 Okay, we had a closed session and we got some information about that um roll okay no public hearing and we have seven items on the consent agenda anything anyone wants to pull yes I just had a couple comments on 3.7 okay I don't want to I don't want to pull something but I know the things we should probably talk about at some point is the what's the name of that property over there it's near the one of the surplus property yeah let me see it's on here Suncatcher court okay it's a actually a residential piece of property and we had thought at one point about putting a well on it never did I was just sitting there you want that one brought back no just for staff to consider okay I think that we have no plans for it it would be a nice easy property to sell because it's just residential area okay I'll move approval of the other consent agenda items 3.1 through 3.6 okay I'll second it thank you so this is the time for comment on consent agenda item okay thank you very much my name is Becky Steinbruner I live in rural Aptos and am a customer of a pure source water company I have noted that there's been a change in the minutes that it no longer reflects any public comment at all your minutes used to and so I would like to ask that again you include at least that the public was there and what they had to say I would also like to say that on item 3.3 the reporting of excess real property that the district still holds property to create a reservoir on Glenwood sorry it's listed as excess yes I see that and so I just want to make that of note to those who are listening that you do still retain land to create a reservoir item 3.7 that one's going to be discussed off agenda okay no go ahead all right thank you I'll wait and comment on it then item 3.4 then the water capacity fee I just want to point out that this is a sizable amount of money that has been collected in water capacity fees and I actually had a question about one specific one I'm sorry well that's all right so I want to clarify that the water capacity fees were increased in 2010 I've never seen this information compiled in this way before so thank you it's very helpful the water capacity fees were raised in 2010 is that what I'm seeing in the pattern and I also had a question in the water capacity fees the one stated for Teramar retail centers it says there are two but they are only charged for the price of one so I'd like some clarification on that thank you very much okay okay I think we have a motion and a second all in favor hi hi posed that's unanimous so we go to 3.7 what's on tap I had just a couple of small things on the second page of the what's on tap newsletter I think it's really it's good overall on the first column near the very bottom near the bottom it's just mentioning it's explaining how these are determined and there is it says okay so it is the cost they're driven by the number of service connections not by how much water is used and I didn't know if we should clarify that other than you know electricity and pumping costs just just so that that's the only thing that goes up and down with use okay and then variable costs yeah and then the on the graphic I just I don't want to have a plastic straw in there sorry okay I'm in about that already okay so that's all I have it's gone anyone else have anything on what's on top start the clock can you please thank you thank you Becky Steinbruner resident of Aptos I do understand that the what's on tap only comes out quarterly so another what's on tap will not come out until March or so so I'm I'm curious why there's no mention in here I I really like that you explain the financing of water and the rates but there's no mention of the public hearing that I think your board has put on your February agenda to discuss rate increases publicly I think that should be included in here and also there's no mention that your board is considering a 9% per year increase for a considerable number of years to pay for the pure water soquel project I also see that there's no talk about the granite way well which is a significant project a very visible project granite what granite way well I don't know what I said but that's what I meant to say granite way well and that's a very visible project and your newest well and it seems like your rate pairs would be very interested in the progress of that since there's been no activity for almost almost two years there since you drilled it so I'd like to include those into your what's on tap going out soon thank you thank you anyone else have any things about this document okay I think that's just informational so we don't need to approve it so we go on now to the oral communications so this is the time to address us on any item not on tonight's agenda should just leave my chair here thank you Becky Steinbruner again I just want to say congratulations and I know this is kind of on the the agenda tonight but the water transfers began yesterday and I want to thank general manager Duncan for inviting me and some of the other folks from water for Santa Cruz to attend that really great event that was a happy moment so thank you and there's a really nice article in the Sentinel about it today I I do also want to point out that in the Aptos times and the capital of Soquel times chairman Daniel you had a an article about water progress and you urged people to be myth busters when they hear people saying there's you just said sewage water but often we we use the term treated sewage water so I would ask when you ask people to be myth busters to really include a good source of information where they can go to to read and I always go to your Corolla Engineering study that was presented as a result of the study of the contaminants in in the Santa Cruz waste treatment and was extrapolated also from the San Luis Obispo area and that I remember that it was not possible to get all of the some of the pharmaceuticals out and some of the contaminants created by disinfection like NDMA and again to point out that there are no drinking water standards for pharmaceuticals again I will tell you that I am very concerned about the district's plan to inject this treated sewage water advance water purification but it's treated sewage water into the drinking water supply for the entire area and again I want to ask you to let people vote on this a lot of people have straws in this aquifer it's not just Soquel Creek and we need to be given a voice in this too finally Friday I had the very good fortune of being given some money so I could attend the state of the region event put on and seaside by the Monterey back economic partnership I attended the session on housing and water and was quite distressed to see the arena numbers the that will be enforced by the state and if they the county the cities do not meet those arena numbers with new legislation coming through SB 35 others that would be penalized and there was discussion about Soquel Creek water district and the very high rates that you charge for a to use and so I think you're going to be hearing a lot about that and there are big plans for development in this area thank you very much thank you anyone else see no one we continue so we go to item 5.1 under reports the board planning calendar yes take a recess until we troubleshoot that our live stream I've been informed that televised out to the public is we're now live okay so we're back live so great good so I'll continue on with item 5.1 the board planning calendar I'll just make note of a couple things there's two standing committee meetings on Tuesday the Tuesday coming up a week from today December 11th public outreach at 1030 and the water resource an infrastructure at 4 to 5 and then the next day on the 12th with is the groundwater sustainability plan advisory committee meeting and I specifically point that out because it's at a different it's a week earlier than we normally have it and I know Dr. Jaffe usually he's our representative on that and some of you also attend and that'll be at Simkins next Wednesday a week from tomorrow from 5 to 8 30 and they're going to we're basically at least the rough agenda is centered around management efforts in the aromas so we'll have Brian Lockwood the general manager from PB water there and discussion about the differences between the aromas and the charisma aquifers and how that how this is impacting or could impact the groundwater sustainability plan GSP any questions public okay so that means are done with the reports we go into administrative business we have 6.1 conditional unconditional