 Good evening everyone. I went out there and shook hands, not chucks, because he was late. Thank you for waiting. Anyway, welcome everybody. We're going to convene the meeting right now and have roll call. Director Ferris? Here. Director Pauls? Here. President Henry? Here. And Director Swan? Here. Great. Are there any additions or deletions to the agenda? Staff doesn't know. How about oral communications? Anyone who would like to talk about something that isn't on the agenda? And I see Virgil's handbag. Hi, Virgil. There is an item similar to this on the agenda, but this doesn't particularly affect that discussion. So I hope I'm correct in bringing up now. The recent funding for our capital improvement is lacking one important thing, and that's a two-page executive summary that discusses the funding mechanism, who the major players are, how much we're really going to get, and what projects this funding is going to support. And I'm talking about something that has a little bit of detail, but is mostly a summary. So because as you know, this wasn't recorded by community television, and that's a real loss. But it would be nice to see that, and to have something to refer back to when it fails, so we know where we were wrong, or when it succeeds so we know what to do again. Thank you. Can I add again, Larry? Thank you. I'm not sure that you want me to give my summary right now. I think we're going to get to it later, right? About fire management planning? Actually, it's not on the agenda. So go ahead and do it now. Oh, okay. Well, I wanted to start out by saying I've had these really great interactions with Lou and Rick about fire management planning for the district. And among the best results are that the district has really done a lot of work on fire management planning that I wasn't aware of. And that includes two major things. One is Jen started out, I guess it actually was Betsy, created the beginnings of a really good management plan. I'm really pleased to see that. And the second part of it is that Rick and the district staff have already gotten way ahead of where I thought we were. And that is inventorying all the infrastructure that's related to, you know, the risks associated with some kind of big wildfire. They're prepared to interact with the firefighting headquarters, wherever that turns out to be, to identify where the vulnerable places are and what needs to be done. So that's a really important part, but there are some other things like cooperating with the other fire related agencies in the valley that we're starting to work on. And so we've made some really good progress just in an ad hoc way with state parks and also with Cal Fire. And so we're hoping to get more information from them and to proceed, you know, in some sort of an organized process. And I'll leave it to Rick and Lou to figure that out exactly, but I'm just really pleased, you know, with the progress that we've made. I think we're going to talk about it some more in the time slot that was allocated for the environmental committee. But since Jim is going to be away, then we're going to meet someone informally, I guess, to just try to keep the progress going. That's great. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Anything else? All quiet out there? All the ones from the front? Okay. Well, let's move on here then. So, item 4A, we're able to catch up here. Yes, on October 18, 2018, Balancide Real Office installed a real-time station at the Fall Creek fish ladder at the request of the district. Here, the real-time station replaced a single sensor that we had in place that was damaged by the storm events that we had resulted in the FEMA disaster. The real-time station has two sensors, one for backup and reports calibrated directly to the district's data system, which is used to actively manage the district's diversions. This is required that we must report daily diversion flows as part of our permit, our water rights permit, and the use permit. We also put a second sensor in, Balancide has a sensor in place on Clear Creek since August 2015. This sensor is a real-time and is used in the summer and dry months for bypass flows required on Clear Creek. Longering of the Clear Creek, a real-time sensor has reduced man hours intensively. The district has an easement with a property owner of, it was back in the 70s that we entered into this easement. It allows 30 gallons a minute, I think the easement reads, 30 gallons a minute shall cross the district's property onto this individual's property. The 30 gallon a minute easement was given to this homeowner to be able to pass through his property as we weren't landlocked to get to the district watershed, but his parcel made it possible where we could walk right up onto the district property and intake. We had an intake structure, we didn't have to go a mile or so around, and we went right up his driveway and had access. Back in those days we had to move in materials and so forth for chlorination. There was tanks for chlorination, we started the use of chlorine gas there, so this access was very valuable. To maintain this 30 gallon a minute easement, we had an ongoing disagreement with the newest homeowner that lives there, the original homeowner that sold the property some years ago, and this homeowner has been there for some years now too, but he constantly calls and complains to the district that he's not getting this 30 gallons a minute. So what we would do is we would go up almost daily with a stop botch and a five gallon bucket, and we would calculate how much water is going down to this property. And usually it was over the 30 gallons a minute. So it was a considerable amount of time that staff would go up into the creek. As talk technologies got better, we had balance installed a real-time sensor. Now I think he checks it himself, or James does it, we do it right off the line off the website, and there's no more going up there. I'd say a considerable amount of staff time and weekend staff time because he would call on the weekends because flows would change in the creek, just as the sun's out or it's foggy day. It's amazing how a clear creek will change anywhere from 10, 15 gallons a minute, just with a foggy day versus a bright sunny day with redwood trees. So this station, we monitor this station for an operational benefit to the district. We went back and forth with balance hydrology to lower the cost, and that's why this was supposed to be in the last month's agenda, but we had issues with the price. James did negotiate this contract with balance. We moved all of the monitoring for forming creek. We didn't need balance to real-time monitoring. The district was doing