Good afternoon. Welcome to the April 17, 2025 meeting of the

Secondary of Flood Control Agency Board. Would the clerk please call the roll.

Thank you. Director Desmond, Director Hume, Chairman Kennedy, Director Rodriguez, Director

Cerna, Director Jennings, Director Kaplan, Director Pluckybaum, Vice Chairman Holloway,

Director Crush, Director Lee Reader, Director Baines, Director Stevens. We do have an 11-member

quorum. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This meeting of SAFECA is being live-streamed

at Metro14live.SatCounty.gov and will be recorded and reared on Metro Cable 14 on Saturday,

April 19 at 3 p.m. Members of the audience who wish to address the board should fill

out a speaker form if they have not already done so and bring it up to me. When addressing

the board, please limit your comments to three minutes and identify yourself for the record.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Clerk, and I'll add to the

announcements that we are doing a focus group today for all of those in the audience. If

you think that Director Jennings and Director Hume's uniform should be the official SAFECA

uniform of the day, please leave your comments in the back of the room. Would you please join

me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for

which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Your item.

Our first item is our public comments for items not on the agenda.

Thank you, and I do have a number of speakers. First is Bill Bretain.

Yes, good afternoon, Chairman Kennedy and members of the board. Microphones are on.

That's okay because I haven't started the clock, so you're good.

Okay.

I should be on.

Testing.

There you go.

Okay.

Anyway, my name is Bill Bretain. I'm a resident near what's known as the Contract 3B for the

American River Common Features Project. I'm a California registered civil engineer.

I worked for 25 years with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board as a

water resource control engineer, and I'm now retired.

I'm here today mainly to talk about the lack of alternatives in the NEPA CEQA document

for the project. Since the project started, when we started commenting almost a year and

a half ago, we've been asking for other alternatives than the rip-rap alternative that Army Corps

and DWR have presented. So far, whenever we've asked for that, we've essentially been told

to go pound sand by Army Corps, by our elected officials, or anyone else that we talk to.

That's interesting because CEQA and NEPA require multiple alternatives.

I recently submitted two letters to the Army Corps of Engineers, and I copied them to CEQA.

In those letters, after doing quite a bit of research, I found that bioengineering was

included as an option in the alternative section of the general re-evaluation report in 2015.

I also found that Army Corps told the public that bioengineering would be analyzed for the

contract 3B reaches in 17 response to comments letters to local residents who had submitted

comments on the project. I also found that other alternatives than the proposed rip-rap

bank protection were anticipated to be analyzed for contract 3B following further studies,

according to the 2015 erosion protection report. Bioengineering methods were also included

in the erosion protection report, and there are bioengineering methods that are feasible

in the contract 3B section reaches. CEQA and NEPA require a reasonable range of alternatives

to be considered, and US EPA during the scoping process told Army Corps that they needed to

include a full range of bank protection alternatives in their environmental document,

including biotechnical alternatives. However, in 2023, when the environmental document came out,

no other alternatives were included except the destructive rip-rap alternative that involves

removing over 700 trees, including large heritage oaks. At this point, I've requested that Army Corps

remove the project from the environmental document for 3B so that the other projects can move forward

and contested so that the Central Valley Flood Protection Board- Bill, can you wrap up?

I'm wrapping up. Okay, thank you. So that the Central Valley Flood Protection Board can move

forward with those other projects uncontested. Basically, I just don't want this board to have

their legacy be the destruction of the American River Parkway unnecessarily. Thank you, Bill. Thank you.

Nancy Nisker. Nancy?

Hello. My name is Nancy Nisker, and I'm here to talk about the American River Common Features

Project. The Environmental Impact Statement and Report is issued for each project to evaluate

the potential significant environmental impacts of the alternatives proposed in the project.

My first version that I reviewed was done in December 2015. The public has given little time

to review this technical document. We were given 45 days for a 1740-page, 1740-page report.

And the public has provided no format in which questions can be answered directly.

This seems like a disingenuous outreach, and consider the report was issued at the beginning

of Christmas holidays on the 23rd of December. Although we have asked for meetings with the

Corps and with SAFECA, we have been refused. For the public, this is a huge undertaking of time

and effort to speak of our environmental concerns, and we come up against a wall.

To be fair, the Corps started this review over 20 years ago. Yet today, the Corps plan is based on

outdated material. For example, requiring vegetation-free levees. However, as early as 1928,

empirical evidence noted that during the 1927 Mississippi floods, damage to the levees was

non-existent, where heavy stands of trees grew between the riverbank and the levee. The information

was out there. We want the Corps and concerned agencies to do more than ask for environmental

review, but take a proactive role for the biodiversity involving more environmentally sound

solutions. The disappointment for not being heard will not disappear, and we want partnership with

the Corps and a win-win solution for the environment, flood protection, and all parties involved.

