 Okay, where are we? We're ready. Are we ready? I heard okay, yes. I can't hear him. Well, with that, we will convene this meeting of the Board of Directors of San Lorenzo Valley Water District for June 17th, 2021. Holly, did you wanna call the roll, please? President Mayhood. Here. Vice President Henry. Here. Director Ackman. Here. Director Falls. Here. And Director Smolley. Here. Okay, are there any additions or deletions to the closed session agenda? Staff has none. All right. And this is the time for oral communications regarding the topic of the closed session. Do we have any, I don't see any attendees hearing none, seeing none, then we will go ahead and adjourn to closed session. Okay. Okay. The members of the public recently, just a handful, five, six. We might wanna just go in and let them know, let them join this discussion since, so at least so that they can hear what's going on. Yeah, why don't, why don't we? Is it in our office? I, I- Do you know that better than I would? Is it in our office? I don't want this weird permeable boundary between what is live and what isn't. So, because that's how people make silly mistakes that can end up on TikTok later. Isn't there a way to, you know, running late, given that we can't talk to people. All right. So, it is now 6.40 and I will convene this open session of the Board of Directors of San Lorenzo Valley Water District for June 17, 2021. Gina, would you like to report out any, the action that we took in the closed section? I guess, Charmaine Hood, I can do that. The report out of closed session is that the consensus of the Board was to direct the district manager to communicate with Supervisor McPherson's office to propose a meeting of principles in an effort to resolve the county's lawsuit against the district. We'll reconvene. Ellen, can you take roll? President Mayhood. Here. Vice President Henry. Absent. Director Ackman. Here. Director Falls. Here. Director Smalley. Here. We should report that Lois is absent through no fault of her own. The power has gone out and she's trying to join us by telephone. So I don't consider that an absence or it certainly is an excused one. Yeah, thank you. I wanted to ask that. So thanks. Are there, well, the next thing we do is the additions and deletions to the agenda. And we discussed it as a board that the sort of unusual situation where some people have power outage and others don't. And we want to continue with the meeting. But what we're hoping is that as temperatures go down people's electricity will come back on and they'll have access to broadband internet. So what we're going to do is change the agenda slightly that is moving those issues that on the agenda that require large PowerPoint presentations to at the end and hoping that we can get to them. And those are item 10A, the public hearing on the adoption of the urban water management plan, the new, excuse me, the old business of the reserve fund policy, the draft biennial budget and the fire recovery surcharge community outreach. I also want to announce at this time that we have already scheduled a special meeting for July 8th. The three items that we had planned to be on that agenda were first to approve the construction contracts for the fish ladder. This is really important because we have to get this work started and some of it executed before those times when the fish need us to be out of the water so they can do their fishy things. The other is that we also have an important thing that has to do with our response to the city of Santa Cruz's water rights petitions. And then I was going to, with Mark's help, give an update on the Santa Margarita Groundwater Association sort of in preparation for the public comment period. And given what's happening tonight, we may push to that anything that we can't get to tonight. Do you have anything else you would like to add? Gina, you've got your hand up. Thank you. I just wanted to add a kind of a public service announcement that telephone access appears to still be working for the meeting. So if somebody loses broadband, that is an alternative way to access the meeting. For panelists, it may be a little more complicated since there may be a limited ability to promote panelists who come in as attendees to the meeting, but that's a bridge we could cross if we come to it. I agree. Thank you for pointing, did anyone, Rick, did you have anything you wanted to add to what I said? I do not. Okay, well then, then we come to the oral communications portion of the agenda where this is reserved for oral communications by member of the public on any subject within the purview of the jurisdiction of the district, but that is not on the agenda tonight. Are there any members of the public that would like to make an oral communication at this time? Cynthia, Senzel. I just have a question. I don't think it's on the agenda. Will tiered rates be discussed or studied as part of the coming rate study? District manager Rogers, would you like to address that? Yeah, I don't believe so, but on the other hand, anything could be discussed on the rate study and I'll refer to the director of finance who's been involved in rate studies in the past. I obviously we could direct such action, but that would be totally up to the board if we go into the rate study. Stephanie, do you have any comments on that? Yeah, I was gonna say similarly, it can come from direction of the district manager or the board to have the consultants look into something like that or it could come as a recommendation even from the consultants. So none of that has been established yet, but it will be in discussions when we go out for the RFP. Will comments from the public be considered during that discussion? Absolutely. I mean, there will be lots of time for public discussion of the whole rate study. And just to let you know at least how I feel about this, I want us to look at tiered rates. So as a member of the board, this is something that I will be asking that we do. So I don't know how other members of the board feel about it, but Bob, did you wanna comment? Well, I think we might wanna have refrained from commenting on it, but since you raised the topic, I will say, yes, I'd like it looked at as well. All right, is that answer your question, Cynthia? Yes, I just wanted to have it as part of the study. I'm not urging adoption of tiered rates, but I know that the other districts have them and I'd like to see how they would affect our district. I know there's a consideration for how complicated it could be and I'm hoping that we could do it in a simple way or at least consider that. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Are there any other comments? Seeing none, hearing none. We will now move on to new business. And as I said, we will defer item 10A until hopefully we get better broadband work. So we will move to 10B, which is acceptance of the grant from the state coastal conservancy. Thank you, yes, the environmental planner will present this item to the board. Great, thank you, Greg and President Mithood. Recently, the district secured a $200,000 grant for field reduction work on its properties through the California state coastal conservancies wildfire resilience program. The grant required no matching funds and will be reimbursed through monthly invoices to the coastal conservancy. A district representative needs to be assigned by the board to be the signatory and point of contact. The district, sorry, the coastal conservancy needs documentation in the form of a resolution or letter from the board of directors before accepting the grant award. The district manager has been chosen as the district signatory and will direct communications to the coastal conservancy to the district's environmental planner. It is recommended that the board of directors review this memo and approve the attached resolution. Staff is prepared to answer any questions regarding the grant award. Okay, let's go ahead and start with Jamie. Did you have any questions or comments on this? I'm just curious if we know how exactly we're using this or if it's already allocated to some specific program. So pretty much we're basing all our projects off of what we have in our vegetation and fuel reduction plan that we approved the last meeting. It's going to really focus on removing vegetation around our infrastructure and roads. So any ladder fuels or any other smaller vegetation, no trees are being looked at for removal. Right, no, no, I understood that. I just meant like where we planned to, do we have a specific project that this is already targeted for in terms of fuel reduction removal in a specific geographic location? Yeah, I believe we'll probably target mostly tank sites or other easy access sites for the time being just to whatever's the quickest and easiest thing to access. Okay, Bob, did you have your hand up? Bob, did you have a question? Yes, thanks. Yeah, thank you, I did. Following up a little bit on Jamie's question, do we have a rank priority of our infrastructure? So for example, our tanks have humps when it comes to what we would go after and protect first because my understanding was in general, this is going to be used to clear around our infrastructure but I guess the question is, is there a rank priority on that? Right, we have the very broad overview that was included in the plan at this point. What we'll do is we do have two requests for qualifications out right now, one for a fuel reduction manager, which will most likely be a registered professional forester to work alongside the districts to really prioritize down which infrastructure we're going to target. And hopefully we can get quite a bit done with the money that's allocated through the grant right now. Okay. Carly, wouldn't that prioritization be something that the district staff would establish? Right, so we'll work alongside whoever we end up working with to do the fuel reduction work as that manager. So like I said, with that kind of broad overview that we received with the actual plan, we'll work with the staff and obviously and then hopefully whoever we bring on as our professional forester. The high priority is the high priority to be sourced to supply the district's well-filled then high priority storage and we work our way out from that. Not all of our sites, we will be able to just move right in. Some of our well sites are in San Parkland but then some of our other wells are in areas that we can go in and it will also have to be very careful with moving on to private property. But our treatment plants, the source of supply will be our top priority. Thank you. I don't see Lois here, so we'll move on to, excuse me. She's trying. Yeah, good night. Mark, do you have any questions? I have no questions. Okay, then I'll go out and see if we have any comments among the attendees. Seeing none and hearing none. What we have before us is a resolution and if the board will indulge me, I'll just read it to you rather than you guys looking at this in a way that the board authorizes and directs the district manager, Rick Rogers, to serve as a district point of contact and signatory for the fire resilience program, applications agreements and any related documents and that we accept the $200,000 awarded by the district, the California State Coastal Conservancy while fire resilience program as per the resolution in the board packet. Gina, you