HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-08-17 - Executive-Administrative-Organizational Committee Meeting Agenda Packet
'rb Linda
Water District
AGENDA
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
EXEC-ADMIN-ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITTEE MEETING
Monday, August 17, 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. ACTION CALENDAR
This portion of the agenda is for items where staff presentations and committee discussions are needed prior to
formal committee action.
2.1. Proposed Payment Plan for Grandview Sewer Connection
Recommendation: That the Committee support staffs recommendation that Mr.
Ante Marovic receive approval to pay the remaining balance of $9,000 due for the
sewer connection to 5551 Grandview Avenue in nine monthly installments of $1,000
each, with the first payment due within 15 days following Board approval, and
subsequent payments due each month thereafter until paid in full.
2.2. Draft Responses to 2009 Grand Jury Reports
Recommendation: That the Committee provide comments to staff and recommend
that the draft responses be presented at the August 27th regular meeting for Board
consideration.
3. 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.
3.1. Request for Letter of Support for AB 1506
3.2. Annexation to OCWD
3.3. City of Yorba Linda and City of Placentia Sewers
3.4. Board Member Attendance at MWDOC and OCWD Board Meetings on a Monthly Basis
3.5. Reports on Legislative Activities - Sacramento Advocates
3.6. Reports on Grant Activities - Townsend Public Affairs
3.7. Report on Legislative Bills - McCormick, Kidman & Behrens
3.8. General Counsel's Monthly Summary Billing Reports
3.9. Directors' and General Manager's Fees and Expenses (Apr-Jun)
3.10. Future Agenda Items and Staff Tasks
4. ADJOURNMENT
4.1. The next regular meeting of the Executive-Administrative-Organizational Committee will
be held September 15, 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: August 17, 2009
To: Executive-Administrative-
Organizational Committee
From: Ken Vecchiarelli, General
Manager
Presented By: Ken Vecchiarelli, General
Manager
Prepared By: Steve Conklin, Engineering
Manager
Subject: Proposed Payment Plan for Grandview Sewer Connection
SUMMARY:
An unapproved connection was made to the Grandview Sewer at the time of construction in 2007.
In a meeting with District staff on August 3, 2009 Mr. Ante Marovic, the property owner, made a
payment for over half of the total amount due the District and is requesting approval to pay the
balance in nine monthly installments of $1,000 each. Staff recommends approval of the proposed
payment plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Committee support staff's recommendation that Mr. Ante Marovic receive approval to pay
the remaining balance of $9,000 due for the sewer connection to 5551 Grandview Avenue in nine
monthly installments of $1,000 each, with the first payment due within 15 days following Board
approval, and subsequent payments due each month thereafter until paid in full.
DISCUSSION:
On May 28, 2009, the Board approved an adjusted frontage fee charge for construction of the
Grandview Sewer in the amount of $15,767 for each of the ten residences which can be served by
the sewer line. The sewer line was constructed in 2007 with District funds as part of a larger
pipeline project, with the intent of having the residents on Grandview reimburse the District for their
proportional share of the construction cost and other related fees for hookup to the new sewer. At
the time of construction, an unapproved connection was made to the sewer for 5551 Grandview
Avenue, owned by Mr. Ante Marovic.
With the Board's approval of the frontage fee, staff moved forward to request payment from Mr.
Marovic for his existing connection to the sewer. Staff sent a letter to Mr. Marovic dated June 1,
2009 (copy attached), advising him of the payment due to the District and of his responsibility to pay
other fees due the City of Yorba Linda. Staff met with Mr. Marovic on June 4 to discuss the situation
and his plan for payment. He indicated that he would investigate options for payment. Staff had
follow-up telephone conversations with Mr. Marovic in mid-June. He indicated that due to the
current economic situation he is unable to get a loan to cover the payment and asked if the District
might allow payment over time. Further internal discussions followed, including consultation with the
District's legal counsel to identify options.
On August 3, District staff met with Mr. and Mrs. Marovic to further discuss the situation and options
available. In the discussion, Mr. Marovic reiterated that he tried but was unable to get a property
loan for the $19,146 due the District. However, he acknowledged that he could make a payment of
$10,146 that day and monthly payments of $1,000 each for the following nine months to pay off the
balance. Staff accepted the check from Mr. Marovic for $10,146 and indicated that approval of the
requested monthly payment plan will be brought to the Board for consideration.
If the payment plan is approved by the Board staff will prepare a Letter of Understanding to be
signed by Mr. Marovic describing the payment plan and stating that if the monthly payments are not
paid when due, the remaining balance will be immediately due and payable, with that balance
added to his next water bill.
ATTACHMENTS:
Grndview Ltr Marovich 1Jun09.pdf -'ayment Request Letter Backup Material
Water District
Reliable and Trusted Service
for More Than 100 Years
June 1, 2009
Mr. Ante Marovich
5551 Grandview Avenue
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
Subject: Grandview Sewer Main Update/ Unpermittcd Connection
Dear Mr. Marovich,
This is to update you on the status of the subject project. Can May 28, 2009, the Board of
Directors approved an adjusted frontage flee charge for constriction of the project in the amount
of 515,767 for each of' the ten residences which can be served by the sewer line. For those
homeowners who choose to connect, the District will also collect a design cost of $1,610 per
residence. These amounts represent the homeowner's share of the District's total design,
construction and inspection cost for the installation of the sewer main on Grandview Avenue.
It does not include fees that arc normally paid to connect to the public sewer system., or other
charges by the City of Yorba Unda to connect to the sewer.
The District has found that your property was connected to the new sewer in Grandview
Avenue during construction activities in. February 2007. The following payments are due to
Yorba Linda Water District within 30 days of this letter:
$15,767.00 Construction and inspection cost
S1,610.00 Design cost
$448.20 Service Fee based on 0.27 acres
S1,180.00 Single Service Fee
$141.00 Maintenance Fee for 28 months
519,146.20 Total due by July 1, 2009
Vote that other fees are also clue and payable to the City of Yorba Linda.. Please contact the
City regarding those fees. If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely (6.)
YP
vc Conklin, P.E.
Sa'
Engineering Manager
(714) 701-3102
copy: Kenneth R. Vecch arelli, General Manager, YLWD
Matt Bennett, Sr. Civil Engineer, City of Yorba Linda
1717 E. Miraloma Avenue Placentia, CA 92870 714-701-3000 714-701-3058 Fax
ITEM NO. 2.2
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: August 17, 2009 Budgeted: N/A
To: Executive-Administrative-
Organizational Committee
Funding Source: N/A
From: Ken Vecchiarelli, General
Manager
Presented By: Pat Grady, Assistant General Dept: Administration
Manager
Reviewed by Legal: N/A
Prepared By: Pat Grady, Assistant General CEQA Compliance: N/A
Manager
Subject: Draft Responses to 2009 Grand Jury Reports
SUMMARY:
Attached for the Committee's review and discussion are YLWD's draft responses to the 2009 Grand
Jury reports.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Committee provide comments to staff and recommend that the draft responses be
presented at the August 27th regular meeting for Board consideration.
DISCUSSION:
In June 2009, the Orange County Grand Jury issued two reports entitled "Paper Water - Does
Orange County have a Reliable Future" and "Water Districts: A New Era in Public Involvement".
The District is compelled to respond to both reports by September 17, 2009 pursuant to Penal Code
933.05(a) and (b).
Staff has drafted responses to both reports. The responses related to "Paper Water" was a joint
effort among the Orange County Water Agencies coordinated by MWDOC. Staff participated in this
effort and believed a unified message was the best approach since 50% of the District's water
supply is imported and purchased from MWDOC and the remaining 50% is extracted from the
OCWD managed groundwater basin. As such, the District has no control of this water reliability and
cannot commit water resources to future City developments without MWDOC and OCWD
participation in the process.
The responses to the second Grand Jury report related to "Public Involvement" was drafted
internally by Staff.
Attached for the Committee's review and discussion are the draft responses to be submitted to the
Presiding Judge and the Grand Jury. At the Committee meeting, Staff will review the reports and
responses in summary form.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S):
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
;escription: Type:
Grandjurvresponse Paper Water pdf Grand Jury Response - Paper Water Backup Material
Grandjurvresponse New Era.doc hand Jury Response - New Era Backup Material
September 1, 2009
Honorable Kim Dunning
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re: 2008/09 Orange County Grand Jury Report "Paper Water - Does Orange
County Have a Reliable Future?"
Honorable Kim Dunning:
Thank you for your interest and examination of the reliability of water supplies to the
Orange County area. We are grateful for your interest and believe it will add to the
voices trying to raise awareness of our current water supply problems. Yorba Linda
Water District ("YLWD") agrees that the state and Southern California has a water
supply problem at this time. It is our intent to clarify a number of the findings and the
recommendations.
For example, we concur that the cutbacks on the state Water Project supplies beginning
in 2007 has occurred due to the issuance of the biological opinion related to the
Endangered Species Act and the impacts of the Delta pumping on the Smelt fish. Prior
to that time, our water supplies were much more reliable. This serves as an example that
the water supply problem is primarily occurring outside of Orange County and therefore
it's not necessarily within our span of control or the Metropolitan Water District of Orange
County ("MWDOC").
In summary, we would like to comment in the following areas:
■ Increasing Orange County's water supply, with the exception of development of local
supplies such as conservation, ocean desalination and water recycling, is
predominantly not within our control.
■ The regulatory process causing impacts to our water supplies is very complex and
educating the public to grasp the specifics of the situation is difficult and not
necessarily required in soliciting their help in responding to the call for additional levels
of conservation.
■ MWDOC's polling, and the public's interest in water conservation rebates indicates
that a high percentage of consumers understand we currently face restrictions in our
supplies.
■ Together with MWDOC, we have communication systems in place that provide ample
opportunity for the public to learn specifics on the reliability of water supplies.
Additionally, the Urban Water Management Plan and other documents can be readily
obtained from YLWD.
1
■ The availability of water from the Orange County Water District ("OCWD")
groundwater basin is controlled via legislative and water rights law. Within these
limitations, the basin and non-basin areas are already working well together.
■ The Grand Jury Report has mixed up issues associated with emergency
preparedness with supplies from the Bay-Delta area and emergency preparedness of
supplies internal to the County. The Water Emergency Response Organization of
Orange County (WEROC) does a very good job of planning for emergency response
in the County. Participation in the 2008 Golden Guardian exercise is exactly what was
recommended by the Grand Jury.
■ From the 1920's up until the 1980's, federal, state and local governments spoke with
one voice about water issues and designed the water supply system accordingly. In
the 20 years since the defeat of the Peripheral Canal, Southern California has used
water conservation, water recycling and the purchase of miscellaneous water rights to
provide water for growth. The purchase of water rights is limited, we've maximized
indoor conservation and water recycling has been met with varying degrees of
success.
■ The biggest urgency in solving the long term water supply problems that affect most of
the state of California is for the Governor, the legislature (democrats and republicans),
the Department of Water Resources and the Federal Regulatory entities working
together to resolve the issues.
■ Attempts to balance all of the competing interests required to solve the water supply
problem have created an impasse. Work is underway to resolve this, but developing a
long-term solution in the Bay-Delta area is likely a 20-year issue that will cost between
$10 and $20 billion to resolve, IF agreement can be reached between all stakeholders.
■ If allowed under their charter, a recommendation for a future Grand Jury is to
investigate progress at the state Level. Any assistance the Grand Jury can provide in
resolving that situation would be appreciated. Some believe that a long-term
resolution of the Bay-Delta will never occur while others believe that a major water
shortage or catastrophic event will have to occur to motivate the state in developing a
solution. We are prepared to assist the Grand Jury in this effort, if called upon.
■ Today, as we respond to this Report, YLWD is currently under a Stage 2 (10-20%
water reduction) mandatory water conservation level. Because everyone is not in an
immediately dire situation, members of the water community are mixed in their opinion
of the current water supply situation. Some believe "crisis" is the proper
characterization, while others believe it is a "problem" that will be solved in time. A
very severe drought or an earthquake causing failure of levees may expedite a
solution. The "crisis" group believes we dodged a bullet this year, we are living year to
year and we can't be successful in the long run under the status quo. The "problem"
group noted that reservoirs can quickly recover and that we are officially in an El Nino
position (wet year coming up).
