[0:00] I'll officially call to order the

[0:02] regular meeting of Coachella Valley

[0:04] Water District Board of Directors uh

[0:06] January 13, 2026 here in Palm Desert.

[0:09] And uh would you please stand and join

[0:11] me in the pledge of allegiance?

[0:14] >> Good morning.

[0:19] » I pledge algiance to the flag of America

[0:22] and to the republic for which it stands,

[0:24] one nation, indivisibley

[0:28] and justice for all. All

[0:29] right.

[0:33] And uh so prior to roll call, I would

[0:36] like to make clear for the record of

[0:37] this meeting and it should be reflected

[0:39] in the minutes that at least a portion

[0:41] of this meeting is being conducted

[0:43] pursuant to California government code

[0:44] section 54953

[0:46] in that director Aguilar is in Orlando,

[0:49] Florida, and will be participating by

[0:51] speakerphone. In accordance with the

[0:54] Ralph M. Brown Act. The teleconference

[0:56] location has been identified on the

[0:58] agenda for this meeting. [snorts] Kirk

[1:00] Bermudas, will you please call the role?

[1:02] >> Yes. Good morning. And just a

[1:03] » Yes. Good morning. And just a

[1:03] clarification, he does have video. I

[1:05] should have put teleconference, but he

[1:07] does have video options on that. Uh,

[1:09] President Pal

[1:10] >> here.

[1:10] » here.

[1:10] >> Vice President Estrada

[1:12] » Vice President Estrada

[1:12] >> here.

[1:12] » here.

[1:12] >> Director Biano

[1:13] » Director Biano

[1:13] >> here.

[1:14] » here.

[1:14] >> Director Aguilar

[1:15] » Director Aguilar

[1:15] >> here.

[1:16] » here.

[1:16] >> And director Nelson

[1:17] » And director Nelson

[1:17] >> here.

[1:18] » here.

[1:18] >> Thank you.

[1:19] » Thank you.

[1:19] >> I would now like to request that

[1:21] » I would now like to request that

[1:21] Director Aguilar respond to the

[1:22] following questions. one. Uh, Director

[1:24] Agular, can you hear me well?

[1:27] >> Yes, I can, John.

[1:28] » Yes, I can, John.

[1:28] >> Great. Yeah, I hear you, too. Um, were

[1:31] » Great. Yeah, I hear you, too. Um, were

[1:31] you able to hear our proceedings on this

[1:33] end up until now?

[1:35] >> Yes.

[1:36] » Yes.

[1:36] >> Do you have a copy of the agenda for

[1:38] » Do you have a copy of the agenda for

[1:38] this meeting?

[1:39] >> I do.

[1:40] » I do.

[1:40] >> Have you posted the agenda at your

[1:42] » Have you posted the agenda at your

[1:42] location?

[1:43] >> I have.

[1:45] » I have.

[1:45] Is your um location reasonably

[1:48] accessible to the public that such such

[1:50] that any member of the public could

[1:51] participate in this teleconference from

[1:53] your location if he or she wished to do

[1:55] so?

[1:56] >> Uh yes it is.

[1:58] » Uh yes it is.

[1:58] >> Is there any member of the public there

[1:59] » Is there any member of the public there

[2:00] with you who would like to participate?

[2:02] >> Uh not at the moment.

[2:04] » Uh not at the moment.

[2:04] >> Okay. Well, just let us know.

[2:07] » Okay. Well, just let us know.

[2:07] >> Um

[2:09] » Um

[2:09] >> great. As a reminder, all votes for this

[2:11] » great. As a reminder, all votes for this

[2:11] meeting must be taken by roll call.

[2:20] I got two pages at the same time.

[2:24] >> What if I read the next one? It would

[2:25] » What if I read the next one? It would

[2:25] have been funny. Okay. So, uh, do we

[2:28] have any additions, deletions, or

[2:30] adjustments to the agenda?

[2:32] >> No, sir, we do not.

[2:34] » No, sir, we do not.

[2:34] >> No, I don't think so.

[2:37] » No, I don't think so.

[2:37] Uh, is there anybody from the public

[2:39] wishing to comment at this time?

[2:43] non-aggenda items.

[2:46] >> We we do have a couple just I'll just

[2:47] » We we do have a couple just I'll just

[2:47] note it for the record, not for uh

[2:49] general public, but we do we will have

[2:51] speakers for item 8A just so that the

[2:53] board is aware.

[2:55] >> Yes. All right. So, we will get those

[2:56] » Yes. All right. So, we will get those

[2:56] speakers at that time. And then um so

[3:00] nobody with the public comment at this

[3:03] time. We do have special presentations

[3:06] and recognitions.

[3:08] Uh and I will read for those who are

[3:11] present.

[3:13] Um, first of all,

[3:17] with an anniversary,

[3:19] John Van Winkle with 20 years. John

[3:23] Vaninkl was hired as a distribution

[3:25] operator trainee and has worked his way

[3:27] up to a domestic equipment operator all

[3:30] while serving on the West Shores crew.

[3:32] Despite working under several crew

[3:34] chiefs over the years, he has

[3:36] consistently remained a valued and

[3:37] reliable operator for the Sultan Sea

[3:39] area.

[3:41] Sultan City presents unique challenges

[3:43] as water manes are located behind homes

[3:46] and roads and roads wind in multiple

[3:48] directions unlike other areas where they

[3:50] typically run north, south, or east,

[3:52] west. John's extensive knowledge of this

[3:54] area makes him a major asset to the

[3:57] team. From identifying problematic

[3:58] locations to locating hard to find

[4:01] isolation valves in alleyways and

[4:03] backyards,

[4:04] he knows to proactively check those

[4:07] areas when reservoir levels start to

[4:08] drop, often before customers report an

[4:10] issue. John is a hard worker who

[4:13] maintains a positive attitude and is

[4:14] especially well suited to responding to

[4:17] leaks around the salt and sea.

[4:19] Congratulations on 20 years of service.

[4:22] And we'll come up after and do that. and

[4:25] then retirement. Olivia Bennett,

[4:28] non-potable water program manager with

[4:30] 23 years. When Olivia Bennett joined

[4:34] CBWD in 2002 as a water quality lab

[4:36] technician, she never imagined her

[4:38] career would take her from running

[4:40] atomic absorption machines to helping

[4:42] transform some of Coachella Valley's

[4:44] largest landscapes.

[4:46] Born in Jacksonville, Illinois, Olivia

[4:49] was a prevet major and received her

[4:52] bachelor of science in biology from

[4:53] McMurray College before moving to the

[4:55] desert in 1997.

[4:57] Her early love of animals and science

[4:59] guided her path, including time at

[5:01] veterinary clinics in the Living Desert.

[5:04] Her science background earned her a

[5:05] position in the district's lab as a

[5:07] technician, then as a lab analyst, then

[5:10] an engineering technician in water

[5:12] resources. Eventually, she stepped into

[5:15] her longtime management position

[5:16] overseeing recycled and non-potable

[5:18] water operations.

[5:20] Tom West, assistant director for

[5:22] operations for sanitation, stated that

[5:24] Olivia's always been ahead of the game,

[5:27] taking the non-potable program from an

[5:30] idea to the strong, successful program

[5:32] that it is today. She's not just

[5:34] professional and organized. She's the

[5:35] kind of person who makes the world, the

[5:38] whole team better with her energy and

[5:40] kindness. We're really going to miss

[5:41] her.

[5:46] It goes on.

[5:48] [laughter]

[5:51] I will miss you a little later. Um,

[5:53] they've always been changing my

[5:56] responsibilities around, giving me

[5:57] something new to focus on, which I

[5:59] appreciate because it has been it has

[6:01] kept my brain going, says Olivia. For

[6:04] the last 15 years, Olivia has shouldered

[6:06] CVW's non-potable water program, which

[6:09] transitions golf courses, large

[6:11] landscape properties and agricultural

[6:13] irrigation from groundwater to

[6:15] non-potable water. Under her leadership,

[6:18] non-potable water use rose dramatically

[6:20] with some sites achieving 100% recycled

[6:23] water usage. Olivia now looks forward to

[6:26] hiking, painting, quilting, and picking

[6:28] up new skills like beekeeping, chicken

[6:31] raising. guessing you're going to raise

[6:34] eggs [laughter]

[6:35] and gardening. She plans to enjoy more

[6:39] time with her husband Rick, also a CBWD

[6:41] retiree, and their pack of shorty bulls,

[6:44] Lugnut, Lauraai, Groucho, and Chicky

[6:47] Blue, [laughter]

[6:49] who rule the house. From nurturing

[6:52] animals to nurturing landscapes,

[6:53] Olivia's career has come full circle as

[6:56] she prepares to trade fairways and

[6:58] pumping stations for something closer to

[7:00] her roots, acres of open land.

[7:03] That was actually really well written.

[7:05] And I would say um when we list the

[7:07] dogs, the pets names, they have to be

[7:09] cute like that otherwise we're not going

[7:11] to read. [laughter]

[7:12] Those are wonderful names. Okay. So, and

[7:15] then we also who are not here um Alberto

[7:17] Rodriguez, building maintenance

[7:19] technician with 20 years. Alejandra,

[7:22] these are retirements, right? Alejandro

[7:25] Silva, fleet and equipment technician

[7:28] two with 20 years. and Steuart Taylor

[7:30] fleet and equipment manager with eight

[7:32] years. So, congratulations to everybody

[7:34] and we'll have the two present come on

[7:36] up one at a time, right? [applause]

[7:56] » Thank you. I really want to ask you a

[7:58] bunch of questions.

[8:01] >> All right. [clears throat]

[8:19] It's up to you.

[8:20] >> You meant a few words.

[8:24] » You don't have to.

[8:25] >> No, I'd rather not.

[8:27] » No, I'd rather not.

[8:27] >> All right.

[8:28] » All right.

[8:28] >> Put my foot in my mouth.

[8:30] » Put my foot in my mouth.

[8:30] [laughter]

[8:32] >> Thank you.

[8:34] » Thank you.

[8:34] >> Great.

[8:35] » Great.

[8:35] >> Thank you.

[8:35] » Thank you.

[8:35] >> What about the questions? You had a

[8:36] » What about the questions? You had a

[8:36] whole bunch of questions.

[8:37] >> Well, I mean, do you get to know people?

[8:39] » Well, I mean, do you get to know people?

[8:39] >> Yeah. Well, I've lived out there since I

[8:41] » Yeah. Well, I've lived out there since I

[8:41] was 13, so yeah, like I've met a lot of

[8:44] people and they usually come up and

[8:46] start asking me before if they see if

[8:48] they see me in the middle of the street

[8:49] or something, they'll start asking

[8:51] questions like what what we're doing and

[8:53] all that. But, you know, or if they if

[8:55] we got the water off and somebody's

[8:57] upset, if they see me there, they'll

[8:58] come talk to me. I'm usually able to

[9:00] smooth it over.

[9:02] >> But it's been it's been a long it's been

[9:04] » But it's been it's been a long it's been

[9:04] a long ride, but it's been a fun ride.

[9:06] >> I feel like I'm working for K.

[9:08] » I feel like I'm working for K.

[9:08] [laughter]

[9:09] >> Thank you.

[9:09] » Thank you.

[9:09] >> If you were working for KSQ, you'd be

[9:11] » If you were working for KSQ, you'd be

[9:11] holding the camera, too.

[9:12] >> That's right.

[9:14] » That's right.

[9:14] >> Thank you.

[9:14] » Thank you.

[9:14] >> Thank you.

[9:15] » Thank you.

[9:15] >> Thank you. Stay out.

[9:16] » Thank you. Stay out.

[9:16] >> I will [applause]

[9:24] for you.

[9:46] » [cough]

[9:48] >> They forgot to say you have a great

[9:49] » They forgot to say you have a great

[9:49] sense of you. [laughter]

[9:51] >> I just wanted to say thank you to the

[9:54] » I just wanted to say thank you to the

[9:54] board for supporting the non-putable

[9:57] program.

[9:59] Um, and to my supervisors for trusting

[10:03] me and giving me the freedom to do

[10:05] whatever I needed to do. and to my crews

[10:09] and my crew chief. I think you're

[10:11] awesome and you can do anything. Um,

[10:14] thank you to the customers for um

[10:17] realizing the benefit to the community

[10:20] and for using 80% non-potable water. Um,

[10:24] thank you to my husband who I met here.

[10:28] He retired five years ago, which we

[10:30] still can't believe. [laughter]

[10:32] Um, and ever since I started working

[10:35] anywhere, I've wanted to retire. And um,

[10:38] finally I'm eligible to do it. And I

[10:42] cannot believe it's here. And it's

[10:43] overwhelmingly joyful and um, scary all

[10:48] at once. So, thank you so much.

[10:51] >> Thank you. Appreciate it.

[10:54] » Thank you. Appreciate it.

[10:54] [applause]

[10:59] » Stay healthy. Enjoy. Is this here?

[11:20] Very nice.

[11:23] >> Yeah, the non-potable program is kind of

[11:25] » Yeah, the non-potable program is kind of

[11:26] fundamental to what we do. It's

[11:28] >> so amazing when people retire so early.

[11:31] » so amazing when people retire so early.

[11:31] >> [laughter]

[11:32] » [laughter]

[11:32] >> kidding, right?

[11:33] » kidding, right?

[11:33] >> Well, some do.

[11:34] » Well, some do.

[11:34] >> It's hard to believe.

[11:35] » It's hard to believe.

[11:35] >> Then they go out and get another job

[11:36] » Then they go out and get another job

[11:36] somewhere else.

[11:39] >> So young. That's what I meant to say.

[11:42] » So young. That's what I meant to say.

[11:42] >> So again,

[11:43] » So again,

[11:43] >> yeah. Great.

[11:46] » yeah. Great.

[11:46] Our consent calendar consists of items 6

[11:49] A through L.

[11:54] Is there a motion to approve the consent

[11:56] calendar?

[11:58] >> Yes. So move.

[12:03] » [clears throat]

[12:04] >> I'll second your uh motion there. And uh

[12:09] » I'll second your uh motion there. And uh

[12:09] all in favor or we are doing a roll.

[12:12] >> Roll call vote, please.

[12:13] » Roll call vote, please.

[12:13] >> Yes. Uh President Pal,

[12:14] » Yes. Uh President Pal,

[12:14] >> I.

[12:15] » I.

[12:15] >> Vice President Estrada,

[12:17] » Vice President Estrada,

[12:17] >> yes.

[12:17] » yes.

[12:17] >> Director Biano,

[12:18] » Director Biano,

[12:18] >> yes.

[12:19] » yes.

[12:19] >> Director Aguilar,

[12:21] » Director Aguilar,

[12:21] >> yes.

[12:21] » yes.

[12:21] >> And director Nelson,

[12:22] » And director Nelson,

[12:22] >> I.

[12:23] » I.

[12:23] >> Thank you. 5.

[12:25] » Thank you. 5.

[12:25] >> Passed. 5.

[12:27] » Passed. 5.

[12:27] under the action calendar 8A.

[12:31] Sabrina is gonna Yes. Good morning.

[12:35] >> The floor is yours.

[12:43] » Is it green? Green is

[12:44] >> green. Green is on.

[12:46] » green. Green is on.

[12:46] >> Green means go.

[12:47] » Green means go.