real-time monitoring at the treatment plant, and we did not need that service, and we cut back the calibration from monthly to bimonthly or quarterly. In the water year 2019 monitoring effort, we'll include bimonthly site visits to clear creek and quarterly site visits to fall creek to collect baseline data to calibrate and make observations and measurements. We felt a monthly calibration of fall creek. It was in a stelling well that it was in a developed creek bed where the flows and the height of the water and ripples and so forth didn't affect the equipment, so we didn't need that type of calibration. So we cut this way back. So we cut this contract back from $40,000, and actually cut it back from the previous year, and we cut it back to this year to get what we needed to $20,944. That's the next one, and that's the operational one. The next item will be for the stream monitoring. But I'd be happy to answer questions, James. Here you can have an answer question for staff recommending that the board adopt or allow the district manager to enter into a contract for water year 2019 for operational gauging on clear creek and fall creek, except their proposal. I have a question. The $20,000 estimated cost, is that in the budget? Yes, it is in the budget. At $40,000 or $20,000? $40,000. Is it $40,000? So we're saving $20,000. But the only reason we're putting this monitoring process in is to satisfy this one homeowner? No, so there's two different gauges. The one at fall creek is for monitoring the stream flows there for the water right of fell. We have to have so much water going by the dam at fall creek, and so that's what that monitors. And then the clear creek one is for that to make sure that we know that there's 30 GPM going down clear creek all the time. And we don't even have to go out in the field. We say right on the computer. So we don't have to have two guys going out there do a bucket test every morning. And this is during the summer months. It doesn't happen during the winter months. Obviously there's plenty of water during the winter months. Following up on that, James. So does that mean for the clear creek monitoring they don't need to do by monthly, or they can just do summer months? Yeah, so that is by monthly during the summer months. It's from the clear creek one runs from June to December. It's not a full year. It's just during the summer months when the stream flows are down, because otherwise the rest of the time we're exceeding the 30 ounce. The one at fall creek is all year round, because that's a year width monitor that year all year round. On the clear creek one, how often do we need to get access to our facilities up there? Things are changed. After 1982 storms and floods it washed out the facility at the lower end. The pipeline was washed out. The district came back in and that's when we had the idea and the engineering move ahead with the pipeline. We do not need that easement to go through on a daily basis. It's good to have the easement to be able to get onto our property, but we have no facilities on the lower end anymore. But we do probably cross his property, other than to look at the gauging station, but probably look across his property and have no time to get to the upper watershed. It's another form of access. We don't use it daily like we used to. We used to have a live facility there. I guess my question is, does it really give us a ROI on having it if there's a cost, but if other than 20,000, that's 5,000 and you think it's going to be an allowance? But that's a basic question. I think it's a good balance and it works well with fisheries when we talk about bypass flows and our stream flows and we say, hey, we're running 30-ounce and then we go by here. Fisheries seem to like that. We always come back to say, oh, they're clear creek for letting. And we have a broken record. We have the actual data for it. And it's at the bottom of our watershed. There's no way we could probably come back if we didn't have the easement. And I doubt if he would terminate the easement. So it has to be mutually? I think that would be a question for council if one site could terminate. Usually easements are random to somebody. You could say animal use anymore and it could terminate. I haven't looked at that answer in a long time. But I could send that easement to Gina and we could get a quick payment. And the second question on fall creek, so if we were to somehow not be periodically in violation of our fall creek waterway during summer months or during the fall months, would we need this monitoring? I guess not to try to be funny, but I don't know if we'd know if we're in violation or not by not having the monitoring. Well, by the waterway, by getting that fixed, which is something we'll need to talk about later on. But if we had that fixed in such a way that it wasn't an issue anymore. If that issue went away, I just don't know if we could ever get away with the monitoring to say how much we're bypassing. Because right now our water, our permit and our water rights are tied to feet per second that we have to monitor. Yeah, that could change. It's all tied into Santa Cruz and all that stuff that they're doing their thing. So it's like there's an opportunity here to maybe fix this. Because no one has ever met this waterway for some of the time, right? That's correct. So I mean it's one of these things of, you know. Yes, it could change. It could change. And I'm not sure with a little training that we could not take over the calibration of a later date to and don't even need. Because equipment's ours. We purchased the equipment. It was damaged in the storm. So perhaps maybe the district staff could take over calibration. I'm not sure about that. But I imagine with a little training we probably could. And is this a bid? Did we bid this? This is not a bid. This was a contract that we started all the way back five, six years ago with balanced hydrology as part of the street flow monitoring program. Does it need to be bid next year? I would say yes. But I would also say that probably next year I would be discussing with staff ending the street flow monitoring. I'm not sure why continuing. Except for the operational. Yes. But that's the next one we're going to. The next one. Great. Thank you. Any questions? Virgil? Yes. I was curious. The bi-monthly calibration, is that a legal requirement? Or is that a requirement because of the environment that these sensors are in or the robustness of the sensors? It has to do with the environment they're in, the changing stream bed, leaves plugging up, rock waves where water is going through and change the water level and then it will be spilling