HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-05-21 - Executive-Administrative-Organizational Committee Meeting Agenda Packet Yorba Linda
Water District
AGENDA
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
EXEC-ADMIN-ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITTEE MEETING
Thursday, May 21, 2009, 4:00 PM
1717 E Miraloma Ave, Placentia CA 92870
COMMITTEE STAFF
Director John W. Summerfield, Chair Ken Vecchiarelli, General Manager
Director William R. Mills Pat Grady, Assistant General Manager
1. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Any individual wishing to address the committee is requested to identify themselves and state the matter on
which they wish to comment. If the matter is on this agenda, the committee Chair will recognize the individual for
their comment when the item is considered. No action will be taken on matters not listed on this agenda.
Comments are limited to matters of public interest and matters within the jurisdiction of the Water District.
Comments are limited to five minutes.
2. DISCUSSION ITEMS
This portion of the agenda is for matters such as technical presentations, drafts of proposed policies, or similar
items for which staff is seeking the advice and counsel of the Committee members. This portion of the agenda
may also include items for information only.
2.1. Report on Grant Activities - Townsend Public Affairs
2.2. Plan for Obtaining Future State and Federal Grants - Townsend Public Affairs
2.3. Report on Legislative Activities - Sacramento Advocates
2.4. Report on 2009 Legislative Bills - McCormick, Kidman & Behrens
2.5. General Counsel's Monthly Summary Billing Reports
2.6. Directors' and General Manager's Fees and Expenses (Jan-Mar)
(To be provided at the meeting.)
2.7. Future Planning Initiatives from the Strategic Planning Workshop
2.8. Future Agenda Items and Staff Tasks
3. ADJOURNMENT
3.1. The next regular meeting of the Executive-Administrative-Organizational Committee will
be held June 16, 2009 at 4:00 p.m.
Items Distributed to the Committee Less Than 72 Hours Prior to the Meeting
Pursuant to Government Code section 54957.5, non-exempt public records that relate to open session agenda items
and are distributed to a majority of the Committee less than seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting will be available
for public inspection in the lobby of the District's business office located at 1717 E. Miraloma Avenue, Placentia, CA
92870, during regular business hours. When practical, these public records will also be made available on the District's
internet website accessible at http://www.ylwd.com/.
Accommodations for the Disabled
Any person may make a request for a disability-related modification or accommodation needed for that person to be
able to participate in the public meeting by telephoning the Executive Secretary at 714-701-3020, or writing to Yorba
Linda Water District, P.O. Box 309, Yorba Linda, CA 92885-0309. Requests must specify the nature of the disability and
the type of accommodation requested. A telephone number or other contact information should be included so the
District staff may discuss appropriate arrangements. Persons requesting a disability-related accommodation should
make the request with adequate time before the meeting for the District to provide the requested accommodation.
ITEM NO. 2.1
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: May 21 , 2009
Subject: Report on Grant Activities - Townsend Public Affairs
ATTACHMENTS:
Name: Description: Type:
Mav 09.doc May Report Report(s)
TPA Mav Revision Pr000sals.odf General Fund Proposals Report(s)
Tonsend
PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC.
MEMORANDUM
To: Yorba Linda Water District, Executive Committee
From: Christopher Townsend, President
Heather Dion, Director
Date: May 15, 2009
Subject: Activity Report
State Political Hiahliahts:
The past few weeks have been extremely busy in Sacramento. The Legislature was in full
swing as policy committees met in order to hear thousands of bills prior to the policy
committee deadline of May 1St. Each House of the Legislature had to hear all of bills that
have a fiscal component prior to May 1St or else the measure could not be taken up until
next year; bills that do not have a fiscal impact to the State must be heard by policy
committees prior to May 15th. The next major deadline before the Legislature is May 28th
the date by which the Appropriations committees must hear all fiscal bills. Given the budget
issues, and larger economic downturn facing the State, it is likely that a large percentage of
bills will be held in the Appropriations committee and not be eligible to be taken up again
until next year.
While the legislative process is in full swing, the main topic of interest in Sacramento is the
upcoming special election on May 19th. The outcome of the election will have an immediate
and direct impact on the State's budget situation. While the Legislature was able to pass a
budget for the 2009-10 fiscal year earlier this year, that budget package relied heavily, to
the tune of nearly $6 billion, on the passage of the package of measures that will be before
the voters. Should those measures fail, the Legislature will be asked to make adjustments
to the 2009-10 budget in order to make up for the revenues not realized through the special
election. Additionally, the Legislative Analyst's Office has determined that the 2009-10
budget is already out of balance by as much as $8 - $10 billion due to lower than expected
revenues from sales tax, capital gains tax, and other sources of revenues. In fact, the State
Controller just announced that the State's income tax returns were over $1 billion short of
projections.
What all of this means is that the Legislature will likely be forced to reopen budget
negotiations in June in order to close the 2009-10 budget deficit, which could be as large as
$18 billion. This process will undoubtedly drag into the summer months as the Legislature
will battle over which programs to cut and how to raise additional revenues. It is unlikely
that the Legislature will be able to come up with the 2/3 vote needed to enact new taxes, so
the budget deficit will need to be closed through a combination of cuts and borrowing. The
exact details of what programs will be cut and by how much are not known now, but rumors
are starting to surface already.
Yesterday the Governor's Office spoke with representatives from local government about
the possibility of capturing local tax revenue from local governments by suspending Prop
1A. Under the provisions of Prop 1A, the Governor could declare a fiscal emergency and
borrow up to 8% of local government tax revenues, approximately $2.08 billion. The
borrowing would only be a short-term solution as the State would be required to pay this
amount back to local governments within three years, with interest. The use of local
government tax revenue by the State would come at a time where many local governments
are struggling with their own budget shortfalls and being forced to cut expenditures and
layoff employees.
It should be noted that while the Governor has spoken about the possibility of suspending
Prop 1A, he has not submitted this proposal to the Legislature for their consideration. The
Governor has tentatively set May 15th as the day that he will release his revised budget
proposals. The Governor announced he will be submitting two budget proposals. One
proposal will be based on the measures on the May 19 ballot passing and the other will be
based on the measures failing. Because the latest polling on the special election measures
have shown all of the propositions likely to fail, the Administration is attempting to sway
voters by showing the state's dire fiscal situation if additional revenue is not made up
through the special election. TPA will be providing YLWD with a breakdown of both budget
proposals as soon as they are made available. The Governor's Revisions from the
Department of Finance are attached to this report.
iL r
"FRNP 2009- 10 MAY REVISION
GENERAL FUND PROPOSALS
INTRODUCTION
In February, the Governor signed a budget for 2009-10 five months before the
constitutional deadline. That budget included spending cuts and revenue increases
totaling $41.6 billion and eliminated the largest budget gap in the state's history.
As the global recession has deepened, the budget has again fallen out of balance.
Specifically, the May Revision projects spending this year and next will exceed available
funds by$15 billion in the absence of any corrective action. Moreover, the budget
assumes the passage of propositions 1A, 113, 1C, ID and 1E on the May 19 ballot. Should
these measures all fail, the budget will be an additional $5.8 billion out of balance in
2009-10. Out-year deficits
May Revision Budget Shortfall
would also be higher (Dollars in Millions)
given a revenue loss of Total
$16.2 billion. INT-01 Reserve
displays the changes in June 30,2010 Reserve Projected $2,103
estimates that result in the as of 2009 early Budget Act
new budget shortfall. workload Adjustments: -$15,546
Revenues -12,401
Proposition 98 Expenditures -1,090
(Mainly Property Tax Revenue Loss)
Non Proposition 98 Expenditures -2,317
Federal Stimulus Funds General Fund Offset 262
Rebuild Reserve -2,000
Budget Shortfall Assuming Passage of the Propositions -$15,443
Budget Shortfall if the Propositions Fail on May 19 -$21,279
SUMMARY OF MAJOR
SOLUTIONS BY CATEGORY
The May Revision proposes solutions to restore the 2009-10 budget to balance,
offsetting the revenue losses and caseload-driven cost increases resulting from the global
recession. These solutions, however, assume that propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D and 1 E
are approved on May 19. Recognizing that the propositions may fail, the May Revision
also proposes a set of contingency solutions to offset the additional budgetary gap that
would result. The two tables below summarize the May Revision proposals and the May
Revision Contingency proposals.
MAY REVISION PROPOSALS
Figure MPA-01 displays General Fund primary solutions for 2008-09 and 2009-10
proposed in the May Revision.
Figure MPA-01
Recap by Category of May Revision Proposals
(Dollars in Millions)
Impact on GF Reserve
2008-09
and Prior 2009-10 Two-Year Percent to Total
Reorganization/Consolidation $0.0 $50.0 $50.0 0.3%
Program Savings 2,020.0 3,539.6 5,559.6 38.2%
Cuts Requiring Federal Waivers 0.0 750.0 750.0 5.2%
Revenue Accelerations/Fees 0.0 988.9 988.9 6.8%
Fund Shifts 12.5 92.9 105.4 0.7%
Other 0.0 1,100.0 1,100.0 7.6%
Borrowing 0.0 6,000.0 6,000.0 41.2%
Total $2,032.5 $12,521.4 $14,553.9 100.0%
Change in Reserve(from$2 billion) 889.0 889.0
Total with Change in Reserve $2,032.5 $13,410.4 $15,442.9
3
SUMMARY OF MAJOR SOLUTIONS BY CATEGORY
REORGANIZATION,CONSOLIDATIONS AND CAPITALIZING ON STATE ASSETS
-CONTINUING THE WORK OF THE CALIFORNIA PERFORMANCE REVIEW
Over the past five years, the Administration has worked to eliminate outdated
functions, become more efficient, eliminate redundancy and reduce costs. The state's
unprecedented budget shortfall presents an opportunity for state government to increase
efficiency, spend less and eliminate duplication and functions that are not absolutely
critical.
The Administration proposes to follow up on the work of the California Performance
Review (CPR) conducted in Governor Schwa rzenegger's second year in office. Many of
the CPR's recommendations have already been implemented. The May Revision builds
on the Governor's Budget to include additional reorganization proposals to achieve savings
of at least$50 million General Fund in the budget year. The Administration will submit the
following proposals to promote efficiency:
• Streamline and realign energy functions by consolidating and reorganizing functions
from twelve different entities into a single Department of Energy to help California
meet greenhouse gas reduction and renewable energy goals.
• Consolidate and realign recycling and cleanup, spill prevention and pollution
prevention programs, and eliminate the Integrated Waste Management Board.
• Consolidate the Department of Corporations, Department of Financial Institutions,
Department of Real Estate and Department of Real Estate Appraisers.
• Eliminate duplication and improve tax collections by merging tax collection operations
currently split between the Franchise Tax Board (FTB), the Board of Equalization
(BOE), and Employment Development Department (EDD).
• Eliminate the Department of Boating and Waterways and transfer its functions to the
Department of Parks and Recreation.
• Consolidate the Postsecondary Education Commission and the Student Aid
Commission.
• Eliminate the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and transfer its
duties to the Department of Public Health.
• Eliminate the Department of Community Services and Development and transfer
its functions to the Department of Social Services and to the new Department
of Energy.
4 2009-10 MAY REVISION-GENERAL FUND PROPOSALS
SUMMARY OF MAJOR SOLUTIONS BY CATEGORY
• Transfer operations of the Science Center to a not-for-profit entity or to an appropriate
governmental entity and ensure this center remains viable during these difficult
budget times.
• Eliminate the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission as a
state department and realign its functions to a regional entity.
• Eliminate the Bureau of Naturopathic Medicine.
• Eliminate the Telephone Medical Advice Services Bureau.
• Consolidate the Board of Geologists and Geophysicists with the State Mining and
Geology Board.
• Consolidate the Professional Fiduciaries Bureau under the Board of Accountancy.
• Consolidate the Board of Behavioral Sciences, the Board of Psychology, the the
duties of the Board of Vocational Nurses and Psychiatric Technicians to oversee
psychiatric technicians, into a new Board of Mental Health.
• Consolidate the Hearing Aid Dispensers Bureau under the Speech-Language
Pathology and Audiology Bureau.
• Consolidate the nursing oversight functions of the Board of Vocational Nursing and
Psychiatric Technicians with the Board of Registered Nursing.
• Elimination of the Court Reporters Board.
• Elimination of the Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee and transfer its
functions to the Bureau of Automotive Repair.
• Elimination of the Landscape Architects Technical Committee and transfer its
licensing duties to the Architects Board.
In addition to presenting an opportunity for state government to increase efficiency and
spend less, this economic crisis and resulting budget shortfall demands that the state
explore every opportunity to raise revenues, without increasing taxes, to protect vital
program services. To that end, the Administration will be pursing legislation to capitalize
on California's real estate—one of the state's greatest assets. The proposed legislation
and associated administrative actions will increase the amount of money the state raises
from state property through long-term leasing of unused properties, the sale of high-
value property, refinancing of state-owned buildings, and the accelerated sale of surplus
property. Improvements to the state's management of properties can help better position
California for the future.
2.009-I0 MAY REVISION-GENERAL FUND PROPOSALS 5
PROGRAM SAVINGS
Major proposals previously included in the Governor's Budget but not adopted as part of
the 2009 Budget Act are as follows:
• $34.7 million—Payments to Counties for Agricultural and Open Space Land
Preserves. The May Revision proposes to eliminate state subventions to local
governments for open space and agricultural land under the Williamson Act.
Currently, the State backfills a portion of the revenue lost by local governments
when they enter into voluntary agreements with land owners for lower property tax
assessments when those land owners agree to use the land only for agricultural or
open space purposes.
• $120.2 million—Eliminate the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants
(CAPI) and the California Food Assistance Program (CFAP). The CAPI allows
approximately 12,000 aged, blind, and disabled legal immigrants, who would be
eligible for the SSI/SSP program but for their immigration status, to receive cash
assistance. The CFAP provides benefits to more than 22,000 low-income legal non-
citizens between the ages of 18 and 65, who meet all the eligibility requirements for
the federal Food Stamp program but have resided in the United States for less than
five years. This proposal, which would become effective October 1, 2009, would
eliminate these state-only programs.
• $132.2 million—Lower Cost Health Plan. Decrease health care costs beginning
in January 2010 by contracting for lower cost health care coverage either through
CalPERS or directly from an insurer. Savings beginning in 2010-11 will prefund Other
Post-Employment Benefit (OPEB) costs.
• 25-Year Health Benefits Vesting for New Employees—Reduce the OPEB,
unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) by 38 percent over 30 years, by requiring
that new employees work for 25 years or more before becoming eligible for free
lifetime health benefits.
• $125 million—Medi-Cal—Reducing Services for Newly Qualified Legal
Immigrants and for those Permanently Residing under Color of Law. Effective
October 1, 2009, this proposal would limit benefits for newly qualified immigrants
(over the age of 20 and excluding pregnant women) and immigrants permanently
residing under the color of law to emergency services only.
• $2.8 million—Science Center Phase II Delay. Delay the opening of the Science
Center World of Ecology by one year. New opening date would be spring 2011.
6
SUMMARY OF MAJOR SOLUTIONS BY CATEGORY
• $40.8 million—Limit In-Home Supportive Services(IHSS) Domestic and
Related Services to the Most Functionally Impaired. This proposal, which would
become effective October 1, 2009, would limit the provision of domestic and related
services to individuals with the highest levels of need.
• $38.2 million—Limit IHSS Share-of-Cost Buyout to the Most Functionally
Impaired. This proposal, which would become effective October 1, 2009, would
target the state buyout program, which reduces the costs IHSS recipients whose
Medi-Cal share of cost is higher than their IHSS share of cost must incur before
receiving subsidized services to persons with the most severe needs.
