 630. So I am going to convene this May 5th meeting of the Board of Directors of the San Lorenzo Valley Water District. Will you call the roll please, Holly? President Mayhood? Here. Director Fouls? Here. Director Hill? muted. Jeff, you're muted. Director Smolley? Here. And Vice President Ackman said that she was going to be absent tonight. And so this is going to be recorded as an excused absence. Are there any additions or deletions to the agenda? Chair Mayhood, typically I think the Board votes on excusing the absent Board member. Are we supposed to explain why somebody is absent so people can decide whether it's excused or not? Or do we just say that she gave us advanced warning and that's good enough? Just a very summary explanation I think would be appropriate. She had a family medical issue. So Holly, would you like to take a vote whether people would like to make this an excused absence? All right, President Mayhood? Aye. Director Fouls? Yes. Director Hill? Yes. Director Smolley? Yes. Thank you for correcting me, team. Are there any additions or deletions? Staff has none, sir. Okay. This is the time then for oral communications from members of the public on issues within the purview of the district but are not on the agenda tonight. And let me look over at our list of attendees. Would anybody like to address the Board this evening? If so, please raise your hand. I don't see any hands raised. So with that, we'll go on. Next would be the President's report tonight. I'm going to turn it over for a report from the district manager. Rick, take it away. Thank you, Chair Mayhood. I just have two quick things to inform the Board. One is our water quality manager of seven years, Nate Gillespie's last day was yesterday. Nate took a position as operations manager for the Soquel Creek Water District, which is a great career move for him. We have retained the services of marine associates to assist in recruitment for a replacement. And the second item, the finance manager will be on leave from July 1st through September 30th. She will be unavailable for the month of May, then we'll be working remotely part-time for the remaining leave period. This absence was discussed at the May Finance Committee meeting. It was decided that a temporary replacement would not be needed. Two other existing staff members have been cross-training to cover in her absence. Thank you. Thank you. Holly? I just wanted to mention that he said the month of May she would not be available. It's actually the month of June she will not be available. Then that brings us to new business. And the first item is the Brackenbray and Forest Springs letters of intent to consolidate. Rick? Thank you. Yes, the board has previously reviewed and discussed draft letters of intent to consolidate regarding Brackenbray and Forest Springs Mutual. District council and myself have discussed and made changes to the agreements in which I will ask district council to give the board an update. Moving forward. Okay. Thank you, Rick. I will keep my comments fairly high level since I think a summary of the changes that were made are in the memo and the red lines, the red line that is attachment B in the board, the board memo in the board packet shows all the changes to the Brackenbray LOI made since it was discussed at the last board meeting. I am happy to answer any questions about anything in the LOI or any of those most recent changes. As indicated in the board memo, the Forest Springs memo of LOI largely mirrors that for Brackenbray since these two consolidations are supposed to be tracking along a similar trajectory utilizing the same grant funding. And comments were received from Forest Springs and incorporated into the Forest Springs LOI. We did have Rick and I did have a meeting with the Brackenbray representatives on Tuesday of this week where they had a couple of comments on these near final versions of the LOIs that are in the board packets. And so I wanted to make you aware of a couple of small changes that resulted from that conversation. You won't find these in the board packet, but they're pretty minor. The first one is to the Brackenbray LOI in the FEMA funding section, which is, I headed up here a second ago. I apologize for that. Paragraph 13 in the Brackenbray LOI indicates that Brackenbray informed the district that it's outside deadline for using its FEMA funding related to the CZU wildfire was based on 40 months from the declaration of the federal disaster. And they calculated in August 22nd, I'm sorry December 22nd 2023 date as their deadline to complete reconstruction using their FEMA funding. We were informed that it is actually 48 months and that that yields an outside deadline of August 22nd 2024 for them to finish using their FEMA funding. On the Forest Springs LOI in paragraph 21, the first sentence says upon execution of this LOI by both parties and execution of a similar letter of intent agreement by Forest Springs, Forest Springs should be Brackenbray. So we have those two kind of knit changes to the two LOIs. And other than that, we're presenting them with a request for board approval as they are presented in the packet. Okay. Let's go ahead and start the board discussion with Bob. Would you like to go first? I can. I have a few questions and some of them may be repetitions from last time, but I want to make sure that if people are just watching this video that we actually cover those here as well. In terms of where the agreement starts, Gina is does it start at the terms and conditions of consolidation will include but are not limited to the following. That is everything up until that time is just preparatory information. It's all part of the letter of intent agreement. So it's, it's, you know, some of the language may not really be stated as a term or a condition, but it's all, all everything in the LOI is part of the agreement. So specifically, two paragraphs above that we talk about in bold, if the cost exceeds the grant funding, then the residents within Brackenbray will be expected to fund that's different than will fund. And I wanted you to go through that again. Okay. Well, it's not a commitment. It's not a commitment to fund any overage on the part of Brackenbray. Well, yes and no. It's, it does. I suppose it's more in this particular language is more in the effect of recital, but it is part of the agreement in terms of what exactly is being agreed to. It's a little bit complicated because what it says is that the difference would be funded through a temporary water surcharge and or an assessment. And then you've got the footnote down there that refers to Proposition 218. I mean, what this boils down to is that these charges that we've proposed and indicated that, that these, the residents in these areas would be expected to pay or subject to a Proposition 218 process. So And, and would that Proposition 218 process involve only Brackenbray or would it be the entire district? Well, that, that would depend on what type of a charge was proposed. Obviously, whatever charge was proposed would have to be structured in a manner that comports with 218 and be subject to a fee study and or an engineering report. Yes, of course. But I, in terms of the overage, we're talking here specifically about the overage if there is any. And right now we do have an overage situation, I think, depending maybe getting some additional grant funding from the state. But Prop 218 process to fulfill specifically what's contemplated here would involve only the Brackenbray neighborhood, correct? It could be structured to include just Brackenbray or it could be Brackenbray enforced. Frankly, I'd be speculating until we got to the point of designing such fear. The reason, the reason I'm asking about it is that Prop 218 is pretty easy for a small community to vote down, as we've seen in the past, particularly if the neighborhood feels that it's not in their best interest for whatever reason. It's very difficult to vote down a larger Prop 218, the district-wide, but a small one's actually pretty straightforward to do. So, there's probably still some negotiation that might go on there relative to what that meant, which is one reason why I'm a little focused on this, because I want this to go through, but I also want to make sure that the rest of our owners are not picking up any costs related and this is still a little bit loose. I wanted to make sure that I understood at least what the intent was relative to what is available for the district to do in case we do have it over. And let's see, there was another question here. Would it be possible for the customer to upgrade their meter size if they wish, and would we want to encourage that? Or is that something we might consider making a deal for? Is that something that would be worked on then in the consolidation agreement, what that upgrade fee would be if a customer wanted to go beyond the 5.8-inch meter? Well, perhaps I'll do my best to respond to this, and then Rick may want to add to it or you can correct it if I get off base here. What the LOI contemplates for the consolidation agreement is that the parties will identify the active service connections within each of these areas and specify which parcels are served by what size meter, and that is what at the time of consolidation, at the time that we develop the consolidation agreement, and that is what will establish sort of the conditions of service going into the consolidation. And then if a customer wanted to upgrade their meter size from there, I believe under the structure we've created here that what would most likely happen is that once they become a