[12:47] >> Good morning. Um for the record, my name

[12:49] » Good morning. Um for the record, my name

[12:49] is Sabrina, Sanji manager for domestic

[12:53] water. Um that before you today is um

[12:57] our recommendation to reject the bid

[12:59] from TBU Incorporated as non-responsive

[13:01] deemed de Domin I'm sorry uh deemed

[13:04] Dominguez General Engineering

[13:06] Incorporated bid protest moot and

[13:08] authorize the general manager to execute

[13:10] a construction contract with Dominguez

[13:11] General Engineering as the lowest

[13:13] responsive and responsible bidder in the

[13:15] amount of $10,312,530

[13:18] for the Sun City domestic water Sun City

[13:20] Palm Desert water main replacement phase

[13:23] 2B project specification 2025-7

[13:26] and approve additional expenditures in

[13:28] the for a total request of 11,930,000.

[13:33] Um the item before you today uh we did

[13:36] receive a bid protest um which alleged

[13:40] that um TBU Incorporated failed to

[13:44] attach a notary acknowledgement to the

[13:45] non-colision declaration. It failed to

[13:48] provide authority for Jesus Nunees as an

[13:50] estimator to bind TBU Incorporated to

[13:52] the bid and it failed to provide the

[13:54] required fleet compliance certificates.

[13:56] Um we did review this with legal counsel

[13:59] um independently CBWD review the bids

[14:01] and also recommended um that the bid be

[14:04] deemed non-responsive and I'd be happy

[14:06] to answer any additional questions that

[14:08] you may have regarding this item.

[14:16] Is this the item where we have

[14:18] >> Yes, we have public comments.

[14:19] » Yes, we have public comments.

[14:20] >> We do have I just wanted to

[14:21] » We do have I just wanted to

[14:21] >> for consideration

[14:23] » for consideration

[14:23] >> just want to make sure we get through

[14:24] » just want to make sure we get through

[14:24] the presentation and then allow them.

[14:26] >> All right. Are you do you have more

[14:29] » All right. Are you do you have more

[14:29] presentation?

[14:30] >> Um no, unless there's any additional

[14:31] » Um no, unless there's any additional

[14:31] questions.

[14:32] >> Okay.

[14:35] Well, my my

[14:38] questions and comments were going to be

[14:40] more along the lines of the letter that

[14:41] was submitted by the contractor that

[14:44] submitted the protest and then there was

[14:46] a response to that.

[14:48] >> Correct.

[14:49] » Correct.

[14:49] >> So, I wanted to kind of hear more about

[14:51] » So, I wanted to kind of hear more about

[14:51] that, but I don't know if it's more

[14:52] appropriate to wait after the comments.

[14:57] >> I would.

[14:58] » I would.

[14:58] >> Yes. Is it is it normal that

[15:02] » Yes. Is it is it normal that

[15:02] um when a company leaves a few of these

[15:06] things out um uh to reject it? Or

[15:11] >> is there a chance for the district to go

[15:13] » is there a chance for the district to go

[15:13] back to them and say, "Hey, your your

[15:14] bid looks good, but you've missed a few

[15:16] things." Do you have this do you have

[15:18] this paperwork that needs to be

[15:20] submitted along with your bid, or it's a

[15:24] >> we can't do that under the law? There

[15:26] » we can't do that under the law? There

[15:26] are times um and and Jeff can um chime

[15:30] in on this, but there are times when

[15:31] there's administrative errors. Um in

[15:33] this case, there were multiple um issues

[15:36] with this bid. It's not one particular

[15:38] item. It were several items.

[15:40] >> It would it be against the law to allow

[15:44] » It would it be against the law to allow

[15:44] them to

[15:47] show you the information that was

[15:48] missing?

[15:50] >> And I can answer that question. Um the

[15:52] » And I can answer that question. Um the

[15:52] yes uh the bids have to be submitted and

[15:55] all material aspects have to be correct.

[15:58] If we were to go back to them and say

[15:59] have just please give us give it to them

[16:01] us now then there would be protest. In

[16:04] fact there was a protest originally

[16:06] submitted by the second lowest bidder to

[16:08] outline these items. What the law says

[16:10] is that you can't provide a the

[16:13] opportunity for the lowest bid to go

[16:15] back and change something or to clarify

[16:17] something as that would be considered

[16:19] under the law to give them an unfair

[16:22] advantage over the other biders who

[16:23] didn't make those requirements or met

[16:25] those requirements.

[16:28] What's the um what's the guidance that

[16:31] we use or the standard um that

[16:38] pushes us to rebid a project if

[16:42] the next bid is substantially higher? Is

[16:45] is there a guidance for that or are we

[16:47] bound to accept the next

[16:49] >> doesn't mount

[16:50] » doesn't mount

[16:50] >> are we bound to accept the next bid if

[16:52] » are we bound to accept the next bid if

[16:52] it's substantially higher? Yeah, I

[16:55] believe that um the

[16:56] >> unless there's a change in scope,

[16:59] » unless there's a change in scope,

[16:59] >> unless we decide to change the plans or

[17:02] » unless we decide to change the plans or

[17:02] the specifications from the original

[17:04] design, we can't just go out and ask

[17:05] people to take a second shot at the same

[17:08] thing.

[17:08] >> Even if it's a million dollars more or

[17:10] » Even if it's a million dollars more or

[17:10] 500,000, the amount doesn't matter.

[17:12] >> Yes, sir. No, that's that's the rules.

[17:14] » Yes, sir. No, that's that's the rules.

[17:14] >> So, we represent to the bidding world

[17:17] » So, we represent to the bidding world

[17:17] that this is the bid we would want to

[17:20] receive bids and these things had to be

[17:22] met. If we were to because of the price

[17:25] difference just rebid the entire project

[17:28] that would go against what our contract

[17:30] documents say and that we're going out

[17:31] to bid to get this project done as long

[17:34] as the lowest bidder meets all of these

[17:36] requirements. So it would be based on if

[17:39] there was some misunderstanding of what

[17:41] the project was or that we

[17:45] underestimated the cost of the entire

[17:47] project or something like that. But

[17:49] other than that, going out to rebid a

[17:52] project based on a price differential

[17:54] would go against what we've represented

[17:55] to the public in our bid documents.

[17:59] >> We could still decide not to do the

[18:00] » We could still decide not to do the

[18:00] project though altogether.

[18:03] >> Yes, you can.

[18:03] » Yes, you can.

[18:03] >> Yeah,

[18:04] » Yeah,

[18:04] >> but that's exercising the contractor

[18:06] » but that's exercising the contractor

[18:06] community.

[18:08] >> Yeah. I mean, that's why we

[18:09] » Yeah. I mean, that's why we

[18:09] >> that's why we ask you if we can go out

[18:11] » that's why we ask you if we can go out

[18:11] for a bid first.

[18:12] >> Yeah. We we actually have the board take

[18:14] » Yeah. We we actually have the board take

[18:14] action to go out and put it out to bid

[18:15] [clears throat]

[18:16] with the idea that we're not going to be

[18:18] exercising the bidding community.

[18:20] >> Yeah. And I guess I I get all that. I

[18:23] » Yeah. And I guess I I get all that. I

[18:23] don't know how much time we have to get

[18:24] into the details of this protest and the

[18:27] response to that protest to then make a

[18:29] determination on

[18:32] just the different things that are being

[18:33] claimed because there's seems like

[18:35] there's two sides to a story here.

[18:37] >> The protest Yeah, the protest is moot

[18:39] » The protest Yeah, the protest is moot

[18:39] though, right? So

[18:41] >> I think protest. Well, that's the

[18:43] » I think protest. Well, that's the

[18:43] recommendation.

[18:44] >> There was a protest from the second

[18:45] » There was a protest from the second

[18:45] lowest bidder to that outlined the

[18:47] things that we as a staff had already

[18:49] identified as making the lowest bidder

[18:51] not responsive.

[18:53] >> So, there were two bid two protests. One

[18:55] » So, there were two bid two protests. One

[18:55] was from the second lowest who is

[18:57] recommended to get the contract because

[18:59] they had identified things that made the

[19:01] lowest bid nonresponsible. But we had

[19:03] already done that as a staff and legal

[19:06] counsel. So that's why we're here today

[19:08] receiving a letter from the lowest

[19:11] bidder the uh to protest not getting the

[19:16] contract. So I mean

[19:17] >> so so what you're saying is that it it

[19:20] » so so what you're saying is that it it

[19:20] the protest letter was not what

[19:23] initiated us to

[19:25] deem the bid non-responsive. We we we

[19:28] were already kind of doing that.

[19:30] >> We had already made that determination

[19:31] » We had already made that determination

[19:32] if if I'm correct.

[19:33] >> That's correct. But but my point in

[19:35] » That's correct. But but my point in

[19:35] bringing up that issue is that

[19:38] there would be a protest there was a

[19:40] protest of the second lowest bidder

[19:41] identifying the very things that we have

[19:44] already identified. So you had a protest

[19:46] from the lowest bidder who's here to to

[19:49] speak but also from the second lowest

[19:51] bidder identifying things that if we

[19:53] didn't comply with the contract would be

[19:55] things that they would have raised or we

[19:57] raised them initially.

[19:59] >> So I it might be good to get

[20:01] » So I it might be good to get

[20:01] >> the comments. All right.

[20:03] » the comments. All right.

[20:04] Right. Why don't we do that and then

[20:05] maybe that'll lead to Yeah. some more

[20:07] clarification or

[20:09] >> Thank you.

[20:10] » Thank you.

[20:10] >> Sure. Uh first speaker I have is Brian

[20:12] » Sure. Uh first speaker I have is Brian

[20:12] Anders, please.

[20:25] » Okay.

[20:26] [laughter]

[20:27] >> Yes, ma'am.

[20:29] » Yes, ma'am.

[20:29] Good morning all. Thank you very much.

[20:31] My name is Brian Anders. legal counsel

[20:32] for TBU, the lowest bidder. Um, I'd like

[20:36] to thank you for the opportunity to

[20:38] address the issues here. Uh, there's

[20:39] already been quite a bit of discussion,

[20:41] touched on some key points here. Um,

[20:44] ultimately the timeline on this, the bid

[20:46] was timely submitted. Uh, admittedly,

[20:50] certain aspects of it were omitted. It

[20:52] doesn't mean that they weren't prepared,

[20:55] created. They were simply omitted from

[20:58] the scan that was sent. Um

[21:03] the board here does have the power to

[21:05] wave any minor or inconsequential

[21:07] irregularities. Uh I would like to point

[21:10] out that the the bid the scope of uh the

[21:14] scope of work remained the same. There

[21:16] were no material changes uh made at the

[21:19] at the time of any corrective efforts on

[21:22] December 3rd which I think the the there

[21:25] was a reference to the TVU letter that

[21:26] came in with the documentation and an

[21:28] explanation there too. I also have the

[21:31] principal Ted and uh Jesus with me today

[21:34] who also will be speaking and kind of

[21:36] sharing their series of events and

[21:38] explaining the background on all of

[21:40] this. Um ultimately the facts are the

[21:43] facts. [snorts] The the scope of work

[21:45] proposed was there were no issues with

[21:47] the scope sorry scope of work proposed.

[21:50] Um and the bid up from TBU came in at

[21:54] $560,000

[21:56] less than the next lowest bidder. um

[22:03] taking the action taking the proposed

[22:05] action of rejecting the lowest bid based

[22:07] on what we perceive to be

[22:09] inconsequential and immaterial grounds

[22:11] to the extent that nothing substantive

[22:13] about the bid itself was changed uh

[22:17] would carry an unnecessarily punitive

[22:20] tone. um per the recommend and per the

[22:22] recommendation will result in a net

[22:24] increase of not just 560,000

[22:27] but a total of over $1.6 million

[22:32] um [clears throat]

[22:34] for the same scope of work and award the

[22:36] contract to a company located over 90

[22:38] miles from the job site. Uh in contrast,

[22:41] TBU has offices in India. uh every they

[22:45] they've got an office location and all

[22:47] staff that would be servicing this

[22:49] contract located within 10 mile radius

[22:52] of the actual job site. Um [snorts]

[22:56] not only that, TBU has an extensive

[22:58] amount of experience not only in the

[23:00] region but with the city of Coachella

[23:02] itself.

[23:04] That's my time. Thank you. You

[23:09] » Thank you. Uh next we have Jesus Nunes.

[23:22] Hello everybody.

[23:23] >> Morning.

[23:23] » Morning.

[23:23] >> Good morning.

[23:25] » Good morning.

[23:25] Um,

[23:27] pretty much uh just going to go piggy

[23:30] backing off of s Andrew's over here and

[23:33] pretty much just saying same things uh

[23:36] just not so technical in his certain

[23:40] vocabulary. Um

[23:43] given my newly appointed position, I you

[23:45] know I've been I just now got uh

[23:48] promoted to an estimator back in May,

[23:51] early May. Um

[23:54] with the guidance of our vice president,

[23:56] Charlie Wallen, and and my

[23:57] superintendent supervisor, uh David

[23:59] Eera, uh you know, we

[24:03] you know, they've been working me.

[24:05] They've been showing me the ropes of

[24:07] everything of what it comes down to

[24:08] bidding and you know bidding for

[24:12] government funded projects. That's a

[24:14] pretty big uh

[24:16] it's a pretty big task at hand. You know

[24:19] uh

[24:20] and you know I double check, triple

[24:23] check everything, make sure everything's

[24:25] all right. Uh these were errors that of

[24:28] course were not intentional. I didn't,

[24:30] you know, they were not meant to deceive

[24:32] or to uh malinterpret anything on behalf

[24:36] of TBU. Uh,

[24:39] you know, they're [snorts] clerical

[24:41] errors. Uh,

[24:44] yeah, they uh

[24:47] know they no man said nothing. You know,

[24:51] I I like to do things uh right. I like

[24:54] to do things fair. you know, ultimately

[24:58] you guys are sitting where you guys are.

[25:00] You guys have the ultimate uh decision,

[25:02] you know. Uh but I just wanted to give

[25:05] you guys my opinion, my side of the

[25:08] story and everything. Uh

[25:11] hopefully that helps me, my case, and

[25:14] our company's case because we like he

[25:16] mentioned, we're all local here. our

[25:18] company, you know, I've been working

[25:19] with the company for uh close to six

[25:22] years

[25:23] for my whole duration with the company.

[25:25] You know, we've always been working

[25:26] here, you know, of course, the valley is

[25:30] a slowly but surely growing community.

[25:32] Uh but we've always tried to stay busy

[25:34] here and like uh like we mentioned

[25:37] earlier, we've had opportunities to work

[25:39] with numerous uh

[25:42] agencies here and and and whatnot. So,

[25:45] you know, we like to keep our people

[25:47] local. what we always like to say, we

[25:49] like to make sure we stay at home, not

[25:51] driving hours and end in the morning and

[25:53] then driving hours afterwards. So, it'd

[25:56] be a it'd be a pretty good project to

[25:59] work on, you know, help out not just our

[26:01] employees, but also our community with

[26:04] replacing uh

[26:07] possibly leaking, possibly uh damaged

[26:10] lines. So,

[26:11] >> yeah.

[26:12] » yeah.

[26:12] >> All right. Thank you.

[26:16] » All right. Thank you.

[26:16] >> Thank you. And then next we have Ted

[26:19] » Thank you. And then next we have Ted

[26:19] Burton.

[26:26] » Good morning. Uh my name is Ted Burton.

[26:28] I'm the owner of TBU Inc. Um I've been

[26:31] doing this kind of work for 37 years and

[26:34] we have grown enough that we have

[26:36] branched out and now we're in uh India

[26:39] and we have a locally based office 10

[26:41] miles from here. U my job is to keep

[26:43] employees working and uh putting food on

[26:47] the family's tables. Us being locally

[26:49] based I think is a a huge advantage for

[26:52] the the district to take in realization

[26:54] that there are going to be emergencies

[26:57] on this job and this job is going to run

[27:00] in well over a year. Um we always finish

[27:03] our projects on time, usually early. Um,

[27:08] I appreciate the board taking the time

[27:09] to listen to our protest on everything

[27:13] we did was legit. I mean, we made a few

[27:16] clerical errors. We're all human. We all

[27:18] make mistakes, right? I had to hire this

[27:21] kid because we got busy out here to

[27:22] start estimating. He's only been doing

[27:24] it for four months. Grabbed the wrong

[27:26] paper, scanned it the wrong way, you

[27:29] know, and that's the bottom line, you

[27:31] know. I mean, we're a legit company.