• $114.1 million—Limit State Participation in IHSS Wages. This proposal, which
would become effective October 1, 2009, would reduce state participation in the
wages of IHSS workers to the state minimum wage of$8.00 per hour, plus $0.60
per hour for health benefits.
• $248.5 million—Reduce Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary
Payment (SSI/SSP) Grants. This proposal would reduce maximum monthly grants
to the minimum federally allowed levels for individuals and couples. This proposal,
which would become effective September 1, 2009, would reduce the maximum SSI/
SSP grant for an aged/disabled individual to $830 per month and the maximum grant
for aged/disabled couples to $1,407 per month.
• $156.7 million—CalWORKs Reforms and Cost Containment. This proposal, which
would become effective October 1, 2009, would: (1) modify the Safety Net program
by continuing benefits for families beyond their 60-month time limit only if they meet
federal work participation requirements, (2) provide cash aid for families receiving
child-only benefits in a manner consistent with other CalWORKS families, (3) institute
a face-to-face self-sufficiency review every six months with a county worker for
CalWORKS families who are not meeting work requirements, and (4) reduce the
CalWORKs maximum aid payment standard by six percent.
• $87.5 million—Various CalGrant Cost Containment Measures. This solution
includes elimination of new awards for the Competitive CalGrant program
($52.9 million), freezing income eligibility ($7 million); reducing maximum awards
for students attending private institutions from $9,708 to $8,322 ($11 million), and
partially decoupling award levels from UC and CSU fee increases ($16.6 million).
2.009-I0 MAY REVISION-GENERAL FUND PROPOSALS 7
SUMMARY OF MAJOR SOLUTIONS BY CATEGORY
MAJOR NEW PROPOSALS:
• $6.6 million—No State Capitol Repairs in 2009-10. Delay repairs of the State
Capitol provided by the Department of General Services for one year.
• $234 million—Increase Savings Target for Developmental Services. This
proposal would require a Developmental Services savings target of an additional
$234 million. The Regional Centers (RC) are already required to identify program
changes to achieve $100 million in General Fund savings pursuant to the early
2009 Budget Act. The Department of Developmental Services has worked
with stakeholders to develop proposed changes to RC services to achieve
required savings. This collaborative process should continue to achieve the new
savings target.
• $75 million—Medi-Cal—Pharmacy Reforms. Implement new federal and state
drug pricing policies aimed at lowering costs and retaining quality care. Effective
October 1, 2009, these reforms would require federal Drug Pricing providers to
dispense only drugs purchased through the program, would require manufacturers
of HIV/AIDS/cancer drugs to pay particular rebates subject to a penalty of
non-compliance, establish upper billing limits for drugs, and would require the state
to perform therapeutic category review of antipsychotic drugs.
• $47.9 million—Medi-Cal—Anti-Fraud Initiative. More aggressively target fraud
in adult day health care centers, pharmacy, physicians, durable medical equipment,
and transportation. These efforts would require 62 new positions and $3.4 million
General Fund in 2009-10. Savings would increase significantly after startup in
2009-10 and rise from $47.9 million to approximately $87.0 million in the out years.
• $20 million—Medi-Cal—Reduce Payments to Private Hospitals by ten percent.
This proposal would achieve necessary savings by reducing General Fund support
for private hospitals by ten percent, a commensurate reduction as public hospitals
received in the enacted 2009 Budget Act.
• $36.8 million—Medi-Cal—Roll back Rate Increase for Family Planning Services.
Reduce the rates for family planning services to the pre-January 2008 level.
Chapter 636, Statutes of 2007, increased the reimbursement rates for services by
approximately 90.9 percent.
• $2.7 million—Eliminate Certified Application Assistance. Eliminate certified
application assistance which provides up to $60 to contractors for helping individuals
enroll and remain in the subsidized children's health insurance coverage.
8 2009-10 MAY REVISION-GENERAL FUND PROPOSALS
SUMMARY OF MAJOR SOLUTIONS BY CATEGORY
• $15.8 million—IHSS Anti-Fraud Initiative. This proposal would significantly
increase the prevention and detection of fraud within the IHSS program, thereby
ensuring that scarce resources are being used to serve eligible people and to pay for
actual services rendered rather than misdirected.
Funding for the University of California and for the California State University:
• $1.020 billion (current year only)—Reduce Funding to UC and CSU without
Violating the Federal Stimulus MOE Requirement. The 2009-10 February
enacted budget reflects $742 million in General Fund policy reductions from the
September 2008 Budget Act for the University of California and California State
University combined (net of standard base adjustments and replacement of Lottery
revenue associated with the securitization proposal). Those reductions reflected:
(a) an ongoing reduction enacted in the special session amendments to the 2008
Budget Act to achieve the 10-percent reduction initially proposed in the January,
2008 Governor's Budget ($132.2 million), and (b) an unallocated reduction of
$610 million.
The May Revision now proposes the following significant additional adjustments
for UC and CSU which are necessary to address the deterioration in revenues. This
proposal would reduce both segments by $510 million each in the current year.
This amount is anticipated to be fully offset with State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
allocations based on the formulas prescribed in federal law, of which $537 million
($268.5 million each) was allocated in April.
• $1.0 billion in 2008-09 and $2.0 billion in 2009-10—Reduce Proposition 98
Funding. The 2009-10 Budget Act adopted in February reduced Proposition 98 by
$7.3 billion, to $50.7 billion, in 2008-09 and by $2.9 billion, to $56 billion, in 2009-10.
Of these reduction amounts, $5 billion and $404 million respectively, consisted of
deferrals and fund shifts. In addition, to help school districts minimize impacts to
essential classroom instruction, the budget package provided relief from a variety of
strings attached to 42 categorical programs, thereby, allowing them to shift funds
to meet their highest priority needs. The package also significantly reduced the
penalties associated with K-3 Class Size Reduction by allowing districts to retain up
to 70 percent of funding even if pupil-to-teacher ratios increase more than 25 to 1,
which provides greater budget flexibility. However, due to the continued precipitous
decline in revenue, the Proposition 98 guarantee drops substantially, necessitating
further reductions. As a result, the May Revision will include a variety of additional
flexibility proposals to minimize the impact of the revenue shortfall on schools.
2.009-I0 MAY REVISION-GENERAL FUND PROPOSALS 9
SUMMARY OF MAJOR SOLUTIONS BY CATEGORY
Proposition 98 funding would be reduced to $49.7 billion from $50.7 billion in
2008-09 and to $53.7 billion from $55.9 billion in 2009-10. However, we note that
these reductions would be largely offset by the $3.3 billion in federal State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund and the $2.8 billion in other federal funding increases which are
being provided to schools through the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act in 2008-09 and 2009-10. Specific proposals include:
A reduction of$114 million in 2008-09 for eliminating the High Priority Schools
Program.
A reduction of$694.3 million in 2008-09 for a one-time school district
apportionment (revenue limit) reduction.
A reduction of$85 million in 2008-09 from Community College categorical
funding.
A deferral of $115 million in Community College apportionments from the
2008-09 fiscal year to the 2009-10 fiscal year.
An increase of$8.3 million in 2008-09 to reflect a base adjustment to Charter
School Economic Impact Aid funding.
A reduction of$950 million in 2009-10 to school district apportionments
(revenue limits).
• Other adjustments in 2009-10 including $36 million in child care savings
associated with reducing the high incidence of overpayments to providers in
voucher-based programs.
Flexibility that provides school districts the option to reduce up to one week
of instructional time at local discretion, limited to no more than three years.
We note that this proposal was included in the Governor's Budget proposal
in January, but not adopted by the Legislature. However, school district
superintendents and others have requested that the Administration reintroduce
this option to minimize the impact of budget reductions. Additionally, the
Administration will propose several other broad statutory and regulatory
flexibility options, such as contracting out, to assist districts in making ends
meet while maintaining quality instruction to the extent possible.
A deferral of $640.3 million in school district apportionment payments from the
2009-10 fiscal year to the 2010-11 fiscal year.
10 2.009-10 MAY REVISION-GENERAL FUND PROPOSALS
SUMMARY OF MAJOR SOLUTIONS BY CATEGORY
A reduction of$221.6 million in 2009-10 to Community College categorical
programs, which will be accompanied by flexibility reforms similar to those
included in the February budget package for K-12 categorical programs.
A reduction of$58.4 million in 2009-10 to enrollment growth for Community
College apportionments.
A reduction of$120 million in 2009-10 to Community College apportionments by
reducing the funding rate for credit physical education and recreational courses
to the regular non-credit rate.
Additionally, it is noted that community colleges are projected to absorb a
$42.1 million 2008-09 property tax shortfall and another$116.7 million in
2009-10.
An increase of$940.3 million in 2009-10 to reflect property tax, attendance and
other adjustments.
Due to state cash flow shortfalls, it may be necessary to move certain K-12
payments from the scheduled payment dates to a different date such as moving
K-12 program payments from the beginning of July to the end of the month and
some portion of the July and August payments may be shifted to October of 2009.
CUTS REQUIRING FEDERAL WAIVERS
Major new proposals:
• $750 million—Federal Medi-Cal Flexibility and Stabilization. During this time of
financial crisis, California requires flexibility to manage its Medi-Cal program within
available state resources. The federal government has provided California significant
fiscal relief under the federal stimulus. However, the current trajectory of Medi-Cal
growth is unsustainable. California faces unique challenges because of the effective
cost control mechanisms that have been the hallmark of the program for decades.
The low cost of the program has allowed the state to extend coverage to many
populations not covered in other states.
The state cannot afford its Medi-Cal program as currently structured and governed by
federal rules and regulations. The Administration has reluctantly proposed eligibility
reductions previously and continues to believe such roll-backs are necessary for California
to manage the program within available resources. Under the new federal requirements
of the ARRA, such reductions are no longer permitted. Relief from federal requirements
is essential. To the extent relief from ARRA restrictions is not permissible, the state will
need to secure additional federal program flexibility and implement reductions to manage
2.009-I0 MAY REVISION-GENERAL FUND PROPOSALS 11
SUMMARY OF MAJOR SOLUTIONS BY CATEGORY
the program within available resources. Legal constraints associated with the rates paid in
this program represent further limitations on the state's ability to contain Medi-Cal costs.
Strict federal rules that govern state Medicaid program administration constrain states'
ability to reduce overall program expenditures.
Consequently, the Governor will petition the Obama Administration to work with
California to secure essential program flexibilities to slow the rate of program growth and
manage Medi-Cal within available resources, support the state's authority to determine
eligibility, the adequacy of provider rates and scope of benefits, and recognize the state's
long-standing record of cost-containment. In addition, the Administration will work with
Congress and other states to resolve longstanding, unreimbursed Medicaid claims owed
to states associated with the delayed federal classification of certain permanent disability
cases. Taken together, this federal support will help stabilize the nation's largest Medicaid
program and its ability to preserve essential health services to low-income Californians.
REVENUE ACCELERATIONS/FEES
Major proposal previously included in the Governor's Budget but not adopted as part of
the 2009 Budget Act is as follows:
• $2.8 million—Veterans Homes Resident Fees. An increase of$2.8 million in fees
collected from the residents of the Veterans Homes. Currently, residents pay fees on
a percentage of income, up to a dollar cap, based on the level of care. This proposal
would increase fees by removing the dollar cap, increasing the percentage for the
Residential Care for the Elderly, and revise the fee structure for non-veteran spouses
to more accurately reflect their share of cost.
Major new proposals:
• $610 million—Accelerate Estimated Payments. The May Revision proposes to
accelerate payments into the 2009-10 fiscal year by increasing the amount of the
estimated payment due for individuals and corporations in June from 30 percent of
liability to 40 percent.
• $40.1 million—Shift Department of Industrial Relations Major Programs to
Fees. Increase employer fees to fund the Occupational Safety and Health program
and the Labor Standards Enforcement program. The 2010-11 and ongoing General
Fund cost reduction will be $61.8 million annually. Shifting these DIR programs to
fee-support will enable the programs to receive the appropriate level of resources on
a long-term basis to enhance enforcement efforts. As such, the Administration will
submit legislation to repeal existing statutes that encourage frivolous lawsuits and
inhibit job creation.
12 2.009-I0 MAY REVISION-GENERAL FUND PROPOSALS
SUMMARY OF MAJOR SOLUTIONS BY CATEGORY
• $336 million Transit Debt Service. "Spillover" revenues occur when revenue
derived from sales taxes on gasoline is proportionately higher in relationship to
revenue derived from all taxable sales, and generally reflect higher gas prices. Thus,
this funding source would have otherwise gone to the State's General Fund. The
May Revision includes an increase of$336 million in 2009-10, which will fund transit
bond debt service costs.
FUND SHIFTS
Major new proposals:
• $31 million—Child Welfare Services. Federally Subsidized Kinship Guardianship
Assistance Payment Program. The recently enacted federal Fostering Connections
to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act makes federal funding available for certain
guardianship agreements that provide children who would otherwise be in the foster
care system with a permanent and stable living arrangement with a relative family
member. The Administration wrote to federal Health and Human Services Secretary
Sebelius on May 13, 2009 requesting that federal guidance on this legislation be
amended to allow California's 16,000 existing guardianship agreements in the
Kinship-Guardianship Agreement Payment (KinGAP) program to also be eligible for
federal funding. General Fund savings of up $31 million would result in 2009-10 if all
cases are ultimately eligible for federal support.
• $30 million—Fund Shift from the Fish and Game Preservation Fund. The May
Revision proposes to offset General Fund expenditures by utilizing the balance in the
Fish and Game Preservation Fund to support the Department of Fish and Game's
programs. This proposal will provide one-time savings to the General Fund.
• $24.9 million—CAL FIRE Interagency Agreement with the Legislature. The
May Revision proposes to reflect General Fund savings of$12.5 million in 2008-09
and $24.9 million in 2009-10 in the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's
baseline fire protection program. These savings are anticipated based on interagency
agreements with the Legislature.
• $7 million—Shift Flood Protection Activities to Proposition 1E. The May
Revision proposes to shift funding for floodplain evaluations and mapping and
support for Delta levees to Proposition 1 E. General Fund support for these ongoing
programs will need to be restored when bond funds become unavailable.
2.009-10 MAY REVISION-GENERAL FUND PROPOSALS 13
SUMMARY OF MAJOR SOLUTIONS BY CATEGORY
OTHER
Major new proposal:
• $1 billion—Sell a Portion of the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF).
Seek a private entity to purchase a portion of SCI F's Book of Business, with the SCI
remaining as the insurer of last resort.
• $100 mil lion—Tranquilion Ridge Lease Approval. The May Revision proposes
legislation authorizing the state to enter into a lease for the extraction of oil or gas
from state-owned tide and submerged lands in the California Coastal area off the
Santa Barbara coast known as Tranquillon Ridge. It is estimated that this proposal will
generate $1.8 billion in advanced royalties over the next 14 years.
BORROWING
Major new proposal:
• $6 billion—Issuance of Registered Reimbursement Warrants(RAWs). External
cash borrowing will be needed during the 2009-10 fiscal year to cover the shortfall
of cash due to the imbalance of spending and revenue collections. The May Revision
proposes to cover $6 billion of this cash borrowing need through issuance of RAWs.
This amount will be treated as an offset of 2009-10 expenditures on a budgetary
basis. The total cash borrowing need, however, will be substantially more than
$6 billion. Over the next few weeks, the Department of Finance will work with the
State Controller and the State Treasurer to quantify the additional cash borrowing
need and develop a strategy for addressing it.
Assuming the passage of the budget balancing Propositions before the voters on May 19,
the effect of the proposals listed above will address the budget gap and provide a modest
reserve. Figure MPA-02 provides a budget summary with these proposals.
