SLVWD Board Meeting Summary
August 20 2026
Prepared by Mark Dolson for FSLVW
NOTE: Provided purely as a public service — NOT the official SLVWD Meeting Minutes.
Highlights:
General Counsel Legal Services
Well Monitoring Agreement with Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency (SMGWA)
Resolution Declaring Surplus Property
Approval of Accounts Payable Listing
Annual Disclosure of Employee Reimbursements
Personnel Policies
Next Board meeting will be at 6:30 PM on September 3, 2026
Preliminaries
All five directors were present.
President Russ said the Board took one reportable action in the just-concluded Closed Session. This concerned Agenda Item 4c which involved Existing Litigation in the case of Holloway v. San Lorenzo Valley Water District in Santa Cruz County Superior Court.
Legal Counsel Gage Marchini said the Board voted unanimously to approve a settlement agreement with Brian Frus to resolve the cross complaint in the identified litigation. This settlement does not result in any expenditure by the District. The settlement agreement will be made available for public inspection once it is fully executed.
There were no changes to the agenda.
There was one public comment. Jim Mosher asked if the Board could provide any more information about the case itself (i.e., the writ of mandate involving Bruce Holloway). Gage said the case at the trial court level was resolved. The District was successful on the writ of mandate. The Closed Session discussion was addressing the cross complaint filed by Mr. Frus. No discussion occurred on the Holloway case itself.
Unfinished Business
None.
New Business
General Counsel Legal Services
General Manager Jason Lillion introduced this agenda item. 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.
Consistent with this practice, the District issued an initial Request for Proposals (RFP) for General Counsel legal services in early 2026. That process was presented to the Board at its April 2, 2026, meeting. At that meeting, the Board directed staff to reissue the RFP in order to broaden the comparison of available firms and obtain a wider range of proposals.
The RFP was subsequently reissued. In response, the District received proposals from two firms:
White Brenner LLP (Sacramento, CA) — the District’s current General Counsel, submitting a proposal to continue services
Aleshire & Wynder LLP (Oakland, CA) — a statewide public agency law firm with 70+ attorneys and extensive water district general counsel experience
Staff has reviewed both proposals and prepared a side-by-side comparison to assist the Board in evaluating the firms across key dimensions, including qualifications, team structure, relevant experience, institutional knowledge, and billing rates.
While billing rates are an important consideration, the selection of legal counsel also involves qualitative factors such as expertise in water and municipal law, responsiveness, institutional knowledge of the District’s operations, and strength of the legal team assigned to day-to-day work. White Brenner LLP (WB) holds a meaningful institutional advantage as the District’s current General Counsel, with detailed familiarity with SLVWD’s water rights, infrastructure, regulatory history, and ongoing legal matters. Aleshire & Wynder LLP (A&W) offers a larger bench of specialized water law expertise, more competitive billing rates across all categories, demonstrated Prop 218 litigation experience, and experience with public finance transactions comparable to those undertaken by the District. Staff was presenting both proposals without a preference recommendation and seeking Board direction on how to proceed.
President Russ said the side-by-side comparison was very helpful. He noted that A&W is based in Oakland whereas WB is based in Sacramento. WB currently attend remotely. He said he was assuming that A&W would attend remotely as well. He also observed that WB charges the blended rate of $262 per hour whereas A&W would charge the partner rate of $395. The litigation rates are pretty similar. President Russ said he could envision the Board being in need of expertise in eminent domain, water rights, CEQA, litigation, and Prop. 218. He said the qualitative part was important, but it looked like A&W would be significantly more costly. He also noted that the Board has been occasionally frustrated with the responsiveness of WB. The District pays a higher rate for W&B about one third of the time.
Director Fultz said the numbers were important to him. Both firms are very qualified. Unless the District is doing something very specialized, there is no circumstance under which A&W is less expensive. He recalled that the District used Nossaman from2016-2023, but by 2023, they were no longer being responsive. He didn’t think deep institutional knowledge was a big deal. He also didn’t think $395 an hour made sense for the District.
Director Smolley said he agreed. He said WB has gained three years of institutional knowledge. He asked Jason about his experience with Phillip Hall who would be the lead contact for A&W. Jason said Mr. Hall had worked against his organization in a previous case, and he was impressed with him.
Director Smolley said the District should engage in a regular review of its Legal Counsel in any case. With Nossaman, it waited until there was a problem. He also referenced experiences two years ago with a member of the public asking about legal opinions that WB wasn’t correct on.
Director Fultz said WB responsiveness has improved. He agreed with Director Smolley that the Board should conduct routine performance reviews, maybe every three years.
Director Smolley suggested that further discussion with A&W might be appropriate. How can they better address the District’s concerns about cost? Can they have less expensive but still qualified staff work with the District?
