 Okay. Well, I have 630. So, hello, everyone. I'd like to convene this meeting on August 18th, 2022. The Board of Directors of the San Lorenzo Valley Water District. We have a roll call vote. Please, Holly. Not vote. Just the roll call. Can't hear you, Holly. No, I'm sorry. I was still muted. President Mayhood. Here. Vice President Ackman. Here. Director Falls. Here. Director Hill. Here. Director Smalley. Here. Okay. Are there any additions or deletions to the agenda? A staff has none, Chair. Okay. This is the time in our meeting where we have oral communications from the public on items that are within the purview of the district but are not listed on the agenda. Do we have any, I see that we have a couple of attendees and one hand up. So let's go ahead and hear from Grover Stone. Go ahead, Grover. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay. I don't, I don't think my camera is working. So I'm. That's okay. The important thing is we can hear you. Okay. I'm, I'm speaking to follow up on an email that I sent on August 16th about a vacant lot that I own on Clear Creek Road 11887 Clear Creek Road. This previously had a residential structure on it, but it burned in the CVC you fire. Together with the meter, I believe. And we did not receive any bills for quite some time, but the last two months we've been billed $45 a month. For what I under what I'm told is is meter maintenance. But we're not getting any water. We don't have a structure. There is no meter to maintain. And so I'm hoping that the board will be able to rectify this, this inequity. Okay. Can you respond to that? I have received Mr. Stones. Email. I'm not really prepared to discuss, but it's a little more complicated than that. And it's not agendized. There was a structure. That was destroyed by fire before CZU, approximately, I think a year before, and he was given a three year waiver. He was now expired. He was not included, but then also that it burned again. In the CZU. It's my understanding he already had a previous waiver. I think I can handle this administratively. And put him on the CZU fire waiver without bringing this to the board. I just got the email yesterday. And it's working through the process. We are working on it. So I may I just like to correct the record on that. What happened previously was a tenant damaged the structure to the extent that it wasn't habitable any longer. And we asked for a waiver to repair the premises, which we did, but then the repaired president premises were were burned in the CZU fire. And then I my understanding is that apparently you can't get a second waiver you can, you can only you're only entitled to have one waiver and we had that because of the tenant damage. We just haven't had a chance to let it run its course Mr. Stone, because there was already a previous waiver that's why that waiver expired and then the office automatically started billing and didn't realize that then again it was destroyed by CZU. So I just have to go through it and I want to double check the legal counsel. I just haven't had a chance to do that and I should be able to do that administratively and the board should not have to act on it. So I'll get back to you at the beginning of next week. Okay. Okay. All right, thank you. I do have two items for the president's report. I think that the grand jury report was submitted there. I think that some staff person did a comparison of all of the water districts and agencies that sent them in and there was a striking alignment of all the responses on this, which I, which I thought was very encouraging given that we didn't, you know, collude in any way. Pretty much all came to the same conclusion about this. The second item is to just make an announcement that some of the staff of the Santa Margarita groundwater agency has scheduled a workshop on managed aquifer recharge of which aquifer storage and recovery is one subset for September 7th from until 530pm. I don't think the district has gotten invitations yet they've just gone out to Santa Margarita but I'll make sure that they go out to all of our board members and that will announce this will will put it on our website so that our our ratepayers can see it. I think the hope was is that some fraction of of our board could go and I think the hope of Perrette and Rosemary was that there would be sort of an acquired common language so that everybody would know what we were talking about when it came time in late this year to start talking about projects that we want to put forward to for this proposal that will be on the order of $7 to $8 million from Santa Margarita for which we would get some significant change. So, go ahead. Yeah, on that. Is there any any concerns. Gina, if our board, three or more of our board members attend that on Brown Act, we need to notice that board Santa Margarita will notice that as a meeting. It becomes a little bit problematic if three or more directors are going to actively participate. The directors are not participating in the sense that there's no discussion this is considered. They've invited outside speakers. It's considered an educational thing so I think this would be more like if all of our board showed up to learn about fisheries biology or something it and not discuss it we're just learning I don't see this as a Brown Act issue. Okay, I agree. If it's an educational program and there's no discussion of district business along three or more directors there wouldn't be a Brown Act problem. Bob, we can we can have brief questions about this but we can't discuss because it's not agendized. Yeah just just clarification I did get an invite and when you talked about the topics. This is referring to injection injection wells correct. As one of the topics just so I'm clear. I'm sorry would you say that again my dogs are barking and I couldn't hear you. No worries. One of the topics would be a discussion about injection wells correct. I don't think that we're getting anywhere near where we would be talking about the specifics of where injection wells would go. What, what, as I understand it there would be general discussions of based on experiences and other districts, other places in the country of. What are the things that you have to look out for in terms of operating injection wells and and so that. No, we're not. We are so far in Santa Marta Rita from talking about even whether we would have them let alone where we would put them, but we're still going to get educated on yes, yes. Sure. Okay, great. Go ahead Jeff. Real quick, could you just repeat the date again. Yes, it's September 7. 230 to 530 it will be recorded so if people can't make it on that weekend day. It will be available. And if you haven't received something Jeff, let me know it might be because you're a new member of the board you may not be on the Santa Margarita list yet. Did other board members besides Bob received. Well, you did because you're Santa Margarita, right. No, I didn't. Yeah, okay, so something's odd. All right, I'll, I'll, I'll check on that make sure that everybody's included. And September 7 is a Tuesday Wednesday. Okay, sorry, Wednesday. All right. Did I get that right then, Rick. Not that we do a Wednesday. Maybe I got the date wrong. Well, player here it starts 97 at 230 to 530 Wednesday the 7th. Okay. Okay. Jamie and I had no say in the timing of this. I just want to say. Yeah, okay. Great timing. All right, so first thing is unfinished business with our perennial remote meeting authorization. Gina, do you feel like you need to yet again. I don't think there's any meaningful updates at this time in turn in terms of the bases for renewing the remote meeting authorization. Can I have a motion. One quick. Sorry. So no smoke signals from Sacramento about doing away with it or anything like that. If there are smoke signals, I haven't learned how to read them yet. So my apologies, I'll work on that but I don't have any updates. Okay, we're predictions. And we have a motion. The recommendation to ratify and read up the resolution number four for another 30 days from today's date. Oh, second. Thank you. Holly, you want to take a roll call vote on that. President may good. Hi. Vice President Ackman. Yes. Director falls. Yes. Director Hill. Yes. Director Smalley. Yes. Okay, passes unanimously. We moved to our first item of new business, which is the conjunct abuse project, the budget for the study. Great. Thank you. I'll go