SLVWD Board Meeting Summary
April 2, 2026
Prepared by Mark Dolson for FSLVW
NOTE: Provided purely as a public service — NOT the official SLVWD Meeting Minutes.
Highlights:
Felton Heights Amended and Restated Contract with DDA
Watershed Education Grant
Review Legal RFP
Next Board meeting will be at 6:30 PM on April 16, 2026
Preliminaries
All five directors were present, with Director Layng attending remotely.
President Russ said the Board took no reportable actions in the just-concluded Closed Session.
There were no changes to the agenda.
There were no public comments on non-agendized topics.
Unfinished Business
None.
New Business
Felton Heights Amended and Restated Contract with DDA
Environmental Programs Manager Chris Klier introduced this agenda item. The District is working towards replacing the undersized and aging 10,000-gallon redwood tank located on Valhalla Way in Felton with a 120,000-gallon bolted steel tank at the end of Lost Acre Drive, to improve water supply storage and fire flow requirements for the Felton Heights community. The Felton Heights Tank Replacement project has been in development since the District consolidated the Felton Heights Water System’s operations and maintenance in 2013, after purchasing the water system in 2008 from Cal-Am. Over this time, the proposed tank site has changed twice, however, the final tank site was selected at end of 2022.
Currently, the District is in the process of purchasing land for the proposed project at the end of Lost Acre Drive. In 2022, staff began working on the environmental permitting process prior to the final site change. A request for proposals was announced on September 28, 2022, to select an environmental consultant to determine the permitting needs for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis and corresponding studies and coordination.
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. (DD&A) was selected as the best candidate, and a contract was executed on November 1, 2022 in the amount of $53,533. This contract did not include two optional tasks (wetland delineation and resource agency outreach and coordination for permit acquisition) that were included in their proposal and could be needed after initial investigation. However, DD&A’s agreement has expired due to the delays. DD&A has not completed any work for the project.
Staff recommended entering an amended and restated contract with DD&A. DD&A’s revised proposal had increased costs given the elapsed years. The new cost without the two optional tasks was $65,734, an increase of about 22%. The District removed a $663 completed Geotech task from the revised contract. Staff recommended including the two optional tasks in the amended and restated contract, bringing the total costs to the District to $81,658.
The Board had a number of questions and suggestions. Director Smolley asked why there was any concern about wetlands in this particular location. Chris said it was standard practice to check for any wetland presence and to optionally delineate where any such wetland exists. He saw only a relatively small chance of a wetland, and he suggested that this item could be removed from the contract provided that the General Manager was then authorized to execute a contract change if necessary.
Director Smolley asked why the task of agency outreach and permit acquisition couldn’t be more effectively handled in-house. Chris said he didn’t have direct experience with these permits, and the consultant’s background might enable them to facilitate this. Director Smolley said his own experience obtaining permits such as this was that he could use the consultant as needed for a few hours here and there. In general, if the agency asks for something, the owner can often provide a better response. Also, getting this experience would be valuable for Chris and would keep the District on a phone-call basis with the agency. He cited the District’s experience bringing its FEMA interaction in-house.
Director Layng said she was comfortable with the Environmental Committee review.
Director Fultz said the dollar figure was sufficiently high that he thought the contract needed to be rebid. He also agreed with having Staff do more of the work and take management control.
Director Largay said he too was comfortable with the Environmental Committee review. He described this as a priority project worth keeping on track. He said the scope was reasonable, and the cost was unsurprising. He did agree, though, that if Chris has the bandwidth, it would be beneficial for him to be more involved. Director Largay said he would rather invest Staff's time in this way than in the considerable effort and delay of rebidding. He also didn’t know the impact of creating an additional three-month delay. Given the District’s backlog of work, his inclination was to prioritize progress.
Director Largay slightly revised his position when he learned that the District does not yet own the land in question. He said, if this is not urgent, and if the District has the capacity to rebid, he would be open to this, but he wasn’t sure it would be worth the effort. He said he was comfortable moving forward today, but also okay with waiting if it is justified by other concerns.