have a comment. Yeah, I'm just gonna offer a clarification that this is a motion to adopt the resolution. Yeah. Okay, thank you. I just, maybe I don't have to say it, but it just seems to me that given that this is televised that there's some value to sort of summarizing what the resolution is about rather than just saying we're adopting a resolution, that's what I was trying to do, but I failed to say that we are adopting a very official resolution, which I only read 1-3rd of. Director Fultz, did you have something you wanted to add? I think he looks kind of frozen out there. He's frozen. I will, if that was your motion, I will second that. Okay. Or you can, what I'd prefer is that I just read it and whether I'm asking for a motion. So. Okay, I will make that motion. Okay, is there a second? I will second it, but I'm willing to take a pause if Bob has a comment he needed to make. Looks like he's back up. Once we adopt a motion as on the table, then by Robert's rules of order, it's always open for another round of comments. So you don't need to worry about that. Got it, so I'll second it. Okay. Bob, oh dear. I think my, and I'm not sure what's happening with broadband in the office here, but I seem to be going up and down a lot. So please indulge me in that. It's, I don't know. Anyway, I was just asking for clarification on the motion because typically with resolutions, we have a particular way we state the motion. And it sounds like that was all resolved. So thank you. So we have a motion on the table and I'll just quickly go out to make sure that if there's any comments among the attendees, that this is their chance to say something on the motion itself. And I don't see any and hearing none, then I will ask if there's any other comments by the board, if not, Holly, would you please take a real call that on this adopting this resolution? President Mayhood. Hi. Vice President Henry is not available. Director Ackerman. Yes. Director Falls. Yes. Director Smalley. Yes. Okay, thank you. It's unanimous that we are accepting the money. Hard to imagine that we would have to accept the money. I have Lois on my phone and she can hear. That's about the best I can do. That's susceptible to the rest of the board. Okay, that's fine. So, did you hear Lois? Did you want to cast a vote on that particular one? I heard the I. All right, great. Okay, so Holly, if you don't mind, if you just revise that vote as if Lois was here at the time that we did it. So now we would like to move on to item 10C, which is the California Special Districts Association Board Elections. Thank you. Item 10C is the CSDA Association Board of Directors Election. Each of the CSD6 networks has three seats on the CSDA board. Each of the candidates are either a board member or a management level employee of a member district located in the network as a regular member in good standing. The district is entitled to one vote. The district received a notice of the upcoming election for an open seat on the CSDA board of directors, CA and the Coastal Network. Candidate information as well as candidate statements were provided for two nominees. The Sentinels Valley Water District Board of Directors may choose to vote for one candidate. And the deadline for this submit, this vote is 5 p.m. on Friday, 16th of July. Thank you. So we received the information about two candidates, Elaine Magner and Hugh Rafferty. And so I guess we're supposed to vote between them or, and so I'm not sure exactly how to conduct this conversation because we don't really know much more about them than what we read there. But if anybody has a leaning one way or the other and would like to discuss that would be great. Go ahead, Jamie. Well, I was just trying to come up with some way to sort of balance the two of them against each other for our purposes. And I think that a parks and rec director, which Elaine is, that she is closer to water uses and needs in her field of work. And so perhaps for our purposes as a water district of the two of them, she might be someone who is more sympathetic to the concerns that we share as opposed to an airport district director. So that was my argument. I agree with you, Jamie, just to pipe in there. Mark. I concur also with that assessment, I reviewed both resumes and I liked Elaine's. I preferred hers. Yeah. Bob, did you wanna pop in there? Oh, I think they both had their, you know, I suppose. It's hard to hear you. Maybe if you sit closer to that computer, it might pick up a little bit better. But in the meantime, Are you in the library? I'm actually. Are you in the library? Yes. He's in the library. Yeah. It's not really great in the library. Could you go sit in the front office? Maybe there's two empty desks up there. Lois, did you have any thing you wanted to say about this? Let me move. Lois, did you have a comment? We don't. So perhaps somebody would like to make a motion. I would. But Jamie. Thank you. I will move that we vote for Elaine. I want to, Magner of the Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District for the CSDA vacancy. That second that. Board of Directors, CA, are representative. Did I hear a second? Yes. I seconded that. Magner, just a reminder to go out to the public. Yeah, I know. I was just going out to ask our attendees whether they have any wisdom to add to this momentous decision. Seeing none, hearing none. I'll come back to the board to make sure there's, Bob kind of got cut off there. Bob, did you have anything else you wanted to say? I think he's relocating to the front. Okay. All right. Ann, is Lois with us? She is no longer with us. Okay. Don't say it that way. She's no longer connected. I'll just go call in. All right. Okay, we have a motion on the table, which is to test our district's vote for Elaine Magner as our representative on the CSDA Board of Directors. And if there's no objection, I will ask Holly to take the, we'll call the vote. President Mayhood. Aye. Vice President Henry is unavailable. Director Ackman. Yes. Director Fouls. Relocated and yes. Much better. Is that better? That's good. Yes. Director Smalley. Yes. Thank you. So that passes. The next item on the agenda is the five mile constructability award. Yes, thank you. And the district engineer will present this item to the board. Josh. Thanks, Rick. We have a constructability study plan for replacement of the five mile pipeline and associated PBINE pipeline. It's really about just seven miles. We sent out an RFP, received two bids. We preferred more, but considering that the first time the RFP went out, we got none. We're going with the two. Of the two, we reviewed them and in the opinion of the engineering committee and district manager Rogers and myself, the fair in Loretta bid is superior and should be adopted or awarded, I guess is the correct time. As the chair of the engineering committee, would you like to add anything to that? I spent a considerable amount of time reviewing both proposals and I concurred with that fair in Loretta's proposals. Very well thought out. They laid out a detailed perspective on how they are going to approach this problem. They have four sub consultants with various areas of specialty, including a consultant who is focused on micro hydropower. So how to generate electricity through this pipeline aspects which the district requested. They brought in a specialist to cover them. So the engineering committee concurred with this, that fair in Loretta should, that they award. In addition to that, they are on the order of $70,000 less than the other bidder, Sandus. So. Amazing, amazing they could be so divergent. One was a 250, the other one was I think a 319. Correct. Let's see, Lois, Director Post, did you have anything you wanted to say about that? Yes, I'm glad that they, and we are thinking outside of the box. I think it's really important that we do so, especially with respect to more of a longer term focus on this since this area is not as we've seen out of the woods with respect to possible fires again and perhaps in a fairly short period of time. And so I really encouraged staff when you're working with these guys on this to make sure that they're thinking outside of the box. I had one question for Rick just to confirm 75% of this is covered by FEMA. That's correct. Maybe we may have to carve out the hydroelectric because that wasn't existing. However, I'm going to try to mitigate that into the project. Yeah, I know I understand. Thank you. And Bob too, to follow up on your statements probably as part of this proposal, there is a public meetings as part of this proposal to ensure that the board sees presentations and the public sees presentations on this subject. Jamie, did you wanna ask any questions? Sure. So I noted the emphasis on public outreach throughout the project and I really wanted to appreciate that and thank staff for their thoughtfulness and thank the consultant for including that. But I did Mark, maybe you could help me understand or perhaps staff, you could tell me why is the timeline? So, Discrepan, is it because there's much greater access to sub consultants with FNL and therefore they believe they can move the work along more quickly? Josh, do you wanna take a guess at that? I think it's the staffing, but that's okay. It's, I agree with Director Rogers, it's largely a case of staffing, I'm guessing because I haven't discussed the specifics of that discrepancy in time with either proposer, but experience tells me that the discrepancy of this type is generally a result of staffing or one firm having more projects piled up in front, waiting to get access to particular individuals or particular subcontractors. And when we look at their two schedules, Ferrer and Loretta was doing a lot of their activities in parallel versus Santas was doing work in series, being one has to get done before the next one can proceed with anything. So they simply did a, what's called a waterfall schedule and it's strung out to whatever that was, 10 months. Thank you. Rick, I'm gonna count on you to tell me if Lois returns. Yes, I will, I, she's trying to drive at that point, I'll ask for her input. I'll let you know, she's returned. So at this point, I'd like to go out to the public and see if any of our attendees have any questions or comments, Cynthia. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can. Mark, where could we find information on that technology? Are they little turbines generating electricity? How is the power transmitted? Is it like cable outside the pipe or something like that? Is there information on that for the public? Either Rick or Josh will have to guess something. Right now it's in the very beginning design stages. What I looked at in the beginning was an inline turbine micro generator, but right now it'll be up to the consultant, Cynthia, to propose the type of equipment and technology and we'll learn about it and you'll learn about it pretty much the same time. We do not have a system selected and that's what the consultant will do. A best fit for our application. Great, thank you. I'm really just editorializing. I'm really excited that we're pursuing this. I expect to learn something from it so it'll be fun. Any other comments from our attendees? And I don't see any more, but I'll go back to Director Fultz. Yeah, and they'll also include a ROI calculation on that as well, right? That's right. Great. Great, thank you. All right, the staff has provided the following recommended motion and if you don't mind, I will simply state it and then somebody can offer it as a motion if they would like. And it's that the board of directors instruct the district manager to enter into negotiations as specified in the request for proposals for cross country pipeline constructability study with Friar and Loretta in conformance with the proposal submitted by them in the amount of $248,500 and dated June 8th, 2021. I will make that motion. Second? We'll second the motion. All right, with that, any more comments from the board on the motion on the table? How about from our attendees? Seeing none and hearing none, I'll ask Collie to take a roll call vote, please. President Mayhood? Aye. Vice President Henry? Still not available. Director Ackman? Yes. Director Fouls? Yes. Director Smalley? Yes. Thank you. That was unanimous in favor. All right, then the next item on the budget is the American Water Infrastructure Act 2018 emergency response plan award. Yes, thank you. And the district engineer will also present this item to the board. Josh? Thank you very much. This particular item is a little more, worth a little more discussion it because we only received a single bid. Long discussion with the engineering committee led Director Rogers and I to believe that we should proceed with that single bid. A little bit of background. The American Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 is an act of Congress requiring that water districts provide certain studies, particularly a risk and resiliency analysis and an emergency response plan. These are required to be updated or revised every five years. The current plan that the district has, the current emergency response plan is significantly more than five years old. This is the first five-year interval after the passage of OUIA. So we're basically starting, not necessarily from scratch, but very close to it. Based on that need and the current workload for staff, we determined that the correct solution was to go out to bid to bring a consultant in who specializes in this type of work. We received one bid from Sanvis and we believe that this is really the correct answer. It is a way for us to receive a plan which matches with the requirements of OUIA, which are actually EPA requirements and will allow us to meet our deadlines. The cost of the bid is $42,120, I think, $42,000 and some. And I just asked a qualifying, sort of a clarifying question. It says here that it's the American Water Infrastructure Act in 2018 and you said our report is more than five years old. So if I add five to 2018, that puts me more like 2023. So- Correct. I'm clear why I'm doing this. That is correct and thank you for the question. The report that we have was originally prepared shortly after 9-11, which was required by a completely separate piece of legislation and is not an identical report. It is a report that addresses similar topics, how to respond to an emergency. It's a good basis. All right. And that is the report that is more than five years old. So in other words, our existing report is actually responded to yet another unfunded government mandate then on top of this one. Okay. All right. I would say that is correct. Okay. Mark, as a chair of engineering, would you like to comment on this? Josh indicated that we had a significant amount of discussion in this. One point that he made to us during the meeting is you reached out to Scott's Valley Water District to determine their cost for a similar plan, Josh, and their amount was what? The cost for Scott's Valley Water District's plan was roughly $40,000, which is, as you'll note, very close to the 42,000 that we're looking at for a district half our size and with significantly less challenging terrain and facilities. And Sanis's proposal did have good language addressing how they were going to approach this and the participation that they were going to have with the district in preparing this plan. The engineering committee concurred with Josh's assessment that he had just presented. Although we don't like reviewing and approving just one bid, the engineering staff has done a considerable amount of work to try to solicit other bidders, not only for this one, but for others also. And this is all we're ending up with on this project. So the committee felt we should move ahead with this. Does any other member of the board like to comment on this? This may be a question for Rick and Josh. I don't know how to see this. What is the benefit of doing this, other than the general benefit that any critical infrastructure agency should have a risk response or mitigation plan? Is this like the unified urban, excuse me, the urban water management plan, whereas if we don't do it, we aren't eligible for grants or something like that? I guess I'll take that one. The benefits of doing this are two-fold. One, as you noted, it will provide us with a methodology to address any emergencies and any future problems. In addition, it keeps us in compliance with an active complex. Yes, yet another one of those things where we can spend a lot of our money. I'm assuming that we have a risk management or risk response plan already. Is part of this effort just taking that and putting it into the right boxes? The original, it was called a vulnerability assessment that was done after 9-11 had a completely different circumstances and outline that you were preparing the district for. It was centered on terrorism. It was right after 9-11. It was on contamination threats to water supply and civil unrest. This time going around was going to be more in tune with potentially what we may have the types of risks. More of a trespass, a mischief, theft, and in water quality and cyber terrorism, which is important to the district with its SCADA system and its other computerized systems. So it's a different set of circumstances we'll be looking at this time. I did the last one right after 9-11 and it required a two-week class at Sandias Livermore Labs in Livermore and it was a very high secure training of what to look for for terrorism and prepare your district for anti-terrorism. And it was right down to what is your assessment, what is an allowable death rate of your customers and so forth due to contamination. It was a completely different set of circumstances than we have today. We have to do it. If we don't do it, we'll get a non-compliance order shortly from the state or feds and it'll be advertised and posted on webs that we're not in compliance and that's something we need to be in compliance with. I understand your concerns, Bob, but it's something we can't get around that we do need to be in compliance with. Well, they're not even giving us a kiss to go along with a stick basically in terms of eligibility for grants or something like that. I mean, again, I think it's important to have these my professional life, like use and risk management, assessment and cybersecurity as well. So I understand the importance of it. This is one of those things where I noticed that SoCal Creek and Scott's Valley and probably Santa Cruz were all basically going after the same thing. This is one of those areas where potentially joining together would make sense. I know a lot of the, because of my work in some of the risk management stuff, I know that there's a lot of, shall we say boilerplate that is used in some of these responses, lightly customized for each particular circumstance, but a lot of it is going to look very similar. I think that all of these reports are back, we're gonna see that. It might have been an opportunity to actually join forces in a positive way in this one because of the fact that I think there'll be a lot of similarity. Oh, well. I'm in agreement with that. Go ahead, Jamie. So just following up on Bob's comment, it was my impression from the staff report, Josh, that Scott's Valley Water District already had done this. So would there be an opportunity to do something in conjunction with the other water districts or is that Shepardi sailed? Great, that should have sailed. We discussed that with Scott's Valley. They selected a consultant that most likely we wouldn't have selected. And so we did not partner with them. They piggybacked off the urban water management plan with the same consultant and we decided to go in a different direction. And following up on something that Bob had said, often what I've seen when a consultant like this is doing the reports, they've worked with other districts and I would hope that Sandus is bringing us some suggestions of either things that they've seen in other places that are best management practices or that they have some best management practices that we may not have thought of yet that they're providing to us that cause us to then say, oh, yes, we should be doing that. But that we just haven't bothered to step back and think about for a while. So I see that as a potential benefit that we should go through this. Bob? And I would agree with you, Mark. And for example, one of the areas I hope they're going to focus on is the cybersecurity side of things. Where we desperately need to get our infrastructure not only into the cloud but potentially into the Gov cloud where there's a higher degree of cybersecurity controls around the operations of those clouds. Are there any comments by the attendees? Hearing none and seeing none. We do have a recommendation from the staff this particular thing. And that is to direct the district manager to enter into a contract with Sanders civil engineers for development of an emergency response plan in the amount of $42,120 and further to approve budgetary increase from fiscal year 2122 to the proper operating expense account in the amount of this contract that is 42,120 for this plan development. Does anybody want to move that? I'll make that motion. Is there a second? I'll second that. Okay. Now that we have a motion on the table, I'll just make one more round in case members of the board want to discuss it. I'm not seeing any hands raised. I'll go out one more time to attendees. Hearing none, seeing none. I'll return back to Holly and ask for a roll call vote, please. President Mayhood. Aye. Director Ackman. Yes. Director Fultz. Yes. Director Smalley. Yes. Was unanimous, well, people here that were here. The next item on the agenda and new business, 10F is the personnel reclassifications and additions. Thank you. Yes, what I'm asking the board tonight is to approve a new compensation schedule. The district's 2123 draft by annual budget provides for several personnel classification changes and one additional position, a project manager. The one additional position is a full-time position. Project manager would be a fully benefit position and then there's changes to three other classifications that I'm requesting. The water treatment and water quality treatment manager, the accountant office supervisor and the environmental programs manager. The district personnel system of rules and regulations requires the board to approve the compensation schedule attached by resolution as follows, 8.2 adoption amendment and revision of the compensation schedule. The compensation schedule shall be adopted and may be amended or revised from time to time by resolution of the board of directors, amendments or revisions to the compensation schedule may be