County Clerk Recorder Ms. Terry A. Hansen*

Comments 24

• CO1 Page 20
  The Yuba County LAFCO board does not contain representation from independent service areas. RESPONSE: LAFCO agrees with this finding.
• CO2 Page 20
  LAFCO's policies and procedures, website information, and publicly available materials need to be reviewed for accuracy and compliance with state laws. <b>RESPONSE</b>: LAFCO agrees with this finding.
• CO3 Page 16
  Development Strategic Plan a Strategic Plan document Red Bluff shirts volunteer Council, I Economic Development Im Development Strategic ന campaign and Publish Business Retention: Tourism Promotion: Ads to promote Yuba Promotional Items: UpState California Marketing Material: Create and Update Marketing Material Category Publish an AnnualStrategic Plan Visitation/Surveys BUDGET TOTAL Office Supplies: Plan Programs Strategic Plan: Create new ad Memberships Advertising Economic CALED Travel: County ICSC EDC
• CO4 Page 17
  This economic development memorandum (dated August 22, 2005) from John Fleming to Kent McClain is a response to the findings made by the Yuba County Grand Jury in 2004/05. Grand Jury Recommendations (1), Grand Jury Final Report, p. 35
• CO5 Page 17
  "The Board of Supervisors and the Economic Development office should develop
• CO6 Page 17
  a specific plan to effectively increase commerce within the Linda, Olivehurst, and Plumas Lake areas as well as a plan to promote economic development within the Yuba County Research and Development Park and the Yuba County Rancho Road Industrial and Commercial Park." Economic Development Recommendations Response Since 2000 the Economic Development Coordinator has created, updated, and annually presented the Economic Development Strategic Plan to the Board of Supervisors in public meetings. The 2005 Strategic Plan contains eight program areas with defined goals and objectives staff addresses as funding allows; these areas include Business Marketing, Business Attraction, Business Retention, Business Development, Education, Communication, Tourism, and Research, pages 3 – 10. The Strategic Plan is also available and posted online at www.yubacounty.org. Economic Development activities are conducted through the eight program areas by participating in tradeshows and conferences, producing Economic and Retail Profiles, print advertising, and marketing flyers illustrating the Yuba County Airport, Research and Development Park, the Sports and Entertainment Zone, Rancho Road Industrial and Commercial Park, and the Plumas Specific Plan Area. Marketing is also promoted through maintaining and updating an economic development, Airport, and Yuba-Sutter Enterprise Zone website at www.yubacounty.org, providing regular press releases to the media, developing local, regional and statewide partnerships, meeting with businesses and developers to encourage attraction and expansion, creating and providing presentations for development interests, creating and publishing tourism information connecting visitors to local businesses, and networking with economic development professionals through affiliations with numerous organizations including the Yuba-Sutter Economic Development Corporation, UpState California Economic Development Council, California Association of Local Economic Development, and SACTO. Existing challenges to industrial and commercial development at the Rancho Road Industrial Park and Research and Development Park areas include proximity to major corridors and distance to existing infrastructure. Staff has developed infrastructure studies, coordinating meetings with property owners, and interfaced with local utility districts to encourage the extension of adjacent water and wastewater lines to serve these sites.
• CO7 Page 18
  Grand Jury Findings (2), Grand Jury Final Report, p. 32 "Mr. Fleming has not provided the County Board of Supervisors with a plan that will specifically target an industry nor a specific business base." Economic Development Findings Response A "targeted industries" list containing eight major industry sectors can be found on page three of the 2005 Economic Development Strategic Plan. This list was originally generated as a result of a 1997 Sedway Group consulting study providing targeted industry recommendations for the Yuba-Sutter Region. Since then, the Yuba-Sutter Economic Development Corporation and Yuba County Economic Development Coordinator have made additional refinements to the recommendations. Recent attraction, retention, and expansion activities within Yuba County have included a number of industry sectors on this targeted industries list, including Agriculture and Food Processing (Shoei Food's warehouse expansion), Wood Products (Hanson Truss, D & D Cabinets, Packaging Specialists), and construction (Century Cedar Log Homes, Concrete Inc., Patterson Construction), to name a few. Although not cited specifically in the Strategic Plan, attracting and encouraging retail and commercial development within the south Yuba County area has also become a priority for the Economic Development Coordinator. This concept has been introduced and expanded in reports, memorandums, and presentations to the County Administrator and Board of Supervisors, most recently in a public meeting Tuesday, August 16, 2005 as a 15-minute overview of Yuba County economic development business marketing and attraction strategies. To encourage retail and commercial building, economic development staff has developed economic and retail profiles, targeted International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) tradeshows for meeting and encouraging development interests, coordinated a Linda/Olivehurst sales tax leakage study through CSU Chico's research division, Center for Economic Development, and targeted trade publications for editorials and print advertising to elevate Yuba County's image and recognition.
