HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - EVWD Board of Directors - 11/08/2011East Valley
Water District
3694 HIGHLAND AVE., SUITE #30, HIGHLAND, CA
BOARD MEETING November S, 201 1 3:00 P.M.
*AMENDED AGENDA*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"In order to comply with legal requirements for posting of agenda, only those items filed with the
District Secretary by 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday prior to the following Tuesday meeting not requiring
departmental investigation, will be considered by the Board of Directors ".
--------------------------------------------------- ------------ - - - - --
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PUBLIC COMMENTS - At this time, members of the public may address the Board of Directors
on matters within its jurisdiction. To provide comments on specific agenda items, please complete a
speaker's request form and provide the completed form to the Board Secretary prior to the board
meeting.
1. Approval of Agenda
2. CONSENT CALENDAR -All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by
the Board of Directors to be routine and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no
discussion of these items prior to the time the board considers the motion unless members of
the board, the administrative staff, or the public request specific items to be discussed and/or
removed from the Consent Calendar.
a. Board meeting minutes for October 25, 201 1
b. Financial Statements for the period ended August 31, 201 1
c. Directors fees and expenses for October 201 1
d. Accounts Payable Disbursements: Accounts Payable Checks #230367 through
#230486 which were distributed during the period of October 19, 2011 through
November 1, 2011 in the amount of $1,029,019.16. Payroll and benefit contributions
for the period ended November 1, 201 1 and included checks and direct deposits, in
the amount of $171,454.87. Total Disbursements for the period $1,200,474.03
NEW BUSINESS
3. Presentation by the Lewis Operating Corporation regarding the future Harmony
Development Project
REPORTS
4. General Manager /Staff Reports
• 2011 Annual Legislative Report and Presentation by Bob Reeb (Reeb Government
Relations, LLC)
5. Legal Counsel Report
6. Committee Reports
• Legislative (Standing)
• Community Affairs (Standing)
• Labor Negotiating Committee (Ad -Hoc)
• Succession Planning Committee (Ad -Hoc)
7. Oral comments from Board of Directors
CLOSED SESSION
8. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c)
One (1) Potential Case
9. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
[Government Code Section 54957]
Title: Interim General Manager
10. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
[Government Code Section 54957]
Title: Robert Martin
1 1. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT
[Government Code Section 54957]
Title: General Manager
12. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
[Government Code Section 54957.6(a)]
District Negotiator: Labor Negotiating Conlinittee/
Interim General Manager
Employee Organization: S.B.P.E.A.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS
►� �at�i�� :aci
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(a), any request for a disability - related modification or
accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, that is sought in order to participate in the above -
agendized public meeting should be directed to the District's Administrative Manager at (909) 885 -4900 at
least 72 hours prior to said meeting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
2
East Val ley
Water District
3694 HIGHLAND AVE., SUITE #30, HIGHLAND, CA
BOARD MEETING November 8, 2011 3:00 P.M.
AGENDA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"In order to comply with legal requirements for posting of agenda, only those items filed with the
District Secretary by 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday prior to the following Tuesday meeting not requiring
departmental investigation, will be considered by the Board of Directors ".
--------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PUBLIC COMMENTS - At this time, members of the public may address the Board of Directors
on matters within its jurisdiction. To provide comments on specific agenda items, please complete a
speaker's request form and provide the completed form to the Board Secretary prior to the board
meeting.
1. Approval of Agenda
2. CONSENT CALENDAR -All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by
the Board of Directors to be routine and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no
discussion of these items prior to the time the board considers the motion unless members of
the board, the administrative staff, or the public request specific items to be discussed and /or
removed from the Consent Calendar.
a. Board meeting minutes for October 25, 201 1
b. Financial Statements for the period ended August 31, 201 1
c. Directors fees and expenses for October 201 1
d. Accounts Payable Disbursements: Accounts Payable Checks #230367 through
#230486 which were distributed during the period of October 19, 2011 through
November 1, 2011 in the amount of $1,029,019.16. Payroll and benefit contributions
for the period ended November 1, 2011 and included checks and direct deposits, in
the amount of $171,454.87. Total Disbursements for the period $1,200,474.03
NEW BUSINESS
3. Presentation by the Lewis Operating Corporation regarding the future Harmony
Development Project
REPORTS
4. General Manager /Staff Reports
• 2011 Annual Legislative Report and Presentation by Bob Reeb (Reeb Government
Relations, LLC)
5. Legal Counsel Report
6• Committee Reports
• Legislative (Standing)
• Community Affairs (Standing)
• Labor Negotiating Committee (Ad -Hoc)
• Succession Planning Committee (Ad -Hoc)
7. Oral comments from Board of Directors
CLOSED SESSION
8. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)
One (1) Potential Case
9. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
[Government Code Section 54957]
Title: Interim General Manager
10. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
[Government Code Section 54957.6(a)]
District Negotiator: Labor Negotiating Committee/
Interim General Manager
Employee Organization: S.B.P.E.A.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS
ADJOURN
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(a), any request for a disability - related modification or
acconuizodation, including auxiliary aids or services, that is sought in order to participate in the above -
agendized public meeting should be directed to the District's Administrative Manager at (909) 885 -4900 at
least 72 hours prior to said meeting.
-------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
2
Subject to annrovnl
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT October 25, 2011
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
MINUTES
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by President Wilson. Director Malmberg led the
flag salute.
PRESENT: Directors: Levesque, Malmberg, Morales, Sturgeon, Wilson
ABSENT: None
STAFF: Brian Tompkins, Chief Financial Officer; Ron Buchwald, District
Engineer; Cecilia Contreras, Executive Assistant
LEGAL COUNSEL: Steve Kennedy
GUEST (S): Charles Roberts (Highland Community News), Ron Coats, Tom
Dodson (Tom Dodson 8c Associates)
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
President Wilson declared the public participation section of the meeting open at 3:00 p.m.
There being no written or verbal comments, the public participation section was closed_
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
M /S /C (Levesque- Morales) that the October 25, 2011 agenda be approved as
submitted.
APPROVAL OF BOARD MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 27, 2011
M /S /C (Levesque- Malmberg) that the Board meeting minutes for September 27, 201 1
be approved as submitted.
APPROVAL OF BOARD MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 11, 2017
Director Morales stated that his name needed to be corrected on page four of the minutes.
M /S /C (Levesque- Malmberg) that the Board meeting minutes for October 1 I, 201 1 be
approved as amended
(Minutes 10/25/11 cmc) 1
APPROVAL OF TTTE QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE QUARTER
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2011
M /S /C (Levesque - Malmberg) that the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter
ended September 30, 201 1 be approved as submitted.
APPROVAL OF THE FINANCIAL S'T'ATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
JULY 31, 2011
M /S /C (Levesque- Malmberg) that the Financial Statements for the period. ended July
31, 2011 be approved as submitted.
DISBURSEMENTS
M /S /C (Levesque- Malmberg) that General Fund Disbursements #230048 tlu-ough
#230188 which were distributed during the period of September 20, 201 1 through October 4,
2011, in the amount of 1,004,390.68 and. payroll and benefit contributions for the period
ended October 4, 201 1 and included checks and direct deposits, in the amount of $1 75,090.76
be approved. Total Disbursements for the period of $1,585,379.73 are approved.
AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE EASTWOOD FARMS WATER
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO EL -CO CONTRACTORS, INC.
The District Engineer gave a brief overview of the process for awarding a construction
contract and the background for the Eastwood Farms project; that this is a huge milestone in
this consolidation project; that W.J. McKeever Engineering did the review of the construction
bids received.
M /S /C (Levesque- Morales) that the construction contract for the Eastwood Farms
Water Improvement Project be awarded to El -Co Contractors, Inc.
CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT'S
BASELINE GARDEN'S MUTUAL WATER COMPANY WATER SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
PRESIDENT WILSON DECLARED THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING SECTION OF
THE BOARD MEETING OPEN AT 3:07 P.M.
The District Engineer provided an overview of the Water System Improvement Project; that
"fom Dodson 8L Associates prepared the CEQA documents and the Initial Study for this
project; that the Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Hearing was published as required and
went through a 30 -day comment period.
Mr. Dodson stated the main objective was to have this item completed in a timely manner in
order to meet the required grant application deadlines; that federal requirements were also
included in this study; that there were no substantive comments received; that his
recommendation would be to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration_
(Minutes 10/25/11 cmc) 2
PRESIDENT WILSON DECLARED THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING SECTION OF
THE BOARD MEETING BE CLOSED AT 3:09 P.M.
APPROVE THE EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT'S BASELINE GARDENS
MUTUAL WATER COMPANY WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT;
ADOPT THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; ADOPT THE
MITIGATION AND MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND FILE
THE NOTICE OF DETERMINATION WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND THE STATE
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH, STATE CLEARTNGHOUSE
M /S /C (Morales -T eVesque) that the East Valley Water District's Baseline Gardens
Mutual Water Company Water System Improvement Project; adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration; adopt the Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting program; and File the Notice
of Determination with the County of San Bernardino Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and
the State of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse be approved.
GENERAL MANAGER /STAFF REPORT
No reports at this time.
LEGAL COUNSEL REPORT
Mr. Kennedy stated that he was happy to be here.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
a. Legislative Committee (Standing) — Director Morales stated that the committee will be
scheduling a meeting in the near future.
b. Community Affairs (Standing) — No reports at this time.
c_ Labor Negotiation Committee (Ad -Hoc) — No reports at this time.
d. Succession Planning Committee (Ad -Hoc) No reports at this time_
ORAL COMMENTS FROM BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Director Malmberg stated that the Special Board meeting is next week and that they have a
difficult decision to make.
Director Morales stated that he attended the Discover Highland Night event on October 22nd
and that Fast Valley Water District was well represented; that the distribution of water and the
1954 Chevy truck being there was great; and thank you to staff for being at the event and
representing the District.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
Robert DeLoach, Secretary
George E. Wilson, President
(Minutes 10/25/11 cmc) 3
East Valley
Water District
Staff Report
Meeting Date: November 8, 201 1
TO: Board of Directors
SUBJECT: August 201 1 Financial Statements
SUMMARY:
Issue — Public disclosure of ongoing financial condition operating
results of the District
Recommendation — Approve and file the attached financial report for the month
ended August 31, 2011
Fiscal Impact — None
Previous Related Action — None
BACKGROUND
Financial position and results of operations for the first two months of fiscal year 2011 -12 are
presented in the accompanying financial statements. The delay in presentation of these July financial
statements is the result of implementation of new accounting software modules which, when fully
functional, will allow for completely separate fund reporting for water and sewer activities.
DISCUSSION
Balance Sheet
Total Assets increased by $1,107,255 in August due to continued Plant 134 construction activity. In
addition to payment to the construction contractor, a 20% payment of the membranes, of $566,656,
was paid to the manufacturer. Restricted Assets increased with the monthly contribution to the 2010
Bond sinking fund (Debt Service Funds) and there were no District draws from restricted
Construction Funds during August.
An increase in current assets of $101,605 in August, was offset by an increase in current liabilities of
$185,473, causing the District's Current Ratio to dip slightly from 2.17:1 to 2.11:1. At the same time
liquidity was enhanced by the receipt of the second Reimbursement Request from the State
Revolving Fund of $859 thousand, increasing the ratio of Unrestricted Cash to Current Liabilities
from 1 19% to 138% coverage.
SR# 0039
Revenue 8z Expenses Statement
Operating Revenue
Water sales in August were $7,194 over the budget. In volume, 971,608 HCF (726.8 MG) were
billed in August, which is a 1.3% decrease from July. Compazed to recent historical consumption for
the month of August, customer usage was down 558 HCF, or .06 %, compazed to one yeaz ago, and
down 119,483 HCF or 10.9% compazed to August 2009.
Other District operating revenues were $11,868 over budget in August, and Sewer Treatment
revenue, which is passed through to the City of SB, was $2,136 over budget.
Sales Volume by Month
1,200,000 - -
1, 000, 000
800,000 - / --
2009-10
= 600,000 -
400,000 2010 -11
200,000 -- 2011 -12 (Oct -Jun est.)
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Operating Expenses
Operating Expenses were $248,269 under budget for August. Of significance:
• Source of Supply reflects a purchase of 1500 acre feet (AF) of recharge water at $75 per AF
from SBVMWD
• Pumping costs are $137,606 under budget through August. A continued decline in customer
demand for water, even with hotter temperatures this yeaz compared to last August, has
resulted in actual power costs less than budget. Also, Plant 28, which normally runs full time,
was off line for a couple of days in August for disinfection and flushing.
• Water Treatment costs remain significantly under budget, by $90,621 for August, $236,591 to
date this fiscal year. This is due to the continued shutdown of plant 27 (fluoride).
• Sewer Treatment costs in August were $579,914, $48,778 higher than the Sewer Treatment
revenues due to a rate differential between treatment rates being paid, and rates being
collected from customers.
SR# 0039
Capital Projects
There were no capital expenditures during August, though the order was placed for the new Vactor
which should be delivered in December. There were $786,847 in costs incurred on CIP projects
during August consisting primarily of construction at plant 134, and the engineering study for a
Baseline Gardens assessment district.
