 Yeah, I'm going. I'll start it right now. Thanks. Great. Welcome. And. And those remotely hear me. Okay. Yes. Yes. Great. All right. Well, Welcome to the October 3rd meeting of SoCal Creek water district board of directors. The we have I am assuming a roll call first. Correct. Correct. Director Balboni. Here. Director Lahue. Here. Director Lather. Present. Vice President Jaffee. I'm on zoom. And President Christensen. On zoom. Thank you. Emma, just for the record, I just wanted to note. That President Christensen is appearing remotely from a private location for just cause as permitted by government code section. 54953. In addition, director Jaffee is participating from a private. Meeting location under the same section for just cause. President Christensen is due to a contagious illness and director Jaffee is due to a physical disability. I will now ask them if there's anyone over the age of 18 in the room with them. And if so, a general description of their relationship to that person. On my part. No. There's no other person. Nobody else in the room with me. All right. Thank you both. We can move forward. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So actually the first item is for us to adjourn to a closed session. If anyone has public comment regarding the closed session now would be a good time. There we go. Thank you. My name is Becky Steinbrunner. I am the petitioner taking proper action against the district and a couple of things, all of which are related to the pure water. So Cal project. And what I see is a lot of violations regarding sequel. California environmental quality act. Again, I want to just. Repeat that I don't want to do this, but it is the only way that anyone from the public can challenge an environmental project, especially one of the magnitude of the pure water. So Cal project and all of its modifications, all of its modifications, which have been major. And in my opinion have not been properly addressed to allow public comment and have not adequately analyzed the adverse and significant environmental effects. So I do want to let you know that I was able to obtain a copy finally of the final anti degradation analysis from the state water resources control board. And I have a lot of questions still about that. But what remains problematic is that there has never been any collaboration with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife as is required by law. And I've spoken to you before about the Laurel Street Bridge and the negative impacts on the swallows. And what concerns me now is the seismic impact of having those large pipes on both sides of Laurel Street Bridge, but also only on one side of the Porter Street Bridge. So again, I'm taking this action because I'm concerned about the environment, the impacts on people and I care. Thank you. So we are going to adjourn to close session. For those of you that are waiting to speak on items not on tonight's agenda or communications will be after that. So we'll have closed session and the consent agenda and then and then the oral and written communication. So as soon as the closed session is done, we can let you know. He's been informed also before the meeting. The gentleman was informed of that similar. I know Jim. Just want to make sure. Sorry about that. We're going. Check. No, you can stay here. All right. Welcome back. We just, there we go. We are coming out of closed session and with no reportable action. The meeting has started again for those of you on zoom. Okay. And then. So. Let's see if I can. Get back to my agenda. Okay, we have no public hearing and now would be time for board members to have the opportunity to remove items from the. Carla. Sorry, Carla and Bruce. Can you hear. I'm here. Okay, we're back in, we're back in open session. Yeah. Still not hearing you. Oh, you can't hear me. I can hear you Carla. I don't think we're here. I wonder if it's me. Let me try. We make sure we've got them. Appropriately notified that. Director Jaffee, okay. Can you hear us? Bruce, you with us? Yeah. Yeah, I just had inadvertently. My volume. Okay, so we are back in open session now. And. So now we are just. We have no public hearing. And so now it's an opportunity for anyone on the board to remove any items from the consent agenda. Anything from. You, Bruce or Carla. Thanks. Michelle. And then before we proceed to have any motions, I just want to make sure that we have an opportunity for public. If anybody wants to speak on the item on the consent agenda as a whole. Thank you. My name is Becky Stein burner. On item 4.2 the calendar. I, I request that these important issues. That are scheduled for. November 21st, the rate study final rate proposal. And I think that would be instead reviewed at the beginning of the month. When the November 7th meeting is actually canceled. And the reason for that is because. November 21st is right before Thanksgiving. This is a pretty big topic. And I think that it would be kinder to the public to hear it earlier in the month rather than right before the Thanksgiving holiday when many people probably are out of town. And like also following in that. The agenda for December 5th looks wide open. But then again, right before the Christmas holiday, there is the final rate authorization. And again, that's pushing really important things. Very close to a holiday. And so on behalf of the public, I request that these important issues be heard earlier in the month rather than right before the holiday. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to comment on that. Yes, Bruce. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. Becky. I have faith in our staff that. They are scheduling things as early as possible. And. I am going to make the assumption that there's work that needs to be done. So that they cannot schedule this. Those items earlier. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. Um, Director Lee Hugh. Yeah, I, yes. Sorry to interrupt just. Sorry, I'm sorry. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Josh Nelson reminded me that we need to ask as well for each item. So. Is there any public member on the zoom that would like to speak on the consent agenda separately from asking the public here? Okay. If so, please raise your hand. No raised hands, no raised hands. Okay. I'll move approval. Let's see. I heard Bruce and you at the same time. Second. All right. So move by Dr. Jaffee. Seconded by director later. All right. Roll call, please. Director Balboni. Director Lee Hugh. Yes. Director Lather. Yes. Vice President Jaffee. Yes. And President Christensen. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Now is the time for anyone who wishes to speak on an item, not on tonight's agenda. Mr. Lattori. Thank you for your time. My name's Jim Lattori. I live at the corner of capitol Avenue in Beverly. So. Wonderful location. However, it's. Rather than the intersection. And. So. I decided that it might be a good idea to build a garage. So I built. I went through the process and. I'm in the process of building a garage right now and was. And a. Asked. Perhaps to. Add an ADU. By. Others. Including my wife and family because of our house is a one bedroom house virtually. So when family and friends come over. Be a nice place to stay. So I thought it was a really good idea and heard that. There's going to be some leeway in terms of. Looking for. More housing in Capitola and easing up on the ADU thing. So. Went forward with that. At the time of. Applying I did have to get a. Conditional or non conditional use permit from you. Which I did and I was told that there was. Some additional things that I would have to be doing. I was in such. excitement about getting my permits I didn't really necessarily look into costs or anything like that but I'm at that point now I turned all my paperwork in and I just wanted the board to understand I was given a list of I was told that I needed to put in a new meter meter I don't know why but I was told because it's an ADU and it's a separate living location that I'd have to do that so I went down and talked to people and they told me gave me a really nice little flowchart on all the things that I needed to do I began calling the five people that were on the list of the approved contractors to do the work to date I've only received one the bid is $18,000 to because Soquel Creek Water isn't doing the meter installations anymore I had to get a separate person to do that George Wilson there's another person on the list that I contacted they gave me a verbal bid of $9,800 the other two people have two of the others haven't responded and the fifth one on the list is a company that is no longer doing it I was also told that if I don't use one of the approved lists I would have there's a three-minute limit on this and I don't know if you want to just summarize with what you're asking so I said maybe process wise if it they can yeah I was it for future I'm sorry the bottom line is that I'm in order for me to get water which is already there I had a garage there before I tore it down I already have water there it's currently six weed of six feet away from my house I don't see a real need to have another meter I'm still gonna be paying for water I only have a one bedroom house I got the bill from Soquel Creek Creek Water on top of this and it's 13,000 so I just believe that $32,000 to get a meter and water to my house is a little bit extravagant and I would like for you guys as a board to kind of maybe take a look at that and see if it's something that that can be eased up a little bit I just I'm that can plumb a whole house for $35,000 so it's kind of crazy so maybe we can have like maybe clarify that with staff clarify what this particular situation is I mean tend to the tendency of the board is that we tend to try and treat everybody equally so we just always have to be fair with everyone so yeah staff has been working with him I we believe what he's requesting or would require a policy change but certainly understand the frustration because the way the regulations work if it's a new the well it excludes some from having to get meters and then others it does not and he falls into the does not category so as I understand it the garage that I had there previously didn't meet the arbitrary number I mean it was always 300 and some on feet and I'm adding 500 feet around the corner another guy did the very same thing didn't need a meter we can't keep going on here I think we'll just have to you know we'll continue to work with you need to work with staff because we're gonna unless we like unless we change a policy we have to apply it play it equally so I have a question is this all because of the timing of when this happened relative to the laws with 80s I don't know that I don't know that all I know is that the policy goes back to 2002 I think it's a little old 21 years later I'm just saying we're we when we when issues like this come up if there's a variance request or or a specific and we would get the background information and we would also be have in front of us okay what all the policies are rather than trying to do it on the fly with a three-minute comment and that's where that's where I was going to go is there a variance opportunity for me I recommend that I work with the board president to see whether they want to agendize this item okay and go from there that sounds good yeah just so we as a variance request or information okay I would I would love that