I'll officially call to order the
regular meeting of Coachella Valley
Water District Board of Directors uh
January 13, 2026 here in Palm Desert.
And uh would you please stand and join
me in the pledge of allegiance?
>> Good morning.
» I pledge algiance to the flag of America
and to the republic for which it stands,
one nation, indivisibley
and justice for all. All
right.
And uh so prior to roll call, I would
like to make clear for the record of
this meeting and it should be reflected
in the minutes that at least a portion
of this meeting is being conducted
pursuant to California government code
section 54953
in that director Aguilar is in Orlando,
Florida, and will be participating by
speakerphone. In accordance with the
Ralph M. Brown Act. The teleconference
location has been identified on the
agenda for this meeting. [snorts] Kirk
Bermudas, will you please call the role?
>> Yes. Good morning. And just a
» Yes. Good morning. And just a
clarification, he does have video. I
should have put teleconference, but he
does have video options on that. Uh,
President Pal
>> here.
» here.
>> Vice President Estrada
» Vice President Estrada
>> here.
» here.
>> Director Biano
» Director Biano
>> here.
» here.
>> Director Aguilar
» Director Aguilar
>> here.
» here.
>> And director Nelson
» And director Nelson
>> here.
» here.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> I would now like to request that
» I would now like to request that
Director Aguilar respond to the
following questions. one. Uh, Director
Agular, can you hear me well?
>> Yes, I can, John.
» Yes, I can, John.
>> Great. Yeah, I hear you, too. Um, were
» Great. Yeah, I hear you, too. Um, were
you able to hear our proceedings on this
end up until now?
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Do you have a copy of the agenda for
» Do you have a copy of the agenda for
this meeting?
>> I do.
» I do.
>> Have you posted the agenda at your
» Have you posted the agenda at your
location?
>> I have.
» I have.
Is your um location reasonably
accessible to the public that such such
that any member of the public could
participate in this teleconference from
your location if he or she wished to do
so?
>> Uh yes it is.
» Uh yes it is.
>> Is there any member of the public there
» Is there any member of the public there
with you who would like to participate?
>> Uh not at the moment.
» Uh not at the moment.
>> Okay. Well, just let us know.
» Okay. Well, just let us know.
>> Um
» Um
>> great. As a reminder, all votes for this
» great. As a reminder, all votes for this
meeting must be taken by roll call.
I got two pages at the same time.
>> What if I read the next one? It would
» What if I read the next one? It would
have been funny. Okay. So, uh, do we
have any additions, deletions, or
adjustments to the agenda?
>> No, sir, we do not.
» No, sir, we do not.
>> No, I don't think so.
» No, I don't think so.
Uh, is there anybody from the public
wishing to comment at this time?
non-aggenda items.
>> We we do have a couple just I'll just
» We we do have a couple just I'll just
note it for the record, not for uh
general public, but we do we will have
speakers for item 8A just so that the
board is aware.
>> Yes. All right. So, we will get those
» Yes. All right. So, we will get those
speakers at that time. And then um so
nobody with the public comment at this
time. We do have special presentations
and recognitions.
Uh and I will read for those who are
present.
Um, first of all,
with an anniversary,
John Van Winkle with 20 years. John
Vaninkl was hired as a distribution
operator trainee and has worked his way
up to a domestic equipment operator all
while serving on the West Shores crew.
Despite working under several crew
chiefs over the years, he has
consistently remained a valued and
reliable operator for the Sultan Sea
area.
Sultan City presents unique challenges
as water manes are located behind homes
and roads and roads wind in multiple
directions unlike other areas where they
typically run north, south, or east,
west. John's extensive knowledge of this
area makes him a major asset to the
team. From identifying problematic
locations to locating hard to find
isolation valves in alleyways and
backyards,
he knows to proactively check those
areas when reservoir levels start to
drop, often before customers report an
issue. John is a hard worker who
maintains a positive attitude and is
especially well suited to responding to
leaks around the salt and sea.
Congratulations on 20 years of service.
And we'll come up after and do that. and
then retirement. Olivia Bennett,
non-potable water program manager with
23 years. When Olivia Bennett joined
CBWD in 2002 as a water quality lab
technician, she never imagined her
career would take her from running
atomic absorption machines to helping
transform some of Coachella Valley's
largest landscapes.
Born in Jacksonville, Illinois, Olivia
was a prevet major and received her
bachelor of science in biology from
McMurray College before moving to the
desert in 1997.
Her early love of animals and science
guided her path, including time at
veterinary clinics in the Living Desert.
Her science background earned her a
position in the district's lab as a
technician, then as a lab analyst, then
an engineering technician in water
resources. Eventually, she stepped into
her longtime management position
overseeing recycled and non-potable
water operations.
Tom West, assistant director for
operations for sanitation, stated that
Olivia's always been ahead of the game,
taking the non-potable program from an
idea to the strong, successful program
that it is today. She's not just
professional and organized. She's the
kind of person who makes the world, the
whole team better with her energy and
kindness. We're really going to miss
her.
It goes on.
[laughter]
I will miss you a little later. Um,
they've always been changing my
responsibilities around, giving me
something new to focus on, which I
appreciate because it has been it has
kept my brain going, says Olivia. For
the last 15 years, Olivia has shouldered
CVW's non-potable water program, which
transitions golf courses, large
landscape properties and agricultural
irrigation from groundwater to
non-potable water. Under her leadership,
non-potable water use rose dramatically
with some sites achieving 100% recycled
water usage. Olivia now looks forward to
hiking, painting, quilting, and picking
up new skills like beekeeping, chicken
raising. guessing you're going to raise
eggs [laughter]
and gardening. She plans to enjoy more
time with her husband Rick, also a CBWD
retiree, and their pack of shorty bulls,
Lugnut, Lauraai, Groucho, and Chicky
Blue, [laughter]
who rule the house. From nurturing
animals to nurturing landscapes,
Olivia's career has come full circle as
she prepares to trade fairways and
pumping stations for something closer to
her roots, acres of open land.
That was actually really well written.
And I would say um when we list the
dogs, the pets names, they have to be
cute like that otherwise we're not going
to read. [laughter]
Those are wonderful names. Okay. So, and
then we also who are not here um Alberto
Rodriguez, building maintenance
technician with 20 years. Alejandra,
these are retirements, right? Alejandro
Silva, fleet and equipment technician
two with 20 years. and Steuart Taylor
fleet and equipment manager with eight
years. So, congratulations to everybody
and we'll have the two present come on
up one at a time, right? [applause]
» Thank you. I really want to ask you a
bunch of questions.
>> All right. [clears throat]
It's up to you.
>> You meant a few words.
» You don't have to.
>> No, I'd rather not.
» No, I'd rather not.
>> All right.
» All right.
>> Put my foot in my mouth.
» Put my foot in my mouth.
[laughter]
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Great.
» Great.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> What about the questions? You had a
» What about the questions? You had a
whole bunch of questions.
>> Well, I mean, do you get to know people?
» Well, I mean, do you get to know people?
>> Yeah. Well, I've lived out there since I
» Yeah. Well, I've lived out there since I
was 13, so yeah, like I've met a lot of
people and they usually come up and
start asking me before if they see if
they see me in the middle of the street
or something, they'll start asking
questions like what what we're doing and
all that. But, you know, or if they if
we got the water off and somebody's
upset, if they see me there, they'll
come talk to me. I'm usually able to
smooth it over.
>> But it's been it's been a long it's been
» But it's been it's been a long it's been
a long ride, but it's been a fun ride.
>> I feel like I'm working for K.
» I feel like I'm working for K.
[laughter]
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> If you were working for KSQ, you'd be
» If you were working for KSQ, you'd be
holding the camera, too.
>> That's right.
» That's right.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Thank you. Stay out.
» Thank you. Stay out.
>> I will [applause]
for you.
» [cough]
>> They forgot to say you have a great
» They forgot to say you have a great
sense of you. [laughter]
>> I just wanted to say thank you to the
» I just wanted to say thank you to the
board for supporting the non-putable
program.
Um, and to my supervisors for trusting
me and giving me the freedom to do
whatever I needed to do. and to my crews
and my crew chief. I think you're
awesome and you can do anything. Um,
thank you to the customers for um
realizing the benefit to the community
and for using 80% non-potable water. Um,
thank you to my husband who I met here.
He retired five years ago, which we
still can't believe. [laughter]
Um, and ever since I started working
anywhere, I've wanted to retire. And um,
finally I'm eligible to do it. And I
cannot believe it's here. And it's
overwhelmingly joyful and um, scary all
at once. So, thank you so much.
>> Thank you. Appreciate it.
» Thank you. Appreciate it.
[applause]
» Stay healthy. Enjoy. Is this here?
Very nice.
>> Yeah, the non-potable program is kind of
» Yeah, the non-potable program is kind of
fundamental to what we do. It's
>> so amazing when people retire so early.
» so amazing when people retire so early.
>> [laughter]
» [laughter]
>> kidding, right?
» kidding, right?
>> Well, some do.
» Well, some do.
>> It's hard to believe.
» It's hard to believe.
>> Then they go out and get another job
» Then they go out and get another job
somewhere else.
>> So young. That's what I meant to say.
» So young. That's what I meant to say.
>> So again,
» So again,
>> yeah. Great.
» yeah. Great.
Our consent calendar consists of items 6
A through L.
Is there a motion to approve the consent
calendar?
>> Yes. So move.
» [clears throat]
>> I'll second your uh motion there. And uh
» I'll second your uh motion there. And uh
all in favor or we are doing a roll.
>> Roll call vote, please.
» Roll call vote, please.
>> Yes. Uh President Pal,
» Yes. Uh President Pal,
>> I.
» I.
>> Vice President Estrada,
» Vice President Estrada,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> Director Biano,
» Director Biano,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> Director Aguilar,
» Director Aguilar,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> And director Nelson,
» And director Nelson,
>> I.
» I.
>> Thank you. 5.
» Thank you. 5.
>> Passed. 5.
» Passed. 5.
under the action calendar 8A.
Sabrina is gonna Yes. Good morning.
>> The floor is yours.
» Is it green? Green is
>> green. Green is on.
» green. Green is on.
>> Green means go.
» Green means go.
