April 2, 2001

Regular Board Meeting

Monday, April 2, 2001

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.

Board members present were: Directors Broomell, Armstrong, Polito, Aleshire and Stone. Staff

members present were: General Manager Arant, General Counsel Cowett, District Engineer

Jewell, Director of Finance Jarrell, Director of Operations Dacus, Project Engineer Grabbe, and

Board Secretary Stetson. Spectators present were: Messrs. Rozelle, Bunts, Adams, Fisher, Wynn,

Ross and others.

1.

3. Woods Valley Ranch Development - Proposed Revised Sewer Concept:

A revised sewer proposal for the proposed Woods Valley Ranch development was received

from Don Bunts of Water 3 Engineering, Inc., who is the representative for this proposed

development. The revised sewer concept consists of construction of a sewer lift station and

force main to the Lower Moosa Canyon Water Reclamation Facility to provide sewer service

for the Woods Valley Ranch development.

Mr. Don Bunts addressed the Board noting that a previous plan to sewer central Valley

Center had included the proposal to transport the flows from a pressurized sewer system to

the Lower Moosa Canyon Water Reclamation Facility. Since abandonment of that proposed

project, concept approval has been obtained for construction of a 75,000 gpd treatment plant

to serve the proposed Woods Valley Ranch development that will be designed to be

expandable to 225,000 gpd treatment capacity. The treatment method would be activated

sludge with tertiary treatment in which there would be on-site disposal of the treated effluent

onto the golf course. Wet weather storage facilities to provide for 48 days would be

constructed per the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

The following information on the proposed Woods Valley Ranch development was presented

and reviewed:

3 4/2/2001

Funding mechanisms were reviewed in which Mr. Bunts explained that capital costs relating

to the sewer facility improvements to serve the Woods Valley Ranch development will be

100% developer funded with no assessment districts or District payment. Operational costs

will be funded through a sewer service fee assessed each hook-up with the developer

subsidizing costs in the early phases of the project, if needed. The developer may be

required to post a bond to cover operational costs and provide financial protection for the

District. Mr. Bunts proposed that, if the sewer distribution line to the Lower Moosa Canyon

Water Reclamation Facility is approved, a reimbursement agreement be executed whereby

Woods Valley Ranch developers would receive a reimbursement from property owners in

Central Valley Center that benefit from the sewer improvements.

Benefits of providing sewer service to the Woods Valley Ranch development utilizing the

Lower Moosa Canyon Wastewater Reclamation Facility were itemized by Mr. Bunts. They

include a reduction in the overall capital costs, minimizes the impact of satellite facilities and

will result in improved efficiency of the treatment plant operations. Future construction of a

Central Valley Wastewater Reclamation Facility (skimming plant) allows for construction when

flows are available, provides a centralized reclamation facility and facilitates a “master

planned” approach.

Discussion ensued as to the size of the pipeline to transport the wastewater from Central

Valley Center to the Lower Moosa Canyon Water Reclamation facility. Mr. Bunts stated that,

considering the flows of the proposed Woods Valley Ranch development, a 4-inch diameter

pipe may be proposed as it’s capacity range is from 75,000 gpd to 325,000 gpd. General

Manager Arant noted that the County Department of Planning and Land Use determines the

areas that are appropriate for sewer service. Some County approved Specific Planning

Areas (SPAs) have been designated for sewer service and future areas in Central Valley

Center may be so designated (County Town and high groundwater areas), which should be

considered when sizing the proposed sewer distribution line.

4. Status Report on the Corporate Facility Needs Assessment:

An analysis of options regarding an assessment of the District’s corporate facility needs had

previously been prepared and distributed to the Board for review in which the following

options had been identified:

• Developing on the existing site

• Developing at Lake Turner

• Developing on a newly acquired site

4 4/2/2001

To proceed further with any of the above options would require the expenditure of funds

ranging from $20,000 to $25,000 to perform such tasks as property appraisals, and

environmental and preliminary architectural/engineering analysis for further evaluation. Staff

noted that it may not be appropriate, at this time, to pursue this project due to the

uncertainties of the price of energy, pumping costs and financial impacts upon the District.

5. Results of Employees’ Election for Membership in the California Public Employees’

Retirement System (Cal-PERS):

In compliance with Cal-PERS rules and regulations, an employees’ election was conducted

from March 20-22, 2001, in which employees cast their votes to approve or decline

membership in Cal-PERS and also to indicate election of the Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor

Benefits. Manager of Human Resources Hale reported that of the 64 ballots cast, 60 voted

for approval of Cal-PERS with 4 voting to decline membership in the Cal-PERS Retirement

System. A unanimous vote (64 ballots) was received for employees’ election of the Fourth

Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits. As such, the Board will be presented with a contract for the

District to enter into a defined benefit retirement plan with Cal-PERS for consideration at the

May 7

5 4/2/2001

effect for residential and small commercial accounts within SDG&E’s service area will be

applied to all commercial accounts if SB 43X is adopted. SDG&E’s rates are capped

presently at 6.6¢ per kWh while the market rate charged large commercial accounts, such as

the District, has been 30¢ per kWh. A rate increase approved by the PUC for SDG&E’s

service area is not expected to raise rates above the market rates currently charged the

District.

State bonds being issued to fund electricity purchases by the state will probably be repaid by

incremental rate increases once the price of power is stabilized through long-term contracts

for electrical supplies and more generating plants are on-line. Noting that legislation

previously adopted (AB 1X) prohibits the District from entering into contracts for alternative

energy sources, the District will be researching the feasibility of distributed generation for our

service area.

Since the deregulation of natural gas in the early 1990s, the District has been paying market

prices for its natural gas purchases. The price for natural gas includes a basis charge which

is the difference between the price of the natural gas and the actual purchase price. Last

year, natural gas prices were $5.00 for the gas and

7. Board of Directors’ Per Diem Compensation:

State statute provides for a 5% increase in the Board of Directors’ per diem for each year

since the date of the last adjustment. Currently, the Board’s per diem is $100.00 which was

approved in February 1993. As such, the Board could increase its per diem compensation

to a maximum of $147.00 for each day of board business. A change to the existing Board

per diem requires notification and a public hearing which could be conducted at the May 21

8. San Diego County Water Authority’s Board of Directors’ Meeting:

President Broomell reported that an open house had been conducted at the March 22

6 4/2/2001

with the Authority’s Board Room which is equipped with a computer for each Board member.

The 66,000 square foot building’s layout is very functional, enables all employees to be

located in one building and there are available parking spaces for employees as well as

visitors.

9. A Closed Session was called by President Broomell at 3:47 p.m. pursuant to:

• Government Code §54956.9(c), Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation

Name of case: Sweetwater Authority, et al. v. Dynegy, Inc. et al.

SDSC Case No. GIC 760743

The Regular Board meeting was reconvened at 4:07 p.m. No action was reported.

10.