 Meeting to order. Welcome everyone. I do have a report out of close session. The board voted unanimously to approve a satisfactory annual performance evaluation of the district managers. And more to follow-up. Thank you. So now we will go to open session. We're going to go call Holly. Director Falls. Here. Director Ferris. Here. President Henry. Here. Director Swan. Here. Director Moran. Here. Before we start, if I could say something, I really want to thank staff for the good job they did when we had the power outage. They worked like 24-7. I'm glad that they were pretty worn out. I'm glad that it didn't go five or seven days. It would have been a nightmare. But it made me think about all the time since I've lived in the valley, how many times we've been a disaster area. And SLV used to be a lot smaller when I first moved here. And it's a lot bigger now. And it takes a lot more work when there's a big disaster. So I just want to say thank you to staff. Senior staff did a good job of having everything so organized. And the rest of staff just worked their hearts out. So I'm just saying thank you to them. The reports will give an update on the power outage during our reports. So do you have any additions or deletions to this? Staff has none. Okay. Oral communications. It's your time to talk about anything that is not on the agenda. Looks like we have quite a few people here tonight. One thing, I mean, you're all invited to speak. But I would appreciate it if you agree with something that was said. You'd say I agree with something. Instead of repeating it. If you could just humor me with that. That would make me quite happy. Okay. So any communications out there about something that's not on the agenda? I scared you off. Okay. Moving right along. I'm going to go to unfinished business. And that's along Pico tanks and Roger. Just to get to it. You have some information in your packet. And I do believe we were unable to put the backup on the initial study and the mitigated negative declaration in the packet. I did give links on the website. The project is the replacement of three water tanks. It's actually six water tanks, but it's the same locations. The Kasky, McGrone and Lewis tank sites are located in the Lumpifo community. The Kasky tank is located approximately 750 feet northwest of Trauma Road. The Lumpifo tank site is located approximately 650 feet northwest of the intersection McGrone Avenue. And Lewis tank is located approximately 1200 southwest of the intersection of Vera Avenue and west. The projects are is part of the Lumpifo annexation and is being funded by the Lumpifo assessment district. The district proposes to replace the aging water storage tanks at the three distinct locations. There'll be 260,000 gallons at the Kasky, 260,000 gallons at the McGrone. I hope they got these right, but they may not. And at the Lewis tank site, there'll be 210,000 gallon steel bolted water storage tanks. As part of the project, we're required to do an initial study to be submitted to the county for mitigating negative declaration. It's been recommended that the board approve the initial study to be submitted to initiate the CEQA process. The comment period will be open with your approval and will be closed in 30 days to satisfy CEQA regulations. And we could not get in the pack and I apologize, but I hope you had a chance to take a look at the report from the website. And so I'm asking the board to move forward. We need consensus on this or a vote? Do you believe we need a vote? Yes. Anybody like to make a motion here? Do you want to comment or talk to the board first? You're right. It's a good thing you're watching over me tonight. Well, I can ask the board if they want to talk about it. I just had a quick question. What are the size of the tanks that are going to go through the tank? One of the 100,000 gallons, I'll do it right. But I think these are the actual sizes that are there now and they've been changed. Well, that was 60 and 60 and before it was 100 and 100. So that's why I'm thinking that... That's what it was. And we went through this before on the same size. There were two in each location. On the east side it was 260 gallon tanks and one at Kaskin, 260 at Madrona. We're gaining some additional storage, not a lot. We are gaining some additional storage. On the west side. Actually, except we're replacing the Lewis 2 at the Lewis 1 location. But total storage, there is a gain in storage, not a lot, but there is a gain. Yeah, it's about the same. Yeah, it's a small gain. Any other board question? Well, I just have a technical thing. I tried to bring up those links on my iPad and I could not. They're huge. They're big files. I can do them on my laptop so you can replace your iPad. I'll look around. So any comments from the audience? Tony? Well, I'm Tony Norton from Long Kiko and we've been waiting a long time. So we really do appreciate the work that's been done and the movement forward that's been made. And we hope that you will approve this. And we really, really would appreciate it if you can correct those numbers. Right, I think those numbers are wrong. We don't want Long Kiko's to think we're going down. We have to know we're improving the amount of storage. Thank you very much. Debra Lowe and Long Kiko also. And I agree with Tony on all the points. I think Rick, at the laptop committee, you said there was going to be about a 20,000 gallon increase. Yeah, I think you were right. You brought it up and I researched it and I sent it to you, but I didn't get it in the memo on this one. But in this memo, it says the loose are going to be 110,000. So that makes up the 20,000. And I don't know if that's a re-engineering and the others are staying the same. Well, it may be the nominal size, but I would be willing to say that once with the overflow and the seismic level to keep them sloshing down. Yeah, that's wonderful. Thank you. Any other questions out there? Are there going to be two tanks? Two tanks at each location. At the loose. That's correct. Two 110,000 gallon tanks at the loose. And we'll have to remove the building and there's a well there that will destroy. There's a considerable amount of site work to be done at the loose to get both to fit. But with this process and with the 20, the 30 day review period we're still on for a spring construction. I'm pretty sure the district engineer plans to bid all three together. Now that we have approval from federal official wildlife to move on to the loose tanks. So hopefully we'll get a good price on that. He wants to make sure this bid goes out in the beginning of this construction season. So we'll get a considerable amount of contractors to bid on it. Okay. Yeah. I'm wondering if Rick could say how much we spent on the environmental just for the loose tanks site. There was a cost involved there? Well, there was a cost for to set up the down that fund for the mountain and do be a little bit of 94,000. That would be separate of any of the work that was done. So it was 94,000? 94,000. Okay. That's correct. So that was environmental cost? Yes. And that'll probably, I'm not sure, it'll probably be in your next. So you're not ignoring environmental costs at all? See any of it? That's a good question there. Okay. But that's what the cost is, 94,000. Okay. Yeah. Okay. All right. So I need a motion here. All board members are shy. I'll make a motion. We accept the recommendation that we do a motion. We'll make a public comment. See. Mm-hmm. May I suggest something? What? To open the public comment period for the mitigated negative declaration and initial study for the Long Pico tanks replacement project. I'll make that motion. Thank you. Second it. There you go. Excuse me. All of you want to call your question? I apologize. Yes. Director Fultz. Yes. Director Ferris. Aye. President Henry. Yes. Director Swan. Yes. Director Moran. Aye. Thank you. The next item is the strategic plan update discussion and possible action by the board. Okay. I'll just kind of do a quick introduction and then I think I'll ask the chair of the admin community and director Fultz to kind of to weigh in. But we did take the strategic plan process back to the administration committee to talk about the process moving forward as directed by the board. On September 5th as for the agenda director Fultz submitted a draft strategic plan for consideration. The attached plan is intended to provide a draft and only drafts report discussion and consideration. Also attached for review is the district's current strategic plan. After discussion the board requested that the strategic plan be sent back to the administration committee to discuss and recommend the process for moving forward and be recommend section topics. The administration committee now October 2nd, 2019 and develop the following. There is a substantial list of discussion items that the committee discussed to bring back to the board. And we are coming back to the board for consideration. Also examine topics as requested by the board using the table below as a guide that was the current 2015 plan proposed well 2016 plan and then proposed 2019 plan. I'm going to bring it back over to director Fultz so he would probably would like to add to it. But let's consider both discussion. Sure. Thanks, Rick. I don't have too much to add to it. It was a very robust conversation about this. Variety of the viewpoints were considered and aired during that conversation and I think at the end of all that the committee reached a consensus on what is here in the board packet with recommendations for the process. So basically we would as a board need to select a base document that we're going to use as a starting point. The committee recommended that we appoint two people to act as basically editors to take the input from the process and put it into updated drafts of the strategic plan as we go along. The committee did not have any recommendations for either of those topics. We didn't have to the board. The committee recommended that we schedule two meetings for community input. Afternoon on November 9th and December 7th subject to facility availability. Probably need to be in a larger facility in this room. And in those meetings we would review the entire strategic plan with the assistance of the facilitator to make sure that we move through the process and not get focused on just one topic. And we're expecting that there should be a robust number of people that we can choose from. I'm sure staff has some recommendations for that. Right. Two names that we can talk about. And then the committee further recommended we continue the discussion and our meetings in January. Make a very large focus of that. Also supported by the facilitator. Concurrently the committee recommended that we should send the draft topics relative to the committee's assignment to those committees for their review. And that staff would review the base document as well and have comments available by early December. So with all that put together, two people would edit it, get it ready for the meetings in January and then we would go through that process. There was some discussion of an additional steering committee for the strategic plan. I think ultimately the committee was like maybe redundant given the recommendations that we have here. And so that idea was dropped from consideration. Of course the board is free to accept, reject, modify whatever the recommendations committee at its point. The topic review for the board consideration also followed a similar process. We looked at the current plan which is actually from 2015. There's no record of a plan having been approved in 2016 even though there's a proposed plan on the website. And we compared that against the proposed 2019 plan and came up with the topics as you see at the bottom of this page with the introduction, a number of topics including what the strategic goals would be and then for each one of those goals a page or two for each topic. We did add a page at the suggestion of Lois agency relationships number nine which was not on the original draft. And we modified one of the topics to be water and watershed stewardship to make sure that it was a broad topic. And so those are also recommendations from the committee again to be accepted, rejected, modified at the pleasure of the board. If there's any questions, be happy to answer them. I did go through the recordings so that the document here reflects what was in the report. Did you have anything you wanted to say? I do have some questions. Under the process points for board consideration number one bullet, the committee agreed that the strategic plan is a board document. Can you expand on that a little bit? I think the committee understood and agreed that strategic plan is a board document owned by the board and produced by the board is basically what I took away from it being board document. That would seem to make sense given the board sets policy for the district. And so at that level the strategic plan is a policy document of the things that we want to focus on the goal level and specific strategic items. So what you're saying is that that would be ultimately included into the board policy manual in your mind? Well I don't know that it would be included in the board policy manual necessarily. Of course the board could choose to do that. Well doesn't the board policy manual contain all of those elements that represent what the board is responsible for? I think the board policy manual has a lot to do with operational aspects of the board. Whether or not you wanted to refer to the strategic plan of the board policy manual specifically, I mean that's up to the board. I don't know that that is a requirement. Here's my recommendation. I have a problem with that statement as it stands. When you talk about strategic planning you're talking about a strategy to produce a plan. The strategy itself I agree is a board document because that's who should present the strategy around how we're going to develop the strategic plan itself. But the strategic plan largely comes out of district staff I believe. I think we might be confusing strategic plan and operating plan. There is a need for an operating plan to come out of the district manager. And it's up to him to decide how he would organize that to fulfill the goals of the strategic plan. But an operating plan and strategic plan are very very different things as I'm sure you know from the background. What I also know from my background is conventional wisdom is that the plan itself is the ownership of the people who are going to execute the plan. That's the operating plan. I don't want to get into semantics. What I want to say is I went to the Scotts Valley four-hour update of their strategic plan and it just reinforced to me that there is a clear difference between strategy and plan. And the framework for how you're going to do the plan is the responsibility of the board. I agree with that. But the strategic plan itself largely comes out of, you know, we give them direction and they give us specifics. And that in my mind is the strategic plan. And as such the strategic plan is not a board document. It's a board and district document. And that's a distinction I'm trying to put out there. So I know that I've heard Stephanie say how she wished we'd get the strategic plan done so she knows where she should be going. And I have to agree with Lou. It seems to me that we have to it's staff, it's public, it's a lot of involvement. So it seems like to say it's a board document just kind of says it's our document. To me I tend to take things very literally. I'll admit that. It's just a number of things. Steve, you got anything to say? Well I think I agree with the way Bob's defining strategic plan ownership versus operating plan ownership. Strategic plan should be the board's purview. They should own the direction of the plan, the strategy going forward and where we want to go. Not how we're going to get there. The operating plan is how we're going to get to where the strategic plan says we want to be at the end of the day. So what comes first, the chicken or the egg? The strategic plan comes first. Okay. And the staff would take that as guidance and develop their plans based on where the board says this is where we want to go. What has to staff? Do they agree or disagree with that? That's pretty fundamental assumption. I'll ask them in a minute. How do you agree with Moran? I agree with Steve and Bob that the policy is the strategic policy is what we're responsible for. Okay. And the implementation of that goes to the staff. Now, I'm more interested in after these meetings and weighing it. I'm prefer to listen to what the public has to say and what can go on in these meetings that are skated. Okay. Rick Rogers, did you want to say anything? Well, I use the strategic plan as a partnership between the board, staff, and the public. Everybody should have an input. And we take the brainstorming session and then we write the strategic plan. I have received an unusual amount of calls with a real concern on the mission statement, including from a former employee who wrote our watershed management plan, Dr. Herbert. I believe that she emailed all of you from Oregon. Yeah. I was a long-term employee that wrote the watershed management plan, highly respectable. There's a lot of concern on the mission statement. I have one more comment and maybe this will help eliminate why the committee, and certainly from my point of view, would agree with us. It's all about accountability. So we are accountable to the voters based on what we said we would do and based on the plan, the policies we put together. And so from my perspective the strategic plan is the document by which the voters hold us accountable. The operating plan is the plan by which we hold the district manager accountable and also through the district manager down through staff so that it all flows up and all flows down. And so that's why for me there's a distinction between the strategic plan