Findings
Following are our specific responses on the 2009 Grand Jury Findings and
Recommendations:
F.1: There is inadequate coordination between local land-use planning agencies
and local water supply agencies, resulting in a process that fails to fully engage
the issues.
(a). Water agencies have tended to avoid interfering with or participating in
growth-management decisions.
(b). Cities and the County have tended to not critically evaluate the
limitations of the water agencies' supply projections.
YLWD disagrees with this Finding
Water agencies are not land planning agencies - by design. Historically and today,
water communities have had the responsibility of providing water for the approved land
use. Planning being performed at the local, regional and state levels is aimed at using
our existing water supplies more efficiently and developing new supplies and systems to
accommodate the current and future needs of our residents and businesses and to
improve supply reliability where necessary.
What sometimes causes a bit of a dilemma is that since the formation of Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California (MET) in 1928, all entities in Southern California
have come under the MET water supply umbrella. This prevents the District from
assigning specific imported water rights to any single entity or property. On a regional
basis, when MET has surplus, we all have surplus and when MET has a shortfall, we all
have a shortfall. With water supplies to MET being cut back, as discussed below, it can
be somewhat difficult to quantify the water supply reliability to a particular area.
The linkage of regional and local water supplies within the MET service was
strengthened and clarified after the defeat of the "peripheral canal" beginning in the early
1990's with the development of MET's Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) where it was
declared "through the implementation of the IRP, MET and its member agencies will
have the full capability to meet full-service demands at the retail level at all times."
Through this commitment it was recognized that retail water supply reliability is
dependent on the development and efficient management of both local water resources
and imported water sources. A significant responsibility was placed on MET to develop:
(1) water management programs that support the development of cost-effective local
resources, in conjunction with the local agencies, (2) securing additional imported
supplies as necessary through programs that increase the availability of water delivered
through the Colorado River Aqueduct and the state Water Project, (3) providing the
infrastructure needed to integrate imported and local sources (treatment, distribution,
storage), (4) establishing a comprehensive management plan dealing with periodic
surplus and shortage conditions, and (5) developing a rate structure to strengthen MET's
financial capabilities to implement water supply programs and make infrastructure
improvements.
Through the IRP commitment, an equal burden was placed on the local retail agencies
to explore and develop local supplies in a systematic manner and use all water
resources efficiently while providing financial stability to MET for the development of its
system. Collectively this "partnership" was envisioned to provide the ability "to meet full-
service demands at the retail level at all times."
3
Although the water supply situation has changed drastically since the judicial ruling
handed down in 2007, the same framework and goals still apply. The change in the
underpinning of our water supplies, as noted by the Grand Jury, is the significant
immediate loss of a large portion of supplies from the State Water Project due to
enforcement of the Endangered Species Act on a species by species basis starting with
the Delta Smelt beginning in 2007. Until that time, the joint regional and local systems
were meeting all demands and plans were in place to meet actual and projected
demands out to 2035.
The following is in progress to resolve the water supply situation:
1. New sources are being developed (conservation, transfers, desalination and
recycled water)
2. Water transfers have been secured; more are being investigated; despite
cutbacks, the Colorado River Aqueduct will be almost full in 2009.
3. Legal challenges and appeals have been filed on behalf of the water users to
resolve some of the cutbacks and to explore what is necessary to resolve issues
within our current framework.
4. Appeals have been made to the Governor and the Legislature. The state has
initiated environmental review for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). The
EIR/EIS evaluates the impacts of BDCP, including studies on new conveyance
and ecosystem restoration. The Delta Vision Committee has submitted its final
implementation report to the Governor with recommended actions on how the
California Delta should be managed to fulfill its equal goals of water supply
reliability and ecosystem restoration. The plan sets priorities based on the Delta
Vision Strategic Plan developed by the Governor's Delta Vision Blue Ribbon
Task Force.
5. Progress is being made on installation of the two-gate barrier system in Old River
and Middle River to provide a barrier to keep the Delta Smelt away from the
pumps. When this is constructed, it should result in recouping some of the
supplies recently lost.
6. MET is embarking on an update of its IRP which is looking long term at sources
for meeting the needs of customers in Southern California, under the changed
circumstances (as can best be predicted) out to 2035. Updates for course
corrections occur about every five years.
7. At the local level within Orange County, many efforts are underway to help
mitigate the imported supply losses and to improve supply reliability. Orange
County is a leader in water recycling, implementation of water use efficiency
efforts and management of the OCWD groundwater basin. The Grand Jury
rightly acknowledged OCWD for development of the GWRS Project; Phase 2 of
the Project is now under design to increase production from 72,000 AF per year
up to 102,000 AF per year. In addition, local agencies are continuing
development of production wells, well head treatment in areas where needed,
brackish water desalting and in Orange County we are currently looking at two
potential ocean desalination plants to produce new supplies. Orange County's
4
current and future water supply and demand scenarios for 2010 and 2035 are
illustrated below. Supplies from ocean desalination projects are shown at about
9% (Dana Point and Huntington Beach) of the total demand in Orange County
and would offset an equal amount of imported water. Key to development of
ocean desalination projects is how we can design these systems to be
environmentally friendly as well as being cost-effective solutions.
Orange County Water Supply and Demand
UV~A~ g t
rm 6 uyPS
Rap\e~ p~.V \ rs PFy
c` 17, pE41~~
Recycled Recycled
115,0180 AFY 110,000 AFY
17%11 Santa Ana River 22 Santa Ana River
and Local and Local
Rainfall/Streamflow Rainfall/Streamflow
270,000 AFY 300,000 AFY
Imported 39% Imported 38%
305,OOO AFY 310,000 AFY,
44% 40%
<< - ` F t„_ mot,.
2010 - 2035
690,000 AFY 780,000 AFY
F.2: California's looming water supply crisis receives very little, if any, expressed
concern from the public in comparison to the numerous other environmental
issues presented during development project reviews.
(a). Orange County's citizens and interest groups do not appear to grasp
the seriousness of the water supply situation or the complexity and
urgency of the necessary solutions.
(b). Several recent, substantial water supply awareness efforts are
underway (e.g. the O.C. Water Summit) that show promise but appear
targeted to audiences that are already informed.
YLWD agrees with this Finding
While YLWD may agree that the water crisis receives little concern, it is not for lack of
effort by the water community. Water is not as visible as traffic congestion because the
public cannot feel the "water congestion" until cutbacks become mandatory. This is part
of the difficulty and the challenge of stressing water issues that the public will recognize
and understand. What are outlined below are the outreach efforts that are currently
being utilized along with several questions:
5
■ Is this a crisis? What should we do about it? What can we do about it? Crisis
communications cannot be sustained over the long run. Some in the water community
believe that we have reached a crisis, while others believe it is a problem to be
resolved over time. The water community itself does not speak with one voice.
■ What do we want the public to do about it? How can the public best be motivated?
Do we want to scare the public?
■ What course of action will maintain the best working relationship with the public and
build the most trust for the long run? The public needs to trust what the water
community is doing and support investments in our water future. Also, a course of
action to develop and sustain long term changes in the efficiency of use by customers
is critical in addition to an informed constituency for decision-making and voting (when
necessary).
■ The water community has been extremely successful, leading to complacent
consumers.
The crisis facing us is a combination of regulatory, judicial/legal, political, environmental
and to a lesser degree, financial. There are considerable challenges for the public to
understand the intricacies and nuances of this framework. However, the gains from
having a better informed public are to motivate them towards an improved efficiency with
which they use water, have them understand the need for additional investments for new
supplies and to have them educated for purposes of securing positive votes on water
related initiatives, if needed. Water is not a sexy topic unless there is a line break with a
major sink hole, a sewer spill, or people forced to curtail their use. Typically, people do
not see the intricacies of providing water to homes and businesses. Many take water for
granted, which causes it to be undervalued. Customers turn on the tap and the water
comes out - sprinklers turn on and the water comes out. The water industry typically
does not have brown outs or black outs, but has a high degree of reliability and safety,
probably somewhere beyond 99.99% of time water comes out of the tap). Many
have the belief that the water supply system is something that they - and prior
generations - have invested in and that artificial constraints limit the supply of water from
it.
The water industry has many communication and outreach avenues, but the spending
by public entities is generally low compared to industries that would spend at much
higher levels to brand or market new products. Still, water industry communications can
be and are effective. In recent years, the water industry has collectively advertised itself
as the "Family of Southern California Water Agencies" and promoted "Bewaterwise.com"
to promote the water supply situation and water conservation tips and opportunities.
YLWD utilizes bill stuffers, newsletters and websites to inform the public. In Orange
County, a monthly Public Affairs Workgroup meeting occurs made up of the staffs from
all of the retail agencies. They work to develop and implement consistent message
points for the public. MET also has a Public Information Officer's workgroup that
coordinates outreach and communication among the MET member agencies. Due to
the expense and the limited budgets of the retail agencies, the brunt of the TV and radio
media outreach has been developed via MET through an advertising campaign for the
LA & San Diego markets.
6
While YLWD is open to new methods of communication, we believe the existing
communication system works. Polling conducted from time to time to track water
industry messages and the understanding of the public indicates that high percentages
of people understand there is a water crisis (76% in a recent survey by MWDOC).
Furthermore, 78% indicated they would change their water using habits to conserve to
prevent water rationing and 67% believe that their water agency does an effective job of
keeping them informed about water supply. We also believe high percentages of the
public are engaged because of recent actions such as the "run" on rebates for water
conservation devices, which pushed spending up to a point where the available funding
was exceeded several times over.
The following is an outline of current outreach efforts
■ In June of 2008, Public Affairs Workgroup began developing a regional message that
incorporated three critical elements of a long term communication strategy:
• The message must be positive
• Focus on water-use efficiency and eliminating water waste
• Adaptable at the retails level
■ A comprehensive, strategic communication plan was developed that incorporates
grassroots education, strategic partnerships and guerrilla marketing techniques.
Research has shown that this approach has been most successful in achieving social
change.
■ This plan augments and enhances the large media campaign that Metropolitan is
orchestrating
■ Increases visibility throughout the region
■ Integrates new technology and social marketing channels as well.
■ Critical part of the plan is to engage strategic partners to help carry the message.
Everyday new partners are signing on. Current strategic partners include:
• IBM
• Hurley Sportswear
• Volcom
• Sempra Energy
• Surfer Magazine
• Latino Water Coalition
• TransWorld Media
• Sunset Magazine
• Fuel TV
■ Other parts of the program include:
• Huell Howser contracted with the Association of California Water
Agencies to produce 15 episodes about California Water. This series is
being utilized to help inform citizens.
• Cable channels are being used to get the word out
7
• Educational trips are provided by MET for each of its Directors to host
community leaders to promote water issues
• MWDOC has one of the best School Education Programs in the state for
water awareness education in grades K-6; it reaches about 90,000
students per year and has reached about 3,000,000 since 1972.
• Water Heroes - a new program aimed at kids and families, focuses on
identifying water wasting habits and eliminating them. Over the past two
years 7500 kids have signed up on www.ocwaterhero.com
Given all of this communication and work that is planned, will there still be shortages as
part of the "looming water crisis"? As discussed in other locations in this response, there
are many issues that need to be resolved to fix the state's water crisis. Until then, we
fully expect that water shortages will occur from time to time.
F.3: LAFCO is the agency charged with facilitation constructive changes in
governmental structure to promote efficient delivery of services. To this end,
LAFCO is conducting a governance study of MWDOC which is the designated
representative for nearly all of the Orange County retail water agencies, acting on
their behalf with their surface water supplier Metropolitan.
(a). There are a number of points of governance disagreement between
MWDOC and several of its member agencies. This is creating an
impediment to the on-going effectiveness of these agencies in critical
areas of Orange County's water supply management.
(b). The current disagreement is a distraction from the greater good of the
agencies working toward Orange County's water future.
(c). The stakeholders in LAFCO's study failed to meet their March 11, 2009
deadline for LAFCO's public hearing on this matter. Continued delays are
unacceptable.
YLWD agrees with this Finding
The ongoing disagreement is primarily between MWDOC and various water agencies
located in the southern portion of Orange County. While YLWD is not directly involved
with these disagreements, YLWD is in agreement that resolution of these pending issues
would benefit all water suppliers in Orange County.
F.4: Orange County is uniquely fortunate to have a vast, high-quality, well-
managed groundwater basin serving its north geographical area. However, in its
south reaches, it has an equally large, high-growth area with virtually no available
groundwater resources.