This is a good time to pause contract 3B, consider better alternatives for the environment,

meet with caring stakeholders. In this way, we believe we save money, target the weaker areas of

the riverbank, explore nature-based solutions, and walk away winners, especially for our children.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Nancy.

Julie Gabel. Julie. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Julie. Well, maybe I should have left it there.

My name is Julie Gabel, and I am a Sacramento resident homeowner, and I live, I work, and I'm

invested in our region, alongside family and friends, that all value the Lower American

River and Parkway. My comments are for the American River Common Features Project, Contract 3B,

a proposed erosion control project under the larger ARCF plan. This contract is proposed in

one of the most sensitive and critical sections of the Lower American Parkway. It's in the heart

of the Parkway. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' current approach and design for erosion work

would devastate and break the Parkway. This is the jewel of Sacramento that we all talk about,

and USACE is planning to remove over 700 trees, including mature oaks and heritage trees,

which will never be replaced, and vegetation in large sections that start at the Howe Avenue Bridge,

running approximately one mile up past Watt Avenue, and it reaches on the south side, the Mayhew

Drain, and with the staging areas, which also are not immune from loss of trees and vegetation,

runs past Rio Americano High School. This will leave a lush landscape today left barren with

rocked shores scorching in the sun, causing destruction and disruption, breaking the economic

engine that drives over $364 million a year into this region and economy. And it is one that it

does as a natural and scenic Parkway, not a barren, rip-wrapped, rocked channel to channel water.

So, and then in exchange for the billions of tax dollars, I think it's really important that the

board and anyone looking at this project understand what we're getting, particularly for contract

3B. If you dig deep enough in the USACE documents, there's a performance assurance study that was

done, and in that study today on the south and the north, and I apologize, I don't have both, but one

is a 48% and what is a 45% performance assurance without any work today in a 200-year flood event.

With this project as proposed, it only raises to 58 and 60%, and if you find and look and study this

issue, you'll find a simple sentence that it's left to the local government and state to do more

if we're trying to achieve 200-year flood protection. So, we are not getting 200-year flood

protection, and everybody's talking about the 160,000 cubic feet per second, and that's the

equivalent of the 200-year flood protection. Destroying the Parkway and River to solve one

problem and create hundreds of others is not a good plan. We deserve better, and we're asking you

to step in and ensure we change the requirements so that we protect the Parkway, trees, habitat,

and trails while also achieving erosion protection, and by changing these requirements and plan,

you're making an investment in us today and in the future. We need you to do so before it's too late,

and I'm not asking, you know, I'm not against flood or erosion protection. I live in this area,

and I know it's important. Can you wrap up, Julie? Thank you. But I know we can do much better.

Please do not accept this plan. Please don't be the local government that's ignoring the wisdom

and the experts that are in this audience and that have been talking to you, telling you this is a

terrible plan as is. Thank you. Please do the work to protect the Lower American River in Parkway

for generations to come. Thank you.

Annette Ferro. Annette.

Hello. I'm Annette Ferro, and I'm a property owner near the river, and I'm talking about 3B.

And when we were, my family needed to move here three years ago, I said, well, I needed a place

where there's trees and where the river is. And so we found a place very close to the river. We

paid a premium, a very big premium to be right there by the river. And so I was happy. I would

walk there. It was psychologically important for me to have that area to go to. And then one day,

I walked out and saw near the Guy West Bridge a huge clear cut with logs, and I just collapsed.

And I was just destroyed by seeing that damage. And so now I'm asking you to please rethink this.

It will affect property values. It will affect wildlife. It will affect the psychological

health of your residents. We have a society that's in turmoil today, and we need places to go where

we can recreate and gain a lot of peace and calm. And it's free. It's for everybody. And so I ask

you to reconsider this project. It can be done a better way. My house is in the flood zone,

but I think there is definitely a way to protect it without destroying it. Thank you.

Thank you, Annette. Tom Nelson. Tom Nelson. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My understanding is that elected officials are the communications conduit between

their constituents and government agencies. A function of elected officials is to communicate

the interests and concerns of their community to those government agencies and also to communicate

the developing plans and intended actions of government agencies to the communities who

elected those officials. With this type of project, there is flexibility of the planning

and choices that will need to be made along the way. We, the people of the community who

live and love this wonderful natural resource and environment of the American River Parkway,

are now communicating to you that we have not received sufficient involvement in those developing

plans and what our American River Parkway is going to look like. Hyperbolic statements create

divisiveness and distrust in relations that prevent parties from coming together and partnering

to create the best solution. A responsibility of elected officials is to provide that conduit

of communication that prevents that divisiveness. Those concerns about the natural beauty and

environmental impact to recreation and wildlife are not, those who are concerned with it,

are not saying we don't want flood protection and we are not saying don't cut down a single tree.