and the operating plan because of the accountability aspect. Because I fully expect people to come to us and say, when we get the strategic plan done, you said you're going to do X, Y, and Z. What did you do? We've done a lot of X, Y, and Z. That is true. And there's more to do. And this is our document roadmap for being able to do that. And so that's, I think, the reason I look at it in two different spheres. You know, I kind of think that we're not going to move this ahead very far until we get a facilitator to work this out. I see a lot of different ways to advance the strategic plan. But I think we need somebody to grab these ways and help us move ahead. I think that's what the committee was recommending for sure. I think sooner we move in that direction I think that the quicker we'll advance. And everybody agreed that. We need a facility. I think we all agreed to that. So can I go out to the audience? I have one other small question. On the fourth bullet item it says that we will go out to the community for input on November 9th and December 7th. You realize, of course, that those are Saturdays. The committee specifically recommended that. I think we would get better attendance on evening. And that's why the history has been that way. We just picked Saturdays to give people who had to work. You know, we hear that and complain that don't hold these meetings during the day working people can't get there. So maybe one during the evening and one during Saturday. That's easy to do. That's an easy one. That was a recent change. That was done specifically to try to draw a larger crowd that did not have to work. The Santa Marta Rita groundwater agency meetings that were on Saturdays have a lot of people there. There were a lot of people on Saturdays. Because sometimes people work all day. And they don't really want to come to a meeting at night. But we have a pretty good group here. Yes, we do. So let's go out to that group and who wants to speak first? Okay, Nancy. Thank you. My name is Nancy Nacea and I'm here in Holy Creek. I've been here as a long-time resident as well as chair of the Valorables Cubs Environmental Committee. First, I want to acknowledge that I share Bob Folz's concerns about the cost-effective management and the need to be frugal with Great Peers money. And I acknowledge that he has a strong commitment to his beliefs and goals and I respect that. The concern is whether his proposed changes to the mission statement or have the potential for undermining the quality or quantity or both of water are undermining the health of the watershed that we all depend upon in so many ways. Bob has repeatedly stressed the importance of encouraging public involvement and I promise to listen to all points of view. So let's all acknowledge the thoughtfulness of Chair Henry in responding to the concerns of so many members of the public at the last meeting about the need to include the community in the process of rewriting the mission statement and the strategic plan either or both. I commend the members of the public who came and expressed concern last meeting and the support then shown by the board in setting it to the administrative committee and helping to restore their process and the respect for process that might better involve the community. So thank you all for that. We're asked to choose between three visions of the strategic plan apparently but obviously where the place to start if you really want to involve the community is from the beginning which is the one that was previously adopted by the board in 2015. So that seems the right place to start and then look at what the possible changes might be or might be proposed because if you get the public involved you know there are going to be some other changes that weren't in Bob's version. I'm very grateful that Betsy Herbert took the time and energy to share her knowledge with you all. Those of you who aren't familiar with her personally she is an extraordinary woman who has profound respect nationwide for her understanding of watershed of timber of land and how it affects water supply and quality and she has written articles that are published and read throughout the United States and I hope you have the chance to read the letter and you know I was going to bring up New York in my comments and she brought it up in her letter New York City purchased their watershed to protect it and saved millions and millions of dollars because of that. So we don't want to undermine the ownership of the watershed because that's a mistake and then she points out other issues as well. So I hope the Board has read it and had the chance to consider it because she's very wise and a very thoughtful person and I would like to second the motion that her words be taken into consideration and acknowledge for their value and truth for this and thank you for the chance for us to speak to them. Anyone? Yes. Alexis from Felton and I also very much agree with Nancy regarding considering the strategic plan from 2015. So please do consider it. Thank you. Yes. Virginia. With the idea that going back to the last approved plan it seems like the best way to start and then to bring in a facilitator to then say to everyone okay well why do you want to do it you know say to the Board why do you want to do strategic plan what parts do you want to change and just take everyone through it and then do the community in outreach incorporate that and always going to come back to the Board and the Board is always going to vote on it but if you're starting from one of the group whether it's this Board or any group in the world and that one person has written the draft of the plan and then written this document. I went to this meeting and I heard different things and I know it's really hard to take notes the first bullet item I didn't hear and I heard there were maybe four public meetings but I could have misremembered because I didn't take notes so we all have different ways of remembering everything I just in order to feel that everyone that's fair that everyone have an equal voice and and the way to do that is start from the last approved plan bring in a facilitator go to everyone and get the input bring the draft back and then the Board approves it and then there's not this conflict that happens when you talk to that. Thank you. Jim? It's Jim Moser from Felton I did a review of this the strategic plan from 2015 and the Director Foltz's plan and the Documented Administration Committee and I reflected on it having gone to the Environmental Committee yesterday and what happened in that meeting I think is relevant to this discussion because what happened there was that there was work done on the fire management plan and the test control plan and I want to commend the committee for the thoughtful discussion that happened there and moving forward on these two critical topics for us in the Valley they're both ambitious and address critical issues for our district and for all residents of the Valley. The committee discussed the importance of having comprehensive plans with long-term objectives that encompass not just the water district properties but the entire Valley. The committee discussed the importance of engaging strategic partners in educating the public particularly landowners adjacent to the land to our district lands. It was a wide-ranging discussion and the committee is soliciting community involvement including Dr. Ford who is very involved in the fire management plan development and the staff is actively engaged in developing the necessary expertise to promote future implementation. These are ambitious goals and strategies and I think they reflect the very best of our district and what we have to offer for the Valley but alas these plans are going to cost money and they're going to require a lot of staff time in fact you'll be asked later by the committee to approve a $10,000 consultant contract for the fire management plan because of the urgency of developing it. So having gone to that meeting and reflecting on what I heard and then reviewing the current strategic plan and Dr. Fultz's draft alternative plan and then the committee's proposal for how to proceed it brought a number of concerns. Under the current strategic plan we're not addressing these two issues directly although other documents developed under its umbrella do address them clearly envisions the district adopting the approach discussed at the environmental committee. Watershed protection engaging strategic partners public education in short an expansive view of the district's obligations and goals to protect the Valley and engaging its residents. Dr. Fultz's plan on the other hand would refocus the district's activities placing cost reductions and infrastructure needs as a primary if not exclusive focus for the district. As it says in the plan enforcing the mission statement the proposed mission statement every dollar that isn't essential and necessary to deliver water or needed to meet regulatory requirements will be channeled into infrastructure. The draft plan would delete the extensive section of the current plan regarding building strategic partnerships would seek to divest the district's watershed lands not directly tied to water delivery cut funds for maintaining and protecting them and place public education on the back burner. It certainly suggests a much narrow scope for the environmental committee to be working under and would make success more difficult since the district would be responsible for much narrow land holdings and would have much less funding available. It also would put funding for an expanded program addressing fire management and pest management in the Valley in the question. I was going to mention Betsy Herbert and her letter I agree with the previous speakers about how that is to consider and I think it provides an excellent analysis of how the contrasting views put in the draft proposal from Director Fultz and the current plan. Because it is such a radical departure from the current plan and indeed the direction of the district and the work of the district over the last two decades I believe it's critical that the board ensure adequate time and opportunity for rate payers and strategic partners to review and participate in the strategic planning process. The process should encourage public participation and engaging stakeholders. I believe it is critical the process begin with the current plan and encourage the board to use it as a foundation document. The timetable and proposed process in my opinion is not adequate to reach those goals. I want to end by saying that I am deeply involved with the Fulton Library friends over the last 15 years one of the founders and I'm happy to report that through the hard work of countless volunteers we've successfully worked with county and library agencies as well as SLBWD to build our new Fulton Library and Discovery Park which will open in January. Community support has been overwhelming both in terms of time and financial support. We passed two bond measures by large majorities the community came together in an exciting way to bring what I hope will be a fantastic community resource. I tell this story because I firmly believe it demonstrates what is possible here in SLB when we work together on a common vision and common goals. I believe that despite our past differences and conflict we all in this room have shared values regarding our value and the importance of maintaining and protecting it for generations to come. I hope the district can use this strategic planning process to build bridges bring us together to find common ground and develop a plan that will meet all of our shared goals of protecting clean, safe, reliable water supply, efficiency affordability, outstanding service and community engagement. Thank you. Thank you, Jim. I agree. Any other Elaine? Elaine Cresco, Fulton I agree with everyone. I just have one question for you, Director Fulton and I'm not happy with your changes in the mission statement but it would really help me I know how deliberate you are and I know how detailed you'd like to be so I know you had good reasons to make those, to write that mission statement the way you did but I don't understand it I don't understand the reasons behind it and it would be very helpful if I understood why you felt the need to make those changes. And at an appropriate time Maybe not now I think at an appropriate time but tonight we're really focused on the process, not the content of the, at least that's the way the agenda item is written. Yes. Debbie? Yes, Deborah Lohan on PICO I did not procure a speech like many people but in listening to everyone I don't see any logical reason to go back to the 2015 strategic plan if you read about strategic plans and how they work or don't work most of them are shelved and I would definitely put the 2015 plan under the shelf category it was a very long document that was subsequently ignored after what was done 2016 updated it by cutting it down and it was never adopted I'd like to thank Director Fultz for putting together all the things that three people here ran on in a platform there was a lot of robust public discussion already in the last year one year ago we were talking about all of these things voters went and they made their wishes numb they put three people on the board who supported what is in Mr. Fultz's strategic plan and I went back and looked at some of the platform things under Fultz Henry Swann and we have Director Moran who is going to ram that through because he feels very strongly about that so all of you behind me I think you probably voted for them because they were going to push for the integrated past management plan there isn't one in the district updates the watershed management plan excuse me I'm not attacking you stop stop stop go ahead and finish we have a lot of information that gets out in the public that this board isn't doing they don't represent all of everybody but they are update the watershed management plan using best practices engage public participation a big hole that was missing in the last a year ago we have now committees with lots of public members a lot of debate really good debate that's a good thing prioritizing upgrading projects and district fire management plan and analyzing fire flow capabilities we're in the middle of doing that with a really good water plan that's intertwining the whole system to get us going there so of course you support that yes this is all in Mr. Fultz's strategic plan all the points that voters said yes we want that that's in there so why go to a document that is doesn't really do anything with this board and their plan I just encourage the board to pick it up pick it up and be current answer to the voters we were very clear it was a really good voter turnout there was really really really really good public discussion that ran on and the voters made clear what they wanted and what they expected was for the district and the direction and that is expressed in the most recent strategic plan that has been submitted for consideration I encourage you to go with that and please don't back it up we don't need it back up it's funny that she said all that because before she got up what I was going to say was pretty much in direct contradiction my sense of the last election was the slate and I realize this is Mr. Fultz's proposal not anybody else's but the slate ran on fiscal conservatism around stuff but also ran very strongly on that they were going to be good environmental stewards people took a quarter of a cup of glycemic that was hand delivered onto some plants and turned it into Hillary Clinton's Benghazi you know computer thing but the sense was that I think what I believe is that if that proposal had been front and center you people would have lost so the fiscal part I get you absolutely ran on that people voted for that no way denying that but I think people also felt like well these guys are going to tighten things up but they promised us they're going to be good environmentalists we just don't use glycemic good environmentalism means you protect this watershed and we're not just tree hugger idealists we believe that that's long term the fiscally responsible thing to do and I think Betsy Herbert's analysis shows that thank you thank you anybody else please I wanted to agree with the previous speaker and the earlier speakers that I completely agree that the community should be involved and I did vote for watershed protection personally did you state your name sorry I'm Karen Hull I'm resident of Elton and I understand the need to cut costs but this is more accountable not just to the current ratepayers but to our future and future generations and I'm really concerned about all things what Betsy Herbert said but in resource management there's all sorts of examples where if you absolutely minimize the current costs then you end up paying later and if we start selling properties and not protecting and we put environmental protection second and we will ultimately pay and it may not be us it may be our children but we need to protect our resources and I think that's what people voted for that was a priority I'm hearing a lot of non sequiturs here we're not talking about the strategic plan we're talking about how do we get to the strategic plan how do we specify our values and come up with a mission statement that expresses those values in a I guess a business friendly way can we please return to having this discussion a couple of times in the right forum ok don't let's derail this agenda item thank you oh I'm sorry using the old strategic strategic plan is a really bad idea unless you're willing to examine and uncover the assumptions that were built into that plan so I don't care if you use it but we're going to have a lot of argument about why it should or should not be there and that may not be very productive thank you thank you any other pause oh Barbara hi Barbara Springer I we're talking about process and thank you all so much