Bolinas Community Public Utility District
A Regular  Meeting  Of  The Board  Of  Directors

June 15, 2005        270 Elm Road, Bolinas

1.  Call to Order
8:00 p.m.

2.  Roll

    Directors Amoroso, Kimball, McClellan and Smith present
    Director Siedman absent
    Director Amoroso presiding

Director Amoroso said that Kim Bender was present and requesting that an urgent item be included on the meeting agenda on behalf of the Firehouse and Clinic project. 

D. Smith/B. Kimball  all in favor  to add the requested item to the agenda immediately.

3.    Firehouse and Clinic Project Request for Easement.

Kim Bender thanked the Board for agreeing to add this item to the agenda on an urgent basis.  Kim explained that the building plans for the Firehouse and Clinic project have been submitted to the County;  the assigned plan checker has informed the project representatives that, according to applicable zoning laws, the proposed Firehouse and Clinic structure either must be set back 20 feet from the lot line on the east side of the property line between Mesa Park and the fire district property, or the BCPUD/Mesa Park must grant an appropriate easement—otherwise, the County cannot allow an opening to exist between the two lots. Kim noted that one of the principle purposes of locating the clinic on the east side of the new building, close to the property line, is to facilitate access from the treatment rooms to the helicopter landing area and that it is important to the project to maintain this access corridor.  Accordingly, Kim requested that the BPCUD grant an easement to the Firehouse and Clinic project to satisfy the zoning requirement.  Kim said that she had conferred with the Mesa Park Board and confirmed that it has no intention of locating any structures in the proposed easement area. 

Director Amoroso asked Kim whether her request was related in any way to the current community discussion concerning the location of the tower at the project site.  Kim verified that it did not; she stated that the two issues are entirely separate and that the project has not yet submitted any plans for the tower.

J. McClellan/B. Kimball  all in favor  to authorize staff to execute the requested easement on behalf of the BCPUD.

Director Amoroso, noting the presence of a large number of people in the audience, inquired who was present for the Mosquito &Vector Control District and West Nile Virus agenda items.  A majority of those present raised their hands.  Director Amoroso advised the audience that this item would be heard by the BCPUD in the adjoining and much larger room in approximately 30 minutes (following the Manager’s Report).  He invited those present for these agenda items only to relocate there.

4.  Manager’s Report

a.    Don Guravich Eucalyptus Containment Report.  Staff reported that further containment work has been performed on the sewer property and that Don Guravich was present to update the Board on the status of the work.  Don said that Chuck Alexander had performed certain work during the Spring; specifically, young saplings were pulled in areas where they were interfering with the trails (it is important to contain the saplings outside the perimeter to reduce fire potential) at a cost of approximately $2,000, which is less than the amount budgeted.  Don said that this small sum, spent once every 2 years or so, should be sufficient to contain the eucalyptus saplings outside the perimeter.  Don  observed some evidence of other maintenance efforts, perhaps by BCPUD staff, since his last site visit 2 years ago.  In particular, some tree stumps have been covered with black plastic; Don said this is very effective and recommended that it be done with some of the  larger stumps as soon as possible because it prevents the stumps from succoring.  Don also noted that 3-4 trees of about 12 inches in caliper have moved out into the field on the southern perimeter; he is concerned that they will drop seeds in the field and recommended their removal.  Don estimated this would cost $700-800. 
Director Amoroso asked whether Don could do the work if the Board approved it.  Don said that the $700-800 figure was a ballpark.  Director Amoroso asked Don to submit a specific bid; he said the item would be put onto the next agenda for approval if the dollar cost was acceptable.   Director Amoroso also asked if the two-year maintenance schedule seemed to be working.  Don said that it was; however, he had noted the presence of cotoneaster, an invasive plant species that is wiping out the natives.  Don advised that it was very important to keep this species out of the field, as well.  Director Amoroso suggested that Sewer Committee conduct a walk-though of the property with Don.  Director Smith said he would like to do such a walk-through, particularly to examine the clusters of remaining native vegetation and make sure they are being protected.  It was tentatively agreed to schedule the walk-through for the following Thursday.

     b.   Chief Operator Bill Pierce attended the American Waterworks Association convention in San Francisco, where he toured the technology exhibits and met with representatives of Siemens, the new corporate parent of USFilter.   Pierce will attend the July meeting and report on the state of the Woodrat Treatment Plant and proposals for suggested improvements.

