 Well, I have 530 on my clock so with that I would like to convene this meeting of the Board of Directors of the Salarons of Valley Water District for October 21st, 2021. Holly, would you like to take the roll please? Excuse me, President Mayhood. Here. Vice President Henry. Here. Director Ackman. Here. Director Falls. Here. Director Smalley. I'm sorry, Mark, I didn't hear you. Okay. I'm not hearing you. Mark, we can't hear you. You don't look muted, but we can't hear you. One-way media. Yeah, I have a kind of, I'll just let people know I have kind of a wonky connection tonight so I'm going to occasionally have to turn off the video part just to keep it in, but it's not because I'm leaving the room or anything or going to play with my dogs. It's just to put it together. That high-tech firm wonky. I like that. All right. Are there any additions or deletions to the closed session agenda? That has none, Chair. Okay. And let's see, do we have any oral communications from the public regarding items in closed session? I don't see any attendees, so I suspect that we don't have any, so seeing none, hearing none. We will now adjourn to closed session. I'll see you back in a few minutes. Okay. There she is. Okay. Okay. With that, it's 6.30 and so I would like to convene this meeting of the board of directors of San Lorenzo Valley Water District for October 21st, 2021, convening the open session. There is, there are no actions to report out of closed session. Holly, can you call the roll call vote? President Mayhood. Here. As President Henry. Here. Director Ackman. Here. Director Falls. Here. And Director Smolley. Here. Okay. Are there any additions or deletions to the agenda? Rick? Oh, I'm sorry. There are none. Apologies. Any additions or deletions to the agenda? There are none. Okay. Then we come to that part of the meeting, which is for oral communications from the public on any subject that lies within the purview of the district, but is not on the agenda. Tonight, I see that we do have two of our faithful attendees here. So I'll just see if either of you have a comment that you'd like to make right now. If you do, please raise your hand. Seeing none. I'll go ahead and go on to director's reports. And here I would like to ask Bob Foles, who's the chair of the admin committee, to just report out what the committee decided to do about the vacancy on the committee. Given the timing, we will hold it over while we recruit next year's committee members, which I believe that process started either today, yesterday, or sometimes soon, and Holly can probably correct me. That's correct. I think it's basically open now online, and there'll be advertisements going out shortly. So to encourage people to apply and for those people that are already members to that want to continue on next year, you'll need to reapply. Okay. That's all I have for director's reports. So we'll go to the one item of old business, which is the boardroom location for hybrid meetings. Rick? Thank you, chair. You know, as the board knows, the recent statewide legislation, AB 361 amended the Brown Act. Thereby changed how the agency such as the district may conduct remote meetings during a declared state of emergency through January 1, 2024. At the last October 7, 2021 meeting, the board adopted resolution for 2121-22, proclaiming an ongoing state of local emergency and authorizing remote meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic. The board on several occasions has emphasized the need to move ahead with both be able to have in-person meetings as well as online meetings. The district has been investigating a meeting location for hybrid meetings to conduct board and committee meetings remotely, either through Zoom or go-to meeting or some other platform. We've looked at many, many locations. There should be an attachment to my memo in the board packet. Staff has come to the conclusion that the best location for us to prepare for hybrid meetings would be the district's property. I think it's located at 12788 Highway 9, commonly known as the Johnson Building, the Barn Looking Building, next to Foster Freeze. We have a location there. We have two offices that are in use, and we can install the stationary equipment to hold hybrid meetings, and not only will we be able to use this for board meetings and committee meetings, we'll also be able to use it for overall staff training, which is greatly needed. We don't have a spot that we can even assemble all staff for training. With that, staff's recommending that the board review this memo, and by motion, direct the district manager to move ahead with preparing the Johnson Building for hybrid meetings, looking at starting that we could probably be completed. It's some cosmetic work, maybe some paint, some carpet or vinyl, and the video equipment install, which is probably the most time-consuming of the endeavors. We could probably be completed mostly and ready to go mid-January 2022. With that, I'll turn this back over to the chair and answer any questions that I can. Also, we did take this same item to the October 12, 2021 Admin Committee Meeting, and the Admin Committee Meeting was very supportive of moving forward and voted in favor of the Johnson Building. Obviously, Director Fultz is here who can report more if he wishes on the Admin Meeting. Thank you. Okay. Well, with that, let's start the discussion with Bob Fultz, who's the chair of the Admin Committee. Bob, if you want to weigh in on this. Sure. In the meeting before that one, we had to ask the district manager and staff to basically do a comprehensive survey of all of the possible meeting locations in our service area. They came back with a list that had some things on it that I didn't think of, but it was extremely comprehensive. When you went through all of the, I guess what I call it, terms and conditions for the use of each one of those facilities, there was something in them for each one that really made it not a good fit for what we're trying to do. On a personal note, I was particularly disappointed in the fact that the New Felt Library just seems to not be a place where these kinds of meetings can be held very easily, which is too bad because it's such a great facility and I think its function as a meeting room was one of the selling points. So we looked at, I mean, basically just had to read through the memo, which I don't know if it was in this board packet, but it certainly was in the Admin