 Okay, I would like to convene the speeding of the Board of Directors of the San Lorenzo Valley Water District on February 4, 2021. Holly, would you call the roll please. President Maygood. Here. Vice President Henry. Here. Director falls. Here. Director Smalley. Here. Here. All are present. Thank you. Are there any additions and deletions to the closed session agenda? Staff has no. Okay. We go now to the oral communications part of this. Do we have any. Buddy that. From the public that signed in. On anything that is within the. Agenda item here, public employee annual performance evaluation. Do you see attendees, but I don't see any hands up. Okay. With that. I guess we can adjourn. Here and. Resume at the closed session. So you might want to explain to the people attending what is happening and what we will do at six. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Yeah, that's right. To the attendees, we're sort of sorry that we, some of the notices said five 30. We have a closed session. That we go to now where only the board and the staff are there, but we will resume exactly at six 30. So if you want to go off and grab some dinner or something and go to the public, you can go to that six 30 and I apologize for that confusion, but open sessions at which the public can appear always start at six 30. Thank you. Okay. Is that good enough? Can we now adjourn? Thank you for doing that. Yeah. No, that was good that you reminded me. Good to go. Okay. See you in a bit. You're muted, Holly. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, good evening. The open session of the board of directors, meeting at the San Lorenzo Valley water district for February 4th, 2021. And we do have as item six, a report of actions taken in closed session earlier this evening. And that is that the board unanimously approved the district district website for everybody to read. Are there any additions or deletions to open session? I have no. Okay then with that we will move to oral communications. This is the portion of the agenda that's reserved for oral communications from the public on any subject that lies within the purview of the district but it's not on tonight's agenda. So if you do we need to take roll? It wasn't on my list I think we've already taken roll for the closed session and that's okay. Gina tells me to. We should take roll now that we're moving into open session. Okay all right that wasn't on the agenda I'm sorry so Holly can you go ahead and take roll for us? Yes I apologize for that I usually have it on there. President Mayhood? Here. Vice President Henry? Let's see I thought I saw her. She's muted. She's muted. Vice President Henry? Here. Director Foles? Here. Director Smalley? Here. Director too. Here. Okay. Thank you. Now we'll go on to oral communications which I'll just repeat are for communications from the public on any subject that is within the jurisdiction of the district but it's not on the agenda tonight. If you'd like to speak just go ahead and hit the raise hand button at the bottom of the screen. Okay and I'm going to call on people and then you'll be unmuted so that you can speak. We'll have David first. David can you go ahead and give your communication? I think you're still muted on your end. Well we'll come back to David. How about Tanomi? T-N-O-M-I Hello can you hear me? Yes. I just want to say that I oppose the merger of SLE and Scott's Valley Water. So let me just clarify this is a section of the agenda where we are talking about items oral communications that are about topics that are not on the agenda tonight. There will be plenty of time for comments about the topic you just raised when we reach it as item 11a under new business. Okay so that being clarified are there any people that have something that they want to say about a different topic? Bruce Holloway? Bruce Holloway are you there? Okay well I guess we have a lot of participants tonight so we're gonna need to go ahead and we can come back if Bruce finds a way to. Chair Mayhooth I see that Mr. Holloway's hand came back up. Okay can we try unmuting him again? He's unmuted we should be able to hear him. Yeah so I think we need to move on. We have nearly a hundred people here tonight and I'm sure a lot of them want to speak to us about something so I just don't if we can get back to him later that would be fine. Next we have item 10 unfinished business and there is none. 11 is new business and the first item under that is 11a which is entitled exploration of possible consolidation of San Lorenzo Valley Water District with Scott's Valley Water District and I want to apologize for the backup material that we sent out that consisted only of Lafko presentation which appears to have given many readers the misimpression that the decision to proceed has been made but that's not at all the case as I think direct district manager Rogers presentation I hope will convince you and make clear but to lay any concerns among the attendees and other ratepayers the board will not be taking any action on this agenda item tonight. This meeting is entirely informational I will not be bringing forward the motion in the agenda packet and I will not be inviting motions from the board. Tonight is for listening in both directions and or a brief board discussion. We'll agendize this topic for a future meeting for more discussion with ratepayers and more discussion among the board and with that I'd like to turn it over to district manager Rogers. Chair can you hear me okay? Yes. Thank you. As the board memo states the district managers from Scott's Valley Water and SLB Water meet regularly to discuss issues of mutual concern and to find ways to enhance the efficiencies of both agencies. In a recent meeting the staff of Scott's Valley Water District suggested there may be substantial benefits if the two agencies could be joined. San Lorenzo Valley Water District staff agreed and accordingly staff is seeking board direction regarding to proceed with exploring the possible consolidation. If the boards of the two district decide to move forward this is the very first baby step in a long process. As a district manager with a long history in the San Lorenzo Valley I feel strongly that the district should cautiously explore a possible consolidation of these two agencies. As far from a done deal there's a lot of work to be done. Tonight we expect that there will be more questions than answers. We look forward to working through the questions and concerns together. The two districts haven't always seen eye to eye. However especially in recent years the districts have partnered working together in lowering costs improving system reliability offering support during emergencies and addressing groundwater aquifer levels. I've highlighted a few you know Scott's Valley was the lead agency in obtaining a grant for the installation of emergency interties throughout the San Lorenzo Valley and Scott's Valley that brought in approximately four million dollars in grant funds to the district. In June of 2017 the Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency was formed. The three member agency with Scott's Valley San Lorenzo Valley Water and the county are already working on ensuring a sustainable water supply under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 over grafted groundwater basins need to be sustainable manage and the basin must reach sustainability by 2042. The two districts in the county have been working together to meet this requirement and ensure a sustainable supply of groundwater. Just recently the two districts partnered to update our urban water management plan providing a cost savings for both districts by utilization of but one consultant. The two districts are neighbors. Both districts use the same groundwater. It's a shared resource that must be managed sustainably. The consolidated San Lorenzo Valley Scott's Valley Water District may be able to promote conservation more efficiency more effective excuse me if not a consolidated San Lorenzo Valley with the two districts partnering together then who the two districts have already shared common already shared common spirit of influence boundaries and it's the logical fit moving forward. The benefits of a possible consolidation haven't been worked out. However, there's some obvious advantages for the San Lorenzo Valley District. Scott's Valley is a newer water system well maintained and operated with highly professional staff. Scott's Valley has made significant investment in water conservation technology. Together agencies could increase revenues reduce costs and benefit from each other's combined talent. There is a lot of questions that need to be addressed like you and the board have received many emails voicing concerns. There was a lot of questions being asked and there's a lot of nonfactual information being circulated through social media that also needs to be addressed. With every consolidation there are many concerns that will be raised and should be raised. Drinking water partnerships and consolidations can be very positive as demonstrated with our consolidations with Felton and Lumpica just to name a couple. Smaller public water systems like ours and Scott's Valley are often less resilient to natural disasters such as drought, fire, and have more difficulty adjusting to regulatory changes and may struggle to fund infrastructure maintenance and replacement due to poor economies of scale and staffing limitations. Tonight I've introduced this topic of consolidation and I'm asking the board for discussion on whether San Lorenzo Valley wants to explore the potential to consolidate with Scott's Valley. I believe there can be a lot of positive consolidation as there has been with Felton and Lumpica. However, it has not been thoroughly explored nor has the public had a chance to comment. Next week at the regular board of directors meeting for Scott's Valley directors will be kicking off the same process asking the same questions. Both managers have invited Mr. Joe Charano, the executive director of Office Officer of the Santa Cruz local agency formation known as LAFCO to provide an overview presentation about the lengthy and transparent process of consolidation. Tonight I'm asking the board whether staff should proceed with exploring a possible consolidation of the two districts. This does not involve any commitment to consolidation but only to examine and educate the board and public to the benefits and pitfalls of consolidation. I want to be clear through the board and that the district's top priorities are moving forward with recovery from the CZU fire repair of the damaged facilities, which is well underway. The consolidation process would be a secondary priority. With that said, I would like to introduce to the board and to the public to Mr. Joe Charano, the executive officer of the Santa Cruz County LAFCO who has a presentation. Joe. Thank you, Mr. Rick. I'm going to share my screen and if you can just confirm that you can see what I can see. Can you see my screen? Yes, we can see you. Perfect. Well, good evening, board members. It's a pleasure to join you today, at least virtually in this box. Again, my name is Joe Charano. I'm the executive officer for the local agency formation commission of Santa Cruz County, better known as LAFCO. And for those attending this meeting that are not aware or familiar, LAFCO is a state agency that facilitates the orderly development of public agencies and provides direct oversight over boundary changes to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of delivering municipal services to residents in each county in California. You may be wondering, what the heck does that even mean? Well, in simple terms, LAFCO determines the most logical provider for public services. And when I say public services, I mean water, sewer, fire protection. And when I say providers, I specifically mean cities and special districts, such as San Lorenzo Valley Water District. In this county, we have four cities and 23 independent special districts and they were all formed to provide different types of public services. And LAFCO has that local authority in implementing changes to help improve how those services are delivered through various actions, including annexations or adding territory into a city or special district, forming or creating a new city or special district, and even consolidation, which is the reason why I'm here this evening. Consolidation is simply another tool that special districts can use to improve how they provide services to their residents. In the superhero world, consolidation is a secret weapon that allows heroes to join forces for the greater good. In this case, the two water districts coming together to deliver adequate water to the residents. Now, many people are not familiar with LAFCO or the thought of consolidation seems like a daunting task. Let's see if I could get to my next screen. There we go. Let's see. There we go. Hopefully you can see my screen. But like I was saying, not so many people are familiar with LAFCO and the thought of consolidation may be a daunting task, but fear not. I have over 13 years of LAFCO experience. And I've seen and I've survived it all. While consolidation may be new to some, it's actually not that uncommon. In fact, this very morning, I recorded the consolidation involving two fire districts, Aptos La Selva and Central Fire consisting of approximately 25,000 acres over 30,000 parcels and involving 90,000 residents so it can be done as long as you have the right mindset, clear direction and full transparency. For that reason, I created a presentation that provides you a complete overview of the entire consolidation process from consolidation being simply an idea, a concept, a speck in the eye, to the day it's recorded and the new district is officially formed and everything else in between. Tonight, I will go over, we'll call it Joe Serrano's Easy to Follow 3-2-3 plan. I'll joke aside, what I've taken is the consolidation process and split it into three segments, the before, during and after LAFCO. Within those segments, we'll go over the two primary stages or the phases within those segments. And finally, I'll cover the three key takeaways or steps within those phases. My goal is to give you a high level view of the entire process. I'm sure board members, staff, and the public may have specific questions in mind, and I'll be more than happy to answer those questions when we reach the Q&A session of this presentation. So without further ado, let's get started. So we're looking at the breakdown right now and we'll focus on the consideration phase. That's the first stage of the entire consolidation process. First off, before an application can even be considered yet alone submitted, there needs to be research done to justify this new venture. The first step is to receive board direction from the affected agencies to even explore the idea. This allows staff from both districts to begin analyzing whether consolidation makes sense financially, operation wise, and more importantly, does it benefit the residents? Once you give, once you get board direction, the next step should be forming some type of stakeholder group to collectively gather the necessary information from both districts in order to conduct a detailed evaluation. And that leads to the third key step is to consider an outside consultant to produce a feasibility study. This allows an unbiased evaluation of the benefits and or constraints involving consolidation. Once the feasibility study is completed, we now enter the initiation phase. The first step is to present