SLVWD Board Meeting Summary
June 2, 2022
Mark Dolson
Highlights:
Grand Jury Report.
New Staff Position.
Next Board meeting is at 6:30 PM on June 16th.
Preliminaries
There was nothing to report from Closed Session. No actions were taken.
There was no non-agenda-related public input.
There was no President’s Report.
New Business
2021-2022 Grand Jury Report
District Counsel Gina Nicholls introduced this agenda item. On May 24, 2022, the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury released a report entitled “Our Water Account Is Overdrawn—Beyond Conservation: Achieving Drought Resilience.” The Grand Jury has requested responses from the SLVWD Board of Directors to nine findings and two recommendations set forth in the report. (The District Manager is invited to respond separately.) Responses are due by Monday, August 22, 2022.
The recommendations were:
R1. By December 31, 2022, the Boards of the Santa Margarita Groundwater Management Agency and the Mid-County Groundwater Management Agency should extend their charters to include and proactively deliver drought-resilience project planning and execution.
R2. By December 31, 2022, local water districts should jointly publish an integrated drought-resilience action plan that includes essential infrastructure improvements, estimated costs and schedule to complete improvements that will deliver drought resilience to the Mid-County Groundwater Basin, the City of Santa Cruz, and the Santa Margarita Basin by December 31, 2029. Agencies to respond are the San Lorenzo Water District, the Scotts Valley Water District, the City of Santa Cruz Water Department, the Soquel Creek Water District, the Santa Margarita Groundwater Management Agency, and the Mid-County Groundwater Management Agency.
Gina explained that the Board has two options: (1) it could appoint an ad hoc committee to write a response, or (2) it could direct Staff to prepare a response. In either case the draft response should be brought to the Board in early July to allow sufficient time for review and revision. She also noted that there is no requirement that responses be detailed (and, in fact, minimalist responses are quite common).
The initial Board discussion focused on clarifying various details of the Grand Jury request. Director Fultz wanted to know who the Grand Jury had talked with at SVLWD, but Gina advised him that the penal code contains strong prohibitions against disclosing the identity or content of any grand jury questionees or questions. Directors Ackemann and Hill each found the response timeline to be a little unreasonable. Director Ackemann noted that the report made no mention of the fact that SLVWD is still recovering from the August 2020 CZU Fire. Director Hill said that the most immediate thing that SLVWD can do to improve resilience against drought is to complete its CZU Fire recovery.
All Directors were open to appointing an ad hoc subcommittee to develop a response. Director Fultz said he still needed to reread the report perhaps multiple times. He felt that it needed to be handled very carefully and that the District might want to provide additional perspective.
President Mahood said she was disappointed in the report because it didn’t recognize activities already underway within the District (and also the Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency (SMGWA)). In addition to SLVWD fire recovery, she pointed to the District’s work in helping other small mutuals that suffered extensive fire damage and to the District’s proposed change to water rights to improve its conjunctive use (essential to local drought resilience but with regional benefit as well) as other relevant District initiatives that were overlooked in the report. She pointed out that, while the report cites 51 reference documents, the largest number of these were from the City of Santa Cruz Water District, and there was not a single one that was either from SLVWD or concerned the SGMWA Groundwater Sustainability Plan. All of this led her to question whether the report deserved an extensive response. She noted that, in a legal context, saying more than necessary can be ill advised. She recommended a minimalist response that similarly minimized the time commitment of Staff and Board.
Speaking as a member of the public, Jim Mosher (from Felton) said he had been in touch with Bryan Largay who represents the SLV on the County’s Water Advisory Commission. Bryan spoke about the report at the Commission and wrote an email to the District Manager from which Jim quoted a number of excerpts. (Rick received the email too late to include it in the Board packet for this evening’s meeting, but the entire e-mail with be appended to the next Board packet.) Bryan wrote:
I found the document to be a superficial overview of complex topics that have been exhaustively treated elsewhere by professionals such as those who work for SLVWD and SGMWA. When it comes to complex issues like water resources, I am far more inclined to take advice from professionals, rather than volunteers, no matter how well-intentioned. The rigor of planning by both the Santa Margarita Groundwater Management Agency and the SLVWD’s own work far surpasses this document in useful detail and calls for action. Work by SMGWA and SLVWD is far more authoritative in its treatment of the highly technical natural resource issues and the governance context.
It is regrettable that the Grand Jury presumes that the Water District has nothing better to do in over next 90 days and six months than to respond to their findings and recommendations. One of their chief findings is that there is a lack of resources across the agencies. It is ironic that they fail to realize that responding to their report bleeds precious staff time and legal budget that could otherwise solve real problems. Furthermore, while the report sites some 51 documents, none are publications of either the SLV Water District or the Santa Margarita Groundwater Management Agency, illustrating a lack of effort in understanding the issues or developing recommendations relevant to SLVWD priorities.
I encourage the Water District to give the minimal necessary acknowledgement to this document, and then get on with the business of managing the complex problems the Water District is actively solving. The collaboration called for by the Grand Jury is already well underway. Far more urgent work is fire recovery. Helping adjacent water providers build drought resilience is a fine notion, but solving urgent, existing supply challenges is the highest priority.
Jim said he found it offensive that the Grand Jury report treated the City of Santa Cruz as if it is equivalent to North County. He also noted the City's and the County's recent adverse actions against SLVWD regarding water rights and road repairs, respectively.
