 We will come back from closed session and convene open session at this time. And it would first like to report out on items that were, it would first like to report out on items that had reportable action on the closed session agenda. And those are the three items, 4A, 4D, and 4E. Regarding agenda item 4A, Holloway versus Showcase Realty and others, the board has authorized its general counsel 3-0 to initiate settlement discussions. On item 4D, DeBurt versus SLVWD, the board voted 3-0 to authorize its counsel to file an amendment to its cross complaint that names Scarborough Lumber and Building Supply Incorporated as a cross-dependent in the case by DeBurt against the district. And on item 4E, the political lawsuit, the potential lawsuit, I correct myself, in junction, potential lawsuit for injunction against Director Smallman, the board voted 3-0 to authorize the following update. The district provided a draft letter to Director Smallman on March 2nd, and Director Smallman said he would try to send back his draft by today. He did not receive a draft from Director Smallman, nor was he present for closed session, and no further action can be taken at this time. This is the time for oral communications on items that are not on tonight's agenda. I have one speaker slip from Rick Moran, but if anybody would like to address us at this time, please do so. I'm here to set the record straight. I was appointed to the Environmental Committee in 2016. Two years earlier, a grand jury investigation concluded that there was a breach of trust between citizens and the water district. Their report, titled, A Time to Restore Trust Between Voters and the District, said that more than two board members on a committee could pose a brown act violation so the third spot was filled with a citizen member. The member said that serving on the committee was a privilege. I volunteered for the Environmental Committee to help restore that trust because I had a history collaborating well with others. The Environmental Committee discussed many issues, but when they decided to use Roundup, a known probable carcinogenic herbicide, in our watershed, I was concerned. The item appeared on the board agenda with little public awareness, tucked inside the details of a broom management plan. Great payers would want to know, so I notified the public. That ended in a meaningful dialogue because I am not a rubber stand. Committee meetings are public and don't contain privileged information. The public has a right to know. The committee and the board began side stepping around. The committee was tasked to create a pest management plan and still doesn't have one. Meetings were canceled and I wasn't notified. When speaking about Roundup, I and others were dismissively told by this board that we were emotional or responding from the gut. The science of Roundup is shady. It is not peer reviewed. It is corporate sponsored, corrupt, and lacks consensus among the scientific community. That's not emotional. That's a fact. The public response about Roundup was impressive, but the many attendees were told that it wasn't on the agenda. I have an email chain showing that it was to be on the agenda, but it was suddenly removed. I received a rude email from the district manager and chastised by a board member who in front of an ACT room said that she didn't trust me. Let's talk about trust. I served honorably in the Navy, navigating a nuclear-powered submarine into Vietnam and Russia. Count country and shipmates trusted me. As a teacher and life lab instructor for the SLD schools, parents and students trusted me. As post commander and trustee for the Santa Cruz Veterans of Foreign Wars, veterans in the community trust me. But this is really about you. This board will never gain public trust by using poisons on our watersheds. Your business is to provide safe and affordable water. Repair our infrastructure. Stop worrying about French broom on an abandoned sand mine. Get back to basics. That's how to regain your trust. Thank you. Anybody else? I just heard this report out of the session and I just wanted to make it clear. My understanding of my lawsuit is that I'm asking nothing of the district, including no attorney's fees paid for by the district. Everything I ask for is to be paid for by private parties. So I don't know what the district can offer to me since I'm asking nothing. It's really up to the Showcase Realty Agents Inc. to settle this case. So the words you said sound rather meaningless to me. If you think you're going to pay your general counsel some thousands of dollars to negotiate with me, I have already asked nothing. Nothing about a firm nothing. And there's nothing that you can offer me to settle this case. Anybody else want to speak during all communication? Sir. Thank you for having me. It's a pleasure to be here. My name is Brandon Lauren with the Pact Pork Consulting Group where I civil engineering firm of the Pustin, California. I made the trek down here tonight because I'm an acquaintance with Bill Smallen who is district engineer for four water districts on the peninsula. We've had the pleasure of working with Bill when he was with Lewis and Tivitz. And we just recently heard about the set of lands around the water district and your capital improvement needs. And I wanted to come down and introduce myself and our firm. And we're looking forward to potentially proposing on your upcoming projects. So thank you. And I'm a customer of SLB. I want to first say thank you to Rick Moran for serving on the environmental committee. We have some outstanding people who are citizens and members of these committees and they always deserve a thank you. I would like to forward to, I want to draw attention to the letter that you have in your packet tonight. It's a letter asking again about the Longhecote projects that are included in the assessment district. This has been discussed at length and kicked it around quite a lot. And my letter is specifically asking for something different not to kick it around to come up with qualitative information and reports in a manner that addresses what the original agreement was of doing all these things within a five year construction window. This is how all the cost estimates were placed and what we voted on. We in Lompica wanted these projects and for instance we had two tanks the Lewis and the Casco tanks that were told by the state had to be replaced by I believe it was December 2014 originally. So we're behind schedule on that. Both tanks are leaking. We thought that by joining SLB and forming this assessment district SLB said we have the management power to get these projects done and meet these deadlines. We're two years into the assessment district and being members of SLB and absolutely no projects have been completed due to partially unemployment. The one project that is being worked on is the lowest print. So I would like you to consider putting on the agenda the possibility of imagining how we would meet the school of getting all these projects done within five years or two years into it. We're going to have to negotiate this. We're going to have to come up with some imaginative solutions. What I'm asking for is for this to go on an agenda but not like the agenda item that was in January under unfinished business Lompico assessment district loans there were no staff reports there was nothing to pack it up there was nothing new to talk about. I want something new to talk about I want something vital to talk about. And this manager's report says that for today he said today you're going to be working on PRVs and service laterals. Again, we're talking about the two lowest ranking projects. The highest ranking project is the inner type. That is a vital public health and safety issue for all of us in Lompico 500 plus customers it is our only water supply at this time. So I have a lot of other stuff but I'm running out of time. I hope that somebody will put this on the agenda and we'll get to talking about something real this time. Thank you. Thank you. I see somebody coming into the lecture. Well I had several things that I wanted to say to Director Hammer who isn't here but I'll send it to Manager if I may President Watten on May 25th 2017 WSC was tasked with a $60,000 project for State Revolving Fund and USDA. Now they only spent part of that but what I'm getting at is in December. December 7th I asked your general manager what happened when Board voted to spend $274,230 with WSC to get a USDA loan I asked what happened to the $60,000. Well I didn't get an answer but later in the meeting Eric Hammer said that $60,000 was for Lompico. Uh-uh. I'd invite you to go back to May 25th and look at the proposal. Lompico's named but it wasn't just for Lompico and a couple of members of the Lompico Oversight Committee got really excited. Oh wow, you're going to start our projects. Well I could get maybe someone embarrassed him by saying no, you're wrong Director Hammer and you didn't say anything. Okay. The other thing when I went to the San Margarita groundwater meeting that attorney brought up that the Board can respond in public comment and I would like to know and you don't have to tell me tonight but I'd like to know how many people were given this watershed Lompico and I would like two Board members Eric Hammer and uh our president to meet with me and talk about this because there are so many things wrong in this out now and I would like you the two of you to meet with me I would like to listen to what I have to say and not you control the meeting let me tell you what I see what's wrong with this and I don't, I want this not to be passed out until it's fixed or spread. Anybody else like to speak to me? Excuse me John Solz from Felton I just want to tell the Board that we have a good water district to feel really strongly about this I can talk to a lot of people up and down the valley as I go along and I want to encourage the Board to try to reach now that we have our new Monterey Bay Energy system coming into effect where we are going to be buying our own kilowatts to start getting more serious about developing our own generation capacity saying that you guys know I brought forward the idea of some serious wind turbines upon the MPART grade where the water district owns land for for the purpose of generating electricity eliminating our carbon footprint and providing much needed green energy for our county I think we get the county behind this I would like to see a little more maybe some fuel is put out by the Board or by our Mr. Lee there to see about how the county provides us fuel trying to send us some emails myself and get an appointment with Bruce McPherson so we can talk about these things anyway once again talk to a lot of people people are proud of me so thank you anybody else who would like to speak during all communications this evening do you know when raising their hand so I'll close out oral communications at this time and move to new business the first item on new business is the San Lorenzo Valley Water District Conjunctive Use Planning process and I would just like to take it from here and tell us about it we are in a long form of the water resources to be the director can you give me a presentation I'm going to can you first the button for me over there for this big of a sign I apologize for sitting down up here through my background this week so I can't really stand the district folks which I appreciate well Jen's getting that said I'll go ahead and start this is a brief overview of a project grant funded project that's being done between the district and the county half of it is grant funds and half of it is matching funds to support the efforts this comes out of Proposition 1 which is the water bond we all approved a fair while ago but it's taking the state a while to push all the money out and the money is coming through the stream flow enhancement portion of that act funded by the Wildlife Conservation Board a little overview on the screen this is a conjunctive use in base flow enhancement plans we're looking at ways to better manage the watershed resources in a way that both serves the water supply needs and also will result in ideally increasing base flow on the stream for our fish the county applied for and received the grant mostly with the district and a lot of money will now turn around and go through the district to conduct the work and hire the consultants but it is a joint effort going forward so the grant is $330,000 by $285,000 in maps to a lot of the projects or activities that are either done or planned to do it anyway just some maps to work through we're really looking at how do we help the district manage their stream sources and their groundwater sources in a way to complement the use of the district already does a fair amount of that in their more system where both wells and stream sources and they're able to shift back and forth between those two sources is a pretty good advantage but we want to bring in the Felton system, the Paul Creek system and also the South system which serves parts of the Scotts Valley area and you can see the diversion points on the west side of the envelope and the mountain or the or the greener blue over there and some of the wells over here go ahead then just some of the geology Beloma Mountain which has our streams is all granitic, it has pretty good base flow much of the area pretty good storage and capture base flow then across the development fall all that yellow area is primarily the San Margarita groundwater basin which captures and stores groundwater for a much longer period so again the wells are drawing from the San Margarita the stream diversions are coming from go ahead north system, Felton system and then the south south system is the next one I think and basically as you know the local agencies got a grant a number of years ago to construct interties between all these different systems those interties were designed for emergency purposes and the understanding and sort of the promise was they couldn't be used on a regular basis until we did the more assessment about what the environmental impact was doing and what the water rights issues would be with actually using those interties on a regular basis, the pipes are there that we need the information to really support using those pipes on a more regular basis, go ahead gentlemen and this just shows the south system we've got both San Margarita Valley Water District wells and Scotts Valley Water District wells very close