MINUTES

1. July 12, 2005 -- Director Pohlson asked that the phrase "CPA (certified pesticide applicator)" on page 3582 be changed to read "PCA (pest control advisor)." Director Skezas moved to approve the minutes with this correction; Director Horrick seconded and the motion carried.

2. Review of Accounts Payable Report and authorization to issue checks.Director Pohlson moved to approve payment of outstanding invoices; Director Ziady seconded. President Orth noted that there will be a check run on August 10, 2005 that will be approved after the fact. The motion carried unanimously.

Approval of Clearwell Project outstanding invoices. Director Skezas moved to approve payment of the outstanding invoices for the period ending July 20. Director Horrick seconded. The motion carried unanimously.

3. Consideration of Annual Financial Statements -- Solid Waste of Willits. General Manager Chapman introduced Jerry Ward of Solid Waste of Willits. Mr. Chapman announced that Michael Celentano, CPA, had reviewed the financial statements and "was not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying financial statements in order for them to be in conformity with generally accepted auditing standards." Mr. Chapman pointed out that long-term debt structure had decreased over the past three years; a profit has been shown every year, and our franchise fee for the year ending December 31, 2004 was $22,354. Lastly, the number of refuse customers in the District was now 1,013.

Jerry Ward took the podium and discussed specific points from the audit. He said that although they were making a profit, the bank would like to see them make more profit given their $3 million debt. He reported that fuel had gone up. Director Horrick commented that Mr. Ward was doing a good job of managing the company. Director Skezas complimented one of their drivers; he said he had observed him one morning cleaning up papers spread by some crows. Director Pohlson moved to accept the financial statements; she added that she would like staff to write a letter of appreciation from the District. Director Skezas seconded and the motion carried unanimously. An audience member also thanked Mr. Ward.

4. Flynn/Austin Greenbelt Parking Land Exchange. General Manager Chapman reviewed the background. He said that at the May 2005 meeting Ms. Flynn and Ms. Austin had presented their initial cases to the Board. Since then he and the District Architect (Bob Axt) had visited the site; the District Architect had prepared a schematic which could resolve the problem for both parties. Mr. Chapman pointed out that Barbara Flynn had made a conditional offer on an exchange property located on Ridge Road and was ready to proceed. He announced that the Board could find benefits to the District in an elimination of a future water connection District, and also in solving part of the illegal parking situation that has occurred at this location. He said the schematic endeavored to provide fairness to Ms. Austin in terms of opportunity. While not a free lunch, she could make her property workable as well. He and Bob Axt had agreed that one site with shared space was not a workable solution to the problem. President Orth said he liked the architect's sketch and that the Board was interested in equal treatment. He wanted to make sure that each property had a similar (but not exact) solution. He noted that this proposed solution added to the value of each property and would provide independence for each party, outside of a shared driveway.

Director Ziady and Director Horrick agreed with the proposed solution. Director Pohlson complimented Mr. Axt's job and stressed the schematic gave Ms. Austin an opportunity for more parking, and having extra parking spaces would be a benefit for both of them. Director Skezas inquired about the lot below the two lots which had been abandoned due to the hillside's instability. District Counsel Neary said it wasn't clear to him which area was the boundary line adjustment area, whether it was the parking area or the trapezoidal area. He stated a surveyor will have to prepare a metes and bounds description. General Manager Chapman commented that all costs were to be borne by the applicants.

Barbara Flynn addressed the Board. She said that while Ms. Austin claimed she will no longer be able to navigate to and from her property, this was not the case. She distributed a photograph taken of the greenbelt parking area with a trailer parked on it, along with three other cars - which was the incident she initially complained of to the District (prompting the first District awareness of their situation). The trailer has been since moved, she said, but it was not unusual to find numerous vehicles parked there. Ms. Flynn said she would not build anything that would prevent Ms. Austin from being able to turn around large vehicles. She said the area was never legally for Ms. Austin's use, and therefore nothing has been lost. She said for herself she wanted only a place to park, and a garage, two things Ms. Austin already had. She emphasized that she currently had no legal parking, and sometimes did not even have illegal parking. She said that when Ms. Austin purchased her property 11 months ago she knew of the limitations of her property. This included her driveway and garage, and Ms. Austin's decision to move her propane tank from another site to her driveway also took space from her parking area. Ms. Flynn commented that Ms. Austin's choices were not the responsibility of the District or herself to resolve. She said that Ms. Austin was in a better position than herself, because Ms. Austin did have parking, and the Board's willingness to make a similar arrangement for her was very generous. Ms. Flynn further suggested that any exchange between the District and Ms. Austin should be for land bordering Ms. Austin's own property. She expressed concern that if Ms. Austin's counterproposal were approved, given her attorney's reference to the greenbelt as a "parking lot," she would end up having a view a parking lot. This would detract from the value of her home. She stated she had no objection to Ms. Austin putting in parking on land directly adjacent to her own property.