suggested by any interested party and shall be submitted and writing by the district manager. Attached there is a resolution. There is the classifications for the position changes and for the project manager. The project manager being a completely new position to the district will work closely with department heads analyzing operational costs, reorganization of the field and office customer service departments and implementing customer service enhancements that we enabled during the COVID pandemic. Other areas of improvement enhancement over the first year will be working with staff on the paperless document management, water loss, improving our website, outreach, grants, review and cost of services and standardization of board reports and memos. This position will help look at many of the areas of our operations and maintenance to try to reduce costs. The board has routinely asked staff to review and to look at reduction in our operations and maintenance. This position will start that process to start looking in the operations department and other departments of the district to see what can be done to reduce operation costs and work closely with the department heads in carrying out that objective. You must probably have several questions on this position. I have a long laundry list of projects I would like to work on. I kind of outlined what the first year, what we would be looking at. And in addition, the director of operations would like this position to do an analysis of a pipeline crew, which I think would be a great access to the district. We have a lot of high level analysis that we want to perform. We just don't have the bandwidth to do it. And this staff position would assist the other department heads in moving forward. The rest of the changes are existing positions that their job classifications have changed over time and should be evaluated and moved to the management of especially the water quality and treatment managers we need to a management position. I strongly believe that the front office area needs an in-office supervisor to monitor the daily routine of the front office of customer service. Finance manager doesn't have the time to be up in the front office and to continually monitor these objectives. The environmental planner position classification change request is a promotion on the existing environmental planner classification. This position is currently performing the duties of the via the environmental program manager and should be promoted. The recommended or the requested changes to staffing total approximately $205,000 per year fully benefited and those actuals may vary depending on qualifications. With that, I'll return to the board and then ask for questions. The classifications and the salary schedule are attached. The salary schedule has an effective date of January 1, 2021 that was set by board action in the past that will be updated if the board approves to have a new date. Can I start this discussion with Jamie? I don't really have any questions. I support the classification changes. All right. Then I guess I'm gonna just jump in at this point and say that I'm in favor of all of these. I don't have as much knowledge of all the positions but I've certainly been impressed with the performance of Carly Blanchard that she is really operating at a level that is far above her classification and this promotion is really, really deserved. And so good for you. Good on you as they say in Australia. The other is that I'm strongly in favor of the new project manager position that Rick has suggested. I think the timing of this is perfect. We've sort of been in a situation where talking about the budget or efficiencies has kind of been hard to do because we've been scrambling to recover from the fire and we're now kind of catching up to the point that we can really use the help of somebody that can help Rick, as he says, gets projects over the finish line but also really start to make some progress on evaluating ways in which we can maybe make our operations more efficient. So I'm strongly in favor of the new position as well. Director Fultz. You're muted. Well, I think the way to start reducing operating costs is to not continue to add headcount. We had a retirement this past year and that was a perfect opportunity to keep headcount frozen but we as a board chose not to do that. I don't support that. But it's just odd to hear we're going to reduce operating costs by increasing them. I just don't see it. The budgets don't reflect that either. And so it's hard for me to support that particular position. That 205,000 that you talked about, Rick, does that fully loaded? That's both salary and benefits. That's correct. And how much of that is the new project manager? I don't have that number in front of me, Bob. Does I get that number? I'm not sure if she does or not. The fully loaded project manager is 160,000. That's assuming a step one start. Okay. So basically the lion's share of that is the step one start realistic, do you think? It depends on qualifications. We'll go out, if the board approves, we'll go out and advertise. It depends on qualifications. And this position does depend a lot on qualifications in general. Hopefully we find someone that has public administration type background and can jump right in and hit the ground running. I'd like to request that we split the resolution into two resolutions. I think we can do that with some fairly simple editing. I'm prepared to vote in favor of part of this, but not the whole thing. And I'd like the vote with the indulgence of the board to reflect that. If you don't mind, I'll ask Gina to weigh in on that because normally when it's a simple board motion, I know how to do that. But when it's an official resolution, I'm not sure how to do that. So Gina, can you... I'm not objecting to what you're suggesting, Bob, but I just don't know exactly how to do it and I wanna make sure that we're doing it right. So Gina, would you hop in there? That just depends how straightforward the proposal is such that the whatever changes are being proposed to the resolution are clear and simple and well understood by the board before voting. Yeah, I think since we don't number these in the agenda, I think I'll just use X. So my proposal would be for the first one, X-A, we would strike the words project manager from that one and then everything else would be the same except for again in the table, we would strike just the row associated with the project manager. And then for resolution X-B, we would strike the water quality and treatment manager and account an office supervisor and we would then in the table, have only the project manager row. So that would be my proposal. I think it's fairly straightforward. Jamie has had her hand up for a while. So before I respond to that and go back to Gina, if you don't mind, I'll have Jamie say what she had to comment on. So I guess before we, well, I'm in Gina's welcome to weigh in on what the ability is and processes doing that. But I think I'd like to have more discussion of the board and I'd like to hear from Gail and Mark about whether we are all in support of splitting the resolution because I am not right now in support of splitting the resolution. I think that Bob's preference shouldn't dictate how we take the vote on the resolution. Why I ask for the board's indulgence on that. And that's typically a courtesy we could offer each other on things where you have a split mind. I appreciate that, but I don't have a split mind. And so I'm not in support of your proposal. Yeah, I think in this particular case, Bob, this would essentially involve you proposing a change to the resolution, which all of us could vote on, which that would accommodate what Jamie is suggesting. And I think that's the simplest way to do it rather than what you're suggesting is that we indulge you because that's kind of assuming that everybody wants to do that. And I think Jamie's made it clear that she doesn't. And I haven't heard from Mark, but the more systematic way to do this according to Robert's rules of order is to just make a suggestion for how you want it changed. And if somebody comes through with a second, then we vote on that. If there's no second, it just dies from the lack of a second. So unless somebody has a reason why that, we would not want to go kind of the normal way you would do things like this, I would prefer that that's what we do. Mark, did you want to comment on this? I'm supportive of the positions as listed, including the project manager, without repeating what you said, Gail. I agree with what you said. So to sum it up, if there's a simple way to split out that position so that we vote on that one separately, I'm okay with that. But I will defer to either you or Gina to see if there's a simple way. Gina, do you want to pitch in on that? It comes down to what you described, Chair May-Hood, if there could be a motion to adopt the resolution with specifically identified changes, and then if it has a second, it could be voted on. I think that's the correct way to do it. Or alternatively, somebody moves that we adopt the resolution as more or less as it stands. Jamie? I mean, I think I'm willing to give Bob the floor to make his motion and we can see if it passes to split out the position in the vote. I'm not hearing Bob make that motion. It hasn't come to me yet. Everybody else is talking, so it's okay. I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said, Bob. I hadn't been recognized to make the motion. You have to ask to be recognized to do that and I will be happy to recognize you. Everybody else was talking, so I didn't want to interrupt that, but okay, I will make that motion. The motion would be to approve, I'm not sure what number to put it, but to approve the resolution 20-21, the first part of it, adoption of revised compensation schedule for the management supervisory and confidential employees unit of the San Lorenzo Valley Water District for the water quality and treatment manager and accountant office supervisor, as stated in the resolution and appendix B. Okay, is there a second? I think he left the environmental planner out of that. I was gonna make a friendly amendment. Is that what we've called it? Well, you know something? I don't know that it's in the resolution. That's odd. Sorry, Carly. The environmental planner, no, wait a minute, the environmental planner is already in a prude position that hasn't been filled on the salary schedule. Oh, I see. Okay, got you. Well, then we're not voting on Carly's promotion then. Is that correct? I included her in there to let the board know because it was changed in salary to her, but realistically, you do not have to vote on her. That's why she was left out of the resolution. Okay. That position already exists and is funded. So in other words, what you're saying is that we don't have to vote on that because essentially Carly is being moved from one classification. Right, and I do believe I have that authority without board action. Is that correct, Tina? Yes, correct. I'm just keeping you in the loop, basically. I will second what Bob's motion. I'm sorry, can I get a repeat of the motion because we've had a lot of cross talk and I'm not clear. I can either try to restate it or I could ask Holly, did you write that down or do I just need to restate it? I think you need to restate