 So I see we have 5.30, I'd like to convene this regular meeting with Senator Inzavalli Warner, District Board of Directors, from May 18th, 2023. And Carly, would you take the role? Yes. President Smalley? Here. Vice President Hill? Here. Director Ackman? Sorry. Here. Director Fultz? Here. Director Mayhood? Here. Great. Okay. Any additions or dilutions to the closed session? Staff has none. For communications regarding items in the closed session, this is for members of the public. I want to comment on any items that are part of the closed session. I see one. Hi. I'm Bruce Holloway. Yes, from Boulder Creek. There was a, when the District Council was hired, it was about five years ago. And there was a public process that took several months. A number of different law firms were interviewed. And at the end of the process, Director Fultz and I were two members of the public who both recommended that Nassman be hired. And so I wanted to mention that the reason that I thought that, out of all the law firms that were interviewed, they should be hired is because, out of all the questions that were asked, I really couldn't find any differences with Miss Nichols or there was a senior partner named Al Smith, who also came from Nassman. So there were definitely reasons why the previous District Council was replaced. And I've been happy with Miss Nichols ever since she was hired. And I'm only a little bit sorry that they're quite so expensive. And the District has to spend so much time on lawsuits for the county in particular. But I think there's a problem that's happening lately. And that has to do with item nine, President's report. I think you've got a browning problem here. And the way it played out in the last meeting. So from my perspective, this is an unagenda, you can call it President's report if you want, but basically it's open-ended. So open-ended it could be anything. And that isn't really consistent with the Brown Act. The Brown Act says each item needs to be described, what it is you're going to talk about. So at the last meeting, it was the Santa Margarita, Grandpa Agency was the topic. They had accepted the GSB. And there was discussion. There was war discussion. And Mr. President, you never offered the public a chance to participate in that discussion. It says here on the agenda is pretty much the same as last time. Discussion may be limited at the chairperson's discretion. Well, that kind of contradicts what it says on the previous item, oral communications. It says the Brown Act limits what the board can do regarding issues not on the agenda. No action or discussion may occur on issues outside of those already listed. So if the board thinks, if the president thinks that this president's report item, by putting this on the agenda every meeting, that you've carved out a place on the agenda where you can take up an unagentized item and have a board discussion like you did last month and not allow any public comment the way you did last month. I think that's against the Brown Act. I think that's illegal. And so I think that, so this is really my first time of having a difference with Ms. Nichols. If she thinks this kind of an argument, you guys can climb up with the Brown Act. I disagree. Okay. And I guess I can do more things on this. It says president's report, but you know this. Mark, I, and I apologize for interrupting. I just suggest deferring this discussion for the open session agenda, given that it's now pertaining to an item that's listed on the open session agenda. I can concur with that. And yes, you are correct. Since it is. Well, I'm describing a legal issue. But since you presented the information that you wanted to comment on, which was part of the. I understand that. But to Ms. Nichols point, when you were then commenting on the president's report, that is part of the open session agenda. The president's report is going to be this month. I understand that, but that's part of the open session agenda. That's not part of the. The district is not. That has to do with district council's evaluation. So you're commenting on the fact that she's not. You haven't had any practice of carving out a place on the agenda for an object. And limited public public health and on those reports. Man finished. Please wrap up. So from my perspective, this agenda is your product. Mr. President. Yes. Okay. So every word on here. It is your report. It's, it's, it's mine, but it's the district's you and the district management together come up with this. Yes. Okay. So if there's any topic that you think needs to be on the agenda, you are in a position to put it there. You're in a position to describe it effectively so that a member of the public can understand what it is before they come to the meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Are we not observing time limits for public comment? I'm sorry. Jamie, could you say that again? I was suggesting that we quickly time limits for public comment. And I didn't see that. We started the clock at the beginning of this. I think if you had let me finish, you know, we would be done by now. So what I'm trying to say is the whole agenda from my point of view is President's report. You get to introduce every item on the agenda. You get to introduce every speaker. You can acknowledge every speaker and interact, you know, tell them what you want them to say or what you want them not to say. You have so much discretion that I don't see why it's necessary for there to be a special item just for you. And I want to say one more thing about this is that I saw that you asked twice. Can I continue? Can I continue? Can I continue? Because I was being interrupted successfully. Thank you for your comments. Okay. We're seeing all of that. Do we have anybody from the public independence? Promotely? I'm seeing any. Okay. Then I'd like to adjourn to the closing. Okay. We have, um, three attendees. Okay. I'd like to reconvene this meeting of the San Lawrence Valley Water District for May 18th, 2023. Would you take the roll, please? Yes. President Smollink. Here. Vice President Hill. Here. Director Atman. Here. Director Atman. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Okay. Um, we have, we took no actions during the closed session. So we have nothing to report from that. Um, Rick, any additions or conclusions? Does these open session agenda? Yes. I mean one second, please. Um, yes. Um, staff would like to pull item can be the five annual draft budget for fiscal year 2023-2025. The draft budget went to budget and finance. There was some significant changes requested. Uh, and which would have been totally in contrast to the budget they were looking at to tonight. Uh, we will return hopefully, um, first meeting June. Was it draft budget? I object actually. Yeah. Because, um, I just spent quite a bit of time preparing for that. Part of it. And apparently maybe not to a good use, but there were a couple of things that I think I'd like to make sure we get back when that budget comes to us, which wasn't included on this one. And so, um, I'd at least like to have a brief conversation about that and not pull it. Um, I think that's the problem if, um, I mean, I certainly Bob could send them to Kendra and Rick and make sure they're, I would like to ask, um, district council about what the rules are about, um, pulling something from the agenda who, who can decide. Um, I would like to ask, um, district council about what the rules are about, um, and, um, et cetera. The president could allow for it to be pulled, um, in the absence of an objection given that there's an objection, it would be appropriate to vote, um, on whether to pull the item. And then I think it's a super majority. Is it? By board policy, not to, not to pull an item. It's to add an item. That would be correct. That would be to add an item. Um, to the agenda. Yeah. I mean, I'm big items like this. It would be really great from a time management point of view to have advanced notice of that. I'm just, you know, I, my time is, is worth something to and preparing for something that is not appropriate. We could get a heads up in that beforehand. That would be really great. Part of the problem was that we had to reschedule budget balance again. That's where we got our budget to ship off to finance. On Wednesday. For Tuesday, Tuesday. We ran up against a lot of time. But I totally understand. I understand. I understand Bob and I, I apologize and just. I don't need to end. We lose director. Okay. I'm here. Okay. I just didn't see you out there. I just wanted to be sure that you made it. So, um, then as I'm understanding from Gina, is that we vote on this, correct Gina? Correct. Okay. Right, and if a majority agrees with the, if there's a motion and a second to pull it and a majority agrees, then it would be pulled from the agenda. I would like to move that we pull item 10B from tonight's agenda. Second. Okay. Carly. President Snowley. Yes. Vice President Hill. Yes. Director Ackman. Yes. Director Fultz. No. Director Mayhood. Yes. Okay. Moving on to the oral communications. This is a portion of the agenda reserved for, on some of the public, on items that are not on our agenda this evening for discussion. I see several members of the public in attendance this evening. Does anybody want to comment? Seeing none, we will move on then. You're one in the audience. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see you. You're behind the post, please. I would resolle if I would look. I didn't really have anything planned to say at this point, but I also cannot see Director Ackman on screen and I don't have access to those names that we're referring to who are in attendance. So I guess, you know, hybrid meetings are a new thing. Yes. But I remember going to Water District maybe three years when I could see all the other people work in attendance. And I can't see those names that you have. And this came up in the last week, too. So I'm happy that two screens here have identical images. I think it may be better to have one of these screens the way it is. The other screen would be Director Acne remotely and the names that you're looking down on your screen. I think we should be able to see who's in attendance. Thanks. Let me make an accent and see if that helps. Good. Jamie up there. Okay. Moving on then. Jamie is up. I have nothing for the President's report. So, unfinished business. Okay. Unfinished business of the shop and wheeler construction support services extension for the land and steel pipeline projects. And we have the district engineer, Josh Wilk here to present that item to the board. Thanks, Ray. This is a contract amendment which is intended to allow us to pay shop and wheeler for work both already completed to be completed on the line and big steel project. They have done a very good job of being accommodating and working with us when scope changed repeatedly on this project. And now they are asking to be paid. That I will take questions. Okay. Alright. Questions. Bob, since you reported