the findings from the study to not only the boards, but to the residents during some type of joint public forum or workshop. Engaging with the residents early and often helps relieve any issues or concerns that the communities may have. In my experience, the top three frequently asked questions about consolidations are the following. Number one, will my taxes go up? Or in this case, will my water rates go up? Second one is, will the level of service get worse as part of this consolidation? And finally, the top question that I've heard is why? Why do this? Why fix what isn't broken? And it's not about fixing the districts, but it's always looking for ways to help improve how water is delivered to the residents. These questions and others should be answered in the feasibility study and reiterated throughout the entire process. Assuming the consolidation makes sense, the next step would be to adopt a resolution of initiation. State law requires this these resolutions to be adopted and be part of the LAFCO application. It would be beneficial for both districts to adopt a similar resolution to emphasize this ongoing collaborative effort. Now that's going to be the overarching theme in this entire process. Collaboration from day one, both districts, both districts directing staff to explore consolidations, both districts forming a working group, both districts hiring a consultant, both districts hosting a public workshop or forum, and both districts adopting a resolution. It's not about one district taking the lead or forcing it on the other district. It's about collaboration and the joint venture from start to finish, which leads to my third point or third step is considering submitting a joint application to further highlight that ongoing collaborative effort. Once an application is submitted, we now enter the evaluation phase. Under state law, LAFCO is required to review the application, making sure that all the required documents are submitted. Within 30 days of receiving the application, LAFCO will reform the district if anything is missing. Based on my 13 years experience, I've only received one application that was fully complete. So there is going to be something missing or steps to be covered. And that's fine, we'll work along the way. Within those 30 days, LAFCO is also legally required to notify all the affected agencies and interested local agencies about the consolidation. This is for example, the city of Scotts Valley and the neighboring fire districts to learn about the potential consolidation and provide comments, if any. This is also the time where LAFCO begins gathering the necessary data to conduct our own analysis, such as determining the number of registered voters within the consolidated area and calculating the total assessed land value per parcel. Once LAFCO deems the project complete, the application complete, a certificate of filing is signed. And this allows LAFCO to legally schedule the consolidation for commission consideration at our next LAFCO meeting. When that occurs, that leads us to our next phase, public meetings. The public notice will be advertised in a local newspaper at least 21 days before the meeting is held to consider consolidation. However, LAFCO encourages the districts to host at least one or two more community workshops before the commission meeting to continue that ongoing outreach effort with the residents. Again, engaging with the community early and often helps any resident issues or concerns be addressed and lets the residents, the communities, have a voice in the entire process. And the third key step, sorry about that, apologize for the technical issues. And the third step is that at the LAFCO meeting, the commission will consider approving the consolidation by adopting a resolution. This action will be based on the feasibility study findings, the feedback from the affected districts and the residents and LAFCO staff's analysis and recommendation. Assuming the consolidation is approved by the LAFCO commission, we now enter the proceeding phase. State law requires two proceedings to occur. First, there is a 30 day request for reconsideration period, which allows residents to submit new evidence that was not considered by the commission that may overturn their approval. After that, there is a protest period, which allows residents to submit petitions of opposition. This is their last opportunity for residents to oppose a consolidation and voice their concerns with the petition. The third takeaway is that there is a legal threshold involving protests. The rule of them is this, if LAFCO receives less than 25% of registered voters or landowners opposing the consolidation, then the approval stands. If we receive 25% to 50% of total registered voters or landowners opposing the consolidation, that triggers a special election. And if LAFCO receives more than 50% of total registered voters or landowners within the consolidated area that oppose the consolidation, that terminates the consolidation itself. But the goal here is to minimize the protest threshold by, again, engaging with the community about consolidation. Going back to the fire consolidation that I mentioned earlier today that was recorded, the fire districts followed the exact same steps that we've covered thus far in this presentation. And during the protest period, do you know how many people submitted petitions of opposition? Out of the 90,000 residents, we received zero. And that's because the districts followed this transparent approach. Now we have entered the final phase of the consolidation process, the recordation phase. Recordation means the consolidation is finalized and the two districts are officially one new water district. This occurs when both proceedings are completed and also all the terms and conditions outlined in the resolution of the LAFCO resolution that was adopted have been fulfilled. Give you one second. If these milestones are fulfilled, LAFCO will then record the certificate completion, making the consolidation official. And that's it. Congratulations. You have successfully graduated LAFCO University and you're all LAFCO experts. But I'll joke and aside, this was a high level look at the entire consolidation process. There are technical and legal steps that need to occur. And I'm sure you have specific questions. At this point, I'll defer back to the chair and the general manager so we can begin the Q&A session. But before I do that, I want to thank the board and your staff for not only inviting LAFCO to this meeting, but for having this discussion at all. Change is not easy. It can be tough sometimes. And because it's really about fear of the unknown, but it doesn't have to be that way. LAFCO is here to help guide you on this exploration. And if it makes sense, LAFCO will encourage and support you along the way with full participation from the boards, staff, the unions and the residents. This will be another form of good government. It only takes the right mindset, clear direction, and full transparency. I hope you found this presentation informative. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Okay, I think we will defer any questions about the LAFCO process to the public comment section. But first, we'll go and have a round of comments by the board. And let's just let me check in with the strict manager Rogers, if there was anything you wanted to add before I opened it up to the board. No, I'll defer it back to the board. Okay. All right. Director Smalley, you have a comment? I'm not at this point. No. Okay. Director to I'm not not right now. Okay. Director false. I'm sorry, Gail, did I understand that you didn't that you did not want us to ask questions? No, no, no, no, no, no. I the only thing I said at the beginning was that I would not invite motions. But I see I please we will do as we normally do have one round of comments by the board and then we'll go out for public comments. And so it's your turn to give your your Yeah, well, well, again, I have questions for Mr. Serrano. So is do you want to take those now? Yes, please. Okay, great. Mr. Serrano, thank you very much for coming to our meeting and giving the presentation on the laugh code process. It was very informative that I had just a couple of questions about some points that weren't clear to me on the voting that you were talking about. Is the threshold voting done by each district? Or is it a combination of both districts? So in other words, does the San Lorenzo Valley Water District vote and it's 25% threshold is counted? And the Scotts Valley votes and it's 25% threshold or do we put them together and it's 25% of the whole thing? So great question. Board member, it's actually under state law. It's based on the entire consolidated area. So residents within San Lorenzo Valley Water District and residents from Scotts Valley Water District. And the thresholds are to be specific. Registered voters within both the consolidated area. So it's collectively, not individually. And there's also a assessed value threshold as well as I understand from looking at the process. So it's both voters and assessed value. The great question and that's the reason why I wanted to give you a high level review of the process and that's a good technical question. So to be specific under state law, under laugh code law, the thresholds are based on the registered voters within both districts. So it's the 25%, 50% etc. And also the landowners and specifically their assessed land value percentages. Not the home value, the land value and is that residential only, not commercial? So it's all land value, whether or not there's improvements or not, it's just land value. But that doesn't include commercial property or commercially zoned property. Correct. So it's all properties within the consolidated area. Okay. Next question is on the process that you have there before laugh code, which I'm seeing on the screen right now. Is that a process that's mandated by state law and or regulation? Or is it a recommended best practice? Great question. So based on my experience, the this consolidation, the success of consolidation occur when this kind of process is followed. Now, to answer your question, the before laugh code steps, those are simply recommendations. That's steps that you take. That being said, the feasibility study, it helps fulfill one of the requirements in the laugh code application, which is a plan for service document that pretty much lays out the benefits, the constraints, what's going to happen to all the assets and liabilities, what happens to the employees, what's the level of service, what's the water rates going to be, or an after the consolidation. Those type of factors that are requiring the plan for service can be covered in this feasibility study. But it would be who the district to consider these pre application steps. Let's understand. Let's understand. Illegal steps start the moment we receive an application. Great. Should we proceed with the full process? Does laugh code have an advocacy role in the process? And by advocacy, I mean taking a position on the consolidation. So another great question. Laugh code were formed back in 1963 to encourage smart growth. So we support and encourage quarterly development information. We do not take an official position of we want the two water districts to consolidate. That that's not how laugh goes operate. We encourage and we support and we guide, but it's really up to the districts and the residents to move forward with the consolidation. So to answer your question, laugh code is a resource, but not an advocate. We support this consolidation without any of the facts. I'm a firm believer of having clear black and white facts whether or not this consolidation makes sense. And if it does, then laugh code will support you moving forward. But there is no advocacy of we want this to occur whether or not the districts agree or whether or not the feasibility is promising. Thank you, Mr. Sram. Appreciate your answers. Director Henry. SLV is made up of a lot of small mutuals companies. I think Lompica was the only district. So SLV has grown through the years by moving forward consolidating with different groups. And I realize this is hard to think about because many people have lived so many years in the San Lorenzo Valley and have been part of SLV, a customer rate payer, and they might feel like they're losing something that somehow SLV won't be SLV anymore. But that will not be true. This is the way to go. Water districts need to grow. We must grow to continue. We can't stay a little small spot in the road. And in fact, the state really encourages consolidations because when there are many small districts, mutuals, companies, it costs the state a lot of money to oversee those. And I understand how difficult this is going to be for some of you. How difficult it might be for you to trust that your concerns will still matter, that SLV will still be the water district that you've cared about for many, many years. But I think we need to look at this and we need to get all the facts. And even though I think it's a good idea, I don't have all the facts yet. And maybe something that will happen that I'll think, oh, I'm not sure about this. But this is fact gathering is what it is. And I think we should move forward. All right. Director, too, I see that you've got your hand up and you didn't comment the first round. So we'll let you go ahead. Thank you, President Mayhead. I just wanted to emphasize something that the director, excuse me, not the director, that Rick had said. I wanted to tell the public that first of all, this is not a done deal tonight. That's something that Director Mayhead had mentioned earlier that we're literally just here to talk about this, to present it, to say, hey, this is something we're thinking about doing. That's the first thing everybody should recognize. But I really, really want to emphasize that there's some concern that Scott's probably is going to steal our water or whatever. That is totally incorrect. In fact, currently, we already share the same aquifer. We are currently sharing the same aquifer. We participate in the same groundwater agency. The water's not being stolen by anyone. I want to just put that out there that we already share the same water. That's, I want to repeat that over and over again. Nobody's stealing anybody's water. We already share the same water. So I wanted to say that repeatedly so that if anybody is going to speak up tonight that you recognize that we already share the same water. So going forward, I wanted the public to keep that in mind and that this is not a done deal. We're not deciding anything tonight. This is literally just something we're talking about with Scrax Valley. They brought it to us to say, hey, maybe this is a good idea. We could save some money. In fact, that is something we definitely need right now. And it's a very, it's a long process. This is not happening tonight. This is going forward. Over the next, over long. I'm so sure Joe can tell you the average, like how long this actually takes. So anyway, this is the very first meeting for this sort of thing. So again, we already share the same water. This is just the beginning. It's an exploration process. And this is the first meeting. Thank you for letting me say that. Director Smalling, go ahead. Yes, Joe, thank you for the presentation. Well, are there easy off ramps in this process if San Lorenzo Valley decides to go ahead with it? And after the initial evaluation, we decide as a board, no, we don't want to proceed with it. So great question. And yes, at any point in the process, if