customer of the district post consolidation, they would then apply for the larger meter size just as any other customer would. We wouldn't want to maybe do that at the time of the installation so that you're only touching it once or making that possibility available. Anyway, bringing up this possibility, we can cover that a little bit later, perhaps. In section eight, there's a comment. Can we just let Rick answer a few more? Oh, sure. Yeah, if Rick wants to weigh in, sure. Sorry, Rick. Well, I think Gina answered that correctly, and we have had that discussion with Brackenbrae that we will review all services at the time of consolidation. Okay. I mean, I would, if people want to do it, I'd encourage us maybe to make that available so that we're only touching the meter once if someone really wanted it right away. Okay, section eight, there's a comment here about the district will assume liabilities, claims, and obligations that Brackenbrae discloses to the district and the district agrees to assume. What kind of liabilities would fall into that category that we would perhaps take on? Well, let me, if I could answer it this way, Director Fultz, by referencing some of the types of liabilities that you might expect to see in these situations without making any, you know, statement about whether the district would actually agree to assume them. But the types of liabilities that you would typically see here include loans, financing agreements, outstanding judgments, even outstanding litigation that hasn't resulted in a judgment, taxes, taxes that may be owed on real or personal property. You know, I could think up a few more if I and keep going, but those are the types of things that we'll have to look at in the diligence process as we develop the consolidation agreement to see if they exist and if they exist, whether they should be assumed. Right, within the context of, again, the existing water district donors not taking on additional costs as part of the consolidation. Okay, and then the last one was in the four, are we covering the Forest Springs Agreement as well at this time? Yeah, they're both at issue, they're both up for approval. I was curious about the note saying that the Forest Springs has the additional language that only those water service connections determined to be in good standing would automatically become customers. I want to make sure I understand that and the implications and why the restriction sounds like there might be some history there that I'm not aware of. And I'm not sure that we are in the best position to explain why they requested that. What I can say about it is that we will need to take a closer look at that as we shift to the phase of developing the consolidation agreement to see how it will actually play out in developing our schedule of APNs and water service meters and sizing and so forth in terms of who's going to come out, which parcels are going to come over and become customers of the district under the consolidation agreement. So we're contemplating that we would bypass people in the Forest Springs area and not bring them on as customers? That's sort of news to me. Rick, it looks like you want to jump in there. We wouldn't, this is something needs to be worked out with Forest Springs. It seems to be a concern of Forest Springs. And I think there's several parcels that may not be rebuildable and maybe having issues up in the Forest Springs area that they're working out within the Homeowners Association of Forest Springs. And by rebuildable, do we mean because of county regulations? County regulations, two small lots, no septic. I mean, they're very small area and they're still struggling through the process of rebuilding. I mean, that's kind of a different reason than good standing. We have no intent to bypass facilities or bypass parcels that are being currently served with water. So this is something to be worked out with the group. Yeah. And I would just suggest trying not to pre-judge this issue because we haven't had a lot of direct communication with Forest Springs to fully understand why they're asking for this or how it will play out. But as best I sort of gather what they're trying to do here, I think by putting it in the LOI, we're setting the stage to figure out the details in terms of how it's going to work for the consolidation agreement. Okay. Well, I mean, my main thing is I don't want anybody in Forest Springs to think that me as a director of the district is in some way picking and choosing who is going to become customers. And I appreciate the clarifications you've made because I want everybody up in Forest Springs that wants to rebuild, that can rebuild, that navigates their way through the county torture chamber of rebuilding is able to become a customer without any fear whatsoever. And I think I heard that. So that would be good. A little strange to sign an agreement with that in there, but without that clarification. But I guess we can go with that. And then since they're not going to get FEMA funding, we'll ask questions. So they're going to be totally dependent upon other grant funding outside of FEMA, right? Because I don't think they can cover the repair costs all by themselves. And they are in the appeal process for FEMA. Originally, they were denied and then FEMA changed its ruling and said, yes, you are eligible, but the bad news was you've passed the deadline. So they've applied and we're waiting to hear back. And the short answer is yes, they will be on their own either for grants or out of pocket if FEMA does not come in. Yeah, I mean, I hope FEMA doesn't go bureaucratic like that. I mean, they should reset the clock whenever they said, okay, you're now eligible. Okay, great. Well, thank you for those clarifications. I really appreciate it. Looking forward to getting these folks onto our system as customers and owners and hopefully this process will go smoothly. I do have some questions about some of the early stage expenses and costs, but we'll cover that starting in the next agenda item. Thank you. Jeff, you're muted. And a slightly different take on the question of forest brings customers in good standing. And I, you know, pure speculation, but my reading of that was that they may have some customers that have large outstanding unpaid bills to the district. And they're using this, perhaps as a tool to collect those but consolidation. That's a pure guess. But that's how I read it. I think Jean is right that we shouldn't speculate on this. And, you know, if it's something that really troubles us later on, we can discuss it further when we actually have the consolidation agreement. But I think we can all sort of guess what this has, you know, potential things that happen given what the trouble of rebuilding some and the difficulties that those people are undergoing. Jeff, did you have any other questions? Okay. Mark. I'm muted. Seems like you're having that difficulty with a number of us this evening, Gail. Sorry about that. I wanted to follow up on the question that Bob was asking about the, they are expected to pay, but it doesn't say they will pay. And I hope that the consolidation agreement that we end up developing has a bit more formal language than that. That's the right word. So to that point, later in this agenda, we're talking about approving the engineering aspects for this. We expect that the consolidation agreement would be completed and signed in the September timeframe. That's what we're being promised. Correct? Well, not completed and signed. The LOIs provide for a final draft to be done by the end of September. Okay. That language is very particular because there's fairly elaborate approval processes that. Okay. Where I'm going with the question is, between now and the time that the consolidation agreements are finalized, what do we anticipate spending in particular on this? Well, we see the engineering agreement in front of us right now. We're going to see, I expect sometimes soon, the a contract for the environmental review aspects of this project. So we're going to be on the order of 150, 200,000. Rick? Well, I do believe the contract we're asking after this is what, three something? It is. Yes. And the environmental. Right. That's what we're looking at spending until we go to bid and ask for additional funds. Correct. Um, but we're expecting then any overages and those wouldn't occur until we were well into construction. Correct. That's correct. But I would, I would caution that most likely we would not go to construction knowing that we were short of funds until we were approved from DWR. We would. That's when we DWR is stated, yes, they'll review and positively would look at increasing the grant amount, but they won't consider doing that until we have a bid construction project. Okay. So what we would do is we'd expense for the engineering and the environmental. We would be reimbursed monthly for both of those projects and then bid. That's a good point. We would bid the construction. That comes in. If we're short, half million, a million dollars, we would then go to DWR, make sure that the neighborhoods are aware of where we're at in the process and board. And we would not award. I would not recommend awarding to construction until we had a guaranteed funding source. Now, whether that's grant money and additional funds from Forest Springs and Bracken Brake, but we would all have that in advance. Okay. Thank you to that point. And you've mentioned the DWR grant. What's the status of getting that draft agreement finalized? It's my understanding that is still in a draft form at this point between us and DWR. Correct. And