Mark Dolson
Consolidation Challenges
The most recent regular San Lorenzo Valley Water District (SLVWD) Board meeting was on November 21st. The meeting lasted ninety minutes and was devoted to fairly routine business, but there were still some challenges for the Board to wrestle with.
Consolidating Bracken Brae and Forest Springs
District Engineer Garrett Roffe brought the Board up to date on the latest developments in what has proven to be an exceedingly complex and demanding consolidation initiative. Following extensive 2020 CZU Fire damage to two small mutual water companies north of Boulder Creek, SLVWD signed letters of intent agreeing to work toward consolidating both Bracken Brae and Forest Springs into the District. However, the Board made it clear from the start that the consolidation could not be funded by current SLVWD ratepayers.
Initially, the District planned to fund the necessary infrastructure improvements with a $3.2 million grant from the Department of Water Resources (DWR) along with a million dollars that Bracken Brae obtained from FEMA. However, in 2022, the District learned that the planned development work would actually cost $12.8 million.
In July of 2024, the Board concluded that the District’s best option was to spend the remaining $2.5 million of its DWR grant on a $3.9 million upgrade of existing District pipelines as an essential first step toward the still-pending consolidation of Bracken Brae and Forest Springs (and, perhaps eventually, Big Basin). The remaining $1.4 million would be paid for by SLVWD because it would directly benefit the District independent of the consolidation.
The District submitted a letter to DWR requesting approval of the reduced scope of work and an extra year (i.e., until December of 2025) to complete the construction. DWR agreed to this with the proviso that the upgrade must be extended to include a permanent connection with Bracken Brae (which requires replacing an existing bridge crossing with a larger pipeline).
On October 1, 2024, SLVWD received three construction bids (all in the $3 million range) for this revised plan, but it also learned that significantly more time and money would be required for Caltrans to issue the required approval for the bridge crossing (because Caltrans will need to revise the traffic load rating for the bridge). A possible alternate strategy would be for the water main to span the creek without connecting to the Caltrans bridge via the construction of a separate lightweight steel structure. However, this would require approvals from four separate State agencies, making it difficult to predict whether this would ultimately save the District either time or money.
After considerable discussion (and a few public comments), the Board thanked Garrett for his clear presentation and indicated that it was inclined to support his recommendation that SLVWD award the construction contract to Sandis Engineering along with an additional services contract to show that the District can use the existing Caltrans bridge. Formal Board approval will likely be granted at an upcoming meeting when all the required documentation is in order.
Other Business
Finance Consultant Heather Ippoliti explained that the District’s Ratepayer Assistance Program (RAP) increased in January from $15 to $20 per month. This caused enrollment to max out at 104 customers, given the $25,000 budget limit. Increasing the budget ceiling by $3,000 would allow an additional 22 customers to sign up and participate during the remainder of the current fiscal year. She noted, though, that supporting 126 customers in the next fiscal year would require a budget of over $30,000. She said she would bring this issue to the Budget and Finance Committee in December so that the budget ceiling could be revised. Four of the Directors voiced their support along with multiple members of the public (several of whom also called for the District to convene a dedicated working group aimed at exploring additional measures that could improve SLVWD’s support for low-income ratepayers). Director Fultz voted against the $3,000 increase, arguing that the District should not be helping low-income ratepayers with this kind of program, as this was entirely the responsibility of the State.
In other matters, Heather delivered a routine monthly finance report, and the Board deferred the question of what its meeting schedule should be in January.