[0:00] I'd like

[0:47] to call the meeting of the Carpenterry Valley Water District to order. Can we head a pleas of release, please?

[0:54] Pleas of allegiance to the flag in the United States of America, and to the Republic for its assands, one nation, and the God, indivisible liberty of justice for all.

[1:04] No, roll call, please Lisa.

[1:09] Director O'Connor?

[1:11] Director Holcomb?

[1:12] Director Volts?

[1:13] Director Robert?

[1:15] Director Van Wiggen.

[1:15] Yes.

[1:16] Five present.

[1:18] Number three, public forum.

[1:20] Any person may address the board of directors on any matter.

[1:23] Business jurisdiction, which is not on the agenda.

[1:27] Done.

[1:30] There we go, too.

[1:36] You got him on the speaker?

[1:37] Do you want us to get the GZ?

[1:42] No problem.

[1:44] Cassinda, agenda number four.

[1:49] I'll read to all items and if anybody's got any questions or comments and then we'll approve it all at once.

[1:56] So for a minutes of the regular board meeting held on January 8th, 2025.

[2:01] Probably abstaining.

[2:03] Thank you.

[2:04] And the Spursman Report for November 11, 2024, December 10,

[2:10] 2025.

[2:12] And semi-annual of Enderman Payment Report.

[2:15] Then for the Directed Quarterly Composation Report, second quarter.

[2:20] And then for E, consider authorizing scope and budget change for Hemner and Jewel,

[2:26] a real property consultant for CAP in the amount of the 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

[2:31] Okay, if there's no questions or comments, then I like emotion please.

[2:37] One of our, um, I believe we do have a public comment

[2:45] online.

[2:56] Oh, there was no, there was no comment on the, okay.

[3:00] So I think I know the way I thought you were, I thought that would be this one too.

[3:03] Yeah, and then do we want to take the minutes separately since there's going to be an abstention?

[3:09] Okay, got it. Okay, so we got item number four A.

[3:12] We need a motion please.

[3:15] Second, motion is second, any more discussion?

[3:19] Roll call, please.

[3:20] Director Conner.

[3:22] Director Holcomb.

[3:23] Absi.

[3:23] Director Bolts.

[3:24] Aye.

[3:25] Director Robert.

[3:26] Director Van Wingerdin.

[3:27] Yes.

[3:27] Motion passes four one.

[3:29] Okay, then we got four B.

[3:31] Disbursement report from November 11, 2024 to December 10, 2025.

[3:37] And at the point in the other point of order, there's a correction, it should be December 10, 2024.

[3:43] Thank you.

[3:44] I should have had a couple of things.

[3:47] Can I move through a top BCD and E it once now that we've subtracted it?

[3:52] Yes.

[3:52] So moved.

[3:54] Second.

[3:56] You're talking about B right now, right?

[3:58] I moved to a top B through E.

[4:01] Got it.

[4:01] So we're going to motion this second.

[4:03] Any more discussion?

[4:05] Roll call please.

[4:06] Director O'Connor. Director Holcomb. Yes. Director Bold.

[4:10] Director Roberts.

[4:11] Hi.

[4:12] Director Ranweer Dyn.

[4:13] Yes.

[4:14] Motion passes 50.

[4:16] Then, uh, unfinished business.

[4:19] Then we adjourned the regular meeting of the Crop to be a groundwater

[4:21] sustainability agency.

[4:28] Called the meeting to order.

[4:30] Uh, item number two public forum.

[4:32] Any person may address the border directors on any matter.

[4:35] Business is jurisdiction, which is not on the agenda.

[4:39] Yes, sir.

[4:40] Yes, sir.

[4:46] Go ahead.

[4:47] Hello, everyone.

[4:49] Hi.

[4:50] I wanted to just come as a follow up from the last meeting when presented a letter from the

[4:57] volunteer members of the advisory committee.

[5:01] I wanted to see if you had any questions about that and also looking forward to the

[5:07] discussion about that we're going to have with the committee as a follow-on from the last meeting.

[5:14] So, I just wanted to mention that, and one other follow up is that it sent in a piece to the coastal view, following up on that letter, just describing some of the nature-based groundwater recharge opportunities here in the basin.

[5:31] And one should know about that, and not sure when it'll run, but you'll be seeing it at some point.

[5:37] I'm sure.

[5:39] I'll just say we are working on the outreach plan for the meter program, and so that's kind of as my rock recollection was that there was sort of a two track discussion.

[5:58] At the last GSA meeting, one was what Alan is talking about, and that is to reassemble the

[6:06] just back to work on grants under Prop4 and any other grants that might be available for projects that the GSA would do.

[6:16] The other was, I think, maybe it was Scott mentioning that the meter piece that we were working on, the policy that

[6:26] on Scott mentioned, or maybe the GSPAC should be consulted on that, and so we are working

[6:33] on that piece. We haven't gotten to the piece that Alan is talking about, so we'll bring

[6:38] back in the future, both of those.

[6:42] All right. Thank you.

[6:43] Okay.

[6:43] I'll just, I guess, add a comment. I think we're super fortunate to have these guys willing

[6:47] to step in and help out in any way they can and what that might look like is probably something

[6:52] you guys have to figure out if there's, you know, some value to it, I think there could be.

[6:56] It's great to have a group that knows and understands what the GSA is and is willing to,

[7:01] you know, they could certainly be advocates for it or, you know, be great resources to get in touch

[7:05] with those in the community, you know, in their kind of neighborhood. So I'm sorry, I appreciate

[7:09] you guys being willing to step up and, you know, I'm sure we'll make something work out, I hope.

[7:15] I'm sure we will. I'll add that, I've said many, many times during, I guess it was last year,

[7:20] last year and a half. This is one of those talented group people. I think we've ever had ever

[7:24] put to work, and it was absolute honor. If it's resurrected, I'm sure it would be,

[7:30] I think, there's some good things that we can do. I do want to see it in specifics. I do think

[7:34] that the more specific the task and the mission, the better. I'm not open-ended and Alan with regard to

[7:39] your piece. I remember you coming in here several months ago saying, hey, we've got, you know,

[7:44] I can do this, we have resources, we can get off into kind of see where we can do with respect to

[7:49] in the weeks and that kind of thing so I haven't seen feedback on that yet I'm not sure if

[7:54] that's something that could be rolled into the committee but rather kind of what's the status

[7:58] of that as we go forward and then depending on that status is there's some kind of criteria

[8:03] that could be folded and I don't know. I support the whole team that was here before the

[8:08] fantastic group echo everything that Casey is saying but I think the CRISPR, the assignments,

[8:14] the better.

[8:18] Okay then Bob, you're going to read Will Carthons letter into the record.

[8:23] This is an item further down, I believe.

[8:32] Oh, this is actually an item on the

[8:35] CVWD. So it's on the, on the, the waterboard, not, not yet. Okay, got it. Okay. I'm not sure why it's

[8:44] okay. Yeah, it's a cap. It's a cap related. Yeah, got it. Okay.

[8:49] Thank you.

[8:50] All right.

[8:51] Shoot it.

[8:52] May I make one point of clarification?

[8:59] Scott Bandercar.

[9:01] I picked up this handout which is a couple new water district on the front and then right

[9:05] over on the back is the GSA.

[9:08] Is this a combination or a combined report or is it all GSA?

[9:13] This is the slide deck, so this slides up here.

[9:17] Thank you for reminding me not to have it loaded a month.

[9:20] This is a slide deck that is for tonight's so we start with the board meeting the CVW and then we open the GSA meeting so it is a combination of the two meetings.

[9:33] It is yes.

[9:34] Thank you.

[9:35] But I need to load that right now.

[9:43] Okay, then we have item number three and again on three A.

[9:51] Probably you want to abstain in that

[9:58] you would ever. Okay, sorry. Oh, that's right. Yeah, it was previous

[10:02] I need to abstain of item number A. Yeah, okay. Let's take item by it's a by itself then, please

[10:09] If you can have a motion

[10:13] Second motion is second anybody discussion

[10:18] Roll call please

[10:19] Dr. O'Connor.

[10:20] I'm staying.

[10:21] Dr. Holcomb.

[10:23] Dr. Bolch.

[10:24] Dr. Robert.

[10:25] Hi.

[10:25] I'm Dr. Van Mingerdin.

[10:26] Yes.

[10:27] I should pass this for one.

[10:29] Okay, then we got BC and D on Item Number B. Disbursement Report for November 11, 2024, and

[10:36] it's going to read the minute, December 10, 2024, and then item C, any question in there.

[10:44] Then item number C, Cema, and you'll vendor payment reports, any questions, then item

[10:49] Number 3D, Director Quartley Composatial Reports, Second Quarter.

[10:54] Here's no questions, if we can have a motion for 3B, C and D, please.

[10:59] Some of it.

[11:00] I'll sign up.

[11:01] We have a motion in a second and a more discussion.

[11:04] There's a roll call, please.

[11:05] Director O'Connor.

[11:07] Director Holcomb?

[11:09] Director Bulge?

[11:09] Aye.

[11:10] Director Roberts?

[11:11] Director Ben Wuyren.

[11:12] Yes.

[11:13] Motion passes 5-0.

[11:15] Okay, we got item number 4.

[11:16] infinite business, none, item number five new business, consider five A, consider board

[11:23] to reorganization for 2025. Bob, I'm going to be by transfer there to chair to Bob on

[11:30] item number A1.

[11:35] Thank you, so I will go through, actually I will bring up the election of the chairperson,

[11:44] I'm currently case man-waring it in.

[11:46] I'm looking for a motion to reelect case for the chair of the GSA.

[11:52] Some moved.

[11:55] Have a motion in a second.

[11:57] Have a roll call.

[11:59] Director O'Connor.

[12:00] Director Holcomb.

[12:02] Yes.

[12:02] Director Baloch.

[12:03] Hi.

[12:03] Director Roberts.

[12:05] Director Van Wagan.

[12:06] Yes.

[12:06] Motion passes 50.

[12:08] Okay.

[12:08] I'll see the seat back to Director Van Waring it in.

[12:12] Okay.

[12:12] Thank you, Bob. Then we get item number a two election of vice chair person and I would like to nominate Casey.

[12:23] Second.

[12:25] We're in a motion in a second. Any more discussion? Roll call, please.

[12:30] Director O'Connor. Hi. Director O'Holkum. Yes. Director Bulge.

[12:34] Director Roberts. Director Van Ringen. Yes. Motion passes five zero.

[12:38] Then we've got an item number A3, you can see the staff appointments,

[12:44] 3A, Executive Director, Curly, Bob McDonnells, 3B, Treasure, Curly, Norma,

[12:50] Rosales, Sea, Board Secretary, Curly, Lisa Silva, Alternate Board Secretary,

[12:58] Curly, Bob McDonnells, so you begin to have a motion on that, please?

[13:03] Salute.

[13:04] We're going to motion the second any more discussion. The roll call please.

[13:09] Director O'Connor. Director Holcomb. Yes. Director Paul.

[13:13] Director Roberts. Aye.

[13:15] Director Van Wingerton. Yes. Motion passes 50.

[13:20] Then what I'd like to do is take number 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. I'll read them.

[13:26] Any comments or discussion? Otherwise, I'd like to approve this together.

[13:37] So, number four, attorneys, general counsel, currently carrying parts of Myers-Bitter's

[13:45] Gibson Jones-Findhold LLP, all that June of Joy, free of nasa.

[13:52] Then we got B4B, special counsel, groundwater, and sigma, currently Jeremy and young

[13:59] of Rutan and Tucker L.P. Any questions? Then move on to item number five. Consider

[14:06] location time and day of the regular board meetings. Currently carpity city all 5-7-7-7-5.

[14:12] Carpentry Avenue. Carpentry are 5-35 p.m. on any given Wednesday. Coincidental is a

[14:19] Carpentry Valley Water Board. What a district board meeting. Any questions in 5? Then we

[14:29] called currently section 54946 of the government code and questions, then we got 7, consider

[14:37] establishing a Robert Roosevelt order for all proceedings that we're using currently in

[14:42] the questions, then we got the number 8, consider establishment of board oversight of financial

[14:48] transactions, currently all directors with a requirement that all bills, statements,

[14:53] Invoices and claims, exceeding $3,000 are reviewed and approved by one member of the committee.

[15:00] On a rotating basis that each member be provided by the list of the routine monthly bills and purchases, bill small, then $300 to be approved by the general manager. Any questions?

[15:13] I have one clarification on that on item six, there's an error in this government code section should breed 549 566 and not 466.

[15:28] Okay. Well, did his be demanded?

[15:31] Hi. Thanks. Motion to approve.

[15:33] As an end.

[15:34] I'll second.

[15:35] We've got a motion in a second. Any more discussion?

[15:37] The roll call, please.

[15:39] Dr. O'Connor?

[15:40] Aye.

[15:41] Dr. Holcomb? Yes.

[15:42] Dr. Bulge. Director Robert. Director Van Wiggenen. Yes, this is 5-0.

[15:48] Then we move on to item number B, the sitter, independent of their support, if an

[15:54] answer statements for the year 2324, prepared by Bartlett Pregnant Wolf for action.

[16:05] Yes, good evening, directors. Tonight we have with us, Tracy Solomon, who's a partner with

[16:09] P.P. W. Who's prepared a presentation for you?

[16:16] Good evening.

[16:18] I believe you guys are going to navigate through the slides for the presentation this evening.

[16:24] Yes, I'll try to follow along, but let me know when you're moving from one slide to another.

[16:29] Okay, great.

[16:31] Thank you.

[16:32] So, as mentioned, I'm going to cover the June 30, 2024 financial statement on it for

[16:43] on the next slide.

[16:45] So in your board package, you received a few letters as well as the financial statements.

[16:50] So I'm going to start by going over the required communication.

[16:54] That's covered in those letters and then within the financial statements,

[16:58] I'll highlight the independent auditors report and then just highlight a few items

[17:02] within the financial statements themselves.

[17:07] So turning to the next slide, starting with the required communications

[17:11] In accordance with audit standards, a letter was provided to the agency regarding the planning phase communication and in the packet, it's referred to it. I believe that's the planning letter.

[17:22] It covers independence, the planning process, the concept of materiality, audit risk and timing.

[17:28] And then also a letter of required communication regarding the completion is included and that's our letter of required communication.

[17:37] And lastly, the third letter that was attached was the representation letter that will be signed by management and provided back to us as part of the completion of the audit.

[17:48] So, those are the letters I'm going to highlight just a couple of items from the required

[17:53] communication letter on the completion side of things.

[17:59] We included in that letter, we noted that we did not discuss with management any alternative

[18:05] treatments within generally accepted accounting principles for accounting policies or practices

[18:11] related to material items in the current year.

[18:14] There were no new accounting standards that impacted the district in the current year, nor have there been any changes to the existing significant accounting policies.

[18:24] We did not identify any significant unusual transactions that occurred in the year under audit, and there were no significant estimates that were reflected in the financial statements.

[18:35] There were no disagreements with management over the application of significant accounting

[18:40] principles, the basis of management's judgment on significant matters.

[18:45] The scope of the audit or any disclosures or the financial statements themselves.

[18:51] On the next slide, continuing with required communication in the back of the letter, we

[18:57] attach any audit adjustments.

[19:00] there was just one adjustment to reclassify interest payable out of the loan balance and that

[19:06] was for presentation purposes. And that was, as I mentioned, included in the letter. And then

[19:13] independence is noted as well, and both the planning and the completion letter. And just noting

[19:19] that we follow, we're required to maintain our independence and we follow the AACPA independence rules.

[19:26] BPDW does provide non-attest services and that's related to assistance with financial statement preparation and management's responsible for reviewing and approving that service that non-attest service.

[19:40] And then lastly here, internal control matters.

[19:44] We did not identify any material or significant deficiencies in internal control during the current year.

[19:51] and the prior year there was a letter that was issued and that was corrected and so no new

[19:58] comments in the current year. So turning to the independent auditors report included with the

[20:06] financial statements on page 1 that first paragraph notes that we issued and unmodified or clean

[20:14] audit opinions so that's what you want. In our opinion we note that the financial statements present

[20:20] fairly in all material respects.

[20:24] So that planning letter notes that concept of materiality

[20:28] that is used here in our audit report.