I'm not sure we're bleeding over into the. Yeah, I was going to say, can we defer this until the next item? I think what we should explain our discussion to here is language in the LOI that we want to correct. And then we can talk about these financial issues in the, when we talk about the letting a contract for engineering. Is that, is that what you're kind of getting at, Rick? They're great questions and we want to answer them, but they're getting into what work we're going to do and how we're financing. And I can go either way. I just. Yeah, I would rather that we come to some completion on the language of these and then talk about the other stuff separately, which seems to me is more appropriate with the engineering. So Mark, did you have any comments on the. On the LOI on the LOI specifically on page 19 of the agenda. I see language that the section five project components ends with and which party will administer procurement for each component. What does that mean? Rick, do you want me to yeah, I'll go back to the LOL. Sure. I'm finding that. It's in the red line. It's the red line edition that was added to it. Right. And Mark, the reason this was added was because after the versions of the LOI that were presented to the board in April, we had some further discussions with Brackenbray where we realized that we needed to have a better understanding of what Brackenbray was asking the district to do with respect to its to construction and repairs utilizing Brackenbray's FEMA funding. So after having those further discussions, the way we approach the revisions to the LOI were to focus the LOI on the timeframe where the engineering and environmental review was going on and indicate that what exactly the project components are going to be, how they're going to be financed, how each construction project component is going to be financed, and how the procurement is going to be handled is something that we're going to have to work out in connection with the consolidation agreement. And that's because I think Brackenbray is going to be leaning heavily on the district for to cooperate in terms of utilizing that FEMA funding to rebuild the water system in a way that matches with the that works for purposes of consolidation. But I don't, you know, I'd hesitate for the district to enter into binding commitments related to that when we don't know what those components are going to be. We don't know how they're all going to be financed and we don't know how much they're going to cost. And so that additional language that you see was simply an attempt to further explain that concept that, you know, in the consolidation agreement we're going to have to indicate how procurement is going to be handled. So for example, if Brackenbray expects the district to issue an RFP and, you know, perform construction, oversight, administration and oversight for a particular construction effort, that that's going to have to be specifically identified in the consolidation agreement and not just something that the district can sign up to now blindly. Okay. Okay. I'm good with that explanation on that. On page 33, it's the emergency water service is discussed. Rick, do you envision that this will be needed? Is the water service that they're getting currently from Big Basin Water Company adequate? It's adequate for today, but, you know, forests or Brackenbray are very proactive. And they want to be sure that they have a redundant source in case something happens with Basin. And this has been a big discussion with both Brackenbray and SOV. And our last discussion was if Big Basin wasn't able to supply water to Brackenbray, that most likely SOV would be working to supply water to Big Basin, and that they could receive the water through Big Basin, with Big Basin's water, is that a higher water pressure? Until we get the new storage in Brackenbray, we could get them water, but then they would have to repressurize. The likelihood of them losing water from Big Basin, I doubt it was going to happen, but they're being very proactive and responsible. And we've discussed that. We don't think it'll happen, but they want to be assured that we would work with them. Okay. Okay. Well, those are all the questions that I have. Okay. I had a comment on one of the items. It's item 11 in both the Brackenbray and for our springs on engineering and planning information. And the first sentence I'm happy with, the second sentence I would, my preference would be that we delete it. The first sentence says, upon request by Brackenbray, I'm just using Brackenbray as the model here, water commissioner to the district manager, the district will provide reasonably prompt access to engineering and planning documents for this consolidation. That seems totally reasonable to me. The sentence I'm not so happy with is the parties will conduct monthly meetings to discuss any and all aspects of consolidation as may be more specifically identified on an agenda prepared for each month's meeting. And this concerns me on a couple of different levels. One is the frequency and the burden that that places on our staff, the scope when you're starting to talk about any and all aspects of consolidation and that there's no end date to when these monthly meetings would cease. And I think that we have to recognize that our staff is stretched really thin. And for example, as a board, we even discussed the idea of doing away with our monthly committee meetings because the staff found that they had a hard time preparing for those. So adding another monthly meeting doesn't seem correct to me. It also to me, I feel a little bit uncomfortable with it because it's providing a handful of households, a level of oversight over the district's activities that the rest of our ratepayers don't have. So for example, we recently imposed a surcharge of $10 a month on everybody. But what we did was we said that we would account for that carefully in separate accounts and that we would be transparent in that. And we've done that in this document too in section 16 for Brackenbury and 15 for course springs, saying that we'd document all of the expenses and where they came from from grants, etc. and create quarterly reports that we would share with them. But we, for our surcharge folks, we did not give them a chance to meet monthly with the staff to make sure that they're spending their, the staff is spending their money right. And I guess my feeling is, is that Brackenbury and Forrest Springs are part of our service area. They have the same rights and privileges as the rest of our ratepayers or as Bob calls them, our owners, and that they can vote to elect members of the board. They can come to board meetings and comment on anything that they don't like. They can go to committee meetings. They can be members of committees. And I think that's entirely appropriate. So I would prefer to see that that sentence be deleted. And if not that, at least some kind of sunset date where those monthly meetings would stop happening, maybe they could be made less often to keep the burden on our staff as minimal and to be consistent with how we treat our other ratepayers and customers. If there's any comments, more comments, I can go for another round. Let me just ask if there's some comments among the board and then I'll go out to the public. Bob? Yeah, thanks. I mean, I think that's a really good, a really good point, Galen. And I mean, I share a lot of your concerns about that. As you know, I have a similar concern about the words will be expected as opposed to will. I guess at some level, I was sort of approaching this from the point of view of are these things that if we express certain concerns and reservations about the agreement, given that this has been through a number of rounds with both parties for spring and bracket break, do we want to be making amendments at this point? I think your point is totally correct. I would hope that the consolidation agreement would take that into account as hopefully a will on the will, instead of will be expected. But if we want to get into amending things, I mean, I have a number of things I would like to do. I'm just not comfortable with doing that at this, at this stage, if you know what I mean. Sure. No, I understand. It's not perfect. I guess I'm going to rely here on the fact that we're all working at this really good faith. And I know that folks in Brackenburg and Forest Springs are approaching this from the same point of view, and that this will all work out. I mean, if we could get a nod from Gina and Rick that this will be addressed in the consolidation agreement, I'd be okay with it as well. I do have to add a note here that the LOI does indicate that the terms that are in the LOI would be expected to be propagated into the consolidation agreement. And so that does, you know, suggest that a sunset date would make sense if there's a desire to make sure that these meetings don't continue to occur during the consolidation agreement period. I agree with Gina. And I look at these meetings and this act in fourth communications, mainly through the construction of the grant project. And there is a potential that maybe each of the mutuals will have to decide if they're going to have to pay into this project if we cannot get grant funding. And these meetings will help pave the way for that and a better understanding to this is a very short-lived meeting schedule just through the construction process. Any other comments on that? Not on that point, but I did want to revisit the reimbursement point if I may. All right. After we're done with this. Yeah. I mean, I'd be fine with striking