Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-09-24; Municipal Water District; MinutesN^l CONSOLIDATION OF CITY WATER DEPARTMENT AND COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT MEETING OF NEGOTIATING TEAM WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1980 BOARD ROOM, COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL 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 S. M. (Skip) Schmidt Chairman MacLeod called for any errors or omissions in the minutes of the meeting of September 17, 1980. Moved and seconded that minutes be accepted as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. MacLeod proceeded with agenda of meeting: 1.0 REVIEW OF JUSTIFICATION 1.1 Cost of Service: As a point of clarification. Mayor Packard referred to paragraph 2 regarding staff requirements. The city did not anticipate an increase in total personnel initially. In fact, upon consolidation, there could very well be a decrease in total personnel. Mr. Maerkle asked if he didn't expect a large growth in population between 1980 and 1985. Mayor Packard agreed this was so, and at that time personnel would increase, but in discussing the consolidation process itself, it is possible that initially there would be a decrease in personnel. This would not be by releases, however; only personnel reductions by the process of attrition. 1.2 Wastewater Reclamation: Mr. MacLeod read this item into the record and stated that the city had raised this as a real issue at the LAFCO meeting. Mayor Packard said it is a real issue but did not think it was a real issue relating to the consolidation process. In regard to the Growth Management Report, Mayor Packard wanted it known that it has not yet been before the city council. It has .not even been discussed nor adopted by council. i Mr. MacLeod read the district's compromise proposal into the record. Mayor Packard said he had not had a great deal of time to review the proposal since he only received it late the previous day. He would have to take time to review and analyze the whole proposal before discussing it. He would have to take up with council much of what has been proposed. Mr. MacLeod said he understood the mayor's position. 2.0 FUNCTIONAL CONSOLIDATION 2.1 Wastewater Management: Mayor Packard repeated that he mereily wanted to ask questions at this meeting as a means of clarjification, such as where would be the natural approach to waste water management and how it would be in the best interests of the city or the district. j 2.2 Potable Water Service: Mr. MacLeod continued reading this item into the record and noted that the district had been giving the city their capital improvements for review and comments in the past. Mayor Packard agreed this was so and again said he would discuss the whole proposal with the city council. 3.0 JOINT USE OF DISTRICT PROPERTY 3.1 Police Facility: Mr. MacLeod read this item into the record. i 3.2 City Service Center: This item was also read into the record. I Referring to both of the above items. Mayor Packard said he wouVd want to know what type of financial arrangements would be made for use of a portion of the district's headquarters. The district's proposal refers to saving the city's money by providing this space but he assumed they would want some financial remuneration for it. Mr. Maerkle discussed what space is available for police headquarters and parking. Mayor Packard said a police station and city service center could be dealt with separate and apart from any consolidation effort on the part of the city or the district and he felt it was an extraneous item at this time. Mr. MacLeod said he did not want to comment on that at this time, but did say that the whole proposal is being offered as a total package. 4.0 WATER UTILITIES SERVICE COMMISSION This item was read into the record. Mayor Packard had a great many questions on this subject and again said he needed an opportunity to analyze the subject before going into it more deeply. There was extensive,discussion between the mayor, Mr, MacLeod and Mr. Maerkle on the subject of forming a Water Utilities Service Commission. Among the subjects discussed were how the commission would function in regard to division of responsibilities for waste water and potable water and how the administration of the management and production of water would be handled; would the commission be able to make binding decisions without going to the Board; what would the role^ of the commission, the board and the city council be as -3- they relate to each other. There were many more .questions in this vein and the Mayor advised that he would have more input before or by the next meeting. The whole subject would have to be discussed and understood thoroughly and he needed a lot more clarification. It was agreed by all concerned that future meetings can be held at Costa Real Municipal Water District. The next meeting will be held at 10:00 a.m. on October 1, 1980 in the Board Room of CRMWD. Meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m. ^^Re^EfiCi^ully submitted. -PAMELA A. BATHO Recording Secretary JcOSTK • /V1UNICIP/1L m/AlER DISTRICT RE/IL 5950 El Comino Real. Carlsbad. CcWornIa 92008 Telephone (714) 438-2722 September 26, 1980 The Honorable Ronald C. Packard Mayor City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Mayor: The purpose of this letter is to help clarify the proposal presented by this District at our joint meeting on September 24, 1980. Also, I will attempt to answer some of the questions you raised at that time. First of all, our proposal to consolidate and separate the retail water service and the nonpotable water program