February 19, 2002

VALLEY CENTER MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

Regular Board Meeting

Tuesday, February 19, 2002

Time: 2:00 P.M.

Place: Board Room

29300 Valley Center Rd.

Valley Center, CA 92082

The Valley Center Municipal Water District Board of Directors’ meeting was called to order

by President Broomell at 2:00 P.M.

ROLL CALL

Board members present were: Directors Broomell, Aleshire, and Stone. Absent were

Directors Polito and Haskell. Staff members present were: General Manager Arant,

General Counsel Cowett, District Engineer Jewell, Director of Finance Jarrell, Director of

Operations Dacus, Ass’t. Board Secretary Doerr, Ms. Serrato, and Messrs. LoPresti and

Laventure.

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Upon motion by Aleshire, seconded by Stone and unanimously carried, the following

consent calendar items were approved:

Minutes of the Board meeting held February 4, 2002

Audit demand check numbers 87994 through 88206

Board of Director’s requests for per diem compensation and

reimbursement of expenses

RECOGNITION OF EMPLOYEES

Director of Operations Dacus commended the following employees for doing an

outstanding job during the recent shutdown of the 1

st and 2 nd Aqueducts: Gaby Olson and

Yvette Serrato who notified numerous customers of the shutdown, handled hundreds of

related calls in addition to their regular duties, and notified customers when the tie-in was

complete; Tony LoPresti, the District’s backflow specialist, who worked long hours and

was placed on duty because of his vast knowledge of backflow devices and location of

meters; Eric Laventure and Thad Klimas, Operators, who worked many long hours

preparing for the shutdown and making sure the District’s reservoirs were not depleted.

Valley Center Municipal Water District

Board of Directors’ Meeting

2/19/2002

ACTION AGENDA

2. Resolution Adopting the Agricultural Water Management Plan for County of San

Diego:

With the adoption of Resolution No. 97-30 on July 7, 1997, the Valley Center

Municipal Water District became a signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding

Regarding Efficient Water Management Practices by Agricultural Water Suppliers in

California (“MOU”), which was drafted as a result of provisions in AB 3616, the

“Agricultural Water Suppliers Efficient Water Management Practices Act of 1990

.”

As a signatory to the MOU, the District committed to develop, adopt and then

implement an Agricultural Water Management Plan (Plan) within its service area.

In response to encouragement from the Department of Water Resources and requests

from its agricultural member agencies, the San Diego County Water Authority

(SDCWA) developed the regional Plan with assistance from the District, Mission

Resource Conservation District, San Diego County Farm Bureau, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, and the County of San Diego Department of Agriculture.

The draft Plan was reviewed at the District’s regular board meeting of December 3,

2001. Since that presentation, the document was sent out for public review to the

public library and various places throughout San Diego County. The only comments

received involved minor modifications to Chapter 10 to clarify which of the Best

Management Practices provisions will be implemented by VCMWD and which by the

SDCWA. This document is scheduled for adoption by the SDCWA Board of Directors

on Thursday, February 28, 2002. Upon adoption of the Plan, it will be submitted to

the Agricultural Water Management Council.

Upon motion by Aleshire, seconded by Stone, and unanimously carried, the following

resolution entitled:

RESOLUTION NO. 2002-06

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

VALLEY CENTER MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT ADOPTING THE

AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE

VALLEY CENTER MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

was adopted by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Directors Broomell, Aleshire, and Stone

Valley Center Municipal Water District

Board of Directors’ Meeting

2/19/2002

NOES: None

ABSENT: Directors Polito and Haskell

3. Presentation on Soil Polymer Research and Consideration of Funding Research Project:

In early 2001, staff began discussions with a Mr. Blaine Vice of Soil Technologies,

Inc. of Fallbrook Broadleaf P-4 Soil Polymer Research regarding the District’s possible

interest in financially supporting research on soil polymers as a means of increasing

agricultural water conservation. Staff initially directed Mr. Vice to the California

Agricultural Water Team, which at the time was looking for agricultural water conservation

projects to submit for funding under Proposition 13. However, the application

for funding under this program was ultimately rejected primarily on the basis that it

was not a capital-oriented project.

