Mprwa Final Agenda Packet 08-14-14

Agenda
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Regular Meeting

7:00 PM, Thursday, August 14, 2014
Council Chamber
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, California

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF

PUBLIC COMMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENTS allows you, the public, to speak for a maximum of three minutes on any
subject which is within the jurisdiction of the MPRWA and which is not on the agenda. Any person
or group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the Authority may do so by addressing the
Authority during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to: MPRWA, Attn:
Monterey City Clerk, 580 Pacific St, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriate staff person will contact
the sender concerning the details.

CONSENT AGENDA

1. Approve July 10, 2014 Joint Special Meeting Minutes - Milton

2. Approve July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes - Milton

3. Adoption of a Resolution to Approving the Revised Member Allocation (%) Distributions to
Include the County of Monterey and Downward Revisions to the Annual Member
Contributions for Fiscal Year 2014-15 - Milton

4. Approval of Checks from May to July 2014 and Adoption of a Resolution Approving the
Final Budget Reconciliation for Fiscal Year 2013-14 - Milton

AGENDA ITEMS

5. Receive report, discuss, and provide direction with regards to expected changes to the
California Public Utilities Commission(CPUC) schedule for the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project (MPWSP) - Cullem

6. Receive report, discuss, and provide direction with regards to the current status of source
water negotiations for the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA)
Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) Project - Stoldt

7. Receive report, discuss, and vote on staff proposal to add the General Manager, or District
Engineer, of the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) as a member of the Authority
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and to add a MCWD hydrologist to the Monterey
Thursday, August 14, 2014
2

Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) Hydrogeologic Working Group - Burnett/Cullem

8. Receive report, discuss, and provide direction on the Value Engineering (VE) Final Report
for the Cal Am Desal facility, authorize forwarding of the VE report to the Governance
Committee for its action, and authorize payment to the consultant (VMS) from funding
provided by Cal Am, not to-exceed the contract price of $109,035.70 - Cullem/Crooks

9. Receive report, discuss, and provide direction on the power purchase agreement between
Cal Am and the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD) -
Cullem/Crooks

10. Receive report, discuss, and provide direction on the City of Marina test slant well Coastal
Development Permit (CDP) and the current schedule for Coastal Commission CDP -
Crooks

ADJOURNMENT

The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority is committed to include the disabled in all of
its services, programs and activities. For disabled access, dial 711 to use the California Relay
Service (CRS) to speak to staff at the Monterey City Clerks Office, the Principal Office of the
Authority. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services
24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing amplification device to attend a
meeting, dial 711 to use CRS to talk to staff at the Monterey City Clerks Office at
(831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a device or for information on an agenda.

Agenda related writings or documents provided to the MPRWA are available for public
inspection during the meeting or may be requested from the Monterey City Clerks Office at 580
Pacific St, Room 6, Monterey, CA 93940. This agenda is posted in compliance with California
Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956.

MI NUTES
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
Joint Special Meeting
7:00 PM, Thursday, July 10, 2014
COUNCIL CHAMBER
580 PACIFIC STREET
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

ROLL CALL
The Joint Special Meeting with the Governance Committee was called to order at 7:30 P.M.

Directors Present: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Della Sala,

Directors Absent: None

Governance Committee
Members Present:
Jason Burnett, Chair
Rich Svinland, California American Water
Dave Potter, County of Monterey

Members Absent:
Jeanie Byrns, MRWPCA

Staff Present: Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Clerk of the Authority,


PUBLIC COMMENTS

Tom Rowley thanked the Monterey County representative for attending the Authority
meeting and urged him to attend regularly to represent the County Cal Am rate payers.
Nelson Vega also thanked Mr. Potter for attending but then spoke to Mr. Della Sala's
efforts as President of the Authority as exemplary and commendable.

AGENDA ITEMS

1. Receive Report from Value Management Strategies, Inc., Discuss, and Provide Direction on the
Draft Preliminary Value Engineering Study of CDM's 30% Design of the California American
Water Company Desalination Project.

Executive Director Cullem introduced Mark Watson from Value Management Strategies,
spokesperson for the Value Engineering study for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project (MPWSP). He presented a preliminary presentation noting a final presentation would be
made on July 15, 2014 to the Governance Committee. Mr. Cullem spoke to the opportunities
the public had to participate in the process including the TAC Meeting on July 7, 2014 and that
the final report would be released in 30 days.

Mr. Watson presented the preliminary results of the Value Engineering "VE" study of the
desalination plant, invited public comment and discussed next steps for the path forward for the
VE results. He spoke to the purpose of the study to identify a series of value enhancing options
to the current design of the project through an objective, not an independent review. Mr.
Watson further explained that the workshop consisted of a multi-discipline and stakeholder
attendees that helped develop the proposed options. The process included the following
MPRWA Meeting, 8/14/2014 , tem No. 1., tem Page 1, Packet Page 1
MPRWA Minutes Thursday, July 10, 2014

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Joint Special Meeting Minutes - Thursday, July 10, 2014
2
elements; preparation information, functional analysis, speculation, evaluation, development
presentation and post study implementation. He reiterated that VE is not a cost reducing
exercise but an intersection of performance, cost, risk and time, all appropriately weighed that
increase the value of the project. He spoke to the 15 identified priorities and indicated if
implemented, could potentially decrease the total project cost by 9 million dollars and improve
the value of the project by up to 29 percent over the life of the project. Mr. Watson answered
questions from the Boards.

Director Rubio questioned if future expansion options were considered within the analysis,
Director Edelen questioned the environmental impacts and Director Kampe questioned if pre-
treatment and pathogen removal was addressed and asked if the provided bore hole data was
sufficient to determine if we could do a better job at a cheaper cost. Mr. Watson indicated that
the highest risk identified is the raw water data. The report will indicate that there is a lack of
data on the water and assumptions were made according to different speculated results. That is
a key aspect to overall cost to the project.

Vice President Burnett requested clarification of the key drivers for the significant cost savings
to which Mr. Watson explained the largest savings would be related to the recovery rate
process. The current project assumes a 40% recovery in first pass and 90% in the second and
VMS believes that there is a possibility for a higher recovery rate which would impact the RO
membranes positively.

Director Pendergrass questioned if any energy savings were identified to which Mr. Watson
explained there were 33 suggestions as the group was very focused on the life cycle cost
savings and total carbon footprint for the alternatives. He identified that it was assessed as a
risk to obtain power from the Monterey Regional Waste Management District due to
uncertainties.

President Della Sala invited public comment on the presentation.
Nelson Vega questioned the potential impacts to the cost per acre foot of the project
and supported the larger facility size
Rick Riedl requested renegotiation with CDM Smith to recoup some of the cost savings
and questioned if there was an incentive to reduce costs within the contract.
Dale Heikaus requested clarification of the definitions of value comparison.
George Riley, questioned if the suggestions were implemented, would the quality or
components of the source water change.
David Lifland questioned the RO schematic expressing concern that the building was
not large enough and questioned if the public would be able to comment on the final
process.
Michael Warburton questioned how drought regulations would be enforced and spoke to
pending legislation as it relates to this project.

Mr. Watson answered questions posed during public comments.

Joint Special Meeting Minutes - Thursday, July 10, 2014
3

Rich Svinland, Cal Am noted that many of the options submitted were already discussed and
will be recommended for implementation to CDM. He noted they may not get dollar for dollar
recovery, but will negotiate to get a decreased cost to the ratepayers. He explained that some
systems are not yet fully designed because of the outstanding results of the test wells. The
pipeline design is ready for the VE process, which will be included in the Environmental Impact
Report.

Executive Director Cullem spoke to the additional needed study for this project and expressed
caution that the proposed $9 million in savings may change as modifying one aspect may
impact other factors. He reported the public will be able to comment on the study during the
Governance Committee meeting when the final report is received.

ADJOURNMENT

Having no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 8:13 PM.

ATTEST:

Lesley Milton, Clerk Chuck Della Sala, President


MI NUTES
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
Regular Meeting
7:30 PM, Thursday, July 10, 2014
COUNCIL CHAMBER
580 PACIFIC STREET
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Directors Present: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Della Sala
Directors Absent: None

Staff Present: Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Clerk

ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.


REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF

Vice president Burnett reported that the Marina Planning Commission denied the permit for the
test well, therefore the item will be appealed to the City Council.
PUBLIC COMMENTS

President Della Sala invited public comment for items not on the agenda.
Michael Warburton expressed concern that there has not been adequate study of
reasonable project alternatives.
Dale Heikhaus requested a further explanation about the purpose of the Value
Engineering study and what kind of contribution it is making to the project.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. June 12, 2014 Regular Meeting
Director Kampe requested a modification to the minutes. Regarding the presentation that the
Salinas Valley will receive water from the Peninsula and he requested that it be reflected in the
minutes that he asked for clarification of what the Peninsula will receive in return.
On a motion by Director Rubio seconded by Director Pendergrass, and carried by the following
vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority approved the minutes of June 12, 2014
as amended by Director Kampes request:

AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Della Sala
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None

AGENDA ITEMS

2. Receive Status Report of the Final Negotiations on the Ground Water Replenishment
Project Source Water Agreements

Regular Meeting Minutes - Thursday, July 10, 2014
2

Mike McCullough from MRWPCA presented an update report regarding the Pure Water
Monterey Ground Water Replenishment project. He spoke to current testing results, and
continued coordination with the CPUC EIR team. He reported the Source water negotiations
have been ongoing but referred the Board to Dennis Allion, Chair of the Board on the
MPWPCA, Mayor Rubio and Dave Stoldt for specific details. .