it, Bob, there's... Yeah, no problem. So I move that we adopt resolution number 20-21 as specified in the board packet, adoption of revised compensation schedule for the management, supervisory and confidential employees unit of the San Lorenzo Valley Water District, specifically the water quality and treatment manager and the accountant office supervisor and Appendix B accompanying that. Okay, so this is a little weird because the real way this should work is that somebody should have moved the existing resolution and then Bob should make an amendment to it and then we vote on the amendment. And I mean, that would be what we would normally do in just following Robert's rules of order to keep it clear. It's a little bit awkward for Bob to ask for a friendly amendment because usually that is done when another member of the board has put something forward. And this... I'm asking for a friendly amendment. I'm making a motion and the motion did not include the project manager in the motion. Okay, so we've heard Director Fultz and Director Smalley, would you like your second to stand then? Yes, I would like it to stand. Okay, then we will go out to the... We have a motion on the table and I'll go out to attendees. Alina Lang. Hi, that took a second to unmute. Anyways, congratulations, Carly and I just want to echo everything that way far back that you said, Gail, about supporting all these positions. I definitely would vote the way that you're feeling. That's all I have to say. Thanks. Thank you, Alina. Questions or comments by the board to the motion that is on the table? Being none, hearing none, Holly, would you take a roll call vote? President Mayhood, Director Ackman? No. Director Fultz? Yes. Director Smalley? Yes. The motion does not pass. Yes, Brad Lois isn't here. Can I go ahead and move the actual resolution as it stands, including all three positions, the new project manager position and the two reclassifications? Yes, you may. I will... So moved, okay, by you. Is there a second? I will second that. Are there any other comments? Are there any comments by attendees? Seeing none, hearing none, I'll come back to the board with Director Fultz. Yeah, I want to make it clear to the people that are involved here, the ones that are working for us today, that I do support their promotions and I'm sorry that the board did not see fit to allow me to vote in a positive fashion on that. I would hope for in the future that we can achieve more collegiality when it comes to these kinds of things where there might be a split decision. I probably won't be the only one that will have this circumstance at some point in the future. Thank you. Appreciating Bob's call for more collegiality, I too support the staff and that's why I'm supporting the movement to the project manager because I recognize that with the significant increase in projects largely due to the CCU wildfires that you're now managing, you really need this position in-house in order to have the bandwidth to do all of the things we're asking you to do so quickly. And so this is a vote of support for you staff and knowing that you need this quickly and not to be delayed in your pursuit of this position. I'll just say that, well said. I agree. Direct Bob. Yes, and I understand that point and we had an opportunity to do this without increasing headcount and we chose not to do that. So we also have to make sure that our owners, the community is taken into account here. And I'm sorry, I don't think we did that in this case. It's great to say that we wanna support the staff and we wanna do that, but there was a way to do it and not ramp the operating expenses as much as we did. Any more comments by the board? Just one last time to our attendees. Seeing none, hearing none. Holly, would you take a roll call vote? President Mayhood. Aye. Director Ackman. Yes. Director Falls. No. Director Smalley. Yes. Motion passes. With that, we now will move on to unfinished business and as discussed before, we will put off the discussion of the reserve fund policy and the draft biennial budget until later in the meeting and we will now address the utility billing policy. Thank you, Chair Mayhood. The director of finance will present this item to the board, Stephanie. So this item has gone from committee to board back to committee and now back to the board. So we discussed previously, updates the utility billing policy, mainly to eliminate the tag and turn off process and to eliminate the ability for tenants to have accounts. Part of this did require us to rewrite the utility billing policy. This was reviewed by the budget and finance committee last week or a couple of weeks ago and it is now coming back to the board for adoption by resolution. So ask members of the board. Bob, did you want to comment on this? I think we and the administration committee reviewed this as well. And I think that the overriding perspective on this for the community to understand is that there was a recent change in the California law, SB 998, I think that is Stephanie, that really imposed the one size fits all process for turn offs that was really oriented towards large districts, districts with lots of scale. We're not a large district, we're a small district. And so I think what started the conversation was the sort of really heavy amount of process that was involved in trying to conform to 998. And at the end of the day, I think it was everybody's judgment that it's just easier not to go down that path by eliminating the turn offs, we eliminate the need to conform. And we also address the fact that this is a water isn't going to be cut off to our customers. We're still going to have to pay for it at some point, but the water is not going to be cut off. And I think that is really a good place for us to be. And Jamie participated in the committee meeting as well. And she may have some additional things to say about it as well. Jamie, would you like to go ahead and comment? I appreciate that, but no, I'm in agreement with Bob's view of this. I think this is the right policy for a number of reasons. And I am glad that we are bringing forward right now. I'll just add that when I was on the administrative committee, I, we started to discuss this and I thought this was all great. And you guys have brought this to a good conclusion, I think. Mark? I don't have any questions on this. Okay. I'd like to go out to, oh, sorry, Bob, go ahead. Yeah, just one more comment. And I really think that we need to give Stephanie a lot of credit for this. She took this on and really put forward a good proposal for us. I don't think we made any changes or we had very few. So it was really great work and Stephanie's part. Thank you. I agree. Are there any comments by attendees? Seeing none and hearing none, can I get a motion? I can move adoption of, sorry, Mark, did you want to go? Go ahead, Bob. You're more familiar with it than I am, please. I don't know. I move adoption of resolution X, 20-21, adoption of the revised interim utility billing policy. I'll second that. Any other comments by members of the board or attendees seeing none, hearing none. Holly, would you take the roll call vote, please? President Mayhood. Aye. Director Ackman. Yes. Director Fouls. Yes. Director Smalley. Yes. Unanimously adopted. We've now reached the end and if we're going to go through that, we've cycled back to... Have we talked about the investment policy item E? You're right. Sorry, that's next. I think they'll proceed to... Thank you. Thank you. Yes, and the finance manager will present this item to the board. This item was, for the most part, reviewed at the last board meeting when Gina asked to pull it to be able to chain, look into the word treasurer more appropriately. And so this is essentially encompassing that edit to assign the director of finance and business services as the district's treasurer in tight coordination with the district manager for any of the district's investment policy items. Gina, would you like to add anything to that? I think Stephanie got it, that that was the issue was having the district manager service the treasurer create some problems under some statutory problems. So we've clarified that with the appointment of the director of finance and business services as the treasurer. So this is largely just kind of a technical correction. We don't have to revisit the whole thing. Mark, did you have any comment on this? I agree with this resolution as written. Jamie? No comment. I think it's simple. Any comments by members of the board? Excuse me, members of the public seeing that and hearing them I'll go back and I will entertain motions. I will move the review and adoption of the proposed changes to the investment policy as stated in the resolution. Is there a second? Okay, other comments by members of the board or the public to the motion that's on the table. Hearing none, seeing none. Molly, would you please take a roll call vote? President Mayhood, Director Ackman. Yes. Director Fouls. Yes. Director Smalley. Yes. Okay, so that was unanimous and thank you Mark for catching my error there. So now we will cycle back to new business item 10A. Yes, Bob. You know, Gail, I'm looking at PG&E's outage map and pretty much all of our district except for the Felton area is without power still. I am uncomfortable with proceeding on some of these very important items given that large portions of our community is without power. So what are you proposing, Bob, that we basically skip the things that we... I'm proposing that we would have a special meeting or wait until July 8th, which I guess is the next meeting that we're going to have. Carly, what is the deadline on the urban water management plan? It's middle date is the end of this month. So the 31st is when we need to have it into the Department of Water Resources. I think the hope was is that power would be restored as the temperatures dropped. And it doesn't look like, you know, unfortunately it doesn't look like that's the case. We've got something like 5,000, well, it's big. We've got a lot of people out without power. It's certainly thousands of people without power. Jamie, did you want to comment? Well, I just, Rick was going I wanted to know what things had deadlines that would be impacted by our failure to act tonight and what the consequences to the district would be by making that decision. So I totally appreciate what Bob's saying. I think, you know, I would think about maybe moving the budget discussion to another meeting where more people in the community would have the opportunity to participate. But perhaps we could go forward with the urban water management presentation plan. I don't know, Rick, if there are other things that may have a very specific deadline that could affect your... I'll refer to Stephanie on the budget. Do you see any issues that we wait till July 8th to adopt the budget? Gina could possibly cite the code, but I believe budgets are supposed to be adopted by June 30th. I'm aware that that's correct. I can't comment on the flyers to what the consequences would be a failing to do that. You know, given the circumstance, I don't really think that it would be a major issue. I mean, it's something that has been gone over multiple times, you know, there is being a balanced budget. You know, the technicalities of our area being out of power is kind of an extenuating circumstance. I