SLVWD Board Meeting Summary
August 21, 2025
Prepared by Mark Dolson for FSLVW
NOTE: Provided purely as a public service — NOT the official SLVWD Meeting Minutes.
Highlights:
Proposed Changes to the Organizational Chart
Reimbursements of Capital Expenditures from Proceeds of Tax-Exempt Obligations
Ratepayer Assistance Program (RAP)
Purchase of Two Utility Trucks
Redwood Park Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System
Powers Forestry Fuel Reduction Agreement
Five-Mile Hazardous Tree Mitigation Contract
Regional Government Services (RGS) Contract Amendment
Water Bill Adjustment Policy
Felton Heights (Lost Acre) Tank Land Acquisition
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Next Board meeting will be at 6:30 PM on September 4, 2025
Preliminaries
Director Layng was unable to attend.
There were two reports from the just-concluded Closed Session:
Legal Counsel Barbara Brenner reported that with regard to Existing Litigation (Holloway v. San Lorenzo Valley Water District), the Board authorized her to take actions on its behalf. She said the action would be made public when it was finalized.
General Manager Jason Lillion reported that with regard to Liability Claims (Edward Jones against the San Lorenzo Valley Water District), the Board voted 4-0 to settle the claim in the amount of $497.85.
There were three public comments on non-agendized topics. Carol McEwan, speaking as the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union representative for the District’s Classified Unit, said she had sent an email about a month ago saying that she would be at the Board meeting this evening either to offer congratulations or to express concern (with regard to ongoing negotiations). Instead, she said, she found herself somewhere in the middle (because some progress had been made but less than she had hoped for). She reminded the Board that District staff care deeply about the local community and had worked for this community through fire, mudslides, and more. She urged the Board not to continue to “kick the can down the road.” She said the union was trying to work collaboratively, and she was asking the Board to treat Staff with respect. She was happy that the Board had instructed Jason to come back with a counter proposal, and she expressed the hope that the negotiations could be rapidly concluded.
Board President Smolley said his ability to comment was limited by the Brown act, but he said the Board respected and appreciated Staff. The Board did not have a quorum for its planned August 7th meeting, but it held a special meeting this past Tuesday to try to move this along.
Joel Sciana, an Assistant Engineer for SLVWD, speaking as Union Steward, echoed Carol’s sentiments. He reminded the Board that priority should be placed on employees. He said he was glad that the District now had an intelligent and responsible General Manager and that negotiations had recently gained some traction. He said the way this has been handled to date should not be a model for the future as it was a disservice to hard-working employees who had waited many months for a response. He hoped an agreement could be reached soon.
Bruce Holloway of Boulder Creek called attention to $55,000 in the endowment fund which was reported to have been transferred to the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz about a month ago. Since the transfer did not appear to be an expense or an investment, he thought the transfer was a gift. He said he didn’t think there had been any Board authorization for this, and gifts of public funds are prohibited by the state constitution. He also noted that the Budget and Finance Committee meeting last week included information about this in the agenda packet, but the link appears to have been subsequently deleted from the District’s website. He said he thought all five Board members needed to know about this, and he wished it been on the agenda this evening.
Director Fultz requested more information on this, and President Smolley directed him to coordinate with Jason so that this matter could be placed on an upcoming Board agenda.
Unfinished Business
None.
New Business
Proposed Changes to the Organizational Chart
General Manager Jason Lillion introduced this agenda item. He presented a proposal for a restructuring of the org chart and the creation of two new positions. One of these positions, Associate Engineer, would be filled by promoting an Assistant Engineer, so it would not require an increase in headcount. It would still allow the District to bring more work in-house, in part because the Associate Engineer would be licensed to sign off on certain plans that currently require a consultant. More generally, bringing work in-house reduces the risk of cost overruns and delays, keeps money inside the District, and improves accountability and transparency.
The other position, Management Analyst would improve the District’s ability to seek grant funding and would significantly reduce the District’s current dependence on consultants for this activity. In addition, the Water Treatment Manager role would be replaced by that of Water Treatment Supervisor.
