The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - EVWD Board of Directors - 01/29/2009Jh,� l" EastVailey I �r r DWater District SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 29, 2009 at 2:00 PM EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 3654 HIGHLAND AVE #12, HIGHLAND, CA. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. Public Comments 2. Discussion and possible action regarding the District's mid -year budget review. 3. Discussion and possible action regarding the District's Capital Improvement Plan. 4. Discussion and possible action regarding a video - conference meeting at Congressman Jerry Lewis's office. 5. Discussion and possible action regarding elections by mail ballot. 6. ADJOURN EastValley Water District MID YEAR BUDGET REVIEW FISCAL YEAR 2008 -2009 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Mid -Year Budget Review REVENUE OPERATING REVENUES: Water Sales Water System (meter) Charges Sewer System Charges Sewer Treatment Charges Service Initiation Charges Collection Charges (delinquencies) Installation Charges (labor & materials) Permit & Inspection Fees Connection Charges (EVWD sewer capacity) Capacity Charges (EVWD water capacity) NON- OPERATING REVENUES Interest Income Gain on Disposal of Assets Cooperative Agreements Other TOTAL REVENUE 6,833,002 12,019,181 12,474,900 (455,000) 12,019,900 1,497,081 3,105,951 3,334,000 (210,000) 3,124,000 1,693,566 3,522,600 3,602,000 (120,000) 3,482,000 2,874,485 5,746,970 5,610,000 (110,000) 5,610,000 51,995 103,990 50,000 50,000 100,000 105,096 210,192 163,000 50,000 213,000 210,384 320,000 75,000 245,000 320,000 Soo 1,500 50,000 (48,000) 2,000 44,600 75,000 200,000 (125,000) 75,000 186,736 375,000 700,000 (325,000) 375,000 13,497,745 25,482,384 26,258,900 (938,000) 25,320,900 89,344 178,688 250,000 (80,000) 170,000 49,856 99,712 100,000 100,000 20,440 40,880 70,000 (30,000) 40,000 159,640 319,280 420,000 (110,000) 310,000 25,801,664 13,657,385 26,678,900 (1,048,000) 25,630,900 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Miid -Year Budget Review REVENUE OPERATING REVENUES: Water Sales Water System (meter) Charges Sewer System Charges Sewer Treatment Charges Service Initiation Charges Collection Charges Installation Charges Permit & Inspection Fees Connection Charges Capacity Charges NON - OPERATING REVENUES Interest Income Gain on Disposal of Assets Cooperative Agreements Other TOTAL REVENUE High volume of properly transfers delinquencies Labor and Materials EVWD sewer capacity fees EV W D water capacity fees Enernoc and SCE rebates EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Mid -Year Budget Review EXPENDITURES OPERATING EXPENSES: SOURCE OF SUPPLY: Supervision and Labor 44,899 89,798 71,500 10,000 81,500 Vehicle Maintenance & Fuel 2,564 5,168 2,000 2,000 Water Testing 69,177 175,000 185,000 185,000 Maintenance 8,850 10,000 10,000 10,000 Purchased Water - 50,000 (50,000) - Groundwater Charge 140,000 140,000 140,000 North Fork Assessments 60,000 60,000 60,000 Water Supply Studies 87,000 75,000 22,000 97,000 125,510 566,966 583,500 (8,000) 575,500 PUMPING: Supervision and Labor 235,166 470,332 498,800 498,800 Facilities Maintenance 239,520 340,000 220,000 130,000 350,000 Materials & Supplies 32,384 64,768 50,000 50,000 Fuel& Power 1,164,051 2,085,000 2,250,000 (165,000) 2,085,000 Treatment Chemicals 75,926 151,851 140,000 10,000 150,000 Vehicle Maintenance & Fuel 28,478 56,956 55,000 55,000 1,775,525 3,168,907 3,213,800 (25,000) 3,188,800 WATER TREATMENT Supervision and Labor 68,165 136,330 139,300 139,300 Materials & Supplies 11,026 22,052 12,000 10,000 22,000 Contract Treatment Services (Nitrate) 321,371 1,100,000 1,452,500 (350,000) 1,102,500 Treatment Chemicals 16,165 32,330 45,000 (15,000) 30,000 Fuel & Power 77,949 150,000 160,000 (10,000) 150,000 Facilities Maintenance 15,634 31,268 35,000 35,000 Vehicle Maintenance & Fuel 501 3,000 3,000 3,000 Water Treatment Studies 25,000 25,000 25,000 510,811 1,499,960 1,871,800 (365,000) 1,506,800 SEWER TREATMENT: Treatment - City of San Bernardino 2,874,485 5,610,000 5,610,000 51810,000 TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION: Supervision and Labor 444,233 740,388 632,700 100,000 732,700 Materials and Supplies 212,834 354,723 190,000 160,000 350,000 Maintenance 93,681 187,362 225,000 (40,000) 185,000 Vehicle Maintenance & Fuel 66,980 133,960 118,000 10,000 128,000 817,728 1,416,434 1,165,700 230,000 1,395,700 WASTEWATER COLLECTION: Supervision and Labor 127,417 254,834 364,500 (100,000) 264,500 Materials and Supplies 27,390 54,780 60,000 60,000 Facilities Maintenance 28,859 57,718 50,000 50,000 Vehicle Maintenance & Fuel 42,254 84,508 90,000 (10,000) 80,000 225,920 451,840 564,500 (110,000) 454,500 Customer Accounts Supervision and Labor 283,884 567,768 528,900 40,000 568,900 Materials and Supplies 5,559 11,118 - 12,000 12,000 Postage 51,469 102,938 115,000 (10,000) 105,000 Contracted Services 74,301 148,602 102,000 45,000 147,000 415,213 830,426 745,900 87,000 832,900 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Mid -Year Budget Review EXPENDITURES OPERATING EXPENSES: SOURCE OF SUPPLY: Supervision and Labor Vehicle Maintenance & Fuel Water Testing Maintenance Purchased Water Groundwater Charge North Fork Assessments Water Supply Studies PUMPING: Supervision and Labor Facilities Maintenance Materials & Supplies Fuel & Power Treatment Chemicals Vehicle Maintenance & Fuel WATER TREATMENT Supervision and Labor Materials & Supplies Contract Treatment Services (Nitrate) Treatment Chemicals Fuel & Power Facilities Maintenance Vehicle Maintenance & Fuel Water Treatment Studies SEWER TREATMENT: Treatment - City of San Bernardino TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION: Supervision and Labor Materials and Supplies Maintenance Vehicle Maintenance & Fuel WASTEWATER COLLECTION: Supervision and Labor Material:; and Supplies Facilities Maintenance Vehicle Maintenance & Fuel Customer Accounts Supervision and Labor Materials and Supplies Postage Contracted Services Reallocation 75,000 reclaimed water/ 12,000 wash plan update 10,000 water conservaton irrigation controllers Reallocation Emergency repairs Savings due to equipment efficiencies Reallocation Delays in bringing Plant 40 on line Reallocation Increased maintenance work Reallocation Reallocation Increase on Credit Card processing fees EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Mid -Year Budget Review GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE: 315,400 437,400 516,500 (66,750) 449,750 Supervision and Labor 899,601 1,799,202 1,875,400 (50,000) 1,825,400 Taxes & Benefits 902,473 1,804,946 1,908,000 (75,000) 1,633,000 Director Fees 32,225 64,450 86,500 (20,000) 66,500 Directors Expenses 5,653 11,306 25,000 (10,000) 15,000 Telephone & Utilities 64,961 129,922 136,000 139,750 136,000 Meals, Lodging, Travel, Mileage 17,383 34,766 45,000 (5,000) 40,000 Dues & Subscriptions - Schedule 3 (Revised) 84,442 115,753 122,900 (5,000) 117,900 Postage 12,936 25,872 30,000 30,000 Office Supplies 31,231 62,462 80,000 (20,000) 60,000 Office Equipment Leases 23,806 47,612 60,000 (10,000) 50,000 Vehicle Maintenance & Fuel 26,324 52,648 47,000 47,000 Outside Service - Schedule 5 (Revised) 464,467 907,858 986,000 (73,000) 913,000 Legal Fees 22,016 44,032 85,000 (25,000) 60,000 Audit/ Accounting Fees 44,309 44,309 35,000 10,000 45,000 Trustee Fees 9,693 19,386 50,000 (30,000) 20,000 Election Fees - - - Regulatory Fees / Compliance 42,781 85,562 90,000 90,000 Rents & Leases 82,628 141,648 145,000 145,000 Licenses & Certifications 2,199 3,000 3,000 3,000 Employee Programs 12,301 18,000 28,000 (10,000) 18,000 General Insurance 130,149 260,298 270,000 (10,000) 260,000 Education 7 Seminars / Conferences 12,607 25,214 70,000 (35,000) 35,000 Safety Equipment 20,055 40,110 30,000 10,000 40,000 Disaster Emergency 6,090 12,180 81000 3,000 11,000 Contingency 10,000 (10,000) TOTAL GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE 2,950,330 6,750,536 6,225,800 (365,000) 5,860,800 NON - OPERATING EXPENSE: 1996 COP Interest 26,535 48,448 48,448 48,448 2001 COP Interest 138,795 317,810 317,810 317,810 2004 Loan Interest 66,173 393,033 393,033 393,033 2006 Loan Interest 46,435 276,165 276,165 276,165 2009 Financing Interest 890,000 (890,000) 277,938 1,035,456 1,925,456 (890,000) 1,035,456 TOTAL OPERATING AND NON- OPERATING EXPENSI 9,973,460 20,330,545 21,906,456 (1,446,000) 20,460,456 OTHER USES OF FUNDS Capital Replacements 315,400 437,400 516,500 (66,750) 449,750 Contribution to Capital Improvement Reserve 3,026,431 2,530,000 325,000 2,855,000 Debt Service Principal 1,576,905 1,865,375 1,865,375 1,865,375 4,916,736 2,302,775 4,911,875 258,250 5,170,125 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 14,892,196 22,633,320 26,818,331 (1,187,750) 25,630,581 EXCESS OF REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES (1,234,811) 3,168,344 (139,431) 139,750 319 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Nlid -Year Budget Review GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE: Supervision and Labor Taxes & Benefits Director Fees Directors Expenses Telephone & Utilities Meals, Lodging, Travel, Mileage Dues &. Subscriptions - Schedule 3 (Revised) Postage Office Supplies Office Equipment Leases Vehicle Maintenance & Fuel Outside Service - Schedule 5 (Revised) Legal Fees Audit / Accounting Fees Trustee Feos Election Fees Regulatory Fees / Compliance Rents & Leases Licenses & Certifications Employee Programs General Insurance Education i Seminars / Conferences Safety Equipment Disaster Emergency Contingency TOTAL GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE NON - OPERATING EXPENSE: 1996 COP Interest 2001 COP Interest 2004 Loan Interest 2006 Loan Interest 2009 Financing Interest TOTAL OPERATING AND NON - OPERATING EXPENSES OTHER USES OF FUNDS Capital Replacements Contribution to Capital Improvement Reserve Debt Service Principal Reallocation Burden trans to Contruction in Progress Lowering inventory levels See revised schedule Single Audit 2006 Loan Trust account closed / no 2008 debt issue Highland Ave Offices Reduce conference attendance Defer issue until 2009.2010 No bond financing, Need To Defer Project Spending EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Mid -Year Budget Review CAPITAL REPLACEMENTS Administration Mutual Water Company Stock Production Copier Del Rosa Admin Bldg Demolition Finance Computer Hardware Upgrades PC Software Upgrades Budget Software Customer Service Customer Billing Software Update Engineering Construction Drawing Printer 3rd Autocad License Plant 133 - Reservoir Demolition Pipe Locator Miscellaneous Equipment Production New Pickup Trucks SCADA System Upgrade Field New Pickup Trucks C4500 Flatbed w /Pipe Rack Miscellaneous Equipment Caterpillar 430E Backhoe Modis Scanner - Garage 10,000 (10,000) - 15,750 15,750 15,000 750 15,750 65,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 2,550 10,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 40,000 (40,000) - 15,000 15,000 15,000 9,000 9,000 15,000 (6,000) 9,000 50,000 (50,000) - 3,500 3,500 5,000 5,000 51000 5,000 51000 35,000 35,000 35,000 55,450 75,000 75,000 75,000 35,000 (35,000) - 61,050 61,050 67,500 (6,000) 61,500 25,000 25,000 25,000 96,100 96,100 102,500 (6,000) 96,500 7,000 7,000 6,500 500 7,000 437,400 449,750 516,500 (66,750) 315,400 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Mid -Year Budget Review CAPITAL REPLACEMENTS Administration Mutual Water Company Stock Production Copier Del Rosa Admin Bldg Demolition Finance Computer Kardware Upgrades PC Software Upgrades Budget Software Customer Service Customer Billing Software Update Engineering Construction Drawing Printer 3rd Autocad License Plant 133 - Reservoir Demolition Budget moved to Del Rosa Demo Pipe Locator Miscellaneous Equipment Production New Pickup Trucks SCADA System Upgrade Field New Pickup Trucks C4500 Flatbed w /Pipe Rack Miscellaneous Equipment Caterpillar 430E Backhoe Modis Scanner - Garage EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Mid -Year Budget Review CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Supply Facilities Plant 40 - Rehab and Expansion Prior Yr Encumbrance 1,032,653 - 1,032,653 1,032,653 Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer 221,068 450,000 200,000 250,000 450,000 North Fork Canal - Pipeline Replacement Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer 35,457 - Existing Loan Proceeds 500,000 500,000 500,000 Grants 106,370 1,688,394 1,688,394 1,688,394 New Debt Proceeds 562,798 (562,798) - Plant 151 -new 2,000 gpm well on 6th street Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer 34,243 350,000 350,000 350,000 Plant 134 - Upgrade Technology, Exp to 8MGD Existing Loan Proceeds 95,698 500,000 - 500,000 500,000 New Debt Proceeds 1,015,000 (1,015,000) - Plant 150 - Ph 1, 12,000 gpm Perch[ Trtmt Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer 189,514 400,000 1,150,000 (1,015,000) 135,000 Existing Loan Proceeds 265,000 265,000 Pumping Facilities Plant 9 - Rehab Forebay & Booster Stn Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer 50,000 (50,000) - General GIB Implementation Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer 29,563 125,000 200,000 (75,000) 125,000 Headquarters Building Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer 62,267 - Existing Loan Proceeds 570,000 570,000 570,000 New Debt Proceeds 10,000,000 (10,000,000) - Sewer System Management Plan Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer 12,842 80,000 80,000 Transmission & Distribution System Rogers Lane Main Replace Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer 350,568 460,000 460,000 460,000 New Debt Proceeds 500,000 (500,000) - EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Mid -Year Budget Review Supply Facilities: Plant 40 - Rehab and Expansion Prior Yr Encumbrance Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer North Fork Canal - Pipeline Replacement Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer Existing Loan Proceeds Grants New Debt Proceeds Plant 161 -new 2,000 gpm well on 6th street Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer Plant 134 - Upgrade Technology, Exp to 8MGD Existing Loan Proceeds New Debt Proceeds Plant 15D - Ph 1, 12,000 gpm Perchl Trim! Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer Existing Loan Proceeds Pumping Facilities General Plant 9 -Rehab Forebay & Booster Stn Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer GIS Implementation Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer Headquarters Building Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer Existing Loan Proceeds New Debt Proceeds Sewer System Management Plan Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer Transmission & Distribution System Rogers lane Main Replace Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer New Debt Proceeds Pr Yr Encumbrance of $1,032,653 Delay progress on final design Delay progress on final design Project Deferred Complete design, permitting and Cordoba Task 1 Completed December EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Mid -Year Budget Review Live Oak/ P1137 /PRV Pipelines Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer New Debt Proceeds Sterling Pipeline Phase 2 Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer Existing Loan Proceeds New Debt Proceeds AMR Meter Replacement Program Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer Collection System Conejo Sewer Main Replacement Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer New Debt Proceeds Rate Studies / IVR Prior Yr Encumbrance Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer Miscellaneous Projects - Unbudgeted Seven Oaks Dam - SAR Discharge Plant 101 - Reservoir Rehab Plant 28 - Demonstr Trtmt Facility Plant 