MAY REVISION CONTINGENCY PROPOSALS
Figure MPA-03 displays the contingency General Fund solutions for 2008-09 and 2009-10
proposed in the May Revision in the event that Propositions 1A, 1 B, 1 C, 1 D and 1 E fail on
May 19.
14 2.009-I0 MAY REVISION-GENERAL FUND PROPOSALS
Figure MPA-02
2009-10 May Revision Proposals
General Fund Budget Summary
With Budget Solutions
(Dollars in Millions)
2008-09 2009-10
Prior Year Balance $2,308 -$4,248
Revenues and Transfers $85,947 $90,518
Total Resources Available $88,255 $86,270
Non-Proposition 98 Expenditures $58,195 $44,769
Proposition 98 Expenditures $34,308 $39,311
Total Expenditures $92,503 $84,080
Fund Balance -$4,248 $2,190
Reserve for Liquidation of Encumbrances $1,079 $1,079
Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties -$5,327 $1,111
Figure MPA-03
Recap by Category, May Revision Contingency Proposals
(Dollars in Millions)
Impact on GF Reserve
2008-09 Percentto
and Prior 2009-10 Two-Year Total
Reorganization/Consolidation $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0.0%
Program Savings 617.0 2,822.8 3,439.8 50.8%
Cuts Requiring Federal Waivers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%
Revenue Accelerations/Fees 0.0 1,776.5 1,776.5 26.2%
Fund Shifts 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%
Other 0.0 78.3 78.3 1.2%
Borrowing 0.0 1,482.0 1,482.0 21.9%
Total $617.0 $6,159.7 $6,776.7 100.0%
Change in Reserve(from$2 billion) -941.0 -941.0
Total with Change in Reserve $617.0 $5,218.7 $5,835.7
15
PROGRAM SAVINGS
Major proposals previously included in the Governor's Budget but not adopted as part of
the 2009 Budget Act are as follows:
• $8.8 million-10-Percent Rate Reduction for All Drug Medi-Cal Treatment
Modalities. This program funds substance abuse treatment services for Medi-Cal
eligible individuals.
Major new contingency proposals:
• $182.1 million—Targeted Reductions in Prison Population. The Federal
Government's State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) has historically
underfunded the state's cost to incarcerate undocumented inmates housed in
California's state prisons. Additionally, the new Administration is proposing to
eliminate funding for the SCAAP and instead augment resources to enhance border
security. In light of these factors, and given the continued and ever-growing fiscal
difficulty facing the state, it is becoming progressively more challenging for the
state to afford to incarcerate the number of inmates in state prison, including the
approximately 19,000 undocumented immigrants in our prison system. As such,
unless the state can begin receiving an appropriate amount of reimbursement from
the SCAAP, the state will have to begin approving, as appropriate, applications for
commutation of sentences submitted by undocumented immigrants in our prison
system and having them immediately deported by Federal Immigration and Customs
Enforcement. Targeted commutations would provide necessary savings during this
unprecedented fiscal crisis.
• $99.9 million—Change Sentencing Options for Low-Level Offenders. Eliminate
the current sentencing options for specified crimes that may be treated either as
felonies or misdemeanors, making them punishable by a jail term rather than state
prison. This is proposed as a necessary cost savings measure that prioritizes the
incarceration and rehabilitation of the most serious offenders.
• $108 million—Eliminate Funding for Substance Abuse Treatment and Crime
Prevention. As enacted, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA)
(Prop. 36) guaranteed state funding for only the first 5 years, 2001 through 2006.
This proposal eliminates $108 million General Fund for SACPA ($90 million) and the
Substance Abuse Offender Treatment Program ($18 million).
• $24.6 million—HIV Education and Prevention. This program provides $24.6 million
General Fund to local health jurisdictions to prevent HIV transmission, change
attitudes and behavior related to HIV, and promote risk-reduction skills.
16
• $10 million—Maternal,Child and Adolescent Health Grants. This program
provides $10 million General Fund to local health jurisdictions for services and
programs to improve the health of mothers, infants, children, adolescents, and
families.
• $20.4 million—Domestic Violence Program. This program provides $20.4 million
General Fund for 94 domestic violence shelter/centers providing emergency and
other services to domestic violence victims and their children. Services include
emergency shelter, transitional housing, legal advocacy, assisting with temporary
restraining orders, counseling, and other support services.
• $301.5 million—IHSS Cost Containment. This proposal would target services to
the most vulnerable beneficiaries. Specifically, effective October 1, 2009, individuals
who require minimal physical assistance from another person to perform an activity
would no longer receive domestic and related services, and individuals needing only
supervision from another person to perform an activity would no longer be eligible
for IHSS services.
• $13.9 million—Child Welfare Services—Reduce Certain Rates by Ten Percent.
Reduce Group Home, Foster Family Agency, and Specialized Care and Clothing
Allowance Rates by ten percent.
• $70 million—Child Welfare Services—Reduce Program Funding by Ten Percent.
Reduce the General Fund allocation to counties for Child Welfare Services by
ten percent. Under this proposal, counties could prioritize remaining funds to protect
the health and safety of children and their families, and appropriately address federal
outcome requirements.
• $49.9 million—Eliminate UC and CSU Outreach. This solution would eliminate
$31.3 million for academic preparation and education programs at UC and
$18.6 million for the CSU. These reductions would not impact core educational
delivery to students.
• $150 million—Unallocated Reduction to UC and CSU. This solution would reduce
funding by $100 million for the CSU and by $50 million for the UC. These additional
reductions are necessary to help balance the budget, but provide the segments the
maximum flexibility to balance quality and access objectives.
• $617 million in 2008-09 and $2.660 billion in 2009-10, which represents an overall
incremental change of $2.3 billion over the two year period—Further Reduce
Proposition 98 Funding. Proposition 98 funding would be reduced further to
$49.1 billion in 2008-09 and $51.1 billion in 2009-10. However, we note that these
17
reductions would increase the federal State Fiscal Stabilization Fund provided to
schools by$184 million. Specific proposals include:
An additional one-time reduction of $617.3 million in 2008-09 to school district
apportionments (revenue limits).
An additional reduction of $475 million in 2009-10 to school district
apportionments (revenue limits).
Flexibility to reduce up to an additional two days beyond the initial five days of
reduction of instructional time at local discretion, for a period of no more than
three years.
An additional deferral of $1.038 billion in revenue limit payments from the
2009-10 fiscal year to the 2010-11 fiscal year.
An additional reduction of $112.4 million in 2009-10 to Community College
categorical programs.
An additional reduction of $68.7 million in 2009-10 to enrollment growth for
Community College apportionments and categorical programs.
If Proposition 1C is not enacted, the $965.6 million General Fund appropriation
included in the measure would not be added to the Proposition 98 Guarantee in
2009-10 and education would continue receiving a share of lottery proceeds.
• $54.5 million—Healthy Families—Roll Back Eligibility to 200 Percent of Federal
Poverty Level. Roll back eligibility for Healthy Families to 200 percent of the federal
poverty level (or the 1999-2000 level). Approximately 225,000 children would no
longer receive health coverage through the program.
• $25.5 million—Medi-Cal—Reduce Adult Day Health Care Program. Reduce the
Adult Day Health Care optional benefit by limiting benefits to three days per week.
• $2.9 million—Suspend Children's Dental Disease Prevention. This program offers
$2.9 million General Fund for a comprehensive school-based prevention program
based on need. The program operates in 31 counties serving approximately 300,000
California preschool and elementary school children annually. Need is based on the
proportion of Free and Reduced School Lunch Program participation for each county.
• $5.9 million—Eliminate State Funding for the California Poison Control
System. This funding supports a statewide network of trained experts providing
immediate free treatment advice and assistance to California citizens over the
telephone in cases involving exposure to poisonous or hazardous substances.
18
SUMMARY OF MAJOR SOLUTIONS BY CATEGORY
REVENUE ACCELERATIONS/FEES
Major new contingency proposals:
• $1.7 billion—Increase Withholding. The May Revision contingency plan proposes
to accelerate payments into the 2009-10 fiscal year by increasing suggested
withholding amounts by 10 percent.
• $76 million—Partially Fund CAL FIRE and Local Response Agencies with
Emergency Response Initiative Fee. The Governor's Budget proposed a
2.8 percent surcharge on all residential and commercial property insurance statewide
to enhance the state's emergency response capabilities. The May Revision
contingency plan proposes to increase the insurance surcharge to 4.8 percent to fund
a portion of the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's baseline firefighting
operations and provide assistance to local first response agencies in support of
the state's mutual aid system. Proposed enhancements to the state's emergency
response capabilities will be delayed until 2010-11. It is estimated that the surcharge
would average approximately $48 per insurance policyholder.
• $0.5 million—Fee Increases at State Parks. This proposal would increase existing
fees in popular parks and establish new fees in Old Town San Diego and Sonoma
Coast State Beaches, which will be used to offset General Fund expenditures. When
fully implemented, these fee increases will achieve $5.6 million in ongoing General
Fund savings.
OTHER
Major new contingency proposals:
• $18.3 million—Medi-Cal—Expand Revenue Base for Skilled Nursing Facility
Rates. This proposal, would expand the amount of revenue on which the AB 1629
fee is assessed to include Medicare revenues. Under current law, skilled nursing
facilities pay a fee to the state based on their revenues. The state uses the fee to
draw down a like amount of federal funds, a portion of which is provided to nursing
homes through Medi-Cal rate payments. The balance remains with the state.
• $60 million—Shift Cigarette and Tobacco Products Surtax Funds to Medi-Cal.
Redirect$60 million in Proposition 99 funds from county health, clinic, Breast Cancer
Early Detection, Asthma, Major Risk Medical Insurance, and Access for Infants
and Mothers programs, and rural health demonstration project and a consumer
assessment project to offset costs in the Medi-Cal Program.
2.009-I0 MAY REVISION-GENERAL FUND PROPOSALS 19
BORROWING
Major new contingency proposal:
• $1.982 billion—Borrowing from Local Government. The May Revision contingency
plan proposes to borrow eight percent of the property tax revenues received by
cities, counties, and special districts in 2008-09 as authorized in Article XIII of
Section 25.5 of the Constitution. Repayment must be made within the next three
years. Legislation also is proposed to create a joint powers authority to allow local
agencies to borrow against the state repayment as a group.
• -$500 million—Reduce Size of Registered Reimbursement Warrants (RAWs).
The contingency proposals include borrowing from the local governments from
Proposition 1A. To limit the size of overall borrowing in the budget package in
recognition of the loss of revenues in 2010-11, the overall contingency proposals will
assume $5.5 billion of RAWs rather than $6.0 billion.
In the event Propositions 1 A, 1 B, 1 C, 1 D, and 1 E fail on May 19, the above contingency
proposals would become necessary to offset the additional budgetary loss. Figure
MPA-04 is a budget summary with these additional proposals. Together with the primary
May Revision proposals, the contingency plan would provide a reserve at approximately
$2 billion.
Figure MPA-05 displays all solutions for 2008-09 and 2009-10 as proposed in May
Revision and the additional solutions in Contingency Proposals.
Figure MPA-04
2009-10 May Revision Contingency Proposals
General Fund Budget Summary
With All Budget Solutions
(Dollars in Millions)
2008-09 2009-10
Prior Year Balance $2,308 -$3,631
Revenues and Transfers $85,947 $92,218
Total Resources Available $88,255 $88,587
Non-Proposition 98 Expenditures $58,195 $48,804
Proposition 98 Expenditures $33,691 $36,652
Total Expenditures $91,886 $85,456
Fund Balance -$3,631 $3,131
Reserve for Liquidation of Encumbrances $1,079 $1,079
Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties -$4,710 $2,052
20
Figure MPA-05
Recap by Category of all May Revision and Contingency Proposals
(Dollars in Millions)
2008-09 Percentto
and Prior 2009-10 Two-Year Total
Reorganization/Consolidation $0.0 $50.0 $50.0 0.2%
Program Savings 2,637.0 6,362.4 8,999.4 42.2%
Cuts Requiring Federal Waivers 0.0 750.0 750.0 3.5%
Revenue Accelerations/Fees 0.0 2,765.4 2,765.4 13.0%
Fund Shifts 12.5 92.9 105.4 0.5%
Other 0.0 1,178.3 1,178.3 5.5%
Borrowing 0.0 7,482.0 7,482.0 35.1%
Total $2,649.5 $18,681.1 $21,330.6 100.0%
Change in Reserve(from$2 billion) -52.0 -52.0
Total with Change in Reserve $2,649.5 $18,629.1 $21,278.6
21
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
The national and California recessions deepened considerably between November 2008,
when the Governor's Budget forecast was constructed, and April 2009, when the May
Revision forecast was developed. Monthly job losses grew sharply and became more
widely dispersed across industries in California. Unemployment rose above 10 percent.
Personal income and taxable sales fell in the fourth quarter of 2008.
The national economy fared much the same—growing job losses, rising unemployment,
falling personal income—and to top it off, steep declines in real GDP in the fourth quarter
of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009 (Figure ECO-01).
To recover, both economies will need improved credit availability. California's economy
will also need a stronger national economy. On both fronts, a smattering of encouraging
signs have been spotted recently. Most importantly, consumers are starting to spend
more and conditions in a number of financial markets, including equity markets, have
improved.
Figure ECO-01
National Real GDP
6.0% Quarter-to-Quarter Growth, Annualized
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
-2.0%
-4.0%
-6.0%
-8.0%
2005:01 2005:03 2006:01 2006:03 2007:01 2007:Q3 2008:Q1 2008:Q3 2009:Q1
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
2.009-I0 MAY REVISION—GENERAL FUND PROPOSALS 23
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
Output of both economies should begin to grow in the second half of 2009, but the
recovery will likely be slow at first, with payroll employment continuing to fall and
unemployment remaining high for perhaps six months.
The outlook for the national economy is for negative growth in 2009, weak growth in
2010, and good growth in 2011:
• Real GDP is projected to fall 3.5 percent in 2009, and grow 1.4 percent in 2010 and
3.5 percent in 2011, as compared to the 1.1-percent growth in 2008.
• Nonfarm payroll employment is forecast to fall by 3.6 percent in 2009 and
0.8 percent in 2010 and grow 1.5 percent in 2011, as compared to a decline of
0.4 percent in 2008.
The outlook for the California economy is also for negative growth in 2009 followed by
weak growth in 2010, and better growth in 2011:
• Personal income is projected to fall 1 percent in 2009; and grow 1.4 percent in 2010,
and 3.9 percent in 2011, as compared to 2.5 percent in 2008. The projected decline
in personal income is the first since 1938.
• Nonfarm payroll employment is forecast to fall by 3.9 percent in 2009 and
0.9 percent in 2010 and grow 1.6 percent in 2011, as compared to a 1.2-percent
decline in 2008.
THE NATION
The national economy contracted sharply in the fourth quarter of 2008 and the first
quarter of 2009. The two quarter percentage decline in economic output was the largest
since the first quarter of 1958. However, two favorable developments occurred in the
first quarter of 2009: consumers began to spend more, and businesses worked off a
large amount of unwanted inventories that had built up as the economy slowed during
2008. Consumer spending grew by over 2 percent in the first quarter after falling sharply
in the third and fourth quarters of 2008. The paring of inventories brought them into
better alignment with sales—something that needs to happen before a recovery can
take hold. Recent consumer confidence surveys indicate that consumers are somewhat
less pessimistic about the economy. The fiscal stimulus package should give consumer
spending a boost in the coming months.
The housing sector is showing some signs of stabilizing. Sales are up a bit, and the
inventory of unsold new homes has fallen. Mortgage rates have fallen considerably since
24 2.009-I0 MAY REVISION-GENERAL FUND PROPOSALS
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
last summer. Falling home prices along with lower mortgage rates have made housing
more affordable, but the supply of mortgage credit remains tight.
