 Okay, I have 630. So let's go ahead and get started. I'm convening this February 3rd meeting of the Board of Directors of the San Lorenzo Valley Quarter District. Holly, would you call the roll please? President Mayhood. Here. Vice President Henry. Here. Director Ackman. Here. Director Fultz. Here. And Director Smalley. Here. Are there any additions or deletions to the agenda? Here. Okay. This is the section of the meeting where we have time for oral communications from members of the public on topics that are not on the agenda but are within the purview of the district. I see we have two attendees. Would either of you like to speak at this point? If you do, raise your hand. Okay. Seeing none. We'll go on to the President's report. And I just wanted to note that Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency held its first Board of Directors meeting last Wednesday, January 27th at the meeting the Board elected a new Board Chair and Vice Chair. I was selected as Chair and Chris Perry from Scots Valley and past President was chosen as Vice Chair. Topics that the Board will be taking up in the next few monthly meetings include staffing for planning and implementation of projects in the basin, financial contributions by various entities to run Santa Margarita, and prioritizing projects with the goal of submitting a proposal to the state by the end of the year for planning feasibility studies and perhaps implementation. So there's a lot going on. So I'm planning on putting a report on the agenda to talk about Santa Margarita what we're doing sometime in March so that Jamie and I can get board feedback on Santa Margarita activities and priorities. With that, I'll go on to the regular agenda. We don't have any unfinished business in new business. The first item is onboarding procedures. Yes, Chair, the Admin Committee has been working on preparing standardized onboarding procedures since May of 2021. After several revisions and review, the committee has agreed that the attached information is a comprehensive collection of documents, forms, to make transitioning into a position of a board member or committee member to be better informed and understandable. We're looking for you to review this tonight at comments or move that the board of directors adopt the procedures and documents by motion of the board. With that, I'll give it back to the chair. All right. Jamie, since you're the chair of that committee, would you like to comment? Sure. First of all, I want to thank the staff because I know that this has been a little bit of a labor of love. There's probably been more iterations of this than they care to recall. I want to say that I think this was the first thing that we took up when I was first appointed to the board and appointed to the Admin Committee at my very first meeting. I'm really thrilled that now we're bringing it out of the Admin Committee and to the full board for adoption after my first committee meeting as chair. It is, I think, there's always going to be work that can be done to improve this document, and that was acknowledged in the administrative committee meeting. I know Mark Doulson, even as we were looking at this iteration of it, had some really good suggestions for ways that we can even improve it in the future so that it's more accessible for future board members and new committee members. But we thought it was really important to put a pin in it now so that Holly can start using this document to onboard our new committee members. Of course, that way, we can revisit it this summer. I think, Rick, we had decided that we would come back to it this summer to make those adjustments that committee member Doulson's recommended. We look forward to continued improvement on this process. But I think we're really happy with where it is right now, and so we would love to, I would like to make a motion to support the onboarding procedures, and I would love to answer any questions that anybody may have. Are you making a motion right now, Jamie, or? I'm making a motion, yes. Right. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay. So we will have some discussion of the motion. Bob, did you want to censure the other member of the committee? Yes. I think Jamie summed it up very well. I think we went through three iterations on it. And I believe this is a pretty comprehensive set of information for new members, committee, and board to be able to get up to speed faster on the district and its operations. Okay. Lois, did you have a comment? I think this is a very good idea, and I'm happy to see this. Yes. I have several questions or comments on it. Some of the items in here were surprised to me. I commend the admin committee for getting this completed. As a new board member in December 2020, this was something that I was looking for. And after I joined the board, asked or requested something like this be done. So good. Some questions that I have. In the onboarding procedures, I note that we're supposed to have business cards as board members? Really? A little old school. They're still in use. Right. But I wasn't aware that I was supposed to get any business cards. I don't know. I questioned the need for that, but since the committee has passed on that. Also, the aspect of chores of the district, I think that's a great idea. But the ability to implement that, I think, is difficult. Because I've had this question come up at least a couple of times during engineering committee meetings. So I hope that the staff is able to support that aspect. Mark, can I just interrupt you? I noticed Holly has her hand up. Is there something you want to interject? I just wanted to say that the business cards and the tours and there are several things that the name plates. That's another thing where I have to order name plates. This was all for when we did and when we're going to be meeting in person and going to events together where we are out in the public and you want to be identified or you want to be, you know, hand out your card. That sort of thing. That's not something that since you've basically been on the board that we've been doing anything about. Okay. And maybe that's the perspective that I'm taking it from is the limited amount of public contact and other contact that I've had in the past year. So, okay. I have a couple of other questions but I see that Jamie has got a comment also. If it's quick, Jamie, or otherwise I'll let Mark finish. It's quick. I just wanted to add that some of