Jun 12, 2025 Special GSA Meeting

[00:00:01]

HELLO AND WELCOME TO THE JUNE 12TH MEETING OF THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA.

[1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL]

HERE. BOARD MEMBER GIAMPAOLI. HERE. BOARD MEMBER KELLEY.

HERE. CHAIRMAN PAREIRA. HERE. VICE CHAIRMAN MARCHINI DID EXCUSE HIMSELF, MR. CHAIR. YOU HAVE A QUORUM. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE DID HAVE A CLOSED SESSION AT 01:00,

[2. CLOSED SESSION]

MIKE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO LEAD US? THIS IS THE PUBLIC'S OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON ANY MATTER WITHIN THIS BOARD'S JURISDICTION, INCLUDING ITEMS ON THE BOARD'S AGENDA.

TESTIMONY IS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER PERSON.

IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? OKAY. SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND MOVE TO ITEM FIVE.

[5. CONSENT CALENDAR ]

YOU SAW THAT, CORRECT? YEAH. THAT WAS THE BACKUP TO THE INVOICE RIGHT BEFORE IT.

THAT WAS A BACKUP RECEIPT TO THE INVOICE BEFORE IT.

YEAH, TRYING TO KEEP YOU ON YOUR TOES, BOB. KEEPING YOU ON YOUR TOES.

ALL RIGHT. WERE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? NOPE. I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE IF IT'S YOUR PLEASURE, CHAIR, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR.

I'LL SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR GALLO.

SECOND BY DIRECTOR PEDRETTI. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

OKAY, WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM SIX. THIS IS THE MULTI-BENEFIT LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM UPDATE.

[6. MULTIBENEFIT LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM ]

SO I HAVE A FEW UPDATES, AND A LOT OF THIS WILL BE PRIMING UP SOME BIGGER CONVERSATION, I THINK, FOR NEXT BOARD MEETING. REAL QUICK, JUST A REMINDER, THERE ARE TWO RFPS OPEN IN MERCED SUBBASIN RIGHT NOW.

THERE'S THE GENERAL MLRP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS.

THAT'S OUT. THAT'S FOR $1 MILLION. AND IT'S VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL TO THE ONE THAT HAS BEEN OPEN IN THE PAST.

AGAIN, THAT WAS JUST A REMINDER. ONE OF THE PROJECTS FELL OUT THAT WE WERE WORKING ON COORDINATING WITH THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND DUCKS UNLIMITED ON THAT PROPERTY.

THE MLP IMPINGEMENT ON THAT GROUND WASN'T GOING TO FIT WELL WITH THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE REQUIREMENTS, SO THEY HAD TO PULL THAT PROJECT AND REOPEN THE SOLICITATION, WHICH IS WHY IT'S AVAILABLE NOW ON THE LANDSCAPE.

WE ALSO HAVE A SECOND RFP AVAILABLE. JUST A REMINDER AGAIN, AND APPLICATIONS FOR BOTH OF THESE ARE BEING ACCEPTED ON A ROLLING BASIS.

THE SECOND ONE IS A COMMUNITY PROJECT BASED RFP.

WHEN WE DID THE INITIAL PROJECT SELECTION THAT WENT THROUGH TWO ROUNDS OF SELECTION PROCESS, ONE WITH THE TECHNICAL GROUP AND THEN WITH A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THIS BOARD, IT WAS HIGHLIGHTED DURING BOTH OF THOSE MEETINGS THAT WE WERE NOT ADEQUATELY MEETING THE PROGRAM'S REQUIREMENT TO DELIVER A COMMUNITY PROJECT.

AND SO WE HAD THAT, WE HAVE THAT RFP OPEN NOW AT THE END OF THIS MONTH, WE'LL BE TAKING WHATEVER APPLICATIONS ARE COMING IN AND EVALUATING THEM FOR FUNDING FOR THAT COMMUNITY BASED PROJECT. THE MAX AGAIN, JUST A QUICK REMINDER, THE MAX AMOUNT OF FUNDING AVAILABLE IN THAT POOL IS $1.2 MILLION FOR A PROJECT IDEALLY LOCATED NEXT TO A DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY, PROVIDING SOME COMMUNITY BENEFITS.

BY YOUR RIGHT HIP. I WAS WONDERING WHAT SORT OF WEIRD WORLD I WAS IN.

OKAY, COOL. THANK YOU. AND I'M BACK. SOME MORE BROADER PROJECT UPDATES, SO ONE MORE REMINDER.

THERE ARE THREE PROJECTS THAT WERE APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE, BY THE TECHNICAL GROUP AND SUBMITTED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION FOR REVIEW.

[00:05:06]

WE WORKED WITH APPLICANTS TO ADDRESS THE MATERIAL AND THE HIGHLIGHTS THAT THE DEPARTMENT PUT ON THE THOSE AGREEMENTS, AND NOW THEY ARE BACK AT THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION. THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS NOW AND KIND OF HOPEFUL THAT THAT'LL GO SMOOTHLY.

FRANKLY, MOST OF THEM WERE RELATIVELY LIGHT COMMENTS THAT THEY WERE SORT OF PROPOSING HERE.

AND SO THEY'RE FAIRLY FAST TO ADDRESS. JUST A REFRESHER, AND WE'RE GOING TO HOPEFULLY HAVE CONTRACTS TO LOOK AT NEXT MONTH, SO I'M GOING TO REFRESH THE BOARD AS FAR AS WHAT'S IN THERE SO THAT WE CAN KIND OF PRELUDE WHAT'S TO COME.

THERE ARE THREE PROJECTS. ONE IS OUT IN THE EAST SIDE OF THE SUB BASIN AND IT'S TAKING 15 ACRES OF, OR NORTHEAST SIDE OF THE SUBBASIN IN THE AMSTERDAM AREA, AND IT'S TAKING 15 ACRES OUT TO BUILD A RECHARGE BASIN.

ON THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT, WE'RE DOING SOME FIELD WORK NEXT WEEK WITH THE LANDOWNER AND WITH A PARTNER TO EVALUATE WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENTS TO THAT LOCATION OR TO THE SITE DESIGN. BUT THAT IS LOOKING VERY PROMISING.

WE'RE LOOKING TO GET THAT IN AGAIN, HOPEFULLY FOR A CONTRACT IN THE FOLLOWING MONTH.

THE NEXT PROJECT AGAIN IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE SUBBASIN.

THAT'S LOOKING AT TAKING OUT 150 ACRES OF ALMOND TREES AND PUTTING IT INTO HABITAT AND PASTURE.

AND THEN THE LAST PROJECT THAT IS CURRENTLY APPROVED AT DOC OR UNDER APPROVAL OF DOC, IS THE TRANSITION OF A THOUSAND ACRES OR FACILITATING 1000 ACRES OF HABITAT ALONG BEAR CREEK CLOSER TO THE WEST SIDE OF THE SUB BASIN.

AND THAT'S AGAIN COVER CROPPING AND DOING SOME NATIVE SEED TO PREPARE FOR A TRANSITION TO HABITAT.

AND I'M GETTING INTO DETAIL MAYBE A LITTLE BIT HERE, BUT NEXT WEEK WE WILL HAVE SOME CONTRACTS TO REVIEW.

I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO BE SORT OF STUNNED OR SURPRISED BY ANY OF THE TYPES OF WORK THAT WE'RE DOING THROUGH THIS PROGRAM.

IN ADDITION TO LOOKING AT THOSE THREE CONTRACTS, THE BOARD COULD ALSO EXPECT TO BE EVALUATING ONE MORE DOCUMENT.

SO THREE CONTRACTS PLUS A CONTRACT TEMPLATE. THAT THIRD PIECE OF LANGUAGE OR AGREEMENT THAT'S GOING TO BE COMING THROUGH IS A LAND IMPINGEMENT DOCUMENT FOR MLRP .

SO WHEN WE WORK ON THESE LINES, WE ALSO WANT TO OVERLAY A DEED RESTRICTION TO PROTECT AND MAKE SURE THOSE GROWERS ARE NOT GOING TO CONTINUE TO FARM THAT LAND AND ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT. SO THAT SORT OF TEMPLATE OVERLAY OR EASEMENT OVERLAY WILL BE HERE FOR THE BOARD TO REVIEW AT THE NEXT AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING.

LASTLY NATIVE SEED DEVELOPMENT. SO IT WAS ON THE DOCKET FOR THE VALLEY ECO TEAM TO IDENTIFY A NATIVE SEED PRODUCER TO PILOT NATIVE SEED, FOR MLRP AND OTHER WORK IN THE REGION. WE TALKED TO MULTIPLE GROWERS.

HOWEVER, WE REACHED OUT TO UC MERCED AND RIGHT NOW WE BELIEVE UC MERCED IS THE BEST SORT OF PILOT GROWER THAT WE COULD LEAN ON, RIGHT? SO THEY HAVE A LOT OF INFRASTRUCTURE. THEY DON'T HAVE TO TAKE ON THE RISK OF DOING A NATIVE SEED PROJECT.

SO THEY'RE NOT LIKE INCORPORATING INCORPORATING A LOT OF RISK INTO THE PROGRAM.

I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE COST EFFICIENT, AND IT'S GOING TO GIVE US REACH FOR THIS, LIKE NATIVE SEED CO-OP IN THE FUTURE.

AND SO RIGHT NOW, UC MERCED IS SLATED TO BE THE GROWER FOR YEAR ONE FOR THE NATIVE SEEDS AND IN THE MSGSA MLRP WORKFLOW.

AND I THINK THAT'S IT. I THINK MAYBE YOU HAVE A BUDGET.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED IF WE'RE GOING OVER BUDGET ITEMS TODAY. SHOULD WE TOUCH ON THAT? OKAY. PERFECT. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS ARE IN ? OKAY. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? DAVE NERVINO, JUST CHECKING WITH REN. ARE ANY OF THESE GIVING UP THEIR WATER ALLOCATIONS OR ARE THEY KEEPING THEIR WATER ALLOCATIONS? AND THE GOAL WAS TO GET THEIR WATER ALLOCATIONS AWAY FROM.

IS THAT HAPPENING OR NOT? SO AS OF NOW, NONE OF THE THREE PROJECTS ARE GIVING UP THEIR ALLOCATIONS.

ALL THREE AND PROJECTS DON'T HAVE TO GIVE UP THEIR ALLOCATIONS UNDER MLRP.

IF THEY WERE, IN ONE OF THE HIGHEST RANKING PROJECTS WAS THE LAND TRANSITION, WHICH WAS ESSENTIALLY A LAND ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER TO THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE.

UNDER THAT MODEL, WE WERE TRYING TO STRIP THE WATER OUT OF THAT ALLOCATION, OUT FROM THAT PROPERTY.

ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WE'RE RUNNING INTO IS THAT IT'S NOT PENCILING, THAT'S VERY FRANK. LIKE IT'S HARD TO BUY OUT UNLESS WE'RE GOING TO BUY LIKE A FIVE ACRE BLOCK. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO AFFORD. WE ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO BUY THE PROPERTY.

