SLVWD Board Meeting Summary
December 18, 2025
Prepared by Mark Dolson for FSLVW
NOTE: Provided purely as a public service — NOT the official SLVWD Meeting Minutes.
Highlights:
Brown Act Update for 2026
Election of Board Officers for 2026
Labor Negotiations
Records Retention Schedule
Multiple User Variance Renewals
Habitat Conservation Plan Update
Cross Connection Control Program
Next Board meeting will be at 6:30 PM on January 15, 2026
Preliminaries
All five directors were present, but Director Russ said he was feeling unwell and wanted to avoid infecting others; he therefore switched to attending remotely. He confirmed that nobody over the age of 18 was in the room with him. President Smolley moved to approve this remote attendance, and Director Layng seconded. The motion passed 4-0.
President Smolley reported that the Board took no action on either of the matters discussed in Closed Session.
There were no changes to the agenda.
There was no public comment on non-agendized topics.
Presentations
Brown Act Update for 2026
District Secretary walked the Board through a PowerPoint presentation calling attention to new 2026 state requirements relating to Board meetings and related discussions. The Brown Act was passed in 1953 to maximize transparency and prevent governmental decisions from being made in secret. It applies both to the SLVWD Board of Directors and to the Board’s four permanent committees: Administrative, Budget & Finance, Engineering, and Environmental. Leah’s presentation focused on Senate Bill 707 (SB707), passed this fall, which introduced significant updates to the Brown Act:
Each Board member must receive a copy of the Brown Act
Previously temporary social media restrictions are now permanent
Teleconferencing options have been updated
Public participation and reporting requirements have been updated
Emergency meeting procedures and standard posting requirements have been updated
The Directors briefly discussed some associated details and requested some follow-up clarifications from Legal Counsel Barbara Brenner.
Directors can freely post personal opinions on social media (with a disclaimer indicating that they are not speaking on behalf of the Board), but they cannot comment on or react to posts made by other directors (as this would be interpreted as a private discussion).
There is no longer a limit to how many meetings a director can attend remotely as a reasonable accommodation, and such attendance is treated as in-person attendance. Remote locations no longer need to be accessible to the public.
Aside from the “reasonable accommodation” provision (which is aimed at disabilities), remote participation is only allowed for “just cause” (and only for a maximum of five meetings per year; also, the cause must be noted in the Board meeting minutes). “Just Cause” includes things like illness or medical condition, care responsibilities, and emergencies, but it does not include travel for non-Board-related business (as the legislature considered this to be too big of a loophole, notwithstanding its necessity for certain Board members).
Final action related to salary compensation, or fringe benefits for the General Manager have always been required to be taken in open session of a regular meeting. This requirement now includes Department Heads as well.
Unfinished Business
None.
New Business
Election of Board Officers for 2026
General Manager Jason Lillion introduced this agenda item. He said the Board Policy Manual (BPM) called for the Board President and Vice President for the coming year to be selected at the final Board meeting of the year. He said the new President and Vice President would assume their responsibilities at the next Board meeting, which will be January 15, 2026. He also requested that all Board members email the new President by January 7th to indicate their preferred committee assignments.
Director Fultz objected. He agreed that this was not inconsistent with the BPM, but said it was a deviation from previous Board practice whereby the new President and Vice President assumed their new roles immediately upon selection in December. President Smolley explained that he had learned that the delayed installation was routine at Jason’s previous district, and he argued that this was a more sensible way of operating because it allowed the new President and Vice President to adequately prepare for their new responsibilities. Director Fultz countered that everyone on the Board should be ready to step in and run a meeting right away. He said that any change in the Board’s practice should be clarified via a Board-approved revision of the BPM. He concluded by saying he was very concerned about an individual arbitrarily making this kind of change.
