Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-10-13 - Executive-Administrative-Organizational Committee Meeting Agenda PacketYorba Linda Hater District AGENDA YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT EXEC-ADM IN -ORGAN IZATIO NAL COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, October 13, 2014, 4:00 PM 1717 E Miraloma Ave, Placentia CA 92870 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL COMMITTEE STAFF Director Robert R. Kiley, Chair Marc Marcantonio, General Manager Director Ric Collett Damon Micalizzi, Public Information Manager 3. 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. 4. DISCUSSION ITEMS This portion of the agenda is for matters such as technical presentations, drafts of proposed policies, or similar items for which staff is seeking the advice and counsel of the Committee members. This portion of the agenda may also include items for information only. 4.1. Status of Legislative Affairs 5. ACTION CALENDAR This portion of the agenda is for items where staff presentations and committee discussions are needed prior to formal committee action. 5.1. Resolution in Support of Proposition 1 Recommendation. That the Committee recommend the Board of Directors approve Resolution No. 14 XX In Support of Proposition 1, the Water Quality Act, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014. 5.2. Amendments to the District's Conflict of Interest Code Recommendation: That the Committee recommend the Board of Directors approve Resolution No Water District. 14 XX Adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Yorba Linda 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS CONTINUED 6.1. Potential Options for Augmentation of Conservation Rebates (Verbal Report) 6.2. Future Agenda Items and Staff Tasks 7. ADJOURNMENT 7.1. The next Executive - Administrative - Organizational Committee meeting is scheduled to be held Monday, November 10, 2014 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. AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: October 13, 2014 Subject: Status of Legislative Affairs ATTACHMENTS: Description: YLWD 2014 Legislative Recap.docx Backup Material ITEM NO. 4.1 Type: Backup Material T-E)-W NSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS EST TPA 1998 MEMO To: Yorba Linda Water District From: Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. Date: October 6, 2014 Subject: 2014 State Legislative Session Recap State Political Recap August marked the end of the 2013 -2014 legislative session. The end of September was the deadline for the Governor to sign or veto legislation. On July 21, well ahead of the end of the year deadlines, Governor Brown signed SB 946, which the legislature passed earlier transferring the seat on the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Board of Directors from the City of Yorba Linda (CYL) to the Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD). With the worsening drought conditions throughout the state and rising public awareness, water has been a central issue of debate and discussion in Sacramento throughout the year. In mid - August, the legislature passed AB 1471 (Rendon), the water bond bill, putting a $7.545 billion bond on the November ballot for voter approval. Later in the month the legislature passed a groundwater management package, a significant achievement, as this was the first legislation of its kind in California's history. Each of these items is outlined in greater detail below. SB 946 (Huff) In 2010 the YLWD agreed to take responsibility of lateral sewage lines from the City of Yorba Linda (CYL). At that time, an agreement was also made to transition the seat the CYL held on the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Board of Directors to a representative from the YLWD. Legislation was required to facilitate this transition and amend the Orange County Sanitation District Act. TPA approached Senator Huff's office to be the author of a bill that would amend the Orange county Sanitation District Governing Act, in order to codify the transfer of the OCSD Board Seat from the Yorba Linda City Council to the YLWD. After TPA drafted the language of the bill, SB 946 was introduced by Senator Huff on February 5. The bill went before the Senate Governance and Finance Committee on April 9, its first committee hearing. Prior to this hearing, TPA meet with members of the Committee, and the Committee Consultant to help educate them on this issue, and its practical impact. At that hearing, Yorba Linda Water District Board President Kiley testified in support of the bill, as well as OCSD Board Chairman Edgar and General Manager Herberg, based on the testimony preparation developed by TPA. TPA later testified on behalf of SB 946 before the Assembly Committee on Local Government, on June 4. The bill passed the committee unanimously. Moving forward, on June 19, SB 946 went before the Assembly where it passed 78 -0. On July 9, the bill was enrolled and presented to Governor Brown for his consideration, and on July 21 well ahead of the legislative deadlines, the Governor signed SB 946 with the full support of both the Assembly and Senate. Southern California Office • 1401 Dove Street • Suite 330 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • Phone (949) 399 -9050 • Fax (949) 476 -8215 State Capitol Office • 925 L Street • Suite 1404 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • Phone (916) 447 -4086 • Fax (916) 444 -0383 Federal Office • 600 Pennsylvania SE • Suite 207 • Washington, DC 20003 • Phone (202) 546 -8696 • Fax (202) 546 -4555 Northern California Office • 