[0:23] Okay. Good afternoon, everyone.

[0:28] We will call this meeting to order. I'm 1.1. We'll call.

[0:35] Directed by Mr. Mara. Directed by Keegan. Here. Directed by Cremit.

[0:43] Here. Directed by the side. Here. Directed by.

[0:48] All right.

[0:49] Here.

[0:50] There's one.

[0:53] How many of us are present?

[0:54] Thank you.

[0:56] And at one point two, I don't know how to read you.

[0:58] I have to go.

[0:59] Vice Chair, can you read this one?

[1:01] Sure.

[1:01] Oh, I think that way.

[1:03] I have to face that way.

[1:05] You're apologize for that.

[1:06] Somewhere around here.

[1:07] I've fled to lead you to the flag.

[1:10] But in the United States of America.

[1:12] And to the Republic, we have to stand.

[1:14] One thing.

[1:16] On the ground.

[1:21] Thank you.

[1:22] Thank you.

[1:22] I would say play ball, but there is no ball.

[1:24] There's no ball.

[1:26] There's not a certain kind of thing.

[1:29] Or these work needs, especially putting things to day.

[1:35] Well, either 1.3 orders of the day, are there any suggestions to change the sequencing of the agenda item on today's agenda?

[1:49] Okay, hearing none. Time open for public comment or any item not to the agenda. Are there any public who is just speak to the board about items not alone today's agenda?

[2:03] Yes, I have somebody by the name of Hasi and the creeks that has raised their hand, but they may be asking for item.

[2:12] Yeah, I think that they are there on the agenda.

[2:15] Thank you. Thank you. Yes. In the end of the year. So at the end, I think seeing your apartment,

[2:26] your item is on our agenda. So we'll wait until that time to call you for your comments to

[2:34] this board. And if there's no one else which is big to this board, I had the board

[2:44] or report on the status of the investigation related to the claims followed by a

[2:55] Reverend Moore. As I reported last time, I received the report and today my report is that

[3:02] I've finished reviewing the report for completeness and consistency with spoke of work and I will work with the incoming chair on the next step of distributing the findings to our board members.

[3:19] With that report, we'll move on to turn certain items at the 2.1 direction of board chair and vice chair for year 2021.

[3:33] So at this time, I'd like to open nomination for board chair of year 2021.

[3:42] Through the current shall nominate director Estamera.

[3:46] Thank you, sir.

[3:47] Okay, are there any other nomination,

[3:53] here and none, I will close the nomination.

[3:57] Michelle, do we do a local vote?

[3:59] Yes, yes.

[4:00] Okay, that's a do a local vote.

[4:05] Director, Mr. Mayor.

[4:07] Director Keegan.

[4:09] Hi.

[4:10] Director Cremis.

[4:12] Director Leva.

[4:14] Yes.

[4:15] Director Santa.

[4:15] Yes.

[4:16] Director Verale.

[4:17] Yes.

[4:18] Yes.

[4:20] Okay.

[4:20] I'll go to your lunches and I can leave it to you.

[4:24] Oh thank you.

[4:25] For the last year.

[4:25] Oh you did the work.

[4:28] Election and this is my day.

[4:31] That's what you said.

[4:32] That's what you said.

[4:36] That's what you said.

[4:40] Okay.

[4:42] All right.

[4:45] Thank you very much.

[4:45] We'll run along to the lecture of the vice chair.

[4:49] Does the motion?

[4:50] most of the director of Kremlin.

[4:52] There is the Santos Mission for us.

[4:54] Let's look at that.

[4:56] Okay, second and then all the way around.

[4:59] Have a roll call, please.

[5:00] Okay.

[5:01] Election and this is my day.

[5:04] That's what you said.

[5:06] That's just a question.

[5:08] That's it.

[5:14] Cheers, as well.

[5:18] Right, thank you very much.

[5:19] Move right along to the election of the vice chair, the motion.

[5:24] Most of the director of the Senate, there's the council's motion for.

[5:28] I'll talk about it.

[5:29] Okay, second and then all the way around.

[5:31] Do you have a roll call, please, men, men, sir?

[5:36] Do you want to show you?

[5:38] Yes, Dr. Keegan.

[5:40] Dr. Kremlin?

[5:42] Yes.

[5:42] Dr. Zag.

[5:43] Yes.

[5:44] What's your sentence?

[5:45] Yes.

[5:46] Dr. Groll.

[5:47] Yes.

[5:47] Aristotle.

[5:50] Great.

[5:54] Do you know Mr. Rick the Kremlin by chair this year?

[5:59] We'll run along to, since we have, I had a 10 page, a 10 page speech to make, I'm sorry to the chair, but because of the short agenda that we have,

[6:14] where we have every item that we didn't do last year, we'll run along to the next item to point to recognition of our outgoing chair.

[6:25] And we'll start with CEO and we'll launch the board our board members.

[6:31] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Rick, calendar CEO, it's definitely been a pleasure to serve

[6:37] under the chair, Shua. It's always good to have someone when you have a project manager

[6:43] as well as a chair. So it's been very organized and so it's been nothing but simple

[6:49] simplicity as well as very good organization moving forward. There's a very challenging

[6:55] year if you think how we've had to serve during COVID, how we've how she had to lead on measure

[7:00] S as well as leading for a new CEO and I'm happy to be in the position I am and thankful

[7:06] to be able to serve underneath her as well as being able to serve under all that's going

[7:12] on in the nation's capital.

[7:15] So it's definitely been a pleasure and I know that staff does, so Mr. Chairman, if you allow

[7:19] staff does have a short video they'd like to show them they'd like to turn it back over

[7:23] to you.

[7:24] Absolutely. Thanks for it.

[9:53] I'm sure it is then staff's pleasure to serve underneath you and to work with you.

[9:58] Thank you for everything.

[10:00] All right, what's the matter? Okay, let's go right down the line.

[10:05] A little way to start. All right, Mr. Wood.

[10:07] Thank you very much. So, Director Swayer, just want to thank you very much for your leadership, your council, your mentorship,

[10:18] serving with you on various committees, listening to your leadership style and learning.

[10:25] Learning from you through your experience that you've had with a water district.

[10:29] way before you were on the board. And you're a very unique way of handling some reticate board members that can really be like a wild patch of

[10:44] Well, let's just say decision makers. You've done a very excellent job, and I just want to make sure that that's heard.

[10:50] And I think I particularly appreciate your style, your wisdom, your strength, and I wish

[10:56] you well, and I look forward to continuing working with you this year.

[11:01] Thank you.

[11:03] I would like to give you.

[11:06] Thank you.

[11:07] You know, I know that Nye doesn't like a lot of attention being paid to her, and so this is probably

[11:14] all very embarrassing for you Nye, but I want to thank you for the bottom of my heart

[11:18] for your continued dedication and service to Valley Water.

[11:25] You spent many years working as a staffer and you've spent eight more years,

[11:31] plus four more to come. I do in your very best for the community and it's not easy.

[11:38] I know that this last year in particular has been very difficult for a whole variety of reasons,

[11:45] But your strong ethical standards and your devotion to the organization and to the community

[11:53] are to be commended.

[11:54] So, thank you.

[11:56] Thank you.

[11:57] Your sense?

[11:58] Yes.

[11:58] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[12:00] It's a pleasure to address outgoing and share of you.

[12:04] When you see the video, the refreshment year, me, but all the different topics we had,

[12:10] plus all the challenges of C-19. The very challenge in your new CEO, outgoing CEO,

[12:19] policies, challenges and environment, floods, so many issues, so many legal issues.

[12:25] But the only I did admire it all the time, and now I would say it all the time, I'm going to

[12:29] get the job done no matter what it is, and she always never rested, so she went home, came back

[12:35] and address the issues. So with that, I'm much appreciation. Thank you for the job.

[12:41] Thank you.

[12:43] The work that is up?

[12:47] You're on me a drink for a lot.

[12:53] I keep hitting the world, but now when I was going out as chair,

[12:57] I thank you for being my right hand during my chairmanship.

[13:03] And at that time having gone through a year with you,

[13:07] I had no doubt the kind of leader you would be when it was your turn

[13:11] to be chaired.

[13:13] I think your leadership through all of what we've

[13:16] been through this year reminds me of Diane Feinstein,

[13:20] when she had to take over suddenly to be mayor.

[13:23] It's a true leader who can step into numerous crises

[13:28] and finally strengthen the courage to do it fairly

[13:32] equitably and without panic.

[13:36] I think that you had numerous challenges

[13:38] that none of us really would have expected this time last year.

[13:43] So I want to thank you for your leadership,

[13:46] where you're always willing to make sure that every board member

[13:51] was heard.

[13:53] And I think that, in fact, I know that you are so anxious,

[13:59] to have turned this over to Tony.

[14:02] And that you can go back to doing the business of the district,

[14:06] which I know is your first love.

[14:07] So again, thanks for everything you've done this year, Nye.

[14:11] Thank you.

[14:14] Thank you.

[14:17] It's usually hard to be seven, be district seven, because everyone said it before.

[14:24] You know, like everyone said, tough year, exemplary,

[14:32] performance, and it reminds me of some of the things that I really appreciate you for.

[14:37] Like number one, you know, really good at process before politics and fairness and open-minded.

[14:43] I was kind of getting to the core of what's right, I remember I was reminded of that yesterday

[14:48] after a conversation we had dealing with sensitive personnel matters, listening to craziness

[14:55] including my own being thoughtful, especially during weather.

[15:00] Thank you for your service. Thank you.

[15:04] And I'll just say my two cents, you know, when we first elected you, are you beginning, I remember I mentioned how my own experience was that at the beginning of the year, you never really know what's going to happen.

[15:21] And then all of a sudden, Scott Falls, trying to stuff falls on you, you never, not only you but nobody's ever contemplated it, like COVID and all the other stuff that we're talking about.

[15:36] And it's just amazing that, and unfortunately, that that did happen that you, you were caught by a lot of different catastrophes, a lot of surprises.

[15:49] My hats off to you because you stood up to every single one and believe me it's been a pleasure for me.

[15:56] I've served at Vice Chair three times and it's been a pleasure for me to work with you.

[16:02] You're very collaborative.

[16:04] You're a person that exhibits the positive news and you provided us tremendously to ship.

[16:11] And I had to talk to you, I thank you very much for having

[16:15] served, and having worked with me as a vice chair.

[16:19] I did learn a lot.

[16:21] A lot of times people say that, you know,

[16:25] although you get the less you learn, but that's not true.

[16:29] You taught me a lot also, and I appreciate that, thank you.

[16:33] Thank you.

[16:35] Can I have 30 seconds?

[16:36] Yes, I'm like, you have it.

[16:38] OK.

[16:39] There's a why I want to thank all my colleagues, kind words.

[16:45] I really hope I've achieved your words expressed and as Barbara said that I'm not very comfortable with lots of attention on me.

[16:59] I just want to take this opportunity first of all to thank all of all my colleagues working together and as I said that many times with different people that I see the role of the chair as the coordinator to support the boards overall function and I hope I did that and I also want to thank the CEO and all the staff that's working together with the CEO.

[17:27] in supporting my process for the board, trying to streamline many of the board's activities.

[17:40] So thank you very much, and I look forward to a better year under the leadership of Chair Asmera.

[17:48] Thank you everybody.

[17:50] Thank you, nice.

[17:52] We'll move right along to the ceremonial swearing-in of our directors, the workforce,

[17:58] re-election.

[18:00] Director Keegan.

[18:01] Director Santos.

[18:03] Director Shua.

[18:08] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[18:10] If you allow me to, I would like to do the ceremony of falling in, swearing in

[18:14] of the three directors.

[18:15] Just for the record, I want to let everybody know that we did the official swearing in

[18:20] on December 4th, via Zoom.

[18:24] So this one is ceremonial so that the public can see it.

[18:27] So I'm going to start with a Director Keegan,

[18:29] Director Keegan, if you would stand and raise your right hand,

[18:35] unmute yourself, I guess, too.

[18:38] Every P.D. after me, I would appreciate it.

[18:43] Raise your right hand.

[18:47] I, Barbara Keegan.

[18:49] I, Barbara Keegan.

[18:50] Do you suddenly swear or affirm?

[18:53] Do you solemnly swear?

[18:56] that I will support and defend that I will support and defend the cost of tuition of the United States

[19:03] the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California and the Constitution of the State of California

[19:12] Against all enemies for an end domestic against all enemies for an end domestic

[20:00] The constitution of the United States, the constitution of the state of California, and the constitution of the state of California.

[20:12] that I take this obligation freely, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation,

[20:21] without any mental reservation, or purpose of evasion, or purpose of evasion,

[20:27] and that I will well and faithfully, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties I'm about to enter.

[20:36] Discharge the duties I am about to enter.

[20:39] Congratulations.

[20:41] These words have never meant more to me than in our recent history. Thank you.

[20:47] Congratulations.

[20:50] I will ask.

[20:52] What on in between?

[20:53] Let me ask because as you mentioned,

[20:57] theoretically, these are very important times.

[21:01] I want to provide an opportunity for us to address our constituents after we take the oath.

[21:08] So if you like a few words, we certainly welcome it and I'll do that with the other directors.

[21:14] Thank you very much. I posted on Facebook after Michelle swore me in back in December.

[21:22] And I said that the words had a special meaning to me given everything that we experienced back in 2020.

[21:29] Well, last week we experienced something, even worse, we experienced situations where in particular elected officials did not live up to their responsibility, some of them to protect and defend the constitution.

[21:45] It's, it's very important that we take the oath of office seriously and I know that I do and I know that all my colleagues do as well.

[21:53] and in times like this, it's very poignant and meaningful to take that out. Thank you.

[22:00] Thank you, David, the key to the third sentence.

[22:08] Okay. Director Santas, the raise your right hand and repeat after me.

[22:14] I Richard Santas. Hi, Richard Santas. Do you solemnly swear or affirm?

[22:19] You solemnly swear or affirm. That I will support and defend.

[22:22] And I'm a supporting defendant. The Constitution of the United States.

[22:26] The constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of California.

[22:30] Against all enemies foreignand domestic.

[22:36] That I bear true faith and allegiance

[22:41] To the constitution of the United States for the constitution of the United States.

[22:46] the Constitution of the State of California.

[22:48] The Constitution of the State of California.

[22:50] That I take this obligation freely.

[22:52] I take this obligation freely.

[22:54] Without any mental reservation.

[22:56] Without any mental reservation.

[22:58] Or purpose of evasion.

[22:59] Or purpose of evasion.

[23:01] And that I will well and faithfully.

[23:04] I'm well and faithfully.

[23:05] This charge the duties about.

[23:08] Am I am about to enter?

[23:11] This charge the duties I am about to enter.

[23:13] to do these I'm about to do. Congratulations and welcome for another four years.

[23:20] Thank you. Thank you. And if you'd like a few words,

[23:25] I've just been very blessed. There are a lot of good support. The constituents that I serve

[23:30] all around with support and make all meetings. I love what I do. It's a labor of love. I enjoy what I do every day.

[23:36] I have a purpose, not get you doing it, especially today in means even more.

[23:42] And I have served this country by election, the arm of services, fire service.

[23:47] It's just been a great career on looking forward to the next forward.

[23:51] Thank you.

[23:52] Thank you, sir.

[23:53] All right.

[23:54] Thank you.

[23:55] Thank you, sir.

[23:56] Okay.

[23:58] Camera.

[23:59] It's a camera.

[24:01] It's a camera.

[24:05] Okay, right here, right hand and repeat after me, I'm not sure.

[24:10] I'm not sure.

[24:11] Do solemnly swear or affirm.

[24:13] Do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support and defend.

[24:18] I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the United States,

[24:24] and the Constitution of the State of California, and the Constitution of the State of California,

[24:29] against all enemies foreign and domestic.

[24:32] against all enemies for the End Domestic.

[24:36] That I bear true faith and allegiance and I bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States,

[24:43] to the Constitution of the State of California and the Constitution of the State of California.

[24:51] That I take this obligation freely and that take this obligation freely without any mental reservation,

[24:58] without any mental reservation.

[25:00] Please fully discharge the duties. I'm about to enter, discharge the duty and about to enter.

[25:06] Congratulations. Thank you. Congratulations.

[25:10] Thank you.

[25:12] And welcome back.

[25:14] A few words, Derek?

[25:17] Yeah. Yeah. Usually, I mean, I don't make public comment about many things.

[25:29] things, but what happened last week, I think it's so important for all of us, particularly for

[25:42] me that I am a first generation immigrant to this country. I made my decision when I was in

[25:53] doubt to stay in this country because I believe the system and then I believe the opportunity

[26:00] and I believe everything that's offered by this country. I decided that this is the place

[26:09] I do have a family and raise my children in this environment.

[26:20] So what happened last week was

[26:22] I just want to think about it, I feel so emotional that I feel like crying, but I think

[26:36] no matter what that all of us working together and the foundation is here, things will

[26:47] better. I look forward to a better year. I know we'll have a better year. So I

[26:55] do not have to keep in my sense because this is a really hard for me, but just

[27:06] which make us to take our job even more seriously. Okay, thank you.

[27:18] Thank you,

[27:19] of data, draft water sheds, and water utility five of the operations that make this plan.

[27:26] Melody?

[27:29] Actually, I'll take this one.

[27:31] Good afternoon.

[27:31] Chairs, Remira, members of the Board.

[27:33] I'm Erin Baker.

[27:34] I am the Business Support and Asset Management Unit Manager.

[27:39] And I do have a brief presentation on our draft water sheds and water utility five-year

[27:44] operations and maintenance plans.

[27:46] If the board would like me to proceed with that, and other ways, I'm also happy

[27:51] to answer questions on the item.

[27:56] Okay, I guess I'll go ahead.

[27:58] So this year, both plans are done out of the asset management unit.

[28:03] We've made some progress in aligning the two plans,

[28:05] but we hope to continue to make improvements

[28:08] as we move forward in the future.

[28:10] So I'll start with just some brief background information

[28:12] and then I'll give a brief overview of each plan.

[28:18] So the plans have two key purposes.

[28:21] One is to identify resources for operations and maintenance activities and this is closely related to our operations project budgeting process and then the second is to identify asset renewals and this is really related to our asset management planning process

[28:38] So this is just an overview of the O&M activities that are included in our O&M forecasts and the plans and also these are activities that are typically budgeted in our operations projects

[28:55] For asset renewals, the two plans are a little different, so for water utility, we've been planning our renewal activities for many years as part of our asset management planning program.

[29:06] So we do have a five year forecast, and these are projects that are typically managed by maintenance staff and budgeted in one of our six water utility small capital improvement projects.

[29:17] So these forecasts really kind of help define the scope and budget of those small cap projects.

[29:23] For water sheds, we don't have a five year forecast this year and past years or last year.

[29:29] The plan did include a rough estimate of potential renewal work as backlog or deferred maintenance.

[29:35] We took the cost of those costs out of the forecast this year for a couple of reasons.

[29:39] So one, we're starting a new strategic planning effort.

[29:43] And that's being done under a new safe clean water project F-8 sustainable creek infrastructure for continued public safety.

[30:00] Let's identify the timing and the costs of specific projects. And also, if that work is operations, or if it's capital.

[30:10] And then also, another challenge with our watersheds forecasts is we do have annual storms that come through and can change conditions.

[30:17] For example, in 2017 when a storm badly damaged a trail on Stevens Creek, and we have to then refocus resources and priorities.

[30:28] So it can be challenging to do a forecast. However, we hope the strategic planning will help us better manage those shifting priorities in the future.

[30:36] So our hope is with next year's plan and future plans will have a little bit better of a forecast.

[30:42] So moving into just a real brief overview of the Water Sheds draft plan, so this is a summary of the funded and unfunded needs requests for the Water Sheds O&M division for the next five years.

[30:56] As compared to last year's plans, the unfunded needs have significantly decreased, so that's for a few reasons, one safe clean water provided additional funding for veg management and stream maintenance work.

[31:10] Also, as I just explained, we removed some of those backlog or deferred maintenance costs from the forecasts.

[31:17] So that 1.2 million unfunded need would provide for contractor support for some tree removal work that was recently permitted for fiscal year 22 and 23.

[31:32] This is an overview of the strategic planning effort that I mentioned, which is sort of again in lieu of having a asset renewal forecast.

[31:40] So again, this is being done under a New Safe Clean Water Project F8.

[31:44] And the steps we'll follow in that project are shown here.

