Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1


Ratings: (0)|Views: 14|Likes:
Published by L. A. Paterson
Technical Advisory Committee, Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Technical Advisory Committee, Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

More info:

Published by: L. A. Paterson on Apr 13, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Huss, Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Seigfried, Stoldt, Burnett,
 Members Absent:Staff Present:
Clerk of the Committee, Legal Counsel, Executive Director
Chair Burnett called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.
Chair Burnett invited reports from TAC members and staff and had no requests to speak.
Chair Burnett invited public comments for items not on the agenda and had no requests tospeak.
1. February 25, 2013
Action: Approved 
On motion, the MPRWA Technical Advisory Committee approved the Minutes of February 25,2013:AYES: 8 MEMBERS Huss, Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Seigfried, Stoldt, Burnett,NOES: 0 MEMBERS NoneABSENT: 0 MEMBERS NoneABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: NoneRECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None2. March 4, 2013
Action: Approved 
MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, March 18, 20132On motion, the MPRWA Technical Advisory Committee approved the Minutes of March 4,2013:AYES: 8 MEMBERS Huss, Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Seigfried, Stoldt, Burnett,NOES: 0 MEMBERS NoneABSENT: 0 MEMBERS NoneABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: NoneRECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None
3. Receive Report on First Governance Committee Meeting (Burnett)
Action: Received and Discussed 
 Chair Burnett reported on the first meeting of the Governance Committee and indicated thelargest agenda item was discussion of the proposed Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for theMonterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. The RFQ will be issued by April 1,
2013 to narrowthe field from eight to four firms. In June, 2013 the Request for Proposal (RFP) will be releasedwith a 90 day response time, and the winning firm will be selected. He then reported that hewas elected as Chair of the Governance Committee and will be working on agendamanagement to determine appropriate timing of decisions.Cal Am representative Rich Svinland provided additional details for the RFQ process includingthe distribution date of June 15, 2013 and a return Deadline of September 15, 2013 with intentto have the firm on Board by the finalization of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Thecurrent plan is not to contract with the design-build firm before the EIR is completed. He alsoreport that permits have been submitted to the Coastal Commission, The City of Marina, the USArmy Corps of Engineers, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the State WaterQuality Control Board and the California State Lands Commission. There is a meeting beingcoordinated with all federal agencies to expedite the process.Legal Counsel Freeman requested that to ensure the integrity of the RFQ and RFP process,that there be no ex-party contacts with any eligible firm.Chair Burnett communicated to Cal Am three suggested changes to the RFQ from theAuthority:1. Adding compliance history with labor laws.2. Energy efficiency with consideration of costs.3. Review of past ability for firms to design plans that are maintainable and adaptable tonew technology.Director Burnett clarified the Authority is not requesting the project to be governed by specificlabor laws, but only ensure that firms have complied with labor laws on previous projects.Mr. Svinland confirmed that there are currently eight firms seriously considering the project andhe discussed the firms that were eligible and capable to complete the project. He thenexplained the benefits of seeking a design build firm, and that cost us not the largest factor to
MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, March 18, 20133consider. Contractors can bid for lower initial costs, but the facility can have a high operatingcost. Chair Burnett pointed out that the RFP will not used to select the lowest bid but insteadidentify the best value proposal. Cal Am as a private entity can do that, unlike a public entity.Member Narigi spoke to the issue of change orders and how it can impact costs outside of thecontracted work and questioned how that would be addressed. Mr. Svinland responded that CalAm is leaning toward lump sum prices, and that costs and finalization of costs will be flushedout through the governance committee.Member Seigfried spoke to the need for a firm with permitting experience and questioned howan international firm would be knowledgeable about regionally required permits. Mr. Svinlandresponded that the RFQ requires providing experience with permitting processes and the RFPwill specify the exact 30 permits that will be required to obtain. He also clarified that theEngineer of Record must be a California Professional Engineer and any international team willneed to team up with local team that can manage the permits.-Member Riedl questioned how the project will be impacted if the EIR is delayed and noted thatif SRF funding is utilized it would trigger a requirement for prevailing wage. He also noted that ifthe project is built to follow the California Building Code, it will qualify for LEED Silver.Chair Burnett also discussed the timeline for the Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) project,and that the Governance Committee agreed to send a letter requesting the CPUC to hold aworkshop on the issue in the future. He then opened the item to public comment and had norequests to speak.4. Receive Report from Cal-Am Water Regarding Progress in Meeting Authority AdoptedConditions for Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (Cal Am Rep Bowie)
Action: Received and Discussed 
 California American Water Representative Rich Svinland delivered an update report regardingthe progress to meet the Authority adopted conditions of support for the Monterey PeninsulaWater Supply Project.
1) Contribution of Public Funds:
Cal Am Water filed their rebuttal testimony with the CPUCand is still working to find a way to make utilizing public funding mutually beneficial. Willpresent verbal arguments at the CPUC testimony hearing.
2) Agreement to form the Governance Committee
. Completed.
3) Obtain Lower Electricity Rates:
Cal Am does not view this as a critical path and it can beresolved later in the process. This item will be reviewed by the Governance Committee andwill include a comprehensive study of total costs. Chair Burnett reported that the goal is toreduce costs to 8 or 9 cents per kilowatt hour.
4) Limit the use of the Surcharge
– Understands that driving force is to limit the costs ofinterest during construction as well as the risk to the public moneys. In the rebuttaltestimony, discussed the facilities that need to be built no matter what facility is built. Therewill be an amount of tangible assess greater than that amount. The surcharge counts as acontribution to the larger pot of money and will have a net effect in the project.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->