SLVWD Board Meeting Summary
November 5, 2020
Mark Dolson
Note: This meeting lasted over four hours and ended before the agenda could be completely covered. An emergency follow-up meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday 11/10 at 5:30 PM.
Old Business
CZU Wildfire Damage Assessment Report
James Furtado (Director of Operations) and Rick Rogers (District Manager) provided progress reports on the work being performed by Sandis Engineering at the Foreman Diversion site, the Water Treatment Plant site, and the Harmon Creek site.
The Foreman Creek intake work is about three quarters complete. This will make it feasible to run the treatment plant with whatever water is at Foreman Creek. This will also allow the District to begin filling the 3-mllion-gallon Lyon tank, and this in turn will enable testing to be performed to determine the possible need for an interior tank coating. (The Little Lyon tank is already known to need coating.) Construction also continued on the 10” and 12” ductile iron pipelines from the Lyon and Little Lyon tanks down to the Big Steel tank.
The Harmon Creek choke point was removed as recommended in the 10/1 Watershed Emergency Response Team (WERT) report. Established best practices were used to prevent environmental damage: a temporary stream bypass was inserted, netting was used to prevent any turbid water from going downstream, and a biologist was on site the entire time. An excavator was used to clear out debris and deepen the channel, the embankment was built up, and straw and seed were laid down on top of it. The choke-point-removal work completed 11/5, and erosion-control work should wrap up 11/6.
Rick Rogers also reported that all customers are now back in potable water. The District is moving ahead on putting together specifications for permanent repairs.
Director Fultz asked whether other creeks that cross District property have been checked for choke points, and Rick Rogers said that no other choke points have been identified on District property. Director Fultz asked about periodic monitoring to check for new choke points, and Rick said that this will definitely be done for Harmon Creek. Director Fultz asked about the possibility of setting up cameras, and Rick said that USGS and the County are working installing some cameras on Clear Creek.
Director Fultz also asked whether alternative routes will be considered for the construction of the permanent new raw water pipeline. He suggested that different configurations may make more sense when we now view the District as a unified whole and seek to minimize capital expenditures. Rick Rogers agreed. He said the District originally (decades ago) thought about multiple treatment plants but opted instead to run one long pipeline.
Urban Water Management Plan
Carly Blanchard (Environmental Planner) read a memo explaining that the California Water Code requires urban water suppliers within the state to prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for submission to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) every five years. The UWMP provides a framework to help water suppliers maintain efficient use of urban water supplies, continue to promote conservation programs and policies, ensure that sufficient water supplies are available for future beneficial use, and provide a mechanism for response during drought conditions. The UWMP must be submitted to the DWR by July 1, 2021. An additional consideration (not mentioned in the memo) is that this year’s UWMP is also needed (sooner than the DWR deadline) by the Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency (SMGWA). Carly stated that most other Districts started on this six months ago.
Scotts Valley Water District (SVWD) approached the San Lorenzo Valley Water District (SLVWD) with the idea of a joint UWMP and in September released a Request for Proposals (RFP). SLVWD and SVWD agreed to split the cost 50/50. The Districts received two proposals: Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (WSC) and West and Associates.
Staff from both SLVWD & SVWD reviewed and scored each proposal, and SLVWD’s Environmental Committee completed a further assessment of its own on 10/22. Both WSC and were found to be qualified, but WSC’s proposal fee total was $119,971 compared to West’s total fee of $42,900. This would seem to have made West an easy choice, but the Committee and SLVWD staff had grave doubts about West’s ability to deliver the promised result due to their limited estimate of hours, vague scope, expedited schedule, limited experience with UWMPs, and unfamiliarity with the region. In the course of further discussion, Rick Rogers said that working with West would place a substantial additional burden on District staff, and Director Farris said, “we would really regret working with West.” WSC handled the District’s UWMP five years ago – they only charged $50,000 at that time, but the current project encompasses two Districts, includes substantive changes, and looks five years further ahead.
The Environmental Committee recommended asking WSC a few more questions and, when these were answered, recommended moving forward with WSC as quickly as possible (ideally in advance of an upcoming SVWD meeting on 11/12). The Committee listed multiple reasons for believing that WSC was the better choice:
WSC’s past coordination with the State (DWR) and a perceived better understanding of the UWMP requirements.
WSC’s extensive knowledge of SLVWD & SVWD infrastructure and service areas.
WSC’s experience with SMGWA and other regional agencies.
WSC’s previous experience preparing the District’s past UWMPs and regional water suppliers’ UWMPs.
The Committee’s recommendation led to extensive discussion amongst the Board. Director Moran recapitulated the Environmental Committee’s reasoning, and Directors Farris and Henry largely concurred. However, President Swan and, especially, Director Fultz continued to have serious reservations. Director Fultz expressed concern with previous experiences with WSC, with the comparatively high cost of WSC (Rick Rogers said further negotiation was pending), with WSC’s refusal to share the data they collect with the District, and with the accuracy of WSC’s projections involving census and demographic information. He also questioned the state’s designation of SLVWD as an “urban” district (which is based on state law that gives this designation to any district with 3,000 or more connections) and suggested that our state representatives be contacted to seek a revision of state law requirements. He said that he was not prepared to approve the contract with WSC and suggested that the Board could instead approve the contract with West.
