Okay, thank you, Director Whom.

Now call this meeting of the air quality management district to order at 9.02 AM.

Um Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll to establish quorum?

Director Desmond?

Here.

Director Dickinson.

Director Geta.

Director Hume.

Director Kennedy.

Director uh Maple?

Here.

Director Middleton here.

Director Pranton?

Here.

Director Rodriguez?

Here.

Director Rorva.

Here.

Director Sanders?

Director Cerna?

Here.

Director Swin.

Here.

Director Vang.

We have quorum.

Okay, great.

Will you please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

So we pledge.

I pledge the floor of the United States of America.

Thank you very much.

And we do actually have our chair on the line, but she is uh participating remotely, so I'm uh chairing the meeting in person here.

Um we will have to take a roll call vote for all items because uh better voting items because we have folks are joining via Zoom.

And then Madam Clerk, do you have announcements?

I do.

Members of the public are encouraged to observe the meeting in real time at Metro14Live.sack County.gov, participate in person via Zoom video or teleconference line, and by submitting written comments to board clerk at airquality.org.

Comments will be delivered to the board of directors.

Public comments regarding matters under the jurisdiction of the board of directors will be acknowledged by the chairperson, distributed to the board of directors, and included in the record.

This meeting of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District is live and recorded with closed captioning.

It is cable cast on Metro Cable Channel 14, the local government affairs channel on Comcast and Direct TV Uverse cable systems.

Today's meeting replays on Saturday, July 26, 2025 at 1 30 p.m.

on Metro Cable Channel 14.

All right, thank you very much.

And with that, we'll move on to the consent calendar.

Um do we have any items that members wish to make comments on, poll, discuss?

Seeing none.

Do we have any members of the public to speak on this item?

Not at this time, Chair.

I don't move consent item for approval.

Okay.

Second.

We have a motion, second, and a roll call vote, please.

Uh Director Desmond?

Director Dickinson?

Director Geta?

Director Hume.

Hi.

Director Kennedy.

Vice Chair Maple.

Aye.

Director Middleton.

Yes.

Director Pranton?

Yes.

Director Rodriguez?

Aye.

Director Rorba?

Yes.

Director Sander.

Director Cerna.

Director Swin?

Yes.

Director Vang.

The consent calendar passes.

Okay.

Excellent.

So we will move on to our first public hearing.

Item 6.1.

Item 6.1, vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts per assembly bill two five six one.

And I have uh Denise Booth and Chambers to give a presentation.

Give me one second, I'll pull up the PowerPoint.

Good morning.

I'll go ahead and get started.

Good morning, Vice Chair Maple and Board Members.

Thank you for having me this morning.

My name is Denise Booth.

I'm the HR officer, and I'm here to very quickly talk about vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts per AB 2561.

Next slide, please.

You all are probably already aware that the Myers-Melius Brown Act was updated and as of January 1, 2025.

Public agencies must present annually at a public hearing, the status of vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts.

This is done prior to the adoption of the annual budget, and the recognized employee organizations may also present.

Sadia did was offered and they declined to present today.

Next slide, please.

So of our full-time equivalent positions, we have 105.8 FTE or 106 positions.

We have seven vacancies.

They are all in the Sadia General unit, but they are spread out over all four divisions.

That gives us a vacancy rate of 9.72% in that particular unit and an overall vacancy rate for our of our 106 positions.

We have the again seven vacancies for a vacancy rate of 6.6%, which is very low.

Per the the new provision, if we're at 20% or higher, there is additional data analysis and information that may need to be given at the request of the employee organization.

You may wonder why.

What happened with those seven vacancies?

Well, two are new positions that haven't yet been filled.

One is vacant because of an internal promotion that left the backfill vacant, and then we've had some other separations.

One most recently, someone went off to law school.

So that's for a good cause.

Next slide, please.

We have no anticipated changes to our recruitment process.

We actually have a very streamlined process.

If you've ever been part of a recruitment before, to have an average time to fill of 70 days is pretty fast.

So we don't anticipate any changes to that process.

We have competitive salaries, we have open and transparent communication, hybrid work schedules, which employees love, and training and career development, which has an average length of service for our staff of 11 years, with more than 40% of our employees having more than 15 years of service, which is really impressive.

