[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:07] Absent, Director Eisenberg, Absent, Director Estimera, Absent, Director Keegan, Director Santos, Director Rerella, Chair Shua, here,
[0:50] we have a
[0:53] The board is back from its closed session. We will start with item 2.6 District Council report on closed session.
[1:04] Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry. I got a sort of District Council.
[1:06] The board met in closed session on items 2.1 and through 2.4 inclusive with all directors participating.
[1:13] On items 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 direction was given to staff. On item 2.4, no reportable action was taken.
[1:20] The board met in close session on item 2.5 with all directors except director Eisenberg and no
[1:25] reportable action was taken.
[1:27] Thank you.
[1:27] Okay.
[1:28] Thank you.
[1:29] Item 3.1.
[1:30] Pledge of Allegiance.
[1:32] Ms. Gibson.
[1:33] Can you lead us for the,
[1:50] yeah.
[1:50] Thank you.
[1:52] Item 3.2.
[1:53] Oh, there's of the day.
[1:55] Are there any requests to change the sequencing of items on today's agenda?
[2:04] Okay.
[2:05] free time open for public comment on any item not on the agenda. Do we have a request to speak
[2:12] to the board?
[2:17] Thank you Madam Chair. At this time on Zoom I have a hand raised by Tom.
[2:23] Okay, Tom.
[2:34] Can you please mute yourself?
[2:49] Tom?
[2:50] To the correct of the board, the user has been requested to mute via the system and is not a meeting.
[2:55] okay then uh yeah we'll okay then we'll go to the next person
[3:08] this is I'm sorry
[3:09] I can't read the word I'm not sharing let me help you so the next person I
[3:14] have on zoom with the hand raised is Bridget Bridget yeah Bridget please go
[3:19] ahead
[3:26] we can hear you but not clearly there's some noise background noise
[3:45] Pardon me?
[3:51] Okay, please go ahead.
[4:01] I'll please go ahead.
[4:06] Come here soon. Maybe we'll
[4:19] try later. Okay, I do have a tool.
[4:30] This is Bridget, right?
[4:33] So we have
[4:35] Okay, go ahead and speak and see if we can hear you clearly.
[4:49] Yeah, yeah, good. Now it's good.
[4:52] Okay, so my name is Bridget, and I own a phone on Tim with Avenue.
[5:00] And we share the effect line with the federal and water district. My factor is about 150 feet of shared
[5:12] bit and bit and bit and bit and then there's the driveway and at the dead end of China. I contacted
[5:19] the board, probably almost on a weekly basis for the last two or three years. And we finally
[5:26] less than half because we couldn't take it anymore. The homeless were destructive. There
[5:30] was fires, there was noise, there was police activity. We couldn't take it anymore. And
[5:34] we left. Our home will now not shut up. It's been on the market for 54 days. We have
[5:40] lower the price. We've said everything we can to make it simple while other houses in the
[5:46] neighborhood that we not have the buildings at home would have sold for over $1.6 million
[5:52] are rolling and on crap.
[5:55] We, some lower their price, like I said, but every time anyone
[6:00] even makes a drawer door, they say, oh my God,
[6:03] those homeless, us disgusting, we can't
[6:05] waste beer.
[6:06] So no one's at least putting a disgusting offer on our house.
[6:12] We would like for the water district to put a fence up
[6:16] that was designed for the EI8 that we know for whatever
[6:20] reason underground wires, power lines, budget, whatever it is that was supposed to be the
[6:27] spring which would have helped us to all our house. We want you to put fencing up the
[6:32] high of the homeless from the disability of our house. We're not going to do this a good
[6:35] neighbor fence because we're not going to pay $8,000 to the fence in when they can still
[6:40] seize up on the levelling and everything else. So we want you to make sure that the homeless
[6:45] are on the other side of the river. You have to put some guidelines on where they can be.
[6:49] You have to start making some rule where they're not lighting fires, so large, that people in the neighborhood are having respiratory issues.
[6:59] We were promised the GI8 and now we have nothing.
[7:03] Nothing is happening. People are debating, but they're moving to your location in front of our house and our house.
[7:09] It's getting to be prioritized.
[7:22] Bridget, are you finished with your comment?
[7:30] Okay, thank you.
[7:31] Based on this public's comment that staff should be familiar with the situation and since we cannot discuss this at the meeting, that's work offline on this request.
[7:53] Yeah. Okay.
[7:58] Oh, we have.
[8:13] I hear your concern that just I feel filled for it, but then since this item is not on our agenda today, we really cannot discuss it. So we will make sure that we get back to you.
[8:27] It's...
[8:27] I can put on the agenda.
[8:33] Yeah.
[8:34] So our staff is familiar with your situation.
[8:38] We will definitely circle back to you and then go from there.
[8:42] Thank you very much for coming to the board meeting.
[8:47] Okay.
[8:48] Do we have another one?
[8:51] Is that William?
[9:00] Can you please unmute yourself?
[9:13] Do the board the user has been requested to unmute?
[9:16] Is that a meeting themselves?
[9:16] Okay.
[9:20] We have Dave.
[9:41] They have been through the board. They have been requested on me.
[9:44] They are on medium self. They are not meeting them themselves.
[9:47] Okay.
[9:50] What's going on? Let's go to the people who are here at the boardroom, Josephine
[10:02] Yes, please.
[10:13] I am here on behalf of the MedCath neighborhood association. I have some maps. If you would like to look at them, the location. If you wanted to pass that around. What has happened recently is the upgrading of the dam, right by MedCath Park.
[10:36] And also we have a lot of construction on Monterey Road, or not sure, is heavy construction there.
[10:44] But I'm here because we've had pigs come into our complex, California misson complex.
[10:53] And we used to have a few of them, and we were able to deal with fences and, you know,
[11:02] after the, let's see, the damn work,
[11:07] which has been ongoing.
[11:08] I think started in May of last year.
[11:11] Has that been completed yet?
[11:14] You're nodding your head, but I don't know.
[11:16] I've left messages for, is it Tiffany, Chao,
[11:21] and let's see who's the other gentleman?
[11:25] Tony, Marcotta, that I haven't heard back from them.
[11:29] So, our concern is the cost and also our property values, certainly decreased with, we
[11:39] had used to have beautiful landscaping there.
[11:42] So, I'm wondering who, what jurisdiction and who at each jurisdiction could I speak with
[11:51] Because I'm looking at the maps, the city of San Jose Planning Department, recently, is in the process of rezoning to open space, all around us.
[12:06] And I did happen to talk to one of your water district employees when I was down in Market Hill.
[12:13] And I asked if he could tell me where the county or the valley water district or whatever
[12:20] line is near us and it's not clear.
[12:24] I'd like to know what jurisdictions are there.
[12:30] So I may speak with the appropriate people to help us with the wild pigs.
[12:37] They are being hit by cars on Monterey Road.
[12:42] We have huge dead pigs that are very good and large,
[12:46] but then they have their little piglets.
[12:49] So a city of San Jose takes about two weeks to clean that up.
[12:56] So we will get back to you about the jurisdiction.
[13:02] The staff have a quick answer at this point.
[13:05] or, yeah, we'll get back up to, yeah.
[13:08] So we have your information and then we'll get back to you.
[13:12] Thank you for coming to the board meeting
[13:15] and give us the, I don't think you have all my information.
[13:20] And can you please leave the information with our staff?
[13:24] We'll make sure that we talk, if we're good.
[13:26] Yeah, we did you want to give some on-apps
[13:29] of our association of the, okay, we'll go ahead.
[13:34] I want to ask a quick question of you.
[13:37] Thank you so much for telling me about this.
[13:39] I'm wondering if you've alerted animal rescues
[13:41] or animal services.
[13:44] Pigs are extraordinarily intelligent animals.
[13:46] They're sacred under many religions,
[13:49] and they're just such amazing.
[13:51] This is really, really upsetting to hear.
[13:53] Have you notified animal rescues?
[13:58] You may want to get the mic if the chair says so.
[14:00] Yeah, just, okay, can we have a quick answer to Dr. Eisenberg's question?
[14:07] Yeah, because we, again, design them is not of the agenda.
[14:10] We should receive your report and then we'll get back to you.
[14:14] Yes, many of the individual owners in Kalmasan have called about it.
[14:19] One of them offered to have her husband and father who hunt pigs, have them come on to our property and kill them,
[14:29] put them in cages.
[14:30] You feel free to contact me directly to talk about pig
[14:33] rescues, Rebecca, Eisenberg, will you get that to me?
[14:37] Yeah, we'll give that to you.
[14:38] Because I know a bit about animal rescue.
[14:41] So thank you, sir.
[14:42] But it's important.
[14:44] I'm happy to be here at the meeting because tomorrow
[14:46] is our board meeting at Calametson.
[14:48] And there has been a survey.
[14:50] And many people are upset about them killing.
[14:53] Oh, I imagine that's one thing about the need of us.
[14:57] That's move on to a mischievous tattoo.
[15:07] Yes, thank you Madam Chair, person. Thank you board for listening to me. I live and own property on Tonino Drive back up to your property, the Guadalupe Creek.
[15:22] For the last three years we've had the homeless problem. We have tents immediately behind our property.
[15:29] number of times over the last few years we've had large fires one time the fire department
[15:37] actually ran hoses through our property to put out the fire this is getting beyond
[15:48] tiresome we listen to them every night you know we one of the reasons we bought the house
[15:54] in the first place was there was no backyard neighbor. At that time it was just farmland
[16:01] to be on the creek and now of course that's the Alden Ranch which is not an issue.
[16:08] But if we had actual backyard neighbors who did the things that these homeless are doing,
[16:16] the police would be there constantly. They would probably be forced out of their home,
[16:23] arrested, whatever I don't know.
[16:27] But this is getting tiresome. This is your private property.
[16:33] Supposedly there is no trespassing. Obviously other than the public paths for use.
[16:40] But I would think that anyone actually camping in the land would be considered trespassing.
[16:46] I just don't understand why nothing gets done.
[16:50] Thank you for listening to me. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for coming to the
[16:54] for me. Joe, I wish that we'll get back to you. Okay. That's a circle back to
[17:04] those public who wish to speak to us on Zoom. Do we have any? No. Okay.
[17:13] So, is Arlie the next one to request to speak to the board?
[17:20] Is that?
[17:20] I'm not seeing any hands raised at this time on this.
[17:25] Okay, everybody's done.
[17:26] Everybody's done.
[17:27] Okay.
[17:31] Now moving on to item 3.4.
[17:34] This is a public meeting.
[17:37] I'm where we're opening a public hearing on a groundwater production
[17:42] charges. I have a statement to read first and then staff will do a presentation.
[17:52] So good afternoon, my name is Nyshir and I am the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board
[17:57] of Directors Chair. This item 3.4 is a public hearing for the recommended groundwater
[18:05] production and other water charges for fiscal year 20, 24, 25.
[18:12] The district ad requires that valley water prepares a report, containing a recommendation
[18:19] as to whether a groundwater production charge should be levied in any zone of valley water.
[18:25] And a proposal of the charge per acre foot for production of agricultural water and the charge per acre foot for production of all water other than agriculture water.
[18:40] So the district act requires that a public hearing
[18:44] be held on the annual report on the protection
[18:48] and augmentation of water supplies,
[18:52] so that the public may appear and submit comments
[18:56] and information to the Board of Directors
[18:58] on the charges proposed by staff for the upcoming fiscal year.
[19:03] And that's what we're doing today under this item.
[19:08] After today's session, the hearing will be continued to the special board meeting scheduled for 7pm April 11, 2024, in-person at the Gilroy City Council Chambers City Hall at 777-351 Rosanna Street in Gilroy, or via teleconference Zoom meeting.
[19:35] We will first have a presentation by staff on the proposed charges for fiscal year 20, 24, 25.
[19:43] Then we will hear comments from the public.
[19:46] So if you would like to provide comments on this item, please either complete a public comment card
[19:53] and submitted to the clerk or use the race hand tool in Zoom to identify yourself.
[20:00] And request to speak. Following staff's presentation on this item, I will recognize speakers one at a time and give access to make comments.
[20:11] So, with that, I would now like to introduce Aaron Baker, Chief Operating Officer of the Water Utility Enterprise to begin the staff presentation and provide additional details on the subject matter.
[20:26] Thank you, Chair and Honourable Board of Directors.
[20:29] Valley Water Remains and Anair of Investment.
[20:31] Climate change has also brought the possibility of more frequent and prolonged droughts
[20:35] and the need for new infrastructure investments.
[20:38] The effort to develop Valley Water's 2050 water supply master plan is underway.
[20:42] When completed, it will guide critical investments for projects, programs to increase the
[20:47] future of water supply reliability.
[20:49] The proposed groundwater production charges for fiscal year 2024 and 25 will be presented in
[20:54] the staff presentation.
[20:55] These groundwater projection charges are necessary to pay for the ongoing maintenance of the existing water system,
[21:02] investments in water supply infrastructure rehabilitation and upgrades, and the new water supply
[21:06] reliably investments. Now I'd like to introduce Ms. Carmen Narayanan, who will give the staff
[21:11] presentation. Wonderful. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Swayan members of the board.
[21:18] Today's public hearing has three specific objectives. First, to present the annual report on
[21:23] water activities to ensure reliable water supply and recommended groundwater
[21:27] production charges second to provide an opportunity for any interested person to
[21:32] appear and submit evidence concerning the subject of the written report to
[21:36] the board and third to determine an effects groundwater production and other water
[21:41] charges for FY2425.
[21:46] Our 53rd annual report, the annual protection and
[21:49] augmentation of water supplies report was released at the end of February and it
[21:54] available online and this report provides information and accountability for our groundwater
[21:59] production charges and the water utility. We'll be covering several topics today as listed
[22:05] here.
[22:09] And this map does a great job highlighting the comprehensive and flexible water system that
[22:13] value water manages and as the groundwater stewed for the county and the primary wholesaler
[22:18] wholesale water provider. We operate the system that serves over 2 million people here in Santa
[22:23] care county and you can see what's highlighted reservoirs, many acres of recharge
[22:28] ponds, pipelines, we have three water treatment plants, our water purification center
[22:32] and multiple pump stations.
[22:37] We have four groundwater production charge zones, which are highlighted on the map, a zone
[22:41] W2 in North County is shown on the left in our three South County zones on the right.
[22:46] Our board's pricing policy maximizes effective water use and a key concept is that groundwater
[22:52] charges are levied within each zone for the benefits received.
[22:57] And another key concept is the polling concept or all water sources and facilities contribute
[23:01] to the common benefit within a zone regardless of cost.
[23:05] Our board pricing policy further limits the agricultural water charge to no more than 10% of
[23:11] M&I rates.
[23:17] The rate setting process is consistent with props to 1826, and the groundwater charge process
[23:24] consistent with prop 26 and to qualify as a non-tax fee, the charge is established at an
[23:29] amount that is no more than necessary to cover reasonable cost of the government activity,
[23:34] and the manner in which the costs are allocated, bear a fair, reasonable relationship to the burden
[23:38] on or benefits for see from the government activity. Our surface water charge setting process is
[23:43] consistent with prop 2018 and that's defined in board resolution 12-10.
[23:50] All right, this graph
[23:51] here highlights our district manage water use, district manage water use translates to revenue for
[23:56] water utility and we show of different types of water being treated water, groundwater, and then
[24:01] surface of recycled water. Prior, your actuals are shown in blue. Current, or current projections,
[24:08] future projections are shown in green and then our current adoptive budget is there in orange
[24:12] for FY24. So our current adoptive budget is 207,000 acre feet. We're looking to be on track for
[24:19] achieving that water use. This fiscal year, our prior year, actuals came in a little bit higher
[24:24] budget at 198,000. And for the upcoming rate setting cycle, we're projecting our budgeting
[24:32] district manage water use around 222, 223,000 acre feet of water. That does assume some rebound
[24:39] ongoing rebound from the drought. And we've seen rebound from the drought happen. It's happened
[24:44] from the last several droughts over the previous several decades. To what level is the question
[24:51] that rebound and I'd like to note that the future projections are actually lower than our most recent
[24:57] drought or prior projections from that church.
[25:00] We've shown in the highlighted, or the shaded gray area above. We've heard feedback from our retailers, about flattening demand and hardening conservation, where we're very aware of that and taking that into consideration.
[25:16] And we're looking forward to see what the summer tells us. What will water usage be? It's looking like there's no drought right? There is no drought this year.
[25:23] people start watering their gardens again. We're embarking on a study to look into water use
[25:30] projections and we're looking forward to that informing next great setting cycle on FY26.
[25:40] Alright another another graph where you all this highlights are long-term cost projections for
[25:44] the water utility stacked by cost category so we have our source of supply, raw water,
[25:50] treatment and distribution on going debt service is highlighted there in green and a key
[25:55] takeaway from this graph is the grade blue bars along the top and that represents our capital
[26:01] investments and capital expenditures over the next 10 years and it really is a key driver
[26:06] of our water rates and what is built into these projections I'll be covering in a future slide.
[26:16] We recognize that recent inflation trends have put upward pressure on water rates as Chief
[26:22] We mentioned we remain in an era of investment for our existing water supply and infrastructure.
[26:26] It was built decades ago, we're fixing Anderson Dam, ongoing upgrades at Rintonautow Water Treatment Plan.
[26:32] Continue and we are addressing seismic deficiencies at multiple dams on a more expedited schedule.
[26:40] We continue planning work to build local storage, including the Chaco Reservoir Expansion Project,
[26:45] expanding purified water locally here in the county and investing in out-of-county storage,
[26:50] such as the Lose Picarus Reservoir Expansion Project and the Systemories Project.
[26:56] And finally, we're looking forward to the results from the Water Supply Master Plan 2050,
[27:01] which will shed light on what new infrastructure investments are recommended.
[27:07] So what is included in our FY25 rate assumptions?
[27:10] I already covered the district manage water use projected at around 220,000 acre feet next fiscal year
[27:16] to secure existing supplies and infrastructure.
[27:19] We have a suite of baseline projects that include the Brinkonautal Water Treatment Plan upgrades and the Art tenure pipeline reliability project.
[27:27] The Anderson dam seismic retrofit project.
[27:30] The suite of projects is included as well as the DM safety program that I just mentioned.
[27:35] That is a preliminary placeholder.
[27:38] We have master plan project placeholders.
[27:40] There are currently three master plans underway.
[27:43] And we're projecting the need for capital projects that will be recommended as an outcome of that.
[27:48] The key assumption is that the state water project tax will continue to pay for 100% of our state water project cost.
[27:55] I'll note that that excludes the state water project portion of the Delta Convance project.
[28:00] We are also including the Delta Convance project, our Valley Waters portion of that at 3.23% in our baseline rates.
[28:08] For expanding conservation and reuse, we have a phase 1 demonstration facility as
[28:14] San Jose Purified Water project included as well as a preliminary placeholder for a phase
[28:19] 2 full scale facility for that purified water.
[28:23] And then I already mentioned the Chaco, Loast Piccadros, and Systemories to secure additional
[28:29] supply and storage.
[28:34] One strategy, one strategy for funding all of those large capital projects is through
[28:38] financing. This graph reflects our debt service components, including principal interest and our
[28:43] commercial paper program. We're looking at around $87 million total on FY25 and that grows to around
[28:49] 317 million by FY34. We always targeted 2.0 debt service coverage ratio or better to ensure
[28:59] financial sustainability and that helps us maintain high credit ratings.
[29:08] I mentioned before we
[29:08] We have four different groundwater production zones and so one question we hear is why do we have different rates among those zones and also different rate increases as projected and all cover those in just a moment.
[29:19] And it really comes down to infrastructure.
[29:21] Some of our infrastructure is shared and benefits all users in the county some benefits only North County such as our water treatment plants and multiple reservoirs.
[29:30] some of our infrastructure benefits only South County, such as the Yves and Chesbro Reservoirs
[29:35] and the Scrawler Cycle Water System. And it serves as a reminder that cost-follow infrastructure
[29:40] and rates-follow costs.