We understand that the design may not be to cut down every tree. However, from what we have seen

downriver leaves the community with a tangible vision of where every tree was cut down by the

Army Corps of Engineers and recreation and wildlife areas were devastated. That creates a fear that

nature and wildlife will be similarly devastated with this project. There is a middle ground

that will occur between those two extremes. We are asking that you, as our communications conduit,

supply your community of your constituents with involvement in those developing plans

so that we can have trust in the process by knowing that what our American River natural

environment will look like in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Ken Press? Ken Press?

Before you start my time I'd just like to acknowledge all the maybe 40, 50 people.

Excuse me, are you Ken Press? Sorry? Are you Ken Press? Oh, Ken Press. I have Ken Press's card

next. Sorry, I don't think he ended up showing up. Okay. I took, we actually took the cards in the

order that you gave us to the, you know, so. Thank you. Yeah. Ken Press, did you show up?

No, Ken Press. Sorry about that. Okay. Candice. I am Candice. Okay, there we go. Thank you.

Like I said, I just wanted to acknowledge the 40, 50 people who showed up from the community to

also voice their concerns today. So I am Candice Hines. I'm concerned about the American River

Parkway. So I'm not sure how we got here, but it seems that our country's systems of checks and

balances have been failing us on several levels lately. The situation with the Army Corps is

erosion projects in Sacramento are no exception. There's this tendency in our society to blindly

trust the experts and to not question authority. Why is that? We are much smarter than that.

I'm here to remind you that the Corps is not infallible. They've made some monumentally

impactful mistakes. You can take the tragedies of Katrina as just one of many examples. The Corps

admittedly made mistakes at downstream sites on the American River. After construction, you could

find giant fissures in the ground erosion caused by the construction that needed to be repaired.

This is just one example. The Corps has claimed to compensate for these mistakes in contract 3b,

sure. But what new mistakes will arise? How consequential will those be? And why is the

Corps still making mistakes on these type of projects? Do they not know what they're doing as

much as we assumed? So why aren't we questioning them more? Their current designs are not the only

way to achieve erosion control, just the laziest. We know the Corps can do better. Don't let them

fool you. As an environmental scientist, I'm also concerned about the proposed revegetation plan.

I think the Corps likes to ease decision makers and the public's minds by reassuring that it'll

all grow back. This is a blatant deception. Here's what you won't hear them bragging about.

As evidenced in completed similar Corps projects, the ground will be compacted from heavy machinery

and the fertile soil will be replaced with dirt. Buried riprap will further impede any new growth.

If any new vegetation could successfully grow in such poor conditions, it would not be equivalent

to what was removed. The Corps will say, look, it's green. But their plan includes drastically

less vegetation species and will never match the existing diverse habitat that a plethora of important

wildlife species currently depend on. As the riparian forest currently stands, the well-developed

armoring root networks and the dense above-ground vegetation that slows the flow during high flows

offers some unmatched quality flood protection that would be lost forever. This could be a

critical mistake. Why aren't we questioning this serious and irreversible decision more?

Why doesn't the Corps work with the benefits of nature rather than against it? I understand that

your top concern is citizen safety, and I'm here to tell you that we want that too. But you must

consider that this project, as proposed, could make us less safe from flooding as the banks near

our homes line barren of the vegetative protection that we need. Let me repeat that. This project

could make us less safe. Please consider the Corps, please encourage the Corps to pause the project

and develop less destructive nature-based approaches that we know they have at their

disposal and are feasible in contract 3B. The community demands it. Give us protection

without devastation. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Kennedy, board members,

and the problem with the order was on me. Evidently, Ken wasn't able to make it today.

But hopefully he'll be here next month. Pete Spalding from American River Trees,

I know you have a lot on your plate, a lot of critical issues. Your jobs aren't easy. But like

those that have spoken here today and those that have stood up to support those of us that have

been speaking, I also need to speak up about the erosion control work under contract 3B.

Especially the board members, Kennedy and Yume, Rodriguez and Serna, thank you for listening

to the Friends of Sailor Bar. I know that by taking the extra time to plan, you're going to

have a much better park at Sailor Bar than you would have with just by opening the roads.

This past January, the Corps adopted long overdue agency-specific procedures. These

procedures expand the traditional cost-benefit analysis to factor in environmental and social

gains of projects. The procedures were described in the March 18th issue of Scientific American.

Dr. Todd Bridges, creator of the Engineering with Nature Initiative and the Corps' research

division called them the most significant policy change update for the Corps in a generation.

