Shot some video of Mrs. Redtail feeding her chicks this afternoon. They are growing so fast! Again, not crystal clear but not too bad. Just click the link below.
Mama providing shade.
Shifting position around nest to maximize the shade.
Close to Mom.
Wings-check. Flaps-check. Practice soaring-check. 
Talk about being watched like a Hawk!
My best to you and yours, Lew
Yes, I know and apologize – the photos are a bit out of focus but they were the best out of MANY ATTEMPTS. Just holding the digital camera up to the telescope lens, aligning the image, adjusting the camera to the best zoom setting, taking a deep breath, trying to remain still and hoping for the best apparently isn’t enough – LOL. The clarity through the telescope (especially with a more powerful eye piece) provides a “ring side seat” into the nest environment without interrupting the “nature of it all”. Lizard and snake skin, fur from rodents, bones, types of branches used in nest construction, etc., all much easier to discern with the scope rather than binoculars.
BELOW: Mom and Dad are both out hunting for the next meal leaving the eyases to explore the nest.
“See anything yet?” Watching for the folks.
(BELOW) Occassionally one of the little guys will step up to the top edge of the nest and slowly exercise their forming wings. Cute, but made us a bit nervous wondering how often one of these balls of fluff gets too carried away and accidently falls out? The chick in the foreground (looking right into camera) is the one that gets “pecked on” by its slightly larger sibbling. 
VIDEO: Here’s a short video I shot when a Harley Davidson passed by and Mr. Hawk seemed to follow the bike down the road – likely to snag some unsuspecting mouse or lizard frighted by the movement and noise. (Like when Owls hunt along side roads at night by vehicle headlights?) http://youtu.be/eW1nMu4_dA0
Ahhh, Spring.
My best to you and yours, Lew
Customer: Ahhh, what’ve you got?
Store Clerk: Whiskey, Scotch, Vodka, Gin, Tequila, assorted liqueurs, domestic and imported beer
Customer: Ahhhh,
Store Clerk: Let’s see some ID.
Customer: Ahhh, how about a shot of the liquid hand sanitizer and a blue mint mouthwash chaser? 
NOTE: The above is, in no way, intended to encourage or condone substance abuse by anyone or minimize the harmful health effects of such use. Listening to the national news the other day I heard this hand sanitizer consumption was increasing and thought it a good example of strange behavior by some.
Apparently liquid hand sanitizer (which can contain 63% Ethyl Alcohol), sometimes combined with mouthwash, has replaced the old time Vanilla extract as a preferred underage cocktail. Good grief! Traditional alcohol consumption is bad enough but how very sad that an individual (however old) would become so desperate to escape reality that they would drink such stuff. I understand such consumption could also cause serious injury (which is evidently why procedures are used to consume only the alcohol). Wasn’t inappropriate drinking one of the reasons wood alcohol is used for many purposes rather than grain (alcohol)? What about the old time sterno sippers? Aerosol huffing? Pruno? Raisin-Jack? Used chewing gum wrapped in a moldy banana peel? LOL
I guess desperation is the mother of invention and in the current fad some imaginative adolescent read the label and did some simple math. Ethyl alcohol + desire for intoxication = drinking hand sanitizer and mouthwash. Cheers!
Can’t help but wonder if the government will now require age identification prior to purchase like with glue, paint and other similar products? Look what happened to over-the-counter cold medications because they are used in the production of meth? Maybe we should limit how many ounces the average hand washing germophobic citizen might actually require? (Amount calculated during the flu season naturally.) Lick any toads lately?
Wonder if the California Highway Patrol has heard any excuses regarding this new buzz trend yet?
“Actually no officer (hiccup) I definitely have not be drinking (hiccup) …just bathing my filthy f@(king tongue in soap and inad (hiccup)…. Inadverted….(hiccup) accidently swallowed the (hiccup) stuff when the tree hitted my bumper [hiccups, pukes on the officer’s boots, passes out and begins a very unpleasant journey through the criminal justice system with 99.99% germ free minty breath]
Anyway, I imagine most people understand the motive for drinking this exterior use liquid germ killer, however, it sure doesn’t explain all peculiar human behavior, which reminds me of the point of this posting ….. here is the LEW VIEW report on the last meeting.
Have a great weekend!
?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?
April 20th, 2012 LDPCSD BOARD MEETING
Directors present: Emery Ross, Mark Skoien, Victor Afanasiev and VP Lew Richardson (President Bill Kinsella absent due to illness), also present: Interim General Manager Dan Tynan and Financial Administrator/Treasurer/Board Secretary Charise Reeves. VP Richardson acknowledged the 6 audience attendees and opened the meeting at 1002hrs. Following the Pledge of Allegiance the first agenda item was addressed.
INTERIM GENERAL MANAGER’S RESIGNATION
Tynan advised he would be resigning on April 30th, 2012 from the IGM position that he had held for 17 months. Tynan stated he found himself in an unworkable situation because he believed current Director Bill Kinsella, prior director Wes Barton, and Finance Manager Charise Reeves were pursuing their own personal agendas rather than the district’s best interest. Tynan stated he had done his best while at the LDPCSD and believed he achieved a lot but the aforementioned individuals were the reason he sought employment elsewhere. Tynan stated he hoped there would be a change in attitude and focus regarding State compliance matters, education, safety, security and experience in running a water district. Tynan suggested the hiring of new employee John Turner as the next IGM citing Turner’s 31 years of water experience stating the district would be lucky to have him. VP Richardson stated that matter could be discussed more under agenda item C, General Manager Position.
VP Richardson asked Board Secretary Charise Reeves if there were extra copies of Mr. Turner’s submitted packet [62 pages of information which included copies of water licenses and training certificates] and asked Mr. Turner, who was in the audience, if he had any objections to copies being made, which Turner advised he did not. [NOTE, this material was submitted to directors at the last board meeting but without being on the agenda was not officially addressed.]
Director Emery Ross objected stating he had communicated with the CSD attorney and it was improper to discuss an employee’s Personnel File in public and it had to be discussed in closed session and suggested moving on to the next agenda item. Director Afanasiev and IGM Tynan disagreed stating it was merely part of Mr. Turner’s resume. VP Richardson stated he also had spoken with Mr. Carlson and understood the matter could be discussed and decided in open session. Ross stated he had a case supporting his position yet when Director Afanasiev asked about the material Ross refused to elaborate.
Director Mark Skoien commented it was nice to see the extensive material but questioned how current it was and asked about Turner’s work history. Director Ross again stated the board should not discuss the matter in open session. IGM Tynan stated he had placed Turner’s resume in every director’s mail box and had confirmed through the state that Turner’s T-4 and D-4 licenses were current. Richardson again stated the issue could be discussed under item C. Ross stated it was a personnel issue and should be in closed session but Richardson stated further discussion could take place later on the agenda and opened item B, Interim General Manager’s Reimbursement, for discussion.
ITEM B: Request: Reimbursement of funds for the Cross Connection course, hotel expense, and vacation days from the IGM. As IGM Dan Tynan began to discuss the matter Director Emery Ross interrupted stating he believed the item appeared to be punitive and disciplinary in nature and should not be discussed. Richardson agreed it appeared to be more of a personnel issue yet after talking with the attorney that morning stated it was proper for the board to make a decision on the agendized request. Ross said if the board wanted to make a policy regarding reimbursement for educational training that was fine but should not discuss the matter in open session. Director Skoien felt the matter was moot and since he (President Kinsella) was not present the board should move on to the next agenda item. IGM Tynan requested the opportunity for clarification of President Kinsella’s letter. Ross asked if the board had to do that. Richardson stated the item was on the agenda for reimbursement of funds which was something both President Kinsella and Charise Reeves had presented for discussion, however, Mrs. Reeves stated she only provided the information requested by President Kinsella due to a discrepancy between what had been stated in a meeting by Tynan and what actually transpired regarding payment for the training class. Richardson clarified that the matter had started some time before which Reeves acknowledged stating it was standard procedure to go over credit card charges and checking the meeting tape confirmed that Tynan originally stated he would pay for the class himself.
Director Ross asked if the information would end up in Tynan’s Personnel File to which Reeves stated it would not characterizing it (if the board decided to have Tynan pay for the class and hotel room) as a simple reversal on payroll (vacation time). VP Richardson acknowledged the suggestion of bypassing the matter and moving on through the agenda but commented the issue would only linger on and questioned whether the board might adjudicate the matter now. Director Skoien stated Dan was moving on, had a right to do so and had stated his reasons for the resignation and suggested everyone else move on as well.
Tynan disputed President Kinsella’s assertion (in a letter) that the district received no benefit for Tynan’s training class citing a number of violations within the district which Tynan discovered because of the training. Director Skoien confirmed that approximately the same amount of money spent on the training class had been billed through the district. Richardson clarified that Tynan had paid for one training class himself and planned on doing the same for the second class but after realizing the financial benefit to the district (along with meeting requirements of state regulations) later changed his mind and charged the training to the credit card. [NOTE: Tynan had previously agreed to abide by whatever the board decided.]
Richardson stated boards often made the mistake of trying to save money by not providing training to employees due to the fear they might move on to another agency yet such training should be provided and if an employee did move on to another position it was just a cost of doing business. Ross suggested a policy stating if an employee left within one month of a district paid training course the employee be required to reimburse the district. Richardson agreed stating such would be similar to the current policy regarding clothing and boots but it could not be retroactive. The board consensus was to drop the matter and use the situation as the basis for a possible future policy.
ITEM C: General Manager Position: Decide on actions to fill the General Manager Position.
Director Ross passed out a proposal of his to the board that encouraged hiring an IGM but still advertising for the General Manager’s position. He stated he was waiting for the attorney to approve his proposal. Director Skoien stated the district had to meet the requirement of advertising for the position but VP Richardson disagreed stating he had spoken with the attorney and the board could appoint an IGM from the existing employee pool without advertising. Richardson confirmed through the board secretary that advertising costs were approximately $1,000 in four local newspapers.
Director Afanasiev stated he believed the board needed to make an appointment but was unsure if the district needed to advertise for the position. Richardson reiterated his conversation with the attorney that such advertisement was not necessary and the board could indeed appoint an IGM. Director Skoien said the district should probably run an advertisement but doubted we would find anyone as qualified as Mr. Turner. Richardson disagreed with the offered theory by Director Afanasiev that the district could not appoint a GM until conclusion of the ongoing wrongful termination lawsuit by a previous general manager. Harry Alfier also pointed out that a previous IGM was promoted to GM during the wait for lawsuit conclusions. Director Skoien stated he did not recall any information that the previous GM (with a pending lawsuit against the district) even wanted the position. Tynan confirmed that Jeff Mann had been appointed IGM and then later GM by a previous board.
Director Ross felt the district needed an IGM prior to appointing a permanent GM. Ross felt IGM Tynan had the responsibility but not the authority as an IGM. Ross also stated:
“I think in this interim period until, I mean, I don’t think you’re going to get a, a regular general manager going in the short amount of time so you need to pick from somebody, whoever, Charise, him, you know, Syndie whoever it is, Randy, somebody, me…(laughter) you know, until the 30th until we get a few applications from this response that we’re talking about if the board wants to do interim. I think it’s time to take it more positive about it because that’s really Dan’s prob, had that problem for all that time that he was a, had the responsibility of all this stuff but not really the authority to do what he need to do”.
Tynan stated his hands were tied.
Richardson stated most people could recognize that Tynan was placed in an untenable position due to politics that had been going on for quite some time before his arrival here as an employee and he was thrown right smack dab into the middle of something that I don’t think anybody really stood a fair chance. Directors agreed Tynan had done a good job. Ross said there were some things Tynan did that he wasn’t happy about like the painting but it looks good now. Richardson suggested with all the discussion one of the first things the board might inquire was whether Mr. Turner was even interested in something like that.
John Turner stated in the last ten days he had spoken with many people from all sides and that his whole career was based on, whether in the Marine Corps or working for water agencies, bringing people together. He said it was like our family away from family. He said his upmost priorities were to protect the community liability and keeping the people safe. Turner emphasized working together, referring to his past experience and training, stated he knew how to run the district.
VP Richardson commented that it was high time the board supported the district IGM/GM and proposed tentatively appointing Mr. Turner to the position with the same hiring conditions as Dan Tynan and using the next 10 days for orientation and verification of resume information. He said barring any disqualifying information Mr. Turner could take the position upon Tynan’s last day on April 30th and with a successful evaluation later be appointed to GM. Richardson also felt the plan would be in line with past Mariposa County Grand Jury recommendations the last two years.
