 Jamie, I have 5.30 if you'd like to start the meeting. Thank you, yes. I apologize. I'm having a little issue with my monitor tonight. So if I seem like I'm having a hard time seeing things, that's why. So yes, let's go ahead and get started. And part of my issue is that I can't actually see the agenda right now, unfortunately. So I'll go ahead and take the roll call if you'd like. Thank you, that'd be great. Okay, President Mayhood is not here. And I believe we need to excuse her. And then Vice President Ackman. Here. Director Fultz. Here. Director Hill, Director Smalley. Here. Great, thank you. Are there any additions or deletions to the closed session agenda? Our staff has none. Sure. Vice Chair. It's going to be a good time to take a vote to consider excusing President Mayhood because of medical issue. Okay, great. Thank you for the reminder, Gina. So if someone could move a vote. I hope that President Mayhood be excused from the meeting for medical issues. Thank you. I'll second that. Thank you. Can we just have a voice vote or do you need a roll call? For this purpose, Holly. Yeah, I just, I can't tell if everybody's saying yes at the same time if you'd ask for no votes also. Sure, so can I have all of the eyes to excuse Chair Mayhood? Yes. Any no's or abstentions? Seeing none, hearing none. We will excuse Chair Mayhood and wish her the very best. Hopefully she recovers quickly. So with that, I didn't see any additions or deletions to the agenda for closed session. This, we can move on to oral communications. This would just be for any items that are in closed session. Do we have anyone who wishes to speak? There are no members of the public. I'm sure I was going to provide a reminder that anybody who did want to speak on closed session items should do so now because we're not planning to take closed comment again if we have to go back into closed session at the end of the meeting. But my reminder is a little bit lacks an audience since there's nobody here. So hopefully we won't have a mentors later if we need to go back to closed session. We'll be doing a little bit of that, I suppose. Known as Mute. Excuse me, yes. So hopefully that doesn't occur, but seeing no other comments for closed session, I think we can go ahead and reconvene in closed session. Holly, can you hear me? I can. Okay. I have 6.30, it's like has everyone made it back over? C. I'll say Bob. Bob. I'll say Bob. Okay. All right. Here he is. Okay. We can go ahead and convene to open session at 6.30. Welcome back. We need to report out of closed session. We did take an action. So Gina, I'm going to hand it over to you to report out on our action in closed session. Here's the afternoon. The board voted three to one in favor with Director Fultz voting no to direct staff to explore possible eminent domain for the recommended Felton Heights tank site at the end of Lost Acres Drive. Their next item on the agenda is additions and deletions. Or do we need to call Rolligan? Yes, we do. Sorry about that. So Holly, why don't you go ahead and reconvene the meeting? Okay. President Mayhood is excused. Jamie Ackman. Here. Director Fultz. Here. Director Hill. Here. Director Smalley. Here. Okay. Are there any additions or deletions to the open session agenda? The chair of staff has none. Thank you. Now we are on to oral communications. This is an opportunity to comment on anything that is not on the agenda that members of the public may want to bring to our attention. So we will continue to, I'm sorry, did somebody? President's report. And since the real president isn't here and I'm pinching for her, I do not have one. So we'll go ahead and continue on to unfinished business and the remote meeting authorization. Rick, Gina. Just for counsel. This one is typically very routine and administrative but I do have an update tonight with respect to the remote meeting authorization. Nothing has changed in the sense that the board, it is recommended that the board ratify once again resolution number 421-22 in order to allow the district to continue to conducting remote meetings pursuant to AB 361. However, there have been a couple of important updates. The most critical of which is that the governor has announced that the state of emergency for California related to COVID is going to be ending at the end of February 2024. And that will remove the grounds for continuing to ratify and re-adopt this resolution for remote meetings after February. Mark, I see your hand up. Gina, you said February 2024. Thank you, 2023. So it's approximately five months, four or five months left to continue conducting remote meetings this way. And in addition, there is a new Brown Act bill, AB 2449 that takes effect in January that once remote meetings end under AB 361 is gonna create kind of a new framework for how public and directors can participate remotely in meetings. And that's something I'm not planning to cover tonight, but I will do an informational item for a future board meeting explaining the process. And I think there's a desire to tee off a discussion about how the district will implement these new rules. Great, I'm looking forward to that. But for the purposes of tonight, we are continuing our 30 day remote meeting authorization. So do I have, unless there is any discussion by members of the public on this item, you don't see any. So do I have a motion? I'll make the motion that we continue this. Thank you. Second. Thank you. Holly. Vice President Ackerman. Yes. Director Falls. Yes. Director Hill. Yes. And Director Smalley. Yes. Great. Thank you. So we are moving to new business and the first item of new business is the Felton Heights replacement tank environmental services contract. So Rick, would you like to take us through this? I'm just looking at the order. My order has something different, but I will follow the agenda. Okay. Let me move down. My apologies. I got out of order here. Yes. Thank you. 2008, the district purchased the Felton water system from Cal America and Cal Am. Felton Heights Mutual Road and Water Association Mutual was established to administer a small mutual water system and private roadways in the area of Felton. The mutual provided water service to about 21 single family residents known as the Lost Acres in the Valhalla Way in Felton. Shortly after that, the district met with representatives of the mutual and worked out a consolidation of the small mutual into the district. As part of the consolidation, the residents agreed to pay a proportion of the new tank Can you hear me? I don't know. A proportion of the new tank, which was at that time a 60,000 gallon bolted steel tank located at the end of Valhalla Drive. There is an extensive background of what's been happening over the years with this project, but I'm gonna somewhat fast forward. The district did have issues moving ahead replacing the tank with a property owner adjacent to the tank. I had issues about building the tank right in their front yard. As a result of the conversations back and forth, another neighbor, John Erickson came forward and contacted the district and offered the district to look at his property to install the tank on his property and not right in the yards of these two homes right at the end of Valhalla Drive. The district took Mr. Erickson up on that offer. We reviewed that parcel. That parcel had a, what we would call an excellent location in elevation and land and not only to relocate the tank to that location, that put in a hundred and one million we have somebody else on there. To put in- That's not speaking to mute, please. The location on Mr. Erickson property was a perfect strategic location for the district that not only relocated the tank into a larger area, but also gave us the capabilities of putting in 120,000 gallon tank which would cover fire flow requirements as required by the county. It also provided a very strategic location to as many of our zones or pass-through zones where we move water one through one zone to another. This location