SLVWD Board Meeting Summary
May 1, 2025
Prepared by Mark Dolson for FSLVW
NOTE: Provided purely as a public service — NOT the official SLVWD Meeting Minutes.
Highlights:
General Manager Recruitment
Ad Hoc Committee Formation for Negotiations
AB 2561 Policy
Proposed Budget for FY25-27
Next Board meeting will be at 6:30 PM on May 15, 2025
Preliminaries
All five directors attended. President Smolley attended remotely, so Vice President Layng presided.
Vice President Layng announced that District Secretary Jen Torres was appointed Acting General Manager by a unanimous roll call vote in Closed Session. (The Closed Session reconvened at the end of the Open Session, and no further reportable actions were taken.)
There were no changes to the agenda.
There were five public comments on non-agendized topics.
A resident identifying himself as Mark spoke on behalf of eight attendees concerned about “The Haven,” a proposed new 40-acre development on Graham Hill Road across from Henry Cowell Park. The proposal includes 161 detached houses and townhomes, along with an 18,000-square-foot community center with 691 parking spaces. Because 33 of the townhomes are proposed to be affordable, the developer sought state-mandated Builder’s Remedy exceptions to County code, allowing the project to override local density restrictions and design review standards. This is relevant to SLVWD because it will likely be asked to extend its boundaries to provide water to the new development. Mark called the Board’s attention to widespread community concerns about the resulting potential negative impact on the sensitive local environment, local quality of life, traffic, safe SLV evacuation, and water conservation.
A subsequent speaker, Stephanie Morse, added that a high-density project like the Haven raises questions such as: (1) will FEMA commit to providing promised funds for CZU Fire damage? (2) Will SLVWD hold the developer accountable for any new sources of water or additional cost required by development?
Lynn, a 13- year resident of Scotts Valley, elaborated on the above concerns. She said the developers will make their money and leave, with no regard for the resulting harm to our local ecosystem. She said SLVWD is under no obligation to extend its service boundaries.
President Smolley said the Water District has not yet received a request from the developer. If it receives such a request, the Board will evaluate it and discuss it. However, the Board is unable to discuss this further this evening because this is not an agendized item.
Lorraine Palmer said she was here to support the proposed increase in the Rate Assistance Program (RAP) discount and the associated budget increase. She said people who get ill can really struggle to pay their water bill, and there is no safety net. She also observed that the rate increase didn't specifically address people who use less than two units per month (and who therefore end up paying more per gallon than anybody else). She asked the Board to please increase the RAP.
Jim Mosher of Felton also spoke on behalf of increasing the RAP budget. Jim is the facilitator of the local citizens’ group Friends of San Lorenzo Valley Water (FSLVW). He called the Board’s attention to an FSLVW letter of support with 50 signatures. He also noted that the Budget and Finance Committee was unable to discuss details of the proposed plan revisions. He closed by saying that it is the community’s responsibility to help those in need of this kind of support.
Unfinished Business
None.
New Business
General Manager Recruitment
President Smolley introduced this agenda item. In October of 2024, the District hired John Kunkel as an Interim General Manager with the understanding that Mr. Kunkel was not interested in a permanent position with the District. On April 1, 2025, he notified the Board that his last day would be April 30, 2025.
In September 2024, the General Manager job description was posted on the District’s website. However, thru December 2024, the District received only a few applications and none were viable candidates for the Board to consider. In January 2025, the District posted the job description on several recruitment websites with a salary range of $220,000 to $240,000. The District received approximately 25 resumes, and the Board conducted in-person interviews with two of the applicants. The Board was not able to negotiate an acceptable salary for one of the applicants, and the Board could not reach consensus on moving forward with the second candidate.
In March 2025, the District sought the services of a recruitment firm and after obtaining proposals from two firms, it issued a contract to Regional Government Services (RGS). The District is familiar with RGS as they are currently providing the services of Heather Ippoliti.
The District provided RGS with information that they compiled into a recruitment brochure, and we requested that RGS increase the salary range to $240,000 to $260,000. Applicants were asked to apply between April 4 and May 4 of 2025. As of April 25, 2025, RGS had received a total of over 500 inquiries on their job posting; 12 individuals have applied, and several of them appear qualified. Upon completion of the application period, RGS will provide the District with a report of the application received, individuals they have interviewed, and recommendations for candidates they feel the Board should consider.
There was no Board discussion or public comment.
Ad Hoc Committee Formation for Negotiations
Acting General Manager and Secretary Jen Torres introduced this agenda item. In May of 2023, the District entered into agreements with the Classified Employees Union and the Management, Supervisory, and Confidential Employees Unit. As part of these agreements, the District commissioned a Compensation Study which has now been completed and presented to the Board and the groups’ labor representatives. To keep the negotiation process moving forward, Staff recommends that the Board President form a labor negotiations ad hoc committee.
President Smolley recommended that the ad hoc committee consist of Board members Alina Layng and Jeff Hill. All five directors supported this idea, and there was no public comment.
Director Fultz moved to appoint Directors Layng and Hill to the ad hoc committee, and the motion was seconded. The motion passed 5-0.
AB 2561 Policy
Finance Consultant Heather Ippoliti introduced this agenda item. AB 2561 was introduced to address the issue of job vacancies in local government. Among other requirements, it mandates that public agencies present the status of vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts during a public hearing before the agency’s governing body at least once per fiscal year.
In compliance with the new legal obligations, the District is required to do the following:
1. Public Hearing: At least once each fiscal year, at a public hearing before the Board, the District shall present information regarding the status of vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts and identify any necessary changes to policies, procedures, and recruitment activities that may lead to obstacles in the hiring process. This presentation must occur prior to the Board of Director’s adoption of the annual budget for the District.
2. Employee Organization Participation: Allow the recognized employee organization for each of the District’s two bargaining units to make presentations during the public hearing concerning vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts.
3. Additional Reporting for High Vacancy Rates: If vacancies within a single bargaining unit meet or exceed 20% of authorized full-time positions in that bargaining unit, upon request of the recognized employee organization for that bargaining unit, the District must provide additional information during the public hearing, including the following: (1) the total number of vacancies; (2) the number of applicants; (3) the average time to fill positions; and (4) opportunities to improve compensation and working conditions for employees in the bargaining unit.
There was minimal Board discussion. Heather said Staff and the unions were fully prepared to hold the hearing as part of the upcoming May 15th Board meeting. She said they had been working on this since January, and RGS was assisting. The Secretary has been trained on how to conduct the public hearing, and there are also special noticing requirements.
There was no public comment.
Director Layng moved to adopt the resolution approving the proposed policy. Director Hill seconded. The motion passed 5-0.
Proposed Budget for FY25-27
Finance Consultant Heather Ippoliti introduced this agenda item. She announced that only the non-capital-related portion of the budget would be presented to the Board at this meeting. She said Staff was revising the capital budget, and also the reserve policy, to be presented at the May 15th Board meeting, in response to concerns raised at the Budget and Finance Committee meeting on April 23rd. Her goal is for the Board to adopt the finalized budget at its June 5th meeting.
Heather began her budget overview by noting that 88% of the District’s revenue is derived from its rates (with 40% of total revenue coming from fixed charges and 48% from usage-dependent charges). The budget assumes no change in consumption, but it incorporates the planned 7% increase in rates and an anticipated 5% increase in property tax revenue. It assumes a decline in interest income from invested funds and a continuation of mobile service lease fees and rental income. Lastly it assumes increased funding for the District’s Ratepayer Assistance Program (RAP) of $5 per month, increasing by this amount each year, plus additional funding for 30 more enrollees.
The budget is based on the positions shown in the current org chart. It assumes that open positions will be filled relatively soon. Possible salary modifications resulting from the recently-completed Compensation Study are not accounted for. The bottom line is that non-capital spending is projected to increase by $3 million.
The Directors all expressed appreciation for Heather’s report. In response to a question from Director Fultz, Heather said she was working with APTIM to produce a five-year cash-flow projection. She isn’t expecting any significant FEMA reimbursements over the next two years.
Director Fultz took this opportunity to reiterate his concern about the continuing increase in operating expenses. He said the proportion budgeted for capital improvements had declined from 33% to 25%, whereas the rate study had called for 50% and was promoted as enabling increased and long-overdue spending on capital improvements. He said the proposed budget will leave the District with only $3 million for capital improvement whereas he believed that at least $6 million was needed. He said grants are helpful, but they will become less available. Consequently, he said he would be unable to support this budget.
Director Largay offered an opposing perspective. He said he was profoundly concerned about the failure of the District to deliver on capital projects. However, he supported this budget because he thought adequate investment in personnel would lead to more successful and accelerated implementation of the Capital Improvement Plan. He noted that personnel has been in turmoil and disarray for the past two years. He added that Proposition 4 has enormous resources for grants, but the District is not in a good position to apply for them due to its staffing problems.
Director Layng commented that she thought the goal of the rate increase was to enable capital improvement to be funded via debt financing.
Director Hill said he would take the Board’s comments back to the Budget and Finance Committee.
There was one public comment. Mark Dolson, a member of the Administrative Committee, sought clarification on one key budget assumption. He said Interim General Manager John Kunkel had informed the Administration Committee that he intended to recommend significant revisions to the current org chart. For example, John suggested that an open lower-level position in the Environmental Department should be replaced by a higher-level Special Projects specialist. Heather’s response was that the Board had not yet approved any changes to the org chart, so the budget could not anticipate these.
Consent Agenda
There was one item on the Consent Agenda:
a. Board Minutes from 4.17.25
The Minutes for 4.17.25 were deemed to be adopted by unanimous vote.
District Reports
There were no comments or questions on the Environmental Quarterly Report or on the Committee minutes for recent meetings.
Written Communications
There was no comment on the RAP Support Letter submitted by Friends of San Lorenzo Valley Water.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 PM, and the Board returned to Closed Session.