future operations will do to stream flows and therefore fisheries resources during those different water year types. So we would definitely take into consideration this period of 2020 CZU fires through now as to what you've been transferring to Scott's Valley residents. Well, yes, it's not Scott's Valley, but the South system. But it's still just a snapshot in time. And it won't, it's not enough for the purposes of CEQA or during majority of my... Let me follow up that though, because we've had one dry year and one wet year and that extremely wet year in that period of time. We're likely to be in this situation at least for another year or two. Maybe we'll get lucky and we'll get a 2014 to 2018 type situation where we have a moderate year here coming up. It seems to me that, well, I mean, if we're not gonna do it, we're not gonna do it, but it seems to me we're missing an opportunity to factor in a little bit of our actual experience. What I'm hearing Mike say is the data record that we need to be looking at is more than just the last couple of years. It's a broader perspective. So, but the thing they talked about earlier was having four years where you went from dry to really wet in that period of time. It wasn't a long period of time, it was four years. And that's the proxy that they're using for the analysis. I think another way of responding to you might be that because I think you have a very good point in that you've been able to rely on the Felton system more heavily during these last two years. And still with, stay within your bypass flow requirements, et cetera. That is definitely something that will figure into the analysis. But again, it's a two year period. And I understand your reservations or concerns or questions about Loch Lomond, but it is still, that is a big chunk of water that whether or not it is included in the mix of water sources that you're dealing with completely changes in what would be taken from Felton or the North system or the groundwater system. You know, you're suddenly adding over 300 acre feet per year engine system that currently doesn't have those 300. About 14% of production. It's not what I call a massive laboratory. I'd like to see if we can segue away from the Loch Lomond aspects. I wanted to focus on what's in front of us here. Loch Lomond will be coming up, coming at some point. And I do have a couple of other specific questions to this that I'd like to get back to. Similar to the last discussion we had, you've got 10,000 knowledge contingency here who controls the contingency. It would be Rick Rogers, the general manager. Thank you. I think that's all of the questions that I have. I don't see Jamie back. So I will proceed then. I'd like to move that the board, can we, do we do? Oh, no, I'd like to put a motion. Okay. Thank you. That the board direct the district manager to enter into a contract with CBEC of engineering in the amount not to exceed 101,627 for modeling and data analysis to support the conjunctive use environmental impact report. Second. Okay. Anybody from the public want to comment on this? Oh, do it, Bruce. I'm Bruce Holloway from Boulder Creek. I don't really want to comment on this item, but I wanted to comment on the discussion about the luck of water. And I guess my comment really is there was a feasibility study already done in 2010. And I always felt that the missing piece was how much would the raw water cost from Santa Cruz? And I guess I can imagine two simple scenarios. One would be that the district taps the pipeline in Felton and then trees the water. And the other would be that Santa Cruz continues to treat 100% of the luck, luck, women water. And then some of it gets shipped up to the South System and Scouts Valley and the other pipeline is being built like this. So there's two, at least two numbers, but ultimately the city's, there's no, the cost, the city is gonna charge based on their cost. So I think there's a financial issue here. It's not just an engineering issue. I assume that the feasibility study is gonna come to the engineering committee, but this question about what the city is gonna charge is a financial question. And so our finance director is gonna need an insight into how the city arrives at their cost. And of course, the real cost is some years in the future. And so anybody trying to project years into the future is not necessarily gonna come out the way, when that time arrives, it's not necessarily gonna be the cost that they calculate today. So anyway, I guess my point really is that our finance director needs to have insight into the city's finances and how they arrive at their costs. Okay. Thank you. Not seeing anybody online with any comments. Paulie? Hang on a sec. Just one question. So I'm pretty upset about the fact that this did not go through a bidding process. If I were to vote right now, I believe it would fail. I don't think it can pass under two to one. Is that correct? I have a question to counsel. She would answer that. You know, I'm not gonna be able to answer that question without looking at your formation because I don't know if you require a majority of the five or a majority of the present. I hear you would think I would take on this. Okay, so I'm not gonna do that this time, but the next time this happens, I'm gonna vote no because we gotta get out of this process of cherry picking and moving things through in this fashion. We're doing it way too often. And it's not the intent of the policy that we have in place. Okay, Paulie? President Smalley? Yes. Vice President Hill? Yes. Director Fultz? Yes. CZU basic waiver policy. Yes, and the finance manager will present that to the board. Okay, so as we all know, in August of 2020, the CZU Lightning fires severely impacted the district and its customers, 113 customers lost their home