HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-05-28 - Executive-Administrative-Organizational Committee Meeting Agenda PacketNL
W
•
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
EXECUTIVE-ADMINISTRATIVE-ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITTEE MEETING
Wednesday, May 28, 2008, 3:30 p.m.
1717 E. Miraloma Avenue, Placentia, CA 92870 - Tel: (714) 701-3020
AGENDA
•
COMMITTEE:
Director John Summerfield, Chair
Director William R. Mills
Alternate: Director Ric Collett
STAFF:
Michael A. Payne, General Manager
Ken Vecchiarelli, Asst. General Manager
Gina Knight, Human Resources Manager
INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS AND PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Any individual wishing to address the committee is requested to identify themselves and state the matter
on which they wish to comment. If the matter is on this agenda, the committee Chair will recognize the
individual for their comment when the item is considered. No action will be taken on matters not listed on
this agenda. Comments are limited to matters of public interest and matters within the jurisdiction of the
Water District. Comments are limited to five minutes.
ACTION ITEMS:
This portion of the agenda is for items where staff presentations and committee discussions are needed
prior to formal committee actions.
Election Information for the November 4, 2008 General Election.
Recommendation: That the Committee recommend the following: That the
Board of Director be elected at large, the Candidates statements not exceed
200 words and the District will not pay for the candidates statements.
•
2. Nominations of Special District Representatives for Orange County LAFCO.
Recommendation: That the Committee review the list of candidates and
provide a recommendation to the Board of Directors.
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. District Ethic's Policy
4. Consider Request by YMCA to Use District's Reservoir Surfaces for Recreational
Purposes.
5. Directors and General Managers Quarter-to-Date Report of Fees and Expenses
and Year-to-Date Report.
6. OC Grand Jury Report - Orange County's Potential Water Crisis
0 7. Disposition of Plumosa Property Update
8. Consider Survey of District Customers
9. Report on Legislative Activities - Sacramento Advocates
10. Report on Grant Activities -Townsend Public Affairs
ADJOURNMENT:
The next Executive-Administrative-Organizational Committee is scheduled for June 17,
2008, 4:00 p.m.
Accommodations for the Disabled:
Any person may make a request for a disability-related modification or accommodation needed for that
person to be able to participate in the public meeting by telephoning Michael A. Payne, District 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.
•
is
-2-
ITEM NO.
AGENDA REPORT
Committee Meeting Date: May 28, 2008
To: Executive-Administrative-Organizational Committee
From: Michael A. Payne, General Manager
Staff Contact: Cindy Mejia, Management Analyst
Reviewed by General Counsel: No Budgeted: Yes Total Budget: $ 43,600
Funding Source: Water Operating Fund
CEQA Account No: 111650 Job No:
Compliance: N/A Estimated Costs: $ 40,000 Dept: Admin
Subject: Election Information for November 4, 2008, General Election
SUMMARY:
On November 4, 2008, the Board of Directors seats currently held by Directors Collett and
Beverage are up for election. The Election Code requires the District to provide certain
information to the Registrar of Voters by June 9, 2008. A copy of the Registrar of Voters
transmittal letter and form is attached.
DISCUSSION:
The Registrar of Voters is requesting the District to complete the attached Transmittal of
Election form. Staff has completed most of the form. There are two areas of the form that
needs Board of Directors approval. The District must provide the following information:
1. The District authorizes the Candidates Statement of Qualifications to contain no more
than: 200 or 400 words
Historically, the maximum number of words authorized by the District has been 200 words. The
cost for a 200 word statement is approximately $2,000 and $4,000 for a 400 word statement.
2. The District (will) or (will not) pay for the Candidate's Statement of Qualification:
Historically, the District has not paid or reimbursed the candidates for the printing of the
Candidate's Statement of Qualifications.
The 2008/2009 adopted Budget included $43,600 to administer the District's portion of the 2008
General Election. The Budget did not include funding the candidate's Statement of Qualification.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S):
On May 25, 2006, the Board of Directors authorized staff to file the transmittal of Election
Information Form with the following information: that the Directors to be elected at large to fill the
terms of Directors Paul R. Armstrong, William R. Mills and John W. Summerfield; that the
candidates statement of qualifications not exceed a maximum of 200 words and the District
would not pay for the candidate's statement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Committee recommend to the Board of Directors to authorize the Secretary/General
Manager to file the Transmittal of Election Information form with the following information: a)
Two Directors to be elected at large for the terms currently filled by Michael J. Beverage and
Richard P. Collett; b) that the candidates statement of qualifications will be a maximum of 200
words; and c) the District will not pay for the candidate's statement.
NEAL KELLEY
Registrar of Voters
May 9, 2008
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
1300 South Grand Avenue, Bldg. C
Santa Ana, California 92705
(714) 567-7600
TDD (714) 567-7608
FAX (714) 567-7627
www.ocvote.com
TO: Manager/Director
FM: Kay Cotton, Candidate and Voter Services Manager It L'"
RE: Election Information for the November 4, 2008 General Election
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 11298
Santa Ana, California 92711
RECEIVED
MAY 1 y 2008
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
Enclosed is a Transmittal of Election Information form to be completed and returned to
the Registrar of Voters office by June 9, 2008.
On the Transmittal of Election form, please list the name(s) of Director(s) whose term(s)
expire and whose seat(s) will be scheduled for election on November 4, 2008. This would
include any Director(s) appointed since your last election. Appointed Directors must file
for the two-year unexpired term if they were appointed to fill a vacancy which would not
have been scheduled for election until 2010.
We also need to know if the District will or will not pay for a Candidate's Statement of
Qualifications and if the District is authorizing 200 or 400 words to be used in that
statement.
Pursuant to Elections Code § 10522, the District is required to submit a map showing the
current district boundary/division lines, regardless if changes have occurred.
Candidate Filing for the November 4, 2008 General Election will be July 14 through
August 8, 2008, 5:00 p.m. The Candidate Handbook will be completed the last week of
June.
If you have any questions, please call me at (714) 567-7606. Thanks for your assistance.
Enclosure
TRANSMITTAL OF ELECTION INFORMATION SPECIAL DISTRICT
(EC § 10509, § 10522)
XORBA LINDA WATER
To the Registrar of Voters of Orange County:
DISTRICT
Attached hereto is a map showing the boundaries of this District and the
boundaries of the Divisions of the District, if any, in which a Director is to be elected
at the November 4, 2008 General Election.
THE ELECTIVE OFFICES FOR WHICH AN ELECTION WILL BE HELD WITHIN
THE SPECIAL DISTRICT ON NOVEMBER 4, 2008 ARE:
Two Director(s) to be elected at-large
to be elected at-large
(other office)
Director(s) to be elected in the following Divisions:
One Director in Division
One Director in Division
One Director in Division
One Director in Division
One Assessor
Please list below the names of the incumbents/appointed incumbents for the above
positions:
Michael J. Beverage
Richard P. Collett
The District authorizes the Candidate's Statement of Qualifications to contain no
more than:
(Circle one) (200) or (400) words.
The District (will) (will not) pay for Candidate's Statement of Qualifications.
Dated
(District Seal)
Secretary of the
District
NOTE: Please return the above information and boundary map to the office of the
Registrar of Voters by June 9, 2008.
The secretary may personally deliver on or before the above date or may deliver by
certified mail if it will be received by the Registrar of Voters in the ordinary course of
the mail on or before the above date.
RBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
Sox 309
a Linda, California 92885-0309
T ,017 3
CO qF ]EN- A_
ITEM NO. 3
RESOLUTION NO. 06-10
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
SETTING FORTH THE POLICY OF REIMBURSEMENT
OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY DIRECTORS,
DIRECTOR ETHICS TRAINING
AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION 93-05
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Yorba Linda Water District have from time to
time reaffirmed the importance of active participation by the Directors in
conferences, conventions, symposiums and legislative meetings which
relate to the District's mission statement; and,
WHEREAS, the continuing population growth within the boundaries of the District, the
County of Orange, and the State of California, and the entire west as a
region, creates an enormous demand upon the existing scope of services
provided by the District and the essential, efficient implementation
thereof; and,
WHEREAS, in the coming years an increase in activity with regard to local and
regional planning for the scope of services provided by the District is
becoming more evident, and in meeting the responsibility of the Directors
for continual concern in these areas, the District's participation in such
activities must of necessity increase; and,
WHEREAS, the District's policies must be amended to meet the requirements of
California Assembly Bill 1234 (passed in 2005) and this Resolution No.
06-10 is intended to meet the requirements of AB 1234 and has been
adopted during a public meeting.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Yorba Linda
Water District as follows:
Section 1: Resolution No. 93-05 is hereby rescinded effective immediately upon
adoption of this Resolution.
Section 2: It is the policy of the Board that the Directors of the District are
encouraged to attend conferences, conventions, meetings, symposiums
and legislative session (herein referred to as an "Activity" or "Activities")
relating to the mission of the District. It is further believed by the Board of
Directors that it is important that full participation in these Activities in the
coming years be encouraged so that the best interests of the District will
at all time be served. Attendance at an occurrence not listed herein must
be pre-approved by the Board in order to be considered as an Activity for
the purposes of this policy.
Section 3: That the District, in furtherance of these important policies, will pay or
reimburse the following expenses incurred in attending such Activities:
(a) Compensation. The amount set forth for each day's attendance or
service as a Director per Ordinance No. 03-02 adopted by the
Board of Directors.
(b) Reimbursement. Directors shall be reimbursed for actual costs to
attend Activities, not to exceed:
Travel: $750.00 per round trip.
Lodging: $400 per night.
Meals: $50 per day.
Actual and necessary expenses: $50 per day.
1) Notwithstanding the preceding, when available, Directors must
use government or group rates for transportation and lodging.
In addition, when lodging to be reimbursed is for an organized
educational conference that would qualify for attendance
under the Brown Act, including ethics training, the
reimbursement cannot be more than the group rate published
by the conference assuming it is available at the time the
reservation is made. If the group rate is not available, the
reimbursement cannot be more than the amount set forth
above.
2) If an expense does not fall within the reimbursement rates
discussed above or in Section 3(b)(1), it must be approved by
the Board, in a public meeting, before it is incurred.
Section 4: In order to obtain reimbursement for the Activities in accordance with
Section 3, the following procedures must be followed:
(a) Directors shall submit all expense reimbursement requests on
forms provided by the District. The completed form must show
that the expenses for which reimbursement is requested meet the
requirements set forth in this Resolution.
(b) The form must be submitted within thirty (30) days of the Activity.
(c) With the exception of mileage reimbursement, any expense
shown on the form must have a corresponding, attached written
receipt.
(d) All forms and all receipts attached to them shall be public
documents subject to redaction of any confidential information,
such as credit card numbers.
Section 5: Directors shall provide a brief report about the Activity attended at the
expense of the District at the next regular Board meeting after attendance
at the Activity.
Section 6: A full accounting of expenditures of public funds shall be made and
become part of the records of the District.
