SLVWD Board Meeting Summary

October 2, 2025

Prepared by Mark Dolson for FSLVW

NOTE: Provided purely as a public service — NOT the official SLVWD Meeting Minutes.

Highlights:

  • Bear Creek Estates Wastewater Onsite Consultant

  • Cross-Connection Control Program Consultant

  • Glyphosate Ban Resolution

  • Urban Water Management Plan

  • Environmental Vehicle Purchase

  • Next Board meeting will be at 6:30 PM on October 16, 2025

 

Preliminaries

Director Layng did not attend due to an excused absence.

There were no reportable actions taken in the just-concluded Closed Session.

General Manager Jason Lillion announced one change to the agenda.  He said that Item 10f “Labor Negotiations” was being withdrawn from this evening’s agenda due to a very recent development in which the offer that was on the table did not receive a sufficient number of staff votes for approval.

There was no public comment on non-agendized topics.

 

Unfinished Business

None.

 

New Business

Bear Creek Estates Wastewater Onsite Consultant

Operations Manager Jesse Guiver introduced this agenda item.   The District’s Bear Creek Estates Wastewater Facility serves 56 homes and has been out of compliance (on a monthly basis) with the California Regional Water Control Board nitrogen standard for a number of years.  The District is currently in the range of 60-70 milligrams per liter, and the standard is 10 milligrams per liter.  The District was ordered many years ago to reduce its level by 50%, but it has been unable to achieve this.

An outside engineering firm conducted an assessment prior to 2020 and suggested that the District should either invest in a new system or implement some modifications to the existing system.  The new system was prohibitively expensive (over a million dollars, meaning more than $20,000 per home), so the District opted to implement the recommended modifications (adding a blower and increasing its size).  Unfortunately, these proved ineffectual.

Recently, Staff has determined that Essential Solutions may be able to offer more effective assistance based on a combination of a more comprehensive assessment and an integrated Staff training plan.  Staff described Essential Operations as the sole provider qualified to perform this work based on: (a) their specialized expertise with Orenco-modified trickling filter systems, and (b) the limited availability of other qualified wastewater consultants in the region.  The proposed service agreement is for one year with an option for one additional year at a total cost not to exceed $85,000 (based on $50,000 for the first year, $27,000 for the second year, and a possible $7700 for increased sampling).  This expense was not explicitly budgeted for, so working capital in the District’s Wastewater fund will be lowered from $264,513 to $179,513 if this contract is executed.

There is a long-term plan to establish a sewer system in Boulder Creek, but there has been little movement on this to date, and it isn’t clear whether Bear Creek Estates will be included in this.  Meanwhile, it has been multiple years since the District has had any contact with the Water Control Board about this.

The Directors had over thirty minutes of questions about this proposal.  Director Largay characterized the current nitrogen level as “pretty gross” and high enough to promote algal growth.  He worried that the system might never be able to achieve the 10 milligram per liter standard that the District may eventually be required to meet.  Further discussion between Jesse and Director Largay established that the nitrogen in question was nitrate (not ammonia or nitrite) and that the inflow was on the order of 35,000 gallons per day in winter (vs. 6000 in summer), primarily due to rainwater intrusion.  The effluent is discharged into a series of leach fields above Bear Creek.  The concern is leakage and leach field failure.  Director Largay suggested that a wood chip bioreactor, which is essentially a pond, could be worth a closer look.  However, he said that the prospect of winter flows that are five times greater than summer flows would be extraordinarily problematic for any system.

Director Fultz complained that a cheaper high-tech solution was available (and popular in Europe) but was prohibited by the County.  Director Largay commented that the County appeared to have a bad taste in its mouth with regard to packaged wastewater treatment solutions, based on its experience with Bear Creek Estates.  There was also a lack of clarity regarding the overlapping regulatory roles of the Water Control Board and the County.  In addition, Director Fultz urged Staff to reach out to Bear Creek Estates residents and to keep them in the loop.  He noted that these residents came together in 2024 to veto the District’s proposed increase in their rates.

President Smolley said he understood that Staff wanted to improve their knowledge and capabilities and ensure that the plant is operating as originally intended.  He agreed that the current maintenance plan may be insufficient, that the District does not have a wastewater operator on staff, and that it may be worthwhile for Essential Solutions to provide both recommendations and staff training.  However, he wanted the proposal to make it clearer how Essential Solutions would efficiently focus its efforts on assessment and staff training.