Jason’s memo in the Board packet stated that the addition of the Management Analyst position and backfilling the Administrative Assistant position at the entry level will result in an increase to the operational budget of $309,674, this will be offset by a reduction in the use of currently budgeted consultants conservatively estimated at $209,000 for this current budget cycle. Further offsets will be found through the grant and disaster relief funds procured by the position.
The Directors were generally in favor of this proposal, but they sought more empirical evidence of the projected benefits. For example, Director Russ asked for specifics as to how engineering consultants would be offloaded, and he also asked whether the District had the necessary software tools to perform the work in-house. Jason and Engineering Manager Garrett Roffe said the District had the software, and the biggest savings would come from being able to sign off internally on various smaller projects (e.g., tank designs) and being able to perform some project management. Garrett added that the new title would aid with employee retention.
Director Fultz suggested that Jason didn’t need to involve the Board in org chart changes, and he also questioned whether the proposed budget amendment was really needed.
There was no public comment.
President Smolley moved to approve the addition of the Management Analyst and the Associate Engineer. The motion was seconded, and it passed 4-0.
Reimbursements of Capital Expenditures from Proceeds of Tax-Exempt Obligations
Finance Consultant Heather Ippoliti introduced this agenda item. She explained that the District is planning to issue long-term tax-exempt bonds via a public offering to finance upcoming capital improvements. For the bonds to be issued tax-exempt, the District needs to comply with certain Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) requirements. The Code allows a bond issuer to use the proceeds of its bond issuance to reimburse expenditures made prior to the time bonds are issued, but only so long as the issuer expresses an intent to do so prior to the actual issuance of the bonds. A reimbursement resolution is the required expression of intent.
It is acceptable for the District to adopt a reimbursement resolution even if it is never used or even if the bonds are never issued. The District has been advised by its bond counsel that the Board should adopt a resolution.
Director Russ asked why the resolution in the Board packet only projected $6.5 million in issuance. Heather explained that it might be more cost efficient to borrow the anticipated $19 million in three different chunks.
Director Fultz asked if there were any conflicts whereby this might affect interest rates or bond ratings. His other concern was that the District may only be able to borrow half the amount that it actually needs to complete all the projects in its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Jason said the District was required to list all projects as part of the resolution.
Director Largay said he was comfortable getting the process started. He was quite concerned about the amount the District borrows and its ability to execute projects in a timely manner so that it doesn't pay more interest and fees than necessary. He emphasized two important components of the decision process that will require close coordination between engineering and finance: a refined schedule for construction implementation (with high confidence) and some scenario analysis looking at the financial impact of borrowing between $3 million and $19 million.
President Smolley asked whether the resolution would allow the District to pay for projects underway prior to the resolution.
Director Fultz called attention to the spending limits imposed by the District’s current reserve policy.
There was one public comment. Bruce Holloway of Boulder Creek said a previous Board discussion had left him worried about the potential for written spending commitments to prevent the District from flexibly reallocating funds when appropriate, but it wasn’t clear that this applied to the current situation.
President Smolley moved to adopt the resolution in the Board packet. Director Fultz seconded. The motion passed 4-0.
Ratepayer Assistance Program (RAP)
Finance Consultant Heather Ippoliti introduced this agenda item. She summarized by saying that the Board-approved budget increased the monthly RAP rebate to $25 per month (with an additional increase for the next fiscal year) and allowed for 30 additional participants. Staff was now seeking formal Board approval of the new RAP conditions.
Director Fultz had a comment. He noted that the RAP began five years ago with a budget of $25,000 and that the budget was now approaching twice this amount. He said he understood the need for assistance but still felt that the State needed to step up and provide its own funding. He said $50,000 could instead be used to recoat a tank, and this wasn’t the way to deal with the impact of costs on SLVWD customers. He also anticipated that the people pushing for increases in RAP funding would continue to do so, at the expense of funding for capital projects. For these reasons, he felt compelled to vote against this.