Section 7: Ethics training. Each Director, except Directors whose term of office end
before January 1, 2007, must receive ethics training before January 1,
2007. Thereafter, ethics training must be received at least once every
two years. For any Director whose term of office begins after January 1,
2006, that Director must receive ethics training within one year from the
first day of service with the District. Thereafter, the Director will also be
required to receive ethics training at least once every two years. A
Director who serves on more than one local agency board may satisfy the
requirement under this section by obtaining ethics training once every two
years without regard to the number of local agencies with which he or she
serves. The District shall provide information annually on where training
is available. All Directors shall provide a copy of proof of participation in
the required ethics training to the District. Copies of proofs of
participation shall be public documents and shall be retained by the
District for five (5) years.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of October, 2006, by the following called vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
President, Paul R. Armstrong
Yorba Linda Water District
ATTEST:
Secretary, Michael A. Payne
Yorba Linda Water District
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
DATE OF COUNCIL MEETING: APRIL 15, 2008
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DAVID A. GRUCHOW, ACTING CITY MANAGER
BY: SONIA R. CARVALHO AND GROVER TRASK, CITY ATTORNEYS
SUBJECT: ETHICS POLICY OPTIONS
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council review several options regarding the City's
Ethics Policy and choose one of the following:
1. Affirm the existing Ethics Policy adopted by Resolution No. 495 in 1972;
2. Adopt the model policy adapted from the City of Santa Clara's policy which was
developed in conjunction with Santa Clara University's Markkula Center for
Applied Ethics (attached Resolution 2008-3909)-
3. Give further direction on developing a new "rule-based" or "value-based" Ethics
Policy; or
4. Give first reading to Ordinance 2008-918 regarding campaign contributions and
disqualifications.
BACKGROUND
In response to Councilmember Anderson's initial request, City Council directed that staff
develop Ethics Policy options for the City Council's consideration. In accordance with
the request, a report and policies were presented to the Council on May 15, 2007. At
the May meeting, the item was pulled and staff was directed to bring the matter back to
Council once a fifth Councilmember was elected. The item was presented to the
Council on July 17, 2007 and staff was directed to add provisions regarding campaign
restrictions and disqualification related to receiving campaign contributions.
In reviewing the matter, the City Clerk's office found that the City has an existing policy
that was adopted in 1972. A copy of the existing policy is attached to this report. To
provide further options, the City Attorney reviewed materials from the non-profit Institute
for Local Government and sample policies adopted by other California cities. This
report will explain the various options.
Mr. Grover Trask, former Riverside County District Attorney, has established a Public
Policy and Ethics Compliance practice at Best Best & Krieger. Because of his
O RAN GE\S C AR V ALHOO 7676.2
City Council Meeting of April 15, 2008
Ethics Policy Options
Page 2
experience in preparing ethics policies, he assisted in the preparation of this report and
at the City Council's request can provide further assistance if necessary.
ANALYSIS
In recent years, many public agencies have adopted Ethics Policies that apply to
elected and appointed officials and employees. This movement has been encouraged
by numerous professional organizations and the Institute for Local Government which is
a California, non-profit agency that promotes local government through education and
training.
While there are many good reasons to adopt an Ethics Policy, five primary reasons
stand out based on the research that has developed over the years. These include:
1. It assists public officials and staff in making sound decisions;
2. It encourages high standards of conduct;
3. It increases public confidence in city leadership;
4. It clarifies and links standards of integrity and values to daily operations; and
5. It is simply the right thing to do.
In terms of long-term impacts, an ethics policy helps to:
1. Build an organizational culture of integrity and high ethical standards from top to
bottom;
2. Uphold a standard of integrity and competence beyond the minimum statutory list of
legal "shall nots;"
3. Develop and maintain the city's institutional character beyond election cycles, staff
turnover and retirements.
Existing Ethics Policy
Yorba Linda was well ahead of this movement in that it adopted an Ethics Policy in 1972
and it compares favorably to many of the current model policies. That is why one
suggested option is to affirm the existing policy. A copy of the existing Policy is
attached for your consideration.
Model Policy
Considering the various benefits that an Ethics Policy affords a local agency, the City of
Santa Clara, in conjunction with the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at the Santa
Clara University, developed an ethics policy that has won awards and is promoted as a
model policy by both the California League of Cities and the National League of Cities.
The model policy is attached for the Council's consideration in the form of a resolution.
The model policy states an ethical value and then describes specific behaviors that
officials and employees should strive toward. Because State laws already cover such."
ORANGE\SCARV ALHO\37676.2
City Council Meeting of April 15, 2008
Ethics Policy Options
Page 3
"Value-Based and Rule-Base" Policies
In reviewing this subject, the City Attorney found that many cities and other public
agencies have adopted policies that vary based on the agencies' desire to have "rule-
based" or "value-based" policies. The "rule-based" policy emphasizes what not to do
and often this type of policy simply restates ethics-related laws or regulations adopted
by the Legislature or other government agencies, like the Fair Political Practices
Commission. A "value-based" policy emphasizes what officials and employees should
strive to do. This type of policy works together with existing laws by encouraging
behavior that goes beyond the requirements of the law. The City's existing Ethics
Policy is somewhat of a hybrid in that it is written to prohibit certain types of behaviors.
In other words it describes what not to do. At the same time, it also contains "do not's"
that go beyond the minimum laws. For example, Section 6 of the policy addresses
obligations to the City's citizens and requires fair treatment. This is not mandated by
State law, but is a value that the City decided to adopt in 1972.
Campaign Contributions
Some cities are adding provisions to ethics policies to address campaigning issues. A
proposed ordinance regarding campaign issues is attached.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no significant fiscal impacts to affirming the existing Ethics Policy or adopting
the Model Policy. The fiscal impacts of exploring a "value-based" code will range
depending on the process.
ALTERNATIVES
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the following options:
1. Affirm the existing Ethics Policy adopted by Resolution No. 495 in 1972;
2. Adopt Resolution 2008-3909 implementing a new Ethics Policy based on the City
of Santa Clara model;
3. Give further direction on developing a new "rule-based" or "value-based" Ethics
Policy.
4. Give first reading to proposed Ordinance 2008-918 regarding campaigning
contributions.
5. Take no action at this time.
ORANGE\SC ARV ALHO\3 7676.2
City Council Meeting of April 15, 2008
Ethics Policy Options
Page 4
Reviewed By:
Acting City Manager
Review and Approval
e7knance Director
ATTACHMENTS:
• Existing City of Yorba Linda Ethics Policy (Resolution No. 495)
• Resolution 2008-3909 Adopting New Ethics Policy
• Proposed Ordinance 2008-918 - Campaign Contributions
ORANGE\SCARV ALHO\37676.2
193
RESOLUTION No. 495
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF YORBA LINDA ESTABLISHING A CODE
OF ETHICS FOR CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
WHEREAS, City officers and employees are responsible to
all of the people of the City and not to any favored group
or individual: and
WHEREAS, City business and affairs must be conducted
in a fair and impartial manner: and
WHEREAS, it is desirable that all persons understand that
no City officer or employee can be influenced by other than
proper and legal methods: and
WHEREAS, it is desirable that all City officers and
employees avoid all situations where prejudice, bias or
opportunity for personal gain could influence their decisions:
and
WHEREAS, the State Legislature has adopted legislation
proscribing conduct of public officials and employees relating
to conflicts of interest and personal financial disclosure;
and
WHEREAS, there is an increasing need for known standards
of ethical conduct as a guide for public officers in the
performance of their duties;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the
City of Yorba Linda that the following Code of Ethics is hereby
approved and adopted as the Code of Ethics for all officials
and employees of the City of Yorba Linda.
CODE OF ETHICS
SECTION 1. Declaration of Policy.
The proper operation of the democratic process and of
municipal government require that public officials and employees
be independent, impartial, and responsible to the people;
that governmental decisions and policy be made in the proper
channels of the governmental structure, that public office not
be used for personal gain, and that the public have confidence
in the integrity and honesty of its government. In recognition
of these goals this Code of Ethics is hereby established for
all officials and employees whether elected or appointed, paid
or unpaid. The provisions and purpose of this Code are further
declared to be in the best interests of the City of Yorba Linda
and are established as a matter of policy.
SECTION 2. Resoonsibility of Public Office.
Public officials are all elective officials of the City and
members of all official boards, commissions, and committees
of the City. Employees are all other persons officially
associated with the City including, but not limited to,
independent contractors.
1• Resolution No. 495
194
Public officials and employees are bound to uphold the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the
State of California and to carry out impartially the laws of
the nation, state and municipality with a view toward fostering
respect for all government. Public officials and employees
are bound to observe in their official acts the highest standards
or morality and to discharge faithfully and fully the duties
of their office regardless of personal consideration, recogniz-
ing that the public interests must be their primary concern.
Public officials and employees should conduct both their
official and private affairs in a manner which is above reproach.
SECTION 3. Public Service.
Public officials and employees in the performance of
their public duties should not exceed their authority or breach
the law or ask others to exceed their authority or breach the
law. Public officials and employees in performing their public
duties should work in full cooperation with other public officials
and employees unless otherwise prohibited from doing so by law
or officially recognized confidentiality of their work.
SECTION 4. Fair and Equal Treatment.
No person shall receive special advantages beyond those
which are available to any other citizen. Preferential
consideration of the request or petition of any individual
citizen or group of citizens shall not be given.
SECTION S. Use of Public Property.
No official or employee shall request or permit the use
of city owned vehicles, equipment, materials, or property
whether real or personal, for the personal convenience of profit
of any public official or employee except when such services
are available to the public generally or are provided as a
matter of municipal policy for the use of such official or
employee in the conduct of official city business. No public
official or employee shall use the time of any city employee
during working hours for personal convenience or profit.
SECTION 6. Obligations to Citizens.
No public official or employee in the course of his official
duties shall grant any special consideration, treatment or
advantage to any citizen beyond that which is available to
every other citizen under the same circumstances.
SECTION 7. Conflict of Interest.
a. Conflict with proper discharge of duties. No public
official or employee, while serving as such, shall have any
interest, financial or otherwise, direct or indirect, or engage
in any business or transaction or professional activity, or
incur any obligation of any nature which is in substantial con-
flict with the proper discharge of his duties in the public
interest and of his responsibilities as prescribed by federal
statute, state statute, by ordinances or resolutions of the
city or by established case law.
b. Incompatible Employment. No public official or
employee shall accept other employment which he has reason
to believe will either impair his independence of judgment
as to his official duties or require him or induce him to
disclose confidential information acquired by him in the course
of and by reason of his official duties. Should any incompatible
employment develop after acceptance of other employment, such
2.
Resolution No. 495
public official or employee shall make a full and complete
disclosure to the City Council.
c. Disclosure of Confidential Information. No public
official or employee shall wilfully and knowingly disclose
for pecuniary gain to any other person confidential information
acquired by him in the course and by reason of his official
duties nor shall any public official or employee use any such
information for the purpose of pecuniary gain.
d. Gifts. No public official or employee shall receive
or agree to receive, directly or indirectly, any compensation,
reward or gift from any source except the City of Yorba Linda
for any service, advice, assistance or other matter related to
the legislative process involving the City of Yorba Linda,
except fees for speeches or published works on legislative
subjects and except in connection therewith reimbursement
for expenses for actual expenditures for travel, and reasonable
subsistence for which no payment or reimbursement is made
by the City of Yorba Linda.
e. Representing Private Interests Before City Agencies
or Courts. No public official or employee shall appear on
behalf of private interests before any agency of the city.
He shall not represent private interests in any action or
proceeding against the interest of the city in any litigation
to which the city is a party.
A councilman may appear before city agencies on
behalf of constituents in the course of his duties as a
representative of the electorate or in the performance of
public or civic obligations. However, no councilman or other
official or employee shall accept a retainer or compensation
that is contingent upon a specific action by a city agency.
f. Conflict of Interest. A conflict of interest within
the meaning of this resolution exists in a matter before an
official for consideration or determination if:
1) The public official has a substantial financial
or substantial personal interest in the outcome or is associated
as owner, member, partner, officer, employee, broker or
stockholder in an enterprise that will be affected by the
outcome, and such interest is or may be adverse to the public
interest in the proper performance of governmental duties by
the official.
2) The public official has reason to believe or
expect that he will derive a direct monetary gain or suffer
a direct monetary loss, as the case may be by reason of
his official activity.