[29:44] Diving into some numbers, this is a 10-year groundwater charge increase
[29:48] projection for all four zones. I've highlighted next upcoming fiscal year of 2025 in the red box.
[29:54] So for North County Zone, W2 staff recommended increases.
[30:00] It's 12.9% over current adopted rates. We'll be going over those in a little more detail momentarily.
[30:06] So, 12.9% next year, followed by 9.9% per year for many years, out through FY33.
[30:13] In South County, zone W5, a 6.6% rate increase in South County zone W714.2% and finally in South County, zone W8 and 8% increase.
[30:23] We're able to maintain smooth and stable rate increases for our South County zones.
[30:28] It's also important to note that lower water use rebound would add upward pressure on our water rates.
[30:35] If we break down those rate projections to the monthly impact to an average household,
[30:41] in North County it would be about $8 in 70 cents per month next fiscal year,
[30:45] and in South County ranging from $1.10 to $3.20 per month to the average household.
[30:50] And for all rates that we're going over today,
[30:53] it does not include any additional increases
[30:55] that a retailer may layer on top.
[31:00] And taking those rape projections of this graph highlights,
[31:02] not only our agricultural groundwater production charge,
[31:05] which is in purple at the bottom of the graph,
[31:07] and then we have our three South County zones
[31:09] and orange green and, I guess, a golden color
[31:11] and finally our North County zone W2 in the blue.
[31:14] I've boxed in next fiscal year
[31:16] and you could see the trend that we're looking at.
[31:22] All right, next up,
[31:23] Perzone all walk us through some numbers so again North County zone W2 highlighted here on the map before you it's staff recommendation is a 12.9% increase
[31:34] that translates to a maximum proposed rate of $2,229 per acre foot for M&I
[31:42] or as I mentioned before about eight dollars and 78 cents per month to the average household
[31:47] We're recommending our contractor to water surcharge, remain the same at $115 per acre
[31:52] foot, and the non-contractor to water surcharge at $200 per acre foot.
[31:57] And we believe maintaining this surcharge, it'll maintain the point of neutrality, where
[32:02] retailer with the choice would be economically indifferent as to whether they should take
[32:06] treated water or pump groundwater.
[32:10] In our South County zone W5, again highlighted in the map, this overlays the Yagas sub basin,
[32:16] The staff recommended 6.6% increase translates to a maximum proposed rate of $579 per acre foot or about a dollar 22 per month to the average household.
[32:27] I'll note that our surface water master charge is recommended at $61 per acre foot and zone W5 also has recycled water and the maximum proposed rates for M&I is $559 per acre foot
[32:41] or $70 and 15 cents per acre foot for agricultural water use.
[32:48] In South County, zone W7, which is in the Coyote Valley,
[32:51] of staff recommended rate increase of 14.2 percent,
[32:55] translates to an M&I charge, again maximum per pellet of $750,
[33:00] and 50 cents per acre foot, or about $3.20 per month to the average household.
[33:06] And we do see higher rate increases in zone W7 compared to our other South County zones,
[33:11] because it's a dynamic sub basin that requires more district managed recharge.
[33:17] And finally, in South County, zone W8,
[33:20] South recommendation is an 8% rate increase, which translates to
[33:26] maximum and an I charge of $430 per acre foot or about 110 per month.
[33:32] And then I'd like to point out that our agricultural water charge
[33:36] is at or under 10%, technically it's a 9.25% increase.
[33:41] that were, excuse me, it's set at 9.25% of our zone W8
[33:45] M&I rate and that translates to $39.80 per acre foot,
[33:51] and that the agricultural rate is the same across all four of our zones.
[33:57] And when we compare those rates that I just went over,
[34:00] these are the maximum proposed, excuse me,
[34:03] this is translated to a monthly impact.
[34:05] But if we look at other retail agencies and the monthly average monthly bill
[34:10] for the four zones that I just went over, those are highlighted in the yellow color and then some of our
[34:15] local retailers are in the darker blue compared to other agencies across the state. You could see that the
[34:22] the groundwater production charges are on the lower side. One compared to other agencies.
[34:31] I think that's
[34:31] good point. Excuse me. Okay. We also like to compare our rates to wholesale, other wholesale
[34:37] agencies, including Orange County, Zone 7, San Diego, and the SFPUC, and I'd like to
[34:44] note my apologies that the data on this graph is outdated.
[34:49] However, the correct rates are shown in Exit 6 of attachment 1, which is page 7.
[34:55] And I will note that the trend is very similar, so all the dollar amounts are a little different
[34:59] the trend is...
[35:00] The same and our three South County zones are on par with Orange County Water District and our North County,
[35:05] so NW2 rates are in alignment with San Diego, SFPZ and Zone 7 in Alameda County.
[35:13] And finally, I wanted to highlight our state water project tax recommendations.
[35:18] We're recommending setting the tax at $28 million.
[35:21] Last, next year, current tax was set at $27 million, so $1 million increase.
[35:26] That translates to a bill for the average single family home here in Santa Clara County of around 42 dollars per year on their property tax bill
[35:34] And if we did not love either state water project tax it would have real impacts to our rates over a hundred and fifty five dollars or our
[35:42] M&I rate and North County zone W2 could be up to a hundred and fifty five dollars higher than what I shared with you today and
[35:48] Similar in South County the impact ranges from twenty nine dollars per acre foot to fifty five dollars per acre foot
[35:54] higher if we did not let be the state water project tax, and then it would also impact our open space credit by eliminating nearly
[36:04] 790,000 dollars of revenue that benefits the open space credit.
[36:12] All right, here we are today opening the public hearing.
[36:15] We are sharing this information tomorrow at the water commission meeting.
[36:18] We're continuing the public hearing in South County.
[36:21] there's an open house starting at six in that meeting scheduled for 7 p.m. at Giora City Hall,
[36:27] and then we're set to come back on April 23 to conclude this public hearing.
[36:32] Ideally, are by annual budget, the groundwater production charges I just covered,
[36:37] and our CIP are adopted at the May 14th meeting.
[36:42] And as part of our red setting process, we share this information with many groups and
[36:47] and committees, including our water retailers, the agricultural advisory committee.
[36:54] And so we have heard from our water retailers, I'd just like to report out, they have
[36:58] at our recent retailers meeting in March, they expressed appreciation for valley water and
[37:04] all the work that we're doing that investments in infrastructure, but that was tempered
[37:08] with concern over rising rates and rising rates over the long term.
[37:12] We heard that ongoing water conservation is hardening and that demand is flattening out and that the request was made to keep future rate increases as low and reasonable as possible.
[37:25] And then yesterday we shared similar information at the Agricultural Advisory Committee and they passed a motion to recommend that the board suspend agricultural water rate increases until an ecosystem benefit study is completed, which would include the impacts of carbon sequestration.
[37:43] And then I'd just like to note, we do send out notices of public hearing and outreach materials to our private well owners and surface water customers, but to date staff hasn't heard anything directly from our customers.
[37:56] And I'll just close with we remain in an era of investment.
[37:59] We're looking forward to the recommendations that'll come out of the water supply master plan 2050.
[38:03] the proposed maximum FY-25 groundwater production charge in North County would equate to an average,
[38:11] excuse me, equate to an increase of about $8.78 per month for the average household for groundwater
[38:18] and trade water. And then again, ranging from $1.10 to $3.20 per month for our three South County
[38:24] zones. And like I said, we will obtain feedback from the water commission tomorrow and share that
[38:29] with you as we continue the public hearing on April 11th.
[38:34] And with that, I am available for any questions.
[38:41] Thank you very much for the presentation.
[38:46] I think based on the procedures we're in right now
[38:50] we're in the public hearing.
[38:53] And the next step is for the board to receive public comments.
[38:57] And then we will ask for more members questions or comment or direction to staff.
[39:05] So we may call on you later about questions.
[39:12] But now we will receive the public's comments on the recommended groundwater production
[39:18] and other water charges for fiscal year 2425.
[39:22] Again, as a reminder, as I said earlier, if you would like to provide comments on this item,
[39:30] please either complete a public comment card and submit it to the clerk of the board.
[39:36] Let's see what it looks like this.
[39:39] Or you can use the raise hand to, in Zoom, to identify yourself and request to speak.
[39:46] And I will recognize us speakers the one at a time and give access to make comments.
[39:52] So with that, any public who wish to provide comments related to the groundwater production.
[40:01] I don't have any requests for people who are in the board room. Do we have any raise hand?
[40:11] Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a hand raised on Zoom from Cacha Urban.
[40:15] Yes, Ms. Urban, please go ahead.
[40:17] We're
[40:20] now turning in chair, Shua, and having gotten a lot of informed directors and staff.
[40:25] This is Carter Irving with the Sierra Club, Illinois Fair of the Chapter.
[40:29] We're going to have our committee join this year's CIP budget and rate-tening process,
[40:35] since or commented in the process, since we know we're experiencing that our concerns will not be addressed through this process.
[40:43] Nevertheless, we want to stay for the record that issues that we have brought up before many times in the past.
[40:50] Before I get into that, I would like to express appreciation to staff for making some changes since the last presentation on rate increases to moderate those increases.
[40:59] Let's go to see if there's concern about this issue. We encourage you to continue to
[41:04] examine opportunities to reduce rate increases over the next 10 of the
[41:08] units. In the past, we have consistently expressed our concern that future
[41:14] increases in water demand should be more conservative. On its pace, the water demand
[41:20] rebound used for the rate-centered process seems questionable. The expected rebound
[41:25] and not occurred in 2023. So it's unclear why 16,000 Haker per year we found this forecast
[41:33] in February of 2024 and 2025. Historically, water used to have gone up and down with their
[41:41] general downward trend. The assumption that water use will only go up in the future seems unrealistic.
[41:49] There will be droughts in reduced usage between now and 2030-4. That said, you do appreciate
[41:54] a lot of us move towards more concerted demand
[41:57] projections over the past several years.
[41:59] More importantly, we are concerned about the particular
[42:02] reservoir project and the Delta Command's project,
[42:05] which are huge and very violently destructive projects.
[42:10] Current cost estimates for these projects are preliminary
[42:12] and extremely large and unprecedented projects,
[42:15] such as these, will have unpredictable future cost increases.
[42:20] The cost increases for a recent reservoir are indicative,
[42:23] even though it is much less complex.
[42:26] Now we've castled bar bills already
[42:28] are forecasted to increase more than $100
[42:31] over the per month, over the next 10 years.
[42:35] These projects go forward and increase this will undoubtedly
[42:38] be significantly more than that.
[42:41] It will continue far beyond the current 10 year projection.
[42:45] As a sign note, it's a run-of-hole
[42:46] that we do not have updated costs protections
[42:49] for the potato and the delta defense.
[42:52] This information is crucial for the water supply master plan update, and we urge you to make sure that new
[42:57] estimates are available if integrated into that plan update.
[43:01] These kinds apply to all three persons this process with setting budget, CFE, and thank you very much for your consideration.
[43:11] Okay, thank you, Ms. Irvin, and I also want to recognize that a written comment was submitted
[43:23] before the meeting and Ms. Irvin just read from the written comment. We're moving
[43:30] on to Ms. Maldi Colton.
[43:39] Directors, this is Molly Colmus, the article of California. Thank you, staff, for bringing
[43:43] important item to the board. As I'm sure we're all aware, we are experiencing an affordability
[43:49] crisis from the cost of housing, diversity, and utilities. People are struggling in
[43:54] the Bay Bills and make ends meet. Battlewater is not immune to these agonized difficulties and
[43:59] uncertainties. Battlewater is facing a $300 million deficit resulting in our iron grease.
[44:05] Blooming cost increases of products like Anderson Dan, Pachico, and the Delta Tunnel only
[44:10] exacerbate the current affordability crisis.
[44:13] I agree with Dr. Kiggen's comment, and a recent San Jose Sparklet Spotlight article stating
[44:19] it's time to take the serious look at which projects can wait before the district throws
[44:23] around money.
[44:25] Immediately, I was expected to release an updated cost estimate on the dust tunnel project
[44:29] sometime in the spring, which is any data.
[44:32] The laboratory would wait to finalize the water supply next to the plant until the
[44:35] cost estimates are released for both the JBL project as well as the next time. Thank you for
[44:41] considering considering the impact of cost increases on already overburden rate here as the
[44:45] community. This concludes my thoughts today. Okay, thank you. Ms. Coden. Next one is a Mr. Jim Co.
[45:00] Good afternoon. I have basically two comments. I will incorporate it into a single comment.
[45:11] The first one is the plan to attach an outing, warm presentation really is not as clear as it could be. And some additional information is needed.
[45:26] Sure, a lot of great changes within and without inflation would be helpful.
[45:34] The second point is, is that by more county zone two compound unit cost drivers that are causing
[45:40] the water rates to increase using fiscal year 23 as a baseline and project what the impact
[45:51] Dryers are the fiscal year 28, fiscal year 31, and fiscal year 34.
[46:01] The next comment is the Sheryl North County Zone to Glorys, from the baseline with,
[46:10] and without the Chamber of Resort, San Luis Resort, and the Los Veracles Resort,
[46:18] expansion and the double, that's the time to share.
[46:24] Looking at the proposed growth and
[46:28] rigs,
[46:31] it appears that North County, W.W., will double from fiscal year 23 by fiscal year 28,
[46:41] It will quadruple by fiscal year 31 and will go up 14 times in 11 years.
[46:55] This seems excessive.
[46:59] It's not clear to me what the impact of those outstanding increase will be on the consumers.
[47:11] water bill that we receive from retailers such as House A Water Company.
[47:19] I just go quite understand the numbers that are being thrown out of staying very small.
[47:25] I believe they only reflect this school year 25 who are looking at it.
[47:30] So we need those projections for these hour and years.
[47:33] Another span is major infrastructure projects,
[47:37] how are impact in those rates,
[47:40] because it just doesn't seem to do all the work.
[47:45] The recommendation I have is valley water needs to make a formal public
[47:55] that is attractive to look at the plan for major projects in our structure,
[48:03] makes problems and evaluate each one of those options and do it within pretty much.
[48:11] The conclusion about the vision
[48:19] of progress should be an option that is identified
[48:24] without a partner and with a partner.
[48:30] Pre-assessment bowl would be the best information that should be conducted to establish
[48:35] the best infrastructure project mix.
[48:38] So we'll make the water supply reliable and affordable for our spend deeper drugs and good products.
[48:48] Thank you, Ms. Mr. Cole.
[48:51] And I also want to recognize that Mr. Cole has submitted several written comments before the meeting in more details about what he just presented.
[49:06] And of course all these written comments, staff will take a seriously and then addressing
[49:14] or answer the questions.
[49:18] Are there any other public comments?
[49:25] So not seeing a public request, I just want to remind everybody who is listening also on
[49:35] Zoom that this public hearing of the recommended ground weather production charges will
[49:44] continue and the deadline to submit your comment to this board is April 23rd, 2024.
[49:56] So there is still time for you to get into the issue and then.
[50:00] I submitted your comment to us by April 23, 2024. And also, we will hold a South County special board meeting
[50:11] about the same topic and that's another, that's a schedule for Thursday, April 11, which is this week, Thursday.
[50:20] And that's an opportunity for you to appear in person before the board, if you have additional
[50:26] comment. So with that, I will now ask board members if you have any questions or comment
[50:34] with direction to staff.
[50:39] Okay, I have a, okay, I'm sorry, I pressed the wrong button. I have
[50:43] a direct to Eisenberg first. Thank you.
[50:51] Is that right? We got it. Thank you. Okay. And so thank
[50:56] you for the presentation. Really helpful. Can you go to slide 12, please? Yes, give me
[51:03] Just a moment. We need to reload.
[51:17] This is it's like? Yeah. So here you say that debt service coverage ratio is 2.0.
[51:28] We target 2.0. Define. Define debt service ratio here. Sure. So let's say that you took out $100 million.
[51:39] under your formula, what then would be the cost of repayment?
[51:51] Let me see, there's two questions.
[51:53] I've at least if I can answer your, I think the just of your question.
[51:57] A, a service coverage ratio, the definition of it would be,
[52:00] you're ongoing revenue, leisure, operational costs, equals an amount.
[52:06] That amount is targeted to be two times your debt service payment.
[52:10] If that target is met, but we found other targets, we will maintain a very high credit rating and therefore lower the lowest possible barring costs for value art.
[52:23] Okay, great. So yeah, so that's it. But stay there.
[52:28] So what year do we start paying back the Wifjellones?
[52:35] Take for example the Wifjellone that was closed in October 31, 223.
[52:42] I think we got this answer this question at the last board meeting.
[52:44] Well, that's here again.
[52:46] Interests starts in FY32 for the WIFI alone for Pacheco and for Anderson.
[52:55] And for San Jose DPR, FY39, and for our assumptions for Anderson and for the Dam Safety Program,
[53:05] under a core WIFI program would be FY36 and FY39 respectively.
[53:10] So, why isn't there a step up in 2032?
[53:15] 20, I'm looking at that chart.
[53:17] 2032 is the year.
[53:19] You just said that we start paying back.
[53:22] Many of those loans.
[53:25] So, I see a very minimal change between 2031 and 2032.
[53:32] Yes, you see it there, interest only.
[53:35] So, we start paying back, we haven't started paying back the loans
[53:38] and then we start paying back the loans.
[53:41] So what will be the interest payments in 2032?
[53:46] The new interest payments, the marginal increase.
[53:51] I would have to go back and get that information.
[53:53] So I guess what I'm saying is I just based on my understanding of math
[53:58] and your explanation of repayment schedules.
[54:01] I'm not seeing that the interest charges being reflected in this.
[54:05] Because we know that the $92 million or $93 million loan that you took out on October 31,
[54:14] 2032, I mean sorry, 2023,
[54:19] the cost of repayment is approximately $290 million,
[54:22] just for that small loan. So given 20 years of repayment, and an almost $300 million obligation,
[54:34] That should be, you know, let's say, okay, so 300 divided by let's say, it's paid over 10 years.
[54:43] So that would be like a $30 million increase per year if you're paying back over 10 years.
[54:49] And I don't see a $30 million increase in interest reflected here.
[54:58] Let us go back and get some more information.
[55:02] So the math is that you're not repaying these loans at all. And then you start repaying them in 2032. So you've paid zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero. And now you pay these loans. And what I quoted you is just for the $200 million loan. So if you're going to have a billion dollars of loans, that would be significantly more expensive.
[55:29] to repay. So, you should see a step up the year you start repaying alone.
[55:36] Well, sorry to interrupt. So, conversation. That's put on slide number nine. I think that's actually
[55:42] that was a, I was very happy to see this slide number nine. I thought that's, that's answering
[55:47] the director of key director, Eisenberg's question at the last board meeting.
[55:54] So, this dark green bar, that's listed as Wifi at Death Service and the light green bar is the Death Service.
[56:03] So, that's the winter projection.
[56:05] So, staff is showing those with respect to the charge.
[56:09] I'm trying to be helpful.
[56:11] So, if there's any questions.
[56:12] So, yes.
[56:13] That reflects the same mathematical inconsistency that I'm pointing out.
[56:18] So, Chair, you may not have understood the question as I said it, which is that we start paying back the loan in 2032.
[56:26] So, I guess it doesn't answer the question.
[56:29] So, here, see the green line there? See the green part of the bar? That represents interest payments, okay?
[56:36] It doesn't or it's something else. What does that represent?
[56:39] That's for the interest payments for the planning and design loan, the construction loan interest would start in FI37.
[56:45] and so beyond the time for him to show it.
[56:48] So, you know, and you're right that I keep asking these questions, but I'm not getting
[56:53] any answers.
[56:56] So, you know, what do I want?
[56:58] I know, actually, director Sha, this doesn't answer the question.
[57:05] He just said that we don't start repaying the loan, these loans until 2037.
[57:09] I think it's important that my colleagues understand what I'm asking, what I'm asking is
[57:14] information so we can actually see the impact of these loans on water rates. We still have
[57:21] not been shown the actual impact of these loans on water rates. In this case, chair, we don't
[57:29] start repaying those loans until 2037. 2037 is not indicated on this chart. Why is that important?