provided an excellent location to provide pass-through to the Bennett zone. The Bennett zone is further up the empire grade mountain. It gets its water supply currently right now from a spring, the Bennett spring, which is untreated water. The district has been wanting to bring treated water into that neighborhood for some time and this project will allow us to do that as well. We have gone back and forth with John Erickson on relocating the tank to that parcel. There has been a lot of negotiations and discussion. We are to the point now that we would like to move ahead and do the environmental review of that parcel to ensure that there are no environmental concerns of constructing the tank on that parcel. And tonight I will ask the district environmental planner to give the board and community an update on where we are on moving ahead on the request for proposals for the environmental analysis. Carly. Thank you, Rick. So on September 1st, 2022, the district released a request for proposals or RFP, which is attached to this memo as exhibit A, seeking a qualified environmental firm to complete environmental review and permitting, as well as coordinate with regulatory resource agencies as needed for the Fulton Heights tank replacement project. The RFP closed on September 28th and four proposals were received. The four consultants that submitted proposals included David J. Powers and Associates, Inc., Denise Duffian Associates, SWCA Environmental Consultants and Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. All firms met the RFP requirements and were deemed qualified. At the October 10th, 2022 Environmental and Engineering Committee, the committee reviewed the proposals and voted to recommend to the board of directors of the board award the proposal to Denise Duffian Associates to complete the environmental review in the amount of $53,533. Staff is strongly recommending moving forward with the recommendation. And I believe Josh, our district engineer, also wants to add in before we go to questions. Josh. Thank you, Chair. The only thing I would like to add is that the environmental review of this particular parcel is going to be very valuable to the district for two reasons. One is that it will allow us to more accurately assess the value and usability of this parcel. And secondarily, it will give us a jump on the process shortening the time required to construct the tank. Okay, thank you. I'm sorry, I was hearing some noise. I don't know if that's interference again. All right, thanks for the additional explanation, Josh. Mark, as the chair of the engineering committee, can I toss it over to you first to start off comments? Sure. As already stated, the engineering committee reviewed all four proposals and we concurred that with the staff's recommendation that Denise Duffian Associates was the appropriate firm to move ahead with to complete the environmental review. We asked a number of questions of it. One of those were addressed during the committee meeting and we felt that that was the appropriate firm to move ahead with. So with that, I don't have any further questions on it since I reviewed that. Thanks, Mark. Gina, I wonder if I could just ask you a quick question before we continue with Director Comments and that is, we took an action in closed session. Should we, would it be appropriate here to have a little more discussion about why we took that action? Well, Chair Ackman, it's not really within the scope of the agenda item to discuss, to sort of rehash the discussion in closed session. I think the discussion here in open session should be focused on the question of whether to authorize the district to enter into the contract with the environmental consultant. But I mean, of course, to the extent that some of the same discussion is relevant, directors are welcome to repeat. Well, I guess let me ask this question then, which I think is relevant to the decision about this contract. There are a number of steps that we need to take in order to review the appropriateness of this property. And one of them is an environmental review, which is why we're considering this contract, right? And these steps would have to be taken on any kind of a path, Gina, is that accurate? And so this is like the first and necessary step that we as a board have to take, to take a look at this project and whether it's appropriate to this parcel. Well, environmental review does have to be done before the district can acquire a parcel of property in most instance, including one. Okay, thank you for clarifying that. So are there other comments or questions by board members? So let's go to public comment. Do we have any public comment on this item? I'm seeing John and Patty, CTV, looks like you can go ahead and unmute yourself. Maybe this is premature. So my comment will have to do with the general idea of the projects going forward. So I'm gonna read what I've written since you're timing me. My driveway is right next to the currently proposed tank site, even though I am not on the district system. My holes heartedly support the original alternative. We'll film out of the contract of the 2012 between the district and Felden Heights Mutual Road Association, of which I am a member to build a new tank at the Valhalla site. I just learned that Mr. Erickson has decided to have no part in participating in the current proposal, citing the local opposition, which is fine with me. I can do without the tanks ensuing negative environmental impacts and potential risks, particularly if they were going to be so close to my property line as currently proposed. I wish to add that until this month, it was never divulged to me the district intent to connect our area's tank with a Bennett Springs zone. If this development would have entailed building a pipeline between our area, and I suppose the pre-existing district facilities near Felden Empire Grade, logically a new tank could have been located at any point between Valhalla and Bennett Springs, much of which is district land and probably have little environmental impact on lost acre. When the contemplating the future courses of action, the district needs to solicit informed consent from the people impacted by its proposals and be forthcoming about its ultimate plans. It also needs to keep its promises. Given the inevitable delays likely in addressing the change in plans that will need to take place, the best solution from the associations in my point of view is to build the previously agreed upon tank of the Valhalla site. Now, basically it comes down to we haven't been engaged in this whole process and we have the feeling as though we have been either patted on the heads kind of indulgently, as if to say everything's gonna be just fine, but you are not the people who are going to have to live the consequences, we are. And we take objection to not being involved in this whole process without further involvement. And I might also add that I am not able to get on screen with all of you and I find that objectionable too. Thank you for your time. Thank you. And I understand your concern, but that is a limitation of Zoom meetings. Let's see, the next hand I see is Jim Mosher. Yes, can you hear me? Yes. This is Jim Mosher, I live in Felton, I don't live in Lost Acres, so this is not a project that would directly affect my house except potentially indirectly because I understand from one of the letters in the packet that the fire flow, the fire flow possibilities of the larger tank may have very positive effects in terms of the fire break that might protect other houses. I guess I'm concerned about making this decision today, given the amount of debate and confusion in the board packet. I did go through all the board packet and it seems like we need more discussion and more information so that we can so we can take into consideration the concerns that many of the neighbors have raised. And I wonder since there is a letter from the landowner saying that he will not agree to this under any