3A The public official, because of bias or prejudice,
or because he has prejudged a matter set for public hearing is
incapable because of such bias, prejudice or prejudgment of
granting to the matter before him a fair and impartial hearing.
4) The public official has any prohibited interest
as defined by the California Government Code Sections 1090
et seq. or Sections 1120 et seq. or any other provision of
State law relating to conflicts of interest.
3.
Resolution No. 495
19
Personal interest as distinguished from financial interest
is defined as including, among other matters, an interest arising
from blood or marriage relationships or close business association
SECTION 8. Disclosure of Interest and Disqualification.
Any councilman who has a conflict of interest as defined
herein, in any matter before the city council, shall disclose
such fact on the records of the city council prior to discussion
thereon and refrain from participating in any discussions or
voting thereon, provided that such exceptions shall be observed
as are permitted by law.
Any member of any official board, commission, or committee
who has a conflict of interest as defined herein, in any matter
before the board, commission, or committee of which he is a member
shall disclose such fact on the records of such board, commission,
or committee prior to discussion or voting thereon, provided that
such exceptions shall be observed as are required by law.
Any employee who has a financial or other conflict of
interest in a matter before the city council or any board,
commission or committee and who participates in discussion
with, or gives an official opinion to the council or to such
board, commission or committee relating to such matter, shall
disclose on the records of the council or such board, commission
or committee, as the case may be the nature and extent of
such interest.
SECTION 9. Comoliance with State and Federal law.
Public officials and employees of the City of Yorba Linda
shall comply with all applicable provisions of State and Federal
law relative to conflicts of interst or otherwise regulating
the conduct of public officials and employees. Nothing
contained in this resolution shall be interpreted in such a
manner as to be in conflict with state or federal law. Should
any provision be in conflict with state or federal law such
provision shall be deemed null and void.
SECTION 10. Minimal Standards.
This Code of Ethics shall be deemed to set forth the minimal
ethical standards to be followed by all officials and employees
of the City of Yorba Linda.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is directed
to have this Code of Ethics published in printed form to be
made available for all City officials and employees and for
the general public.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of December, 1972, by
the City Council of the City of Yorba Linda at a regular meeting.
RUDOLPH A. tASTRO
Mayor of the City of Yorba Linda
ATTES n
A UR C. SIMON
City Clerk of the City of Yorba Linda
4.
Resolution No. 495
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 19 ?
) SS
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, ARTHUR C. SIMONIAN, City Clerk of the City of Yorba
Linda DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was
adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Yorba Linda held on the 18th day of December, 1972, and
was carried by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEN: Chaput, Ewing, Machado, Wedaa and Castro
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEN: None
TIIUR C. S N AN
City Clerk of the City of Yorba Linda
5. Resolution No. 495
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-3909
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YORBA LINDA
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 495 AND ESTABLISHING A NEW CODE OF
ETHICS FOR CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
WHEREAS, City officers and employees are responsible to all of the people of
the City and not to any favored group or individual; and
WHEREAS, City business and affairs must be conducted in a fair and impartial
manner; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable that all persons understand that no City officer or
employee can be influenced by other than proper and legal methods; and
WHEREAS, the State Legislature has adopted legislation proscribing conduct of
public officials and employees relating to conflicts or interest and personal financial
disclosure; and
WHEREAS, there is an increasing need for known standards of ethical conduct
as a guide for public officers in the performance of their duties;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Yorba
Linda that the following Code of Ethics is hereby approved and adopted as the Code of
Ethics for all officials and employees of the City of Yorba Linda.
CODE OF ETHICS
Preamble
The proper operation of democratic government requires that decision-makers be
independent, impartial, and accountable to the people they serve. The City of Yorba
Linda has adopted this Code of Ethics & Values to promote and maintain the highest
standards of personal and professional conduct in the City's government. All elected
and appointed officials, City employees, volunteers, and others who participate in the
City's government are required to subscribe to this Code, understand how it applies to
their specific responsibilities, and practice its eight core values in their work. Because
we seek public confidence in the City's services and public trust of its decision-makers,
our decisions and our work must meet the most demanding ethical standards and
demonstrate the highest levels of achievement in following this code.
Section 1. As a Representative of the City of Yorba Linda, I will be ethical.
In practice, this value looks like:
a. I am trustworthy, acting with the utmost integrity and moral courage.
b. I am truthful, do what I say I will do, and am dependable.
c. I make impartial decisions, free of bribes, unlawful gifts, narrow political interests,
and financial and other personal interests that impair my independence of judgment
or action.
d. I am fair, distributing benefits and burdens according to consistent and equitable
criteria.
e. I extend equal opportunities and due process to all parties in matters under
consideration. If I engage in unilateral meetings and discussions, I do so without
making voting decisions.
f. I show respect for persons, confidences, and information designated as
"confidential."
Resolution No. 2008-3909
Page 2
g. I use my title(s) only when conducting official City business, for information
purposes, or as an indication of background and expertise, carefully considering
whether I am exceeding or appearing to exceed my authority.
Section 2. As a Representative of the City of Yorba Linda, I will be professional.
In practice, this value looks like:
a. I apply my knowledge and expertise to my assigned activities and to the
interpersonal relationships that are part of my job in a consistent, confident,
competent, and productive manner.
b. I approach my job and work-related relationships with a positive attitude,
c. I keep my professional knowledge and skills current and growing.
Section 3. As a Representative of the City of Yorba Linda, I will be service-
oriented.
In practice, this value looks like:
a. I provide friendly, receptive, courteous service to everyone.
b. I am attuned to, and care about, the needs and issues of citizens, public officials,
and city workers.
c. In my interactions with constituents, I am interested, engaged, and responsive.
Section 4. As a Representative of the City of Yorba Linda, I will be fiscally
responsible.
In practice, this value looks like:
a. I make decisions after prudent consideration of their financial impact, taking into
account the long-term financial needs of the City, especially its financial stability.
b. I demonstrate concern for the proper use of City assets (e.g., personnel, time,
property, equipment, funds) and follow established procedures.
c. I make good financial decisions that seek to preserve programs and services for City
residents
Section 5. As a Representative of the City of Yorba Linda, I will be organized.
In practice, this value looks like:
a. I act in an efficient manner, making decisions and recommendations based upon
research and facts, taking into consideration short and long term goals.
b. I follow through in a responsible way, keeping others informed, and responding in a
timely fashion.
c. I am respectful of established City processes and guidelines.
Section 6. As a Representative of the City of Yorba Linda, I will be
communicative.
In practice, this value looks like:
a. I convey the City's care for and commitment to its citizens.
b. I communicate in various ways that I am approachable, open-minded and willing to
participate in dialog.
c. I engage in effective two-way communication, by listening carefully, asking
questions, and determining an appropriate response which adds value to
conversations.
Section 7. As a Representative of the City of Yorba Linda, I will be collaborative.
In practice, this value looks like:
Resolution No. 2008-3909
Page 3
a. I act in a cooperative manner with groups and other individuals, working together in
a spirit of tolerance and understanding.
b. I work towards consensus building and gain value from diverse opinions.
c. I accomplish the goals and responsibilities of my individual position, while respecting
my role as a member of a team.
d. I consider the broader regional and State-wide implications of the City's decisions
and issues.
Section 8. As a Representative of the City of Yorba Linda, I will be progressive.
In practice, this value looks like:
a. I exhibit a proactive, innovative approach to setting goals and conducting the City's
business.
b. I display a style that maintains consistent standards, but is also sensitive to the need
for compromise, "thinking outside the box," and improving existing paradigms when
necessary.
c. I promote intelligent and thoughtful innovation in order to forward the City's policy
agenda and City services.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Yorba Linda on this 15th day of April, 2008.
JAMES N. WINDER, MAYOR
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
ATTEST:
KATHIE M. MENDOZA, CITY CLERK
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BEST BEST & KRIEGER, LLP
CITY ATTORNEY
I, KATHIE M. MENDOZA, City Clerk of the City of Yorba Linda, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Yorba Linda held on the 15th day of April, 2008, and was carried
by the following roll call:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
KATHIE M. MENDOZA, CITY CLERK
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
ORDINANCE NO. 2008-918
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YORBA LINDA
AMENDING THE YORBA LINDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING
SECTIONS 2.04.21 THROUGH 2.04.24 REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
AND DISQUALIFICATIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YORBA LINDA DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 2.04 of the Yorba Linda Municipal Code is hereby
amended by adding new Section 2.04.22 through 2.04.24 to read as follows:
"2.04.21. Disqualification Due to Camoaian Contributions.
A councilmember shall not participate in, nor use his or her official position to
influence a decision of the City Council if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision
will have a material financial effect, apart from its effect on the public generally or a
significant portion thereof, on a recent major campaign contributor. As used herein,
"recent major campaign contributor" means a person who has made campaign
contributions totaling $99.00 or more to the councilmember in the twelve-month period
immediately preceding the date of the decision.
2.04.22. Prohibited Camoaian Contributions.
No councilmember or any campaign committee controlled by the councilmember
shall solicit or accept any campaign contribution or loan of ninety-nine dollars ($99.00)
or more from any person for a period of three (3) months following the date a final
decision is rendered in any proceeding before the Council involving a license, permit, or
other entitlement, if the councilmember knows or has reason to know that the person
had a Financial Interest in the proceeding. Financial Interest, for purposes of this
section shall have the meaning it is defined to have in Title 9 of the California
Government Code (the Political Reform Act).
2.04.23. Campaian Contributions Prohibited by Contractors.
No councilmember or any campaign committee controlled by a councilmember
shall solicit or accept any campaign contribution or loan in any amount from any person,
firm, entity or association while such person, firm, entity or association holds a valid
contract with the City of Yorba Linda.
2.04.24. Endorsements by City Officials Prohibited.
No councilmember or any campaign committee controlled by a councilmember
shall solicit or encourage City employees or City Commissioners to engage in political
activity or provide endorsements for candidates running for City office, and City
Commissioners shall not, while conducting City business at City meetings, endorse any
candidate running for City office."
Section 2. Severabilitv. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phase,
or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it
would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision,
sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more
sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions might
subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
ORDINANCE NO. 2008-918
PAGE NO. 2
Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its
adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause
this ordinance or a summary thereof to be published in the manner required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Yorba Linda on this 15th day of April, 2008.
JAMES N. WINDER, MAYOR
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
ATTEST:
KATHIE M. MENDOZA, CITY CLERK
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
CITY ATTORNEY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE rs.
I, KATHIE M. MENDOZA, City Clerk of the City of Yorba Linda, California, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was adopted at a regular meeting of
the City Council of the City of Yorba Linda held on the 151h day of April, 2008, and was
carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
KATHIE M. MENDOZA, CITY CLERK
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
YMCA of Orange County ITEM NO.
Yorba Linda / Placentia Branch
18333 Lemon Drive, Yorba Linda, CA 92886
(714) 777-9622 • Fax (714) 777-1903
www.ymcaoc.org
Serves Yorba Linda, Placentia, Anaheim Hills, and neighboring areas
April 23, 2008
Yorba Linda Water District
1717 E. Miraloma Ave.
Placentia, CA 92870
Letter of Interest and Intent
Dear Mr. Payne and Board of Directors,
It has come to the attention of the Yorba Linda Placentia YMCA that the Yorba Linda Water
District may be looking for partners to offer programming at the district's underground water storage
reservoirs and pump stations, throughout the community of Yorba Linda.
The Yorba Linda Placentia YMCA would like to express its interest in exploring the options
available at these locations. It is the understanding of the YMCA that these locations would not
accommodate any permanent improvements, but may be available for turf, both natural (grass) or artificial
(Astro Turf). We also understand that the parking is limited at these locations. Third, we understand that
the City of Yorba Linda has been approached regarding these locations and to date, has not expressed
interest in utilizing these spaces.