will serve letters I'm available to answer any questions if you have any any questions like none you want to make any motion I'll move approval of both all second motion and a second all in favor and I oppose so it passes 3 to 1 okay we go to 6.2 the annual election of vice president by the board of directors and here's your new president so take it away mr. president oh do we do that right now that's what we usually do okay the next item has you sign it as the president all right I'm good with I'm we're fine okay but I'm I feel like we've really done a lot of good work this year and I want to thank you for all your hard work you've really what's amazing everywhere and trying to be informed on everything so it's amazing because when I started you may remember I said one thing I want to accomplish is to get in yeah darn close to it darn close and I for one would like to nominate your vice president what you want me to third it okay you could nominate yourself even right I just was waiting to listen and any public comment on this item I'm sorry Becky Steinbrum a little confused did you just nominate dr. Daniels I would like to point out to your board that year before last you agreed I really like the job chairman Daniels dad but your board discussed year before last that you would change it up well he's the chairman now I've mentioned that beginning but but what I'm seeing is that it's just you too going back and forth your board said year before last you would change that up and you would bring on somebody else from the board when the position came up so I want to point that out to you and suggest that you consider instead director Christensen or director Lather or director Jaffe because that's what your board said you would do a couple of years ago I just want to point that out I remember it clearly thank you thank you for your comment there's been a motion and a second all in favor all right so we move on to item 6.3 did John come tonight he is at home watching online okay hi John we appreciate you yes I certainly appreciate John he's been working for us for ten years he started as a water systems operator and quickly promoted to our electrical technician in 2008 and now he was promoted to operations supervisor in 2010 and he's been instrumental in our plant startups and keeping the water in the pipes he's passed ten years we're really lucky to have someone with his skill set and a combination of common sense and sense of humor so I'm gonna miss him he retires at the end of this year and we have a resolution for you to vote on yes it's quite a well-done resolution and I would you like me to read it I would like to read it to John okay and so the board of directors of the SoCal Creek water district at its December 4th 2018 meeting made the following findings whereas John came to the district in 2008 after many years as an automotive mechanic and power generation technician and rose through the district ranks including water systems operator electrical technician and finally operations supervisor in 2010 and whereas John takes the responsibility of a supervisor and operator to the highest professional level always excelling on state exams and maintains a grade 3 treatment and distribution operator certification and whereas John is an extremely gifted water operator and electrical mechanical diagnostician and whereas John was instrumental in the startup of new district facilities including the polo grounds and the O'Neill Ranch wells and water treatment plants the McGregor and Aptos pump stations the Aptos junior high replacement well the seascape well improvements the service area three to four intertie and countless well and plant rehabilitations and pump and motor repair and replacements and whereas John taught himself to program the district's supervisory control and data acquisition or SCADA system significantly increased functionality of the system and added all the new district facilities to the system allowing remote control and whereas John also taught himself to be a diagnostic radio frequency technician greatly improved the district's radio communications by extending the network ranges using tail and links and guided the change of radio frequencies and whereas John truly cares about providing the highest quality of water meticulously disinfecting and testing facilities over and above requirements and never experiencing a water quality violation under his watch and whereas John continuously find ways to save the district money maintains good relationships with neighbors of district facilities and has compassion for district customers and whereas John looks out for the safety of others and exercises leadership in addressing electrical safety including arc flash with one-on-one coaching and whereas John is respected by his peers at other agencies successfully collaborating and working towards common solutions during emergencies as well as longer term projects and whereas John's total dedication to the district is exemplified by his availability to all staff day or night weekends or holidays to respond to emergencies to keep customers in water or simply answer questions and whereas John fosters an atmosphere of sharing and learning is a respected supervisor and his warmth and humor touches all departments of the district now therefore be resolved by the board of directors of the SoCal Creek Water District that John Henderson is hereby recognized for his dedication and many contributions to the district and leaving the district a better place and be it further resolved that we all join in extending our appreciation for his loyalty professionalism and years of service and wish him a very long rewarding and well-deserved retirement. I'll make the motion. I'll second it. And thank you John. Good example for all our employees and so I'm proud of this this this whole group but that kind of work I think is amazing. Yeah it is. So all in favor roll call roll call it's a resolution. So sorry. Director Lather. Yes. Director Daniel. Yes. Director Christensen. Yes. And president with you. Yes. Thank you very much. All righty. It's going to be tough to replace but we have some other great folks. All right. Item six point four is approve the lease with easement options option agreement with Twin Lakes. Yes. So before you tonight is a lease with a draft easement option pending a sequel analysis for the easement portion and it's for a district pilot well at the Twin Lakes Church. It's fully it's funded by the California State Prop one grant funding. And you know the I just like to say put a shout out for the church you know when we came to them and said hey we're doing this project. They just basically said we want to try to do what's right for the community and so we want to work with you on you know getting a well here. So that's where we're at and you can see there's a signed agreement on their behalf and the motion before you tonight is by motion direct the board president to sign the lease agreement. And with the easement option draft easement option shown in attachment one. I'd be glad to answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions. For me. All right. Any members of the public wish to speak on the side. Thank you. Becky Steinbrunner resident of Aptos. I have a question on page 70. It talks about the sale of the easement price. It said the purchase price of the easement paid an annual payment shall be based on an appraisal and shall include providing a credit for water for a demonstration irrigation project as described in section 12A. In section 12A it says the district shall provide a water credit to the county for a demonstration irrigation project for their main athletic field installed and maintained by twin lakes in an amount not to exceed three and a half acre feet annually for the duration of the easement period which is 50 years as I understand it. Provided that the district has not cancelled the easement. It also goes on in and the intention is to provide purified water for this demonstration project. That's an expensive water to be using for the athletic field. But if the purified water doesn't come to fruition then you would use potable water. In section 12B it says in recognition for the groundwater benefits this will recharge well would do and to address the future possible plans by twin lakes to expand their onsite employee housing the district agrees not to require a water demand offset payment or the equivalent charge provided the expansion does not exceed 1600 square feet and is attached to us in existing single family residents or an attached or detached ADU. So can you tell me how much this is potentially going to be? What is this easement costing for 50 years to agree to pay for 3.5 acre feet a year free water and no water demand offset for expansion of employee housing and using taxpayer money, Prop 1 money to do this project. I think we need some clarification perhaps for Mr. Basso if this is all transparent and proper use of taxpayer money if it is fair to your other customers to be paying carte blanche for this amount of water for 50 years. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Okay. Seeing none. Anybody? I'd like the motion to approve seconded by Dr. Christensen. All in favor. All right. All right. All right. All right. Motion carries unanimously. We shall move to the next item which is coming right along here. 6.5. I know that. Okay. All right. So community water plan update. Thank you. Great. Thank you. I'm going to give a short presentation on an overview and status update on the water supply options within the community water plan. We also have a new Shaw from Brown and Caldwell who has done some analysis related to the cost of the water supply options. So tonight we plan to spend about 20 minutes, 20 to 30 minutes on a short presentation to give a little bit of history and context related to the community water plan, how it was developed. Really, I think this is a nice story just in itself of the two handouts that we created in 2015. We did mail this out to all of our customers. And last year we did update that and send out a small hand set. We do provide a lot of updates regularly to the board, as well as to our standing committee, the water infrastructure committee, as well as the outreach committee. But tonight's presentation and staff memo really is to serve as more of a condensed summarized version. We also want to always recognize that without the input from the community, that was kind of what created this whole long term roadmap was the input we got from the community during the year long process and continuing over the years. We also want to recognize that the community water plan is guided and founded upon some guiding principles that the board set for us in 2017. And we continue to look at those. And then we'll go into more details related to the water supply options. So first off, again, I think we all know that about five years ago when we were pursuing the desalination project as our water supply solution to address the critical overdraft and the seawater intrusion of the Mid County area, that project was put on hold and the district head to embark in a year long process starting in 2013 and going through most of 2014. That really did pave the way for the community water plan. During that time we had over 13 public meetings, we had workshops, we did both phone surveys as well as online surveys. And it has created that roadmap that's multifaceted that doesn't just address the water supply solutions, but it also encompasses first, I think the cornerstone, which has always been and continues to be water conservation, as well as our adaptive groundwater management. And then in terms of the water supply options rather than select a project, one sole project at that time concluding with that process in 2014, the board did ask staff to continue evaluating multiple supply options at various timeliness and tracks. The pure water soquel project at that time was advanced purification for groundwater replenishment, water transfers with the city of Santa Cruz, desalination with the moss landing endeavor, and then in 2017 we added stormwater capture. So I like to go back to that time when we were really developing the community water plan and seeking input from the community, we asked them, don't get stuck on a project and I think that's been Ron's mantra over the last few years, it's not about a project, it's about sustainability. And we posed that, we posed a question very similar to that to our community when we were developing the community water plan is what do you value? Everybody has a particular bias or interest on one project or another, but really at the end of the day, what do you value and what is important to you? And these were the qualities, reliability. Is the water available year round even in times of drought? Quality produces water that meets or exceeds local, state, and federal water quality requirements. Timeliness, ability to build the project in a timely manner before sea water intrusion worsens. That one was very important to customers at the time because they had just spent the seven years or the district had spent about seven years with the desal project that was, you know, somewhat lost in times of the ability. And I think it's become even more relevant since the Danish Sky Tim work were offshore. They used the geophysical technique to identify the location of the seawater front, seawater intrusion front, where it's not already unsure. And that data revealed that it's right at the shore. So it's the worst case analysis. So very timely in itself to tell us that we need to get a project in a timely manner. Thank you. Also the environment, to be have minimal or minimize environmental impacts, scalability ability to expand or scale operations to adjust to changing needs and climate change, and also affordable or affordability. Does the project have the potential to share costs with other agencies or receive grant funding? In January of 2017, so this was about two years following the approval and adoption of the community water plan, the board set some guiding principles to ensure that we were continually in alignment in terms of what the work that staff was doing, what was the policy directions of the board, as well as what kind of input we were receiving from the community. So that was a document that was adopted and improved in 2017. And it's a multi-page document. But what I have here is just sharing some of the guiding principles that were identified from the board. In 2014, the board established the eight year goal to develop a supplemental water supply to be brought online and producing water by 2022. I think from the get go and it continues to be to this day that that is a goal that we are striving to do. The district's long term sustainability goals are to reduce uncertainty where possible and manage it to manage it when it is present and reduce risk through conservation efforts and pursuing obtaining supplemental supplies to eliminate the negative consequence of seawater intrusion. Also actively pursue grants and low interest loans to reduce the local funding needed and offset rate payer exposure to costs. Specifically, I pulled out these two because I think given the nature of where some of the water supply projects that are currently underway, the first one is on water transfers back in January of 2017. The board guided us to aim to obtain the transfer water by December 2018, hopefully before then. So as you know, as of yesterday, December 3rd, we did open the valve from the city of Santa Cruz for the pilot test. And then this one here, secure agreements for treated effluent secondary or tertiary with the city of Santa Cruz. The facility will not be treating raw wastewater. Again, I think when we first initiated on the advanced purification project, we were looking at two different types of source water, the raw sewage as well as treated secondary effluent. And so since that time over the years, we have made great strides in taking off the untreated wastewater as a potential source and are focusing on getting secondary water from Santa Cruz. I just say we have draft a letter and draft agreements for the effluent. So we're well on our way there. So at this time, you know, the agenda staff memo is about 10 pages long that go through each of the water supply options. What we have here in our presentation tonight is about two slides per water supply option focusing on the five or six water qualities that the community has identified. So with pure water, so Cal, first off, just in case there are those either watching on TV or in the public. This is our advanced water purification project where we would be taking treated secondary effluent from the city of Santa Cruz and purifying that through a multiple step process, then delivering that water to recharge wells to increase protective water levels, as well as create a water water barrier. This project has been evaluating the feasibility of it since 2015. The board asked us to really look into water quality. So we did commission an independent panel