• CO8 Page 19
  Yuba County Local Agency Formation COMMISSION JOHN BENOIT, EXECUTIVE OFFICER 915 8th STREET, SUITE 123 Phone (530) 749-5467 MARYSVILLE, CA 95901 (530) 749-5434 URL www.yubalafco.org Fax SEP 2 3006 YUBA COUNTY SUPERIOR COUR H. STEPHEN KONISHI SUPERIOR COURT CLERK September 13, 2006 BY OURT CLERK The Honorable James L. Curry Presiding Judge Superior Court of California County of Yuba 215 Fifth Street, Suite 200 Marysville, California 95901 Re: LAFCO's Response to 2006 Grand Jury Report Dear Judge Curry: This response is submitted by the Yuba County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), an entity independent of the County of Yuba and its Board of Supervisors, with respect to the 2006 Report of the Yuba County Grand Jury. FINDING 1. Municipal district reviews have not been done. RESPONSE: LAFCO agrees that municipal service reviews have not been done. Recommendation 1A. LAFCO should start as soon as practicable to review all municipal districts within Yuba County. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. As of the writing of this response, LAFCO has released a request for proposals to solicit proposals from consultants to prepare Municipal Service Reviews and Sphere of Influence Updates for special districts and cities within the County of Yuba. It is anticipated work will begin in October 2006. Additional Municipal Services Reviews and Sphere of Influence Updates for the Cities of Marysville and Wheatland will be initiated this fiscal year assuming funding is in place. On June 14, 2006, Lynx Technologies was retained for GIS and support for these reviews.
• CO9 Page 20
  The Honorable James Curry September 13, 2006 Page 2 Recommendation 1B. Obtain funding and contract with an independent inspector to perform the required municipal reviews. Response: The recommendation to employ independent contractors has been implemented as set forth in the Response to Recommendation 1A. LAFCO has provided funding in the previous two year's budgets for this purpose as well as its current budget. Recommendation 1C. While reviewing the municipal districts, a review and update of their Sphere of Influence should be completed. Response: The recommendation to review and update spheres of influence for special districts, including the cities within the County of Yuba has been implemented. LAFCO's work plan for 2006-2007 includes updating of the Spheres of Influence when conducting the Municipal Service Reviews as set forth in the Response to Recommendation 1A. FINDING 2. LAFCO's policies and procedures, website information, and publicly available materials need to be reviewed for accuracy and compliance with state laws. RESPONSE: LAFCO agrees with this finding. Recommendation 2. LAFCO should review and updates its policies and procedures, website, and publicly available materials to ensure accuracy and compliance with changes in California law. Response: LAFCO adopted Policies and Procedures in August 2005 and will be considering new operational bylaws during the upcoming months. LAFCO believes existing policies and procedures and information provided to the public comply with State law. The Commission makes every effort to continuously review its policies and procedures, as well as information on the website, to assure compliance with State law. FINDING 3. The Yuba County LAFCO board does not contain representation from independent service areas. RESPONSE: LAFCO agrees with this finding. Recommendation 3A. Contact independent service areas so they can appoint two members to sit on the LAFCO board as required by law.
