HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-10-21 - Executive-Administrative-Organizational Committee Meeting Agenda PacketX
•
Yorba Linda
Water District
EXECUTIVE-ADMINISTRATIVE-ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITTEE MEETING
Tuesday, October 21, 2008, 4:00 p.m.
1717 E. Miraloma Avenue, Placentia, CA 92870 - Tel: (714) 701-3020
ITEMS DISTRIBUTED TO THE BOARD COMMITTEE LESS THAN 72 HOURS PRIOR
TO MEETING
Pursuant to Government Code section 54957.5, non-exempt public records that relate to open session agenda items and
are distributed to the Board 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 httD://www.vlwdavlwd.com.
AGENDA
•
COMMITTEE:
Director John W. Summerfield, Chair
Director William R. Mills
Alternate: Director Ric Collett
STAFF:
Michael A. Payne, General Manager
Ken Vecchiarelli, Asst. General Manager
INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS AND 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.
ACTION ITEMS:
This portion of the agenda is for items where staff presentations and committee discussions are needed
prior to formal committee actions.
Identity Theft Prevention Program.
Recommendation: That the Executive-Administrative-Organizational
Committee approve the proposed Identity Theft Prevention Program and
recommend adoption by the full Board.
•
2. Consider Terminating the Professional Services Agreement with Sacramento
Advocates, Inc.
Recommendation: That the Executive-Administrative-Organizational
Committee recommend the Board of Directors authorize the General
Manager to terminate the Professional Services Agreement with
Sacramento Advocates, Inc. effective November 30, 2008.
OP G ~A'_
3. Fullerton Arboretum Water Conservation Garden Partnership.
Recommendation: That the Executive Administrative-Organizational
Committee provide direction to staff as to whether the District should
• partner with the Fullerton Arboretum on this project.
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.
4. Report on Legislative Activities - Sacramento Advocates.
5. Report on Grant Activities - Townsend Public Affairs.
6. Review of General Counsel's Final Report on 2008 Legislative Bills.
ADJOURNMENT:
The next Executive-Administrative-Organizational Committee is scheduled for
November 18, 2008, 4:00 p.m.
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 Michael A. Payne, General
Manager/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.
•
2
ITEM NO. /
AGENDA REPORT
• Committee Meeting Date: October 21, 2008
To: Executive-Administrative-Organizational Committee
From: Michael A. Payne, General Manager
Staff Contact: Pat Grady, IT Director
Diane Cyganik, Finance Director
Reviewed by General Counsel: N/A Budgeted: N/A Total Budget: None
Funding Source:
CEQA Account No: Job No:
Compliance: N/A Estimated Costs: $1,000 Dept: Bus
Subject: Identity Theft Prevention Program
SUMMARY:
Pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission's Red Flag Rule, Section 114 of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003, the District is required to adopt and implement an
Identity Theft Prevention Program by November 1st, 2008. Since the District maintains customer
personal information and extends credit to customers for their water accounts, the District is
subject to this requirement.
• DISCUSSION:
Attached for the Committee's review and discussion, is a proposed Identity Theft Prevention
Program, along with its resolution, which Staff believes meets the requirements of the law. The
policy identifies potential red flags for identity theft and actions to follow in the event identity theft
is suspected by Staff. Additionally, the policy outlines procedures to prevent identity theft when
establishing water service for both new and existing customers. Many of the procedures
outlined in the proposed program are in compliance with current practices.
However, the most significant impact of the proposed program is the manner in which new
customers establish water service. Currently, new customers have the ability to sign-up for
water service over the telephone by providing their personal information verbally. Because this
method does not provide Staff with definitive evidence as to true identity, the new procedure
would require customers to sign-up for service in person, where Staff is able to confirm identity.
Because of this significant impact, Staff is recommending that the new procedures in the policy
be effective January 1, 2009 to provide Staff the opportunity to plan, notify, and implement
properly. While the law requires that agencies have an Identity Theft Prevention Program in
place by November 1St, Staff is comfortable with the Board adopting a resolution approving the
proposed policy, with the understanding that the underlying procedures will go into effect
January 1s, 2009.
Due to the timing of this matter, the proposed Identity Theft Prevention Program, along with a
• resolution, will be placed on the October 23rd agenda for Board consideration.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S):
None
• STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Executive-Administrative-Organizational Committee approve the proposed Identity
Theft Prevention Program and recommend adoption by the full Board.
•
0
RESOLUTION NO. 08-12
• RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
ADOPTING AN IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") has adopted regulations that
require "creditors" holding consumer or other "covered accounts" (which are defined to
mean any account where customer payment information is collected in order to bill for
services rendered) to develop and implement by November 1, 2008, an identity theft
prevention program that complies with those regulations; and
WHEREAS, because the Yorba Linda Water District (the "District") provides retail water
service to its customers, it is a "creditor" under the applicable FTC regulations and must
therefore comply with those regulations by adopting and implementing an Identity Theft
Prevention Program; and
WHEREAS, the District's Board of Directors desires to take action to comply with the
applicable FTC regulations by adopting an Identity Theft Prevention Program in policy
format; and
WHEREAS, the District's Identity Theft Prevention Program (the "Program") shall
endeavor to achieve the following goals:
• a. To identify relevant patterns, practices and specific activities (referred to in
this Program as "Red Flags") that signal possible identity theft relating to
information maintained in the District's customers' accounts, both those
currently existing and those accounts to be established in the future;
b. To detect Red Flags after the Program has been implemented;
c. To respond promptly and appropriately to detected Red Flags to prevent or
mitigate identity theft relating to District customer account information; and
d. To ensure the Program is updated periodically to reflect any necessary
changes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the District's Board of Directors hereby
adopts, and directs the General Manager to implement and administer, the Identity
Theft Prevention Program in policy format. The General Manager shall provide periodic
reports to the Board of Directors on the effectiveness of the Program and shall ensure
that all necessary District employees are properly trained to implement said Program.
•
- 1 -
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Yorba
• Linda Water District held on October 23, 2008.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
President, John W. Summerfield
Yorba Linda Water District
ATTEST:
Secretary, Michael A. Payne
Yorba Linda Water District
•
-2-
Yorba Linda Water District
• Policies and Procedures Manual
Policy No.: 31-08-01
Effective Date: 01 /01 /2009
Prepared by: Diane Cyganik, Finance Director
Pat Grady, IT Director
Applicability: District Wide
POLICY: Identity Theft Prevention Proqram
1.0 PROGRAM ADOPTION
The Yorba Linda Water District ("District") developed this Identity Theft Prevention
Program ("Program") pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission's Red Flags Rule ("Rule"),
which implements Section 114 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003,16
C.F.R. § 681.2. This Program was developed and approval of the Board of Directors at a
meeting held on October 23, 2008.
