Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - EVWD Board of Directors - 05/04/195539 April 20, 1955 EAST SPIN BERNARDINO COUNTY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS - REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL The Board of Directors met at 7:30 P.M., April 20, 1955, at the regular meeting place. ROLL CALL Directors present: Botts, Brooks, Gesler, Littleton, Wall Directors absent: None. Also present: Manager Rickert, Engineer Rowe and the Secretary MINUTES Upon indication that each member present had read the minutes of w the previous meeting and that there were no additions or corrections, the minutes were declared approved. WORK PROGRESS Manager Rickert report on the progress of all work to date within the District. He stated that the District was working at the present time on six new subdivisions, making a total of ten to date. Manager Rickert stated that there would probably be a shortage of pipe in the very near future and that it would be to the best interest of the District to stock -pile the various sizes ofpipe immediately. Upon motion by Director Botts, duly seconded liy Director Gesler, and carried unanimously, Manager Rickert was authorized to order a six Month supply of pipe on a footage basis. NEW WELL Manager Rickert stated that in order to improve the central system and FISHER STREET to eliminate the wells now causing considerable trouble, it would be necessary to drill a new well. It was the recommendation of Engineer Rowe that such a well should be drilled in a central location. Upon motion by Director Littleton, duly seconded by Director Gesler, Manager Rickert wcs authorized to proceed with the drilling of a new well on the Fisher Street Lot, the size to be determined by the Manager and Engineer. SALE OF 10 FEET The Secretary read a letter from William T. Dixon in which he offered ON LOT 10,TRACT the sum of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) as a purchase price for the North N0, 2854 TO 10 feet of Lot 10, Tract No. 2854. It was the unanimous decision of WILLIAM T. DIXON the Board that the District did not have need of that certain property; therefore, upon motion by Director Botts, duly seconded by Director Gesler, the offer of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) from Mr. Dixon for said 10 foot strip of land was accepted and ordered a Deed drawn to Mr. Dixon, said Deed to contain an easement to the District. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. z AP 7 : Myr! G. No h, Secretary E. Dana Brooks, President EAST SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS - REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 4, 1955 The Board of Directors met at 7:30 P.M., May 21, 1955, at the regulax meeting place. Directors present: Botts, Brooks, Littleton, Wall Director absent: Gesler Also present: Manager Rickert, Engineer Rowe, J. B. Hanauer, Attorney Kenneth Jones, Attorney Holcomb and the Secretary MINUTES Upon indication that each member present had read the minutes of the previous meeting and that there were no additions or correc- tions, the minutes were declared approved. l MAY 4, 1955 The President announced that this was the time and place for the Board to consider certain annexations to the District. ANNEXATION 1955 -2 The Secretary presented the petition of Annexation 1955 -2- Dog - DOGWOOD TRACT wood Tract, together with the'Affidavit of Publication showing that the publication had been made as required by law. The President announced that this was the time and place, as set by the Notice of Hearing, to hear all protests and consider all written objections to the proposed annexation of certain terri- tory to the East San Bernardino County Water District. The Secretary presented her certificate that the petition is ..r signed by all of the holders of title to the lands proposed to be annexed. There being no written protests and there appearing no persons to offer written or oral objections to the proposed annexation, and discussion had and evidence taken relating to the benefits to the District and the territory proposed to be annexed which would result from the annexation, it was moved by Director Botts, seconded by Director Wall, and carried unani- mously, that the hearing be closed. ORDINANCE NO. 9 Ordinance No. 9 was presented to the Board. On motion of Director Botts, seconded by Director 'gall, and carried unani- mously, Ordinance No. 9, Altering Boundaries of the East San Bernardino County Water District, was passed on roll call vote. The Secretary was directed to post in three public places with- in the District copies of the above entitled Ordinance. ANNEXATION 1955 -3 The Secretary presented the petition of Annexation 1955-3 - COTTAGE GARDENS- Cottage Gardens - Cooley Tract, together with the Affidavit of COCLEY TRACT Publication showing that the publication had been made as re- quired by law and certified that Notice of Hearing had been mailed to each owner of real property within said Tract with- in the time required by law. The President announced that this was the time and place, as set by the Notice of Hearing, to hear all protests and consider all written objections to the proposed annexation. The Secretary testified that she had examined the petition and compared it'with