[27:33] We've been doing this a long time. I put

[27:34] in miles and miles of pipe. Um, we have

[27:38] 25 based employees out here. I hired

[27:40] Dave Herrera behind me. He runs our

[27:43] India office. Um, he's been with me over

[27:46] 10 years. The longevity of the people

[27:48] that work for me shows the character of

[27:50] how we run our company. And, um, I just

[27:53] think that

[27:55] it's going to be very advantageous

[27:58] for the district to use a local

[28:01] contractor. This isn't a two month, one

[28:04] month job. We know emergencies are going

[28:06] to come up. You know, we're working in

[28:08] the streets. It's not like we're working

[28:09] in fields. We're going to have ponds

[28:11] with traffic control. People are going

[28:13] to run over the traffic control. There's

[28:14] going to be calls at night because

[28:16] somebody ran into a ditch or somebody

[28:18] did something, you know,

[28:21] on characteristic. So, if you look at

[28:25] that, you know, we're a 10 15 minute

[28:27] response compared to depending on

[28:29] traffic, two, three hour response. Um,

[28:33] so just appreciate you taking the time

[28:35] to listen to us and consider that, you

[28:37] know, we use a local based sub on a on a

[28:40] bid that was submitted correctly but

[28:44] incorrectly because of a few

[28:47] unexperienced

[28:49] um errors that he made trying to submit

[28:52] the bid. So, thank you for your time.

[28:55] >> Thank you.

[28:59] And that was the last speaker card that

[29:01] I had.

[29:02] >> Okay. Um,

[29:05] » Okay. Um,

[29:05] we don't have anybody from the um

[29:09] other side. Domingus.

[29:14] » I guess I have a question that was

[29:16] raised. I still feel like our hands are

[29:19] tied up.

[29:22] >> Oh, you're right. God, it goes on and

[29:25] » Oh, you're right. God, it goes on and

[29:25] off by itself.

[29:27] It went back on without touching it.

[29:29] Good for that.

[29:30] >> But we did hear um from the first

[29:34] » But we did hear um from the first

[29:34] presenter, Mr. Anderson,

[29:36] that even though the bid differential is

[29:39] about half a million dollars, the actual

[29:41] cost differential is more like $1.6

[29:43] million. I don't understand how that's

[29:45] possible.

[29:46] >> Um perhaps he's referring to the

[29:48] » Um perhaps he's referring to the

[29:48] engineers estimate. Um for this project,

[29:50] we budgeted 11,930,000.

[29:54] So, a majority of the bids did come in

[29:56] significantly lower than what we

[29:58] originally estimated. Um, and yes, it is

[30:00] correct. TB's bid is certainly the

[30:03] lowest. Um, but I think from [snorts]

[30:05] the staff perspective, the bidding

[30:07] documents are the first representation

[30:09] of the contractor and if there's this

[30:10] many inconsistencies, it does raise

[30:12] concerns for the project moving forward.

[30:15] Um, because this is we have to hold

[30:17] everyone accountable to the same level.

[30:19] Um, and since we did have a bid protest

[30:21] that identified the same discrepancies,

[30:23] in fact, missed a few that even we had

[30:26] caught, um, I think it does raise some

[30:28] questions moving forward on the setting

[30:30] of precedents

[30:31] >> just because they're the lowest,

[30:33] » just because they're the lowest,

[30:33] >> right? No, I understand.

[30:35] » right? No, I understand.

[30:35] >> But our our hands are not tied, John.

[30:37] » But our our hands are not tied, John.

[30:37] They're not tied. I mean, it someone has

[30:41] >> brought this to our attention, which we

[30:43] » brought this to our attention, which we

[30:43] already knew about.

[30:44] >> It's our prerogative to to um disregard

[30:48] » It's our prerogative to to um disregard

[30:48] that. Now, we are risking that Dominguez

[30:51] would come back and sue us, but that

[30:54] would be the power of this board. Uh,

[30:56] the risk that we take.

[30:58] >> And if I may, um, [clears throat]

[31:01] » And if I may, um, [clears throat]

[31:01] the reason that the other protest wasn't

[31:03] being heard is because we had

[31:05] recommended that it be mute because we

[31:07] had already made the same conclusions.

[31:09] If it's the board wishes to not award

[31:11] the contract uh today or to award it to

[31:14] the lowest bidder, we would have my

[31:16] recommendation would be we be that we

[31:17] come back because the recommendation was

[31:20] not to go with TBU. So we'd have to

[31:22] reassess what that recommendation would

[31:24] be and number two there there would be a

[31:26] need to provide uh Dominguez the right

[31:28] to to uh speak on their protest because

[31:32] then at that point it wouldn't be moot.

[31:34] So uh it' be a number of steps before I

[31:39] would recommend that we just go with the

[31:41] lowest or do something else completely.

[31:44] >> I guess I would like to know what um of

[31:48] » I guess I would like to know what um of

[31:48] all the inconsist inconsistencies with

[31:52] the bid is Jeff for you to opine uh how

[31:57] they fall into the category of material

[32:01] deviations from the bid. In other words,

[32:04] u you know, if they're nonmaterial, then

[32:07] we could accept the bid, but how are

[32:09] these issues uh material in terms of u

[32:13] moving forward with this bid?

[32:16] >> These errors deal with being held to

[32:19] » These errors deal with being held to

[32:19] their bid. And even though it might not

[32:21] be considered a large part of it by not

[32:24] uh having these documents uh submitted

[32:27] appropriately, the lowest bidder could

[32:29] say that they're not legally bound to

[32:31] their bid because they didn't provide

[32:32] the appropriate acknowledgement, didn't

[32:34] provide the appropriate certificates. So

[32:37] what the law says is that if the lowest

[32:39] bidder didn't make these these

[32:41] representations or submit these written

[32:44] certifications and they could have

[32:46] gotten out of their bid because they

[32:47] didn't because they're not bound to it.

[32:49] I'm not saying they would do that

[32:50] obviously, but that's what the law has

[32:52] concluded that it may be missing an an

[32:55] acknowledgement, but it's something

[32:57] that's deemed their bid that they're not

[32:59] legally held to it and they could have

[33:01] gotten out of it. And because of that

[33:05] issue of being held to their bid, even

[33:07] though it might be a document or two,

[33:09] it's an acknowledgement that they're

[33:10] bound to their bid. And the law says

[33:13] because they're not legally bound to

[33:14] their bid, that would have given them an

[33:16] advantage. I realize that may not be the

[33:18] case here or that it doesn't make a

[33:20] whole lot of sense, but from a legal

[33:22] point of view, being bound to your bid,

[33:24] if you're not bound to your bid, you can

[33:26] get out of it. And that would have

[33:27] provided an advantage if the lowest

[33:29] bidder had decided not to move forward.

[33:31] So, it's being held to the bid legally,

[33:35] which is the issue.

[33:37] >> And yet here they are arguing that

[33:40] » And yet here they are arguing that

[33:40] they're they want to be held to the bid,

[33:42] right?

[33:43] >> Yeah. you know I think material

[33:45] » Yeah. you know I think material

[33:45] >> I think what um you know just to provide

[33:48] » I think what um you know just to provide

[33:48] an example because I mean we all look at

[33:50] the bid you know the bids that come in

[33:53] right and

[33:55] overall there the next lowest bidder

[33:58] wasn't that much higher compared to some

[34:00] of the other biders and I would say if

[34:03] you know let's say that the lowest

[34:04] bidder who may have had some some

[34:07] problems with with their bid being

[34:09] accepted let's say they come in at 10

[34:11] million and all the other bids come in

[34:13] over 20.

[34:15] >> I mean, that would give them an

[34:16] » I mean, that would give them an

[34:16] opportunity to look at and go, "Wow, did

[34:18] we miss something?" Right? I mean, is

[34:20] there is there maybe this is not good

[34:23] for us and we wouldn't be able to hold

[34:25] them to that $10 million, which in that

[34:28] example would be too low uh because uh

[34:32] because they would have these material

[34:35] or, you know, clerical errors that give

[34:37] them legally the ability to back out of

[34:40] it. I mean, it gives them a second look

[34:42] or a second bite at the apple that I

[34:43] think that Jeff's trying to

[34:45] >> Yes, exactly.

[34:45] » Yes, exactly.

[34:45] >> trying to The fact that these other bids

[34:48] » trying to The fact that these other bids

[34:48] were not that much higher, you know, 5%

[34:50] or or whatever,

[34:52] >> um, makes that makes this example seem

[34:56] » um, makes that makes this example seem

[34:56] maybe a little less clear-cut.

[35:00] >> Um,

[35:03] » Um,

[35:03] I just feel that it's not very material.

[35:06] >> I feel the same. It's not it's it's it's

[35:08] » I feel the same. It's not it's it's it's

[35:08] a minor thing and and we're and I

[35:10] understand but I do think that

[35:15] we we have some some uh we can we can we

[35:19] can pivot. I think we can under under

[35:22] our authorization.

[35:24] I don't think it's as clearcut. This is

[35:26] a very m immaterial thing.

[35:29] >> Hey John, can I ask a question?

[35:30] » Hey John, can I ask a question?

[35:30] >> Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead John.

[35:32] » Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead John.

[35:32] >> Can you hear me? Okay.

[35:33] » Can you hear me? Okay.

[35:33] >> Yes.

[35:34] » Yes.

[35:34] >> Hey, I'm just curious just as a matter

[35:35] » Hey, I'm just curious just as a matter

[35:35] of information. I know it's not going to

[35:37] be a decisive uh matter, but I'm just

[35:40] curious about the the differences

[35:43] between the two firms

[35:46] and um whether or not they have any um

[35:50] disadvantaged business enterprises. I

[35:53] noticed that in I think in the staff

[35:55] report I read that Dominguez does not,

[35:58] but I'm curious about TBU. Can staff

[36:01] answer that?

[36:03] >> Um I believe that both Dominguez and TBU

[36:05] » Um I believe that both Dominguez and TBU

[36:05] did. I don't know if TBU Yeah, we

[36:08] attached the the form um for Dominguez

[36:12] in the bid package. It did identify that

[36:14] they they are DB and they attached their

[36:16] certificates as well.

[36:18] [snorts]

[36:19] >> I'm sorry, that was for Dominguez.

[36:21] » I'm sorry, that was for Dominguez.

[36:21] >> Yeah, Dominguez specifically and and TBU

[36:24] » Yeah, Dominguez specifically and and TBU

[36:24] and the audience confirmed that they

[36:26] have it as well.

[36:27] >> So, they both do,

[36:28] » So, they both do,

[36:28] >> correct?

[36:30] » correct?

[36:30] >> Okay, great. Thank you. Then I have just

[36:31] » Okay, great. Thank you. Then I have just

[36:32] one one other minor question, John. If

[36:35] if the board decides to go forward with

[36:37] the with um with Dominguez,

[36:42] um it seems awkward that we would

[36:46] u award a contract or somebody and then

[36:50] um and then deal with their their

[36:52] protest. Wouldn't it be easier for them

[36:54] just to withdraw their protest if

[36:57] they're awarded the bid?

[37:00] That's what the recommendation is is

[37:01] that the bid protest would be moot if we

[37:04] award it to Domingus,

[37:06] >> right?

[37:07] » right?

[37:07] But if we're going

[37:08] >> in any event, I agree if if if we're not

[37:11] » in any event, I agree if if if we're not

[37:11] going to award this to Domingus today

[37:15] that especially based on the public

[37:17] comment that was critical of Domingus

[37:22] and the fact that we've already

[37:24] published that their bid protest was

[37:26] moot. We need to give them a chance to

[37:28] come in and talk to us.

[37:29] >> Correct.

[37:30] » Correct.

[37:30] >> Yeah. I mean, we can't do this today.

[37:33] » Yeah. I mean, we can't do this today.

[37:33] Mhm.

[37:35] >> Um, so,

[37:36] » Um, so,

[37:36] >> you know, I'd like to hear, you know,

[37:38] » you know, I'd like to hear, you know,

[37:38] how how bad they are because we heard

[37:41] today that they're pretty bad and I

[37:43] don't think that they may not be true,

[37:45] you know.

[37:46] >> So, the recommendation could be to table

[37:48] » So, the recommendation could be to table

[37:48] this item to the next board [snorts]

[37:51] meeting or to a to the next board

[37:54] meeting that is practical

[37:56] uh to hear the protests of the second

[37:58] lowest bidder.

[38:01] I didn't I didn't hear that they were

[38:02] bad.

[38:03] >> Well, that they would their response

[38:04] » Well, that they would their response

[38:04] time would be um significantly longer.

[38:08] >> I think that that was just a

[38:10] » I think that that was just a

[38:10] >> I think that's a projection. They they

[38:12] » I think that's a projection. They they

[38:12] do not um they're not based out of here.

[38:14] Um they're I believe that they're based

[38:16] out of Orange County. Um and so TBDU was

[38:19] projecting that they wouldn't be as

[38:21] responsive because they're not based out

[38:22] of

[38:22] >> Well, I understand that, but I think

[38:23] » Well, I understand that, but I think

[38:24] they would have they should have an

[38:25] opportunity to tell us what their

[38:26] strengths are, too. So by having

[38:29] >> it's not a fair fight if one's here and

[38:31] » it's not a fair fight if one's here and

[38:31] the other one's not.

[38:32] >> So by having this item table to the next

[38:35] » So by having this item table to the next

[38:35] meeting or the next available meeting

[38:36] then we're not you're not considering

[38:39] the protest of the second lowest better

[38:41] moot. In fact you want to hear that

[38:43] protest before you make a decision.

[38:46] >> So let me interject here for a moment.

[38:48] » So let me interject here for a moment.

[38:48] Um this was an IFB an invitation for

[38:51] bids. It's not a request for proposals.

[38:56] So technically we're not able to engage

[39:00] in conversations

[39:03] um with the biders to allow them the

[39:06] opportunity to expand upon um what it is

[39:10] they submitted. An IFB an invitation for

[39:13] bids is based solely on the submittal

[39:15] process. So if we allow Dominguez to

[39:18] come in and explain their position,

[39:20] you're kind of opening the door for

[39:22] everybody that participated in

[39:23] responding to do the same thing. And

[39:26] that's not what the process is intended

[39:28] to provide. Different for an RFP where

[39:32] you basically are soliciting uh a

[39:36] proposal and then there are

[39:37] circumstances where you can engage with

[39:39] the proposers to clarify their bids.

[39:42] That's not true with the process that we

[39:45] used here. So, I'm I'm just providing

[39:48] some cautionary advice that, you know,

[39:51] we're saying we're going to allow

[39:53] Dominguez to come in and explain

[39:54] themselves when

[39:57] >> that's not necessarily. So in in in

[40:00] » that's not necessarily. So in in in

[40:00] response to that, Jim, I I would say if

[40:03] the uh if we do this and Dominguez comes

[40:07] in that they should stick strictly to

[40:10] the issues of whether the

[40:13] >> um uh deviations are material or not

[40:16] » um uh deviations are material or not

[40:16] material and

[40:19] yeah so so a couple things. One is there

[40:21] was a deadline for any bidder to submit

[40:24] a bid protest and that's expired. So

[40:26] this wouldn't be reopening to all the

[40:27] other vendors to come in. Number two, uh

[40:30] and this happens a lot is there's a bid

[40:33] protest or two, the people who represent

[40:36] those contractors can come and speak to

[40:38] the protest to Director Nelson's point,

[40:41] not to the response times or the quality

[40:44] of work or anything like that. So it's

[40:47] up to this board to award the contract.