>> Good morning. Um for the record, my name
» Good morning. Um for the record, my name
is Sabrina, Sanji manager for domestic
water. Um that before you today is um
our recommendation to reject the bid
from TBU Incorporated as non-responsive
deemed de Domin I'm sorry uh deemed
Dominguez General Engineering
Incorporated bid protest moot and
authorize the general manager to execute
a construction contract with Dominguez
General Engineering as the lowest
responsive and responsible bidder in the
amount of $10,312,530
for the Sun City domestic water Sun City
Palm Desert water main replacement phase
2B project specification 2025-7
and approve additional expenditures in
the for a total request of 11,930,000.
Um the item before you today uh we did
receive a bid protest um which alleged
that um TBU Incorporated failed to
attach a notary acknowledgement to the
non-colision declaration. It failed to
provide authority for Jesus Nunees as an
estimator to bind TBU Incorporated to
the bid and it failed to provide the
required fleet compliance certificates.
Um we did review this with legal counsel
um independently CBWD review the bids
and also recommended um that the bid be
deemed non-responsive and I'd be happy
to answer any additional questions that
you may have regarding this item.
Is this the item where we have
>> Yes, we have public comments.
» Yes, we have public comments.
>> We do have I just wanted to
» We do have I just wanted to
>> for consideration
» for consideration
>> just want to make sure we get through
» just want to make sure we get through
the presentation and then allow them.
>> All right. Are you do you have more
» All right. Are you do you have more
presentation?
>> Um no, unless there's any additional
» Um no, unless there's any additional
questions.
>> Okay.
Well, my my
questions and comments were going to be
more along the lines of the letter that
was submitted by the contractor that
submitted the protest and then there was
a response to that.
>> Correct.
» Correct.
>> So, I wanted to kind of hear more about
» So, I wanted to kind of hear more about
that, but I don't know if it's more
appropriate to wait after the comments.
>> I would.
» I would.
>> Yes. Is it is it normal that
» Yes. Is it is it normal that
um when a company leaves a few of these
things out um uh to reject it? Or
>> is there a chance for the district to go
» is there a chance for the district to go
back to them and say, "Hey, your your
bid looks good, but you've missed a few
things." Do you have this do you have
this paperwork that needs to be
submitted along with your bid, or it's a
>> we can't do that under the law? There
» we can't do that under the law? There
are times um and and Jeff can um chime
in on this, but there are times when
there's administrative errors. Um in
this case, there were multiple um issues
with this bid. It's not one particular
item. It were several items.
>> It would it be against the law to allow
» It would it be against the law to allow
them to
show you the information that was
missing?
>> And I can answer that question. Um the
» And I can answer that question. Um the
yes uh the bids have to be submitted and
all material aspects have to be correct.
If we were to go back to them and say
have just please give us give it to them
us now then there would be protest. In
fact there was a protest originally
submitted by the second lowest bidder to
outline these items. What the law says
is that you can't provide a the
opportunity for the lowest bid to go
back and change something or to clarify
something as that would be considered
under the law to give them an unfair
advantage over the other biders who
didn't make those requirements or met
those requirements.
What's the um what's the guidance that
we use or the standard um that
pushes us to rebid a project if
the next bid is substantially higher? Is
is there a guidance for that or are we
bound to accept the next
>> doesn't mount
» doesn't mount
>> are we bound to accept the next bid if
» are we bound to accept the next bid if
it's substantially higher? Yeah, I
believe that um the
>> unless there's a change in scope,
» unless there's a change in scope,
>> unless we decide to change the plans or
» unless we decide to change the plans or
the specifications from the original
design, we can't just go out and ask
people to take a second shot at the same
thing.
>> Even if it's a million dollars more or
» Even if it's a million dollars more or
500,000, the amount doesn't matter.
>> Yes, sir. No, that's that's the rules.
» Yes, sir. No, that's that's the rules.
>> So, we represent to the bidding world
» So, we represent to the bidding world
that this is the bid we would want to
receive bids and these things had to be
met. If we were to because of the price
difference just rebid the entire project
that would go against what our contract
documents say and that we're going out
to bid to get this project done as long
as the lowest bidder meets all of these
requirements. So it would be based on if
there was some misunderstanding of what
the project was or that we
underestimated the cost of the entire
project or something like that. But
other than that, going out to rebid a
project based on a price differential
would go against what we've represented
to the public in our bid documents.
>> We could still decide not to do the
» We could still decide not to do the
project though altogether.
>> Yes, you can.
» Yes, you can.
>> Yeah,
» Yeah,
>> but that's exercising the contractor
» but that's exercising the contractor
community.
>> Yeah. I mean, that's why we
» Yeah. I mean, that's why we
>> that's why we ask you if we can go out
» that's why we ask you if we can go out
for a bid first.
>> Yeah. We we actually have the board take
» Yeah. We we actually have the board take
action to go out and put it out to bid
[clears throat]
with the idea that we're not going to be
exercising the bidding community.
>> Yeah. And I guess I I get all that. I
» Yeah. And I guess I I get all that. I
don't know how much time we have to get
into the details of this protest and the
response to that protest to then make a
determination on
just the different things that are being
claimed because there's seems like
there's two sides to a story here.
>> The protest Yeah, the protest is moot
» The protest Yeah, the protest is moot
though, right? So
>> I think protest. Well, that's the
» I think protest. Well, that's the
recommendation.
>> There was a protest from the second
» There was a protest from the second
lowest bidder to that outlined the
things that we as a staff had already
identified as making the lowest bidder
not responsive.
>> So, there were two bid two protests. One
» So, there were two bid two protests. One
was from the second lowest who is
recommended to get the contract because
they had identified things that made the
lowest bid nonresponsible. But we had
already done that as a staff and legal
counsel. So that's why we're here today
receiving a letter from the lowest
bidder the uh to protest not getting the
contract. So I mean
>> so so what you're saying is that it it
» so so what you're saying is that it it
the protest letter was not what
initiated us to
deem the bid non-responsive. We we we
were already kind of doing that.
>> We had already made that determination
» We had already made that determination
if if I'm correct.
>> That's correct. But but my point in
» That's correct. But but my point in
bringing up that issue is that
there would be a protest there was a
protest of the second lowest bidder
identifying the very things that we have
already identified. So you had a protest
from the lowest bidder who's here to to
speak but also from the second lowest
bidder identifying things that if we
didn't comply with the contract would be
things that they would have raised or we
raised them initially.
>> So I it might be good to get
» So I it might be good to get
>> the comments. All right.
» the comments. All right.
Right. Why don't we do that and then
maybe that'll lead to Yeah. some more
clarification or
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Sure. Uh first speaker I have is Brian
» Sure. Uh first speaker I have is Brian
Anders, please.
» Okay.
[laughter]
>> Yes, ma'am.
» Yes, ma'am.
Good morning all. Thank you very much.
My name is Brian Anders. legal counsel
for TBU, the lowest bidder. Um, I'd like
to thank you for the opportunity to
address the issues here. Uh, there's
already been quite a bit of discussion,
touched on some key points here. Um,
ultimately the timeline on this, the bid
was timely submitted. Uh, admittedly,
certain aspects of it were omitted. It
doesn't mean that they weren't prepared,
created. They were simply omitted from
the scan that was sent. Um
the board here does have the power to
wave any minor or inconsequential
irregularities. Uh I would like to point
out that the the bid the scope of uh the
scope of work remained the same. There
were no material changes uh made at the
at the time of any corrective efforts on
December 3rd which I think the the there
was a reference to the TVU letter that
came in with the documentation and an
explanation there too. I also have the
principal Ted and uh Jesus with me today
who also will be speaking and kind of
sharing their series of events and
explaining the background on all of
this. Um ultimately the facts are the
facts. [snorts] The the scope of work
proposed was there were no issues with
the scope sorry scope of work proposed.
Um and the bid up from TBU came in at
$560,000
less than the next lowest bidder. um
taking the action taking the proposed
action of rejecting the lowest bid based
on what we perceive to be
inconsequential and immaterial grounds
to the extent that nothing substantive
about the bid itself was changed uh
would carry an unnecessarily punitive
tone. um per the recommend and per the
recommendation will result in a net
increase of not just 560,000
but a total of over $1.6 million
um [clears throat]
for the same scope of work and award the
contract to a company located over 90
miles from the job site. Uh in contrast,
TBU has offices in India. uh every they
they've got an office location and all
staff that would be servicing this
contract located within 10 mile radius
of the actual job site. Um [snorts]
not only that, TBU has an extensive
amount of experience not only in the
region but with the city of Coachella
itself.
That's my time. Thank you. You
» Thank you. Uh next we have Jesus Nunes.
Hello everybody.
>> Morning.
» Morning.
>> Good morning.
» Good morning.
Um,
pretty much uh just going to go piggy
backing off of s Andrew's over here and
pretty much just saying same things uh
just not so technical in his certain
vocabulary. Um
given my newly appointed position, I you
know I've been I just now got uh
promoted to an estimator back in May,
early May. Um
with the guidance of our vice president,
Charlie Wallen, and and my
superintendent supervisor, uh David
Eera, uh you know, we
you know, they've been working me.
They've been showing me the ropes of
everything of what it comes down to
bidding and you know bidding for
government funded projects. That's a
pretty big uh
it's a pretty big task at hand. You know
uh
and you know I double check, triple
check everything, make sure everything's
all right. Uh these were errors that of
course were not intentional. I didn't,
you know, they were not meant to deceive
or to uh malinterpret anything on behalf
of TBU. Uh,
you know, they're [snorts] clerical
errors. Uh,
yeah, they uh
know they no man said nothing. You know,
I I like to do things uh right. I like
to do things fair. you know, ultimately
you guys are sitting where you guys are.
You guys have the ultimate uh decision,
you know. Uh but I just wanted to give
you guys my opinion, my side of the
story and everything. Uh
hopefully that helps me, my case, and
our company's case because we like he
mentioned, we're all local here. our
company, you know, I've been working
with the company for uh close to six
years
for my whole duration with the company.
You know, we've always been working
here, you know, of course, the valley is
a slowly but surely growing community.
Uh but we've always tried to stay busy
here and like uh like we mentioned
earlier, we've had opportunities to work
with numerous uh
agencies here and and and whatnot. So,
you know, we like to keep our people
local. what we always like to say, we
like to make sure we stay at home, not
driving hours and end in the morning and
then driving hours afterwards. So, it'd
be a it'd be a pretty good project to
work on, you know, help out not just our
employees, but also our community with
replacing uh
possibly leaking, possibly uh damaged
lines. So,
>> yeah.