[31:48] So our goal with this effort really is to provide specific projects with refined costs and timing.

[31:55] And also to identify if the work would be done as capital, small capital, or operations projects.

[32:01] So really we're trying to find the best strategy for managing problem areas,

[32:06] whether it's continued maintenance or a more holistic capital project for areas where ongoing

[32:13] maintenance maybe isn't addressing the root cause of the problem. And then we're also trying

[32:18] to ensure that we're maintaining any past improvements to the level of flood protection that

[32:23] they were designed for. We do have a very high level estimate for the backlog asset renewal work

[32:29] and that's what was included in last year's O&M plan and that was about $100 million over the next

[32:34] But again, through this effort, we'll be working to refine that estimate and it's also important to mention that this type of work is going to continue in the future.

[32:44] So even after we get through the backlog of maintenance work, we have to continue to maintain our infrastructure.

[32:51] So we will have ongoing costs once we get through that backlog.

[32:57] Moving on to our water utility plan.

[33:00] So this is a summary of the funded and unfunded need request for the raw water and treated

[33:06] water division for the next five years.

[33:09] The unfunded resources shown here would provide for additional full-time support for lab operations,

[33:16] as well as some contractor or temp support for untreated water untreated surface water program planning and implementing new water rights measurement methods.

[33:25] and then just to note that other unfunded needs have and may still come up through the budget

[33:31] process and will be evaluated through the budget process.

[33:37] Again, for water utility, we have our

[33:39] maintenance work planning process that's been in place for several years. So this is a forecast

[33:44] of the planned asset renewal project scheduled for the next five fiscal years. For fiscal year,

[33:50] 22, we have identified about $5 million of work, and it's 77 projects.

[33:56] Some of those significant projects are penetrant water treatment plant, Clearwell, Corrosion

[34:01] Repair, some ozone generator, shell rebuilds a penitentian sanatrisa, and then some pump

[34:07] rebuilds a coyote pumping plant, and the full list of projects will be in the plant.

[34:13] And again, these projects are typically budgeted in one of our small, water utility, small

[34:20] projects. So that is all I have. We will finalize the two plans once the board adopts the budget for fiscal year 22 and provide the plans to the board at that time. So I am happy to answer any questions on this item.

[34:36] Thank you Aaron. Questions? Yes.

[34:42] Aaron, this is a great work. These plants are getting better and better every year.

[34:48] So really excited about it. This is one quick question, so these unfunded need for the upcoming fiscal year.

[34:58] Is it time for that?

[35:00] room, third.

[35:02] There's a motion.

[35:03] We'll move right along then to 2.5.

[35:06] The Chamber of Reservoir, expansion, project preliminary, alternative analysis.

[35:12] This is an action item that we'll start with, Chris, receipts.

[35:17] Good afternoon, Chair.

[35:17] I'll start with Chris.

[35:20] Good afternoon, Chair.

[35:21] I'll start with Chris.

[35:23] I'll start with Chris.

[35:28] Chris, receipts.

[35:29] Chair, I'll start with.

[35:29] project. We've been working staff has been working with the CIP committee on additional points

[35:35] of board engagement in our planning process. Currently, our process states that we come to

[35:41] the board when the planning study report has been completed. We are revising that process

[35:46] to have a earlier engagement right now. We have completed our feasible alternatives analysis

[35:50] and have a presentation ready for your comments. Should you so choose?

[36:01] I will turn the mic over to Ryan McCartner to take the Chaco project to deliver unit manager and he will go through the alternatives analysis and cost update on the project.

[36:11] Thank you,

[36:14] Chris.

[36:14] All right.

[36:14] Thank you, Chris.

[36:15] Good afternoon to the chair and the board and attendees meeting.

[36:20] Excuse me.

[36:20] One second to bring up the PowerPoint presentation here.

[36:38] Anybody see that there?

[36:41] Okay,

[36:51] I wasn't showing up on my windows there technical difficulties here.

[36:56] All right, here we go.

[37:07] So that's the delay.

[37:09] Okay, the focus of this presentation is on the five project alternatives.

[37:13] The team has been developing for the environmental impact assessment for the draft EIRs

[37:18] that will be released at the end of 2021.

[37:21] And before I dive in to the alternatives,

[37:24] I'd like to quickly review some of the background info on the project and the recent

[37:28] costing freezes that we presented.

[37:32] So Valley Water has two partners on the project currently

[37:35] that the Chaco pass water district that currently owns an

[37:38] operate the existing Chaco reservoir.

[37:41] And the San Benito County Water District are neighbor to the south

[37:45] that also receives water supply from San Luis Reservoir

[37:48] and that the Chaco conduit.

[37:52] The project is located southeast in Southeast San Clara County

[37:56] about 30-minute drive east of Gilroy

[37:59] situated in between Henry Co. State Park and Pacheco State Park.

[38:06] And this was our

[38:07] what's the application concept that was developed in 2017 that included a approximately 300 foot

[38:14] high dam, an Earthville dam at the downstream site that made a 140,000 acre foot reservoir.

[38:22] The original spillway was shown on the west debutment here in the design and the sloping intake

[38:29] was shown here along with to intake and outlet works coming through a pump station here to deliver

[38:35] water to and from the Chaco conduit. Those are original concept back in 2017. It also included

[38:42] roadways and other pertances to build the project.

[38:48] So diving into the cost of the Smiths here,

[38:51] the 2017 project did have a price tag of $969 million, which was in 2015 dollars, which was the

[38:58] requirement for the with the application. In 2019, the project costs was estimated to include

[39:05] consultant costs and adjusted for inflation to 1.3 billion. And in 2020, sorry for their

[39:13] questions. Sorry, I heard something. As presented, the recent water storage

[39:19] mandatory committee in 2020, the construction cost estimate increases the project that's

[39:25] $2.5 billion with inflation considered.

[39:31] So the factors contributed to that $1 billion construction cost increased.

[39:35] The geotechnical investigations were completed in 2020,

[39:39] and the findings were applied to the design assumptions,

[39:41] so there are several changes there.

[39:43] I'm not going to get into them today,

[39:45] but these accounted for about 35% of the construction cost increase.

[39:49] Updates to the unit prices and quantities in the estimate itself,

[39:53] accounted for about 20% of the cost increase.

[39:55] And other drivers, which were project elements that were not considered or released.

[40:00] The meeting was not considered to be as large in the application cost estimate counted for about 15% of the cost increase.

[40:08] And then lastly, the contingency assumption and an extended construction schedule account for about 30% of the increase.

[40:19] So, getting into the alternate answer, we have three different kind of topics of variation between the alternative.

[40:25] we have two dam site locations we're considering, two reservoir sizes and two different dam types.

[40:32] So the five alternatives are combinations of these variations.

[40:38] Just to go through there are two dam site locations we are considering the downstream site,

[40:43] which was selected for the width of the application concept back in 2017 and the upstream site shown here.

[40:51] Do you have technical investigations began with the focus on the downstream site in 2019 and in 2020 we completed our investigations of both sites and determine the upstream site has more favorable bedrock and float stability conditions.

[41:09] Also the geographic setting of the upstream site has a narrower canyon allowing for a shorter length of Dan structure.

[41:18] One of our project alternatives considers a 96,000 acre foot reservoir versus the 140,000 acre foot that is shown in the other four.

[41:31] It shows include this in our alternative assessment for comparison purposes, despite a significant reduction in the project benefits based on the reduced capacity.

[41:42] And we are considering two different dam types in the alternative, the zoned earth build

[41:47] dam that we are all accustomed to with our current reservoirs and dams with the

[41:51] have separate, still waste structures and inlet outlet works.

[41:57] And we're also considering a hard build dam, which is a newer technology similar to a lower

[42:02] compacted concrete that uses rock materials from the site mixed with cement.

[42:07] The strength of the hard-filled material can support steeper slopes resulting in a smaller

[42:12] damp footprint.

[42:15] The emergency spillway can also be integrated into the hard-filled dam structure, allowing

[42:19] reservoir overflows to spill directly over the crest of the dam, and the inlet outlet

[42:25] works can also be built within the structure itself through tunnels and the shaft to collect

[42:30] the water in and out.

[42:35] Okay, and then jump into the alternatives here.

[42:37] This is preliminary alternative one.

[42:40] This is the same conceptual project

[42:42] and it was the fabrication from 2017

[42:44] with some design updates that were made this year

[42:47] in the feasibility study.

[42:49] And I'll go over those.

[42:51] This dam is at the downstream site

[42:54] and it is an earth filled dam.

[42:56] This so位 was moved to the east abutment

[42:59] and shown here with a curve.

[43:01] And those are pretty drastic change

[43:03] to accommodate the difficult geotechnical conditions there, and then also the sloping intake that was

[43:09] once on the east, the button was moved to the west of the button and converted to a

[43:14] shaft internal with addicts, configuration to allow for the difficult conditions there on the slope.

[43:22] So this is the $2.5 billion project that we've estimated.

[43:30] The preliminary alternative number two is the spill-to-downstream site that using the hard-filled

[43:36] dam technology that I just described, as mentioned this integrates the spillway into the

[43:41] body of the dam as well as the inlet outlet conveyance works for a hard-to-see in this figure

[43:46] here, but all those little lines in there are what I'm describing.

[43:51] And in comparison to the Earth's fill, the amount of ground-observing construction footprint

[43:55] is greatly reduced.

[43:56] You could see compared to the previous slide in area there.

[44:01] And this variation would also reduce the cost of the project by about estimated $330 million.

[44:13] Okay, I'll turn of number three, this takes the Earthville dam to the upstream site.

[44:20] And by moving the 140,000 acre foot reservoir to the upstream site,

[44:24] we do encroach into Henry Co at full pool about three quarters of a mile of creature

[45:00] That's the button for the emergency survey, which is more favorable than what we had at the downstream site.

[45:06] And these just more favorable geotechnical conditions alone allow for reduced cost of about $270 million of savings, as compared to alternative number one.

[45:22] Alternative number four, this takes the hard-filled dam to the upstream site, so two variations to the original project.

[45:29] This also encroaches the same amount into Henry Co. Park as described previously and with

[45:35] these more favorable geotechnical conditions and the smaller construction footprint with

[45:40] a hard filled dam. This reduces the construction schedule considerably and also the cost

[45:45] could be about $400 million less than compared to the alternative number one.

[45:56] Our last

[45:56] alternative here, number five, this is similar to alternative number three with an earth

[46:01] dam at the upstream site, except that the 96,000 acre foot reservoir does not encroach into

[46:07] Henry Koch Park. As mentioned before, we did decide it would be beneficial to include a smaller

[46:12] project for comparison purposes. Even though the reservoir is reduced by 32 percent, there's

[46:19] only a cost savings of about 17 percent when compared to the alternative number one, and a 7

[46:25] percent savings when compared to alternative three, which is the larger reservoir at the same site

[46:30] And we're going to do that.

[46:36] All right.

[46:38] This is the last slide.

[46:40] I was going to share just to leave it here if there's any questions.

[46:43] The summary of the five alternate of the just described.

[46:46] The columns indicate the damn site location.

[46:50] They expanded reservoir size.

[46:51] The damn type.

[46:53] And then there's some notes here and the estimated cost for each of the alternatives in the far right column.

[46:59] And just want to point out the green text indicates factors that help improve the score of each alternative.

[47:04] and the red text are factors that contribute to lower scoring of each alternative.

[47:09] And my next slide is just a standard question slide, so I can leave it here, or we can

[47:15] complete the presentation.

[47:26] Do the chair, I have a question.

[47:29] All right, courses.

[47:30] Yes.

[47:30] That was a little bit about your red marked a technical slash permitting challenges.

[47:38] I think in the past we found especially permitting challenges can

[47:43] and to costs and uncertainty.

[47:45] Tell us more.

[47:46] If that's okay.

[47:48] Yeah, so we developed 13 different criteria

[47:50] to evaluate each alternative.

[47:54] Some of those different criteria were obviously

[47:56] permitting challenges and environmental impact,

[47:59] you know, public perception as well as costs,

[48:03] you know, technical challenges and certainty,

[48:06] constructability.

[48:09] We do anticipate some permitting challenges

[48:12] So it's the hard fill, especially with DSOD.

[48:15] We already have started talks and introduced the topic to them.

[48:19] There aren't any known, hard-filled dams per se in California that they're used to,

[48:26] although it is pretty similar to a role or compacted concrete.

[48:28] Our team does think that we can present the technical information in order to get an acceptable

[48:33] permit, but it may take a little time.

[48:37] And then as far as the encroachment to Henry Coe, which you also see there, I think that's

[48:41] for you, obviously, that an environmental impact challenge

[48:43] in public perception.

[48:47] Say answer your question.

[48:51] Do you want to go ahead?

[48:56] I'm here on mute.

[48:59] At the story of the last since COVID, you're on mute.

[49:03] Yeah, right.

[49:04] What are these gross of other people's water rights

[49:07] like the Pichico Pass Water District?

[49:09] Don't they have 7,000 or 14,000

[49:13] acre-feet rights ahead of us?

[49:16] That's correct.

[49:17] These are, these are gross sizes of the reservoir volume. So there, there is a, yeah, so at

[49:24] 7,250 annual acre foot water, right, that the Jacob past water district holds, as you know,

[49:33] for may not know, the releases for the fish benefits would account for almost all that on an annual

[49:37] basis. So there'd be kind of functioning in a dual purpose, since we are releasing that water

[49:42] down to Jacob Creek, which satisfies the requirement of the water, right?

[50:00] We have a couple of others as well. Thank you.

[50:05] Director Kagan?

[50:07] Thanks. I have a quick question about the geotack, which is one of the big drivers, obviously, in the cost increases.

[50:16] And in fact, I was contacted by a professional engineer in the community who was sort of critical about the fact that we, in their opinion, didn't have a

[50:31] adequate geotech information when we're first

[50:35] coping the project. So in the staff report, it wasn't

[50:38] completely clear to me. I think it's time reading it.

[50:42] What when we were doing the initial construction

[50:47] cost estimate for the reservoir project,

[50:51] that was in advance of us having actual geotech data, is that correct?

[50:56] That is correct. In 2017, there was no sub-surface data.

[51:00] There was a mapping that was done on the topography,

[51:04] and I think some ground kind of studies and reconnaissance level,

[51:08] but there was no drilling done until we started in 2019 and completed in 2020.

[51:14] And part of the reason is that surrounding the Chaco Passwater District property,

[51:18] which is the existing reservoir, it's all private property,

[51:21] so it did take a lot to get access to those properties to fulfill that work.

[51:26] You know, it seems like this is just a philosophical perspective, I guess, but in the absence

[51:36] of data, we maybe should be taking sort of a probabilistic approach.

[51:41] I mean, our assumption was that the geotech was going to be okay, or we assumed it was

[51:49] be better than in actuality it was. And so as a result,

[51:56] you know, we, we didn't, we ended up with

[52:01] with a low estimate. And I know that it's hard to make decisions based on enough data that we

[52:09] don't have, but it does tend to make our estimate skewed downwards when we take a very optimistic approach.

[52:15] Thank you.

[52:17] You're welcome.

[52:20] Thank you for the questions.

[52:22] Dr. John, I have one.

[52:24] Yes.

[52:24] Third.

[52:26] So can you speak to the incursion into Henry Coe?

[52:31] What is the area?

[52:32] Is it a canyon?

[52:33] Are there trails over there?

[52:35] What are the biologic and environmental issues that you were speaking to?

[52:41] Well, let me, I do have an image that I could pop up here.

[52:45] going to have available to see here.

[52:50] So it does outline the area here in red.

[52:54] So this is a very steep canyon along the Chaco Creek here.

[52:58] I'm sorry, just to reference the screenline

[53:00] is the border of Henry Coast State Park.

[53:03] So everything to the west is Henry Coast State Park over here.

[53:06] And this is what our upstream 140,000 foot acre.

[53:14] So there's plenty of air, three miles of creek.

[53:20] Currently there is a sub-doubting adventure, and there is an entrance to Enrico Park from

[53:26] Pacheco Path Highway,

[53:29] and there are trails that do meander down to the creek, and from what I can tell

[53:33] from the satellite imagery that I've studied, one of the creeks does cross Pacheco Creek right near

[53:39] this tip. So if we were at 100% full pool, you know, there could be pretty close to that trail,

[53:45] but it doesn't look like it's going to reach it. And then everything in this area is there's

[53:50] no trails that's unenhabited. And in fact, you can see this image shows what burned in the

[53:58] SU fires, lost fall or late summer just to give some references as well.

[54:05] So, the inundation, what are some of the environmental issues there in Henry Coat?

[54:14] So, at the border of Henry Coat at full pool, it would be about 30 feet deep, maximum

[54:20] 30 foot deep of water.

[54:22] So, the existing creek bed that does become full of water more often, rather than it's

[54:30] in the winter, it potentially changed the habitat by having more water available for other species

[54:40] or plants or other animals that could like that type of environment better. I'm probably not

[54:48] the best person to speak to that, but really it's just putting more water in the canyon there,

[54:54] in the creek.

[54:55] I think any, Chris.

[54:59] Chris.

[55:00] Of the potential inundation area that we're looking to, we believe it will create more additional

[55:04] it'll create habitat around there, which we've more beneficial right now. As Ryan said, the

[55:09] materials there were, they got burnt out through the SU fires and the trails that actually

[55:14] go there. Those aren't day hiking trails. Those are, you know, for professional

[55:18] hikers basically to get back there. So we think that there would be an increase in both recreation

[55:22] as an environmental benefit to that area, but we still need to complete our studies.

[55:26] Well, are there any other four-legged animals that cross that creek in that area?

[55:34] So are we going to be one of the things I want you to look at is are we going to be cutting

[55:37] off any cross access for any animals, any larger animals?

[55:44] Yeah.

[55:45] We'll take a look at that with the extremely steep terrain.

[55:49] It would probably be an animal that's either extremely small in stature and can make

[55:53] It's way through, perhaps a salamander or a frog or something that is well-versed to traversing

[55:59] mountains like a goat, which we should have on particular species, but we're currently

[56:03] still looking at those impacts.

[56:05] Yeah.

[56:06] I just think any incursion into Henry Coe is going to just throw red flags with so many people.

[56:11] So I think we need to have our environmental studies be really, really solid.

[56:16] And then my last question had to do with the technical and permitting issues.

[56:22] So you talked about DSOD with regard to the material for the dam.

[56:30] Any other permitting issues that you see and what are some of the technical issues that

[56:36] you haven't already mentioned?

[56:40] Well, there's many, many permits that we need to acquire along the way.

[56:45] We are currently developing kind of a table that we're calling it a permitting strategy,

[56:50] So addressing all the different permits that we need.

[56:54] We have been having interagency coordination meetings with C-DFW,

[56:58] you have fish and wildlife service, you have reclamation,

[57:03] and other agencies to try to get some of these issues out in front

[57:06] with our operations and what the product will look like post-construction.

[57:12] I can't really speak to a long laundry list of everything we're looking at,

[57:17] but Chris, did you want to weigh in on that at all?

[57:19] Sure, so in comparison to Anderson, the permitting is more straightforward now.

[57:24] I won't be, I won't show you to go to it.

[57:27] When you're building a new dam or reconstructing a dam,

[57:29] permitting is never easy.

[57:30] We are having to consult the National Marine Fisheries Service California Department of Fish and Wildlife U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife.

[57:36] All the same players with the exception of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

[57:41] The difference on this project is California Department of Fish and Wildlife is actually a project partner,

[57:47] Because of the benefit that is coming from the 50,000 acre-foot cold water pool, so they are actually helping us along in the process.

[57:55] So we think that the permitting timeline should be more, I would say, streamlined than in comparison to Anderson.

[58:03] But no permitting is ever smooth without a few bumps in the road. So we are cognizant that could potentially delay the sort of contraction if we have some adverse opinions provided during our permitting consultation.

[58:16] question.

[58:19] So if we don't pull a plug so to speak on this today, I guess your idea is to investigate

[58:26] these four five alternatives. And then I guess either make a recommendation or bring it back

[58:34] to us for us to make a decision. At that point, I think it'd be very, very important for us

[58:40] you know, you know, with regard to scheduling, et cetera, et cetera, what permitting hurdles

[58:46] are we looking at after you've had some, you know, some better time to hone in on them,

[58:53] because I think that's the biggest, you know, that's been the issue with Anderson, that's been

[58:56] an issue with so many things, you know, we think they're permitting's going to go, you know,

[59:01] a little bit dicey, but then it turns, you know, south of us. So I think before you come back

[59:06] the board with, you know, where we get down to a, you know, picking out an alternative.

