5
SLVWD Board Meeting Summary
March 7, 2024
Mark Dolson
Highlights:
Change to Monthly Board of Directors Meeting
Regional Government Services Contract Amendment
Peavine Pipeline Replacement Environmental Contract Award
McGraw 2024 Contract - Olympia Conservation Area
Fall Creek Fish Ladder Change Orders
Raftelis Contract Amendment
Amended and Restated Agreement with Sandis Civil Engineers
Next Board meeting is at 6:30 PM on March 21, 2024
Preliminaries
All five Directors were present in person.
No actions were taken in the Closed Session prior to the meeting. The Closed Session resumed at the end of the Open Session, but it was announced in advance that there would still be nothing to report.
There were two public comments on topics on the Closed Session agenda.
Bruce Holloway of Boulder Creek opined that the Board’s committee structure is dysfunctional, broken, and not operational. He felt that every item on this evening’s agenda could have been addressed via committee, but he noted that none of the committees met in February of 2024, and the January committee meetings were content free. He argued that committees were subject to the whims of Staff and that some issues completely bypassed committees while other discussions remained confined to committees for months. He closed by suggesting that the committees have outlived their usefulness.
Nicole Launder Berridge, the water commissioner for the Bracken Brae Homeowners Association, expressed dissatisfaction with how the District and the interim General Manager were responding to her inquiries.
There was one public comment on a topic not on the Open Session agenda.
Karen Brown of Boulder Creek said she had made a chart to show the Board how much water she used on a yearly basis and how much she was being charged. Her point was that her water usage hadn’t changed, while the rates continually increased. She also suggested that the District overpaid Raftelis for the work that it did on the rate study.
Unfinished Business
Change to Monthly Board of Directors Meeting
Interim General Manager Brian Frus introduced this agenda item. He noted that just as the staff finishes one Board meeting, they have to prepare for the next. For example, agenda items are due to him Friday March 8th for the Thursday March 21st meeting. He argued that meeting only once per month would give Staff more time to focus on work that needs to get done. He thought this decreased workload might also help to attract future Board members. He acknowledged, though, that Staff and the Board would each need to make some adjustments for this new schedule to work.
Director Ackemann said she thought it was entirely possible to move to a monthly meeting cadence. She said this would sometimes be challenging, but she had served as Staff to six different public agency boards, and none of these met more than once per month. She did think, though, that it might be appropriate to start the monthly meeting 30 minutes earlier, given that they are likely to be a bit longer.
Director Smolley said he had never been a fan of meeting just because it's on the calendar. However, he expressed some concern about the more limited communication the Board would get with the reduced meeting frequency, particularly with an Interim General Manager and an Interim Finance Manager. He wondered whether everyone would be able to get the information they needed.
Director Mahood said she was a little ambivalent. In theory, she thought that meeting once per month should be sufficient, but she noted that the SLV is a disaster-prone valley that tends to demand more frequent meetings. She agreed with Director Smolley that it would be incumbent on Staff to communicate more proactively. She noted that Staff memos sometimes weren’t optimally crafted in part due to an understanding that they could be revised and brought back, usually in another two weeks. She didn’t think meeting only monthly would cut the Staff load in half because they would have to prepare more carefully.
Director Fultz asked if there was still a concern about a potential Board resignation if the Board continued to meet twice per month (because an action taken for this purpose would demand a different discussion). Director Ackemann confirmed that she would resign (due to a recurring conflict) if the Board continues to meet twice per month, but she said she didn’t request this change. The question here was whether it was more important for Staff to prepare for the Board every two weeks or more efficient for them to prepare monthly.
Director Fultz argued that many software tools were available to simplify and accelerate preparation for Board meetings, but the District has categorically chosen not to employ these. He suggested that dramatic improvements could be made with techniques commonly used for project and program management (e.g., involving slide presentations and the display of quantitative information). He also recollected that the District met monthly many years ago, and he described this as a complete disaster, as the Board became disconnected from its oversight responsibilities. He said he was already concerned about the Board receiving insufficient information, and didn’t think the Board could provide effective oversight without a more serious discussion of the implications of such a change (for the Board and for the public). He further argued that the recent trend toward increased reliance on the Consent Agenda was a related concern. In summary, he argued that the proposed change to monthly meetings wasn’t particularly well thought out, that meetings would likely end up being longer, and that the work being performed in committees would need to dramatically increase. He said he was firmly opposed, as this would cause him to lose confidence in his ability to provide oversight.
