 meeting thank you all for being here and so I'm president Henry it looks like we don't have any attendees in the meeting yet so we might just gonna see if there was any there we do are there some coming in now would you like me to call the roll yeah please do president Henry here director Moran director falls here director Ferris we've got let's see we've got five people five members of the public so at this time I'm going to ask if any of you want to make a comment about something that is not on the agenda you may have five minutes to speak you only get to speak one time at this point and then when we get to the agenda you get to talk again but only one time last meeting we did things a little differently because it was kind of a very different meeting but normally during the meeting you only get to talk once on each item on the agenda so I'm going to try to make sure that we don't say oh okay go ahead but I might if it gets down to it so all right any comments from the met people in the public from the public you put your hand up or no comments from the public now okay seeing none we'll go ahead and mr. Rogers are there any additions or deletions okay so unfinished business the first item is the CZU wildfire damage assessment report and I'll turn that over to you Rick Rogers to talk about it thank you sure Henry yes the director of operations for title James for title will present this damage assessment report the current damage assessment report for the wildfire yeah so as you see this is the weekly report from Sandus on the fire damage and repair and placement things are moving along pretty smoothly we're trying to wind down the projects at this time as we're trying to onboard an engineering manager right now we're trying to finish up the foreman line and the five mile line that goes to the pressure brake box at the foreman diversion that trail it's coming along pretty good we're about halfway through with the eight inch pipe that's going in now the 12 inch pipe coming down for the form and intake to the lion treatment plant is complete and has been flushed and we are just waiting on a fitting to be able to start running water through our treatment plant and start filling the lion tank getting ready for VOC testing of that tank the big steel piping all between the lion tank little lion tank and big steel reservoir and the big steel booster is in place it's all been disinfected and cleared to go online we are using it to now pump up to the temporary tanks that are at the little lion site we cannot use it to pump up to the big lion tank yet we are waiting on a check valve there and once we get that check valve installed we'll build pump water up through big steel booster as well to help fill that three million gallon tank we will be filling that tank and stages and pulling samples and stages that way if we do end up with VOC contamination we don't have to dump the whole three million gallons we're going to start for a quarter tank and take a sample and if we have VOC hits at that time that's when we'll pull out we'll drain the tank and we'll go into putting specs together for recoding of that tank other than that we are like I said we're close to wrapping up the temporary and the emergency work and then we will be going into the big projects which will be the f-work for FEMA and that all will have to go to design and then be bid out for construction if anybody has any questions here to answer okay thank you James questions from the board like you just quick quickly add that one of the first items the board will be seeing is an assessment of types of material and discussion on replacement of the raw water supply lines I know the board is very anxious to discuss different types of construction methods and materials that will be one of the first studies that will bring to the board thank you director folks you have your hand up yes thank you James just thanks very much for that just a couple of questions I thought at one point in time we were pretty sure that the the tanks needed coding before being refilled are we confident now that the we didn't get any VOC contamination or are we doing this as a precaution I don't I'm not sure I understand why we why we didn't move forward so the little lion tank yes has been confirmed that it was VOC we never filled that tank that one has confirmed we approve the spec or put an RFP together right now to get that take coated inside the bigger lion tank did not get as much damage and it was pressure washed and cleaned with scaffolding and everything in there and that takes seem to have come out pretty clean so now we have to be able to get water into it do a stagnation time in order to see if there's actual VOC's contamination in that tank and then so we have to prove that there's VOC's before we can go and get a spec together to be able to recode that tank okay great thank you for that one other question ultimately how many trees did we take down around our lion facility and are we done with taking trees down so in the lion and base facility we roughly took out 400 450 trees right now PG and he is going through and marking trees and taking trees out on there and so we're kind of pulling off on marking anymore trees on our side we have had our certified arborist up there and at this time we have no trees marked come out we do have access roads and other places on the watershed that Carly is working with one of our consultants at this time to go through and identify any trees that need to be removed and we have tree cutters and tree contractors that have reached out and we're working with them to have them do the work as needed on any other trees that need to be removed so i mean bottom line is we do expect there's going to need to be a lot a lot sounds like a potentially a lot more trees to come out in order to get back to a safe situation yeah at that site i think we're pretty close to done but watershed wide no we're not yeah okay great thank you any other board member have a okay director moran yeah uh so maybe James or Carly how are the trees being removed so here's my example that i have is there was a hillside across from where i live that was thinned out a few years ago and to remove those trees they had to take them up on a hoist and avoid dragging them over the landscape so i don't know if we're dealing with hillsides like that but how are the trees being removed to avoid any environmental damage well at the big steel on lion's side that was very fire damaged and all the ground there was pretty tore up and burned out as it was and with removal of the damaged pipes and facilities and everything there was a lot of equipment that went in there and everything so at that site we removed them with uh logs skid and that site's all been cleaned up erosion control has been put in place pipelines are in place it's all buttoned up now for the rest of the watershed on the roads and things like that we're not going to be going far from the roads and so they'll either be grappled from the road and brought out or there's also a lot of them will be laid and left in place and then limbed up okay thank you okay any other questions from a member of the board seeing none i will go to public at this time if you have any questions so beth thomas you have your hand up thank you um i i had a couple of questions about this the tree removal that's to be evaluated and done on the road areas uh is what's the criteria for that does it have to do with fire damage or does it have to do with another aspect of the use of the roads and um is car i don't you know James and carly probably both of you have information about this but what is the criteria being used uh for the damage that that will be done by the removal of the trees the big things i the arborist is looking at is fire damage to the trees no trees that don't have fire damage will be removed one of the big things is the fire damage trees that are on the outboard edge of the roads are deemed to be caused big problems if they end up falling and uprooting into the roadway and taking out the whole roadway so the whole thing is to mitigate the road not being damaged and drop those trees now that have the potential of falling and tearing up the road and fall them now so that the root ball stays where it's at and still has the structure of keeping the road in place um but like i said no trees any tree that is severely damaged by fire will be the only trees that would be removed great thank you any other members of the public who have a question seeing let's see there's one phone call listener do you phone call person do you have a question don't see any so i'm i'm going to move on to the next item on the agenda of unfinished business item b uh conjunctive use plan for sequa and environmental permits so mr rogers i'm going to turn this over to you yes item four b is our conjunctive use plan sequa and environmental permitting uh consultant uh selection and we have our environmental planner carly uh lansherd here to present this item to the board okay thank you rick so in 2017 we received a grant through the wildlife conservation board to develop a conjunctive use plan the conjunctive use plan will identify options for increasing stream base flow for fish and increased reliability of surface and groundwater supplies for the district through conjunctive management of its water supplies the plan's being written in two parts part one addresses proposed near-term conjunctive use related changes in district operations such as use of the emergency intertie and non-emergency water transfers um part two of the plan is a longer term planning component that considers potential development of additional water source such as the existing allotment of the lock loman reservoir that the district has um similar to the plan the conjunct or the sequel analysis will also be done in two parts a part one will be completed as a project level sequel analysis and part two will undergo a programmatic level or planning level decision um sequel analysis the conjunctive use plan at this point is 90 complete and pending the direction of the associated environmental permitting and also some water rights in november 2020 the district released a request for proposals to select a consultant to complete the initial study and seek with documentation required to implement the conjunctive use plan the district received three proposals one from rincon consultants emc planning and denise stuffy and associates the county district staff and the district's consulting fisheries ecologists reviewed and scored each proposal rincon consultants was received the highest score and is being recommended as the consultant to complete the conjunctive use plan sequel and environmental permitting this portion of the project will be fully supported and funded by the wildlife conservation board grant received and the cost is approximately 77 000 all funded by that grant it is recommended that the board of directors review the memo and authorize the district manager to enter into a professional service agreement with rincon consultants for the conjunctive use plan sequel environmental permitting i'm prepared to answer any questions that the board of public may have any members any board members do you have questions director faults thank you um carly thanks very much for that overview i had a few questions about this just to make sure that i'm understanding this correctly one of the elements that would come out of this analysis would be the potential ability for the sand runs by water district to manage its water sources as a unified whole and be able to use the water as appropriate wherever we wanted