152 Investigations City Utility Relocation - Pacific Regional Water Treatment Plant Plant 107 - Relocation of leased Trtmt Plant Eastwood Farms - Assessment District City Street Improve. - Cypress Ave City Street Improve. - Church St City Street Improve. - Palm Ave City Street Improve. - 7th, Sterling City Storm Drain Project - E Highland City Storm Drain Project - Warm Creek City Street Improve. - Berry St Annual CIP Expenditures 3,026,431 5,043,394 250,000 (250,000) - 307,390 650,000 650,000 288,280 1,053,150 288,280 286,280 2,530,000 1,400,000 (1,400,000) - 185,241 500,000 (200,000) 300,000 4,312 - 120,000 120,000 14,452,798 725,000 (725,000) - 20,497 (10,951,368) 20,497 20,497 8,120 15,000 15,000 2,933 45,000 45,000 266 5,000 5,000 (9,764) 5,000 5,000 2,956 5,000 5,000 16,442 20,000 20,000 833 5,000 5,000 2,157 5,000 5,000 1,250 5,000 5,000 2,281 5,000 5,000 1,905 10,000 10,000 1,984 10,000 10,000 168 10,000 10,000 18,713 35,000 35,000 84 2,500 2,500 140 2,500 2,500 Annual CIP Expenditures 3,026,431 5,043,394 18,671,192 (10,951,368) 7,719,824 Recap By Funding Source Prior Yr Encumbrance - 1,053,150 1,053,150 Contribution From Operating Budget 2,530,000 325,000 2,855,000 Grants 1,686,394 - 1,688,394 Existing Debt Proceeds - 2,123,280 2,123,280 New Debt Proceeds 14,452,798 (14,452,798) - 18,671.192 (10,951,368) 7,719,824 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Mljd -Year Budget Review Live Oak / PI 137 /PRV Pipelines Contrib from Operations/ Reserve Transfer New Debt Proceeds Sterling Pipeline Phase 2 Contrb from Operations / Reserve Transfer Existing Loan Proceeds New Debt Proceeds AMR Meter Replacement Program Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer Collection System Conejo Sewer Main Replacement Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer New Debi Proceeds Rate Studies / IVR Prior Yr Encumbrance Contrib from Operations / Reserve Transfer Miscellaneous Projects - Unbudgeted Seven Oaks Dam - SAR Discharge Plant 101 - Reservoir Rehab Plant 28 - Demonstr Trtmt Facility Plant 152 Investigations City Utility Relocation - Pacific Regional Water Treatment Plant Plant 107 Relocation of leased Trtmt Plant Eastwood Farms - Assessment District City Street. Improve. - Cypress Ave City Street: Improve. - Church St City Street Improve. - Palm Ave City Street Improve. - 7th, Sterling City Storm Drain Project - E Highland City Storm Drain Project - Warm Creek City Street Improve. - Berry St Project Deferred Unbudgeted extension; Date Street BOY funds available - $288,280 Pr Yr Encumbrance of $20,497 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Mid -Year Budget Review DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS: ACWA 16,607 16,607 16,000 16,000 ASSOCIATION OF S.B. CO. SP. DIST. 275 275 300 300 AUTOCAD SUBSCRIPTIONS 2,138 2,138 3,800 (1,000) 2,800 AWWA 1,559 3,118 3,000 3,000 AWWARF SUBSCRIPTIONS 15,165 15,165 18,000 (2,500) 15,500 MATHEW BENDER CO (DEERING CODES) 1,200 1,200 1,200 CALIF. MUNI UTILITIES ASSOCIATION 3,467 3,467 3,600 3,600 CALIFORNIA UTILITIES EMERGENCY 500 500 500 500 CSDA 3,825 3,825 3,500 3,500 INTERNET SERVICE 5,056 10,112 10,000 10,000 FOUNDATION FOR CROSS CONNECTION 870 870 700 700 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 155 155 300 300 HIGHLAND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 1,252 3,000 31000 3,000 IDS HOLDING (SNAP -ON /ONLINE REPAIR MANUAL) 1,499 1,499 1,500 1,500 INLAND COUNTIES WATER ASSOC. 500 500 500 LAFCO 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 MISCELLANEOUS 2,092 4,000 4,500 (500) 4,000 FIRST AMERICAN REAL ESTATE 1,695 1,890 4,000 4,000 S.B. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 300 300 300 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER COMMITTEE 750 750 750 750 TRW - CREDIT REPORTING 472 944 1,000 1,000 UNDER GROUND SERVICE ALERT 578 1,300 2,800 (1,000) 1,800 UPPER SANTA ANA 100 100 100 WATER EDUCATION FOUNDATION 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION 350 350 350 WATER RESOURCES INSTITUTE (CAL STATE) 15,000 15,000 15,000 WATER TRAX 12,988 12,988 12,500 12,500 WESTCAS 2,200 2,200 2,200 TOTAL DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS 115,753 84,442 122,900 L 5,000 j 117,900 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Mid -Year Budget Review REVISED SCHEDULE 3 Reason for Revision DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS: ACWA ASSOCIATION OF S.B. CO. SP. DIST. AUTOCAD SUBSCRIPTIONS AWWA AW WARF SUBSCRIPTIONS MATHEW BENDER CO (DEERING CODES) CALIF. MUNI UTILITIES ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIA UTILITIES EMERGENCY CSDA INTERNET SERVICE FOUNDATION FOR CROSS CONNECTION GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION HIGHLAND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IDS HOLDING (SNAP -ON / ON LINE REPAIR MANUAL) INLAND COUNTIES WATER ASSOC. LAFCO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST AMERICAN REAL ESTATE S.B. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER COMMITTEE TRW - CREDIT REPORTING UNDER GROUND SERVICE ALERT UPPER SANTA ANA WATER EDUCATION FOUNDATION WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION WATER RESOURCES INSTITUTE (CAL STATE) WATER TRAX W ESTCAS EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Mid -Year Budget Review OUTSIDE SERVICES SECURITY AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING COMPUTER CONSULTANT / PROGRAMMING ANSWERING /PAGING SERVICE BUILDING MAINTENANCE GROUNDS MAINTENANCE JANITORIAL SERVICES / SUPPLIES OFFICE EQUIPMENT CITIZENS BUSINESS BANK UNIFORMS MEDICAL FEES/ FIRST AID PUBLIC INFORMATION / EDUCATION GENERAL ENGINEERING /SAFETY FEDERAL REPRESENTATION STATE REPRESENTATION OUTSIDE LABOR- TEMPORARY OUTSIDE STORAGE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSULTANTS TOTAL OUTSIDE SERVICES 114,141 228,282 210,000 210,000 8,432 16,864 17,000 17,000 9,900 19,800 35,000 (15,000) 20,000 3,658 7,316 5,000 2,000 7,000 14,636 29,272 15,000 15,000 30,000 75,684 151,368 175,000 (20,000) 155,000 16,270 32,540 26,000 26,000 34,386 68,772 65,000 65,000 3,703 81000 10,000 10,000 15,000 (15,000) - 7,015 14,029 15,000 15,000 50,836 100,000 150,000 (25,000) 125,000 22,631 45,262 50,000 50,000 30,066 66,066 65,000 65,000 42,532 78,532 75,000 75,000 30,000 (30,000) - 8,378 16,755 18,000 18,000 22,200 25,000 10,000 15,000 25,000 464,467 907,658 986,000 (73,000) 913,000 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Niid -Year Budget Review REVISED SCHEDULE 4 OUTSIDE SERVICES SECURITY AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING COMPUTER CONSULTANT/ PROGRAMMING ANSWERING /PAGING SERVICE BUILDING MAINTENANCE GROUNDS MAINTENANCE JANITORIAL SERVICES /SUPPLIES OFFICE EQUIPMENT CITIZENS BUSINESS BANK UNIFORMS MEDICAL FEES/ FIRST AID PUBLIC INFORMATION / EDUCATION GENERAL ENGINEERING /SAFETY FEDERAL REPRESENTATION STATE REPRESENTATION OUTSIDE LABOR - TEMPORARY OUTSIDE STORAGE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSULTANTS EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Mid -Year Budget Review VEHICLE / EQUIPMENT MAINT AND FUEL SOURCE OF SUPPLY 2,584 5,168 2,000 2,000 PUMPING 28,478 56,956 55,000 55,000 WATER TREATMENT 501 1,002 3,000 3,000 TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION 66,980 133,960 118,000 10,000 128,000 SEWEGE COLLECTION 42,254 84,508 90,000 (10,000) 80,000 GENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE 26,324 52,648 47,000 47,000 TOTAL VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT MAINT AND FUEL 167,121 334,242 315,000 315,000 VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE FUEL 69,585 139,170 115,000 20,000 135,000 97,536 195,072 200,000 (20,000) 180,000 TOTAL VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT MAINT AND FUEL 167,727 334,242 315,000 0 315,000 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Wild-Year Budget Review REVISED SCHEDULE 5 VEHICLE / EQUIPMENT MAINT AND FUEL SOURCE