 And can we have a roll call? Director Farris? Here. Director Falls? Here. President Henry? Here. Director Swan? Here. She wants one more. Maybe here, but more directly. Oh, and Director Smolman is not present. What's his story? He addressed McGill for the last three minutes. So staff has an announcement to make to the board members. The district manager received a resignation email yesterday from Director Smolman. And I got it also. President Henry got it as well. District manager followed up to confront him with the intention to resign effective yesterday, and that appears to be the case. So at the next board meeting, it's going to be on the agenda to consider and declare the existence of a vacancy for Director Smolman's seat and set the process in motion to fill in the vacancy. We're not going to do it tonight. We're not going to do it tonight. It's not on the agenda for tonight. It will be on the agenda for the next meeting. OK. Which is the special meeting? Well, it's on the 23rd. It's actually being noticed as a regular meeting. OK. But yeah, it's not unusual. Unusual. Next week's meeting. Yeah, it's going to be. And we'll decide the date and time of that tonight. We can provide confidence of the email that was interested. And it will be part of the board meeting. So no oral communications. No one here. So I guess, gee. OK. For the item 4A, the conference with real property negotiators, there is a requirement in the government code to actually announce certain aspects of the proposed transaction during the open session. So I'm actually going to read the item into the record. So item 4A is regarding property APN number 078-233-05. It doesn't have a designated street address, but it's located along Scenic Way in Ben Lomond. The agency's negotiator for the potential acquisition is Mr. Rogers, the district manager, the negotiating party owner of the property, as we understand it, is Mr. Nick McCarrie. And under negotiation are the price in terms of payment, which are the matters that can be discussed in closed session. And that's it. So we aren't hiring anybody outside to do this negotiation. It's just going to be work. Not to do the negotiation. There are reports and things that will be needed for the third party's. Oh, OK. OK. Would you like to wait or we will be hiring an appraiser, a property appraiser, to do a property appraiser with property. And we can talk about the sequence of events in closed session. If you could briefly describe it. Well, I wasn't sure. I mean, I figured out that we got a property appraiser will have to come back to the board and discuss the price value and go from there. OK. All right. So I guess we'll just take ourselves to closed session. We have this meeting to order. So we're going to have roll call again. Director Ferris? Here. Director Fouls? Here. President Henry? Here. Director Swan? Here. Director Smallman is not here. Yes. We made the same announcement just before closed session. Yesterday, the district manager and the board president received an email from Director Smallman indicating that he's resigned from the board. The vacancy will be placed on the next board meeting agenda for action by the board. And to declare the vacancy and consider how to proceed with filling vacancy, copies of the email can be made available to anybody who would like to see it. And it will be for the upcoming agenda meeting. Thank you. There's no reportable action out of closed session. I guess maybe I was supposed to say that before roll call sorry. So are there any comments from the public? None? About anything that's not on the agenda? Anything your little heart desires? OK. Hearing none, I'll move on to unfinished business. So item A is education grants. Yes, the environmental program manager is on vacation. So I will try to deliver this topic. I would recommend that the board review and accept the final report for the following 2018 classic watershed education grants. The first is exploring the San Lorenzo River fifth graders to science camp. San Lorenzo Outdoor Pressure for Education. And the second is how much soil, water, do invasive species use. How much soil and water do invasive species use? You have the final reports in your packet, and we're recommending that you accept. Any discussion by board? Any comments from the public? So we have to approve this. Would you like to be accept? We accept. Somebody needs to say we accept. I make a motion to accept. I second. Director Ferris? Aye. Director Pulse? Yes. President Henry? Yes. Director Swan? Yes. OK. Moving on to item B, the hydrologist consulting form award of contract. Yes. Staff recommends that the board consider the recommendation by the environmental committee and authorize the district managers to enter into a contract with EKI for as-needed hydrological consulting. In fall of 2018, our long-term hydrogeologist, Nick Johnson, is providing as-needed services for over 30 years, resigning for a job in the public sector. Currently, the district needs professional services to provide guidance in representing the district's needs in the Santa Margarita groundwater agency, identification of potential management areas for groundwater development of specific projects necessary to achieve water sustainability, identify new sources of supply, review and develop recommended conditions regarding conjunctive use planning efforts, and other water-related activities. Following the board approval in April, the district solicited a request for qualifications for as-needed consulting services. The district received three proposals in total, EKI, Stetson Engineering, and Ludorf and Scalamini. All proposals were reviewed and evaluated by the environmental committee. During discussion in the environmental committee, staff mistakenly stated that Stetson may be in contract with the city of Santa Cruz. Following the meeting, staff learned that