Respectfully Submitted, Apr ved by,
Gv � •.. �
Brian W. Ton ins Robert A. DeLoa h
Chief Financial Officer interim General anager
SR# 0039
East Valley Water District
Balance Sheet - Unaudited
August 31, 2011
ASSETS
UTILITY PLANT - at cost:
Utility Plant in Service -water department
Utility Plant in Service -sewer department
Less: Accumulated Depreciation
Construction in Progress
RESTRICTED ASSETS:
Customer /Construction Deposits
Capacity Fees
Construction Funds
Debt Service Funds -Trust Accts
CURRENT ASSETS:
Cash and Investments
Less: Restricted Cash and Investments
Accounts Receivable (net of allowance)
Other Receivables (net of allowance)
Grants Receivable
Inventory
Prepaid Expenses
OTHER ASSETS AND DEFERRED COSTS (Net of Amortization):
Deferred financing charges
$124,607,444
31 ,820,033
156,427,477
(50,480,704)
105,946,773
9,623,704
1 15,570,477
1 , 880,192
174,175
14,334,120
1 ,643,903
17.858.215
25,154,264
17,858,215
7.296.049
2, 040,477
207, 781
437,266
974,013
233,289
1 1 ,188, 875
572, 384
572.384
TOTAL ASSETS 145,189,951
Balance Sheet Page 1
East Valley Water District
Balance Sheet - Unaudited
August 31, 2011
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
LONG -TERM DEBT:
2010 Revenue Bonds
Premium on 201 O Revenue Bonds
SRF Loans
Less: Deferred amount on refunding of COPS
CURRENT LIABILITIES PAYABLE FROM RESTRICTED ASSETS:
Customer service deposits
Construction deposits
Accrued interest payable
CURRENT LIABILITIES:
Accounts payable
Accrued payroll and benefits
Long Term Debt - amounts due within one year
TOTAL LIABILITIES
EQUITY:
Invested In Utility Plant
Restricted:
Restricted Developer Fees
Designated:
Unemployment Insurance Reserve
Rate Stabilization Reserve
Emergency Reserve
Unrestricted / Undesignated - Beginning
Earnings YTD -Water
Earnings YTD -Sewer
TOTAL EQUITY
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
$32,490,000
2,152,508
2,180, 945
(510,222)
36,313,231
1 ,693,351
186,841
492,478
2,372,670
2,812,420
1,414,717
1 ,070,675
5,297,812
43,983,713
92,520,691
174,175
16,450
326, 307
2,170, 000
4,338,660
1,495,356
164, 599
101,206,238
145,189,951
Balance Sheet Page 2
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Unaudited
August 31, 2011
August YTD Annual
Actual Budget Variance Actual Budget Variance Budget
OPERATING REVENUES
Water Sales
1,447,694
1,440,500
7,194
2,914,730
2,885,700
29,030
12,785,000
WaterMeterCharge
325,147
325,405
(258)
649,950
650,810
(860)
4,129,185
Sewer Collection System Charges
333,871
331,000
2,871
669,663
667,000
2,663
3,965,000
Sewer Treatment Charges
531,136
529,000
2,136
1,066,747
1,064,000
2,747
5,819,000
Service Initiation l Installation Chrgs
8,761
6,500
2,261
16,150
13,000
3,150
78,000
Collection Charges
31,079
22,500
8,579
56,734
45,000
11,734
270,000
Main Front footage Fees
D
1,600
(1,600)
8,519
3,200
5,319
20,000
Permits &Inspection Charges
100
85
15
375
170
205
1,000
Water Supply Studies
2,677788
2,656,590
21,198
5.382,868
5,328,880
53,988
27.067,185
OPERATING EXPENSES
Source Of Supply
Supervision and Labor
12,212
12,075
137
24,247
24,150
97
157,000
Overtime Labor
0
385
(385)
0
770
(770)
5,000
Materials &Supplies
155
0
155
155
0
155
0
Purchased Water
112,500
112,500
0
112,500
112500
0
200,000
Groundwater charge
0
0
0
0
0
0
187,500
North FarklCity Creek - Assesmeni
0
0
0
0
0
0
110,000
Maintenance
0
1,000
(1,000)
D
2,000
(2,000)
10,000
Water testing
11,179
17,000
(5,821)
41,345
48,000
(6,65
216,000
Water Supply Studies
0
0
0
0
0
05)
40,000
Total Source Of Supply
136,046
142,960
(6,914)
178,247
187.420
(9,173)
925,500
Pumping
Supervision and Labor
37,995
39,310
(1,315)
77,951
78,620
(669)
511,000
Overtime Labor
3,505
6,150
(2,645)
8,171
12,300
(4,129)
80,000
Materials &Supplies
2,5fi8
4,200
(1,632)
3,666
8,400
(4,734)
50,000
Maintenance
1,769
28,500
(26,731)
14,510
57,000
(42,490)
335,000
Fuel and Power
218,900
280,000
(61,100)
481,066
560,000
(78,934)
2,100,000
Treatment Chemicals
9782
13750
(3,968)
23,163
27,500
(4,337)
165,000
CIP Labor Credit
(1,148)
0
(1,148)
(2,313)
0
(2,313)
0
Total Pumping
273,371
371,910
(98,539)
606,214
743,820
(137,606)
3,241,000
Water Treatment
Supervision and Labor
8,118
8,460
(342)
14,230
16,920
(2,690)
110,000
Overtime Labor
1,665
2,310
(645)
3,391
4,620
(1,229)
30,000
MaterialsRSupplies
1,481
1,700
(219)
2,374
3,300
(926)
120,000
Maintenance
106
4,200
(4,094)
212
8,300
(8,088)
50,000
Fuel and Power
11,636
14,000
(2,364)
25,325
29,000
(3,675)
125,000
Contracted Treaiment
82,436
160,000
(77,564)
119,988
330,000
(210,012)
1,200,000
Treatment Chemicals
0
4,170
(4,170)
682
8,335
(7,653)
50,000
CIP Labor Credit
(1,223)
0
(1,223)
(2,318)
0
(2,318)
0
Total Water Treatment
104219
194,840
90,621)
163,884
400,475
(236,591)
1,685,000
RevenuelExpenseStrnt Page 1
Wastewater Treatment
Contracted Treatment
Trans &Distribution
Supervision and Labor
Overtime Labor
Materials &Supplies
Maintenance
ND Labor Credit
Total Trans &Distribution
Wastewater Collection
Supervision and Labor
Overtime Labor
Materials &Supplies
Maintenance
Total Wastewater Collection
Customer Accounts
Supervision and Labor
Overtime Labor
Postage - Billing
Contract Services •Billing
Contract Svcs -Pmt Processing
Credit Checks /Collections
Cash Short! Bad Debts
Materials &Supplies
Total Customer Accounts
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Unaudited
August 31, 2011
RevenuelExpense Stmt Page 2
August
YTD
Annual
Actual
Budget
Variance
Actual
Budget
Variance
Budget
579,914
592,400
12,486)
1.165,034
1.186100
21,066)
6,640,000
67,976
92,780
(24,804)
140,596
185,560
(44.964)
1,206,160
5,494
5,690
(196)
9,987
11,380
(1.393)
74,000
23,932
37,820
(13,888)
66,397
75,530
(9,133)
343,000
22,188
26,000
(3,812)
34,533
42,000
(7,467)
260,000
(1,194)
(47,500)
46306
(1,194)
(95,000)
93.806
570,000)
118,396
114,790
3,606
250,319
219,470
30349
1,313,160
22,638
21,170
1,468
46,907
42,340
4,567
275,240
145
850
(705)
370
1,700
(1,330)
11,000
1,099
8,500
(7,401)
5,924
17,000
(11,076)
73,000
1.674
10,000
(8,326)
2,590
20,000
17,410)
175,000
25.556
40,520
14,964)
55,791
81,040
(25,249)
534,240
41.205
41,610
(405)
81,317
83,220
(1,903)
541,000
3,178
5,000
(1,822)
6,853
10,000
(3,147)
60,000
3,340
10,500
(7,160)
12,878
21,000
(8,122)
126,000
10,126
4,200
5,926
13,674
8,400
5,274
50,000
10,599
14,000
(3,401)
20,126
25,000
(4,874)
165,000
2,466
0
2,466
3.957
0
3,957
0
0
3,500
(3,500)
99
3,500
(3,401)
3,500
0
670
(670)
0
1,350
1,350)
8,100
70,914
79,480
(8,566)
138,904
152,470
13,566}
953,600
RevenuelExpense Stmt Page 2
General & Administrative
Supervision and Labor
Overtime Labor
Employee Benefits
CIP Labor! Benefits Credit
Directors Fees and Expenses
Utilities & Telephone
Dues & Subscriptions
Office Supplies & Expenses
Postage
Office Equipment
General Plant Maintenance
Vehicle Maint I Fuel
Facilities Lease
Contractual Services
General Insurance
EducationlSeminarslConierences
Meals, Lodging, &Travel
Employee Programs
Licenses & Cenifca6ons
Regulatory Fees &Compliance
Public Education 1 Outreach
Election Expenses
Safety Equip! Emergency Ping
Total General &Administrative
Total Operating Expenses
OPERATING INCOME
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Unaudited
August 31, 2011
452,515 472,300 (19,785)
1,760,931 2,009,200 248,269)
916,857 647,390 269,467
1,054,310 1,065,967 11,657)
3,612,703 4,036,762 424,059)
1,770,165 1,292,118 478,047
6,675.017
21,967,517
5,099,668
RevenuefExpense Stmt Page 3
August
YTD
Annual
Actual
Budget
Variance
Actual
Budget
Variance
Budget
149,504
145,995
3,509
295,802
291,990
3,812
2,062,000
281
3,136
(2,855)
1,777
6,272
(4,495)
40,000
160,821
167,613
(6,792)
353,324
373,202
(19,878)
2,355,417
(12,089)
(32,665)
20,576
(23,370)
(65,330)
41,960
(392,000)
9,326
12,179
(2,853)
12,623
24,358
(11,735)
148,000
11,843
10,827
1,016
23,796
21,629
2,167
130,000
3,016
4,668
(1,652)
7,259
9,370
(2,111)
58.600
5,405
8,365
(2,960)
16,509
16,685
(176)
100,000
156
1,625
(1,469)
336
3,240
(2,904)
26,000
5,031
4,901
130
11,137
8,953
2,184
135,000
15,175
18,485
(3,310)
31,267
36,995
(5,728)
222,000
26,265
31,846
(5,581)
56,979
63,678
(6,699)
382,000
15,618
15,440
178
44,744
301 850
131 894
185.000
33,923
46,695
(12,772)
166,855
178,275
(11,420)
662,000
21,880
19,000
2,880
43,592
38,000
5,592
230,000
0
2,490
(2,490)
945
4,355
(3,410)
40,000
238
2,370
(2,132)
3,347
4,905
(1,558)
30,000
444
0
444
444
0
444
20,000
150
200
(50)
249
200
49
4,000
4,728
3,400
1,328
5,185
6,850
(1,665)
55,000
100
1,660
(1,560)
100
3,330
(3,230)
20,000
0
0
0
0
0
D
105,000
700
4,070
(3,370)
1,410
8,160
(6,750)
57,000
452,515 472,300 (19,785)
1,760,931 2,009,200 248,269)
916,857 647,390 269,467
1,054,310 1,065,967 11,657)
3,612,703 4,036,762 424,059)
1,770,165 1,292,118 478,047
6,675.017
21,967,517
5,099,668
RevenuefExpense Stmt Page 3
NON - OPERATING ACTIVITY:
Revenues:
Interest Income
Other Income
Cooperative Agreements- En ernoc
Expenses:
Debt Service:
2010 COP Principal
Capital Lease -Phone System
Interest an LT Debt
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES:
CAPITAL OUTLAYIREPLACEMENTS
Water Company Stock Purchase
Office Equipment /Furniture
Computer HardwarelSoftware
General Equipment
Well Rehabilitation
CAPITAL PROJECTS -See Summary
EXCESS OFREVENUE
OVER EXPENDITURES:
Add Back Capital Expenditures 8 Principal
I�L�II�[��Idif�
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Unaudited
August 31, 2011
August
Actual Budget Variance
838
1,500
(662)
9,453
2,250
7,203
0
0
0
10.291
3,750
6,541
96,471
95,909
562
844
1,124
(280)
62,125
62,317
(192)
159.440
159350
90
YTD
Actual Budget Varian
ce
3,929 3,000 929
10,123 4,500 5,623
0 0 0
14,052 7,500 6,552
192,941 191,818 1,123
1,679 2,248 (569)
124,258 124,634. (376)
318,878 318.700 178
Annual
Budget
33,000
27,000
42,000
� n� nnn
1,168,978
13,490
1,258,600
2,441,068
0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 61,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 394.500
0 19,000 (19,000) 0 39,000 (39,000) 260.D00
786,847 0 786,847
786,847 19,000 767,847
(19,139) 472,790 (491,929)
884,162 116,033 768,129
865,023 588,823 276,200
1,178,140 1,737,000 (558,860)
1,178,140 1,776,000 597,860)
287,199 (795,082) 1,082,281
1,372,760 1,97D,066 (597,306)
1,659,959 1,174,984 484,975
1,737,000
2,462,500
2s6,1oo
3,644.968
3,943,068
RevenuelExpense Stmt Page 4
192,941 191,818 1,123
1,679 2,248 (569)
124,258 124,634. (376)
318,878 318.700 178
Annual
Budget
33,000
27,000
42,000
� n� nnn
1,168,978
13,490
1,258,600
2,441,068
0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 61,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 394.500
0 19,000 (19,000) 0 39,000 (39,000) 260.D00
786,847 0 786,847
786,847 19,000 767,847
(19,139) 472,790 (491,929)
884,162 116,033 768,129
865,023 588,823 276,200
1,178,140 1,737,000 (558,860)
1,178,140 1,776,000 597,860)
287,199 (795,082) 1,082,281
1,372,760 1,97D,066 (597,306)
1,659,959 1,174,984 484,975
1,737,000
2,462,500
2s6,1oo
3,644.968
3,943,068
RevenuelExpense Stmt Page 4
Annual
Budget
33,000
27,000
42,000
� n� nnn
1,168,978
13,490
1,258,600
2,441,068
0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 61,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 394.500
0 19,000 (19,000) 0 39,000 (39,000) 260.D00
786,847 0 786,847
786,847 19,000 767,847
(19,139) 472,790 (491,929)
884,162 116,033 768,129
865,023 588,823 276,200
1,178,140 1,737,000 (558,860)
1,178,140 1,776,000 597,860)
287,199 (795,082) 1,082,281
1,372,760 1,97D,066 (597,306)
1,659,959 1,174,984 484,975
1,737,000
2,462,500
2s6,1oo
3,644.968
3,943,068
RevenuelExpense Stmt Page 4
786,847 0 786,847
786,847 19,000 767,847
(19,139) 472,790 (491,929)
884,162 116,033 768,129
865,023 588,823 276,200
1,178,140 1,737,000 (558,860)
1,178,140 1,776,000 597,860)
287,199 (795,082) 1,082,281
1,372,760 1,97D,066 (597,306)
1,659,959 1,174,984 484,975
1,737,000
2,462,500
2s6,1oo
3,644.968
3,943,068
RevenuelExpense Stmt Page 4
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
INCLUDING CAPITAL BUDGET FOR
FISCAL YEAR 201 1 - 2012
Current Year Actual Updated through August 2011
Page 1
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Capital Improvement Program
Current Year Actual Updated through August 201 1
rage �
Prior Current
(Memo)
Projects - By Type
Years Year
201 0 -11 2011 -12
Actual Actual
Budget Year 2
Source of Supply
Plant 150 Wells
_
_
_ _
Lower Zone Wells (2)
_
_
_ _
Plant 24 Drain Line
14,486
407
240,000 -
Sunrise Ranch Wells (4)
-
_
_ _
Total Source of Supply Projects
14,486
407
240,000
-
Treatment Facilities
Plant 134 - Upgrade Technology
4,271 ,639
986,861
7,21 1 ,715 1 ,253,895
Plant 134 - Membrane Replacement
Plant 150 -Lower Zn Perch Treat. PI -Phase 1
1 ,993,126
59,41 9
650,000 241 ,150
Plant 1 50 -Lower Zn Perch Treat. PI -Phase 2
-
-
- -
Plant 152 - Inter. Zone Perch Treat. Plant
-
-
_ _
Total Treatment Projects
6,264,765
1 ,046,280
7,861 ,715
1 ,495,045
Pumping Facilities
Plant 9 -Rehab Forebay and Booster Station
-
-
30,000 270,000
Plant 40 -Inter to Upper Zone Transfer
2,221
-
400,000 -
Plant 127 -Lower to Inter Zone Transfer
-
-
- -
Plant 12 - Replace Boosters /Well
-
-
- 500,000
Plant 134 -Upper to Canal Zone Transfer
-
-
- 520,000
Plant 39 -Inter to Upper Zone Transfer
-
-
- _
Plant 25 -Inter to Upper Zone Transfer
-
-
- -
Plant 143 -Inter to Upper Zone Transfer
32,120
34,550
900,000 550,000
Total Pumping Projects
34,341
34,550
1,330,000
1,840,000
Wastewater Collection System
Sewer System Studies /Planning
181 ,049
-
200,000 100,000
Sewer Main Lining
51
-
117,000 450,000
Conejo Main Replacement
933,496
-
- -
Total Wastewater Collection Projects
1,114,596
-
317,000
550,000
rage �
Projections
2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 2015 -16
Beyond
Project
Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
Year 6
Totals
- - - 825,000
1 ,100,000
1 ,925,000
- - - -
3,300,000
3,300,000
- - - -
-
14,893
- - - -
4,400,000
4,400,000
-
-
-
825,000
8,800,000
9,639,893
- - - -
-
6,512,395
16,990,000 1,025,000 - -
-
20,308,695
- 5,050,000 2,850,000 -
-
7,900,000
- - - -
19,160,000
19,160,000
16,990,000
6,075,000
2,850,000
-
19,160,000
53,881,090
- - - -
270,000
- 200,000 - -
202,221
300,000 - - -
300,000
500,000 - - -
-
1 ,000,000
- 780,000 - -
-
1 ,300,000
- - 2,200,000 -
-
2,200,000
- - 400,000 -
-
400,000
- - - -
1 ,400,000
2,016,670
800,000
980,000
2,600,000
-
1,400,000
7,688,891
- - - -
-
281 ,049
450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000
1 ,800,000
4,050,051
- - -
933,496
450,000
450,000
450,000
450,000
1 ,800,000
5,264,596
QIJC J
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Capital Improvement Program
Current Year Actual Updated through August 2011
Prior Current
(Memo)
Projects - By Type
Years Year
2010 -11 2011 -12
Actual Actual
Budget Year 2
Transmission & Distribution System
6th St 20" Pipeline - Plants 1 1 & 12 to 150
131,985
-
180,000 400,000
Live Oak Main Replacement
207,080
-
115,000 -
Harlan Lane Main Replacement
7,957
-
90,000 70,000
Cunningham / Hillview / Crest / Bruce
631,254
-
- -
6th St 30" Pipeline - Plant 151 to Plant 40
726,931
1,168
3,675,000 2,000,000
6th St 30" Pipeline - PI 40 to PI 143
-
_
_ -
9th St 12" Pipeline - Del Rosa to Sterling
-
_
- -
AMR Meter Replacement Program
-
12,841
300,000 300,000
Plant 59 Recoating
-
-
50,000 250,000
Plant 143 - 1 Omg Inter Zone Storage
-
-
- _
Reservoir - Greenspot Rd S Curve
-
-
Reservoir -Seven Oaks Dam Rd
-
-
_
Relocation of Facilities for Other Agencies
88,378
8,783
100,000 150,000
Eastwood Farms Assessment District
171,772
11,958
2,211,399 -
Baseline Gardens
75,953
58,257
- -
Total Trans & Distribution Projects
2,041,310
93,007
6,721 ,399
3,170,000
General Projects
GIS Implementation
598,643
3,400
100,000 -
Headquarters Building
-
_
_ _
Total General Projects
598,643
3,400
100,000
-
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVE. PLAN PROJECTS
10,068,141
1,177,644
16,570,114 7,055,045
Miscellaneous / Developer Projects
Developer Water Facilities (Reimb by Fees)
226,444
395
Developer Sewer Facilities (Reimb by Fees)
(17,590)
101
Regional Treatment Plant
24,246
Seven Oaks Dam (SAR) Discharge
206,057
Northfork Replacement (Highland Ave (q? VFW)
52,409
2010 Flood Clean Up - Highland
(4,023)
2010 Flood Clean Up - EVWD Facilities
146,241
TOTAL MISC / DEVELOPER PROJECTS
633,784
495
-
-
1
Total Capital Projects
10,701,925
1,178,140
16,570,114
7,055,045
Projections
2012 -13
2013 -14
2014 -15
2015 -16
Beyond
Project
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 6
Totals
-
-
-
-
-
531,985
-
-
-
-
-
207,080
-
-
-
77,957
-
-
-
631,254
-
-
-
-
-
2,728,099
-
1,300,000
1,000,000
-
5,400,000
7,700,000
-
700,000
-
-
-
700,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
-
1,512,841
-
-
-
-
-
250,000
-
-
-
-
10,700,000
10,700,000
-
-
-
-
10,700,000
10,700,000
-
-
-
-
10,700,000
10,700,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
-
847,161
-
-
-
-
-
183,730
-
-
-
-
-
134,210
450,000
2,450,000
1,450,000
450,000
37,500,000
47,604,317
-
-
-
-
-
602,043
-
-
-
-
10,000,000
10,000,000
-
-
-
-
10,000,000
10,602,043
18,690,000
9,955,000
7,350,000
1,725,000
78,660,000
134,680,831
226,839
(17,489)
24,246
-
-
-
-
-
233,595
18,690,000
9,955,000
7,350,000
1,725,000
78,660,000
134,914,426
M ti
M
N
N
O O O
O O O
O O O
t[7 O a[ �
� V O
r
N O
t� o ti
c�i u'i co
O r 1�
c0 aD
�I o 0 0
0 0 0
�° ion �°
O O M
I� rn c+7
61 CO V
o � �
� �
0 o a
0 0 0
0 0 0
� � �
CO V
V t�
O O
O O
� O
O V
Z
o
�
N
V
�
Z
� �
-�
O
W
p�
Z
d
O
W
W
O
�_
O
W
�
p
�
W
W
W
� �
� w
Z
�
C7
Z
O.'