over somewhere else. So it's more of a maintenance cleanup thing to make sure that the same stream flow is going by that gauge at all times. I think Clear Creek has, because of the topography of Clear Creek, has communications issues that seem to always have to have it tweaked or relocated, the antennas, it's a cell phone that puts out and it's in the, and you know how Clear Creek Canyon is, it has tough communications areas. So that's a problem ongoing as well that they deal with is the communications and battery life. Because if it doesn't send out and make the connection, it just keeps driving and runs the battery now. So that will take some minutes. I just was curious if you could monitor this. The data, the correlations with other data and stuff like that will actually start to tell you that maybe we need to send somebody up there to clean it out. That's right. Thank you very much for your good explanation. Anybody else? Okay. So, Orbi? I need a motion to... Oh sorry. Except you. Terri? I just said to authorize the district manager to execute the contract. There you go. Just authorizing? Yes. I'll make a motion that we authorize the district manager to execute the contract with family hydrology for operational engaging. Is that correct? I would add then to that motion the specific addressing of Water Year 2019. Because we're doing it for five years and I just want to make sure it's clear to you. This isn't just 1920? It says Water Year 2019. Water Year 2019. Okay. It ends in December. Okay. Well, it ends in October. That's right. That's the whole year. So has the motion been changed? Yes, it has. Okay. Director Ferris? Aye. Director Falls? Yes. President Henry? Yes. Director Swan? Yes. And Rick, if you can bring all contracts for services down to 50%, that would be brilliant. I think it's a good strategy. Double them in the budget. Cut them in the green board. Take credit. Well done. Stephanie is a freaking hero. Okay, so onto the next item then. This is another stream flow temperature monitoring. In March of 2002, the district received a letter from the Department of Fish and Wildlife indicating that our current diversion operations of the district may be having an adverse impact on stream, on in-stream flow needed to maintain fisheries resources, water diversion activities on our streams, P-Vines, Silver, Forman Creek, Harmon Creek, Clear Creek, Sweetwater Creek, Bennett Spring, Bull Spring, and Falls Creek, and the San Lorenzo River watershed can directly and indirectly impact stream, which are known to provide habitat for coho salmon. Ongoing diversion operations that do not maintain sufficient flow for coho may require an incidental take permit pursuant to fishing game codes and California regulations. In water year 2014, which is October 1, 2013, September 2014, the district began a longer term stream flow and water quality monitoring program of all of our diversions, tributaries to the San Lorenzo River to determine the impact of the San Lorenzo Valley diversions on coho salmon and steelhead habitat. The district hasn't worked closely with the Department of Fish and Wildlife to evaluate operations and qualify stream flow and temperatures to ensure district operations are not adversely impacting all life history stages of coho salmon. As is typical after five years of monitoring, we have developed a more refined monitoring and diversion management program to address their main questions and establish baselines. The data will be used to further evaluate potential impacts of the San Lorenzo Valley water district diversions on stream flow temperature. The purpose will focus on stream flow temperature and monitor reduced the time and budget up to, well, we've done this, we've substantially reduced the time and budget associated with the monitoring program. I've suggested several changes to the previous monitoring, including we suspended the operations out of the Bull Creek and Bennett Creek gauges. We suspended operations on the three late summer San Lorenzo River main stand gauges below Boulder Creek, below Clear Creek and below Fall Creek. We reduced monitoring to seasonal gauging May to October on Forma Creek p-vine and we continued to maintain the Lompeco Creek gauge as a year-round gauge for at least two years until the Lompeco agreement we can renegotiate. We're working, also we're working to see the Santa Marta Rita groundwater agency to continue monitoring the Zyhani Creek gauge conduct monthly measurements of the San Lorenzo River and Long Beach County Park to continue providing key data for the annual summer studies. This is something that John Ricker plans to take to the Santa Marta Rita Committee to try to get more monitoring of surface water into that committee. We have substantially reduced our monitoring over the years. We do have a substantial investment in this. I do believe to date, I don't have all the background that Jen would have to give you, but the resources have shown that no adverse effect, the district sources diversion of no adverse effect on temperature or flow to the Santa Marta River. But we do want to continue, I think this will probably be mostly the last year of the monitoring and hopefully we can shift some of this monitoring over to Santa Marta Rita groundwater as part of their findings. This also has been substantially reduced. I think we're asking $48,851 for 44 cents. Okay $40,000, was it $100,000? $48,851 $44. Have we budgeted that a hundred? I do believe so. I'm going to check with Stephanie. I think we budgeted $100,000. I want to say it used to be very cheap. If we were reducing it, I want to say it was around, I think, $800,000. Okay. And we just considerably reduced this in the last month. That's the 50%. And this and that wasn't purposefully, I mean, it's just some of the stuff just wasn't needed and we renegotiated the contract with them and kind of told them to say it's just still too much and we're going to have to bid it out, the board's not going to like it. We went back and forth and we needed some reductions. So staff's asking you to authorize, to do us a motion on authorizing the district manager to enter a new agreement. And then we have to try to answer questions. It's unfortunate we couldn't get this back to you before gentlemen on location. Yeah, I have a question. Farther down from the memo you are reading from it says fiscal impact, please add this once the revised scope and budget are available. Are we at a point where we can approve this? Yeah, what happened was Jen wrote this memo, Jen tried to, we were planning on getting this to the board before she went on vacation. Unfortunately, we sent the contract back to balance to reduce