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