W
�
W
O
U
cn
w
W
W
_�
D
ti
C!7
W
�
W
j-
J
�
�
Z
�
�
� O
�
�
w
� U
�
~
W
� � N
U
�
�
Q �
� O �--
�
W
u-
�
W N
J
J O
m
(�
N
UPI
Q�
Lll
m
cC
W
�
W
�_
W
�
L.L
W
�
O
�
�
d
W
J
X
W
F-
U
W
�
�
W
W
O
"-
M ti
M
N
N
O O O
O O O
O O O
t[7 O a[ �
� V O
r
N O
t� o ti
c�i u'i co
O r 1�
c0 aD
�I o 0 0
0 0 0
�° ion �°
O O M
I� rn c+7
61 CO V
o � �
� �
0 o a
0 0 0
0 0 0
� � �
CO V
V t�
O O
O O
� O
O V
N
O
O
O
O
N
'�'
O>
o�
N
N
0
0
0
in
v
M
rn
O
tD
r
O
0
0
0
v
N
O
O
O
V
N
V
r
O
O
O
v
'
J
�
N
V
O
� �
-�
O
M
p�
J m
l�
O
O
O
O
O
O
p
�
O
� �
N
O
O
O
O
N
'�'
O>
o�
N
N
0
0
0
in
v
M
rn
O
tD
r
O
0
0
0
v
N
O
O
O
V
N
V
r
O
O
O
v
'
J
} W
� = W
¢
O Z O ¢ W � a
� �
-�
W
V7
'� V7
Q
J m
J W
p W
O X
� �
� w
W
Ci
W
W
J
Q
W
Z N
W �O
� N
W
� �
O O
� N
U �
w
� r
0
l.L J
O V
o �
� �
O
D]
c.�
�
Q
Z
_ �_ ._— r- .--
U
_ _� _� _� _ _ _
T 0 0 0 0 0 0� 0 0 0
H W
� N N N N N N N N N �
N V Q1 ti O
�_
N
�
Q
= C
Q-
C
Z
Q
O
� 0
3 3
.� 3 0 U
O �
Q
N �' � o
U
w
� �
� m
v��w��cn�cnci�
O
� a°'i m c9
W
J
O �
M
m
�
W
N
C7
_Z
C.7
O
J
W C7
O O�
C7 Z
O N
CEO
tt
Q �
� GO (O T
(.O
�
L1J
�
N
�
_J
d
W W
� �
L¢L L¢L
� �_
U Q
W
O
U
o
Z
o
W
M
d'
w
w �
z W
o w
U ti
c.�
�
Q
Z
_ �_ ._— r- .--
W F'
_ _� _� _� _ _ _
T 0 0 0 0 0 0� 0 0 0
H W
� N N N N N N N N N �
N V Q1 ti O
O�
cr M� N
M �- � � � N r- N M
Q
LLI
�
Q
N
LL'
U U
O O
U C
N O O
Z
_�
= C
Q-
C
Q Q�
Q
O '�
� 0
3 3
.� 3 0 U
O �
�' �'
N �' � o
a�
w
� �
� m
v��w��cn�cnci�
N a�i
� a°'i m c9
N
•---
n
v
N
W
p
0
0
0
M
J
H
O
W
m
J
Q
Q
J
W
Z N
W o
� N
W
O o
� N
U �
W Q
� }
� J
LL Q
O U
� �
� �
Q
O
m
I4L
I.0
U
�Iw
z
0
0
J
W (7
Z_
W �
J_ �
d
Q Q
�' �
N
N
W O
U
W M
W
LL �
Z
O `w
C7
z
w t=
Q W
O �
W
O
W
Q
Z
•--
o � o
N N N
N c7 N
� rn rn
rn
� .c
U C
C6 C
O c6
� d
3 .o �
m � U
U U m
� Cn Q
i
I�
��
N
V
N
O
O
ui
M
J
7
M
N
O
O
O
l2
r
V
co
W
�n
�
o
Z
4
�r7
J
0
CO
U
c+i
M
O
J
W �
O
GAO
cLO0
O
_Z
Z
J ¢
o
r
O
°
d
O
� �
Q
U:)
rif Of
U
Z N
W �O
�
N
K
U
o0
0
W
Z
W
CO
f7
co
U
w
(JJ
V
W
e0 O
07 07 Lf7
J
ti
O O
O
co r— LO
Q
I
U
M 0
07 M 00
W
N
LL-
.2 v
M
N
O
O
O
l2
r
V
co
W
C7
�
Z
4
J
O
CO
pM
M
J
W �
O
GAO
cLO0
_Z
J ¢
r
r
d
O
� �
U:)
rif Of
Z N
W �O
�
N
K
U
o0
0
N
Z
W
CO
f7
co
U
w
W
LL
_
J
co
Z LLJ
Co W
O
U tl
U
U U
LL-
O
C7
W
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LU
0
Q W
O
! V- - ti ti —
N N N N N N
CO �` I� ti ti ti oo rn
LL
C)
N
rn
U Q-
N O
CO U
W
FI
W
..c � .--. ..c Q t N t
Co N � M Cc CU ` C C (U6
O
Q
Z
Q7 C O O O O d
N .> U N d OJ N
O Q Q I M
E c
U
M > 07 CM m rn
W
c �o c c¢ c ¢ c
J
W O W 'S a>
a7 ca <a a� a7 ti 117 U a7
O
W
CD
N N
O O
� O
Z �
I-
a w O o0
Y C7 Z
Q Y o
W �
� d
LL,
LL,
00
LU d d o
w w
C/J J ry
W N � d
d O
X N
W W o 0 0 0 0 0
U o 0 0 o O o
117 O L(i O LJO LCD
O No w U) coo N v rn
U of w
w w d w
w LL W
O } O
LL- Q U
O U
o v)
d c�
O
no w L
d w
O N N r N
t` ti c)
Li-
CD v
C
O
E E D O
p p C U
U U
p
L 11 L EL L~LI W C6 -CD -C� C Co E
4 p E E w
CD a) ° w 00 c
- - Q a
w (1) m c J ~
Z S � 7D 0 0
ti N
N (
(T
C L
LO c
c`"J
J X
N V
V r
r
W f
f N
N
N N
O O
� O
Z �
I-
a w O o0
Y C7 Z
Q Y o
W �
� d
LL,
LL,
00
LU d d o
w w
C/J J ry
W N � d
d O
X N
W W o 0 0 0 0 0
U o 0 0 o O o
117 O L(i O LJO LCD
O No w U) coo N v rn
U of w
w w d w
w LL W
O } O
LL- Q U
O U
o v)
d c�
O
no w L
d w
O N N r N
t` ti c)
Li-
CD v
C
O
E E D O
p p C U
U U
p
L 11 L EL L~LI W C6 -CD -C� C Co E
4 p E E w
CD a) ° w 00 c
- - Q a
w (1) m c J ~
Z S � 7D 0 0
U
Cn
rn � o n
J
00 1l- CV
O
Q
W
M N M
r
LO
Z
O
Nr
O
Z
J_
co
co
O
W
J
C.7
w
O
w O
o
O Z
o
LU
(�
¢ Y
LLl
o
�
L1
W W
00
w
0
Q <
u7
LO
W
U�
LL W
2'
t/"7
lC)
w N
_w
U
0 o
X N
w
w
o
CO
o
o
Z
o
O N
UJ co
W W
W W
L.L l.L
Z
w r
O
E J
LL- Q
U
U
O r)
CD LL.
Of
O
O
z
"5
m
w �
� W
o o
� o 0
Q W
CV N N CV
Q :�i
L1
I 00 rn
O
C
m
Ll
W
(U C L L
u
D U U U
O O O Cl
Z
d cU N
CD D
O C7) C" LT C
U
J
C/3 Q>
t¢-
< N QJ d a)
f-
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
DIRECTOR'S FEES AND EXPENSE REPORT
DIRECTOR Matt Le Vesque MONTH October 2011
Board Meetings 11 -Oct., 25 -Oct.
Conferences and Other Meetings
DATE ORGANIZATION PURPOSE
3 -Oct
BTAC
4 -Oct
One View
5 -Oct
EVWD
5 -Oct
'EVWD
6 -Oct
SBSO
1 1 -Oct
"EVWD
1 3 -Oct
USARWA
17 -Oct
Green Tech
Subcommittee on Water and
18 -Oct
Power Oversight
1 8 -Oct
"EVWD
20 -Oct
EVWD
20 -Oct
"USGS /Cal EMA
21 -Oct
EVWD
Travel Expenses: (Details on Back)
Direcf or's Signature
Date of
Board Approval
Administrative
Manager
Miscellaneous
Notes
Business Intelligence &Performance Metrics
Succession Planning Committee - GM Interviews
Policy Forum
Emergency Preparedness Seminar
Succession Planning Committee - GM Interviews
Green Tech Summit
Hearing
Succession Planning Committee w /L. Malmber
Meeting w/ I -GM
California Shakeout -Info Only
Succession Planning Committee
TOTAL # OF MEETINGS 10 @ $150.00 each $ 1,500.00
$ 523.61
Total Director's Meetings &Expenses $ 2,023.61
Less Any Advance Payments $
TOTAL DUE DIRECTOR $ 2,023.61
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
DIRECTOR'S FEES AND EXPENSE REPORT
DIRECTOR Matt Le Vesque MONTH Oct 20"I �
Board Meetings page 2
Conferences and Other Meetings
DATE ORGANIZATION PURPOSE
22 -Oct *City of Highland Discover Highland Night -Info Only
24 -Oct City of Highland Meeting w /Councilmember Lilburn
25 -Oct *Highland Chamber State of the City
27 -Oct IFMA Facilities Expo
TOTAL # OF MEETINGS @ $50.00 each $
Travel Expenses: (Details on Back) $
Total Director's Meetings &Expenses $
Director's Signature
Date of
Board Approval
Administrative
Manager
Miscellaneous
Notes
Less Any Advance Payments $
TOTAL DUE DIRECTOR $
TRAVEL EXPENSES
Lodgings:
(Detailed receipts attached *)
�
DATE
FUNCTION ATTENDED
AMOUNT
$
TOTAL LODGING
$
Personal Auto:
(Detailed receipts attached *)
PARKING
DATE
FUNCTION ATTENDED
MILES
FEES
17 -Oct
Green Tech Expo
$
9.00
21 -Oct
Succession Planning
48
$
27 -Oct
Facilities Expo
58
$
18.00
TOTAL FEES
$
27.00
CURRENT RATE:
$0.555 TOTAL MILES
106
$
58.83
Meals:
(Detailed receipts attached *)
DATE
FUNCTION ATTENDED
AMOUNT
18 -Oct
Succession Planning Committee w/ L. Malmberg
$
16.38
$
TOTAL MEALS
$
16.38
Other:
(Detailed receipts attached *)
DATE
FUNCTION / NATURE OF EXPENSE
AMOUNT
27 -Oct
Facilities Expo -SWA
$
371.40
27 -Oct
Facilities Expo -cabs
$
50.00
$
TOTAL OTHER
$
421.40
'ORIGINAL RECEIPTS REQUIRED TRAVEL EXPENSES
$
523.61
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
DIRECTOR'S FEES AND EXPENSE REPORT
DIRECTOR Larry Malmberg
Board Meetings "10- 11 -11; "10 -25 -11
Conferences and Other Meetings
DATE ORGANIZATION
MONTH October 2011
PURPOSE
5 -Oct
'EVWD
Interviews GM applicants
11 -Oct
EVWD
Interviews GM applicants
12 -Oct
"SBACC
SB Chamber
18 -Oct
'EVWD
Meet with Matt, Successions Planning
18 -Oct
EVWD
SAS Congressional Hearing at Highland City Council Chamber
19 -Oct
`SBACC
SB Chamber
21 -Oct
"EVWD
Meet with Dr_ Mathis, AGM, Matt re successon planning
26 -Oct
"SBACC
SB Chamber
TOTAL # OF MEETINGS 8 @ $175.00 each $ 1 400.00
Travel Expenses: (Details on Back)
' � \ ` �,�
'lam „-�._ J
Director's Signature `) i. 1-C ��'`- - -1- -�
Date of �.= �"'� - -- �y \�
Board Approval '`�__T_.�._�
Administrative
Manager
Miscellaneous
Notes
$ 20.40
Total Director's Meetings &Expenses $ 1 ,420.40
Less Any Advance Payments $
TOTAL DUE DIRECTOR $ 1 .420.40
TRAVEL EXPENSES
Lodgings_ (Detailed receipts attached *)
DATE FUNCTION ATTENDED
AMOUNT
$
TOTAL LODGING $
Personal Auto: (Detailed receipts attached *)
DATE FUNCTION ATTENDED
PARKING
MILES FEES
21 -Oct Successon Planning Meeting in Fontana
40 $
TOTAL FEES $
CURRENT RATE: $0.51 TOTAL MILES 40 $ 20.40
Meals: (Detailed receipts attached *)
DATE FUNCTION ATTENDED
AMOUNT
$
$
Jther: (Detailed receipts attached *)
TOTAL MEALS $
SATE FUNCTION / NATURE OF EXPENSE
AMOUNT
ORIGINAL RECEIPTS REQUIRED
TOTAL OTHER $
TRAVEL EXPENSES $ 20.40
EAST VALLEY WfATER DISTR:DT
DIRECTOR'S FEES AND EXPENSE REPORT
DIRECTOR Sturgeon MONTH 10
2011
Board Meetings 11
Conferences and Other Meetings
DATE ORGANIZATION PURPOSE
3 BTAC Meeting
4 SBVMWD Meeting
17 Pasadena Green Trade Show
TOTAL # OF MEETINGS 4 @ $150.00 each $ 600-00
Travel Expenses: (Details on Back) $
Total Director's Meetings &
Expenses $ 6 0 0 . O 0
Director's Signature Less Any Advance Payments $
Date of T
Board Approval November 8 2011 TOTAL DUE DIRECTOR $ 6 0 0_ 0 0
Administrative
Manager
Miscellaneous
Notes
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
DIRECTOR'S FEES AND EXPENSE REPORT
DIRECTOR Wilson MONTH Oct , 2011
Board Meetings 10/11; 10/25
Conferences and Other Meetings
DATE ORGANIZATION PURPOSE
4 -Oct E\/WD Mtg with Gen Mgr
18 -Oct SAS Cong Hearing @ Highland Ci Hall
TOTAL # OF MEETINGS 4 @ $175.00 each $ 700.00
Travel Expenses: (Details on Back) $
Total Director's Meetings & Expenses $ 700.00
Director's Signature �' Less Any Advance Payments $
Date of �-
Board Approval TOTAL DUE DIRECTOR $ 700.00
Administrative
Manager
Miscellaneous
Votes
East Valley
Water District
Staff Report
Meeting Date: November 8, 201 1
TO: Board of Directors
SUBJECT: Disbursements
SUMMARY:
Issue — Prudent fiscal policy and fiscal transparency
Recommendation — Approve the attached list of accounts payable checks and
payroll issued
FiscalImpact— $1,200,474.03 (budgeted expenditures)
Previous Related Action — None
BACKGROUND
A listing of accounts payable checks, and the total for payroll and benefits costs incurred, are
submitted to the board of directors for review and approval with each board packet. The attached
check register, and the total for payroll cited below, were disbursed during the period October 19,
201 1 through November 1, 201 1.