[57:39] because we pay zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero,
[57:45] and tell 2037 and then we pay a number.
[57:51] We don't know what that number is.
[57:53] So that number needs to be provided to us.
[57:57] And I'm again asking you to please give us and give the public
[58:04] Complete information about how these extraordinarily expensive loans it will impact their
[58:13] water rates we deserve to know they deserve to know and if you don't want to give
[58:18] information about rates give us at least how much interest will be paying each year that
[58:24] is part for the course and I get that some people don't I understand my question but just
[58:30] because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong.
[58:34] So I have a background that's a bit different
[58:37] than from how others are.
[58:39] So, second, first I just want to say as a side point
[58:41] that I completely support the Agricultural Committee
[58:45] in their argument that, you know,
[58:48] until we have investigated the positive impact
[58:53] of their sustainable agriculture practices
[58:58] and their carbon benefits to us, agriculture actually converts carbon to oxygen.
[59:07] It is extraordinarily positively impactful.
[59:11] It is better than an oxygen machine.
[59:14] We can live without planes, trains, and automobiles.
[59:17] We can live without fashion, we can live without movies, we cannot live without food.
[59:23] Agriculture is extraordinarily important, and as an environmentalist, I also am here to
[59:28] It's also extremely important from an environmental impact, too.
[59:32] So I'm going to support them,
[59:35] too.
[59:36] OK, asked about, oh, he on page eight.
[59:40] Here's another question I've asked you all
[59:41] that I haven't gotten an answer to yet.
[59:44] So on page eight, here again, you have a chart
[59:49] where you have a relationship between cost of water
[59:54] and uses of water.
[59:55] So, having, again, observed both the agricultural
[1:00:00] Committee as well as the retailers, committee meeting. There is a unanimous agreement outside of this particular group of leaders that the more expensive the water gets, the less water is used.
[1:00:18] And I know as a big pain and not toughest the other week when I said, please give me an analysis of the elasticity of pricing on usage.
[1:00:32] In other words, these charts continue to rest on the presumption that we can keep raising water rates without devastating water usage.
[1:00:45] But the analyses of our biggest retailers and agricultural, you know, leaders, flies in the face of that.
[1:00:56] So at some point, I'm wondering, can you please present to me your analysis of how higher prices will impact usage?
[1:01:05] Because I'm sure you understand what I mean by saying that if we continue to price water so high, we're not going to increase revenue.
[1:01:12] We're going to start decreasing revenue by devastating usage.
[1:01:16] We also could potentially be creating a black market for water, and that seems crazy.
[1:01:21] But that's what happens when prices become out of reach.
[1:01:25] So I'm going to ask for that again, because these numbers, these figures, this relationship between price and usage,
[1:01:33] is not supported by the experts that we actually rely on to advise us.
[1:01:41] Okay, and so last, for now, the last, oh first, page 23, on page 23, you make an analysis of our water rates as compared with what you consider to be comparable agencies and in that agency, you listed the PUC.
[1:02:10] So, SFPUC, as I'm page 23, so my understanding is that the SFPUC is both the wholesaler and
[1:02:19] the retailers that correct.
[1:02:23] That's correct.
[1:02:24] So, we the wholesaler are comparing our rates to a retailer.
[1:02:30] That's, they are also a wholesaler.
[1:02:32] We're comparing wholesale to wholesale.
[1:02:33] Right, but in this case San Francisco, you rate payers pay the wholesale price, don't they?
[1:02:42] The answer is yes, because they are the wholesale and the retailer. Well, as of PUC, wholesale
[1:02:48] spotter to cities such as Palo Alto. Yeah, but we're time them. Yeah, and then they have a retail system within the city itself.
[1:02:55] Right, so which one are you using? And so which one we're comparing
[1:02:59] are rates to their wholesale rates,
[1:03:02] what they sell the water to other retail agencies.
[1:03:06] But it looks like all their customers in San Francisco
[1:03:10] can't pay their wholesale rates.
[1:03:14] Their rate schedule is, they have a published rate schedule
[1:03:17] that highlights retail rates that,
[1:03:20] like as a resident or a resident or a business
[1:03:22] you would pay versus the wholesale rate.
[1:03:24] And they're different.
[1:03:26] So for if your San Francisco rate pair,
[1:03:28] You're paying a markup on this?
[1:03:31] Because I didn't say I would just go for 20 years.
[1:03:33] And we didn't.
[1:03:35] I would have to look at their rates schedule.
[1:03:37] So I think it's important that we compare apples with apples
[1:03:40] and not apples with apple pie.
[1:03:44] So I don't know how many others of these are actual,
[1:03:47] both wholesalers and retailers,
[1:03:50] but in less of our comparing with the actual wholesalers
[1:03:53] that then experience a markup.
[1:03:56] wholesalers, tell, sell to retailers, retailers, sell to rate payers, there's a markup in between, right?
[1:04:03] So, let's be honest here.
[1:04:05] So, I, this chart, I think, need some clarification.
[1:04:09] Okay, so finally, I just want to make a point, a general point.
[1:04:12] One thing you said, which I understand to be the strategy followed by previous boards.
[1:04:21] And although some people here don't like new people, younger people coming in and shaking things up sometimes sometimes there are really big fundamental flaws in strategies that I think need to be rethought.
[1:04:37] And this is not the first time I said this.
[1:04:40] But here's what you said,
[1:04:41] Costs follow infrastructure and rates follow cost and I've heard that more than once and so
[1:04:48] You know, you said that and my understanding is that reflects the thinking of many of my colleagues
[1:04:54] So in other words, we decide what infrastructure we want to build
[1:05:01] And then we see what the costs are. And once we know the costs, we set the rates to pay for it.
[1:05:09] That is a fundamentally flawed system.
[1:05:14] We should not be choosing our infrastructure without considering cost.
[1:05:22] We have no right to be a cost blind decision maker.
[1:05:29] We don't operate with unlimited money even the wealthiest people and I know many of the wealthiest
[1:05:36] people.
[1:05:36] I live in a city with one of the highest ratios of billionaires and I'm telling you you don't
[1:05:41] get to be a billionaire without thinking looking at how much things cost before making a decision
[1:05:47] about what you should do.
[1:05:49] So I think, you know, here I come, shaken things up, I think we need to consider cost when
[1:05:58] decide what infrastructure we are going to build. And until we start to do that, we will be
[1:06:06] fundamentally harming the public and harming the ratepayers. We must have a cost drive infrastructure.
[1:06:23] Infrastructure follows costs not the reverse and we must think about the impact on rates before deciding what to do.
[1:06:33] And, you know, I miss Collins, you know, I've heard you say that and it reflects the current approach of this board.
[1:06:41] Until we change that approach, we are never going to be financially responsible to those whom we are supposed to be serving.
[1:06:50] No one in the world makes, cause, makes decisions without knowing how much things cost.
[1:06:57] I mean, would you buy a house for the same house as on the market?
[1:07:01] One is $1 million, the other is $10 million.
[1:07:05] One of them is painted blue, the other is painted pink, and you prefer blue.
[1:07:10] So do you choose the $10 million dollar house?
[1:07:14] No, you don't.
[1:07:16] You choose the one million dollar house and you pay $10,000 to repaint it. So, we are operating differently than any rational decision maker.
[1:07:30] So, we need to rethink this. We need to make a decision as to what infrastructure we do based on how much it costs.
[1:07:39] And until we change that, we're just ripping people off.
[1:07:44] So I'm not going to be supporting any of this,
[1:07:47] because A and support of the Ag, you know, my friends and colleagues
[1:07:51] and partners and agriculture, I am from Wisconsin,
[1:07:54] and agriculture state, I respect them.
[1:07:56] We need them.
[1:07:58] And B, because it is a broken, it's a broken strategy
[1:08:02] to be cost-blind while making infrastructure decisions.
[1:08:06] I recognize that's how it's been done.
[1:08:07] But we got to change it. Thank you.
[1:08:12] Okay. Director Horaela, I think I accidentally deleted you earlier in that, right?
[1:08:21] Yeah. So go ahead. I think you want to second one.
[1:08:26] Okay. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.
[1:08:29] Carmen, can you go to page 22, please?
[1:08:33] So, myself and Director Santos attended and directed about attended the Agriculture Committee
[1:08:40] in yesterday, and we heard a quite a few statements, several were concerning, and referenced
[1:08:50] to our infrastructure projects.
[1:08:51] One was targeting Anderson Dam, suggesting that we should demolish that project entirely,
[1:08:59] and going from what it is to perhaps upon that some sort.
[1:09:05] And I thought, well, that's interesting.
[1:09:07] In a community of Santa Clara County,
[1:09:11] which exponentially is growing,
[1:09:14] although there are some reports that we're losing people.
[1:09:17] They're moving away from California.
[1:09:19] Other suggest people are coming to California
[1:09:21] because there are job opportunities here.
[1:09:26] Earlier, we attended and listened to
[1:09:28] of joint venture silicon valley state of the valley index,
[1:09:32] which is an annual event,
[1:09:34] but gives you a perspective of what is happening
[1:09:38] in silicon valley.
[1:09:40] And we are the technology center of the planet, essentially.
[1:09:44] Others look to the valley as to innovation,
[1:09:49] a project development, and cookie cuttering that
[1:09:52] and taking to other parts of the world,
[1:09:54] and other parts of the country.
[1:09:55] But that's what we represent, and that's what we are.
[1:09:58] And in those meetings,
[1:10:00] I hear positive comments from various leaders, such as the President of Stanford University, the President
[1:10:10] from San Jose State, CSU program, Santa Clara University, and the leadership and education from those
[1:10:17] institutions about what they see and how they see the growth and development within our communities.
[1:10:23] And I use the word development because we are growing. Each of our cities, if you look around
[1:10:28] with the city of San Jose, he's growing exponentially, city of Morgan Hill, where I live is growing,
[1:10:34] city of Morgan Hill, Gilroy is growing, and the unincorporated area of the county is also growing.
[1:10:42] At yesterday's agriculture meeting, we heard comments being mentioned that agriculture is
[1:10:47] diminishing, that it's dying in the valley, and that we need to look at what we as valley water
[1:10:56] are doing to be part of the cause for that diminishing productivity of agriculture within our
[1:11:04] county. And primarily in District 1, which is what I represent. And the reason why I wanted
[1:11:09] us to take a look at this graph in front of a sweet tail agencies. If you look at this graph,
[1:11:13] and this tells you, is you a view of what other regions in the state, what their costs
[1:11:21] are for water, wholesale costs, etc. Now if you go to the bottom part of this chart, that shows
[1:11:31] you what valley water costs are in comparing other key residential suburban agricultural regions
[1:11:40] in the state of California are paid. Our threshold is one of the lowest and cost of water
[1:11:48] to our constituents, the two men and people that we
[1:11:52] plus or minus, depending on who's counting heads today,
[1:11:56] that we represent.
[1:11:58] That is the bottom line.
[1:12:01] That tells the whole story.
[1:12:03] So sure, there are opinions.
[1:12:06] Very important to listen to those opinions,
[1:12:08] but that's all they are, are opinions
[1:12:10] of what they see as what we are not presenting
[1:12:14] to the value of what agricultural represents in this area.
[1:12:19] Our my perspective on that is, well, just look at the graph.
[1:12:23] Now, let me ask you a question.
[1:12:25] If the open space credit, if the open space credit did not exist,
[1:12:29] if that was not part of the process, what would our water reach be?
[1:12:33] Well, for agriculture, the water rate would be the same as that
[1:12:37] and then I rate within all four zones.
[1:12:39] And we're projecting the open space credit to provide nearly $13 million.
[1:12:43] next year to offset that full cost of revenue.
[1:12:46] So that keeps the cost of water at a much lower rate.
[1:12:51] And without that in place, the agricultural rate
[1:12:55] should be the same as every community in the county, essentially.
[1:12:59] Our agricultural rates would be the same as the M&I rates by zone.
[1:13:03] OK, that's it.
[1:13:04] As I went over earlier.
[1:13:05] OK, by zone.
[1:13:06] So again, I want to repeat that yesterday's meeting
[1:13:09] was rather contentious.
[1:13:11] There was vitriol, there was anger, there was finger pointing at valley water, and I'm thinking,
[1:13:20] you know, this is really interesting.
[1:13:22] I know Director Santos and I am Dr. Bell have said on other agriculture water agencies up and down the region.
[1:13:29] From San Luis, Delta, Mendoza, which is the breadbasket and some people's opinions of the entire United States,
[1:13:36] from Bakersfield to Sacramento.
[1:13:41] Water resares, like Westland's water,
[1:13:45] Bryant, and other major water providers in that region.
[1:13:49] And we never hear these kinds of discussions or arguments
[1:13:52] from the largest agricultural center in the planet
[1:13:55] on the West Coast, from the central coast
[1:13:59] from Santa Barbara to San Francisco.
[1:14:02] The salad bowl from Salinas, Monterey,
[1:14:05] The Santa Cruz region of farmers that ice it on their boards along with director Santos.
[1:14:10] We don't hear the complaints that we're hearing here from the agriculture community.
[1:14:16] So I personally don't get it.
[1:14:17] I really don't.
[1:14:19] Yeah, they're requesting certain things and we're going to perform.
[1:14:23] We're going to give them the information that they request.
[1:14:28] Ask in the board to delay our process.
[1:14:30] Well, that's a question whether or not we choose to do that.
[1:14:33] That's an action decision that could be made by this board.
[1:14:35] So I just wanted to give you one director's perspective on what agriculture now.
[1:14:41] Do we need farming in this region?
[1:14:42] Is it important?
[1:14:43] Absolutely.
[1:14:44] It is.
[1:14:45] But from their own mouths, they're saying agriculture in this region is dying from their own mouths.
[1:14:53] I don't see that happening, but they know things I don't though, because that's how I make my living.
[1:14:58] They do that.
[1:15:00] I see it friday. In the regions where I live, most of the farming area is located.
[1:15:08] So, again, it's an opinion, but that's my opinion. That's what I see. That's what I want to say to you.
[1:15:13] Okay, thank you. The next one is Director Bell.
[1:15:22] appreciate their presentation. I know we're going to be working on this over the next
[1:15:29] month with the public, my colleagues, and staff.
[1:15:39] So my question is on the fiscal financial
[1:15:44] outlook of the water utility systems. Can I ask a question? Does conservation save the tax
[1:15:54] Okay.
[1:15:58] Pardon?
[1:15:59] Yes.
[1:16:00] In the long run it does.
[1:16:04] Is there an indication in this budget anywhere, and I'm looking at the financial outlook,
[1:16:12] exactly how much money or what's our proposed conservation, water conservation,
[1:16:20] budget would
[1:16:21] what kind of action specifically and in a way where we can evaluate whether or not we're doing
[1:16:33] the best we can because we'll save money. We'll save money. So are we doing the best
[1:16:39] we can and what other things can we do? That is to me, something I don't see here and
[1:16:50] maybe you can get some supplemental information on that, okay.
[1:16:58] The other part is that we turned to that, I guess it's the estimated
[1:17:04] conservation, you know, how much, you know, we're spending, you know, I'm saying,
[1:17:10] we're going down to Home Depot, we're going down to Lowes, we're buying all kinds of plants,
[1:17:14] we're going, we're going in to put in drip irrigation systems, all that all
[1:17:20] homeowners are having projects and we're building modern buildings that have better
[1:17:30] conservation.
[1:17:34] What kind of savings do we attribute to conservation? When I look at the chart
[1:17:44] on page 8 there. It looks like essentially none. No, no, no, no attribution of conservation.
[1:17:56] And I think actually we're projecting a pretty good increase in water usage over the next
[1:18:05] for four years, that kind of flattens out a little bit, but my concern is that we talk
[1:18:16] about the drought bounce back, but we should also be talking about the laws, the technological
[1:18:25] improvements on construction,
[1:18:29] all the water conservation efforts that we can institute, which
[1:18:38] are really cost effective in terms of spending our taxpayer's money to protect the taxpayer
[1:18:49] from large rating increases. The other thing that conservation does is it allows us a little
[1:18:58] more flexibility on looking long range in terms of when we need some of these major capital
[1:19:03] improvement programs.
[1:19:07] If you plan to capital budget over a long period of time and you have
[1:19:12] little bit extra conservation. Maybe you don't need to complete them in an expeditious
[1:19:22] quick manner. Maybe you have a little more time to look at how we're doing on conservation.
[1:19:31] And I think it's worth something to look at. When I looked at source of supply in the
[1:19:48] I'd like to know what the total cost of all the projects that relate to importing water is.
[1:19:54] Okay, we import what percentage of our water is imported, like 40 percent, right?
[1:19:59] 40, plus the future.
[1:20:00] You see another 10%. Well, if you take out the P.C. part and look at the other 40 percent, how much money
[1:20:07] are we spending on all the projects? I'm talking going from sites, I'm talking to Delta
[1:20:12] Companions, which I just spent all day, Thursday, touring, talking to him about it,
[1:20:25] learning, learning
[1:20:26] Now upgrade fixed, the cis dam raise, the pipelines in our county that we are building,
[1:20:37] the rehabilitation of those pipelines over the, we're going to do some rehabilitation
[1:20:42] over the next 50 years I assume, the pipes I'm going to last forever, we have to fix them
[1:20:46] everyone's, you know, every few years.
[1:20:49] So what is total cost of the importing water,
[1:20:56] and how is that fit into this?
[1:21:00] What is the cost of that?
[1:21:02] So I would like to answer this on that.
[1:21:06] The other thing I noticed in the report, I tried to find out, okay, we were talking about
[1:21:17] For my tenure here, I've been talking about, I know the board has been supporting this,
[1:21:26] trying to get the advanced water purification program.
[1:21:30] And what we were talking about was we wanted to put an emphasis not just on the so-called
[1:21:38] test advanced water treatment facility, but the bigger picture
[1:21:45] facility, and I noticed that in the budget that they have the financial
[1:21:51] outlook in some page 59, it says it is an unfunded capital improvement
[1:21:57] program. It's not funded.
[1:22:01] So that's not been considered in this particular
[1:22:04] plant. So it's is unfunded.
[1:22:12] A lot of the cost of capital projects has since 2020, 2019,
[1:22:22] you know, pre-COVID, COVID hit us, all the capital budgets went airy, you know, these
[1:22:29] to go up, like, for what 4%, I think,
[1:22:32] cow transges to say, 4%, 5% infrastructure,
[1:22:36] cost increase, no longer since 2019.
[1:22:40] I mean, we're talking, like, 10, 12%, correct?
[1:22:44] So the question is, on this, how much cost increase
[1:22:53] are we using as a reasonable estimate based on the last five
[1:22:59] and it's based on certain things.
[1:23:01] It's based on supply, materials, labor costs,
[1:23:06] those things are going up.
[1:23:07] Labor supply shortage, it's an index.
[1:23:11] And we see they evaluate this very carefully.
[1:23:15] And it's an index.
[1:23:17] And it goes up and up and up.
[1:23:19] And we're looking at 10, since COVID, 10, 12% a year.
[1:23:27] I mean it goes up and down sometimes more than that, sometimes a little less,
[1:23:33] so we see what
[1:23:34] happened with the Anderson Project, what happened quite a bit, and you know, I don't blame the staff,
[1:23:41] I don't blame the board, I don't blame anybody, it's a bigger global national international
[1:23:51] issue, okay?
[1:23:54] Because the supply shortage is affecting the whole world, basically.
[1:23:59] Steel, where are you going to get steel? Where are you going to get materials? Labor shortage
[1:24:04] people are not working anymore. We need to have more people working. Where are you going
[1:24:10] to get those people? So in terms of this budget though, where what is real, how does that relate
[1:24:17] to the projected costs, construction costs, indexes that we see in general since in other places.
[1:24:26] You know, do we have a, understand, now I've asked this before, I never really got an answer
[1:24:30] of this.