after doing the feasibility study or after the outreach with the residents at any point in the process, one or both districts aside, this is not feasible. This doesn't make sense for us. We do not want to move forward to it. Then it stops. LAFCO is not here to enforce the consolidation. It needs to make sense on both parties. So you're not locked in. If you submit an application, there's no stopping it. There is. And that's the whole point of this transparency approach is discussing all the issues together. And if at some point it doesn't make sense, then at least the effort was there. The information was gathered. And you come to the consensus of why it doesn't work or why it does. Okay. Thank you. Normally, we just have one comment from each board member. But I know, Bob, your first round was really sort of technical questions. So go ahead and speak if you'd like now again. Thank you, Gail. And this will be brief. I just wanted to build a little bit on what Tina was saying, make sure and maybe clarifying something, at least based on what I've seen in the social media I've been reviewing the last couple of days. It is correct that we do share the same aquifer. But the San Lorenzo Valley Water District is unique in that it gets about 50% of its water from surface sources and 50% from groundwater. And those surface sources are not available to Scotts Valley through the normal course of business at this point. Only, for example, during emergency situations right now through the intertited rehab. And of course we've also received water from them in emergency situations as well. So that may be sort of what people are referring to when they're talking about perhaps the demands on water. And I think it's important to clarify that we do understand the distinction between the water sources the two districts have. Open this up for public comment. We have lots of people that are attending tonight. If you would like to make a comment, please hit the raise hand button at the bottom of your screen. I will not necessarily be calling you on the order in which you raise your hand and just to try to balance things out a little bit. And because we have so many people that potentially might like to speak tonight, I don't like to do this, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to limit your comments to two minutes so that we can make sure that we hear from everybody. And if you go over two minutes, I will ask you to please stop. So it's very important to us that everybody gets a chance to be heard. I ask that you don't repeat any arguments that somebody else has said just to save us all time. It's perfectly okay to say ditto to John Smith's point if you just want to make your voice heard. I think also because there are so many unknowns at this time, because we've just barely started investigating this, district manager Rogers may not be able to answer every question that you have, but because this meeting is recorded, we will compile all of the questions that were unanswered and we will be sure to get the answers out to you as soon as we can. So with that, we'll go ahead and I will call on people and you'll be unmuted as we go. So Lorraine Palmer, if you'd like to go first. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay, hi. I have a whole lot of questions, so I'm going to start with them and see what can get answered. If Joe Serrano is being provided to us as a paid person to help consolidate, who's providing us with a paid person to help us not consolidate? It seems to be very one-sided. And I think that you've said that the percentage of voters is a total within the two districts to oppose as well as land values. So what are the demographics that exist now? What are our, what are the demographics so that we know, do we have 30,000 voters and they've got 70,000 or like, what are the numbers and what are the values of our land? What are the differences? So how off balance are the two communities? And I don't understand why this is even being discussed when we're in the middle of COVID and why when we have a lot of displaced residents from the fire, that this is a difficult time for this community to be able to get information, to be able to have conversations and decide how people feel about it and to respond. It seems to me like there's a advantage being taken of people who are overwhelmed right now and why isn't this being put off for two years, why people can take time to rebuild and get back into our community. Why are we doing this now? And who's going to limit development in Scotts Valley if they keep developing and keep needing more water? I don't see why, why our community would want to do this. What is their, what benefit is there to us? Okay. Thank you, Lorraine. The way we're going to run this is I'm going to ask Rick Rogers to sort of handle answering the questions. He'll answer what he can and if there's something that he thinks Joe would be a better person to answer, he will ask Joe to do that. And that's just, just so that I don't end up having to call on people. So go ahead, Rick. Well, I, you know, I'm not sure if I can answer all of Lorraine's questions. Some of those I think should go directly to Joe. But, you know, what I can say is that with, you know, we've had, you know, the San Lorenzo Valley area has always some type of disaster or issue going on. Is, I don't know, there ever is a good time. I don't know, that's an answer to the question, but there never is a good time. And if you were to just start holding back, it would be quite a healthy list as time went on. Water districts do not, and maybe Joe could answer this, could not typically limit growth. That's the city and the county planners for our responsibility. Although I do know Scotts Valley system demand has steadily, has been pretty steady for the last five years. And their pumping has decreased about 40% from their historical highs in the 1990s. The groundwater levels in Scotts Valley have also stabilized in early 2010. And have even seen some recovery in the basin. Now, Joe wants to take the questions that pertain to Lafko. Thank you, Mr. Ray. Yeah. For just clarification, Lafko is a state agency. There are 58 counties in California, meaning there's 58 Lafko's. We are the local overseeing body. I was invited to provide this information because Lafko's have full authority in boundary changes, including consolidations. So I'm here just to provide information. I don't have, Lafko is an unbiased body. If an agency wants annex territory or extend services outside their jurisdiction or consolidate, they have to go through Lafko. Lafko is the governing body that approves, denies, or modifies an application. So that's the reason why I came in because the two water districts have expressed interest in consolidation, but they don't know all the steps. Lafko, that's the reason why we were formed. And for example, the fire consolidation that I mentioned earlier, the two fire districts consider consolidation and they came to Lafko with an application because they need Lafko's approval. Same thing would happen with the water districts should they choose to move forward with consolidation. And just to reiterate what Rick said, Lafko does not have any purview with land use designation. Land use zoning, general plan zoning, anything involving land use is based on the county or the city depending on what area in the county. But the water districts don't have authority. Neither does Lafko in land use designations. And but the water districts do review service applications for new construction and determine whether water is available or not at a request for service. Correct. Okay. Loc Herrick. And we have Loc Herrick. I guess Jade is speaking. Go ahead, Jade. Herrick. Is Jade Herrick there? Yes, I'm here. Sorry about that. Okay, go ahead. Thank you for waiting. I feel like the concern for us who are in smaller communities, especially those that aren't incorporated is that if there is a disagreement or when priorities are made, we don't get the same sort of consideration because we don't have the same representation. Today we're on the same page, but you know what about down the line when push comes to shove? It seems like smaller communities get pushed out. And I've seen it before in city councils. It seems like whichever neighborhood has the lowest property values gets the least priority. Mr. Serrano said himself that the Lafko commission assessments are done by land value. You know, I live in Boulder Creek, so you know, would my opinion be worthless than someone who owns property in Scotts Valley? It just strikes me as classist and unjust and doesn't even consider renters. As far as consolidating within San Lorenzo Valley, I feel like the disparities and the interest between communities are smaller than it is between San Lorenzo Valley and Scotts Valley. So ultimately I don't feel like a combined water district will look out for San Lorenzo Valley's interests. My concern isn't SLV's identity. It's our decision making capability for our interests. Like who will be representing us? What sort of structure does it look like if we're combined? That's what I have to say. Thank you, Jade. Rick? I don't really have much to say except who will represent you are the Board of Directors of the San Lorenzo Valley Water District. Unknown at this point in time how that makeup would look, but you would still have local control of the district through your elected officials. And Rick, if you don't mind, I can try. No, please step in because these questions are kind of above my expertise on that because we're not there yet on how the district would look with Directors and so forth. Exactly. But I will say that the last speaker brought up a good point about fair representation and the Board composition of this assuming a consolidation would occur. How would they be represented? And I'm going to use this fire consolidation because it's just fresh in my mind. That was a concern that was raised by the residents because at that point the two fire districts their board was comprised of at-large elections. So we now have this new fire district as much larger. Will they still be at-large elections? And so that was considered and as part of the LAFCO resolution there was a condition saying that by the year 2022 this new board is going to transition from at-large elections to district-based or zones. That way that each community within this proposed consolidation new district will have fair representation. And those are the type of questions that I really enjoy hearing from the residents and those are the type of questions that need to be answered again for this full transparency approach because those are definitely concerns that residents throughout the state have had and that needs to be addressed as part of this process. Should their districts decide to move forward with it? Agreed. Beth Thomas. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. I appreciate a lot of the comments that have been made and share a lot of the concerns. I do have a couple of my questions have been answered through Director Somali in particular. But I do have another question for Mr. Serrano. I'm curious as to whether LAFCO has... I'm curious as to whether you've had the experience of denying a petition for consolidation and in case of that, what kinds of issues would there be that would make LAFCO deny that kind of a consolidation petition or application? Chair, if you'd like, I can answer it. Yes, please do. Yes. So in my experience, I have not seen a consolidation be denied for a number of reasons. One, it's very difficult to get the consolidation to the point where it's ready for commission consideration. If there's any issues along the ways, it gets pulled by one of the districts, the application. So it doesn't get to a point where the consolidation is terminated by the commission at a public hearing. By the time it reaches the commission, based on my experience, all that hard work has been done and it made sense throughout the whole... It kind of went through all these legal hoops. So by the time it got to the commission, the residents were on board, the staff were on board, the districts were on board. So there was an overarching consensus, so the commission would approve those consolidations. But great question. There have been situations, not consolidations, but boundary changes that have been presented to a commission that they've denied for various reasons. But going back to your particular question, based on my experience, consolidation has not been denied by the commission. One, because state law encourages consolidations when feasible, when it makes sense. But secondly, if there's an issue, the districts are the ones that pull the plug. And so by the time it gets to the commission for consideration, it's a consensus from all parties. Thank you. Rebecca Rubin. Thank you, President Mahood. I just wanted to thank the other person that talked about the at-large versus district voting. And I encourage, during the feasibility study, to look into district instead of out-large voting. So we'll make sure that the entire valley is represented if consolidation does happen. Thank you. Thank you. Wow, 20 seconds. Good for you. Okay, Beth and Terry Hollenbeck. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can, Beth. Okay, thank you, President Mahood. And thank you, Board of Directors. A wonderful discussion tonight. And one of my questions was already answered from Director Fultz about how much the Santa Rosa Valley depletes the Santa Margarita. And it's my understanding that we don't deplete it, that we are in good water standing. And I do want to also remind the Board that we have fought very hard in the Santa Rosa Valley to not have high-density housing and to very much protect our water resources and make sure that we do have water. We've been very responsible about that. And so, it is hard to think about shipping the water out. And I will just use that term because that's the term that Flow used when we bought the Felton water from Calam. And that was the verbiage that was used to get voters to vote for the waters that it would remain locally owned. It would not become a commodity. And Felton residents are actually paying $600 a year on our property taxes for that. And so, one of my questions would be, if it was consolidated, would the water district be buying it back from us? Would we be reimbursed all the money that we've put in to be locally owned and to protect our water as we have vigilantly done over the years? And my second question would be, and it seems like a dangerous beginning to a county-wide intertie for areas that have overbuilt and have depleted their water sources. Is this just the beginning of a whole county intertie? I'm all for emergency interties. I get it. And I think as neighbors, we always want to help each other in those extreme cases. But I would be very careful about this being the beginning of a very big picture. Thank you. Thank you, Beth. Rick, you want to respond? I don't believe that there would be any reimbursements to any of the other districts that have consolidated. And the district has working with Scots Valley, with Santa Cruz, the county. We're looking at many projects to improve long-range sustainability of our water supply right now through the Santa Margaret Groundwater Basin. And we'll continue to do that. I'm not sure that answers her questions, but we do like the idea of emergency interties. We're using emergency interties right now to move water around as a result of the CZU fire. And we'll continue to manage. Jim Mosher. Can you hear me? Yes. I