We at the YMCA see an opportunity to provide not only sports programming at these locations to
adults and children, but also we would like to explore outdoor fitness options and possible art/music uses
on these properties.
We would like to be considered for this opportunity and look forward to discussing this further at
your convenience.
Thank You,
Kris Kelso
0,0;L~
Executive Director
1%v
We build strong kids, strong families, strong communities.
Quarter -To -Date Report
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT ITEM NO.
DIRECTORS AND GENERAL MANAGER FEES AND EXPENSES
FISCAL YEAR 2007 -2008
3RD QUARTER REPORT FROM 01 -01 -2008 TO 03 -31 -2008
ARMSTRONG BEVERAGE COLLETT MILLS SUMMERFIELD SUB -TOTAL PAYNE TOTAL
REGULAR MEETINGS ATTENDED
4
4
4
5
4
21
COMMITTEE MEETINGS ATTENDED
5
10
5
8
4
32
OFF SITE MEETINGS ATTENDED
2
1
0
8
4
15
SPECIAL MEETINGS ATTENDED
0
TOTAL MEETINGS ATTENDED QTD
11
15
9
21
12
68
68
DIRECTOR FEES QTD
$1,650
$2,250
$1,350
$3,150
$1,800
$10,200
$10,200
MEETING FEES BUDGET QTD
$2,975
$2,975
$2,975
$2,975
$2,975
$14,875
$14,875
TRAVEL & CONF. EXPENSES QTD
$0
$0
$0
$1,907
$0
$1,907
$1,907
TRAVEL & CONF. BUDGET QTD
$535
$535
$535
$535
$535
$2,675
$2,675
DIR.FEES AND EXPENSES QTD
$1,650
$2,250
$1,350
$5,057
$1,800
$12,107
$12,107
FEES AND EXPENSES BUDGET QTD
$3,510
$3,510
$3,510
$3,510
$3,510
$17,550
$17,550
GEN MGR EXPENSES QTD
$297
$297
GEN MGR TRAVEL /CONF. BUDGET QTD
$1,862
$1,862
TOTAL FEES & EXPENSES QTD
$1,650
$2,250
$1,350
$5,057
$1,800
$12,107
$297
$12,404
TOTAL FEES & EXPENSES BUDGET QT[
$3,510
$3,510
$3,510
$3,510
$3,510
$17,550
$1,862
$19,412
YEAR -TO -DATE REPORT
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
DIRECTORS AND GENERAL MANAGER FEES AND EXPENSES
FISCAL YEAR 2007.2008
MILLS
SUMMERFIELD
YEAR -TO -DATE REPORT FROM 01- 01.2008 TO 03 -31 -2008
TOTAL
ARMSTRONG
BEVERAGE
REGULAR MEETINGS ATTENDED
15
17
COMMITTEE MEETINGS ATTENDED
20
34
OFF SITE MEETINGS ATTENDED
2
2
TOTAL MEETINGS ATTENDED YTD
37
53
DIRECTOR FEES YTD
$5,550
$7,950
MEETING FEES BUDGET YTD
$8,925
$8,925
TRAVEL & CONFERENCES EXPENSES YTD
$25
$0
TRAVEL & CONFERENCE BUDGET YTD
$17605
$1,605
DIRECTORS FEES & EXPENSES YTD
$5,575
$7,950
FEES & EXPENSES BUDGET YTD
$10,530
$10,530
GEN MGR EXPENSES YTD
GEN MGR TRAVEL CONF. BUDGET YTD
TOTAL FEES & EXPENSES YTD $5,575 $7,950
TOTAL FEES & EXPENSES BUDGET YTD $10,530 $10,530
ITEM NO.
COLETT
MILLS
SUMMERFIELD
SUB -TOTAL PAYNE
TOTAL
17
16
17
82
22
20
22
118
2
16
8
30
41
52
47
230
230
$6,150
$7,800
$7,050
$34,500
$34,500
$8,925
$8,925
$8,925
$44,625
$44,625
$0
$3,144
$0
$3,169
$3,169
$1,605
$1,605
$1,605
$8,025
$8,025
$6,150
$10,944
$7,050
$37,669
$37,669
$10,530
$10,530
$10,530
$52,650
$52,650
$4,165 $4,165
$5,586 $5,586
$6,150 $10,944 $7,050 $37,669 $4,165 $41,834
$10,530 $10,530 $10,530 $52,650 $5,586 $58,236
05!22/2008 10:22 714-834-5555
O.C GRAND JURY PAGE 01/01
EWS „`M~~4~
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY
700 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST ■ SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701.714/834-3320
May 22, 2008 FAX 714/834-5555
WATER BUDGETS, NOT WATER RATIONING
SANTA ANA, CALTFORNIA - The 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury released a report
today regarding Orange County's potential water crisis.
Orange County faces a looming water crisis. A prolonged drought throughout the West, coupled
with a court order curtailing water imports, now threatens Orange County's future ability to
satisfy the thirst of its growing population.
The 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury agrees that the best and most immediate solution is
further water conservation. Past: conservation efforts have achieved considerable success through
improved appliance and plumbing technology inside the home, a trend that is expected to
continue as older units are replaced. Yet, a sizeable amount of water is still wasted, especially
outdoors where the greatest opportunity for further conservation lies. According to water
agencies, most people water gardens and lawns too often and too much.
The Grand Jury calls upon water agencies to expand efforts to motivate and educate residential.
customers to conserve water. It specifically recommends a two-step approach:
• Water agencies should establish conservation pricing based upon an allotment or water
budget for each household with tiered pricing to encourage conservation from those who
exceed their allotments; and
• These agencies must implement more effective ways to motivate and educate the public
on how to water gardens and lawns without wasting water. The Grand Jury identified
several tccliniques and devices, such. as smart timers and water calculators to improve the
efficiency of residential landscape watering.
For a full version of this report, as well as others, visit the Grand Jury website at
www.oceran.diurv.orv or call (714) 834-3320.
2007-2008 ORAN F COUNTY GRA JURY
Ann Avery Andres, man
Bccome a part of the Grand Jury process, call (714) 834-6747 for information and an application,
WATER BUDGETS, NOT WATER RATIONING
SUMMARY
Orange County faces a looming water crisis. A prolonged drought throughout the West,
coupled with a court order curtailing water imports, now threatens Orange County's future
ability to satisfy the thirst of its growing population.
The 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury agrees that the best and most immediate solution
is further water conservation. Past conservation efforts have achieved considerable success
through improved appliance and plumbing technology inside the home, a trend that is
expected to continue as older units are replaced. Yet, a sizeable amount of water is still
wasted, especially outdoors where the greatest opportunity for further conservation lies.
According to water agencies, most people water gardens and lawns too often and too much.
The Grand Jury calls upon water agencies to expand efforts to motivate and educate
residential customers to conserve water. It specifically recommends a two-step approach:
• Water agencies should establish conservation pricing based upon an allotment or
water budget for each household with tiered pricing to encourage conservation
from those who exceed their allotments; and
• These agencies must implement more effective ways to motivate and educate the
public on how to water gardens and lawns without wasting water. The Grand
Jury identified several techniques and devices, such as smart timers and water
calculators to improve the efficiency of residential landscape watering.
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION
Water agencies and news accounts warn of a potential water crisis in Orange County
because of a multiyear drought in the Western United States, especially in California, that
contributes to reduced water levels in the Colorado River and a reduced Sierra Nevada snow
pack. A court order to protect an endangered fish, the Delta smelt, has reduced imported
water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, where levee problems further threaten that
water supply. These developments, plus a growing population, are putting additional strain
on another important Orange County water source, its underground water basin or aquifer.
For these reasons, the Grand Jury felt compelled to review the effectiveness of measures
currently being taken to avert a severe water shortage in the near future.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
The method of investigation included:
• A review of literature on current and future water needs in Orange County
• A tour of the State Water Project in Oroville and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
• Interviews with representatives of the Orange County Water District, the Municipal
Water District of Orange County, Irvine Ranch Water District and the Fullerton
College Horticulture Program
• A survey of water bills issued by different Orange County water agencies
• A review of questionnaires sent to all retail water agencies in Orange County
• Review of landscape watering principles and practices from various sources
• Review of local Internet sites that promote water conservation
• Inspection of drought-resistant landscaping and water-saving irrigation devices
BACKGROUND AND FACTS
Orange County is a densely populated, semi-arid region which gets relatively little
precipitation. More than half of its water, 53%, is imported by the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California (MWD), which in turn sells to the Municipal Water District
of Orange County (MWDOC) and three cities. The MWDOC was formed in 1951 to
contract with MWD to acquire this supplemental imported water and to coordinate the water
supply for 29 Orange County water agencies. The cities of Anaheim, Fullerton and Santa
Ana purchase water directly from the MWD, a practice initiated before the MWDOC was
created.
The remaining 47% of the water used in Orange County comes primarily from an
underground basin or aquifer, located under the northern half of Orange County and
managed by the Orange County Water District. The OCWD was formed in 1933 for the
purpose of managing and replenishing this underground basin. Aquifer water is pumped
from wells by 20 Orange County water agencies that are within the basin boundaries,
supplying approximately 74% of their water needs. The actual amount differs with each
member and is adjusted annually on the basis of conditions in the basin.
The following chart demonstrates the distribution of water in Orange County.
Metropolitan Water District
MWD
[water imported to Orange County]
s
Other counties receiving
water from M WD:
LA County <
San Diego County
Ventura County
Riverside County
San Bernardino County
Cities and Water Districts which
purchase from MWDOC:
Brea
La Habra
San Clemente
San Juan Capistrano
El Toro Water District
Emerald Bay Service District
Laguna Beach County Water Dist
Moulton Niguel Water District
Santa Margarita Water District
South Coast Water District
Trabuco Canyon Water District
V
Municipal Water District of
Orange County
MWDOC
[manages imported water
purchased from MWD]
Cities & Water Districts that purchase from
both MWDOC and OCWD:
Buena Park Fountain Valley
Garden Grove Huntington Beach
La Palma Seal Beach
Tustin Orange
Westminster <
City of Newport Beach Water Co
Golden State Water Company
Irvine Ranch Water District
Mesa Consolidated Water District
Serrano Water District
Yorba Linda Water District
East Orange County Water District
Orange County
Water District
[manages underground basin water]
Y
r►
Cities which purchase from
both MWD and Orange
County Water District:
Anaheim Fullerton
Santa Ana
3
Reliability of future water supplies
Recent events have generated major concerns about Orange County's ability to meet the
demand for water in the years ahead. Some of the challenges that now face Orange County
and other recipients of MWD imported water are:
• A recent federal court ruling that cut water supplies from the state's two largest
water delivery systems by up to one-third to protect the endangered smelt
• A prolonged drought in the West which has reduced the mountain snow pack, a
critical natural supply of water, and has reduced water levels in the Colorado River
• Extremely low water reserves statewide
• Aging levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, at risk of a natural disaster,
could cripple the water deliveries for an extended period of time
• No significant improvements in the statewide water system over the past 30 years
despite California's rapidly growing population
These problems cannot be easily resolved. Solutions will be costly and possibly politically
charged. Reducing water demand through conservation remains the most cost-effective and
timely solution to remedy the looming shortage. Conservation is not a new concept. It has
been promoted for years and has served as a quick resolution in the past when temporary
shortages occurred.
The 10% challenge
In response to this impending shortage, Orange County water agencies are asking the public
to voluntarily conserve. The regional goal for voluntary conservation is 10%. The Grand
Jury found that many Orange County water agencies structure water bills to show customers
current usage compared to usage during the same period the previous year. This is intended
to help customers measure the difference in their current and past water use, but it does not
measure their water-use efficiency. Nor does it tell them how much water they should be
using commensurate with their household and landscape needs.