[1:24:31] That had no response, but I want to get the answer on that and I want it in writing and I want
[1:24:38] it for the public to peruse so we can have a discussion.
[1:24:41] Okay, so the groundwater is the groundwater program, a cost effective in terms of your water supply.
[1:24:58] Yes.
[1:24:58] Yes.
[1:24:59] Yes.
[1:25:01] So is there a way we can maximize the groundwater recaptured programs? Do we have a better plan on that? Is there some options we could take?
[1:25:17] We need to look at, we want to, this is like a 10-year thing. We're not just looking at the budget or five-year looking over 10-year.
[1:25:25] So, the groundwater recapture, I think, could be a viable answer to people that are concerned
[1:25:40] about the rating creases, they could say, well, we can save water, we can do this, we
[1:25:45] could be smart.
[1:25:49] We could try to expedite some of these cost-effective, smarter scale kind
[1:25:56] of projects all over the county. Some of the guys at the Ag meeting yesterday talked
[1:26:00] about pawns, you know, things like that. I mean, there were sometimes that's feasible,
[1:26:10] sometime it isn't. So I'm making my comments here. I'm not forming conclusions. I'm asking for
[1:26:17] information. I want information. I've asked for some of this before. When I went out of the
[1:26:24] Delta, I said, you know, I only asked one question, the whole tour. You know what the question was?
[1:26:31] When was your cost estimate done?
[1:26:36] Because you know how I am. I want to know if it was done.
[1:26:39] yesterday and it was, you know, it was done, it was done in 2020 and in 2019 so I was
[1:26:49] saying, okay, you estimate $20 billion.
[1:26:57] 2019 numbers, what's the 2025 number? What's
[1:27:04] the 2030 number? I think it's very important when we talk about these large-scale
[1:27:14] construction projects to be transparent about what the cost to date and in the future
[1:27:21] during our water supply discussion, setting rates for people, tell them how much taxes
[1:27:29] they're going to have to pay. I don't like to go in and say, well, you're going to have
[1:27:35] a $8, $10 increase per month over $100 a year and then say, well, we made a little
[1:27:42] state because we got this bill from this and we got bill from this construction project and
[1:27:48] now it's going to be $200 so you can have another $100 and
[1:27:55] that's why that's why we have
[1:27:56] to be honest and when we're making decisions we base it on what's the most cost effective.
[1:28:04] What's the most cost effective? So when we throw out things because we're using numbers that
[1:28:11] no good. That is not being a good fiscal watchdog. So I want to be a good fiscal watchdog
[1:28:21] in doing this plan. And I'm asking these questions so that we get answers. And I'd
[1:28:28] like to have the staff to have a chance to give me the answers.
[1:28:33] Because I know I can get
[1:28:34] the answers elsewhere. But I'd like to have the staff, you know, let's get the real answers
[1:28:40] year. I've asked them before. I want the answers. Thank you.
[1:28:48] Director Keegan.
[1:28:51] Thank you and thank you to staff for a very thorough presentation.
[1:28:56] And I'd also like to thank my colleagues today for bringing up a number of important ideas.
[1:29:05] Some questions that might be helpful, not just for the board, but for the community to have a better
[1:29:10] understanding of what's going on here. I'm a few specific questions if we look at page 14 of attachment to that shows the infrastructure.
[1:29:24] Great.
[1:29:27] So I really like this graphic because it's helpful for people. They're able to look at, okay, here's North County, here's South County, here's what's shared.
[1:29:34] So, I still always have this feeling that advanced purified water, since it improves overall
[1:29:41] system reliability, is something that should be a shared cost, but I'll save that argument
[1:29:47] for another time.
[1:29:50] Looking at the shared projects, Anderson Coyote, Pacheco, and the imported water from the Central
[1:29:58] Valley Project.
[1:30:00] How do we allocate those costs between North County and South County?
[1:30:06] Thank you, Director. I can put a question.
[1:30:09] So we use several different allocation methods to allocate costs between North and South County, and it really comes down to the benefits provided.
[1:30:18] So for imported water, it could be based on the volume of water, right? That is used in North County versus the South County zones.
[1:30:24] We therefore allocate those costs based on that relative proportion.
[1:30:30] So given the fact that
[1:30:40] South County has a lot of agriculture, they actually use more water but they're getting a diminished charge, if you will, but in terms of like individual homeowners, so less water means less people in South County, more water consumption because there's more people in North County.
[1:31:01] But looking at the average household, what would be, are they paying relatively equal costs for that?
[1:31:13] If I could go back to the common on the egg rate, just briefly, if you don't mind.
[1:31:19] So about half the water, district manage water use in South County is egg, right?
[1:31:24] And that's, we do have the lower rate, it's offset by the open space credit, right?
[1:31:29] and so that's non-brain revenue being used to offset those costs. Now when you ask about the average
[1:31:37] household, do you mean a well owner or do you mean a retail customer, like a Morgan Hill or
[1:31:42] Gayle? I'd say probably the easiest way would be a retail customer because that way we're
[1:31:47] comparing apples to apples, right? Because most of the residents or water users in North County
[1:31:52] are retail users. Sure, and so I guess I would respond that if you're a retail customer,
[1:31:59] Morgan Hill are you pay for their cost on top of the cost of the wholesale water that they
[1:32:04] pump from the ground that we provide and it's based on their distribution system in their
[1:32:09] own infrastructure and so their rates would be relatively similar but still different.
[1:32:18] Perhaps I'm not understanding your question clearly.
[1:32:21] I guess that I just want to make sure that like, you know, I have many low-income residents
[1:32:30] in my community, Director Estromera has even more, and those people are more impacted by
[1:32:39] these increases in water rates, right? And so I just want to see that it's an equitable split.
[1:32:47] If the costs are increasing by, you know, I don't know, let's say $5 on someone's bill,
[1:32:55] because these shared things, is it roughly equivalent to $5 in North County and the $5 in
[1:33:01] South County or is it $5.00 in North County and $1.50 in South County?
[1:33:06] I just want to know if there's a certain level of parity and I don't have an intuitive
[1:33:10] understanding of that.
[1:33:13] I think I can answer that question by saying that our wholesale water rates are different
[1:33:19] across different zones.
[1:33:21] So in Zone W2, what staff is recommending is an increase in the wholesale water rate that
[1:33:28] impact an average homeowner to the tune of just under nine dollars per month, whereas the wholesale
[1:33:34] water rate recommended increase in the South County ranges from a dollar to three dollars.
[1:33:40] In terms of impact to the average homeowner, and in our costs are based on the benefits provided
[1:33:48] in each particular zone. So the graphic here is meant to show why is there a different rate
[1:33:55] amongst the different zones. It's not meant to reflect decision making into the future with
[1:34:00] regard to water supply projects. It's meant to show that given this infrastructure and
[1:34:06] the costs and weigh the water flows through that infrastructure based on how the water
[1:34:11] flows, for example, for Anderson Dam, 80% of the water flows to North County, 20% of
[1:34:16] water flows for South County. Therefore, North County bears 80% of the cost of that product,
[1:34:21] South County bears 20% of the cost of that project.
[1:34:24] So our costs flow in the way that infrastructure
[1:34:30] or is driven by infrastructure as our rates are today.
[1:34:35] So what's the population difference between North County
[1:34:38] and South County wouldn't that be in the 80, 20 kind of range?
[1:34:43] And that's all factored into the rate projection, right?
[1:34:46] So when you think about your costs
[1:34:48] And the simple calculation of your water rates is costs divided by water use, or based on your water use, right?
[1:34:58] So the population is going to...
[1:35:00] Use a certain amount of water. So that's all reflected in the water rates that we are projecting here for you today.
[1:35:07] I guess I need to see some more detailed information on that. So if staff could provide that, it would be helpful.
[1:35:13] Thank you so much. And if we look at, if we look at page 15 and we look at the cost increases that we're looking at.
[1:35:33] A big driver for these increase increases in the groundwater, charge is due to our CIP, correct?
[1:35:44] Yes, that is correct.
[1:35:48] So what percentage of the increase would we say?
[1:35:52] So we're like North County, 12.9 percent of that, 12.9 percent.
[1:35:56] How many percentages are related to infrastructure?
[1:36:04] And if you don't have an answer.
[1:36:06] Yeah, thank you.
[1:36:07] It's a good question.
[1:36:09] It's a good question.
[1:36:09] It's a good question.
[1:36:10] We could come back with that information.
[1:36:12] And I'd also just like to highlight the information that was presented at the March 26th
[1:36:16] Board meeting, where we broke down this, where we broke down by zone,
[1:36:23] our, what's included in our rates with those incremental capital investments.
[1:36:27] So we, but we can get back with that information.
[1:36:30] You know how it is, the first time you hear something, you need that power of repetition, right, to hear it over and over again.
[1:36:37] So thank you for that. And then, you know, lastly, I just have to say,
[1:36:50] over the last 12 years, this is my 12th time of going through something like this.
[1:36:56] I've been questioned by constituents on our groundwater,
[1:37:02] charge, increasing on the cost of water to them, increasing.
[1:37:07] And I've defended that.
[1:37:09] I've said, you know, we're making a reinvestment and infrastructure.
[1:37:12] There's things that we need to do, deferred maintenance from the past.
[1:37:17] And I felt comfortable with my response.
[1:37:20] But I have to say, I think we've reached a point where I no longer feel that it's
[1:37:27] defensible in that same way.
[1:37:30] I really think, and when we talk about the CIP, I think that's the opportunity for talking
[1:37:36] further about it.
[1:37:37] But I feel like our CIP, we need to scrutinize it more carefully as director Bell was saying,
[1:37:48] Maybe there is an opportunity to defer some projects,
[1:37:54] maybe even, you know, downscale some projects.
[1:37:57] Whatever it might be, or even the validity of some projects.
[1:38:01] I think that if I felt like we'd exhausted all those things,
[1:38:06] I could get back to the point where I'd be able to defend these projects
[1:38:10] or, you know, these costing creases.
[1:38:13] And I've a feeling that what we hear from the water condition,
[1:38:16] They're not going to be happy about these either and those are the people that we have
[1:38:21] to respond to because they represent our constituents in the individual communities.
[1:38:27] So thank you again for the presentation and if I could have those questions answered it would be
[1:38:33] wonderful.
[1:38:34] Thank you so much.
[1:38:35] Thank you.
[1:38:45] Okay.
[1:38:45] of our capital improvements continues to come up.
[1:38:50] We're not reviewing that we need these infrastructure like we haven't put off a number of projects.
[1:38:56] So I really do think that we ought to have a work study session where we do review the CIP because it's important for us to look at every single one of the projects.
[1:39:09] I know that some of the projects in my own district have been put off.
[1:39:14] There's a number and other districts that have been put off.
[1:39:19] I don't think that we have time halls here, but the only way that people are going to
[1:39:26] believe that is for us to review it and show it, because as we continue to mention, when
[1:39:32] a situation where we have to rebuild a lot of our infrastructure, much of our infrastructure
[1:39:40] isn't seen. It's not like you drive down the street and you see all our pipes hanging out and
[1:39:46] you see them being destroyed. We don't want to wait until they start blowing up and flooding neighborhoods.
[1:39:55] So we need to talk about that. I think for us to have a committee that looks like
[1:40:00] We're looking at it once in a while. We're looking at it once for each project when it comes up or when it's absolutely necessary to do.
[1:40:11] It's fine for us, but I think it's important for the public to look at what it is that we're doing.
[1:40:18] They're just like when we talk to people in the neighborhoods who have a treatment plan.
[1:40:27] In their neighborhood, why they haven't there, what it means, what protections we provide for it,
[1:40:35] why it costs so much more.
[1:40:37] It's why when we have public hearings, it costs us a lot to have public hearings.
[1:40:44] Why?
[1:40:45] Because we have to review what's going on.
[1:40:49] We have to have a lot of staff present.
[1:40:52] We have to have contractors present.
[1:40:55] So then we can add some questions and we can make presentations.
[1:40:57] So all of that costs.
[1:40:59] But it's value.
[1:41:00] It's necessary.
[1:41:02] And we want to provide that.
[1:41:03] What is the same thing for infrastructure?
[1:41:05] in that situation where we're, well, gee,
[1:41:11] what can, what can we do? We've got, we've got to make up infrastructure.
[1:41:16] I never forget when direct the census knife went to a public meeting there in, in very, yes or?
[1:41:23] Well, the neighborhood thought that we, we need to look for projects to build because we got nothing else to do.
[1:41:33] And the folks ran stuff out and said, you know, get lost, we don't want these projects, get out of here.
[1:41:40] And then we have to come back and say, wait a minute.
[1:41:43] We don't have a problem if you don't want the project.
[1:41:46] But we don't want you to come back to us.
[1:41:49] Okay?
[1:41:50] When you have the situation that we had in 2017, and in President's day,
[1:41:57] and then get in and date it and then come back to us and say, why did you do some about it?
[1:42:04] So we don't run around looking for projects to create infrastructure because that's the business we're in.
[1:42:12] We're doing it because it relates to public safety in those cases.
[1:42:16] And each one of our projects that are flood control related projects are all related to public safety.
[1:42:23] And secondly, the infrastructure projects that we have is because we don't want to come back with a destroyed infrastructure like the feds did and end up having to pay three times as much because we didn't maintain it correctly.
[1:42:41] So we have to review these projects in public so that people can see what it is that we're doing.
[1:42:48] I agree. That's what we need to do. So I think we need to have a study where we review the projects.
[1:42:55] So we can have people come up here and say, we don't want this project in our neighborhood. It's okay if we get flooded.
[1:43:02] We don't mind. It's all right. Because we want to save three dollars.
[1:43:08] That's what I think we need to do.
[1:43:11] Okay, thank you. Actually, I agree. I think that's a good idea that I'm thinking that maybe our stoichi particularly they want to utility projects since the entire
[1:43:26] While the utility is a infrastructure is a system,
[1:43:32] it cannot be cutting to pieces.
[1:43:35] It's a county-wise system.
[1:43:37] So putting that aside, I was just thinking
[1:43:40] that maybe the April 20 nice strategic planning session
[1:43:45] will be a good opportunity to dedicate
[1:43:47] a significant portion of that issue for that issue.
[1:43:52] If we cannot get these basic stuff, I'll figure it out and everybody is on the same place
[1:44:02] and talking about our strategies for the future, I think it's probably only NASA's stable foundation.
[1:44:12] So our work with the CEOC, how do we structure that and then the opportunities to do that in April 2019?
[1:44:20] Okay, so at this point, I do want to, okay, vice chair.
[1:44:27] Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
[1:44:28] Since everybody was talking pros and cons on mysville,
[1:44:32] see a few things like we've been teaching each other here.
[1:44:35] We have opinions and then we have facts.
[1:44:38] And as far as I'm concerned, I have facts.
[1:44:42] I agree.
[1:44:42] We need public education.
[1:44:44] There's no question that's what we should be doing all the time,
[1:44:46] but we continue.
[1:44:47] I'm very satisfied with our staff and
[1:44:49] CEO and the majority of this board has been doing for years.
[1:44:54] Years ago, the buck was passed to us because of previous boards that didn't take pre-planet for the future.
[1:45:00] As I've said over and over and over, it's just like police in California. We don't have enough dams for the future. I got mine. Do we want less police officers? No, the public said it's just the opposite. And I'm saying the same thing.
[1:45:18] of a relic that I like it was, Tony says it like it is, so does chair shoe.
[1:45:25] We are planning for the future. We got ours. We want your grandkids and great grandchildren to have a source of reliable water.
[1:45:33] That's why we plead plan. That's why people keep on telling you like fellow busters about a bunch of stuff that sticks to the wall and preaching you can confuse.
[1:45:43] aquifers are wonderful. We've got our awards because we have a great
[1:45:46] aquifer, a water-managed plant, but it don't last forever. You need that
[1:45:51] this water stories. Just a couple years ago we had the packed house
[1:45:55] tell us, we need water. What are we going to do? Because the important one to
[1:45:59] $2,000 an acre foot. So we're trying to use all the water we have here before we
[1:46:05] buy other water that costs way too much, 50% or more. We have a great
[1:46:12] aquifer plan, we have damped, that need to be completed, and nine of them has seismic conditions.
[1:46:18] We didn't build them, we inherited them. We have to pay for them. It takes money. You pay now,
[1:46:25] you pay more in damage control. Serity is going to rain. Wonderful, but it don't rain forever.
[1:46:32] So we have to recapture. Find out the best way of doing it and so on. We have so many things,
[1:46:38] But here's the main thing, what this staff and this board, the majority has been doing, planning for the future, and you can't live without water.
[1:46:47] All the other things somehow you can make it, but you can't. You got the best water in California, quality of water, prices are down.
[1:46:56] Just think what would you do if you didn't have water, and droughts follow storms, and pretty soon you'll all be here a couple of years since they say, what are we going to do?
[1:47:06] We need funding, but you'd rather pay now than pay later.
[1:47:10] It's less now than it will be later, and I hope everybody has water for the future for
[1:47:15] your children.
[1:47:16] Thank you.
[1:47:21] At this point, I do not have any requests for board members to know in the public.
[1:47:29] So this public hearing, again, thank you staff for your great work, this public hearing
[1:47:34] will continue, and we will close the public here in April 23rd.
[1:47:41] So you have now until April 23rd, I'll just time to submit your comment to us related
[1:47:48] to the groundwater protection charges.
[1:47:51] And now we will go back to our regular agenda.
[1:47:55] The next item is item 3.5.
[1:47:59] It is also a public hearing.
[1:48:02] So, I have my prepared statement to read first.
[1:48:09] Item 3.5 is the public hearing
[1:48:12] to consider value-waters,
[1:48:15] capital improvement program,
[1:48:17] draft capital improvement program.
[1:48:20] For fiscal year 2025 through 2029,
[1:48:24] this is a five-year plan.
[1:48:27] And the public hearing is to consider value-waters
[1:48:31] the CIP and February 27, 2024, the board directed staff to update the CIP draft fiscal year
[1:48:43] 2025 through 29, five-year plan prior to release for public review to reflect the staff
[1:48:51] recommended assumptions presented in the 2024 protection and augmentation of water supply reports.
[1:48:59] So these two documents are greatly related to each other, one feed into the other.
[1:49:10] Following this direction on March 13, 2024, the update is the IP draft fiscal year 25 through 29.
[1:49:19] five year plan was released to all cities and land use authorities in Santa
[1:49:25] Card County and the county of Santa Clara for review as to its consistency with the
[1:49:32] general, with their individual agencies general class.
[1:49:37] Pursuant to California government code 65403D before adopting a
[1:49:44] important program, the governing body of a special district is required to hold at least one
[1:49:51] public hearing. And that's what we're doing in the under-dis item. The public hearing is being
[1:49:59] out of.
[1:50:00] For value waters, five year plan, so that representatives of the city, townships, county, or the public may appear in the mid-commence and information to the Board of Directors regarding this draft five year CIP plan.
[1:50:20] So welcome to the public hearing for the five-year step, five-year CIP, if you would like to provide comments on this item, please submit a speaker card to the clerk or use the raise hand to a tool located in the Zoom.
[1:50:38] I will recognize speakers one at a time and to give access to make comments.
[1:50:46] Speakers comments should be limited to three minutes.
[1:50:51] We will now receive the public comments to consider very well as five-year plan.
[1:50:56] So apparently there is no staff presentation on the draft CFP plan.
[1:51:01] There's no plan to do that.
[1:51:02] No presentation.
[1:51:03] No presentation.
[1:51:04] So we'll go directly into the public comment period.
[1:51:09] So if you have comment, as I said earlier,
[1:51:12] usually raise hand too or submit a speaker card.
[1:51:18] As of now, I don't have any speaker cards submitted.
[1:51:24] Are there any raise hand on the Zoom?
[1:51:28] Thank you, Madam Chair, at this time. I have no hands raised in Zoom.
[1:51:34] And
[1:51:38] are there any board comment directions?
[1:51:44] It's a very much related to the previous public hearing.
[1:51:49] Yeah, sure.
[1:51:51] Okay, Director Keegan.