together, Scotts Valley Water District is the red area, San Margarita purple area, so we're also they're drawing from the same part of the San Margarita groundwater basin so we're also looking at some of the scenarios we're looking at would involve also potentially transferring water into the intertie to the Scotts Valley Water District to allow them to pump their wells less and allow the groundwater to stay in the basin and actually increase the groundwater storage the overall idea is you would use excess water from the stream sources during the winter time to make the water available then the district currently currently diverts and more flow than officially needed that time of year and shift that surface water to the south part of the system and also potentially using the Scotts Valley to let those groundwater basins fill up, have more water and then during the summer there would be more groundwater available shift more to the wells earlier and more water in the streams particularly Fall Creek to support the fish so that's the basic concept there's also the district also has a water right to store water in Lock Rowland which they have not been able to utilize and we'll be looking at possible use of that going ahead so these are some of the scenarios that we would be evaluating in this project transferring water from Felton to the south system during the winter time and possibly also bringing water from the north system and to Felton in Trenton and against the south system where the groundwater basin can recover and it really shouldn't say Felton it should not say Felton the Verge Felton the Verge Dam is the the city of Santa Cruz facility and that would not be involved it would be the Fall Creek the Verge and Fall Creek system another option is to look at the Lock Rowland water right there's 313 acre feet that would require treatment to use that water so we'd be looking at the feasibility of that looking at recharging the Olympia area you know not just the Scott Valley area south system but also Olympia to be able to build up the groundwater storage there to make those Olympia wells potentially more productive during the dry season reduce the stream diversions and then also looking at the potential for providing a new water to Scott Valley to get them to reuse their pumping and again benefit that south system area so the project has several components that we're moving ahead most of this work will be done by consultants the first part is really doing the surface water availability now how much more water is available that's not being used right now and that's one of the things like downstream flow leads how effective the diversions are how much water is being bypassed right now and the next item on the agenda is actually a contract to hire hydrology firms to do that work for us and a lot of it and it just happens that the principal or the main person that firm was Mac Johnson who have done a lot of this for the district already pulling that together in a way that works in this project we're looking at hiring a fisheries biologist to help us evaluate the impacts of these different scenarios on fish flows if we are able to increase the flow say in Fallen Creek, Clear Creek or Boulder Creek potentially the main stem of the Salons of River during the summer time what kind of benefits would we expect from that and if we're able to increase flows in the streams during the San Margarita like Green Creek, Zion Creek Love Creek would there be benefits from that for sure benefits so once we have that information we put that together into a plan maybe a phase plan, multiple phases we would conduct the environmental review of that as we need to do be able to use those interties and also develop the water rights applications to do what it needs to be done to be able to move that surface water around for instance right now we're from Fall Creek in the south part of the system we need a water right to expand the place of use for that water so that's sort of the overall project in a nutshell we will be bringing different parts of this back to your board we need to amend the agreement between the county and the district in the future because for now the district is taking more of a lead in doing some of this hiring so that money will go directly to the district instead of coming through the county we're also going to be bringing to your board the contracts for these consulting services for approval and of course providing reports back on progress as this thing moves forward but that's it for my presentation I'd be happy to answer any questions there's no action recommended on this particular item the action is on the next one I'd first like to take any input from the board okay any directors I guess before I go to the public just a brief amount of discussion how does this fit in with the sustainable groundwater management act? it fits in I think very well as you know there's all these different moving pieces this is one of those moving pieces we're developing a groundwater sustainability plan for the Santa Marta Leader Basin and the objective of that is to make that basin sustainable, restore the groundwater levels and it also supports this information will help feed into the development of that plan there is a component of this that does use the Santa Marta Leader Groundwater Model to project what the impacts on the basin would be on these different pumping scenarios and also what the impact would be on increased baseload and streams so this will help to support that effort I'll ask one more if anybody else please try to interrupt me I have some idea that being in this GSA with another major member agencies, Scots Valley Water District that will end up both having responsibilities for various actions to be taken to help recover the basin and this looks very much like one that is very helpful for the basin in this process that we're getting to that how do we sort of get credit for doing this in some way how do we look at this in terms of the general longer term goal of getting to a groundwater sustainability plan? Well I think you do get credit likely before the end of the plan as something New York District is doing that's very helpful with that and it's going to be an adverse impact in a couple of respect to the basin that way this also is a part of the memorandum of the agreement that we also used to New York District, Scots Valley Water District, City of Santa Cruz and the county all entered into an agreement to work on sort of these conjunctive use proposals together for both the San Juan to Watershed and the surface water and the overall watershed as well as the groundwater basin where the groundwater basin efforts focuses primarily on that basin. Thank you. Other board input before let me open it up to the public I believe the woman on the second row first hand. So you have a grant for 330 and then a contributing matching grant of 285 so that's 615 is that for this first stage through 2019 so it's just for all the assessment and the plan and the environmental evaluations and things like that. That's correct, this is what's called a planning grant this will set the stage for us to go back for an implementation grant to actually do the treatment plan upgrades or some of the pumping upgrades to actually implement this some of it could be implemented right now with the existing infrastructure or other infrastructure. So how long does this process actually take if it's the middle of 2018 and the assessment it's going to take you through the end of 2019 how many more phases are there and how much more time are we looking at? Well that's hard to predict particularly when you're dealing with water rights adjustments with the state they can take anywhere from 2 years to 20 years to get to water rights I should say less as low as 6 months to 20 years so that's a big factor is getting the water rights squared away and 6 months is extremely optimistic and that's really using just a temporary change in water rights. The state hopefully is stepping up to make more to improve these processes so we could we could start doing some of this when we have the water rights in the environmental review done we can start moving forward at this point it's turning the valves I mean Brian may have more to it than that in terms of some pump upgrades but the parts that are relatively simple other parts would require more infrastructure improvements and just one last question just so this is this is more than a year and a half and at $615,000 if you were to give us your educated guess because I know you don't have numbers off the top of your head how much more money over the next let's assume 20 years how much more money would this project cost to complete? I couldn't tell you even a guess that's an educated guess I haven't even tried to guess at this point we did do so there are other studies that have looked at some of the components of conjunctives not this particular one but some of the like the water transfers say from city of Santa Cruz to Sotel there are cost figures in there but I don't have those figures available to me right now okay we can try to look at it one of the things that will come out of this plan will be a cost estimate so it will be the recommendations on what are the various phases and what it would take to do that and then there will be cost estimates in there okay good thank you excuse me question may I ask everyone to please step up to the left turn to speak that way we can hear the question as well as the answer thank you like these I just have a couple fairly simple remarks this is all I enjoy seeing the maps it's always very instructive to see where the water is coming from my wife has just been working temporarily for the Johnny Cowers Authority in Monterey County they more up against the wall than Santa Cruz County in regard to water resources and that Johnny Cowers Authority I forget their name now but they serve several cities in the county and they're joining toilet to tap as they refer to it the building of a plant right now that will treat sewage to the point where they can inject it into aquifers and then draw it back out again and use it as a drinking water so just the weather differences between here and what is it 40 miles south of here and the differences in elevation and mountain ranges and where rivers are using an idea of how extreme this situation is I'm sure all of you are aware of it already I just wanted to point out that the city of Santa Cruz has this HCP which has been hanging for I think 16 years and until that water rights it's essentially a water diversion issue with the national with the federal government until that's resolved no one will know how much water they can take as Henry Cowell or Tate Street it's going to tackle everybody up with Henry and put it in the council now that they're just formed together so hopefully it doesn't stop progress from happening I would hope the city would find a kind of deal to put thank you Mr. Renner two or three years ago I was going to the San Marmorita basin meetings on a regular basis and when he mentioned toilet to faucet that was one of the things I wanted to bring up because was it the Hanson Hanson quarry that Scott's Valley was going to try to do that make the water more more pure than what we get out of the ground right now and put it back into the aquifer and it seemed to other things I saw it looked like they had these space age machines that could grab water out of the river as it's run by put it in the ground am I crazy could I see that those are some options that have been studied and considered either I don't know about the space age machines but they are looking at ways to take high flows from the river itself bank collectors is something they're called where there's an infiltration gallery along the bank so it filters through the bank and then they can pump cleaner water because that's off in the water during the winter time this is very accurate so that is one way of thinking that's one thing that's still being under consideration Scott's Valley water district did look at using purified recycled water at this point that looks to be relatively expensive compared to some of the other alternatives so that's sort of that's not being pursued actively right now probably nobody's going to want to drink oh there's that too hard to convince them thank you John's Souls for helping him well there's a few things and with this study money it would be really nice to study a couple things that I think from all of the time I've spent looking at some of these things so Bull Creek I think we're going to fix Bull Creek ourselves but that should really be top priority itself now the overdraft of Fall Creek has been going on since citizens utilities American water overdrafted it constantly and when we had felt the flow we used to throw that up oh they're overdrafted and now we still overdraft Fall Creek because we have to now it would be really nice to see Bull Creek fix so we can help alleviate some of that and in the course of action maybe even be able to free up a little more water for the fish so that there'd be a little more water from another location now when I take a look at this study and the recharge system one of the things that I hate to say it out loud is people with wells how do we know how much water they're using now I wouldn't advocate us charging people with wells for the water but they should have to meter it and that metering should be studied so that we know what we need to do to meet the recharge standards then we have all that acre-feet of lock-loan when it's available and it's my thought that we should take lock-loan water build a treatment plant up in Long Pico move that water over to Long Pico for treatment and then from there either use it in lock-loan or find a way to move the excess down and use it and put it into an injection well or something or just run it out on the ground in the Olympia and it'll soak down but the idea is that we have that water available to us and we need to find a way to move it and I don't see moving it all the way down to Felton is advantageous I think it really makes a lot more sense to do the study to see that water they need it they'll be less pumping uphill from down at the rest of the system and that would be really good and I also really encourage the San Lorenzo Valley Water District and I know you're already busy but I'd really like to see you guys take charge of a lot of this groundwater recharge be a leader in our county on this