those items I think are choices that new committee members or directors can make for themselves if they don't want the business cards and they don't use them. They can choose not to have them. But it's good to know they're available should they want them. Okay. Under practices and procedures, I had a for questions that I might have as a board member on consent agenda items. Are we routinely then submitting those as questions to the staff based on something that I see on page 12? Is that the process that we're supposed to be following? I'm happy to answer that. But I have my impression is that that is the process that we're following now when we receive our agendas and we have a question. So, maybe I'm not clear on what your question is. Okay. During meetings, board meetings, we often are asking some specific questions of staff as to what's in their reports. If it's lengthy, yes, I have submitted an email with here are the four questions that I have about this agenda item. But if it's not, if it's a simple one off, I haven't been doing that. I need to revert to that. I think what I would say on this is that this particular item does echo what's in the board policy manual. And I think that it's a matter of judgment. If it's just some sort of technical little thing, it's probably better to send in a message to the pertinent staff member. But it's kind of more philosophical or maybe of interest to other people. I think it's perfectly okay to ask questions. So, I think that point is just trying to keep people from asking, you know, endless techy questions that most people won't be interested in. Right. Okay. And you had your hand up. Were you referring to me? Yeah, Bob, I was calling on you because you had your hand up. Yeah, I was just basically going to say what you said, which is it's it's kind of just courtesy protocol, you know, that kind of thing. And yes, use best judgment. Okay. Did you want to follow up on that? Just when you and keep in mind when if you do have a question, and you send it in just to staff, we will respond to all all directors. So you all get that answer. So it's not like you will just get the answer. And obviously it's to save time at the board meeting with consent as we try to move through consent pretty routinely. But from time to time, you know, you all will have a question, which is great. And, you know, if it's a lengthy question, send it to us and we will respond to you all. Okay. All right. Thank you for that clarification. Okay, I answered it. A nitpicky editorial comment on page 12, I see a reference to a general manager versus a district manager. So I'm not, I don't know who the general manager is, which I assume you mean right. And my last comment is on page 14, the documents for review that are listed. I think it's unrealistic to expect committee members to review the documents that we have listed there, in particular, the laugh go service and suffee sphere of influence agreement, which is all of 354 pages in length, given pushback that we have heard at the engineering committee from, at times extremely lengthy agenda packets for committee meetings. So no need to respond to that, simply comment. Okay. That's all what I have to say. Thanks. Thanks, Mark. I guess I'll say my comments on it. And I'll follow up mostly on what Mark just said right there, which was, I found the list of what committee and board members are expected to read sort of off putting Lee long. It seems to me that the required readings before their first meeting should be trimmed to the relevant sections of the board policy manual, and a reading on the Brown Act, so that they understand, you know, how to behave. But beyond that, the readings should be optional or tailored to the subject matter of a given committee. I also think it's a good idea to have the suggested readings highlight recent documents. For example, it could even be profoundly misleading to have, you know, 10 year old grand jury reports that have been subsequently responded to and, you know, situations changed. So I think that would be good. I like the checklist for the district secretary. I thought that was really useful. My main comment is, I think that the summary of practices and procedures should not be included. And instead, the link to the board policy manual should be provided. And the reason is, is that I started to read those practices and procedures, and it is not a summary of excerpts of board policy manual. Part of it is. And that's what I expected it to be. But when I started checking, it isn't. Instead, there's whole paragraphs that I'm not sure where they came from, but they are from the board policy manual. And in some cases, they're a bit crosswise with how the board policy manual tackles the same topic. So for example, the discussion of strategic planning and budgets. In other cases, there are paragraphs on subjects that are not even addressed in the board policy manual, which, for example, I would strongly agree with, disagree with them. For example, that the board should aim to have all decisions be unanimous. I think that's unrealistic and isn't necessarily a high goal. Sometimes, when Bob gives a principle no vote, that's a good thing. And it should be recorded because it's indicating a certain view that probably reflects what some of our ratepayers believe. Also, the next part of that, which said that if there isn't unanimity, a board member can ask that the item be referred back to committee seems like a recipe for obstructing things. And it's just simply not good governance. Boards have to make decisions and move on. And then there was one in there that I actually was surprised that Bob Litt gets through, because it says that board members have to support all board actions. And although I believe that board members are not allowed to actively obstruct, I think to say that they have to support is overreach. In other words, if a reporter owns you up and says, do you support this, you should be able to say no. And here's why. So I think that the document should not be included with the welcome letters. Rather, the welcome letter should just have a link to the board policy manual. And finally, it's just a whimsical sort of thing. I think it would be a nice welcome gift for new board members to provide them with a copy of that interesting book that we all got on the history of the district. I found it really illuminating and a copy of the $5 paperback on the revised Robert's Rules of Order in brief, so that