Director Largay characterized the RAP as an important program to help friends and neighbors in need who would otherwise forego other essentials to pay their water bill. Director Russ and President Smolley similarly voiced support.
There was no public comment.
President Smolley moved to adopt the resolution in the Board packet. Director Largay seconded this. The motion passed 3-1, with Director Fultz opposed.
Purchase of Two Utility Trucks
Operations Manager Jesse Guiver introduced this agenda item. He said the approved budget included $130,000 for the purchase of two three-quarter-ton trucks. A notice inviting bids was emailed to four dealerships on July 3rd, 2025, with a deadline to submit bids of July 25th, 2025. These dealerships included Watsonville Ford, North Bay Ford, Chevrolet of Watsonville and Gilroy Auto Group. Watsonville Ford was the only dealership that submitted a quote before the deadline that matched the bid packet's specifications.
The bid amount exceeds the allocated budget by $16,535. To accommodate this variance, the planned forklift purchase, originally budgeted for $45,000, will be deferred to a future fiscal year. The $45,000 will instead be reallocated to fund this purchase and potentially support the acquisition of a vehicle for the Environmental Department. The Environmental vehicle is currently budgeted at $33,000; however, preliminary estimates indicate that the actual cost may exceed this amount.
Director Largay (and, subsequently, Director Fultz) asked if there was any reason not to solicit more bids from further afield. Jesse cited the lack of response from dealerships. Director Russ asked how many vehicles the District has. Jesse said there were about 30 (for 36 Staff members). Multiple vehicles are older with high mileage and higher service costs. The District has one three-quarter-ton truck. The two new trucks will replace two older ones that were proving costly to maintain, but these old vehicles will still provide useful backup.
There was no public comment.
After some further discussion, the Directors agreed not to introduce further delays, but President Smolley asked Jason to bring a vehicle purchase policy to the Board. President Smolley moved to approve the resolution in the Board packet, and Director Russ seconded this. The motion passed 4-0.
Redwood Park Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System
Operations Manager Jesse Guiver introduced this agenda item. For the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Tank Replacement Project, Staff contacted the District’s current supplier for Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC), remote terminal units (RTUs), programming services, and SCADA systems to obtain pricing for upgrading the existing proprietary equipment. Staff proposed upgrading the communications infrastructure to align with current industry standards and ensure compatibility with modern equipment. The communications infrastructure currently in use by the District operates by sending signals on AT&T phone lines. When phone lines are impacted and require repairs the District’s current SCADA equipment stops working. Staff must make site visits for system monitoring and operational considerations. Replacement parts for the obsolete communication equipment are not readily available. New equipment communicates with ethernet connections.
Emerson Power & Water Solutions provided an offer on March 20, 2025, for Board approval, but the Board requested further investigation of possible alternatives. Staff reached out to several SCADA consultants and received a proposal for the Redwood Park project. However, Staff found this proposal to be incomplete, so the resulting price ended up being much higher than what Emerson proposed. Staff therefore recommended accepting the Emerson Power & Water Solutions offer.
Jesse added that the District uses three separate SCADA systems. Mission Communications is by far the least expensive, but it can't operate with systems with higher logic. Currently, the District uses Emerson for 25-30 sites, Mission for 13, and Tesco for four or five.
Director Russ asked what protocols were used to prevent cyber-attacks, given that an engineer can plug into the RTU on the site. Network Specialist Scott Mattoch said the systems had multiple firewalls and was pretty well locked down. Director Fultz suggested that a formal review of the District’s cybersecurity profile might be helpful. He also suggested that the entire SCADA strategy should be reviewed at some point, as an open solution would be greatly preferred.
There were no public comments.
President Smolley said he hoped Jason would bring some of his IT expertise to this issue over the next year, both with regard to cybersecurity and cost. He moved to approve the resolution in the Board packet, and Director Russ seconded this. The motion passed 4-0.