Ms. Flynn listed what she considered to be Ms. Austin's options: (1) She could level part of her property for parking and build stairs. (2) She could fix the driveway to her garage and make her garage usable. (3) She could make an exchange for greenbelt and park side by side with her existing lot, or (4) she could purchase the vacant lot next to her property and use that entire parcel as a parking lot. Ms. Flynn said that she herself had no options other than the one she was proposing. She said that this arrangement would improve ingress and egress to the Austin property and that the end result would be enhancement of both properties.

Director Skezas asked for clarification of her view area as being in the direction of the area shown in the photograph. Ms. Flynn said there was a view on three sides, one side being the parking area. Ms. Flynn said she was concerned about the "jog" shown in the schematic and the comment in the letter from Mr. Ranft about Ms. Austin wanting to expand that area in question. This would result in Ms. Flynn looking at Ms. Austin's parking lot. At this junction President Orth commented that the District was not party to all of the discussions that have been held between the private parties, but sent their architect out only because the District was interested in resolving the issue within the given topography. He said that as you proceed up the hill, it gets much steeper and more erosive, and allowing for this resulted in the "jog" on the schematic. Lastly, he noted the architect's requirement of trees be kept was probably to provide a visual screen for Ms. Flynn.

As a point of order, General Manager Chapman commented there would be a condition (noted in paragraph C of his letter to Ms. Flynn) in the final agreement that a turnaround will be required on Ms. Flynn's property sufficient to allow a turnaround for large vehicles (e.g., propane trucks).

Mark Ranft, attorney for Ms. Austin, took the podium and thanked the Board for having the architect look at the situation. He said he felt the proposal was a good concept, and he was glad to hear the Board talk about something equal for both parties. He felt at the time the property was originally developed there was a little land "flat" existing, and that probably some people did know about it, but he said he couldn't prove this. Mr. Ranft then produced a diagram. If we were to look at the parking for Ms. Austin (he pointed to a turnaround area), that point was probably higher than the present garage, and situated with a very large tree. He said that parking would have to be dropped down some. It was his understanding that under a rise to run of 3' to 1' , they will not be able to get down to the existing level of the road on this type of topography. He further suggested is that it would be better to push all the parking to a flatter area. He said the parcel being considered for Ms. Flynn is relatively flat and could be readily developed, he felt, by the parties without an inordinate amount of cost to his client. He said that some construction people said it would be $50,000 - $75,000 just to do the excavating for the parking area proposed for Ms. Austin in the schematic. He felt that if the two parcels were not quite as wide, that would still provide enough area for parking, and require a lot less excavating and the potential for erosion associated with excess excavation. He felt the idea needed to be looked at again by someone who has expertise in the area. He noted several large trees bordering the upper part of the diagram that provided some relief from the airport noise, and he felt these might need to come out if they were going to excavate as proposed, and certainly would be damaged by the excavation and cause problems later. He said he did not feel a resolution would require "checkerboarding" as long as the parcel for Ms. Austin extended to her property. He referred to Ms. Flynn's issue about looking at a lot of parking, and said this could be dealt with by permit conditions (instead of moving the parking up to steep ground). He appreciated Brooktrails' willingness to deal with the problem, but their position was that, as currently drawn, the proposal is to Ms. Austin's detriment and would not fulfill the Board's desire to provide equal treatment for both parties.

