Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

HERE WE GO. OK, THANK YOU.

[00:00:04]

THIS IS THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA GOVERNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22ND. AND WE ARE PAST THE HOUR AT 2:06.

WE HAVE A QUORUM. SO LET'S HAVE THE SECRETARY CALL THE ROLL.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. WE WILL BEGIN WITH MR. PARK. PRESENT.

MR. GALLO.

PRESENT.

SUPERVISOR PAREIRA.

PRESENT. VICE CHAIRMAN MARCHINI.

HERE. AND CHAIRMAN KELLEY.

HERE. SIR, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM.

I DO WANT TO JUST KNOW FOR THE RECORD, MR. UPTON IS NOT FEELING WELL AND IS NOT HERE TODAY.

OTHERWISE HE WOULD BE.

AND HE EXPRESSES HIS REGARDS AND REGRETS FOR HIS BEING A LITTLE UNDER THE WEATHER.

BUT YOU DO HAVE A QUORUM FOR THE PURPOSES OF TODAY'S MEETING.

OK, THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM IS THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

CAN WE HAVE BOARD MEMBER PARK DELIVER THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

OK, THANK YOU. OUR NEXT ITEM IS A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

THIS IS THE PUBLIC'S OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON ANY MATTER OF INTEREST WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION NOT ON THE AGENDA.

WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC COMMENT, PERIOD.

GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS ERIC SWENSON.

I THINK YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH ME.

I HAVE REQUESTED ACTUALLY TO MARK THIS MORNING IN THIS PROCESS WITHOUT BEING PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN THIS ROOM.

COVID-19 POSITIVITY RATES IN MERCED COUNTY ARE STILL TESTING PRETTY HIGH.

THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT SPREAD OF COVID-19.

I SEE YOU'RE PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION FOR SOME OF YOUR CONSULTANTS TO NOT BE HERE IN PERSON.

TWO MEETINGS AGO YOU ALLOWED PEOPLE TO WATCH, I BELIEVE, ON THE INTERNET AND ENTER COMMENTS VIA E-MAIL, WHICH I TOOK ADVANTAGE OF.

SO I'M REQUESTING ONCE AGAIN THAT YOU PROVIDE SOME SORT OF ACCOMMODATION GOING FORWARD IN FUTURE MEETINGS, NOT JUST FOR THIS MEETING, BUT FOR THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS SO THAT PEOPLE COULD PARTICIPATE ON A REMOTE BASIS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT.

SEEING NONE WE WILL CLOSE THE COMMENT PERIOD.

OUR NEXT ITEM, COST SHARING AGREEMENT FOR WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION CONSULTANT GREG YOUNG WILL PROVIDE UPDATE AND INFORMATION ON THE COST SHARE AGREEMENT.

GREG, IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION JUST VERY QUICKLY TO HIGHLIGHT THE COST SHARE AGREEMENT IN FRONT OF THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION TODAY.

YEAH, WELL, DO. THANK YOU, CHAIR KELLEY.

HI, EVERYBODY.

SORRY VIA REMOTE.

WAS PROBABLY A BETTER USE OF OUR TIME FOR TODAY'S BRIEF MEETING, BUT HAPPY TO BE THERE IN PERSON FOR FUTURE MEETINGS IF WE CAN.

THE COST SHARE AGREEMENT FOR THE WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION THERE HAS, IF YOU RECALL, WE SIGNED AN AGREEMENT WITH MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT, WHO IS PURSUING THE WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION FOR MULTIPLE STREAMS WITHIN THE MERCED SUBBASIN.

AND AS PART OF THAT AGREEMENT, THEY WILL BE AND ALREADY HAVE ASKED THE BOARD THAT THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL APPLICANTS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT APPLICATION ONCE THE BOARD HAS FOUND IT'S AT A POINT WHERE IT CAN ALLOW ADDITIONAL APPLICANTS TO BE ALLOWED.

SO AS PART OF THAT AGREEMENT TO BE ON THAT PETITION, THAT APPLICATION, THE PARTIES HAD AGREED TO SPLIT THE COST WITH MID, WHERE PARTIES OTHER THAN MID WOULD COVER 50 PERCENT OF THE COSTS OF THE APPLICATION, INCLUDING THE APPLICATION FEE.

THE ORIGINAL INITIAL ENGINEERING WORK THAT WOULD ACCOMPANY THE APPLICATION AND SUBSEQUENT WORK ANTICIPATED TO GO ON FOR A PERIOD OF ANYWHERE FROM 5 TO 10 YEARS.

AND SO THE PARTIES THAT WERE WANTING TO PARTICIPATE THEN SAID ARE ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT OR CONSIDERING ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT TO SHARE THAT 50 PERCENT.

AND THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS AMONGST THE PARTIES TO IDENTIFY AND ALLOCATE THAT PORTION OF THAT 50 PERCENT AMONGST THE VARIOUS PARTIES THAT WOULD BE PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT. SO IN THIS CASE, WHERE WE ENDED UP WAS THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA WOULD BE

[00:05:08]

RESPONSIBLE FOR 28.33 PERCENT OF THE OBLIGATION STIPULATED IN MID AGREEMENT.

SO IN OTHER WORDS. TWENTY EIGHT PERCENT OF THE 50 PERCENT THAT THESE PARTIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR. SO THAT WOULD SO.

WELL, THERE'S THE MATH.

AND THEN THERE'S A TABLE THAT WAS DEVELOPED AND DISCUSSED AMONGST THE OTHER PARTIES, AMONGST ALL THE PARTIES THAT ALLOCATED THOSE PERCENTAGES TO WHERE IT RANGED FROM TWO PERCENT FOR PLAINSBURG TO 19.58 FOR LE GRAND-ATHLONE.

AND THERE'S A SERIES OF WEIGHTED VALUES THAT WERE DISCUSSED AND DEVELOPED BASED ON A NUMBER OF CONSIDERATIONS BY THE VARIOUS REPRESENTATIVES.