and were placed into the district's basic waiver program. What the program allows is for a waiver from the monthly basic charge for a period of up to three years from the date of the natural disaster. For these specific customers, the start date of the waiver was August 18th, 2020, and the end date is August 18th, 2023. Due to the difficult and lengthy process of rebuilding and permitting with the Santa Cruz County, district staff are recommending granting an extension of two years to the customers affected by the CZU disaster. This item was brought to the July 11th budget and finance committee. It was first recommended to grant an extension to the customers that were in the rebuilding process as a lot of the lots and properties are up for sale and most likely will not be rebuilt. The discussion concluded that the district is granting an extension to one CZU customer that should be all or none. So the fiscal impact would be the loss revenue for a two year extension. Currently, we have 64 customers that are still on the program that amounts to about 70,000 for the two year extension. And so the motion is to approve resolution number two for fiscal year 2324, granting a two year extension of the district's basic waiver program to the customers affected by the CZU fires. Okay. Thank you, Kendra. Jeff, you're part of the budget and finance committee. So what can you tell us about the committee? So the bottom line, the committee called it as manifestly unfair to be trying to restart billing these people when the county doesn't give permits out and they can't get their property rebuilt and they're not using any of our services. And as Kendra mentioned, we looked at the idea of, well, what about people who are rebuilding versus people who aren't? That gets us into the position of going out and trying to figure out who's doing what and what the status of the property is. And that just gets us in a position of making judgment calls for people who have already in most cases been seriously abused by the system. So our consensus of the committee was to proceed with extending it. Now, if we wanted to extend one year instead of two, we could do that, but I think we'll be back here next year or also at the rate things are going with the county. Okay. So, thank you. Yeah. So I assume that that's your input or any questions about this. It's my input. That's it. All right, Bob. Yeah, the county torture chamber when these poor people have just been outrageous. I mean, so are we saying that 49 people have been able to rebuild? I didn't think there was that many permits that have done. They either have rebuilt or they've requested their meter to be reset for whatever reason. I think it's only about 30 that have rebuilt. There's a lot of people who've lived in trailers and so forth, been in the water. 49 are taking water. Yeah, so as long as they come to us to request to have their meter set and start using water again, we take them out of the program and start building them up accordingly. So, yeah, I mean, this is a no-brainer. I'm glad you guys came up with that. Anything else would have been a no-go for me. I think we also need to look in the future at the possibility of for these parcels that go on to a longer term, we're not able to get through the county that we designate those parcels as being exempt from any connection fee in the future should we decide to not grant extensions at some point in time. I think that's the least we can do that we have control over that we can do to at least tell people that we're not the county in terms of how we're treating people. So we don't have to do it today. Obviously that's something you guys ought to take a look at but at some point we'll probably stop the extension when there's a greater number of people. And at that point in time, I would just basically say we're gonna waive. And we're gonna get down to a handful of them. At some point it'll be 20 houses or 20 properties and they may be properties that aren't even being rebuilt. But I still think they need to go on to that. Okay, so great thanks for doing this. This is only fair for the people that have suffered so much. Okay, so I don't have any questions on it, Andrew. And I don't see that Jamie's back yet. So I'll move that the board approve resolution number two, 2324 granting a two-year extension of the district's basic waiver program to customers affected by the CZU fires. Second, okay. Any questions from members of the public on this? Seeing none, all right. President Smalley? Yes. Vice President Hill? Yes. Director Fultz? Yes. Okay. The Blue Ridge Tank Agreement changeable. Yes, on August 18, 2022, the board awarded the 2021 CIP Pipeline Project in the amount of $5,000,000, 23,379. Project replaced approximately 8,500 million feet of pipeline and also provided for the replacement of the aging Blue Ridge 40,000 gallon redwood tank with a new 160,000 gallon, which is actually will hold 120,000 and that extra capacity is for earthquake fitted with level monitoring equipment and SCADA. The Blue Ridge Tank Replacement Project specification were included in the construction contract. However, at the time of the award, the state water board was still reviewing tanks design. Anything over 100,000, the state does review that 100,000 gallons. As a result of the state water board review, a mixing valve was required. The state had concerned that with the increase in storage from 40,000 to 120,000 gallons, there could be a water mixing issue during low flow during the winter command and cause dead zones in the tank affecting water quality. The mixing provides for full mixing of water when the pump runs and when the water tank exits. The cost of this change order value is 41,700. Staff is recommending that the board prove the change order not to exceed 41,700. For