the engineering and environmental committee, I'll let you leave with this. But I do want to say that that committee has not seen this so that we did not review this or comment on it. But from that perspective, any questions on this? Yeah, a couple. What was the amount of the original contract? The original contract amount was $341,100. That's another $100,000 more or less. Roughly, yes. When did we, from a contractor management point of view, when did we get the notion that we were going to exceed the contract? I'm going to have to defer to Rick on this because I think it happened. Rick, I'm going to have to defer to you on this. Yeah, sorry. So when did we get from a supplier management point of view, when did we get the notion that we were going to be going over? And did we ask them for an estimate at that time, what they thought the deal would be? Or is this all totally they get to do what they want and then come back and bill us in arrears? They don't get to do what they want. But we let staff let the scope of work their original projects several times on this. We added a whole section of mainline that wasn't part of the original project because to get rid of a river crossing. We brought on the CZU fire damage that wasn't a part of the original. Did we ask at that time that we bought the additional work on for an update of where we were with their purchaser? We did not. So typically you're going to enter into some sort of a change order or change order process where you're going to say do this. This is what it's going to cost. Or can it be handled under the existing contract? We didn't do that. So we're incurring another $100,000. That's correct. We did manage it. That's correct. Okay. Jamie, any questions on this item? I don't have any specific questions, but I just wanted to acknowledge for Bruce in the audience. I'm in a hotel for a conference this week, which is why I'm not there. My wife is terrible. I keep going off camera to try and maximize my bandwidth. I acknowledge you're concerned about wanting to see all the board members. Normally I would want to be there off camera too, but it's just terrible here. So thanks for your forbearance. Thank you. I guess I had a little bit of the same comment as Bob is. I think I understand how this would happen because the CZU fire really complicated our lives in that interval and there's mission creep and we have in some ways we have to be really grateful that they were willing to take that on and not hold our feet to the fire on the details of what they were doing. But at some point it's important that we try to formalize it. So I think we just want to make sure that they understand that this isn't something that's going to happen again. That they can continue to come back. And now that we're out of the CZU or slowly emerging from the CZU mess that we don't have this recur, that's all I would say. But I think given everything you've described, it seems reasonable to me. I have some questions first Bob. How does this scope of work that we're now adding and the costs that they're coming back with compared to the original contract and the items, are we getting reasonable because they're sole source to us right now. I believe that we are getting a reasonable return for this 100,000. The change order is going to cover in addition to previous changes of scope, which entail the addition of about 6,000 linear feet of pipeline, vanity and river crossing, the addition of several PRVs, changing a bit of how our system works in order to allow us to eliminate at least one pump station, Blackstone, and to get the Bear Creek pump system revitalized essentially. In addition to all of that, plus a bridge crossing, which is not a small undertaking. There's the initial survey required for that. And I would say that that design plus the proportion of this $92,000 that moves forward, which is construction support, submittal review or if I review helpful change orders, that sort of thing throughout the life of the lion project. And simply the fact that the original project has been broken up into four separate projects now. I think we're getting a pretty good bang for our buck here. And to a point Bob was bringing up earlier, it's already coming up a lot. I understand that we as the district were requesting interim cost updates for what has this changed out cost us. But I assume it's likewise that Shafa Willer wasn't doing that either. So they get to the end of their budget and say we're not done with your work yet. If we were not adding scope and changing the existing scope on them, I would agree with you 100% that that was a problem and not to be tolerated. We have changed the scope on them. I understand during the process of the last four years, but you're saying we're going to go beyond that now. And the things that you're describing to me now are changing going forward. Correct. And this amendment does include budget for going forward. And addresses the questions that I had. Jamie or Jeff and then come back to me. They've already said no. Everything I have to say. Of the changes here, how much was directly related to CZU? Approximately 17% of the overall lion project is CZU or will be FEMA funding. There are further impacts to us that are non-monetary changes that have changed the design a little bit based on CZU. That's really a minority of the project. I get that. If these guys are that good and there's depending on how much infrastructure we actually ended up doing, maybe there's a different kind of