[20:32] And we conducted our audits in accordance

[20:34] with auditing standards generally accepted

[20:36] in the United States of America.

[20:39] And continuing on the audit report,

[20:41] there's a section for the auditor's responsibility.

[20:44] And in there we note that the audits

[20:46] planned and performed to obtain reasonable assurance,

[20:49] So not absolute about whether the financial statements are as a whole are free from material

[20:57] misstatements.

[20:59] And so we are selecting on a test basis when we perform our audit and we're sampling

[21:04] items throughout.

[21:05] So we're not testing everything.

[21:07] And then lastly, I noted that we did not see any internal control material items or

[21:13] significant items, deficiencies in internal control, and we note in the audit report that we consider

[21:20] districts internal controls over financial reporting for designing our audit procedures, but not

[21:26] for the purpose of expressing an opinion over the internal controls, and so accordingly we do not

[21:32] express an opinion over your internal controls.

[21:37] On turning to the next slide, the basic financial

[21:40] statement start on page nine with a statement of net position. And this is a graph before we look at the actual statements themselves just a quick overview of your net position. So on the statement of net position, you have your total assets and your total liabilities. And then your net position is your assets, less your liabilities. And you can see here.

[22:02] 2024's in blue and 2023's in green that your assets were 1.8 a significant increase from

[22:09] prior year. Your liabilities as well as a significant increase and your total net position

[22:16] it did at 593,000 which it was negative in the prior year. And so you can see the green from

[22:23] the 2023 that your liabilities actually exceeded your assets.

[22:30] Moving on to the next slide is a graph on your statement of revenue expenses and just showing

[22:38] a comparison from 2024 to 2023 and so operating revenues on your left there and operating

[22:46] expense in the middle. So operating revenue was 1.3 up from 956,000 so you can see an increase

[22:55] there and then your expenses actually went down in 2024 compared to 2023. So we'll talk about

[23:03] that a little bit more when we look at the actual statements themselves. Turning to the next slide.

[23:11] question please for good yeah sorry to interrupt this Patrick I'm not

[23:16] position the change year over year 23 to 24 going from negative to negative

[23:22] see the number there but can you comment on the you know the meaningful

[23:28] differences year over year that turned us from negative to positive yes definitely

[23:33] And so let's go to this couple slides forward and we'll look at the actual statement, yeah, that one.

[23:43] We'll look at the actual statement that shows the detail that makes it that.

[23:47] So in that graph we saw total assets was this top section here.

[23:52] So the total assets about midway on this statement was 1.8 and we were looking at that compared to the 404.

[23:58] row four, just real quick I'll highlight the lines that were reflected in that graph.

[24:05] And then about two thirds of the way down the page is your total liabilities.

[24:11] And so that was the other bar graph that we saw the 1.26 compared to the 619.

[24:16] And then the net position at the very bottom that was showing the negative to 15 in the prior going to 593 in the current era.

[24:25] So going back up to the top of this statement, we saw the, we'll start with current assets.

[24:34] So your current assets make up the largest portion of your total assets at about 1.1 million.

[24:41] And you can see that grant receivable is the largest component of that 892,000.

[24:47] And in prior year, that was 367,000, so that made up the bulk of the increase in your total current assets.

[24:59] Your capital assets, just below current assets, include your LLKRO, the Park Monitoring Well Project, that occurred during 2024, so 759,000 was recorded as of 2024 compared to zero in 2023.

[25:17] 23 since that was a new project.

[25:19] So really the driving factor for the increase in total assets were your grant receivable

[25:25] increase and then your capital assets there.

[25:29] So those two things drove your assets up in 2024 and then looking at the liability section.

[25:37] Current liabilities were 971,000 in the current year compared to 219.

[25:44] So there was an additional borrowing that's reflected in that current portion, and that's related to the related party.

[25:53] Payable to Carpenteria Valley Water District.

[25:57] And that borrowing was mainly related to the El Caro project, just timing until Grant Funds came in.

[26:05] And then at your long-term liabilities, total were 293 compared to 390,000 or approximately 400,000 in the prior year.

[26:17] So a decrease in the long-term portion of the related party payable there.

[26:22] And then net position, as I mentioned, is assets minus liabilities.

[26:26] And so your assets one up more than your liabilities in that resulted in your total net position in increasing.

[26:34] You can see in the net position portion, the net investment capital assets, that's the 759 that we saw related to those

[26:42] that El Carol monitoring well project.

[26:47] That is positive, it's that 759 and that's not available for future spending since that's invested in your assets.

[26:56] And your unrestricted is still negative, it's 160, 6,000, but that's an improvement of about 49,000 from prior year.

[27:07] That's very helpful, especially for a newcomer.

[27:10] One thing you didn't come in while was cash.

[27:12] I think that's also a good performance there to have a positive, free cash flow.

[27:18] Yes.

[27:19] Yeah, your cash that's held with U.S. Bank did have over $150,000 improvement there as well.

[27:29] Yeah, and I'll just remark on that in our last two budgets, we added a cash reserves line,

[27:37] so we're trying to build up cash reserves, so we're not continuously barring money from CBWD.

[27:43] sensible. Thanks. Yeah, thank you. Okay, so if we move to the next slide,

[27:54] this is a snap

[27:56] shock from the statement of revenues expenses and changes in that position. That's on

[28:00] page 10 of your financial statements. And this has your revenues and expenses and then

[28:07] your change in that position. And then at the bottom is that net position that we saw

[28:11] from the other statement, the 593 at the very bottom,

[28:15] they're compared to that, 2015.

[28:17] So this is saying what happened during the year

[28:20] and that's the change and then what was our beginning

[28:23] that position and then what's our ending that position?

[28:26] So looking at the top there,

[28:28] you're operating revenue was 1.3 million compared to 956,000

[28:36] in the prior year, and you can see that's comprised of two items

[28:41] your parcel acreage base B assessment of 417,000 in 2024, and then your grant revenue of 891,000 in 2024.

[28:55] So overall, the increase from prior year for your operating revenue was 352,000.

[29:02] Moving to the operating expense section.

[29:05] You're operating expenses in 2024. We're 495,000 and this is a decrease from prior year of approximately 324,000 and the decrease was due to a couple of items.

[29:20] You can see your groundwater operation line item there decreased and so that was related to in 2023.

[29:28] three you had groundwater professional services for the GSP development that was going on in 2023.

[29:36] So those expenses didn't recur in 2024 and then in 2024 a lot of the expenses that were

[29:43] incurred were related to the L-Carrow Park Monitoring Wells project that we saw in the previous

[29:48] statement and those were capitalized. So those expenses didn't show up here. They were capitalized

[29:56] and their in your assets and will be amortized over.

[30:00] Civil life of that asset. So, overall, you're operating expense decrease. So, we see operating

[30:08] income at 2024 with 813,000 compared to 137 in the prior year. And then, non-operating income

[30:18] and expense, a pretty small amount, and that mostly relates to your interest expense. So, you're

[30:25] overall change for the year that contributed, going back to that question, what were the

[30:31] things that resulted in that positive change, so revenue exceeding your expenses added

[30:39] to that bottom line there.

[30:45] Additionally included in the financial statements is footnote

[30:49] disclosures that provide some additional detail on some of the line items included in

[30:54] financial statements. They remain pretty comparable year over year, of course, updated for

[31:00] anything new. And so I wasn't going to highlight any of the financial statements, but if there's

[31:05] any questions on any of the statements that I just mentioned or anything else, I would be happy

[31:10] to address those.

[31:15] I had a quick one. Just I guess a curiosity question. On a, there's not a tremendous amount of

[31:20] transactions in the agency. What is the percentage of like transactions reviewed in an

[31:25] like this. But we don't look at a percentage so we use different sampling methods to do it and

[31:36] so depending if there's high value items we might get really good coverage on one specific account

[31:44] if there's fewer items that make up a bigger percentage and if there's more smaller items

[31:51] Let's say a peer, something like that, then the coverage isn't going to be as high.

[31:57] So it really varies.

[31:59] We look at dollar amounts, we have that concept of materiality that I talked about.

[32:04] So we're looking at significance of individual line items, and then we're sampling based

[32:11] on those line items, and we are looking at high value items, and then we randomly test non-high

[32:18] value items.

[32:20] Thanks.

[32:21] Any other questions?

[32:25] Thank you, Tracy.

[32:26] Do you want to file this report?

[32:28] Do we need a motion?

[32:29] Emotion to file it?

[32:31] Yeah, receiving file.

[32:32] How it makes motion to receive in file.

[32:34] I want to thank staff and Tracy for all the work they've done.

[32:37] I'll second that.

[32:38] Motion is second.

[32:39] Any more discussion?

[32:40] Roll call, please.

[32:42] Director O'Connor?

[32:43] Director Holcomb?

[32:44] Yes.

[32:45] Director Ball?

[32:45] Aye.

[32:46] Director Robert?

[32:49] Motion passes by zero.

[32:50] and then item number C consider resolution number 035 updating check signers for action

[32:57] Bob. We have a new director and so we need to do an update on the signatures that

[33:06] are allowable for our bank for the GSA.

[33:10] Some moved. I guess most in the second any discussion roll call please.

[33:15] Director O'Connor?

[33:16] Hi.

[33:17] Director Holcomb?

[33:17] Yes.

[33:18] Director Bulge?

[33:19] Hi.

[33:19] Director Robert?

[33:20] Director Van Wiggenen?

[33:22] Yes.

[33:22] Motion passes 5-0.

[33:24] Item number D consider resolution number 0-3-6 updating the GSA conflict of interest for

[33:30] actually bug.

[33:32] We're required.

[33:33] Actually, we're newly required for the GSA to have a conflict of interest.

[33:38] code, and we're required to do a review of those codes every two years, and so the CVWD,

[33:49] it's on the CVWD agenda, was reviewing the code, and we thought, well, let's do the GSA as

[34:04] In the packet, the drafts, conflict of interest coaches in there, simply identifies who's

[34:14] required to do reporting, some key differences in the code, they're based on the state's

[34:22] model code update.

[34:24] And so the state puts out a model code.

[34:26] We look at that and we look at our own code and updated accordingly.

[34:31] There were some value for gifts and other things, I believe,

[34:44] all the chains are in red line,

[34:45] but do you know which section that is?

[34:50] Yeah, one of the 590.

[34:53] So it's just the donor disqualification raised to 590 and also the prohibition on gifts.

[35:03] And so we have to approve this by a resolution, so this is a resolution 36, but you have any questions, if not out?

[35:20] I've just got one small question.

[35:22] I read through the changes seems pretty not clear.

[35:25] But it's not clear is there any other action for the board or the other responsible, you know, parties to that policy.

[35:33] besides the forms of an hundred. Is there anything else about this? Is the disclosure requirements?

[35:37] Yeah, the reporting and disclosure requirements. Oh, if you did seven hundred you're good. Well, for each agency. So

[35:45] correct. And there are different agencies. So, unfortunately, you would have to do that too. And I believe the

[35:53] GSA is different. It's not, is it's directly with the FPC, right? Yeah. So it's a little bit different than the

[36:02] CVWD reporting, which is done through the county elections office, but we'll go over all of that as the time comes in a couple of months.

[36:15] Plus, we do. Was it annual conflict of interest training?

[36:20] The ethics training?

[36:22] Every year?

[36:23] Every year?

[36:24] Every year?

[36:26] Okay.

[36:27] I just want to just pray more important than the whole Bible, but that's okay.

[36:30] But the 700 form. I mean, that's not that's a pretty big

[36:34] Yeah, that's a lot. Yes, yes, do it for every help this guys in there in DC use the same form we do

[36:43] We need motion. I probably makes much

[36:47] Second we got a motion the second and any more discussion roll call, please

[36:51] Director of Connor. I direct to Holcomb. Yes, direct to Volts. I direct Roberts. I direct to Van McGregor. Yes, motion passes five zero

[37:01] And then we got Executive Director reports, six A financials.

[37:07] I know.

[37:08] All right.

[37:09] Yeah.

[37:09] Financials through November 30th, so over 42% of the year at November, our revenues

[37:14] for the CGSA are at 37%.

[37:17] Again, it's on the tax.

[37:19] Also, it's just payments that we were dispersements that we received from the county

[37:22] through the end of November.

[37:25] And then our operating expenditures are at about 24% through the year.

[37:31] Any questions,

[37:36] then we are adjourned and we are re-adjourning the regular meeting of the

[37:40] Carpety Valley Water District.

[37:51] So I just the question is, which item does Will

[37:54] Carthland want to read? That will be item 7B.

[38:01] It will be. It will be.

[38:09] I believe there is one more comment on that item.

[38:12] You've got surely an item C, something C, so we got will for a seven B, and we got surely for a seven C.

[38:21] At least anybody else,

[38:25] unless the board's wanted to participate.

[38:28] Anyhow,

[38:32] a new business, a seven A, consider a project update for CAP for information, Bob, and a presentation by Chris Meligan.

[38:43] Yeah, so this is a project update from a design standpoint and project manager standpoint.

[38:51] As you recall, WSC is our project management company for this project and so they're kind of working on all the ends of this project.

[39:01] And so Chris is here tonight to give kind of an update of where we are.

[39:06] Chris, are you with us?

[39:08] Yes, I am.

[39:09] You hear me?

[39:10] Can you see the screen?

[39:15] Yes, I can.

[39:17] Just let me know when you want to advance.

[39:19] Great.

[39:19] Well, thank you, Bob.

[39:21] Okay.

[39:21] Well, good evening, everyone.

[39:23] As Bob noted, this is just a general project overview presentation, covering various aspects

[39:31] of ongoing activities.

[39:34] So let's go to next slide.

[39:36] So, if it's our agenda, we'll briefly discuss where we're at with design of the project,

[39:45] provided small permitting updates,

[39:49] outreach, contractor coordination,

[39:54] and discuss upcoming milestones.

[39:58] So, next slide.

[40:03] Just as a current update to the design progression, and as a quick reminder, we are currently

[40:12] developing three different design packages, and when I say we, it's the project team.

[40:19] Design is being done by wooded and current, and so that we've got three separate packages,

[40:26] the AWPF for the actual facility design, the conveyance pipelines, and then the injection and monitoring

[40:35] wells. Those are split into three packages for a couple of different reasons. Primarily

[40:42] the contractor that will extract the AWPF is rather specialized, and there are only certain

[40:52] number of larger firms to have the qualifications to construct

[40:57] advanced water purification facility.

[41:01] But we don't want to lump the entire project within the single construction

[41:06] package because that will prohibit smaller local contractors from

[41:11] participating in the program.

[41:14] So by separating the ADMPS from our advanced pipelines, we do give

[41:19] opportunities for smaller local contractors to participate in the form of constructing the

[41:25] conveyance pipeline. And then the injection and monitor wells such as specialized instruction

[41:33] efforts that the A to the PF contractors would need to sub that work out anyway in this entirety.

[41:42] So for those reasons we have three separate design packages. The A to the PF is currently

[41:46] the in-between 75% and 100%.

[41:51] So what are the parents admitted the 75% design package in October?

[41:57] That was reviewed by our firm as well as the corporate standard theory district and Bob

[42:05] and comments were returned to them in December.

[42:10] We've had some review meetings to review those comments and they're currently on track to submit the 100% design in February.

[42:22] After there's still another short design tier or short review period before a midset document will be produced and we expect that in May of this year.

[42:33] We have received, or we received 75% design for the conveyance pipelines and injection

[42:41] amount to wells in later December, those packages have been reviewed, and comments returned

[42:50] on the injection mines from wells, actually just earlier this week, and then it's a

[42:56] state of returning comments on the conveyance pipelines later this week, and then those

[43:01] scheduled to move forward to 100% design with complete shin and April timeframe, and then

[43:10] ultimately going out to bid on the AWS and May will have somewhat extended period, because

[43:20] of the complexity of the project beyond what you might typically see for construction projects,

[43:26] And then with conveyance and injection,

[43:28] mantra will bid in shortly behind it.

[43:32] But with the expectation that we're gonna have bids

[43:37] for all three when we bring them to the board

[43:44] or at least native pf project to the board

[43:47] for consideration the approval of the contract.

