 This is Zach Friend. I just wanted to start the zone seven meeting. Are we all set within the chambers? We're all set. Are you ready for me to call roll? Yes, I just wanted to confirm that you guys were all set. I'll do a quick introduction here and then we can call roll. So I'd like to call to order the zone seven flood control and water conservation district board of directors for the October 20th, 2020 meeting. If we could have a roll call, please. Director Leopold? Here. Coonerty? Here. Caput? Here. McPherson? Can't see you, but can you hear me? We can hear you, thank you. Director McPherson? Here. Director Billichick? Here. Director Bannister? Non-voting member Violet Lucas? Non-voting member Ponce? Non-voting member Surrey? Non-voting member Gonzales? Thank you. Oh, sorry. And chair friend? And I'm here and we do have a quorum. Mr. Strudley, do we have any additions or deletions to the agenda tonight? No, chair friend, we do not. Great, we're going to move on to oral communications. This is an opportunity for members of the community to address us on items that are not on today's agenda, but within the purview of the Zone 7 board meeting or to speak on any item on our consent agenda or if you're unable to stay for the program manager's report on that item as well. I also also an opportunity for members, any directors that have anything that they'd like to comment on. I do believe Director Billich had something she wanted to comment on and then I would like to open it up for general oral communications. Director Billich, please. Well, it's my honor and privilege to announce to you our latest non-voting Zone 7 board member, Violet Lucas. And I understand she was trying to get on. I don't know if she's on yet, but she's a lifetime resident of Watsonville and always has resided in the flood zone. And she's not new to public service since 1984. She's been the treasurer of the recreation advocates. She previously served on the Parkland Recreation Commission for nine years in the city of Watsonville. Also the Personnel Commission. And she's currently a trustee of the Power Valley Public Cemetery District Board. So I'd like us to welcome Violet Lucas to the Zone 7 board. Thank you for that introduction, Director Billich and welcome. And we do appreciate all of our members, even the non-voting members for all of your contributions. We'll now open it up to the community. Clerk, is there anybody in the chambers that's there to participate for oral communications? Chair, the chambers is closed, is open, but there is nobody present. And we have no web comments for public comment. Oh, thank you very much. Are there any directors that wanted to make a comment during oral communications? All right, seeing none, we'll move on to the first item of the agenda, which is approval of the Zone 7 board meeting minutes from June 22nd. Are there any comments on the minutes from any member or any director? Seeing none, since I assume that there's still nobody there, are there no web comments associated with this? There are no comments. Great. Is there a motion to approve all the minutes? Director Leopold. Second. We have a motion from Director Leopold, a second from Director Coonerty. We'll do a roll call, please. Director Leopold, Coonerty, Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Billisick. Aye. Bannister. And Chair Friend. Great, that is the approval of the minutes. We'll now move on to the consent agenda, which are items seven through 10 on the agenda. Are there any members of the board of directors that are interested in pulling an item from consent? If not, are there any directors that would like to make a comment on a consent item? This would be your opportunity. Seeing none, there was no community members that submitted any comments via the web, I assume, still. Madam Court. You are correct. Okay, then it now would be an appropriate time for a motion for the consent agenda. I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda. Second. All right, there's a motion from Director Billisick and a second from Director Leopold who would have a roll call vote, please. Director Leopold. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Billisick. Aye. Bannister. And Chair Friend. Aye, welcome, Director Bannister. All right, we're gonna get onto the exciting part here, which is item number six, which is the board of directors of the Santa Cruz County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone Seven to consider a status report on the Pajaro River Flood Risk Management Project as outlined in the memo of the district engineer. Mr. Strudley, please. Thank you, Chair Friend, members of the board. We continue to work very hard for the community and for the board of directors in pursuing our long-waited flood risk reduction project on the Pajaro River. We are still moving along with the Army Corps and expect to and hope to sign a design agreement with them to start the pre-construction engineering and design phase of the project with them by December 31st. The program, excuse me, the project manager from the Army Corps has set that as a milestone goal for himself and I am going to try to hold him to that. I think we have a very good chance of hitting that mark. And that's not to say we have been sitting idly or the Corps has been sitting idly in the meantime before that agreement is signed. We have been funneling updated hydraulic modeling to the Army Corps for their approval. This is something that the Army Corps would have to do on their own had we not done it ourselves. And so we're trying to get ahead of the design process by sending to them updated hydraulic modeling that they can adopt and then use as their own for the design process. We're getting indications finally that they are moving towards approval and they will be submitting an MFR, a memorandum for record that relays the results from