c   Noble Report on Seadrift Revetment – Staff referred the Board to a cover letter from Richard Kamieniecki, accompanied by a consultant report concerning work recently completed on the Seadrift revetment.  Staff reported that Joe Ginsberg had called in response to a letter sent by the BCPUD; Joe told BCPUD staff that counsel had agreed that the report could be shared, but that the photos are the property of the Seadrift Association (or the consultant) and could not be distributed.  Staff suggested it would be possible to contact Kamieniecki or the Noble group and request to look at the photos.  Director Amoroso said he wants to see the aerial photos to confirm whether the work performed on the revetment stayed within the perimeter.  He suggested that staff  submit a Public Records Act request to the Coastal Commission for copies of all records reviewed and aerial photos taken by the Noble group; Director Kimball said that she agreed with the suggestion.  Cela O’Connor commented that she has never received a thorough response from the Coastal Commission to her original letters alerting the Commission to the lack of oversight on the work being done in this environmentally sensitive area.  Cela said that her concern was for the beach—the work performed on the revetment may well have stayed within the perimeter, but she documented millions of dead crustaceans as a result of the work.  She intends to follow-up with the Commission, as well as other pertinent agencies.  Director Amoroso said that he appreciated Cela’s efforts, but he did not believe that the work was performed within the perimeter.  He said that the BCPUD should first ask Kamieniecki for the photos and, if he does not provide them, staff should submit a Public Records Act request to the Coastal Commission. 

B.  Kimball/D. Smith   all in favor  to direct staff to request copies of the aerial photos of the work done on the Seadrift Revetment from Kamieniecki;  if the photos are not provided, staff is directed to submit a Public Records Act request to the Coastal Commission.

 d.  Draft Letter to CalTrans re: ground asphalt –Staff prepared a draft letter to CalTrans for the Board’s review per Director Smith’s suggestion at last month’s meeting.  In brief, the letter requests that CalTrans consider an offer from the BCPUD to assist CalTrans with the disposal of its excess ground asphalt.  The BCPUD proposes to stockpile the excess ground asphalt (after delivery by CalTrans) on site in Bolinas so that it is available for residents to use in connection with road improvement activities.  Staff proposes to stockpile the ground asphalt in the space to the west of the BCPUD office, near Elm Road behind the trees.  

Director Smith commented that his own recent use of excess ground asphalt to resurface a section of Poplar Road in front of his house had been very successful; the asphalt was stable and cost-free.  Director Smith reported that he spoke with CalTrans representatives about the potential BCPUD proposal; CalTrans had some concerns about possible environmental impacts and wanted to be assured that the BCPUD was fully behind the offer to take excess ground asphalt.  Director Smith said that as a trained chemical engineer, he is very concerned about potential environmental impacts; while fresh asphalt can be quite a problem environmentally, ground asphalt is much less problematic because by the time it has been weathered on the raod, most of whatever is going to leach out of it, is out.  Director Amoroso said that the BCPUD needs to have control over how much ground asphalt to take on to its property.  Director Smith proposed 100 cubic yards per year, but no more than 30 cubic yards at any one time.  Discussion ensued regarding the need for waivers for residents to sign when coming to get the ground asphalt in the event of any damage resulting from use of the BCPUD backhoe or from their own activities in loading the material by hand.  Director Smith stated that he also would coordinate with the Drainage Committee regarding the use of the ground asphalt on the Big Mesa. 
       e.   BCLT Request to park Flea Market Storage Bus near BCPUD office.  Jennie Pfeiffer was present on behalf of the BCLT.  She explained that on the weekends the bus will be parked downtown for the flea market; however, it is not possible to leave it parked downtown during the week.  Director Amoroso asked staff for a recommendation.  Staff indicated that any objections from neighbors would need to be considered and the bus would need to be parked in such a way that no one else could get into the sideyard (or otherwise have the impression that RV’s or other large vehicles were allowed to park there).  Director Amoroso proposed that the request be placed on the July agenda so that the public can comment.  He stated that the bus could be parked near the BCPUD office for now, but that no formal decision has been made.  Director Amoroso directed staff to place the matter on the July meeting agenda and notify affected neighbors.

f.  BCLT Coastal Permit Transmittal.  Staff reported that the BCPUD had received a memo from the County Planning Office concerning the coastal permit application filed by the BCLT regarding the duplex in the rear of the garage property.  Staff explained that since the comment period will close before the July 20th BCPUD meeting, staff prepared a draft letter to the County planner for the Board’s review.   The letter makes clear that the BCLT will be required by the BCPUD to keep its extra water meter (the one with the sewer connection) in the event the project exceeds it approved water usage limits.  Director Amoroso commented that the project will need to demonstrate that it can stay within the approved limits for at least two years.  In response to questions from Jennie Pfeiffer, Director Amoroso confirmed that the 2-year period was measured from the date of full occupancy of the duplex, that the 2-year period could be extended by the BCPUD, and that the BCLT could be required by the BCPUD to deploy the reserve meter in the event water usage at the garage property exceeded the limits established by the BCPUD. 

D.Smith/ B. Kimball  all in favor  approving staff letter to the County, as amended to state that deployment of the meter may be required if compliance with the Maximum Quarterly Water Allowance becomes a problem.