people can read that, you know, over breakfast sometime. But we do use Robert's Rules of Order. And if you haven't been on an organization that uses them, it's worth checking those out. I don't know if Bob or Jamie want to respond to my comments. If you do, fine. If not, we'll just go out to members of the public. Bob got his hand up. I'm sorry. I was just going to say that I, you know, I think that their points well taken on is particularly the disalignment between some of the language and the board policy manual. And I would consider a friendly amendment to the motion that would ask the staff to adjust the text of this to instead replace the descriptions with a link to the board policy manual rather than the summary. But Bob, I got a little bit of the phone. Okay. So basically, we're just saying to adopt this with a friendly amendment being that we replace the practices and what's it called? Practices and procedures with a link to the board policy manual in the welcome letters. Is that right? Yes, but I would also like to suggest a friendly amendment because I actually think it is a little draconian to say the board and committee members should at a minimum. And so perhaps under number 11 documents for review, we say board and committee members may review the following documents. And then of course, these are all just documents that are available to them should they so choose. Yeah, I think that's sounds a little more friendly. You know, certainly if I'd seen that list as it's written when I was thinking of joining the engineering committee, I would have gone, oh my goodness, no way, I'm not going to read the audit reports. So, okay. All right. So Holly, are you managing to track this? You're muted. I apologize. Yeah, so I'm not quite sure. So do you want me to do away with the entire practices and procedures portion? Just take that out of the right. Okay. So it would not be attached. And instead in the welcome letters, you'll just simply say you'll make a reference to the board policy manual and give them a link. And you might want to maybe change the sentence to, you know, sort of point them to the relevant, the most important sections like that, you know, they don't have to read about reimbursements and all that sort of stuff. Right. You know, you're you're a good writer. I think we can trust you to do that. Is that don't you think? I think that that makes sense. And yeah, I support Gail's suggestion. All right. So let's go out to the members of the public. I know Mark Doulson is a member of that committee. Did you want to add anything, Mark? You don't have your hand up, but I'll give you a first first first right of refusal. No, okay, then we'll go to Larry Ford. So CTB, Pope, can you allow Larry to speak? Where are we go? Well, there he is. There he suddenly panelist. That's weird. Okay, go ahead, Larry. Okay, thank you. This is Larry Ford from Felton. I wanted to just ask, shouldn't there be some mention of the Bagley Keen Act? I see you referenced to the Brown Act, but I think the the Bagley Keen Act is maybe, you know, more recent related to the Brown Act open meeting issues. Gina, you want to comment on that? Yeah, the Brown Act is most applicable to local agencies, whereas Bagley Keen is more applicable to the state. Okay, they cover very similar territory. So that's understandable. Okay, thank you. Any other comments from our attendees? If not, I'll come back to the board. We have a motion on the table, but I'll give you another opportunity to comment or ask a question if you'd like. If not, okay, Polly, go ahead and follow the roll call vote. President Mayhood, Vice President Henry? Yes. Director Ackman? Yes. Director Faust? Yes. Director Smalley? Yes. Okay, as amended, it is adopted unanimously. Hey, this is a little bit of a long time coming, so congratulations to all of you for working hard to get this out. This is really good. All right, our next item of business is the Alta V project award of construction bin. Yes, Chair and the district engineer is here tonight to present this item to the board. Go ahead, Josh. Thank you, Chair. This item is award of the construction contract for replacement of undersized and fire damaged mains on Alta Via Drive, Prospect Avenue, and Monan Way in Brookdale. We received six proposals on this project ranging in price from 2.1 million to 3.8 million, quite a spread. The little bit came from Anderson Pacific Engineering Company, who has done a fair bit of work for us in the past. It was a responsive bid, and it came in at $2,107,470. I have in the memo provided a recommended motion for the board, and I will carefully take questions on this. Okay, Mark, as Chair of that committee, you want to make any comments? I reviewed the bid from Anderson Pacific also and found it to be satisfactory. I want to point out that five of the sick bids are within 15% of each other from high to low. From my perspective, that says a good bid package was put out, so good drawings, good specifications, so that all bidders who were seeing similar and didn't have a lot of questions or calls about what was in there. I agree with the recommendation to award to Anderson Pacific. Would you like to comment? Yeah, I think having that number of bids is really good, and I think that reflects a lot of hard work and the part of our staff and our district engineer in particular. So thank you for doing that. I did have a request, and that is as we continue to do these contracts, it would be helpful to get a summary of where we are on drawing down the funds out of our two loans. I know we still have money in them, but I'd like to kind of have periodically where we are with the amounts that we still have left in those loans. That seems like a good idea, Bob. How would we, Rick, you want to say how you would implement that? Would that be something Kendra would do, or should Josh do it? I think the finance manager, I'll work with her. We can get that in her monthly report. We're quarterly, Rick. Doesn't have to be. I wasn't sure if you wanted it sooner, but we can get that in the quarterly report, and I'll work with Kendra on that. That's much more suited for Kendra than Josh, and we may be able to run it quickly through the finance committee as well on the reporting format. Thank you. That would be really great. Keep us up to date. Jamie? I don't have a specific question. I think probably in the next item some of my questions will be answered, but I'm just sort of understanding the