[1:51:53] Thank you.
[1:51:54] You know, I just had one suggestion, which is,
[1:51:58] I know for a long time we just circulated our CIP to cities
[1:52:05] cities to see what there is any incompatibility with their general plans and things of that
[1:52:14] nature.
[1:52:16] But I think we've sort of limited ourselves and just asking for that feedback.
[1:52:20] I mean, I think that what should be asking in a broader sense in terms of what they might
[1:52:26] feel are the priorities as part of our CIP.
[1:52:29] You know, I think we're coming to a time of constrained resources, and it's better for us to know
[1:52:36] which projects are more broadly supported by the larger community, particularly the engineering community.
[1:52:42] So that is just a suggestion that I will make. I don't know if that any of my colleagues feel that that's something important but I do.
[1:52:51] Okay, I'm sure anyone who wants to be engaged in the CIP, we will come that for the land use agency that was required by California government co-hosts, that's why we do that's why we specifically call it out.
[1:53:09] But then everybody else has the welcome to be engaged.
[1:53:13] Okay, Dr. Astralmarra.
[1:53:15] Yeah, thank you, man, chair.
[1:53:17] Just wanted to point out that, you know,
[1:53:18] unlike cities who are required to have to see us, peace.
[1:53:22] We didn't have, we're not required to, and we didn't have one.
[1:53:26] It's been a number of years now that we've had a CIP
[1:53:28] that we share with everybody.
[1:53:31] We get their feedback.
[1:53:33] And then we talk about it, and we have a number of public hearings.
[1:53:37] But I'm pretty satisfied that we will, as the chair said,
[1:53:41] We will spend a little time publicly reviewing each of these projects in the public settings.
[1:53:50] So we can share with people why it is that we're doing this 10 year pipeline rehab or any of these things, the pumping plant.
[1:53:59] You know, there's nothing sexy about a pumping plant. There's nothing sexy about any of this stuff.
[1:54:03] But when you look at it, what happens if we don't do it? If you don't do it, what happens? That's what we got to tell the public.
[1:54:11] Okay, we don't do this pumping plan.
[1:54:13] What's gonna happen if we don't have a 10 year pipeline rehab program where we invest,
[1:54:23] making sure that we have that in stock, rather than to wait for a number of years when
[1:54:29] something's going on in your neighborhood, you're inundated and we got to wait to find some
[1:54:34] steal somewhere.
[1:54:35] Good luck.
[1:54:36] And it's at their sacrifice, not ours.
[1:54:41] That's why we've got to review this with people.
[1:54:43] So let's see what it is that we're trying to do.
[1:54:46] What this CIP is doing.
[1:54:49] So yeah, we will definitely work with CIO and this other staff
[1:54:54] to schedule that.
[1:54:56] And in the meantime, that this public hearing.
[1:55:00] We will continue into our public board meetings throughout April and the public hearing will be closed on Tuesday, May 14, 2024.
[1:55:13] So there's lots of opportunities for people to be engaged in the CIP.
[1:55:19] With that, there are two Eisenberg.
[1:55:22] Thank you so much.
[1:55:24] So, with appropriate respect, I vet vehemently disagree with the comments just said by my colleague.
[1:55:34] First of all, we are not doing the public any favor by disclosing to the public how we are spending our 10 billion with a billion.
[1:55:47] Remember, Dr. Evil, you know, billion dollar capital improvement plan.
[1:55:55] You know, other districts don't have a CIP. I believe that other districts do it better.
[1:56:02] The CIP program is a failure. We know that already. The process is problematic.
[1:56:10] The auditor, the outside auditor, said that. You know, it was urgently important for us to audit.
[1:56:16] And this board voted not to audit.
[1:56:20] So I think that we know that there are issues with the process.
[1:56:25] We know there are issues with the CIP and we are not doing the public a favor by disclosing to them.
[1:56:33] And they're actually our laws in place starting with the Brown Act and the District Act and a whole slew of state and federal laws that require us to share
[1:56:45] thorough information, complete information about how we are spending the public's money and we
[1:56:53] are not doing that at all. So we need to do better. Our ratepayers deserve it, public deserves
[1:57:01] it, immediate deserves it, our colleagues deserve it, everyone deserves to know more about
[1:57:07] how we're spending our money. I shouldn't have to ask the question about how interest payments
[1:57:12] impact water rates literally for a year, you know, I shouldn't have to, you know, it is
[1:57:18] a reasonable question to know once we start paying interest in 20 years then what will happen
[1:57:25] to the water rates. This stuff is not brain surgery. These are pretty obvious questions. So
[1:57:33] I would say public should not be grateful. The public should demand more and the public deserves
[1:57:39] more. Second is, our job is not to explain to the public what we're doing and why we're doing
[1:57:46] it. Our job is to include the public with our decision-making. And you may laugh, Director
[1:57:55] Estimera, your laughter is disrespectful. You do not know more than everyone in our community.
[1:58:01] You, Director, I said, okay, you just make your comment and that's not a point.
[1:58:06] So, not point finger as individuals.
[1:58:09] Okay, so an individual was laughing.
[1:58:12] And for the record, it should be known that director Estimera was laughing at what I was saying.
[1:58:17] That was disrespectful, that was rude, that was offensive, not just to me, but to the public.
[1:58:22] Director.
[1:58:22] I said, but guys, seriously, I hope that you consider what I just requested.
[1:58:26] And I go on to say,
[1:58:29] Our job is not to tell the public what we're doing and try to convince them that we're
[1:58:37] right and they're wrong.
[1:58:39] And since I was elected to this committee, as has been complained about me time and
[1:58:43] time again, my insistence that we take the community more seriously and include their
[1:58:51] factors and their opinions and their experiences and their facts in our decision-making is
[1:59:01] an opinion and a belief I'm going to stick with. It is called democracy. Democracy is not
[1:59:07] the elected officials bullying the public to believe that we're right. Democracy means this
[1:59:15] government by the people for the people to ensure the benefit of the people and by making decisions
[1:59:26] and then pushing them down onto the people and assisting we know more than they do is wrong,
[1:59:32] it is ethically wrong, it is socially unjust and it is, in my opinion, goes against the spirit and the
[1:59:43] of the laws that enable us, we need to include the public in our decision-making and everything
[1:59:50] said by my colleagues who spoke on the day is here. It's established the fact that we do not
[1:59:57] complete the public.
[2:00:00] I find it, I don't have words to express my disappointment to hear one of my colleagues dismiss the words of the agricultural committee leaders who know a lot more about their finances than we do.
[2:00:16] To hear someone say they say they're suffering but I look around and I think they're thriving.
[2:00:21] How dare we? How dare anyone say that? You know, the point of DEI is to embrace and listen to alternate experiences and perspectives.
[2:00:36] And if we have a board member, utterly dismissing the experience of experts who are appointed to advise us, what are we doing here?
[2:00:45] Why are we?
[2:00:47] Can we focus on CIP?
[2:00:49] Yes.
[2:00:50] And so my point about...
[2:00:52] Yes.
[2:00:52] That's focused on CIP.
[2:00:53] Is that we need to, including everyone here.
[2:00:58] We need to listen to the public.
[2:01:00] We need to learn from the public.
[2:01:02] We need to take the public seriously.
[2:01:05] And we need to change our plans after, after learning from them.
[2:01:13] We don't know everything.
[2:01:15] They know some things, you know some things that we don't know.
[2:01:20] So I'd like to thank the public for your involvement.
[2:01:22] Thank you all who reached out to me.
[2:01:24] Thank you for sharing my, you know, sharing your experiences.
[2:01:28] Even though some of my colleagues won't listen, I will.
[2:01:31] And it's come to remember, we'll have more who listen to.
[2:01:34] Because you deserve better.
[2:01:39] Director, that's from there.
[2:01:41] Thank you, Director.
[2:01:42] You know, it's pretty offensive, man.
[2:01:44] When we make a commitment to share with the public, then we get lectured to that we're not providing information to the public.
[2:01:54] That's pretty offensive. When we're responsive, and then we get lectured that we're trying to tell the public what to do.
[2:02:05] It really is pretty ridiculous to hear that kind of opinion.
[2:02:09] I
[2:02:13] felt we would be responsive by saying that we would share even more than what we already do and we share and offer a lot
[2:02:23] and then to be lectured that, oh well, no. You're not being responsive, you're going to go tell the people what the story is.
[2:02:30] We have a responsibility to tell the public exactly what it is that we're doing, what we plan to do and what we ask them, we should be doing.
[2:02:40] We have public hearings. That's why we have public hearings. We haven't during the day we haven't in the evening.
[2:02:47] This is the public hearing. That's what it was. We were listening to the public, whoever had something to say we heard them.
[2:02:55] And even then still we said we would have more public hearings and I requested an opportunity to share with the public what it is that we're doing.
[2:03:05] And then got lectured that well no you you you you you you're going to go you're going to go tell the public what to do
[2:03:12] No, we're going to go tell the public what it is that we're planning and ask them
[2:03:16] What they think about that that's what a public hearing is all about that's why we share what we do the reason we did the CIP was exactly for that same reason
[2:03:25] To let people know what it is that we're doing
[2:03:28] Now what's wrong with that?
[2:03:42] I'm just going to get clarification here.
[2:03:46] Item 3.4, the one we just did was the protection,
[2:03:50] augmentation, water supplies.
[2:03:53] So that was the water supply stuff.
[2:03:57] And it looked like from a reading report like 10 years.
[2:04:01] Here's what we're going to do.
[2:04:03] Water supplies stuff.
[2:04:05] This item is the five years CIP.
[2:04:10] So this item is, this is 3.5, this is the capital and true in budget for both water supply, and a flight control and so forth.
[2:04:21] The complete capital budget.
[2:04:22] That's correct.
[2:04:23] It has both.
[2:04:24] Both.
[2:04:25] Water utility and water flickering.
[2:04:27] But this is only the five year.
[2:04:31] Five year CIP, right?
[2:04:35] It does have some stuff in there about future projects.
[2:04:38] projects on the kind of the weight list or whatever.
[2:04:43] Then the next item, 3.6, is that's the change of the projects.
[2:04:51] It's not the projects, but the change of the projects on the Safe Queen Water.
[2:05:00] Our national flag protection program, the one that was approved by the boat, by the boaters. Correct? So, I want to make it clear that we're only talking about those areas that are on the agenda.
[2:05:17] That's correct. That's correct. All this other stuff.
[2:05:19] Yeah. And I
[2:05:24] want to make it clear that my remarks on the first item only applied to the
[2:05:28] utilities not to flag control. Okay, the only applied to that pause report. I wasn't commenting
[2:05:36] on the flag controls. I don't have any comments on 3.5 because 3.5 is a public hearing to
[2:05:44] hear the public or not adopting that now. We're simply continuing to hearing the chair indicated
[2:05:51] that we're going to have a hearing, maybe have a report at the special meeting we're going
[2:05:57] to have.
[2:05:58] Okay, can I interrupt?
[2:06:00] So what I just said is that the public hearing for the CIP will continue and then the closing
[2:06:07] date of the public hearing is on May 14th which during this period of time there will be
[2:06:13] regular board meetings and then it will be on the agenda every minute.
[2:06:17] So Pover has multiple opportunities
[2:06:21] to submit comments to us that way.
[2:06:26] And I also suggested that we can have a dedicated portion
[2:06:32] of our strategic planning session, which is scheduled for April 29th.
[2:06:36] That's a special board meeting to focus on the next level
[2:06:41] of detail of what's in the five-year CIP.
[2:06:45] So, but then that's something that I need to work together with staff to plan it out.
[2:06:52] So there's plenty of opportunities for now until we adopt the budget, which is May.
[2:07:00] The board can comment, people can come to us, give us their thinking, and then so our job is to make it as transparent as open.
[2:07:09] and then pull by the opportunity as we can.
[2:07:12] Yeah, okay, that's the whole point.
[2:07:14] That explains what explains to you.
[2:07:15] So I'm gonna make it clear.
[2:07:17] Okay, the positive part is not gonna be,
[2:07:22] it's gonna be distressed in the schedule
[2:07:25] indicated on the agenda.
[2:07:27] Okay, and then we're gonna have a part of our strategic planning
[2:07:32] to talk about the five-year capital.
[2:07:36] Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
[2:07:38] Yeah, I can't change it and I get into just in the five years CIP it's updated every year and then it's more of a
[2:07:48] Flooking into the next five years, but they are projects in the five years CIP if we know the estimated
[2:07:55] Estimated all projected costs beyond the five year period. It is also included in the five years CIP. Yeah, so that's
[2:08:05] That's that's a that's a clarification. Okay, so the
[2:08:08] Just my comments on the five-year CIP, those are projects that I hope we're going to build
[2:08:14] as quickly as possible because they're pretty much projects that have been kind of thought
[2:08:19] out.
[2:08:20] They're ready to go.
[2:08:21] They're kind of like projects we're doing.
[2:08:23] So, because it's five years, only five years, that's pretty, that's kind of a short timeline
[2:08:28] for construction.
[2:08:29] So, my basic comment on those is let's get them done as quickly as possible.
[2:08:34] I mean, you know, let's do the best we can, you know, this is horrible.
[2:08:39] labor market, a horrible supply market, there might be some ways we can save money if we
[2:08:48] can, but those are projects that we've already decided will be projects we want for the most part, right?
[2:08:57] They're for the most part, but they are project that will future investment, that's still
[2:09:02] still rely on the 2050 water supply master plan to give it more clarity on which project
[2:09:08] to invest on.
[2:09:10] So there's still those uncertainties but then for transparency reasons that we've included
[2:09:16] everything, every document that we're preparing even though the 2050 master plan study may
[2:09:24] tell us to delete a specific project because it's not that we're going to invest in or whatever.
[2:09:29] So everything is a process, but then they all come together on the road, which is need to go through it to step a step.
[2:09:38] Okay, so I'm asking these questions because I think when we discuss some of these items we've got 100 crossover from one item to another.
[2:09:47] I'm glad you asked me.
[2:09:49] You know, so we get it clear and thank you, Madam Chair for providing that clarity.
[2:09:53] And the next item will be just to talk about.
[2:10:00] That renewed safe clean water and natural public control program. So that's item 3.6.
[2:10:06] So we're moving along with agenda. I'm just kind of, the only comment I had on the Capitol budget was a.
[2:10:15] Get it done and be, you know, try to fix, like I think some of the other board members were saying, we don't want the facilities and, you know,
[2:10:27] of flood control projects and the utility projects to have maintenance repair problems.
[2:10:34] We should try to are best to not let that happen and for the future generations we should
[2:10:41] fix those as a priority.
[2:10:44] So that's the only comment.
[2:10:45] I'm a fix it first kind of guy.
[2:10:47] I mean, I think we're doing the big project we did this year is perfect in that description.
[2:10:53] And that's the Labyrinth Annada plant, which I think is we don't get enough credit for making
[2:11:01] decision to go ahead and move that despite the big cost item.
[2:11:06] But that's going to be an investment for the next 50 years.
[2:11:09] It's kind of a good clean, well-treated water for the community,
[2:11:20] and to me, I think that
[2:11:23] was, that's going to be a spectacular project when you finish it, I mean, I'm just
[2:11:27] a proud of the staff and the board and all the people that are working on that project
[2:11:32] down to the guys planning the trees around the project.
[2:11:37] So I think that's a great project and I consider that the ALIS to maintenance repair projects
[2:11:47] that we need to do, and let's give them some credit for that.
[2:11:53] Thank you.
[2:11:56] Thank you.
[2:11:57] So, as I said, more than one time already that this public hearing will continue.
[2:12:03] And then now we're going back to our regular agenda.
[2:12:08] We're now on item 3.6.
[2:12:11] This is conduct a public hearing on proposed changes to project under priorities.
[2:12:17] A-E-N-F, for the renewed safe clean water and natural flow protection program.
[2:12:25] Before I read my statement, I want to remind everybody that these proposed changes to the
[2:12:32] Queensland Creek program, KPI, were about to the full board at our last board meeting and
[2:12:40] board, it's left explained the rationale for these changes and the board
[2:12:46] directed staff that yes that have a public hearing to hear public comments related
[2:12:53] to these proposed changes. So, with that, this public hearing is now open on July 21,
[2:13:03] 2020, the board adopted Resolution Number 264, which specified the limits and conditions
[2:13:13] by which value water is authorized to institute a special parcel tax for the renewed
[2:13:20] safely water and natural flow protection program. As all-lined in the resolution, the board
[2:13:26] of directors may direct that the proposed projects in the safely water program be modified
[2:13:33] or not implemented due to several factors, including federal and state funding limitations.
[2:13:41] To modify or not implement a proposed project, the board must hold a public hearing,
[2:13:48] and that's what we're doing today at this moment on the matter,
[2:13:53] which will be noticed by publication and notified two interested parties before the adoption
[2:14:01] of any such decision to modify or not implement a project.
[2:14:07] At its meeting on March 26, 2024, the board said the time and place for a formal
[2:14:14] public hearing are April 20, 2024, which is today, and then that's what I referred to
[2:14:20] at the last four meeting, March 26, 2024, staff explained in detail to the board about
[2:14:26] these proposed changes.
[2:14:28] Staff prepared and published an advertisement in Santa Clara County
[2:14:34] consistent with the two-week notice requirements in government code section
[2:14:40] six and zero six-six.
[2:14:42] Staff also conducted outreach to project and program stakeholders.
[2:14:50] We will begin with a staff presentation on the proposed changes and then here
[2:14:55] public comments.
[2:14:56] Again, anyone wish to provide comments to the...
[2:15:00] The Board, you can do it either by filling out the speaker card if you are already in here.
[2:15:07] Or you can use the raise hand to in the Zoom meeting to provide your feedback.
[2:15:15] I would now like to introduce Jessica Collins, business planning and analysis unit manager responsible for the implementation
[2:15:24] of the Safe Clean Water Program to begin the staff presentation and provide additional details
[2:15:30] on the subject matter.
[2:15:32] Good afternoon, Shushway and Members of the Board, I'm pleased to be here this afternoon.
[2:15:37] I may please the Board, I'm here for you today, to present the proposed recommended changes
[2:15:41] to three projects under Priority A, Priorities A, E and F of the Renewed Safety
[2:15:46] Motor Natural Club Protection Program.
[2:15:52] Today's board actions include conducting the public hearing on the proposed changes to the
[2:15:55] program. And if approved, adopting resolutions for each of the projects, if the project
[2:16:01] deaf nine resolution is adopted, we're also requesting that the Board approve a text
[2:16:05] adjustment to the description of the project to align with the proposed modification.
[2:16:12] Today's public hearing is being held in accordance with the program's change control process,
[2:16:17] which is established the process to modify, not implement or adjust projects, which was adopted
[2:16:21] by the Board via resolution number 264. On March 26, the Board set the time in place for the
[2:16:27] Today's public hearing and public hearing notices were published in compliance with government
[2:16:31] code section 66, additionally Valley Water Conduct Outreach directly to project
[2:16:36] and program stakeholders.
[2:16:39] The catalysts for today's proposed changes include rising infrastructure costs, which resulted
[2:16:44] in funding shortfall for the nearly shovel ready Sunnyvale East West Philippe Protection
[2:16:49] Project.
[2:16:50] The board directed increased level of service for the incoming cleanup project, and I am
[2:16:54] Recommendation to modify KPI 2 of the Upper Guadalupe River Flow Protection Project to include
[2:16:59] benefits to all native fish species. Expansion of Project F9 grants of partnerships, KPA
[2:17:05] number 4 to include all community members seeking assistance for watershed activities as opposed
[2:17:09] to restricting it to small municipalities and special districts.
