VALLEY CENTER MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Regular Board MeetingMonday, September 19, 2011Time: 2:00 P.M.Place: Board Room29300 Valley Center RoadValley 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.
Board members present were: Directors Broomell, Polito, Stone and Haskell. Staff members present were: General Manager Arant, General Counsel de Sousa, District Engineer Grabbe, Director of Finance Jeffrey, Director of Operations Hoyle, IT Manager Pilve, Board Secretary Johnson, Consumer Services Supervisor Tilley and Project Manager Williams. Spectators present were Mr. Ron Ashman – Crew Engineering, and Mr. Bassam Mustafa.
1. Upon motion by Stone, seconded by Polito and unanimously carried, the following consent calendar items were approved:
• Minutes of the Board meeting held August 15, 2011• Audit demand check numbers 129809 through 130075 for the period August 5 to September 8, 2011 and wire disbursements for August 2011.• Treasurer’s Report for period ended July 31, 2011• Board of Director’s request for reimbursement of expenses and report of expenses
2. Second Public Hearing to Review Election Division Reapportionment Proposals:
President Broomell opened the public hearing to review and receive input on Election Division Reapportionment proposals at 2:01 p.m.
General Manager Arant explained that the law requires two public hearings be held prior to adoption of revised election division boundaries. The first public hearing was held August 15, 2011. State law also requires that election division boundaries be examined after each federal census and, if necessary, population imbalances adjusted to provide representational equity between the five election divisions.
District GIS staff utilized 2010 census tract data supplied by the County of San Diego to develop two proposals that correct the population imbalances of the current election division boundaries. The following table shows the population of the five divisions in each proposal:
Division I 4,722 5,280 5,276
Division 2 6,211 5,295 5,261
Division 3 6,245 5,277 5,279
Division 4 4,870 5,253 5,262
Division 5 4,336 5,279 5,306
Population Total 26,384 26,384 26,384
The population balance between Proposals 1 and 2 are very similar and both are well within the population variations held reasonable and acceptable by the courts. However, the boundaries in Proposal 1 are irregular and hard to describe. Proposal 2 was deemed superior because it utilizes major thoroughfares whenever possible as division boundary lines.
Mr. Arant stated that following the first public hearing, the local newspaper included an article and front page map of Proposal 2. No public comment has been received on the reapportionment proposals. Staff recommended adopting Resolution 2011-32 approving Reapportionment Proposal 2 and, if approved, adopting Ordinance 2011-09 amending Administrative Code Sections 30.15 and 30.2 to include the new election division map and update the implementation language.
The public hearing was closed at 2:07 p.m. by President Broomell.
Upon motion from Polito, seconded by Haskell and unanimously carried, the following Resolution, entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-32
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFVALLEY CENTER MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICTADOPTING ELECTION DIVISION BOUNDARY REAPPORTIONMENT
was adopted by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Directors Broomell, Polito, Stone and Haskell NOES: None ABSENT: Director Aleshire
Upon motion from Stone, seconded by Polito and unanimously carried, the following Ordinance, entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 2011-09
ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFVALLEY CENTER MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICTAMENDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TO PROVIDE FORCHANGES IN ELECTION DIVISION BOUNDARIESAND IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES
3. Mustafa Subdivision (TPM 20811) – Request for Concept Approval:
District Engineer Grabbe explained that the Mustafa project consists of approximately 16 acres on the north side of Circle ‘R’ Drive being developed into four residential lots with one remainder lot. There are existing 8 and 20 inch water mains in a private drive along the eastern boundary which the County is requiring the proponent to improve. This will require the water lines be relocated in order to maintain acceptable cover limits over the pipes. In addition, they propose to install a new culvert where the creek crosses the private drive, four water service laterals, two fire hydrants and other appurtenances to provide water service and fire protection to the five parcels. Total cost of the project is estimated at $288,800 of which the water improvements total approximately $173,250.
Crew Engineering and Surveying submitted a Preliminary Design Report for review in accordance with the District’s Administrative Code. The proponents have requested a variance to exceed the District’s maximum cover requirements over the existing 8 and 20 inch water mains. Their proposal includes lowering a portion of the existing 8 inch water main to maintain minimum cover and relocating the blow-off from the existing 20 inch at the creek crossing to minimize the potential for leaks. This variance request, if approved, could potentially save approximately $72,000 on the cost of the staff recommended water improvements.
Because the cover on the 8 and 20 inch water lines already exceeds the maximum allowable, staff recommends that the District participate in the cost of raising that portion of the 8 and 20 inch pipe to the proper bury limits as part of the concept approval. Not raising the line increases the potential for failure at the connection points of the existing appurtenances, and increased repair costs if a leak occurs. Since the pipes have reached approximately half of their service life, a 50/50 sharing in that portion of the cost associated with raising the water lines is recommended. This portion of the proposed water improvements is estimated at $103,000 and the District’s share would be $51,500. Thus, the developer’s additional cost for the staff recommendation is approximately $20,500 more than the estimated cost for their variance request. Funds for participation are available from the Unspecified Replacement Projects, Account No. 01-5602.78. Staff recommended that funds up to $55,000 be allocated for participation.
Mr. Bassam Mustafa addressed the board by asking if it is reasonable to burden the developer with large costs to remedy an operation and maintenance concern of the District’s staff. The General Manager’s reply was that if the project was going to overburden the pipeline, it was. Mr. Mustafa stated that this was an existing District condition and that he supported the variance.