» yeah.
>> All right. Thank you.
» All right. Thank you.
>> Thank you. And then next we have Ted
» Thank you. And then next we have Ted
Burton.
» Good morning. Uh my name is Ted Burton.
I'm the owner of TBU Inc. Um I've been
doing this kind of work for 37 years and
we have grown enough that we have
branched out and now we're in uh India
and we have a locally based office 10
miles from here. U my job is to keep
employees working and uh putting food on
the family's tables. Us being locally
based I think is a a huge advantage for
the the district to take in realization
that there are going to be emergencies
on this job and this job is going to run
in well over a year. Um we always finish
our projects on time, usually early. Um,
I appreciate the board taking the time
to listen to our protest on everything
we did was legit. I mean, we made a few
clerical errors. We're all human. We all
make mistakes, right? I had to hire this
kid because we got busy out here to
start estimating. He's only been doing
it for four months. Grabbed the wrong
paper, scanned it the wrong way, you
know, and that's the bottom line, you
know. I mean, we're a legit company.
We've been doing this a long time. I put
in miles and miles of pipe. Um, we have
25 based employees out here. I hired
Dave Herrera behind me. He runs our
India office. Um, he's been with me over
10 years. The longevity of the people
that work for me shows the character of
how we run our company. And, um, I just
think that
it's going to be very advantageous
for the district to use a local
contractor. This isn't a two month, one
month job. We know emergencies are going
to come up. You know, we're working in
the streets. It's not like we're working
in fields. We're going to have ponds
with traffic control. People are going
to run over the traffic control. There's
going to be calls at night because
somebody ran into a ditch or somebody
did something, you know,
on characteristic. So, if you look at
that, you know, we're a 10 15 minute
response compared to depending on
traffic, two, three hour response. Um,
so just appreciate you taking the time
to listen to us and consider that, you
know, we use a local based sub on a on a
bid that was submitted correctly but
incorrectly because of a few
unexperienced
um errors that he made trying to submit
the bid. So, thank you for your time.
>> Thank you.
And that was the last speaker card that
I had.
>> Okay. Um,
» Okay. Um,
we don't have anybody from the um
other side. Domingus.
» I guess I have a question that was
raised. I still feel like our hands are
tied up.
>> Oh, you're right. God, it goes on and
» Oh, you're right. God, it goes on and
off by itself.
It went back on without touching it.
Good for that.
>> But we did hear um from the first
» But we did hear um from the first
presenter, Mr. Anderson,
that even though the bid differential is
about half a million dollars, the actual
cost differential is more like $1.6
million. I don't understand how that's
possible.
>> Um perhaps he's referring to the
» Um perhaps he's referring to the
engineers estimate. Um for this project,
we budgeted 11,930,000.
So, a majority of the bids did come in
significantly lower than what we
originally estimated. Um, and yes, it is
correct. TB's bid is certainly the
lowest. Um, but I think from [snorts]
the staff perspective, the bidding
documents are the first representation
of the contractor and if there's this
many inconsistencies, it does raise
concerns for the project moving forward.
Um, because this is we have to hold
everyone accountable to the same level.
Um, and since we did have a bid protest
that identified the same discrepancies,
in fact, missed a few that even we had
caught, um, I think it does raise some
questions moving forward on the setting
of precedents
>> just because they're the lowest,
» just because they're the lowest,
>> right? No, I understand.
» right? No, I understand.
>> But our our hands are not tied, John.
» But our our hands are not tied, John.
They're not tied. I mean, it someone has
>> brought this to our attention, which we
» brought this to our attention, which we
already knew about.
>> It's our prerogative to to um disregard
» It's our prerogative to to um disregard
that. Now, we are risking that Dominguez
would come back and sue us, but that
would be the power of this board. Uh,
the risk that we take.
>> And if I may, um, [clears throat]
» And if I may, um, [clears throat]
the reason that the other protest wasn't
being heard is because we had
recommended that it be mute because we
had already made the same conclusions.
If it's the board wishes to not award
the contract uh today or to award it to
the lowest bidder, we would have my
recommendation would be we be that we
come back because the recommendation was
not to go with TBU. So we'd have to
reassess what that recommendation would
be and number two there there would be a
need to provide uh Dominguez the right
to to uh speak on their protest because
then at that point it wouldn't be moot.
So uh it' be a number of steps before I
would recommend that we just go with the
lowest or do something else completely.
>> I guess I would like to know what um of
» I guess I would like to know what um of
all the inconsist inconsistencies with
the bid is Jeff for you to opine uh how
they fall into the category of material
deviations from the bid. In other words,
u you know, if they're nonmaterial, then
we could accept the bid, but how are
these issues uh material in terms of u
moving forward with this bid?
>> These errors deal with being held to
» These errors deal with being held to
their bid. And even though it might not
be considered a large part of it by not
uh having these documents uh submitted
appropriately, the lowest bidder could
say that they're not legally bound to
their bid because they didn't provide
the appropriate acknowledgement, didn't
provide the appropriate certificates. So
what the law says is that if the lowest
bidder didn't make these these
representations or submit these written
certifications and they could have
gotten out of their bid because they
didn't because they're not bound to it.
I'm not saying they would do that
obviously, but that's what the law has
concluded that it may be missing an an
acknowledgement, but it's something
that's deemed their bid that they're not
legally held to it and they could have
gotten out of it. And because of that
issue of being held to their bid, even
though it might be a document or two,
it's an acknowledgement that they're
bound to their bid. And the law says
because they're not legally bound to
their bid, that would have given them an
advantage. I realize that may not be the
case here or that it doesn't make a
whole lot of sense, but from a legal
point of view, being bound to your bid,
if you're not bound to your bid, you can
get out of it. And that would have
provided an advantage if the lowest
bidder had decided not to move forward.
So, it's being held to the bid legally,
which is the issue.
>> And yet here they are arguing that
» And yet here they are arguing that
they're they want to be held to the bid,
right?
>> Yeah. you know I think material
» Yeah. you know I think material
>> I think what um you know just to provide
» I think what um you know just to provide
an example because I mean we all look at
the bid you know the bids that come in
right and
overall there the next lowest bidder
wasn't that much higher compared to some
of the other biders and I would say if
you know let's say that the lowest
bidder who may have had some some
problems with with their bid being
accepted let's say they come in at 10
million and all the other bids come in
over 20.
>> I mean, that would give them an
» I mean, that would give them an
opportunity to look at and go, "Wow, did
we miss something?" Right? I mean, is
there is there maybe this is not good
for us and we wouldn't be able to hold
them to that $10 million, which in that
example would be too low uh because uh
because they would have these material
or, you know, clerical errors that give
them legally the ability to back out of
it. I mean, it gives them a second look
or a second bite at the apple that I
think that Jeff's trying to
>> Yes, exactly.
» Yes, exactly.
>> trying to The fact that these other bids
» trying to The fact that these other bids
were not that much higher, you know, 5%
or or whatever,
>> um, makes that makes this example seem
» um, makes that makes this example seem
maybe a little less clear-cut.
>> Um,
» Um,
I just feel that it's not very material.
>> I feel the same. It's not it's it's it's
» I feel the same. It's not it's it's it's
a minor thing and and we're and I
understand but I do think that
we we have some some uh we can we can we
can pivot. I think we can under under
our authorization.
I don't think it's as clearcut. This is
a very m immaterial thing.
>> Hey John, can I ask a question?
» Hey John, can I ask a question?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead John.
» Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead John.
>> Can you hear me? Okay.
» Can you hear me? Okay.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Hey, I'm just curious just as a matter
» Hey, I'm just curious just as a matter
of information. I know it's not going to
be a decisive uh matter, but I'm just
curious about the the differences
between the two firms
and um whether or not they have any um
disadvantaged business enterprises. I
noticed that in I think in the staff
report I read that Dominguez does not,
but I'm curious about TBU. Can staff
answer that?
>> Um I believe that both Dominguez and TBU
» Um I believe that both Dominguez and TBU
did. I don't know if TBU Yeah, we
attached the the form um for Dominguez
in the bid package. It did identify that
they they are DB and they attached their
certificates as well.
[snorts]
>> I'm sorry, that was for Dominguez.
» I'm sorry, that was for Dominguez.
>> Yeah, Dominguez specifically and and TBU
» Yeah, Dominguez specifically and and TBU
and the audience confirmed that they
have it as well.
>> So, they both do,
» So, they both do,
>> correct?
» correct?
>> Okay, great. Thank you. Then I have just
» Okay, great. Thank you. Then I have just
one one other minor question, John. If
if the board decides to go forward with
the with um with Dominguez,
um it seems awkward that we would
u award a contract or somebody and then
um and then deal with their their
protest. Wouldn't it be easier for them
just to withdraw their protest if
they're awarded the bid?
That's what the recommendation is is
that the bid protest would be moot if we
award it to Domingus,
>> right?
» right?
But if we're going
>> in any event, I agree if if if we're not
» in any event, I agree if if if we're not
going to award this to Domingus today
that especially based on the public
comment that was critical of Domingus
and the fact that we've already
published that their bid protest was
moot. We need to give them a chance to
come in and talk to us.
>> Correct.
» Correct.
>> Yeah. I mean, we can't do this today.
» Yeah. I mean, we can't do this today.
Mhm.
>> Um, so,
» Um, so,
>> you know, I'd like to hear, you know,
» you know, I'd like to hear, you know,
how how bad they are because we heard
today that they're pretty bad and I
don't think that they may not be true,
you know.
>> So, the recommendation could be to table
» So, the recommendation could be to table
this item to the next board [snorts]
meeting or to a to the next board
meeting that is practical
uh to hear the protests of the second
lowest bidder.
I didn't I didn't hear that they were
bad.
>> Well, that they would their response
» Well, that they would their response
time would be um significantly longer.
>> I think that that was just a
» I think that that was just a
>> I think that's a projection. They they
» I think that's a projection. They they
do not um they're not based out of here.
