CONTRA COSTA WATER
DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
November 29, 2006
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
President
Campbell called to order an adjourned regular meeting of the Board of Directors
of the Contra Costa Water District at 6:30 p.m., at 1331 Concord Avenue, Concord,
the regular meeting place of the Board.
ROLL
CALL
Directors Present: Joseph
L. Campbell, President
Elizabeth
R. Anello, Vice President
Bette Boatmun
John
A. Burgh
Karl
L. Wandry
General Manager: Walter
J. Bishop
Legal
Counsel: Robert
B. Maddow
District
Secretary: Sharon
L. Burris
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Principal Planner Fran Garland led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Mr. Bishop reported that there were no changes to the
agenda. He referenced Agenda Item
No. 5 – Contra Costa Canal Replacement Project and noted that there was a memo
before the Board proposing that the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
include new language for page 3-77, which would replace the existing language
PUBLIC COMMENT
President Campbell asked if there
were any public comments. There were no
public comments.
CONSENT
1.
Approve the minutes of November 1, 2006.
2.
Approve the warrant register dated November 30, 2006.
3. Adopt the San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water
Management Plan.
4. Authorize execution of a contract with
Carbon Activated for the procurement and installation of granular activated
carbon in the Bollman Water Treatment Plant Filter Media Project in the amount
of $331,773, with a 10% change order authority of $33,177, for a total amount
not to exceed $364,950.
MOTION: Boatmun/Anello to
approve the consent calendar. The motion
carried by a unanimous voice vote.
ACTION
5. Contra Costa
Canal Replacement Project
a. Conduct a public
hearing;
b. Consider public
comments received at the hearing;
c. Adopt Resolution No. 06-35 adopting a
Mitigated Negative Declaration; approving the Contra Costa Canal Replacement
Project; and, adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Mr.
Bishop advised that Water Resources Manager Dr. David Briggs would be giving a
presentation on the status of the project.
He reported that the District had been working on the project for over
five years. The primary purposes of the
project are to reduce significant flood risk to adjacent properties and improve
water quality. The first phase of the project,
a very small portion of the four miles, was being funded by the state of California.
Mr.
Bishop reminded the Board that an agreement was negotiated with the developers
as part of the Cypress Corridor. He
reported that the developers would be paying $2500 per home to extend the
lining in two portions. The developers
would not be paying CCWD for improvements to the area being discussed at this
meeting until the levee had been constructed.
President
Campbell explained the meeting process for attendees at the meeting.
Dr.
Briggs reported that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
documentation for the project was complete.
In accordance with CEQA, staff had conducted an Initial Study and issued
a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The District had received several comments on
the document and staff had revised and made changes to the MND where appropriate. He advised that the findings of the MND
indicated that there was no substantial evidence in the record that the project
would have a significant effect on the environment. Using a map, he identified the project and
the four miles of the unlined canal. He
noted that the near term actions were on the west side and that the District
would not proceed on the eastern portion until funding was received.
Dr.
Briggs reported that eight letters were received from public agencies and the
majority of the comments related to wetlands and species mitigation. Reclamation District 799 (RD 799) commented
on the construction phasing, flood protection and commitments under the 2002
License Agreement between RD 799 and CCWD.
He reviewed the comments and reported how they were addressed. Several biological mitigation measures were
enhanced to address the biological resource issues. CCWD committed to create 47 acres of wetlands
and ensure that sensitive plants encountered during construction would be
relocated. CCWD had also committed to
additional pre-construction surveys for sensitive nesting birds. Through negotiations with regulatory agencies,
CCWD had reached resolution with work windows and appropriate buffer zones and
set-back distances for sensitive species that may be encountered during
construction. Dr. Briggs noted that non-biological comment letters were received
from the Contra Cost County Flood District and East Bay Regional Park
District.
Dr.
Briggs addressed RD 799 concerns and noted that CCWD had added additional
information to the record with the proposed revision to page 3-77. He advised that CCWD reconfirmed the
commitments and rights under the 2002 License Agreement that specifically
referred to the project. CCWD referenced the agreement with the East
Cypress Corridor Specific Plan developer group that describes construction of a
flood control levee parallel to the existing canal. Using a map he identified Veale Tract, Rock
Slough and Hotchkiss Tract (RD 799).
Dr.
Briggs reviewed the fiscal impacts for the project and noted that construction
would be phased based on available funding.
CCWD was committed to approximately $3.6 million with most of the
funding coming from outside sources. He
indicated that this was consistent with the FY07 and FY08 Budget and the
Capital Improvement Program (CIP). A
review of the schedule indicated that the design was anticipated to be
completed in late spring 2007 and construction would begin in the summer or
fall of 2007.
Responding
to a question from Mr. Bishop concerning how much of the project this phase included, Dr. Briggs advised that it
was for approximately 3,000 feet of the project on the west side. Mr. Bishop commented that the area was near
Pump Station No. 1.
Dr.