Director Layng said she, too, was worried about A&W costs. At the same time, she appreciated their expanded area of expertise. She didn’t feel that WB has all that much institutional knowledge because they have repeatedly switched personnel. She praised Gage but said she still worried about whether the District was always getting the correct guidance. She agreed with Director Smolley about the desirability of further interviewing.
Director Largay said he was grateful for the opportunity to revisit the attorney question. He agreed that the District should reevaluate this every three years. He said there have been times when he wasn't happy with the WB advice. At other times, they have provided excellent guidance. The inconsistency was an issue for him. He appreciated that Jason has had experience with Mr. Hall who has now joined A&W as Counsel. Director Largay recommended that the evaluation be continued. He said less expensive was certainly preferable, but he was impressed with A&W’s depth and breadth of services.
President Russ said it was also positive that Phillip Hall of A&W always wants to be there for the District and that Jason has had positive experience with him. He asked what the District is spending each year on Legal. Cheri reported figures of $125,000, $312,000, and $174,000.
President Fultz said A&W has great skills, but there is no way that they will be cheaper than WB. How can they offer us more value for their time? There will also be some level of learning curve for them.
There was no public comment. President Russ directed Jason to continue the conversation and return with a recommendation. Director Smolley said President Russ should be directly involved in this discussion.
Well Monitoring Agreement with Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency (SMGWA)
General Manager Jason Lillion introduced this agenda item. At its regular meeting of March 5, 2026, the Board authorized staff to commit the District’s Oly 1 and Estrella wells for use as long-term groundwater monitoring wells in support of SMGWA’s basin monitoring obligations. That authorization was conditioned on: (1) the wells remaining the property of SLVWD; (2) SLVWD retaining full discretion regarding the future use or destruction of the wells if operational needs require; and (3) SMGWA funding the full cost of conversion of the wells to monitoring wells, subject to a mutually acceptable agreement outlining scope, funding, and responsibilities.
Staff has since worked with SMGWA to develop the attached Well Monitoring Access and Cost Reimbursement Agreement, which memorializes the terms and conditions directed by the Board. The Agreement:
Confirms that the District retains sole ownership of the Olympia 1 and Estrella wells;
Preserves the District’s full discretion to modify, repair, or decommission either well if operational, safety, or regulatory needs require, subject to advance notice to SMGWA;
Limits SMGWA’s use of the wells to groundwater monitoring purposes only, with no interference with District operations;
Requires SMGWA to fund one hundred percent (100%) of the cost of the physical conversion of the wells to monitoring wells, subject to a mutually approved Scope of Work; and
Establishes data-sharing, insurance, indemnification, and termination provisions consistent with standard District practice for third-party access agreements.
The Agreement has been reviewed by District Counsel. Staff recommends that the Board approve the Agreement and authorize the General Manager to execute it, allowing conversion work to proceed once a specific Scope of Work and cost estimate are finalized with SMGWA.
Director Largay said he thought this was fundamentally a very valuable action. SMGWA requires monitoring wells. These are expensive to do new. The District gets to retain full ownership and control. He called this an elegant solution, and he supported it.
Director Layng said everything looked fine to her.
Director Smolley asked about the data collection and sharing. He asked why the District shouldn’t be compensated for its staff time even if it was just an hour. The District is responsible for paying 40% of the SMGWA cost. Can it get a 1% credit? He also raised a concern about responsibility for any damage to the automatic data loggers. Jason said he didn’t know that this would be worth pursuing.
President Russ said he was appreciative of the importance of monitoring wells. For him, an hour per month of contributed cost would not be an issue. Director Smolley said he still thought this should be used as a bargaining chip.
Director Fultz said he had twice within the past six months requested a review of SMGWA activities, and he had received no response. He said the Board would have been well served by having had this conversation before this evening’s discussion. Also, he noted that the wells are not in active use, and inactive wells are generally destroyed, so he asked why the District should be on the hook for these two.
President Russ observed that either party can terminate the agreement, but Director Fultz argued that this would never be politically feasible. Also, the agreement introduced a six-month delay in this process. He said he couldn’t vote in favor of this agreement in its current form, and he asked if there wasn’t some way to monitor the wells automatically.
Operations Manager Jesse Guiver said the District only visits the wells twice per year. Director Fultz argued that the agreement needs to specify this. It currently says that SMGWA gets monthly data (which the District downloads twice per year).
Director Smolley said he was still concerned about the repair issue. Director Fultz argued that it should be the District’s sole discretion whether to fix a damaged well.
Legal Counsel Gage Marchini said the District has discretion to decommission the well with 60 days’ notice. The 180 days is for terminating the agreement itself. Gage added that responsibility to maintain or repair the wells is in accordance with the District’s existing operational practice. It is not required to do more.
Directors Fultz and Smolley remained dissatisfied with the 60-day constraint on the District. Director Fultz also argued that future representatives might misinterpret the agreement as it stands. He wanted it to be clear that repairs were at the sole discretion of the District.