phasing of this project. This contract award would be purely for the design phase of this work. We're going to, in our next item, entertain a contract award for the construction management, and then we would be coming back following the design phase and a subsequent RFP process for the actual construction. Just clarifying, no. No, not exactly. This, excuse me, I'll just jump in here. This contract is for the actual construction. In this particular instance, we did the design in-house, so there never was a design RFP. The next item on the budget is for construction management, wherein we contract for day-to-day oversight and administration of the construction. Is that clarified? Yes, thank you. I guess what I was not understanding was, when I was, because I don't understand engineering documents in the way that Mark does, when I was reading the RFP under bins received, it says the district received six proposals for the design phase of this project tabulated below an ascending order. I'm looking at that through the lens of this being a contract for design work. That was my error for which I apologize. What I should have read was six proposals for the construction phase of this project. Got it. Okay, thanks for the clarification. Of course. I apologize for the error. Lois, I have no comment. Neither, Rick, go ahead. You're muted, Rick. I just wanted to say after the board made their comments that this all to be a pipeline. It is a pipeline that runs parallel to Highway 9 from Brookdale, almost into Boulder, up on the Ben Bowen Mountain. It was heavily damaged by the CZU fire. This pipeline was above ground, criss-crossing across the mountain. It's been subject to disasters in the past, but never as heavily as CZU fire. So this will be a complete replacement relocation from the mountainside down into the roadway. This is a project that the district is really looking forward to get completed because we do spend a lot of staff time up on that mountain repairing the above ground line. It's been very problematic over the years. This is part of the original citizen utility system. So this is a great project all the way around for the district. I don't have any questions or comments. So let's go out to members of the public and see if any of them have any questions or comments. I don't see any. So coming back, Josh has provided us with the motion, which I'll go ahead and read. We move to direct the district manager to enter into a contract with Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction Inc. for construction of the Alta Via Pipeline replacement project in the amount of $2,107,470. Is there a second? Second. Is there any more discussion of this the motion? All right. If not, Holly, let's go ahead and have the roll call though. President Mayhood? Aye. Vice President Henry? Yes. Director Ackman? Yes. Director Fultz? Yes. And Director Smalley? Yes. The motion passes unanimously. We now move on to the next item of new business, which is for the contract for the construction management phase of this same project. Chair, did we have public comment on that last item? We did. I'm sorry. We didn't have any comments, but I went out to them. Yes. And the district engineer is here to present the construction management for Alta Via to the board, Josh. Thank you, Rick. This is for the same project, the Alta Via Pipeline replacement. This is for construction management. And just a side note, I used the same template on this as the previous memo and made the same error. This is not for the design phase. This is for construction management in the construction phase. We received three bids. As with the construction, these bids were fairly close. They range from a low of $192,185 to a high of $240,744. All three companies provided very solid bids. I would cheerfully have recommended any of them. And as a result, we have recommended that we award to Sandus with a low bid. And I have provided a suggested motion to the board, and we'll take questions. Okay, Mark, you want to start out? Sandus has a low bid. Their proposal that they submitted was satisfactory. We've worked with them on a number of projects in the past. Josh, I do have a question. On page 53, they submitted plan review comments. And I note that this is the second time that they've done this in their proposals. Do these comments have any validity? Are they worthwhile? Or are they just commenting to comment? I believe they are simply pointing out to us that they have done a thorough review of the plans by pointing out some fairly minor comments. Okay. I will comment that I have noticed on Sandus's proposals recently. They have taken to going a little bit above and beyond the RFP to really make it clear to us that they are reading everything available and that they are making an effort, a strong effort to address all of our concerns a little bit in advance. And I commend them for that. And I hope that they continue to provide RFP responses of this quality. Okay. That's all my comments. Thanks. Yes. I'm assuming that construction management costs are also calculated in the FEMA reimbursement rec. Is that correct? That is correct. So in addition to the 75% on the construction, we'll also get 75% on the construction management. That's correct. And also that we will be reimbursed staff time on plan preparation as well. So this is a complete FEMA funded project. Excellent. Is there any other state money available for this as well? Yeah. I don't believe so. I don't believe so, Bob. Thank you. Okay. Lois, did you have any questions or comments? Well, I am aware that Santis has done a lot of work for us, and they've done a good job. And I go along with the recommendation that we go with Santis. Okay. Jamie? No comments. Okay. I don't have any either. So let's go out to members of the public. Are there any questions or comments by members of the public? Seeing none, I'll come back to the board and ask for one more round of questions or comments. Seeing none, Polly, can you take a roll call vote? Oh, wait. Did I didn't make a motion yet? Okay. Sorry. Let me read the motion that Josh provided for us. The move to direct the district manager to enter into a contract with Santis civil engineers, surveyors, planners for construction management of the Altavia pipeline replacement project in the amount of 192,185. I'll second that. Okay. Polly, would you now take a roll call vote? President Mayhood. Hi. Vice President Henry. Yes. Director Ackman. Yes. Director