TO BUY OUT THAT ACQUISITION OR THAT ALLOCATION.

SO IDEALLY WE COULD AND WE STILL CAN DO THAT IN FUTURE ITERATIONS OF THIS PROGRAM.

BUT RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MOMENTUM, FRANKLY, TO BE MAKING THAT ACTION.

SO HOPEFULLY IN THE FUTURE WE CAN WE CAN DO THAT.

YEAH. YEAH. AND I'LL JUST ADD THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND GIVEN THIS GRANT DOESN'T REQUIRE THE WATER TO BE GIVEN UP

[00:10:09]

I MEAN, I THINK OUR PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO APPROVE PROJECTS THAT GAVE UP THE WATER, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT OPTION.

SO NO PROJECTS. THERE IS A BOX TO CHECK, NO PROJECTS IN THE CURRENT LIKE WE'RE WILLING TO GIVE UP, RIGHT? YEAH. I WILL SAY ONE MORE THING THAT MUDDLES THIS UP AND I APOLOGIZE.

IT'S UNSOLICITED CONTEXT, BUT THE ALLOCATIONS HAPPENED WAY AFTER THE APPLICATION FOR MLRP OCCURRED.

SO THIS I MEAN THE FUNDING WAS ALLOCATED TO STATE THROUGH LAW.

THERE WEREN'T ALLOCATIONS AROUND THE STATE YET, ESPECIALLY NOT HERE IN MERCED, WHICH ARE JUST SORT OF COMING INTO PASS.

SO THE ALLOCATION FRAMEWORK CHANGES LIKE THE ENTIRE DYNAMIC OF MLRP, WHICH THE ALLOCATIONS BECOME A DRIVER FOR SUSTAINABILITY IN THESE REGIONS, AND MLRP BECOMES SORT OF ANCILLARY. SO IT IS A SORT OF UNUSUAL SITUATION.

YEAH. AND HOW MANY DOLLARS ARE STILL AVAILABLE UNDER THE MLRP? NOT THE COMMUNITY SET ASIDE BUT THE OTHER DOLLARS? YEAH. SO THERE IS ENOUGH FOR $1 MILLION UNDER THE CURRENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION.

SO PROBABLY ONE PROJECT BASED ON OUR CURRENT, APPROXIMATELY ONE PROJECT BASED ON OUR CURRENT EXPECTATIONS.

BUT THERE'S ALSO $750,000 SLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT MONEY THAT WE EXPECT TO RELEASE LATER THIS YEAR.

THAT MONEY IS MORE LIKE DESIGN AND ENGINEERING AND LIKE GETTING THINGS, PERMITTING, GETTING THINGS SHOVEL READY SO THAT YOU COULD GO TO EITHER MLRP OR TO DWR OR OTHER FUNDERS TO HAVE A SORT OF SHOVEL READY PROPOSAL.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

[7. FY 2023-2024 INDEPENDENT AUDIT REPORT]

IS RYAN ONLINE? WE HAVE RYAN NIELSEN WITH BROWN ARMSTRONG ACCOUNTANCY WHO WILL GIVE US A VERBAL REPORT.

HELLO. RYAN IS ONLINE. HE'S ON MUTE RIGHT NOW.

COULD YOU UNMUTE, PLEASE? WHAT'S THAT? OKAY, HE'S UNMUTED, BUT WE DON'T HEAR HIM.

SO LET ME GET. LET'S GET OUR IT FOLKS.

HANG ON, RYAN, WE DON'T HEAR YOU YET.

OKAY, HE CAN TRY NOW. RYAN, CAN YOU TRY? OKAY.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YEP. WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW.

THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. ALL RIGHT, I APPRECIATE THAT.

THANKS FOR THE INTRODUCTION AGAIN. MY NAME IS RYAN NIELSEN.

I'M THE AUDIT PARTNER WITH THE ACCOUNTING FIRM OF BROWN ARMSTRONG ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION.

WE'RE LOCATED DOWN IN KERN COUNTY. IT'S MY PLEASURE TO PRESENT TO YOU THE RESULTS OF OUR AUDIT OF YOUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30TH, 2024. AS YOU KNOW, EACH YEAR THE AGENCY PREPARES A SET OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WHEREBY YOU ASSERT REPRESENT TO THE USERS THAT THE INFORMATION THAT IS INCLUDED IN THOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IS ACCURATE, COMPLETE, AND FAIRLY STATED IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES OR GAAP.

IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS INDEPENDENT AUDITORS TO PERFORM AN ENGAGEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS, AND TO RENDER AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOUR ASSERTIONS ARE IN FACT, ACCURATE.

A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS BEGINS WITH AN ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION OF A TIMELINE WITH THE AGENCY'S FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND STAFF, PRIMARILY ENSURING THAT THE AUDIT COMMENCES AND IS COMPLETED IN A TIMELY MANNER.

TO CONTINUE THAT PROCESS, WE HAVE CORRESPONDENCE REALLY THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE ENGAGEMENT PERIOD TO UPDATE EVERYBODY AS TO THE STATUS OF THE AUDIT, ASK FURTHER QUESTIONS, AND BRING TO LIGHT ANY POTENTIAL ISSUES OR SIGNIFICANT CHANGES, NEW GRANT AGREEMENTS SO ON AND SO FORTH.

WE'RE ALSO REQUIRED TO GAIN AN UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR SYSTEM OF INTERNAL CONTROLS, YOUR CHECKS AND BALANCES,

[00:15:05]

AND WE ACCOMPLISH THAT PRIMARILY THROUGH INQUIRY AND OBSERVATION OF THE STAFF AND REPERFORMANCE OF THOSE CONTROL PROCEDURES.

AND THEN AFTER THE END OF THE YEAR, WE DEVELOP WHAT'S WHAT'S CALLED A RISK BASED APPROACH, WHERE WE DON'T LOOK AT EVERY TRANSACTION THAT RUNS THROUGH THE AGENCY, BUT LOOK AT AREAS THAT EITHER HAVE HIGHER DOLLAR AMOUNTS OR OR VOLUMES OF TRANSACTIONS, OR PERHAPS MORE COMPLICATED TRANSACTIONS OR COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS WHEN IT COMES TO GRANT EXPENDITURES.

SO THOSE ARE THE ITEMS THAT THAT WE DEVELOPED, OUR TESTING AND AND SELECT SAMPLES FROM IT'S NOT ALL INCLUSIVE BUT GIVES YOU A BROAD IDEA WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT ESSENTIALLY WHERE CASH IS COMING FROM AND GOING TO, AND WHAT THE GRANT AGREEMENTS SAY THAT YOU SHOULD BE DOING AND WITH THOSE SPECIFIC FUNDS THEN AT THE END OF THE YEAR, OR I GUESS AT THE CONCLUSION OF THAT PROCESS THAT BRINGS US TO THE ISSUANCE OF OUR REPORT, WHICH WAS DONE IN APRIL. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M PRESENTING FOR YOU HERE TODAY, AND I'M HAPPY TO REPORT THAT THE AGENCY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PRESENT FAIRLY, IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS, THE FINANCIAL POSITION AS OF JUNE 30TH, AND THEY RESPECT THE CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION AND CASH FLOWS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES GENERALLY ACCEPTED IN THE UNITED STATES.

IN ADDITION TO OUR OPINION ON THE AGENCY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, WE ISSUED AN OPINION ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENTAL AUDITING STANDARDS, ALSO KNOWN AS THE YELLOW BOOK AUDIT, AND NOTED NO SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES OR MATERIAL WEAKNESSES IN THAT AUDIT EITHER.

SO TO BE COMMENDED FOR THAT AT THE END OF THE OR THE CONCLUSION OF EACH ENGAGEMENT, WE'RE ALSO REQUIRED TO COMMUNICATE GENERAL ITEMS RELATED TO THE OVERALL AUDIT, WHICH INCLUDE OUR RESPONSIBILITIES, THOSE OF MANAGEMENT, WE HAD ANY DIFFICULTIES PERFORMING THE AUDIT MATERIAL MISSTATEMENTS OR DISAGREEMENTS WITH MANAGEMENT OVER ACCOUNTING, REPORTING OR AUDITING MATTERS THAT COULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND THEN FINDINGS AND OTHER ISSUES.

AND I'M HAPPY TO REPORT THAT NO SUCH ISSUES AROSE DURING THE COURSE OF THE ENGAGEMENT, AND THAT CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE STAFF AND ALL THEIR HELP IN PROVIDING INFORMATION THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS AND ENSURING THAT WE WERE ABLE TO COMPLETE TO COMPLETE THE AUDIT.

SO WITH THAT, IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN THEM AT THIS TIME.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. RYAN. THE BOARD, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? NOPE. I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU. RYAN APPRECIATE YOUR REPORT.

THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM EIGHT.

[8. INCORRECT ASSESSOR’S OFFICE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND OPT-IN FEE PAYMENT PLANS ]

LACEY, ARE YOU GOING TO PRESENT? YES. SO THIS IS AN ITEM ON OPTIONAL PAYMENT PLANS FOR BACK FEES.

SO IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR, THE BOARD APPROVED THE FORMS FOR LANDOWNERS TO EITHER APPEAL AN INCORRECT ASSESSOR'S OFFICE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OR TO OPT IN AN IRRIGATED PARCEL ACCORDING TO THE GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION RULE.

EACH OF THESE ACTIONS INCLUDES PAYING THE BACK FEES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID HAD THOSE PARCELS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS IRRIGATED.

SO THE SGMA COMPLIANCE LANDOWNER FEE, WHICH STARTED IN 2019, AND THE PHASE ONE FEE, WHICH STARTED IN 2022.

SO THOSE BACK FEES INCLUDE THE EACH YEAR'S ANNUAL FEE FROM 2019 THROUGH 2025, BECAUSE LARGE PARCELS COULD INCUR LARGER FEES. THE BOARD HAS EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN OFFERING AN OPTIONAL PAYMENT PLAN TO ALLOW THE LANDOWNER TO PAY THE BACK FEES IN INSTALLMENTS, RATHER THAN IN A SINGLE LUMP SUM PAYMENT, AND THE OPTIONAL PAYMENT PLAN OFFERED FOR THE INCORRECT LAND USE CLASSIFICATION IS TO MAKE EQUAL PAYMENTS OVER FIVE YEARS, AND THE OPTIONAL PAYMENT PLAN FOR OPT IN FEES IS.

IT WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR ANYTHING OVER $25,000, AND THE FIRST INSTALLMENT WOULD BE $25,000,

[00:20:02]

THE INCORRECT ASSESSOR'S OFFICE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION PAYMENT PLAN ALLOWS FOR MORE TIME AND LOWER PAYMENTS BECAUSE IN MOST CASES THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION ERROR WAS NOT THE CHOICE OR DISCRETION OF THE LANDOWNER.