agenda. You just read through it and it was really clear that the only option was the Johnson Building. So I think with some, I've been in there before, I think with some minor refreshing, it'll suit us very well for what we're trying to do. And I think the rooms are also big enough for us to accommodate the in-person fairly easily as well. Okay. Thank you. Holly, go ahead. I just wanted to mention that the paper that Bob is talking about is on page 13 of the overall agenda, nine of nine on this item. Perfect. For some reason, I didn't see it. I did. Yeah, I read it. It was kind of discouraging. Yeah. As you said, it was extensive and discouraging. Yeah. There it is. Yeah. And I think the way it's just, it was really, actually really surprising, too, I have to admit that there wasn't just an easier way to do things outside of, and that facilities weren't already set up for this. But it is what it is. Let's go ahead. Lois, did you have anything, comment that you wanted to make on this? Sure. I've been to committee meetings at the Johnson building. And I believe it would be a great location. There's parking. And I actually, I approve of this. Okay. Mark. After reviewing the memo that Bob was referencing, it's clear to me that the Johnson building is the most attractive alternative for what we're able to see in the rest of the valley. So no questions. Okay. Jamie. I have my concerns because I know we are long term looking to potentially, you know, relocate to a better facility, but I don't see any other alternatives for us at this point. And I know we've, we're going to have to have something for meetings. So I am in support of it. Bob, did you want to add on to that? Just one additional thing. I think parking there is adequate probably for most of the board meetings that we have. If we had a meeting that where we expected a much larger audience, there, you know, people may have to park in more distributed locations. That's quite definitely because the parking lot itself for the building is pretty long. There is some parking back behind it. Also on the streets. And then of course, you know, on highway down the street elsewhere. But yeah, it is. It will handle most of our board meeting very well. Rick, go ahead. I just want to say I really do agree with strongly agree with Jamie that, you know, this isn't a perfect solution right now, but it will get us through, you know, the pandemic and the next three years, give us some time to, to, to figure out what we're doing long range with that building. You know, the library is struggling in my opinion, coming back from the pandemic. They hope someday to get to where, you know, that director false has talked about. And then the last thing is that I think we ought to come back and maybe rename that building or call it something other than the Johnson building to be a little more, you know, not one person's name, but we purchased it from that. It was just a slang name. You know how once it is, once you attach some, a name to something very difficult to change. But I think we ought to think about it and bring it back to the board for a name change. Yeah, Mike and Rob. Yeah, that's good people. That seems logical. I shared the same concern as Jamie, just kind of hating to have to invest money in something that may ultimately be changed out or whatever. But I also realized that we're in this unfortunate situation where we could, at very short notice, be required to hold hybrid meetings. And so we're just sort of forced into this by the state. So the board realizes too, we have to hold meetings in the district. Yeah, you can't be outside of our. I think there's not, you know, I go along with this and with the same concerns Jamie does, but I think it's the best solution given what we have. Bob. If I can help put you guys mind just a little bit. The, um, the, assuming the equipment doesn't, you know, blow up, the equipment is at least semi portable and could be moved to a new location. Of course, if we're there for five to seven years, we'll probably want to get new stuff anyway. So really, you know, we're looking at some of the light remodeling and ref, excuse me, refreshing, which if we ever did decide to, to, um, uh, dispose of the building, uh, would probably help in its, um, the disposal. So I agree with you. It's, it's not great, but I'm going to make some lemonade here. All right. Well, that sounds good. Um, can I go out to the public and see if we have any, um, comments from our two attendees? I don't see any, um, so coming back to the board, um, we have a recommendation from, uh, the staff to direct the district manager to move forward with pairing the Johnson building soon to be renamed for hybrid in-person meetings of the board. Anybody like to make a motion? I'll make that motion. Okay. I will second that motion. Okay. Thank you. Any more, any other comments on the motion? If not, Holly, would you take a roll call though, please? I'm mute off. I apologize. President Mayhood. Hi. Is President Henry. Yes. Director Ackman. Yes. Director Falls. Yes. Director Smalley. Yes. Uh, the motion passes unanimously. Um, so we now move on to new business. Uh, the first item is the CSDA 2021 bylaws vote. And, you know, um, there's a recommendation that the board review and consider the updates to the 2021 CSDA bylaws and direct the district secretary to enter a vote. Yes or no to the updates. Uh, the items piece for itself. Um, I don't have a lot of experience or background on this item. Um, I know, uh, we received a, uh, a clarification from one of the directors on some of this. Um, I'll ask district council to step in and help me kind of stumble through this. If you would, Gina. Uh, I can do my best. Um, I. I'll fully admit, I don't have much insight into CSDA's bylaw process either, except I can tell from reviewing the proposed bylaws that, uh, member of which the district is one do have the right to vote on their approval. And I presume that's why the district's being asked to do this. Um, you know, I, I briefly skim the bylaws themselves. I don't know much about their process that went into this. I can only guess that they are doing, you know, their council is doing what they feel they need to do in order to make the bylaws consistent with the latest kind of standard models and precedents for this type of a nonprofit membership organization, but I don't have much more insight than that into the reason for the particular changes. Okay. Um, so