 I know, I know, it's still funny. I've seen Tosch touching it. I know. I'm not touching the sound. Just a minute here. Staff ready? Okay. It being after 6.30, I will call this meeting to order. One of our directors is on the phone, which is right there. And otherwise, we're all otherwise here. There's no. Roll call? Director Lathar. Yes. Director LaHue. Tom. Tom. Director LaHue. Yes. Okay. Director Jaffe. I'm sorry, I just couldn't hear her. I'm here. Director Christensen. Here. And President Daniels. Here. Okay. No public hearing tonight. There was a closed session where we gave some direction to our, what do we turn to our, our legal counsel or our representative on the case or yes. Okay. So the first thing up is the consent agenda. Are there any things that directors wish to have pulled for discussion? Oh, yeah. I was going to, I just wanted to just to ask a few questions about the 3.12 to 3.15. That's all. Three point. They got again? 3.12 to 3.15. I'm in damages. So 3.2 to 3.5. Just pull those, well, they're all together, but just one explanation is. The three of them you mean 3.14. Yeah. Yeah. All of those. Yeah, they're all the same, but I just, they're all seem related. So it's just. Related to Huntington Drive. One explanation. Okay. I wish to pull 317. Anyone in the public wish to? Talk about any of these items. Okay. Seeing none. You want to make a motion for all the rest of them? I'll move. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor. I have to roll call on everything tonight. Oh, yes. Director Lathar. Yes. Director LeHue. Yes. Director Jaffe. Yes. Director Christensen. Yes. And director or President Daniels. Yes. Okay. We're going to do 312, 313, 314. So 312, 313 and 314 are all to deny claims of damage. Various residences on Huntington Drive. The step, next step would be to go ahead and refer them to our insurance company for resolution. But the reason we denied them is because what was being done with some. I'm sorry to interrupt again. I can't hear whoever is speaking. Can you hear me now? I'll speak really loudly. So the reason that we denied those claims was we were working on a service abandonment on Huntington Drive. And it's kind of a routine maintenance routine operations. What happened is we did not shut off the water. There was a loss in water pressure. Or we reduced water pressure in order to do the maintenance work. Because this is routine maintenance work. It happens at various mains all throughout the district. There's an expectation under ordinance 13-01 that residences keep their service lines in good repair so that routine maintenance on our distribution system doesn't impact them unduly. And so it was just kind of a routine process to look at this and deny those claims and forward them to the insurance company for resolution. Any questions? I didn't understand how they were all related. It was all the same incident when water pressure was reduced. Those particular homes are at a higher elevation than some of the others on the drive. So that's probably why they were affected. You want to make the motion to approve those? Yes. I'll move to approve 3.12, 3.13, 3.14. I'll second. Roll call, please. Director Lather. Yes. Director LeHue. Yes. Director Jaffee. Yes. Director Christensen. Yes. And President Daniels. Yes. Okay. I wanted to talk about 317, which is the O'Neill-Ranchwell and the problem we've been having with that. So what was the first question I had on that? Let me just jump over to that. Well, the one thing I was going to ask about is we're talking about two separate possible things we're going to try to fix it, again, shutting off various portions. Correct. And what is the times it's going to take us to do each of those? One month, two months, three months, six years. So how long are we looking to see whether those two things, one of those two things works or not? The past experiments that we've been doing with shutting off certain screened intervals, the ammonia level steadily crept up over the time of a couple of months. So that's probably what we're expecting. So if it stabilizes within two months, then that's probably really good news. And hopefully we wouldn't have to do the next phase. So I mean, it's basically if the ammonia stabilizes or not. And in the past it's ramped up pretty quick in a couple of months. Okay. And how long to actually do the shutting off? Is that weeks or months? Oh, no. That's probably, well, they need to pull the equipment and then install some new equipment. So it's probably a couple of days of field work for each phase. And then we would have to do well disinfection and testing and then put it back online. So maybe a week, two weeks, three weeks? With disinfection and testing, that's probably a couple of weeks right there. So maybe like a three week process total. Okay. So that means for five months approximately then before we would know whether that process had worked or not. Yeah. Or a little less. Yeah. Something like that. Well, I'm wondering since we've tried some of this before and not had much success and therefore that might say we don't really understand what's going on with that well because we thought, you know, the previous 2A pack was going to hopefully fix it and it didn't. I'm wondering if we shouldn't start doing another work, piece of work to see if we can filter the ammonia out, which is I think if we can't fiddle around with the well itself, that's kind of what we're going to be forced to do to fix this. I just expect, right? Right. If well modification doesn't work, then the only option that we have come up with is to investigate feasibility of treating. So converting our current treatment process to a different treatment process. Hopefully we could reuse our filter vessels, but at this point, we're not sure. May have to introduce new treatment vessels. Right. And so that, I mean, that is a really large extensive undertaking. So if we can fix the problem with just spending a relatively small, smaller amount of money to modify the well, then that's what, you know, we're recommending doing exhausting that before we move on to well had treatment because that's expensive and time consuming and. Well, I don't think we would need to install it right now, but I think we should know what our options are and what that's going to cost and who would be kind of be ready to do that. Because this is a critical thing if we're going to do the transfer project this winter. And if we spend five months with these and then say, okay, well, let's start looking at something else to do. We might well miss most of the winter flows. So I'm wondering. Well, if the well modification doesn't work, we're going to miss this winter. So you don't think we could sound like we don't even have another solution other than we need to do something else different. Well, I mean, we were trying to, we want to isolate the water transfer zone before, during and after the water transfer. So I guess the question is whether or not we can supply enough water to that zone with Odeon well off. Right. And we have done some modeling and it under like the peak summer demand, it looks really difficult. We might be able to get away with it if it's not peak demand. Okay. But right now main straight well is off too. So that's definitely a no go. Right. But we're hoping to get that one back online in time to start doing the pre transfer monitoring. So, but looking at feasibility of treatment is going to be a long term process anyway, but we have received qualifications from I think three different firms. So if the board wants us to proceed with that, then we can go ahead and select a consultant and start the feasibility study. I think that would be a prudent thing to do myself. We might not end up having to actually need it, but that way we at least have a solution that we're ready to start going with. Okay. We were planning for that, but we did not include that in this year's budget because we didn't want to commit some funds that maybe didn't need to be committed. So we would have to come back to the board and allocate more money from OCR to initiate that work. Right. Any idea of what the cost might be for that additional work? What I'm referring to is more of the design level. Yes, but what would be the cost of that work? I can't answer that right now. We haven't even gotten to that stage. We've basically gotten to the selection or the opportunity to look at three consultants. Okay. Well, I for one would like to see you come back with some ideas on what the options are and what the cost might be if we do have to go down that in time because I would just as soon not miss this winter season and if there's something we could be doing now to make that happen, even if these other two things don't work, then I think we should do some of those. Depending on the cost, of course. Of course. Well, at least we should know what the cost is. Exactly. Yeah. Is that okay? Yes, we can come back. Okay. Well, then I'll move approval of this. Is that? I'll second. Yes. Director Lather. Yes. Is that okay with you? We just approved 317 as is. And direction was given to staff to look into what we might have to do if these don't work. Okay. Yes. Director Jaffee. Yes. Director Christensen. Yes. And President Daniels. Yes. Okay. Now we move on to oral communications. So this is the time for everyone in the audience to address us on any item, not on tonight's agenda. I know you know who I am, but I'm Jeff Stallings. You have two 7-7-1 Gary Dr. Do you know who this is? You do? No, I am your folks in Jeff Stallings. The longest one. Okay. The point is we live at the end of Gary Drive right next to the other side of the fence from your maintenance yard. For context and in her husband Bill moved into their house four years before you built your headquarters building. So that gives, I think you should listen to what she has to say and what we have to say. Main thing we wanted to give you a heads up that we will be jointly submitting our comments to your draft EIR on Pure Water Soquel. So keep an eye out for that and be a fascinating reading, I'm sure. The second of three things is we had some legal advice to ask you if your ongoing operations and maintenance plan allows for the dust that settles on the morgue's house, more than mine. Every time you are using your gravel operation, dust flies through the air, they've never complained. They're the depression era people, they don't complain. But we've been advised that we wanna find out if your operations and maintenance plan allows for this dust and if so, if we could get a copy of that. Bill's husband is 94 years old and at home hospice. This has always been a distressing problem for them but it's even more so now. The rusted chain link fence that separates your maintenance yard from our properties does nothing to alleviate the dust and noise from your gravel operation or your steel plate operations which I've brought up with your staff many times. So why is the steel plate operation 10 feet from our living room? And finally, we wanna tell you that we support Pure Water Soquel in the Chanticleer site. I've spent there five times. I had lunch in the Chanticleer site the other day and I sat there and I was wondering why would you ever consider any site beside that site? It's surrounded by car repair shops, highway one, Melanie, I know you want visibility for this project. You couldn't get more visibility than thousands of cars passing it every day. We strongly oppose the construction of Pure Water Soquel in our neighborhood with people in their 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s in a three year construction project. I know you're having the meeting next month but you don't allow people to get up and talk at that and that's why we're here tonight. We contend that the district's deferred maintenance, you were notified by the US Geological Survey in 1978, 40 years ago about seawater intrusion. So to call it an emergency to take that property next to us and convert it from residential to industrial is not fair. Hey, I did it. Anyway, you'll be happy to know we're leaving and needs to get home to film. Thank you for coming. Thank you. And please do submit comments. We really do want that to happen. Okay, anyone else? Okay, none. Any director comments? A couple of things I was gonna mention. Carl and I met with some residents at Pete's Coffee in Capitola on Bay Avenue this past week and that was good. We had about seven or eight people show up and most of them were district customers. That was even better than the last time I was there. That was good. And I was also gonna mention that the Cameron is planning on getting together the TAC, the Technical Advisory Committee for the groundwater model. First time it's happened in well, well over a year. So I think it's good that it's happening. I'm not quite sure what we're gonna cover, but we're gonna meet and go over some groundwater model issues. That's all I had to say. All right, so let's move on. 5.1, the board planning calendar. Yes, I'll point out a couple things. We have a board workshop next Tuesday. It's noted in the calendar starting at 6 p.m. That may be adjusted to five unless we get indication that a board member can't make that. Yes, and do you want to mention that? Go ahead. Just wanted to let you know that I did put the material for that workshop at the dais for you. I'm sorry, I can't. The material for that workshop has been given to each board member and also set on the back table is what Melanie just said for the workshop next Tuesday, yes. It would be difficult for me to make it at five. She wants to keep it at six. All right, we'll just keep it at six. It may be a two-parter, but we'll keep it at six then. Then I also note there's a couple finance rate meetings on Monday, July, I mean Monday the 23rd and 30th of July. Since we won't be meeting again before then, I just want to get that on your radar for the committee members who are on there. And then of course, July 31st, ESA will be holding a meeting at Twin Lakes Church to provide information and obtain comments on the draft EIR that's now out. And let's see, our next normal board meeting will be August 21st. But the week before that, there are also three different, three different committee meetings and rate hearings. So just I want to pay attention to the calendar before a lot going on before the next regular board meeting. Okay, any public questions about the calendar? Seeing none. Okay, then the next one would be 5.2, the special board assignments. Yeah, it's all in writing. Nothing special to note. I'd be glad to answer any questions. Any questions? Public questions? All right, that goes to 5.3, quarterly organization-wide comprehensive report. Yes, and Alyssa's up tonight for Shelley. She'll be speaking on this item and one of the last items on the agenda. Hello. So for our portion of the status report, we only really wanted to point out one thing and that was the legislation by the state, the AB 1668 and SB 606. So those are going to set some guidelines for indoor and outdoor water use. One of the main provisions is to set the indoor water use to 55 gallons per capita daily. So we went ahead and looked at what our current indoor uses and we expect that ours is going to be quite a bit lower. Our customers already conserved quite a bit and we haven't received any guidance yet on what the outdoor guidelines are gonna be. So once we get those, we will let you know and report back. I think they're talking about a year from now, something like that. Yeah, it starts in 2020 and then eventually would ratchet down to 50 gallons per capita daily in 2030 and we still think that we would meet that even now. So we're not too worried about it but we'll definitely keep an eye on it and see how it fits into our demand forecasts. I noticed I got an email from Aqua and I think probably everyone else did about the, a webinar that's available on discussing those two bills. Yeah, that would be good to check out and I can also answer any other questions on the status report. I had one question, page 105, seeing the great to pick up we're doing with those low, low flow toilets. Have we been talking to the sewage department lately in County about, you know, as we go lower and lower and lower with water use, there could be an issue with flow in the sewers and that we talked with them to see, you know, is that still okay? We haven't, but we can. Okay, that'd be wise, because that's a problem we need to know about it before it happens. Okay, anyone else? Thank you. Thank you. Tom? Tom has one. I had a quick question on page 103 when I was talking about the water demand offset and the retrofit on