[40:50] If there are protests, you have the

[40:52] right to consider those protests based

[40:54] on what those protests are in terms of

[40:56] the materiality or whatever they want to

[40:59] state say in their protest when they

[41:02] come to present. It's it's not reopening

[41:04] the bid or talking about response times

[41:07] or history of the contractors. It's

[41:09] speaking to the protest.

[41:13] » I just think we owe it to the rateayers

[41:15] to save the $600,000 and to use a local

[41:18] company. I just I think it that it's not

[41:20] material. So if this was a material

[41:22] thing, we've seen this before where

[41:25] we've had to go lower, but there were

[41:27] some big problems with the bid. Okay,

[41:30] big problems. This is a scanning issue.

[41:33] This is a few little some paperwork. So

[41:36] >> if I can clarify, it's not simply a

[41:38] » if I can clarify, it's not simply a

[41:38] scanning issue. There were multiple

[41:40] discrepancies with the bid, including

[41:42] the bid information forms not being

[41:43] completed. The nonclusion affidavit was

[41:46] signed by um the estimator, but the not

[41:50] notorized form was for a different

[41:52] person on two completely different

[41:54] dates. So, as we delve into it, and we

[41:56] didn't list every single thing that was

[41:58] wrong with the bid, but this isn't one

[42:00] administrative issue. It's a bid that

[42:03] wasn't completed correctly, and I think

[42:05] TBU acknowledged that today in that,

[42:08] yeah, it it it's not clean, it's not

[42:10] tight, and we had a bid protest. And so

[42:13] to look past this and say, "Well, we're

[42:15] just going to award it based on the

[42:16] lowest fee," I really do think that's

[42:19] going to set a bad precedence for us

[42:20] moving forward when there's other biders

[42:22] that are going to have the same

[42:23] situation presumably moving forward.

[42:25] This is not normal for us. We do not see

[42:28] this on our bids, particularly the

[42:30] lowest bid, and that's where our

[42:32] recommendation comes from. Um, and

[42:34] that's why we consulted with BBK even

[42:36] before we received the bid protest.

[42:40] >> Okay. Thanks for that. and and I you

[42:42] » Okay. Thanks for that. and and I you

[42:42] know

[42:44] Dominguez is going to have a pretty

[42:46] strong case I think

[42:49] because because we have a process that

[42:51] we've identified and and they followed

[42:53] it and the other ones didn't

[42:56] you know

[42:57] >> have we used Domingus before?

[42:59] » have we used Domingus before?

[42:59] >> We have not um other agencies um

[43:03] » We have not um other agencies um

[43:03] Eastern's worked with them but not

[43:06] >> and we haven't used TBU before either.

[43:07] » and we haven't used TBU before either.

[43:07] Um I don't believe directly but I

[43:09] believe they do developer work if I'm

[43:11] not mistaken.

[43:13] >> I think they're doing all the patina.

[43:17] » Yeah.

[43:20] >> Well, all right. Is there's I guess two

[43:22] » Well, all right. Is there's I guess two

[43:22] different directions we can go here. One

[43:25] is we can take action

[43:27] and two is we can table it for a next

[43:32] for a future meeting.

[43:33] >> From a from my point of view as as legal

[43:35] » From a from my point of view as as legal

[43:35] counsel I think you have two options.

[43:37] One is to award the contract to

[43:39] Dominguez or two to table the matter to

[43:43] bring it back for Dominguez to speak to

[43:46] their bid protest which is also in your

[43:48] packet

[43:52] » making a table.

[43:56] » So if Dominguez comes in they really

[43:59] can't say more than what they've said in

[44:01] their letter and you've already got the

[44:03] letter right. I think they can address

[44:06] the items that were brought up today.

[44:09] Couldn't they do that?

[44:11] >> That those are not that deals with No,

[44:15] » That those are not that deals with No,

[44:15] because the the protest is whether or

[44:17] not the bid was submitted under the law

[44:20] correctly. So they they can get up and

[44:23] speak about response times, but that's

[44:24] not something from a legal point of view

[44:26] that the board can take into

[44:27] consideration. It's whether or not

[44:29] there's a valid bid protest. And if you

[44:31] want to hear from the protester who was

[44:33] the second lowest bid, then you have a

[44:35] right to do that obviously.

[44:37] >> Could could we hear more from you like

[44:38] » Could could we hear more from you like

[44:38] in close session from other from um your

[44:41] other colleagues regarding this protest

[44:43] letter to the fact of the material

[44:46] deviation and getting more into that

[44:48] conversation?

[44:49] >> That was going to be my recommendation

[44:51] » That was going to be my recommendation

[44:51] at some point as well.

[44:53] >> Jeeoff, doesn't this get into

[44:54] » Jeeoff, doesn't this get into

[44:54] responsiveness versus responsibility?

[44:57] >> Exactly. If you start going to

[44:59] » Exactly. If you start going to

[44:59] responsibility, which are the issues

[45:01] that you're now asking Dominguez to come

[45:03] in and address, that's a whole process

[45:06] in itself, a whole different legal

[45:08] process. And that requires a public

[45:10] hearing and that requires um it's a very

[45:14] len it can be a very lengthy process.

[45:16] >> Well, and so there's two things.

[45:19] » Well, and so there's two things.

[45:19] Responsiveness.

[45:21] Did you submit a bid that is responsive

[45:24] to all the requirements?

[45:25] what we're considering here that all the

[45:28] items were not submitted in complete

[45:31] responsiveness to the bid,

[45:32] >> right?

[45:33] » right?

[45:33] >> And responsible is if we think the

[45:35] » And responsible is if we think the

[45:35] lowest bidder can't do the job, right?

[45:37] >> We're kind of in the middle here. It's

[45:38] » We're kind of in the middle here. It's

[45:38] not that we're saying that they can't

[45:40] ultimately do the job, but we're saying

[45:42] it's not responsive, but they have

[45:44] spoken to issues of how they would be a

[45:47] better contractor, which they certainly

[45:48] have a right to speak to, but it's not

[45:50] something you can legally decide on.

[45:52] >> Right. Right. So, that's why We are

[45:55] » Right. Right. So, that's why We are

[45:55] addressing responsiveness.

[45:58] I

[45:58] >> I get it. And so the staff and the

[46:01] » I get it. And so the staff and the

[46:01] protests both identified the

[46:02] nonresponsive

[46:05] >> bid of TBU and I don't think that that

[46:07] » bid of TBU and I don't think that that

[46:07] has been um argued today,

[46:10] >> right? And

[46:11] » right? And

[46:11] >> I think everyone agrees it was

[46:12] » I think everyone agrees it was

[46:12] non-responsive. So what so

[46:14] >> so what are we doing here?

[46:16] » so what are we doing here?

[46:16] >> Well, exactly. Why? Then we need to go

[46:19] » Well, exactly. Why? Then we need to go

[46:19] with staff recommendation because staff

[46:22] is saying the bid was nonresponsive

[46:25] and we are saying that we are

[46:28] recommending to go with the second low

[46:30] bid.

[46:31] >> Right.

[46:36] » Again I want to remind everybody this is

[46:38] Sun City Palm Desert. This is an

[46:40] extremely important project. We are so

[46:43] fortunate that we got bids at the at the

[46:46] price that we got, right?

[46:48] >> Because we were expecting bids to come

[46:50] » Because we were expecting bids to come

[46:50] in around 14 or 15 million. We're at 10

[46:53] million.

[46:54] >> Yeah. Yeah. So So, and some did come in

[46:57] » Yeah. Yeah. So So, and some did come in

[46:57] higher,

[46:58] >> right?

[46:58] » right?

[46:58] >> Yeah. So, uh, we have a motion to table.

[47:03] » Yeah. So, uh, we have a motion to table.

[47:03] We do not have a second on that motion

[47:05] yet that I've heard.

[47:10] I I still wanted to hear more about I

[47:13] get your staff's recommendation. You've

[47:15] made a determination that um it's

[47:17] nonresponsive,

[47:20] but I'm I'm I'm still trying to figure

[47:22] out more the material versus immaterial.

[47:24] like what would be a an example of uh

[47:28] something that as staff you would be

[47:29] able to say, you know, we can kind of um

[47:33] >> an immaterial deviation.

[47:36] » an immaterial deviation.

[47:36] >> Um

[47:38] » Um

[47:38] >> putting something on the wrong line, but

[47:39] » putting something on the wrong line, but

[47:39] the information is still there.

[47:41] Something like that. Right

[47:42] >> here, the information wasn't there.

[47:44] » here, the information wasn't there.

[47:44] That's the difference.

[47:44] >> And signatures were different.

[47:47] » And signatures were different.

[47:47] signatures on a notary versus the page

[47:49] that they were notorizing.

[47:52] >> Is immaterial immaterial

[47:56] go beyond the bid amounts that are that

[47:59] are on the bid form or is it or is it

[48:03] more so does it put attention on the

[48:05] actual bid items so that you

[48:07] >> material?

[48:08] » material?

[48:08] >> Yeah. Like what

[48:10] » Yeah. Like what

[48:10] >> it's the items that we've that we've

[48:12] » it's the items that we've that we've

[48:12] explained here. I mean it doesn't have

[48:14] anything to do with the numbers or the

[48:16] bid because those those um

[48:21] uh we didn't have an issue. So for

[48:23] example, the certificates for the fleet

[48:25] that the letter seems to have then kind

[48:27] of provided instead of well here's the

[48:29] searchs,

[48:30] >> right?

[48:31] » right?

[48:31] >> You're you're considering that to be

[48:32] » You're you're considering that to be

[48:32] material,

[48:33] >> right? Because that is a specification

[48:35] » right? Because that is a specification

[48:35] requirement. That is a bid requirement.

[48:37] You submit these forms

[48:39] with the bid.

[48:41] >> I think too if we start allowing people

[48:43] » I think too if we start allowing people

[48:43] to submit these documents post bid, at

[48:46] what point does that stop? Because what

[48:48] now to your point what's material versus

[48:50] immaterial? The bid was not complete.

[48:53] TBU acknowledges that. We have a bid

[48:55] protest that outlines everything that

[48:57] was incomplete. We have our own

[48:58] independent review that was reviewed by

[49:00] BBK that also acknowledges how

[49:03] incomplete it was. It's not one item

[49:05] that's a material immaterial deviation

[49:07] to your question, right? What is an

[49:10] often it's one item. We've seen that

[49:12] where it's been

[49:13] >> maybe a date. I think there was one

[49:15] » maybe a date. I think there was one

[49:15] where it was supposed to be the 29th. It

[49:16] was the 27th. That was an administrative

[49:18] error.

[49:20] This is not.

[49:21] >> And to Jim's point, when you have a

[49:25] » And to Jim's point, when you have a

[49:25] request for bid like this, a public bid,

[49:29] we don't have discretion.

[49:32] You either meet the contract

[49:34] requirements or you don't. Versus with

[49:36] an RFP, that's where you have the

[49:39] ability to have some discretion and to

[49:40] negotiate. But if you start saying, "Oh,

[49:44] well, we'll let those certificates slide

[49:46] on this one." Well, that's being

[49:48] discreet. That's having discretion.

[49:51] And and then to Sabrina's point, what do

[49:55] we do the next time? We have to, you

[49:57] know, it's it's this moving target all

[49:59] the time. With bids, there's no moving

[50:02] target. It is what it is. It's per the

[50:05] specifications. It's a public bid.

[50:07] [laughter] Either they submit the

[50:08] documents properly or they don't.

[50:13] Well,

[50:14] >> I think it's fair to say it's not just a

[50:15] » I think it's fair to say it's not just a

[50:15] scanning issue. Correct.

[50:19] >> So, u we have a motion. At what point

[50:21] » So, u we have a motion. At what point

[50:22] does the motion die for lack of a

[50:23] second?

[50:24] >> I'll second. We've never had this happen

[50:26] » I'll second. We've never had this happen

[50:26] before. All right. We have a second. So,

[50:29] the motion is to table this item. One

[50:31] one other question I have timing wise.

[50:35] If let's say it sounds like we may have

[50:39] um potential litigation here. Maybe this

[50:42] is something that we can help we can get

[50:45] more explanation for in close session.

[50:47] >> Yeah, exactly.

[50:48] » Yeah, exactly.

[50:48] >> I mean, if we do that, that would be at

[50:50] » I mean, if we do that, that would be at

[50:50] the next meeting, which would be take us

[50:52] to the first meeting in February for for

[50:55] further action.

[50:56] >> We open bids October 2nd, I believe.

[51:00] » We open bids October 2nd, I believe.

[51:00] >> So, at what point do these bids expire?

[51:02] » So, at what point do these bids expire?

[51:02] >> Uh, November 20th,

[51:04] » Uh, November 20th,

[51:04] >> 60 days next week.

[51:06] » 60 days next week.

[51:06] >> So, these bids will expire. Mhm.

[51:08] » So, these bids will expire. Mhm.

[51:08] >> So either we take action today or or the

[51:10] » So either we take action today or or the

[51:10] whole thing just

[51:12] >> goes.

[51:12] » goes.

[51:12] >> Well, we can go back and ask the

[51:13] » Well, we can go back and ask the

[51:14] contractors to extend their bids, but

[51:15] that's a market risk.

[51:18] >> We don't know how we don't know what

[51:19] » We don't know how we don't know what

[51:19] their subcontractors are facing as far

[51:21] as material prices or

[51:23] >> if if we vote if we vote and the and the

[51:26] » if if we vote if we vote and the and the

[51:26] vote fails to table, can we take further

[51:28] action and approve the stack

[51:30] recommendation today?

[51:31] >> Yes. Yes, of course.

[51:32] » Yes. Yes, of course.

[51:32] >> All right.

[51:34] » All right.

[51:34] and a close session uh to explain

[51:39] in graphic detail what the legal

[51:42] implications would be in this

[51:45] recommendation of not going with the

[51:47] with the with the recommended

[51:49] contractor. We could certainly do that

[51:51] before any action taken by the board.

[51:53] But I mean it's as I said before that I

[51:56] think it's been well explained what the

[51:58] legal exposure would be.

[51:59] >> Right. I think it's significant.

[52:04] So, you've got a motion and a second to

[52:05] table.

[52:06] >> All right. So, are we ready for a roll

[52:07] » All right. So, are we ready for a roll

[52:08] call vote?

[52:09] >> The action would be to mot the item in

[52:12] » The action would be to mot the item in

[52:12] order to then consider the second lowest

[52:14] biders protest at the better future

[52:16] meeting.

[52:16] >> Are you okay to vote, John? On on the

[52:18] » Are you okay to vote, John? On on the

[52:18] line.

[52:20] >> Yes.

[52:20] » Yes.

[52:20] >> All right. All right. Let's go to the

[52:22] » All right. All right. Let's go to the

[52:22] roll call vote then, please.

[52:23] >> President Pal,

[52:24] » President Pal,

[52:24] >> no.

[52:25] » no.

[52:25] >> Vice President Estrada?

[52:26] » Vice President Estrada?

[52:26] >> Yes.

[52:27] » Yes.

[52:27] >> Director Biano?

[52:29] » Director Biano?

[52:29] >> Yes.

[52:30] » Yes.

[52:30] >> Director Aguilar?

[52:32] » Director Aguilar?

[52:32] No

[52:33] >> director Nelson.

[52:34] » director Nelson.