Unlike consumers, businesses are not yet ready to spend more. Spending for equipment
and software by businesses fell at an annual rate of almost 30 percent in both the fourth
and first quarters. Businesses will likely need to see additional positive signs coming
from the economy before they increase capital spending.
Similarly, exports will not likely contribute much to economic growth until mid-2010.
After growing strongly for five years, exports fell sharply in the last two quarters as the
economies of major trading partners weakened.
Labor markets have not been a source of encouraging news. More than 5.7 million payroll
jobs have been lost in the nation since December 2007, the beginning of the recession.
While the average monthly loss has been almost 360,000 jobs, the losses have grown
over time. The last six have averaged 656,000 per month. The national unemployment
rate has risen quickly in the last year. In April 2009, it jumped 0.4 percentage point to
8.9 percent. In April 2008, it was 5 percent.
A number of financial markets have improved in recent weeks, among them markets
for short-term funding, including interbank markets and the commercial paper market.
Concerns about credit risk in those markets appear to have receded somewhat, there
is more lending at longer maturities, and interest rates have declined. In addition, the
issuance of asset-backed securities (ABS) backed by credit card, auto, and student loans
all picked up in March and April, and ABS funding rates have declined. Also, mortgage
rates have fallen in response to the Federal Reserve's purchases of agency debt and
mortgage-backed securities. And recently, bond issuance by nonfinancial firms has been
relatively strong.
CALIFORNIA
The toll of the recession in California has been most visible in the labor markets. Payroll
employment peaked in California in July 2007, five months earlier than in the nation.
Since then employment has fallen by almost 730,000 jobs. And, as in the nation, monthly
job losses were modest initially and then grew and became more widespread across
industries over time. The six months ending in March 2009 accounted for five of the
six biggest monthly payroll job losses in the official employment series, which began in
January 1990 (Figure ECO-02). No major region was spared. No metropolitan statistical
area or metropolitan division gained payroll jobs from March 2008 to March 2009.
2.009-I0 MAY REVISION-GENERAL FUND PROPOSALS 25
Figure ECO-02
California Nonfarm Payroll Employment
60,000 Month-over-Month Change
40,000
20,000
0
-20,000
o -40,000
-60,000
-80,000
-100,000
-120,000
-140,000
v v v o M v v v m o M v v
0 0 0 o b o -4 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 -4 -4 -4 _4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Employment Development Department,Labor Market Information Division
California's unemployment rate rose quickly from 6.4 percent in March 2008 to
11.2 percent in March 2009.
California personal income fell by an estimated 0.3 percent, taxable sales by 11.5 percent,
and new vehicle registrations by 24 percent from the third quarter to the fourth quarter of
2008.
Made-in-California exports fell by 5.9 percent from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the
fourth quarter of 2008. High-tech exports fell by almost 17 percent.
California's housing slump is showing signs of coming to an end. California home building
fell for the fourth consecutive year in 2008. The number of units for which permits were
granted was only 30 percent of the level in 2004, and few new homes were sold in 2008.
But existing single-family detached home sales grew by 27 percent. Inventory of unsold
new homes have been pared.
26
THE FORECAST
Some positive signs have been seen in the national and California economies in the
past month or two: monthly job losses have fallen in both the nation and California on
occasion, consumers have begun to spend a little more, and conditions have improved in
a few financial markets. The pace of contraction of both economies may have slowed.
Jobs will continue to be lost and unemployment will continue to increase even after
economic activity has begun to grow.
The current national recession has entered its 17th month, making it the longest recession in
the post-World War I I period. It will very likely become the deepest recession in that period
before it is done. The recovery could be long and slow, and a relapse is possible. Another
batch of possibly toxic mortgages will be resetting in 2010 and 2011. Nevertheless, both
economies are projected to grow in 2010. (Figure ECO-03 and Figure ECO-04).
Figure ECO-03
Selected U.S. Economic Indicators
2008 2009 2010
(Est.) (Projected) (Projected)
Real gross domestic product,(2000 dollar)(Percent change) 1.1 -3.5 1.4
Personal consumption expenditures 0.2 -0.9 1.7
Gross private domestic investment -6.7 -24.0 8.2
Government purchases of goods and services 2.9 0.7 0.2
GDP deflator(2000=100)(Percent change) 2.2 1.5 1.0
GDP,(Current dollar)(Percent change) 3.3 -2.0 2.4
Federal funds rate(Percent) 1.93 0.14 0.21
Personal income(Percent change) 3.8 0.1 1.8
Corporate profits before taxes(Percent change) -15.3 -16.5 19.5
Nonfarm wage and salary employment(Millions) 137.0 132.1 131.0
(Percent change) -0.4 -3.6 -0.8
Unemployment rate(Percent) 5.8 9.1 10.2
Housing starts(Millions) 0.90 0.55 0.85
(Percent change) -32.6 -39.0 53.9
New car and light truck sales(Millions) 13.1 9.5 11.3
(Percent change) -18.4 -27.4 19.1
Consumer price index(1982-84=100) 215.3 213.7 217.9
(Percent change) 3.8 -0.7 2.0
Forecast based on data available as of April 2009.
Percent changes calculated from unrounded data.
27
Figure ECO-04
Selected California Economic Indicators
Projected
Percent Percent Percent
2008 change 2009 change 2010 change
Personal income($billions) 1,558.9 2.5% 1,542.7 -1.0% 1,564.3 1.4%
Nonfarm W&S employment(thousands) 14,997.0 -1.2% 14,406.7 -3.9% 14,270.6 -0.9%
Natural resources and mining 28.6 7.3% 28.8 0.8% 27.9 -3.2%
Construction 787.6 -11.8% 665.7 -15.5% 649.0 -2.5%
Manufacturing 1,424.5 -2.7% 1,339.8 -5.9% 1,295.3 -3.3%
High technology 374.8 -0.5% 361.1 -3.7% 352.6 -2.3%
Trade,transportation,&utilities 2,856.2 -1.9% 2,721.7 -4.7% 2,705.1 -0.6%
Information 474.0 0.7% 450.8 -4.9% 448.1 -0.6%
Financial activities 852.2 -5.8% 804.7 -5.6% 791.7 -1.6%
Professional and business services 2,243.4 -0.9% 2,157.8 -3.8% 2,139.9 -0.8%
High technology 323.1 5.3% 325.0 0.6% 320.7 -1.3%
Educational and health services 1,724.1 3.2% 1,750.7 1.5% 1,787.7 2.1%
Leisure and hospitality 1,571.9 0.7% 1,542.5 -1.9% 1,567.0 1.6%
Other services 515.2 0.6% 507.8 -1.4% 510.1 0.4%
Government 2,519.3 1.0% 2,436.4 -3.3% 2,348.8 -3.6%
Unemployment rate 7.2% 11.1% 12.0%
Housing permits(thousands of units) 65 -42.5% 49 -24.4% 85 74.9%
Consumer price index(1982-84=100) 224.8 3.4% 223.8 -0.4% 229.3 2.4%
Forecast based on data available as of April 2009.
Percent changes calculated from unrounded data.
28
REVENUE ESTIMATES
REVENUE ESTIMATES
General Fund revenues are expected to be $85.947 billion in 2008-09 and $92.218 billion
in 2009-10. The 2009-10 revenue estimate includes $3.413 billion in revenue solutions
-$610 million from accelerating personal income tax and corporation tax estimated
payments, $2.8 million from revising veteran homes member fees, $100 million from
the approval of the Tranquillon Ridge oil lease, and $1.0 billion from the sale of a portion
of State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) operations. If the budget balancing
measures on the May 19 ballot are defeated, revenue solutions would be augmented with
$1.7 billion from increasing personal income tax wage withholdings by 10 percent.
Baseline General Fund revenues are expected to be below the 2009 Budget Act by
$3.4 billion in 2008-09 and $8.9 billion in 2009-10. Additionally, prior year revenues are
adjusted down by $52 million for a three-year decrease of$12.4 billion. The Budget Act
revenue forecast had been based on data through November 2008. Since that time,
the global, national, and state economies have weakened substantially and revenue
collections have reflected these negative conditions. Preliminary agency cash collections
through April were $2.6 billion —or 3.5 percent— below forecast. Thus, revenues are now
expected to decline by 3.8 percent in 2008-09, and another 9.1 percent in 2009-10.
Figure REV-01 displays the forecast changes between 2009 Budget Act and May
Revision.
PERSONAL INCOME TAX
The baseline personal income tax forecast has been reduced by$1.5 billion 2008-09
and by$4.4 billion in 2009-10. The 2008-09 decrease is due to weakness in the final
payments tied to 2008 tax year liabilities as well as the first estimated payment for the
2009 tax year. Through April, net General Fund cash receipts were $1.2 billion below
the 2009 Budget Act forecast. The May Revision forecast estimates that capital gains
income declined by 60 percent in 2008 and will fall by another 30 percent in 2009, which
reflects weakness in stock market and real estate prices. In addition, personal income
reductions reflect softness in across-the-board U.S. and California economic growth — in
particular, wages, interest, dividends, and business income.
The personal income tax forecast for 2009-10 includes $1.95 billion in revenue solutions
-$250 million from increasing the estimated payment requirement for the second
estimated payment from 30 percent to 40 percent and, if budget balancing measures on
2.009-I0 MAY REVISION-GENERAL FUND PROPOSALS 29
Figure REV-01
2009-10 May Revision
General Fund Revenue Forecast
Summary Table
Reconciliation with the 2009-10 Budget Act
(In millions)
Budget Baseline Change Policy
Source Act Forecast Between Forecasts Proposals Total
Fiscal 07-08
Personal Income Tax $54,234 $54,182 -$52 -0.1% 0 $54,182
Sales&Use Tax 26,613 26,613 0 0.0% 0 $26,613
Corporation Tax 11,849 11,849 0 0.0% 0 $11,849
Insurance Tax 2,173 2,173 0 0.0% 0 $2,173
Alcoholic Beverage 327 327 0 0.0% 0 $327
Cigarette 110 110 0 0.0% 0 $110
Other Revenues 6,031 6,031 0 0.0% 0 $6,031
Transfers 1,237 1,237 0 0.0% 0 $1,237
Total $102,574 $102,522 -$52 -0.1% $0 $102,522
Fiscal 08-09
Personal Income Tax $46,792 $45,275 -$1,517 -3.2% 0 $45,275
Sales&Use Tax 26,332 24,612 -1,720 -6.5% 0 $24,612
Corporation Tax 10,197 9,783 -414 -4.1% 0 $9,783
Insurance Tax 1,831 2,041 210 11.5% 0 $2,041
Vehicle License Fees 346 360 14 4.0% 0 $360
Alcoholic Beverage 355 326 -29 -8.2% 0 $326
Cigarette 113 104 -9 -8.0% 0 $104
Other Revenues 2,326 2,398 72 3.1% 0 $2,398
Transfers 1,081 1,048 -33 -3.1% 0 $1,048
Total $89,373 $85,947 -$3,426 -3.8% $0 $85,947
Change from Fiscal 07-08 -$13,201 -$16,575
%Change from Fiscal 07-08 -12.9% -16.2%
Fiscal 09-10
Personal Income Tax $51,237 $46,886 -$4,351 -8.5% $1,950 $48,836
Sales&Use Tax 30,221 27,583 -2,638 -8.7% 0 $27,583
Corporation Tax 10,445 8,439 -2,006 -19.2% 360 $8,799
Insurance Tax 1,798 1,913 115 6.4% 0 $1,913
Vehicle License Fees 1,692 1,657 -35 -2.1% 0 $1,657
Alcoholic Beverage 370 332 -38 -10.3% 0 $332
Cigarette 111 102 -9 -8.1% 0 $102
Other Revenues 1,682 1,711 29 1.7% 1,103 $2,814
Transfers 172 182 10 5.8% 0 182
Total $97,728 $88,805 -$8,923 -9.1% $3,413 $92,218
Change from Fiscal 08-09 $8,355 $2,858 $6,271
%Change from Fiscal 08-09 9.3% 3.3% 7.3%
Three-Year Total -$12,401 -$8,988
*Includes$1.7 billion as an additional revenue solution if budget balancing measures on the May 19 ballot are defeated
the May 19 ballot are defeated, $1.7 billion from increasing wage withholding payments
by ten percent for tax years beginning on and after 2010. The estimated payment
proposal would also reduce the number of required estimated payments from four to
three. The third estimated payment would be due on the fifteenth day of the month
30
REVENUE ESTIMATES
following the end of the tax year, generally January. This change in payment timing will
be better for taxpayers in present value terms.
SALES AND USE TAX
The sales and use tax forecast has been reduced by $1.7 billion in the current year and
$2.6 billion in the budget year. Through April, sales tax receipts are $792 million below
the 2009 Budget Act forecast.
The current year reduction is due primarily to lower disposable income, weakness in
cash receipts and a higher transfer to transportation funds resulting from higher gasoline
and diesel prices than expected. The budget year reduction is due to a reduced forecast
for disposable income, higher unemployment, weak auto sales, and a higher transfer to
transportation funds.
CORPORATION TAX
The baseline corporation tax forecast has been decreased by $414 million for the current
year and $2 billion for the budget year. Through April, corporate agency cash was
$546 million below the 2009 Budget Act forecast. The weakness is primarily attributed to
weaker-than-expected corporate profits.
The corporation tax forecast for 2009-10 includes $360 million from increasing the
estimated payment requirement for the second estimated payment from 30 percent to
40 percent. The estimated payment proposal would also reduce the number of required
estimated payments from four to three. The third estimated payment would be due on
the fifteenth day of the last month of the tax year.
INSURANCE TAX
The insurance tax forecast has been increased by $210 million in the current year and by
$115 million in the budget year. The revenue increases are primarily due to 2008 liability
being higher than a sample of insurance companies had indicated in a survey taken in
the fall of 2008. At that time, it was estimated that 2008 premiums would decline by
7 percent. It now appears that premiums grew by about 0.5 percent. Thus, the higher
level of premiums largely accounts for the increase in revenues over the two years.
2.009-I0 MAY REVISION-GENERAL FUND PROPOSALS 31
REVENUE ESTIMATES
OTHER REVENUES AND TRANSFERS
The baseline forecast for all other revenues and transfers has been increased by
$15 million in 2008-09 and decreased by $43 million in 2009-10. This forecast includes
vehicle license fees, Alcoholic Beverage Taxes, Tobacco Taxes, and all minor revenues
and transfers.
The forecast for other revenues and transfers for 2009-10 includes $1.103 billion in
revenue solutions-$2.8 million from revising veteran homes member fees, $100 million
from the approval of the Tranquillon Ridge lease, and $1.0 billion from the sale of a portion
of SCIF operations.
Additionally, the May Revision includes special fund fee increases to offset General Fund
costs, including an increase of employer fees by $40.1 million to fund the Occupational
Safety and Health program and the Labor Standards Enforcement programs in the
Department of Industrial Relations and a 4.8-percent surcharge on insurance premiums
generating $120 million in 2009-10 and $480 million ongoing to offset of costs at Cal
FIRE, Cal EMA and the Military Department.
PROPERTY TAX
Statewide property tax revenues are forecast to grow by 2.3 percent in 2008-09, and
decrease by 4.1 percent in 2009-10. The 2009-10 Governor's Budget forecast the
respective growth rates at 4.4 percent and 0.3 percent.
Input from county assessors throughout the state was solicited when developing these
revised estimates. Consideration also was given to the steep declines in median sales
prices for residential properties in 2008 (property tax revenue in a given fiscal year
is based on the January 1 lien date which, in turn, derives value from activity in the
preceding calendar year). These declines in 2008 sales prices will drive reductions in the
2009-10 assessed values of neighboring properties.