General Manager Chapman commented he had been on the site, and it seemed to him that the height of the bank to be cut in was about the height of the podium. Ms. Austin said it was higher; Ms. Flynn disagreed. Someone commented that it was a 30% slope. Mr. Chapman challenged Mr. Ranft's construction assessment of $50,000 -- $75,000; he said the District did a project last summer 10 times the scope of Austin's project (Rockefeller rehabilitation) at a cost of $17,000. He found it difficult to believe the cost estimate being supplied for the parking pad. Mr. Ranft's response was that they already have a retaining wall and would be taking that out. This wall ran the entire width of the Austin property and probably 30-40 feet more, tapering off towards the existing parking. He further added the large trees would also take a lot of excavating. Mr. Chapman again challenged the quoted figure, even including removal of the wooden retaining wall at the road points. Mr. Ranft said he had talked to some individuals who had given that price, and to others who had said they could not build it as designed. He urged the Board to explore the issue, and said Ms. Austin's problem can't really be solved based on this schematic. He also said out that where the existing roadway is shown on the diagram is inaccurate in relation to the boundary line.

President Orth interjected, asking if Mr. Ranft envisioned a lower point of entry into Parcel 2 than the one in the diagram. General Manager Chapman pointed out the several very large trees located at about Point 4 on the diagram, and said that Bob Axt wanted to keep them for aesthetics and stability. They might be cut if a lower point of entry is used. President Orth said that he had seen incidents of tree death from major soil work and retaining wall installation. He wondered if the tree consideration was what was driving the current design, and he felt that the trees could be replaced.

Director Pohlson referred to the picture provided by Mr. Ranft of the garage and asked why the motorcycle ramp in front of the garage wasn't flattened out for parking She said that if the propane tank were moved three cars could be parked there. Director Pohlson asked where the tank was before; Ms. Austin said it was on the other side of the house. She said she moved it to keep people from approaching her house, because her dog is there.

Dan Cleghorn, a neighbor of Ms. Austin, spoke from the audience. He said the pictures were deceiving and made things look a lot bigger than they actually were. He said the proposed excavation would create a serious runoff problem onto the neighbor's house because of the hill, which was already sliding in front of the house.

Director Ziady said that since the District proposal did not meet either party's full criteria, she wanted the parties to pay for a consultant to develop a plan and bring it back to the Board. She said the Board had tried to help them, but is not responsible for laying out architectural and engineering fees for their proposal. She said the Board was willing to trade land in the greenbelt. She did not see that the Board was obligated to pay anything more out, having already paid for Mr. Axt's and the General Manager's time, and said the Board has made a good faith effort and now it is the parties' turn.

Mr. Ranft asked who requested the survey. President Orth said that he requested the architect go. He said they were talking about topography and design issues and the Board was getting a little frustrated. Mr. Cleghorn said that Ms. Austin has a severe slide in front of her house and that the driveway has to be re-done. He said granted, parking is a concern, but there were bigger concerns for Ms. Austin, being her financial ability to pay for all of this and how to keep her house from sliding.

Director Pohlson moved that the Board accept Ms. Flynn's proposal with the caveat that if it benefited both parties to change their approach without infringing on Ms. Flynn's property view, then that would be an option of Ms. Austin's in the future. She did not want to hold up Ms. Flynn having legal parking because of Ms. Austin. She believed Ms. Austin could have a few more parking spots if she reconfigured her property in front of the garage, and would not have to spend a whole lot of money.

Director Horrick asked that the motion be repeated. Director Pohlson said the motion was to go ahead with Ms. Flynn, with the caveat that if there were a better approach found that wouldn't infringe on Flynn's view too much, and understanding that some mitigation might be required like planting trees to hide the entry, then Ms. Austin would have the option of doing this or not. Director Pohlson said she personally did not want to put a timeline on it. She said the option to acquire a greenbelt parcel could remain open and that if Ms. Austin chose not to use it; it could still be available if she sold the house.

Director Ziady asked Ms. Austin if she had the money to hire a consultant for these various projects. Ms. Austin said she can make an effort if she has to, but did not want to sink a lot of money into a "what if." Director Ziady said there were no guarantees. She said to Director Pohlson that in that case, if Ms. Austin might not pursue the exchange and felt it was a gamble greater than she wanted to take, and did not want to develop a plan and bring it back because of cost, then she would agree with Director Pohlson. Mr. Ranft asked Mr. Neary to comment on this. Mr. Ranft said that if they went ahead and agreed to a parcel for Ms. Flynn as designated, there might be legal problems later on with his client having the same access, and that Ms. Flynn's garage might be too close and not provide for the access that they needed. He also had some questions about the language around "not interfering with the view," and continued that that was a qualitative decision that none of us could make and that needed to be looked at when the plan was submitted. He suggested that the matter be tabled so his client had an opportunity to come up with an alternative layout, which Ms. Flynn might be happy with, and he believed they should be able to provide this within 60 days. President Orth said he was willing to allow for more time. Ms. Flynn responded that she has already made an offer on a parcel and this matter has been going on for a long time; she said Ms. Austin might not come up with a proposal, and repeated that Ms. Austin still does have parking. President Orth said he was interested in making sure that both parties were successfully configured in the end. He said the District wanted to see what the two parties could come up with in the next 60 days. He said that if the entry from the south were done, Ms. Flynn will not be looking at parked cars. Instead, she would be looking at an entryway. Director Ziady asked if Ms. Austin was willing to develop a plan; Ms. Austin said yes, and she needed probably needed until the end of September. Brief discussion followed; General Manager Chapman suggested the second meeting of September.