2.0 PROGRAM PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS
• 2.1 Fulfilling requirements of the Red Flags Rule
Under the Red Flag Rule, every financial institution and creditor is required to establish an
"Identity Theft Prevention Program" tailored to its size, complexity and the nature of its
operation. Each program must contain reasonable policies and procedures to:
1. Identify relevant Red Flags for new and existing covered accounts and incorporate
those Red Flags into the Program;
2. Detect Red Flags that have been incorporated into the Program;
3. Respond appropriately to any Red Flags that are detected to prevent and mitigate
Identity Theft; and
4. Ensure the Program is updated periodically, to reflect changes in risks to customers
or to the safety and soundness of the creditor from Identity Theft.
2.2 Red Flags Rule definitions used in this Program
The Red Flags Rule defines "Identity Theft" as "fraud committed using the identifying
information of another person" and a "Red Flag" as a pattern, practice, or specific activity
that indicates the possible existence of Identity Theft.
According to the Rule, a municipal utility is a creditor subject to the Rule requirements. The
Rule defines creditors "to include finance companies, automobile dealers, mortgage
•
brokers, utility companies, and telecommunications companies. Where non-profit and
• government entities defer payment for goods or services, they, too, are to be considered
creditors."
All the Utility's accounts that are individual utility service accounts held by customers of the
utility whether residential, commercial or industrial are covered by the Rule. Under the
Rule, a "covered account" is:
1. Any account the Utility offers or maintains primarily for personal, family or household
purposes, that involves multiple payments or transactions; and
2. Any other account the Utility offers or maintains for which there is a reasonably
foreseeable risk to customers or to the safety and soundness of the Utility from
Identity Theft.
"Identifying information" is defined under the Rule as "any name or number that may be
used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific person,"
including: name, address, telephone number, social security number, date of birth,
government issued driver's license or identification number, alien registration number,
government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number, unique
electronic identification number, computer's Internet Protocol address, or routing code.
3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF RED FLAGS
• In order to identify relevant Red Flags, the District considers the types of accounts
that it offers and maintains, the methods it provides to open its accounts, the methods it
provides to access its accounts, and its previous experiences with Identity Theft. The
District identifies the following red flags, in each of the listed categories:
3.1 Notifications and Warnings from Credit Reporting Agencies
Red Flags
1. Report of fraud accompanying a credit report;
2. Notice or report from a credit agency of a credit freeze on a customer or applicant;
3. Notice or report from a credit agency of an active duty alert for an applicant; and
4. Indication from a credit report of activity that is inconsistent with a customer's usual
pattern or activity.
3.2 Suspicious Documents
Red Flaas
1. Identification document or card that appears to be forged, altered or inauthentic;
2. Identification document or card on which a person's photograph or physical
description is not consistent with the person presenting the document;
•
2
•
3. Other document with information that is not consistent with existing customer
information (such as if a person's signature on a check appears forged); and
4. Application for service that appears to have been altered or forged.
3.3 Suspicious Personal Identifying Information
•
Red Flaqs
1. Identifying information presented that is inconsistent with other information the
customer provides (example: inconsistent birth dates);
2. Identifying information presented that is inconsistent with other sources of
information (for instance, an address not matching an address on a credit report);
3. Identifying information presented that is the same as information shown on other
applications that were found to be fraudulent;
4. Identifying information presented that is consistent with fraudulent activity (such as
an invalid phone number or fictitious billing address);
5. Social security number presented that is the same as one given by another
customer;
6. An address or phone number presented that is the same as that of another person;
7. A person fails to provide complete personal identifying information on an application
when reminded to do so (however, by law social security numbers must not be
required); and
8. A person's identifying information is not consistent with the information that is on file
for the customer.
3.4 Suspicious Account Activity or Unusual Use of Account
Red Flaas
1. Change of address for an account followed by a request to change the account
holder's name;
2. Payments stop on an otherwise consistently up-to-date account;
3. Account used in a way that is not consistent with prior use (example: very high
activity);
4. Mail sent to the account holder is repeatedly returned as undeliverable;
5. Notice to the District that a customer is not receiving mail sent by the District;
6. Notice to the District that an account has unauthorized activity;
7. Breach in the District's computer system security; and
8. Unauthorized access to or use of customer account information.
0
3.5 Alerts from Others
• Red Flaq
1. Notice to the District from a customer, identity theft victim, law enforcement or other
person that it has opened or is maintaining a fraudulent account for a person
engaged in Identity Theft.
4.0 DETECTING RED FLAGS
4.1 New Accounts
In order to detect any of the Red Flags identified above associated with the opening
of a new account, District personnel will take the following steps to obtain and verify the
identity of the person opening the account:
Detect
1. Require certain identifying information such as name, date of birth, residential or
business address, principal place of business for an entity, driver's license, social
security number, or other identification;
2. Verify the customer's identity (for instance, review a driver's license or other
identification card);
3. Review documentation showing the existence of a business entity; and
• 4. Independently contact the customer.
4.2 Existing Accounts
In order to detect any of the Red Flags identified above for an existing account,
District personnel will take the following steps to monitor transactions with an account:
Detect
1. Verify the identification of customers if they request information (in person, via
telephone, via facsimile, via email);
2. Verify the validity of requests to change billing addresses; and
3. Verify changes in banking information given for billing and payment purposes.
5.0 PREVENTING AND MITIGATING IDENTITY THEFT
In the event District personnel detect any identified Red Flags, such personnel shall
take one or more of the following steps, depending on the degree of risk posed by the Red
Flag:
•
4
5.1 Prevent and Mitigate
• 1.
Continue to monitor an account for evidence of Identity Theft;
2.
Contact the customer;
3.
Change any passwords or other security devices that permit access to accounts;
4.
Not open a new account;
5.
Close an existing account;
6.
Reopen an account with a new number;
7.
Notify the Program Administrator for determination of the appropriate step(s) to take;
8.
Notify law enforcement; or
9.
Determine that no response is warranted under the particular circumstances.
5.2 Protect customer identifying information
In order to further prevent the likelihood of identity theft occurring with respect to
District accounts, the District will take the following steps with respect to its internal
operating procedures to protect customer identifying information:
1. Ensure that its website is secure or provide clear notice that the website is not
secure;
2. Ensure complete and secure destruction of paper documents and computer files
containing customer information;
3. Ensure that office computers are password protected and that computer screens
lock after a set period of time;
• 4. Keep offices clear of papers containing customer information and ensure papers
with customer information are secured during non-business hours;
5. Request only the last 4 digits of social security numbers (if any);
6. Ensure computer virus protection is up to date; and
7. Require and keep only the kinds of customer information that are necessary for
District purposes.