Briggs reviewed the recommended action for Board consideration.
President
Campbell asked if there were questions for Dr. Briggs.
Director
Boatmun had a question concerning the memo and letter before the Board referencing
a letter that was sent last week where the District agreed to make some of the
changes on page 3-77. Mr. Bishop advised that the letter was sent in
May. Responding to Director Boatmun’s
question concerning when the changes were made, Mr. Bishop advised that the
changes were made on November 29.
Director Boatmun referenced page 3-77, item “i’ where the language was
stricken and asked why it was stricken. Mr. Bishop noted that the language had nothing
to do with this project and that it was not requested by RD 799. Director Boatmun asked what RD 799 was
requesting. Mr. Bishop indicated that RD
799 would be speaking later during the meeting.
President
Campbell asked if there were any other questions for the presenter. There were no other questions.
President
Campbell opened the public hearing at 6:44 p.m.
President
Campbell acknowledged and welcomed Mr. Rod A. Attebery and invited him to
address the Board.
Mr.
Attebery identified himself as Rod Attebery, with the law firm of Neumiller
& Beardslee, 509 West Weber
Avenue, Stockton, CA. He indicated that he was representing RD 799
and noted that Mia Brown, an associate from the law firm, and RD 799 Board
President Joe Spotts were also present.
Mr.
Attebery commented that he had worked with CCWD staff attempting to resolve the
concerns raised by RD 799 in their May letter responding to the Mitigate Negative
Declaration (MND). He advised that RD
799 supported the project and was very much in favor of the encasement of the
canal. Mr. Attebery reported that it is
not the project that RD 799 opposed but the timing of the project. He
advised RD 799 was present at the meeting due to the concern for flooding and
protection from flooding. He indicated
that CCWD staff had been helpful but this was the one issue they were having
trouble reaching agreement.
Mr.
Attebery reiterated that RD 799 was concerned about timing. He commented that the License Agreement with
the United States Bureau of Reclamation and CCWD was silent as to timing of the
use or alignment or change in ownership with respect to the canal.
Director
Wandry requested that the map used earlier in the presentation be placed on the
screen showing the boundaries of RD 799.
The map was placed on the screen.
Mr.
Attebery continued that the MND was also silent as to timing. He noted that the CCWD’s project manager and
general manager had indicated that it is the timing with respect to the
interior levees that were to be built by the developers of the residential
development within the reclamation district.
It was not clear whether that would occur first or the lining of the
canal and the removal of the east bank would occur first. He noted that the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) that was before Contra
Costa County,
with respect to the specific plan that required the internal levees to be built,
was silent as to timing. The document
was silent as to whether the removal of the left bank and construction of the
levee occurred prior to the construction of the encasement project or whether
the levees occur subsequent to that project.
RD 799’s suggested revision would clarify this issue.
Mr.
Attebery indicated that through contact with CCWD staff that it was indicated
that the intent was for the project to begin subsequent to the internal levees
being built or at least the berm.
Referencing the schedule for the project, he commented that the
likelihood of that occurring was very likely.
He noted that the general manager indicated that the funding would come
after the internal levees were built and that everyone verbally and theoretically
agreed.
Mr.
Bishop stated that that is what is in the agreement. Mr. Attebery asked where it was in the
agreement. Mr. Bishop clarified that it
was in the developers’ agreement with CCWD.
He stated that the developers would fund the District $2500 per house
for this canal replacement area after they build the levees.
Mr.
Attebery commented that this was in writing with an agreement that CCWD had
with the developers but was not clearly outlined and identified in the MND nor
was it in the License Agreement with RD 799.
He commented that the language was key and that it needed to be included
in the MND. He noted that the License
Agreement specifically addressed the east bank with respect to the east bank
being the secondary flood protection for RD 799. The License Agreement provided specific
language that it was in the interest of RD 799 to maintain the east bank of the
canal project because it provided flood protection. He indicated that there was no disagreement
that it would be secondary to the canal but it did provide flood
protection.
Mr.
Attebery advised that he had been working with CCWD staff and thought an
agreement had been reached. He advised
that a letter was sent to the general manager, which he would make available to
the clerk to make a part of the administrative record that outlined the
language they proposed. He advised that RD
799 made additional changes to the language and that language was subsequently
rejected. The general manager had provided
the letter before the Board with additional changes. He advised that those changes were not
acceptable to RD 799. The changes that were
acceptable to RD 799 were to change the same section in the letter from the general
manager but specifically identify that the project, with respect to removal of
the east bank would happen second. He
added that the levee and berm must proceed this project and that that language was
not contained in any document. He
advised that he had a letter from the law firm on behalf of RD 799 identifying
the changes. The letter was made
available to the Board.
Director
Wandry asked Mr. Attebery to identify the area he was specifically concerned
with on the map. Mr. Attebery identified
the area and identified the area where the general manager and project manager
had identified the internal levees would be. Director Wandry asked if it was the whole
area. Mr. Attebery responded yes, in
addition they are required to construct an internal levee that runs around the
entire housing development of the project.
