On Oct. 9, the Valley Women’s Club (VWC) and League of Women Voters hosted a forum to educate the public on Measure U, a proposal to repeal all fixed water charges and limit future increases to the San Lorenzo Valley Water District’s regular Water Service Charge to 2% per calendar year until Jan. 1, 2049. The forum was moderated by Dorothy Fry from the League of Women Voters of Santa Cruz County.
Like any similar measure, there are proponents and opponents of U, and two of the proponents—Bruce Holloway, candidate for SLVWD and co-author of the measure, and Bob Fultz, current SLVWD Director—shared the stage with one of its opponents, Jim Mosher, Principal Officer of Save SLV Water: San Lorenzo Valley Water District Rate Payers Opposed to Measure U.
The Measure U presentation began on the heels of the SLVWD Candidate Forum, in which candidates Bruce Holloway, Bryan Largay, Alina Layng and Bill Smallman had made their respective cases for why each should be voted onto the SLVWD Board of Directors; Largay and Layng were both appointed earlier in 2024 and are running as incumbents, while Holloway is a new candidate. Smallman is running a reelection campaign after his disastrous turn as a director from 2016-19, which ended with his resignation following accusations of racial comments he allegedly made during his tenure.
Fultz opened the Measure U discussion with his reasoning as to why it deserves to be passed, but about five minutes into his presentation, Layng (who had remained in the audience following her time on the dais as a SLVWD candidate), yelled out loud that there was a “Brown Act violation” occurring. Alisan Andrews, the current President/Treasurer of the Valley Women’s Club, insisted that Holloway remove himself from the dais as a result of the allegation.
Fultz said that the presentation “[had] nothing to do with the Brown Act,” to which an unidentified woman responded, “I don’t care.” Within seconds of that assailment, Andrews approached the dais and tried to yank Fultz’ microphone out of his hand, followed by an equally useless effort to snatch Fultz’ papers from the table. Unable to gather any of Fultz’ belongings, Andrews approached Holloway and advised him that he needed to leave the dais. While Holloway remained seated, Andrews removed his personal water bottle from the table in an attempt to force him to leave. Following that confrontation, Mosher, a former lawyer, agreed with Fultz that no such violation was taking place.
What is the Brown Act, and what is its purpose?
In 1953, the Brown Act was enacted to guarantee the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies, and as a response to growing concerns about local government officials’ practice of holding secret meetings that were not in compliance with public notice requirements. The Brown Act holds public officials accountable for their actions while allowing the public to participate in the decision-making process.
In addition to its regular application during public meetings, there are exceptions to it: Conferences and retreats, other public meetings, meetings of other legislative bodies, social or ceremonial events are exempt from the Brown Act provided that legislative members follow certain rules, such as limiting the discussion to the agenda in the conference; or that legislative members do not discuss amongst themselves business of their legislative body.
Given that exception, the panel presenting the Measure U information was in no way violating the Brown Act. There were four SLVWD Directors in the room—Fultz (on the dais), Jeff Hill, Largay and Layng, all of whom were in the audience. Holloway is a candidate for SLVWD, not a current director, so his attendance was in no way related to the Brown Act.
While the four directors in the shared space represented a quorum for SLVWD (a quorum is a minimum number of directors needed to be present at a meeting to transact business), the Measure U forum was educational in nature, and no actual board business was being conducted by SLVWD directors. Had Layng truly believed that a Brown Act violation was in progress, she could have eased her own fears by removing herself from the audience; after all, her candidate presentation had ended, and she was not required to be in attendance for the Measure U discussion.
Interestingly enough, Layng had mentioned during her closing statement that she believed that voters should be aware of, and vote in opposition to, “the chaos and drama” that some directors bring to the SLVWD board room. The woman who advocated for a drama-free district created the very chaos she seemingly despises. Layng herself is listed as an opponent of Measure U, so it’s entirely possible that her announcement of the Brown Act violation was a ruse to bring Fultz’ presentation to a halt, thereby not allowing the public to hear from the measure’s proponents. Accusations have been levied against both Layng and VWC that the timing of the verbal intrusion was calculated to disallow positive coverage of the measure. The Press Banner reached out to both the Valley Women’s Club and Ms. Layng for clarification, but neither responded to the request.