all right and in the future I think it would be a good idea just to look at the policy and see how well that's yeah and I you know I would want to have that all in front of me you know yeah yeah without knowing the details it sounds like excuse me we should do this what was that Bruce get it without knowing the details it sounds like just like you're saying Tom this is something where we need more information right and I trust that Carla and and along will determine whether there should be a variance request or or what the right course of action is more information but thanks for bringing it up yeah yeah congratulations granddad thanks all right any other members of the public thank you steinburner I'm hopeful that this issue that the gentleman just brought up will be an agenda item in the future especially given the county and uh city of Santa Cruz city of capitol all the cities actually but capitol in your district updating their housing elements the state housing and community development department has more than tripled the number of units that these municipalities each are being required to build so it's it's prudent that you review this policy quickly thank you I'm glad he brought it up what I want to ask you about is I am surprised that your board is not publicly discussing the very important permit that is open for public comment right now two of them for the pure water socal project one is regarding the injection wells and the public comment time with regional water quality control board is ends October 11th and then the next day October 12th is the permitting for the pollution permit discharge permit related to the Santa Cruz city wastewater outflow I um I have read through these documents and it disturbs me that the district is planning to inject treated wastewater that would have what I consider a pretty high level of nitrate and it is uh 3.5 milligrams per liter in the product water that would be injected into our aquifer when the aquifer is ambient nitrate level is 0.06 milligrams per liter so given two things that direct potable reuse is likely to be approved by the state possibly by the end of this year wherein you could not have to inject that stuff into the aquifer and worry about arsenic and all of that as well as other contaminants you could put it directly into your customer service lines and solid the second thing is that I was really happy to see last night at the Santa Cruz city water commission's presentation of projects that they are doing phenomenal work to upgrade their facilities so that they can take water more water when it is turbid and we have a lot of it and treat it and they could be sending it to you they could be banking it you could be banking it and injecting potable water rather than treated sewage water into our aquifer thank you so any other any comments from the zoom on oral communications any raised hands I see no raised hands thank you Emma right then we will go to item 7.2 there's no reports and though that we go to contract agreement good evening board members president christensen I wanted to present tonight the to the board a consideration for ratifying the tentative agreement for the memorandum of understanding between the district and the service employees international union seiu local 521 as you know we've been negotiating with the union for a number of months now and tonight we're presenting a resolution 2310 which would allow the board to ratify the agreement that has already been ratified by the union on September 21st the board took excuse me that the union membership took a vote and ratified the tentative agreement so the terms of the agreement are contained in the memo that you have before you and I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have in regards to those terms any questions from our board members on zoom no we're we've been following this closely for many months so glad to see it come to come to a vote okay is there any public comment on this item any public comment on zoom i see no raised hands right there's a motion or to adopt the resolution i'll move who said that carla carla okay all right i'll second all right yep all right roll call please director balboni yes director what you yes and thank you to the negotiators and on both sides and tracy and i used to have a contract in place and i think we provide a good place for people to work i agree i appreciate that thank you director lather vice president jackie and i would also like to thank the parties involved in coming up with a fair contract and my i believe we've been successful at at providing our employees with a with a contract that they are happy with so yes and president christensen yes and thank you thank you again very much for all the work hard work getting this to this point okay so that passes unanimously and we will go to item 7.3 which is for the mid management group item 7.3 is before you tonight to consider ratifying the tentative agreement that the district has with the mid management employee group that's an unrepresented group the the management team has been meeting with the mid management group since june their contract expired in july and the we came to tentative agreement and the membership voted on september 13 to ratify and it's presented to you tonight the terms of the the new agreement are presented to you tonight for consideration for ratifying on the district side again this is a a three-year agreement through 2026 um july of 2026 great questions on zoom questions no no we've been following this one also okay glad to see it ready to go um any public comment on this not in person on zoom i see no raised hands okay well i'll move approval of this resolution i'll second we'll call please director balboni yes