Fulse. Yes. Director Smalley. Yes. The motion passes unanimously. All right. The next order of business is the district's policy for conducting Prop 218 proceedings. This was an item that Bob Fulse asked to put on the agenda. So it doesn't come with any staff recommendations. So we'll let Bob go ahead and introduce or discuss it initially. Yeah. And hopefully the cover memo on it was helpful. But to summarize for folks that may not have had a chance to read it in the public. During the last Prop 218 process, I received feedback from a number of folks and we did during the meeting as well that it might have been helpful to have a hearing to answer questions to allow people to decide what to do on their vote, whether they wanted to protest it or not, and then have a subsequent hearing where we actually took final action. So the attachment, which is a modification of the current policy, was intended as a starting point for either the board or committee if we decided that we wanted to take this up in preparation for our next Proposition 218, which will be coming up at some point here soon, I'm sure, as a way to improve our transparency and our communications with the public on something that's vital importance to them. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that anybody may have about my proposal. Okay. Let's let staff talk about it first. Gina, since this is sort of a legal related thing, do you want to make a comment? I'm happy to do that. I do have concerns about making these types of changes to the Prop 218 policies and procedures, and the main reason for that is that the districts 218 policies and procedures, as they currently exist, are written as sort of a roadmap or a tool to help the staff jump through the very technical wickets the Prop 218 sets and thereby mitigate the very significant risks that go with the Prop 218 process. I have concerns that adding or changing things in ways that deviate from the requirements of 218 could actually confuse the process and potentially even confuse exactly what legal standard applies to the district's action and thereby creates some additional risk. I do think that each Prop 218 process is unique, and there's a fairly long process of conducting a rate study, bringing it to the board, getting approval, bringing the notice to the board, getting approval for that, and coming, usually there's often public workshops and then ultimately a hearing. And each process can be a little bit different, and the board has lots of opportunities to weigh in on how it should unfold. And I would not recommend baking these kinds of things into the policies and procedures, and thereby kind of creating this disconnect between the actual legal requirements of 218 and the district's policies. Rick, did you want to say anything? Well, you know, let me sure I'm not muted. I read through it, and then I also went back and looked at our minutes from our last public hearing, which was a virtual public hearing. But I didn't hear those type of complaints. There was 41 in attendance at that meeting, 16 were in favor, three stated they were not in favor of the rate increase. I didn't hear complaints on the process, and I didn't see that in the minutes. I do know that staff on the CZU spent an incredible amount of time on outreach, and I think that the outreach that we performed on the CZU was much better than previous 218s. We had a media day, we had, you know, TV news, we had print news, Sentinel press banner, it was on TV, it was on radio, multiple interviews. Our website had a considerable amount of information. I think our outreach was, I would consider it to be, you know, almost outstanding, the amount of outreach. And I have people tell me they see me on TV every day and they can't pick up a newspaper without something from the district. We had a, I thought we had a fabulous response from the news media, maybe because the CZU fire was dramatic, you know, and I have been involved in several of these prop 218s with the district, and the last, you know, our big rate increase, public hearing turned into a free-for-all. We had an assault, we had directors intimidated. I don't know, we want to do that twice for one rate increase. The sheriff was called at the last 218 that we had in person. You know, I didn't get any complaints that people, you know, weren't that informed. So I, you know, I like our process, it's an easy to follow. It's not too complicated, I don't think. And, you know, I'm comfortable with our current process. I'd like to comment on this. And I have two main points. Gina sort of addressed the first one, which is, I just think in general policy, it's not a good idea to make your own procedures different or more strict than what the statute requires. That just tends to create situations where it can bite you down the road. And I appreciate that Bob has said that, you know, that the law provides a floor, you know, not a ceiling to what we could do. But I would argue that, you know, I appreciate that. But, you know, we can, we have the flexibility to change procedures slightly in response to whatever happens. And, you know, the few comments we got about people feeling like they didn't have enough time, were basically, we could have addressed that by simply taking a recess and waiting, allowing people to send in email that they want to send in a protest. So I don't think we need to really have specific rules to codify sensible behavior. The second is, is I just don't see the evidence that there's really a need for change to procedures. And Bob's cover memo said that the common refrain from our community members attending the meeting was that they were dissatisfied with the process in some way. But in fact, when I looked at the minutes, the most common refrain was support for the surcharge, followed by people that opposed it. And obviously they had enough information to make that decision. And it really was only a few people who felt that they didn't have sufficient information. So I think that, you know, if we had had a lot of people that were unhappy in this regard, they would have filed protests, or we would have seen agitation after the fact by disgruntled ratepayers in the press or on social media. And as far as I know, I'm not aware of that happening. The other is we received only 547 protests out of the 3,866 it would have been required to stop implementation of the surcharge. And, you know, also this was despite the fact that kind of Bob did his own extensive