(a). The difference in groundwater availability creates a "haves versus
have-nots" situation that is conducive to inherent conflicts.
(b). The difference in groundwater availability provides opportunities for
responsible participants to develop and construct long-term solutions
which will benefit the entire County.
8
YLWD agrees with Finding F.4(a)
This recognition of water rights mirrors the manner in which Orange County was
developed. Development in South County was enhanced by the south county water
agencies ability to obtain imported supplies and develop extensive recycled water
programs.
YLWD disagree partially with Finding F.4(b)
The finding is not clearly stated, but appears to include two implications that we believe
require expanded information. The first implication is that local resources are not being
fully developed in south Orange County. This is not correct. Critical groundwater,
recycled water and ocean water supplies are all being developed in south Orange
County.
While the Grand Jury is correct in its supposition that there are opportunities presented
in this issue as well as problems, the second implication here is that the OCWD
Groundwater Basin has the capacity to serve the entire county. This is not correct. The
groundwater basin is managed and utilized to provide water supplies to its overlying
constituent landowners. The operable storage in the basin has been developed at
substantial cost and is insufficient to meet all demands within the basin. Currently, the
groundwater basin meets about 62% of the needs of the overlying agencies (historically,
has ranged from 62% to 80%) and the groundwater cost is substantially less than the
cost of imported water. If additional supplies can be developed, the % distribution to the
overlying entities would increase. It will never reach 100% and so it can be concluded
that the supplies from the basin must remain in the basin to benefit the basin
constituents. This is also consistent with water rights law and the OCWD Act that
formed OCWD and governs how it operates and manages the basin.
Use of storage in the OCWD basin is allowed by agreement with OCWD. OCWD has
entered into storage arrangements that allow MET to store up to 66,000 AF of imported
water and to recall as much as 20,000 AF out of this same storage in any one year. This
additional yield out of storage benefits everyone in Southern California. In addition, a
February 2006 Emergency Services Program Agreement was developed with OCWD
that allows emergency water supplies from the basin to be exchanged with south
Orange County. This program is currently being used to allow exchange of water to
south Orange County during emergency situations. Finally, development of projects by
OCWD like GWRS benefit the south County area as well as all of southern California.
Allowing access to the lower cost groundwater outside of the basin or allowing access to
more storage by south Orange County would increase the cost to the basin agencies
and put them at risk.
Recommendations
R.1: Each Orange County municipal planning agency, in cooperation with its
respective water supply agency, should prepare for adoption by its city council, a
dedicated Water Element to its General Plan in conjunction with a future update,
not to exceed June 30, 2010. This document should include detailed
implementation measures based on objective-based policies that match realistic
projections of the County's future water supplies. These objectives, policies and
9
implementation measures should address imported supply constraints, including
catastrophic outages and incorporate the realistic availability and timing of "new"
water sources such as desalination, contaminated groundwater reclamation and
surface water recycling. (Findings F1 a & b, and F2 a & b)
This Recommendation will not be implemented
This recommendation does not directly apply to YLWD since the municipal planning
agency is the City of Yorba Linda. However, it should be noted that YLWD is the
respective water agency and prepares an Urban Water Management Plan and updates it
every five years. In addition, MET prepares an UWMP, its IRP and updates and its
Water Supply Outlook periodically. Collectively, these documents provide what has
been suggested. For new developments of greater than 500 units, a Water Supply
Assessment must be completed - this is existing law. In addition, the water community
measures performance (supplies vs demands) as we move forward and will be able to
make adjustments in the process.
R.2: Each Orange County retail and wholesale water agency should affirm its
responsibility to develop new, additional, innovative public outreach programs,
beyond water conservation and rationing programs, to expose the larger issues
surrounding water supply constraints facing Orange County. The objective should
be to connect the public with the problem. The outreach effort should entail a
water emergency exercise that simulates a complete, sudden break in imported
water deliveries. The exercise should be aimed directly at the public and enlist
wide-spread public participation on a recurring basis beginning by June 30, 2010.
This recommendation may be satisfied by a multi-agency exercise but the inability
to coordinate such an event should not preclude the individual agency's
responsibility. (Findings F2 a & b)
This Recommendation has been implemented
We believe the response to this question should be separated into two points, the first
associated with the public outreach programs and the second with respect to emergency
planning.
Public Outreach
While the recommendation has already been implemented, more innovative types of
communications will be considered. The communications systems in place provide
sufficient opportunities for the public to become informed. The description of these
communication systems was previously provided. We can always do better and look for
an expansion of opportunities. This is especially important as new Bond Issues come
before the voters, as is anticipated heading into 2010.
Emergency Planning
"A complete sudden break in the imported supplies" was a component of the statewide
Golden Guardian exercise in 2008 in which 20 of Orange County's water and
wastewater utilities participated. This type of exercise or variations of it are repeated
periodically.
WEROC has expanded its preparedness efforts regarding water supply by initiating a
new partnership with the Orange County Health Care Agency's Point of Dispensing
10
planning and exercises. WEROC is exploring ways to enhance public education of
"water preparedness" through the 2009 Point of Dispensing exercises. However, the
purpose of the exercises is for water and wastewater agencies to practice their
procedures and communications systems to ensure that restoration of service will be in
as short a period as is possible. These exercises are not for general consumers. When
a large earthquake strikes, we know we cannot protect the entire water system and there
will be outages. Our recommendation to consumers is to be prepared to go without
water systems for 72 hours or longer.
R.3: Each MWDOC member agency should reaffirm to LAFCO that it will assign
the resources necessary to expediently resolve regional governance issues. While
the subject study is being facilitated by LAFCO, the options are with the agencies
to decide what is best for all. Once conclusions are reached, the parties need to
agree quickly and, hopefully, unanimously to adopt a course of action. (Findings
F3a,b&c)
This Recommendation will be implemented.
YLWD is committed to providing resources and the assistance necessary to resolve
these pending governance issues.
R.4: Each Orange County retail and wholesale water agency should affirm its
commitment to a fair-share financial responsibility in completing the emergency
water supply network for the entire County. The entire County should be prepared
together for any conditions of drought, natural or human-caused disaster, or any
other catastrophic disruption. WEROC should commence meetings of all parties,
to facilitate consensus on an equitable funding/financing agreement. (Finding F4 a
& b)
This Recommendation is already being implemented
The Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange County (WEROC) has been
established to conduct emergency planning and preparedness at the regional level and
response to disaster type events that impact the water and wastewater agencies within
the County. WEROC participates with Regional and statewide forums as well. Each
retailer also has plans and activities they conduct to be in a state of emergency
preparedness. The retail agencies also work together to support one another through
the network of emergency interties between agencies that allow water to be shuttled
back and forth during emergency situations. WEROC's focus and the focus of
emergency planning is to improve "system reliability", the ability to continue meeting
demands when parts of the water system have suffered outages. This is distinguished
against "supply" reliability which has to do with having supplies to deliver through the
system.
With respect to regional system reliability, Orange County has been successful in
requesting MET to improve the reliability of the Diemer Filtration Plant in Yorba Linda.
MET is in the process of making substantial investments to protect the plant from being
damaged by seismic shaking. The Diemer Plant treats most all of the imported drinking
water in Orange County.
11
We also believe there was confusion in the Grand Jury Report between a "catastrophic"
impact of a Delta Failure, which is more of a long term water "supply" issue, and
therefore different than a WEROC test exercise type of "system" event. Much work is
underway on resolution of the Delta issues, but not through WEROC. WEROC does
conduct test exercises in Orange County of the type noted by the Grand Jury.
We would also like to note that responses to drought situations are included when
YLWD completes the Urban Water Management Plan. Responses must include supply
analyses for normal years, single dry years and multiple dry years and must also include
drought response measures for up to a 50% level of shortage. The Urban Water
Management Plans address many of the issues raised by the Grand Jury.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to respond to these Findings and
Recommendations. Should you have any questions or need clarification of any of the
aforementioned items, please feel free to contact Ken Vecchiarelli, General Manager of
Yorba Linda Water District.
Sincerely,
John W. Summerfield
President of the Board of Directors °eee$ee
Cc: Orange County Grand Jury
Board of Directors
Ken Vecchiarelli, General Manager
12
September 1, 2009
Honorable Kim Dunning
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re: 2008/09 Orange County Grand Jury Report "Water Districts: A New Era in
Public Involvement"
Honorable Kim Dunning:
Thank you for providing the Yorba Linda Water District ("YLWD") the opportunity to reply
to the findings and recommendations set forth by the 2008/09 Grand Jury in the above
referenced report. YLWD concurs that pending issues such as water shortages,
rationing and the rising cost of water certainly thrusts water agencies into the center
stage of the public's awareness. This new era of public involvement and communication
has created new opportunities for public agencies to further explore innovative and
creative solutions for conducting business, while soliciting public awareness,
understanding and "buy-in".
While Yorba Linda was specifically mentioned in the Grand Jury report in reference to
the Freeway Complex Fire of 2008, the YLWD takes prides in its public openness and
transparency. The District has taken great strides and made tremendous efforts to
communicate and solicit feedback from the residents it serves. In support of this effort,
the Board of Directors formed a Citizens Advisory Committee in March 2009 comprised
of volunteer residents to meet and discuss pending YLWD issues and to make
recommendations to the Board.
Findings
The following are YLWD's responses to the Grand Jury Findings F.1 -F.7:
F.1: Water Districts' procedures for the selection of professional consultants'
contracts are somewhat lax and in some instances non-existent, thereby creating
a perception of bias in the selection of candidates, especially in the selection of
board members from other member agencies to provide professional services.
YLWD disagrees with this Finding
YLWD has a resolution (Resolution No. 07-11) in place for the acquisition and
procurement of goods and services. Section 4 of the resolution clearly defines
procedures for engaging professional and non-professional services and contracts,
including but not limited to legal services, engineering consultants and auditors. The
policy establishes four approval stages, which define authorization levels and the
1
quantity of competitive bids or quotes required for the selection process. While this
resolution was adopted in 2007, it is YLWD's intent to review, update and revise the
policy with the assistance of the agency's financial auditor by November 2009.
F.2: Some board members are conducting their professional practices with
member agencies and use their elected positions to promote their
competitiveness.
YLWD disagrees with this Finding
While four board members of YLWD are employed in the private sector, their activities
and business relationships are not areas of concern for YLWD. Board members of
YLWD generally err on the side of caution by recusing themselves from participating in
discussions or abstaining from voting on action items or approving payment warrants if a
direct or perceived conflict of interest potentially exists.
F.3: Codes of ethics among districts are quite varied. Some are very
comprehensive and some do not exist other than to reference state law.
YLWD agrees with this Finding
Each public agency is required to adopt a conflict-of-interest policy as required by the
State and compliance established by the Orange County Board of Supervisors. An
agency may optionally adopt an ethics policy above and beyond what is legally required.
YLWD adopted a revised conflict-of-interest policy in July 2009 as requested and
recommended by the Orange County Board of Supervisors. YLWD is in the process of
developing and implementing a comprehensive and detailed ethics policy as a
supplement to the conflict-of-interest policy. This effort should be completed with
adoption anticipated by February 2010.
F.4: Water board meetings are frequently scheduled for times that discourage
public attendance.
YLWD disagrees with this Finding
Public attendance and participation is encouraged by YLWD. While YLWD regular
board meetings are generally held the 2nd and 4th Thursday of every month at 8:30 a.m.,
YLWD has conducted, and continues to conduct evening meetings in cases where an
increase of public attendance is anticipated. For example, following the Freeway
Complex Fire event in 2008, YLWD conducted evening board meetings for seven
months due to the temporary increase of public attendance. Soon thereafter,
attendance subsided and board meetings reverted to mornings. Additionally, in
September 2009, a public hearing for a general water rate increase has been set for an
evening meeting due to an anticipated increased attendance. Every community is
unique and diverse with their various issues and should be addressed and
acknowledged accordingly. YLWD believes that low public attendance at board
meetings sends the message of that the public is content with the day-to-day
management of the agency. On occasion, however, issues or events arise that require
YLWD to recognize those events as "the exception to the rule" and accommodate those
events accordingly.
2
F5: An unusually high percentage of water board directors were originally
appointed, not elected to their position.