Powers Forestry Fuel Reduction Agreement
Environmental Programs Manager Chris Klier introduced this agenda item. His memo in the Board packet explained that the District has $171,125 in grant funding for Hazard Fuel Reduction as a sub-grantee on the Fire Safe Council of Santa Cruz County’s CalFire Fire Prevention grant ending in March 2026. The Hazard Fuel Reduction treatments will create defensible space around 37 government-provided water supply infrastructure sites, and it will also remove ladder fuels on 20 acres of natural vegetation surrounding infrastructure facilities to reduce the risk of crown fires. The District received multiple bids, and it rated Powers Forestry (score of 92) and Ecological Concerns (score of 91) highest. Powers Forestry has previously implemented the same work through a 2021 contract which has since expired.
Staff recommended contracting with Powers for the full project amount allotted in the grant, $171,125. While the District will initially need to pay project costs from reserves, Staff expect to be reimbursed for 100% of the costs by CAL FIRE. The District will also provide $1,060 cost share in Staff time in support of the project, making a final total cost of $1,060. The Environmental Department has $218,450 in its Contract/Professional Services budget, so there are sufficient funds.
Director Fultz noted that the two highest-rated bids were essentially tied. Chris said it was hard to get an apples-to-apples comparison across the various responses. He said Ecological Concerns was probably the less expensive option, but there were other relevant criteria, and the Staff ultimately relied upon their standard rating methodology. He added that Ecological Concerns wasn’t as responsive as Powers when asked for specifics about their plans. Director Fultz said he had a fundamental disagreement with the District’s assessment approach because many of the rating criteria weren’t that relevant to service agreements. For him, the one-point difference didn’t override the much lower expenses, and he felt the assessment didn’t weight cost heavily enough. He didn’t like the idea of giving all the District’s business to Powers unless this was dictated by some specific concern.
Director Largay said he didn’t have a strong initial opinion, but he was surprised that the work was not scoped in a way that allowed for an apples-to-apples comparison (so that cost could be the primary consideration – it was only weighted at 30% in the District’s standard assessment). He said the points raised by Director Fultz left him with questions about the recommended action.
Director Russ asked if the bidders knew the amount of funding that the District had received. Chris said they did not, but Director Fultz pointed out that this information was publicly available. The Directors then spent a significant amount of time trying to compare the outcomes associated with Powers vs. Ecological Concerns, but they eventually gave up. Director Largay said he was confused because the memo says one thing will happen, but it sounded like the bid would not deliver that outcome but only an effort toward that outcome. He said he would feel more comfortable having a contractor bid on outcome vs. effort
Chris said the money had to be spent by March of 2026, and he struggled with the RFQ because the grant was hastily written. Director Largay asked if a one-month delay would pose a problem, and Chris said the bidders could start immediately upon approval.
President Smolley asked Chris to come back to the Board with more information, including information about how the work would be supervised.
There was no public comment.
Five-Mile Hazardous Tree Mitigation Contract
Environmental Programs Manager Chris Klier introduced this agenda item. His memo in the Board packet provided substantial background. The 2020 CZU Fire destroyed the District’s “Five-Mile” raw water pipeline between Foreman Creek and Sweetwater Creek. This location currently remains unsafe to access due to roughly 750 dead or substantially damaged hazardous trees along the 5.6-mile bench. Mitigation of these hazardous trees is necessary before any other work for the Five-Mile Pipeline Replacement Project can be completed.
Independent of pipeline replacement, this hazardous tree mitigation is an essential project with multiple benefits such as fuel reduction and improved firefighter access. The District is pursuing a contract with the California Conservation Corps(CCC) to implement the project. The District previously contracted with the CCC for the mitigation of over 500 hazardous trees for the Peavine Pipeline Replacement Project with oversight from Powers Forestry; the work was finished in September 2024.