relationship with them that isn't so much pay by the drain, but pay by the bottle. And I'd certainly be willing to entertain that with them. Particularly given almost a half million dollars worth of business. That's a fair chunk of change. Because typically what you do in that case, if you're going down that route, is you will get slightly better rates. Because it allows them to plan their staffing as well. Which for a consulting company is important. And by the way, as a consultant myself, I'm sure they told you that the change in scope is going to impact the overall statement of work as you are going along. It's just everybody basically agreed we weren't going to deal with the monetary aspects at that point in time. Having been a consultant myself and then exactly that many times, I understand why they did that. But that's where it's incumbent upon us to basically say we're not going to do that. Okay. I just want to make sure I got a few things clarified in that. By the way, it's no small thing to get rid of some of these extra things that we're getting rid of. That's a big plus for the overall infrastructure. So don't get me wrong. I'm okay with that. But when we're dealing with our suppliers, we have to have a particular process in how we're doing. So we'll then, given the responses in that I'd like to make the motion that the district manager amend the existing contract with Schoff and Wheeler for design and construction support services related to the lion and big steel zone pipelines and grouping projects in the amount not to exceed $19,300. Second down. So before we vote, I'd like to hear if the public has any questions on this item. Seeing none. President Smully. Yes. Vice President Hill. Yes. Director Atman. Yes. Director Fultz. Yes. Director Mayhoon. Yes. Okay. Motion passes. Moving on then to business. Labor negotiation. Yes. District council is here to present this item to the board. Okay. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Rick. Can you hear me in the boardroom? Yes. Okay. I'm going to provide just a little bit of background before talking about the the proposed agenda that are in the board packet for which we're seeking board approval because this is the first time this has been on an open session agenda for a long time. We primarily been meeting in closed session for purposes of the negotiations. For anyone who isn't familiar with this, the district has two groups of employees for bargaining purposes. The district has the management supervisory and confidential employees unit and a classified unit that's represented by the union. Each of those two groups has its own memorandum of understanding or MOU with the district that establishes its terms and conditions of employment. Those include a salary schedule for each position within the district, each employee's position within the district, as well as other, it also deals with other matters related to employment for the district. The two existing MOUs were last updated and approved in January of 2017. They had a three-year term that expired at the end of 2020. I'm sorry, at the end of 2019. When the three-year term expired, the MOUs then renewed automatically each year, year by year, because nobody gave notice to renegotiate the MOUs. In 2022, however, September 2022, this past year, both, well, all the parties, the management employees, the union, and the district gave notice of their intention to negotiate the MOUs and try to renew or revise them. Since then, we've been meeting, well, Rick and I were appointed as the district's negotiators, and we've been meeting with the union and the management employee representatives regularly, approximately every two weeks, and meeting with the board in closed session regarding negotiations. The result of this effort at this time is not a new MOU for each group. Instead, what we have done is determined that the district needs to conduct a salary study before completely overhauling the MOUs. And the purpose of that salary study would be to determine what the average compensation package is over similarly situated employees at similar public agencies. As sort of consideration for the time it's going to take to complete the salary study, the two sides also agreed to some other terms and conditions that are all set forth in the two addenda that are in the board packet. The terms are essentially the same the vast majority of the terms are the same for all employees. The key terms are summarized in the board packet and I'll just quickly state them here. All the employees are going to get a total, if the board approved the addenda, all the employees would get a total cost of living increase of six percent for inflation experience last year. Each employee would receive a one-time payment that's not perisable. Seven percent of the employees base salary. The district would kick off, would hire a consultant, would issue an RFP to hire a salary study consultant within the next, I believe it's three months and complete the salary study within a year. And after that we would establish new employees based on the average compensation as determined by the salary study. Also importantly whatever salary increases the salary study may show are appropriate in order to reach the average compensation would be implemented gradually over five years so those increases, any increases wouldn't take place all at once, they would take place at increments over five years and the total salary increase for any one position would be capped at 25 percent of the