are there any, uh, comments or questions about this? Um, members of the board, we have a, uh, recommendation from the staff to direct the secretary to enter a vote of yes or no to the updates, additions and improvements in the 2021 CSDA bylaws. Bob. So there are in these kinds of situations, there are a couple of things that I tend to look at really closely and, uh, unfortunately these bylaws, uh, kind of hit on those for me. Um, and that is the acceptance of members and the removal of members using what I would call fairly, uh, opaque, um, and not completely well defined, uh, criteria. Um, and it's for that reason that I, I will be voting no on this. Um, but I, I certainly understand it, but this is not a, a huge thing for, um, us as a board, but, but it, I get concerned about what I see as a, um, increasing trend in our country towards mechanisms around censorship and, uh, descending views and that sort of thing. I just can't support things that, that have the hints of that kind of thing coming down to it. Okay. Um, any other questions or comments from members of the board? Okay. Then I'll ask, uh, members of the public to comment on this. I guess then seeing them, then I guess I would just move, um, that we direct the district secretary to enter a vote of yes to the update traditions and improvements in the 2021 CSDA bylaws. Is there a second? I'll second it. Okay. Paulie, would you go ahead and take a, um, roll call vote please? President Mayhood. Aye. Vice president Henry. Yes. Director Ackman. Yes. Director Falls. No. Okay. The motion passes. Um, next, uh, item is the quail hollow pipeline construction award of contract. Yes. And I'll ask the district engineer to present this, uh, item to the board. Thank you, Rick. Uh, excuse me. Better background. This is the quail hollow. Road portion of our capital improvement program, looking at approximately a mile and a third worth of new 12 inch pipe. I was very pleased to see that we got 13 proposals, 13 bids ranging from 2.4 million up to 4.5 million on this project. And having reviewed the bids with staff and with director Smalley, as well as running these by the engineering committee, staff are recommending award to granite rock. They were the low bid and the bid amount is 2,387,000 dollars. I'm happy to take any questions. Or address any comments. Mark, would you like to as, as a chair of the engineering committee to comment on this? Certainly. Um, engineering committee discussed this at our meeting earlier this week. Um, we concurred with staff's recommendation on grant rock. Um, Being awarded this contract. Granted rock is a well recognized firm in the general world in California area. Uh, we questioned Josh's to why grant rock did, uh, so well to be the winning bidder on this and the indicated that he had reached out to them saying that they were high on quite enough. There are other ones to the district and they needed to sharpen their pencil and come back with something better. Um, so. With that in mind. I did have a one follow up question, Josh, that we had talked about briefly at the engineering committee meeting that I just wanted to resolve. And it was regarding the transit pipe. And how they plan to cover that. Make sure that yes, that is included in their costs. They have assured me that addressing the transit pipe is included in their costs. It was a phone call. I have an email out to follow up. And get more detail as to exactly how. My assumption is they'll be bringing in a specialized sub consultant to handle it. Okay. Okay. I'm good with that then. Two other things I'd like to point out to the board and the public. Josh. Did some heads and discussions and negotiations with the county on the road resurfacing portions of this. Which ultimately reduces the district's overall cost for the project. Since they're not going to be able to do that. Which ultimately reduces the district's overall cost for the project. Since the county is going to be doing work. Within quail hollow to resurface it. We're able to offset some of our costs by having county involvement in that. The second one is. There's a 120 day lead time for materials on this. In my mind. That's part of the supply chain issues that we've been hearing about for the last. 18 months. Regarding COVID impacts. To industries in general. So. And that's just what we have to do at this point. So. That's all. Jamie, did you have any comments? No, I mean, you know, I'm glad to see this moving forward. You know. I don't have any specific comments about the contract. I had two questions. First of all, let me say who, who. We're very happy to see this going. And I have to admit my jaw hit the floor when I, when I saw granite rock as the. As the lead on that. So that's, that's really good. They're a fantastic company. First question has to do with. People that live on the road that are not currently. Customers of the district. Are we. Planning on reaching out to them to have them become customers. We have reached out to those. Earlier on in the very, very beginning design phase. With no response. With no response. With no response. With no response. With no response. With no response. With no response. With no response. With no response. With no response. We will reach out again, though. We have plenty of time when the procurement of materials that we reach out again. I'm surprised that we didn't hear back because a couple of them. Have inquired in the past. We will reach out again. And were we doing anything like waiving. One of the fees or something like that? We're, we were waving. So the carer kind of was to waive the installation cost, not the connection fee, and we could offer terms on the connection fee. Yeah, or maybe a discount at the pipes, you know, if the trenches open or something. The second question was, what was the original budget in the 15 million COP that we put together back in 2019, I believe it was, you recall, did we come in at under budget basically as we were over? We've got some under, but I'll have to look at budget problem and answer that question. Yeah, if you could just send me a note, I'm curious about it. I'm sure I have it somewhere, but I figured you guys probably had at the top of yours. It's in our current budget, so it'll be an easy number to find. Yeah, that's the one going back to 2015, because I remember that Coil Hall of Number coming in at just a ginormous number, I think really floored everybody at the time. I think I recall