DISCUSSION
Accounts payable checks for the period included check numbers 230367 through 230486 for a total of
$1,029,019.16.
The source of funds for this amount is as follows:
Unrestricted Funds $619,736.84
Bond Financing $
State Financing $409,282.32
Payroll and benefit contributions paid for this period totaled $171,454.87.
Total disbursed during the period October 19 to November 1, O 1 1 is $1,200,474.03.
Res ctfully Sub�� A ed by>
rian W. Tomp ins obert A. DeL ach
Chief Financial Officer Interim General Manager
SR# 0038
Dale: Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Time: 10:07AM
User. KATHY
Check Nbr T7e Date
230367 CK 1011912011
085308 VO 71200
230368
095205
230369
085291
230370
084881
230371
oas2as
085253
o8s2aa
085245
085246
085247
085248
085250
085251
085252
230372
084893
230373
085227
085266
085269
230374
085309
230375
085283
230376
085262
230377
065266
065266
CK
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
CK
AD
AD
VO
VO
VO
VO
VO
VO
VO
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
VO
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
VO
1011912011
61000
10!1912011
11200
1011912011
22210
1011912011
76800
76800
16800
76800
76800
76800
76800
76800
76800
76800
1011912011
22210
1011912011
71015
71015
71015
10!1912011
73100
10119!2011
71725
1011912011
77400
10119!2011
11200
11200
East Valley Water Fund
Check Register • EVWD Check Register
Id Name ProiectlD Project Description
ADP002 ADP, INC
Payroll Processing Service -ADP
Al R005 AIRGASWEST
Materials & Supplies -Oper.
ALL049 ALLIANT CONSULTING, INC
Construction in Progress WA002292 Plant 134 Upgrade
ALV059 ALVARADO-GONZALO ALEZ
Customer Refunds
AME019 AMERIPRIDE SERVICES, INC
Uniforms
Uniforms
Uniforms
Uniforms
Uniforms
Uniforms
Uniforms
Uniforms
Uniforms
Uniforms
ATL008 REAL ESTAT- ATLANTIC & PACIFIC
Customer Refunds
ATT007 AT &T
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
AUD001 COUNTY TREASURERlCONTROLLER
AuditlAccounting Fees
AUT010 AUTO UPHOLSTERY INC.
Vehicle RepairslMaintenance
BEC005 BECERRA- RICHARD
Licenses and Certifications
BR0001 BRUNICK, MCELHANEY & BECKETT
Construction in Progress WA002448 EASTWOOD FARMS MUTUAL WATER
Construction in Progress WA002507 Western Wtr Mtr Collaboration
Page: 1 of 10
Report: APCHK.rpt
Company: EVWD
Discount OrigDocAmt DrCr
328.80
328.80 D
85,27
85.27 D
1,091.00
1,091.00 D
34.82
34.82 D
1,159.80
-450.36 C
- 103.44 C
25.00 D
25.00 D
25.00 D
25.00 D
742.61 D
253.35 D
258.85 D
358.79 D
59.10
59.10 D
320.89
47.20 D
31.16 D
242.53 D
18.00
18.00 D
129.50
129.50 D
120.00
120.00 D
8,28125
53125 D
406.25 D
Dale: Tuesday, November 01, 2011
ast Valley Water Fund
Page:
2 of 10
Time: M
Check Register - EVWD Check Register
Report: APCHK.rpt
User: �(TH
KATHY
Company:
EyWp
Check Nbr
Type
Date
Id Name Pro iectlD Project Description
Discount OrigDocAmt
DrCr
085266
VO
11200
Construction in Progress WA002523 DAIRY QUEEN
856.25
D
085266
VO
72400
Legal Fees
6,487.50
D
230378
CK
10/19/2011
CIT029 CITY NATIONAL BANK
40,928,23
085294
VO
22275
Retention Payable
40,928.23
D
230379
CK
1011912011
CL1002 CLINICAL LAB OF S B
6,841.25
085221
VO
65200
Water Testing
6,841.25
D
230380
CK
10/1912011
C00036 COUNTY OF SAN BDNO FLEET
355.27
085232
VO
71756
Equipment Fuel and Oil
355.27
D
230381
CK
10/1912011
FA1002 FAIRVIEW FORD SALES,INC
175.57
085284
VO
71720
Vehicle Parts /Supply
161.96
D
085255
VO
71720
Vehicle Parts /Supply
13.61
D
230382
CK
10/1912011
FAR001 FARMER BROS CO
461.17
085275
VO
71503
Kitchen Supplies
12.97
D
085276
VO
71503
Kitchen Supplies
342.66
D
085312
VO
71503
Kitchen Supplies
105.54
D
230383
CK
10/19/2011
FED001 FedEx
21.08
085307
VO
11200
Construction in Progress WA002509 Baseline Garden Wtr Company
21.08
D
230384
CK
10/19/2011
FUR002 FURNEY- DOLORES
68.12
084814
VO
22210
Customer Refunds
68.12
D
230385
CK
10/19!2011
HAC001 HACH COMPANY
1,674.45
085313
VO
61000
Materials &Supplies -Oper.
1,674.45
D
230386
CK
10/1912011
HAT001 HATFIELD BUICK
209.53
085286
VO
71720
Vehicle PartslSupply
102.63
D
085267
VO
71720
Vehicle PartslSupply
106.90
D
230387
CK
10119/2011
HEN023 HENSON— CHRISTA
85.00
0aa81s
VO
22210
Customer Refunds
85.00
D
230388
CK
10/19!2011
HIG023 CARWASH- HIGHLAND HAND
168.87
085233
VO
71725
Vehicle RepairslMaintenance
168.87
D
230389
CK
10/1912011
HIP002 HIPPENSTIEL DBA— CHARLES W
1,650.00
oes2sa
VO
79100
Safety Equipment
800.00
D
ees2ss
VO
79100
Safety Equipment
850.00
D
Date: Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Time: 10:07AM
User: KATHY
CheckNbr Type Date
230390 CK 1011912011
oesz3s VO 61000
230391
085314
085315
230392
084882
230393
085255
230394
08529fi
230395
065277
085288
oeszfis
230396
085295
230397
085272
230398
085204
230399
065222
065234
230400
085236
085260
085261
230401
085237
065236
085239
085240
CK
VO
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
VO
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
CK
VD
VO
CK
VO
VO
VO
CK
VO
VO
VO
VO
10!1912011
61000
61000
10N912011
22210
1011912011
66250
1011912011
71705
1011912011
71755
71755
71155
1011912011
71500
1011912011
71550
1011912011
65100
1011912011
74900
74900
10119!2011
71725
71125
71725
1011912011
71720
71727
71720
71727
East Valley Water Fund
Check Register • EVWD Check Register
Id Name ProiectlD Pro iectDescription
HUB001 HUB CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES
Materials & Supplies -Oper.
INL005 INLAND WATERWORKS SUPPLY CO
Materials & Supplies -Oper.
Materials & Supplies -Oper.
INLO21 INLAND FISH & GAME
Customer Refunds
JAC038 JACK HENRY & ASSOCIATES INC
Payment/Collection Fees
JAC048 JACINTO FARMING, INC -LARRY
Grounds Repairs /Maintenance
JOH001 JOHNSON MACHINERY CO
Equipment RepairslMaintenancE
Equipment RepairslMaintenanCE
Equipment RepairslMaintenancE
JRF001 J.R. FREEMAN CO., INC
Office Supplies
KON004 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS
Office Equipment MaintContract
LE5002 LESLIE'S POOL SUPPLIES, INC
Treatment Chemicals
MAT036 MATHIS- ROBERTW
Miscellaneous Consultants
Miscellaneous Consultants
MMS001 M AND M SMOG INC.
Vehicle RepairslMaintenance
Vehicle RepairslMaintenance
Vehicle RepairslMaintenance
NAP007 NAPA AUTO PARTS IB05S MOSS
Vehicle Parts /Supply
Garage SupplieslSmall Tools
Vehicle PartslSupply
Garage SuppliesfSmall Tools
Page: 3 o 10
Report: APCHK.rpl
Company: EVWD
Discount OrigDocAmt DrCr
144.72
144.72 D
333.08
-3.20 159.84 D
-3.60 180.04 D
58.83
58.83 D
609.70
609.70 D
2,460.50
2,460.50 D
150.25
24.34 D
13.61 D
112.30 D
576.71
576.71 D
207.15
207,15 D
92.23
92.23 D
1,869.28
829.28 D
1,040.00 D
10425
34.75 D
34.75 D
34.75 D
112.48
51.22 D
29.61 D
17.86 D
13.79 D
Date.
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
East Valley Water Fund
Page.
4 of 10
Time:
1o:o7AM
Check Register - EVWD Check Register
Report: APCHK.rpt
User:
KATHY
Company:
EVWD
Check Nbr Type
Date
Id Name ProiectlD Proiect Description
Discount OrigDocAmt
DrCr
230402
CK
1011912011
NEX001 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
1,713.87
085226
AD
71015
Telephone
114.25
C
0as2zs
VO
71015
Telephone
1,069.74
D
085225
VO
71305
Comm unicationsEquip ReplMair
758.38
D
230403
CK
1011912011
NGU119 NGUYEN -TUAN H
42.73
084883
VO
22210
Customer Refunds
42.73
D
230404
CK
1011912011
OFF007 OFFICETEAM
656.00
085267
VO
51700
Temporary Labor
656.00
D
230405
CK
10119!2011
PLO002 PLUS 1 PERFORMANCE
426.24
085241
VO
71725
Vehicle RepairslMaintenance
426.24
D
230406
CK
10119!2011
PROO16 SAMUEL ADAM VICKERY
945.00
085223
VO
77300
Employee Programs
945.00
D
230407
CK
1011912011
REA018 SERVICES & SOLUTION —REAL HOME
63.07
084816
VO
22210
Customer Refunds
63.07
D
230408
CK
10!1912011
RIP001 RIPLEY- EMILIANA
15.95
084817
VO
22210
Customer Refunds
15.95
D
230409
CK
10119/2011
SAF001 SAFETY KLEEN ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
525.99
085278
VO
71727
Garage Supplies /Small Tools
525.99
D
230410
CK
10119!2011
SCA002 SCARANO- NICOLE
68.30
084818
VO
22210
Customer Refunds
68.30
D
230411
CK
10119/2011
SEN001 SENTRY -TECH SYSTEMS, L.L.C.
1,475.00
088280
VO
72500
Security Services
1,475.00
D
230412
CK
10119!2011
SNI002 SNIPES�RAMONA
25.80
oaaels
VO
22210
Customer Refunds
25.80
D
230413
CK
10!1912011
S00002 SO CAL GAS COMPANY
16.82
088273
VO
71010
Utilities
16.82
D
230414
CK
10119/2011
S00004 SO CAL EDISON COMPANY
248,764.77
oas27a
VO
63000
Electric
246,064.43
D
0asz7a
VO
71010
Utilities
2,700.34
D
230415
CK
10!19/2011
SOU024 SOUTHERN CALIF OCCUPATIONAL
1,100.00
Date: Tuesday, November 01, 2011
East Valley Water Fund
Page: 5 o 10
Time: 10 07A
Check Register • EVWD Check Register
Repod, APCHKrpt
User: KATHY
Company: EVWD
Check Nbr
Type
Dale
Id Name ProiectlD Project Description
Discount OrigDocAmt DrCr
055224
VO
71540
Medical Fees
1,100.00 D
230416
CK
10/1912011
SSCO01 SSC CONSTRUCTION, INC.
368,354.09
085293
AD
22275
Retention Payable
- 40,928.23 C
085292
VO
11200
Construction in Progress WA002292 Plant 134 Upgrade
409,282.32 D
230417
CK
10/19/2011
STA041 STAR AUTO PARTS
6.34
o85242
VO
71755
Equipment RepairslMaintenancE
6.34 D
230418
CK
1011912011
SWA002 SWAINS ELECTRIC MOTOR SERVICE
12,438.44
085290
VO
62000
Maintenance
12,438.44 D
230419
CK
10/1912011
TOM001 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
8,192.75
085297
VO
11200
Construction in Progress WA002509 Baseline Garden Wtr Company
6,11435 D
085298
VO
11200
Construction in Progress WA002502 Plant 143 Fac Planing Study
2,078.00 D
230420
CK
10/1912011
UN1002 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
39,89
085203
VO
71505
Postage
33.61 D
085254
VO
71505
Postage
6.28 D
230421
CK
1011912011
UN1013 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
216,988.55
085243
VO
13540
Installment Fund -2010
216,988.55 D
230422
CK
1011912011
UN1021 UNITED SITE SERVICES
261.88
085310
VO
62000
Maintenance
155.71 D
085311
VO
62000
Maintenance
106.17 D
230423
CK
1011912011
USA006 USA MOBILITY WIRELESS,INC
208.66
o5sz2o
VO
71300
Communications Services
208.66 D
230424
CK
1011912011
VAL068 VALERO MARKETING &SUPPLY COMP
13,020.32
065257
AD
71756
Equipment Fuel and Oil
- 103,02 C
ces25s
VO
71756
Equipment Fuel and Oil
13,123.34 D
230425
CK
1011912011
VER004 VERIZON CALIFORNIA
90.11
ces27o
VO
71015
Telephone
43.54 D
085271
VO
71015
Telephone
46.57 D
230426
CK
1 011 91201 1
VUL001 VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY
631.14
oasz7s
VO
61000
Materials &Supplies -Oper.
831.14 D
230427
CK
10!19/2011
WAR024 WARD�DOREEN G
33.54
084884
VO
22210
Customer Refunds
33.54 D
Date. Tuesday, Novem6erD1, 2011
Time: 10:07AM
User: KATHY
Check Nbr
TJ�
Date
230428
CK
1011912011
085280
VO
71625
230429
CK
10/1912011
085282
VO
D
230430
085281
230431
084894
230432
085371
230433
085323
230434
085384
230435
085332
085333
230436
064911
D85352
230437
D85316
230438
085317
085318
230439
085395
23044D
085385
230441
065349
CK
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
VO
CK
VO
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
iL 71305
10/19/2011
71500
1011912011
22210
1012712011
62500
10/27/2011
61010
10127/2011
23191
10/2712011
71725
71725
10/2712011
22210
22210
10/2712011
77400
1012712011
72500
72500
1o/27no11
79100
1012712011
23160
1012712011
71010
East Valley Water Fund
Check Register • EVWD Check Register
Id Name ProiectlD Project Description
WAX001 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY
Janitorial Supplies
WIRO03 WIRELESS WATCHDOG, LLC
CommunicationsEquip Rep /Mair
WIR004 WIRZ & COMPANY PRINTING, INC
Office Supplies
Y00036 YOUNG - REGIONAL
Customer Refunds
ADV001 ADVANCED TELEMETRY SYS INTL
Maintenance Telemetry
ALL050 ELECTROINCS INC - ALLIED
Materials & Supplies•Maint.