The state budget reflects about 35 percent of property taxes as a funding source for K-14
education. Current year allocations to school and community college districts have been
reduced by$303 million from the Governor's Budget forecast and 2009-10 allocations are
projected to be reduced by$1.006 billion.
32 2.009-I0 MAY REVISION-GENERAL FUND PROPOSALS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
Michael C. Genest
Director of Finance
(916) 445-4141
Ana J. Matosantos Thomas L. Sheehy
Chief Deputy Director, Budget Chief Deputy Director, Policy
(916) 445-9862 (916) 445-8610
Fred Klass Jennifer K. Rockwell
Chief Operating Officer Chief Counsel
(916) 445-4923 (916) 324-4856
Miriam B. Ingenito H.D. Palmer
Deputy Director, Legislation Deputy Director, External Affairs
(916) 445-8610 (916) 323-0648
BUDGET PROGRAM AREAS
Revenue Forecasting; Economic Projections;
Demographic Data; Business,Transportation,
and Housing; Local Government Mark Hill, PBM* . . . . . . . . . . . .(916) 322-2263
Education Jeannie Oropeza, PBM . . . . . .(916) 445-0328
Health and Human Services Lisa Mangat, PBM . . . . . . . . . .(916) 445-6423
Corrections and Rehabilitation,Judicial,
Justice, General Government, State and
Consumer Services Todd Jerue, PBM . . . . . . . . . . .(916) 445-8913
Resources, Energy, Environment,
Capital Outlay Karen Finn, PBM. . . . . . . . . . . .(916) 324-0043
Employee Relations, Retirement Systems,
Departmental Administration, Local Mandates,
Audits and Evaluations, Information
Technology Consulting Diana L. Ducay, PBM . . . . . . . .(916) 445-3274
Budget Planning and Preparation,
Cash Management, Statewide Issues,
CALSTARS, FSCU Veronica Chung-Ng, PBM. . . .(916) 445-5332
Financial Information System for California Titus Toyama, PE** . . . . . . . . .(916) 445-8918
*Program Budget Manager
**Project Executive
2.009-I0 MAY REVISION—GENERAL FUND PROPOSALS 33
ITEM NO. 2.2
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: May 21 , 2009
Subject: Plan for Obtaining Future State and Federal Grants - Townsend Public Affairs
ATTACHMENTS:
Name: Description: Type:
Continuation of Services FY 09-10.doc Report Report(s)
Tonseno
PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC.
MEMORANDUM
To: Ken Vecchiarelli, General Manager
Yorba Linda Water District
From: Christopher Townsend, President
Heather Dion, Director
Date: May 14, 2009
Subject: Continuation of Services for FY 09-10
Our team has greatly enjoyed the privilege of representing the Yorba Linda Water District
over the past three years in an ongoing effort to identify and secure funding opportunities for
the District's priority capital projects. These efforts have ranged from federal appropriations
and authorizations to state agency grants and work with regional entities such as the
Metropolitan Water District. We would propose to continue our work with the YLWD and
expand our scope of services to provide legislative services and advocacy to the District, as
well as explore new opportunities related to parks funding for many of the District's reservoir
sites that are currently underutilized as open space or recreational areas.
This proposal seeks to include new opportunities related to the federal stimulus package for
funding being funneled through the State's Revolving Loan Fund Program, and energy
efficiency funding through the U.S. Department of Energy and California Energy Commission.
In addition, there are non-stimulus funding opportunities forthcoming such as the State's
Proposition 84 Integrated Regional Water Management Program, Department of Water
Resources Water Use Efficiency Programs, and the Department of Parks and Recreation
Proposition 84 Parks Funding program.
Lastly, TPA has an outstanding reputation in Sacramento and at the District level for our
advocacy and legislative services. In the past, TPA has only provided generalized updates
to YLWD on legislative and budget matters. We would propose providing specialized
advocacy services especially for the District related to priority legislative issues (i.e. water
conservation mandates), and specific budget related matters involving the potential
Proposition 1A provisions that allow the State to borrow against local government property
taxes. Below you will find a summary of opportunities that are forthcoming in FY 09-10 and
how TPA can best represent YLWD on these matters.
FY 09/10 Funding Opportunities
Federal Stimulus Package — Clean Water Program and Safe Drinking Water
Program
The Federal Stimulus Bill, H.R. 1, was passed in February 2009 and included a
significant amount of funding for water related infrastructure projects. Of the funding
included in H.R. 1, $280 million was allocated to California for the Clean Water
Program administered by the State Water Resources Control Board. Another $160
million was allocated to the State for the Safe Drinking Water Program administered
by the Department of Public Health. Both entities did a pre-application phase this
spring and the statewide response was overwhelming totaling well over $3 billion
dollars between both programs.
Currently, the Department of Public Health and has announced a call back of 76
projects across the state, totaling $150 million, that will have the opportunity to
proceed to the next round to submit full applications to be considered for funding. The
State Water Resources Control Board has not gotten that far in their process, and is
asking applicants who submitted pre-applications to proceed with the full application
process to be considered for funding. There is not a deadline to proceed with the full
application process through the State Board, but rather more of a first-come-first-serve
basis type of process.
TPA would encourage the District to use our expertise during this full application
process, which includes managing the full application process and the collection of the
necessary documentation. TPA will also assist the District in garnering support for the
District's projects with members of the State Delegation, the County and other
stakeholders involved in the stimulus funding such as the Orange County Business
Council. While this is a competitive process and much of the decision making is
based on the merits of projects as well as project readiness, there is a advocacy effort
needed to ensure that projects stand out from the rest and get the attention needed to
make an impression on the State Board staff as they rank projects and consider
funding needs.
In addition to the funding allocated through H.R. 1, Congress is currently considering
amending the regulations to allow State's to permanently offer State Revolving Loan
Fund money in the form of negative interest loans or principal forgiveness, which
would allow YLWD to apply for funding in future years for projects such as Hidden
Hills Reservoir, replacement of water lines and other capital infrastructure needs
identified by the District.
TPA believes the current and future opportunities involving the Clean Water and Safe
Drinking Water funds are ideal for many of YLWD's capital projects and would
encourage the District to utilize our expertise in managing the application process as
well as the advocacy process in seeking funding from both these sources.
Federal Stimulus— Competitive Energy Funding
The Federal Stimulus Package appropriated $400 million in competitive energy
funding to the Department of Energy (DOE) to distribute in the form of grants. The
primary focus of this funding source is aimed at projects that reduce energy, green
house gases, are shovel ready and have multiple benefits (i.e. energy reduction and
water conservation) DOE has not made a call for projects or released the guidelines
to compete for these funds, but an announcement is expected sometime this summer,
most likely in late June. TPA would encourage the District to utilize our services
during this process as we have been working with other agencies in submitting their
applications to DOE for the formula energy funds that cities and counties were directly
allocated for stimulus funding. We are very familiar with this process and have the
expertise and knowledge to craft an application for the District that will be highly
competitive.
In addition the California Energy was also authorized a direct funding allocation from
the stimulus package in the amount of $45 million. The focus of this funding will also
be aimed at energy reduction projects that are shovel ready and have multiple
benefits.
Proposition 84 -Integrated Regional Water Management Program
Proposition 84 included $1 billion in statewide funding for the Integrated Regional
Water Management Program (IRWMP). In the Santa Ana Region, which YLWD is a
part of, approximately $114 million was allocated for projects. The Santa Ana Water
Project Authority is taking the lead on the call for projects in the Santa Ana Region and
will be the coordinator of all projects submitted for the funding.
TPA believes that YLWD should be an active participate in the planning process and
submit projects for funding once there is a call for projects sometime this summer.
TPA can assist the District with this effort, meeting with the SAWPA staff to best craft
a competitive application, and the on-going advocacy efforts with members of the
SAWPA board and the SAWPA IRWMP Steering Committee, and in particular those
members who represent Orange County so they can advocate on the District's behalf
during the prioritization process. In addition, YLWD should be participating in the
County of Orange's North County Plan and the Governance Process. TPA can help
the District work with the County to integrate capital projects into the plan and the on-
going advocacy necessary to compete through the process.
Proposition 84 - Parks Funding
In November 2006, voters passed Proposition 84 which totaled $5.38 billion. Of that
total, there was $400 million included for active use and recreational park facilities. To
date none of the $400 million has been allocated. However, the Department of Parks
and Recreation (DPR) has finalized the grant guidelines and plans to release the
application for this funding opportunity once the budget is passed this summer. There
is likely to be two rounds of funding.
TPA has brought this opportunity to the YLWD because of the interest the District has
had in creating park space over District owned water reservoirs. TPA has analyzed
the opportunity and believes it would be a good fit for the grant application. There is a
maximum grant award of $5 million per applicant for each round of funding available.
One of the advantages that Yorba Linda Water District has is the creative land use
and unlimited potential in creating a brand new park (which scores the highest in the
ranking criteria) above the District's buried concrete reservoirs. As we discussed,
there are going to be two rounds of funding and the applications will be highly
competitive. An important factor when considering the competition is what will make
our application or applications stand out amongst others. TPA believes that
highlighting and maximizing the efficient use of existing space, like creating a park
above a buried concrete reservoir will be one of the few, if not only, in the State and
will greatly help our scoring.
Whereas the Prop 84 Parks funding is for new or remodeled parks and providing youth
and seniors with outdoor recreational opportunities, there are also segments of the
application and guidelines which stress outdoor learning opportunities and sustainable
designs. Again, here is another area where YLWD can stand out among other
applications. As the state faces another drought and the shifting mind set of
incorporating earth sciences into the ongoing education of our youth, we have the
opportunity to incorporate elements into the new park which includes, and will score
well, sustainable design, water demonstration/conservation elements, energy
conservation incorporated into the passive or active uses of the park, and their potential
outdoor educational aspects of the projects.
Specific Areas to Highlight/Consider for funding:
In reviewing the list of YLWD potential projects/lists of sites, TPA believes the two best
locations are:
1. Plumosa Office, 4622 Plumosa Drive
2. Highland Reservoir/Booster Pump station, 5252 '/ Highland Avenue
This is based on meeting the criteria of serving a park poor community and it is also based on
the lowest median income of all of YLWD's potential project sites. There is also the potential
for an application for the:
3. Fairmount Reservoir/Booster Pump Station, 4150 '/ Fairmount Blvd.
State Advocacy— Legislation and Budget Issues
One of TPA's areas of expertise is advocacy related to legislative, policy, regulatory
and budgetary matters. We would propose expanding our scope of services for FY
09/10 to include managing the District's legislative matters. This effort would entail
monitoring and tracking of legislation, legislative analysis, letter writing, in-person
advocacy, and providing comprehensive legislative summaries for the Board of
Directors and staff on priority legislation including a monthly matrix summarizing the
legislation. In addition, TPA has extensive experience with the details of the Prop 1A
property tax provisions and is working with statewide organizations, as well as
individual cities of policies to help protect enterprise special district from inequitable
property tax shifts, should the state decide to invoke the Prop 1A provisions.
TPA would be pleased to expand our scope of services and offer these services to the
District as a part of our existing contract.
ITEM NO. 2.3
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: May 21 , 2009
Subject: Report on Legislative Activities - Sacramento Advocates
ATTACHMENTS:
Name: Description: Type:
YLWD Report 51309.doc Monthly Report Report(s)
Barry S. Brokaw
Donne Brownsey Sacramento Advocates, Inc.
Cassie Gilson
**** A California based Public Affairs and Governmental Relations Firm
Sen. Dan Boatwright(Ret.)
General Counsel 1215 K Street, Suite 2030 ❑ Sacramento, CA 95814
**** Phone (916) 448-1222 ❑ Fax (916) 448-1121
Sen. Mike Machado (Ret.)
Consultant
To: YLWD Board of Directors
From: Barry Brokaw
Re: State Capitol Update
Date: Mav 14, 2009
Overview
The Fiscal Meltdown Continues....
There seems to be no end to the revenue slide the State finds itself in, the result of the continued
deep recession gripping California, the tremendous decline in personal income tax revenues,
corporate taxes and the sales taxes, and the structural deficit that policy makers are unwilling to
politically confront. My April report cited the new $8 billion deficit the state was facing just
weeks after passing a 17-month state budget bill approved by the Governor and the Legislature
in late February. That deal "balanced" the then-$42 billion budget deficit through $12 billion in
new taxes (primarily hikes in sales, income and car registration taxes/fees), $18 billion in
spending cuts, and $12 billion in borrowing and shifting of revenues. The deal was very
divisive, garnering just three Republican votes in each legislative house, and has resulted in the
attempted recall of four Republican lawmakers and the ousting of the Senate and Assembly
Republican leaders who cut the deal. Of course, much of the borrowing and shifting must be
approved in the Special Election to be held May 19th. Included in that ballot will be a cap on
state spending growth; a decision on whether the increased taxes should be for two or four years;
borrowing from the state lottery, and redirecting funds from mental health programs and early
childhood education. If the redirection and borrowing fail, we can add another $6 billion to the
new deficit, which the non-partisan Office of the Legislative Analyst currently pegged this week
at $17 billion and the Department of Finance says is $15.3 billion. So, figure on the state having
to deal with a deficit of between $21 and $23 billion this time come May 20, if the budget
propositions fail, and public as private polls strongly suggest.
So, a state General Fund Budget that was $103 billion in 2007-08 and is now $92 billion, will be
significantly whacked again, with many voter-locked in spending programs threatened with
suspension.
Local Government Proposition 1A Property Tax Revenues Clearly at Risk
th
The Governor has already slowly dripped out the budget cuts he is contemplating after May 19
Included are deep hits to K-12 education; further health and welfare cutbacks; early release of
aging, but non-violent, state prison inmates; and a suspension of local government-protecting
Proposition IA. The Governor has indicated he plans to borrow as much as $2 billion from
local government property tax revenues, which would have to be paid back, in full, with interest,
within three years. The State Treasurer is very concerned about his ability to sell state bonds
under these conditions, and he and other state officials are currently seeking federal guaranteed
backing for our bonds.
Water Bond, Storage, Convevance and Delta levee rehabilitation
Serious discussions are on hold, pending budget issue outcomes, on a major water bond,
including above-ground storage, new conveyance, and a Delta levee rehabilitation program. The
discussions include the Democratic and Republican leaders of the Legislature and the Governor.
The new Senate Leader, President Pro Tempore Darrel Steinberg (D-Sacramento), is very
desirous of producing a major bond bill this legislative session, which could be placed on the
2010 statewide ballot. This has been a top priority of the Governor, U.S. Senator Dianne
Feinstein, and the Republican leadership for some time. None of the proposed bonds moved
forward in time to meet committee passage deadlines, but the Steinberg and Huffman bills from
each house may emerge in new form later in the session.
Legislation of Interest
Bill introduction has generally concluded for the year(urgency bills and non-controversial
"committee bills" may still be introduced), and it appears Members were not deterred from
introducing legislation. In all, nearly 2,500 bills and proposed constitutional amendments have
been introduced. Among those of interest to YLWD may be the following:
AB 28 (Jeffries) Natural gas engines: water movement: emissions limitation
requirements. (A-04/13/2009 html pdf)
Summary:
Existing law imposes various limitations on emissions of air contaminants for the control of air
pollution from vehicular and nonvehicular sources. Existing law generally designates the State
Air Resources Board as the state agency with the primary responsibility for the control of
vehicular air pollution, and air pollution control districts and air quality management districts
with the primary responsibility for the control of air pollution from all sources other than
vehicular sources. This bill would require any requirement imposed by an air pollution control
district, an air quality management district, or other local agency or local regulatory body
relating to emissions limitations on, or imposing monitoring, testing, inspection, maintenance,
or reporting requirements relating to emissions caused by, the use of a natural gas engine, as
defined, to comply with prescribed requirements .