to inside of the entire system right that's about right so really that portion comes down to the emergency enter ties and being able to use those in non-emergencies and then as well as you know taking advantage of the allotment we have at lock loman and being able to use that within our system so it's just giving us more options to move water around and also take advantage of some other sources that we do have and then potentially use excess flows to either move to other portions of the district or even potentially to sell to scott's value right it basically allows us to manage water sources as we would within any other kind of resource that we have without any restrictions at that point um except potentially for one which i'll get to in a minute um in terms of the water resources though the immediate resources that could be used would come out of fall creek um and the curvy plan the lock loman water would need a significantly higher treatment in order for it to be used and of course interconnected into our system correct right I think you know we should consider the lock loman kind of a more future project it's just our treatment plan at this point doesn't have the capacity to treat that water um so that's a big that'll be a large cost as well but that is that is being considered and that'll be kind of reviewed and analyzed in the sequel analysis the Santa Cruz water department has been um I believe the word is perfecting their water rights um in our area um one of the impacts of this entire water situation are the flow requirements in fall creek as well as downstream from falls creek um I think everybody I've talked to in the county and even at Santa Cruz water and ourselves have indicated to me that the requirements no one really knows how they were set and they seem to be extreme requirements that is not necessarily ones that um would be reasonable and in many cases we're simply not able to meet them at certain times of the year thereby violating our water permit frequently and sometimes every year um is this process going to address that and are we working with the Santa Cruz water department to clean all of this up they get their water rights perfected we get some relief uh on our water permit and uh and without impacting the environment anyway right so part of this grant does have a budget for water rights so we are working with our water rights attorney right now to figure out that portion um the analysis will also consider that but we'll have to work to get the information from our attorney first and then we'll we'll be able to bring that into this analysis as well okay but but there are funds available to there are right and um who is who are the um in terms of the bidders I assume they all put in bid numbers it was a sealed bid and that um who is the low cost bid the lowest cost was actually rincon and um and emc I think we're both very close to each other I think within five thousand dollars and so in this case the the the one that was the lowest cost in your opinion also has the best capability and presented the best proposal right that's always it's a happy occasion when that when that occurs for sure great thank you very much your work on this is unbelievably strategic to the district it is one of the key things will allow us I think to unlock a lot of potential that we have inside of our district and so getting this done as rapidly as possible is really really important so thanks very much for working with me to two part of this part of the grant or did you want to say something Rick yeah just real quick part part of this uh um conjunctive use will uh we're moving towards to allow the district to possibly take more water in the winter time and then bring back some of that water for streamed fisheries there there is a fishery element uh to these uh to these proposals uh and it's got a very doable potential to where we should be able to use more water on the off peak times and the off critical times for steelhead and and fishery but then bring it back in the summertime when when for everybody it sounds yeah it's a win-win and it and there is a an element to improve water and streams for fishers perfect that's really important love it okay uh Rick Moran you yes uh this probably is for Carly so Carly I'm trying to understand this grant process so um you're going to have some work in this uh working out the details of this as well your time is involved today does that grant include your time it did initially um but unfortunately we we ended up going outside of some of the budget so we're actually we claim some of the staff time in the beginning but for the future for the next few months in the end of this this grant we won't be claiming our staff time um just so we can keep the money enough for our consultants to finish their work all right and one other question is kind of a silly question but when we fought this CZU fire there were helicopters taking water out of Lachloman constantly do you think we used our finally we used our allotment from the Lachloman to uh help the San Lorenzo Valley Water District that yeah it wouldn't I don't think it would count towards our water right but but I guess it it could potentially be considered that it was part of our water any other board member have anything to say okay uh I will go to the public for comments if anybody has a comment seeing none we do have okay Beth Thomas Beth hi sorry am I I couldn't unmute um I had a quick question that I believe is maybe related to this from a meeting quite a while ago um and it was talking about the former Felton water uh the contract that we have with them and and the issue of uh language in their contract that prevents water from being moved out and I'm curious as to how that impacts this and what we plan to do about it right so part of that the grant funding that's working on the water rights will be addressing that um so our water rights attorney is looking into that right now and working with our fisheries biologists and everyone else that's involved with the project so hopefully we'll have something to report back to the board once we go a little further into the water right analysis portion of the grant okay thank you anybody else in the public who wishes to speak we have one person on the phone um all right um so Carly um what we need to do here is is authorize our district manager to enter into a surface agreement service not surface sorry uh with ren con so we need somebody to make a motion to that effect so any oh okay uh rick moran so as i'm reading this here um i'll make a motion that we authorize the district manager to enter into a professional service agreement with the ring con consultants ink for the conjunctive use plan sequa and environmental permitting all seconded okay bob seconded we have a motion and a second so holly and lois i have one quick question um is jeena nickles our uh water rights attorney as well no okay great all right so uh holly you want to call the question here yes please uh president henry yes rick moran yes bob faults yes lou ferris hi motion passes thank you everyone um so um we're going to move on here to new business uh and that is uh item a under new business business which is installation of water service line um a water service and that's for the markley property so uh rick brogers do you want to comment on the item five a is a long service line agreement for apm 089 the dash 431 dash 28 uh it's a long service line agreement with uh kimberley and steve mark markley uh this is a parcel uh located off of the roston ridge area off of bair creek road uh earlier in this year uh the board approved the very similar long service line agreement uh for an apn very close to this actually one of their neighbors uh the markley's came in and also expressed uh uh interest in connecting to the district staff review indicates that the district has no water distribution facilities at the location of the markley's home and with no plans uh for them to be extended up into those areas um and staff recommends that uh the district enter into a long service line agreement which requires the markley's or a long service line agreement requires to install cross connection control uh obtain an easement crossing the parcel um a legal uh easement recorded to the property um and with that uh this is uh the district has several of these many of these long service line agreements uh and approve several uh each year the uh roston ridge area uh there is a meter bank for several homes in that same neighborhood all fed by a six inch main um and so it is recommended uh that uh the board approve the long service line agreement and i'll answer questions okay any questions from the board director folks just thank thanks rick this may be a question for gene rather than you since it has to do with uh the contract language itself you know with these contracts it's really important anytime we're doing business with our community it's really important to me that we it was pretty clear and and fair um and there was a term in here i wasn't sure i understood it's in section two in the second paragraph it's uh talks about the termite agreement shall be from the date this agreement is made and enter into until all covenants of this agreement are completed and accepted by the district what covenants are those that need to be fulfilled in order for the agreement to be met okay well um so this is this is jena and uh i and i'll be honest i did not write this this agreement um i knew that yeah so um you know the point language of the agreement says until all covenants are completed so i would consider that to include everything under um districts obligations and applicants obligations well so i think the thing that confuses me is that this also appears to have a maximum time of eight years on it for the agreement to be effective so it basically contemplates the applicant doing everything within five years which means that somehow they would have to fulfill all of their covenants whatever those covenants are within five years and then there is an extension period that is not to exceed three years so the maximum time this can be in effect would be eight years as written i'm not this is why i'm confused by this because there are some clauses in here that make it sound like they're intended to be in perpetuity or at least longer than eight years and i i i i'm a little confused here because it seems like we have a conflict between the plain language of the term which would be a maximum of eight years and only if we extend it in writing we could certainly refuse to do so uh and it would end at the end of five years um and some of the clauses that are further back in the agreement how how do we resolve that potential conflict well i guess i could say you know i don't see that issue as um necessarily fatal to the extent that the district believes that these um obligations would be expected to be completed in the designated amount of time and also um uh you know at some point it may be acceptable for the district to be treated essentially like any other customer of the district and so it may not be significant that you know there's a limitation on the effectiveness of this um but i think you raise good point and um i i mean that this agreement could easily be adjusted to i mean it's written it's written in a way that it looks like it's intended to be recorded and to run with the land even though it doesn't say that expressly so you know it could easily be an agreement intended to run with the land in perpetuity um but it's not written though yes it right it's it's certainly not that you're right you're right it's that's not the way