November 4, 2002

VALLEY CENTER MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

Regular Board Meeting

Monday, November 4, 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, Polito, Stone and Haskell. Director Aleshire

arrived at 2:10 p.m. Staff members present were: General Manager Arant, General Counsel

Cowett, District Engineer Jewell, Director of Operations Dacus, Director of Finance Jeffrey,

Information Systems Specialist Learue, Sr. Equipment Mechanic Morris, Water Systems Supervisor

Bull and Board Secretary Stetson. Spectator present was Mr. Ross, Valley Roadrunner

Newspaper.

CONSENT CALENDAR

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

consent calendar items were approved:

• Minutes of the Board meeting held October 7, 2002

• Notice of Completion filed for the VC-8 Chlorination Facility

• Resolution No. 2002-34 establishing the District’s restricted assets as of June 30,

2002

• Annual report of properties approved for deferral of water availability charges per

Administrative Code Section 165.2(d)(3)

• Audit demand check numbers 91174 through 91414

• Treasurer’s Report for the period ended August 31 and September 30, 2002

• Board of Director’s request for reimbursement of expenses and per diem

compensation

• Quarterly disclosure of expense reimbursements per Government Code

Section 53065.5

Valley Center Municipal Water District

Board of Directors’ Meeting

2 11/4/2002

ACTION AGENDA

2. Amendments to the Administrative Code Revising the Organizational Chart and Classification

and Compensation Plan:

Adoption of Ordinance No. 2002-11 was recommended to amend the District’s organizational

chart and classification and compensation plan to provide for seniority levels within the

mechanic’s classification (Fleet Mechanic I, II, III and Senior positions) and separation of the

existing Meter/Backflow Technician positions to Backflow Technician and Meter Technician

classifications. These changes would be reflected in Section 40.9, Organizational Chart, of

the District’s Administrative Code and Section 8.9(c), Classification and Compensation Plan.

Director of Operations Dacus clarified that an employee’s advancement within a classification

series is dependent upon obtaining different levels of certification, educational requirements,

as well as years of service.

Providing for progressive appointments within the mechanic’s job classification is consistent

with other field department positions and is expected to curtail the transfer of trained

mechanics to other job classifications within the District that have advancement opportunities.

The proposed modifications do not increase the total number of authorized positions.

Changes to the Meter/Backflow Technician positions to separate classifications was proposed

due to increased work loads. The fire department’s more stringent policy regarding sprinkler

systems in new homes and their backflow requirements has increased work that can be better

addressed with the speciality classification of Backflow Technicians. As proposed, the

primary function of a Backflow Technician would be working on the backflow program with

meter reading and customer service as secondary assignments.

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

ordinance, entitled:

ORDINANCE NO. 2002-11

ORDINANCE OF THE VALLEY CENTER MUNICIPAL

WATER DISTRICT AMENDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE

CODE TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGES IN THE DISTRICT

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART AND CLASSIFICATION

AND COMPENSATION PLAN

was adopted by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Directors Broomell, Polito, Aleshire, Stone and Haskell

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

Valley Center Municipal Water District

Board of Directors’ Meeting

3 11/4/2002

3. Status Report on the Additional Water Quality Testing:

General Manager Arant provided a status report on the additional water quality testing that

was approved by the Board in response to the request from the San Diego/Imperial

Organization for Cancer Control. He stated that:

• Tests will be conducted for 23 chemicals that had been applied in the 92082 zip code

between 1990 and 2000 and have an EPA cancer rating of “C” or above and an EPA

approved analytical method. Such testing will be conducted within the District’s service

area in which 8 strategic sample points have been identified that will provide an effective

representation of the system’s water quality in areas of concern.

• Full Title 22 testing will be replicated for in excess of 130 chemicals and aesthetic

characteristics on 3 samples taken from within the local distribution system.

(Metropolitan Water District of Southern California currently conducts the full Title 22

tests on the water delivered to the District.)

• Tests will not be conducted of private water systems or private wells.