Note: This bill would be very helpful for special districts in the South Coast Air Quality
Management District, but there was massive opposition to this regulatory carve out by all
the major air quality districts in Ca. The bill was defeated on a party line vote, but was
granted reconsideration. Air quality regulatory carve out bills always face a tough time
from this Legislature.
Status: 05/04/2009-In committee: Set first hearing. Failed passage. R
-Likely DEAD.
AB 450 (De La Torre) Recycled water: oil refineries. (A-04/21/2009 html pdf)
Summary:
Existing law declares that the use of potable domestic water for various nonpotable uses is a
waste or an unreasonable use of water, and prohibits a person or public agency from using
water from any source of quality suitable for potable domestic use for various nonpotable
purposes, including cemeteries, golf courses, parks, highway landscaped areas, and industrial
and irrigation uses, if suitable recycled water is available. This bill would declare that the use
of potable domestic water for oil refineries is a waste or unreasonable use of water, if certain
requirements are met. The bill would additionally prohibit a person or public agency from
using potable water for oil refinery purposes, if certain requirements are met. The bill would
state that it is the intent of the Legislature to provide incentives to facilitate compliance with
these provisions. These provisions would become operative on January 1, 2020.
Note: Do we have any oil refineries within the service area, and if so, do they receive
potable water?
Status: 04/29/2009-From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-
referred. (Ayes 10. Noes 2.) (April 28).
AB 969 (Calderon, Charles) Recycled water. (I-02/26/2009 html Pdf)
Summary:
Existing law, the Water Recycling Act of 1991, establishes a statewide goal to recycle a total of
700,000 acre-feet of water per year by the year 2000 and 1,000,000 acre-feet of water per year
by the year 2010. The act requires, to the extent that specified funds are made available, the
Department of Water Resources to identify and report to the Legislature on opportunities for
increasing the use of recycled water and constraints and impediments to increasing the use of
recycled water. The act requires the department to convene a task force, known as the 2002
Recycled Water Task Force, to advise the department in implementing the report requirement.
Existing law requires the department and the task force to report to the Legislature no later than
July 1, 2003. This bill would repeal the report and task force requirements. The bill would
change the statewide goal for recycled water to an unspecified number of acre-feet of water per
year by the year 2020. The bill also would make changes to findings and declarations under the
act.
Note: This bill was a spot bill. It never developed. It is DEA r
Status: 05/01/2009-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a) (2). (Last location was W.,P. &
W. on 03/26/2009)
AB 1187 (Huffman) Safe, Clean, Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010. (I-
02/27/2009 html pdf)
Summary:
Under existing law, various measures have been approved by the voters to provide funds for
water protection, facilities, and programs. This bill would enact the Safe, Clean, Reliable
Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010 which, if approved by the voters, would authorize, for the
purposes of financing specified water supply reliability and water source protection programs,
the issuance of bonds in the amount of$10,035,000,000 pursuant to the State General
Obligation Bond Law. This bill contains other existing laws.
Note: A water bond proposal coming from the chairman of the Assembly Water
Committee. Chairman Huffman was formerly a staff lawyer with the Natural Resources
Defense Council.
Status: 05/01/2009-Failed Deadline ursuant to Rule 61(a) (2). (Last location was W., P.
& W. on 03/26/2009).
AB 1366 (Feuer) Residential self-regenerating water softeners. (I-02/27/2009 html
pf)
Summary:
Existing law requires the State Water Resources Control Board to formulate and adopt state
policy for water quality control. California regional water quality control boards are required to
establish water quality objectives in water quality control plans. Under existing law, a local
agency, by ordinance, may limit the availability, or prohibit the installation, of residential water
softening or conditioning appliances that discharge to the community sewer system if the local
agency makes certain findings and includes them in the ordinance. This bill would authorize
any local agency that maintains a community sewer system within specified areas of the state to
take action, by ordinance or resolution and after a public meeting, to control salinity inputs
from residential self-regenerating water softeners to protect the quality of the waters of the
state, if the appropriate regional board makes a finding that the control of residential salinity
input will contribute to the achievement of water quality objectives. The bill would state
related findings and declarations of the Legislature, including findings and declarations
concerning the need for special legislation.
Note: The regulation of water softeners is back before the Legislature again this year.
Status: 04/29/2009-From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-
referred. (Ayes 11. Noes 2.) (April 28).
AB 1465 (Hill) Urban water management planning. (A-04/21/2009 html Pdf)
Summary:
Existing law requires every urban water supplier to prepare and adopt an urban water
management plan, in accordance with specified requirements, for submission to the
Department of Water Resources and other entities. An urban water supplier is required to
provide information relating to the supplier's water demand management measures. This bill
would revise provisions relating to the information that the urban water supplier is required to
include in the plan with regard to water demand management measures. The bill would require
the urban water supplier to describe in the plan the opportunities for development of recycled
water supplies, including opportunities for nonpotable and indirect potable reuse, and the
opportunities for stormwater recapture and reuse as a long-term water supply. This bill contains
other related provisions and other existing laws.
Note: This is a still developing water management plan bill coming from a freshman
member from San Mateo County.
Status: 04/29/2009-From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with
recommendation: To Consent Calendar. Re-referred. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (April 28).
SB 301 (Florez)Water Supply Reliability and Ecosystem Recovery and
Restoration Act of 2009. (I-02/25/2009 html pdf)
Summary:
Under existing law, various measures have been approved by the voters to provide funds for
water protection, facilities, and programs. This bill would enact the Water Supply Reliability
and Ecosystem Recovery and Restoration Act of 2009, which, if approved by the voters, would
authorize, for the purposes of financing specified water supply reliability and ecosystem
recovery and restoration programs, the issuance of bonds in the amount of$15,000,000,000
pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law. The bill would provide for submission of
the bond act to the voters at the next statewide election. This bill contains other related
provisions.
Note: This is a proposed $15 billion water bond (the most expensive offered this year), by
the Senate Majority Leader,who represents Fresno and Kern Counties. His problem is
the Senate President Pro Tempore, the number one Senator, also has a water bond
proposal.
Status: 05/01/2009-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a) (2). (Last location was N.R. &
W. on 03/09/2009). DX AD
S— (Cogdill) Safe, Clean, Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2009. (I-
02/25/2009 html pdf)
Summary:
Under existing law, various measures have been approved by the voters to provide funds for
water protection, facilities, and programs. This bill would enact the Safe, Clean, Reliable
Drinking Water Supply Act of 2009 which, if approved by the voters, would authorize, for the
purposes of financing specified water supply reliability and water source protection programs,
the issuance of bonds in the amount of$9,980,000,000 pursuant to the State General
Obligation Bond Law. The bill would provide for the submission of the bond act to the voters
at the next statewide election. This bill contains other related provisions.
Note: The former Senate Republican Leader,who was ousted by GOP Senators as part of
the budget drama, has been the lead Senate Republican on the water bond/storage effort.
Status: 05/01/2009-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was N.R. &
W. on 03/09/2009). IWAD
SB 456 (Wolk) Safe, Clean, Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010. (I-
02/26/2009 html pdf)
Summary:
Under existing law, various measures have been approved by the voters to provide funds for
water protection, facilities, and programs. This bill would enact the Safe, Clean, Reliable
Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010 which, if approved by the voters, would authorize, for the
purposes of financing specified water supply reliability and water source protection programs,
the issuance of bonds in the amount of$9,805,000,000 pursuant to the State General
Obligation Bond Law. This bill contains other related provisions.
Note: Another water bond bill by a Senator representing the San Joaquin River Delta.
Status: 05/01/2009-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a) (2). (Last location was N.R. &
W. on 03/12/2009). _
SB 565 (Pavley)Water recycling. (A-05/04/2009 html pdf)
Summary:
Existing law establishes the State Water Resources Control Board and the California regional
water quality control boards as the principal state agencies with authority over matters relating
to water quality. Existing law requires specified persons who discharge waste, as defined, in a
manner that could affect the quality of the waters of the state, to pay an annual fee to the state
board according to a fee schedule established by the board. This bill would require the board,
in consultation with the Department of Water Resources and the State Department of Public
Health, to develop a plan to ensure that at least 50% of wastewater that is annually discharged
into the ocean, as of the year 2009, is recycled and put to beneficial use by the year 2030. The
bill would prescribe various requirements with respect to that plan. The bill would require the
board to impose a fee on each person discharging wastewater into the ocean and would require
that fee to be deposited into the Ocean Discharge Recycling Fund, which the bill would
establish. The bill would authorize the board to expend the moneys in that fund, upon
appropriation by the Legislature, for the purposes of carrying out the wastewater recycling plan.
Note: This bill would charge a fee to a person who is discharging waste water into the
ocean.
Status: 05/08/2009-Set for hearing May 18.
SB 735 (Steinberg) Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010.
(I-02/27/2009 html pdf)
Summary:
Under existing law, various measures have been approved by the voters to provide funds for
water supply and protection facilities and programs. This bill would enact the Safe, Clean, and
Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010, which, if approved by the voters, would
authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of$9,785,000,000 pursuant to the State General
Obligation Bond Law to finance a water supply reliability and water source protection
program. This bill contains other related provisions.
Note: The Senate Leader, President Pro Tempore Steinberg, is authoring what will be the
lead water bond bill. He has committed to work closely with the Governor on this
proposal.
Status: 05/01/2009-Failed Deadline ursuant to Rule 61(a) (2). (Last location was N.R. &
W. on 03/19/2009).
Total Position Forms: 11
ITEM NO. 2.4
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: May 21 , 2009
Subject: Report on 2009 Legislative Bills - McCormick, Kidman & Behrens
ATTACHMENTS:
Name: Description: Type:
MKB Report on 2009 Legislative Bills.odf Report on 2009 Legislative Bills Report(s)
MCCOAMIcg. KIDMAN & BEHt3ENS. LLP RECEIVED
LAWYERS
650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE MAY 4 g 2009
H. L. IHIKEI MCCORMICK" SUITE 100
ARTHUR G. KIOMAN'
RUSSELL G. BEHRENS• COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 62926 YORRALINDA ER DISTRICT
SUZANNE M. TAGUE'T TELEPHONES 17141 755-3100
DAVID O. BOYER' 119001 783-9125
DANSEL J. PAYNE•
JOAN J. BENNETF FAX 17141 755-3110
EDDY R. BELTRAN www.mkbiawyers.com
TRAM T. TRAM
JOHN P. GLOWACKI
LAURIE E. PARK
'A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
tCERTIFIEO SPECIALIST - PROBATE May 7, 2009
ESTATE PLANNING 6 TRUST LAW
THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
BOARC Of LEGAL SPECIALIZATION
"OF COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM
TO WATER AGENCY CLIENTS
FROM McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
RE : First Report on 2009 Legislative Bills
Enclosed please find the first Legislative Report for the 2009 legislative session of
the California Legislature. The bills selected are those which we think should be of interest
to one or more of our water agency clients. The individual bill summaries are extracted
from the bills themselves and from information obtained from the Association of California
Water Agencies or from other sources.
Last year, solving the renewed state budget crisis took center stage in Sacramento.
This year, the Legislature has turned its attention back to normal issues....at least for now.
In the water area, the Legislature introduced a number of bills with a focus on water
conservation and water resources (See Sections A and B of the report).
We have organized the bills into subject categories, provided a subject Table of
Contents and provided a numerical order Index. We have access to bill text and other
information if more detail is needed or if there are questions on the summary provided.
McCORMICK, KIDMAN & BEHRENS, LLP
By:
ARTHUR G. KIDMAN
AGKIERB
j FIRST 2009 LEGISLATIVE REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. DROUGHT, WATER CONSERVATION AND WATER RATIONING
B. WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT/WATER PROJECTS
C. INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING
D. EMINENT DOMAIN
E. PUBLIC OFFICIALS; ETHICS
F. BROWN ACT/PUBLIC RECORDS
G. LABOR, EMPLOYMENT AND BENEFITS
H. PUBLIC WORKS/CONTRACTS
I. WATER SUPPLY AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
J. WATER QUALITY/POLLUTION
K. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
L. SPECIFIC AGENCIES AND/OR PROJECTS
M. LAFCO
N. PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION; REVENUE AND COLLECTION
PROCEDURES
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
• Legislative Report May 7, 2009
FIRST LEGISLATIVE REPORT FOR 2009
A. DROUGHT. WATER CONSERVATION AND WATER RATIONING
A.1 AB 49 (Feuer) Water conservation: agricultural water management planning
Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources ("DWR") to convene an
independent technical panel to provide information to DWR and the Legislature on new
demand management measures, technologies, and approaches. "Demand management
measures" means those water conservation measures, programs, and incentives that
prevent the waste of water and promote the reasonable and efficient use and reuse of
available supplies.
This bill would require the state to achieve a 20% reduction in urban per capita water use
in California by December 31, 2020. The state would be required to make incremental
progress towards this goal by reducing per capita water use by at least 10% on or before
December 31, 2015. This bill would require DWR to develop, by December 31, 2010, and
through a public participation process, regional urban water use targets and interim
regional urban water use targets in accordance with specified requirements. This bill
would require DWR, in consultation with other state agencies, to develop a single
standardized water use reporting form. The bill, with certain exceptions, would condition
eligibility for certain water management grants or loans to urban water suppliers and
agricultural water suppliers on the implementation of water conservation requirements
established by the bill.
ACWA Position: Oppose unless amended Status: Asm. Appr.
A.2 AB 474 (Blumenfield) Contractual Assessments: water efficiency improvements
Existing law authorizes the legislative body of any city, defined as a city, county, or city and
county, to determine that it would be convenient and advantageous to designate an area
within which authorized city officials and free and willing property owners may enter into
contractual assessments and make arrangements to finance public improvements to
specified lots or parcels or to finance the installation of distributed generation renewable
energy sources or energy efficiency improvements that are permanently fixed to real
property, as specified. Existing law requires the legislative body to make these
determinations by adopting a resolution indicating its intention to do so and requires the
resolution to include certain specified information.
This bill would expand these provisions to authorize the legislative body of any public
agency to enter into contractual assessments to finance the installation of water efficiency
improvements that are permanently fixed to real property. This bill would modify the
definitions of "city" and "legislative body" and require a legislative body to provide written
notice of a hearing to any
2
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
Legislative Report May 7, 2009
entity that provides energy or water within the boundaries of the area within which
contractual assessments may be entered into.
ACWA Position: Favor Status: Asm. Loc. Gov.
A.3 AB 1061 (Lieu) Homeowner Associations: water-efficient landscapes
This bill would provide that a provision of any of the governing documents of a common
interest development shall be void and unenforceable if it prohibits, or includes conditions
that have the effect of prohibiting or restricting compliance with any regulation or
restriction on the use of water adopted pursuant to Section 353 or 375 of the Water Code.
ACWA Position: Favor Status: Sen. Rls.
A.4 SB 407 (Padilla) Property transfers: plumbing fixtures replacement
Existing law requires certain disclosures to be made upon the transfer of real estate. This
bill would require that, on and after January 1, 2014, all plumbing fixtures in any
residential or commercial real property that are not water-conserving plumbing fixtures be
replaced prior to the time of sale or transfer by the property owner with water-conserving
plumbing fixtures, as defined, with specified exceptions. The bill would require that
compliance with this requirement be included as a condition of escrow for any sale or
transfer.
The bill would also require a seller or transferor of real property to certify to the
prospective purchaser or transferee, in writing, that the requirement has been satisfied.