With new national levy safety guidelines that will be out once a new assistant secretary

at the Corps is appointed and climate change initiatives, if the planning process for the

work on the Lower American River were to start today, that process would be far different

from what was done before and the designs would be too. So let's not sacrifice another three miles

of wild and scenic American River parkway because of bad timing. Similar to Sailor Bar, let's take

the time to do it right. It's also come to my attention that some officials believe that art,

that we are saying that no trees or vegetation can be removed as part of the contract. This is

not the case. We have continually stressed a more targeted surgical approach to minimize tree removal,

especially to heritage trees, minimize destruction to the parkway and its wildlife carter.

We've constantly encouraged meaningful community engagement, state-of-the-art modeling,

bioengineering alternatives, dialogue, discussion, questions and answers,

balance among erosion control, flood protection, and preservation of our wild and scenic American

River parkway. American River trees, those 40 or 50 people joining us here today and 2800 people

that have signed our petition insisting that the Corps work with the community are committed to

improving not stopping the project. This is not an emergency situation. Let's get the Corps to use

their newly adopted procedures for making water resource investments. Let's get the Corps to say

we heard you, we have better info, and we will do it right. Everyone will admire them for that,

and everyone will admire you for that as well. Less destructive designs could be less expensive

to construct, and offset construction or cost increases due to the pause. Let's take the time

to do it right and get a win-win-win outcome. Erosion control, flood protection, a wild and

scenic American River parkway. This is what the people here deserve and what all the people of

Sacramento deserve and what the jewel of Sacramento deserves. Thank you. Thank you, Pete.

Kathleen Strickly.

Kathleen.

Good afternoon. Thanks for your time. I don't have anything prepared. I'm just going to speak

from the heart. I grew up along that parkway. It's my heart. It's my home. It's the place I go to

when I need to be somewhere quiet. I've gone there on several times for a million different

reasons. Every time I go, I see something different. I see something new. It's alive. It's vibrant.

There's more species than I can even count on both hands that thrive down there. What I will add

is in the great flood of 86, we were just about a block away. We had a raft in the garage waiting.

It didn't go over the water flowed. It got to where it needed to be. Several years later in the

early 90s, there was another high water incident. The levees held, the water flowed. It went through.

What I can tell you about what I've heard from the project that's happened down around Sac State

is with all those animals that had nowhere to go, well, there was a massive cat kill in

East Sac. I don't know if you all are familiar with that because the coyotes needed to eat.

Can you imagine where the animals that live there now would have to go and what they would have to do?

It's all things that we need to consider.

It's where we all love to go. I don't know if you've ever had the opportunity to walk along

that stretch of the parkway. I welcome you to do so. It's gorgeous. Ripping out everything that we love

along with the animals, it would just be devastating. With some of the other speakers,

what they've pointed out about taking away that critical infrastructure that already exists with

the roots and the trees, it's just going to wash away. It's not going to hold up, especially with

that influx of water that you guys are imagining is going to come through. Those riprap projects

are not great. Those trees, they hold. Those levees, they've held. I believe there's another way to get

this project done without ripping all of that out, without displacing all of that biology and without

breaking everyone's hearts. I can't implore you anywhere beyond that. I'm a fourth generation

Sacramento, a fifth generation Californian, and that stretch of the parkway, like I said,

it's my home. It's all of our homes. I really urge you to come down and to walk it. If you have not

done that yet, I think you're doing yourselves a great disservice by at least not experiencing

what that stretch of the parkway holds. So please reconsider. Thank you.

So to all of the speakers who came today and to all of those of you who came to show your support

for your position, we appreciate you coming. We sincerely do. We know it's a trek and taking

time out of your schedule and we respect that. Do not take the fact that we're not commenting,

we're not asking questions as any kind of an insult or any disregarding of your position.

It's just that according to the law, if it's not on the agenda, we cannot have discourse during the

meeting, but I want you to know we listen and we do respect you and appreciate you coming today.

So thank you very much. With that, next item, please. Our next item is closed session and the

directors will recess to hearing room two. All right. We will recess to closed session.

Call this meeting of the safe go board of directors back to order. Would the clerk please

call the roll? Thank you. Director Desmond, Director Hume, Chairman Kennedy, Director Rodriguez,

here, Director Surna, here, Director Jennings, here, Director Kaplan, here, Director Pliquibon,

Vice Chairman Holloway, President, Director Krush, here, Director Lee Reeder, here,

Director Baines, Director Stevens, here, we have an 11 member quorum.

Thank you. Council, is there anything to report out of closed session other than

the public employment item? Yes. I would like to report out that directors Kaplan and Pliquibon

were recused and not present for any discussions related to the APN 226-0010-002 or 226-0010-003.