resale, I'm sorry, not water demand offset, but the retrofit on resale, it said capital revised, there are retrofit ordinance to exclude areas of the city served by the district. Could you explain what you mean by that? Yeah, so from our understanding, the city of Capitola is not gonna be enforcing the retrofit on sale ordinance in the areas that are served by our districts. The areas that are served by Santa Cruz water is still included under their ordinance, to my understanding. I'm not sure, but I can check. I would hate to lose that incentive completely. No, it's not gonna, my understanding, it's not gonna be enforced, but what we've shown regarding the retrofit on resale, basically it's at far beyond diminishing returns, it's providing almost very little return on the effort. We've reached saturation. So the county's not doing any part of the district area then? Neither in Capitola nor elsewhere, so Kel, do you know? The county will be enforcing in the unincorporated areas. Just not in Capitola, okay. All right, thank you. Okay, let's see what's next. I'll get started. I don't have anything specific on our projects, but I did wanna point out on page 113, we've never really talked about it at the board meetings, but it's a list of services that are pending installation. Some of them may, you may not recognize, and I wanted to point out that those are, the ones that you may not recognize are the ones listed as fire service. Those don't come to the board, but they do come to our office and our department. We have to administer those. So we list them because it does impact our workload. It's not a WDO thing. It's usually just a remodel that people need sprinklers on, but still has to go through a lot of motions with our department. Any other questions I can answer them? Any other questions? Okay, thank you. O&M. O&M, right. I don't have anything to add unless you have any questions I can answer. Any questions? Guess not, thank you. We've got a D, special projects. I don't have anything to add as well since I think everybody knows that our draft DIR is out. We are accepting comments through August 13th and our public meeting is July 31st. Any questions? Any finance questions? None, okay. Human resources. I believe nothing there, so I'll jump into it. I'll note two things. One is the City of San Diego, their peer water project. The, in April, the San Diego City Council unanimously certified their environmental impact report and environmental impact statement for that project. And that project is treated wastewater effluent for potable use. And it decreases effluent going to the Pacific Ocean. And then the other one I wanted to point out is, next one, just go down a little bit here, is the Pacific Institute put out a report on stormwater capture. And it's nothing super enlightening, but it's solid information. It basically says it'd like to see entities do this more and also the state help promote it. So I know some of you up on there have a keen interest for stormwater capture, so we wanna make sure we point that out. That's it. Okay. Any questions? So San Diego is direct potable reuse? How do they send it up to the reservoir? The reservoir. So it's called indirect. It's called indirect, so they purify it, send it up to the reservoir with mixing and then it comes back down. They treat it again. And that was just approved by the state this year. Yeah. So it's not being recharged then? No, not directly. It's still an indirect because it becomes a new potable source, surface water versus groundwater, but not flange to flange direct. Any public comment on this report we just went through? So none? Okay, the MGA report 5.4. Yeah, so I'll just point out that there's a joint meeting Thursday night, this coming Thursday at Simkins Center from 6.30 to 9.00 p.m. And it's a joint meeting actually between the Groundwater Sustainability Plan Advisory Committee and the Mid County Groundwater Agency Board itself. So two NCs coming together for a couple hour presentation, besides a few business items is really focusing on projects that are being considered in this region to help the overdraft situation and seawater intrusion. The way it's set up is John Ricker will give a brief intro on to what we've been trying to do for the last 30 years. So a little history of unsuccessful water development in this area, and then I'll give a presentation on what the district's up to with this community water plan, and then Rosemary Menard for the city will come in and talk about what the city's been up to. And then there'll also be opportunity for some members of the public to present too. Any comments or questions on that? Public? No? District Council, oral report. Yes, SBA 31, which is the revised ADU bill has apparently died in committee. It was referred to this government committee. They had a hearing and then didn't hold a vote. And it appears like it's gone for at least this year. The Great Oaks case, which was at the Supreme Court at the same time as the city of Buena Ventura case has now been sent by the Supreme Court back to the Sixth District Court to render a new decision. So we're expecting that sometime maybe towards the end of summer. And the Goleta case, which directly attacks tiered rates is now fully briefed and argued. So we should get a decision within 90 days. Any public comment? All right, let's move to 6.1. The will serve letters, we have two of them. Yeah, so the first one is a new accessory dwelling unit in Aptos, and we can take them individually or not. I'll also mention that the other applicant for 6.1.2 is in the audience. AJ is with us tonight. He owns the, both Chevron stations, one on Bay Avenue and one on Soquel near Park Avenue. He's proposing to put in a new car wash down on Bay Avenue at that Chevron station. So more than welcome to address the board if you wish or ask any questions, we can try our best to answer them. It's nice to see it's using recycled water. Any questions or comments on these? I would just say that gives more people an alternative to using the hose in their house to wash their car and recycling of most of it. So hopefully overall it saves water. Yeah, any public comment on this item? Any board actions here? I'll make the motions, both of them. And I'll second them. Okay, roll call please. Director Lather. Yes. Director Jaffe. Yes. Director Christensen. Yes. President Daniels. No. That passes. 6.2 presentation of surface water purchase pilot project. In-scale test. We'll do a quick switch out. All right. Good evening audience and board members. We tonight, part of your packet is our several slides as well as a final draft of the technical measures of the technical memorandum prepared by Black and Veatch in looking at how the city's surface water can blend with our groundwater. And I also want to acknowledge Sarah Perez and Heidi Lucenbach with the City of Santa Cruz. They're here and they've also been instrumental as working together to go through this process and they'll continue to work with us going forward and one thing I want to make sure that everyone understands is what we're presenting tonight was a bench top test with jars and we're going to, that test has given us the green light to move forward to the next testing. It's not a green light to just unleash the all valves and open the intertie. But we'll get through that point and give you explanations to why we don't want to go to the whole district. But it has given us the green light to skip over some additional lab testing. Right. Sitting next to me to my left is Emily Tummins with Black and Veatch and she's basically been with this test all along and so she's going to go through several of the detailed slides and can definitely answer any technical questions that anybody has. So from Black and Veatch we have some other members of the team in the audience but on the screen right now I just want you to recognize that there have been an army behind this really working hard and collecting samples, providing review and input and just kind of shepherding this effort along. It's not something that happened very quickly. So I wanted to acknowledge everyone shown here. To the right, Virginia Tech University has been conducting all the lab analysis and you'll see a lot of their charts and they're pretty well recognized across the nation for being a corrosion expert. We'll get through there. Before we get into the results I just wanted to kind of explain how this fits into our effort for supplemental supply. Quickly cover the community water plan that the district has embraced. First off the community water plan wants to maximize conservation as well as groundwater management but knowing that our existing supplies are not enough we are pursuing other supplies and while there are four others listed there water reuse with pure water soquel desalination and stormwater capture this is one of those four that we are definitely pursuing and working towards and we appreciate working with the city on this to know what we can expect for the future. Quickly going through what the district, the board has adopted in our guiding principles specifically for surface water purchase from the city of Santa Cruz we've got four bullets here showing that we want to increase the public education outreach on this topic. There are two parts of this effort one on the pilot focusing on the north coast sources that the city uses as well as potentially additional water from the San Lorenzo River which could provide more supply for us. Also recognizing that currently we do have an agreement and we'll look at it later in the slides with the city to purchase this water over a five-year period it has taken several years to get to this point so we have not yet purchased any water from them. Jointly we've met with the state and we realize that the district will have to amend the water supply permit and so that's on our to-do list. Completing this effort is definitely one step in the right direction to ensuring that the state that this is going to be okay. Our goal is to receive water in the winter of 2018. I put December there but if we are ready it could be sooner. If the city is ready as well there are certain conditions that need to be met before they are authorized to sell us water. Hopefully sometime this winter we can do that. And then also looking forward working with the city on how to best utilize conjunctive use and whether there are efforts to do ASR as well as in lieu can be utilized. I'll skip over this pretty quickly but this is a clip from the executed purchase agreement with the city and I just want to point out that there are there's forethought into maybe something into the future. It doesn't just end here at the pilot level. Both agencies had the intent of further exploring additional efforts after this. So for getting bearings we've seen this slide before but maybe some people in the audience have not. This shows the sources that we're talking about available and in fact it's only two of the streams they're not large rivers they are streams that are located off highway one up north. Light Ale Creek and Majors Creek are the two that would be supplying water this winter if we were able to to receive it. I think Laguna Creek is not part of the group here. So we've spent several months looking at the compatibility of city water versus district water recognizing that traditionally they are different water qualities and specifically when you make a change in one source to another it can have unforeseen consequences and so these are some newspaper articles that you have seen before already in a previous presentation but recognizing that there are examples with Fresno, with Flint, Michigan with Davis and Woodland that have had issues with changing water supplies so we didn't want to be on the headlines here we want to have cautious take steps cautiously. Back in 2016 Black and Beach started this with a desktop study looking at just the water quality parameters where the water was actually blended together or analyzed that did recommend a further study that could include an actual pipe loop testing it recommended bench scale and maybe pipe loop testing the city went forward in January of 2016 to complete an environmental assessment of taking water from the north coast so that's been completed and we just finished the bench scale testing and now the next step would be continuing to a full scale pilot and that can hopefully happen over the next couple of winters we anticipate that to be roughly we've calculated to be roughly about 250 acre feet of demand in that area during November and April period so now it's time for Emily to go over the results any questions please feel free to ask she's very familiar with the data and then I'll wrap up with the final slide okay hopefully I'm loud enough for those not in the room so Taj did a really good job of providing the overview and a little bit of background so that'll be a really quick in this presentation I will describe the testing design as well as the summary of the final results and then get to the conclusions and recommendations and then the steps that will proceed this so jumping right into it so we looked at the water sources available both for the district and the city it is planned that the water will be delivered in the winter time so the data that was analyzed and the things that stood out were that the city feeds a corrosion inhibitor orthophosphate and the district does not so that was one of the parameters we really wanted to focus on in this study as well as the levels of hardness in the water and making sure that there wouldn't be any descaling in the district system if the city's water was introduced so that's why I'm showing you a little bit of the background data before you go on there's one thing I noticed there yes the pH is talked about a lot in the document and it's typically talked about the 7.5 and the 7.2 but I see here the pH for the city is 7.4 as you've measured it not the 7.2 so I'm wondering why is that discrepancy there yes we did look at at some of the earlier months for part of the study but the typical water appears to be 7.2 as what the city has this was just a different time that you got it and it was a different pH this was from 2012 through 15 when this data was analyzed for our earlier study so now as well there's one source of water which is just the ground of course if you go different places in our district it's different ground so different water quality for that reason in the city they have very different sources of water depending on the time so in the winter you get rainfall and runoff and in the spring you might get airflow and base flow that is contributing in the summer you may not use any of the water that's happening all the time so did you take account of that and adjust for it appropriately so this study just focused on the winter time water qualities because that's what the proposed pilot is looking at accepting water during that time so and there might be additional desktop analysis that could look at what variations would be there but since the water is all leaving the city's water treatment plant the controls on the water quality the targets leaving the plant hopefully wouldn't vary too much I want to add something we did ask whether the water quality changed and it does you're right but we wanted to be most conservative and we did confirm that or at least you guys did review the data and said that using the winter water would be more conservative because I guess the water coming out of the treatment plant on the off months of May through like could you talk slightly about it Tom sure I'm trying Tom to explain that we did look at the water quality outside of the window of November to April and we did find that it was the conservative approach to use the water during the time period that we sampled and so what you're looking at the data that is being presented to you is the most conservative results so I'd like to follow up on that like President Daniels seems like pH is key here because there are different results of different pH so does the city sample for pH frequently and do we have the range of what it can be during the winter months it is listed on the far right there the average is shown at 7.4 but the range is 7.1 to 7.7 that's for the entire year that's just the winter period from November to March so that might be some other ground water because I had a question about some other aspects that was the sulfates and then service area 3 seemed very close in chemistry to the city's water quality especially in terms of or the phosphate and well and pH too I'm just curious about that where that water was located service area 3 Aptos