for talking about process I had a couple process statements, questions, comments and then I do want to say something about the historical stuff here first off in terms of process thank you so much for opening this up and I understand the discussion you were having earlier earlier because the watershed and our environment related to the watershed are so absolutely critical to all our lives it is important that this document be owned I don't care if you call it a board document but the creation really needs to be owned by the community the board, the staff, everybody so please do that and be sure we have enough time to do that and thank you for Virgil to Virgil for saying that I agree with certainly Virginia and Jim and Alexis and Nancy if I look to anybody out I'm sorry I forgot somebody I think probably I do want to say something about history okay I feel like I'm a newcomer here I've been here 36 years for over 40 years this valley has been known for its environmental stewardship and its environmental vent and I've always been so proud to live here because of that when people first come in here they don't understand how fragile this environment is we are 25 to 30,000 people depending on what day of the week it is living in an extremely fragile mountainous terrain okay and for that reason we have to be good environmental stewards we cannot focus just on the bottom line of today so please, please, please help to protect this for our children and major changes to our strategic plan are and I realize that's not a process statement anymore so I'll cut it short but you know we need to protect this for our kids we have a responsibility to do that to anyone else yes Lee Summers and I've been hearing it sounds like beginning to process that the pleasure was right about we need to stick to the agenda items here and it sounds to me like the question is what document do we start with and it was a 2016-2015 there was a document that was a freedom and many people approved of it and it was a lot of input by the public and there was a whole process to get this document and then we have another one that was a possible document that had very limited on input and I would think that we want to start with a document that had a lot of input and a lot of agreement before we started something that had so few just one person pretty much put it together and so it's that starting point for the rest, for all these other statements to come up in the public meeting and to have a more thorough conversation and I would think we would start with that 2015 document that we passed and we agree on that anyone else? all back with Spelton boards I'm familiar with it is typical when we vising a previously approved document we start with the document that was approved whenever it was and you make changes to it that is the procedure I'm familiar with I think it's highly unusual to have a draft from one member of the board that is the beginning of the discussion anyone else? back to the board for reading comments 2016 was almost made over the finish line minutes reflect that there was one meeting away of being being approved to be polished and then brought back I think we should move ahead and talk about facilitator and pick 2016 and 2019 start with both of those and facilitator try to jump start with this what if we didn't start with anything what if we have a facilitator and we do have the 2015 was approved we do have a document I know we do at least cumbersome as it may be and we do have a proposed 2019 but we need to move this ahead somehow well I agree with that we need a facilitator that would be the facilitator's job we need all the plans hopefully we can put all three of them hopefully we can jump start this process number seven with higher facilitator possibly well we are going to do it tonight no I mean but I and we would decide who the two people who are going to okay my understanding is the facilitator writes everything down runs he she whatever runs the meeting and writes it all down and gives it to whoever let's say two people and maybe the district manager and it's written that way and and so those people aren't really writing anything they're taking what they got from the meeting with the facilitator that's my understanding my understanding how that works if I'm wrong somebody tell me they would be doing edit they would be more of an editor right so it seems that we're going to move on this we need to decide something at the November 7th meeting about what we're starting with and who the facilitator is going to be and who the two people are going to have to add the district manager to help take those notes from the facilitator and put them in an understandable document and then it goes back I'm sorry are you saying we don't take any action tonight? what are we going to action on tonight we don't have facilitator names well so I think the recommendation of the committee again the board can choose to not do that but the recommendation of the committee was to select a document appoint the two people who would be the editors to direct staff to get an administrator to schedule meetings for November 9th and December 7th and follow the process of tier if what you're going to do is say well we're going to delay all that until November 7th and then it will be the last of another month and I don't think that was the committee sense that we wanted to do that the committee felt that we needed to move through by the way I think strongly supported by staff that we need to move through this and not continue to delay it okay so that's the case I would like to recommend that Lou Ferris and myself are the two people and Rick Rogers works with us at that point yeah I think if you're going to do that I would recommend that Lou and Rick if you don't want me to do it Lou and Rick okay I'm fine with Lou and Rick I am I'm just if you want two board members which is what I was assuming was two board members it wouldn't have to be but I think that would probably be better given that this is something that the board is going to use for bank accounting two board members and Rick Rogers what I think Lou and me and Rick Rogers of course I have an absolute there's no conflict with committees or anything like that that you see brown-eyed issues give me a moment and I will chuck you against the list of committees well it's simply not we're not we're not about saved committees I'm not a reader but that's a JPA yeah it's different should be fine but my suggestion was Lou and Rick it's fine with me Lou and Rick they do so they're both on committees together and engineering that won't work yeah that's what I was thinking Lou and me that could be Lou and me because we don't see any committees at all today no and Lou and I it doesn't matter about the JPA I understand that do you have it? he's not sticking out of this I guess it's up I definitely would like to see at least two board members because to help move this along to get as much consensus as we can is going to go on I would suggest it would be Bob and I and Rick because I don't want to lose all the work that Bob has done today that's my only reason there and that's the reason I don't want Bob his work is there for us to look at it's not like it is going to vaporize but we can have a vote okay it's up to board anyway it's not up to me well I think they have both good points Bob put a lot of work into this and but we're all a phrase that Rick uses is help another by the diabol so he'll always be able to have his input into this process so I don't mind if he's on it or not and he understands that he has the opportunity and he untreated us the opportunity to have another fight at the apple I do this being a big apple I have a problem really you and Bob you and Rick no me and Bob couldn't and Rick and and we couldn't have more than two right Jane? yes we had a guy on committees so it's got to be it's got to be you two or you two is that what you're saying? well it could be it could be me and him and him and Bob Steve it could be you and anybody oh so Steve can't so shall we let the public land? no no we already voted once what do you mean you don't want to hear from the public? no I do oh ok well we have a lot of voices that aren't here as well that we need to consider as I've commented before that there is a balancing act here we represent everybody but it's not just the folks in the room that we have to answer to right so I can't be on it because my folks aren't in the room no I'm just saying never never I didn't get called on by my folks ok go ahead so I'm hearing this and I'm thinking I've done a lot of strategic plans and so the way it usually works is a fire that comes in and then works with one or two people and with the back and forth so you have a document you have meetings maybe you have some key person interviews maybe you have a survey you have inputs from the community in certain ways and then that facilitator meets with staff and interviews then and the board members maybe one on one or maybe in a group takes all of that in and then gives all of that back out to the person who can do it doesn't even need to be to but once you get a draft then all of you see it and then you all provide input so this question of one or two it's not that important really because you're all going to have input into the document once it's out of place where the the key board person and the outside person have a draft and then they say hey here's the draft what do you all think so it's not like yeah it's very participatory for everyone to be involved once you have the facilitator on board just a process thing at these meetings being proposed on November 9th and December 7th that the public would have input in a re-suggesting that only two board members could participate on any one of those meetings what the committee suggested would be the two members well they'd be full board meetings all board members could participate but the focus of those meetings was on the community input side the board deliberation side sorry if that wasn't clear in the draft but it was mainly to gather input input and create a plan and then out of that you hand that input to the editors these two board members and they do that and also come back to the board and learn a lot of final decision but I think one of the reasons that I think I like the idea of Louis and I is that we do have a couple of different viewpoints on how this I mean based on the earlier conversation and in terms of reaching a mutually acceptable solution if we can get there then it probably is a good thing well being a female I'm going to have a different viewpoint than all four of you guys probably but Barbara I'm sorry I think you guys are talking about hiring somebody hiring a facilitator let them set the structure I don't think you need to set something on November they may have a different recommendation for how to do it from their years and years of experience from a strategic plan you don't have to take the first document either they'll do all that they'll help you set that whole structure but originally that's what I was saying but I also said that two people at that time well again this was a recommendation for the committee one of the reasons that I sent it to the committee was for in-depth conversation with people who and we did have people there that had experience and provided input and this was the consensus that came to them if we don't want to do that that's fine but again I think the consensus of everybody in there is let's move this along and the facilitator we can have on board by that time as soon as you give staff direction as well so all I'm saying is if we don't have the facilitator what are we going to do before November 9th are we at November 7th going to pick the facilitator pick the two people why would we even pick two people tonight we don't know what the facilitator would want I believe again I'm just going to the recommendation of the committee staff hires a facilitator and the facilitator presumably since it's a board meeting would work with district manager and yourself to put together the agenda and how the meeting was going to work so but staff is going to hire the facilitator that's what the committee recommended okay that's fine with me I think it would be based on I think we would bring this back to the first board meeting in November with a list of facilitators then you're not doing a meeting on the 9th I mean I could go out and hire a facilitator tomorrow we have two facilitators Robert Duluch and Virginia Wright that are very capable director Paris has seen Robert Duluch make positive comments we've had discussions with chair Henry and I have discussions with Virginia Wright about being a facilitator district we have two able people that we could select from if the board wishes for the manager to make that decision move ahead and make the decision what is Mr. Duluch's I haven't got that one I haven't talked to him personally it was just a recommendation from one of our directors that really liked his presentation and the way he worked at Scotts Valley the district has used Mr. Duluch before in a different capacity but I wouldn't let that cloud our judgment what capacity was that he did the staffing study as a side to the finance report the cost of service study so I wasn't sure on that but that I wouldn't let that cloud your judgment because it was a different time and a different direction was given to him from the manager so that would not be that situation this time around Virgil? Yes, sorry to bother you again but when I heard Mr. Duluch's name I started having a seizure Drew, are you a facilitator? You're having a seizure I attended part of the Scotts Valley process last Friday? Right a facilitator has to be a kind of a neutral person he spent the first hour setting the ground rules and the suggestions for the direction to go in not facilitating dictating that to me is not what we want and I have also read several other published things of his and he provides no background no footnotes no bibliography there's nothing I can do from his documents to verify an understanding of where he's coming from and so I'm sorry I interrupted you but I had to mention that's probably that's an alligator you're ridden down so Virginia are you bossy? I'm a believer in using what exists and listening and putting things together so people can have clarity and make decisions from that and so I don't know anything really about environmental policy or about water districts or any of that but there's so many experts here that I don't think you need to recreate the wheel like I kind of agree with Bob and all of that it's like you don't need to you've got operations but you've got a lot of things that are already done so it's not I don't think you just need a good listener, a good writer and a good connect the dots like here's this document check that out that kind of way and good facilitation I'm bossier and facilitated by the process of that content we've held several meetings we've been right Director Thers and Director Henry and talked about how to put together strategic plans from a very professional and a neutral when we discuss that about being neutral and how to move forward you guys could add different thoughts or I can go out and look for somebody else or somebody has a name Louis I'd like to make a motion like this are we done talking everybody Mark Lee I know of a excellent facilitator he's not from the area he lives in Santa Cruz he's worked on water issues and people who have been bogged down in organizations to get plans prepared he's excellent, he's a psychologist he's very gentle and he knows how to handle conflict he's extremely intelligent his name is Rick Longinati and he and his wife do non conflicting communication seminars at the non-violent communication seminar center on Ocean Street so if you want me to talk to him I can put him in contact Rick he's well known he's got a very good reputation and he's a neutral you still want to make a motion I move that we appoint Direct Folk and Direct Aharis to be the editors of a draft strategic plan and to have district manager Rick Rogers hire a facilitator either Virginia Wright or Rick Longinati Longinati for a public meeting to be held on November 9th and December 7th would you specify a starting plan that sounds like that was one of the reporters uh nothing I'm not let him pick it at the meeting or at the truck this is me here at that we can amend that motion if you want is that one motion or two motions one motion is all I heard I know he read one it's two different items my only concern with the motion that I may interrupt is the dates without having everybody in the room whoever rehires the facilitator we should try to get as close to these dates as possible it may not be able to meet those dates without having that person so you don't want those dates I'd like to get those those are target dates so we had a discussion committee about this as you recall and I think the consensus of the committee was that November 16th was maybe too late Thanksgiving is it's the 4th thursday it's the 28th of this year so that's a consideration but if we if we think we can make it if you're going to skip November now you're pushing it into february or march basically so that's the only concern I understand as long as we're moving ahead that's the key, it just doesn't stall I just don't know we can make those dates if you put it in the motion so the facilitator can't make it then what, come back with dates so rick can just change it to target dates motion can die and somebody else can make another motion I'm just trying to get the ball I'd like to I'd like to throw up to some legal concern related to this I'd recommend that any motion along these lines be a little bit open-ended that the district manager could hire a facilitator it should have a not to exceed amount and to consider the two named candidates as well as any other appropriate candidates so that the staff can do what they need to do in terms of