circumstances if the board were to go forward, does that mean that you are also deciding that you would use some sort of eminent domain process in order to overcome his objections and wouldn't there be cost to that in delays? Thank you. Thank you. The next comment I see is Bob Elliott. Bob, go ahead. Are you able to, is anyone else able to hear him or am I, okay. I'm sorry, Bob. It seems like, oh, are you speaking? I was just wondering if we need CTV to unmute him or if it's on his end? I mean, it looks like CTV has done what they normally do. Yes, he is unmuted. He, there's just must be something with his equipment that doesn't allow him to speak. Bob, I'm sorry, we can't hear you. If there, if you can call back in or if there's something else that you can do we'll be happy to take your comment but we're gonna go ahead and move on at this time. I don't see any other hands. So I'll bring, I'll close the up. Rich, I see your hand, go ahead. CTV, have you, okay. Go ahead, Rich. Rich, can you, all right. Well, this seems very strange. Is there something? I'm concerned about this. Whether or not people are having ability to speak is important. Yeah, I agree. That's a real, CTV, is there something? Can we, why is this happening? Is it both them? Well, we can, we can see now that the microphone, the CTV microphone is unmuted for a while. So I think it has to be on the call or something. I believe we received a letter from Rich if that's Rich Alter. And so he has made his self-known, what is- But is Rich speaking? Okay, can you hear me now? Yes. Okay, Bob has a lot to say, Bob Elliott. Okay, I had planned to not say because I know you're all tired of hearing from me. And I don't, you know, I wanted Bob to speak. Bob has lots to say. And I wanna make sure that he gets to say what he says. So I can text him and see if you can give him a telephone number, that would be great. Do you, is there a telephone number that he can call? I'm gonna try to see if you're still there. Are you still? Well, we're still here. No, no, I'm telling, I'm saying this to him. I'm sorry, it's very important that Bob Elliott be able to speak. He has a number of things that he needs to say. He's been given time for me. He's been given, I'm giving him my time and Judy is giving him time. He's our main representative. He is the vice president of the road and he is representing us as- We would love to hear Bob's comment. We will give him three minutes like any other individual to speak. I'm sorry, but that's those are the rules. Each individual gets three minutes to speak. And if he is able to contact us, Holly, is there some other- The numbers are on the website, on the agenda. Can we read them out here? Yes, could you read that to him? The first number is three, four, six, two, four, eight, seven, seven, nine, nine. And you need to put a one in front of that, I believe. Then the webinar ID number is eight, five, one, four, four, one, zero, eight, zero, two, nine. Bob has his hand up again. So why don't we go ahead and give him another shot? Maybe he's figured it out. Also, I have given him my time. That's not, I'm sorry, Rich. I appreciate the sentiment, but we set each individual at three minutes. Bob, would you like to begin speaking? I'm sorry, I was told by Carly that that would be acceptable. If I wrote him an email, if Judy wrote him an email, that he could have our time. I'm sorry, that's not the way that a Brown Act meeting runs. Well, actually there is flexibility in the part of the chair relative to this. And in these circumstances, it's really important that we, as a governmental agency, allow our community, in fact, encourage our community to speak at these meetings. I completely agree, but I don't think that we should change the rules of public comment midstream through the public comment. We want to hear their comment. Rich, the floor has been yours. If you'd like to comment on the item before us, or if Bob would like to take over, we would love to hear the comment that this is public comment on the Felton Hype Tanks Replacement Project Environmental Services Contract. Bob, go ahead. Bob, are you able to speak? Jamie, we changed the rules to reduce the time when there's a lot of people speaking. But we're not able to hear Bob right now. Let's cross one technological problem, Bob, before we decide what we're going to do. So, maybe he can call in. Yes, he can call in. So we've given him the phone number. It's on the website. If he would like to call in, and if he has more than three minutes, he can let us know about how long he thinks he needs and we can make a decision at that point. But I could I just share a suggestion here, which is maybe this would be a good time to do a board discussion and we could wait and see if Mr. Elliott can call in. And I wouldn't recommend re-opening public comments for everyone since everyone's had an opportunity. If Mr. Elliott could find another way to call in and communicate while the board is having this discussion, perhaps you could come back to him later. Okay, so, I think that we've given Bob a lot of opportunities to speak. Rich, if you're going to speak on the actual item on the agenda, we'll give you an opportunity to speak. We understand you want Bob to speak, but we need him to be able to call in and do that. So, Rich, go ahead. I think unmute yourself. Bob, I have Bob on the line, okay? He is logging himself off. He'll log himself back on, okay? And then I hope that he'll have time to be able to get in and say what he's going to say. We've already said that if he can call us back, we will reopen public comments specifically for Bob, but not for any other additional comment at this point. And we hope that he will be able to contact us. So, we're going to close other public comment and return to board discussion on this item. Directors, are there any comments or questions that you have at this time? Bob, go ahead. Yeah, first of all, I want to say that I want to make sure everybody that is in the attendees, the community here, understands that it's not our place to decide whether or not we're tired of hearing from you or not. It is your decision as to whether or not you wish to exercise what is your right on all sorts of rights to communicate with your elected officials since we worked for you. So, please don't think that we don't want to hear from you for whatever reason. At least that's my personal opinion. With respect to this agenda item, let me just say that within the context of earlier decisions, I believe this is not the right process, not the right time. I'm very happy with the fact that we got four bids in this. I think this continues to show that our staff is working really well at getting a lot of interest in what we're doing. I was very happy with the bid that came in that was selected and I would recommend it as well, but I believe this is not quite the right approach. I have experienced being on the board for a while that there have been times when we've attempted to rush things and with the intent of getting something done quickly and it backfired miserable. It didn't get done quickly. Things got really quite squirreling and from my point of view, this is the kind of thing that you have as part of a condition that a decision has been made to acquire the property and it becomes one of the contingencies on it. So for that reason, not for any other reason, not that I don't want this to be the selection at the right time or anything like that, but for the purposes of it being out of order, I will not be voting to approve this. I hear that. I believe that this is a step that we must take before we can decide whether or not we would acquire one moment, Mark, before we can acquire a property. So I guess we see things in oppositional ways, but I appreciate your concern, Bob. That being said, Bob Elliott has made his way back into the meeting. So Bob, we're gonna give you another chance if you would like to speak. CTV, can we promote him again? And why don't, Bob, is your hand