THE VARIOUS PARTIES TO THAT AGREEMENT ARE ALSO ALL APPROVING OR CONSIDERING FOR APPROVAL THIS AGREEMENT. AND THEN WE'LL BE SIGNING AND EXECUTING THAT.

AND ONCE WE HAVE ALL THE SIGNATURES, WE WOULD TURN THAT COMPLETE AGREEMENT OVER TO MID.

LONE TREE HAS ALREADY APPROVED IT.

MY UNDERSTANDING TODAY. IT'S IN FRONT OF YOUR GSA FOR CONSIDERATION TODAY.

AND I BELIEVE IN SPEAKING WITH BRAD SAMUELSON.

SOME OF THE OTHERS, LE GRAND AND SANDY MUSH AMSTERDAM HAVE ALL AGREED AND AUTHORIZED THEIR GENERAL MANAGERS TO SIGN.

WE JUST HAVE NOT RECEIVED THOSE SIGNATURES YET.

SO WITH THAT, I'LL JUST OPEN IT UP FOR ANY QUESTIONS ANYBODY MAY HAVE.

I HAVE A QUESTION, TO BEGIN THE PRESENTATION, I BELIEVE, GREG, YOU SAID THAT THERE ARE ADDITIONAL APPLICANTS INTENDED WITH THIS AGREEMENT.

IS THAT CORRECT? SO LET ME MAKE SURE I CLARIFY THAT THE MID AGREEMENT THAT WE SIGN OBLIGATES MID TO REQUEST TO THE STATE BOARD THAT ADDITIONAL APPLICANTS ON THAT APPLICATION, WHICH CURRENTLY IS ONLY NAMED AS MID AS THE SOLE APPLICANT FOR THAT WATER RIGHT. IT WOULD EXPAND THAT APPLICATION TO HAVE THE SIGNATORS TO THIS AGREEMENT INCLUDED SO THAT THE PARTIES RECEIVE.

BUT I BELIEVE THAT REQUEST HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE GREG? CORRECT. IT HAS BEEN MADE.

AND I BELIEVE THE STATE BOARD IS CONSIDERING IT, BUT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE APPLICATION YET. SO PAGE ONE AND UNDER THE RECITAL'S OF THIS COST SHARING AGREEMENT, YOU SEE THE PARTIES HERE, PLAINSBURG ID, LONE TREE MUTUAL, TURNER ISLAND WATER DISTRICT, AMSTERDAM WATER DISTRICT, LE GRAND-ATHLONE SANDY MUSH, LA PALOMA AND MERCED SUBBASIN GSA WOULD ALL BE ADDED AS ADDITIONAL APPLICANTS WITH MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO THAT WATER RIGHT APPLICATION.

DOES THAT CLARIFY BOB. YES, I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH THIS.

YES, I JUST THERE'S NOT PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE CONSIDERED AN APPLICANT THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY I MEAN, THIS IS IT.

THESE ARE THE PARTIES THAT WILL PARTICIPATE IN THIS WATER RIGHT APPLICATION.

CORRECT. THERE ARE NOT MORE COMING.

OK. THERE ARE NOT MORE COMING THESE ARE THE PARTIES WHO HAVE AGREED AND ARE AGREEING TO COST SHARE IN THAT APPLICATION PROCESS AND WOULD BE ADDED TO THE APPLICATION.

OK, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS? YES, MR. KELLEY.

GREG JUST A KIND OF A COUPLE OF POINTS OF CLARIFICATION.

SO ONE IS ON THE ACTION ITEM.

IT SAYS THAT MSGSA WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TWENTY EIGHT POINT THREE PERCENT OF THE OBLIGATION, BUT IT SAYS TWENTY EIGHT POINT THREE OF FIFTY PERCENT AND AT SEVENTY ONE PERCENT. YOU KNOW, THE MATH JUST ISN'T 100 PERCENT, WHICH IS FINE.

I MEAN, THAT'S JUST IN A YOU KNOW, BUT WHEN WE COME AROUND TO THE FIRST PAGE OF THE AGREEMENT, IT DOESN'T I DON'T KNOW, I JUST WHERE DOES IT SPELL OUT THAT WE'RE PAYING 50 PERCENT OF THE COST AND THAT THESE PERCENTAGES ARE OF THAT 50 PERCENT.

SO IN THE MID AGREEMENT, WHICH WE DID NOT INCLUDE IN THIS APPLICATION, BUT HAS BEEN IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD BEFORE.

THAT AGREEMENT STIPULATES THAT PARTIES OTHER THAN MID ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR 50 PERCENT OF

[00:10:06]

THE COSTS AND WILL BE INVOICED BY MID.

AND I BELIEVE IT ALSO HAD THE CLAUSE IN THERE THAT THOSE PARTIES WOULD DEVELOP A COST SHARING AGREEMENT SO THAT IT WAS ALL CLEAR AS WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMING UP WITH THAT 50 PERCENT.

AND SO WHEN THIS AGREEMENT PARTICULARLY SAYS THAT WE ARE 28 PERCENT OF THE 50 PERCENT, THAT'S TRULY WHAT'S INTENDED.

IS THAT ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THE COST SHARE AGREEMENT, WHEN YOU ADD UP ALL OF THOSE PERCENTAGES THAT ARE LISTED FROM TWO PERCENT, THREE POINT SIX FOUR, ET CETERA, THAT ADDS TO A HUNDRED AND THAT IS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE FIFTY PERCENT, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

YEAH. YEAH. THE WAY THAT DOES.

I GET IT. THANK YOU.

OK, THANK YOU. AND THE ANTICIPATED I THINK IT SHOULD BE CLEAR TOO I THINK WE NOTED IT, BUT THE ANTICIPATED COST THAT'S ALREADY BEEN ABSORBED BY MID IS ON THE ORDER OF OVER EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS TO WHICH THESE PARTIES THAT ARE SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR 50 PERCENT OF THAT, WHICH IS ESTIMATED AT ABOUT FOUR HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND.