And that is the extent of my presentation.

I open it up for any questions you may have.

Excellent.

Do we have any directors here that have comments or questions?

Seeing not anybody on the zoom.

Not at this time.

Do you have any public comment?

Not at this time, John.

Okay.

Well, with that, thank you very much.

Excellent presentation.

And all good news.

So we'll move on to item 6.1.

We do need to take action on this item.

Oh, that is correct.

I'll go ahead and move item 6.1 for approval.

Okay, I have a motion.

Do you have a second?

I have a motion.

Please call the roll.

Director Dickinson.

Director Geta.

Director Hume.

Aye.

Director Kennedy.

Chair Maple.

Aye.

Director Middleton.

Yes.

Director Pratton.

Aye.

Director Rodriguez.

Aye.

Director Borough?

Aye.

Director Sander?

Aye.

Director Cerna.

Director Swin.

Aye.

This item passes.

Excellent.

And now we'll move on to item 6.2.

Yes.

Item 6.2, a fiscal year 2025 to 2026.

Proposed budget and fee schedule.

And I have Patty Keppner and Chambers to give a presentation.

Welcome.

Good morning, uh Vice Chair Maple and members of the board.

My name is Patty Kepler.

I'm the controller for the district, and today I'll be presenting the fiscal year 2526 proposed budget and fee schedule.

This is the second, includes the second of two public required hearings for the budget process.

So next slide, please.

A recap of where we're at in the April board meeting, we presented the budget to uh to the board.

It included our budget in detail for all three funds, a five-year forecast that was an outlook to see what the future holds.

And then we had the proposed fee schedule, which is an increase of 3.84%.

We had the budget and fee schedule posted for the 60-day public comment period.

We properly noticed both public hearings, and today we're recommending final board approval of the 25-26 budget and fee schedule.

Next slide, please.

This is an overview of the proposed budget, just to get you oriented toward the slide.

And then our special revenue, which has incentives recorded in there.

So we're looking at the proposed revenues in the next column, the expenditures, the use of fund balance in all three cases, and then the projected fund balance at the end of the next fiscal year, which would be June 30th, 2026.

So as an example, the general fund has about 26 million of revenues, pretty consistent year over year.

Proposed expenditures about 29 million, so a use of fund balance of 2.8 million.

And then we're looking at 24.5 million as a projected fund balance at the end of the year.

You'll note there that for the general and the building fund.

Uh we are using fund balance.

We do have a reserve policy, and uh the ending reserve projection is within our required 120 days of expenditures, so we are um in um alignment there.

Overall, we have proposed revenues of 62.3 million, expenditures of 66 for a fund balance use of 3.7, and an ending projected fund balance of 113.8 million.

Next slide, please.

Moving on to our fee schedule, we do adjust our fees as allowed by rules.

Um, and it's used a common or a standard CPI index that we use year after year.

Uh there's no change there, and the proposed adjustment for 2526 is 3.84%, and that would be effective July 1, 2025.

Next slide, please.

So, in summary, uh we're the district is proposing a budget that will fund operations and our grant activities and everything that we have on slate for the year, and our reserves are adequate for the projected deficit and within our reserve policy.

Next slide, please.

So the recommendations for today are to open and close the public hearing on the fiscal year 2526 proposed budget and fee schedule and adopt a resolution approving the following the fiscal year 25-26 district budget affected July 1, 2025, and the fiscal year 2526 fee schedule also effective July 1, 2025 with an adjustment of 3.84 percent.

Next slide, please.

Thank you for your attention today.

That concludes my presentation.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

All right, thank you very much.

And with that, any directors with questions or comments?

Anyone on the Zoom?

No, okay.

Do we have any public comment?

Um we would need to open up the public hearing first and we can get public.

I will be looking for someone to open the public hearing.

Or you can open up sorry, open up a public hearing.

And then any questions or comments, public comment?

Not at this time, Chair.

I'll move to close the public hearing and adopt the staff recommendation regarding the budget and the and the fees.

I'll second.

Alright, you have a motion to second, please call the rule.

And director Desmond?

Director Dickinson.

Director Guetta, Director Hume.

Aye.