Director Ross again stated he believed it was a personnel issue that should be discussed in closed session scheduled in the future. Richardson again stated he had specifically confirmed with the CSD attorney as to the board’s authority to appoint in open session emphasizing the salary issue should never be discussed in closed session. He continued to say an open meeting was transparency (of government) and it was a shame there were not more people in attendance. Richardson characterized the situation as an opportunity for a new office, new IGM, and potentially a new start and direction for the district.
Director Ross questioned how the board could hire someone without seeing his application or resume. Ross stated he didn’t even know if Turner had ever been gainfully employed in the State of California to which Richardson suggested he ask Turner which Ross refused to do stating he would only talk with Turner in closed session. Richardson again stated the attorney advised the board could appoint in open session yet Ross stated the attorney told him the same thing but then did a 360 last night saying the district could be sued for discussing personnel issues in a public session. [I believe Mr. Ross meant 180 degrees which would be a U-turn compass heading.]
Ruth Smith asked how many directors were authorized to speak with the attorney stating it was no wonder the legal fees were so high. Ross stated he emailed the attorney to which Mrs. Smith stated the district gets charged the same. Richardson stated that in all fairness when a director, GM or staff had a legal question the attorney is exactly the person to be contacted. Harry Alfier questioned what happened to the idea of contracting with the Tuolumne County Counsel’s office for routine questions to which Charise Reeves responded the proposal was never approved by the board.
Richardson suggested getting back to the topic of replacement of the IGM, congratulated Tynan on his new employment and stated Tynan had done a lot of good things for the district despite the turmoil. Director Skoien asked Ross about his proposal wondering if it too was a personnel issue. Ross stated it was only a concept that the attorney might approve today and disapprove tomorrow depending upon which way the wind blows. Director Afanasiev asked if he could make a motion, Richardson said yes but asked if there were any further comments from the public.
Wes Barton stated when the previous board hired a previous IGM they used the engineering firm for an evaluation and suggested the same in the present situation because, 1) helps the district choose the right person and 2) it puts the blame on somebody else. Barton also felt there should be specific goals set for the IGM and recommended the board in the next six months set such goals to be achieved. Barton also felt understanding the district’s financial situation has been a problem for past IGM/GMs and discussed the reporting hierarchy and mentioned the possibility that the financial administrator might report directly to the board of directors. (Barton emphasized it was only a suggestion and he was not necessarily advocating such a procedure.) He stressed goal setting by the board was the priority (with outside technical advice) and without such, failure would again result.
Director Ross said the government code states the GM is responsible for finance and like the County Board of Supervisors, which appoints individuals to fill various positions even though the supervisors themselves may not have personal experience, the board must have faith in their appointees. Ross disagreed with having the engineer evaluate the GM because the engineer works for the GM. IGM Tynan said he was able to complete 3 of the 14 capital improvement projects furnished to the prior GM. Director Skoien commented that the GM would naturally be in contact with the engineer and did not care for the suggestion of a separation of financial matters from the GM to the board. Mr. Barton stated it was his personal take on the matter from reading the government code and also mentioned the timing issue of the appointment. He stated use of consultants might be useful, specifically the engineer. IGM Tynan stated a consultant previously used by the district would no longer be available.
Director Afanasiev made the motion to promote John Turner as the interim GM with verification of his certificates from the state within 120 days. Richardson asked if Director Afanasiev might amend his motion to include the Turner’s hiring with the same conditions (salary and long term benefits) as used with Dan Tynan effective May 1st. VP Richardson made the second.
Director Skoien confirmed the motion for appointment did not include any advertisement but thought Ross’s proposal of a temporary appointment during an advertisement period the way to go. Director Afanasiev stated the district could appoint internally, Richardson agreed stating, with no offense to Mr. Turner at all, employees are at will and he had read in past minutes where one individual was appointed as GM in one meeting, but another person was the GM at the next. Richardson stated the appointment was not set in stone without any options if things did not turn out as anticipated.
Director Ross stated there was a motion without a second but was advised a second had been made. Ross then said he would not vote for the motion because he had not seen Turner’s employment application and it could only be discussed “in there”, referring to a closed session. Ross said he didn’t know if Turner had been a bus driver or maybe a rancher. Richardson again asked Director Ross if he had reviewed the information regarding Turner’s employment and educational background yet Ross stated he did not want to discuss the issue. Ross again stated he had not seen an employment application to which Director Afanasiev explained it was a promotion from the ranks not a job application. John Turner advised he could do whatever the board requested but Afanasiev advised it was not necessary for a promotion. Richardson asked if Director Ross had seen Turner’s resume to which Ross replied he hadn’t seen anything. Afanasiev, Skoien and Richardson had reviewed it, and Richardson advised he knew President Kinsella had requested the resume a while back. Tynan said he confirmed Turner’s 31 years job experience and license status.
Director Skoien asked about Turner’s previous experience. Mr. Turner advised he had worked for Golden State Water which is a privately owned New York Stock Exchange Company which serves 1 out of every 33 people up and down the state. He started down in Arizona-New Mexico for 14 years, transferred to the East Bay where he worked another 13-14 years and was then promoted to water conservation coordinator that covered many communities.
Richardson commented Turner’s 30+ years experience was very valuable along with his T-4 and D-4 License Grades (Treatment and Distribution) and the fact he was already an employee precluded expensive advertising. He continued by saying it was his understanding Mr. Turner had already committed himself to this community by purchasing a house which Turner affirmatively acknowledged. Richardson said he thought it was the perfect opportunity to appoint the gentleman as IGM to work with the general contractor and insurance company in establishing the new office from the ground up. He also thought it advantageous that Turner would himself hire future CSD employees with whom he would work. Richardson said he would really like to see everybody support the motion but if there were objections – voice the apprehensions on the record because it had been a long time since a district IGM/GM received the full support of the board. He said even if a director had reluctance in certain areas the board should give Turner a chance and try for a new start for the district.
Director Ross asked Turner how many years of finance experience he had as a finance manager – what did he know about finance. Turner responded that as far as being a finance manager that was never his title but he had taken the Harvard (Ross interrupted adding to his question: “in a public agency – cuz it’s different than a private”. Turner replied stating: in the private, we serve the public. He continued by saying he didn’t like to “toot his own – kind of thing” but he had been chosen by management to participate in rate school training and had taken the Harvard Financial Competence Class, budgets and rates and as a lead operator whenever the superintendent stepped aside he came in as assistant and would run the budget. He advised he would learn from the current employees and they would learn from him and everyone would come up to another level. He further stated he did not come here needing a job but after retirement he could only take six months of fishing (laughter). Richardson commented whatever experience he might be lacking in the public sector could be cleared up with a Brown Act training class real quick.
Director Afanasiev said the Brown Act only applied to officials and Richardson agreed and he mentioned the training class only because Director Ross had made the distinction between public and private agencies. Richardson stated Afanasiev’s motion stood and asked if there were any further comments. Ruth Smith asked if the man was already qualified and an employee of the district why spend the money for an engineer, consultant or advertisement, why not just do it (appoint) and get it over with? Richardson agreed stating as IGM Mr. Turner would naturally consult with the engineers on different projects and the attorney on legal matters. Harry Alfier commented that the board was running a good meeting and that he supported John and thought him a Godsend for the district and hoped the board would support him as well. Emery Ross said there were three votes – Afanasiev stated Ross didn’t know that- Richardson said the comment was kind of out of order and laughed.
Ruth Smith asked if IGM Tynan put the information in Ross’s mailbox was it fair for Ross to vote no to Turner just because Ross hasn’t checked his mail? Ross said the votes were there and he could vote the way he wanted. With no further comments VP Richardson called for the vote, Director Skoien asked for a reading of the motion:
Charise Reeves: Motion is, for the most part, to promote John Turner on an interim basis ah to position as interim general manager with verification on his certifications from the state, and this is where I don’t have it word for word, but additional verifications within 120 days on his background, I’ll get it word for word off the tape, and ah, at the same salary and conditions as Dan was at effective May first.
Ayes, Richardson, Afanasiev, and Skoien (the later vote qualified with so long as running an advertisement was not required). Nays, Ross (because he had not interviewed the person in closed session and had not seen the application.)
Director Skoien stated he agreed with Director Ross on how it had been done in the past with the best case scenario but he (Skoien) was also considering the time frame and like with any other vote hoped it was the right decision.
Richardson agreed and said, again John with no insult meant to you at all if things don’t work out you could be gone as quickly as you came in….(laughter) I hope that’s not the case, I hope in the next ten days you and Dan can work together and come up you know to speed on more things here. I’d like to see some active involvement if we hire Pinnacle and Mr. Grover to be the general contractor – some good work in there with him and you have the chance to
John Turner: get things in gear
VP Richardson: Exactly, exactly and get a good start on the ground floor of what will hopefully be a new CSD with a new agenda. OK, with that done we’re looking at the Closed Session so we’ll close this meeting at 1113.
Director Afanasiev: can we take a break?
VP Richardson: Certainly
Director Ross: See you later I’m going home
VP Richardson: Whoa – Emery, we have a closed session.
Director Ross: I know, I have to leave, I don’t like the way you’re running this (laughter)
VP Richardson: But, OK, you may not like the way I’m running it but are you going to just abdicate your responsibility and not attend a closed session with the attorney counsel?
Director Ross: Well Raymond told me one thing and you’re telling me
VP Richardson: Well this would be the perfect opportunity for you to ask him on the telephone then.
Director Ross: Well no because you’re obstinate and impossible to talk to, you don’t listen, you just did a whole stupid thing
VP Richardson: Listen Emery the attorney is going to be on the phone and you’ll have the opportunity to talk to him
(inaudible – Director Emery Ross leaves the board room)
VP Richardson: (laughs) Let’s take a recess (laughter)
REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: 1200hrs:
D) Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9 – Kent/Topie vs. LDPCSD
Conference to be rescheduled so the entire board could be present.
E) Government Code Section 54957(b)(2) – Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release/Specific Complaints – Continuation
No action taken due to the matter being Overtaken By Events (OBE) since one of the complainants is leaving the district it is no longer a legal issue but as a practical matter no action will be taken on that.
Charise Reeves made the following for the record comment: “I was not happy with the way this whole thing proceeded, obviously the initial ahm grievance was submitted seven months ago and over seven or eight meetings ago
VP Richardson: OK, well you know that, that works both ways but
Charise Reeves: I’m allowed to make a statement for the record
VP Richardson: You are?
Charise Reeves: Yeah, anybody in the community is and so I’m not happy with how long it took, you know I understand the determination but I do want the directors to know that I stand by what I initially put in the grievance.
VP Richardson: OK,
Charise Reeves: You know harassment
Director Skoien: But you understand the termination because the employee is leaving?
Charise Reeves: I do, I do
Director Skoien: You’re just expressing your disgust
Charise Reeves: I’m just….exactly, I, I was not happy that it took this long, that it wasn’t resolved, and had something happened a whole lot sooner, ahm, and that ah, you know, the initial items that I stated I still stand by. You know?
VP Richardson: Well I think both parties
Charise Reeves: I understand the determination and the ah action so
VP Richardson: I think both parties standby what they’ve said but it’s, it’s done. OK, so we’ll call the end of this meeting ah thank you all for, all three of you for returning, the time is 1202.
?&?&?&?&?&?&?&?&?&?&?&?&?&?&?&?
My best to you and yours, Lew
LDPCSD BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 16, 2012
Establish quorum: President Bill Kinsella, VP Lew Richardson, Directors Emery Ross, Mark Skoien and Victor Afanasiev present along with Interim General Manager Dan Tynan and Financial Administrator/Treasurer/Board Secretary Charise Reeves. Pledge of allegiance.
UPDATE ON “THE PERFECT FIRE”
Seems like a contradictory title considering destruction and loss is typically associated with arson, however, there is a big difference between a structure being burned to the ground or gutted by fire as was our administration office on February 27th, 2012. It certainly could have been much worse.
I would suspicion many of you have in the past attempted to burn stacks of paper, old magazines, or books (naturally long before such incinerator type garbage burning was prohibited to reduce air pollution), but recall how the pages inside, insulated from contact with the flames, were often only slightly damaged compared to the exposed surfaces? How the “packed” pages actually had to be stirred around with a fire poker to insure total destruction and transformation into ash? Well, such was the case with our recent office fire and boxes of historical records. Very good news.