outreach in opposition to the surcharge. So if this had been a close vote, I might have been more susceptible to think that the idea that we need to have different procedures in place, but this wasn't a close vote. And I didn't see a significant public outcry afterwards. So I, for that reason, I favor taking no action on Bob's suggestion. Jamie, you have your hand up. Go ahead. Yes, thank you. I share your concerns, Chair. And I would also favor taking no action. But I wanted to ask in the context of the, you know, idea that the 218 legislation is the floor, not the ceiling, like we can as a board without codifying into our policy direct staff to take certain actions in the context of exploring rate changes in the same way that we have already done with the rate study that we plan to do later this year. So we don't have to make a change to our policy if we as a board decide, you know, we want to do extensive outreach on a particular topic. Isn't that right, Rick and Gina? I'll let Gina go first because she's legal. And then I'll go after. Yes. I think the district always brings a final rate study and a draft Prop 218 notice to the board for approval. And that's well into the process. But at that point, there is an opportunity for the board to say, you know, I want to see two workshops or of the FAQ on the district's website and so on. And I think we got some of that type of direction this past time around. And the district really wants to inform and, you know, see the rate increase through. We have to do that type of outreach because if we don't, we will get the protest votes if we don't inform our customer base of what their money is going to be used for. And I think we did a fantastic job with CZU and, you know, we incorporated a lot of the board's thinking on having separate funds and so forth to make sure that we showed our rate payers where that money was going and how we'd manage it. And I think, you know, we would do that again. That's just common sense if we want to get a rate increase pass without protest. And I completely agree with you, Rick. I think that you did a fabulous job of outreach and communication around the CZU surcharge. But I guess what I was saying is that, you know, because we as a board can make decisions along the way as to what we want the outreach process for any particular 218 process to look like, I don't see the particular need to codify it into a policy. I think that we can approach each process and make those determinations as, you know, as we feel are appropriate and are reflective of the community's concerns. And, you know, again here I have to agree with Chairman Hood when I, you know, when I say that my recollection of the CZU surcharge hearing was that the majority of the comments were in support of implementation of a surcharge and that the, you know, amount of opposition to it was what I would consider fairly, fairly de minimis for something like this. So I don't see the need in this particular Lois? Well, I was at that 2017 meeting about the five-year rate increase and it did get totally out of hand. However, I think the biggest complaint people have about the 218 process is there's really no way to get enough no votes ever to stop the process. And I've heard that complaint and complaint that is set up so that the ones who want the increase, they get it because there are not enough people who are going to vote no. And a lot of people don't understand the process. And I think that's the biggest complaint. I don't think there's really been complaints about information going to people in the district. I really don't. I think it's just the whole process that bothers a lot of people. That's pretty much all I can say about it. Okay, Mark? Yes. My recollection without going back and looking at the minutes of meetings was similar to the numbers that Rick just expressed, the significant number in support of the surcharge, a limited number, either one opposing it or a much smaller number commenting on the time frame of the hearing and the overall process. So based on that and the fact that I thought between the district's messaging and what I read in media reports that there was sufficient information out there that if you were a member of the public that read anything, you knew that this was coming and you knew that this was out there. So I didn't see the need that we needed to amend that process. So I'm like Rick, I'm comfortable with what we have in this process at this point. Bob, I'd like to give you an opportunity to respond. Would you like to do it now or after I go out to the public? You can go to the public. Sure. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Yeah, you can go to the public. Okay. Are there any comments by members of the public? I don't see any. So I'll come back to you, Bob, if you want to say anything in response to people's comments. Yeah. I would echo what Lois said. I think Lois is absolutely right on and part of the motivation I had was trying to address that as well. I know that there are questions that are asked in the community that are not necessarily part of any FAQ that we put out, which being able to collect those additional questions and get those out into the community before voting closed, I think would be very helpful. However, given the comments I've heard, I'm looking forward to a very robust conversation about process when the next Prop 218 comes before the board. I think it would be very helpful for us to take some of the things that have been expressed here tonight to heart as we go through that next process. So thank you. Okay. Thank you, Bob. Is somebody going to make a motion? There is no need again. Well, I think this has been a good discussion, and I certainly felt like we need to, especially in light of the weirdness of doing things remotely and through hybrid sessions, we really need to give this some thought next time so that everybody feels really comfortable with what we do. Yeah, Jamie. I appreciate that. And I did just want to say in defense of the process that while it may have been imperfect, I think as a board member, I feel very comfortable that there was general consensus and support for the surcharge and that the process as perfect or imperfect as it may have been was also informed by COVID, the pandemic, the nature of trying to do this work under short staffed conditions and having to, we were doing lots of emergency board meetings and special board meetings during that time. And so I just