Director Kimball asked if drawings of the duplex were available; staff confirmed that the drawings are available for review in the BCPUD offices.
g.    November 8th election.  Staff reported that the filing period for those interested in running for one of the open BCPUD director seats runs from July 18 – August 12, 2005;  the deadline for filing will be extended until August 17th if no incumbent files to run for reelection.  Staff has prepared public notices regarding the filing period that will appear in the Hearsay and the Point Reyes Light.

      h..  Marin Countywide Plan (Draft Update) – Staff reported that the County sent the BCPUD a request for a response to certain Countywide plan alternatives and project buildout numbers; as the response deadline falls before the July 20th BCPUD meeting, staff prepared a draft response.  The draft response notes that in general, the draft plan’s project buildout numbers (minimum 1700 units per community in Marin County) are inapplicable to Bolinas due to the town’s unique circumstances, including the moratorium.  (For example, the County in its request specifically asks whether the community’s water system is adequate to supply an alternative to the proposed minimum 1700 units.  Staff’s draft response makes clear that the town’s water supply is not adequate to supply ANY new units.)  The response also notes that BCPUD is not required to prepare an urban water management plan because the District has fewer than 3,300 connections.  Director Amoroso asked whether the draft response addresses septic issues; staff responded that the letter refers to the Special Master finding that no more potable water should be imported to the Mesa until infrastructure issues are resolved.

J McClellan/D. Smith    all in favor   approving staff letter to the County, as amended to mention the existing moratoria on water and sewer connections, and new septic systems.

      i.  Draft of Pipeline Newsletter – Staff noted that a draft newsletter has been distributed to the directors and requested that any comments, suggestions or revisions be submitted by June 22, 2005 so that the newsletter can be sent to the printer the following Wednesday.

5.    Committee Reports.

—    Beach:

Magi was present and requested that the Beach Committee be permitted to give its report at this time rather than later in the agenda as currently scheduled.  Director Amoroso agreed and requested that staff inform the members of the public waiting in the adjoining room that the Mosquito and Vector Control District agenda item would begin immediately following the Beach Committee report. 

Magi noted that the County has approved the beach ordinance and that this development needs to be reflected in the Committee’s report.  In addition, the Committee intends to insert the Coastal Commission guidelines into the report with respect to the OTD’s (offers to dedicate).  Magi said that with those changes, the Committee report will be final; it will then be available for review at the library and other public places.  For example, the Hearsay has agreed to publish the report in sequential installments.  Finally, the Committee has submitted a series of questions to County counsel for legal review; counsel subsequently has requested a copy of the Committee report.  Accordingly, the Committee intends to finalize it and distribute it to County counsel as soon as possible.

Director Smith inquired about the issue of fires on the beach; he said he feels that those who can be responsible about fires should be entitled to have them and that this is a valuable community tradition.  Director Smith suggested that it may be possible to implement a permit process through the Fire Department in exchange for a small fee to cover administrative costs.  He would prefer to see such a system in place rather than folks being required to put out fires if a complaint is made to the sheriff.  Director Smith noted that the Fire Chief has expressed concern over whether the Fire Department had the authority to issue such permits because the permit-applicant is not the property owner (in other words, can the Fire Department issue permits to allow someone to build a fire on land that does not belong to them?).  Magi responded that this question could be added to the list of questions submitted to County Counsel.  

Cela O’Connor commented that she attended the DZA hearing at the County with regard to the beach ordinance.  She is concerned that people sit and/or camp close to the bluffs and there is not posting that the bluffs pose erosion danger.  Cela also noted that enforcement of the ordinance will go into effect 30 days after June 7, 2005.  Magi said that the Committee report does mention the safety hazards of being too close to the bluffs. 

6.    Mosquito and Vector Control Committee:  final recommendations; Stacey Henderson letter

The meeting was continued in the adjoining room;  approximately 80 people were in attendance.

Liza Goldblatt, Chair of the Mosquito and Vector Control Committee, thanked all present for coming to the meeting.  She reminded everyone that the BCPUD had appointed the Committee following its January 2005 meeting and tasked it with working with the Mosquito & Vector Control District (“M&VCD”) to formulate a non-toxic protocol for mosquito control and abatement in West Marin. Since then, the Committee held eight meetings and researched all of the available non-toxic means for controlling mosquitoes; the Committee also researched the pesticides currently used by the M&VCD, particularly in the context of the unique characteristics of West Marin—its abundant waterways, its organic farms, and its septic systems.  The Committee then drafted a non-toxic protocol, along with a report of its work; those documents were presented at the May 2005 BCPUD meeting and made available for public comment.  The Committee received comments from 5 sources (including the M&VCD) and incorporated most of the comments into its protocol and report.  Liza emphasized that the most important aspect of the Committee’s recommendation is source prevention and control; as a community, West Marin needs to take responsibility for eliminating sources of standing water.  The protocol sets forth 3 steps:  (1) educate the public on source prevention and control; (2) use physical means to implement source prevention and control (such as drainage improvement); and (3) use biological treatments (“BT’s”) as a last resort.  Liza stated that the Committee is now seeking approval from the BCPUD of its protocol and report.