Um they're I believe that they're based
out of Orange County. Um and so TBDU was
projecting that they wouldn't be as
responsive because they're not based out
of
>> Well, I understand that, but I think
» Well, I understand that, but I think
they would have they should have an
opportunity to tell us what their
strengths are, too. So by having
>> it's not a fair fight if one's here and
» it's not a fair fight if one's here and
the other one's not.
>> So by having this item table to the next
» So by having this item table to the next
meeting or the next available meeting
then we're not you're not considering
the protest of the second lowest better
moot. In fact you want to hear that
protest before you make a decision.
>> So let me interject here for a moment.
» So let me interject here for a moment.
Um this was an IFB an invitation for
bids. It's not a request for proposals.
So technically we're not able to engage
in conversations
um with the biders to allow them the
opportunity to expand upon um what it is
they submitted. An IFB an invitation for
bids is based solely on the submittal
process. So if we allow Dominguez to
come in and explain their position,
you're kind of opening the door for
everybody that participated in
responding to do the same thing. And
that's not what the process is intended
to provide. Different for an RFP where
you basically are soliciting uh a
proposal and then there are
circumstances where you can engage with
the proposers to clarify their bids.
That's not true with the process that we
used here. So, I'm I'm just providing
some cautionary advice that, you know,
we're saying we're going to allow
Dominguez to come in and explain
themselves when
>> that's not necessarily. So in in in
» that's not necessarily. So in in in
response to that, Jim, I I would say if
the uh if we do this and Dominguez comes
in that they should stick strictly to
the issues of whether the
>> um uh deviations are material or not
» um uh deviations are material or not
material and
yeah so so a couple things. One is there
was a deadline for any bidder to submit
a bid protest and that's expired. So
this wouldn't be reopening to all the
other vendors to come in. Number two, uh
and this happens a lot is there's a bid
protest or two, the people who represent
those contractors can come and speak to
the protest to Director Nelson's point,
not to the response times or the quality
of work or anything like that. So it's
up to this board to award the contract.
If there are protests, you have the
right to consider those protests based
on what those protests are in terms of
the materiality or whatever they want to
state say in their protest when they
come to present. It's it's not reopening
the bid or talking about response times
or history of the contractors. It's
speaking to the protest.
» I just think we owe it to the rateayers
to save the $600,000 and to use a local
company. I just I think it that it's not
material. So if this was a material
thing, we've seen this before where
we've had to go lower, but there were
some big problems with the bid. Okay,
big problems. This is a scanning issue.
This is a few little some paperwork. So
>> if I can clarify, it's not simply a
» if I can clarify, it's not simply a
scanning issue. There were multiple
discrepancies with the bid, including
the bid information forms not being
completed. The nonclusion affidavit was
signed by um the estimator, but the not
notorized form was for a different
person on two completely different
dates. So, as we delve into it, and we
didn't list every single thing that was
wrong with the bid, but this isn't one
administrative issue. It's a bid that
wasn't completed correctly, and I think
TBU acknowledged that today in that,
yeah, it it it's not clean, it's not
tight, and we had a bid protest. And so
to look past this and say, "Well, we're
just going to award it based on the
lowest fee," I really do think that's
going to set a bad precedence for us
moving forward when there's other biders
that are going to have the same
situation presumably moving forward.
This is not normal for us. We do not see
this on our bids, particularly the
lowest bid, and that's where our
recommendation comes from. Um, and
that's why we consulted with BBK even
before we received the bid protest.
>> Okay. Thanks for that. and and I you
» Okay. Thanks for that. and and I you
know
Dominguez is going to have a pretty
strong case I think
because because we have a process that
we've identified and and they followed
it and the other ones didn't
you know
>> have we used Domingus before?
» have we used Domingus before?
>> We have not um other agencies um
» We have not um other agencies um
Eastern's worked with them but not
>> and we haven't used TBU before either.
» and we haven't used TBU before either.
Um I don't believe directly but I
believe they do developer work if I'm
not mistaken.
>> I think they're doing all the patina.
» Yeah.
>> Well, all right. Is there's I guess two
» Well, all right. Is there's I guess two
different directions we can go here. One
is we can take action
and two is we can table it for a next
for a future meeting.
>> From a from my point of view as as legal
» From a from my point of view as as legal
counsel I think you have two options.
One is to award the contract to
Dominguez or two to table the matter to
bring it back for Dominguez to speak to
their bid protest which is also in your
packet
» making a table.
» So if Dominguez comes in they really
can't say more than what they've said in
their letter and you've already got the
letter right. I think they can address
the items that were brought up today.
Couldn't they do that?
>> That those are not that deals with No,
» That those are not that deals with No,
because the the protest is whether or
not the bid was submitted under the law
correctly. So they they can get up and
speak about response times, but that's
not something from a legal point of view
that the board can take into
consideration. It's whether or not
there's a valid bid protest. And if you
want to hear from the protester who was
the second lowest bid, then you have a
right to do that obviously.
>> Could could we hear more from you like
» Could could we hear more from you like
in close session from other from um your
other colleagues regarding this protest
letter to the fact of the material
deviation and getting more into that
conversation?
>> That was going to be my recommendation
» That was going to be my recommendation
at some point as well.
>> Jeeoff, doesn't this get into
» Jeeoff, doesn't this get into
responsiveness versus responsibility?
>> Exactly. If you start going to
» Exactly. If you start going to
responsibility, which are the issues
that you're now asking Dominguez to come
in and address, that's a whole process
in itself, a whole different legal
process. And that requires a public
hearing and that requires um it's a very
len it can be a very lengthy process.
>> Well, and so there's two things.
» Well, and so there's two things.
Responsiveness.
Did you submit a bid that is responsive
to all the requirements?
what we're considering here that all the
items were not submitted in complete
responsiveness to the bid,
>> right?
» right?
>> And responsible is if we think the
» And responsible is if we think the
lowest bidder can't do the job, right?
>> We're kind of in the middle here. It's
» We're kind of in the middle here. It's
not that we're saying that they can't
ultimately do the job, but we're saying
it's not responsive, but they have
spoken to issues of how they would be a
better contractor, which they certainly
have a right to speak to, but it's not
something you can legally decide on.
>> Right. Right. So, that's why We are
» Right. Right. So, that's why We are
addressing responsiveness.
I
>> I get it. And so the staff and the
» I get it. And so the staff and the
protests both identified the
nonresponsive
>> bid of TBU and I don't think that that
» bid of TBU and I don't think that that
has been um argued today,
>> right? And
» right? And
>> I think everyone agrees it was
» I think everyone agrees it was
non-responsive. So what so
>> so what are we doing here?
» so what are we doing here?
>> Well, exactly. Why? Then we need to go
» Well, exactly. Why? Then we need to go
with staff recommendation because staff
is saying the bid was nonresponsive
and we are saying that we are
recommending to go with the second low
bid.
>> Right.
» Again I want to remind everybody this is
Sun City Palm Desert. This is an
extremely important project. We are so
fortunate that we got bids at the at the
price that we got, right?
>> Because we were expecting bids to come
» Because we were expecting bids to come
in around 14 or 15 million. We're at 10
million.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So So, and some did come in
» Yeah. Yeah. So So, and some did come in
higher,
>> right?
» right?
>> Yeah. So, uh, we have a motion to table.
» Yeah. So, uh, we have a motion to table.
We do not have a second on that motion
yet that I've heard.
I I still wanted to hear more about I
get your staff's recommendation. You've
made a determination that um it's
nonresponsive,
but I'm I'm I'm still trying to figure
out more the material versus immaterial.
like what would be a an example of uh
something that as staff you would be
able to say, you know, we can kind of um
>> an immaterial deviation.
» an immaterial deviation.
>> Um
» Um
>> putting something on the wrong line, but
» putting something on the wrong line, but
the information is still there.
Something like that. Right
>> here, the information wasn't there.
» here, the information wasn't there.
That's the difference.
>> And signatures were different.
» And signatures were different.
signatures on a notary versus the page
that they were notorizing.
>> Is immaterial immaterial
go beyond the bid amounts that are that
are on the bid form or is it or is it
more so does it put attention on the
actual bid items so that you
>> material?
» material?
>> Yeah. Like what
» Yeah. Like what
>> it's the items that we've that we've
» it's the items that we've that we've
explained here. I mean it doesn't have
anything to do with the numbers or the
bid because those those um
uh we didn't have an issue. So for
example, the certificates for the fleet
that the letter seems to have then kind
of provided instead of well here's the
searchs,
>> right?
» right?
>> You're you're considering that to be
» You're you're considering that to be
material,
>> right? Because that is a specification
» right? Because that is a specification
requirement. That is a bid requirement.
You submit these forms
with the bid.
>> I think too if we start allowing people
» I think too if we start allowing people
to submit these documents post bid, at
what point does that stop? Because what
now to your point what's material versus
immaterial? The bid was not complete.
TBU acknowledges that. We have a bid
protest that outlines everything that
was incomplete. We have our own
independent review that was reviewed by
BBK that also acknowledges how
incomplete it was. It's not one item
that's a material immaterial deviation
to your question, right? What is an
often it's one item. We've seen that
where it's been
>> maybe a date. I think there was one
» maybe a date. I think there was one
where it was supposed to be the 29th. It
was the 27th. That was an administrative
error.
This is not.
>> And to Jim's point, when you have a
» And to Jim's point, when you have a
request for bid like this, a public bid,
we don't have discretion.
You either meet the contract
requirements or you don't. Versus with
an RFP, that's where you have the
ability to have some discretion and to
negotiate. But if you start saying, "Oh,
well, we'll let those certificates slide
on this one." Well, that's being
discreet. That's having discretion.
And and then to Sabrina's point, what do
we do the next time? We have to, you
know, it's it's this moving target all
the time. With bids, there's no moving
target. It is what it is. It's per the
specifications. It's a public bid.
[laughter] Either they submit the
documents properly or they don't.
Well,
>> I think it's fair to say it's not just a
» I think it's fair to say it's not just a
scanning issue. Correct.
>> So, u we have a motion. At what point
» So, u we have a motion. At what point
does the motion die for lack of a
second?
>> I'll second. We've never had this happen
» I'll second. We've never had this happen
before. All right. We have a second. So,
the motion is to table this item. One
one other question I have timing wise.
If let's say it sounds like we may have
um potential litigation here. Maybe this
is something that we can help we can get
more explanation for in close session.
