HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - EVWD Board of Directors - 09/14/2016REGULAR BOARD MEETING
Closed Session Begins at 4:30 PM
September 14, 2016 - 5:30 PM
31111 Greenspot Road, Highland, CA 92346
AGENDA
"In order to comply with legal requirements for posting of agenda, only those items filed
with the District Clerk by 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday prior to the following Wednesday
meeting not requiring departmental investigation, will be considered by the Board of
Directors".
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL OF BOARD MEMBERS
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Any person wishing to speak to the Board of Directors is asked to complete a Speaker
Card and submit it to the District Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. Each speaker is
limited to three (3) minutes, unless waived by the Chairman of the Board. Under the State
of California Brown Act, the Board of Directors is prohibited from discussing or taking
action on any item not listed on the posted agenda. The matter will automatically be
referred to staff for an appropriate response or action and may appear on the agenda at a
future meeting.
AGENDA - This agenda contains a brief general description of each item to be
considered. Except as otherwise provided by law, no action shall be taken on any item not
appearing on the following agenda unless the Board of Directors makes a determination
that an emergency exists or that a need to take immediate action on the item came to the
attention of the District subsequent to the posting of the agenda.
1.Approval of Agenda
RECESS INTO CLOSED SESSION
CLOSED SESSION
2.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
[Government Code Section 54956.9(d) (1)] Name of Case: City of San Bernardino
v. San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, et al., San Bernardino County
Superior Court Case No. CIVDS1605532
3.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
[Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) Name of Case: City of San Bernardino v.
East Valley Water District, et al., San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No.
CIVDS1608620
4.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
[Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)]
Name of Case: SoCal Environmental Justice Alliance v. San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District, et al.,
San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. CIVDS1605072
5:30 PM RECONVENE MEETING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL OF BOARD MEMBERS
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS ITEMS
PUBLIC COMMENTS
5.APPROVAL OF 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.August 10, 2016 regular meeting minutes
b.August 24, 2016 regular meeting minutes
c.Directors' fees and expenses for August 2016
OLD BUSINESS
6.Legislative Update
NEW BUSINESS
7.PayNearMe and SUS Project Updates
REPORTS
8.Board of Directors' Reports
9.General Manager/CEO Report
10.Legal Counsel Report
11.Board of Directors' Comments
ADJOURN
P LEASE NOT E:
Materials related to an item on this agenda s ub mitted to the Board after dis trib utio n of the agenda pac ket
are available for p ublic inspec tio n in the Dis tric t's offic e loc ated at 31111 G reens pot Rd., Highland , during
no rmal bus iness ho urs. Als o, s uc h d o c uments are availab le o n the District's web s ite at www.eas tvalley.o rg
sub ject to s taff's ab ility to post the d o cuments b efo re the meeting.
P ursuant to Go vernment Co d e S ectio n 54954.2(a), any reques t fo r a dis ability-related modific ation or
ac commod ation, inc luding auxiliary aids or s ervic es , that is s ought in order to participate in the abo ve-
agendized p ublic meeting sho uld b e direc ted to the Dis tric t Clerk at (909) 885-4900 at leas t 72 hours prior
to said meeting.
1
Minutes 8/10/2016 smg
Draft Pending Approval
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT August 10, 2016
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
MINUTES
The Chairman of the Board called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Directors: Carrillo, Coats, Morales, Shelton, Smith
ABSENT: None
STAFF: John Mura, General Manager/CEO; Jose Martinez, Assistant
General Manager; Justine Hendricksen, District Clerk; Shayla
Gerber, Administrative Assistant
LEGAL COUNSEL: Marty Cihigoyenetche
GUEST(s): Members of the public
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Coats declared the public participation section of the meeting open at 4:30
p.m.
There being no written or verbal comments, the public participation section was closed.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
M/S/C (Shelton-Smith) that the August 10, 2016 agenda be approved as
submitted.
CLOSED SESSION
The Board entered into Closed Session at 4:31 p.m. as provided in the Ralph M. Brown
Act Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) to discuss the item(s) listed on the agenda.
THE BOARD RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 5:30 P.M.
Ms. Jody Scott led the flag salute.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Directors: Carrillo, Coats, Morales, Shelton, Smith
ABSENT: None
2
Minutes 8/10/2016 smg
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS
With respect to Item #2: No reportable action taken.
With respect to Item #3: No reportable action taken.
With respect to Item #4: No reportable action taken.
With respect to Item #5: No reportable action taken.
With respect to Item #6: No reportable action taken.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Coats declared the public participation section of the meeting open at 5 :31
p.m.
Mr. Wayne Brown requested that he defer his comment until item #9 on the agenda.
There being no further written or verbal comments, the public participation section
was closed at 5:31 p.m.
APPROVE THE JULY 13, 2016 REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES
M/S/C (Carrillo-Shelton) that the Board approve the July 13, 2016 regular board
meeting minutes as submitted.
APPROVE THE JULY 27, 2016 REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES
M/S/C (Carrillo-Shelton) that the Board approve the July 27, 2016 regular board
meeting minutes as submitted.
DIRECTORS’ FEES AND EXPENSES FOR JULY 2016
M/S/C (Carrillo-Shelton) that the Board approve the Directors’ fees and expenses
for July 2016 as submitted.
DISBURSEMENTS
M/S/C (Carrillo-Shelton) that the General Fund Disbursements #247892 through
#248104 which were distributed during the period of June 1, 2016 through June 30,
2016, bank drafts and ACH Payments in the amount of $3,046,838.12 and $320,467.84
for payroll and benefit contributions, totaling $3,367,305.96 be approved.
3
Minutes 8/10/2016 smg
ADOPT RESOLUTION 2016.18 APPROVING THE ACCEPTANCE OF QUITCLAIM DEED
FOR ALAMO ROAD
M/S/C (Carrillo-Shelton) that the Board adopt Resolution 2016.18 approving the
quitclaim deed offered by the City of Riverside for APN 0278-101-38.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 2016.19 – DECLARING THE DISTRICT’S INTENT TO PLEDGE NET
REVENUES OF THE WATER ENTERPRISE FUND, AND WASTEWATER ENTERPRISE FUND,
TO PAYMENT OF STATE REVOLVING FUND/WATER RECYCLING FUND FINANCING
M/S/C (Carrillo-Shelton) that the Board adopt Resolution 2016.19.
REPORT FINAL TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTIES
Mr. Cihigoyenetche stated that the transaction for the purchase of real properties
identified as APN: 0279-211-25 and 0279-211-26 are complete as of May 9, 2016 and
were purchased from Orange New Jersey Property, LLC, in the amount of
$1,450,000.00; and the transaction for the purchase of real property identified as APN:
0279-211-33 is complete as of May 9, 2016 and was purchased from Jack M. Langson
Living Trust in the amount of $1,200,000.00.
WATER CONSERVATION UPDATE
Mr. Wayne Brown suggested that slide #5 on agenda item #9 should have turf removal
broken down between residential and non-residential so the square footage can be
calculated and compared more accurately year to year.
The General Manager/CEO responded to Mr. Brown’s suggestion stating that it is a good
idea and will better reflect how the rebate money was disbursed. He also clarified some
of the calculations in the slides.
The Assistant General Manager presented a conservation update to the Board. He stated
that a self-imposed conservation standard of 15% was submitted to the State Water
Resources Control Board that would take effect from June 2016 to January 2017; and
he reviewed violations and conservation outreach efforts to date.
Information only.
APPROVE UPDATE TO THE DISTRICT’S CONSERVATION REBATE PROGRAM
The Assistant General Manager presented conservation rebate program amendments to
the Board. He recommended that the District maintain the current conservation rebate
program with modifications to the turf replacement program. He noted that slide #7
was modified to reflect that the turf removal program will apply to residential only and
will not include commercial, industrial or multi-family units.
4
Minutes 8/10/2016 smg
The General Manager/CEO stated that staff reviewed the District’s system for water
leaks and determined a 10% water loss on the system; that it would be more beneficial
to repurpose the funds and benefit the entire region by replacing aging pipelines to
increase system efficiency.
M/S/C (Carrillo-Shelton) that the Board approve the modification to the District’s
Conservation Rebate Program as recommended by staff.
REFER IDEA HALL CONTRACT FOR THE SNRC OUTREACH TO SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
The General Manager/CEO reminded the Board that due to the framework agreement,
that San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District has the authority to approve all
contracts that relate to the Sterling Natural Resource Center and clarified that the
project will be funded by East Valley Water District.
The Public Affairs/Conservation Manager reviewed the benefits of contracting with Idea
Hall, a professional public relations firm, and how they would benefit the District’s
outreach efforts pertaining to the Sterling Natural Resource Center project.
The General Manager/CEO stated that he hopes to invest with a firm for long-term
relationship that will bring fresh ideas and a high degree of outreach; that Idea Hall is
competitive in terms of their hourly rates. The General Manager/CEO also addressed
comments made by members of the Board.
Ms. Jody Scott commented on item #3 on the contract and requested that the Board not
pay via credit card as to not incur a 3% charge; the General Manager/CEO responded
that the transaction will be electronic and the District will not incur any fees.
M/S/C (Smith-Carrillo) that the Board approve the forms and content of the
proposed contract from Idea Hall and refer the action to San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District for review and approval, as it relates to the Sterling Natural
Resource Center.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ REPORTS
Director Morales reported on the following: on August 2nd he attended the City of San
Bernardino Water Commissioners board meeting; on August 4th he attended the
Association of California Water Agencies Region 8 meeting where they discussed disaster
preparedness; and on August 5th he attended the East Valley Association of Realtors
where he presented an update regarding the Sterling Natural Resource Center.
Director Smith reported on the following: he attended a sewer demonstration with the
field crew; he stated that it was interesting, educational and thanked staff for the tour.
5
Minutes 8/10/2016 smg
Director Shelton reported on the following: on August 2nd she attended the San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District’s board meeting and on August 10th she
attended the San Bernardino Valley Conservation District’s board meeting where she
received updates on ongoing business.
Vice Chairman Carrillo reported on the following: on July 28th he attended the Water
Conservation Committee meeting at the District; on August 2nd he attended a sewer
demonstration with District staff which he stated was fascinating, he thanked staff for
the tour.