SO SHOULD A LANDOWNER WHO RECEIVES AN INVOICE FOR EITHER AN APPROVED ASSESSOR'S OFFICE, LAND USE CLASSIFICATION APPEAL OR AN ACCEPTED OPT IN SUBMISSION. SHOULD THEY CHOOSE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE OPTIONAL PAYMENT PLAN, THEY WOULD SIMPLY SIGN AND RETURN THE INVOICE AND MAKE THE FIRST INSTALLMENT PAYMENT.

AND SO, WITH THE BOARD'S APPROVAL OF THE OPTIONAL PAYMENT PLANS, THE INVOICES OUTLINING THESE PLANS WILL GO OUT TO THE APPROVED AND ACCEPTED APPEALS AND OPT INS WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO FOR THEM TO MAKE THOSE PAYMENTS OR START ON THOSE PAYMENT PLANS.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. SURE. ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH. YEAH. I HAVE A QUESTION. IT'S NOT CLEAR WHETHER OR NOT IT IS THE SUM OF ALL INCORRECT PARCEL BACK FEE PAYMENTS OR ON A PER PARCEL BASIS.

AND AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE A PAYMENT PLAN I WOULD THINK THE THE LEGAL ENTITY INVOLVED CAN COMBINE ALL THE BACK FEES IN ONE PAYMENT PLAN, NOT JUST WHAT WOULD QUALIFY ON ONE PARCEL.

SO THE SUBMISSION FORMS ARE SPECIFICALLY FOR A SINGLE PARCEL, AND THE FORMS THAT WERE ADOPTED IN APRIL ARE FOR EITHER THE OPT IN OF A SINGLE PARCEL, AND THEN THE SECOND PAGE OF THE FORM DOES SHOW A TABLE THAT GSA STAFF FILLS OUT WITH THE ACREAGE OF THAT PARCEL, THE GIS ACREAGE OF THAT PARCEL, AND THEN EACH YEAR'S FEE.

AND SO THE FEE IS THE THE IRRIGATED FEE, MINUS WHAT HAD BEEN PAID AS A NON IRRIGATED PARCEL ALREADY.

SO YOU'RE NOT DOUBLE PAYING, YOU'RE JUST PAYING THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT AS AN IRRIGATED PARCEL.

SO EACH FORM IS FOR ONE PARCEL AND HAS A SINGLE TOTAL, WHICH IS THE SUM OF ALL THE YEARS OF THE BACK FEES ON IT. WE COULD SUM UP ALL OF THE ACCEPTED FORMS ONTO A SINGLE INVOICE FOR A SINGLE LANDOWNER. WE COULD DO THAT.

BUT THE SUBMISSION OF EACH FORM AND THE SUM IS PER PARCEL.

YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT. I THINK IF WE DON'T ALLOW FOR THE SUMMATION OF ALL OF THE BACK FEES ON ALL GROUPS OF PARCELS, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT MANY PEOPLE PARTICIPATE IN THIS, BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THAT MANY THAT WOULD EXCEED 25,000.

SO I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO ALLOW A LEGAL ENTITY THAT HAS ALL OF THEIR BACK FEES BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN A PAYMENT PLAN. HEY, JENNY, I WANT TO GET THE LEGAL INTERPRETATION.

IT'S ON. OKAY. THAT IS SOMETHING. THAT'S A POLICY DECISION FOR THE BOARD.

THAT IS SOMETHING YOU CERTAINLY CAN DO. WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PUT IT IN THE FORM TO TO LET PEOPLE KNOW THAT THEY CAN DO THAT AND OPT INTO IT.

BUT IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE COULD SO TAKE A BOARD ACTION TO ALLOW THAT BECAUSE OUR OTHER ACTION WAS PER PARCEL.

YEAH. SO YOU WOULD JUST DIRECT US TO PROCEED IN THE SAME MANNER, BUT ALLOW AN OWNER TO ACCUMULATE PARCELS TO MEET THE MINIMUM AMOUNT. AND AS LONG AS THAT ONE OWNER IS THE SAME ON ALL THE PARCELS.

CORRECT? YEAH.IT'D HAVE TO BE THE SAME OWNER. OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF LACEY? I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.

SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD.

WHAT'S IF. I COULD MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT? SORRY IF YOU CAN'T SEE ME ON THE ZOOM.

YEAH. GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. THIS IS ELLEN HERE ON BEHALF OF THE EAST GRASSLANDS WATER WETLAND ASSOCIATION.

WE WOULD SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THE BOARD MEMBER TO ALLOW FOR THE ACCUMULATION OR TOTALING OF ALL PARCELS IN ORDER TO SPREAD OUT THE PAYMENTS. I THINK THERE ARE SEVERAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHO PROBABLY HAVE, YOU KNOW, FIVE, SIX, EIGHT PARCELS ALTOGETHER. AND IF THEY HAVE TO PAY SINGLE FEES ON EACH PARCEL, THAT COULD WELL EXCEED $25,000.

AND SO WE WOULD APPRECIATE THE BOARD MAKING THAT POLICY DECISION TO ALLOW FOR LANDOWNERS WHO ARE GOING TO GROUP THEIR PARCELS TOGETHER FOR PURPOSES OF THE ALLOCATION TO

[00:25:08]

THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? ALL RIGHT. I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. OH. ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL KEEP HER OPEN FOR DAVE. DAVE STEVENSON, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE PEOPLE IN OUR DISTRICT REQUESTED THAT IF THEY COULD GET AN EQUAL PAYMENT PROGRAM BE MUCH EASIER ON THEM THAN IF THE MINIMUM TYPE PAYMENTS.

SO THOSE ARE FOR OPT INS OR INCORRECT CORRECTIONS.

JUST THE CORRECTIONS, NOT OPT IN. OKAY. SO THAT'S THAT'S ALREADY PART OF THE DEAL.

THEY HAVE FIVE YEARS. PERFECT. THEY CAN DO IT IN FOUR.

ALL RIGHT. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD. MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE.

WELL YOU'RE GOING TO. AS PER MY SUGGESTION TO BE ABLE TO COMBINE PER ENTITY.

OKAY, I'LL SECOND IT. ALL RIGHT, SO I HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR GIAMPAOLI, A SECOND BY DIRECTOR KELLEY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAY. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

ALL RIGHT. WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER NINE, WHICH IS THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 BUDGET.

[9. FISCAL YEAR 2025/26 BUDGET ]

AND THEN I'LL GO INTO THE DETAIL, OF THE LINE ITEMS. AND IF YOU WANT ME TO SPEED UP OR SLOW DOWN THROUGH THAT PROCESS, JUST LET ME KNOW.

YOUR BUDGET IS IN TWO COMPONENTS, BECAUSE GSA REVENUE ARRIVES FROM TWO SEPARATE FEES THAT ARE NOT INTERMINGLED.

WE ACTUALLY SEPARATE OUT THE PHASE ONE FEE DOLLARS EACH YEAR.

AT THE END OF THE YEAR, WE PULL THOSE DOLLARS OUT AND PUT THEM INTO A SUB BUDGET UNIT.

AND SO THE FIRST BUDGET THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT IS YOUR OPERATING BUDGET.

THIS IS FUNDED BY YOUR SGMA COMPLIANCE LANDOWNER FEE THAT WAS ADOPTED IN 2019.

THIS BUDGET ALSO INCLUDES YOUR MLRP GRANT REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES.

AND I GUESS IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THAT I'LL LOOK TO REN TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE.

SINCE YOU DO HAVE A BIG DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT'S ANTICIPATED FOR THE MLRP GRANT REVENUE, JUST TO CUT TO THE CHASE FOR THIS OPERATING BUDGET, YOUR FEE RATE WOULD BE $0.13 AN ACRE AS A BASE RATE FOR THE SGMA COMPLIANCE LANDOWNER FEE AND $0.92 AN ACRE FOR THE ADDITIONAL IRRIGATED ACRES RATE.

YOU'RE COLLECTING $200,000 FOR THAT SGMA COMPLIANCE LANDOWNER FEE RATHER THAN THE $750,000 MAXIMUM.

AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A MINUTE. SO HERE ARE THE LINE ITEMS OF THE BUDGET, I'VE PUT YOUR APPROVED BUDGET OF WHAT YOU APPROVED IN 2024, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO KNOW WHAT YOU APPROVED LAST YEAR, WHAT YOUR ESTIMATED ACTUAL SPENDING IS IN ALL OF THOSE LINE ITEMS, AND THEN YOUR PROPOSED BUDGET FOR THE 25-26 YEAR.

SO AS I MENTIONED, REVENUE IS COLLECTED THROUGH THE SGMA COMPLIANCE LANDOWNER FEE.

YOU HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 751,000. AND THIS YEAR THE PROPOSED COLLECTION IS 200,000 WITH THE REST OF THE REVENUE COMING FROM FUND BALANCE OR THE MLP GRANT REIMBURSEMENT. SO YOUR REVENUE IS $4,738,400.

BUT OF COURSE, THE MAJORITY OF THAT IS COMING FROM YOUR MLP GRANT REVENUE GOING DOWN INTO YOUR EXPENSES.

YOU HAVE YOUR LEGAL SERVICES. THIS IS BUDGETED AT AN INCREASED AMOUNT THIS YEAR AT 200,000.

LEGAL EXPENSES ARE EXPECTED TO BE HIGHER THAN USUAL IN THIS UPCOMING YEAR DUE TO FINALIZING THE ALLOCATION POLICY DEVELOPMENT.

THE PHASE TWO FEE, THE PROPOSITION 218 PROCEEDING FOR THAT ALLOCATION, IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT.

AND SO WE DO EXPECT TO TO MAKE USE OF OUR LEGAL SERVICES MORE THIS YEAR THAN WE EVEN DID LAST YEAR.

AND AS YOU CAN TELL, YOU SPENT MORE LAST YEAR THAN YOU HAD BUDGETED AND EXPECTED TO SPEND IN THIS PAST YEAR UNDER TECHNICAL SERVICES.

PROPOSITION 218 FEE MODEL MAINTENANCE. THIS IS A MODEL THAT WOODARD AND CURRAN UPDATES EACH YEAR.

[00:30:03]

THE FEE MODEL CONTRACT WAS EXTENDED LAST LAST YEAR FOR ANOTHER FOUR, FIVE YEARS.

SO I THINK YOU HAVE FOUR YEARS LEFT IN THAT WE'VE GOT A $5,000 OR.

I'M SORRY. YEAH, WE HAVE $5,000 FOR MODELING UPDATE.

THIS IS FOR ANY POTENTIAL MODEL RUNS THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO DO OF THE MERCED WATER RESOURCES MODEL.

THIS COULD BE BY WOODARD AND CURRAN, OR THIS COULD BE BY EKI YOUR TECHNICAL CONSULTANT.

I THINK I SWEPT THE SWITCH THE ORDER HERE. AND THAT IS YOUR PHASE TWO FEE PROCEEDING.