Why focus on residential water use?
All categories of water users are called upon to conserve. But the primary focus of this
report is on residential customers. Why? Because, as the following data shows, single-
family and multi-family residences are collectively the largest water consumers:
• Single-family residential 49%
• Multi-family residential 14%
• Commercial, industrial and institutional 29%
• Agricultural 1%
• Recycles & non-domestic 7%
Percentage extrapolated from Orange County Water Agencies Water Rate$ Water Systems Operations and
Financial Information 2006 - Table 5, MDOC, 2006
Based on responses to a Grand Jury questionnaire sent to all of the Orange County water
agencies, more than half of this residential water is used outdoors. And it is estimated that
half of outdoor water usage is wasted. Thus, landscape irrigation presents the greatest
opportunity for potential water savings.
The figures shown in the aforementioned countywide data, however, do not reflect the vast
differences in urban design found in Orange County. Historically, central and northern
county communities were developed with single-family homes on large lots. In newer
developments, especially in South County, the emphasis is on communities with small lots
with large greenbelt areas and wide, landscaped boulevards and slopes. Water used to
irrigate greenbelts owned by homeowners associations is generally quantified in the "multi-
family residential" category. City-owned and city-maintained landscaping along boulevards
is included in "the commercial, industrial and institutional category."
Conservation history in Orange County
A memorandum of understanding2 (MOU), developed in 1991 by the California Urban
Water Conservation Council, includes 14 recommended cost-effective best management
practices (BMP) for advancing the efficient use of water. They are:
1. Residential water surveys
2. Residential plumbing retrofit
3. System water audits, leak detection and repair
4. Metering with commodity rates
5. Large landscape conservation programs
6. High-efficiency washing machine rebate programs
7. Public information programs
8. School education programs
9. Commercial, institutional and industrial programs
10. Wholesale agency assistance programs
11. Conservation pricing, or tiered pricing
12. Conservation coordinator
13. Water waste prohibition
14. Residential ultra low-flow toilet replacement programs
The Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) signed the MOU in 1991 and
agreed to develop, obtain funding for and implement regional BMP programs on behalf of
all retail water agencies in Orange County. Only half of these agencies currently are
signatories to the MOU but, according to MWDOC, all are actively implementing BMP-
based programs.
The public is familiar with many of these practices. Since these programs have been in
effect, water usage has been reduced substantially through conservation. Water agencies
agree that improved plumbing fixtures and water-efficient appliances have contributed to
z "Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California", California Urban
Water Conservation Council, 1991
most of this success. Free exchanges and rebates funded by the water agencies accelerated
the process.
Based on a Grand Jury survey of water bills and responses to a questionnaire, there is one
best management practice that has not been effectively implemented but one that could be
a significant factor toward promoting water reduction. That practice is conservation pricing.
Conservation pricing or tiered pricing
Conservation pricing, also referred to as tiered pricing, promotes conservation by
establishing a base allocation, or water budget, with several levels of pricing for amounts
used above that allotment. Each tier is priced at a more expensive rate than the one below,
sometimes doubling in cost to encourage water conservation.
Tiered pricing has been implemented by 19 of the 30 Orange County retail water agencies.
However, the practice varies widely from agency to agency. The effectiveness of this
strategy may be undermined by the fact that the cost of water is relatively inexpensive. In
Orange County, water costs consumers between $0.0016 and $0.0059 a gallon depending on
the water agency and the amount of water consumed. The retail water agencies sell water in
units of 100 cubic feet, equivalent to 748 gallons. Some agencies sell water on a flat-rate
basis, charging from $1.30 to $2.85 per 100 cubic feet or $0.0017 to $0.0038 per gallon.
Agencies using tiered pricing begin their base-level pricing from $0.49 to $2.27 per 100
cubic feet or $0.0007 to $0.0030 per gallon.
In most cases, the increases in each tier are relatively minor and may have little impact or
effect on a consumer who happens to be more focused on the rising cost of gasoline and
food. Besides the fact that water is inexpensive, another factor that could contribute to
consumer indifference to tiered pricing is that the base-level allotments established by some
agencies, as well as succeeding tiers, may have little relevance to actual need or usage.
Tiered pricing must be based on a fair and reasonable water budget or allotment and a fair
and reasonable rate for that first tier. Higher tiers should then be priced at a sufficiently
increased rate to get customer attention. There is precedent that supports the belief that this
strategy has worked. Water bills issued by the Irvine Ranch Water District, which
implemented tiered pricing in 1991, label each tier ranging from "low volume" to
"conservation," "inefficient," "excessive" and "wasteful." Each tier essentially doubles in
price, penalizing overuse. This projects a very clear picture to the consumer. For tiered
pricing to have the intended impact, it appears that the tiers must be clearly defined on the
water bill.
Restructuring rates is not a simple matter. But if the intent of this best management practice
is to be met, an effective and equitable tiered-pricing structure must be implemented by all
Orange County water agencies. It must be done in a manner that would preclude the
necessity for raising rates to cover operating costs when consumers do reduce consumption.
Rate increases resulting from reduced demand due to hard-won conservation efforts would
only undermine public commitment to conservation.
Establishing a budget/allocation
For residential customers, the process starts with water agencies establishing a base
allocation for the average household within their boundaries. A determination must be
made as to the adequate amount of water needed per person for indoor use for all customers
and for outdoor use by single-family homes.
Indoor water use
The average indoor water use in Orange County is unknown since it is not metered
separately. However, the following table shows commonly-accepted estimates of average
per person indoor water use in the United States, for both non-conserving and conserving
households.
Type of Use
Toilets
Washing Machines
Showers
Faucets
Leaks
Other
Bath
Dishwasher
Total
Daily Use per person in Daily Use per person in
Gallons/day Non-Conserving Gallons/day Conserving
18.5
8.2
15.0
10.0
11.6
8.8
10.9
10.8
9.5
4.0
1.6
1.6
1.2
1.2
1.0
0.7
69.3 1 45.3
From the "Handbook of Water Use and Conservation" by Amy Vickers
Thus, 70 gallons per day per person appears to be an adequate allotment for average daily
indoor use for meeting necessary health requirements. The Irvine Ranch Water District and
the City of San Juan Capistrano both provide allotments to their customers using slightly
different formulas to determine indoor water allowances. The Irvine Ranch Water District
allows 75 gallons per day per person for four occupants per single family resident. The City
of San Juan Capistrano allocates nine units per month (6,732 gallons) per single family
resident, an amount that is equivalent to 70 gallons per day per person for 3.2 occupants.
Outdoor water use
According to information derived from interviews and responses to its questionnaire, the
Grand Jury learned that almost all water used outdoors is for landscaping. Half of that
amount is wasted, with residents watering too much and too often.
Calculating the appropriate amount of watering (frequency and amount) for landscaping is a
daunting task for most residents. By default, the burden of establishing a fair and reasonable
allocation for outdoor landscape watering falls upon the water agencies if they are
sincerely committed to imrroving water conservation. The calculation for appropriate
watering is weather-based as it takes into account weather conditions, plant species, the size
of the landscape area and irrigation efficiencies. Soil texture is another important parameter
that is necessary for determination of frequency of watering.
The Grand Jury was impressed with the separate approaches taken by two Orange County
water agencies for determining the landscape area. The City of San Juan Capistrano
estimates a landscaped area of 3,636 square feet for lot sizes less than 7,000 square feet. For
those over 7,000 square feet, the square footage of the house is doubled and subtracted from
the lot size. The Irvine Ranch Water District estimates a landscaped area of 1,300 square
feet for every single-family home but allows variances for those who show that their
landscape area is larger. A calculation (based on actual weather data and plant needs) is
then made for how much water that average landscaped area requires.
Regardless of the method used to determine an outdoor allotment for landscaping, the water
agencies must be able to demonstrate that their method is fair and equitable.
Resources currently available for conservation
The objective in assigning allocations and implementing tiered pricing with significantly
increased rates is not to punish customers, nor to earn additional revenue, but to encourage
those who are wasteful to conserve. Water agencies should all be assisting customers with
detecting and correcting the reasons for excessive use of water. Personnel at the Irvine
Ranch Water District indicated that they respond personally to customer requests for help
and will assist them in correcting the problem and will often refund the cost of the penalty
after the problem is corrected.
The following devices and resources can assist or inform motivated gardeners about new
irrigation techniques:
• Smart timers - automatically adjust watering times for different weather, soil and
landscape conditions
• Watering index - provides an index for those having timers equipped with a "water
budget adjustment"4
• Water calculators - calculates the frequency and duration for watering based on the type
of soil, plants, watering system and its flow rates for residents in Southern California.
• Innovations in irrigation systems - including rotating nozzles for pop-up spray heads and
a new system for watering turf grass using plastic pipes with drip emitters, are proving
to be much more efficient than conventional sprinklers
• Xeriscape landscaping - drought-tolerant vegetation
' Water budgeting using evapotranspiration data from CIMIS (California Irrigation Management Information
System) and crop coefficients from WUCOLS (Water Use Classification of Landscape Species).
a Bewaterwise.com, sponsored by water agencies including those in Orange County
' ibid
• Synthetic turf- replaces water-guzzling turf with "realistic" manufactured grass
Although these devices are helpful, some knowledge and skill are required to take full
advantage of them. Smart timers and water calculators also require knowledge of the types
of soil and plants involved. To maximize use of the aforementioned resources, additional
information and support must be provided.
Selling conservation
Unfortunately, water agencies cannot stand by passively until residents motivate themselves
to conserve water. Just as those agencies must offer a stick in the form of tiered pricing,
they must offer a carrot to motivate residents to pay more attention to their outdoor watering
practices.
Water agencies certainly promote conservation. The question is, is this enough? The Grand
Jury concluded that they could do more through:
• Public education. While some local water districts provide classes on landscape
watering principles and practices, they indicate that some of these classes are poorly
attended. The classes might draw additional interest if they offer workshops on
determining soil types, using water calculators and demonstrating new devices like
smart timers.
• Promotion. Some water agencies send out mailers with water bills to promote classes
or encourage efficient watering techniques. Press releases may generate brief
announcements of the classes. But effective promotion may require teaming up with
other agencies as well as vendors to provide the resources to attract greater
attendance at classes or garden demonstrations.
• Rebates. Water agencies should continue to offer more rebates for water-saving
devices, such as more efficient landscape sprinklers and controllers outdoors as well
as more efficient indoor appliances and plumbing fixtures.
• Personal assistance. Water agencies should establish a telephone help line staffed by
a person (not a computer) to answer their customers' water-related questions. They
should also make available a countywide soils map that would allow the customers
to approximate soil textures.
CONCLUSION
There is still room for more water conservation, especially in outdoor landscape irrigation.
Water agencies need to help the public better understand the principles and new
technologies to make improvements in landscape irrigation. Customers need
encouragement and assistance. Water agencies must provide clear targets for the customer
and implement tiered pricing in support of the targets.
FINDINGS
In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each finding will be
responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be
submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The 2007-2008 Orange County
Grand Jury has arrived at the following findings:
F-1 Opportunities for further water conservation exist especially with regard to
landscape watering.
F-2 Conservation pricing, or tiered pricing, with a fair and reasonable base
allotment, followed by tiers of higher rates, can be an effective tool to motivate
further conservation.