Director Kennedy.

Uh Chair Maple.

Aye.

Director Middleton.

Aye.

Director Pratten.

Aye.

Director Rodriguez.

Aye.

Director Barbara.

Aye.

Director Sander.

Director Cerna?

Director Swin.

Aye.

Director Vane?

Yes.

This item passes.

Awesome.

Thank you very much.

Move on to item 6.3.

Item 6.3 adopt amendments to Rule 207, Title V Federal Operating Permit Program.

And I have Mark Cooley in Chambers to give a presentation.

Welcome.

Give me one second.

Thank you.

Good morning, Vice Chair Maple and members of the board.

My name's Mark Cooley.

I'm an air quality engineer in the monitoring planning and rules section at the district.

As mentioned, I'm here to present proposed amendments to district rule 207, which is a district's Title Vederal operating permit program.

Next slide, please.

The district is responsible for implementing many requirements of the Clean Air Act, including having a federal permit program.

The Clean Air Act requires legally enforceable permits for all large sources of air pollution, which are commonly referred to as major sources, major sources of those that meet or exceed emission thresholds, and include some specific types of sources.

This federal permit is called a Title V permit, and it is a permit that contains all state, local, and federal requirements in one document.

Next slide, please.

What determines a major source.

In Sacramento is determined by the emissions emitted by that source.

The thresholds are listed here.

Not sure if you can see the slides or not.

Me one second, we had a disconnect.

We can see them on our end.

You can see okay.

Um the thresholds listed here include 25 tons per year of NOx and VLC, which in Sacramento is how most of the Title V sources are major sources are triggered.

Uh to put that into perspective, 25 tons per year of NOx is about the average emissions of 20,000 tons of 20,000 cars per year.

Excuse me.

Next slide, please.

District Rule 207 is how the district implements this federal requirement, the Title V program.

And the Title V program allows for enhanced public participation during the permit issuance process.

It allows EPA a veto authority, and it also improves compliance and enforcibility of the requirements because there's a document that contains all those requirements in one permit.

Next slide, please.

Here is uh some pictures of the sources in Sacramento County, which are our 14 Title V sources or major sources in Sacramento.

Here you can see they include the power plants, the landfill, some large organic storage tanks, and some manufacturing and industrial facilities located in the county.

Next slide, please.

Here's a map showing where these Title V sources are located.

Next slide, please.

So Rule 7 needs to be amended due to various court rulings.

In response to one of these court rulings, EPA removed a provision, which is referred to as the emergency affirmative defense provision, and they set a deadline for the district to remove these by August of this year.

If the district does not remove these, the EPA could start a notice of deficiency and start sanctions clocks, hence we're here today.

In addition to this, due to another court ruling, uh greenhouse gases cannot be used to determine whether a source is a major source as a sole rationale, and that also needs to be removed from the rule.

Next slide, please.

A little background about what emergency affirmative defense is.

Uh what is it?

Well, it previously it was an extra allowance to defend against a potential emission violation that occurred during an emergency if certain provisions were met.

However, these provisions in court were determined to be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act, and EPA is again mandating that we remove these provisions.

This is not removing any of our existing mechanisms, such as our variance program or mutual settlement for sources.

Additionally, this provision, the affirmative for emergency affirmative defense has not been utilized by any business in Sacramento County.

Next slide, please.

So the proposed amendments to Rule 207 are to remove the emergency affirmative defense provisions and remove GHGs as the sole determination for major source applicability.

Upon approval of the rule, staff will submit the rule to Carbon EPA to meet the timeline.

Next slide, please.

As with our other rule amendments, staff conducted outreach, which included specifically for this rule, emails and phone calls direct to each of the Title V businesses.

In addition, for today's hearing, a public notice was listed on the district website, printed in the Sacramento B, and again emails were sent out again to all interested parties in district rulemaking.

Next slide, please.

Staff's recommendation is to conduct the public hearing, determine the amendments are to the rule or exempt from CEQA, approve the resolution adopting the rule, and direct staff to forward the documents to CARB and EPA.

That concludes my presentation, and I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much.

And at this time I'll open the public hearing and I'll pass it over to Director Dickinson.

Thank you.

I'm just curious with respect to the determination uh of a major source.