Larry Ford (from Felton) expressed agreement with both the Board comments and those of Jim Mosher. He said he appreciated the Grand Jury report, but it sounded to him like the work of some smart graduate students. He felt that it was clearly written with major involvement from the City of Santa Cruz Water Department. He suggested that time spent responding more comprehensively to the report could be better spent getting the County to be more supportive of the District. He also agreed that the report deadlines were unrealistic and that SLVWD challenges and accomplishments were unacknowledged.
In terms of immediate next steps, President Mahood said she thought a subcommittee would be okay, but she would prefer to have a draft prepared directly by Staff (Rick, Gina, and Carly Blanchard). This would allow Rick and Gina to weigh in on more arcane questions. President Mahood further recommended that, if a subcommittee were to be appointed, it should consist of Director Ackemann and herself, given their roles both on the Board and in SMGWA. She said they would still need Staff assistance, though. Director Ackemann asked if Staff had adequate capacity to take the lead, and Rick said it did. Gina said prior Grand Jury responses had been handled by a subcommittee of two Board members with support from Rick and her.
Director Fultz said his reaction to the Grand Jury report was basically the same as everyone else’s, but he still felt that the report should be treated with respect and that this could be an opportunity for the District to get the message out about what SLVWD is doing and how the City of Santa Cruz Water District protest is delaying things. He also felt that it was very valuable for the Board to be involved in crafting a document with a substantial political component.
Director Smolley said he now favored having Staff prepare the report. He encouraged as minimal a response as appropriate. He didn’t think statements promoting the District would have any impact in this arena, and he cited his expert witness experience in recommending that the District’s response be as brief and as narrowly focused as possible.
Director Smolley moved to have Rick and appropriate Staff prepare a draft response and bring it back to the Board by early July. President Mahood seconded this. Director Ackemann offered a friendly amendment specifying that Staff would consult with President Mahood and Director Ackemann during their preparation. Director Smolley and President Mahood accepted this.
There was no further public comment. The motion passed 5-0.
Unfinished Business
New Staff Position – Construction Inspector
District Engineer Josh Wolff introduced this agenda item. He explained that the District has historically used outside resources for construction management and that this is an expensive practice. An analysis of three current construction projects shows that the District is spending 6.8% of the construction budget on construction management ($326,833 out of $4,814,970). He estimated that having an internal Construction Inspector (at a total maximum annual cost of around $170,000) would save the District on the order of half a million dollars over the next two years.
Director Smolley, Chair of the Engineering and Environmental Committee, reported that the committee provided feedback on an earlier version of this proposal and voted 3-0 (with one abstention) to bring the revised proposal to the Board.
Director Fultz asked whether the funds for this position would come from the capital budget (as would be the case for a consultant) or whether this would be an operating expense. Rick said a majority of the funding would come from the capital budget, but some could potentially come from operating expenses. Director Fultz asked if this would be reflected in the District’s financial reporting. Rick said he would need to check with Finance Manager Kendra Reed. President Mahood said it would be charged as part of the relevant department, but there is a line item where the charge is reassigned to the capital budget or to FEMA reimbursement, so it would lower operating expenses. Director Fultz asked if consultants would still be needed for some tasks, and Rick said there would still be some specific tasks that would require external expertise. Josh said these consultants would be reimbursed at an hourly rate.
Director Fultz asked what would happen if there was no construction underway. Josh said the new hire would provide operational assistance (which would be charged as operating expense). Director Fultz asked what would happen if there were to be very little construction over a period of multiple years (e.g., due to a lack of available funding). Rick said he would recommend terminating the position, and Director Fultz said he was okay with this.
Director Ackemann asked about timing. Rick said the District has money in the bank for a number of projects, but the world is changing daily due to supply chain issues. For example, the District is encountering 6-8 month delays in obtaining pipe for some of its projects. Rick said the District might hold off on hiring if it was anticipating a significant initial delay, but he wanted to start moving in this direction. Some current projects are already contracted out.
Director Fultz said he continued to be concerned about increasing head count, but his concern was somewhat reduced by the fact that most of this expense will be covered by capital rather than operating. Director Ackemann moved to adopt the proposed Salary Schedule and instruct the District Manger to develop and fill a new staff position "Construction Inspector". Director Smolley seconded.
There was no public comment. The motion passed 5-0.
Consent Agenda
No action was taken.
District Reports
Rick Rogers delivered a District Manager’s Report. He said the two consolidations (with Bracken Brae and Forest Springs) are now being actively studied by Sandis Engineering. They are doing pipeline surveying, and Josh Wolff is working with them on a pump station location. The District has received a signed Letter of Intent to Consolidate from Forest Springs and is expecting one from Bracken Brae any day. The District is also working on reenergizing the temporary intertie with Big Basin, and Rick reported that he is in discussions with the State Water Resources Board and with County about funding for an engineering study for Big Basin.
Rick also reported that the District has launched new timecard software to closely track staff time by project. This is a cloud-based program with drop-down menus that Accounting loads. 100% of staff are now using this.
Lastly, Rick announced that Carly Blanchard has been promoted to fill the Project Manager position following a six-month unsuccessful search for other applicants. Carly is reviewing operational costs for all departments, working on the web site, and working on various administrative tasks. She is also working with front office staff on going paperless and implementing records retention. The District will advertise for a new environmental position that will be classified, resulting in an overall net reduction in operating expense.
Director Fultz congratulated Staff for moving forward on the cloud software and paperless office initiatives. He asked whether the grants for the consolidation-related work have any claw-back provisions (in the event that the consolidation falls through). Rick said the funding was secure and was specifically for the engineering work needed to evaluate next steps.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 PM.