the cost and they couldn't get it back to this before Jen left on vacation. So she put this in here and if I saw it, I didn't see it. I would put the fiscal impact in there from the new contract that is in the agenda. Because it still has the same wording in the agreement for professional services between SWD and balancing. Right, that's correct. So I just want to. Yes, we can adopt this. Take off. I think the investments like 800,000 plus so far over the five years. Close to a million dollars. Just a million dollars. Yes. And out of that million dollars, what have we changed operation? We changed anything? You know, we this is my opinion, Jen may have a different opinion. We have not changed any operational but we quantified and submitted to the agencies exactly what we're doing. The amount of water that we are you know, diverting from the intakes and we gave them information of the impact that was over the years. So we quantified. We quantified what we're doing. Well, we knew it but we didn't have the data. We didn't have it to them in a report area that they were involved in setting up the monitoring. They were hand in hand on what we did over the last five years. And I think now pretty much they've kind of stepped back and said you guys really aren't that big of a fish. No, some tend to look for the fish in the north. So similar to the route. One of the questions I had is I look at the amount of I look at the amount of water we produce I'm assuming that's what we're pulling out of our watershed. That's about 2,000 acre feet roughly. We get about half of that from surface so that would be all of our surface sources between Sheldon and Boulder Creek. And I'm kind of curious. That's about 1,000 acre feet or 325 million gallons more or less. How many acre feet do we know how many acre feet each creek is flowing during a year? Yes, it's in that report. And so roughly for example how much does P mine creek flow? I'd have to get those. There are charts, you have to believe the Nick Johnson final report pretty much has all that in there. My question is are we more than a single digit percentage of the overall flow that we're taking? I don't think so. I mean, I... Look, we have that information. I'm just curious, it's okay but it's one of those things where if we're pulling out one or two percent of the overall flow before you're going to have... I don't want to... It was money well spent because now the agencies know. They have documentation that shows how much water we pull out. The amount of water is there. They have temperature and flow studies. James even did an exercise where we turn off all of the intakes for a week, 10 days and let that water flow in the summer during a drought and the impact was not only of any and there was data loggers all on the streams and they monitored flow and it was an exercise but without the work that we did over those five years or so these questions would still be out there and we'd still probably most likely have to go through this exercise. It was fortunate we had a drought time because we had the worst case scenario. It was a shame we couldn't have looked at the overall flow at particular times and say guys were at two percent. Do we need to spend $800,000 to get to that? It's not just flow. It has to do with temperature. I would have never... Critical, ripple... Like I said, it's a shame Jen isn't here because there's a host of things that we did and it wasn't just at our sources. It was all the way down to Felt and the sandstorms all over it we monitored flow. We monitored temperature. It was a good study. We got great information but now we need to move on and we have to do this again any time soon. I can't answer that question. Do we need to sustain it for one war year? It sounds like they have all the information that's needed. Why even spend the $48,000 for another year? Do you think Richter is going to take it over and get the money someplace else? The intent was to finish with just these handful of streams and I think it's because we have a wet year. I want to have more water than the last year but I think it's because we have a wet year. We cut it way back and I'm hoping that we can get together with the agencies and this will be it. Yeah. I'm happy to spend money on things that have real value. What? It has a value. It has a value. It does have a value. It's like it's marginal this year. Yeah. But it's something we have to do. I don't know if we have to do it but it sounds like we said we would do it. Well, if we don't know what we're doing for sure unless we do some of this stuff. Well, they didn't have to come down with an enforcement against the district and force us to do anything but I think if they have done that we probably would have spent more money. It's just, we work with the agencies and I think it's having a good outcome. We have proven that our sources don't have that big of an impact. The resource agencies are always going to want more water for fisheries. Yes, sir. George. Rick Moran from Zemlon. Thank you. For the staff do we know how many coho salmon are in the Zemlon's of Alley, Borscht? I do not. Jen probably does or there's probably somebody that's in that group that does but I do not. The last time coho salmon was seen in the Zemlon's of Alley been a long time. I think Zyanney Creek I do believe. I'm talking in an area that I don't know. Jen did say in the environmental again that they were seeing them in Zyanney. I think there was one in long people. I saw. There were happy readers. No, it wasn't from a freezer. In the deep pool, anybody else out there? If the board would wish we could agenda this again and talk about it. But I would like to move ahead with the contract but we certainly could talk about it and get more information. Averton. Yes, thank you. I had mentioned that Santa Margarita board might want to take this over and I would caution that when you lose control of your data you lose control of information and it's not going to be a very big cost savings because we're paying 40% of the Santa Margarita board anyway and we have very little at least what I've witnessed so far very little spending control in that environment so you need to be cautious about what you wish for because you might get it. Thank you. Well, I have to go along with that. If Santa Margarita does it it's probably going to cost more money. I don't know. Obviously you'll be as a board member on that board to be able to discuss that and be able to work with that but that's a possibility. Well, and then I really need to know what I'm talking about and I need to get those people to stop spending so much money. They just willy-nilly, hey here's 100,000 