SO THAT WOULD PLACE IN MERCED SUBBASIN GSA AT THAT IS TWENTY EIGHT POINT THREE AT ABOUT ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND.

WE WOULD BE EXPECTING AN INVOICE FROM MID ONCE WE ALL SIGNED THIS AGREEMENT AND SUBMIT IT. THAT BUDGET AMOUNT WAS INCLUDED.

I THINK THE BUDGET WAS INCLUDED AT 150 IN THE BUDGET YOU APPROVED AS A BODY A FEW MONTHS AGO.

GREG, THIS IS NIC I HAVE A QUESTION.

CAN YOU ELABORATE ON NUMBER 6, THE REASSESSMENT, AND THE TRUE UP AND HOW THAT PROCESS IS GOING TO LOOK AND WHAT IT IS ACTUALLY ALLUDING TO? CORRECT. SO A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE ARE UNCLEAR OF AT THIS EARLY STAGE IN THE WATER RIGHT APPLICATION. AND THAT IS SINCE THERE'S MULTIPLE STREAMS INVOLVED AND THERE'S WATER AVAILABILITY, ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS ONGOING, IT IS NOT CLEAR YET HOW THE BOARD WILL SEE THE OPPORTUNITIES ON SOME OF THE STREAMS. AND THERE'S THE POTENTIAL THAT SOME OF THE PARTIES THAT ARE SIGNING ONTO THIS AGREEMENT MAY SEE LESSER OPPORTUNITY BY SOME ACTION OF THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION. AND THEREFORE, THE IDEA WOULD BE, WHILE EVERYBODY IS PARTICIPATING IN THE INITIAL COSTS TO PETITION THE BOARD AND IN A SENSE SUBMIT THE APPLICATION, THAT THERE'S POINTS IN TIME DOWN THE ROAD WHERE IT MAY BECOME MORE OBVIOUS THAT WHERE THE POTENTIAL BENEFICIARIES ARE THE WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION MAY CHANGE A LITTLE BIT.

AND SO THESE PERCENTAGES MAY NEED TO BE MODIFIED FOR FUTURE COST REIMBURSEMENT ACTIONS, AND THAT WOULD BE EVALUATED, AS WE UNDERSTAND MORE WITH THE APPLICATION PROCESS.

SO THAT'S THE INTENT.

AND IS THAT INCLUDING IS THAT JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THIS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HALF OF THE PARTIES, OR IS THAT THE ENTIRE ENTIRETY WITH WELL, IT DEFINITELY IS THE INTENT WITHIN THIS ONE.

AND I BELIEVE AND JEANNE MAYBE YOU RECALL THE MID AGREEMENT ITSELF, I THINK HAD SOME ITEMS IN THERE ABOUT COST EVALUATION OR REEVALUATION.

I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW.

SO I APOLOGIZE. I SHOULD HAVE HAD THAT UP.

THAT'S FINE. THANK YOU, GREG. AND I DON'T RECALL EITHER.

OK, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

PROBABLY NOT SO MUCH A QUESTION, BUT I DID WANT TO AND MR. YOUNG DID MENTION HIS COMMENTS ABOUT HAVING SUPPORT FROM AMSTERDAM, BUT ALSO SANDY MUSH AND LE GRAND ATHLONE HAVE BOTH EXPRESSED SUPPORT FOR THIS ITEM JUST FOR THE BOARD'S EDIFICATION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS.

OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC.

ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS COST SHARE AGREEMENT, WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION.

OK, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.

NEXT IS THE ACTION TO APPROVE THE COST SHARING AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF THE

[00:15:04]

INITIAL COST REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST FROM MID AS STIPULATED PER THE MID AGREEMENT.

MR. CHAIR, MOVE TO APPROVE, I'LL SECOND THAT.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE COST SHARE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF THE INITIAL COST REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST.

ALL IN FAVOR. AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED.

SO CARRIED, THANK YOU.

NEXT ITEM IS A DISCUSSION OF THE AMSTERDAM WATER DISTRICT INCLUSION AS A NON-VOTING, NON-PAYING MEMBER.

AND GREG YOUNG WILL PROVIDE A SUMMARY WITH RESPECT TO THAT ONE.

AGAIN THANK YOU, CHAIR.

I WAS GOING TO SEE IF JEANNE WANTED TO ACTUALLY PRESENT THIS.

I'M HAPPY TO GO OVER IT, BUT I KNOW SHE IS MUCH MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT ITSELF.

BUT LET ME AT LEAST SET THE STAGE FOR THAT.

AND THEN, JEANNE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO EXPAND, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.

AMSTERDAM WATER DISTRICT HAS, AS YOU KNOW, APPROACHED THE GSA TO BECOME A PARTICIPATING MEMBER. AND THERE'S A COUPLE OF PROVISIONS THAT ALLOW FOR THAT WITHIN THE AGREEMENT AT THIS POINT. ONE, TO PROVIDE AN OPTION FOR A NEW VOTING MEMBER AND ANOTHER TO PROVIDE AN OPTION FOR A NON-VOTING MEMBER.

AND AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE THOUGHT IS AND THE ACTION IN FRONT OF YOU IS FOR CONSIDERATION TO INCLUDE AMSTERDAM AS A NON-VOTING NONPAYING MEMBER, AS ALLOWED FOR UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT.

AND WE CAN SUBSEQUENTLY HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ADDRESSING BECOMING A MEMBER AT SOME POINT, WHICH DOES INVOLVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT BOARD SEATS AND SOME OTHER THINGS THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER A LITTLE BIT AND DISCUSS BEFORE WE MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION.

SO, JEANNE, IS THERE MORE THAT YOU THINK WE SHOULD ADD TO THAT? YEAH, JUST WE'RE FOLLOWING THE METHODS THAT ARE SET FORTH IN THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT AND SECTION FOURTEEN POINT THREE SPECIFIES EXACTLY WHAT A PARTY NEEDS TO DO TO BECOME A NON-VOTING MEMBER.