President Smolley said he would like to hear from the other Board members. Director Largay said installing an officer immediately struck him as a bizarre and unique practice. He said this also applied to immediately seating newly appointed members. He said he was entirely comfortable adopting a more rational practice. Director Layng agreed that this was a break with tradition, but she said it made sense, and she saw no issue so long as it didn’t violate the BPM. Director Russ agreed with both of them.
Director Fultz responded that he saw this as an incredibly dangerous practice. He said the Board had now effectively reduced the Board’s operating process to the whim of the President, and he planned to vote against all candidates to protest this way of doing things.
President Smolley nominated Director Russ to be Board President for 2026. Director Largay was comfortable with this. Director Layng expressed surprise. She said Director Russ was fairly green. She felt the Board had some better options with more established Board members who also had the distinction of having been elected rather than appointed. Director Fultz didn’t think longevity on the Board was relevant, and he had no objection to Director Russ. Director Russ said he was willing to serve, though he did feel quite green. He hoped everyone would support him in this position.
There was no public comment. President Smolley moved to nominate Director Russ to be Board President for2026, and Director Largay seconded.
The motion passed with three votes in favor and two abstentions (Directors Layng and Fultz).
President Smolley asked for nominations for Vice President. Director Russ said he would nominate Director Largay if he was willing to serve. Director Largay said his capacity was very limited, and he was therefore not willing to serve. President Smolley clarified that the only real responsibility for the Vice President is to run the meeting in the absence of the President. Director Largay said this sounded easy enough, but he felt the Board already had a good Vice President, and he would be happy to have her continue. He nominated Director Layng.
Director Layng said she was okay with either Director Largay or herself. Director Fultz had no preference. Director Russ said he would be happy to have Director Layng as Vice President.
There was no public comment. Director Russ moved to nominate Director Layng to be Board Vice President for 2026, and President Smolley seconded.
The motion passed 4-0-1 with Director Fultz abstaining.
Labor Negotiations
General Manager Jason Lillion introduced this agenda item. He reminded the Board that, in June 2023, SLVWD and its recognized employee bargaining units executed Addendum No. 1 to the 2017 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This committed the parties to conduct a comprehensive third-party compensation study. The results were delivered to the District on March 3, 2025.
The study evaluated all aspects of employee compensation, including base salaries, callback and on-call pay, longevity pay, retiree medical benefits, and leave accrual schedules. Its findings established benchmark positions and market comparisons that now serve as the District’s guiding framework for compensation alignment. The Board of Directors and the bargaining units agreed to use the study as a template for all future compensation studies., ensuring that the District maintains a transparent, competitive, and fair compensation structure to support employee retention and operational excellence.
In alignment with the study, Addendum No. 2 was negotiated to update salary schedules, establish parameters for annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments, clarify treatment of positions above and below market, and provide for retroactive pay where warranted. This addendum has now been ratified by both the Union and Management bargaining units. The agreement is effective July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2027, contingent upon Board approval.
Director Layng said she had participated in numerous meetings between the District and the bargaining units, and she was glad that the District was poised to come to a conclusion.
Director Fultz had a handful of detailed questions which were answered by Jason. Director Fultz then said he was sorry this had taken so long, but it sounded like they had arrived at a good conclusion.
Director Largay said he primarily wanted to express gratitude for having reached this point in the negotiation, as does the whole community. He said merit pay and bonuses were appealing to him, and maybe these would be addressed next time.
Director Russ said they had spent a lot of time on this, and he was glad to be able to approve it.
President Smolley said he appreciated Staff's patience, and he hoped Staff was satisfied.
There was no public comment. President Smolley moved to approve Addendum No. 2. The motion was seconded, and it passed 5-0.