So noted. Thank you very much. Next item, please. The next item is separate matters,

resolution number 2025-049, appointing Jason D. Campbell, Executive Director of the Sacramento

Area Flood Control Agency. Thank you very much. I'll take this one. We have met in closed session

on three occasions on this item, four actually. In the last two, we had an opportunity as a

board to meet with Mr. Campbell, who has been the deputy. Thank you, Deputy Director for the last

nine plus years. And the board had an opportunity to question Mr. Campbell on his vision of where

he sees this organization going and why he feels that he is qualified and the best person for the

job. And I am happy to say that the board unanimously has shown support for Mr. Campbell

to take this organization forward. But before we do so, we have to enter into a contract.

And I need to read this statement into the record. The recommended employment contract for Executive

Director to be considered by the board will be a three-year contract, year term, beginning on July

7, 2025 for a salary of $247,000. In addition, the Executive Director shall receive the following

fringe benefits, health and retirement benefits as provided to other management employees pursuant

to save because employment handbook $500 per month to cover normal and necessary expenses related to

employment, employer sponsored participation and professional sponsor associations $550 a month,

automobile allowance and $10.15 hours of vacation accrual pay per period. At this point,

are there any questions from the board on this before I move forward? Hearing is seen, none.

So the board resolution will approve the selection of Jason D. Campbell as Executive Director.

Two, it will approve the material terms of employment contract as summarized previously.

And three, delegate authority to the board chair to execute the employment contract.

Do we have any public comment on this item? I'm not received any. All right. With that council,

we good? Is there any motion? I'd love to move it. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Congratulations, Mr. Campbell.

I would love to give you the opportunity to speak to the board at this point,

but we're getting late on time, so here. Next item, please. Next item, our consent

matters. Items two through 10 are in order.

Is there any questions of the board on consent? Second. We have a motion and second. I believe

that director Krush has a comment. Yes, I need to recuse myself on item 5M. Okay,

before we have any comment or any vote, I will help you. Correction, that's item six in.

Is it Woodward and Curran? Good Rogers. Item M, okay.

Is it Mary? Yes. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Is there any public comment?

I'm not received any. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain?

Thank you. The next item is the executive director's report.

All right.

Did you lose them? I did. We thought it would take longer.

All right. Good afternoon. Just a couple of quick items there. Just FYI, this picture is

the workers up at Folsom on the race there, so. But I just had a couple items I wanted to touch on.

Back in 2007, as you're aware, SP5 and other bills tied local flood

planning and land use management to flood protection and with the requirement of 200-year

level of protection for urban areas by 2025. I might just clarify based on other things,

the state defined 200 years much different than how the core characterizes the 200 years.

So you're going to see that confusion in a lot of the comments that we hear.

So all the required improvements for meeting the 200-year, state defined 200-year

have been completed except for three contracts. All three of those are scheduled to be done this

year. The city and county a little nervous in case something holds them up. So they went to

Senator Ashby and asked her to sponsor SB 639, which would extend the deadline till

2030 and the city and the county would take on the state liability in those five years.

So I just wanted to talk real quickly, give you a status on what those three contracts are that

are needing to be complete this year. And I'll go in a little more detail, but the first one is the

core contract along Reach A, the slurry wall portion. Then SAFE has got a contract where we're

rebuilding the Sweeney Ranch pump station and the city has a sump pump 89 down and I'll talk

a little more detail on those right now. So on the American River, common features Natomas basin,

Reach A is down in the lower corner there. It's along the Sacramento River, the last part there.

And we just had a meeting with executives on the utility company in the core. Everything's in

place for all the utilities to be out of the way. Cultural resources issues that popped up

last year have been resolved, worked out how to move forward. So right now the contractor's on

schedule for finishing the slurry wall work. And I just show you this map. This is actually a

Reach A. The teal part is the slurry wall that's on there. The upper part from a little above where

I-80 crosses to the upper left there. That's all been completed. So it's just the part from

about where that red line is just to the other side of I-80 over to where the teal ends. That's

the part that needs to be completed this year. The other thing too is the upper part that's been

completed is a deeper slurry wall which takes longer. The slurry wall depth gets increasingly

less as we move around the corner there. So I don't know if this- oh it does show. So yeah,

this is the part in here that needs to be finished right in here. So.

Can Rick, if you hold for a second? Director Surna.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair.

Quick question. Rick, I'm very familiar with this part of the community in the river and

certainly as an avid boater in the summer, seeing it from the water side, this is a stretch that is

very, very popular during especially, you know, sweltering summer days. San Cove is a very popular

destination as we're all aware. How will that, if at all, interrupt the ability for the public to

continue to enjoy San Cove this season? Yeah. So the slurry wall is actually going into,

they're putting an adjacent berm, a levee along there. And so the road will, the slurry wall is

not going through the existing garden highways, going adjacent to it. So there might be some

lane closures or things like that, but it shouldn't be a major impact on the garden highway itself.