[52:34] >> No.

[52:35] » No.

[52:35] >> Okay. Motion failed.

[52:36] » Okay. Motion failed.

[52:36] >> Okay. So, the motion failed

[52:38] » Okay. So, the motion failed

[52:38] and I'm going to move that we accept

[52:42] staff recommendation on this item.

[52:46] >> I would second that.

[52:48] » I would second that.

[52:48] >> Okay.

[52:49] » Okay.

[52:49] Any other discussion?

[52:54] Uh, roll call, please.

[52:55] >> President Pal.

[52:56] » President Pal.

[52:56] >> I.

[52:57] » I.

[52:57] >> Vice President Estrada.

[52:58] » Vice President Estrada.

[52:58] >> No.

[52:59] » No.

[52:59] >> Director Biano.

[52:59] » Director Biano.

[53:00] >> No. Director Aguular.

[53:02] » No. Director Aguular.

[53:02] >> Yes.

[53:02] » Yes.

[53:02] >> And Director Nelson.

[53:03] » And Director Nelson.

[53:03] >> Hi.

[53:04] » Hi.

[53:04] >> Thank you. 32.

[53:05] » Thank you. 32.

[53:05] >> Pass. 32.

[53:06] » Pass. 32.

[53:06] >> The rare split vote.

[53:09] » The rare split vote.

[53:09] >> I I I don't like that, but it is what it

[53:11] » I I I don't like that, but it is what it

[53:11] is.

[53:12] >> Well, that's uh I appreciate the

[53:15] » Well, that's uh I appreciate the

[53:15] contractors being here locally.

[53:17] >> So, thank you for your interest, and I

[53:19] » So, thank you for your interest, and I

[53:19] hope that you continue to [snorts]

[53:22] >> submit bids.

[53:23] » submit bids.

[53:23] >> Yeah.

[53:23] » Yeah.

[53:23] >> Thank you.

[53:23] » Thank you.

[53:24] >> Thanks for coming in.

[53:27] » Thanks for coming in.

[53:27] All

[53:30] right. Where are we? The

[53:36] » This is the uh Kora Constructors,

[53:39] Armando 8. Good morning.

[53:42] >> Good morning, President Pow, members of

[53:43] » Good morning, President Pow, members of

[53:43] the board, audience, and fellow staff.

[53:46] Uh my name for the record is Armando

[53:48] Rodriguez with the engineering

[53:49] department. Uh the purpose of this borch

[53:51] action item is to award a construction

[53:53] contract to core constructors as the

[53:56] lowest responsible and responsive bid. I

[53:59] got nervous saying that right now.

[54:01] >> Yeah, those words matter.

[54:02] » Yeah, those words matter.

[54:02] >> Yes. Amount of 1,949,949

[54:07] by authorizing general manager to secure

[54:09] a contract for the construction of the

[54:11] station 5512

[54:13] um and lift station 8107

[54:16] upgrade project specifications 2024-12.

[54:19] We're also seeking soft cost um needed

[54:22] during the construction um and for CD

[54:26] project management 30 about 30,000

[54:29] engineering support services during

[54:31] construction about 127,000 and then so

[54:34] compaction testing with RMA group of

[54:36] about 20,000 and then we also had to pay

[54:39] for our ongoing inspection of the

[54:41] project of about 115,000. So the total

[54:43] request or in a contingency of about

[54:45] 98,000. Uh so the total request today is

[54:48] $2,33644.

[54:53] Um what are we doing here? What what is

[54:56] it that we're trying to do with lift

[54:57] station 5512 which is right next to the

[54:59] Home Depot at Jefferson Highway 111. And

[55:02] also what are we doing here with lift

[55:03] station 8107 which is above Avenue 402nd

[55:06] just south of Shadow Hills uh Golf Club.

[55:09] Well, we we need reinvestment uh of

[55:12] these two lift stations. Uh some of the

[55:14] order control and the liner are

[55:17] dilapitated. They're not actually

[55:19] functioning. And so we have to reinvest.

[55:21] These are infrastructure. These two

[55:23] infrastructure are more than 16 years

[55:25] old. And so we just need to be able to

[55:27] reestablish uh the resilency and

[55:30] reliability of both the um chemical

[55:34] order treatment and the wet well. The

[55:38] great thing as we do this uh we have an

[55:40] opportunity here to move away from

[55:42] chemical odor control. Um there is a

[55:45] better process more efficient process

[55:47] and that is to do biological treatment

[55:48] control and I think this is a great

[55:51] opportunity now that it has dilapitated

[55:53] and it's aged out it's time to improve

[55:55] it. Um the project was duly advertised

[55:59] on November 18th uh through planet bids.

[56:02] The junior's estimate was 2.1 million.

[56:06] And on December 18th

[56:09] uh we received a total of four bids

[56:11] ranging of 1.9 million to about 2.9

[56:14] million. There's about a million dollar

[56:16] spread on those four bids. Uh stuff has

[56:19] staff has reviewed uh the lowest bidder

[56:23] core constructions. We have looked at

[56:25] their bid amount. Uh we found no

[56:27] material mistakes. Um or and uh so we're

[56:31] therefore recommending the construction

[56:33] to contract to core construction in that

[56:36] amount of $1,949.

[56:40] Um the project um it is budgeted within

[56:43] sanitation fiscal year budget of $2.1

[56:46] million using PGO funding. We estimate

[56:50] that about 1.2 2 million will be spent

[56:51] this year and then the rest the other

[56:54] 1.2 million will be spent uh for next

[56:56] fiscal year budget for next fiscal year.

[56:59] I'll pause here to see if there's any

[57:01] questions associated with this project

[57:02] that I might might answer.

[57:04] >> Thank you.

[57:10] » Make a motion to approve u another local

[57:14] contractor.

[57:15] >> Local contractor. Yes.

[57:16] » Local contractor. Yes.

[57:16] >> Yeah. So, uh, happy one made it through.

[57:19] » Yeah. So, uh, happy one made it through.

[57:19] But, uh, yeah, they're they're great to

[57:21] work with. Um,

[57:23] good good presentation.

[57:25] >> Thank you.

[57:28] » Yes,

[57:29] >> that was a motion to approve. Is there a

[57:31] » that was a motion to approve. Is there a

[57:31] second?

[57:32] >> I'll second.

[57:33] » I'll second.

[57:33] >> Second. Any discussion?

[57:37] » Second. Any discussion?

[57:37] All of Oh, roll call, please.

[57:39] >> President Pal.

[57:41] » President Pal.

[57:41] >> I.

[57:41] » I.

[57:41] >> Vice President Estrada.

[57:43] » Vice President Estrada.

[57:43] >> Yes.

[57:43] » Yes.

[57:43] >> Director Biano.

[57:44] » Director Biano.

[57:44] >> Hi.

[57:44] » Hi.

[57:44] >> Director Ailar.

[57:46] » Director Ailar.

[57:46] >> Yes. [snorts] and director Nelson.

[57:47] » Yes. [snorts] and director Nelson.

[57:47] >> Hi.

[57:48] » Hi.

[57:48] >> Thank you. 50.

[57:49] » Thank you. 50.

[57:49] >> That's 50. Thanks, Armando. On 8C, I

[57:52] » That's 50. Thanks, Armando. On 8C, I

[57:52] have a a financial interest in this item

[57:55] and we'll be recusing and leaving the

[57:57] room. So, Vice President Estrada, it's

[58:00] all yours.

[58:01] >> All right. Interesting project.

[58:03] » All right. Interesting project.

[58:04] >> Yes. Good morning, um, President Pal,

[58:07] » Yes. Good morning, um, President Pal,

[58:07] members of the board. Um, this morning,

[58:09] I'm requesting the board's approval of

[58:11] the water supply assessment for the

[58:13] ranch at Madison project.

[58:18] Here's a map of do uh project location.

[58:21] It is located

[58:23] um on Monroe Street and Jackson from

[58:26] west to east and between avenues 52nd

[58:29] and 54th north to south. Um the project

[58:33] comprises

[58:35] actually let me see here's the project

[58:36] plan and this is a very conceptual plan

[58:39] here that's proposing 85 uh residential

[58:44] units of low density and medium density.

[58:47] Uh a private short golf course and a

[58:50] clubhouse that will feature dining

[58:52] facilities and spaces for events and

[58:54] various sports and leisure amenities. Um

[58:58] and the breakdown are shown here. Um

[59:02] residential building areas comprised of

[59:04] 44,73

[59:07] uh square feet

[59:09] >> acres

[59:11] » acres

[59:11] 173.8 8 acres, not square feet.

[59:15] >> Oh, um, yeah, I was mentioning the

[59:17] » Oh, um, yeah, I was mentioning the

[59:17] non-residential building area, the 44,00

[59:20] >> Okay.

[59:20] » Okay.

[59:20] >> Uh, 73 square ft and land areas of

[59:24] » Uh, 73 square ft and land areas of

[59:24] course is about 174 acres.

[59:29] Uh, projected total demand of this

[59:32] project is 66 about 669 acre feet per

[59:36] year. That's equivalent to 3.84 acre

[59:40] feet per acre. Um indoor residential

[59:43] demand is 10.47 acre feet per year in

[59:47] the indoor commercial and industrial

[59:49] demand is 18.42

[59:52] acre feet per year and the outdoor

[59:53] irrigation demand is 31.93

[59:56] acre feet per year. The outdoor

[59:59] recreation demand is 607.85

[1:00:04] acre feet per year and that's the bulk

[1:00:05] of the uh projected water demand of the

[1:00:08] project.

[1:00:11] Um with that I would stop here for any

[1:00:13] questions or comments.

[1:00:15] >> Is the water use on the golf course how

[1:00:17] » Is the water use on the golf course how

[1:00:17] does that compare to golf courses that

[1:00:19] we have currently? So this is the factor

[1:00:22] that we use for project and as you know

[1:00:24] we have certain uh target towards um the

[1:00:29] incoming year on regulation of outdoor

[1:00:32] usage and um this is the factor that we

[1:00:36] use that's comparable to if not stricter

[1:00:40] than the current uh out uses. So, we

[1:00:43] look at the aggregate use of the

[1:00:45] project, not the specific parts of the

[1:00:47] project. And I think that's kind of

[1:00:48] where Director Biano was going is, do we

[1:00:51] have a way to compare the use on the

[1:00:53] golf course to other golf courses? If

[1:00:56] Olivia was here, she'd probably be able

[1:00:58] to do that off the top of her head.

[1:00:59] >> Yeah.

[1:01:00] » Yeah.

[1:01:00] >> Yeah. We'll take [laughter] a look at

[1:01:01] » Yeah. We'll take [laughter] a look at

[1:01:01] that and we'll get back to you. You

[1:01:04] >> Yeah, I I have a question in kind of

[1:01:05] » Yeah, I I have a question in kind of

[1:01:05] related to that. I I think the 3.84 is a

[1:01:09] is a metric that is a is a better

[1:01:11] metric. uh from a project by project uh

[1:01:17] uh analysis rather than the 660

[1:01:22] 69 acre feet on the project. I mean I'm

[1:01:24] looking through all the other WSAs and

[1:01:27] um you know there's some at you know

[1:01:28] 5,000 uh acre feet. Um but to me it's

[1:01:34] kind assessment should be u you know the

[1:01:38] aggregate of the project and and so I

[1:01:41] look at the 3.8 84. And to me, that

[1:01:44] rings rather high in terms of what some

[1:01:47] of the others that we've seen uh come

[1:01:50] through. And although your list doesn't

[1:01:52] have the um per foot, which I I would

[1:01:56] like to get at some point, um but it

[1:01:59] just seems high to me and and I, you

[1:02:01] know, so that begs the question, is the

[1:02:03] golf course, you know, significantly

[1:02:06] impacting this whole project uh in

[1:02:08] there? And you know, I I'm struggling

[1:02:10] with that that amount. I thought our

[1:02:12] ordinances would bring the member in in

[1:02:16] the in the twos rather than the threes.

[1:02:19] So,

[1:02:21] I guess I'm, you know, I look at this

[1:02:23] project and I'm thinking, wow, it's

[1:02:25] pretty high water use.

[1:02:28] >> You um sometimes report the

[1:02:32] » You um sometimes report the

[1:02:32] demand uh as a percentage of the

[1:02:35] >> the plan increases. Yeah, you

[1:02:38] » the plan increases. Yeah, you

[1:02:38] >> that's the project is accounts for about

[1:02:41] » that's the project is accounts for about

[1:02:41] 1.34 of the total plan increases. And

[1:02:44] you look at the attachment three, we

[1:02:46] have all the projects listed. And what

[1:02:48] is the p the percentage so far um of our

[1:02:53] total uh projected water use by 2045.

[1:02:57] And if this project is approved, we're

[1:02:59] at 39% of the projected uh water use.

[1:03:03] >> Okay, that's a that's a very nice um

[1:03:05] » Okay, that's a that's a very nice um

[1:03:06] >> Yes. Nice table.

[1:03:07] » Yes. Nice table.

[1:03:07] >> You all were curious. Oh, we keep

[1:03:09] » You all were curious. Oh, we keep

[1:03:09] approving this WSA, but where where are

[1:03:11] we on the percentage? Have we exceeded

[1:03:14] that amount?

[1:03:15] >> So, we have a projection that takes us

[1:03:17] » So, we have a projection that takes us

[1:03:17] to 2045.

[1:03:18] >> Yes. And right now, with all the

[1:03:21] » Yes. And right now, with all the

[1:03:21] projects approved, we're at 39%.

[1:03:24] >> Is that projected demand?

[1:03:26] » Is that projected demand?

[1:03:26] >> So, that Thank you for this um table

[1:03:29] » So, that Thank you for this um table

[1:03:29] here.

[1:03:30] >> Of course, staff will continue to update

[1:03:32] » Of course, staff will continue to update

[1:03:32] this table as we bring new WSAs for us

[1:03:35] for your approval. You can see what it

[1:03:37] is.

[1:03:38] >> That's what that is. Yeah,

[1:03:40] » That's what that is. Yeah,

[1:03:40] that's currently

[1:03:43] I I was just a little concerned because

[1:03:44] that, you know, sitting on the golf and

[1:03:47] water task force, there's a lot of golf

[1:03:48] courses that are spending a lot of money

[1:03:50] uh ripping out turf to try and at least

[1:03:53] have some kind of desert landscape um

[1:03:57] incorporated into their golf course. And

[1:04:00] I didn't know how this compares to other

[1:04:03] golf courses. Is it green grass from one

[1:04:06] side or the other? Although that's not

[1:04:07] our I mean that's not where this board

[1:04:10] is elected to do is is decide that we

[1:04:15] all we decide is do you meet our

[1:04:17] criteria and

[1:04:18] >> obviously this meets our criteria or you

[1:04:20] » obviously this meets our criteria or you

[1:04:20] wouldn't be here.

[1:04:21] >> Right. And they also in included a plant

[1:04:23] » Right. And they also in included a plant

[1:04:24] pallet that's um desert friendly as well

[1:04:27] in the WSA.

[1:04:29] >> Yeah. So just from the chart you have up

[1:04:31] » Yeah. So just from the chart you have up

[1:04:31] here, it's 5.32

[1:04:33] acre feet per acre on the golf on the

[1:04:36] golf course.

[1:04:38] >> And I don't know how that compares

[1:04:39] » And I don't know how that compares

[1:04:39] >> Yeah.

[1:04:40] » Yeah.

[1:04:40] >> Yeah.

[1:04:40] » Yeah.

[1:04:40] >> Yeah.

[1:04:40] » Yeah.

[1:04:40] >> to others like

[1:04:41] » to others like

[1:04:41] >> to others. Yeah.