that this is much lower than that. I believe so as well. Yeah. Mark, thank you. Comment on that. Thank you. I just wanted to ask whenever Rick gets that, if you could circulate to the rest of the directors also. I will handle that as a informational request and all board members. Okay, thank you. Much easier after the meeting than before the meeting. Sure, yes. Yeah, and great work guys, this is exciting stuff. On the line. I just want to say this project for the newer board members, it removes a huge restriction between our Coil Hall, or our Olympia Wellfields or South System and the North System. And it also allows a huge restriction removal for flowing water out to the Lompeco intertide, which is part of some issues going forward with the consolidation of the Lompeco. This will now give us a backbone mainline from Scotts Valley Boulder Creek, Ken and 12 inches. Huge restriction for surface water on conjunct abuse to move south, well water to move north, and possibly it'll remove a very problematic transit pipeline cross country in Sandhills that we nicknamed the Desert Line, that has been a thorn in our side for many years. So this is a great way around. Okay, any other comments from the board? If not, I'll go ahead and do us. I was just going to say as a member of the engineering committee, we talked about this quite a bit at the last meeting and I totally go along with supporting granite rock to do this. Okay. Are there any comments from members of the public? Seeing none, hearing none, I'll come back to the board. I think Gina was going to provide us with a recommendation that we, in the language that she wants it to be in terms of how we should be dealing with contracts. So Gina, would you like to do that? Yeah, thank you, Chairman Hood. I do wanna reach some sort of standard language for approving contracts and especially large contracts like this one as we get into these big projects. So I'm just gonna read the language of the proposed motion and then I'm gonna work on getting this into future board packets. My proposal would be a motion to award the construction contract for the Quail Hollow Pipeline replacement construction project to the granite rock company based on its bid in the amount of $2,387,000 and to authorize the district manager to execute such a contract on behalf of the district. Okay. Would anybody like to move that? I'll make that motion. Second. Second. All right. Holly, would any other comments or questions before I go to a roll call vote? Holly. President Mayhood. Aye. Vice President Henry. Yes. Director Ackman. Yes. Director Fultz. Yes. Director Smalley. Yes. The motion passes unanimously. With that, we'll go to the item C, which is the Quail Hollow Pipeline Construction Management Award of Contract. And I'll ask the district engineer to present that to the board as well, please. Thank you, Rick. This is the Construction Management Proposal for bidding for Quail Hollow for the construction pipeline for the construction of the pipeline, which we just discussed. So this is, as usual, in addition to the construction cost, we had four bidders. Ranged from a low of 163,500 to a high of 305,600. So quite a spread. Staff reviewed these. We determined that the low bid from MME Civil and Structural was a good solid bid. It addressed everything in the RFP. We reviewed the bids with director Smalley and with the engineering committee and staff are recommending that construction management work for the Quail Hollow project be awarded to MME Civil and Structural. I will happily take questions or comments. Let's start with Mark as the chair of the engineering committee. Okay, no, the engineering committee reviewed this earlier this week, but we discussed it. We agreed with staff's recommendation that MME Civil and Structural be awarded the contract. I'd like to point out that we did get three other bids from firms that haven't done work for the district in the past. But I consider that to be a good thing. Josh has done outreach to attract other qualified firms to become interested in doing work for the district. Just so happens that one of our existing prior firms, it's done good work for the district, has low bid and good for MME. So that's it. Okay, Lois, you're also on the committee. Did you wanna make a comment? Well, I believe MME is a great firm. And I support what Mark has said and Josh has said that we go ahead and award it to MME. Any other comments from members of the board or questions? Go ahead, Jen. Go ahead, Jen. Thank you. I was just gonna ask, the kind of activities that MME is going to be responsible for, do you envision that when you are able to hire the project manager, that they will be taking some role in contracts like this as well? I'm just curious. No, I do not, Jamie. Did you hear me? Yes, I heard you. So I'm just, you... It's a specialized type of project management of the projects and it's a project. The project manager for construction project will be on that project, mostly in its entirety and would not have time to do... The project manager that we're looking for is going to have multiple tasks and multiple projects within the operations and internal operations of the departments of the district. I see. So you're saying that the tasks associated with the project management for this pipeline replacement project are gonna require the full time of oversight? And would you... Okay, got it. Thank you. And I think it's a more technical thing as opposed to project management what we're thinking about internally. Got it. Thanks, Gail. Bob? I wanted to reinforce the kudos to Josh for getting multiple bidders on this. Definitely like to see that going forward as well because that's how we're gonna get our costs down. I just remember going back to the original swim tank bid where it came in three times almost what the engineering estimate was because we had just one bidder and it really put us over a barrel. So yeah, this is great stuff. Let's do it. Are there any comments from the public? Hey, hearing them seeing none. Gina, would you like to state this recommendation the way you would like it done? Thank you, Chair Mayhood. I would like to propose a motion to authorize the district manager to negotiate and execute a contract on behalf of the district with MNE civil and structural engineering for construction management activities for the quail hollow pipeline replacement in an amount not to exceed $163,554. Can I make the motion? Yes, you