[59:12] That's got to be really, really flushed out heck of a lot more.

[59:16] So thank you.

[59:17] Yeah, appreciate the comment.

[59:19] Thank you.

[59:20] Through the chair.

[59:22] Yes.

[59:24] So this is a government relations question.

[59:28] We actually reached out to the Secretary of Natural Resources.

[59:32] John Layers Office to determine.

[59:35] And the inquiry is to their opinion on what we're looking at here in Henry Cove since it falls under the state's jurisdiction.

[59:44] And I believe under his guidance as well.

[59:46] Have we had conversations with the state on this particular with this particular part?

[59:51] Wait, Crow, but Larry is now a senator.

[59:56] That's why I'm asking, have we reached out to you?

[59:59] Did you read it?

[1:00:00] Current members of the administration in advance, and as this progress has been going through the process, or as a subject, rather, has been going through the process.

[1:00:08] So those conversations are actually ongoing. In fact, we are in the process, have been in it actually for some time in seeking a more in-depth conversation with members of the natural resource agency, particularly California State Parks, to further flesh out and get their opinions and feelings about this.

[1:00:23] as the board knows we're seeking some scoping meetings

[1:00:26] that are coming up, I believe next time.

[1:00:28] And we wanted to give the state parks folks

[1:00:30] that heads up about that, let them know

[1:00:32] what we're thinking about with the alternative,

[1:00:34] like, as currently projected.

[1:00:38] Okay, so we've had communicated with him,

[1:00:41] had we had any opinions?

[1:00:42] Any comments that have come back?

[1:00:44] Was it strictly exchange from the water district,

[1:00:46] but yet we've received no comments back?

[1:00:49] I just wanted to be clear, it's the way we're at on this.

[1:00:51] It's through the church of Raleigh.

[1:00:54] Oh, I'm sorry.

[1:00:56] Other stuff.

[1:00:57] All right, they were seeing you've been a bit of an echo.

[1:00:59] Through the church of Raleigh, they have been measured, I think, in wing, in on this,

[1:01:06] before they know what exactly the project is going to look like, you know, what the alternatives

[1:01:09] are going to look like.

[1:01:11] So they, I would say, they're withholding judgment at this point.

[1:01:15] OK.

[1:01:17] And to the comment that I just heard from Director Lizot making a comment stating the determination might be that we might just throw this thing out the window and say we're not going to do this this project.

[1:01:27] That's what I think I heard maybe I'm paraphrasing her.

[1:01:30] Well, that's not my position on this.

[1:01:32] This represents a very important part of the water supply system for the future of our constituents.

[1:01:38] And with Anderson down, that would make really a very poor statement from the water district as to how we're going to plan for our sustainable water supply and the future with the exception.

[1:01:49] The only alternative to this is continuing the conservation and expansion of our water purification facilities.

[1:01:56] And we're currently not even allowed to put that water into portable use.

[1:02:00] So it seems to me that the water district, the directors currently need to take every extreme

[1:02:05] measurable that we can find to continue this project, move in it forward, and working with

[1:02:12] the environmental groups as we always do, but finding the solution, finding the resources

[1:02:16] to bring this to fruition and make it happen. That's my opinion, and that's, as a director,

[1:02:22] I think all of this should, for the work towards completing this project, as long as it take

[1:02:27] is how much it ever costs. That's my opinion.

[1:02:32] There are symptoms.

[1:02:33] Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.

[1:02:35] I would second John's comments.

[1:02:37] There's some little differences here in here,

[1:02:39] but overall I told you agree that I see more positive things.

[1:02:42] The question I have told is that if we had this audit,

[1:02:46] would this change some of the issues that we're talking about?

[1:02:49] Or some of the numbers of some of the costs?

[1:02:51] Would it after some of the familiar things?

[1:02:53] That's what I'm just asking.

[1:02:55] Do we feel that that would be appropriate to do?

[1:02:58] because it may have a change.

[1:03:01] Perfect Santos, if I could speak to that.

[1:03:03] The audit is mostly looking at how the cost

[1:03:05] installation is occurred, as well as what the assumptions

[1:03:09] were made during the initial design.

[1:03:11] So, basically, as Dr. Keaton had referenced,

[1:03:14] some of the assumptions that were used during the

[1:03:17] whosapp application, well, just about at the time

[1:03:19] may have proven to be a bit under, not conservative

[1:03:23] enough, I would say.

[1:03:24] So, that's what the audit is going to be focused on

[1:03:26] how we got from the 2015 cost dollars to the current, we will be going through value engineering

[1:03:32] on the project as you can see the baseline alternative is up at $2.5 billion in they've already

[1:03:38] identified some value engineering sort of alternatives that would help reduce that cost by about

[1:03:44] 400 million. We will continue to work with that as we go through the design process, but there's

[1:03:49] no specific audit that's recommended just for that design element in order to cost safe.

[1:03:54] I appreciate it Chris with staff is doing.

[1:03:58] I also think with the tunnels and all the other bureaucracy things going on.

[1:04:04] The source of water is being scarce.

[1:04:05] We're no question we're having a drought again.

[1:04:09] The best decision I can help make is to keep this going.

[1:04:13] It's not about me.

[1:04:14] It's not about John or Gary or Tony or whatever have you.

[1:04:17] But what do we do for our children and grandchildren and everybody for the future?

[1:04:21] Do we have a source of water?

[1:04:22] Before you can have water conservation and recycling you got to have water because that would be a source

[1:04:28] I think this is a great area

[1:04:29] Who I think the challenges are hard but not as hard as Anderson. I really believe we can do the job and work with everybody and

[1:04:37] You can be able to sell water and recapture water. There's so much water being wasted running from those hills

[1:04:42] That's why it was built in the first place. I'm sure back then and they had the wisdom then

[1:05:00] So I'm in full support and wherever we can do to shorten the cost by hand then, but you know, when you don't have water, you pay more damage control.

[1:05:10] And so we've got that embrace what we got. That's in the course. That's my opinion.

[1:05:17] Any further discussion? Questions?

[1:05:20] Dr. Kremlin?

[1:05:22] You're on view.

[1:05:24] Dr. Kremlin?

[1:05:25] Always. Always.

[1:05:27] I think it is worth kind of looking always in a process looking backwards, especially given

[1:05:32] the size of the cost, change, to kind of do a little audit work through that, especially given

[1:05:41] kind of in 1993 there were some, I know there's a report that talked about maybe some of the,

[1:05:47] we weren't at the bedrock. That said, I kind of want to hear public comment on this before we

[1:05:53] going further. We have to come in. Do we have any? I do not have any raised hands at this point,

[1:06:03] but I do have a comment that was put in the chat section. My catcher urban and I'll just read it.

[1:06:07] That's okay, Mr. Chair. Yes. As if this project goes forward, please do more community engagement

[1:06:12] that has been done to date. The project delivery process shows public outreach during the alternative

[1:06:18] to develop it. I have Dr. Kea, I just have a quick question and I actually probably

[1:06:33] it's more of a comment which is, you know, I have not made my mind up about this project.

[1:06:40] I am disappointed, obviously, I think this will all are that the project is more complicated

[1:06:46] and more expensive and particularly if we're going to be facing permanent issues.

[1:06:51] those are all, you know, a big challenge, but we're also interested in having an adequate water

[1:06:57] supply as well. So I am keeping those things in my head. I think that, as this moves forward,

[1:07:07] I really would want to have a better understanding of what might be the potential impacts to

[1:07:14] You know, every year we set our rates and every year we hear from our customers that they have, you know, concerns about the price that they're paying for water and so I think that's going to be an important part of the discussion.

[1:07:28] So next time this comes forward to us.

[1:07:32] I'd really like to hear Southway and on that topic. Thank you.

[1:07:36] I believe our CFO will be presenting in this meeting a little bit later today, some of the impacts of the fiscal project as currently forecast it during with our costs.

[1:07:49] And as well as it removed from our water rates scenarios, so that will get the upper and lower bounds and then we can definitely back with alternatives and impacts.

[1:07:57] And generally, it goes towards the upper bound, doesn't it? Okay, thank you.

[1:08:04] Yes, I'll just roll.

[1:08:07] First of all, that I want to thank staff for following this new process, that at the critical

[1:08:13] point for this foreign project, bringing it earlier to the board at the appropriate time,

[1:08:19] so that the board can have initial feedback.

[1:08:21] So, thank you very much.

[1:08:23] And my question is about the cost estimate.

[1:08:30] So, Ryan, I guess this is a question for you that in this updated cause estimate, I assume it's based on our best knowledge as of now and then there's some contingency percentage for the intuit.

[1:08:46] Do we see, do we feel how confident we are

[1:08:51] on how we speak, cause estimate based on what we know as of now?

[1:09:00] And personally, I think likely these project costs will be updated on the, as we move on and

[1:09:12] as we study and as we design, the more we know about the project, the more we can do a better

[1:09:19] job on the cost estimate. And in most cases, that means that the numbers will become of bigger.

[1:09:27] So we try to use contingency to account for that. How confident we are always

[1:09:34] the cost estimate. Yeah so I can answer that. We did increase the design

[1:09:41] contingency from 10% which it was previously in the 2017 application to 25% and that's

[1:09:48] the account for other things that will come up in the design process or make them up and

[1:09:52] make sure we capture those. The construction contingency is at 20%. So with those two contingencies

[1:09:59] the buy-and-word. We have a-

[1:10:00] I've continues from 30% to 100% at 10% design level, 5% design level that we're at now.

[1:10:08] So we're at about 50% contingency.

[1:10:11] Okay, thank you. As of now, I am keeping an open mind for this project. I believe that as the

[1:10:24] organization that these technical challenges, community challenges, and

[1:10:30] the permitting challenges, we know how to work through those things.

[1:10:34] To me, the biggest problem is the cost.

[1:10:41] And these other things, we work on it, we can get to a resolution.

[1:10:46] But the cost part, by now, and we're talking about talk about it later, we made a

[1:10:54] that there's going to be, I think, 40 or 49% of the costs to the, we feel long.

[1:11:04] We're going to expect that 20% of the costs will be paid by partners.

[1:11:13] And I'm not sure these assumptions are realistic, and then if the, which I think likely,

[1:11:21] The update and cost estimate will probably increase again or more than one time as we reviewed the progress of the project.

[1:11:31] So to me, that's the, that's the, that's the, that's the hurdle of the cost.

[1:11:37] And of course, we will just continue working on it and they'll see what we are.

[1:11:43] But I do believe these other issues, we know how to.

[1:11:49] I think we will do a job in public engagement.

[1:11:57] Well, once we have some talk about the public, and we'll give it to you.

[1:12:03] I'm just, you know, this is to, you're actually sure.

[1:12:07] Speak, you know, we'll spend a so much money on climate change.

[1:12:10] And so, again, I worry about the damage control when you don't take advantage of something.

[1:12:14] So it's not being argumented. I do agree. We have to dress in and especially cost becomes the number one.

[1:12:22] But you pay way more if you don't do something when you have the opportunity down the road because I've seen it happen so many times.

[1:12:30] If we had the other, I remember when I first got here, I remember made the motion.

[1:12:34] And let's look at Calabirus area and dams over there.

[1:12:38] And at that time, staff wasn't getting the direction from whether they'd be the chair or

[1:12:43] the majority of the board.

[1:12:44] And we did do those things for these entire 20 years.

[1:12:47] And we could have probably two more reservoirs.

[1:12:49] We chose not to.

[1:12:51] Now we're paying triple what we could have done then.

[1:12:53] So I understand cost is always the driven factor.

[1:12:57] But when you don't have water, if you think C-19 is a chaotic situation, take waterway,

[1:13:03] and we'll end up killing each other. So we've got to do what we can through the chair.

[1:13:11] Yeah. Thank you. So there's one other major issue that is exciting to think about in my opinion,

[1:13:20] is we have a new administration coming into Washington. We have new control, new leadership,

[1:13:26] ship and all branches of government that is very proactive and very pro-environmental and water

[1:13:33] issues. So I think that we really need to be patient, wait to see what's going to roll out

[1:13:40] of Washington in the first 100 days, understand that there's chaos there at the moment, but being

[1:13:46] the optimist that I am, these things will work its way through. And I believe there will be some new

[1:13:51] opportunities for us to quote partner with those that are looking for these types of projects,

[1:14:01] water storage up and down the state, and I do believe that the federal government will play a larger role in California on these water storage issues.

[1:14:10] So I think we just need to be patient sit back and wait to see how this thing is all going to come forward.

[1:14:15] And not necessarily make rash decisions at the moment.

[1:14:20] We have time.

[1:14:21] We have plenty of time.

[1:14:23] So that's my comment.

[1:14:24] And I think, you know, we should all think about this.

[1:14:27] We've got a whole new administration coming in.

[1:14:29] And I think we're going to benefit from it.

[1:14:34] Yes, sir.

[1:14:34] OK.

[1:14:34] Thank you, Chair.

[1:15:00] This is a roll blog, we cannot go over, but then I just had to think that this is something that

[1:15:06] compared to all these other issues which are there, they're all very challenging, but the cost part

[1:15:11] is something that we need to focus on getting solutions or support on that. And also that

[1:15:23] doing the CFP committee review at the chair and the director's office on the committee, we

[1:15:30] actually recommend that for the storage committee and the whole board to take the time and

[1:15:40] the director of Ramla just as you just said, take the time and then really not rushing to do it

[1:15:48] not to, whatever, but then go to the work and then figure it out.

[1:15:54] That's what's the best strategy to get forward.

[1:15:58] So, this.

[1:16:00] Yeah, this is been a good discussion.

[1:16:03] And it's important, you know, obviously, we'll have plenty of public participation.

[1:16:08] But we've got to give some of the technical questions answered first.

[1:16:13] So then when we do have public participation,

[1:16:15] we'll be able to answer those questions so that the public can involve itself in policy

[1:16:22] questions and community questions and so on because they already have the very difficult

[1:16:30] to acquire technical review that we've been engaged in. So I think it's important for us to

[1:16:37] continue the process, keep looking at stuff, get the alternatives out so that we can share

[1:16:44] the public and then get to a point where we can have some true policy decisions and discussions.

[1:16:51] I think and then we can really make some decisions at that point. So we've got a ways to go,

[1:17:00] but I think it's important that we be very clear that we share information,

[1:17:09] a factual information often that we not be surprised by hundreds of millions of dollars

[1:17:19] a year later, but that we know it's going on at a continuing basis and that we share that with the community.

[1:17:27] I think that's really what's important because people need to have confidence in the process that we're pursuing.

[1:17:37] Then we'll get to the end. People will be pretty comfortable in making decisions.

[1:17:43] And I do agree that when we talk about cost, cost is not a disconnected thing.

[1:17:52] Cost is grounded in reality. And part of reality is not what it costs to not do what we're planning to do.

[1:18:01] Don't just look at something and say, well, it's too expensive or not.

[1:18:06] Whatever, you have to look at what the cost is,

[1:18:10] the avoidance cost, what is the cost,

[1:18:12] and we don't do this?

[1:18:15] That's the true cost.

[1:18:17] Let's find out both sides so we could make

[1:18:19] some good decisions for the community.

[1:18:22] So with that, Alana, let's be if the board is...

[1:18:25] I'm sure, sorry, the director was out of likes.

[1:18:27] Yes, the director was out, if the board

[1:18:29] would like to make a motion, the director was out.

[1:18:31] Yeah, I had a question.

[1:18:33] So,

[1:18:36] is staff going to actively outreach to the environmental community, or are they just going

[1:18:40] to wait for them to send in letters and things like that?

[1:18:44] I know we received a letter from the Sierra Club.

[1:18:47] So what's the plan and when will that take place?

[1:18:52] So Dr. Luzot, we will be presenting the alternatives and going for public input from both the

[1:18:57] environmental communities and public at large during our scoping meetings, which are currently

[1:19:01] I believe late February. We actually have had some input previously. As you know, this project is an alternative under the San Luis low point improvement project.

[1:19:12] So as it wasn't alternative, we were up in Sacramento and down in the Gilroy library for scoping meetings on that project and did get some of the feedback then.

[1:19:21] So we will continue to engage the public and the stakeholders as we move forward.

[1:19:24] You know, this is basically the beginning, we expect that the EIR, the draft, the EIR will be available for release at the end of the year, and that is still basically, you know, we get comments on the draft EIR before the board adopts the final, so there are many different times for the public to engage, and we will be doing our outreach.

[1:19:45] I've been to many sculpting meetings, and they're really not conducive to dialogue.

[1:19:53] They're really not conducive to getting a given take.

[1:19:58] So, you know, I think you're...

[1:20:00] And we either engage them or we decide to, you know, climb over the wall and then look ridiculous.

[1:20:09] So I just want to make sure that there's real engagement. Like I said, I've been to, you know, I've been doing this to 20 years.

[1:20:18] And I've been to scoping meetings, and they are not a good forum for dialogue with people.

[1:20:25] So I hope that there's other ways, you know, in addition to letters of people sending that we have the opportunity to dialogue with the environmental community or anybody else who's interested in this project.

[1:20:37] Rachel Lee. Yes.

[1:20:39] Through the chair.

[1:20:40] Director Lizard, I wanted to add to what Chris mentioned.

[1:20:42] We've heard from the board loud and clear that there is a desire for not just one way communication.

[1:20:47] not just public outreach, but true, two-way dialogue and community engagement, as a Sierra

[1:20:52] Clubs that are asserted as well.

[1:20:55] I can assure you, we will be reaching out and contacting, casting a net far and wide to

[1:21:00] make sure that we are soliciting input and feedback on not just during these public-scoping

[1:21:05] meetings, but throughout this process starting effectively now.

[1:21:08] I want to assure that the Board has expressed a desire for this two-way dialogue for some

[1:21:13] time.

[1:21:14] And to that end, I have several affairs assumed going to be launching an additional piece of software and platform that's going to help us do that in an even more expedient and streamline fashion.

[1:21:25] So I wanted to definitely assure you and the other members of the board that we've heard you loud and clear that we want to facilitate that two-way dialogue, not just be talking at people and not just be having them send in letters, but absolutely get meaningful dialogue and input and feedback from our many stakeholders from across the different sectors that the board represents.

[1:21:42] Okay, thank you, and I'm sure we'll help from them if it isn't going well, but I think under your leadership, Rachel, I take you with you work.

[1:21:51] That's the premise.

[1:21:53] Eric, the Chairman.

[1:21:54] Thank you, Chair.

[1:21:56] You know, I've been thinking about that outreach.

[1:21:58] It seems to me, and I'd love to ask staff maybe, add these up.

[1:22:03] We've had outreach for not only when we applied for all the Prop 1, but every Prop 1 hearing that there was before the water commission,

[1:22:11] and there were many. Every board meeting we've had, every San Luis, low point public meeting

[1:22:17] there was, every Cacheco pass and water district meeting they are. These are all public meetings.

[1:22:23] Every San Vito County Water Agency meeting plus a bunch of our water storage meetings where this

[1:22:30] comes up every single time. So it's not like there's been no stakeholder engagement. No one's

[1:22:36] Unless I don't understand, I don't see anyone hiding here, or there's no public, like we don't listen the letters, so I'd like that staff needed to add up all those.

[1:22:47] Just like we did for the convenience project.

[1:22:52] To say, are these meetings where there was public comments allowed?

[1:22:56] Did we go beyond public comments and many meetings?

[1:22:59] Didn't we actually meet with a lot of, for example, environmentalists?

[1:23:03] I remember reading to our prop one, application, like for example, Jerry Smith,

[1:23:08] didn't we meet with us folks?

[1:23:09] So maybe we could detail those for people who feel there's been no outreach or engagement.

[1:23:16] And I would make a motion to approve the recommendation that this go before the Board

[1:23:22] on the committee to, let's just, I'm on.

[1:23:25] I'll second that. We have a motion a second to adopt the recommendation B.

[1:23:32] Through the chair before the vote. So, I've been on the board for a while now, but have we ever had

[1:23:39] a workshop, an actual workshop, with our board and the environmental groups, where we set across each other,

[1:23:47] and we have a dialogue where we actually listen and we comment and at some point, a document

[1:23:55] is published echoing the thoughts of each and every one of those environmental groups and the representatives

[1:24:00] at the table with the board to talk through all these issues and all these concerns.