Following rejection on the Proposition 13 grant application, District staff then

organized a meeting involving other agricultural agencies, representatives from the

San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), and the agricultural scientific research

community to consider the research. At that meeting held in Fallbrook on July 31,

2001, there was a significant amount of interest expressed in the soil polymer as well

as a number of questions which could only be answered by research. It was concluded

by the group that any research effort would be a long-term study, would need

to be designed on a more generic basis in an attempt to avoid the issues of

evaluating a specific product from a specific manufacturer, and should have the

financial support of the agricultural industry, such as the California Avocado

Commission. Following this meeting, in August of 2001 the proposal went before

the Avocado Commission for consideration for research funding. The proposal was

rejected on the basis that there are other research projects of a higher priority than

the soil polymer proposal.

Finally, in early January of 2002, notification came from the SDCWA that they had

elected to focus their research funds in the current FY 2001-2002 budget on the salttolerant

root stock research rather than on soil polymer research. However, they

indicated that they will seek funding for the polymer program in the FY 2002-2003

budget. In discussing the data provided by Mr. Vice and the polymer issue in general

with water conservation representatives from the SDCWA, there is the consensus

that aspects to the soil polymer application might have value in fostering agricultural

water conservation. Such a project would also demonstrate the District’s support

of agricultural water conservation which is one of the Best Management Practices in

the District’s Agricultural Water Management Plan.

Mr. Vice addressed the board showing research data based on several field tests he

Valley Center Municipal Water District

Board of Directors’ Meeting

2/19/2002

had conducted in North San Diego County. Through moisture absorption and retention,

soil polymers increase yield, reduce irrigation needs, and improve the overall

health of the subject trees. Most significant from the perspective of water conservation

is that current production yields can be maintained while reducing water demand

by 20% to 30%.

The Board felt that given the long-term outlook of water for agriculture in our District

and in the North County that participation in water conservation research would be

a prudent use of public funds under the following conditions:

• research be structured to address the generic issue of soil polymers and not just

a specific product or manufacturer;

• research be designed and supervised by the recognized agricultural scientific

community; and

• District participation should be conditioned on participation by other agricultural

water agencies, either directly or through the SDCWA.

Upon motion by Aleshire and seconded by Stone, and unanimously carried, it was

agreed to budget funds for water conservation research in FY 2002-03.

4. Proposition 40 – Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach

Protection Act of 2002:

Proposition 40, the “Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach

Protection Act of 2002, will be on the upcoming March 2002 Primary Ballot. If

approved by the electorate, this measure would provide in excess of $3.4 billion for

a wide range of water resource and land conservancy efforts, ostensibly aimed at

improving the overall quantity and quality of fresh water supplies, as well as the

quality of inland waterways and coastal waters.

Unlike previous water bond measures, Proposition 40 has picked up significant

opposition from sources that would normally be in support of this type of proposition.

Most notable is the opposition by State Senator Jim Costa, a longtime supporter of

water development, who was credited as saying that there is, “not enough water in

the water bond.” Similar criticisms have been leveled by other members of the

California water community. Prior to this proposition surfacing, Senator Costa had

planned on heading up an effort to bring his own water bond to the voters sometime

in 2002. Sources indicate that he may still attempt this if Proposition 40 fails. At

Valley Center Municipal Water District

Board of Directors’ Meeting

2/19/2002

the center of the opposition to this measure are several issues:

This proposition was sponsored and drafted primarily by environmental and land

conservancy groups, with very little input from California’s broader water

community, though evidently MWD was involved in the development of some of

the provisions. In fact, ACWA was specifically excluded from the development

of this act.

While there are funds for water resource related issues and projects, six sections

of the proposition contain authorizations totaling $1,260,000,000 (36% of the

total bond) for the public acquisition of private lands for land and nature

conservancy interests.