If you can't do it on the basis of uh greenhouse gas emissions solely, does that does that mean it takes just one other of the uh um uh triggers uh such as NOx emissions plus GHG emissions, or what what becomes the now the requirement uh to determine a major source?

Uh for Title V that will be determined strictly from criteria pollutants now, NOx or VOC.

So it rule did it rule uh rule out GHG emissions entirely?

Uh no, previously uh you could be a source that didn't emit those levels at 25 tons, and you could you could trigger Title V.

And we did have a source that was going to do that, and then those provisions got struck down, and we haven't been implementing them for since that ruling, and that source is not a Title V source because of that.

Okay, I'm not I'm not totally I apologize, I'm not totally totally sure I followed you.

And um, if you had a source that on the criteria pollutants didn't reach the 25 tons uh per year, et cetera, but their GHG emissions exceeded whatever the whatever the criterion was, now they have to exceed with respect to the criteria pollutants only.

You can't you can't add in GHG emissions or or how do GHG emissions play into this, if at all.

Uh for Title V, they would not that source in your example would not have a Title V, they would likely have district permits, but they wouldn't be subject to the additional federal requirements of having a Title V permit.

I see, I see.

So it it really for Title V purposes takes GHG emissions out of the equation.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks, Chair.

Okay, vice chair, whatever the position are you holding.

You know, I'll take whatever title give me.

Um any other questions or comments from directors, anyone on the zoom?

Not at this time, Chair.

Do we have any public comment?

Not at this time.

Okay, so with that, I will entertain a motion.

I will go ahead and move the item for approval.

Okay, and a second.

Okay, please call the rule.

Uh Director Desmond, Director Dickinson.

Director Geta, and Director Hume.

Aye.

Director Kennedy.

Uh Chair Maple.

Aye.

Director Middleton.

Aye.

Aye.

Director Rodriguez.

Aye.

Director Rorbah?

Aye.

Director Sander.

Director Cerna?

Director Swin?

Aye.

Yes.

This item passes.

Excellent.

So now we move on to the discussion calendar, item 7.1.

Item 7.1 memorandum of understanding with Sacramento Transit Authority.

And I have Paul Philly in chambers to give a presentation.

Welcome.

Thank you, Vice Chair Maple.

Uh, members of the board.

I'm Paul Philly with the Transportation and Climate Change Division.

Uh moving from stationary sources to mobile sources.

I'm here to talk about, as was mentioned, a memorandum of understanding with the Sacramento Transportation Authority, which I think most of you are uh members of the board on and are familiar with their work.

Uh but in general, next slide, please.

Uh it's a little bit of background.

Transportation investments definitely impact air quality.

Uh mobile sources are the largest source of pollution and emissions within our district.

And we do know that how we build our transportation system impacts how those uh emissions uh are or are not emitted.

And there are lots of requirements that are associated with our transportation investments on the federal side.

Uh there's federal transportation and conformity requirements, which is typically handled by our colleagues over at TACOG, and then of course, uh regional greenhouse gas targets.

Um beyond criteria pollutants, there's also greenhouse gas emissions that need to be considered so that we can continue to be eligible for certain pots of state funding.

Next slide, please.

Now the laws that govern air quality um beyond those federal and state requirements mentioned before.

Uh STA has uh they're typically known as the measure A folk, uh, but a portion of measure A does need uh does go to the air district to help fund some of our programs to offset uh mobile source emissions that happen here within the county.

And then the Transportation Climate Change Division also has a CEQA and transportation group that works to make sure that CEQA and environmental laws are consistently applied throughout the county to minimize those emission reductions as new development and new transportation projects are built.

Next slide, please.

So the pot of money that we're talking about today is from the state transportation improvement program.

This happens every two years and is programmed by SACOG, and traditionally it was the four valley counties in a competitive process.

Uh there was recently changes at uh the federal level, so there has been a re-thinking of how those monies are to be appropriated.

And from now on, there is going to be a set aside for regional projects and then a set aside for within each specific county.

So of this pot, Sacramento County share is about 28.4 million, and then the agencies within this county would then compete against each other for portions of that funding.

Next slide, please.