the records on file in the election department of the Office of the County Clerk and that it had been signed by a majority of the voters residing in the area proposed to be annexed, and that the petition is sufficient. The Secretary stated that one written objection had been filed, said objection being that of the City of Riverside, a municipal corporation of the State of California as the sole owner of certain'lands included within the said petition for annexation, said objection made upon the following grounds: 1. That the proposed annexation and each and every step taken is contrary to law. 2. That the lands owned by the City of Riverside, a municipal corporation, were acquired by said City for the purpose of development, extraction and exportation of water from certain wells on said lands, or to be drilled upon said lands; said water to be transported to the City of Riverside for municipal purposes. That said lands were not acquired by the City of Riverside for residential, business or industrial development. 3. The inclusion of the lands of the City of Riverside will not be for the interest of said lands, or any portion thereof, and'neither said lands nor the City of Riverside will be bene- fited by the inclusion of said lands in the District. 4. That under the laws of the State of California applicable hereto it is provided that the inclusion of the lands sought to be annexed must be for the interest of the lands, or that the owners consent to the inclusion. That the City of River- side, a municipal corporation, does hereby assert by way of this objection that the annexation or inclusion of the lands MAY 4, 1955 owned by the City of Riverside would not be for the interest of the lands or the owner, as above set forth, but, to the contrary, would be detrimental to said lands for the reasons given above. That the City of Riverside, a municipal corporation, does not consent to the inclusion of its lands within said proposed annexa- tion and does hereby object to its inclusion therein. The above objection was filed with the Secretary by H. M. Dougherty, Deputy City Attorney of the City of Riverside, and A. J. Kennedy, General ManageX of the Light and Water Department of the City of Riverside. The President asked Mr. Dougherty if he wished to add anything further to the protest. Mr. Dougherty stated there was nothing he could add other than to stress the point that the lands in question would not be benefited by annexation to the District as these lands were for the purpose of extraction and exportation of water from certain wells located on the land, therefore the land would be of no benefit to the District nor would it hurt the District in anyway to exclude them. In other words, he stated, it works both ways, but now is the time for cooperation between the District and the City of Riverside. Attorney Jones advised the Board that the sole basis for consi- deration at this time was whether the land was to be benefited; whether the inclusion will be for the best interest of the land and the district; what the future plans of the District were, and whether the District was willing and capable of serving the land. Manager Rickert stated there was an adequate supply of water in this area to serve the land in question and the District was capable of extending service to this area. Attorney Jones to Manger Rickert: "Is it the intention of the District to extend the water mains to this area ?" Manager Rickert: "Yes, on Fourth and Fifth Street." Attorney Jones to Manager Rickert: "Will these mains pass the land now in question ?" Manager Rickert: "Yes ". Attorney Jones to Mr. Dougherty: "To what extent is this property now in well sites or now in use for procuring water ?" Mr. Dougherty and Mr. Kennedy pointed out on the map the approxi- mate location of wells, which revealed that the greater portion of the land in question did not have wells located thereon. Mr. Dougherty asked President Brooks of what possible benefit the District would derive from these lands in question. President Brooks stated that to exclude these lands from the present annexation would be to cut the lands in half causing the boundaries of the District to be non - contiguous, creating islands, and therefore making a hardship for efficient and proper admini- stration within the District. That the District is capable and willing to furnish water to these lands, that this therefore enhances the value and desirability of the land; that the present administration in the City of Riverside may assure the District the land would be used only for certain purposes, this picture could change at anytime; that the fact still remains that the land itself is benefited due to the availability of service any- time from the District, either now or in the future. Director Botts stated that using the same term as Mr. Dougherty, it could work both ways ", that the City of Riverside would not be hurt by the annexation, though it may feel it has no value to them at present, but at the same time there was no damage, while if the land was excluded the damage would be to the land and to the District. 