SLVWD Board Meeting Summary
October 16, 2025
Prepared by Mark Dolson for FSLVW
NOTE: Provided purely as a public service — NOT the official SLVWD Meeting Minutes.
Highlights:
Highland Tank Construction Contract Award
Watershed Education Grant Program
Next Board meeting will be at 6:30 PM on November 7, 2025
Preliminaries
All five Directors were present.
President Smolley announced that the Board took one reportable action in the just-concluded Closed Session. The Directors voted unanimously to direct the General Manager to pay $1060 to Franklin Roest to settle a claim against the District for property damage.
There were no changes to the agenda.
There was no public comment on non-agendized topics.
Unfinished Business
None.
New Business
Highland Tank Construction Contract Award
District Engineer Garrett Roffe introduced this agenda item. In 2023, the District was awarded a $4.5 million Department of Water Resources (DWR) grant and required to provide a cost-share of $1.5 million to replace redwood tanks that are currently leaking and undersized with new 120,000-gallon bolted steel tanks. Design and construction of the Blue Ridge Tank is complete. The engineering design of the remaining five tanks was awarded to Mesiti- Miller Engineering in the summer of 2024. The construction bid plans for the Redwood Park Tank and Echo Tank are scheduled for completion in November 2025.
The Highland Tank Replacement project is the second of the five. It includes a new 120,000-gallon bolted steel water tank at an existing tank site along Highland Drive in Boulder Creek, associated yard piping, drainage improvements, fencing, paving, and a soldier beam debris wall. The District received five bids. The lowest by far was from Corcus Construction ($1,033,099). The next lowest bid was from Anderson Pacific for $1,456,615. The high bid was for $2,325,905.
Garrett reported that Corcus was also by far the lowest bidder for the temporary pipeline on the CA 9 bridge project north of Boulder Creek, and they completed the project on time and on budget. Staff had a very positive experience with them. Staff also received a positive review of the work that Corcus performed on a tank project in Martinez. Garrett noted that the tank itself will be erected by the manufacturer. He recommended that the Board approve the contract with Corcus and that it also preauthorize the General Manager to approve change orders up to a 10% limit.
Director Fultz said this sounded encouraging. He noted that he lives directly across from the tank, but Counsel has assured him that there is no conflict of interest here. He asked if the project would also include moving the gate further up the road so that it is not an obstruction. Garrett said the gate will be moved back a significant distance. Director Fultz concluded by saying he had mixed feelings about pre-authorizing the change orders. He said some previous change orders had involved substantive Board discussions.
Director Russ asked some questions aimed at better understanding the wide range of bids and various details of the project execution. Garrett said the high bidder did not attend the pre-bid meeting whereas the two lowest bidders did. He added that, sometimes, construction companies aren't very hungry, so they submit a very high bid. With regard to the payment process, he said the District receives invoices for work performed by the contractor, the District issues the money, and the District then seeks reimbursement from the State. It takes on average 60-90 days to receive reimbursement. For this project, the District issued an addendum to allow 300 calendar days so that the paperwork can be completed in advance during the rainy season. Garrett said he wanted to get a notice to proceed out in January.
Director Layng said she appreciated the due diligence. She asked why the District didn’t just contract directly with Superior Tank. Garrett said Staff was excited to do this for future projects.
Director Largay said he found the Staff presentation complete and compelling. He said he was comfortable preauthorizing the change orders because he viewed 10% as not unreasonable.
President Smolley said he appreciated the additional information that Garrett provided during the meeting. He thought the change in timing was smart. President Smolley said he was comfortable with Garrett’s vetting of Corcus; he said the company hasn’t been in business long, but their individual staff member experience is substantial. He added that the District has had very good experience with Superior Tank.
There was no public comment.
Director Fultz asked if DWR would reimburse change orders, and Garrett said it would.
President Smoley moved to execute the Notice of Award for the Highland Tank Replacement to Corcus Construction, Inc. for the bid price in an amount not to exceed $1,033,099 and to authorize the General Manager to execute change orders not to exceed $100,000.
Director Layng seconded. The motion passed 5-0.
Watershed Education Grant Program
Environmental Programs Manager Chris Klier introduced this agenda item. Staff is recommending that the District re-establish its Watershed Education Grant Program which was suspended by the Board in 2019. The District’s Watershed Education Program began in 2004 with a goal to “provide funding for educational and other projects that enhance the understanding of the San Lorenzo River watershed or improve the watershed’s ecosystem health.” The District budgeted between $15,000- $17,500 to support classroom watershed education for students, outdoor watershed education, science camps and community/public education. (A similar amount was also budgeted for research projects, but these were not regularly funded.)