along with our offer to allow the City to use our six-acre site for a police facility Is part of a single proposal. Or, in other words, it is all part of the same package which the City may either accept or reject. Specific elements of this package, such as financial arrangement, for example, are still open for negotiation. Our proposal for a Water Utilities Services Commission (WUSC) is based on the concept originally suggested by you, and may be considered separately. The reason we feel a WUSC must be authorized by State statute is a re- flection of our belief that the City does not have the authority to delegate any significant powers to such a Commission by ordinance. Basically, we believe a WUSC would be most beneficial in developing a waste- water and potable water facilities master plan to the year 2000. Such a plan would be complementary to and reflective of the City's Growth Man- agement Strategy. We feel that water and wastewater facilities should be planned and built using the Growth Management Strategy as the ultimate guide. We do not visualize the WUSC as being involved in the day-to-day management of any of the participating agencies. Further, we would expect the WUSC will have no authority outside of the City's sphere of influence as designated by LAFCO. That sphere, of course, includes all of CHW[), but excludes portions of the Leucadia, San Marcos and Olivenhain water agencies. /yzZry)-) z^ ' / • . I City of Carlsbad September 26, 1980 Page 2 Another potential we see for a WUSC is to encourage better intergovernmental relations and to provide a local forum for differences that might arise • between our agencies over the next decade. Sincerely, COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT ^naT?1^?^cLeod^ V^^^*"^ President, Board of Directors DAM:fw eOSTK A1UNICIB4L !#/ATER DISTRICT September 23, 1980 The Honorable Ronald Packard Mayor City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Mayor Packard: Transmitted herewith is a discussion paper for your consideration.prior to our meeting scheduled for September 24, 1980. It is my feeling and that of my colleagues that our two previous meetings have been productive to the extent that they have narrowed down and better defined the potential differences between our two agencies. Our willingness and optimism in meeting with you is symbolic of our respect for you and the members of your Council and staff. It is our firm belief that both the District and the City have reached a level of maturity and expertise that enable both of us to deliver the services expected by our mutual constituents in a manner that is a credit to all local government in this county. There is, however, always room for improvement and, hopefully, our joint meetings will isolate specific opportunities and develop methodologies for improving levels of service. Technically, improvement is always conceivable. In addition, technically there are no conflicts between our two agencies! Our respective field, office and management staffs work together effectively and harmoniously. The public in general and the water consumer in particular are well served by our collective and individual efforts. There is simply no controversy over the level or quality of service provided by this District or your City. Consequently, your present application pending before LAFCO appears to us to have no purpose nor merit; further, it is unsubstantiated by any set of relevant facts; and, thirdly, it has created a discord between our agencies that is unnecessary, counter- productive and, in view of the record of this District, unjustifiably demeaning. In my opinion your proposal before LAFCO will only lead to meaningless public contro- versy, a permanent polarization of positions and, in all probability, lengthy and tedious litigation. Despite the City's adamant stance regarding the subsidiary district proposal, which is regarded as an affront to this District's long and unblemished record of excellence. City of Carlsbad September 23, 1980 Page 2 the members of the Board of this District are not unmindful that in the next decade your Council will be faced with some extremely difficult decisions that will eventually shape the character of the community we all consider to be our "hometown." It is not the position of this District to make those decisions more difficult; on the contrary, it is our resolve to complement your responsibility for those decisions when- ever we are able. We take pride in the fact that we have been a part of the past de- velopment of Carlsbad; we wish to take part in a positive way the planning of Carlsbad's future. To this extent our goals are common and the apparent conflict between us does not exist; The attached comments and proposals are offered in sincerity and respect. Very truly yours, COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT J2yh^..,^zzz^y:^ G;Z^-^ Donald A. MacLeod ^''^^ ^ ^1 President, Board of Directors DAM:fw Attachment 'INTRODUCTION The Board of Directors of the Costa Real Municipal Water Dis- trict has endorsed, encouraged and supported the current dialogue between representatives of the District and the City of Carlsbad. To date there have been two joint meetings (September lOth and September 17th) and agreement that weekly meetings will continue to be held until either (a)' a mutually satisfactory solution can be reached or (b) LAFCO considers and makes a determination regard- ing the City's subsidiary district proposal. At the September 10, 1980, meeting the District introduced for discussion the issue of wastewater reclamation; however, the City's representatives rejected this subject as a peripheral rather 1^ than a central issue. The rejection of this issue was in contradic- tion to the testimony given by the City to the subcommittee of the LAFCO City's and District's Advisory Committees. At the September 17, 1980, meeting the concept of a "Water Utilities Services Commission" was introduced and discussed at some length by the City's representative. This concept was previously offered by Mayor Packard at a regular meeting of the CMWD Board of Directors on July 2, 1980. This discussion paper is offered for consideration at the Sep- tember 24, 1980, joint meeting of the District and City. It con- sists of four parts: 1. A critique of the City's stated justification for the subsidiary district proposal; this is offered for clarifi- cation of position only and not for debate. 