AND WE ARE HAVING AMSTERDAM ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ALL OF THOSE CRITERIA ARE MET.

THE FIRST IS IT'S ELIGIBLE TO ENTER INTO A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO THE GOVERNMENT CODE. THE SECOND IS IT'S ELIGIBLE TO JOIN A GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY PURSUANT TO SGMA.

AND THIRD, THAT IT RECEIVES AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE FROM A MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNING BOARD.

SO IF YOU TAKE ACTION ON THIS AND APPROVE IT, THAT CRITERIA IS MET.

AND THEN FINALLY, IT HAS TO AGREE IN WRITING TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE JPA.

SO WE'VE PREPARED THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE SIGNED BY THE AMSTERDAM WATER DISTRICT, THAT IT IS AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE JPA AND THAT IT MEETS THOSE CRITERIA.

SO AFTER THAT'S DONE, IF YOU VOTE AND THEY SIGN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT, THEN UNDER THE TERMS OF THE JPA, IT WILL BE A NON-VOTING MEMBER.

MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. JEANNE, GREG, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.

JUST ONE QUICK ADDITION.

JUST FOR AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD.

MR. SAMUELSON, ON BEHALF OF AMSTERDAM, HAS INDICATED SUPPORT FOR THEIR BECOMING, AGAIN, A NON-VOTING MEMBER AND DOES LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING OBVIOUSLY WITH THIS ORGANIZATION, MOVING FORWARD WHEN BECOMING A VOTING MEMBER WHEN THAT TIMING IS MORE APPROPRIATE.

SO, AGAIN, THEY ARE AMENABLE TO BECOMING A NONPAYING NON-VOTING MEMBER AT THIS TIME.

OK, THANK YOU. IT APPEARS THAT THE BOARD IS GOING TO NEED TO TAKE UP A DISCUSSION OF HOW TO STRUCTURE THIS YOU KNOW, A POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL BOARD SEAT OR HOW IT MIGHT BE ROTATED OR WHAT. WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO DISCUSS THAT.

SO IT'S BETTER AT THIS TIME TO JUST APPROVE AMSTERDAM AS A NON-VOTING MEMBER.

ANY OTHER COMMENT? OK, ANY COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC? OK, WE'LL CLOSE IT FOR THE PUBLIC.

THIS, THEN, IS AN ACTION TO AUTHORIZE BOARD CHAIR TO EXECUTE A SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT.

[00:20:05]

SORRY. THANK YOU. ACTION ITEM TO APPROVE THE INCLUSION OF AMSTERDAM WATER DISTRICT TO BECOME A NON-VOTING NONPAYING MEMBER OF MERCED SUBBASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY JPA JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT AND AS ALLOWED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF OUR JPA UPON EXECUTION BY AMSTERDAM WATER DISTRICT OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM PROVIDED TO THEM AND AUTHORIZE THE BOARD CHAIR TO COUNTERSIGN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM.

I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE. WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR. AYE.

OPPOSED. SO CARRIED. OK, THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR KEEPING ME ON THE RIGHT.

THE NEXT ITEM, CONTRACT FOR SUSTAINABILITY ZONE DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS AN ITEM FOR DISCUSSION TO AUTHORIZE BOARD CHAIR TO EXECUTE A SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT FOR REQUESTED CONSULTING SERVICES WITH A SELECTED CONSULTANT FOR THE SUSTAINABILITY ZONE INVESTIGATION PROJECT TO BE COMPLETED BY DECEMBER 30, 2020, AND NOT TO EXCEED TWENTY THOUSAND. GREG YOUNG WILL PROVIDE UPDATE.

AND THANK YOU AGAIN CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

THIS AS WE HAD TALKED ABOUT BEFORE ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE ANTICIPATING AND IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS FOR THE GSA TO BE ABLE TO MANAGE AND START MOVING TOWARDS THE SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES OUTLINED AND DESCRIBED IN THE GSP WE MAY NEED AND ZONES. AND SO WE'RE CALLING THEM SUSTAINABILITY ZONES.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT EXACTLY THOSE MAY LOOK LIKE, BUT WE'RE ANTICIPATING THAT THERE MAY BE NEED TO VARY OUR MANAGEMENT, OUR ACTIVITIES, THE DIRECTIONS, OTHER ANTICIPATED ELEMENTS.

AND IT MAY EVEN ROLL FORWARD INTO THINGS LIKE IF WE CREATE MARKETS DOWN THE ROAD OR OTHER THINGS AS FAR AS ZONES THAT MAY HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE ACTIONS OCCUR WITHIN THOSE ZONES VERSUS SEPARATE ZONES.

AND SO, FOR INSTANCE, YOU MAY THINK ABOUT AREAS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE MERCED SUBBASIN IN OUR GSA, THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF LAND ON THAT EASTERN EDGE THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN SOME OF THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE ON THE NORTHWESTERN EDGE OR THE SOUTH WESTERN EDGE OF THE BASIN.

AND SO THERE'S A VARIETY OF REASONS WE MAY WANT TO CONSIDER SOME DIFFERENT ZONES.

AND IN OUR LAST MEETING, I GAVE A PRESENTATION THAT JUST HAD SOME VERY SIMPLE BOXES AND OVALS DRAWN ON A MAP TO KIND OF ILLUSTRATE WHERE WE MAY THINK ABOUT DIFFERENT ZONES.

AND MAYBE THERE'S TWO, MAYBE THERE'S FIVE.

I DON'T THINK WE'D WANT MANY MORE THAN SOME NUMBER ON THE ORDER OF FIVE.

AND SO WE ARE ASKING FOR A CONSULTANT TO DO SOME MAPPING EXERCISES AND APPLY SOME LOCAL KNOWLEDGE TO GIVE US SOME OPTIONS AND TO BRING BACK OPTIONS.