PINNACLE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COMPANY
When Syndie Marchesiello (Customer Billing Representative) questioned our insurance carrier as to the documents damaged in the fire and how to proceed, our insurance adjuster suggested Pinnacle to perform the work. The document restoration process is approximately 50% complete but the results are extremely encouraging and according to Leo Grover it was the “perfect fire” in the sense record loss was minimized.
Mr. Grover advised he was surprised at how slow the fire recovery process was proceeding concerning the office replacement and offered his services as a general contractor for the job as he has worked closely with insurance companies in many different emergencies. He has been in contact with our insurance adjuster who is evidently in favor of having a third party assume the duties of a general contractor.
Pinnacle currently has over 15,000 of our files which are called “wet files” because the documents contain signatures, i.e., time cards, contracts, grant deeds, etc. Mr. Grover stated he took it upon himself (regardless of whether he would be reimbursed or not) to construct a detailed inventory of items and materials lost in the fire because he wanted to make sure everything was listed. Although initially totaling roughly $80,000 he advised the CSD might not choose to replace everything but was still entitled to the value lost. The loss estimate is now approximately $109,000 but is expected to increase. Once everything is cleared with the insurance company Grover estimated that the new building could be up and running around one month’s time. The definition of what constitutes an “emergency” is important on how to proceed. Grover stated the CSD could use his scope even if it decided to work with a different company but having a contractor was the best way to go.
A telephone call was made to the CSD attorney, Raymond Carlson, who suggested following the claims procedure and turning the matter over to the insurance company and allowing them to make the decision on how to best proceed.
Leo Grover further advised he believed the insurance company reserve should be around $250,000 to cover everything. (Documents and building replacement at $100,000 each.)
The board approved Mr. Grover to represent the CSD in regards to the fire pending the insurance company’s approval. Grover suggested presenting his scope to the insurance company for their review as the first step in the office rebuild. Essentially, the insurance company pays for the coverage but the board ultimately chooses the general contractor and if the insurance company accepts the offered scope, Pinnacle will be appointed for further restoration efforts.
PRESIDING OFFICER’S REPORT
President Kinsella stated that since IGM Tynan was seeking employment elsewhere he (Kinsella) felt the board should start advertising for the position. Directors Ross and Afanasiev suggested placing the item on the next agenda. Kinsella stated he could direct the Board Secretary to advertise for a general manager immediately. IGM Tynan advised he recently hired John Turner who has 31 years experience in water treatment and distribution and if his anticipated employment did not turn out he (Tynan) would like to go back to the treatment plant because the IGM position was not working out. A future Special Meeting will be scheduled to address that matter along with the continuing Personnel grievance matter between IGM Tynan and Charise Reeves.
MANAGER’S REPORT
Dan Tynan reported the leak on Banderilla Drive had been repaired and with the hiring of John Turner fire hydrant flushing and testing would resume. Only two routes remain for replacement with the AMR system, (4 out of 6 completed) however, that replacement has stopped due to the disruption caused by the office fire. Exact water loss was also difficult to report due to the fire. Tynan stated the new employee, John Turner, has a T-4/D-4 Grade License (Treatment and Distribution) and the highest grade is T-5/D-5.
TREASURER’S REPORT
Total restricted & unrestricted funds: $416,469. Approximately $19,000 has been spent on replacement items due to the fire. Two large bills have been paid, Merced Irrigation District water bill and the loan payment. Some accounts are over budget, including legal, vehicle maintenance and office overtime, some of the later will be recovered with insurance reimbursement.
Director Ross questioned the actual duties of the Finance Committee to which Reeves responded the auditor advised it could be anything we wanted it to be, but primarily it was just extra eyes looking at the treasurer’s report. Prior to approving the Treasurer’s Report VP Richardson questioned the legal fee amount and requirement that a separate vote of the Board be conducted to approve the over budget amount. Reeves initially stated a vote was only required if a director disputed the bill but after reading the fine print statement on page 14 agreed a separate vote was necessary. The statement under the title Additional Information read:
“Beginning March 2010, these payments will be made after each board meeting without board approval unless disputed by a board member as they are standard district expenses unless we exceed our budgeted amount.”
The board subsequently approved the payment for legal fees in the amount of $8,387.51.
Director Victor Afanasiev questioned the additional legal costs for further depositions in the two wrongful termination lawsuits that were brought years ago since depositions in the case had already been taken. The board agreed a closed session meeting would be scheduled for conference with the attorney so directors could be briefed on the status of the cases.
Ruth Smith reiterated her question from last month about paying for the extra Hughes internet service. Charise Reeves advised once her paperwork was returned from the document recovery company she could provide the follow up answers. Smith asked if it wouldn’t be cheaper to just pick up the phone and ask the questions directly rather than paying $90 a month for a service that wasn’t used. Reeves responded such communication was difficult due to outsourcing to India and without the account information nothing could be done. Mrs. Smith also asked if checks had been lost in the office fire because the Association had recently received a very large bill although a payment had been made earlier. Reeves stated it was her understanding checks were indeed lost in the fire and Mrs. Smith should check with the billing officer for details.
The board approved the read and file of the April Treasurer’s Report.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Reeves advised the fire had affected her production of Minutes and hoped she would be caught up with the February and March Minutes in the near future. Prior to approving the Operations, Finance, and Public Relations committee meeting minutes VP Richardson questioned when the Public Relations letter to the LDPOA (submitted last month regarding the use of the DISCOVERER to contact CSD customers) had been sent to which Reeves apologized stating it had not because she was in the middle of everything but it would be sent later that day.
The board approved the read and file of the consent calendar.
COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
MID Committee: After the last board meeting IGM Tynan and VP Richardson reviewed a restored map of the district and recorded APNs (Assessor Parcel Numbers) so the billing officer could cross check on the computer any availability charges that may have been paid to the district by outside place of use properties. Director Ross questioned why the public was not advised of the meeting so they could attend but Richardson explained ad hoc committees are not required to be agendized along with the fact the process required laying a large fire damaged restored map on the floor that required protection.
ACWA HEALTH BENEFITS AUTHORITY
The Board approved the ACWA Health Benefits Authority resolution to retain health benefits while making the transition to ACWA/Joint Powers Insurance Authority. Director Afanasiev requested that Charise Reeves remove the prior GM’s name from the material and replace it with the name of the current IGM.
OUTSIDE PLACE OF USE RESOLUTION
President Kinsella referred to the item as being VP Richardson’s, however, Richardson questioned why the resolution was even on the agenda since the board had decided further research was required regarding how many outside place of use properties were actually paying availability fees. Richardson specifically asked how the item had been placed on the agenda. Charise Reeves stated she had asked IGM Tynan if the resolution should be on the agenda. Richardson objected to Reeves’ explanation citing an email exchange between Reeves and himself that clearly identified the subject matter of the agenda item request. Tynan stated he was not aware of Richardson’s email. VP Richardson read the two emails:
Charise Reeves: As far as #4, can you please provide additional information on what exactly you want on the agenda and anything you want included in the packet.
Director Richardson: I do not understand why the Shaw and Martin (Morasci) properties remain on the Outside MIDPOU report since the meters have been pulled and no availability fees are paid. Perhaps the matter could be considered just normal office updating of information and simply removed but since they have not as of yet I thought the board might consider instructing staff to remove them (along with any others that may not be paying availability).
VP Richardson stated in exchange the resolution was placed on the agenda which had nothing to do with his request. Charise Reeves stated she did not decide what goes on the agenda. Richardson disagreed. Tynan again stated he had not seen the email. Reeves stated she provides matters to IGM Tynan and President Kinsella, they review material and then she is told what will or will not be on the agenda. Richardson asked if Dan did not write the letter to the LDPOA too? He continued by saying he was tired of all the excuses and referenced the office fire. Reeves stated the comment was uncalled for and it was not the first time. Richardson agreed stating it was about the third time he either had a conversation or answered an email from Reeves yet received exactly the opposite (in response). President Kinsella suggested moving on and Richardson agreed saying it (the resolution) should be tabled until the research process was complete.
FENCING
IGM Tynan briefed the board on estimates for fencing around particular equipment that needed further security. Director Mark Skoien suggested since the district may be appointing a General Contractor perhaps he could also handle any additional fencing that might be required in addition to the office area. Discussion ensued, however no motion was made on the matter.
A recess was called prior to the board going into closed session.
Closed Session: Conference with legal counsel regarding Agee vs. LDPCSD – report out – district will defend itself.
My best to you and yours, Lew
Certainly has been strange weather for the last few weeks – alternating between high summer-like temperatures; thunder & lightening, cold wind blown rain and hail topped with those convenient periodic power outages like on the day of the Health Fair!
One day I am slathering on sunscreen, the next, hauling in firewood to stay warm. Yesterday (Sunday) was especially interesting with the high temperature and moist saturated ground. The evaporation radiating up was almost jungle-like as I tore through healthy weeds with a new two cycle Echo trimmer graciously gifted by my closest of friends in acknowledgment for surviving another year. [Naturally there was fog early this morning as well.]
Yes, the weather has complicated the “War on Weeds” and has been somewhat frustrating, but heck, it is every single spring but I am confident of ultimate victory. Then, after everything is finally cut, raked, sprayed, burned and landscaped, the fall rain is back and the cycle begins again. Not complaining at all mind you, in fact I am a bit embarrassed to admit I enjoy the work and will miss the ritual when the chore becomes too physically challenging.
While cutting fire breaks a couple of weeks ago on my Mother’s lot and watching some wild turkeys we noticed a rather large stick-twig assembled nest in an Oak across the street which turned out to be maintained by a pair of Red Tail Hawks frequently observed in the area. (A neighbor told me he has been watching this pair for years.)
Rather than binoculars, this time I came prepared with the telescope. There are definitely two white fluffy chicks – possibly a third, however, that all too common day to day cruelty of nature stuff is difficult to watch, if there was a third I’m afraid it is now dead. By late afternoon only two chicks could clearly be observed and the larger one continually pecked and attacked the smaller one. When the male brought in a meal (lizard and a vole) and the female tore it up for feeding, only one of the chicks appeared to be fed. Even when attempting to eat the scraps that fell from its sibling’s mouth the smaller chick was attacked. The poor thing was weaving back and forth hardly able to hold up its head then “POW” he got smacked again by the larger chick’s beak. Hopefully it looked worse than it was.
Witnessed something amazing from the other side of the equation and actually got it on video but the image quality isn’t that hot. The female Hawk (larger in size) when not actually on top of the chicks, rotates around the top edge of the nest in little side steps so as to continually cast the best shadow on her young. It was terribly hot yesterday and the female could be seen panting while protecting her young. With wings partially opened she constantly adjusted her position for optimum shade. Now here’s the really cool part, Dad suddenly flies in carrying a leafy branch instead of food. He lands on the edge of the nest and begins walking around with the branch providing shade for the female and the eyasses (defined in below linked article). I kid you not! It was unreal. I don’t have time now, but maybe I can upload that video later.
Here are some poor quality shots. Used the same old trick as with the shots of the Moon at night — just hold the camera lens near the eye piece of the telescope. Only problem is low light conditions mean even a miniscule movement makes for a blurry image. Oh well we do the best we can with what we have right? The detail was fantastic through the telescope though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-tailed_Hawk
There’s much I want to share with you folks but need to get caught up. Here’s a quick report on the April 5th, 2012 Special Meeting which was agendized as the continuing Personnel matter between Interim General Manager Dan Tynan and Financial Administrator/Treasurer/Board Secretary Charise Reeves.
*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*
Establish quorum: President Bill Kinsella, Directors Emery Ross, Mark Skoien, Victor Afanasiev and VP Lew Richardson present. Interim Manager Dan Tynan and Financial Administrator/Treasurer/Board Secretary Charise Reeves also present Pledge of Allegiance.
Charise Reeves requested the Board vote to add an agenda item regarding changing a dollar amount on a fire related issue that was approved during the last meeting. Victor Afanasiev made the motion and President Kinsella the second, the board approved the change. Reeves briefed the board on the added costs for the office demolition and President Kinsella asked for a motion which Director Mark Skoien made, seconded by Victor Afanasiev. During discussion Director Emery Ross questioned Charise Reeves on the Brown Act Section she was relying on to revisit the matter. Reeves was unaware of the exact section but advised the issue had already been discussed in a previous agendized meeting which allowed for public comment. Ross cautioned if it were indeed a Brown Act Violation any action would be null and void. Both Ross and Richardson believed a Special Meeting was limited to the posted agenda items.