The CCC has grant funding to provide a crew for hazardous tree work, providing $556,800 of labor. The District is only responsible for funding costs such as food, staff overtime, and special operating costs, which are estimated at $95,000. Additional costs include $9,210 to contract Powers Forestry for project oversight, $8,902.62 for restroom rentals, and $14,888 for nesting bird surveys. The total upfront project cost to the District is $128,000.62.
The District has already invested approximately $200,000 on the project for the hazardous tree survey and environmental review. The District has included the hazard tree mitigation as part of its proposal for the CAL FIRE Fire Prevention Grant. The CCC labor was leveraged as match to apply for approximately $400,000 in hazard fuel reduction around infrastructure. The grant, if awarded to the District, would also cover most of the costs for this project, leaving the District with a total cost of around $55,600, which would be expected to be reimbursed 90% by FEMA.
The project was originally scheduled to start in September 2025, but to align with the CAL FIRE grant award period, it has been shifted to begin in February 2026 with estimated finish in October 2026. This shift in start date will add costs for nesting bird surveys, as the work will occur during the nesting bird season (Feb-Aug). The shift will also provide better work conditions for the CCC crew.
On July 24, 2025, the Environmental Committee unanimously recommended the Board of Directors to direct the District to enter into contracts with the California Conservation Corps, Mike Powers Forestry, and United Rentals for the Five-Mile Pipeline hazardous tree mitigation project.
Three changes have been made to the project since this recommendation: the project start has shifted from Fall 2025 to February 2026, an additional cost for nesting bird surveys has been added, and the project has been included as match on a CAL FIRE Wildfire Prevention Grant proposal. The total estimated cost to the District for the tree mitigation work is $128,000.62, with the District receiving $556,800 of grant-funded labor. While the District will initially need to pay project costs from debt proceeds ($120,000) and reserves ($8,000.62), staff expect to be reimbursed for 90% of all costs by FEMA, making the total cost to the District $12,800.
The District will pay initial costs with debt proceeds, but due to nesting bird surveys, will also need to pay $8,000.62 from reserves. The increase in expense of $8,000.62 for the project will result in a decrease of unrestricted net assets by $8,000.62. If the District is awarded the CAL FIRE grant, the District will pay a lesser total of approximately $55,000 for the project, which we would also expect to be reimbursed 90% by FEMA, resulting in a total cost of $5,500 to the District.
Director Fultz said he wanted to move forward with this and he had no problem with the proposed plan, but he urged everyone to readjust their thinking about FEMA reimbursements because he wasn’t expecting the District to see this money for years and years at best.
Director Russ asked Chris to clarify the supervisory role of Powers, and Chris explained that the project would last 32 weeks with daily supervision from the CCC crew lead, but Powers would provide higher-level oversight at roughly monthly intervals.
President Smolley said he felt conflicted. He noted that the Peavine Pipeline project is still years from completion, and the District was hoping that experience with this project would inform the Five-Mile Pipeline project. He recognized that the tree mitigation needed to be performed in advance, but it still would not be needed for many years. There are significant benefits to using the CCC, but the District still has to pay $128,000 for this. He also agreed with Director Fultz about FEMA.
Director Fultz said he thought it was valuable to be able to show the State that the District was still moving in this direction as part of its quest to secure essential water rights. President Smolley accepted this.
There was no public comment.
Director Fultz moved to approve the resolution in the Board packet, and Director Largay seconded this. The motion passed 4-0.
Regional Government Services (RGS) Contract Amendment
General Manager Jason Lillion introduced this agenda item. He reminded the Board that the District contracted with Regional Government Services (RGS) in October 2023 to enlist Heather Ippoliti as a financial management consultant while the District searched for a new permanent Finance Manager. The contract has been amended five times to date to increase the not-to-exceed amount, increase scope and extend the termination date. As of August 8, 2025, the District received and paid invoices for work completed through June 30, 2025, with $35,916 remaining on the contract.
Currently, staff is proposing to extend the contract to June 30, 2026, and increase the not-to-exceed amount by $36,400 to $281,700. In addition, the District proposes to add FEMA Project Reimbursement Management to the scope of services.