AND THEN THOSE OPTIONS, ONCE WE KIND OF JUST LOOK AT THOSE OPTIONS, I THINK WE WOULD THEN WANT TO BRING THOSE OPTIONS FURTHER INTO DISCUSSION, PROBABLY GET INPUT WITH THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE AND THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS THEREOF.

BUT THE GOAL IS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME OPTIONS PRESENTED IN FRONT OF THE BOARD BEFORE THE END OF DECEMBER.

AND IT WOULD HAVE SOME MAPS, MAYBE THREE OR FOUR OPTIONS PRESENTED AND THEIR BASIS FOR THOSE DIFFERENT OPTIONS. AND THEY MAY CONSIDER FACTORS SUCH AS CROPPING AND LAND USE, GEO POLITICAL BOUNDARIES, GROUNDWATER LEVELS AND HYDRO GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS, THE AVAILABILITY AND SOURCE OF WATER SUPPLIES, MAYBE AS IT RELATES TO RECHARGE OR OTHER FUNCTIONS, CONCERNS OF SUBSIDENCE.

MAYBE WHERE THERE, AGAIN, IS OPPORTUNITIES FOR RECHARGE AND ARE THERE WATER QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS IN PLACES? THOSE ARE A FEW OF THE FACTORS THAT MAY AFFECT HOW WE WOULD WANT TO THINK ABOUT FUTURE MANAGEMENT, AND THIS, AGAIN, ARE SUSTAINABILITY ZONES SOLELY FOR WITHIN THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA'S BOUNDARY.

THIS ISN'T FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE MERCED SUBBASIN THIS IS SIMPLY FOR THE GSA'S AREA.

SO WITH THAT OPEN IT UP FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

[00:25:06]

GREG, HOW DOES THAT DIFFER FROM THE TERM MANAGEMENT AREA AS USED IN THE SGMA REGULATIONS? THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION.

THE INTENT IS TO HAVE THIS JUST IN NAME ONLY THE SGMA REGULATIONS WHEN IT DESCRIBES A MANAGEMENT AREA, THERE IS A SET OF REQUIREMENTS THAT FORCES YOU TO REPORT SEPARATELY, REPORT FOR EACH OF THOSE MANAGEMENT AREAS.

AND THAT IS NOT SOMETHING WE WERE TRYING TO SET UP HERE.

WE'RE SIMPLY TRYING TO CREATE SOME ZONES THAT WE MAY ADDRESS A NUMBER OF THINGS A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY WITHIN FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS.

YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOME PERCHED WATER IN SOME AREAS WE HAVE SOME SUBSIDENCE OCCURRING IN OTHER AREAS. SO WE MAY WANT TO DESCRIBE ACTIVITIES AS IT MORE RELATES TO A SUSTAINABILITY ZONE, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO GET CAUGHT UP IN THE MANAGEMENT AREA REPORTING THAT IS REQUIRED UNDER SGMA.

SO WE INTENTIONALLY DID NOT USE THAT TERMINOLOGY TO TRY AND STAY AWAY FROM THAT.

YEAH, THIS IS MORE THIS IS NOT ANYTHING THAT'S DESCRIBED IN SGMA.

THIS IS MORE OF AN INTERNAL MANAGEMENT EFFORT BY THIS GSA TO DETERMINE IF THERE ARE DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE GSA THAT MAY NEED TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY, WHICH IS UNDER YOUR AUTHORIZATION UNDER SGMA, BUT IS NOTHING THAT IS EXPRESSLY DESCRIBED BY SGMA SO.

OK, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO WE WILL HAVE A REPORT GIVING US A NUMBER OF OPTIONS BASED UPON DIFFERENT CRITERIA THAT YOU'VE MENTIONED FOR A SUSTAINABILITY ZONE.

AND WE'LL OPEN THIS ITEM.

GALLO.

NOT SO MUCH A QUESTION, BUT MORE, I GUESS AS A SUGGESTION.

THIS, TO ME, NEEDS TO BE A VERY OPEN PROCESS.

I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION OUT THERE THAT'S AVAILABLE FROM LANDOWNERS THAT MAY CONTRIBUTE TO THIS PROCESS.

AND I THINK THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IS AWARE OF THIS PROCESS SO THAT WE RECEIVE THEIR INPUT.

THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN WOULD BE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND SPEND SOME MONEY AND TIME AND THEN FIND OUT THAT SOMEBODY SAYS, WELL, YOU KNOW, I WAS NEVER I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS HAPPENING.

I HAVE INFORMATION THAT COULD HAVE HELPED THIS PROCESS.

THE OTHER THING THAT I THINK COULD HELP FACILITATE SOME OF THAT INTERACTION WOULD BE MAYBE AN INITIAL ROLE BY THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE TO HELP SCOPE THIS PROCESS, TO HELP DESIGN THE PROCESS SO THAT THERE, AGAIN, WE INTERACT WITH THE VARIOUS FARMERS AND ENTITIES INVOLVED IN THIS PLAN.

IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT.

THAT'S A GOOD RECOMMENDATION.

I THINK WE COULD ASK THE CONSULTANT THAT'S BEING THOUGHT OF HERE TO HAVE A PRELIMINARY MEETING WITH THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE PRIOR TO IT BEING SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD.

THAT WAY THEY WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CONSULTANT HAS COME UP WITH, AND THEN THEY CAN GIVE SOME FEEDBACK BEFORE THE BOARD, ACTUALLY.

AND WE CAN DO THAT I WOULD IMAGINE.

GREG, AS FAR AS THE CONSULTANT REQUESTS THAT THEY MEET WITH AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE HERE, TECHNICAL AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE HERE.

YEAH, WE CAN DEFINITELY DO THAT.

AND I THINK THOSE ARE GOOD SUGGESTIONS.