Now the Sacramento Transportation Authority thought that given the levels of uncertainty that are happening, uh it's really hard to come up with a cohesive plan.

And so there was a discussion about having more consistent sub-regional allocations so that local jurisdictions and JPAs and agencies could have better planning as to how their transportation system could be built.

And so they came up with a funding formula per sub-region.

And funding, of course, can be traded from cycle to cycle, and this funding would be worked out as part of a road and active transportation working group so that agency priorities could be discussed.

Uh, we can make sure that those projects would be competitive at the SACOG level, and most importantly, meet SACOG and state funding eligibility requirements so that when our agencies and jurisdictions submit funding, they would compete well, work well with each other, and have a more collaborative process instead of a more competitive process.

Next slide, please.

Uh the MOU currently includes uh basically anyone eligible for money.

Uh we are on this list as well.

And so um I believe all of your jurisdictions at this point have approved uh signing of the MOU.

Uh so you're familiar with that.

Uh next slide, please.

And if the MOU is approved, then the SAC uh Sacramento Air District would be a part of that road and uh working group to help decide uh what funding sources should best go forward.

We would submit projects to that working group and to uh the STIP part as appropriate to further our air quality goals, and then uh we would continue our partnerships with SACOG and local jurisdictions to make sure that we continue to get reductions in the mobile source sectors.

Next slide, please.

And that is the presentation.

Uh the recommendation is before you, and I am open for questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Excellent, thank you so much.

Um, do we have any comments from directors or questions?

Seeing none in the room, any on Zoom.

No, Chair, not at this time.

Okay, do we have any public comment on this item?

No, Chair.

Okay, seeing none, I'll entertain a motion.

Uh, okay, we have a motion and a second.

Please call the roll.

Director Desmond?

Aye.

Director Dickinson?

Aye.

Director Geta?

Director Hume?

Aye.

Director Kennedy, Chair Maple, aye.

Director Middleton?

Aye.

Director Pranton?

Aye.

Director Rodriguez?

Aye.

Uh Director Robra?

Hi.

Director Sander.

Director Cerna.

Director Swin.

Director Bang?

This item also passes.

Excellent.

Thank you so much.

We'll move on to item 7.2.

Item 7.2, Sacramento Valley Basin Wide Air Pollution Control Council, new alternate member appointment.

Okay.

We're looking for an alternate.

Who wants to volunteer?

It's my understanding that Director Gera is that currently the person, but we need someone to volunteer for an alternate position should he not be available.

Any any interest from directors?

I can also just choose someone.

When do they meet?

The BCC Council meets um every other month on the first Friday.

Uh Director Ghetto's really involved in that meeting, so the alternate may possibly never have to attend, but we do technically have to have an alternate.

Amy, did you want to comment?

Vice Chair Maple, if I may, um maybe I can jump in and just put the little context on this.

Go ahead.

Um so just to make it clear, as you said, the BCC has uh a representative and and council member Guerra is currently the alternate member used to be Director Papano, who um now has been um uh replaced by Director Pratt.

So naturally, um what we think would be the easiest path if Director Pratt is of agreement is is to retain the jurisdictional representation.

But as you said, obviously this is um up to the board to decide.

So I just wanted to share that background.

So we do have a recommendation, it sounds like we call up for recommendation.

Do you accept the nomination?

My calendar four, right?

Okay, sounds like yeah, but sounds like you may not have to ever do it, but um, okay.

We have okay.

So do we need a motion on that?

I think there was a motion.

So uh director here, a second.

Please call the role.

Second, I didn't hear soon.

Swin.

Okay, okay.

Uh Director Desmond.

Director Dickinson.

Director Gennna?

Director Hume.

Director Kennedy, uh Chair Maple.

Aye.

Director Middleton.

Aye.

Director Pratt?

Director Rodriguez.

Aye.

Director Roba.

Aye.

Director Sander.

Director Cerna.

Director Swin.

Aye.

Director Ving?

This item also passes.

Excellent.

And we thank you for your service.

Um, so next is a um the air pollution control officers report.

Yes.

I don't need point one.

All right.

Well, thank you.

I'm up uh uh as the slides come up.