it's east of Aptos Creek basically Rio de Mar Boulevard on south the desktop study did call that out that service area 3 water is more similar to the city of Santa Cruz water there's naturally occurring phosphate in that water that's where it comes from so our distribution models showed that even running full bore that service here is 1 and 2 but pretty much not at all service area 3 so it's kind of even though it's the same it's not even going to be impacted by this much another point about these ranges is that it's not just the season it's also the weather so this past year I think there were two months when there was essentially no rain so even though it was the middle of the winter it wasn't getting normal winter flows you know base flow and that kind of behavior so you might actually get conditions that are outside that normal range depending on what the weather is like that year and that's why the state's going to require us to do continue to do sampling in our distribution system throughout this pilot and even after that alright so the goals of the bench scale testing were to examine the relative aggressiveness of both the cities and the districts water focusing on zone 1 just so everyone's aware and then the purpose of bench scale testing really is to screen for multiple treatment options that could be implemented at that inner tie whether it's adjusting the districts water throughout the entire district system or adjusting the city's water right as it comes into the district system and then also trying to understand if there was a need for pipe loop testing for that extra step of demonstration testing so as Tajman mentioned the testing was all performed at Mark Edwards laboratory at Virginia Tech University and then we had metal pipe coupon testing which I will explain in more detail throughout this report the wire testing is explained in the report that is provided so for the coupon testing these are small pieces of the pipes that were harvested from the district system we selected galvanized iron service lines as well as asbestos cement pipe because they have the highest potential for releasing metals and they're prevalent in the district system and then there's also a copper pipe with lead solder because new copper has the highest potential for releasing metal this is what the coupons look like the harvested galvanized iron pipe coupons we collected pipe from different locations and we saw that the first batch has that orangey iron scale the second batch had a little bit darker scale which after scale analysis proved to be manganese which is why it was one of the parameters that was looked at in more detail in our study to make sure that any changes to water chemistry wouldn't affect the scale currently present in the system this is just looking at the scale analysis data showing the iron was higher in pipe one and the manganese was the major metal in the second batch of pipes that were collected in total a number of coupon jars were created with the different materials galvanized iron pipe cement and then the copper pipe with lead solder and this was all so that there could be a conditioning phase where we could then limit the number of pipe coupons to the ones that release most similar metals so that we had a baseline going forward for testing as I stated the conditioning provides that baseline for testing how this was performed was using the district's groundwater at a pH of 7.5 it's allowing the scale from those harvested coupons to re-equilibrate after being harvested and shipped across the country the water was exchanged three times a week and this testing either lasted three weeks or six weeks depending on the type of coupon so that we could measure metals and calcium, turbidity and water quality parameters that would create our baseline from this we selected seven water treatment conditions to look at the baseline groundwater at pH of 7.5 represents the district system so that's our condition one all of our results will be compared back to that as are they similar better or worse condition two looked at adding orthophosphate to the district's groundwater condition three represents the city's surface water at a pH of 7.2 which already contains orthophosphate in it and then condition four looked at if the district wanted to adjust the pH of the city's water at the intertide to a pH of 7.8 and that would still contain the orthophosphate but really what we need to look at as Taj already mentioned earlier is the alternating conditions because if this water is only going to be used seasonally in the winter maybe at first we need to know what happens when you expose the system to one water for six months and then another water for six months or something of that case so really what we're looking at are conditions five six and seven where we're alternating compared back to the baseline so when we look at the graphs that's really what what I'll try and focus on before we move on does everyone understand these different conditions because they're referenced in the future and I want to make sure that's clear before the expectation that if the switching was faster like one month yes one month no one month yes conditions to be similar to the six months on six months off for a condition yes we just try to at the bench scale level with coupons represent that change in a shorter time fashion but based on our previous work as well as Virginia Tech's previous work two to three weeks is typically when you see if there's going to be a spike in metals release or water quality changes that's when it occurs same question I have great minds think alike so it's been done in terms of determining whether three weeks is enough time yes make that clear yeah and there were four weeks in between our testing but three weeks is typically two to three is what you need to see if there's going to be a spike so then looking at the testing schedule we had 13 weeks worth of testing the alternating conditions switched after week five and after week nine and just going forward so everyone's aware on what's what'll be on the X axis for the graphs if it says GW that's groundwater SW is the city's surface water and OP means that there was 0.2 milligrams per liter of orthophosphate as phosphorus which is what the would be present at the intertide in the city's water and then the number is the pH so I have the results organized first with the asbestos cement then the copper pipe with lead solder and lastly the galvanized iron pipe we had controls as well for our testing the pipe coupons as you saw in some of the earlier pictures the outside was coated in an epoxy so that the water would only react with the scale on the inside of the pipe and so we wanted to ensure that the epoxy wasn't leaching out any metals or modifying our water quality in any way so if it has controls these were what our control jars look like conditioning values were prior those three or six weeks so the data for asbestos cement pipe we wanted to make sure that there wouldn't be a problem with calcium changing from the water that we introduced to those jars and the water that was poured off two or three days later and so what we're seeing here is that the control value and the the jar value are very similar we're not really seeing much of a difference but we know that there's no concern for calcium scale dissociation the calcium level is not changing why is the spike in the groundwater at the start of those sessions so the groundwater has variable levels of calcium so it depended on when that water was collected from the wells and so we did track this throughout levels in the district system can vary from about 40 to I believe it's 110 milligrams per liter is calcium carbonate so it's just natural variability but it is good to see that even with that variation we aren't seeing issues so the city's water is much more consistent calcium levels throughout we also looked at phosphorus we wanted to make sure that the coupons wouldn't deplete the orthophosphate that's present in the water because we want to make sure that that gets all the way to the customers taps and again we're seeing that the water that went in to the jars as the control is the same as what's coming out two or three days later when the water was poured off to be tested so we're really seeing minimal to no uptake as far as for the asbestos cement pipe also I should note that those pink bars are and blue bars are representing when the water sources are alternating between surface water and groundwater so the way to read these is if the for each of the conditions say condition to if the bars are all the same height that means that there's not an effect from being exposed to the pipe yes if the bar height goes up or down it means it's changing because of exchange with the pipe yes when we're comparing the control and that weeks water quality yes and so here there's just very minimal changes obviously when in alternating conditions when it's switched to groundwater that doesn't contain with the phosphate you see the very low levels and the detection limit so in summary for the asbestos cement testing we saw no concern for switching the sources like I mentioned the calcium levels fluctuate naturally in the groundwater as you saw by a few of those spikes surface water has a little bit lower calcium but we saw no concern for scaled association and there was minimum uptake of phosphorus so all good results for the asbestos cement testing now we'll look at the copper pipe with lead solder and this is the copper results that are being shown first when we're looking at the weeks of testing it's minimal changes in copper except for condition 6 there is a little bit of spike when the water source is changed from surface water back to groundwater and that's the surface water at a pH of 7.8 and so this is the only concern that we saw in the copper results even though it's minimal but for the most part the copper is pretty consistent throughout all of testing and there's not an issue with the current groundwater so that's what we're really always comparing back to that condition 1 next we'll look at the lead results we did see a decrease in lead for almost all the conditions for condition 5 where that's the city's surface water at pH 7.2 with orthophosphate when that water was in contact with the coupons we saw a decrease from the conditioning values that were exposed to groundwater then when we switched back to the current district's groundwater we saw a little bit of an increase in lead but it never got back to that conditioning value and then when we switched back to the surface water again so switching to to that condition if that's what goes forward that would represent a decrease in lead overall in the distribution system conversely if you're looking at condition 6 with the city's surface water adjusted to a pH of 7.8 we did see a spike in lead when switching back to the groundwater so those could you remind me what the MCL public health goals are I can but we shouldn't be looking at at these results and saying okay we're going to see 40 micrograms per liter of lead in the system because these have been exposed to the coupons for longer than the stagnation time but the action level for lead is 15 micrograms per liter but these have been exposed to the coupons for three days prior to taking this water quality sample so we can't relate it back to that we just have to compare across the board to each of the coupons so the logic of that is that the water all different types of water exposed the same time so it's the relative difference exactly so yes for the conditioning values all of them had a very similar release of lead copper the metals we were testing all of the coupons are the exact same size surface area exposed to the same volume of water for the same time so we can compare across the board but this this level of testing is not representative of what you could see in the distribution system for concentrations that is but some of those issues might be why we need to continue doing testing monitoring going on forward yes and monitoring is recommended and will be required by the state as well they won't be in contact for three days they'll be months yes but when you take a lead and copper sample I think that's what you were asking like the action level that would be six hours of stagnation and then a sample so we also looked at phosphorus and similar to the asbestos cement pipe the copper pipe with lead solder showed minimal to no uptake so so just going back to your point even though it's going to be in contact for three months it's not the same water it's moving through the system so it's well it depends I mean some vacation home it might be in contact with the pipe for three months because it's not flowing in that pipe yes that I mean that could be a possibility but we would definitely recommend that any property that is water sit that stagnant that they should flush that water before drinking it for many reasons but yes vacation homes the people literally are not there for months at a time so yes yes but as soon as that water that is stagnant and those pipes is flushed out then the fresh water wouldn't have been in contact with the lead or copper but the point is that sometimes the flushing is they put a cup under the thing as soon as they arrive there after two months and proceed to drink it so yeah that but that would be an issue whether you had surface water sure sure mixture I'm just making the point that the three-day contact right right there are some situations where different right gotcha alright so the summary for the lead and copper testing was that all the conditions decreased lead except for condition six which had the pH of 7.8 for the city surface water conditions both 5 and 7 were the other alternating conditions they were equal to or better than that baseline for the districts water both we saw spikes in both copper and lead for condition six where we adjusted the city's surface water to a pH of 7.8 and so that that switching condition created water quality issues and then lastly there was minimal to no uptake of phosphorus which is typical due to the small surface area of our samples so lastly we'll move on to the galvanized iron testing we looked at turbidity for for these coupons the results were pretty similar across the board if anything condition 5 had the lowest turbidity but very very consistent throughout all the weeks of testing throughout alternating conditions we looked at manganese because it was present in the scale we wanted to make sure that no changes would upset the manganese scale and we saw a decrease in manganese for all the conditions so good results even when alternating source waters that's what you have scale and then lastly we looked at iron for the galvanized iron coupons and again iron is decreasing or very minimal changes really except for for condition 6 there at the end when we switch back to source water at that higher pH of 7.8 there was a little bit higher iron release and then we did look at phosphorus and here's where we do see that difference between what phosphorus level was present when we put the water into the jars and then three days later when the water quality was sampled so that's where you see that the control bar is higher the phosphorus depletion was it anywhere from 15 to 67% after those three days of exposure but throughout the weeks of testing the depletion did decrease and because of this we wanted to look at the condition where water quality was sitting stagnant and pipes similar to the point you just brought up and so we did a two-week test where we took the galvanized iron coupons from that condition 1 which is the baseline that has never been exposed to orthophosphate as well as condition 3 which is the city's water at pH 7.2 that has been exposed to orthophosphate for all 13 weeks of testing. We filled the jars with the city's water at pH 7.2 with orthophosphate and then took samples every two to three days to test for the orthophosphate level and what we saw was that the condition three coupons that had seen orthophosphate for all 13 weeks they saw a 60% depletion of orthophosphate throughout two weeks and the condition 1, the baseline coupons that had never seen orthophosphate saw an 82% depletion but they really do seem to reach a semi-steady state there so it makes us confident that even if the water was sitting in long stretches of galvanized iron pipe and people's service lines for extended periods of time that there would still be orthophosphate present when it reaches their premise plumbing. So this depletion is then the orthophosphate binding to the interior surface of the pipe or the existing scale