ahead and take this. All right. So this, this budget not only includes the completion of the process, but also the permitting and studies associated with the project, the legal review of the secret document. Water rights changes and updates to the conjunctive use plan itself. So the draft review refers to improving the district surface water and groundwater supplies through conjunctively managing water resources while improving stream base flows for fish. In August, the board reviewed the updated project description and approved the project description with subject to further edits to complete the project description a budget of approximately $13,000 was approved by the board in 2021. And then the budget has been expended and the project description as I just described has been approved by the board to complete the full EIR process and additional budget needs to be approved. So included in this memo attached as exhibit a are legal costs associated with completing the EIR process with support and review by attorneys with sequel expertise. These costs range from approximately $43,000 to $64,000 dependent on the hours needed. As the dashes exhibit be are the costs associated with the project's fisheries biologist and author of the conjunctive use plan to update the conjunctive use plan guide the district through water rights and permitting processes and support fisheries related studies to complete the EIR. This total is $40,000. The total costs to complete the EIR are the cost of ring con consultants to complete the EIR document and process. The original $13,000 approved to complete the project description has been removed from the total cost, making the contract amendment for approval approximately $132,000. So the total costs for the consultants to assist the district in completing the EIR and other associated tasks involved with the conjunctive use plan are our 236,000 and $308. So it is recommended that the board of directors review this memo approved the updated budget for the district's conjunctive use plan EIR and authorize the district manager and to enter into professional service contract amendments and not to exceed amounts of $132,000 and $58 with ring con $64,000 and $250 with my public staff is prepared to answer any questions that the board may have. Thank you, Jamie. Carly, I was thinking ahead to asking Jamie if you have any questions to begin the discussion. I guess nothing that was a surprise to me in any of this. I did wonder in the budget for the EIR. What kind of public scoping meeting are we holding and is that something, you know, that we're going to have to do like, you know, advertising and notification around. So how many days in advance are we going to have to do that? So kind of like, what's the timing for that? Do we have any sense of it? Right, that's a good question. As far as the timing, I believe there's a certain period that needs to be noticed as part of the CEQA process. But that is included in ring con scope and will be either able to hold it as part of a regular board of directors meeting or we can also hold a special meeting. And I can get you the exact dates that we need for that scheduling. And I don't know if Gina knows that off the top of. I don't know it off the top of my head, but I'm looking right now to see if I can get an answer. Okay, that's it for me. Thanks. Bob, did you have any comments or questions? I do. Carly, any grant possibilities for helping from potentially we're actually looking into grant funding as part of the Santa Margarita Ground Water Agency's DWR grants that we're pursuing. So we're hoping to find some funding through that. And then as far as the upgrades and actual infrastructure changes like the treatment plant upgrades, that's definitely eligible for funding. So once we get through further into the process, we'll definitely be pursuing funding for the infrastructure. Yeah, no, I get I get that I was wanting this. Okay. And my understanding by reading this is that still water is basically doing a peer review on Mike. Publix work. Exactly. Okay. And is there any advantage to going out to bid on this potentially, I think the issue at this point just because we've already gone through the initial difficulty with Brincon, it would be difficult to bring someone on board and really get us started quickly. I think the advantage going with Brincon at this point is that they're familiar with the project and we'd be able to hopefully move it along pretty quickly or relatively quickly. So, so really the reasons for not going to bid are speed and project familiarity at a deep level which somebody knew would have to come up the speed on and that would take more time. Exactly. Okay. I did want to just, you know, once again, sorry, comment that, you know, there's a line in here about significant concerns were raised during the public review period. I want to say once again, those concerns were primarily the city of Santa Cruz, and a few of the other regulatory agencies, not anybody from the public. I think the public clearly understands, at least the vast majority of the public clearly understands the advantages of shifting water to surface water to areas like Scots Valley where we're on groundwater, or at least historically have been in order to make maximum use of surface water during rainy times. Thereby, not using wells as much that'll help the groundwater situation, and by being efficient and how we shift water around from various sources to various destinations we can also help improve the flow for the fish. I wish that the agencies that had commented on this had recognized that timing is important here, the longer it goes, the less benefit either the fish or the people get. And I am disappointed that we weren't able to work this out without having to go through the time and expense of an EIR process. But here we are and I'm in favor of moving forward. Thank you, Bob. Jeff, did you have any questions or comments? Overall, I'm strongly in favor of this. Quick question though, where does this fit in the budget? Where is this, where are these funds coming from? That's a great question. Rick, would you be able to weigh in on that? I believe we did budget, but not for that high of an amount originally. And I don't know what the amount was. So this is an adjustment to the budget of some sort, yes. This would be an adjustment. Does this fall under capital expense or under operating expense or have we determined that yet? I'd have to look to see where we budgeted, if we, I'm not quite sure if we budgeted under capital. I don't think so, but I'll double check that and get an answer back to the board. Yeah, in the past, I believe it was the environmental departments budget. Okay. It seems to me that it should be charged to capital expenses because we wouldn't be doing this. We're trying to build something. And I think the closer we get to that, the more it goes into capital as opposed to operating. Yes. So I, I, if it isn't there now, let's make it there. Okay. Mark. I have a number of questions. Nosamans budget makes assumptions for what the sequel consultant will do. And others. I see similar statements in all three proposals of, we assume that others are doing this. I want to make, I want to confirm that all of these assumptions of working done by others is appropriately covered by the team that we have here. And I want to know if you've had discussions along that level with yet Carly with. Gina and your, and your budget with the others. Was that referring to people other agencies and during the comment period or I would have to look at the budget. I'm trying to look right now and see where others appears. It's, it's, it's not just work being done by others. It's also the, we assume that this is being done by the sequel consultant. And or, and others. And I see some similar statements in at least our RIN cons. And I think politics also. I just want to make sure that we don't have to go get a contract from the buy others consulting company to do the work that's covered by others here for an additional $25,000. Right. I can't imagine what the others would be referring to without spending a little more time looking at each. Okay, then a little harder, but then I, then I do request. If the board approves this, one of the first things in your process as part of a kickoff meeting, not with each of the individuals, but with the team. Before you have that kickoff meeting. Circulate