it at this point, but could we make it every other month and put a period just through construction? I mean, I would be happy with that and, you know, and just make it clear that it's just through the construction phase. And I don't, you know, that's not a gigantic change, but it helps. Mark? And monthly or every other month? Every other month. I think what you just described, every other month through the construction phase would, I would be content with. Mark? And I was going to suggest quarterly, but if every other month is reasonable, then okay. Yeah. I think quarterly makes more sense because that's when the financial reports, you know, a meeting that comes out after the financial reports are available would be the right, right. And typically, we're not what, recognizing or seeing construction invoices on a regular monthly basis, some of the times were the changes that you're seeing versus what you were anticipating are not significant. So if we're setting an expectation up front with here's our budgeted construction costs, monthly meetings at that point seem excessive. Your point, Cal. The only reason I'd suggest it perhaps bi-monthly is I wasn't sure it was just going to be a review of financials because if it was just a review of financials, I think quarterly is fine. But if there are other things about the construction that's going on or concerns or what have you, well, I guess I'd look to Rick to say quarterly enough because it works for me if it is. I see Nicole is raising her hand and she may have some input. And then I'll go out to the hard group. I think it goes without saying that there will be times when there will be questions, right? That they, you know, that Bracken Brand Forest Springs will phone you up Rick to, you know, get an answer to something or to the staff outside of any given meetings because that's just the nature of how, you know, things happen. We put out, you know, we put out sometimes weekly to neighborhoods through email a project updates for traffic control where we're going to be working scheduling. There is a lot of back and forth during a project with this nature. Any more comments by the board before I go out to the public? Bob. I just wanted to dive a little bit more into the numbers part of it. But again, I'm not saying any of this happens, but, you know, contracts are written for the worst case, not the case that you expect. And so please take that within the context of that. But let's say that we did propose the Prop 218 surcharge to cover some amount of overage and the Bracken Brand Forest Springs folks voted it down. What would be our recourse at that point? Gina, I render this LOI, there would not, there would not be a recourse except in terms of how we talk about the consolidation. I mean, there wouldn't be a legal recourse under the LOI. And let me explain, I guess, a couple of related points to this. Of course, the district isn't entering into these LOIs with the individual customers across whom this financial burden is ultimately going to be spread. And the resources, as I understand it, that the two forest springs in Bracken Brae have and that the district has are largely though not entirely coming from grant funding. There will be some holes and we're supposed, we should know what those holes are when we get to the stage of, of entering into the consolidation agreement and identifying the projects and who's going to do what and where the money's going to come from. And we may at that point have a better idea of what overages there are likely to be. If those overages are very large, I mean, I think we have to think in practical terms of a surcharge or an assessment is going to be the most effective way to recover those funds over time from the individual customers and to spread those across the community. But those are subject to Prop 218 proceedings. There's no way around it. Potentially, folks could be asked to waive their protest rights, but we would need an agreement with each individual in order to do that. The alternative is to make Bracken Brae and forest springs responsible. And we didn't do that directly because of some of the practicalities involved. But there are other reimbursement provisions in the LOI and in particular in the term provision, there is a reimbursement provision that gets triggered in the event of a material breach. So essentially, if somebody, you know, just decides tomorrow that they don't want to do this after all, whether that be the district, you know, or the mutuals, so that we never end up consummating this deal, then there's potential financial recourse one versus, you know, the other depending who backs out. And that would be through the courts. Yes, that's right. Right. Okay. Which would be the recourse. Okay. So before the deal gets done, we have a legal recourse. If something happened, then we couldn't reach an agreement now to cover it. After the consolidation, it really is Prop 218. And at that point, if it fails, try again, fails, what have you, there is no ultimate recourse at that point. I just, again, it's not that I expect any of this to happen, but I want it to be completely transparent about the situation that we are entering into forever. And I should add that there is a potential scenario where the district does like zoned rates via a district-wide Prop 218 process where the protest gets spread across the entire district, but the rates are different in different areas. And we haven't really explored that in any great detail, but it's a potential, there are some avenues that, you know, there are some things we could do if we anticipate that this is going to become a problem at the end of the day. Okay. Well, and look, for transparency, it's great to have the conversation. Don't expect it to happen, but we need to understand. Thank you. Thanks for that clarification, Gina. Okay, I'd like to go out to the public now, and Nicole has had her hand up for a while, so let's hear from her first. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay. First off, I think I want to start with what the President of the Board spoke to about your uncomfortableness with the idea that Bracken Brand Forest Springs would be getting a greater interest in this process. Bracken Bray has gone out and spent the last year and a half securing over a million dollars, 1.25 million dollars that are obligated by FEMA. So that's money that we have already approved, and we have an obligation to follow that money through and close out that process. So it is important for us to be able to have access to the district in this process, because ultimately the majority of that money will be used for the purposes of consolidation. When you look at the DWR grant, it is only for half of the infrastructure to do the consolidation. The other half has to be negotiated, and that includes the addition of water storage that is being recommended to be put over to Forest Springs at this point. Also, we're currently working with Cal OES and intending to have a meeting next week with FEMA Management to secure hopefully more funding for our mainlines. That current damage item within FEMA is for $2 million. So I would not put us in the same category as a surcharge of whatever it is, $5 for your existing customers. If you want to divide out that 1 million over 24 people household, it's significantly more. So that's my first point. Then back to Bob's comment about that bolded paragraph. We clearly understood what FEMA was pressing for. We understand that will be expected. We might choose to approach it a different way to fund that. We as a community need to discuss how we would pay any additional costs. That could come through the million dollars that we've already secured. So I'm a little like, I think you're underestimating what Brackenbrae is willing to bring to the table. We're hoping to rebuild this whole infrastructure. So it's important one to stay on a schedule. We asked back in October to investigate this, and we're at a point in May at the letter of intent. When we go out to vote for the consolidation agreement, it will take 30 days for us to have people vote. It's an internal process. It's not on the ballot through the county or anything like that. So we need to be a part of that process. We need to make sure that process moves along. And because half of our infrastructure needs to be designed, we want to work with the district to make sure that that rest of that system is brought to the level that is expected through your technical specs. So it will be an issue if you guys strike that sentence from the term for the engineering. I feel like we have compromised on a lot of things, expecting a consolidation agreement to kind of manage those things. And we've requested your staff to start that consolidation agreement process much sooner than giving it to us in such a last minute fashion. So I'm sorry that my tone might not be appropriate, but I'm a little taken back today. Thank you. Are there any other comments from members of the public? Jim? Yes, we can. I guess I had a little trouble following what the previous speaker said. This consolidation seems to me it's something I strongly support. I want to help the Brock and Bray and Forest Hill folks. And I just want to say that there are also concerns for us current rate payers. And I'm assuming we're all operating in good faith. I just note that when Felton went through its consolidation with the district, we had no expectation of regular meetings or special attention from the staff other than what other rate payers get. And I recognize and I thought the compromise the board talked about in terms of