Mr. Ron Ashman of Crew Engineering and Surveying reported that he had prepared the drawings and takes great pride and care in trying to minimize the impact to resources and facilities on every project. He pointed out that the current conditions of the pipeline, as shown on the as-builts, were put there by the District. To meet the County’s requirement to make the driveway into a private road has produced a four to five foot sag that tapers to zero on both ends. That is the maximum fill being requested which Mr. Ashman believes would not significantly increase the cost of shoring in the event of a leak at its current depth. Mr. Ashman thanked the District for its generous participation offer but stressed that these are difficult economic times.
Upon motion from Polito, seconded by Stone and unanimously carried, the Board granted concept approval to the Mustafa Subdivision project per staff’s recommendation to raise the pipelines with District participation.
GENERAL MANAGER’S AGENDA:
4. San Diego County Water Authority’s Board of Directors’ Meeting:
General Manager Arant reported on the following items from the August 25, 2011 SDCWA Board of Directors’ meeting:
• The City of Carlsbad and the Water Authority have come to terms on the City canceling its individual Desal agreement. This clears the way for the Water Authority to purchase water from Poseidon which will ultimately lead to construction of the project.
• AB 65 (Eng) would establish the human right to an affordable water supply. This type of legislation could lead to leveraging for disadvantaged communities. The bill also refers to “water rights” which raises many issues. The Water Authority has taken the position of “oppose, unless amended to remove the affordability and water rights issues.”
• Metropolitan stopped making Local Projects Program payments to Ramona MWD on their reclamation project because of the Authority’s lawsuit against Metropolitan. The Water Authority has stepped up to take over the payments to Ramona.
5. Review of ACWA Committee Nomination Process:
General Manager Arant reported that ACWA is nearing the end of its two year term and is looking for nominees for officers, board and committee members. Information on the standing committees was provided for review and anyone interested in participating on a committee should communicate that to ACWA by the end of September.
Director Aleshire currently serves on the Finance Committee. Mr. Arant is currently the Communications Committee Chair, which has a companion membership on the ACWA Board of Directors. With Board approval, Mr. Arant will be seeking reappointment.
Upon motion by Stone, seconded by Haskell, and unanimously carried, the General Manager was encouraged to continue in his role as an ACWA Committee Chairman.
6. Review of ACWA 2012 Budget Adoption Process and Possible OPEB Funding Actions:
General Manager Arant reported that, like many other agencies, ACWA has lost money. The ACWA dues structure is based on what each member spends on operations and maintenance expense. As the water community is selling less water and cutting expenses, the operational costs have gone down lowering the ACWA dues and decreasing membership. ACWA is facing a loss of approximately $800,000 out of their $3.5M budget. This leads to potentially significant impacts on the effectiveness of ACWA’s legislative and regulatory advocacy, as well as communication and outreach programs. There is currently a budget proposal to not fund the ACWA OPEB obligation for 2012, and concern that the ACWA Board will not have adequate time to deliberate on the budget prior to adoption.
At the request of Director Aleshire, staff prepared a letter to ACWA President, Paul Kelley, addressing these issues. The letter advocates adopting a budget which strikes a balance between maintaining effective core programs, meeting OPEB obligations, and implementing a prudent dues increase. The letter also requests the Board take the time necessary to fully examine, analyze and understand the long-term impacts of the 2012 budget on the programs and overall effectiveness of ACWA.
Upon motion by Stone, seconded by Haskell, and unanimously carried, the letter to ACWA President, Paul Kelley, was approved for mailing.
7. Miscellaneous Information Items:
General Manager Arant reported on the following miscellaneous items:
• Regarding the power outage on Thursday, September 8th, the District’s staff performed effectively and responsively. A voluntary reduction in water usage was requested because SDG&E stated the power could be off until Saturday. The District water system never lost pressure and had absolutely no water quality concerns. To improve the situation for the future, the District could use a couple more generators and needs to speed up its deployment of the seven small generators it purchased to keep SCADA in operation.
From this event, the District learned that it cannot solely rely upon the S.D. County EOC or the San Diego County Water Authority to take care of communication issues. The District will be more aggressive in communica-ting with the local television stations because it took hours to undo the erroneous information being reported about a boil order in the District. In the future, the District will provide its own news releases about the status of Valley Center.
DISTRICT GENERAL COUNSEL’S AGENDA
8. General Counsel de Sousa reported on the following items:
• At a hearing before Judge Wanger in the Federal Government’s continued attempt to restrict pumping in the Delta, the Judge spent 90 minutes talking about the inconsistent and incompatible research presented by the Bureau of Reclamation and Fish and Wildlife experts. The Judge found Dr. Norris’ testimony as dishonest and that of a zealot. He found Mr. Pryor’s testimony as equally inconsistent and internally contradictory. Judge Wanger stated that he had been involved in this case for 20 years and had never seen anything like what had been placed before the court by these two witnesses.
Judge Wanger has announced his retirement. A new judge will be appointed to this case.
• A scholarship for law students interested in working with public agencies is being established in the name of C. Michael Cowett at U.C. Davis.
9. Closed sessions were called by President Broomell at 3:03 pm pursuant to:
• Government Code §54956.9(c) – Conference with Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation
Number of potential cases: 1
10. The regular Board meeting reconvened at 3:22 p.m.; there was no reportable action.
11. Upon motion by Polito, seconded by Haskell and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m.