the proposals from Nossam and to the other two from public to the other two, so that they can all see what each of the other team members are committing to do. And what the other team members are expecting to be done by either the secret consultant or others to make sure that there are no gaps. At least, you know, going in the front. Okay, yep, that's easily done. Luckily, all the members of this team or all these consultants have worked together through the great abuse. Yes, study and writing of the plan. So, okay, he's familiar. Okay. My second is on the on the budget amount for Nossam and it's a range between 43 and 60 60 something. And I understand that you can't predict the number of, of hours at this point going into this. What if we authorize this for the total amount of the 64 to 50. I think it's very likely that that's at least what will be spent. I don't think it's appropriate to put some cap on it, instead of that range, such as a midpoint of 50,000. I don't think we have an issue with that, you know, that's what the board desires, we certainly could do that and then come back. Without hindering the staff. So that if it does it. So that we're setting up a target that's lower than that full 64 to 250. And, and if Nossam and team sees they need to go over that, come back for a discussion with the staff. I think the board authorizing staff to have that discussion, if you see that the justice, if it's justified, go ahead with it. So by here you mark what you're saying is we put a cap of 50,000 on Nossam and and we see we're going over staff can make the decision or do you want. Yes, I'm comfortable with staff making that decision. I'm not comfortable with that. Okay. Okay. Well, I guess the logic of this then fails me because if you're comfortable with the stop making that decision. Then just arbitrarily there's no reason to set it right because staff at any time could say you know what Nossam and we're 50 and we think that's enough. So the only thing that would make sense is if you want to require it to come back to the board. Because the staff at all times could do what you're, you're, you're saying, and I guess I would feel pretty strongly that I won't I don't want to come back to the board to authorize you know $10,000. I agree. I don't want this to come back to the board. I agree with that. So, I think I guess what I'm hearing is that you just basically want the staff to take it under advisement that they will keep an eye on this and hopefully target something but I think at you know our job as a board is to set as in the recommendation and not to yes, yes, yeah. And I would hope that budgets attract on a monthly basis. This is already accumulated that way so that we can see that your ideally 50% of the way complete with the work but only 40% expended on budget or something like that. That's that's how we do it. Okay. All right. We will keep track of we keep track of all consultants budgets that way. You know, we don't want to exceed a contract. Right. We don't want to exceed a contract in front of it. So yeah, that's no problem. Okay. On page 16 of the agenda packet. Which is part of POTL X proposal. There's a reference that the analysis of our district's lock loam and allotment. It may need to be done at some point in the future. When is that? Could you be a little more specific mark about what you're referring to? Sure. It's in it's in the last paragraph. I'm searching for that right now. Right underneath the cost estimate I do believe. Yeah, right underneath the cost estimate. He argues that the district did not analyze this. He continues to maintain that we don't need to. However, if such an analysis is ultimately required. My question is, well, who's going to decide when. If that part of the analysis is required. And staff going into this. You know, when Santa Cruz made their comments on the draft plan. They listed many comments that. Staff feels they just kept piling on. We don't agree with this to do this analysis. We, we feel this Santa Cruz's responsibility, not the district. They should have done it with their process. So as it is stands now, the district is not willing to take on that analysis. Okay. Okay. Since we've done a lot of other work with public, do we have his labor rates? Is this a time and materials estimate that we're getting from him? Because we don't see unlike with Nossam and's estimate. And rent cons. Any projected amount of hours. This is just dollar figures. Right. So that, that is based on his hourly rate. And I believe, like he said, the hours and the rate aren't displayed. I can't get that from him. That's. I don't need to see it, but I would like to make sure that you do. So that you have an idea of what, because I've had a consultant once submit. Bill for one of the tasks. And I said, but just spent three hours. That's okay. We saw that this task was going to cost $5,000. That's what you got to pay us. We'll get an hourly rate and attach it to the purchase order and contract. Okay. Okay. Public does include his hours and the rate on his invoices. Yeah. On the other projects. Okay. Okay. On page. 28. Task two project description. This is on Rincon's estimate. I thought the board already reviewed. The budget for the project. That was a fairly, fairly complete project description. Which we authorized. 13,000 for. Right. That's correct. So we just took the original proposal and just took out the cost for the task to, which was the $13,000. So anything that pertains to the project description has been removed from the budget that we asked for tonight. So it would just be an amendment to the contract we awarded at the end of the month. On page 28. Of the agenda. Project description. Has a line item of. 8,171 dollars. And 46 hours. We did have to pull in. Project management hours as well as part of that budget. So it wasn't just the project description. There was a few other pieces. But we did have the breakdown. I don't, I didn't include it in this. This item. So I apologize about that, but we did break it out so they could complete the project description. In the kickoff meeting. I believe the other cost was the kickoff meeting as well. Gina, did you go ahead? I'm just wondering. I have a couple of questions here. To point out, is it correct partly that that 13,000 was deducted from the 14540. 449. That's correct. That. Attachment. Does that answer your question, Mark? Um. If the. So the 13,000 being deducted from the. Total 145. 8,000. The 8,000 figure that we're seeing there. Is part of that 13 already. Correct. So they're not doing further additional work. For the. Project description. For another $8,000 worth of work. It's done. Okay. That's correct. Okay. I was misinterpreting. That portion of the line. Okay. Those are all the questions I have. Thank you. Jeff. Okay. So I'd like to go back to page 16 here. Which Mark was referring to. On the. Question of whether or not this. Additional analysis is required. It's my understanding that. One of our points of disagreement with the city of Santa Cruz is exactly how this water would be pulled. And where it would be stored. And how it would be sent back. And this seems to. When I read this paragraph. It seems that their objection to this is. Or their. Issue here was that an analysis was needed. And we say, no, it isn't because of a particular reason. A particular. Method of. Taking the water and storing it. But I. It's my understanding. We don't have an agreement with them on what method would be used to take and store it. And where it would be stored. So. Great. So this is actually directly referring to the city's habitat conservation plan. And what they're doing for fisheries and bypass. Okay. Gina, is it okay to talk about this? Certainly it is. I just wanted to add that. I think this is going to be one of the first things that are seen. Legal team is going to look at. With the district and the ring con consultants. Yeah. This needs to be looked at because. Okay. Good. It's my understanding that, you know, we are not in agreement with them on where we would pull the water and where it would be stored. And until that is done, we really can't decide whether. Additional analysis is needed or not. And that's what we're going to look at. I think, Jeff, I would dispute that a little bit. I think our position is that we have a contractual right to that water. And that is doing that. No, I know, but what I'm saying is that it, that it is not our problem to solve. In terms of when we take the water or whatever. In other words, we have a contractual right and we can take it anytime we want. It is Santa Cruz's problem. To figure out the impact depending on the time or where. And we do not want to get into the job of dealing with that because that is like, has an infinite possibility of, of combinations of when, where, and how. And so, this is not a road we want to go down. And I like, I feel really strongly on that. And, you know, until it becomes absolutely clear. That there's something that we have to do. So. Okay. That's enough. Okay. Mark is in front of me. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. I didn't, I couldn't tell which was which. All right, Mark. Go ahead. Is it appropriate that. When it comes to having the EI. Are completed. And comments are submitted. If the city is still in disagreement. We don't have to fully resolve their comments. That's right. It will go on to the state. From there. The state's reviewers. Can. Then either approve. Or review those. Save further work needs to be done. Right. And who knows what we, you know, we may have to go back and do some of these things, but. We should. Presuppose that we have to. Right. And. Santa Cruz is not in the driver's seat to decide whether we have to or not. State reviewers would be. Okay. Well, it may still be a forlorn hope, but I would very much like to think that we. Would be able to find a way for Santa Cruz and. San Lorenzo Valley to actually collaborate and things that, that would be a benefit to. The overall community or groundwater and our surface water and do so in a way that. Doesn't continue to extract lots and lots of money out of the rate payers pockets. Perhaps. We can get there someday. I certainly know I would like to be there. So I'm. I'm hopeful that we will be able to find a way for Santa Cruz and San Lorenzo Valley to actually collaborate and things that that would be a benefit to. I'm hopeful Rick that you and staff will. Maybe be able to get us there and. And hopefully Rosemary and her team can come to the table in the same way. I didn't want to just ask a quick question about storage, because if we take the water out of block moment, it's like, well. Storage. I mean, we got tanks. But. There's no storage beyond that. They're the storage and we're taking it out when we need it. So I'm not even sure how that's. Relevant. The process unless. We're trying to figure out some way to backdoor injection wells. They are. Well, let's just. Let's just get it all out on the table instead of and just, you know, have a discussion about it rather than trying to do these. Backdoor things where, you know, we're trying to do this, that, and the other. I think the community should definitely be involved in that kind of a. A very straightforward, transparent. You know, minimize the politics. Just look at the science and expense, not only capital, but operating and all the rest of it and come to a conclusion. If they want to do it. Great. Any more comments by members of the board before I go out to the public. Let's see, we have a, okay, go ahead, Mark. I'd like to make a motion before we go out to the public. Sure. If that's okay. That's all right. I'd like to make a motion that. The board approved. The recommendation is put for us. Put forth in front of us. To authorize the district manager to enter into professional services contract. Amendments. In the not to exceed amounts of. 132,000. $58 with RIN con. 64,000, 250 with Nassau and. And 40,000 with Mike Podleck. I second it. Okay, so now we'll go and ask members of the public. Which is a grand total of two right now. Whether they would like to comment. On this mark and Bruce, would you like to comment? Raise your hand if you would. Okay. I don't see hands raised. So are there any final questions or comments before members of the board before we go to a vote? Okay, go ahead. Holly. May good. Hi. Vice president. Yes. Rector falls. Yes. Director Hill. Yes. Director Smalley. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Well, I'll pass this on to the board. Thank you, sir. And I'll pass this unanimously. Next item of new business is the recommendation to award construction of the. 2021 capital improvement. Projects pipeline project. And the district engineers here to present this item. To the board. Thank you, Rick. Good evening all. This one's a bit of a dizzy. that we've taken on certainly that I know of. This project entails a variety of proactive facility improvements as opposed to the CZU fire recovery sorts of things that we've been doing a lot of lately. I'm going to enumerate them a little bit and then I will make my recommendation to the board. First is a new 120,000 gallon active storage bank at Blue Ridge which is intended to provide improved potable water supply to Blue Ridge Zone as well as improved fire protection. Next is replacement of mains in the Hermosa and Fernwood and Oak area off of Glen Arbor where currently we have a large quantity of leaky pipe that is problematic and is eating huge amounts of staff time to address. So that's all going to be updated. We'll be replacing undersized mains in Orman Road. Currently the main up there is a two-inch main that has an aerial creek crossing that has been exceedingly problematic over the years. We will be eliminating that creek crossing and replacing the main up to the top of Orman which is going to improve both pressure and flow for all of the residents as well as significantly improving fire protection. We will also be adding at least one hydrant in that location possibly two depending on the condition of one of the existing hydrants which we will determine when we get there. We'll be replacing undersized mains in the Juanita Woods neighborhood. It's going to improve flow and pressure of potable water to the neighborhood there. It's going to improve fire protection vastly. Again we're going from a two-inch main which is wildly undersized to an eight-inch and adding a couple of hydrants. As a side effect of that the folks in the neighborhood will, after being unhappy about the construction project, be very happy about their new road. It's just part of the cost of doing business there. We will, as the final portion of this, be replacing the main running from East Zioni Road up Zioni Drive to the Lompeco Intertie. This particular main is existing as a four-inch which is insufficient to supply the intertie and is frankly insufficient to supply potable water to that neighborhood and certainly not enough for fire protection. We'll be upgrading to an eight-inch as has become our district standard. This will have an additional benefit beyond the potable water improvements and fire protection improvements of reducing the noise from our intertie because we'll be able to reduce, excuse me, we'll be able to eliminate our day tank which is going to move one of the noisier parts of that system. It's just going to remove it which is going to have the pleasant side effect of making the folks up there a lot happier about the level of noise. This project came in at, let's see here, a little bit as I get to the correct place is $5,023,379.57 from an outfit called JMB construction. There's two things here I'd like to address. The first is where is that money coming from? That is planned to come from the $15 million COP loan and in comparing this cost of just over $5 million to the projected cost from before my time here but from when we put this loan together that cost was estimated to be 5.8 million plus a 15 percent contingency leading to 6.7 million roughly. So this bid has come in well under that. Recent experience has told us that by the time we can get pipe those costs will have gone up. I imagine we will end up much closer to the original estimate but at least we're starting lower. The second thing that I'd like to address in terms of JMB construction because we have not done business with this contractor in the past, I and members of my staff have spent a significant amount of time looking into their background due to diligence work. I've had extensive conversations with representatives from San Francisco's PUC, East Bay MUD, the city of Berlin game and the city of San Bruno each of which has used JMB successfully for projects on this scale or larger. In addition I've had some conversations with a couple of engineering firms with whom the district has experienced, Sandis and Frayer Loretta who have also had experience with JMB construction on previous projects where those engineering firms were acting as construction managers or as engineering support. And I'm happy to report that across the entirety of my research feedback has been just really good. It's been uniformly quite positive. More than one owner's representative has said to me, if JMB is on your project, you're a lucky man. Which well, you know, discounting for they may have had a particularly good experience is still a pretty positive recommendation. Based on that, I have provided a motion for the board and recommend that this project be awarded to JMB construction in the amount of $5,023,379.57. With that, I will cheerfully take questions. Thank you, Josh. We'll go ahead and start with Mark who's the chair of the engineering and environmental committee. I was going to pose the question, did you talk to any references that were not on the reference list? But you've already addressed that. So great. Good. I don't have any other questions. This proposal or motion looks good to me. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Bob, you're also on that committee. Yes, thank you. I just had to click my mute off. Okay. So I want to make a few comments and then ask a question. Actually, two questions. So the Zioni Road project, Josh, is that part of actually, this is more of a question, but is that part of the Lompeco Assessment District funding? There are two parts to that answer. This project does benefit the Lompeco Assessment District because it directly benefits Lompeco, but it also directly benefits the Zioni Drive neighborhood, which is below the intertide and does not part of Zion or not part of Lompeco. And my understanding is that none of the funding for this project is coming from the Lompeco Assessment District. Well, that's not exactly what I asked. So is this project part of what was originally included in the Lompeco Assessment District funding? That is a question I will need to defer to Rick. It looks like Rick has his hand up ready to answer that question. And he's on mute. Rick is still muted. There we go. Yes, Bob, you're correct. That project is part of the Lompeco Assessment District. It was outlined in the Lab Co-Resolution. As you know, we've expensed all the Lompeco Assessment District funds, so the district will be paying for this out of the loan. Right. And so I believe then that this outside of the service line, this represents the last project in the Lompeco Assessment District promises that we made. We've done the P we've done the tanks. We've done the PRVs. We're now doing this line. We didn't have to do the treatment system. The only thing left is the service lines. That's correct. Great. I had a comment here about the number of bidders. So Josh, I think your strategy of bundling a bunch of things together makes a lot of sense because when I look at these bidders here, these are, I mean, these are the kind of people we want to bid on these projects. And I'm really happy that we got as many of them as we did. I noticed that at least three of them are previous, are companies that have done work for us in the past. So, you know, this is a really good thing. I did have a question about JMD construction, though. All of the locations you talked about are what I would call sort of urban areas, right? You know, our roads are not urban. What experience do they have working in our kind of environment? Valid question. And let me flip back through my notes to my conversations with one specific member. Let's see. It was Brisbane. When I spoke to the folks at Brisbane, they did mention that the work that had been done, what it includes some work up in the hills of Brisbane, which granted, not one lane roads like we have, not roads in the condition that we have. However, they are, they are experienced with tight roads, tight corners, traffic control that's associated with it. And honestly, that's my biggest concern in those types of areas is safety and that's traffic control. And to that extent, I believe that they have relevant experience in terms of are they used to dealing with the sometimes cantankerous people that they might run into on our mountainous roads? I don't know. And honestly, I have no way of knowing. Well, I mean, it was an interesting thing for me because for $150,000, you know, we're sort of going with somebody that's not known to us anyway. So I wanted to make sure that all of that was checked out and that we think they're going to, because we don't want to have another, you know, sort of not great experience. No, after feeling like I had pushed us in the direction of a particular contractor that did not work on a previous project, I felt a little burned by that. And I feel like I got everyone else burned as well, you know, the district as a whole in the trouble with that. And I feel like I did my due diligence on it, but it still didn't work out the way I wanted it to. So I've put a little extra time in on this, particularly in terms of how well does this contractor work with changes to their expectations? And how well does this contractor deal with specific direction from an engineering firm or from a construction manager that may or may not be obvious to a contractor who's got his shovel in the ground? And again, uniformly, it has been positive. They have been presented to me as very much a can do kind of company. And if it were two people telling me that or three people telling me that, I'd still be suspicious. It's not. It's close to a dozen. Well, you know, the real good upside in this, Josh, assuming that works out the way we expect is it will have another company that we have experienced with and that has experience up here. And as you know, I'm very interested in making sure we expand the breadth of betters on these kinds of projects. I think we'll get better pricing. And I think that's reflected in the fact that this cost here is under what we had originally projected. Could you explain for us in the public what is in the agreement with them relative to how quickly we can get materials? And if there's another eight or nine months delay, what's going to happen to cause? The escalation clauses. We have two clauses that we have recently added to our general conditions. Gina, thank you very much for your help on this. It has been invaluable. One clause is related to cost of materials, specifically ductile iron pipe. I limited the escalation clause to ductile iron pipe and related fittings because one, that's the vast majority of what we're going to be paying for in terms of materials. And two, all of those things have a common factor in that they can be related directly to an indexed price. In this case, we're looking at the scrap steel index price, which I can dig up some documentation for you, if you'd like, show you the graphs. The ductile iron pipe costs mirror the cost fairly closely, or at least mirror the changes fairly closely to scrap steel. So what we have done is set up a clause in the general conditions that says once the cost of materials exceeds 5% greater than what the contractor bid that based on with the contractor having provided us with the quote they got from their supplier at the time of bid, then we say to them, whatever the percentage difference is between the cost of the scrap steel index price at the day of bid closing and the day that materials arrive on site, whatever that percentage is, we will allow them to mark up their materials that percent. We don't want them having to pay for the change in materials costs, but we also don't want to have to pay extra. So that's how we've laid that out. It's the opinion of staff that ancillary materials, concrete, asphalt, that sort of thing, while those prices can change, we could end up on the hook for those changes. Those changes are unlikely to be of any real significance. The other piece of this is labor. Labor changes are fairly easy to track, because everything we do requires conformance with prevailing wage in the stable. So there's a fixed prevailing wage, and if a contractor comes to us and says, hey, it took eight months to get pipe in that time, prevailing wage for this area has changed, it has gone from this number to this number plus 3% or whatever the change is, then we will agree to a markup of their costs, of their labor costs, of that percentage so that we are still paying them the