• CO10 Page 20
  The Honorable James Curry September 13, 2006 Page 3 Response: The recommendation can not be unilaterally implemented by LAFCO. Government Code sections 56332 and 56332.5 govern the detailed procedure for seating independent special districts on LAFCO. Bearing in mind that the law does not require special districts to sit on the Commission and that LAFCO itself can not require special districts to sit on the Commission1, it is one of the goals of the Commission to seek independent special district representation. Yuba LAFCO recognizes the desirability of having special district representation; however, the law only requires independent special district representation when requested by the special districts. No such request has been submitted to date. It is the intention of LAFCO to actively seek independent special district representation for Yuba LAFCO. Should independent special districts opt to be represented on the Commission, then all special districts in the County would be responsible for their share of the LAFCO costs. Recommendation 3B. Conduct a review of all service areas to establish if they are needed and the possibility of being effectively combined with other service areas to provide better service at lower cost to Yuba County citizens. This review should include all service areas, with special focus on water drainage districts, utility districts, and water districts. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. This is one of the key elements to be included in the upcoming Municipal Services Reviews described in the responses to Finding 1. Yuba County Public Works The Grand Jury also requested LAFCO respond to its findings relating to Yuba County Public Works. FINDING 3. Updating and unifying the fragmented storm water drainage system plans would greatly enhance the public health and safety of the residents of the south Yuba County area. RESPONSE: LAFCO agrees with this finding. Recommendation 3. The PWD, in coordination with all affected agencies and special districts, should develop, update, and maintain a unified master storm water drainage plan for south Yuba County. 1 Thus, the public member has been correctly appointed.
• CO11 Page 20
  The Honorable James Curry September 13, 2006 Page 4 Response: The recommendation will not be implemented by LAFCO because LAFCO has no jurisdiction over storm water drainage plans. This response has been approved by a majority vote of the Yuba County Local Agency Formation Commission. Respectfully submitted, u0 Arthur Aseltine, Chairman Yuba Local Agency Formation Commission
• CO12 Page 23
  MECEIVEL AUG 2 5 2006 County of Yuba DMINISTRATION Memorandum DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 915 8th Street, Suite 125 Telephone No. (530)749-5420 Marysville, CA 95901 Fax No. (530)749-5424 Date: August 28, 2006 To: Robert Bendorf, County Administrator From: Kevin Mallen, Director of Public Works Subject: Response to 2005/06 Grand Jury Final Report In the 2005/06 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report were several Findings & Recommendations pertaining to the Public Works Department. Below are the Department's responses: In response to Finding 1 the Public Works Department welcomes the use of commercially available bio-diesel that is at or below the cost of petroleum based diesel. Public Works solicits bids through an open bidding process each year for annual fuel purchase pricing. To date we have not received a bid proposal for bio- diesel although when or if we do in the future we welcome the opportunity to try this type of fuel. In response to Finding 2 nearly all of the fuel tax funds identified by the Grand Jury as "grant" type funds are in fact non-competitive funds allocated by various formulas taking into account population, maintained road miles and number of registered vehicles. It is true that competitive grants are continually advertised for various types of infrastructure that could benefit Public Works as well as the County as a whole and that Public Works does not have a full time grant writer to pursue such grants. However Public Works staff is funded either through fuel tax funds or from development service fees and not through the County General Fund. Neither of these funding sources allows the use of the funds for a grant writer position and would require another funding source such as the General Fund. Public Works agrees that a position such as this would be beneficial and should be considered in a larger context such as a position that serves more than one department. In response to Finding & Recommendation 3 it is currently the responsibility of Public Works to maintain all drainage in the County within the County road right of way. In addition Public Works is responsible for maintaining the drainage facilities within the South Yuba Master Drainage Plan which consists of various channels, sloughs and detention basins outside the road right of way in the East Linda and Olivehurst areas. Reclamation District 784 is responsible for the other drainage facilities in the Linda, Arboga & Plumas Lake areas outside of the Page 1 of 2
• CO13 Page 24