YLWD disagrees partially with this Finding
The appointment process is in place to resolve vacancy issues that unexpectedly occur
on a governing board and to avoid a costly election, which is estimated to range
between $165,000 and $186,000 for YLWD according to the Orange County Registrar of
Voters. The Grand Jury report viewed appointments for some agencies as "managing
the process". YLWD disagrees with this characterization. If a board member is replaced
by means of the appointment process, it is the very same political body, elected by the
people, that makes the appointment. Board members are elected by the people to
represent and make decisions on their behalf with respect to agency business. The
election process provides an opportunity for the people to retain or to elect another
candidate to replace the appointed representative during a following election.
Furthermore, the election process also provides an opportunity to elect another
candidate other than the board members who made the initial appointment of another
board member. And finally, the system also allows and provides for a recall election of
any board member prior to a general election if the residents are unhappy with any or all
of their representatives.
Since 1958, 25 elections have taken place. Of the 20 board members who have served
since 1958, nine were appointed.
F.6: Some board members hold multiple elected positions that under certain
circumstances could create an appearance of a conflict of interest unless the
person recuses himself on an issue-by-issue basis.
YLWD agrees partially with this Finding
While no board member of YLWD holds multiple elected positions, YLWD agrees that
the appearance and perception of a conflict may exist if multiple elected offices were
held. It is in this aspect that YLWD agrees with the Finding. In September 2009, YLWD
will be adopting and implementing an ethics policy that will address, among other items
the holding of multiple offices and the potential incompatibilities thereof.
F.7: There are no time limits for how long individuals can serve on any water
district board in Orange County.
YLWD agrees with this Finding
Tthere are no term limits in existence for YLWD board members. Generally, if the public
is content with their elected representatives and the manner in which the agency is
managed, board members are typically re-elected by their constituents or are un-
opposed during the election process. During the 25 elections since 1958, six did not
occur for YLWD since the board members subject to re-election were un-opposed. As a
result, these same board members were re-appointed to the Board for another term.
3
Recommendations
The following are YLWD's responses to the Grand Jury Recommendations R.1 - R.6:
R.1: In addition to the laws set forth in the Political Reform Act of 1974 and
Government Code section 1090, the water districts should promulgate rules
requiring professionals seated on their boards of directors to formally disclose to
their organizations any contracts they are pursuing or have attained with member
agencies. The water districts should also adopt more encompassing rules
regarding the selection of professional consultants. (F. 1, F.2)
The Recommendation has not yet been fully implemented, but will be
implemented in the future.
YLWD currently has in place a conflict-of-interest policy, which was previously updated
in July 2009 per a recommendation set forth by the Orange County Board of
Supervisors. By September 2009, YLWD intends to adopt and implement a
comprehensive ethics policy. By November 2009, a modified and updated procurement
policy is slated for adoption that will include procedures for acquiring goods and services
in addition to professional services.
R.2: Each water district should develop a specific code of ethics, hold training
sessions and monitor its enforcement. (F.3)
The Recommendation has not yet been fully implemented, but will be
implemented in the future.
YLWD intends to adopt and implement a comprehensive ethics policy by no later than
February 2010. Newly elected board members are required to attend ethics training
within six months of beginning their term and existing board members are required to
attend ethics training every two years. This is the current practice of YLWD.
R.3: Water board meetings need to be scheduled at times that would generate
maximum public attendance. (F.4)
The Recommendation has been implemented.
As previously discussed in F.4, YLWD modifies its scheduled meeting times to evenings
when increased public attendance is anticipated due to an issue or unexpected event.
During uneventful periods of time, attendance at public meetings is generally very low
regardless of the meeting time. YLWD will continue to adjust meeting times as the need
arises accordingly.
R.4: Each water district should choose to hold elections to fill board vacancies.
The appointment process should be used only in exceptional circumstances. (F.5)
The Recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted and
unreasonable.
4
As previously discussed in F.5, YLWD believes the appointment process is effective and
continues to provide residents the ability to re-elect or not re-elect an appointee, or a
board member(s) who made the appointment, at an upcoming election. The
recommendation is further declared to be unreasonable due to the cost of funding a
special election, which ranges anywhere from $165,000 to $186,000 for YLWD. YLWD
believes a special election should be considered only in exceptional circumstances.
R.5: Each water district should promulgate rules requiring each director to inform
the other board members of any other offices including seats on boards of
member agencies that he or she holds. (F. 6)
R.5a: Water districts should consult their legal counsel to advise them whether
there exists an incompatibility of offices when a board member holds multiple
offices at the same time. (F. 6)
The Recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in
the future.
In September 2009, YLWD will be adopting and implementing an ethics policy which will
address the holding of multiple offices, including offices of member agencies, and the
potential incompatibilities thereof. The policy will contain provisions for consulting with
legal counsel to render a legal opinion if a potential incompatibility of office exists.
R.6.: Water districts should adopt self-imposed term limits for their members, not
to exceed three terms of service. (F.7)
The Recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted and
unreasonable.
Existing law Gov. Code 53077 requires that the voters approve any proposal or initiative
that imposes term limits on their elected representatives. Therefore, the law does not
permit water districts to adopt self-imposed term limits for their members.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to respond to these Findings and
Recommendations. Should you have any questions or need clarification of any of the
aforementioned items, please contact Ken Vecchiarelli, General Manager of the Yorba
Linda Water District.
Sincerely,
John W. Summerfield
President of the Board of Directors
Cc: Orange County Grand Jury
Board of Directors
Ken Vecchiarelli, General Manager
5
ITEM NO. 3.1
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: August 17, 2009
Subject: Request for Letter of Support for AB 1506
ATTACHMENTS:
AB1506 Memo.pdf AB 1506 Memo Backup Material
From: Sanchez, Alex [mailto:Alex.Sanchez@asm.ca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:30 PM
To: Ken Vecchiarelli
Subject: Official Request for Support AB 1506 (Anderson)
.rs
~5`Y2VIif i~il
~Pd~JT`. I Ii+LCr'l (7 45 EL CA.1'Jh L ~~fi2p
r Ax01G 3711 I2 I Fix 0"y~
a~ pdCP
JOELANDERSON
?S;Er,AB1-Yhtft.1PER. SE'.'ENTY-SE.'EIVIHLI. TRIGT
Memo
To: Director Richard Collett
From: Assemblyman Joel Anderson
Date: August 11, 2009
Re: Assembly Bill 1506
AB 1506 -Request for Letter of Support
AB 1506 would allow recipients of state-issued IOUs to endorse and return the IOUs to the state as payment
for any obligations they owe to the state (state taxes, DMV fees, public university tuition, etc.).
For example, if you are a government agency and you receive an IOU for $100,000 from the state, and you
also owe the state $1,000, in payroll taxes, you may send the IOU to the Franchise Tax Board as payment
for your tax obligation.
State Controller Jonathan Chiang has recently sent a letter of support for AB 1506, as IOU's continue to be
issued, despite the passage of a state budget.
Attached for your review are several background articles, a white paper and a sample letter of support.
AB 1506 is headed for a crucial vote in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 29th. It is
critical to the success of the bill that the committee members know you are a supporter of AB 1506
before this hearing
Letters may be faxed, emailed or mailed to my office.
Thank you for your consideration.
Fact Sheet
http://repalert/aresites/member/77/pdf/FactSheet AB1506 v4.pdf
Background Articles
http://arc.asm.ca.gov/member/77/Qdf/AB1 506Backg rou ndArticles. pdf
Sample Letter of Support
http://arc.asm.ca.gov/member/77/pdf/AB1506supportletterFINAL V1 090526.pdf
June 22, 2009
To: Assemblyman Joel Anderson
From:
Re: AB 1506 - Support
AB 1506 fixes a serious flaw in the state's IOU system. The concept is simple: if an individual
or company has money due them from the state, the entity may use that credit towards any
payment owed to the state.
In the event of a fiscal crisis, your bill would save many businesses and individuals from
severe financial hardships by stopping the State from charging taxes and fees while
withholding payments.
Under current state law, the public is required to accept registered warrants, or IOUs, under
certain emergency circumstances. However, the state itself will not accept such securities as
payment. This is a double standard that harms those hardworking public employees,
taxpayers and contracted businesses caught in the middle.
Not only does receiving an IOU create serious short term cash-flow problems, it also places
an onerous tax burden on many individuals and companies. While issuing IOUs may become
a painful necessity at some point, the problem should not be exacerbated by requiring taxes
to be paid to the state on income that the state is simultaneously withholding.
AB1506 alleviates these problems by requiring the state to accept its own credit as payment
for taxes and fees.
With continuing economic uncertainty and erosion of state revenues, it is important for
Californians the state have a fair system of payment of its debts and obligations.
I write in support of AB 1506.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXX
PO. BOX 94284.9 500 FESLER STREET SUITE 201
SACRAMENTO, CA 94249-0077 EL CAJON, CA 92020
916) 319-2077 19) 441-222
1ifornikY ry f"Frgl-S I f nrr FAX (6(619) 4413
FAX (916) 319-22177 v~C-f V 4 ~1 4Ll 7.i C LL (J X 2327
1
0.1-11,11
JOEL ANDERSON
ASSEMBLYMEMBER, SEVENTY-SEVENTH DISTRICT
FACT SHEET
Assembly Bill 1506 - ISSUANCE OF REGISTERED WARRANTS
SUMMARY SOLUTION
Assembly Bill 1506 is a bi-partisan, time-sensitive Assembly Bill 1506 fixes that flaw in the system by
bill that would direct a state agency to accept, from making IOUs useful. It simply follows-up the code
any entity, a registered warrant - commonly known section mentioned above with the guarantee that a
as an IOU - endorsed by that payee, at full face state agency shall accept from any entity a registered
value, for the payment of any obligations owed by warrant endorsed by that payee, at full face value,
that entity to that state agency. Survival of services for the payment of any obligations owed by that
and jobs is at stake; the state should accept its own entity to that state agency. This is a fair allowance in
IOU. order that citizens may make usual and necessary
ISSUE payments to the state, such as DMV registration, tax
payments, and school tuition. As the Arc of
On June 24, 2009, the Sacramento Bee again California advocates in support of the bill, "AB 1506
reported that the state's fiscal situation was alleviates these problems by requiring the state to
desperate. "State controller John Chiang warned accept its own credit." Why should ordinary
today that if legislators and Gov. Arnold Californians' efforts to take care of their payments
Schwarzenegger fail to come up with abudget- on time be refused, denying citizens' option to use
balancing package in the next week, he would begin the very monetary instrument their state saw fit to
paying California's bills with IOUs on July 2." Since issue to them? And if the state won't accept its own
then, the state has dispensed 101,930 IOUs, an credit, why should anyone else?
equivalent of $389 million in vital payments that is
effectively being denied to service providers, non- SUPPORT
profit organizations, and taxpayers. • California State Controller John Chiang
Existing law already allows the state to distribute • The Arc of California
IOUs. According to Government Code section • California Association of Health Facilities
17203, "Such registered warrants are acceptable and • San Diego County Medical Society
may be used as security for the faithful performance • St. Madeleine Sophie's Center
of any public or private trust or obligation or for the • San Diego Regional Center
performance of any act, including the use of such • Noah Homes
registered warrants by banks and savings and loan • The Village at Walpert Center
associations as security for deposits of funds of any • Home of Guiding Hands
county, municipal or public corporation, district, • Santee School District
political subdivision, or state agency." This reminds • Julian Community Services District
us of Wimpy's famous line, "I'd gladly pay you • Lakeside Union School District
Tuesday for a hamburger today." So, the inequity • City of Oceanside
then is revealed by the peoples' inability to use those • Otay Water District
instruments in a practical way. • Southwest California Legislative Council
• Helix Water District Board of Directors
August 11. 2009
• County of San Diego Board of Supervisors • Chief Executive Officer and President Valerie
• San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce Harrison, Rancho-San Diego-Jamul Chamber of
• Oceanside Chamber of Commerce Commerce
• San Diego East County Chamber of Commerce • Administrator Kevin Miller, Foothills Christian
• Borrego Springs Chamber of Commerce Church
• San Marcos Chamber of Commerce • Yehudi Gaffen, Founder of Gafcon
• San Diego North Chamber of Commerce • President Thomas Guth, RGP Prosthetic Research
• People's Advocate, Inc. Center
• Waste Management • Executive Vice President Stephen Zolezzi, Food &
• Associated General Contractors of America - San Beverage Association of San Diego
Diego Chapter • Chief Executive Officer Etienne Runge, R2A
• Associated Builders and Contractors - San Diego Architecture
Chapter • President Joe Mackey, XL Staffing, Inc.