there or? Yes both so there's a lot of surface area for the scale that has built up throughout the years and so the orthophosphate is able to bind with the manganese and the other metals that are present in the scale and form this passivating layer on the inside of the pipe is very typical especially for galvanized iron pipe that it has a larger demand for the phosphorous in the water and we that's why we did this additional testing. And this I think wouldn't be considered beneficial because it means there would be this protective layer built up of orthophosphate on the insides of the pipes over time is that not true? No that would be beneficial so it's limiting the release of the manganese that's present in the scale into the water. So in summary for the galvanized iron testing we saw that the phosphate that was added to the water did decrease over time but it was still present after two weeks of testing the manganese decreased the iron decreased except for that condition 6 with the 7.8 pH for the city surface water and the turbidity was similar for all of the testing conditions. So in conclusion really the alternating conditions are what we're going to focus on so that condition 5 alternating between the city surface water at a pH of 7.2 and the current groundwater performed better or equal to the groundwater that's currently present in the distribution system for the district highlighting the fact that it decreased both lead and iron and the two alternating conditions condition 6 where that's looking at adjusting the city's pH to a higher pH of 7.8 it did not perform as expected it actually showed some increases in lead, copper, and iron and then last, yep But you did indicate that it sometimes goes to 7.7 which is almost 7.8 so we can expect to see some of those conditions from time to time there could be a possibility of that but also the city is looking at a treatment process that would be able to fine tune the pH leaving the plant as well and then lastly condition 7 was considering adding orthophosphate to the entire district system so that there wouldn't be that difference in that water quality parameter it performed similar to condition 5 but it would require additional chemical feed systems and it doesn't seem necessary at this point so the recommendations are really to proceed with condition 5 because of what's stated over there on the conclusions and because of that pipe loop testing is not recommended because we're not planning to adjust either the water chemistry, pH or add orthophosphate but with looking at this full scale pilot with condition 5 where the city surface water is being introduced obviously monitoring is necessary identifying or notifying the customers of any possible changes in water quality that they might see in the design of the distribution system so those are the next steps to identify so in terms of distribution system monitoring it's already been brought up a few times at tonight's meeting but understanding the water quality that's currently present in this pilot area of the distribution system creating that baseline and then continuing to monitor when the city surface water is introduced and then after in the summertime when it returns back to the district's groundwater looking at sampling locations in the distribution system understanding that effect on the mains letting copper rule sampling sites will be required and then disinfection byproduct sample sites as well and this will be necessary to validate the results of bench scale testing so if we proceed with this we're going to have some kind of pH monitor on the lines and if the pH is too high we won't accept the water from the city I mean what would you do to use the lower pH I mean that's what we're testing for so you're assuming that's what it's going to be or that we're not going to use water unless it meets that requirement am I that's a great question so I don't know what monitoring is available right there at the inner tie but all of those were the bench scale testing results this will be the more of the pilot scale full scale results but just making sure to monitor pH would be very important and that's easy to do but I don't know how we'll respond if it does go out of that range we'll work with the state on that to see exactly if they have the similar concern based on this result I want to point out the last bullet there on the right the state is requiring an additional disinfection byproduct sample station and they asked for it to be the longest residence time in this test area that we'll cover at the end of the presentation this test all the results that Emily just presented do not analyze disinfection byproducts we didn't study that we did study that in the desktop study and we are aware that surface water does contain higher disinfection byproducts it is on our radar it's on the state's radar we will keep you posted on how those pan out what does the monitoring frequency that we're going to be looking at we just have before during and after but during could be six months long as we've talked about in particular with things going up and down pH going up and down perhaps other things going up and down I think what was proposed in the desktop study was it's weekly monitoring throughout and one month prior and then continually during the transfer and then three months after so these are reassuring results that there's not going to be a chemistry problem in terms of the metals but what our customers might notice is a difference in taste so is that I know that's not very scientific but it's the very next slide before we go on another thing it would be good to know where we are in this process in theory we would turn it on orthophosphate would go up because it's in the city's water and then stay up there for six months and then when we switch off the cities it would go down but of course in reality it'll be perhaps going up and down because at some points the city might not be able to give us water for three weeks because there's not been enough rainfall during that time or whatever so it would also seem a good idea to monitor orthophosphate levels just to see where we are in terms of the mixing phosphate is part of the proposed monitoring plan so the loop tests that were bypassing or not having to do that was a closed system without customers yes that would be again harvesting pipes from the system it would be longer stretches of pipe that's really used to look at the hydraulic effects that would be present and service lines are in premise plumbing where you have those eight, ten hour stagnation times followed by flowing periods that's where you can get the more representative lead or copper levels that a customer might see but it again is just it's a better representation but it's often used for if you're going to optimize a chemical addition if you're trying to fine tune what pH target you're trying to look at or what orthophosphate dose or maybe looking at a few different chemical options so we have studies going on like that but it didn't appear to be unnecessary at this time because both the water chemistry appeared to react similarly when switching back and forth you could do tests that greater stagnation like we get customers all the time who have not written notices and we do have a high percentage of vacation homes that are empty for long periods of year particularly winter and they might show up on a weekend in the middle of winter I was just thinking of if it's worth the precaution to design a loop test that adjusts for those kind of contingencies I mean it's possible but you're probably not going to loop test for three weeks stagnation time and none of the studies I've been a part of we've done that really looking at the 8 to 12 hours stagnation times trying to understand the hydraulics whether or not the flowing water through the pipe is going to cause scale to destabilize and you'll get particulate in your water quality looking at things like that but all of those studies really are looking at adjusting pH or adding calcium to the water adding orthophosphate and that's not a recommendation of this study so for that it's a lot of cost and about a year's worth of time to design build and do the extended period of testing that we just don't see as necessary at this point with the results that we got from bench scale testing alright so getting back to the customer notification there always is the possibility that with any change that there could be aesthetic effects that the customer could see maybe a change in taste or a change in color and or odor and so things of that should be notified to the customers just to alert them but we didn't see any of that from our testing we looked at color we didn't see any discoloration we didn't see any spikes in turbidity we don't expect this but it is still always better to be prudent and proactive but you didn't taste the water I did not taste the water would you expect it to change given these results because it's not the mineral content isn't expected to change both waters use free chlorine the city has a slightly higher chlorine level but a residual of one milligram per liter is typically not at the point where people are complaining of taste issues from my experience but yeah here was just a list of options on how to notify the public and things to be aware of as well as alerting businesses or susceptible individuals of possible water quality changes and then lastly it's the implementation plan and the coordination that will be involved with the State Department of Drinking Water that has already been privy to some of this information and then trying to understand what monitoring sites and locations they're going to require as part of this pilot study for the isolation area within the district system and then just understanding the intertile logistics working with the city and this is the short term plan with this isolated pilot zone if everything goes well then there would be long term plans to open up the valves and allow the water to infiltrate a little bit further into the district system and this pilot area has already been flushed so that requirement is already checked off the list isn't this kind of an extreme test though because in the real operational system we would let it flow to the rest of area 1 and even to area 2 so in this case with 6 months of of inflow it's going to be a lot higher concentration than it would be in the real system so why are we doing it that way why not try and make it more like the real case right the intertile the intertile can supply enough water roughly 800 acre feet during that time period so that would saturate sub areas 1 and 2 in the winter months so we want to have at least some control over the test and so that we're not introducing other variables that we just can't explain the state division of drinking water was you know supportive of this approach to take a stepwise analysis our estimate is that this first phase could could take in about 250 acre feet but that's based on demand the limiting factor is really the demand on that not necessarily the supply right well it could be supplied if it's available every day then it would be demand driven particularly given the city starting with a dry condition that I mean just like last year they didn't spill the reservoir until like April or something and then 2 days later they did a restriction tier 1 restriction condition so we don't know what's going to happen in that regard so this testing was done was done for a transfer of city water to the district to the result supply to a transfer the other way if we're in a position at some point to give water back to the city well the alternating conditions still would be the same so it still was alternating between zone 1 districts water so the pH what we're transferring into would be key our pH is relatively constant I assume I guess the one thing would be that we didn't test the scale and the city system like all these the harvested pipes were from the district system so there might be different scales so it might have a difference you probably want to repeat this study with city pipes maybe but not necessarily the city does operate at least in the western part of their district or the eastern part of their district they alternate already with the belts well field in the summer and then the city surface water in the winter and they also have basically an equal equal baseline for the phosphate in their pipes so I'm not sure if that's of course up to them to decide and at this stage where our sources are not really in any in any stage or position to provide that amount of water back to them I was just thinking down down the line so the last slide I want to cover is a map of this isolated zone for your reference initially we were trying to say west of Soquel Creek but because there are only two sources in that area O'Neill and Garnet and they couldn't meet the peak production in the summer we had to include main street well and also Pringle tank so that's why you see it bleeding over into the eastern side of Soquel Creek but there are roughly 2300 services in this area and I think we've covered all the other points here and maybe just reiterate that we're focusing on quality not quantity in this pilot program as I mentioned earlier the thing that worries me is that the three wells we do have in this area two of them are currently down one of them who knows how long it's going to take the other one is just a physical process which we've done before so it's more predictable I addressed that in the memo saying that we hopefully anticipate to have these wells back online in time to have the baseline tests for a month baseline sampling for a month prior to opening the valve so ideally we could get it done ahead of time but even still it could our goal this winter is to take some water and that may shift if these wells are not online in time or maybe the ammonia returns and we do have to pursue the treatment we'll do our best to accommodate what we can any notion of because we have lots of groundwater in the rest of our system of putting in some one way valve so that any groundwater that we don't have wells producing in this sub area we could just let in some groundwater from the rest of area one or area two or wherever if you had a one way valve you could just bleed it into the zone here that isn't something that we've considered doing but thank you for the suggestion we'll discuss it because that might if we can't get those wells fixed that would be the only way to do this test is to use groundwater from because you definitely need the groundwater in the summer the problem isn't the winter because in the winter hopefully we'll be getting a lot of surface water from the city so that might be enough with just garnet but in the summer time if you want to keep this going a full year of course the other option is to not let it go a full year thank you for the input any other questions questions from the public right anyone in the public thank you Becky Steinbruner resident of Aptos thank you for the good presentation and thank you for getting this report out it's been a long time coming what I'm not hearing anybody talk about is that last paragraph in staff recommendation and maybe it's a typo I'm wondering on the last next to the last sentence it would be unlikely that city water could be purchased before December 2019 a year that's a typo good can you clarify then you are planning to take water in December 2018 well if these sources that we just discussed are online that is helping the intention okay right to initiate baseline sampling and also rainfall and rainfall it's early in the season and it's based on last year of course it's really early in the season okay well I'm feeling a whole lot better as the 2019 date on there made it sound like we were going to have to wait another year and that was making absolutely no sense to me having already had to wait a year from the time you got the initial study before the bench test came so thank you for clarifying that error I also want to say that there is a lot more water available and as you said Mr. Dufour the intertie is capable of supplying 800 acre feet is that the intertie or is that the supply available from the creeks in a good year I cannot speak for the availability at the creeks but that would be the availability at the intertie so that amount of water is available as has been shown to you from the stream gauge data collection that water for Santa Cruz County has presented about three times the amount of water is available in wet years certainly and if you if the district is able to take up to 800 acre feet a year why not take it because that's not what