>> Yeah, exactly.
» Yeah, exactly.
>> I mean, if we do that, that would be at
» I mean, if we do that, that would be at
the next meeting, which would be take us
to the first meeting in February for for
further action.
>> We open bids October 2nd, I believe.
» We open bids October 2nd, I believe.
>> So, at what point do these bids expire?
» So, at what point do these bids expire?
>> Uh, November 20th,
» Uh, November 20th,
>> 60 days next week.
» 60 days next week.
>> So, these bids will expire. Mhm.
» So, these bids will expire. Mhm.
>> So either we take action today or or the
» So either we take action today or or the
whole thing just
>> goes.
» goes.
>> Well, we can go back and ask the
» Well, we can go back and ask the
contractors to extend their bids, but
that's a market risk.
>> We don't know how we don't know what
» We don't know how we don't know what
their subcontractors are facing as far
as material prices or
>> if if we vote if we vote and the and the
» if if we vote if we vote and the and the
vote fails to table, can we take further
action and approve the stack
recommendation today?
>> Yes. Yes, of course.
» Yes. Yes, of course.
>> All right.
» All right.
and a close session uh to explain
in graphic detail what the legal
implications would be in this
recommendation of not going with the
with the with the recommended
contractor. We could certainly do that
before any action taken by the board.
But I mean it's as I said before that I
think it's been well explained what the
legal exposure would be.
>> Right. I think it's significant.
So, you've got a motion and a second to
table.
>> All right. So, are we ready for a roll
» All right. So, are we ready for a roll
call vote?
>> The action would be to mot the item in
» The action would be to mot the item in
order to then consider the second lowest
biders protest at the better future
meeting.
>> Are you okay to vote, John? On on the
» Are you okay to vote, John? On on the
line.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> All right. All right. Let's go to the
» All right. All right. Let's go to the
roll call vote then, please.
>> President Pal,
» President Pal,
>> no.
» no.
>> Vice President Estrada?
» Vice President Estrada?
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Director Biano?
» Director Biano?
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Director Aguilar?
» Director Aguilar?
No
>> director Nelson.
» director Nelson.
>> No.
» No.
>> Okay. Motion failed.
» Okay. Motion failed.
>> Okay. So, the motion failed
» Okay. So, the motion failed
and I'm going to move that we accept
staff recommendation on this item.
>> I would second that.
» I would second that.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
Any other discussion?
Uh, roll call, please.
>> President Pal.
» President Pal.
>> I.
» I.
>> Vice President Estrada.
» Vice President Estrada.
>> No.
» No.
>> Director Biano.
» Director Biano.
>> No. Director Aguular.
» No. Director Aguular.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> And Director Nelson.
» And Director Nelson.
>> Hi.
» Hi.
>> Thank you. 32.
» Thank you. 32.
>> Pass. 32.
» Pass. 32.
>> The rare split vote.
» The rare split vote.
>> I I I don't like that, but it is what it
» I I I don't like that, but it is what it
is.
>> Well, that's uh I appreciate the
» Well, that's uh I appreciate the
contractors being here locally.
>> So, thank you for your interest, and I
» So, thank you for your interest, and I
hope that you continue to [snorts]
>> submit bids.
» submit bids.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Thanks for coming in.
» Thanks for coming in.
All
right. Where are we? The
» This is the uh Kora Constructors,
Armando 8. Good morning.
>> Good morning, President Pow, members of
» Good morning, President Pow, members of
the board, audience, and fellow staff.
Uh my name for the record is Armando
Rodriguez with the engineering
department. Uh the purpose of this borch
action item is to award a construction
contract to core constructors as the
lowest responsible and responsive bid. I
got nervous saying that right now.
>> Yeah, those words matter.
» Yeah, those words matter.
>> Yes. Amount of 1,949,949
by authorizing general manager to secure
a contract for the construction of the
station 5512
um and lift station 8107
upgrade project specifications 2024-12.
We're also seeking soft cost um needed
during the construction um and for CD
project management 30 about 30,000
engineering support services during
construction about 127,000 and then so
compaction testing with RMA group of
about 20,000 and then we also had to pay
for our ongoing inspection of the
project of about 115,000. So the total
request or in a contingency of about
98,000. Uh so the total request today is
$2,33644.
Um what are we doing here? What what is
it that we're trying to do with lift
station 5512 which is right next to the
Home Depot at Jefferson Highway 111. And
also what are we doing here with lift
station 8107 which is above Avenue 402nd
just south of Shadow Hills uh Golf Club.
Well, we we need reinvestment uh of
these two lift stations. Uh some of the
order control and the liner are
dilapitated. They're not actually
functioning. And so we have to reinvest.
These are infrastructure. These two
infrastructure are more than 16 years
old. And so we just need to be able to
reestablish uh the resilency and
reliability of both the um chemical
order treatment and the wet well. The
great thing as we do this uh we have an
opportunity here to move away from
chemical odor control. Um there is a
better process more efficient process
and that is to do biological treatment
control and I think this is a great
opportunity now that it has dilapitated
and it's aged out it's time to improve
it. Um the project was duly advertised
on November 18th uh through planet bids.
The junior's estimate was 2.1 million.
And on December 18th
uh we received a total of four bids
ranging of 1.9 million to about 2.9
million. There's about a million dollar
spread on those four bids. Uh stuff has
staff has reviewed uh the lowest bidder
core constructions. We have looked at
their bid amount. Uh we found no
material mistakes. Um or and uh so we're
therefore recommending the construction
to contract to core construction in that
amount of $1,949.
Um the project um it is budgeted within
sanitation fiscal year budget of $2.1
million using PGO funding. We estimate
that about 1.2 2 million will be spent
this year and then the rest the other
1.2 million will be spent uh for next
fiscal year budget for next fiscal year.
I'll pause here to see if there's any
questions associated with this project
that I might might answer.
>> Thank you.
» Make a motion to approve u another local
contractor.
>> Local contractor. Yes.
» Local contractor. Yes.
>> Yeah. So, uh, happy one made it through.
» Yeah. So, uh, happy one made it through.
But, uh, yeah, they're they're great to
work with. Um,
good good presentation.
>> Thank you.
» Yes,
>> that was a motion to approve. Is there a
» that was a motion to approve. Is there a
second?
>> I'll second.
» I'll second.
>> Second. Any discussion?
» Second. Any discussion?
All of Oh, roll call, please.
>> President Pal.
» President Pal.
>> I.
» I.
>> Vice President Estrada.
» Vice President Estrada.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Director Biano.
» Director Biano.
>> Hi.
» Hi.
>> Director Ailar.
» Director Ailar.
>> Yes. [snorts] and director Nelson.
» Yes. [snorts] and director Nelson.
>> Hi.
» Hi.
>> Thank you. 50.
» Thank you. 50.
>> That's 50. Thanks, Armando. On 8C, I
» That's 50. Thanks, Armando. On 8C, I
have a a financial interest in this item
and we'll be recusing and leaving the
room. So, Vice President Estrada, it's
all yours.
>> All right. Interesting project.
» All right. Interesting project.
>> Yes. Good morning, um, President Pal,
» Yes. Good morning, um, President Pal,
members of the board. Um, this morning,
I'm requesting the board's approval of
the water supply assessment for the
ranch at Madison project.
Here's a map of do uh project location.
It is located
um on Monroe Street and Jackson from
west to east and between avenues 52nd
and 54th north to south. Um the project
comprises
actually let me see here's the project
plan and this is a very conceptual plan
here that's proposing 85 uh residential
units of low density and medium density.
Uh a private short golf course and a
clubhouse that will feature dining
facilities and spaces for events and
various sports and leisure amenities. Um
and the breakdown are shown here. Um
residential building areas comprised of
44,73
uh square feet
>> acres
» acres
173.8 8 acres, not square feet.
>> Oh, um, yeah, I was mentioning the
» Oh, um, yeah, I was mentioning the
non-residential building area, the 44,00
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Uh, 73 square ft and land areas of
» Uh, 73 square ft and land areas of
course is about 174 acres.
Uh, projected total demand of this
project is 66 about 669 acre feet per
year. That's equivalent to 3.84 acre
feet per acre. Um indoor residential
demand is 10.47 acre feet per year in
the indoor commercial and industrial
demand is 18.42
acre feet per year and the outdoor
irrigation demand is 31.93
acre feet per year. The outdoor
recreation demand is 607.85
acre feet per year and that's the bulk
of the uh projected water demand of the
project.
Um with that I would stop here for any
questions or comments.
>> Is the water use on the golf course how
» Is the water use on the golf course how
does that compare to golf courses that
we have currently? So this is the factor
that we use for project and as you know
we have certain uh target towards um the
incoming year on regulation of outdoor
usage and um this is the factor that we
use that's comparable to if not stricter
than the current uh out uses. So, we
look at the aggregate use of the
project, not the specific parts of the
project. And I think that's kind of
where Director Biano was going is, do we
have a way to compare the use on the
golf course to other golf courses? If
Olivia was here, she'd probably be able
to do that off the top of her head.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Yeah. We'll take [laughter] a look at
» Yeah. We'll take [laughter] a look at
that and we'll get back to you. You
>> Yeah, I I have a question in kind of
» Yeah, I I have a question in kind of
related to that. I I think the 3.84 is a
is a metric that is a is a better
metric. uh from a project by project uh
uh analysis rather than the 660
69 acre feet on the project. I mean I'm
looking through all the other WSAs and
um you know there's some at you know
5,000 uh acre feet. Um but to me it's
kind assessment should be u you know the
aggregate of the project and and so I
look at the 3.8 84. And to me, that
rings rather high in terms of what some
of the others that we've seen uh come
through. And although your list doesn't
have the um per foot, which I I would
like to get at some point, um but it
just seems high to me and and I, you
know, so that begs the question, is the
golf course, you know, significantly
impacting this whole project uh in
there? And you know, I I'm struggling
with that that amount. I thought our
ordinances would bring the member in in
the in the twos rather than the threes.
So,
I guess I'm, you know, I look at this
project and I'm thinking, wow, it's
pretty high water use.
>> You um sometimes report the
» You um sometimes report the
demand uh as a percentage of the
>> the plan increases. Yeah, you
» the plan increases. Yeah, you
>> that's the project is accounts for about
» that's the project is accounts for about
1.34 of the total plan increases. And
you look at the attachment three, we
have all the projects listed. And what
is the p the percentage so far um of our
total uh projected water use by 2045.