President Hill said he would like to see the proposed change accompanied by increased committee activity. Director Fultz noted that this was not part of the proposed motion.
Director Smolley took exception to Director Fultz’s comments on the expanded Consent Agenda. He felt that Directors could still provide appropriate oversight, and Interim General Manager Frus would gradually get calibrated on when to place items on the Consent Agenda (in order to expedite progress on noncontroversial actions).
Director Ackemann expanded on this point. She said it was very common for contracts and other pro-forma business to be handled via the Consent Agenda. She argued that this was still a public process and that Interim General Manager Frus would gradually refine his use of it.
Director Mahood agreed. She said greater use of the Consent Agenda was appropriate. She said this practice could greatly improve meeting efficiency and also promote better committee vetting. She added that allowing the public to pull items from the Consent Agenda is not required, but the District currently allows this to happen. She closed by observing that Director Fultz and she had a fundamental disagreement about the nature of Board meetings. She saw the meetings as focused on doing the District’s business. The public was allowed to watch, but the meeting goal was not to educate the public.
Director Fultz countered by arguing that past Boards had gotten into serious trouble via this practice. He said most people in the community were not very familiar with Board meetings, and he believed it was absolutely incumbent on the Board to make sure the community understands the business of the District and what the Board is trying to accomplish. He said the Board in 2013 had become completely disconnected from the community with ugly consequences. His meeting philosophy was informed by this experience.
President Hill observed that the Consent Agenda discussion was a digression, and he asked if anyone wanted to offer a motion re: changing to a monthly meeting schedule. Director Ackemann moved to adopt the resolution in the Board packet, and Director Mahood seconded.
Three members of the public offered comments. Bruce Holloway of Boulder Creek recommended getting rid of all committee meetings and continuing to have the Board meet twice per month.
Cynthia Dzendzel of Felton said she thought meeting monthly would be fine if committees were actually functioning as they should, but she said she had heard committee members say they have become discouraged from serving on the committees as these bodies currently operate. She suggested that committee meetings could also be a vehicle for improving public access and dissemination of information.
Alina Layng of Boulder Creek expressed mixed feelings. She said she was super excited to go to meeting monthly to free up Staff, but if this just translated into increased committee work, then she wasn’t so sure. She was also concerned to learn that the District might be covertly simply responding to the needs of an individual Board member.
Director Mahood requested some further comment from Interim General Manager Frus regarding the anticipated impact on committees. Brian said, in some cases, the change would make committees more important. But he also worried that three committee meetings plus a Board meeting each month would still be a lot. He added that his recent use of the Consent Agenda was very common in his experience. He said some items can go to committees, but this wasn’t necessary for routine items. He closed by saying that a monthly meeting would provide more time to focus on the items that are most important.
Director Fultz commented that committees have historically been used to promote community interest in serving on the Board. 2018 saw an expansion of public participation in committees, and he saw this as particularly important for a small community.
The motion passed 4-1 with Director Fultz in opposition.
New Business
Regional Government Services Contract Amendment
Interim General Manager Brian Frus introduced this agenda item. He reminded the Board that Interim Finance Director Heather Ippoliti is being employed via a contract with Regional Government Services. She started at eight hours per week, and Brian doubled this to sixteen hours per week. The District is still searching for a permanent Finance Director, but this is likely to take another month or two, and Brian would like to see an overlap of two-to-three months between Heather and her successor. He therefore asked the Board to amend the agreement with Regional Government Services to extend the term (from June 30, 2024 to September 30, 2024) and to increase the not-to-exceed contract amount (from $30,000 to $118,300).
President Hill and Director Fultz confirmed that this amendment allow the District to extend Heather’s hours but would still allow it the flexibility to terminate the contract at any time. Director Fultz asked what the current hourly rate was, and Brian wasn’t sure but thought that it might be $150 per hour.