[1:24:07] Has that ever happened? I don't we call participating in that in the five years that I've been on the board.

[1:24:14] Does anybody answer that?

[1:24:16] Yeah, I don't I don't we're calling that what direct sense? No, I'm just saying that you know

[1:24:21] given an example, we have never avoided that with how like trails meeting and we all sat down and we all

[1:25:00] When you were not totally agree with the John, I think that's always a good idea. Don't pan or what the subject is. That's it. I don't have dialogue.

[1:25:07] We'll have the public invited. I mean, unfortunately, it was still meeting this way, but at some point we're all going to get back together again.

[1:25:14] So I would like to say things that the environmental communities are not involved. Keep on saying that you believe it.

[1:25:21] Since I've been here since been the opposite, we have always welcomed and have good engagement. If we can improve it, we can improve it.

[1:25:28] measure S wouldn't pass if everybody wasn't in a dialogue, so I know we have good communication

[1:25:34] but can we approve? Of course we can and I'm always up for it.

[1:25:38] Well I will take responsibility to coordinate with the CECO and also with Rachel so that

[1:25:48] we could do some form of dialogue with the environmental community out checking with each of the

[1:25:56] directors need to make sure that we're we're going to do it right and then we'll make the

[1:26:02] attempts ever to las out you got your hand raised okay okay I did I did I did I did I did I did I

[1:26:09] I did maybe you can do that to water storage meeting first number one and number two

[1:26:17] the environmental community is not a monolith that one group is right I recall in our

[1:26:23] application, we support from several environmental groups.

[1:26:27] So just because they're not showed up in the meeting,

[1:26:29] doesn't mean they're not supporting it.

[1:26:31] We've seen from measure S that there's a wide variety

[1:26:34] of environmental groups.

[1:26:36] Just as many as there's labor and business groups.

[1:26:38] So let's not get worked up because one or two people

[1:26:41] says it one way.

[1:26:42] Totally agree.

[1:26:43] They have enough time during the day when there's a lot of people

[1:26:46] working to put food on their table to come to these meetings.

[1:26:50] So that's, as I go from prop one, there's

[1:26:53] many other environmental groups that have weighed in the support of our projects.

[1:26:59] Thank you.

[1:27:00] Thank you very much.

[1:27:02] Good discussion and I, you know, I think that ultimately, this is such a big project, such a complex project.

[1:27:13] We do want to engage the public and I really want to thank Miss Gibson for her suggestions.

[1:27:21] And it's yes, it's engaging the environmental community, but it's engaging many, many, many, many different communities that I think have the opportunity to provide useful input to staff and to the board.

[1:27:36] So I look forward to seeing this move forward forward and gathering more information so we can all make the right decision that is ultimately going to serve our constituents.

[1:27:51] Okay, yeah, I think we're talking about two different things, but we're, we're, I think we're on it.

[1:27:58] We do have a motion, yes.

[1:28:00] I'll just show that.

[1:28:01] Let's take the motion.

[1:28:03] Let's do the action.

[1:28:06] Okay.

[1:28:07] All right.

[1:28:08] Let's do the motion.

[1:28:09] And then let's vote on the motion.

[1:28:11] And then we can continue discussion.

[1:28:14] There's more discussion.

[1:28:17] So, roll call, please.

[1:28:18] Can you repeat the motion, please?

[1:28:19] Yes, it's just adopting a B recommendation through the recommendation that the audit committee that we refer to the audit committee to determine the timeline associated with cost increases for the project.

[1:28:36] Thank you.

[1:28:39] Director Shua, yes, Director Keegan.

[1:28:43] Yes.

[1:28:44] Yeah. Director of the slide? Yes. Director Santas. Yes. Director Rowland. Yes.

[1:28:53] Okay. Director Shu, you have something? Yeah, just just a suggestion that I don't

[1:28:58] need to do it. I remember that during the the Recycle Water Committee has

[1:29:09] has multiple engagement on videos with the community

[1:29:14] for the four eye proliferation issues.

[1:29:17] So that's one good model that maybe explore

[1:29:20] toward how many of you can use.

[1:29:23] And the other thing is that this is our recent

[1:29:26] all engaged with activity by the team that's working

[1:29:31] on the trail issue with the trail,

[1:29:33] has been, again, even the smaller buildings

[1:29:35] has many different opinions that have been not

[1:29:38] and not have it here and not have it there. So the way that they did the all-reach

[1:29:42] and engagement, that's a good example too.

[1:29:47] That's what that's exactly. Yeah.

[1:29:49] But I think we're talking about two different things. One is, one is a general dialogue with

[1:29:54] the environmental community, whatever that is. And secondly, you know,

[1:30:00] To this particular issue of probably lunches, not just a particular self would also water storage.

[1:30:10] So it's just a question of trying to involve everybody, which includes the environmental community, just like it includes all the other aspects of our community, which we call stakeholders.

[1:30:24] But anyway, I think we'll be having some extra meetings this year and those who relate to both

[1:30:33] Anderson and storage and then specifically having an ongoing dialogue with the environmental community,

[1:30:41] some of who continue to say that we don't dialogue with them.

[1:30:45] Let's address that.

[1:30:46] I will take the initiative to work with the CEO and Rachel to figure out how we can address that.

[1:30:57] And I'll come back to the board with some suggestions, and we'll do all we can.

[1:31:03] At Rector Shoes says, we can solve some of these things, so we'll work on it.

[1:31:10] Is there anything further would we expect to this issue any questions?

[1:31:14] discusses any motions? I'd like to make a comment that I'm happy to see

[1:31:19] quite a member of the environmental community is supporting

[1:31:22] lots of local carats and system rates that was in the letter.

[1:31:26] Yeah, same here, and of course I mentioned storage as a general issue, because we're not

[1:31:33] looking at particular in an isolated way. You know, when we December when we

[1:31:39] that our public discussion last time, I'd share then,

[1:31:44] I made sure that we looked at overall storage,

[1:31:48] and we looked at all the other projects.

[1:31:50] We looked at it as overall issue, which is correct.

[1:31:53] And that's what we have to look at it as part of a water supply.

[1:31:57] That's how we looked at it.

[1:31:59] And I think we have to continue to remind ourselves

[1:32:02] that, for Traco, is it an isolated program?

[1:32:07] Is that an isolated project?

[1:32:08] It's related to water supply and other storage issues so so we have to look at it that way

[1:32:15] and we need to talk about it that way but okay we've done it now for this one and we'll move right along

[1:32:21] thank you very much staff with you help on this one and so move right along then to 2.6

[1:32:29] But we're studying session on preliminary fiscal year, groundwater production charges for fiscal

[1:32:36] years, 2020 to the 26th.

[1:32:41] And good afternoon, Chair Estimer and members of the board.

[1:32:46] Item 2.6 is a review of 22 to 26 preliminary CIP, as well as a review of the FY22 preliminary

[1:32:55] water charges. And in the past couple of cycles, we have combined the discussion of the

[1:33:03] preliminary CIP and the preliminary water rate analysis at the first meeting in January

[1:33:09] into one agenda item so that the board could see kind of a comprehensive picture if you will.

[1:33:16] That seems to have worked well in the past and so we've done it again this year. And assuming that the

[1:33:23] presentation. Let me just first ask that question. Does the board want to hear the presentation?

[1:33:31] Yes. All right. Thank you. One to make sure. And so with that, this will be a tag team presentation.

[1:33:41] And Jessica's got on her screen. Jessica, can you go back to the previous slide?

[1:33:46] The previous slide shows what we're asking of the board today through this presentation and the first

[1:33:52] is to review and approve the fiscal year 22 to 26 preliminary CIP list of projects.

[1:33:59] And then the second ask is to provide direction on the preliminary FY22 groundwater

[1:34:05] charge analysis so that staff can consider that direction as we prepare the recommendations

[1:34:13] that we're being including in the final pod report that schedule to be delivered later in February.

[1:34:19] So with that, let's move to the next slide and just kind of show the outline of the presentation that we have before you.

[1:34:27] It's got five parts. Part one is a discussion of the annual CIP process.

[1:34:33] And then part two is highlights and updates on the preliminary FY22 to 26 CIP. Part three is a look at the preliminary financial forecast overview for funds 12 and 26.

[1:34:45] And that's the watershed stream storage of fund and the Safe Clean Water or Measure S fund to give the board a complete picture and then part four is the FY22 groundwater production charge analysis and then next steps and at this point.

[1:35:00] There are the middle row, so October December, the CIP team evaluated projects, started doing the financial analysis. And then also the CIP committee reviewed the project plan of dates. And we just had that last meeting still last week, a follow-up meeting CIP committee meeting. So where we're at today is the board workshop and the funding scenarios looking at the preliminary CIP. So receiving the board direction regarding the preliminary list of projects that would provide an attachment to allow staff to proceed with preparing the draft.

[1:35:30] Basically, you're 22, 26 CIP, the draft CIP is scheduled to bring back to the board and February where the board will review and authorized to release the draft for six to the public review period.

[1:35:43] After public review and sponsors to comments are completed, the final CIP will be presented to the board in May for approval and conjunction with the 21, 22 budget.

[1:35:57] Then capital projects are monitored each month by the CIP committee. This includes regular updates for projects in planning, designing construction phases, as well as amendments to the capital consultant agreements.

[1:36:09] The CIP committee also reviews development of the five year CIP including review significant project plan updates and the draft preliminary CIP.

[1:36:21] The capital project organized into project categories by type of, by type of the fund and we have the, we have water supply, we have flood protection, water stewardship, building ground and information technology.

[1:36:38] The drivers for our capital project include the board ins policies which tie into the program plans master plans asset management program and as new projects are identified they're evaluated through the validation process.

[1:36:49] before being proposed for inclusion into the CIP program.

[1:36:54] Through this process, key considerations are regulatory requirements,

[1:36:58] the repair and replacement of aging infrastructure,

[1:37:01] value water commitments, such as to the safe clean water program and face water supply master plan,

[1:37:06] and then also opportunities for leveraging external funding sources.

[1:37:14] The key drivers for the water supply project is the water supply master plan,

[1:37:18] which includes three stages to ensure sustainability.

[1:37:20] So as you want to secure the water supply, which applies to the majority of the capital projects under water supply, water supply, mass supply and strategy 2 is to expand the water supply so

[1:37:30] through water conservation, storm water capture, portable reuse projects, and then strategy 3 to optimize the existing infrastructure.

[1:37:40] And then the voter approved measure S is another key driver for the capital agreement program, there's six priorities under the renewed measure, and those are shown here as a threat.

[1:37:51] Now, the following slides include project highlights for each type of improvement in the CIP.

[1:37:57] We've also linked each project to the key drivers and the water supply master plan and the safe thing water plan.

[1:38:04] For water supply, we have 30 projects. Some of them to restore and secure existing infrastructure such as Anderson and Chaco.

[1:38:10] And then we have projects to secure water conveyance, such as Omdamelli pipeline.

[1:38:14] And we also have projects to improve and upgrade existing facilities of three water treatment plans.

[1:38:19] I'm along with projects to expand water infrastructure, we also have the expedited water program.

[1:38:28] All right, Valley Water has 18 active flood control projects, CIP categorizes these into their respective watersheds, and highlighted projects for each watershed are listed here.

[1:38:39] But

[1:38:49] the watershed stewardship highlights, we have a nine listed here, and we have the highlights environmental enhancement project highlights for health free.

[1:38:58] How in a ballet and then these ability studies.

[1:39:01] The watershed habitats.

[1:39:10] And for there are eight projects in the category of building in grounds and 18, these projects meet the objectives of providing an efficient effective and safe work environment.

[1:39:20] And those are listed here.

[1:39:30] And the five capital projects are closing in fiscal year 2021, too, which have been removed,

[1:40:00] Included in future aspects, and then the 1st, 3rd and 5th, there are the main and the drone has been completed, along with the SMB mitigation and the e-discovery management system. So total being removed is 35.5 million.

[1:40:18] And the next we have shown projects by fund, each individual fund here. Now, these have gone through the CIP committees.

[1:40:27] And when reviewed, there's a significant host to projects here.

[1:40:32] Again, there's not any new projects.

[1:40:34] So what's shown here is project updates both to time and schedule.

[1:40:39] And can also be project budget.

[1:40:41] So we've highlighted a few, but of course if the board would like to discuss any of these in detail,

[1:40:45] we can have the relevant DO go into a little more detail.

[1:40:49] But once we highlighted here was obviously just coming off the discussion.

[1:40:52] regarding Pacheco being a major impact to the program and still some things to be worked out there,

[1:40:59] but you see that highlighted in red.

[1:41:03] And so these are the fund 61 project.

[1:41:04] There's a few more slides to show on these.

[1:41:11] We also highlighted in red here below is the tenure pipeline and inspection rehabilitation program.

[1:41:17] The reason I shown in red is just that if you look at the funds on your spreadsheet,

[1:41:21] you'll see a bunch of funds shown there.

[1:41:24] These, this one was updated thereafter and so you're increasing the project cost by about 30 million

[1:41:30] over its lifespan. But this is highlighting just the highlight that it's not matching up with

[1:41:36] what we have on the spreadsheet. So it'll be updated incorporated as part of the drafts yet.

[1:41:45] And these are the last of the 61 funds that he's just listing some of the small cap updates that we're

[1:41:51] reviewed again with CFP committee.

[1:41:57] The next will look at fund 12 for the watershed stream

[1:42:02] stewardship funds.

[1:42:10] These fund 12 projects have undergone significant changes as compared to last year.

[1:42:14] Some of the just highlights there are the follow up of the flood basin. I've gotten a lot of

[1:42:18] attention as well as shoreline and more barriers.

[1:42:24] And then these are the fund 26 projectively to

[1:42:27] save clean water natural flood protection project updates.

[1:42:38] Yes, so you saw a pretty August there and

[1:42:40] and then I've jumping forward to,

[1:42:44] jumping forward to, okay, here we go.

[1:42:47] So fun 71 equipment fund, we have no updates on that.

[1:42:50] And then the general fund, we're fund 11.

[1:42:53] Again, we're highlighting in red here just to show

[1:42:55] that this isn't necessarily included

[1:42:57] on the spreadsheet that you have of the multiple projects.

[1:43:00] So this will be added and wrapped in

[1:43:01] to the draft CIP as part of the next stage

[1:43:04] with those updates.

[1:43:11] All right, the number of our projects are funded

[1:43:13] by outside sources between fiscal year 22 and 26,

[1:43:16] value water expects to receive 352 million

[1:43:19] in grants, cost sharing, and state

[1:43:21] prevention, and other reimbursements.

[1:43:29] Four projects are partially funded by state

[1:43:31] flood control submissions program.

[1:43:33] This program accounts for 5 million of cost

[1:43:35] and lower penitentiant.

[1:43:36] 3 million of cutting-hand flood detention certification

[1:43:39] project, 9 million for lower silver creek.

[1:43:42] And for lower Yagas Creek capacity restoration

[1:43:44] oversee 1.1 million of funding from the program.

[1:43:48] Unless otherwise directed by the board,

[1:43:49] these reimbursements will be applied

[1:43:51] to the respective operating and capital reserve funds.

[1:44:02] We jump ahead to the next one.

[1:44:11] Just figure out next slide.

[1:44:26] I think just to have a difficulty there.

[1:44:29] Maybe there's technical difficulties.

[1:44:30] The next slide would show that for fiscal years,

[1:44:33] 20 through 26, the preliminary CIP, maybe she can get back up.

[1:44:39] But essentially we're capturing over 80 projects.

[1:44:41] Total of cost is about seven and a half billion dollars

[1:44:45] on the bulk of which is comprised with why utility projects,

[1:44:48] which is 5.3 billion of that 7.5 and then we had a breakdown of those if she can get those back up.

[1:44:58] You know I'm wondering if we can try planned.

[1:45:07] Great. Good. Great to have a backup. Thanks, Carmen. So, here's that. Here's that breakdown again. So, the total projects across that were looking at for fiscal year 22 to 26. So, roughly seven and a half billion 5.3 of that's through water supply and then the breakdown between flood protection, stewardship, building in grounds and so forth.

[1:45:31] And then the next step will be for staff to compile the draft fiscal years 22 to 26 capital agreement program to bring back to the board for approval on February 23rd.

[1:45:46] And then with that, if you don't have questions and those particular items, the next I'll turn it back over to Darren and you'll jump in this one question.

[1:45:53] Certainly through the chair.

[1:45:55] Each 15.

[1:46:14] So these projects that are all done other than the salt ponds,

[1:46:18] like as e-discovery management system done.

[1:46:22] Right.

[1:46:22] Yeah, those will be closed out before the end of this fiscal year.

[1:46:26] And the 70 in the west side, we tailor inner ties, that's a done project.

[1:46:31] So the west side, we're retailed in a twice, the second one down, and the fourth one down,

[1:46:36] they're actually getting wrapped up into other projects.

[1:46:39] So those are the ones I was coming to, and none that actually being removed.

[1:46:44] So we were closing out the budget for them, but west side in particular I think is going to be wrapped up into

[1:46:49] a asset management study plan to ensure where we need them and when, and so we're moving that one.

[1:46:57] And the salt puns of restoration, maybe you've reached out to pitch in my understanding was I think it is being partially done through operations and part of it's being pulled out to be done in a later date.

[1:47:09] Okay, thank you.

[1:47:10] Just so.

[1:47:11] Go ahead.

[1:47:12] Do I need to dive into salt puns at all?

[1:47:16] Okay.

[1:47:16] I was in asking about it, but if you want to, it's up to the bellar.

[1:47:21] So the salt pond is really part of what is it streams stewardship division, but I

[1:47:25] can understand that the portion removed here really relates to when we do our stream removal efforts in the creeks and it's relocated there, so it's really been identified as more of an operations and maintenance program. So that's why that was.

[1:47:41] Okay, I guess my one comment here is the West 7, 18,000 that's kind of a little bit

[1:47:47] below what we should be doing at a board level policy, per view of stuff we should. I'm not

[1:47:52] trying to diminish dollars to stick to things in the millions and you know, tens and millions

[1:47:57] not with thousands or tens of dollars. We'll go crazy. Thank you. Sure, no taking. All right, thank you.

[1:48:07] Thank you, Chief. Questions?

[1:48:13] All right, then next group of slides is with Darren and

[1:48:16] show you how these projects are affecting rates and whatnot. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. So let's move

[1:48:24] to the next slide slide 29 and the next slide will provide an overview of the watershed stream

[1:48:31] stewardship fund and the graph here shows the projected revenues and operations cost and capital

[1:48:38] costs over the next 10 years for that fund and the key to reading this fund is just to take a look at

[1:48:46] blue bars which represent the reserve balances and compare the blue bars relative to the dashed

[1:48:52] line which is the reserve policy minimum. And as you can see that over the next 10 years,

[1:48:58] this projection is healthy. The blue bars are above the reserve policy minimum for all of the

[1:49:04] 10 years and that's that's a good sign. With regard to the key assumptions listed on the right

[1:49:10] side of the slide. We've got a couple listed there. In terms of the open space credit transfer,

[1:49:16] this projection includes $15 million over the next 10 years in terms of transfer of funds

[1:49:24] from the watershed stream stewardship fund to the Water Utility Fund to pay for the open space credit.

[1:49:30] This particular open space credit transfer amount assumes a agricultural charge set at 25% of the

[1:50:00] 21 for agriculture at $28.86 per acre foot. And this particular assumption would carry out the board's

[1:50:09] direction set back in April of 2019 to eliminate the discretionary portion of the open space

[1:50:15] credit beginning in FY22.

[1:50:20] The other is the ONM maintenance placeholder. We have included in this

[1:50:27] particular $4 cash $2 million per year for FY22 to $25 and $7 million per year for FY26 FY31.

[1:50:34] That's a total of $50 million and we heard Aaron Baker with an earlier talk about the

[1:50:41] ONM forecast and that they're going to be doing more planning efforts over the next year or so

[1:50:48] to identify projects that would, this placeholder would translate into, but for now we've got

[1:50:54] a placeholder 50 million and Aaron Baker mentioned that you think that the overall maintenance

[1:51:00] obligation is to the two of them about a hundred million dollars over the next ten years.

[1:51:05] So about half of it funded through this placeholder, if you will.