And if this project is approved, we're
at 39% of the projected uh water use.
>> Okay, that's a that's a very nice um
» Okay, that's a that's a very nice um
>> Yes. Nice table.
» Yes. Nice table.
>> You all were curious. Oh, we keep
» You all were curious. Oh, we keep
approving this WSA, but where where are
we on the percentage? Have we exceeded
that amount?
>> So, we have a projection that takes us
» So, we have a projection that takes us
to 2045.
>> Yes. And right now, with all the
» Yes. And right now, with all the
projects approved, we're at 39%.
>> Is that projected demand?
» Is that projected demand?
>> So, that Thank you for this um table
» So, that Thank you for this um table
here.
>> Of course, staff will continue to update
» Of course, staff will continue to update
this table as we bring new WSAs for us
for your approval. You can see what it
is.
>> That's what that is. Yeah,
» That's what that is. Yeah,
that's currently
I I was just a little concerned because
that, you know, sitting on the golf and
water task force, there's a lot of golf
courses that are spending a lot of money
uh ripping out turf to try and at least
have some kind of desert landscape um
incorporated into their golf course. And
I didn't know how this compares to other
golf courses. Is it green grass from one
side or the other? Although that's not
our I mean that's not where this board
is elected to do is is decide that we
all we decide is do you meet our
criteria and
>> obviously this meets our criteria or you
» obviously this meets our criteria or you
wouldn't be here.
>> Right. And they also in included a plant
» Right. And they also in included a plant
pallet that's um desert friendly as well
in the WSA.
>> Yeah. So just from the chart you have up
» Yeah. So just from the chart you have up
here, it's 5.32
acre feet per acre on the golf on the
golf course.
>> And I don't know how that compares
» And I don't know how that compares
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> to others like
» to others like
>> to others. Yeah.
» to others. Yeah.
>> Yeah. I don't know if that's high or
» Yeah. I don't know if that's high or
>> low or
» low or
>> remember we had we had that chart they
» remember we had we had that chart they
gave us also at the
>> Yeah. They broke down the the um acre
» Yeah. They broke down the the um acre
feet per acre of each golf course. I
think is that what they're working on
too? Yeah, they're mapping
>> Jim.
» Jim.
>> Yes, I'm trying to pull up uh the last
» Yes, I'm trying to pull up uh the last
>> sub that um
» sub that um
>> yeah, on this project I mean the the
» yeah, on this project I mean the the
Gulf area um is 43% of the total project
which so that 5.3 has a greater impact
on on the total project.
» [snorts]
>> She doesn't have this was uh
» She doesn't have this was uh
Olivia's last for 2025.
So I don't have the one for 20, but this
is the acre foot per course and this is
the acre foot per hole. So it doesn't
>> So So Jim, you might want to mention
» So So Jim, you might want to mention
whatever numbers you're looking at.
Well, it's a table and it's got the ETO
um the evapo transpiration and golf
course water use for various months of
2025.
Um this is just the one I pulled up. It
doesn't have November, December
>> acre feet per you don't know the acres.
» acre feet per you don't know the acres.
>> Yeah,
» Yeah,
>> but how big is a course typically like?
» but how big is a course typically like?
>> So this would be 2024 because this year
» So this would be 2024 because this year
is not finished, right? Total. So
>> the total acre foot for course, she
» the total acre foot for course, she
doesn't have a a total there or it is
acre foot
>> peru.
» Yeah. She doesn't have the acreage of
the course.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Yeah. To compare course.
» Yeah. To compare course.
>> So not helpful at all.
» So not helpful at all.
>> No.
» No.
>> No. [laughter]
» No. [laughter]
>> But it was a good try though.
» But it was a good try though.
>> If she was here, she would
» If she was here, she would
>> she would not.
» she would not.
>> Yeah. Well, doc staff can definitely put
» Yeah. Well, doc staff can definitely put
something like this together for the
future WSA approval so that you could
see um how the project compares.
>> All right. Uh there not any further
» All right. Uh there not any further
comments, questions. Is there a motion
to approve?
Asking for a motion.
I think there might still be some
reviews and thoughts.
» I'm just concerned about the overall
water use on it. Um I mean I know we
don't we don't have I I think we have
discretion on projects uh in terms of
overall water use. Um I think this one's
high.
» Yeah, we have folks from the project
that are here to answer questions you
may have as well.
I got something. I don't know why it's
backwards. Golf course water use in acre
feet, but it's again not per acre. So, I
guess that doesn't help either.
I
>> think we're getting somebody on the line
» think we're getting somebody on the line
from the project team.
>> We do have Frank on the line. Frank, if
» We do have Frank on the line. Frank, if
you'd like to unmute yourself, if you
have any information you'd like to add
or make yourself available for any
questions to the board, you can do so at
this time.
>> Hi. Yes. Can you guys hear me? Okay.
» Hi. Yes. Can you guys hear me? Okay.
This is Frank Cahill with RTL.
>> Yes, we can hear you.
» Yes, we can hear you.
>> Yeah. Uh, I'm afraid I I I probably
» Yeah. Uh, I'm afraid I I I probably
can't answer as it were uh the
comparison to other golf courses, but I
I've um I could just reiterate that the
the amount of the increase here is about
1% and and having um in the WSA it does
uh clearly go through um the the the
potential for future dry years, a single
dry year and then five dry years over
the next 20 year period up to 2045.
And it kind of uh it goes through and it
explains how if any of those uh dry
years were to happen uh how CVWD can
still produce the water um uh for this
golf course irrigation. And you you guys
are probably very familiar with this
from from previous WSAs, but um
basically I think the bottom line on the
WSA was that um CVWD has the the the
ability to to pump from the groundwater
basin. um if any of those um dry years
do happen and the overall impact of this
particular project is about 1% of the
increase. I think it's uh one and a
half% of the increase between now and
then. So that's all I could comment on.
I I I don't know the the actual um acre
feet per acre of other projects in the
locality to compare to. Do do do do do
do do do do do do do do do do do do do
do do do do do we know um it is this
actively farmed and do we know the
comparison of the current water demand
if this is being irrigated um in
comparison to the projected water demand
on this project
>> it's going to be lower no matter what
» it's going to be lower no matter what
>> it's going to be lower no matter what.
» it's going to be lower no matter what.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> So I that's a good thing right?
» So I that's a good thing right?
>> Yeah.
» I just don't know if we should
just the we should look at
>> what if if we table this does it have
» what if if we table this does it have
any sort of impact on your um on any of
your other approvals with with the
county or or does it have any sort of
impact on that?
>> Uh I think John is in the audience
» Uh I think John is in the audience
there. He could probably uh comment on
that better but but yes I think we were
uh hoping to get this done quickly so
that we can move forward with the other
approvals. But uh maybe John could
comment on that.
Hi John, would you please come up if you
could answer that question? This is this
completely independent of the county
process or do you need this checked off
or
>> Yeah, this is
» Yeah, this is
>> part of
» part of
>> if we can have you come up to the podium
» if we can have you come up to the podium
please. You can come up to this podium
as well.
>> The water supply assessment is part of
» The water supply assessment is part of
their squa their environmental document.
>> Um good morning John Gamlin with
» Um good morning John Gamlin with
Discovery Land Company. Um I do have if
you I'm sorry I do have the blue card if
you need it.
>> I'll take that after.
» I'll take that after.
>> Okay. Um I I am a senior vice president
» Okay. Um I I am a senior vice president
of development for Discovery and so yes
this is part of our environmental
process. We're in the midst of uh it's
imminent actually. We're submitting our
administrative draft EIR to the county
this week. Um so that will be in public
circulation probably within we hope
within six weeks. and the WSA is a uh
requirement of the EIR. So, the
information is in the EIR.
Um
I, you know, I'm sure we can probably
resolve some of the the questions um
with the engineer if you know if the if
the board isn't able to approve this
today. I I think that my long experience
in the valley, I think this golf course
is is no different than any other golf
course uh approved in the current um
setting in terms of the regulation and
it's water demand. I know there are
limitations on turf. I think it adheres
to all the the ordinance 1302
requirements.
Um and then you know it is an aid plant
pallet. So, um, and it does intend to
use non-politable water sources that's
on the property today. A question was
asked about farming. Historically,
uh, of the 174 acres of the project
site, all but uh, 19 acres has been
farmed in recent times. And in fact, 100
acres have been in crops as recently as
a year ago. So there is still active
farming under leaseolds that um we have
in place on the property. There's a 19
acre date grove and about 100 acres
that's in
um vegetable production. There is 40
acres that was followed that was in
vegetable production a year or two ago.
But um I you know I mean our my intent
and our our intent is always to design a
very water efficient project
um to the extent of you know how we're
using water the type of water we're
using whether it's you know portable or
non-potable water sources and I think to
the greatest extent possible our intent
is to use uh non-potable water sources
including canal water which is available
to the site today.
>> Thank you for that. I I have to the
» Thank you for that. I I have to the
point to the point that you made about
the project meets all the regulations
related to water efficiency and
>> I guess that's a question for staff. Um
» I guess that's a question for staff. Um
when we talk about water efficiency does
it does it incorporate all water use
including non-potable um and domestic or
is it only uh a domestic
>> Say that again. I'm sorry.
» Say that again. I'm sorry.
So our regulations for water efficiency
>> are they only for domestic or are they
» are they only for domestic or are they
all for all water use
>> for all water use and we look at indoors
» for all water use and we look at indoors
and out as well as outdoors.
>> So although this is using the acre acre
» So although this is using the acre acre
feet per acre it met all those
regulations otherwise it would have been
denied.
>> Correct. Correct. And to get back to
» Correct. Correct. And to get back to
your question about how does this golf
course proposed golf course compares to
the curtain golf courses and we tracked
down Olivia's um presentation to the
water count uh water counts academy um
and her average of uh 955 acre feet per
year um on a golf course on larger cores
it's about 1,400 acre feet per year.
So to compare to this project, the
demand here is 67 below the average.
>> Yeah, it's hard because I think this is
» Yeah, it's hard because I think this is
a shorter this is not a full 18, right?
>> Short course.
» Short course.