Mr. Allion spoke to ongoing discussions and negotiations regarding source water agreements,
including creative and alternative sources of waters that are should provide adequate water at
affordable rates for the CSIP program. He reported that progress is being made but concerns
continue regarding securing enough water for everyone. He closed by affirming the project is
still on schedule for January 2017 implementation.

President Della Sala invited public comment on the time.
David Lifland expressed concern about data published regarding the withdrawal of water from
the aquifer when it is below sea level. Nelson Vega spoke against the report of progress being
made on the source water agreements and requested the consideration of building the larger
desalination facility. Tom Rowley encouraged keeping focused on the cost to the rate payer.
Director Rubio, as a participant to the negotiations reported that everyone has worked very
hard and he acknowledged Gary Peterson, Dennis Allion, Dave Stodlt and Keith Israel for all
their hard work. The report was received and comment was taken.
3. Receive Preliminary Cost Comparison Between the Ground Water Replenishment Project
and the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Desal Project

Dave Stoldt, General Manager from the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
provided a presentation regarding a cost analysis of comparing the small, the large desalination
facility with the small and large facility plus GWR. He reported that as revealed during the VE
presentation there are still a number of aspects that will affect the final cost of water and that
the projects are not yet at a point where a cost comparison can be accurately done.
He spoke to the cost assumptions, the current estimates of GWR, including treatment,
conveyance, injection and recovery. Mr. Stoldt agreed to report back in a few months with more
accurate, update information. Mr. Stoldt answered questions from the Directors.
Vice President Burnett, speaking to the upcoming CPUC testimony, questioned how the
Authority can accurately provide testimony regarding endorsement of the project if there is not
enough information to judge cost effectiveness. Mr. Stoldt indicated that by the end of August
the sources water agreements should be completed and the issues of risk protection and
quantity should be worked though to be able to provide sufficient cost information.
President Della Sala invited public comment on the item.
Tom Rowley expressed frustration that the source water is still undetermined for all projects
and that this will impact the decision from the Coastal Commission. Nelson Vega spoke to the
income disparity of Salinas residents versus the peninsula residents and urged the negotiators
to find a cost effective solution for all. Jan Schriner expressed concern regarding the water that
is intended to be used for the test wells. George Riley requested that the Authority re-evaluate
the different projects, now that the schedule has slipped according to the criteria established
from the SPI report. Mr. Warburton encouraged the Authority to being to talk about rational
sharing of publicly owned water.

3
The report was received.
4. Election of Officers for Fiscal Year 2014-15

Clerk Milton noted that this is a business item and a requirement to elect officers annually.
Director Pendergrass expressed concern that the TAC operate without a Director to unbiasdly
lead discussions and provide information. President Della Sala reminded the Authority that the
By-Laws were amended to allow maximum flexibility. He then declared that since he will not be
seeking reelection for his Mayoral position in Monterey, he does not request to be president
again. He nominated Director Burnett to succeed him as President of the Authority. The
nomination was seconded by Director Pendergrass. Mr. Pendergrass spoke in support of the
efforts of President Della Sala during meetings for his facilitation and expressed appreciation.
The Board concurred.

Nelson Vega thanked President Della Sala for his efforts and spoke in support of the
nomination for Director Burnett. He disagreed that there was ever a conflict while
Director Burnett was the TAC Chair. He recommended that Mr. Rubio be the Vice
President due to his largest stake in the game as Mayor of Seaside.
On a motion by President Della Sala and seconded by Director Pendergrass and carried
unanimously, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority elected Director Burnett as
President for Fiscal Year 2014-15:

Director Pendergrass nominated Director Rubio as Vice Chair but motion fails for lack of a
second. Director Edelen questioned the incoming President as to his preference for a Vice Chair
to which President-Elect Burnett spoke to the work done by Director Kampe with regards to
finding a water solution. Mayor Rubio indicated that he will represent all Citizens fairly on all
boards that he sits on.
Tom Rowley encouraged all Directors, regardless of position to work toward finding a
solution.
Nelson Vega requested the Directors to recognize the votes that Director Rubio
represents and that the citizens of Seaside may take a great offense that their Mayor
was not elected.
On a motion by Director Edelen, seconded by Director Burnett, and carried by the following
vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority elected Director Kampe as Vice
President of the Authority for Fiscal Year 2014-15.
AYES: 4 DIRECTORS: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Della Sala
NOES: 2 DIRECTORS: Rubio, Pendergrass
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None
RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

4

Public Comment was invited for the Treasurer and Secretary positions and there were no
requests to speak.

On a motion by Director Kampe seconded by Director Edelen and carried unanimously, the
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority elected Director Kampe as Treasurer for Fiscal
Year 2014-15:

On a motion by President Della Sala, seconded by Director Edelen and carried unanimously,
the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Elected Director Pendergrass as Secretary
for Fiscal Year 2014-15:

5. Receive Report on Status of Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Marina Test
Wells and the Approval Process for the City of Marina and the California Coastal
Commission Coastal Development Permits

Executive Director Cullem reported that since the City of Marina rejected the test well permit
application it will be appealed to the City Council. There will be two opportunities to present to
the City Council and if not passed would appeal to the Coastal commission. Rich Svinland from
Cal Am presented a schedule of the critical path items for the MPWSP and indicated that as
decisions happen, the schedule will be updated and re-charted and is in response to the
Authoritys request to keep updated on the project.
Tom Rowley spoke to previous experience with the Coastal Commission and urged both Cal
Am and the Authority to attempt to be agendized by the CCC earlier rather than later. Nelson
Vega, Michael Warburton both spoke in support of Mr. Rowley's comments. Jan Schriner
encouraged the Authority to view the City of Marina as a community to be reasoned with and
not as a tool.

The report was received.
ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 PM

ATTEST:

Lesley Milton, Authority Clerk Chuck Della Sala, President

Agenda Report

Date: August 14, 2014
Item No: 3.

06/12
FROM: Authority Clerk Milton

SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution to Approving the Revised Member Allocation (%)
Distributions to Include the County of Monterey and Downward Revisions
to the Annual Member Contributions for Fiscal Year 2014-15

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Authority adopt the attached resolution revising the member
contribution percentages to include the County of Monterey and revise the Fiscal Year
2014-15 contributions.

DISCUSSION:

When the Authority was initially formed, member contributions were based upon the
percentage of cal am rate payers affected by the Cease and Desist delineated by
member agency. The County of Monterey has never formally been seated as a
member, therefore the member contribution percentages do not include their 34% of the
rate payers. However, through the participation of the County of Monterey as a member
of the Governance Committee and the fact that the Authority has continued to work to
provide a water supply for all rate payers, the Authority has requested that the County of
Monterey contribute their 34% fair share annual member contribution.
The Authority has submitted requests for membership funding for Fiscal years, 2012-13,
2013-14 and 2014-15. The County of Monterey has paid for fair share contribution for
Fiscal Year 2012-2013 and a fair-share contribution request for the Fiscal Year 2013-
2014 and for Fiscal Year 2014-2015 have been made. Staff attended the Budget
Committee meeting on June 10, 2014 to answer questions about the current and next
fiscal year fair-share contribution requests and subsequently the contribution for Fiscal
year 2014-15 has been included within the County of Monterey budget and staff is
confident that it can be incorporated into our budgeted membership fees for FY 14-15.
Therefore, Staff is recommending that the Authority adopt the attached resolution
approving the revised member contribution percentages based on the inclusion of
Monterey County, representing 34% of Cal Am rate payers, including revised member
contribution percentages for FY 2014-15. The resolution adjusts the other members
accordingly splitting the budget according to those percentages.

EXHIBITS:

A- Draft Resolution Including Proposed Member City Distribution Percentages for FY
2014-15
RESOLUTION NO.14- XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA
REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY

APPROVING REVISED MEMBER ALLOCATION (%) DISTRIBUTIONS TO INCLUDE
MONTEREY COUNTY AND REVISED MEMBER CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2014-15

WHEREAS, the member contribution distribution was based upon the percentage of Cal
Am ratepayers per member jurisdiction; and

WHEREAS, the County of Monterey represents 34% of the ratepayers to be effected by
the Cease and Desist Order (CDO); and

WHEREAS, the County of Monterey, is representing those ratepayers by being a
member of the Governance Committee; and

WHEREAS, the anticipated cost of carrying out the direction of the Authority has been
approved at $458,680; and

WHEREAS, the Authority Directors approved the operating budget for Fiscal Year 2014-
15 on May 8, 2014 at a regular meeting; and

WHEREAS the allocated percentages based on water usage and agreed upon within the
Joint Powers Agreement and listed as Exhibit 1; and

WHEREAS the allocated percentages need to be revised to include the County of
Montereys 34% of ratepayers as outlined in Exhibit 1.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Authority adopts this resolution
amending the member contribution jurisdictions to include the County of Monterey; and

BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the Authority adopts the amended annual member
contributions for Fiscal Year 2014-15 as outlined in Exhibit 1.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER
AUTHORITY at a regular meeting this ____ day of ______, 2014, by the following vote:

AYES: DIRECTORS:
NOES: DIRECTORS:
ABSENT: DIRECTORS:
ABSTAIN: DIRECTORS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Chuck Della Sala, President


Lesley E. Milton, Authority Clerk

Member City
Approved %
Distribution
W/Out MoCo
Proposed %
Redistribution
W/MoCo
Monterey County 0% 34%
Carmel By the Sea 9.30% 6.14%
Sand City 1.30% 0.86%
City of Pacific Grove 18.80% 12.40%
City of Seaside 22.00% 14.50%
City of Monterey 46.50% 30.70%
City of Del Rey Oaks 2.10% 1.40%
Total Income 100.00% 100.00%
PROPOSED
Member City
Proposed %
Distribution
W/MoCo
REVISED
Contributions
Anticipated
FY 2014-15
Carmel By the Sea 6.14% $28,163
Sand City 0.86% $3,945
City of Pacific Grove 12.40% $56,876
City of Seaside 14.50% $66,509
City of Monterey 30.70% $140,815
City of Del Rey Oaks 1.40% $6,422
County of Monterey 34.00% $155,951
Total Income 100.00% $458,680
Distribution Percentages
Member Contributions - w/MoCo
Agenda Report

Item No: 4.