2. A compromise proposal for the assignment of water and wastewater functional responsibilities, ( 3. A proposal for the joint City/District use of District owned property. 4. An alternative proposal for the establishment of a Water Utilities Services Commission. Items 2 through 4 above are offered under the premise that the City will withdraw or abandon the subsidiary district proposal pending before LAFCO. - 2 - 1.0 REVIEW OF JUSTIFICATION Cost of Service We believe both the City and District can agree that the present or future cost of services or level of efficiency is not the issue before us. While the City claims it can save approximately $100,000 per year by forming a subsidiary dis- trict, the LAFCO Cities and Special Districts Advisory Commit- tees have found that the City has not demonstrated that this would happen. The District is prepared to submit a counter proposal which would illustrate significantly greater savings if the District were to absorb the City Water Department. However, we might have similar difficulty convincing LAFCO that meaningful, long-term savings would result. The reason is this: It is only a short-term issue. It deals with yester- day's problem, and we should be looking at tomorrow. Due to impending development, it will not be long until staff requirements for water service in the combined District/ City service area will exceed the total personnel of the two present organizations. This fact was acknowledged by City and District representatives at the September 17, 1980, joint meeting. We consequently believe it is non-productive to pre- sent a unilateral counterproposal at this particular time. It would not serve a constructive purpose, providing the City and District can agree that, (1) this is not a substantive issue, and (2) water and wastewater operations should be con- solidated on the basis of future levels of service, and that - 3 - mutually satisfactory non-political consolidations can be achieved. 1.2 Wastewater Reclamation This has been a confusing issue. During the course of the LAFCO Advisory Committee's proceedings, the City raised this as the "real issue." However, at the first negotiating session (September 10, 1980, the City said that this is not a pertinent issue. If it is to be considered as justification for the subsidiary district proposal, we must insist that we have adequate time to respond to LAFCO; but at present, we have discontinued our response based on the September 10, 1980, meeting. The District believes, nonetheless, that wastewater man- agement in total--from sewage collection and treatment through reclamation and reuse—is a significant element in terms of land use control. Because the District has no desire to inter- fere in any way with the ability of the City to control land use or implement long-range land use policies, the District is willing to forego any role, other than advisory, in the wastewater management function. As for planning in general, the City's Interim Growth Management Report points out that development in the City will not be constrained by the lack of water in the District's ser- vice area. The District simply has not impeded the City's ability to plan for development through its activities or pro- posed programs. Day to day coordination of particular develop- ment projects has similarly not been a problem which would justify formation ofra subsidiary district. ' - I] - In addition, the Water District, whether under the juris- diction of the present Board of Directors or the City Council, may not legally withhold .water service to any of its territory. This territory, as part of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, has an entitlement to imported water and a right of use thereof as long as water is available. Consequently the District, regardless of the composition of its governing body, may not reject a demand for water service in order to implement any non-water related policies or plans. COMPROMISE PROPOSAL With the foregoing comments as a brief overview, the District proposes the following as a realistic way to settle the current dilemma amicably and in a manner which will truly benefit the entire District and the entire City. The proposal is described in concep- tual form, as have the City's proposal been to date. The essential ingredient to reaching satisfactory settlement is that both sides must have faith that agreement is possible. If we can at least "agree to agree" we have made a good deal of progress. In order to achieve this it is mandatory that each agency defines and restrict its role in providing services and for develop- ing long-range programs for both water and wastewater functions. It is also important for both the City and the District to share their respective assets to accommodate one another in such a way as to improve the level of service to City iresidents. - 5 - 2.0 FUNCTIONAL CONSOLIDATION 2.1 Wastewater Management The City will have total responsibility for wastewater management—including distribution of reclaimed water—within the territory of Costa Real Municipal Water District. The District will facilitate and support the installation of dual lines and other facilities. The City can market reclaimed water freely, with the District's potable water system used to supplement the reclamation system as required. The goal is to eliminate possible competition regarding distribution of reclaimed water and to improve City control over all phases of wastewater management, which is a key element in land use planning. 