Audience member Ruth Smith stated she believed recent legislation prohibited even discussing matters that were not listed on a Special Meeting agenda. Reeves suggested voiding the additional part of the meeting and returning to the subject at a later time. Mark Skoien withdrew his motion.
President Kinsella stated the purpose of the meeting was to discuss complaints by IGM Tynan and Charise Reeves against each other. Tynan had requested an open meeting discussion whereas Reeves wanted a Closed Session. Director Ross suggested the board go into closed session to deliberate which was done at 0910hrs.
The meeting was reconvened at 1015hrs with the following “report out” by President Kinsella: The board is pursuing a satisfactory resolution with legal counsel’s input.
Meeting adjourned @ 1017hrs
*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&
Well that was easy. The next posting will be on the April 16th, 2012 Regular Monthly meeting.
My best to you and yours, Lew
The most recent 4 cycle weed trimmer didn’t even make one year. Nine days short. Strange, I usually get at least two seasons of shoulder discomfort from starting the darn things before something requires replacement or major adjustment. The cycle usually starts with difficult starting and proceeds through “not quite working right”, “losing power”, and then sputtering and coughing just like the operator.
This time however during a lower RPM run it suddenly stopped with a loud metallic sounding “clunk”. Yes — I checked the oil level before starting and filled it to the proper level, used new fuel, even cleaned the air filter. It started fairly easy but only an hour or so
into the chlorophyll splashed slaughter of vegetative offerings the engine to my faithful landscaping weapon seized.
Now the traditional dilemma: spend money on equipment repair or simply acquire another dead tool for display on the “Dead Tool Tree” (a landscaping testament to the money spent on failing tools despite reasonably good care.) Having been down this road a few times already (purchasing “repairs” until the next inoperative incident) I believe the “Dead Tool Tree” is the appropriate choice. Yup, a couple of telephone calls to small
engine repair shops cinched the decision.
PRESCRIPTIVE WATER RIGHT?
Reading select portions of the law (cases, decisions, opinions, statutes, etc) can be quite perilous if the totality of the subject or most recent “final word” from a court has not been considered. Based on limited exposure to a particular legal issue it is understandable how any lay person (regardless of how knowledgeable they might actually be) could accidentally get the “wrong idea” about a legal matter, advocate it to others, and act accordingly.
There is nothing sinister or intentionally deceptive – just a simple misunderstanding motivated by a good faith effort to “do the right thing”. I believe this is exactly what
happened to Victor Afanasiev when he understood properties outside the Merced
Irrigation District Place of Use [MIDPOU], which pay availability fees for future water service, had a “prescriptive water right”. His request that our attorney research the
matter, though well intended, appears to be misdirected.
Below is some information which will clarify the matter and is really quite interesting as to how California operates under a “dual system of water rights which recognizes both the appropriation and the riparian doctrines”.
Basically, Riparian rights involve “land abutting upon a stream or body of water” and Common Law appropriation of a water right goes back to the gold mining days when water was diverted to work mining claims. Posting at the point of water diversion and recording the right with the county were common methods of securing an appropriative water right.
Prescriptive rights have been described as the “parasites of water rights [because] [t]he only way to obtain such rights is to take water rights away from someone else….”)
People v. Shirokow 26 Cal. 3d 301 [Prescriptive rights do not apply-link below]
http://law.justia.com/cases/california/cal3d/26/301.html
Here’s some other information from the SWRCB [State Water Resources Control Board] regarding the different types of water rights.
http://www.waterrights.ca.gov/forms/app-geninfo.pdf
NOTICE there is even a disclaimer in this material on page 3: “While believed to be correct, the information is by no means complete. For additional information, see the California Water Code and case law.” Yes, water law is very complicated.
COMPLICATED ISSUES REQUIRE SPECIFIC EDUCATION, TRAINING AND
EXPERIENCE
I, like everyone else (who is not specifically trained in such matters), can only study and attempt to comprehend some extremely complicated subjects – but that is precisely why the LDPCSD has legal representation specializing in water law. Until convinced that such representation is inadequate I will do my best to adhere to the attorney’s commendations, suggestions, and legal opinions regarding legal matters and what is best for this district.
Others may choose to elevate their perspective and opinion above that of our attorney, believing the later incorrect in some respect, however, I believe such action could be very dangerous. If individual lay opinions are to replace our legal representation, something is very wrong, but again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. (Which is why electing others to represent the public’s best interest is so very important.)
OUTSIDE MIDPOU RESOLUTION
Although disappointed the resolution to prohibit further Outside MIDPOU [OMIDPOU] properties from further taxing the Ranchito Well production again failed, anything orthwhile takes time and this issue cannot be postponed indefinitely considering the circumstances and necessity for action. Heck the problem itself took decades to develop spanning many different boards and administrations.
Actually this recent focus on the OMIDPOU Properties will likely produce information long sought which will enable all of us to better understand exactly how this district became so entangled in the issue of what water can be distributed, and where.
Inexorably linked to this is the question of who should reasonably be saddled with the any added financial responsibility of providing a special benefit to properties outside the permitted area for Merced River water consumption under the water license?
EXCEPTION TO THE RULE
For whatever reasons, Outside MIDPOU [OMIDPOU] water service is an exception to the rule and as such, should likely be viewed differently than those traditional “availability properties” which have the right to Merced River water and have always paid availability, or standby, fees since the beginning.
“STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMEL’S BACK”
No one knows how many more connections to the well can be made without jeopardizing what is already served to OMIDPOU customers, but caution is obviously warranted. The
engineer report concluded the well is 50% of its sustainable yield (I believe there is a bit of “wiggle room” in the calculations).
ADDITIONAL CONNECTIONS FOR WHAT?
Additional connections are one concern, but what about the anticipated water consumption for each of those connections? Will they be normal domestic single family
residential hookups? Perhaps the acreage is proposed to be a mini-subdivision with a number of other connections? What about another commercial cattle or other livestock type ranching activity? There are a number of other high consumptive enterprises which could be the down fall of the Ranchito Well.
Were “exceptions” made to include properties with no reasonable or immediate expectation of residential domestic water use? Were connections made for speculative land development or potential commercial benefits outside the permitted use
area? If this is so, is it fair or reasonable to require 99% of the “legal use” customers to subsidize private commercial enterprises and profit through the financing of a special benefit outside the permitted water use area?
A possible solution has been theorized: MID and the SWRCB might somehow feel sorry
for the district’s failure to conform in the past and will simply turn a blind eye and permit the district to do whatever it wants. Considering MID is the entity that holds the license and is responsible to the SWRCB for state water law violations, I personally doubt MID would willingly gamble further potential liability (fines or other State correction) because of compassion for this district’s difficulty in supplying water to every property owner who desires service in the vicinity.
Apparently there was an attempt at an “Administrative Remedy” years ago where our permitted area to serve Merced River water was to be expanded, however, complications developed and the process was halted with the determination that a full blown change petition would have to be filed with the SWRCB. This is very expensive process and fraught with potential legal protests and objections from other water users downstream, and for us, that means the very organized Delta-Bay area.
Certainly the approval by the SWRCB of a petition to change the place of use would be absolutely wonderful, and perhaps a dedicated effort towards that possibility should be maintained, but first things first. A priority should be to deal with what has already been created.
“ANARCHY IS BETTER THAN NO GOVERNMENT AT ALL”
Probably my favorite oxymoron.
Oxymoron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron
And what about the person who defiantly says “I’m an atheist and thank God for it”? lol
“ONLY HOW MUCH AN ACRE?”
Recently I remembered an oxymoron from an old college Public Administration course – “honest Graft”. How only a small amount of “insider information” could be unethically (and criminally) used to obtain substantial sums of money. One example was how government projects, like military bases, were often designed and located away from more highly populated areas. (Errant air drops, forced landings/accidents, ICBM mishaps, artillery shelling, noise, etc.) My miniscule experience as a “military brat” would tend to substantiate this observation considering some of bases Dad had been stationed. Yep, made sense such facilities would be out in the boonies a bit – then slowly other businesses and communities grow around the installation figuring the commercial benefits
outweighed the risk of injury/damage.
So what if the DOD (Department of Defense) or some subcommittee was considering construction of a new facility somewhere? (Remember the Cold War era when the emphasis was on rapid construction of bases not decommissioning them?) Only a small piece of information, like which state and county such a complex might be built, could reap huge monetary rewards. Not only could an individual or company purchase land for next to nothing then sell it back to the government at a greatly enhanced price but they’d have the ground floor on configuring the infrastructure and supporting entities for an entire community which could be quite lucrative. Presto: “Honest graft”.
Naturally there are a multitude of laws and regulations covering such stuff now, heck there probably were then, but the point is certain information at the right time can be very aluable. Wall Street insider trading…..what has the country learned from that little game?
Subprime loans? Blah, blah, blah……
BACK TO THE SUBJECT— WATER
. . . . .California’s new gold!
“Whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting
over”. Attributed to Mark Twain. Here’s a humorous and interesting perspective about whiskey and the advancement of civilization by Mark Twain http://www.twainquotes.com/WaterWhiskey.html
WHERE IS THE WATER GOING TO GO?
Similar to asking where a new government facility might be built huh? Drought prone foothill land sure would be worth a lot more money if potable water could be delivered right to the property line of where someone was going to build a home, and after all,
with a few exceptions the water was primarily intended for domestic residential
consumption in the subdivision.
In 1968 Sierra Highlands Water Company President Thad Binkley made an agreement with the Sturtevant Ranch agreeing to provide 10 free water meters and $500 for some Sturtevant land upon which a water tank and access road would be constructed.
Unfortunately, documents on file with authorities do not recognize this inclusion into the water license place of use, thus all those additional properties fall outside the MIDPOU and must receive water from the Ranchito Well. [The LDPCSD service boundary is
different than the area of service permitted under the water license – the service boundary was expanded outside the MIDPOU. Apparently, this expansion was done while the
State of California was actively pursuing a more regulated water management program and around the same time this district was formed as a public agency rather than a private water company as initially constructed.]
The Revised June 1978 Merced Irrigation District map entitled “Areas of domestic water use” is the official map filed with the State Water Resources Regional Control Board (SWRCB) which essentially is a footprint of the original Sierra Highlands residential development. Sierra Highlands was the predecessor to the Lake Don Pedro Owners’ Association subdivision although some properties, such as Units 4,5,& 6-M (Kassabaum Flats) reverted to acreage and 7-M (the property around Azulete Way off Hidalgo Street east of the elementary school) also opted out of the Association and had no line extension agreements with Sierra Highlands.
The transfer of facilities and assets agreement by Sierra Highlands to the District occurred in August of 1980. [The actual vote to form the district was 88 yes and 29 no.] The contract provided for the district to operate and maintain the water system, to “provide water service to all lands and customers within Sierra’s present service area” and subject to certain conditions respecting connection charges and other details.” This is where things started to get mixed up. What if a property was being served water by Sierra Highlands even though it was technically “outside” the original residential subdivision?
Water License 11395 in August of 1983 referred to the service area as: “Domestic use at home sites within the service area of Sierra Highlands Water Company and a 55 acre golf course” and the 1978 Map again depicts that service area. (The golf course is actually 155 acres and was referred to in some material as a “gold” course.)
JUNE 1978 MAP
https://lakedonpedro.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/1978-MID-MAP.jpg
The water license limits use of Merced River water (Lake McClure) to the 1978 MID Map (essentially the subdivision and golf course), however, through the years water has been diverted outside the place of use to adjacent or nearby properties to the subdivision. MID in 2000 issued a cease and desist letter which clearly stated all outside MID Place of Use water must be supplied by an alternative source – not the Merced River (Lake McClure). The Ranchito Well became that source of OMIDPOU water which is comingled with river water, treated, stored, and distributed to outside place of use properties. As already mentioned, the engineer recommends no further connections (water demand) on the well.
Now this new issue revolves around a limited number of property owners (total outside place of use properties is 34 which is around 1% of the total customer base) who have supposedly been paying availability fees (Maximum $180 a year) for future water that the Ranchito Well may or may not now be able to produce.
Another aspect of this mess is that our ground well water, due to minerals/chemicals, is actually harmful to some of the equipment at the LDPCSD which was designed as a surface water treatment facility drawing water from Lake McClure, which as we all know, if fed by the Merced River originating in Yosemite National Park, and is fantastic water.