In addition, the members of the Valley Women’s Club who heeded Layng’s cry regarding the Brown Act violation are as seemingly uneducated on the application of the law as Layng is. A quick Google search of the Act provides information on the guardrails erected by it, and any of the VWC representatives could have discovered within seconds that Layng’s charge was based on disinformation. One of the women in the room announced, “Because there were three board members in the room, it became a board meeting,” which is patently untrue where the Brown Act is concerned. That comment was followed up by an admonishment of Holloway, with the same unidentified woman saying that if he didn’t leave the room, it was going to be “unfortunate and not to [their] liking.” Some members of the VWC are on record as being opposed to Measure U, making them less-than-objective hosts of community educational events on the proposal.
Analyzing Measure U
Returning to the interrupted presentation, Fultz said that low water users are going to be carrying the burden of rate increases over the next five years as proposed by the current increase. According to Fultz, by restructuring the water rates, the district is also encouraging conservation. “In the end, we’re trying to create fair and equitable rates, which is in the district’s mission statement,” said Fultz, who also mentioned opponents of Measure U do not talk about how great the current rates are, but instead are motivating SLVWD customers through fear.
SLVWD’s overall water usage has been steady for the last several years, with approximately 60% of customers using four units of water or less per billing cycle (a unit is about 748 gallons, with a typical shower using approximately 17.2 gallons of water). Only 7% of the monthly invoices reflect a 6-unit usage; using the U-shape of the current rate chart, users who exceed 20 units of water are paying less than the lower-end users. This lack of equity, said Fultz, is the main driver behind the implementation of Measure U.
An impartial analysis of Measure U, authored by District Counsel Christina Pritchard, says, “If a majority of voters approve Measure U, both the monthly Capital and Water Service Charges set by Resolution No. 6 (23/24) will be affected. The monthly Capital Charge is a fixed rate for installing, maintaining, and updating District capital improvements, such as water tanks and mains. It also helps fund rebuilding District water supplies, which were damaged in the CZU fire. These improvements are necessary for the District to provide water. Without the fixed monthly Capital Charge, the District could not proceed with these capital improvement projects unless an alternative funding source is identified. The monthly water Service Charge is a fixed rate that covers the District’s operating and maintenance costs. If future increases to this charge are limited to no more than 2% per year until January 1, 2049, as proposed by Measure U, the District would need additional funds from other sources to continue providing safe, clean, and reliable drinking water.”
What Measure U is slated to do is create a rate increase program through volumetric rates that will be more amenable to SLVWD customers and allow increases that provide fairness between water usage tiers. Measure U opponent and policy analyst Jim Mosher spoke of his 20-plus years as an advocate for the water department, although he has never served as a director. Mosher listed a litany of issues with the district’s infrastructure and spoke about the legacy of solid operations that he wants to pass on to future generations. He said that capital improvements would be stymied and the district would be plunged into a serious financial crisis with passage of Measure U.
While the pros and cons of Measure U may be debated, what the community of the San Lorenzo Valley must do is demand more of its representatives. Members of an organization like the Valley Women’s Club should not be imposing their personal beliefs upon those who have been invited to educate the public on proposals like Measure U. Members of SLVWD should not be attempting to publicly silence their co-directors based on personality clashes and misinformation around legal guardrails, and when an error in judgment is made, those responsible for any misstep should be held accountable.
For those wishing to watch the SLVWD Candidate and Measure U Forum, the full and unedited version of the event may be found by searching for “SanLorenzoValleyCommunityForum” on YouTube.com. The edited version of the forum is available on the Valley Women’s Club of San Lorenzo Valley YouTube page, youtube.com/@vwcadmin6731.
