Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-08-15; City Council; 5541; Formation of subsidiary districtCITY OF CARLSBAD AGENDA BILL DATE: DEPARTMENT : NO. ^ August PUBLIC 15, 1978 WORKS Initial: ,A Dept.Rd.Uafj tf „ - . . I/-/LT/0v* • £"i i» *— y • ^ y _^&^ C. Mgr. $^ J Subject: FORMATION OF A SUBSIDIARY DISTRICT OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Statement of the Matter Council discussed the formation of a subsidiary district of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District at their meeting of November 8, 1977 and gave direction to staff to proceed with the development-of an application in accordance with the District Reorganization Act of 1965. Attached is a memorandum from the Director of Utilities & Maintenance which outlines the status of the application at this time. EXHIBIT A. Memorandum from Director of Utilities S Maintenance to City Manager of August 4, 1978. RECOMMENDATION Direct staff to return at the second regular Council meeting in September with a draft of a request for proposals outlining the study and report necessary to proceed with the consolidation of the two water systems. Council action 8-15-78 The matter was continued to the adjourned meeting of August 22, 1978. 8-22-78 • Staff was directed fo refcirn at the second regular. Counci 1 : meeting in September with a draft of a; request fo> "proposal s outlining the study and report necessary to proceed with the consolidation of the two water systems. 78-189 August 4, 1978 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Utilities & Maintenance SUBJECT: CMUD Consolidation This is to provide you with a summary of actions taken in furtherance of the Council decision of November 8, 1977 to initiate proceedings to consolidate the water operations of the City and Carlsbad Municipal Water District. DECEMBER - City Manager, Public Works Administrator and Director of Utilities & Maintenance met with the Executive Director of LAFCO (Michael Goff) and the Project Director (Laurie McKinley) to confirm the steps to be taken under the District Reorganization Act. It appeared that LAFCO staff would weigh heavily the "benefit to present and future citizens" portion of the act in making the recommendation to LAFCO as to approval/disapproval. DECEMBER 13 - Letter forwarded to the County Assessor requesting that he make a determination as to the 70% of taxable land of the CMWD being in the City. Additionally, it indicated that such an analysis would be funded by the City. No written reply has been received to date, although a phone call was received from Mr. Benitz on May 25, which indicated that the assessor could not make such a determination. JANUARY - I had conversation with the City Clerk relating to the same 70% requirement as relates to registered voters. It appears that a simple "precinct match" - CMWD and City could establish the number of registered voters and would be relatively simple to make. I have reviewed the documentation that has been accumulated from the City of Costa Mesa and Belmont relating to their experience with similar pro- ceedings. It appears to me that the following would have to be accomplished and included as a part of the application: 1. Confirmation that 70% of the taxable property of the District is within the City limits. 2. Reorganization of this type are categorically exempt under CEQA - although it may be desirable to make an environmental assessment to confirm that the reorganization will qualify for a negative declaration. 3. I believe that an economic analysis (including a rate analysis) will be necessary to confirm that operational efficiencies will result in over all cost reduction for a combined operation. CMWD Consolidation (continued) -2- August 4, 1978 4. It will be necessary for a detailed analysis to be made of the salaries and fringe benefit packages of the CMWD employees and assurances provided to them that their vested interests will be protected (longevity, retirement, sick benefits, etc.). The formation of a subsidiary district may be initiated by resolution of the City Council or by a petition of 5% of the District voters (these are City voters also, except for the unincorporated areas). Council has indicated that they wish to proceed by resolution which has the advantage of the City proceeding at a rate dictated by Council. Additionally, the application will have such supporting information which has been developed in accordance with Council's guidelines and which, in their opinion, will be most supportive. A petition by interested citizens would, of course, be most supportive of Council, however, the information required by LAFCO would be provided in response to their requests which might not be in consonance with Council's time schedule. I have included a staff paper which discusses the pros and cons of an advisory election which was provided the Council sub-committee in October 1977. Council may wish to reconsider an advisory election at this time in view of Proposition 13. A successful advisory election would certainly provide a convincing argument to LAFCO in processing the application for reorganization. It would not, however, preempt the requirement for another election as the final step of the reorganization process. I have given considerable thought to the staff time required to develop the information, as outlined previously, to support the City's application to LAFCO. I am confident that I can give direction to and coordinate the develop- ment of the information, however, I do not believe I can make the time available to do the detailed research and analysis required. I would recommend that this be done by a consultant who has experience in rate analysis and district reorgan- ization. I have attached a list of consultants who have such experience and who might respond favorably to a request for a proposal, should Council desire to proceed in this manner. ROGgRW. GF Director of Utilities & Maintenance Attachment RWG:pag c STAFF DISTRIBUTION V• ONLY STAFF POSITION PAPER #1 SUBJECT: Election Alternatives - CMWD Consolidation 1. Introduction Public statements by Council members indicate a desire for a public election in the issue of the CMWD consolidation at the earliest possible time. The purpose of this discussion is to focus on the election alternatives and to provide information on the LAFCO process which could lead to a referendum