6.0 PROGRAM UPDATES
This Program will be periodically reviewed and updated to reflect changes in risks to
customers and the soundness of the District from Identity Theft. At least every 6 months,
the Program Administrator will consider the District's experiences with Identity Theft
situation, changes in Identity Theft methods, changes in Identity Theft detection and
prevention methods, changes in types of accounts the District maintains and changes in
the District's business arrangements with other entities. After considering these factors, the
Program Administrator will determine whether changes to the Program, including the listing
of Red Flags, are warranted. If warranted, the Program Administrator will update the
Program and present the Board of Directors with his or her recommended changes and the
Board will make a determination of whether to accept, modify or reject those changes to the
Program.
•
5
7.0 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
• 7.1 Oversight
Responsibility for developing, implementing and updating this Program lies with an
Identity Theft Committee for the District. The Committee is headed by the General
Manager, designated as the Program Administrator, and consists of the Finance Director,
IT Director, and the Customer Service Supervisor. The Program Administrator, or his/her
designee, will be responsible for the Program administration, for ensuring appropriate
training of Customer Service staff on the Program, for reviewing any staff reports regarding
the detection of Red Flags and the steps for preventing and mitigating Identity Theft,
determining which steps of prevention and mitigation should be taken in particular
circumstances and considering periodic changes to the Program.
7.2 Staff Training and Reports
The Customer Service staff, responsible for implementing the Program, shall be
trained either by or under the direction of the Program Administrator in the detection of Red
Flags, and the responsive steps to be taken when a Red Flag is detected.
7.3 Service Provider Arrangements
In the event the District engages a service provider to perform an activity in
connection with one or more accounts, the District will take the following steps to ensure
• the service provider performs its activity in accordance with reasonable policies and
procedures designed to detect, prevent, and mitigate the risk of Identity Theft. The District
shall require the following:
1. That service providers have such policies and procedures in place; and
2. That service providers review the District's Program and report any Red Flags to the
Program Administrator.
7.4 Specific Program Elements and Confidentiality
For the effectiveness of Identity Theft prevention Programs, the Red Flag Rule
envisions a degree of confidentiality regarding the District's specific practices relating to
Identity Theft detection, prevention and mitigation. Therefore, under this Program,
knowledge of such specific practices are to be limited to the Identity Theft Committee and
those employees who need to know them for purposes of preventing Identity Theft.
Because this Program is to be adopted by a public body and thus publicly available, it
would be counterproductive to list these specific practices here. Therefore, only the
Program's general red flag detection, implementation and prevention practices are listed in
this document.
•
6
ITEM NO.
AGENDA REPORT
• Board Meeting Date: October 21, 2008
To: Board of Directors
From: Michael A. Payne, General Manager
Staff Contact: Same
Reviewed by General Counsel: No Budgeted: Yes Total Budget: $ 41,420
Funding Source: Water Operating Fund
CEQA Account No: 121780 Job No:
Compliance: N/A Estimated Costs: $ 37,000 Dept: Admin
Subject: Consider terminating the Professional Services Agreement with Sacramento
Advocates, Inc.
SUMMARY:
Sacramento Advocates, Inc. has represented the District's interests as a lobbyist before the
California Legislature, the Governor's office and any other agencies and departments of the
state as deemed necessary since 1997. Currently, Sacramento Advocates, Inc. has a contract
with the District until March 13, 2010.
• DISCUSSION:
The State of California recently adopted their 2008/09 budget without the State taking the ad
valorem property taxes from agencies like YLWD. With that issue placed on the back burner for
another year and with no direct issues in the State directly involving YLWD, staff recommends
the Board of Directors authorize the General Manager to terminate the contract with Sacramento
Advocates effective November 30, 2008.
If an issue should arise during the year having a direct financial impact on YLWD, the District
could contract with Sacramento Advocates in the future based on a specific fee. The District
could also contract with Townsend Public Affairs (TPA). TPA currently provides assistance to
the District in soliciting grants from the State of California as well as from Washington D.C. TPA
has the ability and expertise to help with lobbying efforts in the State should the need arise as
well.
The Professional Services Agreement with Sacramento Advocates, Inc. requires a 10 day
written notice to cancel the agreement. If the Committee supports staff's recommendation, this
item would be presented to the Board of Directors on November 13, 2008. If approved, the staff
would recommend terminating the contract effective November 30, 2008.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S):
Sacramento Advocates has provided legislative analysis and lobbying services to the District
since 1997. In March 2005, the Board of Directors extended the professional services
• agreement with Sacramento Advocates for three years. In March 2008, the Board of Directors
approved a two year extension with Sacramento Advocates, Inc.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Executive-Administrative-Organizational Committee recommend the Board of
Directors authorize the General Manager to terminate the Professional Services Agreement
• with Sacramento Advocates, Inc. effective November 30, 2008.
•
0
ITEM NO. 3
AGENDA REPORT
• Committee Meeting Date: October 21, 2008
To: Executive-Administrative-Organizational Committee
From: Michael A. Payne, General Manager
Staff Contact: Cindy Mejia, Management Analyst
Reviewed by General Counsel: N/A Budgeted: No Total Budget: $ 50,000
Funding Source: Water Operating Fund
CEQA Account No: Job No:
Compliance: N/A Estimated Costs: $ 50,000 Dept: Admin
Subject: Fullerton Arboretum Water Conservation Garden Partnership
SUMMARY:
The Fullerton Arboretum, part of the California State University, Fullerton campus, consists of
twenty-six acres on the northeast corner of the University, and includes four main plant
collections: Cultivated, Woodlands, Mediterranean, and Desert. Tours of the Arboretum are
conducted in conjunction with the Children's Environmental Education Program (CEEP), a state-
approved educational program for third graders utilized in a large number of schools throughout
Orange County. The Arboretum is funded mainly by sponsorship through the Friends of the
• Fullerton Arboretum, with additional partial funding from the University and the City of Fullerton.
All grounds maintenance and improvements are provided by volunteers.
DISCUSSION:
Within the Desert plant collection, the Arboretum is building a Mohave Garden, which will
include both hardscape and plants native to the Mohave Desert. This garden will complement
one sponsored by the Metropolitan Water District that has focused only on plants indentified in
Metropolitan's "Be Water Wise" program and similarly to this garden, the Mohave Garden will
provide an education example of native plants and designing gardens that thrive on very little
water.