the purpose of a tight flex potable water mixing valve. Okay. Okay. Yeah, a couple. Is this a advice that requires maintenance? That is it's got moving parts or does it have moving parts that's gonna require maintenance? No, it's piping with duct bill flap valves and then it has check valves. Okay. Yeah. Right. Yeah. I mean, when I hear the word mixing. They're orientated sideways so that when it fills, it mixes, it causes a rotation. They were used on the La Pico tanks projects. Yep. Yeah. Second question. Are there any people that have low pressure that will continue to have low pressure with a new tank? That is anybody that's had an elevation that does not grant, give them sufficient pressure for this tank? Yes. Are they getting a redoing a pressure increase? No. We might want to take a look at that. Not for this project, but as a policy. Those homes already have pressure systems of their own. Yeah, I understand that. Okay. Great. Thanks. I don't see we have choice here. Okay. Do we have a mixing valves in our other large tank? There are new ones from where you're placed. Lion tank has a mixing, and some have the piping set up so where water comes in at the top and goes out right bottom, but the state has changed that to they prefer more of a mixing. We awarded this last year, this time. We've been putting mixing valves in for longer than a year is what it felt like then. Yes, like Garrett said, we put them in on the one Pico tanks. And as we move forward now, any tank over a hundred thousand, we will put in the design knowing just a part of all this grid and it will be part of the bid process. I mean, do these things need to be included in a policy or something? No. And are there standards? Of course there are standards. Okay. Okay, I don't have any further questions on that. Then I'd like to direct the district manager to make the existing contract with JNB construction in an amount not to exceed 41,700 for the purchase and installation of a tight flex, pottable water mixing valve for the blue ridge tank replacement. I'll second that. Okay. Any comments from the public on this? Seeing none. Paulie. President Smalley. Yes. Vice President Hill. Yes. Director Fultz. Yes. Okay. The item F, the capital reserve policy. Yes, the finance manager will start the discussion. Okay. Back in 2020, there was discussion of developing a capital asset management plan for a camp that staff can use to help develop a comprehensive long-term financial plan. The camp will give insight into financial capacity for the best way to plan and achieve long term objectives. In October of 2021, the master plan was completed, which provided a capital improvement program, which evaluated the district's water system and recommended capacity improvements necessary to service the needs of, sorry, existing users and for servicing the future growth of the district. The master plan summarized pipeline, valve booster station and reservoir improvements for a total system cost, water replacement costs of around 75 million. So while the master plan outlines improvements that the district has assets outside of the master plan that have required annual maintenance that the district needs to incorporate in the overall capital replacement cost. Internally in 2021, staff began working on the camp, but due to staffing and workload constraints, it was put on hold. Developing a camp internally is a huge lift as each asset should be reviewed individually and updated accordingly to have a uniform data system. The district has around 500 active assets. Staff understands the importance of developing a comprehensive camp, not only to help with budgeting, but also give a better idea of the district's short and long-term financial obligations. Staff are looking for input from the board on the next steps for developing a camp. This item has been discussed at a few committees and Director Fultz has also brought it up in the past. So we are just looking for now that, it's come to our attention the importance of it and we wanna finally get this completed input on the overall camp. I think regrettably, maybe my question wasn't clear. It wasn't a question about whether or not we should have a camp. The question was about the basis for the reserve calculation because the basis for the reserve calculation in the 21-23 budget was 150 million. That was an estimate of the full capital replacement cost of the entire system. Now at the time that number was estimated in 2019 when I was on the budget finance committee, that was an estimate that we all kind of said, yeah, it makes sense based on some numbers we threw around, but that the inventory would provide us the basis for doing a better estimate quicker once that inventory was done. And due to the fire and all that, it took a little longer to do, but we got it done finally. So the question was, why 75 million? Given 75 million, I mean, that would be a magic number to go from 150 to 75 million for the capital replacement cost of our entire system. Right. That just doesn't make any sense at all. So that's the question. The question is not about camp. The question is about what's the number you use to calculate 2.5% for reserves? Because what happens right now in the budget, this is the official budget of the Santa Rosa Valley Water District, is that the reserve that we need is only about 1.8 million. If we had had that reserve at the time of the season of fire, we would have run out of cash because we used about 4 million. The reserve number is not responsible. And if you use 75 million as the basis for calculating 2.5%, you're gonna get a number that just has no basis in reality. So that's the question. It isn't camp. It isn't spending lots of time. It isn't doing any of that. It's taking the basic information in the inventory and doing a very fast