director lehu yes director laither vice president jockey once again thank you to everyone involved with negotiations and once again i think that uh the contract is something that our employees are happy with and i think it's very sure in that it's very similar to the other contract yes and president christensen uh yes and thank you again too for the very professional work great that passes unanimously and now we'll move on to item 7.4 which is um the general manager's employment agreement and is there an introduction on that or i'm here to answer any questions or okay um any questions comments from board members bruce or carla yeah i just i'd just like to be in the comment and you know publicly that ron has done an exceptional job at you know general manager in complicated times and uh i just want to thank him for his leadership and the district is running well and it starts at the top so thank you ron thank you very much yeah that level of commitment to get us through times of um very very important getting a supplemental supply while also keeping everything else rolling and that all that extra work um is is is much appreciated um now i would i i'd be remiss not to say you know yeah i may be the general manager but i think y'all very well know that the team that is with me so or i've got a good team and and whenever there's been a an assessment of your leadership though it's been from from the team they've been very supportive and so um i think you know we want to bring you you know you know have it be fair to the amount of work and you know and we look at other general managers of an organization of this size with this amount of work going on um you know we want to your contract that you know should have you know it started again in i think july 1st and so it goes until june 30th of next year but i think what i'm proposing is an increase um of four and a half percent to your salary going back to that july 1st or june 30th date if that's a motion i second it okay that's a motion discussion and public comment too that was a motion okay it was is somebody second it uh huh i did bruce okay you're good um and we need public comment yeah that's what i'm saying any public comment yeah both in person first and then if see if we have anything online thank you becky steinbruner so i i didn't see any documentation and then suddenly i hear your motion that it would be a 4.5 percent increase in salary retroactive to july 1 of 2023 is that correct correct and is that what was discussed in closed session um because those things are not supposed to be discussed in closed session but how did you come up with that number we've been thinking about it and you know we want to be fair with you know the kind of general inflation area at least you know and and plus the amount of work he said and do you uh can you tell me what the cost uh the cpi for this area is or what the district considers in other go ahead and make your comments oh okay thank you there was just no information at all in the packet and i'd like to understand it better thank you any public comment on a zoom call it looks like the public member dropped off oh okay so that's a no okay roll call please then director balbony yes director lehu yes director laither yes vice president jaffee yes and president christensen yes okay i just want to say this unanimously thank you run um item 7.5 it's about um district staffing so who's got that racy back to me um good evening again i'm presenting uh agenda item 7.5 tonight uh for the board to consider a new position associate manager of water resources um as the the memo indicates this position is actually one of the very first positions when we started um inquiring with other agencies um in embarking upon looking at at the pure water socal model um of a position that would more than likely be needed as part of moving forward in the administration of um having a purification plant online that has a number of different components and partnerships um to come back into our our system and um we've we've talked a lot about this position um agency wide at the executive level and recognizing more and more um discovery that we've had with other agencies that there really does need to be a very specific high-level point person to work with all of the details um with pure water socal once it's um online and on board with um our contractor who will be running the the the plant as well as the city of santa cruz wastewater treatment plant um and all the peripherals that come into our our resource so um this position is being presented for you tonight to consider um at the associate manager level um the position would be part of the water resources department as you'll know and you might recall last december we made some changes to our own organizational structure anticipating um what we would need to be geared up for and have our arrows pointed toward with pure water socal and we changed the department um conservation customer service field to water resources this was a position that was contemplated being a part of that um department moving forward um and it is actually we did put that in the budget for this year um that you've already considered and approved so we're asking for you tonight to uh approve the job description for associate manager water resources i've included the organizational chart so you can see where that falls within our organizational structure as well as the proposed salary schedule placement for this mid-management position happy to answer any questions i have a question about timing and mainly mainly that like when do you foresee filling this position um if the board approves the position tonight i anticipate posting that position tomorrow so uh recruitment has been pretty