I ALSO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE IDEA OF HAVING A COMPLETION DATE IN DECEMBER WAS SIMPLY TO TRY AND COMPLETE DIFFERENT OPTIONS AN INITIAL LOOK, THAT'S NOT TO WALK IN AND BRING SOMETHING FOR A CONCLUSIVE DECISION BY THE BOARD EITHER BY THE END OF THE YEAR OR IN EARLY JANUARY.

[00:30:01]

I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS MOVE THIS FORWARD, GET SOME INITIAL THOUGHTS DOWN AND REASONING AND BASIS, AND THEN HAVE THAT ITERATIVE DISCUSSION AND CONTINUED DISCUSSION WITH ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS AND THE BOARD ITSELF, WHETHER THAT'S THROUGH THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE OR MORE EXPANSIVE.

SO I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY PLAN ONE OR TWO INVOLVE ROLES WITH THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE. I THINK THEY MAY I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR SCHEDULE IS AND THERE MAY ONLY BE ONE MEETING BETWEEN NOW AND DECEMBER.

SO WE MAY JUST LOOK TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE TO HELP INFORM SOME OF THE ACTIVITIES AND THE INVESTIGATIONS.

AND THEN THE INTENT WOULD BE THAT GOING INTO NEXT YEAR, WE ARE GOING TO WANT TO GET INPUT FROM THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON WHY CERTAIN OPTIONS MIGHT BE BETTER THAN OTHERS AND WHAT MIGHT BE SOME REFINEMENTS TO ANY OF THOSE OPTIONS.

MR. GALLO ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT APPROACH? YEAH, IT SOUNDS REASONABLE.

I THINK POSSIBLY IN AN INITIAL MEETING ONCE AGAIN TO DISCUSS THE THE SCOPE OF THE PROCESS MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA JUST TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY INITIAL DISCUSSION.

MR. CHAIRMAN.

YES.

I JUST WOULD ADD TO THAT THAT MAYBE AFTER THAT INITIAL MEETING THAT THE CONSULT THAT'S BEING CHOSEN CAN TAKE WRITTEN COMMENTS ALSO FROM THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE AS THEY DEVELOP KIND OF MORE IDEAS OR MORE INPUT SO THEY FEEL THAT NEED TO GO INTO THIS.

CHAIRMAN JUST TO QUICKLY RECAP, I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING FROM A COUPLE OF MEMBERS IS AND I THINK YOUR STAFF AND CONSULTANTS ARE HEARING IT LOUD AND CLEAR, ACTUALLY DO A LITTLE GOOD JOB OR ACTUALLY DO A GOOD JOB, RATHER, ON THE FRONT END OF ACTUALLY WORKING WITH OBVIOUSLY STAKEHOLDERS, MOST NOTABLY THE TECHNICAL AND THOSE IN MORE OF AN ADVISORY CAPACITY TO HELP US WITH SCOPING TO INCLUDE THOSE ITEMS THAT GREG MENTIONED IN HIS PRESENTATION AND POTENTIALLY OTHERS AS WELL.

AND SO I THINK YOUR STAFF HAS HEARD THAT LOUD AND CLEAR.

AND SO IF THAT'S THE WISHES OF THE BOARD, WE'D BE HAPPY TO UNDERTAKE SUCH AN EFFORT.

MR. CHAIR? YES.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD ONE MORE COMMENT.

AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, I THINK BOTH OF YOU ARE SPOT ON.

THE OTHER WOULD BE THAT WHEN WE START THIS PROCESS, THAT WE USE A BUZZ WORD LIKE PUMP RESTRICTION OR ASSESSMENT FEE TO GET EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION.

WE MARKET THIS TO EVERYBODY AND LET THEM KNOW.

RIGHT. BECAUSE, I MEAN, WHEN WE DID OUR PROP 218 HEARING, WE HAD A FULL ROOM.

YOU KNOW, OF COURSE, WE ARE IN COVID, BUT NOBODY SHOWS UP UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE AGAINST.

AND SO IN THIS CASE, WE NEED THE POSITIVE INPUT JUST AS MUCH.

SO JUST IF THE OUTREACH IN THE BEGINNING COULD BE REAL STRONG, I'D APPRECIATE IT.

SO AGAIN MR. CHAIRMAN, YOUR STAFF WILL WORK CLOSELY WITH MR. YOUNG TO ORCHESTRATE THIS WITH OBVIOUSLY THE CONSULTANT TO COME.

AND I THINK ALL THE POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY SUPERVISOR PAREIRA, MR. GALLO, MR. PARK, HAVE BEEN ALL DULY NOTED AND APPRECIATED.

OK, THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE OF THE BOARD.

THEN WE HAVE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC FOR COMMENT.

SO THIS IS ERIC SWENSON ONCE AGAIN, AND I'M GOING TO HAVE MY PRIVATE MERCED AREA ENGINEERING CONSULTANT HAT ON RIGHT NOW, AND I ALSO AM A LONG TERM GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, CURRENTLY RETIRED FROM MERCED COUNTY.

NORMALLY, BEFORE YOU GO TO A SOLE SOURCE FOR WORK, YOU WRITE A WRITTEN SOLE SOURCE JUSTIFICATION TO USE THAT SOLE SOURCE.

SO ONE THING I WOULD REQUEST IS A COPY OF THE SOLE SOURCE JUSTIFICATION FOR WHOEVER YOU ARE PROPOSING TO USE.

IF YOU'RE PROPOSING TO USE WOODWARD CURRENT.

BASED ON MY 20 YEARS APPROXIMATELY OF MERCED GROUNDWATER WORK, I'M NOT ACTUALLY SURE THEY'RE THE BEST CONSULTANT FOR WHAT YOU'RE TASKING AHEAD HERE FROM WHAT YOU DISCUSSED.

I DO THINK THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE SHOULD BE INVOLVED, AND I REALLY AM HAPPY THAT THE BOARD IS SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.