current at the time the project is done, the work is done prevailing wage. So those are the two pieces that we've put in to protect the district from unreasonable cost increases based on delay. Excellent. Thank you for going through that. I think that's important for all of us, and more importantly, the public to hear about what we've done. It sounds to me like you've done a lot of diligence in this, Josh. Thank you for doing that. And I'm going to hope that pipe will come in maybe quicker or at least not worse than what we're seeing right now, and that we can come in under that $6.7 million. If we can keep coming in under our original estimates, that means more money for other projects. Thanks, lunch. Thank you. Hey, Jamie, any questions or comments? No, thank you. Jeff. Not really a question, but an observation. The difference between JMB and the next lowest bidder for the total project is 3.1%, which was pretty close. But I went through the portion of the contract. I don't know if you can see this. The bid schedule of value is for the two. And curiously enough, and maybe this reflects that the different companies have different sets of experience in different areas of expertise, but there's some rather large variances from one company to another on individual line items. It all adds up to almost exactly the same. But to give you an example, we talked earlier about traffic and road closures. JMB has $280,000 listed in there for traffic and road closures. The next lowest bidder has $100,000. Then if you go, there's a line item here, points of connection to existing system one-inch services, and they're supposedly bidding on 130 connections. JMB has that at $388,000. The next lowest bidder has that at $585,000. So the one bidder is higher on this, lower on that, and vice versa. It all came out in the wash to 3.1%. But it's interesting to see how the costs vary by line item and how they arrived at their pricing. I don't know how to make an impact on that for us, but it's an interesting observation. What I was looking for was to see if somebody had made some gross mistake or something like that. And we didn't see that. That is one of the things that I also look through everything for, because the last thing we want is to find ourselves on the hook for several hundred thousand dollars because there was an arithmetic error that I didn't catch. In a little insight, if you will, into how contractors bid, different contractors will, as you noted, choose to emphasize different line items. They will choose to bury costs that they don't want to talk about, what costs that are not specifically called out as bid items in different locations. Some will put it into mobilization. Some would rather put those extra costs into traffic control. Some would rather put them into something that is not a lump sum, whether that's services, as you pointed out, or costs per linear foot of pipe, or pretty much anything, connections to the existing system. My philosophy on that is I want to go through the bid schedule and make sure that it is internally consistent. Each of the contractor's bids is internally consistent. And then I want to look at the bottom line. Once I know that none of them have missed anything and none of them have made any obvious arithmetic errors or left anything out or added anything in, then it feels to me like the bottom line comparison is really the one we care about. There are certain things that, as unit costs, could be large factors because of a large number of units. A very small change in cost per linear foot of pipe on a 7,000 linear foot project can be pretty significant. So that is a thing that I do keep an eye on. But I think that, just thinking about how contractors put their bids together, it is a combination of, as you noted, different areas of expertise. Some guys can get particular jobs done more efficiently because of greater experience level or particular crews or location or what have you. And where particular companies want to essentially add in things that are not actually bid items but need to be part of the project. So I hope that clears things up more than muddies them further. That's kind of what I expected. But it was just interesting to see. One of these guys is obviously much better at paving than the other one, for example. Yes. I guess it's my turn. And I thank you for that short course in construction bidding that you actually educated me a lot. I enjoyed hearing about that, Josh. That was a lot of insight. I also just have to say that I am thrilled that we're talking about something that is not the CCU fire or some other putting out a brush fire that we're actually making progress on these capital improvement things. That we've talked about so long. And I think we should give our staff, and for that matter ourselves, a little bit of a pat on the back that despite all the other things that we're having to deal with, we're finally making progress on these capital projects that will make life better for all the folks in the valley. So thank you so much, Josh, to you and all the other staff that have worked hard on this. And also to Mark, I know you've put a lot of effort into it too. And Bob, your involvement with the committee. So bravo. Any comments from the public? I don't see any. Is there a motion? Yes. I'd like to make motion. The board directed district manager to enter into a contract with GMB construction incorporated for construction activities related to the 2021 CIP pipeline project in conformance with the GMB construction incorporated bid in the amount of five million, 23,379 dollars and 57 cents. I'll second them. And not a penny more. I don't know. Can we round up the zeroes? Right up until that first change order. Yeah, right. Exactly. Oh, man. Okay, Holly, go ahead. President Mayhood. Bye. Vice President Ackman. Yes. Director Fultz. Yes. Director Hill. Yes. Director Smalley. Yes. Great. Passed unanimously. Onward to item C among new businesses, the ongoing exploration of a possible consolidation of Big Base and Mutual Water Company's water system into the district. And Rick, who's you, Regina, that wants to leave that. I'll start out and Nina can jump in at any time if she wishes. Back in October 2021, owners of Big Base and Water requested that the district explore possible consolidation of their water system into the district. The district's board of directors approved the request with certain conditions. Since then, a number of discussions have occurred with Big Base and Water and with agency partners in the effort to help a Big Base and service area, but no agreements have been reached yet. One of the issues under discussion has been the disposition of real property, specifically the watershed, the 540 acres of watershed, and other parcels, which contain facilities that the district would need in exploring a potential consolidation. This item is to request that the board by motion designate the district manager and district council as representatives of the district for negotiations with Big Base and Water regarding real property. We also have been in discussion regarding the watershed property and other facilities that the district must be involved in any discussion with any partners. And with that, I'll turn it back over you and Gina, do you want to add anything to that? Well, I guess the only thing I wanted to add is that the main purpose of this agenda item is that we have run into some issues related to the negotiations that pertain to real property that we'd like to consult with the board about in closed session, and so that's really the focus of the agenda item we're hoping to if we could to focus discussion around that recommendation. Jeff, can we start with you? If you have any questions or comments? This all makes sense to me. I mean, I understand that maybe some, I'm sure there will be closed session items that come out of this, but designating Gina and Rick as the point personnel to deal with this, it certainly makes sense to me. Yes. As the board's representative, it's been involved in some of these discussions with the county and other parties on Big Basin. I agree that what Gina said, it would be advantageous to be able to talk about these with the rest of the board. And I concur with what's being proposed here as designating Gina and Rick as negotiators. Okay. Jamie? I mean, I think this seems like a reasonable path forward. You know, just wondering if, and maybe this is going to come back at some point, but is there also going to need to be some kind of an outside appraiser that's agreed upon as part of this process or is that one of the items that we may need to discuss further? Rick, do you mind if I take a stab at that? That may be part of the process. It's the status that there has been retention of an appraiser, I believe, but the posture, the procedural posture of it is a little bit unusual. And I think if possible, we'd like to continue that discussion in closed session. Okay. Thank you. Scott? Yeah, that was my assumption of why you put it on there. So glad to hear that, because I think there's a lot of things we need to talk about. And I think no least of which could be grant funding, as possibly the way that this whole thing is going to come together. Is that going to include financing discussions as well in closed session? To the extent that these things are all interrelated, then yes. The key issue here is whether some financial security can be obtained from the roof. And if not, the district may need to look other places for it. Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments from members of the board? If not, I'll go out to our attendees. Would any of them like to comment on this? I don't see any hands up. Can I have a motion? I move that we designate the district manager and district council as representatives of the San Lorenzo Valley Water District for negotiations with Big Basin Water Company regarding real property. Second that. Second. Okay. Go ahead, Holly. President Mayhood. Hi. Vice President Ackman. Yes. Director Fouls. Yes. Director Hill. Yes. Director Smalley. Yes. Passes unanimously. We have our, uh, now a, the next item is annual disclosure report of employee reimbursements. This is sort of a housekeeping issue, but Rick, you want to give it a go? Definitely an annual housekeeping issues according to the government. Cody, special district shall at least annually disclose and make available for public inspection. Any reimbursements paid by the district within the immediate lead proceeding fiscal year of at least $100 reach individual charge of services for product receipt attached you will to the agenda item. You will see a list of, uh, disbursements of $100 and greater to different staff. The majority of those disbursements are for uniform, uh, certifications and some mileage. Are there any comments or questions from members of the board? Jamie. I was just curious, if you could refresh my memory, is there a uniform allowance built into the employee benefit? There is. Each employee has a uniform allowance and we have a, an approved garment list that they must pick from, uh, and including steel toe shoes. They purchase, uh, those items and they submit for reimbursement. I appreciate that. And I hope that we allow them to purchase multiple sets because I know when I used to work for San Jose water, sometimes those guys went full under and they had to completely change top to bottom several times a day, depending on what they were working on. That's correct. Any other comments from members of the board? Okay. Uh, seeing none, are there any comments from members of the public? I would like to move that the board of directors accept and file the annual disclosure report of employee reimbursements for fiscal year 2021-2022. I'll second that. Okay. Thank you. Holly. President Mayhood. Hi. Vice president Ackerman. Yes. Director Falls. Yes. Director Hill. Yes. Director Smalley. Yes. Classes unanimously. Our final item of new business is a Memro MOU concerning classified and management supervisory and confidential employees and, uh, essentially appointing negotiators regarding this. Go ahead, Rick. And this one, just counsel will present to the board. Okay. Thank you, chair Mayhood and Rick. Um, this item will look familiar to those of you who've been on the board for multiple years. Um, every year since is the MOUs are now quite a few years old, the management and the classified MOU. Um, and as a result every year, they potentially come up for renewal. Um, the window for either party to either of the MOUs to give notice of their intent to negotiate regarding the MOU, uh, runs from 120 days before the end of the year to 90 days before the end of the year. So in effect, any party, um, either the management employee bargaining unit or the district or for the classified union MOU, either the district or the union can give notice between September 2nd and October 2nd of a desire to negotiate with respect to their, uh, particular MOU. Um, this has not been done since the MOUs were entered into in, was it 2017, Rick, I believe? 19. Um, so, uh, neither party has given notice to renegotiate for quite a few years, but the union has given the district manager notice of a desire to negotiate, uh, regarding the union MOU this year, and it's anticipated that a similar notice will be forthcoming from the management employees. And so the purpose of the agenda item is simply to appoint, uh, negotiators. Um, and once that's done, uh, we'll hold a closed session where the board will have an opportunity to instruct the negotiators with respect to the district's negotiating position. Okay. Are there any questions or comments on this? I don't see any from the board. It's pretty straightforward. Um, are there any questions or comments from members of the public? I don't see any there. So how about if, go ahead, Jamie. I was just going to say I will move to designate the district manager and district council's representatives of the St. Lawrence and Alleywater District for labor negotiations. I'll second that. Okay. Uh, Bob, you've got your hand up? Yeah, just to be clear, um, given that the union has already provided notice of their intent to do this, um, we really would have to take some action one way or the other anyway, to have negotiators. Otherwise, we can't negotiate. So, um, it absolutely makes sense for the two of you to be, uh, those negotiations. Okay. Colleen. President Mayhood. Vice President Ackerman. Yes. Director Foles. Yes. Director Hill. Sorry, Jeff, you're muted. Yes. And Director Smalley. Yes. Okay. Passes unanimously. Next, we have the consent agenda with the one item is anybody from the board want to pull anything from the consent agenda? I don't see any hands. How about from members of the public? Okay. Then without that, the consent agenda is without objection, um, approved. Next, we come to district reports. Uh, Rick, do you have anything as district manager that you want to report tonight? Um, just the only, the only sure thing at this like to bring to the board's attention, uh, is the, uh, uh, Quail Hollow pipeline. It is approaching completion of the actual piping. They're almost, uh, completed. Um, and then they'll just have to, they'll have their paving and their other work to be completed. The pipeline should be installed by the end of the week. They reported today at one of the meetings and just remind the board that the Quail Hollow pipeline, um, is improving an existing six inch mainline to 12 inch. Uh, it will be a significant improvement to the district's ability to move fire flow from one end of the San Lorenzo Valley water district to the other and give the district greater capabilities to move its water supply, uh, when needed, where needed. This is a major improvement, uh, to our distribution system. And again, this is another great project that is improving, uh, our water system. Well, that's, that's good news. Thank you. It's our super highway. All right. Uh, next we have department status reports. Are there any questions or comments on those from members of the board? Hang on. Mark. Yes. Um, on the environmental department report, it mentions, uh, the Bracken brand four springs and solidations for the, um, environmental proposals that are due for those. Um, when are those due? Carly? I do believe Carly has left the meeting. She's actually on vacation out of, uh, area. Okay. Came on. I will find that out and report back to the board. Thank you. Anything else, Mark? Or I'll go to Bob. Nothing else. Thank you. Okay, Bob. Yes. On the, I have a number of comments on most of them. Um, on the engineering report, um, Josh, it might be worthwhile on the Fall Creek fish ladder to note that, um, the project will be rebid and constructed next year. Um, we have determined to pass forward. I agree. We have determined the path forward. I hadn't