SO THIS IS A NEW BUDGET LINE RECOGNIZING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PHASE TWO FEE.

THE ENGINEER'S REPORT CONDUCTING THE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC OUTREACH.

THE PROP 218 COMPLIANCE AND THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO ALL THAT IS FIT INTO THAT $75,000 NUMBER. THE LARGEST AMOUNT ON THIS TECHNICAL SECTION IS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PHASE ONE AND TWO STUDIES AND ANALYSIS. SO THIS IS TECHNICAL AND POLICY SUPPORT FUNDING FOR THE TWO PHASE GSP IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH. THIS INCLUDES POLICY AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR EKI AND ZANJERO, WHICH ARE YOUR TWO CONTRACTED CONSULTANTS, I EXPECT THEM TO BE WORKING ON A DATA GAP, SO THIS IS INSTRUMENTATION SITE, VISIT, LRP, MONITORING, REPORTS ABOVE AND BELOW THE CORCORAN ANALYSIS AND ON CALL TECHNICAL SUPPORT FROM EKI.

YOU HAVE ABOUT $88,000 REMAINING ON THAT CONTRACT.

AND THEN FOR ZANJERO, THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM, ROLL OUT THE PLATFORM, REPORTS FOR USAGE REPORTS FOR 2024 AND 2025, FINALIZING THE ALLOCATION RULE, THE ALLOCATION RULES, FORMS AND DOCUMENTS, SUBMISSION OF THAT REPORTING TO THE GSA, ANY POLICY SUPPORT FOR THE WATER RIGHTS, TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT APPLICATIONS, THE PHASE TWO FEE DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSIONS IN ADVANCE OF ACTUALLY WORKING ON THE PHASE TWO FEE, THE DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PLAN. AND THEN ZANJERO PROVIDES BOARD AND STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEES AND THE TAC COMMITTEE SUPPORT TO THOSE MEETINGS AND ALSO THE INTER AND INTRA BASIN MEETINGS. SO THAT'S MEETINGS WITHIN THE MERCED BASIN AND MEETINGS WITH OUR NEIGHBORING BASINS.

MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES. I DON'T REALLY THINK WE HAVE ANY CHANGES IN THESE SECTIONS AS TO YOUR PREVIOUS BUDGETS, I WILL SAY THE BUDGETED AMOUNT FOR YOUR COUNTY SUPPORT CONTRACT IS $75,000 AND AS PER THE SUPPORT SERVICES CONTRACT, SHOULD STAFFING EXPENSES GO OVER THE $75,000, THERE IS AN OPTION TO USE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FUNDING FOR THE FROM THE PHASE ONE FEE TO FUND THIS. AND SO THAT IS LANGUAGE THAT YOU HAD IN YOUR COUNTY SUPPORT SERVICES CONTRACT LAST YEAR.

AND THEN LATER ON IN THIS MEETING, YOU'LL SEE AN ITEM FOR THE COUNTY SUPPORT SERVICES CONTRACT.

AND IT HAS THAT SAME LANGUAGE IN IT. I'M GOING TO SKIP THROUGH THE REST OF THOSE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES, SINCE THEY'RE ALL SIMILAR TO LAST YEAR. AND THEN WE'RE DOWN TO THE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN EXPENSES.

SO THESE ARE YOUR BASIN WIDE EXPENSES THAT ARE SHARED AMONG THE THREE GSA'S ACCORDING TO COORDINATION AGREEMENT AND THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA'S PORTION OF THE COORDINATION AGREEMENT EXPENSES IS 58%. SO WE'VE GOT 100,000 IN GSP DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS.

THIS IS SUPPORT FOR THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE AND THE STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE.

THIS IS FOR WOODARD AND CURRAN EXPENSES. WE DO EXPECT THIS YEAR THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE SOME EXPENSES FOR WOODARD AND CURRAN IN ANALYZING THE SUBSIDENCE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT ARE EXPECTED TO BE RELEASED IN 2025, AND THE INTERCONNECTED SURFACE WATER GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS TO BE RELEASED LATER HERE IN 2025.

THE ANNUAL REPORT AND THE FIVE YEAR UPDATE. THIS IS BUDGETING FOR THE WATER YEAR 2025 ANNUAL REPORT.

WE BUDGETED $50,000 FOR THAT, AND WE'RE STARTING EARLY NOW.

WE'RE STARTING TO COLLECT FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEAR UPDATE IN ORDER TO AVOID THE BIG COLLECTION OVER TWO YEARS THAT WE HAD TO DO THIS TIME.

AND SO THE ESTIMATED IN THE GSP, THE ESTIMATED FIVE YEAR UPDATE COST WAS $800,000.

WE PAY 58% OF THAT. THIS PAST YEAR, YOU CAN SEE IN YOUR 24-25 BUDGET WE HAD $300,000.

[00:35:01]

AND WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID THAT. SO WE LOWERED THAT NUMBER DOWN A BIT.

NEXT IS THE MULTI-BENEFIT LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM EXPENSES.

AND I WOULD JUST SAY THE MLRP EXPENSES THAT WE HAVE LISTED HERE ARE THE SAME NUMBER THAT WE HAVE IN THE REVENUE BECAUSE WE SPEND THE DOLLARS, AND THEN WE TURN AROUND AND WE SUBMIT THEM TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECEIVE THOSE BACK THROUGH THE GRANT.

AND I WOULD ASK REN IF HE COULD JUST TAKE TWO MINUTES TO TALK ABOUT THE $4 MILLION IN MLP PROGRAM EXPENSES ANTICIPATED FOR THIS UPCOMING YEAR. I THINK SIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A BIG NUMBER.

I WANT YOU TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT IT.

COULD I ASK A QUESTION? OH, YES. I'M SORRY. THE EXPENSES INVOLVED IN THE ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE REPORT TO DWR FOR THE GSB. WOODARD AND CURRAN IS DOING THAT FOR US? IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. AND WHERE DOES THAT FALL INTO IN THIS BUDGET? THAT IS UNDER THE SECOND ITEM ON THE SCREEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT HERE YOU HAVE GSB ANNUAL REPORT SLASH FIVE YEAR UPDATE.

AND SO $50,000 OF THAT 150,000 IS THE GSB ANNUAL REPORT ON THE BOTTOM HALF OF THAT BOTTOM PAGE.

SHOULD BE RIGHT THERE. THIS THIS RIGHT HERE. YEAH.

OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANTED TO BE SURE.

YEP. OKAY. THANK YOU. HEY, REN. YEAH, THIS WILL BE PRETTY FAST, ACTUALLY, BECAUSE IT'S PRETTY IMPLICIT LOGIC.

SO THE, SO OUR TEAM JUST BUILT OUT A ONE YEAR CASH FLOW MODEL ON BEHALF OF THE GSA.

THE REASON THE NUMBER GOES UP SO FAST IS LAST YEAR, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY CONTRACTS WITH IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS. WE'RE EXPECTING ABOUT $3.5 MILLION OR WE'RE BUDGETING. WE'RE BEING CONSERVATIVE BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT MONEY IS ON THE TABLE FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE ACCELERATED.

BUT WE'RE EXPECTING $3.5 MILLION IN IMPLEMENTATION WORK TO HAPPEN OVER THE NEXT YEAR.

SO THAT'S JUST GOING TO REALLY ACCELERATE. THAT'S WHERE MOST OF THAT MONEY IS COMING FROM.

ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE THAT DEVELOPMENT RFP ON THE LANDSCAPE.

ONCE THOSE GOES OUT, ONCE THOSE GO OUT, YOU HAVE PEOPLE DRAWING MONEY PRETTY QUICKLY.

AGAIN, THE PROJECTS WE ONLY HAVE LIKE A YEAR AND A HALF TO MOVE ALL THIS.

SO YOU'RE GOING TO SEE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT CASH FLOW.

I WILL SAY AS WE MOVE INTO IT LIKE OUR REIMBURSEMENT, LIKE WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE STAYING ON TOP OF OUR REIMBURSEMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT, SO I'M NOT CREATING LIKE A CASH FLOW BIND TO THE EXTENT OF AVOIDABLE FOR THE GSA.

BUT AS SOON AS YOU START MOVING DIRT, THAT NUMBER WILL GO UP.

SURE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO THAT BRINGS YOUR TOTAL EXPENSES TO $5,502,400. YOUR FUND BALANCE, WHICH IS ESTIMATED FOR JUNE 30TH OF THIS YEAR, IS ESTIMATED TO BE $770,000,966. SO THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE, LIKE THE INVOICES THAT YOU APPROVED AT TODAY'S MEETING, WHICH WILL SPEND THAT FUND BALANCE DOWN JUST A LITTLE BIT.

BUT SINCE THE FUND BALANCE IS SO LARGE, THIS BUDGET IS PROPOSING TO COLLECT ONLY 200,000 IN THE SGMA COMPLIANCE LANDOWNER FEE AND THEN SPEND DOWN THAT FUND BALANCE. SO IF YOU PULL MLRP OUT OF YOUR BUDGET COMPLETELY, YOUR EXPENDITURES ARE $964,000 IN THE BUDGET. THAT HAS TO BE FUNDED BY FUND BALANCE AND THE SGMA COMPLIANCE FEE.

YOUR FUND BALANCE IS 770. YOU'RE COLLECTING 770,000.

YOU'RE COLLECTING 200,000 IN THE SGMA COMPLIANCE FEE.

SO THAT'S 970,000. SO THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GETTING THAT BALANCE BETWEEN YOUR REVENUE PLUS FUND BALANCE.

YOU KNOW WHAT'S ALREADY THERE AND YOUR PROPOSED EXPENDITURES.

OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR LACEY. THAT'S IT. RIGHT.

OR YOU HAD MORE. NO I GOT I GOT MORE. NO. OKAY.

GO AHEAD. SO NOW WE'VE GOT THE PHASE ONE FEE BUDGET.

SO THIS IS THE SECOND ELEMENT OF YOUR BUDGET.

THIS IS THE LAST YEAR THAT YOU'RE COLLECTING FOR THE PHASE ONE FEE.

AND SO THE TOTAL REVENUE PROPOSED TO BE COLLECTED IS $1,141,934.

THAT HAS A PHASE ONE FEE RATE FOR IRRIGATED ACRES AT $6.71 AN ACRE.

YOU WILL SEE THAT THE EXPENSES DO NOT MATCH THE REVENUE, BUT THAT'S OKAY, BECAUSE WE WE ARE FUNDING ALL OF YOUR FUTURE EXPENDITURES OUT OF THE PHASE ONE BALANCE AT OUT OF YOUR FUND BALANCE.

[00:40:01]

SO HERE'S THE ACTUAL BUDGET FOR THE PHASE ONE FEE.

THIS IS YOUR FOURTH YEAR OF THE PHASE ONE FEE.

THE REVENUES FOR THIS ONE ARRIVE ON THE PROPERTY TAX BILL, AND IT ONLY APPLIES TO THE IRRIGATED ACRES, THE BALANCE OF YOUR THREE PRIOR YEARS OF COLLECTION FOR THIS FEE.