the utility toky up here in the valley is really special and Sunday they're going to come for our water if we don't do things to make sure they have water thanks $30,000 for a few months I think this is the first time I've heard about the 285 so the 285 was a condition it was matching funds we had to pledge that in order to secure the 3-3 correct and there's a $45,000 difference there so it's not being matched one for one it's not a 50% match it's a 40% match and did we know that I guess you applied for the grant but I don't remember reading about this or anything I believe we did it was part of the grant application it was part of the grant application and again the 285 projects that the district was already either in progress or planning to do in a way that could be shown to benefits so it's not new money the districts they're getting credit for money they're already spending so I heard you say that you have cost estimates for moving water from Santa Cruz to Soquel and I just want to say I'm not interested in that at all I'm not living in Santa Cruz and I don't live in Soquel and I don't really want this district or the people who live in SOV to have to spend millions of dollars to make that happen the 3-3 acre feed up there per year can go on for 35 years I don't know if I had it all right up it's probably the entire deficit in the Santa Mournery to act for $6 to treat that water for this district to treat that water it would be a substantial investment currently I think the de facto state of affairs since the Santa Cruz is using that water as if it weren't theirs they don't need to worry about A&S 313 a year in any form so I think we are really doing a lot for the city of Santa Cruz just to let them use that water as they've been using that for such a long time this district to merge with Long Pico I think it's been a little bit over 2 years now and last time I checked Long Pico County Water District had a water right on Long Pico Creek and I don't think this district really plans to use it but it could be a gardening chip with some wildlife and I think that water rights is still in the name of Long Pico County Water District I don't think anybody in management here has bothered to get off their hands or their butt and convert that water right to something that's unbiased on the water district and then I think there's probably a couple of years worth of usage reports that should have been made I assume it's zero but those reports that are in management doesn't seem to know the value what they have I'm going to think of one more thing as soon as I sit down oh so in this room a few years ago somebody stood up and said why don't you build a highway and only drive on it 2 weeks a year and so the millions of dollars that the state invested in in the millions of dollars that this district invested in felt that two scumstallity are not being used and we need to figure out how to use the millions how to use the investment we've already made sure Mr. Lee did you want to speak to him? no go ahead no I voted he was one go ahead Mark hi Mark regarding the current agenda item I have a problem with the study being conducted my concern though is the weakness of the memorandum agreement I don't think it should have been signed by any of you and the way it was drafted I think there's a lot of holes in it if you look at it closely my concern one is there's a linkage with the city of senators many many times there's a door open an additional air tide down Graham Hill to the city of Santa Cruz let's look at some statistics right now the city of Santa Cruz is using 1.6 million gallons per day from the Santa Lorenzo water the trivia chair that's surface water don't let this school ensure the conjunctive use and reducing the drawdown of wells in Scotts Valley is important I have no problem intertying I like the agreement of intertying the districts that are district one, two, and three the south part and the north part my concern is diverting water from bull and the creek that's adjacent to it where the library is to add additional water resources and violate it to the city and my biggest concern is long term the first question is regarding how many in the water rights I have some major problems with that I think people ought to be aware of where we're heading this is not really for fish this is for real estate development that will eventually fill up this valley and also Santa Cruz let's get real think about the long term implications now I'm okay with the grant $1,000 to do the study that's an important step but we need to look at the long range motivations on why we are trying to go to a regional water system I think you really ought to look at this because when we have a drought here and that water is already being submitted down the river to Santa Cruz it's going to be less and less water for us here and the cost will go up you think you have high costs now we are lucky to have rain this season to recharge the aquifer my concern is the way the memorandum agreement is written there's a lot of holes that leaves us in a very precarious position and I think we should re-address that and my major concern I think we should amend it and really take the voting right off away off the Santa Margarita regional water base and forward and ask the city to leave they're not inside of our district sure they have an ancillary right of 313 acre feet from Loc Lawman but my concern is the long-term applications thank you would anybody else like to comment I see no more hands up so I'll conclude that any more discussion from staffer board at this time then I'll thank John for coming appreciate it we're just seeing you at a meeting you may have questions for me on so many other items let's move on to item 9b the exponent contract for San Lorenzo Valley Water Availability Assessment so we flew an RFP for this is exactly what John was just introducing is this conjunct abuse grant and so now we're in the process of hiring consultants to do some of the analysis so the first consultant that we flew the RFP for recently was for the hydrology consultant and so we have reviewed the submittals and we have chosen the exponent as our recommendations to enter into contact with them the grant covers about $60,000 for this hydrological assessment and exponent's proposal was $75,000 and so it's about $15,000 over and we negotiated that and found about $6,000 or $7,000 that might be able to be covered by another aspect of the grant in the section that's around the final plan preparation we might have extra funding to cover exponent will be helping to produce the final plan and so that line item might be able to be shifted over and covered by another portion of the grant if not then the district might need to cover a portion of that so at most the district might need to come up with $15,000 in order to fund exponent and I wanted to say that the reason why we chose exponent is because Nick Johnson is the hydrologist working there who will lead from exponent and he has been preparing water hydrological analyses for the district for 20 plus years and has provided the district a great service he's very loyal to this district and this community and I think he really serves this community well and so I wanted to just briefly cover what the proposal included for this hydrological assessment the first task would be to develop a database so that they can take all of the water data, well data and surface water data and put it into one database so that they can more easily take multiple parameters and compare them so they can get a good assessment from the data and the next task will be to estimate the potential surface water supplies that would be available for transfer and then the next task would be to estimate the potential sustainable groundwater production that would be available for transfer to Felton water system and then we would evaluate the alternative scenarios such as looking at alternative water supplies that might be available and then optimizing the San Lorenzo Valley Water District conjunctive use for existing sources that we have now and optimizing the San Lorenzo Valley Water District conjunctive use of the existing sources for Loch Lomond and then optimizing the Loch Lomond for managed aquifer recharge and then looking at optimizing these are mostly for optimizing the San Lorenzo Valley Water District sources so we have three separate sources we have the north system that has surface water sources and groundwater sources we have Felton which is on a surface water only and then we have the south systems on groundwater only and so these would be optimizing all of our internal sources first and that's going to be our priority is to first make sure we have all of our own sources optimized so that we're using our water sustainably and with specifically looking at fish flows and trying to make sure we have adequate fish flows during drought periods for ecosystem services and then the next part of the scenario, his assessment would be to look also at looking at optimizing the San Lorenzo Valley and Scotts Valley conjunctive use possibilities using Loch Lomond and using north system sources or Felton system sources so those are all surface water sources and then the last the last task is to report and have findings report and then we would then the consultant will be looking at environmental review and water rights filings and working on the conjunctive use plan so a lot of this is what John had already presented but this is kind of more of the details about what the consultant would be doing in the analysis thank you any other board or other staff comment before I comment perhaps I just have questions about the water rights questions obviously that's not something that that's not his area but is he going to include a review of the current situation is that we may need to ask him for some of this assessment in order to do the negotiation for the water rights so he may be participating in that negotiation but on the technical side first of all I want to express extreme confidence in Nick Johnson I've been coming to Water District Board meetings pretty regularly for since beginning of 2014 and some before them in which Nick presented has one of the most complete urban water management plans that I think any of us has ever seen in 2010 which was updated for 2015 and the 2009 water supply master plan was a very useful document and is cited in his list of accomplishments an experience here it's a document that you can find online Nick is also going to be participating with the JPA the JPA has had two major tasks one of which is to select a consultant to evaluate the existing groundwater model there and the JPA ended up with the decision I'll let John correct me if I'm making mistakes on this we selected an outside the area firm and both San Lorenzo and Scotts Valley are going to have some consultation with other firms Nick exponent and Nick being the principal in that for a second opinion a check on the results of this new firm that is from outside the area and Scotts Valley is likely to do the same thing so I and I believe the whole board and staff have a very high confidence level and Nick local motivated to work for the benefit of the San Lorenzo Valley and a very professional individual I guess I'd like to ask this one question on this the the water conservation board grant is independent of the 330 other the Prop 1 money right this is a piece of that and so our potential $15,000 contribution would be one piece of matching that okay thank you please so we'll and this is I guess a question for Jen will the scenario analysis take a look at other water management options like the potential impact for the benefit of individual rainwater catchments on a larger scale or recycled water in Scotts Valley and its re-injection or the feasibility of and I ask this because it comes up often in conversation the feasibility of additional above ground reservoir storage do not anticipate any of those things being covered for this analysis so oh urban water management plants are really based for areas that are growing like San Jose and this is really not an urban urban area and people don't want to see it become an urban area and I actually believe that nobody's really going to use that and the data for and no we did not know about this $280,000 extra charge we just knew about the grant money as far as I knew about a grant to pay for all this stuff which is okay with me but I just don't see that this is a worthy expense and I disagree with doing all these more studies and I'd rather see the money go to engineering and design of water storage and water facilities instead of these studies I don't think it's necessary all the data is pretty much already there to evaluate and to build infrastructure to that end so I will be voting no just a response on that one this this grant and the projects associated with it will let us use infrastructure we've already spent money on namely the enterprise so we put the pipes in the ground there they're already and this is one step given to use them in non-emergency so it's I think it's leveraging money I already spent and capital that we've already got in the ground and the $285,000 is absolutely something that we were aware of it's part of a routine requirement that any grant come with matching funds those matching funds can be in kind services in kind work projects that are already qualified in alignment so this is work and expense and effort that the district has already embarked upon that qualifies as a match for this grant so we are leveraging what we have already done the work in this assessment will allow us to use the intertize which will allow us to be more efficient and more effective protect the ecosystems, protect the fish and protect public safety could we get a little bit of a breakdown of the $285,000 some of the pieces are coming from some of the $285,000 that the district is using as match funds is for the money that we spent on the intertize for the construction of the intertize so that money is already been spent and that counts as match towards this grant okay does this mean we have some more money available from our contribution to the intertize that could be available for future grants or probably not where time is running out on that because the money is spent so the further away you get from that time that you spent that money the less likely you are able to use that as match okay but the vast majority of it is intertized money we were still spending