I WOULD ANTICIPATE THE BEST THING WOULD ACTUALLY BE FOR THERE TO BE THREE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETINGS, ADVISORY COMMITTEE GROUP MEETINGS IN SUPPORT OF THIS WORK.

THE FIRST WOULD BE TO HELP WITH SCOPING OF WHAT IS TO BE DONE.

[00:35:03]

THE SECOND THAT YOU MAY NOT BE AWARE OF THAT IS I'VE WORKED WITH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ENTITIES TO ACTUALLY COLLECT DATA TO SUPPORT THIS EFFORT OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS.

I INITIALLY PRESENTED THIS CONCEPT TO THE BOARD AND THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE IN THE FALL OF 2018.

SO IT'S TAKEN TWO YEARS TO GET TO THE POINT REALLY OF DOING SOME MORE ADDITIONAL DETAILED WORK IN THIS AREA.

I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A SECOND MEETING TO TALK ABOUT BRINGING FORWARD WHOEVER THE CONSULTANT WHO IS SELECTED THE DATA THAT HAS BEEN COLLECTED AND IS AVAILABLE THAT CAN BE USED IN THE PROCESS TO HELP TO ESTABLISH THESE AREAS.

THE THIRD MEETING, I THINK, SHOULD TAKE PLACE ONCE THE CONSULTANT HAS COME UP WITH THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THIS BOARD THAT THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REVIEW THOSE AND MAKE COMMENT ON THOSE IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE THE BEST POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

AGAIN, I THINK IN THIS TIME OF COVID-19 THAT THAT ENTIRE PROCESS SHOULD BE SUCH THAT PEOPLE CAN REMOTELY PARTICIPATE TO THE DEGREE REASONABLY POSSIBLE TO MAXIMIZE ENGAGEMENT.

I BELIEVE THAT I SUPPORT VERY MUCH DIRECTOR PAREIRA'S SUGGESTION OF HAVING SOMETHING TO ENGAGE PEOPLE.

AND ACTUALLY I BELIEVE THE THING THAT WILL CAUSE THE MOST ENGAGEMENT IS TO START TALKING ABOUT IN TYING THIS INTO SOME SORT OF GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION FEE, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE LOOKING TO PROBABLY HAVE TO ENACT SUCH A FEE WITHIN FIVE YEARS.

AND I THINK THE GROUNDWORK FOR THAT SHOULD BEGIN NOW.

AND I THINK THAT WILL VERY MUCH GENERATE A LOT OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IF THAT IS INCLUDED.

SO THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO LISTEN TO MY COMMENTS AND I LOOK FORWARD TO MOVING AHEAD WITH THIS PROCESS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OK, THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC.

YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE ONE POINT.

FIRST OFF, I APPRECIATE ERIC'S POINTS THERE FULLY AND HIS DESCRIPTION OF THREE DIFFERENT MEETINGS. I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE CURRENT REQUEST DOES NOT INCLUDE RECOMMENDATIONS PER SAY AT THIS POINT, SIMPLY OUTLINING A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS TO CONSIDER AND WAYS TO LOOK AT SOME OF THESE FACTORS.

SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT MAYBE THOSE FIRST TWO MEETINGS ARE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW.

SO INVOLVEMENT WITH THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SCOPING AND SHARING OF DATA THAT DATA COLLECTION AND OPPORTUNITIES AND THEN OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, JUST ADDITIONAL INPUTS ON OPTIONS. BUT THE INTENT OF THIS EFFORT AT THIS POINT WAS NOT TO COME BACK WITH SOME SORT OF CONSULTANT'S RECOMMENDATION, RATHER TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD A SERIES OF OPTIONS, UNBIASED. AND WE CAN THEN START TO HAVE MORE OF A DISCUSSION WITH STAKEHOLDERS ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE DIFFERENT OPTIONS OF WHAT THOSE AREAS, THOSE ZONES MIGHT LOOK LIKE AS IT RELATES TO THINGS SUCH AS FEES, SUCH AS ALLOCATION CONSIDERATIONS, SUCH AS MARKET PARTICIPATION IF SUCH WAS TO OCCUR, ETC..

OK, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE BOARD.

YES. SO THE ISSUE OF THE SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT, WHY IS THAT SOLE SOURCE? JEANNE WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE THAT ONE? OR GREG, YEAH I'M HAPPY TO MAKE NOTE OF THAT, WE WERE INTERESTED IN TRYING TO MOVE THE PROCESS ALONG RAPIDLY TO START GETTING INFORMATION BROUGHT FORWARD SO WE CAN, YOU KNOW, AS KIND OF TO ERIC'S POINT IN HIS PUBLIC COMMENT A MINUTE AGO, IT'S BEEN A FEW YEARS SINCE HE'S EVEN BROUGHT IDEAS FORWARD.

AND SO WE'RE LOOKING THAT THERE IS JUSTIFICATION TO BE ABLE TO DO A SOLE SOURCE WITHOUT LOSING ADDITIONAL TIME AND IN A CONTRACTING AND BID PROCESS OR RFP PROCESS.

AND WE BELIEVE THAT THERE MAY BE CONSULTANTS THAT HAVE THE CAPABILITIES THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR. THAT MAY EVEN HAVE CONTRACTS IN PLACE THAT WE COULD SIMPLY EXERCISE AND IMPLEMENT A SIMPLE TASK ORDER.

YES, SORRY, I WAS ON MUTE.

[00:40:01]

I MEAN, FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE AUTHORITIES OF THE ENTITIES IN THE JPA FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT, IT IS, OF COURSE, A BOARD DECISION AS TO HOW YOU WANT TO PROCEED. BUT GREG HAS GIVEN YOU THE RATIONALE FOR WHY WE FOLLOWED THIS METHOD.

OK, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE BOARD.

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE CONSULTANT THAT'S BEEN CHOSEN HAS SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE OF OUR AREA? MY UNDERSTANDING BUT I THINK THAT GREG CAN ANSWER THAT BETTER.