remember in the past that when we did not approve a budget by June 30th, that the board adopted a resolution to allow the district manager to continue with expenditures into the next fiscal year. I'm not sure I have authority to pay bills if we don't have an adopted budget. I do know we've done that in the past with just a simple resolution to keep the lights on, so to speak. And I guess I would prefer to legal counsel on that too. Can I hear from Mark first? Yes. The urban water management plan is the one that's, I think has the most imminent deadline. And I make a suggestion to the rest of the board members. I reviewed this and submitted comments by email to Carly on it, because I had quite a number of editorial and then half a dozen at least technical so that she could pass those on to the consultant. I think it would expedite discussion if anybody else had significant comments if they did the same. I'll just express my opinion on this. I think that because we're required to have a public hearing on the urban water management plan I think we probably want to have that at a time when most of our public can be there. So I think that that needs to be deferred. That is personal opinion. And I think that the budget needs to be deferred as well, just because that should be something, even though we're at the later stages of it, this is really the final draft. We've seen it many times. I think it's just important that we do it, the final adoption of it at a meeting where the public can attend. I do believe, however, that we could address the reserve fund policy and the fire recovery, surcharge community outreach, those don't require broadband. And the first one is really the reserve fund policies as we saw in the budget and finance is really just a technical change and the fire recovery surcharge community outreach is largely informational. So that would be my suggestion. And then go on to do all the other items on the agenda. Yeah, I appreciate your comments about the urban water management plan and mark your suggestions, probably a good one. We can do some of that offline and on the budget. My concern about the Prop 218 or the outreach is that those materials, I think the final materials were just dropped today, I think, or I'm not sure that they've even been made available to the public yet, I don't know. So I'm a little concerned about moving forward on that one as well. In terms of a special meeting to make sure that we get these things done before the deadline, would the 29th work, 28th, 29th or 30th work for everybody? Can we hold off on that? And just before we start trying to set meetings in this kind of setting, we can take a lot of time. Let me just point out, Bob, that the fire recovery surcharge, that this item is basically in response to your and Jamie's request that you see the information. This information is by requirement has to be posted on Monday. So we're not going to come to any conclusions tonight that are going to change that information. So any discussion of this is largely going to be for informational purposes now and for perhaps that we would add information or revise it, but there's no way, in other words, we're stopping this from happening because we are required by the Prop 218 process to have this up by Monday. So I just wanna make it clear what the nature of the discussion of this item is going to be. At this point, it's largely informational and if you have things that you would like improved, they're not going to be implemented by Monday. They're gonna take more time to do that. So that's why I think we can put this off a little bit. Jamie? You're muted. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that for my purposes in terms of what I was requesting, I wasn't requesting to see any of the actual or approve any of the actual public outreach materials. I just wanted staff to walk me through like what is the process? What are the tactics we use? And so they have provided an informational report. I have subsequently met with Rick and had a discussion with Bob and the administrative committee about those questions that I had. So I feel very satisfied in my questions regarding outreach related to Prop 218. I understand that that's just beginning now in advance of our August public hearing, which is fine and appropriate, but I don't have any big concerns or discussion that I need to have around that item. Yeah, just to be clear, the requirement to post Monday then is based on the currently scheduled August hearing date. That's correct. Okay, it's not that there's this legal thing that says we got to do it tomorrow, become hillar by water, but we've already established the hearing date and we just backed up to this particular date. And notices will be going out and we want the website and the information out there ahead of the notices going out. So just to be clear, it's not that I don't think it's worthwhile to have a discussion on this on sort of maybe on a more meta level at some point, but I'm just saying that tonight we're not going to change what's going to happen on Monday. And Jamie, it sounds like you've kind of been walked through some of your questions about what the process is. Mark. Yes, Dale, you made the suggestion to postpone discussion of the urban water management plan and the planning old budget, but that we proceed with the rest of the items that are on here. Yes. I agree with that. Is that something that, is that something that I can decide as president or should I have a vote on that? Or Gina, you want to give me some guidance here? This is kind of an unusual situation. For me, as president, you could exercise discretion to pull items from the agenda. If you prefer to take a vote of the board, that's also fine. One note I would like to add is that because the urban water management plan requires a public hearing, if that's not addressed tonight, we need to post a notice of adjournment that says when the meeting, when and where essentially the Zoom information for when the meeting is going to reconvene and we need to post that shortly after this meeting. Okay. Jamie? Is there a timeline of a, you know, an amount of time that we have to have that posted for before we can hold the meeting? In other words, do we have to do like another 30 or 45 days or can we just post it and have it three days later? It would be fine to post it and have it three days later. There's, there might be a 24 hour requirement, which I could look up, but I don't think there's any likelihood the board would choose to do it so soon that that would be an issue. You know, special meeting for 24 hours. Yeah, we need to be sure we have consultant and staff availability use, my number one concern on that and obviously board availability. Right. And I want to be clear, it wouldn't be a special meeting. It would be a regular meeting that's been adjourned to a new date and time. Yeah. Interesting. Yeah, I understand. Okay. So, and that's probably more correct. I mean, given what's going on tonight. Okay. So just remind me that the deadline of when we have to have this done is at the end of this month. That's what our understanding is June 30th. All right. Well, I think that that's doable. You know, even if we have to have just a short meeting to deal with this and hopefully that Rick can find the time when the staff can be there and when the consultants can be there. Did I hear Gina correctly that we have to, we have to select that tonight at this meeting that date? I think that's what I heard. No, I don't think so. Okay. No, I think she said very shortly after this meeting. Okay. Right. But I don't think so. I will check the code. It's got to be posted shortly after this meeting. And so typically you would decide that upon adjourning the present meeting. But I can check and see if it can be termed at a later time. So staff will work on with consultant and staff and get some dates out to the board for this meeting for strictly the urban water management plan. And now for the budget, if council tells us that it's okay to go into next fiscal year without a budget and pay the bills, I have no problem with that. It's just that we have to be sure I want the finance manager back from vacation and go from there and she's off. Stephanie, you're up all next week. Next week. So I mean, if we wanted to have it on the 28th, 29th or 30th, I mean, that would work for me as well. I prefer it in this fiscal year to adopt a new budget before next fiscal year. I think it's cleaner. Let's not try to establish that right now. We'll leave it to the staff to figure out what the, you know and sometimes it's easy to do when the full board is present to pick a date. I think it's perfectly fine, you know if we have some like, wow, short meetings, you know that just deal with, you know, one or two issues. I think that's perfectly fine if that's what it takes to get through this. Everybody on board. So with that, I am going to exercise my discretion as president to take up two more items on the agenda before we go to essentially the consent agenda and district reports and everything else. And so the one that I would like to do now is so we're skipping the public hearing on the urban water management plan and we're going to item 11A which is the reserve fund policy. Thank you. And the director of finance will present this item to board. Back to that section. So essentially we review the reserve fund policy more so for the appendixes during, you know multiple trigger events, the main one being during the budget process. So this reserve fund policy is incorporating the new biennial budget for what the projected target reserves are going to be. I do have one small change that we're gonna make the fire surcharge which was added as part of the budget process currently is in the classification app of committed. We're gonna change that to be restricted. So you'll see the word change two spots in this document and similarly we'll be proposing the same thing in the budget document. But essentially it is showing appendix A and appendix B to reflect the anticipated reserve fund levels at the end of each of the respective fiscal years. And it does denote that there is currently no known future debt financings coming up. Okay. Thank you, Stephanie. Let's go ahead and start with Mark. Did you have any comment? Just so that I understood, Stephanie this is going from being a committed fund to a restricted fund? Yes. Okay, thank you. No, I don't have any other questions on that. Thank you. I'll just add there that I appreciate the fact that you took the general sentiment of the board last time that we would like to see the fire recovery surcharge put in a more restricted setting that is a restricted reserve account. And I appreciate that you've followed through on that. Thank you. Jamie? So I, sorry, some things going on with my generator outside. I don't know if you could hear that. But I'm wondering, and this may be a question that you're gonna walk us through when we do have the budget discussion. So apologies, I reviewed all of these together and some of my questions blended together. I would like maybe when we do the budget discussion for you to just show us how the use of those restricted reserve funds are gonna move through the budget because I wasn't based on the documents that we were provided. I just wasn't 100% clear of the process for moving that money