was analyzed in the environmental document this focus is on the north coast streams and I think what you're referring to is that we're referred to for the San Lorenzo River which is part of a longer term phase that we will pursue but at this time that environmental review has not been done and this is focused on the north coast availability I understand that but the stream gauges for the north coast streams do indicate especially in very wet years a lot more water than 120 or 250 could be taken and I urge you to work with Santa Cruz city and accept all the water that you can I guess my time's up I also want to say that in the city of Santa Cruz's report recommendations there was not this whole monitoring regime talked about it was more on customer monitoring and even having households, sample households and so that kind of goes away with the clarification of the date but thank you very much for the report anyone else seeing no one when we talk about availability there's different kinds of availability there's physical availability if you go down there with a bucket you might be able to get who knows how much but there is a practical availability and currently the agreement we have with the city is 300 acre feet and the environmental analysis that was behind that is also predicated on 300 acre feet so if we even consider changing that it would have to go through the whole process again and who knows whether that would work well or not but that's the practical availability now it's 300 acre feet and that's assuming you know the weather cooperates and it actually is physically available so those two constraints are on top of each other okay so any other further questions we were asked to approve this final report accept it I'll move to accept it second motion second roll call please Director Lather yes yes Director Jaffe yes Director Christensen I'm hanging in there and President Daniels thank you for coming and we appreciate your hard work on this this is an important project for us okay item 6.3 discussion of the elements to include in the finance plan and impacts of financial assumptions so as you all know we are in the midst of a development of a finance plan and a water rate study with Raf tell us and we've discovered as we're developing the finance plan that there are some complexities that we'd like to seek some board input on before we go too much further one of those complexities is the timing of a finance plan and rate study I know the board directed us to look at a five year study but as we looked out over those five years we were seeing that the timelines for our supplemental supply development and the timelines for the rate study were overlapping a little bit and so that raised some questions about which costs to include in a finance plan I know the board hasn't made a decision on the supplemental supply project yet so that introduces some questions about what we should include in a finance plan and what type of scenarios we're going to run so what I'd like to ask for input on tonight is whether we have Raf tell us run various scenarios what you would like those scenarios maybe to be I presented three possible scenarios for you this evening and if we run those scenarios what considerations would you like us to include in those scenarios and whether you still want to look at a five year rate study or if you want to consider a possibly shorter rate study period so a question so is there not enough information available to to do scenarios with DSAL and with an enhanced water transfer I have included costs in a finance plan for the 300 acre feet transfer that was presented this evening and for continuing to look at stormwater recharge projects but those are smaller portfolio projects they're not a supplemental supply large project so I don't have any forecasted costs on DSAL and I don't think the DSAL project timeline would overlay the three to five years that we're talking about now because as I understand it they're still in an EIR phase on that particular project so I don't think we would be looking at design and construction of pipelines within the three to five years of the rate study we're looking at now because we ourselves would have to go out presumably for EIRs and for a lot of feasibility studies before we got to a design and construction phase now on the pure water soquel project that one has gotten up to a point where it could possibly overlap this rate study period and so my question is do you want those costs included do you want a scenario run that includes this rate study period and so my question is do you want those costs included do you want a scenario run that includes those costs how would you like me to structure this finance plan the question he was asking is is it too hard to include the pure water in rate studies can we now the pure water no because we have defined costs on that plan I don't on the DSAL and I don't on the enhanced those wouldn't appear in the five year horizon anyway right those wouldn't appear in the five year horizon anyway so the difference between three year and five year is how much of the pure water if we were going forward with that would be in the rate study correct right we have traditionally done a three year I think the board recommended a five year this time I think the advantage of a five year at this point would be it would probably cover all of the projected rates for that period were for the project period designed through presumably construction of a plant so you would get an idea of what those potential rates could be if you did a three year you'd only be covering a portion of such a project if you did a one year we'd be going out for prop 218 annually and you'd have the associated costs of another finance plan and rate study and prop 218 notification which are costly in and of themselves can I add one thing just because I think this does contribute to the and and or discussion related to supplemental water supply so I think what we're what Leslie's sorry this one kind of gets really back feet but maybe it's better this what I want to just add in terms of the and or or is where we need to try to build a finance plan that best captures what we're doing with supplemental water supply so all of the efforts that we're doing right now with Brown and Caldwell to do delivery models is basically projecting out a project based on designing construction every year that then would feed into the finance plan and lay out the impacts on rate if what we're what we're not doing or maybe we would like some discussion on is the and part of it and I think that director Jaffee asked the question related to an expanded river water project at this point we're kind of thinking it's a little speculative because the city's timeline is not until 2020 will they make that decision of then going forward with environmental review design and permitting so there is a potential that some of the tail tail end of the five years would need to include that if you wanted to to add that or we could just quantify that as supplemental water supply as a project and not define it right okay but it would that would be overlapping projects though you'd have to to honestly and accurately assume that you were doing both projects you would need to add that quantification that monetary amount into your finance plan and then the certainty of the information seen as the city hasn't determined which way they're going yet would be low I mean that's with all these longer term plans that's always an issue the farther you get away from going to the future the less certainty you have on on what's going to happen but that's true as well of pure water because we don't know whether we're going to get any grants or lots of grants or some grants or so there's a lot of uncertainty that's actually a scenario we can look at there's more certainty in that can I that's why I was wondering if we couldn't make a five year plan with the worst case scenario but then kind of including that plan what would happen if we did get the grants what would happen if we decided not to do the project for whatever reason I think that's her scenarios two and three then pure water with new grants and pure water with grants right so yeah that makes sense so including the these different scenarios how much of an effort is it well then if we were to run all three scenarios each scenario has kind of its own considerations if we were to run a no project scenario over the next five years what would it look like if we weren't doing a project would we need to reduce our demand projections because we would need to reduce our pumping and increase our costs for other areas like conservation or there's a lot of assumptions a lot of considerations would go into building that no project scenario yeah do you include what happens if there's intrusion what happens if you have to do a moratorium or even rationing would we change our billing system then accordingly if we were doing a rationing to a water budget type system would we what type of conservation expenses might meet what we need to plan for what reduced demand we'd have a zero growth we wouldn't bring in any water capacity or water demand fees presumably that's what we're going to be bringing in so it's it all kind of ties together so I'm just kind of asking for the board's input on some direction that you'd like me to include in those three scenarios if I pursue those three scenarios personally I think scenario one is this disaster scenario and I don't think we should and we haven't really talked about it much and I think spending a lot of time to discuss what could it be and what might it be is really not worthwhile I would do scenarios two and three I agree that would let us know the best scenario one that could like you could go on forever I think we're better off spending our time trying to make something real happen may I add because it has been brought up by director Jaffe at one of our earlier like community water plan workshops that we had in the room next door and it was also something that director LaHue had asked us during the desal project was what does it cost a rate payer if we don't do a project versus if we do a project and the scenario one is that no project where we it is a very worst case instead of selling right now our water demand is at about 3800 acre feet per year we don't sell that much but we're producing about 3800 acre feet a year if we don't get a project we have in terms of the guiding principles I think said that we would reduce water demand greatly like just hovering over 2300 acre feet so I guess creating a finance plan based on water sales that are drastically reduced does show an impact on a customer's bill an impact on rates that we would we would have to incur if there was no project so from an outreach and education standpoint that was kind of where that no project plan would be if we don't do that we may want to try and figure out how we craft that if that's still of interest well I'd make the point it's unrealistic we would never do the no project we would do something we would just sit here and watch the salt water pour in we would do something probably something drastic I don't know what it would be and it would have costs and it wouldn't be cheap and so I'm wondering Tom so just as I recall when we looked at this years ago the customers end up paying as much for water they just get less water that is how when we analyzed it before that is how this baseline I think was set up by you Leslie where you would it's not predetermined but director lew is absolutely correct it was you have to use less but you pay about the same with a curtailment scenario you were rationed I'm wondering if we can't get this into two ways and I looked at Leslie one I hear the idea of running scenario two and three but maybe some need for outreach to somehow for scenario one but we wouldn't have to do it in their most rigorous mode or official manner but we could give some perspective to if there was you know we would come up we'd use some numbers from previous curtailment efforts because we have to ratchet up that curtailment effort and ratchet down water use and run it in a simple way that would maybe yield some requests from the board education for the customers do you think that's possible and then run scenario two and three more rigorously it's difficult for me to know what the implications of scenario one would be what is it five six years later well we'd have to discuss that among staff that we last ran that analysis I think and things have changed drastically so it would be a little difficult for me to project what scenario one would look like without actually running those numbers right if we gave you what the delta for additional effort to ration basically or water budgets if we could come up with a number that we felt that was accurate and comfortable maybe what we should ask is maybe and I think this is something that staff had talked about there's a difference between kind of creating a finance plan or a performer looking outward with different projects and then creating a rate off of a finance plan could could we do the finance plan and the rate study or the rate building off scenario two and scenario three but develop kind of a finance plan with the baseline that would show how you did in the performer percentages of rate increases that may occur but you're not going into the whole rate study on top of that scenario that may still provide that information that was requested we'd have to pull together the cost that we would put into that scenario and like I said those costs were five or six years old at this point at least that was what 2014 I think when we looked at the full toolbox approach 2012 so we'd have to have some method to hopefully update those projections and then I think we could run some numbers but if we were to focus then on scenarios two and three scenario two would take into account the entire project which I assume we would for planning purposes be fully debt funded we'd go out for borrowing on the full cost of the project okay would that assume though that we would get SRF we would be at that level there's a limit to what we can do in terms of SRF or WIFIA funding so we would have to couple that with traditional bond financing so there would be tiered borrowing levels I think in that type of scenario I did talk to Lydia Gutierrez our grant consultant and she recommended if we were to do a scenario that included grants that we just include the Prop 1 planning grant and the Prop 1 implementation grant because the Title 16 grant costs are less certain and she said there's a timing differential there where sometimes it's 10 years later before you actually see a cash flow from that which would necessitate in the scope of the finance plan to borrow and then use proceeds later down the road to reimburse and then the Prop 1 is much bigger than the other one anyway so you're getting much of the benefit already okay and more certain I'd say now the other question is if we are to go ahead and run a scenario that shows a project over the next five years do we look at deferring any other of our CIP proposed projects to accommodate that scenario what are the projects one of the big ones I know that we have next year is quail run tank that one's a six million project just right off the top of my head I know that one but there are main replacement projects there's the kind of Sunwell project and all of those I think are within this five year you know as we talk about this I'm wondering if it would make sense that's a big question without knowing exactly what we're talking about I think would it make sense Leslie in this scenario to ask if a board member or two might like to work with us on that smoothing process or that that you're talking about I mean to get some input there I'm actually asking the board there but you also if you think that's necessary if we go back and try to smooth it out to make it as most comfortable for the customer what you're aiming for the challenge we run into a little bit is the timing we don't have another board meeting until August 21st yeah it's mid-August and that's actually when RAF tell us needs to be able to present the finance plan and some preliminary rate development off of that I think Ron was talking about one or two board members working with you now there would be some work that would need to take place between now and the final presentation in August or another method just to throw out options I'm not stepping on you is just ask staff to come back and list those assumptions when we come back with the model we delayed this or we moved this CIP project or I know there's other things