District Counsel Gage Machini said he had reviewed the revised agreement from Jason and recommended adding a provision stating that this contract supersedes and replaces the previous one. With regard to wetlands, he said the added step of delineation is strictly as-needed. He said a lot can be done via the existing GIS databases. Lastly, he said the lot purchase agreement was ready to go. The big question is what the County will require the District to do with regard to compliance for the lot split. He said he didn’t know how long this would take.
Director Layng said the cost increase seemed pretty reasonable to her, given the lapse. She didn’t think a rebid would accomplish much, and it might off-putting to other companies. She said she would rather uphold the original agreement.
Director Smolley said he didn’t see any time crunch for this work. The District doesn’t yet own the property, and the County may introduce an impediment re: the lot size change. Should we be doing the environmental assessment prior to acquiring the property? He didn’t see this as urgent. From a cost perspective, an increase of 25% over three years (when the Geotech is accounted for) suggests that Staff should inquire (on behalf of the Board) why they have increased so much.
Director Fultz said he understood that there might be some concern about the District’s reputation if it rebids this, but he thought it had every right to do so. He said he wasn’t yet ready to sign off.
President Russ had some detailed questions which were satisfactorily answered. Chris said the work would extend somewhat beyond the 0.7 acres because there were related considerations such as the access road and possible noise issues. President Russ also asked why Staff decided against going out to bid. Chris said he wanted to give DD&A first shot in view of the prior contract because of the District’s project delays.
Legal Counsel Gage Machini commented that Governor Newsome had streamlined some CEQA requirements but mostly for housing. Proposed modifications for water districts ended up not getting passed.
There was no public comment.
President Russ said it sounded like the Board was split. He asked if anyone wanted to make a motion. Director Largay asked Jason if it was important to move promptly, and Jason said he didn’t know how long it would take to do the property split. Director Smolley said he was only proposing a one-month delay. Director Largay said all this stuff is expensive. The Board meeting this evening is costing the District $1000 or $1500 an hour. He said there were also opportunity costs to consider. Therefore, he would not delay for a month.
President Russ said the District wouldn’t do any work until it owns the property, and this might take a year. Director Largay asked if there were any similar upcoming projects that might lend themselves to bundling. Chris said this one was somewhat unusual.
Directors Fultz and Smolley suggested that Staff should be actively considering all the questions raised by the Board. President Russ said CEQA stuff only gets more expensive as time goes by. On the other hand, if the District can’t do anything for a year, it could wait and see if there was an opportunity to bundle the work. Director Layng agreed about costs going up over time and suggested making this a three-year contract to lock in the pricing. She also worried about the Board repeatedly sending things back to Staff. She was in favor of moving forward, and she made a motion to do so. However, nobody seconded it.
President Russ said this matter was being referred back to Staff.
Watershed Education Grant
Environmental Programs Manager Chris Klier introduced this agenda item. The District’s Watershed Education Grant Program was re-established following approval at the October 16, 2025, Board of Directors meeting. On November 7, 2025, staff announced the Notice of Funding Availability with a deadline of December 19, 2025; the deadline was later extended to January 23, 2026. The Notice was announced on the District’s website, social media, and emailed to local schools, libraries, and museums. Two applications were received and were evaluated by the Administration Committee. Each committee member evaluated the proposals independently using the grant proposal review form and selected funding levels on a grant proposal selection form. These forms were returned to Staff to compile and bring to the following Administration Committee meeting on March 16, 2026. Based on their review and discussion on March 16, 2026, the Administration Committee recommends the Board of Directors award the Watershed Education Grant in the amount of $2,500 to the Boulder Creek Elementary (BCE) Stormwater Runoff Education and Prevention project.
Chris noted that the other application was written entirely by a student at SLV High School, and he saw this as an impressive accomplishment.