FROM: Authority Clerk Milton

SUBJECT: Approval of Checks from May to July 2014 and Adoption of a Resolution
Approving the Final Budget Reconciliation for Fiscal Year 2013-14
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Authority approve and file the accounts payable payments
made during the period of June 12, 2014 through August 14, 2014 with total payments
for the above referenced period of $17,835.82. It is also recommended that the
Authority adopt a resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Budget to reflect actual
expenditures and authorizing the remaining unspent funds to remain in fund balance for
use during Fiscal year 2014-15.
DISCUSSION:
Approval of Checks:
At its meeting on September 12, 2013, the Authority Board approved a staff
recommendation to provide the Directors a listing of general checks issued since the last
report so that it can inspect and confirm these checks. Each invoiced expense has been
reviewed and approved by the Executive Director and Finance personnel prior to payment
to insure that it conforms to the approved budget.
The following checks are hereby submitted to the Authority for inspection and
confirmation.
$ 412.50 to Access Monterey Peninsula for Video Production Services
$ 1,558.33 to Environmental Relations for Public Outreach Services
$ 5,497.75 to Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and Schreck for Special Legal Counsel
$ 5,000.00 to Perry and Freeman for Legal Services/Attorney of Record
$5,367.24 to City of Monterey for Reimbursement of Executive Director Services.

The bank balance as of August 14
th
, 2014 is sufficient cover the above checks and the
remaining fiscal years encumbrances therefore, staff is recommending approval of the
above checks.


Fiscal Year 2013-14 Revenues:
Revenues for the final balance of the Fiscal Year 2013-14 budget appear to be off for a
few minor reasons. Due to the approval of a reimbursable contract for Value
Engineering services of up to $200,000 the budget reflects the amount as income and
expense, but the funds were not received nor were any expenses incurred prior to the
end of the fiscal year. As previously authorized, the income and expenses will be
carried over into the Fiscal year 2014-15 Budget. Also, the reimbursement from the
County of Monterey for a portion of the SPI contract is still outstanding to which the
Executive Director attended and presented to the Monterey County Budget Committee
explaining the request for funds. The County of Monterey has requested copies of the
invoice on several occasions but the payment has not materialized. It is anticipated that
the funds will be received during the FY 14-15.

Expenses:
Staff and the Board remained fiscally conservative throughout the year and ended with
residual balances in all of the expenditure categories. Savings were realized in multiple
categories due to the reduction in the number of meetings for both the Directors as well
as the TAC. Staff is requesting that any remaining funding be left in fund balance for
use as necessary during the next fiscal year and may work to offset future member
funding requests. A detailed report of the financial accounting will be available once the
Financial Audit is completed by October 2014.

Staff is recommending that the Authority approve and file the above checks and adopt
the attached resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2013-14 budget authorizing the
remaining unspent funds to remain in fund balance for use during Fiscal year 2014-15.

ATTACHMENTS:
Budget to Actual Report through June 30, 2014
Resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2013-14 budget and authorizing unspent
funds to stay in Fund Balance.
RESOLUTION NO.14- XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA
REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY

APPROVING FINAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013-14

WHEREAS, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (The Authority) has provided
direction for needs and services to carry out its purpose and mission, and

WHEREAS, actual expenditures incurred during the FY 2013-14 budget year was less than
anticipated, revenues were higher and an adjustment of expenditures and income categories needs
to be reflected appropriately in the final adopted budget; and

WHEREAS, the anticipated cost of carrying out the direction of the Authority was approved
at 650,393 and the actual cost of carrying out the direction of the Authority was 319,743.93. ;and

WHEREAS, the Authority Directors approved the amended operating budget for Fiscal Year
2013-14 on May 8, 2014 at a regular meeting, as outlined in Exhibit 2; and

WHEREAS the Authority member cities have been allocated percentages based on water
usage and agreed upon within the Joint Powers Agreement and listed as Exhibit 1; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Authority adopt this resolution amending
and adopting the final budget for FY 2013-14 amended on May 8, 2014; and

BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the Authority authorize any unspent funds to remain in fund
balance to be used for an un anticipated expenditures during the Fiscal year 2014-15.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER
AUTHORITY at a regular meeting this ____ day of ______, 2014, by the following vote:

AYES: DIRECTORS:
NOES: DIRECTORS:
ABSENT: DIRECTORS:
ABSTAIN: DIRECTORS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Chuck Della Sala, President

Lesley E. Milton, Authority Clerk

EXHIBIT 1
Based on the Authoritys Joint Powers Agreement, the below table is the approved Member City expense allocation
based on water usage.

Member City
Approved %
Distribution

Carmel By the Sea 9.30%
Sand City 1.30%
City of Pacific Grove 18.80%
City of Seaside 22.00%
City of Monterey 46.50%
City of Del Rey Oaks 2.10%
Total Income 100.00%

M
P
R
W
A

M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,

8
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4

,

t
e
m

N
o
.

4
.
,

t
e
m

P
a
g
e

4
,

P
a
c
k
e
t

P
a
g
e

1
6
11:34 AM
08/05/14
Accrual Basis
Budget vs. Actual FY 2013-14
July 2013 through June 2014
Amended
Budget
Approved
5/08/2014
Actual &
Proposed
Amended
Budget
Ordinary Income/Expense
Income
47200 Program Income
Fund Balance 7,268.00 7,268.00
47230 Membership Dues 424,563.00 424,562.00
47250 Reimbursement SPI Contract 18,562.00 9,281.00
47260 Reimburesment VE Contract 200,000.00 0.00
Total 47200 Program Income 650,393.00 441,111.00
Total Income 650,393.00 441,111.00
Expense
60900 Administration and Clerical
60901 Clerk of the Board 35,000.00 35,000.00
60902 Executive Director 90,680.00 59,141.16
Total 60900 Administration and Clerical 125,680.00 94,141.16
62100 Legal Fees
62110 Board Counsel 59,000.00 27,000.00
62140 Special Counsel 186,000.00 142,184.75
Total 62100 Legal Fees 245,000.00 169,184.75
62800 Contract Services
60801 Public Outreach 15,000.00 8,509.19
60806 Contract VE 200,000.00 0.00
62802 Audit Services 6,700.00 6,700.00
62803 Televised Meeting 10,000.00 5,100.00
62804 Contract Services & Studies 3,000.00 0.00
62805 Contract SPI 35,000.00 27,843.43
Total 62800 Contract Services 269,700.00 48,152.62
65000 Insurance 7,000.00 6,701.88
65100 Travel Expenses 1,000.00 828.74
68300 Contingency 2,000.00 734.78
Total Expense 650,380.00 319,743.93
Net Income 121,367.07
Page 1 of 1

Agenda Report

Item No: 5.

06/12
FROM: Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Receive report, discuss, and provide direction with regards to expected
changes to the California Public Utilities Commission(CPUC) schedule for
the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP).

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Water Authority Board receive a report on changes in the
CPUC schedule resulting from delays in the completion of the draft EIR (DEIR),
determine if any action is required at this time, and provide direction to staff.

DISCUSSION:

The CPUC schedule as revised July 3, 2014 is at Exhibit A. At Exhibit B is a letter from
the CPUC Energy Division dated Aug 11, 2014 advising the Administrative Law Judges
(ALJ) that completion of the DEIR has been delayed. At Exhibit C is the CPUC schedule
as revised August 13, 2014. Accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearings
scheduled in December 2014 have been delayed four months to April 2015.

Our Attorney of Record recommends the Authority authorize a Board member and staff
to coordinate with counsel for the Settling Parties in order to prepare a recommendation
to the CPUC for an extension of the commencement date of the CPUCs Phase II
proceedings for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, namely the Groundwater
Replenishment (GWR) Project. The purpose of that extension is to afford sufficient time
to complete the GWR Environmental Impact Report and to complete negotiations
concerning GWR source water.