• Associated Builders and Contractors of California • Bruce Mayclin, Vanguard Cleaning Systems, Inc.
• Pacific Association of Building Service • President Gloria Freeman, Staff USA, Inc.
Contractors • President Ginter Hitzkc, Hitzke Development
• Independent Maintenance Contractors Association Corporation
• Bill Leonard, State Board of Equalization • Vice President Jeanne Phillips, Sundance
• Supervisor Dianne Jacob, County of San Diego Corporate Supply, Inc.
• Supervisor Bill Horn, County of San Diego • Owners Oscar & Olga Worm, West Coast
• Supervisor Ron Roberts, County of San Dicgo Barbecue and Catering
• Mayor Bud Lewis, City of Carlsbad • President Julie Brown, San Diego Insurance
• Vice Mayor Brian Jones, City of Santee Staffing
• Mayor Mark Nielsen, City of San Juan Capistrano • President Teresa Johnson, Manos and Associates,
• President Robert Shield, Grossmont Union High Inc.
School District • Chief Operating Officer Thomas Tassinari,
• Christopher Ahrens, MiraCosta College Student Synergy Solutions
Ambassador • President Shannon Erdell, TLC Staffing
• Councilmember Ernest Ewin, City of La Mesa • Chief Executive Officer Judith R. Lawton, TLC
• Councilmember David W Roberts, City of Solana Staffing
Beach FURTHER INFORMATION
• President Richard S. Fiore, Moulton Niguel Water
District David Yow, by phone at (916) 319-2077 or email at
• Councilmember Mary England, City of Lemon clnvid.i,otv@nsm.cn.;ov.
Grove
• Mayor Mark Lewis, City of El Cajon
• Superintendent Janice Cook, Cajon Valley Union
School District
• Boardmember Karric Scully Johnston, San Miguel
Fire District
• Superintendent Ernie Anastos, Lemon Grove
School District
• President David Kulchin, Leucadia Wastewater
District
• Councilmember Mark Packard, City of Carlsbad
• President James Sticringer, Grossmont Healthcare
District
• Assistant Superintendent of Business Services
Mays Kakish, Beaumont Unified School District
• Mayor Jim Desmond, City of San Marcos
• President James Carney, Palo Verde Healthcare
District Board of Directors
August 11. 2009
ITEM NO. 3.5
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: August 17, 2009
Subject: Reports on Legislative Activities - Sacramento Advocates
ATTACHMENTS:
SA - July Activity Report.doc SA - July Activity Report Report(s)
SA- Activity Report_August.pdf yA - August Activity 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: July 14, 2009
Overview
State Budget Issues Dominate Sacramento Discussion; Water Policy to Follow
As of this writing, the state and its current $26.3 billion deficit remains unresolved. Meanwhile,
IOUs from the cash-strapped state continue to pile up in mailboxes across the state: As of July
13, 2009, California had issued 129,786 IOUs this month, totaling $435,706,583.33, to vendors,
taxpayers awaiting refunds, local governments and others, according to State Controller John
Chiang.
The Controller just closed the books on 2008-09 and reported that during the past year, the state
received $85.2 billion in general fund revenue - including $43.7 billion in personal income
taxes. $23.7 billion in sales taxes and $12.3 billion in corporate income taxes - and spent
$98.2 billion.
That $85.2 billion is $11.2 billion less than the state received from those same sources in 2007-
08, thanks to the recession, with personal income taxes accounting for the entire net decline.
Even with sales and income tax rate hikes enacted in February, general fund revenue is expected
to be - at best - flat in 2009-10. The current official estimate is $85.8 billion, but the trend is
downward and no one would be surprised if revenue dropped to as low as $80 billion.
Put those numbers together and 2009-10 revenue will fall at least $15 billion short of financing
the workload budget. Throw in the leftover shortfall from 2008-09 and add a modest reserve,
and the deficit facing the state is more than $26 billion.
Schwarzenegger and legislators appear to be wrangling over spending cuts in the $12 billion to
$16 billion range, with the remainder of the "solutions" to be various forms of borrowing,
deferrals and so forth. Even though the Governor insists "this is the year we have to stop
promising people things we can't deliver," whatever emerges from his discussions with
legislators from both parties will fall well short of erasing the entire deficit.
In fact, the non-partisan Legislative Analyst is projecting annual budget deficits in the $25
The state's economy shows no signs of hitting bottom, much less rebounding, and the latest tax
increases and many of the spending cuts are temporary, effective for no more than a couple of
years.
Borrowing From Local Governments
Still on the bargaining table is the Governor's proposal to borrow $1.98 billion from local
governments through the suspension of Proposition IA (2004). The suspension, which requires
legislation, allows the state to divert to schools up to 8% of property tax revenues of cities, counties
and special districts. Repayment, with interest, must be made within three years. The Governor is
also proposing legislation to authorize a joint powers authority to facilitate local government
borrowing against the state's repayment promise. Essentially, local governments would securitize
the "loan" to the State, allowing bonds to be sold to investors to replace the borrowed monies. Still
in the Governor's proposal at this time:
Counties-The Administration's Prop IA suspension shifts $960 million from the counties (in
contrast, the 2004-05 and 2005-06 property tax shifts redirected $350 million each year from
counties).
Cities-The Administration's Prop IA suspension shifts $692 million from the cities (in 2004-05
and 2005-06, the state shifted $350 million each year from the cities).
Special Districts-The Governor proposes to suspend Prop IA and shift to K-14 education in 2009-
10 a total of 8% of the property taxes received by each special district, city and county. Under this
formula, $330 million would be shifted from Special Districts (in 2004-05 and 2005-06, $350
million in special district property taxes was shifted to K-14 education. Specifically, enterprise
districts shifted 40% of their property taxes and non-enterprise districts shifted up to 10%)
There is some additional concern that the state could borrow more than one-quarter of the amount
from waste and water enterprise districts and borrow less from non-enterprise districts with less
flexibility, as the Office of the Legislative Analyst is suggesting.
Mai or Water Policy Next on Legislative Agenda
It appears that a significant effort will be launched shortly to address the future of the
Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta in moving water from Northern to Southern California. Five
bills have been stripped down to intent language to address these issues (AB 49, Feuer, dealing with
water conservation requirements; AB 39 Huffman which will deal with the Delta Plan and the use
of Natural Community Conservation Plans; SB 12, Simitian, Delta Governance and alternative
conveyance mechanisms; SB 458, Wolk, Delta Conservancy and the Delta Protections Commission;
and SB 229, Pavley, early water actions needed before adoption of a final Delta plan. Missing at this
point in time is the above ground storage component, which Republicans consider the most
important part of an eventual package. Concerns abound over the construction of a massive
Peripheral Canal to route water for 50 miles around the Delta, and the costs associated with General
Obligation Bonds to finance storage facilities.
The bills will be sent to a joint Senate-Assembly Conference Committee which will hold hearings
sometime this summer on the thus-far unreleased plans. Action could commence swiftly upon
passage of the budget "fix."
Legislation of Interest
We continue to track the following bills:
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. DEAD FOR THE YEAR.
Status: 06/08/2009-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(8). (Last location was NAT.
RES. on 5/4/2009)
AB 39 (Huffman) Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. (A-07/09/2009 html Pdf)
Summary:
Existing law requires various state agencies to carry out programs, projects, and activities on
behalf of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh. Existing law requires the
Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to convene a committee to develop and submit to
the Governor and the Legislature, on or before December 31, 2008, a Strategic Vision for a
Sustainable Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta with specified components. This bill would state
the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to establish a Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Plan.
Note: A bill for the Water Conference Committee
Status: 07/13/2009-In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be
considered on or after July 15 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
AB 49 (Feuer) Water conservation. (A-07/09/2009 html pdf)
Summary:
Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources to undertake or administer various
programs related to water conservation. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to
enact legislation to establish a 20% water efficiency requirement for the year 2020 for
agricultural and urban water users.
Note: A bill for the water conference committee.
Status: 07/13/2009-In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be
considered on or after July 15 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
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? DEAD FOR THE YEAR.
Status: 06/02/2009-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR.
on 05/28/2009)
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. DEAD FOR THE YEAR.
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. DEAD FOR THE YEAR.
Status: 05/01/2009-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was W.,P.
& W. on 03/26/2009)
AB 1366 (Feuer) Residential self-regenerating water softeners. (A-07/13/2009
html pdf)
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 owns or operates a community sewer system or water
recycling facility within specified areas of the state to take action, by ordinance, 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: 07/13/2009-Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR
AB 1465 (Hill) Urban water management planning. (A-06/30/2009 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 deem water suppliers that are members of the council and comply with the
"Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California," dated
December 10, 2008, as it may be amended, to be in compliance with the requirement to
describe the supplier's water demand management measures in its urban water management
plan. This bill contains other existing laws.
Note: This is an ACWA supported measure.
Status: 07/07/2009-From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR with
recommendation: To Consent Calendar. Re-referred. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (July 6).
SB 12 (Simitian) Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Stewardship Council. (A-
07/09/2009 html pdf)
Summary:
Existing law requires various state agencies to administer programs relating to water supply,
water quality, and flood management in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Johnston-
Baker-Andal-Boatwright Delta Protection Act of 1992 creates the Delta Protection
Commission and requires the commission to prepare and adopt a comprehensive long-term
resource management plan for specified lands within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. E
existing law requires the Secretary of the Resources Agency to convene a committee to
develop and submit to the Governor and the Legislature, on or before December 31, 2008,
recommendations for implementing a specified strategic plan relating to the sustainable
management of the Delta. This bill would declare legislative intent to enact legislation to
establish the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Stewardship Council.
Note: Another water conference committee bill. The original version authorized a
Peripheral Canal around the Delta.
Status: 07/13/2009-In Senate. To unfinished business.
SB 229 (Pavley) Water: Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. (A-07/09/2009 html Pdf)
Summary:
Existing law requires the Secretary of the Resources Agency to convene a committee to
develop and submit to the Governor and the Legislature, on or before December 31, 2008,
recommendations for implementing a specified strategic plan relating to the sustainable
management of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This bill would declare legislative intent
to enact legislation to authorize actions to be undertaken prior to the adoption of a
comprehensive Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Plan.
Note: A water conference committee vehicle.
Status: 07/13/2009-In Senate. To unfinished business.
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. DEAD FOR THE YEAR.
Status: 05/01/2009-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was N.R. &
W. on 03/09/2009)
SB 371 (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. DEAD FOR THE YEAR.
Status: 05/01/2009-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was N.R. &
W. on 03/09/2009)
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.
DEAD FOR THE YEAR.
Status: 05/01/2009-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(3). (Last location was N.R. &
W. on 03/12/2009)
SB 565 (Pavley) Water recycling. (A-06/02/2009 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 specified persons discharging wastewater into the ocean, the San
Francisco Bay, or any other enclosed bay in the state, 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: 06/30/2009-Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
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. DEAD FOR THE YEAR.
Status: 05/01/2009-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was N.R. &
W. on 03/19/2009)
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 El 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: August 14, 2009
Overview
State Budget Issues Linur, Water Policv Moves to Forefront
The latest saga in the ongoing state budget crisis, which is expected to dog the state for the next
few years (as programmatic spending continues to exceed revenue intake) has largely passed for
now, with the Governor signing a revision of the 2009-2010 state General Fund budget totaling
$84.8 billion (down from the $96.4 billion budget in 2007-08. The Governor and the Legislature
are scrapping over late vetoes of about $600 million of additional health and human services
programs and an unallocated reduction of $1.2 billion from the Department of Corrections. The
Senate leader has filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the health program vetoes and
legislators will have to specify the corrections cuts in the last four weeks of the regular
legislative session. Session is scheduled to adjourn for the year on September 11, but a special
session has been called by the Governor to begin September 17 to consider tax reform issues. A
water special session could be added if the Legislature does not conclude action on water policy
issues. Many people expect the Legislature to be back in Sacramento later this fall to make
further downward adjustments in the state budget, as revenues are expected to continue to slide.