may. What she said. Okay. I'll second that. All right. Holly, would you take a roll call vote please? President Mayhood. Aye. Vice President Henry. Yes. Director Ackman. Yes. Director Fultz. Yes. Director Smalling. Yes. Okay. The motion passes unanimously. All right. We now move on to item 13, which is the consent agenda. Are there any items that members of the board or members of the public? Let me first ask members of the board if there's anything that they would like moved to regular agenda. No. How about the members of the public? Okay. Then we also have district reports. And I think Rick, I'll start with you because I think you said you were gonna have a few questions answered publicly. Is that correct? Yes. Thank you. We received several questions regarding issues and reports. And normally I would probably send out a response to all members. I've seen these items around the agenda. It's a little more problematic in foreign board members. So for one, for the appropriate staff member on the appropriate report, I forward those questions to the staff member. They will answer those when you get to the report. But a couple that have came up in under my response is where we are with Big Basin Water. As you know, Big Basin Water had a main break on their largest transmission main that put pretty much a hundred percent of their customer base out of water. 24 hours into the outage, the representatives of Big Basin Water contacted me asking for help in facilitating repairs. I sent a repair crew up to facilitate make repairs. We made the repairs. As of this morning, their system has been repressurized. Our staff are assisting in bacteriological sampling to help get their water potable again. Big Basin Water also requested the bulk filling station to be reinstalled that we had out during CCU fire at the operations building, which we put that back in service and will keep in service until their water is potable. It's getting a lot of use. We do plan, we did cut a service order and we are charging all-time materials and sampling. We will charge Big Basin Water, invoice them 400% of that work. So I wanted to give you a quick update on that. And when we get to the engineering report, I will ask Josh to give an update on the Bear Creek Road. There's been several questions regarding Bear Creek Road and Josh will also give an update on Huckleberry Island, the 12 inch. So with that, I think the first staff report is engineering and I'll ask Josh to answer the questions that I forward in regards to engineering and projects. All right, thank you, Rick. On to engineering. Huckleberry Island, great, I just lost my window. Bear with me just a moment while I get this back. Apologize for this, folks. I just want to note that I saw Supervisor Henry's hand up and I don't know if it was related to Rick, maybe Rick could answer her question while Josh is getting his notes. I had lost. No, it had nothing to do with Rick. I wanted to comment on the engineering, but he hasn't had a chance to talk yet. Okay. Emerist here. Do you want us to move on to the next report? If you would please. Generally, we don't go through each one of these. We just see if board members or members of the public have a question. Well, I can ask them a question. Lois, go ahead and why don't you? That'd be great. Okay. I'm concerned about Huckleberry Island because it looks like we're gonna have heavy rain this weekend. And if that caves in, we're gonna have a big mess. I can't entirely. Go ahead, Josh. You want me to handle there? Entirely understandable. I do have some more I can add to that. Fair enough. Entirely understandable concern. I will say that when our field staff went out and took care of the failure, they did quite a good job of securing the pipeline. So I am confident, having been out there a couple of times now, that even if there is heavy rain and the heavy rain results in much greater slide than is normal, that the pipeline will still hold up. And if I can add to that, Lois, if we do get heavy rain, that'll mean our surface source at Foreman Creek will start to come up and we will be able to get that source back online and get another water source in Boulder Creek. We're offline right now, but with heavy rainfall, we should get flow within a day or two to put that back in service. So we have contingency plans. Well, thank you. That's all good news. Bob? Would there also be a contingency plan to install something temporary if necessary? That is, do we have the materials to be able to do something with that? I did watch out. We're working in that direction. Bob, we're getting the survey done next week. As soon as we have the pipe route, the new pipe route located out, district staff will move in and cut the isolation valves so we can do a very quick bypass. You know, we're in a little better shape than we were. We know more about it. We know we've done a lot of locating. James has had his crews out there, odd-holding, finding the main to make sure it's where it's supposed to. Survey, I do believe, and Josh, if you're ready, you can take over. It should be out there in the next week. And once we know survey and where the easements are, the already existing easements, then James's crew will go in, cut in isolation valves, and then that'll be a quick bypass. But once again, once we start getting some rainfall and those Foreman Creek comes up, you know, there'll be a big sigh of relief because we'll have a feed in Boulder Creek. And with that, we are prepared, Bob, we do have materials and we are prepared we will be able to do a bypass as maybe. Okay, great, thank you. I have gotten myself back together, so I'm happy to take questions. Very on. Josh, could you give an update on Bear Creek Road, please? We had a question on that. Certainly, the Bear Creek Road slip out where the county has decided they're holding off their work until springtime. In digging through our historical files, I was able to find an as-built drawing showing that in that area, we've actually already moved the transit line from the eastbound lane across into the westbound lane, which is the uphill side of the road. And in addition to that, in perhaps an excess of caution, but I'm an engineer, I'm good with excess of caution, we have also installed a two inch bypass that is currently operational. So it appears that road slid out in 82 and we've already done a ductile iron bypass. And once we saw the plans and dog memories and yes, we could do