Uh I I want to reassure Director Pratton that if you do have to get pulled into the BCC, it's a it's a really good group of your fellow um elected officials from um 10 counties to the north, uh, in addition to Sacramento County.

So they're working on some really good things, so uh rest assured uh is it's gonna be time well spent.

Um but anyways, um I'm happy to be with you, and uh I want to extend first a warm welcome to our alternate uh board members.

We don't often see you, but uh thank you for for joining us.

Um next slide, please.

I just have very briefly four different items uh that I want to share with the board uh just to make sure that you guys are uh in the loop.

The first one is is probably the most important, um, our telework policy.

Uh in the past, um we committed to the board to uh undertake uh a yearly assessment of our policy, and what that means is every beginning of the fiscal year, we bring you a recommendation.

The recommendation is based on a performance management uh framework that uh my team of of directors has developed.

Um and basically what that means is we have actually identified metrics in terms of productivity, the continuity of operations and the services that we provide.

We're also very actively seeking uh staff input, and we conduct the survey.

And when you put it all together, and this is all spelled out in great detail in the memo that you have in your board packet.

When we uh put all that together and turn the crank, we basically have our evidence to present to you in terms of supporting the recommendation.

And what we want to do is basically continue what we have been doing since we came out of the pandemic, which is we have a requirement to be all of us in the office at a minimum one uh day uh in the office uh during the work week.

Realistically, we end up these days uh being in the office uh much more than that, but that is the minimum requirement.

We do have one additional requirement, and that is to conduct uh all hands meetings once a month in person.

Uh thus far, we have done it uh alternatively.

One in person, maybe a couple of uh of them in person uh over the year, and then the rest online.

Uh we uh we find that uh having an opportunity to come together, all 106 of us, is would be beneficial.

So that is going to be the recommendation to you.

And again, this is not an action item, but obviously if if you have any concerns or or you have any disagreements, now is the time for us to hear it from you.

Next slide, please.

And the celebration is that our region of multiple counties, what we call the Sacramento Federal Non-Atainment Region.

So this is our air district jurisdiction along with four others around us.

We have actually attained per the deadline the ambient air quality standard for ozone that was adopted in the year 2008.

And that is the big deal.

And what we have done is invited the EPA Regional Administrator, Mr.

Cook, who has agreed to join us in Folsom.

Chair Aquino has graciously agreed to help us with the venue and organize this celebration.

And the idea again is simply to come together and celebrate this momentous achievement.

It is a big deal because when was the last time that you heard that we were celebrating attaining the standard, right?

And what I want to note here for you as well is uh this is not just about the air agencies doing what we're required to do per the Clean Air Act.

This is really a celebration of the region, the community, the businesses, uh, and everybody else.

And that's why you see um uh Mr.

Robert Heath, the CEO of the Sacramento Medical Chamber of Commerce, is going to be one of our four speakers along along with the public health officer from Plaza County.

Uh at the end of the day, uh reaching the standards is really about public health protection.

And we're gonna have this uh community event as I like to call it on the 21st.

You are all invited to come.

If you can, please join us.

Uh we are going to have uh very significant outreach so that we can bring as many stakeholders uh and partners uh again to celebrate this momentous equation for the occasion for the uh Sacramento region.

Next slide.

Um a quick reminder, especially for our alternate members.

Um we are co-sponsors of SB 88 biomass utilization um bill that uh Senator Caballero is sponsoring uh along with our friends at uh um uh plaza county.

Uh uh, excuse me, Senator Caballero is obviously carrying the uh the bill, she's the author.

Uh the um the bill is moving along.

Uh we are uh going into uh appropriations uh and uh that will happen when the legislature returns uh from RESIS next month.

We have been working with all the agencies affected, uh CARB, uh CEC and Calfire, and we're we are feeling pretty hopeful that we're gonna make it out of our appropriations.

And as I said before, this is a big deal.

And this is actually related to the BCC, right?

Because that is where all the agricultural biomass is currently present, and we want to come up with alternatives other than what we currently have to do, which is manage burning that agricultural resident.

Next slide, please.

And this is my last um FYI, if you will, if you will.

Um, you've uh you've been aware that um we are uh working with Sava and along um other partners who are sponsoring the conversion of a traditional EV law rider into an electric law rider.