that modeling and recommends its adoption for usage. In the meantime, we also are required to close out our existing agreements, our existing feasibility cost share agreement and our existing 2007 design agreement in order to sign a new policy compliant design agreement with the Army Corps. It was a few months ago that we submitted a cost share balance request to them which is seeking credit for years and years of our own hard work at the staff level on this project to be credited towards an eventual project partnership agreement when we enter the construction phase. Right now there's about $149,000 worth of consultant costs that are not going to be accepted but it pales in comparison to over $3 million worth of creditable work in kind staff contributions to this project that will be credited to the project upon approval of their office of council. This will ultimately pay us dividends when we do step into the construction phase with them and we are getting indications from the district level as well as the division level above the district that these costs will be credited and in my mind there is a lot of grief to be had if we wanted to fight them on that $149,000, $150,000 worth of consultant costs that they are telling us are ineligible. To me, with the history of delays with this project it's much more valuable to see those $3 million worth of credit. I want to see the whole let me flooding. So that is good news and we have also proposed to work with the Army Corps from the upstream end and moving downstream. And so with this proposal, that will be fed into a project management plan which will form a component of the design agreement. So that is in process as well. And those are the reasons and activities that we're involved with that are leading up to the signing of a new design agreement hopefully by December 31st. At that point, the project management plan from that design agreement can be funneled into our state subventions authorization agreement. And again, that agreement leverages roughly $100 million worth of state funds that will be available to the project initially for the design phase but it will extend much farther beyond that. There's not much more to say about the subventions agreement because it can't be signed until we get that project management plan from the Army Corps. And again, we expect to have that by the end of the calendar year. The most important item on our plates right now is the governance and finance aspects of this project. I'd like to thank the governance and finance committee. A number of you are members to that committee and Chair Friend also chairs that committee for us. We've had a number of very fruitful discussions through that committee over the past few months about financing the project and local finance requirements aside from the federal and state participation in funding this project. We're continuing to refine those numbers and we hope to have some relatively finalized numbers over the next month or two so that we can start engaging in our public outreach and education for this project that will eventually lead to finance measures through a Prop 218 ballot proceedings. It was originally anticipated that with COVID we would not be going out for a Prop 218 compliant ballot measure until at least next spring. I don't think I'm better than any of you at reading the tea leaves, but my read of them is that we may not be going out even this spring, but the future remains highly unpredictable given a number of things in politics as well as budgetary issues associated with COVID across the county, state, and federal government levels. So it remains to be seen when we will be able to go out and seek some additional funding from local ratepayers. And we are, again, trying to whittle away that amount of local financing that would be required down as much as possible. And I wanted to provide the most important avenue of whittling away that local finance need and that is our Subventions Agreement. And I think it was our last board meeting that I had explained to the board that our Subventions Agreement only allows a 70% cost share of the non-federal funds required for this project. And even if we seek other grant funds through other state bond measures or other avenues of funding, that that will be funneled and incorporated into that 70% cost share. And so we ultimately can't rise above 70% cost share participation from the state. It is our belief at the staff level that that is inconsistent with the various bond measures that are being used to fund the Subventions Account as well as the bond measures that are being used to fund other grant opportunities. And so we are in discussions both with our own County Council, which I hope to start up very soon as well as our state level advocacy consultants on how we can rectify this problem. And I anticipate asking for the chair and the board's help in the coming months in advocating for a higher level of cost share from the state under the Subventions Program. And there will be more to fall on that later when the time is right to seek your assistance. But that is a big way you can help this project out in the meantime on the Subventions Front. We, as I said, we are gearing up for some public outreach for finance. And again, we will have information for this board as well as other participants who will be engaged in that outreach campaign. And again, one of the other biggest things you can do for this project is to champion this project with the public once you have the right information in your hands and that you're confident in championing this project to the public. Kent, I didn't know if you wanted to provide an update on the governance aspects with the JPA. Sure, I can do that. Good evening, Chair Friend and Directors. So the meetings regarding the formation of the JPA have been delayed much like some of the other