through the budget as it becomes available or is used. But we could have that discussion next time too. Thanks for warning her so she can be ready to do that in the budget presentation. Bob? Yeah, I had a similar comment is Jamie. So obviously we're thinking along the same lines. When we get to the budget, since we're just dealing with a policy here, we don't need to go through numbers. When we get to the budget, if we could go through the values that are in the two reserve accounts associated with capital and operating. So those are quite different than what they were even before the fire. At least the 23 and the 23 one is. And I'd like to make sure that we and the community understand how those numbers are generated. And we kind of talked about this a little bit already. It's really gonna be just a summary of that. Any other comments by members of the board? If not, I'll go out to members of the public to see if they have any comments or questions. Or and see if there's anybody that would like to offer a motion. I would. Let me see if I can find the language. It's down there in the resolution on the one, two, three, fourth paragraph. I'd like to make the motion that the board. Can I make a suggestion? Sure. Okay. That the board of directors of the San Lorenzo Valley Water District adopts the attached reserve fund policy. And that this reserve fund policy shall take effect immediately and shall supersede and replace any and all previously adopted reserve fund policies. That we're moving more? That's what I'd like to make a motion on. I will second that motion. And I am so glad to see Lois back, although we lost her again. Oh, there she is. Okay, good. Welcome back, Lois. Okay, we have a motion on the table. Are there any more comments by members of the board? If not members of the public seeing none, hearing none. Holly, would you please take a roll call vote? President Mayhood. Aye. Vice President Henry. muted, Lois. I don't know what we're voting on. Could you now make quickly? On the revised reserve policy. Oh, the one that was in the pack. Yes, no change. Okay, yes. Director Ackman. Yes. Director Fulse. Yes. Director Smalley. Yes. Passes unanimously. Now we will go to item D, which is the fire recovery surcharge community outreach. Yes, thank you. The environmental planner will present that to the committee. Carly. Great. So I'm going to share my screen and I believe Gina, are you able to talk through a little bit of what we were presenting or would you like me to do that portion as well? How this relates to the Prop 218 hearing process. If you could talk about the outreach plan. Sure, that sounds like a good plan. So if you've got permission to share your screen, Carly. Yes, hold on one moment. All right, is everyone able to see the shared screen? Yes. Yeah, great. Perfect. So what we went through staff along with legal council put together a facts, answers and questions document and then the final notice as well as posting the technical Manda random and then the FEMA project list. Within the website page, there is a description of what the CZU fire recovery surcharge pertains to and what it's going to represent. And then we also have information on 2017 water rate increase. So overall this page will kind of represent what the Prop 28 or 218 is. And then we've also included a couple of photos and so what we'll do once we're able to release this is create a district spotlight on the homepage of the website to direct people to this main page. And from there we'll create some different social media outreach as well as send out the notification to, I believe it's going to be through mailing and that would be something that would be Stephanie perfect to comment on. That's correct. The final mailings will be, I mean, I believe they're in the process of being printed and we'll be going out in the mail either tomorrow or by Monday morning. And then we plan to make this live on our website tomorrow morning. Is that correct, Carly? Right. Are there any comments? Is that all you wanted? Gina, did you wanna pipe in there? Well, I think Carly and Stephanie really covered it. There are several pieces of information that are linked from the website. The Proposition 218 notice is of course a key one and that's been finalized and sent out to printing. The NBS technical memo of course also was finalized. The board took a look at that a month or more ago on the FEMA project list was presented to the board at the time that the NBS technical memo was reviewed. The FAQ has been a joint effort with Carly working on some of the questions and answers. And I also added some legal questions and answers along the lines of things that we've been asked during the district's last 218 process. But I think Carly, that can be a living document so that if it can be updated depending on the actual types of questions that the district receives during this process. Mark, do you have a hand up? Yes, you addressed that these are gonna be mailed out. I assume you mean hard copy on that. What about for customers that receive billings electronically? It doesn't go as part of the bill. It goes as its own separate mailer. And so it's a combination. We wanna make sure we're covering all of our bases. It goes based off of the addresses that the county has on the property tax roll and then as well as the addresses that we have in our customer files as to the proper mailing address that makes sure it's getting to the property owner and if there's any tenants on the account, it's better to spread a wider net in this case. Agreed. So all customers then get a hard copy of this in the mail? They will, yes. Okay, thank you. Jamie. Thanks for the overview. Very thorough documentation. I appreciate all of the information. I'm sure that all of my fellow ratepayers in Saint Lorenzo Valley will appreciate it as well. So thank you for sharing this with us, Carly. And I just wanted to ask the question of whether there is an opportunity for board members to help do outreach. I'm happy to stand at a farmer's market under a pop-up tent with the FAQs and some information. If we think that that would be helpful and effective, obviously I would love to have a member of staff there with me, but when we're thinking about outreach, I know that I'm supportive of participating in that as a board member if that's something that will help engage the community in a more fulsome way. During the last Prop 218 process, I noticed that there was a number of ballots that were not filled out correctly. Would it be possible to have an example of one that's filled out correctly available on the website or in the mail? Good suggestion. We'd be able to have one done for on the website, but the mailing has already been finalized. Right. Yeah, I think that would be helpful in these circumstances for transparency and the light. To make sure that if people do have a desire to protest that they're able to do so in an accurate fashion. Lois, did you have any comments? Yes. The problem with going to the farmer's market is not everyone there is a customer of SLB. There are mutuals that have other, memberships and you have to be part of SLB to vote. And I know in the past when people set on street corners or whatever they do, lots of times people who fill out something are notified to vote and the district of course has to, doesn't have to go through those unless it gets the 50% plus one vote. And then if it does, it's gonna have to go through all of those. So could be a little problem to go to the farmer's market. The other thing is one thing people don't understand and I looked through this and I saw it's there. It's one vote per property. It doesn't matter if it's a husband and wife, a husband and wife and three kids that are old enough to vote. It's one vote per property. And that doesn't, it's there. I saw it, but it's kind of buried. And I think people need to know that because people can come back to the district and say, I wanna see the votes. And they're gonna say, well, why isn't my vote here? That needs to be something that people understand. That's all. Holly, did you wanna comment on how is that managed if we've got five people living in a household that we only get one vote and who fills it out? Essentially it comes down to when it's a validation process. So say husband and wife are both on the property account one submits a protest and one doesn't. It'll count as a protest against, it'll count as one single protest against the Prop 218. And I don't throw out any of the protests. Every single one is saved. If it's a duplicate, it's marked as a duplicate and it stays with us so that I can show anybody. I mean, sometimes we'll get five votes from one parcel. If there's an owner and a tenant and a wife and a husband and a child, there's a lot of ways that people can try to vote, but we would only count one per parcel. But how do you choose which one to count? It doesn't matter. Doesn't matter which one is chosen. Just one vote is chosen. Essentially you have a listing of all of the different parcels. So irregardless of if you had five come in, it would just be checked as a single protest for that parcel. I guess what I'm asking is if you had five members that lived there, four voted yes and one voted to protest. How does that, how is that counted? It would count as a protest against it. There's no yes vote. So it would be considered a mark against the no. There's not only no votes, that's all it counts. Only no votes, this is a no vote. Tom? You know, Lois's point was really good and your question actually gets right to the heart of the matter. Because this is the complete opposite of how our democracy, republic operates in terms of voting, it's very confusing to people. And it's very confusing to people. It's very confusing to people. And it's a real shame that we have this system. It's in my mind, it's really not very good. And so yes, very important that we explain to people that if they are in opposition to this that they must vote no. Otherwise it just, it doesn't matter. A silent, a person who's silent is voting yes. I mean, that's effectively the end result. Any other comments on the board? Any comments by members of the public? Seeing none, hearing none. There's really no motion or recommendation on this. This was largely informational. And I think as Carly said, it's kind of a living document that if we later on think things need to be revised kind of along the lines that Lois and Bob were mentioning, we can do that. We need to increase the emphasis on the way this is done. Okay, so with that, we will move on to the consent agenda, which item number 12, which is the minutes of the board meetings. Bob. Yes, I'd like to pull the minutes for the 520 meeting. I have a edit I'd like to propose. But the rest were open. Go ahead, fire away. Okay, so it would be on page, let me blow it up here a little bit. It would be on the third page. After the first paragraph, I'd like to insert a paragraph that says, defaults responded. That is the board's job to set policy for budget increases, not direct staff and how to meet that target. And we have not done that. Bob, can I, I'm sorry, can you just tell me the page on the board packet so we can all forget? Sorry, yeah, it's sorry about that. It's number 431. All right, so I'm sorry. Go ahead and if you don't mind repeat what you just said. It would be inserting after