[43:51] And currently, it's stated for July,

[43:55] next slide.

[43:57] for our permitting and a piloting three of our key project permits that are going.

[44:07] Our first is our conditional east permit called development permit with the city of Carpenteria.

[44:14] We have seen this slide similar kind of update a few months ago.

[44:19] That application went into the city and August last year.

[44:23] The city reviewed, admitted their letter of non-completeness, which we expected, because there are few outstanding items that we won't have, especially as it relates to the easements with the Catholic Church that we talked about in December.

[44:45] We've got our responses to those comments to the city.

[44:50] We anticipate those still moving forward with the opposite of the city.

[44:55] We've been forward with the application as they can and sort of expect.

[45:00] Our public hearing sometime in April before we go out to bid.

[45:09] And then, for our waste discharge, water reclamation permits, this is really the permits granted by some

[45:16] to post regional water quality control board that allows for the facility to operate in the injection of the

[45:29] the W over the last couple of months, we've discussed approaches to some of the more technical

[45:36] aspects that are more projects specific. So, the anti-degradation and geochemical analysis

[45:44] studies that are required in the part of the Title 22 engineering report. So, the anti-degradation

[45:52] study, it's a study that evaluates and sort of affirms that the injection of the purified

[46:02] water won't introduce contaminants into the groundwater basin above the thresholds deemed

[46:13] five regulations. So, one of particular that we are concerned and look at is boron, which is

[46:22] somewhat higher in CBWVs, audible water supply, primarily stemming from like a tumour water,

[46:32] then it is in the background, brown water. And so, some of the work that we've done recently

[46:39] sort of shows that we're not going to substantively reduce or impact the groundwater

[46:48] quality from the injection of our certified water and those meetings discussed the

[46:55] approach and sort of our preliminary findings were held recently with the State Board

[47:00] before we finalized any technical documents to them.

[47:04] Similarly, we've got a GM chemical analysis and that analyzes the mobilization of constituents through the addition of pure flood water.

[47:15] So chiefly among them that stuff concern is arsenic, where arsenic may be elevated after the introduction of pure flood water.

[47:27] Again, we've sort of done some initial analysis to that, and that draft report was submitted to the reasonable board at the latter part of 2024.

[47:40] Those documents along with the general description of the facility and how we're going to address Title 22 requirements all go into an engineering report, which is submitted to the Division of Drinking Water.

[47:55] We anticipate submitting and spring this year, which will give DDW about a year for review,

[48:03] which is about the expectation, because they are so backlogged, and all of that needs

[48:11] to be submitted and approved before we can ultimately submit our report, the voice discharge,

[48:19] and begin operation of the facility.

[48:23] But we're coordinating so closely with the regulators

[48:28] because we know that we're not going to get

[48:31] and it's just simply the process of these facilities.

[48:35] You are permits for an operation before we start construction.

[48:42] So that is just the normal course of these projects.

[48:46] Can I ask you a question on that, Chris?

[48:47] Yes, why is that?

[48:51] Well, so much of the information that goes into the reports, the antidexted study, the

[49:01] geochemical analysis, and the title point to report, is based on the design.

[49:09] And so you could theoretically pause after the design is complete or mostly completes before

[49:23] you're going out to bed and wait, I think, to go through this process.

[49:29] And there are some things that those still likely cannot be completed, I think they do look

[49:33] for information specific to your projects.

[49:37] So, right, we prepare projects that say we're going to, you know, contract, you must

[49:43] meet all of these requirements with your RO, but we don't specify a vendor.

[49:50] We don't specify the various specific details regarding the package, but they must meet

[49:56] these requirements for our project.

[49:59] And so some of that just simply goes into the report and you can't know that exactly until you've got it on track for on board.

[50:10] So for those reasons, you know, we, it's just not how these facilities operate and that's okay.

[50:19] Again, because we are working so closely to review the project and these studies ahead of time.

[50:28] And to the extent that we can, we're incorporating any comments that we receive, or feedback that we receive now.

[50:38] Okay, see does that answer your question?

[50:41] Yeah, I think it answers my question, so it sounds like generally it just proceeds ahead because people want to do.

[50:48] Yeah, yeah, I mean, like I said, I think they're probably, I mean, if you really wanted to wait, you could.

[50:55] But that means there'd be a long period of time between submission of the title 20 reports,

[51:04] approval of that report, but you'd be sitting on the documents.

[51:09] All the while inflation is occurring, project cost kind of never go down over time,

[51:15] very rarely go down over time and so you're you're doing the project at the service by not

[51:24] proceeding in parallel. So does DDW issue prior to the regional board for dischargers at the other way around

[51:32] or is it kind of decided together? Yeah, so you get or after submission for division of drinking water

[51:39] approves the title 22 into an import, only then can you really submit your application to

[51:46] the regional board for your waste discharge water reclamation permit. So regional board requires

[51:54] approval of the title 22 reports before they want to see an application. And so once DDW

[52:02] produce it, which is about a year, what's the regional boards turn around like much faster.

[52:10] I mean, obviously we can't troll it, the things can vary, but the bulk of the review

[52:18] process occurs during the title point two report.

[52:21] So it should be on the order of a couple of months.

[52:25] We'll stay at three to six months and that time has been incorporated into our schedule.

[52:30] So ultimately with the goal of having that permanent in place before beginning the initial

[52:37] pescine phase of the facility, and all of that time, review time is currently built

[52:45] through the schedule and where are spring of 25 for submission of the total 20 injury

[52:51] report comes in a play.

[52:54] Thanks.

[52:55] I think I had a silver question Chris that was partially answered on the year that the

[53:01] DWR takes and just to make sure we don't have to just sit there, is there a certain

[53:05] pinging that either we do Bob or that Chris does to be in touch with that to see how it's

[53:11] going or any kind of tracking just to make sure that we're not caught off guard after three months

[53:15] or six months. Oh, we actually waiting for this information is there. We're having team meetings with

[53:22] the staff at both agencies to make sure that they're seeing what we're doing when we do submit the

[53:29] applications. No, no, no, of course not. Yeah. Thanks, Bob. Yeah, I've got a couple of questions

[53:38] of like, good. This is Patrick. I apologize for naive questions coming in. It's not all so to speak.

[53:46] I'll just give you the questions and you're fair to answer them as quickly as I'm asking them.

[53:51] One is, can you give a sense for the amount of impact on step four there, the impact

[53:58] of residents and businesses just out of curiosity and how order of magnitude, would you

[54:05] express that?

[54:06] And the second is with respect to the schedule that we were just talking about is an expectation

[54:11] of an impact of current events down in LA County in competition for resources, you know, as

[54:17] we're setting out these bid packages.

[54:19] Yeah, thank you. Those are two good questions. So the step for that reach from the project team to residents and this is impacted.

[54:30] So as a part of this CPCDP process, we provided the city with our 300 foot zone around the project area where they are going to notify the planning commission hearing.

[54:47] And that includes the facility, the alignment of the advanced pipeline, and it's also

[54:56] the wells, as a part of our project and process.

[55:02] We intend to do similar outreach, their city's notification is going to be very matter

[55:12] fact about the projects and, you know, it's, I think, imperative that we provide that's

[55:20] similar kind of outrage to those residents about the benefits of the project.

[55:27] Sorry, so we have tens or hundreds of properties or what sort of magnitude we're talking about.

[55:33] It is definitely in the hundreds of properties, yes, because it covers the entire pipeline

[55:39] and alignments from the existing wastewater treatment plant,

[55:44] all the way up to Lyndon and METO view.

[55:48] So it is, yeah, I don't know the number off-hand

[55:50] I apologize, but it is in the hundreds of notifications.

[55:55] Good enough, thanks.

[55:57] And then your second question,

[56:00] obviously that's really hard to know

[56:05] And very tragic that the communities down in the area are facing, you know, my initial sort

[56:13] of gut that the, you know, the contractor overlap between those that are going to support

[56:23] all of the homeless families who've lost so much down there is different than, you know,

[56:33] building this facility, you know, they specialize in large largely anyway specialized in

[56:41] treatment, facility construction.

[56:46] So, you know, what may there be impacts from a material standpoint

[56:51] concrete, for example, you know, I can't say no, I'm not exactly sure, but, you know, they're

[57:01] certainly maybe. That's kind of an honest or I know. Well, you're moving. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

[57:08] Thanks. Mm-hmm.

[57:14] Okay. I'll reach. Yeah. Quick. Quick update here. So at this point in time,

[57:22] we have now held listening sessions with the entire board, both your board and the

[57:31] a sanitary district board, which has been very great and formative and appreciate everyone's

[57:38] time here and doing that.

[57:42] We intend to present summary of those listed instructions at the next four meeting.

[57:50] Concurrently, we're moving forward with market research.

[57:54] So, we met with FM3, Marka Research firm, last Friday, kicked them off.

[58:02] Some initial feedback was provided to them.

[58:05] Their next step is to generate survey questions that will go out to the community.

[58:11] We anticipate also presenting draft of those questions to this board at the next meeting.

[58:19] And so you should see those two items come up at the next meeting.

[58:24] And the information that we gather from, or we have gathered from the list and sessions

[58:29] plus all the markets research is going to be key and informing the outreach materials that

[58:37] master messaging for the facility and the project, including the development of the general

[58:43] presentation that can be given, just a high level project.

[58:49] presentation, it will help inform future publications, new articles, new articles, and the

[58:57] coastal view, it will help inform our bill insert that we're intending to send out, noting

[59:05] as I was talking about to this maybe the application, project video, and then general information

[59:11] I could,

[59:16] okay, excline, minor kind of quick updates here. So at the last board meeting, your board approved the offer for the St. Joseph church easement, that offer was mailed on December 20th.

[59:36] no real hard update here other than noting that the district's consultant and our

[59:45] jewel property consultant made initial contact. There's still trying to catch up from the holidays,

[59:51] but we hope to hear some initial feedback here soon. And then something else that we're undertaking here.

[1:00:00] This springtime is conducting some of that contractor outreach. So it's important to inform contractors of projects of this kind of management to well ahead of when we intend to release the documents.

[1:00:22] It's a pretty significant undertaking for these contractors to put a price, a firm price, and a

[1:00:28] bid together.

[1:00:30] The design package will include more than 300 design sheets, specifications are 2,000 pages

[1:00:39] long.

[1:00:40] It takes a long time for them to review and make sure that their bid is competitive as it can

[1:00:48] And so it really helps to reach out and get contractors who are qualified up to speed on the facility.

[1:01:00] Give them some information about it.

[1:01:03] Kind of get them excited about the project.

[1:01:05] Get them wanting to sharpen their pencils on the project.

[1:01:09] It helps enhance the number of contractors who will participate.

[1:01:16] And ultimately, you know, hopefully, leading to a more competitive bid.

[1:01:23] And we've reached out to nine contractors who we know have worked on so much facilities throughout the state.

[1:01:31] And thus far, we've conducted two tours at the 16th of the 16th of the 16th of the facilities,

[1:01:37] and generally provided information related to the projects.

[1:01:41] and as we continue to reach out and the contractors request will hold additional tours.

[1:01:52] Next slide.

[1:01:55] So finally, just to put sort of milestone update here, we're going to see in

[1:02:00] the next couple of months. February, design documents on a percent for AWS PF, water supply

[1:02:09] alternative analysis and an economic analysis updates in March. Hopefully we'll have our community

[1:02:17] survey results and then 100% design documents for advanced pipelines, commission planning

[1:02:24] commission here in an April, may advertise our big package for the AWS and operations agreement

[1:02:33] execution, and then finally in early summer,

[1:02:37] advertised the pipeline, sponsored wells, and then receive

[1:02:41] our bids for all three debt packages.

[1:02:47] And I think that concludes my presentation.

[1:02:51] Any questions?

[1:02:54] Is there a map of the impact and properties that already exist?

[1:03:00] Yes.

[1:03:00] that the the radius map was submitted to the city as a part of the application.

[1:03:10] Thank you.

[1:03:11] I have a really dumb question.

[1:03:14] But if nobody bids, I mean, I've been there before when you just, you thought,

[1:03:18] you're going to get a couple bitters and give it.

[1:03:20] And so, I mean, not to be negative.

[1:03:23] I'm not a negative person, but I know bids.

[1:03:25] And I know our fees.

[1:03:26] And especially during very complex projects like this in tough times, there's this curious.

[1:03:31] Well, we have any kind of sense of any of the interested parties that speak at closer to this or yeah, that's

[1:03:37] Absolutely, I mean, so this is, you know, part of the reason why we're doing this contractor outreach, you know,

[1:03:44] two or so far.

[1:03:45] Second, sorry.

[1:03:46] I thought it was pretty good that you had two tours so far going through, you know.

[1:03:50] Yeah, and that's hard.

[1:03:51] I mean, not to, you know, that's a, you know, that's a two firms who have toured the facility, you know,

[1:04:00] certainly have expressed their interest and desire to prepare their bids.

[1:04:06] So, obviously, I can't, we're not going to hold their feet to the fire here.

[1:04:09] You have to know what's going to happen. You never know, right?

[1:04:13] But, you know, the reason why we do this outreach is to make sure that we do have

[1:04:16] bids. And, you know, I think that that scenario is very low.

[1:04:24] But, whatever we can do to help encourage that competitive bit of an environment we will.

[1:04:31] Thank you.

[1:04:32] Thank you.

[1:04:34] Thank you.

[1:04:34] Thank you, risk.

[1:04:36] Thank you.

[1:04:37] Thank you.

[1:04:39] Then we move on to item number 7B.

[1:04:42] You can see the text roll generated revenues for a cap for information and the presentation

[1:04:47] by Mesa.

[1:04:49] So we have one letter but we'll wait on that till we have the presentation.

[1:04:57] Sorry.

[1:04:59] So this is something that we've talked about at a committee level, and I believe we talked

[1:05:06] about it last year.

[1:05:08] We did talk about it last board meeting on the financial update for CAP.

[1:05:13] We've done a little bit of work analyzing it, and so Mesa is going to talk about it.

[1:05:17] We still have a lot further to go, but you'll see where we're at.

[1:05:26] All right.

[1:05:27] You can just go to the first line.

[1:05:30] So just a quick overview, as Bob mentioned, we're planning on having a series of presentations

[1:05:35] here.

[1:05:36] So this first one will be a bit high level, and then in subsequent presentations we'll

[1:05:41] go into more of the details.

[1:05:44] But we're going to touch on the different church collection mechanisms, some of the challenges

[1:05:49] it just a high level and we'll get into more details later on that, some of the benefits

[1:05:54] to consider, and then we want to bring up outreach expectations and timeline as well, so if

[1:06:00] you'll go to the first slide, Bob, so what we're going to do is present two different ways

[1:06:07] we can recover costs associated with CAP, and through a series of meetings we're going to

[1:06:15] provide you information on the impacts and considerations for these two different methods so that

[1:06:20] eventually we could ask you to make a decision. That will be several meetings away. So again,

[1:06:27] this is just going to be an introduction into these decision points. So what we're considering here

[1:06:32] is we can either recover cap expenses through putting charges on customer property tax bills or

[1:06:41] water bills. And so for both these methods we're talking about having a charge based on

[1:06:47] So it would be essentially be a fixed charge either way, it's just where it's that appear.

[1:06:53] And for both of these approaches, we would need to go through a property team process and update our existing financial and cost of service model.

[1:07:01] So it will be a fairly comprehensive process no matter which method we go with.

[1:07:06] We can also consider having a combination of these two approaches where we have some charges collected through the tax roll and some through customer bills.

[1:07:16] So I'll go into the details a little bit on this view, proceed Bob, you can go to the next one.

[1:07:25] So I want to give just sort of a high level overview of how we would calculate the charge that would appear on a property tax bill.

[1:07:36] And again, these are not final numbers, but I want to give you a sense of just how it should be done to have some idea of what it would look like.

[1:07:44] So, the thing to consider here is that that total cost shown the 4.3 million, what we're talking about with this approach would be that would be cap debt and

[1:07:55] operation and maintenance, and then the coverage ratio baked into that too. So we're essentially putting all pieces of cap into that cost.

[1:08:03] And what you do is we have capacity ratios there, which are set by a WWA, and we use those to scale our charges two different meter sizes.