ANXIOUS FOR THE FACTS
Well the recent office fire sure didn’t help much in obtaining information any faster and I am curious as to how many OMIDPOU customers have been paying availability fees and for how long. Whether they annexed or paid a buy-in fee? (Which I believe was intended to recoup the difference paid in fees by other legal users who had always paid availability.) What is the estimated water consumption per connection? Are these properties planned
residential or commercial? Are water mains or laterals present? Have these other projects stalled as in the South Shore project? Or the township proposed by the Deerwood Corporation with huge man-made lakes and fountains? What about the envisioned multi-story building at T-Corners? Or concept of a modern day ghost town also at T-corners?
Blah, blah, blah… lots of grandiose plans but one of the key factors has always been the acquisition of enough water.
Director Emery Ross is an Outside MIDPOU customer with two meters. He owns and operates a commercial cattle ranching business and believes the district should drill more ground wells, but again, I must respectfully disagree for three main reasons: 1)
Ground wells are expensive to develop, 2) Can be unreliable in this fractured rock
geology, and 3) It is unfair to require the majority of customers to financially fund a special benefit, especially if a commercial enterprise
WITHOUT “SKIN IN THE GAME”
Without something to lose there are those Outside Place of Use property owners who could care less about the Ranchito Well or the additional costs and procedures required to provide that alternative water source. Some have even advocated further expansion of the district to include multiple subdivisions with hundreds of homes. Why should they care? If the Ranchito Well goes out the district will simply cover all the costs of repair or replacement. This course “boils down” to the fact all customers (water consuming and availability fee paying properties alike) will cover the costs of a special benefit they do not receive.
THE “OMIDPOU SBAZ”
The Outside Merced Irrigation District Place of Use Special Benefit Assessment Zone
A while back I mentioned the idea of a special benefit assessment zone where those who require the Ranchito well, for co-mixing of Merced River water for their OMIDPOU properties, could form their own organization of service. The additional costs associated
with the Ranchito Well for supplying water to outside permitted areas (called “ground water substitution for surface water transfer”) would be borne by those receiving that special benefit. This is the same principal as the sewer system around the golf course where only those properties connected to the sewer system pay for that service, not the majority of owners who have private onsite septic systems.
Every OMIDPOU SBAZ connected property would share in and fund the additional costs required for maintenance, repair, future replacement, power, testing and monitoring of the well. The OMIDPOU SBAZ membership could decide whether additional connections
would be in the group’s best interest. The LDPCSD would continue to co-mingle
Merced Water, perform treatment, testing, storage, distribution and billing for
the finished product.
The costs would not be significant if the Ranchito Well continues to serve those already connected and that water consumption does not increase drastically (subdivisions and other high water usage businesses). If, however, further expansion of the OMIDPOU
service area gets expensive with ground well drilling, pumps, boosters, and other
equipment, those costs should be absorbed by those who receive the benefit.
HOW DID THIS MESS DEVELOP?
Will you annex? Sure you bet. Will you pay a buy-in fee to make up for all the fees veryone else in the district has paid since before and during the district’s inception? No
problem. Better yet…. How about I don’t pay anything until I actually need the water?
Great, it’s a deal. I’ll pay $180 a year to insure that I can get water someday even though my property is outside the MIDPOU and I have no idea when or what I might construct in the future. You’ve got a deal!
Heck, that’s only a step up from those properties that are within our district boundary yet do not contribute one thin dime to support district operations. Gee, they can even be the deciding votes on who represents the entire customer base (realizing of course most of our customers are absentees and usually cannot participate in CSD elections anyway).
Again, it took quite a while for this problem to develop but it obviously needs to be addressed.
My best to you and yours, Lew
DEAD TOOL TREE
POST CORRECTION
In my haste to get the last blog out before “slaughtering Spring weeds” (More on that later, ie, Dead Tool Tree) I inadvertently wrote something that needs some clarification. I previously stated I had a problem with Dwight Mueller while he was on the LDPOA board signing “a 15 year water contract for Gregoris Pond to supply water to the Tom Porter/Deerwood Corporation golf course when our Governing Documents clearly provide a 5 year contract limitation clause.”
To be precise:
The agreement signed September 18th, 2005 by Mr. Mueller on behalf of the Association regarding terms states:
“The term of this Agreement shall be for 15 years from the date of execution of this Agreement, or until termination of irrigation of the Golf Course, whichever is longer, at the end of which period District shall have the right to renegotiate for an additional term of years.”
Perhaps no biggie but I try to be as accurate as possible and didn’t care for the wording the first time.
Have a bunch of stuff going on, will post again soon, until then-
My best to you and yours, Lew
CAN YOU SEE THE LIGHT?
An Insurance loss ratio of 288% over a baseline of 70% in the last five years of operation is understandable but shocking. The insurance rate getting bumped 10% and a zero deductible changing to $25,000 is very disheartening. This demoralizing information was made known after the most recent addition to this district’s list of financial embarrassments – a suspicious administrative office fire that was recently upgraded to arson according to a Sheriff’s interview reported in the Foothill Express.
[And to think this country has been fighting a war on terrorism for years where and for what purpose? Heck, this area could use its own tasked satellite and maybe a fewWes Barton’s comments, I believe, were right on the money, so to speak. If long running lawsuits are decided in favor of the district there might be some good news, on the
other hand, those unresolved cases and current employee complaints could theoretically
raise insurance rates even higher.
BIG “IF”
Obviously the tricky and determining word in such matters is “if”.
Q: What is your home worth?
A: Several million dollars if located in Hawaii (or where ever)
Q: Will the LDPCSD leadership make the necessary decisions to correct this financial and Public Relations nightmare of a “down spiral”?
A: Only IF the Board of Directors, GM/IGM, Staff, employees
and public work together to … blah, blah, blah
(Where’s the cheerleading/mascot outfit and disintegrating Pom-Poms when I need them? You know the routine – that youthful, optimistic, and cheerful “we can do it together” attitude? And if that doesn’t work, the negatively motivated: “We hang together or hang separately” philosophy. Regardless, this district will reflect only what this community permits, allows, tolerates, or demands.
RAH RAH REE – KICK ‘EM IN THE KNEE – RAH RAH RASS – KICK ‘EM
IN THE …..
OTHER KNEE
Sure, the current board inherited some past issues which are being financially felt now and tangible progress in bringing rates back down will likely take years of no/loss- minimal/loss management. Rather like stopping a speeding Jet Ski or locomotive, just because you may immediately stop acceleration or apply the brakes to avoid an accident, there will still be some unwanted forward momentum already in play. The damage has, is, and will continue to occur for some time.
Yes, the light at the end of this particular insurance tunnel appears to be an oncoming train, but the situation is not entirely hopeless and with hard work, dedication and a common goal, our CSD can surely be put on the right track.
“Rah Rah not just luck” – “Rah Rah ……….” (you get the idea)
WATER IS A VERY COMPLICATED BUT INTERESTING SUBJECT
You know, I have learned so much in the last 14 months – especially about water issues in this State and how the Lake Don Pedro area plays a vital role in an expansive and intricate network of water projects and facilities that pump, treat, store and distribute water to Californians. The enormous mass storage as ice and snow in mountain water sheds, cyclical precipitation, surface reservoirs, hydroelectric power generation, environmental releases, recreation, agriculture, underground storage, percolation, runoff, return flows to the ocean, salinity, evaporation, maximum contaminant levels, it is all about what we take for granted as every day water consumers. Government, as trustee for natural resources of the people, attempts the most beneficial use for the greatest public benefit.
Sponsored online classes and access to publications from organizations such as RCAC (Rural Community Assistance Corporation), CSDA (California Special District Association), ACWA (Association of California Water Agencies), and others, have all been of great assistance in understanding the complexities of this precious fluid we need to survive.
Over the last seven years of posting detailed information about local governing board meetings along with my often verbose personal opinion posts as to its relevance to this community’s development or lack thereof, I have written from both heart and mind. Sure,
I take the liberty of informally expressing myself and often write things I think are humorous but others don’t – so what? Everyone has an opinion and I choose to express mine publically. I imagine the familiarity of my writing is fostered in the sense regular readers “should know me by now” concept. Some have been reading posts since 2004 during the AHRC days – been through a lot haven’t we?
COMMITTEE REPORTS
I was surprised to learn the Finance Committee’s review of the Treasurer’s Report had not been actually approved by the auditor as an acceptable solution to a “check and balance” of Charise Reeve’s Treasurer’s Report since the suggestion evidently came from them. This is something that needs addressing. Considering some of the recent information, perhaps an entirely new financial management/record keeping/reporting system needs to be considered?
The Public Relations Committee report consisted of a draft letter to the LDPOA which I’ll post below. Unfortunately, in the hurry to get it out I failed to correct the
redundant use of the word “naturally”. Oh well, live and learn – naturally.
The letter is pretty much self-explanatory – a proposal to include a future CSD publication in the Discoverer thus board approval was necessary to send it to the LDPOA for their consideration. Here’s the letter:
March 13, 2012
Lake Don Pedro Owners’ Association
5182 Fuentes de Flores
La Grange, CA 95329
(209) 852-2312
Board of Directors,
The Lake Don Pedro
Community Services District (LDPCSD) is investigating the feasibility of re-establishing the COMMUNITY PIPELINE publication to reach its water customers. You may recall this was a simple 11×17 folded newsletter containing important information regarding the district’s treatment, storage and distribution of water within our
community. Unfortunately, due to financial difficulties of the past that publication was discontinued.
Maintaining, repairing, and replacing components of our forty year old water system
infrastructure will continue to be an expensive proposition. Obviously Lake Don Pedro’s future depends upon the availability of quality drinking water and there could be no better time than now to educate property owners/customers as to what will be
required.
The Lake Don Pedro Owners’ Association (LDPOA) currently provides its monthly corporation newsletter, THE DISCOVERER, to its membership of over 3,100 subdivision
property owners through the FOOTHILL EXPRESS newspaper and would be the perfect
vehicle to reach our LDPCSD customers as well. Approximately 99% of LDPCSD customers, whether local residents who pay monthly service and consumption fees or absentee unimproved property owners who pay availability fees with their property taxes, could be reached through THE DISCOVERER.
Both our organizations are designed to serve this community and co-operation in furthering our respective missions by utilizing your publication seems logical and the most efficient use of our funds. Naturally the COMMUNITY PIPELINE would be responsible for its own printing, insertion, and share of postage costs. Naturally
it will be an independent publication responsible for its own content and would
contain the appropriate disclaimer indicating no legal affiliation with the LDPOA or Foothill Express.
This project is only in the preliminary stage of development; however, the LDPCSD Public Relations Committee is interested in meeting with your representatives at your earliest convenience.
Thank you,
LDPCSD PUBLIC
RELATIONS COMMITTEE
%*%*%*%*%*%
Just about every board training class I have had has emphasized public transparency of the government decision making process (Public Records Act, Brown Act, etc.) along with relevant and timely communication with customers. How can a solution be pursued
and obtained without a clear understanding of the problem? I’ve heard this time and time before: The last thing a district should do is communicate with their customers only when further financial support is required. Those who financially support this district have a right to know where their money is spent and for what purposes.
OFFICE FIRE UPDATE – OFFICE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
What can anyone say? An office requires equipment, equipment requires an office, our office was gutted by fire and equipment destroyed and a new office and equipment must be replaced. A very good reason for every ratepayer of this district to be furious and demand answers: who would do such a thing and why? Who might have a motive to destroy or severely disrupt this district’s operation? Again, this latest incident is absolutely disgusting.
Although there was no fire investigation update available at the last board meeting, I just received my April edition of the Foothill Express newspaper which contained some very interesting information in an article by Lorri Wickenhauser titled “LDPCSD fire investigation points toward arson”. The article included a telephone statement by Mariposa County Sheriff Doug Bennewies regarding the office fire: “It definitely appears that arson is involved”. This announcement for many in the community was likely met
with some variation first blush response of “NO DUH”. (“Oh really?”, “Big surprise”, “Who thought otherwise?”, etc.) The sheriff also stated there were “a couple of people who are persons of interest” but “one of those (persons) is not cooperating”. No arrests have been made.
ANYTHING VALUABLE REQUIRES PROTECTION
I chose that introductory statement for this website because I believe it applies to Lake Don Pedro just like anything else. Despite our tumultuous history this foothill environment is a wonderful place to live and I honestly believe in time (probably
not my lifetime) it will blossom into a thriving place many more people will want to live and call home. With that said, without vigilant protection the damage already experienced in this subdivision due to uncontrolled growth and development will surely again occur
without organization of those who pay the bills.