we need this, this and this so it's like you don't even get to talk. Well, you do have a seat as a board member I know. And you can place concerns and vote. I just don't want to give us any worse of a name than we've already done. Okay. Sorry. So, does the board want this to come back or do you want to deal with this now? I'm fine with dealing with it now about you. We're all fine with it. It's less than budgeted. Yes. So we're ready to do this. Let's make a motion. Who's the motion person here? Let's see. So we authorize the district manager to execute water deer 2019 stream flow salinity and temperature monitoring contract with balance hydraulics. It's also a hydrologics. Okay. I'm sorry, who's that? Yes. Director Ferris. Director Falls. President Henry. Yes. Okay. Moving on to item C, Mr. Rogers. Okay, can we hold on just a moment so we have to change the phone situation? Uh-oh. We're going to hang up Gina and call into the conference line and then Catherine and Chris are going to bring in. Gina, I'm hanging up on you now. Okay, great. And then you're going to call into the conference long. Change was such an operation. Good job this evening. I just caught him. Welcome to open voice audio services. Please enter your conference room number followed by the pound or hash bind. If you are the organizer press the star key now. Please enter your pin followed by the pound or hash bind. From menu of available command press star one. There is one other caller on the call. Anybody there? Catherine and Chris are here as well. Is Catherine on line? Hello. Okay. Is Chris on line? Catherine is now coming to you from Fox Rothschild instead of Nazemann which is part of what we're talking about. Stephanie, were you going to kick off this item before we get into the legal specifics? Depending on it, I figured we should follow the resolutions. I mean, I could just touch briefly on it went out for pricing on the calendar on Monday and Tuesday. It ended up being, I mean Chris can chime in, he knows a little bit more about it but it's 14.5 million that will have coming in about two weeks at 2.9 percent roughly how it all went. Chris said it went really well. We got in before the feds made their announcement because I was unsure what that would do to the markets as well as coming Monday. Chris, how much money did you say is about to go on the market? About half a billion to a billion in the beginning of next week. And so essentially we hit we'll be competing against better credits. It's very nice that it was a low end of the market and like he says, we aren't competing next week with all of these other options that people would have. So we pried very close to Livermore's Unlimited GO which is the AA3 rating on its long end bond we were approximately at 15 billion points off of their pricing. So I think that was a real win. We ended up shortening the call. Some of the board members had mentioned they were concerned about having a long par call at 15 years. We shortened it to 10 years which is why we didn't generate as much premium as we hoped, but that's because of the shorter call. But it's better for the district to have a shorter call. So it worked out all right. Excuse me, can you explain that for everybody? Chris, just to make sure we're all up with you. The shorter call. So first resolution was for a 15 year call from Mark. So we shortened it in pricing the 10 year call. Can you explain the 10 year versus 15 year call please? Yeah, so the 10 year district can cost a bond with no restrictions. There's no premium or anything in 10 years. Versus 15 years the district would have to wait for 15 years. Is that a prepayment then? A prepayment? No prepayment, they're payable. Catherine, the terminology from the bond documents that we all looked at last week for the COPs is called prepayment. That's the same idea as the bond calls for a bond redemption. But for the certificate to participation and in the document they looked at last week it was called prepayment. And what you're thinking is maybe you have a prepayment premium. In 10 years will be prepayable without any extra premium or any extra percentage being owed to the bond holders or certificate holders. But until that time there would be a premium that would be paid. Until that time there are some strategies that we can use to do what's called an advance for funding but we're really very, very limited by the tax law that was passed back in late 2017. We used to be able to refund whenever the market would move in a way that would make interest rates lower and we would be able to achieve some interest rate savings by doing so. But the tax law took that right away from Public Agency borrowers. And so now we really, we try to get the shortest possible that we can that the market will take in our debt document so we don't have the same possibility to refund early. Now, you know, on the flip side there's always a chance that interest rates could go lower. But the interest rate that we smartly sold the bonds at this week is really very, very close to a historic all-time low to date. As with being able to additional debt and use that the proceeds of that to reach to pay off these DOPs, once you factor in things like paying lawyers, paying an underwriter, getting everything all papered in going to market with it, the odds of you achieving any kind of savings which you would be required to achieve those savings by California law are very, very slim. It's the option of the district in 2029 to decide whether to refund and they can do that at no penalty. Just by comparison, I guess we have two loans as low as 2.42% that are felt and loaned and the Olympia is 2.57% and so we're, you know, 0.4% basically. Really close. Yeah, but the big difference between those and the others is the term. You're to do a five-year loan like the other ones. You'd be looking at a one... just like right on the edge of being a phenomenal dealer. Right. Well, it is phenomenal. I don't, you know, at the end of the day, I think we hit the market pretty darn good. I set over sort of the historical analysis on the yield curve and the lowest we've seen it was and since I've been doing this since most of the folks, it's a great historical load and they were like that for five years, right? So in today's market, the last time in 2016 it's risen. It's pretty high and it's seen in 2016 at that low level for about a year, a year and a half. That's great. Breaking honest on that money next year. Okay, so I think we're probably ready then to move into the resolution. Katherine, can you explain the resolution before the board? So we have two documents that are included in the packet this week. The first one is an