under the National Water Research Institute. That panel convened in 2017 and concluded that the project is feasible and could produce safe purified water from the Santa Cruz wastewater treatment plant. They also recommended that we do a pilot studying, as you can see the picture on the right. We did conduct a pilot study this summer to evaluate taking that water and treating it through microfiltration membranes. And currently, just as Ron mentioned, we are working quite diligently on creating a memorandum of understanding or taking the memorandum of understanding that we have with the city of Santa Cruz and actually creating a memorandum of agreement to secure that water. In terms of the six qualities, in terms of reliability, we feel that that water still is and continues to be a reliable source. We would be taking about 25% of the over eight million gallons of water that is sent out to the ocean. This still leaves ample amount of water should a future project by another entity ever want to do recycled water in the county. The water quality, of course, would have to meet regulatory requirements. These types of projects are permitted under the state. We would need to comply with that under the title 22 and the regional board permits. And I just like to add that obviously the Orange County, which has been doing something similar for 40 plus years in the other entities, their continual testing has shown that the water quality has exceeded or been better than what the state or federal requirements require. So it's proven. The project still meets the board's anticipated goal of having a project online. We have completed all of the feasibility. We've done the environmental work. So we are on track if this project were to go forward to be operational by 2022. As noted there on the right, the draft EIR was published in 2018. The findings of that report stated that except for noise during construction, all other potential significant environmental effects could be mitigated. We are currently working on responses to the comments and I'm hoping to publish a final EIR soon. The project could be scalable because of the way that the pure water soak health project could be designed. Most of it is through membranes that could be built on the skids. If the project were to be expanded, we would need to do a subsequent environmental analysis on that. If the project were to be reduced, we could do that through operational flexibility. For the pure water soak health project, we have done some cost estimating as recently as the 2017 feasibility study and in a new presentation we'll go further into the cost analysis and estimates. You want to mention grant funding on that? Sure. Thanks Ron. Also to note for the pure water soak health project there is grant funding program specifically that address the objectives of this project. So the title 16 program that the Bureau has is specifically for recycled water projects and also the Prop 1 ground water grant through the state applies, this project would apply because of the seawater intrusion prevention barrier wealth. In terms of water transfers, there has also been a considerable amount of work on this that we want to highlight. The surface water transfer project would include taking excess treated water from the city of Santa Cruz and delivering it to the district through our existing pipeline system. We currently have a pilot study that's been underway. The agreement was initiated in 2015. It was a five year agreement for a small amount of water approximately 300 acre feet to be purchased from the water that is considered the north coast sources or doesn't have water rights issues. A lot of the testing and effort underway right now has to evaluate the water quality. This is not about the quantity that we're testing and evaluating right now but it's really about the water quality blending surface water into a predominantly traditional groundwater system. We want to make sure that we've addressed any kind of water quality concerns that may come. In terms of the long term project, that would be where we would purchase or buy 1500 acre feet of water from the city. They are currently working a lot on their evaluation of their projects and programs under their efforts that they took when the D cell project was put on hold that that project would require us to have a combination of water from north coast as well as San Lorenzo River water. That water does have water rights issues. So that would need to be initiated. Right now the city did put out their environmental review process to have their water rights go through an EIR. So the the city is watching the district is watching that effort. We did provide comments and we foresee that once that process is completed and the water rights have gone through CEQA and have been amended, then they would have to do subsequent environmental review on a project of that of the long term. Yeah, and I'd like to point out the work potential there is not just because, you know, currently under water rights, it's not allowed and the feasibility study in the EIR hasn't been completed or anything, but they're not even sure if they have the water. That's another main problem because, you know, Santa Cruz is trying to solve its drought shortage problem. So after they get that done, whether there is available water is still yet to be determined. I just want to point out the picture on the right. That is from yesterday's valve turning of Ron and Rosemary. So it was an exciting day. Again, looking at the water transfer project in terms of the qualities of our community, we do feel that the short term project, pilot project, is reliable as long as we meet the conditions. There are a set of conditions that the city has in terms of if they can, you know, provide us water. For the long term reliability, I think, you know, it's under evaluation. The city is currently going through their feasibility. Their timeline is to better understand the amount of water that they could use and utilize for their projects and then what they could or be able to share to neighborhood agencies such as ourselves or Scots Valley. The amount of water that they could potentially share to us, and we'll go over that in a little bit more detail in a bit, is also contingent upon how much water they would want to receive back. So still kind of, I think, some unknowns in terms of the reliability. For water quality, I think, of course, this is treated surface water from the city of Santa Cruz, so it would meet state and federal regulations. In terms of timeliness, the short term pilot project will run through 2020. At this point, we don't know if that pilot project would be extended. It could be extended for a couple of years, perhaps, or we could ask that there would be a long term agreement made. In terms of the timeliness for the long term, I think, for us at this point, it's best for us just to kind of acknowledge that it's unknown and dependent on the city's issues. I already addressed the environmental portions of the water transfer project. The short term project went through the initial study and negative deck, which was completed in 2016. If the project, pilot project were to be extended, that environmental analysis may need to be looked at again, especially if conditions are changed. So I just wanted to note that. And then in terms of the long term, I think, as Ron and I stated on the earlier slide, that effort is underway and we're just going to be watching what kind of environmental impacts and analysis are determined from that effort. I think weren't they saying that they potentially could start an EIR maybe at the end of 2020? That's so right. So their effort in terms of their feasibility and analysis on the long term project for them is to complete all of the feasibility by 2020, bring it to the council. That was what was on their timeline. And then from 2020, they would initiate what course of action they would do for their supply projects. Whether or not they decide, they could, I know Tom, they could initiate a full EIR prior to that. But I think it would be dependent on if they wanted to take that on. The size of it, scalability, it's unknown. We don't know. There hasn't really been talk about how much water the city could provide to us. We do have some estimates that we've used from the previous Kennedy Jenks report. And we'll go into that when the cost estimate. And again, the cost would be identified. Two more supply options within the community water plan. This one is the deep water desal project. This is