Stetson is not in contract with any agency in Santa Cruz County. Stetson and EKI ranked very closely with EKI narrowly leading the scores. There was considerable discussion about the process and the pros and cons. Staff also attempted to call references provided by Stetson Engineering and nullified references for current. The environmental committee voted unanimously to recommend EKI to the board to award the contract. And the environmental committee chair, Mr. Ferris, made one-and-a-half to this. No, I think you summarized the discussion in the last minute or one, unless there's any questions. It was, you know, the environmental committee really went through and had a considerable discussion. There were all three firms, which is good. Each one was a little different. And I do know today at manager's meeting, this subject came up, and the manager's follow-up recommendation was the right one that they had involvement with all three and thought that EKI would be very careful with this one. Rick, go ahead. I was on the committee discussion and they all came in very close. And I guess I didn't mean it flippantly, but Ty goes to staff. If staff is comfortable, they're all equally qualified, then let's work with the people that the staff will work with. The only counter to that was I typically like to give business to small companies. But the fact that Stetson's references didn't appear to be current was a little concerning. It means they're not on top of their relationship there. And that makes it a little harder for us to be able to evaluate that. I'd say the only other thing here that I neglected to ask maybe during the committee meeting was about how much do we spend on this function every year. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands. I do believe our budget this year is 50,000, 50,000. So honestly, it depends on what's going on. It's as needed, and it's important to monitor. And to use it cautiously, and only as needed. And I will be looking to you to make sure that happens. We just hope, especially there's a lot in the RFP about Sigma, they will not be attending the meetings. These would be times that we would ask them to review the civic findings from Sigma, and so forth. And we use St. Johnston over the years and evaluate our wells. James, during cooperation, will have them a year lead, spend a few hours evaluating our well drawdowns and our production to tell us how our wells are operating. So it's a variety of needs, and it's up to the district of the amount of time that they spend. And it will be monitored very closely. Thank you for doing that. And that consulting hydrologist, he's done a lot of work for years here. Mark Williams has worked for the district and is currently under contract with the district. He is a private consultant that really specializes in mechanical and design and maintenance of wells. He has an excellent background. He's worked for the district for over 30 years. Him and Nick worked hand in hand before. Nick would look into the hydrology, and Martin would look into the actual mechanical of the wells and so forth, getting ready to do two wells right now on a rehabilitation. Very good, very straight shooter. Good work, and reasonable in cost. It's probably worth noting that, as Bob indicated, Stetson was a close second, and they were the small company that he was referring to. I think it's important to also note that, independent of all the people on the, in fact, actually everybody, their staff and the environmental committee, all independently chose EKI number one. So I think it's very comforting to know that everybody was unanimous. I think everybody there actually. It was interesting, at the end of the list today, we had four managers and Don Ricker from Motor Resources and all thought that was the best recommendation out of three to the district. That was comforting, too. I think Mr. Fiel was going to be a very excellent mentor. Hi, Rhea. Yes, he impressed me, he's a resident. Any other board member have a comment? How about public, anybody, Ann? This hydrologist would be only for Santa Margarita, or? Anything in the district, our wells, our surface water, aquifer management, which we use in the quarrel of the years and review. OK. Any other questions? Hearing none, we have a motion to approve this contract with EKI. I would make a motion that we approve the contract with a hydrogeologist for EKI based on the wording that Jen had in her recommendation. I'd like to wish you. I don't think there's a resolution, is there? Well, there's a, she made a statement. To award the contract. She awarded the contract by motion, correct you? Yes, that's correct. I'll second. Director Ferris. Aye. Director Fouls. Yes. President Henry. Yes. Director Swan. We. We? I'm going to say it nationally. That's off to the board in a minute. All right. So we'll go on to item C, the water. If I may, just for Holly's benefit, I was referring to the recommendation from the email or memo from Jen to the board of directors, dated July 18th. Thank you, Ken. OK, we're going to go to item C, the 2019 Watermaster Plan Award. Right, and the engineering manager will deliver the staff report. Members of the board, on May 1, 2019, the Lorenzo Valley Water District advertised for a request for proposal for consulting services related to the 2019 Watermaster Plan. On May 31, two bids were received, one from WSC Incorporated, and one from IKEL Engineering. During the week of June 24, staff coordinated a review that included accompanying interview presentation, which included the current background, experience of staff, watermaster plans completed, project, approach, and special issues. Also completed reference checks and a review of the fee estimate. After those reviews were completed, staff could not identify a substantial difference between the two firms and determine that each was capable of delivering