amendment to the installment purchase agreement that the district entered into with capital one last December and there were just a few tweaks that when we when we put together the documents for the COP, we decided to be prudished and made specifically to clarify that the specific long-tico assessment and the specific Olympia assessment are not included in the revenues that can be used to repay the debt. The prior installment purchase contract stated that, but it did not state it in a way that's as clear as what we have put into the COP document. So we just want that, we want those documents to match for purposes of easy administration going forward and we also made a tweak to the parity debt test just to clarify that that will when we calculate that test, we calculate it based on all of the outstanding debt of the district. So we're going to be presenting that to capital one and having that amendment hopefully go in place concurrently with the document signing for the closing of the COPs next week. And the other document is an agreement from my new firm Rock Child that just proposes that permits me to continue to provide bond counsel and special counsel and disclosure counsel services for the district from my new clinic. Do we have questions from the audience Virgil? Yes, I agree with everyone that this is an incredibly good deal and I think it's really important when you start thinking about well, you know, it could have been a little lower for an entire two years. The number one rule is to not be greedy. Thank you very much for this. Rick Moran, did you want to say anything? So last time we had an easy way to do this resolution without saying all this stuff. It was just what resolution number? Okay, Gina, could you do it? Sure, we just need a motion to adopt resolution number 4 1920. Okay. I move that the board adopt resolution number 4 1920. I'll second it. Okay. Pauline? Director Ferris? Hi. Director Falls? Yes. Director Swan? Yes. When does the money come in? Should you go to the 14th? So there's going to be closing box that are getting signed next week and then it should go to the trustee and the trustee can wire us the money. I believe the 14th is still open. Two weeks. And I guess engineering had a great meeting today and they got a lot of money. Do we need more? Is there anything else? Or did that one resolution cover the multiple numbers? Okay, perfect. Thank you for participation. I'm going to have to hang up now. Okay? Bye. So Gina, you call back. Are you there? I'm here. Okay, Gina is back on the line. Okay. The difference is we get the money absolutely. We don't have to wait. That's a mighty big difference. Okay. We're on to new business and I am A and I I didn't know the applicants here. I don't know but the Senate and the Valley Water District policy provides for five standing committees and the Santa Marta Rita groundwater agency directors. We have the admin, budget finance, engineering, environmental, Long Pico oversight, Santa Marta Rita groundwater. At the June 20th, 2019 board meeting, the board directed the staff to extend the time for applications to the engineering and the Long Pico assessment district oversight committee until the positions are filled. We received one application for the LaVoc committee on June 28th, 2019 his application is in your packet. It's recommended the board review the attached application and consider the appointment of Norman Hagen to the LaVoc committee. And I'll turn it over to you. His application is attached. Okay. So we do have one member from that committee here. I wonder if she wants to say anything before the board talks about it. I am very pleased that someone applied for this and I would hope that the board would approve it so we can start building our committee back up to five. Thank you. Okay. All right, any comment by board members? Do you know this guy? I don't believe I do. Anybody know this guy? I met him recently. Darren. Darren just met him. He said he was a nice guy. What's up, Brandon? But who lives on on people's road? Where is where he lives? Of course who lives on like Boulevard? From law. So any questions by board members about this film? Do you know this person? I do not. And I've lived there longer than anybody else in this room. So no, I don't have a clue but hey I think that we ought to just approve him. I don't know why he isn't here if he will come for some reason. I didn't let him know and I sent him a copy of the agenda. Yeah, okay. But I wish he were here. We need somebody for that committee and they are not beating down the doors of the district to sign up. It's very exclusive. It is very exclusive. And there's issues down the road you can always hear about. That's what you're worried about. No, I have no worries about. The worry. I don't have any worries. What's the worst thing that can happen? Oh, why did I even ask? It'll be the same place two weeks from now that you are now. So go ahead. So since I'm from I don't want to make any motion. Anybody else? Nobody else here is from Wampieville. We accept Norman Hagan as a member of the Wampieville District Oversight Committee. What's that? Director Ferris. Director Falls. Is that Henry? Yes. Director Swan. Yes. Okay. So the next What happened to my agenda? It went for a walk. So the reserve fund policy is the next item. Yes, and the Director of Finance is here and Finance Committee has been working on updating the district's reserve fund policy. The prior policy was outdated. This is getting us in line with GAZ B-54 and also establishing better definitions of the reserve funds and how they are calculated to where it's four and a half months of the operating budget in that fiscal year. Where before it was putting hard numbers, which made the document potentially stale after a couple years. So this should make it so that the reserve fund policy should be able to stand on its own and then annually we are just looking at updating any of the appendix. Which is a little bit easier. Seems like these classifications are a little easier for people to understand. Yeah, I think that's a great job. So I'm going to be putting it together. So then the appendix A is going over what we think the fiscal year 1920 estimated balances will be at and that's coming up about $2 million from what we think they're ending up this year. So this upcoming budget year that we're now in should be generating approximately $2 million going into the reserve fund. So that's a reduction in operating costs or keeping those relatively flat, the rate increase and then funding OIS capital projects with DEF is helping us build our reserves back up. Question, how much of that is, how much additional money