it's written right now well rick wants to say something can we let him say something about this and see what right well just i just have one comment rick before you start i mean it's very important that the district add customers when it can um so we definitely want to do that but we want to make sure we're doing it in a way that there isn't confusing to our customer you know i can kind of tell you what the intent is about the expiration and so forth a lot of these parcels are difficult parcels to build on and take a considerable amount of permitting time with the county of santa cruz and one of the first requirements they need to do with the county is show a well-served letter a proof of water service and that's what that that date is and sometimes that they can't get a building permit within that time frame we will give an extension but the district doesn't like having these agreements out there uh they get you know they get lost as time goes on and then someone will come in and want service and maybe 10 years 20 years down the road from now we may not be able supply service in that area or there may be you know so we do like them to have a sunset until they're installed and you know the less they're installed we supply water and perpetuity so to speak okay so i understand that right yeah you know enough about the development process and santa cruz county being um so easy to do um that uh it sometimes can take years and we certainly it almost seems to me like this agreement has two parts the first part is some level of sunset around your ability to get installed and the second part is a sort of a easement or an easement restriction that would be recorded against the property and perpetuity for example um things like sections 11 12 um and i think there's also a not participate in the leak adjustment in here somewhere um six and and so that is um that that's sort of that's where i see this this conflict it's just it's not working well the way that it is and given that this agreement was written by us not by the customer if there is an ambiguity typically you know if there's a dispute it's it's gonna go against the writer of the agreement not so i i guess what i'm looking for here is you know we this had come up before i think in terms of addressing some of the conflicts that we see um i'd like to really take an action item to get this cleaned up um i do think we want to do more of these and hopefully many more of these because we need more customers um but i i'd like to get that ambiguity cleared up so that the things that we want to have there in perpetuity or that we think are reasonable to have in perpetuity are and the things that are really need to be limited relative to your right to develop are clearly spelled out as well is that something that we could do for the next round of news yes i i i believe so i'll refer to council is this a heavy lift that would need to go to committee or something jena that you think that you and i could uh relatively quickly turn it around and get it back to the to the full board before the next uh long service line customer uh comes in yeah i think this could be turned around pretty quickly it would help um if there are other comments on the form to kind of air them i i just i just have one other comment and that's proposing an amendment to this agreement which would strike section 11 um from the agreement i i'm uncomfortable with the notion of particularly around development of activities of stripping people of their rights to participate in a process that might lead to financial impacts to themselves further down the road i understand the um the the reason for why the district may have put this in but it strikes me a lot is sort of what the county had instituted about 30 years ago where if you wanted a significant building permit you weren't required to give them an easement across your property for a trail system that they wanted to put in place it's sort of a um it's not a good look for the district i i don't think to be the the stripping people their rights on that um so i would like to propose that we amend this agreement right now to remove section 11 and that that would also be removed from any future revisions we might do well um i think my recommendation if there is a desire to amend these agreements that are in front of the board today um i would suggest depending on what rick and the board think that the cleanest way to do that might be to just reject these and have us get them re-signed and bring them back in a couple of weeks for approval um and the reason i say that is that these agreements are just sort of written in this funny way where they're peed up as if they're going to be recorded against the property and then they've already been signed and um frankly uh i'm not sure creating another you know agreement to be recorded against the property is the cleanest way of dealing with that issue are we recording these against the property because there is a uh a long service line agreement and an easement involved i do believe we are okay well um any member other uh board members who have a comment here okay uh seeing none hearing none i'll go to the attendees uh tina hi um my question is for jenna it's like my understanding is there several of these agreements that are very similar already in place is that correct can anyone hear me yeah we hear you i don't know where it happened to jenna but i can answer that for you yes we have many of these out over the years in the distribution system so i guess my question is um to mr falts uh why would you want to make i mean that this already exists this has been going on for many years i i don't understand why you would want to object to just simply passing it and going forward with um the existing agreements as they are i'll respond to that i want to talk about that well so that yeah that's my question is it just seems like a pretty straightforward thing to do and um you know to go forward with with uh the agreement says they've been you know before and i i understand you have some concerns but this this should be a very straightforward matter in my opinion okay thank you i'll go back to the board later on um for right now our is that all you wanted to say tina yes lois thank you okay thank you tina how about any other member of the public any of you have something you want to say they do not see any so i'm going to go to the board and director falts i think you're muted what the wrong button um yeah tina it's a fair question and since you're going to be joining the board in a couple days um i think it's worthwhile to to have a brief um conversation about that and we may have it again uh in the future um you know i recognize the importance of continuity and uh doing things uh in the same fashion but there are times when what is being done isn't necessarily the right thing to do and before i was sitting on the board i really had no ability to um try to to work to correct this and to do what i think is not right it's the same thing that happened with the county you weren't probably here in the county at the time but the county basically made a condition of getting a building permit granting them an easement and you know that's just not right um and eventually enough people saw that is not right it started with just a couple people complaining about it but eventually enough people saw that was not right but the county stopped doing that because i think ultimately they recognized it was not a great look for the county and i think the same thing here with limiting in fact prohibiting uh a member of our community one of our neighbors from participating in the process it's going to directly affect them um it's just not a good look for the district and i don't think it's right and fair whether or not we take action on that today or not is is one question but i think the concept of board members discussing things like this at a policy level um the policy being maximum participation of our community in matters affecting them directly not to mention affecting the district i think is a worthwhile policy discussion to have and i would be very disappointed if we were to not have that kind of conversation simply because we're in the mode of well it's been done that way for many many years so why change anything um you know change is sometimes difficult but change is required in order to continue making our district the best that it can be the most responsive to our community that it can be uh and presenting the best possible look we can while still protecting the essential um interests of the district the district is in no way going to be affected by striking section 11 from that someone participating in that um and participating in a in a valid way uh in a straightforward way not behind the scenes to me is the essence of what democracy is all about and you know you shouldn't have to give up your right to do that just to get water service from from our district it just it's not a good it just doesn't feel right so anyway we'll continue the conversation i'm sure uh going forward mr rogers do you have anything you want to say no i i i will say though just as a comment that this agreement is probably three uh three or four managers ago and three and three or four legal councils the agreement has been around for a while and and maybe just a fresh look in general um of that agreement i think is probably a good idea on any and all of our agreements um but this you know this agreement's been around for probably 25 30 years or better and it's been punched up and piecemealed you know as time goes on by by different managers so it probably would not hurt to you know review the have legal counsel review the entire agreement just like we would do with you know just about every time a new one agreement comes up we do with the you know do you have any thoughts on that uh i i would like to say something too uh i i'm all for looking at this but i'm certainly not for changing it tonight i i don't think we can we know enough to make a change tonight so it's going to have to go to g9 and and be talked about again as far as i'm concerned so bob you want to say something yes thank you and i understand your position boas and and um and the reasoning behind it um i guess my question for those that think this shouldn't be changed is why would you be comfortable with stripping your neighbor of uh their ability to participate in a community uh topic like extension of water lines um i think that's the essence of at least around section 11 um i think it's a question that we should all wrestle with with our consciences uh perhaps not tonight okay do any of the other board members have something to say okay um so i'm assuming we're going to move on to the next item which is virtually the same kind of a we do need to vote is the board going to approve this agreement i think we need to vote in motion uh to approve the uh long service line agreement or not to one of the other okay direction we're not going to approve it tonight okay i i just thought we weren't doing it tonight so okay um is is there a motion to approve or disprove this tonight and just for clarification there's two resolutions um in the packet uh resolution number eight 2021 and not 2021 that if approved would effectively approve the agreements yeah yeah there's motions i i don't see anybody agreeing to anything at the moment so what to do so if we can't if we can't get a motion to uh to to approve the resolution then i would take this back you know the mark Lee's have been working on this for quite some time um i don't want them to think that the district is not going to work with them on on