up? Do you want to speak now? We've got a microphone now. Bob, do you want to speak? Okay, go ahead, Bob. I think you can unmute yourself. Are you able to unmute yourself? Can CTV unmute Mr. Elliott? I don't want anyone to interpret this as us not wanting to hear from any of our constituents. I think we have made every opportunity here to try and hear from our constituents. I am so sorry, Mr. Elliott, can you speak now? He's dropped out. So I am so sorry that he's having these technological issues, but I guess I'm concerned that that's being characterized as us not wanting to hear from him, and I don't believe that's true, but we had said that we were only going to reopen public comment on this item for Mr. Elliott, and now I see many other hands here. So I, you know, let's go ahead and hear from everyone. I, you know, want to hear from everyone, but I feel like we're kind of getting caught in a loop a little bit. So, Judy? I'm sorry that this, I'll now try this one more time. Yeah, this is it. This is it, and you know, if Mr. Elliott is not able to speak at the end of this, then I'm sorry, but we're, you know, we're not giving him an additional time. So go ahead, Judy, can you speak? Can you hear me? Yes. Great. Okay, I am going to shoot. Okay, I'm going to read a resolution that the neighbors on Felton Heights neighbor voted on in the last 48 hours that we feel very strongly about. And I understand that you voted in the session, but go forward with the evidence. Judy, we're losing you first. So can you hear me? Yes. Okay, so here's a resolution that we all voted in majority for. The Felton Heights Road Association requested SLB, the water district, cease sowing divisionists in our neighborhood, putting neighbor, putting neighbor against neighbor, and that includes our neighbor, John Erickson, who many of us are, you know, neighbors with. We do not want to lobby our neighbor to do something he has already clearly stated he does not want to do. We request that you move on from trying to install a tank on a land you do not own and explore other options so we can get a tank built in a timely fashion. And personally, I just add that it's been nine, 10 years and we need a tank. We need a tank on the land that you own and we need a, you know, 46, 60,000 gallon tank as we originally agreed. I think that's all I have to say. Thank you. Rich, we have given you several opportunities to speak. So I really want to insist that you keep your comments to the item on the agenda, please go ahead. Thank you. I'm really sad that Bob can't talk, but I'll do my best to tell you what he might say. First of all, we also, as part of the resolution, it's not in that resolution, but everybody has discussed this. We do not want you to take his land through eminent domain. We, you know, I mean, think of it if you were in a neighborhood and you were friends with all the neighbors and all of a sudden the entire neighborhood ganged up on you to do something. And basically we're saying, we're just going to take a through eminent domain if you don't want to do it. I think that's not a nice thing to do. So that's, and it's just not me. There is lots and lots of people who are very vocal here. Unfortunately, the plan was with numerous people where we wanted Bob Elliott to be our spokesperson. He has a lot of comments related to this. One being it would be really nice to just offer some options. And just this whole process has been done without really full transparency. You know, we just found out about a number of things and so, you know, I do think there's other options. A number of us have found some other locations. John Jamison has found another location. I think there's some opportunities to do in a different way that would be best for the entire community. And so I think you should explore it. And I think it makes sense to table your view to the next meeting so that we can have some time to meet with people to go over it, to start looking at the site on John Erickson's land. Look at that and see if, how we can do it. You know, how it will work. I want to just make clear, I'm not opposed to 120,000 gallon tank. I am not. I'm not necessarily entirely opposed to it being on John Erickson's land. I just would like to put it in a place that I feel is safe. I'd like to put it in a place that is, is not necessarily in John Jamison's face because it really will be right in his front yard. And, you know, he didn't buy a piece of land with a tank there, the people on Valhalla did. So the fact that it was, that was the reason why you didn't build it there in the first place because one neighbor who was living next to a tank didn't want to do it. So anyway, that's some of the things I have to say. And three, two, one, I'm done. Thanks. Okay, John and Patty, you've already had your three minutes to speak on this item. And so I'm going to go on to Larry Darnell who has not had an opportunity to speak yet. Larry. Hi, can you hear me? Yeah, there's a bit of feedback. Just a moment. Are we good now? Go ahead. I would, I don't know if anyone has said this yet, but my interest is I'm not sure why at this late date we are being forced to come up with a decision about doing something like eminent domain on someone's land when your obligation to our agreement originally that happened 10 years ago. And what I would like to know and what all I would like to know is how big is the tank going to be? And when's it going to be put in at the top of Alhalla Drive? That was our agreement. That was the original agreement. I don't know how we got way late into all this other business, but I think it's a real simple process. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. Okay. I feel like that was a rough public comment period because of the technology, but I appreciate all of the comments. John. Bob, do you have something additional you want to add? Well, yeah, I mean, again, I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record, but I'm listening to the comments. I'm very much struck by the fact that what's really being communicated here is effectively the perception that an amendment is being made to the agreement which would typically take both parties or at least all the parties participating in the agreement. But at this point in time, there's one party that isn't part of that process. And I've referred to this before in the context of other situations like Lompico, for example, where things have changed and it may be for really, really good reasons, but the process by which that change needs to take place is something more than what the district has done here tonight and has done in the past. Just because we can do something legally and just because a legalistic approach to something is possible doesn't mean that it should be done or that that is the right process. The law typically does not take into account the sensitivities that are being expressed here tonight. And while I think it sounds like everybody is in agreement that 120,000 gallon tank would be nice and that, I still am, I'm still troubled by the fact that I think we're just moving on this in a way that is not good for our relationship, the district's relationship with our community with respect to trust and transparency. And as I expressed before, I can't vote for this tonight. Not that I don't want to or not that I don't think this is the right person, but we are just, in my opinion, approaching this in a really orthogonal way to what I believe we should be doing, keeping our community in mind, keeping in fact that we work for them. So thank you for letting me talk about that, but this is a real hot button for me when we do these kinds of things. Appreciate that, Bob. Mark, you've got your hand up. Yes. I've heard the question from at least a couple of members from the public this evening that I'd like Rick to address. And the aspect of we considered a 60,000 gallon, we had some agreement for the 60,000 gallon at Vahala, and now we're looking at this 120. Can you tell us and