Borrowing From Local Governments
The Governor and Le-islators did borrow $1.98 billion from counties through the suspension of
Proposition IA (2004). Legislation was passed to allow local government borrowing against the
state's repayment promise. Essentially, local governments would securitize the "loan" to the State,
allowing bonds to be sold to investors to replace the borrowed monies.
Major Water Policv Next on Legislative Aunda
On August 18, joint committee hearings of the Senate and Assembly water policy committees will
commence addressing the future of the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta and in moving water
from Northern to Southern California. Five bills have been stripped down to intent language to
address these issues (AB 49, Feuer, dealing with water conservation requirements; AB 39 Huffman
which will deal with the Delta Plan and the use of Natural Community Conservation Plans; SB 12,
Simitian, Delta Governance and alternative conveyance mechanisms; SB 458, Wolk, Delta
Conservancy and the Delta Protections Commission, and SB 229, Pavley, early water actions
needed before adoption of a final Delta plan. These bills are all being heard in a new, "pre-print
form," copies which are attached.
The "plan" is for these pre-print bills to be subjected to three hearings over the next two weeks,
after the Legislature resumes its session from the summer break. On week three, a six-mernber, two-
house conference committee will meet to produce a conference committee report blending the
separate bill components into one or more documents, which would have to be approved by both
houses with a simple majority vote. While the need for more water is great, there will be substantial
fees required of all Californians to pay for a new water conveyance facility to take water around the
Delta. Estimates of the cost run anywhere from $7 billion to over $20 billion. A non-elected, seven-
member Delta Protection Council would be empowered to adopt policy recommendations and
financing plans. This package will be very controversial.
Missing at this point in time is the key need in the eyes of many - an above ground storage
component, which Republicans consider the most important part of an eventual package. Democrats
are reluctant to add an additional $10-12 billion General Obligation Bond for the above-ground
storage, adding another $700 million per year in interest payments to the General Fund for bonds
already outstanding (Californians are paying the debt on $69 billion in bonds currently). Senate and
Assembly Democratic leaders are reluctant to entertain the water storage discussion if the Governor
does not restore the $600 million in health and human services budget vetoes.
Legislation of Interest
What follows is a list of the issue areas to be covered by authors of the water package that will be
under review the next three weeks. I have attached separately the text of the pre-print version of
these bills as they currently stand. The Wolk bill, currently Senate Pre-Print 3, is being amended as
I write this report, but the new version, SB 4 Preprint, will not be materially different.
2009 California Delta-Water Bill Package Summary
Delta Conservancv and Delta Protection Commission (Wolk)
• Delta Conservancy - creation & authority
• Delta Protection Commission - modifications
Delta Governance (Simitian)
• General Provisions - policies & definitions (Div. 35, Part 1)
• Early Actions - before adoption of Delta Plan (Div. 35, Part 2)
• Delta Stewardship Council - creation & authority (Div. 35, Part 3)
• Delta Water Master - creation & authority
• Delta Independent Science Board - creation & authority
• Delta Finance (Div. 35, Part 5)
The Delta Plan (Huffman)
• General Provisions - policies & definitions (Div. 35, Part 1)
• Early Actions - before adoption of Delta Plan (Div. 35, Part 2)
• Delta Plan Development - completed by 2011 (Div. 35, Part 4)
• Bay Delta Conservation Plan Requirements
Water Use Reporting (Pavlov)
• Water Diversion & Use Reporting - requirements & enforcement
• Civil Liability for Water Trespass - modifications
• Groundwater Elevation Monitoring
Water Conservation and Sustainable Management (Feuer/Huffman)
• Urban Water Conservation - 20% by 2020
• Agricultural Water Management Plans
• Sustainable Regional Water Resource Management
ITEM NO. 3.6
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: August 17, 2009
Subject: Reports on Grant Activities - Townsend Public Affairs
ATTACHMENTS:
TPA - Activity Report July.doc PA - July Activity Report Report(s)
TPA- Activity Report_August.doc PA - August Activity Report Report(s)
Tonsend
PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC.
MEMORANDUM
To: Yorba Linda Water District, Executive Committee
From: Christopher Townsend, President
Heather Dion, Director
Date: July 15, 2009
Subject: Activity Report
State Political Highlights:
The Legislature returned to Sacramento after taking the 4t" of July weekend off. Over the
weekend the Big Five (the Governor and the four legislative caucus leaders) met for several
hours in an attempt to reach a deal that would allow the State to close its $26.3 billion
budget deficit. Unfortunately, these meetings do not appear to have brought the sides any
closer to resolution.
With the passing of the 2008-09 fiscal year last week, the Legislature and Governor lost an
opportunity to adopt nearly $3.3 billion in budget solutions. As a result, the Governor has
begun to push for large policy changes that he believes will save the State additional money
going forward. Specifically, the Governor is now requesting fingerprinting and stricter
security measures for the State's In-Home Support Services program. The Governor has
also mentioned modifying the State's pension system and suspending the Proposition 98
minimum education funding guarantee. None of these items have been items have been
decided, but are now wrapped into the budget negotiations.
It is also worth noting that last week Senate Pro Tern Darrell Steinberg announced that the
Senate would be suspending all committee hearings until a budget solution is in place. This
action essentially freezes all Assembly bills, regardless of the author or policy. Since the
legislative deadline for policy committees to hear bills is this Friday, it is likely that the
Senate will need to suspend the House rules to let committees meet after the deadline;
however, that determination has not yet been made.
However, after Senator Steinberg made this announcement things have been relatively
quiet for the last several days on the budget front. The Big 5 (Governor and four legislative
leaders) met for several hours each day over the weekend in an effort to reach a
compromise on the State's $26.3 billion budget deficit. All indications are that the meetings
were positive and productive, which is a good sign after a week that saw the Speaker and
Governor exchange insults through their respective press offices.
While the latest round of Big 5 meetings were considered productive, unfortunately they did
not result in any type of agreement and the negotiations continue. The Big 5 did not
discuss the potential suspension of Prop 98 over the weekend, nor what cuts would need to
be made in order to avoid the suspension; the weekend meetings mostly dealt with the side
issues of IHSS fraud reduction, modifications to the CaIWORKs program, and State
government consolidation.
The Big 5 is currently scheduled to meet in order to discuss the potential of a Prop 98
suspension. This meeting will go a long way in determining when the State will have a
budget solution.
TPA will work closely with YLWD, ACWA, and CSDA to oppose the borrowing of local
government property taxes through the suspension of Proposition 1A. Furthermore, TPA
will aggressively advocate for an "across the board" 8% borrowing in the event that
Proposition 1A is suspended by the Legislature. In this time of widespread economic
recession, special districts cannot afford to have their property tax taken in order to make up
for the years of mistakes made by Sacramento.
Funding Opportunities
Integrated Regional Water Management Program (IRWMP):
TPA has requested a regionally focused project from YLWD staff to include in the Orange
County North Plan. This would also be the project that would be submitted to SAWPA
when a call for projects occurs later this year. The IRWMP process is two-step. First
SAWPA, which is the coordinating entity to submit the application for the entire Santa Ana
Region, had to interview with the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to have the
regional acceptance portion of the process approved. Once this is finalized, DWR will do an
official call for projects in late 2009, which at this point SAWPA will submit an application
with projects totaling the $114 million allocated to the region.
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) Energy Funding:
The Federal Stimulus package included millions in funding for energy reduction projects. A
large majority of the funding has been allocated to cities with a population over $35,000 on
a per capita formula basis. Small cities will also receive a similar per capita funding
amount, but are required to go through a separate process that is just now beginning.
Aside from the per capita funding that is going directly to cities, there is also competitive
funding available through both the California Energy Commission and the Department of
Energy (federal agency). The guidelines for these programs are just now becoming
available and TPA will be assisting YLWD in applying for these opportunities. As additional
information on these programs becomes available, TPA will be providing information.
FY 2011 Federal Appropriations:
TPA recently met with YLWD staff to begin preparing for the FY 2011 appropriations
process. Our goal is to get organized very early in order to start working with congressional
staff now to build relationships and educate them on the District's priorities. There were two
suggestions by staff as to projects that could potentially be pursued for funding including
energy efficiency projects and water reclamation projects focused on the development of
local resources and self sustainability. YLWD staff will be further developing these
concepts and providing project information to TPA in September so we can begin the work
in D.C. that will be required to submit an application in early 2010.
Tonsend
PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC.
MEMORANDUM
To: Yorba Linda Water District, Executive Committee
From: Christopher Townsend, President
Heather Dion, Senior Director
Date: August 12, 2009
Subject: Activity Report
State Political Highlights:
The Legislature is due to return from summer recess on August 17th for the final few weeks
of this year's regular session prior to adjourning on September 11th. One of the primary
issues that the Legislature will attempt to deal with in that time is the State's water system.
Earlier this week, the Pro Tern and Speaker released the draft of the five measures that will
be considered by the conference committee on water. The bills deal primarily with issues
surrounding the Delta: governance and delivery, as well as water use reporting and
conservation. The conference committee, whose members have not yet been named, is
scheduled to meet the day the Legislature returns from recess, August 17th, and will likely
meet several more times before the end of session.
The conference committee will likely adopt final language for the bills and send the bills to
the Senate and Assembly Floors for vote in the final week of session. At this point, it is
unclear whether or not there will be sufficient support for the measures in either house. The
Republicans will want to make sure that there are provisions in the bill that will secure water
delivery for the Central Valley and Southern California. While they will share some of the
concerns regarding the environmental stability of the Delta ecosystem, their larger priority
will be ensuring that there is a reliable water delivery system. The Democrats will largely
want to ensure that the Delta ecosystem is preserved through the creation of a Delta
governing body. They will want to ensure that any water delivery system does not result in
salt water intrusion to the Delta which would endanger various species found solely in the
Delta ecosystem.
One of the main political dynamics will likely surround the fact that the water conference
committee is likely not to consider a water bond. The Democrats stance has been that the
State needs to determine the policy for the Delta and State water system prior to the
creation of a water bond. They contend that the policy should drive the funding and not the
other way around. The Republicans, and the Administration, realize that much of their
leverage for a water bond will be gone if they enact the policy of the conference committee.
My sources inside the Governor's Office tell me that the Governor is not likely to sign any of
the water policy bills without a water bond.
Crafting a water bond to help rebuild and expand the State's water infrastructure has been
one of the Governor's primary objectives for the past several years. By most accounts, the
Governor and Legislature are relatively close to agreeing on language for a water bond, but
there are still a handful of outstanding issues. These issues primarily surround above
ground storage and alternative conveyance, two key objectives for the Republicans. Do
date, the Democrats have been unwilling to cede to the Governor on these two key issues.
The earliest a water bond could be placed before the voters is June 2010. In order for the
Legislature to place a measure on the June 2010 ballot, they must approve the measure
sometime before next March. If the adoption of the Delta and state water system bills
hinges upon the adoption of a water bond, it is possible that the Legislature will wait until
they return next January and work behind the scenes over interim on the final outstanding
issues.
While it is likely that the Legislature and Governor will ultimately pass comprehensive
reform measures for Delta governance, water conservation, water delivery and a
comprehensive water bond in order to create and update water infrastructure for the State's
current needs, it is possible that it will not be done until next year when the Legislature
faces stricter deadlines.
Funding Opportunities
Integrated Regional Water Management Program (IRWMP):
TPA has requested a regionally focused project from YLWD staff to include in the Orange
County North Plan. This would also be the project that would be submitted to SAWPA
when a call for projects occurs later this year. The IRWMP process is two-step. First
SAWPA, which is the coordinating entity to submit the application for the entire Santa Ana
Region, had to interview with the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to have the
regional acceptance portion of the process approved. Once this is finalized, DWR will do an
official call for projects in late 2009, which at this point SAWPA will submit an application
with projects totaling the $114 million allocated to the region.
Currently YLWD staff is putting together conceptual project ideas for this funding
opportunity. Once those are approved by the Board, TPA will work with the County to
integrate the project(s) into the North Orange County IRWM plan as well as integrate it into
the SAWPA plan once there is an official call for projects. The timeline for both of these
efforts is to have a conceptual project no later than September 30, 2009.
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) Energy Funding:
The Federal Stimulus package included millions in funding for energy reduction projects. A
large majority of the funding has been allocated to cities with a population over $35,000 on
a per capita formula basis. Small cities will also receive a similar per capita funding
amount, but are required to go through a separate process that is just now beginning.