So we don't expect that there would even be like a single day where access is completely cut off to

San Cove? I don't know if I could say that. Because there's a dedicated, I believe there's

dedicated parking lot. There is. Yes, San Cove has a dedicated parking lot. Part of the area

will be down to one lane eastbound. So there may be a different way to get there, but the park

will be open. Okay. So are there going to be flag people to let two opposing

travel movements go by each other? I don't, I think it's only one way going eastward.

I don't think the core has said. So if someone wants to get from, I'm picking in a neighborhood,

Curtis Park, they want to go to San Cove, they're going to have to go all the way to Arena

to get off the, or 80 and then take a very circuitous route to go north before they go east.

San Juan and south. Okay. Because where the levee narrows up again, we're down to having to tear

out most of the northbound, east, you know, westbound lane to rebuild the cross section.

If I'm not mistaken, is this Mr. Appleguebaum's council district? Or is it, it's green, it's okay.

Okay. So I would like to suggest, and we can certainly reach out to Councilmember Tomontis

office, but knowing how popular it is and, you know, people without swimming pools

in their backyards go there to enjoy it, I think it's worth probably having a concerted

outreach effort coordinated with the city of Sacramento, especially to, you know,

let's give this some advance notice and some idea of detour routes. I think that would be helpful.

So thank you. Yes. Thank you. Good idea. Thanks. Just, I'm sorry, just a follow-up on Director

Cerna. So it's detour. It's going to be clearly marked, I understand, I take it? Yes. The detour

plan has gone through Sacramento County Transportation and City Transportation,

so there will be detour routes that are identified. Okay. Thank you. And I just want to follow up.

So I get city, but has Councilmember Tomontis been apprised of this? Because I can tell you,

I should also be apprised where my district is just north of that, and I can tell you,

my community knows nothing, and I'm going to hear about all of this.

We're not keyed in directly with the Corps' outreach and public outreach program, but we can

definitely ask them to advise us on what they've been doing. Yeah, because there's been no outreach

that in anywhere, because I'm a rain of boulevard. To the extent that they might want to pause or

slow down, because this might not work with traffic, because I can tell you a fair amount of people

in North Natomas use Garden Highway to come all the way down. So I think you're hearing that the

Board is very interested in finding out what the communication plan is going to be and whether or

not it's the Corps or it's SAFECA, it doesn't really matter, because our constituents don't care.

We could actually end up with something like what we saw today.

Right. All right. Okay. Thank you.

So the other two projects that need to be completed for the 200-year certification this year are down

on South Sacramento Streams Group, Sweeney Ranch Pump Station, and the City Sump. And just looking,

this is an aerial there, if I can control it. This is I-5 here. This is,

this over here is Delta Shores. And then, yeah, not pointed very well. You can see the levee

along here, and then it comes up here and across. So the Sweeney Ranch Pump Station is over in one

corner and the City Sump is on another section there. So this is the counties, it's actually

County Sacramento's Pump Station. It doesn't meet the current certification standards. So

SAFECA, you just approved us moving forward with award of the contract earlier at today's meeting.

So that'll allow our contractor to rebuild this station up to current standards. And then the

City, they've been working with the Corps for several years. They've been trying to get a 408

permit, which is the permit from the Corps that allows them to make modifications to the levees.

They kind of were stalled because they're designed, didn't meet the new criteria.

They asked us to help them. So we've helped work through with the Corps and the City what changes

need to be made. They got their permit. They're out actually bidding it right now, so they'll be

moving forward also. So just changing gears a little bit. We had our Board Chair trip

first week in April, and we wanted to meet, the idea was to meet with our normal

delegation, congressional delegation, and the agencies we work with the most.

Chair Kennedy wanted to assure them that SAFECA will continue to function

during the ED transition and just reassure them that we're moving forward. So that was

the main purpose there. It was also good timing because the agencies are having to make pretty

severe cuts. And so we took the opportunity to explain how most of our system is either

under construction or it's been completed. There's not that many contracts left, so

we know you have to make cuts so things are going well. So make them elsewhere, not on ours.

So we were able to get that message in also. So that's really all I had.

See if there's any questions. I have one comment on that. And on the trip was,

Tab Brown, who's the Chief of Programs for the Integration Division for the Army Corps of Engineers

of all the comments we heard and we met with members of Congress and Senate staff and the

core and their Bureau. Mr. Brown, who is high up in the organization, said no other non-federal

sponsor is as sophisticated or has been as successful in the country as SAFECA has. So

that's a testament to yourself, Mr. Johnson, and to this organization. So thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Thank you. All right, thanks.

Our next item is separate matters information presenting fiscal year 2526 proposed budget.