Chairman Coats reported on the following: on August 2nd he attended San Bernardino
Valley Municipal Water District’s board meeting where they discussed the property tax
rate for the upcoming tax year and the general manager reported that this fiscal year
the Bunker Hill Basin had the lowest amount of water drawn down in history.
Information only.
GENERAL MANAGER/CEO REPORT
The General Manager/CEO reported on the following: on July 28th the District, along
with San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, hosted an informational community
event regarding the Sterling Natural Resource Center, he stated that it was successful
and another open house will be scheduled for late September or early October; that the
District received its new hydro-excavator which will be used to repair leaks throughout
the service area; that the District is working with the Office of Emergency Services to
close out the grant funding from the 2010 floods and noted that the project was
completed under budget; the District is using 100% State Project Water at the treatment
plant and an update will be provided to the Board at the next meeting regarding the
impact of the quality of water received from Silverwood Lake; on August 11th he will be
providing a District update to the Highland Senior Center. The General Manager/CEO
received positive feedback from the Board that attended the tour with the sewer crew
throughout the District and will look into other opportunities for the Board to
experience: the valve machines, the flushing program and what treatment operators go
through on day-to-day basis at Plant 134.
Information only.
LEGAL COUNSEL REPORT
No reports at this time.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ COMMENTS
Director Morales expressed his enthusiasm for the hydro-excavator truck and welcomed
Steve Nix to the District.
6
Minutes 8/10/2016 smg
Chairman Coats stated that he was not selected for a seat on CSDA Board of Directors
but was encouraged to run next year. The Chairman adjourned the meeting in memory
of Manny Aranda, Director of San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District.
Information only.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 6:21 p.m.
___________________________
Ronald L. Coats, Board President
__________________________
John Mura, Secretary
1
Minutes 8/24/2016 smg
Draft Pending Approval
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT August 24, 2016
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
MINUTES
The Chairman of the Board called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Directors: Carrillo, Coats, Morales, Shelton, Smith
ABSENT: None
STAFF: John Mura, General Manager/CEO; Jose Martinez, Assistant
General Manager; Brian Tompkins, Chief Financial Officer;
Justine Hendricksen, District Clerk; Shayla Gerber, Administrative
Assistant
LEGAL COUNSEL: Jean Cihigoyenetche
GUEST(s): Members of the public
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Coats declared the public participation section of the meeting open at 4:30
p.m.
There being no written or verbal comments, the public participation section was closed.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
M/S/C (Shelton-Carrillo) that the August 24, 2016 agenda be approved as
submitted.
CLOSED SESSION
The Board entered into Closed Session at 4:31 p.m. as provided in the Ralph M. Brown
Act Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) to discuss the item(s) listed on the agenda.
THE BOARD RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 5:30 P.M.
Mr . Nix led the flag salute.
2
Minutes 8/24/2016 smg
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Directors: Carrillo, Coats, Morales, Shelton, Smith
ABSENT: None
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS
With respect to Item #2: No reportable action taken.
With respect to Item #3: Legal counsel stated that this item was not discussed in closed
session.
With respect to Item #4: No reportable action taken.
PRESENTATION AND CEREMONIAL ITEMS
• INTRODUCTION OF STEVEN NIX, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS
The General Manager/CEO introduced Steve Nix, the District’s recently hired Director
of Engineering and Operations to the Board.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Coats declared the public participation section of the meeting open at 5 :33
p.m.
There being no written or verbal comments, the public participation section was closed.
ACCEPT AND FILE THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF, AND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED,
JULY 31, 2016
M/S/C (Carrillo-Shelton) that the Board accept and file the financial statements
as of, and for the period ended, July 31, 2016 as submitted.
DISBURSEMENTS
M/S/C (Carrillo-Shelton) that the General Fund Disbursements #248105 through
#248350 which were distributed during the period of July 1, 2016 through July 31, 2016,
bank drafts and ACH Payments in the amount of $3,179,371.64 and $616,346.33 for
payroll and benefit contributions, totaling $3,795,717.97 be approved.
PATTON STATE HOSPITAL PROJECT
The Operations Manager presented an update on the Patton State Hospital Wastewater
System Project to the Board; he described the District’s partnership with Patton and
3
Minutes 8/24/2016 smg
work performed at the hospital property. He stated benefits of the project including
that Patton staff more clearly understand the challenges they face on the property and
that the District will be able to respond more quickly to an emergency due to a full
assessment performed on the property.
The General Manager/CEO applauded the Operations Manager and staff for a job well
done, and is pleased with the relationship the District has formed with Patton State
Hospital and their staff.
Mr. Ed Halsell, Facility Manager at Patton State Hospital, thanked East Valley Water
District staff for identifying problems within the property and persuading his
department to perform needed repairs.
Director Shelton commended the District on a great partnership with Patton State
Hospital.
Director Morales commented that he is happy about the partnership and looks forward
to working with them in the future.
Vice Chairman Carrillo inquired about other organizations the District may work with in
the future. The General Manager/CEO responded that the District would like to partner
with other agencies and perform similar projects as with Patton State Hospital.
Information only.
DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY
The General Manager/CEO gave a brief overview of the District’s surplus property and
details for disposition of the property, and stated that the proceeds of the sale of
property sold at auction will go to the vehicle maintenance fund.
M/S/C (Carrillo-Shelton) that the Board authorize the disposition of surplus
property as submitted.
PLANT 134 HYDRO PROJECT EASEMENT
The Director of Engineering and Operations described the benefits to the District of
purchasing an easement from San Bernardino County Flood Control District and the costs
associated with purchasing the easement.
M/S/C (Shelton-Smith) that the Board authorize the General Manager to execute
the Easement Purchase Agreement with San Bernardino County Flood Control District
to purchase the required easement in the City Creek Levee for the amount of
$35,164.00.
4
Minutes 8/24/2016 smg
REFER KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS FOR THE SNRC DESIGN-BUILD BRIDGING
DOCUMENTS TO SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
The General Manager/CEO described the purpose of the documents to the Board; he
stated the proposal of the contract is to get to a 30% design stage of the Sterling Natural
Resource Center (SNRC) and that this is part of the procurement process. He stated that
Kennedy/Jenks is the project consultant and reviewed the qualifications of the firm;
and that once the content of the proposal is approved by the District, the documents
will go to San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District for final approval. He cited that
the design-build bridging final proposal contract was not available at the time the
agenda was created and that copies of the contract were passed out to the Board and
available to the public at the beginning of the board meeting.
The General Manager/CEO addressed questions from the Board.
M/S/C (Morales-Carrillo) that the Board approve the content of the proposal from
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants and refer the action to San Bernardino Valley Municipal
Water District as it relates to the Sterling Natural Resource Center.
WATER QUALITY UPDATE
The Operations Manager presented a water quality update to the Board focusing on the
blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) that has been discussed in the local news and how it
has impacted the District’s water supply. He informed the Board that the water is sent
to a state-of-the-art treatment facility and is 100% safe to drink.
The General Manager/CEO commended the Operations Manager and staff on addressing
the blue-green algae water quality issue and informed the Board that since the District
will be using more State Project water in the future, staff will be looking into ways to
treat the water in order to have less impact on the District’s water supply.
Information only.
BOARD MEETING CANCELLATIONS
The General Manager/CEO suggested that the Board consider canceling the following
regularly scheduled board meetings: October 12th due to the California Special Districts
Association conference that will be taking place during that time and the majority of
Board members will be in attendance; November 23rd occurs the day before the
Thanksgiving holiday; and December 28th is during holiday season and the District will
be closed. The General Manager/CEO stated that if issues need to be addressed, staff
will recommend that the Board schedule a special meeting.
5
Minutes 8/24/2016 smg
M/S/C (Shelton-Smith) that the Board approve cancellation of the following
meetings:
1. October 12, 2016
2. November 23, 2016
3. December 28, 2016
BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ REPORTS
Director Morales reported on the following: on August 16th he attended the City of San
Bernardino Board of Water Commissioners meeting; on August 17th he met with the
General Manager/CEO where they reviewed District operations; and on August 19th he
attended the Recycled Water Ad-Hoc Committee meeting where they discussed the
Sterling Natural Resource Center.
Director Smith had nothing to report at this time.
Director Shelton reported on the following: on August 16th she attended the San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District board meeting where she received an update
on property that was donated to be used for a park; on August 23rd she attended the
Water Conservation Committee meeting where they discussed new conservation
requirements.
Vice Chairman Carrillo reported on the following: on August 23rd he attended the Water
Conservation Committee meeting where conservation policies were reviewed with staff.
Chairman Coats reported on the following: on August 16th he attended the San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District’s Board meeting where they discussed the
Groundwater Sustainability Council Formation Task Force and also discussed
conservation efforts; on August 19th he attended the Recycled Water Ad-Hoc Committee
meeting where they discussed public outreach efforts and on August 23rd he attended
the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department Community Outreach meeting
where they discussed a proposed rate increase.
Information only.
GENERAL MANAGER/CEO REPORT
The General Manager/CEO reported on the following: on August 11th he presented a
District update regarding the Sterling Natural Resource Center (SNRC) to the Highland
Senior Center; on August 12th he met with property owners immediately surrounding the
SNRC location and provided them with the benefits of the project; he stated that on
Friday he will be meeting with Inland Empire Economic Partnership (IEEP) to discuss
improved housing. He directed the attention to the back of the room and asked the
Board and the public to take a yard sign to show their support for the Sterling Natural
Resource Center.
6
Minutes 8/24/2016 smg
The General Manager/CEO announced that Mr. Jose Martinez’s last day working at the
District will be August 25, 2016 and thanked him for his service and dedication to the
District.
The General Manager/CEO informed the Board of upcoming events:
• September 29th - The District will be holding its annual facilities tour.
• November 15th - Community Open House at the Sterling Natural Resource Center
site. More information will be available closer to the event.
Information only.
LEGAL COUNSEL REPORT
No reports at this time.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ COMMENTS
Director Smith wished Mr. Jose Martinez well on his new endeavors.
Director Shelton recognized East Valley Water District staff for providing the
Department of Water Resources staff information regarding the District’s use of water
budget based rates in order to assist them in setting standards for state wide water
targets.
Director Morales congratulated Mr. Martinez and thanked staff for supporting Hunt
Elementary school by donating school supplies.