Records Retention Schedule
General Manager Jason Lillion introduced this agenda item. A revised Records Retention Schedule was presented to the Board at its November 20, 2025 meeting. This upgrade was driven by many factors, including:
SLVWD produces and manages many permanent records
SLVWD needs to reduce duplication of records stored within multiple departments
Technology advancements
Changes in law
State law allows California Special Districts to authorize the routine destruction of records that have exceeded their adopted retention period. The retention periods comply with all applicable laws and are standard business practice for California water districts. The new retention schedule provides specific record descriptions and retention periods and applies current law and technology to the management of the San Lorenzo Valley Water District’s records. By identifying which department is responsible for maintaining the original record and establishing clear retention periods for different categories of records, the District will realize significant savings in labor and storage costs, as well as increased operational efficiency. Destruction will be authorized, following the request of the Department Head and with the written consent of the General Manager and General Counsel.
The Board discussion on November 20th primarily focused on the broader issue of how to optimally archive documents going forward, using available technology to minimize both storage cost and demands on Staff, to ensure document preservation, and to facilitate access via digital search. Director Fultz strongly urged that language be added to the draft policy to indicate that this was not a strict policy but just a guideline to support a purge.
At the meeting this evening, most of the Board members accepted that this document was primarily aimed at enabling a purge of old documents in order to free up storage space, and they expressed general satisfaction with the revised version.
Director Fultz said he appreciated the modifications but was still very concerned by the complexity of the document. He said that using any paper today, except for very small amounts, constituted a failure to follow best practices. He could see a one-time purge, but it wasn’t crystal clear to him that this was the intent, and he added that any scanned document that is purely an image and isn't in OCR format to make it searchable is of low value. He said he understood the purpose of the document and expected the Board to approve it but couldn’t support it himself.
There was no public comment. President Smolley moved to adopt the resolution, and Director Layng seconded. The motion passed 4-0-1 with Director Fultz abstaining.
Multiple User Variance Renewals
Finance Manager Cheri Freese introduced this agenda item. The District’s billing policy includes a provision by which the owner of a parcel that is improved with two or more residential dwelling units may appeal the water meter size requirements on the grounds that: the additional unit or units is/are used or occupied fewer than forty days per year; and such use is limited to personal guests of the occupants of the main unit; and that such additional units are not let, leased or rented. The Board may grant such a variance, with conditions, including time limitations, and may also revoke such variance for good cause. Those who qualify for the exemption are charged the $52.85 monthly basic fee (5/8” meter), while those without a multiple user variance are charged a $79.82 monthly basic service fee (1” meter).
Cheri said the Customer Service Department had completed its annual review of the accounts given a variance from Multiple User Status, as provided in Ordinances 43 and 47. Zero accounts were removed from the variance list because the property changed ownership, the unit was found to be a permanent single-family dwelling both units are occupied, or because the owner failed to send back the necessary compliance form. Staff recommended that the listed accounts be approved for a one-year variance from Multiple User Status.
Director Russ noted that the total annual cost of this program to the District is about $7,000 for around two dozen units. He said his only concern would be if some folks were not being honest. Cheri said there was minimal verification. The District is just trying to be reasonably accommodating. Director Fultz suggested that it might be possible to review usage patterns, especially if electronic meters were installed.
Director Largay asked why this matter was being brought to the Board. Jason said an annual resolution was required. Director Largay suggested maybe just establishing a policy. Director Layng and President Smolley agreed. Director Fultz said he still wanted it to come back to the Board as an informational item so that the Board doesn’t lose visibility.
There was no public comment. President Smolley moved to adopt the resolution and to have Staff develop a policy. Director Layng seconded. The motion passed 5-0.
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Update
Environmental Programs Manager Chris Klier introduced this agenda item. SLVWD is developing a comprehensive Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to manage impacts from its projects (like maintenance, capital improvements, vegetation management) on local endangered species (like steelhead, coho salmon, Mount Hermon June beetle) and sensitive habitats (like Sandhills) in Santa Cruz County, streamlining permits under the Endangered Species Act. This plan, led by consultant Jodi McGraw, aims for a 20–25-year framework, including mitigation, restoration, and management, with a draft expected for USFWS review in 2026, leading to potential permit issuance in 2027.
