August 5, 2002
VALLEY CENTER MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Regular Board Meeting
Monday, August 5, 2002
Time: 2:00 P.M.
Place: Board Room
29300 Valley Center Rd.
Valley Center, CA 92082
The Valley Center Municipal Water District Board of Directors’ meeting was called to order by
President Broomell at 2:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Board members present were: Directors Broomell, Polito, Aleshire, Stone and Haskell. Staff
members present were: General Manager Arant, General Counsel Strand, District Engineer
Jewell, Director of Operations Dacus, Acting Director of Finance Jeffrey, and Board Secretary
Stetson. Spectators present were Mr. Ross, Valley Roadrunner Newspaper and Mr. Finton.
ADDITION TO THE AGENDA
1.
Upon motion by Polito, seconded by Stone and unanimously carried, Board consideration of positions on proposed legislation (AB 1778, AB 1972, SB 1828 and
National Energy Policy Act of 2002) was added to agenda item No. 7 per Government
Code §54954.2(b)(2)
CONSENT CALENDAR
2.
Upon motion by Stone, seconded by Haskell and unanimously carried, the following consent calendar items were approved:
• Minutes of the Board meeting held July 15, 2002
• Audit demand check numbers 90088 through 90324 and wire disbursements 02-38
through 02-74
• Report of developers’ constructed facilities accepted into the District’s water
distribution system in Fiscal Year 2001-2002
• Treasurer’s Report for the period ended June 30, 2002
ACTION AGENDA
Valley Center Municipal Water District
Board of Directors’ Meeting
2 8/5/2002
3. Approval of the Valley Center Road at Cole Grade Road Intersection Water Main
Replacement Project:
District Engineer Jewell reviewed that the water main in Valley Center Road in and near the
intersection with Cole Grade Road (1955 era) has deteriorated and there have been several
line breaks. Due to the inconvenience from water outages, potential hazards and possible
further property damage, staff recommended replacement of approximately 1,500 feet of
water main in this area in advance of the County’s planned road improvements. In addition,
the leaks may have undermined the road which could be a potential liability to the District.
The County’s road improvement project near the intersection of Valley Center Road and Cole
Grade Road may be 1½ to 3 years in the future. The County’s plans show no significant
change of the grade of the road and the horizontal changes can be accommodated.
Therefore, replacement of the water main as proposed can be installed prior to the County’s
road project with a great deal of certainty that there will be no interference with the County’s
planned improvements. Updated information will be obtained on the location of the proposed
culverts to be installed by the County so that the water main should not conflict with these
facilities. The proposed water main replacement construction project may take 1 to
1½ months with the road work to begin in approximately 4 to 6 weeks.
A cost estimate for the proposed water main project is $370,000. Additional costs may be
incurred if the work will be accomplished at night to minimize traffic disruptions. Therefore,
a budget adjustment to appropriate $400,000 for the Valley Center Road at Cole Grade Road
water main replacement project was requested. Director Polito voiced that to avoid traffic
delays at this intersection, it would be advantageous to schedule the construction at night,
which would be strongly supported by the community. In addition to further evaluating
scheduling the construction work at night, an incentive for early completion will be
considered.
Upon motion by Aleshire, seconded by Polito and unanimously carried, the Board
approved the Valley Center Road at Cole Grade Road Intersection Water Main
Replacement Project, and adopted the following resolution, entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-31
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
VALLEY CENTER MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
AMENDING THE 2002-03 BUDGET BY TRANSFERRING
$400,000 FROM MASTER PLAN IMPROVEMENTS
RESERVE ACCOUNT INTO A NEW ACCOUNT (#01-5670.78)
FOR THE VALLEY CENTER ROAD & COLE GRADE ROAD
INTERSECTION WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT
was adopted by the following vote, to wit:
Valley Center Municipal Water District
Board of Directors’ Meeting
3 8/5/2002
AYES: Directors Broomell, Polito, Aleshire, Stone and Haskell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
4. Approval of the Fiscal Year 2002-03 Strategic Plan Specific Goals, Budget Objectives:
Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Strategic Plan Specific Goals, approved projects and programs and
carry-over projects from previous fiscal years were presented and reviewed. A total of 71
individual goals and objectives are proposed of which 57 are expected to be completed in FY
2002-03 while 9 are controlled by an outside agency or entity with 5 being multi-year
undertakings. As in previous years, mid-year and end of the fiscal year status reports will be
provided to track progress on the tasks.
Upon motion by Aleshire, seconded by Stone and unanimously carried, the Fiscal Year
2002-2003 Strategic Plan Specific Goals and Budget Objectives were approved.