satisfying competitive selections to the extent that's necessary so I would second rick's motion as modified by jenon flutter we didn't have a number well the number, whatever the number is it has to be approved by the board at the earlier meeting in November you have to come back with candidates and say this is how much you're going to be do you want to approve? well that's not kind of what the motion was the motion was to go out and procure resources okay as modified by her and you so we can just let this die alright it doesn't have a second motion fails it doesn't have a second and that somebody else can make a motion that clarifies the points that we just made here or rick we could you could make that I think you are on the right track I will but let this motion die so I can rewrite the number you should probably talk about the number before we start the middle motion what was that? that's been 100,000 that would be good what was that? he said less than 100,000 oh less than 100,000 realistically are we talking $10,000 or are we talking I would say it depends but I'd probably put a cap $25,000 cap of $25,000 of course that could be whatever the amount is could be increased by amendment sure we could always come back well it's a lot of money it is obviously we are going to look for the best possible price and we'll get and it's going to be even harder prices being hourly rate it will be services rating we will try to pencil that out because we don't have any set amount we are not sure set amount of meetings or set amount of work and we are not even sure what the plan is that we are going to look to update so you want to cut it back to 15 and we can I mean obviously once we get off and running here we are committed and we sure we don't want to say well we are out of money we are stopping so are those two candidates enough for you or do you need to have an open ended process where you can my concern is they both come back and say I can't do it in November or December that may decide for me one can do it and one can't and those dates that may help me make a decision so how would you like that I pick from those two and I'll use price and availability as the selection process you would have an open ended what if you get both of them that say they can we could what if all night yeah allows you to pull in a third candidate if you wanted to I would just say and or another candidate the district manager or the staff lines it's more appropriate or a better suit a better fit if the bug fits if if you're comfortable with that I think I have not spoke to Rick so I'm not sure we have spoke to Virginia Wright and she's coming and she's available so I'd love you for Virgil yeah Virgil try to get something done here agreement so where are we that previous motion has disappeared but you were in the process of putting forth a secondary so here's move to a point Director Folson, Director Harris to be the editors of a draft strategic plan and have district manager Rick Rogers hire a facilitator either Virginia Wright Longinati for target not to exceed $15,000 to facilitate public meetings on November 9th and December 7th as target dates I was going to say that to include I think Stephanie had a good point why do we specify who you should pick you do the process of determining who you think the right facilitator is we will agree to abide by whatever decision you make or another qualified candidate or another qualified candidate so Virginia Wright, Rick Longinati or another qualified candidate I like the idea of you all in these two rooms that's half the battle getting off the start by having someone that you all can agree upon that works for me but I will do my job and have a facilitator as a resolution okay, we got a motion and a second do you want to call the question? Director Folson yes Director Harris President Henry Director Swine Director Moran I can just ask a question relative to the document that we will use that we selected later is that the intention of this question? seemingly so that's up to us I would say with Richard McComack facilitator please your case and then pick a document burn the other two and start okay next item is Board Policy Manual update yes, the board review the memo and discuss possible action for updating the 2019 Board Policy Manual the district 2019 Board Policy Manual was adopted by the board on December 13th 2018 Board Policy Manual and adopted on January 17th 2019 and the Board Policy Manual was again revised and adopted on February 7th 2019 after review of the admin committee agreed that 2019 Board Policy Manual is again in need of revision and proposes the following changes to provide flexibility on board main base to reflect actual scheduling section 9a harmonize section 8a and 9i regarding individual director's ability to place items on a meeting agenda and clarify availability of minutes in section 13 the lead requirement for public members of committees to file form 700 section 14 reduce special meetings 19 to 25 dollars section 15 and add additional requirements prior to the board approving a defense in the event of a conflict of interest second section 23 that I'll turn it over to you if you have any comments or turn it back over to the board there was one of the things I asked about in that admin meeting on this was controlling district board members spending district money and it seems that isn't happening it was a disgust and you wanted to pin me down and I didn't want to say what I wanted to say and I kind of said it well, so I'm looking as we were going through the meeting just for everybody's benefit what we're trying to do is get to specific language that we could use for the document because that's what needs to come back to the board and in lieu of any specific language it's well we can always update it later I mean it's not or we can update it now it's not that this is cast in concrete because it's only a recommendation I know it's not cast in concrete if you have specific language recommendations you'd like to put in here I would have to have Gina help me with it I thought that we did discuss this but it was discussed and their language was already present and now there's an issue we need to just address the issue we need to address the issue and there was no real need to be changed to the actual board policy it would be a new it would be an addition that would have to be written I guess what is the language that's being referred to? it's on page 6 here and it says prohibits, intends to deter a member of the hub oh it's right it's right role of individual directors um individual directors may not commit the district to any policy act or expenditure unless authorized by the board of directors what it says I brought that up at the meeting not to speak for chair Henry though I do believe it should be referring to individual directors talking to legal counsel uh with no authorization and I I don't believe I believe that this covers that we just need to discuss speaking with legal counsel I'm not sure if you feel free to discuss that in an open meeting it seems there's no subject matter I guess we could I know you and I had the discussion but we've talked generally but I think this this clause covers it but now it's just to discuss is that an expenditure individual board members talk to legal counsel okay well I'm low on speed for you but is that the issue yeah it's not that I'm trying to keep board members from the attorney but it seems that it ought to be time sensitive or I don't even know how to say what I'm I can't I'm assuming I can't say what I want to say because I saw things in the bill pay or I mean on your bills and what the items were for and I don't think I can talk about that in this meeting you can use as board chair should review your itemized billing list not the public billing list I can't believe that's what she's pertaining to okay well in terms of privilege what can be discussed in public you can you can talk about who communicated with whom a general description may be okay but if you start to get more specific that's dangerous can a board member call legal and talk on the phone for four hours we don't have that but I mean forget that's an expenditure it's an expenditure but if if it's how do I even say this if it's to say look at somebody possibly who wants to apply for the board and to try to find ways to stop it am I going to I think what you're suggesting is that you would have concerns that board members were talking to council to advance their individual political agenda from a general board alright you got it that's why you're the attorney I have concerns about interpreting this particular language this way and let me say I don't I hate to be talking about what I do and don't oppose in terms of policies I don't really think that's my role generally but I guess I will because this so directly pertains to me I don't think there's a problem having a policy that sets some ground rules about talking to council I'm concerned about saying that this language does that because it says it has to be authorized by the board of directors and it simply isn't practical to have the board make a decision because most of those decisions would have to be made in a public meeting to have the board decide who gets to talk to council about what because you'd be sitting in here talking about who gets to talk to me about what and the probe would just go on at that point so I think there may be a way to address it but I don't think this language does it because I've had directors contacting directly and ask about a possible conflict of interest and I preferred that they called legal council directly there's no reason to go through me to go to legal council to get so there's nothing lost in the translation plus Gina will normally be following a question so I have referred directors straight to legal council I've had brown act questions from new directors and I've referred them straight to legal council so I may be a little part of this problem about referring I'm not talking about that kind of stuff my point of view I don't think there's a lot of inappropriate conversations going on with council I think I get called upon with legal advice as needed for specific issues however I think there's a and again this is just my opinion but I think there can be a real issue if the expenses is a problem and there's a need to rein that in then there's gotta be a way that you can do that by limiting access to my time and I think that's reasonable but it could become troubling if there's too much of a content filter in terms of who can talk to me about what because I don't want that can we move this to a closed session topic and deal with it more easily that I think it might be if there's a specific language you want to talk to the legal council about to modify this it seems appropriate to even do that I know I can talk to her I tend to only talk to her when she's on the clock but talk to her a little bit tonight I could help create something if there's a desire to do that specifically in regards to faking the legal council in regards to finding a way to control legal cause ensure that communications with council are for appropriate reasons with some kind of a cost control aspect to it you and I can work on that and bring it to the next board meeting so should we adopt this policy tonight and then come back again and re-adopt when you pause because that's where we're at right now I know we're there is one other thing I wanted to mention because this was that to the legal council for review she mentioned that the addition of forwarding a request to fppc for a formal determination effectively is because the fppc would not respond in a timely enough fashion to be able to use it as input so I think we have 20 or 10 days to make a decision and fppc is minimum I think is 30 days and they no longer for a lineup so it just may not be practical and so we may want to strike that sentence I think we ought to strike the whole thing actually I don't feel comfortable with what's written there that we decide who has a conflict of interest I I don't I don't like it we are making that decision whether we want like it or not relative to taking on a conflict of interest lawsuit so you're making that determination the question is what additional steps do you go through prior to just us making that determination that's all so Gina do you think what is written about doing that is something that you think is a good idea because it just seems like it puts more burden on us than it should that it I I get it the previous board had a lousy attorney and we don't so I don't understand the need for the wording I don't like it I'm sorry I don't like it I don't mean to put you on the spot here I don't mind being put on the spot on these issues my concern is that to really get into this would involve a waiver of attorney client privilege because I'm going to be talking about strategic legal issues that could apply in a real situations that have and may occur in the future so if there's a desire to have a full vetting with my participation here in an open session meeting I would request that the board consider waiving attorney client privilege for the purposes of that discussion well just for the scope of talking about the consequences of this particular can we do that the board can choose to do that with a motion to waive a client a client attorney privilege to waive attorney client privilege for the purposes of having a discussion at this meeting regarding the legal implications of the proposed language anybody want to can we go ahead and say we want to waive that now can I make a motion that we waive attorney client privilege at this meeting so you can give us an answer do you mind if I actually make that motion my tongue is sticking to my lips I want to be sure that the scope of it is clear use your language yeah so the motion that I would recommend for this purpose if you agree to do this I'm not recommending that you do this but the motion would be to waive attorney client privilege for purposes of having an open session discussion about the legal implications of the proposed language in the board policy manual just at tonight's meeting okay all right so how about this I'll make a motion that we follow the legal counsel's recommendation I know I'll second it put the burden on the wall yeah so the motion does not have the element of attorney client privilege right in here right holly you're gonna all right oh public comment sorry who wants to public okay I support the motion okay I do too okay to answer your question the way of a return client privilege was built into my language I believe what director Melinda was simply incorporate that into the motion yes I don't try to repeat that any other public comment here director false director ferris no president henry yes director swan yes director moran well I guess I'll start with the issue of the fppc determination and then I'll talk about the provision the the fppc takes the position that will not provide an opinion as to a matter that's in litigation so it isn't even just a question of how much time it would take the fppc to respond if we made a request in this context it's that they almost certainly would not respond in this context even if it's pending the litigation I mean the litigation has started so there's no action on our part of that well typically the way this would arise is that somebody gets sued and then the request for defense and indemnification gets tender to the district the lawsuit happens first so the fpc under those circumstances isn't going to provide an opinion to help the district make its decision whether to defend or indemnify in fact I doubt it would ever issue an opinion the point to place to engage the fppc is when the conflict arises when there's a concern that there may be a conflict in connection with the transaction of the district is considering undertaking so on this specific point if there's a desire to do this I would suggest something like that the board of directors consider any written opinion provided by the fppc regarding the alleged conflict of interest or whether for the reasons why none was obtained something like that again if we're going to go down this road of making it harder to defend and indemnify I guess I have two overarching concerns about doing something like this the first is that the reason the government code requires district well government entities to defend and indemnify employees and directors and again this isn't specific to conflict of interest this is generally is to encourage public service and to avoid situations where people are afraid stepping into personal liability in connection with actions that may take as a public official so there's that background principle but then in addition to that a really unfortunate part of the code sections that provide for the defense indemnification obligation is that they're really unclear which means it's always a difficult decision when one of these things gets tender you know whether to provide defense indemnity or not if you refuse because defense indemnify is required under certain circumstances you put the district at risk of liability for the refusal so I would tend to suggest a process that's more reliant on legal counsel and fully recognizing the irony of that statement and the reasons why something like this would be proposed because of what's occurred here in the district but I think as your counsel it's incumbent upon me to point out to you before you do something like this that by making it hard to provide defense indemnity when it may be required you were exposing the district to potential liability as well as potentially showing your hands in terms of what evidence of knowledge you have of the underlying facts in making these determinations in a public forum when you wouldn't otherwise be required to do so that said, this was vetted through me and I I think you could do it I don't object to it on legal grounds I simply think it's important