Director Fultz said he was the wrong guy to seek an opinion from. His view was that this program is not central to the District’s responsibilities. He asked how much Staff time had been consumed by this, and Chris estimated ten to fifteen hours. Director Fultz said this would only increase, and demands on Staff are already a concern. His view was that it’s fun to give money away, but this was not something the District should be focused on and not something that he could vote for. He estimated that the prior incarnation of this program gave away enough money to coat one and a half tanks, and he guaranteed that the people behind this want to spend a lot more than $2500 in the future.
Director Smolley said he did not support this program when it was presented to the Board, but the Board approved it, and he supported the Administration Committee and Staff decision to award the $2500 to BCE.
Director Layng said she saw this program as important because it helps improve water quality for all and educates children on how to care for our watershed. The alternative is to get into a reactive clean-up mode. Like Chris, she said she wanted to give a shout-out to the student who submitted a proposal on behalf of SLV High School, but she said the BCE proposal nailed everything, and she was happy for our District to support this.
Director Largay agreed. He said he saw educating the public as important for the bottom line of keeping our water supply clean, and the District’s mission statement clearly includes this responsibility. He said the award was for 0.02% of the District's budget, and he looked forward to seeing the project results.
President Russ asked for help in picturing the planned activity understanding some further details. Chris told him the slope in question was about 100 by 30 square feet in a visually prominent location. President Russ was satisfied with the answers he received, and he said he viewed this as a good project, worthy of support.
There was no public comment.
Director Largay moved approve the grant award, and Director Layng seconded. The motion passed 4-1, with Director Fultz opposed.
Review Legal RFP
General Manager Jason Lillion introduced this agenda item. He explained that the District currently retains White Brenner LLP for legal services under an existing agreement. As part of good governance and sound fiscal management, public agencies periodically evaluate professional service providers to ensure they are receiving high-quality services at competitive rates and that those services continue to align with the agency’s needs. This process is intended as a routine benchmarking effort not necessarily a reflection of dissatisfaction with current legal counsel.
The District recently issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for legal services to assess the availability of alternative qualified firms and to better understand current market conditions. In response, the District received a proposal from Aleshire & Wynder, a firm with experience representing California public agencies, including water districts. Jason noted that Aleshire & Wynder offer significantly lower billing rates than White Brenner LLP, but the selection of legal counsel also involves qualitative factors such as expertise in municipal law, responsiveness, institutional knowledge, and familiarity with the District’s operations.
Jason added that he was personally familiar with Aleshire and Wynder. One was lead counsel for County of Kern, and the other was general counsel for the City of Ridgecrest. He did not reach out to them, but he thought they were influenced by their knowledge of him.
Jason said Staff was seeking direction from the Board regarding how to proceed. Options may include: (1) continuing with White Brenner LLP without further action, (2) conducting interviews with Aleshire & Wynder, and/or (3) directing Staff to solicit additional proposals to broaden the comparison of available legal services.
Director Fultz appreciated that Staff took the initiative to put out an RFP. He was surprised that only one firm responded, particularly since the District received a number of responses to a similar RFP in 2018. His suggestion was that the District seek additional responses and that a Board member or two be directly involved in the assessment. He said the Administration Committee was involved in the previous assessment.
Directors Smolley, Largay, and Layng expressed broad agreement. Director Layng said she was disappointed with the White Brenner response to questions about the Brown Act.
Legal Counsel Gage Marchini responded to this. He said he recalled being asked some Brown Act questions, and his firm responded to Jason. He said he would be happy to answer any other questions and also to respond to an RFP. He wasn’t aware that one had been put out.
President Russ said he thought it was great for Jason to reach out. He described Aleshire & Wynder’s response as intriguing and their experience as highly relevant. He supported the idea of exploring further with Jason and a Director, and he said he personally had relevant experience and would want to be involved. He also wanted to talk with Gage and his team. President Russ said Jason and he would discuss how to proceed.
Consent Agenda
There was one item on the Consent Agenda:
a. Board Meeting Minutes 3.19.26
This item was accepted without discussion.
Written Communications
There were no written communications.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 PM.