5. Review of Draft Legislative Policy Guidelines:
Consideration of adoption of the proposed Legislative Policy Guidelines had been deferred
from the July 15
th
meeting to today’s Board meeting. The guidelines would provide policy direction to staff in responding to legislative and regulatory proposals that could impact the
District and facilitate responding to changes in legislative and regulatory proposals per the
guidelines. Staff proposed that, if the Board concurs with the legislative policy guidelines, a
finalized set of guidelines would be presented at the next meeting for Board approval with
review of the guidelines at least every two years. The guidelines would assist in supporting
ACWA’s Legislative Outreach Program allowing for more timely responses to legislative and
regulatory proposals.
The Board unanimously agreed to retain the District’s current legislative procedures
that provide that the Board adopt a position on legislative issues and proposed
legislation with the provision that if there is a change in a legislative position and time
does not permit review by the full Board, concurrence from the President or Vice
President can be obtained with ratification of this action requested at a subsequent
Board meeting.
6. Board Position on Proposed Legislation:
Board direction on the following proposed legislation was requested:
• AB 1778 (Nakano) - Would require the Department of Health Services (DHS) perform
background checks on water treatment plant operators and system operators. There is
concern regarding an agency’s liability if an applicant’s employment status changes due
to information obtained from the background checks. Amendments are being sought that
would provide immunity to water agencies for making good faith hiring decisions with the
Valley Center Municipal Water District
Board of Directors’ Meeting
4 8/5/2002
information from background checks. ACWA’s position is to oppose this legislation
unless it is amended to include the immunity clause.
The Board unanimously adopted an “oppose” position on AB 1778 unless amended to include the immunity
proposal.
• AB 1972 (Frommer) - As proposed, this bill would require every public water system to
include health effects language in a consumer confidence report (CCR) whenever a
public health goal (PHG) is exceeded rather than when the maximum contaminant level
(MCL) is exceeded. Currently, the District’s water supply is tested for 135 different
regulated and unregulated contaminants. If the sample exceeds the MCL set by the
State and Federal Government, then health affects language is listed in the CCR.
AB 1972 proposes that if the contaminant exceeds the PHG set by the State, a statement
of health concerns must be provided. The PHGs are usually more stringent than the
MCL levels as they are goals to work toward but there is no scientific evidence to support
the PHG level. ACWA’s position is that the provisions of AB 1972 would cause undue
concern on the part of the consumers, and would be costly to the water ratepayers.
The Board unanimously adopted an “oppose” position on AB 1972.
• SB 1828 (Burton) - The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead
agency to prepare an environmental impact report on a project when it finds there may
be a significant effect on the environment. SB 1828 would require a lead agency to notify
the affected tribe and Native American Heritage Commission when determining whether
a negative declaration or environmental impact report is required for a project within
one mile of a reservation or sacred site. Additionally, the bill would permit the tribe to
effectively veto proposed projects, even those where mitigation measures are proposed
to address a declaration of adverse impact. Due to the significance of Native American
tribes in California having veto power over a CEQA lead agency’s approval process,
currently governed by the Office of Planning and Research’s implementation guidelines,
a position of “oppose” has been recommended by ACWA.
The Board unanimously adopted an “oppose” position on SB 1828.
• National Energy Policy Act of 2002 -This federal energy bill contains language that would
require the end of the use of MTBE in gasoline and replace the additive with ethanol by
2005. There is a waiver process whereby California could seek to have the requirement
to have any oxygenate in the gasoline waived. There is, however, strong support to
require the additive ethanol from those in the mid-west. ACWA recommends support of
this Act with the amendment allowing California the flexibility to not have an oxygenate
in its gasoline as emission standards can be met without the oxygenate requirement.
The Board unanimously adopted a “support with amendments” position on the
National Energy Policy Act of 2002.
Valley Center Municipal Water District
Board of Directors’ Meeting
5 8/5/2002
GENERAL MANAGER’S AGENDA
7. Review of Miscellaneous Informational Items:
Proposition 50 - Correspondence was received from Mesa Consolidated Water District
regarding concurrence with the District’s position of opposing Proposition 50, the Water
Quality, Supply and Safe Drinking Water Act of 2002. A letter to this effect was mailed to
Mr. Ed Royce, Sr., Chair, ACWA Region 10 Board of Directors, citing their water district’s
concern that the water bond may not benefit the Southern California water community.
Proposition 50 was discussed at length at the recent ACWA Board of Directors meeting.