Mr.
Attebery noted that most of what he provided in comments was in the
letter. He advised that RD 799 submitted
comments to the MND in May and encouraged the Board to make changes to the
document.
Mr.
Attebery advised that page 4 of the letter he made available to the Board contained
the requested changes from RD 799. He
reiterated that RD 799 was requesting changes to section “i” and that the
changes were underlined. Mr. Attebery
read the changes and stated that the first change identified “that for the
purposes of this project and the impact analysis that the area slated for
residential development adjacent to the canal are assumed for the purposes of
this document, for the purposes of this analysis and for the purpose of this
project are assumed to have or will construct new levees for flood protection
prior to the removal of the existing berms of the canal for the Canal
Encasement Project.” Mr. Attebery
reminded the Board that RD 799 was in support of the project and did not oppose
it. He suggested that the new language specifically
says prior to removing the berm, or removing the east bank that the levees needed
to be constructed.
Mr.
Attebery advised that the last change near the bottom of the document was
consistent with the change from CCWD staff and that it was not prompted by RD
799. It was kept in and reassured CCWD that
RD 799 was supporting and willing to work collaborative on the project. He then read the statement “CCWD and RD 799
continue its understanding with respect to the November 20, 2002 License Agreement
between Reclamation District RD 799 and CCWD.” Mr. Attebery noted that
those were the two sentences that RD 799 was asking the Board to consider and take
action on.
Mr.
Attebery advised that the letter goes through the comments on the MND and
clearly indicates that RD 799 did not believe that those comments were
adequately addressed at the time that they were made. He further advised that RD 799 would not
support the MND without the changes. He noted that this language clarified the
intent and clarified the specific language that staff had raised. It clarified that language that is provided
for in the developer agreement between CCWD and the residential developers and
put it in writing. It also gave RD 799
something in writing as to when the project would occur. He advised that with the change RD 799 would
go on the record at this meeting and withdraw its comments and fully support
the project and the MND.
Mr.
Attebery stated that he would be happy to answer any questions.
President
Campbell commented that Mr. Attebery had made his position very clear to him
and that he fully understood what they were trying to accomplish.
President
Campbell advised that the public hearing was still open and asked if anyone
else would like to speak on the item.
Mr. Attebery requested to reserve time for rebuttal if necessary.
Mr.
Maddow introduced himself as Counsel for the District. He referenced an underscored phrase on the
proposed revision to page 3-77 by RD 799 and indicated that it stated “prior to
the removal of the existing berms of the canal for the Canal Encasement Project.” He indicated that he understood throughout
Mr. Attebery’s verbal comments that he was speaking about one of the
berms. The suggestion that was being
made was that he was addressing both of them and asked for clarification on the
actual request.
Mr.
Attebery apologized and indicated that he would be receptive to revising the
language to indicate that it was the berm with respect to the area fronting and
the berm and the east bank of the canal that borders RD 799. He clarified that it was the internal levees
that were required to provide full flood protection for the residential
development and it is the removal of that berm and it is one berm. He commented that it was a typographical
error that berm had been stated as plural.
He apologized to the Board and indicated that would be happy to revise the
language to a singular berm that fronted RD 799 that was of concern.
Director
Wandry indicated that he had two questions before there was more input. He
questioned what the License Agreement had to do with environmental impact. Mr. Attebery replied that he did not think it
does. Director Wandry stated that he was
suggesting that the Board include it in the revision. Mr. Attebery noted that the License Agreement
was in the reference in the section proposed by staff. He explained that it was left in because the
dialogue with staff had indicated that the License Agreement between RD 799 and
CCWD dictated what would and would not be done and what CCWD obligations and
requirements were with respect to maintaining the area and RD 799 with
continuing use of the canal, changing ownership, change of alignment. It was contemplated five years ago that this
project would be before the Board. It
was also contemplated that RD 799 would be moving its borders up to the canal in
an attempt to make sure that there was clarification as to what the
responsibilities were with respect to the border of the canal the License
Agreement was entered into. Staff had
made it very clear to the attorney and to RD 799 that the license agreement was
the key document identifying the obligations of the parties. He commented that in an attempt to hear CCWD staff
concerns with respect to this as outside of the license agreement it was
included in the environmental document. He
commented that the revision came from CCWD staff. He indicated that he had no problem with
removing it. RD 799’s concern was the
timing of when the Canal Encasement Project occurs vs. when the internal levees
would occur. The only language of
significance with respect to the environmental issue was the middle portion of
the revisions that address the timing.
Director
Wandry asked that if the encasement project goes ahead of the new levees, if
Mr. Attebery was suggesting that RD 799 would take on the responsibility of
maintaining the eastern berm. Mr. Bishop
advised that according to the License Agreement they would. Mr. Attebery commented that they do so now. He further advised that they had been since
the implementation of the agreement and since the movement of the borders. They maintain and use it as part of their
flood control obligation to the District.