SO 22-23, 23-24 AND THE CURRENT YEAR OF 24-25, REVENUE THAT WAS NOT SPENT REMAINS ALLOCATED ONLY TO THE ACTIVITIES THAT IT WAS COLLECTED FOR. THAT'S IDENTIFIED IN THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE PHASE ONE FEE AND THEN ANY ADDITIONAL REVENUE THAT YOU'RE COLLECTING HERE IN 2025-26, IT WILL INCREASE THE BALANCE OF THOSE ACTIVITIES MINUS THE ACTUAL SPENDING, OF COURSE.

THE PROPOSED REVENUE COLLECTED IS, LIKE I SAID, $1,141,934.

THIS IS LESS THAN THE APPROVED MAXIMUM. BUT THIS DOES INCLUDE PAYMENTS TO THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM FOR THE YEARS ONE, TWO AND THREE AGREEMENTS THAT WILL BE PAID IN NOVEMBER OF 2025.

AND THEN AND THAT'S GOING TO COME IN AT ABOUT $2,080,000,458.

SO THAT'S THIS YEAR'S PAYMENT TO THE LRP APPROVED AGREEMENTS, BECAUSE THERE IS A FUND BALANCE IN ALL OF THE PHASE ONE FEE, ACTIVITIES AND SPENDING HAS BEEN LOW. THIS BUDGET IS PROPOSING TO NOT COLLECT FOR THE WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION PORTION OF THE FEE AND THE CONTINGENCY.

SO YOU'LL SEE THOSE ARE ZEROED OUT. THE $2,080,458 FOR THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM IS THE AMOUNT THAT WILL BE PAID IN NOVEMBER OF 2025. HOWEVER, THE FUND BALANCE FOR THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM WILL ALSO COVER THE PAYMENTS THAT THE LRP WILL MAKE IN NOVEMBER OF 2026 AND NOVEMBER OF 2027, BECAUSE THIS IS THE LAST COLLECTION.

SO YOU SEE, THE FUND BALANCE IS QUITE HIGH, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO PAY THOSE OUT PRETTY QUICKLY IN YOUR LRP PAYMENTS.

YOU ARE COLLECTING $125,000 FOR THE GSA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

THIS WILL PROVIDE ENOUGH FUNDS TO START PAYING AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SALARY, TOTAL EXPENSES ANTICIPATED TO BE AROUND $200,000 ANNUALLY WHENEVER THE BOARD SELECTS A CANDIDATE.

SO AFTER THIS COLLECTION, THE BALANCE FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FUND WILL BE $500,000.

DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM. YOU'RE COLLECTING THE MAXIMUM FOR THE DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM, WHICH IS $200,000. THIS IS SET ASIDE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT PROGRAM.

IT'S SCHEDULED TO BE DEVELOPED BETWEEN THE THREE GSA'S BY SEPTEMBER OF 2025.

AND SO AFTER THIS COLLECTION, THERE WILL BE $800,000 AVAILABLE FOR DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION.

THEN YOU HAVE YOUR PARCEL BASED WATER BUDGETS.

THE WATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM IS PROVIDING THE PARCEL BASED WATER BUDGETS AS IDENTIFIED HERE.

SO THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA'S PARTICIPATION IN THE PLATFORM, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY GRANT FUNDED AND IS CURRENTLY GRANT FUNDED, IS NOT EXPECTED TO CONTINUE TO BE GRANT FUNDED IN THE FUTURE.

SO THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM, GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM THEIR GRANT IS ENDING THIS YEAR AND STARTING IN 2026 THAT WILL BE A SUBSCRIPTION BASED PAYMENT THAT WILL PAY TO THE PLATFORM.

WE'RE ANTICIPATING THAT TO BE ABOUT $40,000 ANNUALLY, BUT WE WON'T KNOW UNTIL NEXT YEAR.

ADDITIONALLY, IF WE WANT OUR MERCED SUBBASIN GSA GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM TO BE CUSTOMIZED FOR OUR ALLOCATION PROGRAM OR FOR OUR USE, WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

WE WOULD JUST PAY THE PLATFORM TEAM, THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM DIRECTLY.

AND SO THESE PARCEL BASED WATER BUDGET DOLLARS WOULD BE ABLE TO PAY FOR ANY CUSTOMIZATION THAT WE WOULD WANT OF THE PLATFORM.

LIKE I MENTIONED, THE WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION IS NOT FUNDED THIS YEAR.

THE BALANCE FOR THE WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION IS APPROXIMATELY 250,000.

AND THE CONTINGENCY IS NOT FUNDED. AND THE BALANCE FOR THE CONTINGENCY IS 175,000.

PHASE ONE FEE UNDER THIS PROPOSED BUDGET IS $6.71, AND THE ESTIMATED FEES OF BOTH THE PHASE ONE FEE AND THE SGMA COMPLIANCE LANDOWNER FEE. THEY MAY CHANGE SLIGHTLY DUE TO UPDATES TO THE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL RULE, WHICH WE WON'T GET UNTIL JULY OF THIS YEAR. ANY END OF THE YEAR FUND BALANCE AND PENDING INVOICES.

AND SO WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THE BUDGET.

ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. I JUST WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, REMARK LACEY POINTED IT OUT,

[00:45:04]

SO WE'RE HAPPY THAT IT'S GOING TO BE OVER. RIGHT.

THANK YOU LACEY. OKAY. ANY OTHER. I JUST HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION.

THE WATER BASED PARCEL, I THINK THAT BUDGET IS FOR THE GROUNDWATER COUNTING PLATFORM? YES, CORRECT. ORIGINALLY, WHEN WE PASSED, WHEN THE GSA PASSED THE PHASE ONE FEE BACK IN 2022, WE WERE NOT YET A PART OF THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM.

AND SO WE CALLED IT PARCEL BASED WATER BUDGETS.

WE KNEW WE WANTED TO GIVE PEOPLE A BUDGET FOR EACH OF THEIR WATER USE.

IN THE END, WE USED THE GAP, THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE THAT HAS FIT IN. OKAY. THANK YOU.

AND IF I MIGHT INTERRUPT. HEY, JOHN. SO MCAG'S MEETING IS OVER AT THE OFFICE BECAUSE WE'RE.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT. HOPEFULLY I'LL SEE YOU THERE IN A LITTLE BIT.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY, THEN I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME.

ANY ONLINE? NOT ONLINE. OH, ELLEN, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? YEAH. SORRY, I DON'T HAVE THE RAISE HAND FEATURE. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO EXPRESS APPRECIATION FOR THESE FEES BEING REDUCED THIS YEAR.

I THINK WITH WETLAND OWNERS HAVING TO OPT IN AND PAY BACK FEES BECAUSE OF JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THEIR ZONING DESIGNATION UNDER THE COUNTY CODE, IT'S GOING TO BE AND CONTINUES TO BE VERY BURDENSOME TO PAY THESE FEES.

AND SO, ALTHOUGH I WISH THAT THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM WOULD BE RELOOKED AT AND LOWERED A LITTLE BIT, I THINK $2 MILLION IS A LITTLE BIT EXCESSIVE GIVEN THE STATE FUNDING WE HAVE FOR MLRP AND ALSO JUST THE TRACK RECORD OF THE PROGRAM.

WISH IT COULD BE LOWER, BUT IT CERTAINLY REALLY GOOD NEWS TO HEAR THAT THE FEES WILL BE LOWER THAN THEY HAVE BEEN FOR THE PAST FEW YEARS, SO THANK YOU. IS THAT IT? YEAH. SO AND I'LL JUST I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT.

I GUESS I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. YOU KNOW, NONE OF US LIKE PAYING FEES.

AND NICK LACEY AND I WORKED REALLY HARD AT TRYING TO GET THESE NUMBERS AS LOW AS POSSIBLE.

ELLEN, THAT $2 MILLION, OUR CONTRACTS THAT WERE ALREADY HAVE ALREADY BEEN ENTERED.

AND SO WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A CHOICE ON CHANGING THAT AMOUNT.

HOWEVER YOU KNOW, WE'VE REALLY WORKED HARD. AND THEN THE OTHER COMMENT I'D LIKE TO MAKE IS WE STILL HAVE FUNDING IN HERE FOR AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US GET GET BACK ON THAT TRACK.

I MEAN, I THINK LACEY AND MERCED COUNTY HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB FOR US.

HOWEVER YOU KNOW, IN THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO BE MOVING FROM, YOU KNOW, SUGGESTING PEOPLE MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO, TO ENFORCEMENT.

AND SO I WOULD I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO, YOU KNOW, COME UP WITH A PLAN FOR THAT PHASE.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARILY WHERE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE COUNTY BEING UTILIZED.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, AND MAYBE IT CAN BE A, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A PART TIME EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND STILL USE THE COUNTY FOR SOME OF THE YOU KNOW, THE ACTIVITIES THAT WE DO BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE BEEN WELL SERVED SO FAR.

BUT JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE DURING OUR BUDGET DISCUSSION.

OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? BOB, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S BEEN LOOKED INTO OR NOT, BUT A LOT OF TIMES WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO FIND AN IMPORTANT POSITION, YOU ACTUALLY GO THROUGH A HEADHUNTING OUTFIT TO FIND SOMEBODY.

AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A HARD JOB FOR ANYBODY TO WANT TO TAKE ON.

SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO FIND SOMEONE JUST HANGING AROUND? YEAH. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REALLY SOLICIT SOMEBODY.

YEAH. SEEK SOMEBODY. AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S MUCH CHOICE.

YOU'RE GOING TO NEED SOMEBODY. YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM.

I MOVE, WE APPROVE THE BUDGET AS PRESENTED. IS THERE A SECOND? YES. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR KELLY.

A SECOND BY DIRECTOR GALLO. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

[00:50:04]

ALL RIGHT. WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM TEN, WHICH IS THE MERCED COUNTY SUPPORTIVE SERVICES CONTRACT.

[10. MERCED COUNTY SUPPORT SERVICES CONTRACT ]

THE AGREEMENT OUTLINES THE SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY THE MERCED COUNTY'S COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, WHICH INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, PREPARING ANALYSIS, REPORTS, AGENDAS AND MINUTES, PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPLEMENT PROVISIONS OF THE GSP SERVING AS THE SECRETARY, RESPONDING TO INQUIRIES, SERVING AS THE TREASURER, WHICH IS IDENTIFIED IN THE JPA AND PROVIDING THE FISCAL SUPPORT SERVICES.

EACH YEAR, THE GSA AND THE COUNTY ADOPT AN AMENDMENT TO FUND THE SUPPORT SERVICES CONTRACT FOR ANOTHER YEAR.

AND SINCE IT'S BEEN FIVE YEARS, THE COUNTY HAS REQUESTED A NEW CONTRACT RATHER THAN A SIXTH AMENDMENT.