The bill would provide that the certification is a material term of any sale or transfer. The
bill would except from its provisions certain transfers, including transfers in which a
licensed plumber certifies that, due to the age or configuration of the property or its
plumbing, installation of water-conserving plumbing fixtures is not technically feasible.
The bill would require a real estate agent to disclose the requirements described above and
would provide that an agent has no other liability in this connection.
ACWA Position: Support/Sponsor Status: Sen. Jud.
I
B. WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT/WATER PROJECTS
13.1 AB 934 (Gilmoe) San Joaquin Valley: water supply
This bill would require DWR to study the economic impacts of water supply reduction in
the San Joaquin Valley, including the counties of Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced,
3
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
Legislative Report May 7, 2009
San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare, and report its findings to the Legislature by January
1, 2011.
ACWA Position: Favor Status: Asm. Appr.
B.2 AB 1520 (Evans) Statewide Watershed Program
The California Watershed Protection and Restoration Act requires state agencies to adopt
guidelines for use by local watershed partnerships to provide specified mechanisms and
authorizes state agencies with jurisdiction over watershed planning and protection to
provide technical assistance to watershed management partnerships, to the extent that
funds are available.
This bill would establish the Statewide Watershed Program as a voluntary and non-
regulatory program to provide assistance and funds to local community-based efforts in the
conservation, protection, and restoration of the state's watersheds and to promote
coordinated management of watersheds under the authority of the Secretary of the
Resources Agency and the Department of Conservation.
The bill would also create a State Watershed Advisory Committee consisting of at least 10
members appointed by the Secretary, with at least one member from each of the state's
hydrologic regions. No less than 50% of the committee membership must be comprised of
representatives from community-based nonprofit organizations, local government, and
resource conservation districts. The Secretary would be authorized to cooperate with the
federal government, other states, and other state and local agencies in furtherance of the
purposes of the program and would authorize the program to receive contributions or
funds from specified private or public entities or persons.
ACWA Position: Favor if amended Status: Asm. Nat. Res.
B.3 SB 736 (Pavley) Water consumption fee
Existing law requires a person who files a specified application, registration, petition, or
request relating to water use to pay certain fees imposed by the State Water Resources
Control Board ("SWRCB"), in accordance with a prescribed fee schedule. Existing law
requires certain persons who extract groundwater in excess of a specified amount to file an
annual notice of extraction with the SWRCB.
This bill, with specified exceptions, beginning on an unspecified date, would impose, on a
person diverting or extracting more than an unspecified amount of water, a water resource
consumption fee in an unspecified dollar amount per acre-foot of water diverted or
extracted. The fees would be deposited in the Water Resources Consumption Fund, which
the bill would create, the proceeds of which would be available, subject to appropriation,
for unspecified purposes.
ACWA Position: Watch Status: Sen. Nat. Res. do Water
4
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
Legislative Report May 7, 2009
BA ACA 12 (Logue) Water: area of origin statutes
Existing provisions of the Water Code provide for the protection of designated areas within
which water originates or related areas, including the "area of origin," "county of origin,"
"watershed protection," and "Delta protection" statutes.
This measure would prohibit the Legislature from amending, repealing, or changing the
scope or effect of any of those provisions unless the bill is passed in each house by a 213 vote
of the membership of each house.
ACWA Position: N/A Status: Asm. Water, Parks & Wildlife ("WPW")
C. INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING
C.1 AB 139 (Brownley) Los Angeles County Flood Control District: fees and charges
Existing establishes the Los Angeles County Flood Control District and authorizes the
district to control and conserve the flood, storm, and other wastewater of the district. The
district has the power to cause taxes to be levied and collected for the purpose of paying
any obligation of the district. This bill would authorize the district to impose a fee or
charge in compliance with Article XIII D of the California Constitution, to pay the costs
and expenses of the district, and to carry out the objects or purposes of the Los Angeles
County Flood Control Act ("Act"). This bill would require that any fees imposed be levied
and collected, together with taxes for county purposes, and the revenues paid into the
county treasury to the credit of the district.
ACWA Position: Favor Status: Asm. Loc. Gov.
C.2 ACA 9 (Huffman) Local government bonds: special taxes: voter approval
The California Constitution conditions the imposition of a special tax by a city, county, or
special district upon the approval of 213 of the voters of the city, county, or special district
voting on that tax. This measure would change the 213 voter-approval requirement for
special taxes to, instead, authorize a city, county, or special district to impose a special tax
with the approval of 55% of its voters voting on the tax.
ACWA Position: Support Status: Asm. Loc. Gov.
D. EMINENT DOMAIN
5
i
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
Legislative Report May 7, 2009
E. PUBLIC OFFICIALS, ETHICS
E.1 AB 1412 (Torrico) Political Reform Act of 1974: gifts
Current law, as prescribed by the Political Reform Act of 1974, permits a lobbyist or
lobbying firm to make gifts to one person not exceeding $10 in a calendar month. This bill
would amend the Act to prohibit lobbyists, lobbying firms, or lobbying employers from
making a gift to a Member of the Legislature.
ACWA Position: Watch Status: Asm. Appr.
E.2 SB 233 (Aanestad) SWRCB: California regional water quality control boards
Current law, under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, prohibits a person
from being a member of the SWRCB or a California regional water quality control board
if, he or she receives, or has received in the previous two years, a significant portion of his
or her income directly or indirectly from any person subject to specified waste discharge
requirements or applicants for specified waste discharge requirements.
This bill would amend current law to stipulate that a person is subject to the above
prohibition if he or she receives, or has received within the previous two years, 25% or
more of his or her income directly or indirectly from any person subject to a specified
waste discharge requirements or applicants for specified waste discharge requirements.
ACWA Position: Watch Status: Sett. Env. Qual.
F. BROWN ACT/PUBLIC RECORDS
F.1 AB 520 (Carter) Public records
The California Public Records Act requires state and local agencies to make their records
available for public inspection and, upon request of any person, to provide a copy of any
public record unless the record is exempt from disclosure.
This bill would authorize a superior court to issue a protective order limiting the number
and scope of requests a requestor may make under the Act whenever it is made to appear
by verified petition. The petition must be accompanied by a declaration of facts by the
public agency withholding the records demonstrating that it has complied with California
Government Code Section 6253.1 and has made a good faith effort to reach an informal
resolution of the issues relating to the records request. The court may issue the protective
order if it determines that the requester has sought records for an improper purpose,
which includes, but is not limited to, the harassment of a public agency or its employees.
ACWA Position: Favor Status: Asm. Jud.
6
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
Legislative Report May 7, 2009
G. LABOR,EMPLOYMENT AND BENEFITS
G.1 AB 943 (Mendoza) Employment: credit reports
This bill would prohibit an employer, with the exception of certain financial institutions,
from obtaining a consumer credit report for employment purposes unless the information
is (1) substantially job-related, meaning that the position of the person for whom the report
is sought has access to money, other assets, or confidential information, and (Z) the position
of the person for which the person is sought is a managerial position, a position in a city,
county, or both city and county, that of a sworn peace officer or other law enforcement
position, or a position for which the information contained in the report is required to be
disclosed by law or to be obtained by the employer.
ACWA Position: Not favor Status: Asm. Appr,
G.2 SB 711 (Zeno) Public meetings: closed sessions: labor negotiations
The Ralph M. Brown Act requires the meetings of the legislative body of a local agency to
be conducted openly and publicly, with specified exceptions. Under the Act, the legislative
body of a local agency may hold a closed session with the local agencies' designated
representatives regarding negotiations concerning employee compensation but is required,
in an open and public session prior to those closed sessions, to disclose specified
information identifying the agency's designated representatives.
Existing law prohibits a closed session from including any final action on the proposed
compensation of unrepresented employees. The act also requires the legislative body of a
j local agency to publicly report any action taken in closed session, as prescribed, including
the approval of an agreement concluding labor negotiations with represented employees
after the agreement is final and has been accepted or ratified by the other party.
This bill would additionally require a local agency, before holding a closed session
regarding employee compensation, to identify the employee or class of employees that are
the subject of the negotiations, the representatives of the employees, and to provide an oral
report by its designated representative on the current status of the negotiations. Finally,
this bill would also add a requirement that any action of the legislative body on the
collective bargaining agreement or initial proposal be at an open and public session.
ACWA Position: Oppose Status: Sen. Loc. Gov.
7
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
Legislative Report May 7, 2009
H. PUBLIC WORKS/CONTRACTS
H.1 AB 815 (Ma) Public contracts: plans and specifications
Existing law prohibits a local public entity, charter city, or charter county from requiring a
bidder to assume responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of architectural or
engineering plans and specifications on public works projects, except on clearly designated
design-build projects.
This bill would enable contractors and subcontractors to be free from liability for deficient
architectural plans if some public entities view the appellate case of Thompson Pacific
Construction, Inc. v. City of Sunnyvale (Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. CV 017403, 6th
District Court of Appeal, Case No. H029818) as an opportunity to shift design risk from
architects to contractors. This bill would provide an implied warranty of the accuracy and
completeness of the plans and specifications provided to a contractor by a public entity,
charter city, or charter county. This bill would also state that the provisions of the bill
"shall not be construed to require a contractor to prove an affirmative or intentional
misrepresentation or active concealment on the part of the public entity that provides the
plans and specifications."
ACWA Position: Oppose Status: Asm. Loc. Gov.
1. WATER SUPPLY AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
11. AB 55 (Jeffries) Water supply planning
Existing law requires a city or county that determines a project is subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act to identify any public water system that may supply water for
the project and to request those public water systems to prepare a specified water supply
assessment. If no public water system is identified, the city or county is required to prepare
the water supply assessment.
Existing law defines "project" for purposes of the above requirement as, among other
things, a proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units or a shopping
center or business establishment, commercial office building, hotel or motel, industrial,
manufacturing, or processing plant, industrial park, or mixed-use project, that is of a
specified size, or a project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater
than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project.
This bill would revise the definition of "project" to provide that specified business,
commercial, hotel or motel, industrial, manufacturing, and mixed-use developments are
within the scope of that definition only if the projected water demand of the development
would be equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling
unit project, as determined by the public water system.
ACWA Position: Not favor Status: Asm. WPW
8
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
. Legislative Report May 7, 2009
1.2 AB 300 (Caballero) Subdivisions: water supply
Water Supply Assessment
Existing law requires a city or county that determines a project, as defined, is subject to the
California Environmental Quality Act to identify any public water system that may supply
water for the project and to request those public water systems to prepare a specified water
supply assessment. If no public water system is identified, the city or county is required to
prepare the water supply assessment. This bill would require, until January 1, 2020, if the
project applicant elects to include voluntary demand management measures, any city,
county, or public water system preparing a water supply assessment to reduce the
projected water. demand for the project to an amount below the current statutory,
regulatory, and local-ordinance requirements based on the project applicant's voluntary
water demand management measures, as defined.
This bill would authorize the applicant to enter into an agreement with the public water
system to mitigate water demand associated with a proposed subdivision by depositing
funds in a Voluntary Water Demand Mitigation Fund (Fund), as defined. The fees paid
into the Fund would be prohibited from exceeding the amount necessary to offset the actual
or percentage of actual water demand impacts determined according to the agreement
between the applicant and the public water system and would have other specified
limitations. The public water system would be required to expend all funds from the Fund
on water conservation measures that will reduce the projected demand associated with the
subdivision, and would be prohibited from using any funds from the Fund to supplant
funding for water conservation programs required by existing law or paid for by existing
customers through water rates and surcharges.
This bill would also require the public water system to choose water conservation measures
that are the least expensive and most cost effective means to yield water. This bill would
authorize expenditures from the Fund to be made within the subdivision or elsewhere
within the service area of the public water supplier, at its discretion. Water savings
projections would be authorized to be calculated using the water savings projections
adopted by the California Urban Water Conservation Council. Water savings projections
for measures for which the California Urban Water Conservation Council does not have
adopted findings would be required to be based on substantial evidence in the record and
included in the water supply assessment adopted by the water supplier.
If a project applicant proposes to use a new voluntary water reduction demand
management measure that is not based on water savings projections adopted by the
California Urban Water Conservation Council, the legislative body of a city or county or
the advisory agency would be required to have the project applicant enter into an
agreement with the water utility to implement and monitor the actual water savings over
time, as specified. The public water system would be required to prepare a written report
of the projected water demand versus the actual water use 5 years after the project has
been fully developed.
9
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
Legislative Report May 7, 2009
Written Verification
The Subdivision Map Act prohibits approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which
a tentative map was not required, or a development agreement for a subdivision of
property of more than 500 dwelling units, except as specified, including the design of the
subdivision or the type of improvement, unless the legislative body of a city or county or
the designated advisory agency provides written verification from the applicable public
water system that a sufficient water supply is available or, in addition, a specified finding is
made by the local agency that sufficient water supplies are, or will be, available prior to
completion of the project.
This bill would require, until January 1, 2020, the public water system, or the local agency
if there is no public water system, to review, verify for accuracy, and approve, as specified,
the subdivider's water savings projections attributable to voluntary demand management
measures, as defined. The public water agency would be authorized to collect fees
necessary to provide the additional analysis of the voluntary demand management
measures. Water savings projections would be authorized to be calculated using the water
savings projections adopted by the California Urban Water Conservation Council. Water
savings projections for measures for which the California Urban Water Conservation
Council does not have adopted findings would be required to be based on substantial
evidence in the record and included in the water supply assessment adopted by the water
supplier.
If a project applicant proposes to use a new voluntary water reduction demand
management measure that is not based on water savings projections adopted by the
California Urban Water Conservation Council, the legislative body of a city or county or
the advisory agency would be required to have the project applicant enter into an
agreement with the water utility to implement and monitor the actual water savings over
time, as specified. The public water system would be required to prepare a written report
of the projected water demand versus the actual water use 5 years after the project has
been fully developed, and to provide copies of the report to the project applicant, the city or
county that approved the subdivision map, the California Urban Water Conservation
Council, and the DWR.
ACWA Position: Support if amended Status: Asm. Appr.
1.3 AB 1408 (Krekorian) Subdivisions; Water Demand Mitigation Fund
Under current law, the Subdivision Map Act establishes a statewide regulatory framework
for controlling the subdividing of land. The Act generally requires a subdivider to submit,
and have approved by the city, county, or city and county in which the land is situated, a
tentative map. The Act requires the legislative body of a city or county or the advisory
agency, to the extent that it is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally
approve, or disapprove the tentative map, to include as a condition in any tentative map
that includes a subdivision a requirement that a sufficient water supply be available. The
Act authorizes the legislative body to request written verification of sufficient water supply,
10
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
Legislative Report May 7, 2009
and, when the written verification relies on projected water supplies that are not currently
available to the public water system to provide a sufficient water supply to the subdivision,
requires that the written verification as to those projected water supplies be based on
prescribed elements.
This bill would instead require the legislative body of a city or county or the advisory
agency, as-referenced-above;-tominclude-as a-condition in any tentative map that includes a
subdivision a requirement that the subdivision have a sufficient water supply be available
or that sufficient--water supplies will be made available through a Water Demand
Mitigation Fund held by the public water system. The amount of funding needed for
voluntary participation by the subdivision applicant in the Water Demand Mitigation Fund
would be -r-eq-uired -te--be -bused on off-setting at -least-100 percent of-the projected water
demand associated with the subdivision, as determined by the public water system. The
public water system would be required to expend all funds in the Water Demand
Mitigation Fund on water conservation measures that will offset at least 100 percent of the
projected demand associated with the subdivision, as specified.
ACWA Position: Support if amended Status: Asm. Appr.