supplying water um if it was just removing section was it 11 bob yeah i mean i think there's still the question about term and all that but but my number one objective would be to eliminate section 11 Gina do you have any comments it would be the best way to do that you could just strike out section 11 and have well it's designed to be recorded in recording offices sometimes don't like that kind of thing um right right i uh you know the easy i guess the simple way to do it but less clean would be to just eliminate that provision and then take it back you know have both parties resign it and bring it back to the board um i think that begs the question whether it's worth cleaning up a few of the other you know quick fixes as well in terms of making it clear you know what obligations survive etc right and we'll plus the next item we have four or at three additional long service land agreements coming on item b right uh so obviously i guess if we don't approve 5a i doubt we'll approve 5b so we'll take when we get to that item we'll take that back as well then okay so you want me to go to b so is that the direction to take it back and just remove that section then bring it back to the board for approval is that what i'm hearing i'd like to have clear direction but may i say something yes so i just wanted to say that um a lot of these couples have been working for on this for a long time and i know that um they were very anxious they come in and sign papers on several different occasions and they were could they be consulted before you decide to redo everything or from my perspective they're going to get water service it's just a question as to how unfavorable or neutral the agreement is for them have have they all read the agreement yes so they've already read the agreement and they're fine with it is that that's what you're saying yes so could the rest of the board weigh in here please do that okay rake moran so um i think i'm what i'm hearing here is you know bob has some uh i think good suggestions about the wording of this um and if it needs to go back to jena and rick to uh kind of clean that up um still i believe i heard bob said there's no intent to prevent these people from getting their uh water so nobody's trying to stop them from doing that and uh that should be communicated to them but we want to have the most up to date cleanest agreed upon um agreement that we can get and that requires a little updating uh right now that that's what i'm hearing all right and i i agree with that i don't think i think rick and jena said it wouldn't take that long from the to clean that up so you know it's that in january they still have their agreement and they can go ahead and uh with the county and what they need to do there that's me thank you does anybody think i should go back to the public as we've continued to talk about this i i'm going to i'm going to go back to the public okay beth thank you um you know i it sounds to me like i've heard uh rick rogers an agreement with the concerns that uh director false has and that the intent of the action as well as jena nickles and it seems that the intent of the removal of uh 11 is to actually benefit the uh the couples who are looking to have you know this water line issue contractually resolved i can't imagine that it would be disadvantageous to them and so it seems to me also in the spirit of you know that several uh operations directors ago or district managers ago and uh changes in legal language that it only makes sense to make sure that what our legal documents are reflect what we really need them to reflect so i think the marquis would like that to pause removed because what that is the intent of that is where some of these long service lines are sooner or later the district may go in on an assessment district with many homes and bring water service bring main lines fire hydrants buy their homes and then hook them up to that and that clause uh requires them to pay their fair share of that assessment district so to the to the homeowner that has this clause it would be very beneficial to them not to have that in there and they would not have to pay their fair share of the assessment because you know uh there lies the problem with it uh so Cynthia you you have your hand can you hear me now yes so my that was one of my questions was that what was the original intent of that easement if it's not so that you can go in and service that line but rather so that you can charge people an additional fee that makes a difference uh i was wondering whether you could handle this in the special meeting this month rather than waiting till january i'm wondering whether holly's concern is not passing these um approving these contracts this month might be a disadvantage for some of these people that's all thank you and other public members okay uh rick do you want to answer sythias you know i think i did it's you know a lot of these long service line agreement services are at the end of water mains and sometimes sooner or later like it was when we did the assessment district and extended water service from riverside grove out highway nine to center on the wood center on the park there was a home at the end of the line that had a long service line agreement and was required to pay as part of the assessment district but i will say they petitioned the board and the board removed them from having to pay for that assessment um so and you know my time we've only had one of these come back to the board and you know the board waived it had director ferris yes thank you lois a question for jenna and a question for rick jenna as i look at that agreement or those agreements the homeowners have already signed so have they not already executed the agreement on their end and are simply waiting for us to execute on our end yes okay then our record that question for you rick do you believe the expectation from the homeowners is that they're going to get a signed agreement after tonight yes so you believe that they will be um in discontent if they don't disappointed you know i i think director faults his comments that he doesn't like the language and the change of the language is beneficial to the customer i think they'll understand that it's just they'll be a little disappointed that you know there's the long process of trying to build has a lot of setbacks and this is just a minor one i understand the need to change this agreement and i agree with bob on that regard but we since we have hundreds of these agreements out there already is signing four more really going to put it in that much of a problematic position as opposed to getting these people moving forward on getting their water connected that's really a question to the board thank you lou um i bob has his hand up again and maybe you'll want to make a motion at some point blue bob yeah it's a fair question and it's always a question well when do you when do you cut off something that isn't isn't great um we had this conversation about a year ago on a long line and you know here we are again so you know i have no expectation that this will actually get addressed if we pass this because it didn't get addressed last time unfortunately that was probably due to the fact the board didn't give specific direction at the time um um i i rick help me out with the assessment district issue so if someone goes into an assessment district um there's a vote at that right of the of the people that are involved correct and and isn't that have to be at least the super majority both i'll refer to jena well that that depends on exactly what is being done um a majority is sufficient for a lot of thing but but then everybody that's in the assessment district has to pay for the uh assessment district whether they have this clause or not if it's been approved it depends on how the assessment district's written if it's uh a summer written if they are receiving direct water service just because they're parcel like north boulder creek there was a lot of parcels that weren't part of the assessment it was uh only the parcels we supplied water to and fountains the same way it's only the the assessment is charged per water connection well i i i think so i don't think people should have to pay twice for water connections the question is whether they're paying for the infrastructure to supply water to them um and so i think this is another ambiguity where if i read this document here it's really not clear what it means by the the one line it's almost the throwaway line so if there are certain circumstances that we think are different from a to b we ought to be very clear about that as well um you know i could certainly uh leave in the last sentence as a compromise and take everything else out which uh are you on section 11 bomb it's still left still section 11 basically this section 11 breaks into two parts one is a stripping them of their rights to participate in the process and even oppose the process the second part is their requirement to pay for whatever is happening there if they're gonna pay for it they at least ought to be able to participate it should be one or the other if you don't participate you don't have to pay if you participate and you should have to pay um if if it gets passed so as a compromise we could leave the last sentence and just change the word is to there since i think we have a pronoun issue there applicants shall execute documents as may be required to contribute their assessed share of the cost of the capital improvements and or you know does that need a new agreement well um i think it does because i don't think we can just cross out and record it um we're going to need to have a clean version for everybody to resign um in order to be able to record it it doesn't appear that this is moving forward i'm not sure should we call and have a motion and the motion dies it goes back to council and the manager and we redo the agreement yeah we'll just say ahead okay um so because we're not we're not we're not moving this forward and on and it would be good on that uh lou ferris did you want to make a um well it's not a motion it's a it's a resolution i i actually posed a question because um i i could go either way here and so i i would rather let somebody else make a motion and then and then move on i i i could go either way i could sign i my initial inclinations let's just go ahead and sign the agreements because i think the optics from the homeowner is they're not going to understand that we're trying to protect them they're just going to know that it's going to take more time and more putting in additional signatures to get what they want but having said that you know we are trying to think of the homeowner so uh again i could i'm on the fence i could go either way okay so do i have anybody here who wants to make a resolution on so would we do a resolution to reject this make a real motion to approve it and it let it go down that's one way of doing it not unless you have a recommendation should we just kick it back to staff and we'll bring it back i i think that the cleanest thing to do would be to have a motion to if the board is willing to to pass the motion like this to reject the agreements as written and send them back to staff for further review and re-execution and the reason that i suggest that is because um you know anybody who signs a contract with a public agency should be aware that it's got to be properly authorized and in this case it's got to be authorized by the board um but it would be good to have a clear record that you know even though these agreements are not signed that they were uh you know they're ineffective because they weren't