EXHIBITS:

A-CPUC schedule as revised July 3, 2014
B-CPUC Energy Division letter dated August 11, 2014
C-CPUC schedule as revised August 13, 2014

July 3, 2014
Schedule and Task List for MPWSP Post Settlement (REV July 3, 2014)
CPUC Calendar Dates
Task Due Date Responsible Party Notes
Comments on
Settlement Agreements
Due
August 30, 2013 Complete
Reply Comments on
Due
September 13, 2013 Complete
Prehearing
Conference: Status of
Settlement Motion (if
any), of CEQA work
& other matters
September 16, 2013 Complete
Informational Hearing
on Settlement
Agreements
December 2-3, 2013 Complete
Quarterly Check-in Call
with Settling Parties
October 2014 MPRWA Quarterly Check-in Call
DEIR circulated for
Comment
3
rd
Qtr 2014
Cal-Am to file and serve
a common outline for
legal and policy briefs,
after consulting with
parties
15 days after issuance
of DEIR

Comments on DEIR
Due
of DEIR

Common Outline
Opening Briefs filed and
served on legal and
policy issues

60 Days after Issuance
of DEIR

Reply Briefs filed and
served on legal and
policy issues
of DEIR

FEIR published 1
st
Qtr 2015

Proposed
Decision addressing
certification of FEIR and
issuance of CPCN
1
st
Qtr 2015
July 2014 MPRWA
Target for Commission
Action on Phase I
1
st
Qtr 2015
October 2014 MPRWA
January 2015 MPRWA

July 3, 2014
GWR
File Motion for
Bifurcation of the
GWR Decision
August 2013 MRWPCA Complete and Granted
Board Actions to
Approve Revised
Agreement
October 2013
August/Sept 2013
MPWMD, MPRWA,
County, & Cal-Am
Completed
Executed Agreements
for GWR Source Water
and/or Declaratory
Relief

June 23, 2014

MRWPCA Meet & Confer in
Progress

Draft WPA
Mar 2014

MPWMD & MRWPCA
Agreement on Terms of
WPA

May 2014

Cal-Am, MRWPCA,
&MPWMD

Perform Assessment of
GWR Positive and
Negative Externalities
for Any Premium
Showing
June 2014

MRWPCA & MPWMD
Storage Agreement
with Seaside Basin
Watermaster

Jul 2014

MRWPCA & MPWMD
GWR Basis of Design
Complete with At Least
10% Design

Jul 2014

MRWPCA
Perform Revenue
Requirement Analysis
Including Any Debt
Equivalency Effect

Jul 2014

MRWPCA & MPWMD
DEIR Circulated July 2014 MRWPCA
GWR Financing Plan
Sufficient for SRF
Funding

Aug 2014

MRWPCA & MPWMD
Dilution Water
Requirements
July-October 2014 MRWPCA
Obtain Representations
from DPH re Use of
Extracted GWR Water

Oct 2014

MRWPCA
Obtain Representations
from RWQCB re Use of
Extracted GWR Water

Oct 2014

MRWPCA
Project Approved and
FEIR
October 2014 MRWPCA
All Permits for GWR
Construction Obtained

???
January 2015
MRWPCA

July 3, 2014
Source Wells

Drill Exploratory
Boreholes
Sept. 2013 February
2014
Cal-Am Complete
Commence
Hydrogeologic Study
and Technical Report
August 2013 Cal-Am / SVWC Draft completed.
Permits for CEMEX
Site Test Well
January 2014 Cal-Am NOV 2014
Drill CEMEX Site Test
Well
February 2014 Cal-Am DELAYED
Results of Test Well
Operation Obtained
February 2014
February 2016
Cal-Am DELAYED
Hydrogeologic Study
and Technical Report
Complete and Results
Filed with CPUC

June 2015
Cal-Am DELAYED
Necessary Agreements
from CEMEX for
Source Wells
Nov. 2015, or sooner Cal-Am ?
All Necessary Permits
for Construction of
Source Wells Obtained
Nov. 2015, or sooner Cal-Am ?
July 3, 2014
Securitization
Initial Revision and
Redline of Legislation
Early September 2013 MPWMD Complete
Obtain Cal-Am Input on
Draft Legislation
Late September 2013 MPWMD, MPRWA, &
Cal-Am
Complete
Retain Necessary
Additional
Financial/Legal
Consultants (Charles
Atkins)
October 2013

MPWMD Complete
Revise Financial
Comparison of
Securitization v. Cal-Am
Financing
October 2013 MPWMD & Cal-Am In Progress
Meeting with
Community/Interest
Groups and Cities
October-December
2013
MPWMD & MPRWA Complete
Further Revise
Legislation as
Necessary
October-November
2013
Complete
Draft Summary of
Legislation
December 2013 MPWMD Complete
Introduce Legislation January 2014 Complete
Lobbying Effort February-April 2014 MPWMD, MPRWA, &
Cal-Am
In Progress
Legislation Adopted
?
Passed Senate
Unanimously; Referred
to Assembly; In
Appropriations
Committeee
Initial Draft of Motion for
Financing Order

?
MPWMD
Perform Analysis to
Demonstrate Annual
Customer Benefits
Exceed 1.0% of Total
Annual Revenue
April 2014
?
MPWMD & Cal-Am
July 3, 2014

Requirement
Motion for Financing
Order

?
MPWMD
Obtain CPUC Financing
Order

?
Order on securitization
financing on satisfaction
of remaining criteria
from Settlement K
Preliminary Discussions
with Bond Underwriters
September-December
2014
MPWMD
Drafting of
documentation for bond
requests
September 2014-April
2015
MPWMD & Cal-Am
Preliminary Discussions
with Rating Agencies
February-April 2015 MPWMD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN 5RANCISCQ, CA 94102-3258
August 11, 2014
AL's Weatherford and Minkin, and Commissioner Peavey
California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: Schedule Delays for the MPWSP DEIR
Dear ALJs Weatherford and Minkin, and Assigned Commissioner Peavey:
The CPUC Energy Division has encountered delays that we believe will make it impossible
for us to meet the scheduled 3rd quarter 2014 publication date for the Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project (MPWSP) Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Energy Division
accordingly requests a four-month extension of the schedule to allow the MPWSP FIR team
to complete the necessary analyses and adequately address the technical issues
surrounding the project. With the extension, publication of the MPWSP Draft FIR would
occur in January 2015 and certification of the Final EIR in July 2015.
In response to the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) recommendation that
the CPUC's environmental review include information and analysis to determine whether
implementation of the proposed MPWSP could proceed without violating other users'
groundwater rights in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basinl, a series of 13 boreholes
ranging from 250 to 350 feet below ground surface were drilled throughout the coastal
area of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, from Marina in the south to Moss Landing in
the north. These boreholes provided critical information regarding stratigraphic
relationships, lithology, hydraulic conductivity, and water quality, and there appears to be
agreement among the Hydrogeology Working Group 2 members regarding the investigative
results of the borehole data and conceptual model of the Groundwater Basin. This reflects
substantial progress towards minimizing technical disagreements amongst the parties.
However, acquiring permits for the 13 boreholes and collaboration among the expert
hydrogeologists has taken more time than previously allotted. As a result, the groundwater
modeling results for the proposed project have been delayed and are still forthcoming.
This groundwater modeling is essential for preparation of the FIR, and is based upon the
SWRCB recommendations that: (1) further investigations be performed to determine the
extent of the Dune Sand Aquifer, the Salinas Valley Aquitard, and the 180-Foot Aquifer, and
assess the water quality and quantity of the Dune Sand Aquifer; (2) a series of boreholes
and aquifer tests be conducted to assess the underlying hydrogeology and establish
Final Review of California American Water Company's Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, July 31, 2013
2
The Hydrogeology Working Group was formed as a result of the August 2013 Large Settlement Agreement
baseline conditions; and (3) groundwater modeling be used to predict changes in
groundwater levels, groundwater flow direction, and changes in the extent and boundary
of the seawater interface. The SWRCB also recommended that groundwater modeling be
used to assess the cumulative effects of the MPWSP on seawater intrusion in conjunction
with future operations of the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (CSIP) and the Salinas
Valley Water Project (SVIP).
In addition, on June 25, 2014, the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA)
released a Notice of Preparation for an FIR on the proposed Salinas Valley Water Project
(SVWP) Phase II. The project description of the SVWP Phase II, which seeks to capture and
divert surface water from the Salinas River (consistent with MCWRA's Water Rights
Application #11043) and deliver the water to the East Side and Pressure Subareas to
enhance the management of water resources and combat seawater intrusion in Monterey
County, is very different from the previous Phase II concept. Populating the groundwater
model with the appropriate parameters to predict cumulative changes in groundwater
conditions with and without future operations of the revised SVWP has further contributed
to delays in the groundwater modeling.
Finally, we are also concerned that the delay in groundwater modeling could jeopardize the
ability of the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) to meet their
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review schedule for the Groundwater
Replenishment (GWR) project EIR, as set forth in the August 2013 Settlement Agreement.
We would support a similar extension of time for the MRWPCA's GWR EIR.
While we recognize the need to complete CEQA review for this project as expeditiously as
possible, we believe that in the long run, a four-month extension of the deadline for the
Draft EIR would strengthen the EIR analysis and provide better information to the
Commission, the parties, and the community.
Sincerely,
Andrew Barnsdale
cc: Edward Randolph, Director
Meredith Sterkel, Program Manager
Jason Reiger, Supervisor - CEQA Legal
Peter Allen, CEQA Legal
431574