in there we might be able to reduce and we could be explicit about that this is forecasting this is how 20-year plan there's uncertainty in that but as long as the assumptions are listed I'm good with that I make the other option much simpler is just to say some X percentage of the things that we would do in 3 we would not do in 2 say 25% of the things in 3 wouldn't be in 2 we wouldn't identify exactly which ones but we would reduce that spending by 25% that's an interesting because often we do that ourselves in mid-year we realize we have to reduce we set some kind of percentage we reduce to meet that percentage I certainly think it's prudent to look at 2 and 3 if there's a way to do one without going you know all the way down the path of getting rates just to have a kind of a sense but I agree we're going to have to do something so okay it might not be worthwhile doing one okay well we might be able to flesh out a rough estimate in-house on a scenario one type thing and have the rate consultant focus on scenarios 2 and 3 that's what makes sense to me we'll see if we can achieve it I would like to see both 2 and 3 and I'd like to see rates 2 or at least the ballpark percentage what the difference would be or something between 2 and 3 yeah yeah and we talked about one being something in-house just kind of more informational to the project which is not realistic but just kind of to come up with some rough numbers on that to see how it compares I think the major comparison that our customers are going to want to see is the difference between what they're paying now and what they would be paying either in 2 or in 3 in the future then the other question would be do we want to stay with the 5-year finance plan and rate study I think so I think that's that's when the project will be actualized if we're lucky right in 2023 so that would bridge that and I think you already said that we could just break it off and do a rate study earlier of it you know had drastically changing conditions so we could stop and go back out that was the reason I thought 5 years and in terms of effort to do a 5-year versus a 3-year not much different so it's just we'll have to put the filter on it that years 4 and 5 are less certain okay great you need a motion or have you got what you need I think there were motions included in there I'm trying to pull up my by motion provide direction on which scenarios I should pursue or have reptiles pursue and then direct me on the coverage period I'll make a motion we look at scenarios 2 and 3 and we'll go out 5 years I'll second it public comment sorry about that thank you Becky Steinbruner of Aptas I just want to point out that scenario 1 is not really no project it would include the north coast water transfers which could be more than 320 if there were as aggressive action being taken for that as there is for the pure water so Cal project and also aggressive action to get more to get water from the San Lorenzo River to pursue changing water water rights I also want to point out in the 2017 feasibility report it said that the cost of pure water so Cal at that time without Santa Cruz being part of it would be 183 million that includes I assume the interest because at that time the district was saying the project would cost between 60 and 70 million more recently your consultants have told you to expect the project to cost more between 90 million and 135 million so 183 million isn't even enough and I also heard that even if you get the grants as it was said tonight you can't count on that money up front it may take even up to 10 years for that one title 14 like a title 16 things so the prop one that's a $50 million grant is that how much that one is up to so you're looking at a huge bill on your customers that have already just gone through a 17% increase and many of them already are not able to afford their water bills and I think a lot of this is getting the cart before the horse because you don't have the research in to verify the holding times for this water being treated water being injected into the aquifer that's huge and it will affect the other people around your area the people with private wealth so I understand you're trying to figure the financing of this out but it seems to me incredibly expensive and your mantra of safe affordable timely solutions is not being upheld because this will not be affordable for a lot of your customers thank you thank you anyone else well I'll just say that in terms of this long-term transfer or even transfer back solution WASAC had some incredible numbers in it we don't have any data from the city as to how much of that money they want us to pay they certainly aren't going to give us the water for free and we don't have any idea what the cost would be so yes that might happen and yes we're doing the groundwork to see that that might eventually happen but you can't plan for that right now because we don't have any numbers nor do we have any dates and I'd like to also add just because they're not here I think Santa Cruz is moving that effort is not going past enough and I think they are moving as according to their community its community water plan had recommended and they're on track so I think they are being as aggressive as they can and we've been working with them as much as it makes sense okay well my motion still stands I had the second my second still stands you can have it so the one thing that's missing from that is kind of an in-house analysis with with the option one just to get ballpark to explore that right we'll add that to the level that staff thinks is well okay roll call please Director Lather yes Director LaHue yes Director Jaffee yes President Daniels item 6.4 service area 3-4 intertie well it's time to review bids we've received three bids for this project and we also have another project that will be presented to you in the next month or so but we're excited to have received three bids unfortunately the bids came from a contractor named California trenchless incorporated the Don Chapin company and then as well as Pacific underground construction the district has had experience working with the second and third bidder and I wanted to point out and I apologize for the board memos non-traditional approach to how we award bids but in this case we wanted to have a discussion here at the board in fact the second lowest bidder is here in the audience Don Chapin as well as Greg Reynolds is here to ask the board to consider their bid the low bidder the apparent low bidder failed to include three addendas that were set out during the bid period and after the bid opening we did contact the second or the lowest bidder California trenchless and asked them if they received the addenda they indicated they did not and we pointed out that we did email them the addendas we posted them on our website and we did fax them to them after that they said well send us the addendems and they acknowledged all three of the addendems and indicated they would not increase their bid they would do the project at the price they bid honoring the three addendems so we then looked at the contract documents and the memo does clarify all the different sections of the contract documents that really clarify that these are supposed to be submitted at the time of the bid and whether that is something that the board can wave as an irregularity or not to be able to provide the board a choice here we did include the second lowest bidder Don Chapin company to be considered and in preparation for this memo I didn't have all the information at the time there is a variance that needs to be considered also for Don Chapin in our contract documents we stipulate that the general contractor which is the Don Chapin company or the low bidder California trench list need to have a certain amount of qualifications to work on this project both contractors have met that qualification then it comes down to we also having a certification for the subcontractor this job does require subsurface boring horizontal directional drilling and we listed the requirements for that specifically they needed to have performed a $1 million in the last five years pulling PVC pipe a thousand lineal feet or more of the same diameter pipe we just basically wanted to make sure we have the subcontractor that is familiar with this type of project earlier this week we did review the bidders the subcontractors qualifications for the lowest second lowest bidder Don Chapin subcontractor and they do not meet those requirements however they do demonstrate familiarity with horizontal directional drilling they have instead bundled other pipes together for solar bids and pulled a bundle of smaller pipes through so they're trying to plead their case that they do have the experience even though it's not specific to the 12 inch diameter pipe so unfortunately we have two bidders that don't fully meet all the requirements of the bid documents I am going to let Mr. Don Chapin speak to you and let him plead his case and then we can have a discussion after that excuse me but Todd you and I have discussed this you might want to mention the subcontractor on the lowest bidder right that's correct the lowest bidder had listed a subcontractor that had no trouble meeting the requirements that we specified in fact they are JC General Engineering Incorporated and they were the ones that completed the trans trans bay tunnel pipeline so they have that was a 7000 foot 14 inch PVC pole so they're a very large horizontal directional drilling subcontractor that didn't break a sweat meeting these qualifications bear in mind the district will be working directly with the general contractor not the subcontractor and I think that might be a point that Mr. Chapin will make to us is that it's his neck on the line not the subcontractors so that's another thing that I want to say that the general contractors both did meet their qualifications for submitting a bid as far as the experience goes who was the subcontractor oh which one or Don Chapin it was hard core construction they're based out of northeast Sacramento area so I'm going to let Don approach the board and talk about your case good evening Mr. President board members thank you very much for the time opportunity to come to you tonight and chat with you just a little bit about this project I do have some handouts would you like me to hand them to you how many would you like four up there to the dyes and here's a couple over here there is no way we're going to read these no we're just going to point out a couple I don't want one and essentially I'm here tonight we have a long history obviously a number of projects together over the 42 years that I've been in business and we've had an excellent history this particular job is not a large job I want to say this job was in the three quarter million dollar range and it does have a one particular piece in it that is a horizontal directional drill and it goes under some fairly large trees is essentially what this does it's a little over 600 feet of horizontal drilling and it pulls back a 12 inch pipe the 12 inch pipe would be on the other side the bore would go through look under the pipe and pull the pipe back through and then we connect the two ends it's a pretty simple process that's really the question about qualifications the question about the bid is generally an entity that receives bids would open the bids and determine who the parent low bidder is and then do some checking on the apparel low bidder to make sure that his bid was appropriate when this bid was open it was noted that the form that was required in the bid was not there and that the low bidder did not fill out his documents correctly in the set of documents that I've given you you'll notice there are a few things a few pages in I've highlighted them one of them that's important for you to note is bid modifications and your specification does not allow any bid modification after the time that the bids are received in this particular case this bidder did not fill out his addendums the addendums are material they're fairly substantial in nature what they consist of you certainly don't make the bid any less they would add expense to the bid so it's important that they be recognized in this particular case the modifications should not be allowed in this particular case when that bid is analyzed that bid should be rejected because it is not conformed to your specifications and is not what would be considered a responsive bid then you go on to the next bidder which in this case would be Mr. Chapin Mr. Chapin's bid is responsive in every material aspect with one exception and that is that hardcore drilling who is a drilling subcontract has been in business for about 30 years they're not large they're small he does a lot of boring work for us he doesn't have major experience but he's experienced enough that that I as a contractor who is responsible for the job felt comfortable with him he was not the low bidder on this job like I indicated at Todd's we received three bids for drilling subcontractors and we chose Drew because we had a relationship with him we knew who he was he's a few thousand dollars more but again I'm the guy with the insurance I'm the guy with the bond I'm the guy that at the end of the day you look at to make sure it's done correctly and I am the responsible one I'm not sure why the requirement was in there it really shouldn't matter as long as the bore is done for specification and is completed for the plans and specifications and I have every reason to believe that our subcontractor would do that and as I indicated to Todd's what's the worst thing that would happen Todd's and it would be that something happened he couldn't complete the bore and who would you look at you'd look at me and you tell me Mr. Chapin fix that because that's what you get paid to do and we have a contract for that I believe that the requirement for that subcontractor to have three projects a million dollars in nature all of a thousand feet of pulling plastic pipe 12 inches or larger is a requirement that is very waivable knowing that the general contractor is a responsible party the subcontractor doesn't even get acknowledged on the project so we're here hoping that you will honor our request and that is to look at the first bidder determine his bid is not responsive cannot be modified and reject that bid and award the bid to a contractor that can complete the work and waive the minor irregularity that I believe is is very waivable in this case knowing that it's the general contractor that has the burden on this particular job so we'd love to do the work for you we bid jobs all day long for the next 32 years I can't even tell you how many thousands and thousands of projects that we bid the bidding process is fairly important to us and the integrity of the bidding process is fairly important to us and we take it very seriously I can assure you that I have a person that works for me that this is all they do is make sure our bid documents are correct and she chases me around three different times so that's my request of your consideration tonight I'd like to have a conversation answer some questions if that's possible and if you would so indulge any director questions how much experience do they have and what's the longest length and the type of pipe you know Taj got the information I didn't, I wasn't privy to the exact information he sent Taj they've been doing this for 32 years we've been working with them for probably the past 15 or so because trenchless technology really didn't get going until about 15 years ago they've got experience pulling 18 inch pipe this is a 12 inch pipe they've also got experience with large boars pulling bundles you heard Taj indicate bundles of I think up to 8 4 inch pipe through one particular bore, the bore had to be about 24 inches in diameter this is a matter of running through a boring machine and it's directional it has the tip on the end of the boring rig is actually able to you can move it and manipulate it to go wherever you want running it through connecting on to whatever you're going to bring back and then bring it back so what you're bringing back is not what's important is to get the bore correct horizontal and vertical alignment perspective that's really the trick to the bore it's really not whether you're bringing a 2 inch or a 12 inch pipe the pipe doesn't know how big it is only the boring machine does I can answer some of the experience submitted for you it was a little difficult because he listed in this case 6000 total feet combined I think over multiple poles with 500 feet of a bundle another one they did 750 feet of 18 inch steel