He also indicated that if CCWD encases and leaves the berm, RD 799 would
continue to have that obligation. Once
the levees were constructed there would not be a need to maintain the berm and
they would come back before the Board to see what needed to be done with the berm.
Director
Wandry commented that with removal of the water from the inside of the berm
there would be the possibility of sloughing because water pressure maintains
part of the berm. He asked if RD 799
would completely regrade the berm. Mr.
Attebery advised that this would need to be a discussion for a later date. He indicated that should the District
complete the encasement project prior to the construction of the levees that he
did not know what would happen to the berm.
Director
Wandry suggested that there were more timing considerations than Mr. Attebery brought
up in the case. Mr. Attebery indicated
that he did not disagree and that they were 100% eliminated with the
construction of the internal levees.
Director
Wandry asked when RD 799 expected the internal levees to be in place. Mr. Attebery responded that he did not
know. He commented that the developers
were in control as to when the project would move forward.
Director
Wandry asked if RD 799 had a separate development agreement with the developers. Mr. Attebery
responded that they did. Director Wandry
asked what was in the agreement. Mr. Atterbey
advised that the agreement did not speak to timing of this project. The agreement addressed costs associated with
the levees, the alignment and design criteria associated with the levees, and
continued maintenance of the levees.
Director Wandry asked how the environmental document for that project
addresses this. Mr. Attebery advised
that it recognized that the canal may be encased some time. It also did not address the timing issue of
which would come first. He indicated
that every document other than the developer agreement was silent with respect
to which came first, encasement or internal levees. The environmental document does require and
talk about time with respect to development of homes, but it does not talk
about it with respect to the encasement project.
Director
Wandry asked how RD 799 addressed their concerns in the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR). Director Wandry clarified
that he was speaking about the EIR on the project itself and the fact that it
did not address the timing of the levee.
Mr. Attebery responded that because the encasement project was not a
project seeking approval through Contra Costa County at the time that there was
no need to address the timing issue. The
timing issue that was addressed with Contra Costa County and had several
mitigation measures added to the EIR was with respect to the Contra Costa
Specific Plan and RD 799’s concern over flooding issues. They did not feel a need to address the
timing issue of the encasement project.
Although mentioned in the EIR, the encasement project had not been
approved nor was it being contemplated for approval before Contra Costa
County.
Director
Wandry asked if he thought that the existing EIR for the project, the License
Agreement, covered RD 799’s concerns.
Mr. Attebery responded that it does not because it was missing that one
element, the element of which comes first.
None of the documents clearly identify that and that was why the
proposed language was before the Board.
Director
Wandry expressed his disappointment that RD 799 was not more thorough with the
EIR. Mr. Attebery expressed that they
were very thorough and their comments were lengthy. There was much discussion with the developers
and the reclamation district. They
attended the City of Oakley public hearing and made comments on the
record. The City of Oakley made changes
to their document at the hearing and accepted all of the changes that RD 799
requested. RD 799 supported the project
with those changes being made. He
advised that RD 799 took it very seriously and thoroughly reviewed the
EIR. The encasement project was not an
issue that was before them that evening.
Director
Wandry stated that there was still a timing issue relative to the development
aside from the encasement project. He
asked if it was silent on that. Mr.
Attebery replied no. That it was not
silent with respect to the development.
The development and the timing with respect to when the levees are
constructed was very clear within the specific plan. Director Wandry expressed that it would
appear that it would cover “the whole ball of wax.” Mr. Attebery responded that it did not and
explained the differences. The specific
plan specifically says that before you build house will build levees. This is not what the encasement project
says. It doesn’t say before we do the
encasement project, before we remove the east bank and east bank berm, the
levees will be built and that is the problem.
President
Campbell asked for a show of hands for others who would like to speak. He advised that he did not see any hands in
the audience.
President
Campbell asked if staff if they would like to respond.
Mr. Bishop
gave the history beginning in 2002 when RD 799 proposed an annexation to the
midline of the canal. He advised that
CCWD was going to oppose the annexation because they wanted to annex federal
property, a federal canal that was not designed or built for flood protection. He referenced the map and identified the
flood protection for Hotchkiss Tract as the Veale Tract levee. He advised that was the primary flood control
levee for any kind of intrusion coming from that direction, not the canal.
Mr.
Bishop reported that CCWD met with RD 799 and negotiated a license. The license language says that as part of RD
799 assuming maintenance of the east berm, that they will cooperate and
coordinate and in no way obstruct CCWD from any construction project. CCWD agreed to minimize any damages to the
east berm. Mr. Bishop reiterated the basis
of the license was that if RD 799 wishes to assume the maintenance and the
heavy construction on something that wasn’t designed for flood. The primary purpose described in the
agreement was water transportation. The
reason they supported the project is the biggest risk was the water coming out
the CCWD’s canal flooding their property.
Mr.