that you be fully informed about the consequences of implementing something like this this was something that I feel very strongly I believe very strongly that we need to seriously consider I think the when you start getting into legal situations there's no winners typically that's only survivors I think being able to say or being concerned as a board that we're not just rushing into providing the defense doesn't necessarily mean that a defense won't be provided at some point or there isn't a negotiation about how you get there and I think some of the frames that are involved and the responses which I think are either 20 days or 10 days 20 or 15 is very short and doesn't really allow you a lot of time to be able to dive into things a little bit more deeper hence the reason I wanted to make this suggestion I don't think that ultimately it puts the district if you look at it on a scope of the entire lawsuit for us as directors any greater danger of what we're going to have to do but it does force us and particularly for conflict of interest does not apply to any other situation to make very specific statements as a board to the community as to why the board is going to put the community on the book for potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in the defense at a minimum we owe that to our community I totally disagree with you that's what we're here for I actually had another thing at the meeting that I talked about not only clearing putting items on the board agenda it said in two places it said let's see we can put items items on or another place it said an item and I talked about this at the meeting I said I didn't think it should just be items and I'm willing to compromise but I think two items is plenty for any board member to put agendas because there is enough work to be done here without it winding up being a board member's agenda rather than a board agenda are we done with the conflict of interest are we going to vote on it I'm done with it I said I don't like it you like it but there may be other people who might want to comment about it do you want to comment how about you Rick as far as what legal counsel said how do we best learn from this lesson that we just went through with this Viera lawsuit so I'm hearing we want to have a show that we've learned some lesson here we don't make the same mistake how are we trying to do that I don't want us to overreach and get in trouble that way to show that we've learned something here and we're trying to put in some measures that prevent us from doing that again your advice there to me was saying that we're in difficult territory here and I don't know where you can be specific enough to get to changing it so that we put in some roadblocks to prevent us from defending something defend I get at the risk of suggesting policy I think there are a couple of elements of this that are really non-controversial in my mind in terms of how they could help in a situation like this in the future one is insisting that the FPPC be contacted for a formal determination if the district is considering the transaction or conflict of interest issue has been identified because that's a little tricky because who identifies it we don't want to go to the FPPC just because somebody alleges a conflict that may not be real but getting to the FPPC when there's a real conflict issue I think could be valuable another is the language to the maximum extent committed by law any decision to approve or grant such a request for defense and communication in a conflict of interest situation shall be made subject to a reservation of rights on the part of the district that was a clear lessons learned from the past lawsuit a lot of that could have been avoided if there had been a reservation of rights in connection with the decision to defend and indemnify but now that doesn't address that kind of skirts around the issue of do you add requirements beyond what's in the law and indemnify in what may be an appropriate situation and to me that's sort of a political and a risk we have concerns about as your legal counsel about doing anything like that but I can understand the reasons why you may want to go there and this language does that like it could accomplish that so I think it's really easy to put some things in place that are not making it harder to defend and indemnify where it's a little trickier as if you actually want to make it harder for the board to make a decision to defend and indemnify in an appropriate situation but you can do that and just to be clear it was my intention to make it harder on a conflict of interest specifically on the conflict of interest not impossible not that it shouldn't be done even under certain circumstances but to make it so the board has to do some of this in the light of the public scrutiny so given that Bob could we ask Gina to write something that gets to the spirit of what you're trying to do and stays within what she feels is the best legal advice as James have you reviewed this and did you offer these comments at that point in time I offered these comments in an effort to help create language that would work consistent with the intent that was expressed to me to make it harder to defend and indemnify in a conflict so this is a document this doesn't flow from my legal recommendation it is my advice applied to the intent that was presented does it fairly represent your advice given the intent that you were trying to satisfy with your advice have you been to law schools this sounds like we're in a deposition yes though I don't think you have to go as far if you want to accomplish this you don't have to go as far as the language goes but the language works to make it harder to defend and indemnify you had some other problem with the document though right other than this well if we stand one section at a time here so let's finish with this particular conflict of interest thing first we can't I've said my piece so I've said mine you have anything to say not being a lawyer my gut tells me not to have an opinion on this so I'm going to stay with my gut not an opinion but everything's one way or the other anybody in the audience want to say something according to their gut a few things I guess this is general public comment for a little idea of these policy changes so going back to restricting access to board members to talking to the attorney I'm totally opposed to that you have a really really big responsibility here and your responsibility often includes policy decisions and rewriting policy and to not have full access to the attorney isn't just isn't going to work it isn't really any different than you conferring with a district manager you have questions on things you're using up his time you're spending district money talking to him then too we're not talking about restricting anybody having access to any staff I think you need to have the access to do your jobs and as Gina has said she hasn't been if I'm saying it right you didn't see any nobody's calling you with inappropriate questions so it's just business that's being done so Rick and Gina have to use their judgment if someone is calling too often with too many questions for you to help them streamline their questions and maybe bring it up in closed session when you have an opportunity if you both feel that too much time is being taken with perhaps one director on one subject that's just a suggestion on the FPPC really an interesting site and I also have some experience the FPPC was used several times in Laudico and it's a really valuable tool to have but yes, you got to get in early when you even suspect there might be a problem you go to them and the FPPC likes to see the actual person who is being questioned submit their question not another board member, not a staff member but the person who may be having a conflict has to take it upon themselves to ask the question you can go on the site and you can read lots of questions and just because it's maybe you're not really clear whether it's a fault or not is not a reason to not ask the question because they do find pro and con both ways on things that would seem obvious to you but they explain why it's very informative what else on this legal question if I were on the board I would defer to council to come up with a language that works best for a workable same on this conflict of interest law I kind of agree with Lou on that it's like this is why we employ council yes anybody else out there, Ed? the question of board members using the attorney and crossing the districts of money, I believe the attorney comes on at 5 o'clock that's when you start charging you start are you is there a time when you actually start before the... when she's on the clock on the clock at 5 o'clock you're talking about board meeting attendants? yes when I arrive and start meeting with the district whether that's pre-meetings before the board meeting or the board meeting itself is when I start charging I'm doing work for the district okay so there's no time what I'm saying is you should have a specific time like a half an hour before the closed session and any board member or any two board members could come and ask questions of you because you're going to be charging the district anyway and they have a free access to you I believe the president of the board is doing that at this time now and that would that could... all the members should have the ability to use that service I'm not the only one who will use it I mean if that's the... it should be the attorney determining that not... Mark please I just have a question Gina we should have in the process that's already existing that there's an administrative recusal process of someone who's on the board for example who has a definite conflict of interest they should declare under the state law they're recusing themselves and they should explain why that's also in the state law and leave the diocese that's stage one right that's step one so we don't go further down that rabbit hole I mean that should be clearly defined in our our board yes absolutely there's a conflict of interest code that spells all that out consistent with state law the threshold question is there may be cases where it's not clear whether there's a conflict or not and that's when it may be advisable to get the FPC involved right so that's the next step right get their letter early on and then the board can react from there before we even get close to litigation we want to put as many steps ahead of us before that ever occurs and waste more money right and I agree I think council board members should call our attorney if there's an administrative question or something that's part of the duty of being the board council right I'm not talking about that I'm sorry I'm not free to say what I'm talking about okay well I'm just making my comment as a public virtual oh virtual virtual channel I have a couple of questions is the attorney free to say that a question that was approached by is inappropriate is she free to say that somebody calls her up and says I want some information about this and this and this and this and she says well maybe that's not appropriate does she have the freedom to say things like that I don't know I think maybe I can sort of hone in on the issue here a little more than we have which is yeah I mean there are limits as to what kind of situations where I can provide legal advice to people connected to the district it has to pertain to district business I can't provide personal legal advice to people connected to the district so it's always about district business I think the concern really boils down to when should legal time which involves a cost to the district be reserved for things that the whole for which the board or whoever is in charge of the issue of the district has provided direction as opposed to when somebody who is interested in exploring something that isn't sort of squarely in front of the board can and maybe you have different concerns but my understanding of the key issue is when can people kind of vet their district related concerns through me even though it's not sort of at board direction or district manager direction or something and I think that's a valid concern but that's where I would propose that we could try to crack something that would address it my point is that I think it's often inappropriate for a third party to interfere between a conversation between one of the board members and the attorney if it is district policy and the attorney should be in a position that she is comfortable saying this is probably something that should be discussed in a different forum or yes I can go ahead and discuss this with you and we have to depend on the attorneys to actually to actually guide that because I would have no way of knowing that the attorney what the attorney was discussing with somebody else or at least I would hope I have no way of knowing thank you on C B in this the board shall make follow-up findings there's no evidence currently known to the district that the director acted or failed because of actual fraud or obstruction or actual malice why is not the actual filing of a lawsuit not itself evidence or is it and how would a director make upon finding and be able to vote that there was no evidence if there was a lawsuit filed because that seems to be some person who has found evidence that needs to go to legal resolution I feel like I'm taking up a lot of time I can respond to that I guess I will respond to everything tonight so that's actually a really good sort of interesting legal question typically a lawsuit involves allegations and not evidence you don't assume anything a lawsuit is an actual fact unless it's verified and then you're absolutely right if it's a verified complaint it could constitute evidence of the fraud or corruption and how it's alleged so that's a valid point writing any other public we're running out of time here so or anybody want to make a motion or what do you want to do here well if there is some concern that we may break as expressed that this might be too broad then maybe we hold it over work in some language right so my suggestion would be that Gina you have an understanding of our commitment and care about what what happened in the VR case can you craft some language that deals with that I in order to do that I would like to have a motion and a vote by the board with the intent that I we kind of went back and forth on which is an intent to make it harder than the law requires to provide defense and indemnity in a conflict of interest situation the reason for that is because I can't do that without making these situations even more risky for the district than they already are but I can do it if that's the policy direction the board's giving me but I'd like to get it from the board as a whole I don't want to make it any riskier for the board here so that's this fine line that we're dancing around here so I don't know I'm understanding you just being very cautious here I think that the best way to minimize your risk in this situation is to get to the fppc as soon as possible if one of these situations arises and two, ensure that if you're going to defend and identify you do it pursuant to a reservation of rights does that work with you Bob? Well, I mean again it doesn't from the point of view it doesn't make it harder and more public as to why we're dealing with it because that effectively would basically be the same process with with a process change which would have been significant no question but it's basically a process change so effectively you can have the same outcome as we had before but again I'm one guy it's my belief I mean there's a word for doing the same thing over again and I just it doesn't feel like it's enough that's all no matter what the language is in this thing I think we've all learned a lesson that happened in that case and we can apply our own questioning and process to that that tries to avoid we've learned the lesson and we have to have this legal language that tells us to ask some more deeper questions to prevent this from happening that's what I'm trying to say here we have our own responsibility is in a conflict of interest situation under let's say all this was out except for the IPPC and reservation rights which are both value and density would the board be able to make any statement in open session about why they're choosing to defend something other than we simply choose to defend this law so the board can always make that statement depending on depending on the facts and circumstances council may advise against that in closed session but the board can absolutely choose after consulting with council hopefully to make any statement I mean I would vote for this as it stands but because I don't think the risks there's a spectrum of risk and when you're dealing with these situations risk is number zero and the question is does this language move us from 20% to 23% or does it move you from 20% to 50% and attorneys are going to want to make it as small as possible there's no question about that but then it becomes a business political decision with that so if the consensus of the board is let's remove it except for you would have to rework the IPPC because that's not good enough statement and then of course the language indeed is already there but the consensus of the board is you want to remove everything else but then obviously I accept it but I it's not enough so I would by the way you have another item you want to talk about the number of agenda items I think you would suggest it too right instead of items so my response to that is there's already language in there that allows the president in conjunction with the district manager to schedule items the concern I have is basically limits provide control and for people who may be dissenting voices that's not a good place to be so there's already the ability for the president to say well we're too busy this meeting we need to delay it for a meeting or two to address but the obligation