that money we were still paying that money for this grant so we were that was part of this process during the time frame that we were applying for this grant we were using that as the match okay how about Jean well maybe you could clarify this this goes back to the JPA one of the things that was discussed at the JPA is different member contributions one contribution the part of our contribution to the pool at the JPA was that floated and perhaps I had the basin report from Stott's valley was suggested early on in discussions about something that might be part of our contribution that Stott's valley introduced the groundwater model they currently have as a starting point for instead of starting from scratch and I don't know so if you were at that part of the first or second meeting of the groundwater agency that was mentioned that thing was tied down but that began some of this money some of the intertized was also paid for with about 50 money so I just think this is tremendous leverage but specifically to the Nick Johnson that's a value added proposition because this guy is such an expert on our watershed and there's no getting up to speed he's already a real expert on the local water situation and I've been really pleased with all the work I've seen that he's performed with districts so I think he's a tremendous value I also wanted to make sure that the public was aware that an urban water management plan has a little bit of a loose number and maybe staff could elucidate you are required by the state to provide a report called an urban water management plan when you have over a certain number of connections and it doesn't really speak to how it's urbanized or how suburban your area is it's more about the number of connections served staff could maybe change this if you have 3,000 or more connections and you're required to do an urban water management plan it's basically just a way for you to plan how much water you have and how much you need to conserve in order to sustainably use your water and also by completing the urban water management plan it makes you qualified for being awarded grant funding for projects so if you don't do your urban water management plan you're not qualified to receive grants or loans so the urban water management plan is kind of something that's really critical you just made the point that I was going to make regarding the mandatory nature of that we got around it in one time in which another agency was the lead for us in this something that you cannot continue to be doing in the future and we weren't able to get grants at that time right, we could not ourselves get grants at that time the state made it that way so you're listening to people from the state that make these rules that don't make any sense and you follow them it doesn't make any sense okay so any other any public comment at this point Mr. Ford's I appreciate the feedback we have the principal how many responses did we get for the RFP we have two responses and what was the fee for the other one 60,000 so the difference of 15 was there a reason that the other one was not responsive or somehow did not meet requirements or just somebody we don't know and we want to do business for people that we know are comfortable with now we know very well all of the applicants and the other applicant was a a partnership between two other consultants that we often work with and we just we looked at both of the application proposal or the proposals and really the description that exponent provided really more closely fit what we were looking for for this work would not have accomplished what was in the statement of work in order to be able to have a successful outcome I I can't speak for others who are on the team but my feeling was that the other consultant had proposed sort of a different path for getting some of the same reporting and I felt like the information that Nick Johnson has had and has access to and the way that his reports come out would more closely fit with what we're looking for for this project with the information the other guys have asked for been wrong or not usable or anything like that I guess what I'm trying to get at here and I'm not going to be able to plan anymore since I think it's clear which way it's going to go because that is I mean 15,000 here 15,000 there it adds up over time and so I think part of what needs to be communicated to the public is really precisely the reason why other than like him and we know him he's done work for us before and that's all great but as my sales manager said what have you done for me today that's the thing that I operate on if in fact he has a lot of this information I would have thought he could have done for less than $60,000 I mean how would it have been my doing and say well come on Nick you've got all this information so anyway I understand where we're coming from and how we do business can I say something for that can I speak to that I just remembered the first task is to complete a database and that was really one of the more expensive items and that database is going to be really valuable for us in future for future planning processes and as well as working with the Santa Margarita groundwater agency so I think for our groundwater could somebody else in the agency been able to contribute some money I mean maybe we could have given to the Scots Valley called and said hey we've got a 15,000 gap here and it's going to help you I think that will come up in future discussions what have we done for us today I want those conversations today you're getting benefit from this Mr. Scots Valley I appreciate it anyway the other comment Bill I fully appreciate where you're coming from on the don't cut me off yet on the regulation part probably the way it was 100 years ago was too unregulated maybe we had to regulate it ourselves too much now but you're right part of the system we have right now people who win out of it are a lot of consultants they extract enormous amount out of the tax payers and rate payers before there's a single piece of pipe or a single tank or a single company's fault and it's really a shame and hopefully that's something that the state might work on I mean heck they're even talking about deregulating marijuana sales because of the black market that's out of there so hey maybe they'll do the same thing for us small little water companies that don't have a lot of the same overhead absorption rate that a bigger city like Santa Cruz or San Jose has Hi Barbara Narvaugh this is to Jen this is back in January when we sat through the fish lab meeting for two hours one of the key things that we talked about for at least an hour was data collection and data collection repository they talked about Excel and looked like the data that we're going to try to collect in the fish ladder statistical analysis looked like it was valuable how is that different from what we're spending with this 285 and why can't those two be combined because if I'm I think I recall that that fish ladder was a $60,000 project that fish monitoring fish ladder fish ladder monitoring that gave us a presentation on January 30 that wasn't fish ladder that was just fish monitoring so it looked like they were already out in the streams of the rivers and collected data how can these two be overlapped so that the money being spent out of the black pocket is combined with the money being spent out of the white pocket well I think that's a really good question for our next consultant when we talk about fish hesitation this one really is more about hydrological situation it's not really about this particular consultant for the hydrology a hydrology I'm just thinking you know as long as you're at the river you know what I'm thinking all one time I will make sure I have a good answer for you okay for the next one great thank you very much I'll play again for a moment I will make sure I understand this what is the total assessment the assessment that was discussed the grant the grant is $330,000 and how much are we expected to be from San Juan's account so we have agreed to match $280,000 and a big portion of that is covered by the intertide that we already spent and you're talking about revenues from water rates what do you think about how much it will cost us to match this grant right? the funds that we've already spent for the intertide and the other and a large portion of it is from the bull vented bull vented pipeline replacement project which we already intend to do so what is the incremental additional cost in terms of the rate is there going to be an actual incremental incremental cost in addition to the rates that we're paying now no, it doesn't change the rate so out of the $280,000 since this is a regional in the San Juan Rita Spagba a boundary, why aren't we splitting this between the city of Scott Valley, the county and the Santa Rosa Valley water district why are we being held captive to this particular program that really benefits the whole everyone that's in Spagba Santa Mara agreed to grant the water agency before I before you mentioned that I really think fairness it should be shared and not be put on the backs of the existing repair if you're going to be doing a regional water agency it should be shared definitely let's control our cost it's getting really expensive year after year here and we need to start thinking financially on what these projects incrementally are costing us one last comment as I leave I'm really totally against the expense that you are allocating to public information you're a consultant different subject thank you I got a question you want to make a comment? this is a quick question $85,000 we already spent is what you're saying how much of it? I don't have any part of it so I mean all of it's planned but the public never voted on this expenditure it's not an additional expenditure they want you to match and they have different criteria that you can match for monies that we already spent on the other project the project that the district already plans on doing is going to fill up the other $285,000 so there's no additional money that the district wasn't already planning on spending being specially allocated so is the public voting on spending $285,000 or not we already spent it it's earmarked it's earmarked so we're voting the public is we're voting on that you're voting today whether or not you want to spend an extra $15,000 to get Nick Johnson as the hydrologist $15,000 but we are but we spent the other $285,000 minus $15,000 the matching portion of this project is coming from capital costs that we spent on the inner type projects that will allow us to do conjunctive use in the end and capital components on a project the bull and bennett pipeline that will allow us to maximize our conjunctive usability in the Felton area to ensure that Felton has water year round because right now Felton's actually running short in the summer months and we want to strengthen Felton's water availability so the matching funds are coming from capital components, majority of which have already been spent and others which we have to spend anyway on capital components so in other words $270,000 went to capital improvements that are a part of this $285,000 in other words we just get credit for the funds that we're already spending or have spent for the final improvements to the tune of $270,000 and then you were voting on $15,000 to this consultant to do those studies to do $75,000 for the work I thought it was $15,000 we only have to pay $15,000 we only need to pay if you decide to go back home other public comment anybody I don't see my hand on this item so I bring it please just today the supply master plan which I believe is also prepared by Nick Johnson and it's really a great document and it seems like so much of what would be required of them to do in this study he's already got the foundation of that it was done before I guess Felton was acquired by San Lorenzo and so there are some gaps in there that definitely need to be held in but it just seems like he's extremely well qualified and able like I said it's a it's a great document and I would encourage the board to move forward and approve that extra expenditure because I think the district would get a lot of value for that thank you other public input I don't see any I do have one really quick I have to admit I'm still confused about how much money the district is actually going to have to come up for Jen you're saying that a big portion is covered but we're asking for what's the number and you don't know that what I'm wondering I didn't read the recommendation I don't recall it are you tonight approving a $75,000 contract or are you approving maximum $15,000 it's a little confusing the grant cover $60,000 we have $60,000 from the grant that will cover this particular hydrological assessment and that's a guarantee and that's guaranteed that part is already paid for and then we get to decide if we want to hire Nick to do it it will cost an extra up to $15,000 and it might be less and the motion tonight will be for the board to approve a maximum of $15,000 possibly less because you're still negotiating but it's not going to be to approve a proposal for $75,000 well we just don't have to pay for it we pay the $60,000 to pay for by the grant $15,000 by the district so the proposal then is accepting the proposal for $75,000 and the condition that $60,000 of it is covered by a grant because if it is not you're not approving $75,000 okay John it seems that we kind of look at it the wrong way we have this $330,000 and then we have a sum of money and it's already been spent because we've done capital improvement and we have capital improvements earmark already budget so we just need $15,000 I don't think we can get a better deal well then you pay for it we got $15,000 to spend $330,000 so we get this we get this grant money is really wonderful and the fact that we have the urban management plan which has been a long time coming is making it possible for the San Lorenzo Valley Water District to participate with the big guys and get the state's money because there's money you know I take advantage of every tax break I get I bought an electric car and they got a big tax break these grants are better than tax breaks so I would fully encourage the board to support the $15,000 that we need so that we can have the assessment done and get that finished and spend the grant money and free up information for us to use for decades this isn't just some flash in the pan this is long