this issue of the meetings and the regular agenda certainly should be going through the construction phase when Brock and Bray is bringing this funding from FEMA to the process. And they of course want to know how that's been. But this is all in good faith and we're all trying to make this work for everybody. And I would like to welcome these folks into the district as fellow rate payers who have the same rights and responsibilities that all of us have. So I don't see why we I would suggest that having having some parameters around these meetings and agendas is important so that we don't overburden our staff. It's been an issue for all the rest of us for this whole period we have an extremely stressed staff. So I'm not being very articulate about this, but I was a little surprised by the tone of the previous speaker when we're trying to help as best we can. You folks up there in very difficult situation coming into a district, our district is also very, very stressed from our own problems that we're facing. So we got to enter this together in good faith and I want to make this work. And I know other rate payers you too, but we have to recognize that there's lots of variables on the table for all of us that and we're in a very stressed situation. Thank you. Thank you. Any other members of the public want to comment? Seeing no other hands go up. I will go back to the board to see if there's any more comment. Yeah, I just want to maybe put a little bit more context around the comments because maybe that got lost early on. A lot of these topics we're talking about here were also discussed at the last meeting as well. And the main reason for asking them again is to make sure if somebody in the community was only watching this one and not the previous one that the same context was brought forth on this topic. I think I can speak with a great deal of certainty that there is enormous desire on the part of the greater SLVWD community, the owners of the district to help out horse springs, Brackenbray, bring you into the district as fellow owners, but no question about it. But there's also an equally strong desire to make sure that that doesn't cost the district anything. We have some prior history with consolidations that for better or worse, there was a few things that went sideways in some places and we're learning from those things and every one of these we do, we will get better. And I think what we're trying to do here is make sure that we're balancing the and respecting both parties as part of this. And that's part of what we have to do as directors is make those balances. So there's no intention here from my point of view of trying in any way to disrespect or to make light of what it is that your communities are going through. But contrary, we're very sensitive to that and are helping as much as we possibly can. I would only hope that what we have to do with the rest of our owners is also equally respected as part of this process. I can still go with a compromise on the language I did hear from Nicole, though, that that was likely to result in a negative reaction from her community. Director Foltz, I may have misheard, but I thought that her point was that if it was stricken, it would be a significant issue. But I would defer to her, of course, for... Well, maybe she could clarify that. That would be great. Yes. Go ahead, Nicole. Because we weren't talking about striking. You're talking about... I think the consensus I got was a modification of my original suggestion of striking it. Yeah, please, if Nicole... So we took a 428, which is an alternate procedures as a fixed cost offer from FEMA. We need to state what that scope of work is. It is important at this stage in the game to better understand how we are moving forward with all the different components. And that plays into what our obligations are to FEMA, because currently the way they're written is to rebuild our system. So we need to state that. And then the second part is that the reason why taking it out or making it quarterly doesn't make sense at this point, because the consolidation agreement is five months away. So we're going to meet one time before that. I mean, Sandus will have hopefully within three weeks an outline of what they think that these components look like. That would be good for us. We had a 60-day obligation to state what our scope of work is that started in the middle of March. So to us, the monthly meetings help us move forward with what we need to do with FEMA, because if we go and put a water storage tank over in four springs, whatever work that we did with the site inspection with FEMA is no on void. They have to restart that process, and they're going to have to look at us breaking ground over in four springs. So we have different steps that we need to go through for FEMA. So we have an active role that we still, Brackenbray, will need to play in order to deal with the funding that we're bringing to the table. And right now it's over a million dollars. I don't know what the Felton group brought to the table, but the end result is we're looking for a new infrastructure for the Brackenbray. It's not existing infrastructure. And then just one comment in regards to we're not expecting the existing ratepayers to pick up our recovery in Brackenbray. We've never indicated that. We've gone out. We started day before the evacuation was even lifted. We've been working on this process for a very long time. We're very persistent and determined and we have done it. And we have been pushing Rick to get a better understanding of the scope of work so we can get these things taken care of with FEMA. So we're trying to be active in this process to move it along. And but at the same time, the board should recognize that you guys have undersized main lines, two inch lines on existing customers that are going to be picked up with this grant. And if that grant falls short, that's not our fault that your pipes are undersized. So just remember in this whole process of working together, we all have parts that we need to pay for. If they impact your existing ratepayers, just realize that you have pipe existing pipes that are undersized two, four, six, what have you, that have been undersized for your existing customers. So hopefully, you know, you all understand that there's three different legs that are happening in this department of water resources. So in any case, again, we need a more active meeting, a monthly meeting to get to the goal of the consolidation agreement. Nina. Thank you, Chairman Hood. I just wanted to state for purposes of trying to focus the discussion, the note that I wrote down regarding what I thought I heard as a largely a consensus position before going out to the public was to adjust that provision so that it provided for every other month meetings through the construction phase of consolidation, not quarterly. I mean, quarterly was thrown out, but what I heard some consensus around was every other month meetings through the construction phase. So I think I heard something a little bit different. And Nicole really appreciate you clarifying your concerns a little bit. Let me see if I can repeat them and make sure I understand. You're very, very concerned about making sure that you can have monthly meetings up to the point where the consolidation agreement is signed. I wasn't sure about after that during the post consolidation agreement being signed. Is it your expectation that you would still have monthly meetings after that as well? I'm sorry. Is it okay if I speak? Please keep it brief. Yeah. We would have responsibilities reporting back to FEMA and Cal OES of change orders that impacted any scope of work that would impact environmental historic preservation. So we would have to have a level of communication that's happening during construction for the parts of the funds that we were using. I'll leave it at that. If you want me to clarify it further, let me know. Keep it short. Communication isn't necessarily meetings and agendas and that sort of thing. I feel very strongly about this having some kind of sunset on it. And I'm willing to compromise on the idea of monthly meetings, given the concerns that you've expressed, Nicole, and that has to happen. But I do feel like this cannot go on and on. I guess what I would suggest is that we go ahead with the monthly meeting, but that we put a sunset date on those that is basically when the consolidation is signed. Would other board members find that acceptable? I got Mark and Jeff nodding. Yes. How about you, Bob? Yes. I can support that. I guess, I'm not trying to drag this out, but I really want to make sure we're addressing Nicole's concerns. I'm sorry, but it sounded to me like she was also concerned about making sure that she was getting information to provide the FEMA post consolidation during the construction phase. So I'm sorry, there may be something in the agreement specifically addressing that. Is that the case? Would that information be able to be provided to the Brackenbrae group to make sure that they can meet their obligations to FEMA? Or is that something we would take on as part of the consolidation agreement? Gina? Yeah, I just wanted to offer a couple of clarifications here. So in terms of how this will progress, the consolidation is envisioned to be completed when the consolidation agreement closes. So the milestones would be that we expect this LOI to come to an end and be superseded around in the fall by a consolidation agreement with substantially similar terms, which would incorporate most of what's in the LOI unless we say otherwise in the LOI. And then there