properly authorized so we would actually do a motion not a resolution yeah no resolution just a motion to to reject agreement um and authorized uh staff to make modifications and re-signed so lois yeah i'll make that motion to reject this agreement and it would be great if we could do this for the next one as well but i understand if we can only do one at a time right to reject this agreement and authorize staff to send this uh agreement back for modification yes and it could be to all of the uh long service line agreements in the board packet to all the long line service agreements in the packet how about that oh second then who seconded but director false okay all right uh holly we need to call the question please sorry president henry yes director moran yes director false yes director ferris motion passes okay so i i don't believe there's a need to discuss item five b as this motion was to reject that agreement right uh jina that's correct yeah that we can go straight onto five c yeah the radio towel okay thank you uh yes uh this next item five c is a request from the boulder creek recreation district kbzz and this is a tongue twister for me radio lease agreement it's recommended that the board of directors review this memo and adopt the attached resolution entering into a lease agreement between the boulder creek recreation district kbzz radio and the district that house radio transmitter and affordances at the district nina radio facility identified as santa cruz county apm assessor's parcel number 090 194-16 located at 1080 rebecca drive in boulder creek the district maintains a two-way radio facility our nina facility located up at 1080 rebecca drive in boulder creek uh because of its location an elevation uh approximately 1200 of feet above sea level this location provides for excellent radio coverage in the santa ronzo valley and a farm the district has also entered into lease agreements with the county of santa cruz emergency services which is fire radio and county public works fire radio and sheriff uh and public works and uh the santa ronzo valley unified school district for the school buses maintenance communications and emergency communications between the different schools over the past few years and it's been several years now probably more like four or five the district has been working with the boulder creek recreation and park district to put together an agreement to place a transmitter on a district parcel to improve the radio station's coverage in the entire santa ronzo valley specifically in the felton area the first selected site we looked at was the property uh that the district owns off middleton drive in boulder creek the huckleberry tank site uh that's off of bare creek road as part of the consideration process the district reached out to the residents of that area and attended a road association meeting explaining the project the neighborhood responded with concerns of fire danger increased traffic the fear of a huge cellular tower being installed after review the neighborhood opposed the project and an alternate site at nina tanks was evaluated the nina radio facility provides an existing building a radio tower of it's approximately 30 foot tall not a large tower uh standby power internet drops and fencing it basically is already made site uh they could move in tomorrow once approved uh the kvcz story which i took right from their website uh as in 2012 the fcc license became available for an nce non-commercial educational fm license for 90.1 fm covering all the boulder creek and surrounding areas a group of the santa ronzo valley community members began to discuss plans to support the recreation district in purchasing the license the community community members had several meetings and were excited to begin broadcasting on june 6 2013 the recreation district board of directors voted to move forward with plans to obtain the station the public voted or voiced strong support for the project and the radio station kbcz boulder creek community radio uh at 90.1 fm was born local residents begin to arrive uh at the at the radio station's doorstep wanting to get involved the radio station is a non-political non-religious and is managed by part-time staff staffers that oversees the fantastic group of dedicated dj's and volunteers and is under the management of the district manager of the recreation the bullet creek recreation district the radio station currently has over 30 local dj's producing 100 original shows currently about 90 of the programs are conducted live in the downtown studio which is i do believe located right next to the pizza place in downtown boulder creek uh programming currently is focused on music uh talk shows interview shows uh live evening drive time show that is on monday through friday 4 p.m to 6 p.m and the news round up monday through thursday at 12 30 p.m the station is looking to work with residents to create talk shows that discuss a range of subjects like cooking good health practices cars hobbies and other topics of interest to the community programs for children and teens are also being sought as well once the covid crisis is over they are planning uh to once again begin training new dj's after a year of steadily building infrastructure and pre-programming some original shows in a small room above a coffee shop in boulder creek the radio station then moved to a small room nicknamed the closet at the boulder creek recreational center uh the station uh and then once uh i'm going to kind of fast forward to the cz uh u fire uh and this again was from their their station's website the station manager closed down the live studio in downtown boulder creek and then began broadcasting from her home in felton using the radio station remote broadcasting equipment hundreds of local listeners logged on to the radio station and tuned in to 90.1 fm for info on how to evacuate the town when cal fire sent the message boulder creek and surrounding communities including brook dale should evacuate now it seemed unbelievable but the radio station began reporting on it and continued as downtown boulder creek was suddenly in danger to being destroyed by the uh encroaching fire although uh all through the night residents were leaving boulder creek via highway nine to serratoga on san er uh orange or santa cruz the radio station stayed on the air with them reassuring all evacuees that traffic was slow but steadily and not to panic and to exit the san lorenzo valley safely as neighbors and friends and brisk pictureson likes to point out that that evacuation of the san lorenzo valley resulted in zero accidents or injuries uh quite proud of that the next day the radio station set up remote broadcasting equipment at the steel bonnet brewery in scott's valley began broadcasting the many live updates press releases and additional evacuation notices that were still pouring in at the end of the day two the city of scott's valley was then evacuated when when all the san lorenzo valley residents and parts of santa cruz have been evacuated radio station staff began an emergency regular broadcast schedule from their evacuated locations watsonville santa cruz and seaside the proposed lease agreement provides for a three-year term for the use of the district building and tenant tower electricity which is very minimal uh and property uh the lease agreement provides for rent of $300 per year to cover the costs associated with the use of district facilities the lease requires insurance determination clauses and several other conditions it should be attached in your agenda the district has been inter interviewed several times uh and has found this has been a great way to get local interest uh in regards to the water district and the senate margarita groundwater agency out to the community kbzz has shown to be an asset during emergencies and staff sees great potential in working with the radio station in the future staff recommends that the board of directors review this now and adopt the attached resolution entering into a lease agreement between the boulder creek recreation district abcz radio and the district to house radio transmitter and inferences at the district's nina radio facility located in boulder creek and with that i do believe there's several members uh in our audience from the boulder creek recreational district that may want to address the board or answer some of your questions and without i'll turn it back over to you chair okay one quick question gina uh if this resolution is passed it should be number eight right because we didn't do eight and nine that's right that's a good catch okay all right so um what does the board want me to go to the public and let them speak first before you speak or no any any idea about that i think that'd be a great idea okay bob thinks it's a great idea how rick and lou you agree nod your heads i'm nodding my head yes okay okay thank you so i'm going to go right to our public members and okay tina are you part of that that group tina davie um yes i am okay are we okay go ahead um can you hear me okay yes we can oh excellent hello everyone good job there uh rick on your announcing there we're gonna give you a job soon um well we're very excited to hopefully uh you know enter into this agreement together with the bc rpd that a boulder creek uh recreation of parks district and us kbcz radio um boulder creek recreation of parks owns the license and we think it would be a great um a great thing to have our antenna up at the nina site like rick was saying the height is perfect for us currently our antenna is at the wreck and it our signal bumps into buildings and trees and terrain so if we get our antenna up on that tower that you have already there uh that will help blanket our uh signal the way our license intends um what else can i tell you about it there's little or no interference or no rf interference radio frequency interference up there and there's something called a um where is it here uh the hat which is the height above average terrain measurement is zero because you already have your your uh tower there and um the engineering staff from the fcc has reviewed the site for interference and informed us that our engineering study for the uh tower is fully compliant um the any radiation that uh exists coming from our small transmitter uh would be about the average what a kitchen kitchen microwave uh kicks out um our transmitting wattage would be only 115 watts uh in comparison k a z u for example is 3400 watts k s c o down in santa cruise is 10 000 watts we're 115 so pretty nice and small um and uh and that's it and and and a nutshell hey thank you how about any other boulder creek recreation and park district k b c z radio people who would like to speak uh hailey see can you guys hear me yeah but you gotta take your finger out of your mouth that's good okay that's good um well thanks for considering this we have come to your board a number of years ago as rick said i think this project may have started uh six to eight years ago originally um as you guys know these things do take some time and we were actually grateful for some of what has happened in between now and then um our station is growing and expanding and we're you know this location as tina mentioned is perfect for that expansion um and you know as we found with evacuations and any kind of emergency um information um that was you know a big portion of what the radio station started off um introducing but it also you know any community messages or any kind of partnership with your district i think in getting out information and all that is also a great partnership for us um a big goal of