the public, Rick, why the change? What's the driver? Well, yeah, originally the driver was the location, the amount of property that at the time the association owned, and they really didn't own it as much as six, six different owners of the parcel. It was a very unique lot where the tank was. I imagine those were the original founders of that area. So there was a very lengthy property to get that into the district's name, but then we still didn't have enough room with that parcel and we had to obtain another 10 foot easement from the adjoining property owner in order to get the 60,000 gallon tank. And that owner, after they granted the easement, became upset about the tank. I guess didn't understand the size of the tank and how close it was gonna be to their home. It's right adjacent to the house, it's right at the end of Vahala, and it is a poor location. So during that, that person was unhappy, made it known to the adjacent neighborhood and John Erickson heard about it. And John Erickson's property brought it up to that parcel. We worked with John on multiple different locations, his old tennis courts right behind the existing tank and then working with John, it was said, hey, I own this much property, why don't we look on the other side? And that side and that piece of property where we were looking at that point, we could do a 50 by 50 either easement or property purchase and put the proper size tank in that gave us the fire flow plus demand. And it also was a good location for our upper pastor zone. So it was a good fit for the district and a really good fit for the community to increase storage. And anytime we replace mainline storage, pump stations, we try to meet today's code and requirements. We do it with mainline, we do it with tanks and our standard tank, which we have done past practice. The last one we just completed was NINA. We increased, I do believe that was close to 60, 70,000 gallons and we replaced it to 120,000 gallons. And that was it again, another very tight spot. All of our tank sites or majority of our tank sites are very tight because they're on high peaks to get elevation for pressure. So that's how it grew. We were able to put in the required storage in which you saw Felton Fire Chief's email to me that has a lot of implications to have proper fire flow. And especially after CZU where people are losing insurance and fire flow is a great concern and fire flow and fire suppression across that ridge was a great concern during CZU. And just to, because I feel like you forgot to the point of the property owner offered these alternate locations, why did the property owner decide that they didn't want to proceed? The reason being because the property owner was contacted by some of the neighbors and didn't want him to do it. And he did not like the animosity that the neighborhood was giving him as a direct quote or that sums it up with my discussion with him that he was concerned to fold one liability into the phone calls he was receiving from the neighbors on that location. Okay, Bob, go ahead. Yeah, thanks Rick for laying all that out. I think that was really good. There's one question though that's still in my mind. And the fire chief alluded to it in his letter but what is the calculation by which we arrived at 120,000 gallons or is it just 120,000 gallons is now our new standard for the tank size? No, you're muted. Still muted. Rick, you're muted. We have the district engineer here tonight which is prepared to speak to fire flow. Josh. Great, thanks. The 120,000 gallon is related directly to fire flow. I'm gonna back up a little bit and explain what fire flow is and what's required and why it's required. The California fire code requires that for any single family home of 3,600 square feet or fewer water be provided at a rate of 1,000 gallons 1,000 gallons per minute for an hour, 60,000 gallons of storage. That's where the 60,000 gallons comes from. And in general, when we talk about fire flow what we're really talking about is how much storage is required in order to provide that flow. And that number is 60,000 gallons. So that's just, that's a little back of history on that background if you like. The 120,000 gallon requirement for this tank is based on daily demand as we have records for, I use records from 2021. So Bob to answer a question I anticipate you'll be asking. Those numbers are post reduced use for drought there after our repairs have adjusted their usage. I took those numbers took the highest use month in each for Bennett spring and for Felton Heights or the Hillcrest zone as we call it and determined what an average daily use would be from there, there are standard calculations that are laid out in California plumbing codes and in standard engineering practice to determine a maximum daily demand and a peak flow. This is all laid out in the agenda in the calculation sheet that I provided for the memo from staff. Short form the 21 homes in Felton Heights demand roughly 26 to 27,000 gallons at a maximum. So that's what we need to provide is the maximum that they would use. The homes in the Bennett spring zone which we are looking at connecting using this as a pass through to use another approximately if I remember correctly about 31,000 it's 30,000 plus or minus. That might require storage requirement or fire flow gets us to roughly 120,000 gallons. And we've used that number 120,000 gallons in the past because it's a good round number. It's an easily accessible tank. It is commonly built as a common size and it always allows a little bit of extra room whether that room is for the addition of 80 to use which increased demand or reassessing which of our zones are fed through which other zones. It allows us the flexibility to in the event of a problem in one zone move water through to another. It's a good overall useful size for us. And in this specific case, it's what the numbers require. So I'll take questions. Bob, go ahead. Yeah, thanks, Josh for laying that out. I think that's really good. And just to clarify on the 26K for the Felton Heights area and the 30K for Pedersen, is that over a day? That is the maximum amount that would be used in any given day that we look at. Yeah, it's being loaded for a day. It is peak usage for a day, yes. Perfect, I understand, Pete, I work in telecom. So. Fair enough. Okay, so that's where we get the 120,000 gallon now. I guess the other question then would be this calculation, this sort of standard that you're quoting, which is really good, did that not exist in 2012 when the original agreement was made or was it just determined, hey, we don't have enough square footage to be able to do the 120,000. So we'll just go with the 60, that's the bare minimum for fire plan. I can answer half of that, which is that the standard was not the same prior to 2019. I have not looked at what it was, but it's revised every few years. The remainder of how the discussion went, I would have to divert away. No, that's really good. I mean, this is the kind of sort of background discussion and all that, but I think it's helpful as part of the process getting us to a resolution that it sounds like everybody wants, but maybe we're a different way. Okay, are there any other forward comments on this item? Jeff? Yes, following up on Bob's comment for Josh here. When you said the standard was changed in 2019, is that the standard for the residential usage or is that the fire standard? I've seen the believe that the fire standards have also been increased substantially in recent years. To answer your question, both California fire code and California plumbing code were revised in 2019. I have not recently reviewed the previous standard, so I couldn't tell you what those changes were, but both were revised. Thank you. Okay, Mark, did I see that you were also raising your hand? Yes, it's my understanding that we need to do the environmental review as part of considerations that we would need to take if the district did elect to do eminent domain take