tricky lately um we have had a real hit and miss over the last number of years um with recruitments we've had pretty good recruitments um the last couple that we've had but it's been an interesting job market and so i think the um the sooner we can get that out and advertised and put the word out that the better off we'll be in order to get a good strong candidate or group of candidates coming forward for the position questions uh i had one yes so i've been looking at uh the packet page 45 of 156 uh where it compares the salaries it looks the salary for the new position is higher than uh some of the other people at the same level on the org chart don't have that right or my misreading it correct we aligned this position with the associate civil engineer position based upon the scope of responsibility and the level of work that this person will be responsible for um we didn't feel that it rose to the level of a full manager but it definitely does require high level management skills um and so we aligned that with our associate uh civil engineer sorry um it looks like it's higher oh wait no it's about the same actually i'm sorry i was misreading the colon so that it is exactly the same okay that answers my question thank you okay um any public comment on this item no i have a question also i you know i looked at the range of uh requirements that were listed and i just wondered what would be considered what would uh you consider the most important uh qualifications you know because it's a very wide ranging um uh list of uh responsibilities are you talking about in the experience and education section specifically carla or yeah and then just yeah and the ability it's and the abilities i was just wondering um what's the primary focus of the position in other words is it in more of an engineering position or is it more of an administrative position it's more of an administrative position so i think run yeah i i mean just a little background tracy and i have over a year been interviewing other agencies that nobody you know every agency does it slightly different that's why it was hard to nail this one down specifically but yeah as the essence of the of the the job the way i see it and and it will it may evolve a little bit but i think tracy's captured it perfectly but it's kind of a a coordinator of you know all things pure water so that central hub of making sure you know the contractor running the the facility is doing what they're supposed to getting what they're supposed to per the contract water water water um the permits requirements making sure we're hearing all that and everything i'm sure melanie can chime a little bit more but i i i view it as i go through all these contracts um as kind of a central hub just making sure we're following through on everything coordinating okay melanie says she thinks we tracy and i captured it maybe okay uh yeah okay i'm interested to see who applies great yeah it's a big job yeah okay and any public comment on this item thank you becky steinbrunner i attended a lot of your board special meetings that you held um in the the year or so before you finalized the pure water so cal project and remember you're talking about um a design build operate process and i think that's what you agreed to do is to do a design build operate so is this position then sort of superfluous if you've got operators um that are already sort of in the pipeline with the design build operate model um i know being a manager is a lot different than the person actually operating but but it seems like uh it's it's worth time especially given the salary levels that um if you review that and discuss that with your your contractor maybe they have someone that would be um capable of of taking on this job but i think it's worth looking at and and to hire them now when the project is not going to be as i understand it operational until um a year from now i think is a little curious thank you just clarify that the project at least where the treatment facility is not a design build operate say that again miss steinbrunner um made a statement related to the project being design build and operate which is not the case designer is not building it and operate right there's but there is there there is a company that's third point to be a third an operator was consulted during design so that it's practical design and so but it's not a db a design build operate right right but just during the third party and then you always just because you have somebody operating a plant doesn't mean that they're coordinating everything related to that including the source water and all that so right anyway um any we still do not have any zoom members on my public members okay um discussion or motions uh oh i said you know i'll i'll move to approve the decision okay i'll second okay got that at my roll call director balboni yes director lehu yes director later yes vice president jaffee yes and president christensen yes okay now um there's an informational item on the water affordability study yes and is is leslie strome on line i i can't see yes okay okay leslie so um if you if you want i'll take the lead or you can however you want to do this i know we co-wrote this go ahead run okay then you chime in uh where you see fit and i miss things thank you uh so i'll just give a quick intro this study was done um a couple uh years ago but we brought it back um in january just as a heads up um uh as we started the rate process and it was a study done throughout the county of wastewater and water agencies looking at the affordability and it's a it's a pretty long study but i think the take-homes uh are that well the real take-home is to look at the maps of uh affordability for the water agencies and