calculation. For example, we have about, according to the numbers I went through in the inventory, 966,105 feet of pipe of all sizes. If we just say, based on what we've encountered recently, $400 a foot for that, the replacement cost of 966,105 feet is 386,442,000. That's one input into the full replacement cost of our system. That is five times 75 million. We could go to other parts of this and do the similar calculation based on what's in the inventory, 2.5% of 383 million is basically 8 million roughly more or less. That's the target for the Capital Improvement Reserve if we use numbers that actually reflect the replacement value of the system. That then feeds directly into the rate increase process that we're going into, because if we feed 1.8 million into that process, we're giving the community a very distorted picture of our true financial condition. And you can't expect the community to vote on a rate increase based on distorted values. These all flow together. So I think based on the inventory, it took me about four hours to go through. I can come up with a number that's roughly 425 million. It's not a full camp. It doesn't deal with the other question about how we then put this into a plan for replacement, but at least it gives you a number that is more grounded in reality than 75 million. And we can then amend the budget to reflect that. That's the question that I posed. Right. So my response to that is, I think taking your spreadsheet that you did in four hours or whatnot and having an overall camp would help to identify the district's overall asset replacement cost. And I guess I didn't really respond to your direct question, but we need to revise that 75 million number that was initially input, because that was inadvertently, I was misunderstanding the capital master plan. So I think if we need to do one of these anyway, it's because it's gonna help with long-term budgeting and all that, but I do agree that it needs to be amended in the budget and I think this will help. There's two things you can do though. We can do something quick and we can get within let's say 85% of what the number may be, which for the purposes of what we're going through now with rate increase and community relations is better than 75 million. In parallel, if you wanna do a camp and we wanna allocate resources to do it, we can do that too, but it's not an either or thing in my view. We have a short-term need for a best estimate and a longer-term need for a process that provides us with an ongoing maintained and reasonable estimate of what capital assets are. Right, because if you take the, if the next step is you then take these assets, you assign a life, you do some algebra and you come up with how much you should be spending every year on capital improvement. That number is right now roughly without debt payments and other extraneous things. It's roughly six and a half million. We spend roughly three. Yeah. Okay, that's the start of a more in-depth conversation around camp, but at least those numbers give you something that you can plug into. The rate increase process was closer to reality than what we currently have. Right. Okay. Okay, so thank you for that, that either preview or clarification. And since I understand this, or I think I'm understanding this memo was generated from question from Bob to, yeah. But I didn't, but when I read it, I was like, well, I didn't ask this. I understand that. But that's kind of where this... Well, let's not throw out the good enough in pursuit of the perfect. I agree. I agree. Perfect is the enemy of good. Right, exactly. If this drives what we need or something like this, I don't want to say take box, but something like this, quick and dirty, and $8 on it instead. But supports rate increase at discussions. And that we have to do it fairly quickly because we've got reptiles working on numbers, right? Right. So thank you for that clarification, Bob. I think I was trying to get through, so where does this camp, how does that relate to the capital reserve policy? Because you introduced something about the capital reserve getting to the discussion, but then transitioned into the... So... Bottom line, the capital reserve number that was used in the budget was too low. So with the rate study, we need to make sure that gets amended. And I think we should move forward with completing the camp so that we have a consistent document that shows all of our assets in a replacement box that goes to life. I just want to comment that no one on the current budget and finance committee has looked at this stuff. Well, I looked at it several times. But you're not on the committee, right? The people that are currently on the committee have not discussed this. And this needs to be discussed on that committee. Agreed. And we also need to... So, but time is short here because we have the rate study underway. So we need to... If I... And there's a two-prime... If we agree that 75 million is not... Because I hear you're saying 75 million is not a correct number. Yeah, that was... And it should be something significant. We don't have to treat tax. Well, it should be significant and worth that. But we don't know how much more significant. Okay. So we're taking the document that Director Foltz provided and worked on. And obviously he did it a couple of years ago. We think he was saying, so it needs some updating. But I think that could... I have not seen that, but it sounds like a very good start. Okay. Yeah, so I think that we could use that in our discussions with Raftalis in the rate study too. Okay. Happy to share it with you, but we have to do it in a way that complies with the brand. Yes. So I think this is appropriate. Put it on the agenda for the finance committee and then I'll pick it up as part of the... And Andrew can take that analysis. And if you say, yes, we're going to go with this as a starting point, fine. Bring that back to the budget finance committee to have some discussion as to... How do we get to there? Yeah. And by putting it on the budget and finance agenda, then we can share the document. And it's... Don't agree. I don't disagree that updating this camp is important, but because everybody here is saying two separate things that we can be doing. One is this much quicker analysis, because I see in the two memos that you put together of, we've been struggling to get this information and we can't get this information and staff hasn't had the time to do any of the rest of this. And we can't get there. And we can't get there that there's an urgency here for the camp, is what I'm seeing. That's different than coming up with a best estimate of what we want to put in here for a budgetary process. Budgetary process. But the capital reserve policy, how do we decide how much we need for capital reserves? It's basically 2.5% of the district's total asset replacement cost. Okay. Yeah. All right. That was established back in... Yeah. So... In the first biennial budget. Yeah. Prior... I'm good with that. Yeah. Prior to 2018. Our reserves had dipped really low. And there was a lot of angst around that relative to preparing for a emergency. So there was a big push to try to get that reserve up at least into the three or four million based on the 150 replacement cost. If obviously it goes up, it would need to go up conventionally. Okay. Okay. The last... I don't think there's a motion here. I don't think there's a motion. I think this was... Go discuss this. Okay. So I will move that we refer this issue to the budget finance committee. We don't need that. I don't think we need a motion. I don't think we need a motion. No. That's your direction. We do need to go to the public. Agreed. Yes. Yes. After I see if... Jamie has any question or comment on this. Now that I see... He's back. I am, but unfortunately I missed much of the discussion. So I'm gonna abstain from the item. Okay. All right. Any questions or comments on this discussion from the public? Okay. Seeing none. We will move on to... The drug status. This environmental planner will present this to the board. Okay. Thank you. So according to the district's Boulder Creek Rain Gauge, the San Lorenzo Valley area received approximately 71 inches of rain this water year compared to the district's historical rainfall average of 49 inches. And while the district still encourages customers to use water efficiently, staff are recommending the stage two water shortage designation be lowered to a stage one water shortage designation. District's customers are averaging approximately 58 gallons per capita per day or GPCD of usage. And since 1995 per capita water usage varied from a high of 104 GPCD and in 2006 to a low of 70 GPCD. Overall per capita consumption has decreased, which is most likely due to past drought outreach, state mandated water use reduction targets, more efficient appliances and plumbing and conservation efforts made by district customers. The summary table of consumption from 2017 to 2022 is attached as exhibit C and this also includes winter versus summer usage. The environmental and engineering committee reviewed this information at its August meeting and both district staff and the environmental and engineering committee are recommending the board of directors drop the current stage two water shortage declaration to a stage one. Staff is prepared to answer any questions. Okay. Yes, I do want to say that the engineering environmental committee discussed this at some point and we ended up concurring with staff's recommendation to drop this from a stage two to a stage one. So Bob and I are both on that committee or anybody from the public that's interested in that. So I'd like to hear from Jeff. Okay, so I only have one comment. I don't object to what you're doing there but you quoted a number of gallons per day usage and that's per person or I don't remember exactly what the measurement was. Right. I have seen several articles in the Mercury News over the last six months suggesting that the population has actually gone down in this general area, perhaps substantially. We could, to the extent that, looking at one of the articles a couple of months ago we could actually be down 6,000 people in the San Lorenzo Valley alone. I don't believe that. I find that hard to believe also but they're looking at moving vans going out, moving vans coming in and things like that. I'm not sure how we would go about this but I do think we ought to take a look at whether or not we've had a population decline. That doesn't necessarily affect the- Made it out there. Right. It's the drop decoration. I understand. In aspects that- I'm just responding to some of the numbers that we're used to. Okay. Any other? No, I'm fine with changing info. I'm fine with the recommendation. All right. Yeah, so in the discussion in the engineering committee we actually had made some recommendations on numbers that I think I want to review quickly here to provide a little bit more context. I believe the numbers that you're quoting here, 104 and 70 are indoor and outdoor water usage over the course of the year. Let's keep in mind that the California mandate, state mandate, is 55 going to 50 gallons per day indoor usage. It is that number to me that is the one that we have, I think, reached in the last October are pretty close to it. Because when you take an average of, let's say, December, January, February, or November, December, January, and you use a population number, which I'll talk about here in a minute, you're down more in the high 30s, low 40 range. We are substantially under the state goal. And continuing to pound on people