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza • Suite 204 • Oakland, CA 94612 • Phone (510) 835 -9050 • Fax (510) 835 -9030 Throughout this process TPA worked closely with Senator Huff's staff, providing outreach materials, legislative summaries, press releases, and draft letters of support. Efforts to ensure legislators were fully informed on SB 946 helped the bill pass unopposed in both houses. Further, local support was secured by TPA from the Orange County Business Council, and the Association of Orange County Cities. Water Bond California has been considering a water bond in some form since 2009, when the legislature passed an $11.1 billion bond measure to appear on the 2010 ballot. That measure was delayed twice at the urging of Governor Schwarzenegger and later in 2012 by Governor Brown. After prolonged negotiation, and the consideration of multiple legislative alternatives, AB 1471 (Rendon) passed the legislature with bi- partisan support, on August 13, 2014, right before the deadline to appear on the November ballot. The bond measure authorizes the sale of $7.1 billion in new bond funds, and reallocates $425 million from other authorized bonds for a total of $7.545 billion. AB 1471 replaces the previous $11.1 billion dollar bond, which Governor Brown said was too much debt for the state to take on. Throughout negotiations over funding, TPA urged for legislators to consider maintaining adequate funds for water conservation, water use efficiency, water recycling, and storage the biggest markup. Funds are categorized in the following manner: • $2.7 billion for water storage projects • $1.495 billion for watershed protection • $900 million for groundwater • $810 million for regional water security, including stormwater and IRWM funding • $725 million for water recycling • $520 million for safe drinking water • $395 million for flood management The water bond will appear on the November ballot as Proposition 1. A recent Field Poll has determined that 58 percent of likely voters will vote yes on Proposition 1, with about 29 percent of voters voting no, and 14 percent of voters undecided. This result demonstrates an increase in support for the water bond when compared to an independent poll conducted prior to the passage of AB 1471. When multiple bond measures were being considered by the legislature, and before the Governor had lent his support to any particular bill, there was a growing awareness of the state's drought conditions, and general support among voters for a water bond in some form. That support, however, was highly contingent on the Governor's backing of any legislation. Today, with the Governor's support, the majority of voters statewide favor the bond, with the highest levels of support coming from the San Francisco Bay Area at 64 percent and the Inland Empire at 62 percent. The Central Valley has a 55 percent favorable rating and Orange /San Diego County has a 51 percent favorable rating. A Field Poll has indicated that support for the Yorba Linda Water District Monthly Report, October 2 bond is split down party lines with Democrats overwhelmingly in support of the measure at 66 percent, with Republicans only at 35 percent. Support for the bond is only likely to grow, as Governor Brown announced on September 26 his statewide campaign to support the bond, and his rainy day fund. Governor Brown's pitch is quick, "Save water, save money, save California: 1 and 2 for you." The Governor is also continuing to solicit the bi- partisan support that ensured bond's passage through the legislative process, by joining a conference call with the head of the California Chamber of Commerce, a conservative group. Further, water bonds in California have an incredibly high rate of success with voters since 1960. Of the 13 bonds that have gone to voters since 1960, only the water bond of 1982 failed to be passed. Since 2000, 5 bonds have passed with voter approval in from the mid 50s to the mid 60 percentile. Groundwater Legislation California had long been the only western state without legislation helping to govern groundwater resources and management. After the passage of the water bond in mid - August, the legislature turned their focus to proposed groundwater legislation. Groundwater is an essential resource in California, providing 30 -40 percent of water in normal years, and up to 60 percent of water in drought years. With consistent overdraft of these resources a continuing problem, especially in the current drought, some cities with shallow aquifers have gone completely dry, and been forced to meet water demands with imported water, at a significantly higher price. In other areas of the Central Valley, overdraft has been so significant that the ground above the aquifer has sunk up to 30 feet over the last 10 years. This problem has been unresolved until now, because of the Valley's need for water supplies given the vital role the region plays in fruit and vegetable production throughout the US. Ultimately, three groundwater bills were passed by the Legislature: AB 1739 (Dickinson), SB 1168 (Pavley) and SB 1319 (Pavley), and subsequently signed by the Governor. These bills were hailed as landmark and groundbreaking for the water community. It is important to note that groundwater basin management in Orange County is already in compliance with the requirements of the groundwater legislation and played a key role in the drafting of this legislation to ensure that the Orange County groundwater basin would be protected. Corresponding portions of each bill relate to portions of the entire groundwater package. SB 1168 (Pavley) requires the Department of Water