Vice Chairman Carrillo thanked the Operations Manager for the great work on the Patton
project and wished Mr. Martinez well on his advancement. He informed the Board that
the Highland Chamber of Commerce will be hosting a candidate forum at the police
department on October 20th at 6:00 p.m. and expressed the importance of attending;
and to understand where the candidates stand on water and the water recycling center.
Chairman Coats congratulated Mr. Martinez on his recruitment and he expressed his
contentment that Department of Water Resources sought out the District for its help
with conservation efforts. He closed the meeting with the following statement, “Help
insure your water future by supporting the Sterling Natural Resource Center”.
Information only.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 6:31 p.m.
7
Minutes 8/24/2016 smg
___________________________
Ronald L. Coats, Board President
__________________________
John Mura, Secretary
Recommended by:
Jo hn Mura
General Manager/CEO
Res p ec tfully s ub mitted :
Justine Hendric ks en
Dis tric t Clerk
BOARD AGENDA STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item #5.c.
Meeting Date: September 14, 2016
Co nsent Item
To: Governing Bo ard Memb ers
From: General Manager/CEO
Subject: Direc tors ' fees and exp ens es for Augus t 2016
RECOMMENDATION:
Ap p ro ve the Governing Board Memb ers ’ fees and expens es fo r Augus t 2016.
BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS:
T he Board has instruc ted staff to lis t all d irec tor fees and exp ens es as a s ep arate agenda item to s how full fisc al
transparenc y. O nly after Board review and ap p ro val will the c o mpens ation and exp ens es be p aid.
AGENCY IDEALS AND ENDEAVORS:
Ideals and Endeavor II - Maintain An Enviro nment Committed To Elevated P ublic Servic e
(E) – Practice transparent & acc o untab le fis cal management
REVIEW BY OTHERS:
T his agend a items has been reviewed b y the Ad minis tratio n department.
FISCAL IMPACT :
T he fis c al imp ac t as s o c iated with this agenda item is $5,646.50 whic h is inc luded in the c urrent fisc al b udget.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Directors Fees and Expenses August 2 016 Backup Material
BOARD AGENDA STAFF REPORT
Agend a Item #6.
Meeting Date: September 14, 2016
Dis cus s io n Item
To: Governing Bo ard Memb ers
From: General Manager/CEO
Subject: Legis lative Update
RECOMMENDATION:
T his item is pres ented fo r info rmatio n only, no ac tio n is needed at this time.
BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS:
During the 2016 Legis lative Ses s io n, the Dis tric t has b een an active partic ip ant o n a number of items cons istent
with the adopted Legis lative Platform. To gether with legis lative advo cates from the Onate Gro up and Gonzales,
Quintana, Hunter & C ruz, the Dis trict help ed to guid e policy and legis latio n b eginning in early s tages of the
p roc es s .
T he s es s io n began with an emphas is o n the drought, and evo lved to fo c us o n long-term sus tainability and
effic ienc y. Dis tric t rep resentatives p articipated in work gro up d is c ussions through ACWA and CS DA relating to
water us e c harges, c o ns ervation, and metering amo ng o ther topic s. Area of invo lvement inc luded :
AB 779: Lo cal go vernment financ ial dis clos ures
o P o s itio n: No t Favor
AB 1520: Pub lic Record s
o P o s itio n: O ppos e
AB 1928: Water Efficient Lands caping
o P o s itio n: Support
AB 2087: Regio nal Co ns ervation F ramewo rk
o P o s itio n: O ppos e unles s amend ed
S B 1069: Land use, zoning
o P o s itio n: Watch
S B 1298: Loc al government fees and charges
o P o s itio n: O riginally o p p o sed, but removed o nce amend ed
Drinking Water Fees
Minimum Wage Increas e
2016-17 State Bud get- Rec yc led Water P ro p ositio n 1 F und ing
Little Hoo ver Commis s ion Hearing Regarding S p ec ial Dis tricts
Recommended by:
Jo hn Mura
General Manager/CEO
Res p ec tfully s ub mitted :
Kelly Malloy
Public Affairs Manager
Both ho us es ad jo urned for final rec es s o n August 31, 2016 and resume s es sion in January 2017. The General
Electio n o n No vemb er 8, 2016 includes elec tio ns for 40th As s embly Dis tric t, 23rd S enate Dis trict, and
neighb o ring 47th Dis tric t.
AGENCY IDEALS AND ENDEAVORS:
Ideals and Endeavor III - Demons trate Vis io nary Lead ers hip To Enhanc e Dis trict Identity
(E) - Develop a p ro ac tive legislative presenc e
FISCAL IMPACT :
T here is no fis c al imp ac t as s o c iated with this agenda item.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Legislative Update Presentatio n Presentation
AB 77 9 Backup Material
AB 15 20 Backup Material
AB 19 28 Backup Material
AB 20 87 Backup Material
SB 10 69 Backup Material
SB 12 98 Backup Material
•Active Participation
−Guiding Policy and Legislation
−Working with Legislative Advocates
−Work Group Discussions
•Session Emphasis
−Drought and Conservation
−Long-Term Sustainability and Efficiency
−Water Use Charges
−Metering
•Resume Session January 2017
2EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
2016 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
•AB 779: Local Government Financial Disclosures [Position –Not Favor]
•AB 1520: Public Records [Position –Oppose]
•AB 1928: Water Efficient Landscaping [Position –Support]
•AB 2087: Regional Conservation Framework [Position –Oppose Unless Amended]
•SB 1069: Land Use, Zoning [Position –Watch]
•SB 1298: Local Government Fees and Charges [Position –Originally Opposed]
•Drinking Water Fees
•Minimum Wage Increase
•2016-17 State Budget-Recycled Water Proposition 1 Funding
•Little Hoover Commission Regarding Special Districts
3EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
PRIMARY ACTIVITY
AB 779
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 779 (Cristina Garcia)
As Amended August 3, 2016
Majority vote
ASSEMBLY: (June 3, 2015) SENATE: 30-8 (August 15, 2016)
(vote not relevant)
Original Committee Reference: TRANS.
SUMMARY: Requires cities, counties and special districts to compile compensation
information about their elected officials and post it on their Web sites (websites).
The Senate amendments delete the prior contents of the bill and add the current language.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate
Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS:
1) Bill Summary. This bill requires cities, counties and special districts , on or before April 30
of each year, to post compensation information in a conspicuous location on their Internet
websites. The compensation information must contain the names, positions, and total
compensation, including a breakdown of the types of compensation provided, of each elected
official within that entity for the previous calendar year. If a city or special district does not
have an Internet website, it shall compile this information and make that information readily
available upon request.
This bill defines "total compensation" to include payments for salaries, overtime, unused
vacation time, stipends, pension contributions, retirement contributions, health premium
contributions, automobile allowances, phone allowances, and technology allowances. Any
other type of compensation that a city, county, or special district provides shall also be
included and specified. "Total compensation" does not include reimbursements or payments
for work-related travel expenses. The bill does not apply to school districts.
This bill is sponsored by the author.
2) Author's Statement. According to the author, "People have a right to know how much their
elected officials are paid. By featuring the compensation information on local websites,
residents will have better access to this information. AB 779 requires the breakdown of all
types of compensation to be posted. This full reporting will add needed transparency. For
example, a recent newspaper investigation reported the city of Maywood was paying officials
and some employees $250 monthly mileage stipends. It's unclear how such a payment could
be justified, as the city is just larger than one square mile.
"Unfortunately, abuses like those that occurred in the city of Bell and other local
governments are still occurring. Currently, the SCO [State Controller's Office] posts local
entity's salary information by position, but does not include names. While the SCO posts
break down some compensation, they also include an 'other' category. Something like a
mileage stipend, mentioned above, would fall in this 'other' category."
AB 779
Page 2
3) Background. The State Controller must compile and publish reports of the financial
transactions of local governments, including counties, cities, special districts, and joint
powers authorities. These reports must also state the annual compensation of a loc al agency's
elected officials, officers, and employees in accordance with reporting instructions developed
by the Controller. The Controller must make these reports, including compensation data,
available on its website in a form that can be printed and d ownloaded. Local agencies that
maintain a website must post the report and the compensation information, or a link to the
report on the Controller's website, in a conspicuous location.
The Controller's instructions define compensation to include salaries, overtime pay, lump
sum pay, pension contributions, health/vision/dental benefits, deferred compensation
contributions, and any other compensation (such as automobile allowances). Local agencies
must compile this information for each employee, who is identified by their classification,
including whether the employee held multiple positions. Local agencies must submit this
information for the previous calendar year no later than April 30th.
In recent years, several small cities in Los Angeles County have c ome under scrutiny for
their compensation practices. In particular, beginning in July 2010, a series of news reports
revealed that City of Bell officials received some of the highest salaries in the nation, topping
$700,000 annually. These revelations led to further inquiries into financial irregularities that
culminated with convictions for the former mayor, four former city councilmembers, the city
administrator, and the assistant city administrator. More recently, City of Maywood officials
drew criticism in May 2016 for receiving automobile stipends of $250/month, even though
the city is the second smallest in the county and covers approximately one square mile.
4) Previous Legislation. AB 2040 (Garcia), Chapter 894, Statutes of 2014, required local
agency financial transaction reports to include information about the annual compensation of
the local agency's elected officials, o fficers, and employees, required local agencies to post
this information on their websites, and required the Controller to compile, publish, and make
this information publicly available on the Controller's website .
5) Support Arguments. The California League of Conservation Voters and Sierra Club
California, in support, state, "We are pleased to support AB 779, which inc reases local
government transparency and helps residents easily find information about their local
officials' compensation. Scandals in Bell and Vernon concerning pay for elected officials
highlight the need for more transparency about who is paid what, in order to prevent the
misuse of taxpayer dollars. …This information will allow residents to better understand the
amounts and types of compensation that these officials receive. Some local government
entities already post this information prominently on their websites. Also, some California
news organizations and interest groups currently request, compile, and post local government
compensation on their websites. However, the amount of information varies by entity and
region, and what is available can be difficult to find."
6) Opposition Arguments. The League of California Cities, in opposition, writes, "Current
law already requires local agencies to report the compensation of their government boards as
well as all employees to the California State Contro ller. These reports include the following
items requested in AB 779 in the compilation of total compensation: stipends, automobile
allowance, technology allowance, phone allowance, pension contributions, retirement
contributions, health premiums, and any other type of compensation. AB 779 differs only in
AB 779
Page 3
specifically requesting that unused vacation time be reported and that the different
compensation categories be broken out.