Rick Rogers eventually stated that the Staff had received sufficient direction from the Board for now, and that this item would be brought back to the Board as soon as possible.
Panorama Contract Amendment
Carly Blanchard read a memo summarizing the District’s recent experience with Panorama Environmental, originally hired this past spring to prepare a Fire Management Plan to expand mapping, create fuel reduction projects, identify funding sources, improve road access for fire personnel and improve communications with Fire Prevention Agencies. The initial draft was slated for September, 2020, but emergency response to the August CZU fire took precedence.
The mapping database created by Panorama served the District well during the fire, helping staff to make initial decisions based on real-time fire mapping overlaid on infrastructure, and creating an efficient way to share infrastructure with CALFIRE, the County of Santa Cruz, and various state agencies.
Panorama subsequently took on a number of tasks outside their original scope including: hazard tree assessments, watershed restoration planning, identifying emergency response grants (alternate funding from FEMA), organizing site visits with state agencies, erosion control and debris removal permitting, potential funding through the carbon market, and valuable feedback on various fire related topics. The Fire Management Plan is now scheduled for Environmental Committee review in November.
Director Fultz praised Panorama for their exemplary partnership with the District. The Board voted 5-0 to augment the Panorama Environmental contract by $40,400 to continue post-fire response and fire planning work.
Redwood Park Tank
Carly Blanchard read a memo summarizing progress on the proposed Redwood Park Tank Project which involves the construction and operation of a new 30-foot diameter, 125,000-gallon steel water storage tank on a recently acquired parcel off of Country Club Drive in Ben Lomond. This tank replaces two nearby aging and leaking 20,000-gallon water storage tanks (referred to as the “Swim Water Storage Tanks”) and allows the District to meet current fire flow requirements.
The District prepared a Draft Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) State Guidelines and extended the public review period until October 2, 2020 following the August CZU fire. The District then worked with Rincon Consultants to finalize the IS-MND, respond to all public comments and create a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The project also includes two water pumps, housed in an 80 square-foot concrete masonry pumping station, and 400 linear feet of buried 8-inch high-density polyethylene (HDPE) water pipeline connecting the project site to the Swim Tanks site (which had insufficient space for the 125,000-gallon tank).
Director Moran noted that this project has been the subject of long and extensive negotiations and substantial public interaction. The roughly 50 nearby residents have raised concerns about: (a) impaired road access during construction, (b) lack of an adequate staging area during construction, (c) tree removal during construction, (d) the sustained operating noise level, and (e) the size of the tank. Directors Moran, Farris, Henry, and Fultz all sought assurances that these concerns have been adequately addressed by the District.
Rick Rogers said road closures will be for 45-60-minute intervals during the two weeks devoted to pipeline installation. James Furtado (Operations Manager) said one redwood will be removed because it presents a hazard, and four tan oaks will be removed for site preparation. Gina Nicholls (Legal Counsel) said the property purchase has been agreed upon, but closing is contingent on a couple of things including successful completion of the CEQA review.
There was an enormous amount of public input on this agenda item, all from affected residents who were supportive of the project but very concerned that the District’s planned mitigations were insufficient. They described anticipated traffic, staging, and noise problems in considerable detail. Rick Rogers ultimately recommended that the Board take no action at this meeting and, instead, allow Staff to take these comments and meet with an environmental consultant. When pressed, he said the revised plan will most likely include some sort of meeting with residents. The District originally wanted to meet on site, but Covid and the fire intervened. Rick said he thinks all the stated concerns can be addressed.
Governance Training
Rick Rogers read a memo summarizing conclusions from the July 22, 2020 Governance Training Workshop which, itself, was a belated response to a 2018 Grand Jury recommendation. The workshop generated the following recommendations:
Holding a yearly discussion and review of the Code of Conduct
Developing a manual for new Board Members, detailing roles and expectations
Clearly distinguishing between campaigning and governing; removing Board members’ bios from the District’s website
Creating a best practices document
Adding language to the Code of Conduct covering the conduct of the Board, the staff, and the public in Board Meetings
Director Moran added that how the Board conducts business is as important what it actually chooses to do. He recommended a yearly review discussing what the Board did well and what it can do better.
Director Fultz agreed and said he would have liked to have seen the workshop focus more on the topic of addressing contentious issues and less on other topics. He came away feeling that the Board hadn't done quite enough in acquiring tools for handling these kinds of issues. Director Fultz suggested a workshop in early 2021, and Director Farris agreed that prompt governance training for the newly-seated Board would be desirable.
Rick Rogers suggested that this item be brought back to the Board in January or February of 2021.