2.2 Potable Water Service The District will have total responsibility for potable water service within its boundaries, including the downtown part of Carlsbad. Although water facility planning has not interferred with land use planning, the District will formally agree to strictly follow City land use decisions in the devel- opment of water facilities. The City will have, through formal agreement, the right to review all proposed District capital improvement projects. Also through formal agreement, the City will have the opportunity to review and comment upon any water rate changes proposed by the District. - 6 - 3.0 JOINT USE OF DISTRICT PROPERTY 3.1 Police Facility The District will offer a portion of its headquarters site to the City for development of a new police station. The same six-acre site will also be used by the consolidated potable water operation. Alternatives for utilizing the Dis- trict's existing administrative building are (1),convert it for use as a police station, with a new Water District office to be constructed elsewhere on the property, or (2) continue use as the District's headquarters, with a new police facility to be constructed. The District 'believes it can save the City up to $1 million in costs related to property acquisition and site development. Financial arrangements would be negotiated in detail once the concept has been mutually agreed to. 3.2 City Service Center The District offers space immediately in its facilities for use as a City Service Center, as recently proposed by City management. This can provide immediate benefits to the resi- dents of the southern end of the City. A permanent Service Center can be developed in coordination with the new police/ water center. 4.0 WATER UTILITIES SERVICES COMMISSION The District agrees in principle with the desirability of a - 7 - V\iater Utilities Services Commission. However, even though it is recognized that the Council has authority to appoint advisory bodies, such a Commission, under current law, could not exercise any independent authority nor have the guarantee of any tenure. Both are necessary if such a Commission as the one described to the District on September 17, 1980, is to be effective. Furthermore, the Commission as described by the City is a pro posed solution to yesterday's problems. The benefits of a Utilities Commission would come from (1) its activities related to long-range planning for both water and wastewater systems and the development of alternative water supplies, (2) response and contribution to the City's responsibility for long-range land use planning, and (3) the development and implementation of a program to promote water conservation. If these benefits are to be achieved it is essential that the other water and wastewater agencies functioning within the City's present and future boundaries participate in the Commis- sion. The District, therefore, would support the following concept: (1) That legislation be introduced to enable cities such as Carlsbad to establish a Water Utility Services Commission (WUSC). (2) The authority and scope of activity of a WUSC would be defined by statute in much the same manner as the author- ity of a planning commission or housing authority is de- fined and mandated. (3) Each City authorized to establish a WUSC would do so as a local option. - 8 - (4) Each agency having a major local responsibility versus a regional one (such as Encina JPA) for water or waste- water service within the City's boundaries would have the right to appoint one representative as an equal part- ner on the Commission. The City, of course, would also have equal representation. (5) The WUSC would be established for a minimum of 2 years; the City would have the option of continuing or discontin- uing the Commission every two years thereafter. (6) In the event an even number of agencies had representation on the Commission, the Commission could appoint one addi- tional member as a represeritative-at-large. (7) The scope of authority of the WUSC would include: (a) Disapproving or approving, wholly, conditionally or partially, plans to construct any major water or wastewater facilities that would have a direct and significant impact upon water or wastewater ser- vices within the boundaries of the City. (b) Developing of a master plan for water and wastewater facilities and services within the designated General Plan area and/or sphere of influence of the City. (c) Contracting for professional technical services to prepare plans for and design facilities of comon • benefit to each participating agency. (d) Levying assessmenbts against each participating agency to pay for item (c) above. - 9 - (e) Reviewing and making recommendations upon all major general plan amendments proposed by the City. (f) Reviewing and making recommendations upon any major annexation to the City. (8) The Commission would be staffed by participating agen- cies; the City would have the options of appointing an Executive Officer to serve as Chief of Staff. - 10 -