"This measure requires a new duplicative report to be posted on agencies ' websites although
current law (Government Code Section 53901) already requires compensation reports to be
posted in a conspicuous location on agencies' websites. We believe that existing forms and
instructions are sufficient to accommodate the intent of this me asure without requiring
duplicative reporting and posting."
7) Gut and Amend. The subject matter of this bill has not been heard in any Assembly policy
committee this legislative session.
Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0003925
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
AB 1520
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1520
Author: Mark Stone D, Chau (D), Chiu (D), Cristina Garcia (D), and Holden (D)
Amended : 8/4/16 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 6/14/16
AYES: Jackson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski
NOES: Moorlach, Anderson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 53-21, 4/16/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Public Records
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill clarifies that the exemption from public disclosure, under the
California Public Records Act, for specified personal information does not apply to
industrial, commercial, and institutional water use data.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/4/16 strike the word “residential” from the bill and
instead creates an exception to the exemption for industrial, commercial, and
institutional water use data.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Declares , pursuant to the California Constitution, the people’s right to
transparency in government. (Cal. Const., Art. I, Sec. 3.)
2) Governs the public disclosure of information collected and maintained by
public agencies pursuant to the Califo rnia Public Records Act (CPRA) (Gov.
Code Sec. 6250 et seq.) Generally, all public records are accessible to the
AB 1520
Page 2
public upon request, unless the record requested is exempt from public
disclosure. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254.) There are 30 general categories of
documents or information that are exempt from disclosure, essentially due to
the character of the information, and unless it is shown that the public’s interest
in disclosure outweighs the public’s interest in non-disclosure of the
information, the exempt information may be withheld by the public agency with
custody of the information. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254 et seq.)
3) Defines state agency, for purposes of the CPRA, to include every state office,
department, division, bureau, board, and commission or other st ate body or
agency, except for the Legislature and the Judiciary. (Gov. Code Sec. 6252.)
4) Exempts from public disclosure records that are the residence address of any
person contained in the Department of Housing and Community Development,
if the person has requested confidentiality of that information, as specified, and
the residence or mailing address of any person in any record of the Department
of Motor Vehicles. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254.1.)
5) Exempts from public disclosure the name, credit history, utility usage data,
home address, and telephone number of utility customers of local agencies,
except that disclosure of name, utility usage data, and the home address of
utility customers of local agencies shall be made available upon request, as
specified. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254.16.)
6) Exempts from public disclosure corporate financial records and corporate
proprietary information, including trade secrets (Gov. Code Secs. 6254,
6254(k), 6254.15, 6276.44), employee personal information (Gov. Code Secs.
6254(c), 6254.3, 6276.34, 6276.36), and information affecting public safety or
security (Gov. Code Secs. 6253.9, 6254(aa), (ab), 6254.19, 6254.23).
7) Provides that information held by the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC), which is deemed confidential under Pub lic Utilities Code Section 583,
is not required to be disclosed. (Gov. Code Secs. 6276, 6276.36.)
8) Provides that any person may institute proceedings for injunctive or declarative
relief or writ of mandate in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce his or
her right to inspect or to receive a copy of any public record or class of public
records, and authorizes an award of court costs and reasonable attorney fees to
the plaintiff should the plaintiff prevail in litigation, and those costs and fees are
required to be paid by the public agency, as specified (Gov. Code Secs. 6258,
6259(d)). The test for determining whether a record may be withheld from
public access is whether the public’s interest in disclosure is outweighed by the
AB 1520
Page 3
public’s interest in withholding disclosure of the record. (Gov. Code Sec.
6255.)
This bill:
1) Clarifies that the public disclosure exemption for the name, credit history,
utility usage data, home address, and telephone number of utility customers of
local agencies does not apply to industrial, commercial, and institutional water
use data.
2) Provides legislative findings and declarations that this bill furthers the purposes
of the California Constitution as it relates to the right of public access to the
meetings of lo cal public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local
agencies, it is in the public’s interest to know the usage rates of industrial,
institutional, and commercial water and energy users, and, unlike residential
utility users, the privacy interests of industrial, institutional, and commercial
users are not sufficient to justify granting an exemption from the public
disclosure requirements, in this context.
3) Makes other technical and conforming changes.
Background
The CPRA requires state and local agencies to make public records available for
inspection by the public, with specified exceptions. The CPRA provides for the
confidentiality and non-disclosure of numerous classes of information, including
the residential address of an individual in a record maintained by the Department
of Housing and Community Development, the residence or mailing address of any
person in any record of the Department of Motor Vehicles, and the name, credit
history, utility usage data, home address, or telephone number of utility customers
of local agencies. These confidentiality provisions were enacted to protect
individual privacy in the wake of several instances of criminal activity against
individuals whose residential information was disclosed by public agencies. (AB
1779 (Roos, Chapter 1213, Statutes of 1989); SB 448 (Sher, Chapter 276, Statutes
of 1997).)
However, recent news articles charge that SB 448 was actually a measure to
weaken the CPRA. According to one article:
In the mid st of a historic drought, Californians have no way of knowing who’s
guzzling the most water. For the source of this legislation, look no further than
Silicon Valley, where the [C]ity of Palo Alto decided it needed to do more to
protect the privacy of the tech elite. “Palo Alto, even then, was home to a
AB 1520
Page 4
number of very high-profile tech-related residents,” said Ariel Calonne, who
was the city attorney at the time. “We had fairly extensive databases that
covered a lot of sensitive information for a lot of noteworthy people, and that
became a concern for our utility managers.” (K. Mieszkowski, L. Williams, To
Shield Tech Executives, California’s Biggest Water Users are Secret (Apr. 16,
2015) <https://www.revealnews.org/article/californias -biggest-water-users -are-
secret-to -shield -tech-executives/ [as of June 28, 2015].)
A Sacramento Bee article also noted that “[s]ome cities and water agencies used to
make usage data public, including the Desert Water Agency and Coachella Valley
Water District in Southern California, which have some of the state’s highest per -
capita water use. But after The Desert Sun newspaper in March 2014 published
who was pumping the most groundwater, both agencies stopped. The First
Amendment Coalition sued the agencies to obtain usage d ata for major businesses.
Desert Water settled and agreed to make the numbers available; they show that
golf resorts and country clubs are among the biggest users. Coachella Valley,
however, refused – and won in court last month.” (Editorial Board, California
Water Use Numbers Should Flow Freely (Apr. 28, 2015) The Sacramento Bee
<http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article19426455.html [as of June 28,
2015].)
This bill seeks to expand disclosure by clarifying that the confidentiality provisions
under the CPRA for utility customers pertain to residential customers of a local
agency.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/10/16)
Califo rnia Coastal Protection Network
California League of Conservation Voters
California Newspaper Publishers Association
Californians Aware
Clean Water Action
Community Water Center
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water
Environmental Working Group
First Amendment Coalition
Natural Resources Defense Council
Sierra Club California
TreePeople
AB 1520
Page 5
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/10/16)
African American Farmers of California
Agricultural Council of California
American Coatings Association
American Pistachio Growers
American Planning Association
Association of California Egg Farmers
Automotive Specialty Products Alliance
Building Owners and Managers Association of California
California Asphalt Pavement Association
California Association o f Nurseries and Garden Centers
California Business Properties Association; California Chamber of Commerce
California Citrus Mutual
California Construction and Industrial Materials Association
California Cotton Ginners Association
California Cotton Growers Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Fresh Fruit Association
California Grain and Feed Association
California Large Energy Consumers Association
Califo rnia League of Food Processors
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Municipal Utilities Association
California Paint Council
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
California Seed Association
California Special Districts Association
California Tomato Growers Association
California Warehouse Association
Chemical Industry Council of California
Consumer Specialty Products Association
Family Winemakers of California
Grocery Manufacturers of America
Independent Energy Producers
International Council of Shopping Centers
NAIOP – Commercial Real Estate Development Association
National Federation of Independent Business
National Hmong American Farmers
Nisei Farmers League
AB 1520
Page 6
Northern California Power Agency
Pacific Coast Rendering Association
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
UnitedAG
Western Carwash Association
Western Plant Health Association
Western States Petroleum Association
Wine Institute
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The First Amendment Coalition, in support,
argues that “[t]he public is entitled to know – indeed, the public has a need to know
– water usage data of commercial and other institutional users. Access to this
information is the only way for the public to assess the effectiveness of
government water conservation policies. The severe [d rought] afflicting California
only underscores the importance of this access.” Further, the California
Newspaper Publishers Association, in support, asserts that this bill “would provide
the public with a better understanding of whether the policies of local agencies are
effective in achieving state mandated cut-backs and whether enforcement is
selective or is fairly applied.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Municipal Utilities
Association, in opposition, states that “[u]nder existing law, priv ate utilities are not
required to share their utility customer information upon public request. Under SB
448 (Sher, Chp. 276, Statutes 1997), public safety concerns and the issue of
‘parity’ between privacy rights that apply only to private utility customers versus
no such protections for utility customers of a public agency prompted the
Legislature to ensure privacy protections are equal for all utility customers. The
current law provides essential limited protections on the public’s right to access
individual customer information, striking a balance between the right to public
information and the right for both residential and commercial customer’s usage
information to be withheld. In lieu of the six exceptions [under the CPRA], it is
unclear why ‘names , credit histories, usage data, home addresses, or telephone
numbers’ should only apply to residential customers when such protections benefit
all customers.”
The opposition further asserts that “current law also levels the playing field
between customers of private investor owned utilities and utility customers of local
agencies. In 1997, SB 448 (Sher) determined that utility usage information from
local agencies was not public information. Yet, this bill is deliberately trying to
overturn that, picking and choosing which information should remain private.