42 MAY 4, 1955 President Brooks stated that it was a definite benefit to the District to keep the boundaries contiguous so that mains could be installed in order to tie the system together and conse- quently making immediate service available to the lands in question; that annexation was no more of a detriment to the City of Riverside than the inclusion in the Municipal Water District recently formed. Mr. Dougherty was asked if the City of River- side protested the inclusion of these lands in the Municipal District. Mr. Dougherty stated that no one could speak for the City, I but he would say that in the case of the Municipal Water Dis- trict, the City of San Bernardino and the City of Riverside ..J were working together to bring in water and the situation was different since no exportation of water was involved. Attorney Jones again advised the Board to consider only = is the land in question to be benefited by inclusion within the District, and is the inclusion for the best interest of the District. That lines have to be installed through this area for future use although the use may not be there at the present time, but the fact that the lines are there and made available at anytime, definitely benefits the lands; that the advantage to the District is conclusive - the problem of pipes in County roads is made more simple for presenting to the County Board of Supervisors if the area involved is within the District - contiguous property is more desirable for proper administra- tion - that water is available and the District is capable of serving it, therefore the land is obviously benefited. Mr. Dougherty stated the land is not benefited - that this land is dedicated to supply water to the City of Riverside - the land cannot be sold without a vote of the people - that the lines could be installed in the streets and there was no need to cut through Riverside property - that there was no basis in his mind that these lands could be benefited - that cooperation should be considered at this time between the City and the District since the lands could not be benefited by inclusion within the District. At this time Mr. Robert E. Jackson from the Sunnyside Mutual Water Company asked that the boundary description of this annexation be changed along Whitlock Avenue as the descrip- tion embraced the entire street instead of the center line. He felt that the District was including property within the Mutual. President Brooks stated that the property involved was County property and that the Mutual could include the same land for their use in the installation of water mains. There had been no objection from the County, therefore the Mutual had no ob- jection since it was not their property that was included within the described lands. Attorney Jones explained that mains can be installed in the street and therefore the description included the same. He stated the street is not private property, the County maintains it and it is public domain, permitting both the Mutual and the District its use. President Brooks asked if anyone wished to speak further. There being no further protests, it was moved by Director Littleton, seconded by Director Botts, and carried unanimously that the Hearing be closed, that it was to the benefit of the District and to the territory as described in the publication of Notice of Hearing to be annexed, and that said territory be annexed to the East San Bernardino County eater District. ORDINANCE NO. 10 ORDINANCE NO. 10 was presented to the Board. On motion of Director Littleton, seconded by Director Botts, and carried unanimously, Ordinance No. 10 Altering Boundaries of the East San Bernardino County Water District, was passed on roll call vote. The Secretary was directed to post in three public places within the District copies of the above entitled Ordi- nance. 43 MAY 4, 1955 Mr, Dougherty stated that at this time he objected and protested in behalf of the City of Riverside to Ordinance No. 10 for the same reason as set forth in the written protest filed this date with the Secretary of the Board of Directors of the East San Bernardino County 'dater District. Manager Rickert spoke briefly with Mr. Jackson, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Mayo, representatives of the Sunnyside Mutual, assuring them that at anytime the Mutual was in need of water, the Dis- trict would cooperate fully regarding connection to any of the mains. ANNEXATION 1955 -4 The Secretary presented the petition of Annexation 1955 -4 -Tract r" TRACT 4637 4637, together with the Affidavit of Publication showing that the publication had been made as required by law. The President announced that this was the time and place, as set by the T!otice of Hearing, to hear all protests and consider all written objections to the proposed annexation of certain terri- tory to the East San Bernardino County Water District. The Secre- tary presented her certificate that the petition is signed by all of the holders of title to the lands proposed to be annexed. There being no written protests and there appearing no persons to offer written or oral objections to the proposed annexation, and discussion had and evidence taken relating to the benefits to the District and the territory proposed to be annexed which would result from the annexation, it was moved by Director Botts, seconded by Director Wall, and carried unanimously, that the hearing be closed. ORDINANCE NO. 11 Ordinance No. 11 was presented