The updated Watershed Education Grant Program proposal is the result of ongoing collaboration between the Administration Committee and Staff. In addition to minor changes to language and administrative procedures, major changes have been made to revitalize the grant program. These include:
New Mission Statement: “The Watershed Education Program supports SLVWD’s commitment to creating and maintaining outstanding community relations by providing funding for educational and other projects that engage local community members in enhancing their understanding of the San Lorenzo River watershed and/or improving the watershed's environmental health.”
Removal of the Research Grant (Data Collection and Restoration Grant), leaving the Education Grant as the only option
Funding Level Change – The current funding level is $2,500 per year for this two-year budget.
This item was brought to the Administration Committee on May 20, June 17, and September 16, 2025. Discussion centered on the process/procedure for running the program in the future. Documents associated with the program were updated and reviewed by Staff and the Administration Committee. The Environmental Department will administer the grant program and provide reporting to the Environmental Committee and Board.
Director Layng, Chair of the Administration Committee, provided some additional perspective. She said the Committee worked hard to revamp this, getting excellent public feedback. The SLVWD mission statement implies that the District should invest in the next generation of watershed stewards, given what a fragile and vital system this is. This program is aimed at planting a seed for long-term stewardship. Director Layng said the $2500 has already been approved in the budget. In the future, it may be possible to redirect some of the District’s outreach budget from Miller-Maxfield to this program. This will help to build more meaningful community partnerships. She further noted that this kind of program is standard for a lot of water districts. Lastly, she said the review plan remains TBD – the memo in the Board packet assigns this responsibility to the Environmental Committee, but it could be the Administration Committee instead.
Director Russ asked how many grants per year were envisioned. Chris said he expected to fund only one or two. He said he saw this as a pilot to ensure that the program makes sense.
Director Fultz, who was the Director primarily responsible for suspending the program in 2019, was highly critical of this proposal to revive it. He called it a “vampire program” and said, in the years since its inception, it had morphed into “quite the boondoggle.” He added that this is what tends to happen when giving away public money. He claimed that the money spent over the life of this program could have been used instead to recoat a storage tank. He said he saw this proposal as a shell game designed to get the Board to accept the principle that a public agency should be giving money away to groups such as the Banana Slugs String Band. In addition, he raised concerns about staff time and about a 2003 District document that he discovered called “Ordinance 100” that specified operating details for the currently suspended program. He suggested that this was an enormous problem for the proposal and that he wasn’t sure how to address this. Director Fultz further claimed that community feeling about the suspended program was very negative and that only “insiders” objected to its suspension. He argued that neither Scotts Valley nor Santa Cruz has such a program, and that this issue was already resolved in 2019. His closing comment was that this wouldn’t help the District to get its infrastructure back in place.
President Smolley said the District’s mission statement also commits it to delivering water at an equitable price. He said the District raised rates in March, and now he was being asked to approve giving some of this money away as a donation. He said he had difficulty with this. He expected there to be pressure to expand the program over time, and he was concerned about staff time as well. He concluded by saying he was very conflicted, but he didn’t think he could support this.
Director Largay had a very different perspective. He said he saw the proposal as well-structured, well thought-out, and entirely reasonable. He said the District has surface water as a primary resource. The principle of watershed management is that protecting the water source from pollution is vastly more efficient than having to subsequently clean it up. He cited his experience hiking in Fall Creek and the success of education efforts to deter people from polluting it with things like abandoned vehicles. He said the Banana Slugs String Band attracted 500 kids at a school performance. He described the proposed program as a great opportunity to educate the populace to protect the valley’s water, and a drumbeat of messaging around environmental stewardship as a best practice for good watershed management. Consequently, he said this program should be understood not as a give-away, but as an investment in community education. He said he would encourage that the request for proposals to be structured to strategically build community partnerships and to leverage volunteer participation. He saw this as actually saving the District money over time. Lastly, he said he was sensitive to staff time, and he saw this as another reason to tightly restrict the scope of proposals so as to limit the number of submissions.
There were six public comments. Cheryl Adams of Boulder Creek, a member of the Administration Committee, said she was invested in getting this program rolling. She said protecting environmental health of the aquifer is the key, and thought this would be positive in terms of outreach. She said she had gone through an outdoor education program that was a real eye-opener for her, and she thought it was particularly important to think about the next generation. She said the program was not “giving money away” – it was providing education consistent with the SLVWD mission, and measurable outcomes were included as a requirement. Lastly, she said the Administration Committee was still available to offload staff.
Shelley Cantin, also a member of the Administration Committee, said she had watched her grandchildren learn from Science Camp, and we needed to plan for succession. She also felt the District needed to tap into other modalities to engage the community as part of its outreach.
Jim Mosher of Felton said he was speaking for the citizens’ group Friends of San Lorenzo Valley Water, whose mission includes promoting public awareness and understanding. He agreed that infrastructure upgrades are a very high priority, but he said this program brought attention to the importance of watershed health, encouraged collaboration, and highlighted the role of the District. It facilitated both public relations and community engagement. Lastly, he said it was disingenuous for Director Fultz to say the program was not popular when it was thrown out. The room was filled with people who wanted the program to continue, and these people were not “insiders.”