Director Skezas said that even with this, as far as Ms. Flynn was concerned, they would be looking at a resolution at the first meeting in October. He asked Ms. Flynn if this were satisfactory; she said this was very frustrating but there was nothing she could do. Director Ziady said she did not want to see more District time and money being spent, but had no problem with them returning with a plan. President Orth said he felt a lot of progress had been made. He said to Ms. Austin that action would be taken at the second meeting in September. General Manager Chapman said to Ms. Austin and Mr. Ranft that he needed their information at least eight days before that meeting.

An audience member asked if this had ever been done before. President Orth said the District had never actually carved out a piece of greenbelt before to attach to a lot. He said, however, the findings of benefit to the District would be the traded lots, and also the creation of parking off-street for a unique case.

Claudia Reed said there was a professional mediator named Brian Weller in the area who could get the two sides talking to each other.
President Orth recommended that they go ahead with the 60 days and take action at the second meeting in September. Director Skezas asked if it would permissible to go up to the properties to inspect. Ms. Flynn said he could come up any time. Discussion followed as to the exact date of the September meeting as being the fourth Tuesday.

6. Consideration of Ohl Grove Restroom Bids. General Manager Chapman said that the restroom bids were expected to be around Bob Axt's estimate of $15,000, but instead, one was for $37,760 and the other was for $28,345. He recommended that the Board reject both bids and authorize construction of a restroom by the District crew. He said that this construction could not be done before next summer due to multiple other projects on the horizon. Director Skezas moved to reject both bids and authorize construction by District crew of a permanent restroom for the Ohl Grove. Director Pohlson seconded. Director Ziady said she was not happy about spending that kind of money for construction of the restroom. Director Pohlson understood the restroom was to be located on the rise and be gravity flow. She said she thought the crew didn't have to go into the road but could go off the side of the road. Mr. Chapman said that there was a potential for parking three or four cars at that curve in the road.

Dean Durbin asked from the audience who submitted the bids. Mr. Chapman said one was from Fort Bragg Electric for $37,760; the second was from Clark Construction for $28,345. Mr. Durbin said he was a retired plumbing contractor and would be glad to work with the committee about some possibilities. The motion carried unanimously.

7. Restroom Bids/Remaining Grant Funds. General Manager Chapman said there was a time factor involved in spending the remaining amount of grant money. Since the restroom cannot be done right away, staff's request to the Board was where to place in priority the resurfacing the multi-use court project. Director Ziady said that while the Recreation Committee had not discussed this, her feeling was that CA Fish & Game should be consulted about any parking adjacent the creek. She said that the Recreation Committee's original recommendation had been to allow no parking except for a handicapped space. The discussion then changed to the Ohl Grove. Director Ziady said that she wanted large boulders along the vehicle lane in the Ohl Grove to prevent 4x4s from tearing up the park during the wet season; she said these simply outline the area where people could go, and keep other people out. Director Skezas intervened and said he was confused about which issue we were focusing on, the courts or Ohl Redwood Grove. General Manager Chapman said that both issues entertained the prospects of rocks to establish parking boundary lines. The issue turned back to the multi-courts. Director Pohlson said the $36,000 for the refurbishment of the courts was a large expenditure. President Orth responded that it was easier to rebuild something than to build in a new location, and that he wanted to see some of the historic uses of Brooktrails restored. He said since this was going back to committee they could discuss using the road that used to be used (i.e., exiting the Par Course parking area). Comments were made that paving would not be needed. Director Ziady asked Mr. Chapman to collect and present the information to the committee. Director Pohlson said if we're going to provide the attraction, we have to provide the parking. Director Ziady said the two projects would have to be done together because people will start driving in there. President Orth said they could be done separately because there was a parking area within 300 yards of the court, and he said there was a path that goes from that Par area down to the back of the court. General Manager Chapman suggested that he and President Orth walk this route and inspect it. Director Ziady commented that then all the parking you would need was at the court was a handicapped space. Director Ziady asked that this walk be done before the Recreation Committee meeting on Thursday.