Officials from Metropolitan have been lobbying for support of Proposition 50. There is now,
however, growing concern on the part of the water community throughout the state on the
merits of Proposition 50.
Under Proposition 50, a full mitigation is required for any project receiving funding.
Environmental impacts cannot always be fully mitigated for many projects. Under CEQA,
projects can be adopted with a statement of overriding considerations. The ACWA Board
of Directors took no action on a position on Proposition 50, but directed Stephen Hall,
Executive Director, to discuss matters to be included in the implementing legislation such as
moderating the full mitigation requirement. Mr. Hall will also work with the advocates of
Proposition 50, the Planning & Conservation League and various environmental groups, to
obtain approval of the recommendations from the storage studies that will be undertaken and
funded from Proposition 50 bonds.
Pipeline 6 - Time is approaching for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to
make a decision on pursuing construction of Pipeline 6. San Diego County Water Authority
has indicated the additional water supply will not be needed until 2025 or possibly 2030, but
the rapid growing water demands in Southwestern Riverside County, namely in Temecula and
Murrieta areas, require additional water supplies from Metropolitan. San Diego County Water
Authority’s position is based on anticipated additional water through desalination and
reclamation projects. This position may cause Metropolitan to abandon construction of
Pipeline 6 whereby Eastern and Western Municipal Water Districts would be required to
construct their own pipeline facilities to the Skinner Filtration Plant to meet their growing water
demands. If this were to occur, it is highly unlikely that Metropolitan would give further
consideration in the future to construct a pipeline just to serve San Diego, especially after two
of its member agencies had constructed replacement facilities on their own. A letter was
forwarded to Mr. James Turner, Chair of the San Diego County Water Authority, in which
concerns are expressed regarding the potential abandonment of Pipeline 6 by Metropolitan
and asked that the Authority be cautious and take action to maintain the Pipeline 6 option.
Local Government Financing - Senator Burton has announced a new commission that will be
reviewing local government finances in which it was indicated that financing structures such
as ERAF, income and property taxes, as well as regional revenue sharing plans will be
examined. This commission is thought to have been created due to the state’s budget deficit.
Valley Center Municipal Water District
Board of Directors’ Meeting
6 8/5/2002
GENERAL COUNSEL’S AGENDA
8. Enhanced Security Measures:
General Counsel Strand stated that enhanced security measures are being implemented
within the water industry. Along with the proposed AB 1778 relating to water treatment plant
security, the Brown Act has been amended to permit calling for a closed session to discuss
security issues such as a threat to public safety or security. With this amendment, the
District could go into closed session to discuss its facility vulnerability assessment.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ AGENDA
9. San Diego County Water Authority’s Board of Directors’ Meeting:
President Broomell reported that at the San Diego County Water Authority’s July 25
th
Board meeting, the Rancho Penasquitos Pressure Control and Hydroelectric Facility Project’s
location will be moved to another location in response to opposition from nearby residents.
This change in the project will cost approximately $7 to $8 million.
10. Amendments to the Amended Employment Agreement between the District and Gary T. Arant:
District Counsel had been directed to investigate if the General Manager’s vehicle allowance
could be included as part of his salary to be eligible for PERS credit, but without increasing
the net cost to the District. However, it was concluded that this proposal could not be
implemented without a cost impact from PERS as well as other benefit costs (workers’
compensation and medicare). The additional cost would be $2,396 per year. As this did not
meet the parameters from the Board of creating no additional cost, this proposal was not
included in the amended employment agreement.
Amendments to the Amended Employment Agreement between Valley Center Municipal
Water District and Gary T. Arant were presented and reviewed as follows:
• Section 5.2.3, Termination, Without Cause. Amended to require a 4/5's vote of the Board
of Directors to terminate the employment agreement without cause.
• Section 2.1, Annual Compensation. Amended to reflect annual salary of $140,000.
Upon motion by Aleshire, seconded by Haskell and unanimously carried, the Amended
Employment Agreement Between Valley Center Municipal Water District and Gary T.
Arant was amended as outlined above.
Valley Center Municipal Water District
Board of Directors’ Meeting
7 8/5/2002
CLOSED SESSION
11. A Closed Session was called by President Broomell at 3:10 p.m. pursuant to:
• Government Code §54957.6(b), Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated
Litigation. Number of potential cases: 1
The Regular Board meeting was reconvened at 3:54 p.m. No action was reported.
ADJOURNMENT
12.
Upon motion by Aleshire, seconded by Stone and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
ATTEST: ATTEST:
______________________________ _______________________________
Secretary President