Most large commercial, industrial, and institutional users of water and energy pay
AB 1520
Page 7
based on volume they use. Under existing regulations, local water districts, for
example, are able to determine if co nservation goals have been met. If the
conservation goal is not met, the local agency can impose fines of up to $10,000
per violation, and $500 per day thereafter for every day the violation continues to
enforce compliance.” The opposition states that it is also unclear how this bill, by
making commercial utility usage information public, would help reduce water
usage or energy consumption.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 53-21, 4/16/15
AYES: Alejo, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos,
Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier,
Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon,
Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones -Sawyer, Levine, Lopez, Low, McCarty,
Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Patterson, Perea, Rendon, Ridley-
Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Waldron,
Weber, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Bigelow, Brough, Chávez, Dahle, Beth Gaines,
Gallagher, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Jones, Lackey, Maienschein, Mathis,
Mayes, Obernolte, Olsen, Wagner, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Chang, Kim, Linder, Melendez, Quirk, Steinorth
Prepared by: Nichole Rapier / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
8/10/16 15:35:00
**** END ****
AB 1928
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1928 (Campos)
As Introduced August 15, 2016
Majority vote
ASSEMBLY: 56-22 (June 1, 2016) SENATE: 27-12 (August 17, 2016)
Original Committee Reference: W., P., & W.
SUMMARY: Extends the date from January 1, 2010, to January 1, 2019, by which the
California Energy Commission (CEC) is required to adopt landscape irrigation equipment
performance standards and labeling requirements. Additionally, prohibits the sale of new
irrigation equipment on or after an effective date established by the CEC . Requires the CEC to
consider recent advancements in landscape irrigation efficiency when developing the standards
and requirements.
The Senate amendments extend the date to adopt irrigation equipment standards by one year.
Conform the adoption of irrigation equipment standard regulation with existing procedures for
energy and water efficiency new building regulations. Prohibit the sale of noncompliant
irrigation equipment on or after the effective date established by the CEC.
EXISITING LAW: Requires, to the extent funds are available, the CEC in consultation with
the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to adopt regulations by January 1, 2010, on
landscape irrigation performance standards and labeling. Prohibits the sale of a landscape
irrigation controller or moisture sensor by January 1, 2012, unless performance standards and
labeling requirements are met.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill increases
staff costs of $100,000 and contract costs of approximately $200,000 for the CEC to establish
performance standards and labeling requirements. These funds could come from the General
Fund or special funds.
As with the existing timelines, the provisions in this bill are required only to the extent funds are
available.
COMMENTS: To date, the CEC has not adopted regulations on landscape irrigation
performance standards or labeling requirements because funds have not been made available.
The 2016-2017 budget contained $30 million for the CEC to implement the Water Energy
Technology program. The Water Energy Technology program provides funding for innovative
technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Funds in that program could be put toward
adopting regulations on landscape irrigation performance standards and labeling.
According to the DWR, over 45% of residential water use takes place outdoors . More water
efficient irrigation equipment will likely create significant water savings. According to the
author, this bill will help California take the next and long overdue steps in recommitting
ourselves to improving outdoor water efficiency.
Executive Order B-29-15 from April of 2015 directed the CEC to fund emerging water saving
technologies, the State Water Resources Control Board to impose a 25% reduction in urban
AB 1928
Page 2
water use over 2013 levels, and the DWR to update the state model water efficient landscape
ordinance to specifically increase water efficiency through more efficient irrigation standards.
Technology in landscape irrigation has advanced in recent years with numero us new efficient
irrigation controls and moisture sensing devices coming to the market. The cost of water has
increased significantly in the past decade and is projected to increase annually at a rate of 4% or
higher. Consumers appear to be responding to these conditions as it has been reported that one
of the largest areas of sales growth at home improvement stores has been efficient landscape
irrigation equipment.
If funded, this bill will ensure efficiency standards and labeling requirements are established to
help the consumer conserve water.
Analysis Prepared by: Ryan Ojakian / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0004229
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
AB 2087
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2087
Author: Levine (D)
Amended : 8/19/16 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 6-2, 6/28/16
AYES: Pavley, Allen, Hertzberg, Hueso, Jackson, Monning
NOES: Stone, Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Wolk
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/11/16
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 52-20, 6/2/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Regional conservation investment strategies
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill establishes a pilot project for a regional conservation
investment strategy (RCIS) program that would identify and prioritize regional
conservation through a science-based public process while also encouraging
investments in conservation through advance mitigation. No more than 15 regional
strategies could be approved prior to 1/1/20 and the program sunsets on that same
date.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/19/16 respond to numerous stakeholder meetings
and are intended to reshape many provisions to focus on the voluntary and non-
regulatory nature of its provisions, to ensure that other laws (such as the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are neither strengthened nor weakened by this
bill, to improve communications with affected local jurisd ictions, to beef up public
participation, and perhaps to reduce opposition especially from Delta counties who
AB 2087
Page 2
were suspicious that the bill would somehow boost a new Delta water conveyance
system.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Establishes the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) in the Natural
Resources Agency. The DFW has jurisdiction over the conservation,
protection, and management of fish and wildlife, native plants, and habitat
necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species.
2) Prohibits, under the state Endangered Species Act, the taking of an endangered
or threatened species, except as specified. The DFW may permit the take of
listed species if the take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity and the
impacts are minimized and fully mitigated.
3) Establishes that it is the policy of the State to conserve, protect, restore and
enhance natural communities. State law further declares that it is the policy of
the state to encourage, wherever feasible and practicable, voluntary steps to
protect the functioning of wildlife corridors through various means.
4) Recognizes the need for broad -based planning to provide for effective
protection and conservation of the state's wildlife heritage while continuing to
allow for appropriate development and growth. State law also authorizes the
development of Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCP ) to provide
comprehensive management and conservation of wildlife, pursuant to specified
requirements.
This bill:
1) States legislative findings and declarations regarding the benefits of identifying
habitat conservation initiatives on a regional scale, including actions to address
climate change, protect wildlife corridors, and guide voluntary investments in
conservation, infrastructure, sustainable community strategies, and
compensatory mitigation for impacts to species. The bill contains additional
findings that state that the purpose of this bill is to promote conservation of
natural resources, biodiversity and ecological processes, and to identify
conservation actions that promote resiliency to the impacts of climate change
and other stressors. The bill contains additional findings regarding the
importance of voluntary, non-regulatory approaches to regional conservation
that have no effect on local land -use decisions. It also has a finding declaring
AB 2087
Page 3
legislative intent that the an approved RCIS is not binding on an independent
public agency action within the geographic scope of the RCIS.
2) Contains many definitions to terms such as “areas of conservation emphasis,”
compensatory mitigation,” “conservation action,” “focal species,” and others.
3) Defines an RCIS as the information and analysis prepared pursuant to this bill
that provides nonbind ing, voluntary guidance for the identification of wildlife
and habitat conservation priorities. An RCIS is voluntary and does not create,
modify, or impose regulatory requirements or standards, regulate land use,
establish land use designations, or affect the land use authority of any public
agency. The preparation and use of RCISs is also voluntary.
4) Authorizes the DFW to approve an RCIS proposed by DFW or any other
public agency, developed in consultation with local agencies with land use
authority, and s pecifies that the purpose of an RCIS is to provide voluntary,
nonbinding guidance for one or more of the following, as specified:
a) Identification of wildlife and habitat conservation priorities, including
actions to address impacts of climate change and other stressors;
b) Investments in natural resource conservation;
c) Infrastructure;
d) Identification of priority locations for compensato ry mitigation.
5) Identifies the elements that must be included in an RC IS to be approved by
DFW that provides context at an ecoregional scale for development of the
RCIS, as specified. Generally, the RCIS must identify focal species, important
resource conservation elements within the region, historic, current and
projected future stressors, major water, transportation, and transmission
infrastructure facilities, conservation actions that would achieve the
conservation goals of the RCIS, demonstrated consis tency with existing or
draft natural community conservation plans (NCCPs), among others.
6) Requires the RCIS to also identify mitigation banks within the RCIS
boundaries, account for climate change on the focal species and conservation
goals of the RCIS, rely on the best available scientific information, be prepared
in way that can be uploaded and searched through interactive use on the
internet, incorporate considerations of preserving working lands, reasonably
foreseeable development of infrastructure, aff ordable housing, and renewable
energy projects.
AB 2087
Page 4
7) Authorizes, but does not require, a separate regional conservation assessment
that covers an even larger ecosystem than an RCIF that contains many of the
same topics in an RCIF. The bill contains provisions for the two documents to
be submitted together or separately, and an regional conservation assessment is
not a precondition for an RCIS. An RCIS would be valid for 10 years, and the
department could extend the RCIS for additional 10 year periods after updating
the strategy for new scientific information,
8) Requires a public agency preparing a RCIS, prior to submitting the draft RCIS
to DFW, to publicly notice and hold a public meeting. Information on the draft
RCIS must be posted on the internet, shared wit h each local government, and
provided to every entity and individual who has requested notices for all RCIS
public meetings.
9) Requires, within 60 days of submitting a final RCIS, that the board of
supervisors and city councils in each county within the geo graphical scope of
the RCIS be notified and given a 30-day opportunity to comment.
10) Provides DFW 30 days to consider whether a draft RCIS is complete, and if
not, it must explain to the public agency submitting the draft what is needed to
complete the RCIS.
11) Requires DFW to make all RCISs and any updates available to the public on
its Internet Web site for public review and comment for at least 30 days, and to
make all approved RCISs and any updates available on its Internet Web site.
12) Adds a series of s tatutory statements that the RCIS does not increase or
decrease the authority of DFW, modify the standards for issuing take permits,
streambed alternation agreements, or other provisions of the the Fish and
Game Code.
13) Adds a provision that the bill does not require a lead agency or responsible
agency to determine that there is substantial evidence under CEQA in
connection with any determination whether a proposed project may or may not
result in significant environmental effects or in any way limit a lead age ncy’s
or responsible agency’s discretion to determine whether a proposed project
may or may not result in significant environmental effects.
14) Adds a provision that the bill does not prohibit or authorize ay project or
project impacts, create a presumption that any proposed project will be
authorized or prohibited, alter any local general plan, constitute a plan, policy
or ordinance under CEQA, or constitute a local policy or ordinance.
AB 2087
Page 5
15) Adds a provision that the department shall not reject biologically app ropriate
and adequate compensatory mitigation proposed by a project proponent on the
basis that the compensatory mitigation is not a conservation action or habitat
enhancement identified in an RCIS.
16) Adds a provision that project proponent seeking to provide compensatory
mitigation is not required to mitigate with conservation actions that are
identified in an RCIS. A project proponent may voluntary propose to do so.
17) Prohibits mitigation credits autho rized by this bill to fund or offset the costs of
the design, construction, or mitigation of new Delta conveyance facilities.