Director Largay said the broader principle is that SMGWA is working on behalf of the District to comply with state requirements. It is in the District’s interest for them to do better monitoring as this will help to avoid state restrictions. He said it was appropriate, in principle, to consider the District’s contribution in negotiating an agreement with SMGWA, but he said this particular Board discussion was already wasting more money than the District might save. He said the 60-day notice allows SMGWA to recover their instrumentation, and this is not a significant delay. He recommended proceeding with signing the agreement as the Board has more important things to occupy its time with.
Director Fultz continued to argue until Director Layng intervened to formally “call the question,” thereby proposing to end the discussion and immediately take a vote. Director Smolley seconded.
There was no public comment. Director Layng moved to approve the agreement, and Director Largay seconded. The motion passed 4-1, with Director Fultz opposed.
Resolution Declaring Surplus Property
General Manager Jason Lillion introduced this agenda item. Staff has identified three District-owned parcels that are no longer needed for water utility purposes and are recommended for disposition. Two of the parcels present ongoing liability exposure to the District due to their unimproved and unmonitored condition, and a third parcel has drawn interest from a prospective buyer. Declaring these parcels surplus is the first step in the disposition process and allows staff to proceed with the notice, appraisal, and marketing steps required prior to sale.
1. APN 077-141-13 – 0 Ben Lomond Toll Road, Ben Lomond, CA 95005. This is an unimproved parcel that is not used for any current or planned District water system purpose. The parcel provides access to the San Lorenzo River, and the gate controlling that access has been left unlocked by the County, leaving the site open to public entry. The property contains areas of exposed concrete presenting a fall and injury hazard, and river access is particularly dangerous during storm events due to high water and swift currents. Continued District ownership exposes the District to liability risk without a corresponding operational benefit. Staff has also located prior District documents indicating that the County of Santa Cruz has previously expressed interest in this parcel; staff will factor that interest into the disposition process alongside any other offers received.
2. APN 073-031-01 – 101 Quail Hollow Road, Felton, CA 95018. This parcel is not required for water system operations, though it contains an old, unused garage structure and a dilapidated side deck overlooking the creek; the deck is being used by teenagers as a jumping platform into the creek below, and the site has become an attractive hang-out spot for the public generally. Neighbors have complained about traffic and parking conditions resulting from vehicles parked in the area by visitors to the site. Separately, the County of Santa Cruz has expressed interest in the parcel in connection with a potential bridge expansion project; staff will factor that interest into the disposition process alongside any other offers received.
3. APN 075-062-04 – Lompico. The District received an inquiry via email from a realtor representing a private party interested in purchasing this parcel. No monetary offer has been made at this time; the inquiry reflects only an initial expression of interest. The identity of the interested party is not included in this memo and will be disclosed when required as part of a future closed session agenda.
Jason said the property appraisals are about six months old.
President Russ observed that the Ben Lomond property is three acres of riverfront, but it's not developable. He asked why the County might be interested. Jason said the County has opened the gate on their property, but this invites people on to the District’s property.
Director Layng said water rights were not a concern as they are restricted to use on the property.
Director Smolley said it sounded to him like these three properties should be considered surplus. His immediate concern was about the District’s liability. He said the County should consider buying the property that they were enabling access to.
Director Fultz said the District started the surplus property disposal in 2018 and never got anywhere. He was hopeful this can be driven to completion. He also hoped that neighbors might want to buy two of the properties to increase their acreage.
Director Layng said it was important to her that other public agencies get the first consideration.
Director Largay strongly supported offloading these properties. He agreed with Director Smolley about minimizing the risk to the District in the interim.
Director Smolley said he was aware of a recent Environmental Committee discussion about another potential property in Zayante. He said he would like to see that one brought to the Board as well in the future.
There was no public comment.
Director Smolley moved to approve the staff recommendation, and President Russ seconded. The motion passed 5-0.
Approval of Accounts Payable Listing
Finance Manager Cheri Freese introduced this agenda item. The Accounts Payable listing provides a summary of disbursements issued by the District for goods and services received during the reporting period (7/17 through 8/14). These payments include routine operating expenses, capital project costs, utilities, professional services, supplies, and other expenditures necessary for District operations. Staff has reviewed the listing for accuracy and confirms that the expenditures are consistent with approved District operations, projects, contracts, or other authorized activities. A Board motion is required to formally approve it.
Director Fultz asked if this could be put on the Consent Agenda. Legal Counsel Gage Marchini said most districts do this.
Directors Layng and Largay thanked Cheri for the report.