have two issues I'd like to raise. One is I'm really quite concerned about the process that the board and the staff has done in presenting this to residents. It came as a shock to me that this topic was coming up. I think that's true for a lot of residents. It raised a lot of concerns that the board has had discussions about this. And it appeared from the press release and the way that it came on the agenda that we're going to be talking about LAFCO as our first public meeting, that this was something the board that perhaps already decided this was a good idea and wanted to move forward. I'm hearing some of that now. And I think the process should have started with here's what Scott's Valley has offered us as proposed. Let's have some community dialogue about this rather than moving forward what feels like in kind of a rapid pace. I'm hearing that this is a slow process, but this first start has created a lot of anxiety and concern among residents that I think could have been avoided. So we could have had a more reasoned and less emotional presentation of the pros and cons. And I'm sorry that there's just been a lot of anxiety and fear and anger being expressed in social media because the process doesn't seem like it involved the residents in a way that made us feel like we were empowered to be able to have a voice in this right from the beginning and not sort of as the process has already been moved forward. The second thing has already been mentioned which is I don't understand why we're discussing this now. It seems like this is something that should be put on a back burner to me. We have so much going on in terms of the comparison of fire, the infrastructure, and this is a major, major issue that's going to take a huge amount of energy for staff, for the board, for residents. And I'm just very concerned that we're continued to be in a crisis. We just went through a big evacuation. Jim, you're over two minutes. Okay, so those are my concerns and I wish that we could slow this process down and defer it. Thank you. Thank you. Rick, did you want to respond to that? No, I, you know, Jim's point's taken. You know, it's with the Brown Act and with the two different agencies, it's a cumbersome process to get this out and to work with it with Scotts Valley so we could both release at the same time. We wanted to make sure this didn't look like you know, a hostile takeover, so to speak. And then working with the boards and Brown Act and meeting schedules, it's, it's a different, it's a difficult process to get out. This is the first public meeting. This is the first of many meetings. So I hope that the community feels, as we move forward, that we do a better job. You know, Jim's point is well taken. Scott, Eric. Thank you and thank you for holding this meeting. So I'm a resident of Boulder Creek and a business owner. And something that concerns me is the fact that once the application is submitted, the process is set to approve it. Meaning I think that the vote should be 50% of people have to vote for it in order for it to go through rather than that change. And so once the board decides, hey, this is a good idea or we need to do it, then it's a negative that we have to vote for and people don't vote for negatives. Secondly, I feel like it's a very, it's not very transparent about why this is a good deal for SLV. We've heard two great sales pitches about the pros that are very general-based, but nobody has talked about the negatives. And I think the negatives are very clear in that SLV is small. The owners here are smaller. Our property values are less. There are a few people that live here. And whether or not we have out-large or district-based elections, the voices will be diluted from what they are currently in a system that's combined with Scott's Valley and Scott's Valley owners and businesses and all those things. And so it just, I don't understand the benefits for this and why SLV would want to do this unless there are things that we don't know that are in that process. Thank you. He's right. We don't know all the benefits. We don't know all the pros and cons. And that's what this process will filter out from the onset of speaking with Scott's Valley. We do see a lot of potential for the two agencies to combine, but we have not. We're far from lifting the hood and really getting into the pros and cons of this. And that's what this process will do. We will review finances. We'll give a water supply personnel, a whole host of information to help the board and the public make a decision. We're not there yet at all. I'm not 100% to move ahead until we get more information. From our initial meetings and discussions, there seems to be a lot of potential for the two districts to consolidate and be big cost savings. I mean, you're talking about one administration facility, one district manager, staffing improvements. And then to maintain and manage the aquifers. There's a lot of pros, but we haven't got into the full review. And that's what this process and it's a full transparent review. Whatever information we get, the public will get. And it may at the end of this process, SOV may say, hey, it sounded good in the beginning, but as we receive information, we don't believe it's the right thing. Rick, several people have asked questions about expressing concerns about that we'd be outvoted or our votes would be diluted. And could you comment on the relative sizes of the districts? Because I actually had it wrong. I just, I always assumed that Scotts Valley was bigger than us. And it turns out that it's not the case. So maybe you could just explain that a little. Scotts Valley has approximately I think 4,400 service connections and SLV I do believe is like 86, 700 service connections. It would be an increase of a little over 50% of connections bringing Scotts Valley on to consolidate with Scotts Valley. But SLV is the bigger district. Antonia Bradford. Okay, can you hear me now? Yes, we can Antonia. Thank you. You know, sitting here and watching this, you know, we're having lots of dialogue online me and my fellow Boulder Creek residents. And it truly seems like you guys already have decided that this is a good thing for us. And what my biggest concern is I don't understand how our vote or our needs would matter less because of our property values. That seems really elitist. I certainly don't appreciate it. And the reason why I deeply don't appreciate it is because I lost my house in the fire. And so my property value is way less now. So are you telling me that my vote would matter less? Dougal, would you like to answer that? Yes, I can. One is their votes do matter. And I would say that it's not just about the land value of the resident. All registered voters within the Consolidated have a vote. That vote is not weighted. So your vote is the same value as anybody else's vote. What's up with the land assessment then? Because you guys keep bringing that up as a value. So what difference does that make? So great question. So state law wants to make sure that the residents in the affected area, so this Consolidated area, has a voice if they oppose this Consolidation. So the state law indicates all registered voters within the Consolidated area, they have a vote. In addition, all the landowners in that same Consolidation also have a vote. So they want to make sure that they cover both bases. If the residents oppose it and they meet the thresholds, that can trigger a special election or that can terminate it. Same with the landowners. They could trigger an election or they could terminate it. So now we're making sure that we cover everyone that's in the resident. So if you don't have a high land assessed value, you still can vote for the land value petition as well as a resident voter. So you're getting two opportunities to voice your opposition if you believe that this does not make sense. So it's the law's intent to capture everyone's opposition in this area. Thank you. I saw you before, but I think we didn't get through to you. So let's go ahead and let you talk about Charitya May Hood. I believe it was your intention to get through everybody once. I think Ms. Palmer did comment. Okay. I may have made a mistake. I thought we didn't connect with her. But yes, if let's go on to Bridget Zemp then. Okay. Hold on. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. You've answered a lot of my questions already, but I'm kind of seeing this. You know, I think the biggest problem here is you have two different kinds of populations. You have the rural population of the SLB and you have the more urban population, although they're not really a big city or anything. But San Loren Scots Valley is very different in the SLB. And I think that's why you're seeing a lot of resistance to this is because the SLB has always been fiercely independent. And we also feel fiercely independent from Scots Valley because it is so different than how things go in the SLB. My biggest concern with this and my question is I'm wondering how this is not simply a bureaucratic improvement and whether or not this is going to actually improve the sustainability of water supply in both these communities. It seems like it's more of a bureaucratic improvement in making it, you know, saving money on staff and things like that, as opposed to really benefiting the two communities. So could you address that? I still haven't gotten my mind around how this benefits the SLB because I'm in felt. And I'm not yet sure how this benefits other than a bureaucratic benefit. Rick, did you want to answer that? You know, financial benefits are a huge concern. Water management and aquifer management is also a concern. You would have a 1-8 you see the San Lorenzo Valley would be predominantly in the aquifer. And, you know, I'm not saying we can do a better job, but I think working with the other agencies and consolidated, I think we'd have a larger scale to address those issues. I mean, a lot of this is financial. There's no doubt about it. And that's an important, you know, to small districts, small districts struggle. We struggle all the time on finance. And additional customers are what's going to, you know, keep water rates down. They're going to make it so we can do capital improvement projects. You know, the scale is important. You know, Scotts Valley is a small district. It has the same requirements as SLB with water quality monitoring and so forth. And we can combine our resources, which is, I think, is a real benefit to the community. And when we do these analysis and reports, a lot of that will come out. We don't have, I don't have those answers to give you, you know, what you're looking for. I can't tell you that this process flushes those answers out. And, Rick, I was just going to mention that the residents that, or the speakers that have provided comments, they're raising really good questions. And you can't answer those questions without doing an analysis. And you can't do that analysis until you tell your staff to do the analysis. And you can't start the consolidation process until you know whether or not consolidation makes sense. So that's why it's important that you're having these discussions. We are far ahead of any attempts to submit an application. You really can't submit an application until you know if this makes sense or not. And you won't know until you do a thorough analysis. I really know, are there any benefits? If there are benefits, what are they? Are they financially? Are they just maximizing economies of scale? What are they? And that's why you really need a thorough feasibility study or some type of report that you can show to your residents and say, these are the benefits of consolidation. These are the constraints. And that way you can continue those discussions and then you can decide consolidation, it's dead in the water, or you know what, this makes sense and it benefits the residents. But you really have to do an analysis before you can even take the next step. I agree. These questions are difficult to answer without that information. Exactly. Curtis, we'll go to Joe Cucciara. Thank you, Madam President. During the eight years that I served both Santa Lorenzo Valley and Scotts Valley on the Board of Supervisors, a great many of those years, I also was the Board's representative on LAFCO. And with all due respect to the LAFCO presentation, the item that is missing in the various pages is politics. And I spent the majority of my time on LAFCO fighting against the behind the scenes politics and manipulation that goes on for a consolidation such as this. And perhaps the most important contribution I can make tonight is to say this is the worst idea, the dumbest idea since the pet rock. Do not even take the first step going down this Primrose path. These two communities who I respect greatly are very different culturally and their value base is very different. The San Lorenzo Valley does not want Scotts Valley voters imposing their views on what goes on in the San Lorenzo Valley community. We will lose our local control. It is not a fair comparison to say we merged with the Felton and Lampico water districts. Scotts Valley is an incorporated city. The San Lorenzo Valley is the unincorporated part of Santa Cruz County. Joe, you're at two minutes. Please finish up. Do not take this first step. Do not go and begin the LAFCO process. Thank you very much, Madam President. Thank you. We'll now go to Ross Albert. Ross, are you there? Hello. Hi. Can you all hear me? Yep, we can. Perfect. I want to thank both the board and Mr. Serrano and Rick Rogers for having everyone here tonight. For everyone's disclosure, I've been an operator for the last 13 years for the Scotts Valley Water District. Furthermore, I've followed Mr. Rogers' career and a lot of other individuals' careers around the county. I feel like the merger of the two districts is going to be a short-sighted measure where long-term, every citizen of our county needs to look at a better way to move water around the county and have a more resilient infrastructure mutual aid and looking for the ratepayers less price gouging. All I'd like to impress upon the board tonight is, is there something better that we can do to maintain water security and the resiliency of infrastructure? I thank you all for your time. Thank you, Ross. Let's have Joni Martin next. Thank you so much, Chair Mayhood. I had a few questions and a comment. I echo and agree with the comments that have been made about the cultural differences between the two communities with no disrespect to Scotts Valley. I do feel proud about San Lorenzo Valley's commitment to ecology and conservation and related to that have some concerns like others about how the representation would go. I feel like it would have been good prior to this meeting for those presenting this idea to be able to tell us quite simply how many registered voters there are in the San Lorenzo Valley and how many registered voters there are in Scotts Valley. That would answer one of the basic questions. Regarding the representation of landowners, it sounded to me as if Mr. Serrano was saying that the registered voter vote would make sure that renters were represented and then that there's a separate vote to be sure that landowners are represented even if they are not registered voters in the district. So I want clarification on whether I understood that correctly and then also I feel like the piece that Mr. Serrano mentioned about the land valuation was never clearly explained and it seems to trigger a lot of emotions. So I think that would be better. That would be a good idea to have Mr. Serrano