high quality watermaster plan. The deciding factor on which firm should be selected shifted to the only remaining criteria, which was price. IKEL Engineering has submitted a price to the master plan, which is less than half that of its competitor. Based on this price difference, staff recommends Ward 2019 Watermaster Plan to IKEL Engineering. Any questions that they have to ask? Any unhaved questions from our engineers? I have a couple of comments. First of all, I'm always a little resistant to accept a recommendation based on price only. So I have to ask the question again. Are you sure there's nothing in the abilities of the two people that quoted that would? I mean, you said that they're equal. Do you truly believe they're equal and only difference in difference in price? Yeah, we went through a fairly comprehensive review of a number of different criteria. And the presentations, they're both to be used the same water model to model the district. We sat in here with this group, sat in here with both consultants for over an hour for the both consultant. Going through a lengthy presentation, we asked a number of questions during the process. And I think the group is pretty much united in pretty much a point between the three partners. I think both of them are capable of doing a good master plan. I don't see any concern about either of those two consultants. It still leaves me with a question of why the difference in quotes is over $100,000. The real issue of these qualifications and what you see is the best chance for getting the best product possible. And if you say it's point like that, then I accept your judgment. And just to talk a little bit about that, I think you've got one firm that basically specializes in master plans. Right. That's pretty much all. Which is equal. Yeah, that's pretty much all they do. They have staff that are sort of customized and streamlined to collect the data, put it in a water model, calibrate the model, run the model. And that's just highly specialized in that area. More efficient. Being that that's what they're dedicated to. More efficient, translating to less time. Or better job. Less over here. Less over here, that's what it's at. We've heard these stories where somebody will come in low and then make it up to change orders. And those type of things. Good question, that. Right on the table. What's that to change order? Where do you see where you don't have enough time? You've seen our making them and reviewed our GNS, our mapping, looked at our mapping in our system. And where do you see problems? Where are you going to have to use more time than you allotted in your proposal? They didn't see that. So that was, you know, you pulled that right up front. And I do believe that even though you're a C-chef, they have a hard time competing with this overhead. They're much bigger than they have a lot more over there. They do a lot of things. My other concern is really more of a request. And that is that we get back to WSU and share with them why they didn't get it. Why do I think that's important? We use them for a lot of projects still. And I still am of the belief that we need them more than they need us right now. Obviously, we're going to wean ourselves off. And I think we need to be upfront and open with them about that so that they can still do the best job possible for us until we sever that relation. Are you here to poke in depth with them? About them? About that. Yeah. Thank you. I think when the staff report was posted, they've been aware of our recommendation. Oh, they received the? Well, I don't know if they necessarily received it. They sent it to them specifically. But it's available. They're on the list. Oh, they're on the list? Then they received it. So they know, yes, they've been aware of that for a week. And we've had conversations about that. And as Rick has indicated, they've sort of been acknowledged that they're just a larger, less efficient organization when competing against a specialized firm that doesn't think that they don't think that's necessary. OK. I, for one, have a really bad taste in my mouth about WSD. They were hired in the beginning without any requests for proposals going out. They were hired because the former manager had worked with them in the past. And I think they have come on the USDA loan. They came back. They came back. They came back. And the price kept going up and up. And there was no way I would ever vote for them because of that experience. So even when one of the problems with the USDA loan was they were missing deadlines and they needed to get a new environmental company because whoever the other, the ones they originally got, couldn't do the job. So WSC got somebody else. But we also had to pay WSC $17,000 or $18,000 to find that company. And I mean, I hear you seem to like them. And that's fine. But I've got a history here. Been coming to meetings. And I've got a history with them. So. Yeah, I remember the same thing. And I think it comes down to really the challenge I think we face. And this is where we're going to be relying a lot on you, Darren, is matching the kind of firm up to the kind of task. And so when you have a very targeted task, typically a specialist is going to be better for that. If you've got, not always, but I mean, that's sort of your general thing because they're going to be able to bring the expertise to it. They have the lower overhead and all those sorts of things. In the case of BKI, they're not a specialty firm. They're a firm that obviously wants to grab as much revenue as possible around this groundwater. A lot of we have a place in California. They came in at a price that was reasonable, right? The specialist didn't come in so much lower than you would have gone and waited. So I think that's the ongoing challenge that we're going to face. We do still have, I think, an on-call contract with the