1

E-RULING UPDATING SCHEDULE
A.12-04-019
08/13/14

Energy Division Letter and Updated Schedule
On August 11, 2014, the Commissions Energy Division informed
the assigned Commissioner and assigned Administrative Law Judges
(ALJ) that there are delays in preparing the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP).
These delays will make it impossible to meet the 3
rd
quarter 2014
publication date for the DEIR. Energy Division therefore requests a four-
month delay in the publication of the DEIR, and states that publication of
the DEIR would occur in January 2015, with publication of the Final EIR
anticipated in July 2015.
After consultation with the assigned Commissioners office, I grant
Energy Divisions request. While a delay is very regrettable, we agree that
it is unavoidable for several reasons.
First, it is important that the DEIR and FEIR comply with the State
Water Resources Control Boards (SWRCB) recommendation that the
Commissions environmental review include information and analysis to
determine whether implementation of the proposed MPWSP can proceed
without violating other users groundwater rights. As set forth in the
Energy Division letter, acquiring the permits for the 13 boreholes, which
provide critical information regarding stratigraphic relationships,
hydraulic conductivity, and water quality, took longer than anticipated. In
addition, there appears to be agreement among members of the
Hydrogeology Working Group regarding the results of the borehole data
and the conceptual model of the groundwater basin. Such collaboration is

2

encouraging, but has required additional time. Hence, the groundwater
modeling results for the proposed project have been significantly delayed.
Second, additional time is needed to assess cumulative effects of the
MPWSP on seawater intrusion in conjunction with future operations of the
Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (CSIP) and the Salinas Valley Water
Project (SVWP). On June 25, 2014, the Monterey County Water Resources
Agency released a Notice of Preparation for an EIR on the SVWP, Phase II.
This project seeks to capture and divert surface water from the Salinas
River to enhance the management of water resources and combat seawater
intrusion in Monterey County. Because this project description is quite
different from that anticipated in the previous Phase II concept, additional
time is required to update the groundwater modeling to address this
foreseeable project.
Third, Energy Division is concerned that the delay in groundwater
modeling could adversely impact the ability of the Monterey Regional
Water Pollution Control Agency to meet their schedule for the
Groundwater Replenishment Project EIR. This project was described most
recently in the proposed Comprehensive Settlement Agreement, dated
July 31, 2013.
Given all of these factors, it is reasonable to grant Energy Divisions
requested delay for publication of the DEIR and FEIR. The updated
schedule is set forth below. Energy Divisions letter is attached.

CPCN Track CEQA Track

No later than
January 30, 2015
DEIR circulated
for comment

3

15 days after
issuance of
DEIR (no later
than February
17, 2015)
Cal-Am to file and
serve a common
outline for legal and
policy briefs, after
consultation with
parties

45 days after
issuance of DEIR
(no later than
March 16, 2015)
Comments on
DEIR due

60 days after
issuance of
DEIR (no later
than April 1,
2015)
Common Outline
Opening Briefs filed
and served on legal
and policy issues

75 days after
issuance of
DEIR (no later
than April 16,
2015)
Reply Briefs filed
and served on legal
and policy issues

July 2015 Phase 1 of the
Proceeding
submitted with the
publication of the
FEIR
July, 2015 (no
later than July 30,
2015)
FEIR published
3
rd
Quarter 2015 Phase 1 Proposed
Decision addressing
certification of FEIR
and issuance of
CPCN

3
rd
Quarter 2015 Target for
Commission Action
on Phase 1 PD

Comments on Phase 2 Schedule
Given the anticipated delay in the environmental review of the
Groundwater Replenishment Project, it appears that the anticipated
schedule for Phase 2 of this proceeding should be modified. Parties should

4

comment on whether the schedule for Phase 2 of this proceeding should be
revised and provide a proposed schedule. The current schedule was set
forth in the Assigned Commissioners Scoping Memo dated September 25,
2013, and is set forth below. Comments shall be filed and served on
September 15, 2014. No reply comments are necessary.

December 2014 Phase 2 (GWR
decision phase)
commences with
testimony of
interested parties
January 2015 Settlement
discussions
January 2015 Concurrent
Rebuttal
Testimony
February 2015 Evidentiary
Hearings
March 2015 Briefing
June 2015 Target for Phase 2
Proposed Decision
July 2015 Target for
Commission
action on Phase 2
Decision

Agenda Report

Item No: 6.

06/12

SUBJECT: Receive report, discuss, and provide direction with regards to the current
status of the source water negotiations for the Monterey Regional Water
Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) Ground Water Replenishment
(GWR) Project.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Water Authority Board receive a report on the current status
of negotiations on source water for the MRWPCA Pure Water Monterey (PWM) /
Ground Water Replenishment (GWR )project, determine if any action is required at this
time, and provide direction to staff.

DISCUSSION:

The latest GWR schedule as revised June 12, 2014 by the Monterey Regional Water
Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) is attached. A MOU for GWR source water was to
have been completed by June 30, 2014. On July 10th, the Water Authority Board
extended the deadline to July 31 to allow more time for negotiations between the
MRWPCA and Salinas Valley agricultural representatives. Unfortunately, as of August
8th, an MOU on source water has not been reached.

As shown on the attached schedule, the completion date of the draft water purchase
agreement (WPA) is critical, and is dependent on the MOU. The Monterey Peninsula
Water Management District (MPWMD) will need enough time to complete follow-on
studies required by the settlement agreements prior to the CPUC hearings.

Although the deadline for the draft WPA is currently August 2014, as discussed in an
earlier agenda item the CPUC hearing scheduled for December 2014 is now delayed to
April 2015 as a result of problems by the CPUC consultant in completing the EIR.

Dave Stoldt, General Manager of the MPWMD, will present the latest information on
that subject at today's meeting.

Depending on information provided, some of the options available to the Water
Authority include:


1. Determine that GWR will not be available in time for inclusion in the Peninsula
supply portfolio and decide in favor of the 9.6 mgd desal facility.
2. Agendize a decision on removal or retention of GWR for the September 11
meeting, or at a special meeting to be announced.
3. Authorize an extension of the deadlines for the GWR MOU and WPA given that the
December 2014 CPUC hearing has been delayed to April 2015.
4. Request the source water issue go to arbitration immediately as is permitted by
current agreements.
5. Take no action.

EXHIBIT:

A-GWR schedule as revised on June12, 2014

October 2014
MPRWA Quarterly Check-in Call


DEIR circulated for
Qtr 2014
Comment
Cal-Am to file and serve
a common outline for
legal and policy briefs,
after consulting with
parties
of DEIR
Task Due Date Responsible Part Notes
Comments on August 30, 2013 Complete
Due
Reply Comments on
Due
Prehearing
Conference: Status of
Settlement Motion (if
any), of CEQA work
& other matters
September 13, 2013
September 16, 2013
Complete
Complete
Informational Hearing December 2-3, 2013 Complete
on Settlement
Agreements
Comments on DEIR
Due
Common Outline
Opening Briefs filed and
served on legal and
policy issues
of DEIR
60 Days after Issuance
of DEIR
Reply Briefs filed and 75 days after issuance
served on legal and of DEIR
policy issues
FEIR published 1 - Qtr 2015
Proposed
Decision addressing
certification of FEIR and
issuance of CPCN
Target for Commission
Action on Phase I
Qtr 2015
July 2014 MPRWA
1- Qtr 2015
October 2014 MPRWA
January 2015 MPRWA

Agenda Report

Item No: 7.

06/12

SUBJECT: Receive report, discuss, and vote on staff proposal to add the General
Manager, or District Engineer, of the Marina Coast Water District
(MCWD) as a member of the Authority Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC) and to add a MCWD hydrologist to the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project (MPWSP) Hydrogeologic Working Group.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Water Authority invite Marina Coast Water District (MCWD)
participation on the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and consider if it should make
a recommendation to the settling parties to add a MCWD hydrologist to the test slant
well Hydrogeologic Working Group (HWG).

DISCUSSION:

During January and July 2014, the City of Marina has been heavily involved in the
permitting of the bore hole construction and in consideration of a mitigated negative
declaration (MND) and coastal development permit (DP) for Cal Am's test slant well at
the CEMEX site.

During public hearings, the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) raised a number of
concerns that suggest a lack of communication between MCWD and Cal Am, and with
the Water Authority as well. This situation has not only delayed progress on the desal
plant approval and construction, but has raised serious concerns on the part of the
MCWD and City of Marina that its water needs may be placed at risk as a result of the
desal plant slant wells.

To initiate a dialog on these issues, several informal MCWD/MPRWA management
level meetings were held during the week of August 4. Amongst other things, it was
concluded that participation by MCWD representatives on the TAC, and possibly on the
HWG, would provide early MCWD input on technical issues related to the Desal facility
and the slant wells, facilitate MCWD environmental review of the MPWSP EIR, insure
the concerns of Marina residents get timely consideration, and improve communication
between and amongst MCWD, Cal Am, and the Water Authority.

It should be noted that the TAC already has a member from the agricultural community
to articulate ag interests prior to Water Authority decisions and deliberations. Thus, the
Executive Director recommends the Authority extend an invitation to the MCWD District
Engineer (Interim General Manager) to join the TAC for the same purpose.

Agenda Report

Item No: 8.

06/12

SUBJECT: Receive report, discuss, and provide direction on the Value Engineering
(VE) Final Report for the Cal Am Desal facility, authorize forwarding of the
VE report to the Governance Committee for its action, and
authorize payment to the consultant (VMS) from funding provided by Cal
Am, not to-exceed the contract price of $109,035.70

RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority receive a
report on the Final Value Engineering ( VE) Study of the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project (MPWSP), make recommendations, forward the report to the
Governance Committee for its action, and authorize contract closure and payment to
the consultant (VMS).