term knowledge it really helped form future capital expenditure plans so that we know what grants to apply for in the future so we have grants for actual construction things so once again encourage the board this is our time thank you other directors okay I'll close up public comment at this point other directors have any comment just to supplement I just want to reiterate everything I've ever seen that Nick Johnson has done has been really high quality and more important very useful to the district and I think in this particular project because of his sort of foundation of familiarity and his technical skills I don't know about the other people but I trust Dan to know the distinction between the two because I can't speak to Dan but I can't speak to Nick's qualifications and the quality of the work he's providing past projects it's a short timeline I know that he can meet that timeline and that the project is going to be high quality so I feel very confident that he will do an excellent job I thought this was really confusing on the agenda because I was under the impression that we were voting $50,000 I think we can do a better job to put it on the agenda so it's clear on exactly how the money and what we're voting on I found the staff's report perfectly clear and further I want to approval of a contract with the exponent where $60,000 is covered by the grant or the majority of the proposal is covered by the grant and up to $15,000 will be covered by the send-in I will second that motion any other director comments before we vote on this seeing none Holly would you call for a roll call vote on this Director Ratcliffe she said yes yes thank you Director Smallman said yes yes and we have one absent okay motion carries four in favor with one person absent so let's move on to the next item of new business which is the California Special District's Association call for nominations any staff really no staff information on this board's discretion staff does not have a recommendation board does not need to make a decision we're nominating someone else pardon we're nominating someone else I don't have the time for this at the moment so I'm not anybody wants to speak up welcome to okay with the public I'd like to comment on this item I don't see any we're back and I believe there's no action needed to be taken with it so let's move on to the next item on the agenda which is the Redwood Mountain so this is an item that we've funded many times I believe we might have somebody from the public who speak to us and their experience with us having participated in this in the past years it brings the community together and one of the things that has been very important to the State Committee and to the Values Club is that it be an environmental it not be an environmentally negative thing so all of the trash is gone everything recyclable is pulled out it's very carefully presented everything's on recyclable paper so I basically see the whole thing one of the most grimly things was we decided not to sell water in plastic bottles and that was a good $3,000 to $5,000 income that we decided to forego and that we would try to work out something else and at the time there was a connection to the Board and it was brought up to the Board that perhaps the Water District would like to provide the water for the fair so that we could provide free water so people wouldn't have to pay for a bottle so people wouldn't have to they could fill up their own cup or their own water bottle that they bring and the District was willing to do that as a public community service supporting a non-profit organization that has so far given away $300,000 to 20 to 22 local community service non-profit school groups as a direct benefit from the proceeds from the fair it's not just a party that we're putting on it's a fundraiser for all of these incredible organizations from Valley Churches United and Mount Community Resources to local preschools to the Boy Scouts to pick them out they're all being represented and they're all getting from the fair so it's very exciting and one of the big things is that free water if it's a hot weekend the people are drinking that water and they love it, they're drinking SLD water they're not drinking bottled water that's been packaged somewhere else and got all hot in the container and added all those wonderful chemicals to your water and your water is great water and you put it out there because you have the opportunity to have a demonstration or information available to the community because there's a booth and they can see it so it's a really good thing so grateful for it for the past eight years if possible to do it again this year we would be eternally grateful any questions I can thank you any other directors first any staff I think this is a tradition at this point I think it's a good place for us to have a contact point with the community if people have questions or want to know how to get in contact with the district it's a good place for us to have a booth there and it certainly sends out a worthwhile message that it's better to drink good tap water than it is to spend extra money cause the pollution problems with plastic problems I'll make a motion that we approve okay well okay let's take public input then I'll turn to you as soon as we're done here Mr. Fultz I think this is a great idea actually I think this is something that the district ought to do more of so there are other put on by non-profit community groups to our members that's her thing I think the district ought to be providing free water at all of those events because they're all great ways for the district to get its name out there for these non-profit community-based organizations I realize some of them don't all raise money like that about women's club does for very very worthy causes but it's still a great idea to do I think that this way we should be doing more including if there's any volunteers or equipment or anything like that that could be offered I think the district should do that for the other organizations as well it's a great way to continue advertising the SOV water district's presence in the valley thank you Mr. Debra Law I'm sure I'm not in line for this but in relation to last October because of a lot of public meetings before then there was questions on public funds and a lot of things were besides the education grants and sponsorship with regard to fair and various things and I believe to forward the district's attorneys and Nichols offered to write something that would explain how the district may distribute district funds to various non-profit organizations that hasn't been done as almost a year ago that this discussion first came up and since last October since you offered to do that I think that's still a really good idea this whole proposal is a little confusing to me and I'm not going to talk about the merits of whether it should be done or not I am a member of the Valley Women's Club I support a lot of the work they do but on the other hand the recommendation comes under a strategic plan to increase civic engagement last year they cited the strategic plan for forming strategic partnerships so it's a little confusing why we're doing it the other thing I'm concerned about is that the sport is improving $1500 every year I think for the past 8 years it's been the same amount and yet just the cost of bringing the generator often runs more than that so the district besides the equipment the labor I know it says there's no overtime but there is regular labor included in this I think it's important for the board to have a really good idea of how much money we really are promoting on this for civic engagement and it's important to me as a member of the public and I look to a lot of other ratepayers to have a really good idea of exactly how much we are putting into this project for instance you also donate money to the garden fair also for civic engagement and for environmental reasons but you could have checked to them for $2500 and I'm wondering if maybe it would just be cleaner to kind of check the Valley Women's Club for $1500 that way it's perfectly clear how much the district is putting into this and I also have a question on water at Rouran Camp I believe they must be a customer vessel they are not a customer vessel they don't have water on site that you could perhaps buy I'm just thinking is anyone looking at I know this is a tradition you've always done it the same way but again, that would be solved by just cutting a check and then for the attorney to answer the question the purpose of the Rouran Mountain Fair as Miss Macias is to gather money that's distributed to non-profits and is that a function of the water district? thank you I can answer one of your questions please then I just wanted to we would love to be able to use Rouran Camp water but they don't have enough their pipe system is really, really old so we aren't able to do so so that was a definitely something we approached them about and so I just wanted to let everybody know we haven't just come to the district you know it was a fact and the district does get public acknowledgement through our public so that's also a different topic just add it back thank you thank you, Mr. Fasalves Mr. Fasalves I have gone to these Rouran Mountain Fair over and over and over again because I helped work there and I've noticed a great response from the public because they have the water there and people are just they marvel at the fact that to buy a 20 liter bottle of water at a basketball game cost them $5 and yet they can bring their own cup repeatedly and fill it with felt and spine water the Santa Rosa Valley gets a lot of good kudos that way not only helping with the actual water but they're helping to build community now community is the backbone that makes the Santa Rosa Valley strong and stronger it's extremely valuable it's not something you could put a price on people who say nay or people say oh my not me are missing out on a great reward of community when I put myself out there for things I get so much from that it gives me I mean you know who knows I might suffer from depression but it wasn't for all the things that I try to do to help build community so I would surely encourage the Santa Rosa Valley Water District to keep thinking community and you know put the whole side out there and run that pipe the only thing that really worries me is that somehow people manage to drink the whole $500 gallon and sometimes late on Sunday when there's still some pretty thirsty people now I understand we can't just take it back and fill it up because it has to sell or something I think the molecules get all excited and then but it would be really nice if we could find a way to plan so that the end of Saturday we might be able to top off the tank or at least add a 100 gallon or so that being said I'm looking forward to another wonderful Redwood Mountain Fair it certainly is a lot of fun it's very exciting and anybody who hasn't gone you should make the effort to be there because it's not just about the music or the food or the crafts it's all about the Tony and the Santa Rosa Valley people and people come from far and wide and they see how nice it is up here and it's good for us thank you Mr. Lee I appreciate Mr. Lee it's a passion for the Redwood Mountain Fair I also agree, I think it's a good idea that we are donating water free water to the event this year I think it's a good idea and I still would like I think there is a legal question that's still lingering that we need to find out what the definition is in terms of how water districts or any special districts are actually donating and how far we can go and where the line is in terms of donating to a non-profit what the implications are you'd like to have some kind of legal opinion from our district council but I think generally it's going to be a good idea and I'm all for it thank you thank you any other public comment I don't see any would you I'd like to make a motion to approve the cost not to exceed $1,500 to provide drinking water and a generator to the Redwood Mountain Fair I would like to second but I'd also like to make a comment about the excellent display and the work that staff has done in the past four or five years I think it was great to have some of the district materials there and thank you to the staff I think it was Jen and I don't know but I think it's an excellent idea so I'll second that motion okay thank you then I'll call for this vote as a voice vote all those in favor aye any opposed hearing none the motion passes 4-0 with one absent thank you let's move on and the next item on the agenda is the integrated regional water management disadvantaged community involvement grant agreement so couldn't shorten that if I tried and I did try I apologize the district participated in a grant application that was initiated by the integrated regional water management agency and the primary purpose of the grant was for the grant is to assist disadvantaged communities the district has a state recognized disadvantaged community it lies in Boulder Creek it's roughly east of highway 9 and north of 2 bar road and one of the things that we can do to help that disadvantaged community is to ensure that it has adequate fire protection the way we do that or the way we start to do that is to determine what the pipeline sizes and storage sizes for fire protection will be the first step in that process is to actually develop a computer simulation model of our water system as it exists today to determine what flow rates are available for that area and then we can start to build out the system sizes to determine what the ultimate size of each pipeline and each storage tank will be because of the disadvantaged community's relatively small area the entire north zone benefits because water systems water is for the most part non compressible anytime you push water at one point you impact its water at the other point in the system so we actually have to model the whole system to make sure the disadvantaged community receives the most benefit and so we are going to get the benefit of having a water model for the entire north system through this grant this is a grant that is a non-mansion fund grant we are going to get roughly $70,000 to actually develop this model to hire the engineering firm to develop this model there is no mansion requirement on our part so there will be administrative requirements I will be doing administration for the districts engineering efforts