of the property. Am I correct in that, Gina? Gina, you muted again. I'm having trouble on you. Yes, that's correct. That's a necessary step to acquire the property, including by eminent domain. And could I just, Gina, maybe you could restate the motion that we actually took in closed session because I did hear during the public comment that there may have been some confusion about that. We did not take any action to make a decision about eminent domain in closed session. Could you restate the motion that we voted on? Just to clarify, the actual report out of closed session will be the official version, but this should be very close to it, if not identical. And that was the motion that was reported, the action that was reported out of closed session was a vote to adopt a motion to direct staff to explore possible eminent domain for the recommended Felton Heights tank site at the end of Lost Anchors Drive. Correct, meaning explore the steps needed for that process, which I think Director Smalley is making the point that an environmental review is among them. Director Faulkner. Yes, and I think that is absolutely a true statement. There's no question about that. However, the process that I was talking about would actually have the staff come back. If you wanted to do this in a way that made sense, is they could come back to me anyway. They could come back with, here's all the requirements from doing eminent domain, which I think, you know, Gina could put together very, very quickly. At that point, then you would engage the community in an extended discussion over how we can achieve the goals that I think we all want to get to. Because of course, the fire flow and, I mean, the fire flow is gonna affect insurance rates, even though I get the pipe isn't big enough right now in the street, but, you know, it will get there eventually. And also affect property values relative to resale value. If you have a fire flow tank and you've got sufficient water to cover you during that time, these are all really good things. So we're just approaching this a little bit out of sequence. I have, if we want to just come back and say, hey, we got a memo coming, that's great. We can always make the environmental the contingent upon making a decision that we're gonna go forward with eminent domain. But that is after an extended conversation, engagement, a discussion like where we're having tonight, where I think a lot of things are coming out and there's probably a whole lot more that could, just again, part before the worst might be. Gina, in order to begin a discussion of eminent domain, do we need to take a vote of a resolution of necessity? The resolution of necessity is a necessary step in the eminent domain process. Yes, and the district is not there yet. Does that answer your question? It does. And to take that, excuse me, Bob, and to take that step, would we need to conduct both an appraisal and an environmental clearance of any parcel that might be under consideration for a resolution of necessity? An appraisal and a successful environmental review process would be necessary, yes, in order to adopt a resolution of necessity. Okay. Bob? There's absolutely nothing stopping us other than again, a legalistic approach to something that is a hot button for our community like you wouldn't believe. I think most of you, I don't know, maybe Jeff, he might have been here at the time, but about 35 years ago or so, as a condition of getting a building permit, a remodel or build a new house, you had to grant the county a blanket easement over your property in order to allow them to build a trail system. This was outrageous, perfectly legal and was done in a legalistic fashion, but completely outrageous. And so there's nothing stopping us from saying that we're going to engage in a extended conversation like we're having tonight on the merits or demerits of an eminent domain process with respect to this prior to saying we're going to initiate all of the things that need to be done to get to that point. There's nothing stopping us from doing that other than perhaps wanting to move forward in this really fast. And I gotta tell you, when you attempt to cut corners in the public sector, it's not a good thing. And particularly given this community's reaction to even the mention of eminent domain, that's my point. I get, you're absolutely right to get to the resolution necessity, we have to have all this thing, but there's a process you do before you even start down that path if you want to engage the community. I guess I understand what you're saying. I disagree with you about the order of steps in the process. I think that you absolutely do have that conversation with the community, but you do it when you have enough information in hand. And some of that is taking these steps to develop these pieces of information so that then we can have informed discussions. I also understand from reading the feedback from the community that was sent to SBA email and from talking to members of the community that delay is a concern. And we've been at this process for 10 years. So I appreciate that we don't wanna move too fast, but my goodness, what is too fast? Bob, go ahead. Well, let's not go there exactly because the pandemic and the fires didn't incur until really way late in the process. As with Lompico, where the district sat on its hands, not by the way the current district manager, sat on its hands for two years, well, costs escalate. The same thing happened to the Felton Heights folks. Now, you could say on hindsight, oh, it's great we didn't build the 60,000 gallon tank there because it would be undersized. Okay, but that is a result of the delay. And now what you wanna do is amend the agreement that was with the community by just basically saying, hey, we're gonna go from here to, the next discussion about this will be when we start talking about that we passed resolution of necessity. That's kind of late in the game. Our district did not execute on this agreement in a timely fashion as it did not execute on Lompico in a timely fashion. And for any organization that is looking at doing something similar, they need to be very concerned about that. And we as a board need to make sure that when agreements are entered into, they're executed immediately, not waiting years. Okay, so we are here. I get your point, but this can actually be done relatively quickly if we wish to make it a priority. If we don't wish to make it a priority or wish to go down the path that we're on right now, which is a more legalistic one, then yes, you can obviously do it in a way that will certainly meet the law, but I don't think it's gonna meet the community standards of what needs to be done in order to execute on any kind of eminent woman. So Bob, I do think it would be advisable for us to know if the site is actually environmentally acceptable before we engage the community in a lengthy discussion about it. I don't think it would be a good idea to have lengthy discussions with the community and reach some resolution of this and then find that there's some environmental disqualification at the last minute. I think we should know before we get too heavily involved in a lot of discussion. And that's why I think we all agreed that we've asked the district to explore this issue and identify what needs to be done, not necessarily to actually go forward and execute an eminent domain, but for us all to understand it and have an intelligent discussion where we know whether the property actually would work. Director Smully. Yes. Jeff said a lot of what I wanted to. And I feel that we need the environmental evaluation in order to be able to consider whether this is a viable site in order for us to continue discussing. So I want to make a motion that we approve the staff's recommendation to issue an environmental or tissue contract to Denise Duffy and Associates for the 53,000 to move ahead with an environmental review of this site. Okay, thank you. Do I have a second? I