The Mohave Garden will become a main attraction in the CEEP school tours in addition to both
guided and self-guided tours of the Arboretum. The Garden will also provide an invaluable
opportunity for principals of water conservation in desert plant life to apply to an individual's
home garden, both for University students as well as the visiting general public. Full support of
this project will be recognized by the Arboretum with permanent signage and inclusion in the
tours, noting the District's support of the project.
Director Armstrong was initially contacted about the District's support of this project in August by
a District resident on behalf of the Friends of the Fullerton Arboretum, of which approximately
thirty-five percent are District residents.
0
The financial sponsorship breakdown is as follows:
• Hardscape acquisition, transport and placement (materials, labor & equipment) $45,000
• Mojave plants and seeds $ 5.000
•
•
TOTAL $50,000
This project is not a budgeted item and initial estimates of fiscal year 2007-2008 and fiscal year
2008-2009 budgets indicate that no funds are freely available for use on this project within the
Administration department budget.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S):
There has been no prior action taken in the sponsorship of a water conservation garden outside
the District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Executive-Administrative-Organizational Committee provides direction to Staff as to
whether the District should partner with the Fullerton Arboretum on this project.
0
ITEM NO.
Barry S. Brokaw Sacramento Advocates, Inc.
Donne Brownsey A California based Public Affairs and Governmental Relations Firm
Daniel E. Boatwright 1215 K Street, Suite 2030 - Sacramento, CA 95814
• General Counsel Phone (916) 448-1222 - Fax (916) 448-1121
MEMORANDUM
To: Yorba Linda Water District Board of Directors
From: Barry Brokaw
Re: State Capitol Monthly Update
Date: October 15, 2008
Overview
The national economic crisis continues to plague California state government, with revenues
continuing to fall short of estimates as the state moves through the fourth month of the 2008-09
budget year. Controller John Chiang announced this month that California has taken in $1.1 billion
less through the first quarter than state officials projected as recently as the end of May.
Personal income tax revenues for September were $270 million below estimates (4.6%) of the
Governor's May Budget Revise, retail sales taxes were down by $128 million (-5.7%), and corporate
taxes were down $416 million (-18.6%). This is NOT welcome news.
Current projections by the Governor's Department of Finance indicate the state will take in $3 billion
•
less this fiscal year than anticipated in the State Budget the Governor signed late in September. The
State Treasurer believes the budget hole is about $4.6 billion.
Budget Issues, Special Election, Will Dominate Next LeEislature's Policv Discussions
There will be a statewide Special Election in 2009. While some would like to hold the election
concurrently with municipal elections being held in March, the Governor is leaning toward an
election in June. There is fear that holding an election in March would result in a greater Democratic
turnout, particularly since the LA mayoralty race will be occurring then. Already on the docket for
the special election are two items: One gives the Governor more power to cut spending during a
fiscal crisis; the second would be the vote on borrowing money from the state lottery for two years
($5 billion a year), which was part of the current state budget deal. The Democratic Party and public
employee labor union are not supporting the expanded power for the Governor; the teachers' unions
do not like the proposed borrowing from the lottery. If the lottery borrowing is rejected by the
voters, the budget hole the state finds itself in will grow deeper by $5 billion. Also expected to be on
the ballot (through the initiative process), would be attempts to allow the state budget to be passed by
a simple majority vote, rather than the two-thirds vote now required; proposals to increase taxes; and
perhaps, by legislative action, another bond proposal, this time a $9.3 billion effort water bond
measure, including funding to increase water storage facilities.
7
0
Legislation of Interest
The legislative session is finally fully concluded, with Governor Schwarzenegger acting on 875
• bills dumped on his desk by the Legislature in August. In 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger
signed 772 bills and vetoed 415 bills. This is the highest number of bills vetoed in a year in
California history. Bills of interest to YLWD include the following:
AB 2175 (Laird) Water conservation
Summary:
Existing law establishes the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act and requires the
Department of Water Resources to update the model water efficient landscape ordinance by
regulation. Existing law requires all rules and regulations of the department, except as specified,
to first be presented to the California Water Commission and be effective only upon approval
by the commission. This bill would, until January 1, 2010, delete the requirement that the
commission be presented with and approve department regulations relating to the model water
efficient landscape ordinance. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing
laws.
Note: The state DWR would be authorized to set water conservation standards or
guidelines under this proposal. This bill would have required the state to achieve a 20
percent reduction in urban per capita water use by December 31, 2020 and also required
agricultural water suppliers to implement water use efficiency best management practices
by July 31, 2012. MWD supported. ACWA and many agriculture interests opposed. The
bill is DEAD.
• Status: 08/31/2008-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(b) (17). (Last location was RLS.
on 08/30/2008)
AB 2270
(Laird) Recycled water: water quality
Summary:
Existing law establishes a statewide recycling goal of 700,000 acre-feet of water by 2000 and
1,000,000 acre-feet of water by 2010. Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources
to prepare and update every 5 years the California Water Plan, which is the plan for the orderly
and coordinated control, protection, conservation, development, and use of the water resources
of the state. Existing law requires each urban water supplier to prepare, and update every 5
years, an urban water management plan with specified components, including information, to
the extent available, on recycled water and its potential for use as a water source in the service
area of the urban water supplier. This bill would refer to the statewide recycling goals as targets,
and would require the department to update these targets every 5 years, based on consideration
of all relevant information, including, but not limited to, specified information from the State
Water Resources Control Board and urban water management plans. The department would be
required to include the revised targets in the California Water Plan beginning in 2013. The bill
would require an urban water supplier to include in its urban water management plan
information on recycled water, including, in acre-feet of water per year, a description of the
quantity of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, a description and
quantification of the potential uses of recycled water, and the projected use of recycled water
• within the supplier's service area. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing
2
laws.
Note: The key component in this measure would have given the water district the ability
to ban the use of water softeners if the salt discharged in the process would threaten
recycling efforts.
• Status: 09/30/2008-Vetoed by the Governor
SBX2 1
(Perata) Water quality, flood control,
water storage, and wildlife preservation
Summary:
The Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act of 2002 authorizes a regional water
management group, as defined, to prepare and adopt a regional water plan meeting specified
requirements. This bill would repeal these provisions of law and enact the Integrated Regional
Water Management Planning Act. Regional water management groups, as defined, would be
authorized to prepare and adopt integrated regional water management plans meeting specified
requirements. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
Note: MWD supported this bill. About 60 percent of the funds appropriated in this bill
are for flood protection related activities, and another 15-20 percent are for projects that
protect or improve drinking water quality. The bill also funds completing the Ca1Fed
surface storage feasibility studies and environmental documents, improving regional
water planning and groundwater management, and restoring critical environmental
resources. This was the closest the Legislature could come to passing a major water policy
bill this year. The Governor signed the bill into law.