[1:04:42] » to others. Yeah.

[1:04:42] >> Yeah. I don't know if that's high or

[1:04:44] » Yeah. I don't know if that's high or

[1:04:44] >> low or

[1:04:45] » low or

[1:04:45] >> remember we had we had that chart they

[1:04:47] » remember we had we had that chart they

[1:04:47] gave us also at the

[1:04:49] >> Yeah. They broke down the the um acre

[1:04:53] » Yeah. They broke down the the um acre

[1:04:53] feet per acre of each golf course. I

[1:04:55] think is that what they're working on

[1:04:56] too? Yeah, they're mapping

[1:04:58] >> Jim.

[1:04:59] » Jim.

[1:05:00] >> Yes, I'm trying to pull up uh the last

[1:05:03] » Yes, I'm trying to pull up uh the last

[1:05:03] >> sub that um

[1:05:06] » sub that um

[1:05:06] >> yeah, on this project I mean the the

[1:05:08] » yeah, on this project I mean the the

[1:05:08] Gulf area um is 43% of the total project

[1:05:13] which so that 5.3 has a greater impact

[1:05:15] on on the total project.

[1:05:20] » [snorts]

[1:05:21] >> She doesn't have this was uh

[1:05:25] » She doesn't have this was uh

[1:05:26] Olivia's last for 2025.

[1:05:29] So I don't have the one for 20, but this

[1:05:31] is the acre foot per course and this is

[1:05:32] the acre foot per hole. So it doesn't

[1:05:36] >> So So Jim, you might want to mention

[1:05:38] » So So Jim, you might want to mention

[1:05:38] whatever numbers you're looking at.

[1:05:40] Well, it's a table and it's got the ETO

[1:05:43] um the evapo transpiration and golf

[1:05:46] course water use for various months of

[1:05:50] 2025.

[1:05:51] Um this is just the one I pulled up. It

[1:05:53] doesn't have November, December

[1:05:55] >> acre feet per you don't know the acres.

[1:05:59] » acre feet per you don't know the acres.

[1:05:59] >> Yeah,

[1:06:00] » Yeah,

[1:06:00] >> but how big is a course typically like?

[1:06:02] » but how big is a course typically like?

[1:06:02] >> So this would be 2024 because this year

[1:06:04] » So this would be 2024 because this year

[1:06:04] is not finished, right? Total. So

[1:06:07] >> the total acre foot for course, she

[1:06:09] » the total acre foot for course, she

[1:06:09] doesn't have a a total there or it is

[1:06:12] acre foot

[1:06:13] >> peru.

[1:06:16] » Yeah. She doesn't have the acreage of

[1:06:18] the course.

[1:06:19] >> Yeah.

[1:06:21] » Yeah.

[1:06:21] >> Yeah. To compare course.

[1:06:23] » Yeah. To compare course.

[1:06:23] >> So not helpful at all.

[1:06:25] » So not helpful at all.

[1:06:25] >> No.

[1:06:26] » No.

[1:06:26] >> No. [laughter]

[1:06:27] » No. [laughter]

[1:06:28] >> But it was a good try though.

[1:06:30] » But it was a good try though.

[1:06:30] >> If she was here, she would

[1:06:32] » If she was here, she would

[1:06:32] >> she would not.

[1:06:32] » she would not.

[1:06:32] >> Yeah. Well, doc staff can definitely put

[1:06:34] » Yeah. Well, doc staff can definitely put

[1:06:34] something like this together for the

[1:06:36] future WSA approval so that you could

[1:06:39] see um how the project compares.

[1:06:43] >> All right. Uh there not any further

[1:06:45] » All right. Uh there not any further

[1:06:45] comments, questions. Is there a motion

[1:06:47] to approve?

[1:06:57] Asking for a motion.

[1:07:00] I think there might still be some

[1:07:04] reviews and thoughts.

[1:07:10] » I'm just concerned about the overall

[1:07:12] water use on it. Um I mean I know we

[1:07:14] don't we don't have I I think we have

[1:07:17] discretion on projects uh in terms of

[1:07:20] overall water use. Um I think this one's

[1:07:23] high.

[1:07:26] » Yeah, we have folks from the project

[1:07:29] that are here to answer questions you

[1:07:30] may have as well.

[1:07:34] I got something. I don't know why it's

[1:07:36] backwards. Golf course water use in acre

[1:07:40] feet, but it's again not per acre. So, I

[1:07:43] guess that doesn't help either.

[1:07:48] I

[1:07:48] >> think we're getting somebody on the line

[1:07:49] » think we're getting somebody on the line

[1:07:49] from the project team.

[1:07:53] >> We do have Frank on the line. Frank, if

[1:07:55] » We do have Frank on the line. Frank, if

[1:07:55] you'd like to unmute yourself, if you

[1:07:57] have any information you'd like to add

[1:07:58] or make yourself available for any

[1:07:59] questions to the board, you can do so at

[1:08:01] this time.

[1:08:03] >> Hi. Yes. Can you guys hear me? Okay.

[1:08:05] » Hi. Yes. Can you guys hear me? Okay.

[1:08:05] This is Frank Cahill with RTL.

[1:08:08] >> Yes, we can hear you.

[1:08:10] » Yes, we can hear you.

[1:08:10] >> Yeah. Uh, I'm afraid I I I probably

[1:08:13] » Yeah. Uh, I'm afraid I I I probably

[1:08:13] can't answer as it were uh the

[1:08:16] comparison to other golf courses, but I

[1:08:18] I've um I could just reiterate that the

[1:08:21] the amount of the increase here is about

[1:08:24] 1% and and having um in the WSA it does

[1:08:29] uh clearly go through um the the the

[1:08:33] potential for future dry years, a single

[1:08:36] dry year and then five dry years over

[1:08:38] the next 20 year period up to 2045.

[1:08:41] And it kind of uh it goes through and it

[1:08:43] explains how if any of those uh dry

[1:08:46] years were to happen uh how CVWD can

[1:08:49] still produce the water um uh for this

[1:08:52] golf course irrigation. And you you guys

[1:08:55] are probably very familiar with this

[1:08:56] from from previous WSAs, but um

[1:08:59] basically I think the bottom line on the

[1:09:01] WSA was that um CVWD has the the the

[1:09:06] ability to to pump from the groundwater

[1:09:08] basin. um if any of those um dry years

[1:09:13] do happen and the overall impact of this

[1:09:16] particular project is about 1% of the

[1:09:18] increase. I think it's uh one and a

[1:09:20] half% of the increase between now and

[1:09:22] then. So that's all I could comment on.

[1:09:25] I I I don't know the the actual um acre

[1:09:28] feet per acre of other projects in the

[1:09:30] locality to compare to. Do do do do do

[1:09:33] do do do do do do do do do do do do do

[1:09:33] do do do do do we know um it is this

[1:09:36] actively farmed and do we know the

[1:09:37] comparison of the current water demand

[1:09:41] if this is being irrigated um in

[1:09:44] comparison to the projected water demand

[1:09:45] on this project

[1:09:47] >> it's going to be lower no matter what

[1:09:49] » it's going to be lower no matter what

[1:09:49] >> it's going to be lower no matter what.

[1:09:51] » it's going to be lower no matter what.

[1:09:51] >> Yeah.

[1:09:53] » Yeah.

[1:09:53] >> So I that's a good thing right?

[1:09:55] » So I that's a good thing right?

[1:09:55] >> Yeah.

[1:09:59] » I just don't know if we should

[1:10:02] just the we should look at

[1:10:04] >> what if if we table this does it have

[1:10:07] » what if if we table this does it have

[1:10:07] any sort of impact on your um on any of

[1:10:10] your other approvals with with the

[1:10:11] county or or does it have any sort of

[1:10:13] impact on that?

[1:10:16] >> Uh I think John is in the audience

[1:10:18] » Uh I think John is in the audience

[1:10:18] there. He could probably uh comment on

[1:10:20] that better but but yes I think we were

[1:10:22] uh hoping to get this done quickly so

[1:10:24] that we can move forward with the other

[1:10:27] approvals. But uh maybe John could

[1:10:29] comment on that.

[1:10:31] Hi John, would you please come up if you

[1:10:33] could answer that question? This is this

[1:10:35] completely independent of the county

[1:10:37] process or do you need this checked off

[1:10:39] or

[1:10:40] >> Yeah, this is

[1:10:41] » Yeah, this is

[1:10:41] >> part of

[1:10:41] » part of

[1:10:41] >> if we can have you come up to the podium

[1:10:43] » if we can have you come up to the podium

[1:10:43] please. You can come up to this podium

[1:10:44] as well.

[1:10:44] >> The water supply assessment is part of

[1:10:46] » The water supply assessment is part of

[1:10:46] their squa their environmental document.

[1:10:49] >> Um good morning John Gamlin with

[1:10:51] » Um good morning John Gamlin with

[1:10:51] Discovery Land Company. Um I do have if

[1:10:54] you I'm sorry I do have the blue card if

[1:10:57] you need it.

[1:10:57] >> I'll take that after.

[1:10:58] » I'll take that after.

[1:10:58] >> Okay. Um I I am a senior vice president

[1:11:02] » Okay. Um I I am a senior vice president

[1:11:02] of development for Discovery and so yes

[1:11:06] this is part of our environmental

[1:11:09] process. We're in the midst of uh it's

[1:11:11] imminent actually. We're submitting our

[1:11:13] administrative draft EIR to the county

[1:11:16] this week. Um so that will be in public

[1:11:19] circulation probably within we hope

[1:11:22] within six weeks. and the WSA is a uh

[1:11:26] requirement of the EIR. So, the

[1:11:29] information is in the EIR.

[1:11:31] Um

[1:11:33] I, you know, I'm sure we can probably

[1:11:36] resolve some of the the questions um

[1:11:39] with the engineer if you know if the if

[1:11:41] the board isn't able to approve this

[1:11:43] today. I I think that my long experience

[1:11:46] in the valley, I think this golf course

[1:11:47] is is no different than any other golf

[1:11:50] course uh approved in the current um

[1:11:53] setting in terms of the regulation and

[1:11:56] it's water demand. I know there are

[1:11:57] limitations on turf. I think it adheres

[1:12:00] to all the the ordinance 1302

[1:12:02] requirements.

[1:12:03] Um and then you know it is an aid plant

[1:12:06] pallet. So, um, and it does intend to

[1:12:10] use non-politable water sources that's

[1:12:12] on the property today. A question was

[1:12:14] asked about farming. Historically,

[1:12:17] uh, of the 174 acres of the project

[1:12:20] site, all but uh, 19 acres has been

[1:12:24] farmed in recent times. And in fact, 100

[1:12:26] acres have been in crops as recently as

[1:12:29] a year ago. So there is still active

[1:12:32] farming under leaseolds that um we have

[1:12:35] in place on the property. There's a 19

[1:12:38] acre date grove and about 100 acres

[1:12:40] that's in

[1:12:42] um vegetable production. There is 40

[1:12:44] acres that was followed that was in

[1:12:46] vegetable production a year or two ago.

[1:12:50] But um I you know I mean our my intent

[1:12:53] and our our intent is always to design a

[1:12:54] very water efficient project

[1:12:57] um to the extent of you know how we're

[1:13:00] using water the type of water we're

[1:13:01] using whether it's you know portable or

[1:13:03] non-potable water sources and I think to

[1:13:05] the greatest extent possible our intent

[1:13:07] is to use uh non-potable water sources

[1:13:10] including canal water which is available

[1:13:12] to the site today.

[1:13:16] >> Thank you for that. I I have to the

[1:13:18] » Thank you for that. I I have to the

[1:13:18] point to the point that you made about

[1:13:20] the project meets all the regulations

[1:13:23] related to water efficiency and

[1:13:27] >> I guess that's a question for staff. Um

[1:13:31] » I guess that's a question for staff. Um

[1:13:31] when we talk about water efficiency does

[1:13:34] it does it incorporate all water use

[1:13:36] including non-potable um and domestic or

[1:13:40] is it only uh a domestic

[1:13:43] >> Say that again. I'm sorry.

[1:13:45] » Say that again. I'm sorry.

[1:13:46] So our regulations for water efficiency

[1:13:49] >> are they only for domestic or are they

[1:13:50] » are they only for domestic or are they

[1:13:50] all for all water use

[1:13:52] >> for all water use and we look at indoors

[1:13:55] » for all water use and we look at indoors

[1:13:55] and out as well as outdoors.

[1:13:58] >> So although this is using the acre acre

[1:14:02] » So although this is using the acre acre

[1:14:02] feet per acre it met all those

[1:14:05] regulations otherwise it would have been

[1:14:07] denied.

[1:14:07] >> Correct. Correct. And to get back to

[1:14:09] » Correct. Correct. And to get back to

[1:14:09] your question about how does this golf

[1:14:12] course proposed golf course compares to

[1:14:14] the curtain golf courses and we tracked

[1:14:16] down Olivia's um presentation to the

[1:14:19] water count uh water counts academy um

[1:14:22] and her average of uh 955 acre feet per

[1:14:26] year um on a golf course on larger cores

[1:14:29] it's about 1,400 acre feet per year.

[1:14:33] So to compare to this project, the

[1:14:36] demand here is 67 below the average.

[1:14:40] >> Yeah, it's hard because I think this is

[1:14:41] » Yeah, it's hard because I think this is

[1:14:41] a shorter this is not a full 18, right?

[1:14:45] >> Short course.

[1:14:48] » Short course.

[1:14:48] I just I just um you know this I've been

[1:14:52] kind of opposed to kind of restrictions

[1:14:54] on any of these things but times are

[1:14:56] changing a little bit and um I just want

[1:14:58] to make sure that we're not we're not

[1:15:00] approving something that's going to come

[1:15:02] back and

[1:15:02] >> I don't think it is

[1:15:05] » I don't think it is

[1:15:05] I don't think it is. It's met all it's

[1:15:06] met all our regulations.

[1:15:08] >> Yeah. If I may just real briefly just to

[1:15:10] » Yeah. If I may just real briefly just to

[1:15:10] to remind the board this is a WSA to

[1:15:13] determine whether there are uh

[1:15:15] sufficient water supplies during normal

[1:15:17] single dry and multi dry multiple dry

[1:15:19] years over a 20-year projection to meet

[1:15:22] the projected demands. This is not a

[1:15:24] commitment to water service. This is

[1:15:27] part of a squa uh process being done by

[1:15:30] the land use agency and the applicant

[1:15:32] much like a traffic report or air

[1:15:34] quality or things of that nature. It's

[1:15:36] not a commitment to service. It is not

[1:15:39] it does not overrule the use

[1:15:42] requirements that this board and this

[1:15:44] district has now or implements prior to

[1:15:47] this actually being developed. So it

[1:15:50] doesn't limit or overrule

[1:15:53] the use limitations that apply at CBWD,

[1:15:56] nor is it even a commitment to serve

[1:15:58] water. It's part of the secret process

[1:16:00] at the applicants level. It's not

[1:16:02] binding on this board, nor does it

[1:16:05] change today or at any time what the

[1:16:08] water used to restrictions and

[1:16:09] conservation measures are in effect

[1:16:11] today or may be in effect at the time

[1:16:14] they develop the property.

[1:16:16] >> I I I get what you're saying, Jeff, but

[1:16:18] » I I I get what you're saying, Jeff, but

[1:16:18] listen, [clears throat] that that is

[1:16:19] that that wouldn't be a nice thing to

[1:16:20] do. I mean, once we approve this, we're

[1:16:22] basically telling the project, you're

[1:16:24] good to go. I mean, for us to come back

[1:16:26] and say, you know what, things have

[1:16:28] changed. We're going to take that away.