ours is to be you know not so much rec rec related most of what we do with the radio station is community organized through other organizations and non profits and so this would be a great addition um and kind of something that you guys you know are welcome to utilize in ways that help your district as well and um yeah we're looking forward to moving you know moving this along and actually finally getting something up like i said it seems like it's been a a long time coming but um we're excited to see if if we can move it forward thank you any thank you anybody else in the public who would like to comment on that radio station park rec or just plain old a member of the public uh Cynthia will it reach felton will their broadcasting reach felton uh i don't i don't know the answer to that rick rogers well yeah that was specifically their their goal and i don't see for them they're they're here but specifically their goal was to get into felton and uh we and i think they did their testing and it it was very successful i mean tina do you want to address that wrong tina lois wrong tina yeah i know tina davie he's talking you got me now yeah can you hear me okay uh yeah the signal will reach into felton and also parts of scott's valley and long pico and possibly even down to paradise park and uh quite north of boulder creek as well so it's it's really encompasses the entire san lorenzo valley there which is our dream really i mean we we really want to get the full san lorenzo valley we've been boulder creek community radio but we really want to encompass the entire valley all right any other member of the public who would like to address this issue i see uh i i don't see anybody sorry if i miss you so i will go to the board right now okay director folds yes thanks i i actually wanted to pose a couple of questions to howly if i may regarding the this process and and the opportunity i think it's a fantastic thing for uh the district and the rec department to partner in this i we were extensive users of the rec district back when my daughter was younger and and uh has a special place in all of our hearts so it'd be really great to be able to get this going i was curious how long did it take you to work through the FCC process um to get approval to be able to to go up onto the nina terrace area uh and maybe that's a question for tina whoever can answer it yeah well i let's see i have to go back there uh hailey and tina both have their hands up so who wants to talk hailey hailey you're muted still muted there yeah hailey you're muted okay maybe i'll go to tina davie okay tina yep that's me yeah so we it took us about six months initially uh we had to go back with a few variations that we had on on the measurements but pretty much we're approved now and we're approved for that location um so we actually just heard from them uh yesterday on on this particular site so yeah we're ready to roll thank you i know sometimes it can take a while to get get through them i assume that k sld is no longer available that's right i love that we looked for that but yeah we can't and you know they give you a certain amount of call letters that you can pick and choose from and i figured that was the case yeah well we did look great um rick i had a couple questions for you regarding the um you know uh bob tina tina davie has her hand up to answer what you were saying can i go back to her oh i um she she did already was six months for the FCC process no that was okay i thought hailey had her hand back up no she doesn't okay all right so next question i had was for for rick rick regards the um initial term and renewal term sections two one and two two can you provide a little bit of the context around how we reach these numbers it looks like the maximum term that we would be entering into an agreement is five years or excuse me eight years and it looks like the district could um basically modify the agreement at the end of three years in however it wished to am i reading that right i i believe you are you know the intent was and this was you know the original agreement was written for huckleberry woods where we had a lot of neighborhood concern and you know they wanted to be able to you know if this didn't work out for their neighborhoods with traffic or something in huckleberry woods they wanted a short first uh uh lease agreement to be a short term so we could clean things up and we pretty much took that same lease and changed things around you know removed uh the building clauses and and the different things that went with that site but the the initial lease was purposely designed to be short term just so we could make sure everything was working out and then on that renewal we could we were planning on talking about a much longer term lease but but it is it is your view that at the end of three years we could modify the agreement in any way we wish and that the maximum term of this would be eight years at the end of eight years they need to find a new location well i don't know about finding a new location just renew the lease and i don't refer to council on that as well well but there's there's no um there's no sort of successive term renewals here it's just one renewal that's that's all that's allowed um and that's at the option of course the tenant is the intent that it would be successive renewals every five years i think so yes that would be our intent and i would ask council if that's the way she reads it obviously that yeah yeah so that that's not in the agreement though at the end of the assuming it gets renewed by the the tenant with the district's consent after three years it would terminate after at the end of the the five-year term so at the end of eight years unless some sort of an extension gets agreed to and those kinds of things can can be common i mean if the agreement is working out for both parties it could be a really short extension that simply you know extends the term of the existing agreement or it could be an opportunity to renegotiate depending on what the parties want to do but something would have to be done um at the end of the eight years Gina on the clause that says on terms and conditions approved in writing by the district does that mean that the district has the ability to unilaterally modify the agreement and present it to the district to the rec district for the renewal yeah that's right and um you know i in my view those kinds of provisions can be really useful in a situation where you know there are unknowns in terms of how the lease will play out over time but you're absolutely right at the end of three years the district could um you know hand a new set of terms and conditions to the rec district and ask them to find that if they want to continue with the lease okay and then on section 11.3 this looks to be a pretty common termination for convenience um if i read this correctly am i right that the district could in fact terminate this lease for any or no reason by simply giving six months notice yes that's right so boy you know given that it took six months for the rec district to work through the FCC engineering on a site that's pretty primo that already has radio on it you know my concern here is that a lot of these clauses seem to be really designed uh sort of leaning toward the district in terms of flexibility of being able to change things and you know my concern is that once kbcz expands its footprint from effectively boulder creek to the entire slv they're setting market expectations about their service that i'm not sure this agreement is supporting um because of the nature of the fact that it could be terminated at any time at our convenience and it could be that the terms of the lease are um could be changed significantly you know i think we all know that nobody sitting on this board no one sitting in this management team would ever do such a thing but things change new boards come in they have new policies new district managers come in and they have a different view towards things and the thing that i would really like us to be able to move to here with the rec district is more certainty in their ability to operate without having this sort of constant potential threat hanging over them that every two years potentially or when there's a new district manager they have to worry about whether they're not they're going to be you know kicked out and within six months have to try to identify a new location to provide the same coverage because again they've expanded their market focus uh negotiate a new lease execute on a new lease it permits from the county to build since it probably won't be a uh a primo site like ours um work with the FCC on transferring it get all those approvals in six months i i think at that point they're off the air um and and so i'm i'm i'm concerned that we were we're putting in place something that's really great i want to do this so badly you can't imagine how bad but i'm concerned that we executed as is we're not necessarily doing the rec district any favors when it comes to what they need which is certainty in their operations down the road now the rec district may not care and i certainly would be interested in hearing uh from them but um i care because i want to make sure that we're doing something that doesn't result on you know unintended consequence uh you know four years down the road we have a new district manager and they go and we're just going to cancel this um yeah so anyway that's that's my comment for right now well i'd like to play devil's advocate here if i could what if um somebody controlling the radio uh decided that they didn't like the district and that they didn't like the direction they were going and they were sending out things to uh the public and and criticizing the district and where's our guarantee terminate for terminate cause what you you would have if that is a concern you would have it's not really a major concern but you seem to be worried we're going to shut them off maybe and two years or years well lowest this is an asymmetrical relationship right now we have basically all the authority and power and they they need us and they're a small community organization here this is the exact kind of partnerships that we need to be doing as a district if we're concerned about them possibly doing something that would trash our reputation you can write into contracts things that say there will be no uh disparagement and that can be the basis of termination for cause but um that's not in here right now so it it doesn't appear that it was a concern um i i i think the asymmetrical relationship we have here is is what we really need to be focusing on relative to the kind of agreement that we want to execute um because i don't want to have a situation down the road where through no fall of their own the radio station is off the air and i my understanding is that they're off the air for too long they could lose their license well i'm i'm not saying they're going to do something they shouldn't do i and i'm and i don't think the water district would do that to them uh but you obviously trust them more than you trust the water district no i don't trust anybody any more than anything else this is not a question of trust law this is a question of contracts are written to deal with when bad things happen not that you expect bad things to happen not that you want to be untrustworthy or anything like that but contracts are written for when bad things happen you know this in your in your role as ceo of the credit union you don't write contracts for happy things and so my concern here is that as it's written the district could if somebody came in there's