Resources to categorize water basins on a high, medium, low, or very low priority scale, as well as instructs local agencies to create groundwater management plans. SB 1319 (Pavley) would authorize the state board to designate certain high and medium priority basins as probationary basins if criteria are not met by January 31, 2025. AB 1739 (Dickinson) established the guidelines for potential state intervention if local agencies fail to sufficiently execute their jobs. If state intervention takes place, SB 1319 (Pavley) removes authority from the local agency to implement parts of its plan, and requires the state board to use an interim plan it finds complies with the sustainability goals. SB 1319 (Pavley) was contingent on the enactment of both SB 1168 (Pavley) and AB 1739 Yorba Linda Water District Monthly Report, October 3 (Dickinson). Additionally, the legislation includes making OCWD the presumed exclusive Groundwater Sustainability Agency within their statutory boundaries. The opponents of the bill were primarily agriculture interests from the Central Valley. Republican legislators also expressed opposition to the bill along ideological lines, such as expansion of state oversight, passing increased costs along to customers, as well as their support of agricultural interests. The groundwater legislation package will go into effect January 1, 2015. Water agencies will have until 2020 or 2022, depending on category of basin and severity of its condition, to establish sustainability plans for groundwater resources. The plans will target a 2040 deadline to achieve sustainable practices for basin pumping. Currently, 127 basins are at high and medium priority levels. However, those basins represent the bulk, 96 percent, of the State's groundwater extraction. Orange County Water District currently meets the standards and requirements laid out in the legislation. The Governor stated during the signing ceremony for this legislation that groundwater has been a topic of debate in California for over a decade. Moving into the next legislative session, Governor Brown further noted he will put forward legislation that will assist the court system in the determination of water right litigation. Yorba Linda Water District Monthly Report, October 4 AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: October 13, 2014 To: Executive-Administrative- Organizational Committee From: Marc Marcantonio, General Manager Presented By: Marc Marcantonio, General Manager Prepared By: Damon Micalizzi, Public Information Manager Dept: ITEM NO. 5.1 Board of Directors Reviewed by Legal: Pending Subject: Resolution in Support of Proposition 1 i SUMMARY: With the state in the midst of a water crisis, California voters will consider a $7.5 billion water bond this November. After 5 years of retooling in the Legislature, the bond will appear on the ballot as Proposition 1. This bond, if approved, contains $7.1 billion of new debt and $425 million of repurposed bond funds previously approved by voters. If approved, Proposition 1 will provide funding for new much needed water storage projects, watershed protection, sustainable groundwater management and cleanup, water recycling — including desalination projects, water conservation and water use efficiency projects, statewide flood management, and safe drinking water. While Prop 1 won't help with this drought, nor will it guarantee against water rationing during future droughts, the projects it would fund would provide a greater cushion when we find ourselves dealing with prolonged water shortages in the future. Below are some of the designated funding areas in the current water bond, as well as potential areas of impact beneficial to Orange County as prescribed by MWDOC, whose Board of Directors Approved Supporting Proposition 1 at their August 20, 2014 Board Meeting: . Funding for IRWM program section provides: . $63 million for Santa Ana sub - region . $52.5 million for San Diego sub - region South Orange County is included in the San Diego sub - region . $725 million Water Recycling Desalination is an eligible project . $810 million Regional Water Reliability . $100 million in water conservation will be directed to DWR for competitive grant purposes . $200 for storm water management . $100.5 million to State Coastal Conservancy . Santa Ana Watershed is eligible for funding from this source STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee recommend the Board of Directors approve Resolution No. 14 -XX In Support of Proposition 1, the Water Quality Act, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014. DISCUSSION: In January, Senator Wolk introduced SB 848 (Wolk) as her new water bond vehicle. The bill was introduced as a verbatim version of the September 11, 2013 version of SB 42, a $6.72 billion water bond (later amended to $7.5 billion) to replace the $11.2 billion water bond on the November 2014 ballot that has been carried over since 2010. AB 1331 (Rendon), an $8.2 billion proposal was introduced as the Assembly version of the water bond. As the session continued, both Assemblymembers Perea and Bigelow introduced their own $8+ billion proposals. In late July, Governor Brown weighed in on the issue with his own $6 billion proposal indicating he wanted a "no frills, no pork" water bond that invests in the most critical projects. As negotiations continued into August, Senate Republicans also introduced a working proposal, SB 1013 (Vidak) . Finally on August 13, 2014, with the deadline looming — a compromise was struck. AB 1471 (Rendon, Atkins & Gomez) and SB 866 (Steinberg & Wolk) were identical bills going through the