a privately owned endeavor to develop a 25,000 acre foot per year desal project that would be coupled and co-located with a data center. This would be in Moss Landing. And the goal for it was to provide desalinated water to both Monterey County and Santa Cruz County. The status update for the deep water desal project is it has been underway since the mid 2000s, 2010 or 2012. And they have been going through most of their efforts at this point has been technical feasibility and environmental review. I'll hit these six qualities. So in terms of reliability, we do still feel that desalination water is a reliable source. There is ample amount of water out in the ocean. Again, this water desalinated water is permitted by the state of California. So the water that would be generated from this type of facility would meet or exceed state and federal regulations. In terms of timeliness, at this point, it is unknown. We did get some information from the deep water desal partners that their timeline is to have the project online by 2023, assuming that they can get through all of their environmental and permitting. I know in the past they've had some delays. Currently their environmental work was a delay, but it's supposed to be released now. As you can see on that next bullet, the environmental aspects of the project is to release an EIR at the end of the third quarter. At this point, once that comes out, we'll have a better idea of what the environmental impacts are for that project. In terms of scalability, there is potential for that. Currently the way that the structure was set up when the district board initiated a memorandum of interest in 2015 was that the purchase of desalinated water would be at a take or pay. So we would we would negotiate or enter into an agreement that we would purchase for our project 1,500 acre-feet per year. You would commit to that. Whether or not you actually took that would be up to us, but we would pay for that 1,500 acre-feet per year. And then again, in terms of affordability and affordable, that will be something that a new pool address. For stormwater capture, this is our newest one and kind of our baby, I think, in terms of the water supply option, since this is more of a small-scale water supply projects that could be developed or pursued to accompany one of the three that we just talked about. This would be where we would capture available stormwater on site or perhaps near a storm drain and aid in a local recharge of the groundwater basin. The district has in the past year been working with several other agencies to identify locations where this would be feasible. And really looked more at the aquifer conditions as well as water quality. So I think Shelley's group has done a lot of the work on this in terms of evaluating this and doing some on-site testing, again with the folks from the Denmark folks and doing kind of a first flush capture of water to do some water quality sampling, working with Andy Fisher on identifying some sites. And I think recognizing again that these sites have the potential for about 10 to 50 acre feet per year for water captured. So it's about one-tenth of the size of the project that we would need for the whole district problem. One thing to note, I think, here, and Shelley did help me with providing the information in the memo, is a lot of the projects related to stormwater capture dependent on landowner agreements. So in terms of the stormwater capture in terms of the qualities that we've been looking at in terms of criteria, the reliability of this is somewhat unknown. It is dependent on rainfall and dependent on the rainfall reaching the aquifer units that would produce adequate or a volume of water that we could recharge. In terms of water quality, as I mentioned, we did do some water quality sampling. It's very dependent on the runoff in that specific area. There are preliminary water quality testing identified, several different compounds, pesticides, plasticizers, some oils. So the water that is being captured isn't really pristine that some people, I think, think of when they think about stormwater capture. In terms of timeliness, the exact timing is unknown for this project development. At this time, the projects don't really meet our needs. And the one area that we had identified as a potential site, which was near the golf course with the recent land change ownership of that site, this project really hasn't moved forward much. I know we will be continuing to talk to them, but timeliness is kind of still a factor. In terms of the environmental issues related to stormwater capture, they are unknown. The environmental work would need to be initiated once we did have a site and a project defined. Scalability and affordability, both of these, there's just a lot of unknowns with stormwater capture. We recognized it when we were identifying it, and we still recognize that there's unknowns in terms of the size and the cost. At this point, I'd like to ask Anupe to come up. Anupe will walk through. We know that the cost of a water supply project is very important. None of these projects are cheap. I think developing a water supply project now, anywhere, as we just came back from AQUA, cost millions of dollars. And so these projects that we've brought forward to you tonight and have been kind of captured in many different reports, all have very different costs thrown about, very different assumptions, different years. And so Anupe is really going to kind of go into the method that Brown and Caldwell did and in terms of doing an updated cost analysis. Thanks Melanie, good evening board members. Do you know how about five minutes time frame or what I just want to understand the pace? I'll go through the presentation relatively quickly and then if we need to, I'll be available on the back end to answer any questions. So just a quick overview of the presentation and I'll walk through each. Wanted to go over the objective and the background that objective of the study or the analysis that I performed, what is the background approach we used. And really this particular aspect we focused on the three options. The river water transfer options, the purified recycled water or the pure water soquel option and the deep water D cell. When we wrote the memo that's in your package, we had not received the information from deep water D cell but just I think the evening we completed the memo we got an email from deep water D cell with updated information. So I've captured that in this presentation so I'll be able to provide that update. So really the objective over here was to give you a way to do apples to apples comparison. District has done many studies over the years. Several studies were done in 2013, 2017, 18 and each study presented a different basis for the cost. And really what Melanie asked me to do is while she was putting together the update for the board, she said, well, can we do a more bring parity between all these numbers so board can actually evaluate or look at these numbers more on the apple to apple. So the focus of this analysis was to just bring parity between the different studies and numbers. As I mentioned, several options were evaluated in the community water plan. As Melanie mentioned, stormwater capture was probably the one option that did not meet the entire demand of 1500 acre feet per year. It only provided a small fraction. So I, in this effort, we didn't look at the stormwater capture or updating those costs. There are not any costs available to go by. It was very much variable on the land availability landowner size of the project. So we just focused on the three elements there, the transfer, pure water, soquel and deep water, desal. So as I mentioned, various reports or studies that have provided different costs, bits and pieces of costs and the definition. These are the studies or the reports that I've used in the analysis today. Going from left to right, the first two are what the source is coming from city of Santa Cruz. The first one is their prop 218 study. That's what they've used to establish the water rates. And then the other study is the 2013 study that looked into the feasibility of bringing the San Lorenzo River transfer. What would it take to take it through Graham Hill Water Treatment Plan and have that water available? So we've used that, those two studies from the city of Santa Cruz. Then of course the 2017 study, Carolo feasibility study, looking at pure water, soquel and then the email that I mentioned about deep water, desal. So those are the bases