Director Ackemann asked how the recruitment effort was progressing. She asked if the District was identifying candidates and whether it should explore some more creative way of filling the position, assuming that sixteen hours per week is sufficient. She also asked whether the District was using a recruiter.
Brian said the District had a candidate who dropped out for her own reasons prior to on-site interviews. He also said he was looking at ways to get the word out more effectively, but this kind of role is hard to fill. He added that he had already taken the step of revising the title and job description to eliminate the business services role, but he still believed that the District currently needed a full-time Finance Director. He said the District wasn’t using a recruiter, but he was open to doing so. He disagreed with Director Ackemann about where to most effectively post the position.
Director Mahood said she agreed with the contract extension and the steps taken to date.
There were three public comments. Karen Brown of Boulder Creek suggested that the District could save $88,000 by ending the contract as originally planned.
Bruce Holloway of Boulder Creek complained that contractors typically need to produce documented deliverables, and he hadn’t seen any corresponding reports. He also objected to the scope of the Board discussion, which he felt diverged too far from the agendized topic.
Bill Witt of Boulder Creek offered a brief comment about possibly using a CPA and where to post the opening.
Director Smolley moved to amend the contract as recommended by Staff. Director Mahood seconded.
The motion passed 5-0.
Peavine Pipeline Replacement Environmental Contract Award
Environmental Planner Carly Blanchard introduced this agenda item. The CZU Fire in 2020 destroyed the 1.3-mile Peavine Pipeline which carried raw water between Foreman Creek and Peavine Creek. This pipeline will be replaced using above-grade HDPE pipe, as directed by the Board on November 2, 2023.
The first phase of the Pipeline replacement will be removal of hazardous trees along the existing Pipeline bench. In June 2023, the District completed an extensive tree survey and identified approximately 520 trees as hazardous and requiring removal (for which it is pursuing a contract with the California Conservation Corps (CCC)).
Prior to moving ahead with any pipeline replacement activities, the District must complete environmental permitting processes. On January 8, 2024, the District released a Request for Proposal (RFP) seeking a qualified consultant to guide design choices and prepare environmental documentation for the pipeline replacement and the removal of hazardous trees. The consultant will have the following goals:
Determine CEQA permitting method.
Provide pipeline design recommendations. Additional considerations will include bench width, fire hardening, and addressing risks to the pipeline from geologic and natural hazards.
Prepare CEQA documents and permitting, including public engagement process.
Coordinate and consult with the appropriate regulatory agencies.
The District received four proposals from qualified consultants (with budgets ranging from $100,000 to $300,000) from Panorama Environmental, LSA Associates, Harris and Associates, and PlaceWorks. Panorama was by far the least expensive, and the District has had recent positive experiences with Panorama. Staff therefore recommended that the Board authorize an expenditure of $99,693 to Panorama for environmental consulting services on the Peavine Pipeline Replacement project.
Director Fultz expressed disappointment that construction wasn’t scheduled for 2024, as this was previously identified as a goal. Carly explained that the delay was partly due to FEMA requirements.
Director Smolley was concerned by the lack of a clear project description with relevant details about plans for cutting the bench, the use of helicopters, and the distinction between cutting down trees and actually removing them (when, in fact, the District does not plan to remove the trees). Carly agreed that “removal” was not the correct term, but she said the project could still get started without all the details. Brian added that the critical path on the project schedule requires that the District engage the environmental consultant now and start the necessary cultural notifications. He said the plan to replace the pipeline as it was (as opposed to burying it) will hopefully minimize the environmental review. Director Smolley argued that a project description (perhaps three pages in length) still needed to be developed and shared early in the process. Brian said the District wanted to engage with CCC early, and CCC needed some sort of environmental analysis to enable FEMA reimbursement.
Directors Ackemann and Mahood each supported the plan to move ahead with Panorama.
There was one public comment. Karen Brown of Boulder Creek wondered how the District would protect the replacement pipeline from a future fire. Director Fultz explained that this was discussed at previous Board meetings.