Two control samples will be taken for both the special tests and full Title 22 tests near the 1

and 2

nd aqueducts. In this manner, the water’s constituency coming into our distribution

system from the aqueducts will be known. One sample for both the special and full Title 22

tests will be analyzed at an alternate laboratory for quality control purposes. Further,

sampling will be conducted by technicians provided by the selected independent state

certified laboratory with District personnel having no role in the sampling and chain of

custody. An agreement has been executed between the District and the Local Liaison

Committee of the Valley Center Community Response Team establishing the points of

agreement for the special water testing program. A Mr. Bob Morrison of Bob Morrison &

Associates had assisted the Local Liaison Committee in reviewing the special water sampling

agreement. Mr. Morrison is a consultant expert witness in toxic tort liability cases.

Total estimated cost for the special water quality tests is $25,000. The special water

sampling may be completed by the end of the week with results from the labs available 2-4

weeks thereafter.

4. Review of the SDCWA/IID Water Conservation and Transfer Summary Sheet:

Tentative agreement has been reached on the San Diego County Water Authority/Imperial

Irrigation District Water Conservation and Transfer agreement between the four water

agencies, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, San Diego County Water

Authority, Coachella Valley County Water District and Imperial Irrigation District. With the

exception of the IID, the agencies’ Board of Directors have ratified the Summary Term Sheet

of the agreement. Implementation of the SDCWA/IID Water Conservation and Transfer

Agreement will allow for completion of the Colorado River Quantification Settlement

Agreement and the California 4.4 Plan, securing the new Colorado River Surplus Operating

Valley Center Municipal Water District

Board of Directors’ Meeting

4 11/4/2002

Criteria through 2018. Provisions of the current agreement were reviewed as summarized

below:

The ramp-up of water transferred is reduced from the original agreement. 200,000 ac.

ft. will be transferred in year 19 of the agreement rather than in year 10. One million acre

feet will be delivered to the SDCWA over a 15-year period rather than 1.5 million ac. ft.

700,000 acre feet will come from fallowing and 300,000 acre feet from on farm

conservation.

Use of 390,000 acre feet of Metropolitan’s Palo Verde Irrigation District Land Fallowing

Agreement water in initial years to be purchased at Metropolitan’s contract rate to PVID

with an obligation to pay a proportional share of 3

rd party impacts on this water supply.

Development of potential brackish groundwater from the “East Mesa” area of the Imperial

Valley with the water being put into the Salton Sea to offset requirements for conserved

water or water from fallowing. This project would depend on state or federal funding and

it would be the SDCWA’s sole discretion whether or not to pursue this project.

Water from IID will cost $258/AF with a 2% COLA for the first five years and an option

to reset the price for years 6 through 15. After year 15, the price will be determined by

the water transfer “market” as set forth in the original agreement.

Environmental mitigation costs over the $30 million assumed by IID will be split between

SDCWA, Coachella Valley County Water District and MWD. These three agencies will

manage the environmental mitigation programs with one additional year allowed to

provide all of the needed environmental assurances.

The SDCWA will pay an initial $10 million in socioeconomic impacts (third party impacts

associated with fallowing) in the Imperial Valley. $100,000 will be paid up front for startup

of an agency to administer the funds, and $9.9 million after all environmental

assurances have been made and the transfer is formally approved. There will be an

additional $10 million paid over years 8 through 15. If third party impacts exceed

$20 million after 15 years, the SDCWA will pay the additional amount; if the actual third

party impacts in years 8 through 15 are less, the SDCWA will receive a refund.

After year 15, the terms of the transfer revert to the original agreement.

MWD will grant 15 more years of transportation through the Colorado River Aqueduct,

at a price to be determined later.

Upon ratification of the agreement by the Imperial Irrigation District’s Board of Directors, the

formal agreement and environmental assurances will be prepared to finalize the SDCWA/IID

Water Conservation Agreement, the California 4.4 Plan and the Colorado River Quantification

Settlement Agreement on or before December 31, 2002.