8. Consideration regarding District projects and priorities. General Manager Chapman said the auditor was concerned about management being in synch with the Board on projects, their priorities and costs. He said he didn't realize how many projects we had until he started laying out the list. He said the list in the memo was not cast in concrete, but that our crews were really concentrating on Projects 1 - 5 (i.e., clearwell/backwash; rubber spillway; compound yard; water line inspection; and bypass valve below Lake Emily). He pointed out that the crew was also doing normal duty items and handling emergencies regularly. Director Ziady said the long-term projects for Recreation/Greenbelt were fine as listed; she agreed that the first five projects on the list take priority over anything, but she wanted the rocks done earlier, for rentals. General Manager Chapman said he would like the Board to approve the list as a guideline rather than an absolute. Director Skezas moved to approve the presented list as a guideline; Director Pohlson seconded. The motion carried unanimously.

9. Consideration of adoption of historical flow percentage -- City of Willits Sewer. General Manager Chapman stated he had a discussion with Ross Walker on some outstanding sewer issues. Regarding the City's June 30, 2004 audit, Mr. Walker still did not know when their auditors would finish. District Counsel Neary reminded the Board that the audit was technically due October 1 of each year. Also discussed was the need to replace the Willits sewer plant effluent meter ("denominator" meter) used in the calculation process to determine our inflow ratio. However, Mr. Walker said that the City wanted to wait until completion of the sewer plant project to install a new effluent meter. General Manager Chapman said that District Counsel raised a serious point - that we need a "sunset" time figure, given the continuing extensions of time line on the sewer plant project. Mr. Chapman proposed adopting the historical percentage of 23.62% as the basis for our monthly payments to Willits. Mr. Chapman asked the Board to formally adopt this as the figure the District could use temporarily (with a sunset provision) until the new plant meter is in place.

Mr. Chapman said that the City would also meet with the Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to October 1, 2005. Potentially they might be able to reduce their allowed pollution ratio from 1:100 down to 1:25. Mr. Walker said that the RWQCB had some issues with their wetlands ratio, although Mr. Chapman commented that he was not an engineer and could not provide a full explanation of this ratio. Mr. Walker had pointed out that because of these changes, the City might need to redesign certain aspects of the project, perhaps including more mechanical processes (and hence more electricity) than had been originally called for. Mr. Chapman reminded the Board that a year ago, the average percentage share being proposed by the City was 44% -- 48% , and was now brought down to 23.62% with the help of George Rau & Associates.

District Counsel Neary said that if the District required Willits to replace this meter, at significant cost, the District will need to bear 37.69% of that cost. He also noted that a project which had been ready to go out to bid is now in the redesign stage, and its costs have escalated from $2.5 million to $12 million. He said he would not be surprised that further cost expansions and redesigns occur, and despite the City's diligence, that it could be a decade or so before completion. He stressed, however, that there were two components to the sewer billings from Willits: the measuring function and the accounting function. He reminded the Board of the District's proposal to the City of Willits a year ago to shore up the problems found in their accounting system, and our suggestion of various alternative methods (which would not cost them any money to implement), and yet a year later we have no changes and no results. Mr. Neary said he felt that the accounting portion was a major component of the sewer billings. He commented that it was very unusual for a municipality not to complete its audit within a fiscal year. Mr. Neary said there were several issues here, but the point he wanted to make was that, although using the historical average made good sense, it should be adopted by means of a proposed agreement with Willits rather than by a simple motion. The agreement should also address the need for the audit, and our need to have an analysis of payments made by us at such future time as correct figures can be correctly calculated, so that we can receive a credit if a credit is due. Mr. Neary said he would like to draft this agreement and send to the City within 10 days, so it could be returned to the Board at their August meeting with at least an initial response from Willits.

Director Ziady said she did not want to see a situation where we would be asked for a balloon payment five years from now because we had underpaid in the sewer. She said she would like a provision in the agreement that if we do have an underpayment, the District should have the ability to pay the deficit over time. Counsel Neary commented that such a provision could apply to both parties.