want to kind of remember that there were huge impacts to staff that we were trying to navigate as we were moving through that process. And so maybe this wasn't the most perfect version of the 218, and we can put more time and energy into outreach in the future, but this was a unique circumstance. Okay. I would agree with that, Mark. Yes. I do want to express to Bob, I appreciate the fact that you spent the time to put together a thoughtful memo on this about something that you're very concerned about. And I do also agree with your last comment that you look forward to the robust discussion of this the next time we have a 218 process. And I agree, I think we should be having that kind of a discussion about these things. I think that's part of our duty as board members to have that kind of a discussion. So, thanks. Okay. Lois? Well, I've been through a number of 218 processes, and I have never seen one fail to pass. The only things, when you have a really small number of people voting, then you have a good chance of the Prop 18 failing. But since it's a no vote, instead of a yes vote, it's virtually impossible to defeat it. I just haven't seen that happen. I think we should move on to the Consent Agenda. And are there any items that members of the board would like to take off the Consent Agenda? How about members of the public? No? All right. What about district reports? Any questions or comments? Mark, you had your hand up first. Oh, okay. I thought Bob did, but I don't care, whichever. Bob, you want to go ahead? Go ahead, Mark. Okay, we're trying to be too gracious to each other and falling over ourselves. On the Engineering Department report, Josh, do you have a feel for when the quail hole pipeline work starts? All we've seen in the last, I think, three summaries from you is the 120-day delay due to materials. Yeah, the 120-day delay. I'm regularly reaching out to the folks at Granite Rock and pushing them to push their suppliers. Best guess right now? Late March. Okay. And that has changed a couple of times, but that's pretty close to the original 120-day mark. Okay, because I was going to ask, so when did we award that? Okay, if March winds up with that so that it was four months before that, then okay. Late March, early April is right in there. I think it was actually awarded the first meeting in December, I think. I would have to look it up to say for sure. Okay, you're in touch with them and yes, it's close to that 120 days. Okay. Yes. Okay. The other questions, two questions that I have are on the finance report on page 111 of the document. We note that the online bills, the e-bills, and the auto pay are all trending downwards over the last 10 months or so. What's the reasoning for that? So prior to August 20 or so in July and previous to that, we didn't really have a way to filter out closed accounts. So the numbers from July prior to that included people that had closed out their accounts, but still had kept their online account open. So as of August, we were able to, with the new portal and all that, we were able to only filter out active accounts, so that this is giving a more accurate representation of our actual online accounts. So starting in August and moving up, you will see that they are trending upwards. It was just in from July to August, it did have that initial decrease because we were no longer both active and closed accounts. Okay. Check out footnote 3, Mark. Footnote 3 explains it. Okay. Well, I apologize for not reading that detail to it. Okay. Thank you. And lastly, on page 117, the arrearages, why did we request the 29,950 that we have to refund? What's the explanation behind that? Yeah. So when we initially applied for the program October, the total amount was 170,000 or so dollars in arrearages. So from October to January when we actually got the money, about $29,000 were paid by customers on those delinquent accounts. And per the state's guidelines that we have to refund any of the monies that weren't applied to the accounts. Okay. Okay. I understand customers paid the bills. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. That's all the questions I have. Yes. And first one actually was a follow up for for Josh, because I had a similar question. But is there any way for granted to change their number if enough time goes by? They have stated, at least in an email, that they will not increase their price, even if their prices go up, their costs go up. That was part of the initial discussion when they told me about how long the delay was going to be. Okay. Well, that's good. It's a key concern, of course, given their bid. Okay. Great. Thank you. Environmental status report. Carly, thank you for putting in the grant information. Would it be possible to organize them by year and or provide a summary number for each fiscal year? Sure. That's no problem. We can update that the next time around. I appreciate that. Thank you. But we are definitely making some really good progress. And what's in the pipeline, assuming we get even a fraction of it, is phenomenal. So great work to everybody that's working on grants. And that's getting close to be updated. You'll see some substantial upgrades for grant applications as well as we move through the next month or two. I think my target was like a 20 to 1 ROI. And it looks like you're going to blow by that pretty easily. So that's really good. The next one was on finance report on page 110. We have this summary document here which has operating revenue expenses and income. Would it be possible to break out the CZU surcharge from the operating revenue? I'm concerned that this table, given that it might be the only thing looked at, is maybe not giving a clear picture of where we are relative to our real operating revenue, which should exclude the CZU surcharge, since that's not able to be used for general operating expenses. Yeah. So I did break it out in like this summary wording, but I can also break it out in the graph as well or the table. I think that would be helpful. Tables are better than words sometimes for board folks. Yeah. I'll update that on the next one. Great. Thank you. On the past due accounts, yeah, I saw that we kind of didn't go in the right direction. Are all the tenant accounts closed off and were those balances transferred to the owners? Is that what I'm reading here? Yes, that is correct. Okay. Unless they were paid off, of course. Right. Okay, great. I think that was all on the reports. I did have one