[2:17:14] I'll now provide an overview of the proposed changes. The first proposed change is to not implement
[2:17:20] Project A1, the Pecheco Reservoir Expansion Project, under the program, thereby not implementing
[2:17:25] the fund transfer of up to 10 million, which would provide 0.36% of the project's total
[2:17:30] project cost. The Pecheco Project would remain in the Capital Improvement Program, and the absence
[2:17:35] of a 10 million allocation would not have significant impact on the project's progress and can be
[2:17:40] absorbed under the current water rate projection. The 10 million can then be released into the
[2:17:50] combined with additional debt proceeds with more flexible terms can help to complete the construction
[2:17:57] of the Sunnyvale project that the voters approved in 2000 and bolster project F5 to help
[2:18:02] sustain the enhanced level of service directed by the board this past August in order to meet the
[2:18:06] growing needs of the community, including the in sheltered community.
[2:18:12] The second proposed change is
[2:18:13] to modify project E8, the upper Guadalupe River flood protection project. This request for
[2:18:18] modification was made by the IMC, the independent monitoring committee for the program, to include
[2:18:23] reference to all native-fist species in KPI number 2, and on March 12, the board accepted
[2:18:29] the staff response agreeing to propose the modification via a public hearing.
[2:18:33] The third proposed change is to modify project F9 grants and partnerships for safety motor
[2:18:38] flood protection and environmental stewardship. The proposed modification is the KPI number 4,
[2:18:43] which currently provides up to 3 million for partnerships with small municipalities,
[2:18:47] which today has received no successful applications.
[2:18:50] Meanwhile, community members have expressed interest in receiving
[2:18:53] value water assistance to implement water-shed activities that provide
[2:18:56] community benefits, such as bank repair, sediment removal, and down-tree management.
[2:19:01] Therefore, staff recommends the KPI number 4 be modified to broaden and expand access
[2:19:06] beyond small municipalities and special districts and include individuals with a
[2:19:10] rebate program covering water-shed stewardship activities.
[2:19:15] My apologies.
[2:19:15] If the F9 project resolution is adopted, we're also requesting that the Board approve a text adjustment to the description to align with the proposed modification.
[2:19:25] Having received the overview of the proposed changes, I'll now ask the Board to consider adopting the resolutions for projects A1, E8, and F9, and approve the corresponding text adjustment to project F9.
[2:19:36] And I'll now stand up in any questions after which tertiary will receive the public's comments on the proposed changes.
[2:19:45] Thank you, Ms. Collins.
[2:19:49] Okay, so we will now take the public comment.
[2:19:55] Related to what Ms. Collins just presented about.
[2:20:00] These proposes changes to the KPI's under the Safeway Water Program. I don't have any speaker request.
[2:20:13] And I see Jeff. Okay. Yeah. Mr. Here. Yeah. Who is the chair of our IMC? Has the hand raised? Can we allow him to speak?
[2:20:28] Yes, good afternoon. I'll make this great. Thank you very much. As to obviously Project
[2:20:37] DA, I actually did review this and I'm going to look at Project A1. The proposal here
[2:20:47] to not implement. I'm curious how this will be reflected in the annual report. This will
[2:20:55] be permanently taken off of the IMC's annual report?
[2:21:03] Yes, the proposal is to remove the project from the Safe Clean Water Program, not remove
[2:21:07] the project from the Capital Improvement Program rather, but not implement the project under
[2:21:11] the Safe Clean Water Program, which was basically the fun transfer of up to 10 million.
[2:21:17] Okay, and I know that our the IMC recommendation was simply a request here to reflect all
[2:21:24] the other sources of funding for that project, as so long as it was part of the measure
[2:21:30] S project.
[2:21:32] So if it's being removed, I might correct to assume that there will be no other reporting
[2:21:37] regarding this project.
[2:21:40] I can respond to that.
[2:21:41] So as this action is being taken in this current fiscal year, fiscal year 24, fiscal year 24,
[2:21:48] fiscal year 24 annual report will address the IMC's recommendation that was approved
[2:21:53] by the Board to provide all information regarding the funding sources for the project.
[2:21:57] We'll still provide all of that information in this coming annual report as well as a summary
[2:22:01] of the any board action taken today regarding the public hearing and then moving forward
[2:22:07] any board action taken today would be reflected in the following annual reports.
[2:22:12] Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate that. Okay. We have, uh, next one is, uh, Loma
[2:22:23] Pareta, Resource Conservation District.
[2:22:31] I'm also the Chair of that Water Advisory
[2:22:33] Committee. And, uh, I like the concept of, uh, the fish mitigation, and some of these
[2:22:40] of the watershed because I think that's very, very important.
[2:22:45] I'm just curious about the funding of this.
[2:22:48] I know there's already a flood control parcel tax.
[2:22:50] Is there going to be a new tax added to this?
[2:22:53] Or is it going to be, are we going to do all three grants?
[2:23:00] Jessica, can you answer that?
[2:23:01] You want me to answer it?
[2:23:02] The funding for the E8 project.
[2:23:06] The funding for the E8 project is, was that the question,
[2:23:10] or for implementation.
[2:23:13] Yes, for this black and roll product.
[2:23:15] I think for all three proposed changes.
[2:23:18] So yes, so the funding,
[2:23:21] essentially for the projects under the
[2:23:23] sickly-mutter natural flood protection program,
[2:23:26] are funded through our special parcel tax,
[2:23:27] which was a voter approved special parcel tax in 2020.
[2:23:32] And those dollars are reflected any
[2:23:35] shared funding sources are reported out in the Indian report.
[2:23:39] And we report on that every year and provide information to the public.
[2:23:45] So I think one of the, I think part of the questions are they going to be additional tests.
[2:23:55] No, they won't be, they won't, yeah, they will not be additional tests.
[2:23:59] So this is more of a change existing program element,
[2:24:04] so that we can more efficiently use the voter approved safe clean water program.
[2:24:13] Okay, great. That's a real location of funds that are in place. Yes, yes, yes.
[2:24:17] Oh, thank you very much for following that.
[2:24:20] Okay, thank you for asking the question, okay, any anything else? I don't have anything.
[2:24:31] Okay, then, what we're still in the public hearing.
[2:24:38] Okay, and we're in line.
[2:24:46] Okay, we're just to receive the public comment period.
[2:24:49] And then now we heard a-
[2:25:00] Staff presentation and then we answered public questions and this, it is time now to close the public hearing for consideration of board discussion and motion.
[2:25:14] So, different, different than the previous two public hearing that will continue into the
[2:25:22] into NAVPRO or mid-May. This public hearing, this is the one meeting public hearing and then
[2:25:30] we're at the point that we're ready to close the public hearing and this is the time for
[2:25:36] board to ask questions and then I'll give the question to that.
[2:25:42] Okay. Second. Would you have a question from Director Keegan?
[2:25:50] Thank you.
[2:25:51] Ms. Collins, perhaps you can answer this question for me.
[2:25:55] It's related to E9 and that was a request from the IMC.
[2:26:02] And so it talks about providing up to $3 million for 15-year period
[2:26:07] for a Greek-side neighbor rebate program for watershed activities,
[2:26:10] including bank repair, sediment removal, and down tree management.
[2:26:14] So that's roughly $200,000 a year.
[2:26:19] I mean, I'm supportive of this idea of opening it up more.
[2:26:24] And specifically, we do hear concerns about bank repair,
[2:26:28] sediment removal in trees that are impeding flow
[2:26:32] in the creeks.
[2:26:35] My question, well, a couple of questions.
[2:26:37] One is, are we going to be providing any assistance
[2:26:42] in terms of getting permits or things like that
[2:26:47] or at least advising people who get these grants us
[2:26:52] to what their responsibilities are to do work
[2:26:54] within the channel?
[2:26:55] I mean, sediment removal is kind of a big deal,
[2:26:58] right. So this is the first step in the process is getting authorization to establish this type
[2:27:03] of rebate program. The details of how to implement that rebate program I believe will be brought
[2:27:09] back to the board for further discussion. Okay and so other questions that I have and you may not
[2:27:15] be able to answer them right now but I would be curious about is like for example this could be an
[2:27:22] individual perhaps an individual who's who's bank is failing behind their property and they're
[2:27:27] asking for some assistance and so we it sounds like that would be something that would be
[2:27:33] eligible and we might come up with some criteria right like cost sharing and things of that
[2:27:37] nature so so these are things I'm getting into the details that are going to
[2:27:43] staff is going to work with the IMC and with the community to develop those further and then
[2:27:48] bring those back to the board am I hearing correctly yes okay thank you
[2:27:52] Thank you so much.
[2:27:54] Director Arsonberg.
[2:28:04] So, kind of get a little closer to the mic.
[2:28:10] With regard to the Pacheco, not spending choosing not to implement this expense.
[2:28:17] First, I just want to point out that, you know, I'm going to reiterate my objection to the use of the number 140,000.
[2:28:26] And where you state that it will up to 140,000 acre feed of storage, since we know that we will not be able to do this project,
[2:28:39] if without 35% participation, we know that we will not be able to do this project without 35% of the storage going to those participants,
[2:28:50] which means that actually the maximum is 91,000 acre feet.
[2:29:02] Well, that's...
[2:29:04] This is a binomial post.
[2:29:08] But this is actually a factual misrepresentation
[2:29:11] that I keep pointing out, even in a slide that says,
[2:29:15] we're not implementing this, there's still a misrepresentation
[2:29:20] of what this project would do.
[2:29:21] So I, that bothers me, but please explain to me, you're thinking behind not implementing this and it tell me how much money from this pool of money will still be spent on Pacheco.
[2:29:37] We know that you are not going, if I understand correctly, this means you won't be spending what 10 million on it.
[2:29:47] So, how much will you still be spending on it and what was your thinking behind this?
[2:29:53] Certainly. So, the $10,000 fund transfer to date. No funds have been transferred. Those were...
[2:30:00] Transfers that were scheduled for future fiscal years. So, today, no safe clean water funds have been spent on the Czech arrest of our expansion project.
[2:30:08] Under the safe clean water program fund 26, as a funding source. And so, there are no other funds allocated to this project. Under the safe clean water program, the only allocation was that $10 million transfer spread over multiple years.
[2:30:24] And so, through the board's action today, should you adopt the resolution to not implement
[2:30:29] this project, no fund transfer would take place.
[2:30:32] Therefore, no safely water funds would be expanded on the Czech Republic's expansion project.
[2:30:37] The rationale for why we're proposing this is because this project, the $10 million fund transfer
[2:30:46] makes up about 0.36 of 1% of the total project cost, estimated total project cost, and in
[2:30:53] essence, the project will still be able to move forward without this one transfer, however
[2:30:58] these funds could be reallocated into the Safe Clean Water Program to help implement other
[2:31:04] projects and actually get those projects delivered. And so the two projects that were given
[2:31:09] is examples were the Sunnyvale East West Floor Protection Project, which has currently a funding
[2:31:14] for fall for the Sunnyvale East Channel portion,
[2:31:17] and this would help close that funding gap,
[2:31:19] along with financing and be able to allow us to move forward
[2:31:25] with construction, hopefully next fiscal years,
[2:31:28] this project is nearly shovel ready.
[2:31:30] The other item that could be supported through this action
[2:31:34] is the enhanced level of service for the Enchaimment Cleanup Project.
[2:31:38] Thank you for that.
[2:31:39] So then, so on that when I look at the State Water Commission's website and the Prop 1 page for
[2:31:48] Pateco, it says that $24.1 million was approved for early funding.
[2:31:56] That is not related to the sickly water and natural flood protection program.
[2:32:01] Okay, so basically that means we're not getting taking money from the flood prevention program.
[2:32:07] We're not, no funds beyond this ten million dollar future funding for Pacheco for Pacheco
[2:32:14] and allocated.
[2:32:15] So from fun 26.
[2:32:17] Okay, great.
[2:32:18] So in a future meeting when it's not off topic, I would love to have.
[2:32:22] And since I'm not allowed to meet with staff anymore,
[2:32:25] I have to ask these questions at board meetings,
[2:32:28] but I would love to have a breakdown of all the different funds
[2:32:34] And what projects that those funds have been allocated to because we know we've been spending money on
[2:32:40] Pacheco.
[2:32:41] And again, I don't want to be off topic for this meeting, but in the future I'd like to understand
[2:32:46] what funds have been spent on Pacheco because there's a number of different funds, right?
[2:32:52] And here we're talking about just fund 26.
[2:32:55] So, again, staying on topic, you know, and again, I have all these off topic questions because
[2:33:00] because my inability to meet with staff or staff to.
[2:33:04] And I can answer that.
[2:33:06] The water utility enterprise fund 61 is Valley Waters funding source
[2:33:11] for the particular reservoir expansion project
[2:33:13] and that funding source essentially are water rates.
[2:33:17] But we are here today about 20, 6, which is a larger approval.
[2:33:22] Right, so in the fund water, I would love that information.
[2:33:25] Because I think the public may be confused like I am
[2:33:28] that this actually would be taking away some funding from Pateco,
[2:33:31] but really what it's doing is not taking flood protection.
[2:33:36] Money, not paying for Pateco with flood protection,
[2:33:38] which I think is in line with the purpose of that fund.
[2:33:43] The Pateco does not have flood protection as one of it.
[2:33:47] To clarify, the sixth and what are natural flood protection program
[2:33:51] is a voter approved special parcel text
[2:33:54] that not only funds flood protection,
[2:33:56] but it also funds water supply projects as well.
[2:34:00] And each and every project that is funded
[2:34:02] through the safety and water program was approved by the voters.
[2:34:05] And so that is essentially outlined in the annual report
[2:34:09] and the program document and five year plans.
[2:34:12] I get it.
[2:34:12] And I do think this is in within line.
[2:34:14] So thank you.
[2:34:15] OK.
[2:34:15] Thank you.
[2:34:17] When you have the motion and the second,
[2:34:20] I think we need to take a roll call vote.
[2:34:23] This is a resolution.
[2:34:25] Director Bel, Director Eisenberg, I, Director Estimera, Director Keegan, Vice Chair Santos,
[2:34:34] Director Berla.
[2:34:35] Sure, sure.
[2:34:36] Yes.
[2:34:37] May you name a spoke?
[2:34:40] I won't just say one sentence that I really appreciate staff's initiative, F.N.I,
[2:34:53] that
[2:34:53] a property owner or neighborhood group, I think that's building a lot of bridges
[2:34:59] It's a hard one.
[2:35:00] So, yeah, that's a big step on public agencies. So, thank you, staff, for your initiative. Okay, we're moving on to
[2:35:13] I do have a public request Mr. Mark Wise for item 4.1, so I think I would just pull
[2:35:24] item 4.1 for discussion first, and then we'll vote on the council and calendar.
[2:35:30] Mr. Wise, please.
[2:35:37] Good afternoon, board members, and staff, my name is Mark Wise.
[2:35:42] I lived in Palo Alto, I wanted to commend you on acknowledging through your proclamation
[2:35:49] Earth Day, April 22, 2024, and when I read that item in your packet, I immediately thought
[2:35:59] of the song that I first heard on the radio as a kid, but the Dooby Brothers, black waters,
[2:36:07] their number one hit in 1975, is their first hit, and they're from this neck of the woods.
[2:36:12] In fact, Patrick Simmons, he, I believe, went to, he was a Lee, Longhorn, which is only
[2:36:20] three miles from here up, Blossom Hill Road, and, you know, to be brothers have, I mean,
[2:36:27] that song, you know, it's about the Mississippi, but they've brought a lot of claim to our area,
[2:36:32] and I think they're environmentalists, Mr. Bill, Mr. Bell has it, what? And San Jose
[2:36:39] stay as was Ken Kameniti. Anyways, baseball player for me. All right, so, but I'm wondering
[2:36:48] maybe this board could sponsor a songwriting contest because that's song with Adobe Brothers.
[2:36:54] As catchy as it is, it's about the Mississippi River. It might be interesting to see not the
[2:37:00] Adobe Brothers but the next generation. There's a lot of great songwriters and up-and-coming songwriters.
[2:37:05] They don't have to be students, but there's a lot of indie,
[2:37:08] let's just say anyone who's not a major label,
[2:37:10] signy, excluding the Dooby Brothers.
[2:37:12] Maybe the Dooby Brothers could be a judge.
[2:37:14] I think we great to have a songwriting contest
[2:37:16] where Santa Clara County and people in your districts,
[2:37:19] write a song about water, about our crics,
[2:37:23] and our environmental theme, maybe not this year,
[2:37:27] but going forward might be a fun project
[2:37:29] for a value water community engagement
[2:37:33] with my additional 70 seconds. I wanted to shout out Wallace Stegner. Wallace Stegner was my
[2:37:40] neighbor for half of my life during his lifetime in that he was a leading environmentalist
[2:37:47] and professor at Stanford and very involved. I'm not sure what his history is with value
[2:37:51] water, but I like to look it up. But at the 1992 Earth Day in Palo Alto he was supposed to be
[2:37:59] our keynote speaker, but unfortunately he died in a car accident and was never able to attend
[2:38:04] that event.
[2:38:06] I believe perhaps they published what he would have said at the 92 Earth Day in Palo Alto.
[2:38:11] Yes, one little quibble, as I would say, in terms of your proclamation, it is more accurate
[2:38:19] to not just say that Earth Day was founded in the United States, it was actually founded
[2:38:24] in our county in that a huge part of the organization was done in Palo Alto by people like
[2:38:33] Pete McCloskey who wrote a book about the experience and our Congress person at the time.
[2:38:39] I believe and it's before my time really in Palo Alto and Peter Druckmire in 2004, the
[2:38:47] 20 second anniversary of it, he later became a water administrator, he probably know him and
[2:38:53] our mayor, he came out of the Earth Day movement on the 20th anniversary of all that.
[2:38:57] As did I. Okay, thank you. Thank you. And thank you for your suggestion. So we, uh, uh,
[2:39:04] is there a motion? Uh, okay. Second, okay. Uh, we need to do a roll call vote.
[2:39:12] We'll come all concerned calendar 4.1, 2, 4.4. Director Bell. Director Eisenberg.
[2:39:18] I direct to Ress Mera, direct to Keegan, vice chair of Santa's, direct to Brawla, chair
[2:39:25] Shua, yes, heavy and I'm a spoke, and Mr. Wise, we hope to see you at the National River
[2:39:32] Cleanup Day.
[2:39:35] Okay, moving on, item 5.1, consider the November 6th, 2023 and January 2nd, 2024 recommendations
[2:39:44] from the board to policy and planning committee to adopt the one-water
[2:39:50] Guadalupe and Upper Pajaro Watershed Plants.
[2:39:56] Lisa, yes, thank you, good afternoon board, I'm Lisa Van Cache, assistant office.
[2:40:00] Sir, Watershed, Stewart-Chicken Fanning. And I've got a number of staff who contributed to the Watershed Plan. So, this item is for the Board to adopt the Wadalube and Upper Watershed Pahara Watershed Master Plan.
[2:40:14] These will come back, these recommended actions within the plans will come back to the Board for approval also at a later date as they are folded into operating and capital projects and programs.
[2:40:29] So, again, I do want to thank staff for their contributions to this tremendous two-year effort.
[2:40:36] And I do have a brief presentation.
[2:40:38] Should it please support?
[2:40:39] Or we can go directly to questions and discussion.
[2:40:42] Let's do the presentation because I think this is a big milestone.
[2:40:45] It is very important work.
[2:40:49] Thank you.
[2:40:50] Okay, so today I'll just talk briefly about the watershed planning process.
[2:40:54] So, and then we'll talk including the both flood vulnerability assessment, which was developed as part of this program and one one program, and then focus more attention on the priority actions that are recommended.
[2:41:08] So, like other master planning processes here at Valley Water, Watershed Master plans engage the community and use equitable metrics to identify flood protection and stream stewardship priority actions for sustainable future.
[2:41:22] And one water plans go one step further, so they bring in actions from water supply
[2:41:28] master plan and asset management plan, so they function as truly integrated long-range
[2:41:34] plans for the agency wide.
[2:41:39] The planning process is data-driven, there are five objectives, and baseline and targets are
[2:41:46] established to identify gaps and measure progress towards each
[2:41:50] subjective.
[2:41:52] This is an example metric.
[2:41:55] So this map shows the unprotected portions
[2:41:58] of the upper-poweral watersheds stream buffer lands.