Valley Center Municipal Water District

Board of Directors’ Meeting

5 11/4/2002

5. Corporate Facility Master Planning Process:

General Manager Arant reviewed that the District’s Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2000-2001

and 2001-2002 had included a goal to develop a corporate facilities master plan. In

response, staff had prepared a “Corporate Facility Needs Assessment and Options Analysis”

document which was presented to the Board in the spring of 2001. Three siting options were

identified as a result of the study which were to develop on the existing site, development at

Lake Turner, and development at a newly acquired site. The study had estimated that to

meet long-term corporate facility needs, 8 to 10 acres would be needed to accommodate the

following:

• 52,000 square feet of covered structures (projected work force of 120)

• 112,000 square feet for parking (employees, public and District vehicles & equipment)

• 190,000 square feet for yard area, walkways, landscape and setbacks

The second phase of the corporate facility master plan goal to secure outside professional

assistance and complete the master plan was deferred in April of 2001 due to the then

ongoing energy crisis and its impact on District’s operations. Also, the alternative of pursuing

Lake Turner as an potential site was dropped from consideration.

A strategic goal approved for Fiscal Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 is to resume the process of

evaluating and making provisions for the District’s future corporate facility needs and $35,000

was appropriated in the FY 2002-2003 budget to support this effort. It was concluded that

consulting services should be retained in order to establish if future corporate facility needs

can or cannot reasonably be met with development on the current site. To this end, staff

recommended securing consulting services to:

~ Update and provide a critical review of the space and land area needs analysis

previously performed in house

~ Obtain a preliminary facility layout

~ Acquire a construction sequencing analysis and a recommended construction

sequencing scenario that would maintain full District operations at all times

~ Determine if development on the existing site is feasible considering operational logistics,

phasing, cost and satisfying future needs

If it is determined that development on the existing site is not feasible following completion

of the review as outlined above, further assessment of the current work site will cease and

efforts will be focused on identifying and securing a new site. However, if it is determined

that development on the existing site is feasible, then work would continue toward obtaining

a feasibility level cost estimate for development on the existing site and estimate for

Valley Center Municipal Water District

Board of Directors’ Meeting

6 11/4/2002

development of equivalent facilities on a site which is currently undeveloped. In addition,

property profile analyses would be conducted on the two identified alternate sites, Lilac Road

and Miller Road.

At the conclusion of the work as proposed, the following would be determined:

If it is feasible to develop the corporate facilities to meet the District’s needs on the

existing site and its cost; and

Cost to develop corporate facilities on a new site; and

Relative cost to develop on the three alternative sites; and

An overall feasibility level cost comparison, including site acquisition and construction

costs of the alternatives.

Upon motion by Stone, seconded by Haskell and unanimously carried, the Board

authorized staff to pursue the Corporate Facilities Needs Assessment as recommended

by staff.

6. Request to Approve Purchase Orders for New Vehicles and Equipment:

Bill Morris, Sr. Equipment Mechanic, reviewed the bids received on October 29

th for new

vehicles and equipment that had been approved in the 2002-2003 budget and requested

issuance of purchase orders. The lowest acceptable bids (including tax) were as follows:

$21,310.80 - Lake Chevrolet (½ ton full size truck extended cab)

$25,841.68 - Moss Motors Dodge (½ ton full size truck crew cab)

$26,210.27 - Kearny Mesa Ford (1 ton cab and chassis truck)

$61,956.25 - Rancho Ford (Dump truck)

$67,840.00 - Hawthorne/CMAS (Backhoe)

In response to Director Aleshire’s inquiry if it would be advantageous to maintain a fleet that

is from the same manufacturer, Director of Operations Dacus stated that the District’s

mechanics are trained on all types of vehicles, which, with the changing industry, is a

necessity, and the District’s fleet maintenance equipment is not specific to one manufacturer.

Therefore, it is felt that competition from the different manufacturers is advantageous for the

District.