Chris said the District had held monthly check-ins with Dr. Jodi McGraw since her presentation to the Board in July 2025. According to Chris’s memo, notable results included:
Operational plans were finalized. This had served as a project roadblock for years. The District needed to specify its projects in the sandhills for the next 25-30 years to be able to quantify the impact and mitigation.
·GIS mapping was updated, and an impact radius was determined for each District site.
·The Robson Homes HCP was submitted. (This is in support of a deal via which the developer will pay the District for a required conservation offset for the Valley Gardens project in Scotts Valley.)
Chris said the District will receive an in-progress draft by the end of 2025, and a final draft is expected to be brought for Board review in March 2026.
Directors Layng, Largay, and Russ, and President Smolley, all said they appreciated the update. Director Largay said he expected this to be a powerful tool that will save the District a lot of time and uncertainty in planning work that affects the sandhills. He asked how dependent the schedule was on the availability of Fish & Wildlife. Chris said the responsible officer retired due to all the politically-driven turmoil. There is now a new person, so this remains up in the air.
Director Fultz said he was not nearly so sanguine, and he had a number of concerns. He saw inconsistencies between the previous status report and the current one, and he took issue with the implication that previous District leadership had been deficient. He also expressed concern about the Valley Gardens project with Robson Homes. He said the District was unlikely to complete this by the June 19, 2026 deadline, and he encouraged the District to see if Robson would renegotiate. His concern was that the current contract doesn’t commit them, and they still had the option of turning instead to Zayante to meet their needs.
President Smolley encouraged Staff to reach out to Robson to update them and see what they have to say. Chris said the District met with them a month ago, and they were satisfied with the work Jodi had done on their HCP.
Cross Connection Control Program
Operations Manager Jesse Guiver introduced this agenda item. The Cross-Connection Control Policy (CCCP) in California is mandated by the State Water Resources Control Board’s Division of Drinking Water (SWRCB) to ensure public drinking water systems are protected from contamination caused by backflow from non-potable water sources. The requirements for the policy are contained in the Cross-Connection Control Handbook, which took effect on July 1, 2024
July 1, 2025 was the deadline for submitting Cross-Connection Control Plans for approval from the SWRCB. On July 30, 2025, the District received a six-month extension from the SWRCB to submit a fully compliant CCCP and to ensure that a certified Cross-Connection Control Specialist (CCCS), either in-house or contracted is on staff. The extension, retroactive to July 1, 2025, establishes a compliance deadline of January 1, 2026. At the October 2, 2025 Board of Directors meeting Staff were directed to execute a contract agreement with Knutson Cross-Connection & Backflow Services to develop a compliant CCCP before the January 1, 2026 deadline.
Jesse said Staff will have a five-year window to complete the system-wide hazard assessment. President Smolley said there was a robust discussion about this at the Engineering Committee meeting.
There was a lengthy discussion about possible ways to minimize cost and inconvenience to the District and its customers. Director Fultz was also highly critical of details in the state regulations. Jesse said he was not aware of any backflow incidents in the District’s past. He also said most customers will not have a backflow issue. He said the District’s inspection would involve checking for hazards such as swimming pools and fire sprinklers, and he said the process would prioritize those customers with the greatest risk. Customers who need to add backflow protection will be looking at perhaps $500-1500 for the device itself, and they will also need to find and hire a contractor to perform the work. The state gives the customer only 30 days to complete the remediation, but Jesse said the District would have some discretion with regard to what to do next. He was open to the suggestion that the District might help customers by offering an installment payment plan. In addition, there is an annual inspection requirement for backflow devices. Jesse added that the District currently has 341 backflow devices in its system.
Director Russ observed that surveying 8000 customers in five years would require eight surveys per day. Director Largay urged Staff to see whether a “survey” would require a physical site inspection or could be handled via a questionnaire.