the first paragraph. And what I would like to insert is defaults responded, that it is the board's job to set policy for budget increases, not direct staff and how to meet that target. And we have not done that. We can, do we have to vote on these changes to the minutes? I think we do, don't we? Yes. When an item has been pulled, it has to be voted on. That's right, it has to be voted on. And we also need to go out to the public. So Jamie, did you have a comment? I guess I'm not 100% clear. I'm looking at page 431. And I'm not seeing. So after paragraph G, the first paragraph, you want to insert that comment. Bob, is that what you're proposing? Yes, this is a sequence of comments that were made during the board meeting. And I think it's important for transparency that the community has the full, since we started down this path in the minutes, it's important that the community have the full context of those comments. Any other comments by members of the board? And so what, Jamie, you look puzzled. I still am because I guess I don't recall specifically Bob making that comment. So he's proposing that he wants to insert a comment he feels he made that did not get captured in the minutes, in the minutes. I actually reviewed the video today. And I did, this is a summary minutes. Summary minutes, and I summarized my comment. Got it. I'm not making things up here, Jamie. I'm not suggesting that you are. I just wasn't clear on like, okay, I mean, I believe that you know that you said that, but I'm just trying to find some other basis for the board. So you've reviewed the video, I believe that. So I'm comfortable with that. I just wasn't clear on the source material from which we were drawing the comments. I understand. Jamie, you haven't been involved in all of these discussions before, but when we've talked about the minutes, the minutes are a summary item. And so we don't wanna have too much detail. And so we have discussed before that when people make changes, there's kind of a limit to the amount that people can change them. And in my view, in this particular case, Bob is following up in this discussion. I remember him making that comment and he's making a change that's on the appropriate scale. So even though he's arguing against what I said, I think it's perfectly fine for it to be there. So that's how I feel about it. So I'll vote yes, but some people feel that we shouldn't be messing with the minutes and just let Holly kind of do it. But sometimes it's a matter of taste. All right, Alina, did you have your hand up? Well, I think Alina among our, go, thank you. I'm trying to say this politely, but I feel like there's been a lot of wasted time in this meeting. I think going over minute details starts getting pretty minute. I think there's some area that we could have cut some fat to make this meeting go a little bit quicker for everyone else, especially since we were delayed start. That's all, thanks. Well, that's always a challenge. And again, I think it's also a matter of taste. But I get your point and I think it is important for the public that we don't waste anybody's time. The public's time or the staff's time. So I get your point. So I'm going to simply put Bob's revision of the minutes. Holly, did you get, well, Bob can just send you the exact statement that he wants put in there, all right? So we don't have to, you don't have to capture it now. So the question is, can you take, we'll just take a vote on whether we accept Bob's change. Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to adopt the minutes of five of the, excuse me, St. Lawrence Valley Water District Board of Directors meeting of five, 20, 21 as amended. I'll second that. Okay, go ahead, Holly. President Mayhood. Aye. Director Henry. Well, normally I vote no on these because I don't remember, but since Gail remembers the actual message, I'll vote yes this time, but I hope somebody's going to bring me up to speed about what happened tonight. Director Ackman. Yes. Director Fulse. Yes. Director Smalley. Yes. Okay. Next, we have district reports and again. Sarah Mayhood. Yes. If I may, could you just confirm that there were no objections to the other items on the consent agenda? Thank you, Dean. There were no objections to the minutes for the special Board of Directors meeting of May 12th or the Board of Directors meeting of June 3rd. Next, we have district reports and I would ask given the time and just how confusing all of this has been and trying that, you know, that if you can address departmental status reports and the committee reports by contacting the staff members directly, but if there's something that you just think is really a burning issue that has to be addressed tonight, we can do it, but let's try to keep these under control. Yeah, I think that would be acceptable. I do have a number of questions and really big agenda that was created. So sometimes you just kind of got to, you know, grit your teeth, but I didn't want to make sure that we have the proper process and that is if we're gonna contact staff directly, it's with Rick's permission and he's copied on it. Is that correct, Rick? Is that what you would like? Yes, that works. That's the procedure. Great, thank you. All right, so that said, are there any other questions or comments on the district reports that is item 13 among the board? I don't see any. Are there any from attendees? I don't see any. So with that, we do have the written communications and we have one informational item which we added at the suggestion of Bob. And it's basically the LAFCO assessment. Did you want to say something about this, Rick? Not on that, but before I just wanted to make sure you get into adjourn, district council has one more item of business before we adjourn. Okay, well, all I was gonna say was that I read through the LAFCO thing. It's a good overview. I think, and especially in light of discussions that now tabled about consolidation with Scouts Valley and possible annexation of Big Basin water, I thought it was pretty interesting. So I would recommend it to the board. I don't think there's much to discuss about it, but I recommend reading it, Bob. Yeah, I definitely recommend looking at specifically the recommendations for A and for B, which talk about expanding our sphere of influence to eliminate the sort of enclaves that are inside of it and possibly looking at consolidation with some of the mutuals at some point, assuming that they're willing to do so. I think these are both very important items for us to be aware of. Gina, you had an additional item you wanted to bring up. This is really just a procedural follow-up to some of the earlier discussion. This may sound hyper technical and inconsistent with how the board has handled meetings before. Usually you could just schedule a special meeting to finish the agenda items that you didn't get to. But here we've got this public hearing for the urban water management plan that's been noticed and the notice and the hearing process are part of what DWR can review as part of the urban water management plan. So we have to do this correctly. And what that means is that we need the board to adopt an order of adjournment that specifies the date and time that the meeting's going to continue by video and teleconference. And then the district needs to post a notice of that order of adjournment within 24 hours of when we adjourn tonight. Okay, so that's a little bit different than what I understood before, which was that we could adjourn that and within a day or two make that decision. I mean, I think the idea of trying to make, conclude what time and date that's gonna happen is pretty challenging. But is that really required by the statute? Yes, that's required. If we don't do that, then we essentially have blown the notice period. Which is important. Okay, so now if this helps, a meeting can also be re-adjourned. So if it gets adjourned tonight to a date and time that doesn't work, then whoever can adjourn the meeting at that date and time can't meet and then re-adjourn it to another date and time. Can we just pick a day, 28th, 29th, 30th? I'm sorry, Bob, I was speaking. Go ahead, so I didn't notice it. Can we just pick a day, the 28th, 29th, or 30th? I won't be here, but. Can you call in? I'm gonna be in the wiles of Nevada and I already am coming back early for the meeting on the 8th. So let me pull my calendar. I could do the 28th, which is a Monday. Carly, what do you think of the 28th? That should work for me. And I did talk with Spencer, our consultant, and it sounds like he's pretty open until the end of the month as well. Okay, so like 6 p.m. on the 28th, will that work with the board for now, tentatively? Jamie? Yes, I can do the 28th. Mark? Yes. Lois? Yes. Wow, a miracle has occurred, okay. Do we need a motion then, Gina, or what do we need? We are the. The board will. There is a, we're going to move that we adjourn this meeting until Monday, June 28th at 6 p.m. Is that correct? I think it, just a slight technicality and move to adopt an order of adjournment, adjourning this meeting to June 28th at 6 p.m. Like she said, that's the motion. Okay. I will second the motion and I just wanted to offer my thank you and apologies to all of the attendees who probably came to hear the budget discussion in the urban water management plan and didn't get to hear that. And we want as many people as possible to participate in that discussion. So we ask your forgiveness tonight and we hope that you'll have the ability to join us again. So, but I vote yes. Well, we need a second to. I seconded it, sorry, I'm seconded. Okay, we've got a second. All right, we have a motion on the table. Then we go out and ask the board if they have anything to discuss about it. Mark, Lois, did you have any comment? Oh my gosh, I don't even know what's going on. Okay, Lois, we are adjourning the meeting until. I understand that. I understand that, but I don't know what happened tonight. I don't know. Let me tell you. I'll talk to you tomorrow morning. I can call you if you want to. You'll call me. Yeah, I'll call you tomorrow morning and I can go over the agenda, but we did. Thank you. So we have a motion and a second. Are there any comments by members of the public? Okay, any more questions by members of the board? Seeing none, hearing none. Holly, would you take a vote? President Mayhood? Aye. Vice President Henry? Yes. Director Ackman? Yes. Director Falls? Yes. Director Smalley? Yes. Sure, Mayhood, just for clarification, on the 28th, we'd also like to bring the budget to the board to get that adopted before the fiscal year ends, please. Stephanie, do you have a problem with that? Okay. I assume that was the case. I was gonna be sure. We were killing tubers with one stone or whatever. That's great. Only two? All right, anything else? All right, well, we actually did surprisingly well tonight, guys, given how it started out. So thank you for hanging in there. And as Jamie said, thank you for any members of the public that you- And we will get something up on our website tomorrow and out on social media about tonight's meeting and how we postpone these two items, these two very important items. And Carla, you work on that and we'll get some outreach going right away. Without objection, I will adjourn this meeting. Good night, everybody. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night.