OSC, which we had approved earlier. But hopefully we'll sort of continue to bring more expertise to us and not have to use as much in that, and I think that's a good thing. So I'm perfectly happy. I mean, if you guys looked at it in depth and it sounds like you did, and you grilled them on it, which sounds like you did, and let's do it, this is great. I'm so excited that we're finally getting this going after so many years of talking about it. So those important documents will be used. Absolutely. And this is an actual document we're going to use forever. Absolutely. It is a modeling. We can't wait to have a model. We can start modeling some of our systems on this. Thank you. Oh, no, I just want to second Bob's excitement. That's fine. How about any members of the public want to say, Ed? I have a statement, and then I have a question. The statement is I was here at the engineering meeting when they were discussing these two different companies. And when the price came up, and it was over $100,000 difference, there was a statement made that you get more for your money because you're paying more. You get a better job because you're paying more. And so it was recommended by the board at the committee at that time to go with WSC. But they had to look at the, they asked for in-depth evaluation of the two companies. Finally, my statement is whenever when we got the bids for the PRVs or PVRs or whatever they are on PICO, it was $407,000 was a low bid. I think the high bid was $800,000 or $600,000. I didn't hear one person at that committee say at that time that maybe we should go with the highest bid because they'll do a better job. You went with the lowest bid right off the bat. So you can't change in the middle of this. You've got to adopt one thing. The price is very important. But you don't always get a better job because you pay more money. That should never be applied. OK, and then my question is, didn't we get a grant for the Northern System for this master plan study? Wasn't there a grant granted to us? So if there's a grant, does that apply to part of this cost? It does. And how much is that grant? It's $89,000. I thought it was $75,000. OK, so it's costing us the $83,000 minus $75,000. So it's actually $20,000. That should be brought up. And that should be stated. That's my statement. Does anybody have virtually, Scott? Yes. I think this is a very clear example of how to do business, that how things should be discussed and conversed. I don't think I would have seen this with the last four. And I think this is a good example. But one thing that I've always missed is the post-mortem analysis of a project that starts out with high expectation and seems good. But there's a report, a page or two, written after the whole thing is over about what you learned, what were surprised, what surprises you had, and what would you do differently the next time. And that's, your project is not done until that's submitted. Good point. How's Louis's job? Not fine. I'm just one board member. Debbie? I just want to thank staff for your thorough review. I'm really impressed. And sort of what Virgil says, this is the kind of comprehensive review of contracts that we read in the public. And he especially really liked to see. I'm really confident that you looked at all the possibilities and compared it. And all three of you are for this. And I have all confidence that this is a great decision. Thank you so much for your time on this. They made the space shuttle. The lowest bidder wins. Oh, that blew up. Follow-up 13. Oh, you're good. So let us comment. Be bringing you back to board. Yes. I'd like to address what I said. You're absolutely correct. At the last engineering committee meeting, we did recommend the WSE for the contract. But remember, we did that before we opened the bid packages. We were not allowed to make that decision with the dollars baked into the decision. So once we saw the huge disparity between the two bids, that's when we decided as a group, the engineering committee, to go back and look at why there was such a big disparity, to try to ascertain whether or not this is something that really impacts the decision or not. And as it turned out, it did impact the decision. And I do agree with the staff recommendation that we now go with Virgil. But I still believe that price not being in consideration, there was nothing wrong with the decision we made with WSE, non-equipment price. So I just want to know that that decision was made without the knowledge of the price. And then, I understand. The price discussion on getting a better job with the price came up after the, you know, it's just, you don't use it normally. So it shouldn't be used, I don't think it should ever be used as a price. The price, yeah, saying you're going to get a better job and you need to pay more money. I don't remember that being said. It was, I'm not sure. Well, that's not a good rationale. This is one of the reasons why I completely oppose the process of looking at RFP responses without also having price being a part of that discussion right up front. At the end of the day, you cannot fairly evaluate the value proposition and the price performance without having both aspects of that immediately at hand and available to everybody reviewing it. I've heard that there was some legal requirement that we do it that way. If that is the reason why we're doing it that way, I would like to ask if that is really the case. I didn't a quick look up on this and not clear that it necessarily applies to our district, our size, our situation. But going forward, I really think that we just need to be looking at numbers at the same time. We're evaluating the proposals. I think it's a waste of time to do it any other way. So we've changed to that. You want to add to that, Gene? I think that's probably the best response that that would have changed. And to kind