nothing to do with trust it's written just strict business black and white if the district manager decided or the district decided that they didn't want this anymore they could throw the radio station out with six months notice and i don't think the radio station could get back on their feet that fast now that's my concern maybe it's not a concern i'm my and i along with your concern then i expressed a possible concern that i don't really think they would do uh so it seems like it needs to get fixed both ways it would be okay very well when we when we put this you know agreement together and especially myself i want you know it's an agreement to protect the district i'm not uh i'm not saying i don't have any bad to say about boulder creep right they do a fantastic job but you know that's today and none of us know what's down the road and i and we wanted clauses and we wanted this lease agreement to really protect the district and that's the way that this was written you know i don't i don't see the district moving ahead and and kicking them out just to kick them out but i can't tell what's going to happen 10 20 years down the road and i personally i like this much protection in an agreement to protect the district um not to use it as a you know a way to to terminate you know the radio station so to speak but i think bob doesn't any business who rents or leases from a property owner uh pretty much are at you know the at least the term of the lease and so forth and renewal as are it's at the the property owner is in the driver's seat um i can respond to that lois and it's okay right and that's it's just the way we we looked at you know the to give the district as much protection as possible so what so rick i understand the point you're you're making what protections is it that the district needs once the equipment's installed it goes through its troubleshooting and it's you know in a in a quiet enjoyment state what are the protections that the district is looking for that it needs termination for convenience as opposed to termination for cause i i i don't i understand your question right if i knew those answers we would have those in the agreement and i'm for the unknown to what's something that comes up that we didn't even think about that that we may have to remove all transmitters uh from that site i don't know what that would be you know that i'm just i'm just speculating and that's not a good thing to do but if something says there or some type of incident or something happens that we need to remove all transmitters um because of rf pollution or something like that um how long are the other two transmitters uh a long time you know we've been there for we've been there for probably 25 30 years and then the school district in the county came in right after that you know and we did the big remodel with the tanks before it was just a a dirt floor building um and when we redid the uh the nina tanks we put in the block building the generator and the proper uh aluminum tower we cleaned that facility uh consider do our agreements with the district and the county have termination for convenience as well i don't i don't know then again those are very old agreements yeah i mean the the thing that's a little different here is that we have an agency that doesn't have the resources obviously of the school district or a county um and we're we're essentially deciding here whether or not to get married um in a very fundamental way because their operation is going to expand significantly with this setup and that operation can be put in immediate jeopardy for no fault of their own just because someone decides they want to do something again it's not us it's not a trustworthy thing it's how do we make sure that this community resource that really is doing a great job has continuity and certainty about their operations going forward even beyond eight years and that's um that that for me is um is something as well it's a little bit different than a commercial lease where you know i i can always go down the road and find another uh office space the lease the typically not an issue um this is very different when i go down the road to find a new lease i don't have to go to the FCC to get permission um you know i don't have to go through a bureaucracy that may take a year you know for approving something in the meantime i don't know what to do i guess they can always fall back to the rective building if if if they're there as well so or the um or the country club there so um that's why i'm trying to understand what the protections are that we're trying to trying to achieve but the other thing bob is they went ahead and did what they needed to do to get all the things that they wanted to broadcast to be able to do it without getting a vote from the district and they assumed i would think that we probably were going to go along with that and um i'm sure they've seen this agreement um i would like to go back to them and see what they say if you don't mind yeah no no i think that i think that would be great and and i do know that again this is another asymmetrical relationship um and uh because we're not you know this isn't two equal agencies and size or resources or what have you so there are things that they may be willing to do in order to advance their objectives as well okay tina davie would you like to speak thank you yeah there's you know there's a lot of trust with the water district you know we um we trust and and i understand totally why you would want to put that clause in there to try us out as it were uh test drive us for three years and make sure that we weren't a bunch of yahoo's up there you know putting up posters of frank sanatra or whoever up there you know we just you know um it's it there is some trust and you know i hadn't thought about that bob it didn't occur to me um that we might be getting any kind of short end of the stick because we're so grateful that you guys would even consider working with us on this and like you said this is a big market for us we are super excited at the prospect of being able to reach down in felton and paradise park and scott's valley and all these areas that's that's revenue for us sitting there and so we definitely see it as we can attract new underwriters we can attract new djs you know maybe investors to to expand our little operation so we'd be willing to to i can't speak for heli because she's having internet problems at the moment but um but yeah there's a trust there we trust you we love you guys um and there you have it and there it is thank you here she is hailey uh word okay there we go i think it's working now okay okay great um bob i i do appreciate um you know our board has looked over the agreement a number of times um i think we you know we came to terms with what was written in part because you know rick had presented this as an option and our board was happy to move forward with it as is um we are also in long-term and short-term leases and agreements that we've looked back on over the years and realized why did we get ourselves in this scenario so i can i um i'm happy you're looking at it in that way because i i honestly as tina mentioned didn't think of it like that i was thinking more along the lines of it being something that we were really happy to start a a relationship or a marriage as you said and that i did have that trust as well that i know i know what we've done and been successful in so i i i would hope other agencies as yourself would see that as well um you know i don't think anyone on our board would deny the opportunity to extend the lease term um but our as i mentioned our board did pass it and um was happy to move forward as is but i know that something or an edit of that nature would be welcome welcomed on our side so i think you know having said that we're we're comfortable with the term but i um i do appreciate the thought and um definitely the consideration if that's something that is you know something you guys want to look at um we are of course you know ready and eager to get the project going but something like this if there's an edit to be made you know a month or so is not something that is gonna stifle the project that much so i'll give it back to you guys thank you okay is there any while i'm at the public is there any other public members who would like to say something seeing none hearing none i will go back to the board okay director polls yeah i mean given that we have a termination for convenience if that really wants to stay in there effectively this is a six-month agreement and so if there's anything that isn't going well um you know the the district and and it was something that was really impeding district operations or in somehow um affecting rick what our our team needs to do on a day-to-day basis it's resolvable you don't have to wait until the end of three years to do that the way this is written um i i would very much like to see if we could get the initial term to be five years and have successive three-year um uh renewals auto renewals unless um uh the parties decide they want to uh terminate it i think that would be um i think that would be a way to provide a little bit more uh certainty uh around operations for the district the rec district while still providing 100 of all the protections that um that you're looking to accomplish so i i guess i don't understand that so you want to rewrite this to five years but we're going to leave in the six-month thing so how does that exactly work why don't we just approve this and three years are up we do it for five years whatever but i why are we dilly dallying around the you know contracts are um so the policy around this lois isn't dilly dallying this is a significant agreement with a fellow agency that is extremely beneficial for us to have a partnership with and to have a partnership with on a solid relationship that gives them what they need as well which is in my opinion something more than what we have now if the board chooses to go ahead and pass it as is that's fine i certainly can vote for that um but i think having the conversation around how we should be interacting with other agencies in this asymmetrical fashion is is really important um it's not something you just say oh heck we're not going to worry about it just as with the last discussion we had it's it's an important thing uh it gets to the heart of what our democracy is all about and they read the the firms and conditions they agreed with them they were and they just said they agreed with them uh i i i don't know where you're coming from well what i'm coming from is wanting to make sure that we're doing the right way and yes i understand that they agreed to them um just as people who wanted building permits 30 years ago agreed to a blanket easement from the santa cruz county because effectively that was what it took to get what they wanted i understand all of that but as written this agreement terminates there is no extension after eight years and we can effectively terminate it at any time in six months um i i just don't think that's the right thing to be doing but i guess we can move forward on it here tonight okay um any comments from the rest of the board not seeing any i'll say something lost okay rick moran well i i think it's a good idea that uh we'd be helpful to uh this radio station and uh we can with very little um expense or anything on our part and uh if you know i understand bob's point and i understand that uh they uh the two people that talked agree with bob but you know there could be a little bit better wording of this uh so you know i'm not prepared to make a motion or anything i'm just