that work. So we'll be monitoring closely and working with the county on their project because we have to protect that mainline now from whatever the county's gonna do with their tieback system, et cetera. Bob? Yeah, in general, I just am very concerned about any of our pipe crossing culverts for reasons that I think we understand. Indeed. Any other comments on that? All right. Are there any other questions or comments about department status reports? Horace, go ahead, Mark. Yes, on the finance and budget report on page PDF page 114, it shows that we're 6% below baseline for water, what are cumulative analysis of year to date. How does that compare to our goal for what we're asking for water conservation of thought we were asking for between 10 and 15%? It wouldn't have that answer right now, but I can look into that, how the baseline compares to what we're asking. Okay. Yeah. And Director Smolie, I'd like to add that I think we were asking for only outdoor conservation, which is difficult for us to determine from our indoor and outdoor. So Kendra and I can work on that for you though. But we did state a percentage goal reduction and I don't believe that we can ask for 10% on your outdoor use only, I'm not sure. So I thought it was at least a 10% overall that we were asking. And I don't know if we're comparing that to a high water usage a year, which is not part of this three-year span or how that, so just some clarification on that. Good. Okay. I think, Mark, I think you raised a very good point because for me, the messaging around this has always been a little fuzzy in terms of what we're telling the community. Our current baseline actually goes back to 2015 on the ordinance and we're already meeting a 20% reduction based on that baseline, since I was never reset between then and now. I think we're down another eight percent this month. The cumulative part is different from the current month and I think we're down another eight percent this month. This is different from the current month, which would take us down pretty close to a stage three reduction had we wanted to go to that level relative to the 2015 baseline. So when this is all said and done and hopefully this rain is a harbinger of a decent rain year, maybe not an overly, because I don't necessarily wanna go overly due to the dangers of debris flow still. Maybe we can reset our baseline so that when we do get into another drought situation, we don't have this sort of fuzzing this over how they're messaging. James. Just a quick FYI to that. It's a 2013 baseline on that, not 15. The ordinance was reset. I'm referring to the ordinance, James. The ordinance was reset in 2015. You're correct. I believe it uses a target for that, right? But the ordinance itself was in 2015 and that's the one that we need to update. Yeah. Jamie. I was just gonna ask a question about water reduction totals. I mean, I know there's a difference between the way that we are messaging it to our customers and what the state is actually expecting of water districts typically. And Rick, maybe correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall it, usually the state has a sort of goal for each region in total reduction. And what they're really looking for is the water provider to hit that goal if some customers are over and some customers are under as long as they're averaging that reduction in usage across their customer base, they're considered to be within compliance. Is that accurate, Rick? You know, I do believe you're correct. In California, I don't believe it's even close to that. However, what's difficult with our customer base, our customer base indoor water use is also, it's already considerably low. And it's difficult to ask people to reduce, you know, their overall water use and you get a lot of pushback. And I have to, you know, I agree with Director Fultz. Our message is kind of fuzzy because we're tailoring it just to the outdoor use because, and that's difficult. And it's hard to put numbers on that. But it's easy for our customers to say, yeah, I can reduce my outdoor use and look at that where it's not easy for them to do their indoor use. So I think we get a better response by just looking at outdoor water use, you know, the washing their car, the watering and so forth. People can understand that. When you start talking about overall just across the board, you know, reduce your water use, people get frustrated, they push back, I'm already doing everything I can. I've done rebates, I've done this. And so we try to say, well, you know, center on your outdoor use. And it's a, you know, I understand Bob's concerns. The message is a little fuzzy. You know, how do you calculate that? And it seems to be working, I guess my point. Any other comments or questions on that particular topic? If not, is there anything else, Rick, that you wanted one of the staff to report on in response to a question? I think James had some answers to the questions and Carly had a couple of quick answers. I'd like to provide answers to James. You want to? Yeah, I'd like Bob to ask the question beyond record. Sure. This new process, we probably need to talk about formalizing the process a little bit. Yeah, it was about the, it was about the enterprise. Yeah, it is, it is a little awkward, I think is the case. But yes, it was a question about the water flows over the inner ties we had from south to north and north to Felton, but I'm not sure that I've seen those before, so just curious. Right, so I did fail the report, my report that we did have only two, one of our wells go down during the month. No. So that is why we started bringing water back from the south system to the north system. And at that same time, we were in a hot time of the month and water usage went up significantly, especially in Felton. And at the same time, Fall Creek dropped off flow a little bit, so we had lower flow to stay in compliance. So that is, so the only two is the reason we were bringing water from south to north to supplement that water. And then at that same time, we started having to bring water from the north to the Felton through IT6 because of Fall Creek flow dropping off to make up for demand. Right, thank you. And I think I failed to call on Cynthia earlier. I suspect that she had a question maybe about an earlier topic. Cynthia, go ahead and weigh in. Can we have Cynthia be allowed to talk, please? CTV folk? Well, until CTV folk get to Cynthia, let's go ahead