Status: 09/30/2008-Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter No. 1, Statutes of 2008
• The 2009-2010 regular session of the Legislature will convene December 1, 2009.
0
• •
Vnrh� I inrin Water Mctrir-t
r]
PROGRAM OR FUNDING
OPPORTUNITY
FUNDING
AMOUNT
CURRENT STATUS
CURRENT ACTIVITIES
UPDATE
Current Opportunities
Pending-
FY 09 Federal
Total request in
Appropriation form
TPA continues to
10/17-Congress has
Appropriations -
FY 09: $1.6
submitted to Congressman
advocate with Miller's
recently adjourned and
Highland Reservoir
million
Miller's office and pending
D.C. and District offices,
will not be back in session
Replacement Project
subcommittee markup, which
and with the Congressman
until after the election.
is not likely to occur until
himself on this request.
At that point it is likely
after the November election.
We are also working with
they will pass another
Congressman Calvert's
continuing resolution until
office in support of the
the remaining FY 09
request given his
spending bills can be
appropriations committee
agreed upon. Decisions on
position. We have
these bills may not come
recently spoken with Mr.
until after the 1" of the
Miller's office about the
year. However, there
possibility of having the
may be another
reservoir enhancements
opportunity for Congress
funded through the House
to fund infrastructure
proposed Economic
projects already in the
Stimulus package. This
pipeline for funding
bill is currently pending
through the proposed
upon the return of
$120 billion economic
Congress after the
stimulus package. This
election.
package will be taken up
upon the return of
Congress in early
November.
M
im
z
0
Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. October 17, 2008 1�
• •
Yorba Linda Water District
Funding Opportunity Matrix
•
FY 2010 - Water
TBD
WRDA forms for the Bryant
Senator Boxer's
10/17 - Congressman
Resources
Ranch Non - potable Irrigation
Environment and Public
Miller's call for WRDA
Development Act
System were submitted to
Works staff is finalizing
projects occurred in May
(WRDA) Call for
both Congressman Miller and
the collection of forms
2008, Senator Boxer's
Projects
Senator Boxer.
and the official
form was just due on
reauthorization process
September 12th. TPA
will begin early summer
submitted the Boxer
2009
form on September 9th
Senator Boxer is prepared
to begin working on a
WRDA reauthorization in
the spring or summer of
2009. This first call for
projects is an attempt to
see how many requests
came forward and the
overall funding needs
nationally for such
funding.
Proposition 50 - Dept.
Total request in
This pre - proposal grant was
TPA continues to monitor
10/17 - Just earlier this
of Public Health Grant
FY 08: $500,000
submitted in November 2007.
DPH's release of those
week the CPHD
Program - Non potable
DPH has not released a list of
applications that will be
announced they would be
Irrigation Project
applicants who will be
invited back to submit for
releasing the list of
invited back for the full
the full proposal round.
submitters who would be
proposal round.
invited back to
participate in the full
application process. As of
this writing the list has
not be published.
Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. October 17, 2008
• •
Yorba Linda Water District
Fundinq Opportunity Matrix
•
Proposition 50- Dept.
Total request in
This pre-proposal grant was
TPA continues to monitor
10/17- This opportunity
of Public Health Grant
FY 08: $380,000
submitted in November 2007.
DPH's release of those
was submitted through
Program - Well Head
DPH has not released a list of
applications that will be
the same CPHD pre -
No. 15, Removal of
applicants who will be
invited back to submit in
universal grant program
Arsenic and Maganese
invited back for the full
the full proposal round.
as the non potable
proposal round.
irrigation project. Just
earlier this week the
CPHD announced they
would be releasing the
list of submitters who
would be invited back to
participate in the full
application process. As of
this writing the list has
not be published.
Future Opportunities:
Proposition 50 - Dept.
TBD - DWR is
The grant application
TPA is working with YLWD
10/17- Originally this pre -
of Water Resources
currently
submission grant is unknown
to decide on an
proposal application was
Water Use Efficiency
updating the
at this point.
appropriate project
due on August 20th, but
Grant Program
guidelines.
application for this
DWR is reworking the
opportunity.
guidelines and has not yet
determined when the
applications will be due.
DWR continues to
postpone a call for
projects at this time.
Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. October 17, 2008
• •
Yorba Linda Water District
Funding Opportunity Matrix
•
Proposition 84 -
TBD- DWR is
There are two planning
TPA is working with YLWD
10/17 - DWR has not yet
Integrated Regional
planning on
processes occurring that
staff to be included in
finalized the draft
Water Management
sending out
YLWD has the opportunity to
both of the planning
guidelines for the Prop 84
Program
draft guidelines
be included in. The first is
processes, and determine
IRWMP, but expects to
for public
the SAWPA One Watershed
eligible projects for
release those very late
comment late
process. The second is the
submission into the plans.
this year or early next
summer 2008.
County of Orange's North
year. From that point
County IRWMP.
regional plans must first
go through a regional
acceptance check off with
DWR to even apply for
funding. Both SAWPA and
the County of Orange are
preparing to submit to
receive regional
acceptance and
subsequently request for
projects from individual
agencies and sub - regions
all within the Santa Ana
Regional Funding area.
Proposition 84 - Park
With the passage
YLWD staff has identified a
The Legislature did not
10/17- Our first step is to
Funding
of AB 31, the
number of reservoirs that
actually appropriate a
fully develop a
Dept. of Parks
could be recovered with
first round of funding
partnership between the
and Recreation
synthetic turf for city and
from the $400 million.
School District and the
have now begun
school district recreational
However, DPR plans to
YLWD to begin developing
to development
use. We will be exploring this
move forward with the
the outline for a project
grant guidelines
partnership this fall in order
grant process with the
and ultimately a grant
to expend the
to begin developing a
idea that the Legislature
application. We will work
$400 million in
comprehensive project
will put money into the
with the YLWD staff on
Prop 84 for
outline for implementation
FY 2010 budget and thus
setting up these meeting
passive and
on the synthetic turf plan.
DPR can award funding
between now and the
Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. October 17, 2008
• •
Yorba Linda Water District
Fundinq Opportunity Matrix
•
Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. October 17, 2008
active use parks.
once the budget is
approved next year.
holiday season.
Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. October 17, 2008
H. L. (MIKE) M000RMICK-
RTHUR G. KIDMAN
USSELL G. BEHRENS•
SUZANNE M. TAGUE't
DAVID D. BOYER•
DANIEL J. PAYNE*
JOAN J. BENNETT
EDDY R. BELTRAN
HANNAH BENTLEY"
TRAM T. TRAN
JOHN P. GLOWACKI
•A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
tCERTIFIED SPECIALIST - PROBATE
ESTATE PLANNING 6 TRUST LAW
THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION
-OF COUNSEL
MCC. oRmiCH. KIDMAN & BEHRENS, LI.P
LAW" ER 5
650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE
5UITE 10 0
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626
TELEPHONES (714) 755-3100
(800) 755-3125
FAX (714) 755-3110
www.mkblawyers.com
October 13, 2008
MEMORANDUM
TO WATER AGENCY CLIENTS
FROM McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
RE Final Report on 2008 Legislative Bills
ITEM NO. _~p
O C T 15 2008
• Enclosed please find the final Legislative Report for the 2008 legislative session of the
California Legislature. With respect to the bills we have reported on in our prior reports, the
report shows (1) the chapter number of each bill that was enacted, (2) the bills which were
vetoed and the reason for the veto, and (3) bills that died in the legislature since our last report.
As usual, the bills are organized according to general subject matter and a table of contents and
an index by bill number are included. We have access to bill text and other information if more
detail is needed or if there are questions on any of the summaries provided.
McCORMICK, KIDMAN & BEHRENS, LLP
By: :~~1~` '
RTHUR16. KI MAN
0
AGK\ERB
•
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION; REVENUE AND COLLECTION
PROCEDURES
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
1. WATER SUPPLY AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
J. WATER QUALITY/POLLUTION
K. WATER RATES AND REVENUE PROCEDURES
L. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
M. SPECIFIC AGENCIES AND/OR PROJECTS
N. LAFCO
0
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
LEGISLATIVE REPORT October 13, 2008
FINAL LEGISLATIVE REPORT FOR 2008
A. PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION; REVENUE AND COLLECTION PROCEDURES
B. WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT/WATER PROJECTS
In our last report we mentioned a funding proposal (SBX2 6) by Sen. Mike Machado, that contained
provisions for water storage and Delta protection. While that proposal failed passage, another
proposal (SBX2 1; Perata) passed and was signed by the Governor. The legislation authorizes the
use of bond money approved by the voters in 2006 and appropriates $842 for several projects,
including $200 million for projects in the Sacramento San Joaquin Bay Delta and $100 million to
cleanup groundwater basins in Southern California. In addition, the Governor and Sen. Dianne
Feinstein continue to work together on a $9.3 billion water measure that the Governor would like to
place in front of the voters next year.
B.1 AB 2175 (Laird/Feuer) Water conservation
• This bill failed passage. This bill would have required the Department of Water Resources to
establish a numeric water conservation target for the state, initially for 2030, that provides for the
maximum feasible and cost-effective increase in water conservation. The Department of Water
Resources would have been required to provide a list of technically feasible water conservation
measures and water suppliers would be required to adopt those measures where locally cost effective
or implement alternative measures that achiever equal or greater water savings.
ACWA Position: Oppose unless amended Status: Dead
C. INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING/OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE
D. EMINENT DOMAIN
E. PUBLIC OFFICIALS; ETHICS
0
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
E
LEGISLATIVE DEPORT
F. BROWN ACT/PUBLIC RECORDS
F.1 SB 1732 (Romero)
October 13, 2008
Local Agencies
The Ralph M. Brown Act requires that all meetings of a legislative body of a local agency be open
and public and all persons be permitted to attend unless a closed session is authorized. The act
prohibits any use of direct communication, personal intermediaries, or technological devices that is
employed by a majority of the members of the legislative body to develop a collective concurrence as
to action to be taken on an item, with an exception for an authorized teleconference. In Wolfe v. City
of Fremont, (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 533, an appellate court held that a violation of this prohibition
occurs only if a series of meetings by members of a body results in a collective concurrence.
This bill is similar to SB 964, which was vetoed by the Governor last year. In doing so he stated that
although the bill sought to solve a perceived defect in the Brown Act addressed in Wolfe, it "imposed
an impractical standard for compliance on local officials and could potentially prohibit
communication among officials and agency staff."
Like last year, this bill prohibits a majority of members of a legislative body of a local agency from
using, outside a meeting authorized by the act, a series of communications of any kind, directly or
• through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the
subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. It also states the Legislature's declaration that it
disapproves the holding of the Wolfe court to the extent it construes the prohibition on serial
meetings and would state its intention that the changes made by this bill supersede that holding. In
order to address the Governor's concerns, this bill also provides that the changes made by this bill do
not prevent an employee or official of a local agency, from engaging in separate conversations or
communications, outside of a meeting authorized by the Brown Act, with members of a legislative
body in order to answer questions or provide information regarding a matter that is within the subject
matter jurisdiction of the local agency, if that person does not communicate to members of the
legislative body the comments or position of any other member or members of the body.
ACWA Position: Watch
G.
•
G.1
LABOR, EMPLOYMENT AND BENEFITS
AB 1858 (Jeffries)
ACWA Position: Favor
Status: Ch. 63
Public employees: retirement benefits forfeiture
Status: Dead
2
McCormick,
0 LEGISLaTIt--'F: REPORT
G.2 AB 1936 (Emmerson)
October 13, 2008
Public Employees' Retirement System: Nonprofit
Mutual Water Companies
This bill permits a nonprofit mutual water company that operates pursuant to specified provisions of
law and that meets certain requirements to enter into a contract to participate in PERS. The
nonprofit mutual water company must receive an advisory opinion from the IRS and 50 % of its
shares have to be owned by a municipality. In addition, its governing body must be a local public
agency. Meeting these qualifications would make the mutual water company a "public agency" for
only the purposes of this bill.
ACWA Position: Favor
H. PUBLIC WORKS/CONTRACTS
H.1 AB 642 (Wolk)
Status: Ch. 191
Design-build: counties, cities, and special districts;
Certain prototype projects
• Existing law requires public entities to comply with procedures in soliciting and evaluating bids and
awarding contracts to erect, construct, alter, repair, or improve any public structure, building, road, or
other public improvement. Current law allows for the use of the design-build process for certain
counties with very specific provisions.
This bill allows cities, counties, and special districts to use design-build contracting for the
construction of regional and local wastewater treatment facilities, regional and local solid waste
management facilities, or regional and local water recycling facilities whose cost reaches at least $2.5
million or more. Twenty design-build projects are authorized under the new law. The application
process for the projects will be handled through the Office of Planning and Research.