that I've used for updating the costs. Anup, can I just also add, you know, as we worked on the development of these costs, and I think that was great that you showed the email from deep water, desal. The sources that we used for the city of Santa Cruz, that KJ report was one that, when we've been working with staff, they asked us to use that, the staff in the city asked us to use that one. So city has mentioned that, yeah, you can use the values from that study. And in fact, some of the more recent numbers that have been cited in the media from the city staff have referred back to the same study. So that's the basis for it. You know, before I jump into the costs, I wanted to just give you a quick background. Most of the studies, most of the reports were conceptual level or planning level. And with the planning level, the definition of the design is, whether it's 5% or 10%, and with that definition comes the range. So any numbers that you see in the analysis, just use that, keep this perspective. Mostly the midpoint of the estimate is presented. There's always the range. There's always some level of range on the cost, given the level at which these studies were done. So for example, 2017 study for Pure Water Soquel, it cited, it was feasibility study, and it was a class four estimate for the cost. So that has an accuracy range that's been highlighted. Just to keep that perspective as we get into the numbers. All right, so maybe some of this might look familiar. Back in May, we had a board meeting and we talked about the numbers that were reported for Pure Water Soquel. Those were 2017. Well, guess what? When we have to actually pay the bills for any facility construction, that's at the time of the construction. So we really should also think about when the time of the construction or having the facilities online, what would be the actual cost. And that's where this idea comes in, is let's take those numbers that were presented in different studies and apply the right amount of escalation to bring the cost at the midpoint of construction or at the time of the construction. So that's the idea behind this. The background or the analysis we have done is we've taken the numbers that were presented in 2014 or 16 or 17, and we've escalated them to 2022. That's the timeframe that we are looking at for Pure Water Soquel. And we felt that was a good milestone to bring the parity or compare the costs. We did some analysis about what has been the escalation in the region. And we looked at data that's been presented by several different agencies. And all of this data seemed to point escalation anywhere in the range of three to 6%, maybe 7% is more prevalent in the area. From the ENR Engineering News and Record standpoint, they recommend this area to be treated as the greater San Francisco Bay Area. And we've used escalation that's provided in that area for updating the costs. This has been the number that City of San Francisco or SFBUC has been using. And their recommendation for escalation in 2019 is 6%. What we have done is just for a simplification of approach, we've used just 5% escalation across the board. We've applied 5% escalation on all studies to bring the cost to parity. So let's get into the actual options. So that was all the background. As Melanie mentioned, the short-term pilot was only for 2015 and 2020. Even yesterday, City of Santa Cruz representative cited the money or the value of water that the district is being charged for that research project is a research project only. It cannot be treated or used for long-term usage. But just for comparison purposes and give you a data point, what we have done is we've used that Prop 218 study that City of Santa Cruz charges their own customers for the water rates. And just to give you a range, the left-hand column single-family residential unit, that's a tier one rate, the rate at which they charge their own customers, it's about from the dollar per acre foot standpoint, it's about $5,200 per acre foot. That's on the tier one residential customer. District based, if district were to continue down this path, if this study were to be continued for beyond 2022, again, this is speculation, but district would probably classify as more of a commercial user or more of a wholesaler type. And the current rate that's published in Prop 218 study, it's about $14 per unit, or it comes out to be about $6,200 per acre foot. There might be an opportunity to renegotiate these rates if this study were to continue or this pilot were to continue, but I wanted to at least provide these numbers. We haven't used this beyond, I think for long-term comparison purposes, we are going into the San Lorenzo River, this is a 2013 study that we are talking about. And the published number in 2013 US dollars were about $7,400 per acre foot or for option four, which was increasing Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant capacity or scenario five, which would have been some capacity increase in the treatment and that was about in the range of 3,900. So this gives you a pretty wide spectrum of anywhere from 3,900 to 7,400 dollars per acre foot in 2013 US dollars. And if we escalate that, the numbers come out to be significantly higher anywhere from 11,000 to 6,100. So keep these numbers in perspective as we go through this option. The next one I will talk about is Pure Water Soquel. Pure Water Soquel based on 2017 study. We are looking at alternative, there were several alternatives within there, but this was probably right in the middle of the pack alternative in terms of the cost that comes out to be about $2,700 per acre foot. That's in 2017 US dollars. So if we escalate those to 2020-22, that comes out to be anywhere from 4,600 dollars per acre foot. So that gives you a perspective of in the 2022 standpoint, comparing to River Water Option versus Pure Water Soquel where the costs come out to be. I had a question. Were you including the funding, potential funding in that? No, this is without the funding. So this is all the cost being paid for by the district through either the loans or some kind of bonds. Okay. So any additional funding or grant money that you receive that would even in theory reduce the costs. This is, as I mentioned, a fresh of the press email that we received about the Deepwater D-Cell. There are two elements to it. The way the Deepwater D-Cell facility is being built, the costs that they reported were at the fence line. So they will do the treatment, they'll do the brine discharge, all that stuff. And if you were to pick up the water at their facility, this is what they would charge you. That's 1,900 to $2,300 per acre foot. Then district would be responsible for building a new pipeline from moss landing location all the way to our connection point. And the 2014 study that was done for Deepwater D-Cell that submitted about $33 million for that pipeline costs. The way the system works, I think it's important to note the unit cost for treatment, that's just a pay go. For every acre foot of water you buy, you have to pay that much money. There's no grants available, there are no loans available, has to pay for by the rates. And the infrastructure costs that we are talking about, $33 million, when you escalate that out to 2022, that's a substantially high cost, about $49 million at the time of construction. Plus it's also not eligible for Prop 1 grants. Remember we talked about window of opportunity, right now district has a unique window for opportunity to secure Prop 1 funding. Some of the grant, those will not be available for Deepwater D-Cell just purely from the timing standpoint. And another important point that Melanie was talking about, this is a fairly large project, I think it's about 25,000 acre feet per year with several different entities playing their part to make it come to fruition. So there are other external factors that might be implementation of this project. There has been some delays on the environmental side as we understand or the communication between Deepwater D-Cell and other agencies. And maybe the environmental compliance of that facility might continue to cause some delay. So I wanted to bring the six icons that Melanie referred to in her presentation and the way I would stack those up here, it's I think the water quality and quantity is great. I think the facility is scalable, but where the Deepwater D-Cell option is not so on a strong footing is the environmental compliance, the timing of it and the actual cost that would be incurred by the district to make use of