Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-09-17; Municipal Water District; MinutesS^II CONSOLIDATION OF CITY WATER DEPARTMENT AND COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT MEETING OF NEGOTIATING TEAM WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1980 BOARD ROOM, LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER - 10:00 A.M. PRESENT - Mayor Ronald C. Packard City of Carlsbad Councilmember Girard Anear " " " Glen E. McComas " " " Roger W. Greer " " " Donald A. MacLeod, President Costa Real Municipal Water District Fred W. Maerkle, Director " " " " " William C. Meadows SijiML (Skip) Schmidt-; Meeting was chaired by Mayor Packard, who opened by asking for corrections, additions or comments on minutes of meeting of September 10. Minutes were approved as submitted. He then asked if anybody had any items to add to today's agenda. None were offered. 1. Service Area Agreement: Mayor Packard stated that nowhere in the agree- ment is the reclaimed water issue addressed, although it was discussed to some degree at the last meeting. Depending upon the outcome of these negotiations, it will still be necessary to sit down and renegotiate the agreement to specifically address the subject of reclaimed water. There was further discussion between Mayor Packard and Mr. MacLeod regarding negotiating the subject of reclaimed water. It was agreed the agreement could be revised or even terminated, if necessary. 2. City Council Position: Mayor Packard suggested discussing each point in the council position paper at this meeting and then discuss CRMWD's proposal at the next meeting. At this meeting he suggested going on the assumption that the process of consolidation, either through negotiations or through an election, takes place. Mr. Maerkle asked if they could not agree on a consolidation, would the city consider a merger. Mayor Packard replied that this would depend on what conditions were involved in a merger and was not prepared to discuss that at this time. He wanted to concentrate on the consolidation and on what arrangements would be reasonable for it to take place. At the next meeting a procedure will be discussed for the CRMWD proposal in the event it is accepted. Items 1 through 6 of the City Council Position Paper were addressed as follows; 1. The city feels it would be in the best interest of all the voters to have one agency responsible to the voters. Mr. Maerkle noted that one third of the population of Carlsbad is getting its water from San Marcos or Olivenhain and one district body can not control other districts. Mayor •2- Packard replied that the city would have to have agreements drawn up with the other agencies. The same requirements and conditions would exist for a new water district as with CRMWD and all previous agree- ments would still be binding. Mr. Anear added that it would be better to have two thirds of the population under one political entity than four quarters under separate entities. Mr. MacLeod noted that CRMWD has no problem now with other districts and Mayor Packard assured him that a city jurisdiction would not change that at all. He added that this has been no problem for the city either. He does not feel this is a major problem, but does feel there is merit in having one elected body service all areas. 2. Mr. MacLeod asked exactly what was meant by a Water Utility Services Commission. Mr. Maerkle felt it would have no authority. Mayor Packard stated that the duties, responsibilities and powers of the commission are yet to be determined and that is why this item is be- ing discussed. The commission would be under the umbrella of the city,-as are all other commissions (the Planning Commission, for instance) but would in no way be a puppet. Mr. Anear added that it will be an active commission and will make judgments and decisions on its own; that 99% of decisions of commissions are not appealed and are generally final decisions. Only in rare cases would their decisions be appealed. Actually, the commission would probably have more responsibility than CRMWD does now, as the district's responsibility would be doubled from one third to two thirds of the city. Mayor Packard agreed this would increase their responsibility- Mr. MacLeod said he read it as leading to a puppet government. Mayor Packard again disagreed and added there would no longer be two Boards of Directors. The board would be consolidated into one Board of Directors (the city council). The intent is to create one district with one-Board of Directors and this does not diminish the power and responsibility that would be given to such a commission. This commission would be appointed, not elected, and would not be directly responsible to the voters.but to the council -- the council is, of course, responsible to the voters. He stressed that he wanted no misunderstanding as to what would happen if consolidation takes place. This commission would be as powerful, if not more so, as the Planning Commission. Discussion continued between Mayor Packard and Mr. Maerkle regarding the future growth of the city and need for long and short-term plan- ning for growth of water and sewer services. Mayor Packard pointed out that the city has very good coordination on these matters by department heads meeting on a daily basis. Recommendations of department heads are then given to the city council, project by project. This kind of coordination