OF SUPPLY PUMPING WATER TREATMENT TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION SEWEGE COLLECTION GENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE FUEL 5 I \ 0 \ § E /c § 0 1 0 co co TR OD CD \ § k cq IT \ I } } ] / / E m 2 \ \ ) M ) \ £ j co / 0 / / ( e } \ } 2 $ ) j / 7 (6 LL L 3 r Z) V/ C �L 9 N O N L U r m O O Cl) W O r O O O Cl) T O i m O O M r. co C) O M iD r m O O M co O a r. 0 0 M rD i O I� O O O O O O O O O O O O O m O O 6 V cq r o L6 W N M U� ti (O O O O O O O O O IO O O O O O O (O (O r M (O V IO O O O O L6 U� ti r m O °O o ui LO r- (0 O 0 U U rh U N 0 -C3 E ;) N U o c 42 d N o Vl U > B o m N 0 o a N N d U 2 N w ) 2 I \ co OD b § \ 7 \ \ 00 00 I co \ �\ Iq ) ) ) ) ) } k } } / \ / 3 \ w CD \ 7 \ \ 00 00 I co \ �\ Iq \ \ ) ) ) ) ) } k } } / \ If L CY Z C (6 s J O U N t M 7 w L f6 y N LL N ca f6 La rn 0 0 M a0 O r O O O M i m O O M i O O v= W Cl O M O r O O O M oD O O O O M r 0 0 0 0 0 LO U) r N O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O ) O O O w U') O 'I N N 0 0 0 0 N O O O N IO O O O O L6 r M N U Um N U (n a o U ._ a 0 U 'M o U 0 CL U 3 � 0 ED ( ni = p a o d q) > N (U U > U � y U F w co r1oI 7 0 Ed w N o O C) U n O o 0 U O o vi M N a0 00 t- C\1 O 00 O ti 00 O O M cc> ti N 0 U m N c 0 z N N N N N N U n 0 - 0 — 0 co U O 6 m E C ` n, N a0 0 a) E ° o d m w d m N r IO c d a� U L 0 0 L6 U) M I O O O _N N 2 U m 0 i Memorandum To: Bob Martin CC: Ron Buchwald From: Fred Stafford, Gerald Sievers Date: 1/27/2009 Re: Cost Savings Considerations from Staff Recently the Field and Production Superintendents, along with the Supervisors, have attempted to implement some cost savings programs to reduce Overtime expenses. As a result, there has been a need to further explain to staff the need for these cost cuts. As Superintendents, we felt that it would be beneficial to solicit suggestions from the rank and file staff for additional cost savings, as it would help them to buy into the program as part of the solution, rather than victims of the problem. I think it is important that everyone sees "belt tightening" in all departments. The following list is the first set of items for consideration. I expect there will be more suggestions as we become more involved in the economic stresses: 1.) Cost Sharing with City of Highland on their projects. Seems very one -sided and very expensive. 2.) Solar Challenge — How does this benefit EV WD in $ ? 3.) Bottled Water — What is the minimum that we feel necessary to give away? 4.) Harvest Fair; Route 66; July 4a' Parade; etc — Requires payroll expense; bottled water giveaway; how does cost compare to benefit ofEVWD participation? 5.) EVWD Conferences — Cost compared to benefit? 6.) Company vehicles usage — Who needs to take them home, who doesn't? 7.) Better use of vehicles — only what's needed on the job, car pool to job sites when possible! 8.) Pink Tags for Delinquent Accounts; they already receive more than enough notice. Requires time and truck wear. 9.) Cut losses on Performance Radio project; at least evaluate further expense. 10.) Waste — make employees accountable for waste of EV WD supplies and eqpt. (ie. PPE and tools; require employees turn in worn out or broken eqpt. To be replaced. That includes shovels, gloves, goggles, safety glasses, tape measures, etc.) January 27, 2009 11.) Water Quality samples — Only what is required by CA -DPH, or determined to be beneficial to E V WD. If other agencies request sampling, let them pay for them, including the collection. Contractor Bactee samples; First sample plus one repeat covered by EV WD. Additional repeat sampling at Contractor's Cost. 12.) Contractor mistakes — Make them accountable. 13.) District Tours — Cost vs. Benefit? 14.) Warehouse and Garage staff stagger work hours: 6:OOa.m. to 3:OOp.m. and 8:OOa.m. to S:OOp.m. with staggered lunches so we could shorten guard hours; receive late UPS deliveries; coverage during normal business hours. 15.) Security Guard hours — Can we cut back? EV WD Del Rosa yard 6:OOp.m. to 6:OOa.m. with Weekends and Holidays scheduled around the clock; and, Treatment Plant From 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. plus Weekends and Holidays from noon to 6:00 a.m. (Treatment Plant Operator is there on non business days in the morning to complete required reports.) 16.) 1954 Chevy and Trailer — Sell and put receipts in Reserve Fund! 17.) Plant #133 — Sell and put receipts in appropriate fund! 18.) Combine Field and Production Safety Meetings and have only what is required by Law (Purchase 40 folding chairs from Wa1Mart @ $9.95 ea and set up in Chemical Feed Area where we have lunch for tour guests). 19.) Keep vehicles longer before replacing. 20.) Uniform requirements? Supervisors furnish own clothing within certain constraints? 21.) Auction off inactive vehicles immediately! 22.) Eliminate Car Wash; employees responsible for their own assigned vehicles. 23.) Calendar Contest — Cost vs. Benefit? 24.) Farmer Bros. Coffee — Employees use own coffee cups instead of disposable; "Kitty" for purchase of Coffee and purchase a coffee maker. 25.) Solicit Bids for Consultation Services to promote competitive charges and insure better performance. (ie. CDM, etc.) 26.) Put New Offices on hold until economy is back on its feet. Retain plans and retain property so it doesn't have to start from scratch, later. 27.) Public Relations expenses — Cost vs. Benefit 28.) Nextel phone service — phone service to Supervisors and "On call assigned phone" only? 29.) Stagger Iunches for office staff so that coverage is at all times. (Eng., Admin., IT, Acct., etc) 30.) *Assign Administrative Asst. to Field and Production Superintendent to more efficiently handle administrative requirements; or, using Martha as an expediter to resolve repeat questions; Still spending more time assisting Eng, Staff than seems to be necessary. Not January 27, 2009 sure of Martha's role. Thought she was to be lead person to give direction to Lois and Christi. Certain staff is not very cooperative. 31.) Comp time for Supervisors vs. O.T. 32.) Target Safety computer contract — eliminate unless it is required by some regulatory agency. It appears to be inoperable, as far as tracking at this time. 33.) Four Ten hour days for staff; (Not supported by Supervisors) 34.) 9days /80 hours (Supervisors; result in OT reduction); 35.) Have Warehouse or Office purchase bulk First Aid supplies and distribute as needed; thus eliminating Zee service. We are not getting a good deal and often paying for things that are not needed/allowed. If staff have special needs for creams, cleaners, etc. let them bring them from home, or request that those items be added to supply inventory at EV WD. 36.) If no grants available for Plant #150, shelve project for present time and use Intermediate Pressure Zone to supply Lower PZ in the event of Perchlorate issue with wells #11,12 and/or 28. Excess of source water in Int. PZ with the addition of 9151 and #40 at current time. Might buy some time. 37.) Cut all participation in expensive conventions which require time, travel and accommodation cost until crunch eases. 3 Memorandum To: Production Staff CC:: Bob Martin, Ron Buchwald From: Fred Stafford ,y /)9106 Date: 12/19/2008 Re: Production On Call Routes In the interest of doing all the Production Department can do to lower East Valley Water District overtime expenditures, I have revised the On Call routes and paperwork requirements to try to streamline the Weekend work shifts. As each of you know, there are certain State of California reporting requirements that we are obligated to complete every day of the year. Over the past several years we have also tried to be more complete in our in -house data collection over the weekends and holidays. As a result of recent changes in the overall economy, I have tried to come up with a plan that will cut some expense without excessive negative effect on the Production Staff. On January 6, 2009, the Production Staff will be having a meeting in Suite 12 at 2:00 p.m. At that time I will present what I think will be a workable plan. I invite all who attend to feel free to express any and all doubts or concerns, however, my intention is for us to give the plan a try and plan an evaluation meeting 30 -60 days later to bring any issues to the table for further discussion. The Production staff is the Premier group of East Valley Water District employees and a group that has historically performed in an outstanding fashion, even the most demanding of challenges in an excellent manner. The weeks and months ahead may present even more challenges in an uncertain economy, so I appreciate your efforts on behalf of all who stand to benefit from our efforts. 