  County road right of way. Both the County and RD 784 have master drainage plans adopted to shape the future improvements of the respective facilities to improve existing conditions as well as accommodate future development. Public Works welcomes the opportunity to work with RD 784 and LAFCO through the municipal service review process that LAFCO will be initiating shortly to evaluate whether things should be performed differently in the future. . Page 2 of 2
• CO14
  Joint Unifled Marysville Joint Unified School istrict Marysi 1919 B Street Marysville, CA 95901 (530) 741-6000 FAX (530) 742-0573 3006 SEP - 1 翻日: 17 ected for Student August 31, 2006 Mr. William Hamilton, Foreman The Honorable James Curry 2005-06 Grand Jury 2004-05 Grand Jury Presiding Judge Superior Court of California Yuba County Superior Court 215 Fifth Street 215 Fifth Street, Suite 200 Marysville, California 95901 Marysville, California 95901 RE: Response to the 2005-06 Final Report of the Grand Jury Report Dear Mr. Hamilton and Judge Curry: Attached is the response to the findings included in the 2005-06 Yuba County Grand Jury Report relating to the Marysville Joint Unified School District. The district has reviewed the report specific to the MJUSD and given significant consideration to the four findings and four recommendations made by the Grand Jury for Mary Covillaud Elementary School. I have directed Dr. Gay Todd, Superintendent of the Marysville Joint Unified School District, to submit the response on behalf of the MJUSD Board of Trustees. Should you need any further information or follow up, please do not hesitate to contact the district superintendent at 749-6102. Sincerely, 700 Jeff Boom Board President Recycled Paper
• CO15 Page 26
  Marysville Joint Unified School District 1919 B Street - Marysville, CA 95901 Gay Todd, Ed.D. Superintendent (530) 749-6102 FAX (530) 741-7894 August 31, 2006 The Honorable James Curry 2005-06 Grand Jury Presiding Judge Superior Court of California 215 Fifth Street, Department 5 Marysville, CA 95901 RE: Response to the 2005-06 Final Report of the Grand Jury Dear Judge Curry: The 2005-06 Yuba County Grand Jury School's committee reviewed Mary Covillaud Elementary School. As a result of that review, the Grand Jury listed four findings and four recommendations in its final report. In compliance with Penal Code Section 933.05(b), I am submitting the following response on behalf of the Marysville Joint Unified School District (MJUSD): Finding #1: The finding reads: "The school is in need of a multitude of minor repairs that the janitorial staff does not have time to complete." Recommendation #1: The recommendation reads: "Fund and hire additional janitorial personnel." District Response: In an effort to promote greater efficiency, the MJUSD has recently purchased new custodial equipment and realigned the duties of the custodial staff at all 23 of our schools. We have also increased our grounds staff which will allow all site custodians to gradually eliminate grounds-related duties from their daily workload. They can then focus on building cleanliness and minor repairs. The district plans to hire additional grounds staff in the future and to adopt uniform cleaning time guidelines. Page 1 of 3
• CO16 Page 27
  Finding #2: The finding reads: "Restrooms are not adequate. The restrooms in the cafeteria are in need of renovation." Recommendation #2: The recommendation reads: "Renovate and provide more restroom facilities." District Response: The district is currently processing plans and specifications for the complete remodel/upgrade to the boys and girls restrooms in the multipurpose building. This project is scheduled to commence during the 2006-07 fiscal year and should be completed prior to June 30, 2007. Finding #3: The finding reads: "The cafeteria is too small for the students to enter, eat, and clear in an orderly and safe manner. This presently requires excessive staff monitoring and several serving times. The use of the cafeteria as a location for school programs and activities is inadequate and requires these programs to be held over several days or to be moved off campus (Marysville High School)." Recommendation #3: The recommendation reads: "Expand the current cafeteria to support one-half of the school's maximum population. multipurpose room is needed to support the school's needs during inclement weather and for school programs and activities." District Response: The district is currently reviewing potential improvement projects using funding from the recently Staff will consult with the project architect and review potential approved Measure H. modernization of the multipurpose building, as well as other potential projects on campus. It may prove difficult to "expand" the building due to the existing location of the exterior walls. However, staff will explore other options to increase the effective use of space within the building. Finding #4: The finding reads: "The school campus is open and allows unauthorized persons on campus during school hours. Sixth Street runs through the middle of the campus. During school hours, the street is blocked off to vehicle traffic but not foot traffic." Recommendation #4: The recommendation reads: "The school campus needs to be blocked off from foot traffic during school hours. A possible solution is to install a retractable gate that prohibits foot traffic. The Office of Education should be contacted about the possibility of using their 'Youth Build, I-Stop' vocational students to perform the installation." Page 2 of 3
• CO17 Page 28