will second that motion. Thank you, Director Hill. Bob, do you have an additional comment? You're muted, Bob. Went to mute. We're talking about amending the agreement. We should discuss whether or not the community wants to do that. First, then we can go get all the data that we want to get in order to support whether or not this site is appropriate. So I know it's gonna pass, but that's the process we need to be engaged in. I think, sorry, lower my hand. I hear what you're saying. I will only respond to that to say that we don't, we allow staff and experts to recommend the appropriate infrastructure for our community. And that's what has been done here. And you're talking about amending an agreement over the size of a tank, which would be a really unprecedented step for us to then be in, I suppose in your view, a condition where we negotiate with each community over what kind of infrastructure we want to use, which I think is an interesting approach and one that I disagree with. Go ahead, Bob. Since you raised a new issue. So if what we're talking about here is our district is to be run by experts and folks that are in the know and that sort of thing, then why have a public agency? The fact of the matter is that the public agency is the, especially a local district like this is the best way to make sure that the policies of the community are properly reflected as we're doing things. And we take into account as a board, the balance between how to behave in our local community versus what is maybe the technical thing to do. And I gotta tell you something, anybody that's looking at this and thinking this would get better under any kind of merger or consolidation with a bigger agency, their voice would be even less heard than it is today. The community has expressed their concerns. It is not too much of them to expect their public servants, their agency, their board to respond to that prior to us engaging in this action. And I believe we are doing that. We are doing that because some of their concerns are regarding the environmental conditions that would develop if we put a tank in this location. And we need to go forward with a study of the site in order to answer those concerns. So I hear what you're saying, but I think it would be wholly unprecedented to have this process in reverse because we don't do that with other communities. And with that, I think we need to close comment. I responded to the new issue that I raised and allowed you to respond to and can go ahead and take a vote because we have a motion and a second on the table. So Holly. Sorry, Vice President Ackerman. Yes. Director Fultz. No. Director Hill. Yes. Director Smalley. Yes. Motion passes. All right, thank you. Moving on to the authorization to shop for replacement vehicles. Rick, who do you want to take that? Yes, the director of operations is here to present that out. Yes. So this is a memo for our district vehicle replacement and new vehicles for the engineering department and replacement vehicles for the water quality department. This memo, it is recommended that the board of directors review this memo and reject all bids that have been received and authorized by motion of the board, the district manager to shop for district vehicles. The current 2022-2023 fiscal year budget provides for the purchase of three vehicles. With the addition of a new district position of construction inspector, a fourth vehicle is needed. Two of these vehicles are replacement vehicles for water quality and the other two vehicles are new vehicles for the engineering department. Staff contacted 12 vehicle dealerships locally Southern and Northern California. The district received two bids. The lead time on these new vehicle orders is eight to 10 months. Staff has researched and looked into vehicles at various dealerships and found that there are vehicles available in stock for negotiated purchase meeting the required specifications of the district. And attached to this memo is the bid tabulations for the two bids we received. I'll take questions. Okay, let's see. I don't know, is this an item that would have gone through finance or? But this is a budgeted item. Okay, so I think I'll go Bob to you first as a member of that committee. And then I'll take your comment, Mark. Bob. Oh, no, Mark was first. Oh, I was just trying to go to the person who was responsible for the committee because I didn't actually know exactly what committee this might have come from. I'm not responsible for any committee actually. I'm not the chair of any committee. This did not go through any committee. It was a budgeted purchase. This is what happens when Gail's not here. Okay, Mark, go ahead. Okay, so we've hired a construction inspector? No, the position is still off for hire and is open until filled now. We had to go back out as we weren't able to recruit anybody from the first time. So wait, you're gonna go buy a vehicle for somebody that we're gonna hire in the future sometime? By the time we get to the meeting. Am I understanding that right? Yeah, I think as James said, we're looking at most likely a 10 month delivery or we are looking to get authorization. So at hopes that we can, at the same time we get an individual, we are really rolling out the outreach. We've enlisted our outreach firm to help us and get the word out for these positions. It should all come together about the same time. But I would participate in a vehicle sitting, waiting for someone to come. But as I'm understanding this, you wanna go directly to a dealership and negotiate and is the timeframe for that a lot less than the eight to 10 months? It is, yeah. Okay, so you can buy the vehicles now. We can buy the vehicles as soon as we get a negotiated price between the vehicles and find the vehicles that are acceptable to the district. Okay, and if you're negotiating, then you don't have pricing for us yet at this point that you can go to a dealership with, okay. Okay, so you want us to reject these bids? I think in particular, because of the timeframe aspect of the eight to 10 months. That and the price of the vehicles that was delivered to us is way over budget. What we budgeted for as the vehicles have never been back at this price. Okay, okay. Thanks for addressing my questions. Dr. Fultz? Yeah, thank you. So I mean, you know, Rick and James, once you walk in that dealership lap, they're not gonna let you off until they got your money. So you're gonna have the truck a long time before somebody's hired, I guarantee you. Yeah. Hold on your skeptical. And how they do it that we reach out and we don't actually go to the lots, but we'll reach out and say we have authorization and negotiate that way. We won't go to a lot. They're gonna reach the hand through the Zoom call or the telephone, right? But so just to make sure I'm clear about this. So we're gonna reject the bids, which is fine, eight to 10 months. I mean, that's astounding. But are you looking here for a budget increase or are you gonna buy all these vehicles for the budgeted amount? Well, we're looking to be able to purchase the three vehicles that are budgeted under the budget. And I'm not sure where the money, that's on Rick on the fourth vehicle. I don't know. We're looking to purchase within budget. All four vehicles? Yeah. I'm hearing a disconnect here. I'm not following. Rick, we're only budgeted for three vehicles. Okay. And you're asking for a fourth? Okay, so are you looking for there to be a budget increase then is what I'm hearing. That wasn't, I don't make sure I'm clear because the way you described it wasn't clear whether you were gonna do it all four for the budget or you're gonna do three and you're asking for an increase. Yeah, there's gonna have to be a budget amendment in order to purchase the new vehicle for the new construction inspector position as that was not associated with the budget when it was passed. You know, the position was open before the budget was. So are we doing a midterm budget here? So I know we're in a two