Response to finding F-1 is required from MWDOC
Responses to findings F-1 and F-2 are required from the following Water Districts and
City Water Departments:
East Orange County Water District
El Toro Water District
Emerald Bay Service District
Irvine Ranch Water District
Laguna Beach County Water District
Mesa Consolidated Water District
Moulton Niguel Water District
Santa Margarita Water District
Serrano Water District
South Coast Water District
Trabuco Canyon Water District
Yorba Linda Water District
City of Anaheim
City of Brea
City of Buena Park
City of Fountain Valley
City of Fullerton
City of Garden Grove
City of Huntington Beach
City of La Habra
City of La Palma
City of Newport Beach
City of Orange
City of San Clemente
City of San Juan Capistrano
City of Santa Ana
City of Sea] Beach
City of Tustin
City of Westminster
RECOMMENDATIONS
In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation
will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to
be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this
report, the 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
R-1 Continue to emphasize methods and availability of tools that assist the
customers in understanding weather-based irrigation practices by:
10
• Providing a hotline for assisting the public with landscape irrigation
information
• Providing a countywide soil texture map on the MWDOC website
• Developing an Orange County specific water calculator on the MWDOC
website
R-2a Develop monthly water allocations for each customer based on both of the
following:
• A per person indoor water allotment that satisfies basic needs
• An outdoor water allotment that applies the weather-based method over the
customers' landscaped area
R-2b Develop a tiered-pricing structure with the first tier based on individual
customer water allocation priced at a commodity rate, and subsequent tiers priced
significantly higher to encourage conservation. The pricing shall be structured in a
manner that will preclude the necessity of price increases as a result of reduced water
use.
R-2c Modify water bills to clearly explain customer monthly allotment and monthly
water usage.
Response to recommendation R-1 is required from the Municipal Water District of
Orange County.
Responses to recommendations R-1, R-2a, R-2b, and R-2c are required from following
Water Districts and City Water Departments:
East Orange County Water District
El Toro Water District
Emerald Bay Service District
Irvine Ranch Water District
Laguna Beach County Water District
Mesa Consolidated Water District
Moulton Niguel Water District
Santa Margarita Water District
Serrano Water District
South Coast Water District
Trabuco Canyon Water District
Yorba Linda Water District
City of Anaheim
City of Brea
City of Buena Park
City of Fountain Valley
City of Fullerton
City of Garden Grove
City of Huntington Beach
City of La Habra
City of La Palma
City of Newport Beach
City of Orange
City of San Clemente
City of San Juan Capistrano
City of Santa Ana
City of Seal Beach
City of Tustin
City of Westminster
REQUIRED RESPONSES:
The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and
recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below:
§933.05
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the
responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the
response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include
an explanation of the reasons therefore.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury
recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following
actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the
implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in
the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope
and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be
prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being
investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency
when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of
publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is
not reasonable, with an explanation therefore.
12
DOCUMENTATION
"Orange County Water Agencies Water Rate$: Water System Operations and Financial
Information", Orange County Water Association and Municipal Water District of Orange
County, 2006
"The Residential Runoff Reduction Study", Municipal Water District of Orange County
and Irvine Ranch Water District, July 2006
"2005 Urban Water Management Plan", Municipal Water District of Orange County, 2005
"A Guide to Estimating Irrigation Water Needs of Landscape Plantings in California: The
Landscape Coefficient Method", University of California Cooperative Extension, California
Department of Water Resources, 2000
"Landscape Management for Water Savings: How to Profit from a Water Efficient Future"
Municipal Water District of Orange County, 1998
Stan Sprague, "Orange County's Water Story: Regional Water Issues and the Import
Supply", March 2003
Tom Ash, "Landscape Management for Water Savings", 1998
"Smart Water: A Comparative Study of Urban Water Use Efficiency Across the Southwest",
Western Resource Advocates
"Reclamation: Managing Water in the West - Weather Based Technologies for Residential
Irrigation Scheduling", Technical Review Report, Water District of Orange County, 2004
"Landscape Water Management Principles", The Irrigation Training and Research Center,
1997
"Residential Weather-Based Irrigation Scheduling: Evidence from the Irvine `ET
Controller' Study", June 2006
13
ITEM NO. 6
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY
700 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST* SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 •714/834-3320
FAX 714/834-5555
May 14, 2008
John W. Summerfield, President
Yorba Linda Water District
4622 Plumosa Drive
Yorba Linda, CA 92885
Dear Mr. Summerfield:
Enclosed is a copy of the 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury report, "Water Budgets, Not Water
Rationing." Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05(f), a copy of the report is being provided to you at least two
working days prior to its public release. Please note that, "No officer, agency, department, or governing
body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final
report." (Emphasis added.) It is required that you provide a response to each of the findings and
recommendations of this report directed to your office in compliance with Penal Code 933.05(a) and
(b), copy attached.
For each Grand Jury recommendation accepted and not implemented, provide a schedule for future
implementation. In addition, by the end of March of each subsequent year, please report on the progress being
made on each recommendation accepted but not completed. These annual reports should continue until all
recommendations are implemented.
It is requested that the response to the recommendations be mailed to Nancy Wieben Stock, Presiding Judge
of the Superior Court, 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, with a separate copy and an
electronic format (PDF on CD preferred) mailed to the Orange County Grand Jury, 700 Civic Center Drive
West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, no later than 90 days after the public release date, May 22, 2008, in compliance with
Penal Code 933, copy attached. The due date then is August 20, 2008.
Should additional time for responding to this report be necessary for further analysis, Penal Code 933.05(b)(3)
permits an extension of time up to six months from the public release date. Such extensions should be advised in
writing, with the information required in Penal Code 933.05(b)(3), to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court,
with a separate copy of the request to the Grand Jury.
We tentatively plan to issue the public release on May 22. Upon public release, the report will be available on the
Grand Jury web site (www.ocarandiurv.ors).
Very truly o s,
n very An an
2007-2008 ORANGE UNTY GRAND JURY
AAA:dv
Enclosures
Grand Jury Report
Penal Code 933, 933.05 d, ,t ti , = t~;,
S-l Y 4f ~ a
8
f
ITEM NO. CL
Barry S. Brokaw Sacramento Advocates, Inc.
Donne Brownsey A California based Public Affairs and Governmental Relations Firm
James D. Stassi
1215 K Street, Suite 2030 - Sacramento, CA 95814
Daniel E. Boatwright Phone (916) 448-1222 - Fax (916) 448-1121
General Counsel
MEMORANDUM
To: Yorba Linda Water District Board of Directors
From: Barry Brokaw for Sacramento Advocates, Inc.
Re: State Capitol Update
Date: Mav 17. 2008
Overview
There is but one issue consuming all air in and around the State Capitol year, and that is the state of
the State Budget in this troubled economy.
The politics of the state budget basically gets down to this: The state has a deficit now of $17.3
billion (out of a total General Fund operating budget of $101 billion). The traditional "smoke and
mirrors" accounting solutions can't solve this problem. Legislative Democrats are willing to make
some budget cuts, but say new tax revenues must be part of the solution. Legislative Republicans
have all signed pledges not to vote for any budget that increases taxes. The Governor, who defies a
normal political label, is proposing cuts; has suggested he is open to closing some nonspecific tax
"loopholes"; and he wants to bond against the under-performing state lottery income to help offset
the deficit. If voters don't approve bonding the state lottery, he is proposing an additional one-cent
increase in the state sales tax which would automatically kick in for three years (of course, the
Legislature would have to authorize the sales tax).
It takes a two-thirds vote of each legislative house to approve the budget bill AND new taxes. There
are 48 Democrats in the Assembly; six Republicans would be required to vote for the budget in that
house. The Senate has 25 Democrats; they need only to pick up two votes.
The state Constitution requires a budget be enacted by July 1 S`. Of course, in only three of the past 20
years has that deadline been met. This year poses an additional problem: the State Controller and
State Treasurer have told lawmakers that California will run out of cash in mid-August if a budget is
not in place. The state would have to borrow from banks to make its payments in that event. Think
"sub-prime" loans! Expect a tumultuous summer.
The Tvxes of New Taxes Under Discussion
The Governor has floated the temporary sales tax increase; some lawmakers are discussing the idea
of reducing the sales tax by one-cent, but increasing the reach of the sales tax to include items such
as theater tickets, and to a variety of services including dry cleaning, accounting, and legal and
consulting services. Some argue the personal income tax should be hiked back to 10% from the
current 9.3% for the state's highest wage earners; others believe the bank and corporation tax should
return to the 9.3% level from the current 8.8%. Those rates were dropped to their current levels a
decade ago when the state's economy and tax receipts were booming.
Pots of Monev to Take?
Apart from securitizing the lottery, or leasing the lottery to a private operator (both of which
would require voter approval and would require the political acquiescence of California's gaming
tribes, there are two other sources of money that are candidates to be "borrowed." One is the
$1.43 billion in gasoline sales tax revenues that is dedicated to roads and transit as the result of
Proposition 42. Funds may be borrowed, but must be paid back with interest. The problem is
those funds are badly needed to carry out the infrastructure programs. Over 30,000 construction
industry workers are employed as a result of Proposition 42. Because the housing a commercial
real estate markets have tanked, the public sector work under Proposition 42, along with
Proposition 1B funds, are what is keeping that industry alive. Taking those funds would worsen
the state's financial condition.
The second pot of money is the Proposition 10 money, approved by the voters in 1998. The
Reiner-initiative assessed a $.50 per pack tax on cigarettes for children's programs, including
health care. Those funds have not been spent, and they now total about $2 billion.
The End Game
You have likely not heard much about this, but I believe that in the end, sometime in August,
those Proposition 10 funds will be the key to solving the budget deal for the year. They could be
used to backfill many of the social service cuts the Democrats can't live with. I believe that
Republicans will hold the line on no new general fund taxes, but in the end they will strike a deal
and support the closure of several tax "loopholes" and some increased state fees. The voters will
act on budget-related matters in November, be it a vote regarding the state lottery, and perhaps a
vote to authorize either a six-month budget or a two-year budget. I don't believe you will see a
sales tax increase as a solution for the budget crisis this year.
Bills of Interest
You will see several potential water bond vehicles introduced by Democrats and Republicans.
There remains hope that a deal for a major water infrastructure improvement could occur before
the close of the year. Democrats want significant funds to improve the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta; Republicans want two water storage facilities. Don't be shocked if this issue became part
of a deal wrapping up a budget vote.
AB 2175 (Laird) Water conservation. (A-04/08/2008 html pdf)
Summary:
(1) Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources to convene an independent
technical panel to provide information to the department 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 department to establish a statewide target to achieve a 20% reduction in urban per
capita water use in California by December 31, 2020. By December 31, 2020, each urban water
supplier would be required to reduce its per capita water use by 20%, except as provided. By
December 31, 2010, and not less than every 5 years thereafter, the department would be
required to establish and make available to the public a list of technically feasible urban water
conservation measures available to assist urban water suppliers in meeting this requirement.
This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
Note: The state DWR would be authorized to set water conservation standards or
guidelines under this proposal.
Status: 05/22/2008-Do pass as amended.
AB 2270 (Laird) Recycled water: water quality. (A-03/25/2008 html Pdf)
Summary:
Existing law establishes a statewide recycling goal of 700,000 acre-feet of water by 2000 and
1,000,000 acre-feet of water by 2010. Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources
to prepare and update every 5 years the California Water Plan, which is the plan for the orderly
and coordinated control, protection, conservation, development, and use of the water resources
of the state. Existing law requires each urban water supplier to prepare, and update every 5
years, an urban water management plan with specified components, including information, to
the extent available, on recycled water and its potential for use as a water source in the service
area of the urban water supplier. This bill would refer to the statewide recycling goals as targets,
and would require the department to update these targets every 5 years, based on consideration
of all relevant information, including, but not limited to, the National Water Reuse Foundation
database and urban water management plans. The department would be required to include the
revised targets in the California Water Plan beginning in 2013. The bill would require an urban
water supplier to include in its urban water management plan information on recycled water,
including, in acre-feet of water per year, a description of the quantity of treated wastewater that
meets recycled water standards, a description and quantification of the potential uses of recycled
water, and the projected use of recycled water within the supplier's service area. This bill
contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
Note: Water recycling targets could be set under this measure by the Department of
Water Conservation.