[1:51:09] So with that, let's look at the next slide, which is another look at the watershed stream

[1:51:13] storage of fund, but change in assumptions, and that's noted in red on the right-hand side

[1:51:19] the slide. In this case the open space credit transfer amount is $23.4 million over the next

[1:51:26] 10 years instead of $15 million. So an increase of $8.4 million being transferred to the

[1:51:31] warranty utility. And this open space credit transfer amount assumes that the agricultural

[1:51:37] charge is set at 10 percent of the zone W8 M and I charge or in this case $34 and 14 sense

[1:51:44] in FI-22 relative to the current charge of $28 in 86 cents per acre foot and just a note that the

[1:51:54] agricultural advisory committee met on January 4th and ended pass a motion requesting that the board

[1:52:00] consider continuing the discretionary portion of the open space credit given the passage of measure s,

[1:52:06] which has relieved some of the financial pressure in the future for for Valley Water.

[1:52:11] And so as I mentioned, the impact to watershed streams stewardship of doing that is $8.4 million

[1:52:18] over the next 10 years, the other part of the impact is another $8.4 million to the general fund.

[1:52:25] So the board may recall that 50% of the open-space credit transfer comes from the watershed stream

[1:52:31] store to fund and 50% comes from the general fund.

[1:52:34] So if you add up those two impacts 8.4 million and 8.4 million,

[1:52:38] the total impact is about $17 million over the next 10 years

[1:52:43] to do this particular scenario to restore essentially

[1:52:47] the discretionary portion of the open space credit.

[1:52:50] And just to remind you, the general fund is a fund

[1:52:53] that is sourced by a small amount of 1%

[1:52:57] avalanct copy taxes to the tune of about $9 million a year.

[1:53:01] And the rest of the funding comes from the overhead charges

[1:53:04] which are allocated to the water utility and the watershed stream stewardship and the safe clean water fund.

[1:53:10] And so I want to make sure that the board understood the full impact of this particular scenario.

[1:53:16] So with that, I will, unless there's any questions, I will move on to the safe clean water fund.

[1:53:23] Questions?

[1:53:27] Okay.

[1:53:28] So move it on to safe clean water.

[1:53:30] So, this is our measure S fund, if you will, and again, the way to read this particular graph, is by King in on the blue bars, which represent the reserve balances, and this is reflecting the entire 15 years of the first or the first 15 years, if you will, of measure S. And by looking at the blue bars, you can see that there is, there is a little bit of trouble that we need to address in FY 28, we've got a negative reserve balance.

[1:53:57] And by FY36, by the 15th year, our reserve balance is only $12 million, and that's

[1:54:05] $78 million less than what we had projected in the original measure at the plan.

[1:54:12] And the reason for that is, cost increases for a couple of capital projects, including

[1:54:18] Upper Yagas, and Auburn Lake, and San Francisco, to Cric, that the board just heard about.

[1:54:24] And other key assumptions that are baked into this projection are listed at the top of the right-hand side of the slide.

[1:54:31] This does assume an $80 million reimbursement from NRCS for the Upper Yagus Creek Project, a fully-construct phase two of that project.

[1:54:40] It also assumes $20 million worth of grants and partnership revenue receipts through the San Francisco Creek San Francisco,

[1:54:54] question and looking at this graph is well how do we address the shortfall. We've got

[1:55:00] So, I have to schedule an April 7 situation for the report. Monica from adjourned.

[1:55:29] looking at potential schedule adjustments to projects without impacting the commitment to voters.

[1:55:35] Also, we're looking at project costs, sharpening our pencil.

[1:55:38] If you will, to see if there's any cost reductions that we could find, we're looking at borrowing rates.

[1:55:45] We know that the borrowing rates have decreased since the preparation of the original measure as plan.

[1:55:51] We believe there's cost savings there. Looking at cost allocation adjustments between fund

[1:55:57] As we just saw, fun 12 is healthy and fun 26 is not so looking at some potential

[1:56:05] allocations of costs between those two to balance things out could be another potential

[1:56:09] option to solve this issue.

[1:56:12] And staff plans to present proposed adjustments as part of the five year implementation plan

[1:56:17] that staff will be working on in the board would see that for sure by June of 2021.

[1:56:27] So I'll pause there and move on to what are utility unless you have any questions.

[1:56:33] Questions?

[1:56:34] Direct the key again?

[1:56:41] This is okay.

[1:56:41] Sorry.

[1:56:42] I did not mean to I was locked out of the meeting for minutes.

[1:56:47] Thank you.

[1:56:48] Okay.

[1:56:49] Any other questions?

[1:56:53] Okay.

[1:56:54] Okay.

[1:56:55] So let's move to the next slide.

[1:56:58] Beyond this one.

[1:56:59] We'll get into the.

[1:57:00] Daren hold on a second. I'm sorry. I couldn't get myself

[1:57:03] unmuted. So, go on back to the open space credit.

[1:57:10] Daren, I know you're doing what you were told.

[1:57:14] So, it's really annoying to me that after the very serious and lengthy and

[1:57:22] thoughtful conversation we had two years ago about the open space credit,

[1:57:27] I mean, it was near unanimous if I'm not mistaken, and several board members were very pointed in their comments that this was it.

[1:57:38] We were going to go to 25% and we gave the agricultural community two years to figure out an alternative source.

[1:57:47] And, you know, my understanding is they met little of any, and I understand last year was COVID, but there's there's zoom.

[1:58:00] And so to not only have this 10% presented to the board, but also to have it presented to the Ag Committee, as, you know, something we would consider is just really annoying.

[1:58:14] You know, we made very clear statements that we wanted to go to 25 percent, you know, you're talking about 17 million dollars.

[1:58:25] And, you know, I hope that we have a discussion about this when the presentations are done, but I wanted to make the comment, you know, while this was in front of us. Thank you.

[1:58:38] Any other comments? Okay. Okay. We'll have a discussion now at the end. Okay.

[1:58:47] All right. Thank you. And so, so moving on into the the the one utility rate portion of the

[1:58:55] presentation, the topics are listed here. I'll spend most of the time talking about two scenarios

[1:59:00] that staff has prepared for board review. And if we move to the next slide, I'll dive into the

[1:59:08] The first topic, which is the water usage topic, and this is the graph that the board has seen on many occasions, it's the valley water managed water use that translates to revenue for valley water.

[1:59:21] It's an stacked bar format with treated water at the bottom, and then groundwater right above that in the small amount of surface and recycled water.

[1:59:27] Green is the actuals, the red in FY20 is the estimated actual at 232,000 acre feet.

[1:59:35] It's probably very close to the actual, just a reminder that we do have many wells that are

[1:59:39] unmetered. And so it takes us a little while to finalize that number for FY20.

[1:59:45] And then for FY21, there's our budgeted amount of water usage at 233,000 acre feet.

[1:59:50] And then for FY22, we're looking at 232,000 acre feet in terms of a projection.

[1:59:55] we feel pretty good about this projection so far in FY21.

[2:00:00] Come over. This cost projection is in a stacked bar format starting from the bottom. We've got our sources to apply, cost center, that includes things like important water, groundwater management, conservation activities, recycled water activities, and the Delta Convance Project.

[2:00:16] And then, beginning in FY28, we've got the P3 water services agreement in yellow, beginning in that particular year.

[2:00:23] And then, right above that, raw water costs, and then an gray water treatment costs, and then in light blue are support services, including things like division management and customer relations, revenue collection, meter reading, long term planning, all those types of activities fall under that cost center, and then in green right above that is our debt service projection, which is growing, based on projected periodic debt issuances to provide upfront funding for the capital program.

[2:00:53] which is at the very top, that's the top portion of the stack bar in light blue, if you will.

[2:00:58] That's the capital projection, which is the key driver of the water rate projection.

[2:01:03] And beginning in FY25, you see pretty large portions of that bar there, driven by the particular reservoir expansion project.

[2:01:12] And any one of those years in FY25 and beyond, we're looking at $250 million worth of capital costs for that project alone.

[2:01:23] One of the, one other thing to note about this graphic is we will, we will make a small

[2:01:27] correction to this graphic going forward. As you see, the sources apply category drops in

[2:01:35] in 2028. And that's a, that's a mistake in, in our bucketing, that portion of the stack

[2:01:41] bar should continue along the trend that you see in FY27. And the green portion of where

[2:01:46] the debt service is, is a little too high. So we kind of misbuck it in those things,

[2:01:49] what will correct them in future versions of this graphic,

[2:01:53] but the total column is the right size

[2:01:56] for FY28 through FY31.

[2:01:59] So apologies for that.

[2:02:01] And then moving on to the scenario assumptions,

[2:02:03] I did want to take a little bit of time

[2:02:05] and kind of walk through the scenario assumptions

[2:02:08] for the board.

[2:02:09] We've got scenario one on the left and scenario two

[2:02:12] on the right.

[2:02:13] That's the scenario without particular reservoir.

[2:02:16] So going looking at scenario one, first the key assumption there is this includes baseline projects and what do we mean by that?

[2:02:24] We mean projects that are currently listed in the CIP current assets, things like the dam seismic retrofits, the Rinkanata water treatment plant, reliability improvement, tenure pipeline work so and so forth.

[2:02:36] So that's what's included.

[2:02:38] The next line item there is the Delta Convance

[2:02:41] of Project or Participation Assumption.

[2:02:45] The board authorized participation at 2.73%

[2:02:48] and up to 3.23% if the opportunity presented itself

[2:02:52] and my understanding is that that opportunity

[2:02:54] did present itself and we are taking advantage of that.

[2:02:57] So what we've modeled for this scenario

[2:03:00] is participation at the 3.23% level, right below that,

[2:03:05] the Anderson Dam seismic retrofit. For this particular model we have modeled a wiffy alone

[2:03:12] for Anderson Dam at of course 49% of the total project costs. Right below that we've got the

[2:03:19] purified water project delivered via a P3 entity and we assume that the P3 entity would

[2:03:29] 100% that finance a particular project. Right below that is a particular reservoir. These

[2:03:35] assumptions associated with that project or familiar to the board, the prop one funding with

[2:03:40] the alone and that partner agencies would pay 20% or partner to the tune of 20% of the project.

[2:03:48] Right below that, we've included transfer Bethany pipeline. We have a fairly old cost estimate

[2:03:53] included in there. We believe it's a conservative but we're waiting on additional

[2:04:00] or an updated version of the financial model from Contra Costa water district.

[2:04:06] It's called version 5.0. We believe we'll get that model in the April or May timeframe,

[2:04:11] which would help us refine that transfer Bethany pipeline estimate, and also help us put together

[2:04:17] an estimate to show the impact of low-specaros expansion should the board like to see that.

[2:04:23] Right below that is a line item called Master Plan Projects PlaySolder, and so what is that?

[2:04:30] Well, in talking to Chief Baker and his staff, the board may recall that last year, the board

[2:05:00] To assume a placeholder for projects that are likely to come out of that master planning effort. And just projects related to upgrading the system of assets that we currently had have projects like new pipelines or pipeline rehabilitations, treatment plan upgrades and skated implementation projects.

[2:05:21] And so we felt it was prudent to include this placeholder in the rate projection.

[2:05:25] even though it's not in the CIP, it's in the rate projection, so I want to make sure that the

[2:05:29] board was aware of that. To the tune of $346 million over the next 10 years, most of that costs

[2:05:35] in the latter of the next 10-year timeframe. And then right below that, our assumption with regard

[2:05:42] to the treated water search charge, this preliminary analysis assumes an increase in the treated

[2:05:47] water search charge to $115 pricker foot relative to $100 pricker foot that it is today. We believe

[2:05:56] that that increasing it to $115 pricker foot would put us closer to the point of neutrality

[2:06:02] where a retailer would be indifferent economically as to whether to take treated water or take water

[2:06:08] from the ground and right now we believe at $100 pricker foot. It's tilted in favor of a retailer choosing

[2:06:14] treated water. And then finally, the final assumption for scenario one is that the agricultural

[2:06:19] charge is set at 25% of the zone WM and I charge or $85.35 per acre foot. And then moving

[2:06:27] over to the right scenario two, this is the scenario with Alpachekos who in red font you see how

[2:06:32] we've crossed out the Pachekos reservoir project for this particular scenario. And then also scenario

[2:06:38] two includes a down at the bottom setting the agricultural charge at 10% of the zone WM and I charge

[2:06:44] or $34.14 per acre foot for the purposes of this scenario.

[2:06:50] So either scenario would meet the water supply master plan level of service goal of 80%

[2:06:56] of average annual water demand in drought years.

[2:07:01] So if we take a look at the next slide we'll show you the impact

[2:07:04] on the water rates of these two scenarios.

[2:07:07] And this slide shows the M&I groundwater charge year to year growth percentage

[2:07:13] across the four zones, down on the left,

[2:07:17] W2, W5, W7, W8, and so for W2,

[2:07:20] that's the North County Zone, scenario one.

[2:07:23] We show a 9.8% per year increase in the M&I

[2:07:27] ground, on our charge for the next four years.

[2:07:30] And then it tapers down to 9.3% beginning in FY26.

[2:07:34] And then further tapering down to 8.7% in FY30.

[2:07:37] Now, if you remove the Partico Reservoir Expansion Project,

[2:07:41] we go down a little bit in F522 down to 9.5% and then to 8.2% and F523.

[2:07:48] So that's a 1.6% differential between the F523 rate for the two scenarios.

[2:07:55] 9.8 versus 8.2% and then we carry on at 8.2% until it tapers to 5% and F530.

[2:08:03] For zone W5, that's the the the zone over laying the Yaga sub basin in the South County for the scenario with

[2:08:10] Pachaco where at 4.6% for the tenure timeframe and then 3.8% without Pachaco.

[2:08:15] Zone W7 is the coyote valley zone at 10.3% with Pachaco, 8.1% for the next 10 years without Pachaco.

[2:08:23] And then zone W8, that's the small zone right below Chesbro and U.S. reservoirs at 4.4% for both scenarios, which makes sense because the particular reservoir expansion project doesn't benefit that particular zone.

[2:08:36] And if we move to the next slide, this next slide shows the monthly impact to the average household from these two scenarios.

[2:08:46] And I'll just kind of focus on the FY-22 year for North County Zone W2.

[2:08:52] You see the range of impact there from $4.50 to $4.64 based on the two scenarios for

[2:09:00] Zone W5, the youngest sub-basin zone, less than $1.00 is the range there in FY-22.

[2:09:07] And then the Coyote Valley Zone W7 ranging from $1.34 to $1.71, and then South County Zone

[2:09:13] W8 at 50 cents for both of those scenarios.

[2:09:18] And I should add that this particular analysis doesn't include

[2:09:23] any increase that a retailer would layer on top

[2:09:26] of the valley water increase in wholesale water rates.

[2:09:30] And I also should mention that some retailers

[2:09:33] have a mix of wholesale water supplies,

[2:09:35] which would cause further variation in this particular analysis.

[2:10:00] Over the next 10 years for the various zones, and also showing for comparison purposes are neighbor to the North, the San Francisco PUC and the red dash line there.

[2:10:11] And we probably should have added a couple of labels here so that you could see what the rates are.

[2:10:16] And so let me just speak to a couple of those very quickly. And if you look at the solid blue line, that's the North County M and I charge for zone W two.

[2:10:23] You look at FY20, the rate there was $1,374 per acre foot, FY20, and of course the board shows

[2:10:31] to hold rates flat in FY21, so remaining at 1374. And then for scenario 1 for FY22,

[2:10:38] that rate would go to 1509 per acre foot for the M and I charge. And then just looking at South

[2:10:46] County M and I zone W7, that's the zone with the highest rate projection. It's in the bronze

[2:10:51] color there for FY20 we're at $481 pricker foot holding flat and FY21 to $481 and then going

[2:10:59] to $531 pricker foot for FY22.

[2:11:05] So moving on to the next slide we'll talk about some other

[2:11:10] charges and other information that this table compares FY21 to FY22 so looking at the contract

[2:11:22] and increase in that contract treaty water search charge from $115 from $100 dollars from $100 dollars

[2:11:29] per foot to $115 dollars per acre foot. Non contract treaty water search charge, the analysis

[2:11:34] assumes maintaining that at $200 dollars per acre foot. And then a small increase in the surface water

[2:11:39] master charge with regard to the state water project tax. For FY 2021 the budget shows a collection of

[2:11:46] $18 million for the year, the cost of the average household is $27 per year, and then going

[2:11:53] to $26 million collection in FY22, and the cost of the average household is $40 per year.

[2:12:01] What we have included here, in terms of the rejection, is in terms of the South Bay aqueduct

[2:12:07] repairs, we've included $50 million worth of cost that's probably on the low end, but we

[2:12:12] want to include something there. That's for the repairs on the landslide area and so this

[2:12:19] projection for the Statewater Project tax includes that. It would go from $26 million a year collection

[2:12:26] in FY22 to $41 million a year collection by FY31 or 10 years later. So that's what we've assumed

[2:12:33] for the Statewater Project tax. One other note there is that the the the the the the

[2:12:42] for the county of a house of $828,000 in dyeing.

[2:12:48] And right below that, we've got a small increase

[2:12:50] in the 1% avalanche property taxes

[2:12:52] that are allocated to the warranty utility

[2:12:55] at the board's decision.

[2:12:57] I dropped reserve of $10 million no change there

[2:13:00] between the two years and then a cumulative amount

[2:13:04] for the guiding principle number five funds

[2:13:07] at $13.6 million in FY22.

[2:13:11] So

[2:13:13] next slide shows our schedule and I just want to point out a couple of key dates for the board.

[2:13:20] The first is the February 26 date about a third of the way down the page.

[2:13:25] That's a key date where we are scheduled to mail the notices of the public hearing to groundwater and surface water users.

[2:13:33] And that's the date when we'll file the annual report on the protection augmentation of water supplies.

[2:13:38] The next key date would be April 13th.

[2:13:42] That's the opening of the public hearing.

[2:13:44] And then that hearing would continue for a few more dates.

[2:13:47] And then May 11th is the scheduled adoption of the budget

[2:13:50] and groundware production charges.

[2:13:54] And then the next slide is a summary slide.

[2:13:57] At the very top, again, just to summarize the annual increases

[2:14:02] to the M&I groundwater charge for the scenarios.

[2:14:04] listed in the sub bullets there across the various zones. The next bullet shows the the the per month average household increase based on the various scenarios across the the four zones and then at the bottom that's probably where the board should take a look.

[2:14:21] Board direction on on these following issues on on these following issues.

[2:14:25] Staff would like to incorporate that into the pause report.

[2:14:30] And we've listed some of the issues that we've talked about.

[2:14:32] First is the issue that Director of Resop mentioned, and I've discussed also in this presentation.

[2:14:38] That's the agricultural charge for FY22.

[2:14:41] Certainly would like to hear the board's input on that.

[2:14:47] I'll take a reservoir expansion input on that would be very welcome.

[2:14:52] We've talked about the treated water search charge increase to $115 per acre foot.

[2:14:56] the Master Plan Project Placeholder.

[2:15:00] There,

[2:15:03] I'd like to do is go through that list at the bottom, at the bottom of the summary so that we can perhaps give, give staff some direction.

[2:15:15] But let me just see if there any questions before that. Are there any questions, information or questions?

[2:15:22] And then we'll just go down the list. So we can provide staff some direction.

[2:15:27] is early on in some first step.

[2:15:31] So I think it's the right time to do it.

[2:15:33] But anyway, any questions, kind of key.

[2:15:36] That would be the key again.

[2:15:38] Thank you.

[2:15:39] My question is regarding the architectural charges.

[2:15:43] Should I wait until we get to that point to ask my question?

[2:15:52] No, you can ask it now because I'm just going to go down there.

[2:15:54] Liz, I'm going to point that direction.

[2:15:57] So yeah, I'm going to go ahead.

[2:15:58] Yeah, so my question on the architectural charge and, you know, my recollections may not be as accurate as some of my colleagues.

[2:16:11] But I guess I would like to know what, what other kinds of discretionary activities the board could use those funds.

[2:16:26] if we were not, if there was not any proposal to go back to our old agricultural subsidies.

[2:16:36] I mean, that's many that there are things that we could use for other purposes.

[2:16:40] And I don't have an understanding of what that total amount is,

[2:16:44] and how much it could be broken up like if it were to be shared equitably amongst the seven elected districts.

[2:16:51] So if staff could respond to that.

[2:16:56] Yeah, I'd be happy to.

[2:16:58] So as I mentioned, the total impact between the two agricultural and charged scenarios

[2:17:04] in terms of the open space credit is $17 million over the next 10 years.