There was one public comment.  Stacey Wilbur of Bear Creek Estates said he was upset that the residents were not informed about this meeting and had not received any District updates in recent years.   He said the state has an exemption for sewer systems of this size, and his understanding was that it is the County that is pushing for a solution.  He estimated that the District had invested half a million dollars since 2003 in solutions that didn’t work.

President Smolley thanked Stacey and asked him to connect directly with Jason.  He asked Staff to bring this proposal back to the Board with the contractor present to answer questions.  He also requested greater clarity as to how the contractor would work with the District and as to which regulatory authorities the District needs to answer to.

Cross-Connection Control Program Consultant

Operations Manager Jesse Guiver introduced this agenda item.   The State recently introduced a new requirement for all water districts aimed at reducing the risk of non-potable substances flowing into the water supply through backflow.  A specialist is now needed to conduct hazard assessments, ensure proper installation and maintenance of backflow prevention devices, and maintain comprehensive records.

On July 30, 2025, the District received a six-month extension from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to submit a fully compliant Cross-Connection Control Program (CCCP) and to ensure that a certified Cross-Connection Control Specialist (CCCS), either in-house or contracted, is on staff. The new compliance deadline is January 1, 2026.

At present, the District does not have a certified CCCS on staff.  The District’s Construction Inspector, hired on July 1, 2025, is required to obtain CCCS certification within 18 months of hire. However, it is not feasible for the Inspector to complete certification and develop a compliant CCCP before the January 1, 2026 deadline. Accordingly, contracting with an outside specialist is necessary to ensure timely compliance.

Staff solicited four proposals from qualified contractors. Following review, Staff determined that the proposal submitted by Knutson Cross-Connection & Backflow Services offered by far the most cost-effective and advantageous option.  The estimated cost of Knutson’s services is $19,500, based on the assumption that the District’s Construction Inspector will achieve certification by July 1, 2026, at which time Knutson’s services would no longer be required. If certification is achieved prior to July 1, 2026, the District would realize cost savings of approximately $1,500 per month.  In addition to providing local expertise and services tailored to the District’s needs, Knutson will also deliver on-site training to District staff, supporting long-term program sustainability.

There was minimal discussion of this item.  Director Fultz wondered whether this new state requirement was really justified, and Jason said there was considerable variation across water districts in how attentive they are to the risk of backflow.  Jesse said the District would need to assess all customer connections.  President Smolley asked if anyone other than the Construction Inspector would be able to fill this role, and Jason said the District would need to develop a backup plan.  President Smolley appreciated Knutson’s plan to help the District eventually assume full responsibility, and he was satisfied with the Staff’s preparation.

There was no public comment.  President Smolley moved to have the General Manager execute the contract with Knutson, and Director Fultz seconded this.  The motion passed 4-0.

Glyphosate Ban Resolution

General Manager Jason Lillion introduced this agenda item.  He explained that Staff had recently discovered an oversight dating back to January of 2019 when the Board voted to ban the use of glyphosate products on District.  This ban has been enforced ever since, but – due to an administrative error – there was never a signed resolution.  Staff proposed to remedy this error by bringing the resolution back to the Board for formal adoption.

It wasn’t at all clear to Board members that this was a situation that required their attention because there was no need for the ban to take the form of a formal resolution.  Director Largay noted that the District’s Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP) is the relevant governing document, and it clearly bans a broader range of chemical solutions, of which glyphosate is just one.  Environmental Programs Manager Chris Klier agreed; he said the oversight could be fixed by revising the wording in the IPMP to replace the reference to “resolution” with “Board action.”  Jason said the ban would remain in place even if the State were to remove glyphosate from the Proposition 65 carcinogen list referenced in the IPMP.

There was one public comment.  Former Board member Rick Moran of Ben Lomond (who was instrumental in enacting the ban) read an impassioned statement urging that the ban be kept in place.

President Smolley concluded that no Board action was needed.

Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)

General Manager Jason Lillion introduced this agenda item.  California’s Urban Water Management Planning Act requires each urban water supplier to update its UWMP at least once every five years and to submit it to the Department of Water Resources (DWR).  SLVWD is classified by the State as an urban water district.   Eligibility for certain state funding programs (e.g., DWR grants) typically assumes a current, compliant UWMP.