[1:08:14] So we take the capacity ratios, that's the middle column there of the table on the right.

[1:08:20] The count of meter sizes at each meter size, and we use that to determine the meter equivalents, so that right hand column there.

[1:08:29] So we know how many total meter equivalents we have.

[1:08:32] And that allows us to divide that total charge so we get a per unit, and that means per meter unit, in this case, not dwelling unit charge.

[1:08:43] So you can see if the total cost is about 4.3 million and we have about 7700 meter equivalents, the charge per unit per meter unit would be about $560.

[1:08:54] And again, not final numbers, but I want to give you a sense of what this would look like and how it would work.

[1:08:59] So if you go to the next slide, we can see how that plays out for each meter size.

[1:09:05] So you can see it's a pretty wide range if you look at that right-hand column of the bottom table of charges.

[1:09:12] So a three-quarter inch charge, you know, if you're a resonance with a three-quarter inch meter, your charge would be $560 split over your two property tax bills.

[1:09:23] And the charge increases significantly with different meter sizes.

[1:09:25] And I'm going to talk a bit more about that as we go in terms of considerations around

[1:09:31] these charges, especially for those larger meter sizes.

[1:09:36] But that's essentially how we would go about the approach of determining the charges if

[1:09:42] they were to appear on the property tax bill.

[1:09:46] So you can go to the next one.

[1:09:49] So if we put a quick question, of course.

[1:09:51] If I have two meters, I'll get two charges, five meters, I'll get five.

[1:09:56] Next.

[1:09:58] And I, sorry, another naive question.

[1:10:01] The prepongence of meters is in the smaller range, right?

[1:10:04] I mean, the bell curve is kind of shifted to the above.

[1:10:07] Absolutely.

[1:10:08] There are only a handful of meters at that four inch and six inch size.

[1:10:12] There are quite a few two inch meters, but the majority would be, we have like a lot of residences

[1:10:20] in that three-quarter-in-train, commercial and residential, in the three-quarter, one, one-and-a-half,

[1:10:26] you know, is more like commercial and ag, master meters, things like that, and then as you get

[1:10:32] farther up, it's, you know, there's some public authority accounts, large master meter, or large ag,

[1:10:37] but yeah, there's only maybe 10 between the four and the six-inch meters. It's a very small number.

[1:10:43] Yeah, because further we get down, we get to have the detail about that.

[1:10:47] Yeah, is that actually did I put that in the next slide?

[1:10:51] Uh, maybe I took it out.

[1:10:52] I think I had it when I presented to the committee, the actual counts, and I might have removed it.

[1:10:57] But I could definitely provide that in a future presentation.

[1:10:59] More than just curiosity, it will be probably formed part of the outreach.

[1:11:04] Yes, and as we, um, in future presentations, we want to get specific about what the expected impacts would be.

[1:11:11] And so then it will absolutely be important to understand who those customers are at each meter size.

[1:11:18] So if we put all those cap charges on the property tax bill, this is what our future water bill rate increases could look like.

[1:11:28] So we've already adopted a 7.5% charge for fiscal year 26.

[1:11:34] So this is showing we would only need to actually enact a 5% increase.

[1:11:38] And then we would not need to go through another prop to 18 process and raise rates again until you can see 2031.

[1:11:47] So again these numbers are not finalized but I think that gives a pretty good indication of what future water bills could look like if we go this route.

[1:12:02] So if you go to the next slide.

[1:12:04] So an alternative here would be if we put only the debt associated with cap on the tax roll and leave the rest on water bills.

[1:12:15] So if we go through the same approach for determining charges, you can see that number in the top right is 2.25 million rather than the 4.3.

[1:12:25] So that's the debt and the coverage ratio, not the operation and maintenance costs divided among the same number of meter equivalents, the charge is then $293 per meter unit rather than the 560.

[1:12:38] So you can see then in the table below each charge by meter size, they still do get significant at the 6 inch size hover there lower than the previous method.

[1:12:51] I don't know if they're about half, but they're significantly lower.

[1:12:55] However, remember, then there would be water bill increases as well with this method because you're breaking the charges up over the two, so yeah, so for this method you can see we would continue with the adopted seven and half percent increase for water bill rates and charges in fiscal year 26 and then we would expect a 2% increase each year after that.

[1:13:20] So that would be sort of baseline inflation expectations in terms of increases.

[1:13:25] We wouldn't be looking at future large increases, like additional 7.5% increases,

[1:13:31] but it's not the zero that we were seeing in the previous method.

[1:13:35] So you're just defining the charges up here between the two collection mechanisms.

[1:13:42] So you can go to the next one.

[1:13:43] So, if you, yeah, we can look here a little bit

[1:13:49] at how these different options compare in terms

[1:13:52] of the water bill increases.

[1:13:55] So, the top two rows are what I just went through.

[1:14:00] So, all cap, all cap costs on property tax bill

[1:14:04] or debt costs on property tax bill

[1:14:07] and the other costs on the water bills.

[1:14:10] That's the middle row.

[1:14:11] And then there's also a third row there,

[1:14:13] which I haven't talked about yet, which is if all cap costs were recovered through water bills rather than through the tax roll.

[1:14:21] So in that third row, there would be no cap costs were covered through tax bills.

[1:14:26] And you can see that we would need additional 7.5% rate increases most likely if all costs were through water bills and then 2% after that.

[1:14:43] Um, so I want to give some ideas of what these monetary impacts could look like, although I definitely want to caveat this as, um,

[1:14:52] different, not finalized numbers, and as you can see here from sort of a three columns on the left, we're picking out sort of specific.

[1:15:00] Customer types and characteristics. So, this is not representative of all of our customers. So, that top row, you can see is a three-quarter-hinge, single-family, residential customer, who uses about 10 units, 10 each CF a month.

[1:15:16] So, that is not representative of all single-family customers. So, we're assuming their current bills may be $150 and you can see the range that they could expect in terms of the increase across

[1:15:29] three methods. They're bill in 2032, so seven years from now could be between 170 or

[1:15:38] 209 dollars. And you can see the same thing with a commercial customer. He uses about 15

[1:15:44] HCF and has a 1-inch meter. Again, it depends even where their base first peak.

[1:15:51] Divide is, but if they have a $200 bill currently, then it could be between 232 and $285 in

[1:16:00] So, this is just showing how those percentages that I showed on the previous side could play out.

[1:16:07] And, again, just for very specific examples of customers.

[1:16:12] Forgive me for digging in it. Could you go back one slide?

[1:16:18] And again, forgive me if I'm going to understand this, but it seems like the top line there.

[1:16:23] the first line, I would use the word front-end loaded that you're collecting the cost through

[1:16:29] the tax rolls much quicker than the other methods. 10, 0 increases required in those

[1:16:37] middle years. As you go down to the other alternative, the debt only method doesn't collect as much

[1:16:43] because you're only addressing the debt. I get that, but there's also a, there are 4 of,

[1:16:50] You know, a user charge that's going to be required, so you'd have a line theoretically dotted line underneath that showing the charge for the use, and then a last line, you're not front end loading it really at all.

[1:17:06] You're charging it all just based on use. Is that profile that front end loading tendency?

[1:17:13] Because you have a lot of users that aren't using water and they have meters.

[1:17:20] They would pay if they have a meter regardless of whether they're using it.

[1:17:24] Is that the dynamic of the front end loading?

[1:17:27] Well, the property tax charges would be every year.

[1:17:31] By front end loading, are you thinking that that's a one year charge?

[1:17:35] Yeah, I thought in the first, if maybe I'm just reading that, but you're getting a 5% increase on the, on the property taxes, and then 0 for the next four years, so this is a reflection on the water bill, so projected changes on the water bill, okay, and I mean to, I was, I was thinking of the,

[1:18:00] I was thinking that first line was all in property taxes, it is, but it's, it's, these percentages are,

[1:18:08] changes that would happen to the water bill itself. So if you're putting more on the tax bill

[1:18:14] it falls. I miss I miss Reddott. Yeah, thank you. What that helps?

[1:18:20] What I was going with that which will come up later is

[1:18:24] there's a I'm assuming intuitively there's a number of meters

[1:18:29] that are related to properties that aren't occupied and that's a growing number

[1:18:35] particularly residential properties. And if we don't put it through the meters, they're going to

[1:18:43] free ride.

[1:18:46] Is the field is the free. Well, if we don't put it on the property tax bill.

[1:18:50] Oh, like I said, if you put it. Yeah. Yeah. If we don't put it on the property tax bill.

[1:18:54] Exactly. It's on the fixed side of the meter as long as you have a meter. Right. Yeah. That's,

[1:18:59] that's where my, my naive, my naive today is coming through here. I'm just trying to figure out how,

[1:19:04] we assure because ultimately I think you got to do both. You got to have a mixed bag here to catch

[1:19:09] everybody. And I'm sensitive to the just by virtue of other experiences, you know, in the agencies

[1:19:17] that I'm supporting, I think there's a growing number of unoccupied properties or part-time if nothing else.

[1:19:27] Second homes.

[1:19:29] Second homes.

[1:19:30] Second homes.

[1:19:31] You know.

[1:19:32] But aren't they going to pay anyway?

[1:19:35] I don't know.

[1:19:36] That's what I'm getting at.

[1:19:38] I think we got to have a mixed approach to catch everything else.

[1:19:43] Yeah.

[1:19:44] I'm getting ahead of you.

[1:19:45] And just I'll just mention that the ramp up, you know, what you're not seeing in this row is this ramp up that's occurring.

[1:19:53] and there's actually one year ahead of this in 25, in which we made it seven and a half of

[1:19:59] adjustment. So this whole ramp up is because we have to meet debt coverages before we get to the

[1:20:06] start-up of the project here in 2028. So this same revenue is being raised through the tax roll here

[1:20:14] and so she's not showing up on this. So that's what that ramp, that's what that front end loading.

[1:20:18] Yeah, I misread the chart, so thanks.

[1:20:24] But either, either, Patrick, I want to make sure that I understand what you're, your point

[1:20:29] in a way, but the houses that are vacant are part-timers and whatever they are.

[1:20:35] If we did all costs all the cap on their water bill, they still have a water bill, they still

[1:20:43] have to pay their water bill, whether they're part-time or not, right?

[1:20:46] as long as all the cab charges go on the fixed side of the fixed.

[1:20:51] Yes.

[1:20:53] Which thing?

[1:20:57] That's the current.

[1:20:58] That's the current.

[1:20:58] That's the current thinking right now.

[1:20:59] That's the current.

[1:20:59] Either way we go.

[1:21:00] That's the case that I just assumed it was.

[1:21:02] That understanding of which I didn't.

[1:21:04] The new clarification now.

[1:21:05] Thanks.

[1:21:05] Because I just assumed it would be.

[1:21:07] So then because back to my earlier point,

[1:21:09] either way they're going to pay,

[1:21:11] whether they're vacant or not,

[1:21:14] whether it's, they're still going to pay.

[1:21:17] OK.

[1:21:17] Yeah, I was, again, I think he was all used.

[1:21:20] It was always like used.

[1:21:21] No, no, no, no, no, no.

[1:21:22] No, no, no, no, thank you for clarifying.

[1:21:24] Because that's, so that was my point.

[1:21:26] Is it either way they're going to pay?

[1:21:30] Yeah, I mean, I get sorry, miss, I don't need to stick

[1:21:33] all of your privilege.

[1:21:34] I think the very first slide it says it's either way

[1:21:37] it's based for second slide.

[1:21:40] That says it's, yeah.

[1:21:41] I'm sorry, I'm looking for the sample water

[1:21:45] Oh, that's farther down, I think.

[1:21:48] Oh, here we go.

[1:21:49] And I think of it as we're producing a water supply here.

[1:21:51] We're not actually producing water to distribute.

[1:21:54] And those are the two ways of the business that are different.

[1:21:57] And you have here values of, you know, water use.

[1:22:02] But that really doesn't affect the cap portion of the revenue need.

[1:22:06] It's affecting other parts of the water bill.

[1:22:09] Because there are water rates and so they do have an impact.

[1:22:12] but they're not related to the revenue we need for CAP.

[1:22:17] Yeah, the purpose of the HCF numbers on there

[1:22:20] is just to characterize the type of user

[1:22:22] that we're talking about in a relation to a typical bill amount.

[1:22:34] What's next?

[1:22:36] Right, so we just talked about potential financial implications

[1:22:41] of changes in water bills.

[1:22:44] So then I also want to touch on the property tax charges.

[1:22:47] So these are the two different methods that we've been talking about, these are the numbers that I showed on the previous slide.

[1:22:54] I've just showed them side by side here.

[1:22:57] Oh, and there's the meter count column as well.

[1:23:00] So yeah, you can see at the 4-inch and 6-inch meter size, a total of 11 accounts.

[1:23:09] And so this is just showing a comparison of the charge amount between the two different methods at the different meter size.

[1:23:15] Again, keeping in mind these are not finalized numbers.

[1:23:22] You can continue.

[1:23:23] Yeah, I'll just one, I'm sorry.

[1:23:25] One more comment on the six inch.

[1:23:27] Most of these are mobile and parks that have a master

[1:23:32] meter that have 100 plus units to divide this cost up.

[1:23:37] So it does look worse from if you're thinking of it

[1:23:41] as a single meter, but these are really multi-family

[1:23:44] residential is one institutional customer, one institutional customer one industrial customer

[1:23:52] on the six inch too. And so does that divide out like in a meter equivalency

[1:23:59] faction or like if I'm in a mobile home park is my burden the same as like single

[1:24:05] family residents or would it be okay? Well you so or maybe less I think yeah. Yeah I mean it

[1:24:10] depends on how many units are behind the meter in terms of how it gets divided up to individual

[1:24:14] units, but the purpose of the meter-requivalency approach is that yes, it's equal for everyone

[1:24:19] to regardless of your meter size.

[1:24:30] So the same way that we looked at potential impacts of changes

[1:24:35] in water bills, this is potential impacts related to the property tax bills. And again, I want to

[1:24:41] call out that this is a subset of customers. We're looking at a particular examples here. So you can

[1:24:48] the first row is a single family residence with a three-quarter inch meter and we're thinking

[1:24:55] their property tax bill is about $12,000. So depending on the two methods that we're considering,

[1:25:03] they might see a two to five percent increase in their property tax bill against split over the

[1:25:09] two bills. It's the same approach for the other free rows that we're looking at. You can see

[1:25:15] I think this is true really with all our customer classes.

[1:25:19] There's likely a very large variation in those property tax bills within each of these

[1:25:25] customer classes.

[1:25:26] So you can see the commercial and agricultural to the examples that I've chosen, their property

[1:25:32] tax bills are actually pretty similar to the residential example.

[1:25:35] However, that probably isn't true for all of the customers within that class, right?

[1:25:40] There's probably a huge variation in those customers and what their property tax

[1:25:45] spell is based on what their parcel looks like and how it's developed in the value of it.

[1:25:50] So keep that in mind when reviewing the impacts here and considering this table, this

[1:25:56] is just an initial review of what a couple of impacts could look like.

[1:26:03] We'll get into the details of this more in subsequent presentations and I'll also get into

[1:26:09] some of the details of why we can't give you exact numbers right now because there are

[1:26:14] applications, and this analysis that we'll have to work through.

[1:26:23] And so yeah, I just wanted to touch on the fact that the large meters,

[1:26:29] those do look

[1:26:30] like very high charges, however, the characteristics of those accounts are very different

[1:26:36] than an individual residence or even an individual business.

[1:26:40] These tend to be maybe a master meter mobile home park that has 100 or more units behind

[1:26:47] it. There's a very large school campground, very large agricultural properties. These are very

[1:26:54] different customers when thinking about how they compare to like a single family resident

[1:27:00] in their individual business. So we will have to work through a couple examples to figure out

[1:27:06] whether those property tax values and debt-only method values make sense when we start investigating

[1:27:15] who these customers are and what their property taxes are to consider whether the numbers that

[1:27:21] you're seeing there are a significant impact or not, but I wouldn't come to that conclusion

[1:27:25] just based on seeing high numbers there.