to the Board. On motion of Director Littleton, seconded by Director Wall, and carried unani- mously, Ordinance No. 11, Altering Boundaries of the East San Bernardino County Water District, was passed on roll call vote. The Secretary was directed to post in three public, places within the District conies of the above entitled Ordinance. ANNEXATION 1955 -5 The Secretary presented the petition of Annexation 1955 -5 -Olive OLIVE TREE LANE Tree Lane, together with the Affidavit of Publication showing that the publication had been made as required by law. The President announced that this was the and place, as set by the Notice of Hearing, to hear all protests and consider all written objections to the proposed annexation of certain terri- tory to the East San Bernardino County Water District. The Secre- tary presented her certificate that the petition is signed by a majority in number of the holders of title to the lands proposed to be annexed, and certified that Notice of Hearing had been mailed to each owner of real property within said annexation within the time required by law. There being no written protests and there appearing no persons to offer written or oral objections to the proposed annexation, and discussion had and evidence taken relating to the benefits to the District and the territory proposed to be annexed which would result from the annexation, it was moved by Director Botts, seconded by Director Wall, and carried unanimously, that the hearing be closed. ORDINANCE NO. 12 Ordinance No. 12 was presented to the Board. On motion of Direc- tor Botts, seconded by Director Wall, and carried unanimously, Ordinance No. 9, Altering Boundaries of the East San Bernardino County :dater District, was passed on roll call vote. The Secre- tary was directed to post in three public places within the District copies of the above entitled Ordinance. HANAUER REPORT Mr. Hanauer of J. B. Hanauer & Co., stated that at the request of RE HIGHLAND AREA of the Board, his Company had prepared an analysis of the High- land Division of the Southern California Water Company. This analysis is primarily financial and factual in nature and Mr. Hanauer stated they had tried to avoid the expression of opinions or conclusions. A description of the physical plant of the company is also included. A copy of the Financial Analysis Highland Division - Southern California Water Company was distri- buted to each Director and a discussion of the contents followed. 44 May 4, 1955 PROGRESS REPORT ADJOURNMENT Manager Rickert and Engineer Rowe gave a work progress report with open discLWion on all problems within the District. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. My e G. rth, SecretaryAPPROVED: E. Dana Brooks, President MAY 18, 1955 ROLL CALL MINUTES TRACT 4789 PADULA EAST SAE BERNARDI2I0 CODUdTY 1 -LTER DISTRICT BOItRD OF DIRECTORS - REGULrLR 11EETI1 +G OF The Board of Directors met at 7:30 P.I:., '.?ay 18, 1955, at the regular meeting place. Directors present: Botts, Brooks, Gesler, Littleton, Wall Also present: Manager Rickert, Engineer Rowe, Attorney Holcomb, and the Secretary. Upon indication that each member present had read the minutes of the previous meeting and that there were no additions or corrections, the minutes were declared approved. Mr. Ralph Padula was present and requested water service for his proposed subdivision, 'Tract 4789, indicating he would be willing to donate property for the purpose of a new well if the cost per lot would not be too excessive for main instal- lation. The Board authorized Engineer Rowe and Manager Rickert to investigate said tract and present cost of main installation. FINANCIAL Director Wall report on the possible investment of any surplus REPORT monies on a short term basis. Upon motion of Director Little- ton, duly seconded by Director Botts, and carried unanimously, Director Wall was authorized to proceed with the investment of $50,000.00 for a 90 day period. GRANT DEED BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED AND CRDEP.ED that the hereto attached MASTER DEVELOP- Deed executed by DEL ROSA ESTATES, a limited co- partnership, IMITT CO. BY 11ASTER DEVELOPMENT CO., a California corporation, General Lot 2 Partner, to the EAST SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, in Tract 4268 consideration of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00), be and RESOLUTION 34 the same is hereby accepted for and on behalf of said Water District, and that the President and Secretary is hereby autho- rized to execute same for and on behalf of said District. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be attached to said Deed and that the same be recorded in the office of the County Recorder, County of San Bernardino, State of California, and filed in the records of this Board. VACATION AND The Secretary presented for Board discussion a plan regarding SICK LEAVE vacation and sick leave for district employees. It was the decision of the Board that a policy should be established and authorized the Secretary, Manager Rickert and Director Botts to investigate and present a plan for the Board's consideration. u PURCHASE OF Manager Rickert spoke briefly on the immediate need for a new TRUCK 1J2 =ton truck. Upon motion of Director Botts, duly seconded by