of take off of what Lou said, when we did just look at the two proposals, when you looked at WSC, who has had a great familiarity of our district, used all pictures from our district, had a lot more information because they worked for our district and knew about our district. Proposal-wise, WSC was hands-down and a much better proposal. But when we sat down and when you get down to it, the work that was going to be done was no different. And so that's, and then we sat down with Echel. It was obvious that they were just as professional and were going to do just as good product. And there was no way we could overlook the difference in price. If part of that overhead goes to salesmanship. Yeah. But they put together a proposal, all our pictures of our facilities, and it was a really fluffed proposal. Just, if you don't mind my adding, just to provide a little more understanding of the context for all this, there are two very different paradigms that apply to the public works contracts where there is the low, mid requirement. You have to take the lowest qualified bid, typically for a public works contract. So the conversation may be a little different there than when you're dealing with services contracts and especially engineering, architectural and environmental project management services contracts. And there is always a primary requirement that you have to try to identify qualified candidates. But what you do beyond that, there's some flexibility that I think the district is working with. Actually, the RFP for the Bear Creek alternate business analysis was posted, I think it was posted yesterday, that RFP and another RFP that I'm currently working on will be posted tomorrow. But we're modified to take into consideration the enterprise component. The words with Gina and Rick and Gina and I put together a revised RFP format that we'll be using henceforth. And you can see it on the RFP for Bear Creek and you'll see it again in the RFP for what used to be the USDA loan pipeline project, which we're going to have tomorrow. Perfect, thank you, that's great. Great, thank you. Any other comments again from public? Poor numbers are done. Okay, so. I'd like to make a motion that we accept the reading from the recommended motion of the engineering manager's memo dated July 10th, which basically says that we accept the Agile Engineering for this particular RFP. I looked a second down. Okay. We have a second, a motion and a second. Director Ferris. Aye. Director Fultz. Yes. President Henry. Yes. Director Swan. See. See how many different languages you can do. I guess it comes in more languages. He's German. I guess he's German. Yeah. He's just so excited to be here. I can do Turkish. Okay. Item 10D. Well, rehabilitation of Quail 5A and Olympian 3. Yes. The award bid engineering manager will do the staff report. Here's the report. Both the Quail, Quail 5A and the Olympian Quail 3 have planned a production of nearly 20 years. Over the last few years, the district has registered a steady decline in the production of these wells. Earlier this year, the study was commissioned to investigate the cause of the decline. It was determined that there was buildup in the well screens that was restricting the flow of water into the well casing. Rehabilitation of the wells should restore the well production. We received four bids for rehabilitation of the wells. Staff has reviewed the bids. The low bid was, the low bidder has submitted all the required documents including a bid bond and is property licensed to perform the well rehabilitation where staff is recommending the board of directors to adopt in test resolution including the Quail well 5A and the Olympian well 3 rehabilitation project to Jorah Brothers Drilling Incorporated, Watsonville, California in the amount of $105,800. Any questions? Was that in the board package? Sure. What? What we should just refer to. Yes. Yeah, I'd say. 10D should be a memo in there. Page 162. And a resolution. There's a memo and a resolution. The other bids and bidders are also listed in there. This is interesting, the delta. So, any comments? I recall this was budgeted for this coming year and now they're about a capital improvement or out of operate? Not the double chin. Yeah, just the difference. 105 to 204,000. Whoa. It's location. Jorah's in Watsonville and all the rest of them come from a lot further. And it's big equipment, bank tags, and a lot of back and forth. Isn't the majority of the people that work on a lot of or hasn't been doing this for a while? They do most of our emergency, they do all of our emergency after hours work. And they get most of our bids, they just got the bid on quail dowel or past temple while I ate your place one. The right in the backyard? Yeah. And it passes out and so they, ever since I've been here, was this kind of in line with your expectation of how much it would cost or is it? Yeah, this project was actually, James actually put the project out and I didn't actually know that it was out. So I didn't do a very, I don't know if they're on the value of anything. It's about what you expected in terms of price. Yeah, it seems I've been through a couple of these and it's usually pretty much in the same ballpark for each wall, drier on $50,000 for each wall when the jorah comes in bids. Nobody's ever been able to compete with them and it's because of where they reside. Okay, great. Thanks. Do they have t-shirts? Do you have t-shirts with your brother's drone? Extra orange. I'm sure Rick will pull that off for you. I think they do. For the fans. Yeah. No big here, no big. Everybody gets them. Any other board members have comments other than one-to-ones t-shirts? No? Okay, how about our friendly audience? No comments? Okay. Size preference? I want a mug. So somebody want to make a motion for this resolution here? I'm going to approve the San Juan Valley Water District