is that it has to be addressed you put limits on it then it may not get addressed well I'm not trying to put limits on putting of having items on the agenda but other than I think two an agenda is plenty and okay we're going to have one meeting in November one meeting in December we had a previous board member who wanted to put a lot of things on the agenda we were able to talk him around so that didn't happen to me it's kind of an issue I'm not against board members putting something on the agenda but let's face it I know it hasn't happened but you could want something on and Lou could want something on and Steve and Rick and then there's all the district business okay that's just one item all of you but if you can put three on and Lou can put on two and Steve if he wanted to put on five he's really talking to me so those are all speculation I know it's speculation it hasn't happened but it could have happened because we did have a board member who wanted to do stuff like that and just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it didn't happen I get that possibility but the president has the authority to schedule things I understand that if the schedule gets moved to January because November, December, fall we just have a different opinion absolutely no question I would move to adopt do we have resolutions or not? there is a resolution I think it needs a minor tweak but there is a resolution to adopt these changes well actually since we have to make another change let's hold it over for another meeting because we need to get the fppc change here so as I understand it I'm going to include language about going to the fppc and the reservation of rights I'm not clear whether I do I just leave in the language? I think at this point it's going to be up to the rest of the board I'm okay with it as is but I'm hearing that there may be concerns from the rest of the board and if there is then that would make a check did this come from the administrative committee? it did but we resented to them to go make the changes and then come back to be fair Gina was not present and so the discussion around these specific legal aspects the waiver of attorney client privilege around all that couldn't take place in that regard everything else was reviewed by the committee and they were okay with that but this specific thing was done without Gina's involvement send it back and let Gina get it all and finish it off right and send it back you know we wasted a whole bunch of time talking about this well I don't mean to waste your time but so do you have enough direction Gina? we'll take this back and let you rewrite this paragraph and then we'll bring it back to the board I'd like to get so it's coming back to the admin committee which is what I heard more direction from the board is going back to the admin committee than first and then back well that's what there's no reason to go to the admin committee around that particular one because that's around legal so I would not I would not agree with that just go directly to Gina you're saying the admin doesn't need it but that's wasting anybody else's time what I think I'm going to do is I'm going to take care of the FPC language I'm going to take care of the issue that was raised by the public that I think is a valid one but I'm going to leave in the language that you had proposed so that that can be the focus of the discussion alright that sounds good if that's acceptable to everyone it's acceptable to me yes okay so okay we're going on to the next item on the agenda which is an application for the engineering the board on the district board policy the manual provides for five standing committees and the Santa Margarita groundwater agency directors we have the admin, the budget finance, engineering, environmental the long people oversight and the Santa Margarita groundwater the directors are appointed to and public members at the June 20, 2019 board directors meeting the board directed staff to extend the time for applications to the engineering and the PICO assessment district oversight committee until the positions are filled we receive one application for the engineering committee it should be in your packet on September 19, 2019 okay and I'll turn it back over to the board okay and I do believe the applicant do you want to get up and say anything? this one is easier than everything else a couple of meetings ago after my unsuccessful application to be appointed to an open seat on the board director foals was kind enough to come up to me afterwards and suggest that I increase my involvement with the district by applying for the position for the public on the engineering committee so I did thank you so I believe we should accept that application and the board I'd like to make a motion that we accept at point Gail Mahood to the engineering committee and set the engineering committee membership at five it is a flexible membership that we get to decide as we make the appointment it's not fixed at five as the chairman of the engineering committee it is my pleasure to second that motion and recommend that that she be appointed to the engineering committee alrighty I'm going to say one thing I think we had put that committee memberships were subject to renewal in December right so that's a very short window and I know we had some concerns about having people be on the committee for more than one term or year I just want to make sure that she could be on this committee she's not only going to be on it for two months basically she should be able to be on the committee for a full term next year right it can be I mean somebody can be on the same committee one year after another they aren't limited to just one year the policy doesn't restrict their ability to reapply it does restrict their ability to serve more than one committee to try to get more people involved in the process is that in our board policy manual? it is then I agree with motion I would like to point out though that the memo on the possible public member committee appointment does have an area that says consider the appointment of Virginia and not Gale may I ask how you pronounce your name? I thought it was Nathan my first name is Gale yeah I remember didn't my motion say Gale you said Gale I'm just saying the memo you said Gale I don't know we need to change that there is an error there the board recommended action by the board it says G it says Virginia on page 2 it is recommended that the board review the attached application and consider the appointment of Virginia to the engineering committee from the memo the item says G the item A on new business I'm looking at the agenda I'm looking at the memo from district manager for the possible public member committee appointment he just stuttered that's all okay so we have a motion and a second any public comment on this? this makes me very happy you're welcome thank you Chuck can you please wrap up okay can you go ahead and director Poles yes president Henry yes director Maran okay so Mr. Rogers item B yes this is item discussion possible award for the contract alternative analysis project. On August 1st, the district advertiser requests for proposal for consulting services for the Maricopa States wastewater alternative analysis. On August 30th, the district received three proposals. The fees from the three firms range from $38,050 to $39,100 very close. Proposals were from the following firms, Water Works Engineering, the provost, and Trichard Consulting Group, IEDC. On October 2nd, two board members assigned to the engineering committee, the district manager of the district engineer met with property owners at the Maricopa States. At the Maricopa States discussed proposals and answers questions. On October 3rd, the engineering committee met to review the proposals and to discuss input received from the property owners in that before. The proposals were evaluated using the criteria set in the request for proposals. All of the proposals were high quality and well presented. After a lengthy discussion, the engineering committee made the finding that Water Works Engineering was the top ranked firm for the Maricopa States wastewater alternative analysis project. We recommend the board of ward contract for the Maricopa States wastewater analysis project to Water Works engineers in the amount of $38,598. Additional information when we met with the homeowners out of Fair Creek the States, they also agreed and recommended the Water Works after a lengthy discussion with the homeowners. We had I think about half a dozen homeowners that met with staff and directors. This is the second time that we bid this. The first time we went out to bid, we only got one bid that was IEC. The folks from Fair Creek and the engineering committee thought that maybe we could do better and get additional bids and authorize the rebidding. With the rebidding our district engineer, we had the new district engineer on staff who actually went out and solicited a multiple engineering firm. That paid off with three firms and we're recommending that you select Water Works engineering. Engineers in the amount of $38,598 and authorize the district manager to execute the contract. Maybe the chair of the engineering committee may want to add. It was a good procedure and process working directly with the users. As you all know, Fair Creek States is its own enterprise district and those few homeowners will be paying for this out of their instruction and it is budgeted and we are just under budget for this analysis. I would just add that one of the the things that added to my confidence in supporting Water Works engineering is one of their staff engineers was there at the meeting. They were not invited. She just took it upon herself. She saw that we're having a meeting and she drove all the way down from San Francisco and believe it was to attend the meeting and was willing to answer questions and that was impressive as well as heard the quality of her answer. She also said that they were the only firm that actually modeled the existing system and said hey the existing system you have. There's no way you can get it to work. She did her homework, better work, and followed through and gave a good presentation and made the job easy for the engineering committee to recommend Water Works. I think we've been hearing that what we've been doing isn't going to work. It hasn't happened on a global level. Was that offered by a hundred buy-ins couple? These four people need relief quickly. So, you're on the committee there, Rick, and do you have any comments? Yes. Firstly, the homeowners were there. They participated in it. They asked questions. They made statements about their concerns. And then, again, we met the engineering committee the next day. And some members, again, came and made sure that they were clear about their preferences. And so the public part of this process was really good. And the overall proposal, I think, you know, we've all been concerned about this ongoing problem. And the Waterworks people are the people that are going to get to do this. Do they have any idea about how long it would take? There was a timeline that we put in the RFP, but because we missed a deadline, it was going to be a little longer than what I do believe it was at the end of the year. But it may be end of the first of the year. They're ready to take off on it. It's just, I think, slow down with the process a little bit. And the year would be great. Yeah. We're very close to that. Again, this is only to determine what we can do to make repairs. It's not... Oh, do you mean it's not the construction? Come on, Rick, 38,000. It's going to be great. I just want to make sure it's aware. I'm sure the residents are being aware. Okay, how about public anything on Bear Creek Estates? So we need a motion? Sure. I recommend, I'm sorry, I move that we award the Consolidate Contract for Bear Creek Estates, Wistwater, alternative analysis project to Waterworks Engineers in the amount of 38,598. Does the district have to execute? And what he said? I'll second that. Director Fultz? Yes. Dr. Ferris? Aye. President Henry? Yes. Director Swannett? Yes. Director Moran? Aye. Moving on, Item C, public outreach. Yes, Director Fultz has inquired if the district has ever participated in the Boulder Creek Halloween candy giveaway. For many years, the district has participated in the candy giveaway, has utilized management volunteers to pass out candy at the district office in Boulder Creek. The last couple of years, staffing has changed and we have not had volunteers and have not passed out candy in Boulder Creek. If the district would like to go back and pass out candy and we do not have any volunteers, I don't believe this year, you could authorize and open it up to classified staff. You'd have to pay overtime or you could do other means of a candy giveaway. It's been suggested if no volunteer employees are available, directors could participate in the candy giveaway. I believe that if a board member did want to do it, that they could participate, but we should have a staff member because the office will be unlocked and opened to give out candy. It's also been suggested that maybe we reach out to maybe the Palton and other parts of the district. We've had some experience with that in the past that's kind of expanded. We've then asked once we've moved into those towns to participate in other costs such as business associations and pay dues. Currently we do pay dues at the Boulder Creek Business Association and it was decided by boards in the previous, in the past, that we would contribute in the Boulder Creek as this was where the district headquarters is located. The district is not a member of any other local memberships and there would be some increased costs. We estimate the cost of candy is purely an estimation. It would be $150 per location, 10 bags per location. That's strictly just done off the cuff estimate. So the staff was looking for direction. And maybe during the scenes, Director Foltz has asked for the side of me that you would like to add to the item. Yeah, just a few things. Yeah, I don't necessarily think that we need to ask for volunteers, you know, because people are busy on their own things. Yeah, exactly. But I do think this is a great outreach opportunity and given that the district is no longer just Boulder Creek focused, I think outreach into other areas of the district is very, very important. I mean, we serve a lot of places and certainly Felton I think holds a somewhat kind of candy giveaway. I wasn't anticipating actually having to open the building up. I thought if it was just board members we'd bring out a table and have a bowl there that we could use and hand out. Similar to what I did last year during the campaign it didn't require any building participation at all. And I would very much like to see if there was a way to participate in Felton. I checked with the San Lorenzo Valley website for the chamber for their dues. I think we'd be at $300 a year. I wasn't able to get in touch with Felton. I'm assuming it's a few hundred dollars a year as well and I think that kind of outreach is well worth it. Yeah, we've been asked in the past for chamber and business associations and the board who thought it would keep at least pass boards who thought it would just keep escalating to other civic organizations and so forth and just try to limit it to pull it free. Totally up to the board. Yeah, which civic organizations would we be worried about? Other than the Chamber and Felty knock on the door. That's all I can say. That becomes up to us. The fact of the matter is we do do business in these areas. We are an active member of the business community in the sense that we supply a lot of water. I think it is a huge opportunity for us to increase our outreach and engagement with the community at large to do this. I think you might need more than ten bags of just loud people to grab handfuls. The kids come by and they just put it in the bag and I think I went through 12 or 13 last year and built a creek or something like that. I do know that there are two board members who are going to be out of town on Halloween. So that kind of limits the number of board members. Lois, I thought it was the newest committee member had to be part of the holiday community. Someone wants to volunteer, that's great. You can easily run these with one person. I think it would be important. When we did it in the past, we did it right inside the front door. In the face of the district, people know it's a water district. I'm not sure if you set up a table somewhere and people would know it's a water district. You set a table up in front of the building. We don't want to go into the building. The sidewalk gets so crowded. They say I don't know if the business association wants the sidewalk blocked. They just put it on one side of the sidewalk. There's a bench there coming along. Just put a box of candy on your bench. I really don't want to have to open up doors. That's kind of one of the concerns. Can't have people sleeping on the bench. The other thing is staff has families. Staff has no family. But it's meant for outing. That's where the board members get to participate in that. I definitely volunteer. I've got tables and I've got the big bowl. It's all set up from last year. I can't be in two places. Does council have any issues with board members giving out candy? No? It's joking. If we were doing it outside of Los Mandos, I think so. It's not political. Yeah, this is a cemetery. Pure fun. But it is an absolute hoose to see the costumes and the kids. It's just great. I volunteered because I volunteered for everything. I've already volunteered to be with my grandchildren in Henderson, Nevada. So pre-existing commitment. So you're gone? I'm going to be in Europe, I'm sorry. You're gone? You're gone. So Steve, it's you and I and maybe that determines... Sure. Do you want candy? Pass out my Dennis card while I'm at it. There are committee members willing to