this project. So with that, I think I wanted to focus on just these elements, the river water transfers and the pure water soquel. I think those are the two viable alternatives, so to speak, that meets district's need for 1500 acre feet per year and also potentially the timing. Again, from looking at just the capital cost impact, this is how the numbers stack up at the 5% escalation standpoint. And if I were to compare them on unit costs per acre foot, you're looking at the bottom line of the table. The two options for the long-term San Lorenzo River water transfer, they range from 11,000 to $6,000 per acre foot and the pure water soquel comes out to be about $4,600 in $2022 standpoint. I think this is the last slide I have. Yeah, I would just, you know, just a quick reminder about things with pure water soquel being a project that district may undertake that would be a district project, it becomes available. It is available for receiving grant funding as well as there's an opportunity for district to substantially reduce the cost of that project. There's also the timing element that Melanie has talked about. Any delays on the timing of any other alternatives, you'd continue to have the inflation aspect. So if you're looking at anywhere from $90 million to $100 million project. There's also the issue of grants with respect to delay. Delays. Might not be able to get a grant and even if you've got a grant, there are limits on how quickly, how late you can build with them. So if you can't be timely, then you could not have a grant. That's exactly right. So you covered my last bullet over there, window of opportunity about the grants. So if there's any delay, that window of opportunity closes down in terms of the grants as well. So I would, again, recap these numbers. I'd be happy to answer any questions on this element. And then Melanie, you wanted to summarize. I think just one other thing on the slide previously related to other funding considerations. We did talk about, oh, should we also include in this analysis at this time exactly what Director Lather asked in terms of grants. So should we have different grant scenarios? If we had different funding, what would the unit cost be of Pure Water Soquel? What about the other projects such as the River Water Transfer D-Sale, which it's my understanding from conversations with Leslie, if we do a water supply project option or we pursue something where we're purchasing water, we really, that really does impact, I think one, grants. We can't get a grant for purchasing water. And two, I think it does affect how we're able to fund that because it's not a capital asset. So that does change things in terms of how we go about our financial books. So those are some things. And there was a lot already to chew on and so we just presented this. If you guys would like us to come back to do those different scenarios, we could do that. But just in closing, I think, Anup, can you hit that last slide? Really, again, I think tonight's presentation was to give an up-to-date snapshot. We've presented a lot of this information before, some of it is not new. It's been to different board meetings and different standing committee meetings. Some of the information was new as we've been working with Deepwater D-Sale and the City of Santa Cruz. And I think the big thing is some of this stuff, we still have lots of unknowns and we recognize some of these are unknowns. The Stormwater Capture Project is one example as a whole water supply option. There's still a lot of things that we don't know. In terms of the surface water projects and the opportunities with the City of Santa Cruz, I think as they go forward with their evaluation, we'll continue to get more information. At this point, what we've done is looked upon the best available data that's out there now and what they feel comfortable with us sourcing. So I know that there's still a lot of scenarios that could be out there with surface water transfers, but at this point, this snapshot is what the City has asked us to kind of look at to create some parity in terms of cost. And I think one last thing to add is that as you can see in those scenarios with the City of Santa Cruz's water supply options, one of them was about 800 acre feet, one was a little bit over almost 1200 acre feet. These all have varying degrees of water availability, the quantity, we kind of know what we need in terms of our water supply. So this could be, as Ron always talks about too, our solution could be multiple projects. It could be one project. I think what we're looking at it right now is that this is an and not an or, and that's the information we really wanted to try to convey tonight. And most importantly, I think for us going forward from special projects and developing and evaluating these components within the community water plan on a technical level, the other side in my department is also education and outreach. So we wanna make sure that we're providing this information out to the public and not just getting it in front of the board and those who come to the meeting, thank you very much to those who come to the meeting, but we also need to get it out to the general public and so we would like to make sure that the information gets transmitted to our channel such as the EBLAS, future newsletters. We may do another mailing on this, but we wanna try and get this information out. Yeah, and if I may I just add to that. You know, sending it in my seat, I get people saying you should do only D cell, that's the way to go. There's an ocean full of water or river water is the best or why wouldn't you recycle water if you have it versus take from somewhere else. And although we're comparing here, again, if we think about the aquifer in terms of sustainability and reliability, and of course there's financial implications and stuff, but really your best bet is not to put all your eggs in one basket. So maybe you have a main thrust but if you can also do either to some extent, whether it's some amount of recycled water or river water in addition or a little bit of storm water, you're hedging your bets for water security in the future. So I just don't like it when people pit one against the other and we're not trying to do that here, we're just trying to put the relativity out there as we move forward. Yes, I wanted to have one thing. Some of you may know that I've had some concerns about a drought. If we were dependent on surface water, we wouldn't get much of it and there wouldn't be much rain so there's not much recharge going on and we would have to supply water for our customers and the city would need their 1.2 billion gallons to make up for their customers so there'd be a lot of water going out and not much going in. And in fact, the agency meeting last month, the city contributed some documents to that and there's a great sentence in there, which I find scary. It says, some modeling results presented to the advisory committee indicated water levels in key monitoring wells dropping below protective elevations during periods of drought withdrawals. So again, if you just are dependent on surface water, that could be a problem. So having something like a pure water so that you can at least have something going into the aquifer while all this is getting taken out may be the only thing that makes it work at all. Right, not just for us. Not just for us, right, exactly. As much as I love stormwater recharge, that goes with that too. Yes, yes. Any other questions from board members? Any questions from members of the public or comment? Thank you, Noop. Thank you, Noop. Thank you, Noop, thank you. Becky Steinbrenner, resident of Aptas. Thank you for all of that good information. I have a lot of questions and a lot of comments and I just wanna again say that it seems to me that the game has become to make sure you get the grant. And I feel like your board has lost sight of the goal that is stated on your website that you will provide water in an environmentally sensitive way and be economically responsible. I think this pure water soquel is very expensive. I think you are really underestimating the value and the potential of the water transfers and of a good regional solution working together cooperatively with Santa Cruz City. I think that you need to be looking at, I see these costs per acre feet, but they're conceptual too, because you really haven't sat down at the table with Santa Cruz City and worked out maybe an agreement that whatever you do is also going to benefit them because they've got the belts 12 wells in this aquifer too. And while I hear that water transfers are not eligible for Prop 1 grants because there's no capital asset, what if you offered to help subsidize the cost of capital assets improvements within Santa Cruz City system to increase the amount of water that this district could get from that agency. And then you would have a stake in that and those improvements could be eligible for grants. So there are creative ways to get grants for water transfers. If you're willing to sit down at the table and think outside the box and work in a regional way. I also feel like these costs per acre feet do not really take into account the land purchases that you're entering into now with the lamb family, the free water for 50 years, out of recharge well for the church. They do not consider the $2.5 million increase per year estimated in your own information of operating costs for pure water so Cal. So these are false numbers. They do not really give a clear picture what the cost and the affordability of this water is going to be. Your rates are already second highest in the state for a system your size. And you're looking at increasing your rates 9% a year for a number of years. Thank you, Becky. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this? I mean, there's just so many people waiting to talk. Thank you. Okay. Seeing none, that was informational only. Did your numbers contain operations and maintenance figures or was this just a construction? Good. Thank you. That's what I thought. President Likue. Yes. I'm sorry to interrupt. No, but I was, we were working with it. A little tape recorder at the beginning of the meeting. Was there an announcement that closed session? I did. Yes, I did. Thank you. I missed that and so did it. It was quick, but it was done. Thank you. Okay. So we'll go on to the next item, which is water supply disinfection and disinfection byproducts. Which was something requested by Jeffy, who has not to be here. Yes, and he's not here. I'll let him know that it's online for you to turn it on. Okay. And it was a good report. Yeah, indeed. Yeah, so he requested a description of our disinfection process and the district uses what we call break point chlorination for disinfecting the water coming from all of our wells. And we use sodium hypochlorite, which is bleach basically. It's about twice as strong as your regular household bleach. And we also use that to oxidize the iron and manganese in the wells that we do treat for iron and manganese to allow to filter the iron and manganese out. We measure the chlorine residual at each well head and that gets sent to SCADA so we can monitor that remotely. Wells will shut down automatically if there is something wrong with the disinfection process. We have operators going out about four times a week that check the monitors and do hand readings in the field and do calibration of the analyzers. We also monitor the residual and the distribution system weekly at 16 rotating locations. The attachment one includes the last report to the state on our disinfectant residual monitoring. The maximum allowable limit for free chlorine or total chlorine is four parts per million. Our average is about 0.72, which is about exactly where we want it at. And then we also quarterly monitor for disinfection byproducts in the distribution system and attachment to includes our last report. These include halo acidic acids and trihalomethanes and we're generally about half of the MCL for the THMs and pretty low on the halo acidic acids. The water transfer that just started yesterday, we're going to be closely monitoring the THM and HAA five levels in the distribution system because the city has higher concentrations than we do. And so we'll be monitoring every two weeks for those. The question is that mostly because of the increased organic matter in surface water? Yes, exactly. And probably we won't know the worst case basis for taking the city water until next year when we open it up to all of surface area and surface area, surface areas one and two because the water age is older in the upper reaches of our system and the phase one, the zone that we're testing out right now doesn't have that old of water. So we're probably not going to see the worst case this winter. So we'll have to wait for next winter to see how high they actually go. Any questions? I noticed they also have a slightly higher chlorine levels too. So that can factor in. Yes, I do. Thanks for doing that analysis about the import too. It was really interesting. Thank you. We had a lot of questions. I think some of us came up from Dr. Jaffe was about people who are concerned about the chlorine chlorine testing and just our customers were. And I didn't have the answers for them. So I've zeroed the download of the article and going back to that address. Oh, good. Yeah, it's great to have that resource and know that it's significantly below EMCL. Yes. All right, are there any questions or comments from the public on this item? Okay, seeing none, we will move on to scheduling ethics training. Good evening, board. As you know, you participate. The board is state mandated to participate in ethics training every two years. And we're coming up on our two year schedule. We've been doing this since 2005 when the law was enacted. So we'd like to discuss some training opportunities. I do want to make a couple of corrections on the dates that were proposed in the memo. They should read January 15th and February 5th. I must not have been wearing my glasses when I made those typos. So my apologies for that. Bob Basso, the board's district council has, is a qualified trainer and has been conducting our training. And so we wanted to open it up for the board to discuss when you'd like to schedule that training. Either of those works for me. Yep. Yeah, in a way, it's fine. Everybody's better for me if everything's good for you. Okay. Yeah, either one was fine with me as long as it's not during the day. No, it's usually at the beginning of a meeting. Sorry, I'm calling. The clock works for you? Yeah. Correct or neither? It is required to our training. So it would require a pushback on the start date of our regular, or start time of our regular meeting as well, if we started at five. No, the regular meeting would start at seven. Correct. So it's five to seven for the ethics and then seven to. Correct. Yeah. I meant it would push back our normal start time of our regular meeting. Right, right. So are there any staff considerations for like agendas? Because it's typically nice to have it on a day when you have to do two hours of training not to have a three hour agenda after that. Yeah, I don't think the early February is stacked too heavily. Did you take a glance at that? I did not take a look at that, but I do know that we are considering canceling our January meeting. So we'd only have one January meeting, which could stack up January a little bit. It would definitely be better that way. Yeah, it sounds like Mr. Bosso would prefer that. Any other conflicts we know of? Okay, I'll make a motion that we have the ethics training on February 5th. Second. The day after I turn 65. Oh my gosh, poor guy. You're a child. I know. He's been on the board longer than you've been alive Not quite. Not quite. Okay, did someone second it? I did. You did, okay. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? All right, hopefully that works for Director Jaffee. The next one was just the summer meeting schedule. Yeah, and so what we're recommending is basically what we do each year is cancel the first meeting in July and the first meeting in August. So I do that cancel the July 2nd meeting and the August 6th meeting. That's fine. Anybody? Works for me? Okay, any public comment on that? No. I'll make the motion then. You'll make the motion. I just did. I mean, you get that moved and seconded. Oh, she's quick. All right. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion carries and then January. Yeah, so the January meeting would fall on January 1st, which is a New Year's holiday and we're requesting directors and the board whether to cancel this meeting or not. We've traditionally done it in the past because it's been so close to the holiday. I'll make that motion. I'll second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? All right, that carries as well. I think we are, so make sure I haven't forgotten anything. No written communications and we've already dealt with that. So the meeting is now adjourned until December 18th. Thank you very much.