DISCUSSION:
The draft preliminary Value Engineering (VE) Study for 30% design of the desal facility
was briefed to a joint meeting of the Governance Committee and the MPRWA at a
special meeting on July 10 and to the TAC on Aug 4. The Final report is now complete
and the full text is available on the Water Authority web site http://www.mprwa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/03/MPWSP-Final-VE-Report.pdf and on the Cal Am MPWSP
project web site www.watersupplyproject.org .
It should be noted that the VE study focuses on value improvements, in particular
potential cost savings. Requirements mandated by the settlement agreements, as well
as directions from the Governance Committee on environmental and aesthetic issues,
should still be incorporated into the design.
Following review and comment by the MPRWA, the Final Report will be forwarded to
the Governance Committee for action in accordance with the Governance Agreement.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:
The Water Authority awarded the VE contract on behalf of the Governance Committee
to VMS on June 12, 2014 at a price not-to-exceed $109,35.70. It also approved a
contingency of not-to-exceed $11,000.00. The contract was fully paid for by Cal Am.
The contract work is now complete and it has not been necessary to utilize the

contingency funds. Thus, the contractor can be paid and the contract closed. Any
unused funds remaining in the deposit account will be returned to Cal Am.

EXHIBITS:
A-Executive Summary of the VE Study

EXECUTIVESUMMARY
MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectDesalinationPlant ExecutiveSummary
EXECUTIVESUMMARY FINALREPORT
AValueEngineering(VE)study,sponsoredbytheMontereyPeninsulaRegionalWaterAuthorityand
facilitatedbyValueManagementStrategies,Inc.,wasconductedfortheDesalinationPlantportionof
theMontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProject.ThestudywasconductedattheofficesofCalifornia
AmericanWaterinMonterey,CaliforniaJuly7through11,2014.ThisExecutiveSummaryprovidesan
overviewofthesubjectproject,summaryresultsoftheVEteamsanalysis,andthealternatives
developedbytheVEteam.
PROJECTSUMMARY
LedbyCaliforniaAmericanWaterCompany(CAW),theMontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProject
(MPWSP)isacomplex,multicomponentprogramthatisnecessarytoreplacealargepercentageof
thelocaldrinkingwatersupplythatcurrentlyoriginatesfromtheCarmelRiver.StateWater
ResourcesControlBoard(SWRCB)Order9510requiresCAWtoreducediversionsfromtheCarmel
Riverbyapproximately70%nolaterthanDecember31,2016.
InordertomeetthecutbackrequirementsandprovideadequatewatertotheMontereyPeninsula
communities,CAWplansincludethreeprojectstoaddressthisregionalwatercrisis:
DesalinationofseawaterfromwellsdrawingwaterfromMontereyBay
GroundwaterReplenishment(GWR)withadvancedtreatmentofwastewaterbytheMonterey
RegionalWaterPollutionControlAuthorityPlant
AquiferStorageandRecovery(ASR)
ThisVEstudyfocusedsolelyonthedesalinationplantportionofthewatersupplyproject.
Treatmentatthedesalinationplantwillconsistofoxidationwithsodiumhypochlorite,granular
mediafiltration,dechlorination,pHadjustmentwithsulfuricacid,cartridgefiltration,afirstpassof
seawaterreverseosmosis(SWRO),apartialsecondpassofbrackishwaterreverseosmosis(BWRO),
disinfectionwithultravioletlight,poststabilizationtreatmentwithcarbondioxideandhydratedlime,
pHadjustmentwithsodiumhydroxide,additionofanorthophosphatecorrosioninhibitorandpost
chlorinationwithsodiumhypochlorite.
CDMSmithwasselectedastheconsultantforthedesalinationplantdesignbuildproject.Theirwork
willincludethedesign,constructionandcommissioningoftheproposedseawaterdesalinationplant.
Theplannedfacilitiesincludethetreatmentplant,treatedwaterstorageandpumping,and
concentratestorageanddisposalfacilities.
Constructioncostsforallelementsofthedesalinationplantarecurrentlyestimatedat$74,029,943.
PROJECTPURPOSEANDNEED
TheprimarypurposeoftheoverallMPWSPistoreplaceexistingwatersuppliesthathavebeen
constrainedbylegaldecisionsaffectingtheCarmelRiverandSeasideGroundwaterBasinwater
- 1 -
resources.ThepurposeofthedesalinationplantportionoftheMPWSPistotreatthewatersupplied
bytheseawaterintakewellssufficienttomeettheapplicablewaterqualitystandards.
VESTUDYBASIS
TheVEstudywasbasedonthe30%DesignSubmittaldocumentspreparedbytheprojectsdesign
buildcontractor,CDMSmith,datedJune,2014.
VESTUDYOBJECTIVES
TheVEteamwastaskedwithexploringideastoimproveprojectvalueby:
Reducingprojectcostwithoutsacrificingfunctionality
Identifyingopportunitiestoimprovethedesalinationplantsoperationsandreliability
Identifyingrecommendationsforreducinglongtermoperationalcosts
Improvingtheoverallmaintainabilityofthefacility
EVALUATIONOFBASELINECONCEPT
ThefirstdayoftheVEstudyincludedmeetingswithCDMSmithand
otherprojectstakeholderrepresentatives.DuringtheVEteamsanalysis
ofthebaselineconcept,anumberofanalyticaltoolsandtechniques
wereusedtodevelopathoroughunderstandingofthefunctional
requirementsoftheprojectandhowwellthebaselineconceptwas
performingthefunctions.Amajorcomponentofthisanalysiswasthe
useofValueMetrics,whichseekstoassesstheelementsofcost,
performance,time,andriskastheyrelatetoprojectvalue.These
elementsrequiredadeeperlevelofanalysis,theresultsofwhichare
detailedintheProjectAnalysissectionofthisreport.Thekey
performanceattributesidentifiedfortheprojectarelistedinthetable
ontheright,PerformanceAttributes.
BelowisasummaryofthemajorobservationsandconclusionsidentifiedduringtheVEteamsinitial
analysisofthebaselineconceptwhichledtheVEteamtoidentifythealternativesresultingfromthis
studyandpresentedherein.
Buildingsarelocatedontheareaofthesitemostpronetosettlementduringaseismicevent.
Theprojectisassumingdeepdynamicsoilcompactiontoaddresscollapsiblesoils.
UVtreatmentappearstobeincludedtoaddresstemporaryuncertaintyregardingtreatment
processandconcernswithobtainingsufficientlogremovalforpathogenremoval.
Thecurrentdesignincludesdirectfeedfromintakestopressurefilterswhichcouldresultin
sandanddepositscloggingthesystem.
Thebaselineconceptassumesaportionoftheintakewatermustbereturnedaftertreatment
toagricultureproperties.
PerformanceAttributes
Maintainability
PlantOperations
FutureFlexibility
EnvironmentalImpacts
Sustainability
Aesthetics
- 2 -
TheprojectwillusegranularpressurefiltersforpretreatmentofseawaterpriortotheRO
membranestoremoveironandmanganese.
Thecurrentdesignisprovidingstoragetanksforfilteredwaterinordertomaintainconstant
pumpheadthroughtheROprocess.
Theprojectassumesabrinedisposalbasinwillbenecessarywhenwastewatertreatment
plant(WWTP)dischargeoutfallisnotavailable.
Thedesalinationplantmayhaveanissueremovinglargeequipmentformaintenancerelative
toaccessandequipmenttransport.
Thecurrentdesignshowspumpsinchemicalstoragesumps.Itisnotfullyunderstoodwhere
thepumpsdischarge.
Theprojectiscurrentlyplanningforrigorousacceptancetestproceduresandrequirements.
Theinstallationofpreengineeredmetalbuildingswillrequiretreatmenttopreventcorrosion
andwillrequiremaintenanceoverthelifeofthefacility.
Thecurrentprocessdesignisrecapturing45%ofthefirstpasstreatmentwaterand90%of
thesecondpasstreatmentwater(averageof43%totalrecoveryfortheplant).
Additionally,sustainabilityevaluationswereconductedtoassessthebaselineconceptagainstthe
sustainabilityrequirementsofboththeU.S.GreenBuildingCouncil(LEED)andtheInstitutefor
SustainableInfrastructure(Envision).TheresultingsustainabilityassessmentisincludedintheProject
Analysissectionofthisreport.
RISKANALYSIS
AqualitativeriskanalysiswasperformedinconjunctionwiththeVEstudytoidentifyrisksrelatedto
projectcost,time(schedule),andabilitytoperformitsrequiredfunctions.TheVEteamalso
discussedandidentifiedpossibleriskmitigationstrategiesinanefforttoreducetheoverallrisk
profileoftheproject.RiskRegistersweredevelopedfortheprojectandareprovidedintheProject
Analysissectionofthisreport.TheseRiskRegistersprovidealloftheinformationforeachrisk
includingdescriptions,probabilities,impactsandpotentialriskresponsestrategies.
Thefollowingarethekeylessonslearnedidentifiedasaresultoftheriskanalysisexercise:
Thereiscurrentlynorawwaterqualitydataavailable.Waterqualitymayimpactthe
assumptionsrelativetotheplantstreatmentprocessesandcapacities.
Plantcapacityrequirementsaredependentontheimplementationandsuccessofthe
groundwaterreplenishmentprojectwhichiscurrentlybeingdeveloped.
Approvaloftheenvironmentaldocumentsandregulatorypermitsmayrequirerevisionsto
theprojectdesign.
- 3 -
Amajorityoftherisksidentifiedarebeingactivelymonitoredandmanagedbytheprojectdesign
teamandprojectmanagementteams.KeyriskmitigationstrategiesidentifiedbytheVEteam
includedmembranepretreatmenttomitigatetheriskassociatedwithunknownsourcewaterquality,
andrevisingtheconstructionscheduletoallowtherespectivefeaturestimetoberevisedwhen
informationbecomesavailable.
VESTUDYRESULTS
TheVEteamidentified33VEAlternativesand13DesignCommentstosupportoverallprojectvalue.
TheVEAlternativesareorganizedbytheprimarytopicorprojectaspecttowhichtheyrefer:
BuildingDesignandSiteAlternatives
WaterTreatmentEquipmentandEquipmentLayoutAlternatives
MaintainabilityAlternatives
RiskMitigationandScheduleAlternatives
TreatmentProcessAlternatives
Ofthesealternatives,16wereselectedandrecommendedbytheVEteamasacumulatively
implementablealternativestrategyfocusedonenhancingoverallvaluepotentialfortheproject.The
alternativeshavebeensummarizedinthefollowingsectionofthisreport.Thetotalnetpotential
costsavingsoftheVEStrategyisapproximately$9millionininitialcostsavingsand$23millioninlife
cyclecostsavings.Itshouldbenotedthatanumberofthesealternativeswouldincreasetheinitial
projectcosts;however,theyinturnprovidebenefitstoprojectperformanceorinthereductionof
maintenanceandenergyusage.
ToevaluatetheperformanceoftheVEStrategy,theVEteamconsideredthecombinedeffectofall
VEalternatives.Thetotalperformancescoresreflecttheperformanceratingforeachattribute
multipliedbyitsoverallpriority(weight)expressedusingaratioscale.Thefollowingchartcompares
thetotalperformancescoresforthebaselineconceptandtheEnhancedValueVEStrategy.
ComparisonofPerformance
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
EnhancedValueCombination
BaselineConcept
Maintainability PlantOperations FutureFlexibility
EnvironmentalImpacts Sustainability Aesthetics
- 4 -
ThetablebelowsummarizesthesavingsassociatedwiththeEnhancedValueStrategy.The
performancescoresweredividedbythetotalcostscoresforthestrategytoderiveavalueindex.The
valueindexfortheVEStrategywasthencomparedagainstthevalueindexofthebaselineconcept
andthedifferenceisexpressedasapercentchange.
SummaryofVEStrategy
StrategyDescription InitialCostSavings
LCC
Savings
Performance
Change
Value
Change
EnhancedValueCombination $9,161,000 $23,204,000 +13% +29%
TheComparisonofValuechartbelowsummarizesthetotalimpacttoprojectvalueresultingfromthe
VEStudy.Thebluebarsrepresenttotalprojectperformanceandthegreenbarsrepresenttotalcost.
DetailsandadditionalanalysisofthebaselineconceptandVEStrategyperformanceratingsare
includedintheProjectAnalysissectionofthisreport.
ComparisonofValueBaselineConceptandVEStrategy
VEALTERNATIVEIMPLEMENTATION
VEstudiesareworkingsessionswiththepurposeofidentifyinganddevelopingalternative
approachestoagivenproject,thenpresentingthemtoallprojectstakeholdersforconsideration.
DuringtheVEStudy,aSpecialJointMeetingoftheMontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProject
GovernanceCommitteeandMontereyPeninsulaRegionalWaterAuthoritywasheldtopresentand
discussthepreliminaryresultsoftheVEStudy.Themeetingwasopentothepublicandattendees
hadtheopportunitytoquestionandcommentontheVEstudyresults.
0%
29%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
Baseline EnhancedValue
C
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
V
a
l
u
e
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
S
c
o
r
e
s
Performance Cost/TimeRating ChangeinValue
- 5 -
Detailedfeasibilityassessment,determinationoftheVEalternativesimplementation,andfinal
designdevelopmentwillbemadefollowingsubmittalofthisFinalVEStudyReport.
VETEAM
ParticipantsontheVEteamincludedindependenttechnicalexpertsfromHDREngineering,Inc.and
WaterGloberepresentingArchitecture,PlantOperations/Maintenance,Sustainability(LEEDand
Envision),Civil/StructuralEngineering,Electrical/Instrumentation&Controls,andWaterTreatment
Processes.RepresentativesfromCaliforniaAmericanWateralsoparticipatedtoprovideinsightinto
theirPlantOperationsandMaintenanceproceduresaswellastheirengineeringstandardsand
requirementsfortheproject.ThepublicinterestswererepresentedbyMontereyPeninsulaRegional
WaterAuthorityandMontereyPeninsulaWaterManagementDistrict.Afulllistofparticipantsinthe
VEstudyisincludedfollowingtheValueEngineeringProcesssectionofthisreport.
- 6 -