financing aspects due to COVID-19 and the wildfires. However, we're hoping to restart these meetings soon and we'll be coming back to the member agencies with updated general overhead and administrative costs soon related to the new governing body. And that's it for my report. Thanks for filling those details in Kent for the program manager's report. I wanted to add one last item on grant funding. We have submitted a notice of interest to both the Prop 68 OPC grant program as well as the FEMA BRIC grant program. This is part of their hazard mitigation program with FEMA and it's funneled through Cal OES as an applicant. Our notice of intent has been accepted by the FEMA BRIC program. Although we've been funneled over into the hazard mitigation grant program, which is a slight nuanced difference to the FEMA BRIC program, but it will allow us to pursue the request there. We have yet to resolve some discussions with OPC under their Prop 68 offering. They have initially told us that our project was ineligible. I have asked for reasons as to why that is and haven't heard back from them, but I hope to have some discussions with them. And hopefully we can edge our way back into that program. We are busy right now developing application for Department of Water Resources Coastal Watershed Flood Risk Reduction Grant program. Thank you to your board. You had authorized the signing of an authorization letter and resolution at our March board meeting and that will be funneled into that application as well. That application will be due by November 20th to the state. We don't expect to hear the results of our application until sometime next year, probably spring or summer of next year. And just so you're reminded of what we're applying for there, we're applying for assistance from the state to cover the non-federal cost share match for the initial phase of PED with the Army Corps, the design phase. So hopefully there will be, if we are awarded that there will be very little to know out of pocket costs to either zone seven or our other non-federal sponsor with this project, Modernity County Water Resources Agency. We are also entertaining another Prop 68 offering with Department of Water Resources this time, not DWR. They have a technical assistance grant program with about $25 million available in this initial round. 22 and a half million dollars will be available for implementation projects and two and a half million dollars will be available for scientific investigations and feasibility work. And so we will be tossing our hat in that ring as well. And again, this is our attempt to whittle away as much as those rate payer proposed financing requirements of this project as much as possible so that we can get this funded by state and federal sources. And with that, I would ask the board to accept and file the status report on the Power River Flood Risk Management Project and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Strudley. Thanks for your leadership on this and continued project management. I know that there are some directors with questions. I see Director Caput has a question we'll begin with him. Director Caput, please. You'll need to unmute yourself. There we go. Hey, thanks a lot. Good to see you, Mark. How you doing? Likewise, Director Caput. Great to see you as well. Okay. Yeah, I was looking through this. It does say something about an advantageous cost share terms of up to 100% for multi-benefit projects that serve disadvantaged and severely disadvantaged communities. Is that a part of that or the cost share and instead of being 70%, they might go 100%? Well, that is the hope. In order to strike an agreement with Department of Water Resources for Subventions, part of that process includes submitting a non-federal cost share report where you propose using their calculations what the level of cost share should be. It has a baseline cost share at 50% and then if you want to rise up to that maximum level of 70%, you have to demonstrate based on multi-benefit protection to disadvantaged communities and state facilities that you can meet that 70% cost share. In our calculations in that report using the recommended procedure from Department of Water Resources, our cost share actually rose to over 100%. If it actually is possible, given the way they recommend the calculations are done, it actually rose to 104%. So I think we are in as good of standing as any project in the state in meeting the multi-benefit objectives that are important to the state, that are important to the Department of Water Resources, that are important to the governor of California and all the executive orders and other initiatives that he has championed. The Pottero River Project checks all the boxes. So it is a glowing example. We hope that they, I do know that DWR staff recognized that. My hope is that they recognize it to such an extent to allow a solution to the 70% cap for subventions. Okay. Actually, that's pretty good. What we had before was we were always falling behind in the benefit cost ratio because our homes are not worth as much as, let's say a home in Malibu or something like that for flood protection. So in this case, because the low cost of the housing in that area and the low cost of salaries and everything that people live in that area, that will be a benefit. So it's kind of like one thing hurts us and another thing helps us, is that right? That is correct. The aspects of our benefit cost ratio that hurt us with federal participation and investment are in turn the aspects of this project that help us with the state. The state is very interested. The state is probably the most interested in providing assistance to disadvantaged communities and severely disadvantaged communities. They're interested in all sorts of multi-benefit type aspects, but the one that seems to be at the top of their list is providing