carpinteria valley water district at carpinteria city … · e. **consider response to letter dated...

1301 Santa Ynez Avenue Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805) 684-2816 Fax (805) 684-3170

**Indicates attachment of document to agenda packet.

AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

BOARD OF DIRECTORS June Van Wingerden President Matthew Roberts Vice President Lynne Ducharme Robert Lieberknecht Alonzo Orozco

CARPINTERIA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

AT CARPINTERIA CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBER

5775 CARPINTERIA AVENUE

CARPINTERIA, CALIFORNIA GENERAL MANAGER Charles B. Hamilton

JANUARY 12, 2011 AT 5:40 P.M.

I. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, PRESIDENT VAN WINGERDEN

II. APPROVAL ITEMS

**Minutes of December 15, 2010 Board meeting. III. PUBLIC FORUM (Any person may address the Board of Directors on any matter Within its jurisdiction which is not on the agenda.) IV. DIRECTOR REPORTS

Cachuma Conservation Release Board and Cachuma Operations and Maintenance Board meetings, December 20, 2010 (Director Lieberknecht).

V. OLD BUSINESS

**Consider General Manager’s recommendation to approve proposed License Agreement

between the Carpinteria Valley Water District and the Carpinteria-Summerland Fire Protection District for installation of an Antenna System on District property at Rancho Monte Alegre.

VI. NEW BUSINESS

A. **Presentation by Tracey Solomon, CPA, of Bartlett Pringle & Wolf, LLP about Other Post-Employment Benefits Liability: GASB 45, for possible Board action on January 26, 2011.

B. Presentation by Business Manager Norma Rosales about the Business Department.

C. **Consider approval of credit in the amount of $197.64 for account number 11-

115522-01 pursuant to District Rule No. 15 d.

1301 Santa Ynez Avenue Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805) 684-2816 Fax (805) 684-3170

**Indicates attachment of document to agenda packet.

D. **Presentation by Dr. Alex Keuper about the District’s draft 2011 Strategic and

Capital Facilities Plan. E. **Consider response to letter dated December 20, 2010 from COMB President Lauren

Hanson.

F. CLOSED SESSION: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. District Negotiator: Jeffery A. Dinkin; Employee Organization: International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 12.

G. Consider approval of Memorandum of Understanding between District and

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 12. H. Consider Board member appointments to Employee Relations Committee (formerly

Personnel Committee). I. Consider District dental and vision benefit coverage for dependents, ages 24-26. J. **Consider Proposed Board meeting dates for 2011.

VII. CONSIDER DATE AND ITEMS FOR AGENDA FOR THE NEXT REGULAR

CARPINTERIA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT BOARD MEETING ON JANUARY 26, 2011 AT 5:30 P.M. IN CARPINTERIA CITY HALL, 5775 CARPINTERIA AVENUE.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT.

_____ _______Charles B. Hamilton, Secretary Note: The above Agenda was posted at the Carpinteria Valley Water District Administrative Office in view of the public no later than 5:30 p.m. January 7, 2011. The Americans with Disabilities Act provides that no qualified individual with a disability shall be excluded from participation in, or denied benefits of, the District’s programs, services, or activities because of any disability. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the District Office at (805) 684-2816. Notification at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the meeting will enable the District to make appropriate arrangements. Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Board of Directors after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Carpinteria Valley Water District offices located at 1301 Santa Ynez Avenue, Carpinteria, during normal business hours, from 8 am to 5 pm.

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CARPINTERIA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

December 15, 2010 Vice President Van Wingerden called the regular meeting of the Board of

Directors of Carpinteria Valley Water District to order at 4:05 p.m. Wednesday December 15, 2010 and led the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Directors Present: Ducharme, Lieberknecht, Roberts, Orozco, Van

Wingerden Directors Absent: None Others Present: Charles Hamilton

Robert McDonald Norma Rosales Omar Castro Roger Myers Rebecca Bjork Brian King Greg Stanford Danny Rada Lance Edmondson Alex Keuper Suzie Lara Lea Boyd Sonia Fernandez

BOARD REORGANIZATION

Vice President Van Wingerden appointed General Manager Charles Hamilton as Temporary Chairman. Temporary Chairman Hamilton then declared that this is the appropriate time to elect a Board President and Vice President as well as appoint a General Manager, Secretary, Auditor, Attorney and determine other related Board matters as necessary and that all elections and appointments may be made by majority vote. Following discussion, Director Roberts moved and Director Lieberknecht seconded the motion to appoint Director Van Wingerden as President. The motion carried unanimously, 5-0. Director Van Wingerden proceeded to chair the meeting as Board President. President Van Wingerden then noted that it would be a good idea in the future to rotate the Chair. Following discussion, Director Lieberknecht moved and Director Ducharme seconded the motion to appoint Director Roberts as Vice President. The motion carried by a 5-0 vote.

Item # II Page # 1

Following discussion, Director Roberts moved and Director Orozco seconded the motion as follows:

1) To appoint Charles B. Hamilton as General Manager and

Secretary;

2) To appoint Norma C. Rosales as Auditor.

The motion carried by a 5-0 vote. Following discussion, Director Roberts moved and Director

Lieberknecht seconded the motion as follows:

3) To appoint to Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Schneider, LLP as General Counsel.

The motion carried by a 5-0 vote. Following discussion, Director Roberts moved and Director


4) To appoint Jeff A. Dinkin of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP, as Labor Negotiator.

The motion carried by a 4-0-1 vote, Director Orozco abstaining. Following discussion, Director Lieberknecht moved and Director

Ducharme seconded the motion as follows: 5) To designate Montecito Bank & Trust as depository for the

general funds of the District.

Following discussion, Director Ducharme moved and Director Roberts seconded the motion as follows:

6) To designate Carpinteria City Hall, 5775 Carpinteria Avenue,

Carpinteria, 5:30 p.m. every second and fourth Wednesday, and 1301 Santa Ynez Avenue, Carpinteria, 5:30 pm, every other Wednesday as the location, time and day of regular meetings of the Board of Directors.

Following discussion, Director Roberts moved and Director


7) To acknowledge Section 54946 of the Government Code as the basis for and manner by which special meetings shall be

Item # II Page # 2

called.

Following discussion, Director Roberts moved and Director Lieberknecht seconded the motion as follows:

8) To fix compensation for Director attendance at Board

meetings, per Water Code Sections 30507 and 30508, at $100 per Board meeting and $100 for any committee meeting or day for each day’s service, not exceeding $600 in any month, plus expenses incident thereto, with mileage expense calculated using the IRS rate per mile.


9) To follow Roberts Rules of Order for all proceedings of the

Board.


10) To establish a Finance committee comprised of all Directors,

with the requirement that all bills, statements, invoices or claims exceeding $300 are reviewed and approved by one member of the committee on a rotating basis, that each member be provided with a list of the routine monthly bills and purchases. Bills smaller than $300 to be approved by the General Manager.


11) To appoint Director Lieberknecht as representative to the

Cachuma Operation & Maintenance Board and Director Ducharme as alternate representative.


12) To appoint Director Van Wingerden as representative to the

Central Coast Water Authority and Director Orozco as alternate representative.

Following discussion, Director Ducharme moved and Director Roberts seconded the motion as follows:

Item # II Page # 3

13) To appoint General Manager Charles B. Hamilton as representative to the Central Coast Water Authority Operating Committee.


14) To appoint Director Lieberknecht as representative to the

Association of California Water Agencies Joint Powers Insurance Authority and Director Roberts as alternate representative.

Following discussion, Director Roberts moved and Director Ducharme seconded the motion as follows:

15) To appoint Directors Lieberknecht and Orozco to the Board

Strategic and Capital Facilities Plan Committee. Following discussion, Director Orozco moved and Director


16) To appoint Directors Roberts and Ducharme to the Board Rate and Budget Committee.

Following discussion, Director Ducharme moved and Director Lieberknecht seconded the motion as follows

17) To appoint Directors Roberts and Lieberknecht to the Board Ortega Reservoir Committee.


18) To appoint Directors Lieberknecht and Ducharme to the

Strategic Water Management Committee.

The motion carried by a 5 – 0 vote. MINUTES Following discussion, Director Roberts moved and Director Lieberknecht

seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the November 17, 2010 Board meeting. The motion carried by a 3-0-2 vote, Directors Ducharme and Orozco abstaining.

MINUTES Following discussion, Director Lieberknecht moved and Director Orozco

seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the December 8, 2010 Board meeting revised to reflect changes requested by Directors Orozco and Roberts. The motion carried by a 4-0-1 vote, Director Van Wingerden

Item # II Page # 4

abstaining. MONTHLY BILLS Following a brief overview presented by Business Manager Norma Rosales,

and discussion, Director Roberts moved and Director Ducharme seconded the motion to approve the monthly bills for the period of November 10, 2010 through December 8, 2010. The motion carried by a 5 – 0 vote.

PUBLIC FORUM No one from the public addressed the Board. CATER WATER FILTRATION PLANT IMPROVEMENT CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT

Following a brief presentation by General Manager Hamilton about the draft letter he prepared, addressed to Rebecca Bjork, Water Resources Manager for the City of Santa Barbara, and a brief presentation by Rebecca Bjork, and discussion, Director Roberts moved and Director Lieberknecht seconded the motion to direct the General Manager to send the letter as drafted and obtain further legal review from District Counsel about the proposed Cater Filtration Plant Improvement Contribution Agreement. The motion carried by a 5-0 vote.

CLOSED SESSION: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 DIRECTOR ROBERTS LEAVES MEETING

At 5:38 p.m., pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Conference with Labor Negotiator, Jeffery A. Dinkin, President Van Wingerden convened the Board in closed session. President Van Wingerden reconvened the Board in open session at 6:28 p.m. and reported that direction was given to Counsel Dinkin. No action was taken. Director Roberts left the Board meeting at 6:29 pm.

ADDITIONAL BUDGET AUTHORIZATION REQUEST OF $32, 400 FOR EL CARRO WELL

Following an introduction by General Manager Hamilton, and a presentation by Robert Marks of Pueblo Water Resources, and discussion, Director Orozco moved and Director Lieberknecht seconded the motion to approve an additional budget amount of $32,400 to Pueblo Water Resources for services performed in the development of the El Carro Well. The motion carried by a 4-0 vote.

ARBOL VERDE MAIN LINE AND HYDRANT PROJECT APPROVAL UP TO $25,000

Following a presentation by Omar Castro, Manager of Maintenance & Operations and discussion, Director Ducharme moved and Director Lieberknecht seconded the motion to approve an expenditure of $25,000 to replace a section of 6” water main and install new fire hydrant on Arbol Verde. The motion carried by a 4-0 vote.

LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR ANTENNA SYSTEM FOR FIRE DISTRICT RANCHO MONTE ALEGRE

Mr. Hamilton reported briefly about the nature of the proposed Carpinteria-Summerland Fire Protection District antenna system on property at Rancho Monte Alegre and that the matter would be presented for action at the January 12, 2011 Board meeting. No action was taken.

Item # II Page # 5

RESOLUTION NUMBER 913 EXPRESSSING APPRECIATION FOR THE SERVICE OF FREDERICK LEMERE

Following discussion, Director Lieberknecht moved and Director Ducharme seconded the motion to adopt Resolution Number 913 Expressing Appreciation for the Service of Frederick Lemere. Roll Call on Resolution No. 913 resulted as follows: Ayes: Ducharme, Orozco, Lieberknecht, Van Wingerden Nayes: none Absent: Roberts

RESOLUTION NUMBER 914 EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE SERVICE OF JAMES DRAIN

Following discussion, Director Lieberknecht moved and Director Ducharme seconded the motion to adopt Resolution Number 914 Expressing Appreciation for the Service of James Drain. Roll Call on Resolution No. 914 resulted as follows: Ayes: Ducharme, Orozco, Lieberknecht, Van Wingerden Nayes: none Absent: Roberts

RESOLUTION NUMBER 915 CONCERNING INVENTORY OF DISTRICT LAND AND AIR SPACE

Following discussion, Director Lieberknecht moved and Director Ducharme seconded the motion to adopt Resolution Number 915 Concerning Inventory of District Land and Air Space. Roll Call on Resolution No. 915 resulted as follows: Ayes: Ducharme, Orozco, Lieberknecht, Van Wingerden Nayes: none Absent: Roberts

CARPINTERIA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FINANCE CORPORATION ANNUAL MEETING

Mr. Hamilton reported that the annual meeting of the Carpinteria Valley Water District Finance Corporation will be held at 5:30 p.m. on January 12, 2011 at Carpinteria City Hall just prior to the regular Board meeting.

NEXT MEETING The next scheduled Board meeting will be a special Board meeting held on

January 8, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. in the Board meeting room at 1301 Santa Ynez Avenue, followed by a regular Board meeting held on January 12, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. in Carpinteria City Hall.

ADJOURNMENT President Van Wingerden declared the meeting adjourned at 6:59 p.m. ________________________________________ Charles B. Hamilton, General Manager/Secretary

Item # II Page # 6

Memo

To: Board of Directors

From: Charles Hamilton, General Manager

CC: Norma Rosales, Business Manager

Date: 1/7/2011

Re: Proposed License Agreement with Carpinteria-Summerland Fire Protection District

Recommendation:

Approve and authorize General Manager’s execution of proposed License Agreement (attached) between the Carpinteria-Summerland Fire Protection District (C-SFPD) and the Carpinteria Valley Water District (CVWD) for installation of an Antenna System on CVWD property at Rancho Monte Alegre, in substantial form as presented.

Discussion:

CVWD has been requested by C-SFPD to enter into a License Agreement allowing the installation and use of a receiving antenna for C-SFPD’s emergency radio communications. C-SFPD has determined that CVWD’s Foothill Storage Tank site is well situated for a receiving antenna to improve their radio communications. Fire Chief Mike Mingee of C-SFPD will be in attendance at the Board meeting to explain the Antenna System and answer questions.

CVWD has determined that such an Antenna System poses no problem for its operations, and due to its small size, is virtually unnoticeable to residents of the area.

C-SFPD agrees in this License Agreement to reimburse CVWD for its costs in developing the proposed License Agreement and for any costs incurred by CVWD associated with C-SFPD’s operation of the Antenna System.

Due to the benefit of such an Antenna System to the Carpinteria Valley community as a whole, and there being no costs borne by the CVWD, no charge or payment is required by CVWD of C-SFPD.

Carpinteria Valley Water District

Item # V Page # 1

- 1 -

LICENSE AGREEMENT This License Agreement (“Agreement”) is dated for reference _______________, 2010, and is made by and between the Carpinteria Valley Water District (“Water District”) and the Carpinteria-Summerland Fire Protection District (“Fire District”). Water District and Fire District may be referred to herein individually as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.” RECITALS: A. Water District is the owner of certain real property commonly known as

, Santa Barbara, CA , APN (the “Water District Property”).

B. Fire District desires to install an antenna system as more specifically depicted in Exhibit

A attached hereto (“Antenna System”). C. The Antenna System will be constructed on a portion of the Water District Property as

more specifically depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto. D. Water District wishes to grant, and Fire District wishes to receive, a revocable license to

install, operate and maintain the Antenna System on the Water District Property, and the Parties wish to agree on certain other matters related to the Antenna System and the license, as set forth herein.

For valuable consideration, including the matters set forth above and the covenants and promises contained herein, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Grant of License

Water District hereby grants to Fire District a revocable license (the “License”) to construct, maintain and operate the Antenna System, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. This License shall include a reasonable right of access over Water District Property for purposes of constructing, maintaining and operating the Antenna System. 2. Termination of License

Either Party may terminate the License, but not the other provisions of this Agreement, upon providing 60 days prior written notice to the other Party. 3. Payment for License

Except as provided in Section 4 below, the License is granted to Fire District without charge and no payment is required from Fire District to Water District for the grant of the License.

Item # V Page # 2

- 2 -

4. Reimbursement of Water District Cost

(a) Fire District agrees to reimburse Water District for all expenses incurred by Water District related to Water District’s review and approval of this Agreement, including any attorney fees incurred by Water District. (b) Fire District agrees to reimbursement Water District for any utility cost incurred by Water District associated with Fire District’s operation of the Antenna System on Water District Property.

5. Antenna System

Fire District will keep the Antenna System in good operating condition, and in manner that does not interfere with Water District’s operation and use of Water District Property. All cost associated with the construction, maintenance and operation of the Antenna System shall be borne by Fire District. 6. Rights Reserved by La Cumbre

Water District retains all rights not specifically granted to Fire District by this Agreement, and may exercise all of said rights without notice. 7. Existing Rights of Others

This Agreement is subject to and subordinate to any and all existing rights of others regarding Water District Property. 8. Condition of Water District Property; No Warranty

Water District makes no warranty or representation concerning the condition of the Water District Property or its suitability for Fire District’s proposed use. Fire District has investigated the Water District Property, is familiar with the condition of the Water District Property, and accepts the Water District Property in its present state and with all faults. 9. Actions upon Termination of the License

Fire District will, on termination of this Agreement, leave the Water District Property in good condition and will promptly remove the Antenna System from the Water District Property and repair any and all damage caused by such removal. 10. Indemnity

Fire District will indemnify, defend and hold harmless Water District and its officers, directors, employees and agents from and against any loss, damage, claim, cost, lien, action, suit, liability, or judgment (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees and costs) arising from, resulting from, or in any way related to use of the Water District Property by Fire District or any agent, servant, employee or invitee of Fire District, including, without limitation, any failure to

Item # V Page # 3

- 3 -

repair or maintain. Further, Fire District and Water District agree that Fire District shall serve as lead agency for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. In the event of any challenge or litigation associated with compliance with CEQA, Fire District agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Water District harmless with respect to such action.

11. Compliance with Laws

Fire District will, at Fire District’s sole expense, comply with all local, state and federal laws and regulations now or hereafter in force regarding this Agreement, the installation of the Antenna System and any activities of Fire District on the Water District Property. 12. No Recording

Neither this Agreement nor any memorandum of it will be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder. 13. Notices

All notices and other communications required or permitted to be given under this Agreement will be in writing and will be deemed to have been given to a Party (a) when hand delivered to the Party; (b) three (3) business days after deposit in the United States mail as certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as set forth below; or (c) the next business day after delivery to a national overnight delivery service for next-business-day delivery guaranteed, addressed as set forth below: If to Water District: General Manager Carpinteria Valley Water District 1301 Santa Ynez Avenue Carpinteria, CA 93013 If to Fire District: Fire Chief Carpinteria/Summerland Fire Protection District 1140 Eugenia Place, Suite A Carpinteria, CA 93013 Either Party may change its address for the purposes of this section by giving written notice of such change to the other Party in the manner provided in this section. 14. Miscellaneous

14.1 Recitals. The recitals set forth at the beginning of this Agreement are true and correct.

14.2 Exhibits. Every exhibit attached to and referred to in this Agreement is incorporated in this Agreement by such reference.

Item # V Page # 4

- 4 -

14.3 Titles and Headings. The titles and headings used in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of this Agreement, and will have no effect upon its construction or interpretation.

14.4 No Partnership or Joint Venture. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended to create a relationship of partnership or of joint venture or of any association between Water District and Fire District.

14.5 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement binds, and is for the benefit of, the Parties and their respective successors and permitted assigns, including successors in title. Except for successors in title, to whom assignment shall be automatic, assignment is not permitted, except with the prior written approval of the other Party.

14.6 Time. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.

14.7 Modification. Any extension, modification or amendment of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the Parties to be affected thereby or their respective successors in interest.

14.8 Waiver. No waiver of, or failure by any Party to enforce, a provision, covenant, condition or right under this Agreement will be construed as a subsequent waiver of the same provision, covenant, condition or right, or a waiver of any other provision, covenant, condition or right. No extension of time for performance of any obligation or act will be deemed an extension of the time for performance of any other obligation or act. The waiver of a provision, covenant, condition or right, or an extension of time, will be effective only if made in writing.

14.9 Partial Invalidity. If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement will remain in full force and effect, and will in no way be affected, impaired, or invalidated thereby.

14.10 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties hereto with respect to its subject matter. No promises, representations, warranties or covenants not included in this Agreement, either oral or written, have been or are relied upon by any Party.

14.11 Neutral Construction. In construing this Agreement, no consideration will be given to the fact or presumption that any Party had a greater or lesser hand in the drafting of this Agreement.

This Agreement is executed by the Parties on the dates shown below: CARPINTERIA VALLEY WATER CARPINTERIA-SUMMERLAND FIRE DISTRICT PROTECTION DISTRICT Charles Hamilton, General Manager Michael Mingee, Fire Chief Date: Date:

Item # V Page # 5

Memo


From: Norma Rosales, Business Manager

CC: Charles Hamilton, General Manager

Date: 1/7/2011

Re: Other Post–Employment Benefits Funding

Recommendation:

Pending review of District reserve status, consider on January 26 authorizing the General Manager to take the necessary steps to partially pre-fund, in the amount of $100,000, the District’s Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) for its Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) liability of $440,624 as of June 30, 2010, and then from this year forward, proceed on a pay-as-you go basis.

Discussion:

The recent actuarial results as presented and explained this evening by Tracey Solomon of Bartlett Pringle & Wolf reveal that the District’s Annual Required Contribution (ARC) as of June 30, 2010 is $37,664, for an Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) of $440,624. These amounts are considerably less than was preliminarily estimated several years ago. By comparison, the Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board (COMB), with 14 employees, has an ARC of $121,020 and an APVTPB or UAAL of $1,679,957:

COMB ($) CVWD ($) Notes:

Total Liability Created (APVTPB) 1,679,957 440,624 Actual Present Value of Total Projected Benefits

Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) 1,164,773 257,680

Annual Required Contribution (ARC) 121,050 37,664

In large measure the differences between the two agencies are due to COMB’s more generous OPEBs than CVWD’s and include 100% funding for employee dependents.

Thinking ahead with different assumptions in 2006, the District may have been overly concerned about the size of its on-going Annual Required Contribution (ARC). The District


Item # VI A Page # 1

has now collected $80,000 over the last 4 years through its water rates to offset its OPEB UAAL. The current year budget, FY 2010-11, includes an additional $20,000, for a total of $100,000.

Taking the necessary steps now, including the set up of a Trust Fund, to partially pre-fund the UAAL in the amount of $100,000 will result in a significant percentage reduction of the current $37,664 Annual Required Contribution (ARC).

Taking this pre-funding action now, of placing $100,000 in a Trust Fund, and also reverting to pay-as-you-go basis would:

1) result in a significant reduction of current on-going District expense, namely its current projected UAL of $37,665;

2) eliminate the need in the coming 2011-12 fiscal year to collect $20,000; and therefore

3) contribute to a downward pressure on the water rates in future fiscal years, beginning in the coming 2011-12 fiscal year, providing an immediate benefit to the current rate payers whose payments over the last 5 years including 2010-11, have built up the $100,000 fund reserve.

Item # VI A Page # 2

Item # VI C Page # 1

1

Memo To: Charles Hamilton, General Manager;

From: Alex D. Keuper, Administrative Analyst

CC: Bob McDonald, District Engineer; Omar Castro, Operations Manager; Norma

Rosales, Business Manager; file

Date: December 27, 2010

Re: Strategic and Capital Facilties Plan

Attached are draft versions of the “State of the District 2010”; “Strategic Actions” and “Capital Facilities Priorities” for Board review and comment. The first two documents form the strategic rationale for structuring and prioritizing actions the District must take to meet its mission of providing safe and reliable water at a reasonable price. The Capital facilities list – as yet un-ranked – will form the bulk of physical improvements within the District for the next decade. I have also prepared a brief description of the ozone project at Cater. This document places the ozone project into the context of how Cater currently operates and how this relates to District operations.


Item # VI D Page # 1

Str

ateg

ic P

lan

Tim

elin

e

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday

SCFP M

eeting?

SCFP

Meeting?

finalize SCFP

Committee

priorities

Board M

eeting

SCFP M

eeting?

Board M

eeting

Rep

ort m

ilestone:

Draft 1

January2011

1

23

78

14

15

21

22

910

16

17

30

46

5

11

13

12

18

20

19

31

12

26

29

30

31

53

4

27

28

23

24

25

26

29

27

28


Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday

finalize Board

update of SCFP

Rep

ort m

ilestone:

Draft 2

SCFP M

eeting?

Board M

eeting:

SCFP presentation

Board M

eeting

Rep

ort m

ilestone:

Draft 3

February2011

5

67

11

12

18

19

25

28

13

14

20

21

810

9

15

17

16

22

24

23

30

23

431

1

28

28

12

53

4


Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday

Board M

eeting

Rep

ort m

ilestone:

Draft Final

Board M

eeting:

SCFP Presentation?

March2011

5

67

11

12

18

19

25

26

13

14

20

21

810

9

15

17

16

22

24

23

27

23

428

1

27

28

29

30

231

1


1

State of the District 2010:

Mission: “Provide safe and reliable water at a reasonable price.”

Safe Water:

Goal met without significant bacteriological contamination in the distribution or storage system in the past decade and disinfection by-product creation since 2008.

The District continues to support mainline flushing for water quality but has undertaken limited flushing since 2008.

The District’s blending program to improve water quality has generally been successful although HQ well failure has periodically halted the program. The ongoing work at El Carro well will improve this operational goal.

While the District has a groundwater management plan for the Carpinteria basin, it has no mechanism to monitor or regulate groundwater source protection such as the recharge areas of the basin. Moreover, the issue of nitrates and their introduction into groundwater is not well understood and must be planned for in future groundwater development.

Covering the Carpinteria and Ortega reservoirs has greatly improved water safety by reducing undesirable contamination and lowering disinfection byproduct creation. Operationally, however, these facilities are generally regulated by the operations at the Cater Water treatment plant in Santa Barbara, and decisions made there do not necessarily meet the water quality goals of the District.

Reliable Water:

Goal exceeded with abundant sources of supply and steady demand. Mainline and service breaks have been exclusively local. The 2008 break in the South Coast Conduit at Coyote Canyon in Montecito and the on-going low water levels in Ortega reservoir have not impaired water delivery to District customers.

The District has not refused any new water service requests in the past decade.

The ongoing valve identification, replacement and maintenance program has resulted in improved shut-off conditions for local repairs. This will remain an important District priority in the future.

Ongoing State Water Control Board hearings regarding the Cachuma project and downstream water rights are not expected to result in a deleterious loss of supply. Similarly, the current restrictions on State Water pumping have not impacted the District. Water banking may remain the ‘best’ use of this valuable insurance source of supply.


2

Future water supply planning should recognize the reliability of local sources over regional and state supplies. Trading water should focus on exchanges that enhance local and regional sources over state-level sources.

Reasonable Cost:

Goal unmet (?). The District struggles with costs that result in rates and charges that exceed all neighboring water agencies. Fixed and variable costs for State Water do not appear to be reaching a stable plateau, resulting in continually upward rate adjustments for this expense. The State Water Project costs and Capital Improvement Program debt service constitute 50% of the annual budget. The rate structure relies heavily on fixed monthly service charges.

Annual operating expenses – for treated water, and facilities repair and upgrade – are also significant – amounting to ~$800,000 each. Controlling these costs – through the use of local groundwater to reduce treatment costs, and replacement of aging infrastructure rather than piecemeal repairs should become operational goals in the District.

Scheduled ozone pre-treatment upgrades to the Cater Water Treatment Plant will result in additional monetary outflows from the District. Fiscal pressures from other JPA agreements appear to be stable at this time but may increase given aging COMB infrastructure and possible action with a Delta conveyance for State Water.


3

The following three graphical depictions represent a snap-shot of the District in 2010. The Operations component includes all actions – external and internal – that are undertaken by District staff to meet the District’s mission. Infrastructure refers to District and relevant external facilities that are operated by the District or for the District to meet this mission. Water supply includes all three sources of supply – groundwater, Lake Cachuma and State Water. While not a ‘pure’ operational component, Debt is acknowledged as an operating reality that impinges on all other components.

The positive (+) elements are those actions or programs that the District has been successful at implementing and the positive outcomes of these actions. The negatives (-) are both barriers to success that the District needs to overcome and negative consequences of a particular course of action.


4


5


6

Strategic Actions:

Sell a portion of State Water Allocation

The District has determined that it could sell approximately ½ (1,000 AF) of its current SWP allocation and maintain sufficient sources of supply to meet expected future demand to 2030.

Accomplishments: District needs analysis; CEQA documentation Barriers: ability to find buyer Pros: increased revenue; rate relief Cons: minimal, acceptable loss of supply

Develop local groundwater resources

The District currently has two wells in need of upgrades / complete rehabilitation – Lyons and High School. The water from Lyons well requires iron and manganese filtration and could be connected to the El Carro well with a modest transmission main. Alternatively, the well site could facilitate a filtration plant of its own. The site also needs SCADA equipment. The High School requires complete re-drilling and upgrades to its filtration and SCADA equipment. Its location away from the Central Zone main, and water quality issues suggest the site could be abandoned in favor for a new well location, possible at the District headquarters.

In addition to well development, the District may seek to better understand and monitor the aquifer recharge area. The District may seek to artificially recharge the aquifer during wet periods, and bank water for future use.

Accomplishments: HQ and El Carro wells; Central Zone transmission main Barriers: corrosive water quality (iron and manganese content, etc.) Pros: increased reliability; increased localization of water supply;

improved water quality; reduced water treatment costs Cons: cost of rehabilitation; on-going maintenance expenses; risk of poor

well production; risk of capital loss


7

Move aggressively to improve local infrastructure

The District is faced with aging and undersized infrastructure in need of replacement. This includes a number of 4” water mains, old meters that may not register correctly, valves that may be broken or damaged, pressure regulator stations that need repair and terminal mains.

Accomplishments: valve identification; valve exercise program Barriers: limited knowledge of repair and replacement issues Pros: increased reliability; can improve water quality Cons: cost; time to completion increases risk

Change reserves investment strategy

The District currently relies on the California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) as a repository of reserves and other funds. While the security of this program is very high, the rate of return is very low. A portion of reserves could be evaluated for investment in commercial investment tools / programs with a higher rate of return.

Accomplishments: reserves replenishment and security Barriers: limited options Pros: increased revenue Cons: increased liquidity risk

Critically assess all JPA costs

The District partners with two local and regional government agencies (COMB, CCWA) to meet strategic goals and maintain sources of water supply. Expenditures through these Joint Powers Authorities (JPA) represent monetary outflows from the District that may or may not directly benefit the District or its customers.

Accomplishments: COMB / CCWA reduction in budgets; Barriers: political will Pros: control spending Cons: alienate JPA partners


8

Attract, train and retain a skilled workforce

The delivery of water in California has become more complex and requires highly skilled and capable managers and operations employees. Retention of employees improves overall delivery of service.

Accomplishments: District has a small trained and certified operations staff Barriers: small size of District results in little upward movement Pros: improved customer service and water delivery; improved water

quality Cons: high costs associated with healthcare / retirement expenses

Efficiency as a cost-cutting

The District should review policies, practices and procedures on an continual basis in its goals to meet the goal of safe and reliable water at a reasonable costs.

Accomplishments: kept rates from increasing for 2 years Barriers: employee uncertainty Pros: reduced costs; improved operations Cons: costs associated with efficiency rather than productivity

The District could explore a new business model of operation

The District could explore expanded economic opportunities as a purveyor of bottled water, water wholesaler to local agencies, water bank, or a solar electricity generator. The District could explore economic opportunities through a merger or strategic partnership with the Carpinteria Sanitary District possibly developing reclaimed water as a economically feasible source of supply.

Accomplishments: Irvine Ranch Water District water bank partnership Barriers: political resistance Pros: increased revenue Cons: potential initial cost; risk of failure


9

Equity of Costs and Rates

The District has sought to bring equity to all customers within the District. The District must remain vigilant in reviewing the fiscal impact of various costs and charges to customers based on volume of water consumed and customer class.

Accomplishments: individualized rates; lowered CIP; Lifeline Barriers: customer resistance Pros: equity Cons: revenue reductions


10

Capital Facility Priorities:

Unfunded CZ2 main portions (reliability / water quality)

El Carro Lane – 2,800’ of 12” main

Cramer Circle / Cramer St. – 830’ of 12” main

Valve maintenance and replacement / exercise (reliability)

Number to be replaced (?)

Well Rehabilitation / repair (supply / reliability / water quality)

Lyons – develop as back-up well, nitrate study, transmission main to El Carro well, SCADA

High School – abandon site, terminate lease

New well – located near CZ transmission main

All – regular pump inspection / rehab or replacement

End drain replacement (water quality)

Locations (?)

Undersized / Aging main replacements (reliability)

Ash St. – 800’ of 4” main, 2 valves, 6 services

Holly St. – 300’ of 4” main, 2 valves, 4 services

Vallecitos Place – 1,000’ of 6” steel main, 6 valves, 1 hydrant, 27 services

Padaro Lane – 4,350’ of 4” main, 8 valves, 7 hydrants, 70 services

Yucca Lane – 1,000’ of 6” steel main, 6 valves, 10 services

Eighth St. – 2,100’ of ACP main, 13 valves, 33 services

Carpinteria Slough – 200’ of 6” steel main

Walnut Ave. – 1,300’ of 6” ACP main, 6 valves, 2 hydrants, 23 services

Middle School – 700’of 6” ACP main, 2 valves, 1 hydrant, 1 service

Cramer – 600’ of 6” steel main, 2 valves, 1 hydrant, 15 services

Reynolds St. – reconfigure services


11

Shepard Mesa – 2,000’ of 6” main & 500 of 4” main

Main Extensions (reliability / water quality)

Olive St. – 200’ of 6” PVC main (looping)

Casitas Pass – 1,600’ of 12” PVC main, 6 valves, 2 hydrants, 10 services

Lateral 28RA – 2,000’ of 6” PVC (looping)

Shepard Mesa – 1,500’ of 6” main

Via Real / Cravens – 1,500’ of 8” main (looping between Laterals 10RG / 10RA)

US 101 main replacement / relocations (reliability / water quality)

Casitas Pass – 180’ of 12” ductile iron pipe

Linden Ave. – 150’ of 12” ductile iron pipe

Santa Ynez – 170’ of 8” ductile iron pipe, 800’ of 8” PVC main

Pump rehabilitation (reliability)

Lateral 30 - ???

Gobernador Canyon - ???

Lateral 10

Pressure regulator station rehabilitation (reliability)

Locations ?

Abandoned well destruction

100 (?) abandoned wells – destroy 5 per year (?)

Headquarters building upgrades / renovations (customer service)

Meter replacement (equity / reliability)

Lateral main meters – 40 6” to 15” meters on SCC

Water meters – replace on a 20 year lifecycle

SCADA upgrades (reliability)

Lateral 30 and Gobernador Canyon


12

Combination air-vacuum valve improvements (backflow protection)

Needs (?)

Cathodic Protection replacement (reliability)

Identify location of CP sites; install at a rate of X per year

Water Quality Monitoring Stations

Remaining stations to be repaired (?)

Dechlorimination Station

Lateral 30


1

Ozone Pre-treatment at William B. Cater Water Treatment Plant

The existing US Environmental Protection Agency Stage 1 Disinfectant / Disinfection By-Products Rule and planned Stage 2 rule will limit the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) of the disinfection contaminants total trihalomethane (TTHM)1 and haloacetic acid 5 (HAA5)2 to 80 micrograms per liter (μg/L) and 60 μg/L respectively. TTHMs and HAA5 compounds are created when organic matter in water reacts with disinfection chemicals – most notably chlorine. The compounds associated with these rules are suspected chronic carcinogens, and may affect reproductive and developmental health. Stage 1 rules permit rolling averages across sampling sites within a distribution system. The Stage 2 rule (April 1, 2012) will eliminate averaging across sites, and all testing sites must remain below the MCL to remain in compliance.

Disinfection by-product formation in drinking water is greatly influenced by two factors: total organic carbon; and time. All water contains some measure of organic carbon, although residence times and lack of direct contact with organic matter results in very low concentrations in groundwater. Open reservoirs – such as Lake Cachuma – contain significant concentrations of suspended and dissolved organic matter that influences how water must be treated for direct consumption3.

Conventional Water Treatment Water from Lake Cachuma and Gibraltar reservoir are stored in Lauro reservoir in Santa Barbara and treated at the William B. Cater treatment facility for the City of Santa Barbara, the Montecito Water District and Carpinteria Valley Water District. Cater is considered a ‘conventional’ water treatment plant in that it is designed to remove suspended material from water. Water from Lauro reservoir is first permitted to settle-out larger particles (sand, heavy silt) in a slow-moving chamber and screens. Chlorine is then added to kill bacteria and disease causing organisms. In order to remove the finest suspended organic compounds, a coagulating chemical is added. The coagulant (aluminum sulfate, ferrous sulfate, cationic polymer) neutralizes the electrical charges of the organic particles, permitting them to attach to one-another. Some coagulants – cationic polymers for example – act as an attracting agent, allowing smaller particles to draw together around the polymer chain. The coagulant is added through a diffuser mechanism that introduces the coagulant very rapidly.

The coagulated water is then gently stirred using a turbine mixer in order to clump larger and larger particles together (flocculation). These larger and larger particles become heavier and begin to settle to the bottom of the chamber (sedimentation). Water is decanted from the top of the sedimentation chamber and passes through a dual-medium filtration chamber (garnet and anthracite coal) that removes fine coagulant / flocculation particles. The water then passes through a layer of granular activated carbon to remove dissolved particles that affect taste and odor. Prior to the addition of sodium hypochlorite (disinfectant) the water is considered to be a clean as the treatment plant can achieve. Given the specific characteristics of water from Gibraltar and Cachuma, however, the treated water exiting Cater still contains carbon matter. 1 Chloroform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, bromoform 2 Monochloroacetic acid, dichloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid, bromoacetic acid, dibromoacetic acid 3 In a Mediterranean climate like Southern California, additional carbon loading may occur due to soil-type, extreme storm events, variability in soil wetting / drying, vegetation composition and fire.


2

At this point, time becomes a significant influencing factor. In order to keep bacteriological outbreaks in check, the water entering the distribution system must maintain a residual concentration of disinfectant. This ‘residual’ is closely monitored throughout the distribution systems of all three water agencies and additional sodium hypochlorite (chlorine) is added to maintain a consistent concentration of disinfection. The contact time between the disinfectant and remaining organic matter results in the creation of disinfection by-products. The faster the water moves through a system, the lower the contact time and fewer disinfection by-products are created4.

Treated water destined for Carpinteria enters the South Coast Conduit and flows to the Ortega Reservoir in Summerland, and then back into the SCC and on to the Carpinteria Reservoir. As the crow flies, the Ortega reservoir is 8 miles from Cater, while Carpinteria reservoir is 14 miles away. The residence time of water depends on demand, which is most significantly influenced by seasonality / weather. For example, in high demand months like August it takes approximately 3 hours for water to travel from Ortega reservoir to the western boundary of the District and over 24 hours to travel to the eastern boundary. In winter months, these times can double.

Ozone Pre-treatment The purpose of the ozone pre-treatment upgrade at the Cater facility is to reduce the concentration of organic carbon that remains in the final treated water exiting the plant. Ozone (O3) is a highly unstable molecule and a very powerful oxidant. It is formed by converting 3 O2 molecules into 2 O3 molecules via the application of electrical energy. All ozone used at Cater will be generated and destroyed (if necessary) on-site. Settled water from Lauro reservoir will pass through a chamber and ozone will be diffused upward through the column – in much the same way a bubbler for a fish-tank works. Ozone reacts vigorously with suspended and dissolved organic carbon in the water, breaking the electro-chemical bonds in complex carbon compounds and between the carbon and water molecules5. The destruction and reconstituting of these molecular bonds will permit the conventional treatment process to remove more organics from the treated water, reducing disinfection by-product formation.

Note that the ozone pre-treatment process will only affect the concentration of organic material in the treated water – it will not eliminate these material completely. The ozone will not remain in the final treated water. Increased application of ozone has a diminishing return on carbon removal, increases treatment costs and may result in the inadvertent addition of bromate into the water. Additionally, the introduction of greater concentrations of dissolved organic matter – from a significant fire in the Santa Ynez Valley for example – may prove too much for ozone pre-treatment as a means of reducing disinfection by-product formation.

District Actions The District has already undertaken a groundwater blending regimen in order to reduce the concentration of organic matter in the water supply. Groundwater – low in organic matter – is blended with water from Cater at a ratio of approximately 1 unit of groundwater for

4 Conversely, lowering the concentration of organic matter will lower the exposure between carbon and disinfection chemical, resulting in lower disinfection by-product creation. 5 Ozone also ‘kills’ oocyst bacteria and pathogens like cryptosporidium


3

every 3 units of Cater water. This practice requires continual operation of the District’s Headquarters well and the Foothill reservoir. The completion of the El Carro well and CZ main will permit additional groundwater to be pumped into the Foothill reservoir and blended.

The District also actively flushes mains in areas where water is suspected to reside for long periods of time, thereby removing disinfection by-products. Main flushing wastes treated water, however, and requires a significant time commitment. The District does have a spatial, statistical model of water movement through the distribution system.

The District may also review how the mains and laterals in the District are separated. It is common practice to separate different pressure zones from one another using division gates (valves). The District may need to re-examine the use of these gates in order to move water more quickly through the distribution system. In the longer term, the District could undertake main extension work that would ‘loop’ terminal laterals. This would prevent water from sitting at the end of a main, improving flow and water quality. Finally, the District might insist that water levels in Ortega and Carpinteria reservoirs be fully dictated by Carpinteria water quality needs, rather than Cater operational conditions. Currently fluctuations in water levels are controlled by Cater operational needs and cycles and can run counter to District water consumption needs. Too much water in a reservoir may mean longer residence time and the possibility of increased disinfection by-product formation.

In the event of a catastrophic fire in the Santa Ynez Valley (note that the 2007 Zaca fire burned a relatively small portion of the Santa Ynez drainage area) the proposed ozone pre-treatment process may not sufficiently reduce organic matter in treated water. The District may need to increase groundwater production to increase the blending ratio. It may also have to continually flush specific mains via the installation of automated flushing equipment.


**DRAFT (010711) FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY**

January 13, 2011 Lauren Hanson President Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board 3301 Laurel Canyon Road Santa Barbara, CA 93105-2017 Dear Ms. Hanson, Please be advised that the Board of Directors of Carpinteria Valley Water District, at its regularly scheduled Board meeting held on January 12, 2011, considered your (attached) letter dated December 20, 2010, and authorized this letter in response. Nothing of substance has changed with regard to the reasons for the decision made by this District on November 4, 2009 to decline participation in the funding of the South Coast Conduit Upper Reach Reliability Project, commonly known as the “Second Barrel” project, as set forth in the District’s attached letter dated November 12, 2009. Please be advised that the District continues to reject as inappropriate and inequitable the Cachuma entitlement based cost sharing formula proposed by the Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board to fund a new “Second Barrel” facility to be added on to the South Coast Conduit. Also attached for your consideration are the following:

1) A copy of the text of remarks prepared for and delivered to COMB by Charles Hamilton on January 26, 2009 entitled “Time for a Strategic Plan for the Cachuma Project?”

2) A letter dated July 6, 2009 from Charles Hamilton to Kate Rees with an attached memo dated June 2, 2009 from Charles Hamilton to the District’s Rate & Budget Committee about cost sharing.

3) A memo dated September 15, 2009 from District Engineer Bob McDonald to General

Manager Charles Hamilton, Re: Second Barrel Project Benefits Analysis;

4) A memo dated October 29, 2009 from Charles Hamilton, General Manager, to the Carpinteria Valley Water District Board of Directors, Re: District participation in and funding of COMB CIP Projects – Options;

Item #VI E Page # 1

5) A copy of the text of remarks by Charles Hamilton to Goleta Water District Board

11/10/09. Please also be advised that a decision of this magnitude by this Board of Directors as suggested in your December 20, 2010 letter, reversing the one made over 14 months ago, would necessitate considerable staff work in support of such a reversal, if one could be justified, and considerable public involvement, taking up to several months, with no guarantee of success. It could certainly not be an action taken within the deadline of January 12, 2011 set forth in your December 20, 2010 letter. A more realistic and fruitful approach by COMB might be to direct COMB’s engineer to conduct a detailed, hydraulic cost /benefit analysis of the Second Barrel Project in concert with CVWD’s District Engineer Bob McDonald and a third registered civil engineer from either the City of Santa Barbara or Goleta Water District. Presumably such an analysis could be completed and presented to COMB within a couple of months, and subsequently provide CVWD’s Board of Directors with a factually substantiated cost sharing basis to consider, and then possibly incorporate some new expense for the COMB Second Barrel project into the District’s FY 11-12 Rates and Budget public hearing process. Perhaps most importantly for all of us, does COMB have a Board approved back–up plan, should the Second Barrel Project not go forward, to address failure of the South Coast Conduit in the south portal area? If Glen Hille’s (AECOM) reported statement at a Goleta Water Board meeting in 2009 about the likely failure of the South Coast Conduit in the south portal area within five years is credible, COMB should already have in place a detailed, engineered cost-based plan of action for a “shovel ready” repair and/or rehabilitation project to address and rectify such a failure. Such a repair/rehabilitation plan as well as the actual project would fall clearly within the existing Cachuma entitlement based cost sharing approach. Please also see the attached copies of a series of e-mails beginning with an August 2, 2010 e-mail from Charles Hamilton to John McInnes followed by one dated December 30, 2009 to Kate Rees. Carpinteria Valley Water District remains fully committed to the success of COMB and looks forward to fully participating in COMB in the future. Sincerely, June Van Wingerden President of the Board, Carpinteria Valley Water District Cc: Board of Directors, Carpinteria Valley Water District Doug Morgan, COMB Director, Montecito Water District

Dale Francisco, COMB Director, City of Santa Barbara Dennis Beebe, COMB Director, Santa Ynez ID#1 Michael Jackson, Area Manager, US Bureau of Reclamation

Item #VI E Page # 2

Item #VI E Page # 3

Item #VI E Page # 4

November 12, 2009 Kate Rees General Manager Cachuma Operation & Maintenance Board 3301 Laurel Canyon Road Santa Barbara, CA 93105-2017 Dear Ms. Rees, Please be advised that the Board of Directors of Carpinteria Valley Water District, at its regularly scheduled Board meeting held on November 4, 2009 by a 4-1 vote declined to participate in the funding of the “Second Barrel” Project of the Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board’s (COMB) Capital Improvement Program “Project 2009,” but will consider participation in the other six projects identified in COMB’s “Project 2009” list on a project by project basis as they are presented at COMB for funding. This difficult decision reflects the District’s difficult financial situation, newly developed and preliminary rate and budget projections for the next fiscal year, and a need to guard against any discretionary use of its emergency reserves in the face of certain other needs of great but still unknown magnitude. The Board also generally rejects the use by COMB of Cachuma entitlement based formulas for cost sharing for the “Second Barrel” project. Due to its localized benefit nature, it is more like an Ortega Reservoir Cover Project that was paid for solely by the benefiting agencies, namely Montecito and Carpinteria Valley Water Districts, than a repair or replacement of some original part of the Cachuma South Coast Conduit structure that justifies the continued use of the Cachuma entitlement based formulas for cost sharing. For additional information about this perspective please find the attached text of the remarks I presented at the Goleta Water District Board meeting on November 10, 2009. The District remains committed to vigorous and responsible participation as a member of COMB. It fully expects to contribute its fair share in all of COMB’s costs associated with the important and essential operations and maintenance activities of the Cachuma Project. Once the “Second Barrel” project is constructed, for example, activities associated with the repair and maintenance of the existing older conduit, barring any mutually agreed upon changes to cost sharing, would clearly fall within the established cost sharing methodology based on Cachuma entitlements. Hopefully these as yet unknown costs will not be of such a magnitude that we cannot collectively address them without some new proposed long term financing. More than ever, it seems not only prudent but imperative that COMB take steps now to create a collaborative planning process toward the development of a Cachuma Strategic and Capital Facilities Plan. Please consider the attached one page handout I presented to COMB

Item #VI E Page # 5

in January about this need. Perhaps the $80,000 approved by COMB for a Cachuma Project “cost/benefit and/or cost sharing” analysis can be used to begin this effort. I look forward to working collaboratively with you and all others who are part of the on-going COMB success story, for many more years. Sincerely,

Charles B. Hamilton General Manager Cc: Board of Directors, Carpinteria Valley Water District Matt Naftaly, Water Agency Manager, County of Santa Barbara Michael Jackson, Area Manager, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Item #VI E Page # 6

Remarks to Goleta Water District Board 11/10/09 by Charles Hamilton, GM, Carpinteria Valley Water District

Good evening President Bertrando and Directors. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. I hope my remarks will be helpful.

First let me say that I share your disappointment that we have all not done so well with the structure and process that we have been working with over the last year or so related to the COMB Capital Improvement Program, and in particular the Second Barrel Project. I am hopeful that we can recover some lost ground. I wish to briefly state my District's position for your consideration. The Second Barrel Project is a very expensive project addressing capacity management and reliability issues for the City of Santa Barbara and Goleta Water District. The needs it will meet are not those created or caused by Carpinteria Valley Water District, but in large measure by Goleta Water District above Lauro Reservoir and/or the City of Santa Barbara, and Montecito Water District below the Cater Treatment Plant. The Project will provide a much greater flow capacity to both Goleta Water District’s Corona del Mar Treatment Plant and Santa Barbara’s Cater Treatment Plant. It will ensure flows of untreated water at the Goleta West turnout, not affecting the Corona del Mar or Cater Treatment Plants. It will enable flows considerably greater than what is currently required by Goleta's Corona del Mar Treatment plant. It will enable higher flows needed by the City of Santa Barbara to maintain adequate supply to the Cater Treatment plant during periods of high demand. It will provide the capacity needed by the City of Santa Barbara to manage its Gibraltar pass-through water. For Goleta in particular and Santa Barbara secondarily it will provide a high level of South Coast Conduit redundancy, but very little for the Carpinteria Valley. Due to the physical limitations of the Cater Treatment Plant, other pinch points restricting flows in the South Coast Conduit south of the Cater Plant, and the increasing demands for water by Montecito Water District upstream of Carpinteria Valley, the Second Barrel offers only ancillary reliability benefits for Carpinteria Valley Water District. The Project basically fits the definition of a localized benefit project not unlike the Ortega Reservoir Cover Project paid for entirely by Montecito and Carpinteria Valley Water Districts, not Goleta and not Santa Barbara.

Item #VI E Page # 7

Remarks to Goleta Water District Board 11/10/09 by Charles Hamilton, GM, Carpinteria Valley Water District

Good evening President Bertrando and Directors. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. I hope my remarks will be helpful.

First let me say that I share your disappointment that we have all not done so well with the structure and process that we have been working with over the last year or so related to the COMB Capital Improvement Program, and in particular the Second Barrel Project. I am hopeful that we can recover some lost ground. I wish to briefly state my District's position for your consideration. The Second Barrel Project is a very expensive project addressing capacity management and reliability issues for the City of Santa Barbara and Goleta Water District. The needs it will meet are not those created or caused by Carpinteria Valley Water District, but in large measure by Goleta Water District above Lauro Reservoir and/or the City of Santa Barbara, and Montecito Water District below the Cater Treatment Plant. The Project will provide a much greater flow capacity to both Goleta Water District’s Corona del Mar Treatment Plant and Santa Barbara’s Cater Treatment Plant. It will ensure flows of untreated water at the Goleta West turnout, not affecting the Corona del Mar or Cater Treatment Plants. It will enable flows considerably greater than what is currently required by Goleta's Corona del Mar Treatment plant. It will enable higher flows needed by the City of Santa Barbara to maintain adequate supply to the Cater Treatment plant during periods of high demand. It will provide the capacity needed by the City of Santa Barbara to manage its Gibraltar pass-through water. For Goleta in particular and Santa Barbara secondarily it will provide a high level of South Coast Conduit redundancy, but very little for the Carpinteria Valley. Due to the physical limitations of the Cater Treatment Plant, other pinch points restricting flows in the South Coast Conduit south of the Cater Plant, and the increasing demands for water by Montecito Water District upstream of Carpinteria Valley, the Second Barrel offers only ancillary reliability benefits for Carpinteria Valley Water District. The Project basically fits the definition of a localized benefit project not unlike the Ortega Reservoir Cover Project paid for entirely by Montecito and Carpinteria Valley Water Districts, not Goleta and not Santa Barbara.

Item #VI E Page # 8

Time for a Strategic Plan for the Cachuma Project?

January 26, 2009

Recommendation:

That COMB take lead action as soon as possible to create a task force or committee inclusive of COMB, Member Unit, Bureau of Reclamation and County of Santa Barbara representatives, to prepare a proposal for a comprehensive “strategic planning process” leading to a strategic plan for the Cachuma Project.

A Cachuma Project strategic plan would address issues of future Project ownership, management, operations and maintenance, and define and delineate roles and responsibilities of the Member Units, COMB, the Bureau and the County of Santa Barbara.

Background:

1) COMB Member Units will have paid off the Cachuma Project debt to the U.S. Bureau in 2015.

2) COMB Member Units (Carpinteria Valley and Montecito Water Districts) have constructed and taken ownership of large covers on the Ortega and Carpinteria Dam and Reservoirs - Project facilities.

3) The Bureau in partnership with COMB has completed major improvements to various Cachuma Project facilities including seismic upgrades for Bradbury and Lauro Dams, and gates construction at Bradbury Dam related to capacity.

4) The Bureau in partnership with the County of Santa Barbara has implemented Modified Storm Operations (flood control) protocol for the Project.

5) The Central Coast Water Authority in partnership with Bureau (Warren Act Agreement that expires 2022) wheels State Water Project water through the Project.

6) COMB in partnership with the Bureau has competed major Project modifications and new projects to address public trust issues including Steelhead recovery.

7) COMB is considering a major Project addition and enhancement – the Second Barrel Pipeline - to augment and parallel the South Coast Conduit in the Goleta reach - to be owned by the Bureau.

8) COMB is considering partnership with the County of Santa Barbara, contractor with the Bureau, relative to the control of recreational uses of the Project at Lake Cachuma relative to Quagga mussels, etc.

Item #VI E Page # 9

Memo To: Charles B. Hamilton

From: Bob McDonald, District Engineer

Date: September 15, 2009

RE: Second Barrel Project Benefits Analysis

Purpose

Staff was directed to analyze COMB’s Second Barrel Project to identify benefits to CVWD. District Staff completed a general review of the COMB Capital Improvement Program in November of 2008 in which it identified concerns with the program and some limited concerns with the two projects listed as high priority, the Second Barrel Project and Mission Creek Crossing Project. I have attached the November memo for your review and use.

The intent of this analysis is not to revisit issues discussed in the November 2008 memo, but to analyze further the benefits of the Second Barrel Project.

Background and understanding of the Project

Staff’s understanding of the Second Barrel Project is based on the “Reliability Alternatives Study for Upper Reach of the South Coast Conduit.” Dated April 8th 2003, COMB 2008‐2010 O&M Reliability Program list and presentations given By Boyle Engineering/ AECOM. The Project consists of a new 48 inch “redundant” pipeline that extends from the South Portal of the Tecolote Tunnel to Goleta Water District’s Corona Del Mar Water Treatment Plant (CDMWTP). The Pipeline as currently proposed runs parallel and adjacent to the existing pipeline for about 40 to 50 percent of its length. The proposed pipeline’s approximate length is 8000 LF. According to the Reliability Alternatives Study the purpose of the project is reliability and capacity.

Reliability

Reliability, for the purposes of this discussion, refers to the degree that the facility will fully perform its function without significant disruption due to failure. In this case the facility is the South Coast Conduit (SCC) and its appurtenances. Reliability in the case of a pipeline is dependent on the point on the pipeline being analyzed. For example, if analyzing a point one mile downstream from the

Item #VI E Page # 10

beginning of a 50 mile pipeline, one would not be concerned about the condition of the other 49 miles of pipeline. However, if analyzing a point at 49 miles, the analyzer would be concerned about all 49 miles of the pipe upstream. This idea should be factored into the analysis when looking at the SCC’s reliability.

In this analysis it should be noted that an element of capacity is included under the heading of reliability. For example, if the pipeline could not supply enough water, due to capacity limitations, to the South Coast agencies during peak periods such that one or more of the agencies could not supply its customers, the pipeline would be considered unreliable. Other issues related to reliability of the SCC include structural failure, corrosion, geologic hazard and right of way encroachment. Each of these issues poses a potential risk to the SCC that can be viewed as reducing the overall reliability.

The Alternative Analysis identifies each of these risk factors for various reaches along the SCC. A couple of areas of acute risk specifically identified include the reach between CDMWTP and Tecolote Tunnel South Portal, and the reach known as the Sheffield Tunnel. Both of these stretches of pipeline are under‐designed and could fail due to over‐pressure. Both facilities frequently flow at capacity because of high system demands. Both are 50 plus years old and cannot be taken off‐line for maintenance and have corrosion issues. It is clear from the Alternatives Analysis that these and other locations along the SCC are deficient and need to be repaired or replaced to improve the overall reliability of the SCC.

There is no question that the Second Barrel project addresses deficiencies and improves reliability. However, as stated above the level of reliability is dependent on the location analyzed. For Goleta Water District the reliability is highly improved because the chance of the SCC not performing its function for GWD is essentially eliminated by the second pipeline. For CVWD the improvement of reliability is only slightly improved because there are existing risk factors in the Sheffield Tunnel and elsewhere along the SCC that remain. Until these factors are addressed the reliability remains poor for the SCC in Carpinteria.

It should be mentioned that in the current list of CIP projects proposed by COMB, the Sheffield Tunnel is listed for a study but no repairs are accounted for in the program.

Capacity

Capacity for the purpose of this discussion refers to the rate at which a volume of water can be conveyed through a facility under normal conditions. Excluded from this discussion is the “demand” placed on the SCC facility with respect to capacity. The reason for this exclusion is that Staff does not believe that “demand” on the SCC has been sufficiently analyzed for the current time period and therefore is indeterminate. As operators of the facility we know that it has operated at capacity periodically but we don’t have any statistical analysis to clearly show for how long, how often and under what conditions to expect these events. Therefore this discussion will focus on the existing capacity of SCC and any improved capacity gained by constructing the Second Barrel Project.


The Second Barrel Project consists of an additional 48 inch pipe to parallel the existing 48 inch pipe between South Portal of the Tecolote Tunnel and CDMWTP. The Existing capacity of the single pipe is approximately 41 MGD. The addition of a second pipe with the same diameter intuitively brings the capacity to 82 MGD. However, the Tecolote Tunnel which is upstream of the project has a capacity of 65 MGD and therefore limits the flow supplied to the improved reach. Unless the Tecolote Tunnel capacity is improved or water is pumped from Glen Annie Reservoir into the Second Barrel reach the functional capacity of the improved facility is 65 MGD. The CDM treatment plant peak capacity is 36 MGD. It is assumed that the plant will be operating at its maximum level during a peak event. That means the remaining capacity for Cater Treatment Plant will be 29 MGD. This is below the Treatment Plant Capacity 37 MGD which should not be a problem because the Lauro Reservoir (125 MG Storage) can provide buffering of peak demands.

Although gains in capacity upstream are important for Cater TP there is also a limitation on what Cater can deliver through the SCC downstream (South). The SCC capacity through the reach south of Cater is limited to 18 MGD to the Sheffield Tunnel and 13 MGD from the Tunnel to Ortega and finally 10.5 MGD from Ortega to Carpinteria. These capacities are unaffected by the Second Barrel Project. There is also anecdotal evidence during peak events Cater struggles to keep Ortega and Carpinteria Reservoirs filled in spite of the availability of water upstream of Cater.

See table below for a summary of capacities along the SCC.

Reach Existing Capacity Improved Capacity after Second Barrel

Tecolote Tunnel 65 MGD 65 MGD

Goleta Reach: TTSP to CDMWTP

41 MGD 65 MGD

Goleta Reach: CDMWTP to Lauro Reservoir

41 MGD 41 MGD

Carp Reach: Cater to Sheffield Tunnel

18 MGD 18 MGD

Carp Reach: Sheffield Tunnel to Ortega Reservoir

13 MGD 13 MGD

Carp Reach: Ortega Reservoir to Carpinteria Reservoir

10.5 MGD 10.5 MGD


Much in the same way that reliability benefits of the Second Barrel Project are not as significant for Carpinteria as they are for upstream users, capacity benefits turn out not to benefit Carpinteria without other projects to improve the lower reaches of the SCC.

Operational Flexibility

One factor that has not been discussed with respect to the Second Barrel Project is operational flexibility. This is a benefit gained by COMB exclusively. This means COMB can more effectively carry out O&M on the SCC facilities because it has more flexibility with the facility. An example of this is that COMB can schedule maintenance or inspections on one pipeline while the other remains in service. This efficiency results in less cost to maintain and operate that portion of the pipeline. It could be argued that that in turn benefits all the member agencies with lower COMB costs.

Conclusions

The Second Barrel Project has many benefits including reliability and additional capacity for all members of the South Coast only if considered as part of a larger program to repair ALL deficiencies along the entire reach of the South Coast Conduit. The Second Barrel project apart from these other necessary projects benefits upstream users alone. CVWD could best support the Second Barrel Project in the context of a COMB adopted program addressing all SCC deficiencies.


MEMO

To: Charles B. Hamilton, General Manager

From: Bob McDonald, District Engineer

Date: November 12, 2008

RE: COMB Capital Improvement Projects Program Evaluation

_____________________________________________________________________________

Staff has reviewed the proposed CIP program project components. In its review several objectives were used to analyze the program. The objectives include reliability, capacity, safety and operational flexibility. Each proposed project was reviewed for consistency with these goals. It should be noted that although CVWD holds Water Quality as co‐equal goal to those given above, COMB does not have that mandate. Reliability in this analysis refers to the degree that the facility will perform its function without significant interruption. Capacity in this analysis refers to the amount of water conveyable through the facility. Safety in this analysis refers to the safe keeping of life, health and property of personnel and the general public. Operational Flexibility in this analysis refers to the ability for COMB staff to operate the systems to meet maintenance, emergency and other atypical operational needs. Attached in Appendix A is a table with a list of the COMB projects with a summary evaluation for each project

Additionally, known issues along the Carpinteria reach of the Cachuma project are discussed herein and should be further analyzed to determine if significant deficiency exist to warrant addition to the currently proposed CIP program.

The proposed COMB CIP Program consists of 17 projects valued at $25.68 million dollars located from Tecolote Tunnel South Portal to Carpinteria Reservoir. (See attached map in Appendix B.) Twenty million dollars worth of projects are proposed to be completed in two to three years using COP and Proposition 50 grant monies. Projects are to be completed based on


a ranked project list shown in Table 1. The remaining $5.7 million worth of projects will remain on the list until subsequent funding becomes available. The current collection of special projects funding from the member units is approximately $1.3 million per year. Under the current COMB proposal approximately $1.1 million of this revenue stream will be used for COP debt repayment, starting in FY2010 or 2011 and ending in 2040 or 2041, leaving a balance of $200,000 per year for other projects. It is unlikely during the intense initial two to three year period of capital projects any additional projects will be undertaken. This means after the COP funded projects are completed, COMB will have an estimated $400,000 to $800,000 in reserves for remaining projects. However, even after year 3 of the program there will be upwards of $5 million in unfunded projects, not to mention new projects yet to be defined. Additional funding for projects may be available in 2015 using the current Cachuma Project debt repayment revenue stream that will be fully repaid in 2015. This revenue stream is approximately $1 million per year.

If this revenue stream alone is used to fund remaining projects, it will take approximately 7 to 10 years to complete the remaining 12 or 13 projects. While the current stated planning horizon for the proposed Capital Improvement Program is two to three years it is in essence a plan that spans 12 years due to funding constraints.


No. Project Component DescriptionEstimated

CostPriority - Very High

Priority - High

Priority - Medium

Priority - Low

1 SCC Second Barrel Pipeline, Upper Reach $ 9,165,000 9,165,000$

2 Reliability Study (Reaches 3 and 4) $ 150,000 150,000$

3A SCC Mission Creek Crossing and Fish Passage $ 2,300,000 2,300,000$

3B Six SCC Creek Crossings $ 1,500,000 1,500,000$

4 SCC In-Line Valve Installation (4 Locations) $ 2,600,000 2,600,000$

5Lauro Reservoir, Barker Pass and Sheffield Tunnel Vent Rehabilitation

$ 500,000 500,000$

6A SCC Corrosion Repairs at Appurtenances $ 2,075,000 2,075,000$

6B SCC Corrosion Repairs at Appurtenances $ 1,940,000 1,940,000$

7 SCC Modifications to Reduce Air Binding $ 100,000 100,000$

8 Glen Anne Weir Modifications $ 150,000 150,000$

9 COMB Office Building Replacement $ 3,000,000 3,000,000$

10 Reconfigure Control Station Piping to Reduce HL $ 630,000 630,000$

11 Goleta West Meter Modifications $ 200,000 200,000$

12 Right-of-Way Definition Program $ 1,000,000 1,000,000$

13Investigation of Probable Repairs to the Tecolote Tunnel Lining

$ 85,000 85,000$

14Lake Cachuma Intake Tower Rehabilitation (lower gate operability)

$ 85,000 85,000$

15Elevator Shaft Rehabilitation (requires extensive repairs to reduce water intrusion)

$ 50,000 50,000$

16Cachuma Lake Intake Tower Rehabilitation (Seismic Upgrade Investigation )

$ 100,000 100,000$

17 Sheffield Tunnel Pipe Replacement Investigation $ 50,000 50,000$

Table 1- COMB Prioritization of Project Components and Cost Distribution

Two projects are ranked “very high priority” in COMB’s analysis. They are the SCC Second Barrel Project and SCC Mission Creek Crossing and Fish Passage. The Second Barrel Project, a $9.2 million project, was first identified in the 2003 COMB Reliability Alternatives Study for the Upper Reach of the South Coast Conduit. The project consists of the construction of a redundant pipeline for the SCC from the South Portal of Tecolote Tunnel to Corona Del Mar Treatment Plant. The project is highly ranked for several reasons identified in the Reliability Alternatives Report. First, the report states, “The capacity deficiencies for the SCC in the upper portion of the Upper Reach is approximately 75% of max day demand.” This implies that, given


current demands, the pipeline can only deliver slightly more than 50% of demand during peak demand periods and the system must rely on reservoir storage to meet demand. Although this is not an unusual situation for many water purveyors, it is not ideal. Second, the report states, “Significant sections of the upper portion of this reach of the SCC are structurally under reinforced by current design standards for the existing soil conditions.” This would appear to be of extreme concern given that SCC is a single pipeline that could cause widespread water outages if significant failure were to occur in this section.

The second “very highly ranked” project, Mission Creek pipeline crossing, a $2.3 million project, was first identified in the Reliability and Alternatives Study for the South Coast Conduit between Cater Booster Pump and Ortega Reservoir. It was identified as one of 10 potentially hazardous creek crossings. Subsequent analysis apparently has been completed on this particular location as to rank it so highly. According to the project description, the work would be done in conjunction with a City of Santa Barbara project to improve the stream for migrating salmon. Additionally, the project description indicates that the SCC pipe has been damaged by rock impact and repaired with a temporary concrete cap. This damaged pipe should be permanently repaired to maintain reliability. Since various elements of work need to be done, i.e. lowering pipeline below the scour line, replacing section of damaged pipe, removal of temporary concrete cap and reconfiguring of stream bed for improved fish passage, it is likely that efficiencies will occur if project is taken on as a single project.

The CIP Program also identified six projects valued at $10.675 million ranked as “High Priority”. A complete analysis was not done on these projects due to time constraints. Additional analysis can be done in the coming weeks in order to better evaluate this group of projects. Of note among the projects listed as “High Priority”, are the SCC Line Valve Projects, SCC Corrosion Repairs, SCC Right of Way Definition Program and Lauro, Barker and Sheffield Vent Rehab. These projects increase both reliability and operation flexibility and appear to have a more urgent need.

Projects ranked medium and low will unlikely be completed within the next five years. Therefore a review of these projects can be done as they become more immediate and as funding is being sought. There are projects in the low priority category that should be considered higher priority, in the opinion of staff. Of particular interest to Carpinteria Valley Water District are the phase 3 and 4 Reliability and Alternatives Study. This study will review and identify deficiencies on the Carpinteria Reach of the SCC. A complete analysis of the entire project should be considered prior to embarking on a multimillion dollar capital improvement program.

In the absence of the above mentioned study it seems appropriate to point out a few known deficiencies in the Carpinteria Reach that staff is already aware of and may warrant a closer


look in light of the coming CIP program. These deficiencies include inadequate metering to the Carpinteria Valley, potential need for bypass piping in areas that the SCC flows cannot be conveyed or backfilled during shutdown, safety modification at Carpinteria Reservoir, valve replacement at Carpinteria Control Station, and turnout rehabilitation at laterals.

Conclusions and Recommendation

Given the long term obligations associated with the COPs and the likelihood of other projects arising from the SCC Reliability and Alternatives Studies phases 3 and 4, it is reasonable to think that more funding will be needed within the planning horizon of the CIP program. Discussion should be included in either the Proposed COP Issue Preliminary Official Statement or in an updated Capital Projects Plan regarding the implications of funding constraints. Additionally, attention should be given to other funding opportunities, particularly for projects with an element of streambed rehabilitation. These types of projects are gaining favor in the grant funding programs at both State and Federal levels.

The cost associated with the Mission Creek crossing, $2.8 million, seems excessive given that there are six other crossings proposed totaling only $1.5 million. If the fish passage portion of the project is driving the costs for this project, then the City of Santa Barbara should carry the cost burden of that portion of the project.

Strong consideration should be given to completing the SCC Reliability Studies phase 3 and 4 prior to completion of any of the “High Priority” projects.

If the SCC Reliability and Alternatives Study cannot be completed prior to implementation of projects, an effort to preliminarily study SCC Reaches 2 and 4 with the member units staff in order to better identify and rank known deficiencies in those reaches should be made.


App

endix A‐ P

roject Evalutation

Matrix

Proj

Num

Project Nam

eRe

ach/ Facil

Budget

Type

of P

roject

Reliability

Capa

city

Safety

Ope

ration

al

Flexibility

1SCC Second

Barrel Project

Upp

er9,16

5,00

0.00

$

New

Con

struction

Yes

Yes

No Effect

Yes

2SCC Re

liability Stud

y ph

3 and

4Upp

er/Low

er15

0,00

0.00

$

Stud

yyes

yes

No Effect

yes

3AMission

Creek Crossing w/ Fish

Passage

Lower

2,30

0,00

0.00

$

Improvem

ent o

f exist facility

Yes

No Effect

No Effect

No Effect

3BSix SCC Creek Crossings

Upp

er/Low

er1,50

0,00

0.00

$

Improvem

ent o

f exist facility

Yes

No Effect

No Effect

No Effect

4SCC Inline Va

lve installatio

nsUpp

er/Low

er2,60

0,00

0.00

$

Improvem

ent o

f exist facility

Yes

No Effect

No Effect

Yes

5Lauro Re

servoir, Barker Pass and

Sheffie

ld tu

nnel Ven

t Imp.

Upp

er/Low

er50

0,00

0.00

$

Improvem

ent o

f exist facility

No Effect

yes

yes

No Effect

6ASCC Co

rrosion Re

pairs at

App

urtenances

Upp

er/Low

er2,07

5,00

0.00

$

Rehab of exist Facility

yes

No Effect

No Effect

Yes

6BSCC Co

rrosion Re

pairs at

App

urtenances

Upp

er/Low

er1,94

0,00

0.00

$

Rehab of exist Facility

yes

No Effect

No Effect

Yes

7SCC Mod

ificatio

ns To Re

duce Air

Bind

ing

Lower

100,00

0.00

$

Improvem

ent o

f exist facility

Yes

Yes

No Effect

No Effect

8Glen Ann

ie W

ier Mod

ificatio

ns

Upp

er15

0,00

0.00

$

Improvem

ent o

f exist facility

Yes

Yes

No Effect

Yes

9CO

MB Office Bldg

N/A

3,00

0,00

0.00

$

New

Con

struction

No Effect

No Effect

Yes

No Effect

10Re

configuration Co

ntrol Statio

n Pipe

to Red

uce Head Loss

Upp

er63

0,00

0.00

$

Improvem

ent o

f exist facility

Yes

Yes

No Effect

Yes

11Goleta West M

eter M

odificatio

nsUpp

er20

0,00

0.00

$

Improvem

ent o

f exist facility

No Effect

Yes

No Effect

Yes

12SCC Right O

f Way investigation

Upp

er/Low

er1,00

0,00

0.00

$

Stud

y/ New

Con

struction

Yes

No Effect

No Effect

Yes

13Investigation of Probable Re

pairs To

Tecolote Tun

nel Lining

Tecolote

85,000

.00

$

Stud

yYes

No Effect

No Effect

No Effect

14Investigation of Probable

Rehabilitation of Lake Cachum

a Intake Tow

erCahu

ma

85,000

.00

$

Stud

yYes

No Effect

No Effect

No Effect

15Investigation of Probable

Rehibilitation of Intake Tow

er

Elevator Shaft

Cachum

a50

,000

.00

$

Stud

yYes

No Effect

Yes

No Effect

16Investigate Prob

able Seism

ic

upgrade of Lake Cachum

a Intake

Tower

Cachum

a10

0,00

0.00

$

Stud

yYes

No Effect

Yes

No Effect

17Investigation of poten

tial She

ffield

Tunn

el Pipe Re

placem

ent

Lower

50,000

.00

$

Stud

yYes

Yes

No Effect

No Effect

Total

25,680

,000

.00

$

Meets Goa

l


Memo


From: Charles Hamilton, General Manager

CC: file

Date: 10/29/2009

Re: District participation in and funding of COMB CIP Projects - Options

Recommendation: Consider three options to determine the most cost effective and prudent way for Carpinteria Valley Water District to participate in Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board's proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP):

1. Self fund all projects (pay as you go) 2. No participation in “second barrel” project; self fund other six projects

3. Bond fund “second barrel” project; self fund other six projects

Option 1: Self fund all projects (pay as you go) Approve self-funding of about $1.15 million for only the “second barrel” project, and reserve the option to participate in the six other projects of COMB’s “2009 Project” on a project by project basis as they are presented at COMB for funding (Resolution No. 891).

Economic considerations

Funding the second barrel project now using $1.15 million of currently available District reserves of $3,767,900 would result in about a 30.5% reduction of available District reserves, reducing them to $2,617,900. This amount would result in the District dropping $175,000 below the level equal to 6 months of Operating Expense, a minimum per District policy. (About $390,000 of the $1.15 million would potentially be returned to the District after reimbursement to COMB by the State with Proposition 50 funds, both during and after the “second barrel” construction process.)

This poses a major challenge to the District if it wishes to address its immediate needs for valve and mainline repair and replacement, and other major expenditures. The more the District runs parts of its system to failure, by not replacing them on a planned and scheduled basis, the costlier it becomes. Emergency repairs tend to be much more



costly due to nighttime and weekend overtime labor costs incurred by District personnel and contractors alike. And there is always the potential for costly disruption to customers.

A second need for the District’s retention and immediate use of reserves is evolving with the Ortega Reservoir leakage problem and the resultant lawsuit in progress.

A third need is the looming costs associated with the District’s obligations to pay its fair share of the Advanced Treatment Project at Santa Barbara’s Cater Treatment Plant obligation.

In order to raise the funds in lieu of reserves committed to the “second barrel“ project, to offset some significant costs associate with the above three sets of needs, the District would likely have to raise water rates considerably higher than usual over several years.

Political considerations

The main political consequence of using all available reserves to a threshold below the District’s 6 month Operating Expense level is largely one of then having to propose higher than usual rate increases at a time when there is very little support for any rate increases, and arguably reduced ability to pay in many households throughout the Carpinteria Valley.

Equity considerations

COMB’s Resolution 496 stating intentions to address two cost sharing issues raised by the District is arguably less than a good match for CVWD’s continuing to pay its historical 12.2% cost sharing percentage for a “localized benefit” facility such as the “second barrel” new pipeline project in the Goleta area.

COMB’s stated intention to address the use of the Cachuma Project by others distributing State Water through the Cachuma Project to non-Project members such as La Cumbre Mutual Water Company is something that COMB could have done years ago. COMB’s striving to establish a protocol to address peak demand management in a way that prevents CVWD from the consequences of low South Coast Conduit flows and at the same time incurring extraordinary expense associated with high energy costs to run its wells, should have been done years ago. Finally, while it is good for the District that COMB has now stated intentions to address these matters, they come with no enforceable guarantee of implementation, and are things that cannot be accomplished without unanimous consent of all Cachuma member agencies.

Most importantly, however, the ”second barrel” project clearly falls in the category of a Cachuma reliability project with greatly disproportionate “localized benefit” accruing to Goleta Water District and the City of Santa Barbara, and little for CVWD.

CVWD alone addressed a major Cachuma reliability project when it covered the Carpinteria Reservoir to prevent it from being taken out of service and wreaking havoc with the Cachuma Project’s original distribution and storage system. CVWD now owns the add-on roof at the Carpinteria Reservoir. Subsequently, both CVWD and Montecito Water District split all costs 50-50 associated with another Cachuma reliability project, namely, the Ortega Reservoir Project. They did these Cachuma reliability projects with no contribution from other Cachuma member agencies and share equally in ownership of the add-on roof at Ortega. Similarly, the City of Santa Barbara, Montecito


Water District and Carpinteria Valley Water District entered into a joint powers authority to develop the Cater Treatment plant lest the southern reaches of the South Coast Conduit be rendered unusable and unfit to deliver Cachuma water, arguably another huge Cachuma reliability project. Santa Barbara owns this facility but through this joint powers agreement is entitled to about a 40% cost share form Montecito and CVWD for on-going and additional capital improvements such as the proposed $20 million Advanced Treatment Project (ozone) addition to Cater.

The above three examples of major Cachuma Project reliability improvements fit in the mold of economically "benefit-based" as opposed to economically "interest-based" water facilities.

A benefit-based project of large magnitude is one that primarily, if not solely, benefits and is paid for by users of the Cachuma project in a localized service area. An interest-based project is an O&M repair or replacement that keeps the original Cachuma Project system up and running, such as replacement of a section of the conduit or a large pump or valves, etc.

“Interest-based” as used in this context refers to the Cachuma water entitlement based cost sharing “interest” of the member agencies, i.e., CVWD’s 12.2% “interest” and Montecito’s 11.5% “interest.” Interest-based cost sharing is appropriate for the normal repairs and replacement of existing Cachuma facilities constructed in the early 19590s, but have not been the norm for major “benefit-based” improvements/additions to the Cachuma Project, i.e., the reservoir covers and most arguably now for the redundant “second barrel” pipeline project in the Goleta area.

The Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board was aptly named for its purpose: to provide operations and maintenance services for the federally owned Cachuma Project as directed by member agencies elected officials, but not to build and take ownership of large major additions such as reservoir covers or in this case a large, new redundant pipeline with primarily localized area benefits. It is arguably inappropriate for COMB to embark now on a large benefit-based project without any clearly stated new mandate from the member agencies and shoehorn it into the historical interest-based cost sharing formula that is only appropriate for operations and maintenance services, repairs and system replacements of the original federally owned system.

Option 2: No participation in second barrel project; self fund other six projects Decline now to participate in the “second barrel” project and reserve the option to participate in the six other projects of COMB’s “2009 Project,” on a project by project basis as they are presented at COMB for funding.

Economic considerations

This option protects District reserves from rapid depletion and enables the District to go forward with a maximum amount of control over its obligations at COMB.

Political considerations

This option reduces the magnitude of pressure on the water rates in 2010 to address immediate District pipeline and valve priorities, as well as burgeoning Ortega Reservoir


and Cater Treatment Plant needs. To the extent that rate increases are minimized this coming year with the use of available reserves, there will be greater customer support.

Choosing to not participate in the “second barrel” project will, however, be met with opposition primarily from other Cachuma member agency officials.

Equity considerations

This option eliminates the District’s participation in cost sharing in the benefit-based new “second barrel” pipeline addition to Cachuma Project. The benefit-based approach should rightly be the one taken by Goleta, Santa Barbara and perhaps Montecito if they choose to go forward with the project on their own, organizationally through and in collaboration with COMB as the recipient of Prop 50 funds. Just without Carpinteria Valley Water District’s approximate $760,000 (net of Prop 50 funds) contribution.

Option 3: Bond fund “second barrel” project; self fund other six projects Approve a hybrid bond/self-funding arrangement whereby the District participates in bond funding (40%) for only the “second barrel” project, including a 10 year pre-funding, and commits now to self funding of all six other projects of COMB’s “2009 Project” (60%). Economic considerations

This option results in a 10 year annual cost outlay of about $105,000. It reduces the impact on District reserves in FY 09-10 to about $305,000 instead of the $1.15 million in Option 1. It reduces bond interest cost from $1.68 million (interest cost if bond financing CVWD’s 12.2% share of all COMB’s $18.1 million “2009 Project” costs) to $337,000. Political considerations This option would address concerns relative to water rate increases as it would cause no significant new pressure on the water rates as the annual principal and interest payment would not exceed the current level of expenditure paid by CVWD to COMB for capital projects. It would, however, result in the District adding to its debt burden (about $1.4 million). In and of itself this would not constitute a large increase in the District’s overall debt burden, but when viewed in the context of the Board’s upcoming essentially non-discretionary decision to participate in long term State SRF loan financing with the City of Santa Barbara for the District’s approximate $4 million share of the estimated $20 million Advance Treatment Project at the Cater Treatment Plant, it could seen as a less cautious or prudent decision than simply not participating at all in the “second barrel” project. Due to the commitment by the District inherent in this option to fund all its 12.2 % share of all $18.1 million of COMB’s “2009 Project”, it would, however be welcomed by other Cachuma member agency officials.

Equity considerations Option 3 does not result in any new changes relative to the considerations about equity as set forth in options 1 or 2 above.


July 6, 2009 Kate Rees General Manager Cachuma Operation & Maintenance Board 3301 Laurel Canyon Road Santa Barbara, CA 93105-2017 Dear Ms. Rees, Please be advised that the Carpinteria Valley Water District (CVWD) Board of Directors considered the matter of cost sharing for COMB’s proposed 2009 $16 million bond issue debt service at its regular Board meeting held on July 1, 2009 and requested that I send you this letter. The Board is unanimously opposed to approving bond issue documents that commit this District to the current cost sharing methodology based on the 1950’s Project yield percentages for member agencies. They formally request that the Cachuma Operation & Maintenance Board (COMB) prepare and incorporate a new cost sharing methodology in the proposed bond issue documents that specifically addresses the current varied use of the Cachuma Project facilities by member agencies related to all non-Project water as well as Project water. The methodology proposed in the attached memo dated June 2, 2009 from me to CVWD’s Rate & Budget Committee is recommended as the best and most easily implemented methodology. It would address both differing agency use of Cachuma capacity for non-Project water similar to the Bureau’s Warren Act arrangement and allow the application of year-end credits and debits in much the way that the Central Coast Water Authority handles adjustments. Sincerely,

Charles B. Hamilton General Manager Cc: Board of Directors and staff Rebecca Bjork, Water Resources Manager, City of Santa Barbara Tom Mosby, General Manager, Montecito Water District Eric Ford, General Manager, Goleta Water District Chris Dahlstrom, General Manager, Santa Ynez Water Conservation District, ID#1


1

Memo To: Rate & Budget Committee

From: Charles B. Hamilton

CC: Norma Rosales; Bob McDonald; Alex Keuper

Date: June 2, 2009

Re: COMB 2009 bond issue cost sharing

Recommendation: Recommend to full Board that this District formally request of COMB that a new methodology, described below, be used by COMB to address cost sharing of the debt service for the proposed 2009 $16 million bond issue by COMB. This methodology is as follows: Each year, for the $16 million bond issue, the amount of debt service (~$1,100,000) based on the old Cachuma entitlement percentages (Goleta 40.42%; Santa Barbara 35.89%; Carpinteria 12.2%; Montecito 11.5%) paid by the four South coast agencies is to be adjusted by a usage based calculation. The difference of the two will result in an annual adjustment in the form of a credit or debit to the following year’s debt service payment obligation. For example, using FY 07-08 actual usage numbers (see attached Table 2) the City of Santa Barbara’s cost share of $394,793 (using the old Cachuma entitlement percentage - 35.89% of $1.1 million) would be adjusted based on total actual usage cost total of $389,056, calculated below: $1.1 million (annual debt service) / 32,672 AF (total all agency usage) = $33.67/AF. $33.67 AF x 11,555 AF (total Santa Barbara usage) = $389,056. Santa Barbara would then receive a credit of $5,736 applied to the next year’s debt service payment, as follows: $394,793 - $389,056 = $5,736. Following this methodology for other agencies, Montecito would be debited $26,853; Carpinteria credited for $30,806; and Goleta credited for $8,998. La Cumbre would contribute $17,744. Background:

1) Existing costs for the maintenance of the COMB facilities are fixed and based on entitlement allocations derived when the Cachuma Project was constructed in the 1950s;

2) There are, however, new realities of water use through Cachuma facilities, including:

a. New sources of water supply, most notably imported State Water; b. Other agencies, not COMB members, utilize Project facilities and do not pay for

system maintenance and improvements. The following Table 1 illustrates Cachuma and State Water allocations for all South Coast water agencies; Table 2 illustrates all water use for FY 2007-08.



2

Table 1: Sou

th Coa

st W

ater Agencies' Cachu

ma an

d State Water Project Allo

cation

s

AF

%AF

%AF

%Goleta Water District

9,32

140

.4%

7,00

0*

43.1%

16,321

41.5%

City of Santa Barbara

8,27

735

.9%

3,00

018

.5%

11,277

28.7%

Mon

tecito W

ater District

2,65

111

.5%

3,00

018

.5%

5,65

114

.4%

Carpinteria

Valley Water District

2,81

312

.2%

2,00

012

.3%

4,81

312

.2%

TOTA

L (AF)

23,062

100.0%

La Cum

bre Mutual W

ater Co.

1,00

06.2%

1,00

02.5%

Moreh

art Land Co

.20

01.2%

200

0.5%

Raythe

on Systems Co

mpany

500.3%

500.1%

TOTA

L (AF)

16,250

100.0%

39,312

100.0%

* Goleta Allocatio

n = 4,50

0 AF + 2,50

0 AF

'add

ition

al" Table A water

Source: C

achu

ma Operatio

ns and

Mainten

ance Board (C

OMB) and

Cen

tral Coast W

ater Autho

rity (C

CWA)

Table 2: Sou

th Coa

st W

ater Agencies' Cachu

ma an

d State Water Project Use fo

r FY

200

7‐08

AF

%AF

%AF

%Goleta Water District

11,328

39.7%

1,60

938

.9%

12,937

39.6%

City of Santa Barbara

11,555

40.5%

00.0%

11,555

35.4%

Mon

tecito W

ater District

2,71

89.5%

1,83

544

.4%

4,55

313

.9%

Carpinteria

Valley Water District

2,93

610

.3%

134

3.2%

3,07

09.4%

TOTA

L (AF)

28,537

100.0%

La Cum

bre Mutual W

ater Co.

527

12.7%

527

1.6%

Moreh

art Land Co

.30

0.7%

300.1%

Raythe

on Systems Co

mpany

00.0%

00.0%

TOTA

L (AF)

4,13

510

0.0%

32,672

100.0%

Source: C

achu

ma Operatio

ns and

Mainten

ance Board (C

OMB) and

Cen

tral Coast W

ater Autho

rity (C

CWA)

Cachum

a Allo

cation

TOTA

L

Cachum

a Use FY 20

07‐08

TOTA

L State Water Project Tab

le A FY

2007

‐08 Delivered

State Water Project Tab

le A

Allo

cation



alex

Text Box

3

From: Charles Hamilton Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 1:58 PM To: John McInnes Cc: Tom Mosby; Bjork, Rebecca Subject: FW: Second Barrel Project... Hello John - I am not sure what you meant the other day about all the necessary hydraulic analysis being done now on the Second Barrel Project. If you read the e-mail below, you will see what I mean by needed hydraulic analysis. I am also not sure what you were referring to in your comment about there being no "risk analysis." Risk of SCC failure? We certainly heard several statements about that from Kate and Glen Hille at various times. I questioned Glen's comments about failure risk made at the Goleta Board meeting that seemed to influence your Board just prior to their making a decision. They seemed somewhat anecdotal and hyperbolic to me. It is a very big decision to spend up to $7 million on a new pipeline in order to do $1 million worth of repair to the existing pipe, unless there is some other huge benefit. Honestly I think Glen was more interested early on in selling the project based on his projections of growth and how a second pipeline would address that projection, with a possible back-up of the SCC in case of its failure being an added benefit. I think the face of feedback from both CVWD and MWD he shifted his emphasis. I am sure that the Prop 50 money and schedule has driven a lot of what has happened in the "allotted" time frame by Kate, et al. And believe that as a result, the kind of deliberate process that I would have been confident about did not occur. I consider all of this unfinished business. Even if CVWD is not at this time a paying participant. When my Board made its decision to withdraw from the Project, it did so under the impression that this would actually benefit the other participants who needed immediate clarity about what to do in the previous bid and project start time frame that Kate had created. And again, there was pressure to get this done ASAP in order to ensure that Prop 50 money would not be lost. regards, Charles

From: Charles Hamilton Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 5:22 PM To: Kate Rees Cc: Rebecca Bjork; Bill Ferguson; Tom Mosby; Jan Abel; Lee Bettencourt ; Bob Lieberknecht; Lauren Hanson; Das Williams; Mike Kanno; Chris Dahlstrom ; Sarah Knecht; David McDermott ; Chip Wullbrandt; Fran Farina; Kathy Stone; Gary Kvistad; Doug Brown; David Brodsly; Marian Breitbart; David Houston; Janet Gingras; Robert Dunlap; Glen Hille ; Bill Hair; Ruth Snodgrass; Matt Bloise; Ben Preston; Lea - Coastal View; Robert McDonald; Norma Rosales; Omar Castro; Souza, Kurt (CDPH-DDWEM-DWFO); Darrin Williams; Naftaly, Matt; [email protected]; Fred Lemere; JIM DRAIN; JIM DRAIN; June Van Wingerden; Matt Roberts; John McInnes ; Tony Buelna; [email protected] Subject: Second Barrel Project...

Hello Kate ‐ Thanks for Glen Hille's reply (below) and your attached letter of December 11 responding to my November 30 letter (ReesHamilton121109).


Bob McDonald helped me locate Glen's referenced February 2008 Initial Project Report on the FTP site set up by AECOM in September. I am not aware that hard copies of the February 2008 report were forwarded to all Cachuma managers for the their review. Glen's reference to "Project components" 6, 8, 11 and 12 are indeed what I was asking about relative to the first 8600 feet of the South Coast Conduit (SCC). Please advise me if I am correct in interpreting your 12/11 answer to my question. What I understand is that nothing is indeed now planned, as in "scheduled for action," beyond the Second Barrel Project and the Mission Creek Pipeline Crossing Project. Notably, the high priority Upper Reach SCC Corrosion Repairs of Appurtenances, Project Component No. 6 as identified in the "February 2008 Initial Project Report," with a budget of $2.075 million, are not yet scheduled for action. Has there been a considered decision by the COMB Board to do the Mission Creek Project ahead of the Upper Reach SCC Corrosion Repairs? CVWD's planning and budgeting needs are in large part driving this question as the Mission Creek ($2.5M) and SCC Corrosion Repair ($2.1M) projects will require CVWD's 12.2 % participation. Also of interest is the rationale to prioritize the "reliability threat" of the Mission Creek pipeline exposure over the SCC corrosion exposure of the SCC Upper Reach Appurtenances. Pertaining to your question about "what I am I looking for in the last paragraph" of my letter, I am looking for an engineering report about the hydraulic benefits of the Second Barrel project at a level of detail that addresses how the reliability and supply capacity benefits accrue to the individual four South Coast agencies. To my knowledge none was ever done, and I believe this lack of common factual basis handicapped Directors and Council members, their managers, and engineers in attempts to address the"equity" issue of cost sharing raised by CVWD a year ago. For reference, in lieu of re‐stating all that is found therein, please find the attached three CVWD documents that delve into and address the "hydraulic capacity/supply benefits" question in some way: 1) CVWD's District Engineer "Second Barrel Project Analysis" memo dated September 15, 2009; 2) My "Options" memo to the CVWD Board dated October 29, 2009; 3) My remarks presented to the Goleta Water District Board of Directors on November 10, 2009. CVWD clearly views the Second Barrel Project as primarily a localized benefit project akin to the Ortega and Carpinteria Reservoir Cover Projects. Should CVWD's limited analyses of the hydraulic capacity benefits be borne out in a COMB directed third party analysis, possible costly and inefficient unilateral actions proposed in retaliation against CVWD's Second Barrel non‐participation decision would likely be avoided. And conversely, without such a confirmation, CVWD would be compelled to reconsider and likely change its non‐participation level, and that too would likely improve overall South Coast agency collaboration and efficiency. As we enter a new phase of SCC repair, rehabilitation and replacement, leading up to and including possible ownership in 2015, we must work together harmoniously. regards, Charles Charles – I forwarded your question to Glen Hille and below is his reply with regard to your first question. Please clarify what you’re looking for in your last paragraph.


Thanks Kate From: Hille, Glen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 4:24 PM To: Kate Rees Cc: Robert Dunlap; Romer, Andy Subject: FW: Second Barrel Project Approximately two years (February 2008) ago the the Initial Project Report was completed by COMB. The report identified the first (of several more needed) O&M Reliability Program consisting of 17 project components. The Upper Reach Pipeline is project component #1, which along with the other 16 Project Components, make up the "first" phase of a much needed multi‐phased reliability program for avoiding loss of reliable operation of the SCC. A review all 17 project components will provide a great picture/understanding of the overall goals initially targeted. Project components 6, 8, 11, and 12 identify work tasks for the rehabilitation/protection the first 8600 feet of the exiting SCC. Although the program has been reduced to consideration of the Upper Reach Pipeline only, the need for the other 16 components and definition of the "future phases" of the SCC Reliability Program is real. Delays and deferments in implementing and defining the program simply increase the risk of an operations interruption, disallows grant applications and results in higher costs down the time line to the rate payers.. I do not understand the intent of the questions in the last paragraph .

From: Charles Hamilton [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 3:11 PM To: Kate Rees Cc: Rebecca Bjork; Bill Ferguson; Tom Mosby; Jan Abel; Lee Bettencourt ; Bob Lieberknecht; Lauren Hanson; Das Williams; Mike Kanno; Chris Dahlstrom ; Sarah Knecht; David McDermott ; Chip Wullbrandt; Fran Farina; Kathy Stone; Gary Kvistad; Doug Brown; David Brodsly; Marian Breitbart; David Houston; Janet Gingras; Robert Dunlap; Hille, Glen; Bill Hair; Ruth Snodgrass; Matt Bloise; Ben Preston; Lea ‐ Coastal View; Robert McDonald; Norma Rosales; Omar Castro; Souza, Kurt (CDPH‐DDWEM‐DWFO); Darrin Williams; Naftaly, Matt; [email protected]; Fred Lemere; JIM DRAIN; JIM DRAIN; June Van Wingerden; Matt Roberts; John McInnes ; Tony Buelna Subject: RE: Second Barrel Project

Hello Kate ‐ Thank you for providing answers to the questions in my letter of November 30, 2009. I apologize for not being very clear in my question about the existing Conduit structure. I was referring to that specific portion of the Conduit that is addressed by the Second Barrel, not anything beyond it. I am unaware of any planning or estimated costs to repair the 8200 feet of existing Conduit structure. Are there any? If not, why not? It would seem to me that in the absence of any planning and/or budgeting for such repairs, when planning for several other Conduit repairs has been done, one might assume that a defacto decision has been made to run the existing 8200 feet to failure. This of course would preclude what I view as one of the greater benefits of the Second Barrel relative to the


capacity it creates in that reach. Without a repaired and reliable reach of existing Conduit pipeline, all we have with the new Second Barrel is a more reliable status quo capacity. Why have we not seen a specific and detailed engineering report addressing the hydraulic needs and benefits of the Second Barrel Project as it complements the existing Conduit structure, discussing various repair costs, scenarios and options? Or am I just not aware of it? regards, Charles


CARPINTERIA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT MEMORANDUM

DATE: December 29, 2010

TO: Board of Directors

FROM: Charles B. Hamilton

SUBJECT: Proposed Board Meeting Dates – 2011- Meetings are held at City Hall @ 5:30 p.m.

JANUARY 8 (Board Workshop @ CVWD 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon) JANUARY 12 JANUARY 26 FEBRUARY 9 FEBRUARY 23 MARCH 9 MARCH 23 APRIL 13

APRIL 27 MAY 11

MAY 25 (Prop 218 Public Hearing)

JUNE 8 (Proposed Budget adoption) JUNE 22 JULY 13 JULY 27 AUGUST 10 AUGUST 24 SEPTEMBER 14 SEPTEMBER 28 OCTOBER 12 OCTOBER 26

NOVEMBER 9 NOVEMBER 23 DECEMBER 14 DECEMBER 28

Item # VI J Page # 1

carpinteria valley water district at carpinteria city … · e. **consider response to letter dated...

Documents