Lee Summers of Boulder Creek said she was one of five volunteers who served on the special committee that administered the now-suspended program. She said this was a great opportunity for the District to look at the grants not as a donation but as an investment. She added that voters voting against Measure U showed an understanding of the District’s needs, and that this understanding needs to be maintained by ongoing open communications. She emphasized the importance of engaging with people via diverse modalities including hikes and music.
Linda Skeff added to the points made by the two preceding speakers. She said she, too, served on the special committee administering the grants, and the program’s contributions boosted awareness of the District’s role and helped both students and community to see the District as a trusted partner. She added that the SLV is a unique watershed, and she encouraged an increase in the program’s budget.
Bruce Holloway of Boulder Creek shared a number of diverse reflections. He suggested that the program not use the word “grant” so as to avoid the association with “giving money away.” He also questioned the use of the term “watershed” because this could be viewed as extending well beyond the boundaries of SLVWD and siphoning funding away to other locales. He also suggested that the District could simply give $2500 to the Valley Women’s Club to bolster their own educational grant program. In addition, he reiterated his objection to the current rate structure which classifies the school district as “industrial” rather than “commercial.” He observed that classifying the school district as commercial could effectively transfer $17,000 from SLVWD to the school district.
Director Layng said she was picturing maybe three grants of $1000, $1000, and $500 as an initial test. She said the Administration Committee simply updated the existing paperwork. She also said the committee discussed keeping the distribution of funds entirely within the District. Lastly, she said there were plenty of other local water districts that do this, including Soquel Creek.
Director Largay said this was a far more efficient investment of $2500 than spending it on a PR firm. He urged the District to further explore an emphasis on infrastructure within the program. He said denying this program would diminish the image of the District in the community.
Director Russ said the discussion had expanded his awareness. He said he certainly wanted to minimize staff time and maximize use of committees and volunteers. He also appreciated the proverbial camel’s nose concern (whereby the program might grow and grow in the years to come). However, he said the District just needed to assess this annually with measurable metrics. He said he did see this as an investment, and he was currently in support of it.
This elicited a visible reaction from Director Fultz, and he responded aggressively, offering a number of arguments for opposing the proposal. He first argued that the Board could not move forward on this without addressing Ordinance 100. He then argued that of course the people who got the money supported the program. He noted that one of the past coordinators was Hilde Largay, and he wondered what her connection was to Director Largay [Hilde Largay is the wife of Director Largay and was involved as a science teacher]. He said there was an “insider” crowd that supports this and wants the same funding year after year. Director Fultz’s next objection was that $2500 was insufficient to accomplish the goal of educating the community. He followed this by arguing that there should be clearer metrics prior to the program’s approval. He closed by claiming that there was a huge amount of community support for terminating this program, and he said this was a very bad road that the Board was going down.
As Director Fultz continued to insist that the Board needed to address Ordinance 100, Director Largay said the only action associated with Ordinance 100 was establishment of a committee, and he proposed that the Administration Committee could fulfill this role. Legal Counsel Barbara Brenner was asked to comment, but she said she no knowledge of the ordinance. Chris Klier suggested that the revived program could alternatively be considered a new program, in which case Ordinance 100 would not apply. Director Largay said he was comfortable with the District cleaning up derelict ordinances as a separate matter.
Director Fultz said this was a “feel-good” thing that hadn’t been thought through, and he warned that this would get out into the media and generate a negative public response.
Director Layng moved to reestablish the program, and Director Largay seconded. The motion passed 3-2 with President Smolley and Director Fultz opposed.
Consent Agenda
There was one item on the Consent Agenda:
a. Board Meeting Minutes from 10.2.25
President Smolley said he had been informed that he needed a formal Board vote to approve these. He moved to approve the minutes from the Board’s October 2nd meeting, and Director Largay seconded this.
There was one public comment. Bruce Holloway of Boulder Creek reiterated his concern about following the proper process.
The motion passed 5-0.
District Reports
Finance Status Report for August 2025. Director Fultz had two comments. First, he cautioned that funds reported as “obligated” to the District by FEMA might never be received. Second, he asked whether $20,000 in a restricted cash account for the Lompico Assessment District could be applied to partially fulfilling a District commitment to replace service lines. The funds originally allocated for this purpose proved insufficient in the wake of delays and escalating costs. The lines were known to incorporate defective material, so it is still in the District’s interest to replace these before they fail. Jason said he would look into this, and Director Smolley suggested that he specifically check for any relevant data relating to past line failures.
Written Communications
There was one written communication. A local resident wrote to commend the District’s work replacing a major water line on Valley View Road in Ben Lomond.
Board Comment
None.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 PM.