ARRO09 ARROWHEAD UNITED WAY
United Way Deduction
AUT010 AUTO UPHOLSTERY INC.
Vehicle Repairs /Maintenance
Vehicle RepairslMaintenance
BAN030 BANOS INC-ROGER
Customer Refunds
Customer Refunds
BAR006 BARLOW -DALE
Licenses and Certifications
BAR074 BARRY'S SECURITY SERVICES, INC
Security Services
Security Services
BEC002 BECERRA- RICHARD
Safety Equipment
CIT018 CITISTREET
Deferred Compensation
CIT021 S.B.M.W.D.
Utilities
Page:
6 of 10
Report: APCHK.rpl
Company.
EWVD
Discount OrigDocAmt
DrCr
1,568.47
1,568.47
D
228.00
228.00
D
874.08
874.08
D
168.26
168.26
D
7,320.00
7,320.00
D
158.43
158.43
D
55.00
55.00
D
336.25
154.50
D
181.75
D
72.31
37.87
D
34.44
D
80,00
80.00
D
2,733.09
1,378.08
D
1,355.01
D
85.86
85.86
D
6,225.50
6,225.50
D
573.48
279.86
D
Dale: Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Time: 10:07AM
User: KATHY
Check Nbr Type Date
085350 VD 71010
085351 VO 71010
230442
085355
230443
085334
230444
085324
230445
085325
230446
085386
230447
084915
230448
065376
230449
085335
230450
oe4s12
230451
084916
230452
085396
230453
085310
085331
230454
085394
085390
085392
CK
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
ZC
AD
VO
CK
AD
VO
VO
1012712011
22210
1012712011
71720
10!2712011
71500
1012712011
22207
1012712011
23195
10127!2011
22210
10127/2011
61010
1012712011
71720
1012712011
22210
1012712011
22210
10!2712011
71105
1012712011
22210
22210
10127/2011
13700
71950
71950
East Valley Water Fund
Check Register - EVWD Check Register
Id Name ProiectlD ProiectDescription
Utilities
Utilities
COL051 COLLAZO -JOSE C
Customer Refunds
CRE001 CREST CHEVROLET
Vehicle Parts /Supply
DAY001 DAY - TIMERS, INC
Office Supplies
DEL067 DELOACH DBA- ROBERT A
Contracts Payable
EAS003 East Valley Water District
FSA Withholding
EAS013 EAST VALLEY PROPERTY MGMT
Customer Refunds
EWI001 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS INC
Materials & Supplies - Maint.
FLE011 FLEET SERVICES INC
Vehicle Parts /Supply
GAR145 GARCIA�HECTOR
Customer Refunds
GAR146 GARCIA- JOHNNY
Customer Refunds
HAM026 HAMPTON INN &SUITES
Meals, Lodging, Travel
HER142 HERNANDEZ�JORGE
Customer Refunds
Customer Refuntls
HIG028 HIGHLAND STAR LLC
Other Receivables
Facilities Rent
Facilities Rent
Page:
7 or 10
Report. APCHK.rp1
Company:
EVWD
Discount Ori DocAmt
DrCr
119.18
D
174.44
D
33.81
33.81
D
102.48
102.48
D
162.49
162.49
D
3,500.00
3,500.00
D
1,073.15
1,073.15
D
67.06
67.06
D
8.04
8.04
D
10.07
10.07
D
6.96
6.96
D
61.61
61.61
D
414.84
414.84
D
0.00
-37.60
C
37.60
D
13,102.40
- 1,000.00
C
9,040.00
D
5,062.40
D
Date:
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Time:
East Valley Water Fund
Page:
8 of 10
10:07AM
Check Register - EVWD Check Register
Repoli, APCHK.rpt
User:
KATHY
Company:
EVWD
Check Nbr Type
Date
Id Name ProiectlD Proiect Description
Discount OrigDocAmt
DrCr
230455
CK
10127/2011
HUB001 HUB CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES
75.49
085346
VO
61100
Small Tools
75.49
D
230456
CK
10127/2011
INT005 INTERSTATE BATTERY
160.13
085336
VO
71755
Equipment Repairs /MaintenanCE
160.13
D
230457
CK
10/2712011
JOH086 JOHNSON BUENA VISTA LLC
58.76
085358
VO
22210
Customer Refunds
58.76
D
230458
CK
1012712011
JRF001 J.R. FREEMAN CO., INC
43.15
085337
VO
71500
Office Supplies
43.15
D
230459
CK
10127/2011
KAR006 KARAMOY- FRIEDA
2131
084913
VO
22210
Customer Refunds
21.31
D
230460
CK
10/27/2011
KEL022 REALTY - KELLER WILLIAMS
54.39
085359
VO
22210
Customer Refunds
54.39
D
230461
CK
10/2712011
KEND18 KENNEDY —MICAH
90.00
085315
VO
77400
Licenses and Certifications
90.00
D
230462
CK
10127/2011
LAW003 LAWSON PRODUCTS,INC
1,398.02
085326
VO
61000
Materials & Supplies -Oper.
760.70
D
085374
VO
61000
Materials & Supplies -Oper.
346.36
D
085375
VO
61000
Materials & Supplies -Oper.
15.13
D
085371
VO
61000
Materials &Supplies -Oper.
-2.79 278.62
D
230463
CK
1012712011
LPS001 SERVICES INC —LPS FIELD
131.75
084914
Vp
22210
Customer Refunds
085350
VO
22210
Customer Refunds
45,44
D
085361
VO
22210
Customer Refunds
4524
D
41,07
D
230464
CK
10I27Q011
MAR200 MARTINEZ- GEORGINA
30.01
Oaas17
VO
22210
Customer Refunds
30.01
D
230465
CK
10127!2011
MAT036 MATHIS- ROBERTW
10,475.00
085320
VO
74900
Miscellaneous Consultants
10,475.00
D
230466
CK
10!2712011
MIR019 MIRANDA- KATRINA
3192
084518
VO
22210
Customer Refunds
31.92
D
230467
CK
10/2712011
NAP007 NAPA AUTO PARTS /BOSS MOSS
55.12
oas3aa
VO
71720
Vehicle Parts /Supply
55.12
D
Date: Tuesday, November 01, 2011
East Valley Water Fund
Page: 9 O 10
Time: MOM
Check Register • EVWD Check Register
Repon: APCHK.rpt
User: KATHY
Company: EVWD
Check Nbr
Type
Dale
Id Name ProiectlD Project Description
Discount OrigDocAmt DrCr
230468
CK
1012712011
NOB003 NOBEL SYSTEMS, INC.
4,580.00
085398
VO
11200
Construction in Progress WA002374 GIS SYSTEM
4,580.00 D
230469
CK
10012011
OFF007 OFFICETEAM
524.80
085397
VO
51700
Temporary Labor
524.80 D
230470
CK
10127/2011
ONL001 ONLINE RESOURCES CORPORATION
54.05
085346
VO
66250
Payment/Collection Fees
54.05 D
230471
CK
1012712011
PAT035 PATTERSON- DONALD
14.06
084919
VO
22210
Customer Refunds
14.06 D
230472
CK
1012712011
PRC001 CONSTRUCTION -P R
1,743.99
085230
VO
22210
Customer Refunds
1,364.66 D
085364
VO
22210
Customer Refunds
379.33 D
230473
CK
10127!2011
REE017 RELATION, LLC -REEB GOVERNMENT
5,400.00
085378
VO
74210
Legislative Consultants
51400.00 D
230474
CK
1012712011
RMC001 RMC WATER AND ENVIRONMENT
1,125.02
085372
VO
74500
Engineering Consultants
1,125.02 D
230475
CK
1012712011
R00001 ROQUET PAVING
8,831.50
085373
VO
62000
Maintenance
8,831.50 D
230476
CK
10/2712011
SAL051 SALAS-ISMAEL
224.56
osas2o
VO
22210
Customer Refunds
224.56 D
230477
CK
10!27!2011
SAN007 SAN BDNO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSN
740.29
085387
VO
23170
Union Dues
740.29 D
230478
CK
1012712D11
SHA022 INVESTMENTS LLC -SHARK
20.08
aaaszl
VO
22210
Customer Refunds
20.08 D
230479
CK
1012712011
SOW001 SOWLE -HENRY
90.00
085321
VO
77400
Licenses and Certifications
90.00 D
230480
CK
1012712011
STA055 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT
2,172.31
o6s3ae
VO
23190
Miscellaneous Deductions
763.81 D
085389
VO
23190
Miscellaneous Deductions
1,408.50 D
230481
CK
10127/2011
VAS026 VASQUEZ�RUBEN
91.63
084972
VO
22210
Customer Refunds
71.76 D
Daie: Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Time 10:07AM
User: KATHY
Check Nbr T�7e Date
084973 VD 22210
230482
085368
230483
085347
230484
085369
230485
085322
230486
oeaool
CK
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
CK
VO
10/27/2011
22210
10/2712011
61000
1ar2712o11
22210
10/2712011
77400
10/26!2011
74900
East Valley Water Fund
Check Resister - EVWD Check Register
Id Name ProiectlD Proiect Description
Customer Refunds
A L054 VILLESCAS -ALMA
Customer Refunds
VUL001 VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY
Materials & Supplies -Oper.
WIL129 WILLIAMS- MARYANN
Customer Refunds
YOU001 YOUNG -GARY
Licenses and Certifications
WIL096 WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES
Miscellaneous Consultants
Total
Page:
10 of 10
Report . APCHK.rpt
Company:
EVWD
Discount OrigDocAmt
DrCr
19.87
D
47.41
47.41
D
2,738.87
2,738.87
D
77.50
77.50
D
105.00
105.00
D
1,500.00
1,500.00
D
1,029,019.16
East Valley
Water District
Staff Report
Meeting Date: November 8, 201 1
TO: Board of Directors
SUBJECT: i- Iarmony Development Project
SUMMARY:
Issue — Presentation by Lewis Operating Corporation on the Harmony
Development Project
Recommendation — None. Presentation is for information and discussion only
Fiscal Impact — None
Previous Related Action — None
BACKGROUND
The Ilarmony Development Project, formerly known as Sunrise Ranch, is an approximately 1,600
Acre parcel of land located in the eastern portion of the District. This land is currently majority
owned by Orange County Flood Control District with partial ownership by Riverside County Flood
Control District and San Bernardino County Flood Control District. Orange County FCD being the
lead agency has hired Lewis Operating Corp. to start the entitlement process. This project due to its
size and location presents some real challenges in terms of water and sewer service_ The presentation
will provide conceptual exhibits that show how Orange County plans to provide water and sewer
service to this development.
DISCUSSION
Currently the District does not have any water and sewer services serving this area nor does it have
any near this development. Sewer service would need to have either several miles of sewer main
installed with Lift (pumping) Stations along the way or as an alternate have a sewer treatment plant
built to treat the sewage. They are advantages and disadvantages to both these alternatives but one
advantage to a sewage treatment plant that has been discussed internally is the ability to provide
recycled water as a result of treatment sewage. This will provide credits to the District in terms of
meeting the 20% water savings per person by 2020 conservation measures.
Water service for this development would be provided through Wells constructed in the area and /or
through connection to the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District raw water transmission
SR# 0041
main. A connection to the SBVMWD main would necessitate a surface water treatment plant and
would require a backup service (such as ground water wells or a connection to the District's
distribution system) as State Water Project water cannot be the primary source of water to any
development. The presentation will discuss the domestic water, sewer treatment and recycled water
concepts in more detail.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ron Buchwald
District Engineer
Attachments
Exhibits
Ap ed by,
�� '
Robert A. DeLoa h
Interim General anager
SR# 0041
HARMONY
Domestic Water Concept
a.i
U
C
0
� V
Z p,�
O h0
� �
oc t
Q U
_ �
L
4J
�-.+
CO
�A
�� �
MEMORANDUM
November 1 , 201 1
TO: Robert DeLoach, Interim General Manager
East Valley Water District
FROM: Bob Reeb and Raquel Ayala
Reeb Government Relations, LLC
SUBJECT: 2011 Annual Report
This is the fourth year that Reeb Government Relations has had the honor and privilege
to work with East Valley Water District (EVWD or District) to advance the interests of the
District, its taxpayers and customers in the State Capitol. Together, the EVWD Board of
Directors, District management and staff, and Reeb Government Relations continue to
be an effective voice for common sense legislation and regulations that enable, rather
than detract from, pursuit of the District's mission.
Governor Brown Takes Office; Budget Dominates Agenda
Edmund G. Brown, Jr. was sworn into this third term as Governor of California, having
first served two consecutive terms between 1974 and 1982_ He joined a new Legislature
sworn into office in December 201 O. Senate Democrats retained a 25 -15 seat majority
and in the Assembly, the Democratic majority swelled to 52 -28. The Democrat -
Repubtican ratio left Democrats just two seats shy of asuper- majority in both houses_
During his 2010 campaign, Governor Brown said:
"The next Governor must be ready to stand against the crowd to lead a broken
legis /ature out of a morass of poisonous partisanship. /t wi /l take o/d fashioned
hard work, patience, and a keen understanding of the process.
"/ have a deep know /edge about how government functions and how po /iticians
operate. /have seen it as a governor, as a mayor, and as Attorney Genera /. /
know how to get budgets done - balanced and on time_ /have /earned first -hand
how stupid state regulations can stop jobs and development in cities like
Oak /and; and how ridiculous jurisdictional squabb /es and end less rules de /ay the
construction of new transmission lines to bring solar energy to our cities. /know
how to break political log jams, both in cities and at the State Capita /.
-1-
As Governor / wi // ensure that money is spent carefu //y and that state
government is operated as efficient /y as possib /e. /have always taken a no
nonsense and frugal approach to taxpayers' money. "
In January, the estimated General Fund (GF) shortfall was $27.6 billion - including a $1
billion reserve and reflecting the cancellation of a state building sales - leaseback
transaction program. In March, the Legislature passed $14 billion in solutions, primarily
spending reductions_ On May 16, Governor Brown unveiled a revised state budget that,
according to the Governor, reduced by nearly $3 billion the amount of taxes needed to
balance the budget, spurred job creation through new tax incentives and paid off most
of the $34.7 billion debt built up over the last decade. The revised budget also proposed
that the Legislature implement and that voters ratify a plan to extend for five years sales
tax and vehicle license fee rates and the dependent credit exemption level that were set
to expire on June 30, 2011. The May budget revision did not seek a 2011 personal
income tax surcharge, but would have reinstated it for the 2012 through 2015 tax years.
The Legislature adopted most of the Governor's May Revision framework that relied on
about $11 billion in additional revenues. However, with the deadline for passing a
budget fast approaching, and the Governor's inability to reach a deal with Republican
legislators to obtain the 4 votes needed — 2 in the Assembly and 2 in the Senate — to
extend the sales tax and vehicle license fee increase until an special election on taxes
could be held; the Democratic majorities in both houses passed by a majority vote their
first spending plan for closing the budget gap. The Governor received the first budget on
June 15, the constitutional deadline for passing the state budget plan, but vetoed the
measure within 24 hours after he received it.
"Unfortunately, the budget I have received is not a balanced solution," the Governor
wrote legislative leaders. "It continues big deficits for years to come and adds billions of
dollars of new debt. It also contains legally questionable maneuvers, costly borrowing
and unrealistic savings. Finally, it is not financeable and therefore will not allow us to
meet our obligations as they occur."
In November 201 O, voters approved Proposition 25 which lowered the threshold for
passing the State spending plan from a 2/3 vote to a simple majority vote, However, it
also required legislators to send a budget to the Governor's desk by the constitutional
deadline of June 15 or else permanently forfeit their salary for each day the budget was
late. State Controller John Chiang, who issues state paychecks, determined that
Proposition25 requires lawmakers to send the governor a "balanced budget" to meet
the pay requirement and docked the salary of legislators until a balanced budget was
passed.