around their indoor usage, I think we're getting diminishing returns here. We'll get some efficiencies naturally as people continue remodeling houses and the like. But to pound on people about it, I think is counterproductive at this point, in my opinion. The population number that I use, and this is something I haven't looked at since the election, is registered voters. An assumption of about 90 to 95% of the people in our area registered of those. Plus school attendance numbers. And that comes out to about 23 to 24,000 people. I've seen as low as 21 and as high as 26 for our district. And depending on which number you use, you wind up either in the low, or the high 30s or low 40s, basically I come up with. Overall, the message to the community is on indoor water usage, you're doing great. And keep doing what you're doing. That's my message anyway, people. The second part of this has to do with the drought stage. I also want the community to understand that we've been in stage two drought since 2014, 2013 or 2014. That is even in 2017, when we had the massive water year, we did not roll it back at all. Therefore, the 10% that we are asking people to conserve the year before last would have taken us to stage three. But for whatever reason, the district and the board chose not to do that, but just a job bone around, let's get another 10%. To be clear in communicating to our community, if we're asking for more conservation, we need to take it to the stage that it should be at to our policy. Otherwise, why have the policy? Either that or just get rid of the policy and we just make it up as we go along. So that was some of the additional context that we talked about in the engineering committee meeting. And I'm hopeful that going forward, we communicate clearly around indoor water usage to make sure that people understand that we're doing really well there. These numbers, I think, give people not a great number to look at when it's comparing to the indoor water usage mandates of 50 to 55, which is what people read about, and that we do a better job on communicating what the actual drought status is of our district per our policy and not just job bone. If it's a serious enough to go to stage three, we ought to declare a stage three. Okay, Jamie, any questions or comments on this? Drought stage change? Yeah, I agree with producing our drought status to a level one, but I'm just wondering, Carly, is there any... Are there different tiers of incentives for water districts to go through the process of classifying drought conditions? I mean, is there anything that we're like gonna be missing out on if we reduce the drought status from a level two to level one in terms of opportunities for grant reimbursements and anything? Is there any reason not to do this, I guess? I would say no at this time. So with considering grant funding, we still can make an argument that we will most likely in the future face drought again. So dropping down to the stage right now, which reflects our actual conditions probably makes the most sense. And then as Bob mentioned, we can use our policy to go back into a higher stage as needed. Can I just address that as well? To me, it is really important that we communicate what the reality and truth is of our situation. I am very uncomfortable with the notion of maintaining a drought status for the sole purpose of we think we're gonna get grant funding if we do that. That is not the kind of message that I'm comfortable making. So I'm glad that we're going down to level two, stage one. If we have a wet year this year, I would be in favor of moving it down to stage zero. I think the only reason, we did talk about that. I think the only reason we did was because it's only been one year. It's only been one year. And the other aspect that I want to point out that Rick pointed out to me at the committee meeting was we still do not have surface water sources, significant surface water sources back online in the Boulder Creek area. So we're hampered or limited by what we don't have there. And personally, whether we're under a stage two, a one or no stage, our customers are conserving. Of course, look at our water usage numbers as compared to the past three year average. They continue to be 10% below, 10% below. I've been seeing that for the last two years, at least since I've been at the board. Not only that, Mark, but Santa Cruz has some of the lowest water usage of anybody in the state. We do a really good job of this. Santa Cruz County. Yeah. The districts into Santa Cruz County. Okay. All right. So given that, I don't have any other questions on this or a point that I want to make. So I want to move that the board directors lower the stage two water shortage to stage one water shortage based on the anticipated water shortage of 10% or less for the water year 2023. One second. Okay. Any comments from the public on this? Seeing none. President Smalley. Yes. Vice President Hill. Yes. I'm sorry? Yes. Director Falls. Yes. Director Ackman. Yes. And Gasses. Okay. We're going to move on to the consent agenda. Does anybody want to take any objections to the minutes that are currently presented in front of us here? It's approaching nine o'clock and the board has been here for three hours now. I want to propose that the district reports if we have any questions on those, then we defer that until the next meeting. Any objections? None for me. All right. Is this where I should interject a comment about the Felton Heights tank? I'm sorry, John, but I need to adjourn the meeting first. And then say it. And then you can write as when the meeting is over. Okay. Okay, John, I can meet with you after the meeting and give you a quick update. But given that, I think we can adjourn the meeting and we're done. Thank you. Good night, everyone. Good night.