Resolution Number 1, 1920, Award of Construction Contract for Quail Well 5, Olympia Well 3, Rehabilitation Project. It's sake of that. What do you do here, Rick? Dr. Ferris. Hi. Dr. Folls? Yes. President Henry? Yes. And Director Swan? Yes. I have a seat. Point up. That was very nice. You have a view, though. Okay. I hope somebody drives them home. Okay. All right. Issue of a new debt by the district requests to schedule a board meeting. Quick some plan to get ready to go do something. Right. This memo and agenda item are a little unusual. We wouldn't typically make it an agenda item just to schedule a meeting like this. I did in this case want to put it on the agenda so that the board, the meeting at which the debt is approved is technically a regular meeting for all purposes. Also wanted to give the public as much notice that this is being planned and make sure that the board members have as much notice as possible that this is being planned so that we can maximize participation because this is an important matter for the district. So the request is to schedule a meeting at 6.30 p.m. next Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday here at the operations building to consider and hopefully approve the debt issuance of approximately $12 million, I believe, to finance capital projects. I understand that for scheduling reasons, the 23rd has sort of risen to the surface as a good date. So I'd like to propose that if the board has a recommendation that if the board's comfortable doing this meeting at 6.30 p.m. next Tuesday that we have a motion to schedule the meeting at 4.00 p.m. We've got a motion to approve this too. It's a regular meeting, there's a motion to approve it. It's a regular meeting. We'll be schedule a regular board meeting for July 23rd at 6.30 p.m. You can say where, here in this facility, here at this facility. We should have public comment for 4.00 p.m. You can do a motion. Yes. Do we have a second here? I don't think so. I'll secrete that to you. Okay, any public comment? Okay, no public comment. Okay, Director Ferris. Aye. Director Fultz. Yes. President Henry. Yes. Director Swan. Yeah. Let's go get some money. Just for information too, this loan takes the place of the USDA loan. It's the loan with all the strings, but we won't be getting too long to take the place. We will no longer be pursuing the USDA loan. And it won't be attached to those items. That's fine. We're asking you for more, right? So you can fund the t-shirts. Okay, let's move on to new business. Item A, surplus drugs. This is Rick. Yes, recommending the Board adopt the tax resolution declaring two trucks, truck 226 and truck 340 as surplus and authorize the District Manager to dispose by either advertised sale or auction. We have the District's 2018-19 fiscal budget provided for the replacement of vehicles that are briefed to lack of expectancy. The vehicles have been purchased and placed in service. The vehicles replaced have reached their lack of expectancy and no longer have a value or use to the District. One is a 2003 F-250 pickup truck with 163,000 miles on the odometer and came actually with the consolidation of Lumpico. And the second is vehicle 340. 2008 Ford Ranger was assigned to customer service department and had 152,000 miles on it. Those are practically new, huh, Bob? We're driving 300,000 mile vehicles at home, right? 360. Language. Oh, sorry. All right. And Bob? How do we determine when something has reached the end of the road? What are the criteria that we use to... Usually, it's reliability, the amount of funds that we put into it. What usually happens is they wear Frank Stark cracking, then start ripping, and then the maintenance, the finances that go into it. Are the dens and frames of this crack? Yeah, the mirror here is almost cracked in two, but matter of fact, it's tagged on safety drive, the mirror in vehicle. The roads that they go on and the weight that they carry, it's just constant at the stop and go, and the brake drums are cracked again or the rotors are cracked again. When we get going, there's pretty much, not much left out, but it was made to define us. Well, the director of operations is working with Left 4 Motor, but they have no problem with used vehicles, and they may want them. We've done it with auction before, we put them on Craig's list. We get what we can for them, we get what we want. What do we get for them typically? The last time we surfaced out, there was $100, and I've been taking the pick and pull to get rid of them. Nobody would buy it. You don't get much of an auction. But it's a process we have to go through and buy it at a certain level. Can you donate them anymore to the schools? And if they get killed, because they're not good. No, the thought, but I mean, we still don't have money to take it all over the pick and pull, so we got strapped by school, so. Well, we get what we're doing on the next batches. Have you ever rotated through some of the other vehicles as they start wearing that wound to a lesser duty purpose, away from the meter reading and customer service to be used as backup or another vehicle that goes into service and so forth? So we try to get every mile out as we can. We need to do drones for the meter reading. Any other, really, you got any comments? I just would like to make a motion that we accept it. I got it. Ask them. Anybody in the public have anything to say about these vehicles? In a place of good. No, we'll give you a piece of box. You know, we used to repo a car once in a while with the credit union, and that'd be a pretty good shape. If they go to auction, you get nothing. So these are not in really good shape, and you aren't going to get much. So now, Lou. Now I'd like to make a motion that we accept resolution number 319-20 with the wording of the resolution declaring surplus vehicles provided for instance a second. Did we skip