on that part and the IRWM will be doing administration of the grant itself so fortunately I get the fund stuff I get to do all the computer work and they get to actually manage the contract its a win-win for me, I love it so staff is requesting that the board authorize me to execute the agreement for the management of a disadvantaged community grant in the tune of roughly $70,000 to develop a north boulder creek fire flow master plan including a computer simulation model of our water system up there this district desperately needs a computer-rise modeling computer system and good job Brian I think this is an excellent big start that we can get this moving forward so this is great its just extremely helpful for water systems to be able to its with any sort of business to get up to date with technology and use technology so that you can figure out what exactly you need, where, when so this is a great start just a quick question on how long it will take to have before we have the great unveiling of the computer-rise model that is a good question, I am hopeful we will have initial results sometime later this calendar year it would be nice if we could get results at the end of summer but I'm going to hedge my bets and say sometime in late fall my thoughts I think great that we got this grant I think it's going to be really useful and again something that looks like we've leveraged a grant opportunity to help a larger part of the whole district so I think it's a great opportunity right I guess I am intrigued by and pleased that this is useful for the entire north system because the north Boulder Creek area ties into the whole north system does this cover all of the modeling cost or how much of the modeling cost that the north system needs so my I have decades of experience in computer simulated modeling using a variety of software programs and the $70,000 based on my experience should be enough to cover the north Boulder Creek area or the north zone the north system that's very good and then in order to get the entire system modeled we'll need to do other things at the same time I'm probably looking at an additional $70,000 contract with a future engineering firm to add on to the existing model for the rest of the system okay thank you it's great to get half of our entire system modeled in this way paid for the cost of that modeling paid for in this way any public input on this item I don't oh did I see I just have a quick question Brian Lee said integrated regional water management agency but is this a private foundation or is it a group you know water agencies it's an integrated regional water management it's not an agency right go for it it's the regional water management foundation which is a the area of the community foundation of Santa Cruz County I'm actually on the regional water management foundation for a partnership of public agencies and the nonprofit community foundation it was set up when the integrated regional water management first came out and when Prop 50 funds were available the state only wanted to contract with one entity in a region so we set that up as the hub entity to receive and administer the funds and then distribute those funds out to the various partner agencies where do they get their support their support comes from the grant funds the administrative costs are built into the grant and then also the partner agencies all contribute an annual amount to the effort at an amount of about $80,000 a year and they do that via the community foundation the area of the community foundation any other public info Mr. Lee just a quick question what was the criteria for deciding the north zone versus any other zone in the SLBW the district what was the criteria the whole grant was set up for those disadvantaged communities our only disadvantaged community is in north zone so the way to benefit from that grant is to look at the disadvantaged community and model the north zone to supply water for the DAC okay so it's based on income and then other issues such as for the number of trees in the region or something it's a state criteria based on income average income in the area it's an income task is that part of it I do not know the details on how the CFR so it's based on the census data so if the census blocks and if the average median income is below a certain level then you're considered a disadvantaged community show up on the map of the state thank you but I here I'll close out public comment on this not seeing anybody else but anybody like to make a motion to authorize the execution of this agreement I'll make a motion to authorize okay disagreement okay to execute an agreement with the regional water management foundation as the subject matter of this memo says anybody want to make a second are you having a second with motion okay not seeing any other discussion and desire I'll call for this on a voice vote all those in favor say aye aye any opposed passes 4-0 okay so that closes out new business for tonight's agenda and we move on to unfinished business and that is the fish monitoring in the San Lorenzo river so I believe there has been some activity okay since the agenda came out there has been activities since early this year at least in January probably even earlier well there's been activity all along actually for months but after the January meeting staff regrouped with the various agencies that have been contributing to the fish monitoring program in the Santa Cruz area and we've been working to develop a game plan going forward in terms of the feedback that we've received from the community and regarding the biologists that are serving on this I'm going to call it a technical advisory committee but I know that others on the committee don't actually like to call it that to develop a plan moving forward so just recently since the publication of the agenda the agencies have coalesced around the idea of continuing the fish monitoring program for the 2018 year and as I understand the contract currently with Don Elliott extends to June 30 so we are looking to have a new contract starting July 1st and I'm looking at Sean and Jim for confirmation on that one so we still are in the process of developing what that monitoring program is going to be how it's going to be paid for to contribute to that and where it's going to go we're going to come back to the board at a future date with a proposal to seek more funds for the fish monitoring for the 2018 contract and we are also looking to further refine moving forward after the 2018 year because one of the concerns was that there's different monitoring methods and switching from one monitoring method to another monitoring method has the potential to disrupt the database continuity I believe we should probably do multiple years of double funding for getting comparable results from different variations of monitoring so that we can do a good cross analysis it's more expensive but I think the community has spoken and they've made it very clear this is a very vital component of the valley and this is what the community wants so I'm willing to go forward and try and develop a program and a plan that allows for us to work with the state and the feds and give them the information they need to grant us the permits and give us the rights and abilities and make sure that we can move forward on our efforts for not only the water that we receive from the ecosystem but also in supporting the fish and making sure that they are on an upward trajectory which is ultimately our goal instead of the downward trajectory they've been on for the past X number of decades unfortunately I'm going to pass it over to John and Jen and see if you guys have anything to add to that we don't have anything final yet which we did but we're still working through this but staff has been working with the other agencies for quite a long time now so I can covers it okay you brought this to the agenda so well anyway my understanding and director Bruce for at the January 23rd meeting we discussed you know this is after presentation with the board that she would consider developing a cost because she's been all along proposing this database website etc work for the fish monitoring and she also elected to say that to stop the fish sampling for 218 so she could somehow get this work done so Mr. Lou Ferris came up or made the suggestion that can we get an estimated cost for this work and I'd like to ask when is that cost proposal going to come I'm concerned that that we still don't have some sort of cost proposal and we also don't have a sort of definition actually my opinion is this should have been done before the you know canceling Mr. Ali's contract should have all been looked into beforehand so I mean I would like to know when exactly is Miss Kittleson going to come forward with the proposal and definition for this database website first off the decision to evaluate the data was a joint effort it wasn't just a decision by Kristen I was working with the overall committee we do have an estimate of what the cost to do that evaluation of the data and where we go forward that's about $51,000 it's still it's a ballpark estimate we haven't fully scoped it out yet we're still getting the data into the system to see what shape it's all in how the data can be related to each other and that sort of thing so it is a work in progress that's ongoing and we'll be working back with the committee on that as the information comes out and I'd like to follow up on that and I also believe that all the boards considered by stakeholders need to have that $51,000 in consideration for this extra work and to vote basically on this because it's a expenditure it's a change of the way that your money is being spent for this fish monitoring so that all the various boards should be informed that they should plan actually finalize out but when you do that that information should be distributed to all the boards and those boards in turn should vote whether they accept the increased cost whether they want to do which it sounds like that most boards do want to continue the fish sampling for 2018 and all the issues involved with that issue I haven't met anybody quite frankly that does not want this to continue and actually it just seemed it did not make any sense to me not to take data for 2018 at all because you can take that data take that data and just because you can't enter it just because you don't have this fancy base whip thing whatever you can have that data and you can enter in at a later date anyway I think we should follow procedures with this and that all the boards get that information of the increased cost and that all the boards should vote on it and those those votes should be weighted since we're San Lorenzo Valley district water districts 30% we would count for 3 votes and all the other boards 50% would go towards the thing so the public's boss we're just directors so we take your input but at the end of the day it's your money so we need to hear from you so that we vote and correct that thing but I just felt that we were kind of making decisions on this without public involvement we were going to we were going to cancel the contract with Don Allian without your involvement so I'm just I you know I believe that we should we need to bring this out to the public public meetings vote on it if you want if you want to pay the extra 51,000 or whatever for this website or whatever then you know that we do so thank you okay can I but thank you we'll definitely take lots there'll be plenty of oral comments I appreciate your offering one just take a bit more of board discussion and then I'll open it up and hear from everybody anybody I just want to say I appreciated John's comment about the recommendation that came from staff came from this group I understand their concern about their priorities being different because they have a longer range approach and that it was a financial decision in part and clearly that the public and including our rate payers and apparently those of their agencies so he'll speak among them have expressed interest in this and I agree I think people are willing to you know support the extra cost it's a very good idea we're coming into the budget season it seems like this is the kind of thing based on passengers expenditures then it's the kind of thing the staff can probably ballpark and get into the budget planning process but I also respect professional staff recommendation I think you know the overall situation and if the additional expenditure is supported by our rate payers I think it's a good idea but I also you know I understand their desire staff's desire to improve the entire structure of the system in the database I think that's also very valid I would echo some of my colleagues comments on understanding that staff's recommendation or staff's desire is to have a clear and simple path forward and appreciating that we are adding to staff's burden I also want to acknowledge that I think it's important that we continue the monitoring expand the monitoring as appropriate for covering both the database and the fish monitor I also wanted to mention that of some ex-party conversations I had a correspondence with a gentleman Brian Ashley who spoke very eloquently about his desire to see this continued and I just wanted to disclose to the board and the community that there was this correspondence with a person of who had considerable interest in this topic I agree with that we always okay that came to the board and Mr. Ashley did make a very eloquent case for this and so have others in the public regarding this matter I do feel the continuity of data is important I'm especially intrigued by the idea of doing it in two different ways for at least one year in order to look at a way of perhaps changing it and seeing if if that was a more standard data collection technique for other agencies whether we would have continuity of data across from the past into the future I appreciate that idea and I do appreciate staff taking our inputs as a board and the inputs of our communities into account working on the way of accommodating community desires and expanding the scope of the work that some people need to be doing hopefully with the funding that supports that to a large degree and makes it not too ominous to do so so unless other members of the board would like to comment again I'll take this to the public at this point would anybody like to comment on this the woman who I get cut off come the second time if you wish to my name