Jason Campbell, Deputy Executive Director. So each year we bring the proposed budget

after we meet with the Finance Committee to go ahead and give a preview, see if there's any

additional input that the board would like to make for the coming budget approval. We're bringing

it a month early this year because our board meeting lands on Juneteenth, so the June meeting

will not be occurring. So we've basically pushed everything up a month. So this is the informational

session and next month we will bring back the budget with whatever comments you may have today.

So again, SAFECA uses an alternative method than what many other entities do. We make sure

that we get our final budget done all in one swoop. So this year we are bringing forward,

we've made our public hearing initial publication occur. Today we're going to review the draft and

then of course we will be back next month in order to seek your approval for the final budget.

And then from there we will go forward and conquer the rest of the flood control issues.

So again, SAFECA has a number of assumptions. Again, we want to make sure our projects are

moving forward as expected. Our priorities should not change. Continued adequate progress,

as Rick just indicated, is what we are really focused on this year especially. And then of course

our revenue assumptions, you know, we can be influenced by things from the external side,

but of course state revenues are a large share of our portion of our revenues coming in for

reimbursements and making sure that cost share is happening for our federal projects. But also we

have our development impact fee which is somewhat market driven. And then of course we have our

wonderful state stable assessment revenues that have been coming in regularly on budget.

So taking a look at the projected sources for our coming budget, you can see that we have about

$71 million in revenue. We'll break that down here in just a bit. Projected fund balances coming

forward as projected, we are anticipating $16.1 million in fund balance in our four funds. And

then on top of that we have revenue, I'm sorry, reserve releases coming from our financial funds

as well as some of the other reserves that we have on hand. Breaking down the proposed appropriations,

you can see $104 million in appropriations match the sources. That's kind of a requirement.

Again, our projects are our largest expense. Every year you see these numbers up in the $60,

$70, $80 million range in some years, maybe a little bit more. But we're projecting $85

million worth of expenditures related to projects. Then we have, you know, our very small provision

for reserves currently that may change next month. Salaries and benefits relatively stable,

very small portion of our overall budget. And the services and supplies and other pieces you can see

that make up the rest of the budget funding. So again, we are based on four primary operating

funds. The operations and maintenance assessment district is our general fund. It has less restrictions,

but it is used to pay for salaries and other non-project specific things.

Then we have the development impact fee, which is intended to provide additional

projects or input into projects to support going to 200 year and beyond. The Natomas Basin

local assessment district is exactly that. It's an assessment district for the Natomas Basin,

and it supplements the projects that are ongoing, as well as the Consolidated Capital Assessment

District. The Capital CC82, as we like to call it, is the lion's share of all of our funding,

about $30 million in revenue and assessments. It funds all of our projects with the supplement from

the Diff, the ONM, and of course the Natomas Basin local assessment district.

Getting on to the specific ONM costs, you can see the breakdown of the different line items.

Fairly simple. We obviously have our salaries and benefits, some services and supplies that

include our insurances and other major tasks that we have to keep the administration going over the

agency. The internal cost recovery is the staff time that's coming from working on projects.

We charge those project budgets from those other funds and reimburse the ONM fund for that.

On the financing side, you can see our revenues pretty slim, but very stable. The $6.4 million

is from that ONM assessment district, which is under the water code. That number does not change.

The projection is fairly consistent from year to year, as you can see if you look at the years past.

Prior to your fund balance of about $1.8 million is what's anticipated to balance out this $8.3

million budget. I'm sorry, $8.83 million. As required by the government code, we have our

staff list of positions, as well as the FTEs, our full-time equivalent positions associated with

those positions and the salaries. 18.5 positions has been stable for the past few years. That

half position is still a retired annuitant for the director of planning.

Before we start talking about projects, I'd like to just bring up again. I can't seem to get away

from this one because it definitely affects how our project funding works. Again, on our core of

engineers' projects, 65% is brought forward by the core. 24.5% is typical for the state's reimbursements.

We do go beyond that in some instances. Then our typical cost share is only 10.5%. The 10.5% is

really what we're trying to make sure we budget in. However, all those state revenues that I was

just talking about come into play. We advance a lot of work on behalf of the non-federal sponsors

and the projects. Again, project expenses of $75.1 million. You can see the breakdown here.

More than half of that is associated with American Over Common Features Natomas and Common Features 2016.

Those efforts are very mature projects. Of course, we expect those to go down over the next few years

in expenditures, but again, they're still pretty healthy expenditures that you're seeing.

We have indicated a couple of projects on the beach lake area as well as we are talking about

things like Sanky and also some lower yellow efforts that are being funded to make sure that we're

thinking about our 500-year level of protection as well. Getting into some of the other projects,

we'll go ahead and show those in just a few minutes. Unless you have any questions, I'll

pause for a second there. All right. So, upstream reservoirs is one of those 500-year goals.