volunteer in there. I would love to volunteer. It's so much fun. It is fun. Yeah, but I don't know how you would do it in Felton if you wanted to have it. We would have to figure out where they would want us. I'll just give the bags to the Valley Women's Club and let them do it. This would also include signing up, I think, for their... I'd like to... I mean, if they need us to sign up, I'm happy to do that. I would think once we move into the town, then they'll start passing. That's what happened before. I just wanted to... I feel it's my job to try to inform you of all the past experiences. The given is between five and five-fifteen. I think he's what he's saying. If he isn't available either. I'm available. If you've got your 15-minute window, I'm there. Well, I think it's about... The Old Creek one, I think, runs two hours, I think. The streets are very crowded. Are you even home from work? Yeah, because it starts at daylight, so it's not dark when the kids are out. So I think it starts around four. I can just... Anything for the children. Here for the kids. You're a sweetie pie. So we would need a formal enumption. It's a small expense, but... If you want to set a... Hello, you just want to set a monthly exceed limit, and I guess we'll pick up Candy. I mean, we'll have to figure that out. We have a possible... What is out having it? I'm going to, either myself or my wife, get a cost that I don't pick up. So candy. You're concerned about... Cost. I just want to let you know there's a potential cost, and you may open the door to join other civic groups that... And which is fine. I just wanted to let you know that, and it sounds like the board may be interested in participating in the other association, or the Chamber of Commerce. So do you have banners or something that we can do in Felton? Do we have to be across two blocks? No, that would be a separate issue. I'm just saying that that could happen when you expand out. There's nobody asking you to join. You may get, when their dues come up, and then offering that to the board, like we did in the past, when the business associations first did, and then the board can vote on it. We could do it, but that's up to the board. Yeah. Okay. So is there enough to exceed limit on the cost of candy? Okay. Is it a big cost, 10 bucks? Use your discretion, 2 bucks. Yeah, I mean... It's like 15 bucks. Yeah, so it's like... It's not like you want to do two areas? Two areas? Yup, not to exceed 500. Steve's going to do Felton. Yeah. So why is... We had some... We're going to do Felton. Yeah. I think we need to have at least one board member. Oh, I mean, a lane wants to know. So, but it's okay. I think we need to have one board member at each location. So if you want to take Felton, I'll take Bowlin Creek, and we can... We'll take Belmont. We have great payers there, too, right? We don't have a treatment facility. That's a home. That's a home one. Yeah, we're going to do Felton. We could expand. Something more complicated. Okay, okay. We still have fire management. Let's move on here. What? We'll be in touch. No public comment? I'm not trying to stop public comment. I'm trying to stop them. Okay. Is there probably comment now? Yes. I would like to amend this decision that both board members have to be in costume. Yeah. Pictures taken and posted on the website of Facebook. Yes. This is outreach. That's a fabulous idea. Which is how, or something? Yeah. Okay, I'll say that SDRMA is warned... I've been at this management conference for most of the time. I'm just going to give you that two cents. They'll be in the skies. Well, I'm going to go and say, you know, board members. It's scary. Okay, anybody else here want to comment? Well, I actually hadn't finished. My main point was I wanted to thank the board members for volunteering and the committee members for volunteering. It was a great effort. Thank you. Okay. So we're putting a limit on the candy. Do we have to vote on that, too? I didn't hear that. 500 dollars. 300 dollars? 500 dollars. 500 dollars. Going once. Really? We're not going to spend that. Well, I don't think we'll go. I didn't buy candy. It's nothing he obviously has. All of a sudden, we're all concerned about money. We're going to spend 500 dollars on broadening people's teeth. Okay. I'll make a motion that we spend no more than 500 dollars on the candy. I'll second that motion. Dr. Pauls? Yes. Dr. Ferris? Aye. Yes. Alright. Hello. Finally, Larry Ford. You might get to talk. Rick, you want to introduce him? I'll start out here and I'll apologize first off that this memo, a short, quick memo came late to the packet. We did cancel the environmental committee due to agenda posting. We missed the agenda posting deadline and we should have this item in the packet when it went out. But we didn't quite get there. But the environmental committee and Dr. Larry Ford and Director Ferrison and myself have been working and discussing moving ahead with a fire management plan for the district-wide fire management plan. We've held several meetings with three of us and discussed various methods in moving forward. We discussed the district's existing watershed management plan Chapter 5 fire management talked about the data gaps. We've went through a lot of discussion. Dr. Ford has provided a lot of very valuable information. It's been out in the field. He was an expert in the field himself. And we have come back and presented what we thought we should move ahead to the environmental committee and we're asking the board tonight to move ahead and to direct the preparatory request for qualifications for a consultant to write a fire management plan for the district. Like I said the meeting discussed fire management strategy over the last few months and all three of us agreed that the district has advanced its planning and preparation for the current fire season. There's still a lot of work to be done. It's been determined that there still needs some assessment address data gaps and the fire management plan is needed. On Wednesday, October 16, the environmental committee met and discussed fire prevention planning strategy put together by the three of us. The committee agreed that the plan should include the before, daring, and after planning as well as collaboration with multiple agencies throughout the valley and surrounding areas. The environmental committee voted to recommend to the board moving forward with a consultant to assist in writing the fire management plan. Our first step would be to put together a request for qualifications of that person or persons and go from there. We're looking at probably a two-phase approach to protect the district assets, identify dedicated equipment to use for firefighting and determine short-term goals for current fire season, update procedures as required and we don't want to solicit the RFQ. We don't have as part of the RFQ pricing some cost analysis to move forward and develop this plan. With that, I'll turn over to director Ferris and Dr. Ford. Would you like to add to the discussion? I think the only thing I would like to add I think you did a good job, Rick, of describing the two-phase approach phase one short-term, phase two long-term. The only thing I think it's worth adding is under the long-term we really got our creative juices flowing about what we call the big picture from site specifics to fire types and everything in between. We were talking about things like putting fire hydrants on wildlife, on wild land, our own land where there might be a critical area that needs to be defensible and you couldn't fight the fire without bringing water in. We're existing water mains already are. We're existing water mains already are so it would be a fairly inexpensive addition to just bring the pipe above ground and create a fire hydrant as well as taking some of our dirt roads into our own lands and expanding them into fire breaks. There's a lot of things we could do I mean, prescribe burns on our own land. There's a lot of things that we could do including using what already exists like who's counting CWPP. There's just there's no end of what we can do. So we're starting out small with this request for for a consultant. Rick's already got a draft made 16-point items and 16 items that we're going to expect the consultant to help us with and then we go into phase two which is beyond this fire season and into the future. Larry do you have anything you'd like to comment on? I think you've done a good job describing it. I think the very first step should be assessing what's already been done throughout the valley because there are a lot of interdependencies interactions that are both in place and also possible and so I think we were talking about the very first phase being one of interacting with these other agencies trying to find out what is possible working with Tim Carson I think the grant writer to see what funding sources there are on the short term to join some of the planning efforts that are already in place and so it's a little premature to talk about doing prescribed burns but I think the there are those kinds of things going on but I don't think the water district is going to do it I think it's going to be in cooperation with other programs that are already funded through Cal Fire and some of the other agencies. There are a dozen or 15 agencies involved in the valley that we've identified and some that are sort of peripheral but that might make really good partners like Mid-Pent and so I think the first step is on a fairly urgent basis trying to figure out how the water district could fit into what's already going on so it might be two separate consultants one might be more the first one might be more like a facilitator and then the second one probably should be a registered professional forester that does fire management planning but still most of the work is going to be interacting with these other agencies. One of the things I left out that with the more the California fires and the intensity of fires and all the planning has made a considerable amount of grant money available. There's a lot of money out there now and as part of this proposal we'll be to recommend that we can fund a lot of this with grants and try to find some of these grants but I'm receiving a lot of information almost daily now since we've tied into these different networks fire management. California has made a lot of money available they're just throwing money at it right now so if we wait and don't move ahead the money will dry up I don't want to say strike when the iron is hot but we need to move ahead while this is a big topic and the money's out there and hopefully we can part of this proposal we'll apply for grant funding and one more point I'd like to add because it would be a good question if somebody were to ask it from the public is why are we managing this process of the environmental or outside of the environmental committee basically the on hot group of Rick and I and Larry what was because of the urgency of getting something going right away that is not our intention long term this is only until the new environmental person is hired and then it would turn back over to that personally environmental committee and for the request for qualifications we would get back cost analysis and we would not spend money until so would you be going out for a separate RFP then? I would think so yes after we get somebody qualified to help us write the RFP but we would then spend money on that person I have the first proposal would be qualifications to select facilitator or a person that could direct the district in proper moves to move first and then that would cost money and then we would go out again and then you would start developing a full on fire management plan for the district and we're estimating that it would probably be in the order of not to exceed 25,000 for that first phase but again we have a good indication that we'll be able to recover most of not all those expenses through grant money but we hope so most? other than when the rain starts generally at the end of the fire season official end in the state of California I think from the rain start obviously we're right in in it now I'm not quite sure what that is because the weather starts cooling down I can answer that officially there is no end to the fire season in California right now in the peak the highest danger we've just been really lucky that we haven't had fire so far every time I drive by Zanny fire district says fire danger high yeah we'll be looking to fill data gaps in our ownership management plan and it's kind of interesting I heard they came up a lot with the plan the original foundation here with Dr. Berber environmental plan not to take Lowe's thunder but I'd be interested to hear what the public has to say about our prevention planning is the board done talking about this? yes Steve alright Elaine I heard that the district is working on this and I think these three guys have done a great job so far and I'm glad for their proposal and I support it any other public Debbie? yeah I like the idea of working with Tim Carson he's a really good resource for grant research and he knows his business he's professional and I think I also read in minutes of the environmental committee that you're consulting and I worked with Rich Castile from USDA well we tried we don't have to get a hold of it right now he's an incredibly deep resource too he has ties to everything he has helped us out tremendously on several projects and he knows who to go to for the getting answers to so he's really really well connected if you can get hold of him a great resource pretty good list of local professionals have been contacted through through Dr. Ford and are interested in participating these are local people that's what we really like some of the people that know the area any other public comment? I think it's a great idea let's move ahead that was your comment alright anybody else no? alright I would like to make a motion that we give district manager authorization to move forward with an RFQ specific to fire management planning do we need to specify a donor amount? not for second box on me Director Falls? yes Director Paris? aye President Henry? yes Director Swan? yes Director Moran? yes I'd just like to take a moment to thank Dr. Ford for all his participation at that point thank you how do you do? wow that was like being called Dr. Ford but we appreciate it we do appreciate it well I'll keep offering my advice thank you thank you very much alright as we move on here we have we'll see we have the consent agenda I would have to pass that that be moved without that okay so it's pulled from the consent agenda for regular for the for the minutes for the minutes okay it's pulled okay what you have an issue with me well the issue is I'm going to be abstaining from voting so I can't do it by consent okay so the rest of us can vote on the minutes there will be a motion second I move that we approve these minutes I'll second that any public comment on the minutes Director Falls is abstaining Director Paris? aye President Henry? yes Director Swan? yes Director Moran? yes so district reports so the engineer is in here is somebody going to report for him? sure we could all answer questions you have questions that would be more you have reports in front of you and due to time and whether you have any questions would be more than happy to answer them anybody have a question I have a question for the operations report he's talking about engineering right now I thought there were reports for the sake of timing we'd like to also give a short update on the PG&E's conversation safety outage too go ahead for the operations report James I noticed that there were two items on the water quality service order summary report where upon investigation the customer had reported groundwater coming out of their faucets and hose bibs and so upon investigation it was found that the fire hydrant nearby looked like it had been activated or tapped into recently and that might be part of the reason why do we have a problem with people accessing fire hydrants and stealing our water yes we do and then also that was fire drill night the night before so that could also be what it was but it happened twice in two different areas correct they're close to the same area those two locations are close to the same area Pine Grist Drive is next to Ralston Ridge yes on Bear Creek Road do we have the ability to lock those hydrants $2,100 a lock they're very a lot of hydrants we do put them on it's the far reaches of the distribution system where we get our issues at the end of the line so there's not much we can do the big expense of the lock is that it has to be compatible with the fire department because they have to be able to access the lock and it's a big bulky expensive lock I am concerned about the cost of losing water that we have made but I guess maybe my bigger concern is people having access to our water system being able to put something in it's the water quality, it's the big concern the majority of the time this is fire department from Roni Fire Hydrants during drill night but I'm just asking the question do we have access can anybody drive up to a hydrant open it up and inject I don't want to be we don't have that type of wouldn't the water be coming out yeah your contamination problem is an unapproved connection where someone could be hauling we're not worried about something and we have a pressurized system so as long as we have a maintained pressurized system we should be ok ok and we don't like it we don't like water theft, we don't like people opening hydrants because it causes issues discolored water, water hammer if they're stealing water, they open it very quick they close it very quick, close something out of the ground water hammer so it's not a major problem but we do have it is that something we should put on our list to address in the future I'm just wondering we've talked about the public outreach what really does this happen