is Bruce actually I'm the owner I'd like to commend the working group for their insight in deciding to continue the product of 2018 I think it's a piece of information in a long string of information that tells us what the fish populations have done and I the only other thing I'd like to say to those of you that are here is that going forward the resources that Don has developed over the years are valuable to the new efforts whatever they happen to be whether it's evaluating the new protocol or developing some new resources or developing some new personnel whatever that evolution looks like I think Don's critical and his advice is going to be critical and his cooperation is going to be critical and so whatever animosities and intentions have built up through the process and over the years I'd hope that everybody here could work together and come up with good plans that utilize all the resources going forward and for next year I would think that it's at this stage it's going to be difficult to find any solution that doesn't involve Don Thank you Anybody else Kevin I have some idea of what these variables are I mean these various types of sampling or part of the fishing game apparently has a preference for what they, I think they'll ratify random in other words it's a statistical variability issue where you have to go first get to survey the entire strain system and then toss dice pick your sampling spots etc etc etc and then go back and actually do the sampling it costs way more this district will be shocked to find out what it costs the city of Santa Cruz tried it and stopped because it was so expensive and now they're not participating in the current sampling the Soquel water district agreed to continue I think it would be foolish not to have this incredibly long consistent sampling record I think it would have been interrupted because the county is busy trying to invent a statistical analysis database which I think is a good idea great I mean it's one thing to have reams of Excel files it's another to be able to cross-reference information out of it you can't do that with a file of paper that's what computer software is about but at the same time you have a separate issue of whether you're going to continue sampling while it's going off and I don't know if the county I don't understand much about what they're up to but these are two separate things you can decide to finally count what the county perceived with its development of this and all of its own but you could also regardless of that continue this uniquely long consistent record which includes habitat conditions temperature all sorts of factors that are in place now and it would be I think a mistake not to continue it through this season Soquel, which is the second most important sizable watershed in the county they just want to continue so to not continue that through this year would be a mistake or the other issue of participation in the county's project is a separate issue and I think once everybody realizes what this other form of sampling is going to cost and the way it will disrupt the continuity of data information in fact that they aren't cross-reconstant that's a whole separate thing that somebody's going to have untangled it's not going to be easy but it's very simple to simply continue the record through this season which is what I'm talking about thank you thank you Hi, I'm Mark Lee I have to really agree with the old technique the more methodical slower method for doing the sampling and the creek has benefit the data that's been collected historically is very important it may be slower, it may be a little bit more expensive but you're letting the database derive the data there should be a way of integrating the databases if we know databases a lot of us do so I think for the results I think it would be a good portion if we break off the sampling techniques that we've been used to gathering and I think we should maintain that relationship take the data that's gathered plus the baseline integrate it with the dis-encounting model and make the tweaks and necessary program arrangements to actually have that data running alongside and I think that's all I could say I think we should continue Don's efforts thank you I have a different hat on I'm chair of the environmental committee for the San Francisco Valley which is a project of the Valley Municipal and I'm absolutely thrilled at what you were working for and working toward the new database is going to be remarkable we'll be able to go online and see maps and things will pop up and you'll be able to get data about where the fish are and what they're doing and how many there were the potential is enormous just for the public and the community to be able to understand and also to guide the extraordinary decision making process that every single water district and the county and everyone else has to go through in whether it comes whether it needs to restore a particular spot in the creek because it's so important or whether it needs to can you build a bridge here or is it a bad idea all those decisions will be much easier to be made so that data system is extraordinarily important and I'll tell you how strong it is I hope that everybody in this room and everybody on the board will continue supporting that and the system by which it came bringing various agencies together to work together the resulting we just saw having an extraordinary money come to the district to solve some really major problems and to make it better for the district as well as for the fish this is huge because you're doing remarkable work I'm very grateful for that and the fact that you are throwing back in the mix the added burden of keeping the monitoring going for 2018 is really significant we strongly support that that's what started this was the worry or the concern that by losing that year you're losing the stream the connected data that would make a difference over a period of five years several years in the past and several years in the future so thank you for the effort and for what you're doing and again let's make sure it happens in 2019 making that transition thinking about that ahead of time thank you for coming together on that I appreciate it thank you other public input I don't know why it makes me nervous to come up here but I just it helps with our recording so that we can have good results I just wanted to ask them to help mitigate the cost we've been using them right now alright that does help and yeah someone was speaking to the tune of when you were talking about what was it X factor or X exponent how you know what good work he does he's not worked for you guys for 20 plus years he's really valuable he's full of information and I just I can't stress enough what a good loyal and don't want me to say that but he really is such an environmental steward within the county and he lives in this watershed and he really cares for the fish like more than anyone I've ever met he's also working with when and when to up in the Shasta trying to help them bring fish back and bring Chinook back to the watershed he's just such a he's really an amazing environmental steward and can't say enough good stuff about him thank you thank you well we're done now the reason I came out is to hear what Brian had to say I happened to be in the rest room when you said it could you mind repeating what you said so that I don't have to get it here safe from someone else I'll let you finish your comments and I will repeat myself I'm not sure what you said it sounds like the county is going to administer the sampling this year no No. So I need to hear from you. All right. So let's hit a pause on the clock then, if we could. And the agencies that have been funding the program, we've just recently all committed to sale, okay, let's do the fish monitoring for 2018. Let's get a contract together, starting before July 1st. That's about as far as we've progressed. So now we're working at the details. Who's gonna monitor it? How are we gonna coordinate this amongst the agencies? We're excluding the county. So it's the agencies working together now. The county's gonna be focusing on the database. They're gonna be focusing on doing that work. So this is external to the county's efforts. And so because we are kind of a hydra, or a headless hydra, I don't think that actually says, but we're trying to figure out who's gonna take the lead, who's gonna actually administer the contract, and what the contract's gonna be. So we have a little bit of time to figure that out before we come back to the various boards and see if they're approval. And also, I mean, the city of Santa Cruz is actually contributing to this one too as well. So we've actually added partners to the coalition. They've been funding you for quite a while. But I mean, we're all working at it now together. So hopefully it'll come out relatively soon, but I'm gonna head to my bed as soon as soon as. But we know we're working up against the June 30th deadline. So you're gonna try to have one contract? We don't know. Soquel has said we'll unilaterally do this. I was originally thinking we would unilaterally do something. All the agencies have been talking together. And it's like, okay, we're all gonna do it. Let's see if we can't get some economy to scale. And that's where we are right now. I had one question about the city of Watsonville, of Coral-Liz, Warshed, are they required to do monitoring in 2018 because of their water versions, you know? I don't know what their requirements are. That was the one thing I didn't know about. They may have had to do it anyway, whether others did or not. Yeah, I'm not sure what their requirements are. All right, well, good. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Any other public comment? I don't see a hand up. So I'll close out the public comment on this back to any other discussion? My only question was to just answer it. What was the timeframe for a proposal? And I think I heard Brian say soon, which means before June. Yes. Yeah, I do too. Thank you all for doing this and trying to work out a solution to this. Yeah, my question is that when does it sampling typically to Dawn, when do you typically start sampling? We started looking at habitat in August. And then we started sampling usually the last week in August and go through September and early October. Okay, so if it gets decided before June, it wouldn't impact the pack. You would be available at that time. You could be available. Okay, if you were, okay, a participant in it, which, anyway, the June time frame is not problematic for this process. No, on every some years when the county has run into problems and I started doing the work before they actually had the contract, before they had it approved by the county supervisors. That's not a problem. We're gonna be concerned about not getting paid. Okay. I don't hear that we need to take action this evening. We'll look forward to, okay, coming back soon. Okay. I mean, soon to a theater near you. Okay. Thank you. There is no other unfinished business on tonight's agenda. We have two items on the consent agenda, minutes from one board meeting and a license to discharge well water into hands in quarry. Would any director want to? I would leave a verbal of the two consent agenda items. Okay. Before I do so, I'd like to take public input on whether any member of the public would like to comment or request that a director remove, pull something from the consent agenda. I don't see public comment on this. So I'll second the motion. Oh, you didn't? Okay. So we have a motion and a second. Any inclination not to improve the consent agenda? Since I see none from the directors, I'll call for that on the voice vote. All those approving the consent agenda, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. So, okay. And thank you everybody. Some people who came for our last item, I appreciate people coming this evening. Good night for those who have left and anybody who does so in the near future. We have district reports at this time. I'll open this up to the board district. Either way, I mean I can take some, get the action that people know what to do. But don't let me forget about that. Okay. So, district reports. So I'm gonna start with the administration engineering department status report. This will also be an opportunity for you to comment on the operations report if you have any questions regarding that. But the main thing I wanna focus on is the district has been moving rapidly over the last year. The last three years on a capital improvement program. We've been building it, we've been developing it and I'm happy to say that everybody in the valley needs to get their hard hats because this valley is gonna be under construction really soon. I did a quick list of items that are going on right now for this year's worth of work and I came up with immediately 16 items. We just released a request for qualifications into the wild this week for as needed engineering services to begin development of plans and specifications for the projects that we've included in the USTA package. Those projects are listed on page 104 of the board packet and we are looking to hire those engineering firms. Hopefully I can bring a proposal to hire three firms back to the board relatively soon so that we can get these engineering firms on board to start developing those plans for this middle end of the USTA package they'll work in coordination with WSC. We also are going to be releasing a request for proposals for the North Boulder Creek Fireflow Master plan which we recently discussed this evening. We have already have a contract with WSC for a USTA bid package for $5 million worth of capital improvement programs projects. Those are going to be in development for next year's CIP work but we are gonna be doing design work on those. Next year in the following two years hopefully. We have one, two, three, four FEMA projects that we're currently working on in pre-designer design phases, Lion Tank Access Road, Highway 9 in Brookdale, Two Bar Road, Shady Lane Water Main. Those are all FEMA projects based on last year's winter storm that we are currently an active designer or pre-designer on. We have also design work occurring on the Felton Heights Tank Replacement. That is part of the USTA package but we are moving forward on some of that design work or pre-design work right now. We have the Pasa Temple Well 6 rehab and Pasa Temple Well 7 replacement projects. Those are actually out to bid on the street