POLITICAL SIGNS TARGETED BY VANDALS AND THIEVES
While on the subject of area protection, and as posted earlier, I am voting for Merlin JONES for District II Mariposa County Supervisor because I believe he will best serve the interests of the entire district as well as Lake Don Pedro. His interest and research into unfunded liability and resulting costs per County resident is appreciated and I look forward to him as a Supervisor facilitating answers to this literal “growing problem”.
I met Merlin Jones while he and his wife were canvassing Lake Don Pedro for support in his bid for District II Supervisor. I subsequently decided to publically support him and agreed to have a sign placed on my corner lot. That’s the way it’s supposed to be done….the candidate meets with the land owner and gets permission to place the sign. Obviously some candidates have not conformed to the rules and place signs anywhere they want hoping such a display will garner more votes. Perhaps it will have the opposite effect.
Isn’t it strange that the candidate who has followed the rules and done the “leg work” to obtain property owner’s permission to place election signs becomes the victim of vandalism and theft?
The Merlin Jones sign on Hayward Road was located on private property with the permission of the ranch owner yet someone decided to cut it down. True, a quick repair put it back up on the gate where it belonged but the question becomes what sort of person does such a thing? Why are they so afraid of allowing legal advertising for a particular candidate?
Like anything else a choice between multiple options often begins with the basic process of elimination. Understanding what you already know you DO NOT WANT. Now the following explanation is not meant to offend, insult or harm anyone. It is the truth and offered to voters in this district as they consider a number of different candidates as a public representative. I do not know the background of all the candidates, but I am well aware of the backgrounds of our two local offerings.
CAN’T SEE THE PARKS THROUGH THE TREES?
While serving on the Lake Don Pedro Owners’ Association Board of Directors, both Dwight Mueller and Orb Hatton (owner Tri County Realty) proposed selling some of the Association’s open/natural parks to developers. I was in the audience, heard their presentation and subsequently wrote much about their plan which was basically: the parks were unknown to most owners, rarely used, would never be missed, and represented a financial liability yet their sale would provide a great deal of operating revenue to the
Association for years to come.
Again, some folks might have considered selling our parks as a good idea and supported such but I was not one of them. I believed, and still do, such a plan displayed an amazing lack of vision and respect for future generations that will call Lake Don Pedro home. True, it might have generated some quick cash, but unfortunately, money like that often seems
to disappear through needless spending for ill-conceived projects simply because the money is there and available. (I am not suggesting anyone would have committed theft or embezzlement.)
It is also true that then, as now, residents may not notice if a few hundred acres of park land were developed, heck the subdivision is only half developed after over 40 years anyway. There’s lots of unimproved property right now, however, someday this
subdivision will be built out and most every lot will have a residence and associated buildings and improvements. It will be at that time, many, many years from now that future residents would miss open areas devoid of human construction and improvements. A place where what might remain of indigenous wildlife could live and travel. Without
a number of “dark areas” where stars and planets could be viewed at night or a resident could walk a quiet deer trail safe from motorized traffic, Lake Don Pedro would sadly, and irrevocably, be overdeveloped.
Another problem I had with Dwight Mueller (while he was on the LDPOA board) was his signing of a 15 year water contract for Gregoris Pond to supply water to the Tom Porter/Deerwood Corporation golf course when our Governing Documents clearly provide a 5 year contract limitation clause. Once again, there is no doubt there were supporters for this idea of “locking in a water contract” for Deerwood, but ignoring corporation regulations doesn’t seem to me like the way to proceed. Again, this is a simple difference of opinion regarding methods of operation to achieve goals.
I recall it was also Dwight Mueller and Orb Hatton who characterized a particular 1,600 foot developer convenience road (there are several) constructed by the Deerwood Corporation (which does not meet several fire safe public safety roadway standards) as a simple driveway dispute between Association members.
Then there was that $10,000 Hacienda party paid for with Association dues that entertained a limited number of members and their guests. There were a whole slew of
decisions and actions during Mr. Mueller’s Board service which appeared to cater to the special interests of real estate and land development over that of the average assessment paying property owner. The recent utilization of the closed Deerwood Corporation golf course facilities on March 31st for a Dwight Mueller candidate event is not surprising
nor is it wrong for Mr. Porter to back the candidate he anticipates could do him and his real estate interests the most good. That’s politics right?
Again, some people support such activities, but I happen to be one of those in opposition. A simple difference of opinion yet the reality is that this same individual now wants to bring his experience to the table and represent District II on the Mariposa County Board of Supervisors.
How can such signs advertise services not available to the public still remain in this community?
Well, it is a beautiful sunshine foothill day and I’ve got some weed slaughtering to get done – later
My best to you and yours, Lew
PS:
March 19 2012 Part II
Transcribing by the digital recorder/computer really slows things down but here’s the II installment of the last meeting. Yak with you later, Lew
[Continued discussion regarding insurance increases due to five year loss history]
Director Skoien confirmed that the insurance deductible was based on our loss ratio of 288% over a base line of 70% and commented that the report referred to the recent office fire as “fire-arson”. Skoien questioned whether that determination had been made. Financial Administrator/Board Secretary Charise Reeves and IGM Dan Tynan both stated they had not received any official statement regarding the status of the fire investigation.
Director Victor Afanasiev questioned a $20,926 claim in 2011-2012 to which IGM Tynan explained it was due to a major water main break which caused damage to the basement of a residence.
Wes Barton commented that most of the 10% insurance rate increase along with the increased deductible ($25,000) was due to matters that have yet to be resolved (employee lawsuits and recent fire) and there was a possibility that they could be reversed with a favorable outcome. Barton said some of the issues regarded members of the current board that were elected in November 2008, ie, $35,000 harassment and hostile work environment, a $17,000 claim and the recent fire. He said current difficulties as he understood them that were to be heard in Closed Session involved 5, 6, or 7 different employee complaints and there were a multitude of Grand Jury issues pending that still had to be resolved and theorized the rates for next year could be even be higher.
Board accepted and approved the SDRMA correspondence as read and filed.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
The previously scheduled Personnel Meeting was postponed until later in the current meeting. Charise Reeves advised she had not yet received confirmation that the Finance Committee reviewing her Treasurer’s Report would satisfy the auditor’s questioning of the checks and balances of the Treasurer/Financial Administrator. VP Richardson stated he had understood that the auditor was the one who suggested such a remedy but Charise Reeves said she and Wes Barton had a difference of opinion as to what was supposed to be done. Reeves stated she has not been able to speak with the auditor about the situation due to the busy time of the year with taxes.
President Kinsella stated the Finance Committee had reviewed the Treasurer’s Report.
Public Relations: VP Richardson stated there was a draft letter in the board packet and it was a separate item to be discussed later with a request the letter be approved by the board. [Request that the LDPOA permit the LDPCSD to use the Discoverer to contact their customers.]
OFFICE FIRE UPDATE
Already discussed – there was no interruption of water service and the office is in the process of securing new equipment (currently leasing temporary equipment). Existing water line under the old building location is still an issue to be resolved before the new building can be installed. (Reposition new building or relocate 22 year old PVC pipe.)
A 3/17/12 staff report by Charise Reeves to the Board of Directors requested:
Estimated $40,000-$50,000 for new computers and server. $7,900 for a big printer (replaces four machines previously used) and a color printer ($2,000). Director Afanasiev questioned why the district needed a color printer to which Reeves responded for brochures and board packets that periodically require color printing. VP Richardson questioned why the insurance company would only provide verbal approval for replacement equipment instead of putting it in writing. Reeves stated Director Afanasiev also requested the approvals be in writing but that is not how the insurance replacement procedure works. VP Richardson suggested recording any such verbal approvals for equipment replacement.
An audience member asked why the insurance company didn’t just give a check for everything that was lost in the fire and covered or at least an estimate for everything. Charise Reeves advised they had basically come back and said our upper limits are of no concern and that another company was doing an itemized inventory of everything that would be forwarded to the insurance company with all receipts for things already paid for by the district. Insurance will replace “like and kind”.
Reeves stated the company contacted to replace the office building is working in conjunction with our engineer and insurance company. She stated the district would have to go to the county to obtain the appropriate permits but questioned why the original building was originally permitted in light of the water line location – did the county know the pipe was there?
Director Ross stated he didn’t think the district would need a permit because we were a public utility and the building is related to the treatment of water. Reeves advised that the district still needed a septic permit in the past. Director Ross wasn’t sure but thought the office might be exempt because it had more to do with the distribution of water. Director Skoien thought we would either have to move the pipes or get a narrower building. President Kinsella suggested waiting for the authorities to advise how to proceed. IGM Tynan also thought a narrower building might be the easiest and least expensive way to go.
Harry Alfier questioned the high expense of the equipment. Reeves advised 5 or 6 computers and 5 printers and scanners had been destroyed and the server alone was originally around $40,000.
Merlin Jones commented on contacting the County about the demolition first and thought the building department could probably clear up the matter about the pipe under the new structure with a telephone call.
Wes Barton stated the district’s systems are indeed very expensive and were initially purchased during the real estate building explosion (that stopped) with the understanding they could support 10,000 homes. Barton stated the engineer should be on site and determine how best to solve the pipe issue.
There was a question and discussion about the pier block foundation of the existing building and Ruth Smith asked if a used modular building had been considered and referenced how much Golden Lakes Charter School saved. Reeves advised the insurance was paying for the full replacement of what the district had.
On recommendation of the IGM the board ultimately decided to approve the $60,000 for office equipment purchase and $10,000 to remove the fire damaged building.
OUTSIDE PLACE OF USE RESOLUTION
VP Richardson advised the attorney had revised the resolution to address some of the questions by Directors Ross, Skoien and Afanasiev and questioned if all directors had received a confidential communication from the attorney sent to their address. (The letter was stamped confidential but was essentially a copy of an email sent previously marked confidential – attorney client privilege.) Director Ross questioned the confidential nature of the correspondence.
Director Afanasiev stated after reading Raymond’s accompanying letter he (Afanasiev) did some research and believed the attorney failed to address the issue of prescriptive water rights. Afanasiev stated if a person had property and requested water and was paying for that, they had a prescriptive right to water even though they might be outside the MID place of use. Afanasiev suggested the attorney look into prescriptive water rights. Afanasiev felt the District could be looking at a law suit if those properties Outside the legal use area were never-the-less paying an availability fee for future water, yet could not receive it now.
VP Richardson made the motion to accept OMIDPOU Resolution 2012-3 that the CSD attorney had prepared, President Kinsella made the second, board and public discussion ensued.
Director Ross questioned how many Outside MIDPOU properties were actually paying availability fees for future water service and mentioned the McDonough case (an owner who had recently withdrawn from district service after paying for many years) and others who have been paying availability fees. Ross also mentioned a 1968 agreement where 10 meters would be supplied in exchange for land to place the Sturtevant water tank. (Based on past records, this was evidently how Director Ross originally obtained his second OMIDPOU meter in 1993 but was subsequently challenged on that meter installation by the Sturtevant Ranch citing that Ross’s property was specifically excluded from a free meter under that agreement.) Director Ross also questioned why names were returned on the OMIDPOU report (as it had been for approximately 10 years) since MID does not specifically require such.
[NOTE: You will recall Director Ross himself stated he had complained about names being on the report for two years and advocated that it be changed. The reporting did in fact change however there was no record of a board vote to do so and Ross stated he had no idea how it had been done. The board recently decided to return to name reporting because it cleared up for the public the locations of large water use outside permitted areas under the water license. Entities such as the fire department, elementary school, waste water plant and goat and cattle ranches can now be identified for clarification and understanding.]
Director Ross advised he knew of at least one person whose property was Outside the MIDPOU who has been paying availability fees for future water. President Kinsella voiced the opinion that if OMIDPOU properties had been paying availability fees for years they should get water but Director Afanasiev stated the resolution does not provide for that.
VP Richardson argued the resolution did not preclude these properties from receiving water but an alternative source would have to be located and used because no Merced River water can legally be used for outside MIDPOU properties. Richardson stated the CSD has violated the license and agreement and felt approval of the Resolution would be a show of good faith to MID that the district was attempting to clean up their act and abide by the license regulations. He also voiced the fear that once MID was done with their hydroelectric project business with FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) in 2014 MID could set their sights on the CSD regarding compliance with regulations. VP Richardson also mentioned the possibility that the resolution could actually stimulate other alternatives in obtaining water. He believed there were very few of these properties, (OMIDPOU paying availability fees) many of which were planned projects that had since been abandoned. Richardson has been asking for the information for months without success. He stated neither McDonough or Clark, who Director Ross had mentioned earlier, wanted our water, in fact they were trying to get out of the district not in. Richardson said it was disingenuous to use those two examples as someone wanting water who was denied when they clearly wanted out of district service.