Though much of the money will be allocated to water pollution control, water

quality, water reclamation, water quality exchange, drinking water source, river

parkway development, clean beaches and coastlines, drought protection, and local

resource development projects and programs through competitive processes, over

one-third the total money is directed to specific groups or entities, such as the

Wildlife Conservation Board ($940,000,000), State Coastal Conservancy

($140,000,000), Tahoe Conservancy ($40,000,000) and the Santa Monica

Mountains Conservancy ($40,000,000).

While this bond will be repaid by taxpayers from all over California, a total of

$500,000,000, or 15% of the total bond amount, is directed specifically to two

urban areas ($300,000,000 to Los Angeles/Ventura Counties and $200,000,000

to San Francisco City and County).

Of the $825,000,000 directed to various aspects of CalFED implementation, only

$50,000 is allocated to storage studies and none for actual construction.

In Chapter 8 entitled, “Integrated Regional Water Management,” Section 79560

provides $500,000,000 for measures to protect communities from drought and

improve water quality and water security. However, to the great disappointment

of many in the water community, this section has a specific prohibition against

these funds being used for the construction of on-stream or off-stream storage.

The positive aspects to Proposition 40 include $485,000,000 for Safe Drinking

Water and Water Security, $825,000,000 for CalFED implementation, $20,000,000

for canal lining in the Colorado River Region, and $100,000,000 for desalination

projects. These positive aspects are, unfortunately, largely offset by the fact that

much of the financial resources generated by this measure will go to land acquisition

and funding existing special interest conservancy groups concentrated in limited por

Valley

Center Municipal Water District

Board of Directors’ Meeting

2/19/2002

tions of the state.

General Manager Arant explained that political wisdom comes down on all sides of

the issue: (1) some say water interests should oppose because if Proposition 40

passes then it will be very difficult to come back anytime soon and get passage of

a “real” water bond which does not have specific exclusions for storage construction;

(2) others opine that while there may be some components which are

difficult to support, there are many positive aspects (such as money for CalFED and

Colorado River Conservation) at a time when there are questions about the level of

Federal support California may expect for this critical process; and (3) others hold

that if the water community comes out in wholesale opposition and Proposition 40

does fail, the public may be confused by the mixed signals and not support the next

water bond effort, even if it is supported by water interests.

All of these considerations aside, Proposition 40 does not have funds for storage,

does direct a significant amount of money to special interests, is heavily focused

toward certain geographic areas of the state, and seems to be more about the public

purchase of private lands than anything else.

Director Aleshire suggested stronger wording be used in the resolution opposing

Proposition 40 as the District needed to say exactly why it opposed the proposition,

that the proposition was a misuse of public funds for special interest groups and did

not address significant water issues in California.

Upon motion by Aleshire, seconded by Stone, and unanimously carried, the

following resolution was adopted, subject to rewording by Director Aleshire and

General Manager Arant, and staff was directed to forward the adopted resolution to

member agencies of SDCWA:

RESOLUTION NO. 2002-09

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

OF VALLEY CENTER MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

URGING OPPOSITION OF PROPOSITION 40,

THE “WATER SECURITY, CLEAN DRINKING WATER,

COASTAL AND BEACH PROTECTION ACT OF 2002"

was adopted by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Directors Broomell, Aleshire, and Stone

NOES: None

Valley Center Municipal Water District

Board of Directors’ Meeting

2/19/2002

ABSENT: Directors Polito and Haskell

5. Nominations for the LAFCO Special Districts Advisory Committee Election:

Nominations are being solicited for eight positions on San Diego LAFCO’s Special

Districts Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee consists of 16 members

elected to 2-year terms with one-half of the membership up for election every year.

The purpose of the Advisory Committee is to provide advice to LAFCO staff and the

Commission on jurisdictional issues.

General Manager Arant, currently a member of the Advisory Committee with a term

expiring on June 30, 2002, informed the board that he is prepared to continue serving

on the Committee if this was the desire of the board or he would gladly defer to

any member(s) of the Board of Directors having the desire to seek one of the open

seats on the Committee.