casing there were 9 sites that totaled 4500 feet of boring where they did a bundle of 4 inch HDPE high density polyethylene with 6 4 inch pipes in a bundle for 4500 feet I think that was 9 poles and he didn't break that down specifically per pole then there was 15 sites where they did 11000 feet of pulling with 5 bundle a bundle of 5 6 inch pipes they didn't say how far the pits were no it's 11000 feet you don't do one pole well that was 15 poles so I don't know the range and lengths there were not specific and this isn't a cased one right it's just one correct no it's not no it'll be the actual PVC pipe will just lay in the ground this is a fused pipe I don't know if you're familiar with PVC fused pipes so the pipe gets fused above ground tested before it gets pulled into the excavation and the driller opens the earth fills it full of a substance to keep the earth open and then pulls the pipe back through and as the pipe comes back through the substance comes back with it that holds the excavation open we vacuum that out and that's how the pipe takes up that space in the earth so the pipe would be all fused on top of the ground and it's actually fused by a separate subcontractor not even done by this boring particular individual so maybe we should clarify the limited scope of the subcontractor looking at on the screen would be drilling the hole and pulling the fused PVC pipe through the rest of it would rely on the general as well as other subs to do the fusing it's three days of work did they give you references? the answer I think is yes yes they did and so did the the other bidder and they came back favorably I have to admit that I was unable to confirm that we checked the references for your sub I don't believe we've had a moment to do that but again our our contract would be with the general contractor I have a question I just how what is involved with the addenda like what are those costs they're in your packet yeah and I think it's is it correct that the other bidder did not know the cost I mean the other bids before he agreed or they agreed to the addenda that is correct we made sure that the the changes so addenda are changes to the contract sometimes they less of a contract sometimes they add work in this case all three addendas are adding work in our opinion one of the addendas addendum one basically clarifies the tie-in to the existing pipes it clarifies the weight of the pressure reducing vault that they have to bring out the contractor needs to hire a crane to bring out to offload the PRV just we wanted to be clear that in this instance the district pre-purchased these long lead time items and we did not want the general or the bidders to assume that we would be offloading it so that was one clarification that they need to hire their own equipment to offload it there was excess clarifications for traffic control also there were questions and I do believe you may want to clarify Mr. Chapin that your company did ask predominantly a lot of these questions that are contained in the addendums and their clarification questions at the pre-bid meeting that was not mandatory but we did clarify the backfill for the pipeline this project is a combination between the drilling and then open trenching and so we clarified that the trench backfill outside of the drilling needed to be a certain depth of a certain backfill material and then also the insurance clarification of 5 million and 10 million for the general and aggregate the third addendum discusses the temporary access on the farmland it is organic farmland so there are some real particular requirements for that maintaining deer outside of this farm and also clarifying how much room is available for the general to be set up in so I can point out a couple other things if the Board would like does that answer your questions on the addendums our questions let me just read one more thing on the top of every addendum it says this addendum forms a part of the bidding documents and will be incorporated into the contract documents insofar as the specifications or drawings or both are inconsistent this addendum governs acknowledge receipt of the addendum by filling out the addendum receipt table provided in document section 000300 the bid form failure to do so will be subject to bid to disqualification so that is pretty clear in the addendum and it is clear in the contract documents however the Board does reserve the right to waive any irregularities at your discretion I'm sorry sorry I'll add a few extra words that may help set the frame it so the district does reserve the right to reject any bids that's your right and it also awards will be made if any which in the judgment of the district is in the best interest of the district so what we have here to sum it up is a local contractor that does good work well known with another firm from out of town but both have irregularities which the Board can consider waive, reject, accept and but what we also have is one bidder is approximately $57,000 lower than the other bidder both with irregularities in their bid any other questions of staff for I was going to ask council what is considered to be what was the word material I think they both are I mean that's why I think the Board has the right to waive irregularities and so we can pick either one we want them or even I suppose we could disqualify both of them you retain the right to reject all bids but recognize the we just acquired this easement the project needs to be done in the summer the next bid is $933,000 the lowest bid was $695,000 and Mr. Chapin's bid was $753,000 is there somebody here from I do not believe there is a representative from California Transits tonight they were informed that this was an item agenda yes okay when the public wishes to address this on this item thank you let me clarify is this following the railroad track it is outside of the railroad right of way how far it's parallel to the railroad right but it is not within the right of way have the soils in the project area been tested for contamination no but it is an organic farm that's true but these are historic railroad soils in the Aptos Village project area when the trout gulch intersection was done those soils were tested and were so contaminated they had to be hauled to the Altamont site there was as a result almost $800,000 more expense added to the project that had not been considered before so I think it behooves you especially because this is organic farmland that the district first test soils throughout the project area to determine any possible contamination levels and that any contractor that you hire to do the work be certified to handle hazardous materials not all of them are but this will be imperative for this project especially because it crosses organic farmland thank you anyone else back to the board I am troubled with the lack of addressing the addenda they do seem substantial to me they aren't like a major addition to the cost of the project but it's quite conceivable that it could bring the cost of the project closer to the second bid and I'm troubled by that it's amorphous and I'm troubled by the lack of documenting experience I mean that's a to me that's a material issue because we want somebody that has experience and they document it and I don't understand how it could be that hard to do if you have the experience then that's great and if you don't then you don't the addendums were little details that if they're willing to not stand by their bid and not ask for change orders for those that's really their problem I suppose except that I don't know sometimes that's not how a project really works out I don't know I'd have to defer and I'd have to defer on the experience I mean to me this is an engineer's bailiwick I don't have the ability to judge that I'm just going on just the lack of attention demonstrated I guess since we have a single engineer on the board he's completed quite a few trenchless projects in her career it's really important to have the experience because it can be just a nightmare I mean what would happen if it failed is that they'd have to dig out you know dig down and do something with the pipe and that's the whole reason you're doing it trenchless is so that you don't have to do that you know it's possible that they're just fine you know bundling it or putting in but the different kinds of casing have different issues and the different sizes and the type of pipe and what's you know the length of the PVC and as it's being fused and brought down PVC is not as flexible as HDPE so for me experience and I actually I think California trenchless did some jobs for me when I worked for the county so I mean they're qualified just like Don is you know as a general contractor done a lot of projects I'm not happy that they're not here but Bruce do you have anything to add? I'm going to defer to people with more experience than me on this Me too. Is that a comment Tom? Well I mean I do sometimes think of you know the engineering department has a lot of experience working with people my main concern is that it gets done in a quality way in a reasonable amount of time and we don't end up happy to deal with other omissions I worry a little bit about that. Or phallops You're saying the fact they didn't see the addendum might be an indicator that they're not going to pay attention to other things? Attention to detail worrying That's just mine too I don't have a way of evaluating that except that when I was reviewing bids that I heard that oh it's fine we'll get that done Well they have to initial it So I'm sure this is much more of a confined contract but that still doesn't leave you over the hook on nightmares that happened because something fell up so what's the worst fall up? The horizontal trenching going not right? Why have you required that? We feel that that is well Is there a creek or a drainage that it's going under? It's going under trees Eucalyptus trees it's very close to the bluff of the coast but you know we do feel and I know Mr. Chapin may have downplayed the effort to do this horizontal directional drill it is not something that we do as a district very frequently we've done it before not nearly this long you know certainly the pipelines identified in the Purewater Sokelly IR involve a little bit bigger pipeline installations with this technology but so that's why is that we don't have a ton of experience we want to make sure someone is brought to the table with experience in the place I mean open trench how deep is it it's not The open trenching is deep it I think six feet of cover is the minimum required because they do ripping in the fields and so it is a deep open cut not not like sewer deep I know for you that might not seem very deep but nothing that's probably out of the realm of most of the two little bitters so the trickiest part of the project will be the trenchless part in our opinion yes well as for me when I read the staff report I was thinking you know yes indeed the lack of attention to detail by the first bitter lowest bitter was a killer for me but now I know that there's a lack of detail on both of them and so I would go with what Michelle has to say I mean if there wasn't the issue with the experience on the second I would say yes you know the let's go with the second but I'd I'd go with the first bitter myself I really apologize for not having both sides of the story in the memo it was it was a Thursday 2 p.m. bid you're excused we had to get it wrapped up and we didn't have time to check that I'm really apologize make a motion except the bid from the parent low-bitter California OK and I think there'd have to be a motion to waive the irregularity of not submitting the the motions to 4 and 6 yeah and I think 2 might need to be include in motion to in a way of the irregularity of the bid for not submitting the agenda of the motion OK here we are OK I will move that I'll second we'll call Director Lather Director LaHugh Director Jaffe Yes Director Christensen Yes and President Daniels Yes OK I just want to clarify for the record that you've made a motion to waive the irregularity of California Trenchless for not submitting the agenda and you're finding them the lowest response of a responsible bidder you are also adopting motion 4 which is a resolution 1821 to award the contract to California Trenchless and then also authorizing general manager to issue a PO to California Trenchless OK thank you Where are we now I think 625 This is an item to evaluate renewal of the intertide agreement with pure source water since 2007 the district has had a one way emergency intertide with pure source they are considered a very small community water system with 77 customers in a population of about 203 most of their services are unmetered after the intertide was first installed renewal of the initial agreement was subject to the district's review of pure sources efforts to increase redundancy in its system then in 2012 the board asked that pure source submit a plan for metering for the 2014 agreement renewal a plan was submitted and the board reviewed progress for that metering implementation in 2016 so last time we came to the board in 2016 pure source outlaid their goals for their updated metering plan their goals were to complete the state revolving fund loan application receive funding and then apply to the California public utilities commission for another rate increase to pay back the loan and then install all the meters in 2017 their progress to date on those goals they have submitted three more of the SRF supplementary applications they're now working on the engineers report and they've physically located and inventoryed most of their service lines that will be required for meter installation and Martin Mills is here today to answer any questions you might have there is attachment for that includes a copy of the agreement that it's the same as it was two years ago which has renewal in 2020 based upon review of their metering plan any questions I was did you get grant money for your metering your metering process I guess you call it we looked into grant funding and we're told that it was not available because we're not a disadvantaged community the other question I had was do you know how much can you estimate how much your customers use you know with their daily usages we do estimate that based on our total production we've not really tried very hard to estimate the loss of water due to potential leaks or anything like that but based on just dividing the total production by the total number of estimated customers we do have approximately 85 something like that off the top of my head gallons per capita I might add that that's an overestimation of the actual consumption our the district's water loss is about 8.6% as based on the last numbers we've had so I'm not sure the state of pure sources system but it could be much higher than that so say if it's 20% loss than that their consumption would be 20% loss than that number I think it's likely that our loss is higher than yours just based on our poorly assembled water main that we've discovered in the past we've had some issues with we also are estimating our number of customers based on the survey that we sent out we did have pretty good feedback we just basically asked how many people live in your house and quite a few people did provide that about 50% or so probably but I think it's probably if it worked we would estimate whether we're high or low I think we probably have more people in the houses that did not provide that information because people don't really want to say and you know sometimes you have illegal rentals and things like that and those are not usually the retired customer that's just a couple that's been there for 30 years in that house have you ever explored like assistance, state assistance to upgrade the system so that you could tie in and become district customers have you ever, has that been done discussed in the last we've discussed it internally just and with you know people we know who work with, well we're a member of the California Water Association which works with lots of different water systems like ours and larger that are just privately owned it's it's challenging it's complicated to do that there's a lot involved, a lot of politics involved, we're not opposed to the idea necessarily conceptually and we certainly feel the pressure from the state I think and the entities that be don't believe that water systems of our size are viable sounds really iffy right now I would say you are disadvantaged in the sense that you're struggling yeah our system it struggles because of the number of customers we have to spread the issues out