President Smolley noted that this proposal was not reviewed by any of the Board’s committees. Director Russ asked how long Heather would be able to continue with the District, and Jason said the District was currently in the final stretch of its hiring efforts. He said the District had some strong candidates, and he hoped a new Finance Manager could be in place this fall. The proposed contract extension for Heather should allow for her to continue for a few months beyond this to facilitate a smooth transition.
Director Largay said he thought Heather had done a terrific job for the District, and he was very much looking forward to having an in-house Finance Manager.
There was no public comment.
President Smolley moved to approve the resolution in the Board packet, and his motion was quickly seconded. The motion passed 4-0.
Water Bill Adjustment Policy
Finance Consultant Heather Ippoliti introduced this agenda item. She noted that the District allows customers to request a water bill adjustment, in writing, if their bill is unusually high due to water loss beyond the meter. However, a number of discrepancies have been identified between the customer-facing guidance on the District’s website and the official District Rules and Regulations, last updated in 2016. She summarized the recommended updates to the latter as follows:
Customers should apply within 90 days from the due date printed on their bill. (The official current policy lacks a time restriction.)
Customers should be allowed to request an additional adjustment within five years of their first adjustment if a larger leak is found within that time interval. (The official current policy allows only for one adjustment per customer.)
The adjustment should be allowed to span two billing cycles. (The official current policy only allows the adjustment to span a single billing cycle.)
The credit should be calculated via the more comprehensible method on the website.
·Customers should be allowed a 24-month repayment plan. (The official current policy allows only for a 12-month repayment plan.)
President Smolley said the Budget and Finance Committee had reviewed this, and Director Largay said he was comfortable with the Staff recommendation. He thought it was an overdue revision, and Director Russ agreed.
Director Fultz was concerned about the existence of two separate documents providing conflicting guidance. President Smolley said he thought the Staff had simply failed to update the official Rules and Regulations when making reasonable revisions to the policy.
There was one public comment. Bruce Holloway of Boulder Creek said this sounded to him like another instance of Staff not following Board policy. He said the Board should establish policies in accordance with state law, and Staff shouldn’t try to figure these out on their own.
There was no public comment.
President Smolley moved to approve the resolution in the Board packet, and this motion was promptly seconded. The motion passed 4-0.
Felton Heights (Lost Acre) Tank Land Acquisition
District Engineer Garrett Roffe introduced this agenda item. In 2013, Felton Heights water system consolidated its operations and maintenance into SLVWD. As part of the consolidation agreement, Felton Heights residents agreed to a property-related charge to help fund the replacement of the undersized water storage tank in the area, but this replacement is still pending. The current tank holds 10,000 gallons, which is barely enough to supply domestic water and severely limited in terms of fire flow; it is also in poor condition and nearing its life expectancy. Staff is recommending that the Board authorize the purchase of 0.70 acres of the Erickson Property located at 900 Shingle Mill Lane, Felton in order to accommodate a new 120,000-gallon bolted steel tank with adequate storage capacity to meet California Fire Code. To date, the District has completed a property survey, geotechnical investigation, conceptual engineering plans, and a land appraisal for the proposed tank site.
Director Largay asked if there would be additional associated costs (e.g., for a lot-line adjustment), and both Barbara and Garrett said they expected the final cost to be several thousand dollars more (particularly since negotiations with the property owner remain to be completed).
Director Russ asked if the District had the necessary easement and access. Garrett said it did, but there would be a separate project to install a pipeline to the tank. The District first needs to buy the land and develop it. It can then hire a contractor to build a retaining wall and to develop the site (for example, there are multiple trees that will need to be removed). The current resolution is just for the purchase of the land. The tank will have a usable capacity of 120,000 gallons with a total capacity of 167,000 gallons.
Director Fultz asked if the geotechnical report was complete and if an easement was required. Garrett said the report was complete, but the parcel was in an easement area, and the District still needed to negotiate the purchase price and the exact limits of the land.