Aside from the per capita funding that is going directly to cities, there is also competitive
funding available through both the California Energy Commission and the Department of
Energy (federal agency). The guidelines for these programs have not become, but
available and TPA will be assisting YLWD in applying for these opportunities as soon as the
criteria and applications are made public. As additional information on these programs
becomes available, TPA will be providing information. TPA will need specific project
information from YLWD staff to apply for these funds including, but not limited to, project
description, quantified analysis of energy reduction based on project request, budget and
long-term management plan to sustain the project once any stimulus funding has been
exhausted.
FY 2011 Federal Appropriations:
TPA recently met with YLWD staff to begin preparing for the FY 2011 appropriations
process. Our goal is to get organized very early in order to start working with congressional
staff now to build relationships and educate them on the District's priorities. There were two
suggestions by staff as to projects that could potentially be pursued for funding including
energy efficiency projects and water reclamation projects focused on the development of
local resources and self sustainability. YLWD staff will be further developing these
concepts and providing project information to TPA by September 30th so we can begin the
work in D.C. that will be required to submit an application in early 2010.
ITEM NO. 3.7
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: August 17, 2009
Subject: Report on Legislative Bills - McCormick, Kidman & Behrens
ATTACHMENTS:
MKB - Legislative Bills Reports.pdf '?KB - Legislative Bills Report Report(s)
RECEIVED
MCCOBMICH, KIDMAN & BEHRENS. LLP
LAWYERS JUN 2 9 2009
650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE
H. L. IMIKEI MCCORMICK" SUITE I00
ARTHUR 6. KIOMAN• YORQALINDA WATER DISTRICT
RUSSELL G. BEHRENS• COSTA MESA. CALIFORNIA 92626
SUZANNE M. TAGUE0 TELEPHONES 1714) 7S5-3100
DAVID O. BOYER• (S00) 756-3125
DANIEL J. PAYNE•
JOAN J. SENNETT FAX t7141755-3110
EDDY R. SELTRAN www.mkbiewyers.com
TRAM T. TRAM
JOHN P. OLOWACKI
LAURIE E. PARK
•A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
TCERT;F19D SPECIALIST - PROQATE June 26, 2009
ESTATE PLANNING 6 TRUST LAW
THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION
"OF COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM
TO WATER AGENCY CLIENTS
FROM McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
RE Second Report on 2009 Legislative Bills
Enclosed please find the second Legislative Report for the 2009 legislative session of the
California Legislature. This report shows the bills' status after the June 5th deadline to pass bills
out of their house of origin. This report covers bills which were covered in our first Legislative
Report and additional relevant bills (AB 282, AB 1465, SB 229 and SB 261) which came to light
in the meantime and which met the June 5th deadline. Four additional bills that were not
mentioned in our first report are covered in this report, but did not meet the June 5th deadline.
Those four bills (SB 301, SB 371, SB 456 and SB 735) were all water general obligation bond
bills. We will continue to track these bills for any possible revival of these bills. As always, 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
B
ARTHUR G. KIDMAN
AGKIERB
SECOND 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
1. 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
0. BILLING AND REVENUE PROCEDURES
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
• Legislative Report June 26, 2009
SECOND 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 each urban retail water supplier to develop urban water use targets
by December 31, 2010, 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: Sen. Nat. Res. do Water
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 require a legislative body to perform
additional record keeping and provide specified notice to any entity that provides energy or water
within the boundaries of the area within which contractual assessments may be entered into.
This bill would also require additional specified disclosures to a transfer of real property subject
to a contractual assessment.
ACWA Position: Favor Status: Sen. Loc. Gov.
2
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
• Legislative Report June 26, 2009
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 or a water efficient landscape
ordinance adopted or in effect pursuant to Section 65595(c) of the Government Code.
I
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. This bill would include within
these exceptions, among others, a sale or a transfer pursuant to non judicial foreclosure and a
sale or transfer in which the requirements of this article would impose a significant financial
hardship on the seller or transferor. - - -
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 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: Asm. Jud.
B. WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENTIWATER PROJECTS
B.1 AB 934 (Gilmoe) San Joaquin Valley: water supply
ACWA Position: Favor Status: Dead
B.2 AB 1520 (Evans) Statewide Watershed Program
ACWA Position: Favor f amended Status: Dead
3
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
• Legislative Report June 26, 2009
B.3 SB 229 (Pavley) California Water Commission: Bay-Delta
i
Existing law establishes the 9-member California Water Commission in the DWR and requires
the commission to conduct an annual review of the progress and operation of the State Water
Project and to carry out various other related functions.
This bill would revise the membership and functions of the commission. The bill would
establish the commission in state government as an independent commission. The commission
would consist of 5 members appointed by the Governor and subject to the confirmation of the
Senate.
This bill would require the commission to serve as lead agency to implement projects
recommended by the final environmental impact report of the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan, or
delegate these responsibilities to other appropriate state or local entities. The commission would
be required to identify and prioritize early action projects and programs for achieving specified
goals for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and select a watermaster to enforce all laws that are
relevant to the successful implementation of the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan. The commission
would be required to establish and impose a per-acre-foot fee on water diversions within the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta watershed, and a fee on any water conveyed through or around
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta that may be used, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to
fund the commission's responsibilities under the bill.
ACWA Position: Oppose unless amended Status: Asm. WPW
B.4 SB 261 (Dutton) Water use
Existing law requires the DWR to convene an independent technical panel to provide
information to the department and the Legislature on new demand management measures,
technologies, and approaches. This bill would require an urban water supplier to develop and
implement a water use efficiency and efficient water resources management plan to reduce
residential potable water use in a specified manner or achieve extraordinary water use efficiency,
as defined. The urban water supplier or the regional water management group, as applicable,
would be required to report its progress towards achieving a prescribed water use efficiency and
efficient water resources management target in specified documents.
The bill would enact the Comprehensive Urban Water Efficiency Act of 2009. The SWRCB and
DWR, not later than April 1, 2010, would be required to convene a task force to develop best
management practices for commercial, industrial, and institutional water uses for the purpose of
achieving a specified reduction in water use by 2020.
ACWA Position: Support Status: Asm. Water, Parks & Wildlife ("WPW')
B.5 SB 736 (Pavley) Water consumption fee
ACWA Position: Watch Status: Dead
4
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
Legislative Report June 26, 2009
B.6 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. WPW
C. INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING
CA AB 134 (Brownley) Los Angeles County Flood Control District: fees and charges
ACWA Position: Favor Status: Dead
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. Appr.
D. EMINENT DOMAIN
E. PUBLIC OFFICIALS; ETHICS
EA AB 1412 (Torrico) Political Reform Act of 1974: gifts
ACWA Position: Watch Status: Dead
E.2 SB 233 (Aanestad) SWRCB: California regional water quality control boards
ACWA Position: Watch Status: Dead
5
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
• Legislative Report June 26, 2009
F. BROWN ACT/PUBLIC RECORDS
F.1 AB 520 (Carter) Public records
ACWA Position: Favor Status: Dead
G. LABOR, EMPLOYMENT AND BENEFITS
GA 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 (2) 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 unless amended Status: Sen. Jud.
G.2 SB 711 (Lend) Public meetings: closed sessions: labor negotiations
ACWA Position: Oppose Status: Dead
H. PUBLIC WORKS/CONTRACTS
HA 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 declare the intent of the Legislature to consider enacting subsequent legislation to
address the issues raised in a specified case being reviewed by the California Supreme Court, as
needed, once those issues are ripe for consideration after the Supreme Court has rendered a
decision interpreting the parties' rights and obligations under existing law with regard to public
contracts disputes.
ACWA Position: Oppose Status: Sen.Loc. Gov.
6
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
Legislative Report June 26, 2009
1. WATER SUPPLY AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
11. AB 55 (Jeffries) Water supply planning
ACWA Position: Not favor Status: Dead
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 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, 2017, 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.
The bill would authorize the applicant to enter into a mutual 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, as defined. The fees paid into the Voluntary Water
Demand Mitigation Fund would be prohibited from exceeding the amount necessary to offset the
actual or percentage of actual water demand impacts agreed upon in the agreement between the
applicant and the public water system. The bill would authorize, at the discretion of the public
water system, the amount required for the Voluntary Water Demand Mitigation Fund to be
reduced by a portion of the normally required system capacity charges that finance future water
supplies.
The bill would also authorize any reduction in the capacity charge to be calculated using the
amount of water projected to be conserved using the Voluntary Water Demand Mitigation Fund
at the cost determined by the public water system for developing new water supplies through
water conservation. The bill would not require the total reduction in system capacity charges to
be equal to the amount paid into the Voluntary Water Demand Mitigation Fund.
The bill would prohibit a project from being disapproved due to the applicant's refusal to use
voluntary mitigation measures. The bill would also require the public water system to determine
the projected water savings for the voluntary demand management measures that will be
incorporated into the subdivision. The public water system would be required to expend all
funds from the Voluntary Water Demand Mitigation Fund on water conservation measures that
will reduce the projected demand associated with the subdivision. The public water system
would be prohibited from using any funds from the Voluntary Water Conservation Mitigation
Fund to supplant funding for water conservation programs required by existing law or paid for
by existing customers through water rates and surcharges.
7
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
Legislative Report June 26, 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, 2017, 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. The public water system
would be required to determine the projected water savings for the voluntary demand
management measures that will be incorporated into the subdivision. The projected water
savings would be authorized to be calculated using specified data compiled or maintained by the
public water system or the water savings projections adopted by the California Urban Water
Conservation Council.
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, or the public water system, the public water system's determination of the
projected water savings would be required to be made based on documented methodologies or
calculations submitted in the record. The public water system would be required to report on the
monitoring and compliance of voluntary water demand management measures and to determine
whether they have resulted in the water savings necessary to achieve the agreed upon water
demand offsets. The bill would require copies of the first report prepared 5 years after the
project has been fully developed to be provided to the project applicant, the city or county that
approved the subdivision map, the California Urban Water Conservation Council, and the DWR.
The bill would also encourage the public water system to commit to carrying out the water
conservation measures funded by the Voluntary Water Demand Mitigation Fund within 24
months of the sale of the last unit of the proposed subdivision. The bill would provide that the
sole remedy for the failure of a public water system to implement the water conservation
measures would be for an interested party to seek a writ of mandamus to compel the public water
system to comply.
ACWA Position: Support if amended Status: Sen. Nat. Res. & Water
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.
8
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
• Legislative Report June 26, 2009
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, 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, to include 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 required to be based on
offsetting 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: Inactive
L4 AB 1465 (Hill) - Urban water management planning
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 DWR 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. This 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.
Existing law, with certain exceptions, requires the terms of, and eligibility for, a water
management grant or loan, made to an urban water supplier and awarded or administered by the
DWR, the SWRCB, or the California Bay-Delta Authority or its successor agency, to be
conditioned on the implementation of the water demand management measures identified in the
supplier's urban water management plan.
This bill would require the DWR to determine that an urban water supplier is eligible for a water
management grant or loan, despite a failure to implement all of the water demand management
treasures identified in the urban water management plan, if the supplier submits to the DWR for
approval documentation demonstrating that the supplier's proposed water demand management
measures provide a level of water savings that is equal to or greater than the savings provided by
9
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
Legislative Report June 26, 2009
the implementation of measures identified in the plan or that the supplier lacks the authority to
implement one or more of those measures.
ACWA Position: Favor Status: Sen. Nat. Res, & Water
J. WATER QUALITY/POLLUTION
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 website, 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: Sen. Env. Qual.
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 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 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: Sen. Env. Qual.
10
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
Legislative Report June 26, 2009
J.3 SB 42 (Corbett) Coastal resources: once-through cooling
ACWA Position: Oppose Status: Dead
J.4 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 specified persons discharging wastewater into the
ocean, the San Francisco Bay, or any other enclosed bay in the state, 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: Asm. WPW
K. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
K.1 AB 28 (Jeffries) Natural gas engines: water movement: emissions limitation
requirements
ACWA Position: Support Status: Dead
K.2 AB 804 (Hall) Invasive aquatic species: mussels
This bill would provide that an operator of water delivery and storage facilities, who has
prepared, initiated, and is in compliance with a plan to control and eradicate dreissenid mussels
in accordance with the above existing provisions of law, would not be subject to any civil or
criminal liability for the introduction of dreissenid mussel species as a result of operations of
those facilities.