Agenda Report

Item No: 9.

06/12

SUBJECT: Receive report, discuss, and provide direction on the power purchase
agreement between Cal Am and the Monterey Regional Waste
Management District (MRWMD).

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Water Authority Board receive a report on the status of
negotiations between Cal Am and the Monterey Regional Waste Management District
(MRWMD) for renewable electrical power for the Desalination (Desal) facility.

DISCUSSION:

With support from the Water Authority, Cal Am and the staff of the MRWMD have
diligently worked on a term sheet and power purchase agreement to allow Cal Am to
acquire between 3.5 and 4.5 megawatts of renewable electrical power for the Desal
facility from the landfill. An electrical power study, funded by Cal Am, determined how
best to provide power "over the fence" and what equipment would be required.

The power purchase agreement that the MRWMD currently has with PG&E expires his
fall, and the District needs to obtain new customers for that power now. Unfortunately,
the current schedule for a CPCN decision by the CPUC prevents Cal Am from entering
into a purchase agreement at this time.

However, an agreement was reached by which MRWMD will seek short-term (3-5 year)
customers for its power allowing Cal Am to be considered as a longer term customer in
the 2017-2019 time frame. That will provide sufficient time for the Desal permitting
process to be completed, the CPCN issued, and for construction to advance far enough
along for Cal Am to be able to enter into a power purchase agreement and actually
utilize the renewable power. The attached staff report to the MRWMD board seeking
approval to advertise for power sales provides a good summary of the situation.

EXHIBIT:

