Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regional Consolidation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montecito board reviews draft MOU to evaluate consolidation with neighboring districts, flags cost and scope questions
Summary
Directors discussed a draft memorandum of understanding to evaluate consolidation among three water and sanitation districts, debated who drafted the document and whether recycled water/plant operations are in scope, and heard an initial evaluation cost estimate of about $100,000 with a proposed cost split.
President Rockenbach convened the Jan. 28 meeting and the strategic planning committee's report took center stage as directors reviewed a draft memorandum of understanding to evaluate potential consolidation among three neighboring districts.
"The main thrust of this MOU is that we wanted all 3 districts to come up with a document that says we want to go forward and look at reorganization for the 3 districts," said Director Barrett, summarizing the committee meeting and the MOU's purpose. Barrett told the board the committee estimated an evaluation cost "right around a $100,000" and described a proposed split based on operating revenues: the water district would cover roughly $76,000, Montecito Sanitary District about $21,000 and Summerlin about $3,000.
Board members pressed for clarity on who drafted the MOU and how Montecito's edits were incorporated. Legal counsel Alex said the water district's attorney produced the draft and that Alex's recommended paragraphs were incorporated: "It looks like the water district attorney drafted it. They did send it to me beforehand, so I got to see it." The board was told the document remains a draft that each district board must approve.
Several directors asked whether technical issues such as recycled water and plant operations are driving the consolidation effort. One director asked if consolidation was "predicated on recycled water"; Barrett replied that the committee has been tasked to pursue reorganization and that recycled water "hasn't been discussed" at this point. "If this MOU fails, there's no use in discussing recycled water at the time," he said.
Directors also noted past work and costs: Barrett said a prior report that informed discussion cost about $55,000. Multiple speakers urged the board to schedule a fuller, separate discussion of the MOU rather than rushed consideration within an already full Feb. 11 agenda. President Rockenbach said he would consult staff about timing and the possibility of a special meeting to allow adequate board time.
What happens next: the board did not adopt or amend the MOU at this meeting; directors directed staff and counsel to provide a path to agendize a more expansive discussion and to confirm who will finalize the draft for board consideration.