1 ESRI - Products: Reports - ZIP Code Lookup: Results 2008 Summary........ ZIP 92346 — I Nati-onal, Total Population 55,064 309,299,265 Total Households 16,986 116,384,754 2008 Population by Race White Alone 56.1% 72.3% Black Alone 11.3% 12.6% American Indian Alone 1.1% 0.9% Asian or Pacific: Islander Alone7.5% 4.6% Some Other Race Alone 17.5% 6.7% Two or More Races 6.5% 2.9% Hispanic Origin 35.9% 15.4% 2008 Population by Sex Male 49.2% 49.1% Female 50.8% 50.9% 2008 Households by Income Median Household Income $61,481 $54,749 Hh' Income Under $50K 39.5% 45.5% HH Income $50K-$100K 38.3% 34.8% Hh Income Over $100K 22.1% 19.6% 2008 Average Home Value ZIP 92346 National $341,702 $260,559 hU:p://redlandsarcweb.esri.com/seNices/semiet(EBIS—Re ... esribis.com/reports/ziplookup-eror.html&zipcode=92346 [1/28/2009 9:41:38 AM] A digest summarizing California trends in Voter Turnout, Mail Ballot Voting and Other Voting Trends January 2009 Findings in Brief • A record 13.7 million Californians voted in the 2008 presidential election, the largest number of votes ever cast in this or any other state election. This represented a turnout of 79.4% registered voters, the highest since 1976. Turnout in California has now risen in each of the past three presidential elections after an almost continuous thirty-two year de- cline. • Accompanying the record number of votes cast in 2008 was a record number of Californians voting by mail. While the growth of mail ballot voting is a long -term trend, its rate of increase has accelerated in recent years. The Secretary of State's official count of over 5.7 million mail ballot voters in the 2008 election is 1.6 million greater than the num- ber cast in 2004 and more than double the 2.7 million cast in the 2000 presidential election. • Californians' increasing use of mail ballot voting appears to be one of the factors contributing to the state's rebound- ing voter turnout in recent presidential years. Evidence for this can be found in the higher turnout rates of mail ballot voters compared to other registered voters. In the 2008 election, 84.9% of the estimated 6.7 million registered voters issued a mail ballot cast their vote, nine points higher than the 75.9% turnout among all other registered voters not is- sued a mail ballot. • For the fifth consecutive presidential election, the Democratic candidate carried California. This followed a string of six consecutive; GOP victories in the previous twenty-year period 1968 - 1988. Democrat Barack Obama's 61% to 37% victory over Republican John McCain was the largest victory margin for any presidential candidate in this state since 1936. • The growing success of Democratic presidential candidates in California in recent years has been accompanied by an increasing preference for Democratic candidates over GOP candidates in contests for the House of Representatives. In the 2008 election 63.3% of all votes cast in California for major party candidates in House races were for Democrats, while only 36.7% were cast for Republicans, a twenty-seven percentage point plurality. This is three times the De- mocratic pluralities observed in California House races earlier this decade. • There were a number of demographic differences between voters who cast their ballots by mail in 2008 and those who voted at their local polling precincts. • Mail ballot voters were more likely than precinct voters to reside in the nine - county San Francisco Bay Area or in the Central Valley and were much less likely than precinct voters to live in Los Angeles County. • One of the differences that have long characterized mail ballot voters is their older age. While this was again true in 2008, age differences between mail ballot and precinct voters narrowed from past elections. • While precinct voters included a much larger share of Democrats than Republicans, among those voting by mail, the Democrats held only a small edge over the GOP. • Mail ballot voters in 2008 included a larger percentage of conservatives than liberal, while among precinct voters the reverse was true. • A larger proportion of mail ballot voters than precinct voters were white non- Hispanics and women, while precinct voters included a larger share of Latinos and men. • An overwhelming majority (82.6 %) of the estimated 6.7 million mail ballots issued in the 2008 election were to perma- nent mail ballot registrants. The explosive growth in the number of permanent mail ballot recipients is a main factor behind the accelerated use of mail ballot voting in recent years. At present over 5.5 million Californians, 32.2% of the state's total registered voters, are permanent mail ballot registrants. This is more than double the 2.7 million Califor- nians who were permanent mail ballot registrants at the time of the 2004 presidential election. • There is considerable variability across counties in the proportion of registered voters who are permanent mail ballot registrants. For example, in the state's largest county, Los Angeles, just 13% of voters are permanent ballot registrants. In Santa Clara County, the state's fourth largest county, 54% of voters have permanent mail ballot status. • There are significant demographic differences between permanent mail ballot registrants and precinct voters. Com- pared to other registered voters, larger proportions of permanent mail ballot voters are older, white non - Hispanic, live in the San Francisco Bay Area or Central Valley and are women. Copyright 2009, Volume I by Field Research Corporation. (ISSN 027/ -1095) Voter turnout in California presidential Tame r election continues upward trend Voter turnout in California presidential elections A record 13,743,177 Californians voted in the 2008 (1960 - 2008) presidential election, the largest number of votes ever cast in this or any other state election. This repre- sented a turnout of 79.4% of registered voters and 59.2% of all citizen- eligible adults. The tumout fig- ure of 79.4% is the highest achieved in the last eight presidential elections. The election's participation rate of 59.2% of citizen - eligible adults is the highest rate since 1972. Table 1 documents the trend of voter participation in California presidential elections over the past 50 years. The graph shows that during this period voter turnout was highest in the 1960's. Tumout in Cali- fomia declined over the six presidential elections 88,3% as % of Registered Voters 85.7% 88.4% 81.5% 79 4" 82.1% �`'� 74.90/1. 75.3% 0 77.2% ~ -b. 70.90 76. 66.0% 0% ® - 64.5% 72.8% 68.8 %fin' -01-A 65.6% 62.3% '®- 5 ®/1 -® 53.5 % 52.5 %, . �- ' S 0 /0- .® 9.2 o 57.3% 59.1% - -4r -- 57.9% 51 54.5% as % of Eligible Adults between 1972 and 1996, with the exception of a '60 '64 '68 '72 '76 '80 '84 '88 '92' '96 '00 '04 108 slight uptick in 1992. However, turnout has re- Votes bounded since then and has risen in each of the past cast 6.6 7.2 7.4 8.6 8.1 8.8 9.8 19.2 11.4 10.3 11.1 12.6 13.7 (in millions) three presidential elections. Source.' California Secretary rfState, Statements of Vole. Democratic candidates have carried California in each of the past five presi- dential elections For the fifth consecutive time, the Democratic candi- date canned California and its largest in the nation collection of electoral votes. This followed a string of six consecutive GOP victories in the previous twenty -year period 1968 -1988. Democrat Barack Obama's 61% to 37% margin of victory over Republican John McCain in California was the largest victory margin for any presidential candidate in this state since 1936, when Democrat Franklin Roosevelt trounced Republican Alf Landon 67% to 32 %. Table 2 depicts the share of the total votes cast for president in Califomia by party over the past fifty years. Table 2 Trend of votes cast for major party candidates for president in California (1960 - 2008) Democratic candidate 61.1% 59.1% 57.5% 55.0 / 53.5% 54.4% ° 511° 50.1° 47.6% . •.T- � 5277.8 %• 9 .% 44.4 % 80° 1% 464447 .% . 5.1 .0 / 40.8% 41.5% 41.3% $' 41.7% •® 35.9% W 38.2% 37.0% 32.6% Republican candidate '60 '64 '68 '72 '76 '80 '84 '88 '92' '96 '00 '04 '08 Note: In the 1992 electron 20.6 %ofthe vote was cast far the Reform Puny, candidate Ross Perot. Source: California Secretary of Slate, Statements of Vote. iJ Crowing preference for Democratic candidates in Califor- nia House races The recent success of Democratic presidential candidates in California has been accompanied by an increasing preference for Democratic candidates in contests for the House of Representatives. In the 2008 election 63.3% of all votes east statewide for major party candidates in House races were for Democrats, while only 36.7% were cast for Republicans, a twenty- seven percentage point plurality. This is three tunes the Democratic plu- mlines observed in House races in California earlier this decade. In 2000 the total votes cast for Democratic candidates in House races out- numbered those of GOP candidates by ten percentage points (549% to 45.1 %). The Democratic advantage declined slightly in 2002 to a seven percentage point plurality, but increased to an eleven percentage point advantage in the 2004 election. Since then, California voter preferences for Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives have widened considerably. In 2006, an election which saw California reelect Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger as Gov - emor by seventeen percentage points, Democratic candidates running for Congress outpolled Republican candidates by a similarly large seventeen percentage point margin (58.7% to 41.3 %). The Democratic plurality over GOP candidates in House elections across the state widened further in 2008 to a 63.3% to 36.7% margin. Dp r Trend of the aggregate major party votes cast for House of Representatives in California (2000.2008) Democratic candidate 597Y 63.3% 55.3% 45.1900 .......46.4% .....0 . - . . 04.6% m 41.3% ^ ® 36.7% Republican candidate 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 vce National loemal's Hotline for 2000.2106 and Center for the Study of the Areenern Elxtorwe for 2998 A record 5.7 million Californians cast mail ballots in the 2008 presidential election According to the California Secretary of State's official 2008 Statement of Vote, over 5.7 million voters (41.6 %) were counted as mail ballot voters, while about 8 million others (58.4 %) are counted as precinct voters. T•blc4 Mail ballot and precinct voting in California's 2008 presidential election Total votes cast in 2008= 13,743,177 Sourre� Cali mto S'wremry oJ.S'mre. Srnrt-memnJ ✓na 200.'+ Mail ballot voting has accelerated in recent elections In the late 1970's California voting laws were changed to allow any voter the tight to cast their vote by mail. Since then, with each passing presiden- tial election, the official number of California voters who vote by mail has increased over fifteen -fold. Over the past two presidential elections the rate of increase has accelerated. The over 5.7 million mail ballots cast in 2008 exceeded by over 1.6 million the record number of 4.1 million cast in 2004. Table 5 compares the total number of votes cast to the official count of mail ballot votes cast in each presidential election in Cali- fornia since 1976. TOW5 Comparing total votes cast to mail ballot votes cast in California presidential elections (1976 -2008) ftu,,,in Iho, -d/ % 1976 1130 19" 1988 102 19% m 3WC 2008 mail 4.5% 6.3% 6.3% 14.1% 17.f% 20.2% I4.5% II.6% 41.6'/. Se-, L'ol�mm Semrmy fSmte. 9memrna. nf✓n As mail ballot use surges, precinct voting declines Table 6 documents not only the increasing numbers of Californians choos- ing to vote by mail in recent presidential elections, but also the downward trend in precinct voting in those elections. h.6 Changes in the number of precinct and mail ballot voters in California in recent presidential elections +1,617,286 +1,372,232 +654,782 +224,471 +74,008 Precinct Precinct Mail Precinct Mail Mall - 463,792 1996 -2000 2000 -2004 2004 -2008 Change in votes Change in votes Change in votes cast by method cast by method cast by method 3'nuae. ('nl /mho Secre¢�ry o %Smle 3'mlemenv fPo�c. Turnout rate of mail ballot recipients higher than for other registered voters Registered voters who received a mail ballot in the 2008 presidential eleo- lion turned out to vote at a higher rate than other registered voters who did not receive a mail ballot. The official count of 5.7 million mail ballot voters represents an 84.9% turnout of the estimated 6.7 million mail bal- lots issued. This is nine percentage points greater than the 75.9% turnout rate of all other registered voters not issued a mail ballot. 1,01 UPI Comparing voter turnout among Californians issued a mail ballot to all other registered voters Voters issued mail ballots = All other registered voters= 6,736,613 10,567,478 .Soun:r Cah /ornm Aarcrary nf9are..Sm�ement fwmanarrnmoxes a /rNe Col/ mxa ASxx�annn o/ Clerk. nnaP;krnan O�aaG Comparing California's precinct and mail ballot voters in 2008 There were a number of differences between voters who cast their ballots by mail in the 2008 presidential election and those who voted at their local polling precincts. The following is a comparison of precinct voters to mail ballot voters on a number ofdemographic and regional dimensions. A much larger proportion of mail ballot voters than precinct voters in 2008 resided in the nine - county San Francisco Bay Area or in the Central Val- ley. Over a quarter of the state's mail ballot voters (27%) lived in the Bay Area, compared to 19% of the state's precinct voters. Similarly, 18% of those voting by mail lived in the Central Valley vs. 14 %of precinct voters. By contrast, a much smaller proportion of mail ballot voters (14 %) than precinct voters (32 %) were Los Angeles County residents. The gap be- tween the percentage of Los Angeles County voters who voted by mail and those voting at their local precincts widened since the 2004 election, as the county's share of the state's precinct vote climbed four points this year, while its share of the mail ballot vote declined three points. T,WS� Characteristics of precinct and mail ballot voters in California's 2008 presidential election and percentage point changes in share from 2004 election 4 CNmge, nperrenroge .ehomfmm200.1prenarm,mrlernon Source: Colifmia&rremry f&M,.. atemmaof ✓ ore There continues to be partisan differences between the state's precinct voters and mail ballot voters . Precinct voters as a group include a much larger share of registered Democrats (46 %) than Republicans (30 %). By contrast, among those voting by mail Democrats held only a small 41 % to 37% edge over the GOP. The share of precinct ballot voters who were Republican declined from 2004, while the proportion who were non - partisan increased. The GOP's share of all precinct voters in 2008 (30 %) was down five points from the last presidential election. By contrast, the proportion of precinct voters who were registered as non - partisan or with a minor party (24 %) increased four points this year. -- .I nl. en Characteristics of precinct and mail ballot voters in California's 2008 presidential election and percentage point changes in share from 2004 election Parry Registration A Precinct voters Mali ballot voters d Cnange mpem rmnge ehorc /corn 20aJprendrnnal demon Snurn the Fidd Poll. C. Political Ideology 6.2 Mail ballot voters in 2008 included a larger percentage of conservatives (33 %) than liberals (25 %). Among precinct voters the reverse was true, with liberals outnumbering conservatives 33% to 30 %. Compared to 2004, the proportion of California voters describing them- selves as liberal in politics increased this year among both precinct and mail ballot voters in 2008. Utt, & Characteristics of precinct and mail ballot voters in California's 2008 presidential election and percentage point changes in share from 2004 election Political Ideology 4-0 4 A-2 Precinct voters Mall ballot voters d Change moge .