SO THE NEW CONTRACT IS BASED OFF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT.

THERE'S NOTHING NEW IN THE CONTRACT LANGUAGE.

THE NEW CONTRACT AUTHORIZES $75,000 FOR SUPPORT SERVICES IN FISCAL YEAR 25-26.

IF THE $75,000 IS SPENT, TWO EVENTS OF DATE AND THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR POSITION STATUS WILL DETERMINE THE CONTINUED FUNDING THROUGH THE PHASE ONE FUNDING MECHANISM ALLOCATED FUNDS FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

SO THIS IS THE SAME CONTINGENCY LANGUAGE THAT WAS APPROVED IN LAST YEAR'S AMENDMENT AND IN THIS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR.

SO UNDER LAST YEAR'S AMENDMENT, AT THE END OF Q3, THE THIRD QUARTER SUPPORT SERVICES HAVE COST APPROXIMATELY $75,000.

SO FUNDING FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER SUPPORT SERVICES WILL COME FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PHASE ONE FEE, BUT ARE NOT EXPECTED TO BE MORE THAN $25,000, WHICH IS WELL UNDER THE LIMIT PROVIDED IN THE AMENDMENT LANGUAGE.

SO THE ACTION TO APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF MERCED AND THE GSA FOR THE SUPPORT SERVICES EXTENDS THE TERM FOR ONE YEAR. INCREASES THE COMPENSATION BY $75,000, WITH THE CLAUSE OF THE CONTINGENCY TO BE FUNDED BY THE PHASE ONE FEES FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? NOPE. I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME.

IS THERE ANY ONLINE? NONE ONLINE. ALL RIGHT. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? MAKE THE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MERCED COUNTY SUPPORT SERVICES CONTRACT.

IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. OKAY.

OH, I WOULD LIKE TO TO ASK THE MAKER OF THE MOTION FOR MAYBE A.

WELL, I WISH JENNY WAS BACK IN HERE. JENNY, ARE YOU NEARBY? I'M JUST WONDERING ABOUT THE SIGNATURE OF THE CONTRACT.

ME? SINCE I'M PART OF THE COUNTY AND MAYBE HAVE NIC DO IT INSTEAD, IF THAT'S NECESSARY.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS, BUT DO YOU WANT ME TO GO SEE? THERE SHE IS. SO, JENNY, QUICK QUESTION. WERE YOU OUT THERE PLAYING SOLITAIRE? NO, I KNOW YOU WEREN'T. SO JUST BECAUSE THIS IS A MERCED COUNTY CONTRACT IS IT OKAY IF I SIGN IT, OR SHOULD WE HAVE THE MOTION WHERE THE VICE CHAIR SIGNS IT? DOES THAT MATTER OR. NO? YOU KNOW, TECHNICALLY IT PROBABLY DOESN'T MATTER, BUT I DO THINK IT LOOKS BETTER.

OKAY, IF YOU DON'T SIGN IT. HAVE THE VICE CHAIR.

YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YOU WANT ME TO AMEND THE MOTION? DO YOU ACCEPT? YEAH. YEAH. YOU ACCEPT THAT? ALL RIGHT.

DOES THE SECOND OR THE MOTION ACCEPT THAT? OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY FIVE ZERO.

[11. ZANJERO, INC. CONTRACT AMENDMENT ]

LACEY. IN JUNE OF 2023, THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA ENTERED INTO A TWO YEAR ON CALL CONTRACT WITH ZANJERO, INC. TO PROVIDE AS NEEDED STRATEGIC POLICY AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT TO THE GSA.

OVER THE PAST YEAR, ZANJERO HAS PROVIDED MANY SERVICES RANGING FROM ANALYZING THE CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS UNDER RULE ONE FOR NEW WELL APPLICATIONS UNDERTAKEN, TECHNICAL ANALYSIS TO SUPPORT THE SGMA IMPLEMENTATIONS AND INQUIRIES,

[00:55:01]

IN AUGUST OF 2024, THE CONTRACT WAS AMENDED AMENDED TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL 200,000 FOR ON CALL STRATEGIC POLICY GUIDANCE THROUGH JUNE OF 2025, AND THIS WAS DUE IN PART TO TEMPORARY STAFFING CHANGES AT MERCED COUNTY.

THE ON CALL STRATEGIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES WE ANTICIPATE IN 2026 AND 2027 INCLUDE THE PLATFORM ROLLOUT, RESPONDING TO INQUIRIES UNDER THE PLATFORM, THE USAGE REPORTS THROUGH THE PLATFORM, FINALIZING THE ALLOCATION RULE AND FORMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE RULE, THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS SUPPORTING TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT WATER RIGHTS APPLICATIONS AS NEEDED, DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND THE ALLOCATION IMPLEMENTATION, OF COURSE, AND THEN SUPPORTING THE BOARD AND COMMITTEE AS THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST.

SO THIS ITEM REQUESTS THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE TECHNICAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH ZANJERO TO ALLOW FOR THIS TECHNICAL AND STRATEGIC POLICY SUPPORT THROUGH JUNE 30TH OF 2027.

SO THE EXISTING CONTRACT IS EXPIRING JUNE 30TH OF 2025.

THIS ADDS TWO YEARS. COMPENSATION CAN BE ADDED IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000, WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT THE CONTRACT WILL RETURN TO THE BOARD PRIOR TO JUNE 30TH, 2027 FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION.

OR YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND ADD THE FULL 200,000 NOT TO BE EXCEEDED AMOUNT.

NOW, I THINK THAT JUST DEPENDS ON THE INTEREST OF THE BOARD IN APPROVING THE TWO YEAR CONTRACT WITH A SMALLER AMOUNT TO SEE HOW SPENDING GOES OR JUST APPROVING THE FULL 200,000, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS APPROVED IN THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT IN 2023.

OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? MY FIRST QUESTION IS, IS IT ZANJERO OR SANJERO? HE'S NOT IN THE ROOM WITH ZANJERO. YEAH. THE SECOND ONE IS, I DON'T THINK HIS JOB'S GOING TO GET ANY SMALLER.

NO. RIGHT. I THINK 200,000 SHOULD BE APPROVED.

OKAY. WELL, WE'LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN COME BACK, AND YOU CAN MAKE THAT MOTION IF YOU'D LIKE.

PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOW OPEN. YEAH. COULD YOU COME UP TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE? JUST JUST OFF THE CUFF, KNOWING WITH THIS. IS THIS A ONE PERSON TEAM OR IS IT A TEAM OF PEOPLE THAT ARE SUPPORTING THIS, A TEAM OF PEOPLE? AND THEN HAVE YOU GUYS BEEN HAPPY WITH THE SUPPORT PROVIDED? LIKE, ARE THERE ANY OTHER OPTIONS I KNOW NOTHING.

YEAH. NO GOOD QUESTIONS. YEAH. NO. BASICALLY IT'S GREG YOUNG IS THE PRINCIPAL.

HE HAS ADRIEL RAMIREZ THAT OFTENTIMES WILL GIVE HIM SUPPORT TO REACT QUICK TO OUR QUESTIONS DURING COMMITTEE MEETINGS OR MEETINGS.

AND THEN ONCE IN A WHILE, YOU USE THERE WILL BE OTHER PEOPLE ON THEIR TEAM THAT WILL DO WORK.

SO HOW MANY TOTAL DO YOU THINK? LACEY. I THINK THERE ARE AROUND I WOULD SAY ABOUT 14, I THINK IS THE LAST TIME.

NO, THAT PARTICIPATE IN OUR WORK. YEAH. SO AS A WHOLE MAYBE 14 BUT WE'VE WE'VE SEEN A COUPLE OF THE PRINCIPALS WHO'VE HELPED US OUT. ADRIEL, WE SEE KATIE CARLSON AS WELL. YEAH.

SO THREE, THREE PEOPLE DO MOST OF THE WORK. THIS IS JUST USING THEIR KNOWLEDGE BASE.

YEAH. AS CONSULTANTS TO HELP US DO OUR WORK, MAKE SURE THAT WE CRAFT EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING TO BE ACCEPTED.

RIGHT. AND YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN HAPPY WITH WHAT THEY PROVIDED SO FAR.

WHAT'S THAT? HAPPY WITH WHAT THEY'VE PROVIDED SO FAR.

OH, YEAH. YEAH. NO, THEY'VE KEPT US OUT OF TROUBLE WITH THE STATE.

MANY, YOU KNOW, NOT THAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, VIOLATING STUFF, BUT THEY KEEP US, YOU KNOW, KNOWING WHAT THE STATE WANTS.

AND SO WHEN WE SUBMIT STUFF TO THE STATE, THERE'S VERY FEW QUESTIONS COME BACK.

OKAY. YEAH, THEY DO A GREAT JOB. ACTUALLY, THAT WAS IT.

YEAH. HIGHLY KNOWLEDGEABLE. SO OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ONLINE? NOBODY ONLINE.

OKAY, I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE DAIS. BOB, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A $200,000 FOR SUPPORT SERVICES.

CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR GENERAL. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? I HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR KELLEY AND A SECOND BY DIRECTOR GALLO.

[01:00:02]

ANY OPPOSED? NAY. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

ALL RIGHT. NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM THAT EVERYBODY'S BEEN WAITING FOR ITEM 12, GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION RULE.

[12. GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION RULE ]

YOU COME BACK IN. OH, YOU CAN HEAR ME. OH, I TALKED LOUDER THIS TIME.

ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE ON TO ITEM 12, THE GROUNDWATER RULE.

GOOD AFTERNOON. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WE ARE HERE TO PRESENT TO YOU AND CONSIDER FOR ACTION THE UPDATED JUNE 4TH FINAL DRAFT OF THE GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION RULE.

THERE WAS AVAILABLE IN THE ONLINE AND IN YOUR PACKETS THE UPDATED RED LINE VERSION.

SO WE WANTED TO GO OVER A COUPLE OF ITEMS THAT WE THOUGHT WERE JUST THE HIGHLIGHTS.

BUT OBVIOUSLY ANY OF THE RULE ITSELF CAN BE DISCUSSED, ESPECIALLY ANY OF THE RED LINES.

WE CAN DISCUSS ANY OF THOSE PARTS OR HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY OF THAT.

SO THE FEW AREAS I WANT TO BRING ATTENTION TO ONE IN PARTICULAR WOULD RELATE TO.

I'M GOING TO TRY AND FLIP TO PAGES HERE, SO BEAR WITH ME FOR A MOMENT ON PAGE 20.