two? Sorry. Yeah, well, that's just that same question. Yeah, two. Yeah, I was wondering about that. To be used later, but let's use only odd numbers. Because we had 1 and 3. So, Director Ferris? Aye. Director Poles? Yes. President Henry? Yes. Director Swan? See, and I'm repeating myself. Dude, don't. And I'm worried about you. OK. I'd suggest a Canadian. A? Yes, sir. An abbreviation. He's just so happy to be here. OK, item B. Right? Yes, you have a primary view of the resolution, work review, the memo, and the attached documentation. And by motion of the board, authorize the president to execute a ballot on behalf of the district for one of the three candidates for the LAFCO alternative member representative. You have three members of candidates. Edward Banks from the Harrow Valley Public Cemetery District. You have Carlin Christensen from SoCal Creek Water. And you have Edward Harmon from Scotts Valley Fire Protection District. That'll turn it back over to the board. You know, we actually, I think, want to vote him for Mr. Banks. I think we do, so I guess. But I forget the lady that was on it. There's only two. So she won. She's from SoCal Creek Water District. So my recommendation is that we not vote for another SoCal Creek Water District. We also have a fire. There's already a fire district for a person on there from our area. And so I still go with Mr. Banks's recommendation. I think the cemetery district's around the state need representation to it. And he seems to have a really good background. And I don't think there would be any issue with whether it's for him again. He's not an occupant, though. He's not an occupant. Well, not yet. And I lean that way, also. We do. All through the cemetery. OK. Wait. Uh, who? I recommend Edward Harmon. OK. Why? Do you like to know why? I believe he is the best qualified person in terms of education and experience. And I think that his tenure with NASA kind of speaks to his ability to handle complex issues. Will I ask enough? Sorry. Scotts Valley Fire. Yeah. Scotts Valley Fire Prediction District. He's also a parent's husband with Scotts Valley Water. Oh, really? Yes. Oh, negative. Negative. Let's go with the cemetery. That changes it. Take the cemetery then. I didn't mean that. It was in 2005 or but I think that did. Thank you. I knew that. So we will thank for sharing. I can make a motion. He's a very good guy. Make a motion. He is a very nice guy. I get that. So any comments from the public here? Did you shake your head yes, Debbie? No. It was bobbing up and down. Oh, Virgil. I actually, I'm not being a ceaseless. God, I hate him. But I believe Director Fultz's reasoning was pretty good. I also disagree with Director Ferris' assumption that because he worked for NASA he's able to deal with complex issues properly. I and I have experience there. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments? I make a motion that we authorize President Henry to execute a ballot on behalf of the district for Mr. Edward Banks of the Pajaro Valley Public Cemetery District to be the lab co-alternative member representative. Also. Director Ferris? No. Director Fultz? Yes. Director President Henry? Yes. Director Swan? Yes. All righty, moving ahead here. James, you're number whites. I am. I am C. Yes, you have in front of you the California Special District 2019 Board of Directors election. You have in front of you, you consider the nominees for the CSBA Board of Directors seat B and the Coastal Network for term 2020 to 2022. And you have a little backup in your packet. Do we know any of these people? No. We do? You need to vote for one candidate. I know we're standing as is, and I don't know how you vote on this, but beyond that... Anybody else, Moon? No. But somebody else? I don't have a... or in the water here, because... I do have a question about my water. Do we get... I mean, that's really far south of here. So, I mean, we're lumped in with... Is this like a coastal thing? That's called almost all. I mean, Ohio's all the way down to Ventura. Yes. Santa Nez is just north of Santa Barbara. I mean, it's just like a long way away. Hollywood's a... It's not... No, it's called CSDA. She's... Or this person is... Jeff. Sorry. Well... Is currently CSDA vice president and vice chair. Right. I mean, I looked at... My criteria was, hey, let's get something new. Well, you want to get somebody new. Yeah, so let's... We're new. Let's support somebody who's new. Well... That would be Mr. Curtis. Yeah. It says CSDA... It takes a long time. Why? Can we nominate... Can we nominate Alexander? In case you're a courtesanist. I called on Lou, please. Sorry. I would like to nominate Jeff Hodge, because of his experience with water districts in three different states, Colorado and Arizona, in California. Three big drunks. Sounds good to me. What problems does the water treatment operator keep? What do you think? I have no dog in this time. Yeah, I don't have any oar in the water. Okay. I'd like to second Mr. Fritz's nomination letter. Okay. Any comment from the audience here? This has been such a nice meeting. I want to read it. Director Farris. Hi. Director Pulse. Yes. President Henry. Yes. And Director Swan. Thank you. President Henry, before moving on to close out the meeting, I'd like to request that the board consider making a motion to reconsider item 10-D solely for the purpose of making an administrative correction. I'm sorry, it's not 10-D. 10-D. It's 11-A. Oh, 11-A. So solely for the purpose of making an administrative change to the resolution number from 3-2. And I would recommend that because the financing of motion is going to be the next motion and it would be good to have a clean record. Yes. So if one of the board members could humor my request to make a motion to reconsider when the board would need to vote on whether to make a motion to reconsider. I'll make a motion to reconsider. We have previous resolution number 3-19-20. So we have to basically reconsider a vote on that and then we have to do the real thing again. But there has to be a vote on whether to reconsider it and then a vote to reconsider it. I made a motion to reconsider it. I guess I'll second that. I don't have another language here. Director Ferris. Aye. Director Foles. Yes. President Henry. Aye. Director Swan. Wee. I'm creepy. Wee. Wee. You can consider it. If a board member would make a motion to change the number of the resolution from 2-3. From 3-2. I'm sorry. That was a test. That was a good test. Do we just read the motion all over again? Is that what you're saying? I mean I can say. You can do it either way. I lost my place. I took a test. I move that we approve San Lorenzo Valley Water District resolution number 2 replacing the 3 as written in the agenda. 