current salary. We have heard from the management unit representatives that they're prepared to sign the proposed addendum for their group and we did hear on Tuesday from the union representative that the classified employees did vote to approve their addendum as well. So if the board adopts the recommended motion that's in the board packet tonight to approve the addendum then they will be signed on behalf of all the parties and implemented. And we'll continue to talk to the employees while the salary study is underway about things other than compensation so that when we get the salary study back we'll be in a position to hopefully get new MOUs in place fairly quickly and with that I'll answer any questions. Thank you, Jenna. Okay, as Gina said earlier the board has been discussing this for the last several closed session meetings so we've had the chance to understand what was going to be in this memo and the agreements that we have in front of us. So with that I'd like to say the board has any additional questions or comments on that. Jeff? I guess I'll just echo that we had lots of frank discussions in closed session and I think we ended up with a situation that reflects the efforts that our staff have made on our behalf through both the pandemic and the CZU fire and puts us on a road to making sure that we're paying competitive rates but maybe doesn't give them everything they wanted but we also have to watch the bank account of the district so I think it was a pretty good compromise so I'll vote yes. Okay, Jamie? Well, I very much agree with all of the comments that Director Manhoek put forward and I would really like to hear from the public before we have a conversation about where we're at even though I'm largely in support of everything that we're doing for our employees but I feel like this is the first opportunity that the public is truly getting to sort of comment on where we're at with the agreement so I'd love to just hear from the public at this point. Okay, Bob? Yeah, I have a statement to read. Thank you for your patience. I believe that our government agencies work best when operating with a consent of an informed public. The duty to inform goes beyond the minimum legal requirements of pointing to a website or publishing an agenda twice a month. The duty to inform must include providing critical context and facts from which our community can base their decision to provide or withhold consent. As I've said before, the Brown Act minimums are a floor for transparency, not a ceiling. Ultimately, this means we must tell our community the truth, good, bad, or ugly, and the full truth not just the part that is politically comfortable. We have a duty to provide full context or aggressive outreach and not sugar coated PR pieces about how good things are. We should honor and assume that everyone in our community works hard at what they do but we must also support those that have struggled from years of numerous challenges and assure them that asking for more money to pay district bills is done only with a serious open and transparent process. Unfortunately, this board did not do that with respect to the employee MOUs and is continuing to follow the policy of previous cycles of MOU negotiations. That path culminated in serious community discord and a significant Prop 218 protest vote on rates in 2017. As in 2017, this MOU extension is being offered to the public after a completely secret process with this information sprung on the community at the last second in a manner that ensures no one will really notice it until much later, probably in conjunction with the coming rate increase. In the future, we must instead follow the leadership of other agencies in California like the city of Costa Mesa and the Palo Alto Unified School District who conduct negotiations privately but publish the proposals made by each party so that the community has complete transparency into not only the negotiating positions but also to the reports showing the impact of said proposals particularly on operating budgets and therefore on rates in our case. So we are doing that compensation study therefore staffing and operating expenses will most likely increase even more than what is contemplated by this agenda item since these studies simply ratchet compensation around Robin's style among the local agencies. The results speak for themselves. Between 2015 and 2025, the end of our current budget look ahead, staff costs will have at least doubled. That's an increase of 7% per year. That's in the aggregate not individuals. Staffing costs now account for almost 70% of the operating budget. And still to this day, I can't get the answer as to what our community is receiving and benefits for the skyrocketing operating expenses that they weren't receiving back in 2015. Therefore, as a result, I will not support any proposal that comes before this board that is not part of an open and transparent process accompanied with multi-year budgets that exceed the minimum definition of multi and which provide our community with the information they need to make an informed decision to provide or withhold consent. Thank you. Okay, I do want to comment since I've been involved in the discussions to this point. From my perspective, these were not easy discussions that we had. I don't believe that the board sided with requests that the employees would be ready. I believe that we took a neutral position between requests that the union were making and our duties to the public as elected officials. So with that, I feel that the board did our jobs we've been elected to do are these difficult negotiations and this is where we are at this point. So I'd like to I see that Director Ackerman would like to follow a comment. Jamie? Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to add to that that I was unaware of the comments that Director Ackerman would make but in my experience and I have been through public agency negotiations both as an employee as a manager and now as a board member, I have never seen them done in public in the way that Director Volts suggests and it would be a disservice to our employees to do that. So with that, I would love to hear from the public. Okay, I would like to see anybody from the public has questions or comments on this seeing none. Then I think we can move to I want to make a motion to approve the attached addenda and authorize their execution on behalf of the district. Second. Okay. Okay, President Smully? Yes. Vice President Hill? Yes. Director Ackerman? Yes. Director Volts? No. Director Mayhood? Yes. Okay. Motion passes. Order 1. Okay, moving on then. The consent agenda. Does anybody have any objections to what we have in the consent agenda? No. Moving on to... Do you want to thank the board for putting the comments in from both Gail and myself? I thought that was very helpful. Okay. District reports. I have nothing. Okay. Department status reports. So questions on the engineering report. Jeff, anything on engineering? Okay. No comment. Jamie? Nope. Okay. I have any issues yet on the Fall Creek Fish Ladder construction information? No. Okay. And you have no idea how pleased I am to say that. Because on the film tanks tank are we stall on this? Seems to be like we saw the same thing when we get a report. That's because there's been the same thing report after report after report. You know more than a high about where we are until tonight. Yes, we're working on putting together agreements to enter the property to perform geotechnical review, survey review. So the property over then is agreement. Are agreements in front of them? No, they're not. Great. Thank you. Okay. With conceptual ease. Yes. Okay. So what you're saying is that the paperwork is not finalized for people to sign? That's correct. Okay. All right. Environmental? Bob? Yes. Question on grants. So I'm not sure there's been anything added to the table for a while. And so while I think the, even if we back out the grant for Bracken Gray, which that's a special case, we're still looking at about a 40 to one return on investment more or less so far. But are we seeing a slow down in grants that we're have a chance of being able to get? Right. So right now we're kind of in this waiting period of where we have quite a few grants open that we're waiting to hear if we were awarded or not. We can. Yeah. It's just kind of waiting for those different periods to open. Right now there isn't all that much we could be pursuing, especially related to infrastructure. We did just get a Firehouse Hardening grant for $300,000. That's through the IRWM or the Integrated Regional Water Management. And that's through the Community Foundation, which the board approved. So we did just get that award announced. So what you're saying is there's nothing for us to apply for right now? Is that basically the case? Right now there are different programs we're looking into. So we are looking into the State Revolving Fund for the consolidation projects. And that's going to be a pretty large application if we do decide to pursue that. There's just some waiting periods in between. But we are still looking for different grant opportunities. And as soon as they do open, we will pursue them if they're relevant to us. In your experience, are there grant opportunities for infrastructure repair as opposed to new construction? Not really. No, unfortunately most programs won't fund repair or maintenance. That's pretty rare. So if we can make the case for Fire Hardening or that's really the end for infrastructure it seems. If we can say we have these Redwood tanks that would benefit Fireflow if we were to upgrade them or harden them and protect them from fire and make the public safety argument, then we have a chance. But it is still kind of a difficult. It is kind of a gray area. And probably no chance on recoding the tanks. No. Yeah, maintenance is really not considered anything for grant funding. Okay. Because all of our steel tanks except for the recently installed ones are well past their requirement maintenance period. We can go after loans. So low interest loans are our next option. There's pretty good programs. I think the city was just awarded a huge loan. So a low interest loan. Yes. But right now I'm not sure our debt coverage ratio would support that. Still waiting for that number. I think we'd be pretty tight on that. I think we'd be pretty darn tight on that actually. Especially if you back out for $1 million in surcharge money which really isn't able to be applied to that. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay. We are still under the environmental record. The water shortage stage two. We talked about that in a previous meeting. When did we, or how do we say we're not under that? Well Mark, we never did. We didn't do it in 2017. But I wasn't here until I said question. So how do we That I mean it is a board decision discussion. I think what Rick and I have talked about is it's a little difficult because a lot of these grants that we are currently pursuing we did make the argument that we're in a drought situation. So you know we might risk these applications. Grants before we back all the way out. Well we were in a drought situation where you apply. So is it based on your application date or your reality? That's a great question. Yeah. Can we look at that? I'm going to see which ones are correct. Which ones are vulnerable. Unless we think that announcing that we're in a stage two of when we need to go to that. It really does send a message. Otherwise we've backed off on our messaging. Understand we have discussed but going back but in 2018 I asked the same question Mark. Believe it or not. It never happened. We stayed in a stage two. So when we actually went to the 10% more of the district ask it was actually going to a stage three even though we formally didn't want to do that. So we were not really being straight with our community at that point. Mark I suggest limiting discussion on this unless it's going to be agendized right. Understand. Thank you. Thank you for closing that off. Alright. Can I make a recommendation that we stress this for future discussion? Okay. Rick, did you hear that? I did hear that. And we can bring that back to work. So put it on a future agenda. Okay. Moving on then which one of these are we under? Yes. Jamie. Yes. Anything? Any questions? No. Alright. Bob. Yeah. I don't know if Kendra's on or not but I was curious as to if she's made a determination given that August is coming up pretty soon on the past two bills. I do believe she has and she is on. And of the number that's greater than 30 days in arrears, what percentage of that do we expect to recover through that property tax process? So yeah, we just sent out our first round of letters and you'll also notice in the past two analysis that there was a decrease of $270,000 that we sent from February's past two. So I think that was, you know, a combination of us sending out the letters, letting them know that we're getting ready to go to the property tax roll. And so I think that kind of sparked people to, you know, be like, oh, I need to pay my bill. But I believe when we ran the reports, it was about $270,000 worth of past two accounts that we sent letters out of a little over half. Well, over half of the total or over half of the greater than 30 days? Greater than 30 days. Okay. Yeah. Only half. That seems low. I could go back and double check and get a more definite answer for you. I would just need to look into our agenda item at some point. So I didn't hear that clearly. Over half of what? Over the greater than 30 days in arrears. Because I don't currently what receivables I don't care. So, but I mean, I don't know if it's 50, 55, 60, it's just over half. So over half of the greater than 30 days are being submitted to. Right. And again, not to dive into this too deep yet, but I think this is something that either the board or the budget finance committee can take a closer look at because we are three, three months out or two months out. Yeah. I do know we did place a threshold on it as well. So that could have something to do with it. So I can do a deeper dive into that and bring it back to budget finance. Great. Thank you. We're still on finance. Any questions? Lots of little things that I want to bring up in committee. Okay. Okay. Nothing outstanding. Anybody have any questions on legal seeing none? I'll move to operations. Gail, anything on operations? Okay. Yeah. On the water being taken from wells, are we off that or are we going to be on wells for going forward? Right now we are not running our well from pure surface water. We've only been running the wells for maintenance and the quarterly well drawdown report will be in the July of 2020. Okay. Great. I was going to say I hope so. But it's also we also have some issues in distribution and restrictions and so forth. We can move so much water. But with the new pipelines going in that will improve all those restrictions. But I thought the restrictions were mostly south of us. That was down in, well, now we have one in Boulder Creek with the PTO pipeline. Okay. Great. Thank you. I do have a question on operations. Do we have plans to do a link detection survey? Yes. Yes, that begins on June 5th and it'll be ready for 15 days. Great. Okay. Sorry, Carly actually just asked me for the paperwork for that. So the social media posts will be going out with that. Okay. Committee reports. Any questions, comments on those? If not, I think we can adjourn this open session. I just recommend ensuring there were no public comments on any of the reports. Okay. Thank you. Any comments from the public on staff reports? Seeing none. Chair, we are reconvening back in closed session. We are. Okay. So make sure council knows that and make sure we follow those procedures. Okay. All right. But council was not attending the end of closed session. That is correct. That is correct. Resign on to the go-to meeting. That is correct. Okay. Would I just check, is any advice needed regarding report out, reporting out at the end of this? I don't believe there will be. If it gets to that, I can call you. Okay. If we run into an issue like that. I don't believe it will. It's just information. Okay. Yes. If you need me to jump back on to the open meeting for report out, let me know. But it sounds like there won't be any and so there won't be any need to get back on here. Okay. Thanks, staff. Okay. Thank you. You can put it back on that. CTV run into closed session. Recording.