New Business
District Manager Annual Contract Review
Gina Nicholls (District Counsel) reported that the Board, in closed session, had rated the District Manager’s performance over the past year as officially “satisfactory.” The District Manager has one year remaining on his current contract, and this contract entitles him both to a 2% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) and up to a 5% discretionary merit increase.
Director Farris said Rick’s true value is far beyond satisfactory, and he recommended a merit increase of 3.5 to 4%. Director Moran agreed and recommended 4%. Director Fultz disagreed. He said everyone appreciates what Rick has done and wants him to renew his contract in 2021. However, the total raise last year was 5% plus the COLA, and another 6% total increase this year would raise concerns about both equity and cost. Given current financial uncertainties, Director Fultz argued that it would be more prudent and wiser to consider a one-time bonus.
Director Henry supported the proposed 4% increase, saying that Rick has outdone himself this year and has now gone weeks without a day off. President Swan agreed; he called Rick a great leader and said that great leaders are priceless. He called Rick’s effort “herculean” and recommended the 5% maximum (and a bonus) because Rick is indispensable. Director Farris added that both previous District Managers made considerably more than Rick and contributed much less.
The Board voted 4-1 to give Rick Rogers a 5% merit increase; Director Fultz voted against this.
Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation Policy
Gina Nicholls described this agenda item as a “housekeeping matter.” She said that she had reviewed the Sexual Harassment Policy adopted in November, 2019 and determined that – in order to comply with current law – the District needs a more broadly written policy that addresses all forms of illegal harassment, discrimination and retaliation, which may include but are not limited to sexual harassment. She provided a proposed updated resolution, and the Board voted 5-0 to approve this.
Board Member Resignation
Gina Nicholls introduced this agenda item, which proved to be tremendously controversial. The key issue was that President Swan on 10/31 submitted a letter announcing his resignation from the Board effective 12/31/20. He did this in consultation with District Counsel, and the routine course of action would have been for the Board to accept President Swan’s resignation as submitted.
However, in response to further questioning, President Swan revealed that he had sold his house and was now living in Texas. He initially had some thought that he might soon return to and continue residing in the District, but he no longer saw this as likely. This created the possibility that the Board could instead choose to declare his Board seat vacant immediately. District Counsel explained that both the written law and relevant court rulings allowed for either possibility; one interpretation was that Director Swan still had 180 days to reestablish residency, and another interpretation was that his seat should be considered vacant today. Only a fresh court case would render a definitive legal conclusion, so the Board was essentially asked to choose between two equally legally viable options.
President Swan explained that the intent of his 12/31 resignation date was to preserve a five-person Board, which he viewed as far more valuable to the District and community than a four-person Board.
Director Moran said his action was dictated by his commitment to good government. In his view, “residency means you live here.” In an attempt to fashion a compromise, he suggested that Steve Swan complete his term as president but recuse himself from voting. This proposal eventually was rendered moot when Gina said that it would require Steve’s approval, and Steve rejected it as unacceptable.
Director Henry recommended that the resignation should take effect 12/31/20 in order to give new Board members time to get adjusted and to assess new applicants after the holidays.
Director Farris said, morally, he would not make a motion to remove President Swan, but he might nevertheless vote to do so because, in contrast to the legal opinion provided by District Counsel, he did not believe there was any legal ambiguity.
Director Fultz said the Board has a fiduciary responsibility to the community. He identified two separate questions. First, should Steve Swan be allowed to continue serving on the Board as of today? Director Fultz said his answer was no even though he agreed that the Board could legally conclude otherwise. Second, how should this vacancy be filled? Director Fultz made it pretty clear that he thought this should be done either by the current Board or via a special election.
Public input unanimously advocated for retaining President Swan through the end of 2020 and/or allowing the newly elected Board members to participate in the decision about how to fill this seat. The election results will be certified 12/4, and Gail Mahood and Tina To are expected to be sworn in at the District office sometime soon after that. The Board has 60 days to fill a vacant seat by appointment, and it must advertise the vacancy for at least 15 days prior to assessing the applicants.
Director Fultz responded by strongly suggesting that the public input was unprincipled and purely politically motivated. He moved that the seat be declared vacant immediately, and the Board voted 3-1 to approve this motion. Director Henry voted against this. President Swan was recused and subsequently removed from the meeting. Vice President Henry immediately assumed the role of Board President.
Gina Nicholls explained that the Board now has until January 5th to appoint someone or else hold a special election. She noted that a special election will cost roughly $4 per voter (which suggests a cost of around $70,000) and will need to be called at least 130 days in advance (which suggests early May as the earliest election date).
Director Fultz asked Director Moran if he would support appointment of a replacement by the current Board prior to 12/4, and Director Moran indicated that he would not.
It was now 10:45 PM (the meeting began at 6:30 PM), and many participants were clearly exhausted. It was agreed that any remaining agenda items would be deferred to the next meeting, and the expectation is that this meeting will take place 5:30 PM on Tuesday 11/10.