SLVWD

Almost two months since the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury released its findings about the San Lorenzo Valley Water District (SLVWD) board of directors, the public still remains critical of the response from the directors.
The board met at Spring Lakes Park, a mobile home park in Scotts Valley, on Thursday July 19. This was the first meeting of the board at this location. According to SLVWD District Manager Brian Lee, several months ago the board voted to host their meetings in a variety of places the district serves, in an effort to expand opportunities for the public to attend meetings.
However, in the instance of last week’s meeting a clerical error was made. The closed session was listed on the meeting’s agenda as 3:30 p.m. and open session was listed to start at 6:30 p.m. While the open session should have been held earlier, due to the Brown Act since the time was already listed as 6:30 p.m. it had to stay consistent with what had been released to the public. But in an effort to fill the time between the end of closed session and the start of open session, SLVWD staff held a question and answer session for members of the public that were present, addressing any issues or pressing questions.
Once open session started at 6:30 p.m., the first item the directors addressed was awarding District Manager Lee a merit increase, which has been a part of his contract since January 2016.
According to Lee’s contract, at the discretion of the Board, the manager will also be eligible for up to a yearly five percent merit increase based on performance. This comes as an addition to an annual cost of living adjustment.
The board held a performance evaluation of Lee during a closed session in June. At the July meeting, the board voted in closed session, 3-1 (with 1 abstaining) to award Lee with a 2.5 percent merit increase, in addition to an already given increase of 3.6 percent given to management, supervisory and confidential employees at the start of the year for a cost of living adjustment.
There was some opposition to the news of the merit increase awarded to Lee from ratepayer Bruce Holloway, who is currently involved with two lawsuits involving the district.
“Brian Lee called me a liar and a thief; he deserves zero. He is not serving the district,” said Holloway to the board of directors.
In response, board of director Gene Ratcliffe stated, “There are a very large number of different duties the general manager performs and we had some extremely good outcomes last year. There is more to the district manager’s job than might be apparent.”
In an interview with the Press Banner on the Monday after the board meeting, Lee explained his performance evaluation is done in closed session with the board of directors.
“The board gave me an honest discussion on my negatives and my strengths,” Lee said.
The directors were asked by members of the public at the Thursday meeting how much of a raise was given to Lee. No board member responded to the question with the answer. However, the total amount that could possibly be given with the merit increase was listed on the agenda, which could have been used to find what 2.5 percent would be. Lee explained on Monday to the Press Banner why no answer was given from the board, “I cannot speak for the board.” The 2.5 percent merit increase is equivalent to an additional $4,887.5 yearly in compensation.
According to Holly Hossack, District Secretary, Lee’s annual salary is $200,500 after the 2.5 merit increase awarded and the yearly cost of living adjustment. Performance evaluations for the district manager are not available for public record.
The next item on the board’s agenda was presenting a draft response to the grand jury findings. The SLVWD board of directors in June established an ad-hoc committee established with board chair Chuck Baughman and newly appointed director John Hayes to prepare a draft response.
In the draft response, the board either agreed or partially agreed with all the findings from the grand jury report. In each finding, the board provided a detailed response to what was agreed with and laid groundwork on how to address the issue.
“I read the draft response; this is your second grand jury report in four years,” said ratepayer Lois Henry of Lompico. “I find this a joke.”
“I think there is a lot of meat in here,” director Hayes said at the meeting. “We strongly agree with the findings and we are taking what they said to heart and going beyond in addressing the issues they point out.”
Director Bill Smallman responded critically of the draft response presented to the board and the public.
“We work for you (the public), you are the boss. You can take us out with your vote. We want to encourage more public involvement,” Smallman said. “This district has seemed to forget this.”
In response, director Ratcliffe stated that since the previous grand jury report was released and transparency was brought up as an issue, the district has worked to address it, citing the filming of meetings as one example.
“When I look at this process I get very sad,” said Bob Fultz. “When actual changes happen is only when you get a lawsuit or a grand jury report, not from the feedback from the public. It is sad, you could have done a lot better.”
While some members of the public were not in favor of the draft response, a few came to its defense.
Jennifer Gomez, of Felton, who is on the environmental committee, said “I thought the response was professional and well written. I hope we can be more issue and project focused.”
After hearing the public comments to the draft response, it is now up to the ad-hoc committee to prepare a final draft response which will be presented at the August 16 regular board of directors meeting. The Board’s final response to the Grand Jury report is due by August 29.
“It is hard to make edits with skepticism,” Hayes said. “The proof will be in the pudding as we move forward with the recommendations.”
Public members who still want to address the draft response can contact district manager Brian Lee or district secretary Holly Hossack at either bl**@sl***.com or hm*******@sl***.com

Previous articleRent caps for Section 8 program successfully challenged
Next articleCounty offers limited amnesty for unpermitted dwellings, if certified as safe

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here