Director Smolley moved to direct the Interim General Manager to enter into a contract with Panorama. President Hill seconded.
The motion passed 5-0.
Consent Agenda
The Consent Agenda had nine items (any of which could be moved to the regular agenda upon request from a Director):
a. CalOES Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
b. McGraw 2024 Contract - Olympia Conservation Area
c. Fall Creek Fish Ladder Change Orders
d. Raftelis Contract Amendment
e. Amended and Restated Agreement with Sandis Civil Engineers
f. Board Meeting Minutes 1.4.24
g. Board Meeting Minutes 1.18.24
h. Board Meeting Minutes 2.1.24
i. Board Meeting Minutes 2.15.2
Director Fultz pulled items b, c, and d. Director Smolley pulled item e. President Hill moved to approve all items that were not pulled. This motion was seconded and passed 5-0 after determining there were no public comments on the items remaining on the consent agenda.
McGraw 2024 Contract - Olympia Conservation Area
Director Fultz wanted to know whether this contract went out to bid. Carly explained that this was a continuation of Jodi McGraw’s long-term monitoring of the Olympia Conservation Area. It was for $30,000 for two years. In principle, it could have gone out to bid, but it didn’t. Director Fultz said he would like to see this referred to the Engineering and Environmental Committee, as it hadn’t gone out to bid for multiple years, and he saw it turning into an annuity for Jodi. Brian said he judged sole-sourcing this contract to be appropriate, as there were only two people qualified to provide the required service. Director Fultz asked if this project would end at some point, and Carly said it will continue, but it will eventually become self-funding through the interest on an endowment.
Director Mahood said she wanted to defend Staff on this decision. She felt that, given the low rates charged by Jodi McGraw, nitpicking on something like this wasn’t a good use of Staff time and was pennywise, pound-foolish.
Director Smolley corrected a mistyped date. There was no public comment. Director Ackemann moved to direct the Interim General Manager to enter into the agreement with McGraw. The motion was seconded and passed 5-0.
Fall Creek Fish Ladder Change Orders
Director Fultz wanted to understand why the retaining wall repair was the District’s responsibility. District Engineer Garrett Roffe said the District’s pipeline penetrated the wall, and the County said the District needed to fix it even though an argument could be made that the District was not the source of the damage being repaired.
Director Smolley complimented Garrett on negotiating the cost of the repair such that it saved money. He moved to approve the contract change orders, and Director Ackemann seconded.
There was no public comment. The motion passed 5-0.
Raftelis Contract Amendment
Director Fultz said he believed Raftelis did the District a disservice and should be giving it a refund. Director Mahood said she agreed with Director Fultz that Raftelis’ performance was often pretty minimal. She said it was true that Raftelis participated in more meetings than the original contract called for, but there were still some deliverables that the District has yet to receive. She said she didn’t so much object to the extra $15,000 charge from Raftelis, but she wanted to make sure they were living up to the contract and also that there wouldn’t be more charges like this later.
Brian said Raftelis had some verbal agreements with the previous Finance Manager, Kendra Reed, and these predated his arrival. He mentioned that he had also requested additional analysis from Raftelis, in particular about how much to charge for wholesale water sales to other water providers.
Both Directors Mahood and Smolley raised questions about Raftelis claims in their memo to the District (involving the number of meetings they committed to and attended). Director Smolley asked if the District had requested a breakdown for this change order. Brian said it was just based on the memo.
President Hill said he felt the Board had raised enough questions that this matter should be sent back to Staff.
Amended and Restated Agreement with Sandis Civil Engineers
Director Smolley noted that Sandis was asking for $47,500, and he asked for further details. Garrett explained that this was connected to the Alta Via project. Director Smolley further observed that the change order (which is for managing the construction contract) was for 16% of the actual contract cost (whereas the industry norm is more in the 8-10% range). After some further discussion, Director Smolley moved to direct the Interim General Manager to execute the amended and restated agreement. President Hill seconded.
There was no public comment. The motion passed 5-0.
Written Communications
There were four written communications. President Hill indicated that Staff will attend to these.
The Open Session adjourned at 8:25 PM, and the Board returned to Closed Session.