other comment, but it's the last item on the agenda that I wanted to comment on. Let's finish with reports first and then you can go ahead. Jamie? Yes. Thanks. On the subject of past due accounts, I just wanted to and grants. I know we were at some point in February going to be receiving grant funding for the utility offset. This would be for people who needed relief due to the pandemic conditions and we received a tranche of funding that we were going to be applying to past due utility bills. I'm just wondering, I know we had talked about in the admin committee meeting that the district was going to do some kind of a communication to start kind of explaining to the customer what that process looked like if they were in arrears and eligible for that relief funding. I'm just checking in about that and reminding you that we would love to see some outreach to customers who may be eligible for that. Yes. We already did receive all that funding. That was what was applied for in October and we received the funding in January of this year. Letters were sent out to the individual customers that received credits on their accounts and that was they noted the amount of the credit and then also that they could call into the office to make an arrangement on the remaining balance. At this time, that's the only funding for the water arrearages that the state is providing to us. There will be another go around for the wastewater arrearages that we're going to apply for, but as far as they're not offering any other water arrearages in the future. I understand. What I'm asking though is that there be some that whatever the letter was that we made available to customers who are eligible, if you could share that letter publicly or with some of the non-profits who are working on rental and utility stabilization during the pandemic, they're getting phone calls from people who are behind on there and they're not understanding the process. They're thinking that they're going to get money coming through the state. It would be really helpful for water districts that have received funding and communicated that out to those eligible customers to share that so that other non-profits that are working on this sort of have information to just tell people like, okay, this has already happened and you may be eligible in a subsequent round of funding if you meet these conditions. I'm putting that out there as a request to staff if there's some kind of a communication that we could share more publicly just to explain that process for those people who did who were eligible to receive that. I think that would be helpful to other people who are confused about it and still trying to get information. Got it. I understand. Yeah, we can work on that. Thank you. Any more comments or questions on things related to district reports? If not, Bob, you said you had something you wanted to comment with regard to written communications. Yes, the last item 9.1, this email we received from Christina Wise. I was a little concerned about it because it does address the firm that we use for our public communications. Has this been addressed? Are we all good in this now? Yes, this has been addressed in both Christina and the Sentinel. Hannah Hagerman has been contacted. There's been apologies given and it has been addressed and we will be addressing outreach in general with the admin committee and it should be on the agenda for the first meeting or for the meeting in February coming up. And so will Christina be accepting press releases from Marcy's team then in the future? I can't answer on that question directly, Bob, but I do know that they've talked and they've come to an understanding and both Christina and Hannah are satisfied, but I don't know the extent of what that conversation was. It appears that and I don't know, Carly, I know you were in the middle of that. Do you have anything to add on that? No, other than the apologies have been sent to both the Sentinel and the press banner and also the press release in question was retracted and at the admin committee coming up next week, we'll go into a little more detail. Okay, great. Well, thank you very much for covering. It was unfortunate. Yes. Jamie, as chair of that committee, did you want to say anything? I just wanted to echo what Rick said that our immediate step, I reached out to Rick after we received the email from Christina alerting us to the issue and I think the apology, everything has been handled appropriately and I think that we need to have a thoughtful discussion at the administration, at the administrative committee in terms of just what does the district really need in terms of PR going forward and is our needs being met currently? What other opportunities may there be? So I think that this is a really good reason to revisit that conversation at the administrative committee and we hope to come back and have a recommendation for the board if we decide that we need to make a change there. And at the request of the chair of the admin committee and staff, we'll be bringing a complete review of our outreach program to the committee for review next week or whenever that committee meets. Gina? Jeremy, just a legal caution here. This could start to delve into the discussion that's going to be before the admin committee. I would suggest wrapping it up. Okay. So and Mark, okay, you've taken your hand down. If there's something, Bob, it's essential that you say right now. Well, I'm really pleased with the fact that we are going to be talking about this in the admin committee meeting. It's been a topic that has been missing from the admin committee for two years now, I think. So this is really good news. Okay. All right. Lois? I hate to say this, but I have a clue what you're talking about. Okay. Well, I think I'm going to follow Gina's advice and not pursue this anymore. Lois, you can read the letter that was the email to the board, which you should have already received from Christina Weiss to inform you about what it I don't remember ever getting anything from Gina Weiss. Gina? I was just going to chime in one last time, Chair Mayhood, and ask if or suggest that the public be given an opportunity to comment on the district reports. Yes, you're right. I failed to do that. Are there any comments on district reports? Seeing none. Okay. Then we will next item is adjournment. So if there's no objections, I will declare this meeting adjourned. Good night all. Thank you. Good night, everyone.