will be a period of due diligence and trying to get to closing under the consolidation agreement, which may take a year or more. And then we will close and complete the consolidation. And that time period is also when the construction will occur. During the diligence phase? During kind of the diligence phase and the pre-closing under the consolidation agreement is when most of the construction will occur. So if you're talking about sunsetting something, you know, for example, you could have it sunset for only the time, you know, and you could have it be in effect until the LOI is superseded by the consolidation agreement, or you could attach it to the engineering phase, which should be completed before the consolidation agreement is signed, or it could be attached to construction, which would go through the time period when the LOI is into effect is in effect and partially into the period when the consolidation agreement is in effect. But in no case would these meetings continue after the closing under the consolidation agreement, because all of these terms, unless they say otherwise, they won't survive the closing under the consolidation agreement. So having these meetings continue after consolidation is completed isn't, I think, on the table at the present time. It might be good to have that stated a little bit more explicitly in this item, but I guess the question is whether we would want to set another date. Jeff and Mark, we haven't heard from you. Any thoughts on this topic? Jeff? You're muted, Jeff. Yeah, I was just unmuting there. This is a fairly large and complex project, and it's always been my experience on large and complex projects that both sides get benefit from having coordination meetings, and the need for those varies by the phase of the project. And so I'm reluctant to lock in a monthly meeting for the next year and a half, but at the same time, I do think there's value on both sides. As Rick mentioned, information about, oh, the water is going to be turned off on next Tuesday, or the contractors are coming in with their equipment the week after or something like that. There's a lot of coordination that has to happen. And so I don't object to having meetings. I do think that maybe we ought to, at this point, simply say that in the LOI that the two parties will agree on the frequency of the meetings, and that the meetings will sunset when the project is completely closed. And periodically, one of the agenda items for the meeting should be, do we need to have these monthly or bimonthly or whatever? But I think you have a large project here, and I think both sides get some benefit from the coordination you get from the meetings. So I would leave it, in this agreement, I would say that in this LOI, I would say that we have, we will hold regular coordination meetings and agree upon a schedule. And maybe by the time we get the actual consolidation agreement ready to sign, we will have a lot better feeling for exactly what that schedule is. Any other comments? Mark? Yes. Given what Nicole has said, I feel that the monthly meetings are appropriate up until a time that we have the draft consolidation agreement available to us, so that they can reflect back to FEMA what we're doing through the engineering and environmental process, which is about the same timeframe as when we'll have this draft consolidation agreement available, September. In that draft, or in that consolidation agreement, we'll specify going forward then what the meeting frequency is. So I'm okay right now with monthly until that point if Rick is good with that, to be able to update them on a basis so that they understand where we are with the engineering and environmental aspects. Is there some way to slightly revise the verdict then, Gina, to simply say monthly through the completion of the draft consolidation, at which point the parties would agree to a I don't know how to say it, but a new schedule or how they want to do it might even not be formal meetings. There might be some other check-ins or whatever. I would suggest adding something along the lines of say the party conduct monthly meetings to discuss any and all aspects of consolidation is maybe more specifically identified and agenda prepared for each month's meeting, comma, with such meetings to continue until the end of September 2022 unless otherwise agreed by mutually agreed by the parties to extend them beyond that date. And that way there's a clear sunset sort of regardless of where the consolidation agreement ends up. And also if everybody agrees that it's good to continue, we can also do that. I'm going to do that. Jeff, you've just got a thumbs up. I hope this would be something that Nicole and her group and Forest Springs can also accept. Mark. But at this point, our board is voting on this agreement, right? Yes. So we can propose this language as Gina has presented and as a board so that we can move this item along. We can agree. We sure can. I'm merely expressing my hope. Yes. That's all. Okay. Well, we can go ahead. And I think what we there's kind of back to the original agenda. And by the way, that would be a change in both agreements. Because it's it's in paragraph 11 and both. And I'm trying to look at what the recommendation is, is that we authorize the district to sign and send the LOIs to the Forest Springs and Brackenbray. And I guess what we could just say that that we make a motion to authorize the district to sign and send the LOIs to Forest Springs and Brackenbray with the modification that you just stated. And I don't think I could state it accurately. So you should probably state it, Gina. Sure. I'll try to say it the same way that I did. So at the end of that paragraph 11, where the period is now at the very end of the paragraph, we would add on comma until September of 2022, unless the parties mutually agree to continue the meeting to continue meeting after that date or after that time. Yes. And that also leaves open the question of frequency after that date too. I like to review with that. And if I may, I just want to make sure it's clear there are those two other corrections that I mentioned at the beginning, having to do with it being 48 months for the use of the completion of the FEMA construction for Brackenbray and just a change of Forest Springs to Brackenbray and paragraph 21 of the Forest Springs LOI. Okay. Is there a motion to that effect? I'd like to make that motion that we approve these LOIs with the edits as stated by Ms. Nichols. I'll second that. Okay. All right. Before we vote on that, I will go out to members of the public to see if they want to comment on it. I don't see any comments. So any further comments by the board? All right. Then seeing none, Holly, would you take a roll call vote, please? Senator Mayhood. Hi. Director Falls. Yes. Director Hill. Yes. Director Smalley. Yes. The motion passes unanimously. We now move to the second item of new business, the Notice of the Ward of Engineering Services for Consolidation of Brackenbray and Forest Springs. Yes. And I will ask the district engineer to present this item to the board. Okay. Thank you, Rick. This item. A little bit of background noise there. Terribly sorry. Is that clear? That's better. Excellent. So this item is a request from staff to the board to award the engineering work, the consulting services that are required for the consolidation of Forest Springs and Brackenbray. Quick summary. We got five bids on this one. Sandus was the low bid. We are leaving staff are happy with their bid. The engineering committee, now engineering and environmental committee at the time engineering committee did discuss this matter and agreed with staff that Sandus should be awarded in this project. And I will take questions. All right. Let's Jeff, would you like to start this time? So the only question I have is and being new, I'm not completely up to speed on all the various funding things that we've done so far, but I just want to make sure that we know where we're funding this from. Is this coming from grant money? Yes, this is grant money. That's all I have. All right, Mark. Yes. As Josh stated, this is from a known consultant that's done a lot of other work for the district. Sandus also provided an engineer's cost estimate in there giving a projection of what we might anticipate for construction costs. I found that to be very useful given that. I liked the proposal from Sandus. Rick, I do have one question on the DWR funding that supports this. What's the status of getting the draft funding agreement finalized? Myself and the district engineer has been consulting with DWR. We have resubmitted for the funding agreement and scope of work. It is back in DWR's court to redraft the scope of work and funding agreement and we are waiting to receive that back. So when do you anticipate concluding that with them? They do a pretty quick turnaround. I would assume in the next 30 days that we will hear something or sooner. Okay. They usually do a pretty quick turnaround. It was a pretty extensive markup of the original funding agreement and the original scope of work. Agreed. Yes. Then I would like to hear from you a month from now at the subsequent board meeting in June, early June, about where we are on this DWR funding agreement and hopefully you can tell us it's been signed. Agreed. Okay. Because at this point we have a promise of funds but we don't have a signed agreement. Just want everybody to be aware of that. That's correct but we do have correspondence, written correspondence that states that can move ahead with expending on the project and they will reimburse us as long