Director Layng asked about possible backflow issues emanating from Bracken Brae or Forest Springs, and Jesse said the one-way interties have backflow prevention.
President Smolley suggested that the requirement for annual certification of installed devices might be handled by the District (because it could charge much less than a licensed contractor). There was some further discussion of possible issues associated with this. Jesse said it currently costs the District about $100-150 to inspect a device.
President Smolley concluded the discussion by saying that Staff will submit its plan to the State this month to meet the deadline.
Quarterly Reports
Engineering
Director Fultz mentioned that, since there was no pending consolidation with Bracken Brae or Forest Spring, he wouldn’t use the word “consolidation” in referring to the associated project. Jason commented that the District had not heard anything lately from Bracken Brae.
Director Fultz wanted to better understand the high cost ($600,000-800,000) associated with the Brookdale Tank recoating. District Engineer Garrett Roffe said coating costs vary with size, required repairs, etc. The Brookdale Tank was successfully isolated for a test run. This tank was built in 1971, and it may need structural repair. It still has its original pine-tar coating. The District hopes a new coat will last 30 years. In general, the District considers replacing tanks when the coating costs are at least 50% of the tank replacement cost.
Director Fultz noted that the Huckleberry Island project involves three separate easements: the bridge (which involves all affected owners), back, and front. This will require three separate documents.
Director Largay was concerned because Garrett’s Gantt Chart timelines didn’t indicate dependencies on regulatory review and permitting. He suggested that Garrett add another row. He also noted that some project timelines showed construction windows extending from January through July, but he questioned whether this was realistic in view of winter weather. Garrett said permits should be secured in the engineering and planning phase. Chris Klier added that the environmental review process starts when the District is 60% of the way to final design.
Director Largay said he was trying to understand how confident the District should be that the construction windows in Garrett’s chart will accommodate related delays. Garrett said the District should be prepared to have a repeating cycle with actual fieldwork in the summer, and with submittal and procurement in the spring. He said the contractor would get extensions for rain delays. He added that construction is a very dynamic and collaborative process with lots of different potential delays. He said there were weekly meetings to surface and address issues.
Director Largay repeated that he was trying to understand what confidence Garrett had in the schedule he was showing. Garrett said his intent was to meet the schedule shown. He estimated his confidence level as 75%.
Director Russ shared Director Largay’s concern about being clearer about how contingencies were being built into the schedule. He also asked for a clearer picture of cumulative tank recoating costs. Garrett said the District had 49 tanks, a mix of poly, concrete, wood, and steel (bolted or welded). After the current three tanks, he said there was one more wooden tank and a total of 30 tanks that need recoating. President Smolley asked Jason to share the relevant table with the Directors.
Due to the lateness of the hour, President Smolley suggested that any discussion of the remaining reports be deferred to the Board’s next meeting. Everyone agreed.
Consent Agenda
There were five items on the Consent Agenda:
a. Bracken Brae / Forest Springs Change Order
b. Pumphouse Hardening Grant Award
c. 2026 Grant Projects Certified Payroll Award
d. Board of Directors Meeting Minutes for 12.1.25 (Special Workshop)
e. Board of Directors Meeting Minutes for 12.4.25
Director Fultz indicated that he wanted to pull items (a) and (b). Items (c), (d), and (e) were approved without objection. Item (b) was deferred to the next Board meeting.
District Engineer Garrett Roffe said item (a) needed to be approved so that payment could be submitted this month. Director Fultz asked for more detail regarding the “Unforeseen Conditions” and “additional” customers in the Change Order. Garrett provided further clarification: there were some shallow service lines that were inadvertently cut, and there was an error in the engineering plan. Director Fultz moved to approve the Change Order for $52,069, and President Smolley seconded. The motion passed 5-0.
District Reports
Finance
Director Fultz said he would ask his questions at the next meeting.
Written Communications
There were no written communications.
Board Comment
None.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 PM.