[2:42:02] It's an example of how data is used to identify
[2:42:05] watershed priorities, in this case,
[2:42:08] to develop partnerships to protect the buffer lands.
[2:42:14] And the flood vulnerability assessment
[2:42:16] is another way data is used to identify watershed management priorities.
[2:42:24] So flood vulnerability is a combination of community characteristics
[2:42:28] and the physical extent of frequent flooding to find as the 25 year event.
[2:42:35] The goal is to provide health and safety to the entire community
[2:42:38] or to entire county rather prioritizing underserved communities.
[2:42:45] So this map shows flood vulnerable areas in the Guadalupe watershed.
[2:42:48] But as you can see, there's several areas of risk identified, including Ross, Canoes, and the upper
[2:42:54] blood.
[2:42:55] Please recall these maps as I'll go back to them later.
[2:43:00] Flood vulnerable areas identified in the assessment in the U.S. and U.S. and U.S. and include
[2:43:05] and I just want to note there's additional hydraulic modeling needed in this watershed,
[2:43:10] but you'll see a number of vulnerable areas, such as the east-west little U.S. area, as well
[2:43:16] as the U.S. around Highway 25.
[2:43:22] So what our should management needs to involve the entire community
[2:43:25] to be effective at addressing priorities.
[2:43:28] The public in-person process is very robust
[2:43:31] because it's really the core of the planning process.
[2:43:35] Each watershed plan involved outreach
[2:43:37] to a number of organizations.
[2:43:39] This is just an example, neighborhood groups and individuals.
[2:43:43] We also outreach to Board Advisory Committee's
[2:43:46] following review by the Board Policy and Planning Committee
[2:43:48] Earlier this year.
[2:43:52] Here's an example of a focus workshop. We held this workshop with members of the Guadalupe adapted management team and very engaged stakeholders such as CalChout and the goal was to develop an ecological vision for each sub watershed in the Guadalupe.
[2:44:07] This resulted in targeted recommendations for fish habitat improvement and these generally align with the face implementation plan but they can also serve as objectives for adaptive management for that program.
[2:44:23] Now, I'll highlight the actual key results of the planning process, the priority actions for each watershed.
[2:44:31] I can't cover all the actions here. There's over a hundred between the two plans,
[2:44:36] but no each plan includes a detailed table.
[2:44:39] And the actions are organized by phase where short phase is zero to 10 years.
[2:44:46] Medium is 11 to 20 and long-term is 21 to 30 years post plan adoption.
[2:44:51] This map shows the distribution of priority actions across the Guadalupe watershed.
[2:45:00] 265 in total. And short-term priorities in the watershed for flood risk reduction include conducting
[2:45:09] two planning studies at flood vulnerable areas. And I'd just recall the map I showed earlier,
[2:45:17] particularly at Canoes and Colero, or recommended in the short term. And the goal of these studies
[2:45:23] is to define a feasible project project one that is affordable and protects critical assets
[2:45:31] and the community. And I also want to point out that these actions include critical asset management
[2:45:40] projects. Total short-term actions for flood risk reduction in the Guadalupe would cost up to
[2:45:46] 13 million in the short-term.
[2:45:51] Sure-term ecological priorities include improving habitat for
[2:45:55] had of course, as well as salmon on these creeks, the Wadalupe, assessing feasibility of fish passage
[2:46:01] at Almanin Dam, modifying the Alameda's drop structure to enhance habitat, again a feasibility study,
[2:46:08] and partnerships to address other priority barriers, notably the Highway 17 wildlife and trail
[2:46:15] crossing project. We've got about $100 million of estimated that would in the short term for
[2:46:23] ecological actions. A number of these actions would be covered by face implementation funds,
[2:46:31] but because we don't know precisely which we're planning for an additional 100 million for these projects.
[2:46:41] Water quality improvement would also be another additional 100 million, and this is focus on
[2:46:48] addressing impacts of encampments in the watershed.
[2:46:54] Moving on to the upper part, there are 48 priority
[2:46:57] actions recommended in this watershed. And key actions also include flood actions would complete
[2:47:05] the hydraulic modeling, which is necessary, as I mentioned, as well as conducting
[2:47:10] several new planning studies and completing the lower Yagus capacity restoration projects,
[2:47:18] and these costs are projected to be up to 110 million.
[2:47:25] He ecological actions in the upper power watershed focus on partnerships with agricultural and other
[2:47:32] rural land managers to look at floodplain restoration, including at the PAHO River Agricultural
[2:47:41] Preserve.
[2:47:42] So this is at the confluence of the Agas and the PAHO Rivers and at San Felipe Lake.
[2:47:51] And again, water quality actions focus on partnerships.
[2:47:54] this time with RCDs, the county and municipalities to address sedimentation and bacterial impairments in the creeks.
[2:48:05] So that concludes my presentation. As I mentioned, next steps with adoption,
[2:48:13] staff would include these priority actions into operational and capital programs as funding allows.
[2:48:19] We would integrate the ecological actions into capital projects, potentially as conservation
[2:48:25] or mitigation measures, allowing for these projects to be multi-benefits.
[2:48:32] We would also move on to completing the next two watershed plans, which are the final
[2:48:37] two of the five watershed master plans for the lower peninsula and west valley.
[2:48:42] And then finally, we would conduct a county-wide flood risk prioritization process, so basically
[2:48:48] taking the results of all the county-wide flood vulnerability assessments and allowing the board to
[2:48:54] have input on prioritization.
[2:48:59] So thank you for listening. I'm available for questions.
[2:49:02] Okay. Questions from, well, member, we have, I'll start with direct, direct, direct, what
[2:49:08] relevant. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, thank you. Question.
[2:49:13] So both the direct or census and I sit on the part where river watershed, flood protection,
[2:49:17] authority, they had their meeting last Friday. I wasn't able to attend because of a conflict
[2:49:22] with another meeting. Was this presented at their meeting? This presentation that you
[2:49:27] present to us tonight, or has it been? Because I don't recall this ever being presented
[2:49:31] to that authority.
[2:49:32] I'm going to ask Nick Maskera to address the question. As I said, we've had, I think, over
[2:49:38] a hundred and twenty meetings. So I want to make sure to talk about this specific region.
[2:49:43] Good afternoon, Directors. And everyone is in my name is Nick Maskera, all of the associate
[2:49:46] environmental planner and project manager for this upper water shed plan.
[2:49:50] This item has not gone to the authority that you're referencing.
[2:49:53] Dr. Varella, however, we're well aware of that authority and we have staff that also are coordinating and following that.
[2:50:00] Information has been built into the work that we've done in the plan, but it has not gone to a presentation.
[2:50:06] Correct. If I heard there were 48 actions at a cost of 110 million and we're taking on partners.
[2:50:15] That has to be some explanation as to what that means to that particular region and who are those partners.
[2:50:21] And is the water authority inclusive in that, and are they inclusive in the sharing cost of that as well?
[2:50:29] That's what I'm asking.
[2:50:31] So we do have a table in the plan that identifies partners, but I believe the Pahoro River
[2:50:35] Flag Protection Authority is concerned with the lower Pahoro Watershed.
[2:50:41] And we are concerned in this watershed plan with the upper Pahoro Watershed since that is within our county.
[2:50:46] There are a few actions and one in particular I'm thinking of which has to do with the
[2:50:53] soap-lake flood clean and looking at the flood detention benefits, potential of and restoration
[2:50:59] opportunities at soap-lake, and that in particular would be a project that we would coordinate
[2:51:05] closely with the Parharole, and since it does have very clear downstream benefits.
[2:51:10] Well, the other partners in that, the levees in that region reach constantly, and there's a
[2:51:18] breach last year and I think two years ago, creates major flooding, and much of the habitat
[2:51:24] is destroyed in a particular area surrounding the levees, and that's mostly in a agriculture,
[2:51:30] and out places the workers, which are primarily low-income labor forces that live on these
[2:51:35] particular areas, which takes away their incomes as well.
[2:51:38] The Army Corps of Engineers had very engaged in all these projects in that particular region.
[2:51:44] Are they engaged in this as well?
[2:51:46] And they're bringing their resources to this with each dollars?
[2:51:49] So as I mentioned, another way to think about that watershed plan that I'm referring to is the U.S.
[2:51:55] Yagas watershed plans.
[2:51:58] So we call it the upper-power watershed.
[2:52:01] That's kind of a catch-all for U.S. Yagas.
[2:52:04] But I believe that the Army Corps project is in on the Pocro River, Main Sam, which is outside of Santa Clara County.
[2:52:12] And so therefore is not included in this planning effort.
[2:52:15] Okay. I think it just need a better understanding as to you mentioned partners, the cost,
[2:52:20] and that there are 48 actions, so that I can have a better understanding director Santos when we attend these meetings.
[2:52:25] And questions come up and I think we need to have this presentation offered to that board of directors as well.
[2:52:30] Okay. Thank you.
[2:52:32] That's a good suggestion.
[2:52:36] Director Eisenberg.
[2:52:38] Thank you.
[2:52:39] So looking at slide 16.
[2:52:44] So here you talk about flood risk reduction,
[2:52:49] but I'm not seeing any habitat restoration
[2:52:52] in this to plan to use the strategy
[2:52:58] that is viewed by scientists and many scientists
[2:53:01] as the most effective means of lowering risk of floods, habitat restoration in this, that
[2:53:12] is habitat restoration is not something that engineers generally do, it's something that
[2:53:18] scientists usually do, so is habitat restoration part of your plan?
[2:53:23] Absolutely, so the natural flood protection program was developed to actually prioritize
[2:53:29] projects that incorporate habitat restoration and other means of natural flood protection. That's
[2:53:36] hence the name. So it's really inherent in the planning process for each of our flood protection
[2:53:42] projects to look at potential restoration opportunities for inclusion. It's not addressed
[2:53:49] in words in these actions, but it is described in a little bit more detail in the planet
[2:53:56] itself as well as on our procedures for natural flood protection.
[2:54:01] Given the fact that habitat restoration is viewed by many to be both the most effective
[2:54:06] and the most low and the lowest cost means of protecting our communities from floods,
[2:54:15] I think it is worthy of having a line item for that.
[2:54:21] In fact, I don't know if we're going to be asked to approve this, but I can't approve anything,
[2:54:26] if I don't see habitat restoration as an essential component, if not the primary aspect of any
[2:54:33] of these plans. You know, although I criticize and even centering for centering for saying this,
[2:54:41] we know for a fact that it is engineering that has led to flood problems and it is science that
[2:54:49] going to solve those problems. So we can not engineer ourselves out of science issues and other
[2:55:00] So engineering has a role, I'm just not saying science here, I'm not saying habitat, I'm not saying protection, you know, the embracing of if we include, if we, we improve the ground cover, water can go down and that act. If we remove cement and create porous surfaces on the ground. I mean, these things are all explained and all the books on the subject. So I know you recognize the importance of these strategies.
[2:55:28] I'd like to see him reflect it and I guess I pointed out page 18, also I've been
[2:55:35] note about page 18 with regard to that too.
[2:55:39] So yeah, so again, so here we're talking about partnering this water quality monitoring
[2:55:45] that.
[2:55:46] Another aspect of water quality that at least my constituents tell me about is our urgent need
[2:55:56] to take action,
[2:56:01] to lobby and otherwise convince our elected officials to have stronger prohibitions
[2:56:08] on polluting from industrial sites, oil and gas industry, other businesses that harm the
[2:56:20] on behalf of Profit and all the time there are proposed laws in the books and, you know, my elected official, you know, in peddle also does a good job with that.
[2:56:35] So I think that we, that should also be a part of it, is really taking on,
[2:56:45] taking on, you know, we will have cleaner water when industries, when companies stop
[2:56:51] looting it. That's kind of the fastest way to get to cleaner water, right? And then finally,
[2:56:57] there was a slide I didn't write down which one, were you talked about basically embracing
[2:57:05] farmers and landowners about better sustainable agricultural practices that was towards the
[2:57:13] beginning and basically like educating them and assisting them.
[2:57:19] So if you listen to the agricultural committee, they seem pretty darn up to speed on what's sustainable and what isn't,
[2:57:28] but they do state a lot of needs.
[2:57:31] So again, this is kind of an opportunity I think for us to be educated by them to understand what their deeds are and what is holding them back.
[2:57:42] You know, again, like we will not be able to convince people that actually they can afford to do something when they can't.
[2:57:50] You know, and doesn't matter how many times we say yes, you can afford it, yes, you can afford it.
[2:57:55] If they can't they can't. So I don't know the answer of what the farmers need in order to empower them.
[2:58:03] But they do.
[2:58:05] So rather than we educate them, I'd like us to be educated by them.
[2:58:10] So maybe kind of work that into our plan too. As I said before, we all have a lot to learn from
[2:58:18] those who's hands get dirty every day in this in this in this in the processes and our shared goals of
[2:58:26] Saving the world so that people can have clean water
[2:58:31] Because there's no clean water when there's no world
[2:58:34] So I appreciate your work and I know you show these goals. So thank you
[2:58:44] to Dr. Keegan
[2:58:46] Thank you, Chersho.
[2:58:49] Hello Ms. Bancosh.
[2:58:51] I would like to commend you and your staff
[2:58:54] for an excellent work product.
[2:58:57] I know this has been many, many hours of hard work and effort
[2:59:02] and pulling a lot of things together.
[2:59:04] And I hesitate to praise anyone in particular
[2:59:08] because there have been so many people that have worked on this
[2:59:11] but I would like to commend you for your leadership
[2:59:13] and also Mr. Mendenhall, who has been slaving away for many, many years on this, and I also just wanted to call out
[2:59:25] I've seen Ruhani and Demerous Villobos Gildenda, who aren't with us anymore, but I mean they're with us a little larger sense, but they're not here at Bellywater anymore and they've made many great contributions and I'm glad to see that they were acknowledged here.
[2:59:51] You know, one of the things that I just wanted to point out is that on page 13.
[3:00:00] It talks about what is the vision for this and so the one water vision I just want to read this out, because, you know, maybe not everyone found this little tidbit of information, but one water seeks to manage Santa Clara County water resources, holistically and sustainably to benefit people in the environment in a way that is informed by community values. And I think that's a great vision to have and I think it really encapsulates what this is all about.
[3:00:29] One thing, and I'm probably very conscious of this because a lot of people in my community
[3:00:37] have to pay flood insurance, and either they have to pay flood insurance or they need
[3:00:41] flood insurance, and they really can't afford it because a lot of low income people do live
[3:00:47] by the creeks.
[3:00:48] So we're not explicit about it, but reduced flood risk is item C, and so I'm assuming
[3:00:57] that's implicit within that reducing flood risk. Correct. So that's correct. So there is the flood
[3:01:04] vulnerability assessment does start with a 25 year flood event and that's the modeling that is
[3:01:11] the basis for that vulnerability assessment. Now as you know it would be the 100 year flood that
[3:01:18] would actually remove people from the flood plane and reduce the insurance. So that's why we need to take
[3:01:25] Once we have those vulnerable areas, for example, along Kanois, we know that's a vulnerable
[3:01:32] area. We would then take it a step further in planning to determine what is the level of
[3:01:38] service. Can we get to a 100-year in a sustainable and affordable way?
[3:01:44] Thank you for that clarification. Again,
[3:01:50] a beautiful report and a useful report. So, thank you again.
[3:01:56] Thank you.
[3:01:59] Dr. Bell.
[3:02:01] Did it work?
[3:02:03] Yeah, everything's fine.
[3:02:05] Good job.
[3:02:07] I want to echo the comments.
[3:02:10] And I appreciate the format and the way it was presented is very clear.
[3:02:18] I wanted to extend my remarks to protecting homeowners and people that live in.
[3:02:25] apartments, condos, and so forth, in terms of flag protection because I think that we're
[3:02:35] dealing with people that are paying extra insurance and it's getting really bad with
[3:02:43] the insurance, some other insurance. It's getting really bad and people are having the insurance
[3:02:51] cancels. People are concerned about insurance companies using this kind of issue to raise the
[3:03:00] insurance on people's proper homes. And I've got a lot of seniors and low-income families
[3:03:10] that are really stressed out about that. So completing the projects or as important. The other
[3:03:19] issue for me was partners. I think we can be aggressive in planning projects with county
[3:03:30] city agencies that have like like I know when they build almedine expressway down the
[3:03:38] street here. I'll just this is like a gripe that the whole neighborhood knows about.
[3:03:48] It's
[3:03:49] People told the county roads department that the cobert under Ross Creek was built to small.
[3:04:01] People told them that.
[3:04:03] Yet they went ahead and they didn't change their design.
[3:04:05] They built the cobert at a small, now they're going back and we're studying it.
[3:04:11] find, well, it's way too small. It causes a backup of the creek and causes dangerous flooding.
[3:04:22] I think a five-year level, five-year, ten-year level, for all the homers up the creek, and
[3:04:29] that little blockage when the creek goes underneath Almond Expressway is part of the problem.
[3:04:36] So I think going to the county and saying, well, we need your help in fixing this.
[3:04:41] This was not done correctly when the road was built in the first place, and I think we
[3:04:49] have those kind of situations where we can request, we can make requests, we can put it
[3:04:57] on the table so that people know we're trying to...
[3:05:00] Trying to solve their problems, help them with their affordability crisis at their end.
[3:05:11] It's very important
[3:05:13] that we show up for the people in that regard. And I think the plan, now we have a plan.
[3:05:29] Let's
[3:05:29] kind of a picture of what we can do and let's let's all commit to making it happen and
[3:05:39] they can a reality.
[3:05:45] Dr. Estromera.
[3:05:46] Thank you.
[3:05:46] Madam Chair, I just wanted to thank the team for congratulating for great job and move the recommendations.
[3:05:54] Both recommendations.
[3:05:56] So we have, okay.
[3:05:59] I want to say one thing that in addition to everybody who said good job and thank the team particularly Brian, I understand you're not on this effort any longer but congratulations.
[3:06:17] Earlier we talked about how the current five year CIP is overwhelming and how the ongoing maintenance of our facilities
[3:06:28] is so needed or also how we're going to get into
[3:06:35] conditions that we can serve to people.
[3:06:38] Look at these watershed, massive plants that all work.
[3:06:43] Well, never, never get done.
[3:06:47] So many services and then good things that we can do for the community.
[3:06:54] So, yeah, it's good to have a blueprint of what's out there for us in the future.
[3:07:02] So, thank you very much.
[3:07:05] We have a motion in a second.
[3:07:08] Madam Chair, may I interrupt?
[3:07:10] Oh, I forgot.
[3:07:12] I'm sorry.
[3:07:13] I apologize.
[3:07:14] I have two hands.
[3:07:17] So, Loma Pareda resource conservation district.
[3:07:23] Yes, thank you chair shoe. This is Peter and I can get him to press that button.
[3:07:27] Hi, Peter. Yeah.
[3:07:28] The director is with the land trust.
[3:07:31] And we've done some collaborative work with you on both in both the positions of the land trust and the LPRCB.
[3:07:39] You know, of course, down in that watershed that floods and the copper over the water district.
[3:07:44] Also, I mean, the Carnegie River water district also has land, basically adjacent to the land we manage.
[3:07:52] So we've partnered some things down there, like in the area cleaned up, and we're going
[3:07:57] to some of the growers and our business that we're having some issues with garbage
[3:08:00] and whatnot.
[3:08:03] Other than that, I believe that the U.V. is a fairly protected creek for steelhead, and
[3:08:09] possibly maybe a future shift at the Senate, which actually used to run up some of these
[3:08:13] where I'm here, according to the so-called all-time fold times that I've talked to over
[3:08:19] my lifetime. So I think it's a paramount force that you and really unhappy that this
[3:08:26] report focuses on a fish mitigation attack. I think that's a paramount force. And I think
[3:08:34] I want to mention, so Blake, I believe there's a merit effort to get some conservation
[3:08:40] these minutes going in that area to help protect that part of the water shed and the
[3:08:45] toxic span of wetland. I've heard a talk of that. I think most of it's in San
[3:08:51] Anita County, because I asked this question yesterday, I was just wondering if you
[3:08:55] know if the water's involved in any of that, if the water's involved in any of that,
[3:09:00] if you're currently in a basement, stay on there. That's just one question. There's
[3:09:05] another issue I see on the office, and that's the, that invasive, a random door of
[3:09:10] don't ask. I think it's called, you're familiar with that, correct? Correct. Yes, and that
[3:09:17] is pretty much taking over a law of the channel in Sam Martin's, is there going to be an
[3:09:23] effort to mitigate that, get rid of that stuff? So we do have a county-wide invasive plant management
[3:09:29] program and her Rindo as you mentioned a terrible problem particularly in South County.