as we don't go outside of the scope of work. And the big change in scope of work was in construction. Yeah. Okay. That's all the questions I have. Thank you. Okay. Let's go ahead, Bob. Yeah. Just to follow up on those two questions. So as of right now we do not have access to the funds. We are going to expand district funds at this point to enter into this contract with the expectation that we will be reimbursed from grant funding later. Right now we do have access to the funds as long as we don't go outside of the scope of work. And the way the reimbursement will work is that we can submit more monthly payments back to the district. So even though we don't have an agreement signed they'll still pay for it. That's correct. Okay. In the event that for whatever reason the consolidation goes sideways is the DWR going to try to claw back any of these funds? No. Their statements to us are that as long as the work has been completed and it is in within the scope of the grant that they will reimburse the work completed. And regardless of the project regardless of we don't complete the project. And is that reflected in the agreement or is that a verbal statement? That's that's I couldn't find that in the agreement. That's pretty much reflected strongly and in verbal discussions with our rep of Joshua Wolff with DWR. I mean Joshua Bannister with DWR. Okay. I always like to get things in writing but okay I understand. Yeah. Okay. No this is this is good. I mean as Mark said Sam this has done work for us before. I would like to see I would like to have seen someone else kind of win because I like to diversify who's doing work for us get a broader base of suppliers. But I'm really glad to see we got as much interest in it. So Josh really good work on that. And let's let's get the show on the rest. Okay. Mark. Yes. I wanted to just expand on a point that Rick was making earlier as to this commitment to fund. We do have a signed letter from DWR indicating the intent to put this agreement in place and that we could begin spending money against this. We received that back in it was late October beginning of November timeframe. So we do have that. See Bob you have your hand up. Go ahead. But but that letter is silent on Club Act. Correct. I'm not aware that it has addresses anything on Club Act but the draft agreement does not indicate anything on that either. So. Silence is good. I agree. Silence is good in this case. I agree with you though. Yeah. Well I guess I would just comment and echo everything that Mark and Bob said about this. We'd like to get these things in writing but I also feel like we need to move ahead. And so I favor us us doing that tonight. So would anybody like to make a motion? Well let's make a motion and then I'll go out to the public if you don't mind. I'd like to make a motion. Go ahead Mark. All right. Okay. Now that we authorized the district manager to enter into a contract with Santa's civil engineers for the development of the plans and specs for consolidation of Brackenbrain Forest Springs Mutuals. Mutual water companies fit into the amount not to exceed $343,205. Is there a second? Second. Yeah. All right. Are there any members of the public that would like to comment on the motion? Okay. I'm not hearing any. Let's go ahead and Molly would you please take a roll call vote. President Mayhood. Aye. Director Falls. Yes. Director Hill. Yes. Director Smalley. Yes. The motion passes unanimously. Next we have an item of unfinished business which is the Bendham to the Friar and Loretta cross-country pipeline. Thank you chair and yes the district engineer will present this item to the board. Thank you Rick. This addendum to the constructability study is a result of discussion in the engineering and environmental committee asking Friar and Loretta to expand on some of the topics covered in the original study. The intent is that this addendum will cover two specific items the cost differential between burial of new raw water pipeline and simply placing the new raw water excuse me pipeline at grade. And second to evaluate the effects of the temporary construction bench on possible future erosion, reflow flooding or other natural disasters. The intent is that this addendum will be added to the constructability study as an appendix. And staff are asking that the board review and accept the addendum as an appendix to the study. Okay. Mark let's go ahead and start with you. If you're there if not we'll go to Bob who's also a member of the engineering committee. Go ahead. Yeah but let's let Mark go. There he is. He's back. Thank you. Thank you. I stalled long enough Mark. I appreciate that Bob for covering for me. Yes the engineering and environmental committee reviewed this report. We did have questions on it but ended up concurring that we should approve this addendum for addition into the overall constructability study report. So I do have one question or maybe clarification for the rest of the public is to Rick given what Fern Rida has said about this what are your thoughts on moving forward on this at this point? Thank you. My thoughts are and would be that we have all the information now I do believe on recommendations or replacement. We also have additional information on the costs resulting from burial and above ground. I think our next step would be to move into peer review from another engineering firm that specializes in geotechnical engineering and geology. Then review the pipeline and present a report to the board of directors and simultaneously we are working with FEMA to to nail down cost eligibility. We've talked with FEMA. They haven't seen to get although we did submit all the constructability and the addendum reports to them but they didn't seem to at least the right person hasn't received them so we have resubmitted the beginning of the week all the reports to FEMA and price estimates to get moving on their review to tell us you know what will they what is their first flush of covering replacement is a full 90% of the full replacement or is it a partial I mean what what is their concerns moving ahead. So just to restate our district engineer I will be working on a scope of work to submit to a local engineering firm that has what I would consider to the top engineering and geology professionals to review they both have extensive background working in the Santa Cruz mountains to review this project and then to report to the board. And you mentioned engineering geotech geology would you have the intent to cover environmental aspects also or is that most likely that'll be covered in the environment the EIR process you know we plan to put a scope of work together and then we'll meet with this firm and we can discuss that we are also putting together the RFP or moving forward with the EIR and we've bounced that back and forth a lot of this information will be needed for the EIR process. Okay thank you. All right go ahead Bob. Yeah I don't want to dive in it too deeply right now but I think so Mark and I were I guess towards fortunate enough to be escorted out to walk a little bit of the pivine pipe by Josh and James I should say they they you know they probably walked my legs off anyway given they're a little bit younger and you can certainly tell from the terrain that there are some places that are pretty challenging and Mark I don't know if you had the same impression that I did. I'm not convinced that we let me put it a different way I think the two things that we're looking at right here maybe are bookends of the spectrum and I'm thinking there might actually be other solutions in between those two options that may accomplish the goals that we are looking at so I'm not particularly enthusiastic about creating 14 foot wide roads on a steep mountain side but I'm also not enthusiastic about putting pipe above ground so seems to me we might need a little more out of the box thinking about how to how to address this and certainly after having seen some of the terrain and some of the challenges of it I have a little better feel about what that might possibly look like we'll certainly want to discuss that later I didn't want to take a lot of time tonight other than just say I appreciated Josh and James taking me out on the tour and and getting a real good feel for it and I think that's certainly spurred my thinking about what we might want to do here. Any other comments by members of the board and go ahead Jeff. So one thing reading this that struck me was that in terms of the overall cost of this project either way the difference doesn't seem to be a whole lot of difference now maybe this is because they're assuming that even if we put the pipe above ground we still have to you know do a large bench for it on and then have the ability to bring power equipment up there and everything but it didn't I mean overall this is you know depending on which combination of high and low estimates you use you're somewhere between three and five percent differential to do it underground versus above ground and it also seems to me that I don't think that we have to do all A or all B I think there are places where it might be best to do it underground and there might be places where it really doesn't matter a whole lot either way so you know when we get down to the final plan we ought to be thinking about that and saying okay this area here I mean that the principal reason for going underground is because of fire risk for another fire and there may be areas where there's very little risk and we can go above ground and there may be other areas where we look at this and say this didn't really burn the last time or or