 In 2020, SLVWD partnered with Scotts Valley Water District (SVWD) to prepare a UWMP for each agency.  That collaborative effort leveraged shared technical resources, aligned key assumptions (e.g., demand projections and groundwater context), reduced costs, and streamlined public engagement.

SLVWD’s 2025 UWMP is due to DWR no later than July 1, 2026, and SVWD has proposed that the two districts repeat their joint approach.  Anticipated benefits include:

  • Cost efficiency via shared consultant procurement and overlapping technical tasks (e.g., climate/drought narrative, conservation framework)

  • Consistency in regional assumptions and messaging to customers and stakeholders.

  • Schedule advantages by coordinating milestones (public draft, hearing, and adoption) ahead of the July 1, 2026 deadline.

Proposed next steps would be to coordinate with SVWD staff to draft a joint scope of work and procurement approach, bring back to the Board a professional services agreement (and any cost-sharing MOU if needed) for approval, and establish a project schedule with key milestones (public review draft, hearing, adoption) targeting spring 2026 adoption to ensure on-time DWR submittal.

Partnering is expected to reduce total SLVWD consultant costs compared to a standalone effort due to shared tasks and economies of scale.  Precise budget needs will be presented with the forthcoming contract recommendation.

Director Fultz was unhappy with the District’s 2020 partnership with Scotts Valley.  He said the District only partnered with SVWD because it was trying to support the work being done by the Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency (SMGWA, which encompasses both districts) to develop a unified Groundwater Sustainability Plan.  He didn’t feel that SLVWD was well served by this partnership either in terms of the pricing of the UWMP or the opportunity to provide water to Scotts Valley.  He thought SVWD might again steer the contract to an over-priced vendor.  Since SLVWD doesn’t have non-emergency connections to other water districts, and since Director Fultz viewed the UWMP as an empty check-box exercise, he recommended that the District at least solicit its own bid for purposes of pricing comparison.

Jason said there were good reasons for not choosing the lower of the two bids in 2020.  Jason said he hoped to get more than two bids this time, and he added that he didn’t think sharing water with Scotts Valley was off the table.  Director Largay described partnering with SVWD as a total no-brainer.  He said there were Staff economies of scale, and he knew SVWD to have a high degree of cost consciousness.

Jason asked if the Board wanted SLVWD to be the lead agency, and President Smolley said SLVWD was more than twice the size of SVWD.

There was no public comment.  President Smolley moved to authorize the General Manager to coordinate with SVWD on joint preparation of the 2025 UWMP and to return the agreement to the Board for consideration.  Director Russ seconded.  The motion passed 3-1 with Director Fultz opposed.

 

Environmental Vehicle Purchase

Environmental Programs Manager Chris Klier introduced this agenda item.  He reminded the Board of its discussion at a previous Board meeting at which the Directors requested that the District solicit a wider range of bids for the budgeted Environmental Department vehicle, classified as a 4WD SUV.  The District invited bids from a wider range of dealerships on August 26, 2025, with a submission deadline of September 19, 2025.  These dealerships included Salinas Chevrolet, Downtown Ford of Sacramento, Livermore Ford, and Elk Grove Chevrolet.  Salinas Valley Ford and Watsonville Ford submitted quotes for a pickup truck and an SUV; Downtown Ford of Sacramento submitted a quote for a pickup truck.  Staff recommend purchasing the 2025 Ford Maverick for $31,068.60 from Salinas Valley Ford (because either an SUV or a truck is acceptable). This is within the budgeted $33,000.

The Directors were satisfied with this recommendation.    They suggested that the District explore the possibility of picking up the vehicle directly and getting the dealer to waive the delivery fee.

There was no public comment.  President Smolley moved to approve the purchase, and Director Fultz seconded.  The motion passed 4-0.

 

Consent Agenda

There was one item on the Consent Agenda:

a.     Board Meeting Minutes from 9.18.25

The minutes were adopted without Board comment.

 

District Reports

Endowment Fund Update.  Jason reported that the District had received the $55,307 that the Board had previously directed it to seek the return of from the Community Fund.


Written Communications

There were two written communications, both urging the District not to serve the proposed Haven Development on Graham Hill Road.  The Board has yet to consider this matter.

 

Board Comment

None.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 PM.