explain exactly how land value waits a vote. If it's not just one property represented by one vote by one landowner, how does valuation affect that? And then the final point I wanted to make was that right now I know that we're in a real belt tightening moment. It's my understanding that damage from the fire and preparation for debris flows has resulted in a $5 million, I don't know if deficit's the right word but we're looking for $5 million that we don't have that FEMA wasn't covering. And so I'm assuming that Rick Rogers has some number in his mind of what we might financially save from such a consolidation that would make him think that it's worth the cost of the consultant during such a belt tightening time and that it's worth his time and focus and energy during a time when so much else is demanding staff. That's all. So I'd like to know Rick Rogers' number that he had in mind that he thought we could save that made him think this was a good idea. Those are my two primary questions. Okay, Rick, you want to go first? I don't have a number. I just feel that it would be significant. Our district is looking at building a new headquarters. We have duplicate staff off the top of my head. I do not have a number but again, that's what the studies would do. And again, it may not be as much as I think or it may be more than I think. I don't have that number. But that's a number we will definitely want to see. I feel that it's significant. That the consolidation would reduce the needs for certain facilities and for staff. Director, too, did you have something you wanted to add? Yeah, I just wanted to let Joni know that you can find the registered voter information on the county elections website. And if you just go there and it'll tell you for each of the different districts what the voter register voter permission is. So you're welcome to look for that. Director Fultz. Yes, as of the last election, the number of registered voters in the five-hour district was just a handful over 18,000. I don't know about Scotts Valley, but I would expect it's probably somewhere around half that or so. Maybe 60 percent. I don't know if people could hear that. Bob is sounding a little gravelly, right? And I'll repeat sometimes. But he said about 18,000 percent were in the Valley and maybe half that for Scotts Valley. Joe, would you like to answer Joni's more technical question trying to explain the land-based vote? Fancy the value-based vote. Thank you, Chair. Really good question from Joni Martin. I apologize if I wasn't clear. The registered voters, that information is collected from the county's elections department. I just mentioned by one of your board directors. So we would gather the latest roll of the registered voters within San Lorenzo Valley Water District and Scotts Valley Water District. So if renters are registered to vote in that area, they would be part of that roll that's gathered by Lafko. As for the assessed land value, that's also collected by Lafko. We look at all the parcels within the consolidated area and we gather that information from the county and the city. So we know an idea, not an idea, we know the exact assessed land value for the parcels within the two districts. And I hope that answers your question, but I can go into more detail if you have any more specific questions. This might be something that we'll need to write out. It's kind of a confusing thing. And maybe we can include that among our answers. Absolutely right. And that's why Lafko commission actually adopted a policy specifically on the protest proceedings because the law is unfortunately confusing sometimes. And so I would defer to the commission's policy. We really add more details on what's the registered voters' abilities to vote against a particular boundary change. Not just consolidations, but any Lafko action. So I would defer to our Lafko website which has a protest proceedings policy available for anyone that's interested. Okay, Bruce Holloway. I think Ms. Director Henry has a question. Oh, I'm sorry, I couldn't see you. Lois, did you have something you wanted to add or? Lois, you're muted. I want to remind people that part of SLV water district is in Scotts Valley. And there's also a chance that there's going to be another housing project in SLV's part of Scotts Valley. So just because you think maybe our properties aren't as much as other peoples in Scotts Valley, I think that that isn't necessarily so. And plus the area that we already have in Scotts Valley and they already vote for board members. And I'm not sure everybody knows that about Scotts Valley and SLV that we do have that area. I'm not sure at the moment how many houses that is and I'm not sure how many houses the new project would be. But those are things you need to think about. And you might find that your property in Boulder Creek or Felton is worth more money than you think. Bruce Holloway, Bruce, are you there? Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Oh, thank you. I guess the memo about this was signed by the district manager and the district council. So there's a couple of things about SLV water district. One is that we own a share or we have a water right to a share of the Loch Lomond water. It's about 300 acre feet per year. And so I'm wondering since the district council signed this memo with very little information, are we in danger or is there some legal reason? Are we in danger of losing our water right? Because we have not put that water to beneficial use for 43 years. And so does that make it fair game for the county or Scouts Valley or Santa Cruz to take our water right? Also, there's a wastewater system. SLVWD owns a wastewater system, which takes up considerable time for the board of directors. And I wonder if this Perret really want the wastewater system. Is there some way that that can be shuffled off to the county before this merger takes place? One of the main things that I don't like about the idea of a merger, I think it is a good fit between the two districts. But Perret Harmon is hell bent on building injection wells to solve Santa Cruz city problem. And I'm not excited about paying for injection wells for Santa Cruz's next water project. Also, I'm concerned about neighborhood equity. SLVWD, once we buy into this country club, usually we all get treated equally. And I appreciate that. And it appears to be pretty much the same thing in Scouts Valley that Santa Cruz has a history of treating people outside the city limits inequitably. And so I'm worried about neighborhood equity with this kind of a merger. I'm hearing an echo now. The district has always treated all customers equal. There was when we did not to get off into the weeds, but we did a consolidation with Lumpico. There was a surcharge in the beginning that has been rolled back now. All of our customers are on the same rate scale. And I would imagine that we would continue that same type of billing. However, again, we're not there yet. We haven't done the analysis, but I don't see that. Again, we haven't done the analysis. Okay. Can we have Char next? Hi, good evening. I'm Char Glean-Sisi. And I have a couple of questions. Well, first of all, who brought the idea forward? Was it SLV or was it Scouts Valley? And I'll just go through my questions. And I'd like to state that more users doesn't necessarily mean better service. Sometimes more people, more problems, especially with the disparity of our communities. I'd like to echo Joni's comments about the cost of the consultants. I mean, I know it would probably have to be done if you get to that stage, but that's a hell of a lot of money, probably. And consultants always keep being consultants. And I'd also like to echo, can we look at other ways to improve ourselves? Echo that we're in the middle of a pandemic and the CZU fire has created hell on our district and that has to take priorities. And I'm not sure I got the right answer. Maybe we feel that it's going to save us money, but a feeling is not a fact. And I hope you'll really, if this does go any farther, you'll look into that. So I guess my only question is, who brought this to the party? Yes, okay. The district manager of Scotts Valley and myself, we meet and discuss mutual benefits to our districts. At one of those meetings, the district manager from Scotts Valley approached the subject to me. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, Robin. Okay, thank you. I'm sorry, I came late to this meeting because I had another meeting, so I'll just be brief. I voted for Gail Mayhood, but honestly, I didn't vote for the rest of the board in the last contested election against the incumbents. And I feel like a consolidation or merger is basically advocating your responsibilities as board members and basically selling out to Scotts Valley. That's how it feels, that there were a lot of promises made and then your answer is to basically subordinate to Scotts Valley. I think the reality of Scotts Valley is going to have the greater purse strings and a certain subtle control by the infrastructure they have as a city. They will also have subtle pressures because as a city agency versus our independent water agency in our county, they're going to have influence from the other aspects of government in Scotts Valley, including pressures related to city councils and all that kind of mayors and all that kind of stuff that we don't have to. But that is going to flow into us as well as their tax issues and how they tax to supply their water. So we're going to be subordinate to all of that, hell of a lot more politics like one other person mentioned. And we're just going to shrink. I do think my vote for my water will be diluted, watered down, pun intended. And I think that's going to be bad for our valley. I also think it's a slippery slope. We don't have a police department here. We're unincorporated. Hey, if we're going to be a combined water district, what about police and other things? I think we could lose some of our autonomy in the valley and that people really treasure that. That's one of the reasons they choose to live here is the mountain atmosphere, the mountain feel and I think that will be diluted. I do think we have different values. Tina, did you want to address something that Robin said? Yeah, Robin. I'm sorry that you were a little late to the meeting. We were discussing earlier about how the San Lorenzo Valley water district is double the size of the Scotts Valley water district and then also the San Lorenzo Valley water district has again almost double the population of the Scotts Valley water district. So we are definitely a larger water district. So I know your concerns are about Scotts Valley being the bigger city, but in this case, as far as the water districts are concerned, we as the San Lorenzo Valley water district are the bigger district. So anyway, I just wanted to say that again for anyone who's concerned about Scotts Valley being bigger. In fact, it's the other way around. And to add on to that, the San Lorenzo Valley water district and the Scotts Valley water district are both special districts where the city and county has no control over the operations or management or long-term planning of the water districts. Very similar to Scotts Valley fire as a special district, the city has no control. And that would continue to be a special district. So the city would not have any control over the district. Cynthia Denzel. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can. I want to thank you all for having this discussion. It's very informative. And I think we're all learning a lot. My main concern is I have some issues. They're kind of technical and general issues. For instance, I think that our district would be a lot less vulnerable to fire damage if all our utilities were undergrounded. But I don't see how we would put everything underground without redoing our roads. And in our neighborhood, our roads are a mess. And I would like to see everything done when the roads are repaired. So I'd like to know whether the merger would make the possibility of getting that done greater or less with consolidation. As we see with PG&E, when you have a huge district to cover, yes, they have a lot of workers, but we're often out of power. And each one of us needs to have our own power source. I see the possibility that in an earthquake, we will all be left individually to find our own water if the mains break and we abandon our local water sources, our local creeks, and smaller water utilities, which seems to be the tendency when we consolidate. So I'm wondering whether anyone is considering those issues. I don't want to end up in a situation where we all have to just rely on bottled water because water main breaks, for instance. And I know that as SLV is consolidated with smaller districts like Felton, that the tendency is to focus on the larger pipes, the mains, rather than the smaller pipelines in our neighborhoods. So I'm wondering how this bigger consolidation will affect that. Thank you. Rick? Well, I can't speak to roads, but I will say that Ten Lines Valley Water District has a proven track record of during emergencies of restoring water service as soon as possible. We've been through many federally declared disasters, earthquake floods, now fire, and our staff works around the clock to restore water service. And yes, they'll see ZU fire. We did have a contamination problem and a loss of water that we did provide bottled water. But we took it the extra step. We made sure the bottled water was available and we delivered the bottled water to homes to ensure they had water for those folks who couldn't. SLV water has a great track record. And we move into areas and during these PSPSs, the generators and equipment out, I don't believe that there was maybe one or two families that had an interruption of water service from three to five day power outages, which a lot of other agencies, including the big ones, East Bay Mud and so forth, and other agencies had issues. We're well prepared for emergencies, Lorraine. And we do try to keep everybody in water as best as possible. I think we have a proven track record. That's for sure. Okay. Tony Norton. My name is Tony Norton and thank you, Chair Mahood, for letting me speak here. I live in Longpico and I was part of the group that really pushed to get the merger with San Lorenzo Valley. And we're certainly, I am really happy with it. But one of the huge things that happened was we were able to vote on it in our community. We voted to, first vote did not go well. The second vote, we had to fight some more and we did convince our fellow Lompeacans, the majority, to merge. And my recommendation, I have to say that Mr. Couture, I'm sorry, I'm probably mispronouncing his name, made some good points. We are completely different from Scots Valley. And I would recommend that maybe we have an unofficial survey or if you want to move forward with exploring this possibility, then a lot of questions haven't been answered. So far, many of us don't really see the value of this moving forward. But if you want to move forward and uncover the facts, like Lois said, then continue to do that and then allow the people of Longpico send out surveys and listen to us. You are our board that we voted in and we would hope that you would listen to us before making such a move. Thank you very much. Thank you, Tony. Any comment, Rick, or? I, you know, I'd love to say. I think that kind of stands on its own. Yes. How about Bern's family? Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. My name is Chrissy Dahl. I'm a resident of Boulder Creek, lifelong resident. Gail, I wrote a thing on your Facebook page. I appreciate you guys having this meeting and the conversation. My biggest concerns are that Scott's Valley, other people said that Scott's Valley is an incorporated area and that we're just funding with our water, their growth and their tax base, and therefore their political influence. I also just did a quick search while you guys have been talking, trying to figure out what the median home prices are times the number of households. If you don't count businesses, I got 4.6 trillion for Scott's Valley and 3.68 for SLV. Our home values are just worth so much less and Scott's Valley is a huge business district. So if their votes are going to count for those businesses too, once this goes to a voting, it's just totally lopsided from what I can see. I was wondering if there's a financial incentive for consolidation from the state to the water district. And I'm also wondering what happens if we have more than 10,000 hookups. Some people were saying that something, some rules change and I wasn't sure if there was something that happens there. I just wanted to close with, I feel like if we have financial problems as SLV water district, like bring it to us. Like, let us all raise our rates for five years and help pay off whatever financial problems we have, but really I think it's a bad, bad idea to get involved with Scott's Valley. They probably have more lawyers per capita than we do. And I just really worry about losing local control. I can just see them trying to regulate our wells and our use of surface water and things like that. And it's just very worrying for me. Thank you. Rick, did you want to respond? Yes, the statement that the 10,000 connection triggers additional requirements is true. We're looking into that. What it appears it does increase some water quality monitoring and more long range water quality reporting. That's what we've found to date. There used to be a requirement for fluoridation of your water, but that requirement is no longer there. And that was the big concern back in the day many years ago about being required to provide fluoridine or water. That is no longer an issue. Okay, Sophia McGee. Sophia McGee, sorry. Hi, thank you for having us and listening to all of our questions. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Great. So I 100% agree with all the concerns that have been raised today. I have a couple of questions. First question is how much is LAF CO receiving for this consultation work? Where is that money coming from? How much, what is the cost to move forward with this process to find out, you know, what is the next step going to be? Are we forced to move forward? Can we revisit it another time? SLV seems to have about 20,000 residents on this call. We have maybe 100 people. So we're not hearing from everyone. The whole SLV is not, the San Lorenzo Valley is not being represented on this call. So it does feel, not it does feel, it is that we are getting forced to deal with this right now. You know, I live in Boulder Creek. My property is still here, thank God, but everything else outside of my property is burned. We are overwhelmed by, you know, homeschooling and everything else that's happening. This is not something, this is not the time to go through this right now. This should be part, can we do that? So I would like those questions answered. The cost of what we're paying and can we park this issue? Great. I'll try to answer some of those questions. Again, we don't know what the costs are or how the cost would be cost shared between the two districts. We have not got that far into the process. We would have to go out and do some requests for proposals and get some ideas and talk with folks. And then we would sit down with Scott's Valley and discuss cost sharing. We have not got to that process yet. And that's just another part of what we need to move forward and find out. This is the first of many meetings, you know, I, from working for the district for as long as I have there's never a good time. And we would say this is the first of a long process and there will be a lot of time and a lot of outreach for people to become involved. Rick, if you don't mind, I can, I have. We do. Oh, these are difficult questions to answer at this point. Right. But good questions and I just wanted to clarify again that Lafko is a state agency. I am a government employee. I'm a public servant. I'm not paying. I'm not getting paid to do this presentation. I'm doing this pro bono because to me it seems like a form of good government. Now, one of your residents mentioned that the feelings is not facts and I completely agree. It may make sense. The idea can make sense. But until you do the analysis to see the benefits, you need to see the facts first. But Lafko is here to provide assistance and be a resource. And this is a common theme that I've heard throughout our discussion this evening of residents feel that this is coming out of, this is the first time they're hearing it. And that's precisely the point. The two districts want to engage with the residents and let them know that you're considering exploring consolidation. So this is the first step of the first step. And that's why residents can are aware that you're exploring this idea and you can move forward with the notion that the residents are going to be aware of the process if it moves forward or not. And one other thing that I wanted to mention is during the recent fires that occurred in Santa Cruz County, the two fire districts continue to move forward with the consolidation. It was fairly delayed because their priorities was to help fight against the fires. But they still moved forward with the consolidation because their analysis showed consolidation made sense. It showed that it benefited the residents. So even though there was fires happening, they slowly but surely moved forward. And the time, there is no time limit. If it takes the water districts two years to do an analysis, then it takes two years. There's no pressure on getting it done. But the first step is always the hardest. I agree. Okay. Jennifer N. Yes, you're there. Hi. Okay. Sorry. I'm using a new device. I'm a resident of Scotts Valley but in the SLV water district. And I just want to give kudos to, I think it was Lorraine at the beginning and Jade, the two things they brought up. And I just personally don't think this is a great idea. Very different demographics. And our property tends to look more like SLV where we live and different water uses in our little part of Scotts Valley over there. So I just think it's best to keep the interests of both areas separate. And everybody's made lots of great points. But I think there's a lot of different demographics between the two areas. So I would just say we just not move forward with this at this point at all. In my opinion, we should just kind of close the door on this. So thank you for your time. Okay. We'll come back to Diane later. Let's try Alison Breeze. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can. Wonderful. Thank you. So in addressing people's concerns regarding fair representation, it was pointed out that the SLV district is currently a little bit larger than this Scotts Valley district in terms of number of hookups. However, it is important to consider how this is likely to change over time. It seems quite likely that in the future, Scotts Valley will move towards higher density population. And that in the long run, the SLV would become the minority voice. Could you please address, not in general terms, but in specific and concrete terms, what would be put in place to maintain equitable representation and control for the SLV in the future once our population is quite outnumbered? Our community really needs to be confident in their security in the long term future, not only based on a snapshot today. Thank you. Thank you, Alison. Rick, did you- I can't address that question. I don't know, Joe, you might be able to. I know we talked about changing on how we separate our district. We could do by area and so forth. I can't answer that question at this time. Yeah, it's premature to give a specific response. It's a good question, and it's a question that needs to be analyzed and answered. But I don't know what the action would be from the both districts to make sure that fair representation occurs, but that needs to be addressed. That's part of one of the factors that LAFCO requires to be answered is what is going to be the board composition. How are the residents going to be represented as part of this consolidation? So I don't have the answer now, unfortunately, but that's an answer that needs- that's a question that needs to be answered. I agree. Okay, Nick Clifford. Hi, sorry, can you hear me okay? Yes. Sorry, I don't hear you there. Hey, I just heard about this meeting literally 10 minutes ago. I had no clue what was going on, so I missed the first part of your meeting and sorry if I'm asking a question that's been asked already. If the two districts merge, would this mean that we would have to fluoridate the water here in Felton? No. Okay, so we'll remain unchanged on that front? On that front, yes. Okay, well, that's also my question. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. I think the three remaining names are people that have already asked questions. Can you clarify that for me, Gina? Okay, also Fia, we tried, but she did not get to speak. Okay, so let's let Sophia speak. Thank you, James. Actually, I did speak, so I don't want to be scared, but I just didn't get my answer to my question. That's why, about can we practice? It was Diane that we had the skip over. Sorry about that. I did not hear her question. Did she- I would just say that I would just ask- I just- I spoke already. I just wanted to get my question answered, which was that can we practice and not move forward right now? Did somebody- I mean, I'm sorry I can't understand her. She was asking if it's still- if we can delay the process or if we just stop what we're doing. It's definitely up to the board, and I don't believe we're going that far tonight. And, Chair, I do believe we're just obtaining information. That's correct. We're not, as I mentioned, at the beginning of the meeting. You know, if you came in late, you may not have heard that there will be no motions entertained this evening. This is only informational and for listening both ways. Okay, so I think we're going to go with our last public participant. And that's- I believe Trevor and we have not heard from. Is that correct? That's correct according to my records, Chairman. That's correct. Yeah, I would just encourage the board to really have a conversation with their predecessor on his involvement with LAFCO during his tendency or his tenure at the Water District of feeling that if you have a conversation with him, ask very engaging and thoughtful questions around his experience, that it might give you the answer that you need, whether or not to actually move forward or not. I think you've heard a lot from the community in terms of moving forward and perhaps leaning on some history and some experience would be a good guide for you all. That's it. Thank you, Trevor. Okay, I think we're we're at 830, so I think it's time now to close the communications from the public and go back to the board for a round of comments if they'd like to make them. And Director Henry, I'd like to start with you. Lois, you're muted. I unmute myself. Okay, so we don't have all the answers now. This could be a very good thing to do, but when we get all the answers, we may decide it's not. And the only way to really decide on this is to go through the process, I think. And it's pretty hard for me to say, I don't want to do this, since I personally benefited from a merger, which took seven years. And hopefully, it won't take that long to figure out if we're going to go forward or if we're going to say, stop, we're not doing this. So that's all I have to say. Okay, Director Smalley. We've heard a lot of good questions this evening. It's obvious that the board is going to have to go back, begin to assemble information before we can move any further into this process. So I thank the public for their comments on it. We've got a lot of work to do. Thanks. Director Chu. I just concur with the other directors that we don't have all the information right now, and we don't have any details. And I think that a lot of the questions are pertaining to things that we just can't answer. So I do appreciate the public participation. I really encourage anybody to keep coming to the meetings, because again, we're not just dealing with this issue tonight, but we have a lot of other issues going on. And I always want to hear from the public. So I concur that with the other two board members and go in any information going forward. Director Falz. Yes, I have sort of more or less a statement that I've prepared prior to the meeting that I want to go through. And some of it's been modified a little bit based on some of the comments here to address particular things. But what I'd first like to do is thank everybody that turned out for this meeting, took the time out of their day to do that. This is a very serious topic. And what I love about our community is that people get to the heart of the issues really, really fast. You know, our community plays two roles with respect to the San Lorenz Valley Water District. One role is as customers and getting the water service that you pay for. And the other role is as owners, part owners of a public agency that we all own a part of. And in that role, thinking like owners and getting to the heart of the matter about strategy, about cultural issues, about control, about our ability to manage our future going forward is really, really important. My general approach to big items like this is what I would call open-minded skepticism. You know, thinking about big changes like this is dislocating. And so I'm with everybody in the community that has expressed some sentiments around that same kind of thing. And I'm really grateful that everybody took to social media. One of the reasons I think that it was created and let us know what you were thinking. And a lot of these questions I think came out in that process. I'm glad that Gail decided that we weren't going to take any action tonight because I was going to suggest that we not do so. I'm reminded of the words of recently departed board member Rick Moran who when facing a big decision and particularly one that didn't require immediate action said that we should slow things down and take time to think about whether or not that big decision really is something that makes sense. There's absolutely no rush in this. Now, having said that, I think it's important for us to realize that the Scotts Valley Water District is a sister agency. They are a serious agency. They are run and managed by serious people. And we work with them already on many issues, not the least of which is the Santa Margarita groundwater agency. And that plan has to be submitted by January 2022. And it's very possible that one of the aspects of the benefits might be around that plan. And I believe that that plan is really going to have to get in the final form here within the next six or seven months in order to go through a public review and comment process. So I think we have an obligation to seriously consider something that they propose just as we would expect the same courtesy if the shoe were on the other foot. Now, I've been in my professional life in a number of consolidations over the years, and so I'm familiar with