Upon motion by Aleshire, seconded by Stone and unanimously carried, Purchase Order

Nos. 15551, 15552, 15553, 15554, and 15555 were approved for the purchase of the new

vehicles and equipment as listed above.

Valley Center Municipal Water District

Board of Directors’ Meeting

7 11/4/2002

GENERAL MANAGER’S AGENDA

7. Appointment of Bill Jeffrey to the Position of Director of Finance:

General Manager Arant announced that Bill Jeffrey has been appointed the District’s Director

of Finance effective as of the end of September 2002. Mr. Jeffrey has served as Acting

Director of Finance since the retirement of Jere Jarrell in May.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ AGENDA

8. San Diego County Water Authority’s Board of Directors’ Meeting:

President Broomell reported that at the San Diego County Water Authority’s Board meeting

of October 24

th , the Authority’s Capital Improvement Program budget was amended to include

issuance of request for proposals for additional water treatment capacity. The Authority is

seeking such proposals as a shortage of drinking water or “brownouts” are predicted by 2006.

President Broomell expressed his opposition to this proposal due to the estimated cost of

$50 million to $100 million and that it would be more prudent to continue with the practice of

assisting its member agencies in the construction of treatment plants with agreements for

excess capacity. The Authority has cited that local demands for drinking water have

surpassed the treatment capacity at Metropolitan’s Skinner Treatment Plant during a

summer’s peak usage period and that an expansion of Skinner will not be completed until

2006. President Broomell noted that desalinated water that is planned to be produced at

Carlsbad and the South Bay will not require treatment. Proposals received for the Authority’s

proposed treatment plant will be presented to the SDCWA Board for approval to construct

at a subsequent Board meeting.

9. ACWA Fall Briefing and California Water Policy Conference:

Director Aleshire reported that he had attended the ACWA Fall Briefing on October 8

th and

the California Water Policy Conference on October 9

th and 10 th during which global warming

was discussed. There is evidence that the earth’s temperature is rising that will, over the next

100 years, cause a rise in the sea level with estimates varying from 3.5" to 35". In addition,

the snow pack elevation will rise. These affects will greatly impact California’s water system

and its water policies.

CLOSED SESSION

10. A Closed Session was called by President Broomell at 3:20 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.

SDSC Case No. GIC 760743

Valley Center Municipal Water District

Board of Directors’ Meeting

8 11/4/2002

• Government Code §54956.9(a), Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation

Name of case: Rincon del Diablo Municipal Water District, et al. vs. San Diego

County Water Authority

SDSC Case No. GIC 798230

• Government Code §54956.9(b), Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated

Litigation

The Regular Board meeting was reconvened at 3:55 p.m. There was no reportable action

from the Closed Session.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ COMMENTS

11. Closure of Cougar Pass Road:

Director Aleshire stated that he was contacted by an attorney representing residents of

Hidden Meadows that are opposed to the closure of Cougar Pass, an easement that connects

Valley Center to the Hidden Meadows community. Director Aleshire explained he provided

information concerning the District’s request in 1999 that the County exercise its irrevocable

offer of dedication and establish it as a County road. This request was declined by the

County due to other priorities and lack of funds. Director Aleshire said he has encouraging

the residents opposed to the closure of Cougar Pass to present a proposal to Supervisor

Horn for Cougar Pass to become a county road.

The District has a 60 foot easement for road purposes over a large portion of the Cougar

Pass/Betsworth Extension Road, as well as a pipeline easement that is substantially located

within the roadway. The District utilizes the Cougar Pass/Betsworth Extension Road to

access its facilities in the Meadows area. Cougar Pass traverses through property currently

owned by Mr. Braman who is proposing erecting gates to stop the traffic on this easement

through his property. As the District does not have jurisdiction over road maintenance, it

cannot stop a private property owner from installing gates, but will require access for

maintenance of District facilities.

ADJOURNMENT

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

was adjourned at 4:12 p.m.

ATTEST: ATTEST:

______________________________ _______________________________

Secretary President