  District Response: District staff does not believe it is currently feasible to completely block foot traffic at the site. This would require the use of perimeter fencing, which is incompatible with the use of the public street which bisects the school site. The district continues to use "pole gates" to block use of the public street during school hours. District staff will review the adequacy of existing perimeter fencing as part of the Measure H project review. The Board of Trustees and district administration would like to thank the Grand Jury for their recommendations. Should you have any additional questions for concerns, please contact me at 530- 749-6102. Sincerely, Lay Sodd Superintendent Marysville Joint Unified School District Page 3 of 3
• CO18 Page 29
  OCT 2 7 2006 RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO 784 1594 Broadway H. STEPHEN KONISHI Marysville, California 95901-9632 SUPERIOR COURT CLERK Phone (530) 742-0520 Fax (530) 742-3021 OURT CLER rd784@2xtreme.net October 26, 2006 Yuba County Grand Jury Yuba County Courthouse 215 Fifth Street, Suite 200 Marysville, CA 95901 Re: Reclamation District 784 Responses to Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report June 2006 Response from Page 48: Response to Finding #3 & Recommendation #3: RD 784 has a Master Drainage Plan which was developed in 2002 which outlined and defined a drainage plan for all storm water drainage within RD 784 boundaries. Where necessary, we have coordinated with the Yuba County Public Works Department on issues where we have overlapping drainage issues. All modifications to the RD 784 Master Drainage Plan required due to new development within RD 784, is reviewed and approved by the RD 784 Engineer and then coordinated and approved, when necessary, by the Yuba County Public Works Department. Responses from page 58: Response to Finding #1: We agree with this finding. Response to Recommendation # 1: We are communicating with the Sheriff's Department to arrange for increased levee patrols of all sections of the levee. Response to Finding #2: - The state Department of Water Resources (DWR) requires 4 inspections of the levees to be completed every year (2 by a State Inspector and 2 by Local RD 784 Representatives). - We have investigated the cause of damage and could not identify any specific causal factors for the damages - It is not uncommon to have similar damages appear after high water events. - The areas noted in this report have been repaired and will be inspected on a regular basis as noted above.
• CO19 Page 30
  Page 2 RD 784 response to Grand Jury - We strive to utilize the best repair methods recommended by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and DWR whenever making levee repairs. - We follow recommended USACE & DWR maintenance and inspection procedures and find this is the best way to assure that when damages occur, they can be identified and corrected. Sincerely, Palard E. Welt Richard E. Webb President, RD 784 Enc. Pages 47, 48, 57 and 58 of Grand Jury report. Letter requesting repsponse dated 10-16-06
• CO20
  THREE RIVERS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY GOVERNMENT CENTER - 915 8TH STREET, SUITE 115 MARYSVILLE, CA 95901-5273 (530) 749-5679 (530) 749-7312 Fax September 11, 2006 To: Yuba County Grand Jury Re: Final Report 2005-2006; Special District – Reclamation District #784 The Yuba County Grand Jury report for 2005-2006 contained two findings for Reclamation District #784 and one Recommendation. The Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority was mentioned in both findings and recommendation. Below is the TRLIA response to the findings and recommendation: Finding 1: 4x4's and dirt bikes that use this part of the levee cause excessive erosion to the levees. TRLIA Response: TRLIA concurs with this finding. Grand Jury Recommendation 1: Since this is a concern to everyone living in the levee area, stricter enforcement of levee usage should be implemented. TRLIA Response: TRLIA concurs and will work with Reclamation District #784 to find ways to improve levee control. TRLIA is currently in the process of forming a Maintenance District for all the levees that are within its improvement area. It is hoped that this district will be formed by late 2007. In addition TRLIA is hiring a levee Assessment Engineer that will inspect all levees improved or to be improved by TRLIA and will make recommendations for Operations and Maintenance improvements. TRLIA will request that this finding be part of the Assessment Engineer review. Finding 2: Levee repairs should be monitored through inspections, and an investigation should be conducted to identify the cause of the damage to improve repairs, identify better repair methods, and provide information on how to prevent these occurrences in the future. TRLIA Response: TRLIA concurs with this finding. Grand Jury Recommendation 2: None
• CO21 Page 32
  TRLIA Response: TRLIA Levee repairs are monitored and inspected. TRLIA design engineers do investigate damage that has occurred in the levees and include engineering solutions to provide better levees. The specific site identified in the Grand Jury report will also be included in the Assessment Engineers work mentioned in the TRLIA response to Finding 1 above. Saul Y Brunner . Paul G. Brunner, P.E. Executive Director Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority .
• CO22 Page 33
  The County of Yuba VIRGINIA R. BLACK OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF - CORONER Sheriff - Coroner (530) 749-7777 "DEDICATED TO OUR COMMUNITY" FAX (530) 741-6445 OCT 1 3 2006 October 16, 2006 YUBA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT H. STEPHEN KONISHI SUPERIOR COURT CLERK! TO: The Honorable James Curry 2005/2006 Grand Jury Presiding Judge COURT CLERK RBlack Sheriff Virginia R. Black / Y FR: RE: Grand Jury Final Report 2005-2006 Response This memo is in response to the Grand Jury report relating to Reclamation District 784. I apologize for the tardiness of my response however I was completely unaware that the Sheriff's Office was even mentioned in this particular report until recently. Finding 1: 4 x 4's and dirt bikes that use this part of the levee cause excessive erosion to the levees. Response to Finding 1: This may be true. Recommendation 1: Since this is a concern of everyone living in the levee area, stricter enforcement of levee usage should be implemented. Response to Recommendation 1: In the last eight years the Sheriff's Office personnel have used several methods of enforcement in attempts to curb levee traffic, from mounted posse patrols, to all terrain vehicle patrols and patrol vehicle enforcement. We were the most successful when officers used all terrain vehicles. Sedans and horses are no match for dirt bikes or motorcycles. The biggest obstacles are manpower. The Sheriff's Office does not have the manpower to staff levee patrols as part of our regular assignments. I believe a powerful and ongoing media campaign by Reclamation District 784 needs to be implemented, to educate people about the damage done to the levees by driving on them. People who live behind levees need to take an active role in protecting them. Everyone who lives in the flood plain should make it their business to see that the levees are protected. COURTHOUSE • 215 FIFTH STREET, SUITE 150 • MARYSVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95901-5788
• CO23 Page 34
  YUBA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Domestic and Irrigation Water SEP : 33.3 "At Your Service" August 10, 2006 JBA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Honorable James L. Curry H. STEPHEN KONISHI Presiding Judge SUPERIOR COURT CLERK Yuba County Superior Court RY 215 5th Street, Suite 200 COURT CLERK Marysville, CA 95901 RE: Response of Yuba County Water District to 2005/06 Grand Jury Report Dear Judge Curry: On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Yuba County Water District, I write to respond to the Grand Jury report's discussion of our District. This letter replies, as the Grand Jury Report suggests, to Finding 1 and Recommendation 1 of the provisions of the report regarding our District. The District has been working on the problem of incomplete annexations since the Grand Jury's report of last year. With the arrival of a new General Manager earlier this year, we have made real progress. We are prioritizing properties which are currently receiving water service from our District and have succeeded in identifying these properties, establishing the requirements of the Yuba County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and the State Board of Equalization (SBE) for annexation, and we have retained a consulting engineer to prepare the necessary legal descriptions. The Board has also voted to absorb the const of these annexations - which will run into many thousands of dollars for LAFCO and SBE fees and for the engineering work – rather than impose further on the affected customers of our District. The District has not, as the Grand Jury report states, determined not to proceed with annexation of properties which are not now receiving water service. The District intends to resolve these annexations after the initial effort to annex properties receiving service is completed. Given our limited staff and financial resources, we simply cannot take this on all at once. P.O. Box 299 • Brownsville, California 95919 • Phone (530) 675-2567 or (530) 692-1463 • FAX (530) 675-0462
• CO24 Page 35
  Honorable James L. Curry August 10, 2006 Page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Grand Jury's findings. Whether or not we agree with every detail of the Grand Jury's report, we accept its constructive criticism in the spirit it was offered. We share the Grand Jury's commitment to the people we both serve. Very truly yours, oun molsen Loren M. Olsen President Yuba County Water District C: Board of Directors, Yuba County Water District William R. Suppa, General Manager Michael G. Colantuono, General Counsel