19-20. Surplus vehicles for their disposal. I'll second that motion. Thank you. So I apologize for that. First, Ferris. Aye. Director Foles. Yes. President Henry. Yes. And Director Swan. Wee. So I had assigned 2 to a 10E, the issuance of new debt. I had assigned a resolution to it. It should have been the next one. All right. Are we done? No, we're not. No, we're not. We're done. Okay. We have district reports. We have the set agenda first. You have minutes first. You have minutes first. Oh, consent agenda. Did anyone anybody want to pull it out? Minutes out. Virgil, you wanted to say about the minutes? Well, it's not. You want to pull one something out? No, never mind. Thank you. I misread something. Okay. There's nobody's pulling any minutes out. They're just approved. That's right. I recommend the update. We can just do this straight up. Update the agenda language. It doesn't save it. Emotionally. Thank you. All right. So the minutes are approved. So now we're going to go back to the district reports. You have the department staff reports, engineering, environmental, finance, business, legal and operations. Some of the department heads are here tonight. They can answer questions. If you have questions, we'll have the answers. We'll bring them back to you. You have the reports. So engineering is going first? Is that it? However you want to do it. I was going to make a couple of comments. Okay. So on the engineering report, clean, clear, sustained, boom, boom, boom, three different categories. I assume it will be another category done. When we have them done. That's very good. And it's at a level that it's easy to grasp what you're working on, what you're focused on. I appreciate that. And as we get additional projects underway the next year, it might expand out. So thank you. Yeah, actually that could probably be two days. Four days is, there's a lot of different things constantly being had. I think it's sort of a working progress right now. I think the only other thing is that I heard from REC that there's things that come in requests that come in for evaluation or something like that. Is that in the area of engineering reviews or something like that. These are things that we aren't currently charging for. Right, and we'll be looking at coming to committee to talk about that as we get there and it's up to speed on how much time he is spending on these individual meter reviews that we are. We believe we should be charging some of that. Well, I probably got 25 open meter reviews right now that are being considered. Are you kidding? No. There's a ton of them. They come in, they just roll in throughout the way from them and they take a lot of advantage. Keep in mind these are most of these are existing homes or an upgrade with accessory building units. A lot of them, maybe 10% will turn into an actual meter set. A lot of it is his time and a lot of labor to see if we can serve these parcels. It's not an automatic 25 meter. No, I wasn't looking at that point of view. I was looking at the point of view of oh my god, that's a lot of meters. None of that shows up on just because there's so many of them in so many different phases of review. This takes his time, it's a lot of director operations time. We should be charging. We should be charging for this. Especially if the conversion is only about 10%. There's one thing if it's converting at 90%. Okay, great, thank you. Any other questions? I have a question for Darren. On the San Lorenzo Way Bridge project that's in design, you talk about working with Santa Cruz DWP staff on the details, but then you go on to say that the construction will be built to district standards. Do I assume? Do I assume from that that there was a disagreement with DWP? No. Just pointing out that standard, what we're trying to incorporate into their specifications are proper wording, so the contractor is not confused when he goes to construction as to who is the lead agency that he's trying to, the standards that he's trying to meet. So this is normal? Yeah, that's great. This of course is for existing lines plus the line that might potentially connect into raw water. That's correct. Any other board questions on any of the other staff reports? Any questions? Here we go. Committee reports? The minutes are here. Well, the minutes are here. So nobody had any questions about financing. Committee reports, I would guess this meeting is over. That we can Well, except the fact that we're doing to talk it in length and extensively about San Francisco Chronicle. It's already been said up there. We need to really drive it home. We are working on outreach though. And he was on National Geographic too. So was I. The Chronicle? A little famous. You know, that's Francisco famous. We can bring the area here to our little neighborhood. I almost thought it was a crank call he was trying to sell me something. I'm going to hang up on him. So I'm adjourning the meeting at what time? 7.35? 7.35. We will have another meeting Tuesday. 6.30. 6.30. See you. Wow.