ACWA Position: Favor Status: Ch. 314
H.2 AB 983 (Ma) Public contracts: plans and specifications
Although enrolled by the Legislature, this bill was vetoed by the Governor. 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 have required a local public entity, charter city, or charter county, before entering
into any contract for a project, to provide full, complete, and accurate plans and specifications and
• estimates of cost, giving such direction as will enable any competent mechanic or other builder to
carry them out. However, this bill would have also specified that a local public entity, charter city, or
Kidman & Behrens, LLP
•
•
•
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
LEGISLATIVE REPORT October 13, 2008
charter county would not be required to provide bidders with plans and specifications for projects
that are completed entirely through an annual contract for repair, remodeling, or other repetitive work
according to unit prices.
This bill would have exempted from these provisions any clearly identified design-build projects or
design-build portions thereof. This bill would have further provide that these provisions must not be
construed to require a contractor to prove an affirmative or intentional misrepresentation or active
concealment on the part of the public entity, charter city, or charter county that provides the plans
and specifications. This bill would have also specified that these provisions would not expand,
restrict, or otherwise change the liability or potential liability of a design professional.
The Governor vetoed this bill because he felt it was premature. As set forth in his veto message, the
California Supreme Court recently agreed to review a case that involves the issues raised by the bill
(Los Angeles Unified School District v. Great American Insurance Co., et. al.). Thus, the Governor
felt it "is prudent for the court to rule on current law before making any unnecessary or ill-advised
changes."
ACWA Position: Oppose
H.3 AB 2002 (De Leon)
Status: Vetoed
Public works: prevailing wages
Although enrolled by the Legislature, this bill was vetoed by the Governor. Existing law requires a
contractor or subcontractor to submit, to the state or political subdivision on whose behalf a public
work is being performed, a penalty of not more than $50 per day, as provided and determined by the
Labor Commissioner, for violations of prevailing wage provisions. This bill would have increased
the penalty to $100 for each calendar day, plus 10% interest per annum from the date of the service
of the assessment to the date the assessment becomes final.
Existing law also requires each contractor and subcontractor performing work on a public work to
keep accurate payroll records regarding his or her employees that may be accessed by the public
through the awarding body or state agencies and requires the contractor or subcontractor to produce
certified copies of those records, as requested by the public, as provided, within 10 days subsequent
to receipt of a written notice for those records.
Existing law imposes, on the contractor or subcontractor, a penalty of $25 for each calendar day of
noncompliance but provides that a contractor is not subject to a penalty assessment due to the failure
of its subcontractor to comply with specified requirements. This bill would have increased the
penalty to $50 for each calendar day, plus interest from the date of violation. Finally, this bill would
have also subjected a contractor to a penalty assessment, as specified, only when a contractor had
knowledge, or should have had knowledge of, its subcontractor's noncompliance.
4
• 1 w
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
LEGISLITaT~ REPORT October 13, 2008
In vetoing this bill, the Governor stated, "[w]hile I strongly support efforts to ensure compliance with
our prevailing wage laws, the proponents of this measure have failed to demonstrate a need for the
increased penalties or evidence that simply doubling penalties and creating new liabilities is an
effective way of achieving greater compliance." Instead, the Governor opined that "[s]trong
enforcement of existing laws, as well as concerted public outreach and education of employers, will
do far more to ensure compliance with our laws than simply indiscriminately doubling penalties."
ACWA Position: Favor Status: Vetoed
WATER SUPPLY AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
1.1 AB 2046 (Jones) Water supply assessments: groundwater
Although enrolled by the Legislature, this bill was vetoed by the Governor. Existing law requires a
city or county that determines a project is subject to CEQA to identify any public water system that
may supply water for the project and to request those public water systems to prepare a water supply
assessment. The Urban Water Management Planning Act requires urban water suppliers to prepare
• and adopt urban water management plans for submission to the Department of Water Resources.
The act requires that if groundwater is identified as an existing or planned source of water available
to the urban water supplier, that certain information be included in the plan.
This bill would have required, where applicable, the identification of the amount of contaminated
groundwater for which treatment capacity, remediation, or other water management options may
need to be developed or expanded for the groundwater to be part of the planned water supply and the
amount of contaminated groundwater for which management options currently exist to meet
applicable regulatory standards for the proposed use. This bill would authorize the inclusion of'
contaminated groundwater that does not meet applicable regulatory standards for the proposed use
without treatment, remediation or other management options as part of the planned supply, if the
plan includes the specified elements.
Additionally, the Subdivision Map 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 a 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 Subdivision Map Act
authorizes the legislative body to request written verification of sufficient water supply, and, when
one 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.
• In vetoing the bill, the Governor recognized that "[r]elying on contaminated groundwater as a water
supply source for new development is problematic, especially in the instance where no foreseeable
a 1 •
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
1.EGISL1T1i`F- REPORT October 13, 2008
plans to clean up the groundwater exist. However, the Governor opined that complying with the
requirements of this bill "may be nearly impossible." The Governor encourage the author to "to
continue working with the stakeholders and my Administration on a solution that addresses this
issue, without creating another means for litigation that could be abused solely to halt development
projects throughout the state."
ACWA Position: Watch Status: Vetoed
1.2 AB 2219 (Parrs) Subdivisions: water supply
This bill failed passage. This bill would have required, until January 1, 2016, the legislative body of
a city or county or the designated advisory agency to approve or disapprove the subdivider's water
savings projections attributable to voluntary demand management measures after being reviewed by
the retail water supplier and verified for accuracy by the public water system or the local agency if
there is no public water system. Water savings projections would have been 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 have been 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 proposed 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 have been 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 have been 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.
This bill would have also required, until January 1, 2016, that 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 and regulatory requirements, as defined, based on the project
applicant's voluntary water demand management measures, as defined. Water savings projections
would have been 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 have been
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 proposed 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 have been 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
6
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
LEGISL_9TITT- REPORT October 13, 2008
public water system would have been 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.
ACWA Position: Watch
J.
K.
K.1
WATER QUALITY/POLLUTION
WATER RATES AND REVENUE PROCEDURES
AB 2882 (Wolk)
Status: Dead
Allocation-based conservation water pricing
Existing law relative to water conservation programs authorizes any public entity that supplies water
at retail or wholesale for the benefit of persons within the service area or area of jurisdiction of the
public entity to adopt and enforce, by ordinance or resolution, a water conservation program to
reduce the quantity of water used by those persons for the purpose of conserving the water supplies
of the public entity.
This bill authorizes a public entity to adopt allocation-based conservation water pricing meeting that
• meets certain criteria. The bill requires that revenues derived from allocation-based conservation
water pricing not exceed the reasonable cost of water service, including basic costs and incremental
costs, as defined.