UNDER 1.5.2.10, THERE WILL BE A REFERENCE ADDED TO THE END OF THIS PARAGRAPH, WHICH DISCUSSES THE DISCONTINUATION OF THE APA IN 2036. THERE WILL BE A REFERENCE REFERRING BACK TO THE SECTION 1.5.1.4, WHICH SAYS THERE WILL BE THE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SUSTAINABLE YIELD OF NATIVE GROUNDWATER WILL ALSO BE CONSIDERED PURSUANT TO THIS, WHICH ESSENTIALLY IS SAYING THE APA, WHICH IS A TEMPORARY ADDITIONAL PUMPING ALLOWANCE, WILL STILL BE DISCONTINUED BY 2036. BUT THE PRIOR SECTION ON SUSTAINABLE YIELD WILL ALLOW AND SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS FOR INCREASES AS WELL AS POTENTIAL DECREASES BASED ON THE CONDITIONS IN EACH OF THE SUSTAINABILITY ZONES.

AND WE HAVE ALWAYS ANTICIPATED THAT THE DATA THAT WILL BE LOOKING AT OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS WILL ALLOW THE SUSTAINABLE YIELD NUMBER IN SOME ZONES TO BE ADJUSTED UPWARDS. THAT WOULD REFLECT A POTENTIAL PAUSE IN AN APA.

BUT WE ARE FOR PURPOSES OF REPRESENTING THE SUSTAINABLE YIELD, THE APA WOULD STILL BE REMOVED AS OF 2036.

SO WE'LL MAKE THAT ADJUSTMENT. THAT ADJUSTMENT IS CURRENTLY NOT IN THE RED LINE VERSION.

SO THAT WOULD BE A NEW POTENTIAL. ONE ADDED CLAUSE TO THE JUNE 4TH VERSION.

DO YOU HAVE THE EXACT WORDING? THE PROPOSED EXACT WORDING WOULD BE AT THE END OF 1.5.2.10.

I'LL READ THE CURRENT SENTENCE AS THE LAST SENTENCE IS.

APA IS INTENDED TO BE DISCONTINUED BY 2036, LEAVING SUSTAINABLE YIELD OF NATIVE GROUNDWATER AS DESIGNATED FOR EACH SUSTAINABILITY ZONE MAKING UP THE ENTIRE ALLOCATION. AND THEN TH ADDITION WOULD BE WHERE SUSTAINABLE YIELD OF NATIVE GROUNDWATER ADJUSTMENTS WILL ALSO BE CONSIDERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 1.5.1.4. THAT WOULD BE THAT WAY. IT'S IN THE RECORD.

YEP. APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. I WILL TAKE US NOW TO 1.8.4.1.4 AND WE ARE THERE WILL BE PAGE NUMBER. I'M GETTING THERE. I'M TRYING TO HELP ALL OF US.

24. SHOULD BE ON PAGE 32. AND IN PARTICULAR, WE MODIFIED SOME OF THE REPRESENTATIONS OF SURFACE WATER SOURCES TO INCLUDE NUISANCE WATER SPILL, RUNOFF OR OTHER NON-CONTRACTED LATERAL SEEPAGE RESULTING FROM THE OPERATION OF OTHERS AND DIVERTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WHERE SUCH WATER IS MEASURED MEASURABLE USING APPROVED METHODS.

BECAUSE THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE YOU MAY NOT HAVE SOME LEGAL CONTRACTED SUPPLY, THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE WATER IS SHOWING UP AND PEOPLE ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THAT, LIKE A SURFACE WATER TAIL RUNOFF FROM A NEIGHBORING PARCEL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT OPPORTUNITY EXISTS TO GET THAT RECOGNIZED AND ADDED INTO YOUR ALLOCATION, OR TO YOUR AVAILABLE WATER SUPPLIES TO MEET YOUR NEED.

DOESN'T CHANGE YOUR ALLOCATION, IT JUST CHANGES YOUR WATER ACCOUNT BALANCE.

IT ALLOWS FOR WATER SUPPLIES IN ADDITION TO YOUR GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION TO BE AVAILABLE TO MEET YOUR CONSUMPTION AS MEASURED AND REPORTED IN THE MONITORING SECTIONS OF THIS POLICY. OKAY. THAT WOULD BE 184.1.4.

[01:05:02]

AND THIS SAYS THAT DURING AND UP TO JANUARY 1ST, 2030, IF YOU ARE RECHARGING UNDER THE RECHARGE CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES WATER ABOVE CORCORAN CLAY, YOU CAN PUMP UP TO 50% OF THAT FROM BELOW THE CORCORAN, GIVING FOLKS TIME TO IMPLEMENT NEW INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE ABLE TO EXTRACT THAT WATER FROM ABOVE.

CORCORAN FOR FUTURE ONGOING RECHARGE ABOVE THE CORCORAN.

SO THIS IS A SOLUTION TO TRY AND GIVE TIME, BECAUSE WE KNOW IT TAKES MONEY AND PERMITTING TIME TO GET INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGED.

IF YOU ARE PUMPING BELOW THE CORCORAN RIGHT NOW.

WHEN WE MOVE ON, THEN TO 1.10.1, WHICH WOULD BE ON PAGE, I SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN PAGE NUMBERS BY THESE. 1.10.1.3.2 WAS ADDED. THIS IS ON PAGE 44.

AND THIS IS BEING ADDED TO PROVIDE SOME FLEXIBILITY TO THE GSA TO INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL PENALTY BY FURTHER RESTRICTING APA.

IF WE HAVE A A PARTY THAT HAS OUTSTANDING FEES OR CHARGES OR SUCCESSIVE CONTINUED VIOLATIONS OF THE RULE.

SO THIS IS AN ADJUSTMENT WHAT YOU MIGHT CONSIDER A BAD ACTOR CLAUSE AND GIVES THE GSA AN OPPORTUNITY TO REMOVE APA, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN POTENTIALLY MORE ADDITIONAL PUMPING BEYOND AN ALLOCATION, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN HIGHER FEES AND POTENTIALLY BE A DISCOURAGING ACTION FOR OVERPUMPING. FINALLY, 1.11.2.1, WHICH IS ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 46. SO IT'S 1.11.2.1.1 SPECIFICALLY PREVIOUSLY, WHEN YOU HAD ADOPTED THIS LAST OCTOBER, THERE WAS LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWED AN EITHER OR CONDITION WHEN THERE WAS A INCORRECT ASSESSOR'S OFFICE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION THAT WE WOULD BE USING AS A STARTING POINT FOR THE DETERMINATION OF AN ALLOCATION FOR A LANDOWNER FOR A PARTICULAR PARCEL.

AND THIS CURRENT PROPOSAL IS TO STRIKE THE OR COMPONENT, WHERE WE NOW WOULD SAY THE INCORRECT ASSESSOR'S OFFICE REQUEST WOULD BE WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE BEEN PUMPING GROUNDWATER PRIOR TO OCTOBER 10TH, 2024 ON THE PARCEL, EVEN IF IT WASN'T CLASSIFIED AS IRRIGATED. AND IT WOULD STRIKE THAT YOU COULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT CROP OR IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIOR TO THAT.

AGAIN, THE PRIOR LANGUAGE WAS ALREADY INCLUDED.

THAT OR WHICH SO THAT EXISTS AT AS CURRENTLY ADOPTED.

ANY QUESTIONS ON ON THOSE PARTICULAR ITEMS OR ANY OTHER ITEMS? IN THE CURRENT RULE. ANY QUESTIONS GENTLEMEN? SO THERE'S ONLY ONE CHANGE. TO THIS. ALLOCATION RULE THAT WE HAVE THE JUNE 4TH CORRECT. THE ONLY CHANGE THAT WOULD BE TO THE VERSION, THE JUNE 4TH DATED VERSION, WHICH WAS AVAILABLE ONLINE AND AVAILABLE IN YOUR PACKETS, WOULD BE TO THAT THAT CLAUSE ADDED ON PAGE 20 RELATED TO THE APA AND RE REFERENCING THE FACT THAT SUSTAINABLE YIELD WOULD ALSO BE EVALUATED AND ADJUSTED AND HAS THE LIKELY POTENTIAL OF GOING UP IN SOME REGIONS THAT ARE MEETING ALL THE OBLIGATIONS. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.

I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

GOOD AFTERNOON. BOARD. BEN CRANE. JUST A QUICK QUESTION ON THE 1.11.

2.1.1 WHERE THE APPLICATIONS THAT WERE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS DOCUMENT,

[01:10:09]

YEAH, I KNOW. YEAH. ANYONE WHO HAS ALREADY FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER THE TODAY'S RULE THAT DOESN'T DELETE THAT SECTION WILL BE CONSIDERED. AND IT'S A VALID APPLICATION.

IN FACT, ANYONE WHO HAS BEEN DENIED UNDER THAT WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL UNDER THIS CURRENT RULE.

IF YOU ADOPT IT TODAY TO BE RETROACTIVE TO THE PRIOR RULE.

SO ANYONE WHO EXERCISED THOSE RIGHTS AS THEY WERE AVAILABLE PRIOR TO TODAY, IF THE RULE IS ADOPTED, WILL STILL HAVE THOSE RIGHTS AND BE ABLE TO APPEAL ANY DENIAL.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER PUBLIC? I'D LIKE JUST.

CAN YOU HOLD ON? I'LL BRING IT BACK. EXCUSE ME. I'M SORRY.

NO PROBLEM. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? ALL RIGHT.

ANY ONLINE? KEVIN, DID YOU STILL WISH TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT? NO. THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] . THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD, BOB. I WANTED TO JUST GET A QUESTION ANSWERED ABOUT THIS APPEAL FOR INCORRECT CLASSIFICATION.

IS THAT JUST AN ADMINISTRATIVE THING, OR IS THAT HAVE TO GO THROUGH A HEARING OR A STAFF REVIEW? OR IT'S WHEN I HEAR APPEAL. I MEAN, THAT SOUNDS LIKE A BIG DEAL.

AND IF IT'S A MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE, IT SHOULDN'T BE THAT BIG A DEAL.

IT SHOULD BE EASY TO DO. I DON'T THINK THAT COMES UP WITH REGARD TO MISTAKEN CLASSIFICATION BY THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE.

THE APPEALS THAT WE'RE REFERRING TO HAVE TO DO WITH THE THE OPT IN OR DO WE HAVE APPEALS FOR THE NO.

SO THE THE IN CORRECT ASSESSOR'S OFFICE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION, THE THE APPEAL IS APPEALING THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION.

IT'S NOT APPEALING A ACTION OR DECISION OF THE GSA AT THIS POINT.

BUT JUST TO CLARIFY THE INITIAL APPEAL OF THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE.

CLASSIFICATION IS A PROCESS THAT'S WRITTEN OUT IN YOUR ALLOCATION RULE, AND IT'S A GSA STAFF DECISION AT THAT TIME.

SHOULD THE LANDOWNER WHO SUBMITTED THE CHANGE DISAGREE WITH THE STAFF DECISION THEY CAN THEN APPEAL THAT STAFF DECISION TO THE BOARD. AND THAT'S IN SECTION 1.11 ALSO.

AND THAT IS A WHOLE PROCESS THAT INCLUDES A PUBLIC HEARING.