[2:17:09] And half of that impact is a direct impact to the watershed stream stewardship fund,

[2:17:14] which primarily is a fund that is there to provide flood protection.

[2:17:21] across a multiple, you know, many of variety of activities,

[2:17:26] foot protection activities.

[2:17:27] The other portion of the impact is the impact to the general fund.

[2:17:31] And the general fund essentially receives its funding from the

[2:17:35] water utility, the watershed stream stewardship, and the

[2:17:38] safe clean water funds. And so what this, what the scenario would

[2:17:42] do to increase the open space credit would, would

[2:17:48] potentially put more pressure on those three funds through the general fund, through the overhead

[2:17:55] allocations, which would be a little bit higher than the otherwise would. In general overhead

[2:18:00] allocations are spread 60% to the water utility, 30% to the water shed stream stewardship, and 10% to the

[2:18:08] safe clean water fund. And so those funds, you know, the impact would be to those funds according

[2:18:14] to that waiting for

[2:18:18] you.

[2:18:19] Maybe I was unclear in my question.

[2:18:23] It sounds as if funds would be allocated for agricultural

[2:18:29] purposes, which would be in a relatively limited part

[2:18:37] of the county.

[2:18:39] I mean, I don't have a lot of agriculture in my district, for example.

[2:18:43] And I don't think we have, I don't think I have any agricultural rate users in my district.

[2:18:51] So, if we were to subsidize it, what does that mean in practical terms?

[2:18:59] Like, you said part of it could be an issue with providing flood protection.

[2:19:04] So money that could be used for flood protection purposes would be used for an agricultural subsidy.

[2:19:09] that's one thing. And then the other source of funding could be used for, I mean, because

[2:19:16] it's essentially general fund, it could be used for anything that we would like to see. Like,

[2:19:23] for example, doing more homeless train-ups or providing, I don't know, additional educational

[2:19:31] opportunities to schools, things of that nature. So am I wrong in my assumptions?

[2:19:36] No, I think you're correct.

[2:20:00] Those four, you know, essentially anything that falls under the district act purposes for valiant water. So it could be things like facilities. It could be further flood protection. It could be, you know, any other types of activities that fall under the mission of valiant water.

[2:20:18] The amount of that.

[2:20:20] And so the general fund impact over the next 10 years is also 8.4 million dollars. So 8.4 to the watershed stream storage fund.

[2:20:29] That's sort of a direct flood protection impact 8.4 million to the general fund, which we more of a general impact as you've described.

[2:20:37] Thank you.

[2:20:40] Yeah, questions.

[2:20:45] Okay, let's go down to Liz.

[2:20:46] That was a question related to the first item on the list, which is the act charge of fiscal year 22.

[2:20:56] Anybody want to open that discussion?

[2:21:00] Oh, yeah, I'd like to talk.

[2:21:04] So in reference to the possibility of reinstating the open space credit, if you recall back in 2018, I go, I think that's when we decided to sunset and that budget for two more years and it was sunset at the year 2021 is what I think the issue is that we're speaking to.

[2:21:26] At that point, yes, it was board agreement that the open space credit would pretty much come to a close and that agriculture would have to find a way to resource funds to offset those costs and that's what the value of those funds on the water district.

[2:21:46] And I just want to walk you through some of the procedures that the farmers and the Farm Bureau took during that timeline to actively pursue an alternative funding mechanism other than the open to dependence on the open space credit.

[2:22:01] The county formed a committee of ag users, environmental groups, et cetera, and I was representing the water district on that committee.

[2:22:14] And went on for one year of study as to how there could be a funding mechanism through the county to offset not just our costs or our office space credit, but other ways to maintain agriculture viability and throughout the county.

[2:22:29] And I won't go through the entire year's process, but at the end of the year it came out that the county found 20 million dollars that they would be able to allocate towards agriculture.

[2:22:42] And so that in itself was released from many perspectives because the committees findings were coming to a close at the end of the calendar year, but the determination was that the county was going to do its effort to present it to the board from the committee.

[2:22:56] the opportunity to reserve those funding for agriculture purposes.

[2:23:01] A subsequent, the board met.

[2:23:04] And at the same time, through the course of events that were occurring,

[2:23:10] three hospitals became available for acquiring by the county.

[2:23:17] And they allocated those $20 reserves for agriculture purposes.

[2:23:22] And I might not have all my values correct on this and exactly the language where we're taken from that funding mechanism and put into the fund and the acquisition of those hospitals did commence as we're all aware.

[2:23:35] So that funding disappeared no longer was available.

[2:23:39] So we went back to square one with the open space credit being the issue and how the farmers are going to find funding mechanisms ultimately they could not.

[2:23:47] they tried it in every which way they could. As a representative of the water district, I attended

[2:23:52] just by every single South County Ag Farm Bureau meeting and including director Santos,

[2:24:00] who attended many of those meetings as well. Let's fast forward to 2020. When we were at that point

[2:24:07] advocating to the Farm Bureau to support measure S and they had their committee meetings and they

[2:24:14] If they were going to be able to benefit from the endorsement of measure S, how would they benefit from that?

[2:24:21] So we assured them pretty much to conversation that we would do everything we could possibly, to perhaps card out some funding mechanisms from that.

[2:24:29] And we published an article in the Broadcaster, speaking directly to their distribution network of the Farm Bureau,

[2:24:37] and they in turn published a letter of endorsement supporting measure S.

[2:25:00] Five measures to place on the ballot. And which we ultimately did so. Members of the Farm Bureau came in with

[2:25:07] a letter of support in Dorsey, measure s, and allocating s, from the board of directors. And so with the

[2:25:16] implication that there would feel that there might be some carve out for them to enjoy if measure s in pass. So I think

[2:25:23] from that discussion to where we are today. I think we might have the opportunity to reconsider

[2:25:29] supporting agriculture in Santa Clara County and yes it does happen to be in the majority

[2:25:34] issue is in district one which is my area. Agriculture is still alive and thriving, even though

[2:25:40] many people are saying it's being phased out, that's not the case. It's part of the economic

[2:25:45] engine to this to this county and I think from our part, whatever investment that we could

[2:25:51] make to continue that would be I think a monumental in the decision-making process. So I encourage

[2:25:57] board of directors to continue to look at the opportunity to use this measure as funding mechanism

[2:26:03] as a way to encourage and to keep the open space credit alive. So that's my comment in my

[2:26:09] information I want to share with you today.

[2:26:13] Yes.

[2:26:15] Through the chair, Director Verella, has the county indicated any way that they would reimbursed

[2:26:21] of the funds when the hospitals and the so on start meeting on their feet or whatever

[2:26:25] I think there was multiple conversations subsequent to the money that were no longer made

[2:26:31] earmarked and they just know. The short answer is no.

[2:26:36] I totally concur with your assessment and your presentation. I also wrote a

[2:26:45] open space to have credit that it was sent to you, John, and also I'll talk further about that.

[2:26:52] not say anything or, but I think there was also an up for our staff to take a look at that

[2:26:58] to see if how they can apply that to the open space and it can bring some funding and some

[2:27:04] other opportunities to say participation and so on. So to me, I still and when Linda first made

[2:27:12] the subject comment, she was called it right, that's what the board agreed upon.

[2:27:16] But the issue is to see that the land may be removed or used for housing or whatever may have

[2:27:24] you or other things. I think it's a, again, of the real shame. I think we should do the way

[2:27:29] from here to work with the farming community and making sure that that open space continues.

[2:27:36] I agree with you, sir. Well, you know, I don't think that we need to make the decision

[2:27:40] we respect to the credit itself today. We can simply make a decision that we continue to look

[2:27:46] at it in the budget. I want the time comes, we can decide then. So I'm happy to entertain

[2:27:54] the motion. I have another comment. Sure, of course. Sure. I was in the

[2:28:00] direction of the size.

[2:28:04] So regarding John's comments,

[2:28:10] the CEO can answer this question.

[2:28:12] I believe there was a, as part of the survey, one of the questions asked was,

[2:28:20] should any measure S money be used for subsidizing farmers?

[2:28:25] And I believe the overwhelming answer was no.

[2:28:28] And I believe that that issue was also raised by me and maybe several others

[2:28:32] at the meeting where this endorsement from the Farm Bureau came,

[2:28:36] that measure S money was not going to be used for to replace the open space credit.

[2:28:41] And if directors made any kind of quick pro quo with the Farm Bureau or the Farmers,

[2:28:49] they were overstepping the balance because it was specifically mentioned that the

[2:28:57] Open Space Credit was not going to be replaced by anything at a measure S. And so, and then

[2:29:04] the canard that if we don't support the Farmers, they're all going to sell their land to home

[2:29:11] Well, you know, that's not going to happen, and, you know, the, the, the, the research that was done with regard to how much land would have to be followed, you know, if the open space credit went away.

[2:29:26] We have, we have that economic research and it was minimal.

[2:29:31] So, you know, I guess this thing about substituting the open space credit with measure S money,

[2:29:37] we specifically asked that question and I believe in the CEO to answer it, but that was a question

[2:29:43] put to the people who were our, you know, that we went out and asked about what you'd be in measure S.

[2:29:54] Let me see um

[2:29:57] Great

[2:29:58] I'm sorry. I was talking

[2:30:00] Measure S. And so we did not include that in measure S because that would have been basically what

[2:30:05] of Wade measure S down on any today two thirds vote. When we did meet with the farmers, the farmers

[2:30:11] wanted to know that if we did look at and did we did see another source of funding, such as

[2:30:16] measure S with pass, would consideration be given to the open space credit and we did indeed say we

[2:30:21] would take a look and have and look at consideration upon measure S's passing and we would make

[2:30:27] recommendations back. The administration has made the recommendations as you've heard

[2:30:32] of in front of you that we look at 10% of the going down to 10% of the open space

[2:30:38] credit. So, yes, there is a combination of things out there. I do not recall any quidbro

[2:30:42] quo conversations. However, we did say that we would keep an open mind and open discussion

[2:30:48] if measure s was the pass.

[2:30:52] Thank you, Chair.

[2:30:59] I think we've mostly answered the question, but then I just want to provide further information that it's very clear that the measure as money can only pay for what's in the proposed programming fund of the voters on November.

[2:31:21] So if open space credit, and I'm sure open space credit is not a line item in the natural

[2:31:31] S program, so measure S money will not be used to pay for open space credit if the board

[2:31:38] decides to continue. So I think the NECB established will not be using a measure S money

[2:31:45] to pay for open space credit.

[2:31:47] Based on what Darren just presented that the board decides

[2:31:53] to provide some percentage of discretionary open space

[2:31:58] highlighted that my funding source will come.

[2:32:02] The watershed is basically coming from our revenue source

[2:32:06] of the property test, which is like the general fund

[2:32:10] that we have that we can other board

[2:32:13] can decide how far to allocate that money.

[2:32:16] And then right now, it's allocated to Father Sheskin.

[2:32:19] Do you want to respond in the digital general fund?

[2:32:21] So that's what Darren's presentation is from.

[2:32:24] Those two funds, if the board decides to pay for the discretionary

[2:32:29] portion of the open space budget.

[2:32:31] So yeah, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's more

[2:32:38] for, I think there's probably, I'm listening to our discussion

[2:32:43] it's it's it's it's it's very clear that measure as money

[2:32:46] but who said it was I don't understand yeah but then it's

[2:32:52] where we're mixing these terminology yeah it could be this understood how

[2:32:57] five I understand it but you right you have to clarify

[2:33:05] I think if you keep on saying something that is wrong all the time that

[2:33:09] I don't know, I don't know, call it how that discussion in the kind of way.

[2:33:13] That's why she's that's why I I wrote the show.

[2:33:16] It's correct, yeah.

[2:33:17] Make sure that the share, I think it's over talk about it.

[2:33:21] Sorry?

[2:33:21] Cranking in a shadow game, reasonable.

[2:33:23] Okay, sorry.

[2:33:25] I wrote the key and then the, the, the, the, the, the, the.

[2:33:28] Thank you very much.

[2:33:29] I just wanted to get back to that county report, which I did read back when it was finished and

[2:33:37] It really, and I'm just looking through it quickly again, it does refer on page 27 to

[2:33:45] water and climate change and talks about survey of farmers identifying water access and

[2:33:51] or climate changes as one of the greatest barriers to long-term farm viability.

[2:33:55] So it does make mention of that, but I don't think that anything with this county's report

[2:34:01] and I haven't had a chance to scrutinize it in depth was doing anything to subsidize water rates.

[2:34:08] That was not part of what they were doing and it's maybe I misunderstood director Varella,

[2:34:17] but it sounded as if some of that 20 million was supposed to be going to offset water costs and

[2:34:23] I don't see that being the case. So I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.

[2:34:28] through the chair? Yes, I would go ahead, go ahead, go ahead, go ahead, go ahead, go ahead with the director.

[2:35:01] I'm open to re-looking at this issue and we're not a land use policy. It's people's opinion that

[2:35:08] ag land shouldn't be converted to housing. We have a huge housing shortage here. So we're not here to weigh

[2:35:15] in the land use, especially given how new folks are hurt with the lack of housing and the cost of land.

[2:35:27] So

[2:35:28] we're looking at.

[2:35:38] Anybody else on the road?

[2:35:44] Yes, thank you. So to Director Keegan's comment about from the county's perspective,

[2:35:49] earmarking the money directly to cover water costs. There was never discussed about water at all.

[2:35:56] It was stipulated that funding would be used to offset any cost that farmers needed to supplement

[2:36:04] their operations of their businesses. And again, I'm probably not using the terminology correctly

[2:36:10] because I don't have the report in front of me. But again, I say there was quite a representative

[2:36:17] of a cross section that sat on that committee and it was a year-long study. So it's out there.

[2:36:22] It's published, but I'm giving an information, but you're correct, director Kagan. It was not supposed

[2:36:28] to fund water costs and that was not discussed.

[2:36:32] Thank you for that clarification.

[2:36:35] You're welcome.

[2:36:37] Okay, so my perspective is that, you know, I questioned the question of whether we actually had the cost and whether we could bear the cost of

[2:36:53] I'll carry it, continue to carry the open space credit, and I think to the point that Darren and Stafford made is that we have an increase of revenue because of measure S, and that allows us to look at this again, and so I would, you know, I'd have to take a motion that we look at it again.

[2:37:17] Now, it's not a decision point I think right now about whether we should do it or not, but rather that we continue to carry it as a possibility and then we can deal with the decision at the appropriate time.

[2:37:34] This is really early on in the beginning of our review, so that's why I encourage you, and we look at it and then we'll get to a point where we make a decision either way.

[2:37:46] We'll get to a point where we have public comment. We'll get to a point where we have public participation

[2:37:52] and of course we'll get to a point where we will have pretty extensive substantive discussion on it

[2:37:58] and then make a decision. So, I'll entertain a motion to that fact that there's another one, you do one, but I just want to keep moving on the list.

[2:38:08] So, did you make a motion there second?

[2:38:11] I'll second that. Okay, I'll second that. Okay, and then, yes, can I make a

[2:38:18] publication, because I think on the timeline perspective that staff needs to put something

[2:38:27] in the preliminary pause report and then mail it and then mail the notification out to the

[2:38:41] being some direction from the course of they can put some preliminary things. And then we'll

[2:38:46] go through the public process and then that time. But right now staff is downcrack me as I'm

[2:38:55] wrong that you do these some directions so that you know what to put into the preliminary

[2:39:00] report. That's correct. So my clarification is that the to put into the preliminary report

[2:39:11] to support a staff's recommendation of increasing the discretionary open space credit from 6% to 10% or there are the 66% of staff recommendations.

[2:39:30] 10% of the previously 25%.

[2:39:34] Yeah, exactly, yeah.

[2:40:00] Remember, we start now in January, there's schedule. So, for April, we will have a number of discussions. And a final discussion before we, it's right there, April 5th at World Advisory Committee. So, it'll be before that. We can have it at any time. But generally, as we recall, we go through each section. So, when we get to it, we'll have a substantive, a pretty substantial discussion on it.

[2:40:30] I have a question.

[2:40:32] Yeah.

[2:40:33] I didn't understand what Nye was saying.

[2:40:36] What is the vote we're taking?

[2:40:40] Well, what's going on?

[2:40:42] Okay.

[2:40:43] My clarification to the motion is that support stats, recommendation to increase the discretionary

[2:40:54] portion of the open space headed on the current 6% to 10%.

[2:41:01] Then we're making a decision that we're not doing 25.

[2:41:06] We're making the decision to carry it as a proposal right now.

[2:41:11] But not making the decision to do it yet.

[2:41:15] Between the 10 and the 25.

[2:41:19] Correct. Between the 10 and 25.

[2:41:23] It's a present proposal from staff to that's what it is and we're adopting the proposal but not making the decision to do so.

[2:41:32] We're not adopting the budget so we're not making decisions on the budget right now.

[2:41:38] All right.

[2:41:40] Yeah, all the rates right now.

[2:41:42] Right,

[2:41:44] correct.

[2:41:48] Any for the question?

[2:41:51] Okay, let's have a.

[2:41:53] Can can we restate the motion please?

[2:41:56] I'm sorry, I'm a little convinced.

[2:42:00] I don't know how we can adopt today as a proposal or not be back in a decision.

[2:42:04] Something going on.

[2:42:07] Please, please.

[2:42:09] 25.

[2:42:11] 10.

[2:42:12] That's what we just said.

[2:42:14] Yeah.

[2:42:14] Who is it?

[2:42:15] Okay.

[2:42:16] Make clarify the motion.

[2:42:18] So we can.

[2:42:20] So the vote on.

[2:42:21] Okay.

[2:42:21] The motion is to support a staff recommendation to put

[2:42:27] into the preliminary possible report opens based credit in open space credit that increase from the existing

[2:42:39] the dissuade, the increasing from the existing 6% of the agriculture water rate to 10%

[2:42:49] 10% open space credit for either culture law rate.

[2:42:55] I think I have a question for parents.

[2:42:59] Darren, if we put it the pause report, can we change it to 25 at some point?

[2:43:04] Of course.

[2:43:06] Yeah.

[2:43:07] Yeah.

[2:43:08] Through the chair.

[2:43:10] Okay.

[2:43:11] So this particular question is key because as the boy.

[2:43:17] We used to do the protest procedure for groundwater charges, so to the for groundwater charges, there is no protest procedure anymore, the court said that we don't need to do that.

[2:43:28] And we don't have to that. However, for our surface water rates, we still do follow the proposition to 18 process for for water utility rates and we still do a protest count. And so when we set up our notices for to surface water users.

[2:43:45] If we set it at the act charge at 25% of M&I, obviously that's an act charge of $85 in change for acre foot.

[2:43:55] That sets the maximum that the board can adopt for surface water agricultural charges.

[2:44:01] If the board chooses to in the notice, which would be what we recommend in the pot report,

[2:44:08] to set the act charge at 10% of M&I, in other words, $34 in change for acre foot,

[2:44:13] Well, that sets the maximum of this water charge that the board can adopt. So, so, so, in effect,

[2:44:21] that the input right now is critical to what the board can adopt in May.

[2:44:29] So, if we do today, then we can't do 25 in May. Or anything above 10.

[2:44:38] for making a decision.

[2:44:42] I apologize I was wrong.

[2:44:46] So that would be so it's not a preliminary number in a preliminary report.

[2:44:52] Yeah, I assume that it was.

[2:44:56] So my suggestion would be to do it at 25.

[2:45:00] So we don't need a motion. Okay. Yeah. Okay. We have to vote, for example. I don't think we need to vote, just as it is.

[2:45:08] Precisely, yes. We all agree. Okay. Good. Well, on the same page, we don't need to motion. We carry, we carry the 25% as the max.

[2:45:17] We'll deal with it when we get to it. Okay. That's fine. Thank you. Yeah, because I, I consistent with what I suggested. We're not making a decision now. So that's okay.

[2:45:27] All right. Okay. We leave it as it is.

[2:45:29] Sorry, I confused stuff.

[2:45:31] No, it's okay.

[2:45:32] I actually, you clarify it.

[2:45:33] That's fine.

[2:45:35] Because I understood, I got it.

[2:45:37] So we want them to protect all reservoir expansion.

[2:45:42] Let me discussion on that as the motion,

[2:45:45] what should we do there?

[2:45:48] If I can have a recommendation to the board

[2:45:50] that I based on the earlier discussion

[2:45:53] by the board, the board will take the time to really

[2:45:56] figure it out on what to do with this project.