YEAH, I BELIEVE THAT THE CONSULTANT THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS OPPORTUNITY WITH AND HAS BROUGHT SOME INFORMATION FORWARD ON THESE CONSIDERATIONS, HAS A LARGE ARRAY OF LOCAL KNOWLEDGE AND IS NOT ALREADY EMBEDDED IN THE GSP DEVELOPMENT.

IS THAT THE SUFFICIENT MEMBER PART? . JUST A QUESTION IT APPEARS THAT THE CONSULTANT HASN'T BEEN NAMED BUT IS IDENTIFIED.

I'D BE CURIOUS TO KNOW WHO IT IS.

THE QUESTION IS HAVING TO DO WHO IS THIS SOLE SOURCE CONSULTANT? AND I'M NOT SURE OF HOW THAT PROCESS POTENTIALLY WORKS AND THE ENTITY WE WERE TALKING TO, WE ARE NOT UNDER ANY CONTRACT WITH WHATSOEVER.

BUT ARE WE YOU KNOW, I'LL MAYBE TURN THAT QUESTION TO MARK OR JEANNE FOR DIRECTION . JEANNE FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, IS THERE ANY REASON TO NOT DISCLOSE? NO. I MEAN, I'M ASSUMING YOU'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS BACK AND FORTH.

THOSE WERE NOT, YOU KNOW, ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE.

THEY'RE PROBABLY PUBLIC RECORDS.

SO I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH DISCLOSING.

SO LONG STORY SHORT, WE HAVE HAD, AS GREG HAS MENTIONED IN HIS COMMENTS, WE'VE GOT EXISTING CONTRACTS THAT COULD BE LEVERAGED.

SO PROVOST & PRITCHARD WOULD BE A LOGICAL CHOICE FOR SUCH WORK.

OK, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC? OK, WE'LL CLOSE COMMENT, PERIOD.

SO WE HAVE AN ACTION ITEM HERE TO AUTHORIZE BOARD CHAIR TO EXECUTE A SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT FOR REQUESTING CONSULTING SERVICES WITH A SELECTED CONSULTANT ON A SUSTAINABILITY ZONE INVESTIGATION TO BE COMPLETED, BUT NOT NECESSARILY, BUT HOPEFULLY BY DECEMBER 30TH, BASED UPON ADDITIONAL MEETINGS AND AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 20,000.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION. MR. CHAIR I MOVE TO APPROVE.

WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND.

I SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR.

AYE.

OPPOSED. SO CARRIED.

THANK YOU. AND THAT CONCLUDES THIS SPECIAL MEETING.

MR. KELLEY IF I CAN, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE BOTH GREG AND JEANNE FOR THEIR WORK, NOT ONLY IN PREPARATION FOR TODAY'S MEETING, BUT IN GENERAL.

OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S ONE NOTABLE ABSENCE TODAY, AND THAT'S LACEY MCBRIDE, WHO IS JUST AN EXTRAORDINARY TALENT.

AND I REALLY WANT TO SAY THANKS TO TO GREG AND JEANNE FOR HELPING KEEP US ON TRACK IN LACEY'S ABSENCE.

HOPEFULLY IN THE OBVIOUSLY THE DAYS, WEEKS OR MONTHS AHEAD, YOU KNOW, LACEY WILL RETURN AND MAKE THESE PROCESSES EVEN MORE SMOOTH THAN IT WAS TODAY.

BUT I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE BOTH OF THEM FOR THE WORK THAT THEY'RE DOING.

OK, THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

MR. CHAIR. IS THIS THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO MAYBE HAVE A DISCUSSION AS TO TOPICS FOR A FUTURE MEETING? THERE'S PROBABLY TIME, YES.

[00:45:05]

SO LLOYD MENTIONED AND AND ERIC KIND OF SECONDED HIS NOTION THAT WE NEED TO GET THE PUBLIC MORE ENGAGED IN THIS PROCESS.

AS WE LOOK AROUND, WE DON'T SEE MANY PEOPLE HERE TODAY.

AND AS WE GET DEEPER AND DEEPER INTO DISCUSSIONS AS TO AS LLOYD MENTIONED, POSSIBLY A GROUNDWATER PUMPING FEE OR OTHER SORTS OF FEES AND AND WATER, ULTIMATELY WATER TRADING AND THINGS LIKE THAT, I WAS JUST WONDERING IF WE SHOULDN'T MAYBE AT THE NEXT MEETING BRING UP SUCH A TOPIC SO THAT AND PASS THE WORD AROUND SO THAT PEOPLE START COMING TO THE MEETINGS AND START ENGAGING.

YEAH, THANK YOU. THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF WORK IN FRONT OF US WHERE I DON'T HAVE THE AGENDA FOR OUR OCTOBER MEETING.

WE HAVE ONE COMING UP ON THE 9TH.

THERE WILL ALSO BE ON THE 30TH, A MEETING WITH THE OTHER GSA'S ON THE MOU IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT.

I THINK AND WE WILL ASK STAFF TO DEVELOP A DRAFT AGENDA AT OUR NEXT MEETING AND THEN PERHAPS WE'LL HAVE A DISCUSSION ON HOW WE MIGHT OUTREACH AND GET MORE AND MORE INVOLVEMENT AS WE GET BUSIER.

WE STILL HAVE TO ADDRESS UNDERSTANDING WHAT OUR SUSTAINABLE YIELD IS AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO DETERMINE THAT REMOTE SENSING.

I MEAN, THERE IS A LOT OF WORK THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US.

AND SO IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO GET A GOOD SUMMARY OF WHERE WE ARE AND WHERE WE HAVE TO GO.

AND PUBLIC OUTREACH IN THE PROCESS WHEN WE KNOW A LITTLE MORE.

OK. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? WE'LL ADJOURN AND OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE ON THE IS IT THE 9TH.

THANK YOU. OK, THANK YOU.

WE'RE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.