YES. SO THE FIRST ACTIONS ARE BY STAFF. IF THE LANDOWNER OR PROPERTY OWNER DOES NOT LIKE THOSE CONCLUSIONS, THEN THE APPEAL OF THAT IS TO THE BOARD. AND YES, THEY WILL PRESENT THE EVIDENCE.

THE BOARD WILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING TO ACCEPT THAT EVIDENCE AND THEN MAKE ITS DETERMINATION.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THE OTHER THE OTHER KIND OF COMMENT, BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT THIS CAME UP AT OUR WATER DISTRICT MEETING THAT THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT 1.5.2.10 WHERE WHEREAS WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO GO OVER IT FOR THEIR BENEFIT THAT THE APA IS DISCONTINUED BY 2036, LEAVING JUST SUSTAINABLE YIELD NATIVE GROUNDWATER.

THERE WAS CONCERN IN THAT LANGUAGE THAT THE APA WOULD JUST GO AWAY.

AND WHEN I BROUGHT IT UP IN CLOSED SESSION AND LANGUAGE THAT THAT WE SUGGESTED IT WAS IT WAS REFERENCED BACK TO THIS PREVIOUS SECTION 1.5.1.4. AND IT DID ALLOW FOR WHERE THE SUSTAINABLE NATIVE GROUNDWATER WILL INCREASE OR DECREASE DEPENDING UPON ITS ACCOMPLISHMENT OR NOT ACCOMPLISHMENT OF A GSP OBJECTIVES. SO IF GSP OBJECTIVES CONTINUE TO BE MET AND THERE'S A LIST OF THEM, SUBSIDENCE 2025 WATER LEVELS, AND AND OTHER MATTERS IF THEY CONTINUE TO BE MET.

THE, THERE WILL, IT WILL BE DETERMINED BY THIS BOARD WHETHER TO INCREASE OR DECREASE THE SUSTAINABLE YIELD, NATIVE GROUNDWATER.

[01:15:01]

BECAUSE WHEN WE STARTED THIS WHOLE PROGRAM, WE HAD TO DEFINE IN THE GSP WHAT OUR SUSTAINABLE YIELD WAS.

AND THAT WAS A NUMBER THAT WAS WHERE THE 13IN CAME FROM.

ANY AMOUNT OVER THAT IS GOING TO BE A CONCERN.

IT'S GOING TO EXCEED WHAT THE INITIAL GSP SAID.

SO THEY WANTED TO GET AWAY FROM THIS ADDITIONAL PUMPING ALLOCATION LANGUAGE.

AND BY THE TIME YOU KNOW WELL BEFORE SGMA IS REQUIRES IT.

SO, YEAH. YOU KNOW, GIVEN THAT I THINK THAT THAT ADDRESSES LOCAL CONCERNS AND I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO COMMENT ON. IT'S A LONG, BIG DOCUMENT, A LOT OF WORK PUT INTO IT, AND A LOT OF WORK WILL BE REQUIRED. THERE'S STILL THERE'S STILL FORMS THAT HAVE TO BE COMPLETED.

BUT THERE'S TIME IN THIS COMING YEAR TO DO THAT.

SO. THAT'S MY COMMENT. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? NO. OH. WAS THERE ANYBODY ONLINE? OKAY. PUBLIC COMMENT ONLINE.

A QUICK QUESTION. THIS IS KEVIN BURSEY AGAIN.

I THOUGHT ABOUT IT A LITTLE MORE, AND I THINK I NEED SOME CLARIFICATION.

FROM MRS LACEY. REGARDING RULE 1.11.2.1, THE PARTIAL MISCLASSIFICATION APPEAL PROCESS.

IS IT THAT IF YOU SUBMITTED APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE NEW STANDARD WAS ADOPTED AND YOU'RE DENIED, ARE YOU STILL ABLE TO REAPPLY UNDER THE THE STANDARD AS IT IS TODAY, OR DO YOU HAVE TO REAPPLY UNDER THE NEW STANDARD LATER? I THINK I NEED THAT CLARIFIED REALLY QUICK. I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, KEVIN, IF YOU HAVE APPLIED. IF YOU APPLIED, LIKE SAY THIS WEEK FOR THE NEW STANDARD WAS ADOPTED AND SAY IT'S DENIED FOR SOME TECHNICAL REASON. IN A FEW WEEKS WHENEVER THE STAFF GETS AROUND TO IT.

DOES THE LANDOWNER NEED TO REAPPLY UNDER THE NEW STANDARD BEING PROPOSED, OR WOULD THEY STILL BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THE LESS RESTRICTIVE STANDARD THAT'S CURRENTLY IN PLACE RIGHT NOW? I'M NOT SURE WHEN THAT WOULD OCCUR, BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE CHANGING IS WE'RE RESTRICTING THE CHANGE TO JUST LAND THAT WAS IRRIGATED BEFORE A CERTAIN DATE. AND WE'RE TAKING OUT THE EFFORTS TO INITIATE IRRIGATION.

IF SOMEONE APPLIED UNDER THE EFFORTS TO INITIATE IRRIGATION PRIOR TO THE NEW RULE BEING ADOPTED.

TODAY, THEY WILL BE ADMINISTERED UNDER THE OLD RULE, AND IF THEY ARE DENIED IN THE FUTURE, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO APPEAL UNDER THE OLD RULE TO THE BOARD TO HAVE THE STAFF DECISION RECONSIDERED.

ONLY THOSE WHO WERE ACTUALLY IRRIGATED PRIOR TO THE SPECIFIED DATE COULD APPLY UNDER THE NEW RULE, IF ADOPTED TODAY. OKAY. I THINK I UNDERSTAND.

I THINK THAT'S GOOD BECAUSE THIS IS A PRETTY JARRING CHANGE.

THE RULE THAT WAS ADOPTED IN OCTOBER 24TH WE WERE TOLD WE'D HAVE UNTIL JANUARY 26TH TO APPEAL ANY PARTIAL MISCLASSIFICATIONS. AND NOW IT'S COME TO OUR ATTENTION THAT WE WOULD NEED TO SUBMIT FORMS TODAY BEFORE THE NEW, MORE RESTRICTIVE STANDARD IS ADOPTED. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT WON'T BE A PROBLEM AS LONG AS PEOPLE SUBMITTED THEIR FORMS PRIOR TO A POTENTIAL VOTE TODAY ON THAT ISSUE. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT IS CORRECT.

IF ANYONE HAS SUBMITTED FORMS UNDER THE EXISTING RULE, THEY WILL BE PROCESSED UNDER THAT RULE AND WILL BE ABLE TO APPEAL UNDER THAT RULE.

THAT'S GOOD NEWS. THANK YOU. I WOULD CLOSE JUST BY SAYING THAT IT IS STILL A PRETTY JARRING CHANGE.

THESE CHANGES CAME OUT IN ON FRIDAY EVENING, LESS THAN A WEEK AGO, A FEW DAYS AGO.

SO IT MIGHT BE A GOOD COURTESY TO ALLOW A COUPLE OF WEEKS FOR OTHERS WHO AREN'T WHO WERE MAYBE UNDER THE IMPRESSION FROM THE FORMER

[01:20:01]

IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO ALLOW THEM A COUPLE WEEKS OR SOMETHING, TO GET UP TO DATE ON BOARD AND GET THEIR PAPERWORK IN ORDER BEFORE IT'S CLOSED PERMANENTLY. SO BUT THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

AND FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION ON THE ISSUE.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE ONLINE? OKAY.

PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE? OH. OH, LACEY. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING.

THIS CHANGE TO SECTION 1.11.2.1.1. IT HAS BEEN PUBLISHED SINCE THE MAY 9TH VERSION.

SO IT HAS BEEN ONLINE, POSTED, AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC SINCE MAY 9TH.

ALL RIGHT. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. OKAY.

YEAH. IT DIDN'T COME OUT FRIDAY NIGHT. OKAY. ALRIGHTY.

WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? WE'RE AT THAT POINT.

I MOVE TO APPROVE THE UPDATED VERSION OF THE GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION RULE.

FINAL DRAFT DATED JUNE 4TH, 2025. WITH THE ADDITION OF THE LANGUAGE PRESENTED BY MR. YOUNG TO 1.5.2.10 ON PAGE 20 OF THIS DOCUMENT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.

ALRIGHTY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR GALLO.

A SECOND BY DIRECTOR PEDRETTI. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 13. STAFF REPORT.

[13. STAFF REPORT ]

SO THEIR 2025 GSP WAS ACCEPTED BY THE WATER BOARD AND RECOMMENDED TO BE SENT BACK TO DWR, WHICH IS ENDING STATE INTERVENTION IN THAT BASIN.

I THINK A NEIGHBORING BASIN MOVING OUT OF STATE INTERVENTION IS A GOOD THING FOR MERCED, AND IT REMOVES SOME OF THE UNKNOWNS ABOUT THAT GSP AND OUR INTER-BASIN COORDINATION WITH THEM. OUR OTHER NEIGHBOR, THE DELTA-MENDOTA SUB-BASIN, THEY ARE CURRENTLY WORKING WITH THE WATER BOARD IN THE STATE INTERVENTION PROCESS, AND THEY HAVE REQUESTED A FACILITATOR REACH OUT TO ALL OF THEIR NEIGHBORING BASINS TO SCHEDULE COORDINATION MEETINGS.

WE HAVE RECEIVED SOME INITIAL INQUIRIES FROM THE FACILITATOR ABOUT SCHEDULING MEETINGS.

SO WE WILL HAVE MORE ON THOSE CONFIRMED MEETINGS IN THE FUTURE.

AND WHO FROM THE BOARD WOULD BE ATTENDING THOSE.

ADDITIONALLY, THE DELTA-MENDOTA SUB-BASIN ALSO SUBMITTED A COMMENT LETTER ON THE MERCED SUBBASINS PERIODIC REPORT.

AND SO THAT'S BEEN POSTED. THAT WAS POSTED ON THE SGMA PORTAL. THEY SUBMITTED THAT, BACK IN APRIL.

AND SO WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS WHO ARE PART OF THE COORDINATION WITH THE DELTA MENDOTA ARE AWARE OF THEIR WRITTEN COMMENTS TO THIS BASIN.

AND THEN FINALLY, JUST A HEADS UP THAT DWR IS INDICATING THAT THEIR BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR SUBSIDENCE WILL BE RELEASED THIS SUMMER.

AND THEY'RE ALSO WORKING ON A GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR INTERCONNECTED SURFACE WATERS THAT'S ALSO SUPPOSED TO BE RELEASED THIS SUMMER OR LATER THIS YEAR.

SO WE WILL REVIEW THOSE DOCUMENTS WHEN THEY ARE RELEASED.

I THINK BOTH OF THOSE TOPICS ARE IMPORTANT TO THE MERCED SUBBASIN AND WILL INFLUENCE HOW WE'RE IMPLEMENTING SGMA GOING FORWARD.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM 14 BOARD REPORTS.

[14. BOARD REPORTS ]

[15. FUTURE MEETINGS ]