and have Carly go to the question. Oh, there we is. She can speak now. Go ahead, Cynthia. Can you hear me now? We sure can. Okay. My suggestion was that you message to clients by telling us the gallons per person per day that should be our target. And let us decide whether that is going to be by reducing internal in household use in order to water the garden or cut down on watering outside. But it's much easier for people to look at their bills and figure out gallons per person per day than to do all these other general instructions, right? And the other thing is what percentage are we using by leakage? If I'm using 50 gallons per person per day, the district's usage is gonna be some percentage more than that, right? Because of the leakage. Did you wanna answer that, Rick? Well, we do have a high on account for a water loss that we are working on. We are collecting information. We just discussed leak detection at the engineering committee. Most likely we're moving ahead instead of every three years on doing leak detection to do with every other year. And we're going to collect more information so we can assign numbers to how much we produce and how much we sell and how much we lose. We need a little more information, but I don't have exactly. I can give you a gallonage number, but that number also contains process water, water what we use to flush with, water that we use to make water and treat water and mainline flushing. And it also has what water was used in the CZU fire. So it's a big number. It's a tough question to answer at this time, Cynthia. But I think Cynthia's just spot on with her suggestion here, and this goes back to data and managing by data. We first need to get to how we're going to calculate that water use per day. I have my way, but I don't know that it is universally agreed upon inside of the district. And my way is very simple. I take an average of, I think it was December, January, February, and because that's the months people aren't using outdoor water as much, typical. And I divide by 22,000, 23,000 and 24,000 pups. And that gives you a gallon per day and that's anywhere from 38 to 42. We're almost 20% below the state ultimate goal already for indoor water usage. So when Rick talks about pushing on people, absolutely we should not be pushing on people on their indoor water use, but by providing that average benchmark, agreeing on what that's going to be and doing as Cynthia suggests, that would give people information upon which, particularly those with badger need to be able to monitor and manage their water use in a much better way. So I really wish that and hope that we can get to that kind of clarity about this data aspect. Lelis? It seems to me that we need more badger meters because I can do eye on water and look and it tells me that I don't have any leaks. It tells me how much I'm using. And it's a great tool and everyone I know who has a badger meter really loves that meter. And that would, I think answer a lot of questions about where the water's going because there is a big number out there that could possibly be from leaks. I don't remember what they are, but I think we need to move ahead with these badger meters. Well, we are. I mean, we are, and we have a budgeted and we have a program of how many we're changing and we are moving in that direction. And we're also looking for grant money, hopefully that could help the district move ahead with that as well as part of the drought. Sorry, I forgot to mention this too. Cynthia, your other question about the leaks and that sort of thing. So the district recently did a leak protection process which ultimately stopped effectively 4% of our annualized production from going into the ground. That is a significant amount of money and water and also I think contributed to the kind of conservation that not only we asked the customers to do, but the district needs to do as well. And so to hear that we're gonna move that towards every other year, and I would even support every year if the numbers indicate that we should be. The ROI on this leak detection is enormous with lots of charts. Rick, did you wanna respond to that? I can agree with everything that was being said here and we need to develop those numbers and I don't wanna sound like a broken record, but that's one of the areas that the project manager will work on with the director of operations, getting all those numbers and information and putting together that exact type of report that Paul was talking about. I totally agree. It's just we've gotta get the staff time, the numbers and get it out into the report. I agree. And we thought by moving ahead, we had a lengthy discussion at engineering committee meeting. We did leak detection last year. So we had this year to kind of put things together and then next year we will do. But what we discussed at engineering committee was that we need to know how much water we're producing, how much water we're selling and then start looking at leak detection and then put that against the reduction. And each year we do leak detection if our total water loss starts going down and continuing to go down, we continue to do leak detection if we hit a flat line to where it's not having an impact anymore, we cut back and then maybe we go or maybe we increase to every year or we decrease to every other year. As James stated in engineering, AWWA recommended leak detection I think is every three years James. Three to five, every three to five. Grant your word older system. We have been doing every three years. Older systems have higher unaccounted for water loss. Another thing that we're doing, removing the redwood tanks. We have an aggressive capital improvement program that's addressing water loss through our aging facilities. A lot's going on and the meters are a great thing. And with that before Gina yells at us for getting off topic, I'll. Okay, Mark. My comment to Rick's conclusion was off topic. It was regarding this leak detection that we discussed at the engineering committee meeting, which I guess isn't on the agenda. Cynthia, you have a question. Another question, the comment. Yes, I just wanted to mention that friends of San Lorenzo Valley Water would like to let, well, educate people about using their bills to calculate their gallons per person per day. And I was told that certain routes have badger mirrors, but it's not easy to see that for the normal customer on their invoice. So if there's a way that