A-MRWMD Staff Report on RFP for Renewable Power dated July 11, 2014

neral Manager
Memorandum
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Reviewed by:
July 11, 2014
General Manager
Assistant General Manager
Issuance of a Request for Proposals for the Sale of Renewable Power
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board authorize issuance of a Request for Proposals for the sale of 8.2
megawatts of Renewable Power generated from the Landfill Gas to Energy Facility.
BACKGROUND
The District presently produces bundled renewable electricity and renewable energy credits (RECs) from the 5-
megawatt (MW) Landfill Gas (LFG) Power Plant located on site in Marina, CA. The current Power Sales
Agreement (PSA) for this is set to expire on February 28, 2015. In a parallel effort, the District is the process
of obtaining a new interconnection agreement with local utility PG&E for the ability to produce an additional up
to 3.2 MWs of LFG power in subsequent years. This would bring the District's total LFG power production up
to 8.2 MWs in future years. In order to finalize this new interconnection agreement, the District must make a
decision regarding anticipated power sale strategy for this new generation by September 2014.
DISCUSSION
District consultant Brennen Jensen has been working with staff to explore options for sale of the District's
renewable power produced from LFG, to include the existing 5 MWs (minus what the District uses on-site) plus
an additional 3.2 MW of new power to be produced from LFG. The District's current PSA (for 5 MWs) expires
early in 2015. The additional 3.2 MWs is anticipated to be phased in over time in two subsequent phases, based
on actual availability of LFG following the full installation of the permanent flare already underway. The first
phase anticipates the installation of 1.6 MWs within 18-24 months. The second phase anticipates an additional
1.6 MW within five years. At this time, the District is exploring options for a multi-year agreement for the sale
of this power, associated Renewable Energy Credits (RECs), and associated green attributes as summarized
below:
1. Marina LFG Facility (Up to 5 MWs, available beginning March 1, 2015)
o Bundled Renewable Electricity and Renewable Energy Credits (Bucket 1)
o Associated Green Attributes
2. Marina LFG Facility (Additional up to 3.2 MWs; installed in two phases, planned availability beginning in
2016)
14201 DEL MONTE BLVD
k BOX 1670 MARINA, CA 93933-1670 831/384-5313, FAX 831/384-3567 * www.mrwmd.org
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER USING SOY-BASED INK
12
Issuance of RFP for Sale of LFG Renewable Energy
July 11, 2014
Page 2
One of the options for selling the District's power in the future, is to sell 5 MWs (more or less) "over the
fence" to the proposed CalAm Desalination Plant. On June 23', staff met with CalAm representative Ian
Crooks, and with Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Executive Director Jim Cullem to allow each
to provide a status update. CalAm has continued interest to purchase the District's renewable power. Mr.
Crooks reported that their draft EIR will be released in August 2014, and final EIR approval is anticipated for
February 2015. CalAm would consider discussing a PPA in November or so of 2014 and could possibly
finalize a PPA by March 2015, if there are no delays in the EIR approval process. CalAm would not be
prepared to accept power from the District for at least three to five years, or more. This timing does not
integrate well with the District's need to respond to ongoing PG&E requirements to add additional generating
capacity and to replace the soon to expire PPA. The CalAm representative has indicated that CalAm is
supportive of this approach by the District and they plan to attend the Board meeting to voice that support.
Issuance of a RFP for the sale of 8.2 MWs of renewable power generated from the LFG to Energy Facility will
help to ascertain what opportunities are currently present within the marketplace for the existing and anticipated
LFG to energy power production, following the expiration of the current PSA.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact to this request. Following the completion of the RFP process, staff will
recommend actions based on the responses provided. The RFP does not commit the District to entering into
any agreement with any responding party.
STRATEGIC PLAN
This item is in line with the Renewable Energy Production Policy within the strategic plan.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the Board authorize the issuance of a RFP for the sale of 8.2 MWs of renewable power
generated from the LFG to Energy Facility. Proposals will be due on August 15, 2014 and a staff report and
recommendation is anticipated for the August or September Board meeting.
o: \ If\ Ifg\ Ifg rfp board memo 714.docx
LFG PSA REP DRAFT
Monterey Regional Waste Management District
Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Renewable Electricity, Renewable Energy
Credits and Related Green Attributes at
(Marina, CA)
BACKGROUND
The Monterey Regional Waste Management District (District) is an award - winning 62- year - old
Special District and Joint Powers Authority (JPA), covering 853 square miles, representing eight member
agencies and comprising seventeen communities on the Monterey Peninsula from Moss Landing to Big
Sur. The District provides services to populations across the four counties of Monterey, Santa Cruz, San
Benito and Santa Clara. The District's mission is to provide the highest quality, cost- efficient, integrated
waste management services to the greater Monterey Peninsula, while preserving the environment and
protecting the public health through the reduction, reuse, recycling, and safe disposal of the region's
waste stream. The award winning agency has adopted and implemented a multitude of innovative and
integrated programs and policies over its extensive history, resulting in such prestigious recognitions as:
A Best Solid Waste System in North America by Solid Waste Association of North America
(SVVANA), 1998
Gold Excellence Award for Landfill Gas Utilization by SWANA, 2007
A pioneer in Landfill Gas (LFG) to Renewable Energy, the District established one of the first such plants
in the nation in 1983. For over 30 years, the District has practiced continued innovation in LFG capture
and beneficial utilization. The District currently generates 5MW of LFG renewable energy, and is in the
process of expanding the current plant to increase generation an additional 3.2 MW over the next several
years. The District further has a long- standing Renewable Energy Production Policy as a core objective
within their current strategic plan. As part of this continued commitment, the District also launched the
first in California dry fermentation anaerobic digester (AD) in 2013, using SmartFerm technology to
convert food scrap organics into Renewable Energy and high- quality soil amendment.
The District presently produces bundled renewable electricity and renewable energy credits (RECs) from
the 5MW LFG Power Plant located on site in Marina, CA. The current Power Sales Agreement for this
set to expire on February 28, 2015. The District is exploring options for a multi- year agreement for
the sale of the following products:
1. Marina LFG Facility (Up to 5MW, available beginning March 1, 2015)
Marina LFG Facility (Additional up to 3.2MW; installed in two phases, planned availability
beginning in 2016
The District is seeking Proposals for the purchase of any or all of these products for any duration of time.
Interested parties should express their interest including additional buyer requirements in their response.
Version: 7/11/14
LFG PSA RFP DRAFT
Responses that include creative options to maximize District revenue will also be considered. Reponses to
this Request for Proposals shall be used as the basis to enter into negotiations with selected respondents.
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE:
Supply Available:
Term of Agreement:
Product Available:
RFP Release Date
Proposals Due
Complete Proposal Review, Select Best Candidate(s), Begin Interviews
and/or Negotiations
Finalize Agreement(s) for Renewable Power Sales with selected
Candidate(s)
New PSA brought before MRWMD Board for final approval Jan 2015
Existing PSA Expires
New PSA Effective Date
LFG Renewable Energy
Reliable supplier of LFG renewable energy for over 30 years
Up to 8.2 MW-
5 MW, available immediately upon start date March 1, 2015;
Additional up to 3.2 MW available shortly thereafter in two phases:
(1.6 MW by 2016 + 1.6 MW anticipated circa 2020).
3-5 year term desirable, with option to extend (March 1-2015 to February
28, 2018/2020); Proposers may submit terms of any length as terms of
shorter or longer duration will be considered based on responses received.
Bundled Renewable Power & Renewable Energy Credits (Bucket 1) and
Associated Green Attributes
July 18, 2014
August 15, 2014
September 12, 2015
December 22, 2014
January 16(23), 2015
February 28, 2015
March 1, 2015
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Power:
Supplier:
Agreement Start Date: March 1, 2015
INTERESTED PARTIES
Interested parties should respond to this notice with a brief proposal providing the following minimum
information, including any additional buyer requirements:
1. Company Name and Primary Contact Information including: Name, Address, Phone, and Email.
2. Company Qualifications
3. Products of Interest
4. Desired Term
5. Breakdown Price Offering
6. Identify All Other Terms requested in PSA (Especially those which may affect Price Paid)
Version: 7111/14
LFG PSA REP DRAFT
7. Other Considerations, or Creative Offerings
SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS:
Proposals are due Friday August 15, 2014 @ 4pm PST. Proposals can be mailed, emailed or hand-
delivered.
Submit proposals to:
Mail Delivery:
Email Delivery:
Hand-Delivery:
Attn: Becky Aguilar, Administrative Support Supervisor
PO Box 1670
Marina, CA 93933
Please email submissions to both:
Becky Aguilar, Administrative Support Supervisor
baguilar@mrwmd.org
Tim Flanagan, Assistant General Manager
tflanagan@mrwmd.or2
Attn: Becky Aguilar, Administrative Support Supervisor
14201 Del Monte Blvd
Marina, CA 93933
[Note, site gates close at 4pm; proposals due by 4pm]
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Additional facility information is available upon request. Please contact Brennen Jensen at
bjensen emergingecologies.com
or (831) 917-3720. Site visits can be arranged if requested.
Version: 7/1 1 /14
Agenda Report

Item No: 10.

06/12

SUBJECT: Receive report, discuss, and provide direction on the City of Marina test
slant well Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and the current schedule for
Coastal Commission CDP.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Water Authority receive an update from Cal Am on the
Marina Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Test Slant Well and discuss the
approval process and schedule to be followed in obtaining a City of Marina CDP and a
Coastal Commission CDP. The Authority should also receive an update on the National
Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Monterey Bay National Marine
Sanctuary (MBNMS) Environmental Assessment (EA).

DISCUSSION:

The City of Marina Planning Commission considered the MND and Marina CDP at its
meeting of July 10, 2014 but was unable to come to a decision. Accordingly, Cal Am
appealed the failure to act to the Marina City Council. The Council is scheduled to hear
the appeal at a special meeting on August 26.

In parallel with the Marina processing, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
(MBNMS) has circulated its draft federal Environmental Assessment (EA). The
Executive Director commented to the MBNMS in favor of the EA on behalf of the Water
Authority.

To keep the schedule on track and to conduct as much work as possible concurrently,
Cal Am brought the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the test slant well construction to
the Governance Committee on July 16, 2014.

The current Marina schedule for approval and construction of the test well and for the
hearing at the Coastal Commission is at Exhibit A.

Cal Am has been requested to brief the Water Authority on the status of the schedule.

EXHIBITS:

A- Cal Am schedule for approval and construction of the test slant well
FULL SCALE EIR & CCC/LCP SCHEDULE - [WORKING PRODUCT & SUBJECT TO CHANGE]
Exported on July 6, 2014 8:34:55 PM MST
M
P
R
W
A

M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,

8
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4

,

t
e
m

N
o
.

1
0
.
,

t
e
m

P
a
g
e

2
,

P
a
c
k
e
t

P
a
g
e

5
4
CEMEX TEST WELL SCHEDULE - [WORKING PRODUCT & SUBJECT TO CHANGE]
M
P
R
W
A

M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,

8
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4

,

t
e
m

N
o
.

1
0
.
,

t
e
m

P
a
g
e

3
,

P
a
c
k
e
t

P
a
g
e

5
5
M
P
R
W
A

M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,

8
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4

,

t
e
m

N
o
.

1
0
.
,

t
e
m

P
a
g
e

4
,

P
a
c
k
e
t

P
a
g
e

5
6
FULL SCALE PLANT & PIPELINES SCHEDULE - [WORKING PRODUCT & SUBJECT TO CHANGE]
M
P
R
W
A

M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,

8
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4

,

t
e
m

N
o
.

1
0
.
,

t
e
m

P
a
g
e

5
,

P
a
c
k
e
t

P
a
g
e

5
7
POTRERO CONTINGENCY PERMITTING SCHEDULE - [WORKING PRODUCT & SUBJECT TO CHANGE]
M
P
R
W
A

M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,

8
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4

,

t
e
m

N
o
.

1
0
.
,

t
e
m

P
a
g
e

6
,

P
a
c
k
e
t

P
a
g
e

5
8

Mprwa Final Agenda Packet 08-14-14

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mprwa Final Agenda Packet 08-14-14

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agenda

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

MPRWA Quarterly Check-in Call

with Settling Parties

You might also like