dirty waters well in problems like this where we see evidence of water tempering water theft I've heard it twice in the five years I think well I mean we can't really consider that this was water theft either whoever investigated suggested it so that's why I'm bringing it they also didn't realize that it was drilled after 1984 an outreach might just bring it back to people's attention there's no locks people call in when they see it people know we have a couple of hydrants that do from time to time have an issue thank you just to clarify that so we do or don't put locks on it we do only at the far end of the system the nuisance hydrant there's not a lot of them a couple questions James are you reading this right we're still getting the bulk of our water from service is that right that's my read too uh like well I guess maybe not bulk 49, 51% I was gonna say right around 50 that's very good this is incredible second question was on the Fall Creek it's somewhat hard to read the graph I'd like to make it simpler but are we in compliance still and have we ever been out of compliance this year still no because we're in October now and uh regulation changes in October the amount so no in October we've been violating but in all of September yes we were in compliance and in October we've been violating every day well this could be an issue with how you read the water rights so I can't talk about it we're looking we're reviewing our water rights we may have some issues so if it's when I'm hearing then it may be something that we would cover in closed session is that correct there might be ways to talk about it in closed session but it wouldn't be something we could just put on a closed session agenda but I have been asked to review it just recently there's there's been some discussion on interpretation of our water rights operations in our reporting and the way we've reported more violation right now as far as I know that's correct okay well I mean within the context of all the other things that are going on and salmon is a river big great time to get everything over like I said I know it's just been given considerable amount of documentation in the last month and we're moving ahead so in terms of how we're currently doing it have we been a violation every day or only a couple of days every day I don't have that in front of me but it has been every day great thank you September yes so what's going on Lovers Lane Lovers Lane was I might have to report back to you on that one I just read that myself $518,000 $518,000 I'm going to have to look into that and get back to you on that I didn't really catch that when I went through my report I'd be curious to know what it was much before and why to ask Stephanie a question when you do the bill pay when you're paying for a big ticket item is there a way to say if it's coming out of the loan money or I mean I realize all the loan money is our money now but you know the bill pay is over a million dollars and there's a lot of big ticket items and I'm wondering if those are projects that are that we're supposed to be working on because of the terms of the loan or if they're just things we've been working on regularly the description will usually like if it's for like the probation tank or something like that when the contractor there you also on the cash asset reconciliation you'll see we pay everything out of Wells Fargo check as we do our bank so as we pay the bills we'll transfer the money from the Santa Cruz County Fund in those respective funds into the Wells Fargo account to be able to pay so I can see that way so you'll see that gradually going down how do we expense any money out of the $14.9 million loan and the main one right now is the probation tank loan but that's not the that's separate loan we have some small engineering stuff that's getting paid for out of the $14.5 million the main money is I think there's a half a million dollar payment to the probation tank we're starting to use that money we can't start with the warrants with the resolution we awarded the pipeline project so you can say expenditures are starting to go out on that so you'll start seeing more and more I mean it's good for these projects we have the money back you giggle when you go online and check the balance every time there's a big bill it's like we got the money we got the money a little bit we have those loans to pay for these projects I mean it is a big bill list that we have and come next spring it'll be even bigger but come 2021 can we burn the mortgage on a big loan that's going away so that's my celebration okay that can be a prescribed for I'm sorry my celebration is to give you a quick update on the PG&E power outage really where are you away from it this is the real question I'm not surprised to be here the PG&E power outage went very well we were well prepared going into it we got a warning from PG&E which benefited the district in being able to get prepared for it it did wake us up to the fact that we didn't want to enjoy it Jan Swagger commended our staff a big basin that put out a critical alert to be able to run out of water but we did offer when we heard we did because we were coming back out of power so we offered to take a generator and an electrician up there that they got their power back in two hours of the critical outage alert we had to generate we had to go as soon as we heard about it we had a hard time getting contact to what we finally did myself on one treatment work but we came through a really good you know it's definitely when you're pre-worn things would have been a lot different but we've just been at earthquake and no pre-warning we've had a couple of earthquakes this past week 187 to 24 hours 187 187 but the earthquakes really had six well I felt not 187 you should be very proud of your staff it's excellent we are proud of them and you too also were important but no you weren't here when you said you weren't here were you up north somewhere so it was kind of like blam hello how's it going it's kind of a lot like that it was nerve-wracking let me tell you I think it was hard not being here than being here we'll talk about that what happens in the field stays in the field but things went really really well we were very pleased Ricky said you're looking at up sizing some of the some of the immersive debris just whatever visiting our purchase list and making sure from what we know now where we want to definitely put our generators the snake purchase not up sizing the generator itself I don't think so which facility is going to get it and maybe up sizing one down it just depends on the facility once you start up sizing you start adding KVA the cost goes up I think I would come back I think the board is committed to this we'll be on budget working hard having all these generators are going to increase cost to the district and maintenance permitting fuel one of the big things that came out of that is when he's talking about generators we may not have four mobiles that come out of it so the big says having the more generators we have four mobiles that's the kind of analysis we're working on now and one area that we did have an outage was a generator issue with the generator itself not because we didn't have a generator it was an issue with the generator it was four or five connections six connections we did a Boyle Lotus followed the state protocol and the state's not even worried about it do you want to add any stuff? seems you were top dog at the time like he said is Nate the whole team everyone's staying in very good communication in the meantime there was also a main break that occurred first thing that Thursday morning it just goes to show communications down 40 sites to go to every four hours is a lot of time so district staff has definitely spread thin but Nate did excellent planning the fact that we started communications about these back in the summer with the flyer that we put out you know it's kind of everyone knew what the messaging was that needed to go out and everyone executed all their different plans hoping we don't have another one of these this year we will have another one hopefully not this year so like Stephanie said we are putting together an accounting of the full cost that this incident cost does and we're putting together reports that'll filter to you it's over two different payrolls so it's going to take a little bit to get that is there a word about class action lawsuits or anything like that I know there are bankruptcies not related to power outages or related to fires the cost related to nothing more I don't think you could because it's PUC Virgil are you I have a question have you verified independently a Comcast explanation for yes have you verified independent I know how Comcast works I did talk to a Comcast employee this is my point you don't have independent verification I know how the system works but they're remarkably stupid about certain things and I would just if you're going to depend on your communication environment you should be a little more diligent and when it works it's fine but there is no backup and you will never have backup with Comcast it's fundamentally I find that very untrue because when we have power outages in the wintertime and it's raining and they deploy their Comcast generators Comcast is up and fired up so I just think it's different you might make it different but I was involved in the original design of cable systems and they distribute never mind you're not going to listen that's okay you can on these leak detects you give a volume how do you calculate that volume you don't have a meter showing up we do an estimated gallon out in the field and then the time that's been leaking and so it's their estimates it's all estimates and all of them are main leaks so are we getting separating from the main or is it I mean it goes on our main leak category which service leaks and main leaks are all in the main leak category so it could be a service line next thing is the generators does everyone of those generators get a bill from the air quality board every year for that not everyone, only the ones over a certain horsepower they're expensive $5,000 most of them get a bill from the county for hazardous materials for the field it's very costly but it's the necessary evil so are those costs all shown when you do your calculations for your generators it will be because some of that's O&M operation maintenance and some of it's capital it'll go on, Reynolds leases permits the permitting and that and then we have we wash the fuel once a year on the diesel, the propane ones aren't so bad there's a lot of expensive generators Mark Glee James I wasn't clear are the generators going to be fueled by electricity or a propane propane and diesel so you're completely independent of the electrical network that's good do we generate? no saying until we put out a bid for I was thinking of getting a gem for my house I have one of my house and I love it we have a bunch of them in our system and we love them okay thank you are we finished? I think you have reports or you have committee reports okay, committee reports yes, I did see committee reports there are there any reports for many committees? well, we can go through I think we already went through finance budget and finance all step on the talk about Senate Bill 998 that's going to be Senate Bill 998 it's going to be requiring us to write whole new policy about some new ordinances or both changed ordinances coming in the new year regulations around water turn offs all kinds of stuff around that so I'll be coming back a couple more times and on that end committee we covered the finance and I held an environmental committee meeting and I have a little summary this is the appropriate time for that so we held the meeting on the 16th at 9.30 a.m. and there were a few comments from the audience concerning the environmental plan or vacancy the need for time for public to have input on the strategic plan and concern about the possible presence of the chemical PFOA and the quail hollow field well district manager Rick Rogers said he would have make less be find out information about this so he took care of the person's concern on unfinished business we talked about the fire management plan I'll let whatever it's been spoken about that be the word on that the new business was the integrated pest management plan the committee and the audience had a discussion about the need for the district to have a pest management plan issues of interest were developing partners protecting endangered species controlling invasive species use the use of pesticides including citizens not can including citizens in this approach alright public outreach and the possible use of owls just Rick Rogers will be get input from the staff about their concerns the committee agreed to continue work on the issue possibly using San Cruz County's integrated pest management plan as a model thank you I vote for bringing owls they're really good there's a lot to do I'll I'll determine a different plan in danger no not so much either does a trap or a poison so just one little follow up on that there was a display or how they, you know, showing how to use possible owls at the SPCA in San Cruz today there were over 30 people that came at 2 o'clock in the afternoon to see how they were dealing with this in the city of San Cruz so it has a lot of interest including director Swans alright I have one comment I think maybe of interest from the last MIGLA meeting that Lois and I attended I've had people ask me about expenditures associated with MIGLA and people have expressed concern about the money being spent Lois spoke up on one and Jen and I spoke about another both of them involved expense and both of them involve excessive expense and what she wants to mind was there was an agenda item that talked about the public relations part of MIGLA and they're using Miller Maxfield Maxfield he estimated he was going to spend $38,000 for the entire year in the first quarter he spent almost the entire budget for the year and came back and asked for more money as to what he was going to spend that more money with and yes and I immediately spoke up and said this is not acceptable but I was surprised to find that the threshold for expenditures for MIGLA is $50,000 for board approval not $5,000 so that just means that we have to do a better job of looking at the expenses from month to month because I'm afraid these are not going to be the last two that we find adjustable my my problem was a $100,000 item but I kind of got beat up over that hey you know everybody had to put me in my place but you know what I made myself vulnerable I got beat up but it kind of is like how dare you ask well was that spending the money was it Chris Perry? no no no Chris Perry and I are buddies someone says that that's immediately when you ask the question it is it was for Dave Sepples the facility the facility yes and I'll give you a tip on facilitators women go I mean I wanted to know what was he going to do for this money it's only $95,000 over three years pardon me $95,000 he is correct I just like to make it bigger and better if I could book 30% of my required income in one deal for the next few years that would be cool well we've been paying him a lot of money and I just wondered if it was necessary to do more that's all and I asked and I mean I really like just Perry but I think he should have said say something different because everybody told me they act the same thing and they never over told me an answer that's all and one person there I could have voted no it would have killed the whole thing the way it's set up would have killed the whole thing but there's more stuff coming because we had a meeting today about the agenda for the next Santa Margarita what constitutes a quorum and it's it's just are they going to change that there's three agencies involved in the joint powers act and if any one of those people voting for those three agencies votes no it's done it doesn't matter there is no quorum that's a good thing but there's going to be some things the attorney will be it's their attorney not our attorney it's our she is she's our attorney too I mean it's really strange on what's a quorum in the GPA it was the most bizarre crazy thing I've ever heard maybe you want to look at it when you have nothing else to do our questions got your counsel to look deeper into it and it came back unique it's just crazy stuff one other question from Debbie Debbie, yeah comment on SIGMA so just to be clear of all this what 12 members of this board the only people that question expenses for R2 so yeah they're going to be out but there's a precedent where earlier one of the well owner representatives questioned the $30,000 expense and was thoroughly beat up and he never questions anything anymore so yeah it's an attitude there and it is a $50,000 threshold so if somebody comes in with a contract for $48,000 it is automatically approved by staff doesn't have to come to the board it can be automatically approved and it is well correct correct is okay she tells us about it but it's a done deal well the jean is going to yell at me here but there was some expenditures that were way below that existed and they at least go to the board to be reviewed with the intern they were just going to approve the intern and move on and I said not if you're unplanned it needs to go on the agenda and it did but they can just go ahead and I did protest the that particular person in agenda and I got it cut but it never really came out at the board meeting that I got it cut so but it's I decided hey I would make myself vulnerable by saying what I thought and I was vulnerable and I got beat up okay and here I am I'm still fine they have a lot of money in those two areas and we don't so there you go well blue and I blue and I would keep up the good work for me if you have to veto something to make a point do it yes Rich I mean Steve wants me to adjourn this I'm adjourning we are adjourned