right now or will soon be out to bid to get contractors bidding on those projects. We have the Fall Creek Fish Lighter Debris Removal. That project has almost been designed. We've got just a little bit more work to do on that one. We are going to be bidding that project this April or May for a July 1st start date. We have environmental restrictions on when we can actually get into the Fall Creek area for debris removal. That is actually also a FEMA project and that is to remove a lot of the damage and fix a lot of the damage that was done to the Fall Creek Fish Lighter area and intake during last year's storms. We are going to be getting a PRV standard for the district. WSCF contracted with them to prepare a standard pressure regulating valve replacement and also working with RIC and operations to develop a standard for lateral replacements. We are going to get that package together, combine it, and we are going to issue a bid package for two PRVs and we're hoping 60 laterals in the Long Pico Zone for the assessment district. That is going to be a contract that I'd like to get out maybe in May, starting construction in May. Ideally they would finish through the June and if they're doing a good job we would like to consider extending that contract out for next year's budget to do another two PRVs and maybe another 60 laterals so we can get that ball rolling in that regard. We have the Swim Tank which is bid ready to go. That is part of the USDA package as soon as we get authorization from USDA that we'll get funding for that we are going to be hopefully bidding that one again. That probably will be bid next year. And we also have the Blue Tank project which the Blue Tank had structural issues with it and the board authorizes to replace that tank. We are hoping to have that tank constructed this year this fiscal year before July 1st. So we'll have that tank replaced as well. And I saved the best for last, probation tank. That is a Albatross, a dead Albatross that this district has been dealing with for any number of years. I am happy to report that the plans and specifications for the replacement of that tank went on to the street this week. We are going to be looking at bid opening in April and we are hopefully going to probably have a special meeting sometime soon with the board to have a recommendation to award that contract to a contractor to begin construction of the probation tank starting this fiscal year. We have met the goal and we are gonna get it done. In addition, staff has ordered and the polytanks have been delivered for the probation tank because that tank is so critical to the district that we need to have water storage there. We have temporary tanks on site that will be installed and set up in the next few weeks which means we are going to decommission the probation redwood tank in preparation for demolition in hopefully by April, the probation redwood tank will no longer exist. So we are moving forward. We are under construction and I'm very proud of this board and the effort it's gone through over the last three years to get us to this point. Pipes, pumps and tanks, we're jamming. Let everyone else worry about other things. That's what we're focused on. I'm done. Wow, let me, I'll take public input on each of them. Okay. Okay, go ahead. Do you have any sense of what the bidding environment is like? We really got hammered last year on this one tank. Is it any better this year or have you not got a sense of that? It is better. It's not, it's a bidder's environment, not a buyer's environment. In terms of the contractors are very busy. We've done a number of things on the probation tank bid package that we did not, we're not able to do on the swim tank. Timing is one thing. Getting ready and starting construction in the spring is a lot better than starting construction in the fall, especially with the rainy conditions and the seasons that you don't know about. We've also extended the construction schedule for the probation tank, giving them more months to get the project completed. We have reached out to a number of contractors and a couple of them came back and said that they would love the bid on the project, but they're too busy and they aren't sure they could meet it in the timeline we were originally thinking. So let's add a few weeks. I'd rather have good money bid and give them a little, a few more weeks to get the project done and see what happens there. So we're trying to make it as competitive and as bidder friendly as possible. Shall we say? Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Hearing, not seeing any other hands up from the board. Let me go to the public. Mr. Fasoulis. Thank you so much. Mr. Fasoulis, you felt me. Hey, I'm concerned about the wood from the probation team. I was going to ask. And I got to find that wood is very valuable. And if one of your contractors takes it, then they should compensate you for it, where you should find a buyer for it on the open market because that wood is very valuable. Jack on there. Okay, that's my comment. It's a, right, it's a. Okay. And so here's how I'm, my mind processes that concern because redwood is very valuable. That's deep heart redwood. It is a little bit on the probation tank. It's probably not as valuable as other tanks around here given its condition, but the contractors have to give us the lowest responsible bid. And so if there is any value in that tank that they could take to reduce our bid cost, they're going to do it because they need to be the lowest dollar. I just want you to make sure that they are. Yeah. You know, getting that considerate. Yeah, they are, they are businessmen. They are looking to make sure they get the bid. And the only way, if selling the redwood helps them lower their costs to us, they're going to be doing that. Okay. Or build the boss's deck. You can build a nice deck up there around the new tank. All right, we'll take it. Okay. Okay, thank you. Anybody else want to talk? Sorry. I seldom agree with that person from Felton. Little bud. We toured down one of our old tanks and we got money for that beat up redwood. So he's right. You want to make sure you're getting some value out of that redwood. I mean, I don't know how bad your probation tank is, but our tank must have been 100 years old. And probably not as big. And we got about $5,000 for it. Thank you. Anybody else? I don't see other comments. It's a unique object. It'll be an end of an era when it goes away. Anyway, okay, any other comments? Just one correction. The first one that the meetings have noted was actually the finance committee rather than the admin committee. Oh, I got it right on the second, on the Bair Creek Estates one, but you're right. Meeting to note was a budget and finance committee meeting, not an admin committee. And I, correct. Okay. So by department, finances next. Any intro? It's our standard, very complete. Something like 33, okay, pages. It's in the packet. I encourage everyone to review it. I'll ask first, if the directors have any comments on it. Any member of the public want to comment on anything in the finance report? I don't see any. Move on to environmental reports. Again, would you like to comment on anything in them? Or no need to, I just indicate the opportunity. Okay. We've heard a lot today. Okay, very well. Any director's questions or? Anybody from the public want to comment on the environmental status report? I don't see any. Thank you. That closes out department status reports. The rest are committee reports. All operations there, the operations report is here. I don't see Rick here tonight, so. Rick got a pass, I think. Okay. Celebrating his 42nd year anniversary with the district today. I don't have any questions about this. Any, the public want to comment on the operations report? I don't see any. Exactly. Good reading. So, move on to the rest of the district reports. Committee reports. First item in this is future committee agenda items. Anybody want to suggest perhaps for other committees or anything that they address anything? I don't see any. With the public eye to comment on future committee agenda items, I see none. So, committee meeting notes and minutes. All the minutes are in here. I don't have anything. I wish to add to budget and finance. Anybody else? Anybody in the, okay, public want to comment on committee meeting notes? Just one really quick thing. I just want to say thank you to the public for getting the recordings embedded in the net so that once all that starts getting posted on the website and helpful that per of the records requests will go down dramatically. Because people can just go to the particular agenda item they're interested in and click on it and listen to it. So, thank you very much for doing that. It's a great event. Thank you. Any other public comment on the committee meeting notes and minutes? Seeing none, director's reports. I just, I had one other, I guess you might want to call this X part of communication. And this is directed in part in response to Mr. Poson's area of interest. Wearing the hat for my day job, I had a meeting with the executive director of the Monterey Day Community Power agency. So, our community choice aggregation entity. No. And one of the items, well, first off, and folks should probably know that the community choice aggregation was launched effective March 1st. Being one of their industrial contracts, the Water District is now effectively one of their customers as of the beginning, the first tranche of their customers. And in addition to other conversations, I also let him know of my relationship with the Water District and open the door to future conversations about exploring whether there were opportunities for locating renewable energy generation sites on the Water District or in any case, having an open dialogue with district staff, the district board at some future time when they've got their lights under them and the doors open just to let them know we're interested in hearing what we can do to support their efforts and what they can do to support ours to become a zero carbon Water District in the future. So, jump, the door is open now. Nice, thanks. Thank you. Chuck, do you want to say anything about GSA? Well, the GSA is at the position that we've solicited statements of qualifications from firms on two categories of items. One was on facilitation and the other was on updating the groundwater model. The facilitation, there was no decision made on accepting a firm for facilitation and those will, three firms will be coming in for interviews towards the end of April. And then hopefully from those interviews there'll be a choice on that matter. Regarding the groundwater modeling, there were four firms that responded to the statements of qualifications and one of those did not do a particularly good job and that went a bit down to three and of the three one was exponent who was discussed tonight. One was Hydro Focus who has worked with various firms in the valley. I can't remember them all but recently with Scott's Valley to a significant extent and with doing some of the work on getting the basin boundaries set up for the Santa Margarita basin and then another one from, I believe from Davis, Hydro Focus but anyway, an out of area firm. So the choice was to make Hydro Focus had a very good statements of qualifications and the choice was made to go with Hydro Focus and it's very likely that Scott's Valley will utilize Hydro Metrics for evaluation of the product that comes from Hydro Focus and that we will do likewise with exponent. So this is a good, I think this is a good selection and it also benefits, I believe, the GSA in the sense that we get another firm familiar with the basin and as we've heard tonight it's good to have lots of firms that have a lot of local experience. So in addition to having Hydro Metrics and having exponent have the local experience, Hydro Focus will also be moving in that direction. And for the Budget and Finance Committee meeting, we're moving into the season for evaluating, looking at the budget. There's also a special meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee meeting at Bear Creek Estates in which I think it was a very productive one but one of the topics coming to the Budget and Finance Committee meeting in the near future will be looking at how the sort of overhead allocation costs that Bear Creek Estates, what is the right share for them to be contributing to the rest of the, to their enterprise funds, to their section of the enterprise funds. So that will be on the agenda and might be other ones I could probably be talking to Stephanie in the near future about whether anything else would be coming on the agenda. So any other comments from any other comments from the public on any agenda items or committee items for that matter? And I see none. So, oh, I do see one person. I just have a very simple question. Are you going to introduce us to the gallants between Stephanie and Holly? Do we want, does she want to do it? She's an employee of the district. She's, Holly's going to be gone for the next meeting and so she's getting cross-trained so that she'll be able to do the reports for the next meeting. Okay. Just in one if Nori will. Yes, her name's Chelsea. She's in the front office. Thank you Barbara. Okay, we'll move on from the director reports. Our friend from the district reports and move on to written communications and just note we have three email communications in one letter in written communications. Thank you for, if you're here tonight for having submitted those and there's six items in informational materials. So, this concludes our business tonight and at 9.05 in the evening. Oh. I'm sorry, I'm about to do this. I was so gross when people were talking before they, you know, on other subjects, really spaced out. I planned on urging everyone to attend the State of the San Lorenzo, not State of the San Lorenzo, the status of the San Lorenzo, where we're supposed in this Saturday that felt that, as I had a fire call, the speakers are going to be remarkable and it's a broad range of topics about the health of the San Lorenzo Center and it starts at 10 and it ends at around one and then there will be a hike to even in the rain, I think, to go out and look at the Olympia. So, it'll be a real eye-opening experience for anybody who gets a chance to go. Thank you. I'm sorry. Okay, so, at 9.06 in the evening, I'll adjourn this meeting of the San Lorenzo Valley Water District Board. Thank you for coming.