+dare %'om 20nfprcndrmm(elecnon .Smrrr. Thc FlWd Pon 44 D. Age One of the differences that have long distinguished mail ballot voters from precinct voters in California is that mail ballot voters have tended to be older than precinct voters. While this was again hue in the 2008 election, the gap between these two types ofvoters narrowed this year. For example, while 53% of mail ballot voters in California in 2008 were age 50 or older, this proportion was down six points from what its share was in 2004. Similarly, while a 57% majority of precinct voters were un- der the age of fifty in 2008, this was six points lower than the share of vot- ers Linder age fifty in the 2004 presidential election. 5 Characteristics of precinct and mail ballot voters in California's 2008 presidential election and percentage point changes in share from 2004 election Age 4 a 4.2 4.a 23% 4 66 or 34 oMer 65 or older 3049. r, j3 mw� 3091 } _ A-2 --- Precinct voters Mall ballot voters d. Chongeinpercenlage .rhorcfrom20a4prueldmltalelemon Source Thc Field Poll E. Race /Ethnicity A somewhat larger proportion of mail ballot voters in 2008 were white non - Hispanics (70 %) than was the case among precinct voters (65 %). Conversely, precinct voters included a larger share of Latinos (23n /o) than mail ballot voters (15 %). T hl[ 8e Characteristics of precinct and mail ballot voters in California's 2008 presidential election and percentage point changes in share from 2004 election 4 4 Race /Ethniety As 12% 5% Blac Black/ Asia AsiaN her Other 4 -3 4.3 40 Precinct voters Mail ballot voters S ' Change lnpercenmge ahar< /rom 200J preridennal elern+m. Sourre. no FlCid Poll F. Gender Mail ballot voters in 2008 included a slightly larger proportion of women (54 %) than did precinct voters (51 %). TAI.ar Characteristics of precinct and mail ballot voters in California's 2008 presidential election and percentage point changes in share from 2004 election 4., Gender 4-1 44 Precinct voters Mail ballot voters So cnonge lnpermnmge Aare /rom200Jprendrnua ( efernan Sourre: Thc FVLId Poll. 4.2 Nearly one in three California registered voters are now permanent mail ballot registrants One of the factors underlying the recent surge in mail ballots in recent California elections relates to the huge growth in the number of registered voters who have now signed up to permanently receive their voting materi- als by mail. According to estimates compiled by the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, slightly more than 5.5 million or 32.2e %9 of the state's total 17.3 million registered voters are now permanent mail ballot registrants. T.Alk ss Share of California registered voters who are permanent mail ballot recipients (2008) 11,738,916 (67.8 %) 5,565,105 (12.2 %) Total registered voters In California = 17,304,091 .bur .00 /are COO /ram Art.... �Uerp anae /ecnnn Vp,nnlr. Rapid growth in permanent mail ballot registration In 2001 state law was changed to allow any voter the tight to pennanend: receive their ballots by mail. In the relatively short seven -year period sine, then, the popularity of this alternative has skyrocketed. At the time of th general election in 2002, a little more than 1.2 million voters had signed ui to be permanent mail ballot recipients. That number had increased nearl; fivefold to more than 5.5 million at the time of the 2008 presidential elec tion. Growth in permanent mail ballot registration status of California voters (2000 -2008) 5,565,105 3,994,465 2,711,649 1,235,133 279,20'7 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 o el registered voters 1.8% 8.1% 16.4% 25.4•/. 322•/. Sconce California S:cr<,aryof.Sm,e, Caejom,a Ann cfClerksa Hlecnon Officials — 6 Permanent mail ballot registrants comprise the lion's share of all mail ballots issued in 2008 According to estimates compiled by the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, more than 6.7 million mail ballots were issued in the 2008 general election. An overwhelming majority of all mail ballots issued (82.6 %) were to permanent mail ballot registrants. Another 12.2% were sent to voters who filled out a request form for a mail ballot specifi- cally for this election, while 5.2% were issued to other types of mail ballot voters. Ta le I I Permanent mail ballot voters as percentage of all mail ballots issued in the 2008 election Other' 149,122 (5.2 %) Total mail ballots Issued in 2008 = 6,736,613 •O,b <rmalud,, mmlbal (odreyvee,edarrounryRegrs,mr'x nsouer de counrer, ondballnu,uued,n f derol mllnaryandnwrsenryersmn<( Spurn: amm�rts o /,he Cn4 /ormn ACSrKmnnn n /Cloks nnd[len,nn 0�emis. Share ofpermanent mail ballot registrants varies consid- erably across the state's counties While nearly one in three registered voters statewide (32.2%) now hold permanent mail ballot registration status, there is considerable variability by county. Los Angeles, which is by far the state's largest county, has just 13% of its voters signed up as permanent mail ballot recipients. By contrast, Santa Clara County, the state's fourth largest county, has a proportion that is more than four times as large (54 %). The proportion of mail ballot regis- trants in the other three largest counties ranges from 34% in Orange County, to 38% in San Diego County to 41% in Alameda County. The number of permanent mail ballot registrants has been growing across all counties, but the rate of growth since the last presidential election varies considerably. For example, in Santa Clara County the number of perma- nent mail ballot voters increased thirty -nine percentage points between 2004 and 2008 — from 15% to its current 54% share. By contrast, the rate of increase has been much slower in Los Angeles County, where the num- ber of permanent mail ballot voters increased eight percentage points from 5% four years ago to its current 13% level. Big differences between permanent mail ballot registrants and other regislrams There are large differences between the demographics of Californians who have chosen to become permanent mail ballot recipients and those who have not. The following tables describe these differences on a number of dimensions. A. Regional Differences As a percentage of the state's total 5.5 million permanent mail ballot regis- trants, just 10% live in Los Angeles County. This compares to Los Ange- les County's 32% share of all other registered voters who are not petma- nem; mail ballot registrants. By contrast, the nine- county San Francisco Bay Area accounts for a much larger share of the state's permanent mail ballot registrants (29 %) than of other registered voters (17%). In addition, compared to all other voters, somewhat larger proportions of permanent mail ballot registrants live in the Central Valley or other areas of the ste outside the states two largest metropolitan areas. Comparing the demographic characteristics of California's permanent mail ballot registrants to all other registered voters Region 8r% 43% Rest of Rest of CA OA Valley INFAW \1 / Valley Not a permanent mall Permanent mall ballot registrant ballot registrants .6ura-: uxammee fhe Calfmm AvmaaanofCler &onEEleaaon0f'iaaa. There is a relatively narrow four -point Democratic advantage over the GOP among permanent mail ballot voters (42% to 38 %). By contrast, the partisan gap is fifteen points among registered voters who are not perma- nent mail ballot registrants (44% Democratic vs. 29% Republican). The proportion of permanent mail ballot registrants who are registered as non- partisan or with a minor party is somewhat smaller (20 %) than their share of other registered voters who do not receive their voting materials by mail TAI, Ole Comparing the demographic characteristics of California's permanent mail ballot registrants to all other registered voters Field Poll surveys conducted in 2008 show that permanent mail ballot recipients are slightly more conservative in politics than other registered voters in California. Among permanent mail ballot recipients 32% de- scribe themselves as conservative in politics, 44% moderate or middle-of- the-road and 24% liberal. Among all other registered voters, 29% say they are conservative, 47% are moderate and 24% are liberal. - 17 Comparing the demographic characteristics of California's permanent mail ballot registrants to all other registered voters D. Age Compared to other registered voters in California, a much larger propor- tion of permanent mail ballot voters are age 65 or older. Nearly three in ten permanent mail ballot voters (29%) are seniors, about twice their propor- don among all other registrants (15 01o). A 58% majority ofpetmanent mail ballot voters are age fifty or older. Conversely, among voters who are not permanent mail ballot registrants, a majority (58 %) are under age 50. I Me ud Comparing the demographic characteristics of California's permanent mail ballot registrants to all other registered voters Age Comparing the demographic characteristics of California's permanent mail ballot registrants to all other registered voters Race/Ethnicity 15% 65 or 29% 55 er older Not a permanent mall Permanent mall ballot registrant ballot registrants Sornre: The Field Poll. 2008 F Gender 4older 29 % so -64 permanent mail ballot registrants include a slightly larger proportion ofwomen (56 %) than other registered voters (52 %). Not a permanent mail Permanent mail 101, 13 Comparing the demographic characteristics of California's ballot registrant ballot registrants permanent mail ballot registrants to all other registered voters Sov.<e The Field Poll, 1008 E. Race /Ethnicity About three in four of the state's permanent mail ballot recipients (74 %) are white non - Hispanic, significantly greater than the proportion of other registrants who are non - Hispanic (61 %). Conversely, permanent mail ballot recipients include smaller proportions of Latinos or voters who are Slack, Asian or are members of other racial subgroups. Gender Not a permanent mail Permanent mail ballot registrant ballot registrants &iooe The Field Poll. 1008 About The Field Poll and Field Research Corporation The Field (California) Poll has operated continuously since 1947 as an independent and non - partisan media - sponsored public opinion poll which focuses on the state of California. Through its regularly scheduled statewide surveys, The Field Poll tracks voter preferences in major statewide can- didate and proposition election contests, assesses public opinion about elected officials and major issues facing the state, obtains public reaction to political, economic and social events, and covers other special topics of general public interest. Throughout its long history, The Field Poll has earned a reputation as a reliable and authoritative source of public opinion trends in California. News stories quoting The Field Poll appear regularly in national and international media, as well as by California's local newspapers and television stations. References to findings from the poll have appeared in thousands of published works by scholars, political and social writers. The Field Poll is owned and operated by Field Research Corporation, one of the West Coast's oldest and largest marketing and public opinion re- search organizations. The firm conducts local, regional and national opinion research projects in the public and private sectors. Field Research spe- cializes in full- service research, typically executing all project phases from initial conceptualization and design through data analysis and reporting. Field Research specialists are highly skilled in all aspects of survey research. Areas of proven expertise include research design, sample selection, questionnaire development, data collection, data processing, qualitative and quantitative data analysis, expert testimony in court proceedings, as well as Spanish and Asian language interviewing. High quality data gathering and data management services are also offered on a stand -alone basis. Field Research has a large and well- maintained computer - assisted telephone interviewing facility, full reproduction capabilities for mail surveys, long experience in conducting in- person interviews in malls, health clinics and government service sites, and a state -of -the -art in -house data process- ing and tabulation center. Field Research is a long -time member of the Council of American Survey Research Organizations (CASRO) and the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) and subscribes to their codes of professional standards and ethics. Findings from Field Research surveys have been accepted as evidence in a wide range of legal jurisdictions, including both federal and state appellate coups in California. Field Research Corporation, 601 California Street, Suite 900, San Francisco, CA 94108 415- 392 -5763 www.field.com East Valley Water District Mail Ballot Election Information Background: California Elections Code section 4000 permits special district to conduct its election by mail ballot in accordance with sections 1500, 4104, 4105, and 4108. Elections Code section 10404 requires that a resolution requesting a change of election dates be submitted to the Board of Supervisors by March 9, 2009. Mail Ballot Election Advantages: • Cost of Election is less — Estimated Cost $70,000 • Eliminates cost for poll workers • Eliminates delivery cost for voting material to polling places • Eliminates cost for election night ballot processing • Sample Ballot is mailed with the official ballot • Voter Turnout is usually high for vote by mail elections a The most recent mail ballot elections average 45% turnout Ballots are mailed to voters 29 days before the election Return postage paid return envelope provided to voters • District may establish a central drop off location for voters who do not want to return their ballots in the mail Semi- Official Election Night Results released at 8:30 pm. • Further reduction of cost when other jurisdictions consolidate • Voters make the final decision regarding to determine if future elections are conducted by mail ballot. The law requires the first election conducted by mail ballot to include the following ballot question: "Shall the mail ballot be used to conduct all future general district elections? Mail Ballot Election Date mandated by Elections Code: o August 25, 2009 —Nomination period of May 4 —May 29 Term of Office commences in the usual manner at noon on the first Friday in December. Disadvantages: o Some voters may prefer to vote at a polling place East Valley Water District Past/ Future Election Cost Information: • November 2005 — $78,000 (touch screen system /More jurisdictions to share cost) • November 2007 - $200 (No Election due to insufficient nominees) • November 2009 - $186,000 (Estimated cost for polling place election /less districts to share cost and paper ballot requirement increase cost) • August Mail Ballot Election - $70,000 (No polling places required)