At a press conference after vetoing the budget, Governor Brown said, "We need four
Republican votes, and in the next several days I'm going to do everything I can._. I'll
move heaven and earth to get those votes." Republican Senators Anthony Cannella,
Tom Berryhill, Bill Emmerson, and Tom Harman, were said to be willing to vote to place
taxes on the ballot if their conditions were met, but not to extend the taxes before they
-2-
expire on July 1. The Republican Senators sought a spending cap, state pension
reform, relaxed environmental protection laws and reduced state regulations. But talks
never delivered a compromise agreement and the Governor, in the end, worked with
legislative Democrats to identify additional alternative solutions, as well as retain many
of the solutions from the June 15 budget, to close the state's remaining $9.6 billion
deficit and ensure a balanced budget in 2011 -12.
On June 30, Governor Jerry Brown signed the state spending plan for fiscal year 2011-
2012 —the second majority -vote budget sent to the Governor within two weeks of the
first. The second majority -vote budget package relies on spending cuts, a projected $4
billion rise in tax revenue and fee increases. General Fund spending totals $85.9 billion,
a 6.1 %reduction from 201 O -1 1 . The budget also includes some $2.5 billion in mid -year
"trigger" cuts that would be made if revenues fall short of projections. The package
outlines three tiers of trigger cuts based on how much of the $4 billion in projected
revenues materializes. The majority of trigger cuts would fall on education and social
services programs.
A week after Governor Brown signed the state budget; the Standard & Poor's Agency
adjusted the state's ratings outlook from "negative" to "stable ". The ratings agency said
the solutions in the 2011 -12 budget are "largely realistic and should clear a path" for the
state to borrow cash in the short term to pay its bills. Despite the outlook improvement,
California's general obligation debt rating remains at A -, lowest in the nation.
The budget includes Governor Brown's proposed local government "realignment" plan,
with a $1 .7 billion fund shift from redevelopment agencies to counties and a 1 .06
percentage point sales tax "swap" that redirects money to local governments instead of
the state. Significantly, for water and wastewater agencies throughout the state, the
approved budget package eliminates $24 million in General Fund support for the State
Water Resources Control Board and replaces those General Fund dollars with higher
fees. The fee increases include $1.4 million for the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System, $1 .8 million for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (agricultural
waiver program), $6.7 million for basin planning activities, $11 .5 million for Total
Maximum Daily Load activities and $3.2 million for water rights. The package
additionally eliminates $1 .23 million from the Department of Water Resources' budget
for the Watermaster Program replacing the funding with fees. The Association of
California Water Agencies (ACWA) and its member agencies, including East Valley
Water District, voiced opposition against these additional fees to support the State
Water Resources Control Board. ACWA and its member agencies had successfully
fought off similar fee increases in previous years, originally proposed by Gov.
Schwarzenegger. Unfortunately, the ongoing economic malaise, persistently high
unemployment, a yawning budget deficit and the need for significant cuts all contributed
to a feeling that every available option to balance the General Fund must be included.
On October 1 O, State Controller John Chiang released his latest State Cash Update
which revealed that the State's revenues for the month of September came in $301.6
million bellow the State budget projections.
�t�
"September's revenues alone do not guarantee that trigger cuts will be pulled," Chiang
said. "But as the largest revenue month before December, these numbers do not paint a
hopeful picture."
After accounting for September revenues, total year -to date general fund revenues are
now behind the budget's estimates by $705.5 million.
The first year of the 2011 -12 Regular Session of the Legislature ended on September 9,
2011; the deadline for Governor Brown to act on legislation that reached his desk in the
final two weeks of the session was October 9. A total of 2,719 bills were introduced by
the Senate and Assembly, including legislation introduced into a special session called
to address budget - related issues. Reeb Government Relations monitored or actively
lobbied 93 measures on behalf of our clients.
This year, Governor Brown considered the lowest number of bills (870) of any governor
since the California Constitution was changed to disallow the pocket veto in 1966.
Governor Brown vetoed a higher percentage in 2011 (14.36 %) than in any of his prior
years as governor; his veto percentage is only slightly above the average for governors
since 1967 (13.82 %)_ Governors Deukmejian and Schwarzenegger still rank first and
second for the most bills vetoed in a year, 436 (1990) and 414 (2008) respectively. This
year saw the fewest vetoed bills (125) since the recall year in 2003 (58).
Legislation seeks Local Government Transparency and Accountability
In 2010, salary abuses reported in the City of Bell spurred committee hearings and
legislative proposals focused on increasing transparency and accountability in local
government compensation, accounting and auditing practices. Many bills were held due
to the lack of time remaining in the 201 O session to give due consideration to the myriad
reform proposals_ This year, a number of bills inspired by the City of Bell scandal were
introduced in the Legislature. EVWD supported some, opposed some, and remained
neutral on most of these bills.
A summary of some of the key measures is as follows:
■ AB 23 (Smyth) would require a member of a legislative body or the clerk to
announce, prior to holding a meeting simultaneously or in serial order, during a
meeting of a legislative body where the members constitute at least a quorum of
the legislative body of the other meeting, how much compensation or stipend the
members will receive for the second meeting. The District had a "watch" position
on the bill. The bill was signed into law, by Governor Brown, on July 25. (Chapter
No. 91 , Statutes of 201 1)
■ AB 187 (Cara) would allow the state auditor to establish a program to identify and
audit any local government agency that the auditor deems to have a "high risk"
for waste, fraud, abuse or mismanagement. The District had a "watch" position
-4-
on this bill. The bill passed both houses of the legislature and was signed into law
on October 4. (Chapter 451, Statutes of 201 1)
AB 392 (D- Alejo) —would require the legislative body of a local agency to post
agenda and specified staff - generated reports that relate to items on the agenda on
its Internet Website, failed the May 29 deadline pursuant to Rule 61 (a) (5) -last day
for fiscal committees to hear and report to the floor bills introduced in their house.
The District had an "oppose" position on the bill_ The bill had been amended to be
narrowed somewhat, but still would have posed significant restrictions and costs on
local agencies.
AB 582 (Pan) —would require the legislative body of a local agency to publicly notice
on two separate occasions a proposed compensation increase of more than 5% for
a city manager, deputy city manager, county chief administrative officer, deputy chief
administrative officer, or similar employees of special districts_ The bill failed the May
29 deadline pursuant to Rule 61 (a) (5) -last day for fiscal committees to hear and
report to the floor bills introduced in their house. The District had an "oppose"
position on this bill.
District Remains Active on the Legislative Front
The District actively monitored or engaged in direct lobbying on over 34 bills this year.
will highlight only a handful of bills below on which the District was active. Many of the
bills that I will highlight below are now 2 -year bills_ 2011 is the first year of the 2011 -12
legislative session; therefore, bills that failed to meet a legislative deadline have become
2 -year bills and can be taken up for consideration beginning in January 2012.
Public works contracts: relief for bidders
AB 457 by Assemblymember Don Wagner (R- Irvine) would award attorney's fees to a
public works contract bidder if that bidder is successful in challenging an award based
on a determination that errors or omissions occurred in the intended or actual award of
the contract to another bidder_ The bill is sponsored by the Engineering Contractors'
Association, California Fence Contractors' Association, California Chapter of the
American Fence Association, Marin Builders' Association and the Flasher Barricade
Association, who state that "the intent of this legislation is to make public agencies think
more seriously about complying with existing bidding laws."
Under current law, a public agency is required to make a good faith determination that a
low bid is responsive and the bidder is responsible, and then a contract can be
awarded. The next lowest bidder may challenge the bid award, but existing law provides
that the contract may be entered into and performance begun while the challenge is
pending. Current law provides that a contractor who prevails against a public agency
can only receive their costs for bidding on the project. Sponsors of AB 457 argued that
there is little incentive for a contractor to pay an attorney to challenge a public agency
since the resulting legal costs are paid for by the contractor and nothing is gained.
-5-
Sponsors argued that public agencies know there are insignificant repercussions for
violating competitive bidding laws, thus they continue to violate such laws with impunity.
EVWD opposed AB 457 for various reasons. First, existing law provides a remedy when
the awarding of a contract is deemed invalid as any party not awarded the contract can
challenge the process. Thus, as written, AB 457 would encourage a multitude of
allegedly aggrieved parties to file suit, hoping to at least get their attorneys' fees (a form
of punishment to the public agency) as they also hope to revive their bids. That is not a
wise or cost - appropriate approach, particularly when it might encourage frivolous
claims. Second, the bill would not require the challenger to show intent, just that there is
a "defect" in the process. As a result, public agencies might be willing to proceed with a
contract if the award is challenged so as to avoid the prospect of having to pay the
challenger's fees and costs. An agency would simply await the outcome of the
challenge. Projects would likely be held up unnecessarily due to the challenge, which
could in turn increase the cost due to bids going stale. Even though current law gives
such actions priority "over all other civil actions," the delay would still likely take months.
Finally, the award of attorneys' fees is the exception, not the norm. The legislation
would contravene Government Code Section 815.6, which limits a right to damages for
breach of a mandatory duty (which is the basis for this type of claim), and bars claims
for attorneys' fees in such circumstances. This legislation also would impose such an
award without a finding of negligence or other active misconduct by the public agency,
which again is contrary to the limitations imposed by Section 815.6.
The bill was first scheduled for hearing in the Assembly Business, Professions and
Consumer Protection (BP &CP) Committee on March 22. The BP &CP committee bill
analysis recommended amendments to the bill supported by opponents that would have
allowed public entities that successfully defend the intended or actual award of a
contract to recover costs and attorney's fees incurred in defending the contract
challenge. According to the Committee analysis, the recommended amendment would
be "reciprocal in nature and mirror the provisions of AB 457 on behalf of taxpayers and
public entities reducing the number of frivolous challenges to contract awards by
bidders who are either upset with losing a contract award despite a public entity's
compliance with the competitive bidding process."
Assembly Member Wagner requested the committee hearing to be rescheduled to May
5 and, in an effort to satisfy the committee amendment recommendations, amended the
bill to allow attorney's fees and costs to be awarded to the public entity, if the court finds
that the challenge by the bidder was clearly frivolous, clearly vexatious, or brought
solely for purposes of harassment. The May 5 committee hearing was cancelled at the
request of Assemblymember Wagner after the committee bill analysis stated that the bill
amendments did not go far enough in addressing the committee's concerns, and
requested that the committee recommended amendments be adopted.
AB 457 failed to meet the May 6 deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a) (2) -- last day for policy
committees to hear and report to fiscal committees fiscal bills introduced in their house.
The bill is now a 2 -year bill.
Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta: Peripheral Canal
AB 550 by Assemblymember Alyson Huber (D -EI Dorado Hills) mirrors provisions
contained in last year's AB 1594 (Huber), which the District opposed. AB 1594 sought to
reverse key provisions approved in 2009 by the legislature's historic water package by
turning decisions on needed conveyance changes into a political process. AB 1594 died
in the Assembly after it failed passage in the first policy committee_
AB 550 would prohibit the construction of a Delta conveyance facility unless expressly
authorized by the Legislature. Prior to the enactment of a statute authorizing the
construction of a peripheral canal, the bill would require the Legislative Analyst's Office
(LAO) to complete an economic feasibility analysis_ The bill would also prohibit the
construction and operation of a peripheral canal from diminishing or negatively affecting
the water supplies, water rights or quality of water for water users within the
Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta watershed, or imposing any new burdens on
infrastructure within, or financial burdens on persons residing in, the Delta or the Delta
watershed.
EVWD opposed AB 550 as it would reopen a key element of the delicately crafted
compromise reached in the November 2009 Delta Water Package. EVWD argued that
AB 550 would interject the Legislature into the intricacies of designing a new
conveyance system in the Delta. A new Delta canal or tunnel will likely involve multiple
intakes, a forebay and other infrastructure. The Legislature has no expertise in
designing roadways, electrical conveyance or other vital pieces of state infrastructure
and it would be a dangerous precedent to involve the Legislature in water infrastructure
design. The many layers of protections for the Delta contained in the November 2009
legislative package will help guide future conveyance decisions to achieve the co -equal
goals.
The Delta Water Package authorized the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to
analyze conveyance alternatives as a part of a comprehensive 50 -year strategy of Delta
ecosystem and water system improvements; an analysis that is currently taking place.
This planning process will include a sophisticated risk analysis of conveyance
alternatives. The legislative package also included numerous new requirements for the
alternatives analysis process, such as a mandate to review a full range of conveyance
alternatives. The BDCP can only automatically qualify under the new Delta Plan being
developed by the Delta Stewardship Council if it complies with the highest
environmental standard in California, the Natural Communities Conservation Planning
Act. Prior to authorizing a change in place of use for the new conveyance system, the
State Water Resources Control Board must consider appropriate flow criteria for
operation of the facility based on a science -based adaptive management program. The
future conveyance improvements adopted by BDCP will have undergone one of most
exhaustive and rigorous processes for any infrastructure project in the nation, including
an analysis of local economic impacts as mandated under the California Environmental
-7-
Quality Act. Mandating a redundant review by the Legislative Analyst's Office would be
redundant, to say the least.
AB 550 was referred to the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife committee and the
Assembly Appropriations committee; however, it never received a hearing. The bill
failed to meet the May 13 deadline pursuant to Rule 61 (a)(3) —the last day for policy
committees to hear and report to the floor nonfiscal bills introduced in their house —and
it is currently a 2 -year bill.
State Water Resources Development System: Delta Corridors Plan: feasibility study
AB 627 by Assemblymember Bill Berryhill (R- Stockton) would require the Department of
Water Resources (DWR) to undertake an expedited evaluation and feasibility study with
regard to the implementation of a specified Delta Corridors Plan as part of the State
Water Resources Development System (SWRDS). The bill would require DWR to
consult with the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to study specified impacts and
benefits of the Delta Corridors Plan and to include in the study an assessment of the
incorporation of the Two -Gates Fish Protection Demonstration Project managed by the
United States Bureau of Reclamation into the Delta Corridors Plan. DWR would be
required to prepare and submit to the Legislature, on or before January 1 , 2013, a
report that includes its feasibility findings. If DWR determines the implementation of the
plan is feasible, the department would be required to include recommendations with
regard to specific facilities to be constructed, and to identify potential funding sources,
for the purposes of implementing the plan.
AB 627 was opposed by a number of water agencies, including the East Valley Water
District and the Association of California Water Agencies, which claimed the bill
duplicates existing legal requirements and, therefore is unnecessary and inappropriately
favors one specific alternative plan. Supporters include several local governments,
water agencies and agricultural organizations in the Delta that contend it is important
that DWR study the Delta Corridors Plan before deciding on a plan for the Delta,
especially a plan that includes a peripheral canal.
Under current law (SBX7 1 of 2009) the Delta Stewardship Council (DSC) is to adopt
the BDCP only if it has considered, among other things, "a reasonable range of Delta
conveyance alternatives, including through - Delta, dual conveyance, and isolated
conveyance alternatives and including further capacity and design options of a lined
canal, an unlined canal, and pipelines." In November 2009, South Delta Water Agency
(SDWA) released a report entitled "The Delta Corridors Plan and Its Potential Benefits"
which describe a particular type of through -Delta alternative that isolates San Joaquin
River outflo�nts from Sacramento River water by a series of barriers, gates, and fish
screens. BDCP previously considered, and has since discarded, a plan similar to "Delta
Corridors" focusing instead on a tunnel -type "canal" conveyance as part of its "preferred
project alternative" for Delta water conveyance. Supporters of this bill continue to press
for consideration of the "Delta Corridors Plan," claiming it would better achieve the
coequal Delta goals than would acanal -type system, and would do so at lower cost.
Based upon substantial science and engineering analysis, EVWD does not believe the
Delta Corridors Plan will solve the water quality, fishery and water supply problems
associated with the current through -Delta infrastructure. For example, the District
believes water supplies will remain vulnerable to seismic liquefaction of Delta levees
and subsequent salinity intrusion associated with sea -level rise_ Optimal ecosystem
functions are not achieved under the 2007 Delta Corridors Plan due to a lack of food
web diversity and reduced restoration opportunities in the south Delta.
Finally, the District believes the Corridors Plan would cause highly controversial
navigational obstructions for boaters and be relatively expensive for the limited benefits.
In addition, the lead agencies preparing the environmental review document for the
BDCP are working towards identifying a full range of reasonable conveyance
alternatives to the proposed BDCP. One of the six alternatives being evaluated includes
an analysis of separate corridors with screened intakes at the Delta Cross Channel and
Georgians Slough, an alternative that will focus only on modifications to the existing
through -Delta system without any new conveyance, just as the 2007 Delta Corridors
Plan proposed.