Responding to questions from Director Skezas, General Manager Chapman said that the estimated monthly payment we currently make is $19,733 per month, and he confirmed that this included the capital costs, which is 37.69% of Willits' costs. He also confirmed that the historical operations average has varied from around 21% -- 23%, with the exception of the 44% erroneously charged last year which was later changed after the Rau audit.

Director Horrick asked what it would cost to replace the denominator meter; General Manager Chapman said he did not know, and he understood that part of the cost was due to some physical factors at the plant site. President Orth said he believed the District had been trying to build some goodwill with the City; he agreed with Counsel Neary that we should prepare an agreement to take care of some, but not all, of the issues outlined, but that there should definitely be language allowing for a credit once accurate figures are obtained. Director Pohlson said that the City meter has not been properly functioning and she asked if there were some stipulation in our agreement that required Willits to have accurate meters. Counsel and the General Manager replied "absolutely." Director Pohlson asked how forgiving we have been, and for how long. Mr. Chapman said that we have been working in the spirit of cooperation, and we became aware that the Willits meter was not working a year ago when we hired Dale Fraser, PE, from Oregon to assess the situation. Mr. Chapman believed we need a tenable direction now to determine how we will proceed for the next three or four years. Director Pohlson said she would not want to tie the meter installation to the sewer plant completion, and she asked when the District would be able to pay its 37% share of this meter. President Orth said not for three years.

President Orth requested a motion directing that the District prepare an amended agreement and adopt the historical average of 23.62% to calculate Brooktrails' sewer payments to the City of Willits for the next two years. He commented that the two-year period could be extended, and that in two years we would have a better idea of what the sewer plant project will look like. Director Pohlson asked how Willits got financing if they don't have an audit. General Manager Chapman responded that USDA Rural Development told him they only have to use the last audit available (which was 2003 for Willits) to issue a letter of conditions. Mr. Chapman said that two years ago Willits had purchased a $750,000 property as part of the ponding system, and the City had not requested the District to pay 37.69% of that money at the time. He said if they had requested us to do so, he did not know what we would have done. He said he wanted to be flexible and cooperative, but had no problem with the sunset idea.

Director Ziady asked how many years forward we want to work with this faulty data (and potentially owe Willits money). She thought 10 years would be a problem. District Counsel Neary said that there was a statute of limitations in this area, and he felt there should be discussions about this topic; he felt we were probably overpaying at 23.62%. President Orth commented that two years would allow Willits to have a better idea of its project and also allow our general fund to come back. Director Ziady again felt there should be a three-year provision in the agreement, affecting both sides, where you can only go back three years to correct the figures (over/under). Mr. Chapman commented that Tom Herman of SHN will give a complete review of the project at the September 13^th meeting.

President Orth said his motion would be to prepare an amended agreement and return it to the Board for approval. Director Skezas asked if negotiations would be begun before the Board's next meeting. District Counsel Neary said he would like to at least run it by the City and give them an opportunity to react and comment. And if they approve, then the Board will have something ready for approval by the next meeting. He felt it should be limited to the meter measurement, the throwback period, and the method of paying any throwback. President Orth asked if they needed a motion to that effect and Mr. Neary said he just needed direction. President Orth then said that direction had been given. Mr. Neary said that was satisfactory.

J. ADDITIONS TO FUTURE AGENDAS.
None.

K. SPECIAL REPORTS

Directors: President Orth said he attended the Specific Plan Committee meeting and asked that an item be added to their agenda on which the committee voted, that being to recommend that the District write the Department of Transportation and thank them for completion of the Birch Street left-turn lane, which is the first completion of a project within our Specific Plan. He said he would like this to be added to a future Board agenda for approval.

District Counsel: None.

General Manager Chapman: Mr. Chapman said it appears we will receive a $60,000 grant within the next 24 months, for which we will have to provide $15,000 in match funds, for bridges on the Thimbleberry Trail. He said the clearwell construction is on "fast forward." President Orth commented that the staff had told him that the draft evacuation plan has been submitted to the sheriff for their review.

L. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

M. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made to adjourn and President Orth declared the meeting of July 26, 2005 closed at approximately 9:00 p.m.


CHARLES A. ORTH
President Orth


MICHAEL V. CHAPMAN
Secretary to the Board of Directors