is being generated by the rate increase? The rate increases is, I don't know for this exact, between $5,000 and $600,000? Yeah. Yeah, I think I saw around six of the ads somewhere right around that. Any other questions from the board? I have a question. It looks like four of the five reserve funds are going to be projected to be at the target level by the end of FY19. The other one that doesn't make is capital improvements and it falls short by 2.75 million by the 3.75 million. So my question is how did we pay the target level at 150 million times 2.5% Why that number? Why is that the magic number? Let me go ahead and explain because this really came out of my head. It's an estimate. And this I think will be we will substitute the real replacement cost number for our infrastructure once we know it which hopefully will appear sometime in the next year or so. And we're counting on you to help deliver that. And the 2.5% is basically saying well you know if we have to replace the average life of the infrastructure for years that's 2.5%. We should keep a year of that in reserve now at some point we might want to say we could do a year and a half or not so much what have you but that seemed to be a reasonable number if we got into a situation where there was either grant funding that came up and we wanted to grab some of the money or the lion slide situation maybe gets worse than we think it is or other things like that that the key on the reserves in my opinion is replenishing them and if you're going to use the reserves in that fashion you have to have a plan to replenish them. What we're trying to do right now is probably next year more money will go into the capital improvements reserve in the others because that's the one that needs to be refreshed. So when do we think we'll hit the 3.75 billion target level for capital improvements next year? Probably the year after. So do we really think 40 years is an expected average expected life expectancy that's a little high from what I used to but it's not unreasonable. But if we start getting rid of redwood tanks and replace them with tanks that are going to live long and get rid of pipe that's metal and replace it with other kind. But that is part of what the engineering so it could be the engineering committee all wrong but it's 250 million and the average life is 30 years I don't even know that one. Well that's right and that's what average life 30 years at doesn't sound like much. Well it sounds way too low but I'm willing I mean we need to rely on what the experts come up with. Well James what do you think? I have no clue. I was in the bathroom. 3.75 billion. I don't know if anybody on this I've never seen reason to keep in the bank or read anything. Disaster. Just seems like. Yeah I mean you look at what 2017 did to us and there's over 3.5 million dollars worth of damage just in that storm along so. Yeah. It all depends on what the catastrophic failure is and how good there's potential to get that fast. The operating reserve fund also will help cover I mean that's where both of those funds could are going to be used going towards something like that. Well my sense was as we go through this given the nature of where we live and given the catastrophic things that can happen especially given the age of our infrastructure that we should try to be a little more in the conservative side so for example on the monthly you know you read anywhere from 3 to 6 months when you go online kind of split the difference in that. At some point we may want to look well we need to push it up to 6 given the nature of what we might run into. And as Bob mentioned within about hopefully this master plan is going to be done and we'll have a better idea for when we go through the budget process next year on updating if we want to change the 150 actually. How can you mind other things competing for that money will be deferred maintenance meters how fast we need to be replacing those and so those are things that we need to get a better handle on as well over the next year to be able to figure out where does money go. Pensions reserves infrastructure deferred you know there's a lot of places to spend money on. You got any questions? What kind of policy? What's the limit on that? Yeah each MOU has different accrual rates. It's sitting It all depends on how long you've been here. Yeah, so it's tiered so you have to sit and give four or five different levels that you have to look at the MOUs or we're hearing about 500,000 it is one and a half times a full year so that means 480 dollars is what is the max that someone can carry. Well, 12 weeks 12 weeks about weeks of PTO's I guess carry three it's a different conversation. Yeah, I'm just curious We've had people at the district that got injured outside of the district and they went out of work for a long time and depleted their whole PTO through that because it's not workers comp, they're not getting compensated for anything else they have to take the PTO Didn't you mean they had an accident and a sporting accident? An injury outside of work Interesting Well, that'll be a different conversation about short-term, long-term disability and that sort of thing Those are covered under that How about anybody out there the virtual You're talking to them That's good It always makes me nervous when you say the average life expectancy of your stuff Please don't forget the don't forget the median It depends on the distribution of your lifetimes The mean may be inappropriate That's all And Virgil, once the information comes back I expect Darren to give us a lot better on purpose than what we have now Oh, yeah, I got Thank you Gee, I thought the older you get, the longer you live Doesn't that go for things? The longer it seems you've lived Okay Anybody else out there have anything they want to say? And the board members have done staff doesn't have anything else to say I guess we're going to approve this or what? It's just information It's a motion Okay A motion to adopt the reserve fund policies I need a motion No, I didn't write one out A motion to adopt the reserve fund policies Okay We'll make a motion to adopt the reserve fund policy I'll send in that motion Okay Colleen Director Perkins Director Paulis President Henry Yes, Director Swann Yes Okay Item C By motion We're requesting you change the date of the second Regular Board of Directors meeting in August from August 15 to August 28, 2019 to be conducted at the regular time of location On July 23, 2019 Board of Directors of the district decided to set the August 22nd at 5 p.m. as the closing date for work precipitate receipt of applications to fill the board seat recently vacated by Director