The Appropriations Committee analysis estimated a onetime cost to DWR of $750,000
for conducting the study and a onetime cost to the DFG of an unknown amount, but
potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to support the work of DWR_ AB 627
declares that it is the intent of the Legislature to appropriate money to DWR to pay the
costs of the study.
AB 627 was sent to the Appropriations Suspense file on May 1 1 , 201 1 where it was
held under submission_ The bill failed to meet the May 27 deadline pursuant to Joint
Rules 61 (a) (5) -the last day for bills to be reported out of fiscal committees —and it is
now a 2 year bill. This bill is similar to AB 1797 (Bill Berryhill, 2010), which was also held
by the Appropriations committee last year.
Local public employee organizations: impasse procedures
AB 646, by Assemblymember Toni Atkins (D -San Diego), would allow an employee
organization, if a mediator is unable to effect settlement of a controversy within 30 days
of his or her appointment, to request that the matter be submitted to afact- finding panel.
The bill would further require, if the dispute is not settled within 30 days, the fact - finding
panel to make findings of fact and recommend terms of settlement, for advisory
purposes only_ The bill would require that these findings and recommendations be first
issued to the parties and that the public agency makes them publicly available within 1 O
days after their receipt. The bill would require that all costs associated with the fact -
finding panel be shared equally by the public agency and employee organization. AB
646 would prohibit a public agency from implementing its last, best, and final offer until
at least 1 O days after the fact - finders' written findings of fact and recommended terms of
settlement have been submitted to the parties and the agency has held a public hearing
regarding the impasse.
�Z
EVWD opposed AB 646 in the belief that it would impose burdensome and
cumbersome new labor negotiation procedures that would interfere with the fiduciary
responsibility of the governing body of a public agency water utility to its customers.
While the timely and successful completion of labor negotiations is desirable, a
governing body must retain the option to impose its last, best and final offer in order to
provide essential public services like drinking water, wastewater treatment and recycled
water in an efficient and cost effective manner.
It is the District's belief that adding multiple and lengthy new labor negotiation processes
is not in the public interest. Public agencies are different from private corporations; the
California Public Records Act and other sunshine laws make for a far greater level
playing field. The financial position of a local agency is well known through public
budgets and audited financial statements. Adding to mediation and fact - finding steps
runs counter to the goal of a timely and successful completion of labor negotiations. The
District asked: why would either side compromise with the knowledge that further
opportunities to secure concessions lie down the road? Proponents of AB 646 argue
that some unidentified local agencies do not bargain in good faith; therefore, it is
necessary to add fact - finding and formal impasse procedures. EVWD disagrees and
argues that if a local agency is not negotiating in good faith, an employee organization
may seek remedies from the Public Employee Relations Board.
AB 646 passed both houses of the Legislature and it was sent to the Governor's desk
on September 14. Governor Brown signed AB 646 into law on October 9, 2011.
State water policy: regional water management planning.
AB 685, by Assemblymember Eng (D- Monterey park), would have declared that it is the
policy of the state that every human being has the right to clean, affordable, and
accessible water. The bill would require, on and after January 1 , 2012, all relevant state
agencies implement this state policy upon revising existing, and upon adopting or
establishing new, policies, regulations, and grant criteria.
The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), EVWD and other water service
providers opposed AB 685, arguing that the bill language could lead to a requirement
that water agencies provide water service without consideration to the reasonable cost
of providing service, thereby creating inequitable and disproportionate water rates in
violation of the California Constitution. Other concerns included extension of water
service and potential challenges to long -held water rights allocations.
Currently, a retail water provider can discontinue water service when a customer has
not paid the water bill in a timely manner. Under AB 685, a customer has a right to
water. If the water supplier were not allowed to stop service because a customer could
not afford water service, other customers would have to subsidize service for those who
cannot afford service. This scenario could have a devastating impact on the viability of
water agencies across the state and conceivably have a greater impact on those
agencies which have a large low- income population. At the very least, it could mean
-10-
higher water bills for those who could "afford" to pay. And at worst, areas with high low
income populations would have suppliers who wouldn't be able to provide adequate
service or plan for future infrastructure needs.
The bill is similar to AB 1242 (Ruskin, 2009) which the District also opposed. AB 1242
was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, who stated:
"Whi /e providing safe drinking water is fundamental to our laws and to human
health, this bill would not enhance our current efforts in achieving this goal... Our
most pressing barrier in achieving this goal is not desire, it is funding."
AB 685 was sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee Suspense File, on August 15,
where it was held under submission. The bill failed to meet the August 29 legislative
deadline for bills to be reported out of fiscal committees and it is now a 2 -year bill.
Public Water Systems: Notice of Drinking Water Violations
Under current law, when a community water system exceeds maximum contaminant
levels, state and federal laws trigger a number of requirements. In particular, residents
must be notified within 30 days regarding the levels of the given contaminant, potential
dangers of consuming the contaminated water, and a status report of the steps the
water system is taking to install treatment, find alternative sources of water, or otherwise
comply with the law. For tier 1 notices, public water systems are required to provide
notices within 24 hours after learning of contaminant levels that may pose a potential
risk in human health.
Last year, Assembly Member Manuel Perez (D- Coachella) introduced legislation that
would require that a public notice given by a public water system be provided in English
and in the language spoken by any non - English- speaking group that exceeds 1,000
residents, or that exceeds 1 O% of residents in the community served, whichever is less.
The bill, AB 2669, required the public notice to contain prescribed public water system
and department contact information where residents could receive assistance in the
appropriate language. EVWD opposed the bill and argued that the provisions of
AB 2669 were inadequate for providing vital information in a timely manner. Even if the
basic information of a public notice were to be translated in advance, the description of
the problem and the area affected, which is reviewed by the California Department of
Public Health and included in the notices, cannot be translated in advance. By the way
the law is written the district would either Have to delay issuing the notice by several
hours while the notice is being translated or the notice is going to go out without specific
information which will put the district out of compliance with the law.
Although Assembly Member Perez proposed amendments to narrow the scope of AB
2669 late in the session last year, the district along with others in opposition to the
legislation expressed reservations over moving forward with the bill six days prior to the
end of session which would have given them little time to produce a workable
legislation. On the last day of session, Assembly Member Perez agreed to place the bill
- 11 -
on the Senate Inactive File to allow water agencies opposed to the legislation the
opportunity to work with him and his sponsors to write aconsensus -based measure.
The bill was reintroduced this year as AB 938 with the same content as AB 2669.
EVWD continued to oppose the legislation, arguing that the existing CDPH regulations
were sufficient to protect the interest of non - English speaking groups. The District
believed that the requirement to provide the entirety of each written public notice in
Spanish and possibly other languages (beyond a statement regarding the importance of
the notice) would unnecessarily increase costs for public water systems. The District
also was concerned that the requirement for the entirety of Tier 1 written notices to be
multilingual (or at a minimum in English and Spanish) could delay written notification of
potential health threats due to the consumption of contaminated water. However, the
District indicated that it would be willing to remove opposition if AB 938 was amended to
codify current regulations given the concerns expressed last year by Assembly Member
Perez that regulatory changes may weaken notice provisions.
On July 1 , the bill was amended to change the community to receive a specified notice
to be anon- English- speaking group that speaks a language other than Spanish that
exceeds 1 ,000 residents but is less than 1 O% of the persons served by the public water
system. The amendments also expanded the presumption of compliance provisions, to
the following:
After Ju /y 9, 2092, it sha /l be presumed that the public water system has
determined the appropriate languages for notification, if the pub /ic water system
has made a reasonable attempt to utilize the data avai /able through the American
Community Survey of the United States Census Bureau to identify the non -
English speaking groups that reside in a city, county, or city and county that
encompasses the service area of the public water system.
After July 9, 2092, it shat/ be presumed that the notice has been correct /y
trans /ated if the pub /ic water system has made areasonab /e attempt to obtain
either in -house or contracted -for trans /ation services for providing a translated
copy of the notice or assistance in the appropriate languages and the translated
copy of the notice or assistance has been provided.
After Ju /y 9, 2092, if the public water system has made areasonab /e attempt to
have the notice translated into the appropriate languages, it sha /l be presumed
that a notice trans /ated into languages other than Spanish has been adequate /y
provided if it contains trans /ations in the appropriate languages of a// of the
following: Identification of the contaminant; Information on the hea /th effects
associated with the presence of the contaminant in drinking water at a level in
excess of the primary drinking water standard; Actions that members of the
pub /ic shou /d take to protect their hea /th.
Based on these amendments, EVWD moved to a watch position on the bill. The bill
passed the Assembly floor with a 55 to 22 vote and the Senate floor with a 29 to 8 vote.
Governor Brown signed AB 938 into law on October 7, 2011 .
-12-
California Water Resources Investment Act of 201 1
SB 34, by Senator Joe Simitian (D -Palo Alto), would enact the California Water
Resources Investment Act of 201 1 to finance a water resources investment program
(program). To finance the program, the bill would impose on each retail water supplier in
the state an annual charge based on the volume of water provided in its service area for
nonagricultural uses and an annual charge based on each acre of land within its service
area that is irrigated for agricultural purposes. SB 34 would require the revenues of the
charges collected for purposes of the program to be deposited in the California Water
Resources Investment Fund (fund) and specify the purposes for which the money may
be expended_ The bill would establish a State Investment Account and a number of
regional investment accounts within the fund, and would require 50% of the moneys
deposited in the fund to be transferred to the State Investment Account and 50% of the
moneys deposited in the fund to be transferred to the regional investment accounts
based on the amount of charges collected within each funding region. The bill would
require the moneys in each of the regional investment accounts to be available, upon
appropriation by the Legislature, for purposes of providing funding for public benefits of
water - related projects and programs.
The premise behind SB 34 is that existing State revenue streams have proven
insufficient to invest in long -term planning and efficient management of the statewide
water system, expanding access to necessary water services for underserved and low -
income communities, ecosystem improvements, management of water - related risks and
major public emergencies, and water system changes to improve recreation
opportunities. As the state's population continues to grow, the proponents of the bill
argue, it becomes more important to have a stable funding source to meet future water
demand, improve water quality and sustain the environment.
EVWD opposed SB 34 for several reasons. First and foremost, the District believes the
bill violates the beneficiary pays principle that the Legislature has mandated across a
number of statutory enactments_ Forcing water customers in one jurisdiction to pay into
a fund to pay for projects elsewhere, including environmental and recreation projects for
which those customers receive no direct or indirect benefit, runs counter to the
beneficiary pays principle. The bill also violates the polluter -pays principle as no current
water users, for example, are responsible for legacy pollution such as mercury
contamination. The entire bill is inconsistent on its face, having explained `beneficiary
pays' and `polluter pays' principles in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 87010,
and then establishing a fee on water users that has no relationship to the projects or
programs that would be paid for under either the state or regional accounts.
The State of California has increasingly relied on general obligation (GO) bonds to fund
its water resources related investments. Since 1996, voters have approved over $14
billion in GO bonds for water - related purposes, and the Legislature recently placed the
$11 .14 billion Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2012 on the
November 2012 ballot. The Legislative Analyst Office (LAO), Public Policy Institute of
California (PPIC), and others have commented on the unreliability and
-13-
inappropriateness of relying on GO bonds to fund the public benefits of water related
projects and programs.
Now, many in the Legislature and the State Treasurer are calling for lower GO bond
issuances — primarily due to the increasing impact that debt service payments have on
the General Fund. Although the percentage of debt service payments compared to total
General Fund savings has been generally below 7 percent, many argue that the state
can no longer afford to issue GO bonds to finance infrastructure_ SB 34 proposes a
public goods charge to pay the state share of matching funds for future IRWMP projects
and programs. Of course, the simplest approach to funding regional projects would be
to leave regional project funding to local agencies and those who directly benefit.
The Office of the Legislative Analyst weighed in on the issue of water resources
infrastructure funding on March 22, 2011, saying that "We find that an assessment
levied on water retailers and administered by the state Board of Equalization is the most
feasible funding option for apublic- benefit -type charge in California." The LAO also
recommends that the Legislature define the activities that are appropriately supported
with state public funding and which are not supported. The LAO notes that current
activities for which the Legislature deems appropriate for state support are paid for from
the General Fund or State GO bonds. The LAO, however, does not argue that this
approach is unsustainable.
SB 34 does not define activities that are appropriately supported by state funding.
Rather, it taxes local water customers to provide revenue to the state so it can fund
every conceivable water - related project throughout the state. The State General Fund
should pay for public benefits based on existing revenue sources, whether or not fees
and taxes paid into the General Fund are increased. Those projects that benefit a
specific set of beneficiaries should be paid by those beneficiaries; the State does not
need to tax local water customers in order to return some unknown percentage of those
same funds in the form of regional grants. EVWD believes the State of California should
resolve the ongoing General Fund structural deficit and establish clear spending
priorities before searching for new sources of revenue. The addition of a water
resources public goods charge will not solve the State General Fund structural deficit
and it will not force the Governor and the Legislature to make difficult decisions
regarding spending priorities.
SB 34 passed the Senate Governance and Finance Committee with a 5 -4 vote and was
referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee for hearing. The bill was never heard
in the Appropriations Committee and failed to meet the July 8 deadline pursuant to Joint
Rule 61 (a) (1 O) –Last day for policy committees to meet and report bills_ SB 34 is
currently a 2 -year bill. Senator Simitian stated that the bill was intended to be a "vehicle
for discussion" and that he did not have intentions on moving the bill passed the Senate
Appropriations committee this year.
SB 34 was accompanied by SB 571, by Senator Lois Wolk (D- Davis) which sought to
create a process for funding the public benefits of water related projects and programs
similar to that used in transportation. SB 571 would have made a number of changes to
-14-
the California Water Commission, including establishing it as a separate agency outside
of the Department of Water Resources and assigning it new responsibilities for
identifying state and regional priorities for funding. East Valley Water District opposed
this bill as well. The bill passed the Senate Natural Resources and Water committee
with a 5 -3 vote and was referred to the Senate Appropriations committee for hearing on
May 2. The bills hearing in the Appropriations Committee was canceled at the request
of Senator Wolk. The bill failed to meet the May 27 deadline pursuant to Joint Rule 61
(a) (5) —last day for fiscal committees to hear and report to the floor bills introduced in
their house. SB 571 is currently a 2 -year bill.
Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta: Bay Delta Conservation Plan
EVWD opposed SB 200 which sought to create a series of new and likely
insurmountable obstacles for the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to construct
"the new Delta conveyance facility" by requiring the completion of numerous actions,
many of which are not wholly within DWR's control and that are unlikely to be
completed.
SB 200 as introduced by Senator Lois Wolk (D- Davis) would prohibit the construction of
anew Delta conveyance facility unless specified conditions are met, including the
adoption of an agreement by DWR and the Department of Fish and Game (DF &G)
specifying staging of the construction of the conveyance facility, with the first stage
being new fish screens. The bill would require DWR to enter into an agreement with
DGF, prior to the construction of a Delta conveyance facility, "for the protection and
enhancement of fish and wildlife" that (1) restores adult populations of "fish and wildlife"
in San Francisco Bay and Suisun Marsh to "the average annual abundance from 1922
through 1967. The latter provision would require the projects alone to atone for all of
,�
the impacts, man -made or natural, related to project operations or not, on fish and
wildlife, and the number of species that must be returned to 1922 -67 levels is unlimited.
The agreement must include "limitations on exports and diversions to storage that are
necessary to restoring and maintaining those levels" and (2) "the realization of the
potential of the project for increasing resources" above those levels, consistent with
contracts for water delivery_ "Plans and agreements to protect the beneficial uses of the
Delta are in place." There is no detail on who must make these plans; who the parties
are to any agreements; or who determines that a sufficient number of plans or
agreements exist or that they are sufficient to "protect beneficial uses of the Delta_"
Such plans and agreements are potentially unlimited, but the bill does specifically
mention some dozen examples that must be included.