you can see it's all color coded how we uh are in comparison to our neighbors for example and then that but the key is the the evaluation done for soquel and uh the numbers there and i think we present the essence of that in the report i can certainly talk about it if you like i but i think it's there and i know the board reads it basically it's a pretty favorable study toward the affordability and affordability is comprised of two factors the uh cost of water and then divided into the numerator the medium household income i think what's important though is also to note that uh not everybody is captured in that you know in that medium how uh income and so if you look at tables 57 58 59 on um pages 53 and 54 of the study of the study not of the um the yeah yeah they they kind of show you know the more extremes there too which i think is important i think you just went by it um so page 53 54 of the study not the yeah look at the bottom yeah so i think those are important and really we just wanted uh leslie and i thought it was important to bring it back in front of the board tonight just as we start moving forward through uh the rate process we will bring this to our water rates advisory committee also i think it's important knowledge for them to to know and understand so leslie would you like to contribute anything to that presentation well just to just to make it easy to understand those those maps for the public listening as well blue and green are are really good scores that indicates that uh water is highly affordable in those areas as you get higher the red means it is becoming more unaffordable yeah and i'll add that that map thank you leslie that map right there i believe brings in the septic systems and part of the reason it becomes less affordable if you look at septic is because what they did in the study this is a economist out of berkeley mq they um i believe they amortize uh you know septic systems generally aren't up to speed and they're not good for the groundwater so there's laws now where you need to update those and so they amortize the cost of that i think it was about 50 grand uh across time the entire replacement of the septic system is what they amortized a full a full grade replacement yeah and not just replacement but upgrade right to meet the new lamp laws so uh but but we're water and you know we do care about the overall expense to to our customers also but i just want to point that out that that's where you see red that's usually septic for the most part and go back up a little bit to that i think the take home map is that one right there as leslie said blue is is good you know i don't know if you see any red on that i'd have to put my glasses on but i think that's sufficient and um uh there is other information i can talk about um the cost and that sort of thing if that's of interest okay i wasn't clear on when they said that it was adjusted for they somehow accounted for housing costs you know in their economic analysis like but i don't know how they did that and maybe you guys don't know yeah i'd have to look back at the study um answer that question any so any comments questions this is informational only yes thank you for bringing this this to us um i found it very useful study the executive the executive summary had some very good information about uh and concepts that i think will be applicable to the hard our new rate structure the essential indoor use i give a number for what's essential indoor use i use 35 gallons per person per day and i think that concept will will be important when we set our our rate schedule and um i also there was parts of the report talking about what's going on in terms of uh ways to help those that the water is not as affordable um how you know what what different bills there are to um legislation there are two me you know to assist for assistance and i know leslie has been updating us on that periodically but i just it was useful for me to see you know how how uh listen to the report and besides what you know they had for so-called creek water district in appendix a there was a very nice comparison between uh the different agencies and again it's been given you know to us multiple times but it was just like you know and um i found it useful comparing like on page 151 the meter charges and seen it for all the different agencies take away one or 2082 and this is you know probably dated somewhat because it was 2021 when this was done but just the different um they called water supplier commodity rates and uh you know seeing that which ones are doing tiers which which agencies are and probably something that that our staff is very familiar with but it's it's good for me to to see it in a table and be reminded of where we are relative to the other agencies so i found it very useful and and i i think similar concepts in here will be useful when we set our uh our rate structure in coming months thanks bruce harlow do you have anything you're muted bad me um i will i support the i support what bruce is saying especially you know things will have changed between that when the study which was a very thorough study um and i recommend everybody read it um but it uh you know it will change and so well there is going to be a little bit more pressure on our customer base because you know we're feeling increased prices in every commodity not just water so uh but it is good to keep to keep that in mind and also to keep some perspective that we're starting out on a pretty we've been pretty good at keeping costs down so it's just uh it's our aim is to keep water affordable and pay our bills to keep the water flowing so it's um so that's all okay thanks and for rachel anything one more thing tom yep bruce i i did ask ron what