Status: 05/22/2008-Do pass as amended.
AB 2993 (Plescia) Design-build: metropolitan water districts: renewable
energy. (I-02/22/2008 html pdf)
Summary:
Existing law requires public entities to comply with certain procedures in soliciting and
evaluating bids and awarding contracts for the erection, construction, alteration, repair, or
improvement of any public structure, building, road, or other public improvement. This bill
would authorize a Metropolitan Water District, with the approval of its board of directors, to
enter into design-build contracts, as defined, for the design, construction, fabrication, and
installation of renewable energy projects, in accordance with specified provisions. This bill
contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
3
Note: Just watching this measure. Use of renewable energies is greeted with applause in
Sacramento.
Status: 04/03/2008-In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of
author. This bill is no longer moving.
ABX2 I (Laird) Water bond. (I-09/26/2007 html pdf)
Summary:
Under existing law, various bond acts have been approved by the voters to provide funds for
water projects, facilities, and programs. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to
enact a comprehensive delta sustainability, water reliability, and water quality general
obligation bond act to be submitted for voter approval in an unspecified 2008 election.
Note: Could be a water bond vehicle.
Status: 09/26/2007-Introduced. To print.
ABX2 2 (Laird) Water supply reliability. (I-09/26/2007 htrnl pdf)
Summary:
The Department of Water Resources performs duties relating to water resources throughout the
state. The State Water Resources Control Board exercises regulatory functions relating to water
quality. This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to invest state funding in programs
and projects that improve the state's water supply reliability and promote certain principles.
Note: Another vehicle for a water bond.
Status: 09/26/2007-Introduced. To print.
ABX2 3 (Laird) Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta sustainability. (I-
09/26/2007 html pdf)
Summary:
Under existing law, various state agencies administer programs relating to water supply, water
quality, and flood management in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This bill would declare
the intent of the Legislature to review and adopt a comprehensive strategy to resolve the issues
of water supply reliability, ecosystem restoration, water quality, and levee system integrity in
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Note: A Delta Levee protection vehicle.
Status: 09/26/2007-Introduced. To print.
ABX2 4 (Villines) Water resources: bond funds. (I-09/26/2007 html Pdf)
Summary:
Under existing law, various bond acts have been approved by the voters to provide funds for
water projects, facilities, and programs. The Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond
Act of 2006, a bond act approved by the voters at the November 7, 2006, statewide general
election, authorizes the issuance of bonds in the amount of $4,090,000,000 for the purposes of
financing disaster preparedness and flood prevention projects. The Safe Drinking Water, Water
Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006, an
initiative bond act approved by the voters at the November 7, 2006, statewide general election,
authorizes the issuance of bonds in the amount of $5,388,000,000 for the purposes of financing
4
a safe drinking water, water quality and supply, flood control, and resource protection program.
The Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002,
approved by the voters at the November 5, 2002, statewide general election, authorizes, for the
purposes of financing a safe drinking water, water quality, and water reliability program, the
issuance of bonds in the amount of $3,440,000,000. This bill, with regard to those bond funds,
would appropriate $552,640,000 as follows: of the funds made available pursuant to the
Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006, $150,000,000 to the department
for stormwater flood management project grants; of the funds made available pursuant to the
Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection
Bond Act of 2006, $27,150,000 to the State Department of Public Health for grants and loans
for small community drinking water system infrastructure improvements and related actions,
$50,000,000 to the State Department of Public Health for grants for projects to prevent or
reduce the contamination of groundwater that serves as a source of drinking water, $40,000,000
to the department for planning grants and local groundwater assistance grants, $50,000,000 to
the department for projects to relocate existing Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta water intake
facilities, $80,000,000 to the department to increase the department's ability to respond to levee
breaches and to reduce the potential for levee failure, $100,000,000 to the department for the
acquisition, preservation, protection, and restoration of Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta islands,
$12,000,000 to the department to complete planning and feasibility studies associated with new
surface storage under the California Bay-Delta Program, $15,000,000 to the department for
planning and feasibility studies to identify potential options for the reoperation of the state's
flood protection and water supply systems, $10,000,000 to the department to update the
California Water Plan, and $15,000,000 for San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
planning; and of the funds made available under the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water,
Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002, $3,490,000 to the department for planning and
feasibility studies associated with surface storage under the California Bay-Delta Program. This
bill contains other related provisions.
Note: A water bond vehicle.
Status: 09/26/2007-Introduced. To print.
ABX2 5 (DeVore) Water: electricity for desalination: nuclear energy. (I-
09/26/2007 html Rdf)
Summary:
The existing Warren-Alquist State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act
establishes the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy
Commission) and requires it to certify sufficient sites and related facilities that are required to
provide a supply of electricity sufficient to accommodate projected demand for power
statewide. The act grants the Energy Commission the exclusive authority to certify any
stationary or floating electrical generating facility using any source of thermal energy, with a
generating capacity of 50 megawatts or more, and any facilities appurtenant thereto. Existing
law prohibits the construction of any thermal power plant or facilities appurtenant thereto or
modification of any existing thermal power plant and appurtenant facility without first obtaining
certification from the Energy Commission. Existing law prohibits certification of a new nuclear
fission thermal power plant, and prohibits land use in the state for a new nuclear fission thermal
power plant, until the Energy Commission makes a finding regarding the existence of an
approved and demonstrated technology or means for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste.
This bill would authorize the Energy Commission to certify one new nuclear fission thermal
reactor located at the site of an existing operating nuclear fission thermal power plant, if not less
than 20% of the electricity generated by the reactor is dedicated to powering desalinization
facilities to produce additional fresh water from salt water and the generating capacity of the
reactor does not exceed 2,000 megawatts. This bill contains other existing laws.
Note: California will not see additional nuclear power any time soon, but Europe is
moving toward greater utilization to reduce carbon emissions.
Status: 09/26/2007-Introduced. To print.
SB 732 (Steinberg) Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply,
Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006.
(A-09/07/2007 html pdf)
Summary:
(1) The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal
Protection Bond Act of 2006, an initiative statute approved by the voters at the November 7,
2006, statewide general election, among other things, makes $580,000,000 in bond funds
available for improving the sustainability and livability of the state's communities through
investment in natural resources. This bill would require the various departments that are to
implement the provisions of the initiative, among other things, to develop and adopt guidelines
and regulations, consult with other entities, conduct studies, and follow certain procedures for
establishing a project, or grant or loan program implementing the initiative. This bill contains
other related provisions and other existing laws.
Note: This bill enacts provisions to develop and implement several new programs for
which funding is made available under the Safe
Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River
and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 84),
including programs for nature education facilities and museums,
statewide water planning and design, and a new sustainable
communities and climate change reduction program. The bill is controversial because it
combines Proposition 84 implementation with preferences for communities that adopt
aggressive greenhouse gas emission reduction programs. The development community is
very concerned about this bill and the Administration does not support the measure at
this time.
Status: 09/10/2007-Placed on inactive file on request of Assembly Member Bass.
SB 1518 (Correa) Water charges and meters: new multiunit residential
structures. (A-05/07/2008 html pdf)
Summary:
The Water Measurement Law requires every water purveyor to require, as a condition of new
water service on and after January 1, 1992, the installation of a water meter to measure water
service. That law also requires urban water suppliers to install water meters on specified service
connections, and to charge water users based on the actual volume of deliveries as measured by
those water meters in accordance with a certain timetable. This bill would require every water
purveyor who provides water service to any person owning a multiunit residential structure for
which the first occupancy permit was issued on or after January 1, 2012, to require the
installation of separate meters on each individual residential rental unit as a condition of water
service to that property. The bill would authorize the owner or operator to charge tenants based
6
on the actual volume of water delivered as measured by the water meter. This bill contains other
related provisions and other existing laws.
Note: Do we have an interest in this measure?
Status: 05/15/2008-In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
SBX2 1 (Perata) Water quality, flood control, water storage, and
wildlife preservation. (I-09/14/2007 html pdf)
Summary:
Under existing law, various bond acts have been approved by the voters to provide funds for
water projects, facilities, and programs. The Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond
Act of 2006, a bond act approved by the voters at the November 7, 2006, statewide general
election, authorizes the issuance of bonds in the amount of $4,090,000,000 for the purposes of
financing disaster preparedness and flood prevention projects. The Safe Drinking Water, Water
Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006, an
initiative bond act approved by the voters at the November 7, 2006, statewide general election,
authorizes the issuance of bonds in the amount of $5,388,000,000 for the purposes of financing
a safe drinking water, water quality and supply, flood control, and resource protection program.
The Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002,
approved by the voters at the November 5, 2002, statewide general election, authorizes, for the
purposes of financing a safe drinking water, water quality, and water reliability program, the
issuance of bonds in the amount of $3,440,000,000. This bill, with regard to those bond funds,
would appropriate $610,890,000 as follows: of the funds made available pursuant to the
Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006, $50,000,000 to the Department
of Water Resources for essential emergency preparedness supplies and projects, and
$150,000,000 to the department for stormwater flood management project grants; of the funds
made available pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control,
River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006, $50,000,000 to the State Department of Public
Health for grants and loans for small community drinking water systems infrastructure
improvements and related actions, $50,400,000 to the State Department of Public Health for
grants for projects to prevent or reduce the contamination of groundwater that serves as a source
of drinking water, $40,000,000 to the department for administrative costs, planning grants, and
local groundwater assistance grants, $50,000,000 to the department for projects to relocate
existing Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta water intake facilities, $60,000,000 to the department
for expenditures to increase the department's ability to respond to levee breaches and to reduce
the potential for levee failure, $100,000,000 to the department for the acquisition, preservation,
protection, and restoration of Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta islands, $12,000,000 to the
department to complete planning and feasibility studies associated with new surface storage
under the California Bay-Delta Program, $15,000,000 to the department for planning and
feasibility studies to identify potential options for the reoperation of the state's flood protection
and water supply systems , $10,000,000 to the department to update the California Water Plan,
$10,000,000 to the department for planning and feasibility studies for projects to reduce
ecosystem conflicts in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and $10,000,000 to the State Coastal
Conservancy for projects on the Santa Ana River; and of the funds made available under the
Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002, $3,490,000
to the department for planning and feasibility studies associated with surface storage under the
California Bay-Delta Program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing
laws.
7
Note: Another framework for a water bond. About 60 percent of the funds appropriated
in this bill are for flood protection related activities, and another 15-20 percent is for
projects that protect or improve drinking water quality. The bill also funds completing
the CalFed surface storage feasibility studies and environmental documents, improving
regional water planning and groundwater management, and restoring critical
environmental resources.
While acknowledging that the bill funds worthwhile actions, DWR opposes the bill
because it is not part of a "comprehensive approach to addressing California's water
needs, which must include surface storage as a component to address future impacts on
water availably due to climate change and population."
Status: 01/07/2008-Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 23. Noes 11. Page 20.) To Assembly.
SBX2 2 (Perata) Safe Drinking Water Act of 2008. (A-10/08/2007 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 Drinking Water Act of
2008 which, if approved by the voters, would authorize, for the purposes of financing a
specified water supply reliability and environmental restoration program, the issuance of bonds
in the amount of $6,835,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law. This bill
contains other related provisions.
Note: Water bond proposal.