assistance to those types of communities. Yeah, and then the other real quick, you don't have to go into depth, but there's the 2.9 million that we're hoping to get, but because of the pandemic and a delay, but then we still have 1.8 million that we haven't used from before, is that correct? We do have a $1.8 million work plan funding allocation that came from the Army Corps of Engineers. Very little of that has been used to date. They've been allowed to tap into roughly $100,000 of it to get through what they're doing with us now, which includes the development of the agreements, the adoption of our existing hydraulic models and other conversations that we're having with them. I don't think they've used close to all of it at all, that $100,000. The remainder will be used once we sign a design agreement and enter into the design phase of the project. Sure, okay, and then lastly, with the joint powers, of course, and everything as we're going forward, and then we had a projected amount for home assessments for the homes in the area, how much they would have to pay. Because we're delaying it, I totally understand that, because with the pandemic and people losing their jobs and there's a tendency, I think we're gonna see in the election a lot of no votes on propositions. That's my gut feeling, November 3rd. But the other thing I worry about is that, let's say we delay another year, a year and a half, before we actually put it on the ballot, do we really have a moving target where the price is gonna go up and the assessment's gonna go up? If it goes up a little, I think we can handle it. But if we're talking about a big jump, we're in trouble. Go ahead. Well, the Army Corps doesn't reassess their project costs every year. So that works in our favor unless we're kicking the cam down the road for I think it's a five year period where they start reassessing the benefit cost ratio and particularly the cost of the project. Even though the Army Corps may not be reevaluating the project in the near term, every year prices escalate. So the longer we delay implementing the project, the more expensive it will get. And we're gonna have to balance that with the fact that we're hoping that the state will come around on their Subventions Program and allow a higher cost share. So it's a balancing act. I think that if we have strong indications through a variety of means that the time is right to go out for a prop 218 compliant vote, we would need to strike while the iron is lost, so to speak. And so that's why it's important for us to start engaging on public outreach and to have a unified voice under a new governing body set up so that we can do that public outreach. But again, if I were a betting man, reading the tea leaves, I don't see this happening anytime soon, but we do need to be ready. And that's why we need to keep moving on this as if we were doing it next month, even though- I agree, I think it's a very good idea. I saw that Vi Lukas joined us. So that's great. Thanks a lot, Mark. Hey, Mark. Thank you, Director Caput. Are there any other directors that have questions? A Director Billusich, and then Director McPherson after that. Director Billusich, please. Nancy, you're on mute still. Great. I just want to make a statement that, you know, we've been on this for quite a while now and we started with the 100 million and now we're up to 400 million. So we know that we need to get it going sooner than later, but I want to thank you, Mark, because when we were talking as the finance group, those fees seemed hard, high. And I don't know, we may still be there, but your persistence is just to be commended because you're looking at every resource with the grant funding, with Prop 68, with the FEMA brick, with the state and there's 70%, all of these different things, you're pursuing that and that's on our behalf. And I mean, no matter what happens in the outcome, we can't thank you enough for what you're trying to do for our community. So I just want to, you know, it's not a question because I can see all these things you're doing and it's, you really should be commended. So thank you so much. I appreciate that, Director Billusich. And like I said before, we could not do this without you. We've had some tremendous conversations lately with city of Watsonville folks, both through the governance and finance committee, as well as a one-off conversations independent of that, on these financing issues. It's because I know these financing numbers, you know, if I can whittle this project cost down to zero for everyone, that would be a dream come true. I don't know if we'll get there. I am hopeful and I'm going to keep working hard. Our staff is going to keep working hard to do just that, to keep engaging with the state and engage their full participation in this. And again, thanks to the whole board for all your support with this. This is, like I said before, this is a group effort. It takes all of us working on this and again, thank you. Thank you, Director Billusich for those kind words. Director McPherson, I believe you had a question. Yeah, I just was curious, how much does the general public or the movers and shakers in the Pajaro region know about the hits and misses that you've been going through and the uncertainties that you're facing? I mean, I think that can be even to our advantage if they know how hard that you've been working and how you're trying to deal with this, the best of your ability, I think in the end it could help us. But did very many people in the community know, it's changing so much that it's probably you don't want to have them know too much because nothing's ever final until it's final. But what's the sense, do you have any sense of how the community is, how are they reacting right now? Are they anxious or what's going on? There's a number of people on this board that can answer this question as