[1:27:33] Okay, so yeah, let's talk about the challenges a little

[1:27:35] bit. So I know that we've come across this in many of the other analyses that we've done,

[1:27:41] but you have to remember when we're talking about the property tax, the bill approach that is

[1:27:46] based on your parcel, right, and we know that we have many parcels where there are multiple

[1:27:52] meters associated with that parcel, especially when you're thinking about those larger

[1:27:56] meters, where maybe you have an HOA that is responsible for many of the resonances and

[1:28:04] then you have a landscape meter and it can, it's not necessarily obvious how you should

[1:28:08] divide that charge among the different meters when you're trying to say you have a total

[1:28:13] property tax value, how do I then divide that among the meters in terms of applying the

[1:28:18] charges and figuring out whether this is going to be a significant impact to those users

[1:28:23] or not? So that's something that we're going to have to work through. We do have some insights into

[1:28:29] that based on the exercises that we've gone through with CAP, or not CAP. I'm sorry, the GSA,

[1:28:37] however, that's been focused on agricultural customers. So there is a lot that will have to work

[1:28:43] through for our master meter customers,

[1:28:47] but we do have some ideas about methods that we could apply

[1:28:51] to figure that out, but it will take some work

[1:28:54] and some staff time.

[1:28:59] Another issue we're going to have to work

[1:29:01] through is that, as we started looking

[1:29:03] at those larger meters and who they are,

[1:29:08] we noticed that we can't just take the assess

[1:29:12] value of those parcels to determine whether the amounts that we're looking at would be a significant impact because we see exemptions that bring down that value.

[1:29:24] So we just have to think about what is the right number for us to use when thinking about the impacts of that parcel when comparing their property tax bill to the potential increase that we're talking about.

[1:29:34] something that will investigate further.

[1:29:42] And then just again touching on the fact that we need to

[1:29:45] look into whether these numbers are an impact or not.

[1:29:50] Thank you, backwards, no.

[1:29:51] No, you're good. I had that slide multiple phases. So the benefits of each approach that I'll just

[1:29:58] touch on quickly.

[1:30:01] So, having cap on the tax bills does have a couple of benefits that I want to talk about.

[1:30:09] So, it's a smaller impact. In a way when you think about it, the percentage increase that we're expecting, you know, if you're residents, that two to five percent increase on your tax bill versus, you know, several years of seven and a half or even two percent on your water bill, it can feel like a smaller increase there.

[1:30:29] Also, we have to remember that we often hear from our customers that there were water bills

[1:30:35] are really complicated.

[1:30:35] They have several fixed charges on there already, adding in other fixed charge and complicating

[1:30:41] water bills more is definitely, it's something we can do, but I think we have to really

[1:30:45] think about how customers would interpret that and how it would affect their ability to understand

[1:30:51] their water bill.

[1:30:53] And sort of the same idea there, we also hear from many customers, especially during times of

[1:30:57] out that they feel like even if they reduce their water usage, they don't see a reduction in

[1:31:01] their water bill because there are so many fixed charges. So adding a new fixed charge could

[1:31:06] further exacerbate that existing problem. So I think we just want to be very cognizant of those

[1:31:11] things as potential benefits to having any charges on the tax bill rather than water bills.

[1:31:20] can go ahead, Bob. However, of course, this was sort of touched on earlier if we have the

[1:31:27] charges on water bills instead then we are keeping the charges all in place and we don't

[1:31:32] have necessarily transparency concerns, although as I'll talk about in a couple of slides we

[1:31:37] do want to do a lot of public outreach, but of course that's something that people could point out.

[1:31:42] We don't want people to feel like we're trying to hide these charges by putting them somewhere else.

[1:31:46] Also, of course, if it's on the water bill, then you could say the direct beneficiary at the time is paying rather than having it on the property bill where the person who lives there might not be the same as the person who owns or pays the property bill.

[1:32:03] That's it.

[1:32:04] Can go ahead.

[1:32:06] So outreach.

[1:32:07] There's a lot of text on this slide,

[1:32:10] but all it's really saying is that

[1:32:12] we plan through the rest of this year,

[1:32:14] the rest of this calendar year,

[1:32:17] to conduct outreach.

[1:32:18] We want to make sure people understand

[1:32:19] what it is that we're proposing,

[1:32:22] so they feel that it's,

[1:32:24] you know, we're being transparent,

[1:32:26] but also so that they can provide feedback

[1:32:27] and identify any additional issues

[1:32:29] or complication so we may not have considered. So we're baking in a lot of time to get and consider

[1:32:36] that feedback and part of the way that we're going to solicit that is by telling people to

[1:32:41] come to board meetings and provide their input and we're expecting to do that through bill inserts,

[1:32:48] you know, posting on social media, sort of all of our usual outreach mechanisms and we'll have

[1:32:55] a more detailed outreach plan that we'll share with you.

[1:33:00] You can go to the next time.

[1:33:03] Okay, timeline.

[1:33:05] So we basically have this calendar year.

[1:33:08] We're the next couple meetings I want to continue talking with all of you about the methods for this approach and work through some of these details that I've mentioned.

[1:33:20] And then we would really have the bulk of this year to just get input from people and part of the reason for that is because

[1:33:26] If we were to move forward with this, we wouldn't engage in a proctor 18 method until spring

[1:33:33] of next year.

[1:33:34] So we might as well fill that intermediate time with public outreach.

[1:33:39] So that it would be April of next year when we would go through the proctor 18 process and

[1:33:44] then June when we would actually adopt these charges that we've been talking about.

[1:33:52] I think that's it.

[1:33:53] I do want to flash back to the previous board meeting, let's see here, and just pop up a graph that has some relation to this.

[1:34:13] The revenue?

[1:34:16] Yeah.

[1:34:16] That's what I was thinking about.

[1:34:19] Sorry.

[1:34:21] So this was presented on the 8th and as you call it, we went through the final outlook.

[1:34:31] And one of the things in the staff report that we talk about is, you know, these higher levels,

[1:34:39] so the oranges that capped at, but these higher levels of existing debt kind of derived

[1:34:45] this cost for short periods, so for seven years here. And then in 2036, it starts to decline

[1:34:54] because these, these debt starts to drop off and then in 2037 it really declines.

[1:34:59] Pauli you weren't here and I do want to go over this with you, but this concept of the

[1:35:05] tax rule is meant to bridge this period, not so much beyond that. So in other words, we would

[1:35:14] start ramping up to 2029 and then maintain that tax rule charge throughout 2036 and then

[1:35:25] 2037 we'll remove it. And this has an interesting messaging benefit in that we can really

[1:35:33] in our outreach kind of describe that you know it's going to be painful for a while and we're

[1:35:40] this only for seven years and then we're going to remove this charge and then we'll have

[1:35:44] a project that has benefits for 50 years beyond that and so from my perspective it has

[1:35:51] a really good message that you know you're going to feel some pain for a little while and

[1:35:57] then beyond that we're going to get the benefits for 50 years.

[1:36:02] One of the other things that I showed was this long term chart so this is 2037 and this

[1:36:08] where we are right now. And these are, you know, these are revenues based on whatever method.

[1:36:17] So if we click, this doesn't necessarily look at the two different methods, but this is the revenue

[1:36:24] we need, whether it's coming through the tax roll or through the, through the water bill.

[1:36:29] But what happens is this ramp up period that you saw that was, if it's all in the water bill,

[1:36:35] 7%, 7%, 7%, 7%, 7%, 7%, 7%, but then it sort of softens right here in 2028 or 2029.

[1:36:48] And if you look at this from an inflation adjusted standpoint in 2025 dollars, you can

[1:36:55] really see what's happening here.

[1:36:56] We're raising money for the first four years, we're raising revenues, trying to get them

[1:37:02] to the target and then once we get there we're basically just staying up with inflation so it's

[1:37:09] kind of flat when you look at it in 2020 but five dollars but then what happens in 2037 is we actually

[1:37:17] the other costs have have risen over time and but the debt drops off and so you end up back

[1:37:25] Pretty close. It's hard to see on here, but pretty close to where we were

[1:37:31] $25 in 2037. So

[1:37:34] So that's that's the story

[1:37:40] I

[1:37:41] I guess we can talk about later. I just

[1:37:45] Tonight I would just say it seems like again either way. They're gonna pay and so I would be looking to keep it is

[1:37:52] it straight forward as possible. Yes, the bills are confusing. Yes, the fixed side is confusing,

[1:37:59] that I also think that I've always been in a chapter of the fixed side. I think it's good

[1:38:04] it is fair. And so I know we'll no more on it, and that's why we can certainly prove to be

[1:38:10] I'll be where I'm run. It just seems to put it all on the water bills, so everybody knows what

[1:38:15] they're paying the money. Because if you, if you, if the hybrid approach seems like it could be

[1:38:19] And if you put it all on me, on the property tax, then why would we do that if you just put it on the water bill?

[1:38:34] I don't know.

[1:38:34] We're not.

[1:38:35] We're not.

[1:38:36] We should be in danger.

[1:38:40] I'll give you my feedback.

[1:38:41] I'm just, I don't, I don't quite get even.

[1:38:44] Can talk about it later, I guess, because I wasn't here in the last week.

[1:38:48] Yeah, the point of discussing it today is to get,

[1:38:52] feedback so if you have feedback yeah we we're interested all on the water

[1:38:58] bill but I look forward to hearing war yeah so if you want feedback yeah I

[1:39:04] think it's it's it's odd it strikes me as the exact opposite or trying to do a

[1:39:08] GSA right we're trying to move from a tax based approach to metering and now

[1:39:12] trying to get away from meters and you know to a tax based approach and I think

[1:39:14] we're going to run into some of similar problems with you know what if I want to

[1:39:22] tax users. I do, while it's not the intention, I think it is just trying to hide the cost,

[1:39:30] right? We're trying to defer the monthly annoyance of having my water bill be high and saying,

[1:39:35] oh, well, I'll only see it kind of once and might pay attention to it twice a year and then

[1:39:38] hopefully forget about it. And it does seem to kind of confuse it even more. I know our

[1:39:44] structures confusing, but this just adds a whole other layer to it. It seems like, um, so, yeah,

[1:39:52] I don't know that I've seen a great benefit presented on it just other than it makes your water

[1:39:58] bill a little less monthly and makes your property tax plug a lot. Um, but yeah, that's my thought.

[1:40:04] He said it better than me. All right, but I'm sorry. Go ahead, Patrick. I was just saying I'll say

[1:40:10] more poorly than all of you, but just to be clear by point earlier was that I really believe

[1:40:17] there's a growing population, excuse me, a growing population of non-resident property owners.

[1:40:24] And I put in that category property owners with meters, and I just want to be sure that we're

[1:40:30] thinking about equity. The sense of unit users that may be different than property owners,

[1:40:39] and I don't pretend to know that nuance and I'm sure there's statistics we can take out to figure that one out.

[1:40:44] But that's my point.

[1:40:46] The other thing that dawned on me is there's two presentations.

[1:40:50] There's two schedules of activity that are,

[1:40:54] but basically represent pain to the community.

[1:40:58] One is the disruption from the infrastructure,

[1:41:04] and the second is the pain from the cost.

[1:41:06] So I think intuitively I would think they put those things as close together as you can.

[1:41:13] It will make sense to the community more so than disrupting the environment and their commute to work and their properties and trenching and all those things and then making them pay later.

[1:41:26] I don't think people would kind of get that.

[1:41:29] So that's just a thought to consider.

[1:41:31] And the last point I would make is I don't pretend to understand this when either is the benefits of this overall cat project uniform to all of the users is there is a more benefit to others and not in your comment mat made me think of that is that this is really not a distribution plan.

[1:41:54] It's a storage plan.

[1:41:55] So, who benefits from storage is, is it uniform? Everybody does the same or is it different?

[1:42:03] And I don't pretend to know the answer to that question, but that might also inform.

[1:42:08] How do you go about these rate things?

[1:42:10] Well, I'd be bothered to state water. I would also put it in the property text bill.

[1:42:13] I'm sure if it is same reason because it was a huge capital expense.

[1:42:18] It was not put on the property. I was putting the water bill.

[1:42:22] Really? I always felt it should have been.

[1:42:24] Yeah, and so we're kind of facing the same question you're I I supported I really like the idea of it on the property tax bill

[1:42:30] So so do I I don't want to money to water, but that

[1:42:33] $20 million or clear well should be at a profit tax bill too, but you know

[1:42:39] Yeah, but I'll tell you why it's because

[1:42:43] Injecting water and drug and water has a universal

[1:42:46] benefit that lasts for years and it's for decades. I mean it depends on when we extract it

[1:42:52] We decide not to extract it, wet your dryers, but if we put it on the bill, the person who's there that day pays, whereas you put it on the proper text bill and the owners who have an enduring equity in the valley pay.

[1:43:05] And I think that's where the benefit of this project lies.

[1:43:11] And you always did things you could say, why should I put it on the...

[1:43:14] I do want to...

[1:43:16] I'm still waiting for all the information.

[1:43:20] I do want to just say that the cost of service analysis that has to be done is not going

[1:43:31] to be based on whether someone is an absentee owner or it's not going to take that into consideration

[1:43:38] or it's not going to change based on like the GSA where you're going to make the comment

[1:43:46] that we're going from an estimate to a meter.

[1:43:49] It's always going to be based on the meter, whether we're

[1:43:52] collecting it through the water bill or the tax rule,

[1:43:55] it's the same charge.

[1:43:56] Same people are going to get the charge.

[1:43:58] So there's really no differences just the method in which we're

[1:44:01] collecting that revenue.

[1:44:04] And so much like Matt said, and I think one of the other

[1:44:09] reasons to do this, not that we're hiding it,

[1:44:12] but there is a psychological impact

[1:44:17] to seeing your expecting a water bill

[1:44:19] to be something and seeing it much higher.

[1:44:22] Whereas I think there's a less of an impact

[1:44:25] when you look at your property bill

[1:44:27] and you say, yeah, my house is worth 1.6 million dollars

[1:44:32] and I just got an extra $250, $250, $250, $180 a year

[1:44:36] and my, is that bad?

[1:44:38] I mean, it kind of gives you a perspective

[1:44:40] of the value of the project in terms of the property values and the value.

[1:44:48] Well, I would just say there is a little difference in who will pay the bill because we

[1:44:53] have corporations that buy houses all over and rent them as a business investment.

[1:45:00] We have, you know, 10, 10, it's versus owner. Yes, yes, yes, non-resident property, and yes, again, I think the equity this project lies more with the land than it does with your water bill.

[1:45:14] Agreed.

[1:45:14] I will read into the record.

[1:45:17] At least a portion of the comment from Will Carlson referring to the method that we just presented. I believe this is a terrible idea.

[1:45:27] this is being used currently for the GSA. Many taxpayers still don't know they're being

[1:45:34] billed with this method. Most never look at their itemized portion of their tax bill.

[1:45:39] Many I have spoken with were surprised to find this among the other many items on their tax bill.

[1:45:47] It should be clearly visible to the repairs. What the cost is for? It should be

[1:45:54] clear to rate pairs that this is a necessary and valuable step taken on their behalf.

[1:46:01] CVWD should also identify steps it is taking to mitigate these costs, EGA, hiring

[1:46:06] free or other cost saving measures.

[1:46:09] We need to sell the necessity of the and value of this cap program, not hide the cost in

[1:46:17] the tax in the rate pairs tax bill, because that's a little grunt.

[1:46:21] And I think that to speak to his comments, I think that's what all this outreach for the next year is all about.

[1:46:27] Exactly.

[1:46:32] Okay.

[1:46:33] Any more questions?

[1:46:34] Are we good?

[1:46:35] Then we move on to item number 7C.

[1:46:39] Consider what a supply impact fee from information and presentation by Mason.

[1:46:51] I'm sleeping on the screen.

[1:46:52] I'm sleeping on the wheel here.

[1:46:53] This is something that we've been working towards with the allocation that we've just recently adopted and the water intensification methodology that we just adopted.

[1:47:11] So now this is kind of the final piece of that work in that we're looking at what would be an impact fee for an intensification.

[1:47:20] And so with that, I'll give it a word, and me, so.

[1:47:23] OK, so I want to start by talking about supply reliability and get a little bit of background

[1:47:32] to sort of set the scene for why we're talking about an impact fee here.

[1:47:37] So we understand why it would be useful and necessary.