EVWD argued that SB 200 is not a workable platform to address Delta policy. The bill
ignores key environmental protections that have come into place in the past generation,
such as the California Endangered Species Act and the Natural Communities
Conservation Planning Act. And it disregards the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP),
a historic planning process now in its fourth year that is crafting a comprehensive
strategy with the goal of recovering listed species while modernizing the Delta water
conveyance system. The original SB 200 from 1980 authorized a new water supply
-15-
canal in the Delta while also authorizing other, unrelated water facilities. This bill
mandates that 12 unrelated water supply facilities, some of which have not been studied
for years, be advanced first through "plans and agreements" prior to construction of new
Delta conveyance_ Much has changed since this bill first appeared in 1981 -82. The
pending development and adoption of the Delta Plan and the BDCP, which hopefully
pave the way for the construction of delta conveyance improvements, are now
recognized as the path forward to addressing water supply reliability and ecosystem
restoration goals in the Delta. Overlaying the many mandates of SB 200 onto this
existing process is not in the interest of the Delta environment or the California
economy.
Furthermore, SB 200 require DWR to enter into permanent and enforceable contracts
with specified Delta agencies for purposes of recognizing the right of users to make use
of the waters of the Delta and establishing criteria for minimum water quality in the Delta
before water may be exported from the Delta, essentially giving veto power over Delta
conveyance improvements to any of the in -Delta water agencies. The bill allows a single
agency to prevent construction of any conveyance proposal by simply refusing to sign
the "permanent and enforceable contracts" with DWR mandated in the bill. This ceding
of state authority is inappropriate and dangerous. The bill would require differences
between the state and the Delta agencies to be resolved by arbitration if contracts have
not been executed by January 1, 2012. The District argued that SB 200 in effect would
replace the Legislature's historic Delta /water management package from 2009 with a
gauntlet of obstacles that would promote gridlock. The existing efforts to address the
crisis in the Delta need legislative support in order to place the ecosystem and water
systems on sustainable paths for the years ahead.
The bill which was scheduled for hearing in the Senate Natural Resources and Water
Committee on April 26, was gutted and amended on March 24 to instead add
requirements for state agencies in implementing the BDCP.
The bill amendments would add the following requirements to the Water Code: (1) the
action shall not result in significant unmitigated negative impacts to another entity or
region. Specifically, any impact that would negatively affect the water right, water
supply, water quality, ecosystem function, flood risk, agricultural resources,
infrastructure, regulatory responsibility, or the economy of another entity or region
without appropriate full mitigation; (2) The action shall have a viable funding source for
the entire period proposed for the implementation of the action. The funding source
shall be affordable for the ratepayers and contractors supplying the funding, and shall
be reasonably likely to be provided by those ratepayers and contractors through
secured funding mechanisms; (3) Funding for the action shall be consistent with the
beneficiary pays principle. Specifically, "beneficiary pays principle" means that only
those identified as beneficiaries of the BDCP shall be responsible for providing funding
for BDCP; (4) The action shall be consistent with protecting and maintaining public trust
resources in the Delta. The action shall be consistent with maintaining flows within the
Delta and outflows from the Delta that are necessary to maintain the public trust
resources of the Delta, the Suisun Marsh, and the San Francisco Bay. Any action that
-16-
results in reduced flow within the Delta or outflow from the Delta shall be scientifically
justified and consistent with maintaining the existing statewide water rights priority
system, area of origin protections, and beneficial uses of water within the Delta; (5) If
the action requires additional waterflows in order to mitigate for the action or meet
conditions of a permit under the BDCP, the beneficiaries of the BDCP or the action shall
be solely responsible for identifying, developing, funding, and supplying those
waterflows. No other water rights holder or legal user of water shall be responsible for
supplying flows that may be necessary to permit or mitigate for actions taken to comply
with the BDCP, except for those water rights holders and parties that are beneficiaries
of the BDCP; (6) The action shall be developed and implemented with the input of all
affected local governments and the public; (7) The action shall be implemented
consistent with existing efforts to manage wildlife within the Delta, Suisun Marsh, and
the San Francisco Bay, including adopted plans for management of the Yoto Wildlife
Area, the Suisun Marsh Conservation District, the San Francisco Bay Plan, and the
federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C_ Sec.703 et seq.), and applicable local
natural community conservation plans; and (8) The action shall not violate any legal
contract to maintain water quality within the Delta, including but not limited to, the
contract between the department and the North Delta Water Agency, dated January 28,
1981, and the contract between the department and the City of Antioch, dated April 11,
1968.
EVWD continued to oppose SB 200 as amended_ The District believes that by codifying
the "beneficiary pays principal" to mean only those identified as beneficiaries of the
BDCP, the bill ignores the fact that some actions taken pursuant to the BDCP process
will result in substantial public benefits. The District believes that costs of these public
benefits should be borne by the public at large, not by the ratepayers of BDCP
signatories.
The Senate Natural Resources &Water Committee hearing was cancelled at the
request of Senator Wolk. No further action was taken on the bill. The bill failed to meet
the May 6 deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2) —Last day for policy committees to hear
and report to fiscal committees fiscal bills introduced in their house —and it is now a 2-
year bill.
SB 224 (Pavley) Public Contracts Department of Water Resources
Current law provides that contracts entered into by any state agency for goods,
services, or other specified activities, whether awarded through competitive bidding or
not, are void unless and until approved by the Department of General Services (DGS),
and approval shat) be denied if the contract does not meet the required specifications of
the bidding process. Current law requires state agencies to secure at least 3
competitive bids for each contract. Current law exempts certain transactions and
contracts from that law, as specified.
SB 224, by Senator Fran Pavley (D- Agoura Hills) exempts specified contracts entered
into by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) from competitive bidding
Isr�
requirements and DGS approval. Specifically, SB 224 exempts from competitive bidding
requirements DWR contracts for the acquisition of specialized equipment for State
Water Resources Development System (SWRDS) facilities that are in excess of
$25,000 and requires DWR to collaborate with DGS to establish conditions where
competitive bidding exemptions apply in order to expedite operations and maintenance
work to reduce the risk of the loss of water or power to the SWRDS. The bill exempts
from approval by DGS, contracts for the acquisition, sale, or transmission of power, or
for services to facilitate such activities under the Central Valley Project (CVP) or the
California Resources Development Bond Act. As well as, exempts service contracts for
the operation, maintenance, repair, or replacement of specialized equipment at SWRDS
facilities under the CVP or California Water Plan from competitive bidding requirements
and DGS approval. (For an alternative bill description, please look at bill language)
EVWD supported SB 224, along with State Water Contractors. The District argued that
by providing DWR with an exception from DGS contract review, SB 224 eliminated
costly contract delays and unnecessary bureaucratic review. The energy marketplace
can be very volatile and energy rates can change rapidly. Delay in the approval of
contracts by DGS can affect DWR's ability to procure electricity in a timely manner, thus
driving up energy costs that ultimately result in increased water costs for business and
consumers. This situation has had costly, multimillion dollar consequences for the SWP
and the 29 state water contractors who pay all SWP - related expenses. Furthermore,
DGS charges the contracting department for DGS's time in the reviewing process of the
contract. The DGS fee for contracts for last fiscal year was 1.6% of the value of the
contract. Each year, DWR enters into hundreds of contracts, often valued in the millions
of dollars. Despite having an extensive contracting operation staffed by dozens of
experienced attorneys and contracting specialists, DWR still was required to have many
of its contracts reviewed and approved by DGS.
The bill was signed into law by Governor Brown on October 8, 2011.
Public Works Proiects� Contract Retention
SB 293 would reduce the amount of money that local public agencies can withhold from
a contractor prior to completion of a public works project. These retention proceeds are
currently required to be not less than five percent. The widespread practice among
local public entities is to retain 1 O percent. Under the bill, retention could not exceed
five percent. This provision would sunset in 2016_ The bill is supported by contractors
and subcontractors. It is opposed by many local public agencies who argue that the
ability to retain construction funds is an important control to ensure that contractors
perform their work well, on time and on budget.
EVWD is opposed to SB 293. Under current law, local agencies must accept the lowest
responsible bidder when awarding contracts. Because local agencies are required to
contract with the lowest bidder, sometimes less qualified contractors, who are more
likely to create issues of costly change orders and project abandonment, may under -bid
more qualified contractors. The retention flexibility provided in existing law allows
-18-
agencies to do a project risk assessment and determine retention provisions that are
appropriate to the level of risk assessed for a project.
Contract retention ensures that public projects are delivered on time and on budget, that
contractors complete all contract requirements including the small unprofitable punch -
list items, that there are sufficient funds to correct defective work if a contractor fails to
do so and /or to pay workers in the event that contractors fail to pay prevailing wage
properly. The widespread highly variable practice among local public entities is to retain
1 O% of the payment for contracts. Local agencies commonly reduce retention to 5% at
the half -way point of project completion, if adequate progress is being made and the
contractor is acting in good faith_ The District argued that by reducing the amount of
money that local public agencies can withhold from a contractor prior to completion of
the job, SB 293 imposes aone- size- fits -all policy, removing local agencies flexibility to
appropriately manage risk on aproject -by- project basis. EVWD is concerned that when
a contractor does not have the proper incentive to complete a public works project, the
local agency may be left without sufficient funds and would be forced to seek new
funding to complete the project. During this difficult economic and budgetary time, public
agencies, taxpayers and ratepayers cannot afford failures or disingenuous
commitments on the part of general contractors. This bill compromises the public
agency to the benefit of the contractor.
Several bills with similar proposed retention limitations have been vetoed over the past:
AB 806 (Keeley) of 1999; AB 940 (Miller) of 1997; and AB 1949 (Conroy) of 1996. And
more recently, SB 802 (Leno) of 2009, which limited retention for 5 %, was vetoed by
Governor Schwarzenegger, who expressed concern that such a limit would harm public
agencies' ability to complete project on time and within budget.
Nonetheless, Governor Jerry Brown departed from his predecessors and signed SB 293
into law on October 9, 2011 .
Intec7rated Regional Water Management Plans: contents
SB 834, as introduced by Senator Lois Wolk, required integrated regional water
management plans (IRWMP) to demonstrate the manner in which it complies with a
new state policy to reduce water reliance in the Delta watershed_ EVWD took an
"oppose unless amended" position to the bill, objecting to provisions in the bill that
would force compliance with one state policy as against all others when developing a
IRWMP, which under existing law should ensure the availability of sufficient supplies to
meet the state's agricultural, domestic, industrial, and environmental needs.
Reeb Government Relations sought amendments to the bill on behalf of its clients that
require a region that depends on water from the Delta watershed to include in an
IRWMP projects and programs that improve regional self - reliance for water through
investments in water use efficiency, water recycling, advance water technologies, local
and regional water supply projects, and improved regional coordination of local and
regional water supply efforts. "This amendment would add an additional essential
-19-
element for IRWMP for a region that relies on water supply from the Delta watershed,"
said Reeb. "It would not, however, require a plan to demonstrate compliance with state
policy to reduce reliance on the Delta, which could be interpreted by the Department of
Water Resources (DWR) to limit export areas to receiving state funding for only water
use efficiency or water recycling projects in their IRWMPs. It's also a bit of an affront to
Federal and State project water contractors that have paid for a contractual entitlement
to water for decades to now turn away from receiving that water, but continuing to pay
the full fixed costs of the projects."
Bob Reeb convinced the ACWA State Legislative Committee to seek the amendments
as well, but the Association subsequently removed its opposition when it failed to
achieve more than minor amendments. Fortunately, DWR responded to entreaties by
Reeb to engage on the legislation and the Department ultimately concurred with the
concerns stated by the EVWD about mandating compliance with one state policy in
what has heretofore been a voluntary, collaborative regional planning approach; and
received approval from the Governor's office to express opposition to SB 834 absent
amendments similar to those sought by the District.
On August 25, Senator Wolk's office took amendments to the bill that were similar to
those requested by Reeb and which satisfied the District's concern with the legislation.
Based on those amendments the District moved to a "Watch" position on the bill. SB
834 passed both houses of the legislature.
SB 834 was vetoed by the Governor on October 2, of which he stated:
"l am returning Senate Bi /l 834 without my signature because / do not be /ieve it
adds anything to current /aw. "
EVWD an Effective Advocate on Behalf of its Taxnayers and Customers
This completes the fourth year of a commitment on the part of the EVWD Board of
Directors to aggressively pursue advocacy efforts in the State Capitol relying on Reeb
Government Relations to be its voice.
Looking ahead to next year, 20 Senate seats and 80 Assembly seats will be up for
election in districts newly -drawn by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.
Legislative Democrats lack two additional seats in each house in order to achieve atwo-
thirds super majority status, which is significant in terms of approving taxes and fees,
assuming every Democrat could be persuaded to support such increases or new
enactments. Locally, Assembly Member Wilmer Amina Carter will complete her three
terms in office and her open seat will be filled with a new legislator. Senator Bob Dutton,
the current Republican Leader, also will complete his service in the upper house. The
November General Election will feature atop -two system, under which the top two vote
recipients, regardless of party affiliation, will appear on the ballot. Districts will larger
-20-
Republican or Democratic party registration advantages could see two members from
the same party facing off.
The $11 .14 billion water general obligation bond is slated to appear on the November
2012 ballot, but its fate remains unclear due to the moribund state economy and the
continuing challenges facing the State General Fund. Governor Brown already has
indicated his intent to reopen the debate on the water bond, signaling a desire to reduce
the size of the bond as well as to change the makeup of the programs and projects that
would be funded under the bond. Moving the bond to a future ballot also is a possibility.
Any changes to the status quo would require atwo- thirds vote in each legislative
chamber and the signature of the Governor.
There is a growing sense among legislative Democrats and possibly Governor Brown
that the use of General Obligation bonds to fund water infrastructure might not be
sustainable in the future. SB 34 by Senator Joe Simitian (D -Palo Alto) and SB 571 by
Senator Lois Wolk (D- Davis) are 2 -year bills that would establish a public goods charge
on water purveyors (a per acre foot charge) that could collect up to $5 billion annually;
one -half of the funds would be available to the State Legislature to appropriate for water
and environmental programs and projects, and one -half would be available to local
agencies through a new regional governance structure to fund programs and projects
under integrated regional water management plans. This means that for every $1
collected from an individual water purveyor, at best, less than 50 cents would be
returned to benefit local water customers.
In a related move, the Association of California Water Agencies Board of Directors has
established a Water Finance Task Force that will develop a board policy. An advisory
group has been formed to assist the task force, which is expected to produce a work
product for board consideration by the end of the calendar year. The board member for
Region 8 on the Task Force is Glen Peterson, while Region 8 representatives on the
Advisory Group include Richard Nagel, Western Municipal Water District; Kathy Cole
and Roger Patterson, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California; and Dan
Masnada, Castaic Lake Water Agency.
The creation of the Water Finance Task Force is not the first time that ACWA Executive
Director Tim Quinn has encouraged the Board of Directors to develop and adopt policy
frameworks. In recent past, a groundwater framework was prepared and adopted.
These policies become binding on the ACWA State Legislative Committee as that
committee seeks to represent ACWA membership on myriad legislative issues. A rigid
approach could undermine the ability of the committee to act on legislation in a timely
manner and there is no formal mechanism for interpreting broad policy language and
applying it to specific legislative proposals. Either the work of the committee will be
slowed or ACWA will not be able to engage in potentially significant legislation. Already,
Reeb Government Relations has witnessed a growing divide on the State Legislative
Committee between coastal urban members versus inland and agricultural members.
As membership divides along lines of centralized versus local control, ACWA may either
be neutered in terms of advocating on behalf of its members, or narrower majorities will
-21 -
direct positions at the committee level. This trend argues for the District to become more
active in ACWA Region 8 board and committee level positions in the Association, as
well as to regularly communicate its positions and concerns to Region 8 representatives
on the ACWA Board of Directors and standing committees. The trend also argues for
continued District vigilance in Sacramento, as its positions may not line up with its
statewide association on important legislative and regulatory matters.
EVWD is contemplating pursuit of a legislative solution to the fiscal challenge presented
by wastewater treatment cost increases imposed by the City of San Bernardino. These
increases are not imposed on a regular schedule, thus impacting the ability of the
District to pass along such increases to its wastewater collection properties. Proposition
218 does not require the City of San Bernardino to notify property owners beyond its
jurisdictional boundaries in order to provide them an opportunity to protest rate
increases. Yet, EVWD must increase the amount of revenue collected from its
customers and therefore must comply with Proposition 218. The timing of such rate
increases can be a significant challenge in terms of procedural costs and customer
relations. While current law allows a retail water provider to pass along the increased
costs imposed by a wholesale water provider, no similar provisions exist for a
"wholesale- retail" relationship in the wastewater arena. There are several options to
resolve this problem —each with its own pro and con arguments. Regardless of
approach, time is of the essence as the new session begins January 2, 2012.
-22-