well, if not better than I can, such as Director Billusich and Director Banister and Director Lucas and others from Watsonville, Director Caput. My sense is that the relative absence of public participation in our board meetings probably has a historical reason behind it. The history of this project has been a very long bumpy road and we've had numerous starts and stops. The Army Corps has given out on us several times and up until somewhat recently that picture with the Army Corps wasn't very rosy. I don't think that there's a lot of members of the public that know a lot of details about what is going on, but it highlights the importance of our upcoming public outreach and engagement. We have had good participation through our legislative conference and through other milestones that we've reached. For example, the completion of the feasibility study and the signing of the director's report, we have had some media outreach on that, but it's been a little episodic and it's been probably a bit lost because it's not a constant stream of information to the public about this project. But I am hoping that as we ramp up this outreach, as we ramp up towards any need, however, miniscule to request funding from the local community to support the remaining balance of this project, which by the way is a 90% cost share coming from the feds and the states and only 10% right now even at the maximum coming from the rate payers. That's a huge return on investment. So I'm just hoping that a lot of things that we're gonna start going through are gonna really reengage the public. And again, this is really where we can ask for your assistance on the board, particularly those of you who reside in South County in the Pajaro Valley to get the word out about our recent successes, about the general feeling that I think a lot of us may now have that this project actually looks like it could be a reality where in the past, I don't think we thought that. I'm convinced it is a reality. And so the more we can get that word out that we can have people sleep at night when it rains living on the Pajaro, that's a very good thing to advertise. Thank you. Thank you, Director McPherson. Is there anybody else that had a question? Director Bilsich again? I believe you're on mute one more time. I just wanted to say that when we get near the point, you know, we're going to go to the public. I'm sure we're going to have a bulleted sheet with these points to remind the public and remind us. And I don't know if that's coming from this group or the finance group, but I think if we are all together with the same points, things we can distribute and how we can talk, we'll know what we're talking about, that'll be great, Mark. And you've just done, I can't tell you, I'm so happy tonight with you, I can't believe it. I can't believe that you've worked the magic because I mean, the last meeting we had, it just seemed, yes, we're here, but how are we going to get the people to get behind the money? And maybe we still have that challenge, but your work of trying to make this happen is to be commended. I appreciate that, Dr. Bilsich. And I think that we will have a full suite of materials, including bulleted talking points that will be developed through our consultant team and our staff level working on this project, stemming from the governance and finance process. And so we will provide that uniform ammunition, so to speak, for all members of this board, the Power River Watershed Flood Prevention Authority, City Council at Watsonville County Board of Supervisors, all the people that we can get to drumups for support, they will get the same level of information to bolster your talking points and your outreach. At this point, is it possible to make a motion to accept this report from Mr. Stradley? Let me confirm that there's no other director that would like to comment on the item. All right, and seeing none, I would just want to confirm with Madam Clerk that there's nobody in the chambers or there are no comments that were submitted on this item. There's nobody in the chambers and there's no web comments. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. All right, Director Bilsich, I'll hand it back to you for a motion, please. I'd like to make a motion to accept the program manager's report for zone seven. And I'll make a second, Director Caput. We have a motion from Director Bilsich and a second from Director Caput. I'd just like to add one quick item onto here. Director Caput had noted on our disadvantaged community status and how that had impacted us at the federal level for financing. I'd like to say that our federal advocacy, though, on this process to change the underlying way that the federal government funds these projects reached a pretty remarkable accomplishment within the last year, where we were able to obtain language nearly verbatim what we had been seeking in Warta that will actually change the way that this has done moving forward. This may or may not impact our federal funding component moving forward. If it impacts us, it'll only be for the better, but other disadvantaged communities coming after us moving forward should have a fundamentally different shot for federal fund protection and funding and opportunity than they did before we got involved in this process. And I think that's something to be proud of for the work that we did at the federal level. So we do have a motion and a second if we could have a roll call, please. Director Leopold. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. Kirkverson. Aye. Villasich. Aye. Bannister. And chair friend. Aye. And that item passes unanimously and that is the last item on today's agenda. Thank you, Mr. Strudley, Mr. Edler for all of your work and for everybody for coming out tonight to attend the meeting. We truly do appreciate it. Thank you very much. Good night. Good night.