J. WATER OUALITYIPOLLUTION
J.1 AB 737 (ACESTM) Public water systems: public notification
The California Safe Drinking Water Act requires the State Department of Public Health to
administer provisions relating to the regulation of drinking water to protect public health,
including, but not limited to, conducting research, studies, and demonstration programs
relating to the provision of a dependable, safe supply of drinking water, enforcing the
federal Safe Drinking Water Act, adoption of enforcement regulations, and conducting
studies and investigations to assess the quality of water in domestic water supplies.
Existing law also requires every public water system to notify users when certain
monitoring or other requirements have not been complied with, to notify customers when
failure to comply with a primary drinking water standard that represents an imminent
danger, to notify customers of confirmation of detected contaminants, and to annually
deliver a prescribed consumer confidence report to each consumer.
This bill would, in addition, require posting of the notices and reports on the public water
system's internet wcbsite, if that system maintains a web site. The bill would also permit
the public water system to remove or amend the posted information once the problem is
rectified.
ACWA Position: Watch Status: Asm. Env. Safety and Toxic Materials
J.2 AB 1366 (Feuer) Residential self-regenerating water softeners
Existing law requires the SWRCB to formulate and adopt state policy for water quality
control. California regional water quality control boards are required to establish water
11
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
Legislative Report May 7, 2009
quality objectives in water quality control plans. Under existing law, a local agency, by
ordinance, may limit the availability, or prohibit the installation, of residential water
softening or conditioning appliances that discharge to the community sewer system if the
local agency makes certain findings and includes them in the ordinance.
This bill would authorize any local agency that maintains a community sewer system
within specified areas of the state to take action, by ordinance or resolution and after a
public meeting, to control salinity inputs from residential self-regenerating water softeners
to protect the quality of the waters of the state, if the appropriate regional board makes a
finding that the control of residential salinity input will contribute to the achievement of
water quality objectives.
ACWA Position: Support Status: Asm. Appr.
J.3 SB 42 (Corbett) Coastal resources: once-through cooling
Under the Warren-Alquist State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act,
the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (energy
commission) has the exclusive authority to certify a site for the construction of a new
thermal powerplant or the modification of an existing thermal powerplant and related
facilities. The California Coastal Act of 1976 (Act) provides for the planning and
regulation of development, under a coastal development permit process, within the coastal
zone, as defined. The Act regulates various types of developments within the coastal zone,
including industrial developments and thermal electric generating plants.
This bill would prohibit a state agency, as defined, from authorizing, approving, or
certifying a new powerplant or industrial facility, as defined, that uses once-through
cooling, as defined. This bill would require the SWRCB to adopt and implement a
statewide policy on once-through cooling at coastal and estuarine powerplants. This bill
would also require each regional water board to review and issue a powerplant's national
pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit for its once-through cooling system
within 6 months of the expiration of that permit.
This bill would require a powerplant that uses once-through cooling, as defined, to pay a
specified fee. The bill would require the state board to collect the fee and to deposit the
revenues from the fee in the Marine Life Restoration Account, which the bill would
establish in the Coastal Trust Fund. This bill would require the State Coastal Conservancy
to administer the account and would authorize money in the account to be expended, only
upon appropriation by the Legislature, by the conservancy and the SWRCB to reimburse
their costs of administering the fee, by the conservancy for specified projects and activities
that address the impacts of once-through cooling processes, and by the SWRCB to provide
grants to powerplants currently using once-through cooling, as specified.
ACWA Position: Oppose Status: Sen. Energy, Util. & Com.
12
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
• Legislative Report May 7, 2009
JA SB 565 (Pavley) Water recycling
Existing law establishes the SWRCB and the California regional water quality control
boards as the principal state agencies with authority over matters relating to water quality.
Existing law requires specified persons who discharge waste, as defined, in a manner that
could affect the quality of the waters of the state, to pay an annual fee to the SWRCB
-according to a fee schedule established by the SWRCB.
This bill would- require the SWRCB, in consultation with the DWR and the State
Department of Public Health, to develop a plan to ensure that at least 50% of wastewater
that is annually discharged into the ocean, as of the year 2009, is recycled and put to
beneficial use by the -year-2030. - This- bill would prescribe various requirements with
respect to that plan. This bill would also require the SWRCB to impose a fee on each
person discharging wastewater into the ocean and would require that fee to be deposited
into the Ocean Discharge Recycling Fund, which the bill would establish. This bill would
then authorize the SWRCB to expend the moneys in that fund, upon appropriation by the
Legislature, for the purposes of carrying out the wastewater recycling plan.
ACWA Position: Oppose Status: Sen. Appr.
K. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
K.1 AB 28 (Jeffries) Natural gas engines: water movement: emissions limitation
requirements
Existing law imposes various limitations on emissions of air contaminants for the control of
air pollution from vehicular and nonvehicular sources. Existing law generally designates
the State Air Resources Board as the state agency with the primary responsibility for the
control of vehicular air pollution, and air pollution control districts and air quality
management districts with the primary responsibility for the control of air pollution from
all sources other than vehicular sources.
This bill would place certain limitations on requirements imposed by an air pollution
control district, an air quality management district, or other local agency or local
regulatory body relating to emissions limitations on, or imposing monitoring, testing,
inspection, maintenance, or reporting requirements relating to emissions caused by, the use
of a natural gas engine used in the movement of any type of water, including, but not
limited to, wastewater, sewage, or recycled water that is owned, operated, or contracted for
operation by a city, county, city and county, special district, including, but not limited to, a
water district, or an urban water supplier, as defined in Section 10617 of the Water Code,
or agricultural water supplier, as defined in Section 531 of the Water Code.
ACWA Position: Support Status: Asm. Nat. Res.
13
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
Legislative Report May 7, 2009
K.2 AB 844 (Hall) Invasive aquatic species: mussels
This bill would require the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG), in conjunction
with the DWR to conduct a study on the financial and resource-bases impacts incurred by
California water agencies for implementing control and eradication efforts, including
measuring the level of success achievable by available and potential mussel control
measures, identify the level of success of monitoring and education programs in preventing
the spread of the invasive mussels by water craft, and determine the methods by which
quagga mussels move between water bodies and proliferate within water bodies, and the
effectiveness of existing monitoring and management measures adopted and implemented
in accordance with Section 2301 of the Fish and Game Code.
ACWA Positron: Support/Sponsor Status: Asm. Appr.
K.3 SB 476 (Correa) CEQA: noncompliance allegations: public comment
CEQA requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify
the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry
out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative
declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead
agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant
effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and
there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect
on the environment.
CEQA provides for a public review period for a draft EIR, proposed negative declaration,
or proposed mitigated negative declaration. CEQA requires a lead agency to evaluate and
respond to comments made during the public review period and authorizes a lead agency
to evaluate and respond to comments made on a draft EIR when the comments are
submitted after the public review period. CEQA requires an action or proceeding alleging
noncompliance with its requirements to be based on grounds that were presented to the
public agency orally or in writing by any person and prohibits a person from maintaining
an action or proceeding unless the person objected to the approval of the project orally or
in writing, during the public comment period provided under CEQA or prior to the close
of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination.
This bill instead would prohibit these actions or proceedings unless oral or written
presentation or objection occurs during the public comment period provided under CEQA
or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the filing, rather than
issuance, of the notice of determination.
ACWA Position: Favor if amended Status: Sen. Env. Qual.
14
r
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
• Legislative Report May 7, 2009
INDEX
AB 28 (Jeffries) ..............................................................................................................................13
AB 49 (Feuer) ..................................................................................................................................2
AB 55 (Jeffries) .................................................................................................................................8
AB 139 (Brownley) 5
AB 300 (Caballero) ........................................................................................................................9
AB 474 (Blumenfield) .....................................................................................................................2
AB 520 (Carter) ................................................................................................................................6
AB 737 (ACESTM) .......................................................................................................................I 1
AB 804 (Hall) .................................................................................................................................14
-AB-815 (Ma) 8
AB 934 (Gilmoe) ..............................................................................................................................3
AB 943 (Mendoza) 7
AB 1061 (Lieu) ..................................................................................................................................3
AB 1366 (Feuer) ............................................................................................................................11
AB 1408 (Krekorian) 10
AB 1412 (Torrico) ...........................................................................................................................6
AB 1520 (Evans) ..............................................................................................................................4
ACA 9 (Huffman) ............................................................................................................................5
ACA 12 (Logue) ...............................................................................................................................5
SB 42 (Corbett) ...............................................................................................................................12
SB 233 (Aanestad) ...............6
SB 407 (Padilla) ...............................................................................................................................3
SB 476 (Correa) .............................................................................................................................14
SB 565 (Pavley) ................................................................................................................................3
SB 711 (Leno) ..................................................................................................................................7
SB 736 (Pavley) ................................................................................................................................4
15
ITEM NO. 2.5
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: May 21 , 2009
Subject: General Counsel's Monthly Summary Billing Reports
ATTACHMENTS:
Name: Description: Type:
MKB Monthlv Billing Rer)ort.r)df Monthly Billing Report Report(s)
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
MONTHLY SUMMARY BILLING CHART
BILLING MONTH. April
Matter Matter Date Task Order
Name Number Opened Amount
CURRENT FISCAL YEAR 2008 -2009
Current Billing Total Billed to Date Total Billed 2007 -2008
4/272009 Current Fiscal Year Prior Fiscal Year
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
002
7/31/2007
NIA
$5,039.00
$12,686.50
$11,223.18
PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION
030
$0.00
$967.50
OCWD ANNEXATION
040
1/13/1994
N/A
$0.00
$7,185.00
$60,261.09
RICHFIELD SITE IMPROVEMENTS
042
$0.00
$545.00
SHELL
051
$444.71
$832.21
HIDDEN HILLS RESERVOIR
068
8/25/2003
$8,021.49
$108,717.75
S&S DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
071
$460.00
$6,140.00
RWQCB
073
12/18/2002
$0.00
$636.21
$2,161.00
LAKEVIEW RESERVOIR
081
3/2/2005
$20,000.00
$0.00
$1,924.00
$36,645.72
NON - CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENTS
084
4/5/2005
$11,000.00
$2,627.50
$36,186.62
$15,888.25
CELL TOWER
085
7/28/2006
$15,000.00
$0.00
$1,012.50
$24,162.90
WATER RATESIWATER CONSERVATION
087
7/31/2006
$10,000.00
$9,360.20
$61,160.50
$26,960.50
BOD PROCEDURES
089
3/27/2006
$5,000.00
$0.00
$12,522.50
$8,732.10
TOTAL
1
$25,952.90
$250,516.29
$186,034.74
ITEM NO. 2.6
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: May 21 , 2009
Subject: Directors' and General Manager's Fees and Expenses (Jan-Mar)
(To be provided at the meeting.)
ATTACHMENTS:
Description: Type:
3rdQTR0809A.XLS Quarter to Date Report(s)
3rdQTR0809C.XLS Year to Date Report(s)
Dir Recap 2009.r)df Directors Recap Report(s)
Quarter-To-Date Report
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
DIRECTORS AND GENERAL MANAGER FEES AND EXPENSES
FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009
3RD QUARTER REPORT FROM 01-01-2009 TO 03-31-2009
ARMSTRONG BEVERAGE COLLETT MILLS SUMMERFIELD SUB-TOTAL PAYNE TOTAL
REGULAR MEETINGS ATTENDED 5 6 5 6 6 28
COMMITTEE MEETINGS ATTENDED 6 7 7 7 7 34
OFF SITE MEETINGS ATTENDED 1 5 0 3 1 10
SPECIAL MEETINGS ATTENDED 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL MEETINGS ATTENDED QTD 12 18 12 16 14 72 72
DIRECTOR FEES QTD $1,800 $2,700 $1,800 $2,400 $2,100 $10,800 $10,800
MEETING FEES BUDGET QTD $3,087 $3,087 $3,087 $3,087 $3,087 $15,435 $15,435
TRAVEL&CONF. EXPENSES QTD $0 $0 $0 $1,013 $0 $1,013 $1,013
TRAVEL& CONF. BUDGET QTD $583 $583 $583 $583 $583 $2,915 $2,915
DIR.FEES AND EXPENSES QTD $1,800 $2,700 $1,800 $3,413 $2,100 $11,813 $11,813
FEES AND EXPENSES BUDGET QTD $3,670 $3,670 $3,670 $3,670 $3,670 $18,350 $18,350
GEN MGR EXPENSES QTD $135 $135
GEN MGR TRAVEL/CONF. BUDGET QTD $1,280 $1,280
TOTAL FEES & EXPENSES QTD $1,800 $2,700 $1,800 $3,413 $2,100 $11,813 $135 $11,948
TOTAL FEES & EXPENSES BUDGET QTI $3,670 $3,670 $3,670 $3,670 $3,670 $18,350 $1,280 $19,630
YEAR-TO-DATE REPORT
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
DIRECTORS AND GENERAL MANAGER FEES AND EXPENSES
FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009
YEAR-TO-DATE REPORT FROM 07-01-2008 TO 03-31-2009
ARMSTRONG BEVERAGE COLETT MILLS SUMMERFIELD SUB-TOTAL PAYNE TOTAL
REGULAR MEETINGS ATTENDED 13 18 14 17 19 81
COMMITTEE MEETINGS ATTENDED 15 23 21 20 21 100
OFF SITE MEETINGS ATTENDED 2 5 1 6 4 18
SPECIAL MEETINGS ATTENDED 2 2 1 2 3 10
TOTAL MEETINGS ATTENDED YTD 32 48 37 45 47 209 209
DIRECTOR FEES YTD $4,800 $7,200 $5,550 $6,750 $7,050 $31,350 $31,350
MEETING FEES BUDGET YTD $9,261 $9,261 $9,261 $9,261 $9,261 $46,305 $46,305
TRAVEL&CONFERENCES EXPENSES YTD $0 $1,349 $0 $1,844 $0 $3,193 $3,193
TRAVEL&CONFERENCE BUDGET YTD $1,749 $1,749 $1,749 $1,749 $1,749 $8,745 $8,745
DIRECTORS FEES&EXPENSES YTD $4,800 $8,549 $5,550 $8,594 $7,050 $34,543 $34,543
FEES&EXPENSES BUDGET YTD $11,010 $11,010 $11,010 $11,010 $11,010 $55,050 $55,050
GEN MGR EXPENSES YTD $190 $190
GEN MGR TRAVEL CONF. BUDGET YTD $3,840 $3,840
TOTAL FEES&EXPENSES YTD $4,800 $8,549 $5,550 $8,594 $7,050 $34,543 $190 $34,733
TOTAL FEES&EXPENSES BUDGET YTD $11,010 $11,010 $11,010 $11,010 $11,010 $55,050 $3,840 $58,890
DIRECTORS RECAP OF TRAVEL/CONFERENCE EXPENSES
January- March 2009
GL Trip Trip Trip Reimbursable Expenses Paid by YL WD
Director date date name location Meals Lodaina Travel Conf.fee Misc Total trip Total
Armstrong $0
$0 $0
Beverage $0
$0 $0
Collett $0 $0
Mills 3/13/09 3/3/09 WEF Lower CO Riv Tour Various $97 $148 $650 $68 $963
2/27/09 ACWA CANCELLED Washington DC $50 $50 $1,013
Summerfield $0
$0 $0
Total Directors $0 $97 $148 $700 $68 $1,013 $1,013
General Manaaer
Vecchiarelli 2/27/09 ACWA CANCELLED Washington DC $95 $95
1/30/09 1/15/09 ASCE Luncheon $40 $40
$0
$0 $135
Total GM $0 $0 $0 $135 $0 $135 $135
Total Directors & GM $0 $97 $148 $835 $68 $1,148 $1,148
Assistant General Manaaer
$0 $0