Director Fultz noted that the tank was on the approved Capital Improvement Project (CIP) list, but that only about half of this project will be funded via the currently planned borrowing. He suggested that completion could be delayed by multiple years, and that the District could not currently guarantee when the affected community would finally get its tank. He asked that this matter be brought back to the Board for further discussion. President Smolley said it could be brought to the Engineering Committee.
There were two public comments. Bob Elliott of Felton Heights said he had addressed the Board in April with regard to this project, and the progress since then had been greater than in the previous ten years. He hoped the District could continue to work with Mr. Erickson to get this done.
An unidentified speaker questioned why the Felton Heights community was asked to bear the full cost of a new tank when it was consolidated into a District in which the average tank was already 50% depreciated. Director Fultz said a formal consolidation policy was discussed in a recent Engineering Committee meeting, and this concept came up.
President Smolley moved to approve the resolution in the Board packet, and Director Largay seconded. The motion passed 4-0.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Environmental Programs Manager Chris Klier introduced this agenda item. He reminded the Board that the District received a 2023 grant from the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) to create a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). An approved LHMP makes the District eligible for future CalOES Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funding opportunities. The District contracted Navigating Preparedness Associates in May 2024 as a consultant to help develop and write the plan. The draft plan was brought to the Board on February 6, 2025 and the Environmental Committee on February 27, 2025 for review and comment.
The last remaining steps in the LHMP process are for the Board to formally adopt the District’s final FEMA-approved LHMP and then to submit a final FEMA Approval Request Letter with the Resolution included. The LHMP expires after five years but can be reviewed and revised to remain valid for another next five years.
Director Fultz questioned the high ranking assigned to climate change (originally #1 and now #3) amongst the list of general threats. He argued that it only made sense to list threats like earthquake, fire, drought, storm, and cybersecurity attacks that the District could take direct action to mitigate. Chris explained that climate change was seen as a driver responsible for intensifying multiple threats and that it was important to list this in order to get the desired future project approvals.
President Smolley said he saw this as an outward facing document rather than as an implementation plan.
Director Largay agreed and elaborated. He said it was tactically advantageous to list climate change in this manner since it tends to make everything worse. He said he appreciated the considerable amount of work that went into developing the LHMP. He viewed it principally as a funding mechanism and as a way of communicating that the District is paying attention to threats and that grant money will be spent effectively.
There was one public comment. John Jameson said we were living in a cosmic shooting gallery. He said the bullets were going to come, and we needed to be flexible in dodging them.
President Smolley moved to adopt the resolution in the Board packet, and Director Fultz seconded. The motion passed 4-0.
Consent Agenda
There were three items on the Consent Agenda:
a. Revised Board Meeting Minutes from 6.26.25
b. Board Meeting Minutes 7.17.25
c. Annual Disclosure – Employee Reimbursements
These items were deemed to be unanimously approved without Board comment or action.
District Reports
Director Fultz had two questions and a comment regarding the Monthly Finance Report for June. He asked if the FY2025 statement of revenue ($14,984,148) included the CZU Fire Recovery Surcharge income ($990,528). Heather said it did not (this was listed separately under “Grant Funded Capital”). Director Fultz’s next question was whether the 2024 rate study projections included this amount, and Heather said she didn’t know. Director Fultz’s comment was that he thought the District needed to urgently review its status with regard to the rate study numbers. His sense was that the District will fall way short.
Written Communications
There were two written communications. One was a packet of letters from local residents once again urging the Board not to agree to provide water to the pending Haven development project on Graham Hill Road. The other was from Deb Loewen suggesting that community members may be mistakenly assuming that the citizens’ group Friends of San Lorenzo Valley Water (FSLVW) is formally associated with SLVWD. Director Fultz stated for the record that there was no such relationship and that, hopefully, everybody was aware of this. He said, however, that this group had historically possessed a very tight relationship with District management.
Board Comment
None.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 PM.