Swann August 22nd was chosen to allow more time for statutory required notice prior to or prior in light of summer vacation schedule in conjunction with board action the board also expressed interest in postponing the second Regular Board meeting in August which is currently scheduled for August 15 postponing the August 15th meeting would allow the district to include the applications received by August 22nd in the board packet for the second Regular Meeting in August so that the board can review and discuss that meeting should the board not reach a decision as to postpone the August meeting the board would have another opportunity to deliver it during the first Regular Board meeting in September prior to the district's deadline to notify the county of the board's decision I believe just to clarify that applications are due on this 21st by 5pm no it says correct it says 22nd on the packet it says 21st on the packet I think it just meant to be the meeting that we're trying to happen Gina do you have any comment on that that would have been my typo I must have written August 22nd in any note no problem but the official closing time will be what was in the notice so are we going to have a regular board meeting that night are we going to have all the reports and the finance yes that is correct alright anybody else have a question any questions from the audience come on Virgil not at this time ok thank you so so we're that's just motion motion to change the meeting where's the motion right here I move that the board reschedule the second regular board meeting for August 21st that regular time and location 28th 28th 28th that is a Wednesday 28th should it be the 29th no it's supposed to be the 28th it's supposed to be Director Ferris Director Falls President Henry Director Swan alright item D second ok you have in your packet tonight a resolution of appreciation for Bill Smallman Bill Smallman, the serve of the Board of Directors of the Center of the Valley Water District two and a half years beginning in 2016 during Mr. Smallman's tenure on the Board he was instrumental in Danny Vicepate a probable human personogenic from the use of all district properties as well as rate restructuring process and stewardship of the watershed recommending that the Board review about the attached resolution of appreciation for Director Smallman any comment from the Board here I would also like to say that in addition to the things that are listed here on this resolution that Director Smallman was also Director of the Long Peak Water Board instrumental involved whatever the word is in bringing 500 very valued customers to the Center of the Valley Water District and that it was also I think I know it wasn't on our Board when we did it but it was also something that does benefit us and I'm just wanting to mention that as part of the recognition yeah I had made some notes which I forgot at home so I'll try to remember I've known Bill about 10 years and well I didn't agree with him on a lot of things both in Long Peak and here we were very impressed and had a lot of really good discussions and yeah arguments but he was always pretty decent about it I think what you don't read about Bill Smallman but we probably didn't see enough of here was his amazing background in water systems engineering and project management and if you've ever had an opportunity to sit down with Bill and talk about the things that were blown away and I would also like to say in Long Peak he was really he was one of the key people that helped Long Peak join SLB and a lot of it was because of his engineering background and he really focused on the practical reasons that Long Peak you could join SLB there was a lot for the emotion during the whole discussion and voting but Bill really narrowed it down and I think he was instrumental in that and being on the Board at the right time Bill definitely walked to a different beat he thought outside the box which made him a target for a lot of people because he just didn't have the savvy for all the politics but he definitely knew his engineering and I think he was a real asset to the district anyone else in the audience want to say something I move that we adopt resolution resolution number 5, 1920 resolution of appreciation for Director Snowden I'll second that motion Director Ferris Director Falls President Henry Director Swan so will that get to him yes yes so so this is Gina I just wanted to ask does the district traditionally read the resolution of appreciation into the record and if so would it be appropriate to do that for Director Smallman yes I'll take this guy subject is resolution number 5, 19-20 resolution of appreciation for Director Smallman whereas on December 15, 2016 William Smallman was sworn in as an elected member of the Board of Directors of the San Lorenzo Valley Water District and whereas Director Smallman continuously served in his capacity of the Board of Directors for a period of two and a half years and whereas Director Smallman was dedicated to the proper management protection of the district's watershed property and the environmental health of the entire San Lorenzo River watershed and whereas Director Smallman was instrumental in banning the use of visipate a probable human personogenic from the use of district properties and whereas district whereas Director Smallman was involved in the district engineering committee often imparting his knowledge of water systems for the good of the district and whereas Director Smallman was involved in setting the district up for financial viability by all in the future to fund capital improvements and build reserves now therefore be it resolved by the Board of Directors of the San Lorenzo Valley Water District that William H. Smallman be commended and thanks for his years of dedicated service that he has the respect of all who has worked with him and that his efforts and dedication will be missed because we make sure that the press banner gets a copy of that so that it could be in the Valley newspaper we usually don't do that is there a press release could that, no? usually they write a scathing article and send it into the press banner i.e. Margaret Bruce any other comments and the resolution has been read and motion has been made and seconded so we didn't vote yet it's just getting so late okay, alright so there's informational material on meeting on the Ferris press banner the Santa Cruz plan for sustainable water in the Sentinel and second water leader resigns i thought the Sentinel article was a little snarky just my opinion sorry i guess i don't get to make a comment but i just did sorry so can we adjourn this meeting i think so 747 747