Barry Smith, a Committee member, also emphasized the need for source prevention and control.   He noted that the Committee and the M&VCD agreed on the importance of source prevention and control, but disagreed over the use of pesticides (including the side effects and dangers of these products)—so, he hopes that the Committee and the M&VCD can work in partnership where they agree.  Barry also underscored the responsibility of the West Marin community to be actively involved in source prevention and control

Liza Goldblatt urged the BCPUD to approve the protocol and report, and then negotiate with the M&VCD to try and reach an agreement to govern the M&VCD’s activities in West Marin.  She said that she had thought until very recently that the M&VCD was “on board” with the Committee’s protocol and report; she hopes the M&VCD will continue the current pesticide moratorium pending negotiations over an agreement with the BCPUD. 

Director Amoroso observed that the Committee is asking the BCPUD to negotiate with the M&VCD with respect to activities throughout West Marin, but that is not possible—the BCPUD jurisdiction only extends within the boundaries of the District itself.  Director Smith agreed with this point; he stated that he had understood and hoped that the Committee (with representatives from all of West Marin)—not the BCPUD—would negotiate the actual agreement with the M&VCD.  Director Smith also said he thought the Committee and the M&VCD were in agreement on education and source control, and that the M&VCD had agreed to use only BT’s in West Marin unless otherwise ordered by the State in the event of a public safety emergency.  What went wrong, he asked? 

Liza Goldblatt said that she, too, thought the Committee and the M&VCD were in general agreement on the protocol, but she was informed that at the most recent meeting of the M&VCD on June 8, 2005, there was a shift of position.  She asked Jim Wanderscheid to comment.  Mr. Wanderscheid thanked the Committee for its work and agreed that source control and prevention required community commitment.  He said that he had a problem with the fact that the Committee presented its draft protocol and report to the BCPUD at the May 15, 2005 meeting without first seeking M&VCD input.  Liza Goldblatt commented that the protocol and report are Committee documents, not Committee/M&VCD documents, or the agreement itself.  She also noted that the comments Mr. Wanderscheid (on behalf of the M&VCD) submitted to the Committee during the public comment period included the need to use chemicals that he knew the Committee would oppose; despite this, she said the Committee incorporated most of his comments in the revised documents. 

Director Amoroso asked Mr. Wanderscheid to confirm that his problem is with the fact that the Committee submitted its draft protocol and report to the BCPUD at the May meeting, before the M&VCD saw it.  Mr. Wanderscheid said yes, this was his problem; he said that the M&VCD is a party to the negotiations and should have been able to comment before the BCPUD was provided the draft protocol and report.  Mr. Wanderscheid said that said that he feels the M&VCD was inappropriately bypassed.  Liza Goldblatt responded that the Committee thought it had reached agreement with the M&VCD on the use of BT’s only, so it had proceeded to present the draft protocol and report at the May 2005 BCPUD meeting; however, she now understands that the M&VCD raised the issue of using methoprene at its most recent meeting.  Mr. Wanderscheid disagreed that any agreement had been reached with regard to the use of BT’s only; he said that the Committee was supposed to read his comments and get back to him.  Mr. Wanderscheid noted that the Committee and the M&VCD were in agreement on 95% of the protocol and report. 

Frank Eggers, a Fairfax Council member and M&VCD Board member, reported that he was in attendance at the June 8th M&VCD meeting.  At this meeting, the Board members were presented with a redline version of the Committee’s draft protocol and report, with Jim Wanderscheid’s comments highlighted.  Mr. Eggers said that it was very clear that Mr. Wanderscheid wanted to be able to use methoprene in West Marin; when Mr. Eggers saw this in the redlined documents, he assumed the negotiations with the Committee had broken down because he was aware of the Committee’s opposition to the use of methoprene.  At the June 8th meeting, he therefore asked that that the item be continued until the next meeting to permit sufficient time for folks to talk and try to salvage an agreement.  Mr. Wanderscheid affirmed that he does advocate the use of methoprene; it is a tool that he needs and he believes it is safe. 

Katarina Sandizell stated that she is a new M&VCD Board member and that the June 8th meeting was only her second meeting.  She is married to Committee member Barry Smith.  Prior to June 8th, she understood that the process between the Committee and the M&VCD had been going well.  She was therefore very surprised to hear Mr. Wanderscheid state at the June 8th meeting that he had “hit a wall” with the Committee and that the Committee “was not working with him”.  Mr. Wandersceid asked the M&VCD Board at the June 8th meeting if he should continue to “hit a wall” with the Committee, or use the tools he needs.  Katarina said that Mr. Eggers asked Mr. Wanderscheid why he didn’t invite the Committee to appear at the June 8th meeting;  Mr. Wanderscheid replied that it was “none of their business.”