[1:16:30] I wouldn't want to do that. We're we're

[1:16:32] so far away from our projected water

[1:16:34] demand that this looks into like 20 20

[1:16:37] years ahead. We're at we're at 39%.

[1:16:40] >> We I mean I think I' I'd be more in

[1:16:42] » We I mean I think I' I'd be more in

[1:16:42] agreement with trying to be more careful

[1:16:44] if we were like at 90% and we were

[1:16:48] reaching our kind of our our threshold,

[1:16:51] but we're we're we're so far we're so

[1:16:53] far away from from it. And I mean this

[1:16:55] represents 1 point something%

[1:16:57] of our projected demand.

[1:16:59] I was just more worried about the look.

[1:17:02] >> Jeff, when does when does u the right to

[1:17:06] » Jeff, when does when does u the right to

[1:17:06] serve become verifiable and a promise? I

[1:17:09] mean, it's not during this process. It's

[1:17:11] a process. Is it the verification

[1:17:14] process that we have?

[1:17:15] >> No, it's it's whatever the application

[1:17:17] » No, it's it's whatever the application

[1:17:17] process is to large developments to seek

[1:17:20] service. I that

[1:17:21] >> service application

[1:17:22] » service application

[1:17:22] >> be a water service application process

[1:17:24] » be a water service application process

[1:17:24] >> agreement.

[1:17:25] » agreement.

[1:17:25] >> Yeah. So when they come forward with

[1:17:27] » Yeah. So when they come forward with

[1:17:27] plans and say we're going to build this

[1:17:28] and this is where we're going to put in

[1:17:30] then the you know staff says well this

[1:17:33] is how we need to have it built. This is

[1:17:35] how much water you can use. This is

[1:17:37] where the water goes. This is the water

[1:17:39] source.

[1:17:40] >> So that's when the uh the developers

[1:17:42] » So that's when the uh the developers

[1:17:42] plans meet the district's ordinance at

[1:17:46] that point.

[1:17:46] >> Correct.

[1:17:47] » Correct.

[1:17:47] >> Right.

[1:17:47] » Right.

[1:17:47] >> Which we're not even to the point of

[1:17:49] » Which we're not even to the point of

[1:17:49] them applying for service.

[1:17:50] >> Right. Right.

[1:17:53] » Right. Right.

[1:17:53] And um Joanne, is our uh

[1:17:58] under our ordinance, do we have an

[1:18:00] overall acre feet per acre on that or is

[1:18:03] it just depending on the type of

[1:18:05] development?

[1:18:07] >> It's the type of development

[1:18:09] » It's the type of development

[1:18:09] >> and of course like Jeff pointed out is

[1:18:12] » and of course like Jeff pointed out is

[1:18:12] that as our ordinance um get amended

[1:18:16] then of course we would be more

[1:18:18] conservative based on that ordinance.

[1:18:22] Okay. Well, I mean, I I'll make a motion

[1:18:25] to approve the water supply assessment

[1:18:28] under the under the thoughts that, you

[1:18:31] know, times are changing and um uh I u

[1:18:35] and we are getting drier and this

[1:18:37] nonpotable water use to me means a fair

[1:18:41] amount of Colorado River water which is

[1:18:43] at risk and um and recycled water which

[1:18:47] is developing. So um and we are

[1:18:51] underneath our overall u water supply uh

[1:18:55] outlooks but um I would say you know I'm

[1:18:59] making the motion uh with great concerns

[1:19:01] about the overall acre feet per acre in

[1:19:05] this project and that as we go forward

[1:19:08] and and approve these or or deny them

[1:19:12] that uh acre feet per acre is a a metric

[1:19:15] that is pretty important when we look at

[1:19:18] overall supply. So, I'll make the motion

[1:19:20] to

[1:19:20] >> I'll second.

[1:19:21] » I'll second.

[1:19:21] >> So, we got a motion, a second, and I and

[1:19:23] » So, we got a motion, a second, and I and

[1:19:23] I'll say if you could somebody from

[1:19:25] staff could or share the that table,

[1:19:27] Jim, so that we can gauge on how this

[1:19:30] compares to other uh golf courses.

[1:19:33] >> Hi, sir.

[1:19:33] » Hi, sir.

[1:19:34] >> That that'd be helpful. And uh

[1:19:35] » That that'd be helpful. And uh

[1:19:35] >> we'll do

[1:19:36] » we'll do

[1:19:36] >> uh so there's a a motion, a second u we

[1:19:39] » uh so there's a a motion, a second u we

[1:19:39] have roll call, please. Uh Director

[1:19:41] Agar, you have any comments?

[1:19:43] >> I I do not. Thank you.

[1:19:45] » I I do not. Thank you.

[1:19:45] >> Okay, we we can have a roll call.

[1:19:47] » Okay, we we can have a roll call.

[1:19:47] >> Okay. Vice President Estrada.

[1:19:49] » Okay. Vice President Estrada.

[1:19:50] >> Yes.

[1:19:51] » Yes.

[1:19:51] >> Director Aguular.

[1:19:52] » Director Aguular.

[1:19:52] >> Yes.

[1:19:53] » Yes.

[1:19:53] >> Director Biano.

[1:19:54] » Director Biano.

[1:19:54] >> Yes.

[1:19:55] » Yes.

[1:19:55] >> Director Nelson.

[1:19:55] » Director Nelson.

[1:19:56] >> Hi.

[1:19:56] » Hi.

[1:19:56] >> Motion pass.

[1:19:57] » Motion pass.

[1:19:57] >> Thank you.

[1:19:59] » Thank you.

[1:19:59] >> And um

[1:20:00] » And um

[1:20:00] >> I think we could get John.

[1:20:04] » I think we could get John.

[1:20:04] >> You want to grab John?

[1:20:06] » You want to grab John?

[1:20:06] >> Okay.

[1:20:07] » Okay.

[1:20:07] >> Standing there waiting.

[1:20:16] » Made it. Should put a surf

[1:20:22] less water.

[1:20:23] >> I know. [clears throat]

[1:20:28] Okay.

[1:20:32] On to 9A.

[1:20:35] We did have the Was it just the one that

[1:20:38] came in

[1:20:40] >> for this on C?

[1:20:41] » for this on C?

[1:20:41] >> I can't get my mic. Yes, that came in uh

[1:20:43] » I can't get my mic. Yes, that came in uh

[1:20:43] yesterday evening. So, I went ahead and

[1:20:46] added that on. It was distributed to the

[1:20:48] board and added to the blog.

[1:20:50] >> All right. Thank you.

[1:20:52] » All right. Thank you.

[1:20:52] Board comments and request for future

[1:20:54] agenda items. General board comments.

[1:20:58] Director Nelson.

[1:21:00] >> Um, no, not too much. Just um, you know,

[1:21:03] » Um, no, not too much. Just um, you know,

[1:21:03] California has been declared drought

[1:21:05] free. How about that? Drought free. Um

[1:21:08] uh and we're and I guess Orville is

[1:21:11] releasing flood supplies uh with uh no

[1:21:15] opportunity to collect those as exports

[1:21:17] out of the Delta. So um I guess all is

[1:21:21] good in the world. Um

[1:21:24] um although Colorado River systems at uh

[1:21:28] 80 no 66% of their snow pack and as you

[1:21:32] recall we had 100% uh snowpack with

[1:21:36] about a 75% runoff. So uh this is off to

[1:21:40] our driest year on the Colorado River

[1:21:44] basin in quite a number of years if not

[1:21:47] in all history. So, um, should be

[1:21:50] interesting, uh, how it affects the

[1:21:52] negotiations going forward. Right now,

[1:21:55] that's all I have.

[1:21:58] >> Um, Director Aguilar,

[1:22:02] » Um, Director Aguilar,

[1:22:02] >> no, John, no comments.

[1:22:03] » no, John, no comments.

[1:22:03] >> Okay, thanks. Vice President Estrada,

[1:22:08] no, no comments.

[1:22:13] I think I'm going to pass also.

[1:22:16] Do we have any requests for future

[1:22:18] agenda items?

[1:22:23] » Hearing none.

[1:22:25] >> On to reports for meetings. We had um

[1:22:28] » On to reports for meetings. We had um

[1:22:28] let's see the December 23rd special

[1:22:30] meeting. Those present were listed here.

[1:22:33] Um January 8th conservation commission.

[1:22:37] Director Biano.

[1:22:39] So this meeting was basically all about

[1:22:43] the burrowing owl. In October 2024, the

[1:22:47] state uh has put a petition out to uh

[1:22:51] designate the western buring owl as

[1:22:53] threatened endangered.

[1:22:56] And uh through our multiecies habitat

[1:23:00] plan uh it was thought that uh in the

[1:23:05] Coachella Valley uh we had zero

[1:23:07] burrowing owls and we needed 15 uh

[1:23:12] groups.

[1:23:13] I'm not sure they kind of explained it

[1:23:15] but I don't know if I could fully

[1:23:17] explain it to you. It's it's a grouping

[1:23:18] of al so 15 groupings. Um, IID

[1:23:22] thankfully uh went out and uh spent $4

[1:23:26] million on a survey uh for the Imperial

[1:23:30] Valley and the Coachella Valley. Uh and

[1:23:34] uh luckily we have 500

[1:23:38] uh of these uh pairs here in the

[1:23:42] Coachella Valley and the Imperial Valley

[1:23:45] has over 7,800.

[1:23:49] So there is some caution and the caution

[1:23:52] is is that sometimes uh the data doesn't

[1:23:55] drive decisions in Sacramento and that

[1:23:59] the word was to get it out to our

[1:24:02] elected to pass the word to uh everyone

[1:24:06] else that this you know this should not

[1:24:10] be a problem here in the Coachella

[1:24:11] Valley and that the Coachella Valley

[1:24:14] from here all the way to the Imperial

[1:24:15] Valley should be carved out of uh this

[1:24:19] uh threatened endangered species. So we

[1:24:22] will see how things go. But I want to

[1:24:25] say thank you to IID for for this. This

[1:24:28] was this was a huge huge undertaking.

[1:24:31] They had you know 80 to 100 people uh in

[1:24:35] the Coachella Valley that uh it took to

[1:24:38] actually go out and and walk uh these

[1:24:40] areas. Uh most of the areas are not in

[1:24:43] the agricultural areas. They're they're

[1:24:46] more uh in the foothills below Desert

[1:24:48] Hot Springs and Thousand Palms and then

[1:24:52] in Palm Springs. So, it was not not an

[1:24:54] easy task. There wasn't a lot of roads

[1:24:57] like they have in Imperial Valley where

[1:25:00] uh you could drive to and find these

[1:25:02] owls. So, which probably a good thing

[1:25:05] that there's not people next to them.

[1:25:08] Anyways, that's my update.

[1:25:11] >> Thank you.

[1:25:13] » Thank you.

[1:25:13] Yeah. Know I need to learn more about

[1:25:14] that buring owl. I have a a lot of owls

[1:25:19] around my house, but not those kinds.

[1:25:22] >> Weren't we going to Didn't we ask for

[1:25:24] » Weren't we going to Didn't we ask for

[1:25:24] like an item to to come to us in close

[1:25:26] session maybe? Um I think at the last

[1:25:29] meeting there was a comment on that. Is

[1:25:31] that being scheduled?

[1:25:35] » Current currently there are a lot of

[1:25:37] moving parts at the state level. our

[1:25:39] representatives working with way crawl

[1:25:41] food office to address this issue. So,

[1:25:44] um we'll bring this back to the board in

[1:25:47] February in close session.

[1:25:49] >> Thank you.

[1:25:49] » Thank you.

[1:25:49] >> Thank you. Thank you.

[1:25:50] » Thank you. Thank you.

[1:25:50] >> Yeah, of course.

[1:25:51] » Yeah, of course.

[1:25:51] >> Okay. The the next meeting was January

[1:25:53] » Okay. The the next meeting was January

[1:25:53] 9th, Colorado River Board, Director

[1:25:56] Nelson. And actually, I made an

[1:25:57] appearance there as well.

[1:26:00] >> Since they're were local, I couldn't

[1:26:02] » Since they're were local, I couldn't

[1:26:02] resist.

[1:26:03] >> No, thanks for coming, John. Appreciate

[1:26:05] » No, thanks for coming, John. Appreciate

[1:26:05] that. Um

[1:26:07] obviously we got our updates on on dry

[1:26:10] hydrarology in the basin and then as uh

[1:26:13] we were meeting the Bureau of

[1:26:15] Reclamation uh released uh the draft

[1:26:19] environmental impact station uh

[1:26:21] statement um EIS for the post2026

[1:26:25] operational guidelines strategies for

[1:26:28] Lake Pal and Lake me. Uh in this

[1:26:30] document there are five alternatives. Uh

[1:26:33] and we discussed those alternatives at

[1:26:35] some length but not in um the degree uh

[1:26:39] that we could because obviously this was

[1:26:42] released during our meeting our CRB

[1:26:44] meeting. Um

[1:26:46] but uh there are five different

[1:26:49] alternatives. Some go by the priority

[1:26:51] system and uh there are other

[1:26:53] alternatives in here that go to 4

[1:26:57] million acre feet of reductions in the

[1:27:00] lower basin. Um as you know the number

[1:27:03] out there is 1.5 million acre feet of

[1:27:06] the entire lower basin offer with Mexico

[1:27:10] included. So 4 million is you know over

[1:27:14] double. So, uh there are some problems

[1:27:17] uh with that obviously and uh uh this

[1:27:20] week uh we learned at the meeting that

[1:27:22] this week uh uh the bureau has

[1:27:25] sequestered the principles in um in Utah

[1:27:31] uh the frigid air of Utah to uh try and

[1:27:34] hammer out some greater details on what

[1:27:37] a consensus u solution might be. Steve

[1:27:40] Abbott is um attending that for on our

[1:27:43] behalf. Uh

[1:27:46] and so we'll see what they come up with.

[1:27:49] Uh the one of the alternatives is a

[1:27:52] hybrid of the upper basin, lower basin

[1:27:55] potential consensus. Uh and there are

[1:27:58] some uh problems with it. Uh but it does

[1:28:01] offer some uh storage opportunities as

[1:28:04] well as dealing with uh current ICS that

[1:28:07] would be beneficial to Metropolitan. Um

[1:28:12] it seems to me like that that

[1:28:14] alternative if uh negotiated between the

[1:28:17] upper and lower basin would be uh

[1:28:20] reasonable if we could get some

[1:28:22] accommodations in that and some

[1:28:24] commitment from the upper basin to

[1:28:26] contribute. it it looks at um

[1:28:30] curtailments of between 1.5 which is on

[1:28:33] the table of the lower basin and 2.1

[1:28:35] million acre feet. Um so another 600,000

[1:28:40] and uh I think the lower basin's

[1:28:42] negotiation strategy has been we'll

[1:28:45] contribute 1.5 and then split something

[1:28:49] addition to that to the upper basin. So

[1:28:50] it seems to me like there are now some

[1:28:52] parameters out there that can be

[1:28:54] discussed and u hopefully agreed upon

[1:28:57] with that group.

[1:28:59] >> Can I ask you a question? So

[1:29:01] » Can I ask you a question? So

[1:29:01] >> is reclamation just putting they're just

[1:29:04] » is reclamation just putting they're just

[1:29:04] worried about lower and upper but they

[1:29:06] they don't have any recommendations on

[1:29:09] how the lower basin would accomplish

[1:29:11] that.

[1:29:12] >> No, it's just the the the big number,

[1:29:14] » No, it's just the the the big number,

[1:29:14] right? So, so, uh,

[1:29:16] >> so there's still, so there's,

[1:29:17] » so there's still, so there's,

[1:29:17] >> so there's still there's still lower

[1:29:19] » so there's still there's still lower

[1:29:19] bas.