Our team is continuing to move forward and have discussions regarding upstream reservoir,

rolling into some of the forecast-informed reservoir operations. We are supporting those

early-stage endeavors. We've got a number of good conversations taking place and progress

is being made. So, this is a repetitive effort, but it's a long lead item.

Getting into Folsom, you can see three major projects there. Our costs are not necessarily

huge, but the project is definitely moving forward with the Corps of Engineers. We're looking at the

JFP closeout. There's a number of items that still occur. We also have a little bit of maintenance

effort that we have to provide funding for. The temperature control shutters are still lingering

along. A few things at the federal level might slow the discussion down a little bit, but we

should know more by the end of 26. And then Folsom Dam raise, project is kicking off. The proof of

concept as Rick has indicated a number of times in our board meetings. The proof of concept is

moving forward on the main dam wing dams. So, there's a number of things that should be breaking

this here pretty quick. And we support that with also the Sheriff's Office security contract and a

few other things. This money that's presented here is continuing some of that effort.

American River Common Features 2016, as I said, a number of different areas. The biggest one that

you can visually see and maybe appreciate is the Sacramento Weir. I realize that's on the other

side of the river, but a big, big benefit to our community here on Sacramento.

And then the Natomas Basin, again, $21.8 million dollars, big spends there and the number of

headings that John and team are working on real estate efforts, you guys are very much aware of.

Hopefully that is waning off and we will see a little bit more activity in the construction

field in the next few weeks. And then, of course, our Yellow Comprehensive Study effort to keep the

core rolling on a very large study. It's now considered a mega study. But the idea is that

we are supporting our state partners as well as others in the region to seek further improvements

and widening to the yellow bypass. Our contributions of about $2.7 million dollars includes a number of

efforts that are reimbursable to SAFEGA from the state of California.

So overall, this is the development impact fee budget. Again, $26.7 million dollars. A lot of that

is transfers from the development impact fee reserves into the operating budgets to fund those

projects, as discussed. Revenues are anticipated to be about $3.2 million dollars. It's a little bit

less than what we've been projecting in prior years, but fairly stable.

On the Natomas Basin Assessment District, I repeat this every year, somewhat of a pass-through,

because we have debt service that those assessments fund. But we do have some residual

fund balances and whatnot that we utilize by transferring into the CCAD and using them for

Natomas. And then overall, the $62.9 million dollars that you see here is the lion's share of

the funding that comes through for all of our projects. As you can see, operating transfers in

of $10 million goes from other funds. Then you see the $27.9 million dollars in state revenue that's

anticipated. And that is somewhat, there's a formula that we like to use because those

revenues don't normally come in as quickly as we would like them to. However, the state has made

some payments, advanced payments on Natomas and is anticipating that there might be some others

coming forward. So the appropriation is anticipating those additional revenues.

So overall, these are our projects broken down in the payments that you can see $75 million dollars

for the projects broken down by each fund, each project. I don't know if there's going to be any

questions, but this would be the time to ask them. Okay, just gets to be executive director and now

he's doing my job. Any questions? Okay. Do we have any public comment? I've not received any.

Okay, Mr. Campbell, I will say as I have said for the last several years,

when I started here, this budget was a complete mystery. I think when directors

Holloway and CERNA started, it was on an abacus. But you have taken a very complex budget from

so many different funding parties and so forth and made it very understandable to both all of

us and the public and I appreciate your work on it. Thank you very much. Thank you.

So that was an information item. This will come before us next month. Next item, please.

Next item is a public hearing resolution of necessity 202546 regarding portions of APN

226-0010-002, property located at 5625 East Levy Road, property owners Spiriton E and Georgia

Avatis as trustees of the Avatis Family Trust dated 9-20106. Mr. DeGroote, I don't believe it's

necessary to go through an entire presentation at this point. So let's get to the point.

Karen, can we note the recusals? Oh, yes, please.

Directors Kaplan and Pluggybaum have recused. I'm sorry, I thought they went to the restroom.

Go ahead. At this point, staff recommends this item be continued for a month.

Okay, we have a motion to second. Is there any public comment? I'm not received any.

No questions from the board. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Stain? Next item, please.

Item 14 is also a public hearing resolution of necessity number 202547 regarding portions of

APN 226-0010-003, property at 5311 East Levy Road, property owner Nick Avatis.

Mr. DeGroote. Again, staff recommends this item be continued for a month. Okay.

And for the record, we will note that again that directors Pluggybaum and Kaplan have

recused themselves and we have a motion. So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second.

I believe the second was from Hume. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Stain? Thank you. With that,

we have the rest of our items are received in file. I want to once again congratulate

wholeheartedly Mr. Campbell. We look forward and you'll have an opportunity to address the

board fully very soon and wish once again Director Jennings a happy birthday. We're adjourned.