called by the Board of Supervisors. There are two types of elections to be considered. The first - an advisory election, similar to the swimming pool vote, which provides the Council with the preferences of the electorate in order for them to take the necessary procedural steps (often the steps do not require confirmation by the electorate) to complete the project. An advisory issue may be placed on the ballot by a simple majority vote of the Council. The results of such an election are advisory in nature; Council may proceed or may not act as their conscious dictates. The second, or referendum election, is placed on the ballot as a requirement of law and the election results are binding upon the Council. In the instance of the proposed consolidation of- CMWD, the election is a requirement of the final phase of the process and is preceeded by public hearings by LAFCO and the Board of Supervisors and must have discretionary approval by the Executive Director of LAFCO, the LAFCO Board and the Board of Supervisors. A denial by any one of the three, can deny the action for a minimum of one year before it can be reintroduced. The procedural steps with maximum time limits for each step are attached and may range from 224 days to 324 days to the election date. DISCUSSION: I. Advisory Election. An advisory election could be included in the March 7, 1978 or the June/November elections if Council desires. The March 7, 1978 election could come before Council at the November 15, 1977 meeting, and returned for documents and final decision at the December 6 Council meeting. Arguments pro/con would have to be submitted to the Register of Voters by January 3, 1978 and rebuttals by January 13, 1978 in order to be on the March 7 ballot. Advantages to Advisory Election: An advisory election, if indicating a strong preference for a consolidated water operation; would be a strong counter to the CMWD public hearing at which relatively few residents expressed their opinion. An advisory election would be a stronger indication of preference than would a poll. Political campaigning relating to the issue would be of a relatively short duration (10 weeks) but would be highly visible. A successful election would provide a strong indication to LAFCO that they consider a consolidation in their best interests and could have the effect of neutralizing CMWD efforts of behind the scenes manuevering with LAFCO. It.is widely held that LAFCO is more disposed to sympathy to special districts instead of general government organizations. A large mandate from the voters could tend to convince LAFCO that in the instance their preference to special districts might not be in their best interests. Disadvantage to Advisory Elections: The advisory election, if successful, is not binding upon LAFCO or the Board of Supervisors. If the election is not successful, Council may interpret this as a moral obligation not to proceed further - this would be reinforced by CMWD's perception of the results. An advisory election may raise issues that have not been identified and a short period of time is available to- develop necessary information. -Z- vThe advisory election may result in the electorate indicating their preference based upon emotional issues. The issues of the consolidation may become coming!ed with the candidates issues for the position of Mayor and Council- person (Cn.tewis) - this might be considered an advantage, much will depend on who the candidates are to be and what their positions are. II. Referendum Election: The referendum election will be the final phase of the LAFCO process and as such may occur, if all approvals are obtained.,anywhere from 224 to 324 (or longer) after processing commences. Thus, the earliest election date may be June 78 or more likely November 78. Should the original application be denied, the process would be delayed at least a year before it can be reinitiated. Advantages: The results of the referendum election are final if successful. If unsuccessful, it would be a year before processing could recommence. There would be two public hearings (one by LAFCO, the other , by the Board of Supervisors) prior to the election. Disadvantages: The time preceeding the election would provide a long period of time for CMWD to develop a political following favorable to their position. During this time the population of the District will grow and depending upon the political involvement could be construed as an "Old City vs La Costa" issue. RECOMMENDATION: The above analysis is provided to more fully advise the Council of alternatives available to them in instructing staff to proceed. 10/7/77-RWG:pag -3- ACTION STEP RESPONSIBLE AGENCY "1ME Resolution of Intention City of Carlsbad Council may wish to hold public hearing on this item. As a minimum, I believe two Council meetings would be required - one for presentation and return for documents at next meeting. 15-45 days File Resolution with LAFCO Executive Director LAFCO Set for Public Hearing held within 70 days - may be continued for 70 additional days. 70-140 days Determination LAFCO LAFCO may approve or deny. If denied by LAFCO, no new submission can be made for one year. 35 days Resolution Initiating Proceedings , Board of Supervisors Board can also call Public Hearing. May approve or disapprove. Approval is subject to confirmation by an election. 35 days Notification of LAFCO Board of Supervisors • Must notify LAFCO of 5 days Board action. Develop Impartial Analysis Executive Director LAFCO Executive Director develops an impartial analysis. 5 days Forward Impartial Analysis to Election Officials LAFCO Approve and forward to 5 days election officials. Written Arguments Submitted City of Carlsbad CMWD Written arguments pro & con submitted": to election officials for inclusion in ballot. 54 days pri< to election TOTAL PROCESSING TIME 224 - 324 d« LIST OF CONSULTANTS RALPH ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES 3500 American River Drive Sacramento, Calif. 95825 ALDERMAN, SWIFT & LEWIS 2921 South Main Street Santa Ana, Calif. 92707 BROWN & CALDWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1501 N. Broadway Walnut Creek, CA 94596 J.B. GILBERT & ASSOCIATES 350 Federal Building Sacramento, Calif. 95814 CRESUP, MC CORMICK & PAGET 650 California Street San Francisco, Calif. 94108 ARTHUR. D. LITTLE, INC. One Maritime Plaza San Francisco, Calif. 94111 8/4/78-pag