Matt Lewis said that he was not pro-pesticides, but that as the Chair of the Drainage Committee he knew from personal experience how much work is involved to physically eliminate sources of standing water in Bolinas and that it cannot be done in the next 2 months.  He also said that the Committee had not been regularly publishing its meeting agendas and that he thought it was inappropriate for the Committee to have asked for BCPUD action on its draft protocol and report at the May 2005 meeting--before any public comment had been received.  He asked what the Committee proposes to do when “all hell breaks loose” (e.g., when West Nile Virus hits West Marin) if pesticides cannot be used?

Director McClellan said that the area of dispute seems to be the use of methoprene and he therefore wanted to know more about it.  He said that he thought the Committee’s report would be much more detailed; he is leaning in favor of the protocol, but wants more information about methoprene.  Finally, he noted that he had asked the M&VCD for BT’s to use in the ditch in front of his own house and has received no response.

Helga Hellberg, a member of the Committee, stated that the BCPUD had asked the Committee to develop a non-toxic protocol.  Helga stated that methoprene is a poison and it is not acceptable for use in West Marin.  Helga said that the Committee had had serious reservations about the use of BT’s but, after much research, the Committee has concluded that BT’s are acceptable.  Rather than use methoprene, the Committee has suggested to Mr. Wanderscheid that the M&VCD implement a citation system for septic problems, with 1 week to eliminate source conditions. 

Bob Levitt commented that the process seems to have become bogged down as a result of misunderstandings during the public comment process; he suggested that the Committee resubmit its protocol and report to the BCPUD with all public comments attached (including but not limited to the comments of the M&VCD) and schedule another meeting to review the protocol and report (and comments). 

Stacey Henderson stated that she attended the June 8th M&VCD meeting.  Stacey had called Mr. Wanderscheid the day prior to the meeting and asked how the process was going.  He told her that his Board was not going to accept the Committee protocol or report.  When Stacey asked if there was anything she could do to help, Mr. Wanderscheid said that she could write a letter, which she did.  Stacey said she was very surprised to see her letter appear in a recent issue of the Hearsay.  Nonetheless, Stacey felt it important to inform the M&VCD Board members that some folks in West Marin may be okay with the use of methoprene if source control/prevention and BT’s were insufficient to eliminate mosquitoes.  Stacey emphasized that if methoprene was not used, the only other alternative would be adulticides, which everyone wants to avoid.  Stacey also said she feels the M&VCD is being unfairly portrayed as a “spray agency” when, in fact, it was “the greenest agency in California.”

Katarina Sandizell commented that Stacey’s letter had been very damaging because it had undermined the Committee before the M&VCD Board and undermined Katarina’s credibility as well.  Stacey apologized; she said this was not an intended consequence of her letter. 

Sandra Delle Valle complained that when she called the M&VCD to be placed on the no spray list, she was told that if there was an epidemic, adulticides would be sprayed via trucks.  Jim Wanderscheid said that West Nile Virus has arrived; 2 days ago, a horse case was confirmed—he emphasized that the M&VCD also has a larvacide program which focuses on specific water sources rather than spraying.  Brett Dogerty commented that as a parent of a young child, he is much more concerned about the use of pesticides than he is about West Nile Virus.  

Liza Goldblatt said that if West Marin communities can succeed on source prevention and control, BT’s and methoprene won’t be necessary; however, if West Marin only uses BT’s and/or methoprene, that will be insufficient to control mosquitoes (because these methods only eradicate mosquitoes for a limited period of time).  Liza stated that a majority of residents in West Marin does not want pesticides used and, echoing Director Smith’s comments earlier, she hoped there was a way to salvage the negotiation process with the M&VCD. 

Director Smith said that he was interested in getting a show of hands as to the community view of those present—how many favored the protocol developed by the Committee vs. how many supported the use of “any means necessary” to control mosquitoes.  Only two people’s hands were raised in opposition to the protocol; Stacey Henderson and Matt Lewis voted in favor of “any means necessary”.  Director Smith asked Jim Wanderscheid whether, in the face of overwhelming support for the protocol, his agency could honor the wishes of the community.

Mr. Wanderscheid responded that his staff needs to use the materials necessary to protect health and safety.  He said that when he met with the organic farmer representatives, he was advised that methoprene could be used and the farmers would not lose their certification.  He also emphasized that the process was not dead—he is still willing to meet with the Committee to try and reach agreement.  He stated that he would need his Board’s approval for any final agreement, but that the moratorium on pesticides is still in place during negotiations.  Various Committee members affirmed their willingness to continue to the negotiations. 

Director Amoroso proposed that the BCPUD accept the Committee’s protocol, but not yet accept the report—in this manner, the Committee could then represent that it has the BCPUD’s general blessing. 