that process. Typically, the first thing after a concept that two companies or two parties may want to get together is to work on sort of a high level term sheet that lists some of the critical outcomes and benefits of such a consolidation. And that's before you even get into spending a lot of time on hiring consultants and process and diligence and analysis and that sort of thing. And so I think one of the things that I react to, and I think the community is reacting to, is that we're dealing here with a lot of feelings like a concept. And what I really would like to see happen, and again, this is my personal opinion not speaking for the board, is that Scott's Valley and I think with Rick Rogers and our senior staff really address that kind of high level discussion about what those advantages might be and what some of the potential outcomes might be. Because right now I have to say I'm really not prepared to spend a lot of money on this without having a little bit more background. So repealing the onion may be another layer or two. As you all know, on Tuesday this board approved starting a Proposition 218 process to increase everyone bills by $10 a month for about a 13% increase on the current median bill. So I'm really sensitive to the notion of spending a lot of money until we get a comprehensive financial picture about where we are with all of the things that are pending for us as well as what our future budgets are going to be going forward a few years. And because of that, I think we need to be focused on reducing our operating costs. So spending a lot of money on this is not necessarily in my priority lineup. Now one of the things that I think came up today is possibly savings. Well Scott's Valley's expense budget is about $8 million this year. We're about $10 million. And if Rick and Peratt came up with a notion that we could save $2 or $3 million a year through consolidation, well that's something I think that needs to be put on the paper. And consultants typically just come in and interview the principles, the ones that know the most about operating. So I'm not sure that we necessarily need to go that route until we get perhaps another heel of the onion before we decide whether or not to move forward. I also think that we need to recognize that as I wrote in the post this past week, there's already proposals on the table for how we're going to stabilize the Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency where excess surface water would either be injected into wells or sold to Scott's Valley so that they could rest their wells during the rainy season. And that water could conceivably come from either Santa Cruz or San Lorenzo Valley Water District. So there's already kind of this process of water sharing that has been taking place for a couple three years or being considered for a couple three years. And so again, I think all this needs to be sort of put on the table and discussed at the same time. I am perhaps unlike other folks not ready to move forward on this yet pending some additional information about costs and benefits, what we're going to get out of it, the discussion of how to mitigate some of the cons, at least at a high level. I disagree that it requires an enormous effort on the part of the consultants to get to that point. I think in order to do an application to Lafco, we need to go through that process. But in order for our community to decide whether or not we want to move forward with this, I don't know that that's necessary. And I think we can do a lot of that work on our own over the course of the next few months. Again, I want to really thank everybody for participating, asking great questions, a lot of which I share with you. And I'm looking forward to seeing how this might be done in a slower and lower cost fashion. Thank you. Thank you, director. Well, I guess I'll just finish up our commentary by the board by giving my thoughts. And I think like the rest of the board, I think it's fair to say that we're open to the idea, but that we've certainly not made any strong conclusions at all. And I'm open to the idea of consolidation and investigating it further if only to explore additional ways that we could cooperate with Scots Valley, even if we remain separate entities. I think there's no question that there would be some efficiencies and cost savings and facilities and staff. But what I'd like to emphasize is the other main reasons. And to me, the main reason to undertake this, there's two. And this comes from my experience work serving on the Santa Margarita Groundwater Association. And that is if we were consolidated, we would actually have more control on how Scots Valley wells draw down the two aquifers we share, the Santa Margarita Formation and the Long Pico Formation. And equally important or more important is that a consolidation could potentially make San Lorenzo Valley much more resilient to fire and drought, and which we can also say is sort of climate related change issues. And this is because we would have a form of backup in their well water, which wells are not particularly sensitive to fire and to drought, certainly a lot less than surface water is. And we get 50% of our water from surface water sources. So we could actually create a greater resiliency and a better, an easier path towards sustainability. We don't know yet at all what the possible negatives are, we just haven't had time to investigate them. And there may be many and some of them may be fatal. I have to say that my thinking about this has been influenced by certainly what I've heard from people tonight and various communications that I've gotten from people contacting me personally. And it's also been influenced by the discussion we had at the last meeting on Tuesday in which we asked our ratepayers to fund a surcharge to help pay for fire damage repair. And we also asked for permission to get a loan, which would help us with infrastructure upgrades. And so what that says to me is that I think our highest priority right now has to be focused on these projects, these infrastructure projects that help us repair things from the fire and the upgrades. And we're going to need all hands on deck to do this. And so as such, I'm worried that we not get sort of sidetracked from those by taking on a large time consuming process, one that might divert the staff from what I consider our first priority, which is getting the infrastructure problems done. And I think that this has also been a project that might be made more difficult by trying to being in a position where you may have to overcome some initial sentiment, which we've heard tonight, which is deeply held. And I understand and appreciate, and I'm glad you all came to express. So I just think, I guess what I'm, I'm a little bit saying that I agree with a lot of things that Bob Fultz said. And I think none of us want to rush into this. And in terms of priorities, this is not my first priority. Thank you. With that, we will move to the next item of new business, which is the quail hollow pipeline initial study mitigated negative declaration. And if Carly could go ahead and give that present. Oh, Rick, did you want to say something? Let's go ahead. I was just hoping that Carly is still on. She can present this item to the board. All right. Thank you. Now it's getting late. So we'll move through this kind of quickly, but we're bringing the initial study or meganit mitigated negative declaration or ISM and D for the quail hollow pipeline project to the board for approval, hopefully to allow us to move into the notice of intent and then in submitting for construction. Just for some background, the quail hollow pipeline project would be replacement of 7500 feet of linear six inch water supply transmission line with 12 inch water supply line and long pico. The project's located at quail hollow right road at the right away between Kamora lane and West Sianti. We entered into the public review for the ISM and D in December 10th and ended January 11th of 2021. No public comments were received. We went into the ISM and D process as this area is in sand hills and ponderosa pine habitat. And so all the mitigation measures keep all construction and staging within the road right away. And staff is ready to answer any questions the board or public have. Okay. Should we go to each director? I'm sorry. I was muted. Excuse me. Apologize. Yes. Let's go to each director. So starting with director Henry. I believe this is something that needs to be done. And but I guess I don't, I had a question, but I'm going to let it go now. Okay. So just move on to somebody else. Okay. We can come back to you if you want to do it again. Dr. Director Smalley. Yes. Can you tell us what did the environmental committee recommend on this, Tina? We actually didn't bring this item to the environmental committee. I see. Okay. The, one of the mitigations is summer work only restriction from the county because of doing it when the school is not in session, given where we are not with schools, not meeting the person. If the engineering committee or if the engineering staff at the district were ready before then, is there the opportunity to go back to the county to say, hey, can we start in May? Yeah, that would be a good question to probably approach the county with. I haven't heard any changes, but you know, it sounds like that would be a good thing to approach them with if we are ready to go to construction sooner. Okay. And lastly, in the bibliography, there are a couple of documents that are referenced as being draft. Haven't those been finalized yet? One of them is old is 2018. I'm not sure which ones you're referring to, but that's something that I can find out for you and send you those documents. Okay. There was a geotech report and the basis of design memo, particularly the basis of design memo should be in a final format and should be included in whatever the final was and assigned geotech report when there's the final. That might be something Rick can answer. We should have it. Definitely should have that and we can get that to you more. I don't necessarily need them. I saw the geotech report as a draft, but as a final document, they should be in final form rather than draft. We'll get that. Okay. That's all my question. Okay. Director too. I just wanted to say that currently I did read your report. It's very thorough and I appreciate what you've done. I don't really have any other comments. I just think Mark, you make a good point with everybody being out, but I think that's something you would have to coordinate with the school district in the county because the sooner that we can get projects done, the better, right? So that's, I don't really have anything else to add other than to say that you've done a great job. Thanks. Director Falls. Yes. Thanks. Based on what I was reading today on social media, I don't believe there's any plan to open the schools anytime soon. That may change, of course, things seem to change quickly, but I would definitely encourage us to go back to the county and see if we can get something inserted that says, if school isn't in session and you're wanting to start, let's do it. I understand why they don't want us to do it during school time. It really would be great if there was a way for us to get to basically say, we're going to keep everything inside of the road right of way without having to go through all of this. I mean, there is absolutely no intention to go disturb any of the sand hills that are in there. And effectively, when you read through all of that, that's effectively what we say over the course of many, many, many, many, many pages. And it triggered me to ask, are we going to encounter the same kind of requirement as we start getting into some of the neighborhoods that are built on sand? They're not necessarily in, quote, sand hills, but I'm thinking about Heen Road, Loretta, that sort of thing. Or is this a unique thing for Quail Hollow Road because it goes by the Quail Hollow open space area? Yeah, my understanding from when we entered into this project, I wasn't part of when we decided to go for the ISMND on this instead of an exemption. But I believe just any sand hills projects, we really do want to cross our eyes and daughter tease, make sure that we're covering all our bases there. I'm not sure if Rick has more information on when we do end up doing some other projects within sand hills on private property or other properties. Well, when Heen Road and Loretta are both pretty major thoroughfares, they're off of Glen Arbor, right? And so, and they're all in sand, but I mean, they're not in sort of sand hill open space like Quail Hollow open space or our Olympia area. And if we are going to encounter that, I guess my question is whether or not we can do some kind of blanket process to speed things up, like we're doing a blanket process with something else that was further south. I don't remember the details, but I remember that we were trying to do a blanket permitting or a blanket exemption. Eliminating these regulatory barriers for something that all we're really doing is saying we're staying in the streets and we're not going to disturb anything. I think it's really important to do. We are doing that currently. We have, we're working with Dr. Jody McGraw. We went out, the director of operations and Dr. McGraw have been out all of our facilities that are located in potential sand hills and have evaluated and we are putting in, Carly, what is the term for that permit? It's a habitat conservation plan, but that would cover more of our mitigation requirements than the actual CEQA process. So for some of these bigger projects, we'll have to still go through CEQA and just that habitat conservation plan will help us with our mitigation. I'll take this offline, Rick, with you if I could and Carly, because it is something I want to see if we can streamline this. This is just a lot of effort and more importantly, schedule when we're trying to get things done quickly. And then I had one last minor comment, which is my branding consultant said that we violated our branding. I saw the new or the old logo in the report. Bob, I will add my camera is not working. I'm sorry on my main computer, but I will add that yes, Larita and Heen Road are all in the sand hills designated areas. So those would be included in the HCP. But like Carly said, it's not part of the CEQA. The HCP just has to do with sand hills. All right. Well, please, I'll follow up with you guys separately later. Lois, did you have a question you want? Well, I did. And I mean, there's like 237 pages here where I had looked at this a couple of days ago. And so I guess my question is is this paid as part of the items that the $15 million loan is paying for? Is there a fiscal problem with, I mean, what's it going to cost? Or is it just already spelled out in that? It is part of the loan project, Lois. It is part of the $15 million loan projects. Okay. I was trying to find where that was. Okay. That's what I wanted to know. So how do you know how much that was riddled? I will get you what our engineering estimates are on that. I don't have that in front of me. It's like five or six million. It's a big project. There's no doubt about it. Yeah. Okay. We can now go out for any public comment on this agenda item. If there are any, please raise your hand. They don't seem to be. So next agenda item is annual Salmon and Restoration Virtual Conference. I think we need a vote on this, do we not? Well, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay. So we need, let me just make the motion that I'd like to