would be easier under a con- solidated program. Mr. Maerkle asked what kind of coordination can be obtained when other districts are involved. Mayor Packard and Mr. Anear both said the city would have the same relationship with other districts as it has now and developers are also brought in for cooperation in these matters. Mr. MacLeod agreed that all these things should be consolidated. Mayor Packard advised that the commissions give direction to depart- ments and the department heads usually attend commission meetings. Discussion continued between Mayor Packard, Mr. Maerkle and Mr. -3- MacLeod on the scope of power and authority of a commission. Mr. MacLeod stated he would like to see more elaboration on Item 2 of the council position paper, specifically to see it laid out like an agree- ment. Mayor Packard felt this would not be necessary unless all con- cerned are able to agree on the consolidation process, but asked if the district has any input on what it wants at this time. The district had nothing to add at this time. 3. Mayor Packard wanted it understood there would be no wholesale release of staff. All personnel on board at time of consolidation would be retained and the only release would be by attrition. He also made clear that although the original application to LAFCO referred to employees on hand in the district as of January 1, it should actually have read "employees holding positions as of the date of consolidation". Employee jobs are not an issue in this matter and no positions will be in jeopardy. All district employees would be paid at the same scale as city employees and would have all the benefits of city employees. Mr. MacLeod, referring back to Item 2 of the position paper, asked if a commission were formed, would it be dealing with the employees or the city? The mayor replied he would assume the commission would not get involved with employees, as none of the other commissions do. The personnel would be employees of the city, not of the commission. None of the commissions have their own employees. Department Heads generally do their own interviewing and hiring, with the final approval of the City Manager. 4. The present Board of Directors of the district would retain all outside associations, as now, but in addition would assume other responsibilities that the city now has with outside organizations. Mr. Maerkle asked how long a term the directors would serve and was advised it would probably be a four-year term. He also wanted to know who the board would report to and was advised it would be the city council. The board would have a department head to work with them but he would not be over them. The department head would implement the decisions of the commission. The only body the commission would answer to would be the council and then only in cases where decisions would have to go to council by terms of city ordinances, etc. Many of the decisions would be final and would not have to go to council. The commission would have more to do than the present board, unless they themselves chose not to take on more responsibility. 5. Accepted without discussion. 6. Accepted without discussion. Mayor Packard asked if there were any more problems. Mr. MacLeod stated he wants to know a lot more about the implications of Item 2 of the posi- tion paper. Mayor Packard agreed that if this becomes the determining factor in a consolidation agreement, it would have to be gone into more deeply later. A recess was called at 11:00 a.m. Meeting reconvened at 11:15 a.m. -4- Mayor Packard continued by assuring the present board members that by serving as commission members they need not be concerned about pay. The Planning Commission, for example, receives reimbursement for their services and the city foresees similar consideration for the Water Commission. Also, commission members would be brought into the same benefits as other commissions. They would not lose in terms of pay or benefits. Mr. MacLeod commented that he thought it had been a very good discussion and he would discuss the pros and cons at the district's board meeting later in the day. By the next meeting they would have a consolidation of ideas. He was sure they could come to an agreement one way or another by the end of this series of meetings. Both Mr. MacLeod and Mayor Packard agreed it would not be fair to the voters to go to an election without first trying to reach an agreement. Mr. MacLeod repeated that the district's interpretation had been that there would be a take-over by the city council, who would run the water business. He felt, with the projected increase in population over the next ten years, the city council as such would never have enough time to look after a water district. Mayor Packard agreed with this. He thought the larger the city becomes, the more autonomous various boards and commissions would become. Because of difficulties with unreliable mail delivery, it was decided that all minutes and agendas would be hand delivered in the future to all elected officials. These should be available each Monday following the previous Wednesday's meeting. Mr. Greer accepted responsibility for see- ing that this is done. The next meeting, will be held in the Board Room of the Leucadia County Water District at 10:00 a.m., September 25, 1980. Meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m. R^s-perbfully submitted. PAMELA A. BATHO Recording Secretary