Senate and Assembly, with AB 1471 being signed by Governor Jerry Brown late in the evening on August 13, 2014. Both bills were approved unanimously by the Senate, and by a vote of 77 - 2 in the Assembly with Assemblymembers Chesbro and Donnelly voting no. This measure will be Proposition 1 — the Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 going to the voters in November. ATTACHMENTS: Proposition 1.pdf Description: Backup Material Type: Backup Material Resolution No. 14 -XX - Water Bond.doc Resolution Resolution Proposition 1 HOME POLICY AREAS PUBLICATIONS THE 2014 -15 BUDGET PROPOSITIONS AND INITIATIVES STAFF CAREERS November 4, 2014 ABOUT THE LAO Proposition 1 Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014. AB 1471 (Chapter 188, Statutes of 2014), Rendon. Bond Measure. Yes /No Statement A YES vote on this measure means: The state could sell $7.1 billion in additional general obligation bonds —as well as redirect $425 million in unsold general obligation bonds that were previously approved by voters for resource - related uses —to fund various water - related programs. A NO vote on this measure means: The state could not sell $7.1 billion in additional general obligation bonds to fund various water - related programs. In addition, $425 million in unsold general obligation bonds would continue to be available for resource - related uses as previously approved by voters. Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact ■ Increased state bond repayment costs averaging $360 million annually over the next 40 years. ■ Savings to local governments related to water projects, likely averaging a couple hundred million dollars annually over the next few decades. State Bond Cost Estimates Authorized new borrowing Average annual cost to pay off bonds Likely repayment period Source of repayment Ballot Label $7.1 billion $360 million 40 years General tax revenues Fiscal Impact: Increased state bond costs averaging $360 million annually over 40 years. Local http: / /www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/ 2014 /prop -1- 110414.aspx[10/6/2014 8:50:31 AM] Proposition 1 government savings for water - related projects, likely averaging a couple hundred million dollars annually over the next few decades. Background Sources of Water in California. A majority of the state's water comes from rivers, much of it from Northern California and from snow in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Water available underground (referred to as "groundwater") makes up roughly a third of the state's water use and is more heavily relied on in dry years. A small share of the state's water also comes from other sources, such as capturing rainwater, reusing wastewater (water recycling), and removing the salt from ocean water (desalination). Meeting the State's Water Needs. Providing clean water throughout California while protecting the environment presents several key challenges. First, water is not always available where it is needed. For example, water from Northern California is delivered to other parts of the state, such as farmland in the Central Valley and population centers in the San Francisco Bay Area and Southern California. Second, the amount of water available can change widely from year to year. So, when less water is available in dry years, it can be difficult to provide all of the water that people want throughout the state. This can include providing enough water to maintain natural habitats —such as wetlands —for endangered species as is required under state and federal laws. However, in very wet years the state can sometimes experience floods, particularly in the Central Valley. Third, water is sometimes polluted, making it unsuitable for drinking, irrigating crops, or fish habitat. Fourth, parts of the state's water system have affected natural habitats. For example, providing more water for drinking and irrigation has reduced the water available for fish. In order to address these challenges, California has built various projects. Some projects use natural rivers — as well as pipelines, pumping stations, and canals —to deliver water used for drinking or farming throughout the state. These projects also include dams and other types of water storage to hold water for when it is needed. Other projects to meet the state's water challenges include water treatment plants to remove pollutants from drinking water and wastewater, systems to clean up runoff from storms, and levees to prevent floods. Environment and Water System Are Linked. The state's water system and the environment are linked in several ways. As noted above, the use of water for irrigation and drinking water affects natural habitats used by fish and wildlife. These effects on natural habitats are made worse by pollution, which harms water quality for fish, wildlife, and people. The state has taken a variety of actions to improve natural habitats and water quality. These include restoring watersheds (an area of land that drains into a body of water) by reintroducing native plants and animals. The state has also provided water to rivers when needed by fish species. Roles of Various Governments in Water System. The state, federal, and local governments play important roles in providing clean and reliable water supplies. Most spending on water programs in the state is done at the local level, such as by water districts, cities, and counties. In recent years, local governments have spent about $26 billion per year to supply water and to treat wastewater. About 80 percent of this spending is paid for by individuals as ratepayers of water and sewer bills. In