wanted to put anything in my report until we've determined the exact details simply because I'm reluctant to put anything in there without running it by Gina first, given the situation. And since I have not done so, uh, short form director falls is that because I have not experienced this particular situation before I am being very careful not to get the district in trouble by putting something out into the public domain that I shouldn't. Since I don't know what those things are, I am treading carefully and slow, but I will be updating my status report for the next, uh, next month's board meeting. Okay. And we will be going out back out. Is there an expected end date for the GIS system? There is not. If you're, I'm assuming you're referring to the updating of the GIS with locations of everything. There is not. I'm, my initial guesstimate was that it would be about a one-year duration. We are eight months into that. And at this point, I think I was optimistic because we have had to pull Weston, who's our GIS specialist and is doing this work off of that to help out with some other things. At this point, I'm guessing maybe like 18 months by the time we get through all of Longpico and all of some of these smaller roads where he's having to work a little harder to find all of our facilities. And you say 18 more months or 18 months total? 18 months total. Okay. So another 10 months then? In that, in that range, yes. Yeah. This is a real significant improvement to our overall data ops. So I'm glad to see that you're continuing to move forward in that. Happy to help. Yeah. Okay. Next one is on finance. So I think the budget committee had a little bit of a preview on this. I will say that I wish I could manage my revenue, expense and income numbers as closely as they are here. They all came in about 95.2%. So that's, that's pretty phenomenal. Um, do we expect to see those numbers change? Given that we're in August and we should have collected all of the costs, Rick? I'm not sure. I'd have to look into that better and speak with Kendra on that. July, August are either one of those months or two top consumption months. But I'd have to get that question answered by Kendra. Well, I think it's mostly expenses. Because we're in a new budget here for revenue. That's right. You know, we're still down several staff positions. So I think that number will probably stay the same for a while. I mean, I think we have four positions open at this time. We did pick up one temporary just to, because we were getting further and further behind in leaks and other issues. But I think it's going to pretty much hold the same for a short while until we get our staff being back up. And then we'll have to even look at it closer. I did want to point out that our refunding bond has been paid off. That comes from, I think, the late 90s, right, Rick, for the North Boulder Creek? Right. So that's great. Of course, now we replaced it with others, but that's good. That's part of what water districts need to be doing all the time. On the 2021 15 million loan, are any of these funds on that report on page 220, the 2.1 million and whatever we're going to spend, or is any of that going to get covered by FEMA? Or is that in the separate report above? Like the little lion tank, big steel tank, that sort of thing? Yeah. Well, those will be covered by FEMA. The projects that were, you know, from CZU Fire. You're on page 21? Yeah. 220, 20 of 42. Yeah. So we should see some of those dollar figures go down once FEMA starts sending us checks. That's correct. Okay. Yeah, it might be worthwhile then to add another column to reflect the FEMA money that's coming in. That'll be good because that will give us more money for other projects. Next one is on page 23 of 42, page 223. There was a aquametric line item for a new meter reading handheld. Are these devices, do they have maintenance available or is the maintenance just not affordable? That to check on that. This was an additional, we've had so many changes in staffing and meter reading. We're trying to retrain a new staff for meter reading, and we only had one of the newer aquameters, or the new meter reading handheld. So in order to have a second one to train appropriately, we purchased a second one. So this is an addition to what we had. Oh, not a replacement. But I don't know if they have maintenance agreements or not. I can find out. Okay, no worries. On the operations report, I might have covered this before, but I noticed that the production out of Fall Creek, Venet Creek and Bowl one and two is significantly higher now than it is, than it was in 2013. Are we still sending water to North system and South system out of Fall Creek? We are. Let's see. I'm looking at page 247. Yeah, but we are still sending a little bit, not a lot from Felton to the North, not to South system. What accounts for that really big uptick in usage? Do we have any idea? I'd have to look at it to give you a... I mean, it's like 40%, which is really strong, where everybody else is down, you know, 62% in the, or excuse me, 40% in North, Felton, and Niana. Yeah, it's, yeah. Okay. It's just, I look for big differences. That's what stands out and definitely. I mean, Rick, isn't this largely just because of the emergency status where we can use more of the water? Previously, all we could use it for was in Felton. That's why I asked if you was sending water out to other places. We are sending some water into the North system outside of Felton, but we're not sending it over to the South system, but that was what Bob's question was. Well, it was for both. I mean, so we're sending six million gallons out to the North system. I don't see that on the reports either. I have to look into it and compare numbers. Yeah. I mean, I know that we're doing that, but this was just way off the charts. Yeah, I'll look at it. Okay. Thanks. Jamie. Just a quick question about the operations report. And I did hear Rick say that we brought on temp staff because we were following behind on leak repair. I noticed that we addressed 25 leaks district wide. And I just wondered, and maybe it's something that we could add to the operations report as an ongoing stat, but I wondered if, like, what is our ongoing overall percentage of water loss, non-revenue water loss on an ongoing basis? I think it'd be a good stat just to be monitoring in these reports. And Josh or Rick, do you have that off the top of your head? I don't have it off the top of our head. We can get some comparisons. It's a number that is difficult to quantify monthly, but we can get some ideas. We can take the basic production and basic consumption and do a percentage of loss, but there's a lot in that percentage of loss. And I know that's something that this board has had a concern on over the years. And in fact, I do believe it's one of my objectives to make that report and to get a better reporting on our unaccountable water. Thanks, Jamie. Any other comments from members of the board? How about, are there any comments from members of the public? I think Mark was raising his hand. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mark. Yes, I did want to pick up on that thread that you wrote it into. We did talk about I believe you used the word a water loss audit at the beginning of the year, and you made a commitment that we would see something like that. I hope it's before Christmas. Okay. Well before Christmas. I'll take it as a Christmas present word. But yes, I think that that is important for us to understand. Well, definitely. I mean, it's an important number of our water loss. And in an older system, it could be as high as 20%. I don't believe it's 20%. I believe we're going to be down around 16 or in that general area. But you won't know until we look at the numbers. Right. And along those lines, when we talked about the water leak analysis that was done May 21 timeframe, the board recommended do that on a two-year basis. So that's coming up again May 23 to give us another good data point on what we have as far as water losses that have developed over that period of time. Okay. Okay. Thanks. Committee reports. Any comments on committee reports from members of the board? None? How about from members of the public? I don't see any. So we did not have any written communications in this last interval. So without objection, I will then declare this meeting adjourned and have a good rest of your evening.