D. Smith/ B. Kimball   motion to accept the Committee protocol.

Director Amoroso asked Director Kimball if she had anything to add.  Director Kimball stated that the Committee had done a great job; she said that she was ready to vote on the Committee report, but would wait if the rest of the Board thought it appropriate.  Director Kimball said that she definitely felt that the vast majority of West Marin residents favor a non-toxic protocol for mosquito control and abatement. 

Director McClellan expressed concern about voting in favor of the protocol as premature at this juncture. 

Bob Levitt commented that separating the protocol from the report didn’t make sense.  Committee member Barry Smith said he agreed, but in light of Stacey Henderson’s letter—which painted the Committee has a group of extremists who are out of touch with the majority of West Marin residents—the Committee needed express support from the BCPUD.  Bob Levitt suggested that the BCPUD vote in general support of the protocol, but stop short of expressly adopting it.

D. Smith/B. Kimball    3 ayes, 1 abstention (McClellan) to direct staff to write a letter to the M&VCD Board recognizing the significant progress made by the Committee, supporting the draft protocol, and urging the Committee and the M&VCD to continue to work together toward consensus. 

Director Amoroso asked Stacey Henderson if she had anything to report from the West Nile Task Force.  Matt Lewis asked about the agenda item “Stacey Henderson Letter”.  Stacey said she would prefer to defer her Task Force report until the next meeting, when all five members of the BCPUD Board would be present. 

Liza Goldblatt stated that she had asked for Stacey’s letter to be placed on the agenda because it was very inflammatory and had hindered the Committee’s progress, particularly because of Stacey’s position as the BCPUD representative to the West Nile Virus Task Force.  Stacey said that she felt the letter was an exercise of free speech; she had no intention of hindering the Committee, but felt it was a point of moral conscience to state publicly that there were alternative points of view in West Marin about appropriate methods of mosquito control and abatement. 

Matt Lewis asked why Stacey’s letter had been printed in the Hearsay.  Director Amoroso responded that Katharina Sandizell had e-mailed the committee about the existence of the letter and said that she had submitted it to the Hearsay; he then called the Hearsay and learned that the letter had been sent there, but without attribution for publication.  Director Amoroso verified that it was a public document and told the Hearsay that his name could be used for attribution.  Amoroso noted that he had read the letter only after its publication in the Hearsay.  Stacey said that this seemed to have been done in anger and that she felt her appointment as the BCPUD representative to the West Nile Virus Task Force was in question.  Director Amoroso said that it had not been previously clear to him what Stacey’s position was on some of the issues relating to mosquito control until he saw the letter and how she voted this evening in response to Director Smith’s request for a show of hands; he said the issue is whether it is appropriate for Stacey to continue to represent the BCPUD on the Task Force in light of her personal views, which conflict with the BCPUD Board’s position. 

Stacey asked whether she had a right to write personal letters.  Director Amoroso said that she did, but the BCPUD had a right to have its designated representative agree with the BCPUD’s positions.  Stacey said that she had been working to educate the community about mosquito control and abatement for the last 3 years and now feels as though she’s now being excluded from the process “like some kind of a black sheep.”  She stated that she wants the protocol to work and believes that the Committee and the M&VCD are in agreement on 99% of the issues; Stacey said she wants to work with the Committee and that she has developed a good rapport with the County.  Finally, she said that if she needs to write a letter of clarification to the M&VCD Board, she will do so. 

Director Amoroso asked Stacey if she would be willing to write a letter stating that she supports the protocol.  After reading over the protocol document, Stacey said that she would be willing to do so.  Director Amoroso said that to repair the damage that had been done by her initial letter, the BCPUD would like her to write a letter in support of the protocol. 

Director Smith asked Stacey if she wanted to be appointed to the Committee; Stacey said that she would love to serve on the Committee.  Director Smith suggested that this might initiate a healing process as the BCPUD seems to have made two appointments (the Committee members and the representative to the West Nile Task force) that are now “at each other’s throats.”  Discussion ensued on Director Smith’s suggestion; Liza Goldblatt noted that the Committee already has 5 members and 5 alternates.  At the conclusion of the discussion, it was recognized that that there were insufficient votes on the BCPUD to add another Committee member at this time.

7.  Community Expression

The meeting reconvened in the BCPUD offices.

Cela O’Conner reported that she learned at the last Bolinas Lagoon Technical Advisory Committee meeting that the Moritz application has been appealed by two of the Coastal Commissioners.
5.  Volunteer Committee Reports (continued from above)

a.    Alternative Energy:  Nothing to report.

b.    Beach:  See above.

c.    Mesa Drainage: staffing; budget; timeline; indemnification request: Hettich

Matt Lewis presented the Board with a report describing the status of the pilot project and detailing a “punch list” for the work needed in the Alder swale, in order of priority.  Matt reported that he and Jennifer Blackman recently had walked the pilot project area on 2 occasions and he summarized the highlights of his report.  Matt also informed the Board that new bridge design is under development and will be submitted to the BCPUD when finalized.