our contribution in terms of funding for the study was yeah and uh yes and i can address that he asked it now okay i i certainly can address that so you know this was a study that the uh regional water management foundation headed up through the irm uh process and the total study was seventy eight thousand dollars our portion was fourteen thousand dollars the soquel creek water district and it was um all the agencies pitched in and dwr uh integrated regional water management uh grant of thirty two thousand dollars so that partially helped offset the cost and really more geared toward the uh disadvantaged communities such as down in watsonville so again our our cost contribution was fourteen thousand dollars very well spent very useful information okay public comment on this item thank you becky steinbrunner there is also there are also pockets of disadvantaged communities within your service district and the maps show that so don't forget about them they're not all in watsonville they're in your service district too and um i think it's important that the study really um the the map that you put up there with all blue i think is deceptive because later on in the study when it talks about how when you add in the cost of septic and sewer it really changes the paradigm and a lot of red shows up in the soquel creek water district area if you look at page 116 of the agenda packet in 117 you'll see there are big pockets of financial burden when those two things are are examined so um i'm i'm glad that the the study the study is old because the lamp has been approved since that and what the lamp the um the county's uh on site water treatment septic thing does is it identified big pockets of your service area that if people want to do anything at all with their home they have to install those advanced treatment systems and those are expensive the the study was very good about pointing that out that those costs were not considered in this study but they are there now i also want to point out to you that on page um 127 130 and 133 it states a count of dwellings in soquel creek water district service area as 18800 and that does not comport with what it said initially and what i've always seen on your website um on page 110 it says 14400 where did those of 4 000 other units come from thank you so much well that item was informational only um thank you for bringing it forward um let's see if there's any oh you did you're right sorry i was looking right at you zoom in zoom erupted i was just wondering if there was a way to just update it i believe that it had uh our rates you know we had them in place at the time and projected so i it's i remember correct if i remember correctly they had those i'm not sure santa cruz had updated their rates so they may have been a little update outdated and it won't have future it doesn't have future rate increases in there i thought about trying to to do a you know if we could incorporate future rates into this but i think there's more to it than that there's their people's income has gone up and it starts to become a back to the economists to have to look at the meeting house yeah income which has gone up but it's easy to look up you know it yeah we could probably get a um a little heuristic a little thumb kind of thing if we wanted to without sewer districts yeah yeah oh i was just saying some of the some of the high cost in our district it appears to be concentrated in people who are receiving water from the district but are on a septic system so it's kind of like um they do have they are stretching they have do have a hard time yeah i think what that graph actually shows is that the financial burden isn't necessarily being placed on them for their water no it's their sewer costs that are disproportionately on the homeowners yeah yeah um and it's also it's the cost for the septic systems is the impending regulations you know requirements that they will have to upgrade their systems which is also important for our environment and they're you know it's such a widespread issue that you know it's probably worth um exploring whether state aid or you know some assistance might be available for that upgrade of septic systems or our connection to our system or the sewer system not our system but to the sewer system yeah so yeah looks like there are i think it could be an idea you know yeah centralized septic wastewater treatment system yeah you know the sewer in the sewer district there's people on septic just like in our district there's people on well it's because it's open the district doesn't mean they're connected and so there's like hodgepodge of you know zero one one zero or one one yeah and i'll say you know this area the salin into a valley and probably like parts of aptos or i know the salin into a valley is one of the most highly densified septic areas and that's why water agencies uh don't like it i mean city of san acres is done testing you see the septic leaking into the uh you know the water supply and so you know personally i think it's a good move by the state to try to rectify someone up i'm sure when i was on the regional water board you know there was a big problem then and it still is so many septic systems you know affecting the sands or river um but maybe the state will work on funding to help people get connected to the sewer system which is going to be in the long run much cheaper right okay um just a quick yes addressing uh Becky Steinbrunner's comment that 18 000 number was for drawing unist on for hookups so that's uh why it's a different number than the 14 000 that we always talk about thank you bruce thank you okay well then this meeting is adjourned and our next meeting will be october 17th thank you thank you all right