ACWA Position: Watch Status: Ch. 610
K.2 AB 3030 (Brownley) Local publicly owned water utility: rate cases, Prop. 218
Articles XIII C and XIII D of the California Constitution generally require that assessments, fees, and
charges be submitted to property owners for approval or rejection after the provision of written
notice and the holding of a public hearing. Proposition 218 sets forth the specific procedures and
parameters for local jurisdictions to comply with Articles XIII C and XIII D.
This bill authorizes an agency providing water, sewer, or refuse collection service to adopt a
schedule of fees or charges that authorize automatic adjustments that pass through increases in
wholesale charges for water or adjustments for inflation, if prescribed conditions are met, including,
but not limited to, that the schedule of fees or charges not exceed a period of 5 years and that the
schedule be adopted pursuant to existing law providing notice, protest, and hearing procedures for
the levying of new or increased fees and charges by local government agencies.
ACWA Position: Favor Status: Ch. 611
•
•
•
McCormick, K.idman & Behrens, LLP
LEGISLATIVE REPORT
L.
LA
ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
October 13, 2008
AB 1017 (Ma) California Environmental Quality Act: appeal to local
lead agency's elected decision-making body
CEQA requires a lead agency to prepare or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an
EIR 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.
This bill would have modified the procedures and timelines for bringing an appeal of a CEQA action
taken by a non-elected decision making body. According to the Governor, "this bill is unnecessary
because existing law already allows local elected officials to set their own deadlines for
administrative appeals under CEQA" and "[i]mposing standard deadlines for the governance of
administrative appeals without regard for variations in local conditions, caseload impacts and other
practical considerations unnecessarily limits the discretion of local governments."
ACWA Position: Watch
M. SPECIFIC AGENCIES AND/OR PROJECTS
M.1 AB 2823 (Eng)
Status: Vetoed
San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority
This bill failed passage. This bill would have created the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund in the
State Treasury. This bill would have required the Secretary for Environmental Protection to serve as
the fund custodian. The moneys in the fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature to the Secretary
for Environmental Protection for allocation to the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority
("WQA"), would have been available for eligible projects that address groundwater contamination
by means of remediation that may include treatment as part of the remediation process.
This bill would have declared the intent of the Legislature that moneys not be appropriated from the
General Fund to the newly created fund in years where there is a budget deficit. This bill would have
authorized the moneys in the fund to be expended to meet the state share of the nonfederal matching
fund requirements set forth under federal law. This bill would also have required that any funds
recovered by WQA from responsible parties to be deposited in an account maintained by WQA to
fund remediation consistent with its enabling act.
ACWA Position: Favor Status: Dead
0
h 1
•
•
McCormick,
LEGISLATIVE 1-EpoRT
N. LAFCO
N.1 AB 2484 (Caballero)
KicLman & Behrens, LLP
October 13, 2008
Local government: special districts
Existing law, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 defines
"change of organization" to mean, among other things, a district formation, a consolidation of cities
or special districts, or a merger or establishment of a subsidiary district.
This bill includes within the definition of "change of organization" a proposal for the exercise of new
or different functions or classes of services, or the divestiture of the power to provide particular
functions or classes of services, within all or part of the jurisdictional boundaries of a special district.
This bill specifies that any such changes may only be initiated by the subject special district and will
depend on the health of the district's revenues.
If the local agency formation commission has determined that the special district will not have
sufficient revenues to provide the proposed new or different functions or class of services, then the
commission may condition its approval on the concurrent approval of sufficient revenue sources. In
approving a proposal, the commission must provide that if the revenue sources are not approved, the
authority of the special district to provide new or different functions or class of services must not be
established.
ACWA Position: Support
Status: Ch. 196
9
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
LEGIsLATrVF. REPORT October 93, 2008
INDEX
AB 642 (Wolk)
3
AB 1017 (Ma)
8
AB 1858 (Jeffries)
2
AB 1936 (Emmerson)
3
AB 2002 (De Leon)
4
AB 2046 (Jones)
5
AB 2175 (Laird/Feuer)
1
AB 2219 (Parra)
6
AB 2484 (Caballero)
9
AB 2823 (Eng)
8
AB 2882 (Wolk)
7
AB 3030 (Brownley)
7
SB 1732 (Romero) ...............................................................................................................................2
0
•
10
To: Yorba Linda Water District, Executive Committee
From: Christopher Townsend, President
Sean Fitzgerald, Senior Director
Heather Dion, Director
Date: October 21, 2008
Subject: Activity Report
Political Hiahliahts-
The Governor signed the FY 2008-09 budget on September 23rd, a record 85 days into
the fiscal year. While signing the budget, the Governor exercised his line-item veto
authority and reduced the budget by $510 million. The bulk of these reductions came in
the area of health and human services, including: elimination of $191 million in tax
credits for elderly renters and property owners; delaying the implementation of a
• program aimed to reduce the cost of prescription medication for low-income
Californians; $88 million was saved through reductions in the CalWorks program; and
$11.4 million was reduced from adult protective services. The final FY 2008-09 budget
provides for $103.4 billion in State general fund spending and maintains a $1.7 billion
reserve.
The Governor will now begin work on the FY 2009-10 budget, which will be unveiled in
the beginning of January. Next year's budget will include three components passed in
this year's budget, but that still need to be adopted by voters at a statewide election: the
creation of a rainy-day fund; the securitization of the state lottery; and the modification
of Proposition 49 for afterschool programs. It is likely that the Governor will call a
special election to deal with these provisions, potentially to be held in June 2009.
Following the Legislature's adjournment in late September, Sacramento has shifted
their focus towards the November election and on going fundraising. The primary, non-
political, topic of discussion has been that the budget which was signed less than a
month ago is already running a deficit ranging from $5 to $13 billion. The Controller has
indicated that the State's revenues are already $1.1 billion less than anticipated for the
first quarter of the fiscal year.
Additionally, the current problems on Wall Street and the credit lending have California
officials worried that the State may run out of cash. On Wednesday, the Governor and
• Legislative Leadership met to discuss the situation. The group also agreed to meet
weekly to discuss the situation, though it is unclear what actions they can or will take.
However, the State is looking to take out $4 billion in short term loans this week or next
to keep cash flowing. There has also been discussion of calling a special session to
deal with the growing problem, but it is highly unlikely that will occur prior to the election,
and thus would include all new members being sworn into office.
The slated special election in June 2009 could also potentially be when a water bond
would be considered by the voters. The Governor has indicated a water infrastructure
bond is still at the top of his priority list. Democrats have continued to suggest the issue
regarding the continuous appropriation of funding for such a measure is on the table
and could become a potential negotiation point. It is unlikely that much of anything will
move forward in terms of a water bond until the beginning of 2009.
0