whatever I haven't walked it but there may be areas where it's very appropriate to put it underground so anyway you know I don't have as much history as the rest of you do on this but I was like I said I was struck by the fact that the difference was not anywhere near as large as I expected it to be and I was intrigued by the idea that there's no reason that it has to be all above ground or all underground yeah I guess I would sort of echo some of that and I think probably all of it's subject to fire hazards but but one could argue that certain ones of our surface sources are more important than others and it might be some that you really want to harden and others that you just might take the chance that in 10 years it'll burn up so that that's one I think the other is is that I as you said I think we were all surprised that there wasn't much differential but it was partly because of as you said they're just assuming that you're building the same bench certainly when I saw their comparison in their initial reports of the various alternatives and they ended up with was it 3b I guess I didn't have a full appreciation of the impact and what was involved in building this bench and I I just am really the more I think about it you know from a geotechnical aspect the more nervous I get about it and so I start thinking that we maybe need to go back and look at some of the other alternatives that were eliminated for other reasons in part because at least I didn't appreciate the impact of 3b yeah I did want to mention a couple of other things from the from the walk that Mark and I took it looked like in many places the bench that had been created even to do the above ground was between five and six feet was that about right mark I mean there were some places that it was narrower but it seemed to be in that kind of a range generally speaking it had slept of course you know near the near the cut the other thing I was struck by is the fact that there's an enormous amount of fuel left up there you know a lot of it scorched of course but but there's a lot of fuel and certainly there'll be even more within you know a few years particularly if we get a couple of years of decent rain so that that hazard I think is still existing out there but I do take your point gale that that there are definitely things sources that are more important we might also want to look potentially at if it's possible to move a source or go to a different location or something maybe to try to simplify the process I don't know that that was looked at there may be other construction methods it could be used but yeah I it's 12 or 14 foot bench in some areas we walk I boy I'm not a I'm not I don't have your expertise in that area but having done some construction work wise younger I can tell you that I would not be comfortable doing that let's go out to members of the public Jim yes Jim Mosier from Felton I was very pleased to hear Rick say that that there will be a second engineering firm looking at this I share a lot of the concerns of Bob and all of you have stated I just I wonder how did this pipe get in there in the first place that it costs us fifty some million dollars to put it in in the first place what was the how was it how was it done oh boy Rick is there some reason why we can't do it the same way it just I'm very concerned about putting a big road in there just for the pipe and I'm wondering and really encourage the board to think about other alternatives before moving forward with this plan from the first engineering firm it just doesn't I I just just think we need to get some some more ideas on the table thank you Larry thank you Larry Ford from Felton following up on what Jim Mosier said I too was really pleased to hear that that there might be a second opinion collected and I'd be happy to give you some advice on on who to pick or what kind of experts might be able to contribute to this Rick if you want I too am concerned that we haven't explored all the options that might be available for example what what have other water agencies done when wildfires have swept through and burned up their pipes how how have they dealt with that maybe maybe this has already been addressed in the environmental and engineering committee but I haven't attended those meetings so I don't know also what other designs for capturing the water are feasible like is there some way to just run one or several pipelines down the hill to highway one and collecting them there and you know what else might might be possible and then I wonder what would be the absolute minimum would it would it be like like Jim Mosier just said is it could is it possible that we could do something like Rick did 30 years ago with ccc and helicopters ccc manual labor that is and helicopters I I just don't know and then lastly I want to suggest that the public is going to need to weigh in on this because there's probably going to be a lot of resistance to whatever design is you know selected if they're going to be if there's going to be a 14 foot wide road that goes down the hill all that way there's going to be there are going to be a lot of neighbors and others who are not going to be happy about that and I'm worried about a delay in the whole process which would mean we would you know we wouldn't be getting the water delivered as as we need and then I'm concerned about hoping for a grant from FEMA to cover all this this project is so expensive you know if we have to wait too long we're not going to be able to make progress on deciding what what we're going to afford to do and then lastly I guess the second last thing that I want to suggest is that I was involved with the Glenwood preserve in scott's valley where they hired a crew to build a to use this mini trail building equipment a dozer and an excavator and anyway they were able to do a really narrow trail and so I wonder if you've considered that kind of equipment so my time's up thank you thank you Jim um Rick did you want to answer any of those thoughts you know just real quick a lot of this will be winding up back in the engineering committee but you know a lot of great points were made a lot of that has been looked at a lot of it was looked at when the first conception of the idea of the five mile pipeline and the water treatment plant back when we constructed the first water treatment plant of the safe safe water drinking act you know I think peer review would be would be good because you know we all have our opinions and we need this to be looked at you know if I am in a perfect world you know I'd love to see the the pipeline buried um and protected from all elements and that includes fire um you know a partial buried pipeline and above ground pipeline one of the biggest problems are once you get melting bocs it goes down the pipe and it contaminates a hundred percent of the pipe whether it's buried or not because now your contamination is actually in the pipe and that's what paradise is going through now um with with FEMA and also Brackenbray um is going through the same uh right when the contamination comes from the outside in and not from the inside out not from the outside in um you know there is a the fallback we get a whole lot of talk with the cccs to put it back like it was however there is no hardening and you know that's a tough pill to swallow because you know we have had fire destroy a hundred percent of that pipe and we want to protect that pipe so I think we need to have another skin another set of eyes to look at the report they did uh uh uh fire uh fire and loretta did a really good uh report let's get peer reviewed from some of the best um environment or best engineers the geotechnical in santa cruz county we've selected two at this point um that are highly recommended and then we can uh regroup uh we have a lot of these questions answered okay up I just wanted to make sure the community community knew exactly what a bad blank uh rick was when he built that you just have to go out there and walk that line and um man alive um yeah it's it was definitely a uh it was a it was a job and I think cowboy rick is absolutely the uh the term here um so it's great that it lasted as long as it did it would have lasted a lot longer if the fire hadn't happened um you could still see a lot of the supports and and how the um how the pipe was was I think in great shape if the fire hadn't gone along even after all that time okay okay well we're not being asked to uh accept any of their recommendations we're just simply being asked to uh accept the addendum so can I have a motion to that effect um are we being asked for a motion I think you just asked to receive maybe I guess the motion to receive the reports okay receive the report and include the addendum in the report okay okay so I guess I just made a motion with somebody I'll second that all right okay any comments from members of the public nope okay Holly go ahead and uh take roll call vote please Director Mayhood hi Director Fouls yes Director Hill yes Director Smalling yes the motion passes unanimously that brings us to the consent agenda um does anyone want to pull an item from the consent agenda I don't want to pull but I'd like to make one comment okay I want to thank Rick for putting the updated long service line agreement in there fantastic thank you Rick great great work I'm glad it all came together okay with that then um we don't have to vote on it and go through there are no written communications so that brings us uh to the final item for this evening which is adjournment so if unless there's any objections I will declare this meeting adjourned good night all