Director Afanasiev stated the water rights stay with the property not the owner. Afanasiev suggested a lawsuit could result. VP Richardson didn’t feel that was necessarily true. $180 a year for a number of years would be the worst case scenario if CSD had to payback availability fees to a property owner. Richardson stated if the property owner wanted to hang with us we might be able to supply the water in the future. Both Directors Afanasiev and Richardson agreed further ground water wells were not the way to go.
Director Ross asked if Richardson believed all the current connections outside the MIDPOU were legal. Richardson asked, you mean like yours? Ross replied yes. Richardson said they were so long as the Ranchito Well produced the water to those properties. Ross asked if the well water could be comingled with Lake McClure water to which Richardson responded, of course that’s the way it’s been done. Ross began talking about information posted on Richardson’s blog and an article in the Foothill Express but he was told it was not the issue at hand, Ross contended the blog was the issue. President Kinsella suggested staying on the issue. Richardson stated the issue is this resolution and Ross only muddied the waters by saying things like oh this resolution is going to make me a criminal. Richardson countered It’s not making anybody a criminal, it’s setting forth the rules which they have always been for over 12 years.
Ross stated by receiving money for future water and putting it on the tax rolls and then not providing water was fraud, and asked what do you think it is? President Kinsella humorously suggested it was more like theft. (laughter)
Richardson also pointed out that many of the properties never annexed properly and referenced the Poe matter where it was agreed the CSD would provide water if the OMIDPOU properties annexed. Water was supplied but the properties never annexed. President Kinsella stated you can sue anybody for anything, at any time, but are you going to win? I doubt it. Director Afanasiev disagreed.
VP Richardson reiterated the resolution was our attorney’s opinion and he is trained in water law – Director Afanasiev interrupted stating he disagreed with Raymond as he (Raymond) never cited cases. Richardson said he didn’t think you needed to cite cases when CSD had signed an agreement with MID to abide by the regulations. Director Afanasiev said the prior board violated those agreements to the detriment of their customers. Richardson questioned if the current board was going to override what our attorney suggests in these matters. Director Afanasiev stated Raymond should cite case law in his legal material. Afanasiev stated if these properties did not receive water their property values would go down drastically. Director Ross wanted to see a list of how many people have been paying availability for water to OMIDPOU properties. President Kinsella said he believed if someone had been paying availability for water and were Outside the MIDPOU they should still receive the water.
VP Richardson stated he didn’t know because the engineer’s report indicated the Ranchito Well was over taxed as it is right now – it said no more potential new sources. Director Ross questioned what the 1978 boundaries were to which Richardson responded it’s not the district boundary but the license boundary which is essentially the subdivision and the golf course. Richardson said the resolution put CSD in line with the contract so we do not breech it. It would be the first step in a water management program to keep CSD in line with past agreements but remedies would not occur overnight. Richardson advised things might be changed by the State Water Board but Director Afanasiev stated the courts controlled such issues.
Director Skoien said if someone whose been paying for water that is OMIDPOU and yet now can’t get it will not be happy having to wait a couple of years. VP Richardson asked if he knew of anybody in that situation because we’ve got people leaving the district right now and there weren’t people pounding on the door to come in. Director Skoien believed MID didn’t really care about how much really came out of the Ranchito Well. Richardson advised it would be a big deal to people like Director Ross if the well goes dry and the resolution was meant to prevent that.
Director Skoien asked how the resolution was meant to prevent the well from going dry. VP Richardson advised because the engineer reported the well was only at 50% of its sustainable yield but if you keep adding more connections to it that percentage is going to go lower, and lower until the well goes out. People that are dependent on the well are going to loose their water source such as Director Ross.
Richardson also questioned how many of the properties actually annexed as required by the water agreements such as in the Poe meter removal situation where their property and the other two were never annexed yet they were supplied water.
Director Afanasiev commented CSD had over 5,000 acre feet of water per year but VP Richardson reiterated that the CSD could not use Merced River water for outside MIDPOU properties. Director Afanasiev wanted MID to show us some case law regarding the matter. VP Richardson said “OK we keep piddling around like this and MID gets done with FERC (Federal Energy Relicensing Commission) they’re going to come down here and clean our clocks, they could put us down to 800 or 1,000 acre feet”
There was an audience question as to those OMIDPOU properties already receiving water, would they be cut off? No. The question was asked to whom did the resolution apply, answer, to OMIDPOU properties not currently receiving water, but the issue revolves around how many have paid availability with the understanding they would receive water in the future. VP Richardson stated he had been asking for that information for months and still has not received such. Apparently there are approximately 5-6 of those properties some involving huge projects that never got off the ground like a six story motel proposed at T Corners. Richardson stated he didn’t think that would be happening very soon. Director Ross says he knows someone who has been paying availability fees on an OMIDPOU property for years that wants to build a house.
There was some discussion about the South Shore project (2,010 acres) that was allotted (by the State Water Board) 772 acre feet of water a year, but nothing has been done on that for many years. Richardson also advised that that particular project pays the CSD nothing.
Harry Alfier questioned why, with so much water allotted from Lake McClure (5,160 acre feet), would MID be against CSD using it in the area? VP Richardson advised that has been the issue all along and at one time the State Water Board considered making changes while Bob Kent was still general manager, but after some sort of water audit or something it stopped. Richardson emphasized that it wasn’t necessarily MID, it was the license restrictions and any violations would come down on MID from the State Water Board. Richardson compared the water license to a driver’s license, you can drive a motor vehicle so long as you abide by the rules and regulations otherwise the license could be suspended or revoked. Harry Alfier asked about any possibility of talking with MID. Richardson said the MID didn’t make the decision the State Water Board would and it was an extremely expensive proposition. He said originally a change was attempted through an administrative remedy to make small adjustments to the place of use but it was abandoned with notice a full blown petition process would be required. Richardson stated if a full petition could be filed there would be protests from the Delta-Bay people screaming because they need the water there. Richardson suggested the CSD could keep a low profile for a while and then maybe try to approach them again otherwise the water could be taken away and used for other beneficial uses elsewhere.
Director Afanasiev also wants to know exactly how many OMIDPOU properties have been paying availability fees. VP Richardson again stated he had been asking that question for months but still thought that was a minor issue in comparison to passing the resolution and showing MID we were trying to do the right thing. Director Afanasiev believed they really didn’t care now because they had enough problems with their FERC relicensing. President Kinsella stopped the discussion stating it was the public’s opportunity to speak.
Another audience member questioned whether the state or MID recently approached the CSD and voiced concerns about our OMIDPOU operations and felt VP Richardson sees a problem. Richardson advised that our attorney felt the resolution was 12 years past due. [Reeves changes tape] The speaker felt Richardson was attempting to protect us from a worst case scenario but now learning his water (as an OMIDPOU customer) would not be affected he was much less concerned. The speaker thought having a map of the actual service area would be helpful and questioned why it would be so hard to find out where these properties were. Richardson advised his (the speaker’s) guess was as good as his (Richardson’s). The speaker thought knowing exactly how much money might have to be returned was important. Richardson believed that was less important than passing the resolution. IGM Tynan stated he would follow up on the matter immediately. The speaker also questioned Director Afanasiev about his prescriptive water rights statement but Director Ross interjected “prescriptive easements”. Afanasiev corrected Ross by saying “prescriptive water rights” which he stated run with the property.
VP Richardson mentioned that the speaker (an Outside MIDPOU customer) should also be concerned about how many connections are added to the Ranchito Well because it places his water use at risk. The audience member acknowledged that fact.
Another audience member asked if the resolution had anything to do with a request for water by a gentleman……President Kinsella interrupted asking the speaker to make her comments from the podium which she refused to do saying it wasn’t necessary, everyone could hear and if Bill didn’t want to hear what she had to say – that was fine. Kinsella explained it made it easier to hear what a speaker had to say. (A microphone is located at the podium.) The speaker reluctantly agreed to comment from the podium and asked if the resolution had anything to do with the gentleman who wanted to build a store at T corners because it seemed the issue came up right after that request. President Kinsella said it had nothing to do with that issue and added his understanding of that situation was that there was a “property war” going on between that person and CAL FIRE.
Board Secretary Charise Reeves then stepped from behind the board table to the podium to speak. Reeves stated it was her understanding that the way the resolution was written someone who had been paying availability for OMIDPOU water would be denied that service. Reeves acknowledged that there may be only a couple, but if only one came in for water and was subsequently denied there could be a problem. VP Richardson suggested the first question would be, did they annex to the district as required. Director Ross stated the rest of us didn’t have to (annex) because they (their OMIDPOU properties) were grandfathered in. Richardson stated that the resolution did not preclude allowing someone who has paid availability to connect with the Ranchito Well but it came down to people like Director Ross and his neighbor who were already connected along with everyone else which is why he (Richardson) originally had proposed a Special Benefit Zone which was dropped from the agenda.
Richardson felt it should be up to the people already dependent on the Ranchito Well to determine if more connections should be made because it will affect their water supply from the well. Richardson believed if the Ranchito Well went dry now the district would be obligated to pay the costs to continue the service but if the district continues to over tax the well with more connections there could be a big problem. He felt there was a big difference between a person wanting to build a home which the board could approve subsequent to the resolution and the many failed big development projects like South Shore that never went anywhere. Reeves stated she was referring to the individual. Richardson felt the resolution could actually stimulate the search for other alternatives but the current process of just hooking people up without annexation had to stop. He felt if this is something the attorney thinks is right and should have been done 12 years ago he didn’t know why – “oh well, it’s up to the board”.
Director Ross: “Email from me to Raymond what about people who are already paying availability who are outside place of use how does the resolution affect them? He says the moratorium will not allow them to get district water unless it was from some source other than the Merced River, well they’re going to be cut off, that’s the answer, they’re cut off, according to Raymond.”
VP Richardson: No, they could go on the Ranchito Well
Director Ross: No because this here says you can’t
VP Richardson: No, it says we cannot provide them Merced River water Emery
Director Ross: But Lew you’d be the first person to be screaming that it was a violation of the law
Multiple voices
VP Richardson: I wouldn’t care
Director Ross: Yes you would
VP Richardson: … if you want more people on the Ranchito Well and risk your water delivery – hey that’s up to you.
Director Skoien asked if the Ranchito Well was maxed out to which Richardson (referring to the engineer’s report) – no it’s 50%. Richardson stated not only the attorney but the CSD’s engineer recommended no more Outside MIDPOU connections.
Director Ross agreed that the CSD shouldn’t be going out to look for people to hook up to the system but if people had faithfully been paying availability they should get the water. VP Richardson stated the board could always agree to add more connections (if availability had been paid) even after the resolution passed but it would not be fair to the customers already dependent upon that well’s production without their permission. Director Skoien asked what would happen if the Ranchito well went dry. Richardson responded that we would be in the ground well water business. Director Skoien disagreed thinking under such an emergency situation the state water board would give permission “in a heartbeat” to pump McClure water. Richardson characterized that as if someone were committing theft over a long period of time then committed a big theft the authorities would excuse the situation. Skoien said he did not mention theft only that if the well broke and CSD went to the state water board and said we have no other way to serve certain people in this community they would say just keep pumping the water. Richardson doubted they would violate their own rules but asked how the petition would come before the state water board in the first place because it would be a lot of money and CSD had many other things with which to deal. Director Ross stated we should be drilling another well just in case Ranchito goes dry. Charise Reeves suggested submitting that project to the IRWMP (Integrated Regional Water Management Program).
VOTE: Failed: Kinsella/Richardson aye, Ross, Skoien and Afanasiev, nay.
Director Afanasiev said he could not vote for it until knowing how many properties were involved.
Charise Reeves advised Syndie (Billing/Property/Customer Service Representative) may not be able to respond to the requests for information (about how many properties were involved) because the map she needed was being restored due to the office fire and didn’t know when it would be back.
–
–
–
–
–
– – – – – -E N D M E E T I N G – – – – – –
I’ll post my blog blah, blah, blahs later since there’s enough material to digest for now.