addition, local governments pay for projects using other sources, including state funds, federal funds, and local taxes. While most people get their water from these public water agencies, about one -sixth of Californians get their water from private water companies. The state runs programs to (1) conserve, store, and transport water around the state; (2) protect water quality; (3) provide flood control; and (4) protect fish and wildlife habitat. The state provides support for these programs through direct spending, as well as grants and loans to local governments, nonprofit organizations, and privately owned water companies. (The federal government runs similar programs.) Funding for these state programs usually comes from bonds and fees. Since 2000, voters have approved about $20 billion in bonds for various environmental purposes, including water. Currently, about $900 million (5 percent) of these bonds remain available for new projects. Proposal This measure provides a total of $7.5 billion in general obligation bonds for various water - related programs. First, the measure allows the state to sell $7.1 billion in additional bonds. Second, the measure redirects http: / /www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/ 2014 /prop -1- 110414.aspx[10/6/2014 8:50:31 AM] Proposition 1 $425 million in unsold bonds that voters previously approved for water and other environmental uses. The state repays these bonds, with interest, using the state's General Fund. (The General Fund is the state's main operating account, which pays for education, prisons, health care, and other services.) Uses of Funds As shown in Figure 1 and described below, the bond measure provides funding to (1) increase water supplies, (2) protect and restore watersheds, (3) improve water quality, and (4) increase flood protection. The bond money would be available to state agencies for various projects and programs, as well as for loans and grants to local governments, private water companies, mutual water companies (where water users own the company), Indian tribes, and nonprofit organizations. Figure 1 Uses of Proposition 1 Bond Funds (In Millions) Water Supply $4,235 • Dams and groundwater storage —cost share associated with public $2,700 benefits. • Regional projects to achieve multiple water - related improvements (includes 810 conservation and capturing rainwater). • Water recycling, including desalination. 725 Watershed Protection and Restoration $1,495 • Watershed restoration and habitat protection in designated areas around $515 the state. • Certain state commitments for environmental restorations. 475 • Restoration programs available to applicants statewide. 305 • Projects to increase water flowing in rivers and streams. 200 Improvements to Groundwater and Surface Water Quality $1,420 • Prevention and cleanup of groundwater pollution. $800 • Drinking water projects for disadvantaged communities. 260 • Wastewater treatment in small communities. 260 • Local plans and projects to manage groundwater. 100 Flood Protection $395 • Repairs and improvements to levees in the Delta. $295 • Flood protection around the state. Total 100 $7,545 Funds for Water Supplies ($4.2 Billion). About $4.2 billion would fund projects intended to improve water supplies, in order to make more water available for use. Specifically, the bond includes: $2.7 Billion for New Water Storage. The bond includes $2.7 billion to pay up to half of the cost of new water storage projects, including dams and projects that replenish groundwater. This funding could only be used to cover costs related to the "public benefits" associated with water storage projects, including restoring habitats, improving water quality, reducing damage from floods, responding to emergencies, and improving recreation. Local governments and other entities that rely on the water storage project would be responsible for paying the remaining project costs. These costs would generally be associated with private benefits (such as water provided to their customers). $810 Million for Regional Water Projects. The bond also provides $810 million for regional projects that are included in specific plans developed by local communities. These projects are intended to improve water supplies, as well as provide other benefits, such as habitat for fish and flood protection. The amount provided includes $510 million for allocations to specific regions throughout the state and $300 million for specific types of water supplies, including projects and plans to manage runoff from storms in urban areas and water conservation projects and programs. ■ $725 Million for Water Recycling. The bond includes $725 million for projects that treat wastewater http: / /www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/ 2014 /prop -1- 110414.aspx[10/6/2014 8:50:31 AM] Proposition 1 or saltwater so that it can be used later. For example, the funds could be used to test new treatment technology, build a desalination plant, and build pipes to deliver recycled water. Funds to Protect and Restore Watersheds ($1.5 Billion). These monies would fund projects intended to protect and restore watersheds and other habitat throughout the state. This funding could be used to restore bodies of water that support native, threatened, or endangered species of fish and wildlife; purchase land for conservation purposes; reduce the risk of wildfires in watersheds; and purchase water to support wildlife. These funds include $515 million to restore watersheds in designated regions around the state (including $140 million specifically for projects in the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta [Delta]) and $475 million to pay for certain state commitments to fund environmental restorations. The remaining funding would be available to applicants statewide for programs that restore habitat and watersheds ($305 million) and increase the amount of water flowing in rivers and streams, for example by buying water ($200 million). Funds to Improve Groundwater and Surface Water Quality ($1.4 Billion). The bond includes over $1.4 billion to improve groundwater and surface water quality. More than half of this funding ($800 million) would be used for projects to clean up and prevent polluted groundwater that is, or has been, a source of drinking water. The remaining funds would be available to (1) improve access to clean drinking water ($260 million), (2) help small communities pay for wastewater treatment ($260 million), and (3) provide grants to local governments to develop and implement plans to manage their groundwater supply and quality ($100 million). Funds for Flood Protection ($395 Million). The bond provides $395 million for projects that both protect the state from floods and improve fish and wildlife habitat. While $100 million of this funding could be spent on flood control projects anywhere in the state, $295 million is set aside to improve levees or respond to flood emergencies in the Delta. Requirements for Allocating and Spending Funds How Projects Would Be Selected. The measure includes several provisions that would affect how specific projects are chosen to receive bond funds. The California Water Commission —an existing state planning and regulatory agency —would choose which water storage projects would be funded with the $2.7 billion provided in the bond for that use. The Commission would not have to go through the state budget process to spend these funds. For all other funding provided in the measure, the Legislature generally would allocate money annually to state agencies in the state budget process. While the Legislature could provide state agencies with some direction on what types of projects or programs could be chosen, the measure states that the Legislature cannot allocate funding to specific projects. Instead, state agencies would choose the projects. In addition, none of the funding in the measure can be used to build a canal or tunnel to move water around the Delta. Requirements for Matching Funds. Of the $7.5 billion in funds made available by the measure, $5.7 billion is available only if recipients — mostly local governments — provide funding to support the projects. This matching requirement only applies to the water supply and water quality projects funded by the measure. The required share of matching funds is generally at least 50 percent of the total cost of the project, although this can be waived or reduced in some cases. Fiscal Effects Fiscal Effects on State Government. This measure would allow the state to borrow up to $7.1 billion by selling additional general obligation bonds to investors, who would be repaid with interest using the state's general tax revenues. We assume that (1) the interest rate for the bonds would average just over 5 percent, (2) they would be sold over the next ten years, and (3) they would be repaid over a 30 -year period. Based on these assumptions, the cost to taxpayers to repay the bonds would average about $360 million annually over the next 40 years. This amount is about one -third of a percent of the state's current General Fund budget. We assume that redirecting $425 million in unsold bonds from previously approved measures would not increase the state's anticipated debt payments. This is because, without this measure, these bonds likely would have been sold in the future to support other projects. (For more information on the state's use of bonds and the impact of this proposed bond measure on the state's budget, see "Overview of State Bond Debt" later in this guide.) Fiscal Effects on Local Governments. The availability of state bond funds for local water projects would http: / /www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/ 2014 /prop -1- 110414.aspx[10/6/2014 8:50:31 AM] Proposition 1 affect how much local governments, primarily water agencies, spend on water projects. In many cases, the availability of state bonds could reduce local spending. For example, this would occur in cases where state bond funds replaced monies that local governments would have spent on projects anyway. Local savings would also occur in cases where the availability of state bond funds allowed local governments to build projects that reduced operating costs, such as by increasing efficiency or using a new water source that allows them to purchase less water. However, in some cases, state bond funds could increase spending on water projects by local governments. For example, the availability of bond funds might encourage some local governments to build additional or substantially larger projects than they would otherwise. These projects could also be more expensive to operate. On balance, we estimate that this measure would result in savings to local governments on water - related projects. These savings would likely average a couple hundred million dollars annually over the next few decades. An individual local government might use these savings in various ways. For example, it might use the savings to build other new facilities or for maintenance and repair of existing facilities. In other cases, a government might use the savings to keep water rates lower than they otherwise would be by delaying or reducing future rate increases. Since the amount of statewide