each invoice could note for the client, whether they are on the badger meters and, you know, because some people maybe receive the notification a few years ago and they don't know whether they're actually able to use ion water or not. Thank you. Just to respond to Cynthia, we do try to make extensive customer contact every time we change over to a badger ion water. We send out information, we handheld people through the signing up online and so forth, and we really push them to sign up for ion water. Kendra, do you want to add anything to that? Yeah, every time we update a badger meter in our system, we do send out an email with a sign up instruction or if they don't have an email on file, we'll mail them the instruction. But yeah, right now, there's no easy way to distinguish on the bills, whether they have a badger meter or not. But we do try to send out the sign up information each time a meter is changed. Yeah, quick question. So what about when a house sells or an account changes? Do we send it out again to the new owners or new account holders? Yeah, so when there's a new sign up, they'll get like what's called a welcome pocket. And if they are on a badger meter, we include the sign up information in that as well. Excellent, I learned something too. Great question. Okay. Okay, are there any other questions or responses real quick? Carly had, there was a couple of good questions regarding Olympia watershed project and Carly answered those. Go ahead, Carly. All right. We did receive a couple of questions from a director folks. We had a question about a Olympia project. So right now we're working with PG and E of what the potential mitigation projects where are pretty much our compensation for letting them use our land for mitigation would be to clear about five or six acres of French broom from the property and other invasives. Right now it looks like we're pretty much waiting on an agreement to be approved by legal counsel. And it sounds like PG needs ready to move on it. We've had the regional board, CDFW and the federal Fish and Wildlife sign off on this mitigation project, which is really great. It's an benefit beyond just the broom removal. The mitigation itself would be improving the riparian habitat on our Olympia property. That's a pretty exciting project. The other questions involved conjunctive use, the grant for conjunctive use has ended and ended in June. However, with the public concern we received on the ISM&D we're actually looking into potentially doing more work on that project. So the question I think involved, I don't know if Bob wants to reiterate his question just for the public or? Go ahead, Bob. Well, yes, I mean, I'm just very anxious to get to the situation where we have everything except for the state water board approval to be able to take water from any source delivered to any destination for any reason, not just emergencies. That will allow us to manage our water just as a unified whole as opposed to the sort of free separate systems that we kind of have now. Right, yeah, so that will be the ultimate goal of our conjunctive use plan. Right now with the public concern we are trying to address all the comments we received on the ISM&D and that will be coming to the board probably in November. But once we do move through that and the petitions and all the other regulatory agency permitting, we will be able to use those energize outside of emergencies as well. And that's the ultimate goal of the conjunctive use plan. Sorry, so I'm still not quite ready to get that close. So this process here for the grant, that basically takes care of the CEQA portion of the process. Is that what I understand? Well, it took care of part of it, right? I guess is how it should be stated. So the grant did end in June. Unfortunately, the CEQA process we went through, which was an ISM&D, doesn't seem like it's going to be sufficient to the district standard. So we're hoping to go back in and reconfigure what we're going to address in the total conjunctive use plan as well as what we have to go through with the CEQA process. And I'm not sure what I can add on that. But other than we'll be bringing it to the board in November with full detail. And the public comment goes from Santa Cruz, right? It's Santa Cruz. I don't think they're there. I think we should leave it there and just guarantee, we guarantee that something will come back at the November meeting, whether it's finished or not, that you guys will bring an agendized item so that we can have a full-on discussion of this. OK? Thank you. Yeah. And I think that's all we have, Chair, for reports. I apologize. It's a little rough getting these questions out. We're still trying to iron out this process to get questions answered to board members. I mean, we're getting a lot of good questions. And I think it's important that the full board hears the answers. And the Brown Act issues and things on the agenda, a little difficult to send out emails, as you know, and without posting it to the agenda. So we're still working this out. It's a little rough. Thank you for your patience. Bob, did you? Yes. Yes, just one more question. This would be for Kendra on the finance report. Just want to make sure I'm reading the report correctly on the past due account. If we exclude the current bills, which are the less than 30 days, did our past due go up or down between July and August? It went up, but next month on the September report, we should see a reduction because of the accounts that we sent to the property tax rule. So we will start to see a reduction from that. But it went up a little bit from the July to August. Yeah, I tend to exclude the 30 day one because it's still current. It's not past due, so. Right, right. And I can modify that report to exclude that because, I mean, you're right, it's a past due analysis, so we don't really need the current 30 days on that. I like to see the numbers, but we don't need to include it in the account, yeah. OK, great. Thank you, Kendra. That's great. OK. Are there any other questions from the board on department status reports or how about from the public? And then finally, we have the committee reports. Anything there from the board, from the public? Then I think we're pretty much at the end of our meeting. And if I don't hear any objections, I will say that we are adjourned for the evening. Right. Good night, everyone. Good night. Good night. That's 7.39 for adjournment. Thank you.