[1:47:42] And then we can go into sort of options for addressing that reliability stress and how the

[1:47:49] impact fee, then fits into it, and then another outreach piece to consider, and one

[1:47:56] of the timing of that would occur.

[1:48:00] So, feel good at the first line.

[1:48:02] So you've seen versions of this graph in the past.

[1:48:05] What we're looking at here is customer demand in times of extended drought.

[1:48:12] So that's why that bar is kind of high, I think it's about 4,200 in your feet.

[1:48:17] So less than we would expect a normal or wet conditions.

[1:48:21] And the shaded red portion there is showing the portion of that demand, which is

[1:48:27] rescind vulnerable, in times of extended drought, meaning it might be difficult to get sufficient

[1:48:33] supply to actually serve those customers so in the past, you know, we had to go purchase supplemental

[1:48:38] water, would be an example. And so the graph on the bar on the left is the current demand, and then

[1:48:46] On the right that blue bar shows proposed development as an additional stress on that existing

[1:48:56] potentially difficult to meet need that you can see in that rate-chated portion.

[1:49:03] We want to talk about this a little bit if you go to the next slide.

[1:49:10] I think we all know climate is becoming more variable.

[1:49:14] We're seeing these extremes right of wet and dry periods.

[1:49:18] As you can see in this graph, the state water project is a great example of this.

[1:49:23] It's becoming more difficult to actually get delivery of our allocation there.

[1:49:28] So if we're thinking about how we're meeting that customer need in those extended drought periods,

[1:49:34] It's going to become more difficult to meet that need and more expensive, so we can't necessarily rely on state water project water as a bucket of water to pull from in that extended drought.

[1:49:49] So we need to start thinking about how else can we manage and address that.

[1:49:55] And that's not even to consider the other stresses to other portions of our supply,

[1:50:00] like potential stresses on coutumo or groundwater or just reductions in precipitation

[1:50:06] or increased variability in precipitation.

[1:50:12] So we have a couple of different mechanisms to address this, right?

[1:50:16] So we can, of course, think about supply management, which maybe we would call things like groundwater

[1:50:22] baking and making sure we're really smart about what supply we're taking when so that, you

[1:50:28] out of time that allows us to maybe then bank or store or surplus water when it occurred.

[1:50:34] However, there are definitely costs associated with that, ground water banking could be

[1:50:38] very expensive. Also, just do graphically at this point. We don't even know that there are

[1:50:43] options that could work for us. So supply management, you know, it's definitely something to

[1:50:49] consider and to look into and to build in our portfolio, but what an necessarily address

[1:50:53] that red shaded portion of the bar in full.

[1:50:56] Another option is supply augmentation, so we could talk about something like cap.

[1:51:01] Also would be expensive, but retaining local control there could be really beneficial.

[1:51:06] So that's one avenue to consider.

[1:51:08] The third would be demand management, which makes a lot of sense that we continue to pursue.

[1:51:14] However, it's very unlikely to provide a reduction in demand of that full red-chorded shaded portion

[1:51:22] of that bar. So we're still left with this question if we need to identify how we want to bolster

[1:51:30] reliability for that portion of demand and then of course what it's going to cost and how

[1:51:35] we want to go about recovering those costs. So one thing to think about is that there's sort of

[1:51:44] two different challenges that we're trying to address here how to bolster reliability for those

[1:51:51] existing customers and then also for that blue bar portion.

[1:51:55] So additional demand outside of what we see currently.

[1:51:59] And so one thing that we could do is no matter which of those options from the previous

[1:52:04] slide we go with, we need to recover those costs somehow so we can make sure that we

[1:52:11] tie new demand that increased blue bar portion of demand to whatever mechanism we choose and make

[1:52:20] that they are paying their fair share when they're adding stress to a stress-to-system.

[1:52:25] So the way we could do that is through what we're calling an impact fee.

[1:52:29] So we could come with a up with a few amount and tie it to a particular project and then say,

[1:52:34] okay, this is the amount that you would pay if you are adding new demand to the system.

[1:52:42] And just to sort of tie things together a little bit, so we've previously discussed intensification

[1:52:48] and allocations. So this is a third term to think about. So the way I would tie them together

[1:52:54] is that allocations are a baseline. Intensification is increased demand above that baseline.

[1:53:01] And again, we're focusing on, like, significant land exchanges and significant

[1:53:05] exchanges and demand there. And then the impact fee could be the dollar amount that we're

[1:53:11] tying to that intensification. So the dollar amount associated with the acre of feet.

[1:53:16] And so we'll, as we continue through this process, we'll get into more of the details of what that number that dollar number would look like and what the nexus would be in terms of the benefit that's being provided in the actual project that that's tied to.

[1:53:33] So if you continue to the next slide, so how we could actually collect that impact fee would be through our intent to serve process, so whenever there is a development or redevelopment project, it has to come to the district and ask for an intent to serve letter, so essentially a letter saying that we have sufficient water supply to serve that project.

[1:53:55] We review those as we talked about when we're viewing the intensification methodology, there are many projects which would not trigger the intensification review and therefore not even be part of this water supply impact fee discussion.

[1:54:10] However, the projects that do trigger review and it could be subject to this impact fee.

[1:54:16] What we could do is we could issue them their intent to serve letter with conditions.

[1:54:20] So we already have letters with conditions so this could be one line a condition in that letter saying essentially that at the end of the project

[1:54:29] We would be requiring them to pay the impact fee

[1:54:33] So then they'd go and do their project on the end of the project

[1:54:36] We would tie collection of that impact fee to some mechanism like potentially installation of meters

[1:54:43] Which is to be figured out but there would be some collection mechanism at the end of the project where we collect the impact fee

[1:54:52] So, this is something that we definitely want to talk to people about and get their input on.

[1:55:00] Same thing as the other public outreach methods that we've talked about, we'll use a variety of online and print messaging system.

[1:55:10] So, we're trying to make aware as many customers as possible and we will again ask them to come to board meetings and provide input.

[1:55:17] we're also thinking of opening up a public comment form online so that people could

[1:55:23] make comments online and that we could review them and decide whether there's things that

[1:55:27] we should build into our methodology there. So if you go to the next slide, I think it's time

[1:55:32] line. Yeah, so we'll have a couple of meetings where we talk more of the details about the

[1:55:40] the fee itself and what the amount would be and how it would be determined will then have

[1:55:46] a public comment period where people can submit information.

[1:55:51] We would then review those comments, potentially integrate them, and then show you the

[1:55:56] documents.

[1:55:56] As I mentioned at the previous meeting, they'll be likely an ordinance and then also a document

[1:56:04] that had information about the basis of the fee and the access and just a little bit more context

[1:56:13] than is in ordinance and then asking for adoption in May. However, I want to caveat this timeline

[1:56:20] with the fact that we've just talked about several other ongoing projects and needs for outreach.

[1:56:25] So this is of course subject to change if when we put these all together, we then decide

[1:56:29] that things need to move around a little bit so that people can actually understand the message

[1:56:33] that is we're trying to convey to them. I think that's all I have on the

[1:56:38] impact to you at this point.

[1:56:42] Any questions? I would I would definitely do the

[1:56:47] the the comment through the district website. I would definitely add that

[1:56:51] make try to make that user friendly because we just get so little feedback as it is.

[1:56:56] Yeah. Thank you. I like to make one comment because I'm on both sides of this

[1:57:00] equation, but let's still here, right?

[1:57:05] So during the drought, it became very apparent that the egg mainly avocados

[1:57:13] pulled an extra 2008 feet of water, because there was no rain.

[1:57:19] So our residences, all of us cut back, but as farmers, use more.

[1:57:24] So should we have an impact fee for during the drought for us farmers?

[1:57:31] I'm just,

[1:57:34] you know, I'm just saying, but shock me was that during the drought, we got to take care of our orchards.

[1:57:44] But I mean, it takes water.

[1:57:46] And I got the feeling once we started getting these meters on these wells.

[1:57:51] I think we're going to be, well, not surprised.

[1:57:53] But I think we're going to have a pretty accurate picture

[1:57:55] who is using what.

[1:57:57] So it is.

[1:57:59] Yeah.

[1:58:01] And when we did the allocations we looked at,

[1:58:04] we had a thing called,

[1:58:07] what was the well estimate the demand offset

[1:58:11] or the demand ever go with?

[1:58:14] We've very between several terms I don't remember.

[1:58:16] I don't remember what the term was.

[1:58:18] But we looked at agricultural use of groundwater.

[1:58:20] not as a we need to charge for this it was really so that we could understand the overall

[1:58:29] water demand and the valley.

[1:58:33] The GSA fee is really designed to recover cost for the management

[1:58:37] of the groundwater basin so that's in a way the GSA fee is a similar fee to this impact fee

[1:58:44] but targeted towards the groundwater users so that they are paying for the management of the

[1:58:49] And part of that will be, you know, meters and sort of working with the users of the basin to try to make sure that the, you know, when we, when the basins in trouble, we don't continue to pump like we have maybe in the past.

[1:59:10] The impact fee is targeted towards new development or changes in land use, right?

[1:59:15] So the impact fee is really focused on.

[1:59:19] We allocated the water, we have across all

[1:59:21] of the parcels of the district.

[1:59:26] So we have that as a starting point.

[1:59:29] Now, someone who comes along and says, well, I want to put

[1:59:32] where this parcel used to be one commercial building,

[1:59:36] I'm going to put 50 units on it.

[1:59:39] That's a definite intensification of water use on that parcel.

[1:59:43] And so what we're trying to do with the impact fee is, say, well, you know, this is adding on top of what we've already allocated our water.

[1:59:54] This is adding on enforcing us to go and look for new water.

[2:00:00] The cost of that is then borne by that person or developer that's actually doing the development in intense fire.

[2:00:10] I support the intensification fee, the part that shocked me was during the drought, the homeowner's cut back, and his farmers use more.

[2:00:22] And, you know, it's not all bad that the fact that we got the room for 40,000 acre feet of water in our groundwater basin.

[2:00:29] Hey, that's by water cheap and fill it back up.

[2:00:31] Yeah, and I mean, you know, trying not to look rearwards too much.

[2:00:38] What we're under Sigma, we're looking forward and saying, how are we going to manage this in the future?

[2:00:42] Because we know during droughts, not only does a farmer have to make up for the water that they're not getting from rain,

[2:00:51] There are, you know, there are pumping all of that water and not only that, but there's no rain retarging the water.

[2:00:59] Can I just, I understand a little bit.

[2:01:02] So like with that intensification fee, we put like a pool and hey, we're the 100 acre feet short this year.

[2:01:08] We're going to go buy settlement or what would like the actual like execution of that.

[2:01:11] Yeah, I mean, it definitely will require, so during the cost of service,

[2:01:15] you want to make some decisions on how we'll manage those funds. Could be that it's a fund that

[2:01:21] pre-pays debt on the cap project. If the cap project is moving forward, if not the cap project,

[2:01:27] then it could be a fund that's a sinking fund for supplemental water supply or something like that.

[2:01:34] And then just so I'm real clear, that top little blue line was that just like 200-acre feeders,

[2:01:39] that shunner is that like the red line's overlaying that whole bump on the chart with the blue and the red

[2:01:45] ash. Is that just into the red. So all the red and then the blue on top of it. Okay.

[2:01:50] Yes. Yeah. And then this demand is actually underneath this red, this redness, the area.

[2:01:55] So when we go into a stage two or three, this is what we're doing is we're trying to manage this

[2:02:02] on supply and water.

[2:02:06] All right, but now you brought it back.

[2:02:08] What surprised me is, there's about, well,

[2:02:13] maybe 800 acre feet more water used during drought,

[2:02:18] but me know that possibly,

[2:02:23] avocado's some nursery,

[2:02:24] carbon nursery doesn't change much,

[2:02:26] but they could use 2,000 acre feet, so that,

[2:02:29] It doesn't include groundwater pumped out of the base and through private wells.

[2:02:33] This is only the water districts, water supply.

[2:02:38] Well, that's why you pay your fair share.

[2:02:40] What?

[2:02:41] We did have a drought surcharge also.

[2:02:43] Okay.

[2:02:44] We did have a drought.

[2:02:44] All shut up.

[2:02:45] As the stage is going.

[2:02:46] Right.

[2:02:47] But that's, you know, the point was the GSA is being managed and actually, I disagree with

[2:02:53] Bill Karthlin, I think right now what we're doing with the meters on the wells is the only fairway

[2:03:01] to assess that, so we'll need to come back and have the discussion.

[2:03:07] You should be there too.

[2:03:10] Do I?

[2:03:12] Go for it.

[2:03:13] Yeah.

[2:03:13] It's very good.

[2:03:14] Quickly, and I don't.

[2:03:17] It's got the undercar.

[2:03:18] I don't pretend to have the answers, but I would like to make two observations.

[2:03:23] one is with regard to the CAP project, it can be looked at sort of as an insurance policy.

[2:03:29] And some people are going to benefit more from that insurance policy than others, but that's

[2:03:34] what we're looking at is something for the future that will assure a better water supply.

[2:03:40] I would also make a similar comparison with your example case of the orchards and a drought.

[2:03:50] There is precedent for a customer-based residential base of actually deciding to support

[2:04:00] agriculture because they see the benefit of the open space and the green space and that sort of thing.

[2:04:08] And I would add to that with the idea of insurance that those orchards, especially during a drought,

[2:04:15] stop wildfire fires or slow them way down and people are beginning to recognize that more

[2:04:21] and more. So that benefit may be seen by the community as a cost they're willing to help

[2:04:30] subsidize to keep those orchards there. Just one more thing.

[2:04:35] No, that's why we asked you to step up.

[2:04:37] Well, but also, and this is my personal opinion. I've only lived here for about five years.

[2:04:43] So I've seen a few things happen in a couple of wildfires, but the bottom line is, I don't

[2:04:49] think 50 years from now, we're going to have Katuma or State Water, but we will have Cap,

[2:04:56] we will have Injection, if you can buy one of cheaper, if you can, and we need to also work

[2:05:01] on the recharge in the valley.

[2:05:03] So I mean, then that would keep our cost of water lower than anybody else in the first

[2:05:10] will be.

[2:05:11] Anybody else?

[2:05:12] Just the last comment I'd encourage you to maybe talk to community development department if you haven't

[2:05:17] about reach in their understanding of, you know, the response to development impact fees.

[2:05:23] I mean, there's, that is a very standard thing and, you know, covers other costs,

[2:05:29] then what we're talking about, but, you know, learned from the pain that the city goes through.

[2:05:36] Thank you, Mesa.

[2:05:40] Okay, I had a speakers slip for this item.

[2:05:45] Go for a charity.

[2:05:46] My time now.

[2:05:47] Oh, thank you.

[2:05:48] Now is your time.

[2:05:49] I'll shut up.

[2:05:50] Some of my questions were answered.

[2:05:54] And it's what we hear a lot.

[2:05:56] When we go out in the public and they're discussing new developments that increase the pressure on water and how can we pay for this?

[2:06:07] and what are we going to do. So, you know, so a lot of my questions were already addressed here and I have, there's two points that we need to look at is, you know, how, if you want to do an impact

[2:06:31] which we have to do and I think everybody agrees for new projects, increased pressure on the water and it says here it will be configured according to the water reliability project which provides the water.

[2:06:55] Now, you know, so what, I guess the water reliability project that we're looking at now, which is very expensive is a cap project.

[2:07:04] You know, so if you have a big apartment complex, it's going to put, you know, I don't know, a thousand acre feed a year extra pressure than what was there before

[2:07:14] are is there impact be going to be $4,500 times a thousand, which is what the CAP project

[2:07:24] costs us, or it's going to be hard to figure it when you don't know, you might have to go

[2:07:31] on the open market and buy water from Santa Maria or something, so that was one question I

[2:07:41] and thank you for all your work and we have to work this out and figure it out and but also

[2:07:47] don't really I don't see how I agree with case basically I don't know how you can really rely

[2:07:54] on the cap project for a long-term drought any kind of security insurance policy because you are

[2:08:04] putting and taking you are putting a thousand acre feet in you're taking it out and it's you know

[2:08:10] It's very expensive so you have to do that and then it'll take away from the cost of your

[2:08:15] coutumo water wherever else you get it, which, you know, Bob is really a master and very

[2:08:21] experienced in juggling this.