Upon motion by Aleshire, seconded by Stone, and unanimously carried, General

Manager Arant was nominated for one of the eight upcoming vacancies for the

LAFCO Special Districts Advisory Committee.

6. Award of Contract for the Shadow Lake Road Water Main Replacement Project:

District Engineer Jewell reported that on February 6, 2002, eight bids were received

for the Shadow Lake Road Water Main Replacement project. The lowest bidder

was Tiger Equipment Co., Inc., at $367,000.00. The contractor’s references have

been checked by staff and excellent comments were received. The engineer’s

estimate for this project is $379,120. Staff recommended adoption of Resolution

No. 2002-07 awarding the contract for the Shadow Lake Road Water Main

Replacement project to Tiger Equipment, Inc., for their low bid of $367,000.00.

Upon motion by Aleshire, seconded by Stone, and unanimously carried, the

following resolution entitled:

RESOLUTION NO. 2002-07

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

VALLEY CENTER MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE

SHADOW LAKE ROAD WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT

Valley Center Municipal Water District

Board of Directors’ Meeting

2/19/2002

was adopted by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Directors Broomell, Aleshire, and Stone

NOES: None

ABSENT: Directors Polito and Haskell

7. Resolution Adopting the Third Amendment to the Retirees’ Health Benefits Plan:

Currently, the Retirees’ Health Benefits Plan provides that an employee must have

at least 10 years of employment with the District to be eligible for benefits. The

Retirees’ Health Benefits Plan Advisory Committee (Committee) recommended that

this minimum period of employment be changed to 5 years to conform with the

minimum period of employment required by the California Public Employees Retirement

System. The Committee further recommended that the minimum employment

requirement be waived entirely for an employee permanently disabled as a result of

a job related injury.

Upon motion by Aleshire, seconded by Stone, and unanimously carried, the

following resolution entitled:

RESOLUTION NO. 2002-08

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

VALLEY CENTER MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE

DISTRICT’S RETIREES’ HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN TO CLARIFY

AND AMEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE PLAN AND

AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY

OF SAID WATER DISTRICT TO EXECUTE THE SAID

THIRD AMENDMENT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF SAID DISTRICT

was adopted by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Directors Broomell, Aleshire, and Stone

NOES: None

ABSENT: Directors Polito and Haskell

GENERAL MANAGER’S AGENDA

8. General Manager reported:

Valley Center Municipal Water District

Board of Directors’ Meeting

2/19/2002

The newsletter, “Cancel Cluster... Could it be the Water?” is being mailed out to

customers with their February water bills.

The Metropolitan Water District will be notifying its member agencies that it

exceeded its chlorate action level of 4 parts per billion. While the District’s

notification of its customers is optional, staff proposes inclusion in its annual

Water Quality Report which will be mailed to customers in May or June 2002.

Board Secretary Kathy Stetson was commended for the fine job in putting

together the “Fact Sheet 2002-2003" which gives general information about

VCMWD. This Fact Sheet will be placed in informational packets given to new

customers when they sign up for water service.

Director of Operations Dacus gave a brief report on operational issues during the

recent shutdown and how the District was able to supply water from the 1840

Zone to all other areas of the District with no incoming water supply.

Director of Finance Jarrell, who has announced his retirement, will be leaving the

District on Friday, May 17

th . Mr. Bill Jeffrey, Manager of Accounting, will be

appointed Acting Director of Finance on the following Monday, May 20

th .

CLOSED SESSION

9. A Closed Session was called by President Broomell at 4:10 p.m. pursuant to:

• Government Code §54956.9(a) – Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing

Litigation.

Name of Case: Sweetwater Authority, et al. v. Dynegy, Inc., et al.

Superior Court Case GIC 760743

The regular meeting was reconvened at 4:20 p.m. No action was reported.

ADJOURNMENT

10.

Upon motion by Aleshire, seconded by Stone and unanimously carried, the meeting

was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.

Valley Center Municipal Water District

Board of Directors’ Meeting

2/19/2002

ATTEST: ATTEST:

______________________________ _______________________________

Secretary President