move that the board adopt the initial study and mitigated negative declaration for the quail hollow pipeline project. Second. Can we take the vote, Holly? President Mayhood? Yes. Yes. Vice President Henry? Yes. Director Foles? Yes. Director Smalley? Yes. Director Tu? Yes. Motion passes. Okay. Thank you. The final new business is, as I said, this Salmon Restoration Conference. We are spending $500 to send Carly plus one other person to this conference in April. And basically, if we expect that maybe one of those other people could be a member of the board. And if any additional members beyond the one would like to go, it's just $125. So that go ahead. And if you're interested in this, let Carly know. And that's basically what the information item is here. Is there anything else you need to add to that, Carly? No, I think that covers it. Okay. All right. Our next item is, Chairman Mayhood, I wouldn't recommend it. Excuse me. I think the agenda item was actually a little broader than that. Was it not? Is it that we decide the level of sponsorship and attendance? No. Thanks. Carly? Right. I think we duplicated the level of sponsor from last year, and this was asking for board participation. Well, it says here, I mean, I'm looking just at the agenda item says they recommended that we review the memo and decide the level of sponsorship and attendance of interested directors. So I do have a comment about or a question about the sponsorship aspect of this. Go ahead. When I looked at the, you know, because again, at this point, given the fact that we are going to our community for additional funds, I'm starting to count nickels even more than usual. So I, you know, please bear with me on this. But when I look at the sponsorship aspect, there, it's really, there's really some benefits you get for being sponsors. And I was specifically wondering what, how we are taking advantage of what those benefits are, or are we taking advantage of those? That is sort of direct messaging to the other attendees and the like. And the reason I'm asking is that when I look at the sponsors on there, they're typically vendors and sort of really large agencies, right? So I'm trying to get a sense here of are we getting value for our dollar being a sponsor, because you can attend the meeting as just an individual person and it would cost about a third of what the sponsorship is. I would be able to respond to that. Yes. I mean, at this point, because it is a virtual conference, there might be less of an advantage for us being a sponsor. I agree with you there. I guess in the past, you know, having multiple passes with that sponsorship and our logo being shared with different agencies, most of the resource agencies do attend this conference. So, you know, just having our name out there looks good because we do work with these people on permitting. That's, it's, it's a little different this year with it being a virtual conference and last year's that was canceled was actually going to be hosted in Santa Cruz County. So then it was especially important for us to have our name on the sponsorship list. But I guess if, you know, if, if we're only planning to send me and maybe one board member, it's true that it's a pretty, it's a smaller cost to not be a sponsor this year. And I get that it's not a lot of money, but, you know, the optics we have right now around this rate increase for me anyway, I just would encourage you to take a look at that. I want the information. Don't get me wrong. I think the information you get there is valuable. And I would appreciate it if you could put together a trip report or a small presentation or something like that and what we've learned and how we can apply what we learned to our specific operational needs. But I would just say let's let's be careful about how we're doing this given the nature of the conference. Thank you. Beyond that, I don't know that we need to take a vote. I'd leave it to management to make that determination. If anybody else, I don't want to spend more time on something that's really pretty small in terms of dollar amounts. But the one recommendation I would have is to go out to the public on the agenda item before. Okay. So are there any members of the public that would like to comment on this? Seeing none, will you allow me to go on to the consent agenda? Or did you have something that you wanted to say, Gina? No, thank you, Chairman. So are there any items that people want to pull off of the consent agenda? None for me. I'm sorry, Bob. Did you say that you had one? None. Okay. I was responding to you with something other than silence. Okay. If you want silence, I can do that. No, I was just sort of muffled and I couldn't understand you. Sorry. I think we're, I'm getting a little punch drunk, I think from all of this. Sorry, I apologize. Then if, then we'll just, I guess, do we need to do anything with that, Gina? Or just without objection, we just accept the minutes that are part of the... That's right. Nothing needed. There would be beam to prove that. All right. So we now move to the final item, which are district reports. We have districts, department status reports from the engineering and the operations group. And are there any questions from the board on that? Director Falz. Yes, just a couple of ones on the... I noticed here going through the work that's being done, and there is a lot of it for the fire recovery, that there is, looks like a two-step process. There's temporary facilities followed by permanent facilities. Could you briefly describe what the differences are and does FEMA cover 75% of the cost of both? If I, if I get your questions correct. First on the FEMA covering, yes, they do cover both. However, on a positive note, FEMA is moving ahead on 100% coverage during certain time frames and in certain categories, so we may be in a little better shape than we thought. And they do cover both temporary and permanent. To answer that question, does that answer what you asked, Bob? Hopefully I'm coming through. Okay. If not, I'll drop off and get back on. No, we can just speak up a little bit. I was, sorry, I'm almost shouting over here. It's amazing. No, I was, I was asking what the salient differences were between temporary and permanent in terms of the construction. A lot of the temporary is, is, is, is laying above ground. For instance, that was up on Alta Via is now laying down on Alta Via Road. Okay, great. Temporary tanks are scattered and there's cross-country spaghetti line to keep people in water until the permanent's done. Some of this we couldn't replace to permanent status in an expedient time frame to get folks back in water. So it was, you know, blow and go, throw it out across the ground, tie in. And now we're coming back and have to put planned specifications together and bid the final because some of these are in the millions of dollars. Yeah, yeah, no, I get that. I just was curious if that was the case of it's a background. And, and FEMA covers them both. They cover the debris removal, then they cover the temporary to get folks back in water and then they come, come back and fund the final repair. Thank you. Okay. Sorry, I didn't understand that. Are there any other questions from the board on this? On the reports? I had one other one if that was okay. Let me just see if anybody else has a question first then. Okay, go ahead. All right, Bob. James on the inner tie report, I wasn't sure what we were looking at here on the inner ties out from the north system. Is that, is that going where? Enterties out from the north system is water going through it three into the probation system. And that was, that had a lot to do with the one year anniversary date for inspection for the new probation tank. So some of that water is from that. And then also we had water going to the Felton system after the fire as my operators were operating under the consideration that we keep that even balance. And not understanding that we were in an emergency at that time. So they were trying to keep that at a balance. And now we are actually using it as an emergency inner tie to move surface water into the north system. Okay, I may follow up with Rick on that one. Yeah, in terms of, you know, when I think of inner ties, I sort of think external to the district. So we're really talking here about moving water in between our district operations. That's correct. And we did have a little bit more water sale that went to Spots Valley while they were working on a well down there during that month. Right. I remember that. Okay, great. Thank you. Any other comments by the board? If not, we'll go out to the public. Mark, Mark had a question. Oh, I'm sorry, Mark. Go ahead. Yes, two questions. I see in reference to the equity tank and pipelines that we're doing design now in-house. I applaud that. Wanted to hear just briefly how we're doing that now. We've got an engineer. Josh, do you want to take that or do you want me to take that? I can take it. Go ahead. So for those who don't know me, Josh Wolfe, I'm the new district engineer. Welcome. Thank you. I'm actually very glad to be here. In terms of how we're handling design in-house, I come from a design background. So the idea of going through the effort of putting together RFPs and sending out small projects just doesn't seem to make sense to me financially. So I'm beginning to teach our assistant engineer and our CAD drafter, our CAD specialist, how to put these things together, how to put the plan sets together. And that's giving us the opportunity to bring these smaller projects in-house, keep a very close eye on them, and build the standards for how we want things to run as a district. So basically that's happening on my desk. It's great to hear, Josh. Thanks. On the cross-country pipelines, I see that we're now doing an RFP or the constructability analysis or study of that. I thought in an engineering committee meeting, I heard that Rick said you were going to provide some draft on this constructability study before our next engineering committee meeting. Are we going a different route now with this constructability analysis? It turns out we're going to have to. I was hoping to be able to put a draft together and there's just too much on my plate to take the time to dig through all of the environmental side and still get everything else done. So I'm putting the other an RFP that will go out looking for a study on essentially, we're calling it a constructability study, but essentially on the permitting aspect and the environmental impact aspect of replacing our lost pipelines either in kind, i.e. HDB pipe at grade, laid on the ground, or possibly some kind of fire hardening, whether that's burying the pipe or changing pipe types and factoring into all of that, which agencies are going to be involved, what they're going to require of us for each type of repair, so that we can basically, so we can build the most durable and long lasting pipe network for the district that we can possibly get and have a good idea before we go in that a problem down the road with a particular agency. And also to add to that Mark real quick is that draft RFP will come to the engineering committee before it goes out. You're reading my mind James, thank you. That's all my questions, thanks. All right, thank you Mark. Anybody else on the board? Let's see. Okay, let's go out to the public, Bruce Holloway. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay, there's a thing, there's a report that's in the board packet regularly and on page 278. There's a report about stream flow and there's some columns there that say yes, yes, no. So what I want to say, this is a chronic problem and there's a water right state water right in Felton and it has certain terms. One of the terms is the place of use. In Felton the water can only be used in Felton, but there's another requirement about stream flow for fish. There's two requirements, one's the requirement on the creek and one's on the river and it looks like the river one, it's a chronic problem in the late fall and the district is in violation of this particular water right. In the old days when Cal Ammo in the place, it was a municipal water system and they weren't connected to anything so they could just throw their hands up and say there's nothing we can do about this, sorry, we're in violation. But now that the intertie has been built, the physical fact is that the district could supply groundwater to Felton during those days in the late fall when, as far as I can tell, you're in violation of the water right. I don't know if you take it seriously or you think it's important or whatever. So there's also this requirement on the intertie. You can only use the intertie for emergency purposes so there's another requirement there that potentially you could violate that. And I'm kind of wondering about how you weigh the cost or, I mean I'm in favor of fish. I guess I think if there's a water right that says you need to stop producing when the river flow gets below 20 CFS, I think you should comply. I think you should do your best to comply. Also, let's see, another thing I forgot to say, the district declared a drought state of emergency back in 2015 and as far as I know, I mean I've been out of touch and maybe I've missed it, but the district never rescinded the state of the drought state of emergency in 2015. So to me it seems like the district has established a justification to say we're going to make emergency use of the intertie and supply Felton with groundwater in order to stay in compliance with this water right, which has been instituted on behalf of fish. And so this has been going on ever since the district acquired the Felton system in 2008, more than a dozen years. And I'm sorry about the violation and I wish that there was some creative way around it. One more thing I just wanted to point out, there's a place of use for the water right that I mentioned earlier about the 308 per feet per year up at the Loch Lomond reservoir. The place of use for that, as I recall, is west of Brantse 40. So that can go easily go to Scott's Valley. They can use the 308, but the Felton water right is stuck there in Felton, even though it could be used for conjunctive use elsewhere in the district. Thank you. Mr. Holloway, I was going to ask if you actually have a question. Rick, did you want to respond or James? Really not at this point right now. Mr. Holloway is pretty much correct what he says. We are doing things differently now with the fire because of the fire impacting other insects. We are in the process of working with the Department of Water Resources on an emergency. Carl, do you want to help me out here on an emergency? Yes, we are pursuing a petition with the State Water Resources Board currently for the emergency use of our interties. So we're working right now on that process. But Mr. Holloway is pretty much correct. And at this point in operations, I mean we feel we're in a federally declared disaster still with the fire that damaged all of our surface water intakes on Ben Lilla Mountain. And personally in operations, I feel that puts us in an emergency. That brings us to the end of the evening, unless there's something I'm missing, Gina. That's it for the agenda, Chairman Hood. Okay, great. I guess then we will adjourn. That was a long night. Thank you all. Thank you all for hanging in there. And I think it went actually pretty well. I was really happy with the number of people that showed up. And I think people were pretty good about asking their questions. So well done, everybody. Thank you. Good night. Thank you. Thank you. Good night.