[2:08:26] But, you know, it's going to help with our reliability but not long

[2:08:30] term as far as as far as I can see. So I guess,

[2:08:37] oh yeah, and the other question you already answered,

[2:08:39] that I was going to ask is after we collect these impact fees, what we're going to do with the money.

[2:08:44] And that's going to be a counter for you answer that question and it'll maybe be used to pay down the debt of the cap,

[2:08:54] which then that would make the cap even if the cap is started before new people come, they can so pay down that debt.

[2:09:03] So that sounds like a good idea.

[2:09:06] So,

[2:09:09] I guess, yeah, I guess, do you have any comments about how we can, how can we put a charge on water reliability projects as they come, come down the road?

[2:09:24] I guess that's my question.

[2:09:26] through the chair. So just at first I'll start with just kind of clarifying that we're only

[2:09:35] talking about the capital portion of the cap projects. So in other words,

[2:09:42] I think the net

[2:09:43] $42 million of capital costs that will go into the cap is the,

[2:09:54] you know, if we were going to use

[2:09:55] You know, the 42 million divided by a thousand acre feet come up with, you know, 4,200 or 42,000 per acre foot.

[2:10:05] And so the real numbers that we're seeing of some of the larger projects are on the order of, you know, 20 to 30 acre feet.

[2:10:15] So nothing like a thousand acre feet would, you know, if we did have just, you know, a gigantic development that increased by a thousand acre feet.

[2:10:24] You're right, what we would end up doing is just dividing or we just basically pay the whole project on that development.

[2:10:33] Although there might be some issues with that from a cost nexus standpoint.

[2:10:38] So those are things that we need to work out and understand.

[2:10:43] One of the complications of this is that if a development occurs, they pay an impact,

[2:10:50] where I'm sorry, intensification fee, and then the people that move into that development

[2:10:58] start paying the water builder on the tax roll, the charges that we have in debt repayment,

[2:11:06] we can kind of wrap around the axle a little bit in terms of double paying. So we need

[2:11:11] to understand clearly kind of how to work that and make sure that we're not collecting

[2:11:15] twice.

[2:11:19] And so it's not as straightforward as it is because they only pay it once. And

[2:11:26] it's going to be, you know, felt, you know, forever.

[2:11:31] Exactly. We only pay for the construction of the cap once. And so that's kind of the idea

[2:11:36] by that. But what we are going to pay for is the debt related, you know, all customers are going

[2:11:43] pay for is the debt related to cap and so that is tied to the capital cost so that that's

[2:11:50] where I'm saying it's a little bit tricky we have to look at kind of if there's a changing

[2:11:54] rate as you go through time perhaps that may be one mechanism so in terms of whether the cap

[2:12:06] will change the outlook of reliability.

[2:12:11] We are doing modeling with Westwater to look at what

[2:12:15] the impact of cap is over time through the model 50-year period.

[2:12:24] And the mechanism that is, for the preliminary modeling

[2:12:28] that we've seen, the mechanism is that as you're

[2:12:32] using cap more regularly what happens is other supplies start to build up, including, you

[2:12:39] know, groundwater and storage, including some of the consumer water supplies, state water

[2:12:43] supplies, which you can bank. And so there is a trickle effect or butterfly effect of using

[2:12:52] cap consistently to all the other water supplies. So that's really-

[2:12:57] I think so rather than use up your other water supplies, you don't actually have to be pumping

[2:13:02] into the ground, you would just not use it and leave it in consumer or leave it in San Luis.

[2:13:08] Exactly. But the only problem with that is, you know, how leave it in consumer no, the feds don't

[2:13:16] want you to leave it in consumer. If you leave it for too long, they take it away. You donate it to the feds.

[2:13:24] So, you know, that's why it's so important to think physicality, you know, you know,

[2:13:30] or actually store physical water molecules, but I know you're on board with that, you're thinking

[2:13:36] in the right direction.

[2:13:37] And my other concern of course will be the cost of service model.

[2:13:42] Fixed charges, you know, are fixed charges, and they can, you know, they can benefit.

[2:13:50] They've been known to benefit the large water users more than the smaller ones.

[2:13:55] It could, you know, it can change the, and it's really hard to tell.

[2:13:59] you can't tell it by looking at what Maso really presented. Although I know she's going to look into it

[2:14:05] further, as far as the classes of water that look at a typical water bill and this one

[2:14:13] will increase by this percentage and that will increase by that percentage. It doesn't really

[2:14:29] on this, so we won't get stuck with a lot of development with no water available.

[2:14:37] Yep, good to hear for me.

[2:14:39] Thank you.

[2:14:39] Thank you very much.

[2:14:40] Thanks, Charlie.

[2:14:41] Thanks you.

[2:14:49] Okay, then we go to item number 70, consider it a solution number 1165 updating the district

[2:14:55] conflict of interest for action.

[2:15:00] Similar to what we went over on the GSA, we're updating the conflict or the conflict of interest code.

[2:15:07] I'm moving to the top resolution, 1, 1, 6, 5. I'll second.

[2:15:11] We've got a motion to second. Any more discussion?

[2:15:13] Roll call, please.

[2:15:15] Dr. O'Connor.

[2:15:17] Dr. Holcomb.

[2:15:18] Dr. Bolt.

[2:15:19] Dr. Robert.

[2:15:21] Dr. Van Wiernan.

[2:15:22] Motion passing.

[2:15:23] Item number 7, e. Consider securing a D&O insurance cover as for district directors.

[2:15:29] in officers for action bomb?

[2:15:33] Yes, so Director O'Connor brought this up a number of weeks ago about securing some

[2:15:40] D&O insurance, which is Director's officers insurance for boards and executive staff or officers on the board.

[2:15:53] And we've got, we've kind of gone almost in a complete circle on trying to understand whether we're covered or whether we need coverage or where there are gaps.

[2:16:04] And the JPI does, so let me back up, the directors and officers ensure it's covers the directors and their assets if they're sued for decisions and personal assets are included in that lawsuit.

[2:16:27] So, all of that is covered in normal D&O insurance, that's the purpose of it is to try

[2:16:35] to protect drug members and allow for people, talented people to come and join the board

[2:16:45] without the fear of their personal assets being attacked for their decisions.

[2:16:52] We checked with the Joint Powers Insurance Agency, and they have a thing called E&O,

[2:16:57] errors in a mission, which is typically, it's an insurance that is typically used by

[2:17:04] professional consultants, primarily architects, engineers, and they're like to protect

[2:17:14] them from an error or mission on the plans that results into a construction claim.

[2:17:21] And they buy that to protect their firms from, you know, if a suit is brought against them for some sort of construction defector design defect.

[2:17:33] But for some reason, at the RJPIA, they call it Board of Directors Eres and omissions.

[2:17:42] So it's sort of a conflation of DNO and ENO.

[2:17:47] However, the description of coverage

[2:17:49] says covers, directors, and officers

[2:17:56] from lawsuits resulting from their official duties.

[2:18:01] And then it makes an exception.

[2:18:04] It doesn't cover fiduciary duties, which in this context

[2:18:10] refers to managing of pensions and managing of a risk-a-type retirement funds, and so if there's a claim that the, for example, our 457B fund is mismanaged, this, what, what GPIA calls ENO does not cover, does not cover it.

[2:18:36] So there's a special insurance coverage called Fidishary coverage, which we're planning on

[2:18:44] investigating this further with our management consultant that manages our Arisa Fund to

[2:18:54] find out okay, you know, who's at risk.

[2:18:59] I understand that I think I am the one who is listed as the Fidishary for that fund, for

[2:19:05] that investment.

[2:19:09] And so I don't know that the board has exposure, but that's one of the things on my

[2:19:13] list that I need to check out.

[2:19:16] But in terms of our current understanding, the ENO insurance that JPI offers as part

[2:19:23] of our pooled insurance does cover board activities and decisions up to, was it, 55 million.

[2:19:34] So it's a large coverage, typically you see them at 10 million.

[2:19:38] It's the limits of coverage.

[2:19:40] I think 10, 20, or 10, single, 20 aggregate.

[2:19:46] But I think we need a little bit of time to clarify this further because, as I said,

[2:19:52] we sort of thought we knew where we were going when we were putting the board back together.

[2:19:57] But recent communications with JPI has made us believe that there's some misunderstanding

[2:20:03] any at the GPA as to what insurance and what coverage they're actually offering.

[2:20:09] So our next step and this is for action basically looking for you to direct us to go and

[2:20:16] get some quotes for D&O insurance.

[2:20:20] But I think I'm going to pull that back and come back at a future meeting after we get some

[2:20:25] of these questions that we have on a staff little answered to our GPA.

[2:20:30] Okay.

[2:20:32] More is better.

[2:20:35] I'd also be interested in, I was under maybe I'm mistaken, but there might be some statutory

[2:20:41] protections from liability under the government code, and maybe I'm remembering something

[2:20:46] else entirely.

[2:20:48] I'm sure that they would be aware of that, and if there was a DN, you know, a director's

[2:20:52] an officer's insurance, it would tie into that.

[2:20:55] But it'd be interesting to know if that is in fact true.

[2:20:58] It's kind of like the Goods American law, you know, where you shouldn't be sued if you

[2:21:01] try to do an emergency response to a first aid or something?

[2:21:06] Yeah, we did check with other agencies to see if any of them had DNO and only because

[2:21:12] so Glyda did not and Montecito did not and Casitas has ENO, which again is not DNO, so we're not sure

[2:21:23] you know, if it's, there might be a statutory protection. So we'll stay tuned.

[2:21:32] I just thought we were covered by JPA, so that you answer my question anyway. Thank you.

[2:21:37] I didn't catch it, so we currently have ENO, or we do not, they just offer it.

[2:21:42] You know, we current through our JPA coverage, we are covered for ENO, with their calling ENO, which I, I'm fiduciary.

[2:21:49] Right. I'm interpreting their ENO as DNO insurance.

[2:21:52] drive Bob, but you're going to go ahead and review all three of the D&O, E&O and FMO, because, and again,

[2:22:02] I don't want to make it too complicated, but don't hold against the lawyers here, but

[2:22:08] they only suit people where there's resources, and they're not going to suit anybody where there's no money.

[2:22:13] So that's be mindful of, thank you, Patrick. I want to retry our peacefully, sir.

[2:22:18] Yeah, I will come back with a report on all three coverages and, you know, describe what I found with the

[2:22:26] JPI and, and our RISM manager.

[2:22:30] Yeah, and just from public and private experience, company experience, this is not an unusual

[2:22:35] thing.

[2:22:35] We're not asking for it.

[2:22:37] Right, Bob.

[2:22:37] Something unusual.

[2:22:38] And even your retirement, but even your health care, should be reviewed if we have

[2:22:46] and the flaw in our healthcare coverage,

[2:22:48] which could be major, any future surprises out there.

[2:22:53] I think both should be reviewed, retirement, and healthcare.

[2:22:57] Oh, these things.

[2:22:58] Yeah, I can put that on list.

[2:23:01] Thank you, everyone.

[2:23:01] That's helpful.

[2:23:04] Because otherwise you're not going to find any board members

[2:23:07] who run for this board anymore first.

[2:23:08] I'm serious.

[2:23:09] I mean, it is.

[2:23:11] So first question.

[2:23:14] But you took the job anyhow.

[2:23:19] Thank you.

[2:23:22] Thank you, Bob.

[2:23:25] 7F, acknowledge ACWA, JPAI presence, special recognition award for information Bob.

[2:23:35] Yes, speaking of insurance.

[2:23:38] Each year at the end of the year, JPI reviews each member's loss ratio on the property

[2:23:50] program, the workers' comp program and the general liability program, and so if it's lower

[2:23:57] than 20% then they acknowledge you with a reward or not an award and we were lower than

[2:24:06] 20% on all three programs so we we got three certificates and so I just wanted to let you know that

[2:24:14] well that's a compliment to your team do they come framed um you can frame them if you like

[2:24:22] is it newsworthy well these to bring us a check but they don't do that anymore

[2:24:28] I think anything below 20% of the newsworthy I think so

[2:24:33] It's news already. It shows that we are keeping claims down and that translates into

[2:24:38] low opinions. All right. Thank you.

[2:24:46] Director reports number eight.

[2:24:51] 8 a.m.

[2:24:52] Regular meeting December 16, 2024, Pauli.

[2:24:54] Thank you. Yeah, similarly is it was to wet up upset.

[2:24:57] We also perceived good news.

[2:25:00] And even though some of the aquibills and the estimates have gone up,

[2:25:04] other things have gone down including our claims too and so that is balanced out a little bit.

[2:25:11] The board passed all of the draft budget total compensation with GASP74-75, everything

[2:25:17] I've reported on from the admin committee. That was up for adoption. The Bartlett Pringle

[2:25:24] audit went very well and as a matter of fact the very complementary and called the experience

[2:25:30] and they find things financially stable and very routine.

[2:25:35] We got a grant from Santa Barbara County for $79,000 for a photovoltaic and EV charging

[2:25:42] systems and solar panels, batteries, and three EV charging podiums, and possibly a tax credit.

[2:25:52] We know that's kind of a limbo right now, but we're going to be moving forward with it with

[2:25:56] project cost after the grant of only $76,000 to install all of this.

[2:26:03] There was an ROI cost benefit to done and it does look like we'll be saving about $43,000

[2:26:11] over the next four to seven years so that made sense to go ahead and implement that and we're

[2:26:16] also watching the, as I reported before, Aqua, or maybe the state of California laws to switch over

[2:26:24] to EV vehicles at a 2027, I think it is, so this all plays into that.

[2:26:31] We approved a Habitat Humanity Habitat Improvement Project for a fish that will be in

[2:26:38] three phases over three years.

[2:26:39] This is only the grant phase that we approved will be going after a grant with CDFW, but

[2:26:47] that we did approve was a $50,000 payment to HDR for consulting assistance to come up with

[2:26:55] a grant application.

[2:26:59] This we're working with the Bureau of Reclamation to see if they're going to improve it.

[2:27:04] The rational behind it is that, even though there is lots of water, lots of fish, there's

[2:27:09] a lot of water in Hilton Creek and so the idea is to improve the fish habitat, improve

[2:27:15] this passage with making those improvements to Milton Creek, so in the last I heard it was not approved by the Bureau of Reclamation yet, but they are studying it right now.

[2:27:28] We had a shutfield tunnel inspection in December that had be called off after I think it was the first 500 feet because the communications failed, so we're regrouping on the communications and the good news is that the first part of that the 500 feet.

[2:27:43] the tunnel look good but we are aware of some water damage through the rest of that so we have to

[2:27:47] get back in there and fix the communications so that we can finish the finish that sheffield

[2:27:53] title inspection the log boom that I reported on the brand new one was installed around the

[2:27:59] intake tower it should hold up as I said before if we see any further damage then we have to

[2:28:04] look at vandalism possibly fishermen trying to get in to fish around the intake tower because that's

[2:28:10] a lot of fisher known to be. So we'll be putting cameras up if it comes to that. Also, Bob,

[2:28:18] I'm not sure if you might know more on this, but normally the water status, there's some

[2:28:23] water loss that's creeping up and Joel is in touch with the county to figure out where it might

[2:28:29] be coming from, normally that's very stable. So it's unusual that they would actually say this is

[2:28:35] newsworthy, and that's all we know at this time. I'll have my next board meetings on Monday.

[2:28:39] That concludes my report.

[2:28:41] Oh, you know what?

[2:28:42] I should mention that even though we approved everything that I reported on last at the last meeting,

[2:28:47] one of the things that we think we are going to follow up on is putting together a trust

[2:28:52] for the GASP B7475 on paid on the unfunded liability.

[2:29:01] We talked about that last time and the board agreed for the financial controller.

[2:29:05] we're too looking to it on a very meticulous basis, not to be rushed to see if it makes

[2:29:10] us first to start into a small part, to start paying into this. This will take a lot of time

[2:29:18] to figure out the pros and cons and I'll be reporting back on that. Thank you. Thanks, Molly.

[2:29:25] There we go. Item number nine. Get a minute to report.

[2:29:34] All that and we're going to do the financials?