18) Authorizes conservation actions or habitat enhancements that measurably
advance the conservation objectives of an approved RCIS to be used to create
mitigation credits that can be used to compensate for impacts to species,
habitat, or other natural resources, if the conservation action or habitat
enhancement is implemented successfully in advance of the impacts. In order
to be used to create mitigation credits, a RCIS must include an adaptive
management and monitoring strategy, a process for updating scientific
information and evaluating the effectiveness of identified conservation actions
and habitat enhancements at least every ten years, and identification of an
entity who will be responsible for those updates and evaluations. The adequacy
of mitigation credit is determined by the applicable local, state, or federal
regulatory agency.
19) Authorizes mitigation credits to be used to compensate for take of endangered
species, to reduce adverse impacts to fish or wildlife resources, or to mitigate
other environmental effects pursuant to CEQA.
20) Requires DFW to ensure the long-term durability of a habitat enhancement
action, including mitigation credits, which shall remain in effect at least until
the site of the environmental impact is returned to preimpact ecological
conditions.
21) Provides the procedural provisions to create mitigation credits and the
application criteria for mitigation cred its. Many of the same extensive
conservation criteria that are required for mitigation banks would be required
for mitigation credits issued pursuant to this bill. These include maps, a natural
resources evaluation, a conservation easement to permanently p rotect the site,
consistency with any NCCPs, a description of how habitat values will be
improved, the metrics that will be used to measure how the goals are to be
achieved, a description of the net ecological gain compared to baseline
AB 2087
Page 6
conditions, a long-term funding mechanism, and provisions for enforcement of
the terms of the mitigation credit transaction.
22) Prohibits the release of credits without the approval of the department, and all
such releases must be tied to performance-based milestones and achievement
of ecological performance standards.
23) Clarifies that nothing in this bill is intended to limit or impose additional
conditions on the creation or sale of mitigation credits by a conservation bank
or mitigation bank approved under existing law. Clarifies that creation of
mitigation credits under an RCIS shall not duplicate or replace mitigation
requirements set forth in a natural community conservation plan.
24) Authorizes the DFW to collect fees from an entity that proposes to enter into a
mitigation credit agreement or that proposes a RCIS , to pay for all or a portion
of DFW's costs.
25) Requires a report to the Legislature by the Department regarding the
implementation of this bill on or before 1/1/20.
26) Allows DFW to partner with the California Infrastructure and Economic
Development Bank to finance the development of advance mitigation credits if
needed.
27) States that this bill does not affect the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta Reform
Act of 2009.
28) Prohibits DFW from approving more than 15 RCIS before 1/1/20 and entering
into mitigation credit agreements on or after that same date.
29) Contains other technical amendments.
Background
To demonstrate the approach that is represented by this bill, three pilot projects are
underway. Each demonstrates a different application of the conservation strategy
proposed in this bill. However, in the absence of a statutory change, the concepts
of advance mitigation and RCIS would not be available.
In Yolo County, a pilot regional conservation framework will serve as a
complement to the Yolo County habitat plans, and, if approved, will have a
steering committee that includes the California Natural Resources Agency and
AB 2087
Page 7
Yolo County representatives. It is designed to assist a multi-agency flood
control and habitat restoration effort in the Yolo Bypass.
In Antelope Valley, a regional conservation plan would build on the work of the
Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan to facilitate siting and advance
mitigation for renewable energy facilities. This pilot has been convened by the
Desert and Mountains Conservation Authority.
In the Bay Area, a nine-county Regional Conservation Assessment and two
regional conservation planning efforts were begun earlier this year, building on
a commitment from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the State
Coastal Conservancy to work with local agencies and nonprofits as well as the
Department of Transportation to facilitate possible advance mitigation for
transportation projects.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, approximately $675,000 in
year one, and $987,000 annually (special fund) to develop guidelines and
administer the program, some or all of which may be recovered through fees plus
unknown, potentially significant savings to state agencies using the framework for
conservation efforts, infrastructure planning, or mitigation.
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/22/16)
Audubon California
Big Sur Land Trust
Bolsa Chica Land Trust
California Trout
Defenders of Wildlife
East Bay Regional Park District
Greenbelt Alliance
Hills for Everyone
Laguna Greenbelt, Inc.
Land Trust of Santa Cruz County
Local Government Commission
Marin Agricultural Land Trust
Mojave Desert Land Trust
Open Space Authority of Santa Clara Valley
Pacific Forest Trust
Pathways for Wildlife
Placer Land Trust
AB 2087
Page 8
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Business Council
Sierra Foothill Conservancy
Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District
The Nature Conservancy
Transition Habitat Conservancy
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
Truckee Donner Land Trust
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/22/16)
California Apartment Association
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Construction Industry Materials Association
San Diego Regional Chamber
Large Scale Solar Association
Sierra Club California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, AB 2087 establishes a
new conservation planning tool that will identify wildlife and habitat conservation
needs and priorities in a region, help guide infras tructure planning and
development, and improve the effectiveness of public expenditures for wildlife
conservation. This process will also help to identify potential advance mitigation
solutions for large-scale pub lic infrastructure projects. RCIS s will identify wildlife,
fisheries, and habitat conservation needs, including actions to address climate
change and other stressors in order to guide public investments in conservation,
infrastructure planning, compensatory mitigation for threatened and endangered
species, and wildlife and fisheries recovery strategies.
The author also stresses the importance of allowing conservation actions to be
implemented in accordance with an approved RCIS , and in advance of project
impacts, to be used to obtain mitigation credits to fulfill, in whole or in part,
mitigation requirements for a project, if the permitting agency determines that the
conservation action provides suitable mitigation and complies with other
provisions of state law.
Other supporters welcome the new planning tool not only to map natural resources
across the region, but also to identify actions that will promote regional
conservation. Many supporters also welcome the ability to undertake advance
AB 2087
Page 9
mitigation for projects although that is not a requirement of the bill which remains
a voluntary, non-regulatory tool.
Most supporters pointed to the fact that the bill could help guide development
away from sensitive habitat while also adopting a more comprehensive approach to
mitigation.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Building Industry
Association is concerned that the bill could undermine NCCP, Habitat
Conservation Plan, and mitigation banking provisions. It, along with a coalition,
objects to what it calls the possibility that DFW could unilat erally adopt plans that
call for conservation of vast tracks of public and private land even if these lands
are already in general plans and zoned for development. The coalition believes the
state has comprehensive conservation and mitigation banking statutes, and that this
bill prioritizes conservation over housing, agriculture, manufacturing, and
transportation.
Large Scale Solar Association argues the bill provides “unprecedented” new
authority to create RCISs and has inadequate criteria for what lands warrant
conservation so that the bill could adversely affect renewable energy siting or other
important infrastructure. It questions the adequacy of the scientific thresholds, the
public process, and wants the bill limited to public projects, not those ad vocated by
the private sector.
Sierra Club California opposed the previous version of the bill, and instead would
support strengthening existing conservation programs including NCCPs and
mitigation banks. It believes the bill is weaker than NCCPs and it also believes that
reliance on mitigation is misplaced because developers should first try to avoid
impacts. It would prefer a public process regarding the appropriateness of
mitigation credits for a given project. It is not clear if the Sierra Club is an active
opponent.
Although not in formal opposition, the California Farm Bureau has expressed
concerns about impacts of the bill on private landowners.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 52-20, 6/2/16
AYES: Alejo, Arambula, Atkins, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon,
Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Cristina
Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray,
Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones -Sawyer, Levine, Lopez, Low,
Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Ridley-
AB 2087
Page 10
Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber,
Williams, Wood, Rendon
NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Brough, Chang, Chávez, Dahle, Grove,
Harper, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson,
Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bigelow, Cooper, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher,
Linder, Olsen, Steinorth
Prepared by: William Craven / N.R. & W. / (916) 651-4116
8/22/16 22:41:45
**** END ****
SB 1069
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1069 (Wieckowski)
As Amended August 25, 2016
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 29-3
Committee Votes Ayes Noes
Housing 6-0 Chiu, Steinorth, Burke, Chau,
Lopez, Mullin
Local Government 6-2 Eggman, Alejo, Bonilla, Chiu,
Cooley, Linder
Waldron, Beth Gaines
Appropriations 15-3 Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonilla,
Bonta, Calderon, Daly, Eggman,
Eduardo Garcia, Holden, Quirk,
Santiago, Wagner, Weber,
Wood, Chu
Bigelow, Jones, Obernolte
SUMMARY: Makes a number of changes to state law regarding second units. Specifically,
this bill:
1) Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding the importance of Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs) as an essential element of the state's housing supply.
2) Replaces "second units" with "ADUs" throughout the chapter.
3) Requires a local agency, in its ADU ordinance, to do the following:
a) Designate areas within the jurisdiction where ADUs may be permitted, which may be
based upon criteria including but not limited to the adequacy of water and sewer services
and the impact of ADUs on traffic flow and public safety.
b) Impose standards on ADUs including but not limited to parking, height, setback, lot
coverage, architectural review, and maximum size of the unit.
c) Provide that ADUs do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the second
unit is located, and that the ADU is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning
designation for the lot.
4) Requires a local agency with an ADU ordinance to c onsider permits within 120 days of
submittal of a complete building permit application.
5) Requires a local agency that has not adopted an ADU ordinance to ministerially approve the
creation of an ADU if the ADU meets the following requirements:
a) The unit is not intended for sale separate from the primary residence and may be rented.
b) The lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use.
SB 1069
Page 2
c) The lot contains an existing single -family dwelling.
d) The ADU is either attached to the existing dwelling and located within the living area of
the existing dwelling or detached and located on the same lot as the existing dwelling.
e) The increased floor area of an attached ADU shall not exceed 50% of the existing living
area, with a maximum increase in floor area of 1,200 square feet.
f) The total area floor space of the ADU shall not exceed 1,200 square feet.
g) Requirements relating to height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, site plan
review, fees, charges, and other zoning requirements generally applicable to residential
construction in the zone in which the property is located.
h) Local building code requirements, that apply to detached dwellings as appropriate.
i) Approved by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal system is being
used.
6) Removes the exemption for a local agency to adopt an ADU ordinance upon findings that the
ordinance may limit housing opportunities of the region, and further contains findings that
specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and welfare would result.
7) Provides that a local agency may establish maximum and minimum unit size requirements
for both attached and detached ADUs, however no maximum or minimum size for an ADU,
or size based upon a percentage of the existing dwelling unit, shall be established by
ordinance for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an efficiency
unit to be constructed in compliance with local development standards.