onto for example you know we have a repair that costs $5,000 and we have to divide that only by 77 houses it gets you know it's a lot more than if we had hundreds or things like that you know I know we talk with Child Gulch Mutual Water quite a bit and their folks and we share information in Central as well but you know by comparison you know Child Gulch is two and a half times our size you know which definitely makes a big difference you know they're looking at $4 million projects and you know we're trying to figure out how to come up with $80,000 and you know it's part of the issue with our grant application or not grant our SRF loan application is that we were advised to include our basic main needs that we had that we could identify all into one application so we actually have four different items all of them are at least well mostly somewhat related to this in the sense that one of them is providing power to the inner tie which currently it's operated by propane power generator which we discovered when we use it extensively doesn't work very well and another one is putting in a new well so that would obviously change our ability to produce water and then also the metering of course and then the last one is doing some rehabilitation on one of our water tanks that won't change anything about our storage or anything like that but because we bundled all this together it's a significant project I don't know for sure if I would do it again that way but that was what we were advised to do and that means that the technical documents that we're now preparing for this process are a lot more significant a lot more complicated Did you get help with doing the technical part? I know that they have support for that Yes and no we are working with the state and we have met with them and they they were not real they offered help but more in the terms of that they're going to take on the EIR part the environmental portion of the application so in that sense that's great but as far as the technical documentation the construction documents themselves and things like that they don't provide the help for that I'm a civil engineer and so our plan has been to have my civil engineering firm provide that service for us and the difficulty has just been having time to do that given all the projects that we've had to deal with with the water system Any other questions? I'm looking at the 2007 agreement and there were restrictions on what could be done during emergencies Yes and those restrictions have carried through all the other agreements as well So that's on this agreement as well? Yes and I'd just like to point out that those restrictions in my mind are a very significant part of this I mean I think we should remember that in this renewal of this agreement that we first of all have to have an emergency where we can't provide enough water for our own customers second of all we have to ask for permission to activate the intertide which of course you may or may not choose to do I think it's more the staff level that makes that decision but we do have those significant restrictions on the usage when we're using it so when we did actually do that we had signs up posted we notified our customers mail chimp and actually bill inserts like that reminding them that constantly that we're under severe restrictions much more than just the drought restrictions and then also just that this is not something we frequently do I mean we our last renewal agreement with you was in August of 2016 at that point we were actually using intertide and stopped using it at the end of the beginning of September of that year and haven't used it since and a big reason for that is because of the cost I mean it's very expensive for us to run it not only in terms of purchasing the water from you but also in terms of having to fill the propane tanks on the generator go up there and turn it on turn it off twice a day because we can't run it at night that sort of thing you know it's not a good solution for us and it's something we never want to use it's always a priority of ours to not use this intertide you know when we were using it for an extensive period of time we just we couldn't pay our staff to pay salaries I mean we just didn't cash our paychecks so it's it's not something we take lightly it's it's our high priority to not ever use this intertide again no offense but we definitely appreciate having been able to use it but it's not financially feasible for us to use this for significant periods of time you know the question public comment on this Becky Steinbrenner I'm a customer a peer source and I just want to tell you that as a customer representing the community we are incredibly grateful to have Martin and his wife Jennifer running the company they do an excellent job this this system comes with a long sordid history if you know the name John Kavanaugh you know what that means because this system was put in illegally by John Kavanaugh when he wanted to develop the Rio del Mar large sites he got a grant from the state to upgrade the system he acted as his own contractor he was not a contractor he used improper pipe he used improper installation and there was no county oversight so that's the system that Martin and Jennifer have to deal with and they are incredible stewards they do not live any longer in the area so they come from the San Lorenzo Valley to turn on and off the propane when they have to use the intertie we don't want to use the intertie either and to answer your question about maybe a consolidation it was discussed when things were so bad under the Kavanaugh that we were without water for days and days and days and at that time the district was going to require so much money up front to completely upgrade the system our community which I guess is not considered disadvantaged but we sure all struggle up there we cannot afford it because we have a community the option of being a mutual or county service area or some other system and at that time we were very lucky because county council stepped in and said you're going to sell that system for a dollar to Michael Mills, Martin's dad because these people need and deserve a good system in terms of the intertie connection now with our customers too because if we don't have the water to fight the fires as they come from the summit area from Trout Gulch, Larson Nicene Mark State Park where there are many many illegal campers and homeless your customers will also be threatened and you will also have to spend a lot of money for firefighting water I appreciate that you are considering this and I hope that you will renew it again and know that Martin and Jennifer are doing an incredible job the issue of installing meters is not a simple one because of the history people hated John Kavanaugh so much they covered their service connections with concrete and hid them so it's not an easy thing to even find them and there are no maps for the system thank you okay I think that a good neighbor is important and to me the fact there are restrictions on this makes me feel comfortable that the pure source will be good stewards of any water that they get so I'll make the motion and I'll second it well in discussion I have to admit I'm clearly this is a system that's on a shoestring and the shoestring is horribly freight it's not a good situation in fact it's interesting the state has now put together this program to take all these little barely working agencies and merge them into other agencies around them that are bigger and were able to handle this I think that's what needs to happen here if you look at the production interesting enough between 2016 and 2017 their usage went up 16% so whereas we have been working really hard to reduce it that's why we put meters on everyone that's why we even put meters on apartment buildings when they get built and I think it's just kind of irresponsible I've always said on the fact that it's wrong for an agency small little agency like this to rely on us for redundancy we put a lot of redundancy extra wells and tanks and everything because we know it's important to keep the water flowing all the time for a little agency to basically have us spend for redundancy so they don't have to I think it's just wrong so I don't think I can support this yes okay roll call please Director Lather yes Director LaHugh Tom yes I'm here I just didn't hear my name I was waiting and I also think that despite their difficult situation I think we still need to provide support so I will say yes and President Daniels no okay we move on to that passes let's say we move on to 6-6 yes so Aqua's fall conference is coming up again the end of November the 27th to the 30th in San Diego I believe Karen has set out the preliminary agenda on the desk which was not available at the time we wrote the memo so what we're looking for is by motion authorize attendance to the Aqua fall conference and if you do that also as soon as possible let Tracy and me know that you intend on attending so we can start getting the arrangements made I'm not able to attend but I see the value in this so I'll make the motion I'll second roll call please Director Lather yes Director Jaffee yes Director Christensen and President Daniels yes and I will be going because I'm in the groundwater committee if nothing else I think it's pretty useful for us and I'm considering going as well but I need to see if I can get off work okay thank you and I in particular need to go down Tuesday and the groundwater committee meets at 10am it's always been I have to go Monday night and it would be good for those who are going to see if we can share rides to and from the various airports and so forth absolutely and just for case it changes you know whether you're going to go or not the other board members we will be setting up meetings as we have done in the past with the Bureau of Reclamation and Federal Fish and Wildlife can you speak a little louder please as in the past we will be having meetings with the Bureau of Reclamation regarding our grants and also with the Feds Fish and Wildlife we meet face to face with them each time does the state come down for those meetings no they don't usually send people down I haven't seen that that's a good question there may be a person or two from there that we could talk about okay 6 7 I think is the next statement of investment policy item 6.7 is to approve our investment policy we're statutorily required to present this to you annually so this is for fiscal year 1819 there are no material changes over last year's policy I will make the motion to approve no wait anyone in the public wish to talk about this seeing no one I make the motion to approve review 0 no no roll Call please that's mean I'm mean yet director jaffey yes director christensen yes 6.8 review and I'll keep it brief. At the last board meeting staff presented a proposal to update the district's current automated meter reading or AMR drive by meter reading system to advanced metering infrastructure or AMI and an AMI system transmits the consumption reads automatically to a base station receiver several times a day without the need for an employee to drive by. These are sometimes referred to smart meters. They're widely used for electricity metering. Both type of the metering systems the AMR and the AMI use radio frequency waves to transmit the reads to either a district vehicle or a base station and this is the same type of radiation used by microwaves, cell phones, Wi-Fi, baby monitors, walkie-talkies, a lot of consumer devices. However there is some concern from some members of the public about human exposure to radio frequency waves so we wanted to take a look at that and the board asked us to to bring this item back. We did look to large organizations like the World Health Organization, the Federal Communication Commission, the FDA and major health groups like the American Cancer Society for their statements regarding radio frequency waves and smart meters. The common conclusion from these agencies was that the RF exposure from smart meters like AMI is very unlikely to be a danger to public health and they gave a couple major reasons for that. One is that this type of radio frequency wave is considered non-ionizing radiation which doesn't have the energy to directly damage DNA like other types of radiation like X-rays or gamma rays. Also the limited amount of transmission time from a smart meter. These meters are supposed to only transmit a read twice a day and each read is supposed to be under a second. So it's a very short amount of time and a customer's distance from the meter. Our meters are located outside normally at the street so the danger of these meters would be a lot less than cell phones or Wi-Fi routers, things that people have a lot closer to them in their homes. So the rest of our research is laid out in this memo. This is just an informational item but I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Any questions? Any comments from the public? Yes, thank you. Good work. It was easy to read too. Thank you. You left one off, I noticed, the International Agency for Research on Cancer released a monograph in 2013 now that was pretty definitive at this point in terms of anybody in the public is interested in the actual exposure. People are talking about when they talk about cancer it is not at the level of the AMI metering systems but it does really delineate describe all the potential exposure scenarios that could be very informative to people are concerned about that. Well the thing I find compelling about this change is that if AMR is an issue AMI is a thousand times less because of the simple timing difference. If you're concerned about it then we should definitely do the changeover. Any public comment? Thank you. Becky Steinbruner, resident of Aptos. Thank you for addressing this issue. I really appreciate it and to the board for asking for follow-up based on public concern. I'm sorry that Marilyn Garrett couldn't get here tonight. She would have a lot to say. I will just point out that having the devices at the street doesn't make them any safer for people like me who have to go through a canyon full of them and while I understand that it's a less frequent signal being put out it's still a signal and the result the impacts are cumulative. That has to really be examined carefully in our society and is by some societies in other parts of the world but while they may not cause genetic damage like X rays they do cause disruption in the blood-brain barrier and cause especially for the young whose skulls are thin they do cause brain disruptions and it is a concern for me. So I see that you're going to go through with this but I just do want to register a protest as one who appreciates living out where there is no cell phone service by choice. I live there because of that. To now have to go through and apparently I have already been going through the canyon where there's a lot of this radio frequency and again I would hope that you consider the cumulative effects of this on members of society and give people the opportunity to opt out. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else? Back to the board. Information only. 6.9 surplus property sale. Yes this item is to approve the declaration of surplus items with resale and direct bids to be solicited from the public for their purchase. For this surplus sale we have identified some candidates to pick up trucks that have been replaced and various other like compaction, rammers, a concrete valve operator trailer in a rainwater harvesting system and then various cubicle parts. Public comment on this item? Seeing none. Back to the board. I'll make the motion. I had well okay we have to get a second now. Yeah. I'll second. Okay on discussion I had a suggestion item 7 there the rainwater harvesting system $2,700. That's going to be pretty expensive for anyone to come up with and I was wondering about breaking it when there are three 1100 or 1100 gallon tanks and you could sell those separately and those might well sell whereas the whole package maybe someone would buy it but it's less likely I would think. That is an idea. The idea was just to sell it all together because it came with one pump for all three tanks and one diverter so it's kind of all. Well I suggest if you want to do that let's try it that way and if that doesn't work then you could re-send it. If we don't get sufficient goods. The tanks by themselves might be doable. Okay. Okay. Roll call. Director Lathar. Yes. Director LaHue. Yes. Director Jaffe. Yes. Director Christensen. Yes. President Daniels. Yes. There is no written communication and I think we're adjourned. Thank you everyone.