[2:29:35] Yeah, okay.

[2:29:37] Back at page 78, excuse me, you have the water cells budget to actual.

[2:29:42] So through November, we are at 64 acre feet below budgeted projections.

[2:29:49] And that's primarily related to M&I usage, which is at 67 acre feet below.

[2:29:54] And yeah, I guess about three acre feet above.

[2:29:56] Pack it page 79 and statement there.

[2:30:00] Change in the position, our water cells through November, we're 42% through the year and they're at 42.5% so we're pretty right on target there, overall revenue, 43% and our operating expenditure total, which is on packet page 82 or at about 40% so 2% just below a digital projections through November.

[2:30:28] My presentation, if you have any questions?

[2:30:31] Thank you, Dorg, then item number two, then.

[2:30:37] Yeah, I'll just mention this.

[2:30:38] So the left investment statement is there.

[2:30:41] If you have any questions.

[2:30:44] I can give you, I guess, just a brief update.

[2:30:45] Bob and I spoke with Kyle over with the camp.

[2:30:49] And we are going to be moving some funds over to the camp fund.

[2:30:53] I'd say in the next week or so.

[2:30:57] Okay.

[2:30:57] And then the third item was a quarterly budget project status which I apologize for the very small print we will make that bigger for the next quarter

[2:31:05] But this report again shows up quarterly and it lists the districts open capital projects and the percent budget used and the percent completion with some notes there

[2:31:15] So that just keeps the board updated on what staff is working on and where we are with each of the projects

[2:31:21] Is he questions? I have a question on the U.S. bank. Are they starting behaving like a real bank for us or are they just?

[2:31:31] Yes, so that's conversations. So I'm going so they did reduce for the GSA number of the fees through December.

[2:31:40] We're working with them to cut down the fees for the district operating account.

[2:31:46] It's all related to our mobile, we're online banking and the different services, so we're going working with them to see what exactly services we need.

[2:31:55] So we can cut down those fees for that, but so far, so good.

[2:31:59] They are being cooperative in terms of working with us.

[2:32:02] Okay, and I'll really bring it up because I was told by a representative of US Bank, as long as you do everything online, there are no fees, and it doesn't sound like that's what.

[2:32:11] Well, we don't do everything online because we do get quite a bit of what we do get checks and we get cash and so we do have to make deposits

[2:32:18] So the daily deposits, so that's not online. We do get the checks that we get processed through the mouth.

[2:32:27] Do get sent over in a file. So it is online, but again, we still get quite a bit of walk through a walk in traffic.

[2:32:34] Okay, again, I don't want to get into this, but the bottom line is there.

[2:32:41] In my opinion, they should be charging anything.

[2:32:44] I mean, they should be happy that you're their customer, and even, you know, you're the

[2:32:49] positive.

[2:32:49] You're scanning in.

[2:32:50] Again, there should be no, you guys are scanning in the walk them in.

[2:32:55] We do both.

[2:32:56] The checks that are mailed in are scanned in the files and over.

[2:33:01] The checks that are walked in are different file and those are deposited along with the cash.

[2:33:07] And again, I don't want to get in the middle of this.

[2:33:08] but I would like to see what they're really charging us.

[2:33:14] And again, I'm not suggesting that you check

[2:33:16] some of the other banks, but there might be better

[2:33:20] value out there for you.

[2:33:21] That's awesome.

[2:33:22] Thank you.

[2:33:23] Thank you.

[2:33:23] That's my personal opinion.

[2:33:28] Then we got 9B and junior report.

[2:33:33] Yeah, I only have one thing on this, just that we are working

[2:33:41] And with the city on Bridge Replacement Project, over Carpenter Avenue, over Carpenter Creek.

[2:33:50] And so the city has begun to move forward on that project and that will involve us replacing

[2:33:59] the pipeline leading to the bridge and then the city will be in charge or will be responsible

[2:34:04] for hanging a new pipe on the bridge that will connect in.

[2:34:10] So that's been a project that's been around for a while, and we think it's going to be

[2:34:16] started.

[2:34:17] That's what the messaging from the city has come as saying.

[2:34:21] That was a question if they could find a contractor, did they find a contractor to do the job?

[2:34:28] I don't think they've advertised it yet, I think they're still working on the details of actually

[2:34:35] getting it out. And the funding.

[2:34:39] And then as far as letters of intent, to serve a lot of

[2:34:46] ADUs, have been issued in December. There's just some small renovations, also, that had

[2:34:59] There's only one that actually adds a little bit of square footage on on Beach Club Road.

[2:35:07] No big developments have been issued a letter.

[2:35:11] There was an intake of a big development on Craven, a 1360 Craven's Lane.

[2:35:19] Still in review with that particular project.

[2:35:24] So we have not issued that letter yet.

[2:35:28] And then again, we more recently,

[2:35:34] I'll see you again, one for an ADU in Rancho Monteligre,

[2:35:41] and then another ADU on Cramer Road, so a lot of ADUs are happening.

[2:35:47] And as I understand the ADU laws are changing this year again, so they're making the barriers lower.

[2:35:53] and so we're going to see probably a continuation of letters of letters of requests for ADU.

[2:36:06] So, for the operations report, nothing to report here on the monthly SAS report, but I did

[2:36:15] want to report that we had a uptick of calls about our fire hydrants and the readiness

[2:36:22] for fires, which is understandable, given the stories that we're coming out of the Palaces

[2:36:27] Fire.

[2:36:30] And so I wrote an article for the coastal view that we'll come out tomorrow, just kind

[2:36:36] of highlighting some of the details of our system.

[2:36:40] Our system is, I think, very well prepared, as well as the staff as well as well prepared

[2:36:46] because we've had such a recent experience with the Thomas Fire.

[2:36:49] We are fortunate to have not too many tanks, but we, you know, the majority of the tanks

[2:36:58] with the exception of Shepard Mesa tank, all the tanks with the exception of Shepard Mesa

[2:37:03] are buried concrete tanks, so they're not really vulnerable to fire, like melting in

[2:37:11] some agencies where you have bolted steel tanks, those will actually melt and you will

[2:37:16] water pressure that way. We also have generators on all of our pumping stations so in the

[2:37:24] event that power goes out which is very common during wildfire we have an ability to keep pumping

[2:37:30] water into those tanks. We have about 27 million, 27 million gallons of water storage in the district

[2:37:44] which depending on how you make the calculation gives us up to a days, you know, if no other

[2:37:53] water is flowing into these tanks, we have a full day of water supply to fight fires that

[2:38:00] elevated flow rates.

[2:38:03] The other thing to remember is we have the ability or cater as the ability to move 10 million

[2:38:10] a day into our service area. So really, it's a really unlikely that we'll see a situation

[2:38:19] that was seen in palaces where the demand was simply outpacing the ability of the system

[2:38:26] to recharge because we have quite a bit of throughput in our system. Thanks to the South Dakota's conduits,

[2:38:34] of very large transmission mean really can push a lot of water.

[2:38:38] We also have two very large reservoirs,

[2:38:40] or take a reservoir and carbon reservoir,

[2:38:42] that's sort of a lot of water.

[2:38:46] And then I will just plug the intertype project

[2:38:49] is one of the things that it's attempting to do

[2:38:53] is address the vulnerability of having

[2:38:56] a single pipe coming into the water district.

[2:38:59] So rather than if ever we had multiple calamities

[2:39:04] happening. First quake happens, breaks the south, goes kind of into it, then a fire starts,

[2:39:10] then we want to have another way to get water and so that's what the disease interchange will

[2:39:15] allow us to do. So we're in fairly good shape. That's what it's standing. Yeah, one last thing I

[2:39:23] did want to give props to the operations department is they have been for a year now and they'll

[2:39:33] continue to do this, going to each hydrant, making sure that the operating nuts work,

[2:39:39] looping the operating nuts, checking the valves, making sure they work, making sure

[2:39:44] that the valves are on, the water is there when the fire departments get to a fighter

[2:39:49] register, get to the hydrants, make sure there's water available.

[2:39:53] So we're about 90% done with that exercise and once we get done, we'll just continue to

[2:39:58] we'll start back at the beginning and do the same inspection.

[2:40:03] So that is all newsworthy.

[2:40:06] So did you already go look about tomorrow?

[2:40:09] I had a question on these fire hydrants when one is off,

[2:40:12] do we have protection that there is a shadow valve,

[2:40:16] like an oil wells?

[2:40:18] Yeah, we have what's called, it's a little ball check valve,

[2:40:22] basically I forget the name of the product,

[2:40:25] But it essentially has a pin and when it gets

[2:40:28] sure off the pin pops up and a little ball plugs

[2:40:31] the hole.

[2:40:32] So what you get is about a quarter inch stream in the air

[2:40:36] of water that you can see, but it's not water.

[2:40:39] It's not flooding everywhere.

[2:40:41] All right, yeah, I was wondering about that.

[2:40:43] I saw what these idiots, you know, they break them

[2:40:44] and they sell them and then it's all here.

[2:40:49] I'll be your article.

[2:40:51] I vaguely remember there used to be something

[2:40:53] He's going to like a dry pipe or dry stack, hydrant, and then we replace those.

[2:40:58] Dry barrels?

[2:40:58] We've replaced all those.

[2:40:59] Those are long guns.

[2:41:00] Do you think that was partially what they had, dry barrels, hydrants that were broken?

[2:41:06] It's possible.

[2:41:07] Yeah.

[2:41:07] So that would be the nut, you know, the nut on the top brings up the valve as clear

[2:41:12] underground.

[2:41:14] So, part of, you know, from the articles that I've read, part of it was a reservoir, a major

[2:41:20] reservoir was down for maintenance.

[2:41:23] Winner.

[2:41:23] Yeah, part of it was the system just wasn't designed to bring those tanks up as quickly as the water was being trained out,

[2:41:35] so

[2:41:35] Yeah, please make it up in all your fire hydros, there's another water right

[2:41:40] Thank you Bob

[2:41:43] Blue one good item number 10 close session

[2:41:49] Oh, did you want me to do the water splider parts? Sorry. Oh, sorry. Yeah

[2:41:53] go for it. Yeah, we know what it means. I've never listened to these events. I don't need to see them again.

[2:41:58] All right. Well, let me just highlight it then because, you know, me, so it does a lot of work on these things.

[2:42:03] I think, you know, it's worth talking about. So this is just a picture of our overall surface watch by compared to previous years.

[2:42:11] And so you can see we're actually in a better position that we've been in.

[2:42:14] And this is largely because of carryover and new year allocations kind of stacking up.

[2:42:21] Now, I will say we've received so little rain this year, I'm pretty certain that this

[2:42:27] will look very different next year in terms of our water supply available in some

[2:42:33] of these water storage reservoirs, groundwater, so lower than, you know, drought years

[2:42:43] previous, but a little bit more than wet years where we had a lot of rain.

[2:42:51] Our pumping target is this orange line, and I mean, you can kind of see, oops, I'm sorry

[2:42:56] about that.

[2:42:58] I'm going to change my method here.

[2:43:02] Our pumping target is the orange line, so we try to pump about a thousand acre feed each year

[2:43:07] of groundwater.

[2:43:09] That's a long-term target.

[2:43:10] We'll sometimes go under that, sometimes go over that.

[2:43:15] Currently, or as of November, we were at 7.68.

[2:43:18] Currently, we actually have already

[2:43:20] at the 1000-acre feet of production.

[2:43:24] The reason why it's a little bit front and loaded.

[2:43:27] So starting in January, we're really not pumping anything

[2:43:32] until July 1.

[2:43:34] is that we were the Kachuma is relatively full, and if there were storms coming through what we wanted to be in the position to do is turn off the wells, still have a matter of target, but then start taking a supplemental water from Kachuma which is excess water.

[2:43:56] That didn't happen, or it doesn't look like it's going to happen, but who knows, we could

[2:44:01] have a March or February miracle.

[2:44:07] This is kind of the consumption year over year again, you can see our consumption is

[2:44:12] down, or it's pretty close to previous years.

[2:44:16] This is a little bit strange in that, this is just for November, but this is a little strange

[2:44:21] in that it's higher for a wetter year and that could have been because the rainfall last year

[2:44:28] or in 23 was later and the rainfall this year was early but it was very, very minute.

[2:44:40] So this graph just kind of shows the wetness and so you can kind of see this as demand

[2:44:50] And this is these two lines depict kind of the average of a wet year that we would expect in demand in the average of a drug.

[2:45:00] And so you can see dryers are higher, weters are lower. We're kind of threading that needle. And you can see that early, like in August, September, we were acting more like it was a wet year. And now that we've gone through December and we're halfway through January. And we've really seen no rain. It was a demand of starting to act like it's a dryer. So, we've got a lot of work to do.

[2:45:37] that's the final yeah so so they've already made an initial I think it's 15% currently so

[2:45:43] they I think they need a 5% and they brought up to 15% in December or in January so they'll

[2:45:51] keep going up if if it does rain but if it doesn't rain it did rain in Northern California a couple

[2:45:57] It's a big storm scheme in the North of Gal, a little different than what we have here.

[2:46:04] So this is axails on the left and M and I sails on the right and you kind of see the

[2:46:10] original line is our target line and the gray line is our max expected and you can see on

[2:46:17] the left that we're on axails we're seeing maximum sales so that is reflection of the

[2:46:24] practice, lack of rainfall during even the earlier parts of the year.

[2:46:31] This is based on the fiscal years that starts in July.

[2:46:36] And then, M&I is below, which is interesting,

[2:46:43] we think this is again reflecting some of

[2:46:47] the hardening that occurred during the last several periods of dry weather, where residents

[2:46:53] or M&I users are starting, you know, they're just using less.

[2:46:58] Lons have been removed, plumbing has been retrofitted,

[2:47:01] behaviors have become routine.

[2:47:08] Those two together,

[2:47:10] result in this combined sales.

[2:47:13] So we're within our targets own,

[2:47:16] just a little bit above.

[2:47:18] If we stay with that targets own,

[2:47:20] will reach our budget at 35.07 of sales, and so that will be consistent with our budgeted

[2:47:30] revenues.

[2:47:32] I'll ask you a quick question on that.

[2:47:34] What, how far under 35.07 is it a problem?

[2:47:38] Like 10% at 1%, 20% problem for revenues?

[2:47:45] Yeah, so we've had, I think we've had sales as low as 3,200.

[2:47:51] And we didn't violate any of our coverage ratios, but it was close, so we get very close.

[2:48:02] So this is January 7th, drought monitor.

[2:48:05] You can kind of see there's some drought fears coming in.

[2:48:13] You can see Santa Barbara is in the abnormally dry to moderate drought.

[2:48:18] I think this will change if we don't get any rain before next month.

[2:48:24] This will change probably into these darker colors.

[2:48:29] We do have, again, reservoir conditions that are favorable for a single year drought.

[2:48:36] If it goes into a multiple year drought, then we'll start to see, you know, similar activity

[2:48:40] as we did in 2021,

[2:48:46] 22.

[2:48:46] Again, I'll just highlight here for the year.

[2:48:49] Kachima has seen 0.83 inches and carbonaries only seen 0.64,

[2:48:57] so it's very, you know, to date is 9% 11% which it's hard to believe.

[2:49:05] Most of the rain does fall in February, so we'll see this rapidly change.

[2:49:11] If these don't change, we'll see this percentage rapidly change.

[2:49:17] Again, reservoir conditions were, we're not full, full is 1992, 190,000 acre, 190,

[2:49:27] 3,000 acre feet, we're about 170,000, so we've used about 14,000 acre feet this year,

[2:49:35] which is about half of the annual allocation of consumer.

[2:49:41] Again, across the state, reservoirs are in very good condition for going into a drought.

[2:49:49] That's it.

[2:49:52] Thank you Bob any questions?

[2:49:54] Then we move on to item number 10.

[2:49:57] The closed session conference with Labor Negotiated

[2:49:59] Pursuit to Government Code Section 54957.6.

[2:50:05] District negotiator Robert McDonald's Employee Organization

[2:50:08] Own Representative Employees.

[2:50:12] So...

[2:50:12] Recording stopped.

[3:27:09] Good morning and progress.

Regular Board & CGSA Meeting

Agenda

Transcript