Director Amoroso asked if all the work that needs to done can be done with the budgeted amount of $17,000.  Discussion ensued about the appropriate next steps.  Ultimately, it was agreed that staff would review Matt’s report and report back (likely after completion of the upcoming audit) on the best process for obtaining cost estimates for each phase of the punch list.

Matt emphasized that most of the work can done by use of small equipment such as bobcats.  Director Kimball inquired about obtaining help from the M&VCD.  Matt responded that staff had written a letter and he had followed up with a call for assistance, but no response has yet been received from the M&VCD.  Director Kimball suggested that the original staff letter should be resent to the M&VCD.

d.  Community Paths: 

Director Smith stated that there was not much to report as the Committee was still negotiating with air quality representatives about the proposed use of dirt for the paths—the air quality representatives favor paving the path.

    c.    Mesa Drainage: staffing; budget; timeline; indemnification request: Hettich (continued)

 Al  Hettich inquired whether the BCPUD had approved the proposed indemnification agreement..  He was told that the Legal Committee had reviewed and revised the agreement to make clear that it was limited to damage directly caused by any drainage work undertaken by the BCPUD; a copy of the revised agreement was provided to Al.   Al said he would review it and the Board tabled further discussion pending Al’s review.

e.    Downtown Parking: 

Jennifer Blackman reported that the Committee revised the proposed parking plan map at its last meeting and was very close to a final proposal to present to the community.  The Committee has requested a meeting with County representatives to discuss the latest draft plan and is awaiting a response.

f.    Resource Recovery: May financial report; Coastal Permit application status:  Nothing to report.

c.    Mesa Drainage: staffing; budget; timeline; indemnification request: Hettich (continued):

    Director Kimball asked Al Hettich if he accepted the indemnification agreement as revised; Al said that he did.

B. Kimball/D. Smith   all in favor  to direct staff to execute the indemnification agreement with Al Hettich.

8.  Public Hearing:  2005-06 BCPUD Budget

    Staff presented a revised budget, noting that the changes reflect revenue the district now expects to receive due to the return of excess ERAF funds (the excess revenue has been balanced by reductions in customer water charges).  Staff reported that $7,000 has been added to septic revenue; $15,000 has been added to employee wages and benefits; $18,000 has been added to contingencies for hazardous tree removal; and an additional  $7,000 (carried forward from septic) has been added to capital spending for drainage.  Staff observed that the revised budget does not reflect additional compensation to Seth Kline if he passes the grade 2 certification exam; in addition, the revised budget does not reflect any monies for work to be performed on the Mesa/Olema Bolinas intersection.  Moreover, the revised budget does not include any expenditures for weeding at the Woodrat reservoirs or for any improvements to the water distribution system.  Staff therefore recommended that the BCPUD include an additional $10,000 to the budget for expenditures on water distribution equipment (with a corresponding adjustment to the reductions in water charges to fund the expenditure).
Director Kimball inquired as to when the work can be performed on the Mesa/Olema-Bolinas intersection.  Staff responded that the work ideally should be performed when school is out (due to the need to shut down the water main); however, a second bid for the work has not yet been received and the ultimate scheduling of the work will be dependent on contractor availability. 

There were no objections to staff’s recommendation to add $10,000 to the budget for water distribution equipment.

Director Kimball noted that the water rates had been projected (prior to the receipt of the excess ERAF funds) to be $741 per property owner; however, in light of the return of the excess ERAF funds, the revised budget indicated the BCPUD is now able to reduce water rates to $574 per property owner.  Director Kimball commented that this is not as low as everyone would like, but is much better than had been projected. 

Director Amoroso suggested that staff draft a notice for the Hearsay lettering folks know about the reduction in water rates. 

9.  2005-06 District/Employees Memorandum of Understanding


10.  Expanded Water Use Permit Application:  Hart.   14 Terrace

The property owner is seeking an expanded water use permit in connection with the replacement of an old garage. 

J. McClellan/B. Kimball   all in favor   to grant an unrestricted expanded water use permit.

11.    Expanded Water Use Permit Application:  Bettini.  50 Crescente

The property owner is seeking an expanded water use permit in connection with the legalization of an existing garage.

J. McClellan/B. Kimball   all in favor   to grant an unrestricted expanded water use permit.

12.    Resolution 519, declaring an emergency exists and authorizing repairs to distribution system  at intersection of Mesa and Olema-Bolinas Roads

 J.  McClellan/D. Smith   all in favor  approving Resolution 519.

13.  2004-05 Financial Audit: Bunker & Company Engagement Proposal

Staff requested authorization to execute a contract with Bunker & Company to conduct the FY 2004-2005 audit on behalf of the District at a cost of $6,100, plus additional time (charged hourly) for any follow-on work.  Staff noted that there is $600 in the proposed budget to pay for any such follow-on work.  In response to a question from Director Smith, staff indicated that the cost of the proposed contract was in line with prior year’s contracts.