uh kind of uh you know support us helping this radio station and the best way we can and i think bob and uh these two people that represent the radio station think that you know they could uh edit or tweak this agreement then well let's do that what i didn't say was when we did the whole board their board they all read this they were in agreement with this that's what i heard them saying they what they also said was if we wanted to delay and change the wording then okay um but i don't hear them being concerned about this contract well if we if the if the board was open to it i do think there are some suggestions i'd like to make around amendments that would still provide the district with the protections that they would need uh in order to do that but i think the if we want to keep the termination for convenience i think we need to give more more notice in order to provide them with the um lead time that's going to take to get to a new site and get through the FCC uh process um and i'd like to see audit you know i'd like to see more than eight years potential here that is it can be renewed for more than an an additional renewal term it can be renewed for successive renewal terms as well i i think those you know the the the station's already been operating i think for what six years seven years or at least this the license has been uh in their possession i think for that long so effectively we're talking about an agreement here that would only double their current life their lifespan i i just think we should be cautious the first few years until we have service at that facility you know we're not looking to terminate the lease or cause hardship i really want to protect the district and i i think there's unknowns going into this what what protection given we have a six-month termination for convenience what protections are you looking for as much belt and suspenders that to protect the district as i can as we can have in an agreement that's why we have an agreement and that's why there's so many different clauses is that i like belts and suspenders when we're going to protect the district and i don't know what the unknown is bob and i'm not assuming that there's going to be an issue but i would like that before we get into long-term automatic renewals and so forth that we have a couple two or three years of operations under our belt that's just my opinion and i i'm concerned about protecting the district and i don't know council has any concerns but rick i'm missing something here given we have a blanket termination for convenience with six months what is the objection to longer terms successive auto renewal all the rest of it i i don't i don't get what the concern is i can we go to jena who has for him okay yeah that'd be great jena okay so um i guess i i really don't have any objection to putting whatever business terms into an agreement like this that that that the board wants um as a whole um but i do think it's important to think about the function that an agreement like this is performing and kind of how it fits into the market um i did provide the form of this agreement and i don't think there's anything in it that's inconsistent with market terms um nor do i think there's anything that's inconsistent with uh you know agreements between public agencies where as here a public agency is providing uh facilities essentially at cost to provide a public service to another agency it's it's very common in these situations to provide a lot of flexibility to the agency that um um allowing another agency to use the facilities there's potentially a lot of unforeseen circumstances they're a little bit hard to put one's fingers on um six months is one of the longer uh termination for convenience provisions that i've seen and this one actually is really longer than six months because even once the agreement terminates there's additional time related to the removal of the facilities um so you know there's there's quite a bit of flexibility there one of the values of having not an automatic renewal but having a renewal where one party has to give notice and there's an opportunity to adjust the terms and conditions is that kind of builds in a chance for the parties to take another look at the agreement and see what's working and what isn't and make you know typically with these types of public agency agreements that's not treated in a draconian way i suppose it could be taken advantage of but it forces the parties to take a look at what's working and what's not and tweak the terms and conditions if that's appropriate um without you know just slipping into a situation where agreements renew automatically forever without ever being looked at so those those provisions are there for a reason they are protective of the district um that's for sure and there is you know there may be things that the uh pennant would want if they could have them and um you know i don't object to any of the things that that the board decides to do as a business matter but um i guess i just wanted to be clear that those provisions are there for a reason they are you know they were thoughtful um and they do provide some value to the district where the district is otherwise you know providing this site at cost as a public server any other board member like to say something so i i want to step in here and um make a resolution number eight 2021 uh to um could could you say boulder creek recreation and park district kb cz radio lease agreement is is that a good way to say it or not china i'm scrolling to the resolution right now just to read the title off of it i apologize not on it right at this moment well yes that that was right yes was okay so um is there a second to my resolution i'll second down those okay thank you uh holly could you call the question please president henry yes director maran yes yes director falls yes director ferris why motion passes thank you everyone i believe that is uh it except for minutes um and anybody oh okay the consent agenda does anyone want to pull anything from the consent agenda so that is approved them nobody wants to pull anything okay um then district reports department status reports um engineering is rick rogers where are you i'm here uh you know we do have the director of operations and we do have a finance manager and our environmental planner to answer any questions on reports that the board may have we'd be more than happy to entertain uh any board members have a question director falls maybe rick maran can tell us are they digging on california drive yeah i wish no all that's been done there is potholing of utilities and uh potholing of connection points when did they start i'm moving into there to start digging a lame pipe on the 15th or 16th of this month thank you so any other board member have uh a question um on any of these things i i guess i could ask james uh hey when do you think those long pico tanks are all going to be up and running well we have the mo drone tanks up and running um louis is getting ready to be set their vacuum testing the bottom of the tank tomorrow um we plan on filling those tanks next week and that will begin the uh sampling process and so we should have louis tank online within the next two weeks and they just moved into the caskey site both the wood tanks at the caskey site are gone we're on temporary storage there now and they are working on um excavating and dismantling the concrete pads that the tanks sat on and then they'll start doing their test pit holes and get ready for excavation and construction of that site so pretty soon they'll be doing the foundations for those on caskey yeah yeah by the end of the month they should be into setting ring wall foundations and stuff like that they have a caskey as one of the is the site with the most excavation it sits on the side of the hill and so there's a lot still to be determined at that site with test pits okay thank you appreciate that so any other board member have questions okay um so we heard from engineering basically or operations i guess i call you operations well that was engineering and i'll do operations too i guess anybody have a question to offer from for operations and i do apologize and i haven't got the overtime report in there i'm a little behind stacked up with paperwork right now so i will have that to you soon i i know you're super busy i get okay um not seeing any hearing any questions for department status reports i guess we'll go down to bob has a question what are we at finance or are we uh well i i said any of them i mean i skipped down to operations but i didn't say anything about finance do you want to do finance sure i just wanted to get a quick update on uh uh the status of our cash situation and um possible need for a loan how that how that went this past week so is stephanie here stephanie available yep i'm here so we are moving forward with i'm talking to more more companies about getting a loan rick and i are meeting on monday to discuss further um essentially rick's able to move the district along with the discussions with the different companies um and then once we get further along with the process the board will will need to be looped in for any actual signing of any agreement but we do have more people that are interested i have two two firms now that we are working with santa cruz county bank and co-bank out of colorado okay great thank you does anybody else have a question for stephanie on finance you know see him okay um anybody have a question for jena legal okay my environmental skipped all over the place here any questions to carrie see any okay thank you um how about uh any directors communications rick moran yes we're at the towards the end of the meeting here i'd like to take uh as the last act of my uh time in the samaritan valley water district as a member i'd like to take some time to thank some people who have made my time on this board so meaningful uh first i'd like to thank my wife chris for all those walks around our neighborhood as we discussed the issues of the water district she'll bring clarity to sometimes confusing issues i'd like to thank my mother grace who encouraged me to step out of my comfort zone believe me serving on this board has been outside of my comfort zone uh i'd also like to thank my father bob who showed me the need for community service i'd like to thank my fellow board members lois steve lou and bob who have been patient with me as we all tried to move this district forward thank you to rick rogers who encouraged me to ask questions and answered many of those questions thank you to all the staff particularly james carly jena scott stephanie and holly who helped me in countless ways and finally to all the people in the samaritan's o valley who encouraged me to do the work that i did on the water district thank you thank you all well thank you rick moran and lou ferris for your time on the board and you will be messed uh but you did good work for us and i'm sure that everyone would agree with that and so as you go into the future whatever you decided to do good luck and don't forget about us don't be a stranger show up i definitely like to put my gratitude out there to lou and rick you guys have been great board members um you guys have done a great job and really appreciate working with you both thank you james so any other board member want to say anything no pressure lou so it it looks to me like it's adjournment time that we've gone through the agenda and i i thank everyone for all the public uh for staff and for board members who've all participated tonight billy i can't even talk uh so thank you and see you in a few bye in a few days yeah