And um I want to emphasize that this is a project that the kids, the high school uh students are doing.

Obviously, they have significant assistance from all the uh partners, but the idea here is to promote this idea of the transition to electric mobility in any end use, and it also has obviously a very strong component of uh workforce development, education and training, because again, the high school students are the ones that are that are doing this.

Um they are getting notice.

The Smithsonian Institute um has this very nice festival every year around 4th of July and this year they were actually invited to come to the festival and be put on center stage and I was pretty pleased to be able to go out there and support them came out with Mr.

Lamos and obviously the superintendent of the Sabbath school the assistant superintendent uh it was a great event and again I want to share that with you because uh this is a big deal right is is basically enabling kids who may not have thought much about the energy transition and electric mobility and now they are basically driving it so um just want to share that with you and this concludes my uh report happy to answer any questions thank you very much some exciting updates and just want to offer congratulations to to you and your team on um a big milestone and I unfortunately I won't be able to be there but I'll be celebrating from FR.

So with that I'll pass it on over to Director Dickinson.

Thank you and thanks for the the report uh I do I do have a comment on the hybrid uh work policy and I I think that that uh at least in the conversations I've had over the last few years about the uh the necessary rise in remote work and uh virtual meetings um that that uh virtually to a person uh if not unanimously everyone I've discussed this with feels that there's something lost when you don't have people in person um that the that you conduct uh virtual meetings you um do the business that you need to do but there's a personal element lost that there's a a deficit in developing uh interpersonal relationships that that often uh then build a sense of um teamwork and a sense of being um connected of having common um purpose of having something that you share more than simply um the work assignment that that you've just conducted the meeting concerning and so um as a as I think about about this I I understand and and by the way I read the material uh as well uh I understand the desirability of being able to to stay at home work at work from home uh in some cases it's going to be um more efficient and arguably even uh more productive but uh I wonder more about that that loss of connectedness um that uh as a consequence of using that that of relying so heavily uh on on that approach to work and so uh I I wouldn't suggest you you've had these discussions among the staff you've arrived at uh uh an approach you think makes sense for the year so I I wouldn't suggest a change um uh now but I would suggest that the there uh in the uh future looking at uh whether this continues or changes that um there be consideration of this element for for the um for the district staff obviously there are a lot of staff that are in the field on a on a daily basis um so uh that is an element that that uh needs to be uh incorporated into the equation of of what ought to be the approach to being in the office um versus elsewhere um whether it's out on a uh a site or at home uh but I I do think that it makes sense uh ultimately to move back closer to being in the office on a more regular basis rather rather than um more remote on a regular basis.

Thanks.

Director uh Dickinson I I appreciate your perspective, obviously and and thank you very much for for having read the the memo.

Um clearly, this is uh an area that is um subject of continued uh very rich uh debate, and I'd be happy to to engage in that with you.

What I want to point out to you is this.

Um I asked our team, and everybody stepped in to be data driven, and that's why I spoke about the management framework.

Uh, we wanted to come up with specific metrics that we could actually track, and and this is pretty natural for us, right?

Because you know we're a bunch of engineers and scientists primarily.

Uh so we want it to be data driven because what I have seen since we came out of the of the pandemic is the perspectives, the decisions are based on perspective, desires, opinions, and anecdotes.

Very little is based on actually metrics that represent productivity, the level of service that an agency like us should be providing, and other metrics.

And I want to emphasize that our team has spent a lot of effort coming up with that with what I think is one of the most defensible ways with data to support the recommendation.

And again, the reason we do this on a yearly basis is because we understand that things are pretty dynamic and changes.

So again, I appreciate your perspective.

Thank you for supporting it, and uh I welcome the opportunity to continue to have this conversation.

Great.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions from directors in the room?

Anyone on Zoom?

Do we have any public comment on this item?

This time.

Okay, so with that, we'll move on to board ideas, comments, questions, a b1, two, three, four reports.

Seeing none, any on the zoom?

No, chair.

All right.

Any public comment for matters on the agenda?

Uh not at this time.

Okay, with that, we are adjourned.

Uh what time is it?

9 44 a.m.

Thank you for the very efficient meeting.

Yes, thank you.

Goodbye, everybody.

Thank you.