President Russ asked about the $52,000 payment to the U.S. Treasury. Cheri said it was because the District earned too much interest on funds that it was holding for future use. President Russ also asked about the CalPERS payment. Cheri said this was for the whole year. The District gets a discount for paying annually. President Russ suggested that the Board might look at paying down the District’s unfunded CalPERS liability at a future meeting. President Smolley suggested that President Russ begin by discussing this with Cheri offline. They can decide whether Staff should make this a future agenda item.
There was no public comment. Director Smolley moved to approve the Accounts Payable, and Director Layng seconded. The motion passed 5-0.
Annual Disclosure of Employee Reimbursements
Finance Manager Cheri Freese introduced this agenda item. She said any reimbursements over $100 are required to be reported.
Director Smolley asked why there were no reimbursements for tuition. Cheri said tuition and training are two different things. The District typically puts tuition on its credit card, so no reimbursement is required.
Director Fultz asked if the $100 threshold was indexed for inflation. The answer was no.
Directors Largay and Layng had no questions. Neither did President Russ.
There was no public comment.
Personnel Policies
Management Analyst Jen Torres introduced this agenda item. Over the past year, the District has undertaken a comprehensive review of administrative policies related to workplace flexibility, information protection, cybersecurity, and the use of District technology resources. This effort was initiated following Board direction to develop policies that address evolving operational needs, technological advancements, cybersecurity threats, and the increasing use of digital services by both employees and customers.
In October 2025, the Administration Committee reviewed a draft Remote Work and Flexible Schedule Policy and recommended it for Board consideration. During the Board's November 2025 review, Directors requested that staff develop complementary policies addressing privacy, information security, and cybersecurity to provide a comprehensive framework governing employee practice, protection of District information, and technology security.
Staff subsequently developed draft Remote Work, Privacy & Security, and Cybersecurity policies and presented them to the Administration Committee in April 2026. Following Committee review, staff undertook a comprehensive policy simplification effort to improve readability, reduce duplication, and create a more efficient policy structure while maintaining operational effectiveness and appropriate internal controls.
As a result of that effort, the former Privacy & Security Policy and Cybersecurity Policy have been consolidated into a single Information Security, Privacy & Technology Use Policy. This combined policy establishes a unified framework for cybersecurity, privacy, technology use, data protection, remote access, operational technology (OT), and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) security. The Remote Work & Flexible Schedule Program Policy has been revised to focus on workplace flexibility, employee eligibility, performance expectations, and operational requirements while referencing the information security policy for technology and security requirements.
Together, these policies establish clear expectations for employees, strengthen protection of District systems and information, support operational resilience, and provide flexibility to meet current and future workforce needs.
Director Largay said the policies seemed fairly straightforward, and he supported them.
Director Layng said she was impressed with where these ended up. Her only question was about unauthorized personal devices with confidential information. She asked if this applied to directors because she sometimes opens confidential documents on her personal laptop. Jason said the District could consider issuing laptops to Directors, but the policy was for employees. President Russ said this could be something to be considered in the Board Policy Manual. Director Layng said the current policy states that it applies to Directors. On the other hand, she wasn’t requesting a laptop, and the consensus was that the reference to Directors should be removed.
Director Smolley said he was part of the Administrative Committee review, and he liked the result.
Director Fultz said the Remote Workplace was very well done. For Security, he recommended that the District adopt a Center for Internet Security (CIS) rubric. He also advised that cloud-based operations should go in a cloud development environment. He saw the document as a good start, but he said the District should identify the controls it will be following as part of an explicit framework. He said even small districts need to do this. He said the District might start by moving Microsoft Office tools into this cloud. He also offered to provide further guidance based on his own professional experience.
President Russ appreciated both the staff work and Director Fultz’s offer to assist. He appreciated the clarity of the manuals. With regard to remote work, he asked how many employes this would apply to in practice. Jason said it might be most appropriate for administrative tasks. He said the District has been making informal allowances, and the response has been positive.
There was no public comment. Director Smolley moved to adopt the policies, and Director Layng seconded. The motion passed 5-0.
Consent Agenda
There was one item on the Consent Agenda:
a. Board Meeting Minutes 8.6.26
The 8.6.26 Board Meeting Minutes were approved by unanimous consent.
District Reports
June Financial Status Report
Finance Manager Cheri Freese introduced this agenda item. She noted that the numbers in the report were not yet final.
Director Fultz said a 50% reduction in contract and professional services was worthy of public recognition. He called this a staggering reduction, unprecedented in this District. He also noted that revenue minus expenses came to $7.7 million. This makes it look like the District will exceed the $6.5 million that was in its plan. He said this was also very significant. He added that he expected the District to face significant pressure on a number of fronts to spend more. He said the District must continue meeting its numbers or its plans can't be implemented.
President Russ agreed that congratulations are in order. He said there was still a lot of work to do, but the District is on a great trend line.
The Open Session was adjourned at 8:10 PM. The Board returned to Closed Session, but it did not anticipate any reportable actions.