I just I just um you know this I've been
kind of opposed to kind of restrictions
on any of these things but times are
changing a little bit and um I just want
to make sure that we're not we're not
approving something that's going to come
back and
>> I don't think it is
» I don't think it is
I don't think it is. It's met all it's
met all our regulations.
>> Yeah. If I may just real briefly just to
» Yeah. If I may just real briefly just to
to remind the board this is a WSA to
determine whether there are uh
sufficient water supplies during normal
single dry and multi dry multiple dry
years over a 20-year projection to meet
the projected demands. This is not a
commitment to water service. This is
part of a squa uh process being done by
the land use agency and the applicant
much like a traffic report or air
quality or things of that nature. It's
not a commitment to service. It is not
it does not overrule the use
requirements that this board and this
district has now or implements prior to
this actually being developed. So it
doesn't limit or overrule
the use limitations that apply at CBWD,
nor is it even a commitment to serve
water. It's part of the secret process
at the applicants level. It's not
binding on this board, nor does it
change today or at any time what the
water used to restrictions and
conservation measures are in effect
today or may be in effect at the time
they develop the property.
>> I I I get what you're saying, Jeff, but
» I I I get what you're saying, Jeff, but
listen, [clears throat] that that is
that that wouldn't be a nice thing to
do. I mean, once we approve this, we're
basically telling the project, you're
good to go. I mean, for us to come back
and say, you know what, things have
changed. We're going to take that away.
I wouldn't want to do that. We're we're
so far away from our projected water
demand that this looks into like 20 20
years ahead. We're at we're at 39%.
>> We I mean I think I' I'd be more in
» We I mean I think I' I'd be more in
agreement with trying to be more careful
if we were like at 90% and we were
reaching our kind of our our threshold,
but we're we're we're so far we're so
far away from from it. And I mean this
represents 1 point something%
of our projected demand.
I was just more worried about the look.
>> Jeff, when does when does u the right to
» Jeff, when does when does u the right to
serve become verifiable and a promise? I
mean, it's not during this process. It's
a process. Is it the verification
process that we have?
>> No, it's it's whatever the application
» No, it's it's whatever the application
process is to large developments to seek
service. I that
>> service application
» service application
>> be a water service application process
» be a water service application process
>> agreement.
» agreement.
>> Yeah. So when they come forward with
» Yeah. So when they come forward with
plans and say we're going to build this
and this is where we're going to put in
then the you know staff says well this
is how we need to have it built. This is
how much water you can use. This is
where the water goes. This is the water
source.
>> So that's when the uh the developers
» So that's when the uh the developers
plans meet the district's ordinance at
that point.
>> Correct.
» Correct.
>> Right.
» Right.
>> Which we're not even to the point of
» Which we're not even to the point of
them applying for service.
>> Right. Right.
» Right. Right.
And um Joanne, is our uh
under our ordinance, do we have an
overall acre feet per acre on that or is
it just depending on the type of
development?
>> It's the type of development
» It's the type of development
>> and of course like Jeff pointed out is
» and of course like Jeff pointed out is
that as our ordinance um get amended
then of course we would be more
conservative based on that ordinance.
Okay. Well, I mean, I I'll make a motion
to approve the water supply assessment
under the under the thoughts that, you
know, times are changing and um uh I u
and we are getting drier and this
nonpotable water use to me means a fair
amount of Colorado River water which is
at risk and um and recycled water which
is developing. So um and we are
underneath our overall u water supply uh
outlooks but um I would say you know I'm
making the motion uh with great concerns
about the overall acre feet per acre in
this project and that as we go forward
and and approve these or or deny them
that uh acre feet per acre is a a metric
that is pretty important when we look at
overall supply. So, I'll make the motion
to
>> I'll second.
» I'll second.
>> So, we got a motion, a second, and I and
» So, we got a motion, a second, and I and
I'll say if you could somebody from
staff could or share the that table,
Jim, so that we can gauge on how this
compares to other uh golf courses.
>> Hi, sir.
» Hi, sir.
>> That that'd be helpful. And uh
» That that'd be helpful. And uh
>> we'll do
» we'll do
>> uh so there's a a motion, a second u we
» uh so there's a a motion, a second u we
have roll call, please. Uh Director
Agar, you have any comments?
>> I I do not. Thank you.
» I I do not. Thank you.
>> Okay, we we can have a roll call.
» Okay, we we can have a roll call.
>> Okay. Vice President Estrada.
» Okay. Vice President Estrada.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Director Aguular.
» Director Aguular.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Director Biano.
» Director Biano.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Director Nelson.
» Director Nelson.
>> Hi.
» Hi.
>> Motion pass.
» Motion pass.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> And um
» And um
>> I think we could get John.
» I think we could get John.
>> You want to grab John?
» You want to grab John?
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Standing there waiting.
» Made it. Should put a surf
less water.
>> I know. [clears throat]
Okay.
On to 9A.
We did have the Was it just the one that
came in
>> for this on C?
» for this on C?
>> I can't get my mic. Yes, that came in uh
» I can't get my mic. Yes, that came in uh
yesterday evening. So, I went ahead and
added that on. It was distributed to the
board and added to the blog.
>> All right. Thank you.
» All right. Thank you.
Board comments and request for future
agenda items. General board comments.
Director Nelson.
>> Um, no, not too much. Just um, you know,
» Um, no, not too much. Just um, you know,
California has been declared drought
free. How about that? Drought free. Um
uh and we're and I guess Orville is
releasing flood supplies uh with uh no
opportunity to collect those as exports
out of the Delta. So um I guess all is
good in the world. Um
um although Colorado River systems at uh
80 no 66% of their snow pack and as you
recall we had 100% uh snowpack with
about a 75% runoff. So uh this is off to
our driest year on the Colorado River
basin in quite a number of years if not
in all history. So, um, should be
interesting, uh, how it affects the
negotiations going forward. Right now,
that's all I have.
>> Um, Director Aguilar,
» Um, Director Aguilar,
>> no, John, no comments.
» no, John, no comments.
>> Okay, thanks. Vice President Estrada,
no, no comments.
I think I'm going to pass also.
Do we have any requests for future
agenda items?
» Hearing none.
>> On to reports for meetings. We had um
» On to reports for meetings. We had um
let's see the December 23rd special
meeting. Those present were listed here.
Um January 8th conservation commission.
Director Biano.
So this meeting was basically all about
the burrowing owl. In October 2024, the
state uh has put a petition out to uh
designate the western buring owl as
threatened endangered.
And uh through our multiecies habitat
plan uh it was thought that uh in the
Coachella Valley uh we had zero
burrowing owls and we needed 15 uh
groups.
I'm not sure they kind of explained it
but I don't know if I could fully
explain it to you. It's it's a grouping
of al so 15 groupings. Um, IID
thankfully uh went out and uh spent $4
million on a survey uh for the Imperial
Valley and the Coachella Valley. Uh and
uh luckily we have 500
uh of these uh pairs here in the
Coachella Valley and the Imperial Valley
has over 7,800.
So there is some caution and the caution
is is that sometimes uh the data doesn't
drive decisions in Sacramento and that
the word was to get it out to our
elected to pass the word to uh everyone
else that this you know this should not
be a problem here in the Coachella
Valley and that the Coachella Valley
from here all the way to the Imperial
Valley should be carved out of uh this
uh threatened endangered species. So we
will see how things go. But I want to
say thank you to IID for for this. This
was this was a huge huge undertaking.
They had you know 80 to 100 people uh in
the Coachella Valley that uh it took to
actually go out and and walk uh these
areas. Uh most of the areas are not in
the agricultural areas. They're they're
more uh in the foothills below Desert
Hot Springs and Thousand Palms and then
in Palm Springs. So, it was not not an
easy task. There wasn't a lot of roads
like they have in Imperial Valley where
uh you could drive to and find these
owls. So, which probably a good thing
that there's not people next to them.
Anyways, that's my update.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
Yeah. Know I need to learn more about
that buring owl. I have a a lot of owls
around my house, but not those kinds.
>> Weren't we going to Didn't we ask for
» Weren't we going to Didn't we ask for
like an item to to come to us in close
session maybe? Um I think at the last
meeting there was a comment on that. Is
that being scheduled?
» Current currently there are a lot of
moving parts at the state level. our
representatives working with way crawl
food office to address this issue. So,
um we'll bring this back to the board in
February in close session.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Thank you. Thank you.
» Thank you. Thank you.
>> Yeah, of course.
» Yeah, of course.
>> Okay. The the next meeting was January
» Okay. The the next meeting was January
9th, Colorado River Board, Director
Nelson. And actually, I made an
appearance there as well.
>> Since they're were local, I couldn't
» Since they're were local, I couldn't
resist.
>> No, thanks for coming, John. Appreciate
» No, thanks for coming, John. Appreciate
that. Um
obviously we got our updates on on dry
hydrarology in the basin and then as uh
we were meeting the Bureau of
Reclamation uh released uh the draft
environmental impact station uh
statement um EIS for the post2026
operational guidelines strategies for
Lake Pal and Lake me. Uh in this
document there are five alternatives. Uh
and we discussed those alternatives at
some length but not in um the degree uh
that we could because obviously this was
released during our meeting our CRB
meeting. Um
but uh there are five different
alternatives. Some go by the priority
system and uh there are other
alternatives in here that go to 4
million acre feet of reductions in the
lower basin. Um as you know the number
out there is 1.5 million acre feet of
the entire lower basin offer with Mexico
included. So 4 million is you know over
double. So, uh there are some problems
uh with that obviously and uh uh this
week uh we learned at the meeting that
this week uh uh the bureau has
sequestered the principles in um in Utah
uh the frigid air of Utah to uh try and
hammer out some greater details on what
a consensus u solution might be. Steve
Abbott is um attending that for on our
behalf. Uh
and so we'll see what they come up with.
Uh the one of the alternatives is a
hybrid of the upper basin, lower basin
potential consensus. Uh and there are
some uh problems with it. Uh but it does
offer some uh storage opportunities as
well as dealing with uh current ICS that
would be beneficial to Metropolitan. Um
it seems to me like that that
alternative if uh negotiated between the
upper and lower basin would be uh
reasonable if we could get some
accommodations in that and some
commitment from the upper basin to
contribute. it it looks at um
curtailments of between 1.5 which is on
the table of the lower basin and 2.1
million acre feet. Um so another 600,000
and uh I think the lower basin's
negotiation strategy has been we'll
contribute 1.5 and then split something
addition to that to the upper basin. So
it seems to me like there are now some
parameters out there that can be
discussed and u hopefully agreed upon
with that group.