[2:46:00] And so, yeah, so I think at this point point it's

[2:46:04] included to include it in the greater analysis.

[2:46:07] And then knowing that these will change,

[2:46:10] timing will change, numbers may change.

[2:46:13] However, we're not, we'll say, we'll say,

[2:46:16] we're still moving forward.

[2:46:19] Yeah, they're testing these changes.

[2:46:21] So staff understands, in other words,

[2:46:23] there is a consensus that we continue to look at it,

[2:46:28] Do you think you actually, I was going to say something pretty much similar to what you're saying,

[2:46:35] sure, as Trimera, I think that I feel that I need more information at this point.

[2:46:41] And I think that the public deserves an opportunity to weigh in. So I am not willing to

[2:46:47] like kill the project at this point. I think, you know, there are there may be opportunities

[2:46:54] that we're not even aware of right now. And I think it's prudent just to keep on studying

[2:47:01] the project and have the money reflected appropriately. Yeah, it's not so that there's a consensus

[2:47:08] to that effect. So we'll keep looking at it. I'll see in the quick.

[2:47:17] No, we're not there yet, but we're almost there.

[2:47:20] I'm to the next, I just make what I'll require.

[2:47:24] Sure.

[2:47:26] This is a request to staff in preparing the analysis that just putting adequate explanation,

[2:47:33] related to a particular reservoir, reflect the board's current plan.

[2:47:39] Great.

[2:47:41] Treat a water surcharge.

[2:47:44] increase to $15, $15, $15, $1 a kick of foot.

[2:47:52] I can make a motion to support that.

[2:47:56] Yes.

[2:47:57] Yeah.

[2:47:58] Again, this is a maximum.

[2:47:59] This is a carry-on point.

[2:48:01] This is a tool for managing raw water versus treating the plot water is.

[2:48:08] I'll second that.

[2:48:09] Most of the second thing to continue the carrots search engine, which is 15 acre plate.

[2:48:14] Again, that's the maximum based on all we just discussed.

[2:48:17] Let's take a roll call.

[2:48:19] Let's just need discussion.

[2:48:24] Okay.

[2:48:25] Do you want to show them?

[2:48:26] Yes.

[2:48:26] Do you want to keep them?

[2:48:27] Yes.

[2:48:28] You want to keep them?

[2:48:28] I want to

[2:48:31] keep them.

[2:48:33] Correct.

[2:48:34] Correct.

[2:48:35] Correct.

[2:48:40] Correct.

[2:48:43] Correct.

[2:48:52] I think that's fine again.

[2:49:00] That's definitely a good thing to do.

[2:49:02] Yeah, we've got to consider something else.

[2:49:04] Okay, was there any other?

[2:49:05] I don't think there was another.

[2:49:08] Okay.

[2:49:11] All right, I think we'll deal with, with,

[2:49:14] 26 then, right?

[2:49:15] I don't think there was another.

[2:49:16] I think we'll deal with, with,

[2:49:16] I think our brief perspective, there may be a question related to the on the CIP side, but maybe

[2:49:23] heat can chime in on that.

[2:49:27] Keith?

[2:49:30] Yes.

[2:49:30] Let me get myself off mute.

[2:49:31] So, Ian that this was a workshop for the CIP portion, just wanted to see if there was any additional

[2:49:36] direction from the board that any of the projects that were out there, you did not want

[2:50:00] I think we will clear about what to do with the jaco and the CIP before.

[2:50:06] All right, then we'll plan to roll that and start turning that into the drop staff.

[2:50:09] Thank you. Great. Thank you, we take care.

[2:50:14] Okay, we know at the consent calendar.

[2:50:19] And so I have a couple issues to take off.

[2:50:24] request from speakers, 3.5 and 3.16 of the longest, the same calendar that we've had for the last year or two.

[2:50:39] Are there any other ones that board members wanted to take out?

[2:50:43] Those are 3.5 and 3.16.

[2:50:46] Motion to approve.

[2:50:47] What do you mean anything else?

[2:50:48] to the end.

[2:50:51] I'm not seeing any of these.

[2:50:52] Okay, there's no, nobody, okay.

[2:50:55] All right, is there a second then?

[2:50:57] Second.

[2:50:58] All right, motion a second to the consent calendar, whatever thing.

[2:51:01] Except 3, 4, 5, and 3, 4, and 6, Steve.

[2:51:05] Uh, I think we have resolutions.

[2:51:06] Yeah, we need a roll.

[2:51:08] All right, Director Shua?

[2:51:09] Yes.

[2:51:10] Director Keegan?

[2:51:11] Yes.

[2:51:12] Director's Amendment?

[2:51:13] Yes.

[2:51:14] Director's Law?

[2:51:18] Yes.

[2:51:20] Director's Hand.

[2:51:21] Yes, Director Merle? Yes.

[2:51:23] Yes.

[2:51:24] Thank you.

[2:51:24] Chair, Esther Merle. Sorry.

[2:51:26] I think it's.

[2:51:28] Okay, so let's move to 3.5.

[2:51:32] And I claim a has the end of quick see your apartments.

[2:51:38] Assume that we have a speaker from the community that wants to address us.

[2:51:43] Okay.

[2:51:44] Go ahead.

[2:51:45] I'm whoever's here from the has the end of quick.

[2:51:47] You should fail the speak.

[2:51:54] Here.

[2:51:56] Through the chair?

[2:51:58] Yes.

[2:51:58] working. This is David K. and the risk manager I also would like to present. I would be happy to present the claim.

[2:52:08] All right, well let's see.

[2:52:11] Let's see what the, let's see what the number of the public wants to address this on.

[2:52:17] Okay.

[2:52:25] All right. Thank you very much. My name is Paul and I'm from Hasea, the Great.

[2:52:32] Yes. Good afternoon.

[2:52:50] So, we had a fire that erupted in the back of our property, we notified the San Jose police and also put in like a fee to have someone do something about

[2:53:10] that was located on Santa Clara Valley district water sign and no one did anything and then

[2:53:20] like to evacuate our steamers because the property was under that of burning down.

[2:53:33] I put a

[2:53:33] claim to have our gate record because fire department came by and they I guess they couldn't reach

[2:53:43] the other side of the fence, so then they broke down our side of the fence in order to get to

[2:53:49] the homeless encampment where the fire was freaking out at and then say,

[2:53:56] they don't want to pay for the damages.

[2:53:59] I was just wondering if there's any way we can be compensated for that or anything.

[2:54:10] But we have to, I'm sorry, we have to use some fire extinguishers and then we have to

[2:54:18] like a invoice of votes for about $680.

[2:54:22] So personally, I believe that

[2:54:28] if it's homeless and they're not able to do anything,

[2:54:32] do you think that the pandemic that's fine?

[2:54:33] I totally understand that, but the fact that our property had to take damages as a result of

[2:54:42] of something that could have been prevented,

[2:54:46] or something that was not something that was on our side,

[2:54:50] then I don't feel like that's fair,

[2:54:54] because that's kind of like saying,

[2:54:57] no one's gonna want to have,

[2:55:00] Just squat in the back of their house or something like that. And then have something happen to their house where the half of their house gets burned down and say like, well, it's there's nothing we can do and you got to pay for the damages yourself.

[2:55:19] Okay, okay, well generally the process is that, you know, you file a 100 day claim and then, you know, we accept the rejected the later on, we have some of our folks to negotiate with you.

[2:55:33] So that's what we'll do. I don't think we'll be able to negotiate with you in public, in the middle of our meeting.

[2:55:39] And I tell you that just so that you don't think that whatever we do today is the end of this, okay?

[2:55:47] Yeah, it just feels like we invest a lot of our tax dollars into the city.

[2:55:55] and a lot of the, a lot of what happens in California is dependent on like people like us to help

[2:56:03] keep the state up in the live and I just feel like they're not doing their part in

[2:56:13] ensuring that they are fulfilling their duties as a public servant to members in the community like

[2:56:24] Okay, well, thank you for your comments and we'll take these you up now and as I mentioned our staff will

[2:56:31] We'll communicate with you. Okay, thank you for addressing us.

[2:56:36] Mr. Hill.

[2:56:38] You wanted to address us?

[2:56:45] You're on the eighth, David.

[2:56:48] Sorry about that.

[2:56:51] David Kaye and Rismanager.

[2:56:53] Good afternoon, directors.

[2:56:54] This claim arises from two small fires set by a homeless person on district property, on

[2:57:00] Lower Silver Creek.

[2:57:02] The property is located behind 399 East Court, which is the complex that Mr. Trong is talking

[2:57:09] about.

[2:57:10] On the order of access, the fire of San Jose fire department cut the top of some fencing at

[2:57:17] the complex and put the fire out.

[2:57:21] claim it's trying to get back as cost for the cost of that

[2:57:24] pensing. The issue here is we were aware that there is a homeless

[2:57:28] encampment at that area but we're not allowed to go near the homeless

[2:57:33] encampment due to the pandemic and due to the dangers of the homeless

[2:57:38] encampment. District can't control what happens the

[2:57:42] intentional conduct of a homeless. There's homeless everywhere

[2:57:45] unfortunately and unhoused and we can't control the

[2:57:48] activities of unhoused population.

[2:57:51] Therefore, the district doesn't

[2:57:53] vary any responsibility and staff recommends

[2:57:56] that the claim be denied.

[2:58:00] What's the, what's the amount of the claim

[2:58:01] again?

[2:58:02] The claim is $833 and 42 cents representing $680

[2:58:06] per the fence and the $153 and 42 cents

[2:58:11] for fire extinguishers.

[2:58:16] OK, I don't obtain a motion either way, anybody?

[2:58:19] Through the chair, I'm going to make a motion.

[2:58:21] We actually pay the claim.

[2:58:22] Not because we may or may not be liable, but we got to be good neighbors here, and it's a tough situation with the pandemic.

[2:58:30] I know if some neighbor had a bunch of trash, I get how complicated it is.

[2:58:35] Also, we're going to spend thousands of dollars fighting it, which is a gift to public funds.

[2:58:39] We probably spend thousands of dollars at staff time, so I'm going to make a motion to pay it.

[2:58:44] The second. This is the second by me. The second comment tone is that, yes, you know, unfortunately the far

[2:58:50] Department had to go probably to this man's, you know, property. But the same thing, they saved

[2:58:56] probably the whole neighborhood. And it's all said and done. And it's too bad that the neighbor also

[2:59:02] couldn't get his own insurance company to reimburse him for some time. But I think Gary's got a great

[2:59:07] point and I know that you go almost doing so that's my idea of the second. Yeah, I agree. I let's have

[2:59:13] call on it. Dr. Shua? Yes. Dr. Keegan? Yes.

[2:59:19] Dr. Kremlin? Yes. Dr. Lizard? Yes.

[2:59:23] Dr. Santon? Yes. Dr. Barrellah? Yes.

[2:59:26] Terrestra Mara. Hi.

[2:59:27] Your name is Paul of you still listening.

[2:59:33] You've heard our decision.

[2:59:36] So our staff will be in contact with you.

[2:59:39] Okay? Thank you very much, directors.

[2:59:41] You very welcome. Thank you.

[2:59:43] all right we'll move right on to 3.16

[2:59:49] okay this is a completion of contract I think

[2:59:56] we spoke with this before so

[3:00:00] Following on for some time, you have been very supportive of us, and we very much appreciate your support as we try to get resolution with Balfour Bating.

[3:00:09] They had stopped paying us in March after the agreement had been made to close out the latter part of the job.

[3:00:16] We've been working with them since then to try to get paid and taken care of.

[3:00:20] We continue to work with the district and on warranty items on the project site, so we're still trying to support the facility there,

[3:00:29] know we haven't been paid. There's no question that your support has forced them to continue to talk to us.

[3:00:38] We appreciate that and we need to continue to get them to talk to us. We have filed a complaint.

[3:00:45] The response time for that complaint is several weeks from now. It does not look like they're going to

[3:00:49] respond before that time. So what we would like to do is again, thanking for your support and

[3:00:56] corrects that you continue to decline to release retention until they are willing to actually settle down in the go she ate.

[3:01:05] A closure of this project, there are many items that they have not paid for, which are not contested if they simply quit paying us.

[3:01:13] You said we have continued to try to support the project, but we also appreciate your support for small regional contractors and vendors.

[3:01:21] who essentially are getting closed out by somebody who just wants to leave the area and not complete their project.

[3:01:29] So again, thank you, and I continue to request your support, at least for a few more weeks,

[3:01:34] so we can try to get them to actually respond to our complaint and perhaps reach a settlement.

[3:01:41] Thank you, Mr. Federson.

[3:01:44] We'll have Rick.

[3:01:45] You must see you all in sir.

[3:01:48] Yeah.

[3:01:49] And good afternoon chair chair members of board.

[3:01:54] It's the administration's position right now.

[3:01:56] I understand what some nail have been going through.

[3:02:01] We have tried to provide as much time as we've could.

[3:02:06] But at this point, it is the administrative administration's position that we should move forward with this item.

[3:02:16] Yes.

[3:02:17] Thank you, Chair. Yeah. I listened very carefully to the Neil Electric's comment, and I believe that what's left is an action as explained clearly in the agenda memo is doing exactly just that so that Neil Electric and Bell for the baby can reach a resolution on their issue.

[3:02:45] And then we have, we've held enough money for the stop payment notices.

[3:02:55] So I feel that how this staff's action is the right thing to do.

[3:03:00] And I'd like to make a motion to approve staff accommodation.

[3:03:03] No, certainly.

[3:03:04] I motion a second to approve the acceptance of the project.

[3:03:10] Any discussion? Questions?

[3:03:13] I'd like to give him a couple more weeks.

[3:03:15] What's the critical thing?

[3:03:16] He's not asking forever now on the represented

[3:03:18] of the electric.

[3:03:19] Why not a couple more weeks to the next board meeting?

[3:03:23] It's not infinite.

[3:03:25] And Sarah had a change in my shirt, baby, Bobby.

[3:03:29] I've heard to keep him alive this week.

[3:03:31] Yeah, I'll have to figure it out.

[3:03:33] First of all, there's a stuff we spawned to that

[3:03:34] and then we'll have that written key.

[3:03:37] Yes, yes, yes, he's.

[3:03:40] Oh, thank you.

[3:03:41] So, yeah, as a reminder, we did add additional stuff

[3:03:44] to the Board of Gender Memories director,

[3:03:46] she had dedicated, just given background

[3:03:49] how stop payment notices work,

[3:03:51] and we are withholding the full amount plus 125%

[3:03:54] of the contested amount.

[3:03:56] So, we don't have authorization as an owner agency

[3:03:59] to just completely stop paying the contract in new time.

[3:04:02] We have a stop payment notice.

[3:04:04] They are relatively common on projects

[3:04:06] that we receive them.

[3:04:08] So, the guidelines are we hold the 125%.

[3:04:11] I did also want to note to the board that we did since also receive letter from another subcontractor asking that we accept the project.

[3:04:21] Because by accepting the project and releasing the notion of filing the notion of completion and releasing the attention, that obligates the main contractor to pay the other subs.

[3:04:30] So, Neil is not the only sub on the contract, there's, I think, eight other ones listed and then that's only the ones listed that are over 900,000.

[3:05:00] Ups that are in line to get payment and release retention. So, staff's recommendation that we go ahead and file the notes to completion. We are still with holding the funds for to cover any contingency amounts for for me.

[3:05:16] Thank you. The room to take good.

[3:05:19] Thank you. I'm in complete agreement with staff. I would just add that the prompts statement statutes in the state of California are pretty rigorous.

[3:05:28] And so, when we, if we were to delay paying the contractor, we could be liable for pretty high interest rates as well as attorneys costs.

[3:05:41] So, I think that we've done everything we can at this point. So, I support staff.

[3:05:47] All right, nothing further than let's, okay, that will call them.

[3:05:57] Dr. Shua? Yes. Dr. Keegan? Yes. Dr. Krami? No.

[3:06:04] Dr. Liza, yes. Dr. Chantas? Yes. Dr. Dr. Merla? Yes.

[3:06:10] Chair Estimara? Aye.

[3:06:12] Vote passes the majority vote.

[3:06:15] Okay. All right, we'll move on then to point one.

[3:06:20] Set the time and place of regular meetings of the district.

[3:06:26] Motion, keep it away.

[3:06:28] Second.

[3:06:29] Motion, second, keep it away, it is.

[3:06:31] It is easy for me.

[3:06:33] Okay, we'll call a roll, so that.

[3:06:37] Director of Shoah.

[3:06:39] Yes.

[3:06:39] Director Keegan?

[3:06:40] Yes.

[3:06:41] Director Kremlin.

[3:06:42] Yes.

[3:06:43] Director of Avalor.

[3:06:44] Yes.

[3:06:46] Director of Avalor.

[3:06:48] Director of Avalor.

[3:06:48] Characters.

[3:06:50] I.

[3:06:50] unanimous vote?

[3:06:51] Keep it away.

[3:06:52] Great.

[3:06:52] Keep going then.

[3:06:53] We move right along to 4.2.

[3:06:56] Consider the public suggested brought to the board of order committee regarding a

[3:07:01] district view of the sponsorship program.

[3:07:08] Good afternoon, Chair.

[3:07:09] As Chairman and members of the board.

[3:07:11] I'd be happy to introduce this item or turn it over to Director Keaton.

[3:07:17] Whatever is the board's choice.

[3:07:20] There and why don't you?

[3:07:22] I'd be happy with you starting and my making some concluding comments.

[3:07:26] Sounds good.

[3:07:26] So this particular item is stems from a request from an interested citizen to have the board

[3:07:35] audit committee consider including in the grants management audit back in July, a not a

[3:07:42] valuable sponsorship program. And so that was not incorporated into the grants management audit

[3:07:49] that is currently underway. However, the committee recommended that this particular request

[3:07:55] brought to the full board for discussion. And so that's the purpose of this item is to discuss,

[3:08:01] to discuss whether or not the board audit committee should pursue any audit-related work on

[3:08:07] valley water sponsorship program. And just by way of background, the sponsorship program is essentially

[3:08:14] 100,000 dollars per year of cost.

[3:08:19] And in order to proceed with a desk review of the sponsorship

[3:08:24] program. The Board's Auditor estimates $15,000 expenditure to do that and a $50-$70,000

[3:08:32] expenditure to do a full audit of the sponsorship program. And I'll pause there.

[3:08:39] Thank you.

[3:08:40] Through the chair, if I may just add something in terms of the committee's deliberations,

[3:08:45] A concern that we had were individuals, you know, I mean, certainly we always welcome input,

[3:08:56] but at the same time we go through a pretty rigorous process as a board in determining

[3:09:03] what our audit plan should be and it was a pretty straightforward decision to say, well,

[3:09:10] We're auditing our grant program, we are not auditing the sponsorship program, but at the same time we did not want to set a precedent by making a recommendation as to which way that we should go.

[3:09:29] The options as we thought were, we could either recommend a desk audit, we could recommend against it.

[3:09:38] I'm sorry, a desk review, or we could bring it forward to the full board for discussion.

[3:09:43] So we didn't really want to set a precedent in this regard.

[3:09:46] We wanted to hear the input from the board in terms of their thoughts on this.

[3:09:52] Can I ask a question?

[3:09:54] Yes, go.

[3:09:55] Okay. My question is that every-

[3:10:17] So I think they felt that there was an underlying issue to respond to the concern that you're raising director,

[3:10:31] And we were very sensitive to that idea that again, we've gone through, you know, we've done the heat map, we've gone through a rigorous process, we've done all these things, and so, we could a desk review, be productive, perhaps, but this is also something that could be wrapped into our annual audit review.

[3:10:55] you and that's why we didn't make a recommendation. So we wanted to hear from the full board

[3:11:00] what your thoughts were. Well, I'm sure there's an issue we would have heard about it, but

[3:11:05] any discussion? Yeah, it's just Ms. Mulvie was the one who suggested it and it feels like this

[3:11:16] is a little bit. I'm reading through the lines, reading between the lines, maybe then like some

[3:11:21] people who are sponsoring and I think this is so subjective, we might end up staying $15,000,

[3:11:30] spending $15,000, and $50,000 to $70,000, the audit of program that didn't show up on our

[3:11:36] e-map. And that's why when we discussed this, we didn't, at least I said, it just hasn't seen

[3:11:42] class effective to go chase this down for such a small amount of money. Well, I think, I think transparency

[3:11:51] was the issue. I remember we used to get, and maybe I've missed it. We used to get a list every year

[3:11:57] of who and what was being sponsored. And I haven't seen that in a while.