J. McClellan/B. Kimball   all in favor  authorizing staff to execute the proposed contract with Bunker & Company for the FY 2004-2005 Financial Audit.

14.  BCPUD's Pine Gulch Creek Property: access easement - next steps

Director Smith stated that the BCPUD really needs to know whether the County ever actually granted an easement for the Marshall property referred to in the appraisal; he suggested staff contact the appraiser and request copies of any documents in his possession that support the appraisal’s assertion of a legal easement to the Marshall property.  There were no objections.

15.     Board Policy Re Approval Of Outgoing Correspondence

Director Amoroso said that he was concerned about the letter that was sent to Waste Management; he said he felt that when the BCPUD approves the concept of a letter, there should be consensus from Board members regarding its content before it is sent.  Director Amoroso stated that he personally did not approve of the content of the letter. Discussion ensued regarding the decision at the May 15, 2005 BCPUD meeting to send the letter.  Director Smith said it was his recollection that 4 Board members were in favor of sending a letter to Waste Management (with a copy to the union) requesting the company to negotiate in good faith with the union.  Director Amoroso said it was his recollection that the Board had decided to write to both the company and the union, urging them both to negotiate in good faith and come to agreement.  Director Smith said that he had written the letter consistent with his understanding and e-mailed it to the other Board members: Directors McClellan and Siedman had no objections, Director Kimball was out of town, and Director Amoroso objected to some of the content.  Director Smith noted that he had sent Director Amoroso a defense of the letter; then, as a majority of the Board members approved of the letter, Director Smith instructed staff to send it, with a copy to the union.
Director McClellan asked if the Board had voted to send the letter.  Director Amoroso said that the board did not do so; it is his recollection, and the minutes of the May meeting confirm, that the letter was to be sent to both sides as the BCPUD was not trying to get in the middle of company/union negotiations.  Director Amoroso further stated that he wanted the minutes to clearly register his opposition to the letter as it should have been sent to both sides.  He said the Board needed to decide how to handle this issue in the future—if every letter requires a vote, it will take a month to send a letter.
Director Kimball asked staff about existing practice on sending letters.  Staff responded that the Board typically votes on a motion instructing staff to draft and send a particular letter; usually, the letter is drafted and sent without further Board review.  However, if a letter is sensitive, the Board usually requests that it be circulated for comment before being sent.  Staff noted that the issue presented here is what to do if any directors disagree over the content of a draft letter.  After some discussion, it was agreed that the Board would endeavor to be more specific regarding its instructions to staff on letters; motions will be required for each letter, with the general content specified and stated in the minutes.  Also, if a member voting to send a letter objects to language in the draft, such objections must be resolved and the letter re-circulated to the members who voted in favor in the motion .
16. Other Business

a.  Board Committee Reports

-- Finance:  See item 8, above, regarding the FY 2004-2005 Budget.

-- Legal:  Nothing to report.

        — Mesa Septic, Flood Control and Roads: 

Director Kimball asked if anything could be done about the abandoned trailers on Elm Road.

        J. McClellan/D. Smith    all in favor    to contact the Marin County Sheriff’s Department about removing the trailers, with copies of the letter to the Community Development Agency’s enforcement officer and Supervisor Kinsey.

-- Operations:  Nothing to report.

-- Park and Recreation: See item 14, above, regarding the status of the easement on Pine Gulch Creek property.


Director Kimball reported that negotiations were continuing on the Memorandum of Understanding.  Discussion then ensued regarding staff administrative workload.

V. Amoroso/ B. Kimball   all in favor  authorizing staff to hire temporary administrative help as needed.

-- Sewer:    Nothing to report.

b.  Minutes of May 18, 2005 Meeting   

Director Amoroso noted that item 10 of the draft May 15th meeting minutes, prior to suggested revisions, originally stated that the Board agreed to send a letter to both the union and Waste Management; he suggested it may be necessary to listen to the tape of the meeting to correct the minutes.  Director Smith indicated this was not necessary and said he did not feel strongly about this, but observed that the letter actually sent was not consistent with the original minutes.  Director Amoroso responded that tonight’s meeting minutes would reflect that fact. 

J. McClellan/B. Kimball   3 ayes  1 abstention (Smith)   approving the May 15 meeting minutes as originally written.

c.  Warrants 

J. McClellan/D. Smith   all in favor  to approve the warrants.

d.  Scheduling of Next Meeting(s)

July 20, 2005 at 8:00 p.m.

17.  Adjournment:  12:50 a.m.