ACWA Position: Support/Sponsor Status: Sen. Jud.
IQ 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 cant' out or
approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration
11
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
Legislative Report June 26, 2009
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 Status: Asm. Nat. Res.
L. LAFCO
M. SPECIFIC AGENCIES AND/OR PROJECTS SECONDLAFCO
N. PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION; REVENUE AND COLLECTION
PROCEDURES
0. BILLING AND REVENUE PROCEDURES
0.1 AB 282 (Committee on Transportation) Transportation
Existing law prohibits a person from driving a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video
monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a
television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is
operating and is located in the motor vehicle at any point forward of the back of the driver's seat,
or is operating and visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle, with certain exceptions.
This bill would add to the exceptions to the prohibition in existing law a mobile digital terminal
installed in a vehicle owned or operated by specified corporate entities, including, among other
entities, a sewer system corporation, as defined, a water corporation, as defined, or a city, joint
powers agency, or special district, if that local entity uses the vehicle solely in the provision of
12
McCormack, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
Legislative Report June 26, 2009
sewer service, gas service, water service, or wastewater service, and the terminal is fitted with an
opaque covering that does not allow the driver to view the display while driving, or when the
vehicle is deployed in an emergency to respond to an interruption or impending interruption of
specified services.
ACWA Position: Support Status: Sen. Trans. & Housing
i
13
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP
Legislative Report June 26, 2009
INDEX
AB 28 (Jeffries) ...............................................................................................................................11
AB 49 (Feuer) ...................................................................................................................................2
AB 55 (Jeffries) ...........................................................................................................................7
AB 139 (Brownley) ...........................................................................................................................5
AB 282 (Comm. Trans.) .................................................................................................................12
AB 300 (Caballero) ...........................................................................................................................7
AB 474 (Blumenfield) ......................................................................................................................2
AB 520 (Carter) ................................................................................................................................6
AB 737 (ACESTM) ........................................................................................................................10
AB 804 (Hall) .................................................................................................................................11
AB 815 (Ma) ....................................................................................................................................6
AB 934 (Gilmoe) ..............................................................................................................................3
AB 943 (Mendoza) ...........................................................................................................................6
AB 1061 (Lieu) 3
AB 1366 (Feuer) .............................................................................................................................10
AB 1408 (Krekorian) ........................................................................................................................8
AB 1412 (Torrico) ............................................................................................................................5
AB 1465 (Hill) . ...............................................................................................................................9
AB 1520 (Evans) ..............................................................................................................................3
ACA 9 (Huffman) .............................................................................................................................5
ACA 12 (Logue) ...............................................................................................................................5
SB 42 (Corbett) ................................................................................................................................11
SB 229 (Pavley) ...............................................................................................................................4
SB 233 (Aanestad) ............................................................................................................................5
SB 261 (Dutton) .................................................................................................................................4
SB 407 (Padilla) ...............................................................................................................................3
SB 476 (Correa) ..............................................................................................................................11
SB 565 (Pavley) i 1
SB 711 (Leno) ....................................................................................................................................7
SB 736 (Pavley) ................................................................................................................................4
14
ITEM NO. 3.8
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: August 17, 2009
Subject: General Counsel's Monthly Summary Billing Reports
ATTACHMENTS:
MKB - Billing Summary June.pdf 'dKB - June Billing Summary Report(s)
MKB Charge Summary June.pdf 1KB - June Charge Summary Report(s)
MKB Billing Summary July.pdf ,1KB - July Billing Summary Report(s)
MKB Charge Summary July.pdf 11KB - July Charge Summary Report(s)
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
MONTHLY SUMMARY BILLING CHART
BILUNG MONTH. June
Matter Matter Date Task Order
Name Number Opened Amount
CURRENT FISCAL YEAR 2008 -2009
Current Billing Total Billed to Date Total Billed 2007 -2008
June 25, 2009 Current Fiscal Year Prior Fiscal Year
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
002
7/31/2007
NIA
$1,279.14
$16,113.90
$11,223.18
PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION
030
$1,117.50
$2,085.00
OCWD ANNEXATION
040
1/13/1994
NIA
$0.00
$7,185.00
$60,261.09
RICHFIELD SITE IMPROVEMENTS
042
$0.00
$545.00
SHELL
051
$0.00
$1,304.71
HIDDEN HILLS RESERVOIR
068
8/25/2003
$5,306.28
$120,193.53
S &S DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
071
$0.00
$6,140.00
RWQCB
073
12/182002
$0.00
$636.21
$2,161.00
LAKEVIEW RESERVOIR
081
3/22005
$20,000.00
$0.00
$1,924.00
$36,645.72
NON - CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENTS
084
4152005
$11,000.00
$6,806.50
$43,493.12
$15,888.25
CELL TOWER
085
7/282006
$15,000.00
$0.00
$1,012.50
$24,162.90
WATER RATES/WATER CONSERVATION
087
7/312006
$10,000.00
$4,058.34
$76,130.12
$26,960.50
BOD PROCEDURES
089
3272006
$5,000.00
$0.00
$12,522.50
$8,732.10
GRANDVIEW SEWER
091
5/30/20071
$10,000.00
$0.00
$1,202.50
TOTAL
$18,567.761
$290,488.09
$186,034.74
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens Charges
Month of
Jun-09
Expensed 21,067.76
Job charges 0.00
21, 067.76
YTD through
Jun-09
Expensed 247,579.75
Job charges 70,786.34
318,366.09
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
MONTHLY SUMMARY BILLING CHART
BILLING MONTH: Jul
Matter Matter Date Task Order
Name Number Opened Amount
CURRENT FISCAL YEAR 2009 -2010
Current Billing Total Billed to Date Total Billed 2008 -2009
July 28, 2009 Current Fiscal Year Prior Fiscal Year
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
002
7/31/2007
NIA
$2,064.60
$2,064.60
$16,113.90
PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION
030
$1,404.54
$1,404.54
$2,085.00
OCWD ANNEXATION
040
1/13/1994
N/A
$0.00
$0.00
$7,185.00
RICHFIELD SITE IMPROVEMENTS
042
$0.00
$0.00
$545.00
SHELL
051
$0.00
$0.00
$1,304.71
HIDDEN HILLS RESERVOIR
068
8/25/2003
$17,775.50
$17,775.50
$120,193.53
S &S DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
071
$0.00
$0.00
$6,140.00
RWQCB
073
12/18/2002
$0.00
$0.00
$636.21
LAKEVIEW RESERVOIR
081
3/2!2005
$20,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,924.00
NON - CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENTS
084
4/5/2005
$11, 000.00
$4,819.00
$4,819.00
$43,493.12
CELL TOWER
085
7/28/2006
$15,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,012.50
WATER RATES/WATER CONSERVATION
087
7/31/2006
$10,000-00
$2,719.50
$2,719.50
$76,130.12
BOD PROCEDURES
089
3/27/2006
$5,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$12,522.50
GRANDVIEW SEWER
091
5/30/2007
$10,000.00
$545.50
$545.50
$1,202.50
TOTAL
I
1
1 $29,328.64
$29,328.64
$290,488.09
McCormick, Kidman & Behrens Charges
Month of
Jul-09
Expensed 27,593.64
Job charges 4,235.00
31,828.64
YTD through
Jul-09
Expensed 27,593.64
Job charges 4,235.00
31,828.64
ITEM NO. 3.9
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: August 17, 2009
Subject: Directors' and General Manager's Fees and Expenses (Apr-Jun)
ATTACHMENTS:
4thQTR0809.pdf +=GDiGM Fees and Expenses Report(s)
Quarter -To -Date Report
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
DIRECTORS AND GENERAL MANAGER FEES AND EXPENSES
FISCAL YEAR 2008 -2009
4TH QUARTER REPORT FROM 04 -01 -2009 TO 06 -30 -2009
ARMSTRONG
BEVERAGE
COLLETT
MILLS
SUMMERFIELD SUB -TOTAL
VECCHIARELLI
TOTAL
REGULAR MEETINGS ATTENDED
6
6
5
6
6
29
COMMITTEE MEETINGS ATTENDED
6
9
9
8
7
39
OFF SITE MEETINGS ATTENDED
3
0
0
9
3
15
SPECIAL MEETINGS ATTENDED
TOTAL MEETINGS ATTENDED QTD
15
15
14
23
16
83
83
DIRECTOR FEES QTD
$2,250
$2,250
$2,100
$3,450
$2,400
$12,450
$12,450
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
$874
$0
$874
$874
TRAVEL & CONF. BUDGET QTD
$583
$583
$583
$583
$583
$2,915
$2,915
DIR.FEES AND EXPENSES QTD
$2,250
$2,250
$2,100
$4,324
$2,400
$13,324
$13,324
FEES AND EXPENSES BUDGET QTD
$3,670
$3,670
$3,670
$3,670
$3,670
$18,350
$18,350
GEN MGR EXPENSES QTD
$276
$276
GEN MGR TRAVEL /CONF. BUDGET QTD
$1,280
$1,280
TOTAL FEES & EXPENSES QTD
$2,250
$2,250
$2,100
$4,324
$2,400
$13,324
$276
$13,600
TOTAL FEES & EXPENSES BUDGET QT
$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 06 -30 -2009
GEN MGR EXPENSES YTD
GEN MGR TRAVEL CONF. BUDGET YTD
TOTAL FEES & EXPENSES YTD $7,050 $10,799 $7,650
TOTAL FEES & EXPENSES BUDGET YTD $14,680 $14,680 $14,680
MILLS
ARMSTRONG
BEVERAGE
COLETT
REGULAR MEETINGS ATTENDED
19
24
19
COMMITTEE MEETINGS ATTENDED
21
32
30
OFF SITE MEETINGS ATTENDED
5
5
1
SPECIAL MEETINGS ATTENDED
2
2
1
TOTAL MEETINGS ATTENDED YTD
47
63
51
DIRECTOR FEES YTD
$7,050
$9,450
$7,650
MEETING FEES BUDGET YTD
$12,348
$12,348
$12,348
TRAVEL & CONFERENCES EXPENSES YTD
$0
$1,349
$0
TRAVEL & CONFERENCE BUDGET YTD
$2,332
$2,332
$2,332
DIRECTORS FEES & EXPENSES YTD
$7,050
$10,799
$7,650
FEES & EXPENSES BUDGET YTD
$14,680
$14,680
$14,680
GEN MGR EXPENSES YTD
GEN MGR TRAVEL CONF. BUDGET YTD
TOTAL FEES & EXPENSES YTD $7,050 $10,799 $7,650
TOTAL FEES & EXPENSES BUDGET YTD $14,680 $14,680 $14,680
MILLS
SUMMERFIELD
SUB -TOTAL VECCHIARELLI
TOTAL
23
25
110
$78,520
28
28
139
15
7
33
2
3
10
68
63
292
292
$10,200
$9,450
$43,800
$43,800
$12,348
$12,348
$61,740
$61,740
$2,718
$0
$4,067
$4,067
$2,332
$2,332
$11,660
$11,660
$12,918
$9,450
$47,867
$47,867
$14,680
$14,680
$73,400
$73,400
$466
$466
$5,120
$5,120
$12,918 $9,450 $47,867 $466
$48,333
$14,680 $14,680 $73,400 $5,120
$78,520
DIRECTORS RECAP OF TRAVEL /CONFERENCE EXPENSES
April - June 2009
GL Trip Trip
Trip
Reimbursable expenses paid by YLWD
Director date date name
location
Meals Lodging Travel Conf. fee Misc
Total trip
Total
Armstrong
$0
$0
$0
Beverage
$0
$0
$0
Collett
$0
$0
Mills # # # # # ## 05/09 ACWA -JPIA conference
Sacramento
$36 $271 $225 $292 $50
$874
$0
$874
Summerfield
$0
$0
$0
Total directors
$36 $271 $225 $292 $50
$874
$874
General Manaaer
Vecchiarelli 4/8/2009 05/09 OC Water Summit OCWD $95 $95
# # # # # ## 04/09 CA -NV AWWA conf Santa Clara, CA $8 $148 $12 $168
# # # # # ## 04/09 Misc travel, parking Local $13 $13
$0 $276
Total GM $8 $0 $161 $95 $12 $276 $276
Total directors & GM $44 $271 $386 $387 $62 $1,150 $1,150
Assistant General Manager