Bishop disagreed with Mr. Attebery’s statement that staff requested that the language
be put back in concerning the License Agreement. He reported that the last language he sent to
Mr. Attebery took it out and that Mr. Attebery had it put back in. He sent to Mr. Bishop today some language he
was negotiating on his own with CCWD staff.
In one of the sentences CCWD corrected what was referenced to as a typo,
the entire project berms.
Mr.
Bishop advised that CCWD would be going back to the agreement and outlined what
the agreement stated. He reiterated that
CCWD had an agreement with the developers that states that they will not pay CCWD
money to replace this portion of the project until they have built the internal
levees for the facility we wish to install.
He advised that CCWD has an agreement that says that we will minimize damage
to the facilities. The District believes
that the record is complete and the License Agreement and developer agreement
stand on their own.
President
Campbell asked Mr. Attebery if he would like to rebut.
Mr.
Attebery stated that the arguments made by Mr. Bishop clearly call for why the
Board should accept this language and make the change this evening. He indicated that the developer agreement
spells it out, the license agreement in their interpretation spells it out and
that the environmental document before the Board should be consistent, and that
it was not. He noted that it does not
say anywhere in the mitigation measure which would come first. He indicated that conversations with staff
indicated that the levee would come first.
He reiterated that in May they brought up the timing issue.
Mr.
Attebery noted that the language that Mr. Bishop was referring to, with respect
to cooperating, was on page 4 of the License Agreement, paragraph 9. Mr. Attebery read the sentence. It says that “RD 799 shall not oppose and
shall not cooperate with any such change in ownership, use, configuration or
operation.” Mr. Bishop asked that Mr.
Attebery read the next sentence. Mr.
Attebery read that “nothing in this license shall be construed to provide RD
799 with real property ownership interest or statutory authority over any
portion of the canal.” Mr. Bishop
interjected that the use of the east bank and right-of-way shall not obstruct
impede in any manner or interfere with the construction, operation and
maintenance of the canal. Mr. Attebery
did not disagree. He noted that the
encasement project could move forward once the levees were built. He stated that the berm, although secondary,
acts as flood prevention and that RD 799 had an interest in it and wanted to
see it maintained and this was the purpose for them being before the Board.
Mr.
Attebery commented that when the levees were built that the importance of the
berm would go away. He also commented
that the analyses in the MND assumed that the levees would have been built
prior to construction of the encasement project. He indicated that no one was in disagreement
with that and asked that it be made clear.
Mr. Attebery asked why not make the MND consistent with that. Mr. Bishop stated that it was not needed it
was part of the record.
President
Campbell commented that the Board would make the decision. He asked Mr. Attebery if he had been fairly
heard.
Mr.
Attebery addressed the typos referenced earlier on page 3-77 of the MND and
referenced the language referring to the License Agreement. He commented that RD 799 could leave it in or
take it out. He agreed with Mr. Bishop
that by striking it that it does not change the environmental setting of the MND. The language with respect to berms and the
project with respect to the pipeline was important. He indicated that the dialogue that he had
with staff indicated that the project would come after the internal levees were
built. He implored upon the Board to
make this consistent in the MND.
Director
Boatmun asked if he indicated earlier that he had not seen the agreement
between CCWD and the developers. Mr.
Attebery replied that he had not seen the developer agreement. Director Boatmun indicated that the timing
issue was included in the agreement. She
asked if he were to be provided a copy of the agreement, would that take care
of the concern. Mr. Attebery replied no,
because you would still have an inconsistent document with the developer
agreement. He opined that if it was
spelled out in the agreement that the MND should be consistent. Mr. Bishop advised that it was not
inconsistent. He stated that RD 799
wanted CCWD to reiterate in the CEQA document what was in other documents and
agreements. Mr. Attebery replied that
that was incorrect. He advised that
what he wants the CEQA document to do was what CEQA was intended to do, which
was to fully identify how the analysis was conducted. What he wanted the CEQA document to do was to
provide full information before the Board this evening. He opined that without the language he
proposed that the Board did not have the full information before them.
Mr.
Bishop referred to Mr. Attebery’s testimony which was at a public hearing,
which was the record, and his letter, which he said he would like to add the
language “prior to.” Mr. Bishop asked Mr.
Attebery if he believed that the language was not before the Board and not part
of the record and not part of the CEQA process they were
going through. Mr. Attebery replied that
they had it before them but that they hadn’t acted on that yet. If the Board recognized that the project
would occur subsequent to the levees then it is in the record, then they have
acted on it. They had the information
before them and that is the process of the project and CEQA. The question was would they act on it and say
that the analysis for the purposes of this MND specifically stated that it was
“prior” or “subsequent”.
Director
Wandry advised that the consideration of any comment is in fact acting on it by
CEQA standards. He also advised that
there was nothing in CEQA that says that other documents need to be recited. He noted that the District has a standing
document with RD 799 with the developers that address the timing issues. It was not necessary to have this
specifically related in the CEQA document.