[1:29:20] >> So, there's a there's that negotiation

[1:29:21] » So, there's a there's that negotiation

[1:29:22] and then there's another negotiation

[1:29:23] that will come later.

[1:29:24] >> Exactly.

[1:29:25] » Exactly.

[1:29:25] >> Okay.

[1:29:25] » Okay.

[1:29:25] >> Exactly.

[1:29:29] » Thank you. Um, other reports, actually,

[1:29:32] I have [clears throat] two.

[1:29:34] Uh, January 7th, we had the Coachella

[1:29:38] Irrigated Lands Coalition meeting.

[1:29:41] >> Were you on that one?

[1:29:42] » Were you on that one?

[1:29:42] >> I was on that. Peter, Director Nelson

[1:29:44] » I was on that. Peter, Director Nelson

[1:29:44] also

[1:29:46] um

[1:29:48] are really looking for some help from

[1:29:51] Rachel Johnson with the Farm Bureau and

[1:29:53] she's getting up to speed

[1:29:55] >> and I think she's going to be a

[1:29:56] » and I think she's going to be a

[1:29:56] tremendous help for us um to try to get

[1:30:01] things done at a more reasonable cost

[1:30:04] um otherwise there's consultants out

[1:30:06] there that'll do it for a lot more money

[1:30:08] and uh it's turning into a a bit of a

[1:30:11] burden.

[1:30:12] for the uh irrigators.

[1:30:16] Don't know if you had anything else, but

[1:30:18] [clears throat]

[1:30:19] >> that's how I view it. That's how I view

[1:30:20] » that's how I view it. That's how I view

[1:30:20] it. All right. And then actually

[1:30:22] yesterday I had a Desert Valley Builders

[1:30:24] Association

[1:30:26] meeting with our new executive director.

[1:30:28] There was a board meeting and um

[1:30:34] there was talk I think it was true from

[1:30:37] our representative down in Imperial

[1:30:39] Valley that there's a plan for a 10

[1:30:42] billion dollar investment in a data

[1:30:44] center. I'd like to learn more about

[1:30:47] that. 10 billion in Imperial

[1:30:50] >> in Imperial.

[1:30:51] » in Imperial.

[1:30:51] >> Yes.

[1:30:52] » Yes.

[1:30:52] >> There's a lot of protest.

[1:30:53] » There's a lot of protest.

[1:30:53] >> I know there's a lot going on down

[1:30:54] » I know there's a lot going on down

[1:30:54] there. I know. I

[1:30:56] do. Do we get news clips from the

[1:30:58] Imperial Valley Press?

[1:31:00] >> We do.

[1:31:00] » We do.

[1:31:00] >> We do. Huh? I don't know if I

[1:31:02] » We do. Huh? I don't know if I

[1:31:02] >> have time to read all those, but those

[1:31:04] » have time to read all those, but those

[1:31:04] are the ones I'd like to start reading.

[1:31:06] >> I think the developer just sued some of

[1:31:08] » I think the developer just sued some of

[1:31:08] the cities.

[1:31:11] [clears throat and cough]

[1:31:12] >> Anyways, that's

[1:31:15] » Anyways, that's

[1:31:15] apparently they have the power.

[1:31:17] Put it right on one of the transmission

[1:31:19] lines.

[1:31:21] That's all I had. Any other meetings?

[1:31:24] I uh yeah, on January 9th um we uh

[1:31:29] hosted um

[1:31:31] uh the water education for Latino

[1:31:33] leaders group that makes its way down

[1:31:35] here probably for the last

[1:31:38] 10 plus years now. Um

[1:31:41] they spend uh Friday, Saturday and

[1:31:43] Sunday here speaking with um various

[1:31:46] folks. Uh I talked to them on Friday.

[1:31:50] Um Patrick from the SNC Authority talked

[1:31:52] to them Saturday and Monica Deas who

[1:31:54] used to be with Riverside County and

[1:31:56] then USDA and I think now she kind of

[1:31:58] runs her own um

[1:32:01] firm uh spoke to them also on Saturday

[1:32:05] and Director Nelson, you spoke to them

[1:32:06] on Sunday.

[1:32:07] >> Sunday.

[1:32:08] » Sunday.

[1:32:08] >> Uh so uh I'll I'm I'm reporting on the

[1:32:12] » Uh so uh I'll I'm I'm reporting on the

[1:32:12] 9th and the 10th. I was with them on

[1:32:15] Friday.

[1:32:17] um talked about a lot of the things that

[1:32:18] we're doing with um the disadvantaged

[1:32:20] communities and the expansion of water

[1:32:22] and sewer infrastructure into the east

[1:32:24] valley and uh a little bit about the

[1:32:27] salt and sea and then I uh went with

[1:32:30] them uh to the salt and sea in the

[1:32:31] morning uh and spend uh the morning and

[1:32:34] the afternoon with them.

[1:32:37] uh smaller group this year maybe they

[1:32:40] have a total of 13 but only six of them

[1:32:43] I think came down to the region

[1:32:46] >> and then they um they also have another

[1:32:48] » and then they um they also have another

[1:32:48] visit they make to San Diego and then I

[1:32:51] think one to like is it how you

[1:32:53] pronounce it to

[1:32:56] >> Hatchip yeah so they go they go there

[1:32:58] » Hatchip yeah so they go they go there

[1:32:58] too I I've never been to the other

[1:33:01] locations but I'm I'm thinking I might

[1:33:03] go to the San Diego visit it sounds like

[1:33:06] they actually get to see some of the

[1:33:09] Tijuana River. Um I've never seen that

[1:33:12] in person. I hear it's a quite a sight

[1:33:15] to look at that. So, um I think that's

[1:33:17] happening next month, but uh yeah,

[1:33:21] that's two days I spent with them, a

[1:33:23] great group. Uh we do have someone's

[1:33:26] kind of semi-local uh that joined the

[1:33:29] group this this time and that's Martha

[1:33:31] uh Sai. How do you pronounce your last

[1:33:35] name?

[1:33:35] >> Sing. S

[1:33:36] » Sing. S

[1:33:36] >> same

[1:33:37] » same

[1:33:37] >> yes supervisor of Imperial County. So

[1:33:39] » yes supervisor of Imperial County. So

[1:33:39] she she was she was with us this this

[1:33:41] weekend.

[1:33:42] >> Um was [clears throat] able to speak to

[1:33:44] » Um was [clears throat] able to speak to

[1:33:44] her. So

[1:33:46] uh yeah that's that's it for me.

[1:33:49] >> Great. Any any

[1:33:50] » Great. Any any

[1:33:50] >> Yeah, I was I was there on the 11th with

[1:33:52] » Yeah, I was I was there on the 11th with

[1:33:52] well and um uh they have a great format.

[1:33:56] Um they they get all your bio and u all

[1:33:59] your introductory amount uh information

[1:34:02] and they don't want to see a PowerPoint.

[1:34:04] they just want to have interviews. So

[1:34:06] they they're tasked with, you know,

[1:34:09] developing questions and they had some

[1:34:11] very good questions about Colorado

[1:34:13] River. And so I I they wanted to hear

[1:34:16] about that process and uh how the

[1:34:19] governance works within the state on

[1:34:21] Colorado River issues and how the

[1:34:23] contractors like CBWD fit in. So, it was

[1:34:26] a it was a good interview and um I think

[1:34:29] that able to um get the uh information

[1:34:34] across to them u about Colorado River in

[1:34:37] a in a good manner there. So, good good

[1:34:40] program

[1:34:41] >> and uh just want to say thank you to BBK

[1:34:43] » and uh just want to say thank you to BBK

[1:34:43] also for always helping us with the some

[1:34:46] of the arrangements there. It's always

[1:34:48] uh good to to count on you.

[1:34:54] » Any others? Director Aguilar.

[1:34:56] >> No, John. I'm good.

[1:34:58] » No, John. I'm good.

[1:34:58] >> All right, we're good. Do is there a

[1:35:00] » All right, we're good. Do is there a

[1:35:00] motion to approve PDM for the meetings

[1:35:03] reported on?

[1:35:05] >> I'll make a motion. I'll second.

[1:35:07] » I'll make a motion. I'll second.

[1:35:07] >> Roll call vote.

[1:35:10] » Roll call vote.

[1:35:10] >> President Pal,

[1:35:11] » President Pal,

[1:35:11] >> I.

[1:35:11] » I.

[1:35:11] >> Vice President Estrada,

[1:35:13] » Vice President Estrada,

[1:35:13] >> yes.

[1:35:13] » yes.

[1:35:13] >> Director Biano,

[1:35:14] » Director Biano,

[1:35:14] >> I.

[1:35:14] » I.

[1:35:14] >> Director Aguilar,

[1:35:16] » Director Aguilar,

[1:35:16] >> yes.

[1:35:16] » yes.

[1:35:16] >> And director Nelson,

[1:35:17] » And director Nelson,

[1:35:18] >> I pass 50.

[1:35:19] » I pass 50.

[1:35:19] >> General manager report. Yes, there are

[1:35:21] » General manager report. Yes, there are

[1:35:21] just a couple things um on the ID8 uh

[1:35:24] Mission Springs Water District has asked

[1:35:26] that we go out and do some outreach with

[1:35:28] the uh community council meetings. So,

[1:35:30] we've coordinated with the supervisor's

[1:35:32] office and I'll be doing two of those

[1:35:34] today. Desert Edge and Sky Valley and

[1:35:36] then India Hills will be tentatively on

[1:35:40] the 27th. Um so, I think uh that we

[1:35:45] just go out and say a couple of things

[1:35:46] and answer some questions and see where

[1:35:48] that goes. That's all I've got. Thank

[1:35:50] you. Council report.

[1:35:52] >> Yes. Uh SB827 went into effect the first

[1:35:56] » Yes. Uh SB827 went into effect the first

[1:35:56] of the year. It has two components. The

[1:35:58] first component is as you know all board

[1:36:00] members are required to do AB 1234

[1:36:02] training uh within one year of taking

[1:36:05] office and then every two years

[1:36:07] thereafter.

[1:36:08] This bill changed that so that new

[1:36:10] members of the board have to meet that

[1:36:12] requirement in the first six months. But

[1:36:15] the other uh main part of AB 1234 is

[1:36:17] that it now applies to department heads

[1:36:20] and administrative officers of the of

[1:36:22] the district, not just the the elected

[1:36:24] board of directors.

[1:36:26] Uh the other part of SP827 deals with a

[1:36:29] new requirement for some additional

[1:36:31] training on financial training

[1:36:33] requirements and that will be the

[1:36:34] subject of your finance committee

[1:36:36] meeting and a future board meeting. Uh

[1:36:38] so more to come on that. Thank you.

[1:36:40] >> Thank you.

[1:36:42] » Thank you.

[1:36:42] Any department reports?

[1:36:43] >> Yes, sir. We have one uh two. Okay, we

[1:36:46] » Yes, sir. We have one uh two. Okay, we

[1:36:46] have two.

[1:36:47] >> Wow.

[1:36:47] » Wow.

[1:36:48] >> Well, Joanne has asked first to

[1:36:49] » Well, Joanne has asked first to

[1:36:49] introduce a new employee.

[1:36:51] >> Oh, great.

[1:36:54] » Oh, great.

[1:36:54] >> Yes, we're very excited to have Kristen

[1:36:56] » Yes, we're very excited to have Kristen

[1:36:56] Thomas. She's our new environmental

[1:36:58] services administrator, water quality

[1:37:01] and compliance, who should lead our

[1:37:02] water quality um monitoring and the

[1:37:06] laboratory team.

[1:37:08] >> Welcome. Great. Welcome.

[1:37:09] » Welcome. Great. Welcome.

[1:37:09] >> Welcome.

[1:37:12] » Welcome.

[1:37:12] >> Yeah. Thank you. have no words. Dan

[1:37:15] » Yeah. Thank you. have no words. Dan

[1:37:15] >> and then Dan,

[1:37:17] » and then Dan,

[1:37:17] >> apologize to Jim. I didn't announce that

[1:37:19] » apologize to Jim. I didn't announce that

[1:37:19] I was going to speak, but um

[1:37:21] >> it's okay. I saw your hand.

[1:37:23] » it's okay. I saw your hand.

[1:37:23] >> Uh so we have a little situation on the

[1:37:25] » Uh so we have a little situation on the

[1:37:25] canal we're dealing with. I just wanted

[1:37:26] to let you guys know. Um as you know, we

[1:37:30] built a mid canal to get rid of half the

[1:37:32] clay area whereby we have cracking. We

[1:37:35] have another five, six miles of

[1:37:37] cracking, four upstream, one downstream.

[1:37:40] So I'm on the CCLP with San Diego. Uh we

[1:37:43] agreed to do an inspection. We did the

[1:37:45] inspection on Thursday after the rains.

[1:37:47] As we drew the water down, there was a

[1:37:49] there was a lot of water in the clay

[1:37:52] behind some of the canal. So it did a

[1:37:54] rotational slip like two or three

[1:37:56] hundred feet on one side and couple

[1:37:58] sections a couple hundred feet in the

[1:37:59] other side. So we've been working uh to

[1:38:02] get the water down two feet deep. We've

[1:38:04] been pouring uh shot over rip wrap for

[1:38:06] the 14 hours a day, Friday, Saturday,

[1:38:08] and yesterday. So, we're just struggling

[1:38:11] to um we're still pouring concrete at

[1:38:14] 6:00 p.m. and we put water on it at uh

[1:38:17] at about 9:30. So, we're struggling to

[1:38:20] get our orders for the next few days.

[1:38:21] So, I just want to give you a heads up.

[1:38:23] We're trying to ask the users to prorate

[1:38:26] wherever possible or if it dates just

[1:38:28] postpone a couple days to get our

[1:38:30] delivery down, float off the lake

[1:38:32] wherever possible downstream, stack the

[1:38:34] canal. But, it's going to be a struggle.

[1:38:36] Uh we hope to have this done by Friday,

[1:38:38] but the next couple days might be a

[1:38:39] little light on orders. So don't yell.

[1:38:42] It's all good. We got it under control.

[1:38:44] And in the end, um the inspection is

[1:38:46] going to be great because um once we

[1:38:49] have the GPS locations of where the

[1:38:51] cracking is actually taking place, uh

[1:38:54] we'll do a contract document. San Diego

[1:38:56] and the San Louis Ray will pay for it.

[1:38:58] it'll likely uh be out to bid and in

[1:39:02] like October of 26 uh hopefully awarding

[1:39:06] u by December. Just wanted to give you a

[1:39:09] heads up that we're going to be a little

[1:39:10] light the next few days that summer.

[1:39:14] >> We planned the inspection so that it was

[1:39:16] » We planned the inspection so that it was

[1:39:16] in this this time frame to be cool, but

[1:39:18] we did not anticipate to have this

[1:39:20] situation.

[1:39:22] >> Thanks, Dan.

[1:39:23] » Thanks, Dan.

[1:39:23] >> Thanks.

[1:39:23] » Thanks.

[1:39:24] >> Thanks.

[1:39:25] » Thanks.

[1:39:25] Any any L? Yeah, we got two. Might as

[1:39:28] well do three. [laughter]

[1:39:29] >> No,

[1:39:30] » No,

[1:39:30] >> we should have all of the department

[1:39:31] » we should have all of the department

[1:39:31] head. No, that's okay.

[1:39:33] >> Well, thank you then. So, we do not have

[1:39:35] » Well, thank you then. So, we do not have

[1:39:35] a close session for today's meeting. And

[1:39:38] so, with no further business, we are

[1:39:40] adjourned.

Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors - 01/13/2026

Transcript