8) Provides that no additional standards, other than those in this section, shall be utilized or
imposed to evaluate proposed ADUs, except that a local agency may require an applicant for
a permit to be an owner-occupant or that the property be used for rentals of terms longer than
30 days.
9) Removes the provision permitting additional parking upon a findin g that additional parking is
required related to the use of the ADU and consistent with existing neighborhood standards.
10) States that parking requirements may be provided as tandem parking in an existing driveway.
11) Provides that offstreet parking must be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by
the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in
setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon fire and life safety conditions.
12) Prohibits a local agency from imposing parking standards for an ADU in any of the
following instances:
i) The ADU is located within ½ mile of public transit;
ii) The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic
district;
SB 1069
Page 3
iii) The ADU is part of an existing primary residence or an existing accessory structure;
iv) When on-street parking permits are required, but not offered to the occupant of the
ADU; or
v) When there is a car-share vehicle located within one block of the ADU.
13) Provides that ADUs shall not be considered new residential uses for the purposes of
calculating local agency connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and
sewer service.
14) Requires ministerial approval by a local agency for a building permit to create an ADU if t he
ADU is contained within an existing single -family home, has independent exterior access
from the existing residence, and the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire safety.
ADUs shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not re quired for the primary
residence.
a) For above-described ADUs contained within an existing single-family home, a local
agency shall not require the applicant to install a new or separate utility connection
directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility or impose a related
connection fee or capacity charge
15) Allows, for ADUs not described in 15) above, a local agency to require a new or separate
utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility. Consistent
with Government Code Section 66013, the connection may be subject to a connection fee or
capacity charge that shall be proportionate to the burden of the proposed ADU, based upon
either its size or the number of its plumbing fixtures, upon the water or sewer system. This
fee or charge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service.
16) Provides that no reimbursement is required because a local agency or school district has the
authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or
level of service mandated by this act.
17) Incorporates amendments to avoid chaptering conflicts with AB 2299 (Bloom) of the current
legislative session.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate
Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS:
Background: ADUs, which are referred to in existing law as "second units", are additional living
quarters on single-family lots that are independent of the primary dwelling unit. Also known as
accessory apartments, accessory dwellings, mother-in -law units, or granny flats, ADUs are either
attached or detached to the primary dwelling unit, and provide complete independent living
facilities for one or more person. This includes permanent provisions for living, sleep ing, eating,
cooking, and sanitation.
In 2002, AB 1866 (Wright), Chapter 1062, required local governments to use a ministerial
process for approving ADUs, notwithstanding other laws that regulate the issuance of variances
SB 1069
Page 4
or special use permits. A local government may provide for the construction of ADUs by
ordinance, and may designate areas where ADUs are allowed, as well as require standards for
parking, setback, lot coverage, and maximum size. If a local government has not adopted an
ordinance governing ADUs, it must grant a variance or special use permit for the creation of
ADUs if the unit complies with requirements specified in statute, including size and zoning
restrictions.
University of California (UC) Berkeley ADU study : According to a UC Berkeley study, Yes in
My Backyard: Mobilizing the Market for Secondary Units by Karen Chapple, second units are a
means to accommodate future growth and encourage infill development in developed
neighborhoods. The study, which evaluated five adjacent cities in the East Bay, concluded that
there is substantial market of interested homeowners; cities could reduce parking requirements
without contributing to parking issues; second units could accommodate future growth and
affordable housing; and that scaling up second unit strategy could mean economic and fiscal
benefits for cities.
Despite existing state law, which requires each city in the state to have a ministerial process for
approving second units, the study found that local regulations often impede development.
Easing these burdens to permit more ADUs could permit a family to rent out the unit (about 49%
of the units) or provide housing for a family member (about 51% of the units). In fact, the study
found that the average second unit was advertised at a rental rate that makes it affordable to a
household earning 62% of the area median income.
This bill implements several policy recommendations from this study by easing the most
significant barriers to the construction and permitting of ADUs. These cha nges include:
a) Provides alternatives and exceptions to parking requirements, such as the case of an ADU
located near public transit or if the ADU is part of an existing dwelling.
b) Requires a local agency with an ADU ordinance to consider permits within 120 days of
submittal of a complete building permit application.
c) Increases the size of an ADU from 30% of the existing dwelling to 50%, with a
maximum increase in floor area of 1,200 square feet.
d) Removes the ability of a local agency to adopt an ordinance that completely precludes the
construction of ADUs.
e) Requires ministerial approval of an ADU contained within an existing single -family
home that has independent access from the existing residence and has rear and side
setbacks sufficient for fire safety, and removes the requirement for an ADU to have fire
sprinklers if they were not required for the primary residence.
f) Allows a local agency to require an applicant for a permit to be an owner -occupant or that
the property be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days.
Need for this bill: According to the author,
"In a 2015 Legislative Analyst's Office report, the Legislature was advised to facilitate the
development of significantly more private homes and apartments in California. The lack of
SB 1069
Page 5
housing in California has caused a crisis harming communities and families throughout the state.
The average California home currently costs about two and half times the national average home
price. A person earning minimum wage must work three full-time jobs in order to afford a two-
bedroom unit. In California's more heavily populated metropolitan areas, a minimum wage
worker would have to pick up a fourth and fifth job to afford the same two -bedroom unit.
Throughout the state, the bottom 25% of income earners spends 67% of their income on housing.
The high cost of housing is one of the biggest drivers of institutional and generational poverty
cycles and will not be resolved until more housing can be developed, especially close to jobs and
schools which is consistent with State SB 375 [(Steinberg), Chapter 728, Statutes o f 2008]
Climate Change Planning Goals. The Legislative Analyst's Office has advised that it is
imperative the Legislature facilitate the development of significantly more housing to address the
affordability crisis.
"Accessory dwellings provide part of the solution to the housing crisis. They are the only source
of housing that can be added within a year at an affordable price, in existing developed
communities served by infrastructure consistent with SB 375, without public subsidy, and action
by the State on a few issues will make this possible for tens of thousands of owners to
immediately benefit and help their communities. The importance of ADUs as a critical source of
infill housing and the barriers preventing them have been documented in studies from UC
Berkeley and UCLA [University of California, Los Angeles] including Yes in My Backyard by
Karen Chapple.
"SB 1069 proposes a common-sense, cost-effective approach that will allow homeowners to
share empty rooms in their homes and property, add incomes to meet family budgets, improve
the safety of accessory dwellings, and make good use of existing infill property across California
while easing the housing crisis. The Governor supported the bill on page 52 of the May Revision
of the 2016 Budget, stating that this bill will increase the state's housing supply without creating
a state reimbursable mandate."
Administration Support : According to the Governor's 2016 -17 May Revision:
"The Administration is also supportive of other initiatives to increase housing supply where such
initiatives do not create a state reimbursable mandate. This includes using inventory such as
accessory dwelling units (additional living quarters on single -family lots that are independent of
the primary dwelling unit). …Policies can increase the availability of accessory dwelling units
with expanded ministerial approval, shortened permitting timelines, reduced duplicative fees,
and relaxed parking requirements, consistent with the principles identified by SB 1069 (2016).
The state can further increase supply by eliminating overly burdensome requirements for
accessory dwelling units identified by AB 2299 (2016), such as passageways to public streets
and setbacks of five feet from lot lines."
Re lated legislation:
AB 2299 (Bloom) of the current legislative session: Would require, rather than permit, a local
government to adopt an ordinance for the creation of second units in single -family and
multifamily residential zones. Would restrict the sta ndards local governments may impose on
second units by prohibiting imposition of parking requirements on second units within a half-
mile of transit, shopping, or within a historic district, constraining the setbacks that local
governments may require, and repealing ability to prohibit second units. The bill is pending on
the Senate Floor.
SB 1069
Page 6
AB 2406 (Thurmond) of the current legislative session: Would allow local agencies to adopt an
ordinance that authorizes the construction of "junior accessory dwelling units" of 500 square feet
or less and includes standards that local agencies may adopt regarding those units. The bill is
pending a concurrence vote on the Assembly Floor.
Analysis Prepared by: Rebecca Rabovsky / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0004935
SB 1298
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1298 (Hertzberg)
As Amended August 11, 2016
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 39-0
Committee Votes Ayes Noes
Local Government 5-3 Eggman, Bonilla, Chiu, Cooley,
Gordon
Waldron, Beth Gaines,
Linder
SUMMARY: Makes changes to the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act.
Specifically, this bill:
1) Adds a definition for "sewer" to the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act, to mean
"services and systems provided by all real estate, fixtures, and personal property owned,
controlled, operated, or managed in connection with or to facilitate sewage c ollection,
treatment, or disposition for sanitary or drainage purposes, including lateral and connecting
sewers, interceptors, trunk and outfall lines, sanitary sewage treatment or disposal plants or
works, drains, conduits, outlets for surface water or storm waters, and any and all other
works, property, or structures necessary or convenient for the collection or disposal of
sewage, industrial waste, or surface water or storm waters." Prohibits "sewer system" from
including a sewer system that merely collects sewage on the property of a single owner.
2) Makes findings and declarations pertaining to Proposition 218 and storm water and drainage
runoff.
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS:
1) Financing Water Infrastructure . Local governments in California provide most water
related services in the state which include water service, sewer service, flood control, and
stormwater management. A Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) report, Paying for
Water in California, outlines four sources of funding currently used for water in California:
a) Fees, which include water and waste water bills, property assessments or fees, developer
or connection fees, and permitting fees; b) Taxes, which include both general and special
taxes, including parcel taxes; c) Fines and penalties, which include excessive pumping on
groundwater or directly to customers in violation of rationing restrictions during drought
emergencies; and, d) Bonds, which include general obligation and revenue bonds. Local
agencies frequently point to the series of constitutional reforms, Proposition 13 (1978),
Proposition 218 (1996), and Proposition 26 (2010), that have made it increasingly more
difficult to generate the necessary revenue to fund the costs of providing water and other
essential services.
On January 17, 2014, the Governor declared a state of emergency in California due to severe
drought conditions. In addition to challenges presented by the drought, local governments
face several barriers to funding for stormwater and dry weather runoff projects due to the
constitutional requirements for special taxes, benefit assessments, and property-related fees.