Beautiful day before the storm huh?
My best to you and yours, Lew
Let’s see,… telephoned County Fire at 0800hrs Monday morning and was assured the flag would be taken down as soon as possible and it was. Good job! Sure would be great to see a new one back up there because it looked pretty good with fire equipment underneath. Actually I happen to know a local woman who offered to donate an American Flag that once flew over some sort of prominent government building, don’t recall whether State or Federal. Anyway, placed a call to see if it is available, if so, will check with County Fire. I am still disgusted with the office fire and am surprised how many people make jokes about a situation that isn’t humorous at all when you think about the consequences and ramifications. Take a look at our insurance rate and upcoming deductible requirement due to the numerous claims in the last 5 years – that surely won’t encourage laughter. Well guess I might as well start with the next meeting – as depressing and frustrating as it might be.
—– S T A R T M E E T I N G R E P O R T —–
Quorum established: President Bill Kinsella, VP Lew Richardson, Directors Emery Ross, Mark Skoien and Victor Afanasiev, also present Interim General Manager Dan Tynan and Financial Administrator/Board Secretary/Treasurer Charise Reeves. Approximately 15 people in the audience.
Pledge of allegiance.
MANAGER’S REPORT: Dan Tynan
Fire has not affected water production however the LDPCSD is dangerously understaffed and interviews for prospective employees to take place the next day. Security control panels to be installed with individual codes to track usage. Director Skoien commented on IGM Tynan’s suggestion that a policy be established regarding keeping personal pass codes secret. There was difficulty during the entire meeting in locating specific pages in the Board packet without page numbers due to the lack of proper equipment in the office. (Penning in the numbers would have been helpful before making the copies.)
TREASURER’S REPORT- Charise Reeves
$451,716 in combined accounts (Restricted & Unrestricted). More voided checks this month due to smoke damage; there was a negative cash flow this month of $72,534 because of large payments such as MID (water) and the loan for plant improvements; there were a lot of retroactive adjustments made due to the fire; many fixed assets also need to be eliminated during this fire recovery period; a new employee classification; and three payroll periods for the month due to leap year (1st, 15th, and 29th).
Director Emery Ross questioned payments for board education/training and mileage reimbursement (Afanasiev and Richardson) and a district/board liability class sponsored by the SDRMA (Special District Risk Management Authority) in Clovis that VP Richardson attended. [NOTE: Educational classes and training for directors will always be over budget since not one dollar was budgeted for such.]
Wes Barton questioned the bank record and why the cash receipts appeared so low and why there was an entry with reversed cash receipts for $15,486. Charise Reeves responded there were payment checks that had been destroyed in the fire and customers have been requested to resend the checks. Barton also questioned the Customer penalties accounting and meter set fees. Reeves advised that had to do with the waste water facility and the difference in final billing that was agreed upon. [District recovered over $40,000 that had not been paid in years.]
Ruth Smith asked if the district was still paying for two separate internet service accounts (office operation has been done through Throckwisp but Hughes Net has been kept as a backup). Reeves advised she must locate the files but they have been taken for document recovery (smoke damage). Reeves advised if the Hughes.net account is no longer required it will be cancelled. Smith also questioned how long the district has been paying Hughes, Reeves answered one year for $1,200. Hughes was the original provider but Reeves reported it was down for approximately 3 weeks last year at which time Throckwisp was installed and has been working fine since then.
Director Skoien questioned the petty cash lost in the fire, Reeves advised it was $125 and $563 in customer cash was also lost.
Carolyn Bartholomew asked again if the district has been paying for two internet service contracts to which Reeves advised it was not. When the Throckwisp contract was changed (contract not yet formally revised and signed by the parties) part of the new modified contract was for Throckwisp to provide free internet service to the office and employees at home (so they could access the district SCADA system). Throckwisp is currently paying the district less than the original signed contract because of these services. The district only pays for the Hughes.net service which is not being used and will be cancelled when Charise Reeves obtains the information.
Board approval for the read and file of the Treasurer’s report- unanimous. Director Richardson’s reimbursement for mileage after attending a training class regarding district/board liability, VOTE: 3-1-1. Kinsella, Afanasiev and Richardson aye, Ross no, and Skoien abstained.
CONSENT CALENDAR
VP Richardson commented on the Board Secretary’s January 23rd, 2012 Meeting Minutes where Director Afanasiev, having completed a class Richardson was also going to take later, stated: “I also warned the instructor about Mr. Richardson”. Richardson subsequently responded: “Well, Victor, I look at it this way. You warned him about me. I’ll apologize for you.”
Richardson’s point was that the comments were humorously made (with laughter) yet the Minutes, without such qualification, could lead a reader to believe they were ugly comments. Richardson felt the Minutes misrepresented what had actually occurred. Reeves stated she could indicate there was laughter and that it was not a negative exchange. Director Skoien stated that’s how some people felt about Richardson’s blog, to which Richardson stated he included the word “laughter” when a comment was intended as humor and laughter could be heard. Reeves admitted when she created the Minutes she thought the comments could be taken differently. The board approved the correction. Director Emery Ross declined from comment on the matter since he was absent from that meeting.
Director Emery Ross commented on the SDRMA [Special District Risk Management Authority] correspondence in the Board Packet:
You know last year at this point I wanted to get on that board up there and you guys didn’t want me on that board and would wouldn’t, you know, nominate me or something, but you know that was another bad decision that this board has made – there’s been a lot of them, (inaudible) it says, “SDRMA will implement a $25,000 deductible for any employment practices and/or error and omissions, that’s us, claims which have an occurrence date after January 1, 2012
[NOTE: Director Ross misread the correspondence because the effective date in the letter read: “after July 1, 2012”, not January 1, 2012.]
This board is going to go bankrupt pretty quick if we don’t get rid of Director’s comments, blogs, verbatims these things are all going to be costing us $25,000, something that Dan does or Charise does or anybody else -$25,000. ah that, if you look on on the ah their, we have a 2 million dollar, ah policy, ten million per occurrence but and these ah used to be zero deductibles are now, we’re going to pay $25,000 I think we better start shaping up stop fooling around here especially this verbatim stuff that’s going to come back. When the guy was here we got into an argument with the man from SDRMA, that’s my understanding who it was, and that’s how you get this kind of stuff, you know, we better start shaping up quick. Its $25,000 it used to be zero, now it’s $25,000 you get three or four of those a year we’re going to be bankrupt that’s all I have to say – and it’s not going to change for a long time until we change our losses – also the former board in that lawsuit contributed to this too.
VP Richardson: I have a comment on that
President Kinsella: Sure
VP Richardson: Ah Mr. Ross I don’t believe you stated what happened with that nomination ah correctly.
Director Ross: Nomination?
VP Richardson: Yeah, your nomination for SDRMA. You came in here and just before the vote Vicki Keefe got up and said she had to leave for another engagement and you decided to withdraw it, I believe every director on the board encouraged you to wait until we had a full board and bring it up again and you said no, you wanted to withdraw it.
Director Ross: We’ll have to look at the, I’ll go back tonight and see if that’s right and I’ll
VP Richardson: It’s right.
Director Ross: (inaudible) next time. I think we did it twice.
——-S T O P M E E T I N G R E P O R T ——-
LEW’S VIEW: (THAT MEANS MY PERSONAL OPINION)
The above statements by Director Ross regarding the SDRMA are incorrect, extremely misleading, and once again obstructs any possibility of meaningful progress by confusing issues with inaccurate information that he will never “own” or explain.
Need to get rid of director comments, blogs and “verbatims” or $25,000 cost?
Director comments, blogs and verbatim transcripts had nothing to do with our insurance deductible being raised to $25,000. That embarrassing figure was based on a five year loss ratio of 288% which is greater than the 70% baseline established for the insurance program.
Notice any similarity or common denominator between the three items Ross mentions – comments, blogs and transcripts? They all involve communication of information and represent an opportunity for other people who might hear/read to decide for themselves as to the veracity, integrity or trustworthiness of the speaker/author.
Expression of opinion is good – especially when the person doing the expressing voluntarily agreed and is supposed to represent the interests of other people. Honest expression should be encouraged not regulated or prohibited. Now I agree that Minutes should be brief and verbatim transcription should be avoided when possible, however, when someone is not telling the truth that misinformation should be challenged immediately and the best way to challenge such “flip flopping nonsense” is with the speaker’s own prior words. [Also works with unfounded outrageous statements.]
Why would anyone be so frightened about being held accountable for what they have said? Heck I welcome different opinions and appreciate a good logical argument, but to make such absurd and unfounded statements again, and again, and again, and again…..without one shred of accountability is, not only frustrating, but demonstrates a method of operation and a major source of dysfunction.
There is no 2 million dollar (insurance) policy or a ten million per occurrence statement.
How could it be a bad decision not to support Emery Ross for a position on the SDRMA governing board when he withdrew the matter himself fearing the lack of support? [Mr. Ross ultimately obtained support from the Mariposa Resource Conservation District but was still not elected to the SDRMA board.]
How could arguing with a guy who interrupted our meeting, that Emery now – five months after the incident somehow “understands” was from the SDRMA, be remotely responsible for our higher insurance deductible?
How in the world did Emery Ross come to “understand” that the mystery man (who disrupted a Special Board meeting, orchestrated personal attacks of a director and district employee, and lectured directors how to conduct meetings), was from the SPECIAL DISTRICT RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY? Such a statement, especially after the highly suspicious administrative office fire, is completely irresponsible. No doubt such asinine rumors are not good advertisement for the SDRMA.
(READ ALL ABOUT IT! Insurgent undercover insurance investigator disrupts business meeting of a public agency his organization insures? …….GOOD GRIEF!)
Perhaps there could also be an “understanding” that Mr. Ross might actually be the unfortunate victim of EBMGI (Excessive Bovine Methane Gas Inhalation) due to confined cattle ranching activities. The primary effect of sustained EBMGI exposure is a temporary loss of reason accompanied by repetitive illogical and absurd assertions. LOL [laugh out loud]
After transcribing this portion of the meeting I contacted Mr. Dennis Timoney, Chief Risk Officer for the SDRMA, and advised him of the statements Mr. Ross had made during the meeting. Although I did not believe the information I never-the-less wanted to either positively confirm or dismiss such a ludicrous “spin”. Mr. Timoney assured me our policy does not contain any 10 million dollar coverage per occurrence nor is it a 2 million dollar policy (the SDRMA letter in the packet also documents this).
Mr. Timoney also unequivocally stated no representative from his organization was involved with the “impersonation” that occurred at our October 21st, 2011 Special Board Meeting and anytime the SDRMA is involved with a district’s business their identity and purpose is clearly made known. He further stated that SDRMA would be happy to come to Lake Don Pedro and explain the program’s functioning and loss calculation if the Board so desired.
NOTE: Although I stand by what I have written in the past, I never-the-less acknowledge that some of my terminology or attempts at humor are not appreciated by some and that’s fine, and I don’t mean to pick at a scab but you must admit that TUMMOTA performance was pretty bad. (link below). I had not planned on revisiting that particular point in time but this Recent Ross Revelation of “understanding” that the SDRMA was involved with such a ludicrous farce seems to warrant the link.
Regarding the past “imposter” who interrupted the October meeting (allegedly from the State Attorney General’s Office), here’s a link to that November 4th, 2011 posting entitled “DO WAH DIDDY DIDDY DUMB DIDDY DO” https://lakedonpedro.org/?p=581]
Well so much for the first installment of our last LDPCSD meeting. I need to get away from this insanity and computer for a while and enjoy this beautiful weather before the anticipated weekend storm that will hopefully augment our sub average snowpack.
My best to you and yours, Lew
PS: Here’s another “LEW’s VIEW” (personal opinion) for you to chew on …
The District II Mariposa County Supervisor election is right around the corner. As you will recall the current Supervisor for this area, Mr. Lyle Turpin, sustained a serious injury in a ranch accident and subsequently decided not to seek re-election. There are apparently six candidates vying for the position including two from the Don Pedro area, Mr. Emery Ross and Mr. Dwight Mueller.
I would suggest voters in this District take a serious look and do a little investigation as to what some of these candidates do, or do not, “understand” and how that “understanding” has been formulated. Sure, it would be nice to have a county supervisor from this area but that should not be the deciding variable in determining who can actually best perform the job. Personally, I cannot in good faith support our local offerings and will cast my vote for Merlin Jones as the next District II County Supervisor.
Website visitors
Your IP: 216.117.139.223
