HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-15-1992 Joint Study Session CC/EVMWDMINUTES
JOINT STUDY SESSION
LAKE ELSINORE CITY COUNCIL/
ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT BOARD
31315 CHANEY STREET
LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1992
**********,t*********************,t********************,t,t**********
CALL TO ORDER
The Joint Study Session was called to order by Water District Vice-
President Gary Kelley at 5:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ALONGI, CHERVENY, DOMINGUEZ, WINKLER,
WASHBURN
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS: ATTRIDGE, JEFFRIES, KELLEY, SHAFER,
ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BRYANT (President Bryant arrived at
5:10 p.m.
City Staff representative also present were: City Manager
Molendyk, City Attorney Harper, Administrative Services Director
Boone, Engineering Manager O'Donnell, Special Projects Coordinator
Basham, City Treasurer Pape and City Clerk Kasad.
Water District representatives also present were: General Manager
- Laughlin, Assistant General Manager Hoagland, Public Relations
Specialist Dennis, Board Secretary Matson, Director of Finance
Modrich and Director-Elect Thoman.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Washburn.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Amber Ridae Sewer Study.
E.V.M.W.D.~s written position statement on funding options for
this project was distributed to the Board, City Council and
Staff inembers present. The position statement read as
follows:
E.V.M.W.D. Board of Directors - Position on Amber Ridge
Funding.
Option No. 1
^ Homeowners would have to sign up in advance for a)
Construction of sewer system or, b) Construction of sewer
system and connection fees. District would require 6ox
participation from designated area evidenced by signed
commitments from participants.
District will obtain a revolving loan for 100~ of the
coat to design and install the sewer lines and laterals
for the designated area.
__5
PAGE TWO - JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 15, 1992
The precommitted participants will make a monthly payment
to the District based on their share of the cost to
install the sewer line and laterals. This monthly
payment would be in addition to the District's monthly
sewer service charge.
The precommitted participants will also be allowed to
defer the sewer connection fee by signing a lien against
their property for that fee, as long as they also sign up
for sewer service at the time.
Those in the designated area who choose NOT to be
original participants, and later decide they want to hook
up to sewer will need to pay their share of the costs and
fees in full before hooking up. They will not be allowed
to make monthly payments of their share of the sewer line
and lateral, nor will they be allowed to defer the
payment of their sewer connection fee by placing a lien
on their property.
The RDA/City/County (Second Agency) must underwrite the
non-participants' share of the costs. When and if a non-
participant decides to hook-up and pays their share of
the construction cost plus the connection fee, the second
agency will be reimbursed. The Second Agency would also
agree to pay the sewer connection fee for any participant
that defaults, and agree to pay the monthly payment for
sewer line and lateral for any participant that defaults.
Option No. 2
The Board desires, as a second option, the formation of
either an assessment district or an improvement district.
1. An assessment district, which would cover an
area that would include Country Club Heights,
Sedco, the Avenues, Upper Lakeland Villaqe,
etc., -- an urbanized cluster within the
District that has some failing septic systems.
Through nil assessments or by creating sub-
areas, only those areas which would benefit
from the improvement can be taxed.
2. An improvements district can be formed, with
the tax levy from the improvement district
appearing on the tax bill. The levy can be
used to the extent the taxes are paid as a
source of repayment for general obligation
bonds, COP~s or other kinds of debt
instruments.
The RDA can spend money outside of an established RDA
project area when it makes two findings.
A. There are no alternative means of financing
that particular public improvement.
B. The public improvement to be financed is of
primary benefit to the RDA project area -- such
as -- completion of this project would deter
contamination of the groundwater.
PAGE THREE - JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 15, 1993
Since our pass-through agreements are not geographically
based, they can be implemented on the basis of projects
that are outside of the project area.
RDA could refinance this kind of improvement if they
could make a finding that the homes are occupied by
- persons or families of low and moderate income homes
(something less they $30,000).
Given the above information, the Board offers as a second
option, the formation of an assessment district or an
improvement district.
Boardmember Kelley indicated that the District~s original
option was for the District to procure the loan with the
understanding that either 100~ of the residents or another
entity would contribute to the repayment.
Boardmember Jeffries indicated that the original option was a
moot point because of the 100g participation requirement.
Boardmember Shafer commented that she felt the above stated
Option #1 is a program the District would be able to offer to
any part of the City or the District that had a similar
problem, as long as a second agency would act as a co-signer
for the residents.
Councilman Winkler questioned the City assistance requested
and the payback options.
Boardmember Jeffries indicated that 60~ participation would be
required and a second agency to back the repayment.
Councilwoman Cherveny inquired whether 60~ of the 194 homes
would be required to sign up in advance.
Boardmember Shafer indicated that the 60~ would need to be
precommmitted in advance.
Boardmember Shafer highlighted option #2•
Councilman Winkler inquired how long it would take to get the
loan and what the time frame would be for constructing the
required sewer facilities. Assistant General Manager Hoagland
responded that it would be approximately 90 to 12o days for
construction and 90 to 120 days for processing of the loan,
from the date of completion of the application; or a total of
approximately six to eight months.
Mayor Pro Tem Dominguez commented on a meeting he had attended
with the Amber Ridge residents and Councilman Winkler. He
indicated that some of those residents have been told they can
not hook-up to the main sewer line in Terra Cotta and
questioned this information.
Councilman Winkler suggested that possibly the developer did
not put laterals in on their particular side of the street.
Mr. Hoagland confirmed that this was the case and indicated
that those residents could hook-up by installing a lateral.
Mayor Pro Tem Dominguez added that the residents had indicated
1 C'•
PAGE FOUR - JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 15, 1992
that they would be willing to have a lien placed on their
homes to allow them to hook-up. He inquired whether a
percentage of the monthly sewer service charges could be
allocated to pay a portion of the obligation.
Boardmember Kelley indicated that the monthly sewer charge is
the actual cost to treat sewage, calculated at 350 gallons per
day for the average home.
E~MWD Director of Finance Modrich distributed a RDA fund
Sheet showing the Project area fund balance through June 30,
1992. He explained that the District's 1002-93 budget
includes capital projects which benefit Redevelopment Project
Area II in the amount of $799,000; including $150,000 for
water line replacements near the Sedco area, $180,000 for loop
line replacement and $469,000 for upgrades to sewer Iift
stations. He indicated that their annual tax allocation for
Project Area II is approximately $200,000.
Councilman Winkler suggested that the Redevelopment Agency
agree to pay back for the water main and laterals over a 20
year period; and further that if monies are available from
the pass-through agreements they be used to offset costs as
well.
Councilman Alongi commented that for 1992-93 the allocation
for Project Area I is $199,738.00 and for Project Area II is
$224,781.00. He inquired why the District could not budget
$20,000 from Project Area I and $20,000 from Project Area II
to fund the pay-back on the loan; and the City budget for
hookinq-up the laterals. He further commented that he didn't
feel it was fair for the Redevelopment Agency to take on the
responsibility for the entire project when both the City and
the District need to accept some of the responsibility.
Boardmember Attridge indicated that the City is asking for the
District to take its RDA funds and pay back the loan which
gives the residents of Amber Ridge a free sewer system.
Councilman Alongi indicated that the District would be paid
back as additional residents hooked-up.
Councilman Winkler inquired from a policy standpoint, how the
RDA pass-through funds are used. He noted that the District
used pass-through money for the Main Street project without
requiring reimbursement.
Boardmember Jeffries clarified that the Main Street project
involved replacement of existing facilities, not the provision
of new service to people who have not paid for it. He
indicated that his consideration on expenditure of RDA funds
is how the District can take a program and apply it to other
areas that do not have a Redevelopment Project Area to make
the annual payment. He stressed the EVMWD is 130 square miles
and needs to provide sewer service for City residents as well
as residents in the unincorporated areas and it is difficult
to provide these areas different levels of service.
Mayor Washburn clarified that the residents in unincorporated
areas were offered the opportunity to join the County
Redevelopment Agency's Project Area and chose not to.
!•
PAGE FIVE - JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES - DECEII+IBER 15, 1992
Councilman Winkler questioned the restrictions on use of RDA
pass through funds.
Mayor Washburn read a portion of Section 2.7 of a RDA pass-
through agreement between the City and the District.
Councilman Winkler indicated that based on this Section of the
agreement there would appear to be different policy
considerations.
Boardmember Shafer stressed that this discussion relates to
spending RDA funds outside of an RDA Project Area based on a
finding made by the City Attorney. She stressed the need to
make this program fair to everyone.
Boardmember Shafer indicated that these homeowners had the
advantage of a policy the District had previously when there
was another tract with the same situation; when a developer
came in and offered to put in a sewer line and the District
set a policy because it was a health and safety issue. She
further indicated that at that time (approximately six years
ago) the District would have allowed them to place the
connection fee as a lien on their homes without backing from
anyone, because it was a critical situation; and the residents
of Amber Ridge chose not to accept at that time,.but are not
willing to request assistance from a public agency.
Councilman Alongi indicated that he is opposed to any kind of
give away program, suggesting that the residents must pay. He
stated that he felt the City and the District had a
responsibility for this situation. He suggested that the
District budget a portion of the pass-through and the City/RDA
budget to finance the hook up and pay back.
Boardmember Kelley indicated that this problem affects all
residents from the Amber Ridge Tract to the Lake and a
solution must be found.
Councilman Alongi suggested that if the District sees the
situation as a danger to the Lake the Water District should be
that much more interested in coming up with a financial plan
that works for both agencies.
Boardmember Kelley clarified his position and the impact of
this situation on other areas.
Boardmember Attridge inquired what would happen if the
District guarantees the loan with RDA pass-through and payment
is not received.
Councilman Alongi indicated that the District would place
liens, just as the City would do if they don't make payments
on the loans for hook-ups.
Boardmember Shafer indicated that it was on the right track.
She inquired whether the 60~ minimum participation requirement
would be satisfactory.
Councilman Winkler indicated that he would agree to 100~,
because his motion would be to guarantee it; meaning 100$.
PAGE SIX - JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 15, 1993
Boardmember Shafer clarified further that it would require a
minimum level of precommitment.
Councilman Winkler indicated that while there may be only 25~
of the houses ready to be boarded up, there are a lot of
people afraid to come forward because the health department
might find out. He further indicated that he went out and
spoke with the residents, an entire cul-de-sac wanted sewers.
He commented that the 75~ who aren't having problems and don't
foresee a problem are being short sighted and this impacts the
ability to form an assessment district.
Boardmember Shafer inquired whether Councilman Winkler would
be willing to redesign the designated area to include only
that cul-de-sac or those areas where the problems are severe.
Councilman Alongi indicated that he would have a problem with
this redesign.
Mayor Washburn suggested that the responsibility lies with the
City, the District and the residents and there must be an
equitable program.
Boardmember Attridge indicated that he would be willing to
help, as long as the residents pay back the money. He
stressed the difficulty for the District to operate
economically if enough residents do not hook-up. He indicated
that was a problem in Lakeland Village.
Boardmember Kelley noted that if nothing ever happened in
Lakeland Village there would have been no progress in the
valley or the new facility the District now utilizes.
Councilman Alongi stressed that these residents had an
opportunity to resolve their problem, but pursued a lawsuits.
He indicated that the District is asking the City to take
responsibility without any compensation back to the RDA. He
indicated to Boardmember Attridge that he should convince his
Board to pay their share out of the pass-through. He stressed
that the residents are suffering, but it can't be given away
especially since they sought legal relief.
Boardmember Bryant suggested that direction should be given
from both boards to have staff work out a solution; indicating
that it might require another joint meeting to resolve.
Councilman Winkler indicated that he had enough information to
look at the options and propose a solution at the December
22nd City Council Meeting; which if approved, could move the
project forward. He further indicated that it would require
an annual commitment.
Mayor Pro Tem Dominquez questioned the timing.
Eastlake Proiect.
EVMWD staff distributed a list of topics relating to the
Eastlake Project, as follows:
1. Offsite Water & Sewer Facilities
2. 1240' Lake Elevation
' C;
~,
PAGE SEVEN - JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES - DECEMSER 15, 1992
3. Proposed Topography Modifications
4. Proposed New Water Use Features
5. Communication of Development Plans/Progress
6. Lake Elsinore Management Project Completion
Offsite Water 6 Sewer Facilities
Boardmember Shafer indicated that the City needs to be made
aware of what Eastlake is asking them to commit to in the
Meraorandum of understanding, particularly to the payment for
water and sewer facilities. City Attorney Harper clarified
that this is only the memorandum of understanding and many
other documents will clarify this document.
General Manager Laughlin commented that the Eastlake Group is
working on a rough draft of a M.O.U. with the Water District,
however, they have not yet received it. He advised that he
would forward a copy to the City Manager as soon as he
receives it.
City Manager Molendyk indicated that the M.O.U. should be
viewed as a wish list for the developer and there are things
that will be changed.
1240' Lake Elevation
Boardmember Shafer expressed concern with the mention of a
1240' Lake elevation, since this is a matter of water supply,
storage, quality of water and water management.
City Manager Molendyk indicated that he understood this
concern, however, Eastlake wants to be sure of the elevation.
General Manager Laughlin explained that if the Lake is raised
to 1240' elevation in January of each year, by summer it would
be down to 1235.5' leaving only 5-1/2 feet in the Lake Inlet
Channel, where the plan is for at least 10 feet in that
channel.
Boardmember Attridge commented that if the level goes down to
1235', the City would be required to pay half the cost to
bring it back up to 1240'.
Boardmember Shafer stated that she wanted everyone to
understand that there will be fluctuations, not an exact
constant elevation.
Councilman Winkler inquired whether it was possible to stay at
1240' using reclaimed water.
Boardmember Attridge responded that the District will only
receive reclaimed water in the winter when no one else want
it, but it won't be available in the summer.
City Manager Molendyk indicated that once the elevation is
decided, that is something that will need to be explained to
the development community.
Mayor washburn suggested that the elevation could always be
modified, but there would need to be some type of a guarantee
PAGE EIGHT - JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 15, 1992
to the development community, even with the possible
variables.
Proposed Topoqraphy Modifications
Boardmember Shafer indicated that she understands the design
of the project calls for a 1,000 acre borrow site. She
expressed concern in that any 25' excavation without a
geological investigation has the possibility of piercing the
clay bottom of the Lake.
General Manager Laughlin explained the uniqueness of the Lake,
in that it has 4, 000 TDS on its surface and a clay lining
below the Lake. He indicated that the deterioration of the
lake water quality over the years has not hurt the underground
water supply because of the clay layer.
City Manager Molendyk indicated that he would pass this
concern on to the developer. He further indicated that he was
not award of the 25' excavation, however, the City had chosen
Black & Veatch for work on this project because they are the
District's engineers on the Lake Management Project.
Proposed New Water IIse Features
Boardmember Shafer indicated that the water quantity and
quality is a concern and any additional water features
proposed by Eastlake that require a draw on the resources are
a concern. She further indicated that the Lake is a priority
over the Eastlake project. She commented that the levee is
there to conserve water, reduce surface area and improve water
quality by flushing out the Lake.
Communication of Development Platts/Proqress
General Manager Laughlin explained that the District does not
have a large amount of communication with Eastlake, however
they did make a presentation to the District about three
months ago, with one brief ineeting since. He expressed
concern that the Water District has lived with the project for
a long time and could contribute much if their input was
sought.
Councilman Winkler indicated he would convey that to the
developer.
General Manager Laughlin commented that perhaps it was felt
not necessary for the pre-planning, however the District could
have assisted.
Mayor Washburn clarified that Mr. Basham attends the District
meetings to allow for communication.
Mayor Pro Tem Dominquez suggested that a monthly memo or
status report be provided.
Boardmember Bryant commented that early communication can
avoid problems later.
City Manager Molendyk indicated that the project will
eventually reach the point where there is a full time project
manager.
L
PAGE NINE - JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 15, 1992
Lake Elsinore Manaqement Project Completion
Boardmember Shafer expressed concern with getting the Lake
Management Project completed and the District wants to do so.
She stressed that changes to the project create delays and the
City should be sensitive to that.
Mayor Washburn commented that the City has been with this
project a long time as well and at this point are attempting
to do some planning for the next phase. He stressed that the
concerns should keep the communication flowing.
General Manager Laughlin advised that the construction
schedule for the outlet channel now shows that work will begin
in June, 1993, and completion will be in the Fall of 1994.
City Manager Molendyk indicated that the City and District
would most likely need to budget additional funds in advance
of this project. Mr. Laughlin advised that the latest
information he has received show the bids are coming in low
and additional funds may not be necessary.
THE STUDY SESSION WAS ADJOURNE
A TES'P'
~
VICKT KASAD, C TY CLERK
D 6:30 P.M.
~
?,RY . W URN~OR
CIZ~~F LAKE ELSINORE
CI~iY OF LAKf; ELSINORE