[3:12:05] And maybe I'm just missing it. But, you know, maybe maybe the CEO covering mind me,

[3:12:10] how that is transmitted to the board. So I think if it's through a

[3:12:17] a non-agenda, then it's not transparent.

[3:12:21] And I wouldn't question Trish Mulvey as being,

[3:12:27] concerned about who we were giving money to.

[3:12:30] I just think it was an issue of transparency

[3:12:32] for her, not who we were sponsoring,

[3:12:35] because I think we do strive to sponsor a diverse group of people,

[3:12:40] but I think it's, you know, who's getting what?

[3:12:43] How often I wanted to, the other thing is how often

[3:12:46] are the same groups getting the same amount of money,

[3:12:49] and with $100,000, it's a lot of money.

[3:12:52] Our people being left off, we've made a point

[3:12:56] to the same we want to be diverse and inclusive,

[3:12:58] are there people who aren't being represented

[3:13:03] in this sponsorship?

[3:13:04] So I don't think a desk review of who we've sponsored in the past

[3:13:09] and how much, and also how that's transmitted to the general

[3:13:14] public is, I think it's a, I don't think it's a waste of $15,000. I think it, you know, we want to be transparent. We want to make sure that that we're, we're letting the community know how, how this community has produced a report around.

[3:13:32] Rick, when was the last time that no one produced that report? Well, again, to the chair. One of the things that we've done is we've done it every, every year and every January.

[3:13:43] We have our legislative outlook where all of the sponsors are included in our legislative outlook.

[3:13:49] This will be coming to your next January meeting as it always has.

[3:13:54] So we've been very transparent from the administrative point.

[3:13:57] This goes way back to Stan Williams to Bogoli, to Norma, and then you'll see it on myself.

[3:14:04] Well, then they could look at that.

[3:14:06] Motion, Mr. Chair.

[3:14:08] Yes, not to have the order.

[3:14:09] that all I know is that if someone has an issue, they can't do this board, we're going to

[3:14:14] have these. And so I would, motion is not to suspend 15,000 over on the grant.

[3:14:22] Well, rather than doing that, could we get a five-year report of how the 100,000

[3:14:31] dollars has been spent over the last five years just to just to see how it's being spread around and is it being the births?

[3:14:39] I don't doubt it, but it may go to Trisha's issue without spending $15,000 to do a desk audit.

[3:14:48] Well, she's going to look at it.

[3:14:49] Well, I'm going to make a BMR that I want to see the last five years of how that bloody was spent.

[3:14:55] How's that?

[3:14:57] Do what we are.

[3:14:58] Is it so right? What are I doing this?

[3:15:00] Senate Ms. Novea on every committee I had been on, you mixed goals, says, well, so why can't she be transparent, tell us what her concern was, and we can address that?

[3:15:11] To the span of fifty.

[3:15:11] You have the concern, Councillor.

[3:15:15] Well, I would be on my side. I'd like to see the last five years. And not spend of fifteen thousand dollars in the designated bill.

[3:15:24] That's all you can thank you for saving that $15,000.

[3:15:27] All right, we'll move right along then to 1.3.

[3:15:30] I love this.

[3:15:31] Excuse me, just for a second.

[3:15:34] So I think what I'm hearing is that the precedent

[3:15:37] is that the full board wants these kinds of things

[3:15:43] to be considered as part of our annual audit review process.

[3:15:47] Would that be an accurate statement,

[3:15:49] rather than coming piecemeal through the audit committee?

[3:15:53] Yeah, I agree. Yeah, that's usually that's the process we've been using, but how many years?

[3:16:00] Yeah, I just wanted to get, um, make sure we were all in the same place. Thank you very much.

[3:16:05] I don't know why it came by itself, but okay.

[3:16:08] 4.3 board committee reports.

[3:16:12] Any questions on that?

[3:16:15] Yeah, I don't have a question. I have a comment on the minutes for the I am

[3:16:22] seeing meeting. Jason Baker should be listed as an honorable, he's a prior elected

[3:16:28] official, just like Joe had and Patrick Walker listed as honorable, so could whoever

[3:16:34] does the minutes just change

[3:16:38] that. Thank you. Anything else? Okay, move the 4.4,

[3:16:46] to pose future board member agenda items.

[3:16:52] That's Michelle's.

[3:16:56] Yeah, I don't, I haven't had any

[3:16:57] requests, I don't see any. Yeah. You didn't have any requests right now. Okay, we'll move right along

[3:17:02] to 5.1, but that was moved to I don't 3.16, which we took care of. So we're at 6.1,

[3:17:12] Water Sheds, a proven budget adjustment,

[3:17:18] and I think Rochelle is setting on that one?

[3:17:21] Yes, this is the KitBats interim chief operating officer for Water Sheds standing in for Rochelle.

[3:17:27] This item is a budget adjustment to adjust for the amount of funding to the permanent and quick project.

[3:17:36] Mostly related to the increases in costs for the removal of soil from the Rancho San Antonio Detention Basin.

[3:17:43] And I'd like to turn it over to Alec Nicholas if there's any questions regarding the item.

[3:17:50] Thank you. Any questions?

[3:17:54] Motion to approve.

[3:17:56] Motion to approve the second.

[3:17:58] Second.

[3:17:58] Motion to approve.

[3:18:01] There's no questions in the discussion.

[3:18:02] We'll go right to.

[3:18:05] We have no public or no staff at the same.

[3:18:08] So we'll go to a local.

[3:18:09] Do you want to show up?

[3:18:11] Yes.

[3:18:11] Do you want to keep it?

[3:18:12] Yes.

[3:18:12] Good to come in.

[3:18:15] Okay.

[3:18:15] Greg is alive.

[3:18:16] Yes.

[3:18:17] Where's your Santa's?

[3:18:18] Yes.

[3:18:18] Drugs are growing.

[3:18:20] Yes.

[3:18:20] Characters.

[3:18:21] I.

[3:18:23] Move around along to 6.2 with a remove from the agenda.

[3:18:28] So we'll go right to 7 assistant chief executive officer.

[3:18:33] I think mentally and not here.

[3:18:41] No report.

[3:18:43] Okay.

[3:18:43] There is no report from me today.

[3:18:45] Well, there you are. I'm not happy. Thank you. Extend terminal fairs.

[3:18:54] Nothing. Okay, CEO.

[3:18:58] Yes, I'm going to go to the CEO report and I'm actually going to ask for a message.

[3:19:04] We'll give some to go first. Good evening, Mayor. I'm just the board. Just a couple of very quick items,

[3:19:10] including the one pages that we have as usual from the Office of Communications,

[3:19:13] the Office of Civic Engagement. First and foremost, there is obviously quite a bit going on at the federal

[3:19:18] level, how both recently and in between Christmas and New Year's, it's been exciting for sure.

[3:19:25] Congress did pass a water resources development act of Worda and we did achieve some key

[3:19:30] wins in that first and foremost. There was some language that directly benefits valing water projects,

[3:19:36] including language, a continued policy and multi-purpose projects that basically allows and urges

[3:19:41] the core to develop project alternatives that have multiple benefits. This could directly benefit

[3:19:45] the Upper Penitentiate Creek Project.

[3:19:47] And then secondly, a language pertaining to eligibility for high hazard dams.

[3:19:52] This pertains to allowing hydroelectric dams with a generating capacity of 1.5 megawatts or less,

[3:19:57] which Anderson is.

[3:19:58] So we could potentially tap into some of that.

[3:20:00] Funding for the Anderson Project. So we'll of course be engaging and continue to advocacy toward that end. And then, secondly, just a quick note from the Office of Communications, one pager of, so we had a climate change action plan, staff is produced and promoted a video, directing viewers to a survey through social media platforms, including a variety of them, so that we can capture ideas from community members that will then enhance that plan. And then from civic engagement applications for the grants program, closed on December 1st, and we're working on six applications that we will

[3:20:29] be bringing to the board with recommendations next month. And finally, for the water winner,

[3:20:34] when I can't even know several of you are working on selecting your applicants for the next

[3:20:38] cohort that closed in December. We got 124 applications in all-time high. So we'll just be

[3:20:43] waiting for the board to select their candidates and move forward. That's it for me. Thank you.

[3:20:48] All right. That's everyone now. The COO, Tina Yoke.

[3:20:52] Thank you, CEO, calendar. So good afternoon, Chair and members of the board.

[3:20:57] With the escalated COVID cases in our community and across the state and country, I thought it would be informative to give you a summary of our COVID current status.

[3:21:11] So since the beginning of the pandemic, Valley Water on today has experienced a total

[3:21:16] unfortunately of 42 COVID positive cases, the totals include 29 full-time employees and 11

[3:21:27] contract employees. We had a student intern as well as one temporary employee that was part of that

[3:21:34] boarded total as well. 27 of the 40 cases were contracted just over the recent holidays for the

[3:21:42] month of November to date. So the vast majority of those reported positives, again, are attributed

[3:21:50] to the recent holiday spikes. And we had in December, we had 16 reported positives. And so

[3:21:58] for this month, we've already had five reported positives.

[3:22:02] The severity of our COVID-19 symptoms

[3:22:05] by our employees have been reported to be mild to severe.

[3:22:12] In fact, 25% of the cases here of valley water

[3:22:15] are comprised of asymptomatic individuals.

[3:22:19] But employees having no symptoms at all.

[3:22:23] A couple of individuals have experienced a loss of taste

[3:22:27] and smell while others have had varying degrees of both code

[3:22:32] and flu-like reported symptoms.

[3:22:35] And two of the most of your cases here of Valley Water

[3:22:37] have required hospitalization.

[3:22:40] One employee was admitted to the hospital overnight,

[3:22:43] at least the next day, and the most of your case

[3:22:45] was reported earlier in the emergency with a very extensive

[3:22:50] multiple day hospitalization.

[3:22:52] So with the exception of very few cases so far,

[3:22:55] Those individuals have been back to work after the required 10-day isolation period.

[3:23:01] And thankful for that. Most of the individuals with larger cases were able to tell the work

[3:23:07] and not miss any work at all. And through the protocols here, a valley water that were implemented

[3:23:13] since a very early onsite of onset of this emergency fortunately, they have been no evidence that

[3:23:21] the positive cases that were contracted were attributed to workplace red here attributed to any

[3:23:29] of our facilities and that concludes my report. Thank you, I will now move to Acting COO.

[3:23:36] Thank you, CEO calendar. Good evening. Members of the board. I just have a couple of announcements

[3:23:44] to make. On December 30, Lieutenant Colonel Cunningham from the Army Corps of Engineers signed

[3:23:50] The agreement with us for the reevaluation for Upper Guadalupe River, the agreement

[3:23:55] allocates 1.5 million in federal funding with matching funds from our local agency

[3:24:01] for a feasibility cost sharing agreement. This is for the reach of Upper Guad from about

[3:24:07] five and a half miles upstream of highway 280 so the upper reaches. So that's good news.

[3:24:13] And then in your handout, there is a storm report for the period of November 24th, I believe,

[3:24:20] Yes, to January 11th, of course we have not had much rain, which has resulted in our reservoirs

[3:24:26] at about 29% of normal capacity. However, we are continuing to do our work in the streams and

[3:24:33] watersheds to prepare for winter rains and our sandbag sites are fully stocked.

[3:25:00] Thank you, Rick. Good evening. Good afternoon. Yeah, evening.

[3:25:06] Chair, new chair and honorable board members. I have two announcements. The first is the retirement and recognition of service for Jerry Daylapiedra.

[3:25:15] Jerry began his career at the district in 1999 as an intern in water conservation.

[3:25:20] Since then, he has performed virtually every duty within the water conservation unit with his final stop as assistant officer of water supply.

[3:25:28] His served as a district liaison to the California Urban Water Agency's Bay Area Water Agency's Coalition and the California Urban Water Conservation Council.

[3:25:37] Jerry has received numerous leadership awards and is known for his calm demeanor in championing staff development.

[3:25:44] He's also a pretty good golfer.

[3:25:47] I have known Jerry for most of these years and have enjoyed working with him. He's not only a colleague, but a good friend.

[3:25:52] Please join me in congratulating him on his retirement.

[3:26:07] Okay, can I make a comment please?

[3:26:10] Absolutely, there.

[3:26:11] Yeah, this is, this is pretty sad.

[3:26:14] I think Gary's been one of the calmest employees,

[3:26:17] the most responsible, the most responsive.

[3:26:21] I mean, all staff is like that, but he's kind of at the next level

[3:26:24] to like to work with fun, and this is super sad.

[3:26:28] And I suggest we just bar the door and the lead and leave.

[3:26:32] Yes, Jerry, congratulations. He's also a very good softball player when we're all participating.

[3:26:39] Yeah, some groups are going with a lot of fun. Like I tell you, he made the landscape with committee standing committee.

[3:26:45] He just worked on through people very commonly and well respected and the best of you would be safe.

[3:26:54] Thanks.

[3:26:56] Jerry, I just want to say congratulations on the retirement and just cannot imagine how

[3:27:06] time flies. I knew you when you were a intern. And I've always thought that you were

[3:27:15] I still, I mean, age-wise that compare to mine and just seems like it's too

[3:27:23] down to retire, but we all have all planned for our life and congratulations, I wish

[3:27:31] all the good things and the best things for you after your retirement.

[3:27:37] And thank you for your support to do everything and then everything that all the questions

[3:27:44] I ask you and thank you for the support.

[3:27:48] Thank you.

[3:27:50] Yes.

[3:27:50] Through the chair?

[3:27:51] Yes.

[3:27:53] Jerry.

[3:27:56] You will be sorely missed.

[3:27:58] So I just want to quote a very high profile,

[3:28:02] a historical American, Mr. John Lewis.

[3:28:06] Go on and get in some good trouble.

[3:28:08] Yes.

[3:28:11] And through the chair, I think the other directors

[3:28:14] I just wanted to say, Gerry, it's always been a pleasure working with you, and you will be missed.

[3:28:24] And like everyone says, your personality is such that you have that calming touch.

[3:28:30] And yeah, best of luck.

[3:28:34] Thank you.

[3:28:34] Gerry, it's Linda.

[3:28:35] I just wanted to say congratulations.

[3:28:38] Like everyone else, you're going to be missed.

[3:28:41] You're just a fantastic employee and so leveled at it.

[3:28:44] I also want to thank you for the time you spent with my husband working on some of the

[3:28:49] creek issues.

[3:28:50] So I really, really appreciate that and good luck in everything you two.

[3:28:54] Please stay safe.

[3:28:56] Thank you.

[3:28:57] Well, Jerry, I remember when they introduced you as a new employee in the old court of building

[3:29:03] in 99, it's been a real pleasure working with you since then, believe me, every minute

[3:29:10] been worthwhile, we're really going to miss you. And hopefully you might come back once in a while,

[3:29:17] at least visit if not to work a little bit. But we'll miss you. Thank you. So, in congrats,

[3:29:24] you earned it, man. Thank you.

[3:29:30] Congratulations. Oh, I have one and just as a follow-up,

[3:29:36] so we now have a new assistant officer in the Water Supply Division and that is please join me in

[3:30:00] Her official start date was on December 28th. We've been trying to download everything Jerry has in the, in the, in the, in the Kristen set as fast as we can.

[3:30:07] Curses worked on water quality and watershed issues for over 25 years, including 16 years with the city of San Jose, four with the city of Palo Alto.

[3:30:16] In the San Jose, she led the master plan effort for the regional wastewater facility. In Palo Alto, she managed the pre-treatment and storm water compliance programs and assisted with the expansion of their recycled water program.

[3:30:26] She's been with Valley Water for the last four years and served as Unit Manager over the environmental planning unit and prior to that senior water resources specialist managing the safe clean water programs related to storm water and impaired water bodies and as well as working on the climate change action plan.

[3:30:43] We are excited to welcome Kirsten as to the water utility enterprise and as the assistant officer in water supply division.

[3:30:52] Congratulations to Steve, look forward to your leadership, especially in the, in recycled water that I haven't excited you here and recycling so we'd like to have you on board for that, especially.

[3:31:04] Thank you very much. Yeah, I'm excited about that and I know I have some very big shoes to fill with Jerry, so I'm not trying to comment to speak as quickly as possible and I look forward to working with you all on the many exciting things going on.

[3:31:16] Great. Congratulations.

[3:31:19] All right, and congratulations to both Jerry and Kirsten and at that I will turn back over to you that

[3:31:24] It's all of the reports on the CEO

[3:31:29] Thank you

[3:31:29] Then we'll move running along to board member reports

[3:31:34] Let's see. I don't see anything else of board member reports. Sam and Jeff

[3:31:38] Thank you

[3:31:39] So between all the days and coming back to

[3:31:42] Be getting our first board, we didn't have too many meetings, but they were all important

[3:31:46] So I hope we met with the Agriculture Advisory Committee, that was good because we were presenting to them the groundwater proposed rates that we saw today that we also presented the open space credit potential that would be applied to the rates for this year.

[3:32:06] Valley Water Special Board Meeting, the Volunteer Recognition Program, which is really great.

[3:32:14] I attended the BPPC meeting and had a phone call with the Board Chair of Locker Region 5.

[3:32:22] We have some strategy moves that we're going to be presenting next to week at the State Aqua Board of Directors Meeting.

[3:32:29] So, that's it?

[3:32:30] All right.

[3:32:31] Did you do this?

[3:32:40] All right.

[3:32:40] Some grant audit.

[3:32:41] Prep meetings.

[3:32:43] The special board meeting.

[3:32:49] A monthly board policy and planning meeting.

[3:32:53] One on one with the CEO.

[3:32:57] Prep for our new spot meeting.

[3:33:01] Which always makes me think about Star Trek.

[3:33:05] and had a briefing on Rancho San Antonio. Thank you.

[3:33:14] Thank you.

[3:33:14] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I could call to meeting with the CDO Board meeting.

[3:33:18] I'll do recognition. And last night, we'll do very,

[3:33:21] as a citizen to invite.

[3:33:22] I actually mean.

[3:33:23] Great.

[3:33:24] I do a sound.

[3:33:26] Let's see that financials to stay in a bill-free group met attended the World of Storage,

[3:33:30] the Score, the committee, the Ag committee, Board meetings,

[3:33:34] CIP committee volunteer recognition

[3:33:36] at that which was wonderful.

[3:33:39] The BPP C meeting, two on one meeting

[3:33:41] with the CEO and director, Kegan,

[3:33:44] and then a briefing on the Rikunata.

[3:33:48] Sure.

[3:33:50] Okay.

[3:33:53] I met with the CEO,

[3:33:55] Agriculture Advisory Committee meeting.

[3:33:58] A CIP Committee meeting, a BPP C meeting.

[3:34:03] And I attended the left call meeting yesterday.

[3:34:07] This is for the special district to representative to select a

[3:34:19] commissioner from the all the from the special district for the next four year time.

[3:34:30] Thank

[3:34:34] you, Chair.

[3:34:38] Briefing on Pacheco costs, meeting on my RBMR about accounts payable, board meeting,

[3:34:47] a SQL litigation volunteer event, meeting on the caffer.

[3:34:55] What around the balance sheet discussion, DHCCP.

[3:35:04] Here today, I forgot earlier, but I want to make sure that I say this, that congratulations

[3:35:15] to staff on the advertisement of face to a of a periodist pre-project. It's only a line item on

[3:35:26] I'll thank calendar, but then I know how much work there is and then the project is really moving forward.

[3:35:34] I want to make sure that staff knows that way you really appreciate the hard work.

[3:35:41] It's a tough project.

[3:35:43] The plant is back on so big that you incorporated into the site.

[3:35:49] Well, we know how much work there is.

[3:35:50] The only thing the record says, 1954.

[3:35:54] Yeah.

[3:35:54] Well, I heard that.

[3:35:55] I started up at Upper Yagus, 1980.

[3:36:03] All right.

[3:36:04] So we're at a company user and clarification of board requests.

[3:36:08] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[3:36:09] I have a direct roll.

[3:36:10] It's a lot of requests to provide report on the value

[3:36:13] water sponsorships for the last five years.

[3:36:16] And we're then adjourned to special close session meeting.

[3:36:20] at 10 AM on January 19th. So, thank you all for our video. We'll see you all in a few minutes.

[3:36:29] We're in turn, until then.

Regular Meeting - Jan 12th, 2021

Agenda

Transcript