Status: 10/09/2007-Unanimous consent granted to consider without reference to file. Read
second time. Read third time. Urgency clause refused adoption. (Ayes 23. Noes 12. Page
15.) Motion to reconsider made by Senator Perata. Reconsideration.
SBX2 3 (Cogdill) Water Supply Reliability Bond Act.of 2008. (I-
09/19/2007 html pdt)
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
Bond Act of 2008 which, if approved by the voters, would authorize, for the purposes of
financing a specified water supply reliability and environmental restoration program, the
issuance of bonds in the amount of $9,085,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation
Bond Law. This bill contains other related provisions.
Note: Republican leader's water bond proposal.
Status: 10/08/2007-SEN. N.R. & W. Vote - Do pass.
SBX2 4 (Cogdill) Water resources: bond funds. (I-09/19/2007 html pdf)
Summary:
Under existing law, various bond acts have been approved by the voters to provide funds for
water projects, facilities, and programs. The Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond
Act of 2006, a bond act approved by the voters at the November 7, 2006, statewide general
election, authorizes the issuance of bonds in the amount of $4,090,000,000 for the purposes of
financing disaster preparedness and flood prevention projects. The Safe Drinking Water, Water
Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006, an
initiative bond act approved by the voters at the November 7, 2006, statewide general election,
authorizes the issuance of bonds in the amount of $5,388,000,000 for the purposes of financing
a safe drinking water, water quality and supply, flood control, and resource protection program.
The Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002,
approved by the voters at the November 5, 2002, statewide general election, authorizes, for the
purposes of financing a safe drinking water, water quality, and water reliability program, the
issuance of bonds in the amount of $3,440,000,000. This bill, with regard to those bond funds,
would appropriate $552,640,000 as follows: of the funds made available pursuant to the
Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006, $150,000,000 to the department
for stormwater flood management project grants; of the funds made available pursuant to the
Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection
Bond Act of 2006, $27,150,000 to the State Department of Public Health for grants and loans
for small community drinking water system infrastructure improvements and related actions,
$50,000,000 to the State Department of Public Health for grants for projects to prevent or
reduce the contamination of groundwater that serves as a source of drinking water, $40,000,000
to the department for planning grants and local groundwater assistance grants, $50,000,000 to
the department for projects to relocate existing Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta water intake
facilities, $80,000,000 to the department to increase the department's ability to respond to levee
breaches and to reduce the potential for levee failure, $100,000,000 to the department for the
acquisition, preservation, protection, and restoration of Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta islands,
$12,000,000 to the department to complete planning and feasibility studies associated with new
surface storage under the California Bay-Delta Program, $15,000,000 to the department for
planning and feasibility studies to identify potential options for the reoperation of the state's
flood protection and water supply systems, $10,000,000 to the department to update the
California Water Plan, and $15,000,000 for San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
planning; and of the funds made available under the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water,
Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002, $3,490,000 to the department for planning and
feasibility studies associated with surface storage under the California Bay-Delta Program. This
bill contains other related provisions.
Note: More water bonds.
Status: 10/08/2007-SEN. N.R. & W. Vote - Do pass, but re-refer to the Committee on
Appropriations.
Total Position Forms: 14
9
ITEM NO. 10
Report on Grant Activities - Townsend Public Affairs
The report for this item will be presented at the committee meeting.
ITEM NO. 10
Toiuseod
PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC.
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of Directors
Mike Payne, General Manager
Yorba Linda Water District
From: Christopher Townsend, President
Sean Fitzgerald, Southern California Director
Heather Dion, Senior Associate
Date: May 23, 2008
Subject: 2008 Action Plan Update - Activity Report
FY 09 Federal Appropriations
Action Items This Past Month:
• Met with Congressman Miller's District Staff to brief and update them on the FY
2009 federal appropriations request. This meeting included the Congressman's
newest staff member heading up water issues. We invited her to tour the
Highland Reservoir site and the helicopter pad near Chino Hills State Park. This
tour and briefing will occur within the next several weeks.
Water Resources Development Act IWRDAI Authorization
Action Items This Past Month:
• No activity this month. Active negotiations on WRDA requests will heat up later
in the year.
Proposition 50 CDPH Grants
Action Items This Past Month:
• We have contacted CDPH again regarding their earlier quote of late April/early
May as the estimated release of the Project Priority List for these grants.
However, at this time the release for the PPLs is still unknown by CDPH staff.
Prop. 84 Svnthetic Turf Reolacement/Water Use Efficiencv Fundinq
Action Items (Timeline/Status):
• As described in past updates, these competitive grants will commence once the
Legislature appropriates funding in the budget. The state budget update below
highlights the Governor's May Revise proposal, which includes $1 billion in Prop.
84 funding. If approved, this would allow DPR to begin the application process
as early as this coming fall.
Mav Revise Update
Important Highlights:
The Governor did not proposed any property tax taking from Enterprise Special
Districts in his May Revise.
• $1 billion in Proposition 84 funds were included in the Governor's May Revise,
and DWR has requested $300 million in FY 09-10 for the Integrated Regional
Water Management Program ($30 million for planning grants and $250 for
implementation grants, with the remainder being used for DWR administrative
costs).
Overview
The Governor released his May Revise of the 2008-09 budget on May 14th. As
outlined, the 2008-09 budget proposes to spend $101.8 billion in general fund spending
and estimates the budget deficit at $17.2 billion. In his May Revise, the Governor has
proposed several major changes from his January budget, including restoring funding to
some programs, increasing the cuts to others, and proposing a significant new one-time
funding stream to help improve the health of the State's general fund.
Addressinq the Deficit
As was the case in January, a significant portion of the May Revise is focused on
addressing the budget deficit. The May Revise estimates that the budget deficit is
$17.2 billion. This figure takes into account current budget year shortfalls, projected
revenue shortfalls in 2008-09, a proposed $2 billion reserve for the 2008-09 budget, and
the mid-year adjustments that were made to the current budget by the Legislature
during the special session earlier in 2008. In his January budget, the Governor
proposed to close the budget gap with 10% across the board cuts and no new major
sources of revenue. Many of the across the board cuts are still contained in the May
Revise, and additionally, the revised proposal calls for the securitization of the State
lottery as a new source of revenue for the State.
In the May Revise, the Governor proposes to place a measure before the voters in
November to allow the State to securitize the lottery and use the proceeds of the
securitization for general fund expenditures. Essentially, voters will be asked to allow
the State to sell the future annual revenues of the lottery for a one-time lump sum. The
Governor estimates that by selling the lottery's annual $1.2 billion in revenue that the
State will be able to receive a one-time payment of $15.2 billion to aid with general fund
expenditures over the next three budget years. The May Revise relies on $5.1 billion in
proceeds from the securitization of the lottery to be used in the 2008-09 budget. In the
event that voters do not approve the ballot measure in November, the Governor has
included a fail-safe in the May Revise in the form of a one cent increase in the State's
sales tax be used to pay back the lump sum payment. This sales tax increase would
only be in effect until June 2011. After this sales tax trigger is no longer in effect the
State will provide Californians rebates for the amount of revenue collected under the
temporary sales tax.
Local Government
When the Governor released his initial budget in January, local governments were
largely spared from the large cuts; this trend held true in the May Revise, as well. The
May Revise does not propose to suspend Proposition 1A and use local property tax, nor
does it suspend Proposition 42. Additionally, the May Revise does not contain
proposals to capture property taxes from enterprise districts to supplement general fund
expenditures.
The May Revise does contain one major provision that will impact local governments: a
proposal to use $828 million from the Proposition 42 spillover account to pay for general
fund expenses. Based on the fiscal estimates in the May Revise, the total spillover for
2008-09 is estimated at $1.18 billion. The May Revise authorizes the use of up to
$592.9 million from the Public Transportation Account (PTA) to be used for the Home-
to-School Transportation Program. The additional $235 million from the PTA will be
used to pay debt service to current and previously issued transportation related general
obligation bonds.
It is worth noting that the May Revise attributes much of the budget deficit to the home
foreclosure crisis, weaker than expected GDP growth, weaker California employment
rates, weaker California job market, and lower gains in personal income. All of these
factors will directly affect local government though lower property and sales tax
collection as well as lower revenues to the State. However, the Department of Finance
does predict that the housing market and larger national economy will begin to see
significant growth during the upcoming fiscal year.
While local governments may not be taking a large direct hit, the effects of cuts in other
portions of the budget will undoubtedly be noticed, including those to health and human
services, education, and public safety.
• as part of fully restoring the proposed reductions to special education.
Bond Funding
The Governor's May Revise did not significantly alter the way his January budget
proposed to appropriate funds from the infrastructure bond that were passed by voters
in November of 2006. Among the bond funding that was included in the Governor's
January budget were funds from Proposition 1B (transportation), Proposition 1C
(housing) and Proposition 84 (natural resources). Specifically,
The Governor's proposed budget includes an appropriation of $4.2 billion in
Proposition 1B transportation funds. These funds will be distributed to several
existing programs including the State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP),
State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP), local public
transportation programs, and other transportation programs.
The Governor also proposes allocating $771 million in Proposition 1C funding.
This funding will be allocated to numerous existing state programs. The
appropriation in the 2008-09 proposed budget includes:
o $188 million in affordable homeownership programs
o $194 million for multifamily rental housing
o $40 million for farmworker housing
o $24 million for emergency housing assistance
o $200 million for the Infill Incentives Housing Program
o $95 million for Transit Oriented Development projects
o $30 million for Urban Suburban and Rural Parks related to housing
One highlight to be found in the Governor's proposed 2008-09 budget is that
voter approved Proposition 84 parks money is included for appropriation. The
Governor appropriates $1 billion in Proposition 84 funding for a variety of natural
resources programs in 2008-09. Specifically, the proposed allocation of
Proposition 84 in the 2008-09 budget includes the following:
o $350 million to Department of Water Resources for regional projects that
increase water supplies, encourage water conservation, improve water
quality, and reduce dependence on exported water.
o $89.1 million for the State Coastal Conservancy to restore coastal
wetlands and watersheds and promote public access to the coast.
o $26.4 million for the Ocean Protection Council to develop marine
protected areas and enhance habitat for marine species.
o $33.3 million for the California Conservation Corps and local conservation
corps for public safety and watershed restoration projects, as well as
grants to local corps for acquisition and development facilities to support
local corps programs.
o $16.7 million for Department of Parks and Recreation for deferred
maintenance, interpretive exhibits, and cultural and natural stewardship
projects at state parks.
o $15.8 million for Department of Water Resources to complete feasibility
studies for surface water storage projects, evaluate climate change
impacts on the state's water supply and flood control systems, and
develop a strategic plan for the sustainable management of the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta's water supplies and ecosystem.
Miscellaneous
In addition to the proposed budget reductions above, below are additional provisions
contained in the May Revise of the budget that will likely receive significant attention
from the legislature and media.
• The May Revise no longer contains the Governor's proposal for the early release
of inmates. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
calculates a previously unidentified savings of $110 million due to previous
changes to their parole operations. Given the effectiveness of these changes,
and a lower inmate population than previously, the May Revise no longer
proposes the early release of non-violent offenders.
• The January budget proposed to achieve a cost savings for the Department of
Parks and Recreation by closing 48 state parks. The May Revise no longer
proposes to close the parks, but instead will raise the fee that park users pay
from $1 to $2. With this increased user fee, the state will not need to close any
state parks.
• The largest cuts made in the May Revise were to health and human services.
Among the additional cuts included in the May Revises:
o An additional $353 million in cuts to Medi-Cal;
o A reduction in the pay of in-home support workers to the minimum wage;
o Elimination of social security cost of living adjustment, thereby saving
$109 million;
o Elimination of cost of living adjustment for CalWorks recipients, thereby
saving $187 million.