>> Can I ask you a question? So
» Can I ask you a question? So
>> is reclamation just putting they're just
» is reclamation just putting they're just
worried about lower and upper but they
they don't have any recommendations on
how the lower basin would accomplish
that.
>> No, it's just the the the big number,
» No, it's just the the the big number,
right? So, so, uh,
>> so there's still, so there's,
» so there's still, so there's,
>> so there's still there's still lower
» so there's still there's still lower
bas.
>> So, there's a there's that negotiation
» So, there's a there's that negotiation
and then there's another negotiation
that will come later.
>> Exactly.
» Exactly.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Exactly.
» Thank you. Um, other reports, actually,
I have [clears throat] two.
Uh, January 7th, we had the Coachella
Irrigated Lands Coalition meeting.
>> Were you on that one?
» Were you on that one?
>> I was on that. Peter, Director Nelson
» I was on that. Peter, Director Nelson
also
um
are really looking for some help from
Rachel Johnson with the Farm Bureau and
she's getting up to speed
>> and I think she's going to be a
» and I think she's going to be a
tremendous help for us um to try to get
things done at a more reasonable cost
um otherwise there's consultants out
there that'll do it for a lot more money
and uh it's turning into a a bit of a
burden.
for the uh irrigators.
Don't know if you had anything else, but
[clears throat]
>> that's how I view it. That's how I view
» that's how I view it. That's how I view
it. All right. And then actually
yesterday I had a Desert Valley Builders
Association
meeting with our new executive director.
There was a board meeting and um
there was talk I think it was true from
our representative down in Imperial
Valley that there's a plan for a 10
billion dollar investment in a data
center. I'd like to learn more about
that. 10 billion in Imperial
>> in Imperial.
» in Imperial.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> There's a lot of protest.
» There's a lot of protest.
>> I know there's a lot going on down
» I know there's a lot going on down
there. I know. I
do. Do we get news clips from the
Imperial Valley Press?
>> We do.
» We do.
>> We do. Huh? I don't know if I
» We do. Huh? I don't know if I
>> have time to read all those, but those
» have time to read all those, but those
are the ones I'd like to start reading.
>> I think the developer just sued some of
» I think the developer just sued some of
the cities.
[clears throat and cough]
>> Anyways, that's
» Anyways, that's
apparently they have the power.
Put it right on one of the transmission
lines.
That's all I had. Any other meetings?
I uh yeah, on January 9th um we uh
hosted um
uh the water education for Latino
leaders group that makes its way down
here probably for the last
10 plus years now. Um
they spend uh Friday, Saturday and
Sunday here speaking with um various
folks. Uh I talked to them on Friday.
Um Patrick from the SNC Authority talked
to them Saturday and Monica Deas who
used to be with Riverside County and
then USDA and I think now she kind of
runs her own um
firm uh spoke to them also on Saturday
and Director Nelson, you spoke to them
on Sunday.
>> Sunday.
» Sunday.
>> Uh so uh I'll I'm I'm reporting on the
» Uh so uh I'll I'm I'm reporting on the
9th and the 10th. I was with them on
Friday.
um talked about a lot of the things that
we're doing with um the disadvantaged
communities and the expansion of water
and sewer infrastructure into the east
valley and uh a little bit about the
salt and sea and then I uh went with
them uh to the salt and sea in the
morning uh and spend uh the morning and
the afternoon with them.
uh smaller group this year maybe they
have a total of 13 but only six of them
I think came down to the region
>> and then they um they also have another
» and then they um they also have another
visit they make to San Diego and then I
think one to like is it how you
pronounce it to
>> Hatchip yeah so they go they go there
» Hatchip yeah so they go they go there
too I I've never been to the other
locations but I'm I'm thinking I might
go to the San Diego visit it sounds like
they actually get to see some of the
Tijuana River. Um I've never seen that
in person. I hear it's a quite a sight
to look at that. So, um I think that's
happening next month, but uh yeah,
that's two days I spent with them, a
great group. Uh we do have someone's
kind of semi-local uh that joined the
group this this time and that's Martha
uh Sai. How do you pronounce your last
name?
>> Sing. S
» Sing. S
>> same
» same
>> yes supervisor of Imperial County. So
» yes supervisor of Imperial County. So
she she was she was with us this this
weekend.
>> Um was [clears throat] able to speak to
» Um was [clears throat] able to speak to
her. So
uh yeah that's that's it for me.
>> Great. Any any
» Great. Any any
>> Yeah, I was I was there on the 11th with
» Yeah, I was I was there on the 11th with
well and um uh they have a great format.
Um they they get all your bio and u all
your introductory amount uh information
and they don't want to see a PowerPoint.
they just want to have interviews. So
they they're tasked with, you know,
developing questions and they had some
very good questions about Colorado
River. And so I I they wanted to hear
about that process and uh how the
governance works within the state on
Colorado River issues and how the
contractors like CBWD fit in. So, it was
a it was a good interview and um I think
that able to um get the uh information
across to them u about Colorado River in
a in a good manner there. So, good good
program
>> and uh just want to say thank you to BBK
» and uh just want to say thank you to BBK
also for always helping us with the some
of the arrangements there. It's always
uh good to to count on you.
» Any others? Director Aguilar.
>> No, John. I'm good.
» No, John. I'm good.
>> All right, we're good. Do is there a
» All right, we're good. Do is there a
motion to approve PDM for the meetings
reported on?
>> I'll make a motion. I'll second.
» I'll make a motion. I'll second.
>> Roll call vote.
» Roll call vote.
>> President Pal,
» President Pal,
>> I.
» I.
>> Vice President Estrada,
» Vice President Estrada,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> Director Biano,
» Director Biano,
>> I.
» I.
>> Director Aguilar,
» Director Aguilar,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> And director Nelson,
» And director Nelson,
>> I pass 50.
» I pass 50.
>> General manager report. Yes, there are
» General manager report. Yes, there are
just a couple things um on the ID8 uh
Mission Springs Water District has asked
that we go out and do some outreach with
the uh community council meetings. So,
we've coordinated with the supervisor's
office and I'll be doing two of those
today. Desert Edge and Sky Valley and
then India Hills will be tentatively on
the 27th. Um so, I think uh that we
just go out and say a couple of things
and answer some questions and see where
that goes. That's all I've got. Thank
you. Council report.
>> Yes. Uh SB827 went into effect the first
» Yes. Uh SB827 went into effect the first
of the year. It has two components. The
first component is as you know all board
members are required to do AB 1234
training uh within one year of taking
office and then every two years
thereafter.
This bill changed that so that new
members of the board have to meet that
requirement in the first six months. But
the other uh main part of AB 1234 is
that it now applies to department heads
and administrative officers of the of
the district, not just the the elected
board of directors.
Uh the other part of SP827 deals with a
new requirement for some additional
training on financial training
requirements and that will be the
subject of your finance committee
meeting and a future board meeting. Uh
so more to come on that. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
Any department reports?
>> Yes, sir. We have one uh two. Okay, we
» Yes, sir. We have one uh two. Okay, we
have two.
>> Wow.
» Wow.
>> Well, Joanne has asked first to
» Well, Joanne has asked first to
introduce a new employee.
>> Oh, great.
» Oh, great.
>> Yes, we're very excited to have Kristen
» Yes, we're very excited to have Kristen
Thomas. She's our new environmental
services administrator, water quality
and compliance, who should lead our
water quality um monitoring and the
laboratory team.
>> Welcome. Great. Welcome.
» Welcome. Great. Welcome.
>> Welcome.
» Welcome.
>> Yeah. Thank you. have no words. Dan
» Yeah. Thank you. have no words. Dan
>> and then Dan,
» and then Dan,
>> apologize to Jim. I didn't announce that
» apologize to Jim. I didn't announce that
I was going to speak, but um
>> it's okay. I saw your hand.
» it's okay. I saw your hand.
>> Uh so we have a little situation on the
» Uh so we have a little situation on the
canal we're dealing with. I just wanted
to let you guys know. Um as you know, we
built a mid canal to get rid of half the
clay area whereby we have cracking. We
have another five, six miles of
cracking, four upstream, one downstream.
So I'm on the CCLP with San Diego. Uh we
agreed to do an inspection. We did the
inspection on Thursday after the rains.
As we drew the water down, there was a
there was a lot of water in the clay
behind some of the canal. So it did a
rotational slip like two or three
hundred feet on one side and couple
sections a couple hundred feet in the
other side. So we've been working uh to
get the water down two feet deep. We've
been pouring uh shot over rip wrap for
the 14 hours a day, Friday, Saturday,
and yesterday. So, we're just struggling
to um we're still pouring concrete at
6:00 p.m. and we put water on it at uh
at about 9:30. So, we're struggling to
get our orders for the next few days.
So, I just want to give you a heads up.
We're trying to ask the users to prorate
wherever possible or if it dates just
postpone a couple days to get our
delivery down, float off the lake
wherever possible downstream, stack the
canal. But, it's going to be a struggle.
Uh we hope to have this done by Friday,
but the next couple days might be a
little light on orders. So don't yell.
It's all good. We got it under control.
And in the end, um the inspection is
going to be great because um once we
have the GPS locations of where the
cracking is actually taking place, uh
we'll do a contract document. San Diego
and the San Louis Ray will pay for it.
it'll likely uh be out to bid and in
like October of 26 uh hopefully awarding
u by December. Just wanted to give you a
heads up that we're going to be a little
light the next few days that summer.
>> We planned the inspection so that it was
» We planned the inspection so that it was
in this this time frame to be cool, but
we did not anticipate to have this
situation.
>> Thanks, Dan.
» Thanks, Dan.
>> Thanks.
» Thanks.
>> Thanks.
» Thanks.
Any any L? Yeah, we got two. Might as
well do three. [laughter]
>> No,
» No,
>> we should have all of the department
» we should have all of the department
head. No, that's okay.
>> Well, thank you then. So, we do not have
» Well, thank you then. So, we do not have
a close session for today's meeting. And
so, with no further business, we are
adjourned.