The central component to the engagement process has been community forums and workshops. This series was designed as a progressive process – each workshop builds off the next to provide an escalating amount of detail based on public feedback and studies conducted by both the districts and independent experts. The sequence follows:
Workshop #1: Introduction & Feedback
Date: February 4, 2016
Attendance: 150 (approx.)
Recap: This workshop served as an introduction to the concept and the broad issues needing to be studied as part of the process. It included brief presentations from the general managers of both NCWD and CLWA, then a robust questions and answer session.
Result: Questions and issues were documented and incorporated in future planning and studies.
Workshop #2: Priority Setting
Date: May 16, 2016
Attendance: 90 (approx.)
Recap: This workshop focused on learning community priorities of a potential new water district. The agencies re-introduced the concept, challenges and opportunities. A representative from LAFCO outlined general governance matters in the region. Residents were then asked to rate their priorities on matters related to governance, service and finances.
Result: More than 50 priority cards were submitted. The results were as follows:
Workshop #3: Governance: How Could a New District be Governed?
Date: June 6, 2016
Attendance: 50 (approx.)
Recap: Based on priorities set by the community, a study was conducted and released to the public on potential governance structures. The public was invited to weigh in on matters like size of potential board, election, California Voting Rights Act, specific boundaries and other governance matters.
Result: Consensus among attendees and the respective boards was reached on a “division-based” structure of governance; consensus was not reached on matters like size of board
Workshop #4: Comprehensive Formation Study Review (Joint Boards)
Date: November 16, 2016
Attendance: 50 (approx.)
Recap: Demographics Research Corp. provided an overview of CVRA and voting divisions. Whipple & Associates methodically reviewed the financial analysis of both districts and provided expert opinions on standing and potential financial circumstances of new district
Result: The public and board asked questions and provided comments. Staff and consultants answered what questions could be answered and catalogued comments. The Board was asked to continue to study the report and settlement agreement.
Workshop #5: Concluding Workshop & Joint Board Meeting (Joint Boards)
Date: December, 13 2016
Attendance: 40 (approx.)
Recap: Probolsky Research provided an overview of public opinions on the proposal. The board asked questions of the demographer, research company, staff and legal counsel; the public was invited to speak on the potential new district – roughly 10 spoke in favor, 3 spoke against. The board voted 14-1 to approve the settlement agreement and formation of new district.
Early on, NCWD and CLWA committed a principle of meeting with anyone interested in this process and potential outcome. To date, the agencies have held dozens of briefings with individuals and organizations in the region. The following outlines these meetings.
• Building Industry Association of LA/Ventura Counties
• Canyon Country Advisory Council
• Castaic Town Council
• City of Santa Clarita
• Democratic Party of Los Angeles County
• KHTS 1220AM on-air interview
• Ms. Christie Smith
• Mr. Steve Fazio
• Mr. Henry Stern
• Office of Assemblyman Scott Wilk
• Office of Senator Scott Wilk
• Office of Congressman Steve Knight
• Office of Senator Fran Pavely
• Office of Senator Henry Stern
• Office of Supervisor Michael Antonovich
• Santa Clarita Chamber of Commerce
• Santa Clarita Lincoln Club
• Santa Clarita Rotary Club
• Santa Clarita Rotary Sunrise Club
• Santa Clarita Valley Economic Development Corporation
• Southland Association of Realtors
• Tesoro del Valle HOA
• The Santa Clarita Valley Signal Editorial Board
• Valley Industrial Association