Grand Jury Completed Grand Jury Response - Slvwd 1 message

The lack of effective communication between the District and the community regarding the administration of the Assessment District has caused public concern regarding the timing and implementation of Assessment District projects. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The San Lorenzo ValleyWater District (District) and its Board of Directors (Board) appreciate the work of the Grand Jury and all of the diligence and time invested over the past term. We agree with the finding and believe “lack of effective communication” actually understates the nature of the broader Assessment District No. 16 (AD-16) concerns, which largely center on confusion about the mechanics of the assessment district and unaligned expectations. Much of the confusion relates to the unexpected direction the Lompico CountyWater District (Lompico) annexation took after the failure of the original attempt to approve a bond to finance it. We agree it is time to clear up the confusion and move forward with a clearer and broader consensus on the workings of AD-16 for the ratepayers in the assessment area. Our plans to provide effective communications regarding AD-16 going forward are in our responses to R1 and R2. We have added a plan of action addressing the larger issue of AD-16 mechanics in our response to R6. SLVWD – Encouraging the Flow of InformationtothePublic SLVWDBoard of Directors

The District has not provided adequate authority, guidance, training, or support to the Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee (LADOC) to ensure that the committee can fulfill its assessment district oversight responsibilities, thus reducing transparency and accountability to the public. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): We appreciate the work of the Grand Jury in highlighting the lack of a detailed Charter for LADOC and the need to provide additional guidance, training, and support to LADOC committee members. In light of the bond/assessment distinction and commonly held misconceptions about assessment districts generally and the specific function of this oversight committee, a one sentence charter for LADOC is clearly insufficient for communicating the responsibilities of LADOC. A challenge faced by the District in providing more structure for LADOC is the limited availability of precedent for the specific function of this oversight committee. Most of the precedent that is available is for bond oversight, especially school bond oversight, which is governed by detailed requirements set forth in Proposition 39 and the Education Code. Though LADOC originally was conceived of as a bond oversight committee, it is not exactly the same as a bond oversight committee, although many of the same best practices can be adapted or applied. Our plan and commitment to create a more detailed Charter for LADOC is in our response to R3. SLVWD – Encouraging the Flow of InformationtothePublic SLVWDBoard of Directors

Lack of effective District communication practices has reduced public access to the decision-making process, and contributed to acrimony and on-going relationship challenges with the community, causing stress on elected officials and staff, as well as frustration among ratepayers. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): We appreciate the work of the Grand Jury and agree with this finding because it highlights an unusual level of acrimony and strained relationships that exist within the District. These issues present significant challenges for all members of the community, including ratepayers, elected officials and staff. We recognize that a high level of public engagement is desirable in light of public interest and concern regarding the District’s activities. Over the past couple of years the District has experimented with a number of ways to try to improve community relations and engagement. These include contracting with Community TV to record regular Board meetings and making these recordings available online. Also, the District switched to action minutes, consistent with best practices, in response to numerous complaints from members of the public resulting from the District’s former reliance on detailed meeting minutes. Not all of the District’s efforts to improve communications have been successful. In fact, most efforts have met with mixed reactions. A key challenge is that procedural changes to provide more equal and fair access to all members of the community may be perceived as limiting the participation of others. For example, limiting the time for each speaker at public meetings to three minutes per oral communication period helps to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak gets an equal opportunity to do so. Also, time limitations help prevent meetings from running so long into the night that meaningful attendance becomes prohibitive for some. On the other hand, time limits mean that people who wish to provide more detailed comments or to engage in back and forth dialogue may not have the opportunity to fully engage. There are reasonably held views on both sides of this issue, just as with many other communication challenges. Because of these kinds of challenges, at times the District has vacillated in terms of how best to facilitate communications. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for these kinds of tensions. The District remains open to new ideas and is willing to experiment and try new things. The ultimate goal shared by all members of the Board is to maximize public engagement in a manner that is workable, legal and fair. Our plan and commitment to address these issues in a manner that is responsive to the Grand Jury report is in our response to R7 and R8. SLVWD – Encouraging the Flow of InformationtothePublic SLVWDBoard of Directors