[3:09:37] You know, we prioritize areas as we have funding so we certainly will take that input and ensure
[3:09:42] that's included as a priority if possible. And then your other question was regarding soap
[3:09:49] lake and though valley water is not directly involved or with the efforts to
[3:09:54] to acquire lands for preservation and so click, we do...
[3:10:00] Meet regularly with regional partners, as you mentioned, to provide information regarding, of course, you know, our areas of expertise, hydrology, hydraulics, other technical information and support of those efforts.
[3:10:13] Yeah, you know, I like, you know, I've seen some of the valley waters of watershed and wetlands,
[3:10:20] restorations, projects, and they're fantastic.
[3:10:24] These lakes of America, and what you're going down on the carnivores is, I think that's great.
[3:10:30] It would be great if we could see more of that.
[3:10:32] I'm not sure if you guys have the funding for that.
[3:10:34] Although, I mean, there's grant money out there that is secure to you, so that, because I'll
[3:10:39] has to do a lot of flight control, have to do a lot of plane water, and the wetlands will be
[3:10:44] a great car and sponge.
[3:10:47] There's a lot of benefit to wetlands and what nature does.
[3:10:52] Well, the only other thing I want to mention, Director Keegan mentioned the vision.
[3:10:57] But I didn't see that she mentioned acting that vision.
[3:10:59] It was people and some other stuff.
[3:11:02] But you might want to put that in that vision.
[3:11:03] To be exact, it's a really important, really important component of preservation of
[3:11:09] you want to shed water quality to everything because most of the forms are right of all of these
[3:11:13] partnerships or with it. So anyway those are just my comments. I appreciate this thing to me.
[3:11:18] Thank you. The next one, I think Miss Irvin.
[3:11:30] Good afternoon. I want to admit that a lot of staff on the process to develop these plans
[3:11:36] aside from the chaplain and these are multiple plans. The concern now should be implementation.
[3:11:42] it. Therefore, I suggest that the projects identified the watershed master plans be considered
[3:11:48] and discussed as part of the annual Capital Improvement Plan process. And there should
[3:11:55] also be periodic view of the progress implementing the plans. That's what you see. And
[3:12:02] your review is preferable, or at least every two years. Therefore, our progress report on
[3:12:08] Highly Creek Waterset Plan which was approved in March of 2022 to be scheduled as soon as possible.
[3:12:16] Thank you.
[3:12:18] Thank you for your comment.
[3:12:19] I believe that Ms. Van Krashe at her opening remark has stated that there will be part of the process to include it in the operation plan and also the capital improvement plan as we should.
[3:12:36] Okay, are there any, there's no more public comment and I think we have, we have a motion in the second.
[3:12:45] On your favor say aye.
[3:12:48] Opposed?
[3:12:52] Motion carries six to one.
[3:12:58] Okay.
[3:12:58] Moving on to item five point to consider the January 2nd, 2024 board policy and planning committee recommendation
[3:13:06] to adopt the proposed changes to board governance policy,
[3:13:11] executive limitation, EL-3, human resources.
[3:13:17] So, yeah, this is something that's more of a administrative update to EL-3,
[3:13:24] and the PPC reviewed it and recommend the board to approve it.
[3:13:29] So, Patrice, do you go to say something?
[3:13:32] Just in the interest of time, the information is here I am here for questions unless you want me to provide additional summary.
[3:13:42] Can we have a brief summary for the, you know, for the pleasure of the public and others watching.
[3:13:49] And for me, doesn't feel long one. More information is always better right y'all.
[3:13:54] Maybe we can put on the red line version.
[3:13:59] Can we do that?
[3:14:05] Have it.
[3:14:06] I don't have it.
[3:14:07] I'm going to get help.
[3:14:08] Thank you.
[3:14:10] How do you find it?
[3:14:17] Not it shouldn't be on
[3:14:21] that.
[3:14:21] It was not a presentation.
[3:14:24] However, why don't I just provide you the information?
[3:14:28] I'm verbally.
[3:14:29] And what we did for this one is we proposed revisions for the EL changes in the district.
[3:14:36] So we changed the district to valley water just to be in line with our
[3:14:40] our naming. We revised 3.7 and 3.17 and then let me just let you know those revisions
[3:14:50] of 3.7 and 3.17. 3.7 we said we would retain no more than the number of unclassified positions.
[3:15:00] Approved by the board in the budget. It was a number, and we thought, why don't we ensure that whatever the board approves be implemented. And then on 3.17, we just changed to say, operate an environment where there are good labor relations with the workforce and the bargaining units. So we just clarified that sentence.
[3:15:25] And then we removed the reference to board appointed officer interpretation and removed the board appointed officer interpretations so that we can have really just one policy that we go to not two documents but one policy and that policy is the board policy document.
[3:15:48] Thank you.
[3:15:50] Any further questions after that explanation?
[3:15:55] Okay. Are there any public comment? Thank you, Mayor Chair. I have no request to speak at this time.
[3:16:05] Okay, then can I entertain a motion? Okay. We have a motion and a second.
[3:16:13] and all in favor say aye.
[3:16:17] All right.
[3:16:19] Opposed?
[3:16:20] Motion carries unanimously.
[3:16:27] And moving on to item 5.3, consider the January 2nd 2024 board policy and planning committee
[3:16:34] recommendation to adopt the proposed changes to board governance policy, executive limitation
[3:16:40] the EL-8 inclusion, equal opportunity,
[3:16:47] discrimination, harassment, prevention, and diversity.
[3:16:52] Put your seats, that's yours again.
[3:16:54] Yes. On behalf of time, I can do a summary, or I can answer questions as.
[3:17:03] Okay. Okay.
[3:17:06] I don't see any requests to provide further detail.
[3:17:11] Are there any public comment?
[3:17:14] Thank you Madam Chair.
[3:17:14] I have no requests at this time.
[3:17:17] So we have motion and second on in favor say aye.
[3:17:21] Okay.
[3:17:21] Opposed?
[3:17:22] No.
[3:17:23] Motion carries unanimously.
[3:17:26] Okay.
[3:17:26] Thank you, Patreise.
[3:17:29] I have been five points for board committee reports.
[3:17:32] We have quite a few under the attachment.
[3:17:34] any questions from board member related to any of these attachment, then the responsible
[3:17:43] committee chair can report back. Okay, I'm not hearing any requests. Are there any
[3:17:53] public comments? Thank you, Madam Chair. I have no request at this time. Okay, we don't need
[3:18:00] to take an action, this is for information only,
[3:18:05] and then the next item on our agenda is CEO and Chiefs report.
[3:18:11] I'll turn it to let's see you all.
[3:18:12] Yes, I'd good afternoon, Chair Schill and members of the Board.
[3:18:15] We're a calendar, I'll see you all today.
[3:18:17] We have several reports.
[3:18:18] I'm going to start off with Chiefs Goodson.
[3:18:21] Thank you, CEO, calendar.
[3:18:22] Good afternoon, Chair Schill and members of the Board.
[3:18:24] You have before you the monthly one
[3:18:25] pages for the offices of civic engagement and government
[3:18:28] relations just a couple highlights denote from each. First on March 9th, the Campbell Little League
[3:18:32] hosted its opening day ceremony at Campbell Little League field to kick off the start of the baseball season,
[3:18:37] and promote the new water bottle refill station made possible through a valley water refill station
[3:18:41] grants. That's been a fit the entirely for the rest of the season and beyond.
[3:18:45] Secondly, 82-409, that's Valley Waters, Bill Proposal, that's sponsored by the Calvary Municipal Utilities
[3:18:51] Association, was referred to the Assembly Water Parks and Wildlife Committee, so it continues to
[3:18:55] progress. It's expected to be heard on April 16th and we're working very closely, of course,
[3:18:59] with CMUA on briefing the members of the committee and preparing for that here in presentation.
[3:19:03] That concludes my report. I'm going to move towards acting chief your PUTU for the board of Sheds.
[3:19:13] Thank you, sir. You calendar, Bavaniya Puthit. Chief of the Board of Sheds,
[3:19:19] acting chief of the board of Sheds. The storm report is in front of your, as a hand out today,
[3:19:23] it's continued to be relatively bad season,
[3:19:27] no unusual activities other than our typo bit debris
[3:19:30] and sediment removal, along with preparing
[3:19:33] about 1200 linear feet of our creek banks.
[3:19:37] And that's all, I have.
[3:19:41] All right, and then I'm going to round the south with the report
[3:19:43] that I was right, please be able to give
[3:19:45] I think a little piece of good news here.
[3:19:48] And it's still to have purified water bottling
[3:19:50] I'm going to ask for a brand in the Nigerian or go ahead
[3:19:52] hand out the first official opportunity for us to pass out with advanced
[3:19:58] terrified water and
[3:20:00] This is a major milestone. We just were updated on our multi-year effort to get here and finally got a approval just last week. Just to let you know, we are the first agency to bottle a purified water for outreach purposes under the new regulations under 2017.
[3:20:17] We are the second agency in California, but we're the first one to do it under the regulations and third in the nation to bottle purified water as part of the conference of outreach and education program.
[3:20:27] As a result of us being able to do this right now, we have 16,000 bottles of purified water which were approved for distribution by our regulators.
[3:20:36] This gives you the opportunity to taste our purified water and this effort has been ongoing since 2018.
[3:20:43] I do want to point out all the staff and if you're standing, if you can wave your hands, I think this is really the accomplishment of staff from the recycling purified water unit.
[3:20:56] Our officers, civic engagement,
[3:21:00] operations, water quality and laboratory services.
[3:21:05] This is truly an accomplishment and I wanted to make sure the directors were the first
[3:21:09] to be able to obtain and hopefully taste the purified water.
[3:21:13] This time we'll turn it over to you, my chair.
[3:21:16] Madam Chair, may I?
[3:21:17] Well, last year.
[3:21:18] Yeah, I'd like to take the time, thank you, CEO calendar, because I was part of the team
[3:21:23] Tony put together 20 something years ago, with Downey Orange County, we drank their water, now we're drinking ours.
[3:21:30] We actually know first tone.
[3:21:39] And that will conclude the CEO report.
[3:21:42] Okay.
[3:21:42] Thank you.
[3:21:43] Great.
[3:21:45] Thank you.
[3:21:46] Thank you everybody.
[3:21:49] Okay.
[3:21:49] Oh, good.
[3:21:51] It's out.
[3:21:54] It's out.
[3:21:55] Okay, well move on to item 11.1, consider side letter agreement to memorandum of understanding
[3:22:06] between the Santa Clara Valley Wallet District and Employee Association, ask me local 101
[3:22:12] Engineer Society, IFPTE, local 21, and Professional Managers Association, IFPTE, local 21, and
[3:22:23] up resolution approving terms of side-led agreement and approving force amended compensation plan
[3:22:31] for unrepresented employees in the executive service.
[3:22:37] So, the trees.
[3:22:39] Thank you. Again, in the honor of time, you have the information in front of you.
[3:22:44] If you'd like a brief summary, I can definitely provide it, or I can answer questions.
[3:22:51] Okay.
[3:22:52] Yeah.
[3:22:56] Good question.
[3:22:58] Just clear, Frank.
[3:22:58] So this has been approved by both sides.
[3:23:01] And now it's just up to us.
[3:23:03] Yes.
[3:23:04] The site letters have already been.
[3:23:06] The site letter has already been approved by the three.
[3:23:09] The man is an envoy labor.
[3:23:11] And now it's up to us to just approve what they already decide.
[3:23:15] The site letter has already been approved by the bargain.
[3:23:17] It's once you approve this, I will sign on behalf of them.
[3:23:21] Got it.
[3:23:22] Okay, thank you.
[3:23:23] It's just great.
[3:23:24] I understand.
[3:23:25] Okay.
[3:23:26] Are there any public comment?
[3:23:28] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[3:23:29] I have no requests at this time.
[3:23:34] We need to take a vote.
[3:23:36] And this is a local vote.
[3:23:40] Director Bell?
[3:23:42] Absent?
[3:23:42] Director Eisenberg?
[3:23:44] Director Esmerra?
[3:23:46] Director Keegan?
[3:23:47] Yes.
[3:23:48] Vice Chair Santas?
[3:23:50] Director Braille?
[3:23:52] Yes.
[3:23:52] Chair Shua?
[3:23:53] Yes.
[3:23:55] Okay, I'm going to be approved for moving on to item 13.1, review the fiscal year 2023, 2024 for policy planning calendar.
[3:24:10] I will do a quick review for the public of what's at the changed schedule on two items.
[3:24:18] Under Section 5, secure existing water supply and water supply infrastructure, and update on the Delta
[3:24:27] Convince Project will be coming in the full board in May.
[3:24:31] So that is a desk I do has changed, and I know many public is very interested in that.
[3:24:41] Item 18 provided affordable and cost effective level of services, the grants that is
[3:24:47] report timing was updated to every other months starting in January. So on the report you see
[3:24:55] the crossed out every other month which means that the report will come to us.
[3:25:00] So those are the two changed changes that happened with our planning calendar. So is that any questions?
[3:25:10] And yes, the record will
[3:25:16] probably be hot number I am 11
[3:25:26] Okay, he was he was out that item 11. That's that's the side letter agreement
[3:25:33] We said the street bargaining units and also the
[3:25:37] Represent employee is there to summers as a service. So you
[3:25:45] Director Bellevue and
[3:25:47] Okay. We will note that for the record for the record. Okay.
[3:25:52] I have it. And so, so, this is, I'm on item 13.1, which is the board policy planning calendar.
[3:26:04] I have a question from Director Eisenberg.
[3:26:08] Okay. Are there any public comment on the board planning calendar?
[3:26:13] Thank you, Madam Chair. I have no request at this time.
[3:26:15] Okay. Thank you. Moving on to 14 Board Member Reports Announcements. So we'll start from this end to Director Keegan.
[3:26:32] Sir, our policy will have to do it every time.
[3:26:35] Okay, change. Every meeting. Okay.
[3:26:40] We can change our policy if you, but as of now, we have to do it every time.
[3:26:45] So that's to a real quick.
[3:26:49] I'll do that to attend this.
[3:26:51] Since the last meeting, I attended an audit committee prep meeting went through the board
[3:27:00] diversity training and attended the water when a one academy, and that's it.
[3:27:12] Okay, director, we're out last week.
[3:27:17] Send the rest out the Mendoza Water Authority.
[3:27:19] We'll be met with the Reclamation.
[3:27:22] Oh, hello, I need this.
[3:27:24] Meet with the Santa, we start the Mendoza Water Authority.
[3:27:27] We met with the Bureau of Reclamation and New Director.
[3:27:30] And we had a meeting with him.
[3:27:32] And that went very well.
[3:27:33] And also a lunch at Mr. Michael Cannon's home.
[3:27:40] And business, it was really a terrific day and a terrific meeting.
[3:27:45] Also of course, Valley Water Meeting, many occupations, and just seems like I have meetings
[3:27:52] more than I have a life.
[3:27:55] But it's all good, but it's all good.
[3:27:58] It's all good.
[3:27:58] It's all good.
[3:27:59] Yeah.
[3:28:00] Director Astramar.
[3:28:01] I think we all have that same experience.
[3:28:04] And I don't all of us.
[3:28:05] So I had a recycled committee meeting,
[3:28:08] with the CEO, the general council, also the Rutheran Table, with the board members of Ola and also
[3:28:20] a supervisor Cindy.
[3:28:22] Chavez.
[3:28:25] My report, since our last board meeting, I attended the career pathway meeting,
[3:28:36] the San Francisco
[3:28:36] a JPA meeting, also that the landscape, committee meeting, special board meeting on diversity
[3:28:46] training and
[3:28:52] the briefing with staff on the upcoming DC trip and that's it.
[3:29:08] Thank you Madam Chair for seeing like you and I and Rick has met every day.
[3:29:11] It's been educational and we're up for the challenges, like Tony said I've met with Ola.
[3:29:18] Probably had about 15 minutes, I just mentioned a few various community last night on last
[3:29:22] gaping great committee and of course the Sunningville and House, many important issues.
[3:29:27] A lot of agencies are all working together to try to not just solve but try to do the best
[3:29:32] weekend, which is a very difficult time, of course diversity, training, thank you.
[3:29:36] Director Eisenberg. Well, as y'all know, you removed me from all my committees and JPAs and I didn't have a lot to start with.
[3:29:45] So I did observe all the meetings that I could.
[3:29:50] And I learned a lot and also I attended in person the San Frisquito Creek JPA.
[3:29:57] And although Valleywater threw me, I had served it.
[3:30:00] Vice chair of that, JPA. Director Shah was not chosen to be Vice chair, so now we lost the leadership
[3:30:09] role on that JPA. So, and we'll probably lose the chair shift that I was on track to get
[3:30:17] through next year, but I'm sure you believe you acted with good intentions. So, that's it.
[3:30:23] Okay, thank you, Director Bell.
[3:30:28] Last week I took the Delta condensed tour during a rainy day.
[3:30:34] I went to spend the whole day there, run around the Delta looking at the project
[3:30:38] and talking to the staff, they did a great job.
[3:30:41] They have a presentation, I'll give copies to anybody that would like to copy.
[3:30:47] I had two Latino meetings, I'm on the Finance Committee, which does the budget, and we proved
[3:30:55] that, and then the last lap come in and we proved the budget.
[3:31:00] I did my diversity training with my colleagues that was important and communicated with
[3:31:12] I had meeting with Councilman Peter Ortiz at his request to talk about a number of issues
[3:31:23] and talk to different
[3:31:31] organizations in Sacramento, including Senator McGuire and Senator
[3:31:39] Cortesi.
[3:31:45] Okay, that's it. Okay, and the next item is click review and clarification on board requests.
[3:31:55] Thank you, Madam Chair. I have one request from Director Keegan to provide it. Excuse me, Director, Director Eisenberg, I correct myself. Sorry.
[3:32:03] To provide a breakdown of all value water funds and which projects have been allocated to each fund.
[3:32:08] I'm, I meant the clean water funds.
[3:32:11] Okay, the basic creep ones. Yeah, and I also asked again for
[3:32:16] For financial information of the impact of interest charges once the with the alone's are starting to be paid back
[3:32:25] Because we keep stopping before those with the alone start to be paid back and
[3:32:30] We need to know how the interest and the principle on those loans will impact
[3:32:36] What are ratepayers are paying and impact our bottom line. Thank you
[3:32:41] And actually, I requested some additional information on the groundwater rate increases.
[3:32:49] Yeah, I think since the public hearing will continue, and then one of the purpose of is for staff to take all of our questions in the comments.
[3:33:01] And then remember in the previous years that they all come back with the answers to our questions.
[3:33:08] Vice Chair?
[3:33:09] Yes, ma'am, one more time for the purification personnel. Thank you.
[3:33:13] This is the, actually, it tastes good. It tastes good.
[3:33:18] 16.1.
[3:33:20] Under adjourned, I want to close our meeting today by acknowledging that doing April, communities across the nation come together to honor Arab American heritage,
[3:33:34] Middle Eastern and North African heritage and autism accepted months.
[3:33:41] The heavy water is proud to continue to support inclusion and equity within our workforce and the communities we serve.
[3:33:50] So with that, our next meeting is special meeting in the city of Gioro, a council chamber of April 11, 2024, 7 p.m.
[3:34:00] So we'll see everybody in two days.
[3:34:02] Thank you everybody.