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 -