SB 1298
Page 2
Many of the local governments that operate MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm System)
systems differ from water and wastewater utilities that existed prior to the passage of
Proposition 218, which have in place service fees. On the other hand, many stormwater
programs in cities and counties are funded by the general fund, primarily through property
and local sales taxes. As regulatory burdens continue to increase, financially strapped local
governments are forced to examine alternative funding mechanisms and regional strategies to
address MS4 costs, which some cities in Los Angeles County are citing to be in the millions
of dollars.
2) Proposition 218. Proposition 218 distinguishes among taxes, assessments and fees for
property-related revenues, and requires certain actions before such revenues may be
collected. Counties and other local agencies with police powers may impose any one of
these options on property owners, after completing the Proposition 218 process. Special
districts created by statute, however, must have specific authority for each of these revenue
sources.
The Constitution defines a fee (or charge) as any levy other than an ad valorem tax, special
tax, or assessment that is imposed by a local government on a parcel or on a person as an
incident of property ownership, including a user fee for a property-related service. The fee
imposed on any parcel or person cannot exceed the proportional cost of the service that is
attributable to the parcel. Prior to imposing or increasing a property-related fee, the local
government is required to identify the parcels, mail a written notice to all the property owners
subject to the fee detailing the amount of the fee, the reason for the fee, and the date, time,
and location of a public hearing on the proposed fee. No sooner than 45 days after mailing
the notice to property owners, the agency must conduct a public hearing on the proposed fee.
If a majority of owners of the identified parcels provide written protests against the fee, it
cannot be imposed or increased by the agency.
Additionally, the California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 6, subdivision (c) provides
election requirements, "Except for fees or charges for sewer, water, and refuse collection
services, no property-related fee or charge shall be imposed or increased unless and until that
fee or charge is submitted and approved by a majority vote of the property owners o f the
property subject to the fee or charge or, at the option of the agency, by a two -thirds vote of
the electorate residing in the affected area." The election for the fee is required to be
conducted no less than 45 days following the public hearing.
The definition of "water" and "sewer" under the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation
Act are significant because the election requirements are on fees for services other than
water, sewer, and trash services.
3) Bill Summary. This bill adds a definition for "sewer" to the Proposition 218 Omnibus
Implementation Act. The definition of "water" and "sewer" under the Proposition 218
Omnibus Implementation Act is significant because the election requirements are on fees for
services other than water, sewer, and trash services. This bill provides a definition of
"sewer" in the Act using the definition of sewer from the Public Utilities Code. This bill is
sponsored by the Water Foundation.
4) Author's Statement. According to the author, "Proposition 218, approved in 1996, was
meant to improve transparency and accountability of local government fees. Some court
interpretations of the law have constrained important tools we need to manage water supplies
SB 1298
Page 3
and address water pollution... These tools are needed now more than ever because California
remains in an historic five-year drought.
"Stormwater is a key source of local water supply, and careful management is necessary to
reduce pollution. Currently, stormwater and flood control programs must meet a higher
standard than other services to raise capital, thus preventing many important projects from
being built. SB 1298 addresses these issues by adding missing definitions and direction on
the interpretation of Proposition 218 while ma intaining transparency and accountability. SB
1298 defines "sewer service" to include stormwater so local governments can build and
finance those projects."
5) Prior Legislation and Ballot Measures . AB 1362 (Gordon) of 2015, would have provided
a definition for "stormwater" to mean "any system of public improvements, or service
intended to provide for the quality, conservation, control, or conveyance of waters that land
on or drain across the natural or man-made landscape" in the Proposition 218 Omnibus
Implementation Act. AB 1362 would have only become operative if a constitutional
amendment was approved by the voters. The introduced version of AB 1362 was
subsequently amended into a different issue area to address mosquito and vector control
districts.
AB 2403 (Rendon), Chapter 78, Statutes of 2014, expanded the definition of "water" in the
Proposition 218 of 1996 Omnibus Implementation Act.
The League of California Cities, California Association of Counties and Association of
California Water Agencies filed a ballot initiative, California Water Conservation, Flood
Control and Stormwater Management Act of 2016. The proposed constitutional amendment
addressed the same three issues and this bill seeks to address with a majority vote bill. The
proponents of the initiative declined to move forward after doing polling research.
6) Arguments in Support. The Water Foundation argues, "While hundreds of California's cities,
counties, and stormwater districts face federal mandates to reduce stromwatr pollution and
are under pressure to seek new sources of local water supply, only a handful of them have
been able to collect funds to meet these needs. Drinking water and sanitary sewer services,
however, have not suffered such problems. SB 1298 simply clarifies t hat stormwater is an
integral part of both sewer and water systems and that its management should be held to the
same high standards of transparency and accountability."
7) Arguments in Opposition. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association argues, "SB 1298 will
only lead to unnecessary litigation against municipalities. Should SB 1298 be signed into
law and adopted by local agencies, a precedent setting victory invalidating this clearly
unconstitutional bill would be followed by copycat lawsuits that impose retroactive refunds
and attorney fees on public treasuries all across California."
Analysis Prepared by: Misa Lennox / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0004200
BOARD AGENDA STAFF REPORT
Agend a Item #7.
Meeting Date: September 14, 2016
Dis cus s io n Item
To: Governing Bo ard Memb ers
From: General Manager/CEO
Subject: P ayNearMe and S US Pro ject Updates
RECOMMENDATION:
T his item is pres ented fo r info rmatio n only, no ac tio n is needed at this time.
BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS:
T he Bo ard es tab lis hed vis ion o f s triving to provide wo rld clas s public s ervic e is b eing advanc ed through the
implementation of pro grams and tec hnologies offering c onvenienc e and transparenc y to Eas t Valley Water
Dis tric t (EVWD) c usto mers. Two s uc h p ro grams that are nearing d ep loyment to the p ublic are PayNearMe and
Smart Utility Systems (SUS).
PayNearMe is a third party, c as h payment s o lutio n that gives custo mer the ability to make a cash payment fo r
their EVWD utility bill at 7-11, F amily Do llar Sto re, and CVS retail es tab lis hments . T his solutio n will lead to the
p has e o ut o f the kiosks whic h have been temp eramental, and require multiple third party agreements fo r their
o peratio n, inc lud ing:
R ents fo r s p ace at retail lo cations
Armored c ar s ervic es fo r retrieval and rep lenis hment of cas h
C ommunicatio ns servic es
PayNearMe s hould b e available to s erve Dis tric t custo mers b y November 1st of this year.
Smart Utility Sys tems is a c us tomer portal that o ffers cus tomers the ability to view their utility ac c o unt ac tivity,
view c o p ies of their bills , and make p ayments o n their acc o unt, similar to the c urrent p o rtal offered thro ugh the
Dis tric t’s Tyler utility b illing program. However, the SUS p o rtal will also give staff ano ther too l to share
c o nservatio n and o ther mes s aging, and allo w c us tomers to view their water usage in near real time (60 minute
increments ) onc e the Automated Metering Infrastructure is in p lac e.
T he Smart Utility Sys tem p o rtal has been built and is c urrently und ergo ing final tes ting by b o th the S US and
EVWD imp lementatio n teams . Tas ks remaining b efore ‘go -live’ inc lude:
Trans fer o f c us tomers regis tered on the Tyler portal to the SUS p ortal
Trans fer lis t o f c us tomers enro lled in paperles s billing to the S US p o rtal
R egis tration with Go o gle sto re and Apple s tore for apps to ac ces s portal with s mart phones
Recommended by:
Jo hn Mura
General Manager/CEO
Res p ec tfully s ub mitted :
Brian To mpkins
Chief Financial Offic er
T he Smart Utility Systems portal sho uld also be available to Distric t c us to mers by No vemb er 1st, 2016, with the
final phase to integrate the p o rtal with s mart meters to b egin as the AMI meters are ins talled .
AGENCY IDEALS AND ENDEAVORS:
Ideals and Endeavor II - Maintain An Enviro nment Committed To Elevated P ublic Servic e
(A) - Strive to pro vide wo rld class c usto mer relations
Ideals and Endeavor IV - Fully Unders tand Challenges To Cultivate Effective So lutio ns
(E) - Conduct po s t implementation evaluations and make imp ro vements as nec es s ary
FISCAL IMPACT :
T here is no fis c al imp ac t as s o c iated with this agenda item.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
PayNearMe and SUS P roject P resentation Presentation
•Flexible Cash Payment Option at
Convenient Locations throughout District
•No Cost Implementation
•Flat Rate of $1.49 per Transaction
•Annual Savings $51,300
•Affiliated with InfoSend
•In place November
PAYNEARME
E A S T V A L L E Y W A T E R D I S T R I C T
E A S T V A L L E Y W A T E R D I S T R I C T
CONVIENENT LOCATIONS
STEPS TO INFORM CUSTOMERS
•Bar Code on Bill
•Bill Insert
•Website Update
•Social Media
•Handouts
•Bilingual
•FAQ
•Phone Application
•Posters
•Advertisements
E A S T V A L L E Y W A T E R D I S T R I C T
CUSTOMER OUTREACH
SMART UTILITY SYSTEMS (SUS)
•My Account
−Paperless billing
−Multiple accounts one login
•Usage
−Consumption graph with water budgets
−Historical Comparison
•Billing
−Pay with Credit Card or eCheck
−Real-time payment posting
−View and print paper bill and inserts
•Additional Features
−Mobile Version
−Apps for Apple and Android devices
E A S T V A L L E Y W A T E R D I S T R I C T
•Existing billing portal and
paperless customers are
pre-registered
•Convenient one time
payment option with no need
for login info
•Scrolling banner images are
linked to web pages
E A S T V A L L E Y W A T E R D I S T R I C T
CONVENIENT CUSTOMER LOGIN
8E A S T V A L L E Y W A T E R D I S T R I C T
CUSTOMER DASHBOARD
CUSTOMER BILL
E A S T V A L L E Y W A T E R D I S T R I C T
•Integration with bill print vendor
•Displays printed bill in PDF format
•Current and historical bills available
•Easy to download, print, or share
•Access to monthly bill inserts
E A S T V A L L E Y W A T E R D I S T R I C T
ADDITIONAL CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT
•View social media
•Conservation tips
•Linked to District website
•Contact information
E A S T V A L L E Y W A T E R D I S T R I C T
ADDITIONAL CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT