SLVWD Board Meeting Summary
June 3, 2021
Mark Dolson
Highlights:
Presentation of Fire Management Plan and augmentation of Panorama contract.
Review of Investment Plan.
Seeking bids for Fall Creek Fish Ladder project.
Further discussion of Fire Recovery Surcharge fund tracking.
Next Board meeting is at 6:30 PM on June 17.
Preliminaries:
District Counsel Gina Nicholls opened the meeting by reading a very brief statement unanimously adopted by the Board in its just-completed closed-session meeting. She said the District has been informed that the County intends to file an amended complaint in its lawsuit against the District. The District has not yet seen this amended complaint.
There was no public comment on non-agendized topics.
New Business
Vegetation/Fire Management Plan
This agenda item was devoted to reviewing and acting on the final version of the Post-Fire Recovery, Critical Asset Hardening, Vegetation, and Fuels Management Plan prepared for the District by Panorama Environmental. Environmental Planner Carly Blanchard explained that the Environmental Committee provided feedback on a draft of the plan in April, and the final version incorporates all of the committee’s recommendations. Staff recommended that the Board review and accept the plan and that the Board separately adopt the specific recommendations of the plan (so as to initiate its implementation).
Caitlin Gilleran and Tania Treis of Panorama Environmental provided a brief overview of the plan focusing on recommended treatments and specific grant opportunities. The recommended treatments fell into two main categories: (1) near-term post-fire recovery treatments, and (2) defensible space, fuel reduction, and material upgrades. The first category concentrated on hazard tree inspections and removal and on reforestation in suitable locations. The second category prioritized vegetation management around water infrastructure and roadways together with specific types of infrastructure installation or upgrades recommended to fire-harden and increase emergency access to water tanks and through SLVWD-lands. A prioritized list of projects was also presented. In addition, numerous grant opportunities were identified with two grants (both with CAL FIRE) already approved or headed toward approval.
The full plan is available to the public at:
Director Ackemann asked if matching funds from the District are required as part of the grants. She also noted that a lot of infrastructure projects may be funded across the U.S. creating competition for scarce labor resources, and she wondered how this might impact the District. Caitlin said no matching funds were required and that preliminary discussions suggest that RCD would like to manage contractors. Carly added that the two approved grants each pay for management, but some grants may not.
Director Fultz described this as a really comprehensive report with a lot to absorb. He thanked Lew Farris and Larry Ford for getting this going. Director Fultz asked whether any of the costs could be covered by FEMA. District Manager Rick Rogers said this had been discussed and that FEMA will not cover watershed properties unless there is a facility directly impacted. For the Lyon Treatment Plant, FEMA will cover trees that present a hazard to the facility. Director Fultz also asked whether the newly contracted grant writer would be pursuing the identified opportunities. Carly confirmed this, and Rick said there may be potential for substantial funding.
In response to Director Henry’s inquiry regarding how the need to obtain permits may affect the proposed work, Carly and Tania explained that much of the highest priority work will be exempt from normal CEQA procedures or will be covered under blanket permits. For short-term projects, this should be pretty streamlined.
Director Smolley characterized this as a good report and said he appreciated the addition of the prioritized project list. He asked who was taking the lead for the District in managing the various projects and strategies. Carly said it was currently a group effort with Rick Rogers, Operations Manager James Furtado, herself, and Panorama. She noted that some project priorities could shift in response to available grant funding. Also, a registered professional forester will manage all projects on the ground. Director Smolley asked if the Board would know the District’s costs in advance. Carly said that estimated Staff time has been included in the grant requests.
President Mahood said she appreciated the very comprehensive report. Out of scientific curiosity, she wanted to know why there was a focus on proactive reforesting instead of just letting nature take its course (as, for example, the RCD has recommended elsewhere), and why reforesting involved fire-prone pines. She added that less evapotranspiration might increase the volume of water in creeks (and that in models of the Santa Margarita groundwater basin, losses to evapotranspiration dwarf the amount of water being pumped out of the ground). Tania said this question would be relayed to Panorama’s forester who would reply via email. Rick added that, in some areas, if the District doesn’t revegetate, invasive species like broom will move in. Also, in some steep areas, erosion is a concern.
There was one public comment. Larry Ford said he was really pleased with the work here, and he saw this as an excellent plan: up-to-date, thorough, professional, and responsive to requests from the Environmental Committee and the public. He also suggested some possible areas for future improvement. He recommended establishing detailed goals for what the landscape should look like as an end result (with more focus on indigenous vegetation management and on the historical practices of indigenous peoples). He further suggested that livestock grazing is much more important than anyone wants to recognize. He added that there is a zone inside the wildland-urban interface (e.g., backyards, vacant lots) where appropriate action might be able to reduce the severity of fires.
This led Director Henry to comment favorably on the goats that used to roam in Lompico. She also requested clarification on the tree planting plan, and Caitlin explained that redwoods would resprout but that firs would not.
Director Ackemann asked when the District will need to decide about whether to explore carbon offsets. Carly said this was up to the Board. Director Fultz recommended that the discussion should begin in the Environmental Committee.
The motion to accept the Panorama report passed 5-0. The motion directing Staff to implement the plan (as laid out in the report) passed 5-0 without further discussion.
Panorama Contract Augmentation
Environmental Planner Carly Blanchard introduced this agenda item. In light of the District’s excellent experience to date with Panorama Environmental, Staff recommended augmenting the contract with Panorama by approximately $37,000 for finalization of the Vegetation/Fire Management Plan, grant coordination and assistance, permitting and environmental support for shovel-ready projects (assuming grant approval), and continued GIS management and mapping through July 1, 2021.
Director Fultz asked if this was sort of a catch-up contract seeking payment for work that has already been performed. Carly said yes; this spending will be included in the current fiscal year even though it is more than originally budgeted. For next year, the District has budgeted $50,000 for additional work.
Director Smolley and President Mahood asked how the Panorama GIS mapping activity differed from the mapping that the District was staffed to perform in house. Rick Rogers said the District will be hiring engineering firms to pick up stuff that the District’s GIS specialist can't get to.
A motion was made to instruct the District Manager to augment the contract with Panorama to continue post-fire response in the amount of $37,000. The motion passed 5-0.
Investment Policy
Finance Director Stephanie Hill introduced this agenda item. California Government Code authorizes the Board to invest or reinvest District funds (which would otherwise sit idle) in accordance with the prudent investor standard and other applicable law. It further allows the Board to delegate its authority to make deposits to the District’s Treasurer. Stephanie presented a resolution for the Board to approve, adopting the District’s newly updated Investment Policy (recently rewritten and reviewed by legal counsel to improve certain areas and terminology, then further reviewed and approved by the Budget and Finance Committee) and authorizing the Treasurer to make investment decisions. The Staff intended to appoint the District Manager to fulfill the role of Treasurer, but the resolution didn’t make this clear so District Counsel Gina Nicholls recommended that the Board review a revised resolution at its next meeting.
There were a few detailed questions and some limited discussion, but the Board was satisfied that the revised Investment Policy was safe and prudent. Most of the District’s currently invested funds are the proceeds of loans, and no risks are being taken with these.
Fall Creek Fish Ladder Construction Contract
Proposals were scheduled to be received on June 1, 2021 for rehabilitation of the Fall Creek Fish Ladder. This project is subject to scheduling limitations because regulatory agencies require that construction within the stream channel be completed prior to mid-October of this year (or else next year – the goal is to avoid disrupting seasonal fish activities). District Staff determined, in consultation with the Engineering Committee, that a streamlined bidding process would be advantageous, so this was being brought to the Board as rapidly as possible. However, District Manager Rick Rogers reported that the District received no bids for this project. Feedback from three potential bidders indicated that two weeks was insufficient time to prepare bids, so the District has agreed to give them three weeks additional time. Director Smolley confirmed that several options had been discussed, and this seemed like the best one.
Fall Creek Fish Ladder Construction Management Contract
Rick Rogers reported that the District received two bids for this project. The District Engineer is reviewing these but won't make a decision until the construction contracts (see the preceding agenda item) have been awarded.
Director Fultz commented that this project goes back more than six years. He wondered if there will be time to finish the work in the creek before October 15th. Rick said this had been discussed with the potential contractors, and all three felt they could comply.
Director Ackemann asked if there was grant funding for this and if there would be any cost implications for not meeting the October 15th deadline. Rick said the construction funding is coming entirely from the District’s capital funds, and he was confident that the work in the stream channel can be completed on time.
Director Henry commented that she objected to having state agencies imposing unfunded mandates (such as this one) on the District.
One member of the public offered a comment. Former Director Rick Moran read a statement in which he advocated for aesthetically pleasing fencing (i.e., not simply chain link) around the completed project. He recommended that a few different options be presented to the Board.
President Mahood asked if there will be signage explaining what the District is doing. Environmental Planner Carly Blanchard said a sign designer is already on board, funded by a grant.
Unfinished Business
Fire Recovery Surcharge
District Counsel Gina Nicholls explained that this agenda item was coming to the Board for two reasons. First, there was substantial discussion at the previous Board meeting about ensuring that the fire-recovery revenues will be used only for their intended purposes. She was therefore seeking Board comment (but no formal action) on a draft version of a future resolution enacting the surcharge and simultaneously restricting the use of funds. A final version of this resolution will be brought back to the Board for possible adoption at the conclusion of the Proposition 218 hearing to be conducted at the first regular meeting in August 2021. Second, the Board needed to formally appoint an impartial arbiter for receiving, collecting, and tabulating any protests and, if necessary, conducting an assessment of protest ballots. The recommended motion was to appoint the District Secretary as arbiter.
President Mahood suggested that the Board begin by designating an arbiter. Director Ackemann said she also wanted to see whether the Administration Committee could be involved in the District’s related outreach planning, and President Mahood requested that this question be deferred until the first two issues had been addressed.
Director Henry expressed a concern, grounded in her own past experience, that, in a Proposition 218 process such as this one, people really want the responses to be handled by someone without a direct stake in the outcome. She suggested that perhaps ballots could be placed in a locked box at the District, and the box could be unlocked by a non-District arbiter. Gina responded that this would entail hiring a consultant. She noted that individuals can still make a public-records request to view the ballots after the vote count. Also, it is uncommon for the count to get close enough to 50% for validation to be required. If this does occur, it will happen in public. Lastly, as a practical matter, it is very helpful to have a tabulation at the close of the Proposition 218 hearing. Rick Rogers agreed with Gina, saying that Lois had a valid point but that he didn’t expect a repeat of the Lompico experience or even that of the District’s previous rate increase.
There was no public comment. The motion to appoint District Secretary Holly Hossack to serve as arbiter passed 5-0.
President Mahood then asked for comments or questions relating to the draft language restricting the use of funds. Directors Ackemann and Smolley were fine with the proposed wording.
Director Fultz asked Gina if the District was legally restricted from publicly offering the proposed guarantee (of restricted use) prior to the public vote. Gina said the restriction was just that the Board can't approve the resolution containing that language in advance. Director Fultz said that he still objected because the most recent budget document does not reflect the proposed restriction statement.
President Mahood said she was open to adding language if Director Fultz could suggest something specific rather than just objecting. Director Fultz replied that he had already done so. Director Ackemann asked for comment from Rick Rogers and Stephanie Hill. Stephanie said Staff had already agreed to separately track these funds similar to the other reserve fund so that they will be clearly restricted. Rick suggested letting Staff regroup and come back to the Board. Director Smolley agreed.
Director Fultz voiced his support for Director Ackemann’s original request to involve the Administration Committee in outreach to the community. He said he really liked the idea of more review of the communication process, especially because the District will be going back to the community for a subsequent rate increase. President Mahood echoed a previous point by District Manager Rick Rogers that the Proposition 218 process strictly prescribes communication with the public.
There was no public comment.
District Reports
President Mahood announced that there will be a public hearing on the draft 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP):
https://www.slvwd.com/conservation/pages/urban-water-management-plan
The hearing will be part of the next SLVWD Board meeting to be held at 5:30 PM on Thursday June 17th.
President Mahood and Director Smolley and President Mahood will present a Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency (SMGWA) update on July 15th. President Mahood also mentioned that the California Water Department today announced its first assessments of the plans submitted 16 months ago such as the Santa Cruz Mid County plan (involving sea water intrusion). This plan was approved, as was the Monterey plan, but two others were sent back for further revision.
There was some confusion about whether there would be a Board meeting on July 1st because the Board agreed at the beginning of the year that there would be. However, the Board subsequently approved a revised Board Policy Manual which states that there is only a single Board meeting in July. District Counsel Gina Nicholls explained that the updated Board Policy Manual was adopted by resolution subsequent to the earlier vote and therefore supersedes the prior decision.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 PM.