year budget thing, Rick. Right, I think I would ask the board to approve tonight the purchase of the three and let us come back on the fourth on the engineering vehicle for the engineering inspector. There's a resolution needed for that and I will have better budget adjustment members. And one last question, just so I'm clear, typically things that are on the lot aren't necessarily everything that you want even though you can get them right away. So are these trucks thing gonna require any kind of aftermarket modifications or what have you to make them usable in the way that we want them to be prior to being put in service? The two service vehicles will be going up to commercial lots so they'll be built and ready. The only thing that we probably have to go out and modify is going out and get the beds right aligned inside as we like to protect our beds because we carry chemical and everything and whatnot but that is all included in the budget when we go in for the budget for the build of the trucks. And the third vehicle, no modifications required. No modifications required, it's just a small midsize pickup or a SUV and it's just as is. Right, yeah, I love the rhino liners so I got it on my truck so I'm with you on that, no argument. Okay, thanks guys. Mark. But the way I'm reading this memo in front of us, it is to reject the two bids that you put in front of us. Yes. We're not talking about authorizing funds or additional funds or a full vehicle or anything. We're not talking about that right now. Simply reject these two bids. And authorize the district manager to shop for the three vehicles that are budgeted. Normally, Mark, we would have to do a bidding process on it. We're basically saying don't bother with the bidding process. Okay, thank you for that clarification Bob. Okay. Okay. Would anyone like to move the recommendation? Here, Ackman, we do need to open it to public comment before taking the booth. Again, Gail. I'm sorry, okay. Is there any public comment on this item? I'm not seeing any hands going up. So with that, is there anyone who would like to move the recommendation? Yes, I would like to move that we reject all bids and authorize the district manager to shop for three district vehicles in accordance with the budget. Thank you. I'll second that. Great, Holly. Vice President Ackman. Yes. Director Fultz. Yes. Director Hill. Yes. Director Smalley. Yes. We can pass this. Yep. Thank you all. Sure thing. So let's see, we're on to the consent calendar. Sorry, I lost my place. I could just provide a quick reminder. If nobody wants to pull the minutes for discussion, then they will be deemed approved without any action by the board. Okay. Does anyone want to pull any of the minutes for discussion and assume that those are approved? And the next item on the agenda would be district reports. So, Rick, do you have anything to report? I'll just give a quick update. It's kind of a, I guess I call it a soft milestone that the county is working and getting ready to submit the draft part of the application and has included Barrack Creek Estates wastewater into the CSA 7 upgrade, which is taking wastewater from downtown Boulder Creek and Barrack Creek Estates out to the golf course and treat it on an upgrade project. To me, it's a major milestone at the county has actually put the district's Barrack Creek in the application and we'll be submitting it. So that's a great move forward. It has a long, long sunset to where all this will go through, but it is a milestone. Thank you, Mark. So, if this is successful, does that mean that the district can get out of the wastewater treatment process? Eventually, you know, it goes through, but that's the direction we're going. And I do believe, Carly, if you correct me if I'm wrong real quick, I know this is not a real action item, but I do believe that it would lower the, it's estimated to lower the monthly or the annual service charge for to what about $1,1100 a year, which is considerably less than what they're paying out as being part of that project. That's great. Bob, yes, the long suffering Barrack Creek estates. Well, I really appreciate the county doing that because the alternatives that were examined were completely unaffordable. I mean, there was no way 50-some people were gonna be able to afford that. And since the county took high tech septic and step systems off the table, you know, it's sort of this, well, what do you do? It's unaffordable in one hand and made out of unobtainium on the other. So this is really a great step forward for them to kind of get us back into the obtainium where there's a solution, hopefully, that'll happen someday. Pardon me for just a second. I think this is such a big topic that there's a risk for, you know, going too in depth into it, which we can't do for Brown Act reasons. So I'm sorry, I stepped on your toes, Rick, but. Fine, that's good. I understand. More to follow. Okay, well, that's good news. Thank you. You have, we have in our packets, the department status reports. Do any of the board members have questions about any of the specific reports contained in our packets? Bob, go for it. I do, but in the interest of time, I'm gonna make it really shorter. Just clarifications and pardon my ignorance here, but in addition to the lion tank pipe project, what is the other 2019 project that's still outstanding, Rick? Can we go to Rick? I'll ask the district engineer to speak to that. We have a project actually from 2017, the lion slide, which we are still going back and forth with FEMA on. No, I'm talking about the 2019 certificates of participation, 14.5 million, 15 million for a set of projects assigned by resolution. And I'm, I saw on here the lion pipe, but I don't think I saw any of the other projects. Are they, I don't think they're all done. Are they? Yes. The Quail Hollow is just getting complete. I know. I know. California drive pipelines are done. And there was a whole creek. I thought there was one other. So the only one left off that then is the, is the, is the new lion pipe down, down to downtown. All right. And engineering is getting ready to go out to bid for that project. Okay, right. And then on the other one, the form and intake and pipeline. Maybe I'm confused here, but didn't we already bury the pipe for forming? We did bury the pipe already. That is correct. What we've gone out for is erosion control and some grading or design to prevent any debris flow from heading down towards the Boulder Brook neighborhood. It might be helpful to clarify that in future reports if it does come on there. I appreciate the clarification. I was sort of sitting there going, maybe I had a senior moment and I forgot that we didn't put it in, but I was pretty sure we did. Okay. And then yes, good news on the quail hollow or super highway, Rick is almost in place. Yep. The lion zone and engineering is doing its final touches on review with operations and we'll be out to bid. And I mean, that's going to be huge for being able to move water around with respect to our new water rights that we hope someday we'll get. Great. Thank you. Okay. Are there any other comments from board members on the department reports or committee reports seeing none. We are going to adjourn to closed session again. So Gina, is there anything unusual we need to do here to at the end of the meeting? I mean, this is not a process we usually take but as noted on the agenda, there's four items and so we anticipated we wouldn't finish them. And so there's nothing special that we need to do other than we already had the public comment period on the closed session. And then this all we need to do is adjourn to closed session and then once we're done, at least a couple of us need to come back to make a report out in the zoom meeting if there's any report out. So we don't know when exactly we'll be done with closed session, but if you want to come hang around and come back, we'll be reporting out at the end of this. So thank you, see you in a few minutes.