savings in any given year is likely to be small relative to the overall amount spent by local governments on water, any effect on rates would likely be small for most ratepayers. Return to Propositions Return to Legislative Analyst's Office Home Page http: / /www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/ 2014 /prop- 1- 110414.aspx[ 10/6/2014 8:50:31 AM] RESOLUTION NO. 14 -XX RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION 1, THE WATER QUALITY, SUPPLY AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2014 WHEREAS, California is in a severe, multi -year drought and faces a growing list of challenges associated with aging infrastructure, climate change, population growth and other factors; and WHEREAS, water managers and top leaders including Governor Jerry Brown agree that we need a comprehensive, statewide water plan to create a more resilient water system to meet the co -equal goals of improved water supply reliability and ecosystem health; and WHEREAS, the Legislature has approved and Governor Brown has signed the Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Act of 2014, which will appear as Proposition 1 on the November 4, 2014 ballot and provide much needed funding to advance a statewide comprehensive water plan to enhance the state's water future; and WHEREAS, if approved by voters, the measure would provide $7.545 billion in bond funding for new surface and groundwater storage projects, regional water reliability, sustainable groundwater management and cleanup, water recycling, water conservation, watershed protection and safe drinking water, particularly for disadvantaged communities, and other programs the Association of California Water Agencies and its members have long advocated as part of a statewide comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, ACWA's Board of Directors voted unanimously to formally support Proposition 1 in a special meeting on August 19, 2014. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of Yorba Linda Water District does hereby formally support Proposition 1, the Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 on the November 2014 ballot. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21St day of October 2014, by the following called vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Robert R. Kiley, President Yorba Linda Water District Resolution No. 14 -XX Supporting Proposition 1 ATTEST: Marc Marcantonio, Board Secretary Yorba Linda Water District Reviewed as to form by General Counsel: Arthur G. Kidman, Esq. Kidman Law LLP Resolution No. 14 -XX Supporting Proposition 1 Meeting Date: To: From: Prepared By: Subject: AGENDA REPORT October 13, 2014 Board of Directors Marc Marcantonio, General Manager Dept: Annie Alexander, Executive Secretary Amendments to the District's Conflict of Interest Code STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ITEM NO. 5.2 Administration That the Committee recommend the Board of Directors approve Resolution No. 14 -XX Adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Yorba Linda Water District. DISCUSSION: The Political Reform Act requires every local government agency to review its Conflict of Interest Code on a biennial basis. Staff recently reviewed the District's code and has identified the following minor revisions: • The position of Senior Fleet Mechanic was added. • The position of Public Information Officer was reclassified to Public Information Manager. The attached exhibits reflect these modifications. Amendments must be submitted in the County's eDisclosure System by December 30, 2014. No revisions are required for the Public Financing Corporation's Conflict of Interest Code at this time. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S): The District's Conflict of Interest Code was last amended on February 27, 2014 by Resolution No. 14 -02. ATTACHMENTS: Name: Resolution No. 14- XX.doc Description: Resolution Type: Resolution Exhibits.pdf Exhibits Exhibit RESOLUTION NO. 14 -XX RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT ADOPTING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE WHICH SUPERSEDES ALL PRIOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODES AND AMENDMENTS PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act of 1974, Government Code Section 81000 et. seq. ( "the Act "), requires a local government agency to adopt a Conflict of Interest Code pursuant to the Act; and WHEREAS, the Yorba Linda Water District has previously adopted a Conflict of Interest Code and that Code now requires updating; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Act have in the past and foreseeably will in the future require conforming amendments to be made to the Conflict of Interest Code; and WHEREAS, the Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation, Title 2, California Code of Regulations, Section 18730, which contains terms for a standard model Conflict of Interest Code, which, together with amendments thereto, may be adopted by public agencies and incorporated by reference to save public agencies time and money by minimizing the actions required of such agencies to keep their codes in conformity with the Political Reform Act. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Yorba Linda Water District as follows: Section 1. The terms of Title 2, California Code of Regulations, Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated by reference and, together with Exhibits A and B in which positions are designated and disclosure categories are set forth, constitute the Conflict of Interest Code of the Yorba Linda Water District. Section 2. The provisions of all Conflict of Interest Codes and Amendments thereto previously adopted by the Yorba Linda Water District are hereby superseded. Section 3. The Filing Officer is hereby authorized to submit the updated Conflict of Interest Code to the Clerk of the Orange County Board of Supervisors for review and approval by the Orange County Board of Supervisors as required by California Government Code Section 87303. Resolution No. 14- XXAdopting a Conflict of Interest Code PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21 st day of October 2014, by the following called vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Robert R. Kiley, President Yorba Linda Water District ATTEST: Marc Marcantonio, Board Secretary Yorba Linda Water District Reviewed as to form by General Counsel: Arthur G. Kidman, Esq. Kidman Law LLP Resolution No. 14- XXAdopting a Conflict of Interest Code • Conflict of Interest Code EXHIBIT A (Final Draft) Entity: Water Districts Agency: Yorba Linda Water District Position Disclosure Category Files With Status Associate Engineer OC -05 COB Unchanged Attorney OC -01 COB Unchanged Construction Project Supervisor OC -05 COB Unchanged Consultant OC -30 Agency Unchanged Customer Service Supervisor OC -05 COB Unchanged Engineering Manager OC -41 COB Unchanged Human Resources and Risk Manager OC -41 COB Unchanged Information Systems Administrator OC -05 COB Unchanged Information Technology Manager OC -41 COB Unchanged Management Analyst OC -05 COB Unchanged Operations Manager OC -41 COB Unchanged Operations/Warehouse Assistant OC -05 COB Unchanged Public Information Manager OC -41 COB Added Reason: The position of Public Information Officer was reclassified as Public Information Manager. Public Information Officer OC -05 COB Deleted Reason: The position of Public Information Officer was reclassified as Public Information Manager. SCADA Administrator OC -05 COB Unchanged Senior Accountant OC -05 COB Unchanged Senior Fleet Mechanic OC -05 COB Added Reason: The duties assigned to this position have been determined to include making and /or participating in the making of governmental decisions. Senior Project Manager OC -05 COB Unchanged Water Maintenance Superintendent OC -05 COB Unchanged Water Production Superintendent OC -05 COB Unchanged Water Quality Engineer OC -05 COB Unchanged Total: 21 OFFICIALS WHO ARE SPECIFIED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 87200 Officials who are specified in Government Code section 87200 (including officials who manage public investments, as defined by 2 Cal. Code of Regs. § 18701 (b)), are NOT subject to the Agency's Conflict of Interest Code, but are subject to the disclosure requirements of the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 87100, et seq. Gov't Code § 87203. These positions are listed here for informational purposes only. The positions listed below are officials who are specified in Government Code section 87200: Run date /time: Monday, September 29 2014 11:40:06 AM Page 1 of 2 a • Conflict of Interest Code EXHIBIT A (Final Draft) Entity: Water Districts Agency: Yorba Linda Water District Finance Manager (Treasurer) Files with COB Unchanged General Manager (Secretary) Files with COB Unchanged Member of the Board of Directors Files with COB Unchanged The disclosure requirements for these positions are set forth in Government Code section 87200, et. seq. They require the disclosure of interests in real property in the agency's jurisdiction, as well as investments, business positions and sources of income (including gifts, loans and travel payments). Run date /time: Monday, September 29 2014 11:40:06 AM Page 2 of 2 ��s issQ2ozgT �RL P Il1�C �f Disclosure Descriptions EXHIBIT B (Final Draft) Entity: Water Districts Agency: Yorba Linda Water District Disclosure Category Disclosure Description Status All interests in real property in Orange County, the authority or the District OC -01 as applicable, as well as investments, business positions and sources of Unchanged income (including gifts, loans and travel payments). All investments in, business positions with and income (including gifts, loans and travel payments) from sources that provide services, supplies, OC -05 materials, machinery, equipment (including training and consulting Unchanged services) used by the County Department, Authority or District, as applicable. Consultants shall be included in the list of designated employees and shall disclose pursuant to the broadest category in the code subject to the following limitation: The County Department Head/Director /General Manager /Superintendent /etc. may determine that a particular consultant, although a "designated position," is hired to perform a range of duties that OC -30 is limited in scope and thus is not required to fully comply with the Unchanged disclosure requirements in this section. Such written determination shall include a description of the consultant's duties and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure required. The determination of disclosure is a public record and shall be filed with the Form 700 and retained by the Filing Officer for public inspection. All interests in real property in Orange County, the District or Authority, as applicable, as well as investments in, business positions with and income OC -41 (including gifts, loans and travel payments) from sources that provide Unchanged services, supplies, materials, machinery, vehicles, or equipment (including training and consulting services) used by the County Department, Authority or District, as applicable. Total: 4 Run date /time: Monday, September 29 2014 11:40:06 AM Page 1 of 1