He asked Mr. Attebery if RD 799 was going to ask for a full EIR if their
comments were not included in the MND.
Mr. Attebery responded that he had not taken it back to RD 799’s
Board. Mr. Wandry stated that the
District needed to know if this was the case. He opined that the document was clear as far
as he was concerned with the revised wording that the Board had been provided
with by staff. He advised that any other
information was peripheral and unnecessary for analyzing the impacts. He stated that he saw no reason to include
what RD 799 was asking. He stated that
it did not clarify anything as far as he was concerned relative to the CEQA
document.
Mr.
Attebery noted if the Board was acting on the assumption that this project
would occur subsequent to the internal levees that there would be no reason
that the District should not insert the language. Director Wandry stated that he was not acting
on any assumption. He was acting on the
basis that existing documents were a matter of public record and they do not
have to be reiterated in the MND.
President
Campbell asked Mr. Attebery if he presented what he had wanted to and if he had
been fairly heard by the Board. Mr.
Attebery responded that he had been.
President Campbell asked if there was any other persons who would like
to speak during the public hearing.
RD 799
Board Chair Joseph Spotts, P.O. Box 520, Bethel Island, CA addressed the
Board. He referenced Mr. Bishop’s
comment that RD 799 annexed the canal into the reclamation district boundary. He
stated that the canal was always in the reclamation district. Mr. Bishop stated that it was annexed to the
mid-point of the canal when the reclamation boundary change was made in 2002,
when the license agreement was negotiated.
Mr.
Spotts commented that the RD 799 was in support of CCWD’s project and needed
clarification as to when those things would occur. President Campbell advised Mr. Spotts that
his comment was noted for the record.
President
Campbell acknowledged another speaker and invited him to the podium.
Owen
Poole, Real Estate Services, 151 Spy Rock Ct., Walnut Creek, CA. Mr. Poole stated that he represented the
three developers on the tract in question.
He stated that he did not have a copy of the agreement he signed with
CCWD but believed the agreement speaks to when the developers would fund the
agreement. He opined that it was silent
on the timing issue. Mr. Bishop agreed
and stated that the agreement says that the developers would pay CCWD after
they build the internal levee. Mr. Owen
advised that he thinks that it was not necessarily clear exactly when the
funding would occur and that there could still be an issue in terms of timing.
President
Campbell thanked Mr. Owen and noted that the comment would be accepted. He noted that the public hearing was still
open and asked if anyone else would like to speak to the Board. No one else addressed the Board.
President
Campbell closed the public hearing at 7:37 p.m.
President
Campbell asked if there were any staff comments. Mr. Bishop advised that there were no staff
comments. President Campbell put the
matter before the Board for deliberation.
Director
Wandry stated that RD 799 concerns were important but that they were very well
protected in terms of what would happen to the eastern berm in due time. He opined that protection and the documents
were in place. There was no need to reiterate
it several times. In terms of the
license agreement, it was not an environmental question. He opined that the environmental question had
been addressed under CEQA. He advised
that unless there were other comments that he was ready to make a motion.
Responding
to Director Boatmun’s question concerning the timing and the agreement between
CCWD and the developers, Mr. Bishop responded that the license agreement was
the compelling document in this situation.
The comments in the record say that CCWD would live by the License
Agreement. With respect to the development,
it was contemplated that CCWD would not have the funding until provided by the
developers.
Director
Burgh commented that he mirrored Director Wandry’s comments and further commented
that it was not necessary to have redundant phrasing in the MND which was
adequately covered by other documents.
Vice
President Anello did not have any comments.
President
Campbell commented that he had an ethical responsibility to make sure that the
public hearing was conducted and that all parties were treated fairly. He also noted that it was his responsibility
to ensure that the public comments were considered and entered into the record
and had been heard.
Director
Wandry commented that he would like to incorporate the findings as noted in the
resolution as a matter by reference rather than reading them into the record in
the decision.
MOTION: Wandry/Burgh to adopt Resolution No. 06-35 adopting a
Mitigated Negative Declaration; approving the Contra Costa Canal Replacement
Project; and, adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
including the revision to page 3-77 proposed by District staff. The motion carried by a unanimous voice
vote.
6.
Adopt Resolution No. 06-36 proclaiming the necessity of
acquiring certain real property and other property interests (Ronald E. Nunn)
in the pending eminent domain proceedings for the Contra Costa Water District –
East Bay Municipal Utility District Los Vaqueros/Mokelumne Intertie Project.
Mr. Bishop reported that his resolution addressed a minor
correction due to a clerical error of approximately 33 square-feet in the
condemnation of the property needed for the East Bay Municipal Utility
District/Contra Costa Intertie.
President Campbell asked if anyone in the public would like
to speak to the matter before the Board.
There were no comments.
MOTION: Boatmun/Wandry to adopt Resolution No.
06-36 proclaiming the necessity of acquiring certain real property and other
property interests (Ronald E. Nunn) in the pending eminent domain proceedings
for the Contra Costa Water District – East Bay Municipal Utility District Los
Vaqueros/Mokelumne Intertie Project. The
motion carried by a unanimous voice vote.
7.
Adopt Resolution No. 06-37 authorizing execution of
Amendment No. 10 to the Restated Retirement Plan Trust Agreement amending
Article XXV to provide a 1.8% cost of living increase for retirees effective
January 2007.
Mr. Bishop reported that the item was reviewed by the
Retirement Committee on November 21. He also
advised that the 1.8% cost of living adjustment being recommended mirrored the
actual cost of living based on the October 2006 Consumer Price Index.
MOTION:
Wandry/Burgh to adopt Resolution No. 06-37 authorizing execution of
Amendment No. 10 to the Restated Retirement Plan Trust Agreement amending
Article XXV to provide a 1.8% cost of living increase for retirees effective
January 2007. The motion carried by a
unanimous voice vote.
8. 2006
Retirement Plan Actuarial Valuation Report
a.
Accept the 2006 Retirement Plan Actuarial Valuation Report
and recommendations; and
b.
Authorize an increase to the District contribution rate
from 7.02% to 7.56% effective the first payroll period following January 1, 2007.
Mr. Bishop advised that this positive report was presented
to the Retirement Committee on November 21. He advised that the District had 94%
funding and a Board contribution rate of less than 8% and that the recommended
contribution rate was within the assumptions of the FY07 and FY08 budgets.
President Campbell asked if there were any public comments
on the item. There were no
comments.
MOTION: Boatmun/Burgh to
accept the 2006 Retirement Plan Actuarial Valuation Report and recommendations;
and b) authorize an increase to the District contribution rate from 7.02% to
7.56% effective the first payroll period following January 1, 2007. The motion carried by a unanimous voice
vote.
9. Authorize the purchase of vehicles and
heavy equipment from the vendors listed on the Bid Summary at the indicated
units and prices for a total combined purchase not-to-exceed amount of
$667,018, including sales tax.
Director Wandry asked how the District disposes of the old
vehicles that were being replaced. Mr.
Bishop replied that they were sold as surplus and auctioned. Director Wandry commented that sometimes
agencies pool purchases and asked if the District does. Mr. Bishop replied that yes, the District had
done this. He advised that the District
uses the state’s general purchasing when appropriate.
President Campbell asked if anyone from the public would
like to speak to the item. There were no
comments.
MOTION: Boatmun/Anello to
authorize the purchase of vehicles and heavy equipment from the vendors listed
on the Bid Summary at the indicated units and prices for a total combined
purchase not-to-exceed amount of $667,018, including sales tax. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote.
10.
Authorize execution of a contract with JMB Construction
Inc. for the construction of the Treated Water Fault Crossings Project in the
amount of $682,500, with a 10% change order authority of $68,250, for a total
amount not to exceed $750,750.
Mr. Bishop noted that the item was on the action calendar
due to the amount of the contract. He
also noted that a $600,000 cap was the ceiling for consent items and had been
used since 1992. He proposed that the
new cap for the consent calendar would be $1,000,000 given the amount of
inflation since the cap was set.
President Campbell asked if anyone in the public would like
to speak to the item. There were no
comments.
MOTION: Boatmun/Burgh to
authorize execution of a contract with JMB Construction Inc. for the
construction of the Treated Water Fault Crossings Project in the amount of
$682,500, with a 10% change order authority of $68,250, for a total amount not
to exceed $750,750. The motion carried
by a unanimous voice vote.
DISCUSSION & INFORMATION
11.
Review and comment on the preliminary 2007 revenue
requirements analysis.
Mr. Bishop noted that this was the second part of a
three-part process. The Board had
concurred with the assumptions at the Board meeting on November 15, 2006 and that this item would address the
proposed rate increases. He added that
in accordance with Proposition 218 notification had been sent to ratepayers
advising them that the Board would be considering up to three percent as a
revenue increase. He indicated that
there were different ways to obtain revenue and remain within the rate
model.
Mr. Bishop reminded the Board that the item was for
information and comments only and that Director of Finance Karen Ustin would be
making a presentation.
Ms. Ustin’s presentation included the key changes
from the 2007-2016 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and the Ten-Year Financial
Plan. She advised that the rate model
considered the potential that the District may not receive all of the outside
funding for the Alternative Intake Project (AIP). It also included lower operating budgets than
the CIP rate model based on the adopted FY07 and FY08 budgets. It included a refund of $2.2 million for the
FY05 Central Valley Project water rates and also included higher beginning
reserve balances of $2.9 million based on FY06 performances.
Ms. Ustin reported that when those assumptions were
incorporated the revenue requirement analysis indicated that the District would
need to increase untreated water revenues and treated water revenues by three
percent each. Referencing a chart, Ms.
Ustin noted that the increase was one-half percent higher than was included in
the Ten-Year Financial Plan as part of the CIP.
She advised that over the ten-year period no projected revenue increase
in excess of three percent or three-fourths of the assumed rate of
inflation. Ms. Ustin noted that as
monies were received for the AIP that they would be incorporated in future rate
reviews. She clarified that the action
taken for this item would be for this year only, even though it was based on a
ten-year analysis.
Ms. Ustin advised that consistent with the Board’s
rate setting policy that revenues were used and drawn down to six months of
operating requirements over the ten-year planning period. She
referenced two charts showing the use of reserves for the treated and untreated
water. A review of the impact of the
three percent revenue increase would total approximately $2.84 million. She identified approximately $1.1 million
would be for untreated water revenue and approximately $1.8 would be for
treated water revenue. The District
would incorporate the recommended 3 percent into the rate model for the detailed
breakdown by the specific fees and charges.
Ms. Ustin reviewed the schedule and indicated that a
public hearing would be held on January 3, 2007 and consideration of
adjustments would be considered at the meeting on January 12. Water rate changes would become effective on February 1, 2007
and any Facility Reserve Charge adjustments would be effective on April 1, 2007.
President Campbell commented positively on the
process used and expressed his appreciation to staff.
Director Burgh also commented positively on the
process and documentation provided by District staff. He opined that the process used was very
transparent and reflected that the organization was being run like a business.
President Campbell asked if anyone else would like to
speak to the item. He advised that the
recommendation was to review and comment on the item and due to the silence of
the Board, he advised staff to bring the item back to the Board for
consideration at the meeting on January 3, 2007.
REPORTS FOR DISCUSSION
12. Committee Report(s)
a.
Habitat Conservation Plan
Association – Executive Governing Board Post Meeting Report ( 11/8/06)
b. Board of Supervisors’ Transportation, Water and Infrastructure
Committee Post-Meeting Report (11/13/06)
President Campbell asked for comments on the committee reports. There were no comments.
13.
Schedule
Future Meeting Dates and Times
Mr. Bishop
reminded the Board that there would only be one Board meeting in the month of December
and that it would be held on December 13.
The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) Annual 2006
Conference would be held December 5-8 in Anaheim. He also noted that the Employee Holiday
Luncheon would be on December 14.
REPORTS
14.
General Manager
Mr. Bishop reported that the Contra Costa Council has an Environmental
Task Force and that Samantha Salvia would be making a presentation to the task
force. Director Boatmun asked for the
date and Mr. Bishop advised that the District Secretary would supply her with
the date.
He also noted that he would be debating Tom Birmingham, Westlands Water
District General Manager, on Wednesday, December 6 during the 2006 ACWA 2006
Conference. The debate would be on the
Peripheral Canal.
15. Legal
Counsel
Mr. Maddow advised that there would be an informational
program on Proposition 218 at the ACWA Conference and recommended Board
attendance. He also announced that the
Legal Affairs Program would include two appellate court justices.
16. Board Members
Director
Burgh commended staff on the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan that was
adopted at the Board meeting. He commented
that Principal Planner Fran Garland had provided great leadership and deserved
recognition for a job well done. He also
commended Senior Planner Mark Seedall and the planning staff for the work done
on the Canal Encasement Project.
Director
Boatmun echoed Director Burgh’s comments.
Vice
President Anello reported briefly that the Habitat Conservation Plan
Association’s Executive Governing Committee process had concluded.
Director
Wandry echoed Director Burgh’s comments.
President
Campbell also echoed Director Burgh’s comments.
CLOSED SESSION
17. Real
Property Transaction as allowed under Government Code Section 54956.8;
Property: Victoria Island Farms - APN
129-190-030; Negotiating Party: Victoria
Island Farms; District Negotiator:
Walter J. Bishop; Issue:
Instruction to negotiator on price and terms.
18.
Real
Property Transaction as allowed under Government Code Section 54956.8;
Property: East Bay Regional Park District
– APN 005-170-012 and APN 005-160-005; Anthony F. and Gloria Souza Trust – APN
005-160-006 and APN 005-170-009; Negotiating Party: East Bay Regional Park District and Anthony
and Gloria Souza; District Negotiator:
Walter J. Bishop; Issue: Instruction
to negotiator on price and terms.
At 8:01 p.m., President Campbell announced
that Board would move into closed session.
He reported that there were two items before the Board. Both items concerned real estate matters and
the additional attendees would be Assistant General Manager of Administration
Kurt Ladensack and Watershed and Lands Manager Bill Chilson.
RECONVENE FROM CLOSED
SESSION
19.
Report
on